Overcoming Nature Part II: Attraction and Marriage

Let's think primitively about the initial stages of love (and some of the mechanisms of attraction):

Step 1: Woman makes herself attractive (tight clothes, short skirts, make up, cleavage).

Step 2: Man is attracted, chases woman, makes himself attractive (dates, confidence, humor, pheromones(?)).

If attraction is developed by both parties in the initial stages of a relationship, much deeper and significant things happen. They discover common interests and passions. They develop trust and companionship. They find intimacy and love. You know, it gets all Disney and shit. (Well, not for long, some will argue.)

My beef with modern culture -- and one of the ways in which modern culture does not differ from the natural model -- is that we still play this simple game. I'm not saying that this 'game' is necessarily bad -- I'm just saying that this game can be played better.

Some degree of minimal attraction is necessary in order to tumble down the rabbit hole of love, but not much. We can be more strategic about the things we value in others from those initial points of attraction. Shouldn't men be chasing women with traits that are 'good' but outside the realm of biological attraction? Shouldn't women? Maybe it already is.

Also, the model itself can be -- and is -- manipulated at its most basic (e.g. man makes himself attractive, woman chases man). At some point, there must be attraction and an agent, someone who makes moves.

'Playing' this game all depends on individual goals. Men wanting sex will play a different strategy than men wanting marriage, for instance. And women wanting sex will...get it no matter the strategy it seems.

What has been called the 'cult of monogamy' is certainly at odds with human nature. We seem to be good at attracting and reproducing, bad at sticking it out 'til death (marriage). To some degree, there is a sense of duty and obligation to lover, family, community, and/or society that may transcend the natural compulsions of others or even some in the 'cult of monogamy' beyond religious indoctrination; that is, 'I owe it to society to stick this boring marriage out and raise this family in a stable household'. So then, why not? Why not choose the path to societal stability?

Boredom, for one. If the meaning of life is a healthy society, I might yawn while sort of agreeing. But can't that just be one goal among many? Is it even possible to balance the natural compulsions of the human animal with the communal obligation of the human being? Maybe we have already.

The modern 'cult of serial monogamy plus paramour' seems to match the ancient 'evolutionary model' to a surprising degree. Can it be that, for many, our natural compulsions are simply too strong to withstand? Has society evolved its norms and conventions in the direction of nature, all thanks to feminism?

I'll let you answer that.

Overcoming Nature Part 1: the Alpha Male

Sometimes I wonder how individuals draw the line in their evolutionary lifestyle, and I realize that within the philosophy there are all kinds of different conclusions about how to live wild in the modern world. Some climb trees, some still hit the gym. Some eat potatoes, some don't eat tomatoes. Some run marathons, and some do marathon wine drinking. It's a rich and varied world out there, folks.

Others have emphasized the silliness of historical re-enactment, but it's worth reiterating, because I wanna take the idea one step further, to culture. Much of the talk about what's good or bad about the paleolithic model tends to center around diet and exercise, but there are some profound ways that we are, well, being douchebags to each other. And yes, it's bad to be a douchebag. In smart people terms, there are identifiable natural mechanisms at work that detract from human potential and general human goodness. I think it's worth calling them out and playing them down.

Status Seeking

We are hard-wired for thinking about nearly everything hierarchically. Paleoanthropology touts the 'alpha male' model, where male hierarchy is formed by "a mixture of strength, hunting skills, and force of personality" (Bond 203), which leads to the alpha male designation.

In short, we want on a biological level to feel smart, strong, influential, and successful. But since everything is relative, this really just means that we want to be better than others around us. We want a better house, a more beautiful wife, a nicer car; in all, better status relative to others and especially to our own social network. These natural compulsions translate into careerism, wealth accumulation, selfishness, and so on -- all of which are 'totally natural' in evolutionary bro-wisdom.

So why's that bad? It may not be. There may be people out there being true to themselves by stepping on toes and that's all good. But there's a lot of unhappy people out there chasing goals they barely understand without ever questioning why they want those things to begin with, or whether the world and they themselves would be better off without those goals.

Introducing: The Douchebag Alpha

Ever meet a guy with an alpha male complex? I'm sure you have. He's the guy that gives orders like he's the boss, interrupts you while talking, rarely smiles, has to beat you at everything, doesn't share with others. You know the type. If you're a woman, you might 'naturally' be attracted to his confidence and social standing (more on this to come in the next blog post). If you're a man, you might respect him in that I'm-not-sure-I-like-or-fear-this-guy kind of way. But if you're astute to the ridiculous game he is playing, then you know the truth -- that objectively, this person is a douchebag.

I know where this discussion is headed. "But hey, it's only natural for a group of people to need to follow someone who can unify the group and take decisive action." Yes, but that's called leadership. Perhaps there may be a fine line between a leader and an alpha-douche. I mean to point out the difference between the two.

5 Things I Hate About Alpha Males

That fratitude. After coming of age, it shouldn't take long to figure out what is cool, and what is uncool. Or what life is about. So stop giving me your I-Am-Hunter face and be real for a second.

False leadership. A circle of friends is no place for a one-man cheerocracy. Take the thoughts, feelings, and ideas of others into account before acting like you run the show.

The motives. The respect? The status? All the girls? Grow the f*ck up.

It's obvious. I bet some men think they are sooo clever playing 'cocky-funny' to girls and sticking their chest out.

It's annoying. In fact, being alpha is bad for everyone, including the alpha. And check this out too.

Thoughts?

Work Vs. Play: Purposeful Movement in the Neolithic

I'm making an effort to remove the word 'workout' from my vocabulary. I dismiss it not because of the blatant etymology ('work'), but because the word is symptomatic of an unnatural paradigm, a man-made way of thinking about fitness.

Let's begin with the evolutionary role of exercise. Relocating, hunting, gathering, fighting, and building shelter were all forms of necessary work in the paleolithic. Our species likely performed rituals and played, but raw physical labor was the bulk of exercise. It was stressful, dangerous, and most important: vital to survival.

We may crave vigorous exercise for the very reason that it was part of our ancestry, but that's another matter, because those activities are no longer vital to our survival. We now live in modern times. Farmers hunt and gather for us and specialists build our houses. These paleolithic activities have been replaced with our own man-made professional specializations that arose with the development of civilization. Thus, there is no need to mimic the stress or danger of intense physical exercise. We have the opportunity instead to replace aspects of work with the ample benefits of play.

I grant that vigorous exercise has a place in a healthy fitness pyramid, but some contemporary fitness enthusiasts push too hard. They stress their bodies, their minds, and ultimately their spirits by succumbing to unnatural motivators: hyper-hierarchy, elitism, and the excesses of competition.

Why explore natural movement or natural diet without pursuing natural purpose for that movement?

I was a Division I athlete at the college level, rowing for Santa Clara University. By all means, we engaged in high-level training two and sometimes three times per day. I fought hard with my body to overcome barriers, win personal records, and get the edge over the competition. I want to be clear that I understand the drive to excel, the thrill of victory, and the pride of accomplishment. But these things come at a terrible price.

During my period of competition, I developed a back and shoulder problem that persists to this day. I slept little due to early wakeup times and worried constantly about my performance. Our boat lost more than it won, as will always be the case when multiple competitors means only one winner. That period of my life stands as a time when I was unhealthy, unhappy, and blind to my long-term needs.

Not long after competition, I developed an autoimmune disease that requires constant management of inflammatory response. It's unrelated to competition, but it's what affirmed the validity of the paleo diet (almost overnight), the discovery of which was the beginning of my transformation into a happy, healthy human being.