Female reproduction strategy differs from male strategy in that they have a lot more at stake in terms of/with each individual success (pregnancy), and it is more important for them to find that one single perfect collection of genetic characteristics, than for males. Males not only have little at stake with each reproductive success, but can impregnate at least 270 women in the time it takes a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
And combine that with Vonnegut's Theorem about talent, which can be thought of as:
The theory is, as soon as you move beyond a certain threshold, say 150 people, the identifiable talent will exceed what our human ancestors could witness in an entire lifetime. It really doesn't matter if it is beauty or singing, intelligence or athleticism.
Furthermore, up until the last couple of decades, it was thought "talent" was pretty much in the eye of the beholder. But psychology has found this is a lot less true than previously thought.
I see no reason why "talent" would not extend to personality traits, and you could probably come up with a handful of universally revered personality attributes. Thankfully there does seem to be some variation of distinct but equally esteemed "packages" of traits.
Furthermore, up until the last couple of decades, it was thought "talent" was pretty much in the eye of the beholder. But psychology has found this is a lot less true than previously thought.
I see no reason why "talent" would not extend to personality traits, and you could probably come up with a handful of universally revered personality attributes. Thankfully there does seem to be some variation of distinct but equally esteemed "packages" of traits.
Would the deleterious effects caused by such illusory competition differ between males and females?
