That's my hypothesis, and I'm sticking to it. My obnoxious, curmudgeonly ways must be an adaptation, selected by evolution over many generations to optimize my mating opportunities by forcing stupid people to flee from my presence.
Hey, that's as good as the explanation that PMS evolved to drive away infertile mates, don't you think? I wonder if I can get it published somewhere.
But no! Bethany Brookshire and Rebecca Watson have ruined it all for everyone by exposing the fallacious reasoning behind my argument! See, this is why everyone hates the uppity ladies.
Re: *uppity ladies*
I'm not sure that dame has ever countenanced the concept of lift and separate
I think men should bleed.
Sounds like a young man's idea, given enough years most of us figure out that lust can dull the perceptions, blinding us to personality clashes that may eventually destroy a relationship. Your no longer significant other is not just being a bitch, she got a clear look at you and herself.
It will be a great day when humans choose their partners on the basis of shared intellectual and other creative potential, rather than on the basis of sexual attractions.
Quite right. And that day is, generally, for men, after age 60, and, for women, after age 40--though of course that is merely the roughest of estimates and, as they say, "Your Mileage May Vary".
Say, what is evolution's way to get rid of banksters, politicians and lawyers and tabloid journalists? Surely we haven't stopped evolving!?
Pop EvoPsych tells us that women evolved to want caretakers who will stick around and protect them and provide for them. A guy who can't deal with your worst moments is not going to be a good long-term mate. There is an evolutionary advantage to weeding out these fair-weather companions before you get pregnant. Therefore, my theory is that PMS evolved in order to drive away deadbeats before they can knock a woman up. Sounds plausible. What journal should I submit it to?
Seriously though, a good way to knock these just-so stories down is to show how easy it is to take the exact same set of facts and construct a completely different "explanation" that is just as plausible. It's best when you actual flip the original on it's head and show how the same facts could easily support the opposite of the just-so story under discussion.