My hypothesis as to the origin of monogamy is that what ever its "costs", they were considerably less than the alternative which was men fighting to the death over women.
That is how essentially all other species with polygamous mating systems control access to mates. I presume that is what humans would eventually get back to.
Dr. Hanson,I’ve briefly looked over Gary Becker’s work on marriage markets; do you know of any theories of the deadweight losses of monogamy?I came up with the term myself, but I’m assuming someone in the past has fully developed a theory.In a nutshell, I believe that socially and legally forcing people to marry one for one is a sort of quota that creates deadloss effects for society. Monogamy is sexual socialism. It is good for lower-status males, but not as good for high-status males.
This is absolutely true.
The biggest beneficiaries of the liberation of female sexuality (from the confining straightjacket of enforced monogamy) have been highly attractive males and those who learn to copy the behaviours of these males.
A large number of people I know, myself among them, have benefited immensely by having an almost endless supply of 20-29 year-old women to acquire as sexual partners on nearly any terms that can be effectively negotiated, terms which become less and less onerous for us as time passes. Concomitantly, there has been a sharp diminishing of the need to permanently mate, foster children, acquire any real stake in society or form any type of family bond.
It also means there is no compelling reason to consider mating with any women over the age of 29, an effect which can last for many men well into their early 40's.
While this is a massive and unexpected benefit for the 10-15% of males who are sexually cashing in on the changes in socially acceptable female sexual behaviour, and is perhaps very exciting for the 20-30% of minimally attractive women who are engaging in this lifestyle, it's devastating for society as a whole.
In essence, as a society, we are seeing a sharp drop in the number of high-status females and males actually breeding. There are fewer stable family units (for many reasons), and when they do form, they dissolve with almost heartbreaking regularity, and often on what would in the past have been considered spurious grounds.
Males, such as myself, who would otherwise be investing in a real stake in society are, increasingly, missing out on opportunities to do so.
The "players" are avoiding responsibilities but have access to as many attractive women as they desire. They therefore don't need to involve themselves in any projects society may determine to be of value, in order to mate.
As well, a growing segment of male society is essentially barred from mating with females and creating stable breeding units and working towards greater social goals that have real, immediate impact for them as well as long-term positively reinforcing effects on society as a whole.
In effect, female hypergamy, while a positive personal sexual choice for females and the sexually hyperactive males who service them, to the exclusion of the majority of the male population, is stripping our society of its ability to reproduce and create effective and stable social units in which to breed.
And, when it comes down to it, the central, most important and most essential activity of any human population, indeed any living population of any lifeform of any kind, is to breed in the most effective manner possible.
We seem to have forgotten that breeding is the key to more or less everything. Demographics are everything, all the time. And optimal breeding is the very reason we exist.
While I have personally benefited immensely from this sexual revolution, I worry for the fate of our society generally.
I'm afraid I don't understand most of Dr. Hanson's comments. I'm not being snarky; I just don't quite get it. In particular, could anyone rephrase "such attitudes are functional well regardless of which equilibrium is more efficient" or specify what the function is of being first over-confident and later regretful?
The current debate on this trend as explored in the recent TWS article on the "New Paleolithic" is America-centric; if we examine other cultures from Ukraine to Uruguay to Uganda, we'll certainly find very different mating dynamics, rooted in culture, tradition, and different variations on the male-female power dynamic. So let's not pretend that the SATC, liberal female bed-hopping mindset is a universal phenomenon. We have to start with the realization that other society in the world has so seamlessly combined individualism, a rights-vindication culture (bolstered by the necessary legal system), with the tenets of feminism. We are hardly a traditional society.
Our ancestors probably had their first sexual experiences soon after reaching sexual maturity.
No, no, no and no!!!They had their first sexual experiences at the age of 5,6. Read The Sexual Life of Savages by Bronislaw Malinowski. When they reached sexual maturity they had already a vast(1000's of intercourses) amount of experience under their belt.
I have only skimmed through the post and comments, but I thought I'd share a work by a friend of mine: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0753 who shows that it is the "Paleolithic Mating" that led to degeneration of the Y chromosome.
The very day, March 17, 2005, that Scott Peterson—sentenced to death in California for killing his wife and unborn son and throwing their remains into San Francisco Bay—took up residence on San Quentin’s death row, he received three-dozen phone calls from smitten women, including an 18-year-old who wanted to become his second wife. According to an April story in People, Peterson is still being flooded with letters from female admirers almost five years later, many of the mash notes containing checks to pay for his commissary charges. That’s par for the course on death row, where the rule is: The more notorious the killer, the more fan mail and marriage proposals. The most fan-mail-saturated killer in San Quentin is Richard Allen Davis, who in 1993 kidnapped 12-year-old Polly Klaas at knifepoint from her home in Petaluma, Calif., killed her, and buried her in a shallow grave.
For all the Randian and quasi-Randian libertarians out there who tend to be skeptical of these kinds of "game" based analyses, it is interesting to note that Ayn Rand was herself one of these murderer besotted women.
Growth of feminism/empowerment sounds like something that has happened more among more-educated women than among less-educated women (as does your proposed mechanism involving wealth and attitudes towards luxuries), so it's odd to see it as an explanation for a trend that has only happened among less-educated women. When a trend exists among less-educated women but not among more-educated women, I'm skeptical of explanations that seem to predict that more-educated women would show the same trend (or even a stronger version of that trend) and I'm wary of investigations that focus on more-educated women (especially when it's not clear that they realize they're taking the additional inferential step).
So what? Nobody's mentioned the children yet, and yes, humans do still have them now and again. Mate switching isn't ideal for them.
More to the point, monogamy is an adaptation to mass culture - to the illusion of choice. We evolved for very small societies and had the choices we had back then - now we seem, but only seem, to have nearly infinite choices.
Men are almost all betas in adolescence and for some time thereafter, so they learn far more quickly, that the appearance of choice is illusory.
You assume "growing ideals of empowerment and feminism" were only relevant for highly educated women? And since Gottlieb is highly educated, none of her experiences have any overlap with experiences of the less educated?
Of course women with less education face the same tradeoff between settling and waiting, but they've always faced that tradeoff. What's changed to create a trend away from marriage? Gottlieb connects the trend to growing ideals of empowerment and feminism leading sophisticated modern women to feel like they should be strong and independent and not need a marriage to be fulfilled. But if that's what's happening, we wouldn't expect the trend to be concentrated among those with less education.
And since the trend is concentrated among those with less education, we probably shouldn't be looking for insight from the personal experiences of Gottlieb, her friends, a media producer, a successful architect, etc. Well-educated women also face the tradeoff between settling and waiting, and it's fine to focus on their experiences (as Gottlieb does), but we shouldn't confuse their difficulties with a trend that is happening among another group of people.
The Moral Animal says that the development of agriculture facilitated the degree of organisation necessary for decentralised government. As power was trickled down to lower-status (well, middle-status) males, they chose monogamy over polygamy as a social standard. The reason for this was that, without monogamy, all of the women would have accumulated to the high-status males (women would have been better off sharing a male with lots of resources to having one male with few resources).
I predict that as our society becomes more affluent and our lives more comfortable, there is less benefit to being a high-intellect male. We will see a shift back towards alpha males.
My hypothesis as to the origin of monogamy is that what ever its "costs", they were considerably less than the alternative which was men fighting to the death over women.
That is how essentially all other species with polygamous mating systems control access to mates. I presume that is what humans would eventually get back to.
...that may be the most inappropriate smiley I have ever seen.
Dr. Hanson,I’ve briefly looked over Gary Becker’s work on marriage markets; do you know of any theories of the deadweight losses of monogamy?I came up with the term myself, but I’m assuming someone in the past has fully developed a theory.In a nutshell, I believe that socially and legally forcing people to marry one for one is a sort of quota that creates deadloss effects for society. Monogamy is sexual socialism. It is good for lower-status males, but not as good for high-status males.
This is absolutely true.
The biggest beneficiaries of the liberation of female sexuality (from the confining straightjacket of enforced monogamy) have been highly attractive males and those who learn to copy the behaviours of these males.
A large number of people I know, myself among them, have benefited immensely by having an almost endless supply of 20-29 year-old women to acquire as sexual partners on nearly any terms that can be effectively negotiated, terms which become less and less onerous for us as time passes. Concomitantly, there has been a sharp diminishing of the need to permanently mate, foster children, acquire any real stake in society or form any type of family bond.
It also means there is no compelling reason to consider mating with any women over the age of 29, an effect which can last for many men well into their early 40's.
While this is a massive and unexpected benefit for the 10-15% of males who are sexually cashing in on the changes in socially acceptable female sexual behaviour, and is perhaps very exciting for the 20-30% of minimally attractive women who are engaging in this lifestyle, it's devastating for society as a whole.
In essence, as a society, we are seeing a sharp drop in the number of high-status females and males actually breeding. There are fewer stable family units (for many reasons), and when they do form, they dissolve with almost heartbreaking regularity, and often on what would in the past have been considered spurious grounds.
Males, such as myself, who would otherwise be investing in a real stake in society are, increasingly, missing out on opportunities to do so.
The "players" are avoiding responsibilities but have access to as many attractive women as they desire. They therefore don't need to involve themselves in any projects society may determine to be of value, in order to mate.
As well, a growing segment of male society is essentially barred from mating with females and creating stable breeding units and working towards greater social goals that have real, immediate impact for them as well as long-term positively reinforcing effects on society as a whole.
In effect, female hypergamy, while a positive personal sexual choice for females and the sexually hyperactive males who service them, to the exclusion of the majority of the male population, is stripping our society of its ability to reproduce and create effective and stable social units in which to breed.
And, when it comes down to it, the central, most important and most essential activity of any human population, indeed any living population of any lifeform of any kind, is to breed in the most effective manner possible.
We seem to have forgotten that breeding is the key to more or less everything. Demographics are everything, all the time. And optimal breeding is the very reason we exist.
While I have personally benefited immensely from this sexual revolution, I worry for the fate of our society generally.
I'm afraid I don't understand most of Dr. Hanson's comments. I'm not being snarky; I just don't quite get it. In particular, could anyone rephrase "such attitudes are functional well regardless of which equilibrium is more efficient" or specify what the function is of being first over-confident and later regretful?
The current debate on this trend as explored in the recent TWS article on the "New Paleolithic" is America-centric; if we examine other cultures from Ukraine to Uruguay to Uganda, we'll certainly find very different mating dynamics, rooted in culture, tradition, and different variations on the male-female power dynamic. So let's not pretend that the SATC, liberal female bed-hopping mindset is a universal phenomenon. We have to start with the realization that other society in the world has so seamlessly combined individualism, a rights-vindication culture (bolstered by the necessary legal system), with the tenets of feminism. We are hardly a traditional society.
Our ancestors probably had their first sexual experiences soon after reaching sexual maturity.
No, no, no and no!!!They had their first sexual experiences at the age of 5,6. Read The Sexual Life of Savages by Bronislaw Malinowski. When they reached sexual maturity they had already a vast(1000's of intercourses) amount of experience under their belt.
I have a theory on what 80% means on each scale:
http://ahappinessexperiment...
It's not at all obvious to me that "80%" on both scales is even comparable. Without that, the entire line of reasoning fails.
I have only skimmed through the post and comments, but I thought I'd share a work by a friend of mine: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0753 who shows that it is the "Paleolithic Mating" that led to degeneration of the Y chromosome.
Way to demonstrate contempt without contributing anything to the conversation.
The very day, March 17, 2005, that Scott Peterson—sentenced to death in California for killing his wife and unborn son and throwing their remains into San Francisco Bay—took up residence on San Quentin’s death row, he received three-dozen phone calls from smitten women, including an 18-year-old who wanted to become his second wife. According to an April story in People, Peterson is still being flooded with letters from female admirers almost five years later, many of the mash notes containing checks to pay for his commissary charges. That’s par for the course on death row, where the rule is: The more notorious the killer, the more fan mail and marriage proposals. The most fan-mail-saturated killer in San Quentin is Richard Allen Davis, who in 1993 kidnapped 12-year-old Polly Klaas at knifepoint from her home in Petaluma, Calif., killed her, and buried her in a shallow grave.
For all the Randian and quasi-Randian libertarians out there who tend to be skeptical of these kinds of "game" based analyses, it is interesting to note that Ayn Rand was herself one of these murderer besotted women.
See here.
Growth of feminism/empowerment sounds like something that has happened more among more-educated women than among less-educated women (as does your proposed mechanism involving wealth and attitudes towards luxuries), so it's odd to see it as an explanation for a trend that has only happened among less-educated women. When a trend exists among less-educated women but not among more-educated women, I'm skeptical of explanations that seem to predict that more-educated women would show the same trend (or even a stronger version of that trend) and I'm wary of investigations that focus on more-educated women (especially when it's not clear that they realize they're taking the additional inferential step).
So what? Nobody's mentioned the children yet, and yes, humans do still have them now and again. Mate switching isn't ideal for them.
More to the point, monogamy is an adaptation to mass culture - to the illusion of choice. We evolved for very small societies and had the choices we had back then - now we seem, but only seem, to have nearly infinite choices.
Men are almost all betas in adolescence and for some time thereafter, so they learn far more quickly, that the appearance of choice is illusory.
You assume "growing ideals of empowerment and feminism" were only relevant for highly educated women? And since Gottlieb is highly educated, none of her experiences have any overlap with experiences of the less educated?
Of course women with less education face the same tradeoff between settling and waiting, but they've always faced that tradeoff. What's changed to create a trend away from marriage? Gottlieb connects the trend to growing ideals of empowerment and feminism leading sophisticated modern women to feel like they should be strong and independent and not need a marriage to be fulfilled. But if that's what's happening, we wouldn't expect the trend to be concentrated among those with less education.
And since the trend is concentrated among those with less education, we probably shouldn't be looking for insight from the personal experiences of Gottlieb, her friends, a media producer, a successful architect, etc. Well-educated women also face the tradeoff between settling and waiting, and it's fine to focus on their experiences (as Gottlieb does), but we shouldn't confuse their difficulties with a trend that is happening among another group of people.
The Moral Animal says that the development of agriculture facilitated the degree of organisation necessary for decentralised government. As power was trickled down to lower-status (well, middle-status) males, they chose monogamy over polygamy as a social standard. The reason for this was that, without monogamy, all of the women would have accumulated to the high-status males (women would have been better off sharing a male with lots of resources to having one male with few resources).
I predict that as our society becomes more affluent and our lives more comfortable, there is less benefit to being a high-intellect male. We will see a shift back towards alpha males.