BTW, I didn’t say women only go out with “jerks”, but they often do. And don’t expect me to say that evolution programmed women to love jerks. My bet is that evolution programmed women to be attracted to confident men (many of whom are jerks) - a point so obvious I doubt anyone will seriously disagree.
If you didn’t mean to say that, you should edit this part:
“I used to be one of those poor guys who complained that ‘Girls say they want nice guys, but they only go out with jerks!’ Merely reading enough evolutionary psychology to understand why this is the case...”
My bet is that evolution programmed women to be attracted to confident men (many of whom are jerks) - a point so obvious I doubt anyone will seriously disagree.
I do, actually. Women aren’t robots, and evolution isn’t sapient. We aren’t actually “programmed” by evolution any more than we were “designed” by God. And I don’t share your intuition that confidence correlates highly to jerkitude. In fact, I think overcompensating for low self esteem is one of the primary failure modes that leads to jerkitude.
I will agree that confidence is sexy, but I’m deeply skeptical of made-up just-so-stories that purport to explain social circumstances by reference to the ancestral environment. I’d really be interested in seeing your answer to mni’s comment here, since it sums up my problems with evopsych very concisely—and while it’s been upvoted a lot, nobody has actually answered her.
If you didn’t mean to say that, you should edit this part:
Lol, oops. Yes, not what I meant. Edited.
As for programming, I apparently use that term in a weaker sense than you do. I’m aware that humans are not computers.
On mni’s comment: I read only that one comment, and I mostly agree with it. This is a common critique of evo-psych in general, and is salient for many claims of evo-psych. I’d have to spend more time than I have now if I want to respond in a way I’d be happy with, though.
As for programming, I apparently use that term in a weaker sense than you do. I’m aware that humans are not computers.
I’m sorry if that sounded condescending. The word “programmed” rubs me the wrong way when applied to women, specifically. Maybe because it always does seem to be the women who are “programmed”; men mostly get to be “strategists,” rational actors following an evolutionary strategy. It’s just a vocabulary distinction, but it’s annoying when you’re always cast as the sexbot rather than the strategist.
Thanks for explaining; this did not occur to me. I haven’t encountered this particular sexism or—just as likely—haven’t noticed it. In my sense of “programmed”, men and women are equally “programmed.”
Love that wiki article!
BTW, I didn’t say women only go out with “jerks”, but they often do. And don’t expect me to say that evolution programmed women to love jerks. My bet is that evolution programmed women to be attracted to confident men (many of whom are jerks) - a point so obvious I doubt anyone will seriously disagree.
If you didn’t mean to say that, you should edit this part:
“I used to be one of those poor guys who complained that ‘Girls say they want nice guys, but they only go out with jerks!’ Merely reading enough evolutionary psychology to understand why this is the case...”
I do, actually. Women aren’t robots, and evolution isn’t sapient. We aren’t actually “programmed” by evolution any more than we were “designed” by God. And I don’t share your intuition that confidence correlates highly to jerkitude. In fact, I think overcompensating for low self esteem is one of the primary failure modes that leads to jerkitude.
I will agree that confidence is sexy, but I’m deeply skeptical of made-up just-so-stories that purport to explain social circumstances by reference to the ancestral environment. I’d really be interested in seeing your answer to mni’s comment here, since it sums up my problems with evopsych very concisely—and while it’s been upvoted a lot, nobody has actually answered her.
Lol, oops. Yes, not what I meant. Edited.
As for programming, I apparently use that term in a weaker sense than you do. I’m aware that humans are not computers.
On mni’s comment: I read only that one comment, and I mostly agree with it. This is a common critique of evo-psych in general, and is salient for many claims of evo-psych. I’d have to spend more time than I have now if I want to respond in a way I’d be happy with, though.
I’m sorry if that sounded condescending. The word “programmed” rubs me the wrong way when applied to women, specifically. Maybe because it always does seem to be the women who are “programmed”; men mostly get to be “strategists,” rational actors following an evolutionary strategy. It’s just a vocabulary distinction, but it’s annoying when you’re always cast as the sexbot rather than the strategist.
Thanks for explaining; this did not occur to me. I haven’t encountered this particular sexism or—just as likely—haven’t noticed it. In my sense of “programmed”, men and women are equally “programmed.”
I prefer to use the word ‘optimized’. Does the job just fine, with only 1⁄4 of the objections!
I prefer the term ‘endowed’ because our adaptations are often sub-optimal.