Bespoke translation by yours truly. Original article [A] by Danisch
2025-01-07: Followup here in this thread
2025-01-09: One more followup here in this thread
Another thought for the night on religion: The hypergamy constant.
And also the sixth commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Just recently I wrote about religion - again. On religion actually being a set of herd behaviorisms as a survival strategy that is being presented as God's commandments to kickstart the herd [behavior] mechanism and get people to believe and obey them.
A religious reader got me thinking.
It's about us today living in a time in which - at least in certain social groups - only the best 20% of the males get sex because the females are hypergamous and want only the best. In the American cultural nexus, that's called "666" - not the devil, but the shorthand for 6 feet tall (1.80 m), 6-figure salary, 6-pack. Which led to the defensive counter reaction MGTOW - men going their own way.
One ostensible problem is that, in Islamic countries, up to four wives per man are permitted (I haven't come across that in practice yet) and thus, necessarily, up to 75% of men are unwed and therefore they have no other choice but to go to foreign countries and look - or rape - there.
A question has crossed my mind.
Is the hypergamous behavior of women perhaps the natural, evolutionarily obtained behavior, and the ratio of 1:4 or 1:5 a kind of genetic constant?
I've mentioned the princess problem multiple times, such as here and here, in which a princess gets sequentially presented n candidates as a groom and can say "no" or "yes" to them, but which is binding, and at the very latest she has to marry the last one, no matter how ugly. A very difficult problem. I think I've read somewhere in computer science that someone allegedly figured out that the optimal strategy is to first pass on n/e (e = Euler's number) candidates to get an impression of the quality on offer and then pick the first one who matches at least the average of the observed candidates so far. But I don't know how they came to that conclusion, I can't derive that now. Of course you could just use game theory to compute it according to Monte Carlo methods: You just set n=1000 and let "princesses" play a million times for every number k from 1 to 1000 with thousand random numbers, first looking at k and then picking the first one above average, what k delivers the best results.
I've read that stewardesses play the same game when the passengers board [the plane]. Everybody needs to "pick" a man who she likes best, and signal that to the others via some secret sign or a greeting. And the last one is picked at the very latest. And then they chitchat on what ugly creature or great man they picked. Mathematically, it's the same problem.
What I want to say is: Algorithmically and game-theoretically, it is apparent that there exists a kind of "hypergamy constant H" which, via game theory, promises the best reproductive result for females: Look for the best H% of males and bang everyone you can get from there. Don't touch the others. Or take them as providers and alimony payers because you get the best H% only for inseminating, but not for life.
I once mentioned that, many, many, many years ago, a good [female] friend warned me what the women at university were gossiping about the men. I was said to be a "teddy bear" type who would get cheated on and defrauded to provide for the kids of other men.
I've once had a particular experience while traveling. I first thought (however, only for a short time) that I met the perfect woman in the travel group, a bullseye hit. I got along super well with her the first, second day of the journey, all day long, everything was wonderful. The next day, suddenly and without any discernible reason, she didn't want anything from me and suddenly hanged out with dumb, but very muscular ruffians and spent time with them. I could smell that she smelled differently, she chemically changed overnight. A different person by smell. The cycle. Even though the literature says that you can't smell the ovulation. And here, other research findings are being discussed, they think that the target selection of women doesn't change during the cycle, but generally, in the fertile phase, generally all men are perceived as more attractive. Does not match my observations and perception. I immediately recalled the warning of my friend.
So I am wondering whether a kind of hypergamy constant has been found as the optimal value through some kind of "evolutionary algorithm" (they were all the rage when I was at university), namely evolution itself, according to which it's the optimal strategy for women to hang out with the top H% of males.
You can observe that among many species in the animal kingdom, not just mammals, also birds, fish, that the males dance or fight against others, have to stick out, and the females observe that and then decide if that's sufficient for them. A selection of the best for optimized reproduction.
And that's natural. It's obvious that - outside of emergency situations - it can't be optimal to just mate with everyone without any criteria because the reproductive burden is very high for females and, unlike males, they can't just pick everything that comes along.
So, it could be the case that it's optimal to mingle with the best 20% or 25% of males in the area and ignore the rest, and evolution has evolved precisely this as the behavior for women under natural circumstances.
And that begs the question of whether the Christian and Islamic "religion" are two different ways of dealing with this evolutionarily gained behavior:
Hence, the questions:
2025-01-07: Followup here in this thread
2025-01-09: One more followup here in this thread
The Tenth Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
Another thought for the night on religion: The hypergamy constant.
And also the sixth commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Just recently I wrote about religion - again. On religion actually being a set of herd behaviorisms as a survival strategy that is being presented as God's commandments to kickstart the herd [behavior] mechanism and get people to believe and obey them.
A religious reader got me thinking.
It's about us today living in a time in which - at least in certain social groups - only the best 20% of the males get sex because the females are hypergamous and want only the best. In the American cultural nexus, that's called "666" - not the devil, but the shorthand for 6 feet tall (1.80 m), 6-figure salary, 6-pack. Which led to the defensive counter reaction MGTOW - men going their own way.
One ostensible problem is that, in Islamic countries, up to four wives per man are permitted (I haven't come across that in practice yet) and thus, necessarily, up to 75% of men are unwed and therefore they have no other choice but to go to foreign countries and look - or rape - there.
A question has crossed my mind.
Is the hypergamous behavior of women perhaps the natural, evolutionarily obtained behavior, and the ratio of 1:4 or 1:5 a kind of genetic constant?
I've mentioned the princess problem multiple times, such as here and here, in which a princess gets sequentially presented n candidates as a groom and can say "no" or "yes" to them, but which is binding, and at the very latest she has to marry the last one, no matter how ugly. A very difficult problem. I think I've read somewhere in computer science that someone allegedly figured out that the optimal strategy is to first pass on n/e (e = Euler's number) candidates to get an impression of the quality on offer and then pick the first one who matches at least the average of the observed candidates so far. But I don't know how they came to that conclusion, I can't derive that now. Of course you could just use game theory to compute it according to Monte Carlo methods: You just set n=1000 and let "princesses" play a million times for every number k from 1 to 1000 with thousand random numbers, first looking at k and then picking the first one above average, what k delivers the best results.
I've read that stewardesses play the same game when the passengers board [the plane]. Everybody needs to "pick" a man who she likes best, and signal that to the others via some secret sign or a greeting. And the last one is picked at the very latest. And then they chitchat on what ugly creature or great man they picked. Mathematically, it's the same problem.
What I want to say is: Algorithmically and game-theoretically, it is apparent that there exists a kind of "hypergamy constant H" which, via game theory, promises the best reproductive result for females: Look for the best H% of males and bang everyone you can get from there. Don't touch the others. Or take them as providers and alimony payers because you get the best H% only for inseminating, but not for life.
I once mentioned that, many, many, many years ago, a good [female] friend warned me what the women at university were gossiping about the men. I was said to be a "teddy bear" type who would get cheated on and defrauded to provide for the kids of other men.
I've once had a particular experience while traveling. I first thought (however, only for a short time) that I met the perfect woman in the travel group, a bullseye hit. I got along super well with her the first, second day of the journey, all day long, everything was wonderful. The next day, suddenly and without any discernible reason, she didn't want anything from me and suddenly hanged out with dumb, but very muscular ruffians and spent time with them. I could smell that she smelled differently, she chemically changed overnight. A different person by smell. The cycle. Even though the literature says that you can't smell the ovulation. And here, other research findings are being discussed, they think that the target selection of women doesn't change during the cycle, but generally, in the fertile phase, generally all men are perceived as more attractive. Does not match my observations and perception. I immediately recalled the warning of my friend.
So I am wondering whether a kind of hypergamy constant has been found as the optimal value through some kind of "evolutionary algorithm" (they were all the rage when I was at university), namely evolution itself, according to which it's the optimal strategy for women to hang out with the top H% of males.
You can observe that among many species in the animal kingdom, not just mammals, also birds, fish, that the males dance or fight against others, have to stick out, and the females observe that and then decide if that's sufficient for them. A selection of the best for optimized reproduction.
And that's natural. It's obvious that - outside of emergency situations - it can't be optimal to just mate with everyone without any criteria because the reproductive burden is very high for females and, unlike males, they can't just pick everything that comes along.
So, it could be the case that it's optimal to mingle with the best 20% or 25% of males in the area and ignore the rest, and evolution has evolved precisely this as the behavior for women under natural circumstances.
And that begs the question of whether the Christian and Islamic "religion" are two different ways of dealing with this evolutionarily gained behavior:
Christianity
seems to end up in going against this strategy - perhaps as an adjustment to the cold and the pressure to be in a herd - and forces a 1:1 pairing by marriage, which according to Christian teachings is not to be divorced and goes for life, and ensures that every Jack has his Jill. And that it says that way: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Everybody gets a house, a wife, a servant, an ox, and a donkey. Thus, in principle, (almost) everybody gets a wife, and the pressure of women to marry was very, very high before. And once married: "in good times as in bad times, till death do us part!"
The Catholic Church as a counter strategy to evolutionary hypergamy?
Islam
instead seems to do the opposite by supporting and defending the evolutionary strategy of the top 20 or 25%. When a man is allowed to have up to four wives, that ultimately means that, in the extreme case, the women focus on the best 25% of the male population and the rest remains empty-handed. The exception is the women who the top 25% of men don't want to have.
Thus, the passed-over lower bottom percent of men only have two reproductive strategies: adultery and rape.
And you could get the impression that all of Islam is built around defending those two strategies. Women get - independent from blame - stoned so they can't conceive the child and others get deterred.
They only marry virgins and prefer to marry little girls, for which you can be certain that they don't get into the marriage already-pregnant.
And they cut the labia and clitoris off women and sew them together so they can't get impregnated by strangers.
Marriages get "arranged", as if the parents are basically doing the selection for the underage and not-yet-judgment-capable daughter.
Hence, the questions:
- Is there a game-theory-optimal hypergamy constant H or a hypergamy function h(...) that determines the value according to the environmental circumstances, promising the highest reproductive success for women according to them following the goal of looking for sex with men of the top H% or h% and pass over the others?
- Could evolution experimentally via game theory, evolutionarily, have approached this constant H and led to women having and obeying precisely that as a behavioral program?
- Is there a central difference between Christianity (especially the Catholic one) and Islam consisting of (Catholic, European) Christianity fighting against this constant and the behavior and pushes for an even distribution whereas Islam at least partially ends up obeying this constant and defending the evolutionary strategy by means of the best 25% of men getting it on and the others getting passed over or needing to resort to infidels?
- Is a central element of feminism to escape Christianity and take on the natural behavior again, mingling with the best H%, to feel good because you're following the subconscious brain programming?
- Is the admiration of Islam by female Greens related to that?
Last edited:
