The biggest status-enhancing and status-decreasing behaviors.
Evolutionary psychology of status and status sex differences.
Cross-cultural findings across 14 nations. 🧵
Previous chart are combined items for men and women, the highs and lows out of 240 items.
Sex differences in status-enhancing behavior are remarkably small. Basically what enhances status for men also seems to enhance status for women.
If you go back to the first chart, it's basically a list of prosocial behavior for what is status enhancing and antisocial behavior for what is status diminishing.
"In summary, many status criteria are not sex-differentiated and appear to have similar effects across nations sampled in our study, suggesting possible universality."
Here are the larger sex differences that occurred in the exploratory analysis. Note that most of these are still small and share the same direction: what increases the status of a man also increases a woman's status.
An exception: having a younger mate was associated with higher male status, while having a younger mate was associated with lower status for women.
A few more:
Having a higher status mate increases women's status.
Women's status is more damaged by having a poor mate.
Being a virgin lowers male status, but is beneficial to female status.
Sex before marriage lowers a woman's status; no effect on men.
At d = -.78 and .81, some of these previous items have what are conventionally considered to be large effects by the way.
Drug use harms men's status, but less than it harms women's status.
Being able to drink more alcohol is a slight status boost for men, but harms women's status.
Crying in front of your friends hurts male status more.
"Acting masculine" and "acting feminine" were the largest sex differentiated status cues for men and women.
Masc men = high status / fem men = low status
Fem women = high status / masc women = low status
"They [acting masculine and feminine] appear to have profound status consequences, and because they show the largest sex-differentiated status consequences in the entire 14-nation study."
Important for men and women:
"Being healthy, having strong kin alliances, and embodying characteristics generally valuable across relationship domains—such as trustworthiness, willingness to share resources with others, and having a wide range of knowledge."
Failing to retaliate to insults lowers male status. Consistent with Nisbett's observations of a violent honor culture within male groups.
There weren't sex differences in some of the major expected status signals. Seems to have surprised Buss et al in the results.
Basically all of the resource acquisition abilities or traits.
"After all, any person who could reliably access resources would be valuable across many domains—regardless of their sex. Considering these findings, this hypothesis should be revised."
Having a faithful mate or forgiving infidelity wasn't associated with sex differences in status.
"We are not denying that culture can either amplify or diminish the magnitude of such sex differences...
... however, positing that these sex differences are rooted in evolutionary processes can explain the fact that such differences appear to be culturally universal."
Let's look at the initial chart again. The big status helpers and status hurters. As mentioned, basically lists of prosocial versus antisocial behavior.
Education occurs twice in the top list. Both for having a prestigious school, as well as for having a college degree.
As I have said many times on here and in my videos, getting an education is one of the best things you can do to increase your status in Western culture.
Note how many status cues are directly related to the collective or the group as well. Being an isolated loner sigma individualist doesn't seem to help.
Status comes down to your interactions with those around you.
Many of the status cues, both in the chart and in the results that I shared, are actually quite intuitive. They are things that we tend to know from experience that are associated with status. Making money, having a good job, being trusted, etc.
This makes sense, because when you think about it status is a group feature. An isolated man on an island has no status. Ultimately, it is other people in the society around you who determine what your status is.
Look at how big an effect "bad manners" had on status. Something you might think of as entirely inconsequential.
There is something sinister about expressed resentment and dislike of “normies.” Real antisocial vibes. Even more so than the “anti-Karen” discourse. With Karens, the debate is over if an enforcement boundary is overstepped. Maybe a real debate can be had in some of those cases.
With resentment toward normies, it’s simply a dislike of actual normal people. Yet normal people are the backbone of society. A lot of the time it looks like the useless fringe complaining about the people who actually make things function.
Hating the normal has always been a trait of losers and outcasts. It’s an immediate red flag. It’s general negative emotionality and also specific hostility toward both the mundane and the wholesome.
It’s the mindset of the unpopular kids in high school who couldn’t play sports or make it into clique groups and so, resenting their peers, experiment with every bizarre ideology and identity that the less popular adolescents do.
Delinquents think this way, they also hate the normal and society around them, but delinquents aren’t even at the bottom of this youth hierarchy. The ones at the very bottom don’t get into gangs or really edgy youth subcultures. They get into sneaky and covert ways of lashing out. Maybe they adopt a victim mentality and embrace some kind of social justice ideology where the normies (see: normal society) are oppressive. They fantasize about social collapse or revolution as their anti-normie revenge. Maybe they just become online trolls. The Internet gives them a way to lash out without any possibility of repercussions (and indeed the modern use of “normie” arose from these kinds of communities).
There is a sort of narcissism in the “anti-normie.” They feel superior, but it’s the very fragile superiority of the narcissist who isn’t recognized as superior by anyone else. They don’t get their narcissistic supply from the world around them very often. They feel very smart - their beliefs and hobbies are so much better than the normies, too! Of course anime is better than Friends. Why yes, your fringe political beliefs would totally make society better than that thing everyone else voted for. The normies don’t see the secret truths in all of the conspiracy theories that they believe; normies are very dumb but the anti-normie is very wise.
They have never had their IQ tested, but they are very certain they could not possibly be “midwits,” even if every life milestone they have experienced is associated with lower or average intelligence. If a psychologist looked at them and said “mental illness” the psychologist would just be dismissed as a normie psychologist.
They are misfits and will relate to the aesthetics of cultures and times not their own, because they don’t thrive in the here and now. This is the “men looked better in the 1920s, I should buy a fedora” effect. But it also manifests in social desires: “we should live like we did in the 1920s because I would thrive more in that environment and culture than I do now.”
They will relate to past misfits, too, and make them their heroes. This is also a narcissistic fantasy. “Actually Napoleon wasn’t a normie, see how smart the non-normies are, just like me.” In reality the normies, however, aren’t even exclusively average people. They are also the typical overachievers. When I looked at the lives of the recent Nobel Prize winners, they were every bit as normie as you might imagine. Wife, kids, house, and dogs.
And that’s the general rule for the normie: the normie is the functional and productive member of society. The further one drifts from the normie, the less likely they are to thrive. This is what fuels resentment of the normie. They see the wife, kids, dog, career, and lifestyle of the normie and think, “I want that, but I don’t have that.”
Who is the normie? To this person, “heteronormative male college kids.”
Teenager posting about his parents on the nihilism subreddit, of course, hates normies:
Just in time for National Orgasm Day, Caitlin and myself have new research up on the orgasm gap and short-term partner traits. Results in this thread. 🧵
First, the orgasm gap:
Men experience more orgasms in casual sex, especially during a first encounter.
Women who have an orgasm with a short-term partner are more likely to go on to have sex with them again in the future.
So - that first encounter matters!
Why is this? Overlapping hypotheses for the evolution of the female orgasm is its role in mate selection and mate retention.
There is a widespread perception that women face stronger pressures to be physically attractive, but it doesn’t seem clear to me that this is the case.
There is pressure to be attractive and how that pressure is experienced. This is where I think you see the differences. 🧵
The bodies that are modeled for men and women as the ideal are as unrealistic (if not more so) for boys as they are for girls.
Big things have been made of Barbie being unrealistic - but she a body that is within a natural and healthy range.
Not so for many boys toys:
Female models have been called “unrealistic” despite being real people, but what is clear is that they are simply conventionally attractive women who are thin.
Men who are handsome, lean, and also muscular are similarly selected for male advertisements: