The utility of beating your wife at random

The evolutionary psychology of cuckoldry is pretty clear. If the risk to life and limb is low, men and women who are fast life history strategists will strongly prefer cuckolding another man who is a slow life history strategist with their illegitimate children over raising them legitimately. Wife-beating arose as a strategy for men to reduce the risk of cuckoldry:

In this article, we use an evolutionary perspective to examine intimate partner violence, focusing on men’s violence against women. Previous examinations of intimate partner violence have typically used a proximate level of analysis, emphasizing the immediate, non-evolutionary causes of intimate partner violence. Complementing this approach, an evolutionary perspective offers an understanding of how such psychology and behavior could have arisen via natural selection. Here, we argue that (1) the recurring adaptive problem of paternity uncertainty plays a central role in intimate partner violence, (2) physical violence functions to punish and deter female sexual infidelity, and (3) sexual violence may function as an anti-cuckoldry tactic, with its occurrence related to suspicion of female sexual infidelity.

I presume that beatings don’t directly encourage fidelity so much as the reign of terror which the beatings create and reinforce. Hence, we see this strategy employed less often in high-trust populations:

Low historical rates of cuckoldry in a Western European human population traced by Y-chromosome and genealogical data


Recent evidence suggests that seeking out extra-pair paternity (EPP) can be a viable alternative reproductive strategy for both males and females in many pair-bonded species, including humans. Accurate data on EPP rates in humans, however, are scant and mostly restricted to extant populations. Here, we provide the first large-scale, unbiased genetic study of historical EPP rates in a Western European human population based on combining Y-chromosomal data to infer genetic patrilineages with genealogical and surname data, which reflect known historical presumed paternity. Using two independent methods, we estimate that over the last few centuries, EPP rates in Flanders (Belgium) were only around 1–2% per generation. This figure is substantially lower than the 8–30% per generation reported in some behavioural studies on historical EPP rates, but comparable with the rates reported by other genetic studies of contemporary Western European populations. These results suggest that human EPP rates have not changed substantially during the last 400 years in Flanders and imply that legal genealogies rarely differ from the biological ones. This result has significant implications for a diverse set of fields, including human population genetics, historical demography, forensic science and human sociobiology.

You see a lot more abuse in 3rd-world shitholes because they’re filled with shitty people who can only respond to fear. A near-perfect game theory definition of a toxic person is someone who doesn’t proactively invest in relationships with the sort of people who do proactively invest in relationships. But they still respond to punishment because everyone responds to punishment.

We hypothesized that men’s personality traits interact with men’s perceived risk of partner’s infidelity to predict men’s partner-directed violence. Moderation analyses of data provided by 467 men in a committed relationship indicated that: (1) men with lower emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and men who perceived greater risk of partner infidelity perpetrated more partner-directed violence, and (2) the relationship between men’s personality traits and partner-directed violence depends on their perceptions of the risk of partner infidelity. Simple slope analyses indicated that: (a) men’s emotional stability and agreeableness predict partner-directed violence only when perceived risk of partner infidelity is low, and (b) men’s conscientiousness predicts partner-directed violence only when perceived risk of partner infidelity is high.

For those who speak the language of r/k, this basically says that when a woman is a slow life history strategist (i.e. unlikely to cheat), then her boyfriend will only beat her if he’s neurotic and disagreeable (the criminal phenotype, basically). If a woman is a fast life history strategist (likely to cheat), then beatings can be predicted by whether the man places value on an honest day’s work. It’s likely then that the recent demise of white male conscientiousness can be linked directly to a rising perception of white female infidelity (Jordan Peterson BTFO).

As a rule you want to be about half a standard deviation less agreeable than your wife, half a standard deviation less conscientious, half a standard deviation darker-skinned, and three standard deviations more Machiavellian.

Nevertheless [the prince] ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Therefore love your wife, but trust an empowered modern woman about as far as you can throw a dinner plate.

Of course, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Female infidelity exists in the first place due to male infidelity:

The selection pressure that brought about the large differences between fathers and mothers in the willingness to invest in offspring is simple
and straightforward. Whereas females are always sure who their children are, males never are. As the old saying found in many cultures in one form or another goes: “Mama’s baby, Papa’s . . . MAYBE.” The greater uncertainty surrounding parenthood for males has implications that echo not only through the extended family, but throughout the traditions of all human cultures as well.

Hence, males can achieve greater gains in reproductive success by spending their time mating rather than parenting, and the greater uncertainty surrounding parenthood for males has implications that echo not only through the extended family, but throughout the traditions of all human cultures as well.

Steven Platek and Todd Shackelford’s edited volume Female Infidelity and
Paternal Uncertainty: Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics zeroes in on the strategies that males have evolved to assure paternity throughout the timeless tug-of-war between the sexes. Males who lived their lives as unwitting cuckolds, investing their hard-earned resources in the genes carried by other men’s children, became evolutionary dead ends. Females who failed to manage the delicate balance between acquiring the best possible male genes for their offspring while also hanging onto reliable male providers suffered a similar fate. Hence, those of us alive today carry the arsenals shaped by natural selection that insure that human sexual relationships will always be a lively and interesting topic of conversation. Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty not only describes the anti-cuckoldry strategies that have evolved over time; it also explores the ramifications of these strategies for romantic relationships, child rearing, and violence against spouses, partners, and children.

If this sort of thing interests you I strongly recommend perusing Aurelio Figueredo’s research. E.g. “Childhood Stress, Life History, Psychopathy, and Sociosexuality” or “How to Make a Chad”.

This paper explores how Early Life Stress (ELS) and Life History (LH) strategy impact personality and attitudes toward infidelity, mating effort, and casual sex. A sample of 300 participants reported biodemographic behavioral outcomes, such as their number of lifetime sex partners, which correlated with ELS, LH strategy, and unrestricted sociosexual attitudes (albeit not strongly). A structural equations model was specified and demonstrated that effects of ELS and LH on unrestricted sociosexual attitudes were partially mediated through psychopathy. ELS, LH, and an antagonistic social schema increased psychopathy, which then directly increased unrestricted sociosexual attitudes. These results support the theory that psychopathy is an adaptive trait meant to increase short-term mating opportunities.

tl;dr- Be an abusive alcoholic dad.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The utility of beating your wife at random

  1. Fox says:

    There’s no human behaviour stupid, suicidal and ridiculous enough that evolutionary psychologists wouldn’t frame it as an “evolutionary strategy”.

    “If it exists, it must have evolutionary value”
    ^ the motto of evolutionary psychologists/anthropologists
    if they encounter things that doen’t have an obvious evolutionary value (esp. if that thing has the opposite), they’ll search and reinterpret until they’ve found one.

    What is the evolutionary “goal” ? Procreate so that one’s progeny can procreate. It’s “growth for growths sake”, which is, as one of the smarter environmentalists once said, “the ideology of the cancer cell”.

    What if men like the neanderthals of old were better than that? What if they procreated for a purpose – so that their progeny may one day become numerous enough to fulfill some task, to finish some project started long ago.
    Once the goal is reached, there’s no need to multiply, and the neanderthals slowly decrease their population again. Is it any wonder then, that in this day and age, they don’t breed much, while the geniuses among them hardly breed at all?

    Think of it as Nature’s (or the Universe’s) “saveguard” – if thing make no sense, and get unnatural/perverse, better people almost stop sending their own kind to this planet.
    In a similar vein, observe just how much modern urbanization (+ education) crushes fertility rates in almost every country!

  2. Obadiah says:

    “The Unconventional Conservatism of Beating the Shit out of that Bitch 24/7”

  3. Robotnick says:

    Or you can be with a woman who mates assortatively rather than hypergamously. Speaking from experience.

    Not exactly common but they aren’t unicorns either. Most thal women would fit such,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s