to those women out there

[Cephei Mordred]

I'm sorry but evolutionary psychology is suspect for the simple fact that as human beings, we ARE above animals and we DO have free will.

Anyway, while it's wrong to say that all women like jerks, there are some that do, and 'jerk' might not always be based on how he treats the woman.

For instance, I've met my fair share of couples where the woman was alright, but the guy was a complete jackass to me, I guess he felt I was a loser to him.

Point is, if that's the 'confidence' that some women want, then it is right for us men to scrutinize it and it seems like some women are too interested in exonerating the tastes of women from scrutiny, when mens tastes are always scrutinized and second guessed.

Because, heaven forbid, a man could be right and a woman could be wrong.

 

[CaptainLoserPants]

Kind of like asking an average guy why he likes girls that are demure and have pretty breasts and hips you can hold onto. The answer is because...?
As a girl, I can say confidence is attractive...because? I don't like confident jerks, but a certain amount of confidence is necessary; to know what you want in life, and to be able to talk to me is good.

 

[Hagi]

Yeah, I guess my pre-med course should really have stopped teaching gossip and should have taught biochem instead. OH WAIT.

Epigenetics does work to make genes a non-static conferrer of characteristics, but it does so through expression of specific genes to interact with the expression of other genes. As with all genetics, those genes exist because of a survival advantage. The argument that epigenetics obviates arguments in favour of selective advantages as the cause of genetics is simply false; those interacting genes exist precisely because of, and are governed by, typical evolutionary survival and reproductive advantages (ignoring genetic drift or linking here).

Furthermore, I didn't argue that genetics explains the entirety of human mate choice. I didn't argue that genes were static in their expression. I argued that evolutionary arguments for mate choices aren't just babble, which they aren't. There's a massive gap between "This theory doesn't explain everything" and "This theory is babble". What's that Hawking? Your theory of black hole radiation doesn't explain gravity? Your theory is babble!

See what I'm getting at here? Of course people can deliberately (or otherwise) misrepresent genetics and evolution so that it becomes painfully reductionist babble and fails to explain psychosocial trends, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily babble.

EDIT: That came off rather more defensively than I intended. No offence was intended.

I'm not talking about the theories that admit they don't explain everything, because they don't answer the OP's question (since it's a stupid question to begin with).

I'm talking about the 'theories' that could be used to answer the OP's question, which are babble exactly because they do explain the entirety of the human mate choice.

Any affirmative answer to the OP's question is by very definition babble due to the way his question is worded. It's like asking why is the earth the center of the universe? You can't give a non-babble affirmative answer because the earth is not the center of the universe.

He's asking: Why does *thing that doesn't happen* happen? Which is a nonsensical question.

People, females included, select their mates based on an extremely large amount of variables, many of which we're not even aware of ourselves. It's nonsense to restrict it to merely a few of those variables as you'll never get the full picture and the full scale of human behavior. If you want real answers you can't simplify things like the OP is doing, you have to take the full complexity of human behavior into account and that often means that there aren't any answers (yet).

 

[Rockchimp69]

*Insert misogynistic explanation involving insecure and immature spoiled females here*

*Insert evolutionary babble involving strong offspring and good genes here*

*Insert pop-psychology talk involving the 'female brain' here*

That should about cover 95% of the replies coming after this. You can now safely skip this thread. And no, no thanks is required for all the time I just saved you.

Evolutionary babble?

Babble?

Yeah. Most of it is mindless conjecture. Taking a hypothesis and convincing yourself that it's a valid theory without any sort of hard numbers.

Well obviously a lot of people don't bother to actually think about it's validity themselves but I don't think that automatically makes what they're saying babble. It just means they're offering theories about the OP's question based on their understanding of evolution.

No, what they're offering is conjecture, not theories. The difference between actual science and pseudo science is that one of them expects you to not beleive it until they've come up with some hard evidence. Guess which one that is.

Well I see your point but why does what they expect you to believe affect the validity of their views?

 

[Colour Scientist]

Because women don't know whats good for them!
*crys deeply*

Or, you know, they know exactly what's good for them.

OP: Honestly there is nothing less attractive than a guy with no confidence who constantly needs to be reassured. "Yes, I'm attracted to you. Yes, you're manly. No, I'm not faking. No, I was not checking out that sexier, self-confident guy." I want a guy I can be with not someone I have to babysit.

My boyfriend isn't athletic, an asshole or the sexiest guy in the universe but he's comfortable with who he is and that makes him sexy to me. Seriously, if you just stopped complaining about why girls don't like guys who complain about girls not... wait... let me start that again. Just stop complaining about girls liking guys who aren't self-conscious babies and go get one.

 

[Hagi]

How has the theory of evolution has notably changed in the last few decades at all? Evolution doesn't require a single forum post to be explained, just one sentence:

"Evolution is the process of change in a biological population caused by only well-adapted organisms in a species surviving and reproducing, thus passing on their favourable characteristics to their offspring."

This is exactly the same theory postulated by Darwin over 150 years ago. All that has changed is that we now know how information is inherited, and sometimes mess up our interpretation of the data. The results of evolution couldn't be explained in a single post, or probably an entire lifetime, but the process definitely can.

The idea of science having a finished theory is a bit anathema, but evolution is one of the few things that should be considered a law of biology, simply because there is such overwhelming evidence, and there's been plenty of time to test it adequately.

OP: Humour is actually the most important ingredient, I've been told & read, but the others you've listed probably help. Athletic has an obvious evolutionary explanation, but can't say I know enough about the others to be of any help.

Earlier evolutionary theory took the basis of mutations. By pure random chance genes would mutate and if the mutation was favorable the individual would survive and prosper and thus generate more offspring and that mutation would be passed on.

It's now theorized that it may actually be a lot less random. Through epigenetics (the process of switching genes on and off based on environmental factors) individuals would be able to control which genes are active and which genes are initially active in their offspring.

So mutations wouldn't be passed on through pure random chance but there'd be a controlling mechanism behind it all to 'guide' it (please don't relate that to god, god's place is in philosophy, not science).

What this means for many evolutionary pop-psychology theories is that their assumption that some things are simply set in stone and determined by evolution is likely wrong. Things aren't set in stone. There's quite a lot of room to wiggle around and dynamically adapt to changing conditions. And genes are less important then initially assumed because we have the ability to change them as we go.

The only thing our genes give us is a predisposition towards certain things. Nothing is completely fixed. And while the room to wiggle is limited, it's still there.

That's how the process has changed. It's no longer believed to be purely random but the belief is that there's a biological mechanism that's helping it along. At least that's how far I'm able to explain it in a simple forum post.

 

[ultimateownage]

And I thought the OTHER 'Why don't you date meeeeeeeeeeee' threads were asinine. At least they weren't just asking a question with an unbelievably obvious answer right there, just an extremely obvious one.

 

[chinangel]

I like my tori. kinda girly and shy, yet super geeky and not afraid to show it. Kinky and fun, and willing to indulge my strangeness. I like my Tori! ^^

unrelated question, just tried an animated avatar...is it actually animated 'cause it's not working on my profile :S

 

[Sarahcidal]

...because insecure scrawny guys playing it safe aren't everyone's cup of tea?

Really, two of the qualities you list are pretty much universally considered good and desirable in either gender, and the last (recklessness and to some degree an assertive disregard for certain traditional social norms) is traditionally associated with masculinity and Alpha male behaviour, and hence undoubtedly popular with a fair few women as well.

this. this right here nailed it.

most men look for the same traits in a female.
it makes sense that many of us would prefer these qualities
a man who likes to be active, has a strong backbone and likes to take chances is attractive...
..whereas an out of shape man who lets the world push him around? not so much.

 

[Phoenix_XIII]

To those women out there...
why do you usually like the more confident guys?
or the reckless ones who talk out of place thinking there cool?...
or the athletic guys?...
I know it's not like this for all girls but why is it for most?
so if there is any women on the escapist ..Why?

Because they like a guy who is confident in whatever.
Because the guys act like their perfect and aren't.
Because they're athletic.

From my view on High School life, this is what I see. Some of the biggest fucking douche bags I know are the ones the girls go after. And it's because they fit in these categories. I'm dead fucking serious. But those girls are usually shallow and in the "popular" clique.

 

[Cephei Mordred]

Odd...I was expecting rage blackouts from my last statement, not utter silence.

 

[Esotera]

The only thing our genes give us is a predisposition towards certain things. Nothing is completely fixed. And while the room to wiggle is limited, it's still there.

If only everybody knew this.

It's now theorized that it may actually be a lot less random. Through epigenetics (the process of switching genes on and off based on environmental factors) individuals would be able to control which genes are active and which genes are initially active in their offspring.

That's how the process has changed. It's no longer believed to be purely random but the belief is that there's a biological mechanism that's helping it along. At least that's how far I'm able to explain it in a simple forum post.

Personally I find it easier to view the two as separate process (random mutations, and epigenetic factors such as diet, etc). But I understand what you're saying. However, it doesn't change the basic theory of evolution - that the best adapted organisms survive to pass on their characteristics. We're just splitting hairs over how the characteristics work.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

Because confidence is attractive, no matter the gender. Period. I don't really get what's confusing you. Girls like guys with confidence and looks because that's hot.

I don't want some girl who's clingy and boring with low self-esteem. And ugly on top of that? No thanks.

Why would a woman's preference in men be any different?

 

[Kahunaburger]

Because they like a guy who is confident in whatever.
Because the guys act like their perfect and aren't.
Because they're athletic.

From my view on High School life, this is what I see. Some of the biggest fucking douche bags I know are the ones the girls go after. And it's because they fit in these categories. I'm dead fucking serious. But those girls are usually shallow and in the "popular" clique.

What, like they're going to go after the insecure and unathletic guys? Why is a preference for people who are attractive and appear to have their sh*t together only okay when guys have it?

 

[Cephei Mordred]

I can think of a couple reasons why some men adhere to such a double standard.

1. They believe that women are morally superior and thus should be above the shallowness they themselves engage in, and hope that nobody notices them beeline-ing for the hotties.

2. They themselves might actually prefer insecure and perhaps slightly less than good looking girls, on the misguided notion that they'll be easier to get along with, and project that desire onto what women should desire as well.

 

[KaiusCormere]

EDIT : Deleted

 

[Shoqiyqa]

You can be a self pitying wreck and still make a woman feel good and happy if you stop worrying about yourself long enough to think about her.

Spoiler: Comics behind spoiler tag to save artist's bandwidth. Click it once to see 'em once, eh?

See illustration here [http://www.egscomics.com/?date=2006-06-12]:

unrelated question, just tried an animated avatar...is it actually animated 'cause it's not working on my profile :S

Not animated when I see it either. Animated .gif files are a bit weird. You may have to save it a different way to get the full thing rather than a single frame.