all 182 comments

[–]Sandkasten 210 points211 points  (30 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nice guys finish last. Scientifically proven.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    [deleted]

      [–]ChoppinTheTarts 17 points18 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      This comment is so very important. Things are constantly changing and we must to if we are to stay ahead of the curve.

      What was true yesterday may not be true today.

      [–]telechronn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Exactly, science is about provisional truth.

      [–]1KingofRiders 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Im always trying to explain this stuff to my male friends without using any of the dirty terms that come with poor connotations like "red pill." Scientific studies like this are gold because I know for myself I'm much more willing to buy an argument that comes with a well-done study and graph as a selling point.

      [–]monsieurhire2 11 points12 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Yes, but as we all know now, the etymology of nice is "foolish!'

      Presumably kind and gentle guys finish second to last.

      [–]cookiecutterbullshit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      kind and gentle SHITLORDS

      [–]wazzym 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I think OP is confusing arrogance with confidence....I think you can still be Hubmle & Alpha!!

      [–]HobKing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Huh? It clearly says that it's the nice guys who are preferred in long-term relationships.

      [–]trpalternate 76 points77 points  (12 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Also more proof for those in LTRs that you need to know when to alpha up and when to let in a little bit of beta. It is also a good explanation of why dread game works.

      [–]lono12[S] 41 points42 points  (3 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      True. Dread game literally gets their panties wet. Sad.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      [deleted]

        [–]17 Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 16 points17 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Really?

        I love running dread game, because Dread Week coincides with Blowjob Week.

        [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Doesnt even need to be dread game, I'm most likely leaving to another country in 8 months.

        After telling this to my current LTR she has been clinging on harder than ever, we used to spend time half and half. Now she always come to my place and doesnt even complain.

        [–]Sandkasten 12 points13 points  (4 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Good point about the dread game. I did not noticed this.

        [–]seanyok 7 points8 points  (3 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        What is the dread game?

        [–]Kharn0 7 points8 points  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Its like fishing, you gotta give some slack once in a while before you can reel it in some more

        [–]trpalternate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I'm stealing this.

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Yeah, you can't run 100% alpha game in a relationship. You do need some beta sweetness.

        Still far better to err on the side of alphaness though.

        [–]gwizmcpyro 46 points47 points  (34 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        This is exactly why I sometimes think we as humans are a bunch of glorified cavemen. We've been able to cure diseases and walk on the moon, but at the end of the day, we still run on the instincts that kept us alive for so long, and for good reason.The strong and dominant run this world. When your think about, how different is a presidential debate from a two Cro Magnons slugging it out in front of the tribe to see who will be the leader.

        [–]korzybski 76 points77 points  (20 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Collectivism, bro.

        "We" don't do shit. Individuals acting of their own volition do shit.

        "We" didn't "cure diseases".

        "We" didn't "walk on the moon".

        Very, very few individuals make break-throughs.

        Then wankers like you come in and claim credit by way of abusing words.

        [–]17 Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 30 points31 points  (7 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Then wankers like you come in and claim credit by way of abusing words.

        Not quite. Human specialisation (and scientific discovery) is a result of cooperation without co-crediting.

        Alexander Fleming commonly gets the lion's share of credit for developing lysozyme and penicillin...

        ...but how much of that credit do we force him to give to James Clerk Maxwell's simply because Fleming's lab had electricity?

        ...or to the efforts of the Scottish engineers whose efforts enabled the use of electricity in Scotland in 1928?

        [–]boydeer 7 points8 points  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        i was actually thinking about this the other day. i was satisfied with myself about some little project i did all by myself, and then i realized that someone else did 99% of the work, all the way from making the tools, designing and standardizing couplings, coming up with the device, and so on.

        [–]17 Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Even worse: you and all those men who developed the tools were fully-formed human beings when you began your projects!

        If you were truly intellectually honest, you would have begun as a single-celled organism and gone from there.

        [–]gurglemel 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Totally agree here. I still think that at the "quantum" level, it boils down to raw personal volition. Nobody pressures anyone to do anything, and I do really think that there are still a select few (even when cooperating directly or indirectly) who want to make change for the heck of it. Those guys are the real heroes.

        A lot of people take the Objecvitist standpoints out of context. It's not about "not needing people", but more like "not needing anything except for your own mind to achieve your own, personal potential". That includes seeking help when you think you need it. As opposed to being taught by society that you cannot succeed without collaboration. It's too literal for its own good.

        That being said, I don't think I've ever done anything on my own without any influence or help in some form, but it always did boil down to my own perseverence and determination, which without it nothing would have materialized.

        edit: once could argue that our minds are still just a bunch of particles colliding as part of the chain reaction that started with the big bang and even if we think we "change our minds" about something, it's really all just the big bang's pre-bang parameters unfolding. kind of depressing.

        [–]17 Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        That being said, I don't think I've ever done anything on my own without any influence or help in some form, but it always did boil down to my own perseverence and determination, which without it nothing would have materialized.

        edit: once could argue that our minds are still just a bunch of particles colliding as part of the chain reaction that started with the big bang and even if we think we "change our minds" about something, it's really all just the big bang's pre-bang parameters unfolding. kind of depressing.

        You could go even simpler than the Big Bang.

        I'm sure everyone reading this comment didn't make the shirt that they're wearing. Boom, dependence on another person.

        It's not a big deal.

        [–]gurglemel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        There you go.

        [–]Epicureanist 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        This is what I come to trp for; brutal honesty.We stand on the shoulders of giants. Most people (myself included) are average cunts who like to drink, watch tv, and relax. Your post was refreshing.

        [–]Sandkasten 26 points27 points  (2 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        But I pay taxes!?

        [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        About 90% of your federal taxes goes to wars, crack heads with 10 kids and their medical payments, social security and Medicare.

        Yay?

        Check out the federal budget sometime. It's depressing how little of our money actually goes towards things like NASA and scientific discovery.

        [–]vaker 16 points17 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        You forgot bank bailouts and various subsidies. More was spent on the recent bank bailouts than cumulatively on NASA since it's inception. If that's not fucked up I don't know what is.

        [–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (2 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Actually if you don't commit crimes that don't hurt others, are non violent and nice to others, you are indeed helping the people who make all of the discoveries.

        Geniuses need a community they can live in where they don't live in fear of being attacked and where being smart isn't ostracized.

        I've tried to figure out why the Africans are so wildly unsuccessful even though 2% of their population has an IQ of over 115. It's because there aren't enough smart Africans to build a community around intelligence and non violence.

        Geniuses don't live in a vacuum, they need an infrastructure to be successful. By not being a violent, stupid asshole you are contributing.

        My apologies if you are a violent, stupid asshole. Then you are indeed not contributing anything.

        [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        My apologies if you are a violent, stupid asshole. Then you are indeed not contributing anything.

        according to recent studies, he's contributing to getting his dick sucked

        [–]systmshk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        The smart ones usually go to work in Europe or the US for hugely better pay. It takes massive altruism to work for very low pay, even for the benefit of your own country.

        [–]JGH8763 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Every individual who has had any degree of success ought to attribute most of their success to the efforts of others. Every single one.

        [–]Tsilent_Tsunami 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Then wankers like you ... abusing words

        People actually use the word "wankers" in real life?

        [–]2 Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        British people tend to use that word whilst thrusting their index and middle fingers upward.

        [–]Tsilent_Tsunami 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I would find that pretty amusing, and would probably openly laugh at someone saying that. They're pretty much announcing that they're not a person who masturbates? (if I understand "wank" correctly) So to call someone a wanker is to proclaim ones self to be sexually dysfunctional.

        The amusing part comes from them probably intending the exact opposite.

        [–]Murasa -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Way to be a pedant.

        [–]JGH8763 12 points13 points  (7 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Yes, we're glorified cavemen, in a sense, but let's not glorify our caveman-ness. Don't act like any of this red pill shit is a good thing. Yes, it's a good thing to recognize it, to realize that the respective dynamics exist, and to then act accordingly, but let's not act as if it's the ideal way for humanity to function. Quite the opposite. It would be nice if humans were nice, rather than the savages we are now. We should understand our savage nature, not rationalize it.

        [–]The_Floating_Dick 5 points6 points  (6 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        let's not glorify our caveman-ness. Don't act like any of this red pill shit is a good thing.... Quite the opposite.

        That's actually the reasoning behind Christianity. It encourages unnatural behaviours, which are beneficial to the development of a society and condemns the detrimental ones. "Devil" is just the metaphor for the "animal inside each of us" - undesirable instincts. Forbidden behaviours like stealing, adultery, gluttony are pretty human things to do. But they keep the progress back. Therefore, people should be incentivized by the divine omnipotent being, who will punish or reward them in afterlife(which conveniently makes it impossible to check the validity of it) based on their behaviours.

        [–]JGH8763 1 point2 points  (5 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Christianity is awful as a description of the world and as a prescription for the humanity. If we reject religion, we can just have moral philosophy.

        [–]The_Floating_Dick -1 points0 points  (4 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Christianity is awful as a description of the world

        What do you mean by that?

        ...and as a prescription for the humanity.

        I actually disagree. Basic concepts provide a good direction, although some ideas are indeed dated by now and the Christianity in its current form needs a bit of chiseling...

        If we reject religion, we can just have moral philosophy

        Who will define then what is universally morally wrong or right and why would all people obey these moral standards?

        [–]JGH8763 0 points1 point  (3 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Christianity is awful as a description of the world

        What do you mean by that?

        It makes descriptive statements about the world that are wrong, the most obvious example being the creation story.

        ...and as a prescription for the humanity.

        I actually disagree. Basic concepts provide a good direction, although some ideas are indeed dated by now and the Christianity in its current form needs a bit of chiseling...

        It's dated because we realized it had bad moral prescriptions, and have since accepted more moral philosophies and ways of living. It had some good things, sure, but it's our own sense of morality that picks those things out and rejects the bad things, which tells you that we're not getting those things from Christianity, we're getting those things from ourselves.

        If we reject religion, we can just have moral philosophy

        Who will define then what is universally morally wrong or right and why would all people obey these moral standards?

        We will, and currently do, together. We live in moral ways because it's beneficial to do so.

        [–]The_Floating_Dick 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        It makes descriptive statements about the world that are wrong, the most obvious example being the creation story.

        I was speaking about a basic concept of Christianity, rather than literal understanding of every word of holy writings. And it's really surprising to me, that there are enough people taking it literally to make this disclaimer necessary. High-rank clergymen themselves say that holy wirtings should be perceived as parables, rather than the records of actual events like God taking actual rib from actual Adam and creating actual Eve from it.

        we're not getting those things from Christianity, we're getting those things from ourselves.

        By saying "we", you extrapolize your outlook on all people. But the majority of people are neither smart nor intrinsically ethical. And back in the days, at the dawn of christianity the situation was even worse.

        Without couple of smart guys actually writing all the rules and imposing fear throught the omnipotent observer, people would kill and mug other people as if there was no tomorrow. It was necessary for the development of civilization.

        Of course nowadays the issues are a bit different. It's easier to control people's behaviour through government apparatus and old version of christianity is holding the society back. And current pope is moving in the right direction by trying to adapt it to modern reality.

        Who will define then what is universally morally wrong or right and why would all people obey these moral standards?

        We will, and currently do, together. We live in moral ways because it's beneficial to do so.

        It's not and we don't. If I had a chance to steal a large sum of money and knew I won't be caught - I would do it in the heartbeat and give zero fucks about how the society perceives it as "wrong". But if I genuinely believed I'd burn in hell for the whole eternity for that - I probably would think it isn't worth it.

        [–]JGH8763 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I was speaking about a basic concept of Christianity, rather than literal understanding of every word of holy writings. And it's really surprising to me, that there are enough people taking it literally to make this disclaimer necessary. High-rank clergymen themselves say that holy wirtings should be perceived as parables, rather than the records of actual events like God taking actual rib from actual Adam and creating actual Eve from it.

        That wasn't the case until science showed that the creation story was almost certainly not true. It was taken literally before then, and still is by more honest Christians. If we're going to go down this road, either every descriptive claim it makes are parables or none of them are. If we're going to disregard the actual existence of the creation story, we should disregard the actual existence of Christ.

        It's not and we don't. If I had a chance to steal a large sum of money and knew I won't be caught - I would do it in the heartbeat and give zero fucks about how the society perceives it as "wrong". But if I genuinely believed I'd burn in hell for the whole eternity for that - I probably would think it isn't worth it.

        If you need to be threatened by a magical pretend dictator in order to cooperate with other humans, that's on you. But the mere existence of moral philosophy and non-hierarchical cooperation disproves the notion that such a thing is necessary for people to behave well.

        [–]The_Floating_Dick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        That wasn't the case until science showed that the creation story was almost certainly not true. It was taken literally before then, and still is by more honest Christians. If we're going to go down this road, either every descriptive claim it makes are parables or none of them are. If we're going to disregard the actual existence of the creation story, we should disregard the actual existence of Christ.

        This is irrelevant since my point was about the message of christianity.

        But the mere existence of moral philosophy and non-hierarchical cooperation disproves the notion that such a thing is necessary for people to behave well.

        The mere existence of people, who don't wear glasses, disproves, that glasses are necessary for people to see well.

        If you need to be threatened by a magical pretend dictator in order to cooperate with other humans...

        How did you arrive at this conclusion?

        [–]Manuel_S 5 points6 points  (3 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        We ARE cavemen. Just... very sophisticated.

        Funny too, a lot of the geeks are beta. Maybe for the long-term long-distance thought you need a respite from the raging fires of testosterone? Or it is re-directed sexual energy that finds no way out.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        [deleted]

          [–]gurglemel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          I'm still trying to figure out when to be my usual "this is beyond my control, stop trying to get people to behave a certain way around me" and when to lay it down when a man or woman is treating me in a way that I dislike. (rude, disrespectful, condescending, etc).

          [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 30 points31 points  (2 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          love overrode everything

          That's a fucking hamsterisation if I ever saw one. Meaning "he gives me so many butterflies I just don't give a fuck, I'll rationalise my poor decisions later as not being my fault."

          [–]hringmisual 9 points10 points  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          wrong thread...

          [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Yeah my bad it was meant for the thread where the woman dates a multimillionaire drug baron I've had too many tabs open.

          [–]Manuel_S 21 points22 points  (2 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          I don't know if you guys really understand the meaning of this.

          The brain structure doesn't shift around with cycle, it basically "reads the dial" on the hormones that tell the body what part of the cycle it is. And its not sophisticated information either, its more of a "high chance of preggers" vs "not so likely to get baby".

          And yet, evolution has managed to make it so fucking specific and targeted that this simple shift in a few molecules completely alters complex behaviours in a way that the forebrain is unaware of.

          I'm thinking it probably works indirectly, by changing the weight of some characteristics when evaluating SMV. A bit like we're REALLY strongly weighted towards boobs, or that curve in the hips, or that smooth tight ass... stuff that we specifically target as valuable indicators.

          (I get mad on boobs, hypnotized. Could spend a whole day looking at those things. Fuck!)

          This IS sophisticated, guys. Really, it is like testosterone level activating/deactivating whole groups of behaviours.

          [–]1KingofRiders 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          I don't know if male sexual preferences should be applied to women at all. I know we have a hormonal cycle but I also think mens preferences tend to be broader than womans. For instance most if not all women love muscularity/height/aggressiveness when they're horny. And almost all women like the description "tall dark and handsome." the spotted board for my school on facebook proves this to me time and again. But men are spread like butter across the board. I don't care much about tits at all, I'm 100% a hips/thighs/assman. Some guys love em tall, some short, some love tits, some love ass, some love asians, some love white girls, or crooked teeth or straight teeth. or chubbier or skinnier.

          Men have much wider preferences and I don't think this is BS Im pulling from thin air but has real evolutionary purposes. Women seek to mate with one particular type of alpha male while men seek to mate with either a wide range of women or naturally seek what they happen to see as good genes.

          That said I know my sexual preferences and the WAY I think change drastically from the months where I lift to the months where I dont lift.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Throw in concealed ovulation for good measure.

          Point is, man in a relationships usually knows his partners cycle, while random strangers in bars not, except for the fact that women are more likely to go out when ovulating. What follows from all this?

          [–]1KingofRiders 8 points9 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          From the discussion

          "These findings are also consistent with a number of recent studies examining patterns of women’s sexual attraction across the cycle. Two studies found that when women are fertile they report greater attraction to men other than their partners, but not greater attraction to their partners "

          "Others have emphasized that women may have distinct short-term and long-term preferences, with short-term mating functioning ancestrally as a way for women to acquire good genes for offspring (e.g., Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The current research supports the idea that women have distinct short-term and long-term mating preference"

          Haha oh man, so good.

          [–]16 Endorsed Contributorss_camaro 38 points39 points  (18 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          When a women calls you arrogant, it's the highest compliment she can think of.

          Conversely, "intelligent" is an insult.

          [–]17 Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 18 points19 points  (6 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Conversely, "intelligent" is an insult.

          I don't think that's quite the case. In my experience, the compliments that a woman gives you are rationalizations in service of different agendas.

          If a girl is not attracted to you, and she compliments you, the compliment is meant to ease your ego after a failed attempt at seduction (i.e. a beta orbiter gives a girl a present for Valentine's Day and she says "Awww, that's so sweet!", while she privately feels "this guy ain't getting up in this pussy"). The compliment is her attempt to secure you in her orbit.

          If a girl is attracted to you and she gives you a compliment, then the compliment is the rationalization she is using to justify her interest in you, and she's saying it out loud for the sake of reinforcement. The compliment is a pellet for her hamster.

          But of course, we all know it's the vagina tingles that make a woman feel attraction.

          I've been called "smart" by just about every woman who went behind her boyfriend's back to fuck me.

          [–]16 Endorsed Contributorss_camaro 5 points6 points  (5 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Down there "arrogant" is the rainforest and "intelligent" the Gobi Desert.

          [–]17 Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 2 points3 points  (4 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Down there "arrogant" is the rainforest and "intelligent" the ?- Gobi Desert -?.

          "Down there", I prefer Gobi Desert to Amazon rainforest.

          But that's just me.

          [–]autowikibot 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Gobi Desert:


          The Gobi (/ˈɡoʊ.bi/; Mongolian: Говь, Govi, "semidesert"; Chinese: 戈壁; pinyin: Gēbì ) is a large desert region in Asia. It covers parts of northern and northwestern China, and of southern Mongolia. The desert basins of the Gobi are bounded by the Altai Mountains and the grasslands and steppes of Mongolia on the north, by the Hexi Corridor and Tibetan Plateau to the southwest, and by the North China Plain to the southeast. The Gobi is most notable in history as part of the great Mongol Empire, and as the location of several important cities along the Silk Road.

          Image i


          Interesting: Mongolian death worm | Mongolia | Taklamakan Desert | Inner Mongolia

          /u/HumanSockPuppet can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words | flag a glitch

          [–]17 Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Whoosh!

          [–]16 Endorsed Contributorss_camaro 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Browntown is always one wrong exit away.

          [–]17 Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          But it don't mean you can't enjoy your stay.

          [–]boydeer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          i've pulled some decent pussy with "intelligent"

          [–]drallcom3 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          I would associate intelligent with good provider.

          You're not fucking her brain out with your brain. I'm intelligent and thinking about the whole process of approaching women is sadly a hindrance. Sometimes I envy all those stupid idiots who just trust their guts and go for it.

          [–]16 Endorsed Contributorss_camaro 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          I would associate intelligent with good provider

          You might, but women do not.

          They like dumb, impulsive, preferably wealthy, men they can sponge off of.

          Bux, Fuxs and intelligence doesn't mix well for them.

          Hence their natural aversion, like the school yard bully, to intelligence.

          [–]drallcom3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          There are plenty of intelligent betas, e.g. almost the entire IT industry.

          [–]verus_mas -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          What if you're both? Dark triad mothafuckas

          [–]RejectionEquality 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          lol

          [–]MajorasAss -1 points0 points  (3 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          intelligent

          I thought one of the TRP teachings was that women love men who are smarter than them? Or is that wrong?

          [–]vaker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Higher status yes. I haven't seen intelligence discussed.

          [–]FinalEquin0x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          With Intelligence I think it can be good or bad depending on the context.

          [–]ButterMyBiscuit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          I think this is true of LTRs, but largely irrelevant for hookups/FWB.

          [–]someonewrongonthenet 30 points31 points  (13 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Trading sensationalism for accuracy...

          Women are more attracted to men who they think are unfaithful place lower weight on traits they perceive as indicating unfaithfulness and higher weights for anti-correlated traits like arrogance for short term hookups.

          ...as the chart shows, for long term relationships, faithfulness and warmed are actually some of the most valued traits.

          Basically, women love have sex with shit starting cunts.

          ...

          arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl has a hookup while the warm faithful beta stays home and faps into his sock gets a long term girlfriend.

          People are reading your summary and thinking the study means traits like warmth, faithfulness, intelligence are not valued. That's not what is happening at all. The actual finding is that trait cluster A and trait cluster B are both valuable, but one is relatively more important for short term relationships while the other is relatively more important for long term relationships.

          ...all of which seems perfectly sensible to me. When you don't have to actually put up with someone, having a good personality matters a lot less. Most men function in rather similar ways - if anything, the difference in short-term vs. long term trait weighting would be more dramatic for men

          (Disclaimer - I'm not part of this community, but that shouldn't matter. Science should be universal, no matter what your ideology is.)

          [–]cookiecutterbullshit 9 points10 points  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          The only part which you have forgotten is that the traits which are relatively more important for short term hookups are also the traits which sport a high degree of physical attractiveness across the fertility cycle. The traits more important for long term relationships are not physically attractive.

          The implication is that when you're looking for a ONS, only attractiveness matters (just like guys), and when looking for an LTR, traits which logically should factor in, have a tendency to be factored in more.

          [–]someonewrongonthenet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          when you're looking for a ONS, only attractiveness matters (just like guys)

          That seems like it's likely true? I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

          Well, not just attractiveness. Some behavioral traits are sexy even for short term mating. For example:

          Haselton and Miller (2006) asked women to choose one of two hypothetical men as more attractive as a long-term and as a short-term mate. One man was described as creative and talented in his field but not financially successful. The other was described as wealthy but not highly talented. Fertile women particularly preferred talent over wealth in short-term mates

          ...not to mention the whole confidence/arrogance/confrontation thing.

          Generalizing from myself, I feel like this is true for men too. I'd be immediately more attracted to someone if they displayed a talent or something, even in the short term.

          [–]lono12[S] 22 points23 points  (3 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          In our current mating context, short term relationships are the only ones that matter.

          If you're not attractive for short term relationships then you're not attractive, period. Nobody gets turned on by warmth or faithfulness.

          [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          If you mean by current mating context young, sexy people being horny in music bars in highly feminized western cities where most young and hot women are not taught to care about long term considerations in life and deferred gratification is not a thing, yes, totally true, just qualify that properly.

          Of course sexual attraction matters in every context, just in some context it is more balanced with other stuff.

          [–]autowikibot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Deferred gratification:


          Delayed gratification, or deferred gratification, is the ability to resist the temptation for an immediate reward and wait for a later reward. Generally, delayed gratification is associated with resisting a smaller but more immediate reward in order to receive a larger or more enduring reward later. A growing body of literature has linked the ability to delay gratification to a host of other positive outcomes, including academic success, physical health, psychological health, and social competence. Walter Mischel has led the research on delayed gratification, most notably the Stanford marshmallow experiment, which shed light on the long-term results of a person's ability to delay gratification.


          Interesting: Delayed gratification | Gratification | Enlightened self-interest | Reality principle | Impulsivity

          /u/shenpen can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words | flag a glitch

          [–]someonewrongonthenet -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Nobody

          From personal experience I doubt that. Attraction and comfort seem very closely linked, in my experience (both from who I'm attracted to, and who is attracted to me). With regards to faithfulness, I'm actually polyamorous, and judging from your statement you'd be surprised how many otherwise interested women are turned off by the fact that I don't offer exclusivity.

          From a theoretical standpoint, read up on the concept of "Sociosexuality". Many people (those with low sociosexuality) actually can't get aroused unless they have a level of comfort and familiarity with the other person. For those with high sociosexuality, comfort and familiarity are less necessary for attraction.

          What cools passion in LTR's is the loss of novelty, not the acquisition of comfort.

          In our current mating context, short term relationships are the only ones that matter.

          Not sure what you mean?

          [–]1KingofRiders 9 points10 points  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Except every month the woman prefers to cheat and sexually favors men who arent their partners. In a society where every woman is told to simply "follow her intuition" or "trust herself" and where there is no backlash or real punishment for cheating (there are always a line of guys waiting to LTR it up) then what happens? And its not very relative the results are pretty strong.

          proof from discussion "These findings are also consistent with a number of recent studies examining patterns of women’s sexual attraction across the cycle. Two studies found that when women are fertile they report greater attraction to men other than their partners, but not greater attraction to their partners "

          And you are saying science should be universal but by admitting you aren't part of our community you admit the same but opposing bias we have. You seek to interpret the results in a blue-pill fashion where NAWALT - and that we're crazy and women want to be in an ltr with warm, subservient and catering men (b-b-b-b-beta to the bone). Which is true but omits that women still want to fuck and have kids with alphas and then cuckold these nice guys into the ltr. If 70% of divorces weren't initiated by women or there wasnt the real world driving guys like us here you might have a point. But you don't because you're still in the matrix hanging onto your disney fantasies.

          [–]someonewrongonthenet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          And its not very relative the results are pretty strong.

          The word "Relative" here doesn't mean "in the realm of subjective opinion". It means "ratio". As in, there are relatively more republicans in Texas, compared to California. The data shows that some traits are relatively more preferred for short term mating and during ovulation.

          You seek to interpret the results in a blue-pill fashion

          If I've misinterpreted the results, you can just point to the misinterpretation. There's no need to extensively bring ideology into it, even if the misinterpretation is a result of ideological blinders.

          Not sure what to say to your other points...I'm not sure how they relate to my comment? I've gotta say, as someone who has ditched monogamy altogether as limiting, it's not everyday people accuse me of being in a disney fantasy. Don't assume "red" and "blue" are the only points on the ideological map here.

          [–]The_Floating_Dick 0 points1 point  (4 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl has a hookup while the warm faithful beta stays home and faps into his sock gets a long term girlfriend.

          Well, if I had to choose, I'd rather not be the one sitting at home and anxiously waiting when my long-term girlfriend is done getting fucked by some arrogant, confrontational gorilla. I'd rather not hug her, talk to her about feelings, provide for her and lead near-platonic realtionship until she feels the urge to have a side cock again.

          I'd rather be the side cock. The one she visualizes when she forces herself to suck the undesirable dick of her "soulmate", as the reward for buying her a pair of diamond earrings for anniversary.

          [–]someonewrongonthenet 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          As long as we are talking about what we would choose, to me that sounds unfulfilling and almost bordering on immoral (since you're involved in someone doing something they'll likely regret later), but whatever - to each their own.

          Only about 20% of women admit to cheating though, and even if you double that to account for people lying, you still have majority not cheating. So if you are concerned about exclusivity, it's within reach.

          [–]The_Floating_Dick 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          As long as we are talking about what we would choose, to me that sounds unfulfilling and almost bordering on immoral

          The alternative is no better.

          Only about 20% of women admit[1] to cheating though, and even if you double that to account for people lying, you still have majority not cheating.

          Why not triple? Or multiply by four? One of the RedPill basics is the idea that all women have exactly the same agenda on deep, instinctive level. That feeling attraction for the best male is just the part of being a woman. Some can curb it, but even they give up once the attraction is strong enough and the status of the guy is over-the-roof.

          [–]someonewrongonthenet 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Why not triple? Or multiply by four?

          Because that seems unparsimonious to me? But whatever, we have different priors.

          If you actually care about the answer to this question, you should be asking what sort of data would cause you to change your mind. For example, you could cross check it the numbers against the percent of people who claim to have been cheated on and see if there is a huge discrepancy.

          [–]The_Floating_Dick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          For example, you could cross check it the numbers against the percent of people who claim to have been cheated on and see if there is a huge discrepancy.

          That would change the picture indeed. But it won't change my opinion and I'll try to explain why and what could change it.

          First of all, the fact that one particular woman didn't cheat doesn't mean she won't cheat. She might have never met the right man for the job yet. Or the circumstances were not right.

          She might not have had the opportunity. From the group of women who never cheated, you can confidently subtract those who could cheat with a high-value man, but they themselves are not attractive enough for him. It's way harder for a gorgeous showstopper to stay loyal, than for an objectively ugly girl. The latter simply doesn't have all those opportunities.

          Now what would change my mind is if I continuously saw examples of women rejecting high-value mens' sexual advances and staying loyal to their boyfriends of significantly lower value. Yet, I heard only about two of such cases, and even those were kind of conditional (One of those two girls was willing to and would cheat if she had a guarantee for further relationship with the guy. The other case was in a large company and the girl didn't want them to think bad of her. But she still acted very flrity-touchy and accepted near-intimate touching as well). Of course you can say "well, you probably chose such circle of acquaintances", and you'd be right, because educated women according to some study are more promiscuous. But that's the kind of women I'm interested in having relationship with, so the higher average fidelity of other women doesn't make any difference for me.

          And even if we settle at 40%, which you believe are parsimonious... It is still a fucking 40%! If you invest emotionally and she cheats - it will hit you really hard. I don't think additional emotional benefit from fully trusting her (as opposed to keeping in mind that she might cheat), overweighs this huge potential damage. I don't think my emotional health is a justifiable bet for this 40/60 gamble.

          [–]FourLokoKills 11 points12 points  (8 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          I guess you can't hate on women for being born this way, but how am I supposed to "love" women when this is how they are?

          [–]cookem8 20 points21 points  (3 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          As the great Patrice O'Neal said, it's better to like a woman than to love them.

          [–]verus_mas 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          preach

          [–]1redpillbanana 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Respect.

          [–]jcslzr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          There is a Mexican saying: "A la mujer ni todo el amor ni todo el dinero" something like: Never give a lady either all your love or all your money.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          The only solution for us it seems is to become imposing god like figures; see: celebrity, fame, mega rich, The wizard of OZ, Zardoz and North Korea. Making our worth so imposing it inspires respect and submission.

          God is laughing at us.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          Well, the study says women are more "normal" when not ovulating. So just be your GF's best possible choice, so it is impossible for her to "trade up", and make sure she feels that, and not let her hit the bars when ovulating, and it should be mostly OK. Just consider ovulation always a crazy period.

          [–]dawg826 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [–]someonewrongonthenet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          What's bad about prioritizing different traits for hookups vs. relationships?

          [–]x7CR7x 8 points9 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          This explains why I've never had an LTR but countless short term flings.

          [–]bleh321 9 points10 points  (2 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          The usefulness of this study has been compromised by a great percentage of women on the contraceptive pill.

          [–]elevul 8 points9 points  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          But shouldn't that make the body feel like it's always pregnant, and thus looking for a beta provider, disregarding alphas entirely?

          [–]Endorsed ContributorVZPurp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          So [relationship] chaos ensues when they try the various packs or go on/off.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

            [–]Endorsed ContributorAerobus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Oh my god. Everything makes so much sense now.

            [–]wildeep_MacSound 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            They forgot height

            [–]watersign 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            well, no shit

            [–]HullBredd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            same can be said about the fellas. you wouldn't marry a girl who's just good for a pump and dump, and redeeming things can seldom be said about our pump and dumps.

            [–]2 Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Proven to me last night, she is sore as fuck from my cock in her while she told her boyfriend how much she wanted to see him on her phone. I'm a bad man... And I love being bad.

            [–]esco_ 1 point2 points  (4 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            just wanted to clarify an error in your summary of the data:

            "the traits in this study were still significance and the one that was most significant was social respect (p = 0.81)"

            this is not true. the commonly accepted p value for significance is one that is below 0.05. This P value is above that value, and so would be classed as a "non-significant" result - i.e. social respect did not have an effect based on this sentence "For social respect, t(7927) = 1.51 (p = .081)".

            As an aside, p values basically just give the rate of false positives in a test. A p value of 0.081 as above means there is an 8.1% chance the observed difference (the t-value) arose by chance and that there is no real difference there. Scientists will therefore reject this result as the commonly accepted level of significance is .05. The p value has to be lower than .05 to be significant.

            [–]esco_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            In saying that, the other p values for other tests were listed as all <.04 in your text so those ones are significant.

            The .05 may seem like an arbitrary number, but is there for a reason. If we flipped a coin 100 times and it came up tails 60% of the time, the p-value on the significance test may come out as .09. This means the difference in the flips observed (40 vs 60) is not significant, and the observed difference could be expected to happen by chance 9% of the time rather than there being an effect where tails happens more

            [–]lono12[S] -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            oh fuck off

            [–]esco_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            not trying to be a dick, but the thing you stressed as most significant was actually a null result

            [–]lono12[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Your moms a null result

            [–]∞ Red Pill VisionaryRollo-Tomassi 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            [–]lono12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            An interesting point I read in another study is that hot women have vastly different attraction triggers for short term relationships than unattractive women.

            The study showed that hot women were most attracted to men who had the following personality traits: threatening, volatile, controlling, manipulative, coercive, selfish, dominant, impulsive.

            The enemy line on the following graph directly predicted attractive womens interest in short term relationship

            http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ngLrlfgkqmo/UaFkk-vtTFI/AAAAAAAABgQ/-O6pNqPadmI/s1600/Lcg9SZh.png

            [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (15 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            welcome to women. fuck those bitches, i got my own ho and fuck their weed I got my own smokes. women love being dominated and knowing youre superior to them welcome to hypergamy.

            being a nice guy isnt fun either. there's a reason why nice guys are stereotyped as norman bates. you're just sectioning yourself off and being miserable instead of calling bitches out on their shit. i tried the nice guy shit when i was younger and it didnt get me pussy, so i switched it up. use your spite and anger towards women to conquer them.

            [–][deleted]  (2 children)

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              [deleted]

                [–]ioncehadsexinapool 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                so being a dick will help me with long term relationships? cause that's what i want

                [–]1redpillbanana 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                In my arrogant opinion, this article is completely fucking wrong! Now check out my biceps.

                [–]bicureyooz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                why are there too many > signs? they were distracting. nonetheless, thanks OP.

                [–]billiegoad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                And who do you suppose they chase after in the twilight of their fertility? As they approach menopause? AS their sex drive peaks ? Yeah, your marriage is doomed betas !

                [–]mismm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                I wonder if this also holds true if she is taking birth control.

                [–]W-Z-R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                I wonder if this could be gamed in an LTR

                i.e. find out her cycle and happen to get into a fight when she is most fertile and generally be a dick and then be kinder and do relationship stuff when she is less so.

                [–]ThirdLegGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                Please take a look at hormonal levels prior and during the ovulation: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Figure_28_02_07.jpg

                Estrogen is slowly building up prior to the ovulation making a woman feel more feminine and submissive, and basically making her more attractive to prospective mates. Then LH suddenly surges and she feels a strong desire to get stuffed with an alpha cock, which should happen as soon as possible, because the newly released egg lives only for 48 hours. Then everything gets back to normal, with estrogen going down and progesterone gaining local influence.

                [–]yself 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                I wonder if this study has any implications for what happens when women hold the top position in a social network with a hierarchical structure. For example, when a woman becomes the CEO of a large corporation, or the top political office holder for a government, do these preferences influence the kinds of men they select for key positions? Some feminists claim that if more women held more high positions in the governments of the world, then we would have a more peaceful world. Yet, if women perceive more confrontational men as preferable in many ways, then as we move into a future with more women in high social positions, that claim may not have merit. I wonder if we have any studies about higher or lower levels of internal cooperative behavior patterns in some of the large corporations with women CEOs.

                [–]1Zackcid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                The powers that be would rather you shut up about this and terminate any research on female psychology and sexuality. Didn't you know that women neeeeed to remain the mysterious puzzle-pieces descended from heaven that they are?!

                [–]PrinceofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                This behavior can be traced back to the cave, where this beast did not evolve on iota. Only her speech has changed.

                This is the exact behavior she displayed in the "Matriarchy" where she brutally reigned, sent "beta" providers out for food with the "Alpha" leader and snuck next to a wandering band to get pumped just to get back in time to berate the Alpha leader and the Betas that not enough of them died and the meat is too little.

                [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                [deleted]

                  [–]sway_usa 21 points22 points  (1 child)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Yes. They are called "human women".

                  [–]elevul 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  human females

                  FTFY

                  [–]vaker 8 points9 points  (1 child)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  doesn't this just prove that the red pill theory attracts a shitty breed of woman?

                  Yes, all of them.

                  [–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (25 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  I disagree with the term "best genes" being used for meatheads. The best genes are the ones best suited for the environment, and unless you're out in the congo the guy who's much more intelligent, and financially successful is going to do much better in the modern life. Not only is is the idea of best genes wrong, but it instigates that the best men are arrogant dumbasses who hit the gym all the time.

                  I'd also argue that the best genes have always been with guys high in intelligence, and that high earners have always been diving into pussy, but that's another argument.

                  I'm not saying that beta>alpha, but that what's alpha has always been what's considered beta.

                  [–]trpalternate 38 points39 points  (3 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  While "meatheads" may or may not have the best genes for today's environment, they certainly did 10,000 years ago. Modern life has only been around for a very short time in evolutionary terms and human psychology hasn't caught up to that fact. We're living in a modern society, but parts of our brains are still wired as if we were out in the Serengeti chasing wildebeest with clubs. So while rationally, a woman might want a financially successful man who can provide for her, the old software is still telling her to find the guy who could club a sabretooth tiger.

                  [–]1johnnight 18 points19 points  (1 child)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  This.

                  The firmware is 10K years old and there is no update in sight.

                  But there is the subalgorithm, which goes for men with high social status, which does not care how the status was achieved.

                  [–]elevul 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  and there is no update in sight

                  Surprisingly we're actually pretty close. A couple more decades and it should be available.

                  [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  If you look at modern hunter-gatherers, you rarely find body builder types. More like wiry, thinly muscular men who primarily know how to use muscles, rather than how to grow them:

                  http://www.electricphysique.com/images/tribal-muscle.jpg

                  Very low body fat, nice abs, but not particularly big muscles. Still I assume they are stronger than most gym guys, by know how to use them (central nervous system thing).

                  I am not saying meatheadism doesn't work, but it works in a not-so-simple way. I mean above and beyond the sprinter look or this hunter-gatherer look. Maybe it helps more by improving your T levels and confidence and thus attitude.

                  [–]rp-oldgame 3 points4 points  (8 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  A guy who's big enough and aggressive enough to take what he wants has the good genes. As long as he's intelligent enough to know who to take it from and who not to, he's plenty smart enough, and he might not even have to be THAT smart. Women know this is a man who will get more than he deserves, and those are traits she wants to pass along to her children. It doesn't matter what the environment is, these are the genes that win.

                  [–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (7 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  That's not true at all in the modern world - For example, a 5'2, 100lb fireman who works the tomahawk rocket system on a cruiser can easily destroy an entire city of Alphas at the push of a button.

                  Polite society has replaced overt aggression with passive aggression; physical strength has been replaced by technological advancements, and science - it's not that alpha genes are better modernly, but that women are sexually retarded towards society's progress.

                  [–]lono12[S] 8 points9 points  (4 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  I don't think you understand how this works. Who has better genes, a sexy as fuck big tits and ass pornstar body babe, or a frumpy plain jane who's really sweet and outgoing, has a great job and promising career, east healthy, and goes jogging every morning.

                  Men will pick the former over the latter. And when that woman gives birth to hot daughters the cycle will repeat. Thus she has better genes

                  [–]elevul 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  I am actually entertaining the idea to find the smartest woman I can get my hands on as mother of my children. Aesthetics will be irrelevant in the next century but intelligence, intelligence will determine success, far more than it does even now.

                  [–]vaker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  My policy was finding the smartest that looks good :)

                  [–]lono12[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Horrible idea. Smart sons will lose their virginity later and have less sex and less children. They'll also have lower testosterone.

                  [–]elevul 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Smart sons will lose their virginity later and have less sex and less children

                  Irrelevant, the age of biology is coming to an end.

                  They'll also have lower testosterone.

                  Can be integrated externally, with much better results than even the person with the highest natural testosterone.

                  [–]rp-oldgame 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  If it's women's genes and sexual desires that dictate what's alpha and what's not, then yes, it IS true in modern society. It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the one with the pussy thinks.

                  Uh, isn't that the point of taking the red pill in the first place?

                  [–]vaker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  TRP talks about how women function and what they look for in a man. That is not necessarily the same thing as actually valuable or successful in modern society.

                  [–]lono12[S] 4 points5 points  (7 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  The best genes are the ones that lead to lots of surviving re-productively healthy children.

                  For example unfaithful men have better genes than faithful men. They will have unfaithful sons who will go on to reproduce with lots of different women. Thus woman are attracted to them because an unfaithful son is a better bet than a faithful son who puts all his eggs into one basket that could easily hold another mans eggs.

                  Intelligence is not sexy. Neither is faithfulness. Intelligent men are less dominant, and have less sex and fewer children.

                  [–]MajorasAss 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Intelligent men are less dominant, and have less sex and fewer children.

                  Intelligence is not sexy.

                  Where are you getting this information? Intelligence=/= nerdiness

                  [–]lono12[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  It's in the study

                  [–]MajorasAss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  In the study it says intelligence doesn't affect attractiveness either way

                  [–]vaker 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  [–]autowikibot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  Sexy son hypothesis: NSFW ?


                  The sexy son hypothesis of evolutionary biology was first proposed by Ronald Fisher in 1930. It proposes that a female animal's optimal choice among potential mates is a male whose genes will produce male offspring with the best chance of reproductive success. In particular, the sexy son hypothesis implies that a potential mate's capacity as a caregiver or any other direct benefits the male can offer the female (e.g. nuptial gifts, good territory) are irrelevant to his value as the potential father of the female's offspring. What matters are her "sexy sons"' future breeding successes (like that of their promiscuous father) in creating large numbers of offspring carrying copies of the female's genes. This hypothesis has been researched in species such as the European pied flycatcher.


                  Interesting: Mate choice | Sexual selection | Fisherian runaway | European Pied Flycatcher

                  /u/vaker can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words | flag a glitch

                  [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  It's a bit circular. It simply means that women prefer heritable characteristics that other women prefer, making their sons seen as attractive. So if there is a gene A that is seen as preferred, there may be a gene B that says whatever is the other gals preference, go with it. It means it strenghtens and reinforces A, but A could be anything.

                  It just mainly says if gene A is marginally, borderline preferred it could very quickly become a "runaway success".

                  [–]vaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  peacock tail?

                  [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                  sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                  [deleted]

                    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I was going off of the qualities that are considered attractive by females during ovulation, which omits intelligence as one of those qualities. Can guys who go to the gym be intelligent? Duh, the ancient philosophers used seek perfection spiritually, mentally, and physically, and one of my favorite youtube celbs Eliot Hulse is pretty buff too. There's also been studies that working out actually increases intelligence since it gets more oxygen pumping for the brain to work.

                    However, a lot of people, I've noticed, who work out, actually don't spend much time reading, because as people often do when they become beautiful is that they fill their time with mating.

                    [–]C_D_O 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Well the problem here is you are equating intelligence with reading.

                    In terms of life success, knowledge is not better than wisdom. Not even close. There are slews of highly intelligent, well read men who do nothing but sit inside and withdraw from society, playing video games all day. They are undoubtedly intelligent, but they are not wise to the world, usually for lack of a good male guidance.

                    A matter of deliberate intent; knowing about ancient societies and reading about cell membranes is, for all intents and purposes, absolutely useless information unless it serves a purpose. And ultimately, if you sacrifice social skills for "intelligence" you will never spread those genes.

                    Evolution is merely adaptation; there are no "good" or "bad" qualities, theres successful genes and unsuccessful genes. So while we can pontificate on what WE think would be better for the human race, the reality is while you're out there reading about string theory, some "meathead" is dumping his cum in another girl.

                    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    Wow, this really touched me; it's like I just took another red pill, not the one about women, and sexual dynamics, but of life, meaningfulness, and wisdom.

                    Thanks for the words of wisdom, not that I'm going to become a meathead now, but a better man.

                    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                    I've been slowly moving towards starting shit. In high school I was such a shut-in. Now, I'm a little more ballsy.

                    This is why I like Fight Club. Tyler Durden says, "Today, you are going to start a fight. Doesn't matter if you win or lose. Get into a fight."