: "So I guess there's a men's rights movement as well, and you all support that too?"

: "NOOOO!"
: "They're evil!"
: "They're losers! They just can't attract mates"
: "So does that apply to feminists too?"

: "NO! NO!"
: "So why the asymmetry?"
-
Show this thread
-
: "As far as I have been told, men and women are equal, doesn't that mean that men's rights and feminism are equal?"

: "NO, it doesn't work like that!"
: "Well, then humans, how does it work?"
: "Well it's oppression ... "
: "We already covered that."2 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
: "Because of the way reproduction works in your species, men are strongly incentivized to oppress OTHER MEN"
: "Your history and your prehistory make this abundantly clear"
: "I think I can see where the asymmetry creeps in"1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
: "What you name 'woman' is the form of human who pays a large fraction of the cost for making a new human. I'll call them 'Makers' "
: "What you name 'man' is the form of human who pays a tiny fraction of the cost for making a new human. I'll call them 'Blueprinters' "2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
: "One Blueprinter can produce new humans with 500 Makers, but not vice-versa"
: "This means that the payoff distribution for Blueprinters is extremely skewed. From this we can predict that Blueprinters will evolve to take more risks and display more variability"
: "ok"1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
: "This greater Blueprinter variability explains why your Blueprinters are found more often at the top of your hierarchies and at the bottom"
: "But I don't yet see where there is a 'Woman-help' movement but not a similarly popular 'Man-help' movement"2 replies 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @RokoMijic @RokoMijicUK
: "Sure. In this paper, evolutionary anthropologist Barbara Smuts explains how male primates use coercion to control female reproduction, and how females form alliances to resist this: https://www.academia.edu/21986624/THE_EVOLUTIONARY_ORIGINS_OF_PATRIARCHY … "1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zackmdavis
: "Zack of Davis, I see the rationality flows strongly in you"1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @zackmdavis
: "Will you summarize why the less-evolved Blueprinters would be interested in limiting the number of new beings created by the less-evolved Makers? Each Blueprinter is individually incented to maximize the occurrences of its Blueprint, or are you speaking of group selection?"1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Now your alien is sneaking in a thought-terminating cliche. Try to expand on the phrase "group selection" because that phrase is doing a lot of work - there's plenty of evolutionary history of total Y-chromosome replacement events (tribe gets conquered, men die, women don't).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Putting this back in your dialog's framework: Makers are highly invested in all their own offspring so would prefer to only get the highest quality blueprints - which all makers would recognize. Discerning which blueprinters are the highest quality is very difficult. 1/3(?)
-
-
Ideally for the makers, all the blueprinters would ruthlessly compete directly with each other so all the makers could get blueprints from the one winner and all the non-winners could die or whatever. Ah, but this isn't a game theoretically stable solution! 2/4
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
There's another tribe over the next hill that has blueprinters who, instead of fighting to the death to demonstrate quality to the makers, cooperate to kill the one winning blueprinter in the next tribe (easy to do - he's one vs many). The blueprinters then have a problem. 3/4
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.