Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Menoman
A porsche doesn't really = fit so I donno how it makes sense in this study.
|
A Porsche = fit in the sense that this 50-year-old has successfully amassed the resources to be able to afford a Porsche. There would be a likelihood that he has done so in a responsible fashion (i.e. he has also might have established assets such as a house and investments) as compared to a younger man, who wouldn't likely have had the time to amass these same resources in his youth. Mind you: I am speaking about probability, as there are exceptions.
"Fit" in an evolutionary sense (i.e. survival of the fittest) does not mean physically fit; it means fit to adaption to the environment in which you live. In a modern human world, physical fitness has limitations... this 50-year-old directly and/or indirectly hires muscularly men to produce his food, build his houses, and mow his lawns. He would be considered well "fit" to his environment and would be deemed successful enough to attract females. This would be reinforced by other factors such as intelligence, sensitivity, etc., and, to some extent, his ability to defend himself, however which way.
The Porsche acts as a peacock's tail in the sense that it is a frivolous object that may act to merely attract people's attention (e.g. younger females). What other worth, practically speaking, does a Porsche have? If you want to go from A to B, there are far more sensible options out there, especially considering limited resources.
With all this in mind, a skinny 50-year-old Porsche driver may very well be considered more valuable as marriage material than a muscular 25-year-old Porsche driver, because the 25-year-old may not be able to maintain his lifestyle and would have a higher likelihood of being "all show," as it were. How else do 50-year-olds manage to marry 25-year-olds?