[ckrapu]

An assumption here is that attractive men both pair with women at a higher rate and also have more children. I don't see any reason that's the case - the very largest families I am aware of in my extended social circle belong to men who are not necessarily the greatest catches.

[corethree]

>An assumption here is that attractive men both pair with women at a higher rate and also have more children. I don't see any reason that's the case - the very largest families I am aware of in my extended social circle belong to men who are not necessarily the greatest catches.

Three things.

1. Attractive is not physical attraction. While men are visual women have different criteria for attraction that is much more multivariate. Wealth, confidence, looks, power, personality. Generally, overall social status and height are the two most consistent metrics for female attraction preferences.

2. What I'm describing is a recent phenomenon. A gradual shift that we're seeing in the last decade or so, so relationships established at the beginning of 2010 and before tend to be more traditional/conservative.

3. Birth control changes the game. Evolution manifests procreation as both a conscious desire to have children and as sexual urges from men and women. Thus I may be incorrect here. It may be that thanks to birth control alpha men may not spread their progeny as much and that people in healthy monogamous relationships end up creating the next generation as hook up culture essentially is an evolutionary dead end with birth control.

[hadlock]

> 2. What I'm describing is a recent phenomenon. A gradual shift that we're seeing in the last decade or so, so relationships established at the beginning of 2010 and before tend to be more traditional/conservative.

There is room for considerable bias here;

1. Most generations consider their immediate neighbors more and less conservative, going back and forward respectively

2. People become more conservative with age; particularly when major investments are in play such as a home purchase and having children. It's a small coincidence that children and mortgages both take about 20 years to come to fruition.

[corethree]

>There is room for considerable bias here;

Agreed. But the issue with bias is that the biased person is unable to visualize their own bias. They always think the other party is biased. Unfortunately I believe that out of both of us here, the bias actually lies with you but you're unable to see it. Here's why:

>1. Most generations consider their immediate neighbors more and less conservative, going back and forward respectively

Yeah, but i'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a general trend towards liberalism. The past decade brought about a general liberal movement outside of the one where people get more conservative with age.

That much is obvious. Society is shifting towards more and more woke-ism, feminism which is good in some ways but in other ways it's becoming extremist on those fronts. It's so extreme that many of the liberal policies in California are causing an exodus where people move to more conservative states like arizona and texas.

>2. People become more conservative with age; particularly when major investments are in play such as a home purchase and having children. It's a small coincidence that children and mortgages both take about 20 years to come to fruition.

I'm talking Monogamy and polygamy. Not finances or investments or law. For example in the 60s women sex before marriage was not normal. Now a body count of 5+ among women before marriage is considered normal. But you realize this has nothing to do with mortgages, children or major investments.

The bias here lies with the fact that you see things through the lens of politics. I'm talking about anthropology and biology. It's human Behavior and psychology... Not politics.