- "Behave" by Robert Sapolsky. (Chapter 3, pages 103–104)
SIMPING, MALE ON MALE AGGRESSION AND MATING CUES
As I was reading through the book "Behave" by Sapolsky, I stumbled upon the paragraph above. From years of reading studies and trying to become an astute blackpiller, I could recognize that simping & male on male aggression is nothing new and "water is wet" tier stuff but I wanted to explore how widespread simping is & the overall connections between the studies and with other .is posts & blackpill ideas so I gathered ALL the studies associated with the paragraph above and will attempt to extract further information from all of the research. The footnotes will be on the bottom.
Study 1: "Blatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption" (Griskevicius et al., 2007)
For "steeper temporal discounting in economic decisions, and spend more on luxury items (but not on mundane expenses)"What they did: They asked college students to look at pictures of attractive people (to get them thinking about romance) or pictures of buildings (for the control group). Then they asked: "How much money would you spend on fancy, show-off stuff (like a new car or a fancy watch)?" and "How many hours would you volunteer to help at a homeless shelter?"
What they found:
1- Men who were thinking about romance wanted to spend way more money on fancy, show-off stuff. (Not on mundane stuff like toilet paper)
2- Foids who were thinking about romance wanted to volunteer more hours helping others, but only in public, visible ways. They didn't want to do more private, anonymous helping. The romance thoughts made them want to show off their "kindness".
The Bottom Line: When looking for a mate, men try to show off their money, and foids try to virtue signal.
What's going on here is that males want to attract foids via money but we all know how that goes and foids try to virtue signal their kindness to say "hey! I'm not a complete psychopath trying to exploit you!". For the foid part I think the romance things makes them think of LTR aka Betabuxxers so that's why that happens.
Study 2: "The Face That Launched a Thousand Ships" (Chang et al., 2011)
For "the allure of the opposite sex makes men more aggressive"What they did: They showed male and female college students pictures of either very attractive or very unattractive members of the opposite sex. Then they asked questions like, "Should our country go to war with a hostile foreign nation?" or showed them pictures of war scenes versus farm scenes and measured how fast they reacted.
What they found:
1- Men who saw pictures of attractive foids were much more likely to support going to war and were much faster at recognizing war-related words and images. They did NOT become more supportive of peaceful trade solutions or faster at recognizing farm-related things.
2- Women showed no such effect. Looking at attractive men didn't make them more warlike.
3- The researchers even compared female legs (as a mating cue) to pictures of national flags (as a patriotism cue). The female legs made men think about war. The flags did not. So it wasn't just "patriotism". it was specifically mating.
The Bottom Line: Making men think about romance makes them more supportive of war and faster at thinking about war. This supports the idea that war, historically, has been linked to mating success for men.
What interests me is:
1) The "women showed no effect", It just confirms to me that foids see men and even attractive men as just tools.
2) Men literally go to war for pussy. Does it get more simp-y than that?
Study 3: "Sex Begets Violence" (Ainsworth & Maner, 2012)
For "the allure of the opposite sex makes men more aggressive"What they did: They had men and women write about a time they felt intense sexual desire (mating condition) or intense happiness (control condition). Then they played a computer game where they could blast a partner with loud, painful noise. Sometimes the partner was male, sometimes female. The researchers also measured whether participants were the "hookup" type (unrestricted sociosexuality) or the "serious relationship" type (restricted).
What they found:
1- Men who were thinking about romance blasted other men with louder, more painful noise. They did NOT blast women louder. It was specifically male-on-male aggression.
2- This effect was strongest in men who were the "hookup" type AKA Chads
3- When men were told they had already "won" a competition against the other guy, the mating prime no longer made them aggressive.
4- Women did not show this effect toward other women.
The Bottom Line: When men are thinking about mating, they become more aggressive toward other men BUT ONLY IF THEY HAVEN'T FUCKED THE OTHER GUY UP!
The aggression is a tool for climbing the social ladder to impress foids, not just random anger.
Another thing on 4, Foids are the ONLY gender to have an ingroup bias for eachother, Again I quote @GeckoBus:
Study 4: "Showing Off in Humans: Male Generosity as a Mating Signal" (Iredale et al., 2008)
For the "in circumstances where status is achieved through prosocial routes, the presence of women makes men more prosocial"What they did: They had men and women play games to earn money. Then they asked how much of their earnings they'd donate to charity. While making this decision, some participants were alone, some were watched by an attractive man, and some were watched by an attractive woman.
What they found:
1- Men donated way more money to charity when an attractive woman was watching. They donated about 57% of their earnings when a woman was present, compared to about 29-34% when a man was watching or when they were alone.
2- Women's donations didn't change based on who was watching.
3- The more attractive the men found the female observer, the more money they donated.
The Bottom Line: Men use public generosity as a way to show off to potential mates. "I'm a kind, caring betabuxx cuck with resources to spare."
Nothing too special here.
Study 5: "Men Behaving Nicely: Public Goods as Peacock Tails" (Van Vugt & Iredale, 2013)
For the "in circumstances where status is achieved through prosocial routes, the presence of women makes men more prosocial"What they did: This was a follow-up to Study 4. In the first experiment, they replicated the charity donation finding. In the second experiment, they had groups of men play a public goods game. They could contribute money to a shared pot that would benefit everyone. They did this over five rounds, either with no audience, a male audience, or a female audience.
What they found:
1- In the no-audience and male-audience conditions, contributions started okay but dropped over time ("Tragedy of the commons". Normies get selfish).
2- When a female audience was present, contributions actually INCREASED over time. The men competed to be the most generous.
3- With a female audience, men also volunteered more hours for charity activities (like helping disabled children).
The Bottom Line: When women are watching, men don't just give & give. They KEEP COMPETING to be more generous. A public good becomes like a peacock's tail: a way for men to show off to foids by being "kind". How insane is this? This also connects with the findings that testosterone actually just puts the tendency for men to compete on hyper-drive mode. I won't go into the studies for that in this thread, You can look them up yourself If you're interested.
Study 6: "Sex Differences in Everyday Risk-Taking Behavior in Humans" (Pawlowski et al., 2008)
For the "more risk-taking"What they did: They observed normies in two everyday situations: (1) arriving at a bus stop to catch a bus that might leave early, and (2) crossing a busy road at a crosswalk. They recorded who arrived late (risking missing the bus) and who crossed the road when it was dangerous.
What they found:
1- Single men arrived at the bus stop much closer to the departure time than single women, cutting it fine and risking missing the bus. Single women arrived closer to the "optimal" time that balanced waiting and risk.
2- Men were much more likely to cross a busy road when it was dangerous to do so.
3- Men were especially likely to take risks when there were women watching. The more women were present at the crosswalk, the more likely men were to cross when it was risky.
4- Women's risk-taking didn't change based on the male audience.
The Bottom Line: Even in mundane, everyday situations, Men take more risks than women AND they amp it up when women are watching. And foids don't care about men.
This is the best one yet because the researchers actually look at human behavior without any lab or researchers being involved.
Study 7: "Nucleus Accumbens Activation Mediates the Influence of Reward Cues on Financial Risk Taking" (Knutson et al., 2008)
For the "more risk-taking"What they did: They put heterosexual men in a brain scanner. First, they showed them pictures: erotic couples (positive cue), snakes/spiders (negative cue), or household appliances (neutral cue). Then, right after each picture, the men made a financial gamble: choose a safe bet (50% chance of winning or losing 10 cents) or a risky bet (50% chance of winning or losing a dollar). The expected value was the same, but the risk was different.
What they found:
1- After seeing erotic pictures, men were more likely to choose the risky financial bet.
2- The nucleus accumbens (the brain's "reward anticipation" region) lit up both when they saw the erotic pictures AND right before they chose the risky bet.
3- The nucleus accumbens activation statistically explained the link: seeing sexy pictures activated the nucleus accumbens, which in turn made the men more likely to take the financial risk.
The Bottom Line: This steps back from the entire studying thing and just presents the "brain-scan proof". Erotic pictures, which had nothing to do with the gambling activate the brain's reward anticipation center, and that buzz of excitement spills over into making riskier financial decisions. It's the entire mechanism behind the studies.
1. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85–102.
2. Chang, L., Lu, H. J., Li, H., & Li, T. (2011). The face that launched a thousand ships: The mating-warring association in men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 976–984.
3. Ainsworth, S. E., & Maner, J. K. (2012). Sex begets violence: Mating motives, social dominance, and physical aggression in men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 819–829.
4. Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Showing off in humans: Male generosity as a mating signal. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 386–392.
5. Van Vugt, M., & Iredale, W. (2013). Men behaving nicely: Public goods as peacock tails. British Journal of Psychology, 104(1), 3–13.
6. Pawlowski, B., Atwal, R., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Sex differences in everyday risk-taking behavior in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 29–42.
7. Knutson, B., Wimmer, G. E., Kuhnen, C. M., & Winkielman, P. (2008). Nucleus accumbens activation mediates the influence of reward cues on financial risk taking. NeuroReport, 19(5), 509–513.
Last edited:
; that had me especially uncomfortable, since I'm now as careful at crosswalks as possible after a nearly fatal mistake I made crossing one over a year ago.
