10 ms·

From a purely functional point of view the man's entire contribution to reproduction can last as little as a few minutes. Therefore the cost of trying again is

From a purely functional point of view the man's entire contribution to reproduction can last as little as a few minutes. Therefore the cost of trying again is low, so it's not strictly necessary to consider the personality factors you mentioned. They take a long time to assess, which creates a trade-off between investing in marginal gains for the offspring vs. simply creating more. In short, men have the option of r-style reproduction which skews the selection criteria toward immediate visibility. Women on the other hand have to invest significantly more time and energy into reproduction every time, so the incentive is to find a mate with the best genes overall. Men are more likely to help raise their own offspring than another's, so a woman's best bet is to find one who is most likely and capable of doing so. Those traits are more difficult to discover but the marginal payoff is huge compared to a man who jets after five minutes. All of the above is pure conjecture on my part and I have no expertise. But consider the counterfactual: given sexual divergence and the asymmetry of reproduction, why would men and women have the same selection strategies on average?

speedplane 7y ago
> From a purely functional point of view the man's entire contribution to reproduction can last as little as a few minutes. Therefore the cost of trying again is low, so it's not strictly necessary to consider the personality factors you mentioned. Under your reasoning, it's also not strictly necessary to consider physical factors either. The fact that men have to invest less in child-birth could suggest that men are genetically more prone to promiscuity than women, but it does not suggest that men are more interested in appearance. Under a "selfish-gene" presumption where everyone wants to spread there DNA, and men, for physiological reasons have to make less investment than a women, it still does not follow that men would weigh physical appearance more than women. Given two women, one with better looks and one with more responsibility or power, genetically, it makes more sense for the man to choose the one with more responsibility. I suspect that there is no genetic basis for men "caring more about looks" than women, it's entirely a social construction. If society deems physical appearance to be important, it can easily skew any underlying genetic preference. In the nature verses nurture argument, I suspect nurture has at least 80% of the power.

speedplane 7y ago

> From a purely functional point of view the man's entire contribution to reproduction can last as little as a few minutes. Therefore the cost of trying again is low, so it's not strictly necessary to consider the personality factors you mentioned. Under your reasoning, it's also not strictly necessary to consider physical factors either. The fact that men have to invest less in child-birth could suggest that men are genetically more prone to promiscuity than women, but it does not suggest that men are more interested in appearance. Under a "selfish-gene" presumption where everyone wants to spread there DNA, and men, for physiological reasons have to make less investment than a women, it still does not follow that men would weigh physical appearance more than women. Given two women, one with better looks and one with more responsibility or power, genetically, it makes more sense for the man to choose the one with more responsibility. I suspect that there is no genetic basis for men "caring more about looks" than women, it's entirely a social construction. If society deems physical appearance to be important, it can easily skew any underlying genetic preference. In the nature verses nurture argument, I suspect nurture has at least 80% of the power.