Yeah but my point is that his view is too "human-centric" which is to say "female-centric", it ignores the natural environment that tends to favor male evolutionary behavior. Hypergamy doesnt exist in a vaccum, there is something that precedes it and sets the stage for it.
Well, yes, nothing exists in a vacuum. Our instincts evolved as a response to the environments which selected favorably for them. Hypergamy is no different.
No doubt you know and understand the female dual mating strategy (alpha fucks, beta bucks). That is a modern day expression of law in action, though it's (it: men being cucked and unknowingly spending their resources raising another man's offspring) nothing new and has been happening for as long as history remembers.
Violent tendencies were largely permitted due to their necessity when hunting and facing rival tribes, it is what kept socially dominant men and women in check from being parasites and taking more than what they contributed to any organization. We aren't just "social animals" we are also "anti-social animals" and this lie has only been made to justify the "noble savage" origin of human behavior. Of course for successful tribes/societies, the lack of competition eventually makes people forget the necessity of violence/force and makes them susceptible to ideas of humanity's innate "goodness" as i think Christianity and other nihilistic ideals have done..
That's male nature we're talking about now. We understand the dynamics of having both the need to control and the need to utilize that aspect of male nature for society's benefit. As such, we must be aware of female nature and control and utilize it for society's benefit, also.
Christianity and other civilizationally focused ideals, wish to amalgamate everyone into the "middle" portion of the human IQ bell curve and suppress the extreme left and right ends of the bell curve.
Yes, but we're getting off track here.
This is why i am anti-civilization to some degree because it prevents the very best and worst men from succeeding.
OK.
I don't think the men who dominated were necessarily the archetypal "chad" men, while physically superior qualities did help i think the first men who reigned supreme were courageous and innovative men.
Courage and innovation require strength and intelligence, respectively, to back it up.
What good is height and strength if you're stupid enough to die to some random animal or trap? Chads only flourish when they are protected from their own stupidity through society.
Selection for intelligence is done implicitly in the selection for fitness genes, which doesn't have visible markers such as muscle mass. However, the one who survives (assuming dumb luck isn't a factor) between two equally fit and strong Paleolithic men is naturally going to be the smarter one. How or why? The smarter one is better able to utilize their intelligence to navigate their environment and space, whether it's building more efficient tools, or reasoning spatially about their environment more effectively. If a grizzly bear is chasing both of these individuals in the forest, for example, the smarter one might think of finding a crevice just small enough for him to fit or climb a tree high enough having previously seen the bear be unable to climb, while the dumber one gets eaten and taken out of the gene pool.
You can't see somebody's intelligence on their face (unless they have Down syndrome KEK) like you can see their physicality. But with enough successive generations of fit-and-slightly-smarter-than-the-other-guy, this trait does filter through. There is a caveat on this, however. Intelligence, as an evolutionary trait, is only as useful as the survival benefit it confers in its given environment, and this benefit very quickly tapers off. An IQ of 150, but no strength, stamina and endurance is useless in the ancient, prehistoric environment. Something closer to slightly above average to above average in today's standards (inside of one standard deviation) with very good physical traits is much closer to optimal for multi-generational survival.
A common misconception is that chads are dumb. Sadly, the opposite is usually true. Of course, there's going to be variance, so you will have a large number of dumb chads as well.
Humans arent above animals because they "out strengthened" them with physical qualities, it was their courage and intellect that set them above the stronger animals.
Yes.