Jordan Peterson

[7Wannabe5]

@ThisDinosaur:

Well, the problem would have to be a bit more multi-generational than that. The companion book "Fascinating Womanhood" was written by Aubrey's wife Helen in the 1960s, and remained the most popular "trad wife" bible for decades. Helen Andelin's book was in good part based on her success going through a rough patch in her marriage by following the advice offered in a set of volumes published in 1922 entitled "Fascinating Womanhood, or, The Art of Attracting Men: a practical course of lessons in the underlying principles by which women attract men, leading to the proposal and culminating in marriage."
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100000949

From the publisher's introduction:

Thoughtful minded people have deplored the conditions which came as the aftermath of the Great War. In no respect were these conditions more deplorable than as they found expression in the "flapper," with her seeming disregard of all the social conventions that her elders had held sacred...Her flippancy and seeming immodesty is mostly pose-the result of wrong thinking or wrong teaching. Wrong thinking, arising from the cataclysmic overturning of conventions by experiences growing out of the Great War...

The Art of Attracting Men points out, in no uncertain terms, how the superficial errors of the generation may be avoided. It tells how the real attractiveness of genuine womanhood may be cultivated and expressed.It is a work that any good mother would be glad to place in the hands of her daughter.

From the first chapter:

When comparisons were made, however, these principles, which business men imagined they were the first to discover, were found to have been known for thousands of years. Orators since the days of Cicero and Demosthenes, dramatists since the days of Aeschylus and Sophocles, and clever women since the days of Ruth and Rebecca, had resorted to them constantly. In every ancient book on rhetoric, oratory, or the drama, they were expounded and dilated upon. The orator had to win his hearers, the dramatist his audience, and the woman her suitors; IN EVERY CASE THE PROBLEM WAS A PROBLEM OF WINNING MEN, AND IN EVERY CASE THE PRINCIPLES BY WHICH IT WAS SOLVED WERE FOUND TO BE ALIKE...

Whether you are an orator seeking to win men to your cause, a dramatist seeking to win men to your entertainment, a sales manager seeking to win men to your market, or a young lady seeking to win men to yourself, makes no difference so far as the principles are concerned. They are not so much the principles of oratory, of drama, of salesmanship, or of courtship, as THEY ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE.

What I am trying to convey isn't that this school of advice is incorrect; I certainly have found it to be very effective to the extent I have made use of it myself. My point is that it is cyclical and can thus be viewed from a higher perspective of systems analysis. I respect Deida's take on this theory/practice more than Peterson's because he keeps his advice more in the realm of descriptive rather than prescriptive. For instance, Deida straightforwardly suggests that individuals who self-aware prefer a marriage based more on civilized companionship and low-key affection would likely not want to follow his advice for increasing the level of passion in their relationship by increasing sexual dichotomy.

Since Deida, unlike Andelin who retains mid-century Mormon perspective on such topics as homosexuality, recognizes that not every individual strongly identifies their physiological sexual designation with gender assignment, he suggests the following simple exercise to determine whether you are more core feminine or masculine. You imagine somebody with whom you are in love saying either "You are useless." or "You are ugly/stinky" (or converse might be "You are my hero." or "You are beautiful.")and if the first seems more hurtful, you are more core masculine, and if the second seems more hurtful then you are more core feminine.

My perspective is that gender is important in determining behavior, not unlike inherent temperament or personality. However, since hormonal levels and experience vary over the course of a lifetime, if you take this test again 10 years later, the results may somewhat change.

The important thing to note is that when you are imagining yourself being hurt by a criticism from a lover, that is really you talking to you. If you core believe that you are useful/purposeful and aesthetically/sensually pleasing then any comment will be like water on a duck's back, or simply clue to incompatibility. Let's split the difference between Preacher and Intellectual, and designate Peterson as a gifted Orator who is calling out to the multitudes who hold any level of self-doubt.

Anyways, I am core feminine, but also very drawn to my juvenile masculine quadrant, so there was a terrible event I experienced in couple's therapy a few years ago after I said "If I have to choose between being adored or being free, I choose being free!" and then both my '"ex"and the male therapist ganged up on me. Also, once again, because my masculine energy only rises to being about 12 years old, I am in danger of having my projects and life-energy taken over by more assertive men. I thought interacting with multiple dominants would sort of serve to scramble all of their instructions into white noise, but no such luck. Probably the only way I am ever going to complete my projects the way I want to complete them in alignment with MY purpose is to choose to be sexually and romantically celibate until at least Harvest 2022. So, anything I have to say in the realm of sexual dichotomy theory at this juncture should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Kriegsspiel]

Since Deida, unlike Andelin who retains mid-century Mormon perspective on such topics as homosexuality, recognizes that not every individual strongly identifies their physiological sexual designation with gender assignment, he suggests the following simple exercise to determine whether you are more core feminine or masculine. You imagine somebody with whom you are in love saying either "You are useless." or "You are ugly/stinky" (or converse might be "You are my hero." or "You are beautiful.")and if the first seems more hurtful, you are more core masculine, and if the second seems more hurtful then you are more core feminine.

I wonder what the response breakdown of modern American (and Western, for that matter) society would be.

[7Wannabe5]

@Kriegsspiel:

Response is one thing and reaction is another. Your core reacts, then if you are mature in your emotional development, you accept your reaction, but choose to respond in alignment with your self-aware self-interest. Since I have now sexually interacted with men from 4 different generations (Silent, Boomer, Gen-X, Millennial), I will feel free to offer the opinion that most differences are purely superficial mannerisms. Of course, that is not to say that some superficial mannerisms are more likely to attract desired reaction or response than others. IMHO, Millennial men actually superficially vibe more masculine than the younger range of Gen-X men, because Very Polite with a Beard somewhat trumps Angsty with an Earring, but MMV. My hipster ex was an early adopter of the Angst style, so kind of like the particular alcoholic beverage I almost Jimmy Hendrix-ed on as it came gushing back up.

[Lillailler]

I have tasted some of JP - in particular his lectures on Genesis. For me, there is a lot of wisdom behind what he says, some of it from wide reading but some from his work as a clinical psychologist. What bothers me relates to the wisdom bit. I have something of the scientist's attitude to knowledge - take nobody's word for it - and I don't care for 'Jung said', 'Nietzsche said','Freud said', 'he said', 'she said'. If it's true, it doesn't matter who said it. If there is no mathematical proof, or carefully-designed experiment, then I'm not interested. Well maybe someone who has made a lot of discoveries might point out areas where new discoveries could be made, like Hilbert's 13 problems, but no more that that. If we rely for our knowledge on quoting famous and well respected writers we are actually going back to the 1400s, studying Aristotle and Galen and Euclid, but not testing what they say by observation and experiment, and not striving to correct them and go beyond them.

[pukingRainbows]

@ThisDinosaur - I should give credit where it's due: I was reiterating JBP's test regarding whether or not Frozen will be popular in 50 years. That's not my idea.

@7wannabe5 - Interesting info! Thank you. I'm familiar with Deida and I've heard of Andelin but haven't read the book. The last guy I had no idea about but I think it's more relevant to my understanding of JBP's line of thinking, even though it appears to me, to be offering the opposite take on things.

In general, I find his stuff to be more about life in general, rather than specifically relationships or gender. I see his body of work as trying to analyze history and religions through a psychological and rational framework. Personally speaking, it has allowed me to reconnect to the greater narratives found across human history and have them become meaningful parts of my daily life.

This naturally influences my relationships and who I am in those relationships, but it seems more like the manifestation of the deeper ideas rather than the central message. And if those aspects resonate more with young men, I think it's because that's the audience where this message is currently lacking.

When I asked the question, I immediately thought you were going to say that he was essentially preaching old school moral virtues like those found in religion with the added twist of psychology to make it relevant to today's audience. And I think it's kinda true, and not particularly a bad thing either.

@Lillailler - I don't see his references to Jung et al as appeals to authority in order to validate his arguments, but rather providing the reference for the idea. I like it, because I can then go back and read (or try to, at least) those authors to see if I can come to the same conclusions. In a way, he is acknowledging, connecting and building on the ideas of previous people, similar to the world of science. I agree it would be nice to have some hard data from experiments but the actual scientific method is inherently limited when dealing with complex systems and ideas and large expanses of time.

If anything, humanity is the experiment and it's still running.

[daylen]

+1 pukingRainbows

I find his content interesting. This is probably because I lack a detailed education in human history.

[7Wannabe5]

And if those aspects resonate more with young men, I think it's because that's the audience where this message is currently lacking.

When I asked the question, I immediately thought you were going to say that he was essentially preaching old school moral virtues like those found in religion with the added twist of psychology to make it relevant to today's audience.

Yeah, I guess he just irks me because his intended audience of younger "irresponsible" men for his moralizing on the topic of monogamy, turns an older responsible woman who is practicing polygamy into a unicorn. IOW, I don't exist in his theoretically consistent philosophy.

[fiby41]

For instance, in the Qur'an, Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians are referred to as "the people of the book"

Yet to this date more than half of the survived & practicing Zoroastrians do so in India than in a converted Iran.

In conclusion, I would strongly suggest that Jordan Peterson is not an Intellectual, but rather a talented Preacher, preaching on a frequently revived theme, with just a bit of a twist added to appeal to Millennial audience not previously exposed.

I have no qualms with the preacher part. The twisting is what concerns me.

In a lecture he kept insisting using his usual hyperbolic use of "well, obviously"s (which I sometimes find endearing, almost like a father figure) that beings are divine is 1 obvious 2 a Christian concept.

This is not what I was taught in sermons we were forced to attend. We were taught that we are born sinners, the Original Sin, how we need to ask JC/Father for forgiveness. Scriptures were quoted so the preacher must not be making that up.

Someone who doesn't even know me insisting I am a sinner (and what I should do about it) was really the tipping point for my turn off. JBP has stated that he has no problem with cultural appropriation. Here is the problem with saying beings are divine:

It is not sanctioned by the Bible scripture. Does his definition of "being" include humans or just believes? What about animals and plants, do they have souls?

It just seems something he appropriated conveniently when he found out telling students they are sinners doesn't go down as well as it used to.

Another example is the one where he speaks on the Buddha for 15 mins in a lecture. He follows Buddha's problem identification/symptom analysis of life correctly- death, disease, old age (and birth.) And then blurts out the Christian solution in intricate sentences in the last few minutes. There are several videos where he says "life is suffering" (Buddhist hypothesis) and gives the Christian solution. Fact is that "life is suffering" is not so obvious, so much so that in the Buddhist Tripitika-s the monks go to great length to establish this before proceeding to offer solutions which JBP does so "obviously". I haven't studied the Christian scripture enough to know what they have to say on "life is suffering".

IOW, I don't exist in his theoretically consistent philosophy.

Nor do I. Neither is it consistent, it is full of self-contradictions, especially when he dismisses something as self-explanatory. He is just a pop-psychologist whose target audience is those who are too lazy to read a damn book. Sly prosperer in a nutshell.

He was on the Joe Rogan podcast and he masterfully dodged questions on Hindu dharma thrice. The part at the beginning when he mentioned the eye of Horus and Providence while the eye of Shiva was staring him in the face from behind Joe was "so funny man." The reason for his erratic behaviour in above two examples is that he incidentally came too close to the poison-pills in Dharmik (Buddhist, Vedik) traditions. Poison-pill is something that cannot be digesting (cultural appropriation) without harming the predator.

The reason the Hare Krishna movement survived while other traditions were snapped up and swallowed whole by the church or the academia, as being always a part of some Abrahamic religion or just being discovered by science is: Krishna is kryptonite to Christians. They cannot co-opt to claim the philosophy in the Bhagvad-Gita as already present in some other religion without accepting/getting rid of Krishna first.

Moment of silence for the fallen Dharmik traditions which have been culturally appropriated by church/academia: Vedanta, yognidra, Christ the Yogi (lol), Patanjali's Yoga Sutras into Cristian Yoga and the like, vipassana has now been completely digested into mindfulness meditation TM, FFAL, Ayurveda: using turmeric for medicinal purpose was patented for Christ's sake!, Panini's linguistics, ..................

[daylen]

Nor do I. Neither is it consistent, it is full of self-contradictions, especially when he dismisses something as self-explanatory. He is just a pop-psychologist whose target audience is those who are too lazy to read a damn book. Sly prosperer in a nutshell.

Can't argue with that. Though, good luck finding a perspective on anything that isn't full of contradictions and provides practical insight (consistency-completeness dilemma). The education system in the west has devalued the history of ideology, so his content is not a bad stepping stone to deeper study.

When a topic falls in the unknown is it clearly hard to navigate efficiently, and this is why intermediate sources are popular for the general population. By your logic, I could say you were lazy for studying [insert your highest level of mathematical training] instead of just deriving everything from second-order logic. We are all bounded by time.

[ThisDinosaur]

that beings are divine is 1 obvious 2 a Christian concept.
This is not what I was taught in sermons we were forced to attend. We were taught that we are born sinners, the Original Sin, how we need to ask JC/Father for forgiveness. Scriptures were quoted so the preacher must not be making that up.

I would expect important ideas to be shared between multiple successful cultures."Divinity of Individuals" ="In God's Image." As I understand it, the argument is: God is capable of evil but chooses not to act evil. So he represents transcendent goodness and wisdom. Man is capable of both good and evil, but frequently chooses evil. JBP's often says that evil is not "out there." Its important to remember that we are all capable of evil. Telling innocent children that they were born sinners who need to earn forgiveness seems like a simple way to communicate that idea.

It just seems something he appropriated conveniently when he found out telling students they are sinners doesn't go down as well as it used to.

Agreed. Its a problem for me that any apologist can pick and choose from conflicting ideas in scripture. JBP is not making it better by cherry picking from multiple different cultures without explaining why there are conflicts.

However, I'm still willing to hear him out on this issue because his explanation of the Abraham-sacrifices-Isaac story is the only one I've ever heard that makes any sense at all.

(Briefly: Sacrifice for the future [read:saving/investing] or for the community [altruism] is Good for the self and society, respectively. The Ultimate sacrifice is one's child. God tests Abraham to communicate the importance of the Sacrifice Concept.)

He was on the Joe Rogan podcast and he masterfully dodged questions on Hindu dharma thrice. The part at the beginning when he mentioned the eye of Horus and Providence while the eye of Shiva was staring him in the face from behind Joe was "so funny man."

I agree, and its why I would want him to be more detailed in his comparison to non-biblical religions. Like I said before, I'm afraid his Christian Confirmation Bias might be overshadowing any good ideas he has.

The reason the Hare Krishna movement survived while other traditions were snapped up and swallowed whole by the church or the academia, as being always a part of some Abrahamic religion or just being discovered by science is: Krishna is kryptonite to Christians. They cannot co-opt to claim the philosophy in the Bhagvad-Gita as already present in some other religion without accepting/getting rid of Krishna first.

Please tell me more about what you mean by this.

Yeah, I guess he just irks me because his intended audience of younger "irresponsible" men for his moralizing on the topic of monogamy, turns an older responsible woman who is practicing polygamy into a unicorn. IOW, I don't exist in his theoretically consistent philosophy.

I have no doubt that JBP would claim polygamy is immoral. But I don't think it is, and I think you can use JBP's philosophy to show polygamy isn't necessarily immoral. Specifically, "there are many different interpretations of the world, but not all of them are equal." Meaning, bad ideas will be selected out. Monogamy as a "rule" obviously reduces the spread of certain communicable diseases. And I've argued above that its good for child-rearing. That doesn't mean that alternative moralities can't also be successful. Just that humans are not good at predicting which ones will be. Islam is doing pretty well for itself, and they're system is cool with polygyny.

[James_0011]

@thedino

Wouldn’t the monogamy as a rule thing fall into the same category as other biblical “rules” such as those about food?

That is, monogamy probably helped stopped the spread of disease before the invention of condoms and std testing but isn’t relevant in the modern context.

Similarity, food rules made sense before we had a clear understanding of how disease is spread.

This is one of the major flaws I see in Jordan’s reasoning as it doesn’t take the context of a cultures scientific knowledge into account.

[ThisDinosaur]

@James_0011
There is an underlying assumption in that argument; that we know all we need to know about this subject.

The liberal/progressive view is " try new stuff, we can make the system better. We know so much more now! "
The conservative view is "there are unknown unknowns and unintended consequences. Do what has always worked before and you won't be caught of guard."

JBP says you need both. Tradition and old institutions are "what has always worked before." It is Order, built up by several generations of now-dead people who's descendants now thrive because of what they built. New ideas are the Chaos that hasn't been tried yet.

Individual humans aren't smart enough to know which argument is right on any given subject. But a society of them disagreeing about everything tend toward the right answer, even if none of them can ever see the whole elephant.

[George the original one]

Individual humans aren't smart enough to know which argument is right on any given subject.

Individual humans might know what's right for themselves, but they definitely won't know what's right for all individuals because "individuals" constitute a population, a collection of individualities who are not identical.

[James_0011]

@thedino

I know you’re speaking in general terms. But regarding monogamy, I would say that it is a new untested form of relationships.

There is a book called “sex at dawn” that presents evidence that the human species has mostly lived in non monogamous conditions (hunter gatherer societies) and that monogamy is relatively new in evolutionary terms.

I think it also depends on how you define monogamy. I would say that a married person who watches porn is not monogamous- yet many married people do just that.

[ThisDinosaur]

@James, if it's not obvious, I'm not 100% on board with Jordan Peterson's philosophy. I am partly defending my understanding of it so others here can help me take it apart.

I think the monogamy argument makes sense if it's a "rule" (in scare-quotes) that's only loosely followed. I mean, I think JBP would argue that lifelong monogamy is The Way. I'm more of the opinion that there are a lot of competing valid motivations for and against.

For one thing, it's in the evolutionary benefit of both partners to maximize the genetic diversity of their children. There is obvious and undeniable selection pressure this way, which would explain why being monogamous is not so easy. For another thing, I've read somewhere that most relationships start to go stale around the same time you'd expect the first offspring (if there were any) to be able to walk as fast as adults. Meaning serial monogamy might be more natural. Neither the bible or JBP explains that.

ETA:
You don't need a society to tell you to be sexually liberal. Your biology does that for you. You need society to oppose your hormones to balance the fact that many people will be sexually liberal anyway. Chaos and Order. Ying and Yang.

[pukingRainbows]

@fiby41 - I'm also curious to know what you mean in regards to Dharma and Krishna and JBP's ideas. I don't quite understand it.

In general, I think JBP is working with his knowledge set, which is based on Christianity. I think if he was Hindu, he would be drawing from that body of work instead. I'm not sure I understand what you and @thisDinosaur are looking for in terms of similarities or differences with different religions. Are you looking for corroborative thinking? And would that then bolster JBP's ideas or detract from them in your mind?

Individual humans might know what's right for themselves, but they definitely won't know what's right for all individuals because "individuals" constitute a population, a collection of individualities who are not identical.

I think addressing this truth is essentially what archetypes do. They look at humanity across time, and draw out the common ideas and experiences that characterize a mode of being that elevates us or doesn't. Essentially, the lessons across time for humanity.

What's also so interesting to me, is that even though it's looking at humankind across thousands of years, it ultimately boils down to the importance of the individual and their thoughts and actions. I think that's incredibly encouraging for each of us as individuals.

It's also why I don't think anyone is excluded from this line of thinking, or "doesn't exist" as was expressed by @7wannabe5 and @fiby41

As @ThisDinosaur explained, there is the constant renewal of the culture which comes about through the struggle, (for lack of better word) between old ideas and new ones. So if your ideas don't fit into the current culture's norm, it could be that you're on the vanguard of what will be good and accepted in society's evolution. Or maybe you won't. All you can do is be honest and forthright in the world which is what JBP suggests.

For the record, I'm not a fan of polyamory at this moment. But perhaps it's just my ignorance and inexperience and later on, I'll have evolved into a different way of thinking.

From a social perspective, I can see how polyamory would have a destabilizing effect on society historically as the more desirable individuals would accrue more and more partners to the growing dissatisfaction of others. I imagine it would be like income inequality now, but with partners instead of money.

On a personal level, I believe my ideal relationship requires a dedicated lifetime of effort to satisfactorily complete.

[7Wannabe5]

I think it also depends on how you define monogamy. I would say that a married person who watches porn is not monogamous- yet many married people do just that.

Well, bit of an infinite regress possible here since you could extend to "married guy who reflexively checks out the young cocktail waitress when she bends over to pick up napkin" being not monogamous. Also, since I was "married" to a man from region where women were required to dress opposite of cocktail waitress or porn star, I can assure you that there is no possible layering of clothing or separating of the sexes that will prohibit fantasy. My "ex" imagined that some of the pattern shapes in Persian carpet designs were what the bare legs of females looked like. Humans are not monogamous in that sense, with only possible exception being the period of limerence which attaches salience to another particular human. Monogamy is a chosen practice. The question here being whether it is the only or most moral practice and/or whether it is even a viable enough option to retain merit.

A recent study that examined the lineage of British surnames with genetics discovered that in a relatively conservative monogamous society, most of the children born out of wedlock (not to be confused with conceived prior to wedlock) were the offspring of single females and men who were married to other females already. The same study revealed that previous guesstimates of the number of children of other fathers born to married females were too high. IOW, in context of conservative monogamous culture, married men cheat and married females do not. The legitimate children of affluent married men thrive, and their illegitimate children do not. This was as true in Rome prior to Christianity as it was in 18th century Britain. So, I'm going to call it as primarily Politics/Economics/Power-Structure rather than Religion/Anthropology/Social-Biology. IOW, all you have to do is follow the money to easily ferret out individual motivation, so higher or baser motivations are kind of moot.

In modern America, where married women often have more power and money and access to other partners, they have extra-marital affairs at a rising rate, approaching 30% to the male slightly over 50%. My grandmother had an affair with a co-worker in the early 1960s and left her second husband on the hope that he would leave his wife too. He didn't, so she bought her own little house and rounded up a Russian-immigrant BF who lived across the bridge in Canada. Her older brother was always trying to boss her around, but she just yelled right back at him, because she had her own house, her own job, and her own money, so she could do what she wanted to do. It's hard to objectively judge whether people in history were really doing what they wanted to do if they didn't legally have any right to own property or they risked being stoned to death by a crowd if they behaved out of line with societal expectations. I am happy to be able to report that my paternal ancestors who were in Massachusetts early on testified on behalf of an accused witch rather than vice-versa.

That said, I would definitely agree that monogamy and paternity are mutually beneficial concepts, and since my father was my primary parent, I definitely believe that having two parents is better than one. In fact, I stuck it out with my ex until my kids were in their late teens for just that reason. However, when it comes to question of overall moral functioning, given the fact that the Bible does not offer very clear instructions for how the whole moving humans to other planets procedure is supposed to go down, it might just be possible to suggest that most people might choose to limit highly engaged parenting phase of life to a fractional portion of their lives as sexually active adults within a framework of sound moral judgment. I mean, even in the Qur'an, women past the age of menopause are given freer rein in their behavior. Unless/until we undo the technology that gives us the ability to experience sexuality without reproduction, we will continue to make economic decisions in alignment with this new reality.

[7Wannabe5]

For the record, I'm not a fan of polyamory at this moment. But perhaps it's just my ignorance and inexperience and later on, I'll have evolved into a different way of thinking.

From a social perspective, I can see how polyamory would have a destabilizing effect on society historically as the more desirable individuals would accrue more and more partners to the growing dissatisfaction of others. I imagine it would be like income inequality now, but with partners instead of money.

On a personal level, I believe my ideal relationship requires a dedicated lifetime of effort to satisfactorily complete.

Interesting. Probably what I mean when I say that I have never been very romantic is that I have never really had an ideal relationship concept. In fact, and I know this will go down like a lead brick with this audience, LTRs absent children strike me as very Hansel and Gretel or velcro twin hug monkeys. Like the world is so tough, you have to have a peer partner holding your hand to withstand it. I guess my perspective has always been very individualistic, even though I almost always have had at least one partner.

A female friend of mine who is married to another women told me that when she was a child she always imagined that she had a little friend who lived in her mailbox who would always be there to talk to her, and her wife is like the ideal personification of that childhood fantasy. My earliest childhood memory is of being a toddler running back and forth barefoot along a wooden floored hallway, as my grandmother and great-grandmother each humorously call out to me from their rooms for me to come cuddle in her bed for nap time. I am happy inhabiting that tension where I am loved, but also on my own feet running, free to decide which door to enter.

[Kriegsspiel]

I think the monogamy argument makes sense if it's a "rule" (in scare-quotes) that's only loosely followed. I mean, I think JBP would argue that lifelong monogamy is The Way. I'm more of the opinion that there are a lot of competing valid motivations for and against.

For one thing, it's in the evolutionary benefit of both partners to maximize the genetic diversity of their children. There is obvious and undeniable selection pressure this way, which would explain why being monogamous is not so easy. For another thing, I've read somewhere that most relationships start to go stale around the same time you'd expect the first offspring (if there were any) to be able to walk as fast as adults. Meaning serial monogamy might be more natural. Neither the bible or JBP explains that.

The evidence points towards polygamy as being most natural. It facilitates women being impregnated by the most fit genes. This would lead to a minority of men fathering children, which is what's reflected in what I've read. Among the Ache, of South America, men have wide reproductive distributions (few men make the babies with a variety of women). I don't know about the time-limit on relationships, but I suspect that women didn't have too many qualms about hooking up with alpha males of their group. If the criteria for alpha was that you could accumulate resources bestly, then this would be a smart strategy. Alternatively, women married to lesser men might have evolved to cheat on them with alphas for baby-making, since women's sexual preferences evidently change around ovulation as was noted in Sex At Dawn. The ratchet was tightened after agriculture:

"4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.

Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

It has continued into "modern" times, as 7 noted. Matt Ridley also mentions in The Red Queen, "In a block of flats in Liverpool, Baker and Bellis found by genetic tests that fewer than 4/5 people were the sons of their ostensible fathers... they did the same tests in southern England and got the same results."

[enigmaT120]

"limerence", a new word for me. Thanks.