herd theory: the mane event?

i ran out of hair "product" this morning...well, i actually ran out of my preferred product about a month ago, and have been using something that gab had since then, but i scraped the bottom of that can today, so i am totally out now. (stop your chuckling, i know i don't have blond hair, but it works.)

anyway, with finances being a little tight 'til payday, i began to entertain ideas for how to cope with the situation, and voiced the option of shaving my head. while shooting that idea down, gabriele made an interesting point - that when men my age decide to shave their head, it seems to be a point-of-no-return decision; once its shaved, they rarely grow it back. she cited a friend and one of her brothers as examples, and it got me thinking...

my friend joe and i have discussed, at length, what i affectionately call "herd theory," and the many possible implications/examples of it in modern day society. aside from the broader sociological implications, we wondered how herd theory might translate into individual decisions. a good example of such decisions that would seem to have some root in evolutionary psychology is physical appearance - in particular, we're talking hair. (not hair.)

fur, manes, hair - they all essentially have the same purposes: temperature control and protection. joe suggested a parallel between a male lion's mane and his own efforts (earlier in life) to form his hair into some sort of protuberance (e.g., the faux-hawk). mane-like parallels could also be drawn with men sporting long locks and even afros. all of these hairstyles - and really, any hairstyle - has plentiful examples of certifiably attractive males (not pictured) to support the theory of pretty hair being the modern-day equivilant of a nice lion mane.

but what if you're bald? bruce willis, tiki barber, michael jordan, patrick stewart, even natalie portman - all are attractive bald people.

i have to go to a meeting now, but please, let me know your thoughts. my entire theory may be in danger here.

[update] just realized this is the 100th post on my blog! congrats, me!

herd theory

awhile back i developed what i call the "herd theory of relationships," and have discussed it at some length with a couple of friends. since that time, i have come to see further implications of the theory, and thus felt it necessary to share here.

the herd theory is built upon the basic premise that humans have evolved over time from some lower species that operated in large herds that contained one (or at most, just a few) males and a large number of females. similar to a pride of lions, perhaps...think of the lion king.

to apply this to modern day mankind, i believe that each male views the females in his life - especially the single ones - as members of his "herd." as members, the male feels a need to protect the females and watch over them, provide for them, and be strong for them in times of weakness.

females (who, by the way, may or may not be aware of the existence of herds at all) may be members of several different herds, each headed up by a different male. when a female marries another male, the head male of her original herd mourns the loss of one his members, as she then the key member of her husband's heard. when a male meets a female whom he deems worthy and desires her to be in his herd, and finds out she is already a member of another herd (i.e. married, dating, etc.), he ignores/suppresses this fact until he meets the other male. at that time, a handshake occurs, which is the modern day equivalent of two antelopes butting heads on the plains.

with this in mind, lets take a darwinian fast-forward to look at the transition from tribal to modern-day urban communities. it seems that over time, certain qualities evolve to become more desirable than others. the primary example of this is that while being big and strong may be beneficial in a tribal community, it is less important if you live in, say, 21st century minneapolis. so how have all the weaklings survive? was it solely the work of being protected by the strongmen?

i'd like to think that at some point, people realized that being strong may not always be the best status, and that being intelligent (or better yet, wise) might be more advantageous, as having the discernment to know what fights to pick and which ones to avoid might keep you alive longer. and so, the wisest people in society started to become the Chosen Ones. wise men married wise women, as they were the best at raising wise children and thus perpetuating the lineage of wisdom.

and so, that's my narcissistic argument for why the modern day guru - the psychotherapist - is the top of the food chain.