>>76390722
>it’s a very one dimensional view of mate selection that’s not borne out by the evidence.
Sure, if you squint real hard status becomes “one dimension.” In the real world it’s the stage on which all other dimensions perform.
>there are certainly people for whom status cues are heavily weighted, but there are many modes of mate fitness and by the nature of humans, there is a wide spectrum of what is valued in practice that converges on certain values for certain profiles of people.
Nice mental gymnastics.
>generally, status in terms of social capital is quite desirable but it need not be head and neck above everyone else and monetary resources are selected for but again it need not be exceptional.
So… it matters? You're playing semantic shell games here: “status counts, but not really.”
>mate selection is mostly about being above multiple thresholds which are generally pretty reasonable at a population level and in most subpopulations.
Right, thresholds set by… you guessed it, social hierarchy. “Above baseline expectations” is status. Congrats, you just looped back.
>the combination of thresholds actually constrains the mate pool quite a bit but not so much as to be prohibitive temporally.
Cool, so as long as you hit “mediocre-status” benchmarks you’ll find someone. In other words, “playing the status game and winning.”
>for people with greater desirability, generally the constraints are greater and this is still a viable strategy because the pool to select from is larger.
No shit. Status sets the bars. It’s literally the metric that defines desirability tiers.
