> I want to tinker with (at the least) a few of David's proposed trumps.
> Specifically, I don't think either sexual competition or coyness is
> limited to one sex, and I don't think anything is gained by restricting
> our memes in that way. I'm not at all sure we need a "sexual
> competition" card, but if we have one, it should be applicable
> to everyone, not just a minority of the human race. Similarly,
> coyness isn't limited to one sex, or to sexual situations: consider
> an athlete or executive being deliberately vague about their
> availability, in order to get a better contract, even though they
> really want that job and would, if necessary, take it at the current
> price.
Those restrictions are inherently deceptive. The former's specialization
to men is reasonably derivable from economics applied to sexuality in
cultures evolved to prosper while using/being used by small-scale
warfare. [See Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for an excellent
development of a reverse example.]
Sexuality is a sufficiently strong motivator for us that it probably
rates a distinction from lesser competition. I have insufficient
perspective to say whether blotting 'sexual' from coyness is reasonable;
it looks reasonable to me.
[CLIP]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////