jsalvatier comments on Unknown knowns: Why did you choose to be monogamous? - Less Wrong

48 Post author: WrongBot 26 June 2010 02:50AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (651)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: bentarm 26 June 2010 10:42:40AM *  4 points [-]

Steve Landsburg makes a fairly plausible case that monogamy is essentially a cartel formed by men to prevent them having to work too hard to keep onto their wives:

imagine a one-husband one-wife family where an argument has begun over whose turn it is to do the dishes. If polygamy were legal, the wife could threaten to leave and go marry the couple next door unless the husband conceded that it is his turn. With polygamy outlawed, she does not have this option and might end up with dishpan hands.

If true, this would suggest that women have more to gain from polyamory than men on average (although high-status men might well have the most to gain).

Comment author: jsalvatier 28 June 2010 12:11:19AM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Alicorn 28 June 2010 12:15:16AM 7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: jsalvatier 28 June 2010 11:53:43PM 0 points [-]

I was thinking of "quality" as "overall attractiveness".

Comment author: Alicorn 29 June 2010 12:03:04AM 2 points [-]

I didn't suggest otherwise.

Comment author: cousin_it 29 June 2010 12:21:10AM *  2 points [-]

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?

Comment author: CronoDAS 29 June 2010 04:40:45AM 0 points [-]

Is that a backhanded reference to a certain U.S. Vice-Presidential candidate?

Comment author: cousin_it 29 June 2010 08:45:10AM 0 points [-]

Whaa? I'm not in the US and don't even know what you're talking about :-)

Comment author: saturn 29 June 2010 09:00:50PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: jsalvatier 28 June 2010 12:14:51AM 0 points [-]

er, I suppose I should specify that this refered to polygyny