Mise
isle of lucy
My hypothesis is that dominant males are more attractive to women on average, because it was that sort of dominant character trait that made them more attractive mates for millions of years, before the advent of civilization.
Where is the evidence? Of course, your narrative could be true, but the bible story of genesis also could be true. There is no evidence for that, either, and, to my knowledge, you don't take the story of genesis seriously. So why should we take your creation story seriously? You're simply asking us to take your narrative seriously as a hypothesis, without there being any reason to do so.
You're not crazy for wanting to, and, to my knowledge, nobody is criticising you for wanting to. The problem is exactly that you're not analysing human behaviour the way scientists study animal behaviour. You're making broad conjectures based on evidence that is anecdotal at best and pretending that this is how scientists operate. I know for a fact that you wouldn't accept this if the argument was "does God exist", which is why it's so frustrating to see you of all people do this now.Am I totally crazy for wanting to analyze human behaviour the same way scientsits study animal behaviour? It just seems so logical