@adam-l

Second, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality, and be just a superstimulus. That's how psychopathy holds a niche in societies. It's not women's business to contain it: that's left to the wider society. Women have notoriously narrow social scope, and their limiting switches are external.

Well it's essentially novelty within a scope, right. So traits that are novel or stand out from the rest of her social bubble are going to stand out and be attractive.

But those attractive traits still generally follow the same playbook. Good looks, tall, strong, social proof, status, provisioning etc.

My point is that today there is really nothing inherently "good" about the female sexual strategy boosting "good" male genes. Whether a "superstimulus gene" proves adaptive, neutral or maladaptive takes several generations, and has no straightforward relation to the person's wellbeing.

Evoluiton is inherently about trying random shit and seeing what sticks. But the idea of passing on better genes to your offspring is pretty hardwired.

But it's also selfish. If she can mate with a "good genes" guy, there's at least a chance she can get some benefit from said guy.

@adam-l I totally agree that pedestalling female sexual strategy seems to be the entire substrate of a lot of this society's art, literature, TV and film. This is, amusingly enough, a social construct.

The left like to tell us that facts like gender are social constructs. That is untrue. They are reality.

What is true that a fact like female dual sexual strategy can be used to create a social construct. Society has worked very successfully without unchecked female sexual strategy being dominant but we are tod this is the way of the world. It would be constraining and morally wrong if it were otherwise. this is a social construct that is damaging society.

Where it gets interesting is in the interplay between the sexual strategies. This is where art, film and literature suddenly start to become powerful. But this is very rare today. When one sex is on top, the other has to get very creative. Today men are getting creative. Life is getting interesting again.

@First-light

Let me elaborate:

I'm not claiming that "nothing inherently good". Obviously, looks is inherently good, and related to good health.

I mainly have psychopathy in mind, as well as other "fast life" genes.

The most represenaltative example is Huntington's disease. It's genetic, leathal, and has a higher representation in the population than what would be expected, mainly because it leads to disinhibition, and women like that.

So, a specific trait that is attractive to females "might have nothing to do with adaptive quality". This is the area of "genetic viruses".

Mine is all an argument against the pedestalization of the female sexual strategy. I believe that nowadays, that it is endorsed by the system and is protected from the male-sociey's checks, it is detrimental rather than adaptive, the same way a virus let loose on a virgin population.

I was reading Rollo's takedown of the Mate Switching Hypothesis in favor of the Dual Mating Strategy and I want to raise an issue that is monumental, but doesn't receive the proper attention.

It has to do with the "good genes" part of the DMS. First thing, "good genes" means "good in the context of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA)". That much is acknowledged.

Second, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality, and be just a superstimulus. That's how psychopathy holds a niche in societies. It's not women's business to contain it: that's left to the wider society. Women have notoriously narrow social scope, and their limiting switches are external.

Evolution famously proceeds in random directions.

My point is that today there is really nothing inherently "good" about the female sexual strategy boosting "good" male genes. Whether a "superstimulus gene" proves adaptive, neutral or maladaptive takes several generations, and has no straightforward relation to the person's wellbeing.

@adam-l "Women's limiting switches are external" -brilliant pithy line.

The hive is their greater limiter. This is why the way that "good" women behave is so different in different countries and at different times in history.

I am not so sure about the "nothing inherently good" point. I think the process has proved to be inherently good because over history it has led to more success than failure for the offspring and therefore for the genes of the woman and the man she selects. Evolution is a 4 D process and we only see the good over time. What actually happens in this one 3 D slice of the genes' history is not as important as the overall picture. Getting knocked up by Chad who then vanishes may not do Stacy any good but Chad junior may become quarterback on a big team one day and knock up a lot so cheerleaders.

The hive itself has some idea of what is likely to be good genes to select. Men the hive pre-selects are more likely to be good choices. This pre selection is itself to some extent 4 dimensional. Women have boosted young Chad and his confidence all the way from his grandmother to the girls who wish they were Stacy. They all boost him because he appears to have good value.