What is Reddit's opinion of
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
34 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
For anybody trying to answer who might need to know what book is being referred to, I believe it is this one:
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley
He is talking about male and female nature on a very high level. One that the vast majority of people do not have the intellectual ability to perceive and process without having their emotions get in the way, causing them to have a "mUh MiSoGyNy” meltdown.
I mean, how many people truly have the intellectual ability to understand the following book?
> Men have one mode of attraction to women.
Men have two modes of attraction to women: wives and flings. Both men and women toggle between long-term and short-term mating strategies. The difference is that men look for quality for long-term mates whereas women look for quality for short-term mates. A man is more likely to have a one night stand with a below average woman but will want a good looking and faithful woman for a wife. A woman will insist that her one night stand be hot, but will accept a below average man for a husband because he pays for her bills and lifestyle.
The empirical data so strongly backs up this evolutionary response that any argument against it is implausible. It would be like arguing that the world is flat. You'd have to explain away far too many things like videos of the Earth taken from orbiting satellites and the ISS.
The dual strategies of men and women have been well document since at least the 1990s.
I think the train is still out on why so many organisms have sex. Lots of good ideas but there is still good work to be done. Ridley's The Red Queen is still the best overview of the question. https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579
Any other recommendations?
Of course! Reproduction is the most important thing in life. All our anatomy, physiology and psychology are subordinated to it if we are adult and heterosexual. You are part of life and life is reproduction. But reproduction is also very "costly". Women even can die directly because of it and men indirectly competing with other men to get better sexual partner. Also keeping offspring is costly. So there must be very strong forces moving people to do something so crazy and risky.
If you like natural science read the book The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
A) The Red Queen:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Queen-Evolution-Nature/dp/0060556579
Review of book: "Matt Ridley explains in the epilogue of The Red Queen that half of his ideas are probably wrong, just like those of Freud, Jung, and many others. But this common-sense attitude, projected onto the evolution of reproduction, is EXACTLY what about this book makes it so incredible."
When an author of a book says in the epilogue that "it is at least half wrong", the book makes for good fun but not really science.
2) I've read "Guns Germs and Steel".
Haven't seen any evidence for matriarchal societies defined by:
1) Alpha bangs all the women 2) Betas are simps who just give resources to take care of alpha spawn 3) Women run things with alphas and betas supplicating to the female.
I agree with the polygamous patriarchies morphing into monogamous patriarchies. That has been shown historically as valid. This was true with the ancient Hebrew societies where the "beta men" rebelled against Soloman's empire due to high taxation, essentially splitting up the kingdom. Ergo, monogamous patriarchies were the only stable civilizations. Beta men didn't just passively allow themselves to be cucked and taxed.
The last comment is meaningless since you haven't proven shit from any scientific literature about how humans behaved before written history was developed.
I am still waiting on the citations showing these matriarchies forming before modern civilization/written civilization. All you have is speculation on how things worked for "1.8 million years". I'd like to see your evidence for it.
All of written history contradicts your assertions so you have to go into some mythical "pre civilization" speculation which you have no evidence/citations for.
Ahh! You're too kind! I wish I understood all the things involved a bit better... last year I read a book about the Red Queen Hypothesis and realized I hadn't understood why sex existed (as opposed to asexual reproduction) at all, so hopefully I haven't represented anything wrong.
Also have to admit I haven't adequately looked at the theological arguments for teleological evolution, so I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Cheers!
First of all.....nothing about 'teaching women to be sexy' is more scientifically sound than PUA stuff.
Second, what you are missing is the bodybuilding scene. The gym culture is basically all about that. There is also a current trend in bodybuilding. "Aesthetics".
If you are looking for fashion advice, then there's definitely less for men. But you still have a few magazines which are about that.
Books about sexually attracting women. I have ready many PUA books in my time. Also much of the literature that is often recommended. Evolutionary psychology is a terribly icky subject. Possibly something like this http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Queen-Evolution-Nature/dp/0060556579
There's a book by Matt Ridley called The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature ... not strictly TRP, but correlates many TRP concepts about human mating behavior with evolutionary psychology and biology.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Queen-Evolution-Nature/dp/0060556579
From the cover: "The Red Queen answers dozens of other riddles of human nature and culture -- including why men propose marriage, the method behind our maddening notions of beauty, and the disquieting fact that a woman is more likely to conceive a child by an adulterous lover than by her husband."
Mark Manson's "Models" touches on the subject too a little bit, as do some blog posts on the Rational Male.
Yes. Or The Red Queen, by the same author.
If a little math is ok, "Thinking Physics is Gedanken Physics", by Epstein, apparently not in print.
That is an excellent question.
You might like to look up this excellent book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579
Lol, I wasn't aware you are a girl.
I will tell you a few things just because you seem like a nice person.
Cheaters are people without social conditioning. They cheat because they think just about themselves, witch in fact, and you will agree with me, is a common trait in a lot of people. To think just about themself I mean.
We are animals 100%. Look at OUR history. Every evolutionary biologist will tell you that. Our mind didn't change from the ice age but our society did.
If you are a bit curious, read this book, it's really good.
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
- Look girl, you NEED to take care of your self MORE, put boundaries and red lines. And dont back down on your standards. If you do that people will hurt you just like they did before and before.... Don't that to your self.
I was a nice(naive) gay just Iike you are now. You will get burned, if you didn't yet.
I know you know that you are a nice girl, BUT the majority is NOT. Nobody will respect you because you are nice, BUT will EXPLOIT you because of that. Change you stance before the bad experiences leave a unreversabl mark on your personality.
If someone is disrespecting you in a relationship, leave them I imidiatlly or at least emotionally.
Misogyny (no disrespect) doesn't exist.
My girl, assholes are part of evolution. If being an asshole was a bad trait they would dead out by now. Like neanderthals did.
*7. You seem like a smart girl, if you like books and have free time read the book I linked. It's written for everybody to understand.
Take care.
There’s a book called “The Red Queen” that you would likely enjoy. Merry Christmas. https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579
oh wow, that makes much more sense now
in a completely unrelated related way The Red Queen is one of my favourite non fiction books
If you're interested in this kind of question, This book gives a fascinating overview of this whole topic.
It gives the answers, as much as they are known, to questions of why there are sexes at all, why some animals are polygamous or monogamous, why they cheat on their spouses. When science doesn't know the answer, the book details competing ideas and gives the reasons their proponents support them.
Your question was also answered, IIRC, in a particular chapter of Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene".
On your particular question, it boils down to the fact that a female, purely because of biology, invests heavily in their offspring. If they can persuade the male to also invest, that's a win for the female. The male, however - or rather, the male's DNA - has an "incentive" to quickly find as many partners as possible; although, there's also some benefit to staying around hand helping the kids grow.
Imagine the female DNA implements one of two strategies:
- H: hard-to-get: insisting the male go through a long courtship before allowing insemination
- F: fast-and-loose: the opposite
On the other hand, suppose the male DNA implements one of these strategies:
- S: Solid, faithful: willing to stick it out with the partner they chose
- C: Cheater: moves on quickly.
If the female population is predominantly F, then the male population will be shifted towards C. Cheaters spread more of their DNA than Solids.
If the male population is predominantly C, then this may be stable, but if (for biological reasons) it's really costly to raise a child as a single mother, the female population may suffer pressure to move from F to H. The hard-to-get females often end up with no partner at all, but when they do find someone, it's a solid man who'll stick around.
So the population of females may shift towards H. When the H predominate, the cheating males have no more luck. The male population undergoes selective pressure to move from C to S.
Finally, if the males are mostly S, the few F females have an advantage - they avoid a costly, time-consuming mating ritual, and still have a good chance of landing a faithful husband. The female population might swing back to F, and the cycle begins again.
You don't always get cycles, it depends on exactly how much each sex's strategy gains or loses in light of the strategies the other sex is using. And creatures with complex brains can switch strategies based on what they observe. And, of course, there are more strategies possible than this: cheating while pretending to be faithful, maintaining a harem, neither sex caring for the young, eating your husband, dispensing with sex altogether, changing sex, being both sexes at once and more are all actually implemented in the animal, plant and other kingdoms. each having their own advantages and disadvantages in different circumstances.
One last thing: a complex, expensive mating ritual makes abandonment less likely. The male in a partnership is more likely to choose to stick around and give his DNA (in his kids) a better chance of propagating, if he expects that finding a new partner will be costly and difficult.
Satoshi Kanazawa is a good start. He doesn't hit on all your points but he does address a few. There are a few posts on redpill that go through all the peer reviewed connections. It might take me a while to find the best. Here's an easy start on Satoshi.
http://bigthink.com/videos/big-think-interview-with-satoshi-kanazawa
I believe the "Red Queen" also covers this stuff as well. I've bought the book but I haven't read it yet. It reccomended often in redpill discussion but I only have so much reading time.
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579
https://www.amazon.com.br/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579
Never heard of mgtow, what I've read is an evolutionary book about sex and evolution of human nature. Also, it's simple Bateman's principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle
Males compete for females because of the differences in investment of children. That's why men want power and women want beauty, there are exceptions of course.
Non-mobile: The Red Queen
^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble.
What you are describing has a name, hybrid vigor.
Hosts are constantly experiencing selection to reduce the ability of parasites to manipulate their behavior in ways that get the host killed. If an ant is able to "resist" the fungus, it may do so either by mounting an immune response that kills the fungus or by counteracting the effects of the fungus in some way. You wouldn't observe these kinds of interactions in the field (if the fungus is killed by the ant then the ant will appear normal and you won't know anything happened), but scientists have recently figured out how to infect ants with this fungus in the lab. So now we can start asking how much variation there is within an ant species and between ant species in their ability to resist infection or resist manipulation. Hopefully we'll have an answer to your question soon!
In general though, there is frequently pressure on hosts to avoid or kill parasites and pressure on parasites to be better at infecting their hosts. Whether the host or the parasite is "winning" this race changes over time, and this area of research is called the Red Queen Hypothesis. If you find this topic interesting, I suggest The Red Queen by Matt Ridley
I recommend this:
http://academicearth.org/courses/global-population-growth
and this:
If you really want to know.
The Wikipedia Page of One of the Authors
In 2006 he published an article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, claiming that attractive people are 26% less likely to have male offspring.[3][4] In a letter to the editors,[5] Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman points out that a correct interpretation of the regression coefficients in Kanazawa's analysis is that attractive people are 8% more likely to have girls, an error that Kanazawa acknowledges.[6] Gelman further argues that Kanazawa's analysis does not convincingly show causality, because of possible endogeneity as well as problematic interpretations of statistical significance in multiple comparisons. While Kanazawa claims that the former error is "merely linguistic" and that he addressed the latter two in his initial article,[7] Gelman maintains that his original criticism remains valid.[8]
Kanazawa's theories on race and intelligence are controversial. Kanazawa has argued that Asian cultural traditions and/or character inhibit Asian scientific creativity[12] and that "political correctness" is a bigger threat to American evolutionary psychology than religious fundamentalism.[13] As a result, he has been accused of promoting "racist stereotypes".[14] In 2006 Kanazawa published a controversial paper suggesting that poor health of people in some nations is the result, not of poverty, but rather lower IQ.[15][16] In the British Journal of Health Psychology George T. H. Ellison wrote that the theory is based on flawed assumptions, questionable data, inappropriate analyses and biased interpretations. Ellison wrote that Kanazawa mistook statistical associations for evidence of causality and falsely concluded that populations in sub-Saharan Africa are less healthy because they are unintelligent and not because they are poor.[17] Kevin Denny wrote similar criticisms regarding the IQ data and stated that African Americans should have similar IQs when compared to the sub-Saharan African population and that Kanazawa should have measured the distance between areas in a topographical fashion.[18] P.Z. Myers, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota, has called Kanazawa "the great idiot of social science" for suggesting that people with higher IQs take better health-care decisions[19], not realizing that recognized figures in the field of intelligence research like Linda Gottfredson, made the exact same assumption.[20]
I know a lot of the backlash is because his theories are controversial but, this guy seems like a hack. Sorry, but that source does not seem to be well trusted. I think we could both benefit from a course in anthropology.
Edit: I have not read this book so don't shoot the messenger but it was suggested to me by a friend. It covers a lot of what we are discussing and at least appears to be backed up by solid evidence. Although, it is 7 years old now so things could have changed.
>If women see 80% of men as below medium, they have unrealistic expectations of what medium is, don't you think?
Ehhhh, not really, no. I mean, I don't even know how to tackle this. Really, you need to read this book. I don't know of any good youtube videos or articles that summarize it.
Basically what is happening is that women are seeking out the best men and men are seeking out 'good enough' women. The reason for this is simply due to the differing biological roles of each sex. A woman has to carry a child for 9 months, and then will be burdened with raising it for over a decade whereas a man can sire children with 100 women in a year. The sexual selection process that each sex goes through to choose mates is different because of this and for other reasons. A woman is going to go after the "good genes" that top men possess but a man is going to place more emphasis on other factors the most women will possess, and there's your bell curve.
It doesn't really mean that their expectations are unrealistic as much as it gives us insight into their mate selection process.
>I'm curious, Catholics tend to be a little more liberal in education, were you taught about evolution? If so, what specifically about it were you taught.
Dude, I went to a Catholic university and took a class called "Evolution and Society" that used Matt Ridley's The Red Queen as its textbook. When I was in seventh grade I remember having to memorize the names and characteristics of early human species.
The Catholic Church indeed was instrumental in the development of the scientific method itself.
I am guessing English isn't your first language?
>could Humans eventually gain the same adaptability traits as a Virus, or a Parasite?
What traits are you referring to?
>would it be possible to adapt so quickly enough with the changing environment we could live in any conditions in the future?
You imply that parasites and viruses can live in any conditions; simply not true.
Might I suggest the wikibook on evolutionary biology, the works of Richard Dawkins or The Red Queen by Matt Ridley.
This subject is reasonably well covered in the book The Red Queen. Worth reading if you want to really dive into this issue in a different way: http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Queen-Evolution-Nature/dp/0060556579
That is why I recommend the book The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature.
Very enlightening book.. puts a lot of human and non-human interaction in terms of an evolutionary perspective.
EDIT: Speeling.
I'm not sure if you're serious. There are mountains of empirical research on this topic.
The socialization you mention is driven and created by evolutionary pressures. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Some links: http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Queen-Evolution-Nature/dp/0060556579
I think that's a rather simplistic understanding of it all, OP. You have the gist of it right, though.
Essentially, women have what you might call a dual sexual strategy. They need resources and protection to help them survive and raise their children they have to adulthood, and they want their children to have "good genes." Unfortunately finding a man capable of providing both is not always possible, so you get things like Simon Cowell cuckolding Andrew Silverman by impregnating his wife. for example. This is largely why you see fat ugly rich men with hot wives, because they can't get a moneyed man who looks like a male model, so many of them settle for a moneyed man and screw good looking guys on the side. Men who have money but not looks should really, really, really make sure any children a woman claims are his has are actually their own with DNA paternity tests.
I think also a lot of today's sexual marketplace phenomenon such as the male virgin trope (as seen with /r/foreveralone posters--almost exclusively male) is explained by this. This is a day and age where women don't necessarily need men. So a large percentage of men who are simply not higher end physically attractive but yet not wealthy either are left essentially involuntarily celibate because women can either support themselves or get money to subsist off the welfare state without needing to trade sex with these men for resources.
Here's a relevant quote from a book you might want to read on this subject called The Red Queen.
> There has been no genetic change since we were hunter-gatherers, but deep in the mind of modern man is a simple hunter-gatherer rule: strive to acquire power and use it to lure women who will bear heirs; strive to acquire wealth and use it to buy affairs with other men’s wives who will bear bastards . . . Wealth and power are means to women; women are means to genetic eternity.
> Likewise, deep in the mind of modern woman is the same hunter-gatherer calculator, too recently evolved to have changed much: strive to acquire a provider husband who will invest food and care in your children; strive to find a lover who can give those children first-class genes. Only if she is very lucky will they both be the same man . . . Men are to be exploited as providers of parental care, wealth and genes.
What I believe are fairly uncontroversial scientific facts
-humans are products of evolution
-human evolution is about passing on genes which is all about sex
-the difference in cost of male sex- i.e. 20 calories of goop, versus female cost- 9 months of pregnancy and birth, logically results in drastically different sexual strategies.
I found the book Red Queen was the best most concise book on the topic.
> You're looking at other women, in a sexual way, to the point of jerking off TO those women
I as a man, I can choose to not masturbate, or to seek out women to look at. I can't say much about your points on that. I however, I often hear women express their annoyance at men looking at women sexually. Let me be clear, I have zero ability to not look at women sexually, this is simply a biological function I have no control over. I wish I did! But I don't.
Even "Checking a woman out" is a process of the reticular activating system and stopping it is a bit like holding your breath. You can stop yourself, but it requires constant mindfulness.
> Makes me feel I'm not adequate/ enough for you (I recognize I was unable to have sex at that time, but I more than made up for it in blow-jobs!), and if I'm not, is this just a gateway to actually being physical with another woman- when does Porn become 'not enough' if I've already become 'not enough'
Adequate, in terms of personal worth, doesn't seem to be something you mean, but I'll touch on it. Everything, and I mean everything about you has nothing to do with a man's attraction to other women. Supermodels and queens get cheated on as much (or probably more than because of the 'quality' of their mates) than a normal girl. Men have a desire for variety that many women simply can not comprehend.
Adequate in terms of amount of sex? That's possible, but unlikely.
Homosexual men are an interesting example because unlike the male sex drive interacting with the female sex drive, both have a male sex drive. The results?
>Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.
If those numbers don't seem reasonable to you, then its a clue that you might be underestimating the male sex drive and the desire for variety.
> and if I'm not, is this just a gateway to actually being physical with another woman- when does Porn become 'not enough' if I've already become 'not enough'
I don't think your post/question is unreasonable in the least. Except for this statement. This statement melts my brain.
How this sounds to me, "Only I give my husband water, and I don't want to let him drink out of the tap! If he starts drinking water out of the tap what's to stop him from drinking water out of the nearby river? Or breaking into a neighbor's house and drinking their water?"
If anything allowing a man to satiate his sexual desires at home through pornography reduces the chances he'll seek an outlet anywhere else.
Let me give you a cooking analogy- pornography is like a microwaved hot pocket and going out and physically cheating on a woman is like hunting a deer, field dressing it, curing the meat, and then eating it.
> I would also apply this to seeing strippers, just because you're not allowed to touch them doesn't make it okay (in my view) to enjoy their getting naked.
This I understand 100%. Here you're dealing with a partner attempting to receive sexual gratification outside of the home, and from a real live person, putting themselves in a place where many cheaters go to cheat. And many times there is large amounts of alcohol involved. This would be for me, like if my girlfriend was going out to the club all the time getting drunk and dancing with strangers- I wouldn't consider that "cheating" or "cheating by proxy," but I would find it unacceptable behavior in a committed relationship.
Umm... yeah. Male on male violence, competition, cock blocking, jealousy... you are right. By the that logic it still makes sense. Down vote me some more. Not my theory, its where we landed on the subject after over 100 years of study. If that matters.
Popular alternatives to The Red Queen: Sex and the ...
Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set
The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma
