A unified theory of dating dynamics. The balance of looks and personality.

[Mrlonelyone]

The following Points explain 90% of dating behavior of men and women. Tell me what yall think.

 

1) People are attracted first by looks and second by personality but both are of equal importance in getting a date.

 

2.) People are on average sexually attracted to universal signs of good health and fertility (i.e. good teeth, healthy build).... Then to signs of gender. A strongly masculine or feminine man or woman...who has sings of bad health (i.e. obesity, missing or rotten teeth) will not be attractive.

 

3.) There are as many attractive personality types as there are persons. If one person is not attracted to a specific persons personality.... the rejected person is better served by moving on and not thinking they need to change.

 

Justification:

 

1.) This rule of attraction is really basic. All humans are visual if they can see. We are attracted or repelled first by the look of a man or woman. Then once we get close enough to them to talk to them for a bit we are attracted or repelled by their personality.

 

They are two forces of equal strength. Looks can keep a couple together for a while. Personality can keep a couple together for a while. For a long term stable bonding both forces have to be acting for mutual attraction.

 

2.) This is supported by various scientific studies. Google the terms, beauty symmetry, attractiveness masculinity, attractiveness femininty, and attractiveness fertility.

 

We are all programmed by natural selection to notice sings of good health fertility and vitality in a mate. This relates to the first point as these sings are what make someone physically attractive. Why do women want strong muscular men...or men who are trim and toned....but not weak men or flabby men? It's not because of culture or the media's images of men. Why do men want women who show sings of being able to bear healthy children, wide hips, full breast and a narrow waist? Also not because of the media. Along with a high degree of symmetry these things are attractive.

 

3.)This is probably the only radical thing I have said in this post. Everyone is different. We each have different personalities.

 

We have different outlooks on life. We handle conflicts differently. We are of different religions. We have differing political views. We have different energy levels. What one person thinks is exciting...the other would be bored by.

 

In dating no matter who does the asking out... eventually a personality conflict will tell and can lead to a break up. That does not mean that one person or the other needs to change their personality.

 

The shortest path to a LTR is not the one that takes fundamentally changing your personality. The shortest path is one that takes least personality conflict. One accomplishes this by determining if you have a compatible personality sooner rather than latter and being willing to walk away.

 

TLDR Summary:

 

1.)The forces of physical attractiveness and personality are of equal strength.

 

2.)Physically healthy people are physically attractive people.

 

3.)The shortest path from point A (being single) to point B ( a LTR or marriage) is the path of least personality conflict.

[Knittress]

I'm wondering why it took so many words to get to the conclusion that people are attracted to mentally/physically healthy people. But also I was wondering - how does this 'good mating material' theory work with people who aren't attracted to a gender they can make babies with?

[Mrlonelyone]

I'm wondering why it took so many words to get to the conclusion that people are attracted to mentally/physically healthy people. But also I was wondering - how does this 'good mating material' theory work with people who aren't attracted to a gender they can make babies with?

It took so many words because the TLDR version oversimplifies things.

 

As a bisexual I can answer your question. It works just the same way.

 

A person who has same sex attraction is also attracted to traits in that sex which would indicate fertility and good health. Same sex attractions are just as basic, and instinctive to queer people... as opposite sex attraction is to straight people.

 

Why are people queer? I don't know. More than likely some basic part of the brain is wired a little differently than average.

[january2011]

the rejected person is better served by moving on and not thinking they need to change.

 

<snip>

 

That does not mean that one person or the other needs to change their personality.

 

<snip>

 

The shortest path to a LTR is not the one that takes fundamentally changing your personality. The shortest path is one that takes least personality conflict. One accomplishes this by determining if you have a compatible personality sooner rather than latter and being willing to walk away.

 

3.)The shortest path from point A (being single) to point B ( a LTR or marriage) is the path of least personality conflict.

 

I found these bits the most interesting in your OP. If I'm understanding you correctly, you suggest that personality conflict is inevitable and people shouldn't change themselves to find a partner. They should just 'be' and somehow, somewhere, there will be someone who is a better 'fit' for their personality. This is interesting because I've always been led to believe that personality as a whole is a dynamic and intangible part of a person. Which suggests that compatibility is rather an elusive beast requiring the sacrifice of compromise to be appeased.

 

From what I've seen, dating sites tend to follow the 'compatibility first then attraction second' process. However, in my experience, people ignore that, even in the early stages, by focusing more on someone's pictures (attraction) rather than their match questions, profile copy, etc (compatibility). And if there isn't any attraction when they meet, despite high compatibility (high match scores), the relationship isn't allowed to develop.

 

Thus, my impression is that people would rather go for high attraction-low compatibility than low attraction-high compatibility. Which makes me wonder, are we doing it all wrong? Are we placing too much weight on attraction and not enough on compatibility? Perhaps a slight threadjack and therefore better as a separate thread...

 

Why are people queer? I don't know. More than likely some basic part of the brain is wired a little differently than average.

 

A few months ago, I attended a lecture given by a psychiatrist who studies this as part of his work and his conclusion was that 'they' don't know because the evidence as a whole is very conflicting and nothing conclusive can be drawn from the studies.

Edited February 25, 2011 by january2011

[AverageJoe]

TLDR Summary:

 

1.)The forces of physical attractiveness and personality are of equal strength.

Attraction is not a choice. Regardless of gender.

 

2.)Physically healthy people are physically attractive people.

See above response.

3.)The shortest path from point A (being single) to point B ( a LTR or marriage) is the path of least personality conflict.

 

Most people want to take the path of least resistance. One of the key elements you left out was financial well being. This is an attraction all to itself without the physical aspect being involved.

 

I wouldn't call it a unified theory. Way too dynamic of an issue.

[Mrlonelyone]

I found these bits the most interesting in your OP. If I'm understanding you correctly, you suggest that personality conflict is inevitable and people shouldn't change themselves to find a partner. They should just 'be' and somehow, somewhere, there will be someone who is a better 'fit' for their personality.

Yes this is exactly what I think is the Path of least resistance and most natural way for one to go about finding a compatible partner.

 

 

This is interesting because I've always been led to believe that personality as a whole is a dynamic and intangible part of a person. Which suggests that compatibility is rather an elusive beast requiring the sacrifice of compromise to be appeased.

 

That's called being codependant or "nice"...as the twisted lexicon of the dating world says. One who compromises who they are for a partner is being "too nice".

 

From what I've seen, dating sites tend to follow the 'compatibility first then attraction second' process. However, in my experience, people ignore that, even in the early stages, by focusing more on someone's pictures (attraction) rather than their match questions, profile copy, etc (compatibility). And if there isn't any attraction when they meet, despite high compatibility (high match scores), the relationship isn't allowed to develop.

 

Thus, my impression is that people would rather go for high attraction-low compatibility than low attraction-high compatibility. Which makes me wonder, are we doing it all wrong? Perhaps a slight threadjack and therefore better as a separate thread...

 

The first two points above address that. Physical attraction is the long distance force that draws us together from a distance. Physical attraction is what will draw us all together naturally there's just no way around it.

 

The second point addresses that personality is also important for any relationship to last beyond one or two dates.

 

Both high attraction...and high compatibility are needed to form a stable bond.

 

(Think of it like the way various forces act to being protons, neutrons, and electrons to make an atom. It's quite literally chemistry).

 

A few months ago, I attended a lecture given by a psychiatrist who studies this as part of his work and his conclusion was that 'they' don't know because the evidence as a whole is very conflicting and nothing conclusive can be drawn from the studies.

 

That's about right. There seem to be a number of various correlations with male homosexuality. The two that are most convincing to me are that it has something to do with prenatal hormones. I saw a study that linked it with being exposed to excess testosterone in the womb. Other studies have linked it to being born late in a series of brothers.

 

At any rate one cannot choose who they are attracted to.

[Jynxx]

This is wrong on so many levels

 

1. You assume attraction for men and women follows the same rules. It doesn't. Read any other thread about dating on this forum and you'll notice.

 

2. Just because 2 things work in the same direction doesn't mean they are of equal strength. If personality is 10x more important than looks, then still some ppl will be able to compensate a lack of either one of them by having enough of the other. Hell, what does that even mean, they aren't measured in the same units so can't even really be compared or added.

 

3. On 3: While this concept is often used in cheap hollywood crap, I find it flat out wrong and used as an excuse for personal faillure. Say there's this girl, you talk to her, you take her out to dinner and all you do all evening is talk about star wars and not hold your farts. She will most likely not think you have an attractive personality. Does this mean you shouldn't change your behaviour and do the exact same thing with the next girl?

 

4. even if your conclusion "The shortest path from point A (being single) to point B ( a LTR or marriage) is the path of least personality conflict" was correct, who cares? What person would want to go from single to a relationship as quick as possible (hence would want the shortest path)? What exactly is so terrible about being single you want to get out of that state? I feel for those people.

[Mrlonelyone]

This is wrong on so many levels

 

1. You assume attraction for men and women follows the same rules. It doesn't. Read any other thread about dating on this forum and you'll notice.

 

That is based on biological research on what is considered beautiful across species.

 

http://memoria-inventada.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/SBEnature.pdf

Symmetry, beauty and evolution - Nature 1994

 

Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty

GILLIAN RHODES

University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Perth, Western Australia

and University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

1998, 5 (4), 659-669

Evolutionary, as well as cultural, pressures may contribute to our perceptions of facial attractiveness.

Biologists predict that facial symmetry should be attractive, because it may signal mate quality. We

tested the prediction that facial symmetry is attractive by manipulating the symmetry of individual faces

and observing the effect on attractiveness, and by examining whether natural variations in symmetry

(between faces) correlated with perceived attractiveness. Attractiveness increased when we increased

symmetry, and decreased when we reduced symmetry, in individual faces (Experiment 1), and natural

variations in symmetry correlated significantly with attractiveness (Experiments 1 and 1A). Perfectly

symmetric versions, made by blending the normal and mirror images of each face, were preferred to

less symmetric versions of the same faces (even when those versions were also blends) (Experiments

1 and 2). Similar results were found when subjects judged the faces on appeal as a potential life partner, suggesting that facial symmetry may affect human mate choice. We conclude that facial symmetry

is attractive and discuss the possibility that this preference for symmetry may be biologically based.

 

 

 

2. Just because 2 things work in the same direction doesn't mean they are of equal strength. If personality is 10x more important than looks, then still some ppl will be able to compensate a lack of either one of them by having enough of the other. Hell, what does that even mean, they aren't measured in the same units so can't even really be compared or added.

 

Which is why instead of looking at the fields of attraction and personality themselves you look at the energies of the fields.

 

An example would be a diagram like this which shows the potential energy well due to an atomic nucleus. http://www.chemicool.com/img1/graphics/morse-potential-curve.gif

 

Notice that two different forces are at play here. Yet when the energies of the fields are considered one can speak of attraction and repulsion and strength in a coherent manner.

 

Good for you for picking up on the units issue. I did not think it was needed for a board like this.

 

 

 

3. On 3: While this concept is often used in cheap hollywood crap,

 

It's basic physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

 

 

4. even if your conclusion "The shortest path from point A (being single) to point B ( a LTR or marriage) is the path of least personality conflict" was correct, who cares? What person would want to go from single to a relationship as quick as possible (hence would want the shortest path)? What exactly is so terrible about being single you want to get out of that state? I feel for those people.

 

In this treatment relationships are being treated just like physical systems. Physical systems obey principles of least action (sometimes stated as least time...or least distance).

[Jynxx]

That is based on biological research on what is considered beautiful across species.

 

http://memoria-inventada.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/SBEnature.pdf

Symmetry, beauty and evolution - Nature 1994

 

Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty

GILLIAN RHODES

University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Perth, Western Australia

 

and University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

1998, 5 (4), 659-669

This doesn't mean anything. It means that, without any information about personality, a symmetric face is more attractive than a non-symmetric face. My point is that looks play way less a role in what females find attractive than in what males find attractive. I don't disagree that they still can act as a tiebreaker in case of ppl with equally handsome personalities, or like in the case you stated, with no information about the personalities.

 

Which is why instead of looking at the fields of attraction and personality themselves you look at the energies of the fields.

 

An example would be a diagram like this which shows the potential energy well due to an atomic nucleus. http://www.chemicool.com/img1/graphics/morse-potential-curve.gif

 

Notice that two different forces are at play here. Yet when the energies of the fields are considered one can speak of attraction and repulsion and strength in a coherent manner.

 

Good for you for picking up on the units issue. I did not think it was needed for a board like this.

You realise there's an infinite number of physical systems, thus an infinite number of graphs of physical systems, right? So taking one of the sum of a ax^4 + bx^2 (which I assume this is) proves exactly nothing, and definately not that 1*x+1*y = attraction with x=looks and y= personality and x=y.

 

 

It's basic physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

 

Fair enough, I never meant to argue about the least resistance thing. All I said was that I fail to see how this information is of any use in dating and relationships

In this treatment relationships are being treated just like physical systems.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

 

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

 

[Whatshername]

The shortest path to a LTR is not the one that takes fundamentally changing your personality. The shortest path is one that takes least personality conflict. One accomplishes this by determining if you have a compatible personality sooner rather than latter and being willing to walk away.

 

 

This is the part that rings true.........

 

I spent 4 plus years (on and off again) trying to make a relationship work with a man my total opposite. Even way back, we almost broke up/when we broke up/, with him saying "we are too different". Problem was, we were smitten, sparks flew and the sex was amazing.

 

Next time..........NO Sex, until I am sure we are compatible. Yes it sucks, sure I will get pressured (and horny), bc that is how it will roll, but if a man can't believe me when I say I love sex, but am not having any until I know we are compatible, well, that is too bad, that is the boundary I am drawing!

[fishtaco]

My point is that looks play way less a role in what females find attractive than in what males find attractive.

 

This is true. Being physically attractive for females is more of a equivalent to being financially attractive for males.

 

Also don't forget MHC supposedly plays a role too.

[Els]

 

2.)Physically healthy people are physically attractive people.

 

Considering how many men are attracted to women who use unhealthy ways to attain a model weight (and no, I don't mean stick-thin, I mean model), and all the positively unhealthy stuff that makes someone look good (constant wearing of high heels, lip fillers, male steroid use, hair chemical treatment, tanning beds, etc)... no, I do not find this to be true.

[Mrlonelyone]

I said it explains 90% of dating behavior. I think that 10% left over takes into account all the rest.

 

In general people who are physically attractive...also look physically healthy.

[elastica]

Attraction is not a choice. Regardless of gender

 

I totally agree with this.

 

The theory is missing one important thing: it does not elaborate on nose (yes, nose).

 

If my nose likes someone, I might think that I am not attracted. Then, I will start thinking could I be attracted?? (he's not even my type etc.) Then, I will realize I am attracted as hell, and try to deny it. Then, I will give in, although I will still be wondering why.

 

I think what you are writing about is... I don't know. When a teenager is attracted to a celebrity. Or when a man sees a pretty/hot woman, and he likes what he sees. It hasn't got much to do with dating behaviour...