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 Irreplaceableness - 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.
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) 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?	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 feeling of jealosy is caused by two reasons: feeling of own inferiority and feeling of lost property. The first prevails in women and LR men, because it is similar to the feelings described above (see "What is the cause of lonely people's suffering?"). The second is more typical for HR men and, to smaller extent, for HR women.
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.
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 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. 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. 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).

Treatise of Love, as It Is Recognized by an Awful Bore