Talk:Hypergamy

The Critique against the strict 80-20 Rule and Further clarification

The 80-20 Rule is worth clarifying, as it suggest that women does not want to date down. It assumes that the matching does not cross-link. Hypergamy has to lead up to overlaps. https://archive.fo/UkWC8 For a better picture of dating, it is important to redefine the 80-20 rules as access frequency, NOT women in general.

If Hypergamy is a constant, then Dual Mating Strategy cannot exist. However women DOES date lower. https://www.nel.edu/userfiles/articlesnew/NEL350714A16.pdf Trends discovered: - Women who wants to date up will only pretend to be submissive - Women who dates down only wants to be dom and worshipped

How does one address Hypergamy in relation to age and LH? -- previously unsigned comment by 2001:67c:2628:647:12::65

>"The 80-20 Rule is worth clarifying, as it suggest that women does not want to date down."

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"
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"
This is very interesting. The authors conflict reduction explanation 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 cases, however. You would likely be interested in the videos of the TFL-sphere of incels, as they discuss the theory of women exerting endogamy, at least in certain regards (they tend to claim women will sometimes select for mediocre looking men in the view that this will make the man commit to her, as well as minimize any personal insecurity she may feel from being mated with an attractive man).

>"How does one address Hypergamy in relation to age and LH?"
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. Altmark22 (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Genetic diversity

I've always had a problem with the genetic diversity argument amongst offspring argument as an explanation for the promiscuity of some females. For one, the advantages of having a diverse set of offspring isn't clear; having variable offspring also implies neccesarilly implies the survival rates for each of your offspring would be variable as well. Thus women who heavilly invest in the offspring of a particular male who is well adapted will do far better and have greater reproductive success than women whom invest in the offspring of a variety men each of which will have much greater variability in survival.

To illustrate, let's say you're making a cake and require eggs and the word around town is that some eggs will make your cake taste better than others. However in your particular town there are only two types of eggs, chicken eggs and ostrich eggs. You decide to make a cake with ostrich eggs, your neighbour with chicken eggs and your other neighbour uses both. The result being that your cake, because it was made with ostrich eggs, was the most delicious; your first neighbour's cake the least delicious and your second neighbour's cake intermediate. As we can see from this example, the women who mixed eggs did better than the woman with chicken eggs, but wasn't because she had mixed her eggs but rather because some of the eggs she used were of a better quality (cuckolding for better genes); were as the women whom only invested in ostrich eggs (monopolizing an alpha-male) did the best overall. If the women whom did the best overall decided to mix her batch just for the sake of mixing, the cake would turn out worse than if she did not.

Another flaw I find in the genetic diversity argument would be women's reaction to ethnic men. If genetic diversity amongst one's offspring was neccesarily conducisive to female reproductive success, then we should find that women would go batshit crazy for Indian men, Asian men, Latino's and Black men as they would contribute a hell of lot of diversity. Not only is this not the case but the reverse is true, women have a preference for men that look like them. Come to think of it, in all of the literature I've read on evolution pertaining to human mating systems, I've only ever seen authors posit that genetic diversity amongst offspring contribute to reproductive success and never demonstrate it's benifits. "Genetic diversity amongst offspring contributes to reproductive success. How? It just does bucko."

As a Final point, is the genetic diversity argument essentially the same as the cuckold your husband for good genes argument written differently as a woman whom does cuckold her husband for good genes will neccesarilly have diversity amongst her offspring. However the increase in reproductive success doesn't originate from the diversity but rather the superior quality. Could you even distinguish the two phenomenon if this were the case? No, no you could not; this essentially means they're the same phenomenon but one of them is a false conclusion of the observation.

-K

Debugging Dating Tournaments

Data for Determining Sexual Preference (Tournament)

Characteristic A: Sexual Preference "1v1" as a directed graph Characteristic B: If two options are about the same level of attraction compared to others, they are of the same class

• http://dss.in.tum.de/files/brandt-research/pagerank.pdf
• https://dss.in.tum.de/files/brandt-research/tsolutions.pdf
• http://dss.in.tum.de/files/brandt-research/comsoc10years.pdf
• http://dss.in.tum.de/files/brandt-research/extension_scw.pdf

Data for Determining Sexual Preference (Bipartite Graph)

Characteristic A: Male characteristic preference can be clustered Characteristic B: Female demographic preference can be clustered Characteristic C: Preference in a graph is an edge that is weighted and/or signed

[TBD]

Modeling Hypergamy through programming

Using Hinge data as a strating point, one can demonstrate the basic regression of hypergamy. Rhode's coefficient at 1.08 and C-coefficient at 9.607 are better curve-fit than pareto's index being 1.398.

 from numpy import exp
 def rhode(x,b): return x*(b-1)/(b-x)
 def chotikapanich(x,b): return (exp(b*x)-1)/(exp(b)-1)
 def pareto(x,b): return 1-(1-x)**(1-1/b)
 
 import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
 from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
 from numpy import array
 
 xdata = array([0,0.5,0.9,0.95,0.99,1])
 ydata = array([0,0.043,0.42,0.589,0.836,1])
 
 def demo(func):
   plt.plot(xdata, ydata, 'b-', label='data')
   popt, pcov = curve_fit(func, xdata, ydata, bounds=(0, 1000))
   plt.plot(xdata, func(xdata, *popt), 'r-',
           label='fit: b=%5.3f' % tuple(popt))
   plt.xlabel('x')
   plt.ylabel('y')
   plt.legend()
   plt.show()
 
 demo(rhode)
 demo(chotikapanich)
 demo(pareto)

Also extending this to the Tinder Distribution Study, 5.952 C-index works better than 1.119 as Rhode's coefficient, as Rhode's often underpredict the power of the top 20% of men.

George Orwell on hypergamy

I think this subsection should be moved to Poorcel