A General Theory of Human Mating is an excellent introduction to the male-centric, evolutionary biology-influenced sort-of-conservative viewpoint that bad shit is happening because of the interaction between women's hardwired sexuality and current social mores and laws relating to marriage and relationships. I'm sure it is overly simplistic and may make some errors, but it is the best summary I have found yet of this worldview.

(It's possible this will piss some people off, but this blog (hell, my life in general) has always operated on the principle of happily accepting a self-selected audience. "Those who matter won't leave, and those who leave don't matter")

There is too much material to excerpt, although it's not a long read. It contains a standard but clearly written description of male vs. female reproductive strategies, and of the disadvantages of monogamy for women, and the evolution of relationships from polygyny to monogamy to the current world of serial monogamy. It's all about how changing law and culture against the background of fixed biology results in different types of relationships with different social effects. Really, quite fascinating. Again, go read it before reading my comments.

From my perspective, part of the issue is that strict monogamy (lets call it "Regency Monogamy" as its the historical period I'm most familiar with) was reasonably compatible with our biological instincts. It was hardest on beta women, whose attraction to alphas and marriage to betas caused cuckolding, inner conflict, and marital dissatisfaction. It was great for beta males (got wives instead of being single), decent for alpha males (hey, they still get to try to seduce married women), and great for alpha women (got to monopolize an alpha man instead of sharing him). It was great for raising kids. Shannon points out that having more stable betas reproducing might have been good for stability and economic growth in an agricultural society.

But the modern sexual revolution, while I am of course very fond of its hedonistic, kinky, multisexual gloriousness, did not have this evolutionary awareness. And so the huge shift towards female power (more jobs, more control of their reproduction, the ability to initiate divorce with no reason, and shamefully biased custody and child support laws) resulted in the female alpha-seeking instinct being expressed in a huge rise in divorce (70%-75% of divorces are female-initiated) and single parenthood.

I'm sure there is some woman reading this now flipping out and thinking I am saying women shouldn't have all these freedoms. That is not at all what I am saying. I think every woman should be free to get a great job, leave her husband, and have barren sex - especially if it's with me. (Mmm...barren sex...). Although I don't like the biased child support laws. At this point I am just observing the unintended social consequences of female empowerment, and saying that they are bad - not making any prescriptions for how to fix it. And I am happy to state that I don't think taking away female freedoms is the answer (except the freedom to screw over the ex via child support payments).

This is getting kinda long, so let me just try to summarize the rest of my thoughts:

When women can leave men easily, they often do. Even if she genuinely loves him, her biological trigger makes her get bored with him in ~5 years (especially if he is beta, but even for alphas - look at the crazy serial monogamy in Hollywood. How many stars have only had one spouse?). There is a whole book on this.

I'll skip the whole "why is this bad", but the essay has an excellent section about it. Basically: it reduces investment by fathers in children, and this causes many social problems. Some go so far as to say that high paternal investment is part of what drove modern civilization forward. It occurs to me that the post-sexual revolution period (the last few decades) coincides with the low compensation growth and stagnant wages that the left complains about. How deliciously (if awfully, ironic) if it was in part related to the left's rejection of traditional "family values".

What can we do about it? I love to solve problems, so for me this is the most interesting part of the whole thing. What cultural rules will maintain female freedom, while providing a better environment for raising kids? That is, how can we have the best of both worlds?

I'm not sure. But if the problem is low paternal investment, the solution must fix that. For example, anything that leads to less divorce and more stable families will help. Perhaps teaching men to be more alpha (in relationship ways, not PUA ways) so that their wives are kept engaged and passionate through a long relationship. In fact, there are lots of therapist and books about keeping marriages going - the problem (in my mind) is that many women don't realize why they are no longer attracted to their husband, and assume that they should dump him, rather than turning to these techniques. While I find it very strange to be complimenting or drawing from the world of traditional Christian family values, I've seen a lot of material on keeping couples together from that world, which is natural given its commitment to the nuclear family, and it is most likely a force counteracting these negative social trends.

But I prefer more innovative solutions :). For example, it is possible that couples don't need to stay together to get paternal investment, just have the dads nearby. So perhaps communal living with serial monogamy within the community would allow for women to fulfill their serial instincts while kids still get fathered. I am skeptical that split-up parents now dating others can co-parent as well as a married couple, but this should be tested with data, since if I'm wrong, it enables a whole class of solutions of the "get divorced, but don't move further than a block" variety.

Since I'm poly, I'm generally intrigued by how poly plays into this, both in reinforcing the bad patterns (I think poly encourages serial monogamy b/c relationships tend to be less committed), and in offering possible solutions (perhaps polyamorous-natured women, those who can have simultaneous emotional relationships with multiple guys, can stay married to "dad" while following their instincts to a new relationship. Parallel, rather than serial monagamy).

To follow-up to Coming out of the closet as a social conservative, my thoughts on parenthood.

I negatively judge those who don't want to have children. I still like you, but it is a choice that I do not respect. First, I see it as a rejection of adulthood and of an essential part of the human experience, thus I view it as a childish decision, or perhaps more accurately, a decision to retain a more childlike life. A childlike life is great fun, but to me it is a small life, an immature life.

Second, I view the decision as saying, in the most profound way, via actions not words, "I wish there to be less people like me in the world. I wish the next generation to be less like me than this generation. My type of person should be removed from the world." That is, after all, the effect of the choice, and when you make a choice, you are choosing its effects. This is the inexorable logic of evolution and the hereditibility of personality traits.

The thing is, I like you, dear readers. Many of you I admire, respect, and approve of. I want to be in a world with more people like you, not a world full of people who aren't the type to be my friends, readers, commenters and lurkers. And I am deeply saddened when you don't seem to feel the same way - when you choose to concede the world to people not like you.

I'm sure you see things a different way, and I'm sure you have all kinds of reasons. You may be scared, prefer your independence and fun, have had bad experiences with your parents, not want the responsibility, don't see it as your fight, don't like the world of the future, etc. There are lots of reasons, some selfish, some noble, some good, some bad. That's fine, it is your life, and I'm glad you are choosing how to live it.

But I view myself, in the role of a parent, as fighting a crucial battle for a better future, and I view non-parents who are unusual people I like as deserters from that battle. (Ironically, this negative judgement is a mark of respect. since I only care whether you have kids if I like and respect you.) Maybe this is perspective is illogical self-glorification of the sacrifices I am making as a parent. Maybe it is hubris to be judging others rather than accepting them. But it is my perspective.

There is a "public good problem" aspect to this, where the gains from more great people accrue to a wide number of others, so they are underprovided. One can argue that potential parents shouldn't be expected to undergo the hardships of parenting to help the world, that is calling for altruism. While that is true, let us not forget that humans have mechanisms to enforce public good creation based on status and respect. Writing free software is a public good, so we give props to people who do it. Maybe we also dis those who can and don't. Do I have any right to tell people whether to have kids? Of course not. But my respect is a currency, and it is my currency, and it is up to me to parcel it out to those who are providing public goods that I benefit from. That's how humans handled public goods before the state, and I like it.

Yay for Bryan Caplan for writing a book encouraging smart people to have more kids!

I was just listening to part of the Power of Now audiobook, and there was a Q&A that I found very profound. Essentially the questioner was contrasting Tolle's judgement of certain emotions as bad or negative with the idea of accepting your emotions, giving yourself permission to feel whatever you feel, not repressing or blaming yourself for them. I have heard the latter idea a lot from Buddhism, and have some sympathy for it, yet I am certainly not willing to withhold judgement about what emotions I want to feel and encounter in others.

I think that the answer embodied in Tolle's philosophy, and partly given in the segment, is simple, true and profound, so I'd like to describe it. The answer can mostly be derived from the simple truth that the past is immutable and we can only act in the present. (By past here, I'm including anything I just noticed about myself - so we can imagine a world consisting of alternating inputs and actions, and the input I just saw is considered the past, even though I've just noticed it.) The answer is to combine complete acceptance of the past and current state of the world with incredible empowerment to affect the future state of the world through present action.

( Details )
Patri's Second Motto: Give up all hope for a better yesterday, so that you can act more effectively for a better tomorrow.
[1] This does depend on empirical attributes of the human mind. If we were true behavior machines that learned solely based on the feedback of positive and negative emotions, then guilt and blame might be necessary for learning. Fortunately this turns out not to be the case. Negative emotions are not clear motivators - they can demotivate. They are not the only motivators - I may not have felt guilty for being an hour late to Day 2 of the $2500 NL at the WSOP, but I damn well want to try hard to make sure it doesn't happen again. And even when they motivate, the spillover effects of unhappiness and past-focus from self-blame tend to be larger than the gain from motivation.

[2] I use the Acceptance/Action dichotomy in this post because I'm exploring the distinction between those two, but Observation is critical enough that one might characterize the whole thing as a 3-step process: Observe, Accept, Act. In fact, with practice, Acceptance merges into Observation so that it becomes Observe -> Act, so Observation is actually more fundamental.

but today was the closest I've ever come to dying. It was rather scary. I was the passenger in a car accident on Skyline, a twisty road in the pouring rain. I have very minor injuries, some bruises and a slightly twingey rib (but not much on the scale of ribs). The driver has some moderately bruised ribs, but seems to be OK too. We lost control and ended up going headfirst into a tree at 30 mph or so. Both airbags deployed. The long, long seconds after we lost control and before we stopped were...epic in their awfulness.

I am deeply thankful for being alive. And, amazingly, I am almost empty of regrets about how I am living my life. Even though it was a reminder of how precious life is, I feel deeply fortunate to be already living life on my terms, fiercely, passionately, ambitiously, shooting for the stars and enjoying the flowers at the same time. I already try to squeeze as much as I can out of every moment. I may be able to squeeze a little harder, Shannon did some good coaching for me about the few (but deep) regrets I do have, but in general I'm doing pretty well.

I am also very thankful for having competent friends I can trust to help out when I need it. Anna cheerfully came out on a long drive on a rainy night with the big white van and helped with cargo/wreck issues and finding insurance papers in the mess while we were with the medics. And it's not just the helping, it's that I trust her to do it well, so I can just relax and consider it done. I look forward to someday paying that favor forward and doing the same for a friend in need.

I expect I will have lots more over-analysis to do about the event, as is my wont. But not tonight.

I've been thinking about change and self-development lately, so here are some of my thoughts.

Disclaimer: I tend to state even my wild theories with confidence, so let me explicitly say that these are just my random musings and that I don't claim to be an expert (or even a journeyman), or think my opinions on the subject are particularly valuable. But perhaps they will resonate with some of you.

Change:

The essence of change is to first make a commitment, and then honor it in each moment.

( Read more... )

In between the distractions of the unchangeable past and the infinitely malleable future - there, in the present moment, lies the space where true change can occur. There we create our pasts and move towards our ever-receding futures, and it is up to us whether we do so by following our instincts and habits (whether or not they are serving us well), or choicefully, striving towards our ideal selves. Change is not easy, and it can only happen in the moment.

So if you want to change, don't tell me about the past that made you need to change, and don't tell me about the wonderful future change will bring you to. Make a commitment, and then, moment by moment, live up to it. Otherwise you are only dealing in distraction.

The most recent Scott Adams post was even more interesting than usual:

The Dale Carnegie approach to teaching public speaking is to compliment the speaker for whatever he or she does well, and never mention any flaws.

That’s it. That’s the entire technique.

The theory is that when you focus on flaws, you don’t address the underlying problem of being uncomfortable in front of people. If you tell someone to take his hands out of his pockets, he will, but he’ll transfer his nervous habit to some other mannerism. At best, you end up with robotic speakers afraid to do something wrong. I had already taken a few public speaking classes that focused on flaws, and I can confirm that the successful graduates were a bit like R2D2.

Most of my classmates in the Dale Carnegie course were basket cases when it came to public speaking. Some knew they had a serious problem and others were forced by their bosses to attend. The first day was grim. One woman stood frozen in front of the group, unable to generate an intelligible word. Beads of sweat literally dripped off her chin. It was horrible to watch. She choked out a few words and returned to her seat, defeated. Our instructor came to the front of the room and said, “Wow. That was really brave.”

This reminds me of a child-raising theory I recently heard about in extempore's comments on one of his posts - basically, that you shouldn't point out kid's mistakes. They should learn by discovering their own mistakes, not having you identify and correct their errors. It also reminds me of the "genie" technique from the breakthrough accomplishments course I posted about a couple months back, where you listen to someone with complete encouragement and no criticism.

Not that I'm going to give up criticism - I'm a big fan of it, obviously. But in some situations, it is counterproductive.

To finish off, and reward you for having gotten this far, I'm going to shameless steal the last bit of Scott Adams post. So I’m going to give you some compliments right now, to kick off your weekend. You might be surprised how good it makes you feel.

First, if you are reading patrissimo, I already know something about you: You have an open mind, and that’s a rare and wonderful quality. Most people only enjoy seeing their preconceived ideas fed back to them. That doesn’t happen here. Open-mindedness is one of the most important qualities a person can have. You have it, my friend.

You’re also well above average in intelligence. This blog is designed to appeal to people like you. So unless it’s your first time here, I have no doubt that you’re one of the smartest people you know. Check out the quality of the comments to yesterday’s post, for example. Not many spelling errors, if you know what I mean.

You also have a wonderful sense of humor. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be here. A good sense of humor is another indicator of intelligence. I expect you’re well-liked by the people who know you best because you’re rational, curious, eclectic, and fun-loving.

Patri in Marie Claire (Russian edition) I made it into the Marie Claire (Russian edition) story on Google (as I blogged about earlier), but unfortunately my fashionable coworker did not. We're guessing she didn't fit the story they were trying to tell. Also, they kept digging to try to get her to talk about Larry & Sergey's personal lives, from which she wisely refrained. This theory is supported by the fact that they did include another female Russian Googler who was not so wise, along with her Sergey story. Anyway, sad for her, but happy for me. I fit into their theme of lavish benefits and slobby engineers. The text reads: "This guy many weeks in a row goes to work in pajamas. At Google they feed people for free 24 hours a day, and that's why he doesn't fit into his jeans anymore, and he's too lazy to buy new ones" Which is pretty much what I told them, so hey, cool :). Good think I hadn't lost the weight when they were here! Sometimes, unique is more newsworthy than cute... p.s. This is one page of an 8 page story. If someone wants to host the whole thing (2MB PDF), I can email it to them.