Comment by the__alchemist | Hacker News Reader

Comment by the__alchemist | Hacker News Reader

Not directly mentioned in the article, but relevant: Richard Dawkins, in at least one of his books, discusses why dads don't put in as much child-rearing (in many mammals, for example). The evolutionary incentives for fathers and mothers are the same (eg they have equal stakes in the genes being propagated). 2 categories of reasons. (there may be more)

- Fathers (depending on species) can't be confident a given child is theirs. Mothers can be confident due to giving live birth. Fathers have a lower incentive to care for a given child, since expending effort on offspring that's not yours is evolutionary detrimental; everything has an opportunity cost.

- Mothers have a much higher investment in the child from the moment of conception: Due to the extra food they must consume to nourish the embryo, the effects of pregnancy etc. By comparison, sperm is cheap. Neither parent wants to let the child die due to lack of care, but the fathers are in a better position to call the mothers' bluff than vice versa due to the sunk cost.

This is an argument I've heard previously but in the context of jealousy. The idea then is that men are on average more "sexually" jealous (don't want their heterosexual partner to have physical intimacy with other men) whereas women would on average be more "socially" jealous (don't want their heterosexual partner to have emotional intimacy with other women.)

In case it needs to be explicit: the men in the story are worried that their women may become with another man's child, whereas the women are worried that the man will not remain loyal and help raise their child.

Paternity tests solve the male problem and child support laws solve the female problem.

When both of those are in effect, does jealousy dissipate?

I think jealousy is controlled by a different part of the brain than our medical expertise and legal knowledge.

This is fascinating, but also worrying how people might extrapolate too much from innate evolutionary upbringing. We’re social beings and there are so many examples of social constructs that benefit humans as a species but run against the grain of our more primal tendencies. It’s still important to study, and interesting nonetheless. But too often I see it used as a justification for people to express certain types of behavior (e.g. physical altercations, etc)

I would point that it these are speculations and gender ideologies more then science.

Well nowadays there’s inexpensive DNA tests incase your wife purposefully confuses paternity. Cheap enough that you don’t have to go on the Maury TV show to find out. One female dating strategy as old as time is to have a baby with an alpha male and let a beta male raise it. However, I don’t know of a scenario where a wife won’t get very angry if you request a paternity test.

They may be inexpensive, but they also have to be legal. In France, you may only have one if ordered by a judge, which only happens for a limited number of reasons, and may be refused if it's deemed against the child's interest.

> The carrying out of a paternity test outside the legal framework carries penalties ranging from one year's imprisonment to €15,000 fine.

Official source: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F14042?...

Wait, really? Even if both sides consent? Why does the French government want to tell people whether they can or not can have a DNA test if both parties consent??

I seem to recall a reason along the lines of "to keep the peace in the families". Can't find that source.

But in practice, I expect a paternity test to come in an otherwise troubled relationship, so I don't know how often it happens that both parents would seek to get one.

Paternity tests for every birth is a thing one has to mention up front as a position. Then those who'd be offended by it self-select out of one's dating pool.

I disagree. Paternity tests for every birth are unnecessary. That girl he met at the club messaging him on Instagram that she’s pregnant with his boy versus The woman that has moved in with him and he is married to before having kids. Every situation is different and to some this honesty test doesn’t matter.

What’s the gene pool loss if the kid actually isn’t his? Seems to me that that his dating pool will then expand from zero to many. A rational male may think that offering more than 18 years of his life is more significant than not offending someone once.

The whole alpha thing is from a study of captive wolves. In the wild, the alphas are the two parents and the betas or whatever are their pups.

It's like drawing conclusions about human society based on just watching prison inmates interact.

I’m referring to the behavior in humans. Alpha high status or beta bucks provider in males. Do you have words you’d prefer to substitute?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com