Yes, “differential reproductive success stemming from heritable variation” is perhaps a more precise way of stating what I was trying to say. There’s no doubt that we all have a better opportunity to reproduce successfully these days than back in the days when half our kids died before turning two, and half of the rest were wiped out by smallpox, but as has been shown, we don’t all reproduce at the same rate, for whatever reasons. It may not be competition for resources, exactly, but things like access to resources (money, housing, medical care, etc) can vary tremendously and affect the reproduction rate. Just look at how population numbers skyrocket as developing countries gain access to modern infrastructure, for instance.
How Dr. Edward* Bunnigus was born with a high-IQ and the body of an exotic dancer**
*yes, “Edward” is a female. See the link.
**which came in handy when she worked her way through medical school.
Is it about adapting to survive or adapting so i can get laid more?
I share your confusion.
The rule of thumb was that if there is a behaviour which a species performs, frequently, then it is very likely to be beneficial to that species’ survival and/or reproduction. Alternatively, it’s a behaviour which was useful, but will now be selected out.
This rule of thumb clearly fails when applied to humans. I’ve given several examples of how it fails. (And not long after I posted this point bup made exactly the error I was warning about by posting “Just because our natural selection favors guys who are good at math…”)
Meanwhile nothing you’ve posted has conflicted with my argument at all. Also, I’ve directly asked you to give any counter-examples and again you’ve declined to do so.
Well, there’s the problem, then: your rule of thumb is hokum. A counter example is any learned behavior. Also, it is not the case that any non-useful behavior will necessarily be selected against.
As I recall, you are an adherent of Evolutionary Psychology, the methods and philosophy I disagree with as it is currently practiced. So we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter, as neither of us are likely to convince the other regarding the validity of EP methods and findings. From a non-Adaptationist perspective, your “rule” doesn’t even apply to many other species, so it’s inapplicability to humans is nothing special.
You have to both survive long enough and get laid to have children. If you’re in circumstances where the two conflict- well, that’s why human behavior is so complex. Much of our behavior is learned and we have the feedback loop of being social creatures. Combine that with chaotic environments and figuring out just what IS a succesful reproductive strategy becomes hopelessly muddled. That’s why utopian schemes to direct human breeding would almost certainly fail if they were ever attempted- we haven’t demonstrated having purely social programming yielding infallible success yet.
I’d done a cursory search earlier, but as you said, a little more time spent on it has found me some more threads like this. Sorry!
I’d expect selection to apply just fine to these behaviours since I am talking about common behaviours in a species.
If you try to think of a specific example, I think you’ll have as much trouble thinking of counter-examples as you have had for innate behaviours.
I think it is. “Non-useful” implies there may be neutral actions, but every action involves some cost.
Of course, if a behaviour involves a very low expenditure of energy, the selective pressure to remove that behaviour may be quite weak, and it could persist for a long time.
My position is that the human brain is far from a blank slate; we have many instincts and predispositions. These instincts fit well into an EP framework, and we can even observe many of these instincts in other primates.
But “pop EP”, of the sort that gets debated on message boards, is mostly junk IMO, e.g. Some of the stuff that was being said about WoW upthread.
Correct only for 49% of the species at best - what actually has to happen is for those children to have children of their own. This means that the most fit not only live long enough to get laid and have children but also see those children to adulthood, because human offspring can’t raise themselves, at least not the first few years.
Actually, pretty much any guy on the football team is at an advantage in the mating game over some nonathletic klutz
Last I heard, between 40-49% based on WoW subscription owners.
It’s quite common for women to play as male characters, and while men playing female characters aren’t quite as common there’s quite a few of them, too. I’m not sure how someone arguing some sort of evolutionary psychology is going to explain that phenomena.
Because women have dominance structures and a social life, too. They are also engage in competition for resources.
That’s one of the failings of internet-style pop-EP - it almost always tries to explain from a solely male viewpoint, totally ignoring that females are not wholly passive in the process.
Women are less inclined to fight physically but their social battles are notably vicious from a verbal, emotional, and psychological point of view. Which girl do you think is most likely to get the captain of the football team, the head cheerleader or the near-sighted girl nerd with her nose in a book? Women compete for mates just as much as men do, only with them it’s not as much a matter of quantity but quality.
You are.
You’re mistaken, too.
Guys, you’d look a lot less like idiots (and improve your reproductive fitness) if you actually had some clue what you were talking about. Yes, WoW involves killing things (nevermind the player who took a character to max level without killing anything as a stunt, to prove it could be done). In order to be in the upper echeleon of elite players, however, you need to be able to tightly coordinate with 9 to 24 other people on a team to defeat the Big Bad Guys. That’s pretty far from the primitive barbarian out alone in the wild whacking things over the head.
And WoW elves, at least the Night Elves, are butt-ugly. The current rumor is that they’re trolls in fancy dress. No, seriously, that comes from the company that owns the game itself. Elves “evolved” from trolls.
Thanks, but I already stated I had no clue what WoW was all about or who played it. (although the only person I actually saw playing it was a woman who got fired for playing it at work.)
However, if a large number of women play it, then bingo! It is a way to meet / impress girls. (Ditto for girls to meet guys) The joke has always been that the pickup line “I’m a third-level mage” has limited appeal. You’re saying it’s less limited and more appeal… So WoW is entertainment combined with nerd facebook?
Yes, how women select / compete for mates is a staple topic for psychology studies (along with how men do so…), When strength is not on your side, other factors substitute - like verbal nastiness. This is why in the previous posts the “if there were no scarcity of resources” is not applicable - because there is always a competition for the most desirable of the other sex, if nothing else.
One of the key mistakes of pop-EP in my view is trying to explain complex situations with one evolutionary motive.
A video game like WoW has been designed to press as many psychological buttons as possible. So you have things like the elation of completing difficult tasks, the feeling of being part of a big community (and smaller “tribes”), creativity (in customizing your character), strategy and many more factors.
The reason a person plays WoW is because they enjoy it. Why they enjoy it is complex.
Except it’s not - a lot of women play male characters SPECIFICALLY to avoid males-seeking-females behavior. There are many reasons women play WoW, looking for mates is not one of them. (Sometimes people do find mates playing MMORPG’s, but it’s the exception, not the rule)
So, while there may be young, hopeful nerds hitting on women out there (or trying to, or trying to hit on what they think are women but who may well be other men, who may or may not be heterosexal on top of that) the truth is most women find their mate-seeking behavior a turn off, not a turn on.
Of course, that is a major difference between men and women - men are much more inclined to turn anything and everything into an opportunity to mate, whereas women have priorities other than just pure reproduction and are NOT constantly seeking new mating opportunities.
You seem to have a very negative attitude towards men in general.
I would agree that md2000’s ad-hoc EP doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. But this kind of over the top characterization is also flawed. There’s a big difference between male and female sexuality but men = sex monsters is not it.
Sorry? The notion that men are more or less constantly seeking opportunities for mating hardly makes them monsters, unless you subscribe to a twisted notion that sex is bad or evil or some such.
I eat food three times a day, does that make me a hunger monster?
Men want sex, this is nothing new, and it’s one of the reason the species endures.
You said “men are much more inclined to turn anything and everything into an opportunity to mate, whereas women have priorities other than just pure reproduction and are NOT constantly seeking new mating opportunities”.
This is a ridiculous characterization.
Perhaps you’ve heard the myth “men think about sex every 7 seconds” and not realized that it is just a myth.
I, like most men, don’t turn anything and everything into an opportunity to mate.
I would not have chosen my career path, and I would not be doing the kind of leisure activities that I do if that were the case. It’s rather insulting to have the suggestion that everything I do is aimed at impressing or manipulating women.
As for the implication that women are somehow above it all, it really depends on the situation. Women are certainly less inclined to casual, transactional sex.
But if there’s a situation where there is a high-status male, and the suggestion of competition with other women, many women will lose their “other priorities”.
The difference (to belabour the obvious) is that men can create new offspring every half hour or so (depending on stamina or available partners) whereas women have a minimum 9-month horizon. This obviously creates different perspectives.
This is the most important and most valid point. Human motivations are incredibly complex, especially when it comes to sex. We are driven by conscious and unconscious desires, and base instincts, some of which may combine to produce remarkably bizzare behaviour that could turn out to be bad for us in the short term and the long term… and much of which is not driven by anything hereditary.
I recall many years ago the original Candid Camera (am I dating myself?) did an episode where the same woman did the same thing in front of the same men; one day she was all made up and dressed hot, the next day she was frumpy and had a scarf over her head. The first day, she drops a handkerchief and guys jump up, pick it up and chase her to hand it back. The next day, one of the same guy sits there yells to her frumpy self, “hey lady, ya dropped your hanky!”
Men may not be actually thinking about sex every 7 seconds, but absent other distracting motivations, seeking attention and approval from hot chicks is normal - the hotter they are, the more attention the women attract, even from guys who know that have no chance, even if it’s just a smile.
Some guys may be annoyingly persistent in seeking attention, but men don’t meet chicks by being demure shrinking violets and standing quietly in the corner. Except for the societies where matches are arranged, in all the societies that come to mind the women are chased by the men for relationships.
Again, generalizations of a very complex situation.