4 ms·

She's a single mom who has a son. It doesn't seem to me that she has an understanding of how much more picky females are than males when it comes to sexual sel

She's a single mom who has a son. It doesn't seem to me that she has an understanding of how much more picky females are than males when it comes to sexual selection. Her son needs to compete hard in his life, whether she likes it or not.

thih9 7y ago
To me this comment looks unrelated and lacks proper sources. What does sexual selection has to do with this article? How do you define „picky” in this context? Do you have sources on females being more picky?
smt88 7y ago
Whatever biological concept you're thinking of here, you're incorrect to generalize it to humans. Our complex brains, societies, and medicine (like birth control) significantly change our mate selection. We are not antelopes.
- Finnucane 7y ago
  >We are not antelopes On the internet, nobody knows you're a gnu.
- camdenlock 7y ago
  You’re right that there are multiple factors, but you also can’t discount the role of phenotypic brain “firmware”. Yes, science reveals inconvenient truths. It tells us that we’re responsible for climate change, and it also tells us that our brains come pre-loaded with a wealth of routines shaped by millennia of evolution. Can’t just accept some results and pretend others aren’t also well-supported. Well-supported scientific findings are what they are.
- xiphias2 7y ago
  I don't really know about antelopes, but the human side is well documented on multiple fronts. Women have to be much more selective than men, just because they are biologically aren't capable of having as many babies as men. Also you can just try a dating site using an average looking man and average looking woman and get similar results to this experiment: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...
- emsy 7y ago
  Societal factors do exist, but are often overstated or don’t bear a scientific foundation. A lot of social sciences have done real harm to scientific progress and the field of evolutionary psychology.
  - smt88 7y ago
    Birth control and women's rights, and marrying for love[1] are fairly new (within the last 20-100 yrs) and limited to a handful of countries. We just don't have data on how humans behave when such huge reprodutive variables change. Seeing how a single generation responds isn't a long enough time period, because children accumulate the social norms of their parents. 1. https://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html https://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      We do have data on this. In the modern educated industrialised environment intelligence reduces fertility. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/how-intelligence-affects-fertility-30-years-on-retherford-and-sewell-revisited-with-polygenic-scores-and-numbers-of-grandchildren/AB8EF68EE05C8DFD0A1C424B4FF7BC1F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-hu... > How Intelligence Affects Fertility 30 Years On: Retherford and Sewell Revisited — With Polygenic Scores and Numbers of Grandchildren > Using newly available polygenic scores for educational attainment and cognitive ability, this paper investigates the possible presence and causes of a negative association between IQ and fertility in the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study sample, an issue that Retherford and Sewell first addressed 30 years ago. The effect of the polygenic score on the sample’s reproductive characteristics was indirect: a latent cognitive ability measure, comprised of both educational attainment and IQ, wholly mediated the relationship. Age at first birth mediated the negative effect of cognitive ability on sample fertility, which had a direct (positive) effect on the number of grandchildren. Significantly greater impacts of cognitive ability on the sample’s fertility characteristics were found among the female subsample. This indicates that, in this sample, having a genetic disposition toward higher cognitive ability does not directly reduce number of offspring; instead, higher cognitive ability is a risk factor for prolonging reproductive debut, which, especially for women, reduces the fertility window and, thus, the number of children and grandchildren that can be produced. By estimating the effect of the sample’s reproductive characteristics on the strength of polygenic selection, it was found that the genetic variance component of IQ should be declining at a rate between −.208 (95% CI [−.020, −.383]) and −.424 (95% CI [−.041, −.766]) points per decade, depending on whether GCTA-GREML or classical behavior genetic estimates of IQ heritability are used to correct for ‘missing’ heritability.
- cambalache 7y ago
  And yet study after study, not only in humans but in many animals describe the female sex to be the choosy one and the males to heavily compete (even in mortal combat) for a chance for sex. And yeah we are not antelopes, we are big apes.
camdenlock 7y ago
The latest well-replicated scientific experiments and research findings show strong evidence for what you’re saying here about firmware differences between the two sexes. Perhaps a further question, though, is: SHOULD it be this way? Should we actively try to rein in this tendency of our firmware, just as we try to rein in other tendencies like our quickness to anger? The meat still matters, for sure, but I wonder if we should be trying harder to transcend its less helpful qualities. Then again, perhaps the competitiveness you’re referring to could be viewed as a net positive...
daseiner1 7y ago
incels on hackernews. that’s a new one
dang 7y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

thih9 7y ago

To me this comment looks unrelated and lacks proper sources. What does sexual selection has to do with this article? How do you define „picky” in this context? Do you have sources on females being more picky?

smt88 7y ago

Whatever biological concept you're thinking of here, you're incorrect to generalize it to humans. Our complex brains, societies, and medicine (like birth control) significantly change our mate selection. We are not antelopes.

Finnucane 7y ago
>We are not antelopes On the internet, nobody knows you're a gnu.
camdenlock 7y ago
You’re right that there are multiple factors, but you also can’t discount the role of phenotypic brain “firmware”. Yes, science reveals inconvenient truths. It tells us that we’re responsible for climate change, and it also tells us that our brains come pre-loaded with a wealth of routines shaped by millennia of evolution. Can’t just accept some results and pretend others aren’t also well-supported. Well-supported scientific findings are what they are.
xiphias2 7y ago
I don't really know about antelopes, but the human side is well documented on multiple fronts. Women have to be much more selective than men, just because they are biologically aren't capable of having as many babies as men. Also you can just try a dating site using an average looking man and average looking woman and get similar results to this experiment: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...
emsy 7y ago
Societal factors do exist, but are often overstated or don’t bear a scientific foundation. A lot of social sciences have done real harm to scientific progress and the field of evolutionary psychology.
- smt88 7y ago
  Birth control and women's rights, and marrying for love[1] are fairly new (within the last 20-100 yrs) and limited to a handful of countries. We just don't have data on how humans behave when such huge reprodutive variables change. Seeing how a single generation responds isn't a long enough time period, because children accumulate the social norms of their parents. 1. https://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html https://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    We do have data on this. In the modern educated industrialised environment intelligence reduces fertility. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/how-intelligence-affects-fertility-30-years-on-retherford-and-sewell-revisited-with-polygenic-scores-and-numbers-of-grandchildren/AB8EF68EE05C8DFD0A1C424B4FF7BC1F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-hu... > How Intelligence Affects Fertility 30 Years On: Retherford and Sewell Revisited — With Polygenic Scores and Numbers of Grandchildren > Using newly available polygenic scores for educational attainment and cognitive ability, this paper investigates the possible presence and causes of a negative association between IQ and fertility in the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study sample, an issue that Retherford and Sewell first addressed 30 years ago. The effect of the polygenic score on the sample’s reproductive characteristics was indirect: a latent cognitive ability measure, comprised of both educational attainment and IQ, wholly mediated the relationship. Age at first birth mediated the negative effect of cognitive ability on sample fertility, which had a direct (positive) effect on the number of grandchildren. Significantly greater impacts of cognitive ability on the sample’s fertility characteristics were found among the female subsample. This indicates that, in this sample, having a genetic disposition toward higher cognitive ability does not directly reduce number of offspring; instead, higher cognitive ability is a risk factor for prolonging reproductive debut, which, especially for women, reduces the fertility window and, thus, the number of children and grandchildren that can be produced. By estimating the effect of the sample’s reproductive characteristics on the strength of polygenic selection, it was found that the genetic variance component of IQ should be declining at a rate between −.208 (95% CI [−.020, −.383]) and −.424 (95% CI [−.041, −.766]) points per decade, depending on whether GCTA-GREML or classical behavior genetic estimates of IQ heritability are used to correct for ‘missing’ heritability.
cambalache 7y ago
And yet study after study, not only in humans but in many animals describe the female sex to be the choosy one and the males to heavily compete (even in mortal combat) for a chance for sex. And yeah we are not antelopes, we are big apes.

camdenlock 7y ago

The latest well-replicated scientific experiments and research findings show strong evidence for what you’re saying here about firmware differences between the two sexes. Perhaps a further question, though, is: SHOULD it be this way? Should we actively try to rein in this tendency of our firmware, just as we try to rein in other tendencies like our quickness to anger? The meat still matters, for sure, but I wonder if we should be trying harder to transcend its less helpful qualities. Then again, perhaps the competitiveness you’re referring to could be viewed as a net positive...

daseiner1 7y ago

incels on hackernews. that’s a new one

dang 7y ago

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html