

Intercourse and Intelligence - pwnstigator
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

======
startingup
I sense too much negativity and frustration on this thread. I can sympathize.
I was exactly the same way at 24, a nerd who couldn't hold a conversation with
the opposite sex, had rejection after rejection, and was pretty depressed
about it too.

I consciously decided to "improve" myself. Here are things I did:

1\. Improved my wardrobe. Believe me, it makes a difference. 2\. Consciously
taught myself to listen, and ask questions that will lead to more
conversation. 3\. Consciously taught myself to gauge the level of interest of
the other person. Move on if the other person isn't interested - as they say,
there is always more fish in the ocean. 4\. Push the envelope a little bit ...
the man has to push - you have to ask for the phone number! And it is a good
way to gauge interest. 5\. Don't forget that some level of IQ compatibility is
critical. Just as "they" don't want the nerd in you, may be some of the
"airhead" types aren't great to be around for you either.

Let me just say that I hit success after consciously doing it. It is like
doing a start-up. Know your strengths and know how to compensate for your
weaknesses - a superior IQ can help you figure out how to compensate :-)

------
tokenadult
I asked my wife of twenty-six years, the mother of our four children, what she
thought of this link, and she commented that maybe the link just shows that IQ
and intelligence are not quite the same thing. It is paradoxical to suppose
that high intelligence people might have less reproductive success than
average intelligence people, but it's not too far of a stretch to suppose that
IQ tests fail to capture all of the intelligent behavior necessary to enjoy
reproductive success.

An older but much more thorough source on some of the same issues is

[http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-
Scientists-...](http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Scientists-
Statistics/dp/0387982345)

with some very good discussions of differential rates of reproduction by IQ
score.

~~~
nostrademons
Why is it paradoxical to suppose that high intelligence people might have less
reproductive success than average intelligence people?

~~~
TeHCrAzY
Seems that it should provide some selection bias, as the more intelligent you
are, the more likely you will have a good idea and survive longer/provide
better for your family etc.

~~~
UncleOxidant
Perhaps, but in times past physical strength was probably as much or more
important than intelligence. Note that the least intelligent also have less
opportunities to pass on their genes. It would seem that there's a sweet spot
where a mix of intelligence and strength is most favored(note the testosterone
hypothesis in the article).

Now, however, intelligence is much more important to success. How long will it
take for evolution to smile on those with higher IQs such that potential mates
find intelligence to be the most attractive trait?

------
ray_wang
An article the states something that we all know. I think the smartest people
knows when to act dumb.

As a comp sci master student who also go out on weekends sometime to clubs, I
have to say that women are not turned on by the occupation of a programmer.

~~~
onewland
I don't think they're turned on by room-temperature IQ construction workers
(not saying they all are) _for their occupation_ either. Maybe the problem
here is that you're talking about your occupation. If you meet a secretary or
a doctor in a bar, do you want to hear her rattle on about her daily routine?

This could be related to the problems very intelligent people have getting
laid. Their interests are less accessible and more focused, and so their
conversations are more boring to people who don't share those interests.
Whereas everybody but the stupidest people can easily follow along in a
reality TV discussion.

~~~
pwnstigator
Few people are turned on by low intelligence. What the construction worker has
on the programmer is masculinity; it's perceived as a more "manly" line of
work.

However, both men and women tend to be more androgynous as intelligence
increases, which is a problem for both genders, but especially for men, when
it comes to attracting mates.

~~~
mixmax
Marissa Meyer doesn't strike me as particularly androgynous

[http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=marissa%20mayer&...](http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=marissa%20mayer&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)

:-)

~~~
sketerpot
I know you're joking, but this meme of "disproving" statistical statements
with individual counterexamples really steams my clams.

~~~
mixmax
Well, even though it was intended as a joke I can only agree.

------
caryme
Two mentions of the "opposite sex" make me wonder how heterocentric this study
was. I haven't investigated his source studies and the link to the
Counterpoint survey is broken.

If the wording of the original survey asks questions specifically related to
kissing, holding hands with, and having sex with members of the opposite sex,
this study could fail to consider the sexual activity of intelligent
homosexual college students which could also provide some interesting results.

------
billswift
Anybody else notice how this relates to pg's essay "Why Nerds are Unpopular"
(<http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html>)? Getting sex as a teen, like being
popular, takes fairly dedicated effort, and more intelligent, especially
nerdy, people have other things to spend time on.

------
fnid
There are sooooo many reasons why these numbers may look like this. You may
consider it is because smart people are unattractive, or you could consider it
that smart people are smart enough to know it isn't a good idea to have sex
when you are _fifteen_.

~~~
rwolf
The author suggests the same interpretations in more general terms:

"Another idea is that smarter people are more risk averse, and delaying these
activities is a byproduct of enhanced concerns about unwanted pregnancy and
disease. While not avoiding sexual behaviors, per se, they are just less
likely to seek it out or consent to it for fear of the potential consequences.

...

Another idea, consistent with popular media portrayals of geeks and nerds
(males at least), is that intelligent people actually want to have sex, but
are simply less likely or unable to obtain willing partners because they are
disproportionately viewed as unattractive or undesirable as partners."

edit: this comment is not meant to support your claims, only to suggest your
claims are redundant to HNers who read the article.

~~~
pwnstigator
I think it's similar to "Why Nerds are Unpopular".

In my parents' day, "finding a husband/wife" wasn't something most people had
to make an active effort in order to do. It happened fairly naturally. So
smart people paired off at a similar rate to everyone else.

In the post-"Game" world, wherein breaking through womens' defenses and
attracting them requires learning a bag of cheap sales tricks, the big losers
are the people who don't learn them. These are the dumb, who are unable, and
the smart nerds, who can't be bothered because they find childish social games
uninteresting.

~~~
wallflower
> In the post-"Game" world, wherein breaking through womens' defenses and
> attracting them requires learning a bag of cheap sales tricks

The entire industry of pick up technology is based on the premise that there
may be a technique that can successfully attract a woman. Wheras, in real
life, there is no magic technique - it's all about confidence and putting
youself out there, taking a risk/taking the lead.

What the pickup artists are really marketing is protecting the guy's ego -
e.g. I wasn't rejected - it was the approach/technique. Which, as we all know,
is false marketing.

~~~
pwnstigator
_The entire industry of pick up technology is based on the premise that there
may be a technique that can successfully attract a woman._

It's not that simple, just as there isn't one "magic trick" that can close a
sale. It's a complex set of skills that has to be learned over years.

On the other hand, some guys are able to feast because they've mastered a bag
of cheap tricks, and there are a lot more men dying to be like them.

~~~
rwolf
I find your use of the terms "close a sale" and "feast" in this context
disturbing.

~~~
pwnstigator
You should. I'm not sugarcoating the ugly, ruined world that supposed "sexual
modernism" has brought us to.

I am all for the right of gays to marry, legalized abortion, and 95 percent of
the feminist platform. The problem is that we now have a generation of women
who feel "empowered" to "try out" a few of the scumbag men that, in previous
generations, they wouldn't have dared be seen with. That hurts almost
everyone.

~~~
foldr
How outrageous that women should feel empowered to sleep with people of whom
you disapprove. If only they had the sense to ask your opinion first!

~~~
pwnstigator
That clearly doesn't scale.

On the other hand, it's a better world when _people_ behave sexually in a
manner that is consistent with their public morality. That means that they
don't sleep with people they wouldn't be proud to be seen with by their
parents, family, and friends and to call a boyfriend or girlfriend.

~~~
lionhearted
You know, I'm not entirely sure this discussion is going anywhere, but I
thought I'd jump in and share a thought that might be valuable anyways.

> On the other hand, it's a better world when people behave sexually in a
> manner that is consistent with their public morality.

This sentence here, it assumes people's public morality is their real feelings
on the matter, instead of doing what needs to be done to get by without
ostracism.

I think most people have at least a little different public and private
moralities - there's what you believe, and there's what you'd be comfortable
representing you believe in your community.

Assuming that the public morality is the real or sensible morality seems to
miss that a lot of people aren't happy with the roles they're generally
expected to take. Some very outstanding people openly show their
countercultural preferences, but many people just quietly dissent, and that's
not altogether too crazy if their dissent leads them to the best possible life
for themself.

Now, people being unable to make good judgment calls on what furthers their
real goals - that's a big problem. But giving a nod to public morality, much
of which is imposed on people, seems to be a little off. I think the issue is
more of good judgment and long term thinking than it is with public/private
morality.

------
chaostheory
Nothing new - even for fruit flies

[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4200-cleverness-may-
ca...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4200-cleverness-may-carry-
survival-costs.html)

~~~
adamsmith
Seems unrelated. The New Scientist article doesn't describe mate selection or
reproduction.

In fact, it seems like they just bred fruit flies that over emphasize their
past observations. They didn't make "clever" fruit flies.

