Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Why Does Leadership & Dominance Communicate Lover Qualities (Good Genes)?

The subject of this thread assumes that leadership & dominance communicate lover qualities.
I assumed this to be true because fast sex seems to require solid leadership & dominance with more social savviness.
I don't think one can be a lover without leadership & dominance.

With the above being said, I was thinking that leadership & dominance do not stem from good genes.
They stem from discipline and the willingness to step up.
One can become good at power dynamics and seduction from lots of learning and practice.

Also, I was thinking that leadership & dominance communicate status and power.
In part, this signals that a man is above a woman in sexual market value in terms of status and power.
Isn't status and power more related to what a man can provide a woman rather than good genes?

As such, why do women feel attracted to leadership & dominance?
The above question assumes fast attraction is linked towards the lover style.

My Guess

I'm thinking that leadership & dominance may not be a distinct lover or provider quality.
Leadership & dominance may signal social intelligence and, as such, higher overall general intelligence.
Hence, better genes.

But it also signals the ability to provide better too.
Powerful men usually have more resources to provide.

 

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on June 23, 2021, 12:41 pm

With the above being said, I was thinking that leadership & dominance do not stem from good genes.
They stem from discipline and the willingness to step up.
One can become good at power dynamics and seduction from lots of learning and practice.

A bit of an egg and chicken type of issue.

But I don't see the two -learning and genes- as much different.

The discipline and the willingness are most likely, at least in good part, gene-related.

People who are not driven don't even start learning.
People who don't reach a minimum amount of IQ don't learn -or not as effectively-.
People who don't reach a minimum level courage don't apply those learning in real life.

Also those are gene-related.

As well, I personally don't see a huge difference between lover and long-term "great catch".
The "great catch" could probably move faster if he wanted to, and the (good) lover could probably turn into a good long-term catch when he wanted to stop.

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 24, 2021, 8:33 am

But I don't see the two -learning and genes- as much different.

The discipline and the willingness are most likely, at least in good part, gene-related.

People who are not driven don't even start learning.

I didn't realise that discipline and willingness are probably gene-related.
I thought that one could become more disciplined through training your ego to be focused on the process.
Then you build up daily habits to make yourself "follow the process".

In short, I thought it's because of a lack of education and awareness.

This makes me think that the genes for

  • Expanding the least energy possible,
  • Maintaining comfort and homeostasis

could be quite outdated.

Now surviving doesn't allow you to thrive.
We could be evolving towards another set of characteristics better for current society.
Reminds me of a book but I have forgotten which book.

People who don't reach a minimum amount of IQ don't learn -or not as effectively-.
People who don't reach a minimum level courage don't apply those learning in real life.

Also those are gene-related.

Elon Musk probably has good genes given his work ethic and intelligence.
As such, he could probably train himself to become good at power dynamics too.

But maybe he has the genes for intelligence in other fields but not power dynamics.
It would be interesting if we clone Elon Musk in other social environment, would he grow up differently?

I wasn't aware that courage is gene-related too.
I rightly or wrongly have the impression that courage was mainly built through overcoming adversity and taking action in the face of fear.

As well, I personally don't see a huge difference between lover and long-term "great catch".
The "great catch" could probably move faster if he wanted to, and the (good) lover could probably turn into a good long-term catch when he wanted to stop.

I see what you mean.
If one is good at power dynamics and seduction, one can probably switch between the lover and provider styles quite easily.

Charles Darwin on Adaptability

Charles Darwin once said:

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change.

I suppose that this has a lot of truth to it.
Adaptability and the ability to learn effectively are closely related.
Since the individuals most adaptable to change survive, nature naturally selects for these individuals to pass down their genes in the long run.
And it's probably the case that these genes contribute to better adaptability.

Is Our Potential Constrained by our Genes?

I don't know enough about genetics.
From the Blank Slate, our potentials are constrained by our genes.
As such, I was thinking about whether a person's leadership skills are limited by his genetics.

I think the genes could influence an individual's starting point and natural inclination towards power dynamics.
If we take an extreme example, an autistic person would find learning power dynamics challenging.
But, for a typical person, the potential is very high if he puts in the work.

It'll be interesting to understand how the brain can become more plastic.
Cognitive science and genetics are fascinating fields.
What I find most intersting is how genetics affect the higher order structure of the brain.
Since each gene encode one protein which is on a microscopic level.

Maybe we can inject mRNA into our brain like how we inject it into our arms to produce COVID-19 alike antigens.
I don't have enough knowledge to comment further at this point.

Processing...
Scroll to Top