= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jsalvatier comments on Unknown knowns: Why did you choose to be monogamous? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (651)
I recall one of the Evolutionary Psychology books I read discussing this (I think it was The Moral Animal). It claimed that polygamy was relatively beneficial to high quality males and low quality females; high quality males would end up with more mates and low quality females would end up with a higher quality mate than they would otherwise. For the same reasons, monogamy was relatively beneficial to low quality men and high quality females; low quality men would have a higher chance of finding a mate at all and high quality females would end up with a higher quality mate.
Don't you mean that high quality females would wind up with the exclusive attention of a high quality mate? The quality itself probably doesn't change between scenarios.
I was thinking of "quality" as "overall attractiveness".
I didn't suggest otherwise.
Interesting point, thanks. I enjoy living in a mostly-monogamous society way better than the alternatives, and your comment gives us old hats a new weapon against those pesky free-love liberals: elect girls who win beauty contests into positions of power. Shouldn't be too hard.
...Wait, did I just confess to being a low-quality male?
Is that a backhanded reference to a certain U.S. Vice-Presidential candidate?
Whaa? I'm not in the US and don't even know what you're talking about :-)
Sarah Palin?
er, I suppose I should specify that this refered to polygyny