Yes, I believe it does with all hunter gathers or primary cultures, my own personal experience was observing Inuit culture, this was very much the case though changing rapidly. The male, female unit role spelled survival.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 8:48 pmWell, the conclusions I've drawn about sexual selection stem from Darwin, not Peterson. As brilliant as Peterson is I think that brilliance shakes under the weight of its structure sometimes---lol I think the distinction between changing roles are measured in the brief periods of modernity and they cause a great deal of stress when in contradiction with human nature. It has been traditionally the male role to structure society, the female is usurping this role, which is bound to cause reverberations. You are more knowledgeable about biology than I then, it has just been an interest to me. Actually, gender roles perhaps follow political fashion but I don't think that those characteristics of biology are hard to differentiate the changing political climate.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 8:31 pm But again how does the research separate out cultural effects that may be fading out? I like Peterson in many ways, but he is also conservative, a kind of Christian and someone reacting to current trends that go radically against conservative values and gender roles. I have watched a lot of Peterson, but I haven't seen specific studies cited. As far as biology I have my first degree in it and I stay up in a layperson way.
Yes, that was then. Does this theory hold for tribal groups?You have to consider attitudes in the context of their times, when most work that was available was hard labor neither the female nor the male wanted women to be working in the mines or felling trees, there was still much of the setup of a primary culture where the men hunted and the women supported the male hunter, they were a unit neither could survive without the other.
"Who would be feeding this and why if the biological is the truth and affecting how we think? [/quote]There are always exceptions to the rule but the rule is well established. It is not an opinion; it is scientifically based. I know I was not brought up with a realistic view of what is involved, the romantic version is what most people are fed.
romance, yes? For quite some time we have had a cultural norm of romance being central in attraction and mate formation. Why did people create and follow this myth if it is some mere peripheral phenomenon?Again, you have to consider this thing in the context of their times, it wasn't really debated it was the cultural norm.
"Or maybe the idea of reality is actually a biased one and self-fulfilling. [/quote]Romance has its place but I think it would be better for the young to be in touch with reality, it just might give them the inspiration to measure up and apply themselves if they know the name of game. The romantic theme is what raises the mating of humanity up from the basic lust of animal procreation in general. Aye, but the population does consume a lot of porn which takes it back down to the animal level.
And the conditions presented an unreal assessment of the capabilities of women. That was cultural not biological. And it was really skewed.There is an old saying context defines, said another way environment defines. One adapts to the conditions one lives under.
[/quote] Our times allow people more to follow their main desires. I also raise the issue of tribal groups where there would be some accumulation of wealth and hunting does provide one side of the diet, so skill in that area might well up your attractiveness. But I'd need to see data before assuming that was more significant than other criteria in tribal groups. [/quote]
You are thinking in terms of your own times just as everyone in the past has done. The civilization of your times informs you, but biology changes ever so slowly and despite the times. The same mating patterns are repeated over and over again, women do not marry economically down but on the same level or up, this is statistically validated.
Well, if you're looking for statistics, I am not your man, but being a good hunter would be the equivalent of a successful businessman, it just the only business at hand.
[/quote] Women often, also get to choose between men who pass minimums, and I think those criteria are much more important than your schema allows. [/quote]
Well, sexual selection is the female function where it is not is considered rape. Yes, women chose men who pass Miniums, men on an even economic level or above. I know you desire statistics but it really is observable.
[/quote] It has also got to work. Marriage, that is. And now that women are not so restricted and are not treated as property of men, there central desires for the person they spend huge amounts of time with can come out. And I suspect that in tribal groups this was much more common also.
[/quote]
I am not saying this doesn't happen at all but, no these patterns are well established, power for women you might say is an aphrodisiac, and as statistic bear out they don't marry down. It has been my experience that intelligent women agree, only stating that that does not mean women don't make some very bad choices. For example, thinking a man has more potential than he really does, in pastimes, they were stuck with their choice, not so today.
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/0 ... _marr.html
activities that the boys engaged in.