/sci/ - Science & Math

i'd like to know why strong and smart are mutually antagonistic. i'd also like to know how much this is analogy and anthropomorphism.

Worked for me in high school.

So you're proposing smart beta males seduce an alpha male so that the beta can later fuck the alphas girlfriend? Do I got that right?

sauce?

That's how i was born.

>>4572122

Hey, it worked for the Greeks.

THIS SPECIES, IT WAS EVOLVED FOR ME.

all my fetishes.

It's a trap

what if all female mates of an alpha happen to be males by some chance (its not a little chance btw)?/???

>>4572121

http://forgetpolitics.tumblr.com/post/20790680440/for-anyone-who-only-sees-gender-and-sex-in-black

pic related: my fetish

>>4572169
this is a furry recruitment thread
holy shit
...sign me up

>>4572182

what the fuck is the matter with you.

>>4572169
omg i can't stop cum

>>4572169
So I can rub penises and not be gay? I'm in!

>>4572169

Lion King makes too much fucking sense now

>>4572197
>

>>4572169
yabbut female hyenas have to give birth THROUGH their clitpenises, which causes them to split open and sometimes kills them.

>>4572666

No, the birth canal is separate from the pseudopenis

>>4572116
>i'd like to know why strong and smart are mutually antagonistic.
They're just two different local optima.

So if you're one or both, awesome. If you're neither, GTFO.

>>4572703
No, he had it right, you've got it wrong.

They copulate and give birth through the pseudopenis.

>>4572122
It doesn't work so well if you have external genitalia. You can't really fake not having a cock - at least not without clothing.

>>4572715
But being both only helps if it's about being the big male and detecting fake females better. If you're only sorta big and strong, you can't pretend to be female OR beat the big male, and you're out of luck.

and then you realize humans aren't cuttle fish. Enjoy your friendzone, betas.

>>4572169
I like how they imply that this has any bearing on human gender roles.

human females like males of differing morphotypes depending on the time of the month.

promiscuity is the presumed similarity, though we assume that our women (unconsciously) want to have babbies with big men and get little men to raise them.

>>4572756
It negates the idea of an objective "how things should be and always are" for sex in general.

But you're right that it doesn't change any arguments about what is or should be for human sexuality - just attacks arguments that there's only one possibility.

Of course, anyone with any background in anthropology can tell you that norms of sexuality aren't uniform across world cultures.

its exactly the opposite in humans though

the strong and well hung come behind the smart's back and mate with their female while they're in work

>>4572805
That's the stereotype, anyway.

>>4572805
In the modern world, the kind of intelligence/ability that brings money, status and power is the real "strength". It's what determines social hierarchy. So it's really the same - women want to be with rich and successful men (at least officially).

>>4572812

thats a good point, in an economy, intellligence is the "strenght", and the jocks behavior is actually a weakness

>>4572824
>and the jocks behavior is actually a weakness
Unless he also has enough intelligence to navigate the business world successfully. Then being tall and handsome gets you more money and power than you'd get otherwise. (This is especially true among executives).

So maybe mind is more important than body for actual performance, but our old heuristics about body -> status are still present too.

>>4572812
>women want to be with rich and successful men (at least officially)

Exactly, but they'll fuck the personal trainer you hired for her and whose pay is coming out of your account.

>>4572832

well if he has enough business intelligence, he qualifies as an intelligent person, regardless of appearance, maybe he gets cheated too

>>4572805
okey, evo-psych is bullshit but it explains this one. Women want studlyman sperm to provide genes for their offspring, but they want a rich husband to provide food/status for their offspring. So their optimal strategy is to marry a rich guy and cheat on him with the poolboy.

>>4573093
>Women want studlyman sperm to provide genes for their offspring
Which is funny, because this is no longer optimal. But hey, we're just following programming that wasn't even designed - it's not exactly optimal anyway. Evolution hasn't caught up to the modern environment (and probably never will before we just reengineer ourselves).

OP's image depicted something interesting, but, I am not sure how he is coming to some conclusions.

1. He says "the female picks the big and strong male." Isnt that a bit unrealistic? I think the image is projecting a kind of human sense of consent into these animals. I am not saying these male cuddle fish are just raping these females, but that is certainly not beyond the scope of nature.

2. Second it says "they actually prefer the smaller and smarter males" How do you know that? Obviously these big males are still in existence. What probably happened is there is an equilibrium. If there are too many big males, the small faminine males become more attractive and vice versa. And since this sexual selection has been going on for a while they have been in this ballance for a long time.

3. At the end it says "She gets smart and strong children." That phrase has the potential to suggest each individual child is both smart and strong. Which is not true. She would be impregnated by the sperm of both men. Each child will be the decedent of either a strong or smart cuddle fish.

4. The dichotomy of "smart" and "strong" is misleading. The feminine male cuddle fish isnt "smarter", it just looks like a girl. It didnt make some rational choice about how to get laid, it just looks like a girl. There is nothing more complicated to it. I think this is another example of projecting human values into these fish.

>>4573125
you sound like an anti-cuddlefish nazi

>>4573132

As a matter of fact, I am an anti-cuddle fish nazi.

>>4573125
>1.
The females have volition in where they go. The male is stuck guarding his nesting site.

>2.
They mate with the smaller males too. You're right that he's reaching, but they obviously take up the chance when it's offered. But explain your reasoning - why would the small males be MORE attractive just because they happen to become scarce?

>3.
I only took it to mean she got some of each, depending on which sperm fertilizes a given egg.

>4.
They do far more than just passively look feminine. They alter their behavior to deceive the local male, and only engage in this behavior in the presence of that male.

>>4573146

2. >but they obviously take up the chance when it's offered
Yeah, well they take up every opportunity.

>why would the small males be MORE attractive just because they happen to become scarce?

Imagine this. Imagine there are only big strong males. The system is just big strong males guarding nests from other big strong males. Now imagine that suddenly a feminine male comes into existence. The incentive to fuck that male is HUGE because you know ALL of his decedents will be getting laid. The females might recognize that this feminine male is going to be able to penetrate every defense in every nest.

Vice versa is true too. If you have a bunch of feminine men and a bunch of females all having a huge polygamous orgy all the time, and then a big male who is willing to take a female and gaurd her in his nest. That big male becomes extremely attractive, because you know his decedents will have exclusive privileged over a guarded female.

Its a bit hard to explain with cuddle fish, but this is just game theory. The technical term for this strategy is "SLF" (sneaky little fuck). We see it in a variety of species.

3. >I only took it to mean she got some of each, depending on which sperm fertilizes a given egg.

Okay fair enough

4. >They alter their behavior to deceive the local male, and only engage in this behavior in the presence of that male.

Thats interesting, dont get me wrong. But, I dont think that implies intelligence.

I wouldnt have made the criticizism if someone said "Oh look how smart that cuddle fish is." But as soon as you say "The female likes that one because its smart" it becomes misleading. It prefers it because its being reproductive successful by means of deception. Its being "sneaky."

size is related to ontogeny.

little cuddlefish of today are big ones tomorrow.

falacies, falacies errywhere.

>>4573203

>Implying cuttlefish are sentient and capable of considering breeding strategy in mate selection.

No, the trapfish get it because the females are receptive to mating once in a secure nest. They don't care if they are mating with the male that is securing the nest or the trapfish.

The mock-females are a successful breeding strategy for now, but if too successful could lead to an evolutionary dead end as the ability to make and defend a nest is breed out of the population.