I wasn't particularly thinking that self-attractiveness was necessarily bound to conscious self-awareness, although I am open to that possibility in at least some mammals (and possibly some birds or even cephalopods). However, I do wonder what processes an animal invokes when it "decides" that it can, or cannot, compete with any other given individual.nitsuj said:In people sure, but my reply was to Ryan_m_b in the context of "straight line comparisons" and I doubt male peacocks have insecurity issues or other self-awareness issues.
No, it doesn't attempt to explain anything but dressing up. Mostly, it's meant as an alternative to your explanation which was arrived at by "thinking about it for a short while". If we're using that method, my explanation is a good as yours. You're basing your opinion on your interpretation of the motives of your circle of friends, without even having polled them, much less having conducted some more scientific investigation. By "thinking about it for a short while" I can interpret my circle of friends differently.Ryan_m_b said:I don't think this is a sensible approach. It boils down to trying to explain all human/animal social interaction in terms of one facet.
No that's not what I was basing it on at all, the "thinking about it for a while" statement was to point out that it doesn't take long to think of a big flaw in the argument.zoobyshoe said:No, it doesn't attempt to explain anything but dressing up. Mostly, it's meant as an alternative to your explanation which was arrived at by "thinking about it for a short while". If we're using that method, my explanation is a good as yours. You're basing your opinion on your interpretation of the motives of your circle of friends, without even having polled them, much less having conducted some more scientific investigation. By "thinking about it for a short while" I can interpret my circle of friends differently.
Thinking about it, I wonder if there might be a small flaw in your parenthesized clause? Does the possibility exist that people continue to "dress up" to maintain the "mated" state by continuing to be sufficiently attractive that the other half a) does not feel the need to seek alternatives or b) feels the need to prevent competitors moving in on their mate? In addition, the dresser-up might not have purely monogamous intentions ...Ryan_m_b said:No that's not what I was basing it on at all, the "thinking about it for a while" statement was to point out that it doesn't take long to think of a big flaw in the argument.
Also it doesn't matter that you only intend this long term strategy idea to apply to dressing up, it can still be applied to pretty much any social interaction. You are reducing the whole field of fashion and everything it is used for to "it's to get a mate, eventually" (ignoring the fact that people don't stop dressing up once they have a mate).
Ryan_m_b said:No that's not what I was basing it on at all, the "thinking about it for a while" statement was to point out that it doesn't take long to think of a big flaw in the argument.
Also it doesn't matter that you only intend this long term strategy idea to apply to dressing up, it can still be applied to pretty much any social interaction. You are reducing the whole field of fashion and everything it is used for to "it's to get a mate, eventually" (ignoring the fact that people don't stop dressing up once they have a mate).
NemoReally said:Thinking about it, I wonder if there might be a small flaw in your parenthesized clause? Does the possibility exist that people continue to "dress up" to maintain the "mated" state by continuing to be sufficiently attractive that the other half a) does not feel the need to seek alternatives or b) feels the need to prevent competitors moving in on their mate? In addition, the dresser-up might not have purely monogamous intentions ...
This is another example of confusing sexual dimorphism with fashion. A peacocks feathers are part of its body and are the product of sexual selection. Choosing what to wear and why is an artefact of a social construct.nitsuj said:Does a peacock lose it's feathers after finding a mate?
I really don't think the situation needs to be made complicated to be an equivalent behavior,
2112rush2112 said:I always speculated that the reason why women wear high-heeled shoes (such as pumps and the like) is they give them an advantage (albeit a deceptive one) in attracting the taller male.
There is enormous selection pressure being imposed on the height of our species, with our species getting taller with each millenia; nay, with each generation. Women just want a mate that's as tall or taller than her father, hence the selection pressure. To this end, I hypothesize, women will wear the high-heeled shoe, because the added increase in her height will make her more attractive to the taller male. The deception no doubt works in both the workplace and the nightclub.
But after further and somewhat tedious observation, I noticed it's the tall women--not the short women--who are likely wearing the high-heeled shoe. Why is this? Three out of every four women I see wearing high-heeled shoes are tall women! I can't figure this one out! Why would an already robust woman want to accentuate a physiological quality that's already somewhat abnormal in appearance?
This thread is directed mostly at the ladies. Ladies, is there something about the high-heeled shoe that your taller friends just don't see? Or are they trying to go from Linebacker to Quarterback deliberately? And what of the shorter-statured womanfolk? Why do they not exploit the advantage of the high-heeled shoe to acquire the taller male?
I am utterly confounded by high-heeled shoes! They must represent something, but what?