What is the objective of the genetic game?

[RaciallyAndrogynous]

This of course does tie into r/K selection theory, but i am getting at the final aim of what genetics is seeking.
Its a fairly involved question, so i'm not expecting too much, unlike my last post, where i posed the question and answered it all at the same time. Maybe to involved for this forum to discuss such things, i don't see much scientific discussion taking place outside of facial anatomy and such.

 

[Deleted member 6403]

Combination of top 3

 

[Golang]

According to Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene" genes are the ones who want to reproduce and spread, and use the organism as a vehicle to do so (ie: the genes are the one competing, not you)

The reason why they spread is that there isn't any, genes that were not coded to replicate and spread died out, and the genes that were coded to spread and replicate survived.

 

[Golang]

Combination of top 3

Genes don't aim for perfection, they don't want/know/care for being perfect, they just want to replicate as was coded.

The 3rd is just to be able to do the 2nd task, so technically doesn't count since many insects have very short lifespans but replicate a lot

 

[Blackout.xl]

This of course does tie into r/K selection theory, but i am getting at the final aim of what genetics is seeking.
Its a fairly involved question, so i'm not expecting too much, unlike my last post, where i posed the question and answered it all at the same time. Maybe to involved for this forum to discuss such things, i don't see much scientific discussion taking place outside of facial anatomy and such.

3rd option. That’s all that matters. Longevity.

There have been instances of far reaching gene pools being completely/mostly wiped out (natives). It’s about longevity

 

[RaciallyAndrogynous]

According to Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene" genes are the ones who want to reproduce and spread, and use the organism as a vehicle to do so (ie: the genes are the one competing, not you)

The reason why they spread is that there isn't any, genes that were not coded to replicate and spread died out, and the genes that were coded to spread and replicate survived.

This book is actually what kick started my whole interest in evo-bio almost a decade ago, great mention. Dawkins was a breakthrough author in this regard and while some criticise his atheistic views, i've always been glad to get a primer on genetics from him.

Spoiler

Some other honorable mentions are At Dawn and Red Queen, but those are separate topics, but enlightening nonetheless

 

[RaciallyAndrogynous]

3rd option. That’s all that matters. Longevity.

There have been instances of far reaching gene pools being completely/mostly wiped out (natives). It’s about longevity

Ah it's a great topic of discussion, i was going to write out a few sentences for each point of view, but again, maybe that stifles the conversation just to lay it out like that. I would tend to agree, but there some factors that suggest the other two may play a role, but on the whole, yes i agree. Even if i don't want to, as it makes my previous option to even more likely to come true, the pieces start to come together.

 

[RaciallyAndrogynous]

Cool. Nice add for dating, and screwing around a bit.

For, offspring Maxxing . Is it good also??
All knowing the basic ideal is: as tall as possible, as white as possible, as mid-european phenotype as possible.

The mix of 1 white parent and 1 latin parent; might work out well. Especially if offspring is tall, golden skin and then blue eyes.
I also know 1 guy, tall big white Dutch guy and not bad looking also. He married a cute looking, but also small and short Colombian woman.
They had 5 kids.The 3 men/boys. Now all adults. Where fucked, incels i guestimate. 2 of them moved to japan, to find women there. 1 still here. The problem was, the looks didn't appeal much to the local dutch and they were short for Netherlands standards. They got height mogged so much, by these tall Dutch guys that we are.

People discuss the possibility of offspringmaxxing, but in our present day, isn't offspring maxxing all about wealth? If you can produce high-iq subhuman coders that earn 200k a year and surgerymaxx, surely that has more genetic longevity than a high-tier normie construction worker?

 

[Gaia262]

People discuss the possibility of offspringmaxxing, but in our present day, isn't offspring maxxing all about wealth? If you can produce high-iq subhuman coders that earn 200k a year and surgerymaxx, surely that has more genetic longevity than a high-tier normie construction worker?

Being born good looking is superior to being born subhuman then working your ass of until you can fix your subhumanity by then it wont be worth it. + your kids will have to undergo the same process to escape their subhumanity.

 

[eduardkoopman]

People discuss the possibility of offspringmaxxing, but in our present day, isn't offspring maxxing all about wealth?

From what perspective though?
Most peolpe want. healthy + good loking + smart children; ideally.
I think actually also in that order. Although people will downplay the looks aspect they want for their kids, because don't wann slound superficial or body shaming or whatever.
But I hear parents and other mostly talking about:
1. how cute the kid looks (or not) aka attractive
2. if the kid is on a good growth path to get tall.
And then follows talks about school performance, and stuff.

If you can produce high-iq subhuman coders that earn 200k a year and surgerymaxx, surely that has more genetic longevity than a high-tier normie construction worker?

In cases of poverty, you are right. There a high earner/resources person holds alot of value. Maybe even will mogg a Chad. because poverty line life IS BRUTAL. STill 10% of world population lives on less the $2 per day.
So in those locations, I agree.
for the other places with relative good living standards, and survival is pretty easy. Looks mogg.

 

[RaciallyAndrogynous]

Being born good looking is superior to being born subhuman then working your ass of until you can fix your subhumanity by then it wont be worth it. + your kids will have to undergo the same process to escape their subhumanity.

After a few generations of wealth, it won't matter because all the subhumans will be breeded out by good genetics following the money of subhuman high earners. Put it this way.

6 psl Chadlite tradeworker earns 25k a year and mates a 5 psl becky and have 5 psl children (poor)
3 psl low tier codemonkey (LM 5) earning 200k a year mates a 7 psl stacy and has 6 psl children (with money)
This richkids can then looksmax furthe with surgery, furthering the gap between the two. Chads 5 psl kids may only be able to get 4.5 beckys due to the stock moving towards subhuman codemonkey's looksmaxxed kids.

Spoiler

Does that make sense?

 

[RaciallyAndrogynous]

From what perspective though?

I would say from the perspective of the genetic game that i am discussing here. If we say that we want genetic longetivity, then we should aim first to max out IQ and dark-triad like traits to pump-out 200k a year codemonkeys who can then looksmaxx and start the virtuous genetic cycle. It's just a hypothesis for now, but you would conded that your locationmaxxing strategy does depends to some extent on wealthmaxxing beforehand.

Spoiler

This is part of my larger thesis that holds that wealthmaxxing is more important than looksmaxxing, even though they feed into each other. When we can start editing personality in genes, that's when the real fun starts

 

[RaciallyAndrogynous]

From what perspective though?
Most peolpe want. healthy + good loking + smart children; ideally.
I think actually also in that order. Although people will downplay the looks aspect they want for their kids, because don't wann slound superficial or body shaming or whatever.
But I hear parents and other mostly talking about:
1. how cute the kid looks (or not) aka attractive
2. if the kid is on a good growth path to get tall.
And then follows talks about school performance, and stuff.
In cases of poverty, you are right. There a high earner/resources person holds alot of value. Maybe even will mogg a Chad. because poverty line life IS BRUTAL. STill 10% of world population lives on less the $2 per day.
So in those locations, I agree.
for the other places with relative good living standards, and survival is pretty easy. Looks mogg.

Spoiler

I am an economist by training, so you have you excuse my overly formulaic approach to looksmaxxing

If we take this mog theory to its extreme, we should be looking to mog to the highest degree, without having to drag the genetics down too far.

As you mentioned, a loas or columbian blend would drag down your height stat by a considerable margin, but still mog 90% of natives

Spoiler

so what we have to do is calculate the optimal place on earth where your genetics can both mog, and then return to your native land once wealth can been built, given that the only reason you are leaving the homeland is because you will never wealthmog there

Spoiler

I have to think about a way to express this mathematically, because the variables are confusing. So lets say y = long term genetic fitness. Some variables p = parental fitness, e = environment, r = random chance, p = {w, g, i}, wealth, genes, intelligence. I separate intelligence because of how important it is. We could say g = looks, height, frame, personality-a where a and b are the nature, nurture components of personality. Wew this is getting a tad on the 'tistic side but i'm lovin it, lets dive deeper

Spoiler

Okay, so we have looks as a whooole composite of everything that this forum talks about. That is the easiest to quantify as a psl which has already been done, the others are not so easy, but at least l=psl, but wait, psl can be modified with fruading, surgerymaxxing and social signalling! Dang it this is reminding me of my college days... Also f**k those toffee-nosed professors who hated me for being racemixxed and would constantly look down on me, i can do math too motherfucker!! Ahem where was i...

Spoiler

Okay, to finish up for now before my mind start unravelling a little, we have y = {p, e, r} where p = {w, g, i}, 'e' is pretty much a consequence of 'w' at this point, since where you were born, what food you ate, all of that can come down to wealth, then random change should include the elements of war, accidents, death and such. Not sure where to move the model forward from here, so if anyone has read my schizoposting, please let me know

 

[RaciallyAndrogynous]

I actually quite like the perfection theory and voted for it myself

Spoiler

not sure that i have enough steam to go through the whole thing as i see it, but the basics is about finding a meaning beyond yourself, to aim for some sort of aesthetic perfection is a high enough goal. Similar the looksmaxxing, but over a longer time scale i suppose. Geneticsmaxxing? Whatever it is, it comes out the other end as 6'5 nordic (or North-Atlantid) phenotype, light eyes and blonde hair. The essential Aryan archetype.

Spoiler

But we are not all destined for this future, so why would we aim for this? A future projection of something i view as 'mine', genetic code that has very little to do with my identity or sense of self, and yet i wish to help it ascend its impurities.

 

[Arkantos]

Second and third.

 

[AutisticBeaner]

What?

 

[eduardkoopman]

I would say from the perspective of the genetic game that i am discussing here. If we say that we want genetic longetivity, then we should aim first to max out IQ and dark-triad like traits to pump-out 200k a year codemonkeys who can then looksmaxx and start the virtuous genetic cycle.

to me it seems, that people in general do it the other way around, generally. Both men and women.
Looksmaxx genetically (aka find the best looking mate), and see then if he has decent IQ and other things. But these things often take a back seat over looks.

FROM a PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE. Everyone is trying to cheat their way upwards, from what they look like. Hence most peaople on average appraoch people online (and other places) that are 25% more attractive looking then they are. In an balances market place, it would be law of averagess, mean that everyone will need to settle for an equally-ish attractive partner.
Which is still the most common thing I see. Peaople ending up with each other. based on matching principle.

Only in odd pplaces. Where the relattionship market place is skewed in your favour. Then you generally speaking beat your looks odds

 

[RaciallyAndrogynous]

to me it seems, that people in general do it the other way around, generally. Both men and women.
Looksmaxx genetically (aka find the best looking mate), and see then if he has decent IQ and other things. But these things often take a back seat over looks.

FROM a PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE. Everyone is trying to cheat their way upwards, from what they look like. Hence most peaople on average appraoch people online (and other places) that are 25% more attractive looking then they are. In an balances market place, it would be law of averagess, mean that everyone will need to settle for an equally-ish attractive partner.
Which is still the most common thing I see. Peaople ending up with each other. based on matching principle.

Only in odd pplaces. Where the relattionship market place is skewed in your favour. Then you generally speaking beat your looks odds

I don't think i follow. Are you saying that on average normies will looksmatch with their long-term partner?
Or are you saying that it was that way before techno-hypergamy?
I agree that we are all trying to cheat our way upwards

 

[eduardkoopman]

I don't think i follow. Are you saying that on average normies will looksmatch with their long-term partner?

In general that was/is the case. Depends on location factors alot. But in an even market place, that shoudl be the case.
Most relationships happen based on "matching" factor.

Matching hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or are you saying that it was that way before techno-hypergamy?

Yeah. Hypergamy only really works, in a market place that is not even.
AND imo in the West, where Hypergamy happens plenty. The dating market is not equal/flat.
Why?
There are about 1.05 orso boys born for every girl. And due to low deaths. below the age of40 orso. men outnumber women significantly.
For example in USA. the gender ratio betwen 15-24 is 1.04. That's pretty bad odds, for boys.

That's imo. the main factor why Hypergamy can work decently for females in the West nowadays. Because male surplus.

 

[Deleted member 245]

Options 1 + 3 for women
Options 1 + 2 + 3 for men