Biology

Where is love?

Any discussion about love destroys love.

L. Tolstoy.

The application of economics or mathematics to describe gender relationships may seem sacrilegious. At first, it appears to deny love. But that’s not the case at all — rather, it explains love.

Mathematics is impersonal, abstract, and not rational. The mind can grasp certain rules and find mathematical relationships to learn how to predict the actions of the laws of nature. Any science aims not only to explain causes but also to make predictions. If a person only possessed Newton’s mathematics, it would be sufficient to predict the exact time a stone would fall in a vacuum. Knowledge of the laws of hydrodynamics allows for predicting the time of a stone’s fall in the atmosphere. Understanding the laws of gravity and the theory of relativity enables the prediction and planning of trajectories for interplanetary missions.

But a person doesn’t need to perform complex mathematical calculations to reach out in time and catch a falling stone. We don’t “freeze” with a notebook and calculator to figure out how and when to dodge a stick flying towards us. A set of ancient systems within us allows us to solve such complex mathematical problems at an unconscious level. These ancient calculation systems can be found in any living being that interacts with its environment at a sufficiently complex level.

Animals, unlike humans, are not capable of predicting the future. More accurately, the level of intelligence in an animal determines its predictive abilities. However, they can act instinctively, creating situations through their actions that will be favorable for them in the future. This is similar to how a person catches a ball. Their ancient systems move the body and position it as needed to accomplish the task. In the same way, a squirrel gathers nuts in the fall and hides them in tree hollows. It does not realize that winter is coming and does not even try to remember where it has stored the nuts. It simply starts looking for them in places where they might have been hidden when winter arrives. Of course, the same activity can be performed using reason, and it can be done more effectively. You can hide things in places you remember, guard those spots from thieves, and gather only as much as needed to survive the winter, rather than collecting all autumn long. This is why reason has emerged and become ingrained in our genetics—it provides significant advantages for survival by allowing for more accurate predictions of the future.

Therefore, to be moderately successful in the sexual market, you don’t need to know all the laws of economics, marketing, or possess business analysis skills, nor do you need to consult yourself on every decision you make. Living beings learned to reproduce long before there was a mind capable of describing the mathematics of sexual relationships. At the same time, with each generation, the algorithms or heuristics… The text for translation: [1]. The behavior of living beings has constantly evolved. This led to complex, yet, in one way or another, more successful behavior in terms of reproduction compared to the previous model. However, “more successful” does not mean perfectly correct or perfectly rational. The squirrel [2]. She is successful at surviving in winter, as her instincts are equipped with a fairly complex foraging behavior. However, her behavior is not entirely rational. Yes, it is optimal, considering that these actions are carried out by a mindless creature with a short memory. And that is enough for the squirrel. If it weren’t sufficient, she wouldn’t have survived and reproduced in the next generation.

But what drives a squirrel to engage in activities that aren’t directly related to its survival at the moment? It’s a warm autumn outside, the trees are full of cones and nuts, and delicious berries are growing on the bushes. Why gather food when it’s more enjoyable to eat it right now? The answer is simple: the squirrel finds more pleasure in collecting food than in eating it. It derives joy from gathering food and hiding it in various secret spots. The squirrel’s brain has an built-in reward system that sends signals of pleasure in response to its correct behavior. The squirrel experiences physical pleasure, which compels it to do this over and over again. To understand what the squirrel feels, try to reflect on what you feel when someone likes your post on social media. Is there any real benefit from that? The word “pleasure” is a translation into human language of the signals in the squirrel’s brain that confirm: “You’re doing everything right, keep going.” Just as we experience pleasure from eating sweet fruits—sweetness is a good indicator of ripeness and nutritional value. We also feel relief when we empty our bladders. We experience excitement or pleasure from hunting or fishing. People enjoy fulfilling a leader’s wishes or standing up while listening to the national anthem. Children find joy in not letting go of a new toy. We enjoy sex. We are polite to those around us and help our weaker fellow beings. In other words, there are many types of “pleasure,” but in any case, the physiological mechanism behind any pleasure is the formation of the signal: “You’re doing everything right, keep going.”

Regulation of pleasure signals or signals of coercion to action. [3]. The substances involved are neurotransmitters: dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, norepinephrine, glutamic acid, and many others. [4]. Текст для перевода: ..

Similarly, there is complex behavior aimed at choosing the optimal reproductive strategy, driven by instincts, whether striving for the ideal or settling for a “sufficiently satisfactory” partner. This behavior consists of a set of actions intended to lead to the emergence of offspring. The execution of these actions is stimulated by signals of pleasure, while failure to perform them results in punishment. This is love. It encompasses the longing of separation and the joy of reunion. It involves overcoming obstacles and engaging in reckless acts. It includes the pleasure a man feels while courting and the enjoyment a woman derives from receiving attention. Then, when children are born, the same “drugs” will compel parents to care for them and find joy in that process as well. All the unconscious and, interestingly, conscious activities of parents will be directed toward obtaining another “dose,” which is released in the brain with every smile from the baby, every success of the child, and every expression of their pleasure.

Living beings do not require understanding or awareness of what the optimal partner is. All these complex “reasonings” are produced automatically, just as a cat automatically performs complex calculations before jumping. We only have the final result: “Look, do you see that man over there? — do everything to be close to him; get a treat when he’s around; feel longing when he’s not.” The ultimate goal of any living being is reproduction; otherwise, no one would ever reproduce, and everyone would die out, busy with other matters. Therefore, the motivation provided by the reproductive reward system overrides other desires of the living being. Hunger, fear, cold, pain – everything becomes less significant compared to the primary goal. A person is intoxicated by the most important drug in their life.

At the same time, a human differs from animals in one small way. They possess consciousness. To simplify, they are able to model and predict the future. [5]. …making numerous rearrangements of objects and events in their minds and assessing the probabilities of their occurrence. If a squirrel gathering nuts acted consciously, it would get more out of its life, despite the fact that drugs in its brain commanded it to do what to do “here and now.” Conscious activity is concentrated in the neocortex – an evolutionarily new part of the brain, a layer that allows humans to be more effective than any other animals. The more a person can look into the future, the more human they are. A primitive semi-ape thought about filling its belly. With the development of intelligence, humans learn to stock up, predicting the possibility of a time of hunger. Even smarter beings do not eat their grain reserves but sow them to obtain a new harvest in a year. Even more intelligent beings practice crop rotation to prevent the fields from being depleted. Ancient civilizations began to build roads, planning decades ahead. Now humanity creates and launches rovers to Mars, expecting to see results from this activity in centuries.

Ancient systems that include the “little squirrel” in humans and reward them with pleasure in response to evolutionarily beneficial actions emerged independently and at different times. Some systems or “modules” are very old and belong not only to humans and primates but even to reptiles or fish. However, it seems there are no modules that exist exclusively in humans and are not observed in other animals. These include the “jealousy” module, the “altruism” module, the “sexual attraction” module, the “attachment” module, the “care for offspring” module, the “evaluation of a suitor’s investment” module, the “assessment of paternity likelihood” module, and the “female chastity” module. Many “modules” are constantly at work in our minds, evaluating the favorability of events and our reactions to them, providing us with rewards or punishments. Morality, ethics, a sense of justice, mutual aid, love—all “higher” human emotions can, in one way or another, be explained in a simple, cynical, and self-serving manner from the perspective of genes. [6]. , which we wear and which we should pass on to the next generation.

But a person is capable of activating their consciousness and resisting ancient systems at the moment they refuse a chocolate bar or chips to avoid ruining their figure. At the moment they choose to save money instead of spending it. At the moment they resist the urge to give alms to a fake beggar. At the moment they brush their teeth, or rather, when they choose a behavior that implies regular tooth brushing. However, a person’s conscious activity is not a struggle against ancient instincts and impulses. On the contrary, conscious activity is still aimed at deriving pleasure from life, seeking those same rewards, just in larger quantities. What is better to choose: one candy right now or wait 20 minutes and get two? This is the kind of dilemma posed to children. [7]. They were made to suffer in an empty room, alone with a candy. [8]. Some of the children couldn’t resist and ate the candy. Others chose to “wait and get more.” Interestingly, 20 years later, the kids who “waited for more” turned out to be more successful in life, wealthier, and in higher positions. They consistently received more. [9]. Текст для перевода: ..

By using consciousness, logic, and calculations, and acting with awareness, one can achieve much more and be happier than what instinctive impulses promise, commanding: “Get it now, right away.” And when it comes to fulfilling basic instincts, it is even more important to engage the brain and understand all the rational mechanisms that guide Homo Sapiens in choosing their path to reproduction, playing the role of an agent in the sexual market. After all, all the instinctive systems that humans rely on were created and finely tuned by natural selection. However, in modern society, it is possible to experience a more intense infatuation, greater passion, and qualitatively better relationships that last for years. It’s enough to start thinking ahead. It’s enough to be human.

In essence

At the core of our sensory behavior are mathematics and optimal algorithms.

The algorithms embedded in us can make mistakes and may not always yield the optimal result.

The human mind is a new evolutionary advancement that allows individuals to get more out of life and to fulfill their basic animal instincts more effectively and with better results.

Those who act consciously win and gain more.

To struggle and to seek.

.

If I had stopped drinking… If I didn’t hang out with friends… If I didn’t dance or spend so much time on women… I would be more focused…

I would write, read, calculate, study, draw, take work home, look for topics, observe with a keen eye, invent, publish in magazines, and stay up late at night.

I would have opened something. After sitting for so long. I would have defended my doctorate. I would have written a play and won an award…

And even then, I would be hanging out with friends, dancing, and spending a lot of time with women.

That’s exactly what I’m doing right now, without any of those worries!

M. Zhvanetsky.

When living creatures were still swimming in the ocean, they were free to move in any direction and reach their destination by the shortest route – in a straight line. Fish still do this today. They simply swim wherever they want. However, animals that ventured onto land faced serious challenges. A rock or a cliff in their path became an insurmountable obstacle. They could no longer just “fly over” it as they could in the ocean, and going around it meant deviating from the source of a delicious scent or any other destination of their journey. Naturally, successful survival on land required a change in behavior.

The first land animals behaved no more intelligently than a robotic vacuum cleaner. They crawled along, consuming whatever was in their path until they encountered an obstacle, then turned at a random angle and continued on, “bouncing off” a nearby rock, grazing another patch of grass or digging another furrow in search of worms. This kind of tactic required no brains, but it didn’t allow for actions that now seem important—like being able to search for and find things, rather than just eating whatever happened to come their way. We consider it natural for every living being to be able to find food, mates, and new territories; it seems obvious to us that a rock or a tree can be navigated around.

Every fisherman knows that you can create a “fishing” spot – you just need to regularly feed the fish at the same time in the same place. After a while, the fish will come in schools to that spot at the right time, already hungry, so you can easily ensure a good catch. The fish don’t “know” that there will be food under that log at 9 AM. They swim there because there are mechanisms in their brains that stimulate behaviors that once led to success. This is known as the dopaminergic system. The neurotransmitter dopamine creates signals in the brain that encourage the organism to repeat successful behaviors. “Do it like before, and you’ll get your reward.” If fish didn’t have such a system, they would just swim anywhere and eat whatever they see, smell, or whatever moves like food or ends up in their mouths. In fact, they do that. Yet, somehow, they end up in the places where the food is. Nature, in order to “teach” animals to survive in new conditions, simply utilized a system that had already developed in fish and more primitive animals.

On land, the ability to perform non-obvious actions to achieve a goal is also regulated by dopamine. Under the influence of dopamine, animals find solutions to fairly complex navigation tasks, not by bumping into every obstacle like puppies, but by learning to navigate around them over time. A more complex and developed brain allowed for the retention and reproduction of increasingly sophisticated behavioral mechanisms, such as collective hunting or courtship.

A person experiences the action of the dopaminergic system through their consciousness as curiosity, excitement, a drive towards a goal, and a sense of pleasure from striving for something. [10]. The release of dopamine is perceived by us as pleasure, comparable to possessing what we strive for. But it is never the food itself, nor the sex itself, nor the safety itself. What is initially pleasant for the organism is what contributes to the survival of that organism and the species as a whole, primarily food and reproduction. Anything that helps achieve these primary rewards is also perceived by the mind as pleasurable and activates the dopaminergic system. For example, people love money because it guarantees them good nutrition and increases their chances of sexual success. As a result, the behavior of many people changes in such a way that they strive to earn as much money as possible, even at the expense of the primary goals of reproduction and nourishment. Moreover, everything that leads to making money is again perceived as pleasurable. The functioning of the dopaminergic reward system is linked to the development of conditioned reflexes, plays a huge role in learning processes, the formation of associations, recognition, and memory, and, of course, in the formation of rituals, superstitions, and habits.

A person’s consciousness is capable of analysis and constructing possible scenarios for the future. Animals are not capable of this, and the only thing that helps them act correctly is that very dopaminergic system—a mechanism that ensures acceptable behavioral outcomes in conditions of uncertainty and the inability to predict the future. A squirrel collects nuts not because it knows winter is coming, but because this behavior triggers dopamine production. When a person finds themselves in a situation of uncertainty, whether real or perceived, they stop using their consciousness, and ancient systems take over the management of the body. What happens to a student before a geometry exam? They feel anxiety, danger, and uncertainty. Although taking an exam seems like a purely conscious activity, the ancient system says, “Alright, consciousness, you’re young and inexperienced, step aside. I’ve dealt with these kinds of problems for hundreds of millions of years. First, we need adrenaline. The heart should beat faster—we’re either going to fight or flee. We should also moisten the skin in advance to improve heat exchange—we’ll be sweating. Let’s add some tone to the muscles—good, the knees are already shaking. Now we need to shut down the brain. It just interferes with reflexes. That’s it, we’re ready for the danger called ‘Geometry Exam’! By the way, what is that?”

The less a person is able to glimpse the future, and the less they know about how this world functions, the more they will rely on their ancient systems that take initiative away from their consciousness. In this case, the consciousness will only have to rationalize the person’s attachment to certain types of behavior that lack logic, meaning, and connection to reality: from spitting over their shoulder upon seeing a black cat (which used to help) to observing religious rituals. [11]. from the use of homeopathic remedies to reading horoscopes.

At the same time, we shouldn’t give up certain rituals if they don’t interfere with our lives. After all, following rituals provides us with a dopamine reward. Dopamine is responsible for our desire to “play again,” since at one point we played and got lucky. It drives our urge to spend the evening in front of the TV, because sometimes, amidst the obvious and hidden ads and propaganda, we come across something that genuinely interests us. We just need to flip through the channels. It used to work. Dopamine keeps us constantly checking for updates on social media, and it also motivated the author to write this text.

When nature needed more refined evolutionary mechanisms than simply implementing the algorithm of “as much sex with anyone as possible,” it, as before, relied on the old reliable dopaminergic system without inventing anything new. For lust—the feeling that drives a living organism toward the most intense sexual interaction—all potential partners appear the same. However, at the level of attraction, a selection process occurs, which is the very purpose of it all. The realization of lust is a typical “transactional” sale in the sexual market.

How does attraction work? A female bison will prefer the male that wins in a fight. A girl will go on a date with the most charming guy. From a neurophysiological perspective, there is no difference between these events. This is precisely how the system of searching and choosing under conditions of uncertainty operates – the very dopaminergic system. But what if we are not interested in the intentions of our genes? What if we don’t want to reproduce? Of course, the genes have accounted for this as well. To deceive humans, they created what we call “falling in love,” which is actually the action of dopamine.

When the level of dopamine in the brain rises, euphoria sets in, a person becomes hyperactive, loses appetite and sleep, worries over trivial matters, and at the same time starts thinking more clearly. The same effect is produced by substances like cocaine and amphetamines, which cause the body to “squeeze out” all its dopamine. Why do genes make a person nervous, yet joyful and intelligent? The answer is simple: the gene-carrying machine must overcome any difficulties to ensure reproduction with a chosen partner. Moreover, it needs to do this as quickly as possible before another contender appears to mix the genes. This is why someone in love is so anxious and sees only one way out of their painfully sweet state: to win over their beloved. And, of course, to deliver the genes where they need to go. From a marketing perspective in the sexual marketplace, the dopaminergic system is responsible for implementing “consultative” sales.

In addition to lust and attraction, there is also attachment or love. [12]. Attachment to a partner is essential when the reproductive strategy involves caring for offspring and raising them. As animals evolved, reproduction became a long-term process that needed to be planned in advance. Changing sexual partners as easily as changing gloves became unfeasible: if a relationship ends after fertilization, who will be responsible for finding food? Neither attraction nor lust takes such complexities into account. Their mission ends once the genes are passed on to the next generation. A way was needed to make reproductive machines choose a long-term partner rather than just an attractive one.

The main “molecule of attachment” is oxytocin. It is released in large quantities during childbirth, helping to cope with pain and later forget about it. This substance promotes milk production, directly influences the expression of tenderness towards children, and stimulates parental behavior. Oxytocin enhances the desire to spend time with a partner and maintain social and physical contact with them. One could say that oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that characterizes strategic bonding. The attachment or the action of neurotransmitters that compel sexual partners to jointly raise offspring is typical for all animals where such nurturing is necessary.

It is believed that the emergence of attachment in humans is linked to the early evolution of hominids. Eight million years ago, the changing climate of West Africa forced our ancestors to leave the thinning forests and move into the savanna. In open spaces, it became necessary to travel long distances, and around four million years ago, australopithecines began to walk upright instead of climbing trees. Once upright, females could no longer carry their infants on their backs, making it more difficult to find food. However, bipedalism freed the hands of males, allowing them to carry food over long distances instead of eating on the spot. Families with a division of roles gained an evolutionary advantage: females cared for the children, while males brought food.

In these conditions, the oxytocin system began to develop. It took less than three million years for the processes regulated by neurotransmitters in our brains to become intertwined with a culture that rationalizes them. All world religions, writers, artists, singers, poets, and sculptors draw from people’s attachment to dopamine and oxytocin.

In essence

Dopamine drives us towards our goals by sending signals of anticipated pleasure, which we often confuse with pleasure itself.

• Infatuation is not love. It would be better if these phenomena were described using completely different words.

• Love, that very “lofty” kind, is characteristic not only of humans but also of certain birds, not to mention primates and other mammals.

The culture we’ve grown into.

.

What is the most resilient parasite? A bacterium? A virus? A worm? The idea. It is resilient and highly contagious. Once the idea of taking over someone’s mind takes hold, it’s nearly impossible to get rid of it.

Film “Inception”

Paradoxical and unpleasant as it may sound, by the 21st century, the institution of marriage has essentially reduced to the signatures of the participants on the rules of divorce. Nowadays, legally, marriage can be easily replaced by a set of civil contracts that establish property rights, which need to be drawn up after every significant joint purchase. And, of course, marriage is necessary for sharing responsibility for joint children. Therefore, all discussions regarding marriage—getting married or tying the knot—are only relevant when considering that the partners plan to have children. If a woman or a man do not intend to have kids or are prepared to raise children on their own, there is no point in binding their fate with official marital ties—property co-ownership agreements are sufficient.

Why not raise children on your own? This question usually doesn’t apply to men. It’s extremely rare for a man to find a surrogate mother for his children, pay for childbirth, and raise the children himself with the help of hired staff. There are also cases where an extremely wealthy person marries not a person but a model, anticipating a quick divorce, court proceedings, and a court decision that grants him custody of the children. However, these cases are also rare, and in this situation, the mother’s role is replaced by hired workers.

But the same logic can be applied to women. If a woman is not burdened by heavy physical labor, which applies to most women today, she remains capable of working right up until childbirth, and after a short maternity leave, she can hire help to raise her child. In one way or another, the role of the second parent as a caregiver can be replaced by money and proper organization of processes. The question is, what exactly does a child lose in modern society when both parents are absent? And if we look beyond modern societies, why has the process of raising children typically been a personal matter for parents rather than the responsibility of communal enterprises, like shared nurseries or kindergartens, as seen in some social animals and among certain Polynesian tribes?

To answer this question correctly, it’s worth looking at the process of biological reproduction as a means of preserving and transmitting information. A computer virus is only a virus when it ensures the transmission of its own copy to another computer. It becomes a separate entity because it can replicate itself on other computers while being destroyed on the previous ones. The genes of a living organism are exactly the same kind of self-replicating information. They continue to replicate because they can do so in the most optimal way. Genes don’t care about what a male praying mantis feels when the female bites off his head. For the male’s genes, it is beneficial for the female, who already carries them, to obtain food and be able to carry offspring. All of human life is, in one way or another, directed solely at allowing genes to continue to exist. And a female human also bites off the male’s head, but she does it very slowly. No, genes are not intelligent. It’s just that information that cannot reproduce disappears. This is the process of natural selection.

The process of natural selection can also be observed among ideas in human society. Those ideas that are “contagious” gain popularity, reproduce, and spread. We see how internet memes emerge, grow, and gradually fade away – viral ideas ranging from “Preved-Medved” to “Cthulhu.” [13]. Текст для перевода: ..

Animal communities can be broadly divided into anonymous and hierarchical. The text for translation: [14]. In anonymous communities, such as a hive or a school of fish, despite the visible differences in behavioral complexity, individuals interact with each other in the same way, using “standard protocols.” They are indifferent to who is in front of them. In hierarchical communities, interaction is based on personal acquaintances and reputation. Such communities are possible among living beings with developed brains that have good memory, capable of analysis and prediction. In these communities, a hierarchy is established, as a strong wolf does not need to fight all the males in the pack. It is enough for all the other wolves to remember that he is the strongest.

People, born as hierarchical animals, found themselves in anonymous communities – groups of individuals who are either unfamiliar with each other or only know each other superficially. Living in larger groups than memory allows. [15]. It turned out to be either necessary, due to the increased number of people, or convenient. In any case, individuals who can interact within hierarchical communities had to learn to coexist in an “anonymous” mode. Similarly, as a result of selection, only those communities that were able to consciously develop “standard protocols” for interacting with one another survived on Earth. Unlike fish or shrimp, such “standard protocols” are not inherited but acquired through upbringing. This is not instinct. It is what we refer to as “culture.” Culture itself is not purely a human achievement; some other living beings also possess culture. However, it is in humans that the cultural factor, along with the genes that support the “modules of susceptibility and evaluation of culture” in the brain-biocomputer, has become evolutionarily significant. Culture, like genes and memes, is a self-replicating form of information. A person who has been instilled with a particular culture capable of reproduction will, according to that same culture, strive to spread it to others and, most importantly, to their offspring. Culture that does not require its host to reproduce simply disappears. It is now clear that parents, being carriers of culture, will seek to pass it on to their children. On one hand, culturally aware children will, all else being equal, be more successful in a cultural society and will possess important survival knowledge that their parents will impart to them. On the other hand, the program of “cultural reproduction” is fulfilled. In other words, culture, just like genes, selfishly demands its own propagation through suitable carriers.

However, culture is not something that is eternally frozen and universal. If it were frozen and universal, it would already be passed down through inheritance. It varies from person to person just as genes do. Genes benefit from sexual reproduction, where the offspring have two parents. Similarly, culture benefits when its inheritor has more than one bearer. This provides, on one hand, the variability required for evolution. [16]. On the one hand, it allows for the reinforcement of beneficial traits in future generations while filtering out defective ones. This is especially important for culture, as culture evolves through its bearers, unlike genes, which are inherited from parents and only rarely change when passed to the next generation. A bearer of culture acquires new knowledge, rituals, customs, and laws, enriching the culture inherited from their parents. If the culture is successful, it remains viable in subsequent generations. Cultural information, unlike genetic information, evolves much more rapidly.

The offspring in society are more successful the more “standard interaction protocols” they know. If we look at children from marriages between people of different nationalities, we can see that their children can easily interact with the nationalities of both parents. And this is not just about language. It includes rules of good manners, customs, values, behavioral traits, and even gestures and postures. Generally speaking, the more complex and rich the parents’ culture is, the higher the quality of their children as commodities in the sexual market of the next generation. Therefore, one of the most important criteria for choosing a partner is their culture. It would seem that, in this case, there should be long lines for university professors in the sexual market. However, despite the noticeably higher demand for more cultured suitors, this is not entirely the case.

First of all, culture is not always “good.” Culture is neither a good nor a bad phenomenon. It is simply what, for some reason, is more successfully passed down to the next generations. Advanced mathematics will not be passed on to the next generation. [17]. The obsessive need to spit over one’s left shoulder upon seeing a black cat is easily transmitted. Besides the ease of transmission, the overall usefulness is also important. For example, the transmission of values and motivation for studying and education is clearly more beneficial than the transmission of superstitions. Thus, in families where education is valued, the culture of learning is passed down from generation to generation. Similarly, in the past, being skilled with weapons was crucial. Proficiency with weapons provided significant evolutionary advantages. In families where weapon mastery and military honor were valued, the culture of military valor was also transmitted from generation to generation. However, once weapons became capable of killing nearly all participants in a war, regardless of their level of military culture, military valor ceased to be a cultural advantage. Sets of cultural values, in one way or another, divide society into layers that rarely intersect. Musicians and soldiers seldom interact with each other, just as thieves and builders rarely engage with one another.

Secondly, there are no lines forming for university professors because a person with a “low” level of culture simply cannot appreciate a level of culture that is significantly “higher.” [18]. There are simply no conditions for measurement. There are also no conditions for applying “high culture” in a society where “low” culture dictates entirely different rules of behavior. A professor’s child will be bullied and beaten by peers if they end up in a school in a disadvantaged area. Consequently, this child, who grows up with a lack of self-confidence and accustomed to low positions in the social hierarchy, will not be able to reproduce effectively later on.

The terms “low” and “high” levels of culture are placed in quotation marks because it is impossible to compare cultural levels across different societies. There are simply different sets of knowledge that a particular society possesses. For instance, in one society, it may be important to engage in a quality conversation about different varieties of sunflower seeds and to be able to remove the husks without taking the seeds out of one’s mouth, while in another society, a common knowledge might be solfeggio. It is understood, of course, that a person’s culture is considered “low” if their knowledge set falls below the average in that society, and “high” if it exceeds the average level. A “high” level of culture can be assessed through indirect indicators, such as the complexity and precision of various rituals—what we refer to as “etiquette”—the style of clothing, the values that an individual declares as important, their attitude towards events, the richness of their speech, and their breadth of knowledge.

People with drastically different levels of culture are less adapted to reproduction. Similarly, animals of different species are also poorly adapted to reproduce. Their offspring, if they are born at all, are often either sterile or unable to survive in the wild. Therefore, participants in the sexual market tend to choose partners with similar cultural backgrounds and, if possible, with a more developed culture. The development of a partner’s culture must be fully assessed by the other partner; otherwise, the “extra” layer may prove unnecessary for reproduction. A partner with a developed culture from a different society can also be quite appealing, as this allows them to pass on their culture to their offspring on equal terms with their spouse.

Operating with culture as a criterion for partner selection requires market participants to engage in not just transactional sales, but also consultative or even strategic ones. The level of culture cannot be assessed at first glance, and it is important primarily in the long term, especially when it comes to raising future children.

Interestingly, the higher a man’s level of intelligence and, consequently, the greater his cultural background, the less he tends to engage in “breeding” behavior. Instead, he thinks and plans for his own future and that of his children—he engages in strategic selling. Similarly, a developed culture in a woman elevates her beyond the “transactional” market, where only casual mating is appropriate, and compels her to engage in the strategic selling of herself.

A child receives not only genetic information but also culture and knowledge, which are carried by both parents, or rather, by the families of both parents, if they interact with the child. After all, the parents’ culture is part of the family’s overall culture, including grandparents, with whom children often interact just as much as with their parents, as well as the surrounding environment and social circle of the family. Additionally, the child adopts and mimics the role models present in the family, and this too should be considered part of the parents’ culture. These aspects are revealed and demonstrated only through interaction, not in isolation.

If the culture passed down by the parents is superior to the mediocre culture provided by the environment and the state, the child gains evolutionary advantages. However, if one parent’s culture is less developed compared to the average culture of society or that provided by state educational institutions, the child does not benefit evolutionarily from having that parent in the family, and such a parent may be seen merely as a financial sponsor. In these circumstances, the “sponsor,” who is unable to offer their children more than the other spouse or the school, may find it more advantageous to opt out of the marriage. This happens quite frequently. If a parent with a less developed culture is also not a financial supporter, they become even less necessary for the family, and the more cultured parent naturally feels inclined to end the family relationship. In this case, the gender of the parents does not matter. This is a universal rule.

In essence

A person exists within a cultural environment—a set of knowledge and rituals that identify them as a member of society.

• Some of the information that enters our brains somehow compels us to pass it on – to infect another mind with it.

Parents strive to pass on culture to their children, as culture is self-transmitting information.

• Culture generally provides evolutionary advantages. If it didn’t, its bearers would die out rather than reproduce. For example, in Russia, there was a sect of castrates, which, of course, could not pass on its cultural values to the next generation.

Culture, like genes, is characterized by variability. It is important for culture that the culture of the successor has two parents, not just one.

The only thing a child in the modern world can gain from having two parents instead of one is the culture and knowledge that both parents embody.

The monkey within us

.

He was a progressively religious man. He agreed that humans descended from monkeys, but from those that were on Noah’s Ark.

Stanislav Jerzy Lec

Are we monogamous? Of course. [19]. – Yes. In society, the family is the basic unit – a stable, long-term union of two individuals of different sexes and their children. [20]. All other forms of sexual relationships, while present in society, are not considered the norm. Even in societies that practice polygamy, the majority of people still live in monogamous marriages. Why is monogamy taken for granted? Because raising human offspring is extremely difficult to do alone in the wild, and a child remains dependent for a long time—decades, in fact. Moreover, in addition to physical nurturing, an important aspect of upbringing is the transmission of knowledge from parents to children, which makes the child better adapted to life and, consequently, more successful in the sexual market.

In humans, as in animals, “norm” never means that this behavior is supported by the majority of individuals. Moreover, the very concept of “monogamy” as a norm is easily challenged by simple anthropological studies, the results of which show that only 154 out of 1154 cultures that have existed or currently exist adhere to it. [21]. for which there is anthropological data — do not allow a man to have more than one wife. Other cultures, including most hunter-gatherer societies in the world, which are closest to the context of human evolution, in one way or another permit polygyny, which is, of course, practiced by dominant males. Additionally, some physiological characteristics of humans, such as the size of a man’s testicles, [22]. This suggests that human females are also inclined towards promiscuity, and if we do not observe this today, it is only due to the well-developed contraception industry and people’s ability to conceal the details of their intimate lives from others. Furthermore, because non-monogamous sexual relationships can provide advantages in female sexual strategy, there were very strict administrative measures in place not long ago, aimed at restraining the desires of not only men but also (and especially) women. The administered monogamy of modern industrial societies is explained not so much by “human nature” but rather by the fact that, for certain reasons, monogamous societies have achieved both peaceful coexistence and motivation for progress and capital accumulation.

Most individuals of humans, like most other generally monogamous animals, do not engage in an unconditional, seemingly doomed “lifelong marriage.” Instead, the “norm” is an ideal that can be achieved under certain conditions. For example, among gray geese, which are also monogamous, there exists a whole spectrum of relationships between females and males that are similar to those among humans. — Konrad Lorenz [23]. I observed, for example, homosexual relationships among geese, noting that a homosexual “family” of geese held a high position in the hierarchy of the flock, while females sought to obtain the sperm of these males, often resorting to clever tricks. Lorenz also observed instances where a female, having lost her mate who did not return from migration, began to behave like a typical “femme fatale”—she accepted the advances of other males who fell seriously in love with her, spent time with them, and then left them for the next male. Lorenz described cases where a male, while married, took a mistress who, without claiming to start a family with him or to win him back from his rival, was content with having her eggs fertilized by that male. Such a goose, who for some reason found herself without a male willing to invest in her offspring, was simply ready to obtain the genes of another family-oriented gander, ensuring that her male offspring would adopt the “family” strategy, which is more effective than promiscuity among geese. By the way, this observation also applies to humans. Men seeking mistresses “on the side” will be more successful if they do not hide their married status but instead promote themselves as loyal and loving husbands and fathers, with whom no extramarital affair can undermine their marriage. [24]. Single women instinctively decide that their sons, born from extramarital relationships but possessing inherent family values, will be in higher demand in the sexual market and will produce better and more successful offspring than womanizers. From this perspective, it becomes clear why women are so charmed when they see another man devotedly caring for his child. Their instincts say, “Quality male, must go for it!”

“Both humans and geese belong to species with a high level of paternal investment. A female sitting on eggs must trust her male just as a woman nursing a helpless infant trusts her husband. Males, when forming pairs with females, must promise to care for their shared offspring. Females of such species have always evaluated and continue to evaluate a male’s ability to invest in their young. However, there is one important factor that distinguishes geese from humans. A female goose is not weaker than a male goose, and since she lays eggs, she is never in a state of pregnancy where she is completely unable to defend herself. In humans, as in many primates, females and males differ significantly in size, and in addition, females are often defenseless or generally unwilling to engage in conflict with males. In such situations, the female finds herself in a subordinate position, unable and unwilling to participate in hierarchical struggles. As a result, she tends to receive less food almost all the time, except for one period—when males are particularly interested in her.”

During ovulation, males tend to seek the attention of females rather than compete for food. They court the females and fight with each other for the right to mate with her, rather than competing with the females themselves. In such conditions, females of some primates, including women, have learned to mask their ovulation. Through evolution and natural selection, the most successful females were those who learned to appear as if they were always ovulating. They developed noticeably rounded hips, plump and vibrant lips, and breasts that make it unclear whether a female is currently nursing a young one or not. They have mastered the art of disguise to such an extent that they themselves have lost track of when they are actually ovulating.

In such conditions, the male now needs to constantly pay attention to the female, not offend her, and do everything possible to mate with her as often as he can. What if ovulation is happening right now? In other words, the masking of ovulation has allowed the female to thrive in a hierarchical community and enjoy all the benefits that an alpha male would have. After all, now all the males are eager to serve the female. And the less a male knows about the female, the more he will strive for her. Perhaps this is why the “mystery” of a woman is so alluring. When it is said that “there should be some mystery in a woman,” the biggest mystery is when she is ovulating. It also becomes clear why women tend to hide their menstrual cycles. [25]. Not only are they not fertile during this time and therefore not interesting to males, but males would also have the opportunity to develop an internal calculator in their brains for the next ovulation through evolution. If a male is confident about the date of ovulation, there would be no point in constantly courting the female; he would only need to do so on specific days. And, of course, this would be of no benefit to the woman. [26]. Текст для перевода: ..

In the context of ovulation concealment and with such an abundance of attention from males, a female can choose whom to “give” to and whom not to. It is rational for her to allow a male to mate with her if he meets her needs. For instance, male vervet monkeys and dwarf green monkeys cannot mate with females at their discretion. A female only allows access to those males who share food with her and her offspring. This type of sexual behavior is called “reward mating” and is characteristic of certain birds, primates, and of course, humans. In such conditions, mating occurs not only for reproduction but also for various social interactions. Animals and humans engage in sex even during pregnancy. Additionally, in animals that practice reward mating, the estrous cycle has been replaced by menstruation. Despite some similarities in external signs, the physiological mechanisms and functions of estrus and menstruation are completely different.

The mechanism of incentivized mating is the very source of the social stereotype that women, in general, are for sale, while men, in one way or another, buy sex. From this perspective, prostitution is merely an extreme form of incentivized mating among humans. Another form of incentivized mating is the frequent sex between spouses, which is clearly not intended for procreation. Even if spouses do not use protection, most sexual encounters will not lead to conception under any circumstances. This is why sex within marriage cannot be considered “free” for men. In one way or another, they pay for it. Rather, they settle the bill. [27]. Текст для перевода: ..

It is clear that for a woman who wants to succeed in society, both in business and family life, being physically attractive is essential. Physical attractiveness neutralizes hierarchical competition from men and allows her to be more competitive in the sexual market. Therefore, women, unlike men, invest significantly more time and resources into enhancing their appearance. This is what gives them confidence. This is what drives a large part of the global economy. It is what they associate with success, regardless of whether they choose family or career. When asked whether to identify as smart or beautiful, the answer is simple: both, of course! A woman’s success, her inner sense of achievement, her luck, and effectiveness are directly linked to her attractiveness. It’s not about “beauty standards,” but rather about how well a woman tries to “sell herself.” This encompasses everything: clothing, grooming, style, maintaining a good figure, literacy, speech, cultural level, skillful marketing of her advantages, and turning perceived flaws into strengths. The idea of “selling oneself” may seem degrading, as it implies that we dress up and put on makeup for men we don’t even need. However, that’s not the point. Of course, one can choose to remain “unrefined.” But then, welcome to the harsh male world, where males compete with each other in strength, fight, build careers, and forget about gallantry when interacting with women they know they will never take to bed.

Men, for their part, concerned with the understandable biological desire to fertilize anything that moves (what if she’s ovulating right now), will always evaluate women primarily as potential sexual partners. What women often find puzzling in men’s behavior, which they refer to as “male behavior,” and what can be hurtful to women—”men only have one thing on their minds”—is actually provoked by women who mask their ovulation. The heightened attention men give to women is triggered by them every day, whether it’s when a woman chooses an outfit, uses makeup and perfume, takes care of her face and hands, removes unwanted hair, wears high heels, or puts on jewelry.

Yes, almost every woman, even if she’s married, will respond to the question “who is she dressing up for” with “for myself.” Of course, “for myself.” After all, she expects that the banana will be brought down from the branch just for her, not for that witch from the neighboring department. In a world where a male hierarchy reigns and most decisions are made by men, she simply has to be confident, to be better than those around her, and to be the kind of woman that every man, in response to the unfathomable question that women can’t imagine being asked of themselves, “would I sleep with her,” answers with “yes, of course.”

It turns out that despite the monogamy of humans, they have mechanisms that, unlike other monogamous beings, somehow implement promiscuity and use sex not only for reproduction but also for social interaction and gratification.

In essence

• People are monogamous, but marriage does not imply a natural, inherent monopoly on sex from a spouse or long-term partner.

Each spouse strives, to the best of their ability, for a kind of monopoly over their partner, and this is part of the larger game called evolution.

It cannot be claimed that women are more inclined towards monogamy than men. This is sexism. The behavioral patterns of a species cannot be gender-dependent. Physiologically, male humans are ready for the promiscuity of females, although to a lesser extent than in species that practice polyandry.

Women, like their ancestors, conceal ovulation and engage in “promiscuous mating.”

The greater freedom of men compared to women observed in society is explained by the significant social pressure exerted on women, which is upheld by moral standards.

Sex among humans is not only a means of reproduction but also an important social tool that is equally exploited by both men and women. After all, in human society, the quantity and, more importantly, the quality of offspring is not related to the number of sexual acts.

If a monopoly on sex truly existed, modern human society would have collapsed and would be incapable of progress, scientific achievements, or culture.

Moral foundations

To grasp the true foundations of morality, people do not need theology, neither in revelations nor in gods; simple common sense is enough for that.

Paul-Henri Holbach

One important feature that distinguishes men from women is that a man, unlike a woman, is not certain that he is the father of his children. While a woman is caring for infants, a man is out hunting, killing a mammoth to feed his wife and children. If it turns out that the children are not his, then from a biological standpoint, the man has at least worked in vain, and at most, he has effectively become sterile. Such guys receive a Darwin Award and exit the stage of evolution without having reproduced.

The best tactic for a man in such conditions is not to go hunting with his tribesmen, but to take a day off or a sick leave, stay in the cave with the females, and do his evolutionary duty. However, in such circumstances, there will be no one to bring food—who would go hunting when it’s better to take a day off? As a result, the Darwin Award goes to the entire tribe, which ends up dying of hunger.

A good solution to the problem is promiscuity with mutual responsibility. People engage in sex without commitments, as casually as they shake hands, while children born in the community are raised and provided for collectively. This system works in small human communities and is still practiced by some Polynesian tribes. For example, the closest living relative to humans, the bonobo chimpanzee, uses sex as a form of “social glue.” For them, sex replaces aggression and serves as a tool for reconciliation, social communication, and greeting. They are the only living beings that use a variety of sexual positions, practice anal sex, engage in tongue kissing, and maintain constant sexual contact with same-sex peers, viewing it as nothing more than play. For instance, males may engage in penis fencing or, as a form of reconciliation, rub their scrotums against each other. Similarly, females may rub their genitals against one another as a way of introducing themselves or acknowledging membership in the group. If the group has a reason to celebrate, such as finding a new food source, they mark the occasion with increased sexual activity. Interestingly, bonobos are very peaceful animals and, unlike other chimpanzees, they are rarely observed eating other monkeys. Although they often catch monkeys or their young, they typically release them after playing. This type of social organization is only suitable for small groups, where a slacker who impregnates females but does not participate in food gathering can be easily identified and expelled from the community. As human communities grow, become more anonymous, and experience constant migration, opportunism (impregnate and run) plays a destructive role, and such societies cannot evolve beyond a primitive communal structure.

The second way to address the issue of fatherhood is to establish a strict hierarchy, with alpha males ensuring their lineage by mating with their harem, while a crowd of losers is deprived of females. This behavior is also practiced by humans in communities where polygyny is the social norm. It is also observed in baboons. This method of organizing society has two problems. The first is that most of the children born in the alpha male’s harem are not his offspring. While the alpha male is chasing one intruder who has encroached on his female, the other males, who turn out not to be such losers after all, are having fun with the entire harem. This is how it should be, in fact. If all offspring were born with the genetic material of the alpha male, the monkey troop would eventually degenerate due to inbreeding and, having taken another Darwinian prize, would exit the stage of evolution. Of course, humans are not baboons and can consciously protect their wives from an influx of suitors. A wealthy nobleman confines women in a harem like a prison and ensures their protection with an army of eunuchs, some of whom have not lost the ability to achieve an erection.

But then this leads to a second problem. Society becomes overcrowded with a large number of unwanted men in conditions of a shortage of females. Such societies lose their ability to develop normally, as the level of aggression rises to unacceptable levels. In some cases, “surplus” men can be “channeled.” For example, younger sons of European feudal lords were sent on Crusades. Similarly, the Islamic conquests in the east and the formation of the Golden Horde’s army occurred. The surplus of men in ancient societies was facilitated not only by marriage customs but also by the widespread practice of infanticide. In conditions where children were seen solely as labor for the household, a girl was considered a burden, and a dowry was required for her marriage. The value of a child’s life was much lower than it is today, given the catastrophic child mortality rates by modern standards. Therefore, the killing of newborns was practically a form of abortion. However, in modern society, “surplus” men cannot be channeled, and it becomes very clear that the practice of polygyny is a destabilizing factor, with the entire Middle East in the 20th century serving as a striking illustration of this.

The third way to address the issue of fatherhood is to build a society in which all members actively protect women’s premarital virginity, honor chastity as a virtue, engage in appropriate educational efforts, and deny prospects to illegitimate children. In this context, men would refuse to marry non-virgins and would ensure their wives’ fidelity through moral and technical means. Such a practice relegates women to the role of a subordinate being, but allows men to hunt, create, and accumulate with a considerable degree of confidence that what they have obtained, created, and accumulated will be in the hands of their direct genetic offspring, rather than some illegitimate child. Evolutionarily, such communities have found themselves at an advantage, leading to scientific and technological progress, capital accumulation, and the development of education and the arts, but these communities have required sacrifices in the form of sexual discrimination.

In any case, the moral behavior that distinguishes a “good” person from a “bad” one is a set of useful instinctive reactions adapted for the effective transmission of genes within a close-knit group—such as a primitive tribe. [28]. The moral is not bad. Without morality, our society would look terrible right now. But it is precisely the disregard for moral norms that, unfortunately, makes people successful—they are like “freeloaders” who take advantage of the fact that the tram ride is paid for by others. Such people become politicians, businessmen, womanizers, and criminal authorities.

In this book, the reader will find plenty of conclusions and recommendations urging a departure from classical moral norms in sex. Firstly, this is not about theft or murder; rather, it is an outdated and absurd mindset in modern society, which has come to understand paternity and contraception—concepts that are foreign to our instincts. Secondly, sexual relationships have long been considered “immoral” in the classical sense, and a person who confines themselves to traditional morality becomes a Darwin Award candidate, failing to fulfill the primary task of any living being: the effective transmission of genes. Most importantly, the “immorality” of the “buyer” in the sexual market is an excellent tool for countering the immorality of the “seller,” who is selling a pig in a poke.

Sexual discrimination and the subordinate position of women have become so ingrained in societal behavior that many women derive physical pleasure from the very act of submission, while many men experience arousal from dominance. In the Russian language, there are even two different words to describe the state of being married for women and men. A woman is “замужем” (married), which literally means “behind her husband,” rather than “in front of him.” The entire institution of marriage, as it is defined in the laws of most countries, essentially continues the practice or echoes the myth of a time when women’s genitals were locked away to prevent them from becoming pregnant by someone else. Adultery is still considered a sufficient reason for divorce. However, societal morals tend to accept men with multiple sexual partners while condemning “loose” women—those who dare to engage in sex without the intention of marrying their partner.

But now we are in the 21st century. Nowadays, every man can easily confirm his paternity. Moreover, it is now considered normal to have what is called “protected” sex, where people who do not wish to have children engage in sex for pleasure rather than for procreation. However, the moral foundations and behavioral stereotypes that have been ingrained in society for thousands of years, not to mention the instincts that dictate a man’s behavior to ensure the transmission of his genes to the next generation, are extremely difficult to overcome. It is hard to expect rational, conscious behavior from most people, unburdened by instincts. Yet it is this rational behavior that can offer more.

For example, jealousy. The essence of jealousy lies in the negative emotions experienced by a living being that feels threatened by the possibility of not being able to reproduce. After all, if a wife is unfaithful to her husband, he is likely raising someone else’s children. Similarly, a woman would be completely against her provider and protector supporting not only her children but also those of another woman. Female jealousy is quite justified—the chance of becoming pregnant is never zero, and the more relationships a man has on the side, the higher those chances become. Moreover, in a world where paternity can be proven, one cannot escape child support obligations. However, male jealousy is entirely devoid of meaning—if a child is not his, he is not obligated to raise it. And if there are no children, either his or someone else’s from extramarital sex, then what is there to be jealous of? Male jealousy is justified during the courtship period. A man invests time and resources to win over a woman, but if she accepts advances from one or more other men, it diminishes the “return on investment” for the jealous suitor.

It’s important to understand that emotional and affective states in situations where the wife is unfaithful are difficult for most people to avoid, unlike the more measured approach often seen in cases of male infidelity. The limbic system typically doesn’t ask questions or reflect philosophically on such matters. Our instinctual possessiveness is ingrained too deeply. This is a healthy male desire not to waste resources on another’s gene pool. Yes, over time, the dopamine high fades for spouses, the remnants of oxytocin gradually dissipate, all planned children have been born, and no new ones are on the horizon. Relationships often rely on a basic social contract. But the problem is that this contract implicitly includes rules, the violation of which can quickly mobilize deep evolutionary programs. Even if, on the surface, after some time, the wife/partner becomes more of a familiar attribute associated with comfort and stability rather than passionate love and desire, the fact that someone has “inserted themselves” into this comfort zone is critically significant from an evolutionary perspective: “I earn and provide resources for the female (it doesn’t even matter if I actually do or if she supports herself; what matters is the underlying evolutionary model), and then there’s this betrayal, this treachery.” The limbic system reacts very strongly to such insinuations.

Women, by the way, are aware of this and often take advantage of it. A significant portion of women’s infidelities is carried out quite carelessly, with a careful scattering of “breadcrumbs” that inevitably lead to the discovery of the clever plan by the man. The good news for men is that if they truly understand how much of their wife’s actions are provocation, and quite possibly a subconscious desire to mobilize her husband, versus how much is a genuine desire to change partners—which, in most cases, is a rather difficult decision for a woman that many avoid, even if her partner consistently behaves like a barbarian or a fool. Men should simply understand that a woman’s perspective on infidelity is generally calmer than a man’s, as the “modules” that assess the resources of paternal investment are more recent and complex compared to the more ancient “modules” that evaluate the success of one’s own reproduction. Therefore, a woman can envision “careless” infidelity as a method of stimulation. For a man, however, such a motivation for infidelity simply doesn’t cross his mind.

The same can be said about female chastity. Yes, there are still biologically based stereotypes in society that suggest a woman with multiple sexual partners is not honest. However, it is equally unfair to force a woman to have only one partner. This isn’t about going through partners “in turn.” From the perspective of optimal and conscious behavior in the sexual market, it is advantageous for a woman to engage in relationships with several men at the same time, but in a way that none of them suspects it.

The thing is, a woman’s sexual restraint is perceived by a man’s biological instincts as a sign of reliability for his parental investments in offspring. A woman who “doesn’t give in” is less likely to succumb to the temptation of extramarital affairs than a woman who is easily accessible or openly declares a “freedom of relationships.” Thus, a man, instinctively optimizing his reproductive strategy, will invest time and resources in maintaining a union with a “chaste” woman, while frequently mating with those who are more pliable, but he won’t marry them or participate in raising the children born from these women. This instinctive behavior of men can sometimes lead them into a “dynamo” trap. Girls may receive increasing investments in courtship from a man precisely because they have no intention of ever viewing him as a sexual partner. Meanwhile, the man continues to “pursue” the woman he believes embodies purity and, amusingly, receives internal dopamine and endorphin rewards from giving her gifts, providing for her, and nurturing her.

Having multiple sexual partners simultaneously—especially for a successful marriage—is a strategy that doesn’t fit into the standard algorithms of humans as living beings, who typically live in small, closed groups where everyone knows each other. In such groups, every woman must either maintain her reputation to secure a better match or, in the absence of demand from high-ranking males, “slide” into the role of a prostitute to make do with the leftovers. However, modern society is anonymized, and humans as a species are not accustomed to this, just as they are not used to the availability of contraceptives. It is in this new environment that women can optimize their marriage strategies. The need for strategy optimization also arises from the fact that modern anonymized society has lost a very important institution that provided women with guarantees—the institution of administratively imposed lifelong marriage. In the past, a man was compelled to marry and remain with his wife forever, but today, men have no such obligations, and premarital sex has become the norm.

A girl is dating a guy, two years pass, and they break up. During this time, the guy has only become better and more attractive in the dating market, and his number of potential sexual partners has increased. However, the girl has aged over those two years and her competitive advantages have diminished. Moreover, when the girl “buys” the guy, she is taking a gamble. She cannot assess his important characteristics and how well he meets her expectations and needs before they start dating. In such circumstances, the optimal strategy is to take on several “cats in bags” at once. This way, over two years, the girl can try out more guys and choose the most suitable one, rather than facing the choice after two or three years of a relationship: accept his proposal to marry or re-enter the dating market under worse conditions than before.

But such behavior is taboo and morally condemned. It’s clear why – a woman who embraces free relationships will not be married by any man, especially in the absence of contraception and paternity testing. However, the norms of religion and morality, which continue to raise and, in fact, enslave women, were not aware of terms like “DNA test” or “condom.” Similarly, ancient systems in the human brain are also unaware of the existence of condoms. Every time a person passionately engages in sex, 98% of the human brain is focused on reproduction, while only 2% carefully unrolls the condom.

Women, operating within the confines of old moral standards, will always approach new relationships with men with caution—after all, relationships may seem like a waste of time to them. They cannot even imagine the possibility of “cheating” on their partner. Women, adhering to the norms of old morality, will feel compelled to accept marriage proposals, even if their suitor does not fully match the ideal they have constructed in their minds. Unlike men, women, bound by these old moral standards, are practically deprived of the opportunity to explore and determine what is best for them. Often, they are unaware of how different relationships with men can be, as they have not had the chance to experience the full range of these differences.

But it’s not just morality, but also the cost of a mistake that keeps women from “free” relationships. After all, there are no contraceptives with 100% effectiveness. If a child is conceived as a result of sex and the woman refuses to terminate the pregnancy, a man can likely only be persuaded to marry when he is certain of his paternity. Raising a child alone is very difficult and often literally breaks a woman’s life. She is unable to devote enough time to work and education, which puts her at a disadvantage in terms of career and income, and this, in turn, worsens the prospects for her children’s effective reproduction. However, the fear of becoming pregnant is largely not due to the insufficient reliability of contraceptives, but rather to those ancient parts of the brain that are unaware of their existence and perceive every sexual act as an attempt at conception.

A woman is also deterred from “cheating” by the potential reaction of her current sexual partner. He is the one who will perceive her free behavior as infidelity, and he is the one who makes possessive claims on her. Importantly, he has no right to such claims. As long as he is not supporting the woman and/or her children, he has no right to forbid or allow her anything. The fact that he is courting her and spending his time and resources on the process is his personal affair, which brings him pleasure in itself. He wants to court her just as a squirrel wants to gather nuts. However, when a woman chooses a free model of behavior, she should be wary of her current partner’s negative reaction. Freedom is one thing, but secrecy is another. This is the essence of the game in which both sexes strive to exploit each other. If the opposite sex were not a valuable resource worth exploiting, there would be no subject for discussion at all. Only a minority of men, who possess reason and awareness, will take a woman’s freedom for granted. A man is an instinctive owner and assumes a permanent partnership as a given. He is instinctively interested in the effectiveness of his parental investments specifically in his own children, and for him, to strike a strategic deal, a “madonna” will always be preferable to a “whore.” Moreover, a large number of men in a woman’s life deprives a man of his monopoly rights, and his threats to end the relationship do not worsen the position of a woman who has several other men “in reserve.”

The so-called “civil marriage” looks very unpleasant, based on the above. It is a form of relationship between a man and a woman where the woman is content with being the man’s permanent cohabitant, telling everyone that she is married, but without the “stamp in her passport,” and the “husband” has no intention of having children. From the perspective of the sexual market, the man understands that he is “acquiring” an asset that depreciates over time, making it more advantageous to “rent” it and return it as needed. There are no obligations, no transactional costs for exiting the cohabitation arrangement. You just say “Goodbye,” and that’s it. Meanwhile, the woman is, de facto, deprived of the right to have sexual contacts with other men or to continue searching for a suitable father for her future children. The man, on the other hand, is quite free. If the “wife” catches him cheating, then… okay – she will leave empty-handed, having no mechanism to make financial claims against the “husband,” and will find herself back on the sexual market, older and having lost some of her value. Therefore, a “civil marriage” can only be a completely honest arrangement when both partners understand that this “marriage” does not promise fidelity, and the woman has the right to continue searching for a husband while receiving sexual satisfaction and saving costs from living together under one roof from her current partner. Interestingly, due to such an unfavorable position for women, who are forced to agree to at least a “civil” marriage, in the civil legislation of several countries, cohabitation is equated to legal marriage. To prove such cohabitation, it is sufficient to present witness testimonies in court, for example, from neighbors who can confirm that the couple lived together.

In essence

• Social morality is aimed at ensuring a man’s confidence that the children he is raising are his own.

• Moral behavior regarding sex is appropriate and beneficial in close-knit Neolithic communities, but not in an anonymized urban society. Adhering to norms of sexual morality has simply become irrelevant.

• Although men impose their claims on women’s chastity, it is advantageous for a woman to maintain relationships with several men, of course, keeping them a secret.

• It is advantageous for a woman to show a man her chastity. In this case, the man gains more confidence in his potential fatherhood.

• Understanding the reasons for jealousy can optimize agents’ behavior in the sexual market. There is no point in being jealous if there is no direct threat to reproduction.

A civil marriage will only be equal for both partners when they do not claim sexual exclusivity with each other.

Big deception

— Jack, do you see that pile of crap?
— Yes, Tom.
“Do you want me to give you 100 dollars if you eat it?”
— It’s a deal!
— And now you, Tom, see that pile of crap?
— Yes, Jack.
“Do you want me to give you 100 dollars too, and you can eat it as well?”
— No problem!
— Jack, don’t you think we’ve gotten ourselves into a load of crap?

A joke about cowboys.

When people decide to get married, they look for some benefit in the partner they have chosen. If we take something in order to gain a benefit, we plan to exploit it. Marriage is the intention to exploit a partner, and the entire married life is a mutual exploitation. When we enter into marriage, we always expect to receive more than we give. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be called exploitation or, in more neutral terms, gaining a benefit.

Marriages in which one partner is able to exploit the other more than the other can exploit the first are short-lived. No one will tolerate exploitation and will take action to end the relationship. Balanced marriages are extremely unlikely and practically impossible. Moreover, a balanced marriage lacks meaning for both partners, as the dynamics within it closely resemble the relationships of the cowboys from the joke mentioned in the epigraph.

Life is filled with marriages of moderate unhappiness, where the exploited partner does not dissolve the marriage simply because they are not ready to face the costs of leaving and are willing to endure the monopoly. A marriage will be dissolved when the direct and indirect costs for the exploited partner associated with the divorce become comparable, from an investment perspective, to the losses they incur from being in the marriage daily. In other words, if one partner’s “balance sheet” results in losses of 10 arbitrary units per year, then they can consider divorce if it costs less than, say, 100 units—this depends on the feelings of the person making the decision about the divorce: how far they can look into the future, how much more they are willing to endure, and so on. Accordingly, the exploiting partner adjusts their behavior in such a way that it becomes unprofitable for the exploited partner to end the relationship.

If the partner being exploited lives “for the day,” meaning they are mentally limited, then one can really take advantage of them. Such a partner compares the costs of divorce not with the expenses of being in the marriage, but with the costs of today specifically. After all, if you don’t look to the future, losing 10 units is better than losing 100 – so it seems beneficial to endure.

Acquiring a less intelligent partner for marriage can be a good prospect in terms of ensuring the reliability of that marriage. Moreover, the level of mutual exploitation is generally not constant. It can increase over time, for example, because one partner may take less from the marriage while giving more. A husband who is building a career and becoming a more effective father and provider will contribute more to the marriage over time than a wife who is losing her physical attractiveness and fertility. Similarly, a wife who invests her energy, soul, and culture into raising children will be a more valuable resource for the family than an unemployed or alcoholic husband.

The only thing that stops people from choosing “simple but reliable guys” or “dumb but busty blondes” as partners is the culture that, due to its nature, needs to be passed on to the next generation just like genes. Each partner, in one way or another, expects the other to invest their culture into their shared children. If one partner is noticeably less cultured, then there’s really nothing to pass on. The meaning of marriage disappears before it even has a chance to emerge. Additionally, natural selection in humans has taken a path where not only culture but also the intelligence of a partner are clear sexual advantages. If people didn’t value their partner’s intelligence when choosing one, they would never have become a species capable of reason. Intelligence provides a clear survival advantage, making it an important factor in partner selection.

It turns out that a reliable partner is some sort of compromise between the desired high level of intelligence and culture and, at the same time, the desired limitations and inability to plan for the future beyond New Year’s. Overly intelligent people may come across as unattractive—obvious know-it-alls and those who are hard to deceive. Completely dull individuals are incapable of raising children or even remaining financially secure and healthy in the modern world. As a result, we see crowds in supermarkets on December 30, consisting of people frantically buying groceries, who can’t think beyond New Year’s and subconsciously consider it “the very last day,” yet are happy in their family lives. This group makes up the overwhelming majority. Nature and simple economic-investment logic in partner selection have ensured that people do not become too smart or too dull, as that could hinder their reproduction. [29]. Текст для перевода: ..

Entering into marriage, we begin a cruel and merciless game of mutual exploitation. The stakes are high – our entire lives. Attempts to guess “who’s in charge” start right at the wedding ceremony – one superstition is that whoever steps on the towel first becomes the master of the house. People are often unaware of the magnitude of the stakes and play along. However, if we were to ask anyone if they would be willing to gamble their entire fortune on a coin toss – heads, lose everything, or tails, double it – in most cases, we would hear a refusal. People value security and instinctively avoid risks. It’s better to stay “even” than to engage in such a risky game. Moreover, unlike a coin toss, marriage is indeed a mutual exploitation, and there are, in essence, no winners. You cannot maintain a marriage without contributing something from your side, and even the exploited partner forces the exploiter to put in effort so that the “net loss” does not exceed the threshold for considering divorce. Will it comfort a slave in the quarries to know that his overseer, also a slave, is just breaking stones in a different shift, but slightly more?

But it is not reason that leads us to marriage, but instincts. The built-in reward system within us is designed for simple communication, much like the trainer who wants to make a seal clap its flippers “in applause,” standing on a pedestal while balancing a ball on its nose. Our genes, guiding us along the path of reproduction, just like the trainer, reward us with a little treat for good behavior and whip us for bad behavior that is disadvantageous to them. Genes do not communicate in high abstractions and therefore stimulate us to follow a standard path that reliably ensures the transmission of genetic information to the next generation. Step by step: first, we are rewarded for climbing onto the pedestal. Then we are rewarded for balancing the ball on our nose, and finally – for clapping with our flippers.

The application of motivation in business should also involve rewarding not just the final result, but also the intermediate steps. There’s no point in rewarding a salesperson with a larger prize than their commission for making a sale. This approach does not regulate the salesperson’s behavior or encourage them to engage in the right activities. It doesn’t help the salesperson reach a sale. Effective incentive measures should take into account the number of calls made to clients (either through pressure or rewards), the number of meetings held, and the number of commercial proposals sent. In sales, there is a term called “sales funnel,” which generally means that by making a certain number of calls, one can secure a deal through several steps. The more calls made, the more meetings will be scheduled despite rejections, and consequently, the more deals will be closed. The philosophy of tracking intermediate results is also present in the BSC – Balanced Scorecard approach, which states that in addition to specific financial indicators like sales volume or profit, one should monitor clients – their quantity, quality, and satisfaction. To ensure client satisfaction, it’s essential to keep an eye on processes. And those processes are carried out by people. Thus, a proper personnel policy can effectively lead to good sales almost “automatically.” Moreover, it is impossible to manage a business solely by looking at the end result – sales volume and profit. According to the BSC approach, employees are given key performance indicators in such a way that they receive bonuses for factors that directly and indirectly influence sales volume (clients, processes, personnel), rather than for the sales themselves.

The built-in reward system within us works in exactly the same way. There is a “standard scenario” — find a partner, engage in marriage, receive parental investments from them, and raise the next generation that will carry our genetic material. When a girl enjoys being close to a guy, her genes reward her for it — well done, good seal. The girl feels comfortable. She wants to take the next step — a kiss. For that kiss, she will also receive a little reward, and it will feel nice and cozy. Just as she will feel cozy if she can find dry shelter during a storm — she will be rewarded for her search activity, which gives her a better chance of survival and, consequently, reproduction. The pleasure she derives from a crevice in the rock will be directly related to the level of danger posed by the storm raging outside. On a calm day, however, she will gain no satisfaction from visiting such gloomy shelters. The guy will enjoy giving gifts to the girl. He will genuinely take pleasure in doing so, even though, in reality, his young body is simply executing the next step that leads him to reproduction.

Over time, the trainer stops giving the seal a treat for every step it takes. The treat is given at the end of the trick if that trick needs to be repeated later. But the seal continues to perform a series of actions, driven by the hope of receiving a treat. In reality, it is not the reward itself that compels the seal to do something unusual, but the promise of that reward. The promise of a reward, rather than the reward itself, is what leads us to engage in relationships with the opposite sex, even though we receive no tangible reward. Instead, we are offered an even greater promise of an even bigger reward. Our genes play a financial pyramid scheme with us—offering nothing in return, they make us suffer more and more with each step we take toward happiness. Happiness? We strive to fulfill our desires, often without realizing that a person who has nothing left to wish for is much like someone who no longer wants anything at all. Apathy and depression, rather than reward, await us at the end of any path set by the reward system in our brains. Those who have not fully achieved their goals are the lucky ones. They do not reach the point of apathy and depression and remain full of life until the very last moment.

The reward system, like a trainer promising but not delivering a treat, assures us that everything will be fine when we find a partner. Then it promises that everything will be great when you get married, despite the fact that marriage itself carries a 50% risk of unhappiness. Next, it tells us that once we have children, happiness will follow. Then it asks us to be patient until they grow up. And when they do grow up, it starts demanding grandchildren. But in reality, each subsequent step brings more worries, problems, lack of freedom, and expenses. We are continually encouraged by the little highs that come with a first kiss, a child’s smile, a good grade in school, or our children’s first love. This pursuit of the next goal fills our lives with a sense of meaning that, in truth, doesn’t exist.

From an economic, management, and risk management perspective, it would make more sense to have children without getting married, while outsourcing all the “marital services.” This is increasingly the approach taken by wealthy men who purchase donor eggs, selecting a biological mother from a donor bank, pay for a surrogate mother’s services, and enter into a contractual marriage with a third party. For them, the costs of such arrangements are more acceptable than the risks associated with marrying the mother of their children. However, in most cases, men are not able to give birth themselves, and women are unable to work for some time before and after childbirth, thus often requiring support. At the same time, a wealthy woman, just like a wealthy man, also benefits from giving birth independently, choosing a high-quality male donor or selecting a suitable candidate from a sperm bank.

A man or woman at the top of the social, cultural, or intellectual hierarchy, when entering into marriage, is more likely to be the exploited party rather than the exploiter. Their parental investments and level of culture will enable them to give more than they take from the marriage, while their intelligence, which allows them to think ahead, will drive them towards divorce and lead to their unhappiness.

To transition from a model of mutual exploitation to one of mutual benefit, it is essential to turn off desires and instincts and make a sober, thoughtful decision that has no place for words like “love,” “attachment,” or “passion.” The instincts that gradually push us into the debt pit of mutual exploitation are satisfied at the most primitive, transactional level of the deal. A good indicator of a transactional deal is the amount of time we spend contemplating the agreement and the number of emotions involved in its conclusion. The less emotion and the more contemplation there is, the more the deal resembles a consultative or strategic arrangement. A happy marriage, sustained by instincts, is dependent on those very instincts. For example, couples driven by instincts who do not observe a consistent annual increase in offspring must either part ways or start seeking adventures outside the family, as the “infertility assessment module” embedded in each of us will begin to prompt spouses to change partners. People have always sought protection against such behavior, starting with purely manipulative techniques like organizing an expensive wedding and extending to legal prohibitions on divorce and adultery. Nowadays, these measures are becoming less relevant. The institution of marriage still exists primarily because it has transformed or is transforming into a purely economic, non-exploitative, but rather mutually beneficial deal. A modern marriage is essentially a consumer cooperative, where participants benefit from the shared use of material goods. Thus, in addition to mutual biological exploitation, partners in a marriage begin to receive clear material benefits, spending significantly less money and resources on their lives and daily needs while protecting themselves from temporary disruptions such as illness or job loss.

However, marriage is economically beneficial for partners only as long as they do not have children. The presence of children negates the economic advantages for those in the marriage. Children require resources and time, increase risks, and reduce freedom. There is no economic benefit in feeding a few more mouths, hoping to get a glass of water from them before you die. If there is no economic benefit, yet children still come into the world, it means there is a biological one. Our genes are least concerned with the prosperity of each of us, but most with the prosperity of our offspring. Our genes will try to make us feel unhappy without children if our reproductive program is not turned off for some reason. In this case, marriage can also be seen as a mutually beneficial arrangement, where the necessary resource costs for raising the next generation are shared between both parents, while both parents fully experience the happiness, or rather the highs, of motherhood and fatherhood.

In essence

• Marriage is mutual exploitation. Mutual benefits from marriage can only be obtained if there are no plans for children.

If you belong to the “elite of society” and possess outstanding “marketable” traits in the sexual marketplace—such as wealth, intelligence, culture, and physical appearance—then it might be wise for you to avoid marriage, as you are likely to become a victim of exploitation rather than an exploiter.

• The overly intelligent don’t reproduce. They become smarter than their genes.

• Instincts lead us to marriage. However, once we embark on the path laid out by our genes, we are doomed to an eternal search for happiness, but not happiness itself.

The best approach is to choose a partner with your mind, before you are in love with them. Love will come; it will kick in automatically if you maintain a close and friendly relationship based on mutual support and benefit with someone of the opposite sex for long enough.

Where have all the real men gone?

From an evolutionary standpoint, if women always prioritize the best men, then by now, only the best should remain in the population. However, those who are considered “the best” now are not necessarily going to be “the best” later, and nature, along with economics and mathematics, has ensured that diversity is always maintained in the population.

How does this happen? One way to maintain population diversity is, of course, inadvertently practiced by baboons. These primates are similar to humans in many aspects of their social behavior, and by observing them, we can gain a clearer understanding of what in human behavior is distinctly human and what is, in fact, more ancient.

It is known that baboons live in troops formed around a leader, the alpha male, and his harem. All the females in the troop belong to the leader, while the other males, left with nothing, linger on the periphery. In this situation, all the offspring must be the children of the alpha male, which inevitably leads to inbreeding and, as a consequence, the degeneration of the population. However, in reality, things are much more interesting.

One way or another, a peripheral male decides to court one of the females. Meanwhile, the lustful female baboon is actually not opposed to receiving some attention from the male, as her “lawful husband” is very busy and she rarely gets the chance to mate with the leader, despite being one of many, she is still his female.

The leader, seeing such chaos, attacks the brazen one, and they start running around the territory occupied by the troop, shouting and screaming at each other. While the alpha male is busy demonstrating his superiority, the other males get the chance to mate with the females. As a result, when the leader returns to his prestigious spot on the branch, the entire troop is peacefully munching on bananas, as everyone is already sexually satisfied. In the end, it turns out that most of the offspring in the baboon troop are not the leader’s heirs. [30]. Текст для перевода: ..

Of course, this method of reproduction is also characteristic of humans. Statistical studies show that in society, up to 30% [31]. Not all children born are biological offspring of their legal, unsuspecting fathers. [32]. To this figure, we should add a large number of men who are raising children that are not their own, having married women with kids. Considering that only one in twelve unprotected sexual encounters leads to pregnancy, and that women, thanks to medical advancements, have the ability to manage their pregnancies or fertility, we can speculate on how widespread adultery is in society. It could turn out that pregnancies within marriage that are “not from the husband” could account for almost half, if not more, of all pregnancies. [33]. Most of these pregnancies end in miscarriage. And if we consider that not every extramarital affair leads to pregnancy, it turns out that women, with rare exceptions, just like men, have a fairly relaxed attitude towards the sanctity of marriage. We do not see a mass emergence of children from extramarital love simply because humans are rational beings and are capable of a) planning and b) taking action before it’s too late.

The second obstacle to dominance among the heirs of alpha males is mathematics and its direct application in economics. Often, leading corporations in the market compete fiercely with each other, launching marketing strikes, spending insane amounts on advertising budgets, and focusing on competing across all fronts. As a result, a lesser-known company can suddenly surge ahead, simply because no one was paying attention to it. While Nokia was busy competing with Samsung, the iPhone emerged in the market and became a leader, despite its higher price and compatibility issues with other devices. Meanwhile, the giants of the photography industry—Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji—were vying for the top spot in the film market, while digital photography quietly emerged, allowing camera manufacturers to meet consumer needs without the use of film.

The paradox in which the winner is not the strongest is known in mathematics as the “duel among three.” Smith, Brown, and Jones, wanting to add some variety to a regular pistol duel, agreed to hold their contest under slightly modified rules. After drawing lots to determine who would shoot first, second, and third, they took their positions at the vertices of an equilateral triangle. They agreed that each participant would take turns firing only one shot and could aim at anyone. The duel continues until any two of the participants are killed. The order of shooting is determined solely by the results of the draw and remains unchanged throughout the duel. All three participants know that Smith never misses, Brown hits his target 80% of the time, and Jones, who is the worst shot, misses as often as he hits.

In a duel involving three participants, who has the highest chance of survival, assuming all three follow optimal strategies and no one is accidentally shot by a stray bullet meant for someone else? It turns out that the worst shooter, Jones, has the greatest probability of surviving in a “triangular” duel. Following him is Smith, who never misses. Since Jones’s opponents aim at each other when it’s their turn to shoot, Jones’s optimal strategy is to shoot in the air until one of his opponents is killed. [34]. After that, he shoots at the remaining opponent, having a significant advantage over him.

The course of the 20th century was defined precisely by the optimal solution to this problem. Germany, the Allies, and the USSR were addressing it for their own interests. The Allies supported the USSR as the weaker player in order to neutralize the stronger one. In this context, the USSR, as the weaker player… [35]. was trying to make peace with Germany [36]. …so that Germany could focus its efforts on stronger opponents – the Allies. As a result, a red flag flew over the Reichstag – the flag of the weakest player, not the stars and stripes. The neutralization of the USSR in the following years became a matter of technique and the Cold War, which the Allies initiated to suppress the USSR.

Niccolò Machiavelli, in his work “The Prince,” which discusses the rules that a ruler should follow, also suggested that a prince should assist the weak rather than the strong. This is because the strong can always overpower the prince, while the weak, by uniting with the prince, can always defeat the strong. However, if both strong players, following this strategy, help the weak and fight against each other, there will come a time, sooner or later, when the weak becomes stronger than their former strong rivals.

In the sexual market, where competition and rivalry are also present, there will always be instances where strong competitors neutralize each other in the struggle for the attention of the opposite sex, allowing weaker individuals to take the lead. This can manifest as an overt battle, for example, when women, wanting to appear more attractive to a man, start undermining each other, making themselves less appealing and handing the man over to some third, modest participant in the contest who didn’t even try to engage in the fight. It can also be a more subtle struggle based on expectations. Men, seeing that they are up against another strong competitor in the quest for a woman’s affection, may mutually decide to back off, allowing the woman to end up with someone weaker than the first two. And this is not just about physical strength. It makes no sense for a man to compete in terms of generosity or sophistication in courtship; he has no reason to waste his time when his chances of success are not 100% but only 50%.

The third reason is the women themselves. Often, they choose weaker males, guided by what could be described as built-in instincts, with the following considerations: 1. A weak male is an excellent investment opportunity, and a woman can nurture him into a strong partner, thereby ensuring her usefulness in a strategic alliance. 2. Being aware of the phenomenon of domestic violence, which tends to be quickly curtailed in a transparent community, women seek out weaker males to protect themselves and their children from aggression. However, the irony is that weak males are often more aggressive, and by choosing a weak partner, a woman inadvertently invites domestic violence into her life. The aggressiveness of weak males can be explained by the nature of human social structures. A weak individual must establish a reputation of “better not to mess with me,” which protects them from most potential aggressors who simply do not want to engage. This behavioral pattern is not unique to humans; it is present in all animals that form hierarchical communities in natural conditions. Take dogs, for example. Their anger and aggression correlate strongly with their size. It is also important to understand that a weak and insecure person will seek ways to compensate for their weakness and assert themselves, even if it means humiliating those close to them. Aggression directed at defenseless or relatively defenseless household members provides a man with a fleeting but significant sense of dominance.

The fourth mechanism that allows less dominant males to reproduce is described in the chapter “The Curse of Beauty,” specifically in the section discussing the “decoy effect.” Both humans and animals, as experimentally confirmed, tend to make choices that do not favor the best product or mate, and this choice is mathematically justified.

It turns out that the market dynamics present in the sexual marketplace hinder “real men” from effectively reproducing, as they end up conceding the best women—those for whom competition is particularly fierce—to more mediocre “men.”

In essence

If there are more than two opponents, the weaker one often wins.

Mediocre men, just like mediocre women, gain advantages in the sexual market.

The advantages of average men have both biological and mathematical explanations. The advantages of average women are purely mathematical, in competitive conditions.

• If you have a rival, it makes sense to bring another strong competitor into the contest. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The text for translation: [1].Heuristic is a problem-solving algorithm that lacks a strict justification but still provides an acceptable solution in most practically significant cases.

[2].Meet each other. Reader, this is Squirrel. Squirrel, this is the reader. Squirrel will be with us until the end of the book.

[3].For example, those that make a gambler keep pulling the lever of a slot machine, even though no slot machine is set up to pay out more coins than it takes in.

[4].Most drugs interfere with the mechanisms of neurotransmitter action in one way or another. They are either synthetic, often more potent analogs of these neurotransmitters, provoke an excess or, conversely, a deficiency of them, or simply consist of the same substances but delivered to the brain in enormous quantities that disrupt the functioning of the nervous system.

[5].D. Gilbert, in his book “Stumbling on Happiness,” describes humans as the only animals capable of seeing the future. However, it is important to remember that there is no qualitative difference between humans and animals; only quantitative differences exist. Higher primates can also “see the future,” but not as well as humans do.

[6].The theory of reciprocal altruism was developed by American biologist Robert Trivers, who demonstrated through modeling that natural selection can support the tendency of animals to provide services to their peers if it increases the likelihood of receiving similar services in return (Trivers, 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism). Reciprocal altruism is not only characteristic of humans. For example, rats are more willing to help those of their peers who have helped them in previous experiments, compared to those who refused to help or whose reputation is unknown to the individual being tested (Rutte, Taborsky, 2008. The influence of social experience on cooperative behaviour of rats (Rattus norvegicus): direct vs generalized reciprocity).

[7].Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B.; Raskoff Zeiss, Antonette (1972). «Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification.». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21 (2): 204–218. doi:10.1037/h0032198. ISSN 0022-3514. PMID 5010404.

[8].Sometimes marshmallows, more often cookies, pretzels, etc.

[9].Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi; Rodriguzez, Monica L. (1989). «Delay of gratification in children.». Science 244: 933–938. doi:10.1126/science.2658056.

[10].You can read about the role of the dopaminergic system in human behavior and how we often mistake desire for happiness in Kelly McGonigal’s book “The Willpower Instinct: How Self-Control Works, Why It Matters, and What You Can Do to Get More of It.”

[11].It does not necessarily mean that there is a connection between intelligence and religiosity. Religiosity, or the brain’s susceptibility to being infected by religious ideas, seems to be a trait that humanity has inherited and acquired throughout evolution (Ara Norenzayan, Azim F. Shariff. The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality // Science. 2008. V. 322. P. 58–62). Susceptibility to religion can be a byproduct of the overall organization of human thought (Pascal Boyer. Religion: Bound to believe? // Nature. 2008. V. 455. P. 1038–1039) or a beneficial evolutionary acquisition: it has been shown that religious communities have survived better compared to those without any faith. Even militant atheists actually believe in something and ritualize certain aspects of their lives. A good article on this topic can be read here: http://elementy.ru/news/430894

[12].In Greek philosophy, the following main types of love were distinguished: eros, ludus, mania, storge, pragma, and agape. Eros, ludus, and storge more or less correspond to lust, attraction, and attachment, while mania, pragma, and agape are considered “composite” types of love. Agape, in particular, is a combination of eros and storge – it represents sacrificial love, selfless devotion, and the dissolution of the lover in caring for the beloved.

[13].Speaking of Cthulhu. Any religion, in essence, is a complex, survival-resistant, and reproductive meme—a viral idea that lives on its own and spreads in the minds of its followers. Those religions that were unable to reproduce or whose reproduction was ineffective do not receive support and eventually die out. We know nothing about them.

[14].You can read more in Russian in the book “Fundamentals of Ethology and Genetics of Behavior,” by Z.A. Zorina, I.I. Poletaev, and Zh.I. Reznikova.

[15].British anthropologist Robin Dunbar observed a correlation between the level of development of the neocortex in the brain’s hemispheres and the size of social groups in primates. Based on data from 38 primate genera, he derived a mathematical relationship between neocortex development and group size. He also estimated the optimal size of human social groups, limited by the number of stable social connections a person can maintain. Maintaining such connections requires knowledge of an individual’s distinguishing features, character, and social status, which demands significant intellectual capabilities. This optimal group size ranges from 100 to 230, with 150 often considered the standard. For more details: Dunbar, R.I.M. (June 1992). “Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates.” Journal of Human Evolution 22 (6): 469–493. doi:10.1016/0047-2484(92)90081-J

[16].Variability refers to the diversity of traits among individuals of a given species, as well as the property of offspring to acquire differences from their parent forms. Variability, along with heredity, represents two inseparable properties of living organisms, which are the subject of study in the field of genetics.

[17].Only imitation of simple behavior can be easily transmitted. When it comes to higher mathematics, both the desire to learn it and a general love for studying can be passed on, but not the entirety of higher mathematics itself.

[18].The inability to assess oneself is influenced by a cognitive bias known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. According to this effect, less competent individuals tend to have a higher opinion of their own abilities than competent people do, who are also inclined to assume that others evaluate their abilities as low as they do themselves.

[19].A good argument in favor of monogamy can be considered the absence of both anatomical signs of strong intraspecies competition in humans, such as horns, fangs, and large testicles, as well as behavioral signs like infanticide, male tournaments, and high aggression. C. Owen Lovejoy. Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus // Science. V. 326. P. 74, 74e1–74e8

[20].Only 5% of mammal species practice monogamy, and it is highly likely that the choice of a monogamous sexual strategy by our ancestors shaped their appearance, which is different from other primates: bipedalism, smaller canines, permanently enlarged breasts, and the ability to cooperate due to reduced intraspecies aggression. (there)

[21].Robert Wright “The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are – New Views on Evolutionary Psychology”

[22].In animals where females practice promiscuity, the amount of sperm produced by males plays a crucial role in gene transmission. The more sperm that reaches the female, the greater the chances that the genes of that particular male will be passed on to the next generation. To produce a large quantity of sperm, males need to have well-developed testes. Compared to other animals, humans have relatively large testes, but they are clearly smaller than those of chimpanzees or other species that engage in “sperm wars.” Additionally, human sperm contains special mechanisms that block the viability of foreign sperm—an evolutionary adaptation necessary in a promiscuous context.

[23].He described this in his book “Aggression or the So-Called Evil.”

[24].And this is despite the fact that women publicly reject married men. However, a married man who values his marriage will always be more attractive to women compared to a married man who is frivolous.

[25].It’s interesting how religions rationalize this phenomenon. For example, a menstruating woman is considered unclean according to the Old Testament.

[26].It is likely that such an important tool for evolution and survival as acute sense of smell was lost by humans during sexual selection: females preferred those males who “didn’t ask unnecessary questions” and brought them bananas, being unable to determine the timing of ovulation by scent. C. Owen Lovejoy. Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus // Science. V. 326. P. 74, 74e1–74e8.

[27].Recent research makes the hypothesis likely that bipedalism in humans arose as a result of sexual selection: females preferred those males who could provide them with more food, which required free hands. From a survival perspective, it would be more advantageous to have four hands and the ability to quickly climb trees. C. Owen Lovejoy. Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus // Science. V. 326. P. 74, 74e1–74e8.

[28].From an evolutionary perspective, the main problem with moral behavior is that a society based on mutual assistance is extremely vulnerable to social parasitism. Reciprocal altruism can only be a successful and sustainable (“evolutionarily stable”) strategy if individuals remember the history of their interactions, know the reputation of their partners, encourage cooperators, and punish deceivers. For all of this to work, individuals need to have sufficient memory to remember their fellow tribe members and/or a small enough number of them to fit in their memory. In humans, the strategy of “moral” behavior has developed and become extraordinarily complex, giving rise to numerous intricate constructs—from commodity-money relations to the “golden rule” (treat others as you want to be treated). Furthermore, reputation has become a value in itself, for which people are willing to make significant sacrifices.

[29].Interestingly, the volume of the modern human brain is noticeably smaller than that of its biological ancestors – the Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. More details can be found in S. V. Drobyshevsky’s article “Are We Getting Dumber? On the Reasons for Brain Size Reduction.” http://antropogenez.ru/article/493/

[30].It might seem that a female should not want genetic material from a non-alpha male for her offspring. However, a lustful female baboon mates with another male because if that particular male is smarter than the alpha, her offspring will also be smarter than the alpha. After all, the chances of becoming an alpha are slim, but there are many opportunities to outsmart one.

[31].Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences. Mark A Bellis, Karen Hughes, Sara Hughes, John R Ashton. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:749-754 doi:10.1136/jech.2005.036517

[32].A number of other studies and data related to organ transplantation and blood transfusion, the long list of which is simply inappropriate to include here, indicate figures ranging from 8% to 20%.

[33].Of course, it all depends on the social strata. It’s unlikely that the reader of this book belongs to the segments of society that actually contribute to the grim statistics of abortion clinics.

[34].If Jones shoots at Smith instead of into the air, then next time it’s his turn to shoot at Smith, it will definitely come after Smith and Brown have taken their shots. If Jones allows Smith to kill Brown, then Brown won’t shoot at Jones, and Jones will get a second shot without any risk. However, if Jones shoots at Brown, he won’t survive Smith’s next shot, no matter what.

[35].Despite the official mythology surrounding the formation of the USSR, its heroic industrialization, and so on, the USSR had no economic, human, or resource advantages over Germany, let alone the United States or the British Empire.

[36].Before Germany’s attack on the USSR, the Soviet Union was an ally of Germany in World War II. On September 17, 1939, the USSR invaded Poland and occupied half of its territory.

• Sexonomics
• Content
• I am a product.
• Biology
• Psychology
• Marketing
• Mathematics
• Philosophy
• The world of exceptions
• Bonus chapters