A Spirited Debate

[Note to the INTJ Forum:

The Link you want is this – http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/deference/#comments

I believe Catzmeow commented under the name “Original Trouble”.]

A♠:

Riffing darkly here but…

Considering a man willingly dying in defense of women is not only taking himself out of the gene-pool but is also making the ultimate (albeit tacit) admission of his inferior genetic value when compared in the harshest light – does it make anyone think that this “protection meme” is yet another “shit test”?

In support of this (admittedly terrible and depressing) idea, studies have shown the Dark Triad is attractive to women, imprisoned murders get sent marriage proposals and women whose men die in their defense eventually have children with men that do not.

Thoughts?

Linanati

/  July 24, 2012

A,

That’s assuming the man doesn’t already have children. If my husband died defending me so I was able to get away to safety, I would have survived to raise our children, who each have half his genes. That’s what a man’s protective instincts are for – to defend his wife and children, which means his genes are carried on to the next generation.

Sometimes the man’s protective instincts are activated in defense of someone who has not had his child(ren), which could remove him from the gene pool if he is killed. On the other hand, it’s possible one of the girlfriends of the men who died for them could be pregnant and not know it yet. That’s less likely now than in the days before reliable birth control, but his body doesn’t know that. A man’s instincts are to protect the woman he has been putting his sperm in, even if she hasn’t borne his children yet, because she might be pregnant with his baby.

It’s an evolutionary advantage in that the offspring of men who protect their women and children are more likely to survive. That’s why it’s so widespread, and not that surprising, that men do put themselves between a bullet and their wife/girlfriend and/or children.

A♠:

I believe the strongest part of your viewpoint is here:

That’s less likely now than in the days before reliable birth control, but his body doesn’t know that. A man’s instincts are to protect the woman he has been putting his sperm in, even if she hasn’t borne his children yet, because she might be pregnant with his baby.

However, in all of these discussions of gender-relations, the bandying about of evo-psych ideas always misses the largest, most important fact:

The goal of all life – without exception – is twofold –

1} Survive

2} Reproduce

What’s at the top there?

Exactly.

Parents and women like to stress the importance of reproduction for their own benefit (which could be anything from justifying their choices to getting more out of relationships, etc).

And it’s almost always successful because reproduction is certainly the penultimate goal of all life – therefore it does speak to us on a deep level.

However, when one’s life is in danger, everything changes.

I was in law enforcement for almost 10 years and was almost killed 3 times.

You would be amazed at what the desire to survive will cause one to do.

Now, I’m not saying either of us is wrong or right; I’m simply enjoying a debate (not an argument – those waste my time) on the matter.

Which was the clearly stated point of the comment to which you replied.

Linanati

/  July 24, 2012

Personal survival isn’t always at the top. If it were, men wouldn’t put themselves between their wives or girlfriends and a bullet, and parents wouldn’t give their lives for their children. Sometimes survival of a person’s genes trumps personal survival.

Now, the person making the sacrifice isn’t thinking, “I’m doing this to increase the chances my genes will make it into the next generation.” They’re sincerely doing it out of love or, in the case of a stranger, a deep-seated instinct to protect someone weaker than themselves.

But why do they have those protective urges to begin with?

The children of people who are capable of that kind of self-sacrifice are more likely to survive. Those children are also more likely to have, and pass on to their children, that protective instinct.

A♠:

@ Linanati,

“Personal survival isn’t always at the top. If it were, men wouldn’t put themselves between their wives or girlfriends and a bullet, and parents wouldn’t give their lives for their children. Sometimes survival of a person’s genes trumps personal survival.”

I didn’t say personal survival was.

You’re getting wrapped up in the wrong place.

I was asking if this deference was a “shit test”

Now, the person making the sacrifice isn’t thinking, “I’m doing this to increase the chances my genes will make it into the next generation.” They’re sincerely doing it out of love or, in the case of a stranger, a deep-seated instinct to protect someone weaker than themselves.

Part of that is correct.

They are not thinking.

They have no time for it.

But if they are dying for their children or potential children they are defaulting to survival – albeit, as you say, not necessarily personal survival.

But why do they have those protective urges to begin with?

Now you’re getting back to my original question:

Is that protective behavior instinct or is it a societal inculcation?

The children of people who are capable of that kind of self-sacrifice are more likely to survive. Those children are also more likely to have, and pass on to their children, that protective instinct.

You’re correct – from the female reproductive strategist’s viewpoint.

Reproduction for women is a long and costly effort.

For men, it’s a minute or two.

Therefore, the course you state would be best for females.

It better serves a male perspective to simply live on and keep impregnating women.

Admittedly, what I’m saying is bleak and soul-shaking.

But as Mr. Kurtz told me with his dying words:

“The horrors; the horrors.”

Linanati

/  July 24, 2012

In more primitive times, when life was a lot more dangerous, impregnating a lot of women might not have had a greater chance of success than staying with and protecting your children and their mother.

Although certainly, from a male POV, there are benefits to both methods. Many men throughout history, as well as some today, have had legitimate children they provided for and protected (who would have had better odds of survival, as well as a better chance in life), plus illegitimate children who often were left to the mother’s meager resources and protection (thus being less likely to survive, and the survivors usually having a poorer quality of life). You could argue that a married man with bastards was hedging his bets.

The best course for men would be to do both, except that today the government will make you provide for illegitimate children. So nowadays illegitimate children pull resources from legitimate children – the only thing they don’t get is the father’s physical protection. You might as well only produce the children you are going to protect and give the best chance in life, because each illegitimate baby is only going to make you poorer, thereby reducing your own quality of life.

A♠:

• “The best course for men would be to do both, except that today the government will make you provide for illegitimate children. So nowadays illegitimate children pull resources from legitimate children – the only thing they don’t get is the father’s physical protection. You might as well only produce the children you are going to protect and give the best chance in life, because each illegitimate baby is only going to make you poorer, thereby reducing your own quality of life.”

  I believe you’ve just proven my long view of things.

  The deck has been stacked – by women – in favor of the female reproductive strategy.

  This is tacit admission they know, at the core, what strategy is best for men:

  Thus they remove the option.

  Thank you for a very enlightening conversation.

Ω