Women and Bell Curves

A lot of stuff has been going on these days, but I want to go back to talk about women.

A big part of the success of the altright blogosphere is the synergy between HBD and the Game movement. Roissy owes his fame for joining Steve Sailer with Neil Strauss, and making his point with very good writing. The basic idea is that much of our behaviour is biologically determined, and if evolution made different populations distinct genetically, it also did that to sex.

It is a great point, perhaps one of the most important discoveries ever. It changed my life in a way that neither Ovid nor Stendhal did, and I'm sure it did the same for thousands of people. "What do women want?", asked Freud. Now we know.

But if the message that men and women are biologically different has got through, people have a hard time keeping a little perspective. So you see every day on the "manosphere" how people complain at the same time that people women are sluts and that women won't sleep with them.

Well you can't have it both ways. We have to understand that not only men and women are different as groups, there is also variance among them. People are different, and even though human societies assign different roles to each group, that often ignores biological variance.

In my last post commenter Red reminds us that, at least in Europe, every village had a village slut, or a handful sluts, with whom men could satisfy a momentary urge without affecting much the social peace. It's hard for the parents of the slut, but that's how it is. If most human traits are distributed normally, I have no reason to doubt that women's sex drive could be mapped more or less like this:


The cutoff is probably closer to the extremes, but I just got a random pic from Google images and you get the point anyway. You might see that the problem that most young men face today is that they all want an easy lay, but the providers of easy lays are limited. Check for example Roosh's travelog. He has fucked so many sluts that he can see one from a mile away, and he's tired of them. So he desperately wants a normal girl who will sleep with him, and is pained that he can't find one, some of the time at least. Just imagine that, a normal girl who won't sleep with a total stranger who is in town for only a week! Which is the Groucho Marx joke upside down: he only want to join the clubs that won't have him as a member.

Of course women are guilty of the same thing: they all chase the alphas, but those are in short supply. Again, for easy imaging:


We call this phenomenon hypergamy. In the same way we might call the young men's mating strategy eukopogamy, Greek for easy coupling (yeah I just made the word up).

But of course the mysteries of women's mating strategy aren't only reduced to hypergamy. There are many other things that we are just starting to uncover, or at least we are the first to name them in Greek. For example we have hybristophilia, where women are attracted to cruel and brutal criminals. This instinct is separate from the alpha-seeking hypergamy, because if Ted Bundy was relatively good looking and manly, the 77 year old Josef Fritzl doesn't get attention for his Alpha attitude.

Of course this doesn't mean that all women are depraved serial killer fans. My guess is that the distributio of hybristophilia is also like this:


That's why you might ask a random woman at your office or school, and ask her about all those love letters that Charles Manson still gets, and she says she can't understand it. Well she probably can't. Or she's just a damn liar. There's also a Bell Curve for that probably.

Related to all the graphs above is another of the puzzling traits of woman that the manosphere is trying to raise awareness of. Which is the fact that some women like to suffer violence. It's funny that saying that openly is a cause of criminal prosecution in many places, while Fifty Shades of Grey is the fastest selling book in the history of mankind, but hey, that's how hamsters work. Any non muslim man today, hell all men today are sure to feel disturbed when they read news that as much as 50% of all women have frequent rape fantasies.

But that again doesn't mean that all women are masochists who want you to give them a black eye every odd day. Let's say that the pain seeking distribution is something like this:


My conclusion about rape fantasies is that women don't want to be raped by any creepy random dude. They just enjoy thinking that some uber alpha is so obsessed with them, but they are so virtuous, that he might have to just force his way into them. Those fantasies seldom include dark and smelly alleys and dumb black crack smokers as is often the reality of rape. Still if evolutionary psychology has any weight to it, women in the evolutionary environment were treated harshly and had all the odds of being kidnapped and raped by some neighbouring tribe. So the Stockholm Syndrome must have had some adaptative effect.

Preaching morality in a blog or its comment thread is easy and that's what conservatism is mostly about. But we in the altright blogosphere should strive to attack liberalism not by using an older brand of magical thinking, but by harnessing the power of reality. Saying that women must shut their legs tight and all strive to be virtuous wives and daughters is as deluded as saying that all men should be noble husbands and fathers and work honest jobs.  It's not going to happen, and it never really was like that. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. A smart society is the one that while repressing the extremes also lets some steam get off from time to time.

Inclusiveness is evil because it forces mainstream society to people that don't belong to it, and don't really want to be in it. It starts by forcing the mores of the mean into the extremes, and when that fails (it always does), it forces the mores of the extremes into the mean. Of course that works even worse. It won't last.

THe difficulty is that while this is true, it's not like people wear a medal around their neck that informs you were they fall on various bell curves. People guess, and sometimes they guess wrong. Sometimes they guess wrong big and get divorced, etc. I think the point of morality is to influence those with a negative predispotion that is still weak enough they can overcome it with a reasonble level of self control. If we can get 80% of society behaving "good" things work. 50% illigitimacy rate is just not good enough.

...or to just inform those who are simply smart enough to learn from others. A society teaches morality for the same reason it teaches history, art, physics or anything else for that matter. For every luminary in the next generation, there are a ten thousand shlubs that'll be forgotten, but the luminaries need to stand on the shoulders of giants.

I don't think he's talking about morality qua moral teaching in schools; there is a folk morality based on family and peer pressure that's stronger than any catechism taught at schools. You don't need to be smart to know not to kill, and in fact smart people tend to be smart enough to be able to rationalise their own evil inclinations in a way average people can't. I think asdf is right in that morality strives to influence enough marginally evil people to have a critical mass of good behaviour, and that's what it historically achieved. But today, modern technology, mass schooling and media means that the means of social control of those on power are orders of magnitude bigger than they were before, so they have been trying to push ever further for 100% compliance to their moral code. And that's bound to fail. Well my point is that it fail so badly that they have turned into inclusiveness by default, i.e. accepting extreme behaviour as normal.

I don't have enough time to make the point I want, so I'll make a simpler one. When I worked in private industry we would often have problems that we deemed "not important enough to deal with". So you've got 30,000 points of data and 10 are corrupted. You just throw them out and move on, its not worth the hassle to deal with them. Too many resources and deadlines jeopardized if you go for perfection. In public work we obsess over checking every box, no matter how inane or unimportant it is to our mission. Public servants have a box checking fetish, everything must be in its place. Even though ultimately we often compromise on these issues, we are never able to just say, "not important enough to deal with." Many issues of morality are just "not important enough to deal with." Take gay marriage. A tiny % of a tiny % of the population wants a government seal of approval on an activity they can already do in private. Who cares? What does it matter? That's the same as my 10 entries of corrupted data, just throw them away and focus on the main block. The main block (heterosexual marriage) is falling apart. And people are bending over backwards over some inconvenience to those freak data points. It's nonsense. P.S. Despite being box checking fetishists, I recently found out the senior people at my agency are purposely ignoring some boxes in exchange for kickbacks. Apparently our obsessive compulsive box checking is just a cover for their illegal activities. God forbid someone notice one of the other boxes missing and look into the rest.

Eh? I didn't say anything about schools. Institutions, if anything, teach negative socialization hence the propensity of homeschooled children to outperform their institutionalized peers in academics and WAY outperform in moral behavior.

"Those fantasies seldom include dark and smelly alleys and dumb black crack smokers as is often the reality of rape. " Is that true? I always thought that was a tiny % of rapes, and most rapes happened between people who knew each other somewhat - and if that is true then rapists probably are in general attractive to women. After all, how can a rapist get alone with a woman he knows if he is a creepy person? Rapists could actually be extroverted, good looking and good with people.

I don't know, any stats on that? A creepy-rape in a smelly alley by a petty criminal is qualitatively different from a non-creepy rape, and the subsequent trauma (the reason we think of rape as such a heinous crime) also would be different.

Rape is anytime a girl wakes up at a frat and regrets the previous nights activities. This is the vast majority of "rapes".

You should read the work of radical feminists. They think penis-in-vagina sex is a noxious evil and unhealthy for women. Their New Normal would remake the human world. Or unmake it. Depends on your perspective. They would agree with this summary, and approve. http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/bad-sense/

"You should read the work of radical feminists." No, I should not. I have better thinks to do with my time. They are lesbians, of course they think penises are evil. They can't force their views on the rest unless lesbianism is teachable, and it's not. Normal women are drawn to penises like bears to honey.

[...] Women and Bell Curves – “We have to understand that not only men and women are different as groups, there is also variance among them. People are different, and even though human societies assign different roles to each group, that often ignores biological variance.” – from spandrell via foseti. [...]

Excellent post, even if it contains a bunch of "no sh*t" points (that still needed to be said). That point about battered women being masochists was raised by a commentor on (my post on kink). I think that most followers of "game" and "HBD" (like followers of most topics) don't necessarily understand what they espouse, and HBD in general is filled with lots of over moralization. I will add that I don't think that all of those noted traits exist as normal distributions, but your point is still well taken.

Jayman, Your second paragraph applies to basically every philosophy, religion, scientific theory, or idea. Most proponents of "something" will not understand what that is or what it means, regardless of the idea.

Thanks. Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious, wasn't it? HBD is based in the idea that people are fucked up, and there's little we can do about it. That's a revolutionary idea if you think about it.

> we have hybristophilia, where women are attracted to cruel and brutal criminals. This instinct is separate from the alpha-seeking hypergamy, because if Ted Bundy was relatively good looking and manly, the 77 year old Josef Fritzl doesn’t get attention for his Alpha attitude. No, it's the same thing, only pathologized in some sense or another. Or damaged, rather. In some sense, though not a very reasonable one, you are 'pathological' if you are ugly looking, or even just medium, or even just less handsome than the most handsome person in history. Or have worse sociopolitical abilities than Caesar. Or (the real crux of the matter) lower fitness than Khan. Suffice to say all organisms are damaged, and even the fittest man in history had far more than zero deleterious alleles and probably suffered considerably more than zero environmental insult ; he just had some number of sigmas less of deleterious mutation load than good & just haute-SWPLs like ourselves, or (moreso) than the average bloke. This is all very important for any thinking about any organisms. Most often the damage is mild or middling but it can easily produce more impressive distortions like alpha-philia --> Fritzl-philia. Just a guess but I don't think normal hybristophilia, namely having a rather stronger desire to lay a man if he's done a heavy crime like rape/murder, is necessarily aberrant at all ; I could well imagine it might occur in something like 5% of US White femmes and might just be a strong normal form of undamaged alpha-philia. Though I mean obviously it wouldn't quite seem as intuitively normal to me among Dutch as among Irish or S-Italians (which is most of our Italians), let alone E-Slavs -- we US Whites are a mixed multitude. Perhaps something like 5% would be more apt to be true for the world population of Whites, and it could be lower for US Whites, basically because we aren't very Slavic. Fritzl is very different, and a lot creepier than............ some dude who was certainly always kinda violent and over-assertive in character and wound up doing a murder or rape, not impossibly in a pretty boozy condition or something, and it doesn't seem quite like it was a fated necessity sooner or later owing to his native mega-violence or super-freakiness. Yet what is admired in Fritzl overlaps quite a lot with classic alpha traits -- resolution of will versus vacillation of affective state, clarity about his own desires, poise and control of fear under pressure, relative callousness/egoism or willingness to cause pain (well, not 'relative' in his case), improvisation, a modicum at least (I'm speculating) of the social ability to make a pleasing and smooth yet still 'spicy' (not boring or formulaic) social impression (pretty common in sociopaths), capacity for psychological domination and 'frame control' or even degrees of intimidation in matters large and small, capacity for direct physical domination of others (if only women), etc.

> hybristophilia, where women are attracted to cruel and brutal criminals Your def doesn't match the wik one, which I am basing my thoughts on. I just don't think cruel and brutal are always apt predicates of rape and murder, it seems to me much underclass US White violence stems from somebody did X and then something led to Y, and plenty of times none of the parties are pure as the driven snow. And then of course infidelity is a huge cause of murder. And for rape, booze and insane lust -- glad I don't have the diathesis to lose control that way but I can still catch a glimpse, introspectively, of how it could happen were I rather differently constituted. But the wik definition even talks about armed robbery in addition to murder and rape, armed robbery being terrifying, and perhaps somewhat traumatizing to some women or high-affect men, but hard to call truly brutal on average IMHO, I mean Fritzl it ain't. I'm actually not trying to be a semantical pain in the ass, but rather, just explain fully why I suspect normal hybristophiles are probably pretty common and normal hyper-alphaphiles, as opposed to Fritzl-philes.

Fritzl was of course a defector from the social compact, not a real big cooperator. A free-rider. The main reason a woman is (often) into the Dark Triad thing -- I'm sure someone has more or less figured this out but I'm not so sure I've seen it made really explicit -- is that it's rather difficult for her to cope with socially defecting on her own behalf ; the man is better at it. But if he can do some robust defecting for their common benefit (more than the average bear), and get away with it pretty well, then they can enjoy freeriding the fruits of defection, along with the indispensable fruits of the social compact. It's a more general or deep kind of rent-seeking -- 'darwinian rent-seeking', which will often encompass the issue of rents in the market/money world but will also include other kinds of rents, for instance seducing a woman and then abandoning her when this was strongly against her expectation or the social expectation. Rent seeking is very well known to biologists, only they call it cheating or defection, and I have no doubt that it has been likened to economic rent-seeking more than once, but one does not see the connection underlined frequently. Fritzl is an ultra-defector, way waaay past the point of what is fitness-optimizing for him or for a mate. But it's completely typical of very damaged, distorted complex systems (here the alpha-philia biosystem) to seek extreme objectives and stimuli and generate extreme outputs. Humanities academia, or the visual fine arts in the West, are not dissimilar. To return to what I said about always considering the damagedness and suboptimality of individual organisms, this again is just the same as it is with institutions. We would never try to model the institutions of the US, Third Reich, EU, Roman Empire, USSR, contempo Russia, without continual reference to greater or lesser degrees of rent-seeking, internal friction, conflict, defection, suboptimality. In social bodies, it's largely individual and factional interest that causes suboptimality ; in individual organisms, the picture is more dominated by genetic damage (though organisms do face the problem of cells defecting against the body out of individual interest -- tumors). The mechanisms of suboptimality are therefore mostly disanalogous ; what is analogous, identical, is the need to keep suboptimality in the foreground of one's mediations.

Asdf, I don't at all doubt that that happens, but I would say it's a stretch to say anytime. The vast majority of regretted sex is just simply so much easier to forget than to transfer blame. Women who do cry rape when none occurred are likely psychopathic to a degree. I'm always wary of rape cases for this and other reasons.

Not really getting what you are trying to say.

people complain at the same time that people women are sluts and that women won’t sleep with them. Well you can’t have it both ways

You certainly can have it both ways: It is called hypergamy. The middle eighty percent of girls fuck the top three percent of guys. Many of them, probably most of them are sluts, in that they don't worry too much whether the guy is married, how many other girls he is having sex with, and they are open to sleeping with any other guy in the top three percent even if they consider that they are in a relationship with someone.