What do 'nerdy' guys like in girls?

[zoobyshoe]

It's my experience that girls are deeply and involuntarily attracted to sociopathic-type guys, exactly the opposite of good providers. I think this is because guys like this are unburdened by any sense of responsibility and are much more exiting and fun in the short term. The notion anyone is attracted to someone's good genes is nonsense. People are really looking for hot, fun sex, and are hoping most of the time this isn't going to lead to their genes getting passed on.

 

[DanP]

But your picture is not complete. Actually men are not so selective choosing sex partners because any sex act is a possibility of perpetuate their genes.

It's iffy and personal. While there are some very good looking man who would go in bed with just about anything that moves, others tend to be extremely selective even for a night stand. They would be very dismissive of anything which doesn't fit their expectations. I have both types in my circle of acquaintances.

They are only selective when choosing a wife, because they would need to invest a lot of resources on her.

I agree with you. A good spouse is an investment. It may sound cold, but its so true.

Many guys, nerds or not, are attracted to nerdy girls.

Nerdiness by itself doesn't mean much. I've seen a lot of hot chicks who where studying all
day long because they wanted a good career and the perks which come with it. I really don't see why a nerdy girl can't be sexy, conscious of her femininity, and stylish.

Of course, I don't mean here the "nerd" clichee, which doesn't give a damn how he/she looks and forget to wash her hair (to be polite , i only mention hair) with weeks because she is too busy finding the cure for cancer. Some balance must exist.

When I was young I wanted to marry Subcomandante Marcos. It seemed like an Alpha Male to me (you know, definition of "alpha" depends on your political preference). I am sure Marcos would have been the worst husband in the world.

Lydia

Ah, the mysterious man with no face Marry him after he overthrows the government, you'll have ordinances to throw the trash out :P

For me "the ideal" looks it's Catherine Zeta Jones. I really dig her. Ok, I dig Alenka Bikar too.

 

[LydiaAC]

It's my experience that girls are deeply and involuntarily attracted to sociopathic-type guys, exactly the opposite of good providers.

Remember that in the savanah we did not have a "society" and to be a "sociopath" had no meaning.

Do you think that one Wall Street stock expert, with tie and suit and used to pay for everything would survive the savanah?

We are not attracted to those who give good prospect to our genes today, but those who gave good prospect to our genes when we were in our natural habitat, in which we evolved.

We are notoriously unadapted to our present habitat. Sociopaths are extremely unadapted but maybe the reason is that they should still be in the savanah.

Lydia

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Nerdy guys do not "like" nerdy girls.

I agree, nerd men like exactly the same women than the rest of men.

I can not agree. I think that attraction is something a bit more complicated. I am personally intensely attracted to "nerdy" girls and am generally rather put off by the standard "hottie". I know many males who are possessed of a similar diversion from the apparent taste in women of the "typical male". Each person I meet (including typical males) seems to have particular characteristics which they admire and which are wholly independent of the standard measure of beauty.

Remember that in the savanah we did not have a "society" and to be a "sociopath" had no meaning.

I am unaware of any primates that are not possessed of a social structure. Sociopaths would have a distinct disadvantage in a socially inclined species. Really, I just think Zoob was perhaps using an exaggerated term to express his bafflement though.

 

[DanP]

. Really, I just think Zoob was perhaps using an exaggerated term to express his bafflement though.

It's not about sociopaths, IMO. It's about the fact that some qualities which sociopaths use as means to finalize their selfish purposes are very appealing to many humans. Charm, style, confidence , sexuality, and willingness to use them. The right dose of manipulative abilities. Possessing those doesn't make you a sociopath automatically. You can still be a *very* decent person, and still empathic to the needs of others. Just that you embrace yourself and don't freak out at the thought to use what you have.

 

[Klockan3]

I can not agree. I think that attraction is something a bit more complicated. I am personally intensely attracted to "nerdy" girls and am generally rather put off by the standard "hottie".

If we go by the same logic you do that to increase your chances of getting laid. Having some rare fetish means that you get less competition.

Also, how do you define the "standard hottie"? Many guys think that the "standard hottie" is a plastic airhead and that most males would love to have such a girl, that isn't true. Most guys would like a regular girl who is fit and have perfect skin, that is the only real ideal.

If you look at movies and such even the "non mainstream" women are fit and have perfect skin, there might be some rare occurrence of guys not having this ideal but saying that nerdy guys do not like hot girls is wrong for most of them. Otherwise the nerdy science fiction series would not have such an abundance of hot women in them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If we go by the same logic you do that to increase your chances of getting laid. Having some rare fetish means that you get less competition.

Also, how do you define the "standard hottie"? Many guys think that the "standard hottie" is a plastic airhead and that most males would love to have such a girl, that isn't true. Most guys would like a regular girl who is fit and have perfect skin, that is the only real ideal.

If you look at movies and such even the "non mainstream" women are fit and have perfect skin, there might be some rare occurrence of guys not having this ideal but saying that nerdy guys do not like hot girls is wrong for most of them. Otherwise the nerdy science fiction series would not have such an abundance of hot women in them.

Define "hot girls". Of course nerdy guys want hot girls. The issue here is "how do they define 'hot'?" Not all guys think that the same women are "hot". I have had plenty of conversations discussing who is "hot" and who isn't, most men have. The only thing I have been able to conclude from these discussions is that my friends and I all have our own idea of what "hot" is though it may overlap here and there.

And to answer your question, by "standard hottie" I simply mean what ever type of woman it is that everyone seems to think all men want. Adding to my theory on the subject, the "standard hottie" seems to have changed frequently through out history.

 

[DanP]

Define "hot girls".

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm

The chick in the photo doesn't exist =)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm

The chick in the photo doesn't exist =)

I don't really find it to be particularly attractive. It is attractive. Its just a sort of generic attractiveness.

 

[Phyisab****]

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm

The chick in the photo doesn't exist =)

That freaked me out she looks like a robot.

 

[DanP]

That freaked me out she looks like a robot.

Ok, I'll dub her Dr. Susan Calvin

It's a cold beauty, but this only makes the prototype more desirable. And IMO it;s the kind of face who just naturally looks good with any kind of hair styles and many make-up styles (not that it would need any at that skin perfection).

Put that face on a well proportioned body and you have a winner :P

Too bad that those guys don't make their software public, I am curious what is the output of averaging my ex-gfs.

 

[K29]

A lot of guys above are saying "but I like nerdy girls" and "what is defined by a hot girl"

Guys who are not attracted to hot girls are exceptions. Homosexuals are also exceptions. In GENERAL a HIGH PROBABILITY of males including nerdy males feel an uncontrolable gut level attraction to hot girls for aforementioned(posts further up) reasons.

A "hot" girl is a girl possessing characteristics that a vast majority of the male human race finds gut level attractrion towards, due to the desire for the better genes. In most cultures we find blemishless faces, unfatness :P, etc and other more specific things attractive i.e. "hot"

 

[Lancelot59]

That freaked me out she looks like a robot.

A FemmeBot perhaps?

 

[zoobyshoe]

A "hot" girl is a girl possessing characteristics that a vast majority of the male human race finds gut level attractrion towards, due to the desire for the better genes.

No one is looking for better genes. They're looking for better sex. Most people most of the time are very much hoping their genes won't get passed on! In other words: we actively seek to avoid pregnancy in the majority of instances of sexual encounters. Less circumspect people have sex without birth control despite the fact it might lead to pregnancy, not because it might.

 

[DanP]

No one is looking for better genes. They're looking for better sex.

It's a theory, but quite unfounded. Sex becomes better with a bit of practice between partners. You learn what to touch, when to touch , to move together, switch fluidly. To be blunt, I am not expecting better sex than what I have with a great partner I know inside out from a stranger I've just met, no matter how good she looks. I just want her.

Besides, I am sure you can't find a link between looks and the ability to perform technically in bed. It's very much trainable for both man and women.

 

[K29]

No one is looking for better genes. They're looking for better sex. Most people most of the time are very much hoping their genes won't get passed on! In other words: we actively seek to avoid pregnancy in the majority of instances of sexual encounters. Less circumspect people have sex without birth control despite the fact it might lead to pregnancy, not because it might.

Its the same thing. The desire for better sex, is a result of the driving force to sustain the species. The fact that people don't want to get pregnant is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the theories behind the nature of attraction .

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's a theory, but quite unfounded. Sex becomes better with a bit of practice between partners. You learn what to touch, when to touch , to move together, switch fluidly. To be blunt, I am not expecting better sex than what I have with a great partner I know inside out from a stranger I've just met, no matter how good she looks. I just want her.

Besides, I am sure you can't find a link between looks and the ability to perform technically in bed. It's very much trainable for both man and women.

I shouldn't have said "better sex", I suppose. What I meant, obviously, is that we aren't making decisions about passing on our genes. We are making decisions based on who looks most exiting in jeans.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Its the same thing. The desire for better sex, is a result of the driving force to sustain the species. The fact that people don't want to get pregnant is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the theories behind the nature of attraction .

There is no driving force to sustain the species. The species is sustained because sex happens also, in addition to being pleasurable, to cause pregnancy.

 

[K29]

My "driving force" is what causes sex. Indeed sex sustains the species. But there is a driving force that causes the pattern of attraction that we observe in the majority of males, in this case to good female genes(hotties)

Try this for size:

http://socyberty.com/sexuality/sexual-attraction-evolution-and-biology/"

more specifically this

What Men and Women Find Attractive
In order for males and females to engage in healthy sexual behavior, an attraction must exist between the two. However, levels of attractiveness, and what both men and women consider attractive appear to be a function of both evolution and psychology.

A round buttock is another sexual “turn-on” as “Humans have evolved from animals that walked on all fours, when the bottom was a big turn-on to males, who would mate from behind” as reported by Morris in his book, The Naked Woman: A Study of the Female Body. Further, such curves in women have also evolved as attractive because women needed a layer of fat to keep themselves and their babies alive during times of famine, and this fat was spread across the body evenly creating rounded curves. Additionally, a woman’s higher voice, doe-like eyes, and lack of body hair are traits they share with children. Men have evolved to protect their children from harm; therefore, these “childlike” features make women more attractive to men. Psychological adaptations have evolved as well, leading to physical attraction. For instance, men who spend more time away from their partners show a greater interest in copulating with their partners and find their partners to be more physically attractive.

Women have certain traits in men that they find physically appealing. Women find larger than average eyes attractive, a large smile and prominent cheekbones, which appears to be related to androgen levels indicating lack of illness. It is interesting to note that studies have indicated that less-attractive females seek less-masculine males who have slightly feminized faces for relationships. This may be more of a psychological function than that of physiology, indicating that if a female or male perceive themselves as less attractive, they may be drawn to someone of the opposite sex who tends to mirror a lower self-image.

and

Social vs. Sexual Attraction
Culture and evolution undoubtedly interact in every human endeavor, sometimes reflecting biological dispositions, and at other times working in the opposite direction. It has also been theorized that natural selection has a social component as well, since women are designed to invest heavily in their offspring, while men are programmed to achieve social status, primarily to attract women.

Darwin’s theories suggest that natural selection, not culture, has shaped how we choose and court a mate. Therefore, over hundreds of thousands of years, evolution has been the driving force, which has molded everything from anatomy to the human psyche. This is to ensure that certain behaviors are favored and certain states of mind promote reproductive success resulting in survival of the species. Therefore, many question whether romance is guided by evolutionary biological and genetic mechanisms. Darwin’s theories appear to remove emotion, love, and caring from the aspect of human relationships and inserts cold, hard scientific necessity in its place. Unfortunately, Darwin did not take into consideration the modern human brain, social pressures mating and relationships when he presented his theories.

This supports notions that culture may intercept genetics regarding our courting habits, as today couples have to deal with outside social pressures that may defy the laws of nature, or Darwin’s survival of the fittest assertion. This is not to say Darwin’s theory is not applicable to primitive man, it only means that Darwin’s theories may be less relevant to the human species today than to other animals in nature who clearly remain reliant on biology and genetics for courting, mating, and reproduction behavior.

\

Suffice to say that indeed, attraction:
A>isn't a choice
B> has specifics embedded within it that tend to only improve our chances of survival
C> is slightly warped by other influences by society over time

 

[Proton Soup]

Remember that in the savanah we did not have a "society" and to be a "sociopath" had no meaning.

Do you think that one Wall Street stock expert, with tie and suit and used to pay for everything would survive the savanah?

We are not attracted to those who give good prospect to our genes today, but those who gave good prospect to our genes when we were in our natural habitat, in which we evolved.

We are notoriously unadapted to our present habitat. Sociopaths are extremely unadapted but maybe the reason is that they should still be in the savanah.

Lydia

if Hillary Duff's recent paparazzi photos are any clue, it appears that women are attracted by shiny stones. so yes, giving good prospect to our genes. for males, this often means being able to provide resources to her and her offspring.

 

[DanP]

if Hillary Duff's recent paparazzi photos are any clue, it appears that women are attracted by shiny stones. so yes, giving good prospect to our genes. for males, this often means being able to provide resources to her and her offspring.

It's not so bad, and I think it really fits in with evolutionary behaviors. I believe it's important to distinguish between "attractiveness" and mating behavior.

For males, the equation is pretty simple: nature. Go out there and have sex with as many "attractive" women as possible to spread your genetic material. I think it;s not really important if your targets use birth control, there is still the same evolutionary drive at work.
The rate limiting factor for males to have offspring is just how many available women he can get.
Preferably healthy and younger partners.

For females, the equation both nature and nurture. Find a male with the the best possible combination between a set of genes and accumulated resources so he can care for the offspring's. It's important for a women to find a suitable male, because pregnancy is a rate limiting step for a women in having babies. You are pregnant 9 months, and then later you still have to raise the impotent human little baby. You really want best genes and best resources. A good face and good body proportions are indicators of good genes.

This also explains very well why Hillary likes shiny stones :P It also explains why
driving a sport car which worth more than the house is a very strong aphrodisiac. For the women it's a display of wealth. For the man is pretty much a very efficient peacock tail. Its pretty much screaming "mate with me, I am a big bad mofo"

This is the bare bones evolutionary speaking.

this doesn't mean that everyone will act this way. There are of course deviations.

Humans also have to face the complication of having a strict social order who pontificates
what sexual behaviors are acceptable (this can be different from culture to culture) so the situation gets a bit more complicated. If you add to this cheating behaviors it gets hilarious and very funny.

 

[Lancelot59]

I'd take A and C. If B were true we wouldn't have most of the problems we do today.

 

[Evo]

It's not so bad, and I think it really fits in with evolutionary behaviors. I believe it's important to distinguish between "attractiveness" and mating behavior.

For males, the equation is pretty simple: nature. Go out there and have sex with as many "attractive" women as possible to spread your genetic material. I think it;s not really important if your targets use birth control, there is still the same evolutionary drive at work.
The rate limiting factor for males to have offspring is just how many available women he can get.
Preferably healthy and younger partners.

For females, the equation both nature and nurture. Find a male with the the best possible combination between a set of genes and accumulated resources so he can care for the offspring's. It's important for a women to find a suitable male, because pregnancy is a rate limiting step for a women in having babies. You are pregnant 9 months, and then later you still have to raise the impotent human little baby. You really want best genes and best resources. A good face and good body proportions are indicators of good genes.

This also explains very well why Hillary likes shiny stones :P It also explains why
driving a sport car which worth more than the house is a very strong aphrodisiac. For the women it's a display of wealth. For the man is pretty much a very efficient peacock tail. Its pretty much screaming "mate with me, I am a big bad mofo"

This is the bare bones evolutionary speaking.

this doesn't mean that everyone will act this way. There are of course deviations.

Humans also have to face the complication of having a strict social order who pontificates
what sexual behaviors are acceptable (this can be different from culture to culture) so the situation gets a bit more complicated. If you add to this cheating behaviors it gets hilarious and very funny.

Thousands of years ago, having a strong mate might mean survival, but that's no longer the case. Modern women choose intellectual men for mates because they are less likely to stray, they are more likely to be a good parent and more likely to be able to provide. The athletic types may be boy toys for not too brite women, but they're not what intelligent women want in the long run.

Intelligent women are aware of positive traits in todays society.

I personally have always preferred skinny, brainy types with glasses.

 

[MotoH]

Thousands of years ago, having a strong mate might mean survival, but that's no longer the case. For mates, modern women choose intellectual men for mates because they are less likely to stray, they are more likely to be a good parent and more likely to be able to provide. The athletic types may be boy toys for not too brite women, but they're not what intelligent women want in the long run.

Intelligent women are aware of positive traits in todays society.

I personally have always preferred skinny, brainy types with glasses.

Don't be hatin' on us folks with 20/20 vision!

She must not wear uggs, or be into anime. Those are my only requirements.

 

[Proton Soup]

Thousands of years ago, having a strong mate might mean survival, but that's no longer the case. Modern women choose intellectual men for mates because they are less likely to stray, they are more likely to be a good parent and more likely to be able to provide. The athletic types may be boy toys for not too brite women, but they're not what intelligent women want in the long run.

Intelligent women are aware of positive traits in todays society.

I personally have always preferred skinny, brainy types with glasses.

that's not their only option, tho. some will mate with the stronger bad boy type, then cuckold the brainy provider.

 

[Evo]

that's not their only option, tho. some will mate with the stronger bad boy type, then cuckold the brainy provider.

I'd bet dumb girls get knocked up by bad boy types more often than an intelligent girl and intelligent guy.

Question to the other women here, do you go for jocks and "bad boy" types?

 

[DanP]

Thousands of years ago, having a strong mate might mean survival, but that's no longer the case. Modern women choose intellectual men for mates because they are less likely to stray, they are more likely to be a good parent and more likely to be able to provide.

Can't you fit that with nurturing behavior ? Because your survival and that of the children is linked to nurturing. However the genes passed to the offspring is nature.

Anyway, no doubt that intelligence is indicative also of some good genes, no doubt about it.


Why do you think that intelligent man are less likely to stray ? If anything those should posses the same itch like very good looking man. Woody Allen type :P N+1 spouses. James Cameroon N+1 spouses, n+1 children, and so on. It;s not like you going to catch such a very bright man too easy. Its as dangerous, maybe even more, than a good looking scoundrel.

Intuitively I would say that the most less likely to stray are averages. Not only they should have less of a drive to stray, but less opportunity to do so than both very intelligent and very good looking man.

I personally have always preferred skinny, brainy types with glasses.

Preference, preferences, preferences. It should be interesting to think what makes many individual cases tick, once you get over the broad Darwinian phase.

 

[Hurkyl]

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm

The chick in the photo doesn't exist =)

That's a weird picture. It's nice looking, but extraordinarily bland, almost as if they were taking great pains to make a pretty-but-not-remotely-attractive face.

 

[Evo]

Can't you fit that with nurturing behavior ? Because your survival and that of the children is linked to nurturing. However the genes passed to the offspring is nature.

Anyway, no doubt that intelligence is indicative also of some good genes, no doubt about it.


Why do you think that intelligent man are less likely to stray ? If anything those should posses the same itch like very good looking man. Woody Alen type :P N+1 spouses. James Cameroon N+1 spuses, n+1 children, and so on. It;s not like you going to catch such a very birght man too easy. Its as dangerous, maybe even more, than a good looking scoundrel.

Intuitively I would say that the most less likely to stray are averages. Not only they should have less of a drive to stray, but less opportunity to do so than both very intelligent and very good looking man.





Preference, preferences, preferences. It should be interesting to think what makes many individual cases tick, once you get over the broad Darwinian phase.

I've had no problem with "catching" very intelligent men, and no problem with having attractiive men come after me. I preferred the intelligent men, at least I could carry a conversation with them.

 

[DanP]

I've had no problem with "catching" very intelligent men, and no problem with having attractiive men come after me. I preferred the intelligent men, at least I could carry a conversation with them.

Ok, I agree. But why do you believe that intelligent man is less likely to stray ?

 

[Proton Soup]

That's a weird picture. It's nice looking, but extraordinarily bland, almost as if they were taking great pains to make a pretty-but-not-remotely-attractive face.

no laugh lines or such. lacks emotion. computer generated always looks a bit weird, but is getting better all the time.

 

[Evo]

Ok, I agree. But why do you believe that intelligent man is less likely to stray ?

Because they tend to think things through more. Doesn't mean some don't. I also find that men that pay a lot of attention to how they look are more likly to stray, they seem to need the attention of women to validate that they are attractive, but I find that true of women too.

 

[DanP]

Because they tend to think things through more. Doesn't mean some don't.

This is a valid point. Cheating is about taking decisions. A more intelligent / educated person is more likely to give a fair analysis before taking a decision. What he will decide after the analysis it's anybody's guess, though.

 

[turbo]

Because they tend to think things through more. Doesn't mean some don't. I also find that men that pay a lot of attention to how they look are more likly to stray, they seem to need the attention of women to validate that they are attractive, but I find that true of women too.

Very true. I have a former friend that looks a lot like Robert Shaw, and he always cultivated that look. He is a rounder and a cheat, and he tried using me (without my consent) as an alibi when he came to Maine to work (which he did) and cheat (which he did) on his wife, whom I loved dearly as a friend. She called one evening asking to speak to my "friend" because he had gotten an offer on a muscle-car that he had restored, and when I told her that I hadn't seen him for weeks, she said "oh" in a tone like I had just gut-punched her.

Not satisfied with your spouse? Be a real human being and cut off the relationship BEFORE you act on your impulses and cheat.

 

[rootX]

Because they tend to think things through more. Doesn't mean some don't. I also find that men that pay a lot of attention to how they look are more likly to stray, they seem to need the attention of women to validate that they are attractive, but I find that true of women too.

Clever "intelligent" people who know how to get what they want and who don't mind cheating are the most dangerous kind of people in my opinion. I tend to maintain a good distance from them.