3 ms·

I think what you are calling exploration through multiple sex partners is more of an urge to procreate, which would be different from what the study found in ch

I think what you are calling exploration through multiple sex partners is more of an urge to procreate, which would be different from what the study found in children, a systematic learning attempt to see if they missed anything. The sex example isn’t cognitive. But I take no issue with your choice of sex as an example or debating this and considering this argument for a potential flaw in the study. My reason for calling it cringeworthy was your choice of words of adult males undressing females. It seems cringeworthy to talk about females as an object in this way and ignore sexual orientation when you could have phrased it (if it had to be about sex) as exploring sex partners or any other hundreds of ways.

fxtentacle 6y ago
That is a very valid point, I should have phrased it in a more generical / biological way from the start. My hope with the original formulation was that it'd be easy to understand and relate to, but I agree that I should have put in more time to find a better way of saying it. As for the argument itself, I believe that novelty seeking in general might be an unintended side effect of that urge to procreate. That would also explain why people use words like "love" for new technical gadgets and develop a highly emotional and irrational attachment to their newest toy. Plus, there is evidence that the raw attraction fades more quickly for couples that spend more time together, which would suggest that one aspect of sexual attraction is in fact exactly the novelty of the partner. And since genetic compatibility is difficult to determine in advance, there would be benefits to a systematic exploration strategy.