Surely at some point in history, there was a direct benefit. Is there any now? Does one get better genes for their offspring by going this route?
Assuming the leader has a higher chance of being killed than an average member of the tribe. Also, the ability to acquire resources could be a proxy for good genes.This would be impossible to determine. It seems the risk of marrying-up in a tribe would mean better food for the offspring. However, it seems it could be risky once that relationship ends because the leader found another mate or the leader was killed.
The other end of the deal is to secure loyalty for the leader. With the risk of the offspring dies after the leader it is beneficial to support the leader.it could be risky once that relationship ends because the leader found another mate or the leader was killed.
A small misunderstanding here. This part of the evolution is not about 'getting better genes': it is about securing the survival and spreading of genes. IF it is successful, then it might lead to more 'marry up' genes appearing in society and getting the title of 'better genes' (more accurately: successful genes) through numbers.better genes
Yes, it seems like risk taking is advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint if it's a one time risk. Another example is women being into bold daredevil men. I can't help but think that its because the expected returns for these venturers are in the net positive.The main consideration will be the effect the number of offspring that reproduce in the next generation (fertile offspring).
Marrying up seems to mean access to more resources. This is almost always good for reproduction.
If the length of occupancy at the top of the hierarchy exceeds the time it takes for its first set of offspring to mature and go away;
seems the revenge argument would carry less power (since only the current set of offspring would be in danger).
You have to be careful here not to conflate modern day thoughts with evolutionary thoughts. I don't think women looked at men as daredevils wayback when. There were other criteria which changes from culture to culture and from time to time.Yes, it seems like risk taking is advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint if it's a one time risk. Another example is women being into bold daredevil men. I can't help but think that its because the expected returns for these venturers are in the net positive.
Well yeah, back then the daredevils were warrriors. Now, they are probably business men. I mean it makes perfect sense for women to prefer risk takers. Because of the potential resources obtained for future generations. It's good for men to embark on such a strategy as well. At least in evolutionary terms. For example, If I were to take some risky business venture and fail, im done for. Women would not want to date a broke guy, but my brothers will carry forward the family gene so it's not too bad. If I succeed, then my offspring and their offsprings will have more than enough resources, justifying the one time risk.You have to be careful here not to conflate modern day thoughts with evolutionary thoughts. I don't think women looked at men as daredevils wayback when. There were other criteria which changes from culture to culture and from time to time.
And at every generation, the there is selection for more daredevil like tendencies. Just like there is selection for partners of greater heights. Everyone is tall compared to Lucy. And yet, we still select for the taller of the population at every step of the way, right translating the distribution over time. I think "daredevilness" is similarly selected for. Although, I think it's a bit more complicated, because there's a difference between being a bold James Bond like person and having a suicide wish.The successful daredevils will (by definition) transmit more of any genes underlying their behavior to the next generation, then the less successful daredevils (dead or damaged, non-reproductive).
Less successful daredevils should be filtered out of the breeding population.
It might make it a better choice to select from genetically.
All else being equal I assume.Woman are attracted to men who are equal to or above them in the social hierarchy
@dipole, without clarifying things further, the statements you state above are frankly dubious, to say the least.In Australia, 90% of women aged 45-59 have given birth to at least one child, while 87% of men have fathered a child. Given that the population is basically 50/50, this can only be true if there are some men fathering lots of children, with some men fathering none.
Those who father none are the guys who can't get women. When have you ever heard of a woman who can't get a man?