Power laws in polygyny

When we read that only one man in three reproduced, we tend to imagine two thirds of the men in an underclass detached from society, enslaved, killed, or driven out, and one third of the men forming society, with three wives each. Or you could have two thirds killed in war and the survivors get the booty. And similarly, if only one man in seventeen …

But obviously it is likely to be a power law. The ratio of men having n wives to men having n+1 wives will be roughly constant.

It turns out that, assuming equal production of males and females, this power ratio is equal to one minus the proportion of men contributing to the gene pool.

If one third of men reproduce, then about one man in nine has one wife, about one man in thirteen has two wives (that is to say, two thirds of the number of men who have only one wife), one man in twenty has three wives, (that is to say, two thirds of the number of men who have two wives), about one in thirty will have four wives and so on and so forth.

That seems like a fairly stable society, assuming you keep the excluded men under control. One solution would be to give the more valuable part of the excluded men the used up old wives of the men who are actually part of society, women approaching their use by date, women who have exceeded their use by date. This corresponds to the ancient Hebrew system of easy divorce for men only, and the traditional Muslim system of alarmingly easy divorce for men only.

Equal distribution of pussy by basically socialist means is fair, which is to say, monogamy with patriarchy, since we are reluctant to use market and capitalist incentives to manage the production of women, which is to say, fully propertize them and sell them to highest bidder for profit, with breeder farms functioning like piggeries. If we are not going to incentivize the production of women by capitalist cash market means, should not distribute them by capitalist cash market means.

On the other hand too much equality in the distribution of pussy is dysgenic. We want some men excluded, but two thirds excluded seems so large as likely to be destabilizing.

And of course, we want the right men excluded, which at present does not seem to be happening. Although production of children in marriage is mildly eugenic at present, in that wealthier men have more wives (serially and informally) and more children, the effect is weak, and probably more than counterbalanced by the grossly dysgenic production of children outside marriage – dumb women producing little bastard thuglets, smart women never getting married, never much wanting to get married because they cannot find any men who are their social superiors, and the supply of immortal vampires is a bit low, so they just don’t feel much like having sex. And, if they do feel like having sex, which mostly they do not, having had sex with someone they feel is a social inferior, they form weak attachment to any resulting children, aborting, neglecting, or outright murdering, or looking the other way when stepdad number three does the murdering. To become good mothers, women need to first be good wives, to feel themselves owned and mastered by someone better than themselves. Charles Murray argues that upper class women are well behaved, but in fact women who are married to upper class men, which is not quite the same thing as upper class women, are well behaved. Upper class women who fail to form suitable marriages and stay married in those marriages give truck stop strippers a run for their money.

A ratio of fifty percent – half the men have no offspring, a quarter have one wife, a eighth have a wife and a “maid”, a sixteenth have a wife and two “maids” and so on and so forth would be pretty stable, since no possible combination of those missing out could overcome those getting some. We could dispense with the easy divorce, at least for wives. One should enforce patriarchal monogamy, which is to say, the socialist equal rationing of pussy, to the extent necessary to ensure a majority of men are attached to society at a youthful age, but enforcing it more than that might well be overkill.

40 Responses to “Power laws in polygyny”

  1. Mark Yuray says:

    Jim, your skill at realtalk is truly impressive.

    Thoughts on Western norm of “wife for [more or less] every man?” Anomaly? Alternative strategy?

    • Alrenous says:

      Apparently it’s 87% and 81% respectively. http://www.megacz.com/random/what.percentage.of.humans.reproduce.html

      Though I’m sure they didn’t correct for cucking, putting the true male number in the low seventies.

      • jim says:

        If 81%, we are doing very well by historical standards, and should not muck with what is working, but I find this figure hard to believe.

        • Recusancy says:

          “had a biological child” does not equal “surviving genes”, which is what you were measuring

          Bill Clinton looks like he had a biological child. Will have have any grandkids? Did Hillary cuckold him? I don’t know. In either case, his genes will not survive.

          • Alrenous says:

            Even if the distribution were completely flat, some men would be predisposed to have more kids. The lesser betas would be predisposed to have about one.
            At average one child per generation, there’s a roughly 2/3rd chance they won’t have great-grandkids.
            Of course the men having more kids are skewing the average, meaning men predisposed to have about one kid have a much less than 70% chance of having that kid.

          • B says:

            You are conflating sexual success with offspring surviving to reproductive age.

            Even taking the faggoty PUA hierarchy at face value, I notice that the guys I know sleeping with lots of women tend to have very few children (and those children tend to have all sorts of issues growing up which inhibit their reproductive success.) The guys I see raising large families of well-adjusted children who have large families of their own generally are the kind of guys who don’t sleep with lots of women. This is the case in American gentile society as well. The correlation does not hold in underclass society, where sex and reproduction are correlated and reproduction and parenting not much so.

            Generally, if a man dedicates years of his life to sleeping with lots of women, something has gone sideways in his existence. The longer this period goes on, the more women, but the harder this is to recover from to have a large family. Roissy has no children, for instance. Neither do any of the PUA celeb bloggers I know of. Being an “alpha” in their sense=going extinct. With fireworks, though.

            • jim says:

              In the modern era, we have contraception and abortion.

              We also have female emancipation, which I doubt ever exists for very long. Assuming unemancipated females, the historical norm though not the present day norm, people who sleep with lots of women have lots of wives and concubines, so their sexual activities are likely to directly result in large numbers of offspring.

          • B says:

            This is like the Russian saying that if Grandma had a dick, she’d have been Grandpa.

            We do, in fact, have contraception and abortion. And we see that the women who tend to sleep with “alphas” tend not to want to have their children.

            In a non-African society without contraception and abortion en masse (female emancipation being sort of a secondary product of the above, I won’t consider it as a standalone factor,) you don’t have “alphas” in the PUA sense, i.e., guys who sleep with lots of women who are not theirs. I mean, I guess you could sleep with lots of prostitutes, but that wouldn’t really get you reproductive success.

            The point is that the idea that “lesser betas are predisposed to have less children” is idiotic. If anything, it’s the opposite. A guy who is focused on work, hobbies, anything other than chasing pussy is normal. And is more predisposed to have more children who achieve reproductive success.

      • B says:

        From what I’ve seen, rates of false paternity are quite low in Western societies (not accounting for 3rd world pockets in the West like Detroit.)

        http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/#.VQ_ZzY6UeLA

        The rates you assume are about equal to those found in Detroit and ten times higher than in !kung society.

    • jim says:

      Obviously a good system, but an anomaly. If most men only get a wife when her reproductive career is ending, it is not really a wife for every man, but a return to normality – normality being that most men only get the leftovers after their betters have finished using them.

      A wife for every man (or at least most men) would mean a virgin for every man, and then she sticks with that man permanently.

      • Recusancy says:

        If we have a virgin wife for every man, then female widows cannot remarry.

        Given how often women died in childbirth, and general mortality prior to 1800, I imagine that a large portion of the reproductive disparity in men was just whether 30+ year old man could remarry after his wife died.

  2. Alrenous says:

    To bond with the children women first need to bond with the father. Casual sex forces a purely chemical bond, bypassing and preventing any higher sort of bond.

  3. peppermint says:

    the riceniggers now have “men” who will tearfully kneel and publicly apologize to “their” women. Presumably they evolved their insectoid betatude through polygyny and oppressive governance.

    the niggers had informal polygyny and little governance, so they are savages.

    we do not traditionally have polygyny and see royal bastards as scandalous. thats why we are neither betas nor savages.

    how many children do the (White) prostitutes and concubines have? I’m assuming not as many as married women, and their children are automatically and inexorably lower status, so they have a much harder time having children of their own. With the niggers, by contrast, all women are whores, and all men are the sons of whores, so there is no status distinction; they are egalitarian savages, and egalitarianism sounds so much nicer than condemning the intelligent son of a man of means and his maid to a life in service to country or church.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      What? QUOTE: we do not traditionally have polygyny and see royal bastards as scandalous. ENDQUOTE

      Take a history class, kid. Unless by “we” you mean the Graeco-Roman Empire. The Germanic, Celtic, and Anglo-Saxon peoples had to have polygamy pried from their cold dead fingers over many centuries. Charlemagne, the great Christian king? Had 9 wives/concubines. Bastardy wasn’t much of a barrier either. William the Conqueror, for instance.

      Western Civilization is doomed to fall, and will be replaced by a people that practice property rights in land, and in people. Neither type of property right is respected in the West.

      • peppermint says:

        this one in 17 or even one in 3 theory is actually more retarded than the “right of first night” hoax. The reason Corporal Minestomper is willing to put his balls on the line to do what Sir Lancelot says is that he’s hoping if he does well he can be like his immediate superior Sergeant Onechild. And Corporal Minestomper keeps the creepy faggots in line by threatening them with exile.

        If you knew something about Western culture, instead of being one of the fresh-off-the-boat invasive asian insect vancouverite cinaedi, you would know about King Arthur (fun fact: his name literally means father) being cucked by his knight Lancelot (wink wink, nudge nudge). Why does Lancelot need to do stuff with Guinevere when he can have any barmaid and peasantwyf in England? Why does Arthur, who is more legendary than Charlemagne, wielding the sword of Julius Caesar while using a Brythonic name, consent to being cucked instead of having nine and twenty wives and concubines?

        Now back to diddling little boys which are the closest thing to a woman you’ll ever see you retarded mudslime.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2tGqFjdX8A

        • Nyan Sandwich says:

          What are you even trying to say here peppermint? Also, are you in Vancouver?

          • peppermint says:

            no, i’m just trying to pun cinaedi with canadian while calling him a ricenigger with no appreciation of western culture or values. i don’t actually know anything about vancouver other than that their hockey team lost to boston a few years ago they city is full of chinamen

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            peppermint substitutes 500 year old stories about a mythical king, for actual historical facts about real Angle, Saxon, Norman, Frank, and other men that lived 1000 years ago.

            https://nithgrim.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/viking-marriage-customs/

            Congratulations, he figured out what city I live in. Very smart! Nice pun on “Canada” and “Cicada”, comparing Chinese Canadians to insects. Very creative.

            Eventually peppermint will have to grow up and leave his mothers basement. If “he” actually is a male.

            Pussy goes to the dominant males in all times and places. In sane, civilized times, these dominant males acknowledge all their children, without this perverted sneaking around, lying, orphaning, and cuckolding that Christians practice.

  4. Dave says:

    An interesting twist is when the excluded men import wives, as I did, from less wealthy countries. I suppose this is dysgenic, in the likely case that the other country is poor because its genetics are poor.

    I come from a fairly prosperous WASP family that no woman has married out of since 1923. I’m raising my daughter without formal education or luxury goods (trailer park, clothes from Walmart, no trips to Disney World, etc.) in hopes of marrying her to a nice guy at 18 on her great-great-aunt’s 100th anniversary.

    I wonder if, assuming the USA is still a femocracy in 2035, my sons will travel to their mother’s country to find wives; maybe they’ll even take friends along.

    • Recusancy says:

      >An interesting twist is when the excluded men import wives, as I did, from less wealthy countries.
      In the past, it was more common that excluded men run off to third-world countries to find a wife. A low-status Spaniard male can get lots of pussy in Mexico.

      Thus colonialism.

    • peppermint says:

      the last thing the WASPs did before they went gently into that good night is give their names to the Negroid pets

      • Dave says:

        The fall of the Soviet Union opened up a lot of white countries to wife prospectors, so if my kids are genetically inferior, it doesn’t show in their faces.

        There won’t be any more mail-order brides after America reaches full socialism, but then you can just head over to the nearest squatter camp and buy yourself a 12*-year-old white virgin.

        * If you find no virgins, decrease this number until you do.

  5. Recusancy says:

    You’re exaggerating.

    1) The study seems to be examining surviving male lines, not men who had regular sex. Men can have regular sex, but not have children who survive to adulthood, for various reasons. Infertile wife, the man dies young, his children die in infancy, et cetera.

    Not to mention stuff like Levirate marrriage, where a man’s genes are still (partially) passed on, but through his brother. And cuckoldry, where a man (who may be having sex with his wife) still doesn’t reproduce.

    2) The source in the comments section of your previous post apparently concluded that “40% of the men and 80% of the women” reproduced. If so, then we have significantly conflicting results.

    http://genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2015/02/18/gr.186684.114.DC1/Supplemental_Figures.pdf

    And if 20% of women didn’t reproduce due to infertility/death, then we can expect a lot more than 20% of males didn’t reproduce due to infertility/death. Males engage in higher-risk behaviors, so they die more.

    3) Primitive human tribes don’t seem to have a large male underclass who doesn’t get sex. In general, they dispose of them through high-risk male behaviors – which tends to result in the low-status males dying, or otherwise leaving the tribe. A modern equivalent of this is prison, where 5% of all black males live.

    Really, it means that 50% of the men have at least one wife, and 20% are dead, and 10% are in a monastic order/prison/whatever.

  6. Reed says:

    Do you see any dysgenic features of polygamy? Houellebecq has also argued that polygamy is eugenic, and I want to agree, but the societies that practice it are so undeveloped that it is difficult for me to appreciate. How do you reconcile this? How can you explain the superiority of strict monogamy in comparison to, what I guess I’ll call, chattel marriage, where wives are purchasable, traded property?

    In ancient or paleo times I wonder if this rift did not exist so much, becuase many intelligent men seem incapable of getting/keeping a woman.

    I understand the history and the math behind your point however, the reality of polygamous degeneracy seems so evident in the shit places its practiced. I wish you would explain this discrepancy.

    Thank you for your work.

    • jim says:

      Logically, one would expect polygamy to be eugenic.

      Yet, observing the world, does not look much like it. And I have no explanation of this anomaly.

      One possible explanation is that monogamous societies were less monogamous than they seemed: Members of the elite had a wife and a bunch of maids. His sons by his wife joined the elite. His daughters by his wife became wives of the elite, thus providing elite to elite bonds.

      Another possible explanation is that until recently we had high birth rates and high death rates, and monogamy increased elite survivorship, by protecting elite women, and that this differential death rate was the predominant eugenic effect.

      But these explanations sound more like excuses than explanations.

      • Reed says:

        I think that polygamy is dysgenic, – which is counterintuitive. But most psychopaths are morons. It takes a certain kind of psycho to be capable of raping/capturing so many women. A sane man may want to do it, but he will never act on his desires. One/two women is as far as an intelligent man will go. The result is psycho-moron domination of breeding in polygamous society.

        Polygamy seems obvious to me, but it also seems so dangerous. Monogamy results in women dreaming they are “equal” but polygamy results in psychos, cousin sex, and low IQ.

        The only explanation for the discrepancy is a combination of patriarchal monogamy and warfare. Polygamists must screw themselves to worthlessness.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          Polygamy is eugenic for what matters; beauty and sexiness in women, strength in men. Once food and shelter needs are met, technology is really superfluous; it is mere peacock feathers. Monogamous societies are sad, sad places compared to polygamous patriarchies.

      • Reed says:

        After thinking about it more and reading your older posts I believe I found it Sir.

        Monogamy limits dissent. It is, as you say, socialist pussy. It conserves resources sexually. Therefore, those who engage in marriage (when all are forced to do so) see some who fail and some who succeed (at life). It is a most simplified system of elimination that excludes huge uncontrolled clannish polygamous families.

        All are forced into a 1/1 combination and the outcome of that combination is what stands the test. It is not a top-down polygamous selection based on the best a-male, but a kind of result based selection. It is forced. “Alpha” activity is not allowed, which cleanses man-whores and psychos.

        Monogamy may be the only format in which a eugenic system works because with a polygamy idiot-breeding can go out of control.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          Monogamy doesn’t change male and female sexual desire. It creates a race of orphans and cuckolds, and empowers women in their mistreatment of each other.

          There is a reason for sororities. And synchronized swimming. Women know at an instinctual level, that a woman in a group of women is more attractive than she is by herself.

      • Red says:

        Polygamists marriages tend to be on the basis of sexual attractiveness of the female rather than qualities more prone to create civilized behavior. If you only have one wife, you or your parents are more likely to select someone who is hard working, submissive, and of general good all around quality. Where as female sexual must be controlled to prevent the destruction of civilization through coupling with unsuitable men, male sexuality must be controlled by only allowing his legitimate children to be recognized as fully human and by forcing him to pick a solid women for his wife.

      • peppermint says:

        Cows have one alpha in the herd that fucks all the bitchez. Zebras have little herds in which the bitchez are attached to a stallion so he doesn’t kill their babbies. Goats get in fights before they go find the women to decide what the rankings are and then choose women according to their rank. So, incidentally, do salmon.

        So what’s more eugenic, winner takes all or ranking?

        Monogamy is fine. It’s what causes White people, and White people are great.

      • Peppermint says:

        I’ve said this over and over here. If you want to know why monogamy, go take a glider and ask an eagle while he’s fishing. He’ll half explain it to you, then swoop down and grab a fish, and bring it back to his mate who’s guarding the eyrie against coons quickly so she doesn’t start to suspect him of twotiming.

        Penguin are even more monogamous, sticking with the same partner every season. Don’t fix what isn’t broken.

        How do you evolve a population of industrious and individualistic humans, as opposed to niggers or rice niggers?

        Polygamy sounds like an optimization, but the point of sex in the first place was to keep a bigger genome clean, and ranked mating with as many children as you can support is also a eugenic program. Polygamy just requires too much mate-guarding and swag, nigga.

        • Peppermint says:

          Coons are only dangerous to eggs and children. They pose no threat to adults because they’re too stupid to shoot straight, so adults don’t even look at them because they’re just overgrown disease-carrying vermin and the diseases they carry don’t even affect us.

      • Koanic says:

        Re eugenic polygamy:

        Firstly, one must distinguish between r-selected and K-selected polygamy. Only the latter will be eugenic, in the K sense that you mean. This rules out e.g. the modern black countries. Although you might be able to find some aristocratic black polygamists somewhere in Africa.

        Secondly, one must account for the western European egalitarian bias, which opposes polygamy. This massively weights the real-world correlation between polygamy and K selection, because the only other high-IQ group is the Northeast Asians.

        NE Asian polygamy, de-facto and de jure, seems eugenic.

        As for WEuropean polygamy, what examples do we have? I have some fuzzy ideas, but I can’t do what you do anywhere near as well.

        It seems to me that when you say “observing the world”, you are being unduly influenced by correlations irrelevant to the question of whether polygamy would be eugenic for WEuropeans. Perhaps if you narrow your focus, you can crack this issue, as you have so many others.

  7. Atavisionary says:

    There is some misleading information about the dysgenic effects going on. The first problem is that male intelligence is actually mismeasured by quite a bit:

    http://atavisionary.com/how-standardized-testing-undervalues-men/

    Most IQ tests are very verbal skewed because progs designed them to make men and women appear equal, which required tossing items men do better at and adding items women do better at because women really aren’t as smart as men. In addition, though I value the researchers who do the dysgenics studies, a number of them depended on tests which were purely verbal in nature. That is a systematic flaw in those studies which likely means at least some of the men tagged as low-IQ are probably smarter than it appears on the surface. To a large extent, I believe income is a fairer measure of male intelligence because it doesn’t depend on tests manipulated by progs. When you look at that data, male fertility increases with wealth, which means it is increasing with IQ. Lowest income men are childless at almost 30% compared to around 10% of high income men. Eugenic to say the least. I suspect male typical spatial ability better facilitates income generation than verbal intelligence, and that is the ability almost all IQ tests ignore.

    The opposite pattern is true for women. Increasing income even more starkly decreases their fertility than it increases it in men.

    What this means is that changes in intelligence aren’t dysgenic or eugenic, they are sexually antagonistic. Natural selection favors intelligence in men while working against it in women. We aren’t seeing intelligence going away in the modern environment, what we are seeing is a readjustment of the equilibrium frequency of intelligence boosting alleles. With women free to fuck up by choosing life paths other than motherhood, the detriment to benefit ratio of the genes have increased which must result in the reduction in the frequency of the genes. The good news is that the benefit to males hasn’t changed much at all and given the way sexual antagonism works for recessive X linked intelligence genes (a substantial fraction of all intelligence genes) there is virtually zero chance that the equilibrium frequency of intelligence genes will be reduced to zero. Male biased genes with those attributes always stabilize at above zero frequencies. After that happens, natural selection will work towards making the genes more sex limited. IE, make sure that they only boost intelligence in males and are turned off in females. Clearly, this has already been happening for some time given the differences between men and women as they exist today. The new environment will just exacerbate this trend further. Needless to say, feminism has really fucked women over in the intelligence department.

    • jim says:

      That should select for sex linked genes that make men smarter and women dumber.

      Unfortunately, most genes affecting intelligence are not sex linked. IQ is dominated by genetic load, which will never be significantly sex linked, because the Y chromosome is already degenerate.

      Earlier puberty for women, and later puberty for men, is controlled by largely sex linked genes, and does have the effect of making men smarter and women dumber, so we should be evolving towards greater disparity in age of puberty, and there are some indications that we are.

      We could artificially achieve the same effect. You can initiate puberty earlier in females by giving them certain very cheap hormones that can be supplied by skin patch, ointment, or by an injecting in one shot that slowly dissolves and enters the bloodstream over six months. You can delay puberty in males but it requires regular and expensive injections. Of course, accelerating female puberty would only be a safe and sane thing to do in a society in which women tended to get a strong guiding hand from parents and husbands. In our society, girls with early puberty tend to go hog wild and fuck everyone. And in a society where women are restrained from hypergamy, we might well not get dysgenic failure to reproduce by smart women, making increased sexual differentiation in IQ unnecessary.

  8. […] from Jim this week, some commentary regarding the Dire Statistic: Power laws in polygyny. And Racism Schmacism. Also this: explaining an Ever Purer Islam, which lies in stark contrast with […]

Leave a Reply