The main thing that evolution optimized for is simply having a child, not for having a child with the most attractive possible person. In fact—although this is probably straying too far into evolutionary psychology—it’s better for the general success of the tribe when everyone has a kid, so it makes sense that people would optimize for wanting to have a kid with someone who wants to have a kid with them. Most people don’t need to write blog posts to wind up together with someone who is at about the same social status as them, and same with things like using these photo selection tools.
The main thing that evolution optimized for is simply having a child, not for having a child with the most attractive possible person.
I think this undervalues the evolutionary importance of having an attractive partner (see sexual selection). If I have an attractive mate then my children are more attractive and in turn will have more opportunities to have children, significantly adding to my overall genetic fitness. This process can lead to spectacular results.
Introspecting purely on my base desires and not accounting for high level reasoning, I would trade ~3 chances to mate with a medium attractive person for one chance to mate with a highly attractive person. I wouldn’t swap for people I find unattractive no matter how many. This suggests that, if I am typical of humanity, attractiveness of partner is actually more optimized for than simply having a child.
it’s better for the general success of the tribe when everyone has a kid
Group selection arguments are generally lose in data driven evolutionary analysis.
If you have a kid with a person who has a lot of resources because they have the attractive characteristic of having a lot of social status and your mate passes down genes that make the child healthier and stronger, you are more likely to ultimately pass down your genes.
The main thing that evolution optimized for is simply having a child, not for having a child with the most attractive possible person. In fact—although this is probably straying too far into evolutionary psychology—it’s better for the general success of the tribe when everyone has a kid, so it makes sense that people would optimize for wanting to have a kid with someone who wants to have a kid with them. Most people don’t need to write blog posts to wind up together with someone who is at about the same social status as them, and same with things like using these photo selection tools.
I think this undervalues the evolutionary importance of having an attractive partner (see sexual selection). If I have an attractive mate then my children are more attractive and in turn will have more opportunities to have children, significantly adding to my overall genetic fitness. This process can lead to spectacular results.
Introspecting purely on my base desires and not accounting for high level reasoning, I would trade ~3 chances to mate with a medium attractive person for one chance to mate with a highly attractive person. I wouldn’t swap for people I find unattractive no matter how many. This suggests that, if I am typical of humanity, attractiveness of partner is actually more optimized for than simply having a child.
Group selection arguments are generally lose in data driven evolutionary analysis.
If you have a kid with a person who has a lot of resources because they have the attractive characteristic of having a lot of social status and your mate passes down genes that make the child healthier and stronger, you are more likely to ultimately pass down your genes.