[phkahler]

>> It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group.

Not buying the notion of females selecting more docile males. Women almost unversally tend to be attracted to alpha male characteristics and often get into trouble chasing that type of guy. The ones who want more docile men are often those who got burned by someone at the far end of the aggression spectrum. This is a form of selection, but it's not a mechanism that would change females natural preferences.

[devit]

The thing is that if you are an established "alpha male" either in the hierarchical sense or in the sense that you are self-sufficient, there is little need to engage in intra-group aggression, and in fact that would likely be detrimental as others are more likely to want to strip you of leadership roles if you are violent to them.

So it's quite possible (but uncertain) that women are attracted to dominance and leadership but not so much to physical violence itself, especially if the women does not think it serves any purpose, or if it shows weakness ("can't get any respect, so resorts to physical violence").

[krapp]

>The thing is that if you are an established "alpha male" either in the hierarchical sense or in the sense that you are self-sufficient, there is little need to engage in intra-group aggression, and in fact that would likely be detrimental as others are more likely to want to strip you of leadership roles if you are violent to them.

The tribal and clan-based politics of most of human history would seem to disagree with you. It's only relatively recently, post Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, that "alpha-male status" wasn't often established or leadership imposed directly through violence, albeit mediated through some kind of "code of honor" which usually only applied amongst nobles.

Look at classical literature. Who are the heroes? Often not merely poets, scholars or subtle artisans - but the men who carve their name out of the world in blood, the soldiers and warrior-kings.

[phkahler]

>> So it's quite possible (but uncertain) that women are attracted to dominance and leadership but not so much to physical violence itself, especially if the women does not think it serves any purpose, or if it shows weakness

Somewhat agreed. Some women enjoy watching physical male violence in various forms and circumstances - particularly if it involves protecting them or their children. Confidence pushed to the extreme ends to look like arrogance. Taking action can look like aggression. Face it, if you're a female and want your genes to survive, who should you mate with? Someone who can make their own way in the world and can defend himself against threats. The undesirable (to others) extreme of that is to leave a path of carnage in your wake (excessive dominance).

>> The thing is that if you are an established "alpha male" either in the hierarchical sense or in the sense that you are self-sufficient, there is little need to engage in intra-group aggression...

There may not be a need for it, but if that's what it took to get established what makes you think someone is going to turn that crap off? See Trump as an example. There's a lot of overlap between the desirable and undesirable traits - so much so that I don't think biological "instinct" is refined enough to tell the difference in many cases.

[Charlaxy]

What is the effect of males selecting for docile females on future sons and daughters? Or do you believe that males aren't discriminating?

[zamalek]

Thousands to tens of thousands of years ago, who knows? This article isn't about modern society and modern problems.

[phkahler]

>> What is the effect of males selecting for docile females on future sons and daughters? Or do you believe that males aren't discriminating?

What makes you think males get to select a mate? And who deliberately goes for a docile female?

[krapp]

>What makes you think males get to select a mate

We're not talking about insects, or birds, we're talking about human beings. Humans don't select mates, we select partners with whom we may or may not mate, and the process of selection is social, mutual and complex.

[phkahler]

>> We're not talking about insects, or birds, we're talking about human beings.

Well aren't we special then.

We're talking about evolution, so the part of "we select partners with whom we may or may not mate" where people don't mate is not even relevant. In fact, if there is a genetic component to not mating, it is selected against in evolutionary terms.

I thought we were talking about what people are attracted to (i.e. make one feel like mating), not who they like to hang out with - if you find both of those characteristics in one person that's great and I think we all strive for that. But don't kid yourself that humans don't have primitive instinctual drives governed by biology and evolution.