D
Deleted member 4362
⠀ ⠀
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
- Posts
- 31,015
- Reputation
- 36,246
When challenged as to why some men deserve no female affection, yet others monopolise several women, many dishonest, ignorant, pseudo-intellectuals & faux-bourgeois will cite an article that claims only 1 in 17 men reproduced 7,000 years ago.
From this they often proceed to affirm their social Darwinist worldview. “Chad takes all the women because he has superior genetics”, “Incels deserve nothing because they have inferior genes” & more laughably that women are inherently good at selecting the best genes for survival.
The Y-Chromosomal Bottleneck likely Wasn't Caused By Extreme Polygamy. “Chad” breeding all fertile women whilst 16 men got nothing is not sustainable for 1,500-2,000 years in which this bottleneck persisted, the aforementioned study does not prove this at all. What the study truly shows is in this time period a lot more mitochondrial lineages were represented than Y-Chromosomal ones.
Researchers at Stanford University have came up with a model wherein as hunter gatherer tribes started becoming agriculturalists they would organize along patrilineal lines, concerning male lineages, opposed to before where they were based more on the immediate surrounding group of men. This means that when violent intertribal conflict would occur and a tribe would be wiped out, Y-chromosomal diversity would suffer greatly as a whole patrilineal lineage would be wiped out with them. Women however would more frequently move between tribes, spreading out their mitochondrial DNA and allowing it to be retained when its carriers were also killed, or of course when the women of a defeated tribe would be raped or taken as concubines it could also survive.
This effect would allow for a reduction of Y-Chromosomal diversity without an equivalent reduction in the male population and without equivalent rates of polygamy.
They confirmed this effect could account for the bottleneck using computational models.
www.nature.com
The researchers also made a thread on Reddit where they actually responded to the contention that polygamy was the driving force behind the bottleneck, saying:
>We believe that it can't, for the following two reasons:
(A) for the ratio effective population sizes among males and females to have stayed around approximately 1:17 across much of the Old World for approximately 1500 years requires an implausible level of polygamy and hereditary inequality. “Extreme polygamy, with more than say 3 wives to a man, or highly transmissible differences in reproductive success due to extreme wealth distributions are characteristic of large-scale complex societies or “civilisations”; they are unlikely to be sustained in a small-scale society that we see just after the Neolithic transition to farming and herding.** Such small-scale societies still exist in Amazonia and in Papua New Guinea, and until recently in India, Africa, some parts of Southwest China and Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. From ethnography, we know that rates of polygamous marriage in small-scale societies rarely exceed 15%, and usually with at most two wives.”
>(B) “In every part of the Old World, the bottleneck lifts approximately 5000-4000 years ago. This is precisely the period when chiefdoms and states first emerge, often associated with extreme inequality.** Mass human sacrifice, for example, is commonly seen in the first states. However the emergence of chiefdoms and states is associated with the lifting of the bottleneck, not its intensification”
“Chad” is just a lucky person, usually born into or who has acquired power, not a god of perfect & superior genetics. Numbers reflect that around 40% of men and 80% of women are believed to have reproduced throughout history, meaning the effective population size of women has historically been twice that of men. This is because men were more likely to die young (whether while hunting or in battle with warring tribes), whereas the women would be taken in by another man in a tribe.
The modern-day phenomenon illustrated by the difference in effective population size is not hypergamy, but rather social proof from preselection. A woman was more likely to marry and bear children with a man whose wife had died than a man who had yet to marry. This is because the former has proven he is capable of taking care of a woman and any children they may have.
The evolutionary psychology behind the blackpill is fake, they apply modern-day phenomena to confirm their biases instead of analysing the data independent of preconception. Hypergamy is a function of civilisation; socioeconomic hierarchy only exists when you have a complex system involving division of labor, market forces, political structures, etc. That’s why it’s intensified over the years as society becomes increasingly complex and integrated.
The notion that every tribe had one alpha caveman reproducing with every cavewoman while the other cavemen scrambled for sloppy seconds is just not rooted in reality.
From this they often proceed to affirm their social Darwinist worldview. “Chad takes all the women because he has superior genetics”, “Incels deserve nothing because they have inferior genes” & more laughably that women are inherently good at selecting the best genes for survival.
The Y-Chromosomal Bottleneck likely Wasn't Caused By Extreme Polygamy. “Chad” breeding all fertile women whilst 16 men got nothing is not sustainable for 1,500-2,000 years in which this bottleneck persisted, the aforementioned study does not prove this at all. What the study truly shows is in this time period a lot more mitochondrial lineages were represented than Y-Chromosomal ones.
Researchers at Stanford University have came up with a model wherein as hunter gatherer tribes started becoming agriculturalists they would organize along patrilineal lines, concerning male lineages, opposed to before where they were based more on the immediate surrounding group of men. This means that when violent intertribal conflict would occur and a tribe would be wiped out, Y-chromosomal diversity would suffer greatly as a whole patrilineal lineage would be wiped out with them. Women however would more frequently move between tribes, spreading out their mitochondrial DNA and allowing it to be retained when its carriers were also killed, or of course when the women of a defeated tribe would be raped or taken as concubines it could also survive.
This effect would allow for a reduction of Y-Chromosomal diversity without an equivalent reduction in the male population and without equivalent rates of polygamy.
They confirmed this effect could account for the bottleneck using computational models.
Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck - Nature Communications
A population bottleneck 5000-7000 years ago in human males, but not females, has been inferred across several African, European and Asian populations. Here, Zeng and colleagues synthesize theory and data to suggest that competition among patrilineal kin groups produced the bottleneck pattern.
www.nature.com
The researchers also made a thread on Reddit where they actually responded to the contention that polygamy was the driving force behind the bottleneck, saying:
>We believe that it can't, for the following two reasons:
(A) for the ratio effective population sizes among males and females to have stayed around approximately 1:17 across much of the Old World for approximately 1500 years requires an implausible level of polygamy and hereditary inequality. “Extreme polygamy, with more than say 3 wives to a man, or highly transmissible differences in reproductive success due to extreme wealth distributions are characteristic of large-scale complex societies or “civilisations”; they are unlikely to be sustained in a small-scale society that we see just after the Neolithic transition to farming and herding.** Such small-scale societies still exist in Amazonia and in Papua New Guinea, and until recently in India, Africa, some parts of Southwest China and Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. From ethnography, we know that rates of polygamous marriage in small-scale societies rarely exceed 15%, and usually with at most two wives.”
>(B) “In every part of the Old World, the bottleneck lifts approximately 5000-4000 years ago. This is precisely the period when chiefdoms and states first emerge, often associated with extreme inequality.** Mass human sacrifice, for example, is commonly seen in the first states. However the emergence of chiefdoms and states is associated with the lifting of the bottleneck, not its intensification”
“Chad” is just a lucky person, usually born into or who has acquired power, not a god of perfect & superior genetics. Numbers reflect that around 40% of men and 80% of women are believed to have reproduced throughout history, meaning the effective population size of women has historically been twice that of men. This is because men were more likely to die young (whether while hunting or in battle with warring tribes), whereas the women would be taken in by another man in a tribe.
The modern-day phenomenon illustrated by the difference in effective population size is not hypergamy, but rather social proof from preselection. A woman was more likely to marry and bear children with a man whose wife had died than a man who had yet to marry. This is because the former has proven he is capable of taking care of a woman and any children they may have.
The evolutionary psychology behind the blackpill is fake, they apply modern-day phenomena to confirm their biases instead of analysing the data independent of preconception. Hypergamy is a function of civilisation; socioeconomic hierarchy only exists when you have a complex system involving division of labor, market forces, political structures, etc. That’s why it’s intensified over the years as society becomes increasingly complex and integrated.
The notion that every tribe had one alpha caveman reproducing with every cavewoman while the other cavemen scrambled for sloppy seconds is just not rooted in reality.
