I Am Not an Easy Man

There’s an inverse relationship between power and perspective taking. Why is that? Because a person of power doesn’t need you. They don’t need to listen to you or understand you. They have the ability to do what they want, regardless of the will of others.

According to evolutionary psychology, women should be attracted to men who have power, social status, and money, but is it all three combined, or is one more important than the other? Can they be separated? 

Is status only determined by income, i.e. resources?

What’s the difference between status and power?

(May 27, 2018 02:31 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: There’s an inverse relationship between power and perspective taking. Why is that? Because a person of power doesn’t need you. They don’t need to listen to you or understand you. They have the ability to do what they want, regardless of the will of others.

According to evolutionary psychology, women should be attracted to men who have power, social status, and money, but is it all three combined, or is one more important than the other? Can they be separated? 

Is status only determined by income, i.e. resources?

What’s the difference between status and power?

Well, since status has been highly correlated with wealth or power for much of our history, psychologically, they are likely difficult to differentiate...at least where female attraction is concerned, since attraction largely operates subconsciously. The appearance of status often seems sufficient.

Outside of attraction, status is a social currency that does seem to differ from physical or economic power. A funny, but otherwise weak and poor, guy can have much more social currency (among men and women) than power. Smart people can convert social capital into actual capital.

There have been studies that show that the more wealthy are less considerate or cognizant of others. I'm not sure if you could tease apart whether that is directly due to a lack in perspective taking. Successful people seem to have a very good understanding of the motives and desires of others, in the market and negotiations. So I would tend to say it's the reverse. Instead of the powerful not needing others, the consideration shown by the less wealthy is a result of their need for others. As that need diminishes, so does the behavior that encourages others to reciprocally take our own perspective.

(May 27, 2018 09:48 PM)Syne Wrote: Well, since status has been highly correlated with wealth or power for much of our history, psychologically, they are likely difficult to differentiate...at least where female attraction is concerned, since attraction largely operates subconsciously. The appearance of status often seems sufficient.

Outside of attraction, status is a social currency that does seem to differ from physical or economic power. A funny, but otherwise weak and poor, guy can have much more social currency (among men and women) than power. Smart people can convert social capital into actual capital.

There have been studies that show that the more wealthy are less considerate or cognizant of others. I'm not sure if you could tease apart whether that is directly due to a lack in perspective taking. Successful people seem to have a very good understanding of the motives and desires of others, in the market and negotiations. So I would tend to say it's the reverse. Instead of the powerful not needing others, the consideration shown by the less wealthy is a result of their need for others. As that need diminishes, so does the behavior that encourages others to reciprocally take our own perspective.

In other words...

"Status: prestige, respect and esteem that a party has in the eyes of others ... an index of the social worth that others ascribe to an individual or a group. Status originates externally and is rooted in the evaluations of others through status-conferral processes."

"Power is best conceptualized as control over critical resources — that is, outcome control."

And...

"Raw power makes people less sensitive to the wants and needs of others.  Presumably, power focuses people on the resources they control rather than the people around them.  In contrast, status increases people’s focus on others.  Status is based on other people’s opinions.  As a result, maintaining status requires paying attention to other people.[1]

We have Weber's three p's:

• Prestige is a significant factor in determining one's place in the stratification system. The ownership of property is not always going to assure power, but there are frequently people with prestige and little property.
  

• Property refers to one's material possessions and their life chances. If someone has control of property, that person has power over others and can use the property to his or her own benefit.
  

• Power is the ability to do what one wants, regardless of the will of others. (Domination, a closely related concept, is the power to make others' behavior conform to one's commands). This refers to two different types of power, which are possession of power and exercising power. For example, some people in charge of the government have an immense amount of power, and yet they do not make much money.
  

What was that Holly Dunsworth said?  Oh, yeah…she said, "And it's as if women don't exist at all in these tales except as objects for males to fight over or to fuck but it's nice to have choice!"

But according to Coyne sexual dimorphism is driven primarily by male-male competition, competing for and protecting females.  

So, which is it?  Do we want physical protection or resources?  

Raw power or status?

Without having thought about it very much...
In my experience male/male friendships and/or 'associations' (possibly wrong word) are easy and tend to be the result of common interests and/or common goals - expedient might cover it. SS and I have agreed (elsewhere) that marriage (to one female) means the end of a male's friendships with other females. The common interests and/or common goals in male/female friendships are unlikely to include a game of golf, car maintenance or ... I give in, I can't think of anything else ... EXCEPT SEX ... and this is the problem.

(May 28, 2018 12:14 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(May 27, 2018 09:48 PM)Syne Wrote: Well, since status has been highly correlated with wealth or power for much of our history, psychologically, they are likely difficult to differentiate...at least where female attraction is concerned, since attraction largely operates subconsciously. The appearance of status often seems sufficient.

Outside of attraction, status is a social currency that does seem to differ from physical or economic power. A funny, but otherwise weak and poor, guy can have much more social currency (among men and women) than power. Smart people can convert social capital into actual capital.

There have been studies that show that the more wealthy are less considerate or cognizant of others. I'm not sure if you could tease apart whether that is directly due to a lack in perspective taking. Successful people seem to have a very good understanding of the motives and desires of others, in the market and negotiations. So I would tend to say it's the reverse. Instead of the powerful not needing others, the consideration shown by the less wealthy is a result of their need for others. As that need diminishes, so does the behavior that encourages others to reciprocally take our own perspective.

In other words...

"Status: prestige, respect and esteem that a party has in the eyes of others ... an index of the social worth that others ascribe to an individual or a group. Status originates externally and is rooted in the evaluations of others through status-conferral processes."

Sounds good.

Quote:"Power is best conceptualized as control over critical resources — that is, outcome control."

Capability does not automatically equate to outcome control, only outcome influence.

Quote:And...

"Raw power makes people less sensitive to the wants and needs of others.  Presumably, power focuses people on the resources they control rather than the people around them.  In contrast, status increases people’s focus on others.  Status is based on other people’s opinions.  As a result, maintaining status requires paying attention to other people.[1]

No, again that's reversed. People with resources are less consumed with said resources, because they are further removed from direct survival. They may be focused on power, but that may include paying attention to others. Whereas the poor are consumed with resources, due to their relative scarcity. People and their attention value scarcity. Likewise, people with social status are actually less concerned with others, because people ingratiating themselves is in ample supply, and too much attention on others actually diminishes social capital...unless those others, themselves, already possess social capital. People do not confer status on the needy.
So it's overly simplified to say there's a direction correlation between economic/social status and focus on others. The less wealthy may have a need to encourage mutual aid, and the wealthy may have a desire for cooperation.

Quote:What was that Holly Dunsworth said?  Oh, yeah…she said, "And it's as if women don't exist at all in these tales except as objects for males to fight over or to fuck but it's nice to have choice!"

As romance novels and rom-coms demonstrate, there are a good many women who enjoy such scenarios, even though they now have the same opportunities for wealth and status. A woman perceives a man to have status because he can provide things she cannot, or would prefer not to, provide herself.

Quote:But according to Coyne sexual dimorphism is driven primarily by male-male competition, competing for and protecting females.  

Actually, Coyne says sexual dimorphism is primarily the result of sexual selection by females.

The ratios are greater in some primates (gorillas have values of about 84!), but if they’re greater than 1, there’s room for sexual selection, since there are more males seeking females than there are females available as mates. This itself is one bit of evidence for the operation of sexual selection in humans.

Now how the sexual selection actually operated in our ancestors is not perfectly clear. Some of it, as the data suggest, involves male-male competition: fights between males to control females, as we witness in gorillas, deer, and elephant seals. Females are more or less constrained to mate with the winning males. Or females may prefer to mate with the biggest and strongest males, for those males may protect their offspring—and hence the female’s genes—better than do smaller, weaker males. (This gives an evolutionary advantage to those females who can discern and choose the best males.)

Both of these factors can, of course, work at the same time, and there are other more arcane forms of sexual selection I won’t mention, including other signs in males of “good genes”. But any sexual-selection scenario goes along with a difference in sexual behavior, explaining why, even today, males are more promiscuous and willing to mate than are the choosier females.
- https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...ns-part-2/

You'd have to be cherry-picking to arrive at a solely male-competition conclusion. Because if males primarily controlled females, there's no good explanation for the development of choosier female behavior.

Quote:So, which is it?  Do we want physical protection or resources?  

Raw power or status?

Resources usually equate to physical protection.
Power and status are not dichotomous, since each can contribute to the other.

(May 28, 2018 01:15 AM)confused2 Wrote: Without having thought about it very much...
In my experience male/male friendships and/or 'associations' (possibly wrong word) are easy and tend to be the result of common interests and/or common goals - expedient might cover it. SS and I have agreed (elsewhere) that marriage (to one female) means the end of a male's friendships with other females. The common interests and/or common goals in male/female friendships are unlikely to include a game of golf, car maintenance or ... I give in, I can't think of anything else ... EXCEPT SEX ... and this is the problem.

There's also a certain camaraderie between men. Since men promote the best among them (man-crush, loyalty, etc.), there's a kind of collective tacit male agreement on which gain social status. There's little evolutionary psychology for men to share such relationships with women, or vice versa, and from what I understand, that kind of thing may even be foreign between women (outside of jealousy).
That men and women have natural gender differences isn't a problem that any amount of social engineering can ever overcome. To the contrary, studies have shown that the more gender egalitarian a society the greater the expression of gender differences. I've always been doubtful about truly, mutually platonic relationships between the sexes. The closest seems to be between women and gay men.

So what to do?
Chaperones for ladies?
Part of the problem seems to be that mothers aren't telling their daughters what to expect from men.
Should the employer take responsibility for the actions of it's employees?
Should every male/female meeting during work hours be recorded for use as evidence in the event of a dispute?
Should women be required to sign a "I can take care of myself." agreement which absolves the employer for any responsibility for what happens to them outside of Health and Safety legislation?
Should men be included as hazards to Health and Safety?

(May 28, 2018 01:15 AM)confused2 Wrote: Without having thought about it very much...
In my experience male/male friendships and/or 'associations' (possibly wrong word) are easy and tend to be the result of common interests and/or common goals - expedient might cover it. SS and I have agreed (elsewhere) that marriage (to one female) means the end of a male's friendships with other females. The common interests and/or common goals in male/female friendships are unlikely to include a game of golf, car maintenance or ... I give in, I can't think of anything else ... EXCEPT SEX ... and this is the problem.

Ouch!  

Syne Wrote:Some of it, as the data suggest, involves male-male competition: fights between males to control females, as we witness in gorillas, deer, and elephant seals. Females are more or less constrained to mate with the winning males. Or females may prefer to mate with the biggest and strongest males, for those males may protect their offspring—and hence the female’s genes—better than do smaller, weaker males.

Do you think that there is a correlation between height and intelligence?

Syne Wrote:To the contrary, studies have shown that the more gender egalitarian a society the greater the expression of gender differences.

And what about the social role theory? What are your thoughts on that?

"Evolutionary psychologists have contended that sex differences in mate preferences reflect the unique adaptive problems experienced by men and women as the evolved.  The sexes presumably developed different strategies to ensure their survival and maximize their reproductive success.  Evolutionary psychologists have given some attention to within-sex individual difference in preferences and behavior, although they have not acknowledge the importance of gender ideology or other predictors derived from social role theory.  

These finding lend support to the hypothesis that traditional attitudes toward the roles of men and women serve to guide mate choices by fostering sex-typed mate preferences. Results from a nine-nation sample revealed that, to the extent that participants had a traditional gender ideology, they exhibited greater sex-typing of mate preferences. These relations were generally stable across the nine nations."

Is Traditional Gender Ideology Associated with Sex-Typed Mate Preferences?

C2 Wrote:Part of the problem seems to be that mothers aren't telling their daughters what to expect from men.

I didn't know that. I didn't know that we couldn't be friends. I grew up with boys. I spent most of my time with them. If anything, my father should have told me that, but I'm not entirely sure that he felt that way. He had four sisters. They were really close.

me Wrote:Without having thought about it very much...

Now I wish I'd thought about it more.

(May 28, 2018 12:40 PM)confused2 Wrote: So what to do?
Chaperones for ladies?
Part of the problem seems to be that mothers aren't telling their daughters what to expect from men.
Should the employer take responsibility for the actions of it's employees?
Should every male/female meeting during work hours be recorded for use as evidence in the event of a dispute?
Should women be required to sign a "I can take care of myself." agreement which absolves the employer for any responsibility for what happens to them outside of Health and Safety legislation?
Should men be included as hazards to Health and Safety?

First off, we should allow men to be raised as men, and promote intact families, where there's some chance of a positive male father figure (for both boys and girls) and better parenting in general. Second, we can admit that some religious/moral values are empirically good of society. Third, we can stop this stupid pretense that women are equal to men in every regard, which implies men can proposition women just like they'd like to be propositioned. Fourth, we can have stricter work dress codes.
Then women need to speak up, regardless of fear of being shamed or career setbacks. Not just in a "movement", but when it happens (not a decade or more later)...every time, with names, disciplinary actions, and charges, if warranted. If employers do not act, especially on multiple complaints about the same person, they should be held accountable for the hostile work environment. A man and a woman probably shouldn't meet alone for business, to protect both of them (one from potential assault and the other from malicious fabricated accusations). And women should arm themselves.

(May 28, 2018 01:37 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

Syne Wrote:Some of it, as the data suggest, involves male-male competition: fights between males to control females, as we witness in gorillas, deer, and elephant seals. Females are more or less constrained to mate with the winning males. Or females may prefer to mate with the biggest and strongest males, for those males may protect their offspring—and hence the female’s genes—better than do smaller, weaker males.

Do you think that there is a correlation between height and intelligence?

There's no belief necessary for a demonstrated correlation. Unless you're making the mistake of conflating correlation with causation.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:To the contrary, studies have shown that the more gender egalitarian a society the greater the expression of gender differences.

And what about the social role theory? What are your thoughts on that?

"Evolutionary psychologists have contended that sex differences in mate preferences reflect the unique adaptive problems experienced by men and women as the evolved.  The sexes presumably developed different strategies to ensure their survival and maximize their reproductive success.  Evolutionary psychologists have given some attention to within-sex individual difference in preferences and behavior, although they have not acknowledge the importance of gender ideology or other predictors derived from social role theory.  

These finding lend support to the hypothesis that traditional attitudes toward the roles of men and women serve to guide mate choices by fostering sex-typed mate preferences. Results from a nine-nation sample revealed that, to the extent that participants had a traditional gender ideology, they exhibited greater sex-typing of mate preferences. These relations were generally stable across the nine nations."

Is Traditional Gender Ideology Associated with Sex-Typed Mate Preferences?

Role theory is largely garbage and not even science. It's an excuse to attack others, or society in general, for the results of individual choices.
What, more traditional people aren't seeking to buck the trends? Shocking.
It would be more meaningful if they had also gauged relationship satisfaction in comparison to degree of traditional mate preference.

(May 28, 2018 09:06 PM)Syne Wrote: First off, we should allow men to be raised as men, and promote intact families, where there's some chance of a positive male father figure (for both boys and girls) and better parenting in general. Second, we can admit that some religious/moral values are empirically good of society. Third, we can stop this stupid pretense that women are equal to men in every regard, which implies men can proposition women just like they'd like to be propositioned. Fourth, we can have stricter work dress codes.
Then women need to speak up, regardless of fear of being shamed or career setbacks. Not just in a "movement", but when it happens (not a decade or more later)...every time, with names, disciplinary actions, and charges, if warranted. If employers do not act, especially on multiple complaints about the same person, they should be held accountable for the hostile work environment. A man and a woman probably shouldn't meet alone for business, to protect both of them (one from potential assault and the other from malicious fabricated accusations). And women should arm themselves.

The demand for European-style pastries in China is already increasing the demand for butter.  If that was to happen, there could be a major butter crises.  Better stock up, ladies.