I have to admit Banker, your statistics were eye opening. Ironic, unify people tears apart families.Originally Posted by Banker
Freighter. Let's be clear here. I dont have a problem with his action. None whatsoever. Live and let live, do what feels good and all that shit. But it's his condescending words that follow that irritate the ever livin shit, piss, fuck, and vinegar out of me.
Last edited by moses; 08-14-2017 at 02:21 PM.
Actually as you may know I minored in anthropology. This is a social anthropology issue that has theories that go back to the 1980's. We have all heard of the 7 year itch. We all know that one thing we needed to do in evolution to have the brain capacity we have was being born with an unformed skull so we could get a bigger brain through the birth canal. This left a woman with the task of raising a very vulnerable youngster. Now if the father or even another male could be made to be a true family partner until their offspring was old enough to be much more fit to survive with less attention, it was a huge advantage for survival of the offspring. At the age of around 4 years old the child's brain becomes more developed and they need far less care. Thus if the male were to stand by his mate for at least 7 years his offspring was far more likely to survive into adulthood. There is a courting phase, they must conceive and carry the baby to a nine month term and then invest at least 4 years as partners in raising the offspring.
Helen Fisher came up with this theory and I was lucky enough to attend a seminar she conducted shortly after getting peer review approval of her theory in the late 1980's. The idea is the time it takes to court a mate get pregnant and raise a child until he is old enough to need less tending is the time people are programmed to pair bond. This allows one parent to mostly care for the baby while the other tends to other thing necessary for survival. An unattended baby due a a single parent being distracted by tending to the daily needs would be easy prey for any predator. We have evolved socially considerably since then. The dawn of religion allowed for much larger cooperative projects and specialization of trade as the community spread beyond a family or even tribe so cities could be born. But that survival advantage of standing by a mate is strongly genetically imprinted into who we are. Fisher believed we were programmed to be serial monogamists. Pairing up long enough to greatly increase the likelihood of the survival of our offspring. One would only assume that after that much time together the bonds between pairs or parent and offspring might be enough to have them stay together much longer. Obviously there are social constructs in some cultures that help facilitate this.
Interesting social theories. The genetic drives, however, for females and males are quite different. For the female to pass her genes, she needs to go through pregnancy and labor. It is a big commitment and she needs the male to raise the children. The male goal is to fertilize as many females as possible to ensure passage of his genes. In fact, there is a correlation in higher vertebrates between the size of testicles (amount of sperms) and the tendency to infidelity. Gorillas have small testicles compared to chimpanzees. The latter are much more promiscuous. Humans are in between.
Good to know I made so many folks feel good about their moral superiority. Real fact is that my spouse is 19 years younger than me, I can't meet her sexual needs and we agree to not hurt each other and when we do things that might hurt the other, we ensure we do it far enough and discreet enough so it's not thrown in each other's face. I don't want her to sacrifice her needs for me and vice versa. Now, if you don't have anything blackjack related, stop getting in this thread!!
You miss the point. Being genetically successful isn't having the most offspring. It is having the most offspring live long enough to reproduce. Being there when your children require a lot more oversight really increases genetic success. Animals that abandon their mate before birth and the females don't become receptive until their young reach a certain age often develop the strategy of killing all the young they find in order to get the female ready to mate again. Grizzlies can take years to be ready to mate as they are still putting all their genetic energy invested into raising they young to a certain point where they will more certainly survive. The boar doesn't know which cubs are his and is best served genetically by killing every cub he gets the chance to kill so the female will be receptive sooner. The sows are usually pretty good at protecting their cubs. But the boar is always looking for an opportunity.
The point is that our ancestors needed both parents to be together as a family for at least enough time for the offspring to have a much higher rate of survival. To explain so you can understand easily. Neo-homosapien A just sires as many offspring as possible. Very few if any make it to 4 years old because the mother is too distracted with trying to get food etc to keep her baby and/or her from being eaten. Neo-homosapien B has far fewer offspring but almost every one matures to reproductive age. Neo-homosapien B has more offspring that reach maturity and females that select neo-homosapien A as a mate are unlikely to have their offspring reach maturity. A social mechanism for selection for the females to choose mates that would stay around evolved at the same time selection for males that stayed around also evolved. The females learn to select mates that will remain possibly not being receptive until the courter has remained with her for a long time through natural selection. The males genetically learn to stay with their mate through the successful raising of their offspring past its most vulnerable years. This is natural selection for a behavior that is necessary when offspring is born so helpless after investing so much in the development of the brain and less in the development of the body. Natural selection works on both sexes to make both the selection of a male by a female and the behavior of those males that tend to be selected to form a pair bond that lasts until their young is out of danger. The longer the bond the more likely they would produce a third generation not a second. Now there is nothing preventing a man from having a harem or a female from having more than one man help through the crucial period of raising their young. But the bonds of working as a team long enough to assure a third generation from their offspring is what makes them genetically successful. If the child dies when young and vulnerable he/she will never reproduce to make a third generation. You genetics are wasted on a dead end offspring which has 0 EV in the survival of the fittest. The hand is a loser.
IF you get arrested Fenix..........I'm sure, unlike in Morgenstern's case, you will find PLENTY of friends to post your bail.............
"Women and cats will do as they please, and Men and dogs should just relax and get used to the idea" --- Robert A. Heinlein
Yes, I have two friends in Vegas I'm certain would and another who most likely would post bail. I think it would be the least of my worries. I'd be more concerned about losing my career. If it wrongfully cost me my job, I'd get much more than 80k.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
okay. Let's talk blackjack. You wouldve been singing a different song had the dealer not busted on your splits of 33 vs 3 measuring out to 5 bets.
Wait. $130 for a roundtrip flight? If that is offered regularly, you could park a car in Vegas and fly for less than it costs to drive across states.
I could care less what Zee does on his personal time. I was simply pointing out the irony in his statement. He claims that becoming a "serious" blackjack player requires selling your soul and character. Meanwhile, Zee is posting about bringing hookers to his room. That's the pot calling the kettle black.
Last edited by Ryemo; 08-15-2017 at 08:46 AM. Reason: spelling error
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks