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.
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.
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.
This is why i am anti-civilization to some degree because it prevents the very best and worst men from succeeding.
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.
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.
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.