Problems communicating idea in stackexchange

Post Reply New Topic

There is a question

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ques ... 4551_42241

It asks if women are more suited to monogamy than men.

A friend of mind put an answer



"The popular theory is that women are more tuned to form long-term relations by choosing only a single male and sticking with him. "

There are 2 points here.

Women prefer/geared toward long term relationship
Women prefer/geared to aim for just one men or "fewer men". While men tend to aim for "more women".

The answer to both is YES. Notice the word geared to do not necessarily means "want". However, under both interpretation the answer is still YES. We want what we are genetically hardwired to want. Huge part of what we get is what we want. What we want and our capability to get it depends a lot on what we are geared to.

Not only men wants more partner, men are also geared to have capability to achieve that even more. Typical men are stronger than typical women. That's because stronger men can just bash other weaker men to death to get more women. Men tend to be richer, more powerful, ambitious, cruel, and greedy than women. Men are genetically hardwired to be that way. Boys will be boys, as the saying goes.

Women that stays in long term relationship got men that pays the bill LONGER. Those women tend to produce more grandchildren because their children tend to have more resources.

Women tend to aim for fewer partners than men. That is also true. Given choices, men tend to aim for many women. That is why emperors have harem. Women tend to want to join that harem even if that means sharing one man with many many many women and hence got far less quantity of men. I read that somewhere.

Here suited can means "want" or "geared to". Both answer will still be YES. What we want is genetically hard wired in our genes. The sort of genes/traits that are around nowadays are the sort of genes that leads to reproductive success in the past.

Surely for every man that get many women there are women that get many men? No. Many men dies in battle in ancient time. During peace time, some women may mate with many men. But they are not geared to do so. Hence, those women are usually well paid.

There is some vagueness

What do you mean by "suited". If it means girls tend to want or aim or naturally end up in monogamous relationship, then the answer is yes. That seems that it's in their nature.

If you mean whether girls tend to want fewer partners? Then the answer is again yes. Men tend to aim for quantity where women tend to aim for quality.

In this answer polygamy means mating with many mates for some significant relationship. While monogamy means mating with just one mate. If that's the case, then yes. Men are more suited to polygamy than women. The obvious big pink elephant is that there are many more polygamous men than women.

In fact, the answer is so strongly YES that it goes across species. In most species, men tend to be more polygamous than women.

Steller sea lions have exhibited multiple competitive strategies for reproductive success. Sea lion mating is often polygamous as males usually mate with different females to increase fitness and success, leaving some males to not find a mate at all. Polygamous males rarely provide parental care towards the pup

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lion

Most animals are polygonous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny_in_animals 90% of mamals are polygonous.

Polygyny (/pəˈlɪdʒɪniː/; from Neo-Greek πολυγυνία from πολύ- poly- "many", and γυνή gyne "woman" or "wife")[1] is a mating system in which one male lives and mates with multiple females, but each female only mates with a single male. Systems where several females mate with several males are defined either as promiscuity or polygynandry. Lek mating is frequently regarded as a form of polygyny because one male mates with many females, but lek-based mating systems differ in that the male has no attachment to the females with whom he mates, and that mating females lack attachment to one another.[2]

Polygyny is typical of one-male, multi-female groups[3] and can be found in many species including: gorilla, elephant seal, red-winged warbler, house wren, hamadryas baboon, common pheasant, red deer, Bengal tiger, Xylocopa varipuncta, Anthidium manicatum and elk. Oftentimes in polygynous systems, females will provide the majority of parental care.[4]

When two animals mate, they both share an interest in the success of the offspring, though often to different extremes. Unless the male and female are perfectly monogamous, meaning that they mate for life and take no other partners, even after the original mate's death, the amount of parental care will vary.[5] Instead, it is much more common for polygynous mating to happen. Polygynous structures (excluding leks) are estimated to occur in up to 90% of mammals.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lion

Evolutionary psychology predict that men will be more polygamous than women.

Wikipedia: Human Mating Strategies

One theory states that because of their lower minimum parental investment, men can achieve greater reproductive success by mating with multiple women than women can achieve by mating with multiple men.[citation needed] Evolutionary psychologists therefore argue that ancestral men who possessed a desire for multiple short-term sex partners, to the extent that they were capable of attracting them, would have left more descendants than men without such a desire. Ancestral women, by contrast, would have maximized reproductive success not by mating with as many men as possible, but by selectively mating with those men who were most able and willing to invest resources in their offspring. Gradually in a bid to compete in order to obtain resources from potential men, women have evolved to show extended sexuality. One classic study found that when college students were approached on campus by opposite-sex confederates and asked if they wanted to "go to bed" with him/her, 75% of the men said yes while 0% percent of the women said yes.[2] Evidence also indicates that, across cultures, men report a greater openness to casual sex,[3] a larger desired number of sexual partners,[4] and a greater desire to have sex sooner in a relationship.[4] These sex differences have been shown to be reliable across various studies and methodologies.[5][6] However, there is some controversy as to the scope and interpretation of these sex differences.[7][8]

Men are more likely to accept sexual offers (at price 0) than women http://www2.hawaii.edu/~elaineh/79.pdf . In fact, typical price for sex is not 0. Women tend to get paid for sex. Men tend to pay. So price 0 is a low ball offers for most women. Price 0 is a "good" deal for men. That's why men agrees and women don't.

Men are more open to casual sex http://psy.swan.ac.uk/staff/stewart-wil ... t_2005.pdf

Men desire more sex partners http://repositorio.ulima.edu.pe/xmlui/b ... sAllowed=y

The conclusion is so obvious it's tried again and again and again with pretty much the same conclusion https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/car ... /71520.pdf

WebMD

"What we are talking about is that when they go for infidelity or promiscuity, men focus on large numbers and women focus on quality."

Searching for "polygamy evolutionary psychology" shows many sources.

Matt Ridley effectively says that men, when can, get many women. However, societies, prevent it.

Celebrity and Human Interest magazine, People says that men are more promiscuous. It's in the genes. It's not cultural.

The Economist says men actively engage in risky behavior, such as war, to get more women.


It contains so many sources. Wikipedia articles. Links. However, people keep saying it's not a good answer. They want even more accurate sources.

The case is so slam dunk obvious that it's true across 90% of mammals in species. People just downvote.

What did the person did wrong? They said he is ranting. Ranting what?

What's the problem?

This is the conversation

I think simplifying societal and individual behavior to evolutionary psychology is not going to work
And you're gonna make enemies in the attempt

MichaelK
MichaelK
...and that there exists a difference in how men and women — in general — employ short and long-term relational strategies does also not answer the question "Are women more suited to monogamy than men?"

J. Chang
J. Chang
It could be true. But when women are becoming infidel, do they want to be gang banged by many men or are they being infidel to "higher quality" men
That is the question

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
I can point to the lack of visible estrus in humans, unlike other mammals, which is thought to make infidelity safer. Is that a counter-argument?

MichaelK
MichaelK
All your links so far only points to differences in desires. It does not say anything about what men are women are suited for.

J. Chang
J. Chang
I predict that infidel women aim for higher quality men, like more handsome men. Infidel men tend to aim for women that's not necessarily prettier than his wife. Just "more women". Women tend to be infidel
Ah I see.

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
21:34
@J.Chang Nope. That's not the question.

J. Chang
J. Chang
"Suited for" that is a very vague term

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
@J.Chang YEah, pretty much meaningless.

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang It is... but you are not even close to that in your answer and that is what is wrong with it.

J. Chang
J. Chang
Words are often inexact
But it is still answerable

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang Then answer it properly.

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
21:36
I can point to polyandry, polygyny and monogamy in birds, and show that it is determined by a number of factors, but especially available resources and the cost of having children. Would that help?

J. Chang
J. Chang
36.6k
The fact is more men are polygamous than women. So that shows that men are more suited to polygamy than women. Men tend to be more diligent, stronger, ambitious, make more money, and when that's done, they tend to get more women.
Actually @Oddthinking that is a very good idea
Compare species

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang Ad hoc arguing along the lines of "Well it's obvious if you look at chimpanzees" is not a proper answer. Factual references from reputable sources is what we need.

J. Chang
J. Chang
Let me think let me think

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
@J.Chang So many cultural assumptions are baked into that statement, that need to be unpacked.

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang "The fact is more men are polygamous than women. So that shows that men are more suited to polygamy than women". No. That is an "is-ought" fallacy.
@J.Chang Just because a certain condition exists does not mean that condition is "right" or how it should be or in any way indicative of what people intrinsically are inclined to do.

J. Chang
J. Chang
21:39
Basically @Oddthinking is on the right track. Men and women have different "costs" for reproducing. So the one that pays lower cost tend to more suited for polygamy. Here polygamy is defined as mating with more mates to produce more children. Of course, if polygamy is defined as marrying many mates, then it doesn't make sense across species because chimps don't get married

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
@J.Chang That's not the definition of polygamy.

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang What you just said is irrelevant to an answer. Factual references from reputable sources, all right?

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
Which brings us to the next set of problems.

J. Chang
J. Chang
Then what is definition of polygamy?

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang What you just said is not a factual reference from a reputable source.

J. Chang
J. Chang
21:40
Marriage?
Marrying many women? Only humans get married

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang The definition of polygamy is irrelevant to the answer.

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
Distinguishing between promiscuity and infidelity, between monogamy and serial monogamy, between polyamory and other choices.

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang Ok... take two steps back. You obviously are not anywhere on a right track to answering the actual question, as it was written. You are faliling wildly all over the place.

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
121k
@J.Chang Hmmm, I went to Wikipedia for a definition, and that's the one it gives. Oops. I am referring to the state of having multiple mates, which applies to other species that don't marry.
I am also thinking of issues such as the Sexy Son Hypothesis - which I don't suggest applies to humans in a significant way - but it suggests that the females may be a driving force for polygyny. Which is "suited" then?

MichaelK
MichaelK
*flailing
@Oddthinking, do you think the question - as it is written - is answerable?
@Oddthinking As @J.Chang said: the term "suited" is extremely vague.

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
21:47
@MichaelK I am on the fence... starting to lean towards no.

MichaelK
MichaelK
@Oddthinking Ok, let us go back to basics: does the question have a notable claim? What is the claim, and is it notable?

J. Chang
J. Chang
Not vague

MichaelK
MichaelK
@Oddthinking I mean the only reference to any claim seems to be a video that says the opposite what the "popular theory" is. Ok, if we want to apply "The exception that confirms the rule" kind of thinking, then a video that says "this popular claim is BS" could serve as a sort of validation that there is a popular claim. Do we accept that as a basis for a notable claim?

J. Chang
J. Chang
and even if it's vague, the question got 24 upvotes while the answer got -4 votes
I am quoting the wikipedia sources
I think it would be great if I can just copy the wikipedia and all the sources got copied too

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang Just because a question — from 2016 — has 24 votes does not mean it is a valid question.
@J.Chang No, that would not be good because then we would have Copy & Paste answers where people have not actually read the sources, and the sources could say anything, even the opposite of what the answerer wants to claim.

J. Chang
J. Chang
21:53
The wikipedia have their own review board. I am sure anything there is already well discussed

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang ...a fallacy which you fell into here when you quoted that WebMD article... and did so even after I pointed out it said the opposite of what the supposed claim in the question was.

J. Chang
J. Chang
Read again. The webMD article agrees with me
Women aim for quality. Men aim for quantity

T. Sar
T. Sar
@J.Chang You would be surprised how much rubbish shows up there from time to time. There is a lot of issues on wikipedia, including editors with an agenda, so you can't trust it blindly.

J. Chang
J. Chang
If "suited" means want

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang ...which is irrelevant to the question.
"Suited" does not mean "want"

T. Sar
T. Sar
21:54
@J.Chang suited means geared towards in the context.

J. Chang
J. Chang
36.6k
I read selfish gene, I read so many evolutionary psychology book, I think I am quite an expert my self
geared towards?
Oh I see
Geared toward as if are women genetically hardwired to want less sexual partners than men. The answer is still yes
Men are geared toward, their genes, geared them toward wanting many partners
And not just want
Men are often more ambitious diligent willing to take risk more cruel. All those are traits suitable for gaining more resources so they can mate with more women. In fact, that's the whole point of "success" for men.

T. Sar
T. Sar
Your source:
"What really irks Schmitt is that many people interpret this finding to mean that women are designed to be faithful but men are predestined to be promiscuous. That's not what the evidence shows. Instead, both women and men are fully equipped for one-night stands and lifelong relationships"

J. Chang
J. Chang
Let me find more buddy
Schimtt is comparing one night stands and life long relationship. That is NOT the question

T. Sar
T. Sar
That is, literally, the question.

J. Chang
J. Chang
36.6k
The question is are men more geared toward mating with MANY
You can have both more or fewer mates in both one night stands and life long relationship
The question is vague.

What do you mean by "suited". If it means girls tend to want or aim or naturally end up in monogamous relationship, then the answer is yes. That seems that it's in their nature.

If you mean whether girls tend to want fewer partners? Then the answer is again yes. Men tend to aim for quantity where women tend to aim for quality.

In this answer polygamy means mating with many mates for some significant relationship. While monogamy means mating with just one mate. If that's the case, then yes. Men are more suited to polygamy than women. The obvious big pink elephant is…
(see full text)

T. Sar
T. Sar
21:59
"The popular theory is that women are more tuned to form long-term relations by choosing only a single male and sticking with him. " -> First line of the question

J. Chang
J. Chang
36.6k
WebMD

"What we are talking about is that when they go for infidelity or promiscuity, men focus on large numbers and women focus on quality."
Let me think
So there are 2 points
Women are more likely to focus on "LONG" relationship with "ONE" man then men
For the many part. it's obvious. Men are geared to have many

T. Sar
T. Sar
I quit.

J. Chang
J. Chang
For the long part, well, that's a bit tricky. The answer is also yes. Women that aim for long term relationship get a husband that pays the bill longer and produces more grand children

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang Stop. Just ...stop. You cannot argue(!) your way to an answer. This is not an internet debate! This is not a forum where whoever can produce the most text "wins".

J. Chang
J. Chang
I think I know what's missing

MichaelK
MichaelK
54.1k
22:02
You must provide factual references from a reputable source that supports the claim you are trying to make.
That is what is missing.
Also: in an answer the claim you are trying to make must be an answer to the question.
And right now you seem to be making a different claim, one that is not an answer to the question.
@J.Chang "What do you mean by "suited". If it means girls tend to want or aim or naturally end up in monogamous relationship...". No... that does not fit any meaning of "suited". Look here, under "Intransitive verb": merriam-webster.com/…
1 : to be in accordance : agree "the position suits with your abilities"
2 : to be appropriate or satisfactory "these prices don't suit"

J. Chang
J. Chang
I made that even more clear
with bold

T. Sar
T. Sar
@J.Chang I was re-reading your sources.

MichaelK
MichaelK
@J.Chang "The popular theory is that women are more tuned to...". What does that mean? "more tuned to"?

T. Sar
T. Sar
18.9k
Matt Ridley actually _disagrees with you_:
"Yet we are clearly monogamous by instinct as well as by tradition"
" Initial encounters with other civilisations based around agriculture and full of polygamy, such as in Mexico or Tahiti, at first seemed to confirm this idea, but when in the 20th century anthropologists began getting to know hunter-gatherers (supposedly the most primitive level of society), they were startled to find that monogamous marriage predominated in them. In human beings, monogamy probably goes back hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.

Polygamy, in this reading, was mainly an aberration of the last 10,000 years caused by agriculture, which allowed the accumulation of huge surpluses, which powerful men translated into prodigious sexual rewards. "
Your WebMD source disagrees with you, when you see your quote in context:
"We don't say men and women always opt for short-term strategies," Schmitt says. "What we are talking about is that when they go for infidelity or promiscuity, men focus on large numbers and women focus on quality."

What really irks Schmitt is that many people interpret this finding to mean that women are designed to be faithful but men are predestined to be promiscuous. That's not what the evidence shows. Instead, both women and men are fully equipped for one-night stands and lifelong relationships.
(see full text)

J. Chang
J. Chang
36.6k
22:23
Most men are monogamous or even celibate because they CANNOT get many women. Actually 90% of mamals are polygynys. You will need a source to show why humans are different
I've been thinking that perhaps white people are "different". May be they really are monogamous. I don't know.
In most species most men are celibate, or death. The few remaining is polygamous. Humans are not that different during war. During peace, well, it's tricky
Or look at lion. Do you have any doubt that lioness are as polygamous as tom lion?
If someone said, female lions are just open to casual sex as much as male lions and they also want to do it with many men, that would be quite ridiculous. I don't see how humans are any different
Replace lion with humans, sealions, seadogs, and 90% of mamals in the world it's getting pretty ridiculously obvious
Irk only elaborates on a possible interpretation. Are women more likely to be faithful or promiscuous. In wester civilization women may be more promiscuous than men. That's because you have a strange marital law where the government decides what the terms are.
A girl get knocked up by someone else and the husband is punished. On free market arrangement it doesn't usually happen. Nor will it happen in most of society in any culture. In most societies penalty for adultery is death. if not, rich men will simply not marry
In most ancient culture. I mean
Are men more suited to become celibate priest or cascrated or murdered? Well the answer is also yes but in a strange way. Competition is simply tougher among men. So more men are killed so the few that remain can get more women.
So how come the president of France, with the status of a monarch, cannot even get away with two women at a time? Inch by inch, from Odysseus to Figaro to Bill Clinton, Western mores have insisted on monogamy even for the powerful. Clearly the interests of high-status men and low-status women have lost out to the interests of high-status women and low-status men. -< from Matt Ridley. The men clearly wants more women. The society prevent that.
I don't even like polygamy. I hate marriage. But if someone ask if men wants many women? Obviously yes. I prefer sugar relationship actually
Which is a form of polygamy depending on how you define it
You know what. It's cultural. Men are more promiscuous than apache helicopter. It depends on the gender really. Who am I to think there are only 2 genders. Should have come up with more sources. Got it. Okay