The social justice people lied: men and women are different. Why, and how? Plus, Danny DeVito versus Paris Hilton, the real reason there are so few women CEO's, and why men don't wear makeup.
I think a mitigating factor in all of this has been the establishment of monogamy. The game theory around evolutionary psychology regarding gender roles assumes that males take no part in raising offspring. With that assumption, females really do have to pick the best male. But would females rather take a less fit male who will provide for her and her offspring or a very fit one who won't?
Hey Matthew, you're very right — the game theory around evolutionary psychology changes significantly when you introduce monogamy. In many nonmonogamous birds, the male birds that have the best genes/can perform the mating ritual the best have almost 100% of the children, which obviously is not true in humans. But some principles of this still carry over to humans.
In "The Selfish Gene" Richard Dawkins basically puts it this way: females in any species choose between a "he-man" with the best genes or a caregiver with a mix of good genes and loyalty.
Human women generally choose the best caregiver, but not 100% of the time. In theory their best strategy is date a good caregiver and have an affair the guy with the best genes (thereby getting the best of both worlds). This is one reason why so many cultures throughout human history have so brutally repressed women's rights, men are afraid that if they let their wives out of their sight, they'll end up raising somebody else's kid.
Another complicating factor in humans is that the dating choices we make affect out status in our communities... people punish you for doing non-pro-social things like cheating on your partner.
The full solution to the game theory problem predicts human dating behavior surprisingly well... the best lay book on the subject is probably Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen".
That book plays into my next suggestion. It seems like these days, most people want romantic partners who are similar to them. As the quote goes, "Birds of a feather flock together".
LOL! I'm sure glad my wife was exceptional and married because I'm kind and honest and ignored that I was a "bum" as her mother aptly described me at the time. I guess I had potential. :)
Of course I know that despite your introduction, you'll be inundated with not alls. But that is the point, you should treat individuals as individuals and not be blinded by the average gender roles. Insisting that all women or all men are alike leads to legitimate unwarranted discrimination and individual harm, but refusing to recognize that men and women are different leads to even more collective societal harm. Good luck. ;)
I think a mitigating factor in all of this has been the establishment of monogamy. The game theory around evolutionary psychology regarding gender roles assumes that males take no part in raising offspring. With that assumption, females really do have to pick the best male. But would females rather take a less fit male who will provide for her and her offspring or a very fit one who won't?
Hey Matthew, you're very right — the game theory around evolutionary psychology changes significantly when you introduce monogamy. In many nonmonogamous birds, the male birds that have the best genes/can perform the mating ritual the best have almost 100% of the children, which obviously is not true in humans. But some principles of this still carry over to humans.
In "The Selfish Gene" Richard Dawkins basically puts it this way: females in any species choose between a "he-man" with the best genes or a caregiver with a mix of good genes and loyalty.
Human women generally choose the best caregiver, but not 100% of the time. In theory their best strategy is date a good caregiver and have an affair the guy with the best genes (thereby getting the best of both worlds). This is one reason why so many cultures throughout human history have so brutally repressed women's rights, men are afraid that if they let their wives out of their sight, they'll end up raising somebody else's kid.
Another complicating factor in humans is that the dating choices we make affect out status in our communities... people punish you for doing non-pro-social things like cheating on your partner.
The full solution to the game theory problem predicts human dating behavior surprisingly well... the best lay book on the subject is probably Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen".
That book plays into my next suggestion. It seems like these days, most people want romantic partners who are similar to them. As the quote goes, "Birds of a feather flock together".
LOL! I'm sure glad my wife was exceptional and married because I'm kind and honest and ignored that I was a "bum" as her mother aptly described me at the time. I guess I had potential. :)
Of course I know that despite your introduction, you'll be inundated with not alls. But that is the point, you should treat individuals as individuals and not be blinded by the average gender roles. Insisting that all women or all men are alike leads to legitimate unwarranted discrimination and individual harm, but refusing to recognize that men and women are different leads to even more collective societal harm. Good luck. ;)