Women and fancy cars....

Page 9 of 11 [ 161 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

04 Apr 2012, 12:42 pm

Zinnel wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

myth wrote:

Just because natural selection can occur at a sperm/egg level doesn't mean it doesn't occur at a mate-selection level.

So you don't believe in evolution then?

it does occur at a mate selection level as well. but it isn't just based on finding a good caregiver. there are many, many other factors involved.

i believe in evolution, yes. if you do some research, you'll see that it is not as simple as you were painting it.

Natural selection doesn't realy occur in mate selection, after all horrible horrible people become new parents every day. Love is often illogical so there for mate selection is also illogical. Natural Selection is basicly "the strong survive and the weak....well don't" but when it comes to mate selection what is strong and what is weak is so open to the individual and the culture they're in thats its real hard to define the two.
And there are some people who are very attracted to what their culture would find as "weak".

true that natural selection isn't really encapsulated in mate selection as the choice of partners does not influence an organism's own survival chances.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

CrazyStarlightRedux
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jan 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,028
Location: Manchester, UK.

04 Apr 2012, 1:07 pm

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.

It has to be clean on the inside though and not a car that hasn't been washed in weeks. :lol:

_________________
Just a guy who gives advice and talks a lot.

jagatai
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,475
Location: Los Angeles

04 Apr 2012, 1:17 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

Zinnel wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

myth wrote:

Just because natural selection can occur at a sperm/egg level doesn't mean it doesn't occur at a mate-selection level.

So you don't believe in evolution then?

true that natural selection isn't really encapsulated in mate selection as the choice of partners does not influence an organism's own survival chances.

If I may butt in... mate selection IS a factor in natural selection. The term "natural selection" refers to the natural selective pressures that influence passing genes to a next generation. It is not limited to "the strong survive and the weak do not." The colorful plumage of male peacocks seems to have evolved due to peahens choosing to mate with the most flamboyant males. This choice is a selective pressure on which individuals are able to pass their genes to a following generation. Humans may fall in love (or at least get pregnant with others) for what seems to be illogical reasons, but those illogical choices still will have a selective pressure on how humans evolve.

_________________
Never let the weeds get higher than the garden,
Always keep a sapphire in your mind.
(Tom Waits "Get Behind the Mule")

NeuroDiversity
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 4 Mar 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 40

04 Apr 2012, 1:27 pm

jagatai wrote:

Well said.

Also, for those who state that the perception of wealth or status symbols are not genetically encoded to influence mate selection, can you explain how the studies you refer to claim to able to distinguish between cultural and biological factors? In other words, how could they ensure that (or, for ex., be 95% confident that) the subjects in their study who selected their mate for reason X did so purely based on cultural factors? As a former academic who used to be involved in the research game, I don't see how this issue could actually be controlled for adequately in a study of live or dead humans.

_________________
D in So Cal, USA

Official Dx: ASD and ADHD

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

04 Apr 2012, 1:37 pm

jagatai wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

Zinnel wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

myth wrote:

Just because natural selection can occur at a sperm/egg level doesn't mean it doesn't occur at a mate-selection level.

So you don't believe in evolution then?

true that natural selection isn't really encapsulated in mate selection as the choice of partners does not influence an organism's own survival chances.

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.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

04 Apr 2012, 1:38 pm

NeuroDiversity wrote:

jagatai wrote:

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.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

CrazyStarlightRedux
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jan 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,028
Location: Manchester, UK.

04 Apr 2012, 1:40 pm

jagatai wrote:

I kind of wish that we do go back to natural selection as chavs make so many kids it's ridiculous....and that choice is based on getting as much money from the govt as possible rather then basing their potential mates on intellect and strength...

Natural selection gave us Red Headed females so I am not complaining.

_________________
Just a guy who gives advice and talks a lot.

NeuroDiversity
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 4 Mar 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 40

04 Apr 2012, 2:24 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

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

Official Dx: ASD and ADHD

myth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 707

04 Apr 2012, 2:27 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

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.

Nothing is absolute.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

04 Apr 2012, 2:51 pm

NeuroDiversity wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

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.

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:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

04 Apr 2012, 2:53 pm

myth wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

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:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

04 Apr 2012, 3:24 pm

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? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

04 Apr 2012, 3:49 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

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.

Read more: http://www.infobarrel.com/Factors_In_Hu ... z1r3tqGbm6

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.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

04 Apr 2012, 3:54 pm

^btw, i'v sent you a pm.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

04 Apr 2012, 5:23 pm

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:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

Lilya
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,600
Location: Finland

04 Apr 2012, 5:28 pm

Wolfheart wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

o lordy is it in there? :eew:

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.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_e7QDrh2E[/youtube]

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

Page 9 of 11 [ 161 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Jump to:

Women and fancy cars.... Post Reply New Topic

Women and fancy cars....