there are populations that live as our ancestors did (hunter/gatherer, non-settled), which are used as comparisons for study. also, we look at our closest primate relatives.
How does studying hunter/gatherers or primates allow you to determine whether or not there is a biological factor that causes some women to select mates based on status, wealth, or their potential to provide for future offspring?
(I don't mean to offend at all. Just looking at this from an academic perspective, from which I don't see how we can rule out "nature" and focus solely on "nurture" as the source of all factors that influence mate selection. That sounds implausible.) _________________ D in So Cal, USA
natural selection doesn't work that way - it has no power over people. natural selection is a result of which people survive to mate, not which mate a person selects.
the appearance of some traits in the general population may be a result of mate selection, and if those people happen to survive then the traits will accumulate. but one does not drive the other directly.
That is incorrect because the traits that can accumulate can also include a preference for a certain type of mate. Its circular and inextricable.
For example, if women with large hips are able to give birth more children without dying or causing harm to their reproductive system, men who mate with large-hipped women will have more children = men who are attracted to large-hipped women will have more children. Due to their father's genes, there will be a larger precent chance among these men's proportianatly large number of children to in turn find large-hipped women attractive and the cycle repeats.
Simplistic example, of course, just attempting to illustrate my point. _________________ Non-NT something. Married to a diagnosed aspie.
there are populations that live as our ancestors did (hunter/gatherer, non-settled), which are used as comparisons for study. also, we look at our closest primate relatives.
How does studying hunter/gatherers or primates allow you to determine whether or not there is a biological factor that causes some women to select mates based on status, wealth, or their potential to provide for future offspring?
(I don't mean to offend at all. Just looking at this from an academic perspective, from which I don't see how we can rule out "nature" and focus solely on "nurture" as the source of all factors that influence mate selection. That sounds implausible.)
it offers a comparison. many of the things we accept at face value as obviously "natural" do not play out the same way in different cultures or societies. if we are only looking at patriarchal agricultural societies then we cannot discern what is influenced by nature and what is cultural. _________________ on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493
natural selection doesn't work that way - it has no power over people. natural selection is a result of which people survive to mate, not which mate a person selects.
the appearance of some traits in the general population may be a result of mate selection, and if those people happen to survive then the traits will accumulate. but one does not drive the other directly.
That is incorrect because the traits that can accumulate can also include a preference for a certain type of mate. Its circular and inextricable.
For example, if women with large hips are able to give birth more children without dying or causing harm to their reproductive system, men who mate with large-hipped women will have more children = men who are attracted to large-hipped women will have more children. Due to their father's genes, there will be a larger precent chance among these men's proportianatly large number of children to in turn find large-hipped women attractive and the cycle repeats.
Simplistic example, of course, just attempting to illustrate my point.
people preferring a certain mate are not "guided" by anything, though. choosing a mate with large hips does not mean that i will survive long enough to reproduce. it is 2 separate processes. of course i think we choose certain mates based on a variety of factors, but by definition that is not natural selection. _________________ on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493
Joined: Feb 18, 2012 Age: 30 Posts: 5871 Location: Mountain View, California, United States
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject:
I like cars I picked an Infinite m30 because I like the car not for women to like me, cars are one of my obsessions. Originally when I was shopping for cars on craigs list I was looking for an old Toyota Celica or Supra but none were for sale then I was looking for Nissan 300zx or Maxima to no Avail then I came across the Infinite M30 it was perfect ran fine for a while but come to find out a few months later the hoses were bad and it overheated but its a minor pain in the rear the engine is healthy though. Infinite M30 is basicly a N/A 300zx with the appearence of an r31 skyline. _________________ Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? http://www.anime44.com/anime-list
women AREN'T more attracted to a man's survival value. women do not depend on men for survival, nor have they done so for most of human prehistory. there are people who are attracted to wealth for personal or cultural reasons, but it is not biological.
personal qualities are not manifested in material wealth either - thankfully most people know this quite clearly.
I agree with the other user who used the peacock feather example.
You are failing to understand that 'wealth' was manifested in a totally different form in the prehistory, sure there were no real assets and currency back then but it could be manifested in the number of deer the caveman could hunt.
And there ARE studies that contradict what you're claiming:
Quote:
A British study showed a positive correlation between men with greater resources and greater reproductive success (Nettle and Pollet, 2008). This was not only true of men of industrial societies, but of hunting and gathering societies, as well. In polygynous African societies, men of greater wealth can afford to take more wives resulting in greater reproductive success.
most societies in prehistory were not polygynous. that study only looked at societies where men already hold the majority of wealth and power, and assessed what women desired from a lowered position.
prehistoric societies were largely egalitarian. NOBODY held the wealth and NOBODY held the power over the rest of the society. men and women were most likely equal - even physically. in fact, men and women are very close in size compared to to the sexual dimorphism of other primates. if it were always the strongest hunters who mated instead of most of the men in a group, then men in our society would be twice the size of women because that's what we would be selecting for.
women did not depend on men for hunting skills. people can obtain complete proteins from eating a variety of vegetables and legumes. meat is awesome but not completely necessary. and in the long winters, it is both dried meat and the gathered food that stays preserved for people to eat.
the study you linked is doing a "flintstonization" of society. they back-attributing modern cultural norms onto prehistoric societies. this is extremely inaccurate. i do think that there are cultural factors that lead some women to mate with richer men, but it is not biological.
Yes, studies show that gathering-hunting society in the prehistory times were more egalitarian.
Yes, it's true that sexual dimorphism in humans is less than other primates, but there IS sexual dimorphism, in all areas, men are by average bigger (by around 15% to 20%) than women and that means that sexual selection has favored bigger males for a very long times.
Things aren't that simple, despite the egalitarianism of the prehistoric societies, "wealth/power" (how much a man can provide of foods/shelter/protection) has always been a critical survival value. Women will get pregnant eventually and they have to rely on their mates at some point (ie. 9th month, just after delivery) - yes, there are studies suggest that nuclear families might have existed in the prehistoric times.
So among all the variations of women back then , women who had mated with the more 'powerful' men were more likely to survive (and their offspring) than the women who mated with the less 'powerful' men hence possibly why modern women have this preference since they (and men too) are mostly descended from women who preferred powerful men, here again evolution plays its game of natural selection - that's a basic darwanian principle.
sexual dimorphism is actually about 10%. very small.
women never have to rely on their mates because there is usually a network of other females to support her after birth. it is a strange tendency of agricultural societies to keep women isolated from this network. nuclear families were different in prehistoric times - people lived either fully communally or semi-communally, with extended families in easy reach.
if men really needed to be a lot more powerful than women, they would be. but they aren't. _________________ on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493
Joined: Mar 18, 2011 Posts: 1488 Location: Finland
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:28 pm Post subject:
Wolfheart wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
o lordy is it in there?
Yes, it's in the book and explains different theories on why women are attracted to men. He discusses a few theories in this video, including triggering the pre-selection switch in a woman.
Mystery writes for and attemps to appeal to men, not women, out of financial interest. It tends to be a norm with pick-up artists to strongly exaggerate the success they have had with women as well as their targets' "quality". I actually once asked Mystery a quote for a communication skills presentation out of interest, and I did receive a flirty reply directly from him, accompanied by a facebook friend request. He seemed perfectly polite, but didn't follow the rules of his own book.
I'm from an area and culture where it tends to be taken for granted that both people in the relationship are educated, aspire to have good careers and work together for mutual interest. I actually expected this to be more common than what it seems to be based on this forum. I would expect clear majority of women appreciating personality traits more than any material possessions. It is true, though, than things such as culture, religion, distance, age gap, financial stability, health ect. can have their toll in a relationship, potentially great enough for the relationship to come to an end. It's natural for both man and woman to want to feel secured in life and in a relationship. I would think material goods are only small part of the mozaic there, however. _________________ It's not the sinful, but the stupid who are our shame - Oscar Wilde
She did come off as joking to me. I was one of the other females to comment on Alex and his car and as a female, I would like to say that no, I would not date someone with the intention of being able to ride in their car or whatever pish-posh motives you believe us females seem to have had. It was merely a joke and I can see that OliveOilMom and I were simply cracking a joke at pin-brained girls who have no intention of maintaining a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, if only for the possibilities of gaining a "sugar daddy" as some may say.
Basically, it was a joke. Take it how you see it, but that is how the original statements were intended.
Why do you assume they're stupid? People who don't have morals aren't more prone to stupidity.
Why did you make the assumption that I was assuming gold diggers are stupid? Does it really matter so much as to start a whole other irrelevant discussion?
Oooh, a "whole other irrelevant discussion"? Sor-ry. You said the word pin-brained. Does that not mean stupid?
Why in the world are you trying to start crap? Honestly, do you not have anything better to do with your life? Technically, it could mean anything. So they have "small-brains," I could be simply stating the size of their brains, not their intelligence levels. Why does it matter so much to you anyhow? Does it ring a bell? Any personal connections to a gold-digger? Have you been hurt by one before? Holy heck. Get over yourself. Stop fighting with a teenager over the internet. Sheesh. _________________ dropthelabels.tumblr.com
Aspie score: 194 of 200
Neurotypical score: 7 of 200
Conclusion: very likely an Aspie
Joined: Sep 07, 2006 Age: 25 Posts: 2112 Location: London
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:44 pm Post subject:
DogGirlSaydee wrote:
Why in the world are you trying to start crap? Honestly, do you not have anything better to do with your life?
I'm not the one who is over-reacting, here. All I asked was why you assumed they were stupid. What's wrong with that?
Quote:
So they have "small-brains," I could be simply stating the size of their brains, not their intelligence levels.
Come on, now.
Quote:
Why does it matter so much to you anyhow? Does it ring a bell? Any personal connections to a gold-digger? Have you been hurt by one before? Holy heck. Get over yourself. Stop fighting with a teenager over the internet. Sheesh.
And if I ever had been hurt by one - that wouldn't be a very sympathetic thing to say, would it? You're attacking me. I couldn't care less if you were a teenager. What's your age got to do with anything?
Why in the world are you trying to start crap? Honestly, do you not have anything better to do with your life?
I'm not the one who is over-reacting, here. All I asked was why you assumed they were stupid. What's wrong with that?
Quote:
So they have "small-brains," I could be simply stating the size of their brains, not their intelligence levels.
Come on, now.
Quote:
Why does it matter so much to you anyhow? Does it ring a bell? Any personal connections to a gold-digger? Have you been hurt by one before? Holy heck. Get over yourself. Stop fighting with a teenager over the internet. Sheesh.
And if I ever had been hurt by one - that wouldn't be a very sympathetic thing to say, would it? You're attacking me. I couldn't care less if you were a teenager. What's your age got to do with anything?
You are correct, I was a bit rash in making conclusions as to what you were implying. I apologize on my behalf for my behavior. I need to work on not being so defensive. Forgive me. _________________ dropthelabels.tumblr.com
Aspie score: 194 of 200
Neurotypical score: 7 of 200
Conclusion: very likely an Aspie
Joined: Sep 07, 2006 Age: 25 Posts: 2112 Location: London
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:43 pm Post subject:
DogGirlSaydee wrote:
You are correct, I was a bit rash in making conclusions as to what you were implying. I apologize on my behalf for my behavior. I need to work on not being so defensive. Forgive me.
That's OK. It is the internet after all, and misunderstands happen all the time. Don't worry about it.
Joined: Jan 02, 2007 Posts: 312 Location: Lima, Peru
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:55 pm Post subject:
CrazyStarlightRedux wrote:
As the saying goes, the flashier the car, the more they are lacking in the pants department.
Well, I don't own a car (and not even a driver's license), so...
mv wrote:
When I was donating blood recently, the phlebotomist on staff said, "Hey, I wanna show you something." (He was a stranger to me). He takes out his phone and shows me some pictures of his extremely pimped-out ride. Being the good little pretend-NT, I said, "Oh, how nice! Is that your hobby?" And he said, "What? Taking pictures?"
If I hadn't had a needle in my arm, I would have facepalmed...
Well, it could be that taking pictures *was* actually his hobby. It certainly is mine, and I've taken lots of pictures of several cars I've seen on the street and liked. And also of aircraft, that wouldn't mean I own them... I do show the pictures to other people, to see if they like them too.
ValentineWiggin wrote:
I couldn't care less about what his car looks like.
It is nice if he has one, though, so I don't have to drive us everywhere.
It could be a real rust bucket and I wouldn't care.
What if he has a bus/train card?
AspieOtaku wrote:
I like cars I picked an Infinite m30 because I like the car not for women to like me, cars are one of my obsessions.
Yes, some people don't get it...
To make it clear (because apparently misunderstandings are rampant on this topic):
I don't drive, I don't have a car, but I do like cars. I take pictures of cars and collect model cars (the ones I like, I mean - I don't care for the "gotta get them all" sort of thing). I probably know the traffic laws far better than many people who drive around here. And I know about mechanics, though I obviously lack practice. I do think driving a car would make me more dependable.
When I found out some years ago that my father had passed the opportunity to get a Ford Mustang at employee discount price when the local Ford plant was closing down back then in the late 60s/early 70s (I was some 1-2 years old back then), I wanted to strangle him. That's not to say I don't like our family's VW Beetle 1500, it's a classic too, and I want to eventually get it fully operational again. The one I don't like is the 1982 Citroën GSA my father bought back then (he did want it as a status symbol, and we haven't been able to convince him to get rid of it ever since, although it's spent far more time lying in the garage than on the streets - it definitely wasn't built with our 80s' streets in mind and couldn't survive the abuse).
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 Age: 23 Posts: 4851 Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:58 pm Post subject:
MXH wrote:
such a shame puertoricans have all the drag racing rotary records
but i agree on the good roads part. It makes sense for competitive drifting to have started in japan not because of their culture, since rally drivers had been going sideways for decades, but because the conditions and cars allowed it to be done by many.
Jajaja you don't have to point out to me that puertorriqueños are awesome, I already know. I forgive their dragging tendencies on account of the good music. Nice to know they can drive though, even if I don't agree with the style.
Yeah sadly we don't have many of those kinds of cars here and the few we do are not popular. _________________ Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html
