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.

 

[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.

 

[DanP]

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.

Yeah, but IMO a line should be drawn between attraction and mating behavior.

You go out for the weekend. Let's say in mountains. You talk to your friends, have fun and go to a crag for some climbing. You arrive there and see a young hot chick climbing the crag
and for you, she abruptly stands out compared to any other girls / women present at the scene. You are attracted to her. But as for now, you know nothing else about her. You don't know her name, her game, intelligence, social status. In fact you don't know anything except the fact she raised your pulse a bit. (Actually, it may be a bit of arousal transfer from the situation to the person. If you like climbing, the mere fact she is climbing a dangerous route will arouse you, and you may inadequately attribute some of the arousal you feel to the person)

It's anybody;s guess what happens afterwords, but you already felt attraction.

 

[BobG]

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.

I wonder if this is really true. I've also heard that men (in general) only care about the children through the woman they're currently involved with. In other words, a lot of men care more about the children of the woman in their current relationship, even if not their own, than their own children when their ex-mate has custody.

I think that's as anecdotal as your theory, and I'm sure there's lots of exceptions to both. I think if the latter is true, it has to do with "out of sight, out of mind", since it is statistically true that divorced fathers that have shared custody are more likely to meet their financial child support obligations than those whose fatherhood has been reduced to nothing more than a monthly check.

I wonder which is more prevalent, though. Fathers caring more about their natural children than step-children or fathers caring more about any children living in their home than any children (including their own) living elsewhere.

 

[BobG]

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

But the important thing is that she be intelligent enough to pull it off. As long as she has one or two of the brainy provider's kids, too, then the brainy provider's goals have been met and one or two intelligent offspring have been produced, as well.

I'm not sure what would give you the impression that's she's mating with the strong, bad boy type, anyway. Quite a few brainy, nerdy types have been known to have some very athletic genes that have just been repressed for a few generations.

(Kind of off topic, but those science experiments where the kid is supposed to go home and make a chart showing the eye color of his entire extended family are always frought with danger. If the kid goes about the task with any kind of diligence, he always winds up with a chart with at least one or two genetic impossibilities. Can you imagine doing that homework assignment and discovering you were the genetic impossibility?)

 

[Dembadon]

... The athletic types may be boy toys for not too brite women, but they're not what intelligent women want in the long run. ...

I would argue that the two aren't mutually exclusive, though. I enjoy a run or a bike ride and have the appearance of being athletic, but I'd much rather have a Star Trek marathon than go to a sporting event.

Maybe it's the difference between athleticism for health reasons or to be healthy, and athleticism as an identity? One sees it as a hobby and the other makes it who they are?

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

I believe that, in general, intellectuals seem to gain satisfaction and/or affirmation more from learning and knowledge, rather than physical appearance and accomplishments. If one has an unhealthy value for affirmation with regards to physical appearance, you can bet they'll go to great lengths to receive it.

An intellectual, in my experience, is more interested in learning about and with their partner. I often 'study' my wife. Not in a weird way (I don't have a pencil and notepad out), but as we do things together, I take mental notes / notice of the things she likes; dislikes; the ways she reacts to things; what she prefers in given situations; how she feels and responds to everything from food textures to major events in our lives. I want to learn more about what makes her tick as an individual. I never want to get to the place where I think I've got things all figured out. I want to constantly be evaluating where I can improve as an individual which will allow me to support her in fulfilling her life's goals and desires. All of this helps me learn more about her as an individual and enables me to be a safe, trustworthy person. Our relationship is a lifetime journey of discovery, both romantically and practically.

The 'bad-boy' types have rarely been concerned with any of the above, in my experience, and have usually been narcissistic pr!cks. Their main concern is upholding their 'bad-boy' image.

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.

Hearing of instances like this makes me sick to my stomach, literally.

 

[DanP]

I wonder if this is really true. I've also heard that men (in general) only care about the children through the woman they're currently involved with. In other words, a lot of men care more about the children of the woman in their current relationship, even if not their own, than their own children when their ex-mate has custody.

It's an interesting problem to look into. My own intuition says that this doesn't happen too often. Blood is blood. If you don't care for your own blood, you will care even less for the blood of others. It may happen in a situation like : a women has multiple offspring with different males, and the current provider will try to care about his own offspring as better as possible, and in this process will provide equally for the his non-biological kids.

It may happen some males will be unknowingly conned into caring and providing for their non-biological offspring, by the process of women passing those kids as the offspring of current provider. This kind of stunt is not as seldom encountered as it may seem. Many women get away with it for decades. Well, more power to them. If they can pull it off, they worth their salt. But there other interesting cases, since having offspring is not the only way to see your genetic material propagated. The case of 2 siblings, in which one is heterosexual and one homosexual. The both share a great deal of genetic material. So by taking care of his/her sibling's kids the homosexual contributes to the propagation of his own genetic material.
This is a reasonable and intuitively acceptable scenario in which you will provide for your non-biological (but nonetheless genetically close ) offspring.

Other cases are the cases where 2 persons which both have mature children with an other 3rd party. They may decide to enter into a relationship, and then, yeah, they would help to the best of their abilities all their children, biological of not.

Technological and scientific advancement made possible other forms of gene propagation as well. In the past, homosexual couples where deprived by reproduction. Nowadays, 2 lesbians can get each one get artificially inseminated , give births to offspring with unknown biological fathers, and later raise them together as a family, without any discrimination between the 2.

 

[DanP]

I would argue that the two aren't mutually exclusive, though. I enjoy a run or a bike ride and have the appearance of being athletic, but I'd much rather have a Star Trek marathon than go to a sporting event.

IMO this is a very healthy point of view. It may be that the 2 worlds only need to find the bridge. I would never choose Star Trek marathon over being on the field and play something or going in the mountains to enjoy outdoors. But, are you kidding me ?
Star Trek is damn cool. Star Wars is even better. Babylon 5 ? All day long, if I don't have a higher priority thing to do. I think is better to find bridges than despising each other.
We just enjoy life in different "colors" and "flavors". But we may very well be closer in our interests than we are apart.

Maybe it's the difference between athleticism for health reasons or to be healthy, and athleticism as an identity? One sees it as a hobby and the other makes it who they are?

Nothing wrong with this. We are what we are. If your rearing is as a sportsman, you pursued athleticism for the best part of your life, you later went into coaching , it would be a garbagety joke to deny yourself. Much of your identity will be linked to what you did for the better part of your mature life.

If you fancy sciences , you go for physics degree, master, PHD, I think it's great also. You gave to your passions. It's awesome. It is what you are.

But it really won't make you a better spouse automatically. It's just your identity. You could be very well as much as an ******* as the athlete. You could very well ignore your spouse at home because you value your research , your own ego too much (Ego doesn't distinguish between scientific affirmation and athletic affirmation). You could very well sleep
with your assistant teacher, just because she is there in the long hours of research or work you put in, and ironically you end spending more time with her than with your spouse. And the little question "why not" will raise its ugly head.

I believe that, in general, intellectuals seem to gain satisfaction and/or affirmation more from learning and knowledge, rather than physical appearance and accomplishments. If one has an unhealthy value for affirmation with regards to physical appearance, you can bet they'll go to great lengths to receive it.

True. But being married to "learning and knowledge" may be as damaging as having unhealthy narcissistic behavior. In the end, they will both ruin a relationship. If you are valuing you career above anything else, you will go any lengths to receive gratification for your scientific / intellectual value.

An intellectual, in my experience, is more interested in learning about and with their partner. I often 'study' my wife.

You think that physical man are much different ? Dont you think they want to learn more about them and their spouses ? Its pretty much individual.

I think it;s very much of a preconceived image here.

The 'bad-boy' types have rarely been concerned with any of the above, in my experience, and have usually been narcissistic pr!cks. Their main concern is upholding their 'bad-boy' image.

Yes, some are narcissist pricks. Does intellectual narcissism exist ? I am very sure it does.

 

[BobG]

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.

It's an interesting problem to look into. My own intuition says that this doesn't happen too often. Blood is blood. If you don't care for your own blood, you will care even less for the blood of others. It may happen in a situation like : a women has multiple offspring with different males, and the current provider will try to care about his own offspring as better as possible, and in this process will provide equally for the his non-biological kids.

If physical sexual desire is the only thing motivating sexual and mating behavior, then an attitude of "care for the kids of the one you're with" would be a perfectly natural genetic adaption. Genetic socialism in a way.

Of course, if physical sexual desire were the only motivation, then he wouldn't hang around the woman and her kids, anyway. The need for emotional support would be a rather interesting and effective adaption that would encourage the male to hang around and help support the kid(s), regardless of whose kids he's supporting. And "caring for the kids of the one you're with" would be the most efficient adaption if the most successful males were having sex with as many women as possible.

The desire to support only your own kids would be one that would encourage monogamous relationships for both sexes.

 

[DanP]

If physical sexual desire is the only thing motivating sexual and mating behavior, then an attitude of "care for the kids of the one you're with" would be a perfectly natural genetic adaption. Genetic socialism in a way.

Not really, because the evolutionary drive is not derived from sexual pleasure. Rather than being derived, it drives the desire for the opposite sex, for the purpose of propagating genetic material.

Of course, if physical sexual desire were the only motivation, then he wouldn't hang around the woman and her kids, anyway.

This does happens when the female chooses one partner for the genes, the "nature" , and
another partner for "nurture". While it may be condemned by social rules, it is a highly successful evolutionary strategy, as long as you can get away with it.

And yes, the other way around, socially the male who fools around and impregnates N females may be considered as a jerk, sociopath, whatever, but at the end of the day, this is again an example of excellent reproductive strategy. What do you want more than having another male providing for your offspring ? You are free from the effort to provide during rearing period of the child, and you can go instantly for other females. No strings.

Society will probably able to tolerate a certain percentage of those highly successful individuals (both man and women) without any side effects. They'll just blend unknowingly for others.

I don't condone here this kind of behavior. I only say it's a highly efficient reproductive strategy for both man and women, as long as you can get away with it. And due to human nature and social rules, and how easy most of the man can be conned, it's simpler to get away with it than it may appear, IMO.

There are downsides to this strategy, and unfortunately they are more sever for women than man. She will loose more likely the current provider. It's garbagety, and nature was really unfair to women here.

Nature has provided safeguards against this behavior in women. In fact, not against the behavior per se, but against a man caring unwillingly for another persons genetic material.

It appears that immediately after birth, the children do reassemble the father much more than the mother. It's a safeguard. Mother it;s always known, she gives birth. Father is more elusive.

There is also the behavior of the female's family after giving birth. They are most likely statistically to say "oh.. the child looks like it's father" than the male's family. It's yet again a safeguard, but this time acting on behalf of the mother. Females also appear more prone to attribute a child to the current partner of the women. Interestingly enough, I had a personal experience with this. 15 years ago I was dating a women which had a child. We where traveling in a train, and we got some social interaction going on. There was a women there which was melted after my partner's kid, and she considered him great, and told me "this kid is a copy or yourself ... " or something like that. Needless to say, the child was bearing no physical resemblance whatsoever to me. He was a carbon copy of his maternal grandfather, if anything.
Later on, I have observed the same behavior in other females judging children. I realize that my observations are empirical, and has no real scientific value.

There are downsides to this strategy. Unfortunately, they are more of a consequence to a women than to man. The women may loose the provider, which is of a important consequence. It's a gamble, but players will go for it.

The need for emotional support would be a rather interesting and effective adaption that would encourage the male to hang around and help support the kid(s), regardless of whose kids he's supporting. And "caring for the kids of the one you're with" would be the most efficient adaption if the most successful males were having sex with as many women as possible.

I have yet to see a single *male* doing this. Unless he is caring for a mix of his children and other mans children, I don't see it happen.

The issue is, why would you doit ? Except for earning a Darwin Award. You got involved with a female who is reluctant to carry your kids ? Say goodbye and move on. The sea is full of fish. Get another female.

The efficient strategy for males is not carrying for another man's child. It is having your own children being cared for by another man.

The desire to support only your own kids would be one that would encourage monogamous relationships for both sexes.

Exactly ! But as I said before, there is a percentage of individuals who will go for more efficient strategies, despite the risks. Monogamy is the safe strategy. But not always the most efficient one.I want to be clear of one thing. What i wrote here should not be considered in any way as condoning what society calls "immoral behavior". They are my views on evolutionary behavior. They should not be considered excuses for a "immoral behavior".

 

[BobG]

The issue is, why would you doit ? Except for earning a Darwin Award. You got involved with a female who is reluctant to carry your kids ? Say goodbye and move on. The sea is full of fish. Get another female.

Except when you start the throwing the benefits a social culture provides for all of the individuals in the society. Behaviors that might seem disadvantageous individually become outweighed by behaviors that provide advantages to the entire society, because your offspring would be unlikely to survive if your group were just the parents and kids.

Behaviors that benefit your entire group start dominating behaviors that benefit a single individual. Not that completely selfish behaviors can't thrive as a minority, but societies where that became the dominant behavior would start getting smaller if they had to compete against other, more social groups.

Females also appear more prone to attribute a child to the current partner of the women. Interestingly enough, I had a personal experience with this. 15 years ago I was dating a women which had a child. We where traveling in a train, and we got some social interaction going on. There was a women there which was melted after my partner's kid, and she considered him great, and told me "this kid is a copy or yourself ... " or something like that. Needless to say, the child was bearing no physical resemblance whatsoever to me. He was a carbon copy of his maternal grandfather, if anything.
Later on, I have observed the same behavior in other females judging children. I realize that my observations are empirical, and has no real scientific value.

Unless you're a divorcee dating someone with kids of their own? Equally anectdotal, but I was kind of surprised to have a date remark how my kids don't look like me at all. Actually, the one she specifically remarked about takes after my dad (while I tend to look more like my mother) - you look at really young pictures before his first haircut and you'd think it was the same kid.

 

[DanP]

Except when you start the throwing the benefits a social culture provides for all of the individuals in the society.

(personal beliefs following )

Well, being a man who was raised in a communist country(Romania), I can tell this is an utopia. Of course, you may find individuals in any society who believe that social "equality" is a great thing. It is not. It only serves the weak ones. And it is unnatural. I do agree however to supporting the weak through reasonable means, such as better health systems and better social care.

Many idealists in capitalist societies like to tell that we are born equal. We are not. We inherit a gene pool which may provide significant advantages through life. If you are lucky,
you may even be born in a wealthy clan, and thus you will automatically benefit of superior upbringing and (in most of the cases) education. There is nothing wrong with this. Competition is what keeps us going forward. And it's great, because it keeps not so lucky ppl to push forward at any cost, refusing to settle, to close the gap. I think this is awesome for both individuals and the species.

Behaviors that might seem disadvantageous individually become outweighed by behaviors that provide advantages to the entire society, because your offspring would be unlikely to survive if your group were just the parents and kids.

Ok, but even in this case, why would you care about the offspring of another male ? Your concern is your own blood. It provides no biological advantage, and no social advantage otherwise, Biologically, for an apex predator species like humankind, the fierce competition comes from the members of the same sepcies.

The society gain is derived from the everlasting competition between individuals. We compete for the same kitty pool and for the same food pool *(resources).

Behaviors that benefit your entire group start dominating behaviors that benefit a single individual. Not that completely selfish behaviors can't thrive as a minority, but societies where that became the dominant behavior would start getting smaller if they had to compete against other, more social groups.

IMO we are in no danger as ending up as "socialist" beasts genetically. The best behaviors are those who encourage competition between the individuals.

Personally, there mere thought of ending in a situation like you describe raises all my hair along the backbone.

Unless you're a divorcee dating someone with kids of their own? Equally anecdotal, but I was kind of surprised to have a date remark how my kids don't look like me at all. Actually, the one she specifically remarked about takes after my dad (while I tend to look more like my mother) - you look at really young pictures before his first haircut and you'd think it was the same kid.

Yeah, it would be cool to gain more insight into this. Perhaps anyone knows about some studies of such nature ?