I have always been a firm beleiver that those that have to talk and brag about how good they are scoring are in fact actually tooting their own horn for other reasons ...

most likley because they are getting close to hardly anything at all , it's almost like positive thinking gone wrong.



anyways where were we???


oh ya........toot away.

Maybe so.. unfortunately.. somewhere between age 14 and 44, I transitioned to something that stands upright and I no longer need an assist from my knuckles for forward motion.

I sometimes revert back... Usually when I'm full of myself or in self pity. When that happens I try not to make a public spectacle of myself for fear animal control will get me.

Some things are better expressed in the privacy of my own home, for the 5 or 10 minutes it usually takes to get it out of my system.
___________________________________________________________


Well.. the only reference material I can find on this is 'Trivers (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection'

A cursory search on the Library of Congress site did not have anything Trivers wrote by the title 'Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man' Written by Robert Trivers. Just Campbell.

But it is neither here nor there.
------------------------------------------------------

Triune Brain Theory:
That is a very interesting interpretation of this theory you have.
Although the development was most certainly hierarchical in it's nature. The actual relationships prove to interact differently.
As taken from: http://www.buffalostate.edu/orgs/bcp/brainbasics/triune.html
'The full extent of this interconnectedness is unclear. However, it is entirely incorrect to assume that in any situation one of our three "brains" is working and the others are not. What we can do, tentatively, is assume that at times one particular focus may be dominant while the rest of the brain acts in support and that education can influence which focus dominates.'

In so far as the runaway theory and conclusion that novelty is the key.. Take another look at the theory.

The two statements:
a. Runaway sexual selection is predicated by females choosing mates with traits common to good genes. Therefore propagating those genes.
b. Novelty is the indicator of good genes.

Being exceptionally stupid, just as being exceptionally brilliant are both novel in nature.

Being born with all my limbs is typical. Being born with no limbs is novel. Which state stands a better chance of propagation?

Your suggestion that novelty being the goal, is counter to the theory itself.
-------------------------------------------------------------

If reproductive selection is exclusively causal to intelligence.. that makes us humans the most inefficient animal this world has ever witnessed. The predicted outcome is..mammals in general are as failed an evolutionary experiment as the dinosaur. Probably more so... Our intelligence is at least as much a liability as the dinosaurs lack of intelligence was to them.

Or.. there is some other higher motive and goal. Or.. maybe it was just a result of neutral theory.

Many evolutionary theories makes a bad habit of explaining everything as an adaption. Leaving out the possibility that it could just be a by-product, a result of history, genetic drift, or simply an outdated adaption that worked in an entirely different environment which no longer exists.

In natural selection.. If that were the all powerful factor.. the species of the world would be perfect. Or, at least we would see evidence of 'perfect' organisms.

Like any science.. Over thinking and over simplifying are equally detrimental. Which again.. leads to anti-science.

Read whatever you found on Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man - Campbell... the page after the cover page says "Parental Investment and Sexual Selection" by Trivers lol

yeah its confusing i know

you may have missed my point because i used the word "spandrel." it means by-product, roughly.

so yes, i am actually agreeing with your point that we have by-products, but i am saying that those by-products are a RESULT of natural selection and are therefore still rooted in their original adaptive mechanisms.

as for novelty... u may actually be quite surprised to find that people who are exceptionally dumb and people without limbs can actually very successful in being attractive to women. it's all in the attitude. if they treat their own differences like a curse, it becomes a curse by being detrimental to their attractiveness. if they treat their own differences like a gift, however, it becomes a gift and actually aids in their attractiveness. Attractive novelty comes with a great feeling of self-worth and healthy pride.

One of the greatest pickup artists i have ever seen (named Sean) is actually only 3 feet tall and confined to a wheelchair due to a medical condition he was born with. He has more confidence than any master pickup artist i have ever seen, and gets laid by a rock star. don't ask me how he performs in bed - i'm just as confused as you could be. it's truly quite amazing and inspirational, though.

oh, and novelty isn't necessarily an indicator of good genes - from what i understand, runaway selection doesn't really have much to do with good genes and adaptivity...

novelty is certainly not the end-all answer to attraction, but i am certainly saying that it's a big part of the puzzle.

as for the triune brain theory, i never said that the 3 brains work separately... i don't see where youre getting at here. i only explained the purpose of each brain's evolution.

Nope.. you didn't.. However you used the word "serve".. as in a hierarchical, relationship. At least, that is what I took it to mean. Much in the way a computer computes... in a linear form. I.E. The coprocessor assists the main processor in floating point arithmatic, graphics...etc

By all indications.. they work in unison, one taking the lead and the other two supporting.. rather then a linear track.

o ok

i meant that the original purpose of the newer brain is to help out the older brain, and the original purpose of the newest brain is to help out the newer brain. they were created in a linear fashion, thus creating a hierarchy in some way in terms of "whos the oldest sibling in the family" or whatever, but they do not work independently.

...nothing works independently lol, but that's my philosophical/religious view.

This may very well be true.. However..My point was: It goes against the runaway theory.

It is one of many anomalies that tend to discount animal behavior being the actual root of our sexual selection.

...and yes.. I did misinterpret the use of spandrel.. I took it at it's more literal, architectural form. 'To fill a void by design, or as a purposed feature of a design.' so to speak.

I THINK I'm beginning to see what you're getting at here:
You are saying that since men without limbs, a characteristic maladaptive to survival, can still be attractive, animal instinct does not primarily guide selection selection in humans today. Am I right?

To counter this, think about the peacock, an animal with far less cognitive ability than human beings. The male peacock spreads its colorful plumage to attract mates, but at the same time this is maladaptive to its survival because predators can see it easier.

There is another concept in evolutionary psych (i think it's called the handicap hypothesis or handicap principle or something like that...i read it in my textbook closer to the beginning of the semester) and it basically says that the peacock is saying "hey look! i am soooo confident in my high survival value that i am willing to prove it by sending out a call to predators to come get me. look! i am more than able to provide safety for you and our offspring because i'm still alive with all this colorful plumage." This suggests that even counter-intuitive mating strategies like peacock feathers (and i guess...having no limbs???) are rooted in animal instinct/behavior.

And thus, Peacock Theory was born



Of course, there's a downside to everything. mPUA's fail to mention how much you could be made fun of depending on how far you take peacocking. People shouldn't go crazy with it (like Mystery) unless they have high self-esteem to be able to brush it off.

I know this doesn't have much to do with your debate with Jistme, but I was bored

True enough... I'm sure there is a counter to this.. but I can't think of it, due to clients IM'ing me and my phone ringing off the hook. So much for a quite Sunday....

I could use the new improved Multi-Tasking gene right about now...

It's called estrogen lol
Women multi task better because they have a thicker corpus collosum, allowing better fluidity in the communication between their left and right brain hemispheres.


Well, someone mentioned it but I forgot who... i think it was an article on sosuave im not sure...

oh wait its right there in the venusian arts handbook.
Mystery said that u can justify your peacocking with direct demonstrations of preselection, which makes void of any potential insults.

and yeah, its important to be able to have the ability to bush off snickering remarks and stuff like that... which comes naturally with confidence and competence.

u may find yourself gaming a mixed set where the AFC guys are snickering and thinking you are some total tool or whatever, but ur actually attracting the females of the set and pumping buying temp. these AFCs cant even recognize the barrage of IOIs the girls are throwin at you haha

I left my book somewhere else so I wasn't able to thumb through it, lol. You're right though. It doesn't matter what you look like if you're the one attracting women. AFC's will just be jealous and peacocking is probably the only thing they can try to use against you. Still though, Mystery's peacocking is outrageous, but it works since he's a magician. Guys should only peacock enough to fit their style.

I can support this fact, as many years ago I knew a person with arms that never grew from the time when he was a baby, so a full grown man w/ baby arms. He bested me with the ladies that were in position of superior looks, because he was without a doubt the coolest cat I ever hung out with.

Lesson here is you can swing from a tree all you want just pound your chest the hardest and you will be able to give the lady of your dreams your banana.

Oh and to the ladies that would question this or argue with me, yo…get in the kitchen and make me some’thin to eat woman!

Two sides to that coin I have had this argument in the past
one can also say that by spreading its tuft of feathers, with its many eyes stairing out
can be a frightful image

at least if you’re a… mon-key

*act- Goes running around the room smashing things screaming…. Ooooohhh ahhhhhhh ahhhh………… settles down and flings poo at both of yous

stop posting things thats not yours chief im starting to think you all talk. its more better to talk about your own experience than stuff from mystery. my game is natural

Well I can give you one of my experiences with peacock theory. Except it's not really peacock theory and I wasn't trying to do anything. I was at the mall in Spencers and this lovely lady walked over to me and started a conversation with me because I was wearing a United States Army t-shirt. So here's my advice...and I'm not even charging you for it...it's called the Army Attraction Theory. Girls dig guys in the armed forces. So get a shirt and act like you're in/about to join .

oh?

well then, i have a proposition.

A face-off: Player vs. PUA. Let's meet up, hit up a cafe, a bookstore, a bar, a regular club, and a strip club. We'll compete to see who does better in-field when it comes to picking up chicks.

Now, we live damn far away from each other, but let's see if we can arrange this for the summer vacation or something. you game?

This is where I bow out of this thread...

The last post so clearly states the true intent of all this pua crap.. I was willing to entertain the benefit of doubt for the sake of conversation. It is no longer a disputable issue. Not that it ever was but I was kind of having fun trying to sort through how these kids came to believe this is a productive way to think and behave.

I'm pretty sure if I hang around too long one of two things could happen...

1: Some of what has infected these young (and a few surprisingly older) men, will get on me.
2: One of them will challenge me to some sort of perverted game, using young women as pawns, ammunition.... Wether I accepted or not ~ I wouldn't~ they will proceed to attempt to prove to themselves that they are men, whatever it might cost somebody else.

At any rate.. best of luck guys.. I'm done playing with the noisy little dogs.

I'd rather not be a party to either.

many paths, one truth

never said I was..

and you wonder why you're single *rolls eyes*