ESAMI - Clicca sulla freccia rivolta verso il basso
When threatened: Women evolved to deceive, omit and manipulate due to their physical vulnerability in the ancient world
1. Physical Vulnerability and Deception as a Survival Strategy
From an evolutionary standpoint, physical aggression and direct confrontation carry vastly different risk profiles for men and women.
In a dangerous ancestral environment, men possessed greater upper-body strength and were adapted for physical warfare and hunting. For a physically smaller and more vulnerable woman—especially one carrying or caring for dependent offspring—engaging in direct physical conflict or overt defiance against a stronger adversary was highly maladaptive and potentially fatal.
The Logic of “Indirect Aggression”
Because direct physical confrontation was too risky, evolutionary psychologists suggest that women evolved to favor indirect aggression and covert negotiation strategies.
- Risk Mitigation: When facing a perceived threat or a dominant figure, using omission, placation, or strategic deception served as a psychological shield. It allowed a woman to navigate danger and protect herself and her children without triggering physical violence.
- The Modern Subconscious Bias: This is why, in theory, a subconscious default toward self-protection through social maneuvering or omission can occur under stress. It is not an inherent moral failing, but rather an ancient defense mechanism against physical vulnerability.
2. The Asymmetry of Infidelity and Parental Investment
The consequences of deceit and infidelity historically carried entirely different evolutionary weights for men and women, rooted in Robert Trivers’ theory of Parental Investment.
| Factor | Evolutionary Risk for Women | Evolutionary Risk for Men |
| Parental Certainty | 100% Certain. A woman always knows the child is hers. | Uncertain. A man faces the risk of “cuckoldry” (raising another man’s child). |
| Consequences of Infidelity | Historically catastrophic. If caught, a woman faced severe social ostracization, abandonment, or death, stripping her and her children of resources and protection. | Social backlash or conflict with other men, but his own reproductive capability was not physically halted. |
Because the stakes for a woman committing infidelity in a treacherous ancestral world were incredibly high, the evolutionary pressure to successfully conceal it (through deep deception or omission) was immensely powerful.
3. Post-Infidelity Blame and Shaming Dynamics
The psychological defense mechanisms that trigger after infidelity also trace back to these distinct evolutionary pressures and social dynamics.
When a Woman Cheats: Rationalization and Adequacy
Evolutionary theorists note that women generally seek partners who provide resources, protection, and high-quality genetics. If a woman cheats, it is often psychologically linked to a perceived deficit in her primary partner’s ability to provide emotional, physical, or material security.
- Shaming the Partner: To justify the immense evolutionary risk of the affair, her subconscious may frame the primary partner as inadequate. By blaming his shortcomings, she psychologically validates the decision to seek a better mate elsewhere.
When a Man Cheats: Internalized Guilt
For a man, infidelity is historically more linked to opportunistic mating rather than a desire to completely replace his primary partner.
- Blaming Himself: Because his affair usually isn’t a reflection of his primary wife’s failure to provide resources, he is more likely to view his action as a failure of his own self-control. He recognizes he has jeopardized a stable home and his own investment for a transient opportunity, leading to internalized guilt.
4. Why Jordan Peterson Strongly Opposes Lying
Jordan Peterson’s philosophy, heavily influenced by Carl Jung and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, views lying not just as a social faux pas, but as a mechanism that degenerates human consciousness and disintegrates society.
Peterson argues against lying based on three core principles:
1. Deception Warps Reality: When you lie, you are attempting to manipulate reality into something it isn’t. Peterson asserts that you cannot manipulate reality without reality eventually snapping back and crushing you.
2. The Corruption of the Tool: The human mind uses speech to navigate the world. If you falsify your speech, you corrupt the very tool you use to see and think. Eventually, a liar can no longer trust their own perceptions.
3. Pathology of the Soul: Peterson frequently quotes the idea that “hell is paved with lies.” In his view, totalitarians and pathological individuals start small. Small omissions and white lies weaken a person’s moral character, making them susceptible to grand-scale deception and malevolence under pressure.
For Peterson, telling the truth—or at least, not lying—is the ultimate evolutionary and existential necessity for maintaining individual sanity and social order.