The fact that evolution is continuing and that risk will "always" be rewarded. That just because there is a lack of physical danger does not cause rewards to go away - it just changes the amount of risk and the nature of the rewards.
SUSAN'S THOUGHTS
Here's the part that is relevant, that concerning different character types:
A. Dopamine - The Explorers
People with high dopamine production crave novelty. They're impulsive and like autonomy. They describe the most dissatisfaction in relationships and are the most likely to divorce. They tend to be drawn to other Explorers, and do not enjoy parenting. (I wrote about male Explorers in What Women Really Love About Bad Boys.)
B. Serotonin - The Builders
Builders have traditional values and are most comfortable with other Builders. These folks are the most likely to be married 50 years.
C. Testosterone - The Directors
Directors are tough-minded, direct, decisive, focused, technically skilled, and competitive.
D. Estrogen - The Negotiators
Negotiators are socially skilled, talented with words, mentally flexible, compassionate.
Followed by this very important quote (Emphasis Mine):
I find it fascinating that Fisher's work contradicts the notion that all women want the "bad boy." Her findings suggest that only fellow Explorers will go for that pleasure-seeking impulsive creature. That's perfect - since they tend to be unhappy in their relationships and aren't great at raising kids, "THEY SHOULD EVENTUALLY BECOME EXTINCT". Fisher suggests that people with high dopamine originally thrived because their ability to embrace and enjoy risk made them more likely to survive.
I think Susan is drawing very black and white conclusions here.
The first is that only Explorers are Alpha's. Both explorers and directors have huge alpha behaviors. People that fall into both explorer and director categories are the ones that will change the world.
The second is that Explorer's are the ones most likely to take risks, and risks "will be" rewarded if they pay off. I think her flaw is due to her hatred of 'Alpha Cads' and her desire that there should never be another person that could harm a poor little innocent woman by sleeping with her by her own will.
OLD RISK DANGERS AND REWARDS
The Rewards - in societies that had less stability those that were willing to risk more won more. They would win multiple wives, or be able to rape and pillage the opposing tribe they just won in battle. Or they'd find some source of wealth and buy slaves they'd procreate with. Or steal said slaves from a foreign land.
The risk - death. Pure, simple, final.
RISK AND ADVENTURE NOW ARE NOT LIMITED TO THOSE OF PHYSICAL DANGER
Ask any entrepreneur about if they had to risk things in order to be successful
Ask any artist if risk is something they can escape from while making good art
Ask a CEO if he's allowed to avoid risk while running the company
Plus I would say anyone who is a pioneer in their individual field is undergoing a lot of risk.
These are a few examples of people that take risks of some sort and gain a very tangible gain that increase their value in the Sexual Market Place. People that take risks still stand out, are more noticable, and are more of a 'catch'.
NEW RISK DANGERS AND REWARDS
The Risk - rarely death. We have too many social programs for that these days. Welcome our poor, feed them, cloth them, and turn them back out onto the street. Less risk and, if anything, more encouragement. If you fail in your first risk, try, try again.
But less reward - Or at least, less immediately visible reward. Gone are the days of multiple wives, sex slaves, battle followed by rape and pillage.
Instead we welcome the economic and status reward.
Status and Economics
Status is probably the more elusive of the two, but the more powerful. Band members and artists usually no money to offer women or offspring, but they get to reel in women.
Pretty easy concept. If you have money, your offspring are already ahead in resources. More education, more ability to succeed, more opportunities to take risk on and be further rewarded. You can also afford to have a mistress on the side, or not be married at all and only have unmarried relationships.
If you have both you have men like Newt Gingrich - able to go from one marriage to the next, afford it, and be applauded by a crazy GOP base as being an outstanding example of a man in power. Or Herman Cain, able to shrug off multiple accusations of sexual harassment before having to call it quits and go home to wife. Or Bill Clinton, able to weather impeachment charges for an affair with Monica. And these are only the ones since the sexual revolution. Before we had men in power who got away with it or simply were able to ignore it.
IN POOR COMMUNITIES
So far, I've only offered examples from the upper class. But it is something that is just as prevalent in poor communities as rich ones - though there is actual danger to go along with it.
Look to some of the African American communities. Rising single motherhood with men not their for their child for one reason or another - usually incarcerated, dead, or unwilling to be a father.
Granted, this is mostly drawn from statistics of single parent households and incarceration rates
Also, I know the first is an old census, but I used it because I like some of the other facts used in the study. Also, the rates haven't change significantly. I also went to the original census and reports the incarceration claims are based on, and their math is correct.
SOCIAL BENEFITS OF HAVING RISK TAKERS
They're the ones that make change happen. Social change, cultural change, and economic change. They're the ones that make it so we don't stagnate.
They're the innovation of the US economy supported by a strong backbone of people who desire to build up and create stability around the risks that pan out. (For an example of a society that doesn't have this, read Roosh's post on Denmark's safe socialism)
BIOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF HAVING RISK TAKERS
A diverse behavior pattern is one that is key to survival in events of change. If things go to hell with the environment, war, disease, or anything else - it is going to take men and women of all types to survive.
But, even on a minor scale, risk takers actually are biologically ahead. As Susan said in another post, they're more inclined to short term mating behaviors. Yet that's all that's needed to father a child or mother one. Risk takers will be less likely to use birth control. Then they have a society and biology that pressures them not to have an abortion - or they may be inclined not to do so already and see it as an acceptable risk. As such, risk takers are more likely have children at younger ages of ~18 instead of the norm of years that keep getting pushed back for marriage and childbearing in white feminist society.
IN SHORT, BALANCE IS GOOD
A society needs men and women of all sorts, in a nice balance. Feminists bashing of alpha's and risk taking has inadvertently given them power. Susan's belief that they'll get bred out is both untrue and would prove to be unhealthy.
Yet I don't currently believe things are as balanced as they should be either. Feminism has messed with the gender roles and now we're left picking up the pieces to try and form a new picture. Is it too much to ask that we make sure all the pieces that led to a healthy humanity get used again, without bias? Without doing so you'll lead to long term failure of the human race.
Right now risk takers are working outside of the rules; due to the fact that feminism wishes they weren't a problem and is blatantly ignoring them. Their generations are going faster due to short term mating behaviors at younger ages. Look to African American communities and tell me this isn't true.
Lets stop shunning and ignoring the problem. Accept these individuals and find productive lives for them rather then make them operate outside of the rules
Filed under: Discussions, Lessons Tagged: alpha, beta, biology, evolution, Red Pill, Roosh, social evolution, Susan
0 comments:
Post a Comment