Skip to main content

Cheating

Cheating in its simplest form involves supporting something, and then letting it down. If you see yourself as a collection of attributes of all kind, be it physical, mental, spiritual or otherwise, then your friends support most of them. It is a network of selection in which more people support, or select, the same things together (what they like, what they do, etc.). If one of your friends suddenly selects something which goes against everything else, say a radical view on things, then you are likely to completely abandon them and stop calling yourself their friend. Even more, you might make them your enemy.

Imagine the same goes for relationships, but more extreme, and with the involvement of a more relevant selection tool: sex. Evolutionarily speaking, it is easy to figure out why sex has become such an important selection tool, by the use of reproduction of genes. But through the ages, as humans started artificially modifying their environment, the separation of sex and reproduction, on a behavioural level, is apparent. Humans do not have a ticker in the back of their heads "telling" them to have sex so they have children. Quite the opposite is true, where those who enjoyed sex more in the distant past inevitably passed on their genes by reproduction, therefore producing modern humans, most of whom have a strong sex drive, and big potential for physical pleasure.

This urge is a by-product of that selection, and drives people today. The ability to control actual reproduction leaves sex in its own right as a selection tool, among others such as laughter. That is why we perceive a strong selective bond between those who have sex with each other. For example, if two people have sex, then they are perceived to support all their attributes, their looks, beliefs, character, etc. Hence, it is ridiculous to suggest people with contrasting attributes would have sex; for example, good looking people with unattractive people, smart people with dumb people, etc. Of course, the reality of it is different, because different people value different attributes more than others. Some are prepared to overlook everything for wealth only.

It is no surprise, therefore, that your partner having sex, or getting along with (both of which are selection tools), a potential partner whose attributes are different to yours, is so outraging. We see ourselves as a unique mix of attributes, so being cheated on is never going to be acceptable. Still, some people overlook it, or do it themselves without showing any resentment. Some people "get over it". The way this happens is either by diluting the act of cheating, and considering it a weaker selection tool (for example, having sex doesn't mean anything more than a physical act), or by reaching the conclusion that the partner still supports you more than whoever they cheated with.

The more sexual partners someone has, the more diluted sex becomes for them. Someone who has only had one partner all their life is more likely to consider sex very important in showing selection, or support for someone, while someone who has had sex with countless meaningless people is more likely to deem it as "overrated" and not associated with supporting anyone.

Check back next time for a post on High-end products of Human artificial selection. You know, like designer shoes and iPads.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

By-products of Evolution - why not everything has a purpose

Last time we looked at how certain major adaptations such as hair loss have enabled humans to survive over the millennia in different conditions, and when faced with competition from other species. Not everything about the human body has a specific purpose, though, in the sense that we expect it to. One example of such thing is the philtrum - that little channel leading from the base of your nose to the upper lip. Recent research suggests that this development dates back millions of years, and has been inherited from fish. Apparently, when human embryos develop their face in the womb, all parts of the forehead, mouth, etc come together and fuse where the philtrum is located.


Some adaptations, on the other hand, are no longer relevant not because of their nature, but because the environmental selection pressure for which they evolved has disappeared. For example, an East Asian's typical eyelid shape evolved as a result of higher light intensities in that area of the world, yet the …

The evolution of the human body

In order to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be able to answer the question "Why do I look like this?", we must look back to our ancestry and their lifestyle, over a very long period of time. For the purpose of this analysis, let's look at the human versus the neanderthal. Recently there have been found neanderthal genes within the human gene pool, but the two species are different enough to compare, yet not too different (human versus fly would be too different).

As you can see, the construction of the human pelvis and toes is different, and the human has less hair. This results in humans being able to run easily for long distances, in the detriment of short-distance running which we are worse at. We sweat better, so we can do more long-term effort. This feat is essential to better settlements, as we can discover a larger area with potentially better resources. It might seem counterproductive to not be able to run quickly for a short period, when it comes …

4 Reasons Google's Calico Won't "Solve Death"

The on-line world has been taken ablaze by Calico's bid to end ageing, and thus death itself, but is this what they will actually focus on, and will they achieve it?



The fact is ageing will be reversed, and death by "natural causes" will go with it. The questions are "When?" and "By whom?".

Until recently, not a lot was known about the approach Calico would take in this venture dubbed "moonshot thinking" - a term touted by Google as the source of all considerable human progress throughout history. This we don't doubt, but is this what Calico is all about?


CNN's Dan Primack has revealed details about Calico's plan, which hint at a less-than-moonshot thinking approach, and cast a serious question mark on its ability to deliver the punchy TIME headline. Here is why:

1. The man with the idea, Bill Maris, arrived at the conclusion that the root of all death-causing disease is simply ageing itself. Not only is this widely known in the ant…