The specific preferences as to which “type” of individual is desirable, however, is born out of other factors related to sociocultural material conditions, and is probably unique to each person.
No doubt, but given what material conditions have been since humanity's appearance 300,000 years ago, a 'softcoded' preference for a strong provider of a partner made sense in retrospect; men can be violent and unpredictable and a reliable food surplus wasn't guaranteed, so having a loyal partner who is capable of violence and resource acquisition seems a decent idea; as time goes on and civilization refines, that need for a killer on your side goes away, but the cultural inertia from those prior conditions continues onward
I say 'softcoded' because maybe humanity did evolve into certain preferences, but these preferences could just as easily evolve away (eventually) as material conditions change. Example: the preference for tall men (seems like this is exaggerated in Europe/American compared to everywhere else for some reason). Makes sense 300,000 years ago, maybe, but now with heights increasing and food/nutrient availability, that preference is becoming a holdover, and given how heights over 6.5ft. lead to joint problems, back pain, increased cancer risk, heart issues, blood clots, banging head on doorframes, .etc it becomes counterintuitive
Some things are even softer than softcoding and are purely about material conditions; pale skin was valued because it was associated with not having to labor, now a nice even tan is valued because it means you have the time to hit the beach and aren't stuck in a cubicle. Further preferences are residue from settler-colonialism or just extrapolations of class relations (India's caste system, etc.)
Men being fascinated with curvy women and women's preferences briefly changing during ovulation makes sense evolutionary, sure, despite being unnecessary now, but how much of that 'softcoding' is over-reinforced by culture? I don't know
Their conceptions of masculinity are all related to being the ideal male worker in a competitive market framework, which trickled down from the capitalist elite.
That seems... recent. I think it's more that culturally-approved traits trickle down from the ruling class in general--feudal lords to their knights (chivalry, etc.), Greek leaders to their hoplites, etc. in order to maintain control. What we see in the past 200 years is just the newest iteration
I'm not a biologist, so this is just me throwing petri dishes of DNA at a wall and seeing what happens
... I still feel like we're talking about slightly different things, tell me if I'm not responding well here
No doubt, but given what material conditions have been since humanity's appearance 300,000 years ago, a 'softcoded' preference for a strong provider of a partner made sense in retrospect; men can be violent and unpredictable and a reliable food surplus wasn't guaranteed, so having a loyal partner who is capable of violence and resource acquisition seems a decent idea; as time goes on and civilization refines, that need for a killer on your side goes away, but the cultural inertia from those prior conditions continues onward
I say 'softcoded' because maybe humanity did evolve into certain preferences, but these preferences could just as easily evolve away (eventually) as material conditions change. Example: the preference for tall men (seems like this is exaggerated in Europe/American compared to everywhere else for some reason). Makes sense 300,000 years ago, maybe, but now with heights increasing and food/nutrient availability, that preference is becoming a holdover, and given how heights over 6.5ft. lead to joint problems, back pain, increased cancer risk, heart issues, blood clots, banging head on doorframes, .etc it becomes counterintuitive
Some things are even softer than softcoding and are purely about material conditions; pale skin was valued because it was associated with not having to labor, now a nice even tan is valued because it means you have the time to hit the beach and aren't stuck in a cubicle. Further preferences are residue from settler-colonialism or just extrapolations of class relations (India's caste system, etc.)
Men being fascinated with curvy women and women's preferences briefly changing during ovulation makes sense evolutionary, sure, despite being unnecessary now, but how much of that 'softcoding' is over-reinforced by culture? I don't know
That seems... recent. I think it's more that culturally-approved traits trickle down from the ruling class in general--feudal lords to their knights (chivalry, etc.), Greek leaders to their hoplites, etc. in order to maintain control. What we see in the past 200 years is just the newest iteration
I'm not a biologist, so this is just me throwing petri dishes of DNA at a wall and seeing what happens
... I still feel like we're talking about slightly different things, tell me if I'm not responding well here