Matthew Effect, Pareto Principle, and Polygyny

[NS4Liberty]

If you are unfamiliar with the Pareto Principle, this Jordan Peterson video is a great introduction:

For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
— Matthew 25:29, RSV.

I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
— Luke 19:26, RSV.

For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
— Mark 4:25, RSV.

Take heed then how you hear; for to him who has will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.
— Luke 8:18, RSV.

And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."
— Matthew 13:11–12, RSV.

It seems to me wide adoption of polygyny will lead to a Pareto distribution of wives where 20% of men are married to 80% of the women. Monogamy on the other hand is a sort of socialism of wives, you only get your "fair share".

Considering all the disclaimers about this not being a dating site and all the conversations regarding polygyny friendly dating sites, it is obvious there is a lot of interest in finding multiple wives. It seems to me, the best way to find another wife is by being a good steward of the wife/wives you have and then more women will be more inclined to join your family. A good "review" by a wife will be better than any dating profile could be. Then a man with multiple satisfied wives is like likely to attract more wives. That is how the Pareto principle works.

Do you think the Pareto distribution would apply to wives? Should it?

Should we view relationships in economic terms? (ex. Sexual Market Value)

 

[NickF]

It seems to me, the best way to find another wife is by being a good steward of the wife/wives you have and then more women will be more inclined to join your family. A good "review" by a wife will be better than any dating profile could be. Then a man with multiple satisfied wives is like likely to attract more wives. That is how the Pareto principle works.

Of course. This is how monogamy works. Women and men both look for the best “deal” they can get. If you want a second wife and you can’t seem to attract one. Be better! This doesn’t mean you aren’t good enough, but striving for personal development is always a good goal regardless of if you’re as perfect as me. (total sarcasm btw)

Do you think the Pareto distribution would apply to wives? Should it?

Does it? We have a billion dollar cosmetics and beauty industry. Not sure if the Pareto distribution applies in this instance but it sure seems as if we all inherently understand that the most beautiful women garner the most attention. Should it? Who cares if it “should”, if it does. We need to work with reality.

The sluttiest and nastiest women won’t receive offers of marriage. The laziest and stupid men won’t attract the attention of women. I think this is a good thing.

Should we view relationships in economic terms? (ex. Sexual Market Value)

No, we shouldn’t think this way exclusively. People are more than their sexuality. A woman with horrible facial scarring is still deserving of love and care.

But we need to be cognizant of the reality of this harsh truth. Women, if you are single and mid 20’s. You might need to critically inspect your standards and consider lowering them. (In regards to how handsome a man must be) because your main beauty facet is youthful fertility and that rapidly diminshes after about 24-26. The wall is unforgiving.

We should all recognize if we have a flaw that inhibits our potential to attract a good mate, it’s wise to work hard on strengthening our positive attributes and development of good character.

If you give me two options, one is young Jennifer Anniston, but she has a bad attitude, selfish, and brings no productivity or help to the family. And the other is a fat, ugly, joyful, caring and selfless woman who adores me and is focused on bringing me happiness. I’d take the second.

In spite of all I’ve said here. Let us always remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Scars can sometimes speak of a strength and honor that far outshines an evanescent flash of youthful sexuality. A wise man will pass over the shallow flash of exciting beauty that blossoms and fades in an afternoon, in favor of a deep, cool stream of healing and faithful service. I was lucky enough to trick my way into securing both.

 

[Keith Martin]

This doesn’t mean you aren’t good enough, but striving for personal development is always a good goal regardless of if you’re as perfect as me.

This is the only part of your response that I will quibble with, @NickF. About 25 years ago, after decades of worshipping at the altar of Growth and Development, I turned my back on it with a vengeance. There's no harm in striving for excellence, but making it one's driving force is a tremendous snare -- and it's also the specific snare that is most often and most insidiously used by those who supposedly love us to manipulate us into servitude rather than patriarchal leadership. No one we're covering has even an iota of right to demand improvement from us. If they do, and they insist upon it, flee them like you would the Adversary or be prepared to stand up to them for all you're worth.

If Yah or Yeshua ask, I will submit; no other soul has any legitimate claim on my soul.

 

[Bartato]

If you are unfamiliar with the Pareto Principle, this Jordan Peterson video is a great introduction:

It seems to me wide adoption of polygyny will lead to a Pareto distribution of wives where 20% of men are married to 80% of the women. Monogamy on the other hand is a sort of socialism of wives, you only get your "fair share".

Considering all the disclaimers about this not being a dating site and all the conversations regarding polygyny friendly dating sites, it is obvious there is a lot of interest in finding multiple wives. It seems to me, the best way to find another wife is by being a good steward of the wife/wives you have and then more women will be more inclined to join your family. A good "review" by a wife will be better than any dating profile could be. Then a man with multiple satisfied wives is like likely to attract more wives. That is how the Pareto principle works.

Do you think the Pareto distribution would apply to wives? Should it?

Should we view relationships in economic terms? (ex. Sexual Market Value)

I don't think the Pareto principle would apply.

I think something else is more plausible. The top 10-20% of men would probably have more than one wife. The majority 60-80% would have one wife. Then, the bottom 10-20% wouldn't get a wife.

This would probably be a good thing. A small percentage of men really aren't willing or able to take care of a wife and children, and probably shouldn't have them. There are also a certain number of high achievers that are willing to take on the larger responsibility of more wives and larger families. That's good. Most men are in the middle, willing and able to take care of one wife, and the children they have together.

We don't have to theoretically consider the matter. We can simply look at societies that practice polygyny (Muslim and traditional African). Are 80% of women married to 20% of men? That doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Keith Martin]

Do you think the Pareto distribution would apply to wives? Should it?

Should we view relationships in economic terms? (ex. Sexual Market Value)

Here's what governs answering this: the Pareto distribution is simply a manifestation of natural law, which means that Yah designed us to function in this way among each other. It can be seen everywhere, but is, of course, a generalization that doesn't dictate every single exception-to-the-rule.

Does it apply to obtaining wives? Yes, as @NickF points out, it applies to monogamy-only as well as to polygyny. But to ask Should It, other than to present scriptural evidence to the contrary, is in some senses an invitation to elevate ourselves to the status of god. If this is the way the world works, and Yah designed the world, then isn't it de facto the case that it is the way He intended it to work?

Same thing goes for viewing relationships in economic terms. Only a blind, deaf and dumb man might come to the conclusion that both males and females approach their relationships with each other in economic terms. It's just a given; to whine about it is to tilt at windmills.

Thanks, though, @NS4Liberty for sharing this video; it made me get to it more quickly than I would have. Philosophically, Peterson seems to have his thumb pretty close to Yah's pulse.

I recommend watching how Dr. Peterson dances with atheistic fellow evolutionary biology-appreciator and target of the use-my-pronouns-dammit Wokesters Bret Weinstein:

 

[NS4Liberty]

We can simply look at societies that practice polygyny

Interesting idea. Not sure if that specific data is available, but we can see how many marriages are polygynous:

"the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data show, 11, 27, and 53% of marriages in Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, and Guinea were polygynous respectively"
"Another DHS reported that polygyny represents 25% of all marriages in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 47% in Sierra Leone, and 53% in The Gambia." (Source)

There are countries where over 50% of marriages are polygynous.

I am looking for more data along those lines.

 

[Keith Martin]

We can simply look at societies that practice polygyny (Muslim and traditional African). Are 80% of women married to 20% of men? That doesn't seem to be the case.

Have you ever immersed yourself in Islamic culture?

 

[NS4Liberty]

Have you ever immersed yourself in Islamic culture?

I realize that was directed at Bartato, but it gave me flashbacks to Marjah, Afghanistan in 2010.

 

[Bartato]

Have you ever immersed yourself in Islamic culture?

I have not, and do not wish too. I simply made a guesstimate.

Even from a distance, it is clear that the 80% number would be unusually high.

Based on the statistical information provided by NS4Liberty, it seems that my guesstimate was low. Polygyny appears to be more common than I thought.

I know that research indicates that most women only find the top 20% of men attractive. Still, I think there are so many confounding factors that the 80/20 distribution probably wouldn't hold true when it comes to.actual marriages.

 

[Bartato]

I realize that was directed at Bartato, but it gave me flashbacks to Marjah, Afghanistan in 2010.

Based on your time there, do you think 80% of the women were married to 20% of the men?

I know your cultural interaction with the populace was limited by the circumstances.

 

[Bartato]

Interesting idea. Not sure if that specific data is available, but we can see how many marriages are polygynous:

"the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data show, 11, 27, and 53% of marriages in Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, and Guinea were polygynous respectively"
"Another DHS reported that polygyny represents 25% of all marriages in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 47% in Sierra Leone, and 53% in The Gambia." (Source)

There are countries where over 50% of marriages are polygynous.

I am looking for more data along those lines.

Looking at those African countries, I'm not surprised that the more Islamic countries of West Africa might have higher rates than the more Christian countries like Zimbabwe and the DRC. Most Christians oppose the practice.

 

[MemeFan]

There won't be any 80/20 distribution of wives. Because it allready doesn't exist.

Christians have problem making difference between marriage and sex rules. Marriage rules are about children and inheritance. Sex rules are about with whom person is allowed to sleep.

Ancient Greek could acquire himself female slave and have children with her. Did their children inherit anything? No.

Today in West rules sexual freedom. If 80% woman sleep with 20% men then logically follow that 80% men would be without wife, girlfriend or one night stands. Since this obviously isn't true then Pareto distribution doesn't apply do male/female relationship.

There are advantages for men with experience. But friction is too high for forming Pareto. For example, high status men must seek low sratus female because there isn't enough high status females. Do this groups spend time together? No.

 

[Keith Martin]

Even from a distance, it is clear that the 80% number would be unusually high.

Not in a polygyny-friendly culture, especially if one eliminates the polled women who are attached to no one.

Interestingly enough, in the fractured mainstream black culture in America, the Pareto rule very closely tracks the fact that 80% of the women are having children fathered by approximately only 20% of the men. Over half of all black men age 31 remain virgins.

Not the stereotype we get fed in blaxploitation films, is it?

 

[NS4Liberty]

Based on your time there, do you think 80% of the women were married to 20% of the men?

I know your cultural interaction with the populace was limited by the circumstances.

I honestly have no idea what their family life was like.

 

[Bartato]

Not in a polygyny-friendly culture, especially if one eliminates the polled women who are attached to no one.

Interestingly enough, in the fractured mainstream black culture in America, the Pareto rule very closely tracks the fact that 80% of the women are having children fathered by approximately only 20% of the men. Over half of all black men age 31 remain virgins.

Not the stereotype we get fed in blaxploitation films, is it?

The Pareto principle probably does apply to sexual activity. I would not be surprised to hear that 20% of men are having 80% of the sexual activity, especially in a culture such as ours. I've read enough on red pill and PUA, to realize that is likely the case.

Marriage is more complicated and involves additional factors. I just don't see 80% of women wanting polygyny. Fifty percent might go for it, but I don't see 80% doing so. Again, I am conceding that my initial guesstimate of 10-20% may have been too low.

The information presented by NS4Liberty backs up my primary assertion that it would be less than 80%. It is less than 80% in the countries that permit it.

 

[Keith Martin]

Interestingly enough, in the fractured mainstream black culture in America, the Pareto rule very closely tracks the fact that 80% of the women are having children fathered by approximately only 20% of the men. Over half of all black men age 31 remain virgins.

Add to this that, currently over half of all American adult black men have never fathered a child and have never been married. Insisting on making a complete distinction between marriage and production of children is misleading, because, while not 1:1 attitudes about one reflect attitudes about the other.

"the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data show, 11, 27, and 53% of marriages in Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, and Guinea were polygynous respectively"
"Another DHS reported that polygyny represents 25% of all marriages in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 47% in Sierra Leone, and 53% in The Gambia." (Source)

Marriage is more complicated and involves additional factors. I just don't see 80% of women wanting polygyny. Fifty percent might go for it, but I don't see 80% doing so. Again, I am conceding that my initial guesstimate of 10-20% may have been too low.

The information presented by NS4Liberty backs up my primary assertion that it would be less than 80%. It is less than 80% in the countries that permit it.

Apples and oranges. On the one hand we're talking about willingness to consider polygyny. On the other we're talking about actually practicing it. Just in your one paragraph above, though, you use NS4Liberty's statistics about women who are actually in polygynous marriages to buttress your assertion that 80% of women couldn't possibly want polygyny, which introduces a third consideration:

1. Practicing polygyny
2. Being willing to consider practicing polygyny
3. Wanting to practice polygyny

Each of those are entirely separate sets of people, with overlapping Ven diagrams, but being in one category doesn't predict anything beyond some increased likelihood of being in one of the other categories. In fact, many who do practice polygyny probably don't even want to practice polygyny, including many 1st wives.

All of this is complicated by one very certain cold hard fact: even if all women married, there aren't enough men to put 80% of women into polygynous marriages, because -- while probably the strongest causal indicator we've discussed is the likelihood that 80% of children being fathered by 20% of the men indicates a rather strong degree of willingness on the part of women to share their men -- sharing the same sperm donors presents far fewer logistical than does sharing the same husbands. Absent some type of death-penalty-offense-for-violating-it dictate, most men are never going to want to take on more than one wife, so I'm amazed that in Guinea they were able to even get the percentage of polygynous marriages up to 53%, but if over half of marriages have at least two wives, unless very few people actually marry, just by that statistic you're demonstrating that at bare minimum 65% of the married women were willing to do it -- and it's statistically and logically improper to assume that every woman in a non-polygynous marriage was entirely unwilling to share her husband.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and I think as people wake up in the years to come, once progressive and feminist safety-net fairy tales have all imploded upon themselves, more and more women are not only going to be willing to share a husband, a great many will actively seek it. We just have to accept that that time hasn't yet arrived, which likely translates into meaning that most men right now who are willing to be polygynous will not experience the implementation of it.

 

[NS4Liberty]

I have been trying to wrap my head around how that 53% translates into a ratio and I can't do it, but what @Keith Martin said sounds right.

 

[Keith Martin]

One would really need to also know what percentage of each given population is married. I could work out a precise set of statistics if I knew that fact.

Here's one certain fact no matter what: if 53% of the married people are in polygynous marriages in a given culture, that means that, at minimum, 61% of the married people are women, meaning that women are 50% more likely to be married than are men. 53% of the marriages being polygynous becomes an impossibility if more than two-thirds of the people are married, and if the average number of wives in those polygynous marriages rises above 2, the potential top-end of percentage-married just starts to go down.

 

[Bartato]

One would really need to also know what percentage of each given population is married. I could work out a precise set of statistics if I knew that fact.

Here's one certain fact no matter what: if 53% of the married people are in polygynous marriages in a given culture, that means that, at minimum, 61% of the married people are women, meaning that women are 50% more likely to be married than are men. 53% of the marriages being polygynous becomes an impossibility if more than two-thirds of the people are married, and if the average number of wives in those polygynous marriages rises above 2, the potential top-end of percentage-married just starts to go down.

I was thinking about my original guestimate of around 10-20% polygynous, 10-20% slackers out of luck, and 60-80% monogamous. Maybe that's just I think would be best, not what would actually happen. Even though Bartato knows best

 

[Keith Martin]

Maybe that's just I think would be best, not what would actually happen.

Isn't in a major sense, though, that it's not up to us to decide what is best for everyone -- but instead to simply witness for a world in which men can decide for themselves how many wives they have? I may be wrong -- it happens a lot on the way to full enlightenment -- but my reading of Scripture tells me that polygyny is fully allowed and even in some rare cases for certain people expected, but it isn't a requirement for every man. Had Yah had that expectation, He would have provided us with an entirely different set of natural laws in which the supply of women was inexhaustible -- or at least was tied to meeting the demands of such an expectation.