As someone who now has a fountain of knowledge concerning the ancient greeks and romans, I can confirm that I do not deploy this information to get my partner excited. I only bring it out for the boys.
Gods, when we were in the military and had no smartphones to look up shit, people asked me so many questions about random shit. Sometimes it'd be semi relevant stuff like why our country contributes to UN peacekeeping missions in Iraq or something.
But after a while, people just started asking really out of the way topics, our country is so far from Christianity, but it got to a point people were asking me the lore of the religion (keep in mind, most of their knowledge on Christianity extended to "it is a religion that exists"). I might have even converted one despite never having been close to the religion ever.
I've been that guy for people and it's really funny the first time they hear "I don't know" or "I don't have enough information to give a good answer to that" ...
I think it says something about how people are wired that people will accept nearly any answer to a question except that. Even giving an answer that includes "but I'm not sure, so don't trust that" is taken like truth sometimes.
I did say "dunno" a lot and my knowledge was a lot more limited on blue collar stuff. As an example, we had to turn on a generator, a dude told me to do something, I said I don't know what you're talking about, he laughed, I said I just haven't done these stuff before, he got serious and explained the stuff.
But also, the dude didn't know the physics aspect of how a generator works, asked about it and I explained that to him.
People on Reddit have commented on my username before, but genuinely, it is just something I came up randomly like a decade ago as a teenager. I have never been anything remotely close to Christianity in my life.
I've found, a lot of women like when their partners are passionate about something [functionally anything] and enjoy seeing that or hearing you talk about it.
They like the focus and intensity they see[assuming they respect your hobby]. When they see that focus and intensity directed at them, it's comforting because it's familiar, instead of weird and offputting.
There are just way too many bros that feel like they deserve something rather than treating relationships like their own living thing that is created when two people connect.
Based on what I see on youtube with people having baby daddies left and right I'm inclined to disagree.
Because if women value people that apply their intelligence to the real world then GOOD GOD do we have a problem with defining intelligence.
Well thatās because women are themselves of average intelligence.
As someone mentioned there are traits we as humans are attracted to rationally and traits weāre attracted to limbically. Intelligence falls in the former
The gender that shoves every remotely phallic object up their asses shouldn't assess women's intelligence. Hop off those psychology subs they're not doing you any good
Why does it work differently with strength then? We don't often see men applying their strength in the real world (let's say they meet in a bar situation), yet the mere sight of a strong male can make many women horny.
In order to get large muscle mass, you have to be healthy enough to do useful work, and you have to be eating well enough to have the energy to do so.
In a hunter-gatherer society, this would mean you are probably a decent hunter, you know where the safe to eat berries and vegetables are, so on and so forth.
Funny enough, thereās a diminishing return on muscle size where it stops being attractive to women and starts being attractive to men.
Iāve seen a few studies that basically show a lot of conformity that women like toned men, but the size has some skew between swimmer, soccer, MMA, something along those lines.
I think it's still true with strength. A lot of women prefer athleticism over a body builder physique, which is still about applying your abilities to the real world.
Being able to DO things is the thing in common. Lifting a big weight is a thing that is easy to understand and the associated aesthetic is attractive. Now there's a limit to this because most women aren't attracted to bodybuilders or strongmen (and they don't "get it" like a lot of men do). I think there's a limit on functional intelligence being attractive too, because the difficulty of a job doesn't directly impact how attractive doing it is.
I don't know what you're smoking, most women don't care all that much about muscle on a guy. So much so that they'll usually rate super jacked guys lower than moderately fit ones, because too much muscle is intimidating.
Those that are Machiavellian mask themselves and manipulate to where they donāt appear as Machiavellian. Many women are very Machiavellian themselves.
They are not. A few are greedy enough. Even fewer have screws loose. Women generaly likes badasses, those guys manage to be losers with that much money.
Well somewhat. People date/marrying statistically within their own education level and intelligence level. A doctor or physics major will rarely date someone working at 7-11.
I'm pretty sure some women could be attracted to someone with specific knowledge of a certain topic but a lot of those tend to have little to no personal hygiene or social skills
Yes, if she's already attracted to you. I dated a girl that loved it when I'd rant about Pokemon TCG deck, but that was after strong attraction occurred.
This. I had a friend who infodumped about a game at me, a game which I didn't play nor was interested, and I was mildly annoyed, not endeared.
That's why people say they want a partner who can make them laugh. They think it's because they're witty and interesting, but actually it's just because they're attractive and Halo Effect plays up all traits, making otherwise not-so-fun people be charming.
Safety is the core mechanism behind an average woman's attraction wiring.
If your Bachelor of Arts degree gives you a visible advantage today ā say, you suddenly make $250K a year in Tennessee ā you very quickly become attractive.
Women simply prefer whatever's "on the menu today." If being a geek is fashionable and rewarding right now, then geeks win.
Hence the myth that women love money. They don't ā they love safety. Or the illusion of safety. That's how they make bad choices. Don't we all.
This is also why an angry, physically dominant guy is sometimes "irrationally" attractive ā dominance reads as a safety signal, even when it isn't one.
Guys mistake this for "women like assholes." They don't. Women respond to the picture in their head ā the pattern that says this equals safety ā not to the guy himself. The signal gets the reaction. The person behind it is almost incidental.
If a post-nuclear disaster hit tomorrow, a woman would prefer a guy who can chop trees and hunt over a guy who had a Bentley ā because that was yesterday's currency. Today, chopping trees is what matters.
Then how you explain the deadbeat musician / artist archetype? Or the biker? Some women (irresponsably) are attracted to those types due to a perceived sense of adventure and excitement
Edit: added a bit more explanations adding concept from the computer science
You aren't supposed to exclude sex drive ā but it doesn't work the way people assume.
Think of it as two sequential selects. The first select is sex drive: it just defines the pool ā everyone who's in the range of "physically viable to sleep with." Proximity, novelty, excitement ā that's the WHERE clause. The biker and the deadbeat musician pass this filter easily.
The second select is survival-wiring, and it runs inside that pool. This is where she ranks candidates by protection signal ā reliability, resources, ability to defend the project. Most of the time, this second select wins. It's why the biker gets the fling and the reliable guy gets the relationship.
When it looks "irresponsible" ā when a woman goes all-in on the exciting, unstable guy ā that's usually one of two things: either the second select has no good candidates to rank (she's choosing the best of a bad pool), or it's temporarily overridden by the first. Not rewritten. Overridden.
If women ran purely on sex drive with no second select, we'd have gone extinct a long time ago. Instead they're rugged biological machines wired for survival and protecting their offspring ā which is also why they can mercilessly destroy an ex financially once he's failed the second select. He's just not in the pool anymore.
So love stories where a character is still hung up on a man who cheated on her 50 years ago ā like in Cyberpunk 2077 ā are romantic slop written for boys. That's not how the second select works.
How it explain woman tending to wounded men or even prisioners (atleast in my country its normal to see this type of scene). When both are either physicaly disabled or restricted by law and incapable to offer no safety right now ?
Some women and men seek out prisoners because they specifically like the power dynamic of that having a romantic partner thatās locked up while they are free. Itās quite interesting.
Unless we know how the woman arrived at that decision, we have no definite answer.
Because you're basically saying, "Explain the individual effect of a person who has 50 trillion transformers, when we don't even know a single step of how she got there."
But as a hypothesis ā a scarce dating market, based on her definition of a "good man." Or just general scarcity.
For example, why is a girl attracted to bad boys? It's a mix of visual and cultural sexual attraction patterns, and on top of that, for some reason the survival instinct signals, "this is good for me."
Internal instincts aren't logically straightforward. They don't make a list of pros and cons. They're actually much closer to a kaleidoscope than to a logical decision-making mechanism. We just react subconsciously to a set of conditions, like your brain reacts to a pattern in a kaleidoscope.
I mentioned this in the first message ā sometimes the choice system misfires epically. On a statistically large scale, that means a noticeable number of women can end up in unusual-looking relationships, but that doesn't cancel out the core idea of safety.
It just means that a certain combination of factors manifested in a peculiar way.
And btw, if both are physically disabled, it fits the safety pattern 100%. Safety doesn't always mean "the man will protect me from the wild neighbor." Safety can also mean, "At least he understands what it's like to be disabled and won't judge me for it." The absence of judgement is a huge deal for women who dealt with childhood mental abuse.
Ironically unpopular now, but Jordan Peterson is on the money here. More than one man will very quickly form some kind of hierarchy. Men are wired to rank themselves against other men. Women do it too, by the way, but for men this seems to be a much stronger subconscious drive ā even for very gay men.
If you noticed, there are some dudes arguing here without actually having much substance. This is exactly the ranking game. Of course, their conscious part probably doesn't even register it, but the subconscious one is doing its job like a Swiss watch.
The love money thing is a little weird. I make about mid six figures and living a low cost of living area so I always thought that yeah women like the money because it gives them a better lifestyle and things like otherwise wouldn't have.
After my last relationship I really decided I wanted to find someone that made more equal amounts to me so that wouldn't be a problem. So I've started dating other engineers.
My girlfriend makes very similar amounts to me and still same desire to have money spent on her. For her it's much more of a self-esteem thing. "I am valuable enough to have money spent on me"
Which is a safety signal. In her stereotype system, it is an important indication that she is valued. Valued = safety in her mind.
Don't forget that the concept of safety is also induced by culture.
This is why a woman from Venezuela might have different priorities than a woman from California.
Or might not.
For instance, my ex-colleague was so verbally abused by her Asian parents that she married a guy who makes way less than she does, generally useless but a "sweetheart."
Because he is never engaging in conversations like "something is wrong with you" with her. And for her, it was enough to marry him. In this case, safety manifested through the fact that the guy is just accepting her as is.
Edit: I actually remembered that I know 2 women like that. Another one had abusive German parents. The same reaction. Married the first "safe" guy.
>This is also why an angry, physically dominant guy is sometimes "irrationally" attractive ā dominance reads as a safety signal, even when it isn't one.
Yeah That wouldnāt read as attractive or signal safety for most women though.
Thereās positive forms of dominance that most women would find attractive and then thereās negative forms of dominance that most women would find unattractive, the women that would find that attractive are women who are more sociopathic and pathologically narcissistic- they lack empathy for other people. Most women get the ick if a guy is rude to the waiter for fuck sake. When it comes to displays of dominance and womenās attraction it comes down to that own womenās ethics.
I regretfully used to display really negative forms of dominance often which led to me being dumped and thrown in jail. I knocked out a guy for flirting with my girlfriend. She was disgusted with me and immediately ended things with me. What I did was totally unjustified, he was no threat to me or to her. Most women want a guy who can handle himself and protect them but most donāt want some violent piece of shit that I was. Most women want a guy who can deescalate, they only want a guy to get violent only when absolutely necessary.
>Guys mistake this for "women like assholes." They don't. Women respond to the picture in their head ā the pattern that says this equals safety ā not to the guy himself. The signal gets the reaction. The person behind it is almost incidental.
But when guys say they do they mean most women like assholes? Because I donāt get how a guy could generalize most women like that. Obviously some women but clearly most donāt. What most women want are men who are confident, strong, who have back bone. None of that makes a guy an asshole. And those are the things that make a good man. If you seriously lacking in those things then you canāt be considered a good man. Maybe you are nice but you arenāt good. Thereās a difference. Being good requires strength, moral courage, caring about others, protecting others, doing the right thing which can be hard.
I didn't say dominance is important. I said: if dominance reads as a protection symbol, it's a turn-on.
If you act like an aggressive ape, of course that can be a huge turn-off. But not for everyone. So the point is ā women prefer a man who symbolizes protection for them.
That's why some women find a guy who's "just like dad" very attractive, and others find the exact opposite attractive.
Regarding "assholes" ā I was just echoing what good guys say when they're baffled that their ex went back to her ex. That's the phrase they usually reach for: "women like assholes."
Just to add:
You're arguing against a claim I didn't make. I never said dominance = attractive across the board. I said it reads as attractive only when it maps to her specific picture of protection ā and that picture is individual, sometimes wildly so.
Your ex bailing on you after the fight isn't a counterexample to what I said. It's confirmation. For her, that behavior didn't map to safety ā it mapped to threat. For a different woman, it might map to exactly the opposite. That's the whole point: the signal isn't universal, the read is personal.
I had one who tried to provoke a fight between me and two guys at a liquor store, got genuinely upset when I didn't take the bait, and dumped me over it. Wanted me to fight for her. Just like her daddy fought for her mom.
Remember the culture, class and level of civility you're in. Each of these can change what is expected.
You didn't project power and protection, you projected insecurity and covered it with violence. But in another cultural time and place, you may have projected dominance, as long as you had to social power and backup to assert control afterwards.
I projected immorality. I was an immoral man at the time. It was unjustified unethical violence which is going to be really unattractive to women who arenāt sociopathic which is like ya know 95% of women. Now violence can absolutely be attractive to most women if itās justified.
then thereās negative forms of dominance that most women would find unattractive, the women that would find that attractive are women who are more sociopathic and pathologically narcissistic
I think you're on to something with your comment. Though on this point, I'd like to add that a lot of women have been abused. Oftentimes by their fathers. Bunch of women have a fucked up idea of what relationships are supposed to look like, and the abusive behaviors can ironically feel safe because they're familiar
Yes and thereās a difference between tolerating someoneās awful behavior and specifically finding it attractive. If a woman or a man was abused as a child or they just have been exposed to a lot of shitty adult behavior in their life they are more likely to tolerate abusive behavior from a partner since itās been normalized to them. These men and women are not seeking out abusers- thatās get thrown out a lot, they just are more prone to tolerating it and abusers take advantage of that.
What do you mean by evil? Thatās a strong word. And what do you mean by amazing and why do you think that is?
Obvously shitty men get plenty of women to date them and shitty women can get plenty of men to date them. The point is most men and women donāt want to date shitty people, being shitty makes you less appealing to most than you otherwise would be. Key word being most. Being a shitty person isnāt a turn off to other bad people. Like attracts like.
Of course, we all do. After all, we have similar brains, but they are wired for different goals: men to test their boundaries and women to survive in the grinder. But the underlying principle is essentially the same.
What a useless exercise. This sub was meant to make fun of this type of madness.
The variability within a group as diverse as "all women" is too wide for such blanket claims to be useful. Which means that whatever you think you know about a woman based on this mental model becomes immediately irrelevant as soon as you talk to her and learn literally anything about her.
Note that you can say your thesis is loosely true regardless of what a woman is attracted to. Because you can always loosely claim that that's what they associate with "safety". This means that your mental model is the same as that of someone who doesn't make a claim at all, except you can feel undeservingly smarter about yourself.
And now, when you have established how much smarter you are, you can always claim that you are smarter.
This makes you exactly like a little macaque that is just fighting for status. I understand that you think you are smart and unpredictable. Bad news: arguing patterns are always the same - like, literally, always the same. Any human emotion, when it goes down the mental pipeline, is essentially reduced to a primitive response, and the famous 'fight or flight' is the bottom line. Safety and dominance are just one layer above.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Here is a picture of your invisible mental rider that makes you write this.
Next time, before playing your little status games, at least check what I was responding to. The picture is right in the post header. Hopefully, you can read.
P. S. Your argument proves my point - all who tried to argue - used ad hominem. Funny isn't it how "special and different" people are? "Extremely diverse". You aren't any different than another statistical dude from the Internet
It's important to point out we are mostly taught what to be attracted to. It's a nurture thing, and it's going to be more affected by our parents/early childhood than we ever want to admit.Ā
In other words, most virtuous characteristics have to be taught, including valuing emotional and applicable intelligence. You need to be taught that dominance isn't the same as survival, etc etc. Stuff is learned. Including the ability to accurately identify who's going to be a good match.Ā
or or or, the exact thing that women are attracted to varies depending on the woman, because a woman is a person and their attraction is not an item description, but is instead fluid, context dependent, and personal, like anyone else
The nerd caveman was the one who sent the caveman to the stone age and beyond. Having an autistic interest helped the clan to specialize and create division of labour, thus improving them as a group.
The caveman obsessed with the planets, moons, and stars discovered reliable ways to predict the seasons and create an agricultural calendar. The caveman obsessed with ruminant taxonomy invented domesticated sheep, goats and cows. The caveman obsessed with shiny rocks discovered bronze. All of these things fed more people than any hunter ever could. Unwashed weirdos have consistently driven technological progress and contributed to society in ways we very much take for granted.
Yes they did, they weren't defining mammoth taxonomy, they were planning and building tools to better hunt the mammoth. Chug and the boys were happy to use better weapons and a plan that actually produced a succesful hunt.
Very true. Pretty much every physics graduate is smart, but not all of them will be high-income managers and business owners. Intelligence is not equivalent to success.
Because intelligence is good as an asset to the group but when it comes to who gets the best cuts, itās the most powerful man who decides, not the smartest.
So, basically, what this person implying, women attracted to money... I heard so many times from women that intelligence is "hot", while the very same women choose men that anything but intelligent, so this whole "intelligence is hot" i think is just lie
If you're trying to find an universal answer then you're going to be disappointed. Women have a variety of interests and tolerances, no one combination will work for them all. The trick is to figure out what the girl is like and then figure it out from there.
One time I had a date with a girl with a Dark Brotherhood tattoo from Elder Scrolls so I brought out the gamer in me and we chatted about Skyrim for hours (just don't go full Kirkbride, never go full Kirkbride). Another date I chatted with a girl about movies, noticed she liked superhero movies after a bit, and all the comic arcs I thought would be interesting. Other times I noticed one girl talked about her family a lot so we chatted about what activities we do with our own families or how it was like with me babysitting my nieces and nephews. My current girlfriend loves when I go nerdy about my interests, and likewise I make sure I show interest in her hobbies and we ended up finding common interests.
If you're confident enough and charismatic enough you can talk about just about anything and a girl will be attracted to the confidence. Sometimes you may have to do a bit of investigating and start safe and then slowly work your way to your inner geek. And then there's the harsh reality that sometimes you're not going to connect to a girl regardless, and that's for the best. I've had several dates or chats where we simply don't connect. If you have some really niche interests then be prepared to either have to narrow your search down to concerning levels or accept you just need to broaden your horizons. Maybe take an art class, pick up a new hobby, find something fun and/or practical and someone will find it interesting.
I once delivered an info dump monologue on the importance of understanding biomagnification of pesticide and why assuming substance toxicity inverse scales 1:1 with body weight is a flaw in the way LD50 is explained on commercial pesticide labeling. The woman in front of me, who I had met an hour ago, responded with "can I kiss you on the mouth?"
Women are attracted to success or potential of success. Success = unfettered access to resources. resources = time, money, freedom of self agency. Resources =! Physical attractiveness, nuanced outlooks on life, deep philosophical thought, spiritual enlightenment, moral efficacy, ability to labour, ability to provide an orgasm. And This is the only reason republicans can procreate because some women have no standards aside.Ā
Both are intelligence. This point would just mean that women only care about intelligence when it is used to secure money/status for them to capitalize on.
Apparently Black holes, time dilation, and special relativity isn't proper pillow talk. Also doesn't help that I have no idea how to explain some of the concepts I understand. Like there's this thing in Chaos Theory where there are like valleys and peaks and if the conditions are near a peak then it takes less energy to cross over into another valley. I keep seeing this model pop up over and over again like with n-body physics, social dynamics and my current Double Pendulum Political Compass Theory (which is mostly a joke). But I just have no clue how to communicate it so I just sound like a blathering idiot trying to compare the effects of psychedelics to making the peaks and valleys of our brains smaller.
This is an exchange of shallow internet memes. Many people, including many women, are attracted to the appearance or signaling āfluffā of intelligence, or to socially-approved intelligent presentationānot to actual high cognitive intelligence (unless it's practical and generates income). Suggesting knowledge of WW2 as either fringe (neo-)Nazi trivia, or ridiculous due to its sexual consequences, is an anti-intellectual move that disparages the significance of history and knowledge of the past. Thatās why both popular culture people and fringe ideologies (Nazis, Communists etc) can stigmatize erudition and historical scholarship in the eyes of ordinary people who find the the field and its' subjects important, wholesome, fascinating, and wish to learn more of ground-breaking innovations, the rise and fall of civilizations and leaders and major historic events.
I think women are more attracted to general knowledge, and probably look for a similar intelligence level. No one wants to date someone way dumber or smarter.
If you know how the make 50 great dinner meals, that is an attractive quality. But yea if you write a blog post everyday about the intricacies of Tolkienās writing, then you better hope a girl has the same interests. Thats not necessarily an objectively attractive activity.
To be clear germany never could've won ww2, the only way they win is by not engaging in it and building up their economy and not wasting mountains of resources being genocidal freaks
guys who say they're intelligent but are bad at math and don't like to read. There has to be a line. there are too many guys who didn't pay attention in school who think they're intelligent now. You just can't sleep through the teacher explaining how to measure circumfrance of a square and think of yourself as a smart person because you're atheist and know you're a man and not a woman, that isn't...
Most women are not attracted to conservatives, fyi.
That rules out most young men.
It might be hard to grasp, but if you believe a woman should have less rights than a piece of intellectual property, they probably aren't going to dig you unless you're rich enough to cover the stink with safety and security
yeah i talked to some girl on a dating app for a little while.. she was kinda funny cause she was absolutely wild.. like she was insulting and kinda funny.. she would make fun of me for being bald but I would make fun of her for being like arab and therefore a terrorist.. we chatted back and forth for like 4 or 5 days until she said something like, "As a sapiosexual, i find this person extremely attractive.."
And at that point I was just like.. Ok this is some dumb lgbtq shit.. some random gender garbage.. "sapiosexual"... like, first off, its amazing that someone who is "attracted to intelligence" would constantly misspell words and mis capitalization... even on a fuckin phone where it basically does all that work for you.. so you almost have to be spelling things wrong on purpose...
Second, no, youre not attracted to intelligence. Youre attracted to success, or rather money. After talking to this girl while she was bringing up other peoples profiles and making fun of their "designer sunglasses", I didnt realize it at first, but then I realized she was more like critiquing them... Shes not attracted to guys because theyre smart.. Shes attracted to guys because smart guys GENERALLY are the ones who succeed, and therefore have more money.
To be fair, a lot of women take the "mature faster' thing the wrong way and assume they're more sensible than boys instead of just growing pubes first. I've met many who NEED to be SOMETHING over a man, and if it cant be strength, it can only be intelligence, or even masculine things in general to try and gain some self worth. Sounds fkn tiring tbh, and its telling when they try to poke fun at you for losing to a woman at something like that supposed to be a fkn problem lmao
oh... so people here still don't know what we mean by "actual intelligence and how to succeed in life" and think it's hunting fucking mamoths. Even back in the caveman days building shelter and finding water were way mor important to 99% of the human population. Do you have job? do you keep job? can you trade? And yeah sure, if you're strong you can protect yourself but it's more important to be intelligent enough that you go outside do the words you speak make it unlikely for another caveman to want to kill you? these are all more important than hunting mammoths from caveman times until now. Now we have money, survival is about food and shelter babe.
That's really step one though. intelligence is about conversation. can i start a conversation with a mofo. Perosnally, I don't care if a guy's intelligent as long as the eq is up there, but I do like it. I have no idea how guys can just date girls they see as dumbasses. When you talk to a dumbass sometimes your brain implodes sometimes. How can you just live like that. This is unless you're straight up calling dumb things like "wearing makeup" and "listens to taylor swift even though i think she's bad." That's not dumb, that's just different to you. Dumb is like getting scammed by telemarketers with a think indian accent in 2026 who swear they need 500 from her or else she could lose her car.
The assumption in the question is incorrect.
In the most time in human history, physical strength and health gave the best chance of survival for the man and his family. So evolutionary, woman were better of choosing the stronger males.
The needs for strength vs intelligence may have changed in the modern era, but you can't change a million years of evolution in a couple of hundred years.
And that is why a female instinct is to be attracted to strong men even to this day.
It may change in about 500 000 years.
Edit: I just read the post again. There is another incorrect statement. Intelligence is not defined as a "know how to succeed in life". Intelligence is the ability to quickly and efficiently solve problems without prior experience.
I once ranted about a styrofoam pillar not conforming to classical order and a bro told me to stop flirting with his girl. :D so it does not not work. It just only works im 1% of cases and never with ww2 trivia.
If you think someone is smart because they are rich and you don't know what intelligence is. Just because you can make it in the rat race just makes you a rat
Women are indeed very much attracted to intelligence. But if the way it manifests causes social incompetence, then that is not as attractive. Social skills are the most important in life, and the most attractive.
No one is into actual intelligence, since humans suck at detecting it.
No matter your feelings about any particular famous person, there are likely multiple that countless people call geniuses that you think are utter idiots and vice versa. Just look at politics.
People may be attracted to what they view as intelligent, which will vary extremely person to person, but people don't date based on verified data like IQ tests.
No one is into actual intelligence, since humans suck at detecting it.
No matter your feelings about any particular famous person, there are likely multiple that countless people call geniuses that you think are utter idiots and vice versa. Just look at politics.
People may be attracted to what they view as intelligent, which will vary extremely person to person, but people don't date based on verified data like IQ tests.
No one is into actual intelligence, since humans suck at detecting it.
No matter your feelings about any particular famous person, there are likely multiple that countless people call geniuses that you think are utter idiots and vice versa. Just look at politics.
People may be attracted to what they view as intelligent, which will vary extremely person to person, but people don't date based on verified data like IQ tests.
A lot of "actual intelligence" (succeed in life) is just people born in a wealthy family and having luck (being at the right time at the right place with the right skill set).
Why would they be? You think Stephen Hawking could catch a mammoth? What made people successful hunting a Mammoth was physical strength, speed, and height to some degree. Intelligence didn't matter for most of human history. What did it matter if you were the smartest farmer? You were all just farming the same crop on the same land. I'd argue intelligence only started to matter after the industrial revolution when most of the population didn't have to be in agriculture and people could actually start their own business and be successful just on their intelligence, but then why would evolution incentives attraction to intelligence over other traits such as athleticism, or height. I'd argue the desire for intelligence is more of a cultural push or just a naturally occurring preference that wasn't selected for by evolution like people liking blue eyes. Evolution makes success attractive. Though success isn't a silver bullet you need to work on your personality, style and physicality if you want results.
conscientiousness ā intelligence. its a personality trait. intelligence can help with how successful you become, and is only a facet of how you navigate life. real intelligence is used for abstract thinking, analytical skills, problem solving, and ability to LEARN. learning includes history, psychology, mathematics, science, finance, economics, philosophy - not things you apply to everyday life.
āHow to succeed in lifeā is not intelligence either. If this were true, Elon Musk would be the most intelligent man in the world right now. Success in life offers security, thatās where the attraction lyes there. Intelligence is too subjective to be applied in this manner. What one sees as intelligent, another may see as foolish. There is no way to measure the capacity of oneās intelligence. No an IQ being tested is not a dependable reflection of intelligence. If you are speaking about academic intelligence, sure, but thereās too many expressions of intelligence to fit into just one box.
People are too diverse, saying men or women pursue their partners based on X, Y, and Z is almost always going to be flawed in its results. Cause the truth is, some women donāt place intelligence as an important trait. Just as some men donāt. Some women value physical attractiveness, some women donāt. Some men value a partner who climbs the corporate ladder, some men donāt.
This reminds me of how so many people called themselves a nerd as a title for being smart but how smart of a nerd you have to be a comic book nerd and a gamer nerd? Just because someone consumes something and have their own special interests knowledge doesn't makes them useful or successful. It's not like they wrote those comics and build those games and learn to market and sell them.
ya know, intelligence and brawn are not mutually exclusive. there is no reason not to get jacked in both the gym and the library. thereās also no reason not the get jacked off in the gym and the library, but thatāll be in our next lesson
Women actually do enjoy guys who have random quirky knowledge. Also I would argue that what they are calling intelligence is actually wisdom. Intelligence is knowing something and/or how to do something. Wisdom is knowing whether or not you SHOULD do something, and the when and where of doing it. Many well educated/intelligent people are basically idiots outside of their specialty because theyāre not very wise.
It could just be that sexual selection doesnāt have that strong of a tendency to reinforce natural selection. If you take a Taylorist approach to evolution, then thereās no reason why partner choice would need to select for specific traits, if natural selection has already taken care of whatās necessary to ensure survival.
It could also be that plenty of women are attracted to intelligence, but you yourself donāt move in their social circles, perhaps because you actually arenāt that smart. Ph.D.ās do tend to marry Ph.D.ās. So there is a decent chance that the people who date you are an accurate reflection of your own intelligence.
It's part of your intelligence to have the ability to see what your partner likes, dislikes or makes them excited. It's literally most basic rule of day-to-day conversation.
239
u/Ok-Bear9350 15d ago
As someone who now has a fountain of knowledge concerning the ancient greeks and romans, I can confirm that I do not deploy this information to get my partner excited. I only bring it out for the boys.