What Is and Isn’t Implied by Sexual Selection?

ratboi34 · 2023-10-28T13:27:44+00:00

Sexual selection was very impactful for human evolution. It had an impact on physical traits like body size (humans are getting bigger, dicks are getting bigger). It impacted human intelligence and cognitive abilities. It is proven that males that for example display more unusual and larger vocabulary are more likely to get picked. Parental investment is influenced. Traditional gender roles were partly created due to sexual selection. We are seeing a change now. Women now want a man that does the resource aqcuisition AND spends more time with children and chores. Culture is influenced by it. Women preferably pick mates with certain skills and status, which are made more likely to carry on in the next generations. Human mate selection has changed reproductive strategies and the act of courtship in itself, which is another cultural change that created and influenced things like romance and fashion.

grillopie · 2023-10-28T14:04:21+00:00

I dont think any responsibility should be tied to sexual selection. That would be like asking you to be responsible for your genes.

Sexual selection is also a two way street, even in species where it seems clear one sex is doing the selection. It takes two to make offspring, so the other still has to take part in the process.

MidoriEgg · 2023-10-28T14:46:02+00:00

I feel like when we have these discussions we don’t always acknowledge that back in the day (as in pre farming) there was potentially a lot of rape and that was also probably a factor in who got to reproduce and who’s genes where passed on

WilliamWyattD · 2023-10-28T13:32:26+00:00

Both genders exert sexual selection pressures on the other, though thus far women have exerted more on males than vice versa. Women are also more selective.

As for how our natural instincts interact with morality or even species optimization in 2023 when we are at an extreme evolutionary mismatch is complicated. As for the eugenics question, it is a tradeoff. Eugenic policies or behavior tend to become problematic in many areas, not just morally but even functionally, the stronger they are. On the other hand, you definitely do not want to be in some kind of dysgenic spiral. So balance is required.

SeveralLiterature980 · 2023-10-28T13:55:47+00:00

Ah, finally a post that engages in some critical thought.

If women do engage in it and play a formative role in which genes and traits get passed in, wouldn’t that imply that women are formatively responsible for what men today are like?

The answer here would be an obvious yes.

Wouldn’t this also imply that women, like men, are responsible for upholding and perpetuating the patriarchy?

While in the mainstream this concept is controversial and women will dance here, there, everywhere to avoid its truth, generally it is accepted that both women and men enforce the patriarchy.

But the patriarchy is really just the tight, arbitrarily defined, and unfair hierarchies that are attendant to any civilized society.

If women are responsible for sexual selection then isn’t it incumbent upon women to be eugenecists in some regard?

And you start going off the rails here. How would a woman, or anyone for that matter, become a proper eugenicist?

The issue with eugenics is that ultimately, at day's end, the valuation criteria for genes and their various effects is extremely subjective and tied to a particular society in a particular time and place.

Don’t we humans have a moral obligation to give future generations the best shot we can?

The best shot future generations will have will come from preserving genetic variation in the populous, rather than winnowing down the gene pool to match today's social climate. What works in today's society (notice how we are no longer even talking about 'nature' proper) will not necessarily work in 300 years.

Certainly it would seem the majority of people are ‘soft eugenecists:’ whatever that means to us.)

So, this proposition really comes out of nowhere. Eugenics is a population level concept, whereas an individual's mating decisions are not. Even assuming eugenics isn't mostly "noble blood" from the middle ages dressed up in 20th century clothes, there are plenty of scenarios where an individual may benefit by reproducing with a certain set of genes even though the collective 'genetic health of society' would go down as a result.

However, most people are intuitively drawn to eugenics and think it makes sense because it mirrors a lot of cultural conditioning we receive about hierarchies and the importance thereof.

Basically, how impactful is sexual selection on the human race and therefore society? (For the self-reflective: Are genes deterministic, and if you don’t think so, does that line up with your worldview, metaphysics, etc.?)

The first question is easily answered with a rudimentary understanding of biology 101. Sexual selection with regard to the traits we most often associate with attractiveness, i.e. height, certain facial phenotypes, etc. has likely been extremely weak at best --- given that the traits in question exhibit high heritabilities. A high heritability of a trait, i.e. most of the variation in the trait within the populous arises from genetic rather than environmental variance, indicates LOW selective pressure. Why? Selection, especially over time, REMOVES genetic variation.

The heritability of "number of eyes" in a population, for example, is probably zero or near zero, with all the variation within the population arising from environmental factors --- i.e. accidents, rare disorders, etc. The number of eyes a person has therefore likely was under STRONG selective pressure.

Let that basic fact sink in. Because once it does you will realize that 99% of pop-sci about genetics borders on idiotic and embarrassingly illiterate.

Are genes deterministic, and if you don’t think so, does that line up with your worldview, metaphysics, etc.?

That such questions are (a) even seriously asked, (b) considered interesting, and (c) a matter of philosophy illustrates how powerful the ideology surrounding eugenics, despite itself being not even wrong, i.e. pseudoscience, truly is.

Genes are not "deterministic." Genetics doesn't work like that. Not even pure raw additive genetic effects work like that.

My worldview doesn't matter. Nor do my metaphysics. Just at the basic conceptual level: they don't work like that.

SmallSituation6432 · 2023-10-28T13:13:04+00:00

So, an interesting question. I just want to touch on one thing. The idea of 'sexual selection' as an evolutionary description of biology has vanishingly little bearing on how people actually make choices on who to date, or marry or whatever. I know that especially RP guys want to disagree on this, but there are just too many factors and influences on these decisions to even try to attribute them to some biological process or, as is often the case, deterministic causation (women prefer tall men because biologically.....)

Most guys on here misappropriate the term 'sexual selection' to apply to sociology. How people interact in society. But, since it is a real scientific term with real scientific value, and can sort of be read as applying to dating, they try to transfer the scientific validity of the term to unscientific and invalid ideas. Its a clear example of dressed up Social Darwinism. the fact that what constitutes sexual selection is so seemingly malleable or inconsistent is evidence of this.

Let the vitriol commence.

AutoModerator · 2023-10-28T12:57:21+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AdEffective7894s · 2023-10-28T14:15:29+00:00

They didn't have power up until the recent past. The men of yeater years were because of society and religion and men in general i guess

The children being born since the last 20 years or so and (absolutely) now? Women. A 100% women.

wtknight · 2023-10-28T15:24:09+00:00

I think that women played less part in sexual selection than even what I've seen some evolutionary biologists suggest due to male physical strength and their subsequent ability to set up patriarchic institutions that benefitted them directly, as well as the fact that women were often considered "war trophies" in human conflicts and therefore had little ability to select their partners in this context, as well.

Western women are much more protected now by more egalitarian (but still not perfectly egalitarian) institutions than what existed in the past. They now do have an ability to sexually select, and the ones who are educated and financially situated enough to have a choice are usually demanding men who are both high in alpha traits (traditional male attractiveness) and in beta ones (economic and emotional provider traits).

Many men are still able to deceive women into how much they care about them emotionally, though, and I think that we are at a stage where women are learning, in the context of casual sex that is not shamed by society in the same way that it was, how deceptive that men can be when it comes to pursuing sexual opportunities.

Thus, male deceptiveness is another component that leads to women not sexually choosing optimal partners. I personally think that the world would be a much better place if we lived in an environment where both casual sex is shamed, and where women are not forced to marry and are allowed to be economically independent from men. I don't think that we've seen a world like that yet, though, but I think that this might be where we are headed, because I doubt that men are going to change their ways for women anytime soon, and that male deceptiveness in the context of seeking sexual opportunities will continue.

PMmeareasontolive · 2023-10-28T16:57:00+00:00

Women haven't had the opportunity to choose their partners as freely in the past as now. Meaning, there's a wider selection of accessible males, and the choice to opt out if those males don't reach a certain criteria is presented as more of a genuinely legitimate option now.

Someone here posted a quote to the effect of "men are a long term breeding project conducted by women" (the original was better). That actually may have more truth now that there is greater freedom of choice, but the results won't be seen for a few generations yet.

As for patriarchy, I think that's more a social phenomena than a biological one. It may have some roots in biology but culture takes these things and interprets them, twists them, deconstructs them, etc.

coping_man · 2023-10-28T18:06:05+00:00

yes and because the patriarchy isn't made to benefit men at women's expense due to this, the theory implodes. but shhhhh don't tell the believers, they need their faith to cope

CryptoThroway8205 · 2023-10-28T18:15:29+00:00

Even if current technology let us select whatever height we wanted our kids to be I imagine women would still favor having children naturally and go after taller men for a couple decades. IVF and polygenic screening already exist. The technology is too expensive to be mainstream.

Title	What Is and Isn’t Implied by Sexual Selection?
Author	MissionPeak193
Upvotes	4
Comments	68
Date	October 28, 2023 12:57 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/17id824/what_is_and_isnt_implied_by_sexual_selection/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-is-and-isnt-implied-by-sexual-selection.1236671 https://theredarchive.com/post/1236671

Comments