How Men Compete For Status - Rob Henderson

Rob Henderson is a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge and a US Air Force Veteran. Men fight. Sometimes they look silly when they fight. But they also collaborate and team up to take on common enemies. Women fight in very different ways that are less obvious, but no less vicious, and they sometimes try to even scupper their own teammates. Expect to learn how men's judgements of formidability are better at predicting future sexual partners than women's judgements of attractiveness, why male intrasexual competition is so much more obvious, my theory around why men hate to hear that women like dad bods, why there are rules in a "no rules" street fight, what happens if you get kidnapped by an Amazonian tribe and much more... Sponsors: Get 15% discount on Craftd London’s jewellery at https://bit.ly/cdwisdom (use code MW15) Get the Whoop 4.0 for free and get your first month for free at http://join.whoop.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Get 10% discount on all of MASA’s Chips at www.masachips.com/modernwisdom use code MODERNWISDOM) Extra Stuff: Check out Rob's Substack - https://robkhenderson.substack.com/ Follow Rob on Twitter - https://twitter.com/robkhenderson Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom #evolutionarypsychology #humannature #competition - 00:00 Intro 00:53 Rob’s PhD Thesis 09:30 The Male Warrior Hypothesis 17:45 Are Men the Cause of Tribalism? 23:05 Chimp Aggression is 100x Human Aggression 29:23 Why Women Liking Dad-Bods Offends Men 47:35 Is Formidability in Men More Attractive Than Appearance? 54:58 Are Women More Attractive the More They Are Respected? 1:01:11 The Male Monkey Dance 1:12:25 Insights on Male Aggression from the Bourne Movies 1:19:56 Where to Find Rob - Get access to every episode 10 hours before YouTube by subscribing for free on Spotify - https://spoti.fi/2LSimPn or Apple Podcasts - https://apple.co/2MNqIgw Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - https://chriswillx.com/books/ - Get in touch in the comments below or head to... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Rob Henderson?

  There was one study, they showed a series of women videos of men. And then at the end, they asked these women, how sexually attractive is this man? Then they showed a group of men, the same videos of these same guys, and asked them, how likely is it that this man would win a physical fight with another man? Then the researchers tracked those men in those videos and had them return 18 months later and asked them a bunch of questions, including, how many sexual partners have you had over the last 18 months? The correlation between how sexually attractive the women found these men and how many partners they had was zero. But there was a strong and significant correlation between how intimidating or formidable men rated them and how many sexual partners they recounted over the last 18 months. And so essentially, how tough a guy looks to men

• 0:42Rob Henderson?

  is a stronger predictor of his sexual success than how attractive he looks to women.

• 0:48Rob Henderson?

  You just defended your PhD thesis. What's that mean? That's right. So PhD thesis, it's called a dissertation in the US. They call it a thesis here in the UK. It's just a, it's a culmination of the work you do throughout your years of study in a doctoral program. So at least within the field of psychology, typically you write, you know, a handful of papers, maybe three or four papers. And it's all supposed to build towards some overarching hypothesis, some kind of framework, and you run a series of empirical studies. And, you know, hopefully you get the results you're looking for. And then that's sort of, you know, it sort of builds towards, you know, here's, here's what all of this means, here's how it contributes to the research, to the literature more broadly.

• 1:33Rob Henderson?

  And it's supposed to be the sort of original piece of scholarship. It doesn't necessarily have to be empirical either. Sometimes it can be theoretical. And I'm sure there's like a whole other set of criteria for the humanities. But yeah, it's a, it's a huge relief. I mean, people say, oh, when you're finished your PhD thesis, you're going to be so happy, you're going to be so thrilled. And I was just like relieved, you know, afterwards, I was just like, oh, thank God it's over. Like, it's done. It's, you know, even though it went well, you know, I got the outcome I wanted. It was still just, um, you know, it was still more just like, this burden is lifted, rather than just feeling elated or something, you know? What's the thesis?

• 2:09Rob Henderson?

  So the title of my PhD thesis is Physical and Social Threats Fortify Moral Judgments. And I got really interested in this when I was in undergrad. So I was taking classes by this experimental philosopher, Josh Knob, who, that's where basically I learned that you can use the tools of empirical psychology and social science to test people's moral intuitions. And morality generally has been kind of a wheelhouse of philosophy, you know, armchair philosophers, you know, pondering what is morality, you know, what does it mean to be a moral person, what is moral character? And with, you know, some of the instruments in psychology, you can come along and say like, well, what do people actually think about morality? What does the average person think about it? And, you know, maybe

• 2:51Rob Henderson?

  some of your listeners will know about, you know, like administering the trolley problem to people. Would people flip the switch? Would they not? That kind of thing. And I was taking classes with Paul Bloom too, when I was in undergrad and learned about the sort of developmental origins of morality. And while I was there, I learned about this interesting link between disgust and morality. And many people think of disgust as this emotion that people experience in response to, you know, contamination, illness, infection. But there's a lot of interesting work indicating that it overlaps with our moral judgments as well, that people who are very sensitive to disgust also tend to condemn wrongdoers more harshly. If you induce disgust in people, show them some disgusting images, or get

• 3:36Rob Henderson?

  them to smell some repulsive odors, subsequently their moral judgments become intensified. And so I thought to myself, you know, when I was reading all of this, and when I came to Cambridge, I was wondering, is there, you know, are there other forms of threat beyond contamination? You know, contamination is a threat to your survival. It's an evolutionary threat. Are there other kinds of evolutionary threats, challenges to your survival and potentially your reproduction? That could also intensify your moral judgment. So I did some stuff on, you know, people who worried about COVID in 2020 were also stricter in their moral judgments for a variety of different kinds of moral violations, not just things like, you know, some of the items I used were, you know, using a stranger's toothbrush, how wrong do you think that is? And of course, like, of course, people who are worried about COVID will also say, like,

• 4:21Rob Henderson?

  using a toothbrush that doesn't belong to you is, you know, that's horrible. But it was also things like, you know, betraying a family member, or stealing from a store, you know, kind of deception, betrayal, subversion, things that are unrelated to contamination. People who were worried about COVID were stricter with those kinds of violations, similar to social threat as well, similar to age. The age one was the most interesting to me. I'm working on this paper, trying to get it published. I think you and I might have talked about this offline before, too, that essentially, there's a direct association between as people grow older, their moral judgments become stricter, and this is controlling for political orientation, it's controlling for income, for education. So these kind

• 5:04Rob Henderson?

  of demographic variables that you would assume, you know, oh, when older people, you know, as they age, they become more politically conservative, and that's why they adopt these sort of moralistic attitudes. But even when you control for that, there's something going on here about the aging process, and I suggest it has something to do with vulnerability, risk perception. As you grow older, the threats around you appear to be especially formidable. And I suggest this is also potentially why there are these interesting moral judgment differences between men and women, such that women are more strict in their moral judgments relative to men. And some of that can be explained with just the reproductive differences

• 5:44Rob Henderson?

  between men and women. Women have historically been more at risk for when they're pregnant, when they're carrying young children, they should just be extra alert to potential dangers. But I also suggest that if you control for certain things like muscularity, height, BMI, all of these other kinds of things, I would bet that the moral judgment differences and disgust sensitivity would actually shrink. I just think that if you're a sort of a strong, young, robust and healthy person, the world just looks less dangerous to you. And this includes moral wrongdoers. You think like, ah, that guy's doing something bad, but I can, I can take him. This is sort of the punchline of what my thesis is about.

• 6:21Chris Williamson?

  Very interesting. So I think we spoke about this last week, that a lot of evolutionary researchers think that morality is basically just rule, adaptive rules for human survival, given more fluffy and philosophical language.

• 6:39Rob Henderson?

  Oh, interesting. I mean, I wouldn't call them even, even rules, really. I mean, these are at least, you know, the best versions of, I think, evolutionary psychology and social science research. It's supposed to be descriptive, right? It's sort of, here's how things are. Evolutionary psychology, it's about, here's how things were in the ancestral environment. A lot of people get those confused, right? Where they think, um, oh, we evolved to do X because that's, um, you know, evolutionarily advantageous, but it's actually evolutionary advantageous in the ancestral environment, right? We're, we're, what is it? We're Stone Age beings and in the, in the sort of space age or something along, you know, we're, we're in the modern environment. We didn't evolve to live in a world with, you know, limitless

• 7:24Rob Henderson?

  calories, endless entertainment, you know, drugs that can stimulate the dopaminergic system in your brain, like all of this stuff, right? But 100,000 years ago, you know, there are, there are certain mental adaptations that helped us survive in that kind of environment. And so they're not really rules necessarily. And in fact, you know, there's a lot of the, the, the psychological mechanisms that we have, they actually sort of evolved to, to counteract other people's psychological mechanisms as well. You know, like there was, uh, there's debate right now, I think, about, you know, age differences in, um, in relationships, for example, where women might shame men for being interested in younger women. And

• 8:06Rob Henderson?

  some men will, uh, you know, they'll say something like, well, we, we evolved to be attracted to young women. And that's true. Men did evolve to be attracted to younger women because, you know, in the evolutionary environment, younger women were more fertile and so on. However, women evolved to use, well, people in general, but in this context, women evolved to use moral norms to shame men so that they in turn can be exploiting an advantage there as well, right? Such that they can sort of shame high-status men into not dating younger women and date them instead. And that in itself is an evolutionary mechanism. So you have all of these sort of competing modules and mechanisms and processes, and each person is trying to obtain an advantage sort of at the level of the genes, right?

• 8:50Rob Henderson?

  And so, you know, we can lob evolutionary mechanisms at each other. Well, I evolved to do this, you evolved to do that, you know what I mean? So, so I think that's also important to keep in mind when people sort of use evolutionary explanations as an excuse for this or that behavior. It's, you know, people are going to use their own sort of evolutionary prerogative to undercut that as well, you know what I mean?

• 9:08Chris Williamson?

  Yeah, I mean, intrasexual competition has been one of the most fascinating things that I've learned about this year. I had Christina Durante on talking about it, and then I've got Joyce Benenson toward the end of this year.

• 9:23Rob Henderson?

  Oh, she's great.

• 9:24Chris Williamson?

  Yeah, who's just gonna be such money. She's one, I think, maybe the last episode of this year, and I can't, I can't wait to have her on. But you, you sent me an article that you've got that's just come out called "The Male Warrior Hypothesis." What's that?

• 9:36Rob Henderson?

  Yeah. Yeah, the Male Warrior Hypothesis, it's funny, so Joyce Benenson has written about this, as have others, and it's a hypothesis within the evolutionary psychology research, basically suggesting that men and women evolved different psychological mechanisms to deal with within-group and between-group conflict. And so, you know, based on a series of different studies, as well as sort of combing through the anthropological and archaeological record, researchers have suggested that essentially men are more hostile within their groups to one another, especially overt hostility. So there's research indicating, you know, early on, it was, it was considered basically

• 10:20Rob Henderson?

  undisputable that men were more aggressive to one another. But then when researchers sort of expanded this definition of aggression, they actually found no differences, no significant differences, once they accounted for indirect aggression. Things like rumor-spreading, ostracism, either ending a friendship or threatening to end it, those are sort of these indirect aggressive acts.

• 10:43Rob Henderson?

  And so in those cases, there's no difference. But the overt hostility that men show one another is definitely more pronounced relative to women. However, researchers have also found that that men are more likely to suppress their hostility toward one another when they encounter another group of men, say, a group of outsiders. And they hypothesized that this is because in the evolutionary environment, when men are, especially young men, most of this is going to be in the context of young men, when they're within a group, say, an evolutionary band 50,000 or 100,000 years ago, it's in their interest to sort of one-up one another, mock one another, tease one another, and look good in that community, especially because they're trying to impress young women.

• 11:28Rob Henderson?

  But men also evolved to band together and to either defend their community from hostile outsiders and invaders, and they evolved to be those hostile invaders and go capture resources and women and territory from other groups as well. And so essentially, men are simultaneously more hostile and more cooperative, whereas women, their aggression is expressed indirectly and verbally and sort of in this roundabout way. And yet, when they compete with other women, it appears that they're less likely to suppress that hostility that they show one another. And there was a study that came out this year.

• 12:11Rob Henderson?

  Joyce Benenson was an author of this paper, and they were looking at high school and college athletes. And they basically found that, you know, they asked these athletes questions about how they interacted with one another when they're on the team and how they interacted when they were competing against other teams. And they found that, generally speaking, especially for active overt aggression, male athletes reported more from their own teammates, you know, name-calling, fistfights, shoving each other. Like, I think one of them was, like, spitting on me, you know, getting shoved in a locker, like, all of the kinds of stuff that happens in male sports teams, right? And, you know, men reported more of that happening between one another. But then when they when they asked the the male athletes about how they competed with one another against another sports team and how much hostility they showed their own teammates,

• 12:55Rob Henderson?

  it was it was very low and essentially seemed like the the hostility they they typically directed toward one another suddenly became hyper focused on defeating the other team whereas for the female athletes they reported you know a relatively high amount of indirect aggression, rumors ostracism, one of the items was you know have you what have you ever been left out when the other teammates went out went to dinner without you, things like that going out to you without you. And there were relatively high levels of that and then they asked these these female athletes about their experiences playing with their teammates against another team and and again like the the the rates of of intra group so within group hostility were actually still relatively high. You know, women relative to men were less likely to pass the ball to one another or

• 13:38Rob Henderson?

  shun one another or like you know maybe whisper something to another girl, things like that. And so so the overall idea of this male warrior hypothesis is that yeah, guys are are sort of extra hostile in in basically every single context, but in a sense they're actually more cooperative as well in that you know when they're up against another group, another team, perhaps another army or an invading force, they can sort of let those tensions go and you know come together with one another. And I think this this distinction between indirect versus direct aggression is important and it's interesting because you know so so I I'm in that piece that that I I sent

• 14:21Rob Henderson?

  to you about the male warrior hypothesis, I discussed this excerpt from this book called Yanomama and it was recommended on Twitter by by the great David Buss, who I know you've had on this show. And this is an amazing book, this so it's the Spanish girl, this European girl in the 1930s gets kidnapped by these these Amazonian in the book, you know, the book was came out in the 1960s, so they referred to them as Amazonian Indians. And she's kidnapped as a young girl and one of the one of the stories she tells in her recounting of what happened to her throughout this experience. And she lived with them for decades with various bands of Yanomama tribes.

• 15:03Rob Henderson?

  Yanomama is the overarching name for a whole series of foraging communities in South America. And they're constantly at war with one another and conflict. I mean, they're sort of like modern day hunter gatherers essentially. And so Helen Valero says that when she arrived in this new tribe, there was a girl there who didn't like her, you know, a girl who was roughly the same age as her, and gave her this packet of folded leaves and said, like, here, here's a snack for you. You must be hungry. And Helen takes this snack and she smells it and she's repulsed by the odor. And so she sets it down somewhere. And then a few hours later, a little boy in the tribe falls deathly ill.

• 15:47Rob Henderson?

  And he says he got this little leaf packet from Helen Valero. He says, you know, she gave it to me. And the whole entire tribe turns on her and they're like, why did you try to poison this boy? Like, who is this outsider girl who's trying to poison us? Like, why are you doing this to the children? And they ostracize her and banish her. And she like literally is running through the forest while several of the men are shooting arrows at her, trying to kill her. And they're, yeah, so this was an interesting example of kind of this indirect aggression, right? I mean, it's not like this girl like, you know, went up to her and bashed her head with a rock or something. She gave her a snack, knowing that two things could happen, right? Because, by the way, when she gave her the snack, she said, if you don't like it, because she saw Helen smell it and say, I don't, I don't like the smell. And she said, well, if you don't like, you can give it to someone else. Because you do, two things could happen.

• 16:32Rob Henderson?

  Either Helen eats this and dies, or she gives it to someone and is responsible for the death of someone else and gets ostracized. So that's a win-win situation, and this is an act of indirect aggression. But if Helen were to die in this situation, you know, this girl Helen Valero, the girl who gave her the snack would not be counted as her murderer, right? Like, the sort of steps between the snack and the death of Helen Valero, there are steps involved such that the girl would not be blamed for this. And I think this is a sort of an extra interesting example of indirect aggression that is, you know, often more perpetrated by women relative to men. And you know, I I write it there that, you know, if if if this had been a situation among men where like this new outsider male comes in and the other guys don't like him, they're

• 17:16Rob Henderson?

  not like, hmm, how can I like, you know, kill this guy directly, it would be like, you know, like basically stepping up on him and be like, show me what you're made of, and just like shove him, or they'd organize a way to kill him in his sleep, you know, it would be a very sort of direct and forceful attempt to put this this newcomer in their place. And so this to me sort of gets at this this difference between, you know, the sort of overt male aggression versus covert female aggression.

• 17:45Chris Williamson?

  Why do you think it is that women don't seem to band together against an out-group foe in the same way that men do?

• 17:56Rob Henderson?

  It's an interesting question. One, one possibility, and perhaps the the most, you know, the more, the more sort of convincing possibility to me is, you know, sort of riffing on this, this quote from the evolutionary psychologist John Tooby, he was a sort of a pioneer of the field, and he had this line, it was something like, you know, cultural very, like, I'll, I'll believe that cultural variation is responsible for, you know, like human nature, if you show me an example of a tribe in which women band together to capture men as husbands. And, you know, there's, there's literally no example in the human

• 18:40Rob Henderson?

  record of women ever doing that. And there's, there's another story from the, the anthropologist, Napoleon, I don't know if I'm getting his name, his last name, it was like Shagnon, C H A G N O N. And he talks about how, so he, he would spend time, he actually spent time with the, with the Yanomama in South America, and His belief, as was the belief of many other anthropologists at the time, is that, you know, the reason why men in these small-scale tribal societies go to war is over resources, and especially over meat, you know, capturing territory, finding good grounds for hunting, and those kinds of things. And he, you know, he floated this idea to these Yanawa tribes,

• 19:24Rob Henderson?

  and they laughed at him. And they're like, that's not why we go to war, man. We go to war over women. Like, that's the reason we like, like, we like meat, but we like women a lot more, was actually a direct line that he put in his book. And so, that is probably the reason, right? I mean, throughout this book that David Buss recommended on the Yana, there are just countless cases of men, like, you know, getting into conflict, both within the groups, to say, like, you know, who's going to marry this young woman, or, you know, who's, who's, you know, who's going to come together to take, to take out the other, the other tribes around them. And there's just constant male-on-male violence

• 20:02Rob Henderson?

  and conflict. And it's almost inevitably subtle, surrounds this idea of, you know, who is going to marry who, or who's going to have children with who, or who's going to have more, you know, more sexual partners. And, you know, men have a stronger sex drive, they have more interest in variety, they have a sort of a reputational concern to demonstrate how tough they are, whereas women don't necessarily have those same set of concerns. And also because, you know, women are the more valuable sex biologically. So they don't want to get involved in physical conflict.

• 20:43Chris Williamson?

  Right, okay. Yeah, it is interesting to me that the tribalism that we see amongst everybody smeared across society seems to fall apart at least a little bit when men aren't in the picture. And it's like, you know, you're talking about basically women banding together against an outgroup less than men would, on average, right?

• 21:05Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, especially the sort of overt hostility, right? So a lot of the research supporting the male warrior hypothesis, you know, it indicates that that men show, you know, higher levels of of preference for the in-group, more like xenophobia and more sort of denigration of, you know, generally the the out-group. Whereas for women, it's it's less overly expressed, right? It's more sort of fear and avoidance, you know, like if there's this sort of strange force, just just avoid it, stay away from it and and don't cause any trouble. Um, yeah, so so that is, you know, there's this sex difference there.

• 21:40Chris Williamson?

  The interesting thing, I suppose, is that it suggests that human cooperation is a consequence of human competition, like that one of the main reasons that cooperation exists is simply because human competition was so high.

• 21:52Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, yeah, there's there's some interesting research on the, you know, they've done some sort of mathematical modeling where they pit, um, you know, these these sort of computerized simulations of, well, you know, what if what if one group cooperates all the time versus some of the time and, you know, what if one group always competes and so on? But basically, they find that these two things tend to arise simultaneously, that you can't really get the kinds of high levels of cooperation that you see with humans without high levels of competition as well. I mean, humans are like by far the most cooperative species on the planet. I mean, we like literally can coordinate millions or even billions of people across the globe, whereas we're also the most sort of deadly species as well, where we'll get

• 22:35Rob Henderson?

  into sort of mass scale killings and conflict and genocide and all those things. But in order to pull off a genocide, you actually have to be an extremely cooperative species is the kind of irony of that, right? Richard Wrangham has written about this and others is like, you know, that sort of, there's that double-sided aspect of our nature is that cooperation can lead to sort of incredible levels of of mass conflict and and competition.

• 22:56Chris Williamson?

  Uh, yeah, because the cooperation enables you to be able to deploy that competition at scale and leverage it in increasingly vicious ways. Didn't I seem to remember you wrote about people presume that humans have got more aggression than other animals and that we're totally undomesticated and that the wild is perfect without us, but chimps show a 100 to 150 times the amount of aggression than humans do, and the peace-loving bonobos show less aggression than the chimps, but still way more than any human society ever recorded.

• 23:35Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, yeah, I wrote about that when I was discussing Richard Wrangham's book. He's the Harvard evolutionary biologist. He wrote a great book called The Goodness Paradox. And yeah, some of the findings that he unearths and discusses in that book, one of them was this, you know, there's this general belief, like, you know, if someone is behaving, you know, especially violently, like a serial killer or something, we're like, oh, he's inhuman, you know, there's something wrong with him, like, where's his humanity? And yet, Richard Wrangham points out that, like, actually, you know, the ability to kill, like, at scale, large numbers of people, that is uniquely a human ability, right? Like, there's no chimpanzee who's committed, like, mass-scale genocide against their own

• 24:19Rob Henderson?

  species, the way that humans have. And, yeah, I mean, the figures were stunning, so it was 150 to 500 times, so chimpanzees specifically, within their own groups, right? Like, he's not even talking about intergroup conflict among chimpanzees, just among their fellow group members, their peers, they're 150 to 500 times more violent than human hunter-gatherer coalitions. And bonobos are roughly half that violent, so, you know, what is that, something like 250 times more violent than human beings? So, yes, they're half as violent as chimps, but still far, far more violent than human beings are. And so, yeah, there's, the whole self-domestication idea was fascinating to me, this idea that,

• 25:03Rob Henderson?

  you know, and you actually see a small-scale version of this among chimps, but human beings, even more so, where part of the reason why humans are relatively docile, and cooperative, and can follow norms and all of these kinds of things, and build societies, is because we care deeply about what other people think about us, we sort of have this built-in social anxiety, you know, some researchers have called it the sociometer, where we sort of monitor how we appear in the eyes of others. And the reason why we have all this is because, in the ancestral environment, this is actually before the ancestral environment, so Richard Wrangham suggests this was maybe 500,000 or 600,000 years ago, this started occurring, what he calls the execution hypothesis, which

• 25:44Rob Henderson?

  is that whenever an especially aggressive or hostile male appeared within a community, and started monopolizing resources, or taking the other men's wives, and so on, it was around this time that humans started to form the ability to speak, so language evolved, the ability to use tools and weapons had evolved, and... The sort of weaker and less formidable men were able to form the sort of whispering consensus of like, hey, this guy's a problem. Like, you know, he took my wife, he took your wife, like, you know, what's going on? So how do we get rid of this guy? And so they'd wait for him to fall asleep, or they'd... There's one example that he points out in the book of this hunter-gatherer group. There was this sort of bullying male that the others didn't like.

• 26:28Rob Henderson?

  And so I think they dared him to climb up this tree to get some particularly appealing fruit. And so the guy sets his weapons down, he's like, you know, I'll show you guys, let me get this piece of fruit up at this tree. And he climbs up the tree. And when he comes down, the guys just, you know, they take his weapons that he had left and just start stabbing him. And, you know, problem solved. And so the guys who cared, who had no, or little to no, sort of concern about their reputation, or how they appeared of like, I'm just going to do what I want, to just be this sort of bad boy alpha male. If they weren't able to cultivate allies and to sort of develop a reputation as a

• 27:10Rob Henderson?

  useful person in that group, then the others would just kill them, right? And so we are the descendants of the humans who didn't die and who did sort of develop over time this concern about like, you know, any kind of ridicule, criticism, any sort of stinging comment, that lingers with us because, you know, in the ancestral environment, you know, every single negative comment could have potentially life-threatening consequences.

• 27:35Chris Williamson?

  Life is too difficult ancestrally for people to get through on their own, which means that inevitably you need cooperation. That means that you need to temper down the aggression, the dark triad traits that you've got, all of that stuff. You need to bring that down to a level which is perhaps sufficiently high that it means you are more effective than your competitors, but not so high that it crosses the threshold where you get your weapons taken away from you while you're up a tree and get stabbed on the way down. That's the balance. People are trying to strike.

• 28:06Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, that's a neat kind of a, yeah, that's, that's like, it's a sort of a, it's a neat way to tie that in, what you're saying with the, with the male warrior hypothesis, where you need a little bit of that sort of aggression and that callousness. Because, you know, if you had none of that, then you would just be overrun by a more aggressive community. But if you had too much of it, then the whole community would start to fall apart and people would be hostile and suspicious to one another.

• 28:31Chris Williamson?

  Yes, also, I suppose the males ancestrally that would have been a little bit more aggressive would have been seen as more useful. You know, they would have been formidable foes and useful allies for people to have. And again, it's pushing that too far. It's, it's, I've really, really enjoyed some of the conversations I've had about psychopaths recently. And Kevin Dutton, he's the head of the Communication of Science for Auckland University in Australia, or Adelaide, maybe. And he was talking about this, saying it's adaptive to have a couple of psychopaths in your group, because it means that if you've got to go and do some really messed up stuff, you can just send them in there, they're the special forces, they're the berserkers, they're the Vikings going to raid Lindisfarne or whatever.

• 29:16Chris Williamson?

  And it's useful to have them, but as soon as you start to get too many, it makes for a very unstable society, so you can't hold on to that. Speaking about some of the secondary sex characteristics and the male competition stuff, I had this idea about dad bods after I saw a competition online. So there's a video, I saw a video go up about dad bods and I noticed in the comments, a lot of male accounts really, really upset. They seemed to be very triggered, very discounting. It was a woman that was talking about why she likes dad bods and why dad bods are superior to guys that think that they're in shape. And a lot of guys in the comments telling this woman that she doesn't know what she's talking about, which, you know, is just, is the internet for you.

• 30:00Chris Williamson?

  And you don't know, I don't know how much this woman was posturing, how much she was doing it as a massive troll, whatever. And it got me thinking about why it is that guys seem to have such an aversion to women specifically praising and the press and the media, sort of upholding dad bods as some sort of pedestal that men should try and attain. And I think that there's a lot of things going on here. The first most obvious one is that guys that train. Don't want their efforts that they've put into their own physique to be in vain. Right. That makes, that makes a lot of sense. They have decided that this is something which is worthy of getting. There is almost no guy on the planet who would be able to say with a straight face that they're going to the gym and training hard without it.

• 30:44Chris Williamson?

  Including in that I'm doing this to make myself more attractive to women. Or whoever it is that they're trying to be attractive to. So that's, that's a first one, but I don't think that that really accounts for anywhere near the kind of effect that we're seeing here. I think another element is that most men,

• 31:02Chris Williamson?

  even if they're not the sort of ones who go to the gym and train, would look at the body of a man that does go to the gym and train and respect it. And I think that one of the concerns that they see there is that they value something which is now being undermined by someone that they presume their model of the world is supposed to be able to understand. Hang on a second. I thought I understood what it was that women wanted. I kind of want this thing. I don't want it sexually, but I want it in a way of I, I think it's something that's admirable. And you know, the secondary sex characteristics that suggest that men actually get bigger and go to the gym more for formidability than for attraction. That, that plays into this pretty perfectly.

• 31:43Chris Williamson?

  Another element I think is if you roll the clock forward one more step from there, it might be a little bit of internalized homophobia from men that they look at another guy who is in good condition and they say, I bet that guy slays puss. I bet that all of the women want him. I value his body. I like that body in a, a way that makes me fit. Why am I looking at this guy's body somewhere? Well, it's because I want to model it for myself and you know, it's like, it's me doing it for women. But then to be told, hang on a second, all of this that you're doing from a woman doesn't make any sense at all. When I'm not concerned about that, might make you think, oh, holy shit.

• 32:24Chris Williamson?

  This might mean I'm gay. And then there's a let off valve. Do you understand what I mean?

• 32:29Rob Henderson?

  I do. That one seems, the other ones, I kid, if this makes sense, this one's a little too.

• 32:34Chris Williamson?

  I'm rolling the dice. I'm rolling the dice here, okay?

• 32:36Rob Henderson?

  But I like it. I think it's, I like that this sort of the creativity of it. It's, you know, there's like a Freudian element to it. I think it's, you know, it's interesting.

• 32:44Chris Williamson?

  Maybe, I don't know. But here's the final thing. So I heard this story, I told my friend about this idea yesterday. And he told me a story about one of his ex-girlfriends that mentioned she was happier with him the fatter that he got. And she was more unhappy with him as he got leaner. And I think that a big part of this is the level of comfort that is associated with having a partner that you know is not going to go anywhere else. I learned this from Sarah Hill. She taught me that men who have gut fat are perceived to be better fathers. And the reason that men who have gut fat, this is compared with a guy that's in good shape. And you think, hang on a second, how is the guy that isn't able to protect his family because he's less physically formidable,

• 33:28Chris Williamson?

  going to be perceived as a better father? And the reason is that the guy who has more gut fat is seen to be less potentially attractive to other mates, which means that if he is given one calorie, there is less likelihood of him spending that calorie on trying to acquire a new mate because more doors have been closed to him than the guy that is in good shape and may potentially have more doors open to him. Basically, this guy's physique has shut off a number of different avenues down which he could invest his resources. Therefore, the guy that doesn't have as many avenues open must be the better father. So basically, there is like a, when it comes back to the woman that was in a relationship who was happier when her partner got fatter, I think that

• 34:10Chris Williamson?

  being less uncertain about your partner's strain contributes massively to a woman who might have anxious attachment, or maybe there's a disparity mate value there, that she is going to feel a lot more comfortable with that. But the wild thing, when you think about this, is that comfort contributes quite a lot to women's arousal, right? A woman's arousal is predicated, at least in part, on feeling comfortable. Now, yeah, there's like ways that you can game this in the bedroom, but for the most part, it is, it appears that women have a high degree of comfort that they need to reach the men do. So there has to be on a spectrum from this guy is peeled out of his mind with the best physique on the planet and looks like a superhero and every woman

• 34:52Chris Williamson?

  wants to have sex with him to this guy is super, super fat and completely disgusting. There is a spectrum between that, upon which different women with their different levels of comfort, both for a relationship and for attraction are going to feel more or less comfortable. And there is a situation in which someone who was less in good shape would be more arousing and more attractive to a woman because her degree of comfort would be increased. So that's my thesis around dad bods, homophobia and comfort in relationships for you.

• 35:27Rob Henderson?

  Good. That was, I think, well, okay. So, well, the first thing you said about, you know, how, how men and women react differently to the whole dad bod phenomenon and men sort of get angry about it. You know, it reminds me, you've probably seen this meme, right? Of like, you know, the, the guys sort of thinking like, how I think it'll be when I get in really good shape. And it's like, you know, a bunch of girls in bikinis and how it actually is. And it's like, all these boys say, yeah, man, you look jacked. This is awesome. And, uh, I think like there is, I think there is something, there's some, some truth to that, right? I mean, that's like, you know, even if you get really muscular, I mean, unless you're, you're celebrity or something like that, you know, the, the dream is not necessarily the reality there. Um, I think that like the whole, the whole

• 36:08Rob Henderson?

  phenomenon around dad bods is maybe a little bit overblown. Like, I know it's sort of, you know, it's, it's this trend online and people pay attention to it and talk about it. And probably in part because it's, it's like kind of controversial. It's, it gets people talking. But if you actually look at the, the research on, you know, well, what do women actually find attractive? And the, you know, you showed them a series of bodies and like, you know, the, the fatherhood one notwithstanding like that makes sense to me. But in terms of just like, You know, which one of these guys do you find the most attractive just upfront? Like, how sexually attractive do you find this kind of man? And generally speaking, it's guys who are in pretty good shape. You know, very unfit guys, like really skinny and really fat guys are always at the bottom

• 36:53Rob Henderson?

  of the list in terms of who women find sexually attractive. But there are some interesting things, I think, going on with mate retention versus sort of obtaining a mate versus retaining a mate. And for women, right, that makes sense, that especially for older women or women who are looking to settle down, they don't want a guy who's sort of teed up, you know, and full of testosterone and energy and looks really good because, in all likelihood, he probably has other interests besides just the one woman. And so they know that if a man is, you know, spending maybe more time at home or, you know, spending more time on other things besides his physical appearance, he has different priorities.

• 37:36Rob Henderson?

  But I wonder if, like, if there was any way to control for that, if they would still, you know, if like, they could just like, I don't know, this is like, like, take a really good-looking guy, he's not allowed to leave your house, right? Like, he's not allowed to go anywhere, he's not allowed to post thirst traps on Instagram, he's yours, he's gonna raise your kids, now do you like him? And I think a lot of women would be like, okay, you know, in that case, you know, I'll take him over the dad bod. I don't know, this, you know, I still think like, there's something innately attractive, just on a sort of a visceral level, guys who who's in really good shape. But of course, like, in the real world, in reality, women's priorities change. They also change based on short-term versus long-term mating, which, you know, I know you're familiar with too, is, you know, for a one-night-stand, a really good-looking guy is, you know, those are the kinds of guys that women find appealing, versus someone

• 38:22Rob Henderson?

  for a more long-term relationship, you know, women do place some importance on how a guy looks, but they start to place more importance on other things like kindness and personality and sense of humor and income and all of these other sort of extraneous things too. So, um, yeah, I like the, I mean, the research on the body attractiveness thing is like, you know, muscularity is like by far the strongest predictor of like how sexually successful a man is. And, you know, there's an interesting disparity here.

• 38:52Rob Henderson?

  Based on sort of like what, what actually leads to sexual success among men? Is it actually how sexy women find you? Or is it sort of how much sort of admiration and prestige and esteem you obtain from men? And I think this may also be what's going on with the whole dad bod phenomenon too is like, men, even if you can't verbalize it, right? Like even if you don't explicitly know, I mean, this is one of the sort of the, the, the key tenets of evolutionary psychology is like, you don't have to know the reasons behind your behavior in order for them to be effective. Or even to know that like, that's what they're doing, right? You know, there's this, there's this great example that Dan Dennett gives, the philosopher in one of his books where, you know, a single celled organism swims towards nutrients without

• 39:36Rob Henderson?

  having any understanding of what it's doing or why. And yet it still does the thing that it needs to do to survive and, and to replicate. And so, so humans are the same, right? Like we do things, we don't know why we have these feelings, we have these desires and emotions. And I think guys may know at a sort of implicit intuitive level that, you know, yes, it's important what women think, but it's at least as important what men think too. And so when men say, you know, this is the, this is the body that you want, this is the body that's desirable and so on, they're thinking like, that's probably, I should probably place some importance on that too, in terms of like getting jacked, getting swole, all those things. And this is borne out by some interesting research. For example, um, there was, there was one study, uh, this is like, this is one of my,

• 40:21Rob Henderson?

  like my favorite studies, like this is a study that actually got me interested in like mating psychology and this kind of thing, was that they, they showed, um, a, a series of, uh, women, uh, videos of men. And these are just like very brief video clips. And then at the end, they asked these women, uh, how sexually attractive is this man? You know, scale from one to seven, you know, not at all attractive to, to, you know, very sexually attractive. And then they showed a group of men the same videos of these same guys and asked them a different question. The question was, you know, how likely is it that this man would win a physical fight with another man? And it was, you know, same kind of scale, like very unlikely to very likely. And then the researchers tracked those men in those videos

• 41:05Rob Henderson?

  and had them return 18 months later and asked them a bunch of questions, including, you know, basically, how many sexual partners have you had over the last 18 months? And the correlation between how sexually attractive the women found these men and how many partners they had was zero. There was no correlation at all between how hot they were to women and how many partners they had later. But there was a strong and significant correlation between how intimidating or formidable men rated them and how many sexual partners they recounted over the last 18 months. And so essentially, how tough a guy looks to men is a stronger predictor of his sexual success than how attractive he looks to women. And, you know, I think you can kind of like, at first, I found this study hard to believe. This was replicated in a different study, by the way. So this does seem to be a real

• 41:48Rob Henderson?

  phenomenon. And, you know, when I think about, you know, like even in my own personal life, guys I know and stuff like, the kind of like really good looking, like kind of pretty boyish kind of guys, like, they do, you know, they don't do badly with women. But when I think about the guys who are like, like athletes, or guys who are just like really physically, like obviously physically fit, they do like much better, you know, if you were to compare the two. And I saw, so at first, I was a little skeptical, but when I really started thinking about it, I think it makes sense. And so there have been other studies like this too, like hand grip strength correlates with number of sexual partners over the course of a lifetime and over the course of the past year. You know, there's other research indicating that if you ask women about their most recent short term

• 42:31Rob Henderson?

  sexual partner, they say that like, you know, that he was more muscular than than most of their other sexual partners. So, and the researchers in that paper, you know, they basically suggested that if a man is very physically fit and muscular, he doesn't necessarily have to demonstrate other kinds of qualities that men typically find attractive because just sort of being physically fit is enough for a short term fling. And in those cases, maybe women don't care quite as much about how kind he is or what his sense of humor is and all those kinds of things. So yeah, I think this this sort of distinction here between formability versus sexual attractiveness really gets at sort of what what men are responding to and they understand that like maybe women find the dad bod attractive, but guys aren't going to be impressed by that.

• 43:15Rob Henderson?

  And and that's actually what's more important, right? Physically muscular guy walks around like, you know, he's going to be the one that's intimidating. And in the end, like, that's going to be the the person who probably attracts more sexual partners versus, you know, this sort of dad bod kind of guy.

• 43:33Rob Henderson?

  And like more more generally, I think this ties into the evolution of secondary sex characteristics among men and and why they evolved. Right? I mean, so David Putz, he's an evolutionary, I think he's an evolutionary anthropologist. And he's basically outlined, you know, like, why do we have these these secondary sex traits as men? You know, like, because it's actually like it's calorically and energetically costly to have large muscles, like to grow, you know, extra hair out of your face to in your voice changes and modulates too. And that that also takes like extra energy to create that. You know, thicker brows, our our skulls are thicker, thicker bones, like all of these things. Like, what's the point of all of this?

• 44:14Rob Henderson?

  And he's hypothesized that this is actually, you know, that all of our secondary sex characteristics, or many of them anyway, are are actually with Steve Stewart Williams, he says they're they're deer's antlers rather than peacock's tails, right? So the peacock's tail is a direct advertisement to women of like, look how beautiful and pretty I am and come mate with me. Whereas the deer's antlers, like female deers don't care about how big a male deer ant, you know, deer's antlers. Those antlers are actually to be used in competition with with other males. And once they prevail, then they're the ones who actually get more mating opportunities. And so when David Putz analyzed, you know, a whole series of of conducted a whole series of studies,

• 44:57Rob Henderson?

  basically asking men, you know, how how intimidating do you find deep voices versus not so deep voices? Muscular men versus not so muscular men, you know, guys with beards versus without beards? The beard one is interesting, too. Like, if you, you know, women will debate endlessly about whether they find beards attractive or cute or not. But There's clear and straightforward evidence that men find men with beards more physically intimidating than men without beards. And so all of these things more than likely evolved not necessarily to impress women, but actually to sort of impress men. And this is also why puberty is delayed, why there are all of these peculiarities around the way that the male body changes versus the way the female body changes.

• 45:40Chris Williamson?

  Why puberty is delayed?

• 45:43Rob Henderson?

  Basically, because it takes longer. It takes longer to develop these sex characteristics for voice change, for muscularity, and even things for height, right? Like if you take like two 10-year-olds, or rather, like on average, 10-year-old girls are taller than 10-year-old boys. And this changes throughout puberty, but there's just this sort of delay, this delayed process among boys because their body undergoes such a massive and rapid change. And girls do too, but it's interesting. Girls, it just seems like it's less awkward, less overt. There's something else about it, like when a boy's voice changes, and they're just sort of more ungainly, the way that they move and everything, because their bodies, you

• 46:27Rob Henderson?

  know, it's just, you get this massive dose of this hardcore drug, right? Testosterone and androgens and all these other things. So it's really interesting, I think, this idea of masculinity, these sort of masculine features and traits, evolving as sort of competitive, secondary sex characteristics rather than to appeal to others. And, you know, sometimes I wonder, like, can these things, like, are there traits that humans might evolve that could sort of push us too far and actually become detrimental? So there's research on, like, the Irish elk went extinct because their antlers grew

• 47:09Rob Henderson?

  too large and they could no longer hold their heads up, and eventually they died. Because there was this sort of runaway selection process and this pressure of, like, the biggest antlers were usually the ones to prevail in contests, but eventually they got so big that they could no longer mate and they couldn't reproduce themselves anymore. So maybe you guys would just, like, muscles will get too big and, you know, eventually we can't even take care of ourselves.

• 47:30Chris Williamson?

  That fisharian runaway stuff is so funny. What does it mean to say that?

• 47:38Chris Williamson?

  Masculine traits amongst men seem and secondary sex characteristics seem to be more about formidability than attraction. They are antlers rather than peacock's tails because it seems like men judging other men's formidability is more accurate at estimating the number of sexual partners that a man has, so how successful he is with women than his attractiveness is. How, given the fact that women say they're not attracted to it, and yet the men that have these things are the ones that are the most successful, does that not just mean that women don't know what they're attracted to? Hmm. Revealed versus stated preferences?

• 48:19Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, yeah, that's, that's a good point. And I mean, I mean, I'm inclined to say that like they, I think they, they would acknowledge that those things are like more attractive than than the average or maybe not having those things. But they would state, you know, this other kind of preference of like, yeah, I want a guy who's muscular, but not too muscular or something like that. But yeah, there, there is this, I mean, for for human behavior in general, right? There's often this mismatch between what people say and what people do. And yes, stated versus revealed preference. And I think there is a, there's something like that going on here too, where like for, for men, what, what is

• 48:59Rob Henderson?

  like the, you know, more so than for women, a strong predictor of your sexual success, your romantic success is your status, right? And status is this sort of amorphous, like you can't like, you know, you can't look at status under a microscope or something, right? It's something that that exists in the minds of other people and people have to agree that you have it, right? Like you don't get to decide if you have it, other people do. And in this instance, throughout evolutionary history, it seems that men have been the ones to confer status on other men more so than women. And I know that Jordan Peterson's made this point too about like how, you know, there is sort of these dominance

• 49:42Rob Henderson?

  or competence hierarchies and women sort of use those, you know, they sort of use this as a sort of cognitively outsourced, this burdensome task of picking a, an attractive partner.

• 49:51Chris Williamson?

  Just filter the guys off the top of the hierarchy.

• 49:54Rob Henderson?

  Exactly. And they don't like, oftentimes, women don't even know or care what the contest is, right? I make this point in, in, in that article about how like women, a lot of women don't even, like they, they don't like sports or they don't watch sports, but they still find athletes attractive. Right? They're like, I don't know what you're doing out in that field, but I love athletes.

• 50:14Chris Williamson?

  How fucking good, how good would it be to create some sort of competition between men where the outcome was completely arbitrary? Let's say that it was correctly picking the tosses of a coin, right? And you have this huge pool of men, a hundred men over time, and it's like a round robin type scenario. And then it's knockout stages all the way to the top and then get the women to rate the attractiveness of the men over time and maybe run the, run that a bunch of different times and run different women through and see if the guys that won a competition, which was completely based in luck are the ones that are given more attractiveness. And if you can have someone, you'd have to control it somehow where you had attractiveness before and attractiveness after.

• 50:56Chris Williamson?

  How much does winning a completely arbitrary game improve your attractiveness to women?

• 51:04Rob Henderson?

  It's a, it's a good question. I think that, so if you were to carry out that, that experiment, you would need to have, you'd need to introduce an additional element, which would be other men respecting the winner. I think that's a key component here. It's like, it's not just winning the contest, it's winning a contest that matters to, to men in particular, right? Like if, if, if you win the, the coin tossing contest or whatever, and you have a bunch of other guys being like, oh, that was incredible, man, that was all the high fives.

• 51:29Chris Williamson?

  You need to, you need to observe them being competitive, pedestalizing the person that won.

• 51:35Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think that is the, that, that would actually be, be the key here for, for women, sort of what like their, the variability of their attractiveness ratings would shift somewhat based on that. And I think like basically like there's just like interesting papers on this about like how you know so so the sports competition is one where maybe women aren't particularly interested in sports, but yet they find athletes attractive. Historically, a lot of women, even educated women, were were illiterate, and yet they still found well-known authors to be attractive. You know, like they find painters and artists attractive, you know, even if they may not necessarily understand what's going on with the art, but they see

• 52:19Rob Henderson?

  that the the respect and prestige that the artist accrues from the art community or from the sort of the the class of people that they're around, those kinds of things. And so, I mean, you can see this with, I mean, to me, one of the more amusing examples of this is like guys who play video games on YouTube get groupies. You know, like, you're just like this guy like playing games and like uploading a live stream and commenting on it, and they have a million subscribers or whatever. And and I've seen like news coverage and media articles about like, yeah, he's a nineteen-year-old kid who plays video games all day, and he's getting love letters, and you know, girls messaging him on Instagram and all this stuff. And it's like, if he was just a dude sitting at home playing video games, he wouldn't get a single love letter, right? But the fact that he

• 53:01Rob Henderson?

  has a million other nerds out there, like, saying like, oh, I love you bad, you're, you know, you're my number one.

• 53:07Chris Williamson?

  We've pre-selected this as the king of our group. Well, yeah, it's so funny because...

• 53:11Rob Henderson?

  The king of the gamers.

• 53:12Chris Williamson?

  Yeah, the same accusation that's thrown at men as them retreating from society and not being a viable mate for women, video games in the basement, spending too much time on screens. If you just tune that up to high performance, and everybody else says, yeah, I know that he's doing the thing that people say is the antithesis of being attractive to women, but he's the best at it, you go, oh, yeah, well, now he's super attractive.

• 53:38Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, yeah. Yeah, there's a, I think like those, like, there's something about like winning the contest, but then also accruing respect and esteem and prestige of other people, right? I mean, there's, if you look at the research on like the happiness psychology research, you know, sociometric status is a stronger predictor of happiness than socioeconomic status and sociometric status is respect and admiration from your peers. That is the thing that is actually a stronger predictor of happiness than how much money you have or your, you know, sort of occupational status or something like that. And oftentimes, I mean, the reason why people work so hard to obtain so much money is to actually obtain

• 54:20Rob Henderson?

  the sort of affections of other people, right? Like, that's sort of ultimately what people are striving for, both men and women as well. And so that aspect of mating psychology about how like, yes, it matters how you're viewed by the opposite sex. But to me, the interesting part of sort of, I guess, the male mating psychology aspect or what females sort of ultimately choose is like, it matters at least as much what other guys think of you. You know, that sort of is a more strong predictor than what the women think of you.

• 54:51Chris Williamson?

  Yes. And downstream from what the men think of you is what the women are going to do with you, even if, even if it isn't what they think of you. Do you think that this pre-selection for mates works in reverse? Do you think that men are more attractive, more attracted to women that other women think are impressive or high status or whatever?

• 55:12Rob Henderson?

  Hmm. I, I think that it would, it would probably, the answer is probably yes, but the effect would be much smaller than the effect of, of being, you know, high status or prestigious or something in terms of like how you appear, how a man would appear to a woman. You know, there was a, there was a fascinating study indicating that women are, what was it? It was like, women are a thousand times more sensitive to a man's income or socioeconomic status than men are to women. And so in a positive direction, right? Basically, the more, you know, high socioeconomically you're doing in life, the more attractive you are to women. And so, you know, that that indicates that like, yes, there's a positive effect for men, but it's 11,000

• 55:55Rob Henderson?

  the size of the effect. So there's something there, but it's not a lot. There was a, you know, there was, there was, there's some research on Tinder, you know, indicating that if you're a man with a master's degree, you get twice as many matches as a man with a bachelor's degree and a woman with a master's degree gets, I think it's eight or 10% more matches than a woman with. So there's like these small effects, like, yeah, you'll get a little more. Your, your status can help, but not to the, not to the same extent. I mean, it's, it's interesting, even with, with like your friends and your peer groups, you know, like what, what men choose as far as like, and this may sort of tie into the warrior hypothesis to the male warrior hypothesis is that like, men, if you ask men, what kind of friends they like, you know, what, what, what characteristics would

• 56:36Rob Henderson?

  you desire in a male friend? Um, men are much more likely than women, young men are much more likely than young women to say they want a friend who's creative, intelligent, ambitious, socially connected, all of those sort of qualities that are proxies for status, right? And I think the reason for this is that because, because status looms so large in male romantic prospects. And, you know, basically some of that status can actually rub off, right? We're like,

• 57:03Chris Williamson?

  The trickle down effect.

• 57:04Rob Henderson?

  If you are, uh, exactly, like, what is that? Like, like trickle down to like the Entourage trickle down effect or something where like, if you're just friends or like a, like a, a, a hanger, hanger on of like some rock star, you're going to get probably more attention than if you're just a random dude, right? Whereas for women, it doesn't quite work in the same way where like status, you know, it, it's probably being friends with like a female rock star or celebrity, you do get some benefits, but in terms of like being friends with them and attracting, uh, uh, more men or a higher, uh, higher quality mate or something like that, the effect is probably much weaker.

• 57:40Chris Williamson?

  Yeah, absolutely.

• 57:41Rob Henderson?

  So it's just, yeah, it's just different, right?

• 57:44Chris Williamson?

  Think about the sort of changes in lifestyle that you would have. Yeah, you can fly around the world with your bestie, but it, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be surrounded by good potential mates. Whereas if you manage to befriend Dan Bilzerian, then you, you, you can expect the kind of life that you're in for. So speaking of this, I'm, I'm thinking about the reversal again of this where. Women who preselect men, Pete Davidson, that was in a relationship with Kim Kardashian and now appears to be slowly running through every hot chick in Hollywood, Dan Bilzerian as well, it's just, you know, the epitome of pre-selection. Other women find this man attractive, therefore, other women downstream from that woman will think, they've outsourced

• 58:28Chris Williamson?

  again their status-seeking radar to other women and gone, ah, that is a man that's potentially of high status. I mean, it's like commonly held wisdom when it comes to your dating profile online, that at least one of the photos should have you with other women in it, and the other women should be quite attractive, because it suggests that you are the kind of man that spends time around attractive women, which is pre-selection. I wonder whether the reverse would be negatively correlated for women. If you were to see a woman regularly around different good-looking guys, that that would be disincentivizing to other high-status males that may be considering pursuing her.

• 59:11Rob Henderson?

  So I've seen research on this. This was before the Tinder era. I think these papers were probably like around 2010. David Buzz might have actually been an author on one of them, where they basically did this sort of pre-selection studies, where, you know, they'll show women, participants, you know, a guy alone, a guy with a group of guys, and a guy with a group of women, and invariably, the guy with the group of women, they found him more attractive. And they did the study with men, where they showed a woman alone, women with female friends, and women with male friends, and they showed the woman surrounded by males, they found her, I think she was the least attractive to the men. So it does sort of, you know, your prediction here was right. But I have seen research on dating

• 59:54Rob Henderson?

  apps, where the effect, it's more complicated, where women will, at least, you know, they'll say that if they see a man with lots of women, they rate him as less attractive or less desirable. And the reasoning there was that they basically think that this guy is not serious, right? Like, if this is the kind of picture you're going to put on your dating profile of you surrounded by a bunch of hot chicks, it's like, you know, this guy's, you know, he's not, you know, he's not a serious person, he's just going to use me, something like that. So, you know, and that's, that's the sort of the, the finding was they find him as attractive. And as far as like, what kind of, like, the actual success of such a guy, that's a different kind of story, right?

• 1:00:35Rob Henderson?

  But I, I think like, probably the safe bet for that would be, um, like, having a mixed, mixed sex group, right? But make sure that like, the women in the mixed sex group are attractive.

• 1:00:45Chris Williamson?

  Attractive, and maybe closer to you than they, yeah, yeah, yeah. Thinking along the same lines.

• 1:00:50Rob Henderson?

  So, so I think like, the, the pre-selection thing is, is key here, but, yeah, the dating apps have kind of thrown things into disarray because like, now people are just hyper scrutinizing of like, why did you put this picture up? What does it mean? You know, what kind of person are you? All of those things, whereas like, you know, if you just, if they randomly find a picture of you like that, it's, it's kind of a different story.

• 1:01:10Chris Williamson?

  Talk to me about the male monkey dance. This is probably my favorite article from your Substack that you've written this year. It was my, I've shared it to way too many friends, so break down what the male monkey dance is for me.

• 1:01:24Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, so the male monkey dance was, uh, written by this guy Rory Miller in a book called Meditations on Violence. And in that book, so he worked in law enforcement and he compiled interesting research and, you know, shared his observations and his findings in this book. And basically, the male monkey dance is, uh, it's a sort of a ritualistic conflict between two males, typically two males who don't know each other, and it's a sort of a set, a set of steps that, that gradually escalate. And so it's like, you know, step one, it's the sort of hard stare. Step two, this, uh, this sort of verbal, uh, sort of a verbal conflict of like, what are you looking at? Or do you got a problem, bro? Or like, what's going on?

• 1:02:08Rob Henderson?

  Or like, you know, what's your problem? That kind of thing. And then, step three, if it escalates, is, you know, chest on chest, sort of chest bumping, and maybe like, the arms extend, right? I remember you had Adam Hart on your podcast, the biologist, and he suggested that, um, the reason why guys extend their arms out is to, uh, increase the perception of body size. And this is also likely the reason why during weigh-ins for boxing and MMA, you always see these guys sort of expand their arms and like, you know, flare out their traps and their muscles and really to sort of broaden their shoulders and everything is to increase the perception of their size, uh, and look more intimidating. And so guys will do that too when they do the chest bump and you know step through the monkey dance, chest bump, arms go out, like what are you gonna do, what are you gonna

• 1:02:51Rob Henderson?

  do about it, that kind of thing. And yeah, that's step four, if it continues to escalate is a dominant hand, roundhouse punch, and then it sort of escalates from there. And the observations that Miller makes in his book, I mean, they're fascinating. So he outlined this based on his experience as a police officer, you know, outside of bars and various values, you know, especially when young guys are drunk, like these kinds of things are pervasive, right? And it wouldn't surprise me if maybe not every guy gets to step four where a punch is actually thrown, but it wouldn't surprise me if more than half of guys have gotten to step three of that monkey dance. And so what's interesting

• 1:03:32Rob Henderson?

  about it is that is the sort of the commonality of it across different kinds of people, and also who is involved in the monkey dance, like who do we choose to get into the monkey dance with? It's always, or almost always, two young men who are roughly the same age and roughly similar in physicality. And it almost never occurs between a man and a woman. It doesn't occur between, you know, a man and a young child, or between, you know, so a man wouldn't get involved in a monkey dance with someone who's obviously high on drugs or crazy. It typically only occurs when there's some question about who would actually prevail in this physical contest. If these two guys were to get into a fight,

• 1:04:17Rob Henderson?

  we actually don't know who would win. And it's funny, I remember when I first read this in the book, a story came to mind where I was, it was a story from when I was in college. I was walking through downtown with a couple of my college friends, and suddenly this very short, and he was young, but he was a short and very disheveled and very just, you know, dirty homeless guy comes up to my friend and grabs his hand, and he's like, hey, do you have any money? And my friend pulls his hand back, and he's like, oh, don't touch me. And this this homeless guy like starts reaching like trying to like get into his pockets. And my friend is like running around and he's like, I could tell he's extremely confused because on the one hand,

• 1:05:00Rob Henderson?

  he could, I mean, it was pretty clear that he could take this guy in like a physical fight. But on the other hand, this guy was so dirty looking that he just didn't want to to get physically entangled with him. And so he's like running, but at the same time trying to demonstrate that he was willing to fight him. So he was like backwards running, his hands were up, but he was still like running. And then my other friend gets involved and like tries to like separate them. But then the homeless guy starts chasing him around and my friend is, so it was like this comical scene and I'm watching all of this. And and I'm just laughing at it because like, you know, I didn't want to get involved because I didn't want him to touch me. So I'm just watching this. And and so that story came to mind of like, okay, so, you know, that was a case of like a monkey dance that was that was thwarted, right?

• 1:05:44Rob Henderson?

  Like something going on here where like they they weren't afraid of running because it was clear who would win the fight. And so they didn't feel like they had to stand their ground. But there was also this part of the male psychology of like, I don't want to look like I'm weak. Like I'm I'm gonna like turn my back and like start sprinting away from him. Um, and so so so the monkey dance is like, you know, two guys. Who would win? We don't know, usually between strangers. Monkey dances very seldom rise between like friends in in a group in which the sort of the relationships are established. Guys roughly know where they stand, those kinds of things. Whereas in environments in which people don't know who would actually prevail. I oftentimes people will encourage fights, they'll encourage them to see, they want a rough

• 1:06:28Rob Henderson?

  and accurate estimate of what each person is is made of and whether or not they can hold their ground. You know, when you when you see two guys fight and you see how they handle themselves, you yourself get a sense of like, could I take this guy too? You know, who would I do better against? And interestingly, some recent research, I want to say from Aaron Sell, I hope I'm getting that right, about the evolutionary psychology of the concept of a fair fight. And this appears to be an evolved psychological mechanism of like, across different cultures and throughout, you know, different societies, people have strong feelings about cheating in a fight, which is actually, I mean, it's kind of funny that you'd have that because

• 1:07:11Rob Henderson?

  it's like two guys trying to beat each other up and potentially, you know, inflict physical harm on one another and disfigure each other and whatever. And still, you know, it's like certain things you shouldn't do, and if you do do, like, you'll be judged in some way. And the idea that they propose in their research is that the reason is because people want this estimate, not only do people want the estimate of the fighting ability, but people themselves involved in those kind of altercations want to signal their capacities, right? Like if they rapidly escalate and suddenly, you know, kick the other guy in the balls and gouge his eyes out and do all of these things, you know, pull out a weapon, then they actually don't get to signal anything about their strength, their endurance, their speed, their capacity, all those things.

• 1:07:55Rob Henderson?

  They're really just signaling like they're a violent and crazy person, which can be useful to signal that in some instances. But if you really want to impress people and potentially impress men such that they will confer status on you and you can get women, you know, pulling out a switchblade and using dirty tactics isn't going to get you that, right? It's going to be like slow escalation monkey dance, fair fight, you know, don't cheat, you know, don't cheat and fight in a way that's fair and that's honorable. And I think you can see this with sporting contests, of course. Boxing and MMA have very strict rules about what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do. And you can even see this with like, young, young, young boys when they're roughhousing and playing with each other.

• 1:08:38Rob Henderson?

  They can sort of intuitively grasp that like, yeah, maybe you can slap someone, but you shouldn't hit them with a closed fist. So these kinds of things are kind of like, you know, built in and they're, you know, I think in itself, it's an interesting adaptation. And the monkey dance is a sort of a It is a ritual around which people can can display and also to observe men's formidability and willingness to to prevail in a fair fight.

• 1:09:05Chris Williamson?

  And if you don't continue to play fair, the effectiveness of that matchup at judging who is more physically formidable goes out of the window because it's no longer about you being more physically formidable, it's about you being prepared to be more wild or more crazy. I wonder whether this would tie in, I'm thinking like ancestrally with regards to maybe contests for leadership and stuff like that, that you would get prestige from winning in a fair fight, but you might get dominance from winning in a rapidly escalating fight, that you would rule through fear if you were the guy that was completely crazy, but you might rule through respect if you were the guy that did things in a more fair manner.

• 1:09:46Rob Henderson?

  That's interesting. So you might get, yeah, so yeah, the idea of prestige where people freely confer status on you versus dominance where you sort of impose costs and instill intimidation. That would make sense to me. I mean, I think in that moment it might actually work, right? This sort of rapid escalation, you know, using dirty tactics. In that moment, it's probably, yeah, people, people would fear you and be intimidated by you. But if the, you know, it depends on, yeah, what your sort of short term, long term evolutionary goals are too. It's like, yeah, you may get dominance, but if you don't get the respect and the sort of admiration of of those guys, then.

• 1:10:27Chris Williamson?

  You're up a tree and everyone's taking your weapons and they're stabbing you on the way down.

• 1:10:32Rob Henderson?

  Well, there's that. Yeah, they don't, like, yeah, you don't have the the status necessary to be attractive to.

• 1:10:38Chris Williamson?

  A good, a good example of this, I suppose, to try and think about in a situation in which a fight would happen and a man would choose to not play by the rules on purpose might be if he was outnumbered by a bunch of men. You often see this in movies, right? If you've got one protagonist versus a gang of five, and he takes the first person that comes at him and curb stomps him and totally fucks him up. Why does he do that? Why does he decide to break those rules? It's because rapid escalation is a threat that shows I am prepared to go beyond the level that you guys are prepared to go to. And it's a scare tactic. And the reason that he does that is long term respect and prestige is not something that he's optimizing for in that fight.

• 1:11:20Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, right. He's optimizing for survival.

• 1:11:23Chris Williamson?

  Yes.

• 1:11:23Rob Henderson?

  Right. And so in that case, well, yeah, yeah, I've seen that too. I mean, in, in fights where one person is clearly bigger than the other, I've noticed that people are more lenient as far as how harshly they'll judge the smaller combatant.

• 1:11:37Chris Williamson?

  Oh, you're allowed to kick the bigger guy in the balls.

• 1:11:40Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, you're allowed to kick him in the balls, or maybe you're allowed to like bite him or something like that, right? Or, you know, if there's a weapon that isn't too dangerous, that you're allowed to use that too. And so, yeah, I mean, yeah, on the one hand, you are, like, you're optimizing for survival over, you know, prestige or status. And, yeah, you're also, at the same time, though, people are perhaps, you know, depending on the context, they are still willing to confer prestige on you if you're, you know, an especially small person up against someone who's much larger than you, or if you're one guy up against five, and you still manage to prevail, you know, even if you bent the rules a little bit, it's still like, okay, that was still impressive regardless. And therefore, you know, the, the, sort of, the, the status penalty isn't, isn't quite as severe.

• 1:12:25Chris Williamson?

  I liked the insight that you gave around, not The Minority Report, what's that, what's that fucking movie where there's like five of them?

• 1:12:34Rob Henderson?

  The Bourne?

• 1:12:35Chris Williamson?

  Bourne series, yeah. So, Jason Bourne, all of the, every single movie, he gets into a fight with some bastard in a balaclava who snuck into the apartment where he's staying, and this guy comes out of nowhere, and they usually start a fight. So it's kind of like a, an immediately escalated monkey dance, right? So there's no like, what the fuck are you doing or whatever? They immediately go to step five. But from that step, it further escalates from there. So they'll have a fight, and then usually Jason Bourne will accurately defend his attacks and like hit him and he'll fall through a table. Then when he falls through the table, he'll pull out a knife. And then you go, oh, he's not playing by the rules. And what always happens, Jason Bourne never pulls out a knife. Or if he does, it's, it's,

• 1:13:19Chris Williamson?

  it's a knife as he's been thrown across the kitchen counter, and he, he picks up a peeler or something, like a potato peeler. Like, it's, you know, it's always a weaker, shitter version. Or I think there's one, I've definitely seen one of them where he uses a pen. I've seen another one where I think he uses a book, like beat, like starts punching this book into this guy's throat. Point being, The what you recognize in the imbalance of weaponry within that fight is that there is something more noble, more prestigious about Jason Bourne's conduct than about this other person's. He didn't break the rules of the monkey dance up until this guy decided to escalate it. And then it's like, as a byproduct of Jason Bourne's pure lethality as a human,

• 1:14:03Chris Williamson?

  the guy ends up falling out of a window onto a passing car or something.

• 1:14:07Rob Henderson?

  Well, yeah, yeah. Well, there were cases where he, well, yeah, he's never the one to rapidly escalate, right? Like, he has killed people, but it always appears like he's a little bit reluctant to do it. And like, you know, because that's sort of the honorable hero story. Um, yeah, I remember like the first movie, right? He uses the ballpoint pen. The second movie, the guy pulls out like this giant knife and Jason Bourne's just like reaching like just like behind him. He's not even looking for anything. He just grabs a magazine and rolls it up.

• 1:14:34Chris Williamson?

  Oh, yeah. He fights him with the magazine. Yeah.

• 1:14:37Rob Henderson?

  And he's able to hit the guy and the guy's missing it. So it's like, yeah, there's a the violation, right? Well, immediately, I guess there's this kind of violation because every single time it's a CIA assassin who usually shows up with a gun and then, you know, Bourne like somehow, you know, knows that he's coming and grabs his gun and disarms him. And then it becomes hand to hand combat. And, uh, yeah, there, there are like, a lot of movies are like this, where it's never the hero who behaves dishonorably or who cheats. It's always the sort of the adversary unless, unless, again, like you mentioned before, unless the protagonist has, you know, five or six guys all on him at once. And then he'll like grab, grab a weapon, even if the other guys don't have one or something

• 1:15:17Rob Henderson?

  like that. I think there was a, there was a scene in, I think it was Spectre, the James Bond movie, where, uh, where he's on the train and there's this massive guy, like, you know, two feet taller than him. And they're, they're, they're first like boxing and James Bond's actually doing pretty well, where he's dodging the other guy's punches, but his, but his blows aren't doing anything to the other guy. And I think at that point, he like grabs something and breaks it over the guy's head and it actually doesn't do anything either. And, and so it kind of escalates from there. But in that case, it was like, it was totally understandable that this guy was literally twice Daniel Craig's height and weight, or like, you know, there, there about.

• 1:15:52Chris Williamson?

  So we need to even.

• 1:15:53Rob Henderson?

  Okay, so he grabs something.

• 1:15:54Chris Williamson?

  Yeah, yeah. Did you, have you seen, uh?

• 1:15:56Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, I was forgiven.

• 1:15:57Chris Williamson?

  Have you seen House of the Dragon?

• 1:16:00Rob Henderson?

  I haven't seen that one.

• 1:16:01Chris Williamson?

  It's the most recent Game of Thrones that everybody's talking about.

• 1:16:04Rob Henderson?

  I, yeah, I haven't seen it.

• 1:16:06Chris Williamson?

  Rob, come on, come on.

• 1:16:08Rob Henderson?

  I never got into Game of Thrones, never, I couldn't get into it.

• 1:16:11Chris Williamson?

  Well.

• 1:16:12Rob Henderson?

  I'm the last guy on earth.

• 1:16:13Chris Williamson?

  I'm gonna tell you, I'm gonna tell you about it in any case, there's a scene in that.

• 1:16:16Rob Henderson?

  Let's hear it.

• 1:16:17Chris Williamson?

  Well, one of the semi-bad guys' families, it's very complex, right? The reason that I say this has been complex is that you see in one scene, someone take dirt and throw it in the eyes of another child. It's a bunch of children that are all fighting for small amount of dominance and one of them takes dirt and throws it in his eyes because he is inferior in terms of a fight. And then later on, the one that's had the dirt thrown in his eyes ends up losing an eye as one of the, these other children slice his face open and like cut his eye, loses an entire eye due to this. But what it shows is that you don't really know who's the goodie and who's the baddie.

• 1:16:59Chris Williamson?

  And the reason that I bring it up is because it's endemic of the way that Game of Thrones is written, that, hang on a second, there is no victor loss here, the kid that just got his, that just lost his eye, also 10 minutes before that acquired the largest and oldest dragon in all of Westeros. So it's like, what's going on? Who's the good person? Like, he called these children bastards and then they have been persecuted for a long time and you go, actually, who am I rooting for here? And that, that is why I think Game of Thrones is particularly enthralling because the typical roles of good guy, bad guy, protagonist, enemy, the lines are nowhere near as clear cut.

• 1:17:43Chris Williamson?

  And that means that everything is open to interpretation. And I may think that the kid that stabbed the other person's eye is totally within his rights and the guy that I live with might say, no, no, no, it's completely out of order. And it allows people to take, no one is going to say Jason Bourne wasn't within his own rights to punch the guy in the throat with a ballpoint pen or whatever, like that, it's, that's what the story leads you to believe. But yeah, it's, you need to get in Game of Thrones is what I'm saying, Rob.

• 1:18:09Rob Henderson?

  There's a, there's a great, I think it might have been in.

• 1:18:15Rob Henderson?

  Forty eight laws, or maybe it was one of Robert Greene's books where he makes this point about how the same act can be construed completely differently based on the reputation of the actor, right? And so, you know, if, if, if a good guy protagonist does something that's distasteful, people may not like it, but at the same time, it's like, well, he's the protagonist. We've seen him do these other good things. And so we'll, we'll let him slide on this one versus like if a villain does even a moderately unpleasant thing, you know, where we tend to be horrified by it. But it sounds interesting, like this, this, this kind of storyline where like, actually, you know, you don't have enough information about this sort of the archetypal character roles where you can have that sort of mental shortcut of like, he's doing this thing, but because he's the good guy, it's

• 1:18:58Rob Henderson?

  probably okay. Or, or, you know, that, that kind of thing where like you have that, um, you know, the, the, the knowledge of, of the, the character in advance. And so, you know, maybe, yeah, maybe I'll have to, maybe I'll have to give the show another try sometime.

• 1:19:10Chris Williamson?

  I think you'd be able to not have to invest seven seasons into the first Game of Thrones and just watch the most recent HBO series. I reckon you can get away with that. And that's like a 10 hour, maybe less than a 10 hour investment. And then, you know, next time that someone brings it up, you, you know what I'm on about.

• 1:19:26Rob Henderson?

  My tastes might be too, too conventional. You know, I remember I watched that first season of Game of Thrones way back when it was on the air or maybe a year later. And I remember they killed, is it the Sean, Sean Bean character?

• 1:19:37Chris Williamson?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 1:19:37Rob Henderson?

  Or, yeah. And I remember like, yeah, like, oh, okay. And then, you know, I got a little into the second season. I'm like, I don't know. I just, I just, I just couldn't get through it. So, so, you know, maybe, uh, maybe I need to, you know, maybe, maybe my tastes have evolved since then.

• 1:19:49Chris Williamson?

  You've become a more sophisticated human, I think, since then. All right, man, let's, let's, let's wind this one up. What are you working on at the moment? Or what cool stuff have you got coming up?

• 1:20:00Rob Henderson?

  Uh, yeah, I mean, I'm still, still, uh, writing essays for my Substack. I have some interesting pieces in mind. I want to do a series on this book called Games People Play. It's this classic book on transactional analysis by this, uh, this guy Eric Byrne. Uh, a lot of people are probably familiar with this book. It's still, sometimes you'll see it in like airports and bookstores and, you know, it's essentially this, you know, basically what are the most common interactions that people often have with each other? And what are their underlying or hidden motives throughout this sort of, uh, social interactions? And what, you know, what, what are the payoffs? And so I'll do a series on that. I'm still working on my book. My publisher continues to irritate me and to, yeah, the nightmare industry. But the book will be out, I think,

• 1:20:44Rob Henderson?

  spring 2024. So it's a memoir, which, you know, I hope you'll have me back on. We can talk about that and more stuff on luxury beliefs and this idea I've been developing too. So, yeah, I think that's enough for now.

• 1:20:59Chris Williamson?

  Where should people go if they want to check out the stuff that you're writing online?

• 1:21:03Rob Henderson?

  Yeah, so you can go to my Substack, Rob henderson.substack.com, and you can follow me on Twitter at Rob henderson.

• 1:21:09Chris Williamson?

  All right, man. Appreciate you.

• 1:21:10Speaker 02

  Mr. President, my company told me of the explosion on our rig on October 2nd. Causing massive water displacement and triggering a tsunami. They all heap the blame on me. Tom Cruise is.

• 1:21:21Speaker 03

  Digger got us into this mess, and Digger's gonna dig us up. From the director of Birdman and The Revenant.

• 1:21:27Speaker 04

  What would happen if I stopped going? You start, you freeze in there. That's what?

• 1:21:31Speaker 03

  With great power comes great deniability.

• 1:21:34Speaker 04

  I'm not the first then.

• 1:21:36Speaker 03

  Digger. See the trailer online. Only in theaters October 2nd. Rated R. Under 17 and under 18 without parent.