Often yes. But within-sex coalitions can be “cartel-like” in a way that is dysgenic, analogous to how economic cartels reduce economic competition. Within-sex coalitions are often more about military than evolutionary fitness. For instance, consider this quote from the Futurist Manifesto:
We want to glorify war—the only cure for the world—militarism,
patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas
which kill, and contempt for woman.
The pattern of enforced monogamy is also a product of within-sex coalitions; it reduces the level of competition among males compared to the evolutionary average.
The pattern of enforced monogamy is also a product of within-sex coalitions; it reduces the level of competition among males compared to the evolutionary average.
Not sure what you mean by this, as the link goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestor. Do you mean in the long run, all males in a monogamous society will have the same expected number of children?
If within-sex coalitions are common and adaptive, isn’t being good at the politics of those coalitions “eugenic” also?
Often yes. But within-sex coalitions can be “cartel-like” in a way that is dysgenic, analogous to how economic cartels reduce economic competition. Within-sex coalitions are often more about military than evolutionary fitness. For instance, consider this quote from the Futurist Manifesto:
The pattern of enforced monogamy is also a product of within-sex coalitions; it reduces the level of competition among males compared to the evolutionary average.
Not sure what you mean by this, as the link goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestor. Do you mean in the long run, all males in a monogamous society will have the same expected number of children?
“Some research suggests that the average person has twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors”