Children of married parents do better, but America is moving the other way

This article is a good starter for explaining how the Puritan, Quaker, Cavalier, and Scots—Irish each shaped our cultural identity: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/books/review/joe-klein-ex...

> But the Scots-Irish impact on American politics is more problematic than Webb would have us believe. The populist politics they pioneered doesn't necessarily produce the sort of values that sustain liberty. Indeed, the democratic impulse toward comfort and safety often undercuts self-reliance and individualism. Webb's book, though well-written and often insightful, is more an exercise in ethnic self-mythologizing than an evenhanded attempt to judge the impact of the Scots-Irish and their culture on America.

My reading of the article is that the author agrees with Webb that "the Scots-Irish impact" on America was large. The point of disagreement is whether that influence was as positive as Webb says, or whether it was "more problematic than Webb would have us believe."

Unmarried people who got children then get married on paper just because of Christian morality, especially in the South

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.67680...

You present a source with women being hunters. I never denied this. I here present a source of female and male unequal-ness as a comprehensive study across time and culture. Which do you think is more relevant to the conversation at hand? Which resource was strategically picked to fulfill some biased agenda? Obviously not the comprehensive study.

>I googled this "saying" and it was only your post that came up. Did you just make this up? lol

I googled it too and found multiple resources within minutes. The reason you didn't find it is obvious. You're not conducting a logical search with intent. You're conducting a biased search. You don't agree with me so you don't want to find a source. So subconciously you spend less effort and end up finding nothing. Typical.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-funda... https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2015/polygyny_health...

What happens next is when presented with sources against his own agenda the naysayer starts to nitpick. Starts to find as many flaws with the source as he can.

Where this saying came from. Where I first heard it was in the UCLA anthropology department. It was stated by the professor and the text book. The professor btw, was female, and so am i.

>Sure, if you have the emotional maturity of a 16 year old, this makes a lot of sense.

This isn't a response. It's an attack please present evidence. It's called paternity fraud and it's a real genetic strategy both in humans and in animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud

https://canadiancrc.com/newspaper_articles/Globe_and_Mail_Mo...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-jun-02-op-zuk.r...

>No, these are not "instincts", they are a loss of trust in a partner and no relationship can survive if there isn't trust. Open relationships exist, polygamy is a thing. I can assure you.

Polygamy is a thing. I didn't deny this in my arguments. It exists but it is beneficial to women not to men.

>I would absolutely love to see a citation for how natural selection is "accelerating" because, if anything, it is the opposite. We're having fewer children in most developed countries, not more.[2]

Having fewer children is part of natural selection. It means the children that were not "had" are naturally selected out. Natural selection happens either by not being born or being killed before reproduction. I don't think you understand.

When countries have fewer children it means MORE children are being UNSELECTED. and the natural selection process is becoming more vicious and thus "accelerating".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

>Your entire comment is built on a pile of assumptions and leaps of logic that are barely coherent, with no references to back them up.

I posted sources.

>Let me tell you what is actually going on now. Women tend to work together, more so than men[3]. What this means, is that there are entire communities where they talk about who they go on dates with. I'm not even making this up.[4] This means if you are a creep, no one will date you because you are a creep. Do something stupid, every woman will know about it on your next date. So, no, there isn't some mysterious "beta" or "alpha" bullshit, it's just that women are smart enough to work together to make sure they don't date the wrong person.

Yes that society is our current society. We have entire facebook groups where we identify and red flag men who we don't want to date. As a woman we only want to date alphas. I won't date someone who makes less than me. Alphas exist in the animal world, it makes no sense to suddenly deny the existence of alphas in the human world.

Clearly there are men who are more powerful and more attractive than others. Those men are basically "alphas". Women like you and me tend to work together to improve our own successes. That means polygamous relationships with the top men. This is what I want and this is what you want.

What confuses me is that often your arguments are in agreement with mine. I don't think you're maintaining a logical stream of consistent thought.