I would add to this discussion the hypothesis that primogeniture as a historical practice maximized the mating potential of the first-born son. If the wealth were divided amongst all the sons (say there were 2 sons), each son would have half the mating potential. Assume a threshold of mating potential, like if a man inherits less than $10k he doesn't breed. Pooling all the resources for the first born son is an extremely effective way of ensuring that the line continues. Traditions which practiced primogeniture would genetically outcompete (in Y-DNA at least) traditions which did not.
Primogeniture fortified certain Y-DNA lines with this particular culture practice. Assuming an unbroken line of paternity, primogeniture would end up producing a mating arrangement where a few dudes (Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Mohammed, Abraham, "Zeus", "Odin," etc) would appear to be the only men to have bred at all. This doesn't require polygamy -- merely that the first-born son has his breeding potential maximized through inheritance.
This is one of those topics where I think this article would serve as a great script for a video essay. I'm just getting into the topic now so still learning and correcting my preconceived chadopoloy notions.
The “rapidly growing population” case is interesting. Assuming for arguments sake roughly equal numbers of male & female children surviving to adulthood but that females marry approximately 5 years younger, a growing population would indeed result in a surplus of marriageable women whereas a stable population would not
Even if the 1-in-17 claim were true, why should it be a story about evil, hypergamous women, rather than evil, polygynous men? (Especially since there was doubtless a lot of rape going on in the ancestral environment!)
So it would seem to me that women's modern hypergamous behaviors aren't natural, but instead a result of opportunity given by birth control and the erosion of social contracts, and the unwillingness of women to simply build a real relationship.
I have done numerous articles demonstrating how this is also a meme. Promiscuity remains low and men and women's partner distributions remain basically equal. The mass polygyny in history meme also being false just helps to explain why we don't see this playing out today.
> primarily due to big and complex brains—most of whose development must happen outside the womb, creating a strong incentive for biparental care
you got a whole tribe to raise kids in, don't really need all that persistent pairing up. also diversifying genetics of your kids has more benifits in deafult than yolo-ing with one person for multi-generational reproductive sucess
> 1:17
another possibility for 1:17 ratio thing can be that everyone was having sex with everyone else as much as possible like these modern 500 dicks a day and a hospital visit people - some men will win out at conception lottery because of some advantage(like maybe penis size, wanting to do it more frequently), as long as that culture of free sex for everyone remains, small portion will win out. Idk what was happening at 8000, that's pretty recent and I saw a paper elsewhere talking about serial low polygyny upto ~50k but I feel like the "everyone was doing it with everyone else" should be the default assumption for most of human history - with some male control and competition mixed in since there is some male female size/strength differences. But there is still the incest problem that'll evnetually kill tribe, so tribe culture that prevented enough incest will survive longer. But to prevent incest in a mass orgy would require forming some rules and will probably be run by men but the tribe with the cultures where such rules are really incompatible with female choice will die off faster. And this sex orgy being male controlled, there would be some aspects of trade for status or other resouce benifit, so it probably wasn't a regular day to day orgy but more time restricted. Mentions of "honeymoon phase" or neural pathways that looks like addiction for male brain in "love" can also means the time to get bored has some built in limits before it's time to switch partners, the time to switch partner has to match up with another guy as well. Not sure why the temporary love bonding addiction like thing exists yet though(it's not for biparental care thing, honymoon phase and stuff close to it is definately gonna be shorter than that)
>you got a whole tribe to raise kids in, don't really need all that persistent pairing up.
There's research showing that biparental care improves higher offspring survival in forager societies.
The best way for men to increase their reproductive success is typically to hunt good and invest in their own children (while perhaps taking other reproductive opportunities if they come along). It becomes difficult to explain attachment mechanisms if you suppose that long-term pairbonding had no value.
>I feel like the "everyone was doing it with everyone else" should be the default assumption for most of human history
High sperm competition is usually associated with large testes. Chimps have a testes to brain ratio some 10x higher than humans. Also seems like STDs would be a big problem.
If this were the natural sexual state for humans, why is heterosexual promiscuity rare in modern western societies?
>another possibility for 1:17 ratio thing can be that everyone was having sex with everyone else as much as possible
Why would this peak in the Neolithic though?
>Mentions of "honeymoon phase" or neural pathways that looks like addiction for male brain in "love" can also means the time to get bored has some built in limits before it's time to switch partners, the time to switch partner has to match up with another guy as well. Not sure why the temporary love bonding addiction like thing exists yet though(it's not for biparental care thing, honymoon phase and stuff close to it is definately gonna be shorter than that)
A honeymoon phase is compatible with serial monogamy; it's probably good to front-load bonding to ensure early commitment. I don't know why this would exist at all if it was just a free-for-all f*ck fest all the time.
I would add to this discussion the hypothesis that primogeniture as a historical practice maximized the mating potential of the first-born son. If the wealth were divided amongst all the sons (say there were 2 sons), each son would have half the mating potential. Assume a threshold of mating potential, like if a man inherits less than $10k he doesn't breed. Pooling all the resources for the first born son is an extremely effective way of ensuring that the line continues. Traditions which practiced primogeniture would genetically outcompete (in Y-DNA at least) traditions which did not.
Primogeniture fortified certain Y-DNA lines with this particular culture practice. Assuming an unbroken line of paternity, primogeniture would end up producing a mating arrangement where a few dudes (Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Mohammed, Abraham, "Zeus", "Odin," etc) would appear to be the only men to have bred at all. This doesn't require polygamy -- merely that the first-born son has his breeding potential maximized through inheritance.
This is one of those topics where I think this article would serve as a great script for a video essay. I'm just getting into the topic now so still learning and correcting my preconceived chadopoloy notions.
The “rapidly growing population” case is interesting. Assuming for arguments sake roughly equal numbers of male & female children surviving to adulthood but that females marry approximately 5 years younger, a growing population would indeed result in a surplus of marriageable women whereas a stable population would not
Even if the 1-in-17 claim were true, why should it be a story about evil, hypergamous women, rather than evil, polygynous men? (Especially since there was doubtless a lot of rape going on in the ancestral environment!)
Because, if you have a problem with their polygyny, you have to tell them to their faces.
So it would seem to me that women's modern hypergamous behaviors aren't natural, but instead a result of opportunity given by birth control and the erosion of social contracts, and the unwillingness of women to simply build a real relationship.
I have done numerous articles demonstrating how this is also a meme. Promiscuity remains low and men and women's partner distributions remain basically equal. The mass polygyny in history meme also being false just helps to explain why we don't see this playing out today.
It was as normal as a society that regularly sees unrest caused by bands of men without any access to sex, resources, and family creation.
I’m predict the answer is no, when you can nuance whatever answer you want.
> primarily due to big and complex brains—most of whose development must happen outside the womb, creating a strong incentive for biparental care
you got a whole tribe to raise kids in, don't really need all that persistent pairing up. also diversifying genetics of your kids has more benifits in deafult than yolo-ing with one person for multi-generational reproductive sucess
> 1:17
another possibility for 1:17 ratio thing can be that everyone was having sex with everyone else as much as possible like these modern 500 dicks a day and a hospital visit people - some men will win out at conception lottery because of some advantage(like maybe penis size, wanting to do it more frequently), as long as that culture of free sex for everyone remains, small portion will win out. Idk what was happening at 8000, that's pretty recent and I saw a paper elsewhere talking about serial low polygyny upto ~50k but I feel like the "everyone was doing it with everyone else" should be the default assumption for most of human history - with some male control and competition mixed in since there is some male female size/strength differences. But there is still the incest problem that'll evnetually kill tribe, so tribe culture that prevented enough incest will survive longer. But to prevent incest in a mass orgy would require forming some rules and will probably be run by men but the tribe with the cultures where such rules are really incompatible with female choice will die off faster. And this sex orgy being male controlled, there would be some aspects of trade for status or other resouce benifit, so it probably wasn't a regular day to day orgy but more time restricted. Mentions of "honeymoon phase" or neural pathways that looks like addiction for male brain in "love" can also means the time to get bored has some built in limits before it's time to switch partners, the time to switch partner has to match up with another guy as well. Not sure why the temporary love bonding addiction like thing exists yet though(it's not for biparental care thing, honymoon phase and stuff close to it is definately gonna be shorter than that)
>you got a whole tribe to raise kids in, don't really need all that persistent pairing up.
There's research showing that biparental care improves higher offspring survival in forager societies.
The best way for men to increase their reproductive success is typically to hunt good and invest in their own children (while perhaps taking other reproductive opportunities if they come along). It becomes difficult to explain attachment mechanisms if you suppose that long-term pairbonding had no value.
>I feel like the "everyone was doing it with everyone else" should be the default assumption for most of human history
High sperm competition is usually associated with large testes. Chimps have a testes to brain ratio some 10x higher than humans. Also seems like STDs would be a big problem.
If this were the natural sexual state for humans, why is heterosexual promiscuity rare in modern western societies?
>another possibility for 1:17 ratio thing can be that everyone was having sex with everyone else as much as possible
Why would this peak in the Neolithic though?
>Mentions of "honeymoon phase" or neural pathways that looks like addiction for male brain in "love" can also means the time to get bored has some built in limits before it's time to switch partners, the time to switch partner has to match up with another guy as well. Not sure why the temporary love bonding addiction like thing exists yet though(it's not for biparental care thing, honymoon phase and stuff close to it is definately gonna be shorter than that)
A honeymoon phase is compatible with serial monogamy; it's probably good to front-load bonding to ensure early commitment. I don't know why this would exist at all if it was just a free-for-all f*ck fest all the time.
Yes it was
Nah
Genetics disproves you
It doesn’t. Did you bother to read?
All that means is that we must force Israel to launch the Samson Option Early so that Everyone Dies In Nuclear Fire.
Ashes and Echoes