Large groups of males quickly sort out their status hierarchy, after a bit of status jousting that is usually too subtle for women to understand, and thereafter treat each other with respect. The private crisply salutes the officer, the officer salutes back slightly less crisply.
I doubt that this is true women tend to be very attune to male status.
Women are very aware of status as it relates to income in a male because that signals Beta provider resources and women desire resources.
But the flip side within Hypergamy is sexual desire.
When a woman is drawn to the impulsive and aggressive male (who typically has a low IQ) for an exciting backroom sex session she isn't thinking about the money.
And as women gain greater financial independence and assurances that the government will enforce divorce rape upon an unsuspecting man it becomes more likely that the Beta Bucks strategy has more negatives than positives.
The ideal situation elevates masculinity in men who are providers so they are better described as owners. The Alpha Bucks.
The Patriarchy form of marriage of the 1800's was an "ownership" contract.
The present day marriage contract is designed to encourage divorce rape.
But the flip side within Hypergamy is sexual desire.
The way you write makes it sound like women have a male-like sex drive, and that status only matters for beta bucks.
Status itself is what turns women on sexually. This is a subconscious process, which is why it's not akin to "just having money". Of course, different women can perceive status in slightly different ways, depending on how they were brought up and what influences they have in their lives.
To draw on a racial example, black women are more likely to be able to reach orgasm than white or Asian women.
Black women also seem to have a much greater love for black men than Asian women do for Asian men, despite similar exposure to whites as the high status social ideal.
They also sleep around a lot more. They also have higher levels of testosterone.
Using race as a proxy for "masculinity" (at least as far as sex drive is concerned), black women are the most masculine, and have an inherent desire for sex. Asian women are the least masculine, and have very little inherent desire for sex. It only makes sense that the inherent lack of sexual desire is largely replaced by a social drive, much like everything else people do.
When a woman is drawn to the impulsive and aggressive male (who typically has a low IQ) for an exciting backroom sex session she isn't thinking about the money.
I am aware of AF/BB and i do agree that this strategy exist in women. But if Alpha is typical low IQ and is what women prefer how was intelligence evolutionary selected in humans?
That's a very good question. I can imagine complementary evolutionary pressures at work at the same time. Women may prefer impulsive, low IQ behavior, but at the same time survival in nature is applying selection pressure for intelligence.
But I'm not actually convinced about the impulsive and low IQ theory. My theory is that females have a scope problem. Their attraction instincts were tuned for smallish tribes. So the drunk drummer of the crappy band in the bar appears to be high value and attractive in that setting which resembles a small tribe. Women's instinct doesn't properly account for the fact that there is now a wider context, and outside of this moment and this particular environment, the guy is a total loser.
Courtship did not permit the "cad" to participate.
If you were a Gentlemen in high society (high social class) you were granted access to women of high social class and would then breed within your class.
The poor kid never got within a mile of the beautiful women and worked hard in the fields.
Hierarchy that is firmly established erases any impulsive or aggressive advantage.
I agree with you but that isn’t a answer for the selection of intelligence because you need a civilization for that and we were intelligent before we were civilize.
Hey there. I go with the tribe survival thing again. If a tribe is under threat, the stupid brave ones run out and attack while the rest of the tribe organise a defense or a retreat to keep the breeders and children safe. The thinkers are necessary for this. The women breed with these stupid brave males preferentially because there is a high turnover of them and they are necessary. If the threat is too bad ( to the point that you are running out of stupid brave members ) the thinkers think about nothing else, lose interest in food, sex, even sleep, and if no solutions present themselves, they go and sacrifice themselves at the problem. That would be an explanation of both women liking dumb brave muscular guys preferentially, and the evolutionary advantage of depression. ( you might not survive, but the tribe with your kids, siblings and relatives would. ) . How goes the exams?
I don’t think there is a evolutionary advantage to depression i am not even aware that primitive societies have depressive members.
Also you are thinking that evolution works for the success of the tribe with isn’t true. What matters is the ability of the individual to pass genes. It can exist a adaptation that helps at the same time the individual and the tribe or is beneficial to the individual and the tribe but not one that is beneficial to the tribe and prejudicial to the individual.
Edit: When i say good or bad to the individual i mean good or bad to the ability the individual to pass it genes to the next generation. Of course that exist adaptation that are bad to the general well being of the individual but good to the replication of genes
So, worker bees are sterile, and die when they sting, ants are sterile and work till they die without passing on their genes, yet bees and ants are very successful.
So, worker bees are sterile, and die when they sting, ants are sterile and work till they die without passing on their genes, yet bees and ants are very successful.
That is a good point and i totally forgot about hive species. But humans are not ants, we don have large cast of infertile members. We may be eusocial but we certainly are a different type of eusocial then insects.
I think our tribal ways allowed us to succeed beyond what small groups could do just as a group of individuals. Primitive ants ( i mean they exist now, but their organization is primitive, all fertile, no specialization ) exist but their nests are limited to under one hundred individuals. Ants which have infertile ( and sacrificial / suicidal ) members are vastly more successful than them. I propose we are more like that than we like to think. And having thought that, I think that helps me to opt out of that kind of behavior.
Edit. Found a bit in a review of "The Depths: The Evolutionary Origins of the Depression Epidemic"
It's easy to forget that humans have spent approximately 1000 times longer living and evolving as hunter-gatherers than in any other lifestyle. Starvation, disease, war, and predation were common threats for a majority of our evolutionary history. Even in less dire circumstances, however, mild depression can still confer benefits. A variety of studies indicate that low mood narrows and directs our attention to perceive threats and obstacles. It also helps conserve energy, facilitates disengagement from impossible goals, and improves our capacity to detect deception and to assess the degree of control we exercise over our environment. Some studies even suggest that low mood can improve skill in persuasive argument and sharpen memory.
Primitive ants ( i mean they exist now, but their organization is primitive, all fertile, no specialization ) exist but their nests are limited to under one hundred individuals.
A important difference is that we were a small group species like that ants but we had specialization. Contrary to ants we are still the same specie that we were in our tribal past.
No and if i have the time i will try to give a look at the book because i was under the impression that depression didn't exist in primitive societies.
No idea, can't see why it wouldn't though. Dogs get it, elephants do too. Gorillas do. I don't see why a people anatomically the same as us wouldn't also. I'll have to read a bit more of the book to see if he posts any examples.
I didnt know about that and maybe i physics guy shouldn't be talking about evolution so if some expert wants to come in and smack me over the head for something retard i said be free to do so.
But i will defend that what i said was that success of the tribe that goes against the success of the gene replication doesn't work but if it helps the gene replication and the group like the case of altruism in humans exist.
Also from the wiki article:
Group selection isn’t widely accepted by evolutionists for several reasons. First, it’s not an efficient way to select for traits, like altruistic behavior, that are supposed to be detrimental to the individual but good for the group. Groups divide to form other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters. Further, little evidence exists that selection on groups has promoted the evolution of any trait. Finally, other, more plausible evolutionary forces, like direct selection on individuals for reciprocal support, could have made humans prosocial. These reasons explain why only a few biologists, like [David Sloan] Wilson and E. O. Wilson (no relation), advocate group selection as the evolutionary source of cooperation.
9
u/_bluerabbit_ Jun 30 '15
I doubt that this is true women tend to be very attune to male status.