Блокнот Жмудя

Блокнот Жмудя

Ещё одна статья из сносок -- обзор и пересказ книги "Секс и культура" британского антрополога Джозефа Унвина: https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/review-of-j-d-unwins-sex-and-culture В ней он подробно разбирает, почему сексуальная революция ведёт к упадку.…

Вот это совсем, что называется, Core:

The different modes of regulating sex relations incentivize different behaviors in men. Both sex and a family are powerful motivators for men, and access to each is different under different regimes. Under absolute monogamy, sex is conditional on marriage, which in turn is usually conditional on impressing a woman’s father, typically economically. This incentivizes productive, pro-social behavior. Under this regime, married fathers are respected as the foundation of society and through their own efforts can usually secure a stable family. Under modified monogamy, in which marriage can be terminated by either party at their discretion, a man’s family is dependent on his wife’s whims, and he must spend time and energy placating her rather than on greater accomplishment. Without prenuptial chastity, access to sex is dependent on impressing a woman, rather than her father, which incentivizes men to try to be attractive to women. And what attracts women? The topic is too involved to cover here6, but suffice to say it is not productive, pro-social behavior. When working hard to develop skills and work a stable, high skilled, or dangerous job does not particularly help men in acquiring a family or sex, men drop out, working only enough to get by, and in some cases try to achieve these things in other, less pro-social, ways. You get more of what you incentivize.

With enough generations, behavior that was once modified via incentives and slowly changing culture is encoded into the genes. Absolutely monogamous societies where sexual success primarily depends on economic status select for, among other things, conscientiousness, low time preference, and intelligence. Absolutely polygamous societies select for defecting on other men to get more women for yourself. And societies where women exhibit a high degree of sexual choice select for attractiveness to women, a suite of traits which includes, among other things, muscularity, impulsivity, propensity for interpersonal violence, and sociopathy. Furthermore, more selection for success in intrasexual competition (as is bound to happen with looser sex relations) inevitably means less selection for success in other things. Since there is no particular reason to believe that human energy (the power of reason, the power of creation, and the power of reflecting upon oneself) is helpful in intrasexual competition, and quite a bit of reason to believe the reverse, it follows that a group of people selected for many generations to excel at outcompeting each other for the favor of the opposite sex will be less capable of exhibiting it then one not so selected.

Перевод в комментах. Понравится не всем.


UPD: Да мне самому чот совсем такое не нравится. Я хотя и сам думал в эту сторону, но отнюдь не подтверждения таких мыслей я бы хотел. Как-то меня совсем такие теории в уныние вгоняют -- завязываю пока с чтением статей этого пула.

www.tgoop.com/shm512_shared/8115

295 viewsedited  Jan 25 at 17:49

Вот это совсем, что называется, Core:

The different modes of regulating sex relations incentivize different behaviors in men. Both sex and a family are powerful motivators for men, and access to each is different under different regimes. Under absolute monogamy, sex is conditional on marriage, which in turn is usually conditional on impressing a woman’s father, typically economically. This incentivizes productive, pro-social behavior. Under this regime, married fathers are respected as the foundation of society and through their own efforts can usually secure a stable family. Under modified monogamy, in which marriage can be terminated by either party at their discretion, a man’s family is dependent on his wife’s whims, and he must spend time and energy placating her rather than on greater accomplishment. Without prenuptial chastity, access to sex is dependent on impressing a woman, rather than her father, which incentivizes men to try to be attractive to women. And what attracts women? The topic is too involved to cover here6, but suffice to say it is not productive, pro-social behavior. When working hard to develop skills and work a stable, high skilled, or dangerous job does not particularly help men in acquiring a family or sex, men drop out, working only enough to get by, and in some cases try to achieve these things in other, less pro-social, ways. You get more of what you incentivize.

With enough generations, behavior that was once modified via incentives and slowly changing culture is encoded into the genes. Absolutely monogamous societies where sexual success primarily depends on economic status select for, among other things, conscientiousness, low time preference, and intelligence. Absolutely polygamous societies select for defecting on other men to get more women for yourself. And societies where women exhibit a high degree of sexual choice select for attractiveness to women, a suite of traits which includes, among other things, muscularity, impulsivity, propensity for interpersonal violence, and sociopathy. Furthermore, more selection for success in intrasexual competition (as is bound to happen with looser sex relations) inevitably means less selection for success in other things. Since there is no particular reason to believe that human energy (the power of reason, the power of creation, and the power of reflecting upon oneself) is helpful in intrasexual competition, and quite a bit of reason to believe the reverse, it follows that a group of people selected for many generations to excel at outcompeting each other for the favor of the opposite sex will be less capable of exhibiting it then one not so selected.

BY Блокнот Жмудя