HSR is a powerhouse when you include the lore, story, graphics, music, etc., that just happens to also be a gacha game.

Now this is ironic.

Reading post: “Hey, I have that game! Wouldn’t it be funny if I took a picture of it and wrote something like ‘oh, it’s over here’.”

goes to xbox stash

“Hmm, that’s weird, it’s gone.”

It was pretty fun. Plot was kind of convoluted. Think I only played it all the way through once but it had a good feel, the upgrades were neat, and it looked great. I probably bought it used and there was a scratch that caused a glitch at one of the boss fights which deterred me from finishing it for a long time but at some point I finished it.

It would be very simple for a person to look at any evidence and say “that does not convince me” and continue to demand more while simultaneously providing no evidence of their own. That doesn’t seem very fair, does it?

Anyway, as usual, the answer that rests between our two viewpoints is “it’s complicated”.

There’s plenty of literature on kin avoidence as well as the advantages and disadvantageous of inbreeding. Help yourself.

Again, that is exactly the point I am making. Wood chips are not “bad for us” in an isolated scenario. You can eat wood chips all day and be perfectly fine. Aside from starving to death, lol. We eat potato chips because we can digest them and gain nutrients.

Evolution did not code us to avoid wood chips. There’s no “wood chip aversion” gene. It coded us to seek out potato chips.

This distinction, while built on a silly premise, is important so that we can be accurate about what evolution drives us to and away from.

We risk mischaracterizing the nature of evolutionary forces by assigning to it a level of forethought it does not have. And explaining social concepts by simply assigning the wide sweeping “evolution must have made us like/dislike thing” and then coming up with reasons after the fact, without evidence, leads us down an incorrect path.

So the whole point I am making is that aversion towards incest is not rooted in primary drives but rather in the socio-primate drives.

It’s there for a good reason but to find out why we need to shed simple explanations which, while plausible on the surface, do not lend evidence to the facts.

The point I am making is that there isn’t a aversion away from something, there is simply a preference towards something. We don’t eat wood chips and don’t like the way they taste, not because they are bad for us, but rather because we would rather eat potato chips. The potato chips are more advantageous to our survival. This may seem I am splitting hairs but it’s important to make that distinction because the following arguments are based on such distinctions and it’s important to assign the correct motivation to our evolutionary drives.

It’s not that our blind systems somehow know that screwing our siblings makes disadvantaged babies (which it doesn’t know that and nor does it compared to mating with someone with a more prominent genetic issue- at least not for the first few generations) it doesn’t code that far ahead for cause and effect. It only instills a preference for slightly exogenous mates to confer immunity advantages.

The Westermarck effect shows strong evidence for a higher (socially speaking) system influencing our mate preference BECAUSE it can be “circumvented” by the evidence that even siblings raised away from each other show no inhibitions towards mating. If there were purely a genetic aversion towards inbreeding there wouldn’t be a statistically significant event of long lost relatives copulating. I’m stretching a bit on the statical significance but it happens often enough to be reported on.

Also, inbreeding is very common in the animal kingdom. Less between direct descendants, like mother/child, but on the whole most creatures make little distinction between relations. Which makes sense if the options are mate with your brood or potentially die without performing our evolutionary imperative command of passing on our genes.

https://theconversation.com/incest-isnt-a-taboo-in-the-animal-kingdom-new-study-160937

Actually, that’s assigning too much rational complexity to a blind system. Less the aversion to inbreeding and more the selection of genetic robustness of external mate mingling. To a certain degree.

The histocompatibility of another gauged through smell and taste (i.e. kissing) ensures a preference for a certain degree of separation from one’s genetic pool to ensure protection from local viral and bacterial adversaries. But not too far away! Or it is too alien and doesn’t confer the advantages of mixed immunities.

The ‘ew’ factor is just the societal reinforcement of the Westermarck effect. While surely there is some genetic component at play there it appears to be primarily motivated by the primate social adaptation system.

This can be seen by studying peer groups. Even people far removed from one’s genetic pool will feel like icky siblings if they are raised together. Conversely, many cases of siblings and other relations separated at birth who later meet and fall in love/have relations.

Edit: link for the curious. Fascinating stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

Leave us behind? Where is it going?

Pervmiscuous?

As opposed to proverted, the next level of pervert.