Trivers mapped the evolutionary algorithms, but modern network neuroscience maps the actual hardware running those algorithms right now. When Trivers talks about "self-deception for social advantage," he's describing a highly weighted survival prior that was genetically selected for over millennia. But he doesn't have the real-time mechanics. Today, Friston’s predictive processing and the tri-network model show us exactly how that prior executes in the tissue: the Default Mode Network simply ignores contradictory sensory data from the insula because updating its rigid self-model costs too much metabolic energy. Humans are not running elaborate plots, our brain is just minimizing free energy and avoiding prediction errors in the present moment.
Trivers work is not useful for explaining psychological suffering or real time behavior in a local family environment. We know a lot more than we did in the past. He basically could not separate out what our DMN is and used an elaborate narrative that fit at some macro level but falls apart when looked at closely. He gets the cost right. But we can now say with confidence the mind is not divided in the way he proposes. The narrative creates this division in the reader’s mind, but it is not real. Illusion.
Pinker is really falling for the narrative and ideas here and spends a lot of words in a topic that modern neuroscience pretty easily explains. To push back at Pinker’s conclusion: A rigid self identity with priors that are not updated also explains Triver’s many conflicts and social outcomes. The dude (Trivers) ended up being a creep FWIW.
The Epstein “academics” were all running an h-index pumping citation ring — to sell narratives that would be lucrative for various industries and interests. Chomsky, Ito, Trivers, Pinker… they will all be forgotten, and the world will be better for it.
I used to like some of Pinker’s ideas, but yeah. This whole article is just unprincipled garbage in 2026. Neuroscience caught up. Advocating Trivers’ now is nonsense. Interestingly many thinkers of that same era (e.g Krishnamurti, Bohm) were staring right at the modern neuroscience lens and explaining it pretty accurately in the same era Triver’s wrote his essays.
From: Robert Trivers {>
To: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Subject: Trans
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 04:52:10 +0000
it is very simple—i will compare male to female with female to male
with greater molecular control over development we are increasingly capable of producing novel phenotypes—
more feminine men, by blocking testosterone receptors (or castration) and, at the same time, increasing estrogen
production—the one bocks male features, the second encourages female features
more masculine women—heavy testosterone dosage—incredible external effects, heavily bearded men, you
would never guess they had a female bone in their body
first kind—male -> female is 4 times more frequent than female -> male
the first is attractive—he is a woman with a cock, so that if your fantasy is to suck a man's dick, otherwise you
are completely heterosexual, it would be much nicer if the rest of the organism is female, then you get the best of
both worlds
so many transsexual women are very attractive and easily make money which in turn they assert promotes their
prostitution since they have to pay hefty fees for injections every week, but they are sexually happy,--once you
have reached manhood even castration does not prevent the sensation of organism
contrast the poor female to male versions, they are unhappy and lonely—they are men with mum-pums, the
worst of both worlds
if you like smelly masculine men, you want that hard cock that comes with the show—you do not want one of
nature's more complex and variable structures, the pum-pum—that is an acquired tasted—and not with a man
there are 100's of female Trans videos and websites, i have never seen a male one
BTW we are now pushing the intervention earlier--so you notice your 3-year old son has trans tendencies, so
now you intervene with hormones—i would be frightened to do that—but who knows ?
Trivers work is not useful for explaining psychological suffering or real time behavior in a local family environment. We know a lot more than we did in the past. He basically could not separate out what our DMN is and used an elaborate narrative that fit at some macro level but falls apart when looked at closely. He gets the cost right. But we can now say with confidence the mind is not divided in the way he proposes. The narrative creates this division in the reader’s mind, but it is not real. Illusion.
Pinker is really falling for the narrative and ideas here and spends a lot of words in a topic that modern neuroscience pretty easily explains. To push back at Pinker’s conclusion: A rigid self identity with priors that are not updated also explains Triver’s many conflicts and social outcomes. The dude (Trivers) ended up being a creep FWIW.
In some way, this is as striking as Trivers himself.
I hadn't even seen the details of the Epstein emails and related comments of his, that are objectively pretty awful.