5 ms·

This is what you wrote in your response: spending large amounts of money on products, be they sports cars or inferior laptops, to impress women is a ... (... n

This is what you wrote in your response: spending large amounts of money on products, be they sports cars or inferior laptops, to impress women is a ... (... not very effective) thing to do Why do you think so? What would you think of the phrase, "Sexual selection and the Macbook Air?" http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/03/sexual-selection-and-how-the-peacock-got-its-tail http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/03/sexual-selection-and-how... In many animals, sexual selection takes the form of elaborate ornamentation - often in just the male of the species. Two well-known examples are a peacock’s feathers and the brilliant red plumage of the male cardinal. Scientists like Robert Trivers have theorized that in most species it is the male that competes for female access because the female makes a larger contribution to the offspring. In one experiment, scientists were able to vary the relative contributions to offspring in Katydids and they observed that when the males’ contribution was more valuable, females began to compete for males. However, there is significant cost to these ornaments. So why would the genes that direct the growth of ornamental structures not reduce reproductive fitness? After all, the energy that a peacock uses to produce his tail could be used to find a mate or produce sperm. In this example, there are two hypotheses about sexual selection. One is that the ornament is a signal that the male is healthy. After all, a sickly male can’t produce and maintain the elaborate ornamentation.

mattmaroon 18y ago
Sexual selection is generally about physical traits, i.e. being taller, having blue eyes. (As Wikipedia says: the theory proposed by Charles Darwin that states that certain evolutionary traits can be explained by intraspecific competition.) I'm not sure if purchased items would count, though they might have similar effects. And maybe sexual selection accounts for the gene that people who buy stuff because a U2 song was in the commercial possess that the rest of us don't. Nonetheless, it's still sort of a hack, an easy but very inefficient way to accomplish the goal. Regardless, even if you wanted to go the hacky route, you'd be better off buying a normal laptop for $1,500 less and spending the money on other things. Get a better haircut (only $30-$40), buy some nicer clothes, get a gym membership (and actually go there), buy How To Win Friends and Influence People, take a photography class, etc. Basically better yourself. You'd be amazed how far even $1,000 can go. Or spend $500 of it on a nice watch, go to Vegas, find a couple cute girls sitting at a blackjack table, and go start plunking down $200 bets. You've got at least 5 of them if you run bad, and I bet they start talking to you by the third. I'm still shocked at how well that works.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  intraspecific competition ... I'm not sure if purchased items would count You are not sure if it could be any more difficult to afford a more-expensive item than to afford a less-expensive one? . you'd be better off ... spending the money on other things. How would making life easy for oneself advertise that one is so genetically-fit that one need not bother making life easy for oneself? Are you meaning to imply that fertile female humans are generally unaware that mined-diamonds, Mercedes, and Macbook Airs are more expensive than their functional-value equivalents (synthetic-diamonds, Lexuses, and Lenovo 300s, respectively)? According to the theory, the point is to visibly make life hard for oneself. To wit: http://images.google.com/images?q=ricer http://images.google.com/images?q=ricer http://www.pulldoggies.com http://www.pulldoggies.com Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase, "Trashed for overtopping." It refers to the hanging of weights (trash) around the necks of the fastest dogs in a hunting pack. Buying a Macbook Air is a form of trashing oneself. Pulling it out in a cafe makes it visible. One could also walk around all day with a backpack full of bricks. There are myriad ways of visibly trashing oneself. http://images.google.com/images?q=mohawk http://images.google.com/images?q=mohawk
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    It doesn't count because a MacBook isn't an evolutionary trait. The whole idea behind sexual selection is that some genes are more fit than others. Has nothing to do with possessions. Also, the Air is slightly cheaper than a Lenovo X301, and Mercedes and Lexus seemed pretty comparable for the same class back when I was looking.
    - DabAsteroid 18y ago
      a MacBook isn't an evolutionary trait. Maybe you mean "heritable trait". . sexual selection ... Has nothing to do with possessions. Income is a heritable trait, as is socio-economic status (SES). SES is partly a measure of possessions. Higher income allows one to consume possessions, and it has been posited that it is possible to conspicuously consume, thus allowing sexual selection in regards to income and SES to occur. http://www.google.com/search?q=veblen+conspicuous+consumption http://www.google.com/search?q=veblen+conspicuous+consumptio... . Mercedes and Lexus seemed pretty comparable for the same class back when I was looking. Where did you find a $200,000 Lexus? http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2009/mercedes_benz/s_class http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2009/mercedes_benz/s_class Sum Up: the luxury-car benchmark. http://www.google.com/search?q=mercedes+lexus+%22better+value%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=mercedes+lexus+%22better+valu... http://www.google.com/search?q=lexus+%22not+a+luxury%22+mercedes http://www.google.com/search?q=lexus+%22not+a+luxury%22+merc... ... faded in 2006 and 2007 as buyers looked at better-value alternatives, notably the Lexus http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/1997/11/22/emflex22.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring... Why I can't lust after the Lexus Last Updated: 12:01am BST 22/11/1997 It is good value, looks OK, handles well. But unlike its sexy competitors, it's just not desirable, finds Peter Dron ... What does Lexus offer against these icons, especially the BMW (frequently cited as Lexus's target), whose length it matches to the millimetre? Value for money is a good starting point. ... The BMW may not offer better value, and in most objective measurements it is not a significantly better car. But it is a more desirable car than the Lexus. The same may be said of the Mercedes, Jaguar and Audi.

mattmaroon 18y ago

Sexual selection is generally about physical traits, i.e. being taller, having blue eyes. (As Wikipedia says: the theory proposed by Charles Darwin that states that certain evolutionary traits can be explained by intraspecific competition.) I'm not sure if purchased items would count, though they might have similar effects. And maybe sexual selection accounts for the gene that people who buy stuff because a U2 song was in the commercial possess that the rest of us don't. Nonetheless, it's still sort of a hack, an easy but very inefficient way to accomplish the goal. Regardless, even if you wanted to go the hacky route, you'd be better off buying a normal laptop for $1,500 less and spending the money on other things. Get a better haircut (only $30-$40), buy some nicer clothes, get a gym membership (and actually go there), buy How To Win Friends and Influence People, take a photography class, etc. Basically better yourself. You'd be amazed how far even $1,000 can go. Or spend $500 of it on a nice watch, go to Vegas, find a couple cute girls sitting at a blackjack table, and go start plunking down $200 bets. You've got at least 5 of them if you run bad, and I bet they start talking to you by the third. I'm still shocked at how well that works.

DabAsteroid 18y ago
intraspecific competition ... I'm not sure if purchased items would count You are not sure if it could be any more difficult to afford a more-expensive item than to afford a less-expensive one? . you'd be better off ... spending the money on other things. How would making life easy for oneself advertise that one is so genetically-fit that one need not bother making life easy for oneself? Are you meaning to imply that fertile female humans are generally unaware that mined-diamonds, Mercedes, and Macbook Airs are more expensive than their functional-value equivalents (synthetic-diamonds, Lexuses, and Lenovo 300s, respectively)? According to the theory, the point is to visibly make life hard for oneself. To wit: http://images.google.com/images?q=ricer http://images.google.com/images?q=ricer http://www.pulldoggies.com http://www.pulldoggies.com Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase, "Trashed for overtopping." It refers to the hanging of weights (trash) around the necks of the fastest dogs in a hunting pack. Buying a Macbook Air is a form of trashing oneself. Pulling it out in a cafe makes it visible. One could also walk around all day with a backpack full of bricks. There are myriad ways of visibly trashing oneself. http://images.google.com/images?q=mohawk http://images.google.com/images?q=mohawk
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  It doesn't count because a MacBook isn't an evolutionary trait. The whole idea behind sexual selection is that some genes are more fit than others. Has nothing to do with possessions. Also, the Air is slightly cheaper than a Lenovo X301, and Mercedes and Lexus seemed pretty comparable for the same class back when I was looking.
  - DabAsteroid 18y ago
    a MacBook isn't an evolutionary trait. Maybe you mean "heritable trait". . sexual selection ... Has nothing to do with possessions. Income is a heritable trait, as is socio-economic status (SES). SES is partly a measure of possessions. Higher income allows one to consume possessions, and it has been posited that it is possible to conspicuously consume, thus allowing sexual selection in regards to income and SES to occur. http://www.google.com/search?q=veblen+conspicuous+consumption http://www.google.com/search?q=veblen+conspicuous+consumptio... . Mercedes and Lexus seemed pretty comparable for the same class back when I was looking. Where did you find a $200,000 Lexus? http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2009/mercedes_benz/s_class http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2009/mercedes_benz/s_class Sum Up: the luxury-car benchmark. http://www.google.com/search?q=mercedes+lexus+%22better+value%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=mercedes+lexus+%22better+valu... http://www.google.com/search?q=lexus+%22not+a+luxury%22+mercedes http://www.google.com/search?q=lexus+%22not+a+luxury%22+merc... ... faded in 2006 and 2007 as buyers looked at better-value alternatives, notably the Lexus http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/1997/11/22/emflex22.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring... Why I can't lust after the Lexus Last Updated: 12:01am BST 22/11/1997 It is good value, looks OK, handles well. But unlike its sexy competitors, it's just not desirable, finds Peter Dron ... What does Lexus offer against these icons, especially the BMW (frequently cited as Lexus's target), whose length it matches to the millimetre? Value for money is a good starting point. ... The BMW may not offer better value, and in most objective measurements it is not a significantly better car. But it is a more desirable car than the Lexus. The same may be said of the Mercedes, Jaguar and Audi.