6,353
edits
No edit summary |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== The Critique against the strict 80-20 Rule and Further clarification == | == The Critique against the strict 80-20 Rule and Further clarification == | ||
Line 34: | Line 12: | ||
How does one address Hypergamy in relation to age and LH? | How does one address Hypergamy in relation to age and LH? | ||
: | |||
>"The 80-20 Rule is worth clarifying, as it suggest that women does not want to date down."<br> | |||
We (the editors of the wiki) have been discussing this ourselves, but one could argue that the power law/Pareto distribution of sex is not wholly driven by female preference. Other factors likely play a role, access to desirable women, male intrasexual competition, male motivation and social dominance orientation varying by status, and so forth. | |||
>"If Hypergamy is a constant, then Dual Mating Strategy cannot exist"<br> | |||
The dual mating strategy, in the strict Evo-Psych sense of the term, likely doesn't exist to any appreciable degree, yes: https://incels.wiki/w/Body_attractiveness#Ovulatory_shift https://incels.wiki/w/Facial_masculinity#Ovulatory_shift_hypothesis_and_dual_mating | |||
If there is a dual mating strategy it's likely most pronounced as a life course strategy. Woman rides the cock carousel with handsome, "charming" men when she is younger (particularly in a society where this is de facto encouraged among youth), then suddenly has the epiphany that Sammy Soyboy or Billy Beta possess desirable traits when she is older and looking to settle down and have children. That kind of thing. Provider traits vs. seducer traits. Of course, Omegas are always not seen as a viable prospect. The conventional "redpill" portrayal of these phenomena seems to mainly fail when it comes to their overemphasis on cuckoldry. | |||
Also this theory is conceptualizing dual mating as generally representing a "good genes"/resources tradeoffs. Women are said to want both but generally they can't as the men with "good genes" have a lot of options for casual sex. So they'd be actually expected to mainly exert economic hypergamy when they are selecting the hapless "beta", not when they are choosing their illicit liason partners. | |||
>"https://www.nel.edu/userfiles/articlesnew/NEL350714A16.pdf"<br> | |||
This is very interesting. The authors conflict reduction of this increased reproductive success may be sufficient, but I can see multiple pathways where women preferring more submissive men can be adaptive in some cases. There is the "helper in the nest" hypothesis that essentially states that, in contexts where women are financially/resource independent from men (as in some strongly abundant ecologies and modern welfare states) that they may accrue RS benefits for selecting for empathetic, submissive, and socially minded men. Basically "soyboys" or highly effeminate men. | |||
There is some evidence that women rate facially effeminate men as more attractive, at least in certain contexts (detailed in the facial masculinity article I linked above) and there is evidence that effeminacy in men is linked to greater sociosexuality (so more promiscuous), whilst masculinity in women is linked to the same:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886919305070 | |||
This either suggests a female preference for effeminate men, androgyny being linked to a faster life history speed for w/e reason, or that, despite the predictions of life history theory, a masculine gender identity in men may be actually linked to a slower/more pairbonding sexual strategy. | |||
So one can see how this could be a (niche?) sexual strategy. | |||
The benefits in terms of RS that could accrue from females marrying up are obvious, greater access to resources, protection, the man perhaps having more sway over the woman's reproduction (as many births are solely decided by the female). | |||
In terms of economic hypergamy in general, it does seem that the effects of this are the strongest at extremes. Poor men seem to be undesirable to women in many cases (they have lower reproductive success and this seems linked to them being more likely to not cohabitate or marry, which may be primarily driven by female preferences). It's the opposite for wealthier men. Preference and some pair-formation data seems to educate women are generally quite averse to dating down but not across. The idea of a billionaire stealing a working-class man's girl or whatever seems to be a bit of a caricature in most caes. | |||
>"How does one address Hypergamy in relation to age and LH?"<br> | |||
I would guess women would actually be expected to become more hypergamous as they age, despite their declining SMV. Preference for partner education scales with age: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-6811.00018 (though some of this is simply down to people completing their education). Women's ideal preference for male income moderately correlates with their own, and at least in countries like the US, women's income seems to peak in their middle age: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/18/heres-how-much-men-and-women-earn-at-every-age.html | |||
There is somewhat contrary evidence that suggests younger women may care more about resource holding potential (https://brill.com/view/journals/beh/151/14/article-p2059_6.xml?crawler=true&lang=zh&language=de&mimetype=application%2Fpdf), but this is sort of confounded by mixing together actual access to resources and traits that indicate the potential to climb to social ladder and acquire said resources, and since most young men haven't established themselves and women seem to be fairly homogamous in terms of age, it would be easy to see why younger women would care more about this than older ones. | |||
In regards to LH, well there seems to be evidence that a faster life history is associated with greater polygyny (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ssqu.12030). | |||
This would likely hold true to societies without formalized polygyny and would be reflected in serial monogamy, mating skew, etc. LHS would predict that fast LH women would care more about rapid access to resources and perhaps greater genetic diversity and physical attractiveness in their potential mates. There is evidence for assortative mating in LHS (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470490800600206) also, so they also tend to select those with short-term strategies that mirror their own, which would be generally expected to be associated with lower resource holding potential (due to impulsivity, short-time preference, lower conscientiousness etc, perhaps being fast life history traits or negatively linked to the proposed subfactors of ''k'', in particular one would thing super-k and the GFP would be positively associated with income. |
edits