This page is still work-in-progress. Read it with caution.
I have found that taking an evolutionary perspective on various issues relating to human characteristics and behaviours, group dynamics, and similar, is the best way to gain an understanding of these issues.
This article contains a number of thoughts on the matter that are not present elsewhere, e.g. in Women as seekers of helpers.
I stress, however, that the important thing is to learn the right kind of thinking—and that if just a few readers do so, this will be well worth the page. Making even a semi-complete listing of conclusions, however, is an impossibility, because such insights, possible explanations, whatnot, come and are forgotten again during daily life.
Note that there is seldom one single explanation for a certain phenomenon; in particular, evolution can be seen as a tug-of-war between various factors that have positive and negative effects and side-effects. Correspondingly, many of the thoughts given here and elsewhere will be supplementary or contradictory. This is a near unavoidable part of the game. Consider, as an analogy, the effects of a man growing an additional ten inches. On the one hand greater strength, reach, and (likely) speed would follow. The more impressive physique would intimidate other men and impress women. Etc. OTOH, he would require more energy to survive (implying that more food must be procured and greater risks if supplies are scarce), he would have less opportunities to hide when he feared attacks by an animal or another human, growth at a faster rate or for a longer time could make him uncoordinated in his youth, ... Thus, the additional height brings both advantages and disadvantages, and which will outweigh the other will depend on the exact circumstances—nevertheless, it is entirely correct, if simplistic, to say that being taller is an evolutionary advantage through greater strength.
Further note that evolution is not the only explanatory factor (if, IMO, the most important). Culture, religion, education, external pressures, whatnot, can all affect human behaviours. Even here, however, it is noteworthy that these, themselves, follow principles of human behaviour ultimately rooted in evolution. In the end, they can be considered memes which have interacted with genes as time went by.
It is important to beware that what evolution has ingrained is not always something that humans can exercise control over—or even are conscious of. Correspondingly, statements like “women [men] choose XXX” need not reflect a deliberate choice, but is very often a short-hand for “Through evolutionary forces over aeons, women [men] who have chosen XXX have had reproductive advantages, which has effectively bred humanity to make women [men] prone to, consciously or unconsciously, choose or prefer XXX.” (or simlar). For natural reasons, I will typically not spell this out.
A further complication is that some behaviours may be side-effects of sensible evolutionary developments put into a new or unusual context—where they may well turn out to be of negative value. Several examples are discussed below.
For those who have problems grasping such evolutionary concepts (and they are surprisingly many, unfortunately), I recommend reading up on the early books of Dawkinsw, and to study some elementary game theoryw.
Emotions are powerful motivators, arguably far stronger than reason in most people: Fear leads us to avoid risky situations, anger leads us to attack, love and lust leads us to persue members of the opposite sex, ... Conversely, happiness makes us less prone to affect changes.
These emotions and their influence on behaviour have evolved to make humans well-adapted for a life that is, to a large part, no longer relevant. The world of today is very different than even a hundred years ago, and very, very different from in neolithic times. Old behaviours are often inappropriate, or even illegal; new ones are required. The intellectual challenges are far greater than before; physical accomplishment less important. Men’s and women’s roles have changed drastically. The life of a child, with 9–13 years of mandatory schooling instead of play or work (depending on era and context), is completely unnatural. Etc.
This leads to a conflict between what humans “should” do (according to modern norms, in order to be successful in today’s society, whatnot) and what evolution has dictated them to do. In this conflict unhappiness, dissatisfaction, frustration, undue fears or angers, can ensue—sometimes even lead to health problems, be they mental or physical.
Chances are that a child sitting in a school-bench, listening to a teacher drone on, will be bored to tearse—no matter how much they could benefit from the education provided. Chances are that a woman who hits her thirties without husband and children will have “baby urges”e, feel that somethings is amiss, long for marriage—no matter how well her career is going. Chances are that a man TODO
I stress that there are other sides to these issues: Schooling is largely an ineffecient waste of time, not the education it should be (cf. my thoughts on education). Many people who have children end up regretting it. Etc.
Trying to deliberately force people away from their natural roles, like e.g. some feminists do, is a recipe for unhappiness.
This also applies to changes in the surrounding environment, e.g. in that humans were made to have a certain amount of exposure to sun-light, fresh air, green trees, ..., and that a modern life in the city with most of the actual day spent in an office will have negative effects.
In a very similar manner, the human body is adapted to certain conditions, and leaving these conditions behind can have negative consequences. The obvious example is food intake, where many humans become dangerously obese for no good reason—rationally speaking. However, in the days of yore, energy rich foods were rare and the human tastebuds developed a strong preferences for just these. Further, humans were trained to eat when they had the opportunity, not necessarily when they were hungry. Further yet, the human body was made to be energy efficient, store fat, not to build muscles that could be a long term liability, ...
Interesting observations include that the typical McDonald’s meal is a nutrional dream—in a historical perspective. This explains its popularity and success.
This is just one example of how humans can be “played” by appealing to instincts of various kinds, not unlike an ethologist playing a stickleback.
A fundamental paradox of the current world is that many women perceive themselves as of significantly higher value than men with regard to relationships, sex, and similar, and that many men implicitly agree—while, rationally speaking, it is entirely the other way around.
Disturbingly, I have the impression that some extend this evaluation to more general areas, where it is entirely misplaced. This could be caused by very many women taking an attitude that life is about reproduction (one way or the other), and by many of either sex measuring their success by popularity with the other sex.
In the days of yore, however, this was natural: For one thing polygamy was comparatively common in many cultures (and, I speculate, more so the further back we go), meaning that a smaller group of powerful men tended to have most of the women, while the majority of men went without or only had casual encounters. For another, even where polygamy was not actively practised, it was quite common for the same small group of men to have sexual encounters with a greater variety of women—including those married to others.
Correspondingly, a natural three-level hierarchy was present, with the top men (notably a minority) being more valuable in the eyes of both themselves and the women than the women were—and the majority of men being below the women, because they were forced to in various ways supplicate themselves in order to have reproductive chances. Notably, today, even the “haughtiest” (TODO better word) of women tend to turn to instant mush with a small minority of men.
Back then, this made sense, because women were interested in reproducing with men with the best genes and to form alliances with powerful caretakers.
These caretakers were not always the best gene providers (although their power certainly correlated with good genes), and it is quite possible that a woman chose a caretaker more for his ability to provide than for his genes—and she may very well have enjoyed other men with good genes on the side. The caretakers still had a strong reproductive advantage because they had regular sexual access, in turn, giving them a strong chance of fertilization.
An interesting twist is that the chance of impregnation varies with the strength of a woman’s orgasm—which tends to be strong both during casual encounters and with men with a good gene match. By this indirect mean, it was possible for a woman to control the probabilites of impregnation with both the caretaker and the men on the side.
Today, this no longer makes sense, because the end to most sexual encounters is to have sex (at least for men), not to procreate. Still, the habits of old prevail and determine modern behaviours, with the unfortunate side-effect that many men tend to position themselves as betas, as a consequence of media portrayals, lack of male role-models, and early experiences (with women prefering older men, men prefering younger women, and there being more men than women for at least the first several decades of life, men become used to being rejected and women to being persued).
Interestingly, much of PUA is based on men simply re-framing themselves from a beta role to an alpha role (which, as far as convincing women is concerned, is more a matter of superficial impressions than of inner substance). This will likely have very far-going consequences on sexual dynamics, ideally resulting in a balance where men and women can approach sex on equal terms, and sex can no longer be used as an effective means of barter or extortion against men. Other developments are conceivable, however, including that we end up with an all-alpha world, were women must supplicate themselves for sex, relationships, whatnot (a lesser problem than today, because it is unlikely that women will be taxed financially to the same degree, and because “chivalry” towards women is sufficiently ingrained in men as to off-set this to some degree); or that women simply raise the bars further and further, in particular through becoming jaded to alpha behaviours, resulting in more or less the same unfortunate situation that we have today.
TODO Expand on monogamy.
The stereotypical male mid-life crisis (i.e. chasing after younger women—which is not necessarily what a true mid-life crisis entails) could possibly be explained by this being a time when a successful man historically would have gone for a second wife (seeing that the fertility of even a somewhat younger wife would be dangerously low), or he, with typical life-expectancies, had to consider last chances.
It is highly note-worthy that this chasing of younger women tend to coincide with a roughly same-aged wife dropping of the attractiveness scale entirely (and even a noticeably younger will typically have lost much in appearances). The common female scorn for the man’s preference for younger women, in turn, is entirely unfounded: Men’s physical preferences for women tend to remain roughly the same at all ages, and the “younger” merely reflects this consistency in preference—why should a 45 y.o. man chase after 45 y.o. women, when he has chances with a 25 y.o.? (If he has no such chances, which for many will be the case, there are still the 35 y.o. women, who will be far more accommodating.)
Evolutionary background (harem, genes) as an explation for extreme “romantic” behaviours, including stalking (men) and inability to let go of SO (women). Caretaker vs. semen recepticle as explanation for e.g. the fact that men are almost always willing to try again, but one (once they have let go) are more reluctant, possibly even hateful.
An evolutionary reason for the human tendency to “gang up” on others, could simply be that doing so gains good-will with the rest of the gang, in exchange for hostility from the victim. In a setting where the same constellations occur over and over again, this can make great (macchiavellian) sense; in particular, as it reduces the risk of becoming the victim. Obviously, when this behaviour is extended to e.g. work-place discussions, the results can be very negative.
More generally, there seems to be considerably indications that many (most?) men and most (almost all?) women agree with others based on a wish for allies, rather than based on what is factually correct. This poses a major stumbling block for us few who by nature try to go by facts and reasoning.
It is noteable that when women go shopping, they tend to buy things that they hope will make them physically attractive (shoes, clothes, makeup); whereas men buy things that they hope will increase their abilities (power tools, computer gadgets). This reflects the evolutionary roles in a striking manner: Men bring the abilities and strive to improve them; women are focused on catching men, and try to improve their ability in this regard.
Similar effects are common, and explain e.g. why men like action movies and women romance, or why the biker is typically male and the pillion rider female. An interesting issue is the common female complaint that a man would be childish when he engages in playing behaviours: These would in the past often have constituted training and skill-honing for real-life situation (play, in general, is a form of training, as is very noticeable in animals). When women, in turn, engage in their play/training they seem to have a blind spot: What other purpose does reading Cosmo, prancing for the mirror, or flirting (without serious intentions) serve?
Helplessness (and similar) appears to have considerable sympathy-gaining effect. This could be partially explained by a perception of an easy ally: If someone is helpless, he is also likely to be very keen on forming an alliance, which will typically be beneficial for the other party too. This explanation also plays well with how different groups of people react to helplessness, e.g. in that women are more likely to be attracted to it, than men are less positive, than people with a weaker own standing are more likely to be sympathetic, etc.
In contrast, accomplishment and independence tends to have a negative effect on liking, unless compensated for by sufficient friendliness: Not only do such people tend not to see a great need in gathering allies, but they can also be a threat or a competition.
An interesting twist on leadership in an evolutionary perspective could be that it went to those brave/stupid/reckless enough to go first, be the ones to check something out, take certain risks, whatnot. It makes sense to give these people a certain amount of authority, because a) they are the ones taking the risks b) they will become more experienced with the corresponding situations. Further, as long as they, themselves, take the risks there is little reason for others to disobey—unless too poor decisions are made. Notably, however, this is a tactical command that should not necessarily be extended to bigger issues. Further, the needed qualities do include a certain recklessness (to take on the task); however, not necessarily intelligence or good judgement (although these, together with physical prowess will, be beneficial for success and survival).
While this type of leader would have been very valuable in the past, and while it is still natural that such people are followed, they are typically not good leaders today, when the decisions to be taken in an organisation are of a different character. Apart from the increasing complexity, the greater demands on knowledge and intelligence, etc., the danger of too great risk-taking must not underestimated—in particular, as the leaders of today tend not to take risks personally, but instead endanger their organisations and/or team.
From an evolutionary POV, it could make sense for women to partner someone in the ring below the leader, and to subsequently illicitly have sex with the latter. This avoids the greater risks that surrounds a leader and his family, while still providing access to (what is perceived as potentially) superior genes, and while providing a very solid “financial” security level. The same applies at least partially to other constellations, say second-ring husband/first-ring lover.
As is well-know, men have a larger standard deviation than women when it comes to e.g. intelligence. A suggested explanation is that having an XY-chromosome pair, instead of an XX, makes men more “volatile” in some regards.
Let us look at this in a stone-age scenario:
Men are exposed to greater evolutionary forces in form of e.g. hunting accidents. The corresponding filtering will remove more men with unsuitable genes than with suitable genes. TODO higher birth rate
This leads to fewer men being around than women; and the men that are around are pre-selected for survival. Interestingly, the older a man is, the greater the dangers that he has survived, which indicates that (on average) his genes are even more suitable—which could explain why women prefer older men (within some limits) even today.
Further, while more or less all (non-sterile) women will be impregnated by someone, the men may undergo further selection by the women.
This amounts to a considerably stronger evolutionary pressure on men than on women.
TODO expand on conclusions, compare with todays low-pressure world. Women have different incentives to stay with, be jealous regarding, whatnot, the different types
The current relation that (at least younger) men and women have, with many men desperately grasping for the attention of women that are objectively inferior, while both these and the high-value women grasp for the attention of a smaller group of men, can be explained by looking at a traditional tribal setting where women tried to get the attentions of the most powerful and genetically valuable men (often even in harem-like institutions), while most men had to compete for scraps and seconds. In todays society, such behaviours are largely anachronistic (and certainly not compatible with the “family and commitment” view that women ostensibly take); however, humans are more like animals than they want to believe.
This can also largely explain the “power” that women have over men: Any man who perceives himself to be in the “beta” group of old, as opposed to the “alpha” group, and fails to realize that he is being played by evolutionary forces that do no longer match reality, will be fooled into sucking up and obeying, because once-upon-a-time this would have been his only chance of reproduction. It will be quite interesting to see what happens, if the PUA community manages to make the majority of all men take an alpha stance...
Courtesy of http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/11/06/going-feministic/#comment-8462
The introduction of police forces and similar have made women more independent of men and, thereby, changed the dynamics protector–protectee.
In modern society, stage-freight is not only wasteful, but positively harmful: What an actor, speech-maker, whatnot, needs is to be relaxed, confident, and in possession of a clear head.
Consider, however, a neolithic man confronted by fifty strangers... It is far from unlikely that he would be involved in running or desperate self-defense shortly after— both the ability and the wish to run or hide is entirely natural, and having a body geared up for physical activity certainly was an advantage.
Even in more recent times, crowds have posed a danger, as exemplified in e.g. Google answerse.
Also note that groups tend to be more aggressive and less rational than individuals, which further increases the risk.
One of the main problems with today’s world is an undue respect for authority (instead of argument) and arbitrary rules. In the past, however, this made great sense, e.g. in that there were many situations where orders had to be obeyed quickly and blindly (cf. today’s military) or experimental breaking of rules was dangerous (do not eat that particular mushroom).
The current male tail-end in IQ is unnatural from a historic perspective, because the individuals involved would have been among the first to die. Historically, then, there would have been fewer men, but they would have dominated women entirely in IQ.
Similarly, the current surplus of males in younger years is unnatural.
Drive to stay together with children, and similar.
TODO laws and natural behaviour
TODO women and appeasment/sexually excited by danger and dangerous men
TODO Lost
TODO Teenage sex-drive (also “grooming”)
TODO Relationships more important than right and wrong, treatment, etc. Compare
behaviour of animals.
TODO Oneitis as evolutionary strategy
TODO Preening/obsession with looks, primitive behaviour in women
TODO Women torn between mandating need to have someone and need to be selective.
TODO Women and relationships: Thing to work on (Men: If it does not work, end it)
TODO Children (male) not only an advantage for procreation, but also as assets.
Cf. e.g. the village. Value of women as wifes correspondingly increased; value
of men as sons ditto.
TODO Aging: Men slower than women wrt to body shape, because they need to
be in good shape for a longer time. Women’s shape have little practical
use, but only serve to attract men—and after she has a husband she is on
the constant pregnancy track anyway, or is sufficiently distracted by taking
care of younger children and grand-children.
Body language
Strangers attractive not just for exchange of genes but through a, potential, small window of opportunity.
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.