I don’t agree with David Buss about his theory of evolutionary psychology.

David Buss’s theory can be summarized as sexual selection is only for reproduction, and also operates in human beings as well. He found that men and women seek out the mates, who best suit their reproductive needs. Women look for men who can give them resources and protection, and men look for women who appear best able to conceive and give birth to healthy and strong offspring. Through surveys, he found that women were more jealous of emotional infidelity while men were more jealous of sexual infidelity, so Buss hypothesized that women find emotional infidelity more threatening because it could lead to the loss of resources she have gained in that mate and would have to raise children on her own, if the mate really leaves her and has real relationships with another woman. He then hypothesized that men found sexual infidelity threatening because they could risk spending resources on a child that may not be their own.

I don’t deny the results of his survey, but I have to say that Buss is really misled by the results of the survey. Frankly speaking, Buss’s theory is only looking for an excuse for men’s sex instinct in male-dominated society where women can only be dependent on men to get her resources for survival. The biggest limitation of his theory is it is only applicable to human in the past time, but not in future. In other words, Buss’s theory is only applicable to some kinds of societies like China, Japan and Korea, where men hold the dominant position, and women suffer the low status. In China, because of the lack of law, people always have the preference for sons especially in rural. Why does it happen? We have to admit that when food was scarce and violence raged, male physical advantage indeed is much larger than females, but the society like this has nothing difference from animal world. This model in these countries is definitely not the future of human beings. I think a good theory not only can explain what we know, but also can point the direction to what we don’t know it yet, and we should look at Western and Northern Europe. When women can rely on their own labor and mind instead of men to get the resources to survive, when with the development of social civilization, woman can rely on social laws instead of men to protect themselves, when women realize that so-called female multiple orgasms is as shit as Communism, when women identify that they only can get real orgasm by their selves, not by men, even they don’t have to take the pant off, what are women going to choose? What about men? Are they willing to take the yoke of reproduction, while they have sex every time? Is the only purpose men have sex is to reproduce? Is a man who is reluctant to reproduce any more not going to look for young and beautiful women? Absolutely not.

Here are some questions proposed by the students in intimate relationships class from UCLA. I try to give my explanation to these good questions which Buss’ theory can’t explain well.

1 First of all, Buss’s theory can not be applied to same sex relationships. Professor Benjamin Karney gives a far-fetched explanation that same sex relationships between men should be much more open, or accepting of extra relational sexual activity that same sex relationships between women. I don’t think so. The central idea of Buss’s theory is sexual selection is only for reproduction, as women, they want to get good resources from men to raise the babies, as men, they want to get youth and fertility to make their genes pass down. Benjamin’s explanation is fact, but putting the cart before the horse. Buss’s theory claims that the reason of men much more interested in having sex with multiple partners than women is men want to seek someone who can give healthy and strong offspring, but in same sex relationships between men, the only reason is not exist, we have to notice here: men are always looking for more partners than women, regardless same sex relationships or heterosexual relationships. I think looking for better mates to produce is not central reason, because the facts tell us men having more interested in have sex with multiple partners have nothing to do with reproduction.

2 What about people who wear condoms? In current society, during many sex, the purpose of men having sex is not reproduction, but only for the last sudden of few seconds pleasure, so they wear condoms in order to not make women pregnant. How do you explain that? You can’t say that men don’t like young and beautiful women who wear condoms every time.

3 In class, Britney asked what’s going on now with attraction to really skinny women. That is very good question, Buss’s theory also can’t give a rational explanation. I can give you another example for this item, almost in the eyes of people around the world, Diana is much more beautiful and young than Camilla, she gave two handsome and healthy princes to Charles, but everyone knows the result Charles chose Camilla who is one year older than him. God, I hope you are not going to tell me that Charles wants to have a baby with Camilla. I firmly believe that Camilla must have some extraordinary personal charm we don’t know and appreciate, but Charles does. Apparently, he chose Camilla not for reproduction.

4 If everything is only for the reproduction, I want to ask you why men also want to make love with partners in the period of no ovulation. Obviously, animals have sex only during female estrus period, but why men want to have sex in any time. Buss’s theory also can’t explain this difference well between human beings and animals.

In summary, I don’t want to deny the contributions of Buss’s theory, but I think his theory just can be applied to the animal’s world where the purpose of having sex is only for reproduction, but his theory is not applied to human world. Maybe that is why human with much smaller and less strong, can rule the earth, but other big and strong animals can not. Maybe the self-awareness in human being is the biggest difference from other animals during the history of human evolution. I think after I unlock the mystery of female orgasm, Buss would like to change his theory for a little bit. I my opinion, the reason why men like to have multiple sex partners is as same as food is human basic physiological needs, some people like rice very much, but if they eat rice every day, they would like to eat noodle for some fresh, but the result is always getting full. The reason why women don’t have strong sex drive is women never get full, so they don’t care eat this or that. What men do is human biological instincts, but women just get deceived by something. Maybe it is cruel reproduction for human beings.

I feel very lonely.

I have almost contacted all professors who research on female orgasm or human sexuality, but they are ignorant as always. No one trusted me; no one gave me a chance.

Do I need to use my blood or my life to wake them? I think I was born 100 years early. Who can teach me what I should do now? I am so tired and frustrated.

Separating equilibrium in Game Theory - Open Yale Course

Separating equilibrium is proposed by Michael Spence. This model told us the only thing that distinguishes the costs of good workers from bad workers in education is it is so painful to do the work. According to the class, separating equilibrium does not only concern the real money, but also adds the personal interest, talent, pain and suffering in cost difference.

I have some views different from Ben Polak’s. Let me introduce mine first. In my opinion, the income can be controlled, but the cost depends on some kinds like individual’s talent and very hard to change. In a normal and ideal society, the income of various occupations should not be too much, it means you almost get the same income, whatever you drive a dump truck or teach students in college. What exactly determines a person to become truck driver or professor is only the individual cost in different two things. In reality, the two incomes of teacher and driver are certainly not the same, but I think the different income is only determined by supply and demand. Here I don’t add this definition in.

Due to income – cost = profit

We can assume the two professions have the same income as 30.

Somebody A, who is very talented and interested in driving (the cost is 2), but not in teaching (the cost is 20), has two choices.

If he drives a dump truck, his profit is 30 – 2 =28

If he teaches the course like game theory in Yale University, his profit is only 30 – 20 =10.

In the class, he has to tolerate the naughty students, and prepare the class everyday. It is too horrible and so much pain and suffering for him. Apparently, 28 > 10, the comparative advantage for A is choosing driving dump truck.

Somebody B, who is very talented and interested in teaching (the cost is 5), but not in driving (the cost is 10), also has two choices.

If he drives a dump truck, his payoff is 30 – 10 =20

If he teaches the course like game theory in Yale University, his payoff is 30 – 5 =25.

Maybe he also has to tolerate the naughty students in the class, and prepare the class everyday, but the pain and suffering in the class is better than driving a dump truck. Apparently, 20 < 25, the comparative advantage for B is choosing teaching in class.

In this ideal society, each person would play their respective roles in their own areas of expertise. In other words, no matter what kind of occupation you do, you get paid well. Which profession you want to do is entirely determined by your talent and interest, and perhaps you will find driving a dump truck is happier than teaching in class.

What if there is too difference during the two income.

Also depends on Benefit – cost = profit.

But this time, the two professions have very quite different paid.

As a driver, he only can get 30.

As a professor, he can get 300.

Somebody A also has two choices. The cost of driving is still 2, because he has the same talent and interest in driving, the cost of teaching is still 20, because he also hates the naughty students very much. But this case is very different from above.

If he drives a dump truck, his profit is 30 – 2 =28

If he teaches the course, his profit is 300 – 20 =280

The result is though he hates teaching very much, but he has to tolerant all of this for the huge profit. Apparently, 28<<280, as a rational person A is going to choose teaching, even though he has lots of pain and suffering in class.

For somebody B also has two choices. The cost of driving is still 10, because he still don’t have much talent and interest in driving, the cost of teaching is still 5.

If he drives a dump truck, his profit is 30 – 10 =20

If he teaches the course, his profit is 300 – 5 =295

Apparently, 20<<295, as a rational person B is going to choose teaching.

Under this abnormal profit-driven, lots of people without teaching talent are going to join the teacher group, only in order to chase the good paid.

Here I agree Ben’s claim that some children have to be left behind, I don’t agree that education increases inequality, because teach students in accordance of their aptitude, it doesn’t mean unfair,. Dr. Ben was born in England, and got Dr. in U.S., so I can understand he cares about the weak side, but I have to note the purpose we establish the rules to distinguish the good from bad is not to distinguish them in their income, but help them to choose the best position. I think if Ben was born in China, he must know the harm of every person not in his position. When you can’t establish a good rule to achieve a separating equilibrium for everyone, people must take the advanced position with the only purpose that is maximize its own payoff. The person who didn’t have ability to be a judge is to be a judge, and the person who didn’t have ability to be a chairman is to be a chairman. The process when all children go to university is the process which is the dilution of elite education. The only result is qualification inflation, and you will see that in the country there are so many people who can get Dr. Degree, but lots of them suffer unemployment. In any period of human development, we all need one or two, like Nicolaus Copernicus or Isaac Newton who has unique point of difference, to lead the world people open a new page, but the public education must be going to make everyone average. Here I admit the disadvantages of elite education, which will make big gap between them, so I think the public education should be replaced by skills education.

Establishment of good rules is more important than whoever join the rules. This point reminds me the event of ConocoPhillips’ Bohai bay oil spill. Here I am not going to blame the United States company ConocoPhillips, because if I were the company, I also didn’t care about oil spill or not. Did any company dare to do that in U.S. or Canada? I don’t think so, the reason is very simple any company is going to be punished to pay huge cost by the law in U.S., but according to Chinese bullshit law, they only have pay 200 thousands Yuan at most. I remember some words by Thomas J. Dunning. “With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent certain will produce eagerness; 50 percent, positive audacity; 100 percent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 percent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged. ”

Each person or company prefers to maximize its own payoff, whatever from capitalism which is based on private ownership or socialism which under the name of public ownership, but is only for some privileged class self-interest. Every person or company is neutral, there is no good or bad person or company, but only good rules or bad rules.

   The problem of China food safety is very very serious. In previous years, maybe there are some companies didn’t do the bad things, but current, no company is not going to do bad things. Reasons are simple.

When a company A does the legitimate business, he can get income as 100, the cost is 80 and profit is 100-80=20.

When a company B does the illegal business, he also can get income as 100, but the cost is only 30, because he only uses the toxic and hazardous chemical materials, and his profit is 100-30=70.

Even if company A has a conscience and always does the safe food, the company B also can defeat the company A, just through the price war. Moreover, in a country without laws, you can’t rely on a moral or conscience to restrain a person or a company.

Prostitution and the Onion theory

Prostitution is a common problem we have met for a long time. From IMF Chief Kahn on rape charges in 2011, to Obama's bodyguards in prostitution scandal recently, we have to admit that prostitution never left our sight. Prostitution is legal in some countries, but illegal in other many countries. Here is a picture which can show you the details about prostitution in different countries. Apparently, red areas are much more than green and blue areas. As human beings, how do we rationally treat the problem of prostitution?

In order to treat this problem correctly, we must make thorough analysis to it. First, we have to figure out what the nature of the prostitution. In my opinion, the nature of prostitution is just a deal. We can take a look around those prostitutes, and most of them are living at the bottom without any skill for living, and they only depend on selling their vagina to survive, what is just natural resource given by God. According to the lesser of two evils principle, frankly speaking, choosing to rent the vagina is rational choice between itself and death. Of course, their choices also conform to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and survival is most important. In nature, prostitutes are as same as those, who are blue-collar workers depending on skills for living, or who are professors depending on their mind and knowledge for living in famous universities, or who are great players depending on strong bodies and superb skills on basketball court or football field to get  10 millions dollars in pocket a year. The reason why they can get good pay is that the tangible or intangible assets they have can not be replaced, such as superb skills, wise minds or height, but the reason why prostitutes suffers so cheap is every female has a same cheap body asset – vagina. We can imagine that one day there is only one woman left, and how much is it if you want to have a sex with her. I think she will be priceless of the world. Prostitution is as same as other profession, just pays something out in order to get something back.

Why does prostitution suffer so serious criticisms? I think there are two main reasons:

1, due to people has not a very real understanding of sex, and we also link prostitution and sex together and think prostitution as immoral, evil and dirty.

2, in some male chauvinists or shameless scholars' eyes, prostitution is an unfair thing, because they claim that women can get double harvest both on physically and money, but men not only need to pay the money, but also have to work hard in vagina sweatily for women. This statement is very outrageous and absurd. I can give you an anti-example here: what if a man gets on an inflatable doll or a dead female body replaced a living woman, the man also will work hard on the top of them, and do you think male only work hard for the inflatable doll or dead body? The point that male work hard in vagina on bed just for women’s benefit is nonsense. Males are only for their own benefit to work so hard, of course the benefit is orgasm about 7 seconds shudder as return.

Every coin has two sides, costs and benefits. In fact, this theory just can be understood through mathematics in middle school. In my opinion, any sciences are connected, and start with one or two laws, and you can deduce everything just according to different areas.

We can define a formula like this:

B is the benefit what your want.

C is the cost what you have to pay in order to get the benefit B.

When C = 0, the formula of 

is meaningless or undefined.

Apparently, from mathematical point of view, we can deduce that the game only with benefit you want, but without any cost you should pay does not exist. Since division by zero is unbounded, it has no meaning, and so is not interpreted mathematically. So mathematicians say that, 'Division by zero is undefined.'

When P = 0, the formula of  

                            is always equal to zero.

It means that in any game, whatever you do or pay, you always can’t get your purpose from this game. You always get nothing, and then what should you do now? Mathematician will tell you only one way: make C also equal to zero, because in mathematics,  is called indeterminate form. Apparently, it

 tells us you can’t waste any cost in any game, if you can get nothing from it.

A classical example is “Not in my backyard”. In Taiwan, early NIMBY campaign under the slogan “chicken shit stayed in my backyard, the egg is in someone else”. Intelligent and rational people always don’t like to pay for the benefit of others.

The hierarchy of interests of every person is like an onion layers. The central interest is the core interest which person could give up anything to defend. Every rational person would give up the interests of the outer layer, in order to get the interests of the inner layer.

This onion theory is very similar to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but there are still some differences between them.

1, Maslow’s theory is in two-dimensional, he just put the basic needs in the bottom, but onion theory is three-dimensional, I put it in the middle.

2, Maslow’s theory didn’t show the relationship between the two needs in the same level, but onion theory can show every need’s position in a person’s value.

3, Maslow’s needs are stable, not variable, and it can’t explain why somebody can sacrifice him/her self for a great aim, such as art, science or for special person, but onion theory thinks that every body has different hierarchy of interests in different situation, the hierarchy can be alterable under special case, and it also means the sequence can be changed by different case.

4, Maslow only told us people’ needs, but didn’t tell us the cost people would pay. Onion theory not only tells you the hierarchy of every one’s desire, but also the logical relationship between them.

On the issue of prostitution, the onion theory can explain it well.

According to the onion theory of prostitutes, living is in the center of every thing, more important than orgasm, and they can accept to rent her vagina to make living. So the deal is female get money to survive from male, but need to pay vagina out.

According to the onion theory of clients, having an orgasm on a woman is more close to the center than paying money. So the deal is male get a vagina to ejaculate from female, but need to pay money out.

I think money is the cheapest in people’s hierarchy of interests, because money is only used to satisfy the various needs of the people. I dare to say that if the client relies on the money to survive, he would never spend money on prostitutes, because he can masturbate to achieve orgasm.

About hard working in woman’s vagina is another deal, there is necessary and sufficient conditions between working hard and obtaining orgasm, in short, rubbing hard on his penis is sufficient condition of orgasm. I think one day women can figure out what is real female orgasm and how to get it, they also need hard working on her clitoral shaft to get the last shudder about 7 second.

Let's go back to the onion theory. I wrote that in my blog North Korea would never give up its nuclear test, regardless of whether U.S. gives food aid or not. In the eyes of that fat, his reign is the core interest of his onion, he didn’t care about nationals' survival or death at all. In other words, food aid from U.S. only benefits general public, but not him, the only one thing which can benefit him is nuclear threat. So if you want to have a deal with someone, you must have to know firstly what most important thing he cares. Wake up some ignorant people in the mind is rather more important than give them food. When whatever you pay, you always can’t get your purpose, there is only one rational decision you should make: make C also equal to 0. I think U.S. should take some more effective ways, not only just exercise in futility.

Finally, I just want to say, if you are a female, please don’t despise prostitutes, because you are a more unfortunate prostitute in some sense, but without pay. Maybe you are not lucky enough to be a female dung beetle, who only watch the males agonize over rolling the ball over to the hole while the female rides relaxed, just prepare to plant her eggs inside it (according to the Global Problems of Population Growth from Yale open course).

A famous Japanese AV girl called Aoi Sola once said that “The only purpose I am lying naked in front of a camera is just for living, but someone standing in front of a camera with well dressed is only for his lust and desire.”