For an equally unscientific, vibes based counter-argument (not to be taken seriously): Would it not stand to reason that a highly intelligent social species like humans (that also lacks obvious physical features intended to attract a mate, like the peacock’s feathers) would select a partner that is good at being social (ie. not being an arsehole) and that this is where these incels fail?
Iirc Sapolksy’s lectures point out that according to sociological studies, humans are pretty much smack dab in the middle when it comes to the attraction generated by men that give ”muscular territorial fighters” vs the ones giving “soft caretakers”.
So it depends on the individual if they’re more into peacocks or empathetic men.
For an equally unscientific, vibes based counter-argument (not to be taken seriously): Would it not stand to reason that a highly intelligent social species like humans (that also lacks obvious physical features intended to attract a mate, like the peacock’s feathers) would select a partner that is good at being social (ie. not being an arsehole) and that this is where these incels fail?
Iirc Sapolksy’s lectures point out that according to sociological studies, humans are pretty much smack dab in the middle when it comes to the attraction generated by men that give ”muscular territorial fighters” vs the ones giving “soft caretakers”.
So it depends on the individual if they’re more into peacocks or empathetic men.