730. Research Concerning The Distinction Between Alley Dogs And Nice Guys
In previous entries I have been speculating about the observed strong distinction between annoying predators and nice considerate guys.
In previous entries I have been speculating about the observed strong distinction between annoying predators and nice considerate guys.
Long ago, while still being ignorant of evolutionary effects, I naively thought most men to be nice guys, and the predators to be sick exceptions. I attributed being approached by too many disgusting men as an envisaged target for abuse as bad luck.
Then I learned the sad reality from evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. Predators were and are those most successful in forcing procreation upon women. Because there also were some decent nice guys, I started to speculate about what then seemed the most plausible, which is a continuous scale of instinctivity between two extremes. Yet following also my admittedly biased inclinations derived from my personal experiences, I compared the two extremes mostly as if there were a dichotomy. Alley dogs, whom I loathe, at one extreme, and those nice guys, who are suitable as a partner, at the other extreme, seemed to be the most recognizable.
The following research confirms, that I was not completely wrong in my bias towards the dichotomy.
Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women
Rafael Wlodarski , John Manning , R. I. M. Dunbar
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/2/20140977
"In all comparative analyses, humans always fall on the borderline between obligate monogamy and polygamy. Here, we use behavioural indices (sociosexuality) and anatomical indices (prenatal testosterone exposure indexed by 2D : 4D digit ratio) from three human populations to show that this may be because there are two distinct phenotypes in both sexes. While males are more promiscuous and display higher prenatal testosterone exposure than females overall, our analyses also suggest that the within-sex variation of these variables is best described by two underlying mixture models, suggesting the presence of two phenotypes with a monogamous/promiscuous ratio that slightly favours monogamy in females and promiscuity in males."
"The extent to which any one individual pursues a short-term mating strategy (‘unrestricted’ strategy involving promiscuous mating with multiple partners) or a long-term mating strategy (‘restricted’ strategy favouring the formation of exclusive and extended pair-bonds) has been referred to as their ‘sociosexual orientation’"
"Although these two strategies could well just be opposite ends of the same continuum, it has sometimes been assumed (albeit without any real evidence) that these represent two distinct male phenotypes: those that pursue a more promiscuous, unrestricted mating strategy (‘stray’) and those that focus on investing more heavily in their offspring in long-term relationships (‘stay’) ...... Although individual differences in female mating strategies have sometimes been noted in the literature ....., the possibility that women might also exhibit contrasting mating strategies has received considerably less attention."
"The SOI-R indexes an individual's psychological degree of sexual promiscuity on a continuum running from restricted (monogamous) to unrestricted (promiscuous). The 2D : 4D ratio is an anatomical marker for fetal testosterone exposure and testosterone receptor-site density ....., and reflects the level of prenatal testosterone effects in the adult phenotype ..... Across primates, 2D : 4D ratio correlates with mating system ..... and provides a biological marker for mating strategy."
"Modelling confirmed the existence of two phenotypes within each sex, one of low (restricted) sociosexuality and the other of high (unrestricted) sociosexuality. High-sociosexuality males make up a slightly larger proportion of the male distribution in each case, and low-sociosexuality females make up a slightly larger proportion of the female distributions."
The 2D:4D ratio is calculated by dividing the length of the index finger of the right hand by the length of the ring finger of the right hand. A longer index finger will result in a ratio higher than 1, while a longer ring finger will result in a ratio of less than 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio
