8 ms·

Do Women Select for Intelligence?

26 points by noch 4y ago

dekken_ 4y ago
People select for entropy minimization. Intelligence can to help with that. Or does your own minimization strategy prevent you from considering it?
- sva_ 4y ago
  That seems a bit reductionist.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- owenpalmer 4y ago
  First you need to understand that "entropy minimization" is a mathematical concept. It has nothing to do with human desire or selection. Most likely you are assuming it means something to the effect of "ability to prevent things from getting worse", but it has nothing to do with that.
  - dekken_ 4y ago
    I actually mean it terms of thermodynamic energy requirements to exist and using as little energy as possible in order to exist comfortably. There's probably a better way to phrase it.
- trentgreene 4y ago
  For the statement “people select for entropy minimization” to mean anything in this context, it has to be so 1) general and 2) metaphorical that it could be more plainly put as: “People like what they like” Tautologically, this is correct
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
carabiner 4y ago
If women were attracted to what they said they were attracted to, Tinder wouldn't exist.
- perfecthjrjth 4y ago
  Exactly, what people say and what people do are different.
  - carabiner 4y ago
    It's called a revealed preference, but here, the impetus is virtue signaling. Women have virtue signaled about sexuality for thousands of years because they would be killed for not being virtuous. It's a defensive trait that has evolved over time since prehistory. A few decades of feminism, sex positivity hasn't erased that.
    - nroets 4y ago
      It's not just a defensive trait. It also makes them look more attractive in today's world. And it gives them a good excuse to reject a man. That's still a valid defensive strategy because rejection is one of the top reasons why men get violent.
- gedy 4y ago
  I like to think of it as: Women would definitely like charm, humor, success, kindness, etc - in the subset of men they were already going to sleep with.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    Yeah that is closer to the truth.
a_t48 4y ago
The dig at the Twitter engineers in there is pretty uncool.
- politelemon 4y ago
  And unnecessary
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Why? Admitting that I'm a old het guy, "works 80-120 hour/week, for an infamously demanding boss" does not sound like something that younger women would be looking for. (Though with Elan's well-documented history, I'd say that no women should rate him above 0/10 for the long-term.) Edit: In the specific context of a faux-academic paper, written by an academic, I can see that taking digs is a violation of the accepted norms & style. But "pretty uncool" is not a phrase I'd associate with flagging that.
  - a_t48 4y ago
    "How many are objectively above a 7/10? Probably one of them…and not for his looks." The employees did nothing to deserve that.
    - bell-cot 4y ago
      Guess: You are judging "7/10" on the basis of the guys' looks, moral integrity, or similar "it is all about them" criteria. My judging criteria is closer to "would I introduce a granddaughter (who I would prefer to see in a good longer-term relationship) to them". My answer, given their current employment circumstances, is "NO". Doesn't matter if they might be the nicest guy in the world, look like the movie-star poster that my granddaughter put on the ceiling over her bed, or anything else. Their employer's ideal for work-life boundaries is "N/A, because you won't have any life for there to be a boundary". Note that I rated Elan at 0/10.
- shanebellone 4y ago
  I've seen a lot of this lately. I'm convinced that Elon is the luckiest man in history or is experiencing a deterioration in cognitive function. His actions and beliefs are incongruent with intelligence or rational thought.
bell-cot 4y ago
Sounds like the article is working from experience & psych. research that are both 100% WEIRD-biased*. Plus, women pretty plausibly select for cultural ideals and economic strength...which, right now, looks a lot like selecting for intelligence. *https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WEIRD https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WEIRD
- defrost 4y ago
  WEIRD teens to boot ... Eg the graphs showing smart teens being less likely to have sex may well accurately represent the data but the effect doesn't neccesarily persist, late (sexual) blooming is a thing. > With all this in mind, it is not difficult to comprehend why females swoon over attractive athletes, actors, or musicians, yet they tend to be conspicuously absent from the Nobel Prize presentation. A glib line that fails to explain Les Horribles Cernettes . . .
  - q1w2 4y ago
    While he goes into detail on the teen study to illustrate the point, his sources at the bottom are much broader. ...but it's important to note that male/female relationships and preferences often form in the teenage years and persist for the bulk of the dating years. So I would argue that teen studies are very reflective of the general dating population, though I agree that things have certainly changed over my aging decades.
sadhorse 4y ago
Women select for value. Intelligence in modern society leads to higher value (i.e. networth). But networth itself will not hold women forever, just look at Bezos and Gates.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  for Bezos and Gates I doubt they care about holding anyone since they can have anyone they want anyway.
  - sadhorse 4y ago
    They can, but they are billionaires. For Bezos, yes it sucks to lose so much stock and control of something. She kinda of deserves by her support of the endeavor. My point is, regular individuals regularly get crushed by divorce process because a lot of women are experts in leveraging their position.
- Jensson 4y ago
  Look at the net worth of the ex wives of Bezos and Gates, they didn't need the marriage to stay rich.
- DrNosferatu 4y ago
  That’s a very transactional view of relationships.
  - sadhorse 4y ago
    Relationships are transactional. Not every single one of them, but a would say a majority. Money is not a sufficient requirement, but it is a necessary one for sure.
    - DrNosferatu 4y ago
      Romantic relationships should not be transactional. If that’s not the case, Psychology text books point that out as a symptom of Dysfunction.
aenis 4y ago
It stands to reason they do. How else we'd have very intelligent but otherwise unattractive people in every generation. I know I am one (ok, maybe not "very" :-)) Min/maxed characters have a chance. And it applies to all traits, not just intelligence.
seydor 4y ago
Seems to be overly focused on women. What about men? High IQ men are less interested in humans in general because of their unreliability / lack of depth / generally takes too much time dealing with their emotions, so they dont seek out females and end up less fertile overall. There is asymmetry in sexual demand from the two sexes so women are generally bombarded with requests and don't end up in a symmetric situation. What's wrong with the picture of elon with tesla people ? Many of those guys are average or above. Seems like the author thinks hollywood is the attractiveness standard - that s false, hollywood is just a show. Then again , high intelligence is not necessarily more fit. In the modern world, being social and having a network of rich people is more powerful on average, so selecting for average or below intelligence may be more fit.
Traubenfuchs 4y ago
It has been and is being proven time and time again that physical attractivity (and all its constituents: height, facial-symmetry, voice, anatomy, etc.) is the one biggest deciding factor in who you can have sex with, date and marry. Besides that your physical attractivity also decides your platonic fate, significantly impacts your salary, court/legal sentence length and many more. And I am not even saying this from a too bitter perspective. I am someone who fell on the right side of this scale. I simply have a very astute awareness for this phenomenon. I had the (dis)pleasure of being around some people with godlike attractivity and the way everyone around them bend backwards to satisfy their needs or sucked up to them was eye opening. Incels call this "black pill science" and get condemned for it.
- DrNosferatu 4y ago
  I’m actually more on the political left. However, I observe that whoever calls the bluff of “looks don’t matter in Society” (for example, when compared to things like gender) gets blasted or canceled. I think this is one of the central debates of our Time. Why is it that in a age of 100% information access, calling out that “the emperor has no clothes” causes such strong reactions? Additionally, it somehow seems that this debate cannot be had without dealing with ‘loony’ bases like the Incels. …and that fact, just to start with, is very meaningful.
  - numbers_guy 4y ago
    The political left is obsessed with economic and political inequality but their theories fall flat on their face, when you confront them with the fact that there are other forms of injustices and privileges in this world that result from genetics or pure luck. Then they resort to just world fallacies.
  - Traubenfuchs 4y ago
    Admitting that life is inherently unfair and the narrow margins your dubious "free will" can exert its power in are decided at birth and through events outside of your control gets many people's panties twisted. Probably because it absolutely rejects the cherished lie of individualistic self-determinism?
poulpy123 4y ago
The article starts interesting but quickly goes WTF is he writing directory. And the identification of intelligence and QI is not the worse of it
ekianjo 4y ago
Broadly speaking, women typically select for monetary value because they are genetically programmed to secure resources for their offsprings. Monetary value is not necessarily correlated with intelligence, at least not all aspects of intelligence.
xiphias2 4y ago
Women have dualistic mating strategy (and men too, just differently): the man whose genes they want is very different from the one who they want to provide for the baby to grow up. Of course lucky people can have both of these traits in the same men, but sexual selection is more complex than that.
- numbers_guy 4y ago
  Thankfully paternity tests are easy to conduct, even before birth. They should become standard imho.
kypro 4y ago
One observation I made from several years of obsession with pickup (I know, I know), is that women on average actually don't like averages very much (and men too probably). If you're kinda tall, kinda wealthy, kinda attractive, kinda muscular you're also kinda boring even if you would think you would be a great catch based on the statistics. What you find in reality is that individuals have very strong individual preferences which basically make the mean irrelevant. So for example some women really really like athletic guys, while some really really like tall guys. Bu rarely does someone have a preference for a slightly athletic guy, or a slightly tall guy. What you find works well in reality is understanding the type of girl who would like you, putting yourself in places where you might find those girls, and playing to those traits - not trying to fit with some statistical mean. Something that always makes me smile is that when you're out in public you often see unique characters - guys/girls with tattoos from head-to-toe, or someone with a very unique fashion sense. But 99% of the time they always have a uniquely quirky partner by their side who shares and loves their unique characteristics. And to that partner they found a 10/10 catch even if statistics would say the opposite. Just something to keep in mind when thinking about statistics like this.
- davidguetta 4y ago
  From my own player experience, I think the general observation is "interesting", and probably true for the choice long-term partners, but defnitely not for short term sex where it's always the same guys that really are reaping all the spoils consistently.. People say that the 20% 'top guys' get 80% of women and it's just a statistics until you see how radical it is for real when a guy is consistently perceived as top 5% / 1% by women. Most people don't ever see it because in general you have 0 of these guys in your social circle and if so, girls just literally become someone else and are super stealthy in dealing with theses guys. But if you even become one of "these guys" (or be close enough to one) you see how violent reality really is.. Basically girls would do anything, break any rule to be with you. I was one of the top players when I was top of my game in my player time, but had a friend who was naturally off the chart on that scale.. He fucked literally every girl we met. I've seen multiple girls repeatedly asking for his number despite seeing him once. Multiple engaged girls ask their bf for open relationships just to fuck the guy. He had threesome all the times (when we weren't doing group parties) and all the girls knew each other and were fine with this while basically having bf on the side we were learning after. Physically he was my size so 5'11, not super muscular but doing combat sports, dark voice, very calm and a general charisma in addition of being very good at listening girls while staying mysterious. I had the same feeling of 'I'll never beat this guys, choose your battle wisely' that I had a few years ago while being in a competitive elite math course, and there was a guy who already who finished all the exams in 1 hour instead of 4 while being 19 and barely studying.. To be back to the more practical question, I believe women generally want consistently solid guys (mostly NOT WEAK) who can also make them feel good and accepted, so they are generally attracted by markers of strength, and generally qualities of being smooth / good listener and possibly vibe well with them. For marker of strength it can be physically, socially, financially or being simply conventionally attractive (tall, dark voice) but the strongest one is personality. that means basically not letting anyone walk on you, being confident and at the same time be super interested in what the girls have to say OR just simply vibing well with them. Fun fact contrary to common opinion, you actually get bonus points if you have massive selfish tendencies, narcicsic, or plain evil, precisely because at least you are not weak (the biggest horror they could think is to be with a weak guy and at least they hope you'll like them enough).
dutchCourage 4y ago
Behind the scientific lingo, I'm getting incel vibes from this. Trying to summarize the behavior of half the world population is pointless. Different women look for different things in their partners. For any woman who likes a dark haired, soft spoken thoughtful guy, there's one looking for a blond passionate and outgoing guy. The criteria are endless, and intelligence is too broad to measure. For example, wearing glasses is associated with being book smart and nerdy, so typically would be a marker of low social intelligence. From my own experience, people in healthy relationships basically look for a friend they're physically attracted to. Your mileage may vary.
- numbers_guy 4y ago
  You know there are whole academic fields which go beyond, "women are different" and actually try to understand human behavior? Maybe you should question why you have this reaction of wanting to shut down such discussion when it goes beyond what you were told was acceptable speech.
  - dutchCourage 4y ago
    This article and the comments remind me of what I used to think as a sheltered teenager before I actually got to hang out with women and realized they're just other humans. I'd venture to say that what women are looking for is defined much more by their environment than their biology. And that it's wildly different for each of them. Now if someone wants to try to understand what motivates women they're welcome to do it. I never said it wasn't acceptable to do so. It's going to be hard though, because there are a lot of women out there with a lot of different motivations. But this just looks like someone trying to explain why "smart/nice" guys can't get laid, wrapped in a pseudo scientific method.
    - antisthenes 4y ago
      Your comment just reads as a "just-so" story, which deems female behavior too difficult to study or understand. It's just as pseudo-scientific if not more than the attempts at explaining group behavior and mating preferences (not this article though, it's also trash). > I'd venture to say that what women are looking for is defined much more by their environment than their biology. It's the classic nature vs nurture argument, for which you conveniently provide no supporting evidence. Note that I don't claim either one to be dominant or correct over the other, while you do. The burden of proof here lies on you.
numbers_guy 4y ago
The article stumbles on assortative mating, and proceeds to draw the wrong conclusion. Yes, women do select for intelligence, within reason. It would be useless for them to select for men who act, behave and talk, beyond their level of comprehension. At the same time they highly desire someone who is within their level of intelligence and not below it. Unlike with physical attractiveness, intelligence can only be appreciated when the person itself is smart enough.
DrNosferatu 4y ago
This post, and specially its inverted parabola plot, raise another very interesting question: - What advice would you give to a fellow hacker that is more intelligent than attractive? Speak up!
- tsingy 4y ago
  Fake it till you make it. Be confident, human will follow anyone confident enough no matter how wrong they are, and that includes women.
  - sadhorse 4y ago
    This comment might be one of the most valuable in the whole thread. Confidence is very sought and valuable. Combine it with resources , it is what women seek. For the parent of the post, try to introduce a potential partner to a female friend. Study the questions she ask and the ones she don't. It will reveal to you what she seeks and what she already has, or what don't value now.
- dsign 4y ago
  "Attractive" is in the eye of the beholder. But going to the gym regularly could be a good idea. One aspect this article didn't mention is that people who are smarter than average may have an asocial reason for it. For example, a kid being bullied at school may spend more time studying math or reading instead of with other kids. He will do better at IQ tests, but his social skills will be so-so. It's not always the case, I've met a few very burning-hot-smart people that were also exceptional socialites. Here is what I would tell my younger self: Make your intelligence work out for you in a social setting, and not the other way around. Listen more than you talk, but go above and beyond to be emotive, sympathetic and understanding. People will notice you if you notice then. When you talk, do your best to be sensible and sharp about the things you say. The most important thing I've learned though: widen your tastes, learn to love quirks and defects, and to love in general. Be adventurous, and don't listen to the Pope. Ah, here is another hack. Some people exude intelligence in the way they talk: long sentences, exquisite grammar, good diction. But my experience aligns with the article: despite what they say, women select for average or low intelligence. So go to live in a foreign country where you struggle with the language; women will automatically divide your IQ by 2 or 3 when you speak with a heavy accent and your grammar sucks, and they won't be able to help it. When they discover that your salary is in the high quantiles, they will go as far as to attribute it to your good luck and good looks. They may even logically deduce that you are smart, but it won't percolate to the part of the brain where instinct and hormones are produced. And speaking of it, all of it varies with age; hormones have a lesser grip on us as we age, so it is possible that women above 30 would be consistent and really go for the smart guys.
trentgreene 4y ago
Using % virgins bucketed by IQ as a proxy for the attractiveness of intelligence is severely dumb. It requires that all of these individuals are equally chasing after non-virginityhood, which definitely is not the case. A more plausible explanation of the data is that smart people are more likely to not bang early, for reasons (of which, 1) there are many and two) smart ppl are probably more inclined to consider)
dontbenebby 4y ago
I wouldn’t read hacker news for romance advice. I know someone who posts here who would complain loudly and repeatedly they couldn’t get a date. I tried to offer to take them to one of the gallery showings I used to go to, and was like dude I don’t have a girlfriend either but I don’t talk about it loudly in the lab. He told me I’d had like fifteen girlfriends since we worked together and after a bit of a puzzled back and forth since that was… the kind of rumor I’m not gonna deny but also entirely inaccurate. Eventually I realized he meant that so much as inviting someone over for tea once and having it not click was a “girlfriend” to him… And when I kind of laughed, said he’s too metric’s obsessed and he should come to an art exhibition rather than keep posting about how horny he is on Reddit, he just went on a long rant about how modern art isn’t art. Anyways sorry for the long winded story but “women” aren’t really some species to be studied, just like men, they want someone who’s kind, who shows a sincere interest and (this is the part that seeks to trip up you people) someone with a sense of humor. Try just finding a hobby like film or art and someone will eventually take you up to the roof like it’s that one episode of Mr Robot ;-)
- Zigurd 4y ago
  "I wouldn’t read hacker news for romance advice." seems a little unfair. Probably a better source than sports talk radio.
tyronehed 4y ago
antisthenes 4y ago
Wtf is with the influx of articles today that start with a false premise and then furiously start writing a huge pseudo-intellectual word salad trying to debunk it?

26 points by noch 4y ago

People select for entropy minimization. Intelligence can to help with that. Or does your own minimization strategy prevent you from considering it?

sva_ 4y ago
That seems a bit reductionist.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
owenpalmer 4y ago
First you need to understand that "entropy minimization" is a mathematical concept. It has nothing to do with human desire or selection. Most likely you are assuming it means something to the effect of "ability to prevent things from getting worse", but it has nothing to do with that.
- dekken_ 4y ago
  I actually mean it terms of thermodynamic energy requirements to exist and using as little energy as possible in order to exist comfortably. There's probably a better way to phrase it.
trentgreene 4y ago
For the statement “people select for entropy minimization” to mean anything in this context, it has to be so 1) general and 2) metaphorical that it could be more plainly put as: “People like what they like” Tautologically, this is correct
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

carabiner 4y ago

If women were attracted to what they said they were attracted to, Tinder wouldn't exist.

perfecthjrjth 4y ago
Exactly, what people say and what people do are different.
- carabiner 4y ago
  It's called a revealed preference, but here, the impetus is virtue signaling. Women have virtue signaled about sexuality for thousands of years because they would be killed for not being virtuous. It's a defensive trait that has evolved over time since prehistory. A few decades of feminism, sex positivity hasn't erased that.
  - nroets 4y ago
    It's not just a defensive trait. It also makes them look more attractive in today's world. And it gives them a good excuse to reject a man. That's still a valid defensive strategy because rejection is one of the top reasons why men get violent.
gedy 4y ago
I like to think of it as: Women would definitely like charm, humor, success, kindness, etc - in the subset of men they were already going to sleep with.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Yeah that is closer to the truth.

a_t48 4y ago

The dig at the Twitter engineers in there is pretty uncool.

politelemon 4y ago
And unnecessary
bell-cot 4y ago
Why? Admitting that I'm a old het guy, "works 80-120 hour/week, for an infamously demanding boss" does not sound like something that younger women would be looking for. (Though with Elan's well-documented history, I'd say that no women should rate him above 0/10 for the long-term.) Edit: In the specific context of a faux-academic paper, written by an academic, I can see that taking digs is a violation of the accepted norms & style. But "pretty uncool" is not a phrase I'd associate with flagging that.
- a_t48 4y ago
  "How many are objectively above a 7/10? Probably one of them…and not for his looks." The employees did nothing to deserve that.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Guess: You are judging "7/10" on the basis of the guys' looks, moral integrity, or similar "it is all about them" criteria. My judging criteria is closer to "would I introduce a granddaughter (who I would prefer to see in a good longer-term relationship) to them". My answer, given their current employment circumstances, is "NO". Doesn't matter if they might be the nicest guy in the world, look like the movie-star poster that my granddaughter put on the ceiling over her bed, or anything else. Their employer's ideal for work-life boundaries is "N/A, because you won't have any life for there to be a boundary". Note that I rated Elan at 0/10.
shanebellone 4y ago
I've seen a lot of this lately. I'm convinced that Elon is the luckiest man in history or is experiencing a deterioration in cognitive function. His actions and beliefs are incongruent with intelligence or rational thought.

bell-cot 4y ago

Sounds like the article is working from experience & psych. research that are both 100% WEIRD-biased*. Plus, women pretty plausibly select for cultural ideals and economic strength...which, right now, looks a lot like selecting for intelligence. *https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WEIRD https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WEIRD

defrost 4y ago
WEIRD teens to boot ... Eg the graphs showing smart teens being less likely to have sex may well accurately represent the data but the effect doesn't neccesarily persist, late (sexual) blooming is a thing. > With all this in mind, it is not difficult to comprehend why females swoon over attractive athletes, actors, or musicians, yet they tend to be conspicuously absent from the Nobel Prize presentation. A glib line that fails to explain Les Horribles Cernettes . . .
- q1w2 4y ago
  While he goes into detail on the teen study to illustrate the point, his sources at the bottom are much broader. ...but it's important to note that male/female relationships and preferences often form in the teenage years and persist for the bulk of the dating years. So I would argue that teen studies are very reflective of the general dating population, though I agree that things have certainly changed over my aging decades.

sadhorse 4y ago

Women select for value. Intelligence in modern society leads to higher value (i.e. networth). But networth itself will not hold women forever, just look at Bezos and Gates.

ekianjo 4y ago
for Bezos and Gates I doubt they care about holding anyone since they can have anyone they want anyway.
- sadhorse 4y ago
  They can, but they are billionaires. For Bezos, yes it sucks to lose so much stock and control of something. She kinda of deserves by her support of the endeavor. My point is, regular individuals regularly get crushed by divorce process because a lot of women are experts in leveraging their position.
Jensson 4y ago
Look at the net worth of the ex wives of Bezos and Gates, they didn't need the marriage to stay rich.
DrNosferatu 4y ago
That’s a very transactional view of relationships.
- sadhorse 4y ago
  Relationships are transactional. Not every single one of them, but a would say a majority. Money is not a sufficient requirement, but it is a necessary one for sure.
  - DrNosferatu 4y ago
    Romantic relationships should not be transactional. If that’s not the case, Psychology text books point that out as a symptom of Dysfunction.

aenis 4y ago

It stands to reason they do. How else we'd have very intelligent but otherwise unattractive people in every generation. I know I am one (ok, maybe not "very" :-)) Min/maxed characters have a chance. And it applies to all traits, not just intelligence.

seydor 4y ago

Seems to be overly focused on women. What about men? High IQ men are less interested in humans in general because of their unreliability / lack of depth / generally takes too much time dealing with their emotions, so they dont seek out females and end up less fertile overall. There is asymmetry in sexual demand from the two sexes so women are generally bombarded with requests and don't end up in a symmetric situation. What's wrong with the picture of elon with tesla people ? Many of those guys are average or above. Seems like the author thinks hollywood is the attractiveness standard - that s false, hollywood is just a show. Then again , high intelligence is not necessarily more fit. In the modern world, being social and having a network of rich people is more powerful on average, so selecting for average or below intelligence may be more fit.

Traubenfuchs 4y ago

It has been and is being proven time and time again that physical attractivity (and all its constituents: height, facial-symmetry, voice, anatomy, etc.) is the one biggest deciding factor in who you can have sex with, date and marry. Besides that your physical attractivity also decides your platonic fate, significantly impacts your salary, court/legal sentence length and many more. And I am not even saying this from a too bitter perspective. I am someone who fell on the right side of this scale. I simply have a very astute awareness for this phenomenon. I had the (dis)pleasure of being around some people with godlike attractivity and the way everyone around them bend backwards to satisfy their needs or sucked up to them was eye opening. Incels call this "black pill science" and get condemned for it.

DrNosferatu 4y ago
I’m actually more on the political left. However, I observe that whoever calls the bluff of “looks don’t matter in Society” (for example, when compared to things like gender) gets blasted or canceled. I think this is one of the central debates of our Time. Why is it that in a age of 100% information access, calling out that “the emperor has no clothes” causes such strong reactions? Additionally, it somehow seems that this debate cannot be had without dealing with ‘loony’ bases like the Incels. …and that fact, just to start with, is very meaningful.
- numbers_guy 4y ago
  The political left is obsessed with economic and political inequality but their theories fall flat on their face, when you confront them with the fact that there are other forms of injustices and privileges in this world that result from genetics or pure luck. Then they resort to just world fallacies.
- Traubenfuchs 4y ago
  Admitting that life is inherently unfair and the narrow margins your dubious "free will" can exert its power in are decided at birth and through events outside of your control gets many people's panties twisted. Probably because it absolutely rejects the cherished lie of individualistic self-determinism?

poulpy123 4y ago

The article starts interesting but quickly goes WTF is he writing directory. And the identification of intelligence and QI is not the worse of it

ekianjo 4y ago

Broadly speaking, women typically select for monetary value because they are genetically programmed to secure resources for their offsprings. Monetary value is not necessarily correlated with intelligence, at least not all aspects of intelligence.

xiphias2 4y ago

Women have dualistic mating strategy (and men too, just differently): the man whose genes they want is very different from the one who they want to provide for the baby to grow up. Of course lucky people can have both of these traits in the same men, but sexual selection is more complex than that.

numbers_guy 4y ago
Thankfully paternity tests are easy to conduct, even before birth. They should become standard imho.

kypro 4y ago

One observation I made from several years of obsession with pickup (I know, I know), is that women on average actually don't like averages very much (and men too probably). If you're kinda tall, kinda wealthy, kinda attractive, kinda muscular you're also kinda boring even if you would think you would be a great catch based on the statistics. What you find in reality is that individuals have very strong individual preferences which basically make the mean irrelevant. So for example some women really really like athletic guys, while some really really like tall guys. Bu rarely does someone have a preference for a slightly athletic guy, or a slightly tall guy. What you find works well in reality is understanding the type of girl who would like you, putting yourself in places where you might find those girls, and playing to those traits - not trying to fit with some statistical mean. Something that always makes me smile is that when you're out in public you often see unique characters - guys/girls with tattoos from head-to-toe, or someone with a very unique fashion sense. But 99% of the time they always have a uniquely quirky partner by their side who shares and loves their unique characteristics. And to that partner they found a 10/10 catch even if statistics would say the opposite. Just something to keep in mind when thinking about statistics like this.

davidguetta 4y ago
From my own player experience, I think the general observation is "interesting", and probably true for the choice long-term partners, but defnitely not for short term sex where it's always the same guys that really are reaping all the spoils consistently.. People say that the 20% 'top guys' get 80% of women and it's just a statistics until you see how radical it is for real when a guy is consistently perceived as top 5% / 1% by women. Most people don't ever see it because in general you have 0 of these guys in your social circle and if so, girls just literally become someone else and are super stealthy in dealing with theses guys. But if you even become one of "these guys" (or be close enough to one) you see how violent reality really is.. Basically girls would do anything, break any rule to be with you. I was one of the top players when I was top of my game in my player time, but had a friend who was naturally off the chart on that scale.. He fucked literally every girl we met. I've seen multiple girls repeatedly asking for his number despite seeing him once. Multiple engaged girls ask their bf for open relationships just to fuck the guy. He had threesome all the times (when we weren't doing group parties) and all the girls knew each other and were fine with this while basically having bf on the side we were learning after. Physically he was my size so 5'11, not super muscular but doing combat sports, dark voice, very calm and a general charisma in addition of being very good at listening girls while staying mysterious. I had the same feeling of 'I'll never beat this guys, choose your battle wisely' that I had a few years ago while being in a competitive elite math course, and there was a guy who already who finished all the exams in 1 hour instead of 4 while being 19 and barely studying.. To be back to the more practical question, I believe women generally want consistently solid guys (mostly NOT WEAK) who can also make them feel good and accepted, so they are generally attracted by markers of strength, and generally qualities of being smooth / good listener and possibly vibe well with them. For marker of strength it can be physically, socially, financially or being simply conventionally attractive (tall, dark voice) but the strongest one is personality. that means basically not letting anyone walk on you, being confident and at the same time be super interested in what the girls have to say OR just simply vibing well with them. Fun fact contrary to common opinion, you actually get bonus points if you have massive selfish tendencies, narcicsic, or plain evil, precisely because at least you are not weak (the biggest horror they could think is to be with a weak guy and at least they hope you'll like them enough).

dutchCourage 4y ago

Behind the scientific lingo, I'm getting incel vibes from this. Trying to summarize the behavior of half the world population is pointless. Different women look for different things in their partners. For any woman who likes a dark haired, soft spoken thoughtful guy, there's one looking for a blond passionate and outgoing guy. The criteria are endless, and intelligence is too broad to measure. For example, wearing glasses is associated with being book smart and nerdy, so typically would be a marker of low social intelligence. From my own experience, people in healthy relationships basically look for a friend they're physically attracted to. Your mileage may vary.

numbers_guy 4y ago
You know there are whole academic fields which go beyond, "women are different" and actually try to understand human behavior? Maybe you should question why you have this reaction of wanting to shut down such discussion when it goes beyond what you were told was acceptable speech.
- dutchCourage 4y ago
  This article and the comments remind me of what I used to think as a sheltered teenager before I actually got to hang out with women and realized they're just other humans. I'd venture to say that what women are looking for is defined much more by their environment than their biology. And that it's wildly different for each of them. Now if someone wants to try to understand what motivates women they're welcome to do it. I never said it wasn't acceptable to do so. It's going to be hard though, because there are a lot of women out there with a lot of different motivations. But this just looks like someone trying to explain why "smart/nice" guys can't get laid, wrapped in a pseudo scientific method.
  - antisthenes 4y ago
    Your comment just reads as a "just-so" story, which deems female behavior too difficult to study or understand. It's just as pseudo-scientific if not more than the attempts at explaining group behavior and mating preferences (not this article though, it's also trash). > I'd venture to say that what women are looking for is defined much more by their environment than their biology. It's the classic nature vs nurture argument, for which you conveniently provide no supporting evidence. Note that I don't claim either one to be dominant or correct over the other, while you do. The burden of proof here lies on you.

numbers_guy 4y ago

The article stumbles on assortative mating, and proceeds to draw the wrong conclusion. Yes, women do select for intelligence, within reason. It would be useless for them to select for men who act, behave and talk, beyond their level of comprehension. At the same time they highly desire someone who is within their level of intelligence and not below it. Unlike with physical attractiveness, intelligence can only be appreciated when the person itself is smart enough.

DrNosferatu 4y ago

This post, and specially its inverted parabola plot, raise another very interesting question: - What advice would you give to a fellow hacker that is more intelligent than attractive? Speak up!

tsingy 4y ago
Fake it till you make it. Be confident, human will follow anyone confident enough no matter how wrong they are, and that includes women.
- sadhorse 4y ago
  This comment might be one of the most valuable in the whole thread. Confidence is very sought and valuable. Combine it with resources , it is what women seek. For the parent of the post, try to introduce a potential partner to a female friend. Study the questions she ask and the ones she don't. It will reveal to you what she seeks and what she already has, or what don't value now.
dsign 4y ago
"Attractive" is in the eye of the beholder. But going to the gym regularly could be a good idea. One aspect this article didn't mention is that people who are smarter than average may have an asocial reason for it. For example, a kid being bullied at school may spend more time studying math or reading instead of with other kids. He will do better at IQ tests, but his social skills will be so-so. It's not always the case, I've met a few very burning-hot-smart people that were also exceptional socialites. Here is what I would tell my younger self: Make your intelligence work out for you in a social setting, and not the other way around. Listen more than you talk, but go above and beyond to be emotive, sympathetic and understanding. People will notice you if you notice then. When you talk, do your best to be sensible and sharp about the things you say. The most important thing I've learned though: widen your tastes, learn to love quirks and defects, and to love in general. Be adventurous, and don't listen to the Pope. Ah, here is another hack. Some people exude intelligence in the way they talk: long sentences, exquisite grammar, good diction. But my experience aligns with the article: despite what they say, women select for average or low intelligence. So go to live in a foreign country where you struggle with the language; women will automatically divide your IQ by 2 or 3 when you speak with a heavy accent and your grammar sucks, and they won't be able to help it. When they discover that your salary is in the high quantiles, they will go as far as to attribute it to your good luck and good looks. They may even logically deduce that you are smart, but it won't percolate to the part of the brain where instinct and hormones are produced. And speaking of it, all of it varies with age; hormones have a lesser grip on us as we age, so it is possible that women above 30 would be consistent and really go for the smart guys.

trentgreene 4y ago

Using % virgins bucketed by IQ as a proxy for the attractiveness of intelligence is severely dumb. It requires that all of these individuals are equally chasing after non-virginityhood, which definitely is not the case. A more plausible explanation of the data is that smart people are more likely to not bang early, for reasons (of which, 1) there are many and two) smart ppl are probably more inclined to consider)

dontbenebby 4y ago

I wouldn’t read hacker news for romance advice. I know someone who posts here who would complain loudly and repeatedly they couldn’t get a date. I tried to offer to take them to one of the gallery showings I used to go to, and was like dude I don’t have a girlfriend either but I don’t talk about it loudly in the lab. He told me I’d had like fifteen girlfriends since we worked together and after a bit of a puzzled back and forth since that was… the kind of rumor I’m not gonna deny but also entirely inaccurate. Eventually I realized he meant that so much as inviting someone over for tea once and having it not click was a “girlfriend” to him… And when I kind of laughed, said he’s too metric’s obsessed and he should come to an art exhibition rather than keep posting about how horny he is on Reddit, he just went on a long rant about how modern art isn’t art. Anyways sorry for the long winded story but “women” aren’t really some species to be studied, just like men, they want someone who’s kind, who shows a sincere interest and (this is the part that seeks to trip up you people) someone with a sense of humor. Try just finding a hobby like film or art and someone will eventually take you up to the roof like it’s that one episode of Mr Robot ;-)

Zigurd 4y ago
"I wouldn’t read hacker news for romance advice." seems a little unfair. Probably a better source than sports talk radio.

tyronehed 4y ago

antisthenes 4y ago

Wtf is with the influx of articles today that start with a false premise and then furiously start writing a huge pseudo-intellectual word salad trying to debunk it?