There's an even simpler hypothesis.
-
-
Replying to @gcochran99 @buck_tulson
You have a massive selective event for men ~10k years ago. There's no such selective pressure for women. There's no mtDNA selective bottleneck to radically change women's nature so they get minor tweaks to the old behavioral program which is still there and ready to activate.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
My argument isn't the one you discussed here - that sexual dimorphism in behavior developed, it's that women have an older behavioral program (play men against each other) that got tweaked (be faithful to a tribe-backed husband) http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003689.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @buck_tulson
The behavior under discussion doesn't exist today ( in the populations looked at - mostly European) and there's good evidence that it's been rare for centuries. Simplest explanation: the idea is just wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @buck_tulson
What behavior do you think doesn't exist? Women absolutely are polygynous today. It shows up anecdotally in "polyamory" where men share a woman, it shows up common experience where top men have harems of women that also have rotations of men and it shows up formally in GSSpic.twitter.com/xBq8nIVSuZ
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
who people have sex with is a very different subject when the sex isn't procreative, probably the 'you are married to this woman and you think the kid is yours but it isn't' rate is probably not that far from historical norms.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Exactly that. Women have behaviors that result in low incidence of reproduction unless some man forces her to stop. This doesn't show up in false paternity but it does show up in other sources of data.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Well, my simple counter is that you're pretty much wrong. It's amazing how often that is the case for someone's exciting new theory.
3 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @lugubrioso @CovfefeAnon and
The known rates for hundreds of years before, say, 1950, are of course not evidence.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Of course it's evidence, the question is what is it evidence of; could be evidence that women are wired to always cooperate and never defect - could be evidence that women are unlikely to defect when society makes that choice dangerous. Remove that danger to distinguish.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.