6,468
edits
Scientific Blackpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Hypergamy
m (→Hypergamy) |
|||
| Line 3,200: | Line 3,200: | ||
* Ong, D. and Wang, J. 2015. ''Income attraction: An online dating field experiment.'' [[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268114003242 Abstract]] | * Ong, D. and Wang, J. 2015. ''Income attraction: An online dating field experiment.'' [[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268114003242 Abstract]] | ||
* Fales, M.R., Frederick, D.A., Garcia, J.R., Gildersleeve, K.A., Haselton, M.G. and Fisher, H.E. 2016. ''Mating markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national US studies.'' [[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282931592 Abstract]] | * Fales, M.R., Frederick, D.A., Garcia, J.R., Gildersleeve, K.A., Haselton, M.G. and Fisher, H.E. 2016. ''Mating markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national US studies.'' [[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282931592 Abstract]] | ||
===<span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine, Georgia, Times, serif'; font-size:24px; font-weight: normal;">In modern societies, men's social status accounts for 62% of the variance of copulation opportunities</span>=== | |||
---- | |||
In most social species, position in the male dominance hierarchy and fertility are positively correlated, but in traditional human societies, this correlation is less clear and even vanishes in the most economically advanced societies. In the social science literature, this has been used as argument that humans do not naturally organize hierarchically, i.e. that men's social status is not adaptive, but social construction. | |||
Perusse et al. (1993) hypothesized that the lack of a clear correlation rather stems from reproductive patterns unique to modern societies, in particular the existence of welfare, monogamy and contraception, as well cultural differences between upper and lower class. | |||
To test for whether men's social status is adaptive while avoiding these patterns, he analyzed whether men's status is at least correlated with ''potential fertility'' instead of actual fertility. | |||
And indeed, he found men's status accounts for as much as 62% of the variance in potential fertility. This pattern is remarkably similar to what is found in many traditional societies, e.g. even in the most egalitarian contemporary hunter-gatherers such as the Ache and the Sharanahua, one finds that the most successful hunters have the most offspring (Cashdan, 1996). | |||
For women, on the other hand, high status is associated with ''lower reproductive success'', and has been in history. This can likely be explained by their hypergamous instincts to avoid men of lower status than their own. | |||
<span style="font-size:125%">'''Quotes:'''</span> | |||
*''Reproductive success, even when assessed by a more reliable measure of actual male fertility than the one commonly used, fails to correlate with social status.'' | |||
* ''In striking contrast, however, status is found to be highly correlated with potential fertility, as estimated from copulation frequency. Status thus accounts for as much as 62% of the variance in this proximate component of fitness.'' | |||
* ''This pattern is remarkably similar to what is found in many traditional societies and would result in a substantial positive relationship between cultural and reproductive success in industrial populations were it not for the novel conditions imposed by contraception and monogamy.'' | |||
*''The importance of resources to women is apparent even in egalitarian societies such as the Ache and the Sharanahua, where the best hunters are able to attract the most sexual partners.'' (Cashdan, 1996). | |||
<span style="font-size:125%">'''References:'''</span> | |||
* Perusse, D. 1993. ''Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels.'' [[https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00029939 Abstract]] | |||
* Cashdan, E. 1996. ''Women's mating strategies.'' [[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bbf7/77fbe21100d32ebd55a41b65de7151628235.pdf FullText]] | |||
===<span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine, Georgia, Times, serif'; font-size:24px; font-weight: normal;">The top 10% of men get 58% of women's likes in online dating</span>=== | ===<span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine, Georgia, Times, serif'; font-size:24px; font-weight: normal;">The top 10% of men get 58% of women's likes in online dating</span>=== | ||