The ten solitudes of Toronto dating

[fuji]

Let me rephrase my question this way -- you have asserted that if a behaviour is engaged in by 25% or more of the population, then that behaviour could be considered normal. Conversely then, in your humble opinion, is there a threshold in which a behaviour is practiced by so few people that it becomes "abnormal"?

No. I think that a quarter of the population doing something is pretty good evidence that it's normal behavior. That does not imply, however, that other things are necessarily abnormal.

 

[blackrock13]

You won't get an answer. None of Fuji's opinions are humble.

If he does answer it sure will be a hell of a two step.

 

[fuji]

Selective advantage is always going to involve out producing intra-community members over successive generations in the context of environmental pressures. If you consider cheating one from a number of reproductive strategies available, there is nothing in evolutionary theory to suggest one strategy is going to be universally advantageous. Indeed, to suggest such would be to ignore how natural selection makes no sense without reference to the environment doing the selecting, not the strategy. Learn the theory before using it.

Blah blah blah, you have no actual counter-point, so you decided to try farting instead. I gave you the reasons why it's advantageous earlier on the thread.

All ijuf is doing is playing with a particular sense of genetic diversity

If you could actually read and comprehend you would know that's not what I said. Genetic diversity is ONE advantage of multiple partners. There is also a resource advantage. A male getting another male to raise his kids, or a woman getting DNA from the healthiest male and then resources from the most successful are other examples.

No matter how much evidence is presented to say non-cheating is part of our evolutionary heritage, because cheating exists, fuji wants to build a whole charactrization about our nature on it. He is like a dog with just one bone. Nothing will deter him from saying you are an unenlightened individual if you think cheating doesn't define you.

Misleading. You can't refute the claim that cheating is a big part of our evolutionary heritage so you are hoping to refute the claim that non cheating isn't--a claim that nobody has made. Because you can't actually win the real debate you are hoping to win this fake debate with yourself. Guys like blackrock might not be smart enough to see the difference but you know what you are doing.

Let me ask you, are you misrepresenting the debate, and attacking straw men, because you aren't smart enough to comprehend the point? Or because you are malicious?

How dishonest can you get, ijuf? The point was that, when YOU say cheating is practiced by <50%, then it is acceptable to say it is minority behaviour.

Another intellectual failure by you. I argued that A implied B. You are now trying to argue that !A implies !B, and we both know that is a fundamental logic error. But since you can't win the debate any other way, here you are hoping nobody notices your dishonesty. Moreover you call me dishonest!

Go ahead after you held forth so extensively on the basics of logics PLEASE explain how you made this basic fundamental error. If something is widespread that implies that it is normal. Nobody here has made any statement that if something is not widespread it is not normal--but please do tell what syllogism you are applying here.

But let me recommend a better strategy for you--don't reply to the thread. It's too embarassing for you to continue humiliating yourself like this. I wouldn't normally rub the salt into the wounds quite as extensively as this--but you have been a real pompous ass, pretending to be something you are not, and here you are YET AGAIN making basic errors in reasoning.

A little more humility would fit your lack of intellectual rigour.

Overlapping or serial? Don't bother with the term unless you specify.

Stonewalling. I've specified for you about a ZILLION times that we are talking about overlapping.

If overlapping, you have never presented any credible claim to the effect we are hardwired to want overlapping partners

You're simply denying the visibly obvious fact. If we aren't hardwired to feel sexual desire to multiple overlapping partners then explain porn. Explain SP's. Explain it all--we all KNOW that men are attracted broadly to any fit woman, and that women are broadly attracted to many men. We are NOT a species that evolved to lose attraction to others once we pair bond. We are a species where sexual attraction remains just as strong whether we pair bond or not. We are all attracted to many partners ALL THE TIME.

Deny that and you just look desperately dumb.

Previously I said cheating is a socio-cultural adaptation, so now you agree with me? If so, it can't be "inherent", hence no life denying claptrap, hence you are done. Done like bad turkey. Thanks for trying though.

Where is your failure at comprehension? Does it lie in not reading what I wrote? Does it lie in a crippled intellect? Is it just malicious?

I have written many, many, many, many times for you that it's the basic desires that are hardwired, and that behavior like cheating arises as a response to those basic desires. Namely, it is one of the strategies available that satisfies ALL The desires we have.

Cheating satisfies the conflict in desire. So does having multiple partners, if you can persuade them all to be exclusive to you. Open relationships and monogamous relationships fail to satisfy some of the desires.

 

[rld]

Less != One. You fail.

you seem to have completely lost it. You don't have the first clue of what you are talking about.

 

[fuji]

you seem to have completely lost it. You don't have the first clue of what you are talking about.

The advantages of cheating are just as present in a world where people choose to have fewer children than in a world in which they choose to have more children.

For women the incentive to cheat is there even she chooses to have only ONE child. For men the incentive is there so long as he chooses to have at least two.

 

[rld]

The advantages of cheating are just as present in a world where people choose to have fewer children than in a world in which they choose to have more children.

For women the incentive to cheat is there even she chooses to have only ONE child. For men the incentive is there so long as he chooses to have at least two.

Which completely ignores the question that led to my my recent mockery, and all the basic facts of science. By using the word "choice" you again defeat your entire argument. You have shot yourself in the foot more often than anybody I know.

Just keep talking Fuji, your empty prose is occasionally entertaining.

 

[afterhours]

And how do your reconcile your theory with the fact that intelligent people have less sex with less partners. You simply can't unless you claim intelligence is not an evolutionary advantage...

I'd like to see a shred of evidence supporting this "fact".

 

[rld]

I'd like to see a shred of evidence supporting this "fact".

Well the latest stuff I was reading in print journals, Pyschology Today and Nature IIRC, but some of the older stuff is talked about on line:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-smart-people-generally-have-less.htm

http://digitaljournal.com/article/288111

this is not the latest stuff, or the best explanations of the data, but the current studies (as opposed to theories or speculation) tell us that more intelligent people have less sex, tend to start having sex later, and have less partners.

Which completely undermines Fuji's theory unless you believe that intelligence is not a Darwinian advantage...

 

[fuji]

Which completely ignores the question that led to my my recent mockery, and all the basic facts of science. By using the word "choice" you again defeat your entire argument. You have shot yourself in the foot more often than anybody I know.

Just keep talking Fuji, your empty prose is occasionally entertaining.

I see, you think quibbling over the word "choice" means you have a point, when in fact you have been blown clear out of the water. There is no reason, whatsoever, to believe that having fewer children reduces the incentive to cheat. Once again you have been caught out quoting irrelevant trivia and claiming it means something it doesn't.

Your position defies common sense. If we are to believe you men lose their attraction to other women once they're married. That just defies common sense, like most of the things you think. You can quote all the studies you like--every living, breathing human being knows that men are attracted to women (plural).

 

[afterhours]

Well the latest stuff I was reading in print journals, Pyschology Today and Nature IIRC, but some of the older stuff is talked about on line:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-smart-people-generally-have-less.htm

http://digitaljournal.com/article/288111

this is not the latest stuff, or the best explanations of the data, but the current studies (as opposed to theories or speculation) tell us that more intelligent people have less sex, tend to start having sex later, and have less partners.

Which completely undermines Fuji's theory unless you believe that intelligence is not a Darwinian advantage...

Thanks, I briefly looked at the links. They do seem to support a proposition that intelligence is not a Darwinian advantage.
If anything, it proves that intelligence is not easy to define.

That being said, I think there is nothing wrong with a basic proposition that whoever is unable to score is a fucking loser and an idiot regardless of his IQ.

 

[rld]

I see, you think quibbling over the word "choice" means you have a point, when in fact you have been blown clear out of the water. There is no reason, whatsoever, to believe that having fewer children reduces the incentive to cheat. Once again you have been caught out quoting irrelevant trivia and claiming it means something it doesn't.

Your position defies common sense. If we are to believe you men lose their attraction to other women once they're married. That just defies common sense, like most of the things you think. You can quote all the studies you like--every living, breathing human being knows that men are attracted to women (plural).

At least you are obvious in your dishonesty.

I would take you through the logic in baby steps to help your uneducated mind, but since you would just keep lying and misleading for your unknown reasons it would be a waste of time.

And someone who uses the word "choice" s simply demonstrates clearly that you don't even understand the language that a conversation about biological evolution takes place in. It is like talking about cars and referring to the engine as the steering wheel.

 

[rld]

Thanks, I briefly looked at the links.
If anything, it proves that intelligence is not easy to define.

That being said, I think there is nothing wrong with a basic proposition that whoever is unable to score is a fucking loser and an idiot regardless of his IQ.

I agree completely that intelligence, or more accurately, general intelligence is hard to define. Specific functional intelligences are easier to dealwith.

But there is a lot of data that people who are more intelligent tend to have less sex, and less partners, particularly in their younger years. IT fits in well with current evolutionary thinking on human sexual habits and completely defeats Fuji's theory.

People often like to reject that conclusion because they think that it insults them if they are sexually successful, but that ain't the way science and studies work.

 

[afterhours]

I agree completely that intelligence, or more accurately, general intelligence is hard to define. Specific functional intelligences are easier to dealwith.

But there is a lot of data that people who are more intelligent tend to have less sex, and less partners, particularly in their younger years. IT fits in well with current evolutionary thinking on human sexual habits and completely defeats Fuji's theory.

People often like to reject that conclusion because they think that it insults them if they are sexually successful, but that ain't the way science and studies work.

If women don't want to sleep with geeks, it's likely because they feel that being geeky is not enough to be successful. More is required. Book-smart is not necessarily intelligent.

 

[rld]

If women don't want to sleep with geeks, it's likely because they feel that being geeky is not enough to be successful. More is required. Book-smart is not necessarily intelligent.

You are right, but the analysis also holds true for young women in the latest data. And intelligence is one of the best tools for survival success.

The problem is that people want to force everything into a biological evolutionary analysis, when some stuff happens for reasons completely other than that. Gays are an excellent example. Even mutation and biological evolution create outcomes that are not oriented towards survival or reproduction, they just happen.

Taking all aspects of society or a creature or a pattern of conduct and attributing it to biological evolution without proper evidence is known as radical or fundamental adaptionism and it works great on paper, like a good fiction but. But it simply fails in the real world.

 

[fuji]

I would take you through the logic in baby steps to help your uneducated mind, but since you would just keep lying and misleading for your unknown reasons it would be a waste of time.

And someone who uses the word "choice" s simply demonstrates clearly that you don't even understand the language that a conversation about biological evolution takes place in. It is like talking about cars and referring to the engine as the steering wheel.

In other words you have no reason, whatsoever, to believe that having fewer children is in any way a disincentive to cheating. You're simply rambling on idiotically about some irrelevant side point that does not cut to the issue. You go on saying that all these theories around having fewer children "completely destroys" my theory, but my theory doesn't rest on any of that. They're irrelevant details. The incentive for cheating remains, and the argument can be restated just as forcefully, if not more forcefully, under the "slow" model as under the fast. A more intelligent person who has fewer children is presumably doing that to maximize the concentration of resources in the few children they do have. In such a world it is an even bigger win to have someone else devote their resources to your children, meanwhile for women it's even more important to mate with the healthiest male (fewer chances to get it right) and even more important to seek out the most successful.

So if anything the slow model strengthens the argument, and certainly doesn't weaken it--but because I originally put the argument in another context you've decided that rather that face the argument head on, and deal with it in a substantive way, that you are going to pick on irrelevant details, like the word "choice", that don't go to the substance of the issue. Then you are going to lie and say you have "completely destroyed" the argument when you have done no such thing.

I have noticed a confusion around you--you don't seem to understand what is important, and what is not. You fail to prioritize. You latch on to irrelevant aspects of a theory or situation and miss the real point. This probably explains why you are completely lacking in common sense, and why you can persuade yourself--until you are laughed at--that it's legal for Canada to invade the United States, that men are not attracted to women, and the various other stupid things you've "proven" over time.

You're one of those trench-warfare type lawyers right? One of those guys who goes into court knowing that you've lost the case, but drawing the fight out with irrelevancies to drive up costs, hoping the other guy will strike some sort of deal. Basically that's what you are doing here--quibbling over the word "choice" when the substance of your argument has been destroyed.

Specifically you are rambling on down this road about intelligence resulting in fewer children, meanwhile it's been pointed out that road is irrelevant--that a person who has fewer children (by choice or by circumstance) still has the same strong imperative to cheat. Moreover you were utterly defeated on your claim that men are not sexually attracted to women (plural). We plainly are. Unlike some species we do NOT lose our sexual attraction to suitable mates just because we have pair bonded. We remain as attracted as we ever were to multiple partners.

But go ahead, raise some more irrelevant side points, babble on a little longer, hope that nobody notices you just haven't got it.

 

[rld]

In other words you have no reason, whatsoever, to believe that having fewer children is in any way a disincentive to cheating. You're simply rambling on idiotically about some irrelevant side point that does not cut to the issue.

You're one of those trench-warfare type lawyers right? One of those guys who goes into court knowing that you've lost the case, but drawing the fight out with irrelevancies to drive up costs, hoping the other guy will strike some sort of deal. Basically that's what you are doing here--quibbling over the word "choice" when the substance of your argument has been destroyed.

I have never suggested that a high resource investment selection strategy is a disincentive to cheating. Again you lie.

I am not advancing a theory, just pointing out why yours is dead wrong.

You are advancing an argument that cheating is an biological evolutionary imperative, despite modern science telling us otherwise. I advance no explanation for cheating as I have no reason to believe it is a function of darwinian processes. However if you would like to take me up on the factual challenge I am open to it...you have made so many errors in fact about natural selection in your childish rants on this subject that it is not funny.

The evidence of modern science clearly shows your theory is not correct in the real world. You should really visit it once in a while.

And yes, there is a value in understanding what you are talking about. Your approach exalts ignorance and error on a fundamental level and relies on fantasy. Not very helpful at all. I know you are proud of your ignorance, but it does not help either your credibility or arguments to have your facts wrong.

 

[fuji]

I have never suggested that a high resource investment selection strategy is a disincentive to cheating.

Given that the incentive to cheating was the topic you just admitted that your whole reply and focus has been irrelevant to the debate.

You are advancing an argument that cheating is an biological evolutionary imperative, despite modern science telling us otherwise.

Modern science does not tell us otherwise. You have cited a bunch of irrelevant theories from modern science and then made this claim--but you MADE UP the connection. You just admitted that.

I have given the reasons why the desires that lead to cheating are inherent. You have replied attacking irrelevant aspects of the things I said, but failing to get to the nut of the issue. Here is what you have not had any reply to:

1. It's advantageous to get others to raise your children, for men

2. It's advantageous to mate with a healthy male and then persuade a successful male to provide resources to your children, for women

Slow/fast evolutionary models are irrelevant to this and none of the theories you cited ever deal with these topics. You are simply a buffoon who is hoping that the clown show you are putting on will distract people from noticing that you've lost the debate.

 

[rld]

Given that the incentive to cheating was the topic you just admitted that your whole reply and focus has been irrelevant to the debate.



Modern science does not tell us otherwise. You have cited a bunch of irrelevant theories from modern science and then made this claim--but you MADE UP the connection. You just admitted that.

I have given the reasons why the desires that lead to cheating are inherent. You have replied attacking irrelevant aspects of the things I said, but failing to get to the nut of the issue. Here is what you have not had any reply to:

1. It's advantageous to get others to raise your children, for men

2. It's advantageous to mate with a healthy male and then persuade a successful male to provide resources to your children, for women

Slow/fast evolutionary models are irrelevant to this and none of the theories you cited ever deal with these topics. You are simply a buffoon who is hoping that the clown show you are putting on will distract people from noticing that you've lost the debate.

Incentive to cheat was not the topic. The question of whether cheating was caused by an evolutionary imperative was. You lie again.

Show me the evidence for your claim. All you have done is babbled on at length without citing a single source of evidence. Dictates from your imagination have no value.

Show me your evidence behind point 1. and 2. I look forward to it. Any evidence at all.

If you are too stupid to understand how evolutionary theory of reproduction applies to your argument about how evolution drives our reprodutive habits, you might be the stupidist human ever born. I doubt that. I just think you are dishonest.

I am pleased with my success however. As I look at the number of threads that mock you, and how people respond and think about what you say, I know that others have come to the same conclusion.

 

[fuji]

You claimed cheating has a selective advantage in evolutionary theory.... Strategies are not advantageous in and of themselves.

OK, you blithering pedant, let me restate, so you can get on with your idiotic stonewalling: I gave you the reasons why our ancestors were advantaged by cheating.

I read fine, thanks. I stand by what I said.

Sure--I can see that you never let being wrong stop you. This misrepresentation was that diversity was not the only advantage I listed.

I have refuted the claim that cheating is a big part of our evolutionary heritage.

Nice, but there is a small problem - it is in fact a part of our heritage. Our ancestors cheated. But go ahead, argue against fact.

I actually cited the relevant primatology examples.

... mindless repetition of a refuted point.

There is no cheating gene, which I am sure you try and claim when you can.

... misrepresentation. I never said there was.

As I said before, if something is widespread it might be acceptable to call it normal, but the terms minority and majority apply to statistical representations of something. So something can be widespread, and it can be normal, but being minority or majority is a counting operation.

Nice dodge. Let's just say you agree that cheating is normal behavior.

This is invalid reasoning. It is affirming the consequent, also called the converse error.
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

That isn't what I said. I pointed out that your theory is incompatible with the evidence. Specifically this:

If P then !Q.
Q
Therefore not P.

Having shot down your theory I am putting up mine as more compatible with the evidence than the alternatives. It's scientific reasoning, not logical deduction. Namely we have two theories, one theory is incompatible with the observed evidence so it is discarded. That does not prove the other theory correct--but it leaves it as the only surviving explanation proposed so far. The term is "best supported by observation", which all scientists understand means something different than "proven deductively".

 

[fuji]

Incentive to cheat was not the topic. The question of whether cheating was caused by an evolutionary imperative was.

Same thing, for the purpose of our debate. The difference between those two statements is irrelevant to this topic. Just before you go all pedant, though, note that I have always argued that evolution simply generated inherently contradictory desires. There are a variety of behaviors which resolve the contradiction, cheating is only one of them.

Show me your evidence behind point 1. and 2. I look forward to it. Any evidence at all.

Specifically you are asking how is it advantageous to have others provide the resources to raise your children, from an evolutionary perspective?

And you are asking why it is an advantage for a woman to select the mate with the strongest genetics, while having her children raised by the mate with the most resources?

Surely you would only challenge those if you had any common sense reason to think they are false. Before I go and hunt down the sources for those I want to hear you say that you think they aren't true, explicitly, so that I can rub your face in it. Otherwise when I refute it and call you an idiot you are going to say you never disagreed with them.