I know someone who posts here who would complain loudly and repeatedly they couldn’t get a date.
I tried to offer to take them to one of the gallery showings I used to go to, and was like dude I don’t have a girlfriend either but I don’t talk about it loudly in the lab.
He told me I’d had like fifteen girlfriends since we worked together and after a bit of a puzzled back and forth since that was… the kind of rumor I’m not gonna deny but also entirely inaccurate.
Eventually I realized he meant that so much as inviting someone over for tea once and having it not click was a “girlfriend” to him…
And when I kind of laughed, said he’s too metric’s obsessed and he should come to an art exhibition rather than keep posting about how horny he is on Reddit, he just went on a long rant about how modern art isn’t art.
Anyways sorry for the long winded story but “women” aren’t really some species to be studied, just like men, they want someone who’s kind, who shows a sincere interest and (this is the part that seeks to trip up you people) someone with a sense of humor.
Try just finding a hobby like film or art and someone will eventually take you up to the roof like it’s that one episode of Mr Robot ;-)
Seems to be overly focused on women. What about men? High IQ men are less interested in humans in general because of their unreliability / lack of depth / generally takes too much time dealing with their emotions, so they dont seek out females and end up less fertile overall. There is asymmetry in sexual demand from the two sexes so women are generally bombarded with requests and don't end up in a symmetric situation.
What's wrong with the picture of elon with tesla people ? Many of those guys are average or above. Seems like the author thinks hollywood is the attractiveness standard - that s false, hollywood is just a show.
Then again , high intelligence is not necessarily more fit. In the modern world, being social and having a network of rich people is more powerful on average, so selecting for average or below intelligence may be more fit.
Sounds like the article is working from experience & psych. research that are both 100% WEIRD-biased*. Plus, women pretty plausibly select for cultural ideals and economic strength...which, right now, looks a lot like selecting for intelligence.
Eg the graphs showing smart teens being less likely to have sex may well accurately represent the data but the effect doesn't neccesarily persist, late (sexual) blooming is a thing.
> With all this in mind, it is not difficult to comprehend why females swoon over attractive athletes, actors, or musicians, yet they tend to be conspicuously absent from the Nobel Prize presentation.
A glib line that fails to explain Les Horribles Cernettes . . .
While he goes into detail on the teen study to illustrate the point, his sources at the bottom are much broader.
...but it's important to note that male/female relationships and preferences often form in the teenage years and persist for the bulk of the dating years.
So I would argue that teen studies are very reflective of the general dating population, though I agree that things have certainly changed over my aging decades.
It stands to reason they do. How else we'd have very intelligent but otherwise unattractive people in every generation. I know I am one (ok, maybe not "very" :-))
Min/maxed characters have a chance. And it applies to all traits, not just intelligence.
One observation I made from several years of obsession with pickup (I know, I know), is that women on average actually don't like averages very much (and men too probably).
If you're kinda tall, kinda wealthy, kinda attractive, kinda muscular you're also kinda boring even if you would think you would be a great catch based on the statistics.
What you find in reality is that individuals have very strong individual preferences which basically make the mean irrelevant.
So for example some women really really like athletic guys, while some really really like tall guys. Bu rarely does someone have a preference for a slightly athletic guy, or a slightly tall guy.
What you find works well in reality is understanding the type of girl who would like you, putting yourself in places where you might find those girls, and playing to those traits - not trying to fit with some statistical mean.
Something that always makes me smile is that when you're out in public you often see unique characters - guys/girls with tattoos from head-to-toe, or someone with a very unique fashion sense. But 99% of the time they always have a uniquely quirky partner by their side who shares and loves their unique characteristics. And to that partner they found a 10/10 catch even if statistics would say the opposite.
Just something to keep in mind when thinking about statistics like this.
From my own player experience, I think the general observation is "interesting", and probably true for the choice long-term partners, but defnitely not for short term sex where it's always the same guys that really are reaping all the spoils consistently..
People say that the 20% 'top guys' get 80% of women and it's just a statistics until you see how radical it is for real when a guy is consistently perceived as top 5% / 1% by women. Most people don't ever see it because in general you have 0 of these guys in your social circle and if so, girls just literally become someone else and are super stealthy in dealing with theses guys.
But if you even become one of "these guys" (or be close enough to one) you see how violent reality really is.. Basically girls would do anything, break any rule to be with you. I was one of the top players when I was top of my game in my player time, but had a friend who was naturally off the chart on that scale.. He fucked literally every girl we met. I've seen multiple girls repeatedly asking for his number despite seeing him once. Multiple engaged girls ask their bf for open relationships just to fuck the guy. He had threesome all the times (when we weren't doing group parties) and all the girls knew each other and were fine with this while basically having bf on the side we were learning after. Physically he was my size so 5'11, not super muscular but doing combat sports, dark voice, very calm and a general charisma in addition of being very good at listening girls while staying mysterious. I had the same feeling of 'I'll never beat this guys, choose your battle wisely' that I had a few years ago while being in a competitive elite math course, and there was a guy who already who finished all the exams in 1 hour instead of 4 while being 19 and barely studying..
To be back to the more practical question, I believe women generally want consistently solid guys (mostly NOT WEAK) who can also make them feel good and accepted, so they are generally attracted by markers of strength, and generally qualities of being smooth / good listener and possibly vibe well with them. For marker of strength it can be physically, socially, financially or being simply conventionally attractive (tall, dark voice) but the strongest one is personality. that means basically not letting anyone walk on you, being confident and at the same time be super interested in what the girls have to say OR just simply vibing well with them. Fun fact contrary to common opinion, you actually get bonus points if you have massive selfish tendencies, narcicsic, or plain evil, precisely because at least you are not weak (the biggest horror they could think is to be with a weak guy and at least they hope you'll like them enough).
One anecdotal data point I can add here to support your last point - the most attractive woman I dated hit on me after witnessing me yell at another man and having that guy back down. It was somewhat in defense of her being put in an uncomfortable situation, and I was just naturally irritable and annoyed at the other guy. (I guess it was a little "white knighting" before that had a name).
It was a surreal and unexpected outcome that I didn't even know had occurred until days later. We were all friends and she was not at all into me, and then this incident occurred, and her attraction to me flipped on like a switch (her description) and she threw herself at me.
I think the drive for women to seek men who will protect them is part of the equation.
Yeah they want to witness confrontation and take the winner. Its actually a strategy ive absolutely used a few times, basically creating random bullshit drama and vaguely humiliate a third party male in order to raise attraction in a girl i was aiming for. Some people would say its bad but the more i live the more i think "its life and you cant change it" (and also that confrontation brings the best of people) so i think its fine on a the bigger picture.
The danger is that also works both ways, some girls lose all attraction if their man lose at something in any way. I will always actively try to avoid crying in front of a girl I love (despite her thinking she wants that), and also actively avoid having my girl in a situation where she can see me lose somehow.
>People say that the 20% 'top guys' get 80% of women and it's just a statistics until you see how radical it is for real when a guy is consistently perceived as top 5% / 1% by women. Most people don't ever see it because in general you have 0 of these guys in your social circle and if so, girls just literally become someone else and are super stealthy in dealing with theses guys.
>But if you even become one of "these guys" (or be close enough to one) you see how violent reality really is.. Basically girls would do anything, break any rule to be with you.
The article stumbles on assortative mating, and proceeds to draw the wrong conclusion.
Yes, women do select for intelligence, within reason. It would be useless for them to select for men who act, behave and talk, beyond their level of comprehension. At the same time they highly desire someone who is within their level of intelligence and not below it.
Unlike with physical attractiveness, intelligence can only be appreciated when the person itself is smart enough.
Women have dualistic mating strategy (and men too, just differently): the man whose genes they want is very different from the one who they want to provide for the baby to grow up.
Of course lucky people can have both of these traits in the same men, but sexual selection is more complex than that.
Wtf is with the influx of articles today that start with a false premise and then furiously start writing a huge pseudo-intellectual word salad trying to debunk it?
Why? Admitting that I'm a old het guy, "works 80-120 hour/week, for an infamously demanding boss" does not sound like something that younger women would be looking for.
(Though with Elan's well-documented history, I'd say that no women should rate him above 0/10 for the long-term.)
Edit: In the specific context of a faux-academic paper, written by an academic, I can see that taking digs is a violation of the accepted norms & style. But "pretty uncool" is not a phrase I'd associate with flagging that.
Guess: You are judging "7/10" on the basis of the guys' looks, moral integrity, or similar "it is all about them" criteria.
My judging criteria is closer to "would I introduce a granddaughter (who I would prefer to see in a good longer-term relationship) to them". My answer, given their current employment circumstances, is "NO". Doesn't matter if they might be the nicest guy in the world, look like the movie-star poster that my granddaughter put on the ceiling over her bed, or anything else. Their employer's ideal for work-life boundaries is "N/A, because you won't have any life for there to be a boundary". Note that I rated Elan at 0/10.
I'm convinced that Elon is the luckiest man in history or is experiencing a deterioration in cognitive function. His actions and beliefs are incongruent with intelligence or rational thought.
I think he is (or was) extremely intelligent. Listening to his informal interviews on various subjects - his depth of knowledge on multiple topics was always kind of astounding. And on the one space where I work in the industry and he's talked about it - he really gets it.
With regard to Twitter - a lot of the information we read is through a biased political filter so I don't believe we really know what's truly going on internally. I suspect a lot of his bad press is overblown.
If you start on 3rd base you don't get to claim you hit a home run.
Also, it's amazing to me the gyrations people do to legitimize wealth these days; the ancient Greeks knew if you were successful, part of that was luck. Now we have people contorting themselves Dr. Pangloss style, to say that "all is for the best" and that they of course deserve this wealth because they're so much BETTER.
Musk hardly fits the definition of an entrepreneur. Getting lucky with a couple of golden parachutes and investing in other people's ideas doesn't qualify imho.
He is also a person willing to put investment in to industries with a really long payoff and is willing to be patient enough to let it develop on a long timeline.
Everybody criticizing this guy seems to miss this. It doesn’t matter if he is intelligent or not—he is willing to trod with capital where others won’t. Without his investment or even lending his interest to get other to invest, most of this “others work” he takes credit for wouldn’t come to fruition because no one else wants to invest in something that takes decades for a payoff.
Using % virgins bucketed by IQ as a proxy for the attractiveness of intelligence is severely dumb. It requires that all of these individuals are equally chasing after non-virginityhood, which definitely is not the case. A more plausible explanation of the data is that smart people are more likely to not bang early, for reasons (of which, 1) there are many and two) smart ppl are probably more inclined to consider)
Broadly speaking, women typically select for monetary value because they are genetically programmed to secure resources for their offsprings. Monetary value is not necessarily correlated with intelligence, at least not all aspects of intelligence.
"Attractive" is in the eye of the beholder. But going to the gym regularly could be a good idea.
One aspect this article didn't mention is that people who are smarter than average may have an asocial reason for it. For example, a kid being bullied at school may spend more time studying math or reading instead of with other kids. He will do better at IQ tests, but his social skills will be so-so. It's not always the case, I've met a few very burning-hot-smart people that were also exceptional socialites.
Here is what I would tell my younger self:
Make your intelligence work out for you in a social setting, and not the other way around. Listen more than you talk, but go above and beyond to be emotive, sympathetic and understanding. People will notice you if you notice then. When you talk, do your best to be sensible and sharp about the things you say.
The most important thing I've learned though: widen your tastes, learn to love quirks and defects, and to love in general. Be adventurous, and don't listen to the Pope.
Ah, here is another hack. Some people exude intelligence in the way they talk: long sentences, exquisite grammar, good diction. But my experience aligns with the article: despite what they say, women select for average or low intelligence. So go to live in a foreign country where you struggle with the language; women will automatically divide your IQ by 2 or 3 when you speak with a heavy accent and your grammar sucks, and they won't be able to help it. When they discover that your salary is in the high quantiles, they will go as far as to attribute it to your good luck and good looks. They may even logically deduce that you are smart, but it won't percolate to the part of the brain where instinct and hormones are produced.
And speaking of it, all of it varies with age; hormones have a lesser grip on us as we age, so it is possible that women above 30 would be consistent and really go for the smart guys.
Start working out. You can be intelligent and fit. You don’t need to look jacked but having a regular gym routine will automatically make you more attractive.
People like people who take care of themselves: working out 3x a week will be a huge booster you’ll see.
This comment might be one of the most valuable in the whole thread. Confidence is very sought and valuable. Combine it with resources , it is what women seek.
For the parent of the post, try to introduce a potential partner to a female friend. Study the questions she ask and the ones she don't. It will reveal to you what she seeks and what she already has, or what don't value now.
Do you think your 'selection criteria' are the same as other people's? I expect you've seen people who you think are perceived as attractive but are not yourself attracted to? I'm sure your 'selection criteria' are unique in many ways.
What I'm coming to is that generalizing about what any women are attracted to (value?) is unwarranted. Different people want radically different things.
Women seek stability. Money is a requirement for that. Stability in the sense of their nature, a nature we must respect. For starters they will be the ones bearing the child, an event that in modern society will set their careers back, but in primitive society could mean their death if they were alone.
I agree they select for value however in my opinion Gates is not a great example of exceptions. That relationship went sideways around the time that he was interviewed about the relationship with Mr. Epstein. That appeared to be a very intelligent disassociation.
In Gates case that could be the reason, but every other woman will theirs. The fact is, she walked away with wealth and can seek men that will fulfill her other needs. Purely transactional.
Relationships are transactional. Not every single one of them, but a would say a majority. Money is not a sufficient requirement, but it is a necessary one for sure.
Should is a strong word. The world is what it is. But I tell you from experience. It will hurt a lot less to handle romantic relationships as transactional. Save unconditional love to children.
Psychology textbooks point that out as a Maladaptive Coping Mechanism.
Not trying to mock you or be oppositional - I would invite you to check it out, but the Wikipedia article is not detailed enough.
- Someone with a proper background in psychology wants to weigh in?
They can, but they are billionaires. For Bezos, yes it sucks to lose so much stock and control of something. She kinda of deserves by her support of the endeavor. My point is, regular individuals regularly get crushed by divorce process because a lot of women are experts in leveraging their position.
Behind the scientific lingo, I'm getting incel vibes from this.
Trying to summarize the behavior of half the world population is pointless. Different women look for different things in their partners. For any woman who likes a dark haired, soft spoken thoughtful guy, there's one looking for a blond passionate and outgoing guy.
The criteria are endless, and intelligence is too broad to measure. For example, wearing glasses is associated with being book smart and nerdy, so typically would be a marker of low social intelligence.
From my own experience, people in healthy relationships basically look for a friend they're physically attracted to. Your mileage may vary.
You know there are whole academic fields which go beyond, "women are different" and actually try to understand human behavior?
Maybe you should question why you have this reaction of wanting to shut down such discussion when it goes beyond what you were told was acceptable speech.
This article and the comments remind me of what I used to think as a sheltered teenager before I actually got to hang out with women and realized they're just other humans.
I'd venture to say that what women are looking for is defined much more by their environment than their biology. And that it's wildly different for each of them.
Now if someone wants to try to understand what motivates women they're welcome to do it. I never said it wasn't acceptable to do so. It's going to be hard though, because there are a lot of women out there with a lot of different motivations.
But this just looks like someone trying to explain why "smart/nice" guys can't get laid, wrapped in a pseudo scientific method.
Your comment just reads as a "just-so" story, which deems female behavior too difficult to study or understand.
It's just as pseudo-scientific if not more than the attempts at explaining group behavior and mating preferences (not this article though, it's also trash).
> I'd venture to say that what women are looking for is defined much more by their environment than their biology.
It's the classic nature vs nurture argument, for which you conveniently provide no supporting evidence. Note that I don't claim either one to be dominant or correct over the other, while you do. The burden of proof here lies on you.
I'm trying to share why I think attempting to study women like they're birds is futile. I genuinely think men-women relationships don't work like that. But you're correct, I've done no scientific study. It's all based on personal experience.
I'm only saying it because I think this approach leads to men being frustrated. I know I was.
Can anyone conduct research you find uncomfortable? Do they need your permission?
It’s great that you have some personal experience and opinion to share but we’re trying to read the article and discuss it without trashing the writer.
I realize "incel" is a loaded word but I didn't mean to trash the author.
Simply, I feel like he's coming at the issue from the perspective that men-women relationships are transactional. I think that's wrong, and that it is an incel view of the problem. With no disrespect to incels, because I also grew up thinking like that.
Also I'd say the definition the article uses for "intelligence" is reductive. There's more to intelligence than pure logic.
Romantic relationships aren't that different from friendships. And you wouldn't try to be friends with someone just because they have a nice car or score well at IQ tests. It's all about being a good/fun person. And that can be pretty subjective, compatibility plays a big part. People with similar interests and values are more likely to get together.
I agree that relationships are not transactional. This is my personal viewpoint.
But if I am to observe how others in my community, town, city, and even ethnic background make these decisions, 9 times out of 10 they are transactional. Many of these relationships are loveless and aware of it.
For me to pretend this is not real life would be to bury myself in the bubble of my own experience and assume everyone else loves their partner unconditionally as much as I do, or selected them under similar criteria.
I would go as far as saying what you call “the incel view” is actually how marriage happens in a vast majority of cultures over most of human history. To me that’s not “the incel view”
I like to think of it as:
Women would definitely like charm, humor, success, kindness, etc - in the subset of men they were already going to sleep with.
It's called a revealed preference, but here, the impetus is virtue signaling. Women have virtue signaled about sexuality for thousands of years because they would be killed for not being virtuous. It's a defensive trait that has evolved over time since prehistory. A few decades of feminism, sex positivity hasn't erased that.
It's not just a defensive trait. It also makes them look more attractive in today's world.
And it gives them a good excuse to reject a man. That's still a valid defensive strategy because rejection is one of the top reasons why men get violent.
For the statement “people select for entropy minimization” to mean anything in this context, it has to be so 1) general and 2) metaphorical that it could be more plainly put as:
First you need to understand that "entropy minimization" is a mathematical concept. It has nothing to do with human desire or selection. Most likely you are assuming it means something to the effect of "ability to prevent things from getting worse", but it has nothing to do with that.
I actually mean it terms of thermodynamic energy requirements to exist and using as little energy as possible in order to exist comfortably. There's probably a better way to phrase it.
It has been and is being proven time and time again that physical attractivity (and all its constituents: height, facial-symmetry, voice, anatomy, etc.) is the one biggest deciding factor in who you can have sex with, date and marry. Besides that your physical attractivity also decides your platonic fate, significantly impacts your salary, court/legal sentence length and many more.
And I am not even saying this from a too bitter perspective. I am someone who fell on the right side of this scale. I simply have a very astute awareness for this phenomenon. I had the (dis)pleasure of being around some people with godlike attractivity and the way everyone around them bend backwards to satisfy their needs or sucked up to them was eye opening.
Incels call this "black pill science" and get condemned for it.
I’m actually more on the political left. However, I observe that whoever calls the bluff of “looks don’t matter in Society” (for example, when compared to things like gender) gets blasted or canceled.
I think this is one of the central debates of our Time.
Why is it that in a age of 100% information access, calling out that “the emperor has no clothes” causes such strong reactions?
Additionally, it somehow seems that this debate cannot be had without dealing with ‘loony’ bases like the Incels.
…and that fact, just to start with, is very meaningful.
We can, and do, mandate racist employers to not discriminate in hiring.
We can, and do, mandate ableist businesses to accommodate the disabled.
We can, and do, mandate sexist banks and lenders to do business with women.
But we can not, obviously, mandate women to have sex with physically undesirable men.
This is not a matter of people denying reality so much as it's people pretending to deny reality because openly acknowledging it presents society with an intractable problem that requires reversing the clock on feminism's progress and denying rights to half the population to "solve".
Everyone knows that looks are extremely important to women. And those that don't know it intuitively have a plethora of stated versus revealed preference studies to reference. We deny it not because we don't know it. We deny it because acknowledging unsolvable problems is extremely uncomfortable.
You may be missing my point. I thoroughly agree with so-called "blackpill" analysis of the problem. And I believe that most people do too, if you got them drunk and honest enough.
The issue is that civilization "solved" the problem by codifying lifelong monogamy into law, repressing the rights of women, treating them as chattel, and exacting draconian punishments for exercising their hypergamy.
There is precisely ZERO chance we will ever go back to that.
So what other solution is there? The reality is that there is no solution. Nor can we even pretend that there is a solution. At least with other difficult problems like climate change or racial achievement gaps, we can play little games like carbon credits and school funding reallocation that won't fix the problem but we can at least pretend it might. What could we possibly even pretend to do about this problem? Government-funded bimax surgery for all? Mandatory CRISPR gene modifications of gametes to ensure sexually dimorphic physical traits for all? I don't think so.
Even acknowledging the problem immediately suggests "historical" solutions, all of which are complete anathema to our modern society.
So, we're stuck. Humans are very good at denying the existence of a problem if there's no viable solution. And that's what we're doing now. So we gaslight legitimate incels into believing they just need to work on their hygiene and personality and hope for the best. This
Admitting that life is inherently unfair and the narrow margins your dubious "free will" can exert its power in are decided at birth and through events outside of your control gets many people's panties twisted. Probably because it absolutely rejects the cherished lie of individualistic self-determinism?
I don't see how recognizing the fact that life can never be 100% fair means that therefor we shouldn't do whatever is possible.
If someone will have disadvantages compared to me no matter what I do, so what? I still don't have to help make it even worse, or even stand by and not help move the needle at least a little in the better-world direction.
What's wrong with simply having that goal as an ideal and a direction that you aim? Forget about how far you can actually get, you still have a choice which direction to walk.
The political left is obsessed with economic and political inequality but their theories fall flat on their face, when you confront them with the fact that there are other forms of injustices and privileges in this world that result from genetics or pure luck.
Then they resort to just world fallacies.
I know someone who posts here who would complain loudly and repeatedly they couldn’t get a date.
I tried to offer to take them to one of the gallery showings I used to go to, and was like dude I don’t have a girlfriend either but I don’t talk about it loudly in the lab.
He told me I’d had like fifteen girlfriends since we worked together and after a bit of a puzzled back and forth since that was… the kind of rumor I’m not gonna deny but also entirely inaccurate.
Eventually I realized he meant that so much as inviting someone over for tea once and having it not click was a “girlfriend” to him…
And when I kind of laughed, said he’s too metric’s obsessed and he should come to an art exhibition rather than keep posting about how horny he is on Reddit, he just went on a long rant about how modern art isn’t art.
Anyways sorry for the long winded story but “women” aren’t really some species to be studied, just like men, they want someone who’s kind, who shows a sincere interest and (this is the part that seeks to trip up you people) someone with a sense of humor.
Try just finding a hobby like film or art and someone will eventually take you up to the roof like it’s that one episode of Mr Robot ;-)