Nice guys finish last.

[RamesesII]

It is in the males genes and instincts to mate with as many females as he can to continue his gene pool. If you look in the wild its the alpha male who seeks outs females to mate with so they will bear his superior children to keep a species strong.
So my question is do nice guys finish last.

But does this excuse married men that cheat on their wives?

Peel off the outer layer of a human being back to instincts, after all although a human can problem solve, evolve, feel emotions and make conscious decisions but it is our raw instinct and drive that keeps us as a living species going.
So if a man cheats on his wife is that not just following his instincts to mate with more attractive females. A man will always be on the prowl for good looking females not so much the beauty but to assess her abilities for child bearing even though consciously we don't know it sub-consciously that is what is going on.

On the flip side a female is always looking for a man who has a strong gene and a protective nature suiatble to produce strong children, the traits of an alpha male.

[The_Dream_Recluse]

Considering i'm a modern citizen of the world, i would have to oppose. I understand the male desire with wanting to mate in order to pass on his genes, but at the same time, i do believe that we all have an element of self-control within ourselves.

Granted, i'm not exactly an 'alpha male' of sorts (girls don't usually come flocking to me) so i can't fully comment on this. But i would like to think that nice guys are rewarded for waiting by showing loyalty to only one female or partner.

Aside from being somewhat romantic, it also shows that one is able to maintain an element of self-control. I know sex is the ultimate form of pleasure, but considering that there are so many diseases and unknowns out there, i personally prefer to wait until i find the right woman for me.

[Heartless Angel]

That isntinct may well have helped the neanderthals and other proto-humans. That natural instinct helped species suvive becaue they needed to be physically powerful, and the most dominant survived best. In modern day, this is no longer true. What would then have been the alpha males are now no more suited to survival than anybody else. In fact, it opposes society flourishing in this day and age, because the remaining 'alpha males' who have failed to let their reason rule their instincts, are usually complete idiots. Though idiots survive in this world, they don't flourish. And children raised by idiots usually don't go on to flourish either. In addition these idiots who run on instincts usually don't stick around and raise the children resulting from their quest to spread their genetic material as widely as posssible, leading to children being raised improperly even further reducing the likelihood that they will flourish. In the animal kingdom where the strongest survive, this instinct helped a species. In the modern human world where many of our instincts have been supressed (not forgotten removed or erased, just supressed) by reason, they are more a hindrance than anything.

[fragdemon]

So there's a whole bunch of work out there on evolution and human mating behavior. Perhaps the most comprehensive writer on the topic is the feller David Buss (though his research itself is pretty lame).

But yeah, one common intellectual misstep with those trying to apply evolutionary theory across creatures is to imagine that you can simply analogize the situation of one creature to its closest ancestors. In actuality, adaptations perform specific purposes to solve specific problems by the environment.

So here are some uniquely human problems when it comes to reproduction:
1) Children are pretty hard to make for a woman. Takes you out of commission for 6 whole months (2nd/3rd trimesters), uses up tons of resources. And out of the whole process you get MAYBE 1 child, you can't get impregnated by other men in the meantime or have overlapping babies. If you want 3 kids, it will take you almost 3 years to produce them during which you will be totally unable to take care of yourself.

2) Children take a lot of effort to RAISE. In proportion to our lifespan, humans have the longest childhood (13-14years out of a 30 year lifespan in prehistoric societies; 18/70 years in a modern society). To raise a child to get to a culture's own age needs a shit ton of effort (and that's even if it's mutual effort... things are way harder both historically and in the present for a single parent).

3) No paternity certainty for men. I mean, maybe you can notice if a baby does/doesn't look like you, but it's pretty damn hard to tell basically until the baby is a teenager what adults they take after. (Though nowadays we've got all sortsa fancy tests... and the evolutionary theorists are so curious about how that will play out culturally).
____________

So when you think about pretty standard evolutionary concepts, that's going to throw a wrench into some things:

1) "Spreading Seed:" So if a guy gazelle runs around mating with tons of other lady gazelles, he's won the seed-spreading game: Every new birth that comes from his efforts is rewarded with a child that will be able to run away more than 15 minutes after his birth.

But if a HUMAN male runs around impregnating women without throwing support into any one of them, he's in trouble, as Heartless sharply points out:

Originally posted by Heartless Angel
In addition these idiots who run on instincts usually don't stick around and raise the children resulting from their quest to spread their genetic material as widely as posssible, leading to children being raised improperly even further reducing the likelihood that they will flourish.

Or... at least he was.

In these modern times with all the cultural support systems in place and with feeding that isn't built around physical labor, a pregnant woman CAN take care of herself (feed, clothe, shelter, herself all by showing up to work on time) without any need from another caretaker. The differential is even more impressive when it comes to raising a child. 6 hours a day, the child is in school being cared for/raised by designated cultural caretakers.

So in sum, running around spreading your seed is:
1) A good evolutionary strategy for simpler mammals.
2) A bad strategy for prehistoric humans.
3) Maybe a good strategy for modern-day humans? Jury's still out, I suppose.

Of course, our instincts are built/structured for situation 2. So we have all of these cool human-specific mechanisms like jealousy, obsessive long-term love, and commitment that will make it so that after we mate, we end up wanting to stick around with each other for a decent amount of time. (Get this: Of all mammals, humans are the only ones that mate face-to-face. Emotional connection is evolutionarily built into our sexing).
____________

Originally posted by KRudd
alpha male who seeks outs females to mate with so they will bear his superior children to keep a species strong.

2) "Alpha Male:" So we get this buzzword looking at pack mammals: Wolves, lions, elk, etc. They are the creatures who ROCK the social hierarchy. And, of course, we look at these creatures and see what's so unique about them: Usually it's physical strength because the game of getting pack-dominance is physical strength.

It gets more complex, though, for primates: When Jane Goodall was observing chimpanzees fighting for group dominance, she noticed it was based on a competitive game where they would run at each other screaming. The way to win this game was to be utterly TERRIFYING so that the other chimp backs down (essentially: chicken... the game would rarely end in real fighting).

Jane Goodall's camp-mates accidentally interfered with this game by leaving a sizeable metal rations-can unguarded. A chimp found it and learned how to bang it around to make a shit ton of noise. Guess who became the hands-down winner of the dominance game? This creature was lower-middle in size/throat volume, but he was the temporary leader thanks to his innovation (until Jane's campmates got the can back).

For human beings, the qualities that lead to social dominance are even more varied. So evolutionarily it makes sense for males/females both not to hone in on any specific feature, but to simply hone in on the FACT of social dominance (and human beings have the most complex brain mechanisms for understanding social relations). Politicians are rarely physically strong/sexy. But MAN do they have their pick of mates.

Originally posted by Heartless Angel
What would then have been the alpha males are now no more suited to survival than anybody else. In fact, it opposes society flourishing in this day and age, because the remaining 'alpha males' who have failed to let their reason rule their instincts, are usually complete idiots.

Old-school alpha males were a split mix of intelligence, good looks, personal skill/manipulation, sexual drive, and physical health/industry. Given a little bit of re-calibration, do you think those folks have any less chance now than they did back then?

Many human instincts are social instincts, and those who are still led by a lot of them are amply rewarded because all humans can respond to each other on a level of instinct: Warmth, charisma, drive to affiliate ("need to belong"), drive for affection, a human NEED to impress each other (and those who don't give into that need aren't going to be so well off), a need to find a special someone, a need to KEEP that special someone (both by being jealous and driving off mates and by continually expressing your commitment).
____________

Originally posted by The_Dream_Recluse
But i would like to think that nice guys are rewarded for waiting by showing loyalty to only one female or partner.

3) Waiting for sex in evolution.
Definitely this is something that's not just for romantics. Not even wondering about STDs, the prehistoric mother is utterly devastated by a pregnancy. So it better be "worth it." A good mate that will be guarunteed to stick around for the length of the pregnancy is a GREAT gain. A mate that will stay around long enough for a child to be raised is even cooler.

Similarly for a man, long-term loyalty to just one partner means that it's easier to put your effort into raising children with that partner, especially as your partnership develops and you just get good at working as a team raising them babies.

Totally a worthwhile, effective gene-spreading strategy that's been in use for centuries. Totally not the only one too, but in the end there's no "best" way to play the game. There's a bunch of good ways that evolution has built us able to do (and there are a bunch of bad ways that... well, if you're bad at reproducing we won't see that strategy persist).

[Rowan]

I have never ever had sex because I've wanted to 'pass on my genes'. In fact, its quite the opposite. When I was younger and rowdy, that was the biggest fear. Even now in a commited relationship, I still dont want kids.

Humans have made pro-creation into rec-reation.

[che]

As a nice guy, I can say that I do finish last on most occasions. I usually let people go first, or in front of me. When I'm having sex with a female, I will let her finish first, before I do. Therefore, finishing last. You can't explain that.

[Rowan]

When I'm having sex with a female, I will let her finish first, before I do. Therefore, finishing last. You can't explain that.

[che]

I have never ever had sex because I've wanted to 'pass on my genes'. In fact, its quite the opposite. When I was younger and rowdy, that was the biggest fear. Even now in a commited relationship, I still dont want kids.

PS that is the subconscious.

[dustinpro]

99% of human beings have the capacity to easily control our bassist instincts.
It's when the overendulgent celebutards who believe they're above convention (like those bloated pieces of racist s#$t O'Reilly and Gingrich.)cheat on their spouses that the rest of society gets blamed.

[Shine Dalgarno]

Well, theres been a bunch of good discussion so far so I will only add two things. One, as many people have pointed out, its very beneficial to have a 'nice' and loyal partner who will take care of the offspring, even though they may not be the strongest. Humans are kinda funny because strongest doesnt really matter anymore. Nonetheless, sexual selection does still occur.

So what does all this mean? Well to pass on the best genes in the best way, a woman should mate with a strong and attractive male, but then get a nice guy to stick around and raise it. Sorry nice guys lol Chin up, Im sure this doesnt happen too often. And if it does happen to you, at least you can go on Maury Povich.

Also, I wanted to say that I think nice guys do finish last when it comes to running a business or climbing that career ladder. CEOs dont rise to the top because theyre nice people. They rise to the top because they are a least a little bit of an asshole.