The Brutal Truth About Female Attraction - Macken Murphy

your area of expertise, penis size preferences. What's happening? >> Uh, are we talking about women's penis size preferences? >> Uh, yeah, sure. >> Okay. So, slightly slightly far field of my of my expertise. No. Yeah. Um, okay. So women's penis size preferences are a bit of an emotional roller coaster I think um for the men listening because when I have the the experience of presenting on this topic uh what I see is kind of a crescendo of oh that sounds really good to realizing it it's not as good as it sounds. Um so the best study on this subject comes from Pruss and colleagues and what they looked at was um what they looked at was women interacting with real 3D models of various um you know penis shaped objects um cylinders essentially and had them pick and choose which one they actually favored. And the reason that this study design is more powerful than just asking women, you know, what size do you prefer? Um, the reason that this is powerful is because it gets around issues of misreporting due to not knowing how big or small a given size is. >> How many times has someone said I think that's about it's about 6 in from the left, isn't it? You know, when you're trying to put a picture up or something, you have no idea how big inches are. >> And and when we're dealing with things that, you know, are all things considered on the scale of like couches and cars and things relatively small, you know, an inch off that's 20 to 15% off. >> Also, they're not judging their penis preference based on how big it is to look at, which is what you would be doing or in terms of memory. You would be doing it based on feel. >> Right. Exactly. So, that's that's a really good point. So, in terms of you can ask women on a pen and paper survey, you know, like what size do you prefer? Um, but even if you get like a really consistent answer of like seven inches, you still don't know that they know what 7 in actually is, right? And there's actually good reason to suspect uh because men, you know, over report their own penis size and that likely causes some kind of mass confusion as to what got penis inflation effect. >> Yeah, exactly. where it's like men are saying that they're a certain size and so women are maybe learning about sizes through that in >> Yeah, exactly. And then that's coded. Um so unlabeled 3D models, I would say that's the gold standard if you actually want to learn um what size is preferred >> and the size. >> What are they doing with them? >> Ju just interacting with them. uh just going in and picking. And uh in terms of length, it was uh 6.3 in for a long-term relationship, 6.4 in for a short-term relationship. So that's uh if I if I'm correct, maybe 16 to 16.25 um cm. Uh and then in terms of circumference, 4.8 in uh for long-term, 5 in around um for shortterm, which is somewhere on the order of 12.2 to 12.7 cm. Uh, and so when men hear that, they typically think, "Oh, that sounds pretty good, right?" Like that doesn't sound that big. Uh, that because of, you know, what's socially said about size. And so this is kind of the peak of the emotional roller coaster where it's like, "Oh, things are really good. Things are really great. Uh, you know, the view is fantastic from here." Um, but then you look at uh men's p perception or at least their statement of their own size versus their actual size and you see that men overestimate their own size by about 20%. Right? Which is a lot. Uh, so rule of thumb, uh, men are usually about an inch smaller than they think or at least an inch smaller than they say. >> Again, that that's quite a bit. 21% was was the figure from the study I'm quoting. >> Um, so where does that leave us? Well, in actual fact, the average man's penis, uh, according to a meta analysis of 17 studies, uh, is about 5.16 in when erect, right? Um, and that would leave 6.3 in as about 95th percentile, right? Um, now 95th percentile, what is that? Uh, that's about as common as a man being 6'2. So, it's not like really really rare, right? If you walk into a lecture hall or an airplane >> there's going [clears throat] to be >> there's probably going to be at least one guy >> a few guys maybe. Yeah, >> exactly. There's going to be at least one guy who's at least that tall. So it's not like we're talking about some like freaky preference. But in terms of the frequency with which it's encountered um that that is that is big, right? Like out of 100. >> Yeah. A 6'2 man is is a big guy, right? In the same way a 6.3 actually is quite big. What about circumference? >> Uh, so average circumference is in the same meta analysis 4.59 in. >> Um, so >> what was the 4.59 and what was the but the top was only 4 something. >> Right. Okay. So you're much closer in terms of >> relatively close but each unit with circumference it makes like more of a difference. Like that's like a bigger increase in total volume >> squaring the net or whatever. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Like the volume is getting is getting bigger for an inch of circumference versus length. So, and then it's 5 in for short term. So, the difference between if I I wish id measured this in Newtonics in advance, but but the but the difference here is is in fact pretty big. >> Um, and more interesting and I think this is actually the the most interesting part of the study >> uh >> is that they also asked women to pick out the biggest and smallest from the array of models. So you can imagine that they for the study design they have an array of models that they can choose from >> that basically look like sex toys and they say you know what's ideal what's the biggest you'd seen ever and what's the smallest you've seen ever. >> And very interestingly most women had never seen a penis that big and so they were exhibiting a preference for a penis size that was bigger than they had ever experienced. Right? So that's the kind of I would say that that's now the trough of the roller coaster where where things are as not fun as they could be. >> I mean it's also not fun if you're a woman too. You cursed to almost never encounter the ideal penis that you want. >> Well yeah I mean it's very similar to women's height preferences where so the 6'2 analogy I think is very good. If you asked women you know what's the ideal height of a boyfriend maybe they'd say 6'2 right? A lot of them would say somewhere between, you know, as we discussed in the last episode, um somewhere between, you know, maybe 6' 3 and 6'5 would come up a lot, but maybe it would be 6'2. But then you ask them, have you ever dated a guy that tall? And most of them will say, no, never. Right? It's the same thing with with penis size. Now, these are ideal mate preferences. And ideal mate preferences can be a little silly, right? Like like what's your ideal mate preference for a woman's salary, right? It could it could be a as rich as possible that doesn't occasion security concerns, right? Um but then in actual practice, you might not mind if it was if it was even, you know, 20 grand a year as long as everything else was lined up. Um so this is an ideal preference. And so ideally, most women probably would like to date a guy who's taller than 6 6'2, who's, you know, 6.3 in. Uh but because it's an ideal preference, they're likely flexible as to their minimum preference uh which was which was not collected in this study. >> Uh one insight though, they did ask a very good behavioral outcome question. I I really like behavioral outcomes as opposed to just state statements um right as to like hypotheticals. Uh they said, "Have you ever broken up with a man over his size?" >> I think that's a very good question because that's where it's like behavioral deal. >> Deal breaker. >> Yeah. and they said at least partially over his size. So there was no wiggle room in the question for you know well there was a list of five things and I'll focus I'll I'll just focus on the most socially appropriate one. It's like was it an influence as to why you broke up? And about 27% said they had. So most women don't break up over this. Most women this doesn't appear as a dealbreaker. Um but about a third have had the experience of saying you know what I'm going to call it quits. Uh the size is not working for me. Yeah. the size was one of the contributing factors and I'm willing to say that to a researcher as well, right, which is probably an underestimate. Um, and in most cases of that 27% subset, um, the vast majority of cases it was because the guy was too small. There there were some women who said that part of the contributing factor was too big. Um, but it wasn't common. >> Couple of things come to mind. Uh I would be interested to see the bell curve of how satisfied would you be as in I guess that the uh talking about fat tails when we're discussing this is a fraught. Um I'm going to guess that being a little bit under uh or even like a maybe a standard deviation under versus a standard deviation over there is an upper bound like on one you're talking about less pleasure on the other you're talking about pain. M >> uh any woman who's ever had her cervix hit knows like that's not fun. >> Yeah. >> Uh and that I would imagine actually you probably have more latitude on the small side >> than you do on the big side because there's no hard and fast rule about small >> like being literally impractical or dangerous. >> There's no hard threshold whereas the length of the cervix actually does. >> Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. cuz if you've got that hit then that's it. It's kind of it's going to be very uncomfortable. >> That's a really interesting point. I I was I was imagining that it would be in the abstract before you said that. I would have assumed in the absence of data that it would function similarly to um women's height preferences where it's you know tons and tons of benefit up to some reasonable point >> um like being way too short and then a decline that doesn't ever really bottom out. But given that fact that there's there is there there is a >> there's only so much room at the end. >> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Um no, I know of a friend of a friend who got who actually did get rejected from a sexual encounter for being too large like flat out. >> Um so >> that's not going inside of me. >> Yeah. Exactly. So that can happen and maybe >> maybe that's something that can't be worked around, you know, in the in the same way. >> That's interesting. Yeah. >> Uh the other thing that I think about is presumably these women were handling it. >> Yeah. >> But the reason to have a penis of any shape and size is not to handle it. It's sometime partly to handle it, but mostly for other things. >> Uh I think if you were going to go full whatever ethnographic with this, it would have to be okay, away you go in a quiet dark room, come back and tell us which one you preferred. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, well, that's Well, that's I mean, I don't know how you'd get ethics approval, but it is interesting. A lot of people did say when I first made a video on this study, a lot of people in the comments did make that point like, you know, it's it's it's interesting that they picked bigger than they'd seen on average >> because maybe that actually isn't their preference if they had experience. Like, >> how do you say this is your preference if you've never preferred it? >> Yeah, exactly. Like it's it's with full testing maybe you'd end up with a lower or higher number. >> Wow, that's [ __ ] actually a lot bigger than I thought it was. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, interesting. Just to round out the ideal thing. Um not fantastic news for 95% of men, >> right? >> But on the flip side, I'm going to guess that there are preferences men have for women that 95% of women don't meet if you to ask for ideal mate preferences. >> Yeah. I mean, ideal mate preferences always have this, I won't say cartoonish, but kind of fanciful angle to them where they often can't be met in any reasonable way when you consider all of them at once. Uh, like one really good example of this is if you were to ask men like a group of men, okay, what's your ideal um BMI preference in a m in western men? Then what's your ideal bra size preference? Right? those are are going to conflict with each other in a way that is very unlikely to be satisfied in a naturally varying population. Um because one comes at the the directionality of one comes at the expense of another. Right. It's kind of like um >> girls with skinny waists don't have big tits. >> Yeah. In general, right? And then it's also like if you looked at someone's preferences for >> good looks and loyalty, right? Or good looks and attention from maybe loyalty is a bad one. good looks and attention from attractive alternatives. Like attention from attractive alternatives, surely your ideal would be zero, right? I don't want to have to compete. And then how attractive they are, your ideal would probably be quite high, right? I don't say you specifically, I just mean a person in general. >> Uh so ideal mate preferences, they're often they're often not they're often not as informative as bare minimum mate preferences. Uh which is where you actually see rejection, where you actually see cut offs. I would have loved to see more data from the Prrow study about you know like 20 yeah 27% uh what what was the deal breaker right what would be the dealbreaker going forward I think it's interesting >> cool study uh you mentioned there about tall men good-looking men and infidelity and stuff do tall men cheat more >> well I thought in the abstract I answered this question recently and at the time I answered it I was thinking I hadn't seen data on it and then some online social scientist who does these analyses kind of DIY style um replied and basically said I checked this in a large data set there wasn't an association um I would have expected that tall men would cheat more because they'd have more opportunity not saying that you know all men who can cheat would but just definitionally men who can't cheat don't and maybe it's very difficult to cheat if you're 5'4 right maybe maybe that maybe that's a real challenge um not saying it's impossible >> you have to assume that the pool is smaller the pool is smaller most women want a taller guy. >> Yeah. So, I I I was surprised that there was no that I I I take his word for it that there was no association, but I was I was surprised by that. I I would think that there would be an association between in the abstract. I would think that any attractive trait in males would be associated with infidelity to >> someher eyes, whiter teeth, better skin because you're just opening up the pool of opportunity. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Yeah. Can we recap the fallout from the Olly M transformation? It's a little old now, but I I never talked about it at the time. So, William Costello puts this Twitter poll out that for some reason goes absolutely [ __ ] ballistic. Goes completely interstellar and there's basically thousands of women [snorts] kind of saying if you read the study that they didn't like leanness and muscularity. This guy did a big transformation and went from kind of standard dude physique with a tiny little bit of definition to probably around 10% body fat with a an okay amount of muscularity. Uh, and women were asked do they prefer the dadbod version or the lean and rip version and tons of them steaming in and saying no I prefer that. So give me a postmortem on Ollie Mos's body transformation. I remember I remember as soon as William posted it, I thought, "Oh, that's a really good one." I think I replied at the time and he like when it was like really early days and he was like, "I can spot a sex difference from you miles away." He's like, "I can I can manufacture one of these easily cuz he obviously is very interested in sex differences or or studies them as part of, you know, the bus lab and whatnot." And so he's going to have really good intuitions for like how to pick good examples that will draw them >> something that women will women and men will. >> Yes. Exactly. Exactly. That that that's what I should have said. Yeah. So to clarify with sex difference, he asked men, do you think he looks better before or after? Meaning after this incredible physical transformation where he's lost copious amounts of body fat and goes from >> essentially, yeah, as you say, like muscular guy at the pub, but not much more than that to, you know, like stage ready basically, except you know, not not he's not roided up or anything, but you know, he's he looks incredibly lean. Um, and so William posts this and says, you know, men versus women, you know, what do what do you guys think? And as you say, yeah, the women strongly preferred the before and the men strongly preferred the after. And there was an insinuation by men, a widespread insinuation that women were um basically being koi about their actual preference or lying about their preference and that this is kind of like, oh, it's known that women lie about these things. I'm I'm going to um the reason that I don't think that is because when you ask women about their height preferences, they're very open about saying it's tall in surveys, right? So I I I look at this this sort of study and this sort of these sort of data all the time. Women are very open about preferring taller men. Uh they're also very open about preferring more muscular men, right? So women say they prefer taller men and then you look at height and mating success and generally taller men are more popular on the dating market. So that seems true and stated, true and revealed. >> Yep. Muscularity, same deal. You ask women, "Do you like muscles?" Right? They say, "Yes, we like muscles." And then you survey muscular men and it turns out they also have more positive romantic experiences. So, stated versus revealed, it's it's all on track. With leanness, it's a little more complicated. Um, it does seem that women don't prefer too lean. And when you look at the Ollie M's transformation, I would say that the main difference before and after if we were to look at it like he does look more muscular in the after, but I would say that very likely he just lost fat, right? Like I've I've seen those sorts of transformations before. Usually it's just fat loss rather than any actual muscle gain. And so I think that what happened here is partially that men looked at the photos and said, "Wow, that guy got jacked." And then women said, "Oh, you know, I don't really like that." And they're like, "Oh, what? So, you don't like jacked guys, right? But women were seeing that and saying, "Oh, this guy just like lost a lot of body fat, and I don't like men who are too lean." Uh, so women's uh body fat percentage preferences from the research we have um are a little heavier than what >> the gym bros think. >> Well, it's heavier than 10%. >> It's like 15, right? >> Yeah, it's closer to that. So, in the most recent study from Zia and colleagues, uh they use DXA images. Now, DXA images is actually there's a there's a big pro and a big con. The the big pro is that we know the body fat of men. We know the body fat percentage, right? We actually it's not a guesstimate. The con is that like a DXA image doesn't look like a real man. So, I think that's a real limitation of the study. Um, but in that study, it was between 13 and 14.1% body fat. So, that's still pretty lean, by the way. Like, [clears throat] you've definitely got the kind of fourpack up top, >> visible upper abs, but it is not as lean. Look, this is where two different worlds collide. If you're a bro listening to this >> and you hear >> 14%. >> Dude, I can walk around with 14% is a piece of piss. Oh my god, I can have some bread. Thank >> pretty lame. >> 14% is a hard cut away. You've got a hard cut to do to get down to that. Um, so yeah, I I tweeted about, sorry, I put in my newsletter, um, >> the ideal body fat percentage is >> higher than Jim Bros think. And I think that's true as an anchor. I think most guys would assume that optimal body fat for women would be 10 10 nine maybe even. I do think that most guys would just guess that you can get too lean that it's going your face is going to look gaunt, but it wouldn't wouldn't actually be to do with the body >> that uh the optimal body fat percentage. But then that being said, you have somebody like Mike Thirst, for instance, who at quite lean uh levels of body fat still looks quite full, >> still doesn't look very dry. One of the problems that Ollie M had was he had like what I would call as opposed to skinny fat, he had skinny lean. >> Um, which is it a slight not quite the right amount of mass to carry that level of leanness. And if you have a little bit more mass underneath it, I think it can actually make you look more healthy in that way. And some people just don't carry leanness that well. Some people don't carry fatness that well. I'm somebody who doesn't look great fat. Um, I'm someone who looks all right lean. I can keep going. I think the leanest I've ever been in my life is maybe 8 8 and a half. >> That's extremely lean. >> Um and I looked fine. Everything got pretty much better uh from there. And it doesn't look but Ollie struggled a bit more with that. >> I I mean you're making really good points. I think that the I think that it is I think that there I think that a lot of gym bros would be surprised at how lean 13% can look. Yes. >> Uh it really depends on how much muscle you have to some >> also. Where do you carry it? carry it in different places. If you're carrying it in your legs and your ass as a dude, >> you're laughing. You're carrying it around the midsection. If you got the classic tire, you can get down to >> 12% and really have visible abs. >> Yeah, it's a really good point. I mean, when I when I read this when I read this result and was reviewing other results, I was spending a lot of time looking at, okay, can I see a DXA verified guy? Like, this is the number and this is him shirtless and comparing it. And you can look a lot of different ways at 13 to 14% body fat. Uh there are some guys who look all right up to 20%, right? They they still have, you know, visible chest separation, that kind of thing. Um I would say though that most guys at 13 to 14%, they've got the upper abs very clear. Um maybe some forearm veins, right? Maybe like a little bit of upper chest definition. Um but it's not stage ready bodybuilder by any means. Um, I think that your point about Ollie not necessarily looking like fully healthy at that weight, that's the key kind of evocation of all of this. >> Yeah. Why why is it that women didn't like the leaner guy? What's the what's the explanation for that? >> Well, the there's the health angle where if there's a famine, he's not going to starve anytime soon. But the angle that I take for women's bodily preferences generally that I think is very I think it has really good predictive power is if you just say like between two guys which of these guys physiques looks like it would win in a fight. Usually the one that looks like it would win is going to be preferred. >> And if you look at those two photos, >> you know, like who who are you betting on? You're probably going to take the guy who's a little softer. Um, you look at heavyweight boxers, heavyweight UFC fighters, they they're generally quite lean, but they're not insanely lean. Like in nonweight class, just fighting optimized sport. It doesn't seem that being shredded is good for kicking ass essentially. And I think that if you think about women's evolved psychology, it came about in a context where men were often fighting, usually with with weapons, right? Um, and where it would be good to have as a long-term pair bond a mate who could disincentivize your own and your children's harassment. >> You're talking formidability. >> I'm talking about formidability, right? That's exactly right. And so it's like when you think about women's bodily mate preferences and when you think about bodily predictors of fighting ability, it's like, you know, the sorts of things that women talk about like uh strong veiny hands, big arms, broad shoulders, height, not too lean. All of these things gear towards >> being formidable. >> Being formidable. In other news, you've probably heard me talk about Element before, and that's because I am frankly [laughter] dependent on it. Uh, and it's how I've started my day every single morning. This is the best tasting hydration drink on the market. You might think, why do I need to be more hydrated? Because proper hydration is not just about drinking enough water. It's having sufficient electrolytes to allow your body to use those fluids. Each grab-and-go stick pack is a sciencebacked electrolyte ratio of sodium, potassium, and magnesium. It's got no sugar, coloring, artificial ingredients, or any other junk. This plays a critical role in reducing muscle cramps and fatigue while optimizing brain health, regulating your appetite, and curbing cravings. This orange flavor in a cold glass of water is a sweet, salty, orangey nectar. And you will genuinely feel a difference when you take it versus when you don't, which is why I keep going on about it. First of all, there's a no questions asked refund policy with an unlimited duration. Buy it, use it all, and if you don't like it for any reason, they give you your money back, and you don't even have to return the box. That's how confident they are that you'll love it. Plus, they offer free shipping in the US. Right now, you can get a free sample pack of Element's most popular flavors with your first purchase by going to the link in the description below, heading to drinklnt.com/modernwisdom. That's drinklnt.com/modern wisdom. Do you do you think that the guys didn't account for the lack of formidability? Why did the guys not pick up on that when they said, "I think that he looks better in the second one because they're they're looking at it >> uh separated from formidability." They weren't thinking, "How much can this guy protect me and my kids?" >> Yeah. >> What was the reason for the guys preferring the other one? >> I don't know. I didn't find it particularly surprising. And I think that there's Yeah, Meither. >> Yeah, there's always going to be, you know, uh, most men were surprised, but I think that the most vocally surprised men were were obviously, you know, more surprised than the average man, if that makes sense. I saw it and just saw, oh, okay, that that that makes a lot of sense. Um, why didn't they pick up on the formidability aspect? I think it is bodybuilding culture to some extent. Um, >> better. >> Yeah. where bodybuilding culture has proliferated throughout the Anglosphere such that basically every young man is now or not every young man but a a plural a a a a a slight majority of all young men in the anglophere are basically recreational bodybuilders at this point [laughter] and there's a real status competition that is occurring between these men where they have their own yeah where they have their own beauty standard that is it it probably started out as a competition for the female gays essentially. But then it became a competition between each other such that more difficult is more impressive and therefore better um to some extent. So you know winning a bodybuilding competition is very hard because it involves putting on lots of mass and removing lots of fat and those those two activities are difficult to do alone but even more difficult to do together. So, it's a good competition uh between males and it reminds me of women's fashion modeling to some extent where women's fashion modeling incentivizes a degree of thinness that we know from the from the literature men do not prefer. um it's it's passed the optimum and you can say like why is it that this beauty competition has passed the optimum of the beauty standards set by the opposite sex and it seems to be downstream of difficulty downstream of status and downstream of these standards set within the group. So I think that you know that's a rambling answer but >> no that's great difficulty status and the values set within the group. So, for guys, every guy understands, [ __ ] he's had to work really hard. >> He looks like a reliable ally. He looks like the sort of guy I could go into battle with. >> Um, I know how hard that is to do. >> Uh, the status thing while imbued in that is allow me to elevate you. That's really impressive. That's something that that I would maybe desire for myself. Um, I did see, do you see Sasha [clears throat] Baron Cohen also did a transformation? He's in a superhero movie. >> Oh, interesting. >> This stinks of your TikTok. Have a look at Sasha Baron Conan. Have a look at the There was a few articles that came up where basically he recently got divorced and got this role as a superhero uh type character in some movie and just goes through basically the same but he's 20 years older than Olly Muz. Same transformation. Um lean looks for a 50-year-old dude looks great. like very stringy, very flat, but like upper visible abs separation, delta, arms, all the rest of it. Like congratulations. Well done, Sasha. And >> there's a bunch of scathing articles basically saying um this breakup body thing is cheesy uh and and like shallow sort of gossamer a thin desire for attention from men. But then there was some other stuff that I did think was was quite interesting, which is I looked at it with a lot of respect. Some women looked at it with almost like revulsion that why are you spending so much attention on your body in your 50s. >> Like what's going on there? Oh, well, you're probably trying to signal availability and attraction for a new mate. That means that you're probably not going to be a particularly good family guy. You were in the era of guy that is supposed to be family guy. >> I think that's exactly right. Yeah. Um, I remember a friend of mine's a a fitness athlete throughout pretty much every different discipline. He was a powerlifter. He was a weightlifter. He did bodybuilding. He did everything. [snorts] It's been with the same girlfriend throughout all of these. >> And she said, "Uh, I felt the most comfortable with you when you were powerlifting." >> Oh, that goes with my formidability anecdote. Now, if you were to pick the fattest of the strength sports >> after strongman, it would be powerlifting. >> Yeah. >> It wouldn't be weightlifting. There's a bit more athlet athleticism required there. It wouldn't be high rocks or crossfit or bodybuilding like in this spectrum of leanness. And um I had this insight that basically if you see as a woman if you see a guy that is very lean, very even very muscular, even very beautified, even very pined in a way that's evidently trying to attract the opposite sex as opposed to like some weird Yeah, exactly. Um, what that suggests is for every calorie that you have to spend in the world, quite a big portion of that is going to go to trying to attract the opposite sex through this sort of beautifification thing. Even if you're getting it wrong, even if you don't know what the other sex likes, and actually if you don't know what the other sex likes, you [ __ ] it even harder because that suggests that you don't understand us. Yeah. and you're trying to do so this idea of it really made me rethink dad bods >> like what what is a dad bod is a dadbod the body of somebody who is a father or is it the body of somebody who would make a good father that do you understand the distinction here >> I do and what's funny what what you're getting at is actually the result of a you're you're anticipating the result of a study that's already been done on dad bots where they essentially this was back when the term term dad bod which which isn't as hot as it once was. I mean that term was like very viral in I believe it was 2020 and uh what the researchers did when this term was peaking was they investigated personality perceptions as a result of body type. And what they found was what what what you're describing uh which is that they were ascribing more positive fatherly qualities to men who were less lean. >> And I think that there is a tension among animals in general that pair bond and expect paternal investment that look you can engage in paternal investment or you can engage in mating effort right and you can't do both those things at the exact same time. I mean maybe to an extent paternal investment can be mating effort in some cases but for the most part it's like he's either the sort of guy who's going to spend a lot of time doing that or he's going to spend a lot of time doing this right and so if you're you know a guy who's like hyper obsessed with looks I think that that does strongly signal mating effort orientation and that might be even if they're better looking it might give a personality cue that ends up being the turnoff. I really do think that with a lot of this like I don't want him to be too muscular. I don't want him to be too lean. I don't want him to be, you know, too taking care of his hair. That kind of thing. I do think that a lot of it is personality inferences. It's like if he just genetically looked like that and never went to the gym, uh then that probably would be preferred. >> That's the sort of noble savage lumberjack build, right? I don't think women have got a problem with the dude that happens to walk around at 10% body fat. Yeah. But the [clears throat] dude that happens to have massive hands or great hair. Yeah. But the guy that spends tons of time on that, well, it's sort of narcissistic. It's self-centered. He doesn't care about me in this sort of a way. So, here's an interesting one for you. I've always been fascinated by the fact that um women in marriages and men in marriages tend to spend their discretionary additional income on things that are typically signals that only the other sex would notice. But you can do this in different ways. So for instance, women spend a lot more money on beautifification. Guys spend more money on watches and and cars and stuff like that, saders, signals of wealth, etc. Um but by doing it that way, by doing it in really sort of subtle and um highly finessed ways, if women do the beautifification right, maybe other men would notice, but their partner might not fully. Like wearing a expensive set of heels, that makes you look good, but is as much a signal to women as it is to the men. And your husband might not fully pick up on that. And the guy is the same thing. Well, you know, this new car, it's fast and does whatever, but it's primarily an intraexual, not an interexual intraexual competition device as opposed to intros interexual advertisement device. >> Yeah. >> Um, so I always think that's interesting. One other bit on the Oy Sasha Baron Cohen thing, I do think it's a little bit of a failure of cross- sex mind readading that guys looked at something that they confused for formidability, that famous David Putt study. Um, this looks like formidability to me, but didn't realize like women assumed that what they find attractive in a partner is what they will sleep with. Will they? Because if other men found him more formidable, which they might have done, maybe women say that they wouldn't have gone for that guy. But perhaps that version of Oy would end up being more successful after 12 months because he's been pre-selected. The David puts study suggests women don't actually know what they want to have sex with fully. Yeah. Uh, so I wonder if you had a 100 oy Moses and you put them at different levels of body fat percentage and sent them out into the world, which one actually would have performed better? Because we know that male pre-selection and male uh, he's okay, he's all right with me, I hold him in high esteem is something that women do use as a cue for attractiveness. And maybe that is even more powerful than, well, he looks a little bit lean and I'm not too sure if he could survive a famine. So perhaps the guys were right all along. >> Yeah. Well, you know, it's interesting. You're reminding me of a of a concept from behavioral ecology where basically you these researchers uh the the the an the kind of anthropological site studies types will you know make an assumption about like oh well based on our calculations this is the you know optimal foraging party size or something and then when they find a discrepancy instead of saying oh I guess they're making a mistake they think oh we must be making a mistake like they must know something we don't know so then they investigate more. And with something like that where when you look at bodybuilders, there's a really kind of simple surface level where you say, "Oh, they're they're wrong about what women want." But in a way, they might be even more right about what they want because they're optimizing not just for women's preferences, but also for men's preferences that will give them the social status that will be more valuable than looking better, right? I mean, that that that's something that we see. I mean that's something that we see quite a bit of right I mean it's something that we see quite a bit of that people will modify themselves and compete in such a way that the mates don't directly care about but they do care about the status consequences of that competition. Um, like you can imagine that playing video games isn't attractive, but if you're like Ninja, I believe his name is. He's like really rich, very successful. >> If you got your hair blue, you could look a little bit like Ninja. [laughter] >> Oh god. Okay. Well, >> compliment. He's one of the most [ __ ] rich famous dudes on the planet. >> Okay, I'll keep that in mind as an option. uh if I ever want to if I ever want to go for that look. And you know, I'm sure that the video games component, like you could look at that from from an outsider, like at his mating strategy, let's say. I I hope he doesn't watch this cuz this is going to be uncomfortable, but you could look at like his quote unquote mating strategy and say, "Oh, well, he's spending a lot of time doing something women don't like. How foolish, right?" But then he's acquiring limitless money and status and renown um through other men. Um, so I think with the Ollie M thing, >> look, I looked at it and I didn't care that women didn't like it. I thought he looked cooler in the after and that was that. I was like, I respect it. That's it. So my reaction, my reaction was not like from a social status perspective, I thought that's cool. >> And if you walk into a bar and all of the dudes think that that dude's cool cuz he's just got lean, then maybe you are going to be more attractive. >> That's much better than being, you know, slightly more optimized for body fat percentage. It feels like this is related to what you learned about formidability from the female rapper Gorilla. [laughter] >> Yeah. Well, I I mean I I uh I do a lot of these on Tik Tok. It's a very Tik Tocky thing to do. Uh they do tend to go viral where I'll just play generally a woman's rap song and just listen to it and react, you know, from from an Evoy perspective. And it's a really useful teaching tool, frankly. And it's a very useful teaching tool for my area of specific interest and expertise. It it it's really good for mate preferences. >> Um because you see that in a lot of types of music, >> people are very koi about their mate preferences, right? Like they don't necessarily state them and if they do state them, they don't state them accurately. But then you you listen to rap music and you just get very accurate stated preferences where it's like, "Yeah, I know the study." Like I'm I'm listening to it. I'm hyped. I'm like, "I know the studies. I know that that's accurate. Like that's true." Like um so you'll hear, you know, and you also see more blatant intros competition where it's not >> where it's not beating Yeah. It's not beating around the bush. It's saying like straight up I actually have like like I was listening to um the rapper Lotto and she was um she was bragging about the fact that you know her body count is so low that she might say that she's a virgin right she's mocking her rivals for like giving it up too easily quote unquote. Um she's flexing the fact that she has tons of resources um that her boyfriends don't mind if she cheats essentially right. Um, so she's paradoxically signal she's signaling some things that are conflicting there, but she's basically saying like I'm the ultimate like >> female >> I'm the [ __ ] omega female here. >> I'm the highest Yeah, exactly. I have the highest mate value on all these variables. Um, I have the highest reproductive value value on all these variables. Um, and I'm also I've also got more resources for my future offspring than you could ever dream of. And I'm acquiring more from males constantly. Um, who don't care if I'm going out and and getting, you know, >> I can't lose >> Yeah. more genetic heterogeneity from multiple mates, right? Like so it's so it's it's it's incredible to listen to um just the blatant um discussing of it and I you know I have a great appreciation for it and it's been it's been good for it's been good as a teaching tool. I feel like I've been able to teach a lot of people who would never take an FSA class >> about mate preference. >> Well, it's just as well that you're using rap music as if you're using metal. Like if you're listening to a Bad Omen song uh to try and work out what Noah Sebastian thinks about like his mate preferences, it's all couched in fluffy [ __ ] language. It's it's too whimsical. No, Noah. Tell me tell me about hitting it from the back. That's what I need. >> There is a study on uh metal guitarists where they were like, "Is this um introsexual competition or is this interexual attra?" Because it's pretty clear with other forms of guitar playing that the guy who gets the guitar out to play Wonder Wall right at the party, all the other guys are thinking this guy is the worst. Like we don't like this. But lot Yeah. But a lot of women actually are like, "Oh, you know, if he can do it well, >> this is cool." >> Yeah. This is cool. Right. Yeah. Exactly. If it's a if it's a if it's a handsome man. >> So [ __ ] Tim from Polifia. Do you know what Pifia is? No. >> Okay. It's like very mathy [ __ ] super. Maybe one of the best >> guitarists on the planet plays in it. And uh he looks like an anime. He looks like someone out of Final Fantasy. So, he's got cool as [ __ ] luck and um like all over the place. So, that's a great question. Is it What did you Before we continue, I've been drinking AG1 every morning for as long as I can remember now because it is the simplest way I found to cover my bases and not overthink nutrition. And that is why I partnered with them. Just one scoop gives you 75 vitamins, minerals, probiotics, and whole food ingredients in a single drink. Now, they've taken it a step further with AG1 NextGen. the same one scoop once a day ritual, but this time backed by four clinical trials. In those trials, it was shown to fill common nutrient gaps, improve key nutrient levels in just 3 months, and increase healthy gut bacteria by 10 times, even in people who already eat well. They've upgraded their formula with better probiotics, more bioavailable nutrients, and clinical validation. Plus, it's still NSF certified for sport, so you know that the quality is legit. Right now, when you first subscribe, you can get a free bottle of D3 K2 and AG1 welcome kit, plus bonus AG1 travel packs. And for a limited time, US customers also get a sample of AGZ and a bottle of omega-3s. Just go to the link in the description below or head to drinkag.com/modernwisdom. That's drinkagg.com/modern wisdom. What did they decide? Is it intraexual competition or interexual advertisement? Well, that's exactly what they were they were investigating and they were they were interested because again, guitar is one where it's literally it seems so straight up and down like this is to attract women, but metal is something where it's like, you know, I've been to um I I'm actually going to Metallica next year with my dad. I'm stoked. Um so so I don't mind metal by any means, but at these concerts, I mean, I haven't done a poll, but I'm assuming it's going to be like 90% male, right? >> Very male heavy. Yep. >> Especially as you get into the more hardcore like heavy metal, it's going to be and even the environment it's kind of hostile to women in the sense that it's like the mosh pit is not a place where lots of black. >> Yeah. Where like a 120 lb woman is going to have like an awesome time on average. I'm sure there's one listening who's like no I love it. Um so it's interesting. It's like what are these guys doing? And it seems to be that it is essentially a proxy for violence where it's like it's not something that's necessarily in the sense that it's um it's a competition between the males against each other, not something that is attractive to women necessarily. And the reason I used violence as as an analogy there and even used the word proxy, which I probably shouldn't have. The reason that I use violence as an analogy is that there's evidence from some animal species, for example, that even though winning fights makes you more likely to mate, right? The fight itself is something that the females do not appreciate and do not like, right? So, it's it's not the case in some bird species, for example, that the that the female birds are standing around watching the male birds have at it and thinking, "Ooh, you know, I love the way he's, you know, completely pecking the [ __ ] out of this guy." Right? that's that's not what seems to be happening. Instead, it's like, oh my gosh, there's violence. Let me get out of here. And then the fact that he won later um gives him, you know, the >> the formidability all guitar players are too [ __ ] to fight. >> No, I'm not saying I'm not saying that at all. I'm sure that a lot of them could kick my ass. What I am saying though is that it's sim it functions similarly to that where it's like a massive status competition between the males out of view. >> But this is [ __ ] Ollie M. >> Yeah. Where this is Ollie M again. >> Exactly. where it's like we're not we're not playing heavy metal guitar to impress women directly. We're doing this to settle the status hierarchy amongst ourselves using this alternative to >> then the women will pick off >> and then Yeah. Exactly. And then once we've all agreed on that then we then we can move. >> So what you're saying is >> becoming a metal guitarist is a high-risk strategy because if you become the best great >> but if you suck you double lose. >> Exactly. Not only do you do something that I find unattractive, but everybody else seems to think you're really uncool because you're no good at it. >> Yeah. I think that learning the the the in terms of like lowrisk, highreward strategy, learning like four chords. Rhythm guitar. I want to be the rhythm guitarist. >> Yeah. Learning like four chords on the guitar and buying an acoustic guitar and, you know, learning a few good songs really >> aspiring male metal guitar players that have their entire future is just forked in front of them. Which way do you want to go? >> Well, they can do both, but the but the metal aspect, it's uh it's very likely that the returns to mating won't come in until you've appreciated quite a bit of >> Well, also as well, you're going to be playing to audiences that are 90% men. >> Yeah. >> You know, whereas if you're [ __ ] Benson Boon or whatever, like, you know, >> Lewis Aldi or some [ __ ] like it's just it's it's all checked. So, okay. I remember reading forever ago and I've not been able to find it again. I'm gutted. A study that was looking at um maybe it was had this happened or maybe it was women being asked to envision it happening. Uh an altercation occurring where their male partner was unable to protect them >> and that the question was how much does your attraction drop pre and post this interaction or pre and post infidelity? And that the pre and post he couldn't protect me was greater >> than infidelity. >> Yeah. >> And I haven't been able to find it again. [laughter] >> Is there have you come across this? You're like the [ __ ] chat GBT of >> I haven't Well, I I hallucinate quite a bit less, I would hope. But uh I think that I actually did see this and I think that it was actually an online poll rather than So that's probably why you weren't able to find it. I think I I'll take the results kind of face valid that I mean attraction is a funny word, right? Because it's like I wouldn't be surprised if you even found that a breakup was more likely to be precipitate. Infidelity has a very high breakup consequence rate. Um it's it's one of if not the most common causes of divorce. Um and it's a very common cause of relationship dissolution. You don't really hear about you know men losing fights and it leading to breakups as often. Although, you know, maybe it's just such a low frequency event that it doesn't have the same influence on human relationships. But I think it could even be the case. What I'm getting at is that the attraction component is taking a bigger hit, but the actual relationship stability um may maybe it goes the other way. I'm not sure. >> It doesn't surprise me though. I mean, it's um it's a it's a huge negative signal. So, yeah, >> beauty matters way more than chastity, and it's not even close. explain that to me. >> Well, you see these studies on the importance of so we have these cross-cultural studies going back to the going back to 1989 with David Bus where you look at you know men's stated preference for um chastity versus good looks. Um and you also look at these more recent kind of individual level studies that are a little more modern and and take different methods. And I would say yes that men on average care more about looks than a woman being chased or pure. Uh for example, there was one study where men perceived one group of women as more uh physically attractive and likely more promiscuous. that that was their inference which is commonly the case with um attractiveness where when people perceive attractiveness they tend to also perceive promiscuity and they still chose uh they still chose that group. I mean there's this um I think it's actually I think it's actually apocryphal. I think it's I I hate to ruin this but I I do think it's a I do think it's a fake advertisement but I think that the advertisement and look it's it's a rather objectifying ad. I don't I don't think it's the way we'd speak on modern wisdom, let's say. But the fact that this advertisement is so viral shows that it's tapping into something that is appreciated um to some degree or or reflect something trueish where it's it was a used Porsche dealership ad where it was, you know, you're not the first, but do you really care, right? And it's a beautiful woman, right? Is the idea. And I think that the fact that that's something that's very clickable, very viral, shows that it is something that a lot of men find intuitive, but it's also something we see in these studies that does, you know, signals to low socioexuality, are those attractive? Of course, right? But is it a high priority? Not really. No. Men put looks over um chastity in most cases. >> Well, that's interesting. I think um I think that's a question that I'll have to think about and circle back to you because it's a really good one. But the first thing that's coming to mind is that especially in a modern environmental context where we have contraception and where a lack of sexual history might signal some kind of religious commitments >> or strange or I won't say strange atypical social development. It may be the case that the strategic salience of chastity or virginity actually flips to an extent like you've seen the studies from uh I know you've spoken Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So Thomas and Steuart Williams and these guys they've done their kind of ideal body count studies and it's an ideal mate preference right so you should get you know you should get the even if it's a ridiculous result you should see it if that makes sense. like the ideal mate preference for penises we discussed earlier was bigger than they'd ever seen, right? So these do tend to these do tend to be quite fanciful and it was you know I believe it was peaking at you know 1 2 and three right not zero in terms of number >> zero was as attractive as six. >> Yeah that's correct. Yeah. Yeah that that that that's well remembered. I think that's exactly right. So men were as quote unquote put off by virginity as several past partners. >> Um like an above average number of past partners. >> What's the average for men and women? >> Uh okay. So the average body count based on CDC data median uh and excluding virgins from the data set. Um they put out four for women and six for men about. Now uh the the reason for the discrepancy could be due to the ver it could be due it could be due to a variety of factors. Um it could be as simple there there's so many statistical potential explanations for it but it could just be as simple as men over report and women under reportport. Right? It's both five. >> Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. It's both five. >> I would say that from that you can safely say that the average body count in the US probably isn't over six because why would men lie and say it's lower than it is? M I think that for us in kind of you know an urban college educated background secular relatively secular at least I think that given our backgrounds our kind of social circles might find that surprising >> y >> but you also have to think about the fact that there are you know very conservative religious people there are people who are you know incredibly asocial um I mean this is a CDC gen population census, right? It's >> you can't overestimate how normal the normies are. >> Yeah. Exactly. So, it's like we're hitting all all types. We're hitting people who are, you know, conservative, you know, devoutly um Muslim, right? We're hitting people who are playing video games all day and haven't spoken to a woman in two years and they don't care that they haven't spoken to them. So, yeah, I think when you run those numbers, it's going to be between four and six. And six is probably that is probably fair. is like yeah it's not higher than that for a median mean is higher mean is higher >> is it surprising that most people even men don't want virgins even female virgins are discriminated against >> I think that it is it is interesting right I think that the I think that contraception has changed the strategic veilance of past sexual partners such that disease risk and the risk of a covert pregnancy that you're not aware of that's existing from the previous relationship. Those sorts of risks are very reduced and as a result of them being very reduced now body count is and I'm using that term because it's it's what everyone uses number of past sexual partners would be the technical term I suppose it's mainly used as a proxy for personality. Yeah. And so I think that what men and what women are, we haven't spoken about women's preferences here. They're they're pretty interesting too. I think that what is being scanned for is primarily cues to personality. And so we have >> That's why I can't get over the [ __ ] chastity thing. That's why I can't get over the beauty of a chastity thing. >> Yeah. >> Like it's it is lower, I think, than most people would assume. And I would guess for any normal person with a normal amount of looks and social exposure throughout their life and is 30, this is especially if you're a woman who's at three or four or below, you have either had to be in long-term committed relationships for most of that time or actively turning down suitors. >> Like you're going to have to be saying no quite a bit. >> Yeah. I I Okay, so I'll I'll I'm gonna revise something about the beauty over chastity statement. It's not like an absolute in all cases on the tail end. I'm imagining I would be confident saying that if we're talking about normal variation like what do do men care more about a woman's sexual history or the way she looks within depends on how how much she looks and how much within normal variation then I would say that yeah beauty is winning. Um but then when you get in like when you get into abnormal outlier cases >> um things things are going to change a lot. Um but in terms of the I I do want to circle back to the personality indicator body count quote unquote body count as a personality indicator it's an indicator of socioexuality to some degree and then it's also an indicator of normal social adjustment. And I and I say normal as in typical in the sense that if someone has like I remember speaking to a man who was very you know classic kind of bro type you know very muscular lots of tattoos and not you know I'm not talking about some like very um like kind of hippie polyamory type person like he's like kind a a bro type, right? And he was talking about how weird it was that one of his friends preferred virgins, right? And I said, "Well, would you date someone if they were?" Cuz I was I was kind of putting my researcher hat on. I I wanted to double click on this. I was like, "Oh, what?" You know, this is pretty interesting. He's saying that this other mate preference is really weird. So, what's his mate preference? And he said, "Oh, I'd be so freaked out. I'd feel like I was doing something illegal." Right? M >> and I think that that might get it to an extent where it's like >> it's so uncommon in his social circles and in many men's, you know, in America. These surveys are America, UK, that sort of thing. >> Y >> it's so common uh it's so uncommon to encounter that that when you do it might be a signal of like some kind of some kind of maladjustment. Yeah. Exactly. >> Why is this happening? Whereas so it's it's a balance between like is this person you know normal functioning welladjusted sexually active individual um you know a person who has sex right just my type that kind of mentality um and then on the other end is it someone who is going to cheat on me who is not going to be able to hold a stable committed relationship down that sort of thing and so I think that that's what explains the I guess when you think about it I know that from like a first principles EVO perspective you might think that no sexual history is always better, but when you take it in our current ecological context, I think that men's preferences make some strategic sense. >> Yeah. And not even necessarily our current, although I guess when you start to fold religion in previously, that gets a bit squirrely. There is something sacred about the first time. Everybody remembers their first time, unless you were drunk, I think. Um, and >> do you want that to be you if you're a fullyfledged adult that you know has done it five times before? Yeah. >> Number six is going to be someone's first. Really? That's Oh, I have a friend who uh uh dated a um a pretty public-f facing girl and she made it was you can still go on the internet and search these stories and he was the one that took her virginity >> and uh I think he was 30 and she was sort of early 20s like 22 or something like that and fair play but yeah there's a bit of like just I don't even know what to say about it. such a the facial expression you're making is I think fusion explains the uh I think that >> that's a good one. Let's just for the guys that are listening, you know, and this is the reason that it's interesting and the reason that me and you took an interest in this is that a lot of the talk in kind of the red pill brophere would be around, you know, virgins is what you want. This is why you got to get your passports, bro, etc., etc. >> And then you see men like normal men's preferences and they don't they don't >> we don't want that. And if you just think you're everybody listening to this is going to be of age and a little bit older. Just think about what that would be like like and do you would know maybe beforehand or certainly afterward would that be like super sick bro or would that be >> something else and I don't know what it is and you're like what the [ __ ] just happened >> like that feels >> and there's also here's another thing to fold into that I wonder whether there's a sense of obligation >> from guys to girls that oh first she's gonna expect dot dot dot which kind of pushes out the casual sex angle here that if this is your first that's going to be special maybe she's going to expect more she I'm not just one number which means that a particular type of sex casual sex >> it's less accepted I'm more obliged stick about perhaps >> yeah I mean you hear you hear from I think I think that honestly it's just it's just it's a it's it's a very the takes that you're describing are very online and and kind of only work online. Uh they they don't they don't really map on to the modern mating market in a way that a lot of people find relatable. >> I think that the facial expression you made and reacting to your friend story is uh >> I think that that explains the thing is that it's not >> it's just that it kind of it it feels a little weird. I think that past a certain age it's a little odd >> and I think that that's where these mate preferences come. Uh I think it's worth noting here uh I'm conscious of the fact that we might switch topics that women's mate preferences are surprisingly very similar here if you ask about women's ideal preferences. I think that there's this uh concept among men that like oh >> get away with way more. >> Yeah. Yeah. That women love playboys that sort of thing. Um but there does seem to be um a similar effect where it's true that women discriminate much harsher against virgins than men. This is again >> Oh, that's interesting. >> Yeah. This is the Steuart Williams and Thomas paper. >> Um where there was a gap where women's kind of ick at the whole virgin thing um was stronger. Men also exhibited it, but women's it was a bigger one. >> That's interesting. >> Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. I find that I find that very intuitive. Um but then their optimum was very similar. We're again talking like a one pass partner, two pass partners, three pass partners, four. That all looks pretty swell. The decline starts after above average where we're talking 7 8 9. >> So it's a slightly longer tail. >> Yeah. And then as it as you pass that like this male has slept with, it's kind of funny how well it maps on to the averages. He slept with more women than most men will sleep with in their lives. That's when it starts to like that's when we get the plummet and it's like the willingness to date a man who has slept with like 20 women, 30 women. That's where >> and it's you're saying personality cues again. >> Yeah. It's like is this guy really going to be like just be realistic like like odds on how likely is this guy going to be to never cheat on you and never want to cheat on you? That kind of thing. Very low probability. And then also like how likely is he to take you seriously and be interested in you? So I think that it makes sense. But when I first heard about those data, I was surprised by them. The intuition again going back to the '8s in the kind of evoc literature has been like, oh, chastity is going to be much more important to men than women. >> But then the actual research has showed surprisingly less consistent sex differences. And then, you know, if you're talking about modern anglophere populations, >> basically no difference. Well, I mean, if you were in Victorian era England, the uh judgment on tattoos, dyed hair, choker necklaces, piercings would be significantly harsher cuz all of those accuse of socioexuality. I think everybody interprets tattoos, dyed hair, piercings, choker necklaces. The choker necklace thing is [ __ ] fascinating. You've seen that, right? Like about Yeah. That it's fewer dates before sex, like more likely to give oral sex, a bunch of others. And it seems to be like borne out in the data a little bit too. The other thing is that with with appearance enhancement that has stereotypes associated with it, there's going to be a self- enforcing effect, right? >> Because you know that this is going to be the way that it's so you are expecting people to interpret you in that way and are prepared to play up to it. Even if the even if the and I'm talking about appearance modification, even if the appearance-based stereotype is at first completely meaningless and inaccurate and it's a joke about like the location of the necklace being related to oral somehow, like it's a a black belt or whatever. >> Um, even if it starts as like a silly >> meme among high schoolers, once it's there, now there's the social expectations associated with it. And so when you're waking up in the morning and being like, "Oh, I want to wear this type of necklace." You know that that association is there. And so there's there's going to be some effects found. Um, and we see the same thing with tattoos where it's like people think the tattoos are associated with associ socioexuality and then when you test it, it actually is, right? People think this is [laughter] >> Yeah. Right. You think about facial piercings, you think about choker necklaces, all these things. Yep. It's like maybe at first it was nonsense, but once there's the association, you've just made everyone who's not that way reconsider. And just that alone is going to have a small effect. And these are small effects, but they're still interesting. >> A quick aside, you've probably heard experts like Dr. Rhonda Patrick talk about the benefits of omega-3s. They reduce Hello. >> Omega-3s. There they are. They reduce brain function. No, they don't. They support brain function. Maybe I should take more. They support brain function, reduce inflammation, improve heart health, and are backed by hundreds of studies. But here's the thing, all omega-3s are not made the same. Most brands cut corners, they use cheap fish oil, skip purity testing, throw in fillers, and call it a day. But with Momentous, you know you're getting the highest quality omega-3s on the market. They're NSF certified for sport, and they're tested for heavy metals and purity. So, you can rest easy knowing anything that you take from Amantus is unparalleled when it comes to rigorous third party testing. What you read on the label is what's in the product and absolutely nothing else. Best of all, Momentous offers a 30-day money back guarantee. So, you can buy it and try it for 29 days. If you don't love it, they'll just give you your money back. Plus, they ship internationally. Right now, you can get 35% off your first subscription and that 30-day money back guarantee by going to the link in the description below or heading to livemus.com/modernwisdom and using the code modernwisdom a checkout. That's l i v o m n o.com/modern wisdom and modernwisdom at checkout. What is the impact of body count on long-term relationship success? Um I mean it's very intuitive. I'm always surprised by how controversial this is because I say it quite a bit and I say it not even kind of bracing for impact if that makes sense. I'm like this will this seems intuitive, right? But people who love to have casual sex and sleep with lots of people and hop from relationship to relationship and as a result of all those behaviors end up with a higher number for their age than you would otherwise expect. Those people are less likely to succeed in long-term monogous pair bonds than people who do not like doing that and do not have that sort of track record. And that and when I say succeed, I mean in terms of every outcome measure, I mean you know more likely to get divorced, less likely to be satisfied in their relationships, uh more likely to cheat. uh there there was one analysis I believe it was by the IFS where if an individual and this is from this is all true for men and women by the way there I know that on the internet there's a huge focus on women but all these effects there's no sex difference and sometimes the effect is even larger in men than women so that aside right we're we're talking about everybody here uh if you subdivided the data neatly and said people with a body count below five people with a body count above five what's their infidelity rate the infidelity of the above five five group was double that of the below five group. >> No way. >> Yeah. So this is not this is not a nothing burger, right? This this is a thing. Uh and the reason it's a thing is very intuitive, right? It's like what is an affair, for example, like an affair is a form of casual sex. And so if someone has had lots of casual sex, they're telling you to some extent, oh, I'm more likely than someone who has not done this, I I probably enjoy this, right? because I keep doing it over and over. I mean, I'm sure there are some cases where that's not true and and people change obviously, but it's a huge, you know, past behavior is a predictor of f future behavior. So, you're basically saying, oh, I've got like when people are surprised by this, I'm surprised because it's like you've got two groups of people, let's say people who have slept with lots of people and people who haven't. And you're trying to predict who's going to sleep with more people in the future going forward. >> [laughter] >> Like why why would you why would you predict anything other than >> the only the only explanation that I could come up with is that somebody has closed the loops. >> Oh, they've gotten it out of their system. Yeah. The classic Imagine if I said that with alcohol, >> right? I'm going to get it out of my system. I'm going to so I can drink less in the future. I'm going to drink more during my undergrad. Right? Imagine if I said this with drug use. Imagine if I said it with positive things. Imagine if I said I'm going to get the gym out of my system. Right? then that that doesn't happen that it's like, oh, I'm going to go to the gym every day. I'm going to work on my muscles and then in the future I am not going to want to do it as much cuz I used to do it. Like you build healthy habits, you build unhealthy habits. >> Do you think do you think that there's ever the potential for somebody to stray because they had unfulfilled variation early on in their sexual uh career? That's I mean it's a really good point and I think that what we're talking about here is average population level trends which is the sort of thing this data is good for. I think that there probably is some causal relationship but the data don't speak to that yet and you actually can't ethically design the sort of experiment that would tell us >> [ __ ] ethics boards dude they suck so hard. [laughter] Um so >> so many interesting questions that we could answer. I think I think it's an interesting one around um how people interpret socioexuality. Bus had in the evolution of desire I swear one of the lines that's still in my readwise is the single biggest predictor of extrammarital sex is premarital sex. >> Yeah. >> Is that true? >> Well, it's sex predicting sex, right? >> But is that true? is the single biggest predictor of extrammarital sex. Premarital sex. >> Single biggest predictor. I Well, it's David Bus saying it, so I'm very tempted to just >> Slightly older book though, right? Like has evolution of desire is what how old now? >> Yeah, that's true. It's it's like 1999, I believe. So I I mean in my data and looking at other people's data, I would say relationship dissatisfaction, >> but that is >> could that be due to >> think about that? Think about relationship satisfaction as like the damn lifting up and like all the other causes being allowed to run rough shot. >> Relationship dissatisfaction is not one of the predictors that you could be able to >> say in advance. Yeah. Exactly. It's like obviously when things get bad they get bad, right? It's it's kind of it's predicting itself. >> And maybe it's because they've got wandering eyes. Maybe it's because they're not paying as much attention. >> Exactly. And then it's it's also it's not a like it's it's kind of an all cause thing because as soon as you don't care about the relationship, any other motivator becomes much more pertinent. Like maybe you were the sort of guy who never had a wandering eye and you know couldn't be swayed. >> Dissatisfaction has now meant that the first thing to the surface is now what burst out and the most salient personality trait you have is your high socioexuality cuz you slept with 25 women before you got into this >> relation. I think that the the best predictor of extrammarital sex is premarital sex. Maybe that's true. I mean, I do know that the if you look at people who do go the very religious route and they just have one person and and that sort of thing, they I mean, they do tend to have or and they don't live together before marriage and do all this. Yeah. >> I mean, they seem to do they seem to do pretty well. Um I do think though that this is correlational and so there are going to be individuals who don't fit that pattern. And one thing that we cannot test, this is a huge caveat, is that we can't know like if you take that person who had a a high body count, let's say, and cheated. We can't rewind the clock and say, "Oh, if you hadn't built that habit, you would have like maybe maybe it would have been maybe it would have been even wor like like like I can't recommend from this like I can't I can't like tentatively I would say it's probably not a good idea. If you want to marry for life, it's probably not a good idea to sew your wild oats. it's probably not a good idea to try and get it out of your system with the caveat that it's hard to know from the data with great confidence that um that there aren't individual cases where that actually is protected. But also I I really wanted to get into this the causal effect somebody is somebody's just lost their virginity yesterday and they're going to get into a relationship which is going to be their lifelong relationship in 8 years time. They want to have sex with lots of people. They want to. They really, really want to. >> And is me saying hold it back, is that going to make them less likely to cheat? Yeah, I I It's a good point. It's a good point. I think >> Does it change? Does it change? Does you sleeping around? Because one of the questions would be, well, you know what it's like. You've developed some sort of habit, some sort of lifestyle. You've maybe gotten rid of some of the stigma that's a part of it. Inculcated some kind of [ __ ] sexual rhythm with new partners, whatever it might be. uh you know what's out there. Yeah. Right. And >> you actually know the mechanics. I mean people who have never had a one night stand, they actually don't know >> the mechanics of a one night stand. They don't know how that works. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. I that's such an interesting point. I think one night stands are apart from in modern modern media often romanticized by people that have maybe only been in long-term relationships. Like the taxi home, the [ __ ] cleaning up of the clothes in the morning. It's not the beginning of a Love Actually movie. It's not. It's just it it's steeped in awkwardness and stories that you tell your friends in WhatsApp chats the next day. >> Yeah. I think there's some cases probably I mean I I think there's some cases probably where people have that experience don't like it and it actually solidifies their commitment to monogamy. I'm not doing that. >> I think that the I think that when we're talking about I made I made kind of a glib analogy to I was feeling quite cheeky made an analogy to alcohol that kind of thing. And I think that to to walk that back to some degree, I would say that it's probably true if we're talking about like very high cases. Um, but there probably are some cases within normal normal range where like if you came to me and said, "Look, Mac and I really really want to drink and party and and all that sort of stuff." Like would my advice really be going into undergrad, well don't do it because you'll become an alcoholic later or would it be like well have have a little bit of fun try not to go too far and then after check back in and maybe maybe don't maybe you could make similar advice about like how to navigate sexuality if you are someone who's you know socioexually. This is the problem with these sort of like big population level data, these big surveys. We don't know what the underlying motivation is, right? There are lots of different ways. Robert Plman, I always think about Robert Plumber when I think about this stuff. I always think about casual sex. I think about Robert Plowman. Yeah. >> And um he said to me that uh there's lots of ways to get fat. He's talking about behavioral genetics. He's saying there's lots of different ways to get fat. Some people have a higher ghrelin release. Some people have got a bigger stomach. Uh some people just don't like exercise. Some people got a slower lower BMR. Uh lots of and a million other ways I haven't thought about. >> Okay. What that means is when you look at fat people, you are looking at many different routes up the top of the same mountain. When you look at high [snorts] body count people, many different routes up that. Maybe it's because of social approval. Maybe it's because of a need for connection. Maybe it's because of a difficulty with commitment. Maybe it's because of high socioexuality. Maybe it's because of a high sex drive. Maybe it's be whatever the whatever's going on. Maybe it's because of your job, right? You're a stripper or whatever, like or a [ __ ] metal guitar player. >> I think I think in that case the the negative predictive outcomes might might be maintained. But yeah, I I completely take your point >> and we don't know how people are getting up because we're just taking these big aggregate pieces of data. >> I also think that another thing to keep in mind, we're the reason that body count means anything is likely because it's a proxy for socioexuality. And so when we're looking at an aggregate as you say sure there's some predictive benefit but if we were to look at any individual case you could assess it and say like okay well how predictive is this of socioexuality and we even see this in the recent research from um again it's it's it's Thomas's team and I I believe Stuart Williams is on it as well again where they looked at this across nations and they took a more fine grained nuanced approach than they did in 2019 and what they did was They looked at essentially the effects of recency, right? >> And it's like if someone like the number can be the same, but if it's like all of them, and you can really think about this, like what's a better cue to sociality? If you're 38 and you meet a woman who's 34 and she's slept with 10 people, but they were all in undergrad and since then it's been like one boyfriend, right? That's very different to meeting the same 34y old woman who's like, you know, actually it's been 10, but they were all this past month, right? And you're number 11. Like, what's what's the cue, right, in terms of personality? And what they found was that people were sensitive to that. And I think they're sensitive to a lot of things. Like I think that >> if you're talking about like like a body count of seven being quote unquote high, it's not really high for like a 35year-old, right? And it's certainly not a 35-year-old for someone who's only slept with one person in the last 10 years. >> Yeah, exactly. Um, but it actually is insanely high for like a 19-year-old, right? Like that's a shock, right? So, I think that for people listening to this, >> I would say that if you're trying to I mean, I talk about this stuff first and foremost because I find it interesting and not necessarily like it's kind of a second order effect. Yeah. If anything happens to be useful, that's wonderful, right? And we want to extract that as much as possible. Uh, but that's not my primary motivation for >> as a life coach. Yeah, like in terms of looking Yeah, in terms of looking into it, it's um but I would say that if you were trying to glean something practical from this, don't I wouldn't take the kind of caveman like, oh, high body count bad, low body count good approach or or you know, a cave woman as well. Um because these these preferences are apparently very similar. >> I would and these outcomes as well, >> I would say, okay, well, I've got this piece of information, but what's the context of that number? Like, is this a person like, if you want long-term healthy monogamy, is this a person who has had five long-term relationships? Cuz that might even be like a green flag. If you're like 30 and this they they've had a few long relationships, that that sounds pretty good. Um, if you're an undergrad and you met someone and the number is five and it's all one night, I mean, yeah, that's such a good point. If you were to do a third iteration of Thomas' study and say, were these in a committed relationship that lasted for longer than 6 months or were these one-offs? Yeah. Well, the >> completely different story. >> Totally different. Yeah, that's so great. Okay. 7.1 million views, quote, tweeting, "Men do not care about your career, ladies. I'm sorry. They just don't. They will date a waitress at Applebee's over a corporate executive if they treat them right and make their lives easier." [laughter] >> What does the science say about this? >> Well, the men don't care about your career. It kind of depends on what men you're talking about. If you're talking about successful men, they clearly do. I mean there's no like this whole meme of successful men will date a what did you say a waitresses Applebee's waitress okay >> um so the successful men will date an Applebee's waitress doesn't line up with the data that richer men tend to select richer women more educated men tend to select more educated women um richer women appear basically immune to the decline in marriage that has transpired um since the 1970s. So it when you look at this data holistically, it doesn't seem to be the case that there is a effect of men selecting downward for youth and beauty and and whatnot at the trading wealth for lugs. >> Yeah. At the expense of career and education. When you look at the most successful men, they tend to pair up with the most successful women. uh this whole like men will date a Denny's waitress kind of fantasy. >> Be careful with what you say about Denny's. I'm a huge Denny's fan. >> I No, nothing. Well, there's nothing wrong with being a Denny's waitress, but I'm just saying >> No, no, no. I don't care about the waitresses. I care about the restaurant. [laughter] >> Okay. Okay. >> So, Applebee's then. >> Applebees you can talk [ __ ] on as much as >> I'm not talking [ __ ] I'm not just be careful with Denny's, dude. I'm proud to I'm a proud [ __ ] Denny's attendee. Um, one point that I do want to bring up. A friend of mine has an Applebee's theory of attractiveness um which is if you see some chick that's super famous like um Sydney Sweeney for instance. So he uses this example of uh Jennifer Anderson uh versus Megan Fox. Jennifer Anderson you could see working in Applebees. Like you just saw her be like [ __ ] that's a hot Applebee's waitress but you could see her working in Applebees. There's no way Megan Fox working works in Applebees. We'll get back to talking in just one second, but first, if you have been feeling a bit sluggish, your testosterone levels might be the problem. They play a huge role in your energy, your focus, and your performance. But most people have no idea where theirs are or what to do if something's off. Which is why I partnered with Function, because I wanted a smarter and more comprehensive way to actually understand what's happening inside of my body. Twice a year, they run lab tests that monitor over a 100 biomarkers. They've got a team of expert physicians that analyze the data and give you actionable advice to improve your health and lifespan. And seeing your testosterone levels and tons of other biomarkers charted over the course of a year with actionable insights to actually improve them gives you a clear path to making your life better. Getting your blood work drawn and analyzed like this would usually cost thousands, but with function it's just $499. And right now you can get $100 off, bringing it down to $399 bucks. Get the exact same blood panels that I get and save that $100 by going to the link in the description below or heading to functionhealth.com/modernwisdom. That's functionhealth.com/modernwisdom. >> And what is this test meant to deduce? Where are we? >> Whether or not you can whether or not you're actually able to sleep with super famous celeb women. >> It's total pulled out of his ass bros. But he basically says like if you can imagine her working in Applebees, you've probably got a shot. >> Like it's it's is she sort of god tier. Yeah. You don't have nobody's going to [ __ ] >> need to see your friend. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, he's he would not [ __ ] Jennifer Anderson or uh Sydney Sweeney or [ __ ] Megan Fox. Applebe just Applebee's coming up a good bit. Um so >> how much truth is there in men don't care about your career? Because it seems to me like guys would uh be happy to sacrifice more in terms of socioeconomic status from a woman than women would be in a guy. That sounds I mean that that is like one of the most wellsupported findings in psychology. >> Okay. So is this just doing reductio absurdum on that men do not care about your career? I'm sorry they don't. They'll wait date a waitress at Applebee's over a corporate executive if they treat them right and make their lives easier. It's we care more about interesting there that they said uh treat them right and make their lives easier. Not is hot. >> Yeah. Actually that's a good point. I disposition. I heard that, but it landed on my ears as a previous meme. >> Um, you know, >> they're talking about disposition, agree, agreeableness, conscientiousness. >> Yeah, that's interesting. I think um I think that the caveat that that is chucked in there probably makes it true in the sense that yes, people will select for personality and beauty over career. highly disagreeable woman in masculine energy, not soft or sensitive, not treating you right, making your life more difficult versus less educated, less wealthy. >> Yeah. Yeah. Like we we don't see like if you look at the biggest studies on stated and revealed preferences, career comes in as a low moderate priority, right? Like it's >> for men on women or for both? >> For both. Well, in revealed preferences for both for men especially in stated preferences. Uh so the sex differences in revealed preferences are less consistent. I think that my initial reaction of oh that's that's nonsense comes from knowing that successful men tend to pair up with successful women. >> Um and that suggests some caring there. And then when you ask men there does seem to be some stated preference for career. It's not like don't care. And then when you look at revealed preferences again it's a low priority. Yeah, I I do think that with the personality caveat or with a beauty caveat, it kind of becomes true. >> But to say like don't care is is quite misleading. >> Well, it's interesting that you uh and I actually uh misread even as I was saying it didn't realize that it said treat them right and make their lives easier, right? Which is personality went to Lux and youth. It was 35year-old corporate executive versus 21-year-old Applebees. And then one of the reaction the reaction that actually got me onto it was um from a woman being critical. Smart men don't marry bimbos because that would be a very very stupid thing to do. The men claiming they don't care about intelligence, education, or status are just revealing where they're at on the hierarchy more than anything else. There's a lot that's been pulled out of this, but the first one, smart men don't marry bimbos. I mean, Katherine D boil or some [ __ ] I think >> that is very accurate actually to the data in terms of >> smart men don't marry bimbos because that would be a very very stupid thing to do. The men claiming they don't care about intelligence, education or status are just revealing where they're at on the hierarchy more than anything else. How's that accurate to the data? Well, we um they've put they've put some linguistic top spin on it in order to make it a tweet, but so it's not precise, but it is accurate directionally in the sense that higher status men h marry higher status women. More educated men marry more educated women, richer men marry richer women, men with higher income marry higher income women. Even though often times those women stop working after marriage um at the initial point of contact they tend to both be in similar stratospheres and they also tend to marry similarly in terms of their own age. The richer a man is the smaller an age gap he is likely to have which a lot of people >> the richer a man is. >> Yeah. >> The smaller the age gap. >> The less likely the precise phrasing would be that the less likely he is to have a large age gap. So, you see with these 10-year downward age gaps as well as these 5year downward age gaps, they're less common among the male economic elite um than they are among poor men. >> Explain me that. >> Well, I think that it's that these men are very successful and they're crushing at everything they're doing. Like, it's kind of the Jeff Bezos archetype where it's like Jeff Bezos could, if he wanted to, marry a 21-year-old, but he probably doesn't want to. He wants to marry someone he can actually relate to who's a fellow, you know, multi-millionaire and and successful in her own right. And that's who he gets along with and who appeals to him. And I think that that's probably just the case with these I think it's just probably the case with these elite males that they also covet eliteness in their kind of refined a refined taste born out of a refined lifestyle. In order to be able to achieve high socioeconomic success as a man, you've had to become discerning and you probably have non-typical challenges that you're facing and you want somebody that can keep up with you. The great line from David Senra, he says he's read like 500 biographies of greatest founders from history. Everyone should go and listen to founders. And um he says, "The rule that I've learned about choosing a partner is that as a high-erforming CEO or founder, you either need a supportive spouse or no spouse at all." >> Yeah. >> And I feel like it it's playing into that. >> It is. I mean, I was speaking to, you know, very successful businessman, um, you know, one of the one of these absolute crushers, and he, um, you know, he's dating someone who is in a non just just a not highly cognitive role, and he's like, "Look, they're great, but I miss when I was dating women who were in my space because at least they understood, you know, what the f I was talking about when I came home from work, like the the sort of deals I'm working on, the mechanics of it. >> I have a partner in this." >> Yeah. One thing that I one thing that I love about about my girlfriend, frankly, not to be not to be cheesy, is just that she's also a researcher. And so when I'm, you know, explaining something or or presenting a paper or talking to a conference, like all aspects of my work are fully understood by her. Um, >> it's not laborious. You don't need to overly explain >> and to the point where I I can actually acquire assistance on and and offer assistance on research matters. such a it's a huge it's a huge hack and a lot of these successful men >> they wouldn't have anything to talk to with with you know >> the Applebees >> Denny's waitress tons of things to talk to cuz Denny's is incredible but Applebee's specifically >> [ __ ] Apple dude >> um I mean Denny's supremacist >> um yeah look I've been in relationships in the past and this is this is an interesting pivot that guys in their mid to late 20s will see and I certainly saw as well that what I was selecting for in my 20s was not what served me in my 30s. And that was largely due to kind of growing up not being so much of an adult infant, but that as I started to grow as a person and have I think what really happened was my true interests came to the surface that I was less embarrassed about what it was that I was interested in. I felt less shame about being nerdy or sensitive uh despite presenting like the school bully like inside a Milhouse as Finn Taylor said. >> And um >> what that meant was I what I wanted in a partner changed. I I couldn't get away with somebody who was simply pleasant and attractive. I needed to be able to have a little bit more of a conversation because what it made me feel like was uh I was sort of Batman by day but Bruce Wayne by night and I couldn't bring my work home. It's obvious that these conversations are important to me. It's obvious that thinking about this stuff fires me up and I'm interested in it. And if I can't bring that into my relationship, for instance, if you needed to reexlain what a sex difference is, Yeah. or what intraexual competition is every time that you needed to talk about, "So, how was today, honey? What are you working on at the moment?" >> Um, >> that would be tough. And I think the desire that people have to be able to really resonate with their partner on the surface, especially again online Red Pill Brophere, um doesn't necessarily sort of hit. But when you get into the nuts and bolts of how this long-term relationship is actually going to work, a relationship is essentially one long [ __ ] podcast. >> That's what it is. It's one big conversation for the rest of time. And you want to, the theory is basically that you should try and have the most generative conversation that you can. You want to be able to speak to someone for 20,000 hours without getting bored. If you've got that plus the basics sorted, I think you're probably going to get through like they're pretty good with loyalty, they're pretty good in terms of attractiveness on your level, etc., etc. like that functionally is a big is carrying a big part of long-term relationship success. I think can you talk to this person and not get bored? >> I mean I think I mean what what you said there I hope somebody clips it because it's it's a it's a really good point that I think people should hear and I think the analogy is is is funny. >> Well I mean I'm always going to pedestalize my own industry. >> Yeah. Well, well, one thing that was coming to mind was that it must be quite difficult for you to find someone who you can actually explain your work in a way that is coherent. Uh, with with me, I'm wearing a few hats and so, >> but you can niche down, >> right? You need to find somebody that's in the niche. >> Yeah. Like I don't need someone who understands like all elements. like they don't need to understand like Tik Tok and that kind of thing, right? Um like understanding one or the other would probably fine, but with you, your career genuinely is like very very strange. >> It's Yeah, thank you. Uh I I was thinking about what it would be like if you were a UFC fighter. Do you need to date another UFC fighter? >> Well, a lot of them do. like Ryan I believe is um he's not a UFC fighter but I believe his >> misses is a excellent >> and like who when you kind of hear that guy interviewed and stuff it's like yeah that that tracks right >> yeah of course um but the more niche that your pursuit is especially if it's sort of sexcoded right if it's malecoded or female coded >> I understand what you're saying >> well [ __ ] like you're a teacher >> well okay you going to date another male teacher well you know you can probably I think a lot of teaching especially of you uh primary school secondary school kids most competent people can hold a conversation there >> but if you're talking about oh I teach pure mathematics at postgrad like oh [ __ ] hell >> I think it's yeah I think it's understanding the kind of elements and nature obviously you don't need to have like dating within your career isn't necessarily necessary but dating like within your your kind of stratospheric ballpark of like like a doctor and a lawyer both understand long hours and cognitive labor and, you know, trading, >> you know, lots of education. >> Even if one's a pediatric surgeon and the other one does sports rehab or some [ __ ] Yeah. Exactly. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It could be even it could be even closer, such as this. Um, I think that where this where this whole kind of Applebee's waitress fantasy falls apart and the reason that you just don't see it, right? Again, like you can this is so fact checkable. Like you can see like how many times? >> Yeah. You can see like is this something that happens? And when you actually look at the data, educated men marry educated women, richer men mar, you know, I've said this all before. So it's like it doesn't seem to happen very often, not as a norm. And I think that in terms of explaining it, part of it is just that part of it is just proximity effects of course. Uh but then I think part of it also is selection for genuine selection for similarity, like someone you can talk to. Um, I think that a corporate lawyer could totally date, you know, a sick business woman or a surgeon or whatever. >> But I think that, yeah, I think that most of them if they were dating someone who's >> it doesn't need to be within the same niche. One other interesting uh [ __ ] appendage to add on to the work that I do. Uh, unfortunately, there is basically no moat around podcasting because everybody has conversations and what you're basically doing is chatting [ __ ] for a living. >> Yeah. And the issue of that is that everybody partakes in what you do in one form or another. And what I do and the particular skill set that I have built up like permeates the rest of my life in a way that if I was a surgeon or a UFC fighter, it wouldn't. Unless you're a very bad fighter, you're not randomly getting into punch-ups on the street or over dinner or with your partner. And you presumably you're not just like spontaneously doing improv surgery when you're out at a bar, >> right? Um, but everybody partakes in what I do, which means that at least in my experience, um, it's been sometimes a little bit of a challenge to make girls feel comfortable not being not having a self assessment of they're boring. >> Oh yes, I completely understand what you're is that you're like a professional conversationalist whose job is to >> What the [ __ ] have I got to talk to him about? What have I got to talk? He just spent the afternoon with Jordan Peterson on Mac and Murphy talking about God. Like, you know, it would be it would be like >> being a professional porn star and going home to your amateur amateur sex, >> but apart from the fact that you have sex everywhere. You have it over dinner. You have it as the kids are at the table. You have it, you know, as you're doing the dishes. Um, it would be like that. And this is what I mean. It permeates everything. So, it's an interesting shot. So, what I'm saying is it >> incredibly unique. >> Podcasters need more sympathy is what I'm saying. Jesus [ __ ] Christ. >> Well, it's Yeah, I mean that is that is that is absolutely fascinating. I I I'm glad I double clicked there because I I was expecting just the kind of mechanics of the work being hard to understand, but the porn star analogy really drove it home for me. Uh you know, >> well, I know the language. >> Do you feel Do you feel Yeah. Do you feel when you get home so to say >> Mhm. that there is a so I was speaking to a guy who was a professional guitarist in his early 20s and he said it ruined guitar for him. No, not [laughter] he was he was playing wonderful. Um so he was you know working for these cover bands and things like that. He was a pro guitarist, right? But not not like a huge success >> and he said that it killed guitar for him where it was like he got paid to do it so much that it was like there was a period where it took a while to get back into it. And I've even found this with social media to some extent that it's like when I was doing it and there was you know no money involved and it was kind of just for fun. There was a lot more it was a lot there was so much more like creative passion at that time and I kind of have to get myself I've forced myself in that headsp space. >> Do you leave like com like does talking become kind of like look I talk I talk >> I talk professionally let me rest. Does that >> uh yeah like the porn star coming home and going honey not tonight. Yeah, exactly. Like I've been doing this all day. I've done a 9 to5. Come on. >> Uh I I could talk about this for a long time. I wrote um a little note to myself probably about 5 years ago just as I started to turn pro with the show, which was during co and I I've come to sort of think about turning anything that you love into a labor as a very dangerous pursuit. >> Yeah, >> very dangerous. You need to pick it very carefully. If you play pickle ball, you love pickle ball, you play a couple of nights a week and on a weekend with your friends, you're really into it and you watch maybe you even taking classes and you're becoming a bit better or whatever, you don't need to cross every tea and dot every eye. You don't need to put that much work in. But as soon as you decide to turn pro, as soon as you make it your thing, all of that [ __ ] goes out the window. You need to be getting agility coaching and you need to be working on your sleep and your hydration and your nutrition and you're going to miss weddings and your girlfriend's going to get mad at you and you're going to need to work on you're going to get injuries and you're going to have to rehab them and your sense of identity is going to be wrapped up and you're going to be on this roller coaster. Well, you in some ways you're going to love it more because you've committed to this thing, but in other ways it's going to feel like a labor and the way that I've come to see it is uh Paul Graham's got this great how to do great work wonderful essay and there's a few different dynamics going on. And you need like a 3D graph to to explain it. At the very beginning, you have the most enthusiasm typically because everything's freshest. You're doing it just for the love of it. Isn't this amazing? But your experience is the lowest it'll ever be. And the returns per unit of effort are also the lowest that there'll ever be. >> And as you go over time, typically I've found passion, the free liberated passion does wayne a little bit. Like if I look at my day, I did 11 hours of calls back to back on Wednesday this week. I started at 9:00 and I finished at 8 and there was no there was zero break in between. Now I'm frontloading a lot of this cuz I'm about to go away on tour and I've got to eat a lot of [ __ ] and there's like tons of big episodes that I've told you about that coming up and I'm like trying to negotiate all of this [ __ ] and like 90 minutes just on flights. Just 90 minutes on my flights for the next two months. Yeah. Right. Trying to move. Oh, I got to go from [ __ ] Portland, Maine to LA to this to that. Um, 2 and a half hours on copywriting for the channel, titles and thumbnails. But I extended that because I want to get out ahead so I don't need to do these calls when I'm away. >> Um, I had a call with my doctor team for half an hour on the morning. I had a call with my GM and my my uh business development guy for a half an hour. And I look at my day and I'm like, that's 11 hours of calls back to back. I [snorts] didn't need to do that when I started because the obligation it was just doing it for love. It's just doing it for fun. So, when you start to turn pro with things, typically a lot of this comes along for the ride. But I'm at the stage now where every word that I say, every episode that I record, everything that I put out, there has never been a point before now where it's had as much impact, where it can move the world in a better direction, where it generates more revenue, where it uh grows the platform more, where I have and I've never had more expertise than I do now. So, you have these three dials that are all moving, and there's probably more, but you have these three dials that are all moving at the same time. And I think what the goal is, at least in in my experience, doing anything for a really really long amount of time. I've been doing this show for nearly 8 years now. That's a long amount of time to do anything, right? Even to be in one job now in the modern world for 8 years, is is is pretty long. Um, you're managing your passion by tolerating how hard you work by putting your foot on and off the gas. There's a couple of little hacks that you can do to keep it going. Working with other people, huge hack. Like celebrating wins as well, huge hack. If you've outsourced your motivation to a group around you, little goals, having side quests that you do that don't distract from the main thing, but just keep it sufficiently varied. That's why the live shows are so important to me because if I can get out there and get on stage and get some positive reinforcement from 10,000 people, sick. Like, I ride off that for a while. Um, but I'd be lying if I said that I had the same motivation that I did when I started the show. But the reason that you start doing a thing is not the reason that you keep doing it after a long time. You know, the reason that you started your uh postgrad studies will not quite be the same as it is now. And it won't be the same as when you've got your doctor. It won't be the same as when you start writing books. And it won't be the same as when your substack. You know what I mean? It's not going to be the same throughout time. So, an interesting question is how do I keep the main thing the main thing when the fuel source driving the main thing changes and the direction the main thing's going in is altered as well. Yeah. >> And uh I I talked about this with Chris Bunstead, the Chris Bunstead episode. People can go and listen to that. And he says the same thing. He's like, "The reason I started doing bodybuilding is not the same as when I was partway through my career was not the same as when I thought I was going to retire and wasn't the same as when I did retire. And it's not the same that I do it now now that I have retired." Yeah. >> But it's the same thing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, what does that mean? Well, you've got different fuel sources, different directions, and it's fascinating. Fas I really love that you went there. [ __ ] great question. >> Yeah, I mean I it's it's a it's a I mean, that was really interesting. It's it's it's a it's a it's a ch it's a challenging idea, this idea of going pro. I mean, I think one of the funniest things, and I'm sure you experienced this switch at some point, has been everyone in my life pivoting from like, you know, being may not, you know, everyone's everyone's supportive, but maybe being a little bit irritated with how much time I'm spending on TikTok to being like, please post more on, >> you know, like because you suck at the you know what I mean? I remember when I used to play I played violin between the ages of maybe 11 and 15 and I played in orchestras and stuff. Uh, I did notice over time my mom would ask me to play for her more. >> Oh, that's interesting. Yeah. >> Presumably just because it was less painful. >> It was like, oh, it was less [ __ ] Yeah. >> To listen to. So, as somebody gets better at what they do, and this is what I mean, there it is a vicious um it is a vicious dynamic, this trade-off that you have where motivation can dwindle over time. And there's other fuels that come in. And okay, how can I bolster this? Because habit as well, there's another one that I didn't account for. Like just at 2 p.m. Central time, I'm supposed to speak to an academic with an unpronouncable surname. That's what I do, right? That's what I do. Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, I that's what I do. >> Yeah. >> And you go, well, if I didn't do that, I'd feel, you know, all out of sorts. >> Yeah. It gets easier. >> But is that motivation? No, not really. It's more habit. And does that make it less pure? Well, I don't know. like the outcome the expertise is better but would it be even better if you could get the mot it's it's a a real it's a real interesting sort of nebulous thing and I think anybody that does anything for a long time should be aware of this and I would say use the fuel that you have would be a piece of advice so if if you are say someone came and asked me this in London a couple of weeks ago basically said no sorry it was it the the first work in progress live show that I did here it's like dude my life's going Great. I'm okay. Well, that's that's a first in terms of questions that I get asked at Q&A. You were at the Melbourne show and it wasn't usually my life's going great. It was usually here's a challenge that I'm facing. >> Uh, my life's going great. Um, I really really want to crush it at the moment and I've got tons of energy, but I feel like work life balance kind of important. I sort of looked at the dude. It was dark. I couldn't see cuz the light was my How old are you? He's like 23. It's like, bro, [ __ ] hell. Let's send it. You've got the freest motivation in history. It is never going to be easier for you to do the [ __ ] that you need to do than right now. Cuz for me to have the energy that I had to when I was 23 doing Club Promo or 31, one year into the podcast, >> that like pure unbridled blue sky vision, [ __ ] light sky ceiling thinking. I it it that fuel source is largely spent in many ways and it's been taken on by perhaps even more potent ones, but that one's gone. >> Yeah. It will never be easier to get you to do the [ __ ] that you need to do than when you are compelled to do it. So [ __ ] send it. I'm like like castigating this guy who's like, "Yeah, my but life's going great, but I'm like kind of taking it easy, but I really want to go harder, but I realize that work life balance." My dude, you're 23. Worry about this in a decade. Like [ __ ] take a flamethrower to the middle of the the candle and blow the [ __ ] out of it. Yeah. And he was like, "Oh yeah, >> yeah, that feels like what I want to do." I'm like, "Okay, go forth and [ __ ] end some worlds." Cuz honestly, the the work life balance is going to be a lot easier when your wife and kids are begging you for balance and >> as opposed to inverting it. As opposed to inverting it. >> Uh yeah. Okay. The bottom 40% of men and top 20% of women are now hyperandrous. >> What's that mean? >> Well, I'm glad that you uh struggled with the pronunciation there because it actually highlights a just how interesting this change is. That hyper hypergamy, hyper hypergeny, uh have been these pre prevailing norms. Uh hypergamy just meaning, you know, marrying up essentially. And the default when you say that term has been, oh, that's that's women marrying up, right? That's that's almost always what it's what it's meant to refer to. Uh and over the last half century or so uh women's economic and social gains have been tremendous such that men and women are rather equal in terms of their economic and economic productivity and social status. And this has occasioned a rebalancing of the mating market such that if any significant number of people pair up, there's going to be a number of people who are pairing up in the reverse of the normal hyperandry, right? Where where the male is made up. That's a term that I actually believe was was coined by um by one of my supervisors, Rob Brooks, who you who you >> Yeah, I love Rob. >> Yeah. >> So, it's interesting. Um, what do you want to discuss related to this? Uh, >> well, first off, explain explain what the bottom 40% of men and top 20% of women are now dating more socioeconomically successful women to less so economically successful men. Why is that? Why bottom and top? What? Explain that to me. >> If you were Oh, so I understand. So, the one real risk of confusion here potentially would be that thinking that they're pairing up with each other. So what seems what what that data reflects this is from the IFS analysis is that and I believe it was 1.4 million was the sample size. So so it's let's say representative. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a lot of people. >> Um is that the bottom two quintiles of men on average right if you were to take if you were to separate and it's just a way of it's just a way of looking at the data. It's nothing more than that. If you were to separate people into quintiles and say okay what are the bottom two quintiles of men doing like on average and on average those men are marrying up. So if you were to take one of them at random and say do you earn more or does your partner earn more on average they would say my partner earns >> and that's zeroth percentile to 40th percentile of income. >> Yeah. And if you look at 80th percentile to 100th percentile of income in women um they're and you were to just randomly say you know are do you make more or does your husband make more on average they would say my well I I make more. Um and that's that's a real change. I think it's pretty interesting and it's hard to know how much this reflects a re this is a recalibration of behavior to the new >> landscape. Yeah. the new ecology. Uh it remains to be seen how much it's a recalibration of uh of preferences. Uh I know that I know that this is something that's very interesting to you. Um but as humans, I think >> well as a woman in the top 20% income bracket, it's unbelievably interesting to me. >> Yeah, it is interesting. Right. I think it's interesting, too. It's what I've uh it's what I've been studying for the last year. It's a problem that I've been thinking about. Uh we've got some new research under peer review right now on this exact subject. >> Can you say much about that or is it too early to blow your load on it? It's [laughter] I wouldn't use that phrase, but >> premature publication. >> Yeah. A premature publication. You know, I've gotten in trouble with this before where where I've had uh I've had Candace say, "Please stop talking. Please stop doing a podcast." >> We love you, Candace. >> Yeah. A podcast tour prior to peer review. Um and I suppose it could influence things in some way if it's already like a known fact. >> Um but I think that I I I'll talk more about it in the future. Cool. >> For now, we'll just say that uh it's an interesting problem, right? Because humans have a diverse array of variation producing mechanisms that we can leverage towards adapting to the ecology, right? And it is possible to adapt to the prevailing ecology as you say without adapting what you want internally. Like you can make a strategic so a really shortterm I'm talking about different behavioral adaptation mechanisms. We've got really short-term stuff like thinking through your situation like playing chess and saying, "Oh, it's gonna suck if I like I might want to get my queen out now, but the chess board is going to be all sorts of messed up if I do that. So, I'm thinking about what what I should do and I'm doing something different from what my impulse is, right? Like we can do stuff like that as people and we can adapt through that. We have longer term um medium-term adaptation such as cultural adaptation. So that's where like for example in the case of this um in the case of this precise example, it used to be uh humiliating and strange to at a dinner party say that your wife makes more money than you. But already we have culturally adapted to the new markets, the new the new ecology by making that kind of benal, right? It's it's it's it's maybe >> depends on what the audience is it's landing with. >> It maybe results in one joke at your expense at worst. That doesn't really go much further than that. most people would be completely normal >> as opposed to if it was 50 years ago. >> Exactly. Exactly. So, we've got some cultural adaptation and then there's the longest term slowest and most uncontrollable. I mean, it's it just is what it is. Genetic adaptation, right? Yeah. So, which could be the preference in this case. So, if our mate preferences are hard influenced by our evolved psychology, right? Then you're gonna have a very long period of behavioral and cultural adjustment, but internal. >> Oh, this is so cool. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. Yeah. So, we have we have conflict. >> So, we have we have ev what this what this evidence is showing here is strategic adjustment. That chessboard level mechanism that we were talking about, >> some cultural adjustment. Maybe that's not >> Yeah, but that's not shown in the data. But we know that there's some we know there's some cultural adjustment. We can see that there's some cultural adjustment. The um it's it's interesting, right? Because It's not clear from that data, but is it the case that these let's say bottom 40% of men are like, well, you know, I would like to be I have the kind of cultural coding that I should be a provider that would give me a lot of self-esteem. I would quite like that. You know, I maybe have some mate preferences geared towards that as well that are that are evolved to some degree. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. Um, I have this intuition, but strategically I know I'm going to be single if I don't mate up. Right. And also I know that I'm not going to pay rent if I don't make up. >> The same thing is in reverse too. >> Exa. Well, yeah. Exactly. And that's that's even the more risky one because I would say that I would be quite confident that those bottom 40% probably the bottom 40% of males I'd be pretty confident based on what I've seen that they're probably just either ambivalent or kind of stoked to be mating up. Like they don't really, [laughter] you know what I mean? like it's like, you know, she's she's paying off my car, right? You know, like I've been that guy. Like I know I know what that I know that situation. It's like most of most of the rent most of my rent is covered. The the my car is getting paid off. Um it's not that stressful, right? Even if at a dinner party it might be there's a joke of my expense. >> What about the inverse? >> But the other but the inverse is where the concern comes in. That's where we see these New York Times articles. That's where we see these viral tweets. That's where Yeah, exactly. That's where we see this kind of cultural tension that is happening where it's essentially like it's it's what you call the tall girl problem so to say where there is a widespread concern that the mate preferences of the most successful women won't adapt over a short-term time horizon. And so what we're really interested in investigating and we're we're doing this completely neutally. It's it's it's just interesting. Um can they adapt? Right? That's the that's the current research question that I'm >> suggest that that they are adapt >> behaviorally but emotionally you you know that there are I know that you know this data I'm just repeating it for the audience's sake that these um culturally in congruent pairings these hyperandrous pairings they're associated in some data from Europe for example >> domestic violence >> yeah with worse relationship outcomes which would suggest that it's like maybe there's a strategic situation where it's like I'm going to adapt my behavior so I can mate. >> Well, think about that, dude. Think about how ruthless it is. Uh, I can't be bothered doing the caveat, but evidently this is only a hypothetical. Imagine how ruthless it would be if you were to say to women, you have two choices in life. One is to pursue the career that you want, and the other is to be beaten up by your husband. >> I mean, that's that obviously that's not the actual thing, but that is the but that is that the data is in that trend where it's like there's this these status reversed marriages have these you know, horrible outcomes in some cases like or they have a higher probability of these >> or or you you have a more milktoast example, you have the choice between pursuing the career that you want and being in a happy relationship where you're attracted to your partner. >> Yeah. So what we're we're what we're hoping I guess and also like optimistically investigating is like to what extent are these preferences for women mating up to what extent are those malleable and to what extent are they rigid? >> Ah dude, you you've always been so [ __ ] white on this ever since we started talking about this years ago. >> Well, yeah. I mean I I think that the the to I think that the question is to what extent are mate preferences flexible to what extent are we flexible and I'm >> without getting too into >> without getting too into recent research I think that we have a lot of reason for optimism here and I think that there is so look I think that there is >> some evidence of really unfortunate um cultural growing pains so to say where these these relationships where the woman makes more have these negative outcomes for now but I feel confident that over a longer term time over a longer time horizon uh humans will be able to adapt. >> Why if how long evolution takes [ __ ] forever? When you look at the anthropological literature, there are many cases where um female provisioning is greater than male provisioning. Right? So um for example um among the paleon of South India, they live in montaine rainforests and the primary food source yams are gathered rather than hunted. Right? And gathering is more of a cross-culturally it's more of a female coded activity and hunting much more done by males, right? And so the long and short of it is about 70% of food is produced by women, right? Um >> and there seems to be cultural adaptation to this. It seems totally fine and it it doesn't seem to be causing trouble. What I would say is that we're in an uncomfortable state culturally because we are Yeah, we're pivoting from a culture where male provisioning is the norm to a culture where by parental provisioning is the norm, right, socioeconomically. And so what I would say is this is that in the short term it is true >> that there are these horrible growing pains. >> But I feel confident if I'm going to bet on human adaptability versus non-adaptability. I'm going to bet on human adaptability every time just because I've seen >> there's evidence for so you see the study. >> I see so much variety crossculturally. But I don't want to downplay though. The thing is, the thing is this is that you you don't want to when we're talking about something as ser when I'm when I'm talking about something as serious and awful as domestic violence or divor divorce or infidelity or even relationship dissatisfaction. Relationship dissatisfaction is awful. >> Very painful. >> I don't want to come on here as the overoptimistic anthropologist, right? And just say and just say, "Oh, everything's going to be all right, guys." You know, everything's going to be fine. I know that there there are these I know that there are these issues, but I'm confident that like to even even my phrasing it as growing pains maybe was was insufficiently sensitive to how bad some of these issues can be. >> Um period pain. >> Yeah. However, >> again, look, we'll we'll have another conversation about it in the future. It's a topic that I'm investigating. I think that um I think that humans are adaptable and that there's bound to be a period of tension when you're switching Here's >> provisioning strategy. >> Here's the sort of nuts and bolts of it. Unless you're going to put the kaibos on the socioeconomic status of women or men and women are going to stop coupling up. This is going to happen >> that. Thank you. Yes. So this is this is the exact point I'm making is that there is no conceivable future I think where anyone is going to put the brakes on women's economic gains. Like that would seem, you know, morally insane. >> Um >> especially in the current climate. Yeah, exactly. Like it doesn't it doesn't it it's complete non-starter, right? And so it's literally >> and also sorry women wouldn't put it on themselves, I don't think, which would be another option for some way either externally or internally someone would put kind of ceiling socioeconomically on women. >> So the options for the mating market and the options for successful women are adapt or don't pair up, right? It's like if you're a top 20% woman, >> your choices actually are either accept the likely possibility that you probably won't date someone at or above your level or don't pair up right there. There is going to be some portion of them who still manage to action on dating up economically, but it's not the norm already. And soon, if trends continue, it's going to be yeah, the top half of women >> don't pair up up, if that makes sense. And so you can either so for men and women the option is the option that it has been for us and all of our male and female ancestors for time immemorial adapt or die. >> Bro, this is so interesting. I [ __ ] especially having watched this. This is a wonderful thing about being in a uh niche for a while. You get to see things unfold. You know, I've been talking to this fascinating. You know, I think I'm I first said tall girl problem 2021. >> Yeah. >> I'm seeing it unfold. You know, that top quintile are the tall girls. >> Yeah. In this >> and then you see even this year all these New York Times articles, these things basically focusing zeroing in on this subgroup and saying, "Hey, what's going wrong?" You know? >> Mhm. It's >> interesting. >> Yeah. It's fascinating. Uh I voice noted you a while ago basically saying could birth rate and coupling rates be going down because everyone is just fatter now. Uh basically my argument that's a reductive way to put it. Basically I said can a civilization make itself too unattractive? >> I think I think I nixed this idea in the in the >> You don't want to talk about it. >> No I'm I'm I'm ab I I suggested it as something we talk about. >> I think that in our initial interaction I said I'm I'm not sure but I'm happy to talk about it more. >> Okay. So here's here's my here's my perspective. I wondered whether or not humans can eat themselves out of being attractive sexual objects. Like >> obviously with increasing weight there's changes in vasculature, libido, like issues like etc etc. >> But even though people typically mate with people of a similar level of attractiveness, presumably there is kind of a flaw below which people are just less attractive. No matter how unattractive you are, and especially if it's becoming unattractive due to gaining a lot of weight, like if you're morbidly obese, what you know inside is maybe a you that wasn't and maybe your sense of your own mate value, you kind of have like uh alpha widow distortion of yourself. You have like mirror widow distortion of yourself where you think, well, look, I know that I might be a bit [ __ ] fat right now and maybe that's made me go from a five to a four to a three or whatever it might have been. Uh, but I know like deep down I know that I'm not and I really shouldn't be dating this sort of a and people's I wonder if our own sense of our own mate value physically is able to be sufficiently malleable to wax and wayne with the sizes of weight gain that we've seen. And I'm wondering whether the lack of coupling up and the increase in birth rates could just be due to the fact that everybody finds each other a bit less attractive because the number one source of malnutrition globally is obesity, not starvation. >> I think u >> not saying all the starving people are having sex either. [laughter] >> I think uh I think the the there's a few interesting threads that you've pulled out there. One is that there is the you know very broad correlation in the sense that over the same time period that we've seen singleness and sexlessness rise there's been uh there's been obviously increasing obesity over that time same time period and then also um we're going to get to run the experiment here uh with these GLP1 agonists uh there's already been a massive reduction and there's that that reduction is going going to continue I think that we're going to see obesity essentially disappear from America in our lifetime. And that's uh that's that's an incred from a health perspective, from a human flourishing perspective, that's an incredibly positive thing. Uh as far as the causes of sexlessness and singleness, I actually think this is something that I was speaking to Andrew Moore about rather recently is that I think that the coincident timing with in the case of singleness, declining marriage, etc. I think it does. I think it is downstream of what we were discussing earlier more than anything problem. >> Well, it's a complex it's a complex issue, right? But >> because here's the thing is that people hear people hear reducing marriage and they think sorry to interrupt you. >> No, no, >> it's it's a habit of mine. It's terrible. >> People hear reducing marriage rates and they think reducing marriage rates bad. But a lot of the people who aren't getting married are people who shouldn't have gotten married. Right. >> That's why divorce rates are going down. >> Divorce rates are also going down. Exactly. Like the people who get married today. Yeah. >> No joke. >> The people of my generation, Gen Z, the people who are getting married from my generation are currently on track to have a divorce rate similar, most similar to people in the 1950s. and divorce rates overall as low as they've been since 1970 among people who get married. So marriage >> among the people who participate in the institution is doing better than ever, right? It's it's it's good, right? Um so people hear like oh marriage rates declining bad and I they've actually upticked a little bit since co there's kind of a postcoid bump but overall overall declining. People think that's bad and I and I agree to an extent, but with the caveat that if the reason marriage rates are declining is because women who would have married due to having to be financial prisoners of men, I know that's a term you've used before. >> Um, >> if that's the reason they're declining, well, that I mean that just seems like a writing of a great wrong. So, in terms of like explaining declining marriage rates, things like that, >> I I I I would lean towards that explanation. Um the connection with obesity though, I mean it's it's interesting and what you're describing in terms of the kind of internal mate value like we see with um I know that there's one speed dating study on this. I can't remember the author's names. Um but essentially the long and short of it is is that it's not that people are attracted to people who are their league. It's that they're attracted to the best looking person that reciprocates their interest. Yeah. So it's not that it's not that like sometimes people ask this about like oh do you know are do do when unattractive people pair up right are they actually you know is that their preference or is like do do unattractive people prefer the looks of unattractive people to super attractive people that doesn't >> would the three not date the eight well if they were able to get reciprocal attention probably >> I wish it was true that it was like oh twos are most attracted to twos threes are most attracted to threes or or however you might slice it But it doesn't seem to be true. >> Is there is there any data suggesting that people who are less physically attractive have worse relationship outcomes? >> Uh yeah. Yeah, there is. >> Oh, that's really unfortunate. I've never heard of it before. >> Yeah. Well, it's like even in like it's uncomfortable to talk about like but even in my infidelity study which we talked about last time I was on people tended to cheat up not down in attractiveness. And one implication of that would be that if you're more attractive that's probably a protective factor against infidelity. Um I think that it's interesting. So with the only negative outcome that I have seen >> uh sorry just to interject there yeah keep the only negative outcome that you've seen pinned uh that only works like the more attractive you are the more protective it is against infidelity but that's only if the person that you are dating is within that attractiveness band because >> if attractiveness was that would be true if attractiveness was evenly distributed but the but the more attractive you get you get so rare right >> right >> like you were a man >> oh so the opportunity for your partner to find another eight or above is less than to find a two or >> above. So, so you're so like you used to be a male model, correct? Right. >> So, you might >> some would say still am. >> Yeah. Right. Um are are you do you work as a model? No. Some would just say >> I did a I did a uh my first editorial shoot that I organized myself. I did that with a photographer I've worked with for nearly 20 years now. Uh I did that in Newcastle um over Christmas. I haven't put any of the photos out from it. I did it kind of just for my own archive. It was so much fun, but it also reminded me how much I [ __ ] hated that industry for so long, dude. Being ordered around, being on set early, not being able to do I would much sooner wear Crocs and socks and [ __ ] turn up here and speak to you. So, I've pivoted. It was cool for the time, but uh yeah, as you as you're saying, if you're an eight, there are way fewer nines and 10. >> Yeah, exactly. So, the reason that you're you're dead right in terms of if it was perfectly even distributed, it wouldn't have a protective factor. But let's say people have a tendency to cheat up and not cheat down in terms of physical attractiveness. Um, and that the vast majority of people who do cheat will will only cheat up in terms of physical attractiveness. If you're, you know, a formal male model, even if you're dating someone who's a female supermodel, like how many >> male models is she running into, right? That's like one in one in 100 thousand. >> Question on that there. The people who are uh cheating up, we could call it. um the people that are cheating up presumably one of the reasons for that is that it's easier to get commitment from somebody to short-term mating than it is to long-term mating. So you can get a little bit of a trade, but I must imagine this changes the sort of people that men cheat with and the women cheat with because women are you can see where I'm going. So >> no, no, but maybe the audience can. I'm I'm >> okay. I I just like it. It's been I haven't got to talk about this in depth for a long time and it's fun when you see somebody's eyes light which has happened throughout the conversation and you're like oh they know where I'm going. >> This is the good marriage coming home from work thing I was talking about. >> If you take us home Yeah. >> basically if you are um guys will tend to have higher standards for short-term mating than they will for long-term mating at least in terms of physical attractiveness. Uh the same is not true for men. and men will have the opposite. >> So, it it's one of the sneaky surprises of that study which we discussed last time I was on here was that I understood. So, look, it's just easier for for a woman to cheat up in terms of physical attractiveness because men will cheat. Men will have these short-term flings that are so Yeah. Like there are male rock stars who will >> just [ __ ] a groupy. >> Yeah. who who will have sex with completely random Yeah. will have sex with completely random individuals who you would never expect. And you just don't see that with female rock stars at the same not being slanging it >> to like random guys, right? That's that's just not I mean that I'm choosing this very outlier example, but it's also shown just in case some people are saying, "Well, that's not normal human mating." It's also shown in normal human mating that men will relax their mate preferences for short-term and uncommitted mating. So it was surprising in a way that men could not that they wanted to that they they're wanting to was not unusual to me at all. It was surprising that they could effectively cheat up on average in terms of physical attractiveness. I found that surprising. The the pin that I put in in terms of the only negative relationship outcome I've seen >> if we were to go through, you know, um associations between attractiveness and mating, right? It's just win after win after win for the more attractive people, right? We're talking more mates, more desirable mates, uh more committed and doting partners in some studies. Um it's just >> uh I so I'm going to I'm going to push back on that one. >> Um mates who must be g mates once gained must be maintained once said the philosopher debut. And this point is basically the more attention that your partner gets, the uh greater the amount of competition is. And yet it seems like most people would make many people may make this utilitarian, rational. Well, how hot is my partner and how hot is the person that's pursuing me? And if they're a nine, how many more nines and tens are there? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> But if you're also a nine, you're being pursued by a lot of people. Yeah. And if you have relationship dissatisfaction, even if it's 9 to 9 or let's say it's 8 to 9, the nine is going to be like, well, there's so many [ __ ] potential suitors. So, I do think that there's a challenge of I don't think it's good all the way up in terms of attractiveness. >> You're right. But again, I have to bring back in the rarity phenomenon where if you're a nine, a true nine, you're just much more likely to be the more attractive party in the imbalance. Hence the more committed and doing partners aspect of it, right? >> But even within that, there's a suggestion that when you have uh attractiveness imbalance that >> there's other tensions as well. >> Correct. Yes. You have high rates of [ __ ] what is it? Um men who aren't the primary breadwinner are 50% more likely to use erectile dysfunction medication. Uh when you're in relationships that have got too big of a mate value discrepancy, partners tend to switch from a benefit affording to a cost inflicting mating strategy, which is where we see stuff like negging, excessive mateguarding, domestic violence in extreme circumstances. Like >> and you're subject to that heavy mate guarding. So that's an that's actually that's an interesting angle. I was I was going in a different direction. I'm going to 100% take your point and add that to my list of negative outcomes associated with being hot. >> Yes, I [ __ ] added it. >> You're you're subject to more heavy mateguarding. Yep. >> Uh regardless of how attractive your partner is. >> Also, in terms of the switch to a cost >> to a cost inflicting versus a benefit affording strategy, um it's more like what the male can do than the absolute size of the gap. So it's associated with the size of the gap because of that indicates something about what they what they have options to. But a lot of it is just benefit provisioning and you know in a modern context there are lots of benefits that can be provided. There was a recent study from some Polish researchers I I texted you about it but I'll share it here for redundancy where they found that the the greater the gap was between a man and a woman in attractiveness the if they if they measured the gap they could effectively predict to some degree how often he would go down on her in bed. Right? So there's a lot of benefit provisioning that can happen uh in relationships and attractive people are much more likely to be the beneficiary in that scenario. >> Yeah. And and and many other things, right? I just had a very poorly time licking of my own lips, which I hope people do not zoom in on and make edits of. So, here here's here's where I'm going with this is that there are there is some suggestive evidence that people who are very good-looking might have slightly lower relationship satisfaction because they're more likely to be, you know, keenly aware of the fact that they could swap out their partner at any time and dating down. >> Oh, they have optionality distress. >> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Like imagine what it's like to be, you know, like an incredibly beautiful woman, right? You're just constantly being bombarded with your other choices um at your work, on the bus. >> Same would be true if you were a very high status man. >> Yeah, exactly. [clears throat] Being a male rockstar. Imagine how difficult it is to be I mean you're you're kind of a podcasting rockstar. It's it must be very difficult. >> Unbelievably. Unbelievably all of the women who come up to me on the street and say, "My boyfriend listens to your show." >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. So that's funny. Point taken. But the but the but the long and short of it is that there is a um >> that there is that there is in fact a cost there. But for the most part I would say like if I was rolling the dice to like start the game of human mating >> there and it's like I want the best overall outcome. There's no world where I wouldn't want to be more attractive. Right. There are costs, but the costs are almost it's almost suffering from success. Like they're they're they're problems in the same way that like being too rich causes new problems. Um like the problem of >> roll the dice and get a slightly bigger penis, you'll be fine. >> Yeah. Right. Exactly. Like the the problem of too many people wanting to date you is just so much better than the inverse problem. >> Yeah. >> Even if it caused a little bit of relationship to that question. Uh, I sent you a car voice note a few months ago talking about the asymmetry of costs and benefits of men and women for non- monogamy. >> And I've never heard anybody else talk about this, although I'm sure I'm not the first to talk about it. So, I'm going to try and remind you of what it was that I said. So basically uh I was thinking about the prospect of a man and a woman entering non- monogamy and what the benefits are and what the costs are. So the unique thing that I haven't heard anyone talk about before is that there are greater benefits for men because on average men have more variety in their sexual fantasies across any single sexual fantasy. If you ask a man how many partners he wants throughout his life etc etc it tends to be higher. Men do men have higher socioexuality? Is that a way that you would be able to say it? Yeah. >> Right. Okay. But that that would be >> it's one of the most replicable findings in all of psychology. >> Okay. So men are more socioexual than women. They want more more uh sexual partners and they're more open to casual sex too, which is typically what non- monogamy has at least in part, but they're also more subject to dissatisfaction at the thought that their partner is getting physically intimate with another person, specifically another man. Uh so there are greater benefits but there are greater costs and both are paid by the man. If there was such a thing as emotional non- monogamy, not sexual non- monogamy, emotional non- monogamy. So for the guys that are listening, imagine the relationship that you're in potentially uh you get to sleep around, but you have to deal with your misses sleeping around. How much hey do you get from getting to sprayed about a bit versus how much do you have by the thought that she's being sprayed at a bit? Now the inverse would be uh and it's typically different ways that you can set up nom monogamy but a lot of them are physically you can be intimate emotionally we are monogous. Like that's one relatively common setup. Imagine the inverse. Imagine physically we can be monogamous but emotionally we are allowed to spray it about. Now I would suggest that in those situations women would feel very uncomfortable with it. That's not for me to say that women don't already feel very uncomfortable with the non- monogamy thing but I think that's because they don't derive the same benefits that men do. Not because they pay higher costs. >> Uh as in they're not going to find it quite as painful. They're still going to find it very painful. Especially if you're not agreeing to this. if you've been [ __ ] conned, coerced, persuaded into doing this thing. Um, but the pretty rep replicable study of as a man, imagine your woman sleeping with another man but not being emotionally intimate or being emotionally intimate with another man and not sleeping with him. And for the woman, imagine the same. And men typically say, well, I'd rather that she said she loved him but didn't [ __ ] him. And for women, they said, "Well, I'd rather that he [ __ ] her but didn't say that he loved her." M >> at least that's one of the and when you combine these two worlds together I thought huh there seems to be something interesting there. So what do you reckon? >> Well I think I think there definitely is something interesting and I think what's interesting I I'm going to agree with everything you've said and just add the ultimate lens. So this is this is all quite proximate. It's about the feelings but the asymmetry in feelings is also reflecting an asymmetry in costs and benefits at the evolutionary level. So while a man can have multiple women who are pregnant by him at one time, a woman can only be pregnant by one man at a time. And so there's a much more powerful evolutionary benefit to sexual variety as as you're well aware of. >> Um but then there's also a greater risk of cuckoldry, right? There's there's no chance of a woman accidentally raising a child that is not hers, right? That's just not the sort of >> No woman has ever given birth to a child that wasn't hers. >> Yeah, exactly. And that's not something that's occasioned by Well, I mean, I guess technically with with modern technology, but it's not something that's occasioned by infidelity. >> Oh, yeah, that's true. You Yeah. Yeah. >> The the the surrogate the surrogate scenario, but that's but it's it's neither here nor there for the for the purposes of our our discussion. >> So, there's an asymmetry at the evolutionary level that buttresses this asymmetry at the proximate level. And it's interesting. I mean, what I've been trying to get my head around since that voice note that I'd actually like to hear your opinion on is given both the approximate and the ultimate levels, what sort of man would we expect to benefit most from true non- monogamy and what sort of women would we expect to benefit most? Um my my intuition on the women's side would be you know highly committed partner who doesn't have the conventional cues to physical attractiveness that can get passed on. >> Um but uh but I I wanted to >> Hang on. So explain that for me. You think that the woman would be in a relationship with a guy that is non-typical in terms of attractiveness? >> I would say that which women would benefit most from non- monogamy which men would benefit most from non- monogamy. I'm imagining that a woman who is dating a man who is very committed, handles the kind of supportive side of things. >> Cinnamon roll husband. >> Yeah. But isn't uh isn't isn't provide is providing paternal benefits but not uh genetic. >> Yeah. Conceptive benefits. >> Oh, that's interesting. >> That's one that's one angle. >> What a wonderful archetype. I love how we get once I get you three hours into a podcast, you start to get much more spicy. That's much [laughter] the [ __ ] academic hat comes off. Well, certainly the the point of um offsetting the risk of cuckoldry by cuckolding other people, which is basically what men are doing in this situation, >> is like a very meritocratic approach. >> And that's what happens among some anthropological in some anthropology studies, this is the mainstream explanation for what's going on where you look at >> you [ __ ] my wife, I [ __ ] yours and her friend. >> Yeah. Well, it's Yeah. It's basically like uh why so you'll look at a given society such as among like the Hima of Namibia and you'll say you know why is it that the men I I asked one of the leading researchers this like well why is it that they're putting up with infidelity like why are they putting up with their wives cheating so much like surely this is just nightmare mode for them and they're like well whatever paternity they and why are they this is the other thing is that they're good fathers to children that they know are the results of cuckled, right? >> So, they know that the child's not theirs. They know that it's conceived through um an affair and yet they're investing in the offspring and they're completely tolerant of it. It's like, why are they putting up with that? And it's like the social benefit because it's so widespread, they regain the paternity that they lose in their own nest in other nests. >> But presumably, this only works if you think that you're extracting more from the system. So, if you were a higher So, okay. So, on the guy's side, presumably it's high mate value males or high attractiveness males. >> I mean, that's what you'd think, but then you like I I'm just going to be I you know, I don't I I don't want to get too spicy too deep into the podcast, but like I have not had the experience of meeting polyamorous males and being like, these guys are super chad, handsome. But I guess you're just selecting that you've got to account for the selection effect of just high socioexuality and wants to do this, >> right? I mean, I'm agreeing with you in principle that you'd think like, oh, the people who would be most enthusiastic about polyamory >> are the ones that can extract the most from the system without >> polyory. >> But you know what? Actually, I'm going to I'm going to dial back here actually because we're talking about polyamory, capital P, flying the flag, wearing the label, and saying, you know, I'm polyamorous, >> not just slinging it about. >> But if we think about like what polyamory actually is, it's just multiple mating and kind of this informal hierarchy of some of some variety. And when I think about it without the label, >> situation situation. It is very that is what very handsome men are doing that the so yeah I think that the people that were kind of thinking oh they'd extract the people who would extract the most benefit from situationships are probably hot guys >> as soon as you get outside of San Francisco the the rules of this change >> yeah and it's like those guys would extract the most benefit then yeah those guys do seem to be situation showing up situation >> I think it's I think it's so great you had this lovely line in our WhatsApp chat getting cookolded is true disaster mode for a male Whereas for a female, technically your long-term mate could be out and about without too much going wrong for you. >> It's Yeah, I mean, that's that's a that's a that's a a bit of a glib summary, but I think I think I can stand by it that it's um that the it is in principle possible to quote unquote get away with it a lot more as a female monogous mammal than a male monogous mammal. However, there is especially in humans because humans do like mate switching quite a bit. It's a massive risk. Like you see how upset uh women get at the thought of sexual infidelity by males. And it's like look in our species, sexual infidelity often leads to mate switching. >> So it's like >> it actually is very stressful. It's like you could lose >> you could lose your entire investment. You could lose you could lose your mate. >> I So he >> So I think it's disaster mode for both. But yeah, in terms of like who is it? Who is it? Who is sexual infidelity more threatening to? Yeah, it's probably going to be male mammals. >> Yeah. So, this is where I would love to get some data around how split like if you were to have a a distribution of how much men agree or disagree. I think it's going to be more extreme for the men because some men will hate the idea of their partner sleeping with other men so much more >> Yeah. >> than they would enjoy the freedom to be able to sleep around themselves. >> I think that's most men. I mean, I literally like when I think about the imbalance here, every time I meet a polyamorous man, and I've met a couple actually, I really just desperately want to pick their brain cuz I know myself, the benefits of the occasional fling are so small, like diminishing benefits. Like we're talking like next to nothing may as well not have happened level of low benefit >> compared with the emotional cost is literally like I would put myself I'm imagining something where it would like if it ever if anything even on that spectrum happened years of mental recovery. >> Correct. Yeah. And also probably the end of your relationship the inability to see your partner in the same way. >> Yeah. End of the relationship. Uh end to my self-esteem for a period of months. So, so when I speak to these men, I do find it very interesting. I'm like, okay, so >> you have just [ __ ] zeroth percentile jealousy and mate guarding >> and 99th percentile external extra pair mating motivation. I'm like, there must be a story here where the extra pair mating motivation is either so high that it's intolerable >> or the jealousy is so low that it's inconsequential. Imagine if you have the desire for extra pair mating being very high and the jealousy being moderately high and you have this this tension. It's like one of those bridges in an earthquake that's being flexed and pulled against itself. >> I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to say who this is because I I heard them speak about this in a public interview, but there's a there's a very famous um there's a very famous evolutionary psychologist who's who's polyamorous. His name Yeah, his name is Primal Poly on Twitter. And I remember listening to a podcast uh that he did on this where he was talking about how it was a multi-year process to or at least at least a year process. I believe the word year is ringing in my ear where it was trying to deal with the negative psychological ramifications side of things. So was the there was the high motivation, right, >> for for moderately high >> and then the moderately high jealousy. And to me, I remember listening to it and thinking I think it was a I think it was a podcast with Sam Harris maybe. >> Um and I think Sam's response was, you know, is it really worth the hassle, you know? So it's interesting. I don't know. I'm not commenting on his I'm not commenting on his on his you know, it's it's not a personal thing at all. Um, but because he's a public figure and I'm commenting on what he's >> and Diana have not been shy about talking about. >> Yeah. So, I feel like it's fair game. Normally, I would never, you know, discuss someone else's sex life as like an object of interest. Um, but in this case, >> we don't have enough publicly non- monogous people in the world of mating research uh to be able to do that. But yeah, so the worst situation to be in, I imagine, would be to not match the uh extra paired jealousy and extra paired desire with your partner. Like if those two things are out of whack, like you have high desire, any amount of jealousy, but potentially low jealousy, and your partner doesn't match that. >> Yeah. >> That's when you're going to start. And if you've [ __ ] spent too much time at SF parties or you know you've listened to too much Diana Fman or whatever like you know before you know it you're like ah maybe I could start a poly cool with like you know John next door or whatever and meanwhile your partner's going um >> yeah exactly because that's going to that's going to really twist it up but I think that's a [ __ ] I think that's an interesting one. Um, I also want to learn about what the rich gay uncle hypothesis is for homosexuality. >> Well, I don't know if that's the I don't know if that's the formal name, but it's the name that an evolutionary biologist at uh at Boston University uh who will remain unnamed inform it's what he informally called it in one of our lectures and it was pretty interesting. So, the idea here is that we have this powerful cultural stereotype in the west of the rich gay uncle, right? It's like that it is known that um that gay men tend to have slightly higher incomes. And the idea is that oh that you know there's some social investment that tends to happen um diagonally from them to the offspring of their closest kin, their siblings. >> They're also more likely to have older brothers. So they're more likely to be an uncle. >> They're more like birth order effect. >> Yeah, exactly. They're they're more likely to have the That's exactly right. They're more likely to have the opportunity to be >> Look at me. >> I know you're killing it. >> Throwing [ __ ] [ __ ] into that's pneonic for you. >> I know. Exactly. Um it's it's hitting me as well. I feel smarter than ever. Uh so they tend to be quite successful and evunular and it that that's interesting. Right now they've tested this in the west and it has not borne the type of fruit that you might expect it to. There doesn't seem the the idea of it as a hypothesis is basically this. I should have explained this at the outset is that it's hard to explain. We know that there is some heritable component to homosexuality, but it is quite difficult to explain how that heritable Yeah. How does that persist, right? That >> given that you can't reproduce if you're truly being gay. >> Yeah. You're Yeah. You're truly at like I know that a high percentage of homosexual people have some opposite sex encounters at some point in their life. >> Unless Unless you've thumbmed it in enough times to be able to actually have a kid. Yeah. Like this is this is just not how Yeah. So so so it's like it's it's at the very least even if in a state of nature a lot of homosexual people would reproduce anyway. Um it's at the very least reducing their odds not to feel opposite sex. >> Yeah. Right. So how does that persist? And so the idea was is that maybe it would persist through kin selection. So one way to win the game of survive and reproduce is to get your genes into the next generation by reproducing yourself. But the other way is to piggyback off the reproduction of your kin such I mean they share a sibling shares 50% of your genes. So, it's entirely possible that you can have this, you know, um, offspring adjacent to you that shares 25% of your genes and you can essentially pass on your genes by supporting them surviving and reproducing. And so the idea was with with this hypothesis, this rich guy uncle hypothesis that maybe the way homosexuality pu persists is by instead of having one kid, right, you support two kids >> of >> your your closest kid, >> could that be passed on genetically? Is there a lineage for this to be able to work? >> Yes. So that could work. That could work. Uh mechan if you're asking like is this is this theoretically possible? Yes. >> Yeah. in terms of the mechan I don't understand how the lineage of the person who did the thing but wasn't a part of the promagation >> the yeah so it would be the case if the genes for homosexuality and this is how most behavior genetics works as you know >> if it wasn't like um if it's more like genes that increase your probability of expressing homosexuality rather than like an individual gene that causes it [clears throat] then if you have some of those genes >> enough so if you have enough of those genes that you exhibit the behavior um then your your kin still have some of those genes as well and you're passing on your >> genes indirectly through them through their kids. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Right. That that's the that's the hypothesis. It is not well supported in the west. Um it it it it hasn't borne out. It is well supported um among the fafina of independent Samoa. So this is a group where it's um it's a it's I don't want to anal because the culture is so different. I don't want to analogize it to American and western homosexuals >> which are have their own kind of cultural phenomenon that we can we can talk about. >> This is different. It's considered a third gender in this space and they are natal males, right? They're biologically male and they are attracted to males and they are not transgender. That's not what's going on. Um they present in a very feminine way and they occupy their own space and it's a similar percentage >> to what we see with western homosexuals. Right. So >> some might say that it is a um it is a cultural >> reinforcement of homosexuality essentially. Yeah. like a cultural space to that homosexual people can fill. And in those groups, it does seem that they are statistically more ofunular, right? They invest more, they act more as uncles um than straight uncles do. And so, it seems to be that there's some support for this idea that they >> lose, we talked about losing paternity and re regaining it else elsewhere. M >> they lose paternity but they regain uh kin selection benefits by supporting their sisters and brothers in their reproduction. >> It feels to me like the male provisioning equivalent of alo parenting. >> Yeah. >> It feels a little bit like the grandmother hypothesis but actually outside. >> Yes. It's very analogous to that. That's a great analogy. Yeah. It's a lot like the grandmother hypothesis where it's it's at a certain point if you have 20 brothers maybe it's better to not to stay off >> if you've got if you've got [ __ ] 20 brothers you are gay. >> If you've got 20 if you're brother 21 with 20 brothers >> your odds your odds are so low cuz it is it is a loading effect where one older brother there's a slight increase. If you two older brothers are slightly bigger and then if you're >> my [ __ ] brother 20 Yeah. It's like dude there's no chance >> you come back around and become straight actually. >> Yeah. It's a horseshoe theory. Well, that that uh >> but you get what I'm saying is that it's like imagine your brother, imagine your brother seven. Is it optimal for you to get on the same pitch as them and compete for the same women >> or is it better to step off the pitch and say, "Hey, you guys go >> the explanation for the birth order effect. >> It's basically it's basically I'm going to the weather vein lick my finger and put it in the air to be like how how's the sex ratio going to be in this local ecology?" So that's what some people So I I'm definitely not the first person to have said this whether it's true or not. It's kind of touchy because it does seem to be downstream. The birth order effect mechanistically seems to be downstream of an immune response >> immune system because it works it works for um abortions and it works for miscarriages. >> Yeah. So now Yeah, exactly. So those things can be adaptive to be clear like you can have a mechanism like that and have it be adaptive. >> It' be weird that it would go through the immune system. >> Yeah, it's a bit quirky. Um, but it could go it could go like that. >> What are other explanations for birth order effect? >> Um, >> why would the woman's immune system react in this way to having a male inside of it? >> Yeah. Well, it could be a to be honest, it could be more of an adaptation on the part of the mother rather than the rather than the gay son. Like maybe it's not the it's not that the gay son gets a selective benefit from investing. It's that the mother's total reproductive pool is increased by not adding another competitor and instead adding another um instead of adding Yeah. a helper. Again, this isn't a theory that >> Oh, so the mother could the immune system thing could be the mother's way of ensuring the rich gay uncle. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's not so in terms of where the adaptation is actually happening. That's why it would be quirky. Like the reason that I had that gut reaction is that it would be strange for the son's adaptation >> to mechanistically occur as an immune system response in the mother. >> It would probably [clears throat] be more likely to be adaptive for the mother in terms of like the the locust. However, I actually don't think we're talking about it and it's very interesting. If you had to say, you know, Mack and put your chips down, is this true or not? I'd say that the rich gay uncle hypothesis is probably not true. I would say that the the Fafhina are unique cultural case where they have a they have a cultural scaffolding that makes it adaptive in their case. But if you looked at homosexuality writ large, I I don't think that that's the explanation for its persistence. No, I and I don't know what is. My honest answer is like cuz people I I do I do AMAs occasionally. Every single AMA people are asking explain homosexuality and I understand it. It's like the first thing you'd want to ask >> an evolutionary sexual scientist, right? And the my honest answer is I'm not sure what's going on, but this is a pretty cool explanation. >> Back in Murphy, ladies and gentlemen, dude, >> so much fun. >> Cheers. >> Last time that we got to hang out was in Melbourne. >> Yep. >> Uh are you going to come to Bali with me after my Australia and New Zealand tour in March? >> I I've already started my cut. >> Let's [ __ ] go. So, I'm going to take you this evening um to Bill Perkins Formula 1 party. So, uh Bill wrote Die with Zero. He's got a party over at his very large the most expensive house in Austin never sold actually I think up until a few years ago and um that if you want to do some ethnographic mating research the cohort of people that are going to be here at at this party this evening is going to be good. So we need to uh get finished so that we can actually get turned around and go to that. Uh where should people go? You've got a great Tik Tok. You've got great other stuff too. They want to check out your [ __ ] Uh, well, first my my my girlfriend's listening at home thrilled at the sound of me going to this party. So, I'm I'm I'm in >> ah girlfriend, don't worry about it. I'll look after him. >> And then uh yeah, so in terms of where people go, I think that uh searching my name on any social media is a good place. I I don't I don't really I don't really have anything to sell. Um just uh just more videos on topics like this. >> [ __ ] yeah. Oh, and go and check out Species the podcast. >> Yeah, it's it's mostly retired, but occasionally I still do an interview. >> You've moonlight it, but there's good [ __ ] in there, dude. I love going back and listening to those. Species Podcast, Mackam Murphy on Tik Tok and Twitter and everything else. Until next time, man. >> Thanks, Chris. >> Thank you very much for tuning in and congratulations for not being so Tik Tok brain that you actually made it to the end of a full podcast. Hooray. Uh maybe another podcast with the one and only Naval Rabbitant would also be good for you to watch. That's right.