article: This is what dating could look like 100 years in the future

[MatureDJ]

https://qz.com/1165620/what-do-men-...-equality-is-changing-our-mating-preferences/

 

[zekko]

That article asks some interesting questions. PUA Theory usually centers around evolutionary behaviors developed millenia ago, and that there is "no choice" when it comes to attraction. And yet, supposedly most of us "chumps" have fallen complete prey to modern "social conditioning" and the influence of Disney, a company that has been around for less than a hundred years. The article also seems to suggest that not more than 100 years of feminism will wipe out thousands of years of evolutionary behavior. Which is true? Are we at the mercy of deep rooted evolutionary instincts or the influence of the culture we live in? And if it's both, why does PUA Theory focus so much on the evolutionary aspect?

 

[Who Dares Win]

That article asks some interesting questions. PUA Theory usually centers around evolutionary behaviors developed millenia ago, and that there is "no choice" when it comes to attraction. And yet, supposedly most of us "chumps" have fallen complete prey to modern "social conditioning" and the influence of Disney, a company that has been around for less than a hundred years. The article also seems to suggest that not more than 100 years of feminism will wipe out thousands of years of evolutionary behavior. Which is true? Are we at the mercy of deep rooted evolutionary instincts or the influence of the culture we live in? And if it's both, why does PUA Theory focus so much on the evolutionary aspect?

Historically speaking all the cultures who deviate from a certain pattern get swiped out from less advanced one before they can evolve or adjust.

That route from the article takes for granted that europe wont be pushed from muslims culturally and that the united states are not gonna suffer an economic collapse due to low natality and most men retreating from society and from producing.

Also china its more than a billion people with a more and more influencing position in terms of economics, the muslim countries too are also far from that social evolution we see in western countries.

What the articles suggest could happen if the us would float alone in a parallel world with no one else.

 

[Pandora]

That article asks some interesting questions. PUA Theory usually centers around evolutionary behaviors developed millenia ago, and that there is "no choice" when it comes to attraction. And yet, supposedly most of us "chumps" have fallen complete prey to modern "social conditioning" and the influence of Disney, a company that has been around for less than a hundred years. The article also seems to suggest that not more than 100 years of feminism will wipe out thousands of years of evolutionary behavior. Which is true? Are we at the mercy of deep rooted evolutionary instincts or the influence of the culture we live in? And if it's both, why does PUA Theory focus so much on the evolutionary aspect?

This is a very good point Zekko. The older I get the more I question the validity of evolutionary biology. I have advanced degrees in science but I no longer believe in evolutionary theory. I used to be a hardcore evolutionary biologist. I read all the popular books and authors such as Michael Shermer, Dawkins, Bloom etc. After doing more research I have come to the conclusion that this theory is incorrect. I know that this is a blasphemous statement in todays climate of scientism. The truth is that we really do not know how we evolved. The truth about the nature of humanity is much more complicated than most of us can ever have imagined. We just dont know.

This leads to a lot of the inconsistencies in PUA dogma. One of them is what you state in your comment. Women are not as hardwired as we think they are. Humans are very adaptable creatures. We are more nurture than nature. Our software can be molded very easily. If society is telling a woman one thing, then that will be the dominant force in her pysche. She does have an instinctual drive to be with a good alpha male but I do not think that comes from millions of years of evolution. Human "instincts" can be overriden.

 

[skinnyguy]

The United States is turning into China. 10 single males for every single female.

I think Darwinism will be hard at work for the foreseeable future. The alphas are going to get even more women and the beta chumps will get even fewer. In the 1950s betas got women. Now, increasingly, they aren’t getting laid.

There is a HUGE disparity between alphas and betas and it’s getting wider. Betas will die off in future generations.

 

[AttackFormation]

I disagree completely with strength and size having anything to do with "stone age alphas".

- Humans live and hunt in cooperative groups
- Humans don't wrestle or outsprint prey
- Humans don't rely on natural implements to kill or incapacitate prey and defend themselves from predators

Stone age humans used traps, ambushes, tracking, dogs and a both instinctive and culturally developed tool use. Speed wouldn't be relevant for these methods, and increased size would be a negative as it just means that person consumes more resources that could've gone to feeding a second person instead, giving you hunters in 1 position instead of 2. Similarly, during conflict between groups of humans, it would be the tribe with the greater numbers of more culturally and mentally advanced humans that won.

Humans have never been a species relying on physical attributes to get the job done. That's the very reason why we evolved from apes in the first place. Attributing the success of "alpha males" to these attributes is putting the cart before the horse. In the stone age they were a remnant of our ape ancestors, not the reason why humans thrived. "But strong, big and fast males can push the others around!" - no. Why? for the same reasons they can't do so today: a real fight has no rules, but the tribe does. So not only would he risk being killed in his sleep, shot in the back while out hunting, or just plain drawn a weapon upon and killed while standing in front of the guy trying to act tough - he also risks the condemnation and intervention of the tribe. To put it bluntly, if you think being an alpha human male is about being strong, fast and big, you're simply slinging sh!t at the actual fields of evolutionary biology and anthropology. The only reason why those attributes have any relevance at all culturally is because the things humans actually use, artificial weapons and dirty tactics, are too deadly and effective to be allowed for use in civilian life.

My personal theory on why these traits have persisted in humans despite being in decline compared to our ape ancestors because of their none or negative correlation to survival and procreation, is that they are a form of sexual selection in the way a peacock's tail is. "Hey baby, imagine how good I have to be to get away with a handicap like this *flexes biceps*. All these genes could be yours. You know you want me". It's essentially a physical incarnation of risk-taking, which males typically display a higher degree of.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

The United States is turning into China. 10 single males for every single female.

I think Darwinism will be hard at work for the foreseeable future. The alphas are going to get even more women and the beta chumps will get even fewer. In the 1950s betas got women. Now, increasingly, they aren’t getting laid.

There is a HUGE disparity between alphas and betas and it’s getting wider. Betas will die off in future generations.

And do you think this alpha is you?

Tell me why you think so.

Don't tell me it's because you lift weights or go to the boxing ring.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

You guys are ignorant. Women still are biologically hardwired to conform to the social norm just as they are attracted to certain qualities in men. Women ‘changing’ over the course of only several decades only shows that some traits are simply embedded more deeply than others, or that one situation had a greater impact than another. That’s why it seems ‘complicated’ even though it really isn’t. Evolution is still a real thing. You cannot undo mellenia of evolution in a couple of decades except via rapid mass extinction.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

That dude who wrote that article argued herself around a big circle.

He assumes gender "inequality" is not genetic, and only due to social forces.

And once "gender inequality" is removed, then dating will be whatever we want it to be, and override evolutionary instincts.

It's like saying, "assuming evolution doesn't exist, we will eventually prove that evolution doesn't exist."

Anybody can be a professor these days...

 

[ohrein]

It's BOTH. It's not a binary. I want to **** every hot girl I see but I can also tell myself not to. As our intelligence increases, our ability to reason and control our biological drives will be greater and the scale will tip more towards culture and logic. But there will always be less intelligent people who are less likely to question and control their behaviors.