Monday, April 26, 2010

HBD awareness as a civilizational aid

As Inductivist has previously underscored, a natural predilection for monogamy is probably being selected for, at least in Western societies where progressively higher levels of sexual equality and consequent increasing female advantage in mate choice has been the story for more than a century.

This isn't surprising. In Darwinian terms, women benefit more from serial monogamy than men do. Women are only able to conceive one man's child at a time. They benefit from having that man's material and emotional devotion. Men can potentially conceive a nearly unlimited number of children at once and are consequently handicapped by being beholden to only one woman.

Indeed, it is the one-trick ponies--male and female, black, white, and Hispanic--who are having the kids. Betas procreate more than alphas do. Further, married guys average as much sex as good game guys do. The beta move of partnering up gives in-house access that can even give Roissy a run for his money.

That does not mean that monogamy is supplanting polygamous behavior. The temptation to try and trade up exists for women. As social sanctions against acting on this desire have steadily dissipated, the socio-cultural environment is pushing against the biological advantage the monogamous enjoy. As a result, the level of sexual promiscuity over time appears to be steady-as-she-goes.

Those who prefer a monogamous society where most men have an active stake in the future should push HBD as a socially acceptable way of explaining and understanding human behavior. The view that children are blank slates shaped by their environment discourages a woman from pondering whether or not she wants her children to be like their father before following her vestigal instincts and letting a cad knock her up. If nothing else, she'd be more likely to thrill-seek with contraceptives and then make babies with a guy of higher quality afterwards. Who ultimately makes the babies is what's important for the long-term well being of society.

To reiterate, as a self-described HBD realist, I'm inclined to think the alpha-beta dichotomy is overblown. Alpha personality traits are generally attractive, but how realistic is it to presume that an introvert will simply decide to fool the world into thinking he's extroverted, or an agreeable person suddenly become consistently disagreeable? Are more than 100,000 years of honing the detection of desirable attributes in human sexual selection negated by memorizing some negs and vowing never to show indecisiveness? It has the feel of a unique business opportunity to make a six-figure monthly income from home.

A reader sent me a link (I've lost it, apparently) to Roissy's post on how to keep a girl once you have her, and my reaction was "duh"--I'd done something almost identical to the "I'm going to eat. You coming?" a couple days before. I regularly get complaints--real ones, where she's irritated at me for some condescending scoff I make or view I hold--from girls I know that I'm too self-rightgeous (which is has some overlap with, but is not the same thing as, being highly self-confident). Maybe I could actively alter my personality traits in real time (as I do here to facilitate openness in discussion), just as 'betas' could try to do so going the other direction, but I wonder how sustainable it is or how effectively it can be done, and at what cost in terms of cognitive dissonance.

That said, since I've already made this a sort of open book on pieces of my existence, I'll continue to occasionally report on things I've said or done that might be of use to those 'afflicted' by less social audacity than I possess.


Anonymous said...

"Dave From Hawaii", who has a blog as Keoni Galt, used game in his marriage and as a result has stronger marriage. I remember that he said that using subtle DHV's with some regularity was helpful. He had a whole list of tips on this matter (game during marriage) in an article he wrote on Welmer's, "The-Spearhead" online magazine ( It was a good article.

My whole take on this issue, and I have a uniquely good perspective on it (Ive counted 17 different professional aquaintances/friends who have been divorced because their wives were cheating or left them for someone else, and in a few of these cases I got to be the aquaintance the man would discuss the breakup with the most), is this: our laws have incintivized the behavior by women from many angles.

Number 1: Women are vouched for financially by our civilization. How many homeless women are there? They have shelters, the state's compassion, Sec 8 and HUD housing, child support, WIC, Food Stamps, AFDC payments, YWCA, etc. All women have to do is to get pregnant and drop a kid on this civilization and the state will take care of her. She knows this in the back of her mind, she knows she is "vouched for" by the state ultimately and will never go hungry or be without a roof, especially if good looking.

2) Child support and custody are almost always given to the woman, no matter what. She can leave you at any time, take your kids, and with a few false accusations (that she will never be prosecuted for), pretty much wreck your hard-earned reputation. In many states asset division will give her much of your wealth, and alimony will give her even more of it over the years.

Women, in the back of their minds as these factors have been discussed by her with her friends, know -in their bones- that theyve got you by the short hairs once you put a ring on their finger.

This leads to a severely entitled mentality on their part, and it changes their outlook in a subtle, yet undeniable way.

Just imagine (if you dare) if we were like Sweden, and mandated joint custody in alost all divorce cases with no child support from either party, and (unlike the Swedes) there was no alimony for women under 45 years of age (still young enough to go get a good job, or study for a career), and she didn't get a bite of your 401K or IRA upon a divorce that she initiated until SHE was over 65, and there were no "women's shelters" and guaranteed housing if she could just drop a kid on the host society. Think women would be treating their husbands coldly? Im inclined to think they wouldn't be, especially if they knew that they'd really might be moving down in life (Hello Trailer Park, and your new neighbors darlin', like that waitressin' job?). Im inclined to believe they'd be quite different toward their husbands if these things were so.

Jokah Macpherson said...

I'm dubious that your HBD strategy for promoting monogamy has any real promise of success. To the extent that people consider the traits a potential sex partner might pass on to children, they think of a charming smile, confident extroversion, etc. I don't claim to be a portal into the shared consciousness of womankind but I doubt many of them fantasize dreamily, "My children with this man will have high future-time orientation and low propensity for violence."

My take on learning alpha traits is that it is not so much about changing one's personality as it is about learning social expectations. Reading Roissy and the other free game stuff has made me aware of situations in which I was saying or doing things that were killing any attraction girls had in the first place. You don't have to transform from an introvert to an extrovert to dodge shit tests but it helps to know of their existence and expect them. Trying to win girls' affection without consciously or unconsciously knowing a few things about attraction is like trying to get a white collar job without knowing you're supposed to wear a suit to the interview, look the interviewer in the eye, and send a thank-you note afterwards. Obviously the hiring process ultimately comes down to your education, intelligence, work experience, etc., but the other details matter too and they are so easy to fix.

Audacious Epigone said...


Great point re: Sweden. Sometimes it's easy enough to forget that gender parity potentially cuts both ways.


I'm sure mileage varies, and those who are the most socially unaware probably stand to gain the most, but I think skepticism should be the default position--'transformational' personality fixes tend to promise a lot more than they deliver.

TGGP said...

The guy who coined the term "alpha" as descriptive of wolves now thinks the concept was just the result of faulty data.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever noticed a strong correlation between "social audactiy", as you call it, and advocacy of HBD?

Does the demographic and ideological uniformity of HBD advocates imply anything unsavory?

If strident feminist beliefs can be dismissed (as some bloggers do) because of the looks and/or experiences of their advocates then in what way is HBD different? HBD bloggers tend to have similar personalities, backgrounds, politicla opinions, social problems, emotional makeup, and sexual history.

Is HBD a group identity phenomena?

Audacious Epigone said...


Is there ideological conformity among HBD realists? To the contrary, one of the reasons it remains politically untouchable in mainstream discourse is because HBDers are all over the place politically.