I get it. I wrote a book 2 years ago about how to achieve financial freedom. I constantly had to edit and rewrite it so that people who are familiar with economics, investing, and financial planning could grasp what I was saying. Are used a lot of real life examples to make the point all through the book.
I didn’t mean to offend you because I can read very complex information. I wrote a lot of work on demographics, and how that’s going to change the economies of the globe, for the next two generations or beyond. And the news is not good if the predictions are correct.
I appreciate you actually took the time to respond. Have a great week.
Lots of academic words, however, I think it makes sense in its conclusions about powerful men and the idea of monogamy versus polygamy. It’s too hard to defend and protect multiple wives, so it makes sense to just have one or two as long as you can protect them from other males. If I understood this correctly, it makes some sense. I think it would be very interesting if the author could rewrite this without all of the scientific language and put it into a much more readable and understandable format.
I get it. I wrote a book 2 years ago about how to achieve financial freedom. I constantly had to edit and rewrite it so that people who are familiar with economics, investing, and financial planning could grasp what I was saying. Are used a lot of real life examples to make the point all through the book.
I didn’t mean to offend you because I can read very complex information. I wrote a lot of work on demographics, and how that’s going to change the economies of the globe, for the next two generations or beyond. And the news is not good if the predictions are correct.
I appreciate you actually took the time to respond. Have a great week.
Lots of academic words, however, I think it makes sense in its conclusions about powerful men and the idea of monogamy versus polygamy. It’s too hard to defend and protect multiple wives, so it makes sense to just have one or two as long as you can protect them from other males. If I understood this correctly, it makes some sense. I think it would be very interesting if the author could rewrite this without all of the scientific language and put it into a much more readable and understandable format.
A dense heap of unintelligible jargon.
Seems like another point for Chomsky's anarchism against modern institutions. Your posts tend to keep doing that for me. lol
Really appreciate this piece. This means there should be historically extreme male reproductive variance in the developed world. Do we see this?
Not familiar. Guess I should have proofed my message. .(
Tl;DR all societies eventually end up as oligarchies