Are Attractive Women More Likely to Be "Crazy"?

Post Reply New Topic

I've learned all men are bitchy.....some more than others.

I for one love making broad sweeping generalizations about whole genders.

Unfortunately, there being only 3, I'm rather limited in my options

Last edited by twoshots on 27 Feb 2009, 10:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

What do you call man with half a brain?

Gifted.

^ I like it.

Oh whatev. What's the right half of my brain ever done for me anyway? I should've left it years ago

Wait... that's not very nice! I can understand waiting to judge until you get to know them better, but to be nasty to attractive women just because of how they look? Not all pretty girls are narcissistic hoes, by any means! In fact, in my experience, it's the middling-appearance ones who are painted to within an inch of their lives who are the narcissistic hoes....

Are attractive women more likely to be crazy? Only the ones that are interested in me! ZING!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yl3UMO-TkE[/youtube]


Yay! Arbie is back.

what do you call a woman with a whole brain?

ret*d

I believe that's known as boom, tish

But you have some logical fallacies in your argument --

1. You propose that the dominant males at a young age (the age at which teens first start having sex) will be dominated by the more intelligent. Look back on high school -- was this the case? My experience was that the popular kids tended to be those who looked older/mature earlier, thus more like a man at age 16, or more like a woman. No intelligence correlation there at all, just early maturity (and often, they were considered the most attractive). If they conceive, BAM, they've done their evolutionary part, genes are passed on, and they have that much more chance of dominating the gene pool.

2. Even if an intelligent man did pass on his genes, there's no certainty his offspring would be intelligent. Both he and the mother could have latent "stupid" genes (heterozygous for intelligence).

3. Wouldn't an intelligent man use birth control? I know I did, most of the time. I could probably have had several kids by now, but my desire to have a life and not be weighted down by kids shaped my decisions. Stupid people -- not the case at all, they don't plan ahead or have foresight. Thus the ample supply of future McDonald's workers in the ghettos and trailer parks of our fine land. This is what is scary -- stupid people are reproducing faster, at an alarming rate, to the point where at the age of 33 (my age), some of my dumb counterparts could already be grandparents, while I am childless.

I think it is you who needs to play again, because I see a very weak argument in your rebuttal.

yes.

You're assuming that the trends you've observed in highschool are remotely representative of long term mating trends among humans. Which is absurd. If intelligence (NOT classic highschool brainyness) was not advantageous, it would not have been selected for (which it obviously has).


Intelligence is highly heritable. It may or may not become diluted or whatever, but statistically speaking smart people will tend to have smarter offspring.


Again, your assuming that the current dysgenic trends can be extended backwards. I am quite familiar with dysgenic fertility (it's one of my favorite topics when I'm expounding the glories of eugenics )

twoshots... I question whether intelligence or adaptability, which is the trait more suited for progeny and evolution. While intelligence may contribute to one's ability to adapt, there are numerous examples of simple organisms being much more adaptable and therefore able to survive. Also - in a saturated market, purely bestial analysis on the dynamics of romantic interaction isn't the most practical argument. Just my thoughts.


M.

I imagine attractive women are more likely to be mentally stable, but there would not be all that strong a correlation.

Intelligence isn't really the heart of the argument; we would expect by the same reasoning that any adaptive personality trait would be correlated with looks, up to and including stability. But intelligence is clearly adaptive in humans to at least some degree (barring the modern trend toward dysgenic fertility). My argument? Homo ergaster was D.U.M.B.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that.