By evolutionary logic, we wouldn’t have evolved to be attracted to things about people that they can control

IronDBZ · 2024-09-02T16:04:36+00:00

Evolution is not a process of optimization. It's a process of what works.

And what we can observe in contemporary human beings is that sexual attraction manifests in a litany of ways, many of which are either complete evolutionary dead-ends, reproduce poor physical and mental outcomes, or are just generally haphazard and unpredictable (congenital diseases that don't present in the parents, etc.).

Nature is a crapshoot. What survives is what works, not what works best, not what is objectively the best, just what works in a particular time and place long enough to continue to another round of evolutionary roulette.

The strongest can die today, the weakest can limp on for a century, depending on the weather, depending on blind naked chance.

Evolution is a chaotic process where whoever gets the babies in and gets them out gets the win.

we evolved to be attracted to people based on superior genes

If evolution was as strong a force as evolutionary psych ideas would have us believe, we'd all be perfect by now. If sexual attraction, social dynamics, were genuinely that discriminatory the most unattractive traits would have been sidelined in the literal 10s of thousands of years that humanity spent tracking animals, picking berries, and washing their junk in running water.

Every woman would be wide hipped and beautiful. Every man would be tall and strong. We'd all look like supermodels and deformities would be a myth. It's just not the end-all-be all.

Culture has the biggest effect on what's "attractive" and always has been.

You go back to the mid 1800s, and sickly, pale and dying was a popular beauty standard in Western culture.

Binding feet was considered sexy (women who literally could not run or walk without excruciating pain is not evolutionarily sound).

And on it goes.

alwaysright12 · 2024-09-02T16:06:19+00:00

You dont understand evolution huh?

SaBahRub · 2024-09-02T16:56:13+00:00

Adaptability is definitely heritable

HODL_monk · 2024-09-02T16:01:44+00:00

Honestly, we are mostly no longer 'naturally' hunting on the African savanna, so our evolutionary logic is mostly just genetic baggage at this point. To be blunt, a mate with a huge pile of freshly printed cash they got from their daddy's Federal Reserve banking job can make your life a LOT easier for you and all your offspring, even if they have no genetic advantages, and you give birth to lots of ugly duckling children...

januaryphilosopher · 2024-09-02T16:49:16+00:00

It's not just about genes. Humans require a lot of parental investment, so we're likely to concern ourselves about who can care for offspring. Your child's genes don't matter if they die young due to neglect.

Flightlessbirbz · 2024-09-02T16:40:00+00:00

Evolution is not that simple. Humans do a lot of things that really aren’t in our best interests from an evolutionary perspective. Even from an evolutionary perspective, someone being fit signifies health, and being well-groomed and well-dressed signifies resources and mental health.

Wooshie_Pop · 2024-09-02T18:39:40+00:00

We haven’t. The only reason they claim we have is to justify womens action of rejection. Women here will tell men they’re rejected because of approach, hygiene, or some other bullshit so they can blame the men and excuse the women’s decision.

W00DR0W__ · 2024-09-02T19:50:47+00:00

Evolution doesn’t have a plan

IdiAminD · 2024-09-02T16:34:17+00:00

There is no universal standard of 'superiority', what survives is superior. Drunks with physical deformities can survive due to their low standards, while beautiful and intelligent people may die off - dinosaurs were monumental and had no match in animal kingdom, but clumsy turtles outlived them.

RATTLECORPSE · 2024-09-02T17:16:41+00:00

That's not true. Good physical traits hint to better genes. "Good" and "better" here in the sense of what makes us survive our environment better. See birds which mate based on which tail is brighter or longer. This is connected to the strength of a male, and therefore his offspring. We are attracted to physical symmetry and one theory is that it makes us more resistant to parasites.

We can control our physical body by working out, and in turn this better physical body signals to others that we are physically healthy, strong and fit to have better offspring. Someone who never works their muscles can still be strong if they worked for it, but how do you advertise to potential mates that you have those genes? By working out.

VWGUYWV · 2024-09-02T17:45:25+00:00

Nope

Evolution by natural selection is the most misunderstood thing because people think it is so obvious how it works that they don’t have to study it.

You are forgetting that a woman’s impulse might be to have healthy kids with good genetics that also survive.

So, a man that can display wealth has excess resources that can assure the kids she has with him survive. Sometimes it even creates weird situations like the male peacock where it starts to be a detriment.

So, go read a textbook or take a course.

ashaw7 · 2024-09-02T18:01:09+00:00

Fashion is about emphasizing your natural qualities that are attractive and drawing attention away from the unattractive qualities.

Also there are non-genetic qualities that we can be evolved to find attractive, such as whether the other person will make for a fit parent, whether or not they can protect you during pregnancy, whethet or not the have the social capital or wealth to give you and your offspring a good life, and whether or not they will treat you well.

Yes most of these examples apply to men only.

Alwaysnthered · 2024-09-02T16:51:13+00:00

to some extent this makes sense.

for example - most of the factures that elicit instinctual arousal or instinctual disgust in women that I have noticed are immutable in men and trying to "cover them up" only marginally works "you can't polish a turd".

Example, height, bone structure in face, frame, hair - attempting to mask these via mutable measures like working out, fashion, etc can look awkward or don't change the baseline factors - and women can see through that.

this is best illustrated using an example of a man who has these baseline properties and is unkempt vs a man who doesnt and is polished. the man who is unkempt but has the baseline properties will always be more instinctually attractive, and the baseline qualities wil actualy make the "unkemptness" look like a feature vs a bug.

Man 1: Tall, Good Skin, Full head of Hair, Good Face. However, he just woke up, his hair is messy - his facial hair wraggly, he is wearing a loose t thirt and baggy shorts. he is also skinny.

Man 2: Short, Balding, Average Face. However, he hit the gym and has a 6 pack, great facial hair, great haircut, and wears fitted fasionale clothes.

Man 1 will in general be more objectively attractive to a panel of 100 women than man 2.

You can even pick up indidivaul features. A man who is muscular with a narrow frame is less instinctually attractive than a man who is skinny but has a wide frame.

the_1st_inductionist · 2024-09-02T16:20:32+00:00

By evolutionary logic, we wouldn’t have evolved to be attracted to things about people that they can control

Man’s means of survival is his rational faculty and it only operates by choice. Good genes don’t mean anything for someone’s survival if they are irrational. Good genes don’t mean anything for your child’s survival his other parent is completely irrational.

Of course, there are exceptions and ways to trick people into thinking you have better genes (pretending your personality is natural from your genetics and not developed), but that’s in spite of evolution, not because of it.

Depending on how you define personality, the essential part of your personality for your survival is developed through choice, like being rational.

AngeCruelle · 2024-09-02T16:55:09+00:00

Humans believed that acquired traits could be inherited by offspring as recently as the 1800s. Hell a lot of people still probably think that unless they've been formally and correctly educated on evolutionary theory.

The argument you're making here kinda presumes some sophisticated innate knowledge we're all born with of how genes work. To the extent that humans innately look for indicators of fitness it's not gonna be on that level of sophistication.

Devourer_of_felines · 2024-09-02T17:17:48+00:00

Fashion is literally the business of changing your appearance; which in turn exactly how apes evolved to decide whether someone is a good mate.

MidoriEgg · 2024-09-02T18:38:27+00:00

I think there’s some theories that altering your appearance (like hair styles, primitive makeup) could of been a sign of health/good grooming/cleanliness and intelligence to ancient ancestors. At the very least it would attract attention.

There’s also a factor that some appearance altering techniques can give individuals characteristics that are already considered innately attractive, ie, hairstyles/treatments that makes hair look fuller and thicker (indicating health), things to smooth the skin, lipstick for red lips (apparently associated with oxygenated blood and estrogen, according to science.

annontheseal · 2024-09-02T20:42:01+00:00

I love a lot of Roman history but when I took courses on it one thing that suppressed a lot of people was how the Roman beauty standards worked. They generally liked small, and the beauty standard for women was not actually large breasts and for males being overweight was not really seen as bad since it meant you were wealthy. Today it is sort of the opposite, but a lot of beauty standards are taught on a societal level. Obviously the examples above can very but it is interesting to see how different time periods had beauty.

Valuable-Marzipan761 · 2024-09-02T16:56:16+00:00

We evolved to find people we would successfully breed with attractive. That's not just based on genetics. A man that's a skilled hunter, or a rich man is more likely to raise children onto adulthood than a man with good genetics but no ability to provide.

Equal7Drive · 2024-09-02T18:58:06+00:00

*Chooses mates based on genes to produce optimal offspring

*Takes birth control, plan b and gets abortions

Also, do gays and lesbians not care about looks?

AutoModerator · 2024-09-02T15:49:30+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" 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.

AutoModerator · 2024-09-02T15:49:31+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

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

Cultural-Ad-8486 · 2024-09-02T16:53:37+00:00

It's funny, but our ancestors really didn't have any problems with forming predominantly monogamous couples. In fact, we, as a separate species with approximately our same physiology and neurophysiology, are a little over 100 thousand years old. Yes, later we mixed with a certain number of Neanderthals who were friendly to us (it is Neanderthals who are the “indigenous” inhabitants of Europe and if my memory serves me correctly, then on average modern Europeans and their descendants have a small percentage of Neanderthal genetic material), but we were still already formed before coming to Europe. And for example, an analysis of rock art and burials shows that “superior genes” and alpha-beta males are crap and not true.

Technically, it was possible to even be a 20-year-old guy suffering from dwarfism and find a partner (literally, such a burial was found, a guy suffering from dwarfism and a girl of the same age in an embrace with him, and since genetically they are not relatives, there is an assumption that this is a couple.)

We also have some theories about "dating" in such a society, well supported by observations of modern hunter-gatherers and uncontacted tribes.

In essence, everything happened like this. Let’s imagine that two different tribes live on approximately the same territory but separated by a huge distance. Scouts of both tribes know approximately where their neighbors are. And so, the tribes began to nomad and they met at one point, setting up a temporary common camp and exchanging products, experience, knowledge and, most importantly, forming pairs. That's all. Quite simple. Yes, more often it was the woman and not the man who moved from tribe to tribe, but this is not very important.

And also, the theory about genetically superior alpha males is complete crap and they didn’t have any harems. Almost everyone had a couple, because everyone in the tribe was important and therefore everyone received social “privileges” from their activities. It doesn’t matter who you are and what exactly you do and with what success, you bring benefit, which means you get benefit. It's simple. And most often, the “alpha male” would need to be as meek and obedient as possible, otherwise... The alpha would simply get a dagger in the back in a dream or “accidentally” get wounded or injured while hunting. This is very clearly seen in the examples of the South African hunter-gatherer tribes, who still maintain their traditions and among them, like other tribes, if you are aggressive, overly ambitious and so on, then you are literally subjected to social ostracism and can either be killed or expelled. Yes, you can find another tribe and live with them, but everything can happen again.

Thunderjaw4955 · 2024-09-02T17:33:59+00:00

Yeah, we should all be Metapods by now…

his_purple_majesty · 2024-09-02T19:12:19+00:00

No, because all those things you mentioned have roots (at least partially) in genes.

Perfect-Resist5478 · 2024-09-02T20:03:15+00:00

Being able to make yourself look good (things you can’t control) shows both resourcefulness and resources, both of which are important from an evolutionary perspective

-Kalos · 2024-09-02T20:16:59+00:00

Better looking usually equals healthy and good genetics so that’s best for passing on good genes to your offspring.

berichorbeburied · 2024-09-02T20:20:55+00:00

Evolution isn’t what you think it is.

We have free will.

This is all irrelevant

You’d do better to understand why someone would make the choices to choose their sexual partner.

If you understand on a basic level how reproduction works

Genes get passed on.

Those who reproduces genes get passed on.

It’s just a process.

Somewhere in the world theirs probably a tribe of midgets.

Would that be evolution?

If so

Then like I said evolution is irrelevant.

You should more so focus on what’s optimal

Or

What’s desirable

Everything else is a process

That works

And it can work in a dysfunctional way

Or

A functional way

And we are not compelled to repeat that process.

Because we have free will

And understanding and wisdom and intelligence

envious1998 · 2024-09-03T00:46:21+00:00

The problem with linking all of this to evolution is all the examples we have of culture shaping attraction throughout history. Linking all of this to genetics gives women a cop out that they should not be afforded.

bluestjuice · 2024-09-03T02:22:24+00:00

Throughout history sexual violence factored in procreation at least as much as sexual seduction.

Survival of the fittest doesn’t only mean fittest to be chosen by a woman. Our evolution has included a lot of other factors, some of which truly suck.

uglysaladisugly · 2024-09-03T09:56:21+00:00

So, we evolved to be attracted to people based on superior genes, or genes which, when combined with one’s own genes, would produce optimal offspring.

Actually... not really.

In mating choice, there is good evidence to think that genes became superior because they made one attractive.

We can try and genetically modify simpler animals such as insects or little fishes so that females are attracted to X or Y phenotype that is shitty for survival. And this gene will become superior.

Now, this has a collateral consequence that is : if only males with these shitty genes reproduce, then only the ones with very strong other characteristics will stay in the genetic pool. So selecting sexually for the shitty characteristics can overall push a stronger survival selection toward VERY beneficial characteristics.

It's the handicaps hypothesis.

Anticapitalist2004 · 2024-09-03T11:57:19+00:00

Free will is a lie so is the illusion of control and agency no one is controlling anything . There are two world one where you and me live one where their are people named John,Becky,Dave and Steve the other where there is no one their are only laws of physics guiding particles to do stuff .

Ok-Kale1628 · 2024-09-03T17:53:53+00:00

The lens of evolutionary psychology is only good for analyzing behavior like being thirsty or being afraid of something. Because culture changes so much in a short time scale many behaviors that people make claims about can not be analyzed with an evolutionary lens. Most behaviors are not ubiquitous enough or long lasting enough.

HighValueWomanBook · 2024-09-04T00:35:55+00:00

Evolution is a lie.

Nyanpireeee · 2024-09-06T19:44:10+00:00

Yup. Controllable factors don’t ensure the offspring will survive. Strength, status, intelligence, healthiness (which a lot of attraction is based on, healthier looking people look hotter) etc are all things that will increase the chance of offspring survival. Cool shoes aren’t going to do much for the offsprings survival. But that’s a very animalistic, baseline overview of attraction. There’s also personal preference, compatibility, and things that don’t have much to do with offspring at all that will increase attraction. Because people have conscious attraction and subconscious, evolutionary attraction.

AutoModerator · 2024-09-06T19:44:58+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" 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.

AutoModerator · 2024-09-06T19:44:58+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

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

DeadBedroomIsASin · 2024-09-03T03:04:35+00:00

You're correct, in general the sexy son hypothesis is the most accurate. Males by nature want to impregnate as many women as possible and females want the males who will create offspring with the best chance of reproduction. Any organism's primary directive is to reproduce itself.

Title	By evolutionary logic, we wouldn’t have evolved to be attracted to things about people that they can control
Author	CatholicRevert
Upvotes	0
Comments	102
Date	September 2, 2024 3:49 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1f7a2r1/by_evolutionary_logic_we_wouldnt_have_evolved_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/by-evolutionary-logic-we-wouldnt-have-evolved-to.1529169 https://theredarchive.com/post/1529169

Comments