Do Men Find Dumb-Looking Women More Attractive? A new study says yes. - Polidicks

Unattractive smart girls > attractive dumb girls IMO. But there are limits to ugliness of course.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;36078571]I was studying Human Sexuality (from a psychological perspective mostly) for a while. One of our group projects entailed men and women getting into separate groups and trying to nail down what they were looking for from the other. The men said they wanted women who were innocent, had never had sex and had dated as little as possible. Basically they wanted a dumb woman who wouldn't know any better. The women wanted men who were independant, could drive, would be willing to take care of them... basically a man who lives on his own, owns a car, and is willing to spend money on them. I can't even make this up. The stereotypes are truer than I thought. This makes finding people who [I]aren't[/I] like this even more impressive and important.[/QUOTE] Now how old were the participants in those groups? and what are their (general) background? I wouldn't be surprised if they've been influenced by the media to have such views on what they wanted in a partner.

I think you guys are missing something important here. Read the second sentence of the article again. [quote=article]But according to new findings, these characteristics—and any other traits suggesting that the lady isn’t particularly alert—are precisely what the human male has evolved to look for [b]in a one-night-stand.[/b][/quote] A lot of you guys seem to be interpreting this and/or comparing this to long-term relationships, but this isn't about long-term relationships - this is about going to a party, meeting a chick, going "hey wanna fuck" "lol okay", you fuck, then you say "okay bye" "haha bye" and never see each other again. So basically, for example, Biotoxsin, you completely invalidated your assessment with the last part of your statement: [quote=Biotoxsin]Stupidity ≠ sexually exploitable Not sure how they made that connection. For me at least, [b]provided I'm not looking for something "short-term"[/b], I'd never go for a women anything less than average. [/quote] Looking for something short-term is exactly what this study focused on. I'm sure if they were to do the same study, but for long-term relationships, the results would be a lot different. I'm not the kind of person who is into one-night stands, but the few people I know who are seem to fit this pretty solidly - they just want a quick fuck, and girls with characteristics described above tend to be easier to get with and more willing for a fuck-and-dump. When someone wants a quick fuck, they don't want to waste time getting to know people, their dreams and aspirations, their favorite musicians, and all that shit - they just want a chick who doesn't need much more than a "hey wanna fuck" to be willing to throw off her clothes and get to it.

sexually? yes. overall? no.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;36073639]Stupidity ≠ sexually exploitable[/QUOTE] Stupid -> Willing to get shit-faced -> Sexually exploitable You missed a step.

[QUOTE=nikomo;36079518]Stupid -> Willing to get shit-faced -> Sexually exploitable You missed a step.[/QUOTE] Willing to get shit faced ≠ inherently stupid Also you have to consider that this just further shows that the study is flawed, as if anything it would just be proving things about a given culture rather than humans in general

evopsych, combining the worst parts of the natural and social sciences

I have dated a stupid-as-shit girl some time ago. It was great. You told her she's stupid, she laughed. You told her to go away, she did. You told her to come back, she did. You told her she looked like shit, she slapped you, but if you told her to stop, she stopped. I eventually dumped her for a smarter and better looking one. But oh, there was something great about treating her like shit.

[QUOTE=lapsus_;36082269]I have dated a stupid-as-shit girl some time ago. It was great. You told her she's stupid, she laughed. You told her to go away, she did. You told her to come back, she did. You told her she looked like shit, she slapped you, but if you told her to stop, she stopped. I eventually dumped her for a smarter and better looking one. But oh, there was something great about treating her like shit.[/QUOTE] Did you date a dog

[QUOTE=lapsus_;36082269]I have dated a stupid-as-shit girl some time ago. It was great. You told her she's stupid, she laughed. You told her to go away, she did. You told her to come back, she did. You told her she looked like shit, she slapped you, but if you told her to stop, she stopped. I eventually dumped her for a smarter and better looking one. But oh, there was something great about treating her like shit.[/QUOTE] What the fuck

[QUOTE=lapsus_;36082269]I have dated a stupid-as-shit girl some time ago. It was great. You told her she's stupid, she laughed. You told her to go away, she did. You told her to come back, she did. You told her she looked like shit, she slapped you, but if you told her to stop, she stopped. I eventually dumped her for a smarter and better looking one. But oh, there was something great about treating her like shit.[/QUOTE] If you seriously treated another person like that, dumb or not, you're a pretty (understatement) horrible person. Be ashamed of yourself.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;36082308]Did you date a dog[/QUOTE] I dated an elephant once, she could remember things for an absurd amount of time and she had enough body weight to turn a beefcake into a pancake (huehuehue) with a single bodyslam

[QUOTE=Van-man;36078967]Now how old were the participants in those groups? and what are their (general) background? I wouldn't be surprised if they've been influenced by the media to have such views on what they wanted in a partner.[/QUOTE] 18 to 21 largely, with a few outliers. 18 was the youngest though. As for background, primarily english speaking students born and raised in Quebec. I suspect that's how the majority of North Americans percieve potential partners. I suppose in more religious sections of society, religion would come into play too, but it wasn't very prominent in the results here. Other than that I can't think of anything that would "complicate" the results.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;36082776]18 to 21 largely, with a few outliers. 18 was the youngest though. As for background, primarily english speaking students born and raised in Quebec. I suspect that's how the majority of North Americans percieve potential partners. I suppose in more religious sections of society, religion would come into play too, but it wasn't very prominent in the results here. Other than that I can't think of anything that would "complicate" the results.[/QUOTE] Culture is such an important factor in who people perceive to be attractive. If I recall correctly, women who were morbidly obese in 19th century (perhaps prior as well) Russia were considered to be the most attractive. Look at the Czarinas, they for the most part were absolutely disgusting looking in my opinion. None-too intelligent looking either. You can't really remove culture from it for the purpose of studying unless you can find some universally prevalent trait which people identify as attractive. That'll more than likely never happen.

[QUOTE=lapsus_;36082269]I eventually dumped her for a smarter and better looking one. But oh, there was something great about treating her like shit.[/QUOTE] a horrible person you are

[QUOTE=Contag;36080330]evopsych, combining the worst parts of the natural and social sciences[/QUOTE] have you ever actually studied it why do people feel so entitled to write off an entire academic field just because some misogynists abuse it (though this particular study is fucking terrible and i don't know what they were thinking when planning it)

[QUOTE=geel9;36078941]No it's just an ape[/QUOTE] Hey no, that's an insult to apes.

[QUOTE=Contag;36080330]evopsych, combining the worst parts of the natural and social sciences[/QUOTE] Holy shit, does it really bother you that much that some of the theories presented in evo pysch might turn out to be true? Nobody is saying we have to keep following those behaviors. hth if you think evo pysch is bad, then you must think psychology in general is a flawed study. [editline]24th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36083667]have you ever actually studied it why do people feel so entitled to write off an entire academic field just because some misogynists abuse it[/QUOTE] Because of that reason exactly. A lot of feminists feel threatened by some of the theories presented in evo pysch I guess, although I have no idea why. No one in evo pysch is stating we have to keep following that behavior.

[QUOTE=lapsus_;36082269]I have dated a stupid-as-shit girl some time ago. It was great. You told her she's stupid, she laughed. You told her to go away, she did. You told her to come back, she did. You told her she looked like shit, she slapped you, but if you told her to stop, she stopped. I eventually dumped her for a smarter and better looking one. But oh, there was something great about treating her like shit.[/QUOTE] Ryu-Gi, you changed your username! Do you have any new elf rape drawings to share with us? [editline]24th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;36082763]ryu gi date sim[/QUOTE] Damn it.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;36084204]Because of that reason exactly. A lot of feminists feel threatened by some of the theories presented in evo pysch I guess, although I have no idea why. No one in evo pysch is stating we have to keep following that behavior.[/QUOTE] My specific issue is that people assume all of evpsych is about gender and race, when it isn't.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;36073639]Stupidity ≠ sexually exploitable Not sure how they made that connection. For me at least, provided I'm not looking for something "short-term", I'd never go for a women anything less than average.[/QUOTE] Which pretty much confirms what the study says. One night stands - sleepy, stupid intoxicated women preferred Long term committed relationship - alert, intelligent and non slutty women preferred.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36083667]have you ever actually studied it why do people feel so entitled to write off an entire academic field just because some misogynists abuse it (though this particular study is fucking terrible and i don't know what they were thinking when planning it)[/QUOTE] Why in the world would I take a course on it? If I'm going to blow money on something, it would be evopsych. Admittedly I engage in some evoneuropsych as part of my work on human-animal relationships (and everything thereof), but I still have to tiptoe to remain methodologically (and epistemologically) sound. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;36084204]Holy shit, does it really bother you that much that some of the theories presented in evo pysch might turn out to be true? Nobody is saying we have to keep following those behaviors. hth if you think evo pysch is bad, then you must think psychology in general is a flawed study. Because of that reason exactly. A lot of feminists feel threatened by some of the theories presented in evo pysch I guess, although I have no idea why. No one in evo pysch is stating we have to keep following that behavior.[/QUOTE] What is the worth of evopsych? How is it falsifiable? Why is so much of evopsych research tend to just be a reification of social norms? Point me towards some research which is comprehensive enough to account for, say, the genealogy of change in the conception of MSM/homosexual/lesbian/thirdsex/etc. (or you know, national-states to fealty, divine kings and so on) over the last 3,000 years and I won't snort at the field [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36085432]My specific issue is that people assume all of evpsych is about gender and race, when it isn't.[/QUOTE] I think it's a magnet for the [I]really[/I] stupid evolutionary psychologists. By all means, show me a [I]good[/I] evopsych article (or if possible, a whole journal!)

I'm proud to say that my girlfriend is both a straight A student, and very beautiful, and she is fantastic. However, i have dated dumb. It wasn't any fun. I had to explain everything, even simple spellings, to the dumb broad. I don't know where they found guys to survey for this, and have them agree with it, but this is just wrong.

the whole "smart girls ulgy, hot girls dumb" is bullshit, reality is always grey you can have just as "in-depth" conversation with most people, they aren't dumb, they just don't like your very specific interests and act uninterested (which could be interpreted as dumb)

[QUOTE=The Baconator;36104390]the whole "smart girls ulgy, hot girls dumb" is bullshit, reality is always grey you can have just as "in-depth" conversation with most people, they aren't dumb, they just don't like your very specific interests and act uninterested (which could be interpreted as dumb)[/QUOTE] Hell, some people who have made really stupid life decisions are quite interesting!

[QUOTE=The Baconator;36104390]the whole "smart girls ulgy, hot girls dumb" is bullshit, reality is always grey you can have just as "in-depth" conversation with most people, they aren't dumb, they just don't like your very specific interests and act uninterested (which could be interpreted as dumb)[/QUOTE] Not to mention I've met a few really intelligent women who were hot as hell. But hey, generalizations are cool, right?

[QUOTE=Contag;36103831] What is the worth of evopsych? How is it falsifiable? Why is so much of evopsych research tend to just be a reification of social norms? Point me towards some research which is comprehensive enough to account for, say, the genealogy of change in the conception of MSM/homosexual/lesbian/thirdsex/etc. (or you know, national-states to fealty, divine kings and so on) over the last 3,000 years and I won't snort at the field [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [/QUOTE] How is it any different from any other field of psychology? Again, if you think evo pysch is bullshit just because you don't like SOME of the theories presented, and because it cannot be conclusively proven the way something in say, cell biology can, then you should also hold the same standard to just about everything in psychology, since none of it is actually ever conclusively proven simply because of the nature of it's work. So basically what it seems it comes down to is you are writing off an entire field of study just because SOME people in it presented a few theories that YOU don't like.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;36105173]How is it any different from any other field of psychology? Again, if you think evo pysch is bullshit just because you don't like SOME of the theories presented, and because it cannot be conclusively proven the way something in say, cell biology can, then you should also hold the same standard to just about everything in psychology, since none of it is actually ever conclusively proven simply because of the nature of it's work. So basically what it seems it comes down to is you are writing off an entire field of study just because SOME people in it presented a few theories that YOU don't like.[/QUOTE] Please don't compare studies of mental disorders, personalities, personal reactions to events, etc. to sexist bullshit like "women like pink because it helped them pick berries!" and "it's okay for me to be creeping on 14 year old girls because she's sexually developed and it was okay in the past". Is there some evopsych that's legitimate? Yes. Keyword some. But most of the time, people aren't talking about that. They talk about sex (or race) specific "evolutionary psychology" to justify social norms, prejudice, and personal wishes. Psychology - actual, legitimate psychology - looks at trends in people and predicts how an individual might react to certain situations and actions, given their personality, past experiences, emotional state, etc. "Evopsych", in terms of when it's used for discussions about sex differences, takes social norms and struggles to make up logical reasons for them, then uses those 'explanations' to say that entire groups will act according to what prejudiced white straight males believe or want, trying to justify discrimination with bullshit "science". Psychology looks at facts and uses them to help people. "Evopsych" creates shaky explanations in an attempt to justify discrimination against people. Do you see the difference? Psychology is "you seem to be a *blank* type of person, let's work through your issues in a way best suited to your personality." Evopsych is "this one survey found that people think that women that look dumb, weak, and exploitable seem to be more 'attractive' for exploiting, so that means people find them more attractive, and if people find someone attractive that means it's okay to fuck them because it's hard-wired into our brains due to evolution, so it's totally okay for me to exploit women for my own sexual pleasure", disregarding the fact that the article itself says that: -they were just testing to see if women that "look dumb" also look more exploitable -the same men found different women attractive for different situation (short-term relationship vs long-term relationship), not overall attractiveness -only jerks without empathy really picked up on the "dumb-looking" part, with men that actually cared about people didn't really have distinctive trends -"looking dumb" was mostly based on facial expressions and body language in a still photo, not physical features Again, I'm talking about "evopsych" as it is generally brought up in conversations like these, not potential legitimate evolutionary psychology studies. [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;36084204]Holy shit, does it really bother you that much that some of the theories presented in evo pysch might turn out to be true? Nobody is saying we have to keep following those behaviors. Because of that reason exactly. A lot of feminists feel threatened by some of the theories presented in evo pysch I guess, although I have no idea why. No one in evo pysch is stating we have to keep following that behavior.[/QUOTE] Except that "evopsych" is generally brought up not to explain behavior, but to justify discrimination and bullshit social norms based on what prejudiced people believe behavior is or should be.

I can't stand stupid people in general.