The truth about how love and attraction really work

Post Reply New Topic

I 100% agree with you OP, this is how attraction usually works for many people. A person's physical appearance gets them the opportunity in the first place, while their personality/mental attributes ultimately decides whether or not we consider them 'fit' to be a boyfriend/girlfriend. If we consider someone ugly, then it doesn't matter how nice someone is or how compatible they are, we simply don't give them a chance.

BUT this isn't the way attraction works for all people.

I believe this is why some people are disagreeing with you because for them, their attraction to someone works a little differently. Maybe for some people, looks truly don't matter or they're willing to date someone they find "ugly" if they like their personality (or their wallet)


I think the truth is that everyone has different ways of determining a future romantic partner and while I believe that your method is certainly the majority, this isn't the case for everyone.

What consensus? We just concluded that there is no consensus about if and how MHC relates to human mating. As for the position of chimp in human evolution, it's disputed, and I anticipate we will see revisions in this area in the future. That we are a hybrid species was not the consensus when I came to the autistic community, but right now it is the accepted consensus. There is particularly consensus that we got immune system genes from Neanderthals, the very genes that are part of MHC.



I find ethology (the science of animal behavior), and particularly human ethology the most interesting research area when studying human mating. Ethology has a long tradition in investigating animal behavior, and it seems to be the proper tool to understand mating in both humans and animals. Most importantly, it's based on proper scientific principles and not wishful thinking about future break-through in neuroscience.

Actually, I can see that neuroscience and ethology could complement each other, but at this point, neuroscience doesn't have the proper tools or knowledge to be able to explain anything related to behavior. This is why you use sweeping generalizations like "inner chimp". You simply have nothing to back your claims up with.

What makes you think that? I had three kids that are 17, 26, and 28 now.

Fundamentals of these ideas, including MHC-dependent mate selection are part of scientific consensus in ethology as well.

... In this WP forum it seems like it is mostly unsuccessful men that are complaining all the time. Few people that are in successful relationships participate, even if it should be those that had the most relevant advice to offer.

Agree in principle, but my experience tells me that marriages gotten into out of desperation often are sub-optimal.  Self-improvement for me is more about understanding your true preferences and acting on them rather than trying to appear NT and learn all the dating tricks.  In the end, being single could be better than being in a poor relationship.

No, it's not because ethology centers around understanding behavior and not around understanding genetics. You think that behavior is just "some dull rituals", and don't think it is important to understand them, and that we have some "inner chimp" that guides all of our actions. This kind of is science (ethology & behavior) vs superstition (believing neuroscience can explain actions and that actual behavior doesn't need to be understood).

This is unbelievable.

Two publications on MHC-dependent mate selection referenced in publication you linked here were written by Dr. Dustin J. Penn, Senior Scientist of Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences.

He has published dozens publications in this field that contribute to ideas I support.

Why is that unbelievable? I have no issues at all with the MHC article. It's well written and I find it rather natural that it should refer to ethology articles. The article also doesn't support your idea of "the inner chimp", rather is pretty critical about the relevance of MHC for human mating. They describe the situation as it is (non-settled), and their results don't settle it rather they conclude that African Americans don't support the hypothesis while Caucasians do. Additionally, their research asked the question "do MHC similarity matter for married couples" and not "do we have an inner chimp" or "is odor important for attraction".

So, I'm unsure why you think the article supports your ideas. To me it is more like a failure to support them, and combined with the genetic evidence from the other MHC article, I think we can conclude that you have been disproved. There is no "inner chimp", or at least there is no support for the "inner chimp" concept.

This study thus supports the hypothesis that the MHC influences mate choice in some human populations.

First of all, this is not what I would call "rather critical":


Second of all, hypothesis I support is that mechanisms of biological attraction are suppressed in unfavorable conditions and environment. Sunlight is one of the most important factors. In North American climate most African Americans do not achieve optimal vitamin D concentration level, which regulates or mediates a lot of gene expressions associated with MHC region among other things. It means we can expect to less significant or missing pattern of HMC-dependent mate selection in this demographic.

Therefore we can conclude of this study is evidence in support of my hypothesis.