- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,592
Quick note.
I'll be writing 2 articles to respond to everything we've talked about in the different threads, since I think I've found the bottom lines of your argument (meaning so long as I don't misinterpret, if I can open up your premises/presuppositions, we can address the miscommunications). One is about having sex on the first date, and the other is on understanding the GC system.
However, I want to make a note - you're basing your "fuck her on the first night" arguments on evolutionary psychology. For someone so hell bent on being as empirical and scientifically sound as you argue for, using EP is just not an effective argument. There is literally no way to to verify some of it's basic premises. They're being adopted a priori, meaning from logic/reason, not empirical evidence. You can't surmise "why" things happened tens/hundreds of thousands of years ago. The only evidence is eating habits, genetic information, and migration patterns. We'll have no idea WHY certain dudes fucked certain girls, etc.
This is the exact argument you have against GC's method of verifying certain casual patterns of why chicks dig guys, sleep with us, etc.
Unfortunately, you've just swapped one vague "science" (which we don't claim to be) for another vague science that is riddled with false premises and "additive explanations" (explained in this paper by an actual evolutionary psychologist - http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/ldc/GrayEP.pdf).
What you have committed, in logic, is called an appeal to ignorance. You dismiss an argument or at least cast shadows on it by saying "we don't have evidence for X, therefore Y." Unfortunately, Y is also just as suspect, at its most fundamental levels, of causal confusion - you're still just not sure what the fuck causes what.
HOWEVER, if you DO want to take the EP perspective, there's a perfect explanation for lover and provider dynamic.
The guy who impregnates her does NOT have to be the same guy who takes care of the baby. This is just literally true with little less than a third of the population (http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/749). I believe this is explained in The Sperm Wars or The Red Queen, can't remember which. Also, Tucker Max gets into it in his book Mate, but unfortunately, that's literal a book on how to be a boyfriend, not a lover.
Women collect orbiters/friends for this purpose. They want as large a support system as possible. If shit hits the fan and she loses her main man or gets ostracized from her social circle, she'll have SOMEONE. May not be her top choice, but it's something.
We don't even need EP to explain this. Just simple observation.
She gets wet as fuck for hot, dangerous guy, fucks him and gets impregnated. But he won't stick around and she knows this. Good thing she has Mr. Nice Guy With Lots of Money who wants to take care of her no matter what, because he's literally told her that he will love her no matter what.
We're not claiming to know the deepest mechanisms behind it all, as our suppositions are probably, in the end, just as probabilistic as EP, but we do know what happens enough to change our behavior.
Also, as another aside, you guys are being WAY too MMORpG about your value estimations. You're assuming the top 1% of guys are super good-looking, rich, in shape, tall, charismatic, popular, etc, as if this is some sort of table-top game where a bunch of numbers are added up on paper and homegirl thinks "Oh, you win! Here's my pussy!." You are getting way too mathematical about it, which makes me question how much experience you have in super high-status social circles. This isn't an insult, just a speculation that has very real impact on our arguments (like that one time Howell tried to tell me that being an asshole didn't work, even though I'd never read one LR by him ever).
Be care lest we go into the realm of theorycraft/armchair philosophy and away from empiricism.
Hector
EDIT: as for making assumptions about Chase's/Franco's girlfriends, Bboy, I can testify from personal experience that they are very high quality women. Oh and Franco smashed his girl on the third date (if that's okay to share Franco, delete as you wish), so your arguments are starting to veer too much into speculation, Bboy. You're assuming that Franco, Chase, or anyone else is a dogmatic ideologue who can't adapt to practical reality.
EDIT2: "Btw, if you read a romance novel, you'll see this in action. Even if the guy encompasses the "bad boy" or "lover" archetype, he usually doesn't sleep with the heroine till way later in the book. After they've gotten to know each other very well and spent a lot of time together. "
That's because 99% of romance novels are written by women. They're projecting their fantasies onto paper, some of which are realistic, others which are not (only the highest caliber women can lock down their lover or through some external circumstance, like he's feeling lonely and she's the best thing he's got). In some of these romance novels, the chick writes about how three brothers all share her in a relationship with barely any jealousy - her fantasy? Sure, but not realistic. Two of those brothers would probably be dead at some point.
I'll be writing 2 articles to respond to everything we've talked about in the different threads, since I think I've found the bottom lines of your argument (meaning so long as I don't misinterpret, if I can open up your premises/presuppositions, we can address the miscommunications). One is about having sex on the first date, and the other is on understanding the GC system.
However, I want to make a note - you're basing your "fuck her on the first night" arguments on evolutionary psychology. For someone so hell bent on being as empirical and scientifically sound as you argue for, using EP is just not an effective argument. There is literally no way to to verify some of it's basic premises. They're being adopted a priori, meaning from logic/reason, not empirical evidence. You can't surmise "why" things happened tens/hundreds of thousands of years ago. The only evidence is eating habits, genetic information, and migration patterns. We'll have no idea WHY certain dudes fucked certain girls, etc.
This is the exact argument you have against GC's method of verifying certain casual patterns of why chicks dig guys, sleep with us, etc.
Unfortunately, you've just swapped one vague "science" (which we don't claim to be) for another vague science that is riddled with false premises and "additive explanations" (explained in this paper by an actual evolutionary psychologist - http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/ldc/GrayEP.pdf).
What you have committed, in logic, is called an appeal to ignorance. You dismiss an argument or at least cast shadows on it by saying "we don't have evidence for X, therefore Y." Unfortunately, Y is also just as suspect, at its most fundamental levels, of causal confusion - you're still just not sure what the fuck causes what.
HOWEVER, if you DO want to take the EP perspective, there's a perfect explanation for lover and provider dynamic.
The guy who impregnates her does NOT have to be the same guy who takes care of the baby. This is just literally true with little less than a third of the population (http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/749). I believe this is explained in The Sperm Wars or The Red Queen, can't remember which. Also, Tucker Max gets into it in his book Mate, but unfortunately, that's literal a book on how to be a boyfriend, not a lover.
Women collect orbiters/friends for this purpose. They want as large a support system as possible. If shit hits the fan and she loses her main man or gets ostracized from her social circle, she'll have SOMEONE. May not be her top choice, but it's something.
We don't even need EP to explain this. Just simple observation.
She gets wet as fuck for hot, dangerous guy, fucks him and gets impregnated. But he won't stick around and she knows this. Good thing she has Mr. Nice Guy With Lots of Money who wants to take care of her no matter what, because he's literally told her that he will love her no matter what.
We're not claiming to know the deepest mechanisms behind it all, as our suppositions are probably, in the end, just as probabilistic as EP, but we do know what happens enough to change our behavior.
Also, as another aside, you guys are being WAY too MMORpG about your value estimations. You're assuming the top 1% of guys are super good-looking, rich, in shape, tall, charismatic, popular, etc, as if this is some sort of table-top game where a bunch of numbers are added up on paper and homegirl thinks "Oh, you win! Here's my pussy!." You are getting way too mathematical about it, which makes me question how much experience you have in super high-status social circles. This isn't an insult, just a speculation that has very real impact on our arguments (like that one time Howell tried to tell me that being an asshole didn't work, even though I'd never read one LR by him ever).
Be care lest we go into the realm of theorycraft/armchair philosophy and away from empiricism.
Hector
EDIT: as for making assumptions about Chase's/Franco's girlfriends, Bboy, I can testify from personal experience that they are very high quality women. Oh and Franco smashed his girl on the third date (if that's okay to share Franco, delete as you wish), so your arguments are starting to veer too much into speculation, Bboy. You're assuming that Franco, Chase, or anyone else is a dogmatic ideologue who can't adapt to practical reality.
EDIT2: "Btw, if you read a romance novel, you'll see this in action. Even if the guy encompasses the "bad boy" or "lover" archetype, he usually doesn't sleep with the heroine till way later in the book. After they've gotten to know each other very well and spent a lot of time together. "
That's because 99% of romance novels are written by women. They're projecting their fantasies onto paper, some of which are realistic, others which are not (only the highest caliber women can lock down their lover or through some external circumstance, like he's feeling lonely and she's the best thing he's got). In some of these romance novels, the chick writes about how three brothers all share her in a relationship with barely any jealousy - her fantasy? Sure, but not realistic. Two of those brothers would probably be dead at some point.
