Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Scientific Blackpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Men's social status accounts for 62% of the variance of copulation opportunities
| Line 3,305: | Line 3,305: | ||
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. | 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 | 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|reproductive success]]'', and has been in history. This can likely be explained by their [[hypergamy|hypergamous]] instincts to avoid men of lower status than their own. | For women, on the other hand, high status is associated with ''lower [[reproductive success|reproductive success]]'', and has been in history. This can likely be explained by their [[hypergamy|hypergamous]] instincts to avoid men of lower status than their own. | ||
| Line 3,318: | Line 3,318: | ||
* 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]] | * 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]] | * Cashdan, E. 1996. ''Women's mating strategies.'' [[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bbf7/77fbe21100d32ebd55a41b65de7151628235.pdf FullText]] | ||
* The relative importance of intra- and intersexual selection on human male sexually dimorphic traits | |||
* Kordsmeyer TL, Hunt J, Puts DA, Ostner J, Penke L. 2018. ''The relative importance of intra-and intersexual selection on human male sexually dimorphic traits.'' Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(4), pp.424-436. [[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513817304105 Abstract]] [[http://larspenke.eu/pdfs/Kordsmeyer_et_al_2018_-_Intra-_vs_intersexual_selection_on_human_males.pdf FullText]] | |||
* Kruger DJ, Fitzgerald CJ. 2011. ''Reproductive strategies and relationship preferences associated with prestigious and dominant men.'' Personality and Individual Differences. 50(3):365-9. [[https://www.academia.edu/14471033/Reproductive_strategies_and_relationship_preferences_associated_with_prestigious_and_dominant_men Abstract]] | |||
* Boone JL. 1986. ''Parental investment and elite family structure in preindustrialstates: A case study of late medieval-early modern Portuguese genealogies.'' American Anthropologist, 88, 859-878. | |||
* Boone JL. 1988. ''Parental investment, social subordination, and population processes among the 15th and 16th century Portuguese nobility.'' In Betzig L, Mulder MB, Turke P (Eds.), Human reproductive behavior: A Darwinian perspective (pp. 201-219). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. | |||
* Buss DM. 1989. ''Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.'' Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49. | |||
* Buss DM. 1992. ''Mate preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice andintrasexual competition.'' In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), Theadapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 249-266).New York: Oxford University Press. | |||
* Buss DM. 1994. ''The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York:Basic Books. | |||
* Ellis BJ. 1992. ''The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms inwomen.'' In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), ''The adapted mind:Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture'' (pp. 267-288). New York: Oxford University Press. | |||
* Hill EM, Nocks ES, Gardner L. 1987. ''Physical attractiveness: Manipulation by physique and status displays.'' Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 143-154. | |||
* Mealey L. 1985. ''The relationship between social status and biological success: Acase study of the Mormon religious hierarchy.'' Ethology and Sociobiology, 6,249-257. | |||
* Symons D. 1979. ''The evolution of human sexuality.'' New York: Oxford University Press. | |||
===<span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine, Georgia, Times, serif'; font-size: 24px; line-height: 1.2; font-weight: normal;" id="93.25_of_women_preferred_being_asked_out_on_a_date_rather_than_doing_the_asking">93% of women preferred being asked out on a date rather than doing the asking</span>=== | ===<span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine, Georgia, Times, serif'; font-size: 24px; line-height: 1.2; font-weight: normal;" id="93.25_of_women_preferred_being_asked_out_on_a_date_rather_than_doing_the_asking">93% of women preferred being asked out on a date rather than doing the asking</span>=== | ||