What females really want

Post Reply New Topic

We have had this thread before, you are correct in that according to evolutionary psychology the things you list are what females want. Your data fits nicely with the data from the pick up artist community, which is in essence a bunch of guys who spend just about every second figuring out how to attract females. It fits with the mating behavior of other species, most closely linked would be other primates. However, what you need to keep in mind is that many females will protest your findings, and the other findings on a conscious level because from a purely psychological point of view, human beings like to think that we have complete free will and are consciously in control of our important actions.

You will have quite a few women, and most likely some men that protest the data you present, however in my experience, if you observe the same people in their natural habitat engaging in mating behavior, you will see the same correlations with your data that the same people protested in a discussion.

Subjectivity also comes into play in the form of multiple factors I've noticed:

1. People tend to adapt their partner requirements to what is available to them. Meaning, that a woman that scores 6 for looks in California may score 9 or 10 in a different location. A man that scores 2 for wealth in one country, may score 8 for wealth in another country and so it goes for most of the qualities listed. Note that the numbers here represent percentages, the mean of which decides a person's overall "score" as a mate. You also need to apply a certain weighting based on the group you are investigating purely due to the varying focus on different qualities.

2. People have a degree of subjectivity in their valuations, leading to the need for a standard deviation to be established.

3. People naturally adjust their demands to fit within their own percentile and the percentiles are dependent on the self-valuation of the person. For instance, a low-confidence person is usually less inclined to go for people within the same percentile as them and may prefer going for lower percentile mates to lessen competition.

Of course, I am expecting the usual suspects to protest these statements, most likely based on what I like to call the "Snowflake-assertion" IE that these findings are not representative in their entirety for every single person, thus invalid, despite that they are not meant to be applied on an individual level but rather are behavioral trends.

P.S look at what people do, not what they say. Human beings have a tendency towards being "people pleasers" or rather "super-ego" pleasers, in their words but tend to act somewhat differently.

No one's denying the data is correct, TM, just that it isn't representative of every living human being on Earth. It's no better than concluding that because all Skittles are from the same bag, that they all taste the same.

The author of the post meant well, and is simply naive and not really fully knowledgeable of the sources he refers to.
You on the other hand are more knowledgeable and are encouraging him out of your own bitterness towards life.

edit: my post did not make sense in this context because i only skimmed the op, and therefore my post was irrelevant.

I want to say sorry to everyone, I think I may putted it wrong in words ...

"Given that we are on a forum where quite a few members, especially in this sub-forum have issues with social behavior, being able to systematize these to a certain objective degree is beneficial as unlike large parts of society those members are unable to intuitively grasp the social conventions and behaviors associated with human relationships. I'm also not suggesting that this be applied literally."

This is the reason why I said this about evolutionary psychology.
I personally do not have problems in relationships.