
Why eggheads get the girls and birdbrains don't - mgcreed
http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/why-eggheads-get-the-girls-and-birdbrains-dont-20090901-f6ys.html
======
blhack
Nay.

Women are attracted to power. Famous scientists, authors, and artists wield
power.

In addition to this, the attraction to "intelligence" is like
gravity...omnipresent, but weak in relation to something like the strong
nuclear force (looks).

(as with most statements, append the phrase "within reason" to this).

~~~
timr
If you're going to use stereotypes as if they're facts, at least throw in a
few others for balance: women are attracted to starving-artist types;
gregarious, life-of-the-party types; literary types; sensitive brooding
mysterious types; bad-boy types, and so on. These are all theories that I've
heard from other guys -- it seems like every guy has his own preferred
stereotype for what "women" find attractive.

You're only doing yourself a disservice if you believe that women are a
monoculture, universally attracted to a single trait. (I think that goes for
intelligence, too, but at least the researchers here are just trying to show
that intelligence _can_ be an aphrodesiac, not that it's _always_ attractive.)

~~~
lionhearted
The problem with generalizing is that you're generalizing, but that doesn't
mean it's totally useless and everything is relative either.

------
roundsquare
> Alternative theories to the mating mind include that our large brain evolved
> because it was advantageous for hunting or living in social groups, and
> cultural creativity was simply a fortuitous byproduct of the struggle to
> survive.

Isn't this part of the same theory? Traits that are good for survival should
be more attractive (i.e. being attracted to traits that are good for survival
increases your chances of survival which means that such attraction should
evolve).

~~~
nollidge
Not necessarily. Consider the peacock's tail - not good for survival, but
sexually selected for.

Just because something "should" evolve doesn't mean it does. Evolution is
haphazard, and adaptations are usually merely _good enough_ , not perfect.

~~~
roundsquare
True, but I guess my point is that I wouldn't consider it a completely
distinct theory as the article suggests it its.

But its a good point, its possibly intelligence is attractive for reasons not
having to do with evolution.

------
btn
Are there any reasons to believe that we can generalise the behaviour of birds
to humans? The article claims that we can, but I don't see why, especially
given that "they're not as complex as humans".

~~~
btilly
You're absolutely right. If you're going to generalize to humans, wouldn't you
be better off trying to generalize from close relatives?

Let's try that. In many mammals the selection is clearly for winners of
dominance fights who collect harems. We clearly don't do that. Our closest
relatives, chimpanzees, have a lot of selection for sperm production. We don't
do that either. If we don't behave like these close relatives, then why would
one assume that we behave like bower birds?

~~~
barry-cotter
Eh, we clearly do have selection for sperm production. We have the second
biggest balls in proportion to body size of any primate, which strongly
suggests that only the (bonobo?) chimpanzees fuck around more than us.

~~~
btilly
Reference, please. I find that claim rather dubious considering that the
common chimpanzee and bonobo are recognized as different species, which would
make us at best third in the balls department. And we're not really comparable
- the difference in size between us and them is about a factor of 3. (Chimps
weigh in at 4 oz, we are 1.5 oz. The average male chimp is 100 pounds, we
weigh somewhat more than that.)

In fact I'd bet we lose to the anubis baboon.
<http://www.springerlink.com/content/ktvkuqv460200j70/> probably has the data
for a definitive answer on that but it is behind a pay wall.

If you're looking for amusing evolutionary sexual trivia, humans have far
larger penises relative to body size than any other great ape.

~~~
barry-cotter
You're right, I was wrong, we fall in between the gorillas and chimpanzees, so
we seem to be mildly polygynous but not dramatically so (consistent with our
degree of sexual dimorphism)

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070925090250.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070925090250.htm)

------
lunchbox
This looks like another case of correlation != causation. Physical health
(e.g. absence of disease) of the male birds is one possible lurking variable:
good health keeps one's brain performing better, and it also makes one more
attractive to the other sex.

~~~
DrJokepu
I agree with you in that correlation is not causation but I think you're
overcomplicating things a bit in your example; birds don't have a healthcare
system, they're either completely healthy and fit or get killed by a predator
or by their inability to migrate or some other external factor relatively
quickly.

------
edw519
I think "Revenge of the Nerds" got it best:

    
    
      - That was wonderful.
      - You did things to me you've never done before.
      (gasps)
      - You're that nerd!
      - Yeah.
      - God, you were wonderful.
      - Thanks.
      - Are all nerds as good as you?
      - Yes.
      - How come?
      - Cos all jocks think about is sports.
      - All we ever think about is sex.

------
kristianp
The study showed that males who were able to problem solve in order to remove
red objects from their nests, got the most mates.

In this case the smart birds got the girls, but it doesn't follow that smart
humans have the same sexual selection.

