Female+sexy+skeptic = 1 in a million? // Men are better than women?

[soon2bepro]

Why is it so hard to meet thinking females? Do they hide from us?

Is it that there's only 1 of them per 100 equally intellectual men?

Personally I think the second is true. (And rational men are hard to come by also) My impression for years (and until a couple of years back) was that this is mostly or only because of social conditioning. But seriously, how long now have girls been averagely better at school/college than men? Yet women don't excel in anything. Yes they're better on average, because men are lazy, but the very best are always men.

For almost ANY activity or career, intellectual or not, among the world's top 100, only 1 or 2 are women, at most (depending on the activity). Even in activities that women proportionally do much more of than men, like say cooking.

It seems girls just don't have that drive to become the best at something like us men do. And from an evolutionary/psychological point of view it makes all the sense in the world. Males have to be the best in order to become the alpha, dominating male. Females will only want the best male (or the best they can get); while females are fine with being only a bit above average level, since each male wants want them all, but they only want 1 male (and that's all the alpha male is willing to tolerate).

The last part isn't necessarily so the way society works now, but in my opinion, natural selection doesn't work fully for human beings anymore. (no need to adapt to the enviroment when you can fully adapt the enviroment to yourself, or nowadays even adapt yourself to the enviroment! In fact the way natural selection works for human beings now, is that almost a lot of different mutations, unfit to the enviroment, will stay alive and probably reproduce too, thus creating a species where most individuals would be a lot different to each other). So I think this info should be included in our genes. Even if natural selection is still working fully, society is advancing much faster; so natural evolution can't be expected to keep up.

However, I don't want to automatically throw out social conditioning as an important cause. For most of the human history until very recently, most women were raised under the concept that they are inferior to men. Even in the past couple of generations, most girls were raised with the objectives of being pretty, painting their fingernails, get a decent job, marry, have kids, etc; but didn't receive the pressure to compete and win that boys receive. From sports to videogames to strategy games to other kinds contests of many kinds.

The only thing I can think of where women seem to excel at more than men is at being beautiful, sexy or otherwise looking good (beauty contests, etc); and I'm not even sure this is true. (however subjective the "ranking" is)

Bottomline is, I think women just aren't competitive. Not nearly as much as men, at least. Both because of genetic/natural selection and social conditioning.

(By the way, if you know any thinking, decent looking girl, feel free to send them my way [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottomline is, I think women just aren't competitive. Not nearly as much as men, at least. Both because of genetic/natural selection and social conditioning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never mind beauty contests, you've never been to a fall fair?
Women are very competitive, but until recently it's been focused on areas that we don't measure academically.

Your quest 'female+sexy+skeptic' is not a very common mix of traits. One hurdle is that skeptics tend to challenge social norms so most skeptical females would tent to dismiss a lot of the standard 'sexy' behavior as arbitrary nonsense.

Best bet is to adapt to feeling that a touch of normal sexiness and a large dollop of skeptical intelligence is what is Really sexy.

luckyme

[madnak]

Is it possible for a woman to be smart and skeptical, but not attractive? Hell, even a total bear with those qualities is something to write home about. But uh, if you really just want to have your cake and eat it too, you won't get a whole lot of sympathy for guys like me who put looks firmly in the "optional" category. Keep in mind that you're looking for a coincidence of attributes - and each attribute you add lowers the likelihood.

I mean, assume that 10% of women are "really smart" and 10% of women are "really sexy." In that case, only 1% of women are both. Now imagine you're looking for the top percentile of women in looks and brains - you've already narrowed your prospects to 1 in 10,000, without even considering deal-breakers and diseases and age and mental illness, etc etc. I say if you're looking for a combination of attributes that rare, then you should try to re-evaluate to some degree. Obviously it's not as simple as I'm making it out to be - I'd like to find a girl in the top 1% for intellect and in my general age range, but I will also be exposed to a large proportion of such women due to my habits and interests. The other traits I like also tend to correlate with intelligence, so my chances are decent.

But it's unlikely that beauty correlates with intellect, so you may be reducing your probabilities even further. Moreover, a super-smart and super-sexy woman, due to her rarity and desirability, will be in high demand. Do you have a similar combination of rare and desirable traits that make you competitive?

I say, limit your "required" attributes as much as possible - I just don't get along with people who aren't smart, but I consider that unfortunate. For the most part, leave yourself open to people of all different types, and hope to eventually love someone for their qualitative traits, rather than quantitative traits. The alternative is to settle, because if you're looking for quantitative traits with a 1 in 3,000,000 likelihood, you're highly unlikely to find such a mate through your entire life.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it so hard to meet thinking females? Do they hide from us?

Is it that there's only 1 of them per 100 equally intellectual men?

Personally I think the second is true. (And rational men are hard to come by also) My impression for years (and until a couple of years back) was that this is mostly or only because of social conditioning. But seriously, how long now have girls been averagely better at school/college than men? Yet women don't excel in anything. Yes they're better on average, because men are lazy, but the very best are always men.

For almost ANY activity or career, intellectual or not, among the world's top 100, only 1 or 2 are women, at most (depending on the activity). Even in activities that women proportionally do much more of than men, like say cooking.

It seems girls just don't have that drive to become the best at something like us men do. And from an evolutionary/psychological point of view it makes all the sense in the world. Males have to be the best in order to become the alpha, dominating male. Females will only want the best male (or the best they can get); while females are fine with being only a bit above average level, since each male wants want them all, but they only want 1 male (and that's all the alpha male is willing to tolerate).

The last part isn't necessarily so the way society works now, but in my opinion, natural selection doesn't work fully for human beings anymore. (no need to adapt to the enviroment when you can fully adapt the enviroment to yourself, or nowadays even adapt yourself to the enviroment! In fact the way natural selection works for human beings now, is that almost a lot of different mutations, unfit to the enviroment, will stay alive and probably reproduce too, thus creating a species where most individuals would be a lot different to each other). So I think this info should be included in our genes. Even if natural selection is still working fully, society is advancing much faster; so natural evolution can't be expected to keep up.

However, I don't want to automatically throw out social conditioning as an important cause. For most of the human history until very recently, most women were raised under the concept that they are inferior to men. Even in the past couple of generations, most girls were raised with the objectives of being pretty, painting their fingernails, get a decent job, marry, have kids, etc; but didn't receive the pressure to compete and win that boys receive. From sports to videogames to strategy games to other kinds contests of many kinds.

The only thing I can think of where women seem to excel at more than men is at being beautiful, sexy or otherwise looking good (beauty contests, etc); and I'm not even sure this is true. (however subjective the "ranking" is)

Bottomline is, I think women just aren't competitive. Not nearly as much as men, at least. Both because of genetic/natural selection and social conditioning.

(By the way, if you know any thinking, decent looking girl, feel free to send them my way [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was the case for the last thousands of years.

[soon2bepro]

Thanks madnak, I understand what you're saying.

Actually I would settle for a girl a bit above my intellect level (which isn't all that high), but who's willing to learn, and looks can be far from a top model. 90% girls from 15 to 25 are fine by me. So are 70% from 25 - 30 years old, and some 50% from 30 - 35. At least where I live. (I've been to several places where this doesn't seem to hold true)

In any case, I understand that the activities I choose and friends I have give me a lot of increased chances to find a girl with these characteristics. But even if I do, there's the chance she won't like me, and the chance I won't like her for some other reason (like maybe she's a psycho or whatever).

Lestat: Women are partially competitive, but really, don't try and compare them to men's competitiveness. Men want to excel at something. Some want to excel at everything they do. Others won't do something unless they're interested in being the best in that area. This just doesn't hold true for women. Or at least I don't see it. Please try to enlighten me.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought this was the case for the last thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes indeed, but the more science advances (especially medicine, technology), the more this is true in my opinion.

I think this started mostly with the development of agriculture.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it so hard to meet thinking females? Do they hide from us?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess many do hide it. I think that its true that most men are afraid/threatened by smart/driven/successful women.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
90% girls from 15 to 25 are fine by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean 18 to 25? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Anyhow, good luck. If the ratio is off, that could present a big problem - if there are 3 smart men for every smart woman, and all 3 smart men want to be with smart women, well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out things aren't going to work.

But is there really a disparity? For example, do women have lower average IQ scores? I know women rarely go into math and science, but that's getting better (if slowly).

[Propertarian]

Whether or not natural selection is still exerting pressure upon us or not, it moves so,so,so slowly that we still have largely the same hardware as we did tens of thousands of years ago i.e. that one in which women's fitness is based primarily on appearance and men's fitness is based on "success". Ever heard a straight woman say: "women are more beatiful/better looking than men"? More than half the women I know have told me that.

Personally, I think societal pressures are pushing women to try and become "sucessful" and to "think more"; things were even worse in terms of "smart, skeptical ladies" 50 or 100 or 150 years ago, and it wasn't natural selection that changed it (it doesn't do anything noticable over such a small time period).

As for your whole equation, a sexy woman simply has very little extrinsic incentive to become good at anything else. Being sexy alone gets them good mates and $.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it so hard to meet thinking females? Do they hide from us?

Is it that there's only 1 of them per 100 equally intellectual men?

Personally I think the second is true. (And rational men are hard to come by also) My impression for years (and until a couple of years back) was that this is mostly or only because of social conditioning. But seriously, how long now have girls been averagely better at school/college than men? Yet women don't excel in anything. Yes they're better on average, because men are lazy, but the very best are always men.

For almost ANY activity or career, intellectual or not, among the world's top 100, only 1 or 2 are women, at most (depending on the activity). Even in activities that women proportionally do much more of than men, like say cooking.

It seems girls just don't have that drive to become the best at something like us men do. And from an evolutionary/psychological point of view it makes all the sense in the world. Males have to be the best in order to become the alpha, dominating male. Females will only want the best male (or the best they can get); while females are fine with being only a bit above average level, since each male wants want them all, but they only want 1 male (and that's all the alpha male is willing to tolerate).

The last part isn't necessarily so the way society works now, but in my opinion, natural selection doesn't work fully for human beings anymore. (no need to adapt to the enviroment when you can fully adapt the enviroment to yourself, or nowadays even adapt yourself to the enviroment! In fact the way natural selection works for human beings now, is that almost a lot of different mutations, unfit to the enviroment, will stay alive and probably reproduce too, thus creating a species where most individuals would be a lot different to each other). So I think this info should be included in our genes. Even if natural selection is still working fully, society is advancing much faster; so natural evolution can't be expected to keep up.

However, I don't want to automatically throw out social conditioning as an important cause. For most of the human history until very recently, most women were raised under the concept that they are inferior to men. Even in the past couple of generations, most girls were raised with the objectives of being pretty, painting their fingernails, get a decent job, marry, have kids, etc; but didn't receive the pressure to compete and win that boys receive. From sports to videogames to strategy games to other kinds contests of many kinds.

The only thing I can think of where women seem to excel at more than men is at being beautiful, sexy or otherwise looking good (beauty contests, etc); and I'm not even sure this is true. (however subjective the "ranking" is)

Bottomline is, I think women just aren't competitive. Not nearly as much as men, at least. Both because of genetic/natural selection and social conditioning.

(By the way, if you know any thinking, decent looking girl, feel free to send them my way [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the competitiveness but I believe this is the equation female + sexy + skeptic = very rare. For myself I have only found TWO girls ever that fit the criteria and both relationships would never work out due to circumstance.

I have actually tried quantifying this but it is hard to give an exact % of the population that would fit into those 3 categories. I also put Caucasian in because that is my preference, also age, geographical location and they would probably have to be single, which further limits the field.

All in all. They are out there, but are definitely an endangered species.