Here is my arguments why the fisherian hypothesis doesn't really fit human sexual attraction well.

[reptiles]

I'm starting to think fisherian model won't fit humans i'll use other species. Wrens For instance have there entire body colored,Ducks also follow this pattern, same with the Peacans humans on the other hand lack this also you can see there isn't much overlap between the males and the females within the 3 pics shown below meanwhile with humans there is. Even our closest cousin the chimpanzee is more dimorphic than us.

Even The differentials between the male chimpanzees shows the rate of sexual selection is higher in animals than humans i;m not saying this proves there is no preference for ornamental traits but it's not as expressive in humans as it is in other animals we don't have massive body differentials or any ornamental traits.

Also dimorphism isn't always attractive in humans i argue most of human attraction should follow the curve in which society has followed. This is how most of human history has gone in terms of socitial growth.

1 Hunter gather societies these types of societies are very horrible cause they lead to an expansion of more inceldom for men.

2 Pastorlism this is basically animal domestication very good for nomads but this is kind of akin to hunter gather societies though the gender switches weren't as fucked in these types of societies.

3 Agriculturalism which leads to stable societies and since polygamous societies are more violent due to female selection agriculturist socties tend to encourage monogamy for economic reasons mainly if everyone isn't working or providing something towards society nothing gets done so to make people work they have people start families this way males are incentivized to start families.

Through all these gradual changes society starts to become more monogamous this leads to progressive gracialization whilst still retaining sexual dimorphism through this process human faces also become gracile so the extreme dimorphism in the past is no longer as desired. These days gracile yet masculine faces are actually preferred the less there is sexual competition the lower dimorphism.

So if women prefer dimorphic men who are gracile why are there so many incels today ? simple female hyper-gamy though even then the types of males females lust over today are dimorphic yet still gracile compared to lets say cro magnon or other specimens so there attraction to what is chad here is still way less than than our hunter gatherer days that's a good thing cause that means were evolving.

What would be the ideal in ending inceldom then ? i guess a good start would be to slowly gracilize humans more and more till the point where we can't actually differentiate males from females this ends inceldom and the dimorphism issue.




Essentially the model I support requires a few assumptions.

1 Human sexual desire should evolve to be proportionate with the societal progress of the society. Akin to the graph below.

2 The mean proportion of extreme dimorphism should go down for each gen this implies evolution is weeding out slightly above average dimorphic men if my model is right the gracialization factor should be larger than the dimorphic factor for each gen.

3 Humans aren't like other animals in that we aren't as dimorphic and were gradually getting more gracilized.

4 Ornamental traits aren't really the moving factor in sexual selection it's more societal progress and if my assumption is right chad within the next 100 years should be more feminine relative to today.


Thoughts on this @goat2x i think my model does fill in a lot of holes though it would explain why pretty boys are actually more desired know than ever before and it would also explain the reason why dimorphism itself is not always the most attractive thing. it also doesn't resort to the idea that a trait is attractive just cause it is this model assumes sexual selection moves in tandem with civilizational progress.

This is what separates humans human beings from Animals while animals sacrifice gracialization for dimorphism cause it's physically required in hunter gatherer societies human beings due to the invention of agriculture have sacrificed dimorphism for gracialization to gain higher IQ.

This has lead to a decrease in sexual dimorphism and consequently the sexual differences between males and females are going down this is a good thing. However women are still picky regardless hypergamy just won't end however that being said human beings are actually 1 of the least hypgeramous races relative to other animals.

Thoughts ?

@goat2x
@tincelw
@KostyaRin
@Hunterslayer
@eduardkoopman

 

[Deleted member 8919]

Dn rd

 

[goat2x]

Im gonna read all of the messages aswell i just need abit of time bro, thanks for the tagg

 

[reptiles]

Im gonna read all of the messages aswell i just need abit of time bro, thanks for the tagg

All right.

I'll shorten it down basically i don't think humans are super ornament-ally driven i don't think were dimorphic enough for that I do think however humans traded in dimorphism for gracialization i use the case of cromagnon and modern day europeans if cromagnon was so desired it wouldn't have been out bred and yet it has been by the softer nordid features i generally think human evolution only worked so well due to this process if not we would have been dumb as fuck like chimpanzees.

 

[goat2x]

All right.

I'll shorten it down basically i don't think humans are super ornament-ally driven i don't think were dimorphic enough for that I do think however humans traded in dimorphism for gracialization i use the case of cromagnon and modern day europeans if cromagnon was so desired it wouldn't have been out bred and yet it has been by the softer nordid features i generally think human evolution only worked so well due to this process if not we would have been dumb as fuck like chimpanzees.

Yeah seems like we agree, but im gonna read your texts it seems like you know this subject more than me...

 

[reptiles]

Yeah seems like we agree, but im gonna read your texts it seems like you know this subject more than me...

I barely know anything tbqh but i think this model could fit it would fix the issues i was having with it mainly if dimorphism is so attractive why don't we see women gravitating towards ogre like men instead we see the opposite we see males who are dimorphic and yet gracilized relative to the extreme. This would also explain the vast cognitive differences between us and the primates perhaps agriculture required humans to be on there feet constantly to problem solve. Think about it if you build a town you need to have workers you need to have designers this will leads to an increase of people who are actually using there minds more. Give this process a couple of thousand years and the mean IQ should increase rapidly. As a result you will lose dimorphism more dimorphic features are a sign of archaic traits meanwhile gracilized individuals have progressive traits.

 

[Subhuman trash]

we haven't had tinder historically but now we do so we are entering a fisherian runaway JFL at believing what is happening now is natural selection, more like (((natural))) selection

 

[reptiles]

we haven't had tinder historically but now we do so we are entering a fisherian runaway JFL at believing what is happening now is natural selection, more like (((natural))) selection

Like i said women will always be hypergamous i just disagree on the assumption women want traits just cause they look pretty there has to be an evolutionary reason and so far every modern day chad seems to follow this trend a modern day european chad is vastly less dimorphic relative to his cromagnon chad ancestor

 

[Subhuman trash]

Like i said women will always be hypergamous i just disagree on the assumption women want traits just cause they look pretty there has to be an evolutionary reason and so far every modern day chad seems to follow this trend a modern day european chad is vastly less dimorphic relative to his cromagnon chad ancestor

its not all just dimorphism though. tall ogres are incel more often than 5'10" pretty boys. foids just like what they like there is no higher reason for it. evolution does not have some final aim or goal right now foids are just getting cummed in by chad and aborting to fuck more chads

 

[Timelessbrah]

Op you are one of the few high IQ posters here. I applaud.

 

[reptiles]

its not all just dimorphism though. tall ogres are incel more often than 5'10" pretty boys. foids just like what they like there is no higher reason for it. evolution does not have some final aim or goal right now foids are just getting cummed in by chad and aborting to fuck more chads

Your agreeing with me for part 1 i even said it's not all just dimorphism it's gracilization+dimorphism. It's why they seek out certain chads there is a very good reason for it 1 it indicates masculinity and 2 it indicates youth and Intelligence Evolution doesn't just work towards colorful patterns in species which aren't dimorphic enough

 

[Deleted member 4106]

I'm starting to think fisherian model won't fit humans i'll use other species. Wrens For instance have there entire body colored,Ducks also follow this pattern, same with the Peacans humans on the other hand lack this also you can see there isn't much overlap between the males and the females within the 3 pics shown below meanwhile with humans there is. Even our closest cousin the chimpanzee is more dimorphic than us.

View attachment 697057

View attachment 697058

Even The differentials between the male chimpanzees shows the rate of sexual selection is higher in animals than humans i;m not saying this proves there is no preference for ornamental traits but it's not as expressive in humans as it is in other animals we don't have massive body differentials or any ornamental traits.

Also dimorphism isn't always attractive in humans i argue most of human attraction should follow the curve in which society has followed. This is how most of human history has gone in terms of socitial growth.

1 Hunter gather societies these types of societies are very horrible cause they lead to an expansion of more inceldom for men.

2 Pastorlism this is basically animal domestication very good for nomads but this is kind of akin to hunter gather societies though the gender switches weren't as fucked in these types of societies.

3 Agriculturalism which leads to stable societies and since polygamous societies are more violent due to female selection agriculturist socties tend to encourage monogamy for economic reasons mainly if everyone isn't working or providing something towards society nothing gets done so to make people work they have people start families this way males are incentivized to start families.

Through all these gradual changes society starts to become more monogamous this leads to progressive gracialization whilst still retaining sexual dimorphism through this process human faces also become gracile so the extreme dimorphism in the past is no longer as desired. These days gracile yet masculine faces are actually preferred the less there is sexual competition the lower dimorphism.

So if women prefer dimorphic men who are gracile why are there so many incels today ? simple female hyper-gamy though even then the types of males females lust over today are dimorphic yet still gracile compared to lets say cro magnon or other specimens so there attraction to what is chad here is still way less than than our hunter gatherer days that's a good thing cause that means were evolving.

What would be the ideal in ending inceldom then ? i guess a good start would be to slowly gracilize humans more and more till the point where we can't actually differentiate males from females this ends inceldom and the dimorphism issue.




Essentially the model I support requires a few assumptions.

1 Human sexual desire should evolve to be proportionate with the societal progress of the society. Akin to the graph below.

View attachment 697019

2 The mean proportion of extreme dimorphism should go down for each gen this implies evolution is weeding out slightly above average dimorphic men if my model is right the gracialization factor should be larger than the dimorphic factor for each gen.

View attachment 697033

3 Humans aren't like other animals in that we aren't as dimorphic and were gradually getting more gracilized.

4 Ornamental traits aren't really the moving factor in sexual selection it's more societal progress and if my assumption is right chad within the next 100 years should be more feminine relative to today.


Thoughts on this @goat2x i think my model does fill in a lot of holes though it would explain why pretty boys are actually more desired know than ever before and it would also explain the reason why dimorphism itself is not always the most attractive thing. it also doesn't resort to the idea that a trait is attractive just cause it is this model assumes sexual selection moves in tandem with civilizational progress.

This is what separates humans human beings from Animals while animals sacrifice gracialization for dimorphism cause it's physically required in hunter gatherer societies human beings due to the invention of agriculture have sacrificed dimorphism for gracialization to gain higher IQ.

This has lead to a decrease in sexual dimorphism and consequently the sexual differences between males and females are going down this is a good thing. However women are still picky regardless hypergamy just won't end however that being said human beings are actually 1 of the least hypgeramous races relative to other animals.

Thoughts ?

@goat2x
@tincelw
@KostyaRin
@Hunterslayer
@eduardkoopman

"So it doesn't take a big brain to realize that if the rate of loss is uniform - 10 genes per million years - and we only have 45 left, all of the Y will disappear in 4.5 million years."
Link

 

[LaFayette]

So, by this logic the vast majority of us incels are both ugly and dimwitted.
Except if we agree that women will ignore a smart man, or a beautiful one, if he isn't beautiful or smart respectively. No?

 

[Subhuman trash]

Your agreeing with me for part 1 i even said it's not all just dimorphism it's gracilization+dimorphism. It's why they seek out certain chads there is a very good reason for it 1 it indicates masculinity and 2 it indicates youth and Intelligence Evolution doesn't just work towards colorful patterns in species which aren't dimorphic enough

Good looks signal intelligence? Foids don’t select for intelligence. It’s a common stereotype that curries and rice are smart but foids don’t seek them out

 

[Deleted member 5608]

 

[Deleted member 8765]

Good looks signal intelligence? Foids don’t select for intelligence. It’s a common stereotype that curries and rice are smart but foids don’t seek them out

Honestly why even try anymore

 

[Deleted member 2157]

Tbh fisherian hypothesis has always been very unlikely for humans, the few cases of it are not even proven. But anyways I disagree, pastoralism and hunter gatherer socieities produce happier, healthier and more content/developed people both physically and mentally while agriculturalism has produced the society we know today. There shouldn't even be nearly as many humans as there is now.

The robustness/mass of bones or physical dominance not being 'king' in terms of socialization is totally right. Smarter and more cunning chimpanzee males (intelligence is largely genetic and heritable in chimpanzees, which is why there's been an increase of intelligent ones) usually dominate and end up outcompeting chimpanzee males who are physically larger and more robust than them and mating more, becoming effectively more dominant in chimp society.

Also human species have variably became more gracile, but so have other animals. Bonobos are physically more similar to us than chimpanzees are and our last common ancestor was more like a bonobo physically than a chimp

Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps

A new study examining the muscular system of bonobos provides firsthand evidence that the rare great ape species may be more closely linked, anatomically, to human ancestors than common chimpanzees.

www.sciencedaily.com

Bonobo anatomy reveals stasis and mosaicism in chimpanzee evolution, and supports bonobos as the most appropriate extant model for the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans - Scientific Reports

Common chimps and bonobos are our closest living relatives but almost nothing is known about bonobo internal anatomy. We present the first phylogenetic analysis to include musculoskeletal data obtained from a recent dissection of bonobos. Notably, chimpanzees, and in particular bonobos, provide...

www.nature.com

 

[Deleted member 8758]

Cause of incel face.......is grain. Sperging out on other factors is rather excessive.

 

[reptiles]

Tbh fisherian hypothesis has always been very unlikely for humans, the few cases of it are not even proven. But anyways I disagree, pastoralism and hunter gatherer socieities produce happier, healthier and more content/developed people both physically and mentally while agriculturalism has produced the society we know today. There shouldn't even be nearly as many humans as there is now.

The robustness/mass of bones or physical dominance not being 'king' in terms of socialization is totally right. Smarter and more cunning chimpanzee males (intelligence is largely genetic and heritable in chimpanzees, which is why there's been an increase of intelligent ones) usually dominate and end up outcompeting chimpanzee males who are physically larger and more robust than them and mating more, becoming effectively more dominant in chimp society.

Also human species have variably became more gracile, but so have other animals. Bonobos are physically more similar to us than chimpanzees are and our last common ancestor was more like a bonobo physically than a chimp

Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps

A new study examining the muscular system of bonobos provides firsthand evidence that the rare great ape species may be more closely linked, anatomically, to human ancestors than common chimpanzees.

www.sciencedaily.com

Bonobo anatomy reveals stasis and mosaicism in chimpanzee evolution, and supports bonobos as the most appropriate extant model for the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans - Scientific Reports

Common chimps and bonobos are our closest living relatives but almost nothing is known about bonobo internal anatomy. We present the first phylogenetic analysis to include musculoskeletal data obtained from a recent dissection of bonobos. Notably, chimpanzees, and in particular bonobos, provide...

www.nature.com

I agree with the first part of point 1 I see very little evidence for the fisherian hypothesis in humans or animals. Animals with enhanced dimorphism tend to pass on genes more often hence why expressive dimorphism is seen in other animals. Not just cause a trait looks pretty.

I disagree with the 2nd part of your first paragraph kinda Whilst it's true Gracilization leads to more stress due to an increase in overall IQ due to expressive dimorphism being sacrificed for mental traits I don't think this is a bad thing per say it just means our species are adapting and it's quite rapid. Though the effect seems to have stopped.

My 2nd main disagreement is that Agriculturism is the main driving factor as to why humans are becoming more Incelish i play it down to more of what gets to breed. For instance chads have the highest fuck rates however the highest birth rates is often from beta buxes this leads to extreme dysgenics and this is what has been occurring for the last century or so and since humans are using there minds even less today were actually devolving kinda.

Onto paragraph 2 i actually agree with what your saying chimpanzees are getting smarter due to selection pressures being forced onto them by other humans. But it's not as rapid as ours though there societal growth is not to the point where there starting agriculture it's still very primitive. However I think the path there headed towards is a good thing. However they still have a massive amount of selection pressure already built for phyical dimorphism hence there path will take longer than ours.

Onto paragraph 3 that would explain a lot i was always wondering how did we lose that much dimorphism in the last 100 thousand years however with bonobos there very similar to us I think were even more gracilized today than our original Ancestors which i think is a good thing this places a sexual selection pressure on IQ which is often visible through phenotype however from what i've seen it's mainly beta buxes breeding today.

 

[Effortless]

Women breeds with success and success comes in many form.

I think dom/masculine genes became less prevalent because of weapons and our ways of being able to alter our environment, if you think about it; a robust male will probably win a fight or able to protect himself and others 99% of the time when it comes to hand to hand versus a less robust male but our ability to create and use weapons changes everything.

Who'd you think would win in a fight, who do you think would be the better protector, who do you think would be the better provider?

1. A 5'5 gracile twink with a bow and arrow
2. A 6'5 high t ogre with his bare hands

I'll put my bet that the 5'5 gracile twink with a bow and arrow comes out more success full

Who has the better weapon to kill, protect, hunt and provide probably has a way higher chance of success than someone who only signals brute strength.

 

[KDA Player]

Yeah, basically inevitable technology improvements (I include everything from the stone axe to the autodriven tesla) led us here.

 

[EverythingMattersCel]

Women breeds with success and success comes in many form.

It's basically what Jordan Peterson said about dominance hierarchies. You should be on the higher percentiles of multiple dominance hierarchies to find a mate. The importance of each hierarchy depends on the individual and their preferences.

To simplify matters, if we go exclusively by looks there are 3 main components: FACE, frame and height. On average the FACE is at least 70% of the equation and frame & height is a multiplier of sorts. However, someone with a good FACE and @knajjd's 5'2 height and female frame will be very unlikely to find success in a mate vs a normie that has fairly average specs all around.

We can look at it from the analogy of a fishing net. The worse each person scores on individual hierarchies the smaller the net they can cast. By performing well in each hierarchy, they have a large net to throw and essentially catch all the fish. We have to look at the core of female mating strategy, considering their function to produce the healthiest offspring as sexual selectors. While we as men can overlook individual flaws, women don't think like that. They are subconsciously processing every little detail about you to ensure you pass their breeding tests.

(e.g. we can look at a girl with a below-average FACE and see she has a big ass. It is a halo that compensates for her butterFACE and we can still copulate with her. On the other hand with girls, it's one strike and you're out. 1 blemish and you are cannon-fodder to them. If your chin-philtrum ratio is only 2.2 but her mind wants 2.25 then it's finito. It's over for you buddyboyo. If she wants 6'2 and you are only 6ft it never started. if she wants perfect collagen and you have a bit of acne it's over. If you are not neurotypical, it's over.)

Someone that scores consistently across all dominance hierarchies will 100% find a high tier becky or a potential stacey. In contrast, a guy that scores very highly in 1 or 2 categories (excluding FACE - a good FACE can make up for a lot but still over for turbo manlets) and mediocre in the rest will perform badly.

This is why, in essence, everything matters. Now we can apply status and money to the model.

Let's use an arbitrary formula for what the average foid wants. It's a fairly rough estimate from the study Koopman posted here a few months back:

FACE score 1-10 (based on masculinity, facial adiposity, general dimorphism, ratios and harmony). She has made her mind up about your FACE within 0.1 seconds of meeting you.

Height: Up to +1.2x (-10)
Frame: Up to +-1.15x (-3)
Voice: Up to +- 1.02x (-1)
Other (e.g. general grooming): Up to +- 1.01x (-10)
Personality: (-10)

These halo multipliers actually do little to increase your overall attractiveness rating but if you are lacking in any respect then you are automatically disqualified. For example, personality provides absolutely no positive change to your overall attractiveness level but in the event of picking between 2 chads, she will pick the one with a better personality (assuming looks to be equal).

*After she has quantified your physical attractiveness level and ensured you don't have any glaring flaws that would compromise her status, things like personality become important... i.e. she will reject a chad with a bad personality if there are males of similar SMV available. For someone that didn't pass her looks threshold, she never even considered their personality).

*Also, I think what we have to remember is that you are not only being judged by the foid but also her group of immediate friends. If you don't pass their looks threshold then it's over for you. Women are social creatures and they don't want to be seen in the same vain as a social pariah, for choosing someone only they themselves find "cute". This is another reason why it's so important to not have any glaring issue. You must not look uncanny. You must have passed the consensus within her own inner-circle. You should also be neurotypical on top of having looks because women want to have their cake and eat it. And frankly, with the dating market the way it is today they can afford to do just that.

So you've looksmaxxed hard, put yourself out there to be NT or you were just born chad. You pass her ridiculous amount of tests. Now what? Well statistically speaking, the odds are stacked against you. In the modern age, the average girl sleeps around so much that she has no pair-bonding capacity. She has become chadsexual and is accustomed to that. "She's not yours. It's just your turn". The only way you can hold down an LTR is by being chad and significantly above her own looks level. The only way you're going to be able to keep her is if she worships you like God. They are naturally hypergamous so any opportunity to leapfrog up to a higher looks level they will take without any guilt...

Tl;dr:
Be neurotypical chad. Everything else is cope...

 

[Effortless]

It's basically what Jordan Peterson said about dominance hierarchies. You should be on the higher percentiles of multiple dominance hierarchies to find a mate. The importance of each hierarchy depends on the individual and their preferences.

To simplify matters, if we go exclusively by looks there are 3 main components: FACE, frame and height. On average the FACE is at least 70% of the equation and frame & height is a multiplier of sorts. However, someone with a good FACE and @knajjd's 5'2 height and female frame will be very unlikely to find success in a mate vs a normie that has fairly average specs all around.

We can look at it from the analogy of a fishing net. The worse each person scores on individual hierarchies the smaller the net they can cast. By performing well in each hierarchy, they have a large net to throw and essentially catch all the fish. We have to look at the core of female mating strategy, considering their function to produce the healthiest offspring as sexual selectors. While we as men can overlook individual flaws, women don't think like that. They are subconsciously processing every little detail about you to ensure you pass their breeding tests.

(e.g. we can look at a girl with a below-average FACE and see she has a big ass. It is a halo that compensates for her butterFACE and we can still copulate with her. On the other hand with girls, it's one strike and you're out. 1 blemish and you are cannon-fodder to them. If your chin-philtrum ratio is only 2.2 but her mind wants 2.25 then it's finito. It's over for you buddyboyo. If she wants 6'2 and you are only 6ft it never started. if she wants perfect collagen and you have a bit of acne it's over. If you are not neurotypical, it's over.)

Someone that scores consistently across all dominance hierarchies will 100% find a high tier becky or a potential stacey. In contrast, a guy that scores very highly in 1 or 2 categories (excluding FACE - a good FACE can make up for a lot but still over for turbo manlets) and mediocre in the rest will perform badly.

This is why, in essence, everything matters. Now we can apply status and money to the model.

Let's use an arbitrary formula for what the average foid wants. It's a fairly rough estimate from the study Koopman posted here a few months back:

FACE score 1-10 (based on masculinity, facial adiposity, general dimorphism, ratios and harmony). She has made her mind up about your FACE within 0.1 seconds of meeting you.

Height: Up to +1.2x (-10)
Frame: Up to +-1.15x (-3)
Voice: Up to +- 1.02x (-1)
Other (e.g. general grooming): Up to +- 1.01x (-10)
Personality: (-10)

These halo multipliers actually do little to increase your overall attractiveness rating but if you are lacking in any respect then you are automatically disqualified. For example, personality provides absolutely no positive change to your overall attractiveness level but in the event of picking between 2 chads, she will pick the one with a better personality (assuming looks to be equal).

*After she has quantified your physical attractiveness level and ensured you don't have any glaring flaws that would compromise her status, things like personality become important... i.e. she will reject a chad with a bad personality if there are males of similar SMV available. For someone that didn't pass her looks threshold, she never even considered their personality).

*Also, I think what we have to remember is that you are not only being judged by the foid but also her group of immediate friends. If you don't pass their looks threshold then it's over for you. Women are social creatures and they don't want to be seen in the same vein as a social pariah, for choosing someone only they themselves find "cute". This is another reason why it's so important to not have any glaring issue. You must not look uncanny. You must have passed the consensus within her own inner-circle. You should also be neurotypical on top of having looks because women want to have their cake and eat it. And frankly, with the dating market the way it is today they can afford to do just that.

So you've looksmaxxed hard, put yourself out there to be NT or you were just born chad. You pass her ridiculous amount of tests. Now what? Well statistically speaking, the odds are stacked against you. In the modern age, the average girl sleeps around so much that she has no pair-bonding capacity. She has become chadsexual and is accustomed to that. "She's not yours. It's just your turn". The only way you can hold down an LTR is by being chad and significantly above her own looks level. The only way you're going to be able to keep her is if she worships you like God. They are naturally hypergamous so any opportunity to leapfrog up to a higher looks level they will take without any guilt...

Tl;dr:
Be neurotypical chad. Everything else is cope...

I very much agree, FACE is the base and can help overcome what you lack if those features aren't totally subhuman. I also feel that real life appeal vs PSL autism appeal can be very different even though they aren't mutually exclusive.

The thing with pair bonding is that it goes both ways for men and women, when an opportunity hands itself to you, you want to take it. Same thing happened with me, I was with my ex girlfriend but I cheated on her because of temptations and validation.