The Relationship Thread

[Psy-Fi]

Originally Posted by elphenor

this is true

and it's no doubt the reason men are so overrepresented in fields that require years of solitary dedication

Ted Kaczynski

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Marie Monday

You're right that it is vague, so is biology though. Does that mean purely genetics, for example, to what extent are women genetically inclined to prefer tall men?

I don't know if women are genetically disposed to prefer tall men. Like I said with the bird analogy, we don't necessarily know why the female birds select mates with colorful feather patterns either. We just know they do because the males are colorful and the females aren't.

As such, the fact that women prefer taller men on average is apparent in the average heights of women vs men. So if women apply this sexually selective pressure on men through their mating preferences on average, that will change the genetic make up of the male population over time so that taller men are more likely to reproduce and thus men are taller on average as a consequence.

Maybe I use the word conditioning weirdly, but I mean something like 'anything imposed by the outside world through a continuous creeping influence'.

that would describe literally everything including biology and culture etc. So we don't necessarily disagree based on your definition. But typically people use terms like conditioning and social construct to detract from the biological influence.

that's true, there are some harmless aspects to gender conventions, but as a whole the concept sucks in every way

I don't necessarily agree.

I think that though there are some harmful aspects to it, that's not a reason to say we are better off trying to socially engineer it out of existence.

There are positive, benign and harmful aspects to virtually all of our basic instincts and traits.

For example, tribalism. Supporting a sports team is a form of tribalism. High school cliques and music scenes are forms of tribalism. So is racism. The fact that racism is bad says nothing about the merits of these other forms of tribalism.

So with regard to sex and gender norms, I just don't see a fundamental problem with group x being different from group y on average.

It turns into a problem when you're a member of group x but you have different traits than the average member and people pressure you to get in line. But you can be against that without thinking it's an inherent problem these group differences exist on average in the first place.

I think it's just as problematic to see some problem with women's mating preferences being different from men on average as it is to see a problem with a woman who doesn't fall into that stereotype.

[Frownland]

Focusing on averages as if they were rules of human behaviour is a form of selective social pressure in itself.

[OccultHawk]

the fact that women prefer taller men on average is apparent in the average heights of women vs men

That’s assuming that consensual sex was even prevalent enough to be a factor during the millions of years it took for that differentiation to happen.

It could be more women wanted short men or didn’t care but taller men (or the pre-human ancestor equivalent to “man”) solved that problem with the reach advantage and fists.

[Marie Monday]

Originally Posted by jwb

I don't necessarily agree.

I think that though there are some harmful aspects to it, that's not a reason to say we are better off trying to socially engineer it out of existence.

There are positive, benign and harmful aspects to virtually all of our basic instincts and traits.

For example, tribalism. Supporting a sports team is a form of tribalism. High school cliques and music scenes are forms of tribalism. So is racism. The fact that racism is bad says nothing about the merits of these other forms of tribalism.

So with regard to sex and gender norms, I just don't see a fundamental problem with group x being different from group y on average.

It turns into a problem when you're a member of group x but you have different traits than the average member and people pressure you to get in line. But you can be against that without thinking it's an inherent problem these group differences exist on average in the first place.

I think it's just as problematic to see some problem with women's mating preferences being different from men on average as it is to see a problem with a woman who doesn't fall into that stereotype.

There is nothing harmful in women and men being different on average, that's true. The problem starts as soon as you base categories on it that people need to conform to. We agree about that I guess. I just think it's impossible to have those categories without the pressure, at least in practice

[OccultHawk]

Our genetic successors will not be human in the sense that we are because that is the nature of evolution. Features that don’t make any sense from a evolutionary standpoint as to how we came to be doesn’t make it an evolutionary advantage in the future. So any shifting cultural norm (which is a biological function btw) is by definition an evolutionary shift.

[OccultHawk]

*maybe by default in more correct than by definition

[Frownland]

Ja, culture is biology and they don't negate each other.

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

That’s assuming that consensual sex was even prevalent enough to be a factor during the millions of years it took for that differentiation to happen.

It could be more women wanted short men or didn’t care but taller men (or the pre-human ancestor equivalent to “man”) solved that problem with the reach advantage and fists.

Or since children can't reproduce, men who are closer to their height aren't recognized as sexually mature enough to reproduce. Or maybe tall guys stand in front of short people making them hard to see. Or an infinite set of shifting factors that evolutionary psychology tends to ignore when trying establish archaic behaviours as the Logickal peak of humanity.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

That’s assuming that consensual sex was even prevalent enough to be a factor during the millions of years it took for that differentiation to happen.

It could be more women wanted short men or didn’t care but taller men (or the pre-human ancestor equivalent to “man”) solved that problem with the reach advantage and fists.

that's much more of a stretch tbh

No doubt rape happened but sexual selection in humans was typically on a pair bonding basis. That's not something that would be likely to have an actual impact on the selective pressures. And the idea that trailer men are better at raping women is not even that compelling in the first place. They're would have to be a ****load of rape going on for height differences to manifest in that way.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Marie Monday

There is nothing harmful in women and men being different on average, that's true. The problem starts as soon as you base categories on it that people need to conform to. We agree about that I guess. I just think it's impossible to have those categories without the pressure, at least in practice

that's a catch 22 though

Cause it's also impossible to allow people to do what they want and not expect that they might end up forming into what appears to be groups.

We're pattern seeking animals and we inherently categorize in this fashion. I don't see a way around that.