Intra-Group Fratricide and the 80-40 ratio

One the most infamous piece of pop-research quoted on a number of blogs and books involves the ’80-40′ issue, such as here.

The contention is that:

While 80% of women left offspring, only 40% of men did so.

This scrap of “research” is supposed to justify the “way the world is”- aka white man fatalism. We are supposed to believe this “research” because it based on “DNA studies” and statistics by clever “ivy league educated” shysters. While I will dissect the scientific aspects of that “seminal” turd in another post, this one is dedicated one of the issues ignored by ’80-40’ers.

The nature and effects of fratricide on any 80-40 scenario.

For the uninitiated, wikipedia defines fratricide as-

Fratricide (from the Latin word frater, meaning: “brother” and cide meaning to kill) is the act of a person killing his or her brother. According to the Bible and the Qur’an, fratricide was the first type of murder committed in human history.

I would add that fratricide, and killing close blood-relatives, is also a driving force in Indian Epics such as the Mahabharat. So why would fratricide- either blood brother, half-brother or cousins be so widespread and common, even in ancient times?

What were they fighting over?

Could they be fighting over women, and what does this have to do with the 80-40 ratio? The answer is a bit complicated, but is linked to a combination of two peculiar and unique aspect of human beings.

1] Human beings are almost unique amongst animals in actively and deliberately killing siblings past infancy. Lions, wolves and your favorite pack animal examples for ‘alpha, beta and omega’ do not do that- either at all or at the level seen in human beings.

2] Humans use tools and other extensions of the mind, including stealth and treachery to kill other humans. Strength is material in only face-to-face military style conflicts, not murders.

Combine that with human horniness, the necessity to maintain a functional group and the lack of external law-and-order. Is it just me or do you also see the problem with achieving a 80-40 ratio?

Simply put, if only 40% of men got laid- they would have big targets on their heads + the tribe/group would become non-functional. Nobody can look out for every act of treachery and murderous intention, every single minute of every day. It makes the whole enterprise of surviving unworkable.

Now this does not imply that women lack hypergamous tendencies.

I am simply suggesting that even with their hypergamous tendencies, not sleeping with 60% of men would also have made them and their kids targets for retribution. While it is certainly possible that some men left more kids than others, it is unlikely that access to sex was a big issue through most of human history.

A more realistic model of human hunter-gatherer societies, and even most agricultural societies, would therefore have almost all men getting laid with some men having (and leaving behind) more kids than others. While cheating, cuckoldry and affairs have likely always been a part of the human condition, not getting laid is a fairly modern development.

This development has been facilitated by feminism, ‘white knights’, the law-and-order industry and a lot of spineless married men. It is a foregone conclusion that this recent development will have severe and lasting repercussions.

Comments?

  1. Mario Lopez
    July 27, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    I’m going to wait until someone breaks this down in simple terms. I find this difficult to understand.

    • Mario Lopez
      July 27, 2010 at 6:24 pm

      Never mind. I get it now.

  2. Fred
    July 27, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    Your account sounds reasonable to me.

  3. J
    July 27, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Yeah this makes sense.

    I think that the 80-40 ratio still holds as far as reproduction goes. Only 40% of men had biological children.

    But it would make sense if the women slept around a lot with all of the men, for sperm competition and general social cohesiveness.

    So probably most men got laid, but of course getting laid doesn’t always lead to children, so only 40% of them impregnated the women.

  4. Nestorius
    July 28, 2010 at 4:07 am

    The 80-40 ratio is a product of coincidence more than hypergamy. Hypergamy exists, but it is a mental thing that has to be applied. Now, most women could not apply it for one simple reason: men were more powerfull and would not let them do it. Plus, there is retribution.

    60% of men did not have offspring most probably because they did not impregnate the women or because they were dead before doing anything. Male mortality was and is still higher than female mortality.

    This 80-40 issue is the latest argument that is meant to uphold the sexual market ponzi scheme. It is meant to convince the 60% that they have to submit to their “fate”.

    As you said, not getting laid at all is a modern thing. Plus, what makes things worst is that society (i.e. parents and women) are clueless to the sexual needs of men. Society acts as if those needs do not exist, but they don’t know the consequences.

    • Nestorius
      July 28, 2010 at 4:37 am

      And about not getting laid. There was a time when I used to hear priests in churches preaching to young men about not to fall in temptation, all in the name of Jesus (although I doubt Jesus was against sex from the beginning), and I used to see chicks dressed in skirts and sometimes short skirts in the same churches. All the preaching was directed towards young men, nothing towards chicks. Those same chicks you see in church, you could see on beaches wearing bikinis or in clubs dancing like whores, and surely some were getting laid. But if you looked at the young men, you could see that they were living like monks, sexually. This made me wonder: why the hell do you keep preaching about temptation while your young men are living like monks and your girls are whoring it up?

  5. namae nanka
    July 28, 2010 at 9:39 am

    I would like to see a scientific dissection too, in the meanwhile:

    “I would add that fratricide, and killing close blood-relatives, is also a driving force in Indian Epics such as the Mahabharat. ”

    I think killing the near and dear ones is the driving force in just about every epic, though I don’t like freud very much but parricide guarantees that nice distinguishing touch.
    and the killing in Mahabharata was for honor first and the bitch that was draupadi can fuck off if she thinks that her shaming achieved it.

    “Human beings are almost unique amongst animals in actively and deliberately killing siblings past infancy. ”

    hyenas, the mammals that commit fratricide or more appropriately sororicide, considering the alpha female cub will rise to be the queen, are not similar to humans, at least those tending to patriarchal norms.

  6. The Plague Doctor
    July 30, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Who said the 40% got laid within the group. Maybe the 40% are those who killed all the males from a neighboring tribe and took their women. That way the numbers could be possible, without destabilizing the internal order of a tribe.

    I don’t think you fully appreciate how important cooperation was in the days before technology or civilization. It is just easier to let a guy have a chick, then have an extra chick and one fewer guy.

  7. muslimpatriarch
    August 1, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Maybe the ratio is because more men died (in battle and hunting, etc) while more women survived and procreated?

    BTW, in Bedouin culture it is an accepted fact of life that tribes will attack each other and kill the men and take the women.

    Wonder why they are still living in the desert.

    Their whole system was built around this fact of life. Boys had much higher status than girls since they were needed, while women were considered a liability and at times infant girls were killed. Unfortunately Islam couldn’t fully reform them, and to this day they still treat women as inferior beings and kill girls who have sex outside of marriage (which is not commanded by Islam at all-Islam capital punishment is saved for married adulterers, and even in this case it allows the culture to decide what to do with them).
    —-

    That religion is a bigger problem than the underlying culture.

    Anyway, such a society does make sure that less men than women procreate, since the other tribe’s men are all killed and their women acquired. They would have absolutely nothing to do with the other tribe’s men, since their sense of pride (etc) would make it necessary for the winning tribe to kill every man of the losing tribe (just like in Samurai culture the loser in a fight would want to be beheaded).
    —–

    And they stay in the desert, forever.

    In Bedouin society if they met a stranger at the desert, there would be only two ways the encounter could go. Either the stranger belonged to a friendly tribe and was honored and given protection, or he didn’t belong to a friendly tribe (didn’t matter what he belonged to if it wasn’t a friendly tribe) and was killed and his belongings taken. There was no third way the encounter could go.
    —-

    Without oil, it is camels and sand..

  8. August 1, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    It is a mistake to assume that Bedouin culture constitutes all Middle Eastern culture. In fact, they are only a small part of it. The desert is a different place that creates a different kind of society, and they do not deserve to be hated for the way they are, just like we do not hate the aboriginals of Australia or certain cannibal tribes [it is interesting how the West has shed most Church indoctrination except mindless hate for Muslims].

    The Middle East contains some of the most fertile lands in the world, and it is not just camels and sand. What you are saying is like saying America is all desert after seeing some of America’s deserts.

    Anyway, what makes you think that the religion is a bigger problem than the culture?

  9. September 5, 2014 at 11:54 am

    This makes perfect sense. But if you add media to the mist, then there’s a larger disaster. People in America spend more time watching sex on TV than actually getting it. Fewer guys are having access to quality pussy than they had decades and centuries ago. Don’t be surprised if more Elliot Rodger-type incidents happen.

  1. August 1, 2010 at 2:20 am
  2. August 1, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: