guys with good jobs and make money-hard time getting gf/dates-whyyy

[kaylan]

^And people much smarter than you have agreed that evo-psych is crap.

 

Its not accepted by most of the scientific world. Much controversy surrounds it because much of evo-psych is filled with unproven assertions.

[Jynxx]

Its not accepted by most of the scientific world.

 

First of all, this simply isn't true. While I don't doubt there's a number of scientists disagreeing with the concept, an overwhelming majority does agree with it, as it's more or less a necessity for evolution. That doesn't mean everyone agrees with every paper written or every point made by someone doing research in the field, but I'm sure most scientifically educated people wouldn't call it all crap

 

Secondly, even if your ridiculous statment that "most of the scientific world doesn't accept evolutionary psychology" were true, there's no way you could know, let alone proof it, unless you made a huge poll on a representative sample of scientists, which I'm gonna assume you didn't.

 

Thirdly, even if your ridiculous statement were true and you were capable of proving it, it still doesn't mean anything. The truth, the laws of physics, evolution etc aren't a democracy. 2 decades ago physisists ridiculed String Theory, while it's more or less generally accepted now. In some states in your country a majority of the people believe in intelligent design rather than evolution, that doesn't say anything about evolution itself (other than put some extra footnotes in the "survival of the fittest" concept).

 

Much controversy surrounds it because much of evo-psych is filled with unproven assertions.

You have a point here. Then again, all inexact sciences are filled with assertions that are unproven and in most cases unprovable. There's no way anyone can get an error margin of exactly 0% on any psychological study. There's always going to be bias, statistical outliers, a non neglectable standard deviation etc. It comes with the territory of being a inexact science.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Jynxx
typo

[TheBigQuestion]

Yes, because it's not universally true. Not all men are attracted to women with an hourglass figure. That's why evolutionary psychology is a load of crap. Because the basic assumption is that everything we do and everything we feel is driven by the urge to reproduce and create healthy offspring. But if that were true, gay people wouldn't exist, childfree people wouldn't exist, and everyone would be attracted to the same physical type.

 

Since preferences vary so widely from one person to another, it should be obvious that men are not all programmed the same and women are not all programmed the same.

 

For the record, the ideas that men are "programmed" to seek out symmetrical facial features and an hourglass body figure both predate the evolutionary psychology movement. Humans tend to be visually attracted to symmetry in general, for one thing.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I agree that people who fit cultural ideals of physical beauty are generally the most attractive to other people.

 

The ideal of feminine beauty is not static and has changed dramatically over time and from culture to culture. It's not hardwired into us.

 

Yes, from culture to culture and through the millennia, ideal feminine beauty has included a smaller waist than hip.

 

Symmetrical features are typically considered beautiful in men or women. Human beings are attracted to symmetry in general.

 

People with great social skills are also very attractive to other people.

 

Attributes that make us human also enable us to CHOOSE a person who does not have the ideal physical features. Also, our human attributes enable us to forego stealing because we are hardwired to be attracted to sparkly things, or hitting our neighbor over the head with a club because he has annoyed us, or we want the steaks he's barbecuing.

 

The human attributes I am talking about are also a part of "evolutionary psychology" that are not popular to talk about in the lowbrow circles that love to discuss things like men being required to spread their seed because of it, or women being helpless against getting impregnated by a douchebag and then seeking a worker-bee dude to "support" the results.

 

Anyway, the only people who are going to swallow the ridiculous notion that women are "biologically programmed" to be irresistibly attracted to men who sleep till noon, aren't smart, interesting or driven, live off government handouts, smoke pot all day and are a drag to society are guys who are desperate for an excuse outside of themselves for their own frustrations and failures with women.

 

If you're going to buy into this theory hook, line & sinker, you'll have to believe that all of us incapable of choice, intellectually flaccid, amoral, and devoid of creative thinking women will be required by our biological programming to pick the guy who is outside punching out his neighbor for the meat on the barbecue, NOT the stupid basement sleeping pot head.

 

Really.

 

Now bring me those steaks.

[kaylan]

First of all, this simply isn't true. While I don't doubt there's a number of scientists disagreeing with the concept, an overwhelming majority does agree with it, as it's more or less a necessity for evolution. That doesn't mean everyone agrees with every paper written or every point made by someone doing research in the field, but I'm sure most scientifically educated people wouldn't call it all crap

Are you sure about this overwhelming majority agreeing with it?

 

Because anything I have read says the community is divided on the issue.

 

Plus I find it stupid when people try to reduce modern humans to explanations based in evo-psycho-babble.

 

If you can provide me several respected sources that say the community is in overwhelming favor of evo-psych theory, thatd be cool.

Secondly, even if your ridiculous statment that "most of the scientific world doesn't accept evolutionary psychology" were true, there's no way you could know, let alone proof it, unless you made a huge poll on a representative sample of scientists, which I'm gonna assume you didn't.

And Im going to assume you didnt do a poll saying most accept evo-psych.

 

Excuse my language, I should have originally said many disagree with evo-psych. Or I should have said the community is divided.

Thirdly, even if your ridiculous statement were true and you were capable of proving it, it still doesn't mean anything. The truth, the laws of physics, evolution etc aren't a democracy. 2 decades ago physisists ridiculed String Theory, while it's more or less generally accepted now. In some states in your country a majority of the people believe in intelligent design rather than evolution, that doesn't say anything about evolution itself (other than put some extra footnotes in the "survival of the fittest" concept).

I never said they were a democracy.

 

All one has to do is google "controversy evolutionary psychology" and you will find enough reasons why the stuff is way off base in many regards.

 

 

You have a point here. Then again, all inexact sciences are filled with assertions that are unproven and in most cases unprovable. There's no way anyone can get an error margin of exactly 0% on any psychological study. There's always going to be bias, statistical outliers, a non neglectable standard deviation etc. It comes with the territory of being a inexact science.

The thing is, if a theory is not falsifiable, there needs to exist at least some form of tangible "evidence" that can be used to give it some credibility.

 

Evolutionary theory doesnt make the same huge assertion jumps that Evo-Psych does with an absence of some form of "evidence".

 

When I say "evidence" I refer to fossil record. It has its own questions to deal with. When the animals lived, what killed them, did animal actually change over time, etc.

 

At least with the fossil record, its not the biggest leap of faith to put forth the theory of evolution. On the other hand, when it comes to Evo-Psych, I feel there is way too many big assertions made without any tangible "evidence" backing it. It seems as if most of the assertions made are stabs in the dark and free to too many wide interpretations.

 

Most of what I read regarding Evo-Psych seems to be opinions on possible behaviors of past beings to explain away the behaviors of modern beings.

 

It just doesnt make sense to me.

Edited January 30, 2012 by kaylan

[zengirl]

To answer the OP: Women can make their own money and look for a more total package in a partner than just a guy with a good job.

 

On Evo Psych: It's wobbly ground. There are some anthropological studies worth examining, to be sure, but there is a lot that disproves generally ANY sweeping generalization that one makes from an Evo Psych perspective, which makes it a soft 'science' that should never be compared to physical laws of science, as one poster did above. You can probably garner a lot more about attraction by looking into individual psychology or sociology for trends than you can with an anthropological (particularly the bio aspect of anthropology) perspective alone. Most of this is unlikely to be truly linked to biology since patterns have changed so dramatically -- in terms of desirable partners -- throughout time and place, generally reflecting their society more than human biology.

 

Our society values steady employment, but only to a degree. Therefore, it will help you with dating, but only to a degree. If women had to rely on their husband's income as the sole provider, it would be more of a factor, as it was in eras past. Also, a woman's income actually matters now too, in terms of dating, to many men. These are the times. The fact that desirable traits change with society reflects that these preferences are rarely linked to any kind of biology or evolutionary anything; after all, we haven't been biologically evolving for a long time.

 

Instead, we evolve culturally now, and that prevents us from needing to biologically evolve; without a major Earth incident, humankind will probably never biologically evolve naturally at this point. Perhaps we will impact our own biology with tech, but most of our evolution will continue to be technical/societal/cultural, as it has been for pretty much all of recorded human history.

[Cypress25]

The truth, the laws of physics, evolution etc aren't a democracy. 2 decades ago physisists ridiculed String Theory, while it's more or less generally accepted now. In some states in your country a majority of the people believe in intelligent design rather than evolution, that doesn't say anything about evolution itself (other than put some extra footnotes in the "survival of the fittest" concept).

 

I think you're getting evolution and evolutionary psychology mixed up. They are two separate theories.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Anyway, the component of EVOLUTION is, of course, an inherent part of the concept of evolutionary psychology.

 

So if ALL of us women had evolved at some point to deeply desire a pot smoking basement dwelling guy on welfare, when this did not serve our needs, our phycology would have to evolve to encompass what we did require, right?

 

I am having trouble visualizing what needs of what women this loser you've described would fulfill.

 

Listen. A person who is charming and engaging and who knows how to make others feel great - whether they are sincere or cons - can easily enchant other people, even if he or she lives in a basement on a couch and doesn't have a good job or appear to be a good parenting prospect. If the person is very good looking and sexy, this makes it even easier to fall for them. I think this is the case regardless of gender.

[Ruby Slippers]

In my experience, a lot of guys with good jobs and money like to lead with that, which sends the message that they think it's the best thing they have going for them. I've had a number of "offers" from guys with money, but this approach totally turns me off, because it feels like a business transaction. I'm not some desperate Russian woman looking for a green card and a big ugly suburban home. I want to be in a relationship with my best friend and equal partner, not the guy who signs my "paychecks".

 

And yes, they do often have a strong sense of entitlement, this creepy edge suggesting that they should have open access to your body because they've got the cash.

 

I went on a date with a boring guy with money a while back, and driving me home, for pretty much the whole conversation, he was talking about his Mercedes. And I'm thinking, "I'm in your car. I see the logo. Why do you keep dropping the brand name?" I guess he was trying to impress me, but he was failing.

[Woggle]

People in general who are materialistic like that turn me off but what is so wrong with being proud of your accomplishments. I very much am proud of pulling myself out of poverty. No matter how screwed up in the head I am about other things it is one thing I did right. I think anybody that did what it took to get themselves above the poverty line should be commended.

[Ruby Slippers]

People in general who are materialistic like that turn me off but what is so wrong with being proud of your accomplishments. I very much am proud of pulling myself out of poverty. No matter how screwed up in the head I am about other things it is one thing I did right. I think anybody that did what it took to get themselves above the poverty line should be commended.

Yeah, so am I. But first off, this guy didn't pull himself out of anything. He used his family's money to get his expensive MBA.

 

I'm not proud of my ability to buy overpriced designer junk and status symbols. I'm proud that I run a strong business that employs people and pays them a fair wage, that I make time for volunteering and working on a cause I care about, that even though I've come a long way, I'll never forget where I started. These are things to be proud of -- not an overpriced brand name you can afford.

[Jynxx]

Are you sure about this overwhelming majority agreeing with it?

 

Yes I am. According to wikis definition

Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations - that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection. Adaptationist thinking about physiological mechanisms, such as the heart, lungs, and immune system, is common in evolutionary biology. Evolutionary psychology applies the same thinking to psychology, arguing that the mind has a modular structure similar to that of the body, with different modular adaptations serving different functions. Evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments.

Now as I said before there's absolutely no way to get proof, but if hypothetically there was I would be willing to bet a big % of my networth on the majority of scientists worldwide agreeing with the bolded argument. Our bodies evolved to adapt to the environment and give us better chances at survival and reproduction. Our minds have changed over the last millions of years, and I'm to believe it's random? Natural selection doesn't forgive and prefers people who adjust to the environment.

 

 

Yes, from culture to culture and through the millennia, ideal feminine beauty has included a smaller waist than hip.

 

Symmetrical features are typically considered beautiful in men or women. Human beings are attracted to symmetry in general.

Wait, what:confused:?

So you think my statement that males generally are attracted to symmetrical faces and a certain hip to waist ratio is funny/retarded or true? Cause to me it seems you used to think it was retarded a cpl posts above and now you totally agree with it. Could you elaborate?

 

Attributes that make us human also enable us to CHOOSE a person who does not have the ideal physical features.

Agree with this. But as I posted before, attraction is not a choice, acting on that attraction is.

Also, our human attributes enable us to forego stealing because we are hardwired to be attracted to sparkly things, or hitting our neighbor over the head with a club because he has annoyed us, or we want the steaks he's barbecuing.

Sigh. Stealing isn't automatically beneficial. If you don't steal or beat up your neighbour over nothing, you're more likely he won't do the same to you in your sleep, plus you may have an ally when an outsider tries to plunder your house and rape your wife. It's called mutual self-interest.

 

Anyway, the only people who are going to swallow the ridiculous notion that women are "biologically programmed" to be irresistibly attracted to men who sleep till noon, aren't smart, interesting or driven, live off government handouts, smoke pot all day and are a drag to society are guys who are desperate for an excuse outside of themselves for their own frustrations and failures with women.

No you!

 

As I stated before, the correctness of a theory is independent from whether or not people believe in it or which kind of people believe in it. Please retract this ridiculous guild by association statement.

 

If you're going to buy into this theory hook, line & sinker, you'll have to believe that all of us incapable of choice, intellectually flaccid, amoral, and devoid of creative thinking women will be required by our biological programming to pick the guy who is outside punching out his neighbor for the meat on the barbecue, NOT the stupid basement sleeping pot head.

 

Really.

I'm sorry, you failed to get your point accross. Why exactly? What is in your mind so evolutionary beneficial about picking a violent man who's way more likely to get beaten up or killed so you'd have to raise your kids alone?

 

 

So if ALL of us women had evolved at some point to deeply desire a pot smoking basement dwelling guy on welfare, when this did not serve our needs, our phycology would have to evolve to encompass what we did require, right?

I smell a strawman argument comming, as I never claimed everyone is identical or has the exact same preferences. But I still am convinced a huge majority of females does.

 

And yes, you are right. Inferior programmed strategies will lose over time to better strategies. But, the implementation of modern day wellfare, which allows people to stay in their basement smoking pot without starving or poverty, is what? 20 years old? 30 years old? Hell, let's make it 50 years. That's roughly 2 generations. Do you agree natural selection doesn't get a big edge over 2 generations? Now, if for some reason the same society with the same rules and the same possibilities existed for 200 000 more years, then I'm sure you'd see the preferences of females would be changed signifficantly.

[kaylan]

Yes I am. According to wikis definition

Wiki only holds info someone decides to put on it. Kindly link me to a more reputable source.

Now as I said before there's absolutely no way to get proof, but if hypothetically there was I would be willing to bet a big % of my networth on the majority of scientists worldwide agreeing with the bolded argument. Our bodies evolved to adapt to the environment and give us better chances at survival and reproduction. Our minds have changed over the last millions of years, and I'm to believe it's random? Natural selection doesn't forgive and prefers people who adjust to the environment.

If theres no way to get proof to say the majority lean one way or the other, this is all rendered moot. Btw, as a previous poster said, humans may be done doing any major evolving given our lifestyles now and how we stay away from the environment. We arent living in the wild or caves anymore

 

Also, I could easily find quotes outside of wikipedia that support my position, but then Id be hijacking another thread. Feel free to PM me though. As I said, if all you can do is make an assertion regarding what you THINK scientists will agree with, this discussion is pointless.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Sigh. Stealing isn't automatically beneficial. If you don't steal or beat up your neighbour over nothing, you're more likely he won't do the same to you in your sleep, plus you may have an ally when an outsider tries to plunder your house and rape your wife. It's called mutual self-interest.

 

And, "sigh" back atcha.

 

Being with a boring, unintelligent, lazy pot smoking basement dwelling guy on welfare is not "automatically beneficial" to me. Personally, I'd benefit much more automatically from receiving a stolen steak from a suitor - or from stealing it myself.

 

Give it up! You are never going to convince anyone who doesn't already subscribe to your pop psychological view of why you have dating woes to believe that women are "biologically programmed" to seek out and choose such a guy.

 

Not to mention that other proponents of Evo Phsych right here on LS are going to insist that women are biologically programmed to be unable to resist all rich guys (who are not likely to be basement dwelling pot heads) or all guys with "high social value" (which would not be evident in the basement dwelling sleeping pot head). Also, tall guys. They might be sleeping in their basements, thereby concealing their height due to their prone position.

 

All prodding aside, you would fare much better if you really would give that crap up, Jynxx. I can tell you are an intelligent young man and I think that your attachment to these facile explanations for what "females" do, and like, is a hindrance to you. There are probably girls who have a big crush on you right now, and you aren't even free enough to notice it.

[musemaj11]

Women like and want men with money, but they dont want to be made to feel that they are with the men for money. Even gold diggers don't want to be called gold digger and refuse to believe that they are one.

[Jynxx]

Wiki only holds info someone decides to put on it. Kindly link me to a more reputable source.

 

Yes, I'm aware of how wikipedia works, but thanks anyway for trying to educate me. Still, if you search for the definition the first couple results are awfully close to the one I posted.

 

Give it up! You are never going to convince anyone who doesn't already subscribe to your pop psychological view

Disagree. But I have given up hope for you to change your mind by now.

of why you have dating woes to believe that women are "biologically programmed" to seek out and choose such a guy. Not to mention that other proponents of Evo Phsych right here on LS are going to insist that women are biologically programmed to be unable to resist all rich guys (who are not likely to be basement dwelling pot heads) or all guys with "high social value" (which would not be evident in the basement dwelling sleeping pot head). Also, tall guys.

And they wouldn't be wrong. Well, if they put it in context and say they are more attracted than average to tall/rich/valuable guys, not if they claim 100% of women are completely and irresistably attracted to a certain type. That's just a straw man you keep using.

 

All prodding aside, you would fare much better if you really would give that crap up, Jynxx. I can tell you are an intelligent young man and I think that your attachment to these facile explanations for what "females" do, and like, is a hindrance to you.

On the contrary. I'm interested in what drives people and how stuff like attraction works, but I don't judge people because of it and I don't look for excuses. I don't take EP as an excuse of faillure, I don't feel like the world owes me anything but a couple very basic things and I don't feel like I owe the world much either. We're all just people running around searching for something we think someone else can offer us, being eachothers supply and demand, and if someone for whatever reason doesn't want what we're offering, we can search someone else or try to change something about our product (aka self improvement in a dating/relationship context). It really is as simple as that.

 

There are probably girls who have a big crush on you right now, and you aren't even free enough to notice it.

Out of all the times in this thread I've told someone they were wrong on something without having hard evidence to back up my claim, this is the time I'm the most certain of it: you are wrong on that.