5 ms·

I would say the evolutionary explanation for each of these is actually pretty straightforward. We live in an environment that's very different than the one we w

I would say the evolutionary explanation for each of these is actually pretty straightforward. We live in an environment that's very different than the one we were in for most of our evolution. Our evolution hasn't had nearly enough time to account for the modern environment. > Why are some people willing to have fewer children in order to pursue career goals? The obvious explanation here is that there wasn't really birth control when humans lived as hunter-gatherers. You couldn't make that kind of sacrifice for the most part. There also weren't really careers in the modern day sense. Evolution hasn't had a chance to account for birth control yet. It's only been around for 60 years or so. > Why are most billionaire tech CEOs interested in space travel and extraterrestrials? Because all life has some instinctive drive to explore and spread. By exploring, you have an opportunity to find new resources and territory, which is essential for survival or to outcompete other life. > Why do some “gym rats” build their muscles well past the point of being a way to attract potential mates? When humans lived as hunter-gatherers, there were no gyms and no muscle building magazines, no cult of bodybuilding. For the most part, you got as fit as you needed to be to hunt animals, to fight, and build whatever you needed to build. However, I think the part about being "well past the point of being a way to attract potential mates?" is a value judgment. In actuality, growing a lot of muscle mass is a way of showing off your determination and fitness and standing out. Male bobybuilders probably have a much easier time attracting mates than the average joe. > Why are some people willing to free solo climb icy mountains despite the danger? Evolutionary drive to explore. Evolutionary drive to show off prowess to attract mates and gain status. It's a high risk, high reward strategy.

kortex 5y ago
I think these "overdriven goals" might be the result of leaky abstraction. We are basically seeing an implementation detail come to light. As TFA points out, there is really just one reward-taxis algorithm. Everything drive-related is a variation on it. Meaning there is no "obtain visual appeal via body building until sufficiently attractive" algorithm. There is a top-level algorithm of "find mate and reproduce", which is enjoyable. How does it boost the odds? By doing things to be more attractive, for example. But how does one "know" one is on the right path? Activities which we learn increase attractiveness are enjoyable. There's a gradient we follow. More attractive = more enjoyable. So you end up with complex behaviors that basically become self-hoisting; the activity itself becomes the reward. Basically, games and hobbies. Something becomes enjoyable vis a vis various learned reward functions, so we just pursue the enjoyable thing. There's also a meta-loop wherein staying mentally stimulated and curious is itself a useful fitness, so we do things which are interesting, because it's enjoyable to do that.
- snek_case 5y ago
  I agree with your idea of leaky abstractions and overdriven goals. I think one thing to remember here is that while for sure attracting mates must play a role in the appeal of bodybuilding, there's also a competitive game aspect. You can compete against yourself and your peers. This can appeal to instinctive drives to compete and gain status, maybe again past the point where it's reasonable in some cases (are you really winning at life, gaining something meaningful by doing this?). If we just talk about the attracting mates aspect of bodybuilding, we also have to remember that if a man is trying to attract women by gaining muscle mass, his idea of what women in general might find attractive is just an approximation. Maybe this man found that he was gaining more attention from women when he started to gain muscle mass, so he just keeps doing more of that. Eventually he might gain even more attention for other reasons (improved self-confidence), but it gets hard to tease apart the real causal factors.
analyte123 5y ago
Also, giving other people career goals and birth control makes them have fewer children.
telxosser 5y ago
If anything though the speed we are able to adapt is what is interesting. In my own life I think of the sitcom "Head of the Class" as a kid. Basically, painted "nerds" and computer geeks as highly sexually undesirable. All signaling was that this is what not to do to get laid. Didn't even take 25 years for that to essentially be reversed to the point of a computer geek being a type of peacock feather to flaunt and strut around. IMO the point we are maladjusted for the environment we live in is highly overblown.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  What? I work at a FANG and I can guarantee you there are very few peacocks there. I've had success on the dating market specifically through how I'm differentiated from my coworkers(into sports/outdoors, not obsessed with scifi/marvel movies, goes to the gym)
  - yifanl 5y ago
    Is that because those points have negative appeal or is it just because they don't serve as distinguishing features since they're so common?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> Evolution hasn't had a chance to account for birth control yet. It's only been around for 60 years or so. I'm no anthropologist, but I'm pretty sure various forms of birth control have existed for at least several hundred, if not several thousands of years. Granted, the invention of the birth control pill was a pretty big milestone, but it's not like nobody had ever thought of ways to fuck without getting pregnant before then.
watwut 5y ago
Imo, high muscles are more about impressing other giys then women. Most women do not prefer huge guys, really. They just ... don't look attractive. Entertainment for boys has way more muscles in it then entertainment for teenage girls. Boy bands tend to be those thin, slim dudes too.

kortex 5y ago

I think these "overdriven goals" might be the result of leaky abstraction. We are basically seeing an implementation detail come to light. As TFA points out, there is really just one reward-taxis algorithm. Everything drive-related is a variation on it. Meaning there is no "obtain visual appeal via body building until sufficiently attractive" algorithm. There is a top-level algorithm of "find mate and reproduce", which is enjoyable. How does it boost the odds? By doing things to be more attractive, for example. But how does one "know" one is on the right path? Activities which we learn increase attractiveness are enjoyable. There's a gradient we follow. More attractive = more enjoyable. So you end up with complex behaviors that basically become self-hoisting; the activity itself becomes the reward. Basically, games and hobbies. Something becomes enjoyable vis a vis various learned reward functions, so we just pursue the enjoyable thing. There's also a meta-loop wherein staying mentally stimulated and curious is itself a useful fitness, so we do things which are interesting, because it's enjoyable to do that.

snek_case 5y ago
I agree with your idea of leaky abstractions and overdriven goals. I think one thing to remember here is that while for sure attracting mates must play a role in the appeal of bodybuilding, there's also a competitive game aspect. You can compete against yourself and your peers. This can appeal to instinctive drives to compete and gain status, maybe again past the point where it's reasonable in some cases (are you really winning at life, gaining something meaningful by doing this?). If we just talk about the attracting mates aspect of bodybuilding, we also have to remember that if a man is trying to attract women by gaining muscle mass, his idea of what women in general might find attractive is just an approximation. Maybe this man found that he was gaining more attention from women when he started to gain muscle mass, so he just keeps doing more of that. Eventually he might gain even more attention for other reasons (improved self-confidence), but it gets hard to tease apart the real causal factors.

analyte123 5y ago

Also, giving other people career goals and birth control makes them have fewer children.

telxosser 5y ago

If anything though the speed we are able to adapt is what is interesting. In my own life I think of the sitcom "Head of the Class" as a kid. Basically, painted "nerds" and computer geeks as highly sexually undesirable. All signaling was that this is what not to do to get laid. Didn't even take 25 years for that to essentially be reversed to the point of a computer geek being a type of peacock feather to flaunt and strut around. IMO the point we are maladjusted for the environment we live in is highly overblown.

oh_sigh 5y ago
What? I work at a FANG and I can guarantee you there are very few peacocks there. I've had success on the dating market specifically through how I'm differentiated from my coworkers(into sports/outdoors, not obsessed with scifi/marvel movies, goes to the gym)
- yifanl 5y ago
  Is that because those points have negative appeal or is it just because they don't serve as distinguishing features since they're so common?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> Evolution hasn't had a chance to account for birth control yet. It's only been around for 60 years or so. I'm no anthropologist, but I'm pretty sure various forms of birth control have existed for at least several hundred, if not several thousands of years. Granted, the invention of the birth control pill was a pretty big milestone, but it's not like nobody had ever thought of ways to fuck without getting pregnant before then.

watwut 5y ago

Imo, high muscles are more about impressing other giys then women. Most women do not prefer huge guys, really. They just ... don't look attractive. Entertainment for boys has way more muscles in it then entertainment for teenage girls. Boy bands tend to be those thin, slim dudes too.