Skip to main content.
April 1st, 2007

The lost tribes

TrolleysSometimes I meet guys, and they’re a bit shy around women… Anyway, I’ve now been told the craziest bit of evolutionary nonsense since somebody recommended I read Sperm Wars.

He says, and I quote:

“About 50,000 years ago, humans used to live in small tribes of around 50 people, so everyone knew everybody else. It would be very unlikely that you would encounter another group, because the nearest one would be several weeks travel away.

Therefore, there would be about 25 females that you could mate with, all of whom knew each other. But, some would be too sick / old / young / etc. to be able to reproduce, and that would leave about five possible female mates.

If you were to approach one of them and she rejected you, everybody would know about it. And the tribal leader would get the other 23 guys to take you into the woods and kill you, to prevent any further attempts by you to weaken the gene-pool, with your weak genes.

Or if he didn’t do that, every female would now know you are undesirable, so they would not mate with you. The nearest tribe would be several weeks travel away. You would now effectively be sterile, and you would not be able to pass on your genes.”

He believes that because of this fear, some sort of genetic memory has perpetuated through the Human race and that’s why he feels nervous meeting women.

Now, I understand that people can convince themselves of some pretty crazy stories; maybe that a rabbits foot or a four leaf clover will help them become more fortunate etc. And I’ve known people attribute all kinds of miraculous things to the power of positive thinking. But this is plain wacky! It doesn’t help him in a Personal Development sense, and it seems more like an excuse that will only encourage him to stay shy around women (and probably guys too).

Aside from the highly doubtful question as to whether genetic memory exists or not, firstly, my friend seems to be judging ancient events using a modern perspective, which is always a very dangerous thing to do, since people then would have had vastly different views from modern times. This is even the case if one looks back at society only a hundred years ago.

He seems awfully knowledgeable about the living conditions of primitive man, even though I haven’t seen research as certain, in academic literature.

And furthermore, he assumes that females are always monogamous, when in fact the time difference between the sex act, the girl showing pregnant, and the birth of the baby would certainly not have given any clues to a primitive man as to who had caused, or even why this event even had happened.

Also, modern genetics was only discovered relatively recently by Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), so that rules out any possibility of these tribesmen even contemplating a gene-pool.

Next, this leaves a number of BIG questions unanswered:

Further, if the tribal women were in control, and somehow could detect a male’s ‘superior’ genetics, and thus refuse to breed with the ‘inferior’ males, as in some type of primitive controlled breeding program. Then the genetic directional selection would highly favour those males deemed to be more attractive, with the resulting problem that very soon all the genetic variation for these traits would be used up, and all the individuals would become extremely similar. History tells us that this has never been the case.

Breeders of domestic animals found this out when they put their breeding programmes into practice – They imposed strong artificial directional selection on cattle to improve milk yield, or on chickens to improve egg production. But within a few generations all individuals were much the same and no further improvements could be made. If this were true of sexual selection among human females, then there would be no point in the females exerting any choice at all.

I think a much more likely, and much simpler suggestion would be that when he was little, his parents would tell him things such as “Don’t talk to strangers!“, “People you don’t know might do bad things to you!”. All of which is sound advice for a small child, and will certainly keep that child safe; but now that he’s grown up, it’s not as much use, and in fact has become a limiting belief that he just needs to unlearn.

Share & Bookmark this article:
  • email
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Mixx
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Propeller
  • Fark

You might also enjoy reading:-

Posted by Jonathan in History, Sociobiology

14 Comments »

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 1st, 2007 at 11:58 PM and is filed under History, Sociobiology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

14 Responses to “The lost tribes”

  1. spendabuk says:

    Contrary to the author’s views, this theory is almost certainly correct to some extent. All of our natural hard-wried emotions exist because they helped us pass on our genes in tribal times. The key is to realise that this is usually a hindrance in modern times and to use your active will to override irrational fears; fear of heights, snakes, women, etc.

    > He seems awfully knowledgeable about the living conditions of primitive man,
    > even though I haven’t seen research as certain, in academic literature.

    The specifics needn’t be correct, but the general principle that our brain evolved to best suit the environment is Darwinism, and is certainly correct.

    > And furthermore, he assumes that females are always monogamous, when in fact
    > the time difference between the sex act, the girl showing pregnant, and the
    > birth of the baby would certainly not have given any clues to a primitive man
    > as to who had caused, or even why this event even had happened.

    He does not assume this. I can’t see where you’d get that from

    > Also, modern genetics was only discovered relatively recently by Gregor Mendel
    > (1822-1884), so that rules out any possibility of these tribesmen even
    > contemplating a gene-pool.

    Another classical mistake. Knowledge of the way these things work needn’t be conscious. Evolution works by trial-and-error.

    Mind you the part about “And the tribal leader would get the other 23 guys to take you into the woods and kill you, to prevent any further attempts by you to weaken the gene-pool, with your weak genes.” is silly and has no basis in fact. It’s far more likely that rejection brought humiliation that lowered your social standing with the men as well as with the women.

    > * Do all women really have the same taste in men?
    > * Were ancient tribes obsessed with social climbing?
    > * In many very poor societies, marrying off a daughter would be a good thing;
    > the family would have one less mouth to feed, and the remaining males may be
    > seen as more useful to support the parents in old age. Certainly, marriages
    > have been used in more recent history to forge allegiances between families.

    What have these questions got to do with the topic?

    > * If these other 23 guys aren’t going to get laid, what’s their incentive to
    > take you out and give you the Flintstone equivalent of a concrete overcoat?
    > Should a leader be as tyrannical as described, the answer would be for the
    > 23 guys to remove him from power, and enact some other form of government.

    Why do you assume that only the leader gets laid? That’s not stated. There may in fact be no leader, but it just be a group decision.

    > * Why should they kill you and thus reduce the population by 2%; therefore
    > losing an extra pair of hands for growing crops, hunting animals, defending
    > the tribe or worshiping the gods etc.?

    Well the argument would go that then there is less competition for the males I think.

    > * If you were killed, then surely any Genetic memory (assuming it even exists)
    > would end with you, and therefore not be perpetuated through to modern times.

    Well I think the “end with you” part is exactly what goes on. It’s called evolution – the males who aren’t shy don’t pass their genes on to modern times, and those that were shy avoid embarrassment, mate successfully, and pass on their genes, including their “shy with women” genes.

    > * In the unlikely event that he were to be correct, and somehow only one man
    > had access to impregnate all the females,

    Again, I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. It’s not explicity stated in the theory, nor a implicit requirement.

    > Further, if the tribal women were in control, and somehow could detect a male’s
    > ‘superior’ genetics, and thus refuse to breed with the ‘inferior’ males, as in
    > some type of primitive controlled breeding program. Then the genetic directional
    > selection would highly favour those males deemed to be more attractive, with the
    > resulting problem that very soon all the genetic variation for these traits would
    > be used up, and all the individuals would become extremely similar. History tells
    > us that this has never been the case.

    Um, where did tribal women come from? Anyway, human’s are fairly similar. The evolutionary advances that we have are mainly universal – two arms, two legs, kidney, liver, antibodies etc. There are also more complex issues at play here; for example, it may well be better to mate with the beta who protects his children than the alpha male who leaves later on.

    > If this were true of sexual selection among human females, then there would be
    > no point in the females exerting any choice.

    If you’re trying to say that women don’t select their mates, you’re dead wrong! If you’re trying to make a different point, I’m not sure what it is.

  2. Jonathan says:

    Like my friend, you make some superficially interesting points; but I assume you’re being devil’s advocate here, rather than demonstrating extreme naivety and a lack of attention to basic genetics and sociobiology.

    The point, which I obviously can’t have made very clearly in the original article, is that my friend has gynophobia, which he rationalizes by concocting a bizarre pseudo-scientific explanation. And, that explanation doesn’t stand up to cursory examination.

    I’ll correct a few issues, and then explain more fully why his hypothesis deserves to be laughed at.

    1. Mankind hasn’t stopped evolving: Evolution continues (admittedly, on a geological timescale) but, just because you don’t see organisms changing in front of your eyes, doesn’t mean that evolution has stopped. The human body is really quite a remarkable machine, capable of adapting to virtually anything that the planet can throw at it, both over the short term and the ultra-long term.

    2. Feelings exist to make us meet immediate needs (effectively, our bodies play tricks on us). So, for example, you feel hungry and whilst you think you’re eating to stop yourself feeling hungry, you’re actually eating to make sure you meet your basic metabolic needs. As you point out, you can ignore your feelings at any time you choose, but they are there for good reasons.

    3. Very little is hard-wired (to use your phrase), and all the examples you give are learned behaviours. I’ve seen it stated by several authoritative looking websites that the only phobias that a baby possesses are a fear of falling, and a fear of loud noises (this could be urban legend, as I can’t find research to back this up, but I have asked a Sociologist friend to look into it for me). However, as far as I’m aware, there are no cases of unprovoked babies being frightened of women. Further, given the opportunity, babies and small children will certainly play with snakes, as they are unaware of the danger. A quick Google will show you plenty of Florida based websites giving advice on how to keep children and snakes separated.

    4. Shyness cannot be directly attributed to a specific gene, because it is not a trait exhibited by new-born babies; a fact that indicates it is a learned behaviour. Even if we conduct a thought experiment, and imagine that some individuals actually possessed a “Shy with women gene” that inhibited them from making overtures to women; then a) this would not seem to be adaptive under any circumstance, and b) these individuals would quickly extinct themselves; either through my friends imaginary tribal leader having them beaten to death, or your imaginary tribe ostracising them, and thereby denying them group protection, which would leave them vulnerable to predation.

    Having corrected a few basic mistakes, we can see that the theory is so amusing, because there is almost no evidence remaining to tell us very much at all about the opinions of people living 50,000 years ago. Decisions may have been made in committee as you suggest, or there may have been some alpha dictator, as you claim later in your missive (although based on human physiology, this would be extremely unlikely). Equally, we might draw evidence from primitive cultures that have been documented in recent times and suggest a gerontocracy, a timocracy, a theocracy, a meritocracy, or even a geniocracy. Unfortunately, we just don’t know the answer, as there are no surviving records (assuming there were ever any created to start with).

    Interestingly, most evidence points towards a matriarchy. We know that in pre-Christian times, goddess worship was more important than today. There are numerous goddesses according to Pagan mythology, and during the spread of Christianity the festival of the goddess Eostre was hijacked to become Easter.

    The ancient Greek poet Homer, writing sometime around 800BC describes the causes of pregnancy as being microscopic ‘animalculae’ carried in the air which somehow get inside the female. So, even at this late stage, the connection between sex and pregnancy had not been established. And without that link, there can be no concept of paternity. Without a concept of paternity, there is no need to be concerned about the genetic makeup of a child, since it would in all probability just be considered a blessing from the gods/goddesses.

    Later on, after a parallel could be drawn between planting seeds in the ground and impregnating a female with semen, a man’s role could take on a different significance. Although the woman’s role in producing babies and Mother earth’s role in producing crops would give the women a special symbolic significance. Statuettes, such as the Venus of Willendorf, could quite easily represent a pregnant woman.

    So, you see, it’s easy to speculate what might or might not have happened 50,000 years ago. All we do know is that the tribe referred to would not have made the connection between sex and pregnancy, and thus it’s easy to imagine them living a promiscuous primitive lifestyle, possibly in a style similar to modern groups of primates.

    The very much simpler explanation for my friend’s gynophobia is that it’s a learned response (which he could easily unlearn, but hasn’t). Generally (and very briefly,) people learn phobias in one of three ways:

    1. Direct experience – He had a bad experience with a woman, and later developed his fear from that.
    2. Other people – He witnessed someone having a bad experience with a woman, and later developed his fear from that. Or when he was little, his parents told him to be careful of strangers, they’ll do bad things to you! Children are very good at learning.
    3. The Media – This one is more powerful than most people think. People have been known to develop phobias by watching TeeVee or movies, reading books and magazines etc. Jaws, The Birds and Arachnophobia are all good examples of films known to have caused phobias. Footage of the September 11th atrocity has given a number of people Aviophobia. Then, in children, nursery rhymes such as ‘Little Miss Muffet’, ‘Incy Wincy Spider’ or ‘I Know an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly’ could induce arachnophobia. Did you know that the Victorians used to use nursery rhymes and cautionary tales to try to scare children into behaving?

    Finally, since you invoked Charles Darwin, I’ll let him have the last say, by citing from his 1871 classic, Descent of Man.

    In order that primeval men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings, which impel other animals to live in a body; and they no doubt exhibited the same general disposition. They would have felt uneasy when separated from their comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of love; they would have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid in attack or defence. All this implies some degree of sympathy, fidelity, and courage. Such social qualities, the paramount importance of which to the lower animals is disputed by no one, were no doubt acquired by the progenitors of man in a similar manner, namely, through natural selection, aided by inherited habit. When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. Let it be borne in mind how all-important in the never-ceasing wars of savages, fidelity and courage must be. The advantage which disciplined soldiers have over undisciplined hordes follows chiefly from the confidence which each man feels in his comrades. Obedience, [...] for any form of government is better than none. Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities would spread and be victorious over other tribes: but in the course of time it would, judging from all past history, be in its turn overcome by some other tribe still more highly endowed. Thus the social and moral qualities would tend slowly to advance and be diffused throughout the world.

  3. spendabuk says:

    > “… than demonstrating extreme naivety and a lack of attention to basic genetics and sociobiology.”
    > “… and then explain more fully why his hypothesis deserves to be laughed at.”

    Belittling those of differing opinion is inaffective form of counter-argument. If your arguments themselves were strong, you wouldn’t need to resort to this manner. I have a Science degree from a top 20 university (ranked by The Times) and currently work in Medical research. I’m by no means an expert in evolutionary biology, but I’m no fool either.

    > 1. Mankind hasn’t stopped evolving: Evolution continues

    I think you’ll find that it is commonly accepted that mankind’s genetics have not significantly changed since prehistoric times. Evolution happens slowly and modernisation has happened too quickly for any measurable response.

    > The human body is really quite a remarkable machine, capable of adapting to virtually anything that the planet can throw at it

    Here you confuse evolution, which changes the genes of a population, and individuals adapting to a their environment (which is not passed on in genes). We learn to drive, which is only a modern need, but are still more scared of the lion in a cage (relatively safe) than hopping in a car (relatively dangerous).

    > 3. Very little is hard-wired (to use your phrase), and all the examples you give are learned behaviours.

    This belief has been pushed as a counter to racist’s arguments that people’s personality is defined by their race. In fact, humans are not “blank slate” beings, but very specialised beings that evolved to thier environment. (The racist’s are wrong though; while we are predisposed to certain behaviours, these don’t differ between races and they are regularly overwritten by training, eg children learn not to fight in the playground).

    > 4. Shyness cannot be directly attributed to a specific gene, because it is not a trait exhibited by new-born
    > babies; a fact that indicates it is a learned behaviour.

    There are plenty of phenotypes that cannot be attributed to a specific, single gene. Hair colour, for example, depends on a number of genes which exhibit complex interactions to determine the hair’s final colour. For something as complex as the human brain which determines human behaviour, the genetics are so complex they may never be understood by humans.

    Just because a trait is not exhibited by new-borns is no indication that it isn’t genetically inherited. For example, toddlers don’t try to have sex with women. They don’t try to chat up women. If they don’t try to chat up women, how could they get nervous while trying to do so? There are plenty of non-sexual examples too.

    > Even if we conduct a thought experiment, and imagine that some individuals actually possessed a “Shy with women gene”
    > that inhibited them from making overtures to women; then a) this would not seem to be adaptive under any circumstance,

    It is quite likely that this would be an adaptive advantage; it would save an individual embarrasment from being too bold. By making the individual nervous, he is cautious, and avoids ruining his tribal reputation.

    > Decisions may have been made in committee as you suggest, or there may have been some alpha dictator,
    > as you claim later in your missive

    I suggest neither of these, and I’m not sure why you believe so.

    > (although based on human physiology, this would be extremely unlikely).

    I am assume you mean psychology here?

    > So, you see, it’s easy to speculate what might or might not have happened 50,000 years ago.

    Yes, you do make some pretty crazy speculation there.

    > All we do know is that the tribe referred to would not have made the connection between sex and pregnancy,
    > and thus it’s easy to imagine them living a promiscuous primitive lifestyle, possibly in a style similar
    > to modern groups of primates.

    If they didn’t make the connection, so what? I agree that it would have similarities with modern society. Imagine a high school boy; if he asks one of the girls out, and she rejects, he is humiliated. No girl wants him now. Pretty similar to the orginal theory.

    > The very much simpler explanation for my friend’s gynophobia is that it’s a learned response

    I admit this may be the case (but not the “very much simpler”). Here are the reasons I don’t believe it to be the case:
    * It is universal across cultures (to the best of my knowledge).
    * It happens the first time one tries to talk to ‘girls’ for sexual gain. (Not after a bad experience)
    * Most of the ‘media’ that shows relationships are films, which generally show the boy hooking up with the girl, ie being successful, which would tend to discourage nervousness.

    As a child, I had a fear of heights. I believe it was innate (or at least I was predisposed) – my environment was similar to the rest of my family and friends, yet they didn’t develop it. Naturally, I have taught myself to overcome this fear. As you say, your friend should learn to get over his nervousness too. In fact, his theory gives a perfectly good reason to do this: he is no longer in prehistoric times. If man evolved that nervousness for prehistoric times, it doesn’t apply to modern living, and he should override it.

  4. spendabuk says:

    As I said, you may be right that being nervous with women is a learned behaviour.

    But then I put this to you: why can humans feel nervousness at all? Emotions can’t be learned, they’re innate. They may be revealed, but essentially every unique emotion is hard wired. So what survival or sexual benefit did nervousness confer on our ancestors?

  5. Jonathan says:

    Selective quoting can indeed make things look bad, although a good Seducer will see through your use of classical female persuasion skills (trying to induce guilt and sympathy in someone taking an opinion contrary to your own). Although I’m actually reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” Because some of your ideas really don’t seem like they come from someone educated at a highly rated university.

    However, since you are so highly qualified, I should have no need to point out that science is based around the hypothetico-deductive model, and as such, ground-breaking ideas like the ones you propose need evidence to back them up. If you are able to provide convincing solid evidence that some part of the science is incorrect, that hypothesis/theory becomes untenable, and must be conceded. So, being sceptical myself, I await your evidence.

    You can take this as rudeness if you like, but science thrives on criticism, and if you cannot take a little ribbing from someone like me, then seduction may not be the right choice for you. After all, I’m sure you will have read far worse criticism if you’ve ever looked at restaurant reviews; and then personally received far worse, were you misfortunate enough to walk-up to some girl having a bad hair day.

    Anyway, since I’ve had a good weekend and I have half an hour or so to spare today, (and replying to you is more fun than deleting Viagra comment spam), I’ll point you in the right direction:

    Evolution:
    Unless you are putting forward a Creationist argument, I am stupefied that anyone could claim that evolution has stopped, or that “genetics haven’t changed since prehistoric times”. Just look at the Cioclovina 1 neurocranium (Carbon dated to about 33,000 years old) from when Humans were starting to enter the European continent. For an even simpler explanation, ask yourself why does a European or African look different from a Chinese person? Quite simply because a really really long way back in time, continental drift and the collapse of the Bering land bridge separated the tribes, who evolved different appearances. Modern children born in Germany to Japanese parents will learn to speak German, but will not stop looking Japanese.

    You want a more recent or faster evolution example? consider the Peppered moth [Biston betularia] (Kettlewell 1955, 1956) and (Majerus 1998).

    Controversial Psychologists have also claimed that Human beings have crossed a threshold; after having evolved high levels of intelligence that enabled the creation of vaccines, cyborgs and gene manipulation, thus allowing mankind to take control of its own evolution.

    Your example comparing a lion in a cage with driving, is like comparing apples with oranges, we know that so long as the lion is in a locked cage, the cage is solidly constructed, with bars close enough together to keep the lion in, there is no danger (so long as we are sensible and do not poke our arms through the bars). A more realistic example would be to compare getting in a car (where one only has to be concerned about the incompetence of a fellow road user) with getting in the cage with the lion (where one is forced to worry about the last time the lion was fed).

    Learned behaviours and Genetics:
    Again, I am dumbfounded that you would claim that science has been rewritten to combat racism. The scientific method asks for proof, and if someone can conclusively prove that some race or other is superior or inferior, then that information will become part of the canon of scientific knowledge. People such as Herrnstein and Murray have raised interesting questions along these lines, but the evidence is far from conclusive, and the jury is still out. As a further example, were it to be hushed up that Africans were more likely to suffer Sickle-cell disease (in case someone’s delicate sensibilities were offended), then science would have been be held back and modern treatments for the disease might not have been discovered as quickly, or even at all.

    In his book, The Blank Slate, Psychologist Steven Pinker postulates that genetics acts as a sort of bootstrapping process that kick-start a new human being into exploring the world and acquiring language etc. In this model, things like driving a car, dating a lady, ploughing a field or operating a computer etc. are all more advanced tasks that would be built up from acquired smaller units of behaviour, earlier in life.

    Your example of children fighting in a playground is a good example of this learned behaviour, which I’ll illustrate using a quote from Bertrand Russell (Education and the Social Order, 1932) “I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: ‘The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that’s fair.’ In these words he epitomized the history of the human race”.

    Your claim that we may never understand the genetics of the human brain is a dangerous one, many things taken as common place today were previously thought impossible (aeroplanes, supersonic flight, and space travel for example).

    Whilst hair colour genetics are not completely understood yet, I maintain that any individual genetic trait must be included at birth to be called genetic. Obvious examples such as blood group or eye colour do not change after birth. So, your example of a toddler trying to chat-up a woman is both ludicrous and flippant; you are describing something ontogenic, since 1) the toddler needs to learn to talk, before he can ‘chat-up women’ 2) The toddler is still growing and trying to make sense of the world around him 3) He won’t start getting sexually interested in women until puberty and 4) A female toddler is equally under-developed, and the two would be incapable of procreating.

    I may however draw your attention to the fact that many small children will happily play games such as Kiss chase, even though sexual intercourse will not be the goal.

    Shyness:
    You’ve applied modern values and education to primeval man, and so you’ve been forced to backtrack on your claim that this hypothetical pre-technical tribe would have made the connection between sex and pregnancy, your argument is therefore crumbling; so I’ll just demonstrate the errors in the logic of your example pubescent high school girl and boy.

    Evidence suggests that people want what other people have (Something that Psychologist Robert B. Cialdini terms ‘Social Proof’). An example might be a woman being more influenced to have an affair with a man because he is married, and (subconsciously) reasoning that since some other woman wants him, he must have desirable characteristics. There is however, no evidence to suggest any truth in the opposite; and here’s why… I might say “I don’t like [some make of car]“, and so you’d reason “If Jonathan doesn’t like [some make of car], I don’t want one either”; other people would all agree with us, and a multi-billion dollar company shuts down overnight. This hasn’t happened yet.

    Looking the same situation in reverse does make sense though; for an example, you might tell me the benefits of your new washing machine or perhaps how good some new band is. Then, if I have trust in your ability to choose domestic appliances or music, there’s a very good chance that I’ll spend some money, or become a fan of the band.

    Back to the High school boy and girl; it is extremely unlikely that the hypothetical boy would never have seen an ‘American Pie’ type of film, where pubescent boys attempt to meet girls. I have the TeeVee on in the background here, and I’ve already witnessed two examples of men getting shot down while trying to chat-up a woman in the past half hour. I’ll agree that there’s often a Hollywood type ending where boy and girl patch up their differences and get married, but this is invariably preceded by the man undergoing a humiliating ordeal similar to that which you describe. Obviously a film does not represent real life, but I would propose that the media (correctly) shows many more failed attempts of men trying to meet women than successful ones. And, that this is clearly to their advantage, since it makes for a much more interesting storyline than boy meets girl and the two have a happy trouble free life together.

    Looking at the reason for the failure of boy and girl to get it together in a film or TeeVee series is more interesting, and often does reflect real life. Let’s suppose that out hypothetical boy and girl doesn’t have access to a TeeVee or cinema. The boy meets the girl, and unless the writers want comedic value, it doesn’t make sense for the boy to rush up to the girl, in front of her friends. It’s much simpler to pass her a note, catch her on the way to her next class, work on some school project with her, speak to a mutual friend etc. which is pretty much what we see in any film or series aimed at a teen audience. The drama comes later, when boy gets the girl alone, and mumbles and shakes, finally loses the ability to talk and generally makes an arse out of his self. The girl (singular) might fall about laughing, and it is this scene which would educate pubescent male viewers that it’s difficult to meet women; along with reinforcing the view that a girl should NEVER EVER ask a boy out (because he might behave as badly as our hypothetical schoolgirl).

    To recap, the boy was un-shy enough to write a note to the girl, delay her between classes, get himself doing some mutual activity with her, or locate a mutual friend. But, the shyness gene is nowhere to be seen, until he decides to ask her out… It is at this point that he gets nervous, and at that point when any Seducer worth his salt will tell you, there is a paradox to avoid.

    The paradox is that most people are honest. But the boy wants to have sex with the girl, and realises that a straightforward proposal for an exchange of body fluids is unlikely to be a successful approach. Therefore, he has to concoct some lie about wanting to go to a see a movie with her; when it’s quite obvious that if he really wanted to visit the cinema, he’d call up one of his male friends and arrange the whole episode with far less trauma. And, since the boy has morals and has been educated to be truthful and to respect girls, but has very little experience with them, this becomes an immediate problem, whose only answer, based on anecdotes, TeeVee and film learning is to umm and ahh like a moron, whilst impersonating someone with advanced Parkinson’s disease.

    In a foreign culture, this would be bypassed because of arranged marriages, group marriage, a polygynous culture (as with many primitive tribes), polyandry, lack of taboos around sex (such as in Greenland or Eskimo cultures) or the women being protected from unsolicited male advances by some type of facial covering (as in Arab culture).

    In Western European culture (which has spread to a large part of the world, during years of religious missionary work), with the advent of feminism, easily available abortions, the contraceptive pill giving women greater choice and powerful media tools to manipulate the populace that women are “Sugar and spice, and all things nice”, models of relationships have changed, whilst many men haven’t adapted. In the 1950’s it may just have been sufficient to demonstrate that you had good earning potential or to simply get the girl pregnant, so that you were forced to marry her. Nowadays, a little more thought is needed, so that a man can make a sensible choice of woman or women that he wants to keep around. Likewise, women want to be able to enjoy the company of good men, and have as many choices as possible left open to them.

    Thus, a teleological excuse for avoiding women, based on non-existing genetic evidence is both incorrect and unhelpful.

  6. Jonathan says:

    why can humans feel nervousness at all? Emotions can’t be learned, they’re innate. They may be revealed, but essentially every unique emotion is hard wired. So what survival or sexual benefit did nervousness confer on our ancestors?

    I believe this is a “fight or flight” reaction, adrenaline etc. is very rapidly pumped into your bloodstream, and blood is diverted to your muscles, away from your stomach, which temporarily shuts down, so you may get a feeling of butterflies, and you won’t want to eat. You will be in a state of extremely high readiness, prepared to engage in battle, should you walk into an ambush, or run away to safety, if the odds seem insurmountable.

    When you meet someone, you are right to be nervous, you are going to be telling lies, and you don’t know whether she will cry rape, whether her jealous 7 foot tall body builder boyfriend is around the corner, or maybe she will pull out a knife / gun. On the other hand, the vast majority of the time, you will end up having a great time with a lovely person, and the feeling passes in a few minutes, but if the ‘nerves’ didn’t happen, then you’d be injured or killed the first time you had a bad encounter.

    An actor friend of mine once pointed out that if you go on stage and don’t feel stage fright, then you’re over-confident, and will often end up making mistakes. Now, obviously, someone suffering from completely paralysing fear or panic attacks has a serious problem, and should consider treatment. Otherwise, it’s completely natural.

  7. spendabuk says:

    > …although a good Seducer will see through your use of classical female persuasion skills
    persuasion skills? are you kidding me? Rule1: don’t argue. Rule2: don’t use logic; use emotion.

    > If you are able to provide convincing solid evidence that some part of the science is incorrect,
    > that hypothesis/theory becomes untenable, and must be conceded.
    I’m not a evolutionary biologist and I’m it’s not my theory. I don’t believe it’s necessarily the case, but I think it’s definitely feasible. I do believe that there are a number of ape studies that try to objectively analyse group behaviour analogous to a simplified human tribe.

    > You can take this as rudeness if you like,
    Don’t worry there; you’re later responses make up for the earlier indiscretions.

    > Anyway, since I’ve had a good weekend … I’ll point you in the right direction:
    How very kind of you.

    > Unless you are putting forward a Creationist argument, I am stupefied that anyone could
    > claim that evolution has stopped, or that “genetics haven’t changed since prehistoric times”.
    > … ask yourself why does a European or African look different from a Chinese person?
    These are very minor changes. As I said, the genes have “not significantly changed”. Of course they have changed, but I think you’ll find that most biologists will attribute characteristics to being sculptured by the environment of prehistoric times over the agricultural environment. Certainly, there is very little real difference between the races.

    > You want a more recent or faster evolution example? consider the Peppered moth [Biston betularia] (Kettlewell 1955, 1956) and (Majerus 1998).
    I assume you’re talking about a moth that changed colour during the industrial revolution. This is a very tiny change in a very simple organism, which made a huge difference to survival. Subtle human behaviour might only bring small benefits over dozens of generations to be selected. Also, what is a moths lifespan? Much shorter than a human, that’s for sure.

    > Your example comparing a lion in a cage with driving, is like comparing apples with oranges,
    I think you failed to understand the point of that example. The example was supposed to juxtapose an evolutionary fear (lion) that’s safe today (caged) with an real danger (cars) that didn’t exist. You want evidence? Well, that’s clear evidence. Cars kill, we haven’t adapted. Cars haven’t been around for that long. What about alcohol? We’ve maybe grown more tolerant to it (physically), but we still choose to consume a poisson that indirectly kills many.

    > Again, I am dumbfounded that you would claim that science has been rewritten to combat racism.
    > The scientific method asks for proof, and if someone can conclusively prove that some race or
    > other is superior or inferior, then that information will become part of the canon of scientific knowledge.
    I’m dumbfounded that you don’t see that. It has been common that science has been suppressed (earth is round) or abused (Nazi science). It takes a long time for science to correct itself. Science requires objectivity, and people can’t, it seems, but objective when it comes to race.

    The very fact that you see things in the light of “superior or inferior” highlights how difficult it would be to discuss an issue of science in this arena. The very cause of the problem was that racists were trying to prove the superiority of the white race. It sounds ridiculous and it was – eventually it was knocked down by good evidence and political activism. However, there are differences in our genetic makeup – not making one “superior” over another, just scientific differences.

    If you want evidence of this, try discussing what evolutionary conditions produced differences in the races in public. My guess is that you’ll get viciously attacked.

    > Your example of children fighting in a playground is a good example of this learned behaviour, which I’ll
    > illustrate using a quote from Bertrand Russell (Education and the Social Order, 1932) “I found one day in
    > school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: ‘The bigs hit me,
    > so I hit the babies; that’s fair.’ In these words he epitomized the history of the human race”.
    It must be more innate than this. You’re saying that if you just stuck five boys at age 1 day old into a pen, excluded from the outside world, and watched them grow, they would never physically fight? Children see and copy a lot of things, but nothing as eagerly as fighting, despite being something actively discouraged by adults.

    > Your claim that we may never understand the genetics of the human brain is a dangerous one, many things
    > taken as common place today were previously thought impossible (aeroplanes, supersonic flight,
    > and space travel for example).
    Maybe incorrect; maybe naive. Dangerous? Don’t be silly.

    > Whilst hair colour genetics are not completely understood yet, I maintain that any individual genetic
    > trait must be included at birth to be called genetic. Obvious examples such as blood group or eye
    > colour do not change after birth. So, your example of a toddler trying to chat-up a woman is both ludicrous…
    I think you again failed to understand my point. Traits visible at birth are most likely genetic; but they’re not the only ones. Just because they’re latent at birth, you can’t claim that they have no genetic basis.

    Let’s read your argument again:
    > Shyness cannot be directly attributed to a specific gene, because it is not a trait exhibited by
    > new-born babies; a fact that indicates it is a learned behaviour.
    Hmm, well that’s very interesting. New borns don’t have acne. Now let’s follow your argument through. Acne cannot be directly attributed to a specific gene, because it is not a trait exhibited by new-born babies; a fact that indicates it is a learned behaviour. Ipso facto? Unlikely.

    > You’ve applied modern values and education to primeval man, and so you’ve been forced to backtrack
    > on your claim that this hypothetical pre-technical tribe would have made the connection between sex
    > and pregnancy, your argument is therefore crumbling;
    I never claimed that a tribe would posess a knowledge that sex leads to pregnancy. Never – so don’t say I’m backtracking.

    > Evidence suggests that people want what other people have (Something that Psychologist Robert B.
    > Cialdini terms ‘Social Proof’). An example might be a woman being more influenced to have an
    > affair with a man because he is married, and (subconsciously) reasoning that since some other
    > woman wants him, he must have desirable characteristics.
    This really counts in my favour. If people want something desirable, surely it makes sense that they would avoid something undesirable?

    > There is however, no evidence to suggest any truth in the opposite; and here’s why… I might say
    > “I don’t like [some make of car]”, and so you’d reason “If Jonathan doesn’t like [some make of
    > car], I don’t want one either”; other people would all agree with us, and a multi-billion dollar
    > company shuts down overnight. This hasn’t happened yet.
    You seem to think that one person exists that’s so influential that everyone listens to them, which is ridiculous. Imagine the positive case here: if some rapper says xxx is the right champagne to drink, some people will listen and sales will increase a little; if he says xxx is a shit champagne, some people will listen and sales might decrease a little. Nothing about an entire industry shutting down. If I asked you to walk down Bond Street in short shorts, would you do it? No, because that fashion is no longer approved. Things do come into fashion, but they don’t just stay there as you suggest; they definitely go out of fashion too. You don’t want to be the male that goes “out of fashion” because you’ll it hard to come back in!

    Another example is this. Try chatting up a girl in a loud manner; all the other girls can’t hear exactly what you’re saying, but they’re aware of you. You get shot down, everyone sees that, is aware. What do you think of your chances with the girls in the rest of the room?

    * You then make two good points: one is how social nervousness might be, in part, a learned response. The other is explaining one of the needs for nervousness as an emotion to “prepare to engage in battle”.

    However, I ask you this: sure we give the same word name to nervousness from physical danger and from social “danger”, but are they really the same feeling? I don’t think so. It feels quite different to me, but hey, that’s me; you might be different. If you’re nervous from chatting up a girl, I think your feeling would change a lot if you met her “7 foot tall body builder boyfriend”; still “nervous” but of a quite different type.

    Certainly humans have the most complex social interactions of any animal, and we have evolved especially to deal with these complex situations. It is well known, for example, that women are attracted to socially powerful men, ie leaders (remember, I never suggested that there is one all mighty alpha male; social hierarchies are often very complex). Humans that are good at dealing with social situations are sexually selected by the opposite sex. I wouldn’t rule out so rashly the possibility that social nervousness is a side affect of this.

  8. Jonathan says:

    The fact that you mention rules tells me that you are trying to reduce Seduction down to some kind of magic bullet; which to be true would have to assume that everyone is homogenous, they all behave the same way, and in all circumstances. This hasn’t worked for Fein and Schneider, and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence why this or a similar system could or even should start working in future.

    At best your ‘rules’ are very general guidelines to stop men defining themselves ‘as their jobs’; and doesn’t even improve on 2,000 year old seduction methods such as Ovid’s Ars Amatoria. With this in mind, when I first looked on the internet for newer information relating to sex and seduction etc., all I could find were social clubs for boys to brag, grandstand and pretend to be tough. As you might imagine, this was somewhat of a disappointment to me.

    So, if you’ve taken the time to read the introduction and rationale for this website, you will know that I believe that seduction goes through a series of cycles and trends over time. And furthermore, that the scientific method, even though it may sometimes be slow and cumbersome, is the best way to deal with the mass of information that is available out there (and mainly ignored by the populace).

    As you rightly point out, there are (and will be) aberrations such as Nazi Science; but these are eliminated as the evidence piles up against them, and they are eventually proved to be worthless piles of crap. On the other hand, it’s easy to make a mistake where casual observation points to an obvious conclusion which later turns out to be incorrect, as with your example of the Sun moving round the Earth. There is no shame in being wrong, but to deny a conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence is the height of ignorance and stupidity, as is the case with practitioners of Astrology, so called ‘energy medicines’ and such like. Interestingly, I note that Nobel laureate James D. Watson Ph.D. has made some extraordinary claims regarding racial differences recently; if these claims are to be taken seriously, he will have to have extraordinary evidence to back them up. This is the way that science works, and any inability of other people to remain pragmatic only reflects on the poor state of science teaching in schools today.

    Anyway, re-reading our discussion, I was interested to note that I believe the disagreement was down to my inability to communicate my ideas to you, whilst you believe it is down to my “failing to see your point”.

    I suspect that there is also a great deal of confusion between Genes and Evolution, since you make claims about a great number of things genetic in your comment. I’ve given examples of evolutionary changes, and you’ve dismissed them as being minor and tiny. However, on an evolutionary scale, these are mammoth changes because any evolved creature must live in an evolutionarily stable system (otherwise there would be much greater speciation, or just a population of mutants). The moth lifecycle, precisely because it is so short, allows us to look at evolution on a very much speeded up scale, as 100’s of generations of moths will have come and gone during the lifecycle of one human being. Thus, in very simple terms, genetics is what we and our 50,000 year old ancestors have, that codes how we are, but evolution is the change in gene frequency that has occurred to the gene population between then and now (and going into the future).

    Evolution (as I keep pointing out) is a fact; and our disagreement stems from the mechanisms of evolution, and what specifically has evolved or been learned. To clarify this, the mechanisms of evolution are random genetic drift, gene flow, and most especially natural selection:

    Genetic drift occurs randomly, but not frequently, and then when it does happen it often affects non-coding DNA, and the net result is only slight changes over a long period of time. Large drifts would tend to result in mutation of the chromosome, which in turn would either be adaptive or mal-adaptive, with mal-adaptive changes often not being viable, and thus dying out.

    Gene flow would tend to depend upon environmental factors, immigration, emigration etc. So, for example, if two individuals reproduce, and one has an allele that confers resistance to some disease, this could be passed onto the offspring. Obviously, the level of mobility would either increase or decrease genetic variability. So, populations that stay together would have reduced genetic variation, and thus in-group differences would tend to be eliminated.

    Natural selection, which many people understand as ‘survival of the fittest’ acts to promote genetic changes that confer some advantage to the reproductive success of the gene. So, a gene that expressed itself as resistance to some disease or other would tend to promote reproductive success. An individual could still be killed some other way, but the population from which it came from would be better off as a whole. On the other hand, a change that expressed itself, for example, as someone being born with one arm instead of two would be mal-adaptive, since that individual would be at a disadvantage to the rest of the population. This individual could still reproduce (everything else being equal), even though reduced defensive capabilities, carrying capacity and social factors would reduce this probability; then assuming that individual did reproduce, genetic flow would tend to reverse the change and produce offspring with genetic material closer to that of the population as a whole.

    Now, natural selection works in a number of different ways; initially the organism must survive to adulthood, this is known as viability selection. Then at adulthood, sexual selection occurs, where organisms compete for mates. If the organism can reproduce more than once, a long life is useful, and survival selection occurs. Fecundity can then be influenced by fecundity selection. Finally, some combinations of eggs and sperm might be more compatible than others, and this is known as compatibility selection.

    So, your examples of babies chatting up women and evolutionary acne are very simply countered because sexual selection does not apply to the baby, until it reaches adulthood; and acne is just an excess of sebum produced by the skin, whilst the individual is adjusting to the changes of puberty. It may be possible that someone could be genetically predisposed to produce excess sebum all their life, but this would not be adaptive, and would most likely be corrected in the next generation.

    As to children being evolutionarily predisposed to fighting; your experiment is highly unlikely to ever be performed. But why shouldn’t the children learn for themselves? I’ve already pointed out that children are very good at learning, and scientists have previously performed experiments where primates have learned to extract bananas from man-made puzzles, without any prior training.

    Using your lion and car analogy, it seems pretty obvious to me that the reaction would be “there’s something big coming towards me, fast! Get out of the way immediately!”. A caged lion and a stationary car hold no fear, but either one coming towards you at speed would certainly trigger the response I’ve just described. Standing around, trying to decide whether the object was a lion, a car, a gigantic custard pie or something else might not be the best survival tactic, and I would further suggest that any individuals who did think that way would have been removed from the population a long time ago (natural selection in action).

    The rest of your points are psychological, and rather confused. People certainly move away from things they don’t like, and towards desirable things. But this is psychological rather than genetic. Your hypothetical rapper can only have a small negative overall influence on champagne sales, and he can’t stop people drinking it completely, because even if he claims it tastes like dog piss, people who have tried it will know that he is lying. On the other hand, if he claims it tastes great, his overall sphere of influence is limited to a subset of his fan base that drinks champagne, which by definition will be an extremely small subset of the total population; and even then it’s debatable whether they’d continue drinking it afterwards.

    To tell me to walk down Bond Street in short shorts, unless you’re pointing a gun at my head, would most likely lead to a torrent of abuse. If you ask me to walk down Bond Street in short shorts, I would want to know what my incentive was. You forget that people are motivated by incentives, but this isn’t a genetic trait, it’s straightforward logic. I do something for you, and indirectly benefit. The same way that you go to work and perform some function that has no direct benefit to you; but then at regular intervals of the year you’re given folding paper tickets that you can exchange for food, rent and other day-to-day expenses.

    Your idea of chatting up girls in a loud manner reminds me of the man that goes to the doctor complaining that he gets a sharp stabbing pain in the eye every time he drinks coffee. So, the doctor tells him take the spoon out of the cup, before he drinks it. Thus, if you chat-up girls in a loud manner in bars, then you deserve to be shunned by everyone else there; both female and male. This harks back to your point about schoolboys chasing schoolgirls in serials and films aimed at teens. What you see in those media is not really an especially effective way to meet women in real life. It’s just a constructed story that makes for interesting viewing, and if this is your way of meeting women then it illustrates my point that people are influenced by media and have learned strategies from watching TeeVee etc. instead of having them genetically ‘hard-wired’ in at birth.

    As to whether we both feel nervousness the same way, that’s a philosophical question that I believe can’t be answered, so I’ll have to leave that for other people to kibitz about. For myself, I can certainly feel different types of hunger (desiring a hamburger, or maybe wanting a vegetarian Chinese meal instead) as examples, or I can feel different levels of nervousness, from slight apprehension of meeting a friend I haven’t seen for a long time, to the terror of being attacked by a gang.

    In your case, first there’s the POTENTIAL of meeting her psychotic boyfriend, which would change to the FACT of meeting the nutter, should it turn out that he actually exists. If you were to confuse the two situations, you could be in trouble, since you could either overreact to the potential threat, thus never talking to strange girls; or under react to the actual threat, and become embroiled in a pointless altercation.

    As to your idea about leaders, that didn’t make sense to me at all. I put famous leaders into Google, and it sent me to http://www.famouspeople.co.uk/leaders/ which lists Douglas Bader, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela; none of which stand out to me as having a reputation for having had a lot of sex, or dated a lot of women (or even men). You might have a point if you claimed Catherine the Great, but she would be the exception rather than the rule. The Chevalier de Seingalt, Mata Hari or Hugh Hefner, who I might list as good seducers couldn’t be classed as leaders. So, there is no direct link between leadership and seduction, and no evolutionary component to leadership either. In fact, Investment councillors will point out that leadership tends to dissipate over successive generations; the Rockefellers, Rothschilds and Hilton families are no longer as rich and powerful as they were just a couple of generations back, as quick examples.

    Looking at your ‘Shyness with women’ gene hypothesis in more detail; in order to prove this theory you would need to account for how it arose, and how it propagated through the population. Radical feminists have argued for the existence of a ‘Rape gene’, for example, and you could look at your ‘Shyness with women’ gene as being something like the opposite of this. But both are wrong however.

    A ‘Rape gene’ would be adaptive, since you could force an unwilling female to bear your child (who might also carry the gene), but a gene that inhibited people from reproducing would not be adaptive, and quickly become extinct.

    You could argue that a Mutation-selection balance caused the gene to keep reoccurring through genetic drift, as is the case with Sickle Cell Anaemia or Cystic Fibrosis. But this could only account for perhaps 1% of the total population. Whereas people I’ve spoken to, who specialise in personal development matters, tell me that fear of public speaking is by far and away the most common difficulty that people ask for help with. Unfortunately, I don’t have any numbers to quantify this, but if they are being truthful, then it would have to exceed the number of people that fear flying, open spaces, dogs, closed spaces or heights etc.

    Anyway, we now have enough background information to apply a simple form of game theory to our hypothetical primeval tribe. So, if we were to imagine these people to be an evolutionarily stable colony of normal or bold individuals, then if someone is born with a ‘Shyness with women’ gene, that gene conveys no evolutionary advantage, and so will get swamped by genes that promote promiscuity until it’s extinct, assuming it reproduces at all. Conversely, a ‘Rape gene’ would unbalance the population, and you would end up with an evolutionarily stable population of rapists, within a few generations. Clearly neither of these situations has occurred.

    I hope this information helps clear things up.

  9. spendabuk says:

    >Anyway, re-reading our discussion, I was interested to note that I believe the disagreement was
    >down to my inability to communicate my ideas to you, whilst you believe it is down to my
    >“failing to see your point”.

    Definately incorrect. You are close-minded bigot who refuses to listen to a reasonable explanation. Each time you’ve interpreted an analogy, you’ve just jumped to a ridiculous interpretation without any effect to understand the meaning behind it. You’ve continually invented unnecessary requirements for the origanal hypothesis and then tried to shoot it down based on the very requirements you invented. It appears you haven’t changed your opinion despite numerous corrections and detailed explanation.

    >A ‘Rape gene’ would be adaptive, since you could force an unwilling female to bear your child
    >(who might also carry the gene), but a gene that inhibited people from reproducing would not be
    >adaptive, and quickly become extinct.

    >then if someone is born with a ‘Shyness with women’ gene, that gene conveys no evolutionary
    >advantage,

    So, what your whole hypothesis boils down to is this: this trait (nervousness) cannot have any evolutionary advantage (don’t claim it is a single gene – this, again, is an assumption on your behalf). And yet you willingly admit:

    >Thus, if you chat-up girls in a loud manner in bars, then you deserve to be shunned by everyone
    >else there; both female and male.

    Surely you can see that if a nervousness trait helps a male avoid this public humiliation, then it can convey an evolutionary advantage?

    In modern society the humiliation might be worth the risk, but in a tribe, it might be remembered forever by your entire group of mating potentials.

    >Conversely, a ‘Rape gene’ would unbalance the population, and you would end up with an
    >evolutionarily stable population of rapists, within a few generations.

    Just thought I’d correct one of your more extreme abherrations from logic. There is a reason males try to protect their sisters, cousins and wives: it is protectin from rape. And if someone did attempt or succeed to rape a woman, there is no doubt there close relatives would try to kill him. So this sexual strategy is a risky one in humans (in some animals rape is very common).

  10. Jonathan says:

    Spendabuk,
    I’m disappointed: Not because you’ve resorted to hectoring to defend the hypothesis; I can understand you feeling passionate about some idea and not wanting to be wrong after you’ve nailed your colours to the mast. But because the sum of your argument seems to be “I can’t believe what you’re saying, so therefore it isn’t true”. This is what logicians call an argument from ignorance.

    Now, as the advocate of the theory, it’s your responsibility to prove it. That means you need solid evidence, firm logic and a strong argument. I grant you it’s not easy, especially since as a critic, all I have to do is show one instance where the hypothesis fails, and the whole theory becomes invalid. But, having said that, I would actually be happy were you proved right; because then I would have learned something new, and the sum of my knowledge and experience would better for it.

    Your correction of my “extreme aberration from logic” is quite amusing, since you are disagreeing with my counter-example. Read my previous comment again, [Rape gene idea was invented by radical feminists] Funnier still is that whilst you’re essentially correct that in any society, primitive or modern, rape would be prohibited and the perpetrator punished. In an evolutionary sense, it could actually be a good strategy since transience of the father isn’t important, so long as the gene is passed on (look at Praying mantises as an example). So, your reasoning is incorrect, whilst the correct reasoning is that the rape gene theory fails to predict the state of the modern population, when modelled via something like simple game theory, it also fails to offer any explanation for male-male rape, and, no doubt fails plenty of other tests too.

    Back to genetic shyness; you postulate that human beings are badly evolved for the current world, because some adaptation from their past (shyness) interferes with their living in the modern world. I’ve countered that shyness is not universal across all society or even culture; lets look at some adaptive behaviours that might be hardwired (to use your term) because they are universal across all societies and cultures:

    Avoiding decaying food
    Avoiding objects moving towards you at speed
    Avoiding Incest
    Exploring the area around you

    And then compare these to some adaptive fears, which need to be learned:

    Dentophobia
    Cyberphobia
    Triskaidekaphobia
    Phasmophobia

    All the behaviours in the first category are autonomic: So, if someone were to offer you badly decomposed food, you wouldn’t need to assess how decayed or stinking it was, you’d decline instantly; If you saw something coming towards you fast, you wouldn’t stand there trying to work out what it was, you’d just duck. And all are excellent behaviours that stop you getting sick or damaged.

    The behaviours in the second category must be learned before you can exhibit them: So, until you’ve learned bad things about Dentists, you can’t react to them. Likewise, until someone tells you ghost stories, you don’t know to be worried in old houses. Wrongly or rightly, you then avoid the pain of a root canal filling, or the dangers of encountering a gang of crackhead squatters.

    Fear of meeting women certainly falls into this second category, since you have nothing to fear until someone tells you horror stories about girls being nasty, mean and spitting in the faces of boys that offer to buy them a drink or give them flowers. Yet you probably played quite happily with girls when you were a little boy (I know I did), then puberty came along and family, friends, colleagues or the media trotted out some crappy old story about all girls being bitches, or showed you cartoon strips about henpecked husbands etc.

    Personally, I think that we’re not configured to understand how the world around is works, merely to survive in it and procreate. In order to do that, our brains create illusions and shortcuts for us to help us operate. For example, we all know that time moves forwards, yet we remember things backwards; we can only see in the visible light spectrum, yet specially designed equipment tells us that things do exists in the ultra-violet and infra-red range. But it’s just not necessary for us to understand these things in day-to-day living, and even were it available, all this extra information could just overload the brains processing capability, leaving us less able to cope.

    Modern seducers such as Russell Brand regularly make fools out of themselves and seem to suffer no adverse consequences. Then there are a number of famous seducers that claim they were always confident and unafraid of women; Casanova was certainly confident all through his life, Frank Harris recollects a conversation between himself, George Meredith, Walter Pater and Oscar Wilde in which they discuss the awakening of sexual feelings, where Mr Harris recalls finding himself being attracted to girls legs at an age of between four and five. Iceberg Slim talks of getting Georgied when he was three. He is terrified of the beatings his stepfather gives him, yet:

    I was frantic to sock it into every young girl weak enough to go for it. I had to run for my life one evening when an enraged father caught me on his back porch punching animal-like astride his daughter’s head. I had become impatient with the unusual thickness of her maidenhead.

    Finally, one of the more interesting genetic laws is that ‘if your parents didn’t have children, then chances are that you won’t either’. The upshot of this is that when you say that someone who was shy and wouldn’t meet women in 2007AD would end their life as a lonely virgin then I’ll agree with you. But, if you claim that you had an ancestor in 2007BC, who was shy and wouldn’t meet women, then I’ll have to call you a liar.

  11. spendabuk says:

    >But because the sum of your argument seems to be “I can’t believe what you’re saying,
    >so therefore it isn’t true”.
    No, that is exactly your stance. You refuse to concede that shyness might give an evolutionary advantage based on nothing.

    >Now, as the advocate of the theory, it’s your responsibility to prove it
    You’re the fool who’s writing articles on a website – I think it’s your responsibility to defend your assertions. Your position is that the theory is impossible. My position is that you’re incorrect – ie the theory’s not impossible. I’m not claiming I can prove it, just saying that you can’t disprove it. Hence the burden of proof lies with you.

    >Fear of meeting women certainly falls into this second category, since you have nothing
    >to fear until someone tells you horror stories about girls being nasty, mean and spitting
    >in the faces of boys that offer to buy them a drink or give them flowers.
    God, what a shitty little island you live on. I’ve never heard of stories like that.

    >Yet you probably
    >played quite happily with girls when you were a little boy (I know I did), then puberty came
    >along and family, friends, colleagues or the media trotted out some crappy old story about
    >all girls being bitches, or showed you cartoon strips about henpecked husbands etc.
    This is clear evidence against your hypothesis. If it were really the media or society imposing these views on women, children would be just as scared as adults of girls. The fact that nervousness is linked with a genetically inherited trait (puberty) directly implies nervousness is inherited.

    >The upshot of this is that when you say that someone who was shy and wouldn’t meet women in
    >2007AD would end their life as a lonely virgin then I’ll agree with you. But, if you claim
    >that you had an ancestor in 2007BC, who was shy and wouldn’t meet women, then I’ll have to call you a liar.

    Here’s two of the amazing fallacies of your logic.

    1) In a tribe, you can’t go out and meet women; all your mating partners are there already there.

    2) Nervous people do get laid. They grow out of it, get married, and be successful. Alternatively, a woman just picks them. (Had they not been nervous, they may have made a fool of themselves and been permanently shunned)

    I reiterate: your whole argument rests on the on the blind assumption that nervousness cannot have any evolutionary benefit. We all know nervous people who have gone on to have kids; how can you jump to the conclusion that they all die “a lonely virgin”?

  12. Jonathan says:

    I’m the King of Ireland; and my Grandmother invented a cure for Cancer; now disprove my allegations.

    Of course you can’t… similar to in a court of law, where it’s up to the person advocating an argument to prove it, and not for someone else to disprove it. If I ask you to prove you’ve never killed anybody, then you’d have to account for every second of your life (which would be fairly difficult).

    Go and search for Bertrand Russell’s 1952 essay, The Celestial Teapot. That might help you understand your lack of logic; or perhaps a more scientific explanation, for someone that claims to be an alumnus of a prestigious University: If someone invents a new medicine for some disease, it’s up to the Pharmaceutical company trying to sell it to prove that it works to the satisfaction of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), it’s not for the MCA to prove otherwise. The same goes for all other sensible cases that need to be proved, scientific, legal or otherwise.

    I’ve demonstrated that there are people in my society that aren’t shy from birth, that there are other cultures where people don’t have sexual hang-ups. And I’ve come to the opinion that that shyness (or lack thereof) is transmitted societally or mimetically. So, maybe an easier path for you to go down is to disprove that shyness is transmitted societally or mimetically. Of course, if you can do that, it brings no evidence that shyness is inherited genetically, but it will narrow down the number of possibilities, and then, perhaps between the two of us, we can produce a better explanation. Incidentally, for you to prove that shyness at puberty is genetic, you need to show that it’s something other than huge amounts of hormones causing big changes to the child’s body. We already accept that people are scared of what they don’t understand. So, as an example, imagine that you woke up one morning and found an excrescence, I expect then you might feel quite nervous, regardless of whether there’s a woman about or not.

    Next, in a (small) tribe you must go out and look for women, because it’s quite likely that you’d be related to most of the ones in your tribe, and the resulting inbreeding depression would be a lot worse for the tribe as a whole than for the one member getting turfed out. But pairing up with a girl from the neighbouring tribe gives you the opportunity to control more land, have more friends and colleagues to hunt/gather food and defend the newly enlarged tribe, as well as the various genetic advantages. Plus, avoiding incest is something else that seems to be universal across all cultures and societies.

    Nervousness exists on a continuum, some people are extremely nervous to the point of locking themselves away and living as hermits, whilst other people would tend to be classed as shameless. Both ends of the spectrum would be likely to make fools of themselves, but the remarkable thing is that unless the individual concerned does something really really idiotically stupid (and that’s quite rare), then people just laugh it off, and a few days later it’s all forgotten about. Laughter is something else that seems to be universal across all cultures and societies.

    Finally, your attitude and language is getting to the point where it’s starting to bug me. If you want to insult me or claim that people from the UK are shitty little islanders, I want to see evidence to back it up (that way it becomes fair comment (you’ll find your sentences tend to continue: because… as… or since…)), but if it’s just an irrational prejudice because some of your ancestors were ejected from my tribe, and transported to the land down under, then it becomes Libel, there’s no excuse for it, and you’ll force me to terminate the discussion.

    In summary, show me evidence, but not supposition, guesswork or wishful thinking.

  13. spendabuk says:

    From Wikipedia, “The Ashes”:

    300 matches have been played, with Australia winning 121 times, England 95 times, and 88 draws.

    You retards get beaten by a county a third your size.

    Not to mention NHS only introduced dental cover last decade, you crooked tooth retard.

    UK v Australia facts:
    * Australia has better weather;
    * Australia has more land per person (even after removing deserts);
    * girls are hotter;
    * beaches are superior;
    * lifestyle romps yours;
    * play sport better;
    * is a better tourist destination;
    * is far better.

    This is my last post.

  14. Jonathan says:

    Thanks for demonstrating the superiority of an Australian education; although I’m left wondering why such a multitude of your fellow countrymen still choose to travel to my godforsaken country.

    Since you’ve demonstrated that you’re incapable of sustaining a sensible debate, I’ve closed the discussion. But I sincerely hope that you find another website where your invective is appreciated more.