Are Attractive Women More Likely to Be "Crazy"?

Post Reply New Topic

Would be correlated with looks? On what basis?

As I stated, intelligence can contribute to adaptability; it can also allow an organism or species to become reliant on it over other aspects of biology and behavior. My comment means this: when there is no natural selection and too many prospective mates, the idea of applying an animal-based perspective to the hows and whys of the human romantic relationship doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since many of the pressures that dictate the behavior in the first place are sublimated, leaving the impulses largely warped.


M.

Natural selection isn't that important. A huge factor in mammalian (*specifically* homo) evolution is sexual selection. There's nothing strange and new and wonderful here. This is just another chapter in any ol' animal.

We disagree; I feel that societal effects have sufficiently warped the process that an approach such as yours hasn't been applicable for somewhere in the thousands of years.


M.

Evidence? There is some evidence that at least some genes related to brain development have undergone significant selection in western society over the past, idk, 5-10K years. In much the same way as stupidity now is being selected for, so too in the past have other traits been selected for. Nothing has changed but the circumstances.

For an opinion, one need not evidence... however, I will say that socio-political effects are such that breeding also occurred for reasons both contrary and arbitrary in the face of best evolutionary practices. One can point to the breeding practices of European royalty for several centuries as but one instance of aberrant breeding practices within the highest levels of the species' pecking order.


M.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." It doesn't matter what the mating practices are; they are still mating practices and this is going to correspond to sexual selection. People are still animals, no matter how much they don't want to admit it.

It really depends on What kind of intelligence you're talking about makuranososhi. If you're talking about so-called "cognitive intelligence", such as the ability to understand the physical world then I think you might be right to some extent. But it DOES seem quite obvious that social intelligence is a highly useful trait for the survival of progeny in humans.





Im with twoshots on this and the REASON being that in much of the modern, industrialized world people are free to choose their mates instead of being forced into arranged marriages governed by artificial selection based on filial economics rather than genuine attraction. And this has been going on long enough such that it is possible to observe patterns in the choices people make. There has been a LOT of research into human sexual selection for the past 30 years and the preliminary result is that it is absolutely NOT random.

You're joking, right? Up until the 20th century, the average human could expect a lifespan of not much more than 30 years.
Wiki Link here

This means that for the most part, except in certain relatively sophisticated societies (compared to their contemporaries), reproduction happened early and often, especially because infant mortality was so high. Rest assured that in many ways humans now are not that much different than their ancestors. We're bigger, stronger, fatter, and more educated, but we're only a couple of thousand years into any form of civilization. As animals, our lifespans are pretty short when not assisted by technology. The more physically mature mate at age 14-17 would be the most likely to get the choice of female partners, especially in an age where physical labor dominated and put food on the table. And the parents of that young female would be much more accepting of a "strong young man" as the father of their grandkids than the neighborhood's scrawny smart-ass.

This is still the case in many undeveloped parts of the world, where having above average intelligence just might mean that you're dissatisfied with manual labor, lazy, and have no outlet in which your intelligence would provide you an advantage (not a ton of bankers or physicists in the Congo, for example) As many can attest to here, having above average intelligence in one area does not mean it is in Social intelligence.




Wrong again -- what statistics are you quoting? -- Studies have shown that the offspring of intelligent people tend to regress back to the mean. Intelligent people are outliers -- this is why we have a mean in the first place (e.g. IQ of 100)
Wiki Link Here





Please expound on the point, instead of just flashing your vocab. Explain your point in layman's terms so that we all here can understand something that you claim to be familiar with. And take into account that you're wrong on two of your connecting points above.

twoshots - indeed, and if you had provided facts, we'd have a different conversation. But mating practices within the human species does not correspond to the same in the general animal kingdom. Through centuries upon centuries of arranged marriages, offspring born of political, economic or societal reasons instead of biological, and the like... the practice of breeding in the human species has been marred and affected. People are animals, plain and simple - here we agree. But like neurotic dogs who do not recognize their own instincts and become dysfunctional, we bipedal animals are as susceptible to this weakness like any other.

Hal - intelligence contributes to the adaptability of a species. However, consider in the event of overpopulation - those who are socially reliant are now disadvantaged while those able to function independently are now in an advantageous position. Sometimes the ability to think can distract from one's ability to react... something to consider. A few other points: the "modern" world does not represent a majority of the world's population; I never said it was random, I said it was warped; that people choose their mates on the basis of personal preference instead of breeding characteristics is part of the saturated market I spoke of in the first place.


M.

The 33 year lifespan is due to child mortality; if you make it to sexual maturity, the expected lifespan is into the 50s. So that kind of throws a wrench into your model of primitive society.


Ummm..that heritability equation holds for any quantifiable phenotype, so I'm not sure how it invalidates my point. The heritability of IQ is estimated at .50 (and that goes up with age, hitting near .8 by adulthood). Correlation among twins is over .80. Because IQ is not perfectly heritable, it regresses to the mean, yes. Looking *just* at the statement you bolded, though, I'm not sure I see the problem as the heritability formula implies that people with an above average IQ will tend to have offspring with an above average IQ, so I still don't see the problem.

I mean, humans have shown a rather clear trend towards larger brains and superior technology over the past IDK 2 million year.


I have not yet begun to flash my vocab! My point was pretty clear, on both the count that you're extending a trend backwards in time and that I was aware of your point prior to making my point.

I guess I don't have much of a rebuttal then (and sorry for my somewhat hostile tone, I overreacted to your first post to me, then had a bit of a mini-meltdown this morning).

I have to admit that I have a pet theory, apparently with some flaws, that attractiveness does not correlate with intelligence/stability. This actually works against me, as I and my siblings are considered more attractive than average, but in our cases, we also have above average intelligence (along with some mental instability and issues).

I still stand by my statement though, that only in recent times, or in certain populations, has intelligence beyond the average really helped much. You would need a society that had small businesses and other positions that conferred a selective advantage to intelligence -- otherwise, you end up with my "jock vs. the smart ass" in a hunter-gatherer society, and guess who wins? The smart ass, if he has social intelligence, might be able to marshall some tribal support or get a leadership role, but overall the men and women who are physically mature earlier in life, regardless of intelligence, will mate earlier, more often, and gain key roles in societies up until the modern age. It is only the past 100 years where intelligence has really conferred a selective advantage in anyone who wasn't royalty or in the merchant middle class. I would even argue that in the case of Royalty, intelligence would be selected against in the case where the main royal family wanted to eliminate powerful rivals from their midst -- e.g., "that duke over there has no ambition or gift, but that Earl is a conniving SOB, so let's frame him for something and lop off his head."

Case in point where intelligence was selected for -- Askenazi Jews (and here we veer into controversy). There are signs that as a whole, intelligence was selected for in this group. They were genetically self-isolating (out-marriage was highly discouraged), forced into career paths that involved more mental aptitude (banking, law, business) and had a religion with an emphasis on law and literacy (being able to read the Torah and the associated books being a benchmark of being a man, and religious law being an intense topic of study for several thousand years). At the same time, they were excluded (by force of law and prejudice) from many manual careers in the larger societies that their society lived in. The end result -- natural and sexual selection for IQ. However, you just don't see that as much with other populations, where other career paths, including the physical/blue collar, have been open, thus allowing a mentally mediocre but physically fit individual to thrive and reproduce.

Whoah, you got it BACKWARDS, dude! The more people there are in this world the more power and influence those with good social skills will have! If you find it easy to win friends and are persuasive(and even charismatic) then in the event of overpopulation you will rise to the top. Because if you rely on other people by means of manipulating them to give you things the more people there are the more stuff you'll ultimately get.

Totally disagree with you. When social structure breaks down, those who depend on it are left without means; when it comes to survival, social skills have only so much value. Overpopulation in animal structures eventually leads to a catastrophic breakdown; how is humanity any different? Would I rather be the person with the skill, or the person who knew the person with the skill? I think I take the prior in that scenario, whereas you would take the latter. Such is life, the differences between people. I also believe we're looking at different places along the overpopulation timeline as well, btw.


M.

Ever heard of MOB mentality? Yes social order breaks down in the event of overpopulation which means that if there is a charismatic populist he can motivate other people to do his biding! Self-reliant individualists will find themselves competing with aggressive mobs who will chase down and obliterate anyone who is different from them. I'd like to see some EVIDENCE that human overpopulation leads to anarchy.

Yes. Very Yes! Lol just kidding. Maybe it might appear so as they often crave attention though....

What the heck are you talking about?



I never used the word "as*hole" starvingartist but it happens to be a FACT that its not at all uncommon for bipolar people to display narcissistic tendencies. ESPECIALLY when they're expieriencing a manic episode. My ex-gf was bipolar and she was INCREDIBLY manipulative would often do things to *stir the pot* because she was emotionally imbalanced. Are you bipolar or something? If so are you type I(Manic-Depressive)? Mood disorders like manic-depressive, as well as personality disorders like Boderline Often DO have a negative impact on the love lives of people who are afflicted with them. Sorry if the Truth is offense to you.