This is absolutely a fascination topic, so I think it merits much further observation. Let us dig really deep into this subject, because there is a lot of woefully unexplored material here. I stumbled upon this realization and at first I thought it was ground-breaking, and truly it is. Then I realized it was more than that; it is indeed self-evident truth that has been hidden in plain sight all along.
Several evolutionary psychologists have attempted the laughable and incorrect argument that the modern-day equivalent of male physical fitness and dominance are a formal education and a paycheque that allows one to be able to afford to support a family, up to and including success in business, career, and/or politics --
No, no, we do not use modern equivalents. It is severely, pathetically comical that so many evolutionary psychologists -- all fat, pudgy, severely out-of-shape white males -- try to make the claim that modern-day methods of acquiring monetary wealth somehow magically replace eons-old human instinctive drivers for reproductive success.
Here is why that line of thinking is incorrect. When considering the male sex, only in very recent human progress has fitness for acquiring sustenance, provisions, and shelter been regarded as a separate entity from physical capability and physical appearance.
Let us take the discussion back in time roughly 500,000 years. Our discussion spans from that time to about 20,000 years ago. Let us examine the drivers and incentives for reproduction back then.
In our evolutionary history, a male's physical prowess was one and the same with his ability to obtain food and shelter. If a male specimen was good-looking and muscular, this was the same thing as being able to provide for a family.
If he was well-built, solid, muscular, robust (not fat, mind you), this directly and obviously meant he will have the means to hunt for food, tirelessly gather firewood to heat the home, and protect the home from danger. He would have strength and stamina to allow him to overpower and defeat any attackers. He would have the capability to defend the home and his family from danger. From intruders, from dinosaurs and sabretooth tigers, etc. I jest, but you get the idea.
This of course extended to his physical looks, his face, including bone structure; eyesight; eye placement; adequate, nay, respectable amount of hair growing on his head. This is because all of this, superficial looks as well as physical stature, is directly correlated with health. His facial and hair looks and his body were integrated and all of it indicated his level of physical health.
If a male was very good-looking and had good physical stature, this means he will be in possession of natural abilities to obtain food and shelter. For obvious reasons, this is what females would actively seek out. She wants these resources for herself and her offspring. And she of course would want to pass on those optimal genes to her children.
It is very odd, illogical, and remarkably convenient that evolutionary psychologists claim that modern-day men prefer traits that prehistoric females possess, such as looks and physicality.
Yet at the same time, evo-psychs always insist that somehow, magically modern-day women do not prefer traits that prehistoric males possess, such as looks and physicality.
Stated in another way: evo-psychs insist that men desire women who possess primitive indicators of reproductive success. In other words, men desire primitive women.
Yet, somehow magically they expect that these women should have primitive traits while simultaneously the women are not going to harbor primitive desires.
Did you catch that? That is illogical and contradictory.
The truth is that if a female is primitive in that way (in her own indicators of physical health), then she is probably going to be primitive in her reproductive preferences as well. This primitive woman that modern-day males desire-- will desire a male that has primitive indicators of reproductive success. She does not want to reproduce with a modern-day male.
Sorry folks, but instinctively, men and women are not so different sometimes. Instinctively, women most likely still desire a physically elite male with which to reproduce. That is what is programmed into our primitive origins of our species. Males and females both want to mate with a physically superior specimen of the opposite sex.
It is the height of denial to attempt the argument that women are not also motivated by these primitive desires.
*Or, perhaps not so much. In Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," he makes the interesting observation that several of the CEOs in this country are all tall.
On some level of awareness, some plane of consciousness, admit it. You evo-psychs have always known this. An upper-middle-class woman has been married to her upper-middle-class husband that is paunchy, pudgy, balding short fat. The woman is living in luxury, owns designer clothes, belongs to a country club, and has every need of survival more than taken care of. She has been more than provided for. But she is screwin the hot, young pool boy. Or she is screwing the hot young pizza delivery boy.
Several evolutionary psychologists have attempted the laughable and incorrect argument that the modern-day equivalent of male physical fitness and dominance are a formal education and a paycheque that allows one to be able to afford to support a family, up to and including success in business, career, and/or politics --
No, no, we do not use modern equivalents. It is severely, pathetically comical that so many evolutionary psychologists -- all fat, pudgy, severely out-of-shape white males -- try to make the claim that modern-day methods of acquiring monetary wealth somehow magically replace eons-old human instinctive drivers for reproductive success.
Here is why that line of thinking is incorrect. When considering the male sex, only in very recent human progress has fitness for acquiring sustenance, provisions, and shelter been regarded as a separate entity from physical capability and physical appearance.
Let us take the discussion back in time roughly 500,000 years. Our discussion spans from that time to about 20,000 years ago. Let us examine the drivers and incentives for reproduction back then.
In our evolutionary history, a male's physical prowess was one and the same with his ability to obtain food and shelter. If a male specimen was good-looking and muscular, this was the same thing as being able to provide for a family.
If he was well-built, solid, muscular, robust (not fat, mind you), this directly and obviously meant he will have the means to hunt for food, tirelessly gather firewood to heat the home, and protect the home from danger. He would have strength and stamina to allow him to overpower and defeat any attackers. He would have the capability to defend the home and his family from danger. From intruders, from dinosaurs and sabretooth tigers, etc. I jest, but you get the idea.
This of course extended to his physical looks, his face, including bone structure; eyesight; eye placement; adequate, nay, respectable amount of hair growing on his head. This is because all of this, superficial looks as well as physical stature, is directly correlated with health. His facial and hair looks and his body were integrated and all of it indicated his level of physical health.
If a male was very good-looking and had good physical stature, this means he will be in possession of natural abilities to obtain food and shelter. For obvious reasons, this is what females would actively seek out. She wants these resources for herself and her offspring. And she of course would want to pass on those optimal genes to her children.
It is very odd, illogical, and remarkably convenient that evolutionary psychologists claim that modern-day men prefer traits that prehistoric females possess, such as looks and physicality.
Yet at the same time, evo-psychs always insist that somehow, magically modern-day women do not prefer traits that prehistoric males possess, such as looks and physicality.
Stated in another way: evo-psychs insist that men desire women who possess primitive indicators of reproductive success. In other words, men desire primitive women.
Yet, somehow magically they expect that these women should have primitive traits while simultaneously the women are not going to harbor primitive desires.
Did you catch that? That is illogical and contradictory.
The truth is that if a female is primitive in that way (in her own indicators of physical health), then she is probably going to be primitive in her reproductive preferences as well. This primitive woman that modern-day males desire-- will desire a male that has primitive indicators of reproductive success. She does not want to reproduce with a modern-day male.
Sorry folks, but instinctively, men and women are not so different sometimes. Instinctively, women most likely still desire a physically elite male with which to reproduce. That is what is programmed into our primitive origins of our species. Males and females both want to mate with a physically superior specimen of the opposite sex.
It is the height of denial to attempt the argument that women are not also motivated by these primitive desires.
*Or, perhaps not so much. In Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," he makes the interesting observation that several of the CEOs in this country are all tall.
On some level of awareness, some plane of consciousness, admit it. You evo-psychs have always known this. An upper-middle-class woman has been married to her upper-middle-class husband that is paunchy, pudgy, balding short fat. The woman is living in luxury, owns designer clothes, belongs to a country club, and has every need of survival more than taken care of. She has been more than provided for. But she is screwin the hot, young pool boy. Or she is screwing the hot young pizza delivery boy.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment