Are women biologically programmed to reward cruelty, evil and domination?

Either the world is not driven by cruelty and domination or this statement is not true, as you are alive.

 

Ok, so you edited to add stuff, so I'll add stuff. As a note, I actually didn't read your OP. I can usually handle a long rant, but yours was bit much on the misanthropistic side. I'll go and actually give it a full read in a sec.

Anyway:

No, it isn't. Confidence is not that at all. I mean, it can sometimes -arise- from success at competition, which in this society often has an element of dominance. But it isn't actually directly related to dominance at all. I don't really have much of an urge to dominate anyone, especially sexually, but I think of myself as being fairly confident about a lot of things. Particularly sexually. I know I'm attractive to many people, I fairly sure that I'm good in bed because of the responses I've gotten.

I know I'm pretty smart. I know I'm a fairly good person, and that's a source of a lot of my confidence. I know that even when I fuck up, I'm usually trying to do the right thing, most of the time. I try to help people, I try to make the world a better place. Sometimes I fail, but the trying makes me feel good about myself.

And yeah, it kinda sucks that lack of confidence is unattractive. It means that people will avoid you, and your confidence will drop lower. So you'll be less attractive and the cycle continues. This is how guys fall into the 'loser' category a lot of the time, and it's pretty fucked up. This works slightly differently for girls, generally, as if you are unattractive in this way but still physically hot, plenty of guys will be willing to -fuck- you, but will drop you soon after, and say nasty things about you to boot. This is how girls often find themselves falling into the 'slut' category.

 

The only thing keeping me alive is the mercy of my parents. This is because I carry their genes and are their hope of immortality. They have a genetic interest in me. And even with self-interest calling for unconditional support for me, they're still going to throw me out in August. While the US has shed most of its Protestant prudery and now loves having a raunchy wild good time, it still has the old Calvinist hatred of idlers, and the smallest welfare state in the advanced world. So I'll probably starve on the streets once my folks are ready. So no my heart is not warmed by the compassion humanity has shown me.

 

This is another false statement.
Actually your autonomous nervous system takes care of that.
What kind of sympathy do you expect to arouse by giving a false accounting of your self?

 

Well if you want to get down to semantics I was only replying to your statement that "Either the world is not driven by cruelty and domination or this statement is not true, as you are alive." Now if the only thing keeping me alive is my autonomous nervous system, then me being alive does not disprove the world being cruel and dominating.

 

Your statement was you cannot live in a world that is cruel and dominating. It does not matter what keeps you alive. I don't want to get down to semantics, a truthful statement might be nice, instead of a lament built on false characterizations.

 

Well if you refuse to prepare to take some steps on your own, and to actully try at life... you'll starve on the street, and purify the gene pool of the failure that you are if you refuse to do anything for yourself, or to do nice things for others.

 

I was unaware apes screwed cavewomen.

Nobody lives in a world of pure evil, so I'm assuming that must be a hypothetical question. From what I see, acts that are deemed as evil are usually rewarded with some hard prison time.

No. Maybe you've met the wrong women.

Drop the conflict, take it a day at a time. It's your choice to take the actions of others personally, just as it's your choice to see mistakes people have made as their "true nature". A dab of forgiveness might help. What good is such conceptions of the world if they are just throwing you in what you see as a rut?

The thing is is that not everybody see's the world in such a fashion. So what you think you have to "deal with" daily, could very well not even really exist in any so called reality. It could very well be all in your imagination.

 

Ok, read your post. Most of it is complaints about evo-psych. I'm going to talk about that a bunch. Also, you seem to have been a bit poisoned by the PUA community, I'm going to talk about that too. This might be long.

First, evo-psych. So, there's an inherent problem with this particular brand of 'science'. See, Science has certain steps. You look at the facts, you use inductive reasoning to postulate an answer, then you try your damndest to disprove your hypothesis. If you fail to disprove it, then voila! you present it to the rest of the scientific community as maybe, possibly having some merit. Then they get to go out and try to disprove it a bunch. If it remains not disproven for a good long time, it's generally accepted as a fairly good approximation of the truth. Until some better model comes along.

Now, with evo-psych, they skip a few steps. They look at some facts, and some generally accepted 'facts'(stereotypes, superstitions, etc). They postulate a reason why these might be so. Then they go out and look for evidence to support their theory.

See what's missing? Also, they tend to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalala about any evidence that sheds doubt on their theories. Evo psych has been used to 'prove' all sorts of interesting things. Like that black people do worse on IQ tests because they are naturally dumb, because they are further down the evolutionary ladder. Still held as fact by some fools despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

"White folks think they're at the top,
Ask any proud white male,
Ten million years of evolution,
We get Danny Quail"

Now evo psych is postulating that male dominance is part of the natural order. It's genetic! And see, we have a model that shows just how that might have happened! Plus, look at chimpanzees and baboons, they're like humans if we didn't have culture and society! And they're led by dominant and aggressive males!

And yet, they ignore some key points. First, that we've run into numerous indigenous peoples that -didn't- have aggressive male dominance. Interestingly, when they're world is threatened, many of them actually switch over to a male dominant system at least temporarily. But in times of peace and ease there seems to be a tendency for humans to exist in what is practically a matriarchal fashion, though has a high degree of autonomy and equality between the sexes.

As for chimps and baboons, we've taken a closer look and low and behold, their social structures vary widely from locale to locale. So one can't really say they are unaffected by society, they have their own cultures, that are often quite complex. Savanna baboons are even generally matriarchal, though they aren't always considered quite the same species either.

And one case study in particular was quite interesting. That of the research of Richard Sapolsky. He was studying a baboon troop, doing tests on cortisol levels. Trying to determine the effects of stress on lifespan. Taking blood samples fairly frequently over the course of 10 years. He got to know his baboon troop pretty well. And they were right bastards, in his mind. Pure aggressive male dominance culture. Top monkey beats on lower monkey who beats on lower monkey. Plenty of what he could only classify as rape going around. Lots of male on female violence anyway.

So he watched these baboons for 10 years. And then something terrible happened. They got into some sort of human trash and got sick. Tuberculosis. Half the troop died off. Most of the males. 10 years of research wasted. But he stuck around, tried to continue what research he could with the remainder. And he saw something remarkable.

So, most of the males died off. The ones that remained, for some reason, were a group of what evo-psych would call 'Omegas'. They'd been apart from the tribe a bit, mostly out of the pecking order, though they got their share of beatings. And these were the only males that remained. And the tribe, after that was changed. It wasn't a dominance game any more. They shared with one another. The rate of male on female violence dropped to almost nothing.

Now baboons do something interesting. Young males tend to leave their troop and go off in search of another to join. So it wasn't long before other males showed up. This troops had about a 2-1 female to male ratio, so it seemed a good spot to stop I imagine. And the new guys would show up and do the general show of dominance, the basic aggressive baboon thing. And they would get rebuked. Gently. The females would ignore them, and the males wouldn't help them, and would often stop them if they got too rough. And the new guys? They learned. Because they only came one at a time, they acclimated to the local culture. Pretty soon, they were acting much like the other guys, chill, low violence, generally sharing. They still joined together to defend against aggressive intruding troops, but between them, they were practically hippies by comparison to other baboons.

30 years later, that one troop is still pretty much the same way. Despite having a constant influx of new guys from other troops. Because they arrive young, and one at a time, and are taught a better way.

So, yeah, evo-psych, or at least, the nonsensical pseudo-science that tends to bear that name, is by no means the whole story.

 

Well I suppose that makes sense. I hate my parents for bringing me into this hellish world. It is illogical for genes that hate existence to continue to reproduce. So existence will weed out its enemies. So be it.

Why have people put up with life? Whats the point of working to survive?

As a student of history, I just can't understand why people put up with life. The world painted by evolutionary psychology is just brutal. Women are just rape slave, toys, and playthings for men to enjoy. But its not much better as a man, since while your sister and daughter might be raped and enslaved, you would just be killed off.

What is the life of man? A brutal struggle of existence against both nature and man. What was the point of the slave and serf, working backbreaking labor 16 hours a day for some brutal lord who rapes his daughters? Can you really say that the serf or factory-worker made the right choice in living such a brutish existence? Why shouldn't he have just committed suicide?

What makes human life so valuable that life is worth preserving for its own sake? Or is it just that we are programmed to survive by our selfish genes? And that our individual happiness means nothing to the gene who "wins" as long as it reproduces.

If I was a religious man, I guess I would be a monk, and just endure the trials of life, till this hell was over. But what kind of God would make a world like this? I would have to be a Gnostic and believe that whomever created this hellish world was not benign.

I realize that things are somewhat better now. But humanity is driven by the same cruel Darwinian biological nature. I mean how do you deal with man, when you know how insanely evil he is?

These thoughts have destroyed my life. I'm practically catatonic. I can't get out of bed or go to school or get a job. I just don't get why any rational being would put up with the hell that is life. What possible pleasure could inspire it? Sexual pleasure? Love for wife or children? Both the vulgar lust and higher "love" are just the selfish gene playing you as a fool.

If after all these centuries, and so much material progress man's ethics remains at the same level, perhaps even declining, then I see no reason that this generation is suddenly going to get it. If anything my generation seems to be the most comfortable with the human condition and rather cynical. So I certainly don't expect some moral amelioration of the human condition to come out of Generation Y. So if we are stuck with the world, cultute, and ethos of the present, what good life can one live other than gouging oneself on biological pleasure?

Maybe I'm too harsh on humanity seeing them as ideas and spirits rather than gene machines. So I wont hate or condemn them anymore than I would a wolf or a hog. But I certainly can't live among them. So whats to become of me?

 

Autumn, that's quite interesting, I'll have to look up the whole thing. (though I've never heard of this evo-psych, I'll have to look that up too)

Though I think your whole point is that yes, you can choose to be that kind of person, and in the right socitey, you'll do just fine, if you're a nasty enough person to want to do well in that kind of situation. Being humans, it's all up to you, which kind of "troop" you run with and what kind of behavior you accept.

 

It doesn't matter whether evopsych is "objectively" true. It is the dominant ideology of the USA and the US rules the world. The world is not going to change in my lifetime. Power makes its own truth. So evopsych might as well be true, its true in the only way that counts.

 

If you accept what other people feel as how you have to feel, and give up your individuality, you're right, I suppose.

So basically, you're saying you're choosing to be part of a despicable culture, when alternatives exist. Fair enough.

 

lol, well, you're completely free to choose what you wanna see in the world bro.

 

See, one of the problems people get into when they start trying to use science as a religion, or a basis for a metaphysical philosophy, is that hard science doesn't presume to say fuck all about the true nature of things. This is because it uses inductive reasoning as a basic tool. That's a fancy way of saying 'throw it at the wall and see if it sticks', or 'make shit up that sort of seems to fit with the evidence at hand'. Then they attempt to disprove it. And if it isn't disproven, it's generally accepted as a good working model.

Because that's all science is actually about. It's about making models of reality. It's about creating models that seem to work fairly well to predict the behavior of things. In many cases, there can be 2, or even more, models that work equally well to do this. Science takes a short cut here and says the simpler one, the one that involves less assumptions, less unknown variables, is to be preferred. Not that it's more likely to be true, just that it's to be preferred, because it's easier to work with. Until a better model comes along.

Science is inherently, and continuously incomplete. And it's just a set of models that have been refined down to be really good at predicting phenomena. It's awesome fun, very useful, and can lead to some really interesting -theories- about the true nature of things. But it doesn't actually ever prove much of anything about anything.

 

And yet...it's not. I don't see too many people living their lives as if that were true. I see tons of people acting in cooperative ways, and living happier lives for it. Sure, they aren't getting rich, but they have people who love them, and live rich, fulfilled lives.

Not all this world is darkness and suffering. And it does seem to be getting better, very slowly. Violent crime has continued to drop every year in the US. Rape has only been -illegal- in many circumstances for a fairly short time and is now consider one of the most heinous acts a man can do. Women have only had a say in this culture a fairly short time, only been allowed to vote, to own property, to divorce, etc for a fairly short time on the scale of civilized history, and in that time we've made great strides.

From my view, we're moving out of a pretty dark time, and it's all in fits and starts. But things -are- getting better. And some of us are working as hard as we can to keep that momentum going. And that, to me, makes life worth living. The goal of leaving this world a bit better then I found it.

 

women are evil.

 

Hear hear. Also that it gives society hope for a motion toward a general overall 'troop' that is kinder and gentler. I mean, it's been shown that tribes tend to fall into the hyper-competitive game when they have a strong external enemy. They switch into systems of rule by the most competitive and violent men.

Somehow or other, Proto-Indo-European culture flipped some sort of switch into that state, a few thousand years ago. And just sort of stayed there. And then went out and conquered everybody else. And just kept on conquering until it had circled the globe and run into itself again. And then started trying to conquer itself(though it had been trying that all along to a degree).

And now, after 2 world wars, and some sobering up, after the outbreak of psychedelics and the invention of birth control(a really big deal actually), we're starting to calm down a touch. I mean, we keep inventing enemies and threats for ourselves, but with global culture starting to take hold, and all sorts of peace-focused movements rising to the surface, we seem to be, very slowly, coming to our senses, as a global people, and realizing the threat is over. And with it, the need for hyper-competitive, short sighted, alpha male dominance culture.

 

Dude. Uncool. That was offensive.






They're inferior baggage for sure, but you went too far.

 

So perhaps MEN are programmed to reward womens cruelty, evil and domination?

Makes as much sense to me:coffee: