Time to travel to the Upper Paleolithic. Note that the tribe of the era and a contemporary tribe somewhere in Amazon jungle are totally different in genetic and social composition. Although they look the same, a stone age tribe consisted of the (almost) same humans the human pack consisted of. It was raw material for evolution to work on. While a modern tribe is the end result of the fifty thousand years of evolution, an evolutionary dead end, either due to inability of this particular ethnicity to develop, or a remnant of a broken and degraded society.
Let us examine the tribe of the stone age. Men hunted, supplied women and children with meat, and protected them from predators and enemies. Women and elders worked in the cave (or camp) and gathered whatever food they could find nearby. Children grew up alongside the women and old men, learning about life from the women’s gossip and old men stories. Every biological unit had a well defined function and position within the tribe.
Men fulfilled the outer, most dangerous functions — hunt, defense, war, acquiring loot. These require physical strength, bravery, agility, powerful brain, curiosity, ability to learn, ability to work in teams, ability to sacrifice oneself for the group. This is why friendship, mutual aid, long term planning, ability to act under extreme stress and taking the group’s need into consideration are characteristic of male’s behavior. Men were a buffer between the group’s reproductive core (women and children) and aggressive environment, were cannon fodder for the society and raw material for evolution’s experiments. Only the strongest and most viable males got to reproduce. Without men, a tribe could not survive. Birth of a boy, future hunter and warrior, was considered a good luck — the more hunters and warriors, the stronger the tribe.
Children are simple. Their purpose is to survive, grow and learn. They were kept alongside women and older men to streamline the learning process from the women’s and old men’s talking. Children did not require any special education or upbringing, for their instinctive programs corresponded to their way of life. As children grew, they took greater participation in adult life, until they became adults, and that was it. None of the still existing tribes have any special education programs for children.
Old men. As a man’s reproductive function, and hormones (and the power of instinct) fades away, he becomes calmer (wiser), and more talkative. Likes to teach the young and verbally recollect his own young years. The old people kept the experience and knowledge of the tribe and fulfilled the role of the information and education center. With the increased level of satiety and safety a tribe could afford to put the survived old people on well fare, especially since the role they fulfilled made the tribe’s next generation more competitive.
Women’s basic purpose is reproductive. It takes several years to conceive, to bear, to birth and to raise the child till he or she can more or less function on his or her own. A woman was a very valuable, reproductive part of the tribe. She was always put in the safest and coziest place the tribe could afford, right next to the food and fireplace. A woman was a very valuable spoil of war. However, if there were not enough men to feed and protect all women and children a woman lost all her value, and some societies even resorted to female population control via female infanticide, burying wives with their husbands and other methods we nowadays consider barbaric. For a society, male is just as invaluable as female. A woman also duplicates the knowledge and learning center functions — in cases old men just did not make it (this explains why women are so talkative).
In order to fulfill her purpose, a woman needs to survive, by any means necessary, and to keep her children alive, to the best of her ability. To excel at this, a woman needs a set of qualities completely different from those men need to excel at hunting and fighting. Namely, adaptability to changes in the tribe and ability to avoid danger, care about herself first, self-centeredness, cunningness, shrewdness, conservatism, cowardice. Moral sentiments, sense of duty, integrity are, on the other hand, harmful, for if a woman becomes a war bounty, she needs to adapt to the winner’s tribe and to continue the winner’s lineage, as the stronger and more viable male. This is what is required for evolutionary advancement of human species, highest biological imperative. A woman must fall in love with the winner, accept his customs and believe in his gods, and do it all sincerely, while moral principles, traditions and men from her previous life must be forgotten as soon as possible (Stockholm’s syndrome).
There is another very important quality a woman needs to survive and to raise her children. She must be able to make a man — a smarter, stronger and more independent being than she is — to provide for her and to protect her. When the need arises, she must be able to put the man between her and the danger, to hide behind his back. To put it simple, a woman must be able to control a man.
These are the basics of functionality of the different elements in a stone age tribe. Let us forget for the time being about old men and children, we are interested in women in the context of their relationship with men. Men and women are two kinds of beings, with distinct function, and, therefore, physiology and behavior, and, most important, with different instinctive behavior. One should not be fooled by the fact that both men and woman look somewhat the same, can talk and are called humans.
And now, dear reader, lets examine how these two elements interact. Men and women. The first question is the question of power. Who controls who, and how. We will also use the term ‘dominate’. The dominating (higher) being the one that controls the dominated (lower) being. The methods of domination can be both physical and psychological. A lion tamer uses both a stick method, and the carrot method. The tamer’s goal is extraction of material resources to provide for himself, and the lion, while it serves the purpose. Similar relationship we can observe on the farm (farmer – cow), in the office (manager — worker), etc.
We will start with the smallest viable human commune — a family in the wilderness.
A family’s structure is simple and rational.
Woman with children stays in a safe cave with fire and food store. Her area of competence and domination — household, children and relationship with the man. If there is need for skins for clothes, or food, she lets the man know. And the man knows that if he does not provide for the family’s needs, the wife will not be graceful to him, she will nag him, he will lose comfort in the home and won’t get any pleasure from having sex. He knows that his wife, and children, whom he values and loves, will suffer and might die. Therefore, man complies his wife in her area of competence and provides for family’s needs. This way the woman successfully dominates in her area, with methods being psychological — sexual pressure.
The man’s area of competence is the buffer zone between the household and the environment. He takes care of the relationship between the family and the world at large. In the case of danger, he commands the woman to run, or to hide, or, if game became too scarce, to take the children and belongings and to move to a new place. The woman knows that if she does not obey, the man will get angry and beat her, furthermore, bad things such as enemies, starvation, predators might come, and she and the children will perish. Therefore, the woman complies the man in his area of competence. Also, the woman knows, that without rest, the man will not bring much from his hunting, he might even die and leave her and the children without meat and protection. The woman is very afraid to lose her man, she is gentle with him and tries to make the cave a good place for rest and pleasure, to cook the food more delicious. This way the man dominates in his area of competence, with methods being physical and psychological (fear)
The factor that limits the man from spreading his dominance over the woman’s area is the instinctive concentration of his attention on the outer world. A man’s world is separated into two opposite parts — vanguard and rearguard. Vanguard is the environment, that has to be defeated, conquered and exploited for resources. Vanguard is where “they” are. Rearguard is his estate, where he can recuperate and lick his wounds, where the women and children are that he brings his catch to. Where someone waits for him and supports emotionally. Where he feels good. Where “we” are. That rearguard has to be managed only when it is endangered. Without rearguard, without a place to rejuvenate a man is more vulnerable. And he has no reason to fight for resources with the environment, if there is nobody to use these resources.
The main factor that limits the woman from spreading her dominance over the man’s area is self preservation instinct, fear of the environment. A woman must survive at any cost and keep the children alive, this is her main purpose. She has no right to risk herself, fighting the environment, this is what men are for. Instead of fighting, she should get scared and run away. Woman’s fear of everything, including harmless frogs and mice is a manifestation of this instinctive program. If a woman dominates too harshly, if she demands too much from the man, nags him, pressures him emotionally and refuses sex — the man will leave, and she will be left alone with the hardships and dangers she is so afraid of. Instinctive fear of the world and fear to be left without a man is the emotional background of every woman, including modern ones. This fear is the main regulator of the life of the stone age tribe. If life is hard and dangerous, if the tribe is at war or is migrating, women fear, and men dominate. If a tribe is in a (short) period of abundance, it makes most sense to focus on the reproduction. Women stop being fearful and make the men to provide for them and their children. A woman’s world is too separated into two part — her “nest”, and “everything else”. The men are a part of everything else. A man could be used as a buffer between her nest and everything else, and thus become a part of her nest — temporarily.
To put it simply, in the ancient traditional balanced family everyone does his or her job, does not interfere with that of others’, really, really needs the partner, and, of course, values him or her.
This natural structure exists in the modern world when a family is an atomic unit of production of something that involves hard labor, for example, a farmer’s family. The man works in the field, creating resources, the woman works in the comfort and safety of the house, creating life support for the man and the children. A classical scene, in which the man comes home, and the woman serves dinner she cooked, and which is interpreted as “kitchen slavery” by the effete feminists, has a completely different meaning. The man needs to rest and eat before going back to the field. This is a part of the technological process, separation of labor which is needed to achieve highest efficiency. The author knows from personal experience of being in the agricultural business for many years. Man won’t even imagine to dominate in the house, if the technology of his feeding and resting is kept. Woman won’t get involved in the men’s business, if the family is adequately provided for. And she will not pressure him too much, for she will face starvation if the man leaves her for another woman and stop providing for the family. Such a pair is a balanced and stable system
One more, very important, thing. Imagine that you are the Creator (God, Nature, Evolution, name does not matter). You need to make a stronger, more independent and active being serve the weaker, less independent and active being. How would you design it? The solution is obvious — make the strong and smart one unable to make it without the weak one. It would also help if the strong being didn’t really understand the the methods and goals of the weak being. Could not perceive adequately. This is exactly the way it is designed. For a man, a woman is a “mystery”. Man is tied to the woman via sex. Not just physiologically, through necessity of releasing sexual tension, but psychologically as well, through the need to feel needed and appreciated, which is in hierarchical instinct group. A man simply does not feel complete without a woman, and can’t do anything about it. It is, of course, more complicated, and we will get into details further in the book, but the sexual attachment is the main one. Homo sapiens is not the only species, male member of which are attached to females via sex and have to get it via courting and feeding, but there is a major distinction. For most other species this attachment is episodic, and only lasts for the duration of mating period. Biologists refer to this as “inversion of domination”. I.e. normally it is males, as the stronger individuals, who dominate. They can even rob a female of her food. During inversion it is the other way around — females dominate, and males feed and please them in hopes for sex. In our species, the mating period lasts through the entire adult life. And women have an opportunity to dominate over the men all the time, starting from pubescent age. Have you ever seen a man forcefully take woman’s food? No, he wines and dines her in a restaurant in hopes to get a ration of sex. Or provides for her for life for regular sex.
The sexual attachment is, of course, not one sided. Women get pleasure from sex as well, but this attachment is of different kind, its purpose is to reinforce the biological choice and to keep the genetically superior procreator, so the woman’s pleasure mostly depends on whether or not her female instinct considers this particular male a top genetic material.
In natural conditions, the balance of power depends on whose area of competence, and which context the activity takes place in. When times are prosperous, it is females who dominate. When times are dangerous, and fight for survival intensifies it is males who dominate. When conditions change, domination inverts. Either the woman, in fear, hides behind man’s back and lets him lead, or, when conditions change the other way, the woman controls the man and directs his activities to better service her and her children. The more militant the society is, the more men dominate. The harder the life of a social group, the more men dominate. The safer and easier life is, the more women dominate.
So, to answer the question about who has the power in a man/woman pair, the female takes the dominating position if there is no external threat present. When there is, it is the male. Switching places, inversion of domination occurs at the command of instinctive programs, which get activated by change in external conditions.
Having dealt with a pair, let us examine the hierarchy of a tribe that consists of large (100+) amount of individuals of both genders. The first difference between a tribe and a family is a large and powerful buffer section — there are many men in the tribe. I.e. loss of a single man is not dangerous for the tribe’s survival, and it has no effect on tribe’s reproductive capacity — males make a line to procreate. Second is that the tribe is not uniform, there are strong and weak individuals, smart and stupid, etc, and, what is important for our narrative — there are high-rank and low-rank, high-instinct-drive and low-instinct drive.
The hierarchy of the tribe is the same pyramid we have seen in a pack. The position in the hierarchy (rank) is determined by general viability of the individual. In an ancient tribe the viability is measured using the same set of criteria, as in a pack — rank potential (ambition) plus physical ability plus aggressiveness. The pyramid is being kept from collapsing not as much by the harshness of the leader, but by rational motivation and understanding, and altruism of the lower levels.
The pyramid of power is topped by the leader — the most aggressive and strongest warrior. He stone axe is the fastest and most accurate in the tribe, and challenging his power is dangerous. Psychologists call this man ‘alpha’. Ethologists call this man ‘high-rank’. Below the leader — the strongest and most aggressive men of the tribe (after the leader) — mid-rank gammas. Every one of them has a chance to take the leader’s place under the right conditions. Below them — the rest of the men, low-rank omegas, who don’t even dream about becoming a leader, but do dream about and aspire to become mid-rank.
High-ranks get the best and fattest cuts. They are adored by women. Since we are dealing with biological foundation and basic instinctive programs of our species, it makes sense to use the ethologists — scientists who study animal behavior and instincts — terminology.
Traits of a high rank (according to Protopopov):
High self esteem, self evaluation, and low evaluation of others.
Lack of any self doubt.
Self comfort as one of the top priorities.
Optimism, confidence in the future.
Tendency to make fast decisions.
Ability to act with disregard for others’ opinion and problems.
High threshold of realization of own’s guilt.
Determination, entrepreneurship, initiative, perseverance.
Difficulties with self-criticism, and poor acceptance of criticism.
Big managerial, social and material (financial) ambitions.
Good organizational ability.
Openness, impudence, extravertness.
Stubbornness, obtrusiveness? selfishness.
High conflict resistance.
Low-rank traits (according to Protopopov):
Low self-esteem, tendency to form inferiority complex.
Ability to bear with discomfort and dangerous life (and work) conditions.
Tendency toward pessimism and depression, insecurity in the future.
Indecisiveness, hesitation and rethinking before making a decision.
Dependency on the opinion of others, fear to offend, reflexivity.
Low guilt threshold, shamefacedness (feeling of guilt appears at the slightest cause).
Lack of career or material ambition.
Low organizational skills.
Altruism, self sacrifice, self criticism.
Respect toward authorities, religiousness.
Shyness, compliance, modesty, law-abidness.
Sensibility and sensitivity.
Women are, in a sense, to the side — they are not in the men’s hierarchy, they form a hierarchy of their own, position in which depends on the position of woman’s man in the hierarchy (if any), and/or how much resources she managed to squeeze out of mid- and low rank men. Women unite quickly when they need to throw men a scandal. Women’s part of the tribe forms the reproductive core of the tribe, which is a lot more cohesive than men are. And not just psychologically, but physiologically as well. Each and every woman gives stares to the leader and the strongest warriors. None of them like weak men. Which makes perfect sense from biological standpoint — the next generation should be viable, therefore, it should be fathered by strong, viable men. A weak and non-viable should not reproduce, even if there is a surplus of women. This is the reason behind practice of polygamy in many cultures. A viable (and, consequentially, rich) man has many women, and fathers many children. Many animal species follow the same pattern — strong males have harems, and weak ones have no chance to mate with a female. Everything is rational and logical from evolutionary standpoint.
For as long as the tribe was small, all human instincts corresponded their biological purpose and their lifestyle. The majority of men in a tribe were strong and quite aggressive, with high rank potential and with behavior controlled by the instincts. In other words, they didn’t think about the meaning of life much, and lived as they wanted, lived a simple life. What they wanted was dictated by aforementioned instincts. Human desires and emotions are manifestation of instincts that control the human. People, who live by their instincts, by their desires and emotions, are called high-instinct-drive. Living by the mind and reason — low-instinct drive. We are most interested in the high-rank low-instinct-drive members of our tribe. Psychologists call such men ‘beta’. These are the men, who trust their reason over their feelings. In the stone age tribe, this beta man was either the shaman (apprentice), or a skilled hunter, who preferred the excitement of the hunt to the struggle for higher spot in the hierarchy. There were very few of them, because it was still more advantageous from evolutionary standpoint to be a high-instinct-drive. Besides, a high-rank low-instinct-drive was very disliked by the high-rank high-instinct-drive leader, whose male hierarchical instinct recognized a competitor — both the shaman and a successful hunter had a lot of respect from their fellow tribesmen, had their own opinion and interests, which invariably undermined the leader’s authority. However, the leader needed both the shaman and the successful hunters, and, since neither really aimed to take his place, he tolerated them — in small quantities. Women’s female instinct failed to understand why the betas are unlike the others, and perceived low-instinct-drive as low rank. I.e. very few women could love them. In the following millennia, as the societies grew in size, the betas role has grown, they reproduced and built our civilization.
For understanding the rest of the book, it is imperative that the reader memorizes the following terms:
High-rank — confident, successful, cool.
Low-rank — weakling and loser.
High-instinct-drive (high-primative in the original) — living by the emotions and desires (instincts).
Low-instinct-drive (low-primative in the original) — capable of rational behavior, of using rationality to suppress emotions and desires
Rank potential — ambition, ability to grow in rank
Types of males:
High-rank high-instinct-drive — rowdy presumptuous untrainable and uncontrollable, constantly proving himself in fights. A chief and leader in the ancient world, a loser-alcoholic or bandit today.
High-rank low-instinct-drive — confident strong and smart male. Shaman or skillful hunter in the ancient world, successful businessman, manager or professional today.
Low-rank high-instinct-drive — loser, coward and a crud.
Low-rank low-instinct-drive — weakling and coward, but trainable. Food for tigers in the ancient world, small clerk today.
Mid-ranks combine the qualities of the low-ranks and high-ranks in various proportions. Interacting with low ranks, they act as high ranks, interacting with high ranks, they act as low ranks.
No matter how low the instinct drive is, it is never at zero — a human can never suppress his instincts completely, only to some extent. High-instinct-drive can’t do it all. Furthermore, instincts are able to turn the mind off. For example, a high-instinct-drive child might ignore anything a teacher says because his instinct does not perceive the teacher as authoritative, high-rank enough. If we raise the authority of the teacher, or bring the elements of game, the block disappears, and the child starts to learn. I.e. instincts can be manipulated. Another example, man’s mind says that the man needs to lose some weight, but the mind is no match for the food instinct. In this case, the man can convince himself that he needs to lose weight to become more attractive to young women, and the reproduction instincts starts to work against the food instinct, which makes it easier for the mind. These methods are used in psychotherapy. When instincts control the weak mind, it is called stupidity. When instinct control the strong mind, it is called passion.
To summarize, the stone age tribe consisted mostly of high-instinct-drive individuals with high rank potential. They were controlled by instinctive behavior programs both of the pack level, and the tribe with pair structure level. These programs formed when people lived in small groups and were surrounded by wild nature, and they corresponded to these conditions. The main difference between tribe and pack level instincts are the weak altruistic instincts, biological moral, low-instinct-drive and the behavior in a male-female stable bonded pair.
Everything described in this chapter, all the qualities, behavioral elements and baseis of relationships, that have appeared during the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution of our genus and dozens of thousands of years of evolution of our species, the behavioral elements and and basics, have been genetically embedded as congenital instincts. It is hard to accept something that every biologists knows — WE HAVEN’T CHANGED SINCE. Sure, the lion cloth is now called a mini skirt, is made of a different material, and all the woolly mammoths have been eaten. Everything else — the same. Everything we just saw a the tribe of our ancestors — is consolidated in our instincts (congenital biological behavioral programs) today. Our contemporary civilized life consts of the bits and pieces of these programs, while mind, upbringing and education service them, and, sometimes, correct them to a small extent.
Our species formed when humans lived in small groups — a family, a small tribe. We have ingrained programs for survival and living in such a small group on the brink of starvation and surrounded by danger. Our instincts haven’t changed — but the environment did. And our instincts no longer correspond to our environment, instincts control and direct as as if we still live in the stone age, while we are surrounded artifacts of technological civilization.
Such evolutionary nonsense is rare, but not unheard of. For example, honey bees is a tropical species that has adapted to the cold climate of the glacial period. They didn’t have evolutionary time to adapt to the cold physiologically. While any fly, living in a temperate climate, can freeze during the winter and revive in the spring, the bees die from frostbite at eight degrees Celsius (fifty Fahrenheit). To keep the temperature warm during the cold weather, the bees gather honey during the summer to fuel their winter activity — forming a cluster around the queen, and shivering. If there wasn’t enough honey gathered, the bees die from cold. If there was too much honey gathered, the bees die still — they fill all the combs with the gathered honey and run out of space to raise the new generation. Bees also have a habit of making a nest in a place that would be good in tropical climate, but is unsuited for wintering. I.e. neither physiology, nor instinctive behavior of bees is well suited for the conditions they live in.