I recommend The Red Queen if you want to start learning about this. The short answer: men largely choose mates based on looks; women choose based more on social status. Signalling low social status reduces male attractiveness; signalling high social status raises it.
n = 1, but this has worked for me. Deliberately act like you can take it or leave it, and you're unlikely to be left. (And note that women initiate the majority of breakups and divorces, so you're not risking much if you risk a breakup.)
I love pop psychology books that tell me it is fine to be lazy and uncaring. /sarcasm
We aren't talking about dating here, we are talking about long term relationships. The whole Red Queen thing breaks down when we add artificial human constructs such as marriage and monogamy.
We are not a Silver Back leading a band of gorillas, we are far more complex than that. Sure, signalling plays a roll in initial conditions, impressions and attractiveness. However once we get past the monkey brain and into the far more complex social behaviors humans have developed there aren't just a couple of sliders to adjust to determine how successful a relationship is.
I would love to hear of anyone having a successful and above all healthy long term relationship using the ideas you espouse.
Just so I'm clear, are you suggesting that once one has consciously elected to enter into a long-term relationship, one's biological drives and genetic predispositions immediately shut down?
Genetic expression and disposition toward gene-propagating behaviors do not cease to operate, no matter how far removed we think we are from the "lowly" Silverback.
Your other points regarding human social behaviors are being quite a bit more complex than that of gorillas is correct, but I don't think recognition of that fact is sufficient basis for assuming that all other factors are suddenly irrelevant.
Not at all, I am contending that there are far more complex social dynamics going on beyond the simplistic ape view that others are espousing. The fact we evolved from apes so our social brains are rooted in that make up is significant, however others seem to be treating it as significant to the exclusion of all else.
My original response to the whole "treat em mean, keep em keen" comment in fact makes a reverse argument using evolutionary biology. That is that this sort of behavior actually precludes building a successful relationship as the woman doesn't get the security she needs to raise her offspring.
I know. I often fear a nightmarish reality in which women spend minutes or even hours per day carefully disguising natural facial features, odors, and hair--or even exercising at a gym--just so they can manipulate men into wanting to be with them. I pity the guys who get suckered into preferring women who engage in such behaviors. It's almost as bad as men altering their behavior to be more attractive to women.
Empirically, prior girlfriends have been unimpressed with my slavish devotion to their every-moment's well-being. My current girlfriend is much more devoted, and much more enthusiastic.
I am fairly overt about this. I told her to read The Red Queen after our first date. And I don't lie about this. But when I'm asking myself what's better for the relationship, and what's going to make the person I'm with happier, I have to take into account that my behavior affects her happiness indirectly, too. You'd have to be a real jerk to make her date a nebbish.
"My personal belief is that if a woman chose you for your social status, you made a mistake getting involved with her."
I'd suggest reading the book cited by the grandparent. You're a little naive on the topic. The vast majority of women marry for social or financial status, but it's an unconscious mechanism.
In the end, it's all about optimizing genetic fitness and resource availability. Our genes do this automatically, and it's not limited to humans.
The vast majority of women marry for social or financial status, but it's an unconscious mechanism. In the end, it's all about optimizing genetic fitness and resource availability. Our genes do this automatically, and it's not limited to humans.
Are you saying that the book cites research to backup these extraordinary claims? While I'm little more than a dilettante, I can't see how I could completely avoid hearing that a social behavior as complex as marriage had been pinned to genetics.
What I've heard is that surveys have shown women will find a man more attractive if they believe he's wealthy. I have not seen it shown that this is wholly unconscious, let alone genetic (rather than cultural). And I have not seen it claimed that this effect dictates why women marry particular men.
So let's turn it back to Hacker News for a moment.
You're slaving away in a startup, working insane hours and getting paid way less than what you're worth. There's equity in there somewhere. Maybe. You've finished up another 12 hour day and there's the wife glaring at you at the kitchen table: "When is this job going to get us somewhere? Why can't we be doing/having <x> like your friend Bob who works at <consulting firm y>?"
The social status thing makes sense. And you're working your ass off to try to make that next step up, or cash out, or whatever.
Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of espousing an unpopular opinion amongst people who tend to irrationally believe magical romantic things about evolved bags of meat.
It's a fairly well established biological fact( caveat - there are of course exceptions )that female primates, including humans, respond sexually favorably toward high status behavior on the part of males.
The Red Queen is a good book, but there are countless others. Sperm Wars, Sex At Dawn, The Evolution of Desire, and myriad academic papers that these books reference, paint a very clear picture of female sexuality that few will ever want to believe.
n=1 is irrelevant in this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the actual scientific evidence is quite clear on this matter.
Edit: removed reference to emo hipsters. Not constructive.
Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of falling for cynical pop-science just so stories. This evolutionary psychology and biology stuff applied to humans is still pretty new and pretty far from "well established biological fact", and it comes with all the caveats of human behavioral research plus the added trappings of being a scientific fad.
In particular, there is plenty of room in evo-psych for pair bonding and long term relationships. Historically and across diverse cultures these relationships have generally been the dominant method of producing children, so I'd say it's a pretty OK evolutionary strategy. The 'scientific' evidence is all around you, evolved bag of meat.
And in long term relationships, effort is not optional.
Note that for many of us human males, it takes a huge effort to avoid seeming needy, predict our significant other's desires, and act to fulfill those desires in a dominant and take-charge kind of way. It's quite a bit harder than making an effort and showing it.
Men who have gone through a divorce actually have more children nowadays (when you add up all kids from all relationships). So in evolutionary terms the long term relationship is less successful.
The problem though is that not all women think like this. And if you actual are humble and not "manly" you may have actually bagged a woman who values that. Likewise, if you're an overweight woman, the man your with may actual like you being overweight. Losing 50 pounds could make you LESS attractive.
There's a big difference between optimizing behavior when you're single and trying to score as much as possible vs being in a relationship and trying to optimize your relations with that one particular person. You're no longer dealing with a population.
> Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of espousing an unpopular opinion amongst the emo hipsters of HN.
No offence, but if you actually had the facts on your side you probably wouldn't feel the need to resort to insulting everyone who doesn't share your opinion. Emo hipsters, really?
I edited my post. The hipster reference was not constructive.
Re: fat nerds and social value:
In 2011, "fat nerds" can wield quite a bit of financial power. This can make them attractive to females by virtue of the fact that they can be utilized as resource providers for their future offspring.
However, it should be noted that sexual attraction and attraction to resources are generally two independent drives in female primates. Many female primates utilize independent strategies, procuring resources and genetic material from different men simultaneously. See the citations in "Sperm Wars" for references to the research on this phenomenon.
> In 2011, "fat nerds" can wield quite a bit of financial power.
While that's true, "fat nerds" (or skinny nerds, or greasy nerds) don't generally do things which display this power. I've met nerds who are effectively retired at 30, fat and happy, who are entirely off the radar of women looking at suits, cars, and Stanford MBA attitudes.
My point is that even though socially we understand that "nerds" have good odds of being reasonably affluent, there's still an awful lot to the "sexy" equation that they don't have.
It's a bit oversimplified, but thinking of there being four areas helps for me. Physical, mental, financial, and emotional/relational. "Nerds" tend to do fine in the financial and mental areas, but they are generally lacking in the physical, and tend to be terrible at relational (which is arguably the most important for attracting women.)
