PATREON EXCLUSIVE: Is Evolutionary Psychology A Complete Science and Fully Explain Female Psychology?

Thank you very much for your overall well-fundamented input here, well appreciated and indeed the theory of evolution is an extremely strong one...

Thank you Alex, I bought the book, maybe if you have more literature hints to offer you should think of affiliate links and being amazon partner in this case for example...

In this post-modernist world, biology is often denied entirely in favor of a 100% nurture perspective. So this crowd also is very hostile to arguments based on evolutionary biology. In fairness, such analyses should be taken with a grain of salt. Evolution is often applied with a broad brush to explain anything in a manner that can't be falsified ("this animal is dully colored because of evolutionary reason 1, but this other animal is brightly colored because of evolutionary reason 2"). But the point of such analyses is to create heuristics, and heuristics are evaluated by how well they work, and any man who acts as if hypergamy is true has far more success than those who deny it. QED.

William Mullen

The main problem with social sciences is that they operate on Guassian curves as opposed to binary true/false like hard sciences. So it can only reveal "trends", and outliers typically exist. The problem here is that this allows people to seize on outliers to rationalize and confirm their biases. It's a general truth that men are physically stronger than women, but someone intent on denying this will seize on outliers to defy the general truth ("Rhonda Rousey is stronger than Stephen Hawking, so the idea that men are stronger than women is WRONG!!!"). The same is true with hypergamy. It reveals ugly truths, so to deny it, people are always pointing to outliers. "See, not ALL women are like that!" Sure, but pointing to outliers fails to disprove a general trend, and this tends to obscure how rare outliers actually are (only 2.5% of people are more than 2 standard deviations above the mean).

William Mullen

It seems to me that you're defining hypergamy too narrowly, as if it has only to do with resources. In fact, it applies to all 4 of female's dating metrics (looks, resources, status, "game"/charisma), so those "psychological and biological reasons" that you mentioned are actually within the categorical set of "hypergamy". It's an error to think that hypergamy ever lessens in a woman. This causes marriages/relationships to "grow apart" because the man "relaxes" and stops catering to her hypergamy, which over time causes her to look elsewhere. And since women live in a dating world of abundance, and there are no social/financial incentives to incentivize her not to look to trade up, the slightest dissatisfaction with her current partner plus her ever-present orbiters can lead to her withdrawing from and ultimately ending the relationship. I made it 15 years with a high-quality woman, but fell afoul of the above dynamic. I can only shake my head at younger men who have been married, say, 5 or 10 years and act like they've got it all figured out and that female outliers abound. Give it time, lol.

William Mullen

Hi Alex! Although I find most of what you say to be true, and I'm not the kind of guy to nitpick about little details which I disagree with, I do have to say that I strongly disagree with you when it comes to how you described hypergamy in women. You said that women have biologically evolved a hypergamous instinct (that is correct), which means they want to secure the highest value man they can. Fair enough. However, you then went on to say that women are not always going to obey that instinct even if their partner is of a "lower value" than the high value man (which I also agree with), but you said that's because they don't mind being with a broken person, have a religious reason that prohibits them from doing it, or are otherwise a 'rescuer type personality'. I find this to be a strange explanation because, in a sense, you're still implying that women SHOULD continue to follow their hypergamous instincts to their logical extremes, even though you say that it's not right! I think that these reasons seem to border on suppression of instincts, which means they're unnatural. I think that there are psychological and biological reasons that dominate women besides hypergamy. You see, I don't think that hypergamy is the end-all-be-all in women's nature. Women also desire security, comfort, and stability, not just financial and material resources. I find that sometimes you get so focused and honed in on hypergamy that you often forget about this crucial piece of female biology. So to conclude, there are moral and biological reasons why women don't continue searching for high value men, the same way why many men also don't allow their interest in sexual variety to supersede their devotion to their one woman. Otherwise, we would have a jungle lifestyle on our hands. Other than that, as usual, great video!

Anosh Orahim

I never wanted children. I never react to children the same way as other women. Never felt a “biological clock” ticking. I’m not sure why that is though - whether it is an individual psychology issue or (as I jokingly tell people) that I lack the “mom” chip in my DNA. I share this because there are some female thought processes/behaviors you mention tied to evolutionary science that I exhibit to a T and others I don’t at all, or to a much lesser extent. And, where there are differences, I often try to assess whether it’s likely because of the no kids thing. It’s fascinating trying to understand what influences are present and how they piece together to make us the individuals we are today.