Abbreviations
RP	rank potential, the capability (perhaps, unrealized) to have high ranks in a hierarchy.
HR	a human with a high RP.
LR	the same, with a low RP.
HP	a human with a high primativeness, who tends to rely on instinctive programs in practice.
LP	the same, with a low primativeness, so as to be able to behave contrary to instincts.
PFI	the Principle of Female's Irreplaceability - base of the instinct complex reflecting the high biological value of females to the species.

What is the difference between psychology and human ethology?	Though they seem alike at the first sight, those disciplines belong to different scientific realms. In general, they don't antagonize, but complete each other. The following main differences between them can be named: Ethology, being a subdivision of biology, is a natural science; psychology is a humanitary discipline, with a bias to philosophy. This implements a principial difference of paradigms(*). For example, ethology is totally materialistic, and psychology doesn't need materialism at all, though it doesn't contradict it. The subject of psychology is mostly a human, always stressing his exclusiveness among other inhabitants of Earth; ethology researches the human as an equal representative of the animal world (may be with a head swollen a bit), widely using the comparison between human behaviour and behavior of other animal species. One may say that psychology is more interested in everything that separates the human from other animals, ethology - in everything that is similar between human and other animals. Ethology studies almost exclusively the instinct-based behaviour, psychology (and zoopsychology too) is more concerned with behaviour that is a result of learning, or an effect of higher layers of consciousness and subconsciousness. Working methods of a psychologist are based, to large extent, on anamnesis of a patient - that is, on what he/she tells about motivations of his/her behaviour. Of course, a psychologist doesn't take the patient's story "as is", but yet uses it widely, while an ethologist almost doesn't use anamnesis at all. In that sense, ethological research of human behavour doesn't differ too much from research of animal behaviour, (with an animal it is simply impossible to speak). That is, mostly the external behaviour is evaluated: that is, as a response to a certain external factors an human (or an animal) behaved in a certain way. An ethologist is not too much interested in how the individual himself describes his reasons and motivations. An ethologist is interested in anamnesis only to analyse contradictions between the declared behaviour and the actual one. (*)Paradigm of a science is its world view and methodological basis.
When the third edition of the Treatise will be ready?	If we speak about this particular essay, most probably never. The problem is that currently the text of the Treatise is located on many websites, most of those copies were made without my knowledge, and I am unable to influence them. Besides, many printed copies circulate in the world. That's why I consider any changes in the text as nonexpedient - to leave all those copies as similar as possible. New research material is accumulated, but we can only speak about a new essay or a book.
What certainly differs between human and animal behaviour?	The only act of behaviour that certainly and undoubtedly differs between the human and the animals is the ability of an intentional suicide. All known cases of suicide among animals (for example, mass suicide of lemmigs during migrations) are not intentional. This became possible because of lowered primativity of a human, that is, his higher ability to act in contradiction with his instincts. All other acts of behaviour that are ascribed only to the human, such as abstract thinking(!) are, in fact, observed to certain extent with other animals, too. In that sense, the differences between a human and animal are quantitative, not qualitative. Except of human, abstract thinking is observed with shimpanze apes (which is natural), but not only with mammals; sparks of it are also observed with birds (especially crows and ravens).
Why does rank potential not rise infinitely?	Indeed, as long as the RP is inherited (even partially), and HR males are preferred for copulation, the RP must increase from generation to generation, which, basically, is not the case. This is because of influence of various factors, limiting the increase of RP. It is possible to distinguish two kinds of such factors: The factors slowing the increase of RP: RP can be inherited not only from father, but from mother as well. And female RP almost does not influence on quantity of her children. Moreover, one can inherit the RP from one's grandfather or grandmother. Initial RP depends on prenatal development as well, (especially it is influenced by the first months of pregnancy), whilst the actual RP depends on conditions of growth and upbringing (1/3 of it, approximately). A male with a low actual, but high VISUAL RP can be preferred for copulation. In particular, the age of a man is not the least visual indication of a high RP. Social or official position can serve as a visual indicator of such potential, and they could be achieved even despite of quite low initial RP. In modern society, especially in countries with monogamy legislation, potential fertilizing productivity of HR men is limited by law - for realization of high fertilizing productivity HR partners are bound to trespass, in one way or another, the laws and norms of society, which not everyone is ready to do. The factors limiting the growth of RP. Higher death rate among HR males, which is caused by their higher agressiveness and intolerancy. Group selection. Groups with too small amount of LR-specimens are less likely to survive because of more frequent internal conflicts, as well as because of lower ability to consolidate when facing dangers. That is, when everyone wants to be a colonel and no one wants to be a sentry.
What is the difference between egoism and egocentrism?	Egoist regards the world around him as a scene for fighting for his interests. In that sense he is inclined to regard others as competitors if not as foes whom he has to fight and compete with, even not limiting himself in choosing the means. Egocentrist regards the world as a society of people unanimously in love with HIM, and very concerned about solutions to HIS problems. Or at least as a society that has to be "in love" and "concerned". Moreover, it has to be in love but without reciprocity, since his heart is engaged with himself. And if someone exposes to egocentrist obvious proofs of the opposite, that is, proofs that he is surrounded by people who don't love him that much, he may become neurotic, or this may cause confrontation with society. Of course, due to a certain agressiveness of life, egoism is easily seen and abhorred by people. But egocentrist may seem as quite a kind and friendly person, to an inexperienced eye, until his environment demands a sacrifice of his certain desires and interests. That's when it becomes apparent that this person simply does not understand what is expected of him. Because everything must be sacrificed for HIS SAKE! And surely not him... Egoism is more a masculine property, which is typical to all HR personalities, though; egocentrism is more feminine. However people combining both properties can be met.
What are the characteristic of a HR, LR, HP and LP human?	HR High self-esteem, tendency to estimate the others lowly Belief in his own unfalliability, absence of doubt Resolute care for his own comfort, health and safety Optimism, confidence in the next day Bias to make quick decisions without long pondering Ability to act despite opinions and problems of the rest Non-reflexivity High threshold of perceiving his own fault Painful response to criticism, troubles with self-criticism Determination, enterprise, initiative Great career, social and possession ambitions Organizing skills Openness, boldness, extrovertcy Persistency, intolerancy, egoism For males - sexual success, for females - sexual domination LR Low self-esteem, tendency to form the inferiority complex Ability to get along with uncomfortable and unsafe situation Bias to pessimism and depressions; despondency in tomorrow Unsureness; long ruminations before making a decision Dependency on opinion of others, fear to hurt or offend anyone, reflexivity Low threshold of guilt-perception (sense of guilt appears at a slightest hint) Readiness to be satisfied with existing situation, conformism Absence of great career and possession ambitions Low organizing skills Altruism, tendency to feel sorry for anything, self-abandonement Bias to "worship" authorities, believe them; religiousness Closedness, introversy Timidity, pliability For males - sexual unsuccessfulness, for females - sexual submissiveness Primativeness could be seen as a degree of explicity of HR-LR characteristics, but it is a much wider conception, indeed. For example, if you correspond the HR to red, and the LR to blue, then with changing RP the colour will go through all the hues, having constant saturation. When one changes the primativeness, the saturation of colour will change; with lowering the primativeness one would see the colours withering away (thus representing less influence of Rank Potential on individual's life). That is how HR-LR properties can be regarded as indicators of primativeness (like religiousness, for example, which is typical for both LR and HP individuals), but there are also specific characteristics. HP Tendency to grovel before the authorities, believe them. Religiousness, superstitiousness Attention to hierarchical subordination Suggestibility, including auto-suggestibility, hypochondria Temptation irresistibility, weak willpower (*), emotional childishness Irrational actions Collectivism, communicativeness, extroversy Emotional lability (hot tempered or whining), tendency to hystery Most qualitative evaluations are binary, that is, "brilliant/disgusting", but not "so-so". Impulsiveness (bias to act according to the mood) Excessive care about one's comfort, health and safety Explicit career, social and possession ambitions Tendency to make decisions reckoning to meet a typical situation Conspicuous, cares for external attributes of prosperity and prestige For men - excessive tendency to promiscuity, for women - tendency to fall in love with men she better should not Excessive egocentrism LP Individuals possess the above qualities but in a rather weakened form. Apparently, one does not always have all of the above qualities. Certain properties can be missing, or be somewhere between those of a HR and LR individual (in such cases we could talk about MR - medium rank potential). For example, a clearly HR person can be pessimistic nevertheless, and vice versa an LR individual can be optimistic. In such cases we ought to talk about MOSAIC RP or primativeness. (*) Here under the willpower the ability of self-restrainment and self-control is meant, not the ability to subdue others to one's will (in the latter case, such willpower is a characteristic of RP). For example, abandoning smoking or drinking is harder for HP person than for LP one.
Why are there more quarrels in female teams, than in male and mixed ones?	Because of the higher female primativeness, which is observed as highly emotional actions, and causing instinctive herd relationships to be formed. Besides, relationships are deteriorated by the female egocentrism, which is a result of the PFI. Therefore the most unbearable psychological climate is observed in humanitarian teams and staff, like schools, libraries, and other humanitarian and artistic places of work. Quarrels are less expressive among female workers of natural and technical occupations (such as medical personnel, appliances maintenance staff) - these groups comprise less primative individuals.
What reasons can explain cases of female infidelity to HR-males with LR-males?	The instinct of preferring fresh blood (sexual curiosity), which helps in maintaining genetic diversity A higher VISUAL RP of those males than husband's Some non-instinctive (e.g. economical) motivations. If an HR man, attractive as a male, is unbearable as a personality (is rude, cruel, stupid, etc.), he would be more surely dumped, than encounter unfaithfulness.
What is the cause of lonely people's suffering?	Indeed, in modern society the economical reasons for joint life of men and women are already in the past, and with disappearance of moral prohibitions of sexual contacts out of marriage - the sexual reasons are in the past, too. Not to speak that the physiological need for sex can be easily satisfied with masturbation or by paid service. But neither masturbation nor sex with prostitutes doesn't give the most important thing - feeling of being sexually demanded. That is, feeling of one's value as a male or a female, feeling that one is needed, acknowledged and wanted. That is - that one is good enough. To full extent this feeling appears only with stable and regular sexual life with a voluntary partner that prefers you over others. Because an "external" acknowledgement of one's dignities is the most convincing one.
Why is it so hard to get married?	The source of such difficulties is in the contradiction between instinctive and social criteria of choosing a partner. It is impossible to choose! Because a monogamous marriage is not defined in our instincts. The soul, heart (the womb, if you like), appeal to find a good primeval male, Captain Rzhevsky more or less, who is not suitable for a monogamous marriage, though; therefore, he is refused because of this reason by any sensible woman. Frankly speaking, he does not yearn for a marriage anyway. On the other hand, without such an appeal, modern family cannot be figured out; that is why some males, pretty suitable for a family life, but who cannot arouse a desire in woman's heart, remain undemanded.
What is the cause of family and marriage institution erosion in modern society?	Modern society allows more freedom for people to act; to act out of instinctive motivation in particular. A life-time marriage, a monogamous one to be sure, is not provided by instincts. The rising standard of life, increasing population and its density, increasing length of life and diminishing child death rate activate the instincts of self-constrainment of species population, which disturbs the normal work of marriage and parental instincts.
Why do women often pity drunkards and brawlers so touchingly?	What is observed as a woman's pity is simply a disguised and paradoxical appeal of the womb. It is paradoxical because of instinctive analysis being superficial, recognizing a drunken brawler as a strong, vigorous male, appropriate for mating, what is not and should not be accepted if having a smallest sparkle of intellect. And that is why it is perceived as a paradox. If you take a closer look at the phenomenon described above, you would notice the distinct selectivity of the female pity. A brawler is pitied (though usually the surrounding people should better be), a self-critical flop is not, as a rule.
Why is male infidelity less condemned in society than female one?	This coincides with the nature of sexual reproduction. Specialization of the sexes suggests sexual expansion of males and fastidiousness of females. Males offer themselves to everyone, females zealously choose from what is offered. That is, an unfaithful male realises his instinct of sexual expansion in this way, and thus he fulfills his biological purpose; an unfaithful woman violates her purpose, by showing unselectiveness.
How do scientists distinguish instinctive motivations from the rest of the human behaviour?	Similarly to the way linguists restore extinct languages. That is, they compare behavioural patterns of humans belonging to different cultures and choose the typical ones. Particulary descriptive patterns are the non-conformistic ones, those that contradict traditions and norms accepted in society and those that contradict consciously declared decisions. Besides, they also employ surveys of animals, especially those who are organized in similar social structures, and our relatives, the apes, first of all. Behavioural patterns common to all people and animal "relatives" are the instinctive ones.
What are the differences between behaviour of an HR man and an HR woman?	The root of HR is in high self-esteem. In this sense HR behaviour is similar for both men and women. Nevertheless, according to the PFI, women are more cautious and less agressive, which smoothes and masks some evidences of HR. For example, HR women use threats of physical violence for forcing others to do what they want, much more seldom than HR men. Much more often they use for that purpose hystery, complaints about their heart. But they don't give up their goal exactly as HR men don't.
What is the difference in behaviour resulting of the PFI and HR?	The PFI does not suggest leadership ambitions, HR does. High activity of the PFI instincts inflicts excessive egocentrism; an HR inflicts excessive egoism, on the other hand. That is, the difference is almost like the difference between egoism and egocentrism.
What is the main error committed by men while courting women?	Detailed recommendations are given in the Treatise itself, here - just briefly: One should not neglect his self-dignity out of desire to serve and to please. Self-humiliation is absolutely unacceptable! As well as any action lowering one's visual self-esteem. One should not be afraid of a woman! Perceiving a woman as a rigorous boss is almost a warranty of failure. One should not show hunger for female attention. The most attractive men are the "satisfied" ones - "to him who has much, there will be given more, from him who has nothing - the least will be taken.". It's not desirable to express this satisfaction verbally (especially - to lie about the subject - discovery of such a lie would be a disaster!), it should be expressed indirectly in gestures, intonations and actions. But one should distinguish between "satisfaction" and "lack of appetite" - "appetite" should be present. Gifts should seem as getting rid of surplus, but not as giving away one's last property. Self-sacrifice won't be appreciated, on the contrary - it will be a minus.
What are the tactical aims of male and female in search for sex?	Once a rich man meet a poor man. Poor man says: "I've not eaten for three days!" Rich man answers: "Oh, you should force yourself!" (anecdote) The goal of a male search is to find women willing to intercourse with him; the goal of a woman is to find a man who she would WANT to intercourse with. A man agrees to have sex almost automatically, if it is physically feasible (certainly, we are talking about women capable of reproduction more or less); but far not every man is entitled to a woman's consent. Even with regard to feasibility and complete capability of a male to reproduce. In other words, a woman has more difficulty to convince herself to intercourse with a randomly taken man (and those difficulties can be a reason of serious inner torments!), and a regular man (not HR) has only difficulty to convince the woman to intercourse with him, while convincing himself is not needed at all.
Why do you think that men are totally indifferent to female virtues? Sounds not very likely...	Everything is relative. We are talking about relatively lower scrupulousness of males compared to females. HR males who are experienced in female attention are very fastidious, but not an average male, who much more willingly accepts what is given than an average woman, denying only women who are undoubtly incapable of reproduction. At least denying them as purely sexual partners. When choosing a life partner he uses intelligent considerations to more extent, and can be fastidious. However, men decrease their demands with increasing sexual hunger much faster than females. There is half a joke, half a real story about a famous polar explorer Ernst Sheklton. Preparing to go to Antarctida yet once more, he ordered to include the most unattractive English woman into the expedition. And when he was asked why, he answered that when she would look nice to him he would realize it is time to return... But women can wait for a prince till death...
Why do you think that instincts completely define the human behaviour? What about intelligence, upbringing, education?	I do not think so, neither does it follow out of the Treatise text, nor from other works on ethology. Here is how Konrad Lorenz, the founder of ethology, worded it: "But if we realize this, we cannot escape the question: how comes that such reasonable creatures can behave so unreasonably?... All those striking contradictions have natural explanantions and can be fully classified, if we force ourselves to realize that social behaviour of humans depends not only on their reason and cultural traditions, but still depends on patterns that are part of any behaviour created philogenetically; and we studied those patterns quite well, while studying animal behaviour." So, works on ethology do not deny the presence of reason with a human, as well as they don't deny the influence of reason on human behaviour. But discussion about rational behaviour is just not completely in range of questions ethology discerns. Indeed, hardly anyone buying a book with the title "Electric Appliances of VAZ automobiles" appeals against narrowness of the topic, demands to cover other systems of automobiles as well (even if they are closely related), or at least to cover electric appliances of other cars. There are other books for that. The same is with sciences dealing with behaviour. Rational behaviour is mainly a sphere of competence of psychology, and is discussed in relevant books. Separation of one factor, of few relating factors, out of the aggregation of those that are applied to an object, and subsequent abstraction from the rest, is a standard scientific method. Only after inspecting each factor on its own it could be possible to try and integrate the resulting regularities to see the whole picture. Otherwise, attempting to research human behaviour in its completeness, we take a risk to get lost in a mess of contradictory tendencies. Even more - certain instincts do contradict each other. However, the interaction between instinctive and rational behaviour is very important to ethology, and it does inspect it. In particular, an ethological term "primativeness" describes the margin between instincts and intelligence for each person. Certainly, this margin is rather vague and quite imaginary, in practice instinctive and intellectual components of behaviour are closely bound and affect it simultaneously. Nevertheless, the degree of influence of instincts or intelligence on behaviour of a person, can be seen quite clearly, so it is possible to speak about different primativeness of people. If to talk about quantitative ratio, then we must admit the precise figures cannot be told yet. The methodology is still being designed. But it can be said quite confidently that influence of instincts on behaviour of a person is of the same degree as the influence of intelligence; i.e. it is far from being negligible. To be specific, the instinctive component distinctly prevails in marriage and sexual relationships. To what extent? This can be told after further researches.
Why are there so many unsatisfied women?	For most women, full sexual satisfaction is possible only with a relatively narrow group of men - let's call them "elitary reproductors". Usually, those are physically perfect HR men. The closer is the man to an ideal of such an "elitary reproductor", the more probable is satisfaction with him, even an orgasm because of light touch of a hand, or even thought. And, on the contrary, a man that is not close to such an ideal, usually has major difficulties to satisfy a randomly taken woman, no matter how perfect are the sexual techniques that he demonstrates, because the main erogeneous area of a woman is her brain (more precisely - the lymbic system). For the sex is not affording much delight, but lover do. But such "elitary reproductors" are very few, in general, not more than a quarter of all men, and that's why, despite of their bias to promisquity, large part of all women is depriven of their "attention", and, that is, of full sexual satisfaction.
What is the cause of low efficiency of dating ads?	Incorrect diagnosis at least leads to inefficient treatment. When starting to use dating ads, many people assume that the reason of their difficulties is the insufficient number of social contacts in their environment. But in modern urbanized society the intensity of social contacts is more than enough to find JUST ONE. Even with those who work only with people of their own sex. In fact, the problem is the inability to develop usual social contacts into sexually-specific ones, or too high demands from the desired partner, or sometimes both. But those problems can be very poorly solved by an increasing number of contact attempts. The probability of success increases, of course, but not significantly. Contacts by dating ads are very productive for HR men, but such men are almost not interested in dating ads! And if they are, they are only interested in short-term adventures. They don't need anything else - they don't have any difficulties in finding a partner anyway. LR women have moderate chances of success, as a result of their relatively low demands of men. But with LR men, who are the most users of such ads, and with HR women chances of success are very slim. With LR men - as a result of a low demand of them. With HR women - as a result of their very high demands to men, combined with almost total absence of HR men who, are the only ones who can satisfy them, among users of dating ads. Besides, the very attention of a man to dating ads indirectly indicates his sexual "hunger", and this, despite of rational approval, adds to his image some unconsciously-negative touch, which decreases his attractivity even more.
When, according to your recommendation, I started to behave aggressively with girls, I didn't become more successful with them. On the contrary - now they rush away from me! Why?	I didn't recommend this. For being successful with women, one should be dominant but not aggressive. Aggression and domination are bounded, but are not the same. I remind that the root of high rank potential is high self-confidence and high self-esteem, and unrestrained aggression is just one of the consequences of those. Aggression directed towards a woman is frightening even when performed by an HR man, but till it reaches some finite (depending on ethological and cultural specifics of a given pair) value, it is excused. An impression of high rank is increased only by aggression directed towards other men. Domination over a woman should be rather expressed in father-like protective way, resembling parent-child relationship, but not copying it literally.
What are the ethological characteristics of tyrants and maniac killers?	First of all, only the disposition to development of such a personality type is explained by ethological reasons. Its realization depends to large extent on social and psychological upbringing conditions. Ethologically such personalilties are characterized by high primativity with high RP mosaicity. That is - despite of their strong need for domination, they have no other components of high RP, neither non-ethological qualities, that allow the realization of this need relatively safely for the society when they are still young. As a result, their factual status in society and unformal groups is much lower than their hierarchical self-perception, and their rank potential is unfulfilled. It was noticed a long ago, that tyrants were opressed when they were children, but yet not everyone that was humiliated and offended becomes a tyrant or a maniac. This conflict causes accumulation of huge reserves of aggression in those people, which they unload in such an extreme way.
Is real friendship between a man and a woman possible?	If we define a REAL friendship as voluntary sexless relationship between people of a reproductive age, the answer is NO. If the "friends" "befriend" each other just because something prevents them to start sexually-specific (for example, if one of them or both are married to someone else), it is not a real friendship, but its forced imitation. Relationships of heterosexual men and women of a reproductive age ALWAYS have secret or obvious sexually-specifical component, at least of one side, almost always - of the man's side. Perhaps, except of some rare cases when the man is surfeited with female attention - but in those cases sexually-specific wishes and thoughts will appear at the woman's side. Usually, the friendly-like relationship is unconsciously forced by an HR woman. This phenomenon can be regarded as one of ways of making a collection of instinctively inferior admirers. In other words, at least one of the "friends" would always like to turn this "friendship" into something more interesting. He cannot or has no courage to do so, but still continues such quasi-friendly contacts out of hope that someday the situation changes.
What is the ethological origin of jealosy?	The deepest cause of the female jealosy is in general case the syndrome of the "lost property" or the loss of resource. That is why the sufferings felt along with it is similar to the suffering of a robbed man, or a man fallen victim to a fraud. Jealosy is felt only to the male with whom long-term relationship is supposed, because the instincts tell that such a male is the stream of resources for the female itself and her children. It is typical that females of the animals whose males do not participate in upbringing of the offsprings, don't feel jealosy at all. But humans do have also a special reason for female jealosy (not too often, though, but resulting in utmost strong sufferings) - the reason being their constant readiness to have sex, which is also the constant need of a male, the carrier of good genes. So since (and if) the relationship with such good sire are established, the females do feel quite upset to lose him. It is even more painful because as we know the most sexual pleasure can be delivered only such males. The male jealosy has considerably different nature. LR males are jealous because they feel their own inferiority (similar to the feelings described above (see "What is the cause of lonely people's suffering?")); HR males, in their turn, can be jealous because they feel loss of power, that is, their feeling is somewhat similar to the loss in a hierarchical fight. The reaction is different, correspondingly.
Does a LR altruism really exist? Perhaps it is all about fear of punishment?	Indeed, true altruism is usually defined as ability of self-sacrifice out of genuine philanthropy, but not out of fear of punishment because of refusal of sacrifice. But in practice those two types of self-sacrifice are inseparable. Ethologically (and I remind that rational behaviour is not observed here) a LR altruism originates in low threshold of sense of guilt - with LR this sense appears with the slightest reason, and sometimes with no reason at all. And on the basis of this sense of guilt a fear of punishment may appear, as well as true altruistic self-denial. And most often - both, as an inseparable unity. Can a feeling of discomfort when we bother a busy person for our needs be called fear? Of course not, because in most cases this bothering does not imply any punishment for us. We all call it politeness and good manners. But the root of this feeling lies in concealed fear to provoke the wrath of a more HR member of the hierarchical system. It is an unpleasant presentiment of a conflict, and not fear of punishment. According to this, behaviour of HR people, for which a conflict is not unpleasant, is, in general, less tactful.
What are conscience and duty out of ethological point of view?	Conscience is one of the forms of altruism. It is tightly bound with the abovementioned threshold of sense of guilt, that is, conscience is inversely correlated with RP. Approximately the same can be said about sense of duty. It can be just mentioned, that this "sense" is more rational, despite of common ethological origin with conscience.
What is charm out of ethological point of view?	Though explanation of the phenomenon of charm (hardly explained personal attractivity) is not limited to ethological reasons, it has mainly instinctive roots. A charming person can be ethologically described as friendly, but with high RP. That is, in the whole mosaic of this person's behaviour, with all its general high-rankedness, signs of in-species agression are weakened, and altruistic qualities are, on the contrary, explicitly shown. A charming person is one of a rare kind of HR people - high-ranked altruists. By the way, it is the most desired set of qualities for a good leader. But that is far from all. The phenomenon of charm is of course influenced by presence of the gender-specific component (so old Freud was right)! On one hand we usually call physically perfect people charming; on the other hand, an estimation of charm depends on the gender of the judge. Males would usually call a wonam charming, and females would call a man charming.
Why are women so confused when they need to take their clothes off in presence of a man?	The abovementioned confusion is one of signs of hard accessibility syndrome, which results out of the PFI. According to the fundamental principle of differentiantion of sexes the females must be difficult to access. But when taking her clothes off, she declares her accessibility. This contradiction results in discomfort. But the degree of this discomfort depends on relation to that man. Usually women do not feel embarassed when they are naked in front of a madly loved man, especially of it is not for the first time.
How are male, female and children's hierarchical systems related?	Those hierarchical systems exists separately, they just get in touch in particular points. For example, if a teenager boy is involved in a hierarchy of teenagers like himself, it doesn't mean that his parents are involved in this hierarchy too. But those hierarichies must have certain points of touch. Quite the same picture is observed with male/female hierarchy. Based on this, many ethologists (including V.R. Dolnik, whom I truly respect) deny the very existence of female hierarchies. This is almost the only point where I disagree with him. Men and women, as usual, can participate in a common hierarchy only in case of official subordination, where fight for high rank is oppressed by formal rules. In this case, fight for high rank is almost similar to fight for high position. Of course, one of the main and the most obvious points of touch of male and female hierarchical systems are sexual and marriage relationships. Fight for high rank between adults and children is possible inside of a family or a similarly built team, if the child is HR and is very preoccupied about entering the adult hierarchy.
Can one change one's own rank potential?	Yes. First of all one should pay attention to the fact that factual RP is a function of inborn RP and educating influence of the environment. In general, factual RP depends on the inborn RP to 2/3 rate, but this is true only if an average for all mankind is observed. In some particular cases this relation can be totally different; besides, this relation is formed as a result of spontaneous course of events - there aren't many people who try to change their own RP intentionally. And by intentional change of RP much better results may be achived. Usually the problem is raising one's own RP. What should be done to achieve this? Developing a successful carreer, becoming famous, this is obvious. Besides, there are many schools and training courses that raise one's self-confidence. But there are many cheats in this field, so one should be very careful when applying for help to such specialists. Nevertheless, I would like to stress that society needs LR members too, as much as the army needs soldiers and not only generals. Widely-spread practice of raising one's rank potential may be not only ineffective, but even harmful to the whole society, because it resembles to entering an arms race. The society should create such conditions, in which an individual would be rewarded according to his or her objective merits and accomplishments, and not only according to his or her natural boldness. That is conditions, in which one's rank potential would have as little influence on one's life and personal dignity as possible.
Do other theories that explain the oddities of love, exist?	Till recently, there were no convincing scientific explanations of the "oddities of love". Of course, there were many literary works of various genres, where those oddities were colourfully described, but attempts of explanation were no more than general phylosophical or speculative reasonings (for example, F. Nietzsche, Ortega-y-Gasset, O.Weininger). The first attempt of scientific explanation known to me was done by David Buss. The essence of his conception, as formulated in his book "Evolution of desire: strategies of human mating", can be reduced to two notions: resources, and commitment as warranty of resources. Those are the parameters by which the choice is made, in Buss' opinion. But this conception doesn't explain all the variety of demonstrations of promisquity, and love itself is studied not too much attentively. Buss studied more the patterns of family creation, and not sexual love in all its manifestations. Meanwhile, there are many sensible things in his theory.
You warn against too early sexual contact. But, according to my observations, without sexual contact there will be nothing. What is the problem?	This is true. But it depends on what is considered "too early". If a condition of marriage before the first sexual contact is stated, there are not many modern men patient enough to wait till marriage in such conditions. But sex on a first or a second date is definitely too early. Here is how it was formulated figuratively by the satirist: Love is like a dinner. The woman serves cold dish at first, then serves the hot course. But man, just like a child, wants to start immediately with the dessert. And if the woman will allows him to get it, he will lose appetite quickly.
My beloved is HR, and doesn't want to get married. Can I lead him to marriage by restraining from sex with him?	This is not a warranty of success. But your sexual self-restraint will help you to see the situation clearly - he will marry you, or he will leave you. And if he leaves you, you shouldn't regret too much about it, because in this case he would leave you anyway, just a little bit later. In any case, HR man is difficult to be bound even by marriage.
Can modern relations in developed countries be called matriarchate?	Yes, indeed, women in our society are surrounded by more care, support and love than men (though it may still seem insufficient to women). But it is not matriarchate, but an effect of the PFI - Principle of the Female Irreplaceability. A Martian, observing our society, could conclude about, for example, the power of the children. Indeed - they have certain privilegies, they are taken care of etc. There are even children who can twist adults around their little finger. But is it a reign of the children? The same with women. Despite of all manifestations of the PFI, we cannot consider that there is matriachate in our society. As much as patriarchate.
In your opinion, a woman wants only an HR man, or it is enough that his RP will be slightly higher than hers?	A woman usually doesn't want a LR man. Everything that higher than LR is possible. Besides, attractivity depends not discreetly, but smoothly on RP. The higher is the RP, the more attractive a man is, with all other conditions equal. But there are other tendencies that may influence this dependency. That's why insignificant differences in RP don't have to imply similar differences in attractivity.
It happens that a man that achieved nothing, is dressed modestly, pliable, and nevertheless is successful with women. Why?	It happens, but very seldom. There is some self-confident note, inner confidence in their attractivity, self-perception as a gift for womankind in behaviour of such men (usually only with women). Here the main sign of visual RP - high self-esteem - works. That is, VISUAL RP of such a man in this context is very high. In other words, such a man LOOKS LIKE HR. But in most cases, after careful observaton it becomes clear that the RP of this man is very high, but very mosaic-like, and also opressed by upbringing and education.
Are kisses indeed exaggerated instinct of feeding, if there are some tribes who don't practice them? Perhaps it is merely a tradition?	The instinctivity of kisses is explained by the fact that kisses are practiced by most mankind, and many species of the apes. And the Indians, who usually don't practice kisses, do it with pleasure, when they get rid of blocking effect of their culture. Yes, particular culture can have very exotic phenomena that contradict the instincts. Polyandry, for example, that occured sometimes in the past, contradicts the very foundations of sexual reproduction, but it still did take place. But can this be considered as proof against instinctive roots of polygamy? No, because it isn't a common tendency. Through out of rational point of view, polyandry is not worse than polygamy, and in several aspects even better. But nevertheless it disappeared by itself.
Why do young girls fall in love with elder men so often?	Because of a tremendous difference between visual RPs. Even the most LR elder man surely has more life experience than a young girl. And this is perceived as a high rank. Besides, in most cases of such affairs the man is a teacher or a boss of the girl, which increases the effect even more.
What is the reason of such a strong love of women to virtual romances?	As we know, the main goal of woman's sexual search is maximization of the number of admirers. Admirers, but not sexual partners. The more admirers a woman has, the more her instinct of being demanded is satisfied. A virtual romance gives a very convenient possibility to reach this goal: there are no obligations, everything is under control, and a man is present. Perhaps even more than one. Of course, the instinct requires sex, too, but if there are any admirers, sexual contact depends only on the woman's will - that's why there is no need to be in a hurry about it. Virtual romances don't help too much in creating a family, they only satisfy the instinctive need of collecting admirers. And a modern family, as it was mentioned many times before, is not conditioned in our instincts.
Why do you consider women more primative, if in the average women are not more stupid?	Considering primativity as a sinonym for stupidity is an error. For what is primativity? The power of inborn patterns of behaviour, relatively to rational ones. Relatively! Does the instinct know what is the difference between natural logarythm and decimal one? No. Does it know what is interest rate? No. The instinct is silent in those cases. And if the instinct is silent at this very moment and in this particular case, even the most HP person acts rationally. But the instinct cannot be silent, when, for example, a potential sexual partner appears nearby! Or a person that demonstrates a very high rank. A conflict starts here. The person acts rationally or emotionally, depending on the strongest behaviour pattern with him/her. One lets the emotions rule himself not because he is stupid or illogical. Simply the instinct is strong enough. Important: one should not identify primativity as temper. A choleric subject can be highly emotional, and meanwhile can have very strong rational patterns of behaviour. Such person can express his emotions very boisterously in secondary matters, but still make vital decisions rationally. The primativity of such a person is not high, because the instinctive patterns with him/her are not strong relatively to rational ones. So, primativity can be combined with absolutely sane and logical mind.
You tell about female solidarity that is stronger than male one. What about female squabble-making?	Solidarity is displayed in front of an external enemy. When such an enemy appears, all squabbles are forgotten, and a united fight begins. When there is no external enemy, internal squabbles begin. Men are more "each man for himself" in all situations.
Do female insight and intuition not contradict female egocentrism that you are writing about?	Well, yes, it is typical of an egocentric to be inattentive to the inner world of other people, which, of course, contradicts the definition of insight. However, female insight and intuition are mostly a myth based on their greater primativity, so they can predict better instinctive behaviour (for example, they can recognise non-verbal signals better, because they are instinctive signs). So when woman's prediction that contradicts any logic and common sense (but as much correct and regular in terms of instincts), comes true, it becomes very notable and is remembered well. However, women can understand behaviour of LP people much worse, because their behaviour can deviate strongly from the instinctive standards. By the way women understand other women best of all. So if various signals emanating from the outer world do not resonate with any instinctive patterns, they can remain unnoticed, even if they are vital. In other words, "woman's insight" is the ability to predict standard instinctive behaviour that can even be illogical, so its prediction can look like a miracle. But it can be incorrect as often, when applied to an LP person.
Oh my god, how should I bring my daughter up? LR men are sickingly repulsive and HR are obviously beasts. Seems like it is time for a monastery...	Well, it is not so tragic. Because there are MR and LP men besides the LR and HR, so there are compromises. Besides RP is quite a multicomponent measure, and the same rank potential can be achieved as an aggregation of many very different qualities (perhaps except of self-confidence, without which an RP however high is hardly reachable), so it seems quite possible to find an acceptable solution. But with decent HR men the problem is too high competition for them. It is important to approach the choice consciously at a young age. "Consciously" does not mean only rationally. It would be hardly possible for anyone to go against one's heart. If tremendous fire of love burns inside of a girl heart, then no rational arguments, whoever gives the arguments and in whatever form, will be accepted, that's for sure. But there is a massive amount of marginal cases when desire is not so strong, or has not developed yet, or when the real qualities of the man are so disguisting (idespite of his instinctive attractiveness) that it can be enough to expose a little more evidence for the girl to be distracted from an inevitable crash. In all such cases knowing ethology of marital relationships can be just such a little evidence. Ethological preparation of your daughter before her sex life starts must explain that the heart's choice is not always errorproof from the point of view of longterm relationships; it also must explain the criteria that the heart uses for choice of one man or another. This should make the resultant choice more conscious.
What are the most important instincts of the human?	Strictly speaking, the area of instinctive motivation is fairly smooth, and the margins between them are quite artificial and have been introduced for easier explanation. In fact all the instincts described below, are linked. There are many instincts so I will just name a few most significant and not-so-well known among non-specialists. Such well-known instincts as "the instinct of self-preservation" or such low-valued instincts as "the instinct of collecting", will be omitted here. So: Hierarchical instincts These instincts are of the most significant (and not sexual, to the contrary to Freud's). They can be observed during our lifetime. They can be observed in all kinds of relations with those in power, in populational conflicts, in religious relations, in teacher-student relations, the advertisement also widely use these instincts. Instinct of ethological isolation of species (instinct "love your neigbour, hate an alien") It can be observed in cross-populational relations, especially in religious and ethnical conflicts, partially in marital relations. Racism, nationalism, national chauvinism, nepotism - all of them are its display. Besides, its work can be seen in enmity to monkeys and, correspondingly, to the idea of evolving from them. However this instinct appear one of the realizators of gregarious selection, thus it oblique serves for steady ratio of HR and LR in group. Sexual instincts We see sexual instincts not so much as reflexes, such as coitus, but the motivational complex that helps to choose a partner. The sexual instincts comprise also such instincts that help choose the most genetically prospective partner avoid sex among the kin ("sexual curiosity") choose the partner (for women) that would be a source of resources for upbringing children sexually expand (for men) Territorial instincts They can be observed from harmless desire to put a fence to fierce international wars. The instinct of the limitation of species population The very instinct that T.R.Maltus did not know of. It blocks and disturbs the effect of marital and parental instincts. It can be observed as decrease of interest to full family life, diminishing of interest in raising children, perversion of parental feelings. It activates in replete and safe life when the population density is high and the child death rate is low. It is observed in many reptiles and higher species.
Can rational thinking be based on emotions?	It isn't based on the emotions - it produces them. It is instinctive behaviour that is based on the emotions. When we perform rationally-based actions, we feel emotions too, because a general motivational mechanism is involved here. For example, feeling of joy because of a scientific discovery is an emotion, too. But it is important to recognize that both the instincts and the reason have thir own channels of communication with those emotional-motivational centers, and with instinctive mechanisms those channels are shorter and more mighty, and the instinctively-based emotions are more often stronger. The difference lies also in the fact that an instinctively-based emotion appears BEFORE its explanation (or justification), and the rationally-based one appears AFTER that. Not to speak that a logical explanation to an instinctively-based emotion is sometimes very hard to find.
I know a few girls for whom man's intelligence is a turn-on. Isn't intelligence important for the instincts?	Intelligence is a turn-on (not for everyone!) only if combined with other qualities. An intelligent HR male is more attractive than a non-intelligent HR male, with the same rank potential. This is right, and this was the very cause for selection by intelligence criterion among our ancient progenitors. At the same time, LR intellectuals are, in general, less attractive than HR ignorants.
Why do we women like tender men? And is it right, that men with feminine faces are chosen forlong-term relationships, while men with manly faces are chosen for casual sex?	Tender men are good as admirers, and they are liked as such. But they don't get much sex. Of course, except of cases when tenderness is combined with HR signs, such as self-confidence. Concerning preferences for long-term relationships, those observations, which are true, are just falsely interpreted. Feminine (most likely - LR) men are forced to gain their own way for longer time, and, as they are hungry for female attention, they are forced to pay for it by long-term relationships. With manly (most often - HR) men it is more difficult to establish long-term relationships - they don't want it, because they have large selection of women. Through women themselves, in general, would prefer the manly ones for all sorts of relationships.
Some researches claim that rich men like slim women more, and poor men like plump ones more. How is it explained by ethology?	Usually such dependency is explained by instinctive confidence, that a plump woman is more easy to be fed. It is doubtful by itself, besides, in a similar way one can claim that the rich like Cadillac, and the poor don't like Cadillac - they like Skoda. Funny? The abovementioned observation resembles this. Rich men, having larger selection of women, take the most attractive and slim ones, and poor men are forced to be content with fat and unattractive ones.
I understand who are HR males, but why are they preferred for copulation?	Because rank potential is a general expression of health, energy and genetic prospects of a given male. Instead of analyzing the numerous separate advantages and disadvantages of a given male, it is much easier to look at his rank in the hierarchy. Weak and sickly male hardly can reach the top of the hierarchy. Besides, RP enables to employ not only the opinion of a given female, but also the opinion of other members of the group while evaluating the prospects of a given male. HR species is one whose high rank is recognized by all or almost all members of the group. Observing this recognition and relying on it, the female concludes about good prospects of such male.
Why do you assume that pop-stars are HR? They don't necessarily have high conflictability and self-confidence.	RP of a pop-star is more visual than real. That is, they look like HR, because they are surrounded by crowd of admirers, and in this way they create quasi-hierarchy, where a pop-star occupies the highest position. And the rest can rely on the opinion of those admirers without criticizing, and thus recognize the pop-star as HR, too.
What is the essence of your work? Please, give its short description and your definition of love. In the Treatise it is too long...	An ethological definition of love is banal and known for long. It is an emotion that appears with sufficient match of a candidate to person's search criteria. Here there is nothing new. New is the offered analysis of the system of those search criteria, and analisys of effectivity of mechanisms that perform it. According to this analisys, the main criteria are the instinctive, inborn images (and that's why they are not too much different with different people), that reflect mainly the physiological and psychophysiological health of a candidate for mating. But highly important qualities for modern family and society, such as tolerancy, altruism, intelligence, and so on, out of instinctive position are of minor importance or even undesired. Besides, mechanisms that perform the search are unable to perform any complicated analisys of all variety of the candidate's qualities; comparison with a pattern is, actually, all that is done. Any shining object can be perceived as golden. And the most simple and obvious signal features, such as physical perfection, RP, signs of sexually replete behaviour for men, and potential accessibility for women, are preferred. And, very important: the lymbic system and the hypothalamus (the main realizators of instinctive behaviour) are not bothered by explanation - why and what for. Just a strong emotion to particular candidate is formed, causes of which are not realized by reason. And then the reason is left nothing but to exaggerate or to invent logically significant qualities of a chosen person.
How does female's RP influence her success in love?	The influence of female's RP on her success is contradictory and differently oriented, that's why it is impossible to speak about their single-meaning bound. Of one side, high RP of a woman, indirectly indicating her physical health, attracts men. Indeed, men fall in love with HR women more often. But, of another side, HR women are much less accessive (at least visually), and this frightens and disappoints men - an infatuation with a HR woman often and quickly ends up with nothing, sometimes even without showing itself in any way. But HR men, that are fed up with success with LR women, are, on the contrary, challenged by her inaccessibility. But this challenge is usually very dangerous for the woman, because such a man pursuits more "sportive" goals; it is the victory in this battle as such that is important for him; there is no sense to speak about long-term relationships in this case. In general and in the average we can speak about insignificant influence of female's RP on her success with men.
Is anti-social behavious indeed a sign of a high RP, if most anti-social people are losers and outcasts?	First of all, we must distinguish two types of antisociality - passive (such as with homelesses) and active (such as with hooligans). In the first case we see overall low-rankedness with all its manifestations. But you must have meant active anti-sociality, and this is what we'll duscuss below. Indeed, antisociality (even the active one) is associated in our society with being "loser" and outcast. But this proves that our society (thank God!) differs quite strongly from primeval herd. In a herd such an antisocial person would be at least a subdominant, that is, would occupy at least the second stage in the hierarchy. To visualize this, imagine such a person in a prison, for example. Such person would occupy one of the leading places there, or would be forced to give away his antisociality. Also he can be easily imagined as school hooligan and a bad student, that is estimated very lowly by the teachers and has low prospects of social growth because of his bad success in studies, but is an authority among the students and dominates them. Besides, I must mention that RP is not a single quality, but is a mosaic of quite independent specific qualities of a given person. In other words, antisociality (tendency to hierarchic fight as such) can be not combined with other components of a RP (such as will to be a real leader in the group), and, as a result, such person occupies a very low social position, that is even lower because this person prevents himself from occupying a higher social position by his anti-sociality. But meanwhile anti-sociality is still one of the most clearly seen signs of a high RP, and this sign provokes a strong response in corresponding instinctive patterns of behaviour. That's why such a person attracts attention of the opposite sex, and, if it is a man, his anti-sociality raises his chances to success in love and sex. This is what we observe sometimes in cases of quasi-paradoxal love of women towards "losers". Relating to anti-social women this dependency is less clear (see previous question).
Why is mutual love so rarely found?	Short-term mutual love is not that rarely found, but long-term mutual love is, actually, not found at all. Many thinkers and writers marked this long ago. You have certainly heard sayings such as "In a pair, there is only one that loves; the other one just allows to love". And though there is a certain exaggeration, as in every literary work, and no attempt of explanation is made, but the essence is marked correctly. The reason of lost of interest towards a man in love lies in so-called "inversion of domination". But I, personally, consider this an incorrect term. The more correct term is "reduction of domination", because in an inversion makes a HR become LR and a LR become HR, which is far from happen. In fact, the rank of a man in love is just strongly lowered relatively to his beloved one, usually (but not always) to level lower than this of her. "Craziness" about a particular woman is perceived by her as a strong "hunger" for female attention, and, as a result, this man becomes instinctively unattractive, and mutuality, even if there was one, disappears quickly. Mutuality of a man towards a woman in love disappears as a result of an instinct of sexual expansion, that implies reduction of interest towards a woman totally in control (as a woman in love usually is). Lowering of the woman's rank also can take an effect here, though here it is a secondary factor. Of course, with fully mutual love the RPs of the lovers can be balanced, but this balance is very unstable - any change in it grows quickly, to the extent of loss of feeling by one of the sides. But happy marriage without full mutuality can be found, which is proved by the experience of mankind. On the contrary, constant search for mutual love, just like chasing one's own shadow, can bring great disappointments and even disasters.
Why do you assume that it is the woman who chooses? With animals, the sex that is more vividly decorated is chosen, and with humans women are more vividly decorated. How, in your opinion, the choice is made?	Even with species in which the female seems totally oppressed, the last word is always said by her, it is just made indirectly and in disguise. Relating to humans, here the choice is made in two, and more precisely even in three steps: First, indtroducing step: the woman demonstrates her general readyness for contact. This demonstration includes widely spread signals, such as sexy appearance and clothing, free behaviour, and signals directed to a particular man, such as glances, smiles, conversations, asking to do something. Second step. I stress that without a signal received from the woman at the first step the man doesn't start to court her! There must be at least a hint for favour. And the lower is the RP of the man, the more clear and personified must this signal be. A LR doesn't understand too gentle hints (or doesn't have the courage to understand them). A HR man can be "turned on" by widely spread signals, or from signals that are not directed towards him at all (that is, such an effect can be false, as any instinctive action). And after receiving those signals, the man, IF HE AGREES, starts the courtship-ritual, that shows his interest in particular woman, and that he has "chosen her". This "IF HE AGREES" is all male role in courtship process, this is what all female efforts on raising her attractivity are directed to, this is what all women's emotions are all about. The details and the length of this ritual are very variable even within a single culture, but there are many common points, because this ritual is directed to checking the man's RP, that includes having sufficient resources, being satisfied enough with other women, self-esteem, and ability to get one's own. Then women often make provocations, asking for self-humiliation and obedience from the man (I stress that we speak about instinctive, that is, unconscious actions), but woe to the man that yields to such provocations! Third step. Estimating the behaviour of the man on the second step, the woman makes the final choice. Sometimes the choice in this step seems automatic; for example, the woman cannot avoid from choosing a man that behaves like a winner. This very automatism sometimes makes an illusion, that it is the man who chooses. But if the man's behaviour on the second step was insinctively unattractive, there is no such automatism - this man will be, in most cases, refused, sometimes despite to all rational arguments. Or he will be added to the collection. So, the woman in all stages is far from being a passive observer, just waiting to be chosen and only agreeing with this choice. All the difference from species where the female chooses directly lies in "freedom" of men on the second step - with most species it does not even occur to the male to refuse, when a female chooses him.
Why with many people getting married becomes so hard as they grow older?	Indeed, people who get married most easily are young - 17 to 22-25 years old, approximately. So easily that it often looks like (and sometimes is!) lightheadedness and irresponsibility. This relates to repeated marriages, too. After 30, even with people in good physical shape, marriages are not made as easily, even despite of more clearly realized need for a family. Usually this is explained by lowered physical attractivity and accumulation of negative experience, but those are far from main reasons. The main reasons are two: Programmedness of an age. Lifecycle of any creature assumes different behaviour on different stages of life. In childhood we are programmed for learning and self-improvement, in youth (17-25) - for making a family of any kind (let's call it a pair here), at 25-40 - for education of our own children, in more advanced age - for education of grandchildren, and closer to old age we feel need to pass our life-experience to young people. And if, because of any reason, we made no pair on time specified by our life-program, the older we get, the more probably we will never make it. While having no mood for making a pair, not so young people become selective, look for quasi-objective reasons, to which they would not pay attention earlier. So the common advice not to be in a hurry with marriage can make a bad service. It is more preferable to advise young people to choose their life-partner more reasonably, but not to lengthen this process. Selection by time. While entering sexually-mature age, people don't have the same ability of making a pair. Let's call this quality "mating affinity", by analogy to a chemical term. We won't observe here the reasons and components of this mating affinity, because it is beyond the current question. No wonder that pairs are most quickly made by young people with high mating affinity, and so already while young they are bound in a pair. Finally, closer to age of 30 most free people are those who initially were not very much able to make a pair, and now mating with other person with similarly low affinity is even more problematic. Such people can be advised to pay attention to people younger than they are, that can have high mating affinity, and whose phase of a life program makes them more likely to make a pair. But this can be done only by people in good physical shape, mostly men, whose mating attractivity doesn't decline til a certain age.
I believe that there is "my own half" somewhere, but how can I find it?	Don't believe this. The conception of "two halves", assuming presence of one single person that is suitable to another single person is a poetical myth, and nothing more. In mating search people don't look for "their own half", but for THE BEST candidate for mating. Of course, criteria of "better-worse" are different with different people, but not enough to speak about equal demand for any partner. There are some candidates who are acknowledged as best (or very good) by almost everyone, others are not acknowledged as such by almost anyone. So, disproportions, when one has everything, and other has nothing, are inevitable. But this is the very meaning of sexual reproduction, this is the way sexual natural choice is done. Those dispropotrions are particularly strong with men, so many other women can consider "your own half" as theirs, and you will have to compete with them.
What can you say of the popular claim about love of men towards bitches, and of women towards scoundrels?	First af all, let's define what we mean while speaking of a "bitch" and a "scoundrel", because the common meaning of those wards is too ambiguous. It is clear that those types are obviously HR people, clearly egoistic, and obviously anti-social, and this anti-sociality may even take a criminal form. In other words, such people are attractive because of their high rank. For men it is already enough to be highly successful. But, as we have already seen, the high rank of a woman is not necessary followed by success with men. To be really successful, such a HR woman must display signs of high sexual availability, at least illusory. Often it is expressed in lack of confusion when discussing issues that concern sex, in demonstration of high interest in sexual aspects of life. It is obvious that, being highly successful with the opposite (complemental) sex, such people gain large experience in those issues very quickly, which enhances their success even more. As a result of this success, often an ability not to fall in love with the partner they are interested in is developed, which enables them to control the situation as long as possible, since, as we know, mutual love cannot last for long. Of one side, this cold and often malefactory prudence is one of the reasons why those people are described as "bitches" and "scoundrels". Of another side, it is important to stress that "bitches" and "scoundrels" are only a subset of sexually and romantically attractive men and women, because high rank and other factors of attractivity can be expressed also in less disgusting forms.
What do you think about the fact that all world-spread religions require a limitation of our sex-life in a marriage so persistently?	Besides of economical reasons, which are not quite relevant in our days, and besides of limitation of passions and aggression out of sexual reasons, there is yet another reason why our society still has to be interested in such limitation. This is a need for a positive direction in sexual selection. It is obvious that even the most light-headed person chooses his/her partner more sensibly before getting married than before entering a light relation without intention of marriage. It is even more correct with responsible and thinking people. In other words, the criteria of choosing a parent for one's children substantially differs in the first and the second case, and, therefore, the direction of sexual selection of the mankind as a species - too. As we have already stressed many times, the choice that is important for positive direction of social evolution is a rational one, that implies a selection according to the criteria of humanism, altruism, intelligence, tolerancy, being hard-working and similar qualities; an emotional choice may throw us away back into the primeval order of things, because the instinctive criteria remain far behind the social evolution. I suppose that during the prehistorical and historical social evolution the most intelligent people guessed the undesirability of spontaneous choice of sexual partners, because such choice could lead to social degradation. But til now nobody could show any convincing rational arguments for this. All arguments in favour of limitation of one's sexual life in a marriage were about the advantage of chastity in God's eyes. Due to relatively recent time it was enough - the hierarchical authority of God and the influence of religion on culture were very strong, and no further explanations were required. But in our time, the completely justified worry of God-servers about the current sexual freedom finds no more understanding, for they still have no rational arguments. Besides, the system of limitations offered is far from optimal (as a result of its empricity and lack of a scientific basis) - some of those limitations are obviously wrong or excessive, which declines the attractivity of this system even more. But a need in any regulation (or self-regulation) still exists, and, since the past influence of religion on everyday life cannot be restored, other ways of convincing need to be found.
Didn't you invent it all just to justify male infidelity?	Ethologists are often blamed for justifying many instinctive elements of human behavior. In particular, for long time ethologists were blamed for justifying racism because they explained racial hostility by an effect of the instinct of ethological isolation of species. But the truth is that no ethologist has ever meant this. Explanation and justification are absolutely not the same! Nobody suspects a police investigator that he sympathizes the criminal because of his explanation of the criminal's motivation. It seems that it is an effect of an old and false stereotype in people's minds: "whatever is natural, cannot be ugly". Many so-called "natural" elements of behavior are not only "ugly", but absolutely unacceptable from the civilized point of view. For example, an urge to humiliate one's neighbor is a very natural human need, that results from the logic of the hierarchical struggle, but being natural does not make such behavior less ugly. Ethologists know that better than anybody else, but it does not result in justification is justified and accepted by them. On the contrary, while uncovering the roots of this need, ethologists show the most effective ways of blocking it. Everything said above can be fully applied also to the explanation of male infidelity by the instinct of sexual expansion.
Why do you tie love with physiology so persistently? I believe that love is a FEELING. Hormons and instincts have nothing to do with it. Nobody thinks about them when falling in love.	Well, nobody argues about the fact that love is a FEELING. Of course, it is! A feeling that can be extremly strong and overwhelming, etc, etc. The point is that we are interested in its causes. Pay attention that I agree that in fact no one thinks about hormons and instincts when falling in love. But does one have to think about ovulation to become pregnant? Some women probably don't even know such a word, but this is not a reason for her not to ovulate, as well as not increasing her tendency to fall in love during those 2 or 3 days in a month. Not knowing the laws of nature does not weaken their effect. However the root of our disagreement is much more deeper than those simple arguments, and, mind you, goes to no less than the main question in philosophy - the question about idealism and materialism. I don't argue with the idealistic point of view on the subject (let's leave it to philosophers), I only want to emphasize its conceptual incompatibility with the materialistic point of view. Either we suppose the primarity of the soul, idea and feeling, and the material world being derived from our feelings; or, on the contrary, we suppose that the feelings should be just a projection of the material world. Following Kant, we could certainly suggest (a priori) that love is something incomprehensible in principle, in a way similar to incompregensibility of God's ways, and the very intention to undestand them is itself blasphemy and herecy; nonetheless it is still possible to look for materialistic background for appearance and development of this feeling. In the first case we would marvel the faces and images of love, the versatility and brightness of the feelings, the wonderful twists of fate, but the very appearance of it we would consider something subnatural, and, generally speaking, not interesting. In the second case we would boringly dig the organical and psychological causes for the feeling - the required hormonal state of the body, existence of a potential partner that corresponds to some or other criteria, the degree of influence of upbringing and traditions, the conditions triggering biochemical processes that actually make a person feel enamoured. Your deep disgust to go through such ordeal of is just an example of the abovementioned incompatibility of the two points of view, so it would be rather useless trying to convince you that scientific research on love is necessary and important. In this case, the advice I would probably give to you is that you should avoid any scientific articles about love. Especially before dinner...
What is the difference between love and infatuation, in your opinion?	In fact, I don't see any difference. Yes, there is a widely accepted belief that love is something beautiful, heavenly and "righteously-real", but infatuation is something like a cheap substitute of the "right" love. But no one can tell clearly what is the difference between the "the real thing" and the substitute. Perhaps with the only exception to one characteristic that can be seen in the phrase "A mutiny is bound to fail - otherwise it would be called differently". Love and infatuation are two names for the same phenomenon. The seeming discrepancy between them is introduced there quite artificially to compromise with heavenly-romantic feelings, which usually are felt by a person at the highest stage of love, on one hand, and the sorrow, dirt and even tragedies which often follow the relationships between men and women on the other hand. If the relationship succeeds, it is called love; if not, it is called infatuation. That's very handy. But in fact it is just fitting the answer to the expectations.
It is known that the rank of a woman in social hierarchy is usually a reflection of her husband's rank. Maybe women's desire to marry a HR man is just a desire to raise their own rank?	Yes, such phenomenon exists, but I don't think that the factor of attributing the husband's rank also to his wife has major importance. Besides, we explore only the instinctive components of sexual behaviour, and marriage is mainly a rational process, and here the non-ethological (mainly mercantile) considerations play a significant role. I don't think that this process is determined entirely by the instincts, contrary to love as such, where instinctive factors undoubtfully are the main ones. Marriage without love, just out of rational considerations, is not rare at all, and rational considerations may include raising the woman's social status. Besides, the correlation between the instinctive and the social statuses is not so strong. High-rankedness, in the paradigm of the Treatise, is mainly self-esteem. This self-esteem is totally independent on other traits of character and intelligence of the individual. Social success is a consequence of absolutely different set of characteristics, which includes the self-esteem as a minor factor. As a result - a very self-confident captain Rzhevsky is very successful with ladies, despite of being socially nothing, or almost nothing, and the super-rich Bill Gates married a quite plain woman just recently. Does Bill Gates resemble a macho? This is the point... Lady Diana, as we know, preferred, too, a man with a much lower social status than this of her husband Charles, a future king. Besides, a liaison of a woman with a HR man is often secret, and does not imply publicity or lasting for long. For example, such are obviously casual liaisons. For such liaison machos, self-confident men, who are undoubtfully HR in primåval ethological coordinates, are definitely preferred (even more definitely than for more serious relationships) without any consideration of their real social status. This means that male high-rankedness is estimated here as a sign of a source of good genes for the next generation, but not as means of raising woman's own rank.
Why do bachelors live less than married men?	First, not every bachelor lives less than an average married man. It is not common with HR bachelors that have no problems with women, and that is why explaining this phenomenon by a more frugal way of life of married men is not correct. By the way, pay attention to the fact that a similar tendency among old maids is very weak, and almost doesn't exceed the limits of statistical error range. So, lower length of life is observed only with LR old bachelors. The main reasons of this phenomenon are three: In general and average, a weaker natural health, which may be one of the reasons (though not the main reason) of their lower attractivity for women. More often happening stresses and depression attacks, which increase as they grow older, that result from their unsuccess with women (see "What are the reasons for suffering of lonely people?"), that provoke appearing and increasing of somatic diseases. More often happening suicides (again - as a result of unsuccess with women, stresses and depression attacks), which add to the statistics together with cases of natural death.
What is the difference in the meaning of the term "unconscious" with psychology and ethology?	As it was said before, psychology deals mainly with behavior resulting from learning. That's why psychologists tend to explain all irrational acts of behavior by traces of events and influences that took place in the past of a given person, mainly in childhood. That is, psychologists see the root of the unconscious in ontogenesis (individual development) of a patient, and the influence of the instincts is underestimated, even if not denied entirely. Ethologists suppose that most irrational behavior is rooted in the philogenesis (development of all mankind as a species), which results in the instincts and the imprints of a given person, though they don't deny the influence of the environment and education on characteristic behavior reactions.
It is known that in order to succeed, one should, first of all, believe in success. But your work just makes me upset. Can it indeed help those who need help??	A female logic(*) is an unconscious belief that reality may be overcome by will only. (Alexei Kruglov). An ennobling lie is dearer to us than gloom of despicable truths. (Alexander Pushkin) One cannot exploit the placebo effect forever. It is not almighty at all. The most important thing for success is mastering the relied information, and its adequate and realistic evaluation, and sufficient qualification in the relied realm. The confidence in future success is useful only in case when combined with such qualification, or results in its growth. Without this, we are bound to fail time after time. It is well said that there is no fool worse than an active one... But, this point of view is very wide spread, and this needs analysis and explanation. To start with, let's mention that this point of view is expressed already for thousands of years, which doesn't prevent each of its messengers to consider oneself as its discoverer. This because such claims are based on primative sub-consciousness, which is initially present with any of us. This very sub-consciousness feeds all manifestations of idealistic philosophy and psychology, that consider the consciousness, the spirit, the will (and even the love!) as primary entities, that have a real power and even can exist independently. This is also one of the origins of religiousness and superstitiousness; this is why such claims are often made in mysterious or mystical form. The viability of such notions is explained also by the selectivity of human mind, which remembers the positive events longer, and tends to rationalizations. If a success is achieved, it is ascribed to the abovementioned confidence; if not - it is forgotten quite fast. Meanwhile, an effect caused by such confidence in success does exist, it is not negligible, and that is why it is worth some more detalization. From all the diversity of life situations we'll focus on cases of success of enterprises which are bound with opposition to other people. In this case, a positive effect from the confidence in future success is achieved as a result of raise in one's RP, which, as we know, consists mainly of self-confidence. The higher the RP of a given person is, the more often do others obey him and yield to his power, and this is precisely what is needed for success of such enterprises. Another important remark: although the importance of such self-convincing is entirely minor, it should be advertised as ABSOLUTELY effective! Of course, it is a lie, but otherwise it is impossible to achieve even the auxiliary effect that indeed can exist. The laws of the genre imply lack of condescension to despicable details. Just believe! - and everything will come... But the absolutization of the effect of self-convincing is not so harmless, as it may result in dangerous overestimation of one's power, to the degree of ignoring other means of achieving the goal. For example, when a person that has an infection starts to pray devotedly for getting well, but is not interested in proper medications. Same is with solution of problems in relations with other sex. Confidence in future success is very useful, but knowledge of the mechanisms of those relations is at least not less useful. (*) Actually, Alexei Kruglov speaks about the primative logic - the logic of the instincts.
What about yourself - do you believe in love?	It depends on what you mean by the word "love". If you mean a specific state of a human, of course I believe that is exists, and I am familiar with it. But I don't believe that "love is always right", and this is what the Treatise is all about. But the very wording of your question makes me suppose that you mean something else. Perhaps you grasp love (maybe even without being aware to it) as a fleshless, but yet independent entity, something like a wandering soul, a poetic muse, or the Holy Spirit. That is, for you "love" is not a name of a psychological condition of a human, but some independent and almost living creature, that may come and go away, obeying its own motivations. I agree that with such grasping of love, any talk about hormones and nerve impulses sounds totally unrelated to the subject. This is the "love" I don't believe in, because I support the materialistic approach. See also my answer to the question "Why do you confuse love with physiology?"
How is cowardice related to High Rank of individuals, as you say, with their learship qualities, which imply even self-sacrifice?	Not every HR is a coward. RP is a rather mosaic phenomenon consisting of many relatively independent qualities, which can be divided approximately as the WISH to dominate (hierarchical ambitions) and the ABILITIES to dominate (leadership qualities). Fearlessness (as anti-cowardice), which is of interest to us, is a quality from the ABILITIES to dominate. The latter is biochemically determined by high levels of noradrenaline hormone, which sometimes is called a hormone of fearlessness and sloppiness. A HR individual that has the first (ambitions), but does not have enough of the second (abilities) - is a tyrant, or a candidate to become one. Otherwise he is a real leader, or at least a candidate to become one. Similarly, low Rank Potential can be equally likely a result of not willing to dominate, and inability for that, in various combinations. Of course, in practice most subjects combine both of these qualities at that or other ratio. The overall quality of all High Ranked individuals is high self-esteem, and, as a result, perception of their own lives as something extremely important. It is this quality that is principal to our question. As we have seen above, the ability to feel fear, anxiety, is in general lower for HR than LR people, which causes HRs to start dangerous enterprises, especially if the success is seen somewhat real. Of course, the chances to succeed in practically any conflict in a group, in which this HR is at the top, are rather high, so the HR will go for it rather easily. However, if the chances are rather slim (fire, flood, attack of an obviously stronger enemy), then HR is busy with saving his life feeling not much regret about this. Is this cowardice? No, it is rather extreme care for himself, because there can be no special fear at all. Also, this is not exactly egoism, rather it is a strong craving for life. On the other hand, it is because of lack of paralysing fear (mind you, this is true not for all HR) that HRs retain their ability to make justified and thoughtful decisions many of which can also be intended to save the group. Such decisions are just possible! Indeed, this possibility is not always realised and depends on the chances of his personal survival and other individual qualities of the human. In fact, these qualities almost contradict each other. On one hand the life is extremely valuable (in addition, tyrants feel fear); on the other hand there are certain bonuses for heroism (which HR almost always connect with "staging") and civilised feeling of responsibility. The behaviour of LR individuals is significantly different in such situations. Self-esteem of their own lives is significantly lower, therefore they can almost without hesitation let a place in a lifeboat, understanding what such deed may cause to their own lives. Fear? It is quite possible, but is not necessary. Because LRs can also be very different. Even if their choice is made because of fear of a hierarchical conflict possible in current conditions, fear being so strong that it overwhelms the fear of death, there is not much difference. If it is the real altruism or not, is a question of abstract phylosophy; however, an individual sacrifices his life for the sake of others. Even if he is afraid of his own shadow. See also the question "Does a LR altruism really exist?....."
Is it really true that, as you say, LR are more intelligent than HR?	I did not assert that so strongly. Especially because the term "intelligence" is not concrete enough. If the degree of intelligence was to be compared with the "Intelligence Quotient" (IQ) which is determined by the famous Isenk test, then you will get quite the opposite picture - LR will demonstrate generally lower (but quite normal) IQ, than HR. But this is not because of lower intelligence, but because of its significantly different structure. Because IQ test determines not the ability to make a decision, but the speed of making such decisions (the ability to quickly solve simple problems), and the speed of making decisions in general is higher for HR. The slower intellect of LR is, however, able to penetrate the problem deeper, and (given the conditions of intellectual development were normal) is therefore able to solve more complicated problems, but slower. Also we should not forget about low visual RP. Civilised politely altruistic behaviour, which can be a result of simply good upbringing and education (and such people are usually intelligent), is PERCEIVED by surrounding HP citizens as low ranked, even though the actual RP of the individual can be quite high.
What do you think about classification of love by Aristotle?	If you mean the classification by kinds of Agape, Ludus, Eros, Mania, Stroge and Pragma then I think this classification can only be perceived as artistic representation that pays unreasonably much attention to the secondary particularities. Any way, this classification lies in the plane that does not intersect with the natural-science paradigm and there is no discernible ethological correlations. I cannot comment on such classifications.
Is there ethological ground of the theory of ethnogenesis by L.N.Gumilev?	I am not a follower of the Passionate Theory of Ethnogenesis that has been created by L.N.Gumilev, but I like his approach to the problem, his way of thinking and he himself. In fact, ethological roots can be traced in the phenomena described there, but Passionarity cannot be equalised with the rank potential, nor can it be related to primativity. No doubt that the so called "Passionaries" cannot be very high ranked, because they prefer to leave rather than fight for scarce resources (they refuse to fight); on the other hand, their rank potential must be high enough (at least locally, in a certain group), to lead a group of people with them. But the works of the migration instinct can be clearly seen in overcrowded areas. Also I would not like to give the mutations so significant role (literally - the key role). Mutations are still very obscure and need a lot of investigation yet.
You talked about jealousy above. Explain more, that the difference between reaction to unfaithfulness from HR to LR man.	Talking about instinctively-caused actions only, we can assert than any man in such situation wants to return his monopoly to possession of the woman. If not the one, then the other. But if we tell about legible expressed LR, that leaving to other woman for him is improbable, for she just not present as rule. Instead he begins to persuade and self-accuse, asking pardones, and so forth. That is, LR will aspire to return the woman by demonstration himself as good, kind and not terrible one. LR will leave his unfaithful woman ("to nobody and nowhere" as a rule) only if this unfaithfulness was expressed as particularly humiliating to him form, for example, after numerous pardons of former unfaithfulnesses. On the contrary HR by virtue he is being demanded high, has an capability to really leave this woman (for she has lost control), and come to another, where he would felt himself boundless master. And this occasion realizing quite often, for the fact of unfaithfulness is a convenient ground for leaving, and realization of the instinct of sexual expansion. However, as I told above, sensation of jealousy for HR men are similar to sensations of a defeat in a hierarchical duel, meanwhile the defeating for strongly expressed HR is extremely disliked! Therefore, before refusing this woman, HR would want TO WIN her! Until she will not be entirely in his authority - he will treat her, applying energy and push, which naturally inherent him. In this case his reaction would basically include aggression both to woman, and to competitors for her; less often - recurrence of the strengthened course of carings, with elements of aggression as well. And then, when relations looks settled - he just leave... The pure leaving "to another" on the fact of unitary unfaithfulness is possible for MR, there is demanded by women enough, but anxious hierarchically unsufficiently, for to attempt to take a revenge for a defeat in a hierarchical duel.
Explain more the concept "mosaic RP" is meaning.	I express gratitude to V.Skosar for participation in preparation of the answer to this question Resulting RP of the certain man is set of rather independent and various his properties, both inherent to his body, and his character. Between them either his physical power, growth, beauty; here also degree of him ambitions, conflictness, misgiveness, and much another. Let magnitude of each of these qualities conventionally designate by a certain number, then his RP is possible to represent as a vector in multivariate space, components of which there would be these numbers; the module of this vector also would be resulting RP. The magnitude of mosaicallity RP - is a degree of directions difference of each component of this vector. For example, the man can have a high level of misgiveness (LR attribute), but at that time he may be extremely arrogant (HR attribute). Then resulting RP of such man would be most likely average, and very much mosaic. Quite often (but not always) high mosaicallity RP evidences for "reeducation" of the man, when his natural RP was considerable corrected during development and education - you see the teacher (or environment) unable to affect to all the components RP, focusing voluntary or involuntary pedagogical efforts only on several of it. Here is important to note, that magnitude of everyone components of this vector is quite relative, and depends on sensitivity environmental people either to this or that property of a body and spirit of the given man. For example, some woman may be very sensitive to growth the man, and she would believe as HR almost everyone tall man, even from other attributes he looks rather LR; by other woman (which sensitive, for example, to anti-sociality) such man for HR would not recognize. And on the contrary, first woman would not be attracted perfectly to rowdy anti-social gay, who will throw into mystical tremor second woman. This sensitivity can vary from zero up to the certain maximum; it can not be with different people of opposite signs. For example, the large growth of man can be for one women very attractive, for others - is almost indifferent, but noone of them will consider (with other things being equal) undersized man more attractive, than tall. Furthermore, it is necessary not to overlook about signaturity of work instinctive analyzers, which easily able to accept for the expected characteristic only remote similar stuff. Besides the vector is characterized not only module, but also direction. In our case it means, that high or low ranking can be expressed in the diversified forms and spheres. One high-ranking will show mainly in property ambitions; others - in aspiration to authority; third will be anxious sexually much, and so forth. But with all forms of ranking demonstrate, the sexual appeal generally will raise following to growth RP.
Me and many of my girlfriends feel hostility to the aggressive men. Why? You see under your theory should be on the contrary!	All the men is swines. But who is not swine - he is boring. (From female blether). Women frequently talk about negative appeal of aggression for them, judging about unattractiveness HR men for them. Here is necessary to have in view the following: The aggression characterizes high ranking ambition (desire to dominate), but not necessarily high resulting rank, if it is combined with low ability to dominate. Thus, it is not the main attribute of high RP; moreover, some forms of aggression characterize rather LR, temporarily seized up authority. During nonsexual relations the aggression certainly frightens, both as instinctively, and as rational. Therefore during relations with such man this fear of aggression can overcome appeal subconscious image of vigorous and pushable HR. However if aggression of such man directed not to the woman, but to other men, it practically not frightens, and does not interfere with sexual approachement. Other matter, that sometime later she will fall to their lot, but the instinct is unable to think about such matters. I want to pay your attention to inadmissibility of trust to your self-reflection, i.e. to self-analysis on the basis of subjective sensations or ideas, and mentality - current representation about occurring. Your own conviction of unattractiveness aggressive men for you rather can be erroneous. For example you, rejecting openly militant aggressors, it is rather probable would reject absolutely peaceful pacifist as well, there will no some spicy bitter taste from the street hooligan in which character. Thus, to talk about absolute unattractiveness for you the aggressive men already is not correct.
Why the women so like sense of humour at the men?	So-called "sense of humour" is one of the important attributes of high-rankness. Arising out of rank relations by all animals is more or less ritualized. Between the humans this ritual as a rule begins from "verbal duel", when the initiator of rank duel in the quasi-fiction, "comic" form hints to the contender about the superiority, and accordingly - about him needless. Further, at canonical development of ritual follows the exchange of witticisms which can be over with a bloodless victory of the initiator, or, on the contrary, confirmation existing ranks of the parties. But if result of verbal duel does not satisfy one of the parties, ritual developing relations can proceed in physical (in the most various forms), but it already comes out of frameworks of our question. Thus is necessary to notice, that under common concept "sense of humour" really joined three much various parties of character. With one party is causticity, "witticism of tongue", readiness and skill to provocate verbal conflict, that, being a kind of conflicting initiativeness, of sure is attribute of high-rankingness. From other side an ability to make light of attempt to impose the conflict from the outside, to parry it; that is variant of conflicting stability, thus attribute high-rankingness as well. I shall remind by the way, that the conflicting initiativeness is not always combined with conflicting stability. The man can be witticism of tongue, but painfully and inadequately to react to jokes inverted to him. Well and with the third party - sense of humour, gaiety - characterize optimist, successful man, that too indirectly signs about his vital succes, and is visual attribute high rankingness.
I never can understand what a human instincts you talk about? Surely am I looks like the fly, which stupidly toss to glass?	It looks like the essence of your misunderstanding is on different sense (as scientific term - on semantics) of the word "instinct" accepted by you and us. Probably, in your understanding the instinct is up to diminished responsibility automatic action, which cannot be mastering and control somehow. Indeed, SUCH instincts in a humans practically are absent, however, a viewing of some women, with enviable persistence attacking the same raker in his relations with men, quite often causes the associations mentioned by you with the fly and glass... The academic definition of an instinct says: INSTINCT (from latin. instinctus - Inducing) - the not acquired, characteristic tendency for the given kind or predisposition to react the certain way, arising at certain incentive conditions and at the certain states of being.(*) I pay attention that the deal is in the tendency or predisposition, about norm of reaction, but not about any strictly fixed action, though in specific case (as with our fly) it is very possible. In other words, the arised instinct derivates not an act, but DESIRE to make it. However this desire may, and in many cases - SHOULD be parried by effort of Will. For example, you are hungry (is on the condition of necessity for food), running near a snackbar, smelling tasty smells (have arisen external incentive conditions). Then you feel DESIRE to change your route of movement to turn in snackbar and to satisfy your hunger. However you recollect, that are late for a train, and... continue your urgent movement aside station! If certainly your primativeness is not too high. Feeling instinctive requirement to make (or to not make) something, the person is able to act contrary to it. But will he want to make, whether can, even if will want is just detached question. This ability by ethology names as primativeness, and for the majority people serves one of parameters of culture of the given person. (*) This includes congenital predisposition easily perceive (in a course of education and training) behavioural and cognitive patterns of the certain sort, and weak perceiving patterns of other sort, though the specified frameworks perceived such behavioural reactions may be rather wide, that raises adaptibility to quick-changes conditions of an environment.
For what the monosex love is necessary for a nature? How it had arisen by evolution?	It is appropriately to question this subject more widely - why in a nature (not only between humans) such beyond doubt disadaptive attributes prevalenced so widely, especially - which obvious predisposed to be inherited? For example, for what to a nature the schizophrenia is necessary for? You see propensity to it, like as propensity to homosexuality, predisposed to be inherited as well (*)! Likely as homosexuality, it have ability to arise, apparently, on an empty place... For example, Nazis in due time have physically destroyed ALL insane persons in Germany, but after short time their number had completely restored. On the other hand - obviously inclination to altruism, which supporting by natural and sexual selection is not indisputable, and even it is negative, also has ability to revive from ashes... Probably the origin of occurrence similar deviations - is on specificity of mutation generations. There is a wide-spread opinion, that mutations arise under influence of injuring factors of an environment, such as ionize radiation, toxins, etc. However in experiments was never found out such mutations, which even is remote useful. Practically always they were certainly harmful, very much frequently - are incompatible with life, and extremely rare they with great reserve could be named as relative-neutral. And furthermore - such, relative-neutral (not be talking about presumably useful) mutations occur extremely seldom, with some powers less often, than necessary to explain observant speed of adaptation and speciation. It looks like that presumably useful mutations occur as result of activity of other mechanisms, rather than impact of injuring factors external environment. Perhaps it may be any special genetic mechanisms which purposefully generate non-optimality of a genotype (and therefore - a phenotype), Its work may be compared (in any sense) with curiosity of macroscopical animal. Curiosity is a rather risky business, and fraught with big costs, but at the same time - without of it progress is impossible. Because I'm not being geneticist, I can not tell in detail, that this mechanisms are; there may be something like wandering genes, crossing-over, symbiotic viruses or something like this, however there is a precise sensation, that besides his primary goal - as much as possible exactly replication of genome, genetic system (at least - during gametogenesis) stays in permanent curiousing search, which may be only chaotic in its position. And in the contrary to just injuring factors, these mechanisms, figuratively speaking, approximately imagine, that is requiring from it, therefore for all their randomness, they not generate absolutely stupidly - destuctive mutations. That is why such mutations though rarely, but nevertheless with real frequency appears useful. But on the other hand, such, how it is obvious - disadaptive, and hardly capable to be fixed in genome of populations a mutation, as homosexuality, occur with real frequency as well. (*) Clinically pure homosexuals certainly not propagates, nevertheless hereditary predisposition to homosexuality takes place to be, as physiological ability to propagate by them as a rule presents.

Articles of Anatoly Protopopov