It isn't all about personality

Post Reply New Topic

Not to mention there is never one exact thing or set of traits all men or all women are looking for when it comes to selecting a significant other. These generalizations make it sound like no conscious thought whatsoever goes into what people are attracted to and that we strictly act on instinct alone when it comes to relationships...which I don't really believe.

D&D analogy for that:

Knight (Strength/Braveness), Kings (Wealth/power), Wizards(Intelligence) and Bards (Talent/Charisma) are four archetypes of desirable males (and females) in today's world . Handsomeness is a trait that affects the chances of all the four.

Edward Cullen and Harry Potter are example characters of two of those archetypes (Knight and Wizard respectively) hence why both got a huge female fan-base (but I think Edward has a more female-dominated fan base, while Harry have a lot of fans from both sexes, fans of Edward aren't usually fans of Harry and vice versa).
The sicko male protagonist in Fifty Shades of Grey is "King".

Teens tend to be more emotional, less rational and more hormone-raged, they are a better representation of humans' animal instincts than adults (even though many of the female fans of Cullen and 50 shades aren't really teens).
The huge female fandom for those characters didn't come by coincidence, there's an instinct at play there, something these characters had that touched them deeply fantasy-wise.

I didn't say anything about women in my critique. His assessment is wrong about everyone, not just about women.

A much less-extreme version of his assessment is still correct these days for the most part. With a much more structured society thrown into the mix.

Decent analogy, there is certainly a level of instinct and objectification at play but that is lust. They are creating an unrealistic expectation built on the portrayal of a fictional character or emotion.

I do wish people would see past the presentation or instinctual emotions for substance and depth but people are people. I believe people do as they age and mature.

It's so sad, and says so much about the state of education in most places in the West nowadays, that you believe that garbage. Have you looked at the "evidence" of biological essentialism, have you questioned the sources of the evidence, have you questioned anything? Or did you just simply accept the first explanation that you encountered that confirmed your own unchallenged biases and ignorance about the "differences between men and women"? Can you even site any sources for any of this garbage so the rest of us can pick them apart for the obviously biased tripe that they are? Of course not, because you don't even bother with scientific evidence do you? I guess you would need to understand basic concepts of the scientific method, and statistics, to understand the importance of scientific evidence in the first place. Such a waste of time trying to have an intelligent conversation with sexists, you can't back anything up in way of substantive argument.

^ If you don't believe evolutionary psychology as a scientific discipline, then you shouldn't believe in psychology nor in psychiatry as scientific disciplines either, therefore you shouldn't even believe in AS. lol

Evolutionary psychology is about:

1. We evolved.

2. We have psychology.

3. Our psychology evolved.

Hence, there is such a thing as evolutionary psychology.

Just because someone misinterprets a field doesn't make that field any less valid. For example, if someone makes a math mistake, does that mean that math isn't a real scientific discipline and we should throw away our calculators?

No, just because someone falsely argues that evolutionary psychology justifies sexism or female subservience to men or some other nonsense doesn't mean that we didn't evolve our psychology and that the evolution of human psychology isn't something that can and should be studied.

Can you explain for example, without calling us sexists, why most women across all cultures strongly prefer men taller than themselves?
Why is there height dimorphism in humans to begin with?

For one thing, the user I was agreeing with said that: "our bodies think that the conditions of the past are still present".

This is almost certainly true since those types of instincts likely take millions of years to go away, not thousands.

Its mostly about muscle, money and fame.

Yes, we have instinctual drives that contribute to our behaviour (like eating and breathing to stay alive) obviously--but we also have capacities like free will, the capacity for self-reflection, the capacity to be educated, we also have cultural influences, and familial influences...to say our behaviour is dictated by biology is so limited, reductionist, and just doesn't reflect reality. We do things against our instincts all the time, like take drugs (self-destructive behaviour), go on rollercoasters, make sacrifices for our futures and our children that can be sometimes against our self-interested instincts prompting us to do otherwise in the moment, because we have self-awareness and the capacity for foresight. Human life is so much more complex than instinct and biological/hormonal impulses, to try and reduce behaviour to instinct is ridiculous and unscientific. Anyone who tries is simply proving their own lack of imagination and the inability to think outside of black-and-white constructs. We are more than the sum of our hormones and genetic material. We are f*****g SENTIENT, fcs.

my husband has zero ambition and is very sensitive. i love his sensitivity. not all women want an alpha male.

What's his job?

he's a social worker who has been offered a supervisor position over and over and always turned it down. he can't wait to retire. then he will spend his time writing humor, maybe publishing, maybe not.

Ah so decent or well paid

social workers don't make much. he's not materialistic. he's an isfj. you can look it up. i'm going into nursing so he can afford to retire.