I have a good post idea for tomorrow. In the meantime, here’s some copypasta with some decent nuggets buried in it.
What’s the solution for single men over 25? Is prevention the only option?
If you mean the solution for the symptom, which is the growing prevalence of unattached men and women, then the traditional solution has been ethnic cleansing (as the others [in chat] implied). If you mean a solution to the root problem, we’d have to look critically at breeding patterns in general. I’d do that for the fun of it, but it’s not for everybody. That would be intellectual masturbation because the West is hellbent on activating the Malthusian trap card out of some weird Freudian suicide cult death drive impulse and there’s no arguing them out of it. But I enjoy mental masturbation.
Basically people get really excited about the idea of lots of their competitors being removed from competition, as if it’s gonna be a big party complete with creature comforts. In practice the genetic purification of war is just competitive disease resistance under starvation conditions. People with a fast life history strategy (AKA r-selection) love inviting this chaos because it selects for dark triad traits (ref. Twenge’s book on narcissism), i.e. selects people like them (ref. The Selfish Gene), as in Africa. They don’t understand that the accompanying material scarcity will select for high general factor of personality (aka normies) and against them.
This misunderstanding is a tragic accident because in R-selected conditions (material abundance and high randomized mortality), the people who get killed off are selected randomly. But in conditions of material scarcity people get killed off based on lack of foresight, dark triad impulsiveness, and lack of a deep, high-trust social network. I.e. The useless business-side people I ranted about yesterday [in normiechat].
In other words, think of it like the old tale of ants and grasshoppers. Grasshoppers love chaos because a combination of plenty and chaos is what creates grasshoppers and ants love order because a combination of scarcity and order is what creates more ants. But we’re in a situation where abundance is dependent on order, so chaos will produce scarcity. And grasshoppers can’t understand this because, at the genetic level, the ones who do would have been selected out under the conditions that produced them. So if you follow the logic to its conclusion they’re gleefully welcoming their own destruction because they think it’ll result in polygamy for each of them, personally.
That wasn’t a great explanation but there were good hints in there.
The war of the sexes part is more interesting. In general, men select for genetic health (beauty being the proxy) and slow life history strategy in women. Given their head, we’d have out of control k-selection. But there’s an optimum balance of r and k to thrive in any given environment. Out of control k-selection would produce a population of people too self-controlled, loyal, and civilized to survive. For example, to conduct war you have to be an accomplished liar. “All warfare is based on deception.” Ref. also Dutton’s book “The Rape of the Finns”.
Women, in contrast, generally select for fast life history men with high social capital. Given their head, we’d have out of control R-selection for psychopaths and schizophrenics. The main difference here is that female sexual selection was traditionally repressed in advanced societies because it was considered bad for society to breed psychopaths and schizophrenics. In times of war (starvation, disease, etc.) you want most people to be selfless, k-selected types like the Finns. It’s why the Finns are such badasses and fought off Russia single-handedly.
This sounds like a contradiction with what I said before about accomplished liars, but there’s a complication called Spearman’s Differentiation Hypothesis. This requires understanding positive manifolds. For all his faults, Jordan Peterson actually has the best explanation of this.
Spearman says this correlation gets weaker at the very high end, e.g. people with extremely high mathematical intelligence (say 160) may only have somewhat high verbal intelligence (say 130). 130 is still about 1 in 100, which is still the best in most English classrooms, but not nearly as high as 160 (1 in 30,000, i.e. the smartest person in a small to mid-sized city). Dutton explains this in most videos where he touches on the traits of geniuses. This differentiation effect also occurs in general factor of personality, which is a positive manifold of Big 5 personality traits.
So in k-selected populations like the Finns, you’ll get more outlier psychopaths than you’d get outlier normies in R-selected populations like Somalians. But they’ll be a lot less psychopathic. Maybe quarter-psycho. So it’s easy to overshoot the balance of R and k you want to be good at ethnic cleansing and so on. The trick here is that prosperity is a lagging indicator of getting the balance right, which then liberalizes attitudes toward female sexual selection, which produces more psychopaths, who then cause chaos and produce scarcity.
This would be easier to explain as a math model. [Eventually I’ll have bought myself the time and space to knuckle down and work it out. I figure if I ever get one of those middle class jobs I’ll spend my three weeks of vacation on it.]