Is it likely that women inherently tend to be less loyal to their tribe or in-group than men because for hundreds of thousands of years, if one tribe defeated another the women of the defeated tribe were simply absorbed into the winning tribe?
There they would breed with the men of the winning tribe and that way they still passed their genes on, while the losing men were just killed or enslaved and thereby barred from procreation.
I think that in the ideal society, women would be kept deep underground in cages slightly larger than the size of their bodies, so that they can't poison men's minds with their nagging or lying. Men on the surface will be raised in complete isolation and ignorance of the existence of the female sex, and will be free to spend their time having gay sex, lifting weights, and advancing science. Women will be fed slimy gruel by robots and will occasionally be inseminated with turkey basters filled with semen that floats down through grates on the floors of gay orgy rooms. If the baby is a man it is immediately taken to the surface while if it is a girl it is placed in a separate cage.
What do you think, fellow anons?
Women are also more likely to be charitable. This could be due to being more nurturing on average.
That would go much further back along evolution than humanity's warring tribes and would have to be explained solely by sex hormones. IOW estrogen makes you a pussy, coward, and backstabber. With all the estrogen pills in the water, it kinda explains modern society a bit, eh Jimbo?
yes
(Young) Pussy is the highest resource known to mankind. Why should they be loyal to you or your society if they are above you?
Also explains why young girls love to travel so much - looking for the highest bidder.
Men like travel too, they can spread their seed and not worry about child support.
No but seriously, this idea makes perfect sense and explains so much about the world.
Is there any way it could be refuted?
>is there any way it could be refuted?
Probably 2 studies would be enough.
you don't start with a hypothesis, you start with evidence and formulate a hypothesis on it.
sciance 101
It's not an idea, it's the truth. But what do you gain from starting this thread on the science board?
You claim that all the women in the defeated tribe are just absorbed into the new tribe. I disagree. I think the winning tribe will only select the most attractive females, and eat/kill the rest. This is true for the vikings at least, and it explains why the hottest girls always seem to be the biggest whores, because these are the women that have been tagging along in every tribe passing their genes along. If you want a loyal girl, find an ugly one. If you want a girl with good attractive genes, then you should know that every other male wants the same exact thing. We can either be a society of ugly loyal people, or a society of studs that all share one whore. They each have their ups and downs, but personally I think good genes isn't worth the sloppy seconds.
Quality shitpost
>I disagree. I think the winning tribe will only select the most attractive females, and eat/kill the rest
Seems unlikely, cannibalism has been generally frowned upon in most societies afaik, and men prefer to fuck ugly girls to no girls at all which is completely opposite than for women. This is ofcourse because a man can only gain by having sex with a women, high quality or low: Best case scenario he leaves her with an ugly bastard, which is still a win evolutionarily, while a woman fucking a low-quality man could become pregnant and therefore be forced to sacrifice loads of energy and time on low-quality off spring.
Plus ugly women from the losing tribe wouldn't be a threat, and they could also be used for child-rearing/food-gathering/house-work.
>it's another storm weenies use evolutionary psychology to explain their shortcomings in life episode
I think you'd fit right in with Isis senpai.
>refugees
>winning
The reason they're refugees is because some of their people are autistic virgins that pop boners at seeing a woman's ankle.
I don't know why they keep raiding Veeky Forums for validation. They're not going to get it. The fact that they raid here and try to get it is just pathetic. Begging for validation on Veeky Forums is not going to make them correct.
...
Then how is it wrong?
It's an unbiased, natural question, if the idea is incorrect, then why?
Why are you so triggered by people looking at evolution and thinking that that must have shaped peoples minds in some way and try to use that to understand the world and how people think?
It's a nice theory, however I have seen evidence against it in terms of dating attitudes. Should men not have lower ingroup loyalty so as not to lose out on sexual opportunities?
One interesting hypothesis would be greater ingroup/outgroup feelings towards with regards people of the same sex.
>/pol/ makes a thread on an interesting topic which can be approached scientifically
>omg how dare you, /pol/
pic related
> asking to be proven wrong instead of providing evidence that it's correct
>instead of providing evidence that it's correct
But he did provide evidence. He used the behavior of modern women and evolutionary psychology to prove his point. Sure these things aren't as scientific as measured data, but it's still better than a greentext as evidence for his claim.
There is nothing scientific about this. You created preconceived notions about a social situation and you want people to agree with you.
>but it's still better than a greentext as evidence for his claim.
Nope, it's still shitposting
more liek op put forth a hypothesis and is asking for it's validity. you just don't like it because he's /pol/.
Fuck off, /pol/tard.