D
Deleted member 17997
don't be jealous asshole
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2022
- Posts
- 1,219
- Reputation
- 2,316
(speaking from a kind of Selfish Gene perspective).
(In fact at one point it was typical for only 1 in 17 men to reproduce and get ALL 17 women. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success)
Its rational for women to follow a crowd more, as she needs to make sure she is not one of those 20% that don't reproduce. Her odds of having 2-5 kids just depend on her not messing up too much. She better not stick out, she better conform. Don't make enemies, be agreeable and sociable and likeable. But being part of that 20% is hardwired as a huge fear.
Whereas a man, on average, is not actually going to reproduce at all, statistically. So he better take risks and find some kind of niche skill or talent that will bring in lots of resources for his tribe. Or he must go around secretly sleeping with other mens' women. Or he better be bigger and stronger and more violent than other men, so that the other men do not dare take his woman/women for fear of death. Or he must be crafty and intelligent enough to hunt a tough animal that the other men could not.
And if you are at that time 8000 years ago when 1 in 17 men would get ALL 17 women, and 16 men did not reproduce: you better be the most violent, psychopathic, cunning, intelligent, risk taking, brutal son of bitch to be the guy to cut 16 genetic lines single handedly. Or maybe a group of 10 of you take on 160 other men and take all their women.
Anyway, when you see all the people who got rich of Bitcoin, or lost/won the dotcom boom, or won whatever other games follow a power-law distribution... thats why the gender ratio is the way it is. (In fact its because the minimum commitment to creating a baby is 5 years for a woman and 5 minutes for a man - the best strategies for spreading genes for men are get resourceful and deadly enough to claim all women).
Low status and/or high testosterone men see opportunity in high risk strategies. Historically that means violent uprisings. Today, some will become nazis or communists. Or some high testosterone men have lots of one night stands around clubs and bars. One thing capitalism does well is getting the kinds of people who used to "take a huge risk to win it all" to - instead of starting a violent uprising - do a crazy high risk tech startup that either gets nothing or is worth billions. It is a net positive for society rather than a net negative.
When you look at how marketing differs between genders it follows this. Ads for men are about get-rich-quick schemes, fast cars, status objects.... how to become that top 40%, that 1 in 16. Adverts for women fear based; they tap into fear of becoming the bottom 20%, and what you must do to avoid it, how you must conform to your peers and get this product because you're-not-one-of-us if you don't.
Of course some men are quite feminine and some women are quite masculine. We are talking about means and medians but the Guassians overlap http://www.bzarg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/gauss_joint.png
(In fact at one point it was typical for only 1 in 17 men to reproduce and get ALL 17 women. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success)
Its rational for women to follow a crowd more, as she needs to make sure she is not one of those 20% that don't reproduce. Her odds of having 2-5 kids just depend on her not messing up too much. She better not stick out, she better conform. Don't make enemies, be agreeable and sociable and likeable. But being part of that 20% is hardwired as a huge fear.
Whereas a man, on average, is not actually going to reproduce at all, statistically. So he better take risks and find some kind of niche skill or talent that will bring in lots of resources for his tribe. Or he must go around secretly sleeping with other mens' women. Or he better be bigger and stronger and more violent than other men, so that the other men do not dare take his woman/women for fear of death. Or he must be crafty and intelligent enough to hunt a tough animal that the other men could not.
And if you are at that time 8000 years ago when 1 in 17 men would get ALL 17 women, and 16 men did not reproduce: you better be the most violent, psychopathic, cunning, intelligent, risk taking, brutal son of bitch to be the guy to cut 16 genetic lines single handedly. Or maybe a group of 10 of you take on 160 other men and take all their women.
Anyway, when you see all the people who got rich of Bitcoin, or lost/won the dotcom boom, or won whatever other games follow a power-law distribution... thats why the gender ratio is the way it is. (In fact its because the minimum commitment to creating a baby is 5 years for a woman and 5 minutes for a man - the best strategies for spreading genes for men are get resourceful and deadly enough to claim all women).
Low status and/or high testosterone men see opportunity in high risk strategies. Historically that means violent uprisings. Today, some will become nazis or communists. Or some high testosterone men have lots of one night stands around clubs and bars. One thing capitalism does well is getting the kinds of people who used to "take a huge risk to win it all" to - instead of starting a violent uprising - do a crazy high risk tech startup that either gets nothing or is worth billions. It is a net positive for society rather than a net negative.
When you look at how marketing differs between genders it follows this. Ads for men are about get-rich-quick schemes, fast cars, status objects.... how to become that top 40%, that 1 in 16. Adverts for women fear based; they tap into fear of becoming the bottom 20%, and what you must do to avoid it, how you must conform to your peers and get this product because you're-not-one-of-us if you don't.
Of course some men are quite feminine and some women are quite masculine. We are talking about means and medians but the Guassians overlap http://www.bzarg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/gauss_joint.png
