Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Nice Guys and Love, what's your take on the issue

Page 73 of 78 [ 1243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ... 78  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

10 Aug 2012, 1:37 am

no, you asserted that intelligent men are less likely to get married, or that women may STATE they prefer intelligent men but do not choose them.

you have that backwards.

http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intell ... 0684824299

Quote:
For marriage, the general rule is that the more intelligent get married at a higher rate than the less intelligent.


http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/skottke.html
Quote:
Instead, since we have removed ourselves from the "native" landscape and challenges of Africa, we have become more dependent on the psychological mechanism of general intelligence than previously in the history of mankind. While there have been definite changes in the brain that account for increased intelligence of humans over apes and other mammals such as the presence of more GABA receptors and brain growth genes, much of the intelligence that we use is partially due to environmental factors. Since we are removed from the environment in which we evolved, the g region of the brain is forced to account for much more than it would otherwise have to. For example, if a caveman were to walk into a modern kitchen, he would have no idea what to do with anything in the room. None of the other psychological mechanisms are designed to deal with microwaves or toasters; only general intelligence is adapted to handle situations that are new and abstract.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/q2u612426625w110/

there are many, many sources of this information. it's called "assortative mating" and people often select partners who are similarly intelligent.

if you'd like to discuss another aspect than marriage, have at it, but it doesn't make your assertions true.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

10 Aug 2012, 1:38 am

HisDivineMajesty wrote:
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.


Quote:
In a
study of 46 adults participating in a speed-dating event


Nice sample size and situation that really, totally resembles how people meet in real life.


_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I


HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,364
Location: Planet Earth

10 Aug 2012, 3:52 am

hyperlexian wrote:
no, you asserted that intelligent men are less likely to get married, or that women may STATE they prefer intelligent men but do not choose them.


They do not choose them, especially for short-term encounters, based primarily on intelligence.
There are other factors. They may pick, at times, intelligent men, but not for their intelligence.

I never talked about marriage. I personally think marriage is legal sexist feudalism.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

10 Aug 2012, 4:01 am

HisDivineMajesty wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
no, you asserted that intelligent men are less likely to get married, or that women may STATE they prefer intelligent men but do not choose them.


They do not choose them, especially for short-term encounters, based primarily on intelligence.
There are other factors. They may pick, at times, intelligent men, but not for their intelligence.

I never talked about marriage. I personally think marriage is legal sexist feudalism.

then you have negated your own point. a large proportion of women have never stated that, when looking for a SHORT term partner, they care primarily about intelligence.

so you have to have been talking about women's stated preferences when seeking long-term partners (i use marriage as a default for ease of communication, but we don't have to use that word as the point stands on its own).

either way, your conclusion doesn't have merit.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

10 Aug 2012, 2:37 pm

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.


lots of people don't like evpsych because the 'science' isn't done particularly well...Shau critiqued it pretty well the last time it came up
also because the way it's usually talked about is drawn from pop psych headline length blurbs that are designed to be more controversial then informative

is there value in the idea of looking at how evolution shapes our minds and behaviors? totally
is there a lot of nonsense in the field atm? totally


_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.


deltafunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,094
Location: Lost

10 Aug 2012, 6:23 pm

I don't know, I don't really see the point in arguing with people about it, nor do I want to crash this guys thread. Besides, it's not exactly like I was the one who originated these ideas, I am merely reading a book on the subject out of interest, though I'd be happy to discuss it with people who are interested. But I personally would trust the results from the studies shown over any opinions or beliefs people have. The book merely analysis the results, like any good scientists would do.

The whole point of the resources thing is not that it makes sense in today's world, only in the world of our ancestors who have passed on their genes. The explanation given was that men have evolved to seek short-term partners, and so there must have been women who have let our ancestral fathers be promiscuous. Some of the reasons why women would do so were so women could secure extra food or resources when her husband was unable to, or in the place of having a husband. They gave examples of the present in the Western world, where extramarital lovers were given gifts, or elevated status by introduction to more powerful social circles. Sure, women who have a one night stand with a man may not benefit with material gain, but some women would be more likely to want to sleep with a man if he convinced her that he was rich. She opens herself to the possibility of him devoting more resources to her if he wants to sleep with her again.

As for women wanting to secure resources in long-term relationships, even high-earning women tend to want to marry men who are earning more than she is. But the point is that women want a long term partner who will devote a majority of his resources to herself or the family. This is shown by women's dislike of "stingy" men, women getting jealous when a man devotes his resources to another woman, women looking for men who are hardworking and smart because of their future earning potential, women disliking men who are unemployed or divorcing when her husband becomes unemployed, etc.

Also keep in mind that Aspies are a minority, and studies like this look at the psychology of the majority of people.



hansky
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 43

10 Aug 2012, 7:39 pm

It's more like "nice people finish last." "Nice guys finish last" makes it sound like there are many types of men, and only one type of woman. I'm a shy and awkward girl, and I've never dated a jerk or confident guy... well, I've never dated anybody. I've never been attracted to guys with confidence, but rather guys with mutual interests. In general, extroversion is praised while introversion isn't. My introversion is the reason why the guys I like don't like me, and why most people in general don't like me.



KinetiK
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 120

10 Aug 2012, 9:44 pm

"Nice guys" are the male equivalent of the "fat girl". It's really that simple.



cozysweater
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 576

10 Aug 2012, 10:14 pm

I'm coming to this late so I admit that I haven't read all the posts. I've dated almost exclusively "nice guys" and I can tell you that their main failing is that they're basically just too scared to be jerks out in the open. So yeah, they have manners. But they're also manipulative and mopey and they need constant ego-boosting and... seriously, they're a lot of work. They have little pouty tantrums if things don't go the way they want them to and they retaliate for perceived slights that may or may not exist by making you feel bad about yourself rather than just saying "listen, you did something that upset me" like a grown-ass man.
They want their cake and they want to eat it too. Be jerks but still get to be "sensitive" and "evolved" and most importantly never have to take a punch to the groin for their jerkiness.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

11 Aug 2012, 1:04 am

deltafunction wrote:
As for women wanting to secure resources in long-term relationships, even high-earning women tend to want to marry men who are earning more than she is. But the point is that women want a long term partner who will devote a majority of his resources to herself or the family. This is shown by women's dislike of "stingy" men, women getting jealous when a man devotes his resources to another woman, women looking for men who are hardworking and smart because of their future earning potential, women disliking men who are unemployed or divorcing when her husband becomes unemployed, etc.

this is not really true, because in modern society people tend to marry others of equal socioeconomic status (that assortative mating i was talking about). if men do earn slightly more than women in a marriage, that is usually due to the fact that women earn less for the same jobs, or the women reduce hours or took time off to care for the family. but at the point of marriage, the income is usually relatively comparable (taking into account the gender wage gap).

(also, some women might be seduced by money, but that doesn't make it a gender-wide instinct based on evolutionary factors. women were not dependent on men until agricultural societies became common, and in prehistoric societies private property was rare.)


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Last edited by hyperlexian on 11 Aug 2012, 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

11 Aug 2012, 1:06 am

KinetiK wrote:
"Nice guys" are the male equivalent of the "fat girl". It's really that simple.

so.... nice guys must be quite datable in your paradigm, because fat girls aren't especially scorned. it seems to depend on more than just the one factor.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

11 Aug 2012, 1:22 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.

I'm a trained biologist. Evolutionary psychology is NOT as science; evolutionary biology is. The former makes up just-so stories; the latter makes testable predictions, and looks for evidence to confirm or disprove them. Most evolutionary psychologists don't even understand what 'fitness' means from a biological perspective.
Evopsych may become a science at some point in the future, but right now it's at about the level of psychology in the time of Freud.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

11 Aug 2012, 1:27 am

DogsWithoutHorses 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.

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.


lots of people don't like evpsych because the 'science' isn't done particularly well...Shau critiqued it pretty well the last time it came up
also because the way it's usually talked about is drawn from pop psych headline length blurbs that are designed to be more controversial then informative

is there value in the idea of looking at how evolution shapes our minds and behaviors? totally
is there a lot of nonsense in the field atm? totally

QFT



deltafunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,094
Location: Lost

11 Aug 2012, 6:42 am

LKL 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.

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.

I'm a trained biologist. Evolutionary psychology is NOT as science; evolutionary biology is. The former makes up just-so stories; the latter makes testable predictions, and looks for evidence to confirm or disprove them. Most evolutionary psychologists don't even understand what 'fitness' means from a biological perspective.
Evopsych may become a science at some point in the future, but right now it's at about the level of psychology in the time of Freud.


Makes up stories? Really, I wouldn't go so far as to insult a whole field. What these guys did was survey and observe over 10000 people in 37 different countries, then they explained their take on the results. I don't see the difference between this and the field of psychology, where they also do research through surveying a population, or by testing responses to pictures, or physiological stress in a lab setting. Seriously, these guys are not just making stuff up, I don't know why you guys are saying that. It's insulting to a profession.

I don't care what anyone else thinks about it anyways. For those who are interested, the book is called "The Evolution of Desire". Read it then I will discuss. I'm not good with paraphrasing.



CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

12 Aug 2012, 1:41 am

hyperlexian wrote:

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.


:!:

So THAT'S why they always ask for 20 bucks when I'm done. I'd better get myself checked.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

12 Aug 2012, 1:56 am

CaptainTrips222 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:

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.


:!:

So THAT'S why they always ask for 20 bucks when I'm done. I'd better get myself checked.

hahaha i doubt that. it's not like non-muscular, non-hardbodied men are rejected en masse (god knows i've mostly had one night stands with non-muscular men), but men with a certain physique apparently are more likely to be successful with women who want something short term.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105