Comment by BiteCode_dev

As usual, if both sides exist, it's because they both provide benefits. The guessers' benefits are just not obvious at first glance.

Taleb has a nice bit on that, explaining that if something exists for long, it must have enduring beneficial properties, and if you think it's stupid, you are the one having a blind spot.

Dawkins led to the same conclusion: stuff that works stays and multiplies. You may not like it, but nature doesn't care what you think.

It's true for entities, systems, traits, concepts...

Everyone mocks Karens, until your flight is delayed and that insufferable lady tires up the staff so much that everyone gets compensation.

I dislike lying but it works, and our entire society is based on it (but we call it advertising).

Don't like mysandry? Don't understand why nature didn't select out ugly people? Think circumcision is dumb?

All those things give some advantages in some context, to such an extend it still prospers today.

In fact, several things can be true. Something can be alienating, and yet give enough benefits that it stays around.

A huge number of things are immoral, create suffering, confusion, destruction, even to the practitioner themselves, and yet are still here because they bring something to the table that is just sufficient to justify their existence.

See your friend making yet again a terrible love choice, getting pregnant, and stuck with a baby and no father? From a natural selection standpoint, it could very well be a super successful strategy for both parties. The universe doesn't optimize for our happiness or morality.