The natural selection theory

The natural selection theory about how women chose their mates goes in two flavors:

The first is that women are attracted with the most fit and healthy men so that their offspring are also fit and healthy. This seems to be true to some extent, athletes generally have wider sex lives than couch potatoes.

The second flavor is that women are attracted to social status. Social status in bulls is associated with combat efficiency, just like lions, gorillas and many other mammals. Humans and some monkey species however seem to go beyond the combat efficiency side of social status. Social status in those species seem to come from a form of popularity contest, brutes are no longer the de facto leaders. This comes from the fact that we have evolved using our intelligence has a survival tool and weapon. A human vs a lion and the human will most likely die. However a human skilled in bows and lances is probably capable of killing a lion. So did we really go beyond the combat efficiency? It seems not, it is more like combat has evolved with our intelligence. But what about leadership? Leadership seems to go, in time of war or crisis, to the most efficient strategist, the man who will lead the tribe through wars, famines and disasters or in time of relative peace will lead it to more prosperity to feed the children. Please bear with me here I'm not talking about modern politics but to who the people instinctively turn to when they want to maximise their survival. It seems like the best generals enjoy wide popularity.

Alexander, Caesar, Gengis Khan, Saladin, William, Joan of Arc, Napoleon, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln all have two things in comon, they won a lot of wars or important ones and they also enjoyed HUGE popularity. In the american civil war even ulysses s grant and lafayette enjoyed huge popularity growth by being good generals.

People that can win wars, resolve conflicts and make you prosper will always enjoy huge popularity. This is where humanity has evolved, however in this time of relative peace between the major powers caused by the nuclear era meaning that conflicts cannot be resolved by force anymore and also the fact that no one wants to let go of their piece of the pie which is Earth, Great and prosperous leaders are nowhere near the horizon.

With this disillusion, intelligent people have come to give up on war because of course, nuclear warfare is not advisable, the cold war which was long and ended in a minor victory for the US with millions of casualties and billions of damage brought us in a new era of Humanity where major powers can't win prosperity through sheer force alone except in very uneven and dishonorable wars.

But the fact is war is still in our instincts! Of course being a soldier is not advisable since you are simply a meat shield, but it is still doing your part in whatever the government wants you to accomplish, and since governments are all about prosperity on a nation-wide spectrum(and some individuals stealing from tax payers)soldiers end up doing their moral part(be it useless or minimal for real prosperity).

Altough I might seem pro-war from all this, I'm actually pretty liberal and i consider myself center-left. The fact is from this blog post anyway that not only in war and love everything is permitted, but that war and love are, in a way, connected, that the leadership ability is your ability to lead a group of other people under your command to prosperity, and that is what chicks dig(generally...).

Then why are intelligent men not so popular with women? Well for one they are more liberal, ie less competitive by morals on a prosperity market. Also they dedicate themselves to fields that only a minority of people really understand the value of, physics, computers, mathematics, all fields that people think aren't imporant in life but are the very reason our society is where it is, that is the information and nuclear era, who were litterally invented by computer science nerds and physics nerds.