The OP’s threads often run something along the lines of: “In the wilderness, 50 000 years ago, when we were using sticks to bash the heads of lions and Neanderthals, feature A would have been advantageous while feature B would have been disadvantageous, so why is feature B considered more attractive than feature A?” Which reminds me of this: https://www.google.ca/search?q=you+might+not+like+it+but+this+is+what&num=20&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL9s6Aj5LZAhVG9YMKHcNjBsgQ_AUICigB&biw=1527&bih=845#imgrc=b_Wn8Q-b1QATnM:
It’s not a dumb starting question but it would be nice if the lesson were learned from one thread to another.
I have no idea if it’s the OP’s case, but there is an idea among some evolutionary psychology types that all evolutionary pressure is about evolving in a nasty, brutish and short life. You can prominently see this when PUAs and their ilk analyse human relations in terms alpha/beta wolves. They seem to think that success in life is about being the most brutal bully.
It’s quite probable that up until 50 000-5000 years ago, life was indeed, overall, nasty, brutish and short. More recently, in particularly harsh periods or milieus, a major part of fitness is about brutal domination or the threat thereof. For example, in times of war or famine. Even in times of peace and plenty, the alpha/beta model may be accurate for the criminal underworld and prison.
Such people often like to talk about chimpanzees and how the alpha male gets to mate with the females while beta males don’t. Yet such people hardly ever talk another primate which resembles humans at least as much as chimpanzees: bonobos. Civilized society resembles the bonobos’ tranquil consensual exchanges and conflict de-escalation rather more than chimpanzees.
Even among chimpanzees, violence and threats may be common but grooming (making nice with others) is a common way to gain status ( Chimpanzee - Wikipedia ). The alpha chimp is often a sort of politician and diplomat. A chimpanzee who seeks to become alpha by being a tyrannical bully can cause other chimps to form a coalition against him (what we would call a coup).
The researcher who came up with the alpha/beta wolves theory has disavowed such a way of describing social behavior (Dominance hierarchy - Wikipedia ). Turns out, it had more to do with strangers being stuck together in trying circumstances (like we see in criminal gangs or prison) than natural behavior. Note how the human subcultures where the brutish alpha model is most accurate, gangs and prison, are at the bottom of society. Also note how the most effective militaries emphasize teamwork and require leaders to care for their subordinates.
Once you’re in a well-organized society with the economic basics covered, once you no longer live in fear and desperation, how well you do has more to do with positive-sum cooperation than zero-sum competition. It has more to do with kindness, impulse-control and intelligence than domineering behavior or the ability to prevail in physical confrontations.
It’s why women will care a lot more about Ryan Gosling being good with animals or Paul McCartney wanting to hold your hand than about Stipe Miocic being UFC heavyweight champion. Look at one of the most desirable women in the world, Anne Hathaway, she could have gotten just about any man and she went for Adam Shulman, the human incarnation of a puppy . Does this guy look like he went to the top of society through violence?
Neotenous features may be related to youth but also to minds which are kind and intelligent rather than brutish, who have power because they have the ability and willingness to help rather than to hurt.
