Debunking the Blackpill in its entirety

[Deleted member 22063]

Yes wealth absolutely accounts for those differences, men evolved toward polygyny for that reason because passing on wealth becomes a problem if you do not know your progeny. You are missing that women selected for groups not individuals, a group of beta-buxers will have an advantage over a group of prison dwelling Chads, the chads would need some social security net to equalise the playing field.

Also I’m not sure what you mean, more resources = less polygamy not more, polygamy is more viable when resources are scarce, that debunks your notion they died before they had sex it’s in a woman’s best interest to sleep with as many people as possible if there is not much food.

Men didn't evolve toward anything because of "passing down wealth" because that is a product of civilization. Hunter gatherers do not have private property, only insignificant and readily available personal possessions.

Your claim seems to be that the polygamy in history is due to wealth differences which is true and that this disproves the blackpill, but this doesn't mean polygamy wouldn't otherwise occur in the absence of the circumstances where wealth is the primary criteria for selecting mates because then the criteria for having a harem would then be genetic fitness (blackpill) and the absence of "muh chad" having a harem in history isn't due to the blackpill not being real, only that selecting for genes is not viable during times of scarcity. You seem to be under the impression that men receiving a disproportionate share of female attention is possible only because of wealth. Humans are a moderately dimorphic species and dimorphic species have an unequal rate at which men procreate granted it's nowhere near the level many incels would claim.

And yes, more resources equals more polygamy. Polygamy is rare among hunter gatherers. Wealth is becoming less important which is why I said many so called high status people today would have difficulties getting laid but their inability to be polygamous doesn't mean suddenly that female attention isn't disproportionate because chad is taking over the role of the rich chieftain with twenty wives.

 

[Son of gigachad]

oh and OP id love to hear about the womenpill u said and female monogamy or lack thereof, either here or DM me

 

[Deleted member 23017]

View attachment 2029229

Chinks with an Aussie accent are hilarious to me tbh.

 

[Deleted member 4362]

And yes, more resources equals more polygamy. Polygamy is rare among hunter gatherers.

To clarify polygamous = multiple sexual partners
Polygyny = one male multiple females
Polyandry = one female multiple males

I believe that humans may have tended towards, polyandry I.e. several male mates (the dominant tribe) for one female during and before the Neolithic era. It explains why men developed mushroom headed penises as it allowed us to scoop out previous semen + better the chance of passing on genes.

The quote in OP doesn’t do a good job distinguishing the differences, but less resources = more polyandry, men seem to have evolved towards polygyny as a means of securing their paternal lineage (tribe). So more resources = more polygyny but less polyandry.

Men didn't evolve toward anything because of "passing down wealth" because that is a product of civilization. Hunter gatherers do not have private property, only insignificant and readily available personal possessions.

If evolution has merit surely human preference will follow the much greater time period of choosing for the best tribe opposed to the best male. Hunter gatherer tribes became agriculturalists so they did have more than “insignificant” possessions, there became a big incentive to pass on tools, wealth, farms to a group that followed their paternal lineage because it is a more identifiable & loyal group, than before who they were on cohesion with I.e. random men.

We only recently have seen a shift toward women choosing perceived genetic fitness, however women have selected for the most powerful group during Neolithic times & before. Social class, power & wealth are undoubtedly bigger indicators of paternal status than genes throughout the majority of human sexual selection.

 

[whiteissuperior]

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.

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.

i already shared this in the server

 

[Deleted member 4362]

i already shared this in the server

And I stole it fuck nigga

 

[Deleted member 24114]

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.

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.

Tails crying in his basement because he is a repulsive freak and his extreme hypergamy theories are wrong.

 

[Moggie]

bro reading is hard

 

[Artemis]

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.

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.

Thank you for the effort. Confirmed exactly my thoughts.

Blackpill is a joke.

Lookism is not though...

 

[tyronelite]

When did you get high iq?

 

[Deleted member 17872]

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.

I don't think you understand what hypergamy is. The example you have just cited(of men hogging many women due to status) is what is hypergamy is. The so-called looks hypergamy is just PSL fantasy.

 

[Deleted member 17872]

FEMALE pill that they are in no way monogamous &that it’s evolutionary advantageous for them to have lots of different sex partners cos I don’t want people to rope

That's the dumbest thing i have ever read. Female has great biological incentives to be monogamous unlike men.

 

[Deleted member 17872]

youre right in a sense as the consensus has always been LMS (looks, money, status)

but what determines ones looks? - genes
what determines ones socioeconomic status? - iq - what determines iq? - genes
what determines ones status? - whether they were already born into it (genes) or pure luck

its all genes

u r insanely low iq