Tears are an evolutionary tool for those in a weaker position (less physically formidable, lower status). Crying signals to a more powerful person that they are either imposing a cost that is too high or delivering a benefit that is exceptionally valuable, serving as a potent negotiation tactic.
A key tell for distinguishing authentic from manipulative crying is the crier's behavior. A manipulator needs their tears to be seen to have an effect and will display them openly. Someone genuinely overwhelmed by emotion often tries to hide their tears, viewing them as a sign of vulnerability.
Tears are a reliable indicator of intense emotional states because they impose a genuine cost. By blurring vision, crying temporarily incapacitates a person's primary sensory system, making them vulnerable. This costliness prevents the signal from being easily faked, adding to its authenticity.
When women get angry and cry simultaneously, it reflects an internal conflict. The anger is a desire to impose costs on another person, but the tears signal that they are in a 'lower-leveraged' position and lack the perceived power to do so effectively. It's a blend of aggression and vulnerability.
In scenarios like Jonathan Haidt's "Mark and Julie" experiment, where incest is harmless and consensual, people still condemn it. This reaction may be less about a moral calculation of harm and more about an individual's fear of being seen publicly opposing a powerful social norm.
When sperm donor half-siblings meet as adults, they may feel attraction. This isn't an innate desire for kin, but a consequence of shared genes creating highly similar preferences. They seem like a "perfect match" because the usual childhood-developed sexual aversion is absent.
The strong emotional recoil many feel about incest is a developed response, not innate. Only children, who never experienced the necessary childhood cues (like co-residence with a sibling), understand incest is wrong intellectually but lack the deep, gut-level aversion that is programmed in others.
Evolution designed an economical system where a single, subconscious "kinship estimate" for each person dictates both altruism towards them and sexual aversion. It's one calculation for two different social behaviors, determining how close your heart should be and how far your genitals should be.
When asked to imagine incestuous acts, women's disgust is uniformly high. Men's responses show a much wider variance. This reflects the catastrophic evolutionary cost of a single bad reproductive choice for a female (nine months of gestation) versus the far lower opportunity cost for a male.
Taiwan's historical "minor marriages," where unrelated children were raised as future spouses, show culture can override behavior but not underlying psychology. These unions had more divorces and affairs, demonstrating the persistence of the Westermarck effect's sexual aversion despite societal pressure.
Kin detection isn't one-size-fits-all. Older siblings identify kin by seeing their mother care for a newborn. Younger siblings, lacking this cue, instead rely on the duration of co-residence—how long they lived under the same roof with shared parental investment—to develop their sense of kinship.