>Trying to read Evo. Psych. papers.
>Every paper talks about "genetic fitness" but never defines what constitutes it.
I have the same intuition as all of you for this, but stop and think about this seriously for a second:

If you could, right now, choose any single woman in the planet, who would you choose? Evolution and Evo. Psych. would have us believe you would choose the most genetically fit, as this is what they always assume of other animals, but how would you even go about deciding something like this? What makes a genetically fit woman? What makes a genetically fit man? Under what circumstances? How do we even prove that's the key factor in choice?

The average human can barely decide what color of shirt to wear, what job to do, what to eat, but we are expected to believe that inside every one of us there is a perfectly tuned "mate choosing algorithm" that knows not only the best mate for us, but for the entire evolutionary line of the species as a whole? And this is true for every animal that reproduces sexually, even those without brains?

How the fuck can any of that make any sense? This is not a computational genetic algorithm
where the fitness function is well defined, or is it? If it is, please tell me how, because all of it seems more bullshit the more I think about it.

Also, if our sense of attractiveness correlates to genetic fitness in some deeper level, wouldn't selective pressures motivate the appearance of individuals that just emulate the beauty of a genetically fit individual, while being "genetically unfit"? Kinda like those animals that imitate other more dangerous ones, but in this case it'd be imitating more genetically fit ones? Is this the origin of women using make up to appear younger?