Gaul Atreides (@gaulatreides)

Why do men routinely ignore the rough edges of female behavior? Men are the more hopeful, romantic sex, which runs contrary to the usual Hollywood pabulum. I think this is in part because men are more passionate than are women, about everything in life, including romance. Blame it on Rio testosterone. The why is an interesting evolutionary mystery. A few thoughts: Both sexes have evolved a "strategic blindness" to the psychomechanics of attraction and love. It is reasonable to assume that reproductive fitness is higher in those who aren't burdened by too much self-knowledge, and just barge ahead with their mate seeking rituals. Excessive self-knowledge, from a Darwinian perspective, opens a huge can of worms that challenges the prime directive (go forth, and multiply), and in fact raises the possibility that "extreme consciousness" is maladaptive. (Fermi's Paradox explained?) In other words, pair bonding historically works best when the gears of attraction are hidden. That may have changed with modrenity and its free-for-all, Pill-scaffolded sexual market. Another idea is that men possess a blindspot to female psychosexual nature for the same reason young, hot-blooded men don't think too hard about the consequences of failure in a risky endeavor. To think like that is to avoid taking any shots at glory. Finally, there is the theory that evolution so equipped men with cognitive blinders for women because it encouraged men to invest in women, to commit to a long-term relationship, and to help raise the young. The cost of such naive ignorance -- cuckolds, mostly -- was, from the pov of group selection, worth the benefit of genetic continuity of the whole tribe. Male idealism and optimism about women encouraged investment in a "pre-inspection" property. Note that this last theory is more applicable to naturally monogamous races, like Whites and Orientals, for which there have been relatively low levels of cuckoldry in the last few thousand years.