Deliberate Consent Violation

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Re: Deliberate Consent Violation

Postby Mowk » Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:35 pm

I had an uncle diagnosed with schizophrenia, he no longer consented to taking medication, he was found floating face down in Catfish Creek with rat poison in his stomach.

Don't let that happen to you or anything like it. I'm not helping you, so I am sorry but this will be the last time I write to you. Get some help. He was an uncle I looked up to, shit you just bring up terrible memories, I thought I could handle them, but I miss him. He was super cool.

Good luck Jason and keep your head on straight, I feel for ya.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Deliberate Consent Violation

Postby promethean75 » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:42 pm

Good luck Jason and keep your head on straight, I feel for ya.


No don't do that! Don't go near him, don't feel for him, don't even think about him. This is all a trick to draw you closer. This man is like an evil jack kavorkian. Ever seen one of his videos... those lifeless eyes, the catatonic motionlessness. This man is death incarnate in a blue ski coat.

can you feel the cold? he's devouring the heat, the energy....
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Deliberate Consent Violation

Postby Mowk » Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:04 am

Man, Prom you can be the most...
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Deliberate Consent Violation

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:56 pm

Promethean,

Let's look at what I really do and who I really am.

I hate zero sum realities. This is not a trick. I really want 7.5 billion people to join me in spirit to make hyperdimensional mirror realities. YESTERDAY!!!

Death is the zero sum nature of reality, the victor, and thus the loser.

If you think I want friends that others don't have, you don't understand me at all. I don't like zero sum realities.

The older you get, the more you'll be for me.

That's the honest truth.

You're posturing with your posts promethean, but I already know that you agree with me.

I'm a pioneer in the spirit world. This takes a lot of courage. A lot of the spirit world are a bunch of sociopathic trolls, they'd rather see me possessed to chop my own dick off, than care about non zero sum.
They're in it for the show, and the show is zero sum consent violating.

I risk my life everyday to do what I do, can the same be said of you?

Where exactly promethean, is your nobility... I haven't seen it yet
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Deliberate Consent Violation

Postby Silhouette » Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:35 pm

Carleas wrote:One good indicator of a just-so story is that it inadvertently explains phenomena that don't match observation. For example, you explain the cross-cultural preference for taller men by reference to height as a proxy for health. But from what I can find (see pages 7-10), there isn't a strong cross-cultural preference for great male height: it's preferred in western countries, but not universally. There's evidence that height makes men worse hunters, and women in those societies prefer men of equal height.

It's true that height preference is found in wealthy cultures, but it's absence in other cultures suggests that it's somewhat arbitrary; culture might have instead focused around large ears as their preferred costly signal. And the common preference across wealthy cultures may be due only to the monoculture across wealthy cultures.

The first result when searching the study you cite for the word "tall" quotes a study by Holden & Mace dated 1999, saying "Cross-culturally, men are on average taller than women".
I'm sure there's caveats, but honestly it's just something I've heard oft repeated by both professional scientists and intellects who cite them, so I'm not claiming first-hand academic expertise on this matter.

So I am willing to concede that the degree of preference for taller men need not necessarily be the same cross-culturally - it makes perfect sense that societies that lack the resources to reliably physiologically support male tallness will not be selecting for tall males. Likewise it makes perfect sense that rich societies that can support tallness in men allows for their selection. This indicates to me that male tallness is preferred whenever it can be, and only not preferred when it can't be - though this could probably be easily turned around. This fits with the ecological prinicple that competition in poor environments can only converge to a diverse equality, but rich environments enable the winning of competitions to further enable subsequent winning - divergently. So the richer the environment, the more sexual dimorphism - until competition becomes so saturated that resources are depleted to relative poverty and equilibrium, in which case sexual dimorphism will likely decrease.

Carleas wrote:You also offer explanations for men's r-species strategy, but across cultures monogamy is the norm. It's true men tend to be more promiscuous, but the reproductive strategy of most humans, male and female, involves significant parental investment. That's even true in societies where polygyny is practiced; a few wealthy men may have multiple wives, but most will be functionally monogamous. Men's strategies are more r-species like than women's strategies, but moth men's and women's strategies are predominantly k-species.

I would say that the physiological predisposition of males towards r-strategy doesn't necessarily imply their practice of it, as they are only half of the equation. The desire to be promiscuous doesn't mean the ability to get away with it. The more sexual dimorphism, the more males can physcially force the balance in their favour e.g. in tournament species, but whilst there is cross-cultural sexual dimorphism in humans (at least insofar as cultures are rich), humans aren't nearly as much of a tournament species as other species, but they're not neatly pair-bonding either. I've heard it suggested that humans more accurately practice serial monogamy, which is still much more consistent with k-strategy than r-strategy. Also, whilst k-strategy is compatible with pair-bonding, r-species are not well tied tournament species. R-species are usually small and opportunistic, where tournament species are usually large and their societies structured. Humans are fairly large and definitely structured, though their tournaments are more "civilised" with physicality mostly only implied rather than enacted - for which tallness helps even as just a suggestion of physical dominance. It's not a coincidence that those in positions of power are more often taller, even if in some more exceptional cases they can be short.

Carleas wrote:
Silhouette wrote:You will notice that the role of sex here isn't to have many offspring...

That's true. That's true in a lot of human cultures, and in some non-human primates. Doesn't that make sexual choices somewhat detached from reproductive considerations?

Yes of course, which is why promiscuity isn't necessarily r-strategy - especially after the advent of effective contraception and "free love". Promiscuity is more like a sublimated expression of desire for r-strategy without it being actualised. Being tall helps you to this end, even if it utlimately concludes with a pair-bonding relationship - most likely more than one in succession. This only contributes to selection for tallness, but as you point out, moreso in richer societies.

Carleas wrote:
Silhouette wrote:The males here are being tricked...

I think this is inappropriately value-laden; neither the men nor women in these cultures know why they have the culture they have, they have prescientific myths to support their practices. The men who participate, to the extent their behavior is genetically influenced, must also benefit, or else their genes would not have been passed down. If this cultural practice persisted over a long time (which I believe it did), it must be a stable equilibrium in evolutionary strategy for both the men and the women who participate in it.

It wouldn't be a trick if it was obvious. There is a kind of unconscious war selecting for both trickery and detection of trickery, which is perpetually unresolved and in flux. One sex selects for some new form of trickery that works, the other in turn selects for those who can detect it and act in such a way as to tip favour back to their own tricks. I agree that it's not conscious, but that's the whole point - you don't tend to get away with tricks that everyone's conscious of.

Carleas wrote:
Silhouette wrote:Pair-bonding benefits the female more than the male

Similarly here. The goal for both is to get their genes into the next generation, pair-bonding is an equilibrium strategy that balances the interests of both parents. And since roughly half of any person's relatives and descendants are male and half female, over time we should expect the strategies to be neutral, because women are hurt in evolutionary terms when their male descendants are hurt. The fact that monogamy is the predominant form of human sexual relationship suggests that it may actually be an optimal strategy (though this is a bit in tension with my arguments above about height; it may likewise be that this is a cultural artifact of a globalized monoculture [EDIT: thinking more about this, I think it would still have to be neutral, but not necessarily optimal. Please check my math on that]).

I would say that monogamy, or at least serial monogamy, is only optimal insofar as it is contingent on our current state in our evolution within our current environment. If environments all got a lot poorer we'd presumably tend back more towards monogamous pair-bonding with lower sexual dimorphism, and perhaps if they got even richer there'd be more sexual dimorphism selected for, and in turn more male dominance over groups of females, with the consequence of larger numbers of offspring only for successful males and less fathering required as environments would be so rich as to not require it.

I would also say that women being evolutionarily hurt by their male descendants being hurt is exactly why they are picky about their mates. With better mates who do better in life, the better the offspring do in life - and the stats seem to be that tall males do better in life, at least in richer environments that can support their height.

If I'm reading you right, you're concerned about your position on globalised monoculture on monogamy, but not on tallness? I'm not certain what you mean about checking your math, but I don't agree that pair-bonding is stable and neutral. Tournament species maintain structure even without pair-bonding, and they're just as susceptible to changes in environment as pair-bonders. The females want the best male genes, and the dominant male wants the most females, so all get this wish even with unequal numbers of males and females, except the males who cannot win the dominance battle - and in their failure they lack the ability to destablise. R-strategy is less stable, but that doesn't prevent at least a desire to act upon it moreso in males than females - and the less physiologically costly it is for the female the more neutral it is, but it's still more in favour of the male as long as it physiologically costs them less than the female.

Carleas wrote:I asked Ecmandu this and got no reply, so I'll try on you:
Carelas wrote:What are you assuming is the unit of selection? I'd argue that human group selection is significantly greater than in other species, and that human individual specialization is a part of that, so that diverse strategies work for individuals in human groups.

I'd hypothesize that monogamy makes for stronger groups, and thus groups that practice it tend to dominate, benefiting all their members, even if the practice is suboptimal for individuals (and again I concede a similar argument might be made for height).

Units of selection are great for specificity and falsificationism etc. but they aren't the maker or breaker of evolutionary theory. Very often there's evolutionary behaviours that don't boil down to specific genes, and it's highly limiting to disregard them on these grounds.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Previous

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users