Human beings are social animals. And like all the social animals there exists a ranking when they engage in a common situation. In every human interaction that involves more than a person there is a hierarchy, an order among them even though most of the times we are not aware of this fact consciously. The famous zoologist, Dr. Desmond Morris named it pecking order. This can be shaped even in the first few seconds of the meeting of two people because evolution through natural selection has designed us very efficient in understanding it. Pecking order is crystal clear in the majority of companies and organisations in the world or in the army but it takes place inside a family, in a relationship or in a group of friends and business relations.
In a typical human tribe in the jungle there existed the leader, his entourage and people whose place in the tribe was lower. Human beings needed to evolve skills to instantly understand who is the most resourceful person, who is the most valuable for the tribe, to whose orders they had to be compliant, and by whom they were under serious threat. It’s not that we often choose it to happen but we are genetically programmed to it because it was crucial for our existence to understand through other people’s behaviour which is the order of their value in the particular context and adapt our own behaviour to the situations.
An implication of the pecking order is that the individual with the lower value most of the times is going to be reactive to the actions of the individual with the higher value and not the opposite. Reaction is a tendency to respond to a stimulus. More specifically the response has an emotional rather than a logical cause. The drive that the person with the higher value creates, prompts the person with the lower value to act spontaneously to an action without having time to consciously think about it. This, of course, occurs within milliseconds. Take for instance when our favourite author recommends a must read book. We instantly want to find out about it and maybe read it. Another example is the emotional reaction of little children to the fierce shouting of their father. They become instantly afraid. Or, when the boss calls the employee in his office to talk to him about something serious. It is expected that under these connotations the employee tends to be overwhelmed emotionally. Another instance is when the girl says to her boyfriend that she wants to be friends. An expected behaviour is that the rejected boyfriend will start drinking alcohol for months in order to forget.
Obviously the opposite happens, as well. If you are trained, you can, simply by observing a couple, understand who is in charge. Total equality in power dynamics can nowhere exist as long as homo sapiens exists. You can notice who is more focused on the actions of the other and who is more careful of his own actions depending on the other. In other words you can observe who is being reactive to the other and make judgements about the dynamics of the couple’s interactions. Others may call it gossip but I call it people watching. Same happens in a company of friends. Some are being totally ignored proving that they belong to the lowest ranks and some are the centre of attention proving to be the highest in value.
Same way mating is a fight of dynamics. Human females are proven to be attracted to men with the highest social value possible and definitely with higher social value than theirs. That’s normal according to evolution because it could not be effective for a woman to be attached to a man that would not be able to provide her and their offspring enough security in the extremely harsh life of the jungle. In order to pick correctly in this crucial decision they have evolved several strategies to test if the men they are attracted to, are as good as they look like. They use it as a safeguard. Most of the times they will try to overdraw men, advertise that they are independent, make playful jokes on them, pretend they are attracted to another man and several other things. This way she can justify if he is reactive to her and decide about his actual value. The interesting irony in this is that although women are externally trying to go beyond men, deep down they hope they are defeated and are really angry when they win. It’s a huge disappointment to be disproved about her impressions concerning the quality of a man. In the latter case a multitude of things manifest her disappointment. She would start complaining about several other things, for example about the place the man left his clothes and shoes or that he is not going her to dinner usually as a man should et c. If there hadn’t been much commitment yet, then she would end the interaction or just be polite and put the guy in the “friend zone” (express to him that she prefers being very good friends). You know what I mean, think about it. How could a man be afraid of every single judgement of the woman on him and then be able to provide security from the mammoths? That’s the exact presentation of unsexiness! This does not mean that the woman always understands her behaviour; it’s just where the suppression of her disappointment comes out. Unfortunately, this is many times mistakenly accepted by men who are judging by women’s verbal behaviour. They do not understand that this situation comes from their own mistakes and blame women as being unpredictable and volatile emotionally. However, a man that is not reactive to women’s tests is clear that raises their attraction over him because he seems to be steady-strong as a personality.
I was talking with a friend on skype today. We both had noticed that there were situations where women stare at a man when the man looks somewhere else. If the man notices it and immediately looks at her, then she would turn her head the other way, without this being unnoticed, though. Of course this is not the rule but is a very usual thing. The only thing I am wondering is why they do not prefer just to show that they are staring to another man behind. Anyway.
The above situation can be explained as follows. The female probably because of attraction looks at the male due to the dopamine that is being produced in the reward circuit of her brain through this action. Afterwards, when she is being noticed, turns her head on the other side in order to show that she is not reactive on the man (she does not give a damn about him) but at the same time showing a reaction by moving her head abruptly! The same would definitely not happen with an unattractive man. He would be invisible to her. So it seems women fall in their own trap when being reactive by trying to show that they are not reactive. Same thing happens, for example, when they reply late to phone messages. Many men fall in the trap and become anxious. They get in a pessimistic spiral loop thinking about what was the mistake in their words or behaviour. However, if they were aware of the rule, they would turn the situation upside down. They are just coming across a test from the female about how easily they are affected. It is a struggle from the female to disprove the obvious, the fact that she cares. Else, why would she waste the energy to try? And by taking into account all the above discussion, by trying to show that their value is higher-if you look clearly- they actually advertise that it is lower. Definitely a marketing mistake. But all the above still is a part of the game, huh?
I mention women in this particular situation because men have been brainwashed with social programming and thus believe that they have to be totally clear and straightforward when expressing the same needs. But mating, according to Dr. Desmond Morris seems to work indirectly and situationally. Women are unconsciously trying to simulate these conditions. That’s one reason why they appear “out of a sudden” in a place or a position they weren’t expected or many things “happen” to them “because of alcohol”. And this might be another reason why out of a sudden approaches and the whole concept of dating appear not to be effective for men in the long term.