Taken literally, the diverging mating strategies chart, together with high economic inequality, lead inevitably to polygyny as a dominant relationship pattern.
Arguably we already have a great deal of African-style polygyny, with women each supporting herself and raising her children in her own dwelling, with the government in the role of the polygynous husband, protecting the women from the violent attentions of other men.
This seems bound to increase, because as you say at the start, the sexes don't get along very well.
I like what you say and think I see some truth in it. It is certainly part of the mix. I'd add a few other factors. Both sexes are less interested in having kids. This makes long-term relationships less appealing. Without the glue of parental responsibility, small differences become magnified even if they don't get bigger. (do childless couples divorce more frequently? Surely they marry less and unmarried couples separate more.) Second, divorce is much easier. This can't help but lead to more divorces. I'm not sure where it fits but it seems worth noting that people change jobs more too. Maybe that speaks to a broader societal change or maybe it leads people to make other changes too. IDK but it seems there might be something there.
Getting back to what you say, here are my thoughts:
To say someone is not happy in marriage doesn't really tell us much. I'd argue most of those people are unhappy regardless of their marital status. Whatever they blame on the marriage probably doesn't all originate there.
It is worth noting that most people who marry never divorce. The question remains as to why the others divorce. Maybe it's just a probability thing - some people aren't going to find the "right" person the first, second or third time.; I believe the abusive and incompatible is a very small minority.; Cheating is a bigger issue but is that the cause or just something that results when a partner is unhappy?; I'd argue most people end relationships hoping for an improvement that never comes, or if it does comes, that has little or nothing to do with who they are or aren't in a relationship with.
From a high level, aren't we just pointing to "affluence" here? Affluence, having affordances, is mostly *defined* by the ability to be more choosy and to bid for better quality things. I don't see why romantic partners would be an exception.
We're more affluent than in the past, and we're pickier about romantic partners than in the past. The graphs are naturally separating because of greater affordances and affluence.
A direct corollary: we're pickier about *kids* than in the past too. Kids are a capstone thing now too, and nobody wants to have them unless they're financially secure and in a good career and relationship, and so on.
The evolutionary perspective is certainly interesting way to look at this, especially in today's light. Most studies I have seen on marriage claim that married people are happier than single, have better health, and have more sex than single people. The studies have been replicated. I've seen marriages succeed and marriages fail. Those success stories do what you have said on a more individual basis, shifting patterns of living against what the natural evolved man wants.
In my experience, 26 years of marriage and watching my parents and grandparents, all who have and had many years of marriage are indeed happy. This happiness is not from living in the "natural" way but comes from giving, serving, sharing, sacrificing, and selflessness.
All of this is very true. But modern times have added even more complications. One is that truly traditionally, marriage was about family, extended family. In English, this shows up if you use the words traditionally: the bride and groom *are married*, it is something that is done to them, by their families, for the benefit of their families. Whether they would have chosen each other is irrelevant.
This also shows up in one of Bocaccio's tales. Three (upper-class) young women are unhappy with the fiances their families have chosen and head out in a boat -- with their lovers.
But one result is that people expect a lot more from their marriages, which makes it easier to be disappointed. I've noted down
> "Even in the very recent past, couples had a high tolerance for discord, and accepted compromises and a low-grade discontent. But now a low-grade fever has set in and marriages are succumbing because only a perfect relationship will do. No one wants to settle or accommodate - everyone wants *more*." -- Erica Abeel, "I'll call you tomorrow, and other lies between men and women", 1981
I think this is an overly simplistic view of mating strategies.
High value, high status men might seem like the ones with a low commitment / sexual novelty strategy, but they are also very selective when it comes to what partner are they are eventually going to commit to. I have experienced it myself - I was not a high status man, but learning pickup skills put me in a high value man mindset. I was very selective, eventually met an exceptional woman and we are happily married now. One of the things that makes me feel happy in this relationship is how I didn't have to settle for anything, I married just the person I wanted. But I also know that my previous experiences with women have made me aware of what I really wanted and allowed me to choose wisely.
What makes high status men highly selective is their realistic perspective of having casual relationships, which is better than a mediocre committed relationship but worse than an amazing relationship with an exceptional woman.
Walt Bismarck has an interesting description of how apparently this happens on the female side as well (see here: https://newaltright.substack.com/p/stop-being-mean-to-slutty-women) - he writes about how liberal, promiscuous women use that strategy to get their foot in the door with high value men and then, once in a committed relationship, turn into tradwives.
To sum up, novelty seeking / low commitment and selectiveness go hand in hand - if you're selective, you got to have a large enough pool of available mates to select from.
Also, these strategies work on individual level, but would probably not scale on the society. On social level, the main concern in developed countries is fertility, and we should fix the system to allow for more people entering committed relationships and having children together, even if this makes the society less happy on average. Otherwise the Western society and culture will perish in a few generations.
After years I am leaning more and more towards the idea of leaving this complicated human relationship mess behind. And dream of electric companions and perfectly matched LLMs
I'll read this later. Though my experience of marriage is that when I feel we are working to a common end, each in our own distinctive way, then I am happy. When we are not, I am unhappy. Thinking about my wife, it seems she would say the same thing.
In the past, this "common end" was most likely simply survival. Couples actual level of happiness probably was inversely dependant on their level of desperation. Nowadays, when living is easy, its harder to find a "common end", which may be why many couples find it hard to be happy 'together'.
This is what I meant the other day in response to Anders writing about how often y'all's articles get shared. I haven't even read this yet, but I've already falcon-punched the 'like' button and am copying the address to send to four women I know.
Taken literally, the diverging mating strategies chart, together with high economic inequality, lead inevitably to polygyny as a dominant relationship pattern.
Arguably we already have a great deal of African-style polygyny, with women each supporting herself and raising her children in her own dwelling, with the government in the role of the polygynous husband, protecting the women from the violent attentions of other men.
This seems bound to increase, because as you say at the start, the sexes don't get along very well.
I like what you say and think I see some truth in it. It is certainly part of the mix. I'd add a few other factors. Both sexes are less interested in having kids. This makes long-term relationships less appealing. Without the glue of parental responsibility, small differences become magnified even if they don't get bigger. (do childless couples divorce more frequently? Surely they marry less and unmarried couples separate more.) Second, divorce is much easier. This can't help but lead to more divorces. I'm not sure where it fits but it seems worth noting that people change jobs more too. Maybe that speaks to a broader societal change or maybe it leads people to make other changes too. IDK but it seems there might be something there.
Getting back to what you say, here are my thoughts:
To say someone is not happy in marriage doesn't really tell us much. I'd argue most of those people are unhappy regardless of their marital status. Whatever they blame on the marriage probably doesn't all originate there.
It is worth noting that most people who marry never divorce. The question remains as to why the others divorce. Maybe it's just a probability thing - some people aren't going to find the "right" person the first, second or third time.; I believe the abusive and incompatible is a very small minority.; Cheating is a bigger issue but is that the cause or just something that results when a partner is unhappy?; I'd argue most people end relationships hoping for an improvement that never comes, or if it does comes, that has little or nothing to do with who they are or aren't in a relationship with.
From a high level, aren't we just pointing to "affluence" here? Affluence, having affordances, is mostly *defined* by the ability to be more choosy and to bid for better quality things. I don't see why romantic partners would be an exception.
We're more affluent than in the past, and we're pickier about romantic partners than in the past. The graphs are naturally separating because of greater affordances and affluence.
A direct corollary: we're pickier about *kids* than in the past too. Kids are a capstone thing now too, and nobody wants to have them unless they're financially secure and in a good career and relationship, and so on.
The evolutionary perspective is certainly interesting way to look at this, especially in today's light. Most studies I have seen on marriage claim that married people are happier than single, have better health, and have more sex than single people. The studies have been replicated. I've seen marriages succeed and marriages fail. Those success stories do what you have said on a more individual basis, shifting patterns of living against what the natural evolved man wants.
In my experience, 26 years of marriage and watching my parents and grandparents, all who have and had many years of marriage are indeed happy. This happiness is not from living in the "natural" way but comes from giving, serving, sharing, sacrificing, and selflessness.
All of this is very true. But modern times have added even more complications. One is that truly traditionally, marriage was about family, extended family. In English, this shows up if you use the words traditionally: the bride and groom *are married*, it is something that is done to them, by their families, for the benefit of their families. Whether they would have chosen each other is irrelevant.
This also shows up in one of Bocaccio's tales. Three (upper-class) young women are unhappy with the fiances their families have chosen and head out in a boat -- with their lovers.
But one result is that people expect a lot more from their marriages, which makes it easier to be disappointed. I've noted down
> "Even in the very recent past, couples had a high tolerance for discord, and accepted compromises and a low-grade discontent. But now a low-grade fever has set in and marriages are succumbing because only a perfect relationship will do. No one wants to settle or accommodate - everyone wants *more*." -- Erica Abeel, "I'll call you tomorrow, and other lies between men and women", 1981
Barbara Ehrenreich said similar things: https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,979229,00.html
I think this is an overly simplistic view of mating strategies.
High value, high status men might seem like the ones with a low commitment / sexual novelty strategy, but they are also very selective when it comes to what partner are they are eventually going to commit to. I have experienced it myself - I was not a high status man, but learning pickup skills put me in a high value man mindset. I was very selective, eventually met an exceptional woman and we are happily married now. One of the things that makes me feel happy in this relationship is how I didn't have to settle for anything, I married just the person I wanted. But I also know that my previous experiences with women have made me aware of what I really wanted and allowed me to choose wisely.
What makes high status men highly selective is their realistic perspective of having casual relationships, which is better than a mediocre committed relationship but worse than an amazing relationship with an exceptional woman.
Walt Bismarck has an interesting description of how apparently this happens on the female side as well (see here: https://newaltright.substack.com/p/stop-being-mean-to-slutty-women) - he writes about how liberal, promiscuous women use that strategy to get their foot in the door with high value men and then, once in a committed relationship, turn into tradwives.
To sum up, novelty seeking / low commitment and selectiveness go hand in hand - if you're selective, you got to have a large enough pool of available mates to select from.
Also, these strategies work on individual level, but would probably not scale on the society. On social level, the main concern in developed countries is fertility, and we should fix the system to allow for more people entering committed relationships and having children together, even if this makes the society less happy on average. Otherwise the Western society and culture will perish in a few generations.
After years I am leaning more and more towards the idea of leaving this complicated human relationship mess behind. And dream of electric companions and perfectly matched LLMs
I'll read this later. Though my experience of marriage is that when I feel we are working to a common end, each in our own distinctive way, then I am happy. When we are not, I am unhappy. Thinking about my wife, it seems she would say the same thing.
In the past, this "common end" was most likely simply survival. Couples actual level of happiness probably was inversely dependant on their level of desperation. Nowadays, when living is easy, its harder to find a "common end", which may be why many couples find it hard to be happy 'together'.
This is what I meant the other day in response to Anders writing about how often y'all's articles get shared. I haven't even read this yet, but I've already falcon-punched the 'like' button and am copying the address to send to four women I know.