LatinaOfHearts said:
Jesus Christ aren't you the sharpest tool? There's a tiny little thing called a... Paternity test, not sure you've heard of it.
Ah yes, a thing invented in the 20th century is certainly relevant to the entire of the human history and evolution.
And I think you're ignoring the fact that men nowadays don't behave like dogs or monkeys. That was what men in the caveman period did, sure, but nowadays with the homosapiens and our properly developed brains we don't need to behave like monkeys with rabies.
Not all men behave like that now or then. But the ones that do behave like monkeys and dogs tend to get more women. Lower IQ people outbreed higher IQ people in modern society.
Also, don't you think ultimately those men will end up rebelling? Leaving? Giving ultimatums? Winning custody battles and going far away? The children of these so called "alphas" would resent them? You're focusing on the behavior of chimps, not humans, not variables.
Well yea, they end up rebelling and leaving, hence why polyandry doesn't work. It not in the mans evolutionary benefit. Monogamy would be infinitely better for him. The only way polyandry exists in scale is if the woman is the only option or the men are forced into it as a lower class.
Hah, are you sure about that? You think we don't try to always gamble for a better position? You think we wouldn't be capable of also abandoning our kids to other women to raise?
women fight eachother for more access to sperm? what evolutionary benefit is that, they only need it once every 9 months, a man can provide that easily for multiple women. Meanwhile they risk getting singles out by the other women, the risk/reward costs is not there. Compare this to polyandry where a woman can only get pregnant once every 9 months, so all the men have to do their best to be that one, or else they lose their chance for another whole year. Not to mention, they will be collectively adding their child to the pool that the men must raise so there is massive benefit.
And on the resource side it's the same deal. all the children of the women in a harem are the man's child, so he has no reason to not share his resources with them. 100% of his resources all go to his own kids. Compare this to polyandry, where if there is say 5 children and 5 men, if any one man shares his resources, only 20% of it will be going to his child, and 80% would be going to other men's.
You wanna take a wild guess as to why Jews (monogamous and multiple stories in the old testament condemning adulterous men) and Asians (either Christian (monogamous) or some other religion that is also monogamous or doesn't even let them marry) have more partners than blacks (bachelors, don't marry, most don't believe in religion properly)?
What are you talking about? the past or now? in the past jews werent monogamous. most of the famous jews in the OT had multiple wives. Same deal with asians. And in the present, neither jews nor asians have more partners or children than blacks.
So let me get this straight..
>Guys with a good personality don't get bitches if they're not pretty
>Ugly guys with good personality can get bitches
What.... I don't care how you categorize personality,
Good personality and alpha personality arent necessarily the same thing. Alpha personality essentially means like assertiveness, self-centeredness, strong force of will, sociopathy, etc
all women look for something different but you re ultimately proving my point. Plus, you're ignoring that most "baby mommas" are black (whores) or white (whores) you're very seldomly gonna find a asian baby momma or a latina baby momma. They're not a proper harem, they're just bachelors and bachelorettes taking bad choices.
Well yea, proper harems are illegal. Instead you just get promiscuity and sidehoes and stuff.
And I never said he was? I said that the guy that started the whole alpha hype said it was false, all of these follow a similar structure so they're all cast in a doubtful light.
No he didnt. The guy who started the alpha stuff was dead before modern liberalism even existed. Some random guy who was one of countless who studied wolves that also happens to be liberal, wasnt the guy who invented the concept of alphas. Once again, just cause you can find one or two modern liberal feminist scientists that deny alphas has nothing to do with the consensus or facts in biology.
Again, you're looking at it as if you were a chimp in 200 b.c.. I'm not so sure about the chimps but I do know that silverbacks are determined with age, not status. As for humans, we're civilized and don't behave like monkeys anymore.
Depends on what you mean by silverback. If you mean the actual physical characteristic, then yes that comes with age, but if you mean that, then not all old gorillas reproduce regardless. I dont think there is a single species of animals where even 80% of the males reproduce, let alone a species were 99% or close to it reproduce. Modern humans are probably the species that have the highest reproduction rate for males and that is mainly just because of societies with arranged marriages and forced monogamy. And no, i wouldnt call most humans civilized.
