An example is coming to the rescue of someone who is in a perilous condition such the case of a drowning person. If suitably capable, both men and women will come to the rescue. However, I believe they are drawing upon fundamentally different instincts: the woman will be drawing on the compassion to relieve the person, while the man will be drawing upon the recognition that the drowning person needs to be mercifully extracted from a lost battle against nature. Once the person is saved, he would receive reassurance type comfort from a woman, but probably will receive from the man a word or two of advice about how to avoid that situation in the future.
Most of the history of rise and fall of human advancement comes from the combination of a man having a plan he is willing to fight for and that fight being delayed by other men taking the time to evaluate whether it is a plan that needs to be fought against.
Underlying the proposal to ban toxic aggression is the untested proposition that major improvements for our descendant’s future can result from such a ban.
For men of the personality trait described here, this can be very devastating. The root of the pain is not merely the loss of intimacy with his wife, or of loss of custody to children, or of loss of wealth and income from the settlement. The pain is that there was an idea that started the relationship, that started the family.
The motivation of this post was the revelation that I recently experienced where I saw the sprouting of something I planted earlier. I don’t know where it will lead, but the exhilaration of seeing the first signs of independent of life is something that I also am left alone to experience.
Of the things that men bring to society, some of us plant seeds.
I suspect this idea has always been at the back of my mind as I contemplated the opportunity of starting a relationship. Even at a young age, I recognized that the project could not last the duration, and the concept of marriage sold to me is defined by going the duration. I was sold on something that I realized is something no longer available to purchase.
Evolutionary psychology permits us a justification to at least propose a condition where such behaviors would be rewarded and thus passed down through future generations. The problem is that the historic record doesn’t provide clear evidence of this transitional period between hunter-gatherer tribes and settlement tribes. Instead we see evidence of the nomadic tribes tracking and following the food sources through the seasons, and we see evidence of the first settlements. Missing is a condition in between, a period where humans would acquire the behavioral traits to live in a more complex arrangement of even the simplest settlements.
Back to the evolutionary psychology, we assume we know what living conditions were like for our hunter-gatherer ancestors by extrapolating backward the central premise of evolution through natural selection of accidental variations. Following a similar line of reasoning, I am inclined to assume that first breeder was someone who adopted a few orphaned hunter gatherers and bred them to be compliant to a civilized life and prefer living within it than living in the ancestral alternative.