Dr Paul Eastwick

But it is, in fact, one of the primary things that we were selected to do by the women, to be able to be around young children, to teach them things, to show them the skills of hunting, provisioning, and everything else.

And a lot of that was going to depend on

on the compatibility of that relationship.

So we just have to imagine these things existing in tandem.

Yes, there are gonna be some men in ancestral context who were better providers and were more well-respected by the group, at least at a given moment in time.

A lot of those things were fluid and shifted and changed as well.

But yes, there's gonna be some amount of hierarchy there, but that is complemented by both sort of

Having a sense of belonging to a group, contributing to a group and having a compatible relationship where two people can function well in interdependent way.

You know, not only that dyad relative to the rest of the group, but that dyad and how they raise offspring, etc.

Yes, exactly.

The attachment bonds that human mating partners form, this is not some weird new phenomenon.

This is also absolutely key to understanding human evolution.

In fact, if we want to focus on the particulars of the way humans evolved, that's where I would point.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, this idea that human males got smaller, gentler,

We lost the sharp canines.

Dimorphism decreased because we were being selected to be gentle and kind, especially around offspring.

Gender differences are exciting.

And look, evolutionary psychology was born in explaining a lot of these gender differences.

I get it.

I get their importance.