Note: The following text is a small review of evolutionary psychology and its critiques, written by Sergio Morales, student of anthropology and epistemology at the Ciencias delsur site. I decided to post this text here, because I see that there are some users here who attach studies of this discipline in an uncritical way. Also because, although the RedPill is not based on this discipline, it does use marginally some studies or literature from evolutionary psychology or uses terms/notions close to it, like a universal feminine psychology, biological determinism and innatism. THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS NOT MINE.

Why is evolutionary psychology so criticized?

Evolutionary psychology (EP) is a discipline whose objective is to analyze human behavior from an evolutionary theoretical framework. As such, it has become established as a very controversial field: while some claim that it is a rigorous scientific proposition, others claim that it is closer to being a pseudoscience.
Despite the polarization generated -which complicates a fruitful and undistorted debate- EP is a very widespread discipline not only in academia, but also in popular culture. Why the controversy? The following essay reviews the most important criticisms of EP and provides some reflections on its epistemological status.

What is evolutionary psychology?

EP was founded in 1992, after the publication of The adapted mind, a book written by Jerome Barkow (anthropologist), John Tooby (anthropologist) and Leda Cosmides (psychologist). However, we can find an antecedent two decades earlier. In the 1970s, Barkow (1973), held that human beings were not level tables shaped by culture, but biological organisms "programmed by evolution" (p. 374).
For Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby (1992), EP is that psychology "informed by the additional knowledge that evolutionary biology has to offer" (p. 3). In its early years, it was considered a "new paradigm" of psychology (Buss, 1995a) and, in time, it was applied in diverse areas such as choice of partner, competence, affective relationships, parenting, or sociability (Buss, 2016a).
For its founders, EP is based on three premises: there is a "universal human nature" at the level of "evolved mental mechanisms" (not at the level of behaviors); such mechanisms are adaptations formed by natural selection over millions of years; and, the structure of the human "mind" is "adapted to the way of life of the Pleistocene hunter-gatherers" (Barkow et al., 1992, p. 5). Given that only 1% of human evolutionary time corresponds to modern life, it is "unlikely" that our species has developed complex adaptations in such a short time (ibid.*). For EP, the human "mind" and its "unique, universal and pan-human design" (Ibid.) are best understood from our hunter-gatherer past.

"By understanding the selective pressures our hominid ancestors faced - by understanding what kind of adaptive problems they had to solve - one should be able to gain some insight into the design of processing and information mechanisms that evolved to solve these problems" (Ibid., p. 9).

To fulfill its objective, EP begins by identifying some trait or behavior (jealousy or taste for mathematics) and linking it to some context of evolutionary pressure. Later, the adaptive advantage it would offer in such dynamics is speculated and a study is designed to address such advantage (in humans or animals) by predicting the expected outcome.
Finally, the study is executed and the results are interpreted. As a proposal, it is very reasonable and constitutes the rough way in which any evolutionary science that wishes to explain human behavior operates. With such a scheme, several questions about many psychological traits can be answered. However, why is EP so resisted, and what criticisms have been made of this discipline?

Adaptationism and just so stories

What stands out most in the criticism of evolutionary psychology is its adaptationism: the a priori assertion that a certain psychological trait or behavior is an adaptation formed by natural selection millions of years ago. However, this overestimation of natural selection was denounced even before EP was EP, specifically towards its mother discipline: the sociobiology of E.O. Wilson.
Early on, the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins (1977) warned that a kind of "vulgar sociobiology" conceived socio-cultural phenomena as equivalent to biological phenomena (and vice versa), that is, as products of organic evolution. Precisely, the title of his book "Use and Abuse of Biology", graphed the reductionism of those explanations.
In that line, the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1978) described sociobiology as the "art of storytelling" and coined an influential adjective that encompasses this extreme adaptationism: "just so stories". As a result of his fundamentalist view of natural selection, Gould (1978) argued that "sociobiological tales are not true, but unfounded speculation" (p. 532).
The following year, the biologist Richard Lewontin (1979) conceived sociobiology as an example of adaptationism because it "assumes without further evidence that all morphological, physiological and behavioral aspects of organisms are optimal adaptive solutions to various problems" (p. 6).
Like Gould, Lewontin (1979) stated that sociobiology elaborated "adaptive stories" through "imaginative reconstruction".
In a classic essay, Gould and Lewontin (1979) called "Panglossian paradigm" that tendency to tell "stories" coherent with a restricted vision of evolution that overestimates the adaptive advantages of presumed traits and ignores the plurality of forms in which they could be generated: genetic drift, mutation, etc.
While these criticisms were directed at sociobiology, could EP be described as adaptationist or Panglossian?
Before any hasty objection, it is worth saying that its very founders clarified this point. For Cosmides and Tooby (1997), EP consisted in applying "an adaptationist logic to the study of the architecture of the human mind". For this discipline, the explanations referred to adaptive functions were called "distal explanations" or "ultimate explanations" because they presumably refer to evolutionary causes.
Recovering his critique of sociobiology, Gould (1997a) renamed adaptationism as "Darwinian fundamentalism". Thus, while the fundamentalists sought a "true path" (natural selection), the pluralists considered a "set of interactive explanatory modes". Part of that fundamentalism that overvalued natural selection was EP.
In fact, EP reinstalled the adaptationist vice of sociobiology almost three decades later. In its attempt to explain human behavior, EP resorted to an "adaptive narrative" composed of "speculative or narrative modes" and just so stories about our lithic life (Gould, 1997b). For arguing that the main features of human psychology were adaptations, Gould (1997b) called EP "ultradarwinian".
In EP we can find outstanding cases of adaptationism. Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer (2000) argued that rape is an adaptation as well as a byproduct of adaptive traits. In a similar vein, Max Krasnow and colleagues (2011) argued that the female "mind" has adaptations for food gathering, which explains why women are better at shopping.
Other studies went further and stated that cunnilingus evolved to detect infidelity by tasting traces of semen in the partner's vagina (Pham and Shackelford, 2013) or that the female counterpart evolved to generate sexual attractiveness (Pazhoohi et al., 2020). Although these constitute exceptional proposals (even within the EP), it should be noted that they are consequences of their particular research logic.
In her critique, anthropologist Susan McKinnon (2005) showed that for evolutionary psychology every adaptation was supported by certain genes. Thus, one could find genes to be faithful, genes to form clubs, genes to help relatives, or genes to be friendly, which appeared in popular PE books such as Robert Wright's The Animal Morality or Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works.
According to David Buss (2008), the main representative of the camp, the EP focuses on "psychological adaptations". This explains why they treat certain behaviors or traits as adaptations, even going against common sense. For example, for a man to think that if a woman smiles at him it is because she is looking for sex, it is an adaptation that serves to - oh surprise - look for sex (Ibid., p. 19).
For EP, the human "mind" is composed of adaptations or "evolved psychological mechanisms". Such mechanisms integrate a "set of processes" that solved specific problems of "survival or reproduction in a recurrent way throughout evolutionary history" (Ibid., p. 50). This proposal is maintained in the most recent books (Buss, 2019).
Here the problem is not to resort to evolutionary theories and concepts nor to suspect that all behavior is an adaptation. The objection lies in the forms, in how EP supports the existence of psychological adaptations. In this regard, what Russell Gray and colleagues (2003) have said makes a lot of sense: "a plausible story is not enough to meet the challenge of adaptive explanation" (p. 251).
For the biologist P.Z. Myers (2012), adaptationism reveals that EP was based on a "naive and simplistic understanding of how evolution works". Likewise, for Matthew Rellihan (2012), EP developed a "strong adaptationism" despite the fact that "there is little reason to believe that adaptive thinking can be used to infer our current psychology from past selection pressures" (p. 246).
As such, adaptationism results from an optimistic reading of Darwin. For EP, Darwin provided a "naturalistic explanation" of the evolution of organisms and the features of human psychology (Barkow et al., 1992, p. 8), while natural selection provided a "graceful causal account" of the link between adaptive problems and organismic design (Ibid.). As can be seen, this was no small feat.

"The theory of evolution by natural selection greatly expanded the range of things that could be explained, so that not only physical phenomena such as stars, mountain ranges, impact craters, and alluvial fans could be located and explained causally, but also things such as whales, eyes, leaves, nervous systems, emotional expressions, and the faculty of language." (Ibid., p. 52)

Despite the enthusiasm, in On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin himself (1859) said he was "convinced" that in the evolution of organisms "natural selection has been the principal, but not the exclusive, means" (p. 6). Although several studies postulate the existence of non-adaptive mechanisms, adaptationism is a "simplistic caricature" of Darwin's work (Gould, 1997b) because it presumes that natural selection explains every trait or behavior.
For his part, the anthropologist Joseph Henrich (2016) criticized Pinker and Buss for considering natural selection as the "only process" capable of generating adaptations. As studies on cultural evolution indicate, "natural selection has lost its status as the only 'foolish' process capable of creating complex adaptations well adjusted to local circumstances" (Ibid., p. 114).
For EP, natural selection has shaped the human mind, just as it shaped the anatomy itself: through natural selection. Since natural selection is an adaptive mechanism, this argument leads to the assumption that various psychological traits or behaviors constitute adaptations. However, the scientific evidence does not support such an assumption.
For anthropologist Jonathan Marks (2015), "there is no reason to believe that any specific trait should have an adaptive explanation. In almost the same words, Robert Boyd (2018), also an anthropologist, held that "there is no reason why learning mechanisms should favor adaptive behavior in any particular case" (p. 60).
Rather than being assumed, adaptations must be tested and this is something that EP has serious problems with.

The massive criticism of mass modularity

As a result of its adaptationism, PE developed the hypothesis of massive modularity (hereinafter HMM). According to this proposal, the human "mind" is composed of different encapsulated neurological circuits or "modules"; innate "mental organs", formed by natural selection and destined to solve diverse adaptive problems (Cosmides and Tooby, 1997; Kurzban, 2010).
As well as several genes were proposed, several modules were also proposed: face recognition module, spatial relations module, tool use module, fear module, social exchange module, emotion perception module, child care module, friendship module, grammar module, etc. (Barkow et al., 1992, p. 113).
In The language instinct, Pinker (1994) made a list of modules, among which were modules for mapping, habitat selection, or infidelity detection, as well as for food, justice, kinship, or numbers [Figure 3]. This thesis was developed in depth in his book How the mind works:

"The mind is organized into modules or mental organs, each with a specialized design that makes it an expert in a field of interaction with the world. The basic logic of the modules is specified by our genetic program. Its operation was shaped by natural selection to solve the problems of hunting and gathering life that our ancestors carried through most of our evolutionary history". (Pinker, 1997, p. 21)

Such modules-which can be "hundreds or thousands" (Tooby and Cosmides, 1995, p. xiii)-exist because they solve adaptive problems faced by our ancestors (Cosmides and Tooby, 1997). This proposition is graphical in the phrase "our modern skulls contain Stone Age minds," coined by William Allman and considered a "very appropriate summary" of the EP (Ibid.).
Despite the good intentions, the HMM was highly criticized (Sterelny, 2003). Although the brain possesses some modularity, such modules are not genetic specializations, but the result of brain plasticity; they are adaptive responses to local conditions, not vestiges of prehistoric pasts (Buller & Hardcastle, 2000). In fact, strong evidence shows that the structure of the brain is determined by its interaction with the environment (Ibid.).
For James Woodward and Fiona Cowie (2004), "there is no reason to think that evolution 'should' produce modular minds" (p. 313). Moreover, MHM does not reflect important features of human cognition, such as its ability to plan or its flexibility. Although its proponents claim to refer to Jerry Fodor's work, even Fodor (2000) does not agree.
This makes discussions of HMM confusing (Frankenhuis and Ploeger, 2007; Chiappe and Gardner, 2011).
For Johan Bolhuis and colleagues (2011), the HMM "is not supported by neuroscientific evidence" (p. 3). Indeed, neuroscience does not conceive of the brain as a set of innate modules formed by natural selection, but as an interconnected network, linked to context (by its plasticity and learning capacity) and formed by culture (Bolhuis et al., 2011; Peters, 2013; Muthukrishna et al., 2018).
Although the EP states that, in order to understand the human "mind", we must understand the "mind" of our ancestors, multiple evidence shows that the socio-cultural changes that have occurred in the last 100 thousand years have modified multiple aspects of human cognition (Laland, 2017). This makes MHM empirically implausible.

"The idea that 'our modern skulls house a Stone Age mind' is also wrong at the contemporary end of our evolutionary history. The idea that we are stuck in a psychology adapted to the Pleistocene greatly underestimates the pace at which natural and sexual selection can drive evolutionary change. Recent studies have shown that selection can radically alter the life history traits of a population in as little as 18 generations (for humans, approximately 450 years)." (Buller, 2012, p. 49)

By promoting a "caricatured view of the Pleistocene environment" (Gray et al., 2003, p. 248), the idea of prehistoric minds in modern skulls is far from the paleoanthropological and archaeological evidence. Already here it becomes clear that another of the vices of EP was to have neglected a central concept for the understanding of human behavior: culture.
Underestimating culture
If it is a question of culture, the EP repeated the mistake of sociobiology: rejecting its adequate treatment in the explanation of human behavior. Opposed to it, a group of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories have recovered the importance of culture and defended its principal role in the understanding of human behavior (Morales, 2020).
That EP has been accused of underestimating culture is surprising given that, in his classic essay, Barkow (1973) referred to the work of the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, known for studying the feedback between biological evolution and cultural evolution. Something happened between 1973 and 1992 that the EP dismissed culture in favor of innate approaches.
Generally, EP associates culture with the idea of cultural difference (Buss, 2001). This explains why they believe that a behavior is innate if it appears in multiple cultures (Buss, 1989) or that there is a "universal human nature" underlying cultural differences (Gangestad, Haselton & Buss, 2006).
However, this conception produces what McKinnon (2001) called an "oversimplification" of culture.
As such, culture has been present since the genus Homo, 2.5 million years ago (Henrich, 2016). Since that time, based on the so-called Baldwin effect, various cultural practices have altered human evolution. Contrary to a universal human nature and underlying cultural differences, human nature itself lies in its genetic-cultural diversity, fostered by evolution itself (Brown et al., 2011).
In the last 50 thousand years, several changes have affected human beings at the genomic level (Williamson et al., 2007; Laland, Odling-Smee and Myles, 2010). Likewise, agriculture, domestication of animals or the increase in population density over the last 10 thousand years accelerated human evolution (Hawks et al., 2007) and modified our brain (Bolhuis et al., 2011).
EP's disregard for culture also has repercussions in methodological areas. According to a recent study, 70% of the samples used in EP studies (published in the journals Evolution & Human Behavior and Evolutionary Psychology) correspond only to university students (Pollet and Saxton, 2019).
It is difficult to speak of a "universal human architecture" with such a biased sample.
In the face of criticism, several Darwinian-oriented psychologists such as Andrew Whiten or Michael Muthukrishna have aligned themselves with other evolutionary theories that treat culture as a central element of human evolution (Morales, 2020). The fact is that contempt for culture was materialized in one of the most important topics of the EP: human sexuality.

Gender Indifferences

For Darwin, sexual selection (hereinafter SS) was an important mechanism in the evolution of species. SS took this reference and used it to explain various presumably biological and universal human behaviors (Buss, 2019).
Observed in many cultures with a marked sexual division of labor (male huntewoman gatherer), EP held that gender differences (Buss, 1995b) and mating strategies (Buss, 1989) were universal. This universality was explained not by the influence of the environment or culture, but by the effect of the SS, that is, such differences are the result of biological evolution.
In A mind of her own, Anne Campbell (2002) criticized the "biophobia" of constructivist approaches that attribute gender differences to the social environment for not explaining where such differences come from. Far from those, the EP considers "the distant causes of the difference between males and females arising from disparate pressures on men and women several hundred thousand years ago" (p. 32).
Under this logic, the male/female preference for the colors blue/pink does not occur because of cultural codes, but because primitive women had to interpret the excited faces of their babies (Hurlbert and Ling, 2007). Likewise, the male preference for hard sciences (related to greater visuospatial ability) occurred because primitive men travelled long distances when hunting (Halpern et al., 2007).
Since many genus differences were found in other species, those were explained evolutionarily. For EP, such a pattern provides a "powerful reason" for asserting that "evolutionary forces are the primary cause of psychological differences between the sexes" (Stewart-Williams and Thomas, 2013, p. 143). Recently, in The ape that understood the universe, Steve Stewart-Williams (2020) reiterated that "many sexual differences have evolutionary origins" (p. 117).
Derived from the SS, the Bateman Principles (hereafter PB) were also employed by the EP (Buss, 2019). In order to test the mechanisms of SS, geneticist Angus Bateman studied fruit flies and postulated that in order to achieve reproductive success, it was necessary for males to be promiscuous and females to be passive.
The first to apply SS and PB to human behavior was the biologist Robert Trivers, creator of the theory of parental inversion. Although Gould (1978) warned about how sociobiology used Trivers' work, he quickly became an EP cliché author (Buss, 2019).
However, a fundamental problem of applying SS and PB to human behavior is to ignore the influence of culture.
Although SS is active in humans, it depends on many factors that can be categorized as cultural: mortality, population density, polygamy, monogamy, biparental upbringing, or even sexual dimorphism. It is precisely this complexity in the integration of factors, mechanisms and traits that makes human beings a "model species" in the study of SS (Wilson, Miller and Crouse, 2017, p. 8).
According to Wataru Nakahashi (2017), the classical SS models are inapplicable to humans because they refer to polygamous species (humans are semi-monogamous) and because human mating preferences are culturally transmitted.
For Nakahashi (2017), "it is important to discard the preconceived idea that any human mating preference is aimed at achieving good genes or direct benefit" (p. 9).
Something similar occurs with PBs. In fruit flies and other insects, the applicability of PBs was much debated. In humans, the same was true, since "human mating strategies are unlikely to conform to a single universal pattern" (Brown, Laland, & Mulder, 2009, p. 297). Indeed, for each sex, the relationship between reproductive success and mating success varies culturally (Ibid.).
Sex roles, theoretically linked to PB and long considered immovable, were also subject to criticism:

"Our traditional assumptions about sex roles (as defined by Darwin, Bateman, and Trivers) have been shattered by the realization that polyandry is common among women; that males of many species are demanding, while females are competitive; and that sex roles can change even within a species at different times due to demographic or environmental changes. (Tang-Martinez, 2016, p. 19)

Criticism of SS and PB influences the study of gender differences. Although these exist, this does not imply that they are without cultural influence, but quite the opposite: it is enough that some difference is present in humans to admit that culture played a fundamental role in their manifestation. This demolishes any innate or pleistocene explanation typical of PE.
Human brain development does not depend only on the intrauterine period, but also on the learning and experiences lived in the first 5 years of life, which is a feature that differentiates us from other primates (Liu et al. 2012). This allows us to understand why breeding biases and stereotypes explain gender differences better than a presumed biological inheritance from millions of years ago.
It also clarifies why the loose comparison of human and primate behavior - a common exercise in EP (Jarrett, 2017) - is bound to fail. Both the expression of emotions in young infants and the child's preference for certain toys and play practices are heavily influenced by parental gender, parenting biases, and cultural values (Li et al., 2019, Liu et al., 2020).

Popular science or pseudoscience?

In Adapting Minds. David J. Buller (2005) analyzed arguments for and against EP with the intention that all those interested in EP would know "both sides of the story" (p. 16). After weighing the evidence, Buller (2005) concluded that EP "fails to provide us with an accurate evolutionary understanding of human psychology" (p. 481).
Given its popularity, Buller (2012) coined the category "evolutionary pop psychology" to refer to a strand that makes claims about human behavior through evolutionary concepts for popular consumption (whose main representatives are Buss and Pinker). Since the evidence on which the pop EP is based is scarce, its claims are "deeply flawed" (p. 51).
Precisely because of the infallible nature of its claims, the EP has been linked to pseudoscience by the greatest exponent of the subject, the philosopher and PhD in genetics, Massimo Pigliucci (2006, 2008). However, here it is worth clarifying the following: identifying EP as pseudoscience will not make it disappear nor will recognizing it as science make its vices disappear.
Indeed, it is not necessary for a discipline to degenerate into a pseudoscience in order to be rejected. If one has to choose an adjective, the evidence and arguments reviewed here sufficiently suggest that EP is, at most, a weak theory about the evolution of human behavior.

Hypothetical or impossible?

The few works that develop an epistemology of evolutionary psychology cite literature from 4 or 5 decades ago, when sociobiology was in vogue (Ketelaar & Ellis, 2000; Schmitt & Pilcher, 2004). Even in recent studies it is notorious that EP narrative used to be more triumphalist and ambitious than the contemporary, more humble and probabilistic one (Ploeger & van der Hoort, 2015).
In this respect, one study suggests that the aim of EP is not to formulate evidence-based theories, but hypotheses that could later be corroborated (Ketelaar & Ellis, 2000) - a questionable process for a supposed natural science. Also, another study mentioned the term "hypothesis" 60 times (Ploeger and van der Hoort, 2015), which reveals the current epistemic nature of EP.
While real science aims at formulating theories, EP only formulates hypotheses. Although every theory has been a hypothesis, when a study is published, it is done because of its theoretical character and not because of its hypothetical character. That is why it is said that scientific theories are born proven, because it is assumed that they have already considered all the evidence.
On the other hand, the EP operates in a different way: it does not publish proven theories, but hypotheses that need to be proved. Its mistakes are cyclical because its academics are used to tentative explanations. This makes the quality criteria flexible, since it is not the same to publish a theory as a hypothesis. Moreover, it seems that in PE the peer review is not done before publication, but after.

"It would be a shame if scientific journals also published creationist garbage, but that is exactly what PE journals do: publish a onanistic mix of terrible, horrible, ridiculous articles with a few articles that try to refute them. It's a turbulent mess that keeps publishers in business, but does nothing to improve our knowledge." (Myers, 2018)

Some even claim that the EP is "impossible" to corroborate. For Subrena Smith (2020) there is a matching problem in the EP, a fundamental difficulty in matching the current mental mechanisms with those of our ancestors. Since 'n' cognitive mechanism or algorithm by which a certain problem was solved leaves no fossils, we have no access to it nor can we know if it is an expression of an ancestor.

Reacting to criticism

The main criticisms of EP have come from biology (Gould, 1997; Lloyd and Feldman, 2002; Myers, 2012; Laland, 2017), anthropology (McKinnon, 2005; Marks, 2015; Henrich, 2016; Boyd, 2018), psychology (Halpern et al, 2007; Bolhuis et al., 2011), neuroscience (Buller and Hardcastle, 2000; Peters, 2013) and even philosophy of science (Buller, 2005; Pigliucci, 2006, 2008; Richardson, 2007).
A not very positive record for those who claim to explain scientifically the biological evolution of the human "mind".
Another critical line comes from the theory of developmental systems or DST (Lickliter, 2008). By discussing the unidirectional view Gen→Fenotipo and incorporating the biosocial perspective, this theory discusses the existence of innate behavioral information in genes and bets on a plural and dynamic approach: permanent feedback loops between the different layers of an organism.
The DST objects that the EP assigns ultimate causes to a phenomenon of proximate causes (phylogenetic fallacy).
In contrast, the EP has not remained cross-modular (Schmitt, 2015; Buss, 2016a; Hagen, 2016; Al-Shawaf, 2019; Stewart-Williams, 2020). Although several objections were morally motivated, others - like the ones reviewed here - deserve a better response than the simple enumeration of other equally questionable studies (Al-Shawaf, 2020). There is no point in declaring oneself a supporter of the EP if one does not know its successes and failures.
When the criticisms are not answered, evolutionary psychologists prefer to state that, if you object to their arguments, it is because you deny evolution (Geher, 2015), you are politicized (Geher & Gambacorta, 2010) or you are ideologically biased (Buss & Von Hippel, 2018). This attitude has led to the belief that evolutionary psychologists prefer to ignore criticism rather than respond to it adequately:

"Evolutionary psychologists largely ignore the biological evidence that has the strongest scientific credentials and is most directly relevant to their claims about psychological mechanisms. This includes not only evidence from neurobiology, genetics, and developmental biology, but also any evidence from evolutionary biology, ethology, and population genetics that threatens to undermine their armchair adaptationism. (Woodward and Cowie, 2004, p. 331)
"Evolutionary psychologists often respond to their critics by suggesting that they misunderstand their field and that they should read the foundational texts of their discipline and the enormity of their research findings. However, this suggestion would seem to be no more than a theoretical biblical punch line. They want their research to somehow stand on its own - hoping that their critics will excuse or overlook the theoretical assumptions that were made to achieve their realization. (Peters, 2013, p. 317)
"T]he SP does not investigate the dynamic interaction between genes and context, which is essential for understanding the development and evolution of behavior. Therefore, EP does not conform to the rigorous standards of biology or psychology, often does not respond to methodological criticism, eludes theoretical controversy, and is disconnected from a large number of studies on issues related to behavioral evolution. (Grossi et al., 2014, p. 283)
"I have been complaining for years, as have others. Proponents of evolutionary psychology simply continue to do more and more junk science based on ignorance of evolutionary biology, publishing the same crap to pollute the scientific literature. It is shameful." (Myers, 2020)

Even worse, certain evolutionary psychologists have accused their critics of being constructivists or tablarasists, despite being evolutionists. Perhaps because of this sectarian behavior, the Santa Barbara school (which embodies the EP referred to here) was dubbed the "Santa Barbara church" (Laland and Brown, 2002, p. 154); one whose members should "act less as evangelists and more as evolutionary biologists" (Gray et al., 2003, p. 265).
Although for 20 years Buss defined EP as a "new scientific discipline," it is notorious that it has lost ground. The first books set out a concrete program with an object of study, a theoretical framework, and specific proposals. Today, however, several handbooks include topics incompatible with it, such as cultural evolution (Workman and Reader, 2014; Buss, 2016a, 2016b, 2019).
Perhaps knowing this, Buss himself recently published an article in which he referred to cultural evolution and gene-cultural co-evolution (Lukaszewski et al., 2020), two proposals that strictly disagree with the EP. Who would have thought that one of the most important evolutionary psychologists is now linked to this culture that he recently underestimated. Life does give lessons.
Something curious is that when Buss and colleagues refer to cultural transmission (the main mechanism of cultural evolution) and to gene-culture co-evolution (the main concept of cultural evolution) they cite Tooby and Cosmides (Ibid.), even though in their work there is nothing similar to such proposals. Evolutionary psychologists may not be great scientists, but they are good colleagues.

Final Reflections

Although many criticisms and replies have been left out of this essay due to lack of space, it is pertinent to note that the most objected to proposals of the EP have also been the most representative: adaptationism, modularity, SS and or the PB. This explains why critics of the EP have questioned the program as a whole -for example:

"In principle, there is nothing wrong with taking an evolutionary approach to human behavior or cognition. In practice, however, the impoverished view of evolution and psychology adopted by many evolutionary psychologists, as well as the weakness of their empirical science, is frankly quite embarrassing". (Gray et al., 2003, p. 248)
"Much of the appeal of EP derives from the fact that it seems to provide a way of 'biologizing' cognitive science with evolutionary considerations that supposedly provide powerful additional constraints on psychological theorizing. We believe that this appearance is misleading. (Woodward and Cowie, 2004, p. 331)
"The failure of evolutionary psychology to produce solid empirical findings [...] stems from problems with its theoretical framework - in particular, its reliance on 'reverse engineering' the mind from the remnants of our Pleistocene past, its assumption that the adaptive architecture of the mind is massively modular, and its doctrine of a universal human nature. (Buller, 2006, p. 282)
"It is unlikely that we will ever learn much about our evolutionary past by dividing our Pleistocene history into discrete adaptive problems, assuming that the mind is divided into discrete solutions to those problems, and then backing up those assumptions with pencil and paper data. The field of evolutionary psychology will have to improve." (Buller, 2012, p. 51)

After reviewing 2578 social science articles, Alvaro de Menard (2020) concluded that PE studies were "weak social psychology articles with an infinitesimally thin top layer of evolutionary paint. For de Menard (2020), PE was a "surprisingly bad" discipline with a low capacity for replication, unlike others such as economics, education or demography.
Generally, debates about EP resort to poisoning the well or straw men such as the labels "biophobia", "creationism of the mind", "Standard Model of Social Sciences", "constructivism" or "tablarasism". Although they are a source of amusing memes on social networks, they contribute little to scientific progress and to developing a serious opinion about human behavior.
About the EP, there are diverse positions: some say it is not the devil (Geher, 2006), others that it is not a theory but a meta-theory (Duntley and Buss, 2008), others ask that we all enact it (Burke, 2014), others demand that it be abolished (Myers, 2018), some want to throw it away (Eberle, 2019) and others claim that it provides a "solid scientific framework" that generates a "scientific revolution" (Buss, 2020).
If anyone agrees with the criticisms reviewed, but is interested in behavioral evolution, they should know that there are other PE schools that do not share the record of the one referred to here, nor do they share adaptationist, modularist, innate or anti-cultural approaches (Dunbar et al., 2007; Laland, 2017).
Does evolution impact on human behavior? Yes, as animals, humans are subject to the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic drift, etc. Critics and proponents of evolutionary psychology agree that evolution operates on organisms. The discrepancy, you understand, revolves around how this occurs, around the explanation given.
In science there is no subject free of controversy. The condemnations received by Darwin or Giordano Bruno themselves are clear examples of this. This epic serves to raise the statements invested with science as martyrs against the criticisms made at a certain historical moment.
If the avid reader noticed that this essay used verbs in the past tense to refer to the EP, it is because the critical evidence already exposed it as a finished theory. Even so, this essay will serve those who wonder what became of that discipline that swore to explain human behavior through adaptations, genes, modules and an incomprehensible contempt for culture.
-Author's note: This essay was made with the support of my colleagues Sientífiko (political scientist, Universidad de Santiago, Chile) and Miguel Ángel (biological anthropologist, Universidad de Arte y Ciencias Sociales, Chile), who are co-authors.

By: Sergio Morales on website Ciencias delsur.

I learned how to play Craps perhaps 2 years ago and quickly learned that playing "the dark side" was more profitable. Less fun, but more profitable. I started playing only at tables with the corner spot nearest the DC box open where I could just quietly stand and not draw too much attention to myself and just slowly and steadily pick up chips as others "7 out".
When tables at my preferred places (The M, Silverton and Green Valley Ranch) were are $5, pre covid, I would bet $5 on the DP and a $5 C&E. When a point is established I lay $30 odds and $5 in the DC. I lay $30 odds and repeat until a 7 is rolled.
Now with Covid, all the tables are $10 at these 3 establishments. I still have been laying $30 odds behind my donts though.
The past month or 2 my luck has not been great playing the dark side though so tonight, as I was driving to GVR, I told myself I would play the right way to include betting the max odds (10X).
So I step up to the table and buy in with $600. I immediately get the dice at a nearly full table. There are 7 players total. I have not touched the dice in close to 2 years as I always pass when playing the dont.
I bet $10 on the pass line and a $5 C&E (habit) on the come out roll. I roll a 3. I lose my $10 on the pass but win $15 on the C&E. Next I roll a 5 as the point. I back up my $10 pass line bet with $100. I throw an 8 and then a 7. Dammit. -$110
Next shooter starts by rolling a 2 so I again lose my $10 on the pass line but win $15 on the C&E. Then he established the point as 9. I again back up my $10 with $100 odds. Shooter immediately 7s out. Dammit. -$220.
Enough, I switch to the dark side with $10 DP & DC bets laying $30 odds on everything for the next 15 minutes and 5 or 6 shooters. Only one time did a shooter hit the point and only one other time did a shooter hit a number that I had $10+$30 on. All my other bets were winners and I left the table +$165 or with $765 total.
Actually I left +$150 because I gave the dealers $5 on each of the hard 6, 8 and 10. I stepped away from the table but not too far as I wanted to see if any of those bets for the dealers paid off. Turns out a hard 8 was hit so they got $50. An easy 6 was thrown to wipe out that bet and a 7 was thrown before any 10. But still they were pleased with the $50 they won.
Anyway, so much for playing the right way. I will probably do it again some day but it will likely be a while before I do.

INTERVIEWER: What was your early life like, and what made you want to write?
CARVER: | grew up in a small town in eastern Washington, a place called Yakima. My dad worked at the sawmill there. He was a saw-filer and helped take care of the saws that were used to cut and plane the logs. My mother worked as a retail clerk or a waitress or else stayed at home, but she didn’t keep any job for very long. I remember talk concerning her “nerves.” In the cabinet under the kitchen sink, she kept a bottle of patent — “nerve medicine,” and she’d take a couple of tablespoons of this every morning. My dad’s nerve medicine was whiskey. Mos toften he kept a bottle of it under that same sink, or else outside in the woodshed. I remember sneaking a taste of it once and hating it, and wondering how anybody could drink the stuff. Home was a little two-bedroom house. We moveda lot when I was a kid, but it was always into another little two- bedroom house. The first house I can remember living in, near the fairgrounds in Yakima, had an outdoor toilet. This was in the late 1940s. I was eight or ten years old then. I used to wait at the bus stop for my dad to come home from work. Usually he was as regular as clockwork. But every two weeks or so, he wouldn’t be on the bus. I’d stick around then and wait for the next bus, but I already knew he wasn’t going to be on that one, either. When this happened,it meant he’d gone drinking with friends of his from the sawmill. I still remember the sense of doom and hopelessness that hung over the supper table when my mother and I and my kid brother sat down toeat.
INTERVIEWER: But what made you want to write?
CARVER: The only explanation I can give you is that my dad told me lots of stories about himself when he was a kid, and about his dad and his grandfather. His grandfather had fought in the Civil War. He fought for both sides! He was a turncoat. When the South began losing the war, he crossed over to the North and began fighting for the Union forces. My. dad laughed when he told this story. He didn’t see anything wrong with it, and I guess I didn’t either. Anyway, my dad would tell me stories, anecdotes really, no moral to them, about tramping aroundin the woods,or else riding the rails and having to look out for railroad bulls. I loved his company and loved to listen to him tell me these stories. Once in a while he’d read something to me from what he was reading. Zane Grey westerns. These were the first real hardback books, outside of gradeschool texts, and the Bible, that I’d ever seen. It wouldn't happen very often, but now and again I’d see him lying on the bed of an evening and reading from Zane Grey. It seemed a very private act in a house and family that were not given to privacy. I realized that he had this private side to him, something I didn’t understand or know anything about, but something that found expression through this occasional reading.I was interested in that side of him and interested in the act itself. I’d ask him to read me what he was reading, and he’d oblige by just reading from wherever he happened to be in the book. After a while he’d say, “Junior, go do something else now.” Well, there were plenty of things to do. In those days, I went fishing in this creek that was not too far from our house. A little later, I started hunting ducks and geese and upland game. That’s what excited me in those days, hunting and fishing. That’s what made a dent in my emotional life, and that’s what I wanted to write about. My reading fare in those days, aside from an occasional historical novel or Mickey Spillane mystery, consisted of Sports Afield and Outdoor Life, and Field & Stream. I wrote a longish thing about the fish that got away, or the fish I caught, one or the other, and asked my mother if she would type it up for me. She couldn’t type, but she did go rent a typewriter, bless her heart, and between the two of us, we typed it up in some terrible fashion and sent it out. I remember there were two addresses on the mast head of the outdoors magazine; so we sent it to the office closest to us, to Boulder, Colorado, the circulation department. The piece came back, finally, but that was fine. It had gone out in the world, that manuscript—it had been places. Somebody had read it besides my mother, or so I hoped anyway. Then I saw an ad in Writer’s Digest. It was a photograph of a man, a successful author, obviously, testifying to something called the Palmer Institute of Authorship. That seemed like just the thing for me. There was a monthly payment plan involved. Twenty dollars down,ten or fifteen dollars a month for three years or thirty years, one of those things. There were weekly assignments with personal responses to the assignments. I stayed with it for a few months. Then, maybe I got bored; I stopped doing the work. My folks stopped making the payments. Pretty soon a letter arrived from the Palmer Institute telling me that if I paid them up in full, I could still get the certificate of completion. This seemed more than fair. Somehow I talked my folks into paying the rest of the money, and in due time I got the certificate and hung it up on my bedroom wall. But all through high school it was assumed that I’d graduate and go to work at the sawmill. For a long time I wanted to do the kind of work my dad did. He was going to ask his foreman at the mill to put me on after I graduated. So I worked at the mill for about six months. But I hated the work and knew from the first day I didn’t want to do that for the rest of my life. I worked long enough to save the money for a car, buy some clothes, and so I could move out and get married.
INTERVIEWER: Somehow,for whatever reasons, you went to college. Was it your wife who wanted you to go onto college? Did she encourage you in this respect? Did she want to go to college and that made you want to go? How old were you at this point? She must have been pretty young, too.
CARVER: | was eighteen. She was sixteen and pregnant and had just graduated from an Episcopalian private schoolfor girls in Walla Walla, Washington. At school she’d learned the right way to hold a teacup; she’d had religious instruction and gym and such, but she also learned about physics and literature and foreign languages. I wa terrifically impressed that she knew Latin. Latin! She tried off and onto go to college during those first years, but it was too hard to do that: it was impossible to do that and raise a family and be broke all the time,too. I mean broke. Her family didn’t have any money.She was going to that school on a scholarship. Her mother hated me and still does. My wife was supposed to graduate and go on to the University of Washington to study law on a fellowship. Instead, I made her pregnant, and we got married and began our life together. She was seventeen when the first child was born, eighteen when the second was born. What shall I say at this point? We didn’t have any youth. We found ourselves in roles we didn’t know how to play. But we did the best we could. Better than that, I want to think. She did finish college finally. She got her B.A. degree at San Jose State twelve or fourteen years after we married.
INTERVIEWER: Were you writing during these early, difficult years?
CARVER: I worked nights and went to school days. We were always working. She was working and trying to raise the kids and manage a household. She worked for the telephone company. The kids were with a babysitter during the day. Finally, I graduated with the B.A. degree from Humboldt State College and we put everything into the car and in one of those carryalls that fits on top of your car, and we went to IowaCity. A teacher named Dick Day at Humboldt State had told me about the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. Day had sent along a story of mine and three or four poems to Don Justice, who was responsible for getting me a five-hundred-dollar grant at lowa.
INTERVIEWER:Five hundred dollars?
CARVER: That’s all they had, they said. It seemed like a lot at the time. But I didn’t finish at lowa. They offered me more money to stay on the second year, but we just couldn’t do it. I was working in the library for a dollar or two an hour, and my wife was working as a waitress. It was going to take me another year to get a degree, and we just couldn’t stick it out. So we moved backto California. This time it was Sacramento. I found work as a night janitor at Mercy Hospital. I kept the job for three years. It was a pretty good job.I only had to work two or three hours a night, but I waspaidfor eight hours. There was a certain amountof work that had to get done, but once it was done, that was it—I could go home or do anything I wanted. The first year or two I went home every night and would be in bed at a reasonable hour and be able to get up in the morning and write. The kids would be off at the babysitter’s and my wife would have gone to her job—a door-to-door sales job. I’d have all day in front of me. This was fine for a while. Then I began getting off work at night and going drink-ing instead of going home. By this time it was 1967 or 1968.
INTERVIEWER: When did you first get published?
CARVER: When I was an undergraduate at Humboldt State in Arcata, California. One day, I had a short story taken at one magazine and a poem taken at another. It was a terrific day! Maybe one of the best days ever. My wife and I drove around town and showed the letters of acceptance to all of our friends. It gave some much-needed validation to ourlives.
INTERVIEWER: What was the first story you ever published? And the first poem?
CARVER:It was a story called “Pastoral” and it was published in the Western Humanities Review. It’s a good literary magazine and it’s still being published by the University of Utah. They didn’t pay me anything for the story, but that didn’t matter. The poem was called “The Brass Ring,” and it was published by a magazine in Arizona, now defunct, called Targets. Charles Bukowski had a poem in the same issue, and I was pleased to be in the same magazine with him. He was a kind of hero to me then.
INTERVIEWER:Is it true—a friend of yours told me this— that you celebrated your first publication by taking the magazine to bed with you?
CARVER: That’s partly true. Actually, it was a book, the Best American Short Stories annual. My story “Will You Please Be Quiet, Please?” had just appeared in the collection. That was back in the late sixties, when it was edited every year by Martha Foley and people used to call it that—simply, “The Foley Collection.” The story had been published in an obscure little magazine out of Chicago called December. The day the anthology came in the mail I took it to bed to read and just to look at, you know,and hold it, but I did more looking and holding than actual reading.I fell asleep and woke up the next morning with the book there in bed beside me, along with my wife.
INTERVIEWER:In an article you did for The New York Times Book Review you mentioned a story “too tedious to talk about here”—about why you choose to write short stories over novels. Do you want to go into that story now?
CARVER: The story that was “‘too tedious to talk about” has to do with a number of things that aren’t very pleasant to talk about. I did finally talk about someof these things in the essay “Fires,” which was published in Antaeus. In it I said that finally, a writer is judged by what he writes, and that’s the way it should be. The circumstances surrounding the writing are something else, something extraliterary. Nobody ever asked me to be a writer. But it was tough to stay alive and paybills and put food on the table and at the same time to think of myself as a writer and to /earn to write. After years of working crap jobs and raising kids and trying to write, I realized I needed to write things I could finish and be done with in a hurry. There was no way | could undertake a novel, a two- or three-year stretch of work on a single project. I needed to write something I could get some kind of a payoff from immediately, not next year, or three years from now. Hence, poems and stories. I was beginningto see that my life was not—let’s say it was not what I wanted it to be. There was always a wagon load of frustration to deal with—wanting to write and not being able to find the time or the place for it. I used to go out and sit in the car and try to write something on a pad on my knee. This was when the kids were in their adolescence. I was in my late twenties or early thirties. We were still in a state of penury, we had one bankruptcy behind us, and years of hard work with nothing to show for it except an old car, a rented house, and new creditors on our backs. It was depressing, and I felt spiritually obliterated. Alcohol became a problem. I more or less gave up, threw in the towel, and took to full-time drinking as a serious pursuit. That’s part of what I was talking about when I was talking about things “‘too tedious to talk about.”
INTERVIEWER:Could you talk a little more about the drinking? So manywriters, even if they’re not alcoholics, drink so much.
CARVER:Probably not a whole lot more than any other group of professionals. You’d be surprised. Of course there’s a mythology that goes along with the drinking, but I was never into that. I was into the drinking itself. I suppose I began to drink heavily after I’d realized that the things I’d wanted most in life for myself and my writing, and my wife and children, were simply not going to happen. It’s strange. You never start out in life with the intention of becoming a bankrupt or an alcoholic or a cheat and a thief. Or a liar.
INTERVIEWER: And you were all those things?
CARVER:I was. I’m not any longer. Oh,I lie a little from time to time, like everyone else.
INTERVIEWER: How long since you quit drinking?
CARVER: June second, 1977. If you want the truth, I’m prouder of that, that I’ve quit drinking, than I am of anything in my life. I’m a recovered alcoholic. I’ll always be an alcoholic, but I’m no longer a practicing alcoholic.
INTERVIEWER: How bad did the drinking get?
CARVER:It's very painful to think about some of the things that happened back then. I made a wastelando ut of everything I touched. But I might add that towards the end of the drinking there wasn’t much left anyway. But specific things? Let’s just say, on occasion, the police were involved and emergency rooms and courtrooms.
INTERVIEWER: How did you stop? What made you able to stop?
CARVER: The last year of my drinking, 1977, I was in a recovery center twice, as well as one hospital; and I spent a few days in a place called DeWitt near San Jose, California. DeWitt used to be, appropriately enough,a hospital for the criminally insane. Toward the end of my drinking career I was completely out of control and in a very grave place. Blackouts, the whole business—points where you can’t remember anything you say or do during a certain period of time. You might drive a car, give a reading, teach a class, set a broken leg, go to bed with someone, and not have any memory of it later. You’re on some kind of automatic pilot. I have an image of myself sitting in my living room with a glass of whiskey in my hand and my head bandaged from a fall caused by an alcoholic seizure. Crazy! Two weeks later I was back in a recovery center, this time at a place called Duffy’s, in Calistoga, California, up in the wine country. I was at Duffy’s on two different occasions; in the place called DeWitt, in San Jose; and in a hospital in San Francisco—all in the space of twelve months. I guess that’s pretty bad. I was dying from it, plain and simple, and I’m not exaggerating.
INTERVIEWER: What brought you to the point where you could stop drinking for good?
CARVER:It was late May 1977. I was living by myself in a housein a little town in northern California, and I’d been sober for about three weeks. I drove to San Francisco, where they were having this publishers’ convention. Fred Hills, at that time editor-in-chief at McGraw-Hill, wanted to take me to lunch and offer me money to write a novel. But a couple of nights before the lunch, one of my friends had a party. Midway through, I picked up a glass of wine and drank it, and that’s the last thing I remember. Blackout time. The next morning when the stores opened, I was waiting to buy a bottle. The dinner that night was a disaster; it was terrible, people quarreling and disappearing from the table. And the next morning I had to get up and go have this lunch with Fred Hills. I was so hung over when I woke up I could hardly hold my head up. But I drank a half pint of vodka before I picked up Hills and that helped, for the short run. And then he wanted to drive over to Sausalito for lunch! That took us at least an hour in heavy trafhe, and I was drunk and hungover both, you understand. But for some reason he went ahead and offered me this money to write a novel.
INTERVIEWER: Did you ever write the novel?
CARVER: Not yet! Anyway, I managed to get out of San Francisco back up to where I lived. I stayed drunk for a couple more days. And then I wokeup,feeling terrible, but I didn’t drink anything that morning. Nothing alcoholic, I mean. I felt terrible physically—mentally, too, of course—but I didn’t drink anything. I didn’t drink for three days, and when the third day had passed, I began to feel some better. Then I just kept not drinking. Gradually I began to put a little distance between myself and the booze. A week. Two weeks. Suddenly it was a month. I’d been sober for a month, and I was slowly starting to get well.
INTERVIEWER: Did AA help?
CARVER:It helped a lot. I went to at least one and sometimes two meetings a day for the first month.
INTERVIEWER:Did you ever feel that alcohol was in any way an inspiration? I’m thinking of your poem “Vodka,” published in Esquire.
CARVER: My God,no! I hope I’ve made that clear. Cheever remarked that he could always recognize “an alcoholic line” in a writer's work. I’m not exactly sure what he meant by this but I think I know. When we weret eaching in the lowa Writers’ Workshopin the fall semester of 1973, he and I did nothing but drink. I mean we met our classes, in a manner of speaking. But the entire time we were there—we were living in this hotel they have on campus, the Iowa House—I don’t think either of us ever took the covers off our typewriters. We made trips to a liquor store twice a week in my car.
INTERVIEWER: To stock up?
CARVER: Yes, stock up. But the store didn’t open until ten A.M. Once we planned an early morning run, a ten o’clock run, and we were going to meetin the lobby of the hotel. I came down early to get some cigarettes and John was pacing up and downin the lobby. He was wearing loafers, but he didn’t have any socks on. Anyway, we headed outa little early. By the time we got to the liquor store the clerk was just unlocking the front door. On this particular morning, John got out of the car before I could get it properly parked. By the timeI got inside the store he was already at the checkout stand with a half gallon of Scotch. He lived on the fourth floor of the hotel and I lived on the second. Our rooms were identical, right down to the same reproduction of the same painting hanging on the wall. But when we drank together, we always drank in his room. He said he was afraid to come down to drink on the second floor. He said there was always a chance of him getting mugged in the hallway! But you know,of course, that fortunately, not too long after Cheever left Iowa City, he went to a treatment center and got sober and stayed sober until he died.
INTERVIEWER: Do you feel the spoken confessions at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings have influenced your writing?
CARVER: There are different kinds of meetings—speaker meetings where just one speaker will get up and talk for fifty minutes or so about wha tit was like then, and maybe what it’s like now. And there are meetings where everyone in the room has a chance to say something. But I can’t honestly say I’ve ever consciously or otherwise patterned any of mystories on things I’ve heard at the meetings.
INTERVIEWER: Where do your stories come from, then? I’m especially asking about the stories that have something to do with drinking.
CARVER: The fiction I’m most interested in has lines of reference to the real world. None of my stories really happened, of course. But there’s always something, some element, something said to me or that I witnessed, that may be the starting place. Here’s an example:“That’s the last Christmas you'll ever ruin for us!” I was drunk whenI heard that, but I remembered it. And later, much later, when I was sober, using only that one line and other things I imagined, imagined so accurately that they could have happened, I made a story—“‘A Serious Talk.” But the fiction I’m most interested in, whether it’s Tolstoy’s fiction, Chekhov, Barry Hannah, Richard Ford, Hemingway, Isaac Babel, Ann Beattie, or Anne Tyler, strikes me as autobiographical to some extent. At the very least it’s referential. Stories long or short don’t just come out of thin air. I’m reminded of a conversation involving John Cheever. We were sitting around a table in Iowa City with some people and he happened to remark that after a family frac as at his home one night, he got up the next morning and wentinto the bathroom to find something his daughter had written in lipstick on the bathroom mirror: “D-e-r-e daddy, don’t leave us.”’ Someoneat the table spoke up and said, “I recognize that from one of your stories.” Cheever said, “Probably so. Everything I write is autobiographical.” Now of course that’s not literally true. But everything we writeis, in some way, autobiographical. I’m not in the least bothered by “autobiographical” fiction. To the contrary. On the Road. Céline. Roth. Lawrence Durrell in The Alexandria Quartet. So much of Hemingway in the Nick Adams stories. Updike, too, you bet. Jim McConkey. Clark Blaise is a contemporary writer whose fiction is out-and-out autobiography. Of course, you have to know what you’re doing when you turn yourlife’s stories into fiction. You have to be immensely daring, very skilled and imaginative and willing to tell everything on yourself. You’re told time and again when youre young to write about what you know, and what do you know better than your own secrets? But unless you’re a special kind of writer, and a very talented one,it’s dangerousto try and write volume after volume on The Story of My Life. A great danger, or at least a great temptation, for many writers is to become too autobiographical in their approachto their fiction. A little autobiography and a lot of imagination are best.
INTERVIEWER: Are your characters trying to do what matters?
CARVER: I think they are trying. But trying and succeeding are two different matters. In some lives, people always succeed; and I think it’s grand when that happens. In other lives, people don’t succeed at what they try to do, at the things they want most to do, the large or small things that supportthe life. These lives are, of course, valid to write about, the lives of the people who don’t succeed. Most of my own experience, direct or indirect, has to do with thelattersituation. I think most of my characters wouldlike their actions to count for something. But at the same time they’ve reached the point—as so many people do—that they knowit isn’t so. It doesn’t add up any longer. The things you once thought important or even worth dying for aren’t worth a nickel now.It’s their lives they've become uncomfortable with, lives they see breaking down. They’d like to set things right, but they can’t. And usually they do know it, I think, and after that they just do the best they can.
INTERVIEWER: Could you say something about one of my favorite stories in your most recent collection? Where did the idea for ““Why Don’t You Dance?”’originate?
CARVER:I wasvisiting some writer friends in Missoula back in the mid-1970s. We wereall sitting around drinking and someone told a story about a barmaid named Linda whogot drunk with her boyfriend one night and decided to moveall of her bedroom furnishings into the backyard. Theydidit, too, right down to the carpet and the bedroom lamp,the bed, the nightstand, everything. There were about fouror five writers in the room,and after the guy finished telling the story, someone said, “Well, who’s going to write it?” I don’t know who else might have written it, but I wrote it. Not then, but later. About four or five years later, I think. I changed and added things to it, of course. Actually, it was the first story I wrote after I finally stopped drinking.
INTERVIEWER: What are your writing habits like? Are you always working on a story?
CARVER: When I’m writing, I write every day. It’s lovely when that’s happening. One day dovetailing into the next. Sometimes I don’t even know what day of the week it is. The ““‘paddle-wheel of days,” John Ashberyhascalled it. When I’m not writing, like now, when I’m tied up with teaching duties as I have been thelast while, it’s as if I’ve never written a word or had any desire to write. I fall into bad habits. I stay up too late and sleep in too long. But it’s okay. I’ve learned to be patient and to bide mytime. I had to learn that a long time ago. Patience. If I believed in signs, I suppose my sign would be the sign of the turtle. I write in fits and starts. But when I’m writing, I put in a lot of hours at the desk, ten or twelve or fifteen hours at a stretch, day after day. I love that, when that’s happening. Muchofthis work time, understand,is given over to revising and rewriting. There’s not much that I like better than to take a story that I’ve had around the house for a while and workit over again. It’s the same with the poems I write. ’'m in no hurry to send something off just after I write it, and I sometimeskeep it around the house for months doing this or that to it, taking this out and putting that in. It doesn’t take that long to do the first draft of the story, that usually happensin onesitting, but it does take a while to do the various versions of the story. I’ve done as many as twenty or thirty drafts of a story. Never less than ten or twelve drafts. It’s instructive, and heartening both, to look at the early drafts of great writers. I’m thinking of the photographsof galleys belonging to Tolstoy, to name one writer wholovedtorevise. I mean,I don’t knowif he lovedit or not, but he did a great deal of it. He was always revising, right down to the time of page proofs. He went through and rewrote War and Peace eight times and wasstill making corrections in the galleys. Things like this should hearten every writer whose first drafts are dreadful, like mineare.
INTERVIEWER: Describe what happens when you write a story.
CARVER:I write the first draft quickly, as I said. This is most often done in longhand.I simply fill up the pages as rapidly as I can. In somecases, there’s a kind of personal shorthand,notes to myself for what I will do later when I comebackto it. Some scenes I have to leave unfinished, unwritten in somecases; the scenes that will require meticulous care later. I meanall ofit requires meticulous care—but some scenes | save until the second or third draft, because to do them and do them right would take too much time on the first draft. With the first draft it’s a question of getting down theoutline, the scaffolding of the story. Then on subsequentrevisions I’ll see to the rest of it. When I’ve finished the longhand draft I’ll type a version of the story and go from there. It always looks different to me, better, of course, after it’s typed up. When I’m typing the first draft, I’ll begin to rewrite and add and delete little then. The real work comeslater, after I’ve done three or fourdrafts of the story. It’s the same with the poems, only the poems may go throughforty orfifty drafts. Donald Hall told me he sometimes writes a hundred or so drafts of his poems. Can you imagine?
INTERVIEWER: Has your way of working changed?
CARVER: Thestories in What We Talk About are different to an extent. For one thing, it’s a much moreself-conscious book in the sense of how intentional every move was, how calculated. I pushed and pulled and worked with those stories before they wentinto the book to an extent I’d never done with any otherstories. When the book was put together and in the hands of my publisher, I didn’t write anything at all for six months. And then the first story I wrote was ‘“‘Cathedral,” which I feel is totally different in conception and execution from any stories that have come before. I supposeit reflects a change in mylife as much as it does in my way of writing. WhenI wrote “Cathedral” I experienced this rush and I felt, ‘This is what it’s all about, this is the reason wedo this.” It was different than the stories that had come before. There was an opening up whenI wrote thestory. I knew I’d goneasfar the other way as I could or wanted to go, cutting everything downto the marrow,not just to the bone. Anyfarther in that direction and I’d be at a dead end—writing stuff and publishing stuff I wouldn’t want to read myself, and that’s the truth. In a review of the last book, somebody called me a “minimalist’’ writer. The reviewer meant it as a compliment. But I didn’t like it. There’s something about ‘“‘minimalist’”’ that smacks of smallness of vision and execution that I don’t like. But all of the stories in the new book, the one called Cathedral, were written within an eighteen-month period; and in every one of them I feel this difference.
INTERVIEWER: Do you have any sense of an audience? Updike described his ideal reader as a young boy in a small midwestern town finding one of his books on a library shelf.
CARVER:It’s nice to think of Updike’s idealized reader. But except for the early stories, I don’t think it’s a young boy in a small midwestern town who’s reading Updike. What would this young boy make of The Centaur or Couples or Rabbit Redux or The Coup? I think Updike is writing for the audience that John Cheever said he was writing for, “intelligent, adult men and women,” wherever they live. Any writer worth his salt writes as well and as truly as he can and hopesforas large and perceptive a readership as possible. So you write as well as you can and hopefor good readers. But I think you’re also writing for other writers to an extent—the dead writers whose work you admire, as well as the living writers you like to read. If they like it, the other writers, there’s a good chance other “intelligent, adult men and women” maylikeit, too. But I don’t have that boy you mentioned in mind,or anyoneelse for that matter, when I’m doing the writing itself.
INTERVIEWER: How much of what you write do you finally throw away?
CARVER:Lots. If the first draft of the story is forty pages long, it’ll usually be half that by the time I’m finished with it. And it’s not just a question of taking out or bringing itdown. I take out a lot, but I also add things and then add some more and take out some more. It’s something I love to do, putting words in and taking words out.
INTERVIEWER: Hasthe process of revision changed now that the stories seem to be longer and more generous?
CARVER: Generous, yes, that’s a good word for them. Yes, and I'll tell you why. Up at school there’s a typist who has one of those space-age typewriters, a word processor, and I can give her a story to type and once she hasit typed and I get back the fair copy, I can mark it up to my heart’s content and give it back to her; and the next day I can have mystory back,all fair copy once more. Then I can mark it up again as muchas I want, and the next day I'll have back a fair copy once more. I love it. It may seem like a small thing,really, but it’s changed my life, that woman and her wordprocessor.
INTERVIEWER: Did you ever have any time off from not having to earn a living?
CARVER: I had a year once. It was a very important year for me, too. I wrote most of the stories in Will You Please Be Quiet, Please? in that year. It was back in 1970 or 1971. I was working for this textbook publishing firm in Palo Alto. It was my first white-collar job, right after the period when I’d been a janitor at the hospital in Sacramento. I’d been working away there quietly as an editor when the company,it was called SRA, decided to do a major reorganization. I planned to quit, I was writing myletter of resignation, but then suddenly—I was fired. It was just wonderful the way it turned out. We invited all of our friends that weekend and had firing party! For a year I didn’t have to work. I drew unemployment and had my severance pay to live on. And that’s the period when my wife finished her college degree. That was a turning point, that time. It was agood period. |
INTERVIEWER:Are youreligious?
CARVER: No, butI haveto believe in miracles and the possibility of resurrection. No question about that. Every day that I wake up, I’m glad to wake up. That’s why I like to wake up ~ early. In my drinking days I would sleep until noon or whatever and I would usually wake up with the shakes.
INTERVIEWER: Doyouregret a lot of things that happened back then when things were so bad?
CARVER: I can’t change anything now.I can’t afford to regret. Thatlife is simply gone now,and I can’t regretits passing. I have to live in the present. The life back then is gone just as surely—it’s as remote to meas if it had happened to somebody I read aboutin a nineteenth-century novel. I don’t spend more than five minutes a month in the past. The past really is a foreign country, and they do do things differently there. Things happen. I really do feel I’ve had two different lives.
INTERVIEWER:Can youtalk a little aboutliterary influences, or at least name some writers whose work you greatly admire?
CARVER: E.rnest Hemingway is one. Theearly stories. “Big Two-Hearted River,” “Cat in the Rain,” “The Three-Day Blow,” “Soldier’s Home,” lots more. Chekhov. I suppose he’s the writer whose work I most admire. But who doesn’t like Chekhov? I’m talking about his stories now, not the plays. His plays move too slowly for me. Tolstoy. Any of his shortstories, novellas, and Anna Karenina. Not War and Peace. Too slow.. But The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Master and Man, “How Much Land Does a Man Need?” Tolstoy is the best there is. Isaac Babel, Flannery O’Connor, Frank O’Connor. James Joyce’s Dubliners. John Cheever. Madame Bovary. Last year I reread that book, along with a new translation of Flaubert’s letters written while he was composing—no other word for it—Ma- dame Bovary. Conrad. Updike’s Too Far to Go. And there are wonderful writers I’ve come across in the last year or two like Tobias Wolff. His book of stories In the Garden of the North American Martyrs is just wonderful. Max Schott. Bobbie Ann Mason. Did I mention her? Well, she’s good and worth mentioning twice. Harold Pinter. V. S. Pritchett. Years ago I read somethingin a letter by Chekhov that impressed me. It was a piece of advice to one of his many correspondents, and it went somethinglike this: Friend, you don’t have to write about extraordinary people who accomplish extraordinary and memorable deeds. (Understand I was in college at the time and reading plays about princes and dukes and the overthrow of kingdoms. Quests andthelike, large undertakingsto establish heroes in their rightful places. Novels with larger-than-life heroes.) But reading what Chekhov had to say in that letter, and in otherletters of his as well, and reading his stories, made me see things differently than I had before. Not long afterwards I read a play and a numberof stories by Maxim Gorky, and he simply reinforced in his work what Chekhovhadtosay. Richard Ford is another fine writer. He’s primarily a novelist, but he’s also written stories and essays. He’s a friend. I have a lot of friends who are good friends, and some of them are good writers. Some not so good.
INTERVIEWER: Whatdo you do in that case? I mean, how do you handle that—if oneof your friends publishes something you don’t like? |
CARVER: I don’t say anything unless the friend asks me, and I hope he doesn’t. But if you’re asked you have to say it in a waythat it doesn’t wreck the friendship. You wantyourfriends to do well and write the best they can. But sometimes their work is a disappointment. You want everything to go well for — them, but you have this dread that maybe it won’t and there’s not much you can do.
INTERVIEWER: What do you think of moral fiction? I guess this has to lead into talk about John Gardnerand his influence on you. I know you were his student many years ago at Humboldt State College.
CARVER: That’s true. I’ve written about our relationship in the Antaeus piece and elaborated on it more in my introduc- tion to a posthumous bookofhis called On Becoming a Novel- ist. | think On Moral Fiction is a wonderfully smart book. I don’t agree withall of it, by any means, but generally he’sright. Not so much in his assessmentsofliving writers as in the aims, the aspirations of the book.It’s a book that wants to affirm life rather than trash it. Gardner’s definition of morality is life- afhrming. Andin that regard he believes goodfiction is moral fiction. It’s a book to argue with, if you like to argue. It’s brilliant, in any case. I think he mayargue his case even better in On Becoming a Novelist. And he doesn’t go after other writers as he did in On Moral Fiction. We had been out of touch with each other for years when he published On Moral Fiction, but his influence, the things he stood for in mylife whenI washis student, werestill so strong that for a long while I didn’t want to read the book. I wasafraid to find out that whatI’d been writingall these years was immoral! You under- stand that we’d not seen eachother for nearly twenty years and had only renewed ourfriendship after I’d moved to Syracuse and he was down there at Binghamton, seventy miles away. There was a lot of anger directed toward Gardnerand the book when it was published. He touched nerves. I happen to think it’s a remarkable piece of work.
INTERVIEWER: But after you read the book, what did you think then about your own work? Were you writing “moral” or “immoral’’ stories? CARVER:I’m still not sure! But I heard from otherpeople, and then he told me himself, that he liked my work. Especially the new work. That pleases me a great deal. Read On Becoming a Novelist.
​
(Continues in the comments)

PSA. I hit the max characters I can put in a post. So had to start a new one. If you hadn't had the chance to read games 1-3, can be found here:
https://www.reddit.com/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/jvvizb/confessions_from_a_gt_battle_reps_round_1_um_vs_am/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Game 4 Vs Genestealer Cult
The Mission: Sweep and Clear
The List:
++ Battalion Detachment ++Cult Creed: Cult of the Four-Armed Emperor+ Stratagems +Broodcoven [-1CP]Grandsire's Gifts [-1CP]: 1 Extra Sacred Relic+ HQ +Magus [5 PL, 85pts, -1CP]: Broodcoven Magus, Power: Might From Beyond, Power: Mind Control, Stratagem: The Cult's Psyche, Warlord Trait: Inscrutable Cunning
Patriarch [8 PL, 150pts]: Familiar, Inspiring Leader, Power: Mental Onslaught, Power: Might From Beyond, The Crouchling, Warlord
Primus [4 PL, 85pts]: Bonesword, Broodcoven Primus, Sword of the Void's Eye, Warlord Trait: Alien Majesty
+ Troops +Acolyte Hybrids [12 PL, 290pts]: Cult Icon. 11x Acolyte Hybrid (Hand Flamer): 11x Blasting Charges, 11x Cultist Knife, 11x Hand Flamer, 11x Rending Claw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Leader: Cultist Knife, Hand Flamer
Acolyte Hybrids [12 PL, 200pts]. 19x Acolyte Hybrid (Hand Flamer): 19x Blasting Charges, 19x Cultist Knife, 19x Hand Flamer, 19x Rending Claw. Acolyte Leader: Cultist Knife, Hand Flamer
Acolyte Hybrids [12 PL, 200pts]. 19x Acolyte Hybrid (Hand Flamer): 19x Blasting Charges, 19x Cultist Knife, 19x Hand Flamer, 19x Rending Claw. Acolyte Leader: Cultist Knife, Hand Flamer
Acolyte Hybrids [12 PL, 290pts]: Cult Icon. 11x Acolyte Hybrid (Hand Flamer): 11x Blasting Charges, 11x Cultist Knife, 11x Hand Flamer, 11x Rending Claw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Saw. Acolyte Leader: Cultist Knife, Hand Flamer
Acolyte Hybrids [12 PL, 200pts]. 19x Acolyte Hybrid (Hand Flamer): 19x Blasting Charges, 19x Cultist Knife, 19x Hand Flamer, 19x Rending Claw. Acolyte Leader: Cultist Knife, Hand Flamer
Acolyte Hybrids [12 PL, 290pts]: Cult Icon. 11x Acolyte Hybrid (Hand Flamer): 11x Blasting Charges, 11x Cultist Knife, 11x Hand Flamer, 11x Rending Claw. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Cutter. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Cutter. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Cutter. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Cutter. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Cutter. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Cutter. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Cutter. Acolyte Hybrid (Heavy Weapon): Hand Flamer, Heavy Rock Cutter. Acolyte Leader: Cultist Knife, Hand Flamer
+ Elites +Clamavus [3 PL, 60pts]
Locus [3 PL, 45pts]
+ Fast Attack +Cult Armoured Sentinels [3 PL, 35pts]. Cult Armoured Sentinel: Multi-laser
Cult Armoured Sentinels [3 PL, 35pts]. Cult Armoured Sentinel: Multi-laser
Cult Armoured Sentinels [3 PL, 35pts]. Cult Armoured Sentinel: Multi-laser
https://imgbox.com/Hya9E5cV#.X7Q6arjr_sI.reddit
++ Total: [104 PL, 2,000pts, 9CP] ++
Note: Before I get to secondaries, the following must be known. I just arrived just on time, but the clock had already started. I was frazzled that I was essentially late, I was essentially just pulling out models out my b ag. The GSC player had already deployed, as they were mainly the blips and what he had put in reserves.
Secondaries: GSC Picked Grind them Down, Engage on all Fronts and Assassinate. I picked Oaths of Moment, Asassinate and Thin their Ranks.
Deployment: There really wasn't much to counter deploy to against GSC. I knew i just had to cover my front from his ability to DS in, and so keeping the Infiltrators alive was important, as well as using the Incursors to push the DS zone up abit. I doubled up Redemptors on my right , contemptor on the left. Suppressors up on building, as he didn't have much range for me to be wary of, characters with building wall to their backs and infantry spread out the front.
The Game: Because this game was the next day, I had plenty of time to do my homework against his list. This was the famed GSC Flame bomb, that even Goonhammer writes about in his "Start Competing," Series on GSC. You have to understand that this list has a bunch of hand flamers that are now 12". That's 60 D6 shots of Hand Flamer that auto hit in every shooting phase ,even if he is in CC, also if I charge him, that would be bad too. My best bet was going to be to insulate my important units, sacrifice the razorback and maybe the Intercessors and hit him with a strong counter punch. I scrap part of that plan seeing an opportunity. But I needed to contain him, somehow. That's when it hit me. GSC won toss to go first. He spent CP for more blips. I advised him if it's ok if I seal the unit he uses the "Lying In Wait," stratagem on, since his units are identical, my opponent agreed to this. I shift my line forwards a bit, eyeing distance, careful not to give my plan away. The Razorback zooms forwards to an objective, Contemptor moves behind it in support. It showers a Sentinel with shots, 2D get's through, and I proceed to charge it to keep it from advancing (I think I made a mistake here ). Incursors move to claim center point and objective. Tiggy's casts Fortress, and the game is afoot.
AAAAAND he does it! right in my back corner, he pops up there with 20 GSC, uses Lying in Wait, they get closer. I use Auspex Scan and he counters with his vect like stratagem, only he rolls a 1!! I opt to auspex with a tactical squad, when in hindsight, I should have done with the Suppressors instead. I think I killed like 5 Acolytes. Still more where they came from. He uses a CP for out of sequence shooting as well and burns 2/3 Eradicators. He then drops another set of GSC next to them and the characters bunch up in the corner. His shooting phase kills the Tactical Squad. The Acolyte unit that didn't use Lying in Wait, charges the contemptor and the other Eradicator squad. He kills 2/3 Eradicators there, and drops the Contemptor to 3 wounds remaining. He does a good job of surrounding both models with the tri-point, preventing me from falling back, other than using desperate breakout.
https://imgbox.com/rSl3nUPr#.X7RBwc-F4ik.reddit
https://imgbox.com/VLWm6XCo#.X7RB6C3NtxE.reddit
Also kudos to that spread from the combat he did.
Things are looking grim boys, I can't fall back out of that combat, there are cultists in my back lines and more on their way. But the characters are there and I'm greedily eyeing Assassinate. Redemptors move out of the way to let models pass, and position themselves to do damage to the Acolyte unit that couldn't charge. Captain turns around to take lead, and Tiggy is placed behind him. Apothecary moves into the ruin, on the other side of the wall from Tiggy. Intercessors turn around as well to get into firing positions. Tiggy casts fortress and smite, both go through. The shooting phase is deadly. I kill the Sealed unit with infantry, and I have the contemptor fire into the combat he's with. This was critical, the contemptor managed to kill 6 models. My opponent was left with 1 of 2 tough decisions. Because he had strung out so far and the dictates of coherency, he either had to pull the models out of combat with the Contemptor and lone Eradicator Sgt OR pull modesl from Look Out Sir range of the characters. My opponent opted for the contemptor and Eradicator, freeing them from combat. The rest of my shooting phase sees the Magus and Primus dead, along with the Clavus and Locus soon after. At the top of the board, I pull the Razorback out of combat, and pull him back onto the objective. Showering the Sentinel in bolt fire again.
I manage to kill all the characters except the Patriarch. Crap.
The Patriarch moves to confront the Apothecary, staring down at him a mere 5" away. More GSC pop up, in my front lines this time. He uses Perfect Ambush on an Acolyte unit forced to come in 12" away from the Infiltrators, he get's 3". Another set pops up behind the one that used Perfect Ambush, and another behind my Razorback at the top of the board. The last unit drops in his deployment zone to hold an objective. It's at this point my opponent get's greedy. The flame bomb does poorly at this point, and not enough infantry die, as he targets the Incursors and the Bladeguard with it. The contemptor's armor is singed, but it's still there. He calls for a multi charge, on the Incursors and Infiltrators. I introduce him to UM Defensive focus (2x redemptors + Suppressors). 10 Acolytes go down, I roll dice like a man blessed by the God Emperor. This is where things get technical, and the judge is involved. He rolls 9" for his charge. He makes it, but is forced to spread out even more to avoid the -2" from the crater the Infiltrators are sitting in, except for one of the Infiltrators. While it's true that he could just 3" consolidate into them, denying the extra 1.5" was important, to minimize the possibility of surrounding survivors. In the end it was futile as both the Incursors and the Infiltrators died to those dam rock saws. There was no one else for him to consolidate into. The Acolytes at the top of the board failed their charge in to the Razorback. It was at this point, my opponent realized, he messed up, we were already deep into rolling attacks and saves, that he forgot to charge the Patriarch into the Apothecary, needless to say the Patriarch dies to Melta shots as an Eradicator was returned. I was asked if I would allow him to do so, I apologized, and said I could not, and so it stood there. On my turn I set up the counter charges against the fresh GSC unit that came from the top of the board with the Contemptor, and the Bladeguard move up against the depleted unit in my front. Suppressors jump over the throng of bodies to take the center now. Captain boosts by to get within range of the Suppressors and the Reiver Lt pops 2 CP for Terror Troops, taking away his Obsec, then moves forwards. Redemptors also set up to assist in combat, as do the Intercessors. This was another bloody affair, 3 Bladeguard go down to those blasted Rocksaws, (my opponent interrupts) The Reiver Lt also dies in combat, Intercessors died. I. FORGOT. TO. CHARGE. MY. CONTEMPTOR!!! ARRGHHH!
Not enough run away from Morale.
In the GSC turn, the Acolyte squad that failed the charge against the Razorback and Contemptor, moved forwards, flamed it then charged both. The Razorback blew up for their troubles, killing 2. The remaining GSC in the center were subsequently cleared.
https://imgbox.com/mIV50w3I#.X7RJkpqhvOg.reddit
The Suppressors moved on up to get a bead on another Sentinel holding down an objective and kill it. The rest of my forced move around to consolidate their positions on the board, Redemptors open up on the GSC unit that killed the Razorback. Time was called. Game ended
82-69 Ultramarines win!
Here it is at last. The Final game, top table, go big or go broke.
The Mission: Battle Lines
The List:
++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Aeldari - Harlequins) [99 PL, 1,999pts, 9CP] ++
+ Configuration +
Battle Size [12CP]: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)
Masque Form: The Soaring Spite: Serpent's Blood
+ Stratagems +
Enigmas of the Black Library (1 Relic) [-1CP]
+ HQ +
Shadowseer [6 PL, 120pts, -1CP]: Neuro Disruptor, Shield From Harm, Stratagem: Pivotal Role, Twilight Pathways, Veil of Illusion, Shards of light
Troupe Master [4 PL, 70pts, -1CP]: Choreographer of War, Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Blade, Soaring Spite: Skystrider, Stratagem: Pivotal Role, The Twilight Fang, Darkness Bite, Warlord
+ Troops +
Troupe [6 PL, 124pts] . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Blade . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Blade . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Blade . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Blade . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace
Troupe [5 PL, 115pts] . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Blade . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace
Troupe [5 PL, 115pts] . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Blade . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace
Troupe [5 PL, 115pts] . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Blade . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace
Troupe [5 PL, 120pts] . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace . Player: Fusion Pistol, Harlequin's Embrace
+ Elites +
Death Jester [3 PL, 50pts]: Cegroach's Lament, Humbling Cruelty
+ Fast Attack +
Skyweavers [15 PL, 275pts] . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive
Skyweavers [15 PL, 275pts] . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive
Skyweavers [10 PL, 220pts] . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive . Skyweaver: Haywire Cannon, Zephyrglaive
+ Dedicated Transport +
Starweaver [4 PL, 80pts]: 2x Shuriken Cannon
Starweaver [4 PL, 80pts]: 2x Shuriken Cannon
Starweaver [4 PL, 80pts]: 2x Shuriken Cannon
Starweaver [4 PL, 80pts]: 2x Shuriken Cannon
Starweaver [4 PL, 80pts]: 2x Shuriken Cannon
Secondaries: I chose Grind them Down (Ambitious, yes I'm aware), Deploy Scramblers, Engage on all Fronts. I really had a hard time figuring what secondaries to take against Harlies. Assassinate would've only net 6. Scramblers could be a sure thing. Bring it down, could give 10, but could I bring them all down? Oath of the Moment? Can I get to the center? Will he let me? Do I want to be out in the open like that? My opponent picks Bring it Down, Scramblers and Engage on All Fronts.
Deployment: I concealed positions my Infiltrators up my left flank on the objective, Incursors on my right flank behind a box, near the other central objective. The rest of my army deploys back, about 4" from the end of my deployment zone. I keep Eradicators in a LoS Ruin on my right. Captain and Lt in the center of the blue mass, Apothecary and Tiggy in the back. He has no Deep Strikes, nothing I have to worry about popping in my back field. Tacticals in Razorback, Intercessors up font as well. Contemptor holds right, covering Incursors. After deployment I opt to put the infiltrators into Strategic reserves. Clock was paused for this as Judge questioned whether I could put the Infiltrators into strategic reserves. The question is answered, Infiltrators go into reserves. I win toss for turn 1, and opt to go first. Use rapid redeploy to bring my guns out front and center. Harlies keep to their right flank for the most part, with the shadowseer, hiding inside ruin, with only a single unit stuck out as they could not fit. One unit of bikes kept the left flank. I seal the bikes on the right flank.
The Game: Well let's do this. The famed Harlies list, and my first time ever facing Harlies. The razorback inched forwards a bit. There was a shuffling of models as Tiggy pushed his way to get in range to give everyone psychic fortress, the Apothecary stayed close by. Veiled the Redemptor just in case, and used Tiggy's -1 prescience on the closest redemptor. Bladeguard set scramblers.
The shooting phase didn't go as spectacularly as I'd hoped. I overcharge both Redemptors plasma, I think I manage to put wounds on a bike unit, but no kills. That -1 to hit is painful.
The bikes move, oh boy do they move. They soon eat up the space up on my left flank, covering ground to get to the central objective there, I think he played a little conservatively here, and kept a unit behind the crate, the other unit that was wounded is up but out in the open, they get a 3++. Starweavers move to consolidate positioning on his objective. The bikes on the right flank move over the ruins, drawing a bead on the razorback. A unit of troupe get out of a starweaver to place scramblers in the los blocking ruins in his deployment. Starweaver with his Troop master is gliding down my left flank as well along with another starweaver.
https://imgbox.com/DJFxSApX#.X7U4fpSOdJM.reddit
Haywire shots ring out, and the Razorback dies from the bikes on my right flank, then fire and fade back into the ruins. 1 of the tactical marines doesn't make it out alive. The Death Jester hits, wounds and puts 3 dmg onto Tiggy. Tiggy checks his rear, yes the Apothecary is there. Back to my turn. The line shifts slightly, Intercessors pull back to cover rear objective, Apothecary heals Tiggy back up to full, Eradicators hold, Contemptor positions to gain a bead on the bikes on my right flank in the ruins and the Incursors move to claim the objective. Infiltrators show up, set up to charge the sealed bikes. Reiver Lt moves to make sure Redemptors gets Seal buff. The sealed bikes die, horrible, terrible plasma death. A redemptor takes a mortal wound for his troubles. More bikes are wounded from another unit, but the unit with a 3++ is hard to shift. I just need to throw more shots at them, or spend 2 CP and use the heavy bolter for hellfire shells and Martial precision and get 3 mortal wounds on them. This kills a bike that was wounded previously, take that 3++!! Suppressors move to set up on top of the big los blocking box.
The depleted unit of bikes zooms down the battlefield, towards the box where the Suppressors are sitting on, a Starweaver also moves to support them from the forest and another lands on the objective, opposing the Incursors. The bikes on the left flank turn to get positioning against the redemptor holding the left flank, landing in the ruins by the center. The skyweaver with the Troup master moves in on the other side of the wall. To my complete surprise, the Troupe master jumps out the skyweaver, runs around my back lines and is now in position to charge the Apothecary and Tiggy. Another Starweaver moves in to support the bikes on the left flank by the building. The troupe master fires his fusion pistol at the apothecary, scores a hit my rolls a 1 to wound. The redemptor on the left flank, eats Haywire shots, but manages to survive. The bikes poised to charge the Suppressors fire at the Contemptor, and it too survives. The incursors die to melta from the troupe inside the skyweaver, the Infiltrators healix gauntlet saves them from a nasty shot from the Death Jester made. Charges, the bikes charge the Suppressors and the Troupe master double charges the Apothecary and Tiggy. It was my turn to surprise my opponent and the marines educated the Troupe master as to the error of his ways. I spend 3 cp total, 1 for the suppressors to overwatch against the bikes, 2 for defensive focus, measuring from Tiggy. Both redemptors and the intercessor squad are in range of Tiggy. The Troupe master never makes it. By this time we are both hungering for CP's now. The bikes make it to the Suppressors and kill all but 1, he 3++ the bikes again.
On my turn, the Suppressor sgt leaves combat, and lands next to the apothecary. Tiggy moves forwards to get into Null zone range. Contemptor swings round to face the skyweaver threat, the central redemptor moves to provide fire support. Bladegaurd move up to intercept the bikes in the ruins, Eradicators come out to play now that the bikes are closer. The remaining tactical squad members also move as support for the contemptor. The Infiltrators set scramblers. Tiggy casts Null Zone - and fails! try again, because Tiggy can re-roll - another failed cast! screw it, Tiggy cast Psychic Fortress instead. The Eradicators pump shots into the bikes, so do the Suppressors, and reduce them down to 1. The central Redemptor blows up the Skyweaver infront of the Contemptor, and the passengers are shot by the bolters of the tactical squad. The contemptor fires his Assault cannon at the Death jester in the craters, along with the Heavy Bolter from the tac squad and kill the Xenos. The bikes by the ruins are also blown out of the sky and the Skyweaver next to them taken down as well. The passengers are charged by the Bladeguard who multi charges into the late Troupe Masters Starweaver. They damage the starweaver, and kill most of the troupe, leaving 1. Tac squad and contemptor also charge the Troupe unit in front of them, leaving 1 alive.
https://imgbox.com/L4QfPvLR#.X7VQGIoyL3E.reddit
The surviving Skyrunner moves around to engage Tigurius. The Starweaver in combat with the Bladegaurd pulls back, and draws a bead on Tigurius. Tiggy gets shot by the Starweaver, and charged and killed by the lone bike. The last starweaver in the back, moves up, onto the central objective by the contemptor. The last redemptor get's shot by haywire, and would've taken 8 mortal wounds if it weren't for Armor of Contempt. It instead took 2. The Troupe unit inside split fire between the contemptor and tactical squad. The tac squad dies, while the contemptor lives, damaged, but alive. Bladegaurd finish off the last troupe member they're in combat with. On my turn, Eradicator squad moves to gain a bead on the Troupe Master's Starweaver. At this point I'm just trying to get points for Grind them down, scramblers is out the window now, the Infiltrators can't make it over be wholly within. The Captain advances to get over the line to make Engage. Redemptor with help from Suppressors destroys the Starweaver, the contemptor fires at the troupe. The eradicators blow up the other empty Starweaver. The contemptor charges the survivors and squishes them. We tally up the score at this point, and Harlies have a firm lead, there wasn't much else they could do, but neither could I.
Harlies win 65-41
​
​

This was supposed to be a much shorter story, but it got a little out of hand... Sorry
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Atlas-7 took firm strides towards the Vanguard’s table, Hayes and Tank already waiting for him. Hayes shot him a cocky smirk and opened his mouth to speak, but Atlas cut him off with a finger, “Shut it, do not want to hear it, especially from you!” Hayes closed his mouth and gave a quiet laugh behind his grin, Tank himself having to suppress a sly smile. Zavala looked up from his side of the desk at the three Guardians standing shoulder to shoulder.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Ah, Atlas. You’re late…” Zavala informed him with a wry eyebrow raised. Atlas gave a sigh and nodded with closed metallic eyes.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Forgive me, Commander. You have an assignment for us?” Atlas asked. Behind him, Tank and Hayes passed glimmer from one to another, no doubt the outcome of a bet while waiting for the Exo.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Yes. We have another unusual task for you today. You’re well aware that the relationship Guardians share with the City is not always the most… understood.” Zavala put either hand on the table. “The great battles have long since passed, and the people are forgetting that we are people as well. We need you to go down there and show the civilians that Guardians are nothing to be afraid of.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Cayde-6 laughed from across the table, “So what do you want them to do, start a carwash for them?”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Zavala turned his gaze to the Exo, scowling. “Thank you for your input Cayde, but I was thinking of targeting the younger generation.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Atlas, Tank, and Hayes all traded looks with one another, before looking at Zavala. “What did you have in mind?” Tank rose a grey eyebrow in curiosity.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“I have scheduled a guest visit from Guardians at the Botza Park Elementary School, and you three would make the perfect candidates.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Not to come off as rude towards our team Commander,” Atlas looked over his shoulder as he spoke before turning his gaze back to Zavala. “But we are not what I would define as perfect.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Hey! I find that offensive!” Hayes barked. “Give me a gun and some glimmer and I’ll perfect the crap out of anything you point me at!”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Although I don’t quite agree with what he’s saying, I do agree with his sentiment. Have a little faith Atlas.” Tank shoves him with an elbow.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Zavala rubbed his chin and gestured towards them. “One of each Guardian class in a fireteam, are you aware of how uncommon that is?”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Common.” Atlas plainly stated
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“And that makes you guys the perfect image of the average Guardian team!” Cayde encouraged, giving a thumbs up in the process. “Thanks for volunteering!”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Hayes looked to his Vanguard, placing a hand on his chest and shotting him a hurt expression. Tank crossed his arms and questioned, “When would we be doing this?”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎The three Guardians waited outside in a hallway. One of the many corridors that comprised the labyrinth someone had called a School. Tank sat in a navy blue chair much too small for him while still wearing his bulky, damaged armour, helmet included. Atlas meditated with crossed legs, dressed in pristine, thick red robes with a black interior, it’s bottom just long enough to not touch the ground if he were to stand. Hayes leaned against lockers across the hall from them, spinning a flaming knife in anticipation. His body was covered in a rich, blue velvet vest, wearing a black long sleeve shirt, with small pauldrons on his shoulders. His white pants lead down to dark, armoured boots.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Their Ghost’s wandered the halls. Tank’s Ghost, Omar waited patiently next to his Guardian. Atlas’ Ghost, Cassini, scanned a science textbook someone had dropped on their way to class. Meanwhile, Chaplin, Hayes’ Ghost, analyzed a set of lockers.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎The boredom was beginning to become unbearable. Hayes had been slowly tapping his head against the locker for quite some time now, while Tank had been nodding to sleep in his tiny blue chair, quite clearly not meant for someone of his size. Everything was dead quiet, save for the muffled teachings happening behind a closed door between Tank and Atlas. “How many more of these do we have to do today?” Hayes agonized, smacking his head harder and harder.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“This is the last class we need to go to, have patience,” Atlas said, opening his eyes. “Just look at how relaxed Tank is.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎A muffled snoring came from under Tank’s helmet, his body slouched over. Atlas looked at him, disappointed. “Yeah, real relaxed,” Hayes smirked and twirled his knife into his palm. He gripped the knife by the blade and threw it at the Titan. Spinning through the air, it’s hilt bounced off Tank's helmet, the sound from the impact echoed down the vacant halls. Tank snapped to attention, jumping out of his seat.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“I’M UP!” He shouted, falling back onto his chair. There was a groan of metal bending as he impacted the chair, the force caused the already worn metal and plastic to shatter like glass, throwing him to the ground. Hayes snatched the knife out of the air and burst out laughing, bending over and crying, nearly falling to the floor himself in the hysteria. Tank picked himself up and marched to Hayes with fists clenched. Atlas could feel the rage radiating off him and knew if he didn’t step in, some poor janitor would be cleaning blood and bits of Hayes out of the hallway for days. Tank grabbed Hayes by his collar and raised him up, the Hunter never stopping his cackling. Atlas put his arms between them and tried to push them apart when a voice called out.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Ummm... is everything alright out here?” A middle-aged woman in a relaxed, but formal jacket, peered her head out from their classroom, staring at the three in bewilderment. Tank dropped Hayes, then wrapped an arm around him.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Just fine!” Tank forced a smile, even though no one could see it. The woman stared at each of them for a moment before opening the door, exposing a class full of children, none older than fourteen.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Uh-huh…” The woman turned back to their students and spoke softly. “Well, we’re ready for you.” She welcomed them into the classroom, but stopped, gesturing to the obliterated chair. “I presume that was the sound I heard?”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Tank replied sheepishly, “Unfortunately yes.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Well then, I’ll have to charge your Vanguard for that as well, alongside the OTHER damages from this… Experience.” She chastised them.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Actually, the dye in that chair was from the chemical Rebutinuimate-14, which has been shown to be a leading factor in most childhood poisoning if the toxicology reports are to be believed. We saved you from that chair.” Cassini interjected, looking up from the science textbook laid out in front of her.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎The woman stared back in bafflement, then turned to the students. “Alright kids, our special guests are here for today’s lesson!” The Guardians exchanged looks before stepping inside. Tank looked out over the sea of kids and felt as nervous as he had with the first batch of students, but Atlas and Hayes remained steeled in their emotions. They were very comfortable and familiar with the routine at this point. Behind them, their Ghosts flew in, observing and recording them for Vanguard evaluation.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Atlas stepped forward and introduced himself. “Hello, we are the Guardians of Fireteam Orchestral.” Atlas pressed a hand against his chest, “I am Atlas-7, a Warlock, an Exo, and the leader of this Fireteam. I manage missions, pilot our ship, and perform in the field logistics.” The children stared in amazement, looking over them intently. Atlas moved his hand to his left in an open-hand point, “This is Hayes.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Hayes gave a two-finger wave to the kids and smiled. “Sup. As you can probably tell from my skin, I'm an Awoken, but more importantly, I’m the Hunter of the group. I do all the cool shi-”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎‘AHEM!” The woman loudly coughed, shooting him a look that could cut diamonds.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“I mean, cool stuff like recon, surveillance, scouting and trick shots!”. He pulls his hands up and fires off some finger guns to the class.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“AHEM! I thought we agreed no more summoned firearms after the first… incident.” She scolded.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Is this woman serious…?” Hayes said dumbstruck.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Atlas groaned and moved his hand to his right and continued, “And this is Tank.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Tank gave a quick salute before he spoke. “Hey there, like he said, my name’s Tank and I’m a Titan. I’m the spearhead of the group, being the front line offence in any engagement. Whenever we get into a fight, I’m the first one into the fray.” he proudly spoke behind his helmet. The children's eyes went wide and some of them couldn’t help but oohing and ahhing as the man talked, the baritone of his voice and the size of his armour made him look like a knight from the old, pre-golden-age stories. His armour sold the idea, looking like it had aged for a few centuries.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Atlas nodded, clasping his hands behind his back and speaking in a voice filled with pride. “Together we have been on hundreds of missions beyond The Wall. From Mercury to the Reef, and beyond, we defend the City from anything that dares to threaten it. For centuries we have fought with each other and fought next to each other at the most infamous battles the City has seen. It is my understanding that your students are currently learning about the Battle of Twilight Gap?” Atlas looked to the woman, who gave him a nod. “This afternoon, we will tell you about what it means to be our respective class and what it was like fighting at Twilight Gap. Thank you for your time.” Atlas turned to Hayes and nodded, “The floor is yours.” The Titan and Warlock walked away, taking a seat on chairs at the corner of the room, Tank still dwarfing his chair.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Hayes moved to where Atlas had been standing and pulled a seat to him. He leapt on top of it, sitting on the backrest with his feet in the seat. “Bein’ a Hunter is all about being where you belong. Ask any Hunter and they’ll say the same. The Warlocks may have their libraries and the Titan’s have their walls, but Hunter's? Hunters don't have A place, we have All the places. A Hunter belongs just beyond the line of the world you know and the unknown, whether that's on an asteroid trailing a Fallen Ketch past Saturn, sleeping in the mud, SMASHING THE LEADERBOARDS OF THE CRUCIBLE FOR THE 4TH WEEK IN A ROW!
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“WOOOOOOO!!!” A kid in the back of the class shouted in excitement.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“That guy gets it!” Hayes pointed into the crowd with a toothy grin.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Enough boasting kid, don’t forget to tell them about Twilight Gap!” Tank yelled from the corner of the room.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Oooo Twilight Gap, that was a while ago… Hey guys, did we save the civilians first then crash into the Ketch, or was that after?” Hayes looked to his team.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Civilians first, Ketch second.” Atlas lectured.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Right. So! There we were standing on the wall, the Fallen were everywhere. Captains, Vandals, Dregs and Shanks were swarming us from every nook and cranny they could crawl out of. They were being dropped off by the Skiffs flyin’ low, and we were running out of ammo. As we’re fighting, the big man over there see’s a Fallen Walker stuck to a Skiff descending into the City. I knew then what I had to do!” Hayes leapt from the chair to one edge of the classroom. “At that moment, I ran through the battlefield and cast my Golden Gun! Hundreds of Fallen stood in my way, but with each shot, dozens of ‘em fell!” Hayes ran across the classroom, sliding and firing a finger gun as he travelled across the room. “I jumped aboard a Skiff that was dropping off reinforcements and climbed inside, taking it for myself. Tank and Atlas climbed aboard and we flew into the city after the Walker.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“By the time we got to it, it had already destroyed three buildings. I jumped out of the Skiff as we flew over and landed on top of it.” He vaulted towards the chair and landed on it like it was a wild beast. He stood up and put a leg on the backrest. “With my shotgun, I unloaded a pack of rounds into its legs, tearing it to pieces. Before I could put it down good with a shot from my Golden Gun, Tank lept a hundred feet down and crushed it with a Fist of Havok! Everything exploded! When the dust settled, we stood triumphant on top of its corpse.” Hayes described, posing heroically on top of the chair. He looked over the children, seeing them on the edge of their seats. A smirk grew across his face and he turned to his team. “Tank, you can finish this for me..” He pushed against the backrest of the chair, tipping it over. He tucked into a ball as he fell to the ground, rolling over to Tank before jumping to his feet.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Tank watched with a grin and got up, giving his seat to the Hunter. He walked to the chair Hayes used, picking it up off the ground and setting it back upright. He took his seat, and leaned forward, placing an arm on his knee. “Well… To finish the story. I think I have to tell you what it means to be a Titan…” Tank moved his hands to his helmet, his fingers gripping around the silver mirrored visor and pulled up, revealing his aged face. A few gasps came from the kids, seeing him for the first time.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“What does it mean to be a Titan? It means being the aegis of the City, and being her starwalt defender. While the Warlocks study, and the Hunter’s play, we stand vigil for weeks at a time in an unending watch for all of Humanity’s enemies. Titans cannot give an inch when pushed, because in the end we are the wall against which the Darkness breaks. When even the mightiest weapons come, an unbreakable defence will always stand... ” Tank trailed off. The kids watched him in awe as he slid the helmet back on, becoming the Knight they believed him to be.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“So there we were, Hayes and I standing victorious over the Walker, when we heard the screams of civilians. The Fallen armies assaulted the walls from all directions, but in the chaos, packs of Devil infiltrators had slipped through the fence. With citizens this close to the Wall, they were right in the crossfire of battle. We needed to get them deeper into the safety of the City. The two of us ran to them as I told Atlas the plan. We would use the hijacked Skiff to deliver groups of civilians to the heart of the City. As we arrived at the designated emergency bunker, its doors were already being assaulted by the Fallen. After disposing of the assailants and opening the doors, we realized a problem. There were far too many people for a single ride. There would need to be trips, and a lot of them.” Tank stood up and paced back and forth at the front of the classroom.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Atlas lowered the Skiff, and Hayes loaded people in, but we couldn’t all go. If we all left, the people would be defenceless against any more Fallen. So I told them to go on their own to get them to safety. I gave them a salute as they left, and I was left alone to defend them. Myself, against hundreds of Fallen that all crawled through the streets and across buildings. But I was a Wall… And I would not move.” Tank clenched his fists as he walked, and some kids would swear to this day they saw electricity sparking off his arms. “By the time they came back, scores of Fallen littered the street around me, and I stood unmoving. We would continue moving people for the next three hours as the battle raged on, not a single civilian we found fell that day. When we were done, we…” Tank stopped and stared at all the kids gripping their desks in anticipation. He turned back to Hayes and Atlas and nodded. “I think Atlas can tell this next part better.” Atlas stood, and Tank picked up and tossed the chair at Atlas from across the room.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Atlas caught it, and set it down next to the one beside Hayes, before walking past Tank. Atlas looked at them and pushed against the ground with the force of a leaf hitting the floor. He rose and floated in the air. The children all gasped in amazement as he hovered off the ground. “After we were certain the civilians were safe, we heard a priority one communication over the radio. Zavala and Lord Saladin had ordered a regroup at the Ridgeback District for all Guardians. We knew what that meant. The Wall at Twilight Gap had been breached, and within minutes, the Fallen would be swarming the streets, and within the day the City would be theirs. I ordered my team into the Skiff, and we set off for Ridgeback to try to prevent that outcome.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“When we arrived, we heard that Lord Shaxx was still holding the Wall with five other Guardians. You’ll come to know them as the Hero’s of Twilight Gap. Lord Saladin had taken notice of our Commandeered ship, and together we hatched a plan. There was a Ketch outside the firing range of the Wall’s gun that was still pounding Twilight Gap trying to dislodge the six Guardians. If we could get close to the Ketch without being shot down, board the Ketch, and disable it’s armaments, while the rest of the Guardian forces formed a counter attack. The battle might not be lost.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Atlas looked to his team, and back at the students. He crossed his legs to sit in the air, steepling his fingers. “Before I left, I asked Tank and Hayes if they would like to stay behind. This very well was a suicide mission. Not one answered. We all knew what the plan was. Tank and a two other titans clambered on top of the Skiff, and we set off for the Ketch. As we approached I had Hayes speak in Eliksni to the Ketch’s crew, making sure we were not a target for them on our approach. As soon as we were close enough to not be targeted by their guns, I maxed our thrusters. Tank braced, and right before we hit, the two other titans hurled him with all their might into the hull of the Ketch, breaking its armour and allowing the Skiff to tear through the ship with ease. None of us survived but our Ghosts did. After being resurrected it was an uphill battle to the Navigation room, but we had planned for this. While we made our way to the bridge our two titan company diverged to their aft hangar. Together they caused as much chaos as they could, destroying seven walker tanks and three skiffs before they had to retreat off the Ketch.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Thanks to them we were able to reach our goal of their bridge, where a Nova Bomb easily destroyed the Pilot servitor and much of the hardware. Without anything guiding the ship, it began to plummet to the Earth below, and into the back line of the The Fallens forces. We barely made it out before it exploded on impact. Together we had survived our battle, and as we looked up, we saw the Fallen retreating. The counter attack had been successful. Many Guardians and Citizens perished, but the Battle of Twilight Gap was won, and the City was safe.” Atlas uncrossed his legs and fell to the ground again. His expressionless stare looked at each student, judging their reactions. All of them were glued to every word the three of them had said.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“That’s what it means to be a Warlock. To have a plan and to devise a strategy. To never go into a battle without knowing every possibility, and ensuring that everyone you know will make it out safely. The Titan’s can spend their lives standing idle and the Hunters can spend their life in the wilds, but Warlocks? We feel most comfortable learning, planning, and unraveling the secrets of the universe to prevent Humanity or the Traveler from being eradicated.” Atlas gave a small wave to his teammates to come over. They stood and walked to either side of Atlas. “And what do we all have in common? The drive to fight day and night, through the harshest environments known to man, to keep you safe. That is what being a Guardian is about. Thank you.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎The woman walked to the front of the classroom and looked to her students. “Let’s give a hand to our guest speakers this afternoon!” The room erupted into a symphony of applause. “Please ensure to fill out your worksheet about what you’ve learned today, I’ll be right back.” She opened the door to the hallway, leading the Guardians out one by one. A janitor had just finished cleaning up blue shards of chair off the ground when they stepped out. The woman looked at them and placed her hands on her hip. “That one went a lot better than the last few. It almost made me want to avoid reprimanding you for what happened earlier. Almost. I do appreciate that you came here to talk to our kids though. I’ll let your Vanguard know that you did… Adequately.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Thank you for having us.” Tank gratefully nodded. “We’ll make sure next time is better for everyone.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎The woman scoffed as she opened the door to the classroom. “Ha! Next time, that’s a good one.” She waved a hand and walked back inside the room, swinging it shut behind her. The three were left alone in the halls again.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Hayes looked around and slung his arms around his comrades. “Sooo, who's for a drink?”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Please.” Tank groaned, wrestling loose of Hayes’ arm and walking down the halls
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Definitely.” Atlas nodded and followed.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Hayes joined them through the hallway and smiled. “I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of hearin’ that story.” A pause filled the air before he spoke again. “You sure this is the way out?”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“I thought you knew the way out? I was waiting for your directions!?” Tank said.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Why would I know the way out, I’ve just been following her?” Hayes snapped back.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“You’re our scout…”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Hayes shot Tank a vacant expression.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“And our recon…” He growled
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Tank, all the halls we’ve been down have all literally been the exact same. They do this to drain individuality.” Hayes lectured. “We’re stuck here by design.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎"My scans also indicated the same, although there was a variation of 2cm down the second hallway. I have already filed a complaint with the administration board of the school to-” Cassini trailed off, talking to herself.
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“And here I was thinking you were planning an escape this entire time…” Tank lamented
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎“Oh I was, I was just gonna dive out the closest window. Unless you want to go back and ask her for directions, we’re wandering our way out.”
‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‏‎ ‎Atlas sighed, mumbling, “How in the Travelers name have we lived this long…”

Source
Rows in table: ~90
Note: There may be a few instances of confusion where the question-taker replied to the wrong comment

Questions	Answers
How much did you have to pay Guinness World Records to accept the record? You always hear that they effectively make money off of charging people for records and I'm curious how it worked for you.	Hi there - a normal record takes 12 weeks for pre-approval, but now with Covid has gone up to 16 weeks. I paid for Express pre-approval and believe it was around 700 USD. Same for final approval of the record (it is a lot of paperwork, files and proof and must be ratified by the GWR Record Approval Team. Price for Express Approval is about the same (or it will take 16 weeks). But you can do all records for free if you have all the time in the world. The process is still the same. In my case we needed an Appointed AIDA Freediving Instructor Trainer and various permits for the Marine Park in La Paz, Mexico. The project took about 2 months to set up with all from rescue boat planning, logistics, rope measurement, First-Aid Kit, Safety divers training, Captains drills, evac boat and much more. Drone pilots, test dives and so on. We had great help from Cortez Expeditions in La Paz (a local dive and expedition center) but you can also do all this alone.
Do holding your breath for long periods of time in many years causes permanent/temporary brain damage ?	This is a question that I get a lot - and the short answer is no. The reason why is because the body has several defense mechanisms in place that would prevent damage from occurring when holding your breath voluntarily.
	When you do a breath hold of 3 minutes long, you are not in any danger of damaging your brain, as while you hold your breath plenty of oxygen circulates in your body, even though the concentration slowly declines during the breath hold.
	For the first few minutes, there likely will still be over 90% oxygen in your blood. Damage to the brain due to a lack of oxygen occurs only when the oxygen concentration drops under 50% for 4 minutes or longer, or if the blood flow to the brain is blocked (e.g. blood clot or heart attack).
	Technically, it is a lack of oxygen that does the damage, but a voluntary breath hold will not create this situation. If you learn to push past the contractions of the diaphragm and reach a nirvana like state, the worst possible scenario is a blackout. This is why I strongly advise against doing breath holds in water while alone - to prevent drowning.
	It's puzzling that even some doctors and medical professionals are confused by this and state that if you hold your breath for a few minutes you are killing braincells. It's simply not the case.
What's your training regimen for holding your breath?	You know what - I'll let you in on a sneak peak. ;) I have recorded my last physical workout before the training and uploaded it to my channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsjVPF3NN3Y
	It is a combination of physical training, endurance training and lung flexibility training. Note: I also had to swim for this record.
	BUT the most important part of your training is to learn to STAY RELAXED. I have mastered this as I have been doing this for years, but if you are just starting, you want your mind to go quiet, and imagine a very pleasurable memory so you can stay in the zone and not focus on the clock.
the below is a reply to the above
What is your memory here? (hopefully this isn't too personal a question).	It is not necessarily the same memory. It can be thinking about my old home town Aalborg. Biking up a steep hill with my brother. My sweet grandmother that passed away this year. Go with whatever flows as a positive memory and then focus on living that memory during your breath hold.
Is jumping in icy water comfortable for you now? Or do you still get the shock us normal mortals have?	haha - brilliant question. YES, when I have not trained my body and mind for a while I also get the chills;) But of course I have experience and use my slow breathing to stay calm and in control. However, I just lived nearly 3 months in beautiful warm La Paz, Mexico (training for The 2020 Dive/New Official Guinness World Record) - so coming back to Denmark has been a cold experience...haha - But love the cold dips....so refreshing...try it out;)
the below is a reply to the above
Warm-La paz. Jesus as a Mexican those are the coldest water in Mexico,(The entire peninsula that is), I cant tolerate anything less than cancun.	Must go an see Cancun/Tulum soon...Love Mexico and the people - hope to be back soon for more training and adventures (and ceviche and guacamole;).....jejejejejejeje
Thoughts on Wim Hof? You seem to be in a similar profession :)	I think what he does is very interesting. Cold exposure is a great way to step out of your comfort zone.
	As long as it is done safely, I definitely recommend people to experiment with it.
	There are multiple ways that lead to Rome, and I urge everyone to keep an open mind. Try out what works for you.
	The framework that I created, Breatheology, combines various breathing techniques, including hyperventilation/deep breathing, but also many other ways of breathing.
the below is a reply to the original question
Also Wim also swam under a frozen lake in just a Speedo. Not to any significant depth but he did.	That is true - In 2010 we had an Ince Winter in Denmark so I trained and beat the Wim Hof record: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_y8TeORDTY
	Then beat my own record (again) a few years later in Greenland - it is still the current Guinness World Record - maybe a good challenge for you;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Mr1RV3Qxc&t=8s
the below is a reply to the reply
I saw that. His actual eyeballs froze and he couldn’t see the hole in the ice he was supposed to swim out of. His. Eyeballs. Froze. Edit: https://conradmagazine.com/interview-daredevil-adventurer-iceman-wim-hof/ There’s a video too where he talks about it. I think it was on Stan Lee’s Superhumans.	Here from Denmark - the dive to beat Wim Hof back in 2010 - but my eye balls did not freeze (but my spine was cold - to the "bone" and I had senseless fingers for a year or two after a times;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_y8TeORDTY
the below is a reply to the reply to the reply
Terrifying!	Ice diving can be beautiful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Mr1RV3Qxc&t=8s
the below is another reply to the reply
People not diving into frozen lakes in just speedos is such a weird claim. In Sweden we chop up a hole in the ice and jump in, often naked. Everyone from kids to grannies :P	It is common practice in Denmark too :D (plus I am half Swedish) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JKvSVFHlPY
the below is a reply to the above
we saw your butt	Sorry about that - in Denmark we all swim nakes together - men and women...natural...viking style;)
What do you mean you can hold your breath for 22 minutes? Are you part whale?	Hi there - The 22 min. was the official Guinness World Record - on this category you pre-oxygenize with 100% pure Oxygen. You can read more on the GWR webiste. All humans share The Mammalian Dive Response (MDR) and can learn to hold our breath longer, relax deeper and stay calm in stressful situations.
the below is a reply to the original question
I’d watch David Blaine's Ted talk on holding his breath underwater, he goes pretty in depth about how it’s possible.	Yes, David Blaine did a strong performance - big respect, especially considering he is not a professional/experienced freediver. He had great coaching from Kirk Krack & Team . It is not as easy as it looks on live TV. Funny sidenote - a few years ago David Blaine and Lenny Kravits were playing cards and having drinks with a friend of mine in New York - and David Blaine send a text to congratulate me on the 22 min. Guinness World Record;) Pretty cool dude;)
the below is a reply to the above
Kirk and his team are incredible; they are working on Avatar 2 now. We're proud of them!	They do great work, indeed.....trained with Kirk MAAAAAAANY years back in the Norwegian fiords;) Saw him recently....still going strong;)
the below is a reply to the reply
It was one of the most interesting TED talks I've ever seen too, still in my memory from ~2 years ago when I watched it	Indeed - many details on his training and fears to overcome. As I mentioned above - A funny sidenote - a few years ago David Blaine and Lenny Kravits were playing cards and having drinks with a friend of mine in New York - and David Blaine send a text to congratulate me on the 22 min. Guinness World Record;) Pretty cool dude;)
the below is another reply to the original question
While 22 minutes is ridiculous, that's in freezing water after breathing 100% O2. His air record is a "mere" 8 minutes 40 seconds, if you want something to compare yourself to.	Yes, very correct...now more likely 9-10 min in training - but about half the time - this is correct. There are many disciplins and styles in freediving. Mainly about length, time and depth.
the below is a reply to the above
Do you have any tips for people who want to practice increasing their Lung capacity?	Absolutely - and you CAN increase your lung capacity (contrary to what most doctors/books will tell you) - and you can increase your respiratory capacity. I have written an entire book about it and created The Breatheology Method - merging Modern Science, Ancient Wisdom & Peak Performance - to use in a simple and hectic world - find more info here and feel free to share: https://www.breatheology.com/
	There are many ways to start to get great improvement if you are currently get out of breath fast.
	Breathe through the nose. Not only do the nose hairs clean the air, nitrogen oxide is created when breathing through the nose which helps the blood vessels expand. (See also here)
	Swimming also helps, as the natural resistance of the water exercises all of your respiratory muscles.
	Yoga and breath training exercises that train the diaphragm, the main breathing muscles, are key.
	You can also use breath resistance trainers (where you blow in a piece of equipment and increase the resistance as it gets easier).
	Good luck :)
the below is another reply to the above reply
Hold your breath until you can't. Repeat. Only next time do a lil more.	Pretty good and simple tip - do it 3-4 times in a row - but never alone in water - full free course here: https://www.breatheology.com/breath-hold-challenge/
the below is another reply to the 4th answer
Does it feel noticeably different doing the 100% oxygen in cold water vs air in warm water?	The dives are done in normal temperature - not ice! Here is one dive of 22 min - I know it says icy water somewhere - some journalist must have misunderstood deeply;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqERqQj-ozc&list=LLBwjNsXVJH9hNuYmkfRA0_g&index=1596
the below is another reply to the above reply
Yes you can go about twice as long	Can you? Are you guessing or have you actually done this/experimented with your own body. If so that is great but please share proof. Don´t just ramble or write stuff if you don´t know what you are talking about. It might be very midleading to some people!
the below is a reply to the above
I was mostly making a joke based on your numbers, but since you took it seriously and replied as such, yes, I am a free diver and am familiar with the cold water reflex. I find I get maybe 25%-40% more time when I’m submerged in cold water. I haven’t dove with oxygen so I can’t say from experience but I think it’s pretty well understood that it would give one an added benefit. As for proof, I’m not going to upload my dive videos just to validate an off-the-cuff comment, but if you’re curious about my performance stats they’re not hugely impressive, as I’m just a recreational diver. I usually can do around 4 minutes inactive breath holding, and 1-1.5 minutes active swimming/diving. But I’m more of a spear fisherman so it’s not so much about length of time as specific skills related to fishing. Anyways, I wasn’t meaning to offend, I literally was making a one-liner response to what sounded like an inane question. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers with my stupid joke.	It seems like you do some ok dives - just be careful during spearfishing. I think often jokes or "self secure" comments are dangerous (and stupid/unintelligent) because they can be taken as "true" or "facts" by someone who is not well versed. That is why I react - not because I feel personally "offended". Just see too many "keyboard warriors" who have no clue what they are talking about and just add little value to (otherwise) meaningful conversations and topics- like this on in Reddit. Thank you.
the below is another reply to the above response
This is your AMA, but other people are allowed to comment here as well. They do not need to share proof to participate.	Anyone can and may respond - I am not saying that (see me answer below). But I know the science - I have walked the talk. So when I see crap or things that are not correct, I call them out. To help and protect others. Is that problematic to you ot do you just "shut up" in life in general when you know things are not right! Now THAT is deeply concerning! So YES - You DO need to prove (send "proof"/article/data) to be listened to and ackowledged - that is common sense....
the below is another reply to the reply to the original question
But with regular air aren't blood cells already saturated at 99%? For healthy people at least.	Very correct, indeed. But when breathing pure oxygen (100%) - and especially under pressure - like my last official Guinness World Record of 22 minutes that I did in London with Discovery Channel and was crowned "The Ultimate Superhuman" - then you also load your tissue and blood (watery part/diluated). Plus even the venous system. Yet, the CO2 built-up is still the same and quite insane - so you need to be able to tolerate very high loads. So (basically) people who say "ohh..this was so easy since it was done on pure oxigen" have no clue what they are actually are talking about and certainly do not know or understand basic human physiology;)
the below is another reply to the reply to the original question
I’d rather be famous for something else.	What are you famous for - and if not, what would you rather be famous for? And how are you helping people? I am certainly curious to know ans I think are many other people here on Reddit! With this dive (The 2020 Dive) hundreds of million people worldwide are seing the dive and getting the main message of inspiration and to keep dreaming - even in challenging times of Covid-19/Corona and the like. By bestselling book (now as FREE eBook in 10 languags - plus a FREE online brreath course) has already been downloaded and used for betterhealth & performance during the 2020 corona crisis. I am happy, honored and proud to know that my team and I are helping so many people - just my 2 cents....
the below is another reply to the reply to the original question
Analbox: I used to be able to do 5-6 minutes in high school if I just floated on my stomach motionless. I could do about 250 150 yards on one breath if I was swimming full speed. I almost blacked out and drowned trying to do it though. Your mind panics and eventually you take an involuntary breath even if your still under water. The brain just shuts down without O2. 22 minutes under normal circumstances would cause irreparable brain damage. It’s amazing the ice water makes that big of a difference. I can do like 30 seconds maybe. ________________ reecewagner: Is my cardio just garbage or do some people have a reduced lung capacity? ________________ KakkaKarrot: Part of it is mental. When you start feeling pain, you haven't even started to run out of oxygen yet. Your body prioritizes getting the CO2 out first	Very true - and the body (urge to breathe) responds to high CO2 leads - not low oxigen. This is easy to test/prove. Simply slip a Pulsoximeter on your fingertip. Maybe you get the urge to breathe (and start breathing) after 1 minute. But your oxygen saturation might be still above 90% - so you certainly don´t NEED to breathe. But you feel (THINK) you do - so this is why RELAXATION and Mental Control is numero uno. I have created something I call "Slow Motion Thinking" - it is tremendous aid and is part of the Flow state/mind altering state. Try it for yourself;)
the below is another reply to reecewagner
Holding your breath is 90% mental training.	Maybe 80/20 - who knows....my MentoInstructoFriend Umberto Pelizzari gives this distribution. But yes, largely Mental....which is also why freediving/breathing/breath holding techniques can be used by great benefit by EVERYBODY;) Not just divers, athletes or elite soldiers. Take a look a Breatheology - maybe it makes more sense: https://www.breatheology.com/
the below is a reply to the above
I've trained with Umberto too many years ago! I really miss that training and Sardinia. Umberto was great... Maybe I should go back...	Umberto is - and will always be a Legend. I had dinner with him last year and we talked "deeply" on the development of Freediving, breathing, competitions, health and so on. Always a stellar bloke. Go back and train - he is still in Sardinia/Sardegna;) Santa Teresa Di Gallura (Apnea Academy)
the below is another reply to the reply to the original question
Sharaghe: How does the freezing water help him here? ________________ MendaciousTrump: The Diving Reflex kicks in.	Correct - MDR - we all have this "inner dolphin" as I call it - and we should train to access/activate it - that is what I do with all people I train. In Rehab, Navy SEALS, Olympian Athletes...not just divers/freedivers....."The key to relaxation is in the exhalation";)
the below is another reply to Sharaghe
It slows down your metabolism and rate of oxygen use is my assumption.	Exactly - we can all learn to relax more and use less oxygen - stress less;) https://www.breatheology.com/
the below is another reply to Sharaghe
Slows the metabolism so oxygen isn't depleted as quickly.	Correct...and high CO2 tolerance;)
the below is another to the original question
I’m really curious about this, like how does this logistically work especially when exerting oneself? I’ve tried to go to two minutes and I feel like I’m dying.	The main aspect is about RELAXATION - not what first comes to mind. But trust me on this part. That is also why we put so much emphazise on Relaxation (Imagery/Vizualization) BEFORE learning proper breathing and after that breath holding. You can learn a lot more from our main website and also from my book Breatheology - The art of conscious breathing - it is free for the world to downloand as eBook/PDF. Enjoy;) https://www.breatheology.com/free-ebook-covid-19/
the below is a reply to the above
Hi! I have a reduced lung function due to a lung infection I had two years ago. Do you think I can work with your course, too, to improve my lungs health? Or should I talk to a doctor first regarding any risks?	Always consult with a doctomedical professional. But YES - you can certainly leanr to breathe better and more optimized. We have helped thousands of people with COPD, Asthma, Allergies, Lung Cancer etc...You breathe 20 - 30.000 times per day - so make every breath count! As mentioned - speak with your doc - we do not claim to cure, healt or give diagnostics - but many doctors certainly also don´t know anything about breayhing exercises - even less so advice them! Which is a bloody shame...and I am on a mission to change this - Breatheology will change the world - one breath at a time (we are working with the Danish Navy SEALS, Royal Air Force, Rehabilitation Clinics etc - but still a loooong way to go)....
the below is a reply to the earlier answer
How long can you hold your breath if you are walking or running?	I did this a lot in Mexico for the training for my latest Guinness World Record - since I was training a lot alone - so a 3 min walk (holding breath) - lighter work, weith training, stretching etc can be 4 minutes. I have also done a 4 min exhale many years ago - just for fun and curiosity;) Slooooooooooooooow and controlled exhale;) Try it!
the below is a reply to the earlier answer
Weird to call the link COVID-19	Why weird - we released the book for FREE (in 10 languages) to the world - as well as a FREE Online breath training for Corona Crisis - semms like a pretty accurate name to me! And we are happy and proud to know we have now helped over 400.000 people (who downloaded the eBook) - soon 500.000 - but I would love to have helped 1 million - or more- always big dreams. Just like my recent 202.0m Guinness World Record is getting this important message out. That breathing CAN help you and that you can take control of your life, health and mental state - with simple breathing exercises. I have not seen the WHO, Hospitals/Doctors or Politicians spread this important information - in the middle of a Pandemic!
the below is another reply to the reply to the reply to the question
Unless you're a heavy smoker or have lung damage, you can reach 3 -3.5 minutes in a week or two practicing only a few basic techniques, and you'll be able to do it comfortably without hurting or pushing through fear or panic. If you want to go longer than that, then the expert tips starts to matter. But to reiterate; You can comfortably reach 3.5 minutes on pure mechanics.	I always say that the real dive starts when the contractions start - which is usually after a few minutes. Getting past the first minute for beginners is generally about learning how to relax. Without being able to relax and control your mind, you can not overcome the mountain, so to speak ;) After that, it becomes about training CO2 tolerance, which is many benefits
	Absolutely correct - completely agree with this person. Here is our FREE 7-days breath hold challenge - feel free to join and share: https://www.breatheology.com/breath-hold-challenge/
the below is another reply to the reply to the reply to the question
ooli: I don't think he would have been exerting himself on the 22 minute one. Motionless in cold water after loading up on pure o2. The distance swimming record judging by the youtube video of it probably took like 2-3 mins or something. _______________ righthandofdog: Yeah and using a remarkably efficient swimming motion to optimize distance vs breathhold time.	That is the point - correctly;) My fuel is O2;);)
the below is a reply to the above
I’m a 55 year old who has snorkeled my whole life and scuba certified at 15. Watching you really made me start researching monofins and fin-swimming again, so damn natural.	Excellent - thank you for sharing - I am nearly 50 - and if I can inpsire to take up new sports or forgotten dreams - I am a happier man for it;)
the below is another reply to the original question
I'm guessing he is breathing pure oxygen a certain amount of time before the breath-hold (not saying that it isn't impressive!).	Yes - Guinness World Record is on PURE Oxygen (max 30 min pre-breath) - that is what this specific discipline is all about. I was the first to break to magical 20 min barrier - in 2010 I held my breath for 20 min 10 secs (like the year) - in a shark tank - also Storytelling - so people can see sharks are not just out to kill/eat you and also to redefine science (human/diving physiology - and neurology) - See part of the dive HERE (you can also find the 22 min GWR I did on Discovery Channel - just go to out Breatheology Channel on YT): (from my old 2010 TED talk): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9c7tkljd3A
the below is another reply to the original question
Yeah this seems physically impossible to me...	Well - we can all find our inner "Superhuman/woman" powers - that is partly why I love doing these records - to inspire but also to prove science wrong (or "update" science on human physiology, anatomy and psychology;)
What made you want to be able to hold your breath for insane amounts of time?	Childhood swimming, traveling the world - becoming a Marine Biologist...plus all the health benefits, feeling strong and now today - blessed to shar emy message witht the world and make people aware of the many benefits of conscious breathing - for Covid-19/Corona, Optimized Health & Performance....Mental calm etc.... more here: https://www.breatheology.com/
How are you not braindead?	Hi Brian, I found my way to your comment - so I can confirm, my brain is still working ;) It's a common misconception that breath holding will cause permanent brain damage. The short answer is that you'll go unconscious when the oxygen levels drop below a certain % (generally around 55%). This is called a black out. In a few minutes, you'll be awake again and your body will stabilize itself. Damage to the brain due to a lack of oxygen occurs only when the oxygen concentration drops under 50% for 4 minutes or longer, or if the blood flow to the brain is blocked (e.g. blood clot or heart attack). Your body goes into blackout to prevent his from happening. Of course, if you are doing breath holding in water, you'll drown. That's why you NEVER want to breath holding in water (even if it is shallow water - like a bath tub) without supervision. I was always accompanied by a professional team in case I would black out.
the below is a reply to the above
you should MAYBE research chronic hypoxia. you’re grossly oversimplifying a pretty complex topic.	Chronic hypoxia is not the same as breath hold training though and is usually caused by a condition such as COPD or sleep apnea.
	The hypoxia that freedivers like me experience and you experience when you hold your breath is a voluntary, temporary condition and balance is restored within a few minutes.
	So far, there are no clear signs that freedivers permanent damage: "Results indicated that the breath-hold divers performed tasks within the average range compared to norms on all tests, suggesting that 1–20 years of repeated exposure to hypoxemia including multiple adverse neurological events did not impact on performance on standard neuropsychological tasks." Source
	Last year, a Nobel Prize was rewarded towards the research of hypoxia and the positive effect is has on cellular level (if done intermittantly - of course). The article can be found here.
the below is a reply to the above
chronic hypoxia is a pretty broad term actually, it’s a bit more subjective than what a quick google search is telling you. in addition you’re characterization of “hypoxia means cells growth” is also disgustingly oversimplified... the research you’re referring to that was awarded**** a nobel prize has implications in aging, cancer, metabolism and more. not just holding your breath.	Take it from someone who has been freediving and holding its breath for over 25 years and have worked with/competed against the top world freedivers - there are many positive benefits to breath holding. That is why I dubbed my TEDx talk Breath Holding is the New Black.
	Science is only starting to catch up what myself and my colleagues have known from own experience. Similar to ancient knowledge such as yoga and pranayama, which are now being scientifically proven as having benefits.
	But thank you for correcting my improper word use (rewarded instead of awarded) and focusing on what matters...
How do us mortals get to your level? How many times did you practice in a day?	The most important qualities are time and patience. Don't go for quick fixes. I see many people use hyperventilation to get to 2 or 3 minutes; but you miss the point as you are not learning how to relax and build CO2 tolerance. You can get started with my free 7-day Breath Hold Challenge
the below is a reply to the above
ok there’s the pitch.	Like I said - in order to improve your breath hold time, you want to train daily. Preferably in the morning. The challenge is simply a little thing I made so you see improvement every day (and for many, a double increase of the breath hold time you started with at Day 1). I can write that out in 7 posts - one for each day - but it is something you just have to do, that's all. No pitch, just a nifty tool ;)
the below is another reply to the original question
He actually shared a link above with a free book and a couple videos on it. If you want to learn I'd imagine that's the best place to start.	Indeed - thank you - and here you can see The 2020 Dive;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZko1wDGaHc&t=22s
What advice would you give to people who want to practice better self control? Are there any particular insights that come from your mental training?	Start holding your breath on a daily basis. Even if it is just half a minute. Of course, on land and in a safe location. Because when you fight the urge to breath, you are fighting against the strongest reflex possible - life itself. Not only do you increase your CO2 tolerance, but you increase your mental resilience. To get started, I have created a 7-day Breath Hold Challenge where I give various tips. I bet you can double your breath hold time in a week. ;)
Oh, this thread is sure to turn out to be a fascinating one! I've never been able to understand how a person reaches the level you've reached. Thank you for doing it. I have two questions, I think a lot of others will want to know as well: 1. If we're looking to increase our lung capacity and oxygen efficiency, are there any programs or training regimens you swear by, or would recommend to a beginner? Or was it as simple a matter as "Just try to hold your breath longer and longer each time you swim." 2. Have you tried Wim Hof? If so, what are your thoughts on it, and if not, why not?	Thank you, Ty. In response to question numbero uno - I have created my own learning platform Breatheology and in the main post you can find a link to the free eBook and breath training course. They contain exercises and the background info on how working with your breath can, among other things, increase your vital lung capacity and increase your oxygen uptake.
	I think what Wim does is very interesting, but I have not trained with him or followed his training methods so I cannot comment on them. We both have many records under our respective names, so both approaches have merit. ;)
Is David blaine legitimate?!?	Sure - I think he did a great dive. To perform a new Guinness World Record LIVE on Oprah is no small task. There are many "keyboard warriors/hero" who would probably claim it is "easy" (because you pre-oxigenate) - funny then, they did not do the (or ANY) record them selves;) I even got a text from David Blaine and Lenny Kravits (they were playing cards with a freind of mine in NYC) and he congratulated me and thought it was awesome I had done 22 minutes Guinness World Records - cool dude - nice thing to do;) - here is my dive - soon 1.5 MIO. views;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqERqQj-ozc&index=391&list=LLuXuRrPCAsP6fweZcU-R-xw
what goes through your mind while you’re not breathing?	I employ different mind control techniques... sometimes I go back to my childhood or people I really care about and focus on the colors, smells and sound. Whatever makes you leave your body mentally. When I do the record attempts, I simply let go in my mind and my body does what it needs to do. I may not even remember doing it when I start breathing again ;) You'll find many of these techniques in my free eBook
	Well - first of all it is no so important WHAT you think about but HOW. I have created a technique I call "Slow Motion Thinking" - so basically slowind down the speed....relaxing more, slowing the metabolism/oxygen consumption. But I also feeel my body/movement/rhythm - and/or go to a different place in time and space. When you enter Flow (we all can learn to do so and have tried it in life) - then time expands or the notion of time disappears. You become what you do - a remarkable feeling.
I understand the more you practice holding your breath the more your body can train itself to work with less. But is freezing cold water tolerance the same concept or is it all mentally trained tolerance?	I would say there is a mental aspect to both breath holding and cold tolerance. But the biochemical aspects are different. Breath holding trains your CO2 tolerance and, when doing longer breath holds, increases your overall level of red blood cells. The claims for cold tolerance training that you can suppress your immune system and prevent inflammation. And even the mental aspects are different, in the sense that cold exposure teaches you to control your sympathetic nervous system, while breath holding teaches you to activate your parasympathetic nervous system. The first is not always a great and safe idea for everyone. As you can imagine, it may not be a grand idea to push a 80-year old lady in an ice cold pool. ;)
Do you prefer cold or hot showers?	All showers are warm ;)
The average television sitcom is about 22 minutes long without commercials. Have you ever tried holding your breath for an entire episode of The Office?	Nope - but Friends;) Try for yourself - here is my dive;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqERqQj-ozc&index=391&list=LLuXuRrPCAsP6fweZcU-R-xw
Is there anything about you - that you were born with rather than learned - that gives you a physiological advantage in free diving? Is there ANYTHING that can give someone an advantage, or is it purely about discipline and training? Also, as an environmentalist, I’m so grateful for the work that you and others are doing to highlight the importance of 2021 to the planetary crises.	Over the last two decades, I have been a guinea pig for many scientists. We found out that I do have some genes that vary from "normal" people which give me a leg up. But that does not excuse me from training hard and full dedication to achieve mastery. I don't feel different, and the techniques I use can be used by everyone to great effect. :)
[deleted]	In many positive ways (but let us not get into the "wet specifics" of what you can actually do to/with your girlfriend - for 22 minutes....under water...in the Jacuzzi;);););) In general, better breathing also gives you better blood flow - and mind control - so imagine yourself how and when in your sex life that would be of tremendous aid;)
What does your mind do during this time? I have read about Grandmaster chess players losing weight during matches because so many calories/oxygen is going to their brains. I would think you would enter a state of mediation to save that oxygen? That correct?	There are different techniques I use to make myself relaxed and take my mind away from the dive as that is the most important thing.
	The brain uses an enormous amount of oxygen relative to other body parts (20% of the supply). That's why grandmaster chess players lose weight during a multi-day tournament.
	But when breath holding, the body has its own defense mechanism called the Mammalian Dive Response (Diving Reflex). When this kicks in, it reduces the heart rate and restricts the blood transport to the limbs to ensure oxygen transport to the vital organs (including the brain): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_reflex
Do you have any friends in the sport that have recovered from COVID? If so, how has it affected their performance?	Yes, good question. I have had several people coming bank and reporting positive results from the breath training/Breatheology Method - but also more than 400.000 people have now downloaded the free ebook and gotten the free online course so it would be disappointing if not so;) Some people are affected weeks and months after - the latest peoson I spoke with (from the Danish Royal Air Force that I also train along the Navy SEALS) said he felt improvements in days after starting the breath training. Even some improvements the same day. Many people do not know simple and basic breathing styles (belly breathing/Ujjayi, slow exhale etc) so thay get a tremendous effect immediately. Also the Mental Aspect (keeping yourself calm and feel you are in control) has been reported as a positive by many people.
Who would win in a fight between you and Wim Hoff?	Why on earth would we do that? But if you talk about "competition" that is another story. I beat his Guinness World Record in 2010 after he held it for 10 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_y8TeORDTY
	Then I beat it again (my own) when Discovery Channel made a documentary about my training, record dives and how I help people breathe better worldwide with Breatheology:
	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Mr1RV3Qxc&t=8s
the below is another reply to the original question
Yes, the WHO could scoop massive amounts of data from such a bout...	Well - I have trained with world leading doctors for decades (and have a PhD in medicine). I already presented a lot of data in my bestselling book (now given free to the world after Corona hit - I saw it as my "duty" to provide help). If only WHO could saw the same. They have failed MISERABLY if you ask me. So have doctors and politicians - I never saw ANY breath training advice, technique - NADA - to stay physically and mentally healthy and fit! A disgrace! Here you go: https://www.breatheology.com/
the below is another reply to the original question
We don't encourage violence	Peaceful breathing - yes;)
When you’re swimming in the ocean, what is the scariest thing you’ve encountered?? What goes through your mind when you can no longer see the bottom of the ocean??	It is not "scary" if you love and respect the animals - not even dangerous - would dive anywhere anyday over walking down the street in a ny major city. I love diving with sharks, killer whales, sea lions, sea turtles etc - one of my biggest passions is to take small exclusive groups out to amazing places - Fiji, Maldives, The Red Sea...and introduce them to safe and fun ways to meet the animals of the ocean - see a few examples here in my Masterclass: https://www.breatheology.com/masterclass/
To someone that can’t imagine getting remotely close to 22 minutes without taking a breath, what’s the best way you can describe what that experience feels like?	A dream, Flow, timeless, being our of your body and/or mind. We can all learn these techniques - basically start with RELAXATION;)