faithfilly wrote:
I'd also like to say pride is a big part of it too. In my opinion, if survival was the primary reason for choosing a mate based on looks, we would end up with the human population becoming less intelligent over generations.
You mean it hasn't?
Looks tie directly to genetics. Symmetry, proportion and complexion can indicate whether someone has an undesirable mutation so it doesn't get passed on. For example, if a hunter-gatherer is overweight with their chancy diet, the kids may be too heavy to elude predators or enemies. Men are wired to spread their DNA as much as possible to the women who will bear children likely to survive the environment of over 200,000 years ago. Women are wired to mate with men who look and act like they can provide food and handle predators and enemies from the same time period. Put them together and you get powerful men having multiple sex partners. This says nothing about the intelligence of either party. In fact, I would think the more social people would reproduce more often.
So, now I wonder if autistics in general are part of a seperate subspecies of human that bordered on extinction and so learned to mate with the other group? Homo Sapien Autisticus?
_________________
To eliminate poverty, you have to eliminate at least three things: time, the bell curve and the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Have fun.