tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post1767345493607011962..comments2023-10-31T03:18:26.963-07:00Comments on Great Guys Weblog: War of the Sexes: Part 8 - In Defense of Non-MonogamyBrethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-38168017180772784772015-01-30T08:55:11.899-08:002015-01-30T08:55:11.899-08:00erp,
If accidentally typing an extra apostrophe i...erp,<br /><br />If accidentally typing an extra apostrophe is all one has to worry about regarding "senior moments," then I'm feeling great relief. Except, er, I do that all the time now, and have for decades, so I guess my senior moments started when I was about 8. :-)Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-16050026039935632592015-01-30T08:47:35.083-08:002015-01-30T08:47:35.083-08:00... er, that's "its meaning" ...
Al...... er, that's "its meaning" ...<br /><br />Alas, senior moments are getting more and more frequent.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-80396678640203235202015-01-30T08:30:29.868-08:002015-01-30T08:30:29.868-08:00Bret, I'm glad you interpreted the quote as it...Bret, I'm glad you interpreted the quote as it's meaning is quite incomprehensible to me. Although to be honest I don't see where you got your interpretation either.<br /><br />BTW - are "improved marital outcomes" more opportunities for marriage or happier marriages or marriages with more material goods, or .... ?<br /><br />It's sounds like GIGO (Garbage In Gibberish Out) to me.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-79290713128864756492015-01-30T07:44:25.345-08:002015-01-30T07:44:25.345-08:00More on assortative mating:
"A collective ma...<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iere.12100/abstract" rel="nofollow">More</a> on assortative mating:<br /><br />"<i>A collective marriage matching model is estimated and calibrated to quantify the share of returns to schooling that is realized through marriage. The predictions of the model are matched with detailed Danish household data on the relationship between schooling and wage rates, the division of time and goods within the household, and the extent to which men and women sort positively on several traits in marriage. Counterfactual analysis conducted with the model suggests that Danish men and women are <b>earning on the order of half of their returns to schooling through improved marital outcomes</b>.</i>"<br /><br />I interpret that to mean that it's as important to go to college (and to the best college possible) to marry someone as rich as possible as it is to get an education.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-21574128386179542602015-01-25T15:34:14.172-08:002015-01-25T15:34:14.172-08:00I'm glad you did because I've been thinkin...I'm glad you did because I've been thinking about the movie, "The Imitation Game*," and a scene which brought back very unpleasant memories to me. If you haven’t seen the movie, Turing designs a difficult crossword puzzle which is published in the newspapers and asks anyone who’s able to solve the puzzle to show up for an important job interview and gives the time and place.<br /><br />The job is working on the team that’s trying to break the code. As men show up, they’re admitted – no questions asked and given another test puzzle. When a girl shows, she’s asked if anyone helped her with the puzzle. The director staged the incident correctly and the girl didn’t blow her top, but boy that kind of thing was infuriating! Showing yourself smarter than or at least as smart as the boys mattered not and the matter is dismissed as a <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/one-trick%20pony”>one-trick-pony</a>. It was a tedious process educating them.<br /><br />The women on the team weren’t allowed to be housed with the men because of propriety. They were housed separately with the clerical and domestic help and had to pretend they were part of that cohort.<br /><br />You are wondering what this has to do with your quote above? <br /><br />I just learned there’s a BBC series called “The Bletchley Circle” which is a fictional account of four of the women on the Enigma Project who get together to solve crimes and because they didn’t benefit by their contribution to one of the greatest tests of brain power in our time as did their distinguished male colleagues, they go back to domesticity with not altogether happy results. They have been sworn to secrecy and can’t tell their husbands about their past life either, so they start using their code breaking skills solving crime like latter day Miss Marple’s. <br /><br />My point here is: like didn’t find like. Your quote is written from the male vantage and men don’t look for code breaking talent when choosing a mate. Very bright women even very pretty ones usually marry mediocre men and thus there is somewhat of a mix and match of brains and beauty and the human race continues in its infinite variety.<br /><br />*About Alan Turing and breaking the Nazi codeerphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-25167088510866164092015-01-25T14:51:31.374-08:002015-01-25T14:51:31.374-08:00No point. Just adding a link to something relevant...No point. Just adding a link to something relevant. It wasn't available when I wrote the post.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-1094915735262944692015-01-25T14:40:36.084-08:002015-01-25T14:40:36.084-08:00Agreed, but where did it all come from? Every bit...Agreed, but where did it all come from? Every bit of wealth, material or intellectual, came from the brow and/or back of the pioneer, the family patriarch, matriarch really, but they get all the credit.<br /><br />Bret, what's your point here?erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-74799091183589632742015-01-25T14:36:16.987-08:002015-01-25T14:36:16.987-08:00More from the Economist:
"Intellectual capit...More from the <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21640331-importance-intellectual-capital-grows-privilege-has-become-increasingly?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fpe%2Famericasnewaristocracy" rel="nofollow">Economist</a>:<br /><br />"<i>Intellectual capital drives the knowledge economy, so those who have lots of it get a fat slice of the pie. And it is increasingly heritable. Far more than in previous generations, clever, successful men marry clever, successful women. Such “assortative mating” increases inequality by 25%, by one estimate, since two-degree households typically enjoy two large incomes. Power couples conceive bright children and bring them up in stable homes—only 9% of college-educated mothers who give birth each year are unmarried, compared with 61% of high-school dropouts. They stimulate them relentlessly: children of professionals hear 32m more words by the age of four than those of parents on welfare. They move to pricey neighbourhoods with good schools, spend a packet on flute lessons and pull strings to get junior into a top-notch college.</i>"Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-64838187123509878282015-01-16T14:32:41.212-08:002015-01-16T14:32:41.212-08:00These posts and comments have been very entertaini...These posts and comments have been very entertaining and aog's last comment has me lol.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-22829235102722966002015-01-16T14:23:45.203-08:002015-01-16T14:23:45.203-08:00Assortative mating can be random if people simply ...Assortative mating can be random if people simply mate randomly with people they meet if the source social circles are restricted as well. In CA, where apparently PhDs do not mix with non-PhDs, you'd get random and assortative mating that way quite easily.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-24932246175880871872015-01-16T12:38:54.239-08:002015-01-16T12:38:54.239-08:00aog wrote: "...for most people mating and rep...aog wrote: "<i>...for most people mating and reproduction is rather random.</i>"<br /><br />While not much is solid in this realm, I think non-random assortative mating is pretty well documented at this point.<br /><br />aog wrote: "<i>In that case a contract option available is unlikely to be used.</i>"<br /><br />That may well be right and for sure I agree that "a contract option available is unlikely to be used" <i>tomorrow</i>. Over time though, custom may move to something like that.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-18990328189399239552015-01-16T12:34:22.456-08:002015-01-16T12:34:22.456-08:00Clovis wrote: "I do think my argument makes c...Clovis wrote: "<i>I do think my argument makes complete sense...</i>"<br /><br />It doesn't make sense to me because the number ("billion") was apparently picked arbitrarily.<br /><br />Would your scenario differ any from the following? Tomorrow, the fed issues "new" dollars and there are one-million new dollars per old dollar. Suddenly, everybody makes more than 1 billion new dollars a year but prices are also 1 million times as expensive.<br /><br />What you're describing makes no sense to me because even without enhanced genetypes and phenotypes, we're still <a href="http://greatguys.blogspot.com/2015/01/chart-of-day.html" rel="nofollow">increasing wealth at an impressive clip</a>. So we're all going to get more productive but produce even less? That sounds like a fixed or shrinking pie argument to me.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-58948509713748206542015-01-16T01:43:14.640-08:002015-01-16T01:43:14.640-08:00Bret,
---
Within a species, I don't think sur...Bret,<br /><br />---<br />Within a species, I don't think survival-of-the-fittest increases genetic diversity. The least fit (least suffective?) get eaten or otherwise die prior to reproducing.<br />---<br />Not that simple. You are not only reducing variance for suffectiveness in your simulation, you are reducing variance for the whole genetic spectrum.<br /><br />Nature is not subtle, but it is malicious. That restriction of genetic variance for suffectiveness purposes may well backfire in other ways. <br /><br />Look to dogs. Some of those races selectively "enhanced" present higher rates of cancer and other problems. <br /><br />Maybe we can counter that with technological developments too, but you restricted yourself to "natural eugenics", and playing by those rules I am not sure decreasing diversity is such a good idea.<br /><br /><br />---<br />So your saying there is also inflation? Then nobody is getting a billion dollars in today's terms, those are nominal dollars and your argument makes no sense.<br />---<br />Surely. I do think may argument makes complete sense, for it was all about renormalization of the quantities involved. <br /><br />---<br />So you're apparently a fixed pie kinda guy. In other words, no matter how productive we all become, we'll never be able to produce anything more?<br />---<br />No, that's not the argument. The argument it that no matter how productive we all become, returns will diminish as you increase productivity by that way.<br /><br />You may end up with very hard working smart people, but they may end up less motivated to put in their efforts.<br /><br />They also would be less motivated with life itself and suicide rates will also increase. [OK, now I am in "wild guess mode", but so you are :-)]Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-8814969706165471412015-01-15T22:10:58.691-08:002015-01-15T22:10:58.691-08:00The problem here is that you've inaccurately a...The problem here is that you've inaccurately ascribed the evolutionary analysis to the actual decision making process. I suspect that most (if not almost all) poor women engaging in thie reproductive strategy have no idea that they are. Instead they are just doing whatever and most likely not consciously (although perhaps instinctively) making any surfectiveness judgments. In that case a contract option available is unlikely to be used.<br /><br />This is a big reason I don't find your analysis very persuasive because for most people mating and reproduction is rather random.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-54347559711959313572015-01-15T21:44:55.756-08:002015-01-15T21:44:55.756-08:00aog wrote: "I was unable to figure out what y...aog wrote: "<i>I was unable to figure out what you meant by the policy implications of this.</i>"<br /><br />I really don't know. There's too many different motivators that I simply don't understand much. For example, even though I read about and see the statistics, for the life of me, I can't relate to a poor woman having multiple children with multiple different men. So I have no idea how to craft overall policy.<br /><br />aog wrote: "<i>What kind of contract, what would it cover?</i>"<br /><br />Well, with the caveats above and just throwing out random ideas...<br /><br />I think that society via government is going to keep children fed, clothed, and housed no matter what. So one thing I'd consider is to not have paternity suits. On the one hand, that sounds nuts even to me, but on the other hand the guys who are fathering the poor women's children aren't sue-able since they have no income or assets, so it would level the playing field. Some (I think many) guys would want to be involved in children's upbringings so they would also contribute voluntarily.<br /><br />Instead of woman and State initiated paternity suits, I was thinking more detailed contracts (pre-nups minus the nups part?) between a woman and man regarding supporting a child. For example, the man might agree to provide $20K per year for 18 years for child support. On the one hand, I know that "love" doesn't exactly work like that, but on the other hand, single women are going to sperm banks for anonymous donors and I didn't think "love" worked like that either. :-) I think contracts like that are starting to be explored in Europe. For maybe a subset of the population who can mix love/attraction with hard, cold negotiation, it might work.<br /><br />A super stud might negotiate a payment from a woman to father her child, a lower status male might pay the woman a substantial fee in addition to child support. Each contract would be negotiable. Maybe. Or something like that. For some people. Sometime in the future. If you use your imagination. Or not. Or something else. Beats me.<br /><br />Ultimately, I imagine there would evolve many private and State solutions/options developed that could support most people's needs within the realm of their abilities.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-1299421915802558542015-01-15T14:20:08.974-08:002015-01-15T14:20:08.974-08:00Bret;
why anonymous donors and penniless paupers ...Bret;<br /><br /><i>why anonymous donors and penniless paupers should be given such a huge advantage in the fathering game. Perhaps that playing field ought to be leveled via some sort of private enforceable contract.</i><br /><br />I was unable to figure out what you meant by the policy implications of this. What kind of contract, what would it cover?<br /><br />P.S.<br /><br /><i>you end up with a world where everyone is smart, hardworker, industrious, etc, </i><br /><br />The horror, the horror! (Again, only to a progresive :-))Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-42350834879843104592015-01-15T11:56:32.264-08:002015-01-15T11:56:32.264-08:00Clovis wrote: "If everyone gets 1 billion, th...Clovis wrote: "<i>If everyone gets 1 billion, that's in no way "absolute versus relative", money is only relative</i>"<br /><br />So your saying there is also inflation? Then nobody is getting a billion dollars in today's terms, those are nominal dollars and your argument makes no sense.<br /><br />So you're apparently a fixed pie kinda guy. In other words, no matter how productive we all become, we'll never be able to produce anything more?Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-53470086286225547322015-01-15T11:53:12.225-08:002015-01-15T11:53:12.225-08:00Clovis wrote: "I guess evolution backs me up ...Clovis wrote: "<i>I guess evolution backs me up on this one.</i>"<br /><br />Yes and no. Within a species, I don't think survival-of-the-fittest increases genetic diversity. The least fit (least suffective?) get eaten or otherwise die prior to reproducing.<br /><br />By the way, the reason I used suffective instead of fit was that nearly all humans reach the age of reproduction, so I needed a different term than "fit."Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-72714012393438681812015-01-15T11:49:40.383-08:002015-01-15T11:49:40.383-08:00Bret,
---
So which is it? Did I make a billion do...Bret,<br /><br />---<br />So which is it? Did I make a billion dollars or did I go broke?<br />---<br /><br />Which is it? They are both sides of the same coin.<br /><br />If everyone gets 1 billion, that's in no way "absolute versus relative", money is only relative - no, you can't buy lots and lots of stuff, because very soon they all will cost millions.<br /><br />Likewise, if suddenly almost everyone in the population can sit down and build farmer robots, what's the value of your company? You are again so average and can't offer much. <br /><br />It is simple: if everyone is an alpha, no one is an alpha.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-19551605655041462252015-01-15T11:16:36.742-08:002015-01-15T11:16:36.742-08:00Clovis,
So which is it?
"Give a billion dol...Clovis,<br /><br />So which is it?<br /><br />"<i>Give a billion dollars [to] half of the country...</i>"<br /><br />or<br /><br />"<i>and yours go broke by that competition next month...</i>"<br /><br />Did I make a billion dollars or did I go broke?<br /><br />In the first case, I achieved something of value ("a billion dollars") which has an absolute versus relative value in that I can buy lots and lots of stuff, travel all over the place, invest in lots of interests and hobbies, etc.<br /><br />In the second case, I achieved nothing because I went broke. Not relatively broke, but plain old absolutely broke.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-76389304566662204202015-01-15T10:26:15.288-08:002015-01-15T10:26:15.288-08:00Bret,
---
In other words, if the taxpayer is goin...Bret,<br /><br />---<br />In other words, if the taxpayer is going to stuck paying anyway, why not expand the single woman's choice?<br />---<br />LOL. How is it gonna play?<br /><br />"Hey, I've paid too much taxes this year, now I want four of those female poor women to mate! Give me it here!"<br /><br />---<br />Only to a progressive!<br />---<br />Ah yeah? <br /><br />So if fifty Bret-like smart people open up a company for farmer Robots next week, and yours go broke by that competition next month, I wonder how much achieving you'll have done with your precious genetic traits.<br /><br />You don't need to be a progressive so see that, only a materialist - which you are.<br /><br /><br />---<br />But then you'll have your much sought after equality! Finally! Yay!<br />---<br />I remember to be defending here lower-bounded inequality. That's really not the same. I like diversity, even more of the genetic kind. And I guess evolution backs me up on this one. <br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-79245778016705809912015-01-15T10:18:53.568-08:002015-01-15T10:18:53.568-08:00Clovis wrote: "Everyone would look like just ...Clovis wrote: "<i>Everyone would look like just so average and boring that females would hardly recognize who are those 20% males qualified to mate.</i><br /><br />If the distribution is so narrow, then it doesn't matter.<br /><br />For example if after "Hypergamy - Generation 129 Distribution," I switch to random mating, the distribution changes little.<br /><br />But then you'll have your much sought after equality! Finally! Yay! :-)Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-10678893865321829022015-01-15T10:12:29.450-08:002015-01-15T10:12:29.450-08:00Clovis wrote: "...since to achieve is usually...Clovis wrote: "<i>...since to achieve is usually a relative thing...</i>"<br /><br />LOL! Only to a progressive!<br />Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-4656687838262796672015-01-15T10:09:32.235-08:002015-01-15T10:09:32.235-08:00aog wrote: "You didn't even hit him ignor...aog wrote: "<i>You didn't even hit him ignoring the social instability of 80% of males...</i>"<br /><br />I've mentioned this in other posts in the series. In earlier times, I believe this would have been catastrophic. With immersive entertainment, I have a hunch the 80% (or 50% or 76.2347% or whatever) will be sufficiently docile to not cause trouble. They WON'T be available to be particular productive or defend society so that might be a problem.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-53877945278246412892015-01-15T10:06:57.185-08:002015-01-15T10:06:57.185-08:00Peter wrote: "If a woman prizes "suffect...Peter wrote: "<i>If a woman prizes "suffectiveness" above all, especially as you define it, why would she even want children?</i>"<br /><br />I don't recall writing that women would value suffectiveness "above all" and if I did, that was a mistake. But even if I did, I'm not sure why valuing suffectiveness would make her not want children.<br /><br />Peter wrote: "<i>...can we assume [childrens'] interests should take a back seat to promoting adult suffectiveness?</i>"<br /><br />Childrens' interests take a back seat to lots of things, but, just like now, I imagine that will continue to be up to their parent or parents and hopefully not the government except in extreme cases where CPS will need to intervene, again, just like now. Note that I'm NOT proposing any policy change regarding this (and very little else, either).<br /><br />Peter wrote: "<i>In what sense could it be said that a man who voluntarily saddles himself with child support obligations to five women in respect of ten children is "suffective"?</i>"<br /><br />That's an interesting question.<br /><br />First, an aside. I've mentioned the 72.3% black illegitimacy (oops, I mean out-of-wedlock birth) rate, but for poor whites and hispanics, the rate seems to be nearly identical as blacks (not a big surprise since skin color would have little to do with this sort of thing). So it's a thing of the poor, not just poor blacks.<br /><br />Among poor communities, we have women having children with the highest suffective lotharios that are willing to father their children. The highest suffective men willing to father the children are jobless and penniless. For them, there's no "reckless stupidity" in that they can't be made poorer by fathering children.<br /><br />Among less poor communities, single women are turning to sperm banks in increasing numbers. Some of the donors end up fathering 10+ children anonymously. They also are not recklessly stupid since they're anonymous.<br /><br />My question is why anonymous donors and penniless paupers should be given such a huge advantage in the fathering game. Perhaps that playing field ought to be leveled via some sort of private enforceable contract. In other words, if the taxpayer is going to stuck paying anyway, why not expand the single woman's choice?<br /><br />Peter wrote: "<i>Would you agree your model assumes single parenthood...?</i>"<br /><br />Yes. That's kinda how it's trending and I don't see it changing nor do I think policy changes can address this.<br /><br />Peter wrote: "<i>...money and estates...</i>"<br /><br />Get your head outta the clouds, man! :-)<br /><br />There's no money and estates of significance associated with the vast majority of the folks in question.<br /><br />Peter wrote: "<i>In fact one of your opening flaws is to even use the verb breeding.</i>"<br /><br />The word breed(ing) does not appear in any of my posts.<br /><br />Peter wrote: "<i>... model for breeding dogs...</i><br /><br />It's a question of actor. People breed dogs. People "breed" themselves and are not "bred" by other entites and hopefully not the government either.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.com