The only point of contention I could find was in the assertion that there was a mismatch between wanting a man with money and not wanting one wearing spectacles. Wanting a man with money is obviously eugenic but so is not wanting one with glasses as wearing these codes for a prehistoric genetic weakness that results in being unable to hunt and fight with the rest of the men in the tribe.
"Wanting a man with money is obviously eugenic but so is not wanting one with glasses as wearing these codes for a prehistoric genetic weakness that results in being unable to hunt and fight with the rest of the men in the tribe."
I get your point, but hunting and fighting are rather useless in modern society.
It's not clear to me that a positive female mating preference for wealthy men is antithetical with aversion to those wearing glasses. To the contrary, I surmise that the latter is a corollary of the former. I daresay that a high proportion of men who wear glasses nowadays in settings where mating overtures tend to occur have nerdy personality traits -- particularly shyness, which, I'm guessing, has a strongly inverse correlation with high-status career success. (That's not necessarily to say there's a strong correlation between shyness and weak eyesight, which those more socially adept may prefer to correct by wearing contact lenses in mixed-sex gatherings.)
My physical attributes are quite modest. My future wife kindly told me, during courting, that she believed an intelligent man (like me) would be adept at both achieving his ambitions and avoiding the slings and arrows of misfortune. Decades later she laments sometimes that she ought to have chosen a luckier more ambitious guy.
My wife repeatedly has told me that she always imagined she’d marry a tall man (6+ feet) like her father and brother. Not sure if my academic success (PhD) potential wooed her, but I really don’t care. She married “down”, I “up”, and I couldn’t be more satisfied with the result. ;-)
Teen groups are notorious for making smart nerds outcasts. Teenagers select boyfriends and girlfriends aiming for the most popular people as decided by the group. Thus teenagers are not the best group to use as a model for female preferences here. You have to give the kids time to mature socially before you can measure their mature adult choices.
I have always been skeptical of studies that claim that women pick mates for intelligence. It is obvious that most women pick mates for superficial reasons, i.e., height and looks, but this is also the case for most men, i.e, looks. Possible exceptions are intelligent men and women who consider an intelligent mate.
To be clear, "women don't care about intelligence" would be the wrong conclusion. Intelligent women tend to pair with intelligent men, and the women that promiscuous unintelligent men get with are largely unintelligent themselves. It seems like the data just show ordinary women aren't particularly motivated to seek the most intelligent men they can; it would be prosocial if ordinary men too preferred to seek the most intelligent women they could, but they don't. Apparently men and women alike tend to prefer to mate assortatively on this axis.
My guess would be that women find intelligent men attractive, all else equal. And especially, that women find *stupid* men *unattractive*. But also, that intelligence is correlated with other characteristics that are considered unattractive or otherwise interfere with mating success. For example, I understand that intelligence and autism are correlated. A highly intelligent man might become obsessed with mathematics, and this crowds out time and effort which would otherwise be spent going to parties, applying gel to his hair, learning to play sick electric guitar solos, and so forth. https://paulgraham.com/nerds.html
And look, it’s not totally against women to say this. They’re just people, and like guys, they’re more interested in going to bed with someone hot than someone who kicks ass at chess. No shit.
Americans, including myself, have a poor opinion of the Indian families choosing spouses for their children, but I'm starting to see the value of the practice.
In re: “Women swoon over athletes, actors and musicians“
It has been observed that athletes, actors and singers are the heroes of all declining societies. This female preference may be an effect of how status hierarchies become skewed in decadent ages, as my favorite author wrote here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-160354954
The increase in hominid intelligence, as indicated by cranial capacity, may have been largely due to factors other than sexual selection, but I don't agree that this can be inferred from the trend toward lower median genotypic intelligence among those born since the mid 20th century -- which, I daresay, is due mainly to the advent of convenient birth-control methods and second-wave feminism rather than mating preferences.
Do you think it is because people are becoming more inclined to a fast-life mating strategy, in which a man's attractiveness ranks highest? Speed dating scans to me like the ecology in which fast-life strategists choose partners. I've literally heard college women say they'll sleep with a guy if he can make them laugh.
Very interesting and well written article.
The only point of contention I could find was in the assertion that there was a mismatch between wanting a man with money and not wanting one wearing spectacles. Wanting a man with money is obviously eugenic but so is not wanting one with glasses as wearing these codes for a prehistoric genetic weakness that results in being unable to hunt and fight with the rest of the men in the tribe.
"Wanting a man with money is obviously eugenic but so is not wanting one with glasses as wearing these codes for a prehistoric genetic weakness that results in being unable to hunt and fight with the rest of the men in the tribe."
I get your point, but hunting and fighting are rather useless in modern society.
Consideration of a man's ability to defend his family and property remains in women's social biology tho.
It's not clear to me that a positive female mating preference for wealthy men is antithetical with aversion to those wearing glasses. To the contrary, I surmise that the latter is a corollary of the former. I daresay that a high proportion of men who wear glasses nowadays in settings where mating overtures tend to occur have nerdy personality traits -- particularly shyness, which, I'm guessing, has a strongly inverse correlation with high-status career success. (That's not necessarily to say there's a strong correlation between shyness and weak eyesight, which those more socially adept may prefer to correct by wearing contact lenses in mixed-sex gatherings.)
Great article. I'll surely bring it up next time I have an argument with my wife. Not.
My physical attributes are quite modest. My future wife kindly told me, during courting, that she believed an intelligent man (like me) would be adept at both achieving his ambitions and avoiding the slings and arrows of misfortune. Decades later she laments sometimes that she ought to have chosen a luckier more ambitious guy.
My wife repeatedly has told me that she always imagined she’d marry a tall man (6+ feet) like her father and brother. Not sure if my academic success (PhD) potential wooed her, but I really don’t care. She married “down”, I “up”, and I couldn’t be more satisfied with the result. ;-)
Teen groups are notorious for making smart nerds outcasts. Teenagers select boyfriends and girlfriends aiming for the most popular people as decided by the group. Thus teenagers are not the best group to use as a model for female preferences here. You have to give the kids time to mature socially before you can measure their mature adult choices.
If good looking people live longer than average ... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027795362400529X?via%3Dihub
then "good looks" may be a more reasonable thing to select for than first imagined.
Excellent article, with many interesting points.
I have always been skeptical of studies that claim that women pick mates for intelligence. It is obvious that most women pick mates for superficial reasons, i.e., height and looks, but this is also the case for most men, i.e, looks. Possible exceptions are intelligent men and women who consider an intelligent mate.
To be clear, "women don't care about intelligence" would be the wrong conclusion. Intelligent women tend to pair with intelligent men, and the women that promiscuous unintelligent men get with are largely unintelligent themselves. It seems like the data just show ordinary women aren't particularly motivated to seek the most intelligent men they can; it would be prosocial if ordinary men too preferred to seek the most intelligent women they could, but they don't. Apparently men and women alike tend to prefer to mate assortatively on this axis.
My guess would be that women find intelligent men attractive, all else equal. And especially, that women find *stupid* men *unattractive*. But also, that intelligence is correlated with other characteristics that are considered unattractive or otherwise interfere with mating success. For example, I understand that intelligence and autism are correlated. A highly intelligent man might become obsessed with mathematics, and this crowds out time and effort which would otherwise be spent going to parties, applying gel to his hair, learning to play sick electric guitar solos, and so forth. https://paulgraham.com/nerds.html
Oh we know.
And look, it’s not totally against women to say this. They’re just people, and like guys, they’re more interested in going to bed with someone hot than someone who kicks ass at chess. No shit.
Americans, including myself, have a poor opinion of the Indian families choosing spouses for their children, but I'm starting to see the value of the practice.
In re: “Women swoon over athletes, actors and musicians“
It has been observed that athletes, actors and singers are the heroes of all declining societies. This female preference may be an effect of how status hierarchies become skewed in decadent ages, as my favorite author wrote here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-160354954
The increase in hominid intelligence, as indicated by cranial capacity, may have been largely due to factors other than sexual selection, but I don't agree that this can be inferred from the trend toward lower median genotypic intelligence among those born since the mid 20th century -- which, I daresay, is due mainly to the advent of convenient birth-control methods and second-wave feminism rather than mating preferences.
Do you think it is because people are becoming more inclined to a fast-life mating strategy, in which a man's attractiveness ranks highest? Speed dating scans to me like the ecology in which fast-life strategists choose partners. I've literally heard college women say they'll sleep with a guy if he can make them laugh.