Talk:Fisherian runaway

Mikey's proposal for the sexy sons section

This entire article needs to be re-done, alot of information is either left out or completely false (lie?, honest mistake?)

we know that for a fact exaggerated traits are maladaptive, there's all sorts of books and studies on that, however theres been no species where sexual selection resulted in extinction. Only when the environment rapidly changed and so there was not enough nutrients to develop normally. There are models that show intrasexual competition alone in a stable environment could result in extinction, (all of the males killing each other off. ) the wiki mentions such a scenario for humans somewhere. but that has not happened either.

The article is long as hell, with hardly any sources (8). There needs to be alot added and alot taken away. This is a super scientific hi IQ article, this needs to be 100% accurate.

Mikey (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

write long edits on the talk page my man easier to get the thoughts together/sort things out

Mikey (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

So is there consensus on this page? For the record, I don't know what the edit wars were about, but I'm seeing the initial complaint was that the article was too long, now it's longer.William (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, please be careful with Youtube vids, they take up a lot of space if they aren't entertaining or interesting, I removed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNZsuIyfQgs William (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyway too many edits were made with too little talk page participation. I don't know who started it, but please wait for responses on talk pages before deleting mass written contentWilliam (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Eggman pic

Don't think that pic is appropriate for this page, just feels out of place William (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Because that pic is not fisherian runaway lol. thats ugly vs hot. Fisherian runaway would be objectively attractive male model on the left.. And a hyper masculinized photo shopped morph on the right.

This Sean O pry morph comparison basically https://www.reddit.com/r/truerateme/comments/7zpxga/do_you_find_this_man_more_attractive_on_the_left/

Mikey (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The relevance is that FR-like selection can explain why such subtle differences matter. Agreed though. "Attractive vs comically exaggerated" would bring the point across better. Bibipi (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah! we all are on the same page! HOORAH! Just pointing out there's 3 memes centered around F.R. 1 tru 2 false.

1. hydrav-gigachad/ ultimate -gigachad is a truthful because the pics are overly exaggerated morphs of an objectively attractive looking guy,

2. Fisherian Chad- A small group of Chads will doom us all. Completely false.

3. Hindsight is 20/20 bias - Let's say a population has an abundance of food, and for some good reason the men or women, doesn't matter are selected for any good trait, fast speed, long necks doesn't matter. The meme is rapidly taking away all the food (famine/rapid environmental change) and then the outside observer saying "SEE! These stupid long neck fucks! They should have spent more time focusing on/being attracted to X." When in reality no one in the environment had any idea the environment was going to change so quickly, and thus had no reason to change what was working just fine a moment ago/last year/etc.

Thinking the reason I caught this is cuz my buddy andrew, we would take rationality tests to get better at overcoming/recognizing bias's. Toook 6 months to get a perfect score on this test https://programs.clearerthinking.org/how_rational_are_you_really_take_the_test.html Andrew never got above 80%. Some of the math questions are really fuckin hard, but the test is fun if anyone wants to take the thing!

Also link to hindsight bias page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

Mikey (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Youtube vids

Youtube vids are only good for unimportant, humorous content, or content that cannot be found elsewhere. They also turn into dead links very fast. Bibipi's images were better as they are infinite and well formatted.William (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Mikey's vid

Put at bottom of page for many reasons, was previously at top. William (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Reorganised people's writing

The edit wars made a lengthy unorganized page and a too long lede, tried to correct this by moving writing around. The lede was also previously too long.William (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The last version was entirely rewritten by Mikey. There was no war in the lede. Bibipi (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There was a huge war in the lede lol

Mikey (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There was a war about the entire page because you began rewriting sex sons without awaiting consensus. This is documented in the edit history. The onus is on you explaining why your proposed changes are better, not on us justifying undoing your complete rewrites. Bibipi (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately Bibipi is right. Mikey, it would be preferred next time for you to wait for responses on a talk page before making tons of major changes to a finished, A-class article. Sometimes talk page responses can take up to a week, and are preferable to Discord PMs as talk pages are public and not all the editors are on Discord. If you want people to respond faster you can ping them on their user talk page with reference to a talk page you want their response on. If no one responds, don't assume that means it's ok to change enormous amounts on an A-class article. William (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Examples before explanation?

I think the previous order made more sense. First explain, then examples. Bibipi (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yea that's fine. I try to put a bit of of eye-candy at the top (in this case your animal pictures) instead of making the reader go through a lot of theory first, but it's just a preference I have. You can move that aroundWilliam (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Irish Elk

This paper claims the reason of extinction of the Irish Elk is unknown and not a crystal clear example of FR, hence I previously reworded this to "hypothesized". On the other hand I do not really care because the entire page should be more about the meme factor than absolute accuracy. Bibipi (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Why should it, because you want it to be? The meme factor is based on a combination of truth, blatant lies, and hindsight is 20/20 bias, as explained above under the eggman's pic section.

here bud take this black pill (bitter truth that nothing can be done about.) Mikey (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The meme factor is tongue in cheek humor and catastrophizing. Does anyone honestly believe we're going to go extinct because of oversized mandibles? I concede that this paper seems to be about different kind of sexual selection (primarily sexual conflict), but i was mislead as it cites some stuff on Runaway selection and evo suicide. Not sure what you mean by hindsight bias. Bibipi (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yea fisherian runaway is a bit of a meme. Yea the Irish Elk is just a hypothesis (although one that makes a lot of sense), you can put that wording about hypothesis back in if you want. Different papers say different things RE: the Irish ElkWilliam (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Big getting tired of having to call out your bullshit

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/239/is-there-any-evidence-that-sexual-selection-may-lead-to-extinction-of-species This paper is not about fisherian sexal selection. Mikey (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It is though. It's just not a paper, it references papers. So an original source, if it were to contradict the summaries on there would have higher priority. That stackexchange page is ultimately fine. I thought it was worthless at first but, it has good insights.William (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverted to Wills final edit

Mikey (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hindsight is 20/20 bias

3. Hindsight is 20/20 bias - Let's say a population has an abundance of food, and for some good reason the men or women, doesn't matter are selected for any good trait, fast speed, long necks doesn't matter. The meme is rapidly taking away all the food (famine/rapid environmental change) and then the outside observer saying "SEE! These stupid long neck fucks! They should have spent more time focusing on/being attracted to X." When in reality no one in the environment had any idea the environment was going to change so quickly, and thus had no reason to change what was working just fine a moment ago/last year/etc.

Also link to hindsight bias page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

Bib if blackpills are too harsh to swallow don't be a blackpiller Mikey (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to revert

https://incels.wiki/w/index.php?title=Fisherian_runaway&oldid=37932

This is a version i edited before Mikey reverted it. It contains a more streamlined lede, slight reordering (especially regarding female choice) and restores several points that I think are correct, but that Mikey removed without awaiting consensus (full evidence is in the edit history). If Mikey disagrees with points in sexy sons, he has to refute things one-by-one in the talk page, especially as his version was not an obvious improvement (arguably it was worse and repeptitive). Mikey's new description of the mechanism was also faulty as far as I can tell, so I restored the original one and improved it. So, let's revert to this version and then merge proposed changes one by one. We can shorten and streamline things as we continue. Bibipi (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

yea that's fine. The lede you made in there is a lot better. Try to include Altmark's recent additions as well if you can.William (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Different pics for sexy sons

The videos about Sean O'Pry, Victoria's Secret take up alot of space for little content. Everyone knows what sexy people are, so it's unnecessary to confront them with several minutes of videos. One pic as eye-catcher on the right side will do. The problem is that it needs to be a good one. Maybe some Flickr photo of a male model under Creative Commons license. Mikey's previous proposal from Abercrombie & Fitch was unfortunately blurry. Bibipi (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

yep, that worksWilliam (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Better Zyzz pic

The current one is really small and pixellated, but otherwise probly the best one. There is no better version of it available anywhere, so maybe one can find a better one here: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Zyzzthetics/posts/ Bibipi (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Whats the problem?

Didn't even change anything just added Mikey (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You've just interrupted me moving up this section and incorporating it in the existing section on female mate choice.

Your additions also had various issues: rising androgyny was not sourced or proven and unlikely due to female choice; anti-social men do outreproduce nice guys due to female choice; still uses "thru" even though told otherwise; no separate section needed for a minor point/addition, let's keep things compact

Though the point about women seemingly becoming choosy about looks may be worth mentioning, so i wanted to keep that, but do a better job at incorporating it into the existing text, e.g. by mentioning Ferrell directly Bibipi (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

So let's add this paragraph to the existing section: While anti-social men do outreproduce nice guys, current society differs from Farrell's predictions in that there is actually a trend for men to become less masculine and more androgynous, e.g. testosterone levels, sperm count and mandible sizes have reduced considerably, possibly caused by mutation, pollution, obesity and/or a masculinity crisis. Instead of competing in production of social value, demotivated men are engaging in LDARing, NEETing, or spending all their time looksmaxxing, with women seemingly increasingly becoming choosy about looks being financially independent as sexologist Kristin Spitznogle pointed out, hence society is becoming an exact mirror image of the Wodaabe African tribe, the most matriarchal society on the planet. Bibipi (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Maybe one could better point out how women are the motivators for male behavior, so the maladaptiveness consists in them not caring about which social behaviors they reward, being seemingly incapable of morality due to a fundamentally agreeable, submissive, unsteady character etc.etc. Bibipi (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thats cool still what do you mean rising androgyny is unlikely? Maybe your an older guy like 30s-40s+? My man, Androgynys been rising since the early 2,000s

"Androgyny has been gaining more prominence in popular culture in the early 21st century." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgyny#Contemporary_trends

Thought this was more or less common knowledge, K pop, and now Tik Tok. Hopefully u know what Tik Tok is. Androgyny means both masculine and feminine like 2 seperate scales both hi in each. Females go for hyper masculinity yeah, they also don't care if some men have feminine traits at the same time. They're not like us. Like when we see that girl with that giant jaw we are like eww next(only attracted to hi femininity, low masculinity) . But when girls see a guy with huge lips, or a tiny jaw. They will forgive if some other trait(s) are hyper manly (hi masculinity/hi fem, hi masculinity/low fem) they really don't care too much about androgyny. This goes for behavior too, they're not gonna care if a guy spends 4 hours shoe shopping, if he's also violent. Like the two are completely seperate scales.

personally, I this alot tho like the older guys in their mid 30s+ sort of ignoring or not noticing trends in the younger generation. Like obviously the older generation hangs out with the older generation, and they're not androgynous, and your not gonna pay attention to young people unless you have kids. I'm 24 so I've went thru the wave, of blue jeans to skinny jeans, like all the sudden almost over night being super well groomed, form fitting clothes, jewelry etc. being the norm for men. Like literally within a span of less than a decade like 5 years. Newscaster guys went from looking like ya know regular looking older males, with grey hair to every other guy looking like a male model.

Mikey (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

the trend is society is becoming more masculine and more feminine

The two are seperate scales, for looks and behavior. The looks difference is explained pretty well (no pun intended) at the bottom of the Pretty Boy section.

Mikey (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright loox good what do u think?

Mikey (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sexy Sons Hypothesis is Wrong

The sexy sons hypothesis isn't primarily about hypergamy or looks prioritization, it's actually the phenomena where women prefer guys who are known to be reproductively successful. This is the same phenomena that causes chads to lose attractiveness by letting slip that they are virgins, or the concept behind statusmaxxing, where average guys become more attractive because women assume other women are fucking them. It's a numerical evaluation that if the man is getting laid, his children will likely get laid, thus he is attractive. The current content in the sexy sons hypothesis just describes Fisherian runaway, which is a related concept but not the sexy sons hypothesis. Unsigned comment 11 January 2020 (UTC)

SS is typically defined as follows and I think it matches our explanation, but your right that it can also concern other traits but looks:

Sexy son hypothesis: The sexy son hypothesis (SSH) is closely related to the good genes assumption and the fisherian runaway selection process. SSH, too, assumes indirect genetic benefits that are able to compensate any inferior direct reproductive success, that is, fewer offspring. The main difference between good genes and SSH is that SSH assumes an indirect effect due to the attractiveness of the sons whereas good genes focus on viability in sons and daughters. However, attractiveness is not specified and can be every trait that increases a male's probability to become polygynous.

Please use signatures like so: ~~~~ Bibipi (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

They don't care if this page is 100% correct, or not mate. Mikey (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Who and why not? Evidently someone just did care about it. Bibipi (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)