Nice Guys and Love, what's your take on the issue
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
09 Aug 2012, 1:37 pm
HisDivineMajesty wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
DeathChamberzMusic wrote:
The nice guy finish last is a true situation especially for younger woman. They would like a nice guy but they don’t WANT a nice guy. Nice guys are boring and safe in there minds. In general woman don’t really even look at nice guys until they are much older looking for something serious, by then the guy is so upset they aren’t nice anymore.
There’s a break between what girls say they want and what they actually chase.
People need to understand that confidence can lead to jerkiness as to overly
There’s a break between what girls say they want and what they actually chase.
People need to understand that confidence can lead to jerkiness as to overly
When did you conduct your poll?
I don't remember being contacted, personally.
It fits what I've observed perfectly. They are beta males, and occasionally even worse. Their role is to serve, not to lead, and they'd be lucky to get the less desirable women. It works that way in most mammals, and as far as I know, it works that way in humans too. That is not desirable. They end last because they run around in circles, and they have no clue what women have been shown to find attractive (and yes, there has been serious research into that). Even the look on their face might end some women's idea to ever date them. They think they have a good chance, but they don't.
Eventually, the desperation mounts in most, but some become succesful. It's the movie scene a lot of directors envisioned - the former nerdy guy comes to a high school reunion and the tables have turned. The jocks are now his lackeys, and he laughs the most popular girl who rejected him in the face because he has a woman half her age. Few wealthy men seem to date women older than them, or even women their age.
It DOESN'T fit what I've observed at all.
See what I did thar?
_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."
09 Aug 2012, 3:45 pm
After reading much of this it seems likely that many perfectly nice men are being mislabeled as "jerks" because they are confident or extroverted. I suspect that many of the "jerks" who get girlfriends aren't jerks at all but are confident or extroverted enough to put themselves out there.
Just for the record, I think confidence is the most important quality. An introvrted man who is comfortable in his own skin is more likely to have women approach him, even if obliquely.
09 Aug 2012, 4:42 pm
HisDivineMajesty wrote:
It fits what I've observed perfectly. They are beta males, and occasionally even worse. Their role is to serve, not to lead, and they'd be lucky to get the less desirable women. It works that way in most mammals, and as far as I know, it works that way in humans too. That is not desirable. They end last because they run around in circles, and they have no clue what women have been shown to find attractive (and yes, there has been serious research into that). Even the look on their face might end some women's idea to ever date them. They think they have a good chance, but they don't.
Eventually, the desperation mounts in most, but some become succesful. It's the movie scene a lot of directors envisioned - the former nerdy guy comes to a high school reunion and the tables have turned. The jocks are now his lackeys, and he laughs the most popular girl who rejected him in the face because he has a woman half her age. Few wealthy men seem to date women older than them, or even women their age.
I am currently reading this awesome book about our evolved tastes in mating. This kind of stuff takes a whole book to cover, so PM me if you want the name of it.
Basically, women look for different traits, depending on if they are looking for a long term or short term partner. Women looking for a short term partner will be more promiscuous. They may also prefer the "as*holes" if you will, if it means they will get some kind of short term material gain or commitment of resources from it. The "as*holes" tend to exude a sense of confidence that makes them successful in picking up women. Women may also be deceived by these as*holes into thinking the man is willing to commit resources to her (think fake rich guy), and then put out. This is the kind of thing women do in short term relationships, though the book explains it in much greater detail.
Whereas women looking for a long term partner will tend to be less promiscuous, since men who are looking for a long term partner will think badly upon promiscuous women. These women prefer men who are honest, since they are less likely to deceive them into a false sense of commitment. They still tend to like men who are physically fit, are able to commit a substantial amount or resources to them, are confident, and other traits, but perhaps in an order that varies from women to women and complements the women's own traits. Women and men also benefit from judging their own reproductive value to the opposite sex, so they are able to reject those who are less desired, and send signals to those who are most desired in their range.
Anyways, I am not doing the book justice, and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in this sort of thing.
09 Aug 2012, 6:40 pm
Evolutionary psychology is not a scientific field; it involves creating just-so stories that almost always rationalize current western gender stereotypes, and pretty much never involves actual studies of anyone other than Westerners or, at least, people who have lived in the Western world for years. One sees 'studies' that 'proove' that men like blue and women like red, or 'studies' that 'proove' that girls like dolls and boys like trucks because pygmy marmosets (small primates that resemble squirrels) played very slightly more with human baby dolls if they were female and more with Tonka trucks if they were male (something like 0.46/0.48,IIrc).
This entire field has as much scientific validity as phrenology: it starts with the answer first, and looks for evidence to support the pre-drawn conclusion.
09 Aug 2012, 7:09 pm
I think that most people just don't like evolutionary psychology, because they don't like to admit that we are a product of Darwinian survival of the fittest, and the preferences that have survived as a result may not be for reasons which appeal to us. I think many people would rather tell themselves that they like what people would deem as socially acceptable traits, and then the actions they make would say otherwise. Evolutionary psychology is acceptable when we study insects and animals, but for some reason, people get irked when we look in the mirror at our own species. The findings they have come across have been controversial, but their goal is to tell the truth about our human behaviour, however ugly it may be.
By the way, the book I am reading has studied over ten thousand subjects, and across the world in different cultures and countries, including tribal societies. The results were mainly the same, though when variations do occur, they will account for them. As an example, Swedish women tend to get married less, and have premarital relations more often. It is explained by the relatively high amount of social benefits women get in Sweden, which then help them pay for maternity and raise a child without the help of a husband. Just an example.
10 Aug 2012, 12:39 am
deltafunction wrote:
HisDivineMajesty wrote:
It fits what I've observed perfectly. They are beta males, and occasionally even worse. Their role is to serve, not to lead, and they'd be lucky to get the less desirable women. It works that way in most mammals, and as far as I know, it works that way in humans too. That is not desirable. They end last because they run around in circles, and they have no clue what women have been shown to find attractive (and yes, there has been serious research into that). Even the look on their face might end some women's idea to ever date them. They think they have a good chance, but they don't.
Eventually, the desperation mounts in most, but some become succesful. It's the movie scene a lot of directors envisioned - the former nerdy guy comes to a high school reunion and the tables have turned. The jocks are now his lackeys, and he laughs the most popular girl who rejected him in the face because he has a woman half her age. Few wealthy men seem to date women older than them, or even women their age.
I am currently reading this awesome book about our evolved tastes in mating. This kind of stuff takes a whole book to cover, so PM me if you want the name of it.
Basically, women look for different traits, depending on if they are looking for a long term or short term partner. Women looking for a short term partner will be more promiscuous. They may also prefer the "as*holes" if you will, if it means they will get some kind of short term material gain or commitment of resources from it. The "as*holes" tend to exude a sense of confidence that makes them successful in picking up women. Women may also be deceived by these as*holes into thinking the man is willing to commit resources to her (think fake rich guy), and then put out. This is the kind of thing women do in short term relationships, though the book explains it in much greater detail.
Whereas women looking for a long term partner will tend to be less promiscuous, since men who are looking for a long term partner will think badly upon promiscuous women. These women prefer men who are honest, since they are less likely to deceive them into a false sense of commitment. They still tend to like men who are physically fit, are able to commit a substantial amount or resources to them, are confident, and other traits, but perhaps in an order that varies from women to women and complements the women's own traits. Women and men also benefit from judging their own reproductive value to the opposite sex, so they are able to reject those who are less desired, and send signals to those who are most desired in their range.
Anyways, I am not doing the book justice, and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in this sort of thing.
it doesn't really make sense that a woman would be interested in a man's "resources" for a short-term promiscuous event. what could she possibly gain on a financial level from a single night if she is not a prostitute?
many women apparently prefer more muscular hardbodied men for the short-term events, which is the reverse of wanting a more "physically fit" man for the long term.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
10 Aug 2012, 12:44 am
deltafunction wrote:
I think that most people just don't like evolutionary psychology, because they don't like to admit that we are a product of Darwinian survival of the fittest, and the preferences that have survived as a result may not be for reasons which appeal to us. I think many people would rather tell themselves that they like what people would deem as socially acceptable traits, and then the actions they make would say otherwise. Evolutionary psychology is acceptable when we study insects and animals, but for some reason, people get irked when we look in the mirror at our own species. The findings they have come across have been controversial, but their goal is to tell the truth about our human behaviour, however ugly it may be.
For the first time, I completely agree with you on something.
It makes me nervous discussing this, but then I realise my own first rule in discussing: the truth does not change if you ignore it, or deny it, or condemn it. Unlike many, I do not believe in full consciousness. I do not believe humans have a rational choice in these matters. The people who, under social convention, claim they primarily want an intelligent partner seem collectively unable to let that factor take precedence in their actual choices. It's the familiar pattern where, apparently, even most mentally-retarded men are able to find a short-term partner on one condition - they're physically well-built and assertive.
10 Aug 2012, 12:47 am
deltafunction wrote:
I think that most people just don't like evolutionary psychology, because they don't like to admit that we are a product of Darwinian survival of the fittest, and the preferences that have survived as a result may not be for reasons which appeal to us. I think many people would rather tell themselves that they like what people would deem as socially acceptable traits, and then the actions they make would say otherwise. Evolutionary psychology is acceptable when we study insects and animals, but for some reason, people get irked when we look in the mirror at our own species. The findings they have come across have been controversial, but their goal is to tell the truth about our human behaviour, however ugly it may be.
By the way, the book I am reading has studied over ten thousand subjects, and across the world in different cultures and countries, including tribal societies. The results were mainly the same, though when variations do occur, they will account for them. As an example, Swedish women tend to get married less, and have premarital relations more often. It is explained by the relatively high amount of social benefits women get in Sweden, which then help them pay for maternity and raise a child without the help of a husband. Just an example.
By the way, the book I am reading has studied over ten thousand subjects, and across the world in different cultures and countries, including tribal societies. The results were mainly the same, though when variations do occur, they will account for them. As an example, Swedish women tend to get married less, and have premarital relations more often. It is explained by the relatively high amount of social benefits women get in Sweden, which then help them pay for maternity and raise a child without the help of a husband. Just an example.
resources are only really important to women who NEED the resources, hence why women tend to get married younger in societies where few of them can support themselves with an honest wage. but in societies like ours (where equal numbers of men and women work), the paradigm no longer works (and it isn't reflected in the research, which shows that women tend to marry men of equal education and social status). if they were seeking resources or support, they'd marry upward, but they don't.
most societies are patriarchal, so most of the time women are at a financial disadvantage and their marriage prospects will reflect that. but it isn't reflected in our society.
i think that usually men and women have different partners that they select for dating as opposed to marriage, but it isn't based on flashiness - it seems to be based on primal attraction (which doesn't necessarily translate into good criteria for a long-term partner. some women will even say, "he's hot. i'd bang him but that's it." all she gains from that situation is a potentially good banging, nothing money-related.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
10 Aug 2012, 12:50 am
HisDivineMajesty wrote:
deltafunction wrote:
I think that most people just don't like evolutionary psychology, because they don't like to admit that we are a product of Darwinian survival of the fittest, and the preferences that have survived as a result may not be for reasons which appeal to us. I think many people would rather tell themselves that they like what people would deem as socially acceptable traits, and then the actions they make would say otherwise. Evolutionary psychology is acceptable when we study insects and animals, but for some reason, people get irked when we look in the mirror at our own species. The findings they have come across have been controversial, but their goal is to tell the truth about our human behaviour, however ugly it may be.
For the first time, I completely agree with you on something.
It makes me nervous discussing this, but then I realise my own first rule in discussing: the truth does not change if you ignore it, or deny it, or condemn it. Unlike many, I do not believe in full consciousness. I do not believe humans have a rational choice in these matters. The people who, under social convention, claim they primarily want an intelligent partner seem collectively unable to let that factor take precedence in their actual choices. It's the familiar pattern where, apparently, even most mentally-retarded men are able to find a short-term partner on one condition - they're physically well-built and assertive.
so intelligent men don't ever date or marry? that's an interesting assertion, yet obviously incorrect. but that;s exactly what you're saying when you put forth the idea that women's dating choices don't reflect an interest in intelligent men.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
10 Aug 2012, 12:53 am
hyperlexian wrote:
HisDivineMajesty wrote:
deltafunction wrote:
I think that most people just don't like evolutionary psychology, because they don't like to admit that we are a product of Darwinian survival of the fittest, and the preferences that have survived as a result may not be for reasons which appeal to us. I think many people would rather tell themselves that they like what people would deem as socially acceptable traits, and then the actions they make would say otherwise. Evolutionary psychology is acceptable when we study insects and animals, but for some reason, people get irked when we look in the mirror at our own species. The findings they have come across have been controversial, but their goal is to tell the truth about our human behaviour, however ugly it may be.
For the first time, I completely agree with you on something.
It makes me nervous discussing this, but then I realise my own first rule in discussing: the truth does not change if you ignore it, or deny it, or condemn it. Unlike many, I do not believe in full consciousness. I do not believe humans have a rational choice in these matters. The people who, under social convention, claim they primarily want an intelligent partner seem collectively unable to let that factor take precedence in their actual choices. It's the familiar pattern where, apparently, even most mentally-retarded men are able to find a short-term partner on one condition - they're physically well-built and assertive.
so intelligent men don't ever date or marry? that's an interesting assertion, yet obviously incorrect. but that;s exactly what you're saying when you put forth the idea that women's dating choices don't reflect an interest in intelligent men.
he never said it doesnt happen, simply that its not as big a reason as others
10 Aug 2012, 12:54 am
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
HisDivineMajesty wrote:
deltafunction wrote:
I think that most people just don't like evolutionary psychology, because they don't like to admit that we are a product of Darwinian survival of the fittest, and the preferences that have survived as a result may not be for reasons which appeal to us. I think many people would rather tell themselves that they like what people would deem as socially acceptable traits, and then the actions they make would say otherwise. Evolutionary psychology is acceptable when we study insects and animals, but for some reason, people get irked when we look in the mirror at our own species. The findings they have come across have been controversial, but their goal is to tell the truth about our human behaviour, however ugly it may be.
For the first time, I completely agree with you on something.
It makes me nervous discussing this, but then I realise my own first rule in discussing: the truth does not change if you ignore it, or deny it, or condemn it. Unlike many, I do not believe in full consciousness. I do not believe humans have a rational choice in these matters. The people who, under social convention, claim they primarily want an intelligent partner seem collectively unable to let that factor take precedence in their actual choices. It's the familiar pattern where, apparently, even most mentally-retarded men are able to find a short-term partner on one condition - they're physically well-built and assertive.
so intelligent men don't ever date or marry? that's an interesting assertion, yet obviously incorrect. but that;s exactly what you're saying when you put forth the idea that women's dating choices don't reflect an interest in intelligent men.
he never said it doesnt happen, simply that its not as big a reason as others
suggesting that it does not take precedence for any women is equally untrue. many, many intelligent men get married, obviously.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
10 Aug 2012, 1:01 am
hyperlexian wrote:
suggesting that it does not take precedence for any women is equally untrue. many, many intelligent men get married, obviously.
Those are two statements, and I can't see the connection. As for the first, it may take precedence for some women, but apparently it's not the most important factor anywhere near as often as it's claimed to be the most important factor. As for the second, many intelligent men get married, but many do not, and in my experience, the most intelligent men I've encountered were all far behind on the least intelligent men I've encountered in terms of short-term relationships and casual encounters.
10 Aug 2012, 1:07 am
HisDivineMajesty wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
suggesting that it does not take precedence for any women is equally untrue. many, many intelligent men get married, obviously.
Those are two statements, and I can't see the connection. As for the first, it may take precedence for some women, but apparently it's not the most important factor anywhere near as often as it's claimed to be the most important factor. As for the second, many intelligent men get married, but many do not, and in my experience, the most intelligent men I've encountered were all far behind on the least intelligent men I've encountered in terms of short-term relationships and casual encounters.
how do you know that it isn't the most important factor, considering that many women marry intelligent men? you're not privy to their decision-making process, so i don't see how you could possibly know. the evidence points one way, yet you assert it points another way based on... nothing.
you can state that you have observed _X_, but that is not the same as evidence. maybe find a study that shows that intelligent men are less likely to get married.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
10 Aug 2012, 1:19 am
hyperlexian wrote:
how do you know that it isn't the most important factor, considering that many women marry intelligent men? you're not privy to their decision-making process, so i don't see how you could possibly know. the evidence points one way, yet you assert it points another way based on... nothing.
Where's your evidence - the evidence that "points one way"? I have yet to see it.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/1501 ... 1d6ed20b0e
Here's one where it's said people's theoretical preferences do not match their actual preferences.
Marriage, also, is not general success.
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Are ruthless guys more attractive than kind, good guys? |
06 Sep 2024, 4:56 am |
| Speaking Issue or PTSD |
05 Oct 2024, 2:35 pm |
| Would've been nice - a passive aggressive rant |
22 Aug 2024, 10:14 am |
| do you guys have a like sentence quirk |
12 Sep 2024, 9:33 pm |
