in conditions of turmoil, women can generally do no better than to choose as randomly as men, preferring the certainty of successful reproduction to the uncertainty of seeking out a partner for preferred phenotype.
Not sure if I understand your point, but this just seems plainly wrong. Not sure what qualifies as turmoil, but generally, a strong partner is better than a weak one, a smart partner is better than a dumb one, etc.
Do you have any evidence of women actually choosing their partners randomly?
You are right: other things being equal, strong is better than weak; smart than dumb.
I haven’t defined turmoil and if I’m honest my definition would be a tad circular: ie, (to take this example) conditions where it is impossible for a woman to choose between strong and smart.
My concept is “as randomly as men”, ie for subjective attraction rather than other phenotypic features, where I hope you will agree we hardly want for evidence.
Not sure if I understand your point, but this just seems plainly wrong. Not sure what qualifies as turmoil, but generally, a strong partner is better than a weak one, a smart partner is better than a dumb one, etc.
Do you have any evidence of women actually choosing their partners randomly?
You are right: other things being equal, strong is better than weak; smart than dumb.
I haven’t defined turmoil and if I’m honest my definition would be a tad circular: ie, (to take this example) conditions where it is impossible for a woman to choose between strong and smart.
My concept is “as randomly as men”, ie for subjective attraction rather than other phenotypic features, where I hope you will agree we hardly want for evidence.