What do 'nerdy' guys like in girls?

[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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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"

My point is that you are taking a rather broad stroke. The aggregate does not necessarily reflect the individual. I could run a study that shows statistically 80% of Americans enjoy spaghetti marinara and claim it is the favourite meal of Americans but this by no means gives any indication of the statistical likelihood that any particular individual will consider it their favourite meal. So I may commonly date women with high cheekbones and my school buddy brad the football star may commonly date women with high cheek bones but this does not lead to the conclusion that Brad and I find the same women attractive.

There is also no need to exclude "nerd girls" from the set of women who are possessed of the particular characteristics that are statistically selected for among men. If nerd guys tend to be attracted to nerd girls who are possessed of these characteristics and jock footballers tend to be attracted to cheerleaders possessed of these characteristics then the statistics accounting only for those characteristics will reflect your assumption. They fail though to take into account other factors and the omission seems to lead you to believe that nerd guys do not care about nerd girls but only those factors accounted for.

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

How about skinny brainy physics majors with glasses that wear leather jackets, ride motorcycles, and listen to punk music?

I preferred the intelligent men, at least I could carry a conversation with them.

This is where I think the crux of the issue is. The ability to have a social relationship*. A man or woman may look at someone and find them physically good looking but not have any real attraction for them based on a lack of ability to have a strong social relationship with them. I was having a discussion elsewhere regarding intelligence as a characteristic for sexual selection and the person I was discussing the issue with seemed to not be able to wrap their mind around the idea that a person of lesser intelligence may not be attracted to greater intelligence as they will likely have difficulty communicating not to mention the possibility of feeling intimidated (particularly among males). The worst part was that he seemed to completely disregard any thought that intelligent females would have any particular preference for the intelligence of their mate.

*note: I am using social here to describe all intellectual and/or emotional communication.

 

[GeorginaS]

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?

Nah. Give me some heavy-duty brains, coupled with the ability to be compassionate, good at what they do (whatever that may be), and a sense of humour, and I'm booked for the ride.

 

[DanP]

My point is that you are taking a rather broad stroke. The aggregate does not necessarily reflect the individual.

As with any other phenomena who is statistically described. The evolutionary behavior for mating will not account for individual variation.

There is also no need to exclude "nerd girls" from the set of women who are possessed of the particular characteristics that are statistically selected for among men.

Very few humans are selected against. The bottom line is , there are only so many alpha males and females in a society. They probably have the first choice in selecting partners.
The rest will have to realize that the cliche 'she/he is out of your league' stands, and lower unrealistic expectations. This is good news both for species and individual.

This is where I think the crux of the issue is. The ability to have a social relationship*. A man or woman may look at someone and find them physically good looking but not have any real attraction for them based on a lack of ability to have a strong social relationship with them.

In my opinion, I don't think this is the case. You describe what leads to a successful *relation*, not attraction.

I recall someone told me about a psychology experiment where they took ~200something couples which just formed (the subjects where freshman at uni) and the data was a quantification of how attractive each person was, intelligence, SAT scores, and got knows whatever else. They seen that those indexes where statistically uncorrelated in those couples. Then they let 2 years pass, and recalled all persons which participated in the experiment. They asked who of them is still the same couple as of two years ago. They replotted the data. The result was that the correlation between indexes was uncanny strong in the couples who survived. So yeah, the cliche "birds of the same feather flock together" stands.

But the social exchange theory can only explain relationships. It won't offer any good insight in attraction, nor in what triggers "love".

I was having a discussion elsewhere regarding intelligence as a characteristic for sexual selection and the person I was discussing the issue with seemed to not be able to wrap their mind around the idea that a person of lesser intelligence may not be attracted to greater intelligence as they will likely have difficulty communicating not to mention the possibility of feeling intimidated (particularly among males).

Again, this is not about sexual selection and attraction per se. Is about realistic expectations, and very important in a monogamous relationship. But it's of very little importance in sexual selection. An overwhelming percentage of males will respond "yes" to a question like "do you want to sleep with me" put by a women. It;s really not important how intelligent is her.As a male your evolutionary drive is to sleep with as many females as possible, since this is really the only rate limiting step you have for reproduction.

 

[DanP]

Nah. Give me some heavy-duty brains, coupled with the ability to be compassionate, good at what they do (whatever that may be), and a sense of humour, and I'm booked for the ride.

Birds of the same feather flock together. It's social exchange all the way.

And there was another cliche in relationships "opposite attracts". It also stands true, without contradicting the first. I was told that opposite attracts as long as it brings supplementary value on the table.

I had an very good 6 years relationship with a wonderful women which unfortunately was a too good "copy of myself". (Or I was a too good copy of herself , so nobody accuses me of being sexist). Excellent chemistry, excellent value brought by both on the table (we both had very decent jobs), we loved the same things, she was an ex handball player and loved sports and outdoors so we spent all our weekends out, well, not a dull moment.

In the end too much similitude got us. Especially the fact that both of us where a bit too headstrong and confrontational. We couldn't make the relationship work in the end, since
we where great in everything except the ability to live together in harmony under the same roof. A pity. It was a shock for our friends when we announced we decided to split.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In my opinion, I don't think this is the case. You describe what leads to a successful *relation*, not attraction.

...

But the social exchange theory can only explain relationships. It won't offer any good insight in attraction, nor in what triggers "love".

...

Again, this is not about sexual selection and attraction per se. Is about realistic expectations, and very important in a monogamous relationship. But it's of very little importance in sexual selection. An overwhelming percentage of males will respond "yes" to a question like "do you want to sleep with me" put by a women. It;s really not important how intelligent is her.As a male your evolutionary drive is to sleep with as many females as possible, since this is really the only rate limiting step you have for reproduction.

It is my opinion that as social animals the social component is important to attraction. Both with humans and with many other species courtship is an integral part of the mating ritual. If you can not court a female you can not sleep with her unless you force yourself upon her. As well when you court a female you may find her response, even a willing response, to be lack luster and move on.

Now I realize that many males likely forced themselves upon females and spread their genes this way back in the day (and still today to some degree) but I do not think that their offspring would be as likely to survive. New mates often dispose of the offspring of previous mates or show them less regard. A mate that sticks around is likely to do this and more likely to produce more than one offspring with their mate. In a species that only produces one or two children at a time the scatter gun approach is not as effective as it is in other species.

Now what I really need is to find a woman who would be turned on by this sort of discussion.