quiet_NaN
4hr ago
Before I deleted X, I saw several posts asking why non-promiscuous men are still chasing the "hoes" (and are complaining about them) instead of concentrating on the majority of women that aren't.
At the risk of sharing the Ig Nobel with you, it seems to me that men might be generally more interested in sex outside established relationships, or earlier in a relationship.
From an evo-psych perspective, this is certainly what we should expect. A female mammal invests quite some resources in her offspring, so genes which promote being picky about partners and mating only with the ones which seem to thrive most in their environment is an optimal strategy. For male mammals, the situation is different, because their investment in the process is comparatively tiny. (Obviously this varies widely between species, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, etc). One complication with humans is that it is non-obvious if a woman is currently fertile or not. In response, genes thrived in humanity which make men horny all the time, circumstances permitting.
For the genes in a woman, mate selection is akin to the secretary problem. Better to wait a few months than spending years raising a child with subpar genes. (Where subpar could mean 'bad at a silly Kensian beauty contest, like a peacock without any tail feathers'). From the perspective of the same genome in a man, it is still akin to the secretary problem, but on a very different time scale, here the genes would optimize for 'what is the best investment for a day's worth of testes production?'
Obviously this gets complicated by gene-culture interactions, a gene which will cause its carrier getting stoned for adultery or ingroup rape will not thrive too much, for example.
As a man who is by inclination (if not by opportunity) a slut, I imagine that male promiscuity is one or two standard deviations higher than female promiscuity. For example, I imagine that it would be very easy for me to arrange a hookup with someone with a similar hotness score as myself -- if I was willing to hook up with a guy, which is sadly not one of my kinks.
There are probably a few men around who are non-promiscuous to the point where "join a church, court a single woman from the congregation, marry her, have missionary PIV sex, figure out if it is good sex or you have any (non-sinful) kinks in common, have a few kids" is compatible with their sex drive, but most will probably be off better competing for women more interested in sex, at least in the short-to-medium term.
quiet_NaN
1d ago
The existence of God is possibly the culture war issue that TheMotte has the highest degree of internal disagreement about, given that we have a pretty healthy mix of both Christians and atheists here.
Not really. The Motte, child of Slate Star Codex and grandchild of Less Wrong, has strong rationalist roots. I do not recall anyone explicitly arguing here that MAGA is clearly whom God wants to you vote for and that you should not vote Democrats lest you are condemning yourself to hell in doing so. In practice, Trump is 100 times more divisive in terms of CW than God is.
Consciousness is really spooky and mysterious. It seems spooky and mysterious in principle in a way that nothing else in (material) reality is. Perhaps this is an indication that other spooky and mysterious things are going on too, like God.
This feels about as convincing as 'quantum computing and consciousness are both weird and therefore equivalent'.
More seriously, it is not clear to me the consciousness hypothesis is making any falsifiable claim about the observable universe, which it curiously enough shares with the theism hypothesis. (Or at least the less silly version of the theism hypothesis. There are probably people who would claim that praying to god to cure your cancer or strike your enemies with lightning bolts will work outperform chemotherapy and cruise missiles, but their claims are already falsified.)
I will grant you that life is weird, and brains capable of introspection are extra weird. But I do not share the intuition that the material world can not give rise to weird stuff. Take Conway's Life. Cellular automata are dead simple compared to the material reality of atoms and black holes. And yet Life is already Turing complete. Any observable thing my brain can do, including claiming consciousness, a sufficiently large cellular automaton could also do.
--
The other problem with rational arguments for god is that they treat { Abrahamic God, no gods } as a complete hypothesis space. This is silly. There are myriads of possible creators of the universe. Absolutely nothing privileges the Abrahamic God over the alternatives from other cultures. Why God and not Rod or dread Azathoth or Waheguru or a Demiurge or that ball of noodles?
In fact, I think that if the universe we inhabit can teach us anything about our creator, it seems to me that the state we find ourselves in seems incompatible with it being all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful. Like, He created a fine-tuned universe of a diameter of more than 14 Gigaparsecs to get a tiny rock on which us apes could evolve and thrive, and He did not bother to fine tune it a bit more to prevent cancer or kidney stones? Seems like something an asshole move.
More likely, a creator would be wholly indifferent towards life. Even supposing that He had created gamma ray bursts to keep life in check would be presuming too much. Probably He is less interested in humans than we are in the dust mites colonizing our bedrooms.
I am sure that if the kind of larvae which thrive in animal dung had higher cognitive capability, they would worship the cow which produced their cow pat as a omni-benevolent divine creator which produced their world so that the insects could thrive, and claim the bovines have really strong opinions about how a good insect should behave.
The snarky remark would be that presidential corruption is not culture war, but Tuesday.
I have seen precious few people arguing here against the proposition that Trump is obviously leveraging the opportunities of office to enrich himself, his family, his legacy as a president and close allies. I think his apologists here would rather argue that prior politicians were not less corrupt, but only less obviously corrupt (for the most part, excepting Biden's pardons here), or that he is entitled to loot the treasury after his opponents tried to go after his money through lawfare, or that he is still better than a non-corrupt leftist for unrelated reasons.
More options
Context Copy link