Month: June 2014

Ev Psych: Parental Preferences in Partners
Another "Bad Boy" - Shutterstock

Another “Bad Boy” – Shutterstock

“Evolution and Bad Boyfriends,” a New York Times piece on the struggle between parents and (most commonly) daughters over partner choice and how it may have evolved:

Whenever a pattern of human behavior is widespread, there is reason to suspect that it might have something to do with our evolutionary history. (Think of the fear of snakes, or the incest taboo.) You think your daughter’s boyfriend isn’t good enough? It may be evolution’s fault.

Now I generally argue against easy “ev psych” answers for questions of human behavior. But when you look at the commonalities across cultures around the world, you do find evidence of an ev-psych background that sets the stage for the much more complex cultural norms that have evolved. And many traditional cultures do have parents playing a significant or even primary role in mate selection for their offspring; arranged marriages and dowries were commonly used to assure a good match for a daughter, who would leave her parents’ household to join her new husband’s.

When thinking about mate choice, the natural starting point is the theory of sexual selection. This theory, which focuses not on the struggle for existence but on the competition to attract sexual partners, has been hugely successful in explaining the diverse courtship behaviors and mating patterns in the animal kingdom, from the peacock’s flamboyant tail to the chirping calls of male crickets.

Modern mathematical versions of this theory show how female mating preferences and male characteristics will evolve together. But when you try to apply the theory to humans, you hit a snag. In humans, there is an extra preference involved — that of the parents.

At first sight, it might seem surprising that parents and their children should evolve to have any conflict at all. After all, they share many of the same genes, and both have an evolutionary interest in having those genes persist through the generations. Shouldn’t the preferences of parents and their children be perfectly aligned?

Well, no — not completely. Parents each pass on half of their genes to each of their children, so from a genetic point of view, all children are equally valuable to them. It is in parents’ evolutionary interests to distribute their resources — money, support, etc. — in such a way that leads to as many surviving grandchildren as possible, regardless of which of their children provide them.

Children, by contrast, have a stronger genetic interest in their own reproduction than in that of their siblings, so each child should try to secure more than his or her fair share of parental resources. It is this conflict over parental resources that can lead to a conflict over mate choice.

In our study, we built a computer model to simulate the evolutionary process. We generated a large virtual population of males and females, the males all differing genetically in their ability to invest resources in raising children. The females had a genetically determined preference for this male quality, which meant that females with a strong preference were more likely to end up with a male who invested more.

The males and females that paired up in our model then mated and produced offspring, who inherited (with a small chance of mutation) the investing qualities and mating preferences of their parents. We ran our model over thousands of generations, observing which genetic traits thrived and which didn’t.

This is a “genetic algorithm,” the kind of computer simulation I used to write to discover behavioral tendencies among populations of stock traders. Like all simulations, it can only be suggestive because good results depend on duplicating the important features of both the simulated people and their environment; but it can reveal the underlying reason why certain traits and behaviors are preserved and strengthened over time.

…We added some new ingredients. First, we allowed a female’s parents to interfere with her choice of a male. Second, we allowed parents to distribute their resources among their children.

We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.

But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man.

As a result, the choosiness of females gradually declined over evolutionary time. To counterbalance this, the parental preference for caring sons-in-law increased. Hence the conflict.

It is only in the modern era that it became safe in the West for daughters to strike out on their own and put off marriage while gaining independence; parental control over mate selection is now much weaker than in traditional societies. And yet the evolved preferences for “bad boys” and the expectation that parents would come to a daughter’s assistance if resources were short as a result of the bad husband’s unreliability continued. And now we have added a state apparatus to channel resources to unwed mothers and enforce child support orders on deadbeat dads, further decreasing the downside risk of unwise partner choice.

More reading on this topic:

Why We Are Attracted to Bad Partners (Who Resemble a Parent)
“Why Are Great Husbands Being Abandoned?”
Evolve or Die: Survival Value of the Feminine Imperative
Perfect Soulmates or Fellow Travelers: Being Happy Depends on Perspective
Mate-Seeking: The Science of Finding Your Best Partner
“The Science of Happily Ever After” – Couples Communications

Stable is Boring? “Psychology Today” Article on Bad Boyfriends
Bad Boy

Bad Boy – Shutterstock

Attachment studies, Red Pill writings, and Psychology Today agree: women especially have a problem they need to recognize. The kind of intensely activating, sexy and dominant partner they may crave is the least likely to be a good long-term mate. This Psychology Today column by Jeremy Nicholson has some good bits:

Dating and relationships have always been hard. In this day and age, however, they can sometimes seem impossible. Particularly, women I speak to say that they can’t find a good man. They lament over the guys that they say are stuck in childhood, not taking responsibility for their lives. They complain about the men they call “nice guy, push-over” types, who don’t stir passionate feelings. They also have difficulty with men they label attractive “jerks”, who disrespect them, ignore their needs, and break hearts.

This states the general problem: for anxious-preoccupied women (but for others as well), the “nice,” sensitive, thoughtful guys don’t wake them up even though they might be the wisest choice for partnering up with. Meanwhile, the rough, aggressive, dominating sorts giving off testosterone and sexual fitness get their attention, but can’t be relied on and may well end up being abusive. A Secure person will tend to react against the thoughtless and self-centered and so avoid the harm these “bad boys” do, but for the insecure this drama-filled interaction — with intermittent reinforcement, sexual excitement, and extra-strong hormones — is a lure that’s hard to stay away from even when they know it’s not a good choice.

Socially, today’s woman is encouraged, empowered (and perhaps expected) to do it all. This, in itself, often causes extreme stress for the “super woman” and “super mom.” Social norms tell her she is expected to succeed in work, run her home, raise the perfect children, and be attractive and chipper too. It is a tall order. It is also an order that requires women to be intelligent, motivated, powerful, and in control.

Given those social instructions, women are motivated to “choose” men for how well they mesh with their life plan, goals, and ideals. Essentially then, some women choose to “attach” to men who are cooperative, agreeable, supportive, and often take their lead in areas the woman finds important. From a cultural standpoint, men who are categorized as “disagreeable,” “opinionated,” or expect women to “acquiesce” may be considered unappealing as “attachment” partners.

Unfortunately, however, many of those “culturally undesirable” male traits are similar and overlapping with the traits that are biologically “attractive.” Although not always true, often the man who is intelligent, high status, and ambitious will be unlikely to take a back seat, follow, and submit in a romantic relationship. Generally speaking, men who have “leadership characteristics” may want to lead in many situations.

With those two “feelings” juxtaposed, women often find themselves unfulfilled in love. Many that I talk to seem to hover between what they call “nice guys” and “jerks” in their dating life. They become attracted to “jerks” for their status, ambition, and dominance—only to be hurt when those men don’t live up to the cooperative and considerate cultural standard for an attachment partner. Women then may gravitate towards a culturally prescribed “nice guy,” only to find that they become bored, their libido wanes, and their eyes wander back to “jerks.” Either way, they find the relationships largely frustrating and unsatisfying.

The new customs have delayed marriage, leaving an expected period (college years until 30 or so) of experimentation and “finding yourself.” Red Pill types talk about the “sexual carousel” (or more rudely, the “cock carousel”), of Sex and the City-style promiscuity or rapid serial monogamy. Sexually exciting partners are tried and found wanting over and over, until finally the young person is no longer young and realizes the most obviously exciting are not the partners who will stick by you no matter what. And by that time, most the best partners have already bonded and are unavailable, so what’s left is more avoidant, more used up, and more set in their ways.

The article goes on to suggest some strategies (for women, but it’s valid for everyone):

1) Learning to Love Leading—one strategy adopted by some women is to learn to love being the leader of a “nice guy”. Think empowered business woman, cougar, or even dominatrix. All of these women relish being in charge, empowered, and having their desires fulfilled. Getting what you want can be pretty attractive after all. This dominant approach may have a downside in resentment and rebellion however. So, be considerate (and persuasive)….

2) Following Wisely—other women choose to be cautious in love, looking for the “right” guy to be with, and enjoying their attraction to strong, male leadership. This is more of the compatibility, eHarmony approach. These women evaluate and “test” men to find the right guy, a guy who will lead with their hopes, dreams, and goals in mind. They know that, if you’re not driving, it is wise to pick the driver carefully. Thus, they find a man with strong, attractive attributes to swoon over, who will not end up treating them like a “jerk….”

3) Mixed-Mating—yet other women join the “best of both worlds” club. Here, think polyamory, open relationships, or a hot boyfriend on the side. Evolutionary psychology indicates that women sometimes use this strategy to seek the most stable and supportive partnership from one man, and the best genes for children from another. When women can’t find it all in one guy, some choose to mix-and-match….

4) Negotiation, Sharing, and Balance—finally, some women choose to negotiate and share leadership roles with their partner. They divide life tasks and duties into different areas, with each being the “boss” of different things. Perhaps she leads with the finances, and he takes charge of the kids (or vice versa). That way, everyone has a bit of leadership, responsibility, agreeableness…and therefore attraction and attachment too.

This is too simple — animal dominance and submission is not the best model for human partnerships or marriage. We are far more sophisticated as a species, and good marriages typically have a division of labor as in choice 4, so that one partner tends to handle some kinds of tasks while the other partner does others; this specialization makes the marriage stronger because tasks are handled by the most competent member at that type of task. In a good marriage of equals, both partners leave decisionmaking in some spheres to the other, and even the most aggressive and dominant in, say, external business affairs is not threatened by ceding control of, say, entertaining to the other; and nothing says this has to be conventional. Most of us know a couple where the husband is the great cook and the wife handles all the investments. This happens naturally for the most part, without any conscious negotiation — it’s not bargaining for dominance.

The “best of both worlds” club (“polyamory, open relationships, or a hot boyfriend on the side”) is controversial. One of the Red Pill resentments is that women will accept the support of a good man, then pursue cheating with sexually exciting bad boys; of course stereotypically this was always something “bad boys” did, having a respectable “madonna” wife at home while chasing “whore” skirt on the side (see Mad Men for examples of how it used to be for upper-class men!) It goes against the grain of both societal expectations and evolutionary psychology for males to tolerate being used to support children of less responsible men, so open marriages with honest pursuit of outside sexual partners are likely to remain a minority choice for couples able to have children. But the excitement of cheating will always tempt those who crave more stimulation, and so one of our primary sources of fictional and real-life drama will continue.

The Latest from Jeb Kinnison:

Related Posts:

Sex is Better With Love (Claim Women)
Why We Are Attracted to Bad Partners (Who Resemble a Parent)
Evolve or Die: Survival Value of the Feminine Imperative
The “Fairy Tale” Myth: Both False and Destructive
Perfect Soulmates or Fellow Travelers: Being Happy Depends on Perspective
Mate-Seeking: The Science of Finding Your Best Partner
Dating Pool Danger: Harder to Find Good Partners After 30

Ross Douthat on Unstable Families and Culture
1950s Dance

1950s Dance

FamilyStudies.Org interviews conservative columnist Ross Douthat on the topic of family and culture, and he has some reasonable things to say recognizing the value of modern freedoms while searching for a way to restore some family stability. His first point is about cultural promotion of promiscuity as an almost risk-free phase between youth and married life:

But in the zone in between being sixteen and being a married sitcom dad with kids, pop culture’s vision of the good life is extremely libertine, in the sense that premarital sex is consistently treated as a kind of low-consequence playground—whether in the hot tubs of “Jersey Shore” and “The Real World,” or the haute-bourgeoise sexual carousels on shows like “Friends” and “Sex in the City,” or in the tabloids or the pop music charts or wherever—in which there’s no good reason to put a limit on how often and how casually you couple.

It has always been true that sex is especially powerful and fraught with dangers for the young — with consequences ranging from unwanted pregnancy to STDs and injury to the ego and romantic expectations. This hasn’t changed, but culturally there is a greater expectation that young people will be sexually engaged at an early age, and discussion of the downsides are more of an afterthought in most media. Cultural conservatives tend to look back on some Golden Age where young people were chaste until marriage — an age that never existed — and some of them seem to want to bring back social and political disapproval of sex outside marriage. Absent a sea change in attitudes, that will not happen — but Douthat continues to ask for social conservatives to play a part in bringing back some cultural guidelines encouraging stronger families:

In the past, I’ve made an analogy between the sexual and industrial revolutions, with the point being that it’s possible to mitigate the worst effects of a sweeping period of social change while preserving the good things that came in with it. In the end, for instance, the Gradgrinds and Social Darwinists were wrong: The Western world did not need children working long shifts in factories in order to sustain the benefits of industrialization. And in the same way I don’t think our world needs millions of abortions and out-of-wedlock births and broken homes in order to sustain the very real advancements—in female opportunity and professional and political dignity, especially—that we’ve seen since the 1970s. But proving that point is the work of generations, and a better synthesis, if one exists, still lies well ahead of us.

Death by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples OrganizationsDeath by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples Organizations

[From Death by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples Organizations,  available now in Kindle and trade paperback.]

The first review is in: by Elmer T. Jones, author of The Employment Game. Here’s the condensed version; view the entire review here.

Corporate HR Scrambles to Halt Publication of “Death by HR”

Nobody gets a job through HR. The purpose of HR is to protect their parent organization against lawsuits for running afoul of the government’s diversity extortion bureaus. HR kills companies by blanketing industry with onerous gender and race labor compliance rules and forcing companies to hire useless HR staff to process the associated paperwork… a tour de force… carefully explains to CEOs how HR poisons their companies and what steps they may take to marginalize this threat… It is time to turn the tide against this madness, and Death by HR is an important research tool… All CEOs should read this book. If you are a mere worker drone but care about your company, you should forward an anonymous copy to him.

 

For more on this topic:

Divorced Men 8 Times as Likely to Commit Suicide as Divorced Women
Life Is Unfair! The Militant Red Pill Movement
Leftover Women: The Chinese Scene
“Divorce in America: Who Really Wants Out and Why”
View Marriage as a Private Contract?
Madmen, Red Pill, and Social Justice Wars
Unrealistic Expectations: Liberal Arts Woman and Amazon Men
Stable is Boring? “Psychology Today” Article on Bad Boyfriends
Ross Douthat on Unstable Families and Culture
Ev Psych: Parental Preferences in Partners
Purge: the Feminist Grievance Bubble
The Social Decay of Black Neighborhoods (And Yours!)
Modern Feminism: Victim-Based Special Pleading
Stereotype Inaccuracy: False Dichotomies
Real-Life “Hunger Games”: Soft Oppression Destroys the Poor
Red Pill Women — Female MRAs
Why Did Black Crime Syndicates Fail to Go Legit?
The “Fairy Tale” Myth: Both False and Destructive
Feminism’s Heritage: Freedom vs. Special Protections
Evolve or Die: Survival Value of the Feminine Imperative
“Why Are Great Husbands Being Abandoned?”
Divorce and Alimony: State-By-State Reform, Massachusetts Edition
Reading “50 Shades of Grey” Gives You Anorexia and an Abusive Partner!
Why We Are Attracted to Bad Partners (Who Resemble a Parent)
Gaming and Science Fiction: Social Justice Warriors Strike Again
Culture Wars: Peace Through Limited Government

Entitled Attitudes Linked to Sexism
Gender Schema

Gender Schema

In a study out of Case Western Reserve University, people with an entitled attitude (meaning they thought they were deserving of special treatment) also tended to have sexist attitudes: men thought women should serve them because women were viewed as weak and inferior, and women thought men should protect them because they felt they were in need of special care.

The researchers found that, for men, entitlement was associated with hostile views of women. Entitled men were more likely to endorse views of women as manipulative, deceptive, and untrustworthy — attitudes, which past research has shown are predictors of violence toward women.

Conversely, the researchers found women who have a high sense of entitlement are likely to demand men take care of them because they are weak and frail. A large body of research shows that such demands lead to women being viewed as too weak and placed in roles where they are not allowed to advance in education and jobs.
…
They focused on two forms of sexism (hostile, and benevolent) and how feelings of entitlement might predict those roles differently for men and women.
In general, entitled men were more prone to exhibiting hostile sexism, indicating that they viewed women as manipulative and demanding. In contrast, entitled women exhibited benevolent sexism, indicating that they think women deserve special care and treatment. “When you consider that entitlement has been shown to be rising across recent generations, linking it to sexist attitudes is particularly alarming,” Grubbs said, “recent events certainly highlight how dangerous entitlement and hostile sexism can be in men. Furthermore, given that benevolent sexism can also produce gender inequality, these findings for women are also concerning.”

One of the Red Pill complaints is that feminists have demanded special treatment: equality of outcome in employment, compensation, and other areas where women had been discriminated against, while also demanding continuing recognition of their vulnerability to rape, different physical standards for jobs in the military, firefighting, etc., and continuing favoritism in custody and support battles in divorce. “Heads I win, tails you lose” is not a good strategy for winning recognition. Treating every man and woman as equal under the law, while allowing societal outcomes to vary to satisfy individual preferences — which may well be statistically different by gender/sex — eliminates many of these controversies and injustices.

It should not surprise anyone that even “progressive” men and women who think they are equality-minded would have some unconscious attitudes about equal treatment that still surface in politics and personal affairs.