Isn't hypergamy a good thing from an evolutionary perspective?

Admirable_Bee_8714 · 2022-06-21T12:32:32+00:00

Not necessarily. The best fifth of men would also include those men who are high earners - CEO's who are generally sociopathic and ruthless. Thereby creating a world of even more sociopaths.

Aggravating-Monk7730 · 2022-06-21T11:29:12+00:00

The issue is, human reproduction also involves reproducing a society.

A bad society ends up imploding, even if the genetics are great. On the other hand, a good society can continue even if the genetics are somewhat mediocre.

A human society built on pure genetic advantage isn't actually great, because frankly you need all sorts of people to build a society. And also, competition would mean that a truly genetically superior society of humans would have a difficult time competing with each other, while a society with mixed genetics makes competition easier, and thus most people can get partners.

HazyMemory7 · 2022-06-21T11:47:05+00:00

Who honestly cares about evolution? I care very little about what happens to the gene pool well into the future after I'm dead.

But since you mentioned it, it appears to me that the traits being selected for lean too heavily towards physical attractiveness, not intelligence and competence. Basically like the film idiocracy. It's not the "best fifth of men" necessarily; a higher proportion of successful men and women in general are not having children these days.

Do-it-for-you · 2022-06-21T12:45:55+00:00

What’s considered an advantage in biology isn’t what’s considered an advantage in society.

Have you seen the movie idiocracy? It goes into that exact context but exaggerates it.

What’s considered attractive and is a biological advantage? Tall, strong, handsome, physically fit men who go around sleeping with every and all women, getting them all pregnant without caring if they can “afford” them.

What’s useful for society? Competent intelligent people who spend their entire lives researching and advancing technology and creative people who can solve the worlds problems. They tend to also be the type of people to use protection and avoid having children unless they’re ready.

The one who breeds more is the first guy, when we really want more of the second guy in the world.

todo_pasa_ · 2022-06-21T11:43:30+00:00

The math is weird though, you are saying that 80% of men won't reproduce at all? Meaning that there will be millions and millions of single moms? I don't think that's even economically viable

majani · 2022-06-21T12:15:38+00:00

It is not the "best" men who procreate the most. Just men with traits that allow for reproduction in their environment. Take for example the following two men:

Man A: handsome, well educated upper middle class man from a good family who has deep roots in his community. Is very picky about who he chooses to get in a relationship and wouldn't hurt a fly despite being muscular

Man B: rugged man, uneducated, low income gang member from a broken home, who never lives in any one town for long. He is open to banging anyone, even obese, disabled, developmentally challenged women and he never uses condoms

Man B will obviously have more babies over his lifetime. Humans decided that they didn't want society to go in such a direction, so we came up with this thing called civilization

Fit-Faithlessness149 · 2022-06-21T12:34:34+00:00

Humans have removed themselves from natural selection via cooperation, society and technology. We are the master species because we have learned to cooperate and work in groups, not because of any genetics superiority and physical superiority. Breeding solely based on physical attractiveness MIGHT help us if we were still hunter-gatherers as it could be a marker for overall physical health. Since we are not hunter-gatherers then there is very little to gain from selecting only the physical specimens.

SwimmingTheme3736 · 2022-06-21T12:58:59+00:00

Having seen so many women having babies with absolute scum bags I don’t think this is true

azevedro · 2022-06-21T15:48:20+00:00

So society will degenerate into a bunch of extremely handsome, tall, strong men with chiseled jawline but dumb as rocks and scientific progress grinds to a halt? Sure

SylvestorTalone · 2022-06-21T13:23:03+00:00

Isn't rape a good thing? Isn't war a good thing?

Isn't genocide a good thing? Only the strongest races survive after all.

jingleofadogscollar_ · 2022-06-21T13:08:48+00:00

I think the debate on this sub is simply getting women to be honest on this subject vs the usual, world famous women of Reddit virtue signalling

Teflon08191 · 2022-06-21T13:46:01+00:00

Only when the selectors are selecting traits that are a good thing from an evolutionary perspective. Otherwise the opposite happens.

Peacocks are a great example of the opposite happening.

Aviadcool111 · 2022-06-21T14:34:05+00:00

I will post it here instead of responding to the comments, but women do not select for intelligence they select for perceived intelligence which is different.

Azraphale89 · 2022-06-21T12:32:02+00:00

No.

Because it's not the smartest people reproducing, often it's the opposite.

wwmr · 2022-06-21T11:57:53+00:00

It's good for men to use on women too. Only pick the best women.

Another post linked some thread where a 5'2 woman wanted a tall guy so she could have tall sons. Why would he pick her though? I sure wouldn't. Don't need her bad genes making my kids shorter.

mllhild · 2022-06-21T13:52:36+00:00

If the selection is based around indicators of health and capability then yes it does. The problem we are facing is that the main indicators for selection are features(height, leanness, facial structure) with no relevance to humanities skills that permitted it to conquer the globe(problem solving, abstract thinking, endurance).

What is happening is that we are literally turning into something similar to elfs (very tall, lean, handsome or soft face). Here in germany at the university 6' 5" is the lower average for guys in their 20s and the trend is rising. This sounds all fine and well until you realize that with height the weight increases to the cube, but the joint areas only increase to the square. So you are looking at a constant increase in back and joint problems.

Modern society also doesnt reward you for being intelligent only for being socially smart, so we sadly havent seen a growth of intelligence like we did with human height. All the while its less of a problem to be stupid, since you wont starve and the increase in boldness you get from being stupid actually helps you to get selected by women.

smallstarseeker · 2022-06-21T12:02:16+00:00

The only issue with this line of thinking is that women tend to prefer characteristics which were better +40 000 years ago.

A group of 1000 cooperative geeks and builders will beat the living crap out 1000 square chinned Alpha Chad males. Also it's going to be 10 000 vs 1000 because cooperative geeks built a civilization.

Turning men into peacocks is not an improvement of human genetics.

TryLambda · 2022-06-21T13:29:55+00:00

not really, unbridled hypergamy is actually detrimental to society... look at the situation now.. in modern times... modern women are screeching they can't find a rich billionaire to breed with...hence population rates are plummeting aside from the women that get railed by the football team

FFTzzz · 2022-06-21T13:50:37+00:00

There is no such thing as "good from an evolutionary perspective". Evolution is a blind amoral process that optimizes the adaptation of a species as a whole in the environments it inhabits. The species as is very well adapted to a pre-industrial earth. Many traits that are considered undesirable by some today are actual adaptations for that world. Those "beta" traits are so widespread because they generate kids that reached adulthood for a long time with a great success rate i.e the definition of sexual fitness.
A degree of selection is good thing in as much as it eliminates deleterious traits and mutations. Any more than that it causes problems and reduces genetic diversity which is the engine of evolution and the main benefit of sexual reproduction. What you get when you over select is selective breeding which is a total mess in terms of health and genetics. It creates specialized but very maladaptive organisms. Even the cool strong breeds of bigger dogs are riddled with health problems compared to feral mutts
Even if everything else was true and the 80% of humans were problematic and undesirable that would also apply to the female half of the population. Heat up the ovens then ...

orange_glasse · 2022-06-21T15:14:20+00:00

Where do you get the 1/5 from. Over 50% of men in the US procreate.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/mens-fertility.html

AelfredRex · 2022-06-21T12:06:51+00:00

The gene pool requires diversity to remain adaptable. Example, in dogs, purebreds often have congenital dispositions to medical problems, whereas the mutts don't.

Hypergamy only exists in the bitter childish minds of the Manosphere.

AutoModerator · 2022-06-21T11:14:53+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.

scrumsclut · 2022-06-21T12:06:09+00:00

I mean you talk about our society like it's still deemed by the laws of nature would in reality sure it affects the small percentage of women and men but it's not going to affect the bulkhead of the group and the fact of the matter is that our society has completely shattered the natural flow of things to the point where literally anybody could be a partner to anybody else and it wouldn't matter.

DatBoiETC · 2022-06-21T13:06:30+00:00

Yes but a lot of dumb people have kids and a good amount of smart people don’t elect to have kids. Im generalizing there, but you think if this had been happening for tens of thousands of years we would be a lot farther than what we are right now.

sarkington · 2022-06-21T14:30:21+00:00

That’s not how human sexuality worked, from all evidence

Basketballjuice · 2022-06-21T14:44:21+00:00

on paper, yes, but this would just be for the 1/5th of men that get huge ass inheritances, not the hardest workers.

drew8311 · 2022-06-21T14:59:13+00:00

Of course it is, and anyone who doesn't make the cut is obviously going to complain about it.

whitemonster_enjoyer · 2022-06-21T15:03:10+00:00

isn't "x" a good thing from an evolutionary perspective

The theory of natural selection is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes what is. It does not say what ought to be, what is "good", what is "bad".

PlayfulLawyer · 2022-06-21T15:29:36+00:00

Absolutely, most of us don't look at it as a bad thing just kind of a it is what it is situation

KanyaldWump · 2022-06-21T15:49:15+00:00

Coming from a third world country myself where only a few men successfully reproduce, and there’s an insurmountable wealth gap, this blatant disregard for human life has no place in a first world country.

Thats why I left the third world society and it is collapsing like a house of cards.

But I get where you are coming from, though I believe going down this rabbit hole will not lead to rich men reproducing like you said (In fact i think it’ll collapse the global market. If you really expect women to choose based on income vs height/muscle you’re delusional) Theres a lot of idiots running around because of hypergamy just fyi.

FancyComfortable4678 · 2022-06-21T17:05:06+00:00

I don’t really care about genetic “improvement”. All that means is that a species becomes more adapted to the environment over generations. There’s no moral value to assign to humans who are more or less “evolved” in that respect.

I think hypergamy, such that it is, is bad because it makes people in this generation less happy than they could be, men and women both.

GrandRub · 2022-06-21T17:11:22+00:00

a society doesnt have genetics... and just because you have "good genes" doesnt make you a good human beeing... nor a good society.

OvalTownship · 2022-06-21T17:23:00+00:00

I don't see how women choosing to get knocked up to druggies during their teen years is good for society and genetics when research shows those kids grow up poor, on welfare, commit crimes and generally hold back society lmao

Also I cringe at allowing rampant hypergamy like this. If anything, bad genetics from women is a problem, why should they just be allowed to continue things lmao

hellsingsoutoftune · 2022-06-21T17:56:32+00:00

How old are you bro?

Icy-Wallaby4326 · 2022-06-21T18:47:44+00:00

This is a crack in society. Not the best thing

caption291 · 2022-06-21T19:35:28+00:00

Diversity is good because it allows for resilience. Hypergamy runs counter to that.
Good genetics on an individual level =/= good genetics for the species as a whole. By example altruism and non-violence are super good on a societal level but not very good on an individual level. Hypergamy selects for stuff that's good on an individual level.
Evolution is a slow process so it's adapted to an environment that existed a long long time ago rather than the one we are currently in. That's not much of a problem when your environment changes super slowly but our environment has changed VERY quickly over the last 10000 years. So what our brain tells us is attractive isn't indicative of actually useful qualities in the modern world. Being a 6'9 brick house will not come in handy in your job as a programmer, but your lowered life expectancy and higher caloric needs do matter.

Hypergamy can improve a society's genetics, but most likely it's going to do just the opposite.

Slight_Fig5187 · 2022-06-21T22:09:27+00:00

Define "good genetics". If by "good" you mean good looking, lots of intelligence, sensibility, creativity, inventiveness would get lost, since those traits are very often not associated with beauty.

LarryLooxmax · 2022-06-21T23:27:19+00:00

At a small scale yes

When you zoom out and notice the monogamous tribe has much more motivated males in it and can do things like wipe out the polygamous tribe and eradicate their bloodlines the picture becomes a little murkier

SS-naikku · 2022-06-22T00:35:41+00:00

Okay, I know there's a lot of women that love thinking like this but I don't see those women deciding to go outside the house without makeup any time soon.

Secondly the kinds of guys that girls don't want to fuck are largely what makes up society and keeps it functional. If guys decide to drop out en masse then there is no society, at least not the way we envision it. We'd probably regress a ton in technology and go back to longhouse social dynamics, like we're not there already, lul.

sebwiers · 2022-06-22T01:47:26+00:00

If you think sexual selection always leads to improved populations, then you probably haven't even skimmed a basic bio text. Many traits that help attract a mate are useless or even disadvantageous. There's no reason to think humans were / are immune to that.

pokemin49 · 2022-06-22T08:27:34+00:00

Interesting viewpoint, but problematic. The male features women find attractive don't necessarily translate to smarter or stronger. From a Zerg perspective, good-looking men would not be evolutionarily superior.

Also, in the short-term the world would collapse into inceldom, and the billy beta uprising would hang Chads from lampposts. Not pretty.

Valzemodeus · 2022-06-22T08:50:43+00:00

Sure.

If you don't mind the lowest rungs of women's genes making the grade.

That said, a lot of these arguments ultimately lead to dehumanization. Which is nice for the "shepherds", but not so nice for the "sheep". And those people who think themselves shepherds are rarely the ultimate shepherds.

If we're going to go down this road, we may as well just make AIs the ultimate evolution and eradicate the biological inconvenience that is the human species altogether.

What good ultimately comes from removing everything that makes us human? We may as well be as unfeeling as insects at that point.

Mysterious_Ad8665 · 2022-06-22T10:23:33+00:00

I almost wish people would be honest about this and normalize polygyny so more people can look at humanity for what it really is and be confronted with the question of whether love means what we think it means.

Aviadcool111 · 2022-06-21T12:25:03+00:00

I am going to argue against this, my first point is that within three generations of women's sexual freedom societies tend to collapse and decay. This is from an old anthropology's work that I think is true, operating off this we can see that both pre and post-nuptial loyalty is important for optimizing the male output of society which is historically how most societies have been built. When most men had access to women who they knew they would get to have children with they would put effort into making society better through their labor, that is now no longer the case and a lot of male effort that could have been devoted towards working to provide for a family and children is either being devoted towards dating, or men even just kill themselves off and we might be seeing a trend from male suicide to male murder-suicide. Also women are sleeping with attractive men, some getting pregnant but most not, so maybe if the pill did not exist hypergamy would be working better but in this case women seem to just end up unhappy and decide to be single.

kboogie82 · 2022-06-21T14:00:51+00:00

Men who don't procreate don't participate in society. No more evolution technologically. Women have started to add to it but cutting out 45% of the potential population from giving two shits about society won't end well.

SmarmyPapsmears · 2022-06-21T11:29:56+00:00

It does, it just means a lot of sad dudes leftover

NecktieNietzsche · 2022-06-21T16:00:48+00:00

Female sexual selection selects for aggression, domination, and violence. Those are not good traits to build a society on.

abaxeron · 2022-06-21T13:41:01+00:00

Don't make me tap the sign.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/selection/2014-yao.pdf

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners.

wtknight · 2022-06-21T12:04:04+00:00

Sure, but most men don’t want to be that man left out from the pleasure of having sex and being desired by an attractive woman.

OkonkwoFweeFwee · 2022-06-21T15:37:26+00:00

Then what about women? Why do genetically inferior women get to dilute the best genes with their inferior ones? Genes go both ways. A short, ugly, unhealthy women is bad for societies genetics too. What right do these women have to demand top tier genes from their bottom ones?

Lateralanouncer · 2022-06-21T22:00:55+00:00

That would depend how you want to evolve. Removing hospitals amd doctors would remove weaker DNA very quickly.

What separates humans from animals is our ability to rationalize and create, mold our environment.

Hypergamy is good but is an animalistic(awalt) instict. Woman being in full control of it with technology multiplying the social implications. We can only guess what social changes are coming.

As we move into a new tech AI type society an almost utopia type society was on the horizon. Over the last 10,20 years we just made a massive turn into a more vial sexuality based ginosentric Hypergamy social order. Did we just fuck it overnight. Are we heading to war, global famine. Or an all inclusive social order.

ionlydatechads · 2022-06-21T14:51:01+00:00

I actually agree with this and I think it has to happen for gender relations to improve. Men say that women are naturally hypergamous but in modern times, we haven’t been. If I look at the average woman in my circle, she’s married/dating a guy who is less attractive than she is, sometimes less educated, not earning enough money for her to stay home with the kids and the personality isn’t all that. It’s usually the best of a bad bunch. I think men would be happier if women admitted that we fare better when we’re hypergamous and they can take themselves out of the game if they’re not up to standard. Women will be happier because the dating pool will improve. I also think pity sex and pity dating should be stopped. It gives sub par men a sense of entitlement.

ezbyte · 2022-06-21T13:44:22+00:00

Hypergamy only works when a society has something for the rest of the unselected males to do, like go to war. Otherwise they become frustrated, unproductive, and sometimes violent. School shooter vibes.

ThrowAwayBro737 · 2022-06-21T14:11:08+00:00

Hypergamy was a great thing for our evolutionary history. That's why it persists so strongly even though it's not really needed anymore in most modern societies. It's not necessarily a bad thing today, but the problem is that our modern social conventions are structured in a way which pretends it doesn't exists. Men and women are encouraged to share the same societal roles even though our evolutionary program is extremely different.

Also, hypergamy can be said to be a bad thing today (for all women and for the bottom 80% of men) because of the illusion of choice brought about by social media.

Valuable-Marzipan761 · 2022-06-21T11:31:03+00:00

yes, that's why it exists. although it's not the bottom 80% being screened out of the next generation, so it can still work within a mainly monogamous society.

louplop · 2022-06-21T11:38:06+00:00

It depends what are the genetics which are selected but at the end evolution don't care. The species will adapt with or without society.

Life_Insect_6538 · 2022-06-21T12:15:40+00:00

[permanently deleted]

PlainTundra · 2022-06-21T12:23:52+00:00

Yes, it's pure darwinism to a tee.

FibzUK · 2022-06-21T12:36:32+00:00

It is, but now that women have access to unlimited men online, their own self worth has skyrocketed, gender rolls are breaking down and women see fewer and fewer men as potential partners , leading to low rates of successful marriages , lower birth rates and a worse economy.

MotleyCrew1989 · 2022-06-21T13:52:11+00:00

Yes, but we strayed so far away from evolution than hypergamy is outdated for our species.

Between plastic surgery and modern medicine, hypergamy became obsolete.

TheRedPillRipper · 2022-06-21T14:12:18+00:00

the bottom 4 fifths will die out

First TRP, or The Manosphere in general doesn’t impact evolution. It’s simply sexual strategy, aimed at the individual level.

Second Genetic Diversity is beneficial. Whether hypergamy negates that somewhat is debatable. Though it certainly doesn’t negate it, at the very least; at an evolutionary level.

Godspeed and good luck!

HELLBENT42 · 2022-06-21T14:38:56+00:00

Meh. Take me for example: ugly as shit, but my bones are denser than the average male, I have been hit by speeding cars, fallen from the second floor, countless heavy objects crushing feet and fingers, not a broken bone. The genes that causes this will likely be lost.

For the better probably.

Xoluxxer · 2022-06-21T14:51:36+00:00

From a perspective. If potential reproductive quality is the most valuable and important factor.

But who’s going to look after those kids when dark triad chad leaves?

The other 80% are getting wiser and aren’t going to be happy being cucked for money by a single mom or indirectly via high taxation through the state.

Not to mention the issues children are more likely to have growing up in a single parent household.

So in a sentence they’d start with arguably the best potential for future realisable reproduction but not winning in any other factors like healthy upbringing, self- esteem, as little trauma as possible in childhood.

Environmental_Ear106 · 2022-06-21T15:21:45+00:00

Hypergamy is good but their are really different types. For example, a women dates up in terms of intelligence= good for society. Another example, women dates up in fitness level= good. Final example, women date up in pure social level= could be good or bad considering social is learned but doesn’t always correlate to intelligence or betterment of society. Hence, why there are probably more single moms because a high social value man usually is where most of the hypergamy is based.

ThrowRAmtf · 2022-06-21T15:45:34+00:00

no, quite the contrary.

we need more shy and introverted men, the one which usually do not have access to reproduction (and sometimes become only step-fathers of single or divorced mothers)

We need to learn a new way to improve the overall ethic of society not how broad the shoulders of its men are.

RRBeachFG2 · 2022-06-21T16:30:52+00:00

Depends on what you're looking for, women don't always select the top tier men as much as the most attractive at the time.

joshawoo71 · 2022-06-21T17:19:36+00:00

Evolution is pointless thanks to our artificial solutions.

XxMemeStar69xX · 2022-06-21T17:27:21+00:00

Dumbass troll supporting eugenics

LowCreddit · 2022-06-21T18:19:48+00:00

Sexual selection doesn't select purely beneficial features, and actually stands out as the drive behind most detrimental features. As an example, male peacocks have long beautiful tails with intricate patterns. This doesn't help with survival and actually hurts it.

lopied1 · 2022-06-21T18:28:23+00:00

Not in a species with a developed prefrontal cortex like us. We are truly unique. And typical evolutionary logic a lot of times doesn’t relate to us. Monogamy is what literally built this civilization

SavageAnalFissure · 2022-06-21T19:12:41+00:00

I mean if that’s the mindset why don’t we have suicide booths readily available for those “ losers”

Frailiul · 2022-06-21T19:43:42+00:00

The bottom 4 fifths wouldnt die out anyway tbh. Speaking genetics and ignoring anomalies/issues during pregnancy, women with bad genetics can still have children with ease, their sons would inherit those traits. So you'd never be able to get rid of genetically poor males anyway. Humans are the rulers of the world now anyway though. We don't really have to selectively breed to survive among the dangers of the world.

itscoldupheredude · 2022-06-21T21:49:35+00:00

Most of the men I see reproducing in my age bracket (20-25) are not in the best fifth lmao

rootsnyder · 2022-06-22T15:55:16+00:00

fundsoverbuns2x · 2022-06-24T20:40:46+00:00

hypergamy benefits men to a degree. in the end the women will lust after the men with their shit together. these men will be able to pick any woman of his choosing.

Dramatic-Emu-1196 · 2022-06-25T19:56:58+00:00

Title	Isn't hypergamy a good thing from an evolutionary perspective?
Author	Life_Insect_6538
Upvotes	64
Comments	434
Date	June 21, 2022 11:14 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/vhawp6/isnt_hypergamy_a_good_thing_from_an_evolutionary/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/isnt-hypergamy-a-good-thing-from-an-evolutionary.1120604 https://theredarchive.com/post/1120604

Comments