4 ms·

Having money is a pretty good heuristic for a lot of positive traits that women generally look for in a mate. It's pretty damn hard to buy a new luxury car with

by aianus 10y ago

Having money is a pretty good heuristic for a lot of positive traits that women generally look for in a mate. It's pretty damn hard to buy a new luxury car with below-average intelligence, social skills, discipline, determination, etc. And unfortunately unless you're a doctor, lawyer, or CEO, 'having nice things' is the only socially appropriate way to signal that. I don't like it, but it works really well and sexual selection is what sells luxury cars in general, not advertising. Not to mention, 'compatible value systems' are not necessary to bring a girl home after a first date and have some fun...

dragontamer 10y ago
> It's pretty damn hard to buy a new luxury car with below-average intelligence, social skills, discipline, determination, etc. Yeah. That's why they lease those cars. ------------ Its rather easy today to borrow money and get things that are completely unsustainable. Nothing against people who actually like leasing cars (some people MUST have a new car every 2 years, so its cheaper to lease than to buy). But a huge number of people who are leasing cars simply can't afford the car. So instead, they go for a "low cost monthly plan" that doesn't build any wealth at all.
- aianus 10y ago
  Having $500/mo in free cash flow for the lease payment already shows that you're richer than the majority of twenty-something males. It's just a heuristic, of course, but it does establish a bare minimum of financial success.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    > Having $500/mo in free cash flow for the lease payment already shows that you're richer than the majority of twenty-something males. Nah, it really could just mean someone HAD managed to save up $2000 and are about to get that car repossessed in 4 months. And based on the ridiculously dumb financial decisions of my friends and peers... that's what happens. Albeit with smaller decisions, but I've seen thousand+-dollar financial mistakes before.
bunderbunder 10y ago
Hmm. Are you using the language of pickup artists on purpose, or is that an accident?
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  Which particular language are you referring to? Sounds more like biology to me, with the talk of sexual selection, signalling, etc.
  - bunderbunder 10y ago
    That language. Talking about relationships in pseudo-Darwinian terms is something that comes out of the pickup artist community. Especially the bit where you use that jargon to dehumanize women by reducing their feelings to a set of base instincts.
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      >Talking about relationships in pseudo-Darwinian terms is something that comes out of the pickup artist community. You do realize that what Darwin is known for is discussing mating behaviour and natural selection, don't you? Or do you think that is not relevant because humans are not animals but special snowflakes, carried down on the wings of angels? I'm not the OP, but I would say that kind of language is exactly what one would use in order to try to explain exactly what really motivates humans, beyond some ephemeral idea that our actions are based on "feelings", with no deeper interest in understanding of what might be the basis for those feelings. And since you brought up dehumanizing (which I don't agree this is, BTW): If that is dehumanizing, would such a description not also dehumanize men, who are described as mindlessly dedicating a significant portion of their life to acquiring the money with which to impress? It's a pity that such behaviour would have no effect because women are humans with unfathomable and intractable feelings... Or can we just admit that some women might be impressed by material wealth, making them precisely human, because some humans may be impressed by material wealth?
      - deleted 10y ago
Retra 10y ago
This whole line of reasoning is self-defeating. If what you say is true, then I should go out right now and buy expensive cars and clothes for the sole purpose of attracting a mate. Which should clearly demonstrate that I am not financially well-off, smart, or responsible in any way. And it would mean nothing if I am unattractive in other ways. >And unfortunately unless you're a doctor, lawyer, or CEO, 'having nice things' is the only socially appropriate way to signal that. Meaningful conversation, a sense of humor, good looks, and an approachable demeanor are all perfectly socially appropriate, and they tend to attract people much more reliably.
- aianus 10y ago
  I meant nice clothes, nice car, nice apartment, etc are the only socially acceptable ways to demonstrate financial success to a stranger unless you have a prestige career. There are obviously many other factors besides financial success (and more important ones!) in being attractive.

by aianus 10y ago

dragontamer 10y ago

> It's pretty damn hard to buy a new luxury car with below-average intelligence, social skills, discipline, determination, etc. Yeah. That's why they lease those cars. ------------ Its rather easy today to borrow money and get things that are completely unsustainable. Nothing against people who actually like leasing cars (some people MUST have a new car every 2 years, so its cheaper to lease than to buy). But a huge number of people who are leasing cars simply can't afford the car. So instead, they go for a "low cost monthly plan" that doesn't build any wealth at all.

aianus 10y ago
Having $500/mo in free cash flow for the lease payment already shows that you're richer than the majority of twenty-something males. It's just a heuristic, of course, but it does establish a bare minimum of financial success.
- dragontamer 10y ago
  > Having $500/mo in free cash flow for the lease payment already shows that you're richer than the majority of twenty-something males. Nah, it really could just mean someone HAD managed to save up $2000 and are about to get that car repossessed in 4 months. And based on the ridiculously dumb financial decisions of my friends and peers... that's what happens. Albeit with smaller decisions, but I've seen thousand+-dollar financial mistakes before.

bunderbunder 10y ago

Hmm. Are you using the language of pickup artists on purpose, or is that an accident?

brokenmachine 10y ago
Which particular language are you referring to? Sounds more like biology to me, with the talk of sexual selection, signalling, etc.
- bunderbunder 10y ago
  That language. Talking about relationships in pseudo-Darwinian terms is something that comes out of the pickup artist community. Especially the bit where you use that jargon to dehumanize women by reducing their feelings to a set of base instincts.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    >Talking about relationships in pseudo-Darwinian terms is something that comes out of the pickup artist community. You do realize that what Darwin is known for is discussing mating behaviour and natural selection, don't you? Or do you think that is not relevant because humans are not animals but special snowflakes, carried down on the wings of angels? I'm not the OP, but I would say that kind of language is exactly what one would use in order to try to explain exactly what really motivates humans, beyond some ephemeral idea that our actions are based on "feelings", with no deeper interest in understanding of what might be the basis for those feelings. And since you brought up dehumanizing (which I don't agree this is, BTW): If that is dehumanizing, would such a description not also dehumanize men, who are described as mindlessly dedicating a significant portion of their life to acquiring the money with which to impress? It's a pity that such behaviour would have no effect because women are humans with unfathomable and intractable feelings... Or can we just admit that some women might be impressed by material wealth, making them precisely human, because some humans may be impressed by material wealth?
    - deleted 10y ago

Retra 10y ago

This whole line of reasoning is self-defeating. If what you say is true, then I should go out right now and buy expensive cars and clothes for the sole purpose of attracting a mate. Which should clearly demonstrate that I am not financially well-off, smart, or responsible in any way. And it would mean nothing if I am unattractive in other ways. >And unfortunately unless you're a doctor, lawyer, or CEO, 'having nice things' is the only socially appropriate way to signal that. Meaningful conversation, a sense of humor, good looks, and an approachable demeanor are all perfectly socially appropriate, and they tend to attract people much more reliably.

aianus 10y ago
I meant nice clothes, nice car, nice apartment, etc are the only socially acceptable ways to demonstrate financial success to a stranger unless you have a prestige career. There are obviously many other factors besides financial success (and more important ones!) in being attractive.