# Study confirms men are turned off by a clever woman - unless she is beautiful



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Volunteers rated more than 4,000 speed dates based on intelligence and attractiveness 

Rebecca Flood
Saturday 6 August 2016
18 comments



















Men are not attracted to intelligent women unless they are good looking, a study has found. 
New research has confirmed the commonly held notion that the smarter a woman is, the less likely it is a man will fancy her. 

Men are actively turned-off by cleverness, and the only exception to this is if the woman is highly attractive, a study by the Warsaw School of Economics found.

Scientists studied 4,000 speed dates where 560 people, all from New York’s Columbia University, were given four minutes to get to know their date. 

Afterwards the volunteers were asked to rate each other based on intelligence and attractiveness. 
After analysing the results, researchers found that women were impressed by men who were either good-looking or intelligent. 

But they discovered men placed more emphasis on physical appearance. 

A woman of good intelligence helped distinguish her from her counterparts, but the cleverer a woman was they found she had to be equally beautiful to be worth pursuing. 

There was a clear line where her intellect went from being a positive factor to a negative one.
Relationships expert Pauline Brown told the _New Zealand Herald_: “This study fits in with what I'm observing and hearing: clever women - graduates - who feel they have to dumb themselves down and hide their brains to be attractive to men.”

The study, in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, found that women do not exclude men who are deemed to be less good looking. 

It said: “Even those men who are not perceived by women as physically attractive may receive positive speed-dating decisions, if only those men seem intelligent.

“Males demonstrate a clearly different approach to mate selection.

"In men's perception, for relatively high values of women's perceived intelligence, this personal trait turns out to be an economic bad.”


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm glad dumbfuck men are turned off by intelligent women tbh, it's nature's way of helping women out - "here let me save you the trouble of rejecting dumbfucks you wouldn't want to date/marry anyway."

This isn't really an article that naturally leads to a lot of discussion, so 0/10.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

How did they conclude that men are actively _turned off_ by intelligence? It's a well known fact that men rate appearance more highly than women do. But nothing in this news article suggests that they're turned off by intelligence.

Did they compare both women who were all rated equally beautiful on average by men? And did they find that those who were considered more intelligent were considered less attractive overal?

The conclusions drawn in this article is sort of hasty and may be trying to make headlines, rather than reflect the conclusions of this study itself. All I got out of is that men value looks more than intelligence, on average. Which does not indicate that they're necessarily turned off by intelligence. Just that they value it comparatively less than looks. If intelligence was a turn-off, then that would actually negatively affect how attractive the women would be considered OVERALL.

I may have to dig up the study.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Duh. I always presumed they would be threatened or insecure by a woman who isn't easy to manipulate. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Ok so a woman is clever and knows to do Tri Linear Quadratic Calculus.

Wow that is so attractive.... No really what is attractive about that. She knows a load of maths shit. Cool yeah what ever.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> How did they conclude that men are actively _turned off_ by intelligence? It's a well known fact that men rate appearance more highly than women do. But nothing in this news article suggests that they're turned off by intelligence.
> 
> Did they compare both women were all rated equally beautiful on average by men? And did they find that those who were considered more intelligent were considered less attractive overal?
> 
> ...


Do dig up, please. I would think it would be easy to show active turn-offing, ask men to rate each woman based on physical attractiveness and intelligence (separately), and ask if they are interested in seeing her again.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

I think women in general also don't like intelligent men, otherwise i would probably already have a relationship. I also should admit that looks play a role in attractiveness of a lady, but it doesn't play a big role. I just can't decide: "and now i fall in love with you" ... . That's impossible. I also don't want a "dumb" lady, because the relationship wouldn't work. If you live in separate worlds, it's hard to cooperate well. Although of course, i would love to be introduced in new terrains. But i probably can't have a relationship with someone who always oppose my ideas, is not interested in what i am doing, and if she only wants to go out, make fun, drink a lot and party in life. That's not my type. That wouldn't last long. But to a certain degree, everyone is actually very alienating compared to my existence.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Everyone seems to think they are smart, so everyone can get offended all the want.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Everyone seems to think they are smart, so everyone can get offended all the want.


IMO, it's not about thinking you are objectively smart, it's about thinking whether or not you are _smarter _than the person you could be potentially interested in.

If a guy thinks a woman is more intelligent than him, he may be turned off by her because he sees her as competition, someone he must "beat," and yeah, it's hard to be turned on by someone you see as your adversary. Such an attitude isn't conducive to any sort of romantic relationship either.

So, this doesn't really need to be a gender issue, because I'm sure most women would be turned off by someone they feel they must be in competition with in the relationship as well. For example, how many women are turned off by men they feel is more vain than them?

This article is probably framed as a gender issue because Gender Wars is clickbait.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Clever women are hot.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> How did they conclude that men are actively _turned off_ by intelligence?
> 
> *Did they compare both women who were all rated equally beautiful on average by men? And did they find that those who were considered more intelligent were considered less attractive overal?*





Jamaia said:


> Do dig up, please. I would think it would be easy to show active turn-offing, ask men to rate each woman based on physical attractiveness and intelligence (separately), and ask if they are interested in seeing her again.


holding attractiveness constant, was there a correlation between intelligence and desire to date?...yes, a negative correlation

then, looking at intelligent women: holding intelligence constant, was there a correlation between attractiveness and desire to date...yes, a positive correlation where only intelligent women rated above an attractiveness threshold were deemed to be dating material


----------



## Haba Aba Daba Aba (Mar 8, 2015)

I'd love to know what were the 'clever' things the women were saying which actively turned off the men.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> holding attractiveness constant, was there a correlation between intelligence and desire to date?...yes, a negative correlation
> 
> then, looking at intelligent women, was there a correlation between attractiveness and desire to date...yes, only intelligent women rated above an attractiveness threshold were deemed date material


Right, but that doesn't indicate that intelligence was a _turn-off_, like the article implied. That indicates that it isn't valued. Which is different.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Haba Aba Daba Aba said:


> I'd love to know what were the 'clever' things the women were saying which actively turned off the men.


I wonder if the participants were told they would be asked to evaluate their dates' intelligence as that might affect what they chose to discuss...if they were, then one can imagine some of the conversation being more pointed and testy


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

My experience fits this. Last woman who I kind of dated was very smart. I don't know how we compared to each other but she was a physics major and was highly fond of playing Chopin on the piano, made impressive paintings, etc. Very intelligent and creative. Nonetheless this didn't increase my attraction to her whatever. She was decent looking but I wouldn't call her hot or sexy in appearance or behavior. Thus I only saw her as a friend and never felt anything romantically.

Can't help my instincts, but maybe it would be best if they were different. I haven't given up on the friendship/relationship, I still try to talk to her but I think it seems that once I told her that I didn't feel anything romantically for her she decided to distance herself. I don't think it is necessarily impossible that time could be what this sort of thing needs. So the surface attraction wasn't there. Something deeper _takes longer_. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I dunno.


----------



## huhh (Apr 15, 2015)

men are saps, bring something new to the table.

jokes aside, this doesn't really say anything

what men may percieve as "intelligence" in that way might be aloofness or just plain weirdness.... i don't think men are turned of by charming and funny women.. well..maybe some lol.. :C


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

SO based on this, what results can we draw.

Men are not attracted to intelligence specifically.
So what does that suggest: do not use intelligence as a selling point.

If you want to be attractive, then make yourself attractive to the person you are trying to attract. As they may have different ideals of attractiveness to what you may think is attractive.

Now surely any intelligent person can figure that out. Maybe the intelligent ones are the ones who arn't using their intelligence thinking it is an attraction trigger.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> Right, but that doesn't indicate that intelligence was a _turn-off_, like the article implied. That indicates that it isn't valued. Which is different.


take two women each equally rated on attractiveness but one rated more intelligent than the other...if intelligence wasn't valued then you would expect both women to be rated _equally _desirable dates--ie, intelligence isn't a valuable indicator of dateability...instead, they found the less intelligent woman was rated more dateable...so intelligence _was _valued, namely, _negatively _valued: intelligence made women less valued as dates--ie, it turned off men


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Amine said:


> My experience fits this. Last woman who I kind of dated was very smart. I don't know how we compared to each other but she was a physics major and was highly fond of playing Chopin on the piano, made impressive paintings, etc. Very intelligent and creative. Nonetheless this didn't increase my attraction to her whatever. She was decent looking but I wouldn't call her hot or sexy in appearance or behavior. Thus I only saw her as a friend and never felt anything romantically.
> 
> Can't help my instincts, but maybe it would be best if they were different. I haven't given up on the friendship/relationship, I still try to talk to her but I think it seems that once I told her that I didn't feel anything romantically for her she decided to distance herself. I don't think it is necessarily impossible that time could be what this sort of thing needs. So the surface attraction wasn't there. Something deeper _takes longer_. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I dunno.


Yeah I dated someone who had a degree in Banking or something and she was an executive board member for a large enginnering firm. All that said, that did nothing to spike my attraction. In fact it was the opposite, she was a business woman which meant she was always busy with work and had a lot of work things on her mind. So where as I can switch off all that crap, she didn't seem able to do so. So if anything it made her less attractive, then compared to say a woman who looked identical but led a less work focussed life.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Meh I have always been attracted to women who are clever and wise. but this study makes no sense, most guys are attracted to beautiful women, regardless of it they are smart or not. A guy isnt going to be attracted to an unintelligent unattractive girl.. like what is this article even about, lol.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> take two women each equally rated on attractiveness but one rated more intelligent than the other...if intelligence wasn't valued then you would expect both women to be rated _equally _desirable dates--ie, intelligence isn't a valuable indicator of datability...instead, they found the less intelligent woman was rated more dateable...so intelligence _was _valued, namely, _negatively _valued: intelligence made women less valued as dates--ie, it turned off men


But that is not what is being reported about the study. That's what the headline says.



> Scientists studied 4,000 speed dates where 560 people, all from New York’s Columbia University, were given four minutes to get to know their date.
> 
> Afterwards the volunteers were asked to rate each other based on intelligence and attractiveness.
> After analysing the results, researchers found that women were impressed by men who were either good-looking or intelligent.
> ...


That's all that was concluded. Both women and men are tested. Women were attracted to men who were _either_ good looking or intelligent. Whereas men place much more emphasis on looks. But nothing in the article itself actually indicates any negative correlation between attractiveness and intelligence.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> Right, but that doesn't indicate that intelligence was a _turn-off_, like the article implied. That indicates that it isn't valued. Which is different.


If Adam has talked 4 minutes with Beth and 4 minutes with Camille and 4 minutes with Greta and rated all (5) in terms of attractiveness but in terms of intelligence rated Beth (5) and Camille (6) and Greta (7), and if Adam was most eager to meet up again with Beth (or didn't want to meet up with Camille and Greta, or just Greta), that would indicate... that the more intelligent is not better to Adam? And if it's a consistent pattern it would indicate that's a trend among men?

***

it's absolute possible the conclusion in the article was just to get clicks and not from the study.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> take two women each equally rated on attractiveness but one rated more intelligent than the other...if intelligence wasn't valued then you would expect both women to be rated _equally _desirable dates--ie, intelligence isn't a valuable indicator of dateability...instead, they found the less intelligent woman was rated more dateable...so intelligence _was _valued, namely, _negatively _valued: intelligence made women less valued as dates--ie, it turned off men


I disagree here. You are making the assumption that because a woman is not intelligent she has nothing to offer.
What is this, some sort of my IQ Entitlement.

"My IQ is higher than yours so I am entitled to men". hahahaha this is funny.


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Clever women are hot.


The line uttered by no one in casual bro talk.


I have been turned on by a woman's softness, emotional nature, nurturing side, sensitivity, body, face, passion, idealism, intensity; stamina, go-getter-ness and ability to get 'shit' done, but never have I been turned on by a woman's intelligence, ever.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> I wonder if the participants were told they would be asked to evaluate their dates' intelligence as that might affect what they chose to discuss...if they were, then one can imagine some of the conversation being more pointed and testy


Right. This is why I'm curious about the study itself. Reporting on scientific studies is done extremely poorly. And journalists just want headlines. I haven't yet tried hard enough to look for it. But if the study is anything like the part I quoted, then the headline is absolute bullshit.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

John X said:


> The line uttered by no one in casual bro talk.
> 
> 
> I have been turned on by a woman's softness, emotional nature, nurturing side, sensitivity, body, face, passion, idealism, intensity; stamina, go-getter-ness and ability to get 'shit' done, but never have I been turned on by a woman's intelligence, ever.


I'm turned on by intelligence all the time. I don't mean in a pretentious, "I'm an cultured and evolved sapiosexual" bullshit way. Yeah, I'm going to appreciate your ass, tits, beauty, intensity AND your intelligence, intelligence alone isn't going to do much. But yeah, intelligence can be sexy.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

John X said:


> The line uttered by no one in casual bro talk.
> 
> 
> I have been turned on by a woman's softness, emotional nature, nurturing side, sensitivity, body, face, passion, idealism, intensity; stamina, go-getter-ness and ability to get 'shit' done, but never have I been turned on by a woman's intelligence, ever.


Ditto. I can see it being appealing to the more intellectual types possibly.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Sporadic Aura said:


> I'm turned on by intelligence all the time. I don't mean in a pretentious, "I'm an cultured and evolved sapiosexual" bullshit way. Yeah, I'm going to appreciate your ass, tits, beauty, intensity AND your intelligence, intelligence alone isn't going to do much. But yeah, intelligence can be sexy.


How. Please explain.

Seriously. I don't see it that way. And for the reasons I mentioned about intelligent women being more job focussed personally I can see it causing more issues to a relationship.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

cybersloth81 said:


> I disagree here. You are making the assumption that because a woman is not intelligent she has nothing to offer.
> What is this, some sort of my IQ Entitlement.
> 
> "My IQ is higher than yours so I am entitled to men". hahahaha this is funny.


You're being ridiculous, cybersloth.



John X said:


> The line uttered by no one in casual bro talk.
> 
> 
> I have been turned on by a woman's softness, emotional nature, nurturing side, sensitivity, body, face, passion, idealism, intensity; stamina, go-getter-ness and ability to get 'shit' done, but never have I been turned on by a woman's intelligence, ever.


 @John X I've started a thread because of you a long time ago! Go, reply, now!


----------



## S16M4 (Aug 9, 2016)

oops.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

cybersloth81 said:


> How. Please explain.
> 
> Seriously. I don't see it that way. And for the reasons I mentioned about intelligent women being more job focussed personally I can see it causing more issues to a relationship.


What? People are turned on differently. Just because something is a turn on for me doesn't mean you'll be turned on by the same.

You might not be turned on by intelligence, but I am. It might cause an issue for your relationships, but not everyone deals with relationships in the same way.


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> You're being ridiculous, cybersloth.
> 
> 
> @*John X* I've started a thread because of you a long time ago! Go, reply, now!



Where is it?


----------



## S16M4 (Aug 9, 2016)

I'm attracted to Natalie Portman *despite* her high intelligence. She's beautiful, graceful, and feminine.

Im unattracted to Rachel Maddow *despite* her _apparent_ high intelligence. She has a crewcut that isn't flattering her average face.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> You're being ridiculous, cybersloth.
> 
> 
> @John X I've started a thread because of you a long time ago! Go, reply, now!


No I don't think I am. People are attracted to someone or they are not.

Why is it so shocking that people are not attracted to high intelligence.

This study would not of come out, unless somebody thought that men should be attracted to intelligence or something.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

"A woman of good intelligence helped distinguish her from her counterparts, but the cleverer a woman was they found she had to be equally beautiful to be worth pursuing."

"There was a clear line where her intellect went from being a positive factor to a negative one."

These two statements are completely contradictory. The first makes clear that Intelligence had no impact, the second somehow determines that no impact is negative impact. WTF? this sounds like someone with an axe to grind TBH

I I found a girl that made me feel stupid, I would be stupid *for* her forever. But let's be honest image will always be the first call to attraction especially when you only get 4 minutes to decide whom you want to breed with.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

cybersloth81 said:


> No I don't think I am. People are attracted to someone or they are not.
> 
> Why is it so shocking that people are not attracted to high intelligence.
> 
> This study would not of come out, unless somebody thought that men should be attracted to intelligence or something.


Well women I think would not like to believe that intelligence is unattractive. Intelligence is supposed to be a virtue in people in general and women are attracted to intelligent men, it is unfair or at least surprising (click bait) if intelligence in women is repulsive to men.

Still what you said before when you were replying to "...instead, they found the less intelligent woman was rated more dateable...so intelligence was valued, namely, negatively valued: intelligence made women less valued as dates--ie, it turned off men" with:


> I disagree here. You are making the assumption that because a woman is not intelligent she has nothing to offer.
> What is this, some sort of my IQ Entitlement. "My IQ is higher than yours so I am entitled to men". hahahaha this is funny.


It's not at all about assuming that if someone's "not intelligent she has nothing to offer", that's ridiculous.

***
@ShatteredHeart I wondered about that "line" too. Maybe they asked men why they chose such and such to go on a date with, and men sometimes mentioned intelligence as a positive thing along with nice appearance (when not too intelligent), and sometimes just said "because she was hot" (when too intelligent), and when asked why they didn't want to date someone they may have said something like not good-looking and too smart (ie intelligence a negative trait). But now I'm getting ridiculous so let's hope @Derange At 170 soon finds the original study .


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> Well women I think would not like to believe that intelligence is unattractive. Intelligence is supposed to be a virtue in people in general and women are attracted to intelligent men, it is unfair if intelligence in women is repulsive to men.
> 
> Still what you said before when you were replying to "...instead, they found the less intelligent woman was rated more dateable...so intelligence was valued, namely, negatively valued: intelligence made women less valued as dates--ie, it turned off men" with:
> 
> ...


Unfair.

Ok lets put this into perspective. Men are generally attracted to beauty. (we have a billion dollar beauty industry due to this simple fact).

Now when it comes to looks, its pretty simple, you goto the gym, you eat healthy, you take care of yourself.

Now for a woman, that appears to generally be enough.

Now if you are male. In my path of making myself attractive. I have had to attack every part of myself.

I have had to work on humor, social skills, confidence, a lot of belief change work, etc, etc.

Sorry but I actually wish I could just look good.

I don't think women have the raw end of the deal here. 

Its harder work for a man to become attractive than a woman. We cant just put on some make up, heels and a padded bra. More work is required. A hell of a lot more.


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

I'm also turned on when I'm trying to figure out a problem but no one is trying to assert themselves as leaders. We are both working together, but she is doing it in her own feminine way, and I am troubleshooting in my own masculine way. As we continue to troubleshoot, the more she adds, without taking dominance, and the more I do, also without taking dominance, more turned on I get until we've solved the problem.

I think it happens because we are at an understanding. You respect my masculinity without trying to diminish it, an because you do, I do not undermine your femininity or diminish it by forcing my will unnecessarily. We allow both sides to freely express themselves without restraint and without fear. We work TOGETHER (not in competition), as male and females are supposed to do, neither one trying to lay claim to the opposite energies.

Seriously, I have gotten rock hard in these scenarios. Of course, I have to walk away after and calm myself. I would say that is the only case where a woman's _intelligence_ might turn me on but as you see, it is tied into something else in a woman, that being her softness, emotion, or something else.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

John X said:


> The line uttered by no one in casual bro talk.
> 
> 
> I have been turned on by a woman's softness, emotional nature, nurturing side, sensitivity, body, face, passion, idealism, intensity; stamina, go-getter-ness and ability to get 'shit' done, but never have I been turned on by a woman's intelligence, ever.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

cybersloth81 said:


> Unfair.
> 
> Ok lets put this into perspective. Men are generally attracted to beauty. (we have a billion dollar beauty industry due to this simple fact).
> 
> ...


Nah. According to the study we are talking about here, a woman also has to a) be not-too-intelligent or b) pretend to be not-too-intelligent or c) be exceptionally beautiful if she wants to be openly intelligent.


----------



## Hypaspist (Feb 11, 2012)

Oh fucking really? Would've never guessed.

Men don't like women who look like ass. That means intelligent or with a lesser IQ than a bag of potatoes (no offense to potatoes).

Newsflash : 560 people is an insanely small sample size to spread a generalization over a group of people. Also there's nothing unattractive about an intelligent woman. Even women call other attractive women who are idiots airheads.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

John X said:


> I'm also turned on when I'm trying to figure out a problem but no one is trying to assert themselves as leaders. We are both working together, but she is doing it in her own feminine way, and I am troubleshooting in my own masculine way. As we continue to troubleshoot, the more she adds, without taking dominance, and the more I do, also without taking dominance, more turned on I get until we've solved the problem.
> 
> I think it happens because we are at an understanding. You respect my masculinity without trying to diminish it, an because you do, I do not undermine your femininity or diminish it by forcing my will unnecessarily. We allow both sides to freely express themselves without restraint and without fear. We work TOGETHER (not in competition), as male and females are supposed to do, neither one trying to lay claim to the opposite energies.
> 
> Seriously, I have gotten rock hard in these scenarios. Of course, I have to walk away after and calm myself. I would say that is the only case where a woman's _intelligence_ might turn me on but as you see, it is tied into something else in a woman, that being her softness, emotion, or something else.


Well that actually makes sense. Amazing what happens, when it isn't some feminazi trying to diminish a mans masculinity and actually mets him be masculine whilst embracing her own femininity.

Who would of thought.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

> Even those men who are not perceived by women as physically attractive may receive positive speed-dating decisions, if only those men seem intelligent.
> 
> “Males demonstrate a clearly different approach to mate selection.
> 
> "In men's perception, for relatively high values of women's perceived intelligence, this personal trait turns out to be an economic bad.”


Yet it is men who have the reputation of "F**king anything with a pulse".

This is kind of funny. This study would lead me to believe that women have lower standards than men.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

I don't get it. This article only spoke the obvious. Men like pretty girls. o.o..

Good one OP, now we know who the uglies are ;D


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Volunteers rated more than 4,000 speed dates based on intelligence and attractiveness
> 
> Rebecca Flood
> Saturday 6 August 2016
> ...


Wow...this is groundbreaking...not. 

Of course men aren't going to be attracted to women that are smarter than them because it becomes harder to "work the moves" and intelligence is an important part of the male psyche, and it's pretty obvious that men primarily focus on looks.

At the same time, women don't want a man that looks better than them. I mean they do, but it creates a lot of insecurity.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

johnson.han.3 said:


> I don't get it. This article only spoke the obvious. Men like pretty girls. o.o..
> 
> Good one OP, now we know who the uglies are ;D


I'm sure men have been admitting that for years.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

I think Donnie has a point about this so called study


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> But that is not what is being reported about the study. That's what the headline says.





article said:


> But they discovered men placed *more *emphasis on physical appearance.


"more" implies men placed _some _importance on intelligence, not no importance, as you first suggested



derange said:


> *That's all that was concluded.* Both women and men are tested. Women were attracted to men who were _either_ good looking or intelligent. Whereas men place much more emphasis on looks. *But nothing in the article itself actually indicates any correlation negative correlation between attractiveness and intelligence.*


yeah, there is, but you didn't cite it...the article continues: 



> A woman of good intelligence helped distinguish her from her counterparts, but *the cleverer a woman was they found she had to be equally beautiful to be worth pursuing.*
> 
> There was* a clear line where her intellect went from being a positive factor to a negative one. *
> 
> ...


so there was a strong correlation between intelligence and dateability...it is confirmed by the quoted expert who appears to have read the study when she says "this study fits in, etc"

actually, as I reread this the correlation is not linear but is positive for "good intelligence" but negative for higher intelligence


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I am not sure how useful this is...it is not like someone can control how smart they are. How satisfying will a relationship be if you dumb yourself down and attract someone based on deception?

Before my sister got ill, she looked like a Barbie Doll and was quite book smart, but she'd play dumb blonde for attention, and it worked...to get attention. It did not bring her happy, healthy relationships.

While certain surface traits may draw people to you _initially_, I am not convinced they create emotional connection and lead to _intimacy_, which is what I think people truly crave in a _relationship_. It may seem good to have broad appeal and to be able to pick and choose, but I think authenticity will get you better results in terms of compatibility, even if you have less initial choices (they may be higher quality ones). Really intelligent people will be less relatable; most will be attracted to those in the average range that they find relatable. 

I also wonder how the study was conducted. A lot of times people assume arrogance, being boring or frumpy where there is high intelligence, just as people can assume shallowness, vanity and even stupidity where there is beauty or sexiness. But beautiful people can be profound and smart people can be kind and humble and fun.

I see people mentioning degrees and jobs, etc, as if these measure raw intelligence. A lot of book smart types may not even fall into the category of being "successful". Those people often have social intelligence to match, which would probably include managing their physical image, as well as the privilege of a higher class background. I wonder how much of it is really about social skills (awkward intelligence in women being a turn-off and possibly felt as a lack of _emotional_ intelligence) and social status (dominant/higher status in a woman being a turn-off) rather than raw intelligence. 

If male intelligence is measured similarly, than lack of emotional intelligence may be more readily tolerated (even expected for men) and high social status non-threatening, so that it may seem like higher intelligence is a plus. But I wonder how much raw intelligence (aside from "success") will simply serve to make some men unrelatable. Remove the social status, basically, and then what?


----------



## meaningless (Jul 9, 2016)

And...?

It's not very ~~~_shocking_~~~ that men prefer women who are only clever if they are attractive, hell, women prefer men's attractiveness over their intelligence too. It's only instinct to feel that way. Why?

* Better looking partner = better babies and healthy reproduction* 

We choose beautiful, curvaceous women and sexy, strong men because we want to reproduce the most healthiest babies that can pass on our genes... it's part of natural selection.

I'm very much attracted to a man's intelligence, but in the end, I would still choose a strong, sexy man over an awkward below-average looking man.


No shocker here.


----------



## Haba Aba Daba Aba (Mar 8, 2015)

'Intelligence' is one of those words like 'power' or 'love' or 'God' where if I ask a thousand different people what it means I'll get at least a thousand different answers.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ShatteredHeart said:


> "A woman of *good intelligence* *helped *distinguish her from her counterparts, but* the cleverer a woman was* they found she had to be equally beautiful to be worth pursuing."
> 
> "There was a *clear line where her intellect went from being a positive factor to a negative one*."
> 
> These two statements are completely contradictory. The first makes clear that Intelligence had no impact, the second somehow determines that no impact is negative impact. WTF? this sounds like someone with an axe to grind TBH


normal intelligence made women more dateable...greater than normal intelligence made women less dateable...there was a "clear line" between these two opposite effects


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> "more" implies men placed _some _importance on intelligence, not no importance, as you first suggested


It was hyperbole. Obviously, no one with an IQ of 140 wants to date someone with an IQ of 80.

And no. obviously there are exceptions to this rule. But we're discussing the rule, not the exeption.



ae1905 said:


> yeah, there is, but you didn't cite it...the article continues:


The article continues without anything of substance, though.



> A woman of good intelligence helped distinguish her from her counterparts, but the cleverer a woman was they found she had to be equally beautiful to be worth pursuing.


Yep, men like intelligence. But they value looks more. This confirms my innitial post in this thread.



> There was a clear line where her intellect went from being a positive factor to a negative one.


And the article did not show the clear line anywhere. All the article showed was that men disprortionately value appearance over intelligence compared to women. If the line was so clear, why is it only mentioned _that_ it is clear, without showing anywhere _how_ it is clear?



ae1905 said:


> so there was a strong correlation between intelligence and dateability...it is confirmed by the quoted expert who appears to have read the study when she says "this study fits in, etc"


It wasn't confirmed by anyone. Just because they're said to be an expert, doesn't mean they have academic training. It means they're known as an expert and can give the news outlet a quote. Besides, this "expert" didn't say anything substantive involing theory or data. She said "this fits with what I see". Confirmation bias is a thing.



ae1905 said:


> actually, as I reread this the correlation is not linear but is positive for "good intelligence" but negative for higher intelligence


Still only seeing an article that says that men value intelligence less than women.


----------



## Haba Aba Daba Aba (Mar 8, 2015)

I lean right politically and she leans left so I rated her intelligence a zero.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

OrangeAppled said:


> I am not sure how useful this is...it is not like someone can control how smart they are. How satisfying will a relationship be if you dumb yourself down and attract someone based on deception?what?


I've read that a difference in iq of less than 15 points (one sd) between partners is ideal...and many women prefer men who are more intelligent...so the gal should not be more than 15 iq points less intelligent than the guy


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

https://www.academia.edu/27069613/Perceived_female_intelligence_as_economic_bad_in_partner_choice

...However, the relationship between the probability of a man's positive speed dating decision and
perceived female intelligence is non-monotonic. The optimal level of women's perceived intelligence can be
found, and it depends on perceived female physical attractiveness. This optimal value rises with perceived female
physical attractiveness. The results obtained suggest that virtually, in the women's view, male physical attractiveness
can be effectively substituted for intelligence (equally male intelligence can be effectively substituted for
physical attractiveness). By contrast, in men's view, for relatively high values of perceived female intelligence, female
physical attractiveness cannot be substituted for intelligence. Research findings suggest that for relatively
high values of perceived female intelligence this personal trait turns to be an economic bad.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

I do find the comments on this kind of interesting.

Men are just going to have to deal with this.
More and more women are getting graduate degree's now a days (or words to those effect).

Well point 1, no there are always options. 
Point 2, true, but this just makes the less intelligent women with less academic jobs even more attractive.

Its just a bummer as the dating pool is now about 50% smaller. But hey ho that's life.


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

I'm not at all turned off by women who are clever, as long as they are mature and kind. In fact it's probably better that they're clever because I'm not particularly intelligent in any way.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

> Males demonstrate a clearly different approach to mate selection
> than females. As we can see from Fig. 4, the dispersion of observations
> is relatively smaller (in comparison with women's choices) and most
> of the observations are concentrated on the right side of the bottomright-top-left
> ...


It's a bit different than what I thought.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> https://www.academia.edu/27069613/Perceived_female_intelligence_as_economic_bad_in_partner_choice
> 
> ...However, *the relationship between the probability of a man's positive speed dating decision and
> perceived female intelligence is non-monotonic*. The *optimal level *of women's perceived intelligence can be
> found, and it depends on perceived female physical attractiveness.


"non-monotonic" means attractiveness doesn't always increase with intelligence..."optimal" means there is an iq value where men perceive women as being _most _attractive...above and below this level, women are percieved as being less attractive, incl women of high iq

this is how I read the article



> This optimal value rises with perceived female physical attractiveness.


the more intelligent a woman is the more physically attractive she must be

this is what the article stated



> The results obtained suggest that virtually, in the women's view, male physical attractiveness can be effectively substituted for intelligence (equally male intelligence can be effectively substituted for physical attractiveness).


in a woman's view, a man who isn't physically attractive can still be dateable if he is intelligent

again, what the article stated



> By contrast, in men's view, for relatively high values of perceived female intelligence, female
> physical attractiveness cannot be substituted for intelligence. Research findings suggest that for relatively high values of perceived female intelligence this personal trait turns to be an economic bad


edit: in contrast, a woman who isn't attractive is not seen as dateable even if she is highly intelligent

the article stated this too

so the article faithfully reported the study's findings


----------



## secret witch (Aug 6, 2016)

I don't think the article suggests that men are turned off by intelligence. Sounds like it just proves that the general consensus among men studied is that attraction is the main thing they're looking for.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

ae1905 said:


> I've read that a difference in iq of less than 15 points (one sd) between partners is ideal...and many women prefer men who are more intelligent...so the gal should not be more than 15 iq points less intelligent than the guy


And where does one go to lower their IQ? Can you cash the points in and use them towards a boob job?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

4. Discussion


> In this article we focus on the gender differences in preferences for
> mate characteristics such as (perceived) physical attractiveness and intelligence.
> On the basis of the unique experimental data we have observed
> that for women the physical attractiveness of a potential
> ...


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Misandroscience 101


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Misandroscience 101


Really?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> It's a bit different than what I thought.


you forgot to cite this:

"This result is in line with the halo effect of physical attractiveness found in the literature" 

in other words, intelligence is perceived to be correlated with attractiveness: attractive people are seen as smarter, and vice versa...the men in the study were more prone to this halo effect than women


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> Really?


Yes. It's not based on perceptible/actual intelligence but what people perceive AND interpret as being signs of intelligence. The only reason to release such useless results is to feed the war of genres genders.

Chances are, most people are confusing intelligence and perceived attractiveness anyways. Can you see the loop? Good looking people seen as more intelligent due to 'attractiveness halo' | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Yes. It's not based on perceptible/actual intelligence but what people perceive AND interpret as being signs of intelligence. The only reason to release such useless results is to feed the war of *genres*.
> 
> Chances are, most people are confusing intelligence and perceived attractiveness anyways. Can you see the loop? Good looking people seen as more intelligent due to 'attractiveness halo' | Daily Mail Online


Yeah, Rock and Country can fuck off.

I am a jazz man all the way.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

John X said:


> Yeah, Rock and Country can fuck off.
> 
> I am a jazz man all the way.


Ah crap, genders... english makes a weird use of french. Anyways.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

meaningless said:


> And...?
> 
> It's not very ~~~_shocking_~~~ that men prefer women who are only clever if they are attractive, hell, women prefer men's attractiveness over their intelligence too. It's only instinct to feel that way. Why?
> 
> ...


That's sexual selection, and both intelligence and physical attractiveness are fitness indicators (very plausible explanation for the human brain's complexity), hence some women's preference for relatively intelligent but somewhat more homely men in the "study." I think men are initially more drawn to the superficial indicators of beauty, but stats also show that long-term couples are pretty similar in intelligence, so it's hard to imagine men aren't selecting for intelligence as well when it comes to the partners they're actually interested in having children with.

Also, I'm not sure this really can be interpreted as "men find intelligence unattractive." More likely they appreciate it, but also realize it makes their odds of impressing a woman lower, and due to the mismatch in selection preferences between the genders, expected value might be higher if they pursue the somewhat less intelligent ones who can't call them out on their weak displays of intellect. In other words, if women select more strongly for intelligence and the _perceived_ intelligence of any male candidate is inversely proportional to the woman's own intelligence and men _generally_ value beauty over intelligence, then we can see how it might be advantageous overall for men as a group to watch out for more intelligent women.

My two cents. I think intelligence is very attractive for both genders, though my definition of it probably varies a bit from the strict psychological definitions used in these studies.


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Ah crap, genders... english makes a weird use of french. Anyways.


I admire your shiny bald head, and cape.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

I don't know about you, but intelligence is a huge turn on, assuming we get along. 

And I've yet to meet a woman who said that lack of intelligence is a positive trait, and something they seek in a partner...


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Haba Aba Daba Aba said:


> I lean right politically and she leans left so I rated her intelligence a zero.


That doesn't sound like an intelligent thing to say.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

WamphyriThrall said:


> I don't know about you, but intelligence is a huge turn on, assuming we get along.
> 
> And I've yet to meet a woman who said that lack of intelligence is a positive trait, and something they seek in a partner...


Personally I would go for sense of humour over intelligence any day.

Obviously there has to be some intelligence, ie the ability to put sentences together and speak.

But then again I would also put common sense over intelligence.

Not saying intelligence does not matter at all, its just there are a lot of other things that I would take into consideration first.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

David D actually wrote about this. Well about intelligent men failing with women. Maybe similar issues, I dunno, I'm not a woman. But I can relate to some of the points he makes about men, as been there done that.



> I'm going to refer to it as "The Genius Failure Paradox".
> 
> "The Genius Failure Paradox" is the tendency for UNUSUALLY intelligent men to have very LOW levels of success with women and dating.
> 
> ...


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

John X said:


> I admire your shiny bald head, and cape.


And you didn't see my wig yet.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

cybersloth81 said:


> Personally I would go for sense of humour over intelligence any day.
> 
> Obviously there has to be some intelligence, ie the ability to put sentences together and speak.
> 
> ...


When you say "humour", do you mean her telling jokes, or laughing at your jokes?

Obviously, someone who lacks hygiene, or is arrogant, rude, selfish, etc. wouldn't be able to convert me with their intelligence alone.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

WamphyriThrall said:


> When you say "humour", do you mean her telling jokes, or laughing at your jokes?
> 
> Obviously, someone who lacks hygiene, or is arrogant, rude, selfish, etc. wouldn't be able to convert me with their intelligence alone.


Telling jokes and being able to make me laugh. Ive noticed that women laughing at my jokes is more to do with their emotional state, I can say almost anything one day and it is funny, the next day anything I say isn't funny.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@ae1905

I'm the anomaly then. Clever and witty women are far more interesting to me.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Oh gawd the smarty pants women who did not strike it in the gene pool lottery (or even the ones who are attractive but overtly flamboyant about their IQ), need to stop feeling like they have a trump card on being on an emotional victim island because they have high IQs. 

Women with a decent gene pool and bone structure and average IQs have their own issues. (Starting with the assertion they all have a charmed life). Its not like anyone has a charmed life with no problems. And the men who picked over you or the women who get picked before you cannot help whether they have attraction towards you. 

And like high IQ is the only way a man can feel emasculated. Fuck ask any ESTP woman with a decent palette and average IQ if they encounter some sour attitudes. Rejection is not always linked to hot or not equals and measuring IQs and thats it. There is way more in play. 

I have quite a few very neurotic never been married career orientated, 30 something year old smarty pants friends (not all of them are like this but alot of them) who have made disparaging remarks to me as a woman who generally gets eyed, but has 'baggage' as they put it (children previous marriage). Going as far as inadvertently putting me down because some guy picked over them and picked some apparent none career orientated single mom. They do not even realize how nasty and bitter they can sound. Or how elitist and condescending. And some of them are very beautiful and some not very. They all have one thing in common tho, they are neurotic. It does not matter if you have a high IQ and even decent cheek bones if you act like a nut job or you compare and demonstrate high levels of insecurity. (That turns off not just men but people in general). It does not matter if you are a career or academic success if your a mental basket case. Me as an innocent casualty and bistander usually is really tired of even hearing them speak like this about a demographic which does apply to me or where I have been in life. 

These women need to stop hating on other women. 
No one has a charmed life. Usually women with a higher shelf life are the first target. 

Now I am not trying to say I am just an idiot. But no my selling point is not a high IQ. And no with age my selling point is not simply just appearance. But I have been more on that end especially in my 20s. Like just because someone does attract alot of attention based on appearance means they are surely an idiot. 

Attractive or Ugly usually the people with the highest selling point tend to have a package of balance and personality. 

And some of these ugly duckling adult women (I am referring to their souls, because of their bitterness and rejection felt not appearance alone), should understand some of the swans they hate used to be ugly ducklings themselves. 

Guys like confident women not bitter hags (regardless of actual appearance or IQ)- balance and a full package.

Lets be real here. Most people in life are not a 10, and most are not genius so I think everyone needs to get the hell over themselves. 

Anyways haters hate on. Looks great on ya.


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

cybersloth81 said:


> Telling jokes and being able to make me laugh. Ive noticed that women laughing at my jokes is more to do with their emotional state, I can say almost anything one day and it is funny, the next day anything I say isn't funny.


No lie
_
Girl backs into a corner while I'm pulling heavy boxes out._

Me: Oh, so you are going to hide there? Ok.
Woman: *busts out laughing*
Me: ? 

You may be on to something there.


----------



## Mange (Jan 9, 2011)

These are probably the same men that invented religion and dictated that women are legally their husband's property. Dont let the women go to school because they might learn what's really going on and they Wont let us squirt babies into them anymore!!! :shocked::shocked:


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

November Has Come said:


> These are probably the same men that invented religion and dictated that women are legally their husband's property. Dont let the women go to school because they might learn what's really going on and they Wont let us squirt babies into them anymore!!! :shocked::shocked:


How is not being attracted equate to the same thing as inventing religion?
PS the guys you mentioned are probably dead.

I'm guessing you have no issues having men attracted to you, going by this study and your comments.


----------



## Mange (Jan 9, 2011)

cybersloth81 said:


> How is not being attracted equate to the same thing as inventing religion?
> PS the guys you mentioned are probably dead.
> 
> I'm guessing you have no issues having men attracted to you, going by this study and your comments.


You're right, I'm disgusting. I'm basically a sloth that has learned how to type.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

November Has Come said:


> You're right, I'm disgusting. I'm basically a sloth that has learned how to type.


Well you have just said that if a man isn't attracted to an intelligent woman, he thinks they are property and he created religion.

Good for you, being a sloth that has learned to type, whatever makes you happy.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> How is not being attracted equate to the same thing as inventing religion?
> PS the guys you mentioned are probably dead.
> 
> I'm guessing you have no issues having men attracted to you, going by this study and your comments.


Now everybody has to pretend not to get the joke, or be branded unattractive.


----------



## Mange (Jan 9, 2011)

cybersloth81 said:


> Well you have just said that if a man isn't attracted to an intelligent woman, he thinks they are property and he created religion.
> 
> Good for you, being a sloth that has learned to type, whatever makes you happy.


:dry:


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

"Even those men who are not perceived by women as physically attractive may receive positive speed-dating decisions, if only those men seem intelligent."

Lol, ok :rolling: 'may', as in Vatican City 'may' top the medals table at the Olympics


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

Sometimes you just have to ignore women. Don't be fooled, they absolutely hate being ignored (especially the try-hards). For example; you acknowledge maybe the first part of their sentence, and then you just randomly trail off into something that makes no sense, and then bring it back around and close it out with something just as ridiculous.

Then when they respond, you respond dryly with; "Oh... that's unfortunate" And carry on with your daily activities. The try-hard aggressive women will hate you for eternity if you do this. 

Just keep those three words in your word bank. Use them whenever a over-aggressive women thinks she can impose her will upon you when you are not her direct subordinate. Trust me, it is hilarious to see their reaction.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> normal intelligence made women more dateable...greater than normal intelligence made women less dateable...there was a "clear line" between these two opposite effects


That is not proven, we are given no data at all, just the writer's bias interpretation of the data.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> I've read that a difference in iq of less than 15 points (one sd) between partners is ideal...and many women prefer men who are more intelligent...so the gal should not be more than 15 iq points less intelligent than the guy


Says who solan? Some girls love dumb brutes, some guys like dizzy barbie dolls, this does not apply to all members of each repsective gender. hell most people don't even know there IQ, and if they "do" it's from one of those BS internet points that bumps the score 20 points to make people feel special.


----------



## AdroElectro (Oct 28, 2014)

Haba Aba Daba Aba said:


> I lean right politically and she leans left so I rated her intelligence a zero.


Don't worry, I'm sure she rated you the same.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

ShatteredHeart said:


> That is not proven, we are given no data at all, just the writer's bias interpretation of the data.


I am going to re read the article in case I have missed anything. But how are the metrics actually measured? Did they do an IQ test of each participant and then compare them to each person they spoke too? As if the guys have carrying IQ, then an intelligent woman to one may be an unintelligent woman to another. Like a woman I class as intelligent, might seem unintelligent to Stephen Hawkins.

Also in speed dating, how did the previous interaction impact the next? If a person had a bad experience or not enjoyed chatting to another person, then they may have a bit a bit aggressive, depressed in the next interaction.

The whole experiment has way too many factors.

Maybe looking at current relationships and marriages and divorces and figuring it out from that may be more useful.


----------



## marblecloud95 (Aug 12, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> Ok so a woman is clever and knows to do Tri Linear Quadratic Calculus.
> 
> Wow that is so attractive.... No really what is attractive about that. She knows a load of maths shit. Cool yeah what ever.


well think about it, if your only semi intelligent this can be a major benefit to your children, smarter kids=more money you can guilt out of them for raising them


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

This piece of article should be accompanied with the study that says a child's intelligence is inherited from the mother


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Now everybody has to pretend not to get the joke, or be branded unattractive.


I am marrying the first guy who can get -my- jokes


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

My other view on this whole topic is one that I think really hits the heart of the matter!!!

Self Projection.

Women want to be smart, and be cleverer than us simple men. Then they get pissed because men don't want a cleverer woman.

And then they say that its because men want a less intelligent woman so that they can be manipulated. 

They refuse to accept any other alternative.

Now why is this.

What if I were to tell you, that they wanted a man less intelligent than themselves, because they themselves want to manipulate the men. They are just projecting their own internal state onto us dudes. Why else does it bother them so much.

If its so bad wanting to get with someone less intelligent, then why don't they go for the more intelligent men. 

I don't exactly see Stephen Hawking having the same crowds of women as say Hugh Heffner either or say Brad Pitt. So I don't think intelligence is as attractive or important as they make out Its just a smoke screen.

There are probably men more intelligent or just as intelligent, so why don't they take their own advice and go for these men instead of whining about us Neanderthals whom they think they can manipulate. Oh yeah, the advice is a load of BS.

End Of Rant.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@cybersloth81 

Wrong. Because some women refuse to play dumb and find it unbelievably difficult to live in a world where every girl has to play dumb to attract the boys. Thanks to your mating rituals, I have to suffer on a daily basis with women who are ready to stab each other for a guy, who are plastic, materialistic and dumbed down their character. 

Aren't you aware that some women even change their voices to sound more high pitched and thus, more feminine? Aren't you aware just how a man's choices because their ego is so fragile is inhibiting many many girls? Roughly, half of the population. 

Also there are many factors to attraction, why should having one quality, not lacking it, affect the other?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> I'm glad dumbfuck men are turned off by intelligent women tbh, it's nature's way of helping women out - "here let me save you the trouble of rejecting dumbfucks you wouldn't want to date/marry anyway."


salty, very salty


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

nichya said:


> @cybersloth81
> 
> Wrong. Because some women refuse to play dumb and find it unbelievably difficult to live in a world where every girl has to play dumb to attract the boys. Thanks to your mating rituals, I have to suffer on a daily basis with women who are ready to stab each other for a guy, who are plastic, materialistic and dumbed down their character.
> 
> ...


So you think we should force men to get with women they don't want, just to make your life easier.

Being single is an option you know.

Or maybe lower standards.

Just look at advice women give to the undesirable men and apply it to yourself.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

nichya said:


> Maybe you should read some Darwin instead of whatever crap your filling your head with -> it is called equity and we have evolved enough to have more than jungle rules.
> 
> Man wants best genes for child Woman wants best genes for child. So they go for the best partner they can find. -> *A child's intelligence is inherited from the mother, if it is a boy, it is inherited only from the mother and intelligence is a high survival bet so maybe you should question how media and culture screws up your biological perception. *
> 
> ...


That's not true. And the fragile male ego is a result of men being selected more for utility than fertility. Same reason for female neuroticism with appearance and youthfulness. Good luck changing it.


----------



## Ronney (Jul 17, 2016)

Psychophantic said:


> That's not true. And the fragile male ego is a result of men being selected more for utility than fertility. Same reason for female neuroticism with appearance and youthfulness. Good luck changing it.


So fit hot smart people should be with other fit hot smart people. That makes sense. I get rejected for fat dirty looking stoner slobs by women that seem to or even say they like me. If i'm persistent i can get them but fuck it takes some work


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> you don't have to be turned on by 100% of the things about your partner to appreciate those things. lots of women like guys who are rough in the sack, yet still appreciate that they can be sweet to them outside of sex without that necessarily turning them on. it's the same thing.


Yeah, but if we acknowledge that we don't get to make the ten thousandth thread on the PerC S&R forum about how evil men are, so SHHHHHH, quit spoiling everyone's fun.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> two problems with this
> 1) not being turned on by intelligence does not equal being turned off by it
> 2) how is this supposed to be vilifying? you don't have to be turned on by 100% of the things about your partner to appreciate those things. lots of women like guys who are rough in the sack, yet still appreciate that they can be sweet to them outside of sex without that necessarily turning them on. it's the same thing.





BIGJake111 said:


> I like smart girls, did the study ever consider that men just don't want to date someone they don't find attractive regardless of if she is smart.


I could womansplain (tee hee) this to you if you are interested roud:



MyName said:


> Yeah, but if we acknowledge that we don't get to make the ten thousandth thread on the PerC S&R forum about how evil men are, so SHHHHHH, quit spoiling everyone's fun.


I think men have been quick to get all defensive. Why is that?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

PunkRocker said:


> So fit hot smart people should be with other fit hot smart people. That makes sense. I get rejected for fat dirty looking stoner slobs by women that seem to or even say they like me. If i'm persistent i can get them but fuck it takes some work


"Should?" My observation comes with no moral prescription. Personally, I don't think people should choose others based solely on biological expediency, but even that's a difficult statement to unpack. Regardless, if you derive your morals from darwinian principles, the "fat dirty slobs" are great people as long as they're getting laid.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

ShatteredHeart said:


> @ae1905 you are reading me all wrong @Tropes is correct.
> 
> First off, I was not countering your point with my ditzes and brutes comment, I was reinforcing it. Couples with dissimilar intellects do exist, but are outliers.
> 
> Second, how am I a science-denier? My studies are in Mechanical Engineering and Alternative Energy. And I'm Agnostic. If you know anything about science, it is that nothing is ever *confirmed*(key word here) to be 100% true, only that it has a high probability based on controlled variables. so your assertion that Men (ie all men) are turned off by clever women-unless they are hot, IS not only a blatant lie based on the responses in this thread by men, but also by scientific principle.


Ok, I don't know the history between @ae1905 and @ShatteredHeart , but just reading this, I am going to guess it has something to do with Engineers and woo - RationalWiki vs http://lesswrong.com/lw/ivm/confusion_about_science_and_technology/ ?

It is just that IME this is a very common point of trouble between engineers and scientists.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> I could womansplain (tee hee) this to you if you are interested roud:
> 
> 
> 
> I think men have been quick to get all defensive. Why is that?


Because as per normal, we get branded rapists, mysogonists, woman haters, blah blah blah over everything.

Just because we are not attracted to the "intelligent" women we are the above.

Yet if we were attracted to the intelligent women, the "un intelligent" women would be calling us the same.

Its like life really, what ever you do your a mysogonistic raping woman beater.

Its like going shopping, look at the mens clothes section and some feminist is gonna come up and start punching you saying your sexist because you dont wear womans clothes. Yet defend yourself and suddenly your a woman hater.

Its really shit having a dick.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@cybersloth81 You sound like you're in need of a hug, here *virtual hug* No one's attacking you  (<- I'm using this as an empathetic face)


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> I like smart girls, did the study ever consider that men just don't want to date someone they don't find attractive regardless of if she is smart.


Neither do women.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> Neither do women.


Yes they do!


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Jamaia said:


> Yes they do!


Want to date someone they're not attracted to? No?


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Feminism and IQ. 

Don't we have better things to talk about like how this so called study that they never link to is bullshit and probably doesn't exist? 

Enviado do meu FEVER através de Tapatalk


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> Want to date someone they're not attracted to? No?


Oh, _attracted to_, defined in the most elusive way? Sorry, I was thinking attracted to in a physical way, like in this study (well not _just_ physical I suppose, but general attractiveness). But if you are talking about attraction as opposite of "don't want to interact with you again", that's the same as saying "people don't wanna date people they don't wanna date"... Right?

***



Aya the Lady of Cinder said:


> Feminism and IQ.
> 
> Don't we have better things to talk about like how this so called study that they never link to is bullshit and probably doesn't exist?


:shocked: Don't you have anything better to do than reading a title of a thread and trolling susceptible people? roud: (which reminds me I do have better things to do than this... should be getting to it... :bored


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> Children Of The Bad Revolution said:
> 
> 
> > Want to date someone they're not attracted to? No?
> ...


Alright is it just me or do other people think "poor guys" when they read about that part of the study? I don't think I would be comfortable in a relationship with someone who wasn't physically attracted to me and only wanted me for my brainz (Which are apparently delicious, my last zombie room mate told me).


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ShatteredHeart said:


> Well stereotypically, as this whole thread tries to reinforce, Intellect (T) is a masculine trait, while Sensitivity (F) is a feminine trait.
> 
> The arguing that male don't value (stereotypical) masculine qualities in females unless they are hot is the flip side of Females not valuing (stereotypical) feminine qualities in males unless it's offset by physical attraction. It's pot/kettle
> 
> ...


I actually posted a thread asking about N in particular, and why an NT would be considered more stereotypically masculine than feminine, when "intuition" is typically associated with femininity. Some posters argued that Jungian intuition is different from our everyday conception of intuition, so masculine/feminine stereotypes are mostly limited to the F/T axis. 

I don't know if I agree with that entirely, though there are stereotypes that go the opposite way ("man not reading the instructions" or "entrepreneurial businessman" -- N over S masculine stereotype; "loyal wife who enjoys cooking, sewing, and does most of the housework" = S over N feminine stereotype).


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Jamaia said:


> Oh, _attracted to_, defined in the most elusive way? Sorry, I was thinking attracted to in a physical way, like in this study (well not _just_ physical I suppose, but general attractiveness). But if you are talking about attraction as opposite of "don't want to interact with you again", that's the same as saying "people don't wanna date people they don't wanna date"... Right?
> 
> ***
> 
> ...


I already read it. THEY STUDIED SPEED DATING. I don't even know why we're having such a big discussion surrounding this article. 

Enviado do meu FEVER através de Tapatalk


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

Tropes said:


> Ok, I don't know the history between @ae1905 and @ShatteredHeart , but just reading this, I am going to guess it has something to do with Engineers and woo - RationalWiki vs Confusion about science and technology - Less Wrong ?
> 
> It is just that IME this is a very common point of trouble between engineers and scientists.


Very interesting point, the wiki had me:rolling:

This actually comes back to my point in another thread



Chesire Tower said:


>





ShatteredHeart said:


> Yes the word of a mechanical engineer is absolute in a field he never studied. I like Bill Nye, but he's not a climatologist and needs to stop pretending he is.


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

In my personal experience I find this to be true. 

Not sure why is that, maybe a thinking pair of boobs is just weird.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tropes said:


> Alright is it just me or do other people think "poor guys" when they read about that part of the study? I don't think I would be comfortable in a relationship with someone who wasn't physically attracted to me and only wanted me for my brainz (Which are apparently delicious, my last zombie room mate told me).


:tongue: delicious brains...

There could be developments in levels of attraction post the initial stage, maybe? 

Ok so in this study guys didn't seem to want to date women who were less than ~4 attractive to them personally (0-10 scale). Some ladies did want to date some of the smartest guys, who they rated 0-4 attractive. 

But I suppose it is a matter of defining what's attraction then. Is it attraction if someone seems ~10 attractive to you, or is it attraction if someone is >4 attractive to you, or >1? Also, it seems like women seemed more attractive to guys than guys to women, and women perceived guys as more intelligent. Maybe that's real objective difference (maybe the women were attractive and maybe the guys were that much smarter), or maybe it's both sexes playing along (perceiving things), or maybe it's women wanting to not be "superficial" and appointing some of the attraction to the guy's intelligence?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Aya the Lady of Cinder said:


> I already read it. THEY STUDIED SPEED DATING. I don't even know why we're having such a big discussion surrounding this article.


How would you study these things?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> Cos you're wrong. A lot of people purposefully surround themselves with people better than them IF and only IF they are looking to become better versions of themselves. In fact even back in the days of Aristotle he said friendships could be/should be initiated for pleasure, utility, or goodness (which is basically both pleasure and utility - aka what you get from the friendship).
> 
> I routinely surround myself with people smarter than me all the time, I like the challenge when they are friends, but when they are your partner eh it becomes boring.


That's pretty much what I'm asking. Why is it common to surround yourself with people at least as smart as you (if not smarter) when you're friends? But suddenly it's the opposite if you're more than friends?

A challenge becomes boring?  I would think someone not being smart enough to mentally stimulate you would be more boring than someone who can challenge you.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Jamaia said:


> How would you study these things?


Asking people, observing people and their relationships with others and there are medical tests to test your arousal towards certain things. Speed dating seems a very clumsy way to study this because you never get to know the person. Actually this is very hard to study. People who appear one thing ate another and so on. I don't think speed dating would say much about who I'm or other people are attractive to. Oh yeah, I'm attracted to people who like video games but what kind of video games? Do they view it the same way as I do? Do we even play the same things? Get what I mean? It seems very easy to fake these results and having speed dating in it makes it seem even easier to fake. 

Enviado do meu FEVER através de Tapatalk


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Aya the Lady of Cinder said:


> Asking people, observing people and their relationships with others and there are medical tests to test your arousal towards certain things. Speed dating seems a very clumsy way to study this because you never get to know the person. Actually this is very hard to study. People who appear one thing ate another and so on. I don't think speed dating would say much about who I'm or other people are attractive to. Oh yeah, I'm attracted to people who like video games but what kind of video games? Do they view it the same way as I do? Do we even play the same things? Get what I mean? It seems very easy to fake these results and having speed dating in it makes it seem even easier to fake.
> 
> Enviado do meu FEVER através de Tapatalk


But it was about initial attraction.... You never know the other person at that stage. With speed dating you get a lot of straightforward data with which you can do things, with numbers and stuff. Of course it's very hard to study, that's obvious. Is there something about speed dating setup that makes the results wrong? Would it be more beneficial to study what kind of video games people play and how they are attracted to other players? I'm talking about this still because I do find this interesting.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Jamaia said:


> But it was about initial attraction.... You never know the other person at that stage. With speed dating you get a lot of straightforward data with which you can do things, with numbers and stuff. Of course it's very hard to study, that's obvious. Is there something about speed dating setup that makes the results wrong? Would it be more beneficial to study what kind of video games people play and how they are attracted to other players? I'm talking about this still because I do find this interesting.


What I'm saying is that speed dating is fast and superficial I don't think we can say this from that particular form of dating. 

Enviado do meu FEVER através de Tapatalk


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I don't know if I agree with that entirely, though there are stereotypes that go the opposite way ("man not reading the instructions" or "entrepreneurial businessman" -- N over S masculine stereotype; "loyal wife who enjoys cooking, sewing, and does most of the housework" = S over N feminine stereotype).


I would argue you have these backward. "man not reading the instructions" or "entrepreneurial businessman" are both acts of doers aka sensors while "loyal wife who enjoys cooking, sewing, and does most of the housework" is the work of a dreamer aka intuitive as they live out fantasies in there head.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

ShatteredHeart said:


> while "loyal wife who enjoys cooking, sewing, and does most of the housework" is the work of a dreamer aka intuitive as they live out fantasies in there head.


 @ShatteredHeart , that's brilliant . 


(If I'm interpreting this the right way.)




(I do hate sewing.)


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Aya the Lady of Cinder said:


> What I'm saying is that speed dating is fast and superficial I don't think we can say *this *from that particular form of dating.


This, what this are we saying? You think fast and superficial are not what initial attraction is about?


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Jamaia said:


> This, what this are we saying? You think fast and superficial are not what initial attraction is about?


I don't know? I don't see it that way I guess

Enviado do meu FEVER através de Tapatalk


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

ShatteredHeart said:


> Yes the word of a mechanical engineer is absolute in a field he never studied. I like Bill Nye, but he's not a climatologist and needs to stop pretending he is.


We can negotiate a deal here: 
Bill Nye will stop making videos about climate change when Michio Kaku stops making videos about the future of technology :tongue:

Rockstar scientists, v'got to love hatin' 'em.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> How would you study these things?


Remove all external variables.

Have 10 photos of girls and have the guys rank them 1-10 based on how interested they are in a date based solely on looks. Then, have them read ten objective statements of varying levels of understanding on a given topic say war range from "it's bad" to a doctoral dissertation on the causes and consequences. with the intelligence completely inverse to the previous ranking, then have the men re rank the 10 women. 

That would self adjust for personal preference in image.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ShatteredHeart said:


> I would argue you have these backward. "man not reading the instructions" or "entrepreneurial businessman" are both acts of doers aka sensors while "loyal wife who enjoys cooking, sewing, and does most of the housework" is the work of a dreamer aka intuitive as they live out fantasies in there head.


Entrepreneurial businessman = xNTx (more typically ENTx): visionary idea man that knows how to negotiate, network and gather others around a concept. (Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg for example). 

Cooking, sewing and doing housework are all "doing" actions, N's spend more time thinking about/daydreaming about doing things than actually doing them :tongue: Someone who does that stuff while living out daydreams is probably intuitive, yes, because they have trouble being interested in the task at hand. 

I think N women tend to have other priorities, even with their daydreams (like "meeting the right person", "having healthy relationships") not playing "be the best wife material" lol.

But I do think S vs N axis doesn't fit neatly with either set of gender stereotypes.

Edit: Not reading instructions suggests wanting to figure something out as you go, using your own mental capacities and not following what some booklet says. - Which temperaments would you say are most likely to reject the Bible as a source of authority?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

ShatteredHeart said:


> Remove all external variables.
> 
> Have 10 photos of girls and have the guys rank them 1-10 based on how interested they are in a date based solely on looks. Then, have them read ten objective statements of varying levels of understanding on a given topic say war range from "it's bad" to a doctoral dissertation on the causes and consequences. with the intelligence completely inverse to the previous ranking, then have the men re rank the 10 women.


And out of that you'd get, what?


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> And out of that you'd get, what?


a *controlled* scientific study, does the level of intellect change the ranking positively or negatively and what level of intellect (relative to the subject) is ideal.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

ShatteredHeart said:


> a *controlled* scientific study, does the level of intellect change the ranking positively or negatively and what level of intellect (relative to the subject) is ideal.


You think people don't assess intelligence at all by looking at a face, you don't think people assess any other attributes than intelligence from written text? How would you create the texts so that you have objectively and realistically 10 levels of intelligence? Or the faces so that you have 10 distinct levels of attraction (might show them 100 faces and ask them to pick 10 that¨to them represent 10 levels?)? You think the test subjects answer only based on "real drives" or something, and aren't affected by the test situation or are self-conscious on the re-rate part? How would this kind of study tell you more about real world than a situation where they are interacting with real people, in an actual date setting and making decisions that affect them in real life?

I suppose you could combine your setup with dating. Maybe tell the guys in the re-rating part that all these women have shown interest in him, and have him rate them based on who he would want to go out with.

***

Yes, the thing I was supposed to do got delayed an hour, in case anyone is wondering...


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> You think people don't assess intelligence at all by looking at a face, you don't think people assess any other attributes than intelligence from written text? How would you create the texts so that you have objectively and realistically 10 levels of intelligence? Or the faces so that you have 10 distinct levels of attraction (might show them 100 faces and ask them to pick 10 that¨to them represent 10 levels?)? You think the test subjects answer only based on "real drives" or something, and aren't affected by the test situation or are self-conscious on the re-rate part? How would this kind of study tell you more about real world than a situation where they are interacting with real people, in an actual date setting and making decisions that affect them in real life?
> 
> I suppose you could combine your setup with dating. Maybe tell the guys in the re-rating part that all these women have shown interest in him, and have him rate them based on who he would want to go out with.


The point is to answer whether or not intelligence affects dateability based on image correct? To do that you would have to eliminate actual contact that may skew the data such as racism, pheromones or mood relative to the last encounter.

By the men ordering the 10 instead of picking 10 from a hundred, you remove the bias to pick predominantly attractive women subconsciously. 

By having graduated levels of understanding (note all ten would be written by the same individual to control bias) on a topic like war, they have a gauge of intellect. I would add a step at the beginning where they write on the topic, so that the subjects intellect is gauged as well to determine at what level relative to themselves they prefer.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Volunteers rated more than 4,000 speed dates based on intelligence and attractiveness
> 
> Rebecca Flood
> Saturday 6 August 2016
> ...


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

ShatteredHeart said:


> The point is to answer whether or not intelligence affects dateability based on image correct? To do that you would have to eliminate actual contact that may skew the data such as racism, pheromones or mood relative to the last encounter.
> 
> By the men ordering the 10 instead of picking 10 from a hundred, you remove the bias to pick predominantly attractive women subconsciously.
> 
> By having graduated levels of understanding (note all ten would be written by the same individual to control bias) on a topic like war, they have a gauge of intellect. I would add a step at the beginning where they write on the topic, so that the subjects intellect is gauged as well to determine at what level relative to themselves they prefer.


Large enough numbers should eliminate much of the things that skew results in individual cases... I don't know, entirely controlled artificial setting sounds like awfully sensitive to mistakes/bias by the researchers who have set it up. Do you really think one person could produce texts that reflect differences in intellect that are relevant to everybody and that the 10 pre-selected faces represent levels of attractiveness that are comparative to the levels of intellect perceived from the texts? I don't think so. I think such settings could be used to further research ideas that have come about from conducting these real life studies. I mean, what ever you say about speed dating and it's superficiality, it is a real thing that a lot of people use to find romantic partners.

*** @ShatteredHeart I'm getting ideas from this  How about, you have a guy take part in a study that is supposedly about matching people. Have the guy arrange a set of ten faces on a line from 0 attractive to 10 attractive based on his own perception of their relative attractiveness, and have him repeat that with different sets so many times he can't possibly remember what faces were in the same set. Then separately have him do the same with many sets of 10 texts, but arrange them on a free scale from 0 dumb to 10 dumb (lol, or something less obvious). Then compare the patterns to find 10 faces and 10 texts that he has arranged in comparable patterns, combine the most attractive with the dumbest and so on. Now the perceived levels of intellect match the perceived levels of attraction. Wait some time so he has more time to forget things. Then tell him out of all the people that took part in this study, these ten have shown interest in dating him, show him the "full profiles" where the faces and texts are matched but tell him unfortunately it's not possible to arrange a date with everyone and have him again rate them on a scale date/no-date. (Unfortunately would be unethical if the women are not real... Also a lot of work. And I'm not sure if results would be useful. Maybe he would also have to rate the texts based on how attractive he finds the texts...)


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Does that count that most women find actual intelligent people creepy and think their passions are invasive and unnecessary, whereas it's those passions that, in fact, built their intelligence? How can they pretend that intelligence matters but all behaviors leading to intelligence aren't desirable? Rhetorical question.

Normal people telling intelligence matters is just them misinterpreting and rationalizing their true desires and motives. Unlike others human traits, one has to specialize oneself in intelligence to find something really attractive about it - per se. Because sapience is an artifice of the human nature.


----------



## sinaasappel (Jul 22, 2015)

This is interesting


----------



## sinaasappel (Jul 22, 2015)

Do the men in the study think women who are smart/beautiful are con-artists? XD


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Psychophantic said:


> That's not true. And the fragile male ego is a result of men being selected more for utility than fertility. Same reason for female neuroticism with appearance and youthfulness. Good luck changing it.


That is a published study.

Brainy sons owe intelligence to their mothers


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> ShatteredHeart said:
> 
> 
> > The point is to answer whether or not intelligence affects dateability based on image correct? To do that you would have to eliminate actual contact that may skew the data such as racism, pheromones or mood relative to the last encounter.
> ...


I think we are trying to accomplish two separate goals. You seem to be looking more for application. I'm strictly looking for an answer to the question. The more you complicate the test, the more bias you allow, the less accurate your data.

I believe my method would have significantly less bias to account for, It would automatically correct for itself and tailor to the subject. It eliminates any factors other than appearance and intellect from the equation.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

The only part bias could be inserted is the researchers measurement of the subject's intellect


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Does that count that most women find actual intelligent people creepy and think their passions are invasive and unnecessary, whereas it's those passions that, in fact, built their intelligence? How can they pretend that intelligence matters but all behaviors leading to intelligence aren't desirable? Rhetorical question.
> 
> Normal people telling intelligence matters is just them misinterpreting and rationalizing their true desires and motives. Unlike others human traits, one has to specialize oneself in intelligence to find something really attractive about it - per se. Because sapience is an artifice of the human nature.


I suppose the creepy geniuses (if they took part, ha) were seen as 10 intelligent and low attractive. Some of them (IF THEY WERE GUYS, not women) may have gotten a date, perhaps from other creepy geniuses (women)? Honestly I don't know if attractive was interpreted as just physical attractiveness. It's a minority problem anyways, probably not worth studying much... You'll manage :tongue: .

What do you mean sapience is an _artifice of the human nature_?



GIA Diamonds said:


> Do the men in the study think women who are smart/beautiful are con-artists? XD


You mean women who were smart and beautiful, or women who were smart-not-beautiful or beautiful-not-smart?



ShatteredHeart said:


> I think we are trying to accomplish two separate goals. You seem to be looking more for application. I'm strictly looking for an answer to the question. The more you complicate the test, the more bias you allow, the less accurate your data.
> 
> I believe my method would have significantly less bias to account for, It would automatically correct for itself and tailor to the subject. It eliminates any factors other than appearance and intellect from the equation.


I was trying to eliminate bias. You can't say test eliminates factors if you don't say how it eliminates factors. Unless you look into how it will work, it's just make-belief. And we were comparing your idea to an actual executed study that we know details about (beyond just plain "it was something to do with speed dates"), you have to have some details to compare.


----------



## sinaasappel (Jul 22, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> I suppose the creepy geniuses (if they took part, ha) were seen as 10 intelligent and low attractive. Some of them may have gotten a date, perhaps from other creepy geniuses? It's a minority problem anyways, probably not worth studying much
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Smart and beautiful


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

cybersloth81 said:


> Yeah I dated someone who had a degree in Banking or something and she was an executive board member for a large enginnering firm. All that said, that did nothing to spike my attraction. In fact it was the opposite, she was a business woman which meant she was always busy with work and had a lot of work things on her mind. So where as I can switch off all that crap, she didn't seem able to do so. So if anything it made her less attractive, then compared to say a woman who looked identical but led a less work focussed life.


Well, that doesn't sound like intelligence specifically was the problem, since you're complaining about how she was focusing too much on her work rather than her actual intelligence. 



cybersloth81 said:


> Personally I would go for sense of humour over intelligence any day.
> 
> Obviously there has to be some intelligence, ie the ability to put sentences together and speak.
> 
> ...


Aren't intelligence linked to those things? Someone's intelligence is going to affect their sense of humor, etc. 



Tommy Vercetti said:


> Smart women should stop whining, smart men have it much worse and yet we bear our loneliness with dignity and decorum.


That varies...

--
Didn't read the whole thread, but thinking about my own experience, I've found that guys can react positively to me being "smart" but at the same time they seemed to like to play up my ignorance and naivity. So maybe... well, it's a way to assert dominance, and to feel superior. And it's certainly not fun to feel inferior, so if a woman's intelligence (or her attitude about it) makes a man feel inferior, I can see why he'd be turned off by that.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

^^ lol can't change the subconscious. I know I like the idea of an intelligent woman :/ but what I really need from my partner is someone who is willing to raise up to 3 kids with me :/.. without leaving the kids constantly in the care of other family members or paid caretakers. (This stuff isn't something easy)

Such family life would take a toll on someone who has aspirations other then being a homemaker, and most highly intelligent women I assume do have plenty of other aspirations / career before family.

... so yeah, my subconscious selects correctly imo. She should be healthy and decent looking ^^;...


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

GIA Diamonds said:


> Smart and beautiful


When a guy rated a woman 10/10, he quite often did want to date her too, but not every time. My interpretation from the colourful pictures with pretty patterns is that men were most into women they perceived as 10 looks & 9 intelligence, or 9 looks & 8 intelligence. I'm sure that's still plenty smart and beautiful... Whereas when women picked their dates, the best chances had the men who were perceived as 10/10.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> I suppose the creepy geniuses (if they took part, ha) were seen as 10 intelligent and low attractive. Some of them may have gotten a date, perhaps from other creepy geniuses? It's a minority problem anyways, probably not worth studying much... You'll manage :tongue: .


Hence the interest people have for the intelligence of their partners is not proportional to the intelligence of their partners and that study is all about perception.

So that study says that women tend to give people they judge more intelligent and less hot than the average a chance, whereas men wouldn't. That's where it becomes fun : here's another study from okcupid, which says than women think 80% of men are looking below average, whereas men have much more balanced perception of the average woman. Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends

So you can see how both the perception of intelligence and beauty are skewing the results.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Hence the interest people have for the intelligence of their partners is not proportional to the intelligence of their partners and that study is all about perception.
> 
> So that study says that women tend to give people they judge more intelligent and less hot than the average a chance, whereas men wouldn't. That's where it becomes fun : here's another study from okcupid, which says than women think 80% of men are looking below average, whereas men have much more balanced perception of the average woman. Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends
> 
> So you can see how both the perception of intelligence and beauty are skewing the results.


Yes the study is all about perception, the title begins with Perceived female intellig...

I think that result is because of the masses of options in OKC make women overtly selective, thus does not apply in the speed-dating setting where there are about 10 or so options. Densities of perceived attractiveness in this study were not far from normal distribution, both genders judged most of the other gender to be above 5 (not sure how to form this sentence but I hope you understand, maybe "density distributions of perceived attra..." is how it should be?). This is why when I get my awesome dating app built there will not be masses of options at least for women.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> Neither do women.


No one disagrees there. But women dont get called mysogonistic rapists if they arnt attracted to someone.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

cybersloth81 said:


> No one disagrees there. But women dont get called mysogonistic rapists if they arnt attracted to someone.


I did very much disagree, but then decided it depends on how attractive is defined and then realized I did not know how it was defined in the studies.

***

BTW, my new friends in Warsaw have not gotten back to me after I asked them the sub or dub Anime question. @Derange At 170


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> No one disagrees there. But women dont get called mysogonistic rapists if they arnt attracted to someone.


Who called these men rapists?


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> Yes the study is all about perception, the title begins with Perceived female intellig...
> 
> I think that result is because of the masses of options in OKC make women overtly selective, thus does not apply in the speed-dating setting where there are about 10 or so options.



I don't see why the masses of options wouldn't affect men selectiveness. It surely does. Anyways, it was an independent study involving some users, not informations from all users activity. They just had to rate some specific pics, it wasn't part of their normal activity on okcupid.

I think the true reason is that men's faces are much more likely to deviate from a neutral face (judged more attractive) than the average women ; because of testosterone, whose impact on the facial structure is unlikely to be balanced. (plus men don't hide their defaults behind makeup..) Which means most average men's faces deviate much more from the average woman's face, and less women are likely to find those deviations attractive. Basically, women think the average is them and expect men to fall below anyways.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Jamaia said:


> I did very much disagree, but then decided it depends on how attractive is defined and then realized I did not know how it was defined in the studies.
> 
> ***
> 
> BTW, my new friends in Warsaw have not gotten back to me after I asked them the sub or dub Anime question. @Derange At 170


I'm doubting their scientific credentials.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> I don't see why the masses of options wouldn't affect men selectiveness. It surely does. Anyways, it was an independent study involving some users, not informations from all users activity. They just had to rate some specific pics, it wasn't part of their normal activity on okcupid.


They were still OKC users looking at pictures that were OKC profile pictures. I would venture to guess (based on this other study, where like I said females did not perceive men as ridiculously unattractive) that in OKC type of environment where not only there are loads of profiles to skim, women are approached by a lot of men, women perceive men as less attractive than men deserve, because the attractiveness of a man so heavily affects woman's interest in them. 

How do men become more selective with more options? 




> I think the true reason is that men's faces are much more likely to deviate from a neutral face (judged more attractive) than the average women ; because of testosterone, whose impact on the facial structure is unlikely to be balanced. (plus men don't hide their defaults behind makeup..) Which means most average men's faces deviate much more from the average woman's face, and less women are likely to find those deviations attractive. Basically, women think the average is them and expect men to fall below anyways.


Might be... But what I thought about those photos was that all four of those are basically women more or less posing. There's plenty of intentional and probably unintentionally suggestive attractive feminine gestures happening. Where as the men... Not only do they chose photos that don't necessarily say what they want to say, there aren't that many masculine suggestive gestures men could use in a photo even if they wanted to.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

@Jamaia I tested my premise here on the forum.

The test was simplified, and the participant PMed me her final answers. In the interest of protecting her, I will not link the thread or directly quote the pm.

I gave her 5 images of men, on a scale of 1-5 in attractiveness, she gave them all above average appeal 3-4. then she ranked them in order to most to least desirable.

Here list was as follows on Appeaerance
*Most*
Steve
Greg
Dave
Jeff
Mike
*Least*

Then I assigned them education levels from high school to PHD, and had her re rank with the new info based on whom she would like to go on a date with. Note that here education level was Bachelor's degree working toward Master's degree 

*Most*
Jeff - Masters
Steve - High School
Greg - Associates
Dave - Bachelor's
Mike - PhD
*Least*

Jeff managed to go from 4th to first based on his education. note that he possesses the degree she is working toward, while everyone else simply moved down. Mike's value did not change with having the highest degree. She listed the ability to have meaningful conversation for the reason Jeff moved to #1. In appearance, Mike was a 3 . Jeff a 3.75, and Dave, Steve and Greg were 4s.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

cybersloth81 said:


> How. Please explain.
> 
> Seriously. I don't see it that way. And for the reasons I mentioned about intelligent women being more job focussed personally I can see it causing more issues to a relationship.


Heh, major ENTJ mindset - "Intelligent therefore probably uses their brain to do loads of work and focus on stuff."

Try applying that to an INTP - we're known intellects but are also outright winners in the laziness department.

As far as I'm concerned, an intelligent partner is someone who can hold a conversation that goes a bit deeper than OMG I WANT A PUPPY, they can understand things on more levels, etc.

Having said that, I don't think intelligence is important at all. For me it's all about character. Someone can be godly clever or thick as a brick, all we need to do is get on like peas in a pod and the game is won.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

HAL said:


> Try applying that to an INTP - we're outright winners in the laziness department












Bitch Please


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Jamaia said:


> They were still OKC users looking at pictures that were OKC profile pictures. I would venture to guess (based on this other study, where like I said females did not perceive men as ridiculously unattractive) that in OKC type of environment where not only there are loads of profiles to skim, women are approached by a lot of men, women perceive men as less attractive than men deserve, because the attractiveness of a man so heavily affects woman's interest in them.
> 
> How do men become more selective with more options? *Who wouldn't? *:kitteh:


In the end all what I see is that men wanted to re-date 47% of women, whereas women wanted to re-date only 36% of men. lol 

Shady, shady. We can as well conclude that women in closed intellectual groups (since the study involves students from one university) are more likely to manifest their interests for intelligent men to preserve their reputation/standing, whereas they actually wouldn't date them anyways. I mean, that story is full of plot holes. Anyways, looking at the fig 1, the conclusions seem to be ridiculously exaggerated and the dude's is manipulating little differences to save his ass because it involved way too much people around him for nothing...


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

Jamaia said:


> Actual intelligence matters in relations when it affects the perceived intelligence. What even is actual intelligence? You could have people take IQ tests (one limited option, I'm sure we agree?) and then let them loose and see how they pair up and then study what kind of correlation in terms of IQ, but what people are seeing in each other is their own perception of them (and their intelligence), not the actual intelligence. I'm confused why you'd see it any other way...


The point is that you can't make any descriptive statements about these results because no objective standard for what constitutes being intelligent is provided. This thread is full of people saying that this is evidence of men being "intimidated" of women they "can't manipulate" and that this means they only want women who won't have jobs, blah, blah, blah. There's no evidence for any of that because we don't know if the men int he study perceived independent/career minded/non-malleable women as being intelligent and vice-versa. We don't know what they perceived as intelligent at all. So I really can't think of any definitive conclusions to draw from this, despite so many people really wanting to draw them.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

S16M4 said:


> This thread:
> 
> _You know why men dislike clever women? _
> 
> _-Global Warming_


:laughin:


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

MyName said:


> The point is that you can't make any descriptive statements about these results because no objective standard for what constitutes being intelligent is provided. *This thread is full of people saying that this is evidence of men being "intimidated" of women they "can't manipulate" and that this means they only want women who won't have jobs, blah, blah, blah. *There's no evidence for any of that because we don't know if the men int he study perceived independent/career minded/non-malleable women as being intelligent and vice-versa. We don't know what they perceived as intelligent at all. So I really can't think of any definitive conclusions to draw from this, despite so many people really wanting to draw them.


Oh, so the problem is we don't know what the women perceived to be highly intelligent were like? We don't know what about them made men see them as highly intelligent? 

The bolded: Please, this thread is not full of such things. (I should know, shouldn't I  ?)


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

Earlier in this thread, before all the derails about methodology and global warming (I still don't understand what that side convo is about) people took a really moralistic stance here, with the things I talked about in my reply just before this one, and using phrases like "dumbfuck men" and so forth. What does any of this have to do with morality? Aren't people entitled to date or not date who they want? I really don't see what's so different about those type replies and all the "nice guys finish last" whining that gets bashed as sexist. Being smart doesn't entitle you to dates any more than being nice does. Are men "obligated" to date you and find you attractive just because you're smart? I thought only nasty misogynists thought like that. Adults finding whoever they want attractive isn't a "problem". 

Of course all of this assumes that the study proves the implications made in prior posts to be true for the sake of argument, which I don't think it does.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@MyName, alright, I'll have to agree to not understand entirely but to still most cautiously disagree anyway about some things, for tonight that is, must sleep.


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

Men want love, just like women do. *GASP*

We don't want to know the 4 x4 square the root x by canal street, perpendicular of the trilateral commission; solve for V. 




































































The V is for Vagina.


----------



## Turlowe (Aug 4, 2014)

Thread Warning

1. Do Not Make Personal Attacks
Posts that serve no purpose other than to flame and attack other users annihilate the quality of discussion. You may critique or disdain argument and opinion posted by users, but you may not extend that method to maligning the users themselves. Do not harass or bully other members, which includes the following:
- "type-bullying," which we define as the persistent and unsolicited public questioning of another member's type when they have not expressed such an interest.
- purposefully misgendering other members from the identification they have chosen on their profile.
- unsolicited and especially repeated diagnosis of other members as having a particular personality disorder or mental illness.


2. Do Not Troll
Trolling is not permissible and refers to attempts to derail or disrupt a thread through behavior such as the following:
- making low-quality and/or irrelevant posts
- making provocative and inflammatory comments
- trying to provoke, bait, or flame others.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

Turlowe said:


> Thread Warning
> 
> 1. Do Not Make Personal Attacks
> Posts that serve no purpose other than to flame and attack other users annihilate the quality of discussion. You may critique or disdain argument and opinion posted by users, but you may not extend that method to maligning the users themselves. Do not harass or bully other members, which includes the following:
> ...


Purple yeah :happy:


----------



## Turlowe (Aug 4, 2014)

We live and learn......


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

John X said:


> Men want love, just like women do. *GASP*
> 
> We don't want to know the 4 x4 square the root x by canal street, perpendicular of the trilateral commission; solve for V.
> 
> V is for Vagina.


Surely the smarts should be saved for the Job Interviews when it is actually important and matters.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

* *






ShatteredHeart said:


> Is climate change real? = yes
> Is climate Change man made? = *No/Inconclusive*
> 
> Oh here is where your precious 97% falls apart
> ...





ShatteredHeart said:


> Read the forbes article, Cook was full of shit





ShatteredHeart said:


> @*ae1905* Here is the entire article, no cherry picking
> 
> James Taylor , CONTRIBUTOR
> 
> As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because *most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming.* The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.


you disagree...you don't think gw is man-made...so this forbes article doesn't even support _your _position



> Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
> 
> Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
> 
> ...


cook's report was based on the 2007 ipcc report that used "_most _since mid-20th century" (see pg 10 ipcc report below), not "90-100% since 1900"..."most" was not defined as a percentage, so using its common definition--viz, "in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number; in the majority of instances"--cook was correct to use 50%...in which case scarfetta's "40-70%" (or 60-30% man-made) falls into the ipcc's criteria for awg 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

cook's survey paper:


> We classified each abstract according to the type of
> research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written
> criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1)
> and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit
> ...


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...B8679AB8843F4F5EE5CA58D71B12A9D.ip-10-40-2-73




> Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”
> 
> “I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.
> 
> ...


this addresses some of this controversy:



> There have been a number of contrarians claiming that they are part of the 97% consensus, which they believe is limited to the position that humans are causing _some_ global warming. The first error in this argument is in ignoring the fact that the data collected in Cook et al. (2013) included categories that quantify the human contribution, as Andrew Montford and the GWPF recently did, for example.
> 
> The second error has been made by individuals claiming they're in the 97%, but failing to actually check the data. For example, Roy Spencer claimed in testimony to US Congress that he is included in the 97% consensus. Since we made all of our data available to the public, you can see our ratings of Spencer's abstracts here. Five of his papers were captured in our literature search; we categorized four as 'no opinion' on the cause of global warming, and one as implicitly minimizing the human influence. Thus Spencer's research was included in the fewer than 3 percent of papers that either rejected or minimized the human contribution to global warming. Bjorn Lomborg made a similar error, claiming:"Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical)."​In reality Lomborg is included neither in the 97+% nor the less than 3% because as far as we can tell, he has not published any peer-reviewed climate research, and thus none of his writings were captured in our literature search. The 97% is a consensus of climate science experts, and that, Lomborg is not.
> 
> ...


The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

so these few complainants didn't change the 97% concluson _even when they rated themselves_

the link goes into more detail about the cook survey and its critics...it also discusses other surveys:



> Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.
> 
> In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.
> 
> In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade. It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

In the real world you can't give troll warnings. You just toughen up and not cry to a mod about a random post you can easily scroll over; but, understandable.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> "Men by virtue of being men do X which is demeaning to women." Women get upset, men become indignant and argue back. *Such bullshit*.


Why do I feel this strange need to argue back?...

let's see:

"men do X which is demeaning to women" true

"women get upset" some women do so, half true

"men become indignant..." true

"and argue back" not always so, half true


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Psychophantic said:


> Just because a handful of the genes we associate with intelligence are on the X chromosome does not mean it _only_ comes from the mother.


Dear INFP,

let me break it down for you.

Growing evidence shows that several genes which determine intelligence appear to be located on the X chromosome.

Men have either X or Y chromosome in their sperm.

A girl has XX chromosome, one from mother and one from father.

A boy has XY chromosome, defintely the X from mother (since the egg is always X) and the Y from father. 

--> An intelligence-enhancing X gene (with genes related to intelligence) has more of a chance of becoming the predominate gene, determining the man's basic intelligence. It also works other way, meaning if those genes are not strong enough in the X, there is a higher chance boys will have mental difficulties.

So yes, as far as we know (scientifically so far), it does, if you are a boy. 

I am not discussing education, knowledge, environment, inequality here. A lack of certain vitamins are also a reason.

Now please feel free to explain in what ways did you mean to oppose to the study? Just because you feel like it?

I am an INFP too btw


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Well my ideal man would be Peeta, compassionate and soft and good at heart. He might not be the smartest champ but I find intelligence to be attractive as well (a lil too much).


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@Psychophantic

Also for your comment before, yes you are right about fragile male egos and female neuroticism to an extent. It is also the reason why women can not evolve to have kids later in life even though average lifetime is much longer today. This is purely because men simply chose younger female even when they are old.

HOWEVER,

there is also a side to getting old, in terms of mortality and mortality is the biggest basic fear of all humans, period. When I see old people, I feel uneasy because I don't want to get old, lose my mental and bodily abilities and die. It is far more of a concern for me than to pass my genes on, consciously and subconsciously.

I don't see any reason why a man would be intimidated by intelligence if not their fragile egos. Not being needed? Not having a purpose? Being replaced by a woman? All sounds pretty lame compared to fear of mortality. A person would not think this way if they were not brought up in a patriarchal system.

Also, if the female age related neuroticsm would be as dominant as the male ego, you would see Hollywood movies and ads everywhere featuring old and wrinkly woman dating hot young boys, young girls would be seen unattractive, a threat to society and would be paid less. Old men would be oppressed.

So it is more oppressive one way than the other.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

nichya said:


> Dear INFP,
> 
> let me break it down for you.
> 
> ...


Yes, I understand basic biology, but thanks for the refresher condescension. I'm saying that this does not mean that intelligence is inherited _only_ from the mother, even if it is, perhaps, more affected by her genes (though I'd really like to see a study examining the correlation between children's intelligence and those of their parents before I totally buy this given our limited understanding of the genetic basis of intelligence). And my mother was a lawyer and a rather sharp instrument, so it's not a conclusion that bugs me personally, but I think you're oversimplifying something very complex.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Psychophantic said:


> Yes, I understand basic biology, but thanks for the refresher condescension. I'm saying that this does not mean that intelligence is inherited _only_ from the mother, even if it is, perhaps, more affected by her genes (though I'd really like to see a study examining the correlation between children's intelligence and those of their parents before I totally buy this given our limited understanding of the genetic basis of intelligence). And my mother was a lawyer and a rather sharp instrument, so it's not a conclusion that bugs me personally, but I think you're oversimplifying something very complex.


But yours is an assumption and you say what is found is not true by referencing what is not found v.V 

The same article I have sent says, there are more extraordinarily intelligent men than women and it makes so much sense to me. Although females might be smarter on average, I do believe that the extraordinarily smart and driven people have been men. There is just no equivalent to Tesla's mind. I am not talking about education, opportunities, oppression... The man is beyond genius.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

nichya said:


> But yours is an assumption and you say what is found is not true by referencing what is not found v.V
> 
> The same article I have sent says, there are more extraordinarily intelligent men than women and it makes so much sense to me. Although females might be smarter on average, I do believe that the extraordinarily smart and driven people have been men. There is just no equivalent to Tesla's mind. I am not talking about education, opportunities, oppression... The man is beyond genius.


I'm saying the claim that male intelligence is _entirely_ inherited from the mother is unsubstantiated. We don't know all the genetic factors that influence intelligence, so pointing at a few known genes and saying "hey, these are found on the X-chromosome therefore it must all come from the mother" is specious. It's much like when scientists claimed male hairloss was inherited from the maternal grandfather because they had found a single gene that was implicated, yet hairloss studies revealed that men with bald fathers were much more likely to lose hair. Why? They later discovered _additional_ relevant genes. I'm simply saying you don't yet have enough evidence to say with confidence that a man's intelligence is inherited _only_ (<- very very important word here) from the mother.

And men don't have lower intelligence on average according to most general tests of cognition. Rather, the standard deviation for the distribution of male intelligence is larger, which does actually support the contention that the X-chromosome contributes more (note: not _everything_) to intelligence since a single good or bad copy of the chromosome would be untempered by an additional copy with other brain-related genetic information (interesting article on this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...y-different-and-why-you-can-thank-your-mother).

Sorry for the rude remark.. I haven't eaten today.



nichya said:


> @Psychophantic
> 
> Also for your comment before, yes you are right about fragile male egos and female neuroticism to an extent. It is also the reason why women can not evolve to have kids later in life even though average lifetime is much longer today. This is purely because men simply chose younger female even when they are old.
> 
> ...


But reproduction is the only answer to fears of mortality. It's the only way you (or your genes, more specifically) can live forever (in theory). I really can't see how this argument holds together at all. Are all fears products of social conditioning because they pale in comparison to the fear of death? Or am I misunderstanding your argument. If it's the former, I think it's clear why that reasoning doesn't work.

I don't believe most of the features of male psychology that women complain about are exclusively the products of social conditioning, nor do I believe the same about those of female psychology. Is it frustrating for those of us who fall outside of the behavior prescribed for us by our genders? Yes, absolutely, but I don't think these attitudes are as malleable as you think they are. Male insecurity is most likely the result of what, historically, was more of a winner-takes-all system for men (this is a good illustration: https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d#.78mdpqvo7). Obviously this will have a pretty profound impact on our psychology (and physiology) over many generations, and we see that in male social patterns and trait distributions (wider standard deviation for intelligence and most traits that I mentioned above). Call it a hardwired "fragile ego" if you like. Note: I'm not claiming that men and women are so different that we can speak in absolutes about these traits. There's still overlap in the distributions which leaves room for a lot of interesting behaviors among individuals, but that's irrelevant at a sociological level. 



> Also, if the female age related neuroticsm would be as dominant as the male ego, you would see Hollywood movies and ads everywhere featuring old and wrinkly woman dating hot young boys, young girls would be seen unattractive, a threat to society and would be paid less. Old men would be oppressed.
> 
> *So it is more oppressive one way than the other.*


I don't think that's a fair conclusion, but it's pretty difficult to compare these things objectively. Most (_not all_) women go for masculine qualities like confidence, height, and traits that border on (or are correlated with) antisocial attributes (sociopathic, not introverted). That's frustrating for me as a relatively shy, somewhat effeminate guy but it's just the way it is and I inhibit myself as needed to work around it. And it's worth noting that those female preferences, just like a possible male preference for average intelligence, _really_ aren't great for society as a whole. So it's a complicated dynamic with both genders making some bad (as I see it) judgments.


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

I dumb down for my audience to double my options.


----------



## SpectrumOfThought (Mar 29, 2013)

Tropes said:


> Acceptance of the transgender community and misogyny all in one, I don't know if you are serious but I have the strongest urge to drop you off like a bomb in certain Reddits or Tumblr just to see what happens.


Who said anything about accepting those... people


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

*Stay on topic people!*

*Now, who wants to talk about climate change again?*:tongue:


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Fredward said:


> As always when it comes to psychology this isn't gonna be a universal thing, if you have to 'dumb yourself down' to get a guy the issue is as much with your taste as it is with men in general.


How is it?


----------



## Fredward (Sep 21, 2013)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> How is it?


If you dislike the idea of dumbing yourself down for a guy don't go for guys who're intimidated by your intelligence.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

huhh said:


> lol this thread was done at page 2...


Yes @huhh, because of your insightful comment on page 2 <3

I've totally enjoyed this 37 page experience plus add-ons.


----------



## lil intro vert (Jan 14, 2016)

Wait, are they so intelligent that they don't know how to be relatable? Am I speaking to Velma from Scooby Doo?


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

TheProtagonist said:


> Wait, are they so intelligent that they don't know how to be relatable? Am I speaking to Velma from Scooby Doo?


Velma was cute, I'd like to show her my zoinks face:kitteh:










J/King that would be sexist.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

TheProtagonist said:


> Wait, are they so intelligent that they don't know how to be relatable? Am I speaking to Velma from Scooby Doo?


I dont think they are talking about Social Intelligence.


----------



## huhh (Apr 15, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> Yes @huhh, because of your insightful comment on page 2 <3
> 
> I've totally enjoyed this 37 page experience plus add-ons.


I didnt write anything on page 2! And my post on page 1 was kinda blurgh. 

I entered this thread at my last viewed place which was page 2 however and i read a lot of posts there and everything that needed to be said and explained was done so by other members, "imo", which made me flabbergasted that it had gone on for an additional 14 pages heh.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

huhh said:


> I didnt write anything on page 2! And my post on page 1 was kinda blurgh.
> 
> I entered this thread at my last viewed place which was page 2 however and i read a lot of posts there and everything that needed to be said and explained was done so by other members, "imo", which made me flabbergasted that it had gone on for an additional 14 pages heh.


Post #16 is on page 2! 

Maybe this thread is just too difficult for you to follow, dear @huhh *pats on the head* :kitteh:


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

Tropes said:


> I have noticed that many threads here become general purpose chat rooms after about 6-10 pages.



Nothing wrong with it. That's how it is in the real world; rarely have I seen casual conversation strictly stick to the topic at hand. When the chemistry is going, and people are enjoying themselves, you are bound to shift topics. That is why I don't quite understand the strict rules about keeping things on topic, unless someone comes in with some left-field topic that has absolutely NO link to anything being discussed. (i.e a thread about women turning into a thread about ISIS and how they are destroying America).


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

John X said:


> That is why I don't quite understand the strict rules about keeping things on topic


I believe it's a misused cultural adaptation that originated from professional environments where going off topic costs someone's money.


----------



## lil intro vert (Jan 14, 2016)

ShatteredHeart said:


> Velma was cute, I'd like to show her my zoinks face:kitteh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1) That's not the real Velma.

2) I said nothing about her looks. 




cybersloth81 said:


> I dont think they are talking about Social Intelligence.


Then, I can't deal.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Tropes said:


> Acceptance of the transgender community and misogyny all in one, I don't know if you are serious but I have the strongest urge to drop you off like a bomb in certain Reddits or Tumblr just to see what happens.


It confuses me that people think this is an odd combination of a person...


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

John X said:


> Nothing wrong with it. That's how it is in the real world; rarely have I seen casual conversation strictly stick to the topic at hand. When the chemistry is going, and people are enjoying themselves, you are bound to shift topics. That is why I don't quite understand the strict rules about keeping things on topic, unless someone comes in with some left-field topic that has absolutely NO link to anything being discussed. (i.e a thread about women turning into a thread about ISIS and how they are destroying America).


I think people see other people talking and make the mistake of thinking that people give a fuck about whatever random topic they want to bring up as opposed to finding people to talk to that share a key interest which requires social savvy so they just hi-jack conversations as it gives the pretense they they are liked as they are communicating. I mean why learn to start conversations when you can just hijack. Feel free to disagree, just my two cents. I normally abolish conversation at this point and find someone else to talk too once convo has been hi-jacked.

Ironically are we off topic here or not?


----------



## huhh (Apr 15, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> Post #16 is on page 2!
> 
> Maybe this thread is just too difficult for you to follow, dear @huhh *pats on the head* :kitteh:


In my forum layout post #16 is on page 1  But i guess your perspective about what i wrote should matter more than mine in this case! Or maybe Mike that has the forum arranged so that my post is on page 3? And thank you for the pat, you seem to be both lovely and bright! :kitteh:


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Veggie said:


> It confuses me that people think this is an odd combination of a person...


Theoretically, there isn't, the support of the trans world view just like a mysgonistic or misandrist world views both require a well defined concept of gender that goes much further than biology alone can suggest.

The reason it is a rare combination is because it had no social bubble to spread within, there's no group that can be easily identified as the opposite of TERF. Personally, I think the awkward cultural marriage of LGBT and intersectional feminism is a match made in hell with no chance to last, but awkward circumstances happen, so now people naturally associate supporting one with the other, and misgony with questioning the later.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

huhh said:


> In my forum layout post #16 is on page 1  But i guess your perspective about what i wrote should matter more than mine in this case! Or maybe Mike that has the forum arranged so that my post is on page 3? And thank you for the pat, you seem to be both lovely and bright! :kitteh:


Thanks @huhh, you're lovely and bright too, at least an 8. I didn't know about layout options, I always had faith in the page numbers :/ It makes so much sense, 10 posts per page and turn the page, 10 posts and repeat, I thought it must be an universal law... You're saying page numbers are a matter of individual perception... even individual tastes? But then, if you knew it, saying "this thread was done by page 2" almost loses meaning. What if in Mike's experience this thread hasn't even reached page two?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> Thanks @huhh, you're lovely and bright too, at least an 8. I didn't know about layout options, I always had faith in the page numbers :/ It makes so much sense, 10 posts per page and turn the page, 10 posts and repeat, I thought it must be an universal law... You're saying page numbers are a matter of individual perception... even individual tastes? But then, if you knew it, saying "this thread was done by page 2" almost loses meaning. What if in Mike's experience this thread hasn't even reached page two?


Settings -> General Settings -> Posts Displayed per page.

Theres more to settings than choosing a pretty picture.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Speed dating is not necessarily a valid study because the people who do it are probably more shallow to begin with. To get a proper sample spread they would have to include people who wouldn't speed date.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Volunteers rated more than 4,000 speed dates based on intelligence and attractiveness


Women are also turned off by clever men,.. unless he has money (or some other social status that makes him attractive to a woman.)


Keep in mind that "clever" just means: Significantly more intelligent than one self.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

cybersloth81 said:


> Settings -> General Settings -> Posts Displayed per page.
> 
> Theres more to settings than choosing a pretty picture.


Aww, thanks =)




Peter said:


> Women are also turned off by clever men,.. unless he has money (or some other social status that makes him attractive to a woman.)
> 
> Keep in mind that "clever" just means: Significantly more intelligent than one self.


Only the article talks about 'clever'. It's not very clever being broke, is it?

***



sprinkles said:


> Speed dating is not necessarily a valid study because the people who do it are probably more shallow to begin with. To get a proper sample spread they would have to include people who wouldn't speed date.


Oh so that's what the complaining about speed dating is about! I don't know, this was done in 2002-2004 and the participants were students. They probably weren't too hardened speed daters by then.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ShatteredHeart said:


> Remove all external variables.
> 
> Have 10 photos of girls and have the guys rank them 1-10 based on how interested they are in a date based solely on looks. Then, have them read ten objective statements of varying levels of understanding on a given topic say war range from "it's bad" to a doctoral dissertation on the causes and consequences. with the intelligence completely inverse to the previous ranking, then have the men re rank the 10 women.
> 
> That would self adjust for personal preference in image.





ShatteredHeart said:


> The point is to answer whether or not intelligence affects dateability based on image correct? To do that you would have to eliminate actual contact that may skew the data such as racism, pheromones or mood relative to the last encounter.
> 
> By the men ordering the 10 instead of picking 10 from a hundred, you remove the bias to pick predominantly attractive women subconsciously.
> 
> By having graduated levels of understanding (note all ten would be written by the same individual to control bias) on a topic like war, they have a gauge of intellect. I would add a step at the beginning where they write on the topic, so that the subjects intellect is gauged as well to determine at what level relative to themselves they prefer.


Columbia University might need your brain, lol. (Studies like this make me cynical about the Ivy League schools.. I guess they are getting by on long-standing reputation more than academic rigor in this day and age. :dry

Maybe the best way to look at intelligence vs attractiveness would be to use more quantitative measures of both, like IQ tests and scientific beauty measures such as WSR (there is an ideal # for both men and women, I believe .85 and 0.7, respectively), and symmetry. Not perfect, but still more objective than asking what people perceive. What people subconsciously register as intelligent or attractive may not be the same as the standardized concept of it. 

Most of the time studies on attraction are done this way (and closer to the model of "show 10 pictures and rank them"). For example, here's one where women's IQ was not accurately predicted by perceived intelligence for either women or men - even though intelligence was predicted by the same facial features. They're attributing this to either effects of hormones, or the Halo Effect causing both men and women to conflate attractiveness with intelligence (presumably because women are being judged more on looks). 
Facial Features Predict IQ In Men: Long Face And Wide-Set Eyes Make Men Look Smart, But Not Women


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Columbia University might need your brain, lol. (Studies like this make me cynical about the Ivy League schools.. I guess they are getting by on long-standing reputation more than academic rigor in this day and age. :dry
> 
> Maybe the best way to look at intelligence vs attractiveness would be to use more quantitative measures of both, like IQ tests and scientific beauty measures such as WSR (there is an ideal # for both men and women, I believe .85 and 0.7, respectively), and symmetry. Not perfect, but still more objective than asking what people perceive. What people subconsciously register as intelligent or attractive may not be the same as the standardized concept of it.
> 
> ...


I didn't realize Columbia U was Ivy League :tongue: ... Colombia is a developing country, that's how much prestige I attributed to a university with the same name as the country, haha! (I see it's the biggest of them too, by the number of students, oops.)

Is no one in this thread agreeing with me that in the context of interpersonal relations *subjective perception of all things is all that matters*? The study of objective variables and how they may affect things is the other side of the same coin, not an improvement to studying the subjective perception! Objective variables put the focus on the one "being selected", aka the partner in this study, subjective perception focuses on the selector aka subject of this study.

*** @ninjahitsawall I linked that study too (let me see where), and while it might be halo I think there might be some MBTI effect involved, don't you think?


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Peter said:


> Women are also turned off by clever men,.. unless he has money (or some other social status that makes him attractive to a woman.)
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that "clever" just means: Significantly more intelligent than one self.


If it comes with being socially awkward, unhygienic, and with not much going for them, then yeah!


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

@ninjahitsawall The study of science is all too often left solely in the hands of scientists. this is a huge problem. Progress requires input equally from 3 fields each doing only their role.

Scientists question if you could
Engineers question how you could
Philosophers question if you should

*Experiment process*

Scientist has theory, engineer creates test for theory, Philosopher determines if test is ethical.
Scientist performs test and evaluates data, Philosopher determines if results are ethical, Engineer implements results.

Too often philosophy and engineering are after thoughts.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Jamaia said:


> I didn't realize Columbia U was Ivy League :tongue: ... Colombia is a developing country, that's how much prestige I attributed to a university with the same name as the country, haha! (I see it's the biggest of them too, by the number of students, oops.)
> 
> Is no one in this thread agreeing with me that in the context of interpersonal relations *subjective perception of all things is all that matters*? The study of objective variables and how they may affect things is the other side of the same coin, not an improvement to studying the subjective perception! Objective variables put the focus on the one "being selected", aka the partner in this study, subjective perception focuses on the selector aka subject of this study.
> 
> *** @*ninjahitsawall* I linked that study too (let me see where), and while it might be halo I think there might be some MBTI effect involved, don't you think?


LOL. the 'u' spelling makes it more prestigious than the 'o' (now which of those letters is more aesthetically pleasing to you? :tongue

I don't know if it's all that matters. Subjective and objective can be examined for different reasons. But they should make clear in that study that it's not about intelligence and attractiveness per se. The descriptions make it out like they're objective variables. Even in the opening sentences.. it's all about the women being clever or attractive.

"Men are not attracted to intelligent women unless they are good looking, a study has found. New research has confirmed the commonly held notion that the smarter a woman is, the less likely it is a man will fancy her. 
Men are actively turned-off by cleverness, and the only exception to this is if the woman is highly attractive, a study by the Warsaw School of Economics found. "

What do you mean about MBTI effect?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ShatteredHeart said:


> @*ninjahitsawall* The study of science is all too often left solely in the hands of scientists. this is a huge problem. Progress requires input equally from 3 fields each doing only their role.
> 
> Scientists question if you could
> Engineers question how you could
> ...


Could we do this study where we equate people's perceived (by the opposite sex) intelligence and attraction during speed dating, with their actual? Yes.
Can this be implemented in a way that removes confounds? Eh who cares. 
Should we even be doing this? Yeah why not, we have a grant.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> LOL. the 'u' spelling makes it more prestigious than the 'o' (now which of those letters is more aesthetically pleasing to you? :tongue


U since the country is also spelled Kolumbia in my language whereas kolo as in Colombia just mean a hole. 



> I don't know if it's all that matters. Subjective and objective can be examined for different reasons. But they should make clear in that study that it's not about intelligence and attractiveness per se. The descriptions make it out like they're objective variables. Even in the opening sentences.. it's all about the women being clever or attractive.
> 
> "Men are not attracted to intelligent women unless they are good looking, a study has found. New research has confirmed the commonly held notion that the smarter a woman is, the less likely it is a man will fancy her.
> Men are actively turned-off by cleverness, and the only exception to this is if the woman is highly attractive, a study by the Warsaw School of Economics found. "


I haven't discussed the article at all, why are we discussing the article? The sentence I painted red is wrong even if we'd consider smart to equal "perceived as smart", and in the next sentence they say it themselves, when the woman was highly attractive (to the subject) the smarter she was (= he perceived her to be), the more he wanted to date her (and if she was perceived as dumb, they didn't want to date her). (edit>) Also when her intelligence didn't exceed certain level compared to her attractiveness (in his view) it was better for her to be more smart.

But even if the study is not about intelligence and attractiveness of the partner per se, but the subject's perception of those things, you can definitely deduct things that say something about the one being selected too. (edit>) Just like you could deduct things about the selector by studying what the selected is like (objectively).

I mean, it would be really really strange if people in general could not at all assess the partner's intellect from interacting with them for 4 minutes. "The real" intellect (or attractiveness for that matter) is not like blood type or zodiac sign, it's not a mystery until carefully tested and measured. The subject won't be totally shocked upon hearing the IQ score or hip-waist-ratio, like they might be upon learning of birth date: "Holy shit, no way are you a Libra, I so thought you're a typical Leo!" It's another thing to study what about someone makes other people think they're smart or attractive and how accurate the perception is when compared to objective data, but when it's about relationships, all you really know about another person is how you perceive them. There's not another slot in your brain where "the actual objective knowledge" about them goes and makes a difference in what you think of them besides affecting your perception of them, it's all your perception.

The Warsaw guys haven't contacted me anymore, so I can't ask, but I presume their reason for the study was more about studying the (apparently rather new) term of economical bad (as opposed to a good).



> What do you mean about MBTI effect?


I'm saying MBTI type might affect the face (eh, not affect but you know, correlation) and people may have learned to associate things with certain features.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

> Nope. Heard this guy was pretty smartz. Do you get tingly thinking about him naked?
> 
> * *


♥ The love of my life. ♥ Another INTJ™ / 5w6 -- our offspring characteristic possibilities make(s) me swoon.

I would ride him (via) _high-functioning_ coitus out of that wheelchair if we met in younger years (&) he uttered _smooth _theorem(s) into my eardrums.

Unfortunately; my other love is deceased - left this planet in late 1600's, I am deeply saddened (&) have felt no strong attraction(s) to any viable male today beside(s) Hawking™ in such a similar fashion.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> Oh so that's what the complaining about speed dating is about! I don't know, this was done in 2002-2004 and the participants were students. They probably weren't too hardened speed daters by then.


They should have at least had a control group. Maybe a paper bag speed dating group where they wear paper bags on their heads.

It just doesn't make sense to come to the conclusion that people react on appearances when you set them up in a situation that favors reacting on appearances.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> LOL
> 
> Come on now. What if she was super smart but looked like Jabba the Hutt? The article is saying intelligence *alone *isn't a turn on. It has to be accompanied by the looks.


There has to be attraction, for sure, but is that necessarily looks, or a certain "look" we individually find attractive? I've dated a wide variety of women and I can say the ones I enjoyed the most were the ones who could keep up with me verbally, far more than those who were prettier than the rest.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

sprinkles said:


> They should have at least had a control group. Maybe a paper bag speed dating group where they wear paper bags on their heads.
> 
> It just doesn't make sense to come to the conclusion that people react on appearances when you set them up in a situation that favors reacting on appearances.


I misunderstood you then, I thought you meant the cohort is selected for superficial standards, because it is people who have volunteered to go for a speed date. 

So for control there'd be people talking blindfolded, they'd be asked to rate how attractive and intelligent and the other things they found their partner, and then asked yes/no would date. Wouldn't it just make it more artificial? Not being able to see who you're talking with, not just "what they look like" but how they behave and emote and such, conscious and unconscious attraction. How would testing for what people appreciate in a conversation without visual cues be control to a "normal" speed date scene, I mean how would you know the results represent any kind of baseline, in terms of what is tested in the speed date thing?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> Only the article talks about 'clever'. It's not very clever being broke, is it?


It's not very clever to be a wise ass either. :smile:

But being broke has nothing to do with this subject. It's all relative to one self. A man makes 100K per year and that could be attractive to one woman, but to another woman who grew up at that same level of income,... 100K isn't "having money", that's just the minimum requirement.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Peter said:


> It's not very clever to be a wise ass either. :smile:
> 
> But being broke has nothing to do with this subject. It's all relative to one self. A man makes 100K per year and that could be attractive to one woman, but to another woman who grew up at that same level of income,... 100K isn't "having money", that's just the minimum requirement.


It's all relative to one self, it was a study on perceived attributes affecting decision making. It wasn't "pick one: clever/not-clever", it was "rate intelligence on scale 0-10" and it would be ridiculous to think the subjects thought the aim is to accurately compare their partner's IQ to larger population. So larger deviations from your own normal would naturally be judged differently than smaller deviations. If they did think the aim is to be objective, they're really stupid for Columbia U students (just my personal perception from the way many were judged to be 5 or less intelligent).

****
@ninjahitsawall From the face & IQ study http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081237:



> The third possible explanation is that facial indicators of intelligence are signals rather than cues and that the honest signalling of intelligence is adaptive for men but not for women. It can be speculated, for example, that because of their mixed mating strategy, women prefer dominant men as extra-pair sexual partners while at the same time they seek men who are more willing to invest in their offspring as long-term or social partners [52]. It is known that while in the fertile phase of cycle and probably in search of good genes, women prefer creative intelligence to wealth especially in short-term mating [18]. On the other hand, a woman seeking a long term relationship could prefer a less intelligent but honest man, who compensates by long term provisioning, protection and a greater investment in childrearing. At the same time, the prevalence of the mixed mating strategy would influence so as to lead to frequency-dependent selection, and result in the stable coexistence of highly and lowly intelligent men within a population. To test this hypothesis, it will be necessary to search for correlations between women's preferences during their menstrual cycle and the IQ of their preferred partners.


>This is interesting stuff.


----------



## Sunn (Mar 12, 2014)

This entire thread's just a shitshow' hoofta. The majority of people even posting in this thread wouldn't classify as intelligent to begin with but they seem to pretend that OP's link is why they get rejected time after time by the opposite sex.

?? The same exact argument could be used for lonely guys on why women reject them time after time. It *must* be because they're just to good of men for women to date them. right? That's how this kind of shit works. It must obviously be the other persons fault for not finding interest in them! How dare those shallow women not like an intelligent, kind guy like them.

Like somehow "men" are more shallow then "women" when it comes to the dating world Lmao. Last I checked everyone's shallow to some degree but lets point fingers and throw pity party's instead. That'll surely change how people treat each other instead of sweeping the underlying issues under the carpet.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@Sunn, wow, lol, very perceptive of you (and not at all projecting  ). I'm oblivious to the _blaming_, but if my posts came across as such I'm sorry for your inconvenience. I would never say men are more shallow than women, the study even confirmed women will go for a guy they think is imbecile but very good looking. Also I have no delusions about my chances with the Columbia guys and it's not because of my soaring intelligence, based on the study... =) lucky for me though I'm securely off the market, so I don't have to think about it. 

I'm pretty interested now about the profile pictures, so I may just leave this thread alone for now.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> I misunderstood you then, I thought you meant the cohort is selected for superficial standards, because it is people who have volunteered to go for a speed date.
> 
> So for control there'd be people talking blindfolded, they'd be asked to rate how attractive and intelligent and the other things they found their partner, and then asked yes/no would date. Wouldn't it just make it more artificial? Not being able to see who you're talking with, not just "what they look like" but how they behave and emote and such, conscious and unconscious attraction. How would testing for what people appreciate in a conversation without visual cues be control to a "normal" speed date scene, I mean how would you know the results represent any kind of baseline, in terms of what is tested in the speed date thing?


I only said that because it is slightly better than nothing at all. 

It would also say something about whether men are turned off by clever women unless they are beautiful. In the control group it should be expected that they reject all clever women because they can't find the beautiful ones. 

If there was any merit to the findings, clever and beautiful women should be rejected if the men don't know they are beautiful. If something else happens that means it is more complicated.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

Sunn said:


> This entire thread's just a shitshow' hoofta. The majority of people even posting in this thread wouldn't classify as intelligent to begin with but they seem to pretend that OP's link is why they get rejected time after time by the opposite sex.
> 
> ?? The same exact argument could be used for lonely guys on why women reject them time after time. It *must* be because they're just to good of men for women to date them. right? That's how this kind of shit works. It must obviously be the other persons fault for not finding interest in them! How dare those shallow women not like an intelligent, kind guy like them.
> 
> Like somehow "men" are more shallow then "women" when it comes to the dating world Lmao. Last I checked everyone's shallow to some degree but lets point fingers and throw pity party's instead. That'll surely change how people treat each other instead of sweeping the underlying issues under the carpet.


Nah if you're a man and you talk that mess, you're a bitter nice guy neckbeard, or whatever the latest feminist slang is. If you're a man unsuccessful with women, and you start to blame them for it, you're mocked and trolled and dismissed. If you're a woman on the other hand and you talk this shit...


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

Why were most men not attracted to those intelligent women on those dates? Because most men don't find anything in common with intelligent women. Oh, and, no one was really attracted to those bad looking women. Lol. We're talking about speed dates, man. lol



> A woman of good intelligence helped distinguish her from her counterparts, but the cleverer a woman was they found she had to be equally beautiful to be worth pursuing.


On speed dates, the biggest factor is looks. You don't have much time to get to know a woman. 4 mins. Cmon.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Apple Pine said:


> Why were most men not attracted to those intelligent women on those dates? Because most men don't find anything in common with intelligent women. Oh, and, no one was really attracted to those bad looking women. Lol. We're talking about speed dates, man. lol
> 
> 
> 
> On speed dates, the biggest factor is looks. You don't have much time to get to know a woman. 4 mins. Cmon.


That's correct. I read somewhere that a large portion of speed dates are determined in the first few seconds of meeting.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Apple Pine said:


> Why were most men not attracted to those intelligent women on those dates? Because most men don't find anything in common with intelligent women. Oh, and, no one was really attracted to those bad looking women. Lol. We're talking about speed dates, man. lol
> 
> *On speed dates, the biggest factor is looks. You don't have much time to get to know a woman. 4 mins. Cmon.*


(You're not supposed to "get to know them" in 4 minutes, you go on a proper date to start getting to know them...)

Yet the women some how (collectively? probably not, just some individuals, but still) managed to want to date some of the guys they thought were unattractive but extremely smart. Hmm. Why this small difference between the sexes, when the setting is same, is what I've spent this thread trying to talk with people. 



sprinkles said:


> That's correct. I read somewhere that a large portion of speed dates are determined in the first few seconds of meeting.


Yeah, do you think that's because of the speed date setting alone, or do you think it's just the human brain seizing up the possible partner very quickly? I think the latter.


----------



## Sunn (Mar 12, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> I'm pretty interested now about the profile pictures, so I may just leave this thread alone for now.


I went 6 posts in on the first page so I apologize! I didn't mean you specifically.  THe kind of people who talk the shit they do know who they are and you most certainly aren't one of them.



Tommy Vercetti said:


> Nah if you're a man and you talk that mess, you're a bitter nice guy neckbeard, or whatever the latest feminist slang is. If you're a man unsuccessful with women, and you start to blame them for it, you're mocked and trolled and dismissed. If you're a woman on the other hand and you talk this shit...


Exactly. Sexism is very much still alive IMO and it's a two way street.

How people don't see it is absolutely fucking baffling to me' It's so blatant as well! and so.. selfish. I get men can be total pigs too but to pretend it's just us blows my mind. New wave feminism is such shit; it seems to be all about victimization and less about Understanding/Taking steps to fix issues.


----------



## QueenofEagles (Sep 19, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> They should have at least had a control group. Maybe a paper bag speed dating group where they wear paper bags on their heads.
> 
> It just doesn't make sense to come to the conclusion that people react on appearances when you set them up in a situation that favors reacting on appearances.


Paper bag speed dating, I like it. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> It's all relative to one self, it was a study on perceived attributes affecting decision making. It wasn't "pick one: clever/not-clever", it was "rate intelligence on scale 0-10" and it would be ridiculous to think the subjects thought the aim is to accurately compare their partner's IQ to larger population. So larger deviations from your own normal would naturally be judged differently than smaller deviations. If they did think the aim is to be objective, they're really stupid for Columbia U students (just my personal perception from the way many were judged to be 5 or less intelligent).


That was the point that I was making :smile:


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

QueenofEagles said:


> Paper bag speed dating, I like it.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


Alright contestant, you choose Bag Number Three, Let's see what you Won! It's A Brand New Hunchback, hobbies include: Awkwardness, Bad Hygiene and Being Mistaken for a Dude! *Congratulations!*


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

ShatteredHeart said:


> Alright contestant, you choose Bag Number Three, Let's see what you Won! It's A Brand New Hunchback, hobbies include: Awkwardness, Bad Hygiene and Being Mistaken for a Dude! *Congratulations!*


LOL @ShatteredHeart no need to make it all romantic and stuff... Paper bag speed dating does sound very masochistic to me... Or no, wait, is it not too different from online blind dates?

***
@Peter I'm not entirely following your point then... Why do you say women are also turned off by clever men (or perceived intelligence in men)? I don't think that's true.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

sprinkles said:


> I only said that because it is slightly better than nothing at all.
> 
> It would also say something about whether men are turned off by clever women unless they are beautiful. In the control group it should be expected that they reject all clever women because they can't find the beautiful ones.
> 
> If there was any merit to the findings, clever and beautiful women should be rejected if the men don't know they are beautiful. If something else happens that means it is more complicated.


It'd be interesting if they talk blindfolded - then voice is another factor to consider. There have been studies on attractiveness being judged by voice for both sexes.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

ninjahitsawall said:


> It'd be interesting if they talk blindfolded - then voice is another factor to consider. There have been studies on attractiveness being judged by voice for both sexes.


Isn't there a reality tv show that does that?

Edit: Found it


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Tropes said:


> Isn't there a reality tv show that does that?
> 
> Edit: Found it


I don't think I've heard of this show. Do they select these people randomly or purposely try to match them up?

Ironic for this thread what the first girl said at the beginning about being single because people think she's a dumb blonde.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Ironic for this thread what the first girl said at the beginning about being single because people think she's a dumb blonde.


Yes, made me laugh too.



ninjahitsawall said:


> I don't think I've heard of this show. Do they select these people randomly or purposely try to match them up?


It's reality TV so it's safe to assume maximum meddling.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Tropes said:


> Yes, made me laugh too.
> 
> 
> 
> It's reality TV so it's safe to assume maximum meddling.


A more randomized experiment would be more useful then.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

But blindfolded speed dating wouldn't work. 4 mins is not enough without visual cues, and you can't differentiate between 10+ people. The reality show seems great though!


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> But blindfolded speed dating wouldn't work. 4 mins is not enough without visual cues, and you can't differentiate between 10+ people. The reality show seems great though!


Before I heard about it, now I am actually watching it. I am hoping for science girl and bible boy, would be an hilarious relationship.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> @*Peter* I'm not entirely following your point then... Why do you say women are also turned off by clever men (or perceived intelligence in men)? I don't think that's true.


You mean that most women are completely turned on by nerds?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Peter said:


> You mean that most women are completely turned on by nerds?


No, that's not it, what kind of logic is that. What I'm saying is that if a woman likes a guy and finds him attractive, him being more intelligent is not going to hurt him. She's not going to prefer a hypothetical guy who is all the same things but just a bit dumber. Even if she doesn't find him attractive, his intelligence might still "save" him, I suspect because she sees it as an indicator of earning potential maybe.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

ShatteredHeart said:


> Velma was cute, I'd like to show her my zoinks face:kitteh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's so hot.


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

Peter said:


> Women are also turned off by clever men,.. unless he has money (or some other social status that makes him attractive to a woman.)
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that "clever" just means: Significantly more intelligent than one self.


Not in my experience. 

Nerds do not 'score' due to other reasons. Namely shyness, poor hygiene, childishness etc. 

If we took two men who both make $100k a year, and one is smarter than the other, will the smarter one stand a better chance at finding a mate? That's the real question here. 

Conversely, take two equally beautiful women (hell, make them identical twins if it floats your boat), but one is smarter than you. Who would you choose? 

The question is open for all men on the thread.


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

ShatteredHeart said:


> Velma was cute, I'd like to show her my zoinks face:kitteh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...That's hot...


That's a hot way to live.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> No, that's not it, what kind of logic is that. What I'm saying is that if a woman likes a guy and finds him attractive, him being more intelligent is not going to hurt him. She's not going to prefer a hypothetical guy who is all the same things but just a bit dumber. Even if she doesn't find him attractive, his intelligence might still "save" him, I suspect because she sees it as an indicator of earning potential maybe.


Ok, that makes sense. And yes, that might certainly be true, but I think there is a limit to how much more intelligent. That is probably also true for men. A man might be turned of by clever women, but I don't think he will be overwhelmed by joy if he's with someone who doesn't understand most of the things he says or does.

The tendency is that people end up with partners that are in the same range. Perhaps in many (most) cases the man is a bit more intelligent than the woman for reasons that you just came up with, but actually,.. I think there are many cases where the woman is a bit more intelligent than the man. It kind of has to be like that I think unless on average, men have a bit higher IQ than women, which I don't think is true.

Men used to be better educated than women, but ever since feminism started, this gap has been steadily reducing and I think in most modern societies, there is no significant difference between educational levels of men and women.


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

Inheritance said:


> Study confirms men are turned off by a clever woman - unless she is beautiful
> 
> *Approvals:*
> 
> ...


im still doomed xD!!!

Enviado desde mi SM-G920V mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Inheritance said:


> Study confirms men are turned off by a clever woman - unless she is beautiful
> 
> *Approvals:*
> 
> ...


Again, that result^ would not show turnoffness. But in this case it wasn't beautiful/not beautiful and intelligent/not intelligent, it was 0-10 scales and frequency of approve/disapprove, which do show it and your example leaves out the interesting part between the extremes as well as the ffrequencies. Also, "A man meets a woman. The woman is beautiful but not intelligent. The man approves." is wrong, the man disapproves still.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Inheritance said:


> Study confirms men are turned off by a clever woman - unless she is beautiful
> 
> *Approvals:*
> 
> ...


No

I wish individual men would stop trying to dictate what other men find attractive due to their own preferences.


----------



## Inheritance (Jul 20, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> Again, that result^ would not show turnoffness. But in this case it wasn't beautiful/not beautiful and intelligent/not intelligent, it was 0-10 scales and frequency of approve/disapprove, which do show it and your example leaves out the interesting part between the extremes as well as the ffrequencies. Also, "A man meets a woman. The woman is beautiful but not intelligent. The man approves." is wrong, the man disapproves still.


The key lines are:

Statement: Men are not attracted to intelligent women unless they are good looking
*My interpretation:* They have to be (1) Good looking but not intelligent or (2) Good looking and intelligent, which is exactly what I said in my post. 

Statement 1: Men are actively turned-off by cleverness, and the only exception to this is if the woman is highly attractive
Statement 2: the cleverer a woman was they found she had to be equally beautiful to be worth pursuing. 

*My interpretation:* Basically, what a man wants is a beautiful girl. What does it matter if a woman has an IQ of 130 if she looks like a pig? Honestly, there's no need to sugarcoat a fact like this. Intelligence can't compensate the lack of beauty. But what I missed was the statement that men are actively turned-off by cleverness. Since this isn't true for me, I may have overlooked this detail. But my opinion on the matter is irrelevant, what matters is what the studies show. And what the studies show is that men are turned-off by intelligence. So lets say a man gives a -3 to an intelligent woman but a +9 (0-10) to a beautiful woman, bearing in mind that it's the same woman I speak off, the end result would still be +6. 6 / 10 basically, enough for your common man to bang her if he gets a chance. Perhaps he may not even care about the -3 as all, as long as he can have a one night stand and then never see her again. 

Statement: But they discovered men placed more emphasis on physical appearance.
*My interpretation:* Beauty triumphs intelligence

*""A man meets a woman. The woman is beautiful but not intelligent. The man approves." is wrong, the man disapproves still."*

According to the study: _"But they discovered men placed more emphasis on physical appearance."_
I'm not sure why you say the man would disapprove? If she's beautiful but not intelligent, with beautiful being the turn-on and intelligence being the turn-off, then would not that be the perfect 10 / 10? What makes you say the man would disapprove?



WamphyriThrall said:


> No
> 
> I wish individual men would stop trying to dictate what other men find attractive due to their own preferences.


I'm not sure what you are talking about. This entire study has nothing to do with individuality. It's about generalizing the preferences of men. Lets say you are the type who finds intelligence a turn-on. Lets say you are the type of man who finds beauty a turn-off. You would be one of few. Your vote would not have any weight when it comes to generalizing what men typically finds attractive. You would be among that 4% with the other 96% having a different opinion (made up number). This entire study has nothing to do with subjectivity and individuality. It has to do with objectivity and generalizing the genders based on how they rated people. And according to the study, most men find beauty a turn-on and intelligence a turn-off. That's the information we have at hands when discussing this subjects. And using the information at hand, I just dictated the scenario, which would, according to the theory in the study, be the outcome. This, of course, doesn't mean I agree with the outcome. it doesn't mean I'm turned off by intelligence. It doesn't mean I'm dictating what you should find attractive. I simply used the information at hand to build up rational scenarios based on the given information.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Inheritance said:


> Nothing *in the original post* states any of the things you said.


Yeah, my bad. 



> The key lines are:
> 
> Statement: Men are not attracted to intelligent women unless they are good looking
> My interpretation: They have to be (1) Good looking but not intelligent or (2) Good looking and intelligent, which is exactly what I said in my post.


False interpretation, the statement says nothing about being or not being attracted to the "not-intelligent".



> Statement: Men are actively turned-off by cleverness, and the only exception to this is if the woman is highly attractive
> 
> My interpretation: Basically, what a man wants is a beautiful girl. What does it matter if a woman has an IQ of 130 if she looks like a pig? Honestly, there's no need to sugarcoat a fact like this. Intelligence can't compensate the lack of beauty.


Not sugarcoating. It was found true in this study, that intelligence can't compensate the lack of beauty when it is men judging women, but women will let intelligence compensate for lack of good looks in men.



> But what I missed was the statement that men are actively turned-off by cleverness. Since this isn't true for me, I may have overlooked this detail. But my opinion on the matter is irrelevant, what matters is what the studies show. And what the studies show is that men are turned-off by intelligence.


Yes.



> So lets say a man gives a -3 to an intelligent woman but a +9 (0-10) to a beautiful woman, bearing in mind that it's the same woman I speak off, the end result would still be +6. 6 / 10 basically, enough for your common man to bang her if he gets a chance. Perhaps he may not even care about the -3 as all, as long as he can have a one night stand and then never see her again.


Your math is advanced... Not sure if can follow, how are there two women in one? 



> Statement: But they discovered men placed more emphasis on physical appearance.
> My interpretation: Beauty triumphs intelligence
> 
> *""A man meets a woman. The woman is beautiful but not intelligent. The man approves." is wrong, the man disapproves still."*
> ...


I'm saying because I read the study and then I cut some corners and probably forgot some stuff in order to briefly respond to you without having to actually read it again. The guys did not want to date (the very few) women they perceived to be 10 lookers but dumb. Women did date dumb gorgeous guys, though.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> Yeah, my bad.
> 
> 
> False interpretation, the statement says nothing about being or not being attracted to the "not-intelligent".
> ...


So men and women are different when assessing potential mates. And in recent news the earth is round. Now tell me something I didn't know already.


----------



## Inheritance (Jul 20, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> I'm saying because I read the study and then I cut some corners and probably forgot some stuff in order to briefly respond to you without having to actually read it again. The guys did not want to date (the very few) women they perceived to be 10 lookers but dumb. Women did date dumb gorgeous guys, though.


So you read the actual study? I did not. I only read the original post and used that information when I posted. So that explains why you speak of ratings such as 0-10 and men not choosing girls they perceived as dumb, which were not mentioned in the original post at all. Guess it's all cleared up then.



Jamaia said:


> Your math is advanced... Not sure if can follow, how are there two women in one?


The girl with -3 points in intelligence but +9 points in beauty is the same girl. Makes a +6 in total


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Inheritance said:


> Study confirms men are turned off by a clever woman - unless she is beautiful
> 
> *Approvals:*
> 
> ...



Reality is rarely this "neat".

Reality is more like this...

Two women are rather average in looks, and both are close enough to an equally average man's type. One is not particularly smart, but the other is quite intelligent.

Who is more attractive?

First, I think it depends on how intelligent the man in question is because that will affect how relatable the woman is, and the most appealing may be the most similar one. Odds are, he is average, and so a woman of higher intelligence may not be very relatable, but neither will one of much lower intelligence be appealing. Both may register as "annoying" or simply hard to communicate with. Let's say neither is _too far_ away from his own level...then what?

A good point was made by another poster (haven't gone back to check their name yet) that intelligence may still be seen as a masculine trait, much as kindness can be seen as feminine (when really, neither gender does nor should have a monopoly on these). 
So perception can make all the difference. This thread shows that many people associate intelligence with status, power, arrogance, masculinity, etc. Even if a woman does not display these traits, can this association of them with intelligence lead to intelligence being some subconscious turn-off?

Back to the hypothetical situation... IMO, it depends on how the man _feels_ around these women, and if intelligence is assumed to go hand-in-hand with being masculine or boring or it is felt to be unrelatable, then the average but not-too-smart woman may be deemed more attractive. The reason given (which is not always the real reason) may be about the supposed higher femininity of the less intelligent woman or it may be a preference for some other quality that has been pitted against intelligence (ie kindness, as if it cannot coexist with intelligence); but intelligence will often be _denied_ as a factor at all. There will not be acknowledgement that higher intelligence was _associated with_ negative qualities and lower intelligencer associated with positive ones. I think that is what happens sometimes though.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

the tone of this article is passive-aggressive, insinuating that people are more/less virtuous based on what turns them on. a decade ago, it was the right doing this, not it's the left.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Do people really give numerical scores to someone's attractiveness to them? That's really kind of sad and pathetic. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> Do people really give numerical scores to someone's attractiveness to them? That's really kind of sad and pathetic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yes, and disagree


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Yes, and disagree


You don't think giving people...like, human beings, numerical scores out of 10 is pathetic? 

Ok then.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> You don't think giving people...like, human beings, numerical scores out of 10 is pathetic?
> 
> Ok then.


No, why would it be? If we're comparing say, looks, intelligence, or whatever.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

WamphyriThrall said:


> No, why would it be? If we're comparing say, looks, intelligence, or whatever.


Its all subjective to the individual. My 10 (what I find most attractive) may vary from your 10 (what you find most attractive).

That said, I think it is unhealthy, as it is putting people on a pedestal. And if you put someone on a pedestal, you are already putting yourself below them, so that implies that you would feel you had lesser value than them.

Although, there is only one reason really to put a woman on a pedestal and thats to look up her skirt.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> You don't think giving people...like, human beings, numerical scores out of 10 is pathetic?
> 
> Ok then.


Its easier when talking to a friend. Instead of trying to describe a girl who been chatting too. Just say "She was a 7" or "she was a 10". That way friend will have a good idea of what she looked like, without having to spend ages giving description.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Reality Check said:


> Its all subjective to the individual. My 10 (what I find most attractive) may vary from your 10 (what you find most attractive).
> 
> That said, I think it is unhealthy, as it is putting people on a pedestal. And if you put someone on a pedestal, you are already putting yourself below them, so that implies that you would feel you had lesser value than them.
> 
> Although, there is only one reason really to put a woman on a pedestal and thats to look up her skirt.


Vile.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> Its all subjective to the individual. My 10 (what I find most attractive) may vary from your 10 (what you find most attractive).
> 
> That said, I think it is unhealthy, as it is putting people on a pedestal. And if you put someone on a pedestal, you are already putting yourself below them, so that implies that you would feel you had lesser value than them.
> 
> Although, there is only one reason really to put a woman on a pedestal and thats to look up her skirt.


Some people ask to be rated. A lot of us do it in our head for entertainment. I doubt anyone literally goes through a set of equations to determine if this or that person is compatible. 

Luckily for you, I have several 10s, and they vary quite a bit in the physical department ^^ Anyway, I don't see it as being any worse than having a "type". 

I also think the idea of "leagues" is bs


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

WamphyriThrall said:


> *Luckily for you, I have several 10s*, and they vary quite a bit in the physical department ^^ Anyway, I don't see it as being any worse than having a "type".


Really? That's kind of cheapening the 10 rating, 10 is supposed to represent perfection which is nearly unattainable. I'd probably never rate anyone a 10/10, even someone I was madly in love with, because it implies they are flawless which is impossible.

I also don't really rate anyone above an 8 unless they are my type. So even if they're absolutely objectively stunning, if they aren't really my type I probably won't rate them higher than an 8.

Also, for people who are like "THEY'RE PEOPLE NOT NUMBERS", you're taking something that is just used in a joking/non-serious manner way too seriously. Most of the times this conversation has come up with girls is when the girl actually asks me to rate her anyways.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

Crazy and smart can be swapped and inverted for this

Keep in mind, this is only a joke


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Really? That's kind of cheapening the 10 rating, 10 is supposed to represent perfection which is nearly unattainable. I'd probably never rate anyone a 10/10, even someone I was madly in love with, because it implies they are flawless which is impossible.
> 
> I also don't really rate anyone above an 8 unless they are my type. So even if they're absolutely objectively stunning, if they aren't really my type I probably won't rate them higher than an 8.
> 
> Also, for people who are like "THEY'RE PEOPLE NOT NUMBERS", you're taking something that is just used in a joking/non-serious manner way too seriously. Most of the times this conversation has come up with girls is when the girl actually asks me to rate her anyways.


Another thing. If me or someone is in a bar or club and we phone mate or a mate phones us. Its easier for a "Its full of 9's", "Its full of 6's" response. Granted Ive had a shit month this month, so Im staying in till payday, but hypothetically if I wasnt of O rang a mate and asked where he was, if he said he was in a bar full of 10's I would be inclined to meet him there. If he said it was full of 6's I would be inclined to leave him to it and go elsewhere.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

ShatteredHeart said:


> Crazy and smart can be swapped and inverted for this
> 
> Keep in mind, this is only a joke


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Really? That's kind of cheapening the 10 rating, 10 is supposed to represent perfection which is nearly unattainable. I'd probably never rate anyone a 10/10, even someone I was madly in love with, because it implies they are flawless which is impossible.
> 
> I also don't really rate anyone above an 8 unless they are my type. So even if they're absolutely objectively stunning, if they aren't really my type I probably won't rate them higher than an 8.
> 
> Also, for people who are like "THEY'RE PEOPLE NOT NUMBERS", you're taking something that is just used in a joking/non-serious manner way too seriously. Most of the times this conversation has come up with girls is when the girl actually asks me to rate her anyways.


Yes, but you're assuming there's only one type, when there could be several. For example, I don't limit myself to any one race, body type, or expression, but several. A person can love steak and pasta equally, but still appreciate the differences between the two.

And a lot of those under 9 creep me out, for some reason...


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

So, study basically confirms men are turned off by not attractive women. Why is that surprising?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Yes, but you're assuming there's only one type, when there could be several. For example, I don't limit myself to any one race, body type, or expression, but several. A person can love steak and pasta equally, but still appreciate the differences between the two.
> 
> And a lot of those under 9 creep me out, for some reason...


In my scenario, ie asking a friend what a bars like. It is a pre-agreed definition. Other wise he may think my 6's are 9's, or me think his 6's are 9's. So it will not work out and we would have a lack of trust in each other.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Prada said:


> So, study basically confirms men are turned off by not attractive women. Why is that surprising?


Thats what Im wondering. Wny the surprise.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Reality Check said:


> Thats what Im wondering. Wny the surprise.


No one has their first pick someone not attractive and on speed-dates you can usually pick from plenty of potential partners so obviously anyone would consider attractiveness as one of decisive factors not only straight men. So I fail to see the point of this study.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Prada said:


> No one has their first pick someone not attractive and on speed-dates you can usually pick from plenty of potential partners so obviously anyone would consider attractiveness as one of decisive factors not only straight men. So I fail to see the point of this study.


I think they were hoping for different results to reinforce a fantasy that is not real.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Prada said:


> So, study basically confirms men are turned off by not attractive women. Why is that surprising?





Reality Check said:


> Thats what Im wondering. Wny the surprise.


Not a surprise, not the point of the study. Maybe @Prada too just read the OP and responded, but @Reality Check you've followed the thread for a long time, come on!



Prada said:


> No one has their first pick someone not attractive and on speed-dates you can usually pick from plenty of potential partners so obviously anyone would consider attractiveness as one of decisive factors not only straight men. So I fail to see the point of this study.





Reality Check said:


> I think they were hoping for different results to reinforce a fantasy that is not real.


I fail to see any logic in this conclusion, but this does reinforce my fantasy about cognitive functions being real.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ShatteredHeart said:


> Crazy and smart can be swapped and inverted for this
> 
> Keep in mind, this is only a joke


:laughing: I thought "How I Met Your Mother" invented that joke..






What's funny about your post is the proposed link between genius and insanity.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

I'm troubled by the Z-figure being completely wrong in the HIMYM clip. The Man's Guide To Women was funny . And in line with the study results, when comparing women and men!


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


>


So if you see a woman both normal and 'done up' which is her rating based on? Or does it switch back and forth, like she goes into the bathroom an 8 and comes out a 6?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Jamaia said:


> I'm troubled by the Z-figure being completely wrong in the HIMYM clip. The Man's Guide To Women was funny . And in line with the study results, when comparing women and men!


Haha, maybe there's a reason he did that (Freudian slip and he's subconsciously turned on by craziness? Or by being stabbed :wink It always confused me though. I thought the other video was funnier. Maybe HIMYM copied it as it's also a lot more thorough


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Neverontime said:


> So if you see a woman both normal and 'done up' which is her rating based on? Or does it switch back and forth, like she goes into the bathroom an 8 and comes out a 6?


Imagine it depends on the guy. For me, if the emotional connection is established, then it wont matter when she is not done up. Its just the initial attraction that makes the difference.

Also there is always the debate about meeting girls in the day or at night. AT night they are done up, in day they are less done up.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Christ, PerC really has taken the Red Pill. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Scientists studied 4,000 speed dates where 560 people, all from New York’s Columbia University, were given *four minutes to get to know their date*.
> 
> Afterwards the volunteers were asked to rate each other *based on intelligence and attractiveness*.


I actually find it quite shocking someone takes the study somewhat seriously.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)




----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

SilverFalcon said:


> I actually find it quite shocking someone takes the study somewhat seriously.


how long do you think it takes to judge if someone is attractive?...it takes me about 1.5 seconds

and intelligence I can often get a good sense very quickly...for example, I only need to read one post here on perc as long as it demonstrates some thinking or wit or knowledge


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

ae1905 said:


> how long do you think it takes to judge if someone is attractive?...it takes me about 1.5 seconds
> 
> and intelligence I can often get a good sense very quickly...for example, I only need to read one post here on perc as long as it demonstrates some thinking or wit or knowledge


While not dismissing the possibility you might be particularly intuitive about people (Precisely because I don't know you), I find that this type of perception of intelligence has a lot more to do with people who define intelligence as an aesthetic, a complex of cultural tropes, paperwork, books and affiliations that have more in common with highschool sub-cultures then cognitive measures, confusing attractions towards the expressions of other's intelligence for intelligence in itself. To be impressed by someone's intelligence, I need to see them thinking, I need to brainstorm with them, not simply know that they can successfully copycat the results of thoughtful processing, but demonstrating how they process. 

The only time they could demonstrate that in speed dating is... The moment before deciding to go on speed dating.


----------



## SimplyRivers (Sep 5, 2015)

Misleading title. 

Men and women don't want to fuck unattractive, even if they are unattractive. Go bait somewhere else.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> how long do you think it takes to judge if someone is attractive?...it takes me about 1.5 seconds
> 
> and intelligence I can often get a good sense very quickly...for example, I only need to read one post here on perc as long as it demonstrates some thinking or wit or knowledge


It's easy to say if someone is good looking fast. It's possible to see some either positive or negative vibes. 1.5 seconds is BS in any way.

But frankly, I have never felt attracted in just a few minutes. It's actually easier to get repulsed fast.

But basing intelligence and attraction in 4 minutes is mere source of bias. Attraction based on personality traits (one of which is intelligence) takes a bit longer. 
And without it I 'd judge the attraction somewhat weak at least in my experience. But that said I am not average in any relevant characteristics.

But it's not pure intelligence either - what attracts more is a compatible way of thinking or observation of character.

And what is the intelligence of the judges? Two relative simpletons sharing some interests perhaps need less time to judge compatibility. Simpleton cannot even properly judge intelligent and two intelligents especially if introverted need a bit more time.

Basically in social sciences you can "prove" what you want by data which are mostly highly variable and contradictory and so you can find complete opposite in different studies:

Not just a pretty face: Modern men prefer women with brains rather than beauty | Daily Mail Online 

Psychological comments: Do women find bright men sexy?


> Measured male g had *no effect on female short-term attraction*, but a small positive effect on long-term attraction, though only after extraversion and independently rated physical attractiveness were controlled. When information on male intelligence was presented incrementally, measured g did not predict changes in female long-term or short-term attraction ratings formed based on physical attractiveness. Overall we found no support for intelligence being sexually attractive to women on first encounters, and limited support that it increases initial impression of the potential as a long-term romantic partner.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Jamaia said:


>


Is it just me or are some of the 1,2,3,4 guys really not _that_ bad looking? Like the guy third from the left in the one row. It's not a great picture and he could maybe use a shave or something, but Jesus he isn't deformed. Lol.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Jamaia said:


>


Is it just me, or beauty standards are harsher on men nowadays comparing the two scales? 

Plus aesthetically it doesn't make sense in some cases.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Is it just me or are some of the 1,2,3,4 guys really not _that_ bad looking? Like the guy third from the left in the one row. It's not a great picture and he could maybe use a shave or something, but Jesus he isn't deformed. Lol.





SilverFalcon said:


> Is it just me, or beauty standards are harsher on men nowadays comparing the two scales?
> 
> Plus aesthetically it doesn't make sense in some cases.


Yeah, this is a ridiculous chart and I don't know if the person who made these two (the female chart too) was serious. Guys 4 and below are normal guys and most of them good looking, and the rest are male models basically. If he (presumptuous of me...) who made these was serious in his rating attempts, he has an interesting outlook on, uhm, life. Maybe someone who is very insecure and obsessed about looks? Someone who thinks the descriptions on the left and the pictures chosen have anything to do with each other for the most part?

***
Or maybe this was done as a joke, I don't know... I just found this when googling the female chart. The female chart is a bit strange too, but not this extreme. (Or maybe extreme to the other end?)


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

SilverFalcon said:


> Is it just me, or beauty standards are harsher on men nowadays comparing the two scales?
> 
> Plus aesthetically it doesn't make sense in some cases.


Might have a point. I just looked up the female chart and the entire first row and most of the second row are photoshopped or otherwise not real at all. Why does that even exist? It guarantees that almost no non-fictional human female will be branded a one or a two. Going by the male chart though I know a lot of ones and twos.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

SilverFalcon said:


> It's easy to say if someone is good looking fast. It's possible to see some either positive or negative vibes. 1.5 seconds is BS in any way.
> 
> But frankly, I have never felt attracted in just a few minutes. It's actually easier to get repulsed fast.
> 
> ...


I'm going to do what I'm very annoyed by when others do it in this thread, I'm just going to quote the article without thinking (Modern-men-prefer-women-brains-beauty) : 
"His team surveyed 12,000 people in more than 30 countries asking them to describe which traits they most valued in a potential partner. "

You think it's reliable way to collect information on actual preferences?

I mean, really? 



> Those who scored the highest for gender inequality went for traditional evolutionary traits.
> Men went for cooking and a curvy figure, which indicates fertility, while women chose men who can provide materially for a family.
> 
> But in the more equal societies, there was a change in attitude – contradicting the common view that our mate choices are ‘hard wired’ in our brains, suggest the British scientists in an article published in journal Psychological Science.
> ...


There was change in attitude, no kidding..?!


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> I'm going to do what I'm very annoyed by when others do it in this thread, I'm just going to quote the article without thinking (Modern-men-prefer-women-brains-beauty) :
> "His team surveyed 12,000 people in more than 30 countries asking them to describe which traits they most valued in a potential partner. "
> 
> You think it's reliable way to collect information on actual preferences?
> ...


My point is that this is NOT reliable information. Please re-read what I wrote just above. This is mere example to demonstrate that such studies are inherently unreliable. But it's not that much unreliable than making intelligence-attraction correlations based on 4 minutes interactions.

Concerning change of attitude, just look at fashion trends. This most likely over emphasize some trends (metrosexuals etc.), but it's not completely without base (there is some base to either of the conclusions).


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Tropes said:


> While not dismissing the possibility you might be particularly intuitive about people (Precisely because I don't know you), I find that this type of *perception of intelligence has a lot more to do with people who define intelligence as an aesthetic, a complex of cultural tropes, paperwork, books and affiliations that have more in common with highschool sub-cultures then cognitive measures*, *confusing attractions towards the expressions of other's intelligence for intelligence in itself*.


here you are trying to show off which tells me you are insecure in your own intelligence, and probably for good reason (one being you came off rather poorly in another thread and are trying to resurrect your reputation and salve a bruised ego)



> To be impressed by someone's intelligence, *I need to see them thinking*, I need to brainstorm with them, not simply know that they can successfully copycat the results of thoughtful processing, but demonstrating how they process.


and after trying to showing off, you repeat what I already said, namely, one needs a good example of a person's thinking...so you added nothing new except some fluff to puff yourself up

bad (as the donald would say)



> The only time they could demonstrate that in speed dating is... The moment before deciding to go on speed dating.


and you confirm my suspicion in your final remarks which are patently false...four minutes is more than enough time to give an indication of the quality of one's thoughts...indeed, your post here is a good example of just such a demonstration

see how easy it is to peg someone?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

SilverFalcon said:


> My point is that this is NOT reliable information. Please re-read what I wrote just above. This is mere example to demonstrate that such studies are inherently unreliable. But it's not that much unreliable than making intelligence-attraction correlations based on 4 minutes interactions.
> 
> Concerning change of attitude, just look at fashion trends. This most likely over emphasize some trends (metrosexuals etc.), but it's not completely without base (there is some base to either of the conclusions).


The examples are not at all like studying people speed dating. 

My point was that people are going to say they want in a partner what their culture says they should be saying they want in a partner. Doesn't mean it is so, just because they say so. It was a potential problem in the speed dating study too, that maybe women for example put some of the attraction felt towards a partner down to "intelligence", just because they wanted to maintain "not-superficial" self-image.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> The examples are not at all like studying people speed dating.
> 
> My point was that people are going to say they want in a partner what their culture says they should be saying they want in a partner. Doesn't mean it is so, just because they say so. It was a potential problem in the speed dating study too, that maybe women for example put some of the attraction felt towards a partner down to "intelligence", just because they wanted to maintain "not-superficial" self-image.


Certain quote from Jung about Freud and Te comes to mind. He accused Te on imprinting his own biases on his subjects by judging only unconscious traits. Jung believed more in judging conscious traits.

If one choose arbitrary limits to the interaction, it can cause bias towards generalized conclusion as much as subjective self-discovery (though in a different way). 

I generally do not care as I believe there is significant variance. *What bothers me are superficial scientific methods creating new myths potentially influencing natural behavior and expectations of people (bringing systematic error).*


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

SilverFalcon said:


> Basically in social sciences you can "prove" what you want by data which are mostly highly variable and contradictory and so you can find complete opposite in different studies:
> 
> 
> > Measured male g had *no effect on female short-term attraction*, but *a small positive effect on long-term attraction*, though only after extraversion and independently rated physical attractiveness were controlled. When information on male intelligence was presented incrementally, measured g did not predict changes in female long-term or short-term attraction ratings formed based on physical attractiveness. Overall we found no support for intelligence being sexually attractive to women on first encounters, and *limited support that it increases initial impression of the potential as a long-term romantic partner*.
> ...


first, short term means fooling around; long term means relationship...so don't equate fooling around with speed dating since the speed daters were not asked what kind of partner they envisaged their dates to be

second, your study did find "limited support" for and "small positive effect" of intelligence on long term relationships, consistent with the op study


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

SilverFalcon said:


> Certain quote from Jung about Freud and Te comes to mind. He accused Te on imprinting his own biases on his subjects by judging only unconscious traits. Jung believed more in judging conscious traits.
> 
> If one choose arbitrary limits to the interaction, it can cause bias towards generalized conclusion as much as subjective self-discovery (though in a different way).
> 
> I generally do not care as I believe there is significant variance. *What bothers me are superficial scientific methods creating new myths potentially influencing natural behavior and expectations of people (bringing systematic error).*


The 4 minutes is not arbitrary, speed dating is a real thing that a lot of people use. That was what was studied, the article in the OP might be interpreted to suggests wider implications to romance... Asking the subjects to rate their partners using arbitrary scales/adjectives might be problematic, sure, but perceived attractiveness and intelligence (among other things, there was "shared interests" too, iirc) do not strike me as that strange. It might be wrong to assume they play a role (I think they did find "shared interests" for example didn't affect yes/no decision that much), but I don't think they are things the subjects would not have thought of on their own...? I mean, how would you study these things without restricting it somewhat and imposing something on your subjects?


They asked the subjects to first indicate if they were or weren't interested in dating the other person, and then they asked the subject to estimate attractiveness, intelligence etc. of the partner. Do you think setting it up like that would be enough influence to cause systematic error? (Or do you mean systematic error in larger context, IRL behavior :S ?)


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

SilverFalcon said:


> But basing intelligence and attraction in 4 minutes is mere source of bias.
> 
> But it's not pure intelligence either - what attracts more is a compatible way of thinking or observation of character.
> 
> ...


the two studies measured intelligence differently...the op let the daters evaluate intelligence...your study administered intelligence tests...I would argue the op is closer to what actually happens in dating and is therefore more likely to show a dependence on intelligence...in any event, different methodologies and measures of intelligence were used which makes a direct comparison of results--includng your conclusion that the studies "contradict each other"--less straightforward


----------



## halfamazing (Oct 13, 2014)

It is also a cultural issue as well. For example, here in DC, there is a culture of politics, government, and many people have degrees. Also, many of these college educated are either white or bougie brown folk. So it's diverse ethnically but mono-cultural in that everyone looks like they were in the drama club/debate team in college.

Now, for the blue collar worker, he isn't looking for a clever/witty woman although, intelligence, self sufficiency, and street smart is very important. Intelligence is not so much an issue just as long as everyone understands their role in the relationship. When you have the bougie type women always flashing their MBAs and saying how independent they are, then no man has a need for them. 

A man's job is to provide for a woman and children but if the woman has everything going for them and constantly throws this in his face, then the man's job is less important and he doesn't feel needed. Just like work dogs- if you keep them locked up all day, then they don't feel satisfied.

Today, many women, because of the rise in independence, has created this sense of elitism and has an impact on the female/male dynamics in a relationship.

This wasn't the case 40 years ago. The men have stayed the same but women have had to move up the ladder. So the culture has shifted but we haven't learned to adjust to this new shift. Women are now in combat and leading where they never did years ago. So it's an adjustment to be made that will take a generation or two. While more women are in combat, heading businesses, etc, there is less time for children. This also creates another dynamic that wasn't the case years ago.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

ae1905 said:


> here you are trying


So still pissy about my intervening in the conflict between @ShatteredHearts and you? Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> Yeah, this is a ridiculous chart and I don't know if the person who made these two (the female chart too) was serious. Guys 4 and below are normal guys and most of them good looking, and the rest are male models basically. If he (presumptuous of me...) who made these was serious in his rating attempts, he has an interesting outlook on, uhm, life. Maybe someone who is very insecure and obsessed about looks? Someone who thinks the descriptions on the left and the pictures chosen have anything to do with each other for the most part?


While I agree that those people probably had way too much time on their hands, time which would be better wasted in the the sex & relationship section of a personality typology forum, I can't help but think one of those is an expression of what they think, probably done within the deep rabbit hole of the PUA community where such thinking is common, and the other is a rebuttal. Generally speaking, men agree on what is hot, women do not. Personally, I just hope rabbits aren't offended that we are using them as a replacement for donkeys.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tropes said:


> While I agree that those people probably had way too much time on their hands, time which would be better wasted in the the sex & relationship section of a personality typology forum














> Generally speaking, men agree on what is hot, women do not.


Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference explanations for mate selection.
Wood, Dustin; Brumbaugh, Claudia Chloe, Wake Forest University: http://psycnet.apa.org.sci-hub.cc/journals/psp/96/6/1226/. Funnily enough, the Science Daily bit is cited as reference source in a book Snap: Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language, and Charisma by Patti Wood without mention of name Dustin Wood, just "a psychologist of Wake Forest University". Are they related? Why did she leave his name out? Why didn't even she pay for the research paper?

Some interesting and topic-related papers have looked up the Wood & Brumbaugh study though  Like this one right up our alley Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference explanations for mate selection.
> Wood, Dustin; Brumbaugh, Claudia Chloe, Wake Forest University: http://psycnet.apa.org.sci-hub.cc/journals/psp/96/6/1226/. Funnily enough, the Science Daily bit is cited as reference source in a book Snap: Making the Most of First Impressions, Body Language, and Charisma by Patti Wood without mention of name Dustin Wood, just "a psychologist of Wake Forest University". Are they related? Why did she leave his name out? Why didn't even she pay for the research paper?


Probably not, but isn't it entertaining to imagine them as a married couple? Can you imagine their relationship squabbles?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tropes said:


> Probably not, but isn't it entertaining to imagine them as a married couple? Can you imagine their relationship squabbles?


I figured they're divorced by now


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> here you are trying to show off which tells me you are insecure in your own intelligence, and probably for good reason (one being you came off rather poorly in another thread and are trying to resurrect your reputation and salve a bruised ego)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope, that's just a bunch of character assassination attempts. You can't refute his assertion so you're trying to paint him as uncredible, Hmmm.... one might say that your defecting and projecting your own inadequacies could be a sign your id has over rid your super ego But that's none of my business...


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> the two studies measured intelligence differently...the op let the daters evaluate intelligence...your study administered intelligence tests...I would argue the op is closer to what actually happens in dating and is therefore more likely to show a dependence on intelligence...in any event, different methodologies and measures of intelligence were used which makes a direct comparison of results--includng your conclusion that the studies "contradict each other"--less straightforward


I do not think you got the core of my post, because I do not understand the logical link of your response. 
Conclusions are complete opposite and that is straight forward. 

That both methodologies necessarily miss most of what is actually happening and the true reasons of decision is rather obvious.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/attraction-evolved/201609/are-men-attracted-clever-women

The study is going places.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

More studies just in 

Men Who Marry Intelligent Women Live Longer, Happier Lives, According to Researchers

http://iheartintelligence.com/2016/05/20/marry-smart-women/

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archiv...-intelligent-partners-help-ward-off-dementia/


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Now I'm just thinking that this is the case of the smartest of men being more likely to both marry the smartest women and to lead fulfilling interesting lives and ward of few degenerative diseases. It just means it's good to be smart. Maybe not so smart that no one wants to marry you though. 

I've lost faith in research I think.


----------

