The truth about how love and attraction really work

Post Reply New Topic

I think that is false. More likely, your claim means that you have failed to detect interest in a few women that were interested in you, and you can fix that by observing how people express interest.

I don't literally mean chimp, I mean our evolutionary common denominator. And I don't mean "feel" like a chimp, I'm talking about subconscious behavior and physiology.


We share 98.8% of our DNA with some chimps. That's the difference between us, them and our common ancestors. All mammals share more or less the same underlying mechanisms of mating. Why would humans be an exception?


"standards for what is attractive" are just manifestation of fundamentally the same mechanisms.

If you take any chimp, keep it in a confined space of a concrete box without natural light, feed them with sh***y processed foods, limit their movement etc, for like a year, this animal will get sick and depressed. If you release this animal into the wild, it will not be attractive to their species until it recovers completely.

This is exactly the same with humans.

You have to be joking. Do you mean that humans and chimp have the same mating behavior? Quite to the contrary. Basically, every species have their own courtship rituals that are incompatible because mating across species barriers is usually negative.



Nope. courtship is highly variable, and attractiveness is based on courtship preferences.

Just compare chimp & bonobo. They have very different courtship & gender roles despite being closely related.

Or take birds as examples. Females of some species value some male ornamentations highly, while females of other species don't find that attractive and value other attributes. Same with songs. Bird species have different songs that attract females of their own species but are not attractive to other species.



Agree completely, but that is not the issue that autistics have with NTs in the mating game. Rather, autistics are not born with the same courtship preferences as NTs.

Last edited by rdos on 31 May 2021, 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

I know that is not true, because in many cases I actively pursued the women I was interested, or whom I suspected might have an interest in me, and was rejected 100% of the time.

Mating behavior is just surface manifestation of what I'm talking about. One of these manifestations is rationalization of irrational behavior.


Again, not what I'm talking about.



"Mating game" is like 10% of attractiveness. Mate preselection before engagement in mating rituals is based mostly on subconscious factors, like genetic compatibility, subtle signs of being healthy and able to provide protection and food to offspring, etc. it is based on very subtle signals like scents we don't register consciously.

If you keep your inner chimp happy, you will be attractive even "against all odds".

If your inner chimp is completely suppressed by your environment and lifestyle, you will not be attractive even if you check all the points of attractiveness we believe in as society.

I think that is pretty easy to explain. You asked NT women for a date, and they rejected you because you failed NT standards. Maybe you even asked some autistic women for a date, but most of these either dislike dating, want to observe you first, or played NT and concluded you failed NT standards too.

Sure, but it is this that is highly valuable. You cannot draw chimps into this since they clearly don't select mates based on the same subconscious factors as NTs. Courtship is designed to hinder inter-species mating, and so genetic compatibility is signaled through variation in courtship that is rather random. We humans have this rather random stuff too in our courtship. It's not some successful evolution that every species has, rather random variation that doesn't need to be useful for survival. For instance, male bird ornamentations make these males easier prey and might hinder in everyday activity, but as long as females prefer them they can still reproduce.



If I keep my inner Neanderthal happy it will work far better.



Sure, but attractivity is still a species-typical concept and so has no general rules, only random stuff favored by your species.

No, you are wrong. Subconscious factors I'm talking about are exactly the same in chimps and humans and for the most part in most land mammals. We have a lot in common with tigers and mice. That's exactly right, courtship is just surface level, random, it is mostly meaningless ritual, least significant part.

But what's different doesn't matter. What we all share is more important. If you wouldn't expect chimp to be happy and attractive living in certain conditions, for the most part the same applies to humans. We need to push all the buttons to express those genes. Being physically active, spending more time outdoors in direct sunlight and breathing fresh air is very important to radiate all the right signals to be attractive.

What you talked about were rather abstract things like being healthy and a good provider. I'm pretty sure how to be like this cannot be a mammal universal. It's not even universal among NT people as it has a considerable cultural variation.



Just take the most obvious difference for starters. Humans generally dislike hairy people, while chimp most likely dislikes non-hairy.

No, I'm not talking about formal signs of modern society, I'm talking about signals that are result of evolution. Unemployed rock musician living in his mom's van can easily send all the right signals, while extremely successful software developer might express none.


Are you trolling or taking everything too literally due to being autistic? I'm not talking about manifestations of factors. For sure signs of health would be different for chimps, humans and tigers, but importance of subtle indicators of health is the same in all species.

I actually have no idea which "signals" you propose are the same in all land mammals. For starters, this diverse group of animals doesn't even share any communication system, and are not even able to express the same signals, so this seems like a completely impossible concept.

I think you have most of it backwards. The way evolution works is to assign pleasurable feelings with courtship and survival skills. The reward system actually is the primary system evolution uses to enforce that courtship is carried out in the right way and that individuals engage in stuff that have survival potential. The reward system certainly is shared in all mammals, but the triggers are not.

Given that, it's not so hard to figure out if something is natural courtship for somebody. If you enjoy asking girls out it's likely part of your natural courtship, but if you just do it because you have to and have trained yourself to do it, then it's not natural courtship. If you enjoy dating it's likely part of your courtship preferences, while if you don't, it's not. Sex is pleasurably for most people (because it leads to reproduction), but sleeping around is not. A lot of autistic identifying as asexual is an indication that sleeping around is not natural courtship for autistics. If you enjoy distance observation even if it doesn't lead anywhere (at least not in the short term), then this is likely part of your natural courtship.

For me, the strongest motivators are infatuation and special interests. The first relates to courtship and the second to survival. For most NTs, the strongest motivators are sexual intercourse, social gatherings and social status.

So, if you want to avoid depression & negativity, you need to do things that are motivating for you. Just learning to do things that are motivating for NTs, or that are part of dating won't result in less depression or negativity unless you are motivated by it. Rote learning is of no help. Ultimately, people seek happiness and to a large extent this is positive feedback from social partners for NTs, but for autistics it's much simpler since you can send these signals directly between you. I don't particularly appreciate flatter or positive feedback, neither receiving it nor giving it, and it feels fake. However, sending positive signals is more or less automatic and pleasurable in both contexts.

Like said several times already, exact signals are not the same. Are you trolling? But still we share communication systems like scent, for example. I'll say in advance, exact signals we send through scents are not the same. Bears follow scent of footprints of female bears they find attractive for miles. Humans communicate attraction through components of scent they don't register consciously.


No, you have most of it backwards. 50000 years ago someone who never leaves a cave and isn't physically active was injured or sick, we evolved to care for this person, support as a member of our tribe, friend, not to mate with such person. Today we send and receive the same signals subconsciously and can't be attracted to this person.

Last edited by badRobot on 31 May 2021, 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If they are not the same then they are not shared. Successful communication requires that signals are shared and have a common meaning.



Scent is not a communication system, it's a sensory channel. For scents to be part of a shared communication system a species must both be able to produce a scent and recognize it as a signal.



That's disputed. I don't think there is any serious scientific work that has proved that pheromones are important in human mating.

In many animals, scent is used to sense if a female is receptive and so can be thought of as an indicator of mating readiness. This is important in basically every animal since animals typically only have sex during mating periods, and not anytime as humans. And I don't think that human males can sense if a human female is in "heat" by her smell. So, this at least is not shared even among primates.

In your bear example, my guess is the male follows her because she gives away signals of being receiptive, and not because she is attractive. He can't even decide if she is good looking without seeing her.



So much wrong with this:

1. Autistics are not meant to live in tribes, nor to have friends

2. Neanderthal cared for their injured because it was advantagous for them, not because it was a friend or tribe member. Altruism is an unusual thing in animals, and it isn't always motivated by the same things.

3. People's selection of mates are not dependent on some magic signals that all mammals have, simply because all mammals share exactly ZERO signals. Instead, mate selection is enforced by courtship preferences which are carried out because they are pleasurable.

Last edited by rdos on 31 May 2021, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

To me they're a safe outlet. If it wasn't for them, I'd never keep a job because I'd always be hitting on female co-workers

Like I said several times already, underlying mechanisms are shared, not signals. How many times I need to repeat it?


It is a communication system. Our parasympathetic nervous system receives this information and trigger cascade of hormonal responses if it can register signs of genetic compatibility and indicators of good health.


I'm not talking about pheromones.


Autistics are meant to live in tribes and have friends. Many autistic people literally depend on them for survival.


So? What does it change?


People's preselection of mates is dependent on biological signals almost to the same extent as in all other mammals. Courtship preferences, especially culture dependent are superficial rituals required for conscious acknowledgement, rationalization of biological attraction.

What underlying mechanisms? Can you give me a reference that describes them?



Sorry, but I don't believe in "biological psychiatry". These researchers have it all wrong. Depression is not a brain imbalance, it's a state of hopelessness. Serotonin and all the rest of the "brain chemicals" are indicators, not causes. By treating depression with chemicals you might temporily be able to alter it, but it does no good in the long run since the cause is not a chemical imbalance but a poor environment.

I have no idea how this system could detect genetic compatibility or good health, but if you have a serious source, please present it.



Nope. In the survey I did a while back with 1000s of participants it was clear that autistics had far lower desires to have friends, and among those that seeked friends it was evident most actually wanted a partner and not a friend and hoped the "friends first concept" would work out.



Courtship indeed is somewhat dependent on culture in humans, but in most other species it's innate and doesn't need to be learnt. Even in humans, courtship still follows rather rigid rules that are shared among cultures. So, while what consistutes a "good partner" changes between cultures & epochs, the context is always related to traits that are valued in the culture. Particularly high status always means "a good social player" in all cultures, and are on many women's lists of desired traits.

Besides, I fail to see how the claim that "preselection of mates" is even a trait in most animal species. In most species, a male will mate with ANY female that is receptive if he can get away with it. Attraction doesn't seem to be a factor at all. Just being receptive seems to be the same thing as attractive. Among species where males fight, it's the outcome of the fight itself rather than female choice that decides who will mate.