Are Smarts and Sex Appeal Mutually Exclusive?

September 7, 2010


Natalie Portman Without Makeup





Kim Kardashian Without Makeup






“I’m on the airplane…love wifi,” Kardashian, 29, wrote. “I am sitting next to an Air Marshall! Jim the air marshall makes me feel safe!”

US Magazine, reporting KK tweet



This past weekend a very interesting line of discussion developed on the most recent comment thread; namely, whether smart women are unattractive. Apparently, fans of Jane Austen in particular are lacking sex appeal. Who knew? Fellow blogger Obsidian had this to say:

The gals who go on and on about Jane Austen and the like, Kim Kardashian and Halle Berry they ain’t…It has long been known that the most brainy gals tend to be not so hot looking…not necessarily Creature from the Black Lagoon, but definitely not smokin’ either.

I replied that this is a matter of personal opinion, figuring it’s not my job to tell anyone who to be attracted to, right? To each his own and all that. Obsidian’s reply:

No, it’s not. It’s a matter of objective reality.

Really.

I offered Natalie Portman as just one example of a beautiful, brainy woman. Beautiful because she is often cited as having nearly perfect features, and brainy because she attended Harvard, while making the Star Wars films. She told the New York Times “I don’t care if [college] ruins my career, I’d rather be smart than a movie star.” She’s been nominated for an Academy award, and won critical acclaim on Broadway. This led to a Portman vs. Kardashian showdown, with Portman the clear winner, but as reader Brendan pointed out, the real issue is the claim that smart women are not attractive:

The point Susan was trying to make is that there are smart, hot women — Portman is certainly an example of that and is not the only one by a long shot. Even if a guy were to agree with you that KK is “hotter” than Portman, that doesn’t prove the statement that “smart girls aren’t hot”, because, again, even if KK is hotter than Portman, Portman is still hot, and she’s probably at least twice if not three times as smart as Kardashian is.

If you walk around Princeton or Harvard or Stanford or what have you, pretty much all the women are very smart due to the admissions standards. And some are quite hot. Again, the point isn’t “ah, but there are hotter women at USC than at Stanford” — because again that doesn’t prove the statement that smart women are not hot. In my experience in elite academic institutions and then in the legal and business world, I’ve noted quite a few smart women who are quite hot, and then there are quite a few who are not — this is also the case among smart men.

Anecdotal Evidence

I thought it might be fun to go fishing for details on the intelligence of celebrities, and it was. Here’s a list of beautiful brains in the entertainment industry – keep in mind I haven’t even scratched the surface of doctors, lawyers, bankers, entrepreneurs and other famous professionals.

  • Emma Watson: attends Brown
  • Jennifer Connelly: attended Yale and Stanford
  • Kate Beckinsale: studied French and Russian literature at Oxford
  • Geena Davis: IQ 140, Mensa
  • Sharon Stone: IQ 154, Mensa, enrolled at Penn at age 15
  • Claire Danes: attended Yale
  • Elisabeth Shue: attended Harvard
  • Brooke Shields: attended Princeton
  • Madonna: IQ 140
  • Nicole Kidman: IQ 132
  • Shakira: IQ 140
  • Asia Carrera: IQ 156 (but, ahem, very poor judgment)
  • Zooey Deschanel: gifted singer songwriter, briefly attended Northwestern
  • Danica McKellar: UCLA grad, math whiz
  • Loren Rabinowitz: New Miss Massachusetts, 2010 Harvard grad, double major in pre-med and English

Unfortunately, I could find very little information on stupid hot women, possibly because of libel laws. For those of you who like ‘em hot and dumb, I suggest checking police records for DUIs, rehab stints, sex tapes, etc. Not to mention quotes like the one from airhead Kardashian, above.

  • Jessica Simpson: high school dropout
  • Paris Hilton: high school dropout
  • Britney Spears: IQ 100

Empirical Evidence

I. Beauty Boosts High School GPA

No genes linked to intelligence have so far been discovered and verified, though it’s surely a matter of time. In the interim, there is some limited data that speaks to the link between beauty and brains. A study at the University of Miami found that beauty has a significant effect on GPA:

Physical attractiveness, they conclude, “has a positive and statistically significant impact on GPA for female students,” as other studies have found (the effect also exists for males, but not in a statistically significant way—that is, it may be due to chance).

[Is it] that years of extra attention and rewards from teachers made attractive people more confident, smarter (because they received lots of positive feedback, they studied more) and thus genuinely more capable? For now, all we can say is that attractiveness and a winning personality boost grades when you’re young, and may have an enduring effect once you enter the work force.

Obviously, certain kinds of classes, e.g. Drama or English, where grading is subjective, provide a greater opportunity for bias toward good-looking women than quantitative subjects.

II. IQ 6 Points Higher for Very Attractive Females

In Satoshi Kanazawa’s Beautiful People are More Intelligent articles, he reports on findings from the The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. (Hat tip: PJL) Over 15,000 young Americans (mean age 22) were given an IQ test and rated for attractiveness by an interviewer. (The interviewer did not know the test results). The results were clear for both men and women, with the female results shown below:

Kanazawa posits the following theory:

If more intelligent men are more desirable to women than less intelligent men, because they achieve higher status, at least in the modern environment, and if physically more attractive women are more desirable to men than physically less attractive women, then there should be assortative mating of intelligent men and beautiful women, and of less intelligent men and less beautiful women.  Because both intelligence and physical attractiveness are heritable, such assortative mating should create an extrinsic (non-causal) correlation between intelligence and physical attractiveness in the next generation.  Children of intelligent men and attractive women should simultaneously be intelligent and beautiful, and children of less intelligent men and less attractive women should simultaneously be less intelligent and less attractive.

III. Intelligence Was Linked to Health and Attractiveness 60 Years Ago

Lewis Terman, a Stanford professor and author of the Stanford-Binet IQ test, believed that gifted children needed special education. He studied 1,500 children (800M, 700F) with IQs of 140 or higher and in 1951 published the following lists of traits about his “termites:”

  1. Slightly larger, healthier and more physically attractive
  2. Superior in reading, language usage, arithmetical reasoning, science, literature and the arts
  3. Superior in arithmetical computation, spelling, history and civics
  4. Spontaneous, with a variety of interests
  5. Able to learn to read easily; read more and better books than average children
  6. Less inclined to boast
  7. More emotionally stable
  8. Different in the upward direction for nearly all traits


So there you go. Beautiful women are smarter than other women, in aggregate. Of course, none of this may matter much. Research clearly shows that most people marry others of similar intelligence and attractiveness.

Smart women should not apologize to anyone for their intellectual prowess, nor should they be told they’re unattractive because they’re brainy.

Men have every right to select less intelligent hot women, but in the immortal words of Dorothy Parker:

You can lead a whore to culture, but you can’t make her think.

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Anonymous

    I’ll stand by what I’ve stated elsewhere. Brains give a woman a 1-point boost, and you need them to be a 10, period.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Brains give a woman a 1-point boost, and you need them to be a 10, period.

      Wow! How’s that working out? Getting laid much?

  • PJL

    I’ve always felt sorry for those who insist on quantifying love. There is an ethereal element to it, the presence of which does not mean that we can’t speculate on those concrete things to which men and women are attracted. All I’m asking for is *some* deference to that element of attraction expressed by Yeats when he wrote “Brown Penny”:

    O love is the crooked thing,
    There is nobody wise enough
    To find out all that is in it,
    For he would be thinking of love.

    Till the stars had run away
    And the shadows eaten the moon.
    Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny,
    One cannot begin it too soon.

    Funny story, somewhat relevant: it’s not always mysterious like this. Sometimes it’s fairly easy to understand why things don’t work between two people. I was recently on a first date and the girl asked me about my work. She listened intently and then asked me about the relevancy of my work to the coming apocalypse foretold by the Mayan calendar. She’s got a completely straight face. I laugh. She just looks puzzled. I figure I’m going to throw my cards on the table and say “you’ve either got a great sense of humor or are a complete idiot.” I did not get a kiss.

  • Rum

    In a way, this post is kinda dumb. Reasonable people already know that high intelligence is attractive per se, as regards both men and women in the sexual market place. Stupid people have dull faces and say dull things. This is no secret.
    The problems come from the fact that lots of people think they are smarter than they truly are and so have unrealistic self-evaluations. Plus, there is a lot about human social interactions that cannot be learned by any means but experience. And so introverted, bookish sorts may take a while to those things out.
    But high intelligence is like being rich or being thin.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    Maybe I am physically attractive then as I spent a lot of time being praised in school/my studies and excelled in my subjective areas of academics (Drama in particular) lol ;)

    But yeah the idea that smart and beautiful can’t go together? Please. I do subscribe a bit to the idea that an smart woman can be incredibly intimidating to a man – but really all that says about that particular man is that he’s insecure with himself. A man who is confident and secure is probably going to love a woman who is smart, attractive and knows how to handle herself with class. It’s kind of hard to have a decent conversation with someone who has nothing to say except “the weather was nice for tanning today.”

  • Brendan

    I’m not so sure about the intimidation factor. There may be some men who are, indeed, intimidated by a woman who is much smarter than they are. More likely, he doesn’t have that much in common with her to begin with, and that’s a bit off-putting, but this comes across as “being intimidated”. I do think that where the woman has a markedly higher intellect, this can be a big challenge for both persons in the relationship because it undermines hypergamous attraction. In other words, I don’t think a woman can easily have a sustained high (intimate partner type) respect for a guy whom she totally and utterly schools intellectually — that undermines her attraction to him in hypergamous terms, and he’s probably not hypergamously interesting for more than a relatively short while (she may have flings with such men, of course). This is why, I think, you tend to see smart women still selecting men who are generally more or less as smart as they are (just as women, regardless of their height, strongly prefer men who are at least a bit taller than they are). Hypergamy is real, and intellect is one aspect of it among others, when it comes to LTR-type selection.

    Now, having said that, are there some smart men who would prefer a less-smart woman? Yes, but that’s increasingly going by the wayside now due to the widespread practice of assortative mating — at least among the very smart. Among the very smart, you tend to find very smart matched with very smart, probably because it’s generally quite hard for very smart people (male or female) to really relate well to people who are markedly less intelligent in an intimate relationship.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I don’t think a woman can easily have a sustained high (intimate partner type) respect for a guy whom she totally and utterly schools intellectually — that undermines her attraction to him in hypergamous terms, and he’s probably not hypergamously interesting for more than a relatively short while (she may have flings with such men, of course).

      Agree 100%. A woman in this situation will begin to feel either ashamed of him, or sheepish about her own intelligence. Either way, it’s the beginning of the end once that happens, as she is working against hypergamy at that point.
      .
      As for men feeling intimidated, I’m reminded of a painful scene in He’s Just Not That Into You, where one woman was reassuring another that the reason she wasn’t getting a second date was because the guy was intimidated by her intelligence and professional success. Of course, the real reason was that he just wasn’t, well, you know.

  • Chantilly

    ” I do think that where the woman has a markedly higher intellect, this can be a big challenge for both persons in the relationship because it undermines hypergamous attraction. In other words, I don’t think a woman can easily have a sustained high (intimate partner type) respect for a guy whom she totally and utterly schools intellectually ”

    I don’t like schooling guys. On the otherhand I don’t like being schooled by them either. An equal is preferred, where we trade of student-teacher roles, or just learn something together.

    The best would be teaching something, to other people, together.

    It’s hard to find a dynamic, co-teacher kind of a guy though.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @PJL
    Ha! No doubt her own knowledge about the topic comes from the flick 2012. Nice Yeats there, btw, and a very important point. There is no absolute standard of beauty, or what makes a woman loveable.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    Oh I agree that it’s not always an intimidation thing – that’s why I said if a guy is intimidated by a smart women, it probably says something about him as well as the idea of them together.

    You do need to be on the same level to be able to maintain something.

  • http://www.marriedmansexlife.com Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life

    Intelligence + health/sex appeal require good lifelong nutrition. Thus they tend to go together.

    There’s a ton of evidence that higher intelligence males have better sperm counts and motilty, are taller, and more physically attractive.

  • Chantilly

    “A woman in this situation will begin to feel either ashamed of him, or sheepish about her own intelligence.”

    Yes! I had a boyfriend once where I avoided having my friends meet him. I very slowly introduced him to a few of them, and then would leave the room when he started talking because I did not want them to look at me like, “WTF?”

    They surmised the only reason I was with him was because of his good looks and the sex, and they were right.

    I’ll never do that again. No matter HOW good looking or how good the sex. At most I’ll keep a guy like that on the downlow as a booty call and nothing more. Or maybe take a cruise with him so I can show off the arm candy to people I’ve never met before and will never see again.

  • Obsidian

    Hello everyone,
    Well! Seems my little comment the other day has really struck a raw nerve. Good! I’ll respond in kind over at my place on the morrow. Stay tuned.

    But what I will say right now is that not only is Ms. Walsh wrong, wrong, wrong about KK and NP, but the astrology supports the former over the latter. KK has a much stronger Venus AND Asc ruler than does NP, both of which are hugely important factors when gauging one’s appearance and beauty. Moreover, KK’s Moon is nearly Full (in Pisces), another huge indicator for a Woman; NP’s Moon is in Virgo, not classically considered a smokin’ hot babe.

    Look, I realize that this blog, and this area of the internet in particular – where mid to upper middle class, STEM-related, “name” college attending White folk convgregate and they tend to have a mutual admiration society thing going on. But the reality is, that gals who attend Hillary’s alma mater don’t tend to be KK – that’s just the way it is. Moreover, when it comes to guys, a gal’s IQ is a bit overrated. But, like I said, I’ll deal with all that on the morrow.

    Wait for my Sign…

    O.

  • Nisie

    Susan- 100 is an average IQ. There is no real tie between iq and mental illness which can lead to arrests, rehab, etc. And 1 out of 4 students who drop out have an IQ over 110.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Nisie
      You’re right, 100 is average. I wasn’t suggesting a link between IQ and mental illness. I don’t think the celebrities who do those things are mentally ill, they’re just incredibly spoiled and self-indulgent. I’d call them “dumb.” I included that kind of behavior because Kim Kardashian had a sex tape scandal, which makes her stupid, IMO. Although you could also say that Asia Carrera, a porn star with an IQ of 156 is “dumb” too. Obviously, there’s something other than IQ that drives reckless behavior. The point is not to hate on women who drop out of school – the point is to refute Obsidian’s claim that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and physical attractiveness.

  • Snowdrop111

    “Moreover, KK’s Moon is nearly Full ”

    Double entendre intended?

  • 108spirits

    I wouldn’t put much stock into what Obsidian, a self-confessed chubby chaser and who’s into astrology (lol), has to say about women’s hotness and intelligence. Seriously what kind of guy (a 40+ y.o to boot) assesses women’s attractiveness with f’ing astrology? :D

    A woman’s smarts don’t add much if at all to her sex appeal (unless the smart is related to the art of love making) but it will definitely add plenty to her relationship appeal. Doesn’t apply if her “smarts” are in areas like women’s studies & other lame degrees / credentials, obviously.

  • http://www.gameformarriage.blogspot.com/ Augustine DeCarthage

    Mark me down as liking the smart ones. Necessary, but not sufficient. Nothing wrong per se with girls who aren’t smart, but that’s my preference.

  • Snowdrop111

    I think that with both intelligence and looks, there may be a “don’t have to” factor that comes into play.

    I heard once on some show (sorry, I forgot which–some podcast) that some people feel a really hot girl doesn’t study certain subjects in school because she “doesn’t have to.” A girl/woman who’s extremely hot doesn’t have to study extremely hard on a really hard subject to make her way in the world, so unless she gets a high amount of pleasure from doing so, she will probably spend her time doing more fun things.

    In the same way, looking that level of hot takes a lot of work and time, especially past a certain age. An extremely intelligent woman knows she “doesn’t have to” have the kind of hairdo that requires a $200 touchup every six weeks (for instance) and work out four hours a day. A bathing suit model (for example) watches every calorie and works out at least two hours a day, and has to make the scene in order to be seen and get gigs. Not that anything’s wrong with that…but an extremely intelligent woman knows she “doesn’t have to” go quite that far in order to make her way in the world and be attractive enough to make her way in the world without making looks her full-time job. She can look good enough to make her way in the world with the $35 haircut and twice a week workouts and the occasional Italian dinner out with friends, clients, etc. and a little wine and a little black swing dress that hides the middle section and maybe not a tan. (you get the idea.)

    A woman who’s going to make her way in the world from her looks has to pretty much make it her full-time job. If she gets her full amount of pleasure from doing so that’s her decision…but she “doesn’t have to” study calculus. A woman who’s going to make her way in the world from her brains may have to network and socialize but she doesn’t have to spend two to four hours a day at the gym, spa, and salon. At some point it wouldn’t be as pleasurable for her to spend that much of her time that way. So she’s an 8 instead of a 9 or a7 instead of an 8 due to a “don’t have to” factor.

    There are only so many hours in a day, and I submit that some intelligent 6’s or 7’s could be 8’s if they spent more time on their looks but they “don’t have to.” It’s not that they let themselves go and think it doesn’t matter. It’s that it takes a lot more time, money, and effort than guys probably realize to stay that good looking, and for some women who know they can make their way in the world without making beauty their full-time job, they get more pleasure out of spending that time on other things (but wouldn’t get pleasure out of becoming completely dowdy.)

    I’m intelligent and formerly pretty enough to know it can bring more trouble than intelligence brings. The kind of jealousy and one-upmanship and marginalizing that a woman’s intelligence brings out in some men is nothing compared to the kind of jealousy and accusations and shenanigans that being beautiful can bring out in some men. No woman ever died or got acid thrown in her face from being thought a dour, no-fun, humorless clod. Quite a few have travelled and died rich. Anne of Cleves wasn’t pleasing to Henry VIII’s sight and not only did she keep her head, she asked for and got her own castle and got to live out her days enjoying her hobbies independently…all for letting Henry out of the unthinkable task of having sex with her.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Snowdrop

      A woman who’s going to make her way in the world from her looks has to pretty much make it her full-time job. If she gets her full amount of pleasure from doing so that’s her decision…but she “doesn’t have to” study calculus.

      I think this is very true. That’s why I have a lot of respect for beautiful women with established careers in modeling or acting who pursue an education, and value their intelligence. And no respect for a porn star with an IQ of 156.
      There are some women, those lucky few, who are beautiful and also do enjoy serious intellectual challenge. I recently saw an exceptionally pretty dermatologist, for example. I suspect these women were raised in such a way that they were never allowed to coast on their looks, but were held to a very high academic standard by their parents.

  • Snowdrop111

    P.S. Is Kardashian’s tweet supposed to be dumb because she wasn’t supposed to tell where the air marshall was sitting? Is that it?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      P.S. Is Kardashian’s tweet supposed to be dumb because she wasn’t supposed to tell where the air marshall was sitting? Is that it?

      Haha, actually, I think the air marshall was dumb to confess his job. But no, it was the damsel in distress, helpless female bit that makes her sound dumb.
      “Jim the air marshall makes me feel safe!” sounds like something from a children’s book.

  • Dilithium

    While we’re on the smart set among actresses, let me put in a vote for Tricia Helfer. A super-hottie, to be sure; but I was (pleasantly) surprised to see from some interview shows that she’s extremely bright and eloquent, able to speak in whole paragraphs very clearly and thoughtfully. If you’re curious, check out these short videos:

    .

    http://video.syfy.com/shows/battlestar/behind_the_scenes_3/q_a/tricia-helfer-q–a-part-1/v79643

    .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyvH1eeiDZw

    .

    Not necessarily the next Einstein, but definitely the farthest thing from a bimbo. And, she doesn’t seem to have had one of those fancy, credentialed East Coast educations, but went straight into modelling from a young age. So, proof positive that outstanding beauty can be accompanied by naturally good brains.

    .

    Note that the opposite tack works as well: the next Einstein can also be pretty good-looking. Check out physicist Lisa Randall of the Harvard faculty and originator of some seriously abstruse theories about non-flat extra dimensions. I saw her give a lecture once, and not only is she smarter than any ten people you know put together, I thought she was also something of of a head-turner with a strong resemblance to Jodie Foster. Your tastes may vary, of course, but the point is that even an ultra-smart woman can have above-average looks at the same time.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dilithium

      Re Tricia Helfer, agree 100%. You get bonus point for nominating someone who isn’t 22 or less :-)
      .
      Good call on Lisa Randall too! Gorgeous brainiacs may not be a dime a dozen – very few have superior genes in all areas, after all, but I suspect that even outside the entertainment industry there are quite a few extremely attractive academics and other professional thinkers. Actually, my SIL is an extremely attractive physicist, as it happens.

  • Obsidian

    108,
    First of all, how much astrology have you actually studied/read to even discuss it? Are you making an educated opinion, or are you merely talking out of the side of your neck?

    Second, what my personal tastes and preferences are, are irrelevant, and I said as much on the other discussion thread. I don’t have any dog in the fight here, as neither Kardashian or Portman do anyting for me to be quite frank. As you said, I tend to go for Women who actually have some meat on the bones. But that doesn’t stop me from seeing the world as it truly is, either.

    You know, I remain fascinated by guys (it’s aways guys) who consider themselves to be oh so educated, but suddenly come unglued by the mere mention of astrology. They attempt to poo poo it, though they haventb studied one book. Not. One. How is it possible to be an educated person and do this?

    Third, what do you have against 40 year olds? And how does one’s age have anything to do with astrology? Please explain?

    Fourth, since you don’t know anything about the topic, you wouldn’t know that there are ancient rules regarding how to assess such things by way of the horoscope. Agan: why do you have such a strong reaction to this, 108? What is it about astrology that unsettles you so? And why do you feel the need to personally attack me if you have such a strong case to make?

    O.

  • http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com white and nerdy

    I wouldn’t put much stock into what Obsidian, a self-confessed chubby chaser and who’s into astrology (lol), has to say about women’s hotness and intelligence. Seriously what kind of guy (a 40+ y.o to boot) assesses women’s attractiveness with f’ing astrology? :D

    It’s worse than that. Obsidian was run out on a rail from The Spearhead for making up BS such as claiming the men of The Spearhead don’t take showers and for throwing hissy fits when a few people asked him some questions. All of this is when he’s not talking about Elijah Muhammed, the anti-white black supremacist racist who came up with the myth that a mad scientist created white people 6000 years ago, in very positive terms. That’s equivalent to talking positively about David Duke.

  • Jon

    i’m going to say that you can’t really compare those two pics.

    Natalie has a serious/slightly annoyed expression that’s much less attractive than Kim’s slightly amused/deer in the headlights look.

    Try this for Kim: http://bit.ly/8Z7xjj

    and this for Portman: http://bit.ly/conu0Z

    Both those pics have makup, but it’s pretty natural makeup.

    Honestly, I think Kim does have a better body (natalie is a little flat chested), but I feel like Natalie has the better face.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jon
      Thanks, those are actually two really good pics. Obviously, as a woman I have different standards than the guys do, but for beauty and symmetry, I’d say Portman trumps Kardashian by at least 4 points. I predict that KK will look heinous by the time she’s 50.

  • Vjatcheslav

    “They attempt to poo poo it, though they haventb studied one book. Not. One. How is it possible to be an educated person and do this?”

    For starters: how much comets, planets and other celestial bodies have been discovered because something was wrong in astrological charts by not taking those celestial bodies into account? None.

    And why haven’t astrologers predicted, for example, the location and magnitude of the recent earthquake in New Zealand? Or anything like that? (Remember: the prediction must be in clear, unambiguous language, and clearly preceding the fact self.)

    Let me rephrase your question: how is it possible to be an educated person and believe in astrology?

  • PuffsPlus

    You know, you don’t have to read books on creationism or homeopathy to know that those are pseudoscientific “woo” and BS. Anyone can write a book. People have alleged in books to have been abducted by aliens and then returned to Earth. Doesn’t mean it really happened. Astrology has no scientific evidence in its favor. None. Zilch. It has no mechanism that is scientifically plausible or possible. It’s bunk.

    If you really believe in it, Obsidian, then your intellectual credibility is shot and your BS detector is seriously malfunctioning.

  • Obsidian

    Vjatslav,
    LOL. Nice try, but it won’t work. The answer is, you haven’t read ANYTHING about astrology. Which is fine, and you’re entitled to your opinion.

    I;m just not interested in it.

    Nor are the billions around the world who think astrology offers something insightful.

    Now go run along and play…

    O.

  • Obsidian

    White & Nerdy,
    Yes, indeed it was worse than that, though you got the whole thing wrong with regard to the Spearhead. The point of contention, and what got the White guys over there’s blommers in a twist, was my having the gall to suggest that I didn’t understand why guys who putatively have everything on the ball were so very bitter and vitriolic toward Women on a whole to the point of misogyny, and here I am, a Man who by right has every reason to hate the world, having found some measure of happiness in the world. What is wrong with this picture? Well, among other things, I said something that wasn’t supposed to be said, and two, I was the wrong person to say it – how dare I, a lowly Black Man, say such things!

    I invite everyone hear to head over there and see for themselves how it all went down. Try looking it all up in the Spearhead archives.

    As for Elijah Muhammad, I only made ONE reference to something he said, and in no way are he and David Duke comparable.

    Yo Man, I gotta ask – how’s that hatred and vitriol working for ya? Has it made you happier? Gotten you laid? Gotten you a raise? Gotten you more blog hits? Why don’t you write something for the Spearhead, at least you’d be putting your bile to some good use.

    O.

  • PJL

    Astrology, at least originally, was created by the ancient Babylonians and Greeks because they believed that the gods sent messages through the night sky. The Babylonians codified it some thousands of years ago. Unfortunately, since the codification the night sky has changed–the Earth and the sun move throughout space–and the 4000 year old Babylonian codification no longer matches reality. So, even if the gods send us messages through the night sky, the current astrological models are off.

    That’s beside the point. The interesting point is that science has found a correlation between IQ and attractiveness. As others have pointed out, this doesn’t entail a correlation between smarts and attractiveness, neither does the graph provided really demonstrate a correlation between high IQ and attractiveness. It’s one thing to notice that people with an IQ of 100+ tend to be more attractive; another entirely to claim that people with an IQ of 120+ tend to be more attractive than those between 100-120.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      It’s one thing to notice that people with an IQ of 100+ tend to be more attractive; another entirely to claim that people with an IQ of 120+ tend to be more attractive than those between 100-120.

      Good point, although Terman’s work focused on 140+. I think Kanazawa’s theory is interesting – that men with superior intellect genes and women with superior beauty genes are bound to produce smart, beautiful people over time.

  • Lavazza

    One point is that some women equate smartness with irreverence and obnoxiousness. If an intelligent man wants to have a happy stable family, he has greater chances of success with a woman who is just adequately intelligent and who is impressed with his intelligence and willing to follow his lead.

  • Lavazza

    A fashion photographer said that it is really hard to book French male models, since they all go to prestigious private schools and have busy school schedules and social schedules. He found that the parents were almost always a pair of a successful man and a model/beauty queen woman.

  • Vjatcheslav

    “LOL. Nice try, but it won’t work. The answer is, you haven’t read ANYTHING about astrology. Which is fine, and you’re entitled to your opinion.

    I;m just not interested in it.

    Nor are the billions around the world who think astrology offers something insightful.

    Now go run along and play…”

    The answer you give is false, lacks any insights and looks like a nephew of the courtiers’ reply (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php). And since when is an argumentum ad populum valid logic? You’re just full of shit here (and if astrology is so uninteresting, why did you bring it up in the first place?). If you’re so obsessed about race, don’t go fuelling racist presuppositions that blacks are intellectually inferior as you suddenly seem bent to.

  • Snowdrop111

    I know a number of married women about 50 who don’t have children and haven’t held paying jobs for a very long time. It’s not my business, but they say that if they held a 9 to 5 they couldn’t stay as skinny. None of them is “hot” by movie star standards but they have and maintain a “look” that doesn’t necessarily cost a lot of money in terms of salons, spa treatments, plastic surgery, but take a lot of time. This “look” successfully attracts men who will foot their bills. I don’t know how to describe this “look,” but outdoorsy/North Face/sharp angular. It translates in some areas of the USA as successful and sharp in a certain way. Not in bars and clubs but certainly among those slightly older. What I am getting at is these women have said many times that if they held a 9 to 5 they wouldn’t get the time to work out and wouldn’t be as skinny. Their husbands sometimes seem to want them to get 9 to 5’s but they won’t. It’s not my business. I know it sounds like sour grapes and if I had extreme discipline I could diet that skinny while holding a full-tiime job (But I wouldn’t be able to be on the Internet so much, which is where too much of MY pleasure in life comes from.) Well, anyway, in my opinion, those women are kind of making their way in the world from their looks even though their “look” is not a movie-star look. I am not talking about women with young children or women who volunteer a lot. I fully support stay-at-home mothers. These women seem to make their image their full-time job, and it works. (meow.) They talk a lot about name brands. It seems to me they sometimes that knowing and talking about the “right” name brands and circulating in the right “art” circles is their full-time job, and their husbands are in agreement. Their husbands say things like “My wife taught me how to dress to be successful” but their wives complain “when I ask my husband how work went he shuts me down.” It’s their business. My boyfriend is a government drone and talks my ear off. I can’t read the Internet or a book in the same room because he wants to tell me everything that’s in the paper that day. It is the sweetest music to my ears, as long as I went without the companionship of a man who not only has a wider range of interests than I do, but a sharper and more inquisitive mind and takes pleasure in talking to me about those things. There’s no one-upmanship because we each consider the other smart. I think. Somehow it just works. Where was I going with this? Maybe if I worked on having a successful look that won the financial support of men, I would have had more male companionship earlier, and maybe this is sour grapes. But in my opinion, women my age without kids who don’t hold a 9 to 5 so that they can take vacations and work out during the daytime hours 9 to 5, are making their way in the world from their looks. I guess that’s kind of snotty. I know I couldn’t do it because I never had that good of looks, but these aren’t movie star women who wear makeup and get plastic surgery. There’s a “natural” look that takes too much time and dedication to hold a 9 to 5 as well. Meow Meow.

  • Ellen

    PJL said “It’s one thing to notice that people with an IQ of 100+ tend to be more attractive; another entirely to claim that people with an IQ of 120+ tend to be more attractive than those between 100-120.”

    I think this is what you are pointing out? One of the interesting results in that literature on attractiveness, which you can clearly see in the table that Susan reproduces, is that the correlation between attractiveness and IQ is waaaay stronger for the left side of the distribution (below 100) than it is for the right side. There is still a positive correlation for the right side, but it’s so weak that it’s probably impossible to notice IRL. Which is what I thought was funny about Obs. argument in the previous post — if smart people don’t go to clubs, then he of all people should know, from observation, that smart people are on average more attractive!

  • Vjatcheslav

    “In the meantime though, to paraphrase a famous Man – I have studied the matter, sir.

    You have not.

    No investigation, no right to speak.”
    .
    The arrogance is quite impressive here. You’re the one with the burden of proof, not I. So for a start, you could answer my questions (that you’re not able or willing to do that speaks many volumes), and maybe you could also explain why something that would be very useful if true is so rejected by the groups in the best position to know whether it works or not. If some astrologer were able to predict when and where an earthquake would strike, and how strong, that would be fantastical – at least we could evacuate people if the earthquake will demolish their homes.
    .
    “Uh, and exactly when did I say that astrology had anything to do with science? ”

    If astrology really works, we could measure it. Science is the only known reliable method to do that.
    .
    “I mean, the mere mention of it brings these guys outta the woodwork, LOL. If astrology is so much hookum, why speand any time at all addressing it? I mean, I think playing the lottery is a waste of time, but you never hear me rail on about it; I simply move on with with my life. Why can’t the astrology haters do the same?”

    Astrology is proof of bad thinking, and it is a lot more dangerous than wasting some money on a lottery because it influences much more behavior than lotteries. Anyway, if one were to follow your reasoning racism would also become something unspoken of – some persons don’t care about it, but other persons are rather vociferous at any mention of racism, so everyone should just shut up.

  • Ellen

    Oops, I should have said, if really smart people don’t go to clubs, then he should know that more intelligent people are more attractive than less intelligent people.

  • Vjatcheslav

    A little bit of reading on astrology: http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

  • dragnet

    How exactly are we defining “smart”? The lowest IQ on the list above was 132—so I’ll take that as the cut-off for the sake of this discussion. I think I would say that the proportion of physically attractive women is greater below IQ 132 than above it. Listing a few hot actresses with Mensa cards isn’t all that persuasive a counterargument and for reasons that should be obvious.

    My larger position isn’t that “smart” women are necessarily lacking in sex appeal, just that “smart” women are more likely to engage in bad reproductive trade-offs and/or behaviors that make them less appealing to men generally. For instance, that “smart” women are more likely to put off reproduction for career, making them older—and less attractive—when they finally do wish to settle down. And so on. I’m not sure so sure that the 130+ IQ exerts a biological influence that makes these women less attractive, just that being smart tends to result in behaviors that aren’t, in general, reproductively friendly.

    I also do think that women tend to overrate how much their intelligence matters to a man. It’s not nearly as important as her looks, age and personality.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @dragnet
      I didn’t set out to argue that smart women are more attractive. I was simply calling BS on Obsidian’s claim that smart women are beat, though not as bad as the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Faint praise. It was actually when I began researching the topic that I found three empirical studies finding that physical attractiveness is positively correlated to intelligence.
      .
      Your point about the choices smart women make is valid – and explains why educated societies have lower fertility rates.
      .
      I would also agree that intelligence is not at the top of the list for most men, though I think most intelligent men have a threshold of intellectual vivacity for a LTR. Brendan/Nova explained this quite well, I think.

  • Obsidian

    Vjatslav,
    Those who think Black folk are inferior certainly don’t need me to use as their “evidence”, they’ve been doing that for a very long time now. At any rate, perhaps you’re familiar with the Humanist magazine’s “attack” on astrology? That was what, 35 years ago. Can you even remember the scientists who signed off on it? Something tells me most people right here can’t.

    Look, it’s OK if you haven’t actually read anything astrologically related and serious. If you want, I’d be more than happy to provide you with a reading list; that way, you’ll be a lot more informed in your “anti” arguments.

    In the meantime though, to paraphrase a famous Man – I have studied the matter, sir.

    You have not.

    No investigation, no right to speak.

    *shrugs*

    O.

  • Obsidian
    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      Thanks so much, you’ve given me a lot to work with here, and that doesn’t even include the astrology piece, which is a total red herring in this discussion.
      .
      1. The post does not address what men find hot. You made the statement that smart women are unattractive. I daresay women are permitted to join in a conversation about who among us is attractive? If we haven’t figured it out already, we all learn quickly at puberty what men find attractive and what they don’t. You act as if cultural and biological standards for beauty are encrypted and can only be revealed by a Y chromosome. I specifically said that you had this is a matter of opinion, not that you were wrong. You were the one who said this is irrefutable, a matter of objective reality.
      .
      2. I offered three pieces of empirical evidence that physical attractiveness is positively correlated to IQ. Since that attacks the heart of your argument, it’s surprising that in your rebuttal you chose to ignore those studies, and not attempt to provide contradictory empirical evidence. I assume that’s because none exists.
      .
      3. I offered anecdotal evidence of a sample of smart, beautiful women. They’re not the only ones, nor are they more than a small percentage. I did not say they were hotter than anyone else, only that they were known for their beauty. As Brendan/Novaseeker pointed out, it’s not a question of comparison – the question is whether smart women are hot. The answer is yes, many are.
      .
      4. You offered anecdotal evidence of what? Hot dumb women? Do you have IQ data for the women in Maxim’s Top 100? For all you know, there may be some real brains in there, which would demolish your argument. In fact, Chelsea Handler comes to mind – while I would not consider her hot, unless skank = hot, she’s certainly smart.
      Let’s consider your source: Maxim. Playboy it ain’t. Not a lot of gray matter required to enjoy Maxim, no sir. The Washington Post describes its core demographic:

      misogynistic recliner jockeys

      As Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

      There are some other lists on Maxim you might find interesting. They published a list of the 10 Least Appealing Women and included both Tina Fey and Pam Grier. Fair enough. Then they published a list of 5 Women We’re Not Supposed to Want But Do and included Tina Fey! So yeah, not a lot of credibility over there.
      .
      5. I don’t understand why time frame is relevant in this discussion. You mentioned that some of the names on my list have passed their expiration date. Since we’re talking about the evolution of the species to favor those who are both attractive and smart, I would think Helen of Troy would be relevant if we had her IQ. Furthermore, if you’ll check Maxim’s list for 2009, you won’t see extensive overlap between last year and this year. What happened to last year’s hot women? Are they now less attractive because Maxim says so? Surely you know that those lists are cooked up by a small group of editors sitting around – they’re not based on any poll – and they have diversity quotas for race, age, big boobs, little boobs, etc. Something for everyone that might buy Maxim.
      .
      6. The ignorance of your statement that smart people have less sex appeal, which is why they have fewer kids is mind boggling.
      From Wikipedia:

      Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth, education, and urbanization. Mortality rates are low, birth control is understood and easily accessible, and costs are often deemed very high because of education, clothing, feeding, and social amenities. Further, longer periods of time spent getting higher education often mean women have children later in life. The result is the demographic-economic paradox.

      Converseley:

      In developing countries on the other hand, families desire children for their labour and as caregivers for their parents in old age. Fertility rates are also higher due to the lack of access to contraceptives, generally lower levels of female education, and lower rates of female employment in industry.

      If one accepts that environment plays a role in developing intelligence, then this actually proves my argument, not yours.

  • Vjatcheslav

    “Wrong. I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Quite the contrary, sir. If you wish to discuss astrolology with me, I require you to know what you’re actually talking about.”

    Define what you consider to be astrology. And yes, if you want to say that astrology is true, you’ll have to prove it.
    .
    “Now show me documented studies of people ruined and made worse for having their horoscope done or reading an astrology book.”
    Nancy Reagan consulted a astrologer so that her husband, the president of the United States, would have his meetings on “good days”. Anyone who has that kind of influence could be dangerous – what if the astrologer had said “nuke the USSR”? And reading an astrology book isn’t dangerous in and of itself, and neither is having your horoscope done. Following the horoscope, when it errs (which will be often, considering the lack of proof for astrology), is what is dangerous.

    “my bad, made a typo; what I meant to say was, how well did science do in predicting the New Zealand earthquake? Or for that matter, the Chile earthquake? Or the Haiti earthquake? Or the earthquake in DC what, a month or so back? What’s the predictive record for science here, V? You tell me.”
    Scientists know that they don’t know how to predict when an earthquake will occur, so they don’t do it. Anyway, your question is rather irrelevant – how would we be sure that astrologers, using an unproven method, don’t just copy the predictions of scientists in these cases?

    “Have you heard of Nick Campion? Charles Harvey? Charles Carter? Olivia Barclay? William Lilly? These are all British asgtrologers. Please read up on them and holla back when you’re done.” Just dropping some names isn’t very impressive – you could at least point to some interesting article on their site or so. Nick Campion looks like he is more concerned with the history of it, and since you refuse to respond to my questions in a meaningful way I’m not going to waste my time on the others. Anyway, this is the courtiers’ reply in full force.

    “Anyway, if one were to follow your reasoning racism would also become something unspoken of – some persons don’t care about it, but other persons are rather vociferous at any mention of racism, so everyone should just shut up.

    O: Ah, so now we’re back onto the race thing. LOL. You’re funny. In a “they’re all laughing AT you” kind of way…”
    Ah, the old argument ad hominem. Can’t you really find some more subtle fallacies?

  • Obsidian

    PuffsPlus,
    Uh, and exactly when did I say that astrology had anything to do with science? Please run back that direct quote from me, because i must’ve missed typing that. I’ll wait.

    Again: I have noticed, consistently over the years, that those who poo-poo astrology the most – almsost always guys of a certain profile (“nerdy”, atheist, etc), tend to do so without actually knowing anything about astrology itself. Again, I’m all for informed, educated critique. What I can’t resepct are those who attempt to bash something that they’ve never investigated themselves, then claim to be “scientific”. The very idea is absurd.

    Perhaps a bigger question is simply this: WHY are those who are so “scientific”, so very afraid of astrology? I mean, the mere mention of it brings these guys outta the woodwork, LOL. If astrology is so much hookum, why speand any time at all addressing it? I mean, I think playing the lottery is a waste of time, but you never hear me rail on about it; I simply move on with with my life. Why can’t the astrology haters do the same?

    It would really be nice to actually engage a “skeptic” of astrology who actually knew what they were talking about. Now, that’s what I call progress.

    O.

  • Sox

    Many girls I’ve run into who’ve complained of intimidating men with their intelligence more likely drove them off with their massive egos. Many women are actually attracted to that kind of arrogance in men; the reverse, not so much. Guys value intelligence in women but not the sense of superiority that many carry along with them. Intelligence in women is only hot if it’s balanced out by some humility.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Intelligence in women is only hot if it’s balanced out by some humility.

      I think femininity is key, and some women display their intelligence in a way that is not at all feminine. I don’t mean ruffles and high heels here – it’s more a question of embracing one’s identity as a female. Arrogance is unattractive in anyone, so that’s fair grounds for disqualification. Some of the best-looking women have unpleasant personalities, regardless of their brains, because they’ve been catered to so much. I think it was Hamby who said, “Show me a beautiful woman and I’ll show you a guy who’s tired of her shit.”

  • Obsidian

    On the que3stion of whether guys are “intimidated” by smarter/more formally educated(?) Women, I must say that I find this discussion quite amusing. I say that because this has been an intense area of concern for Black Women, for the simple reason that most Black Men don’t go on to college. It seems that the racial convergence that some scholars like Andrew Hacker, have been talking about is beginning to become more and more apparent, if this current discussion is any indication.

    At any rate, the following is an article discussing the matter from a Black Woman’s point of view.

    http://www.essence.com/relationships/hot_topics_5/commentary_dumbing_down_to_date.php

    I intend to respond to this as well, for I note quite a few mistakes of this young lady’s intellect. More to come, but in the meantime I’d like to get the lady’s views here – do you agree or disagree with what the author is saying, and why/why not?

    Holla back

    O.

  • Obsidian

    V: The arrogance is quite impressive here.

    O: Look who’s talkin’…

    V: You’re the one with the burden of proof, not I.

    O: Wrong. I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Quite the contrary, sir. If you wish to discuss aastrolology with me, I require you to know what you’re actually talking about.

    V: So for a start, you could answer my questions (that you’re not able or willing to do that speaks many volumes),

    O: See above. Read slowly…

    V: and maybe you could also explain why something that would be very useful if true is so rejected by the groups in the best position to know whether it works or not.

    O: Again, you know not of what you speak.

    V: If some astrologer were able to predict when and where an earthquake would strike, and how strong, that would be fantastical – at least we could evacuate people if the earthquake will demolish their homes.

    O: Go and discuss the matter with the astrologers of New Zealand.
    .
    “Uh, and exactly when did I say that astrology had anything to do with science? ”

    V: If astrology really works, we could measure it. Science is the only known reliable method to do that.
    .
    O: How well did astrology do in predicting said earthquake?

    “I mean, the mere mention of it brings these guys outta the woodwork, LOL. If astrology is so much hookum, why speand any time at all addressing it? I mean, I think playing the lottery is a waste of time, but you never hear me rail on about it; I simply move on with with my life. Why can’t the astrology haters do the same?”

    V: Astrology is proof of bad thinking,

    O: No, the “attack” on astrology by the Humanist magazine is an example of bad thinking. Do you even know what I am talking about, son?

    V: and it is a lot more dangerous than wasting some money on a lottery because it influences much more behavior than lotteries.

    O: There have been documented studies as to what happens to big lottery winners. Have you heard of them? Now show me documented studies of people ruined and made worse for having their horoscope done or reading an astrology book. I’ll wait.

    V: Anyway, if one were to follow your reasoning racism would also become something unspoken of – some persons don’t care about it, but other persons are rather vociferous at any mention of racism, so everyone should just shut up.

    O: Ah, so now we’re back onto the race thing. LOL. You’re funny. In a “they’re all laughing AT you” kind of way…

    O.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    On the topic of astrology…

    I have actually had an interest in astrology myself for awhile now. Started out by reading my horoscope in the newspaper as a kid, then moved on to reading books about and such.

    Here’s the thing – astrology (even the super intense stuff with moons rising and the like) is pretty vague so that it can be applied to anyone. On top of that, if you are looking for something to apply, you’re obviously going to interpret it to fit what you want it to. While I can read the horoscope for Sagittarius and find characteristics that apply to me. But so do characteristics of other horoscopes. The idea that you could possibly predict everything about someone’s personality based on when they were born seems more than a little ludicrous to me. Aside from the fact that nurture can have a huge influence on someone, as well as their genetics and everything else…

    In the words of Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang theory – “For the record, that psychotic rant was a concise summation of the research of Bertram Forer, who, in 1948, proved conclusively through meticulously designed experiments that astrology is nothing but pseudoscientific hokum.”

  • Obsidian

    V,
    Have you heard of Nick Campion? Charles Harvey? Charles Carter? Olivia Barclay? William Lilly? These are all British asgtrologers. Please read up on them and holla back when you’re done.

    O.

  • Obsidian

    V,
    my bad, made a typo; what I meant to say was, how well did science do in predicting the New Zealand earthquake? Or for that matter, the Chile earthquake? Or the Haiti earthquake? Or the earthquake in DC what, a month or so back? What’s the predictive record for science here, V? You tell me.

    O.

  • Höllenhund

    Obsidian,

    the obvious problem with your attitude on TS was that you assume its commenters and authors were automatically dealt a better fate in life compared to you by virtue of being born white men. You don’t consider the possibility that many of them were born into poor families, were abused and screwed over by their divorced feminist mothers, were ass-raped in divorce court, had false rape / sexual harassment charges file against them etc. – that, in short, many of them were routinely victimized by women. Did you ever suffer any of that? Probably not, since you repeatedly stated that you like women in general. This opinion of yours is probably partially the result of your parents and grandparents having lived in stable, harmonious marriages. That’s what you’ve experienced and it gives you a biased outlook on women. Compare this to the worst of the worst of female behavior, which most commenters and authors on TS have apparently seen. Is it really surprising that they have a vitriolic and hateful attitude towards women? You have no right to judge them since you don’t know of their experiences. You say you have a right to be angry at the entire world because the cards were stacked against you. Well, it’s obvious many white guys on the TS follow the same logic.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    Honestly – there is a random pile of about 5 super intense ones somewhere in my closet, but I couldn’t tell you the names. I think regardless of who the writer is, the point still stands that overall it seems entirely unlikely that the position of the cosmos has that much of an influence on individual people.

    I’d again like to mention Bertram Forer, as I did when quoting Sheldon from Big Bang Theory. If you look at the wikipedia article on him – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertram_Forer it mentions the Forer effect.

    Ultimately people will look at something like a horoscope/personality test/etc and see what they want to see, and are more likely to pick out what is actually applicable. on top of that, the way astrology was originally designed is no longer applicable because the way in which the sky appears to us on earth has changed.

    It’s fun to sit around with your girlfriends and read you horoscopes and laugh about it, but is it something to base a rational argument on? Doubtful.

  • Maaku

    Your overlooking one thing, that is that your Hot/dumb list women have had extensive
    plastic surgery, realistically they’re not all that hot. Does pre surgical Paris hilton compare
    to Emma Watsons natural beauty..? I think not

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Maaku
      Admittedly, that list of three is very thin. There’s just not information online re who is unintelligent. There’s plenty of info about woman who use poor judgment, but that is not quite the same thing. The smart actresses are written up because people consider their intelligence a positive attribute.

  • Obsidian

    Just posted this over at my place, but since I got the ball rolling here, I thought to repost it:

    Over at Ms. Walsh’s site, I spoke a bit about the astrology extant in the charts of Kim Kardashian and Natalie Portman, most specifically Venus, the planet most associated with beauty and erotica. I said that Kardashian had a stronger Venus than Portman.

    Now, I’ve just come accross Jane Austen’s horoscope: Dec 16 1775 11.45PM LMT Steveston, England. 24 Vir 06.

    We note that Austen doesn’t have a strong Venus either; its in detriment, not in aspect to either of the Lights or the Asc ruler; moreover, her Venus is below the horizon. Compare to Kardashian, who’s Venus is highly elevated, in aspect to the Ascendant, and, note that her nearly full Pisces Moon is opposed by Jupiter, itself in the 10th house (highest point in the sky) and ruler of her Sagittarius Ascendant). For Austen’s part, the Moon is waning (going from full to new) and aspected by two malefics, Mars and Saturn. On this latter point, Simone du Beauvior had a very similar Lunar situation, and she wasn’t none to pleasing on the eyes either.

    Think I’ll take a look at the rest of the Maxim Hot 100 top ten’s charts. Five will get you ten that more often than not, each lady mentioned will have Venus highly emphasized in some way.

    Stay tuned…

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian
      Not sure how you got so off track, but no one made the claim that Jane Austen was hot, LOL. The woman died a virgin at 41. You brought her up by saying that gals who are Austen fans are unattractive. Which is ridiculous. Miss Austen’s appearance is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t think she was aiming for the Maxim 100.

  • Snowdrop111

    Someone said it’s usually men who come out of the woodwork railing against astrology. Someone else said smart women can come across as having big egos. Let’s see if I can be a smart woman and deliver an argument against astrology without coming across as a big ego. My other rants are alienating, so this is just an experiment. I’m a smart woman who is against astrology even though not believing in woo is the fastest way to unpopularity this side of telling other women not to hook up.

    I am interested in amateur astronomy. I learned why the constellations along the so-called zodiac *look* like the sun, moon, and planets are moving through them. I also know that those “constellations” are really not related to each other at all. They just “look” like a group of stars that are sort of together. In reality, one of the stars in, say, Taurus, might be farther away from another star in Taurus than it is from a star in, say, Gemini (just making that up) … it just LOOKS like those stars make a pattern called “Taurus” from Earth. A star that looks like it’s as close as the next star in Taurus, might be zillions of light years away but brighter, so it looks to humans on Earth like “Taurus” means something or holds together as something. It doesn’t. It’s just how those stars look from Earth, like they make a pattern. The stars in, say, “Taurus,” really aren’t related to each other at all.

    And the arrangement changes over time. V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y. In a few years (OK a lot) the “North Star” won’t be the same star anymore. The constellations won’t look the same either.

    Anyway, the biggest reason I think astrology is bunk is that what looks like “constellations” really aren’t. That’s just how things look from Earth, and how things look from Earth changes anyway. VERY SLOWLY.

    “Constellations” really aren’t anything. They just look like they are together but the stars in them might be zillions and zillions of light years apart.

    There are some stars that move together as a unit, formed out of the same gas cloud and/or locked in each other’s gravity. These are star clusters and double stars…not “constellations.” “Constellations” are nothing. There is a very interesting hobby passed down from father to son, observing and calculating which “double stars” are really doubles, moving in each other’s gravity, and which only look like doubles. The reason the hobby is passed down from father to son is it takes more than one lifetime to observe and make the calculations.
    Old astronomy buffs who have lost their eyesight can still make the calculations and use their time to contribute in that way. There are many, many calculations waiting to be carried out and see which doubles that look like doubles are true doubles. I oversimplified this but I don’t like to talk jargon and I’m too lazy to look up the notes from a class I went to where I learned about how they tell true doubles. All I remember is it takes sometimes more than one lifetime of observations, and fathers pass their hobby down to their sons. I think that’s neat. It’s more important to look for asteroids though, and it’s fascinating how they do that.

    One way I like to give information without seeming like a big ego know-it-all is try to remember where I learned something and say where I heard the piece of information. The book where I learned about the path the sun, moon, and planets take through the so-called “zodiac” was named “Stars and Planets.” I think it was this one…you can take a peek inside at page 10. http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Stars-Planets-Peterson/dp/0395934311/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283962861&sr=8-2#reader_0395934311 Page 10 explains why the sun, moon, and other planets seem to move through the same particular path (called the ecliptic) which happens to have the “constellations” of the Zodiac along it.

    It so happens that what look like “constellations” are along that path, but it only looks that way from Earth. Constellations really aren’t anything. The stars in them may be zillions of light years apart. I already said that, sorry.

    I like to explain things without sarcasm and also with “This is how I changed my mind on this issue.” This is how I changed my mind on astrology after so many highly educated people said things like “If the stars don’t influence us, how come the moon causes tides?” I learned that what looked to the ancients like “constellations” aren’t really anything. They just look like they form patterns to a human from earth. That’s all. I said that 1500 times. I AM a bore.

  • Sox

    Someone else said smart women can come across as having big egos.

    Nice post…was this meant to be facetious?

  • Obsidian

    Hi Hollenhund,
    Replies below:

    H: the obvious problem with your attitude on TS was that you assume its commenters and authors were automatically dealt a better fate in life compared to you by virtue of being born white men.

    O: Given the intrinsic value that is placed on merely being White, I don’t think what I said was off base at all.

    H: You don’t consider the possibility that many of them were born into poor families,

    O: Being poor and Whie no doubt isn’t fun, but being poor and Black is markedly worse. Only a deeply naive or a deeply pernicious individual would attempt to argue otherwise.

    H: were abused and screwed over by their divorced feminist mothers, were ass-raped in divorce court, had false rape / sexual harassment charges file against them etc. – that, in short, many of them were routinely victimized by women. Did you ever suffer any of that?

    O: Nope, can’t sat that I have. But that doesn’t mean that makes me immune from being mistreated by Women either.

    H: Probably not, since you repeatedly stated that you like women in general. This opinion of yours is probably partially the result of your parents and grandparents having lived in stable, harmonious marriages. That’s what you’ve experienced and it gives you a biased outlook on women.

    O: I don’t think so. I think my experiences have given me a unique insight into Women many guys don’t have, and all of them most certainly are NOT good, LOL. I guess it all comes down to how one chooses to deal with their challenges in life, I chose to make the most out of my life. Simple as that.

    H: Compare this to the worst of the worst of female behavior, which most commenters and authors on TS have apparently seen. Is it really surprising that they have a vitriolic and hateful attitude towards women? You have no right to judge them since you don’t know of their experiences. You say you have a right to be angry at the entire world because the cards were stacked against you. Well, it’s obvious many white guys on the TS follow the same logic.

    O: See above comment. In the end, it all comes down to what you will do with your life. From what I can tell, the Spearhead crew seems to choose to be mired in their own misery, bitterness and hatred. Let them have at it.

    O.

  • Collegegirl1

    Personally, I don’t LOVE this article as much as the others..I’m sorry :-( Because brains and beauty are COMPLETELY Different aspects and I feel it isn’t even an issue to be discussed. It’s not like pretty people don’t try hard in school and ugly people try to make up for it by studying a lot. In my high school, GORGEOUS girls were smart too, and then there were those really ugly girls who did not study AT ALL. From your article, Emma Watson and Zoey Deschanel are sooo pretty and look, they are very smart!! Even male actors (Benjamin McKenzie, James Franco—an article in this month’s Glamour Magazine–have attended amazing colleges and are incredibly hot!)

    Question–where did you get your statistics from–ex: the IQ stuff??

    I think it’s insulting to say you have to be one or the other–for those people that do say that.

    Also, where does talent come in? This women–Kim K..may not be the BRIGHTEST crayons in the crayon box but they are successful because they KNOW how to use their looks and power to make money. I feel even though that is kinda..well, sad..it is something I’m jealous of that they can have anything they want because they are successful businesswomen. It’s like Britney Spears. Is she the best singer? No..Christina was WAY better. But she was way more popular than Christina because of her image….yep, it’s true.

    I feel like the problem lies in young girls who look UP to Kim. Kim goes on and on about how you have to wear makeup at all times and look presentable and get full on lazer hair removable and have a hot boyfriend. That’s not someone ANYONE should look up to. You should look up to the Claires Danes’ of the world…people who have talent and are intelligent AND beautiful. Our society basically glamorizes ultimate stupidity…that’s the problem!!

  • Obsidian

    RT,
    I have to ask, what kind of astrology books were you reading? You might have seen the names I mentioned to V, if you did, you might want to check them out. A horoscope is comprised of many factors, not just one or two.

    O.

  • Average Joe

    I do subscribe a bit to the idea that an smart woman can be incredibly intimidating to a man – but really all that says about that particular man is that he’s insecure with himself.

    Actually it could mean that said particular woman is a condescending, stuck up bitch that doesn’t present well. Just saying.

  • Obsidian

    V,
    Replies below:

    V: Define what you consider to be astrology. And yes, if you want to say that astrology is true, you’ll have to prove it.

    O: Again no, I don’t. No one is going to prove anything to you, V. If you want to know about astrology, you’ll just have to go and do your own homework. Now go and read up on those astrologers I told you about…
    .
    “Now show me documented studies of people ruined and made worse for having their horoscope done or reading an astrology book.”

    V: Nancy Reagan consulted a astrologer so that her husband, the president of the United States, would have his meetings on “good days”. Anyone who has that kind of influence could be dangerous – what if the astrologer had said “nuke the USSR”? And reading an astrology book isn’t dangerous in and of itself, and neither is having your horoscope done. Following the horoscope, when it errs (which will be often, considering the lack of proof for astrology), is what is dangerous.

    O: LOL. Those aren’t actual studies, what you gave were some anecdotes. When you get those studies, come back and we’ll talk.

    “my bad, made a typo; what I meant to say was, how well did science do in predicting the New Zealand earthquake? Or for that matter, the Chile earthquake? Or the Haiti earthquake? Or the earthquake in DC what, a month or so back? What’s the predictive record for science here, V? You tell me.”

    V: Scientists know that they don’t know how to predict when an earthquake will occur, so they don’t do it. Anyway, your question is rather irrelevant – how would we be sure that astrologers, using an unproven method, don’t just copy the predictions of scientists in these cases?

    O: Then we have really nothing to discuss, right? Again – when have I said that astrology could accurately predict earthquakes, not only on this thread, but anywhere on this site? I’ll wait while you go and get the direct quote.

    “Have you heard of Nick Campion? Charles Harvey? Charles Carter? Olivia Barclay? William Lilly? These are all British asgtrologers. Please read up on them and holla back when you’re done.”

    V: Just dropping some names isn’t very impressive – you could at least point to some interesting article on their site or so. Nick Campion looks like he is more concerned with the history of it, and since you refuse to respond to my questions in a meaningful way I’m not going to waste my time on the others. Anyway, this is the courtiers’ reply in full force.

    O: Translation: I’m too lazy to actually get off my duff and do the hard work of finding out what astrology is all about…

    “Anyway, if one were to follow your reasoning racism would also become something unspoken of – some persons don’t care about it, but other persons are rather vociferous at any mention of racism, so everyone should just shut up.

    O: Ah, so now we’re back onto the race thing. LOL. You’re funny. In a “they’re all laughing AT you” kind of way…”

    V: Ah, the old argument ad hominem. Can’t you really find some more subtle fallacies?

    O: Sure, when you can actually get off your ass and read an actual astrology book or two…

    O.

  • Vjatcheslav

    “V: Define what you consider to be astrology. And yes, if you want to say that astrology is true, you’ll have to prove it.

    O: Again no, I don’t. No one is going to prove anything to you, V. If you want to know about astrology, you’ll just have to go and do your own homework. Now go and read up on those astrologers I told you about…
    .
    “Now show me documented studies of people ruined and made worse for having their horoscope done or reading an astrology book.”

    V: Nancy Reagan consulted a astrologer so that her husband, the president of the United States, would have his meetings on “good days”. Anyone who has that kind of influence could be dangerous – what if the astrologer had said “nuke the USSR”? And reading an astrology book isn’t dangerous in and of itself, and neither is having your horoscope done. Following the horoscope, when it errs (which will be often, considering the lack of proof for astrology), is what is dangerous.

    O: LOL. Those aren’t actual studies, what you gave were some anecdotes. When you get those studies, come back and we’ll talk.

    “my bad, made a typo; what I meant to say was, how well did science do in predicting the New Zealand earthquake? Or for that matter, the Chile earthquake? Or the Haiti earthquake? Or the earthquake in DC what, a month or so back? What’s the predictive record for science here, V? You tell me.”

    V: Scientists know that they don’t know how to predict when an earthquake will occur, so they don’t do it. Anyway, your question is rather irrelevant – how would we be sure that astrologers, using an unproven method, don’t just copy the predictions of scientists in these cases?

    O: Then we have really nothing to discuss, right? Again – when have I said that astrology could accurately predict earthquakes, not only on this thread, but anywhere on this site? I’ll wait while you go and get the direct quote.

    “Have you heard of Nick Campion? Charles Harvey? Charles Carter? Olivia Barclay? William Lilly? These are all British asgtrologers. Please read up on them and holla back when you’re done.”

    V: Just dropping some names isn’t very impressive – you could at least point to some interesting article on their site or so. Nick Campion looks like he is more concerned with the history of it, and since you refuse to respond to my questions in a meaningful way I’m not going to waste my time on the others. Anyway, this is the courtiers’ reply in full force.

    O: Translation: I’m too lazy to actually get off my duff and do the hard work of finding out what astrology is all about…

    “Anyway, if one were to follow your reasoning racism would also become something unspoken of – some persons don’t care about it, but other persons are rather vociferous at any mention of racism, so everyone should just shut up.

    O: Ah, so now we’re back onto the race thing. LOL. You’re funny. In a “they’re all laughing AT you” kind of way…”

    V: Ah, the old argument ad hominem. Can’t you really find some more subtle fallacies?

    O: Sure, when you can actually get off your ass and read an actual astrology book or two…”

    Your hypocrisy and incompetence are breathtaking. I’m done with this – if you are in any way an indication of the modal believer in astrology, there can’t be anything good in it. Just shut the fuck up.

  • Obsidian

    RT,
    LOL. You’re not really gonna go and make the case that everything you say and do in your life has a rational basis, now are you? Or, that the majority of what people say and do, has a rational basis – right?

    Come on.

    And yea, I know all about the Forer effect, it’s hard to be an astrologer without knowing all about stuff like that, the “attack” on astrology by way of the Humanist magazine in 1975, etc et al. I have to ask you, have you ever had your horoscope done, and if so, by whom, please? And you said that you had “five really intense astrology books” – I’d really like to know what they are, if you don’t mind.

    Thanks.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @RT
      One of Obsidian’s favorite tactics is to give orders – go read this book, get back to me with proof on that, etc. He’s made an argument with zero proof. The burden is his.

  • Obsidian

    Maaku,
    So what. Using cosmetics is a “cheat” then, isn’t it? The point is, that those Women sought to enhance their beauty, which in turn gets them increased attention from Men. Those who don’t choose to do this, be it in the form of cosmetic surgery or from a ttrip to Sephora, won’t.

    The really brainy gals are most likely NOT to do this. *shrugs*

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The point is, that those Women sought to enhance their beauty, which in turn gets them increased attention from Men.

      So would a man waking up next to KK without makeup wake her up or chew his arm off?

  • Obsidian

    Hi Snowdrop,
    Yea, on occasion, I’ve run accross a female debunker of astrology too, LOL, and like their male counterparts, they too dont seem to know a heck of a lot about ASTROLOGY itself. Like you. You know quite a bit about astronomy, but it is nothing like astrology, which is something entirely different.

    I’m a bit familar with the book you mentioned. Have you read Geoffrey Cornelius’ The Moment of Astrology? Or Richard Tarnas’ Cosmos & Psyche? Or Nick Campion’s books on the history of astrology? Those are all good starting points for understanding what astrology is all about and how it why it works as it does.

    O.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    @ Average Joe – Then why would a man find her intimidating in the first place?

    That’s sort of the issue I see with the idea of being intimidated by someone. The only time I’ve been intimidated by someone was when I’ve been in a very stressful situation and felt insecure myself. I’m more likely to be intimidated physically by someone who is much larger than I am, because my size and my ability to “fight back” physically if necessary is something I get insecure about. I don’t like appearing to be “weak.”

    If someone is a total arrogant bitch/asshole, they’re not so much intimidating as more unpleasant to be around in my opinion. Personally, I’m not intimidated by someone who thinks they know it all, and in some ways may be more academically inclined than myself. I usually think they’re a pompous idiot more than anything. But then again – I’m not someone who is easily intimidated.

    Some of my guy friends have said that they’ll feel intimidated by a woman because of looks/smarts/posse/etc during the approach stage more than the dating stage. Usually when it gets to the dating stage there’s likely to be something beyond the possible intimidation factor that’s going to kill the attempt to pursue something – e.g. being a heinous bitch.

  • PJL

    Yes, I had two points: first was that it doesn’t appear as if the correlation goes on as strongly indefinitely. Second, that IQ is only a potential that has to be actualized to matter. So, a girl with high IQ does not equal a “smart,” accomplished or intelligent girl–just a girl with a lot of potential. Compare Christopher Langan, IQ 190, with Albert Einstein, IQ 150. One revolutionized physics before he was 30. The other is 50+ and without any serious accomplishments.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So, a girl with high IQ does not equal a “smart,” accomplished or intelligent girl–just a girl with a lot of potential.

      Of course. But Obsidian’s point was that a smart woman – specifically a woman who enjoys Jane Austen (not the most inaccessible literature in the world) is bound to be unattractive. I hope I’ve provided a cogent argument that that’s bunk. At least more cogent that O’s.

  • Average Joe

    @Susan,
    Why do women continue to confuse beauty/pretty/glamour/style with sex appeal??
    “Sexy” is visceral for men and not everyone on the list is/was sexy. At least 10 are not!!!

    The following four are really the only women that qualify as “sexy”

    (155IQ) Sharon Stone & Asia Carrerra

    (140IQ) Madonna & Shakira

  • J

    @ Dilithium,

    Hi! I missed a post you wrote to me on the social dominance thread. I posted an answer to your questions on September 7, 2010 at 10:27 if you are still interested.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    @Obsidian
    “LOL. You’re not really gonna go and make the case that everything you say and do in your life has a rational basis, now are you? Or, that the majority of what people say and do, has a rational basis – right? ”
    .
    I don’t recall saying that everything has to have a rational basis. I believe what I said was – “It’s fun to sit around with your girlfriends and read you horoscopes and laugh about it, but is it something to base a rational argument on? Doubtful.” I hardly think that’s a sweeping blanket statement in claiming everything/everywhere about everyone has a rational explanation. What I said was astrology does not have a rational basis in my opinion.
    .
    You’ve been asked repeatedly to provide some sort of reasoning to explain why astrology holds any sort of merit and have yet to produce anything. Instead you jump to saying we should go do our own homework. When someone says something like that, they’re hardly persuasive. What they’re saying to me is that they don’t really have any solid evidence to support their case. In fact, if you were one of my students and had been charged with writing a persuasive essay on the subject you would have failed because you have no provided any sort of evidence. You seem incapable of responding to people who reply with evidence. In fact Snowdrop provided a great amount of detail on the matter and you simply reply by essentially saying astrology is different than astronomy. Then provide zero supporting evidence to further elaborate on your point.
    .
    Additionally, you seem to think you alone hold the key to what men find attractive and again pander about the idea that smarts and sex appeal are mutually exclusive. Given that I have a variety of guy friends there is one thing I’ve learned over the years – every guy has a different idea of what he likes, and it’s also flexible.
    .
    Megan Fox is on the Maxim list. Some of my buddies think she’s gorgeous, others think she’s absolute trash. When the whole Jennifer Aniston vs. Angelina Jolie thing went done, there were some guys who couldn’t fathom picking Angelina over Aniston. It’s going to depend on the individual and what it is they’re actually seeking. Some of my buddies have said they’ll bang a dumb chick, but they won’t take her home to mom.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Re Obsidian:

      In fact, if you were one of my students and had been charged with writing a persuasive essay on the subject you would have failed because you have no provided any sort of evidence. You seem incapable of responding to people who reply with evidence. In fact Snowdrop provided a great amount of detail on the matter and you simply reply by essentially saying astrology is different than astronomy. Then provide zero supporting evidence to further elaborate on your point.

      Exactly. Put up or shut up.

  • Obsidian

    Anyway, going back to the notion of a Woman having to “dumb it down” to be with a Man, this is what I said to one of my readers a little while back:

    “Hi Deery, I thought it might be a good idea if we broke up this discussion exchange into smaller parts, so we can get clear on exactly where we disagree, and why, OK? So, let’s take the first part, first…

    O: Oh, but you do, Deery. For you, and yes, I’m making this personal, because of the fact that you’ve been keen to mention this quite a few times before, the idea of class is huge for you. And I just want to know, such a thing is so hugely important for you? Why is it so vitally necessary for a guy to able to wax eloquent about Proust to you? You know what I mean here, Deery. What realworld difference does that make?

    D: Because if I happen to get on the subject of Proust, or the Crimean War, or Hobbesian theory, I would prefer someone who can get right there in the thick of conversation with me, rather than staring blankly, or even worse, getting resentful because I’m talking about such things. If my friends are all talking about such things in a group, I don’t want to have to pull him aside, and try to fill him in. I’d rather have someone who is already up to speed, rather than someone I would have to try to bring up to speed.

    O: OK. Let’s turn it around, shall we?

    Most Educated Sistas do NOT know Hip Hop. They know the kinds of Hip Hop they particularly like, but they don’t know the history or intricacies of the artform. Now, by comparison, many Brothas, do know it.

    Yet, I have yet to hear a Brotha making knowing Hip Hop inside and out a prerequisite requirement for considering a Woman for a mate, Deery. Personally, it doesn’t matter if my Woman doesn’t know what an SP1200 is or who used it, or that DMX’s entire album catalog debuted at #1 on the Billboard charts, or that Grandmaster Flash invented scratching and the crossfade function on a DJ mixer. Chances are, you didn’t know these things, yet, if we were together at a function and Hip Hop came up, I wouldn’t feel bad at all if you didn’t quite know what the rest of us were talking about. You see, in the grand scheme of things, though I feel passionately about Hip Hop, it ain’t a dealbreaker for me if you aint a walking Source magazine. Because our relationship turns on a pivot that is much more substantial than that.

    Please make the case as to WHY such a thing as you’ve desrcibed above is vital to a relationship? From where I sit, knowing about Hobbes and Proust is nice, but don’t a good relationship make. ”

    You can see the whole thing here:
    http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/sistas-cant-be-ms-ann/

    Holla back

    O.

  • Chili

    Telling yourself you don’t have a boyfriend because men are intimidated by your intelligence is about as self indulgent as telling yourself people think you’re whack because they’re intimidated by astrology.
    .
    LOL. Oh obsidian. Never change…

  • J

    @ Susan

    but for beauty and symmetry, I’d say Portman trumps Kardashian by at least 4 points.

    She has beautiful features and carries herself well. I agree with whoeverf said that she is the Audey Hepburn of our time.

    I predict that KK will look heinous by the time she’s 50.

    Which just goes to show how lifestyle can influence how one ages. KK has the genetic potential to be a really georgeous 50-something year old. Olive-skinned women tend to wrinkle less than fair ones. But I feel certain that between life in the fast lane and plastic surgeries, she will look horrendous at 50.

  • Obsidian

    More from the “dumb it down” discussion on my site…

    “D: Many people like their significant others to share their interests. It gives one a sense of commonality, and a shared “language” that is used to draw each other closer together. If someone can’t talk to you about things that you are very interested in, it does put up a huge barrier.

    O: Correction: WOMEN like it. Like I said in my example above, it ain’t a dealbreaker for a Brotha if you aint a walking Hip Hop encyclopedia, or a NFL archive. This is clearly a FEMALE concern. I am asking you WHY it is so important, from the standpoint of a utilitarian point of view. Like I said, you not knowing Hip Hop or football ain’t gonna break the relationship. So why is it such a dealbreaker for you and apparently so many Educated Sistas? This you have yet to actually explain and make the link to vital relationship concerns. The floor is yours…

    D: The NYT series on class in America, one dealing with cross-class marriages. It reports marriages where the woman is more educated than the man is much more likely to end in divorce than other types: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/national/class/MARRIAGE-FINAL.html?_r=1&hp

    O: Yea, I think I read that. Hacker talks about the same thing in his book Mismatch. Perhaps the problem is the Women having unrealistic expectations?”

    And…

    “D: Most modern woman, especially if she is also going to be earning money as well, want a companionate marriage, not a marriage where the two people pass each other like ships in the night.

    O: Hold it right there-so, you’re saying, that *because dude ain’t down with Pound, that is tantamount to being two ships passing in the night*? Is this what you’re saying, Deery? No disrespect, but given your rather imprecise manner of writing lately, I need to be very clear about where you’re coming from and why.

    Maybe the problem with modern Women is that they expect too much? Hacker addresses this in his book Mismatch.

    D: When you are with your SO, what do you talk about? Hopefully things in which you have a common interest. http://marriage.about.com/cs/stagesofmarriage/a/marriagemodel.htm

    O: We talk about all manner of things, and most importantly, we don’t see our differences as enormous chasms neither of us can bridge, but resources that strengthen our bond. I can give her a perspective on life that she just would not have had before, and vice versa. That’s what a good relationship is all about. I mean afterall, how do you really grow as a person if you’re with essentially a carbon copy of yourself?

    D: Talks about the different types of marriages. While I realize some men may care less about what is in a women’s brain than her backside, for most women, the key to a successful marriage is all about communication, not just his physical attributes. This is where having things in common helps contribute to the longevity of a marriage.

    O: Communication, the ability to convey ideas, is different from being able to talk about the same things, Deery. I think it is very possible to do one or the other, even both. But they don’t mean the same thing. Perhaps the real education for Sistas/Women, is in learning how to really challenge their assumptions. Nothing does that more than someone under the same roof.”

    Come on ladies! What do you have to say?

    Holla back

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian
      Once again, you presume to speak for all men. Deery says:
      Many people like their significant others to share their interests.
      .
      Your response:
      Correction: WOMEN like it.
      .
      No one cares what you personally want in a mate, but do you really think you speak for all men with this statement? I don’t think guys here would agree. We’re not talking about guys knitting and women memorizing the baseball encyclopedia – we’re talking about having common intellectual interests, which fosters conversation. I would guess that smarter men have a stronger preference for this, less intelligent men not as much.

  • http://grerp.blogspot.com grerp

    At the root of this argument is the Smart vs. Pretty battle girls grow up with and smart girls grow up resenting because the attention you get from being pretty is so much less charged and so more forthcoming.

    But does it matter? If beauty is an attractor and manifests itself on a bell curve, the majority of girls who are, say, 5 and above in looks, have what it takes to attract a pretty good man if they keep their egos in check, their eyes open, and their common sense turned on.

    Both Kim Kardashian and Natalie Portman were born with a fantastic slate of attributes. They came from upper middle class backgrounds and are both very beautiful. Portman seems quite intelligent. However, at 29 neither of them have managed to find a husband (or at least one that they stuck with – Kardashian is divorced) or have any kids. Perhaps they don’t want that, but most women do, and the clock is ticking. You could make the case that they have used their attributes to carve careers out for themselves, but let’s face it, the only one with a real career ahead of her is Portman. Kardashian’s going to hit the wall in a few years, and Hollywood isn’t kind to aging attention whores.

    Perhaps I’m biased because I can live happily without the money and fame, but I genuinely think that women who are nowhere near as privileged as these two can with effort and care find someone to love and do meaningful things. You don’t need to be a 10 or a 9 or an 8 in smarts or looks to do that.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @grerp

      I genuinely think that women who are nowhere near as privileged as these two can with effort and care find someone to love and do meaningful things. You don’t need to be a 10 or a 9 or an 8 in smarts or looks to do that.

      Well said, and a reminder about what’s important. Like tends to marry like. Happiness or desirability is not restricted to the lucky few.

  • http://grerp.blogspot.com grerp

    To answer the titular question, I absolutely do not believe that smart women – even brilliant women – are de facto Medusas who either repel or petrify any man who approaches. You also can be smart and not a total bitch.

    Why are we conflating intelligence in a woman with everything that is ugly?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Why are we conflating intelligence in a woman with everything that is ugly?

      That’s the million dollar question.

  • J

    Snowdrop

    I don’t know how to describe this “look,” but outdoorsy/North Face/sharp angular. It translates in some areas of the USA as successful and sharp in a certain way.

    I know the look. You do indeed have to work at it for several hours a day, nearly every day. I think it takes a toll on a woman’s face to be that thin. A lot of men, including my husband, find women that thin hard-looking.

  • Average Joe

    But then again – I’m not someone who is easily intimidated.

    Fear (intimidation) does not require insecurity. There are lots of “tough/secure” people that will get intimidated when you put a gun in their face. You say you are small, but I doubt that someone else’s size is solely enough to intimidate you. I would suspect that size combined with aggression (signals) are necessary for you to be fearful.

    Avoidance of harm (emotional or physical) is a very common reason to feel intimidation, not insecurity. Half the reason guys don’t approach women in groups has nothing to do with insecurity and everything to do with the way women in groups can be rude when one of them is not interested. How often do women make fun of guys rather than being polite? Too much.

  • Average Joe

    @Susan,

    So would a man waking up next to KK without makeup wake her up or chew his arm off

    Kim K is not even close to coyote ugly!!!

    http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/celebrities_without_makeup_37.jpg

  • Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    I was wonder when you would jump in here! It’s been too long since I last visited your place, so I thought I would hang out a bit today. Hope you don’t mind!

    Replies below…

    SW: Thanks so much, you’ve given me a lot to work with here, and that doesn’t even include the astrology piece, which is a total red herring in this discussion.

    O: Says you. But per the time-honored rules of astrology, it very much is evident. Don’t blame me because you don’t speak the language. :)
    .
    1. The post does not address what men find hot. You made the statement that smart women are unattractive. I daresay women are permitted to join in a conversation about who among us is attractive? If we haven’t figured it out already, we all learn quickly at puberty what men find attractive and what they don’t. You act as if cultural and biological standards for beauty are encrypted and can only be revealed by a Y chromosome. I specifically said that you had this is a matter of opinion, not that you were wrong. You were the one who said this is irrefutable, a matter of objective reality.

    O: And I said over at my blog in rebuttal to your piece here, that MEN determines what is or is not attractive in a Woman, and by and large, Hillary Clinton, alum of Weslley, ain’t it. Nor is Austen. *shrugs*
    .
    2. I offered three pieces of empirical evidence that physical attractiveness is positively correlated to IQ. Since that attacks the heart of your argument, it’s surprising that in your rebuttal you chose to ignore those studies, and not attempt to provide contradictory empirical evidence. I assume that’s because none exists.

    O: Oh, but I did; it’s called Maxim. That you choose not to accept it isn’t a problem I can or should attempt to solve.
    .
    3. I offered anecdotal evidence of a sample of smart, beautiful women. They’re not the only ones, nor are they more than a small percentage. I did not say they were hotter than anyone else, only that they were known for their beauty. As Brendan/Novaseeker pointed out, it’s not a question of comparison – the question is whether smart women are hot. The answer is yes, many are.

    O: No, it’s not. as I said in my reply to you, please name the legions of guys who drooled over Madonna? I don’t any guys who thought Geena Davis was hot. Now, I will grant that Stone, Shields and Carrera definitely were head turners in their day, but I don’t know many guys who went gaa-gaa for Nicole Kidman. Sorry Susan, it is, what it is. Simply put, what you or any other Woman thinks, just doesn’t matter. If you want to know what guys thinks is hot, go to Maxim, King, XXL, Black Tail, Playboy, etc et al. *again shrugs*
    .
    4. You offered anecdotal evidence of what? Hot dumb women? Do you have IQ data for the women in Maxim’s Top 100? For all you know, there may be some real brains in there, which would demolish your argument. In fact, Chelsea Handler comes to mind – while I would not consider her hot, unless skank = hot, she’s certainly smart.

    O: Ms. Handler wasn’t in the Maxim top ten, and I don’t recall seeing her name on the list generally. What I can say, is that Portman didn’t rate at all, and Zooey came in at #73. *shrugs*

    SW: Let’s consider your source: Maxim. Playboy it ain’t. Not a lot of gray matter required to enjoy Maxim, no sir. The Washington Post describes its core demographic:

    misogynistic recliner jockeys

    As Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

    O: Yawn…

    SW: There are some other lists on Maxim you might find interesting. They published a list of the 10 Least Appealing Women and included both Tina Fey and Pam Grier. Fair enough. Then they published a list of 5 Women We’re Not Supposed to Want But Do and included Tina Fey! So yeah, not a lot of credibility over there.

    O: Again: what you think doesn’t matter. Only matters what Men think.
    .
    5. I don’t understand why time frame is relevant in this discussion. You mentioned that some of the names on my list have passed their expiration date. Since we’re talking about the evolution of the species to favor those who are both attractive and smart, I would think Helen of Troy would be relevant if we had her IQ. Furthermore, if you’ll check Maxim’s list for 2009, you won’t see extensive overlap between last year and this year. What happened to last year’s hot women? Are they now less attractive because Maxim says so? Surely you know that those lists are cooked up by a small group of editors sitting around – they’re not based on any poll – and they have diversity quotas for race, age, big boobs, little boobs, etc. Something for everyone that might buy Maxim.

    O: Ms. Walsh, you know, firsthand, what I PERSONALLY like in a Woman, and she is definitely NOT likely to show up in a Maxim mag. However, I also realize that I live in a culture and clime where Women like Katy Perry will be highly sought after, and I don’t allow my personal views to intrude on what everyone can see with one good eye, LOL. So, again, what mags like Maxim have to say on these matters, is indeed important, if for no other reason that they have to cater to their target democrgaphics in order to keep the lights on. Trust me, if and when the editors of maxim stop giving its readers what they want, is the day they go out of business.

    Secondly, we all know how much Men love sexual variety when it comes to Women. Nothing new at all there.
    .
    6. The ignorance of your statement that smart people have less sex appeal, which is why they have fewer kids is mind boggling.

    O: No, it’s not. It’s fairly true.

    From Wikipedia:

    Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth, education, and urbanization. Mortality rates are low, birth control is understood and easily accessible, and costs are often deemed very high because of education, clothing, feeding, and social amenities. Further, longer periods of time spent getting higher education often mean women have children later in life. The result is the demographic-economic paradox.

    Converseley:

    In developing countries on the other hand, families desire children for their labour and as caregivers for their parents in old age. Fertility rates are also higher due to the lack of access to contraceptives, generally lower levels of female education, and lower rates of female employment in industry.

    If one accepts that environment plays a role in developing intelligence, then this actually proves my argument, not yours.

    O: to the extent that more intelligent folk have fewer kids? Yea, I suppose so.

    So, anyway, Kim kardashian came in at #9 on the 2010 Maxim Hot 100 list. Natalie Portman…?

    Holla back

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian
      And I said over at my blog in rebuttal to your piece here, that MEN determines what is or is not attractive in a Woman, and by and large, Hillary Clinton, alum of Weslley, ain’t it. Nor is Austen. *shrugs*
      .
      Are you being deliberately obtuse or trying to derail the thread? No one has said that HIllary Clinton is attractive. (Indeed, some say that Chelsea is so ugly because her dad is Janet Reno.) No one has said that Jane Austen is attractive. This line of argument is beyond silly. No one has said that all smart women are attractive. You said that smart women are not attractive, and I have given ample evidence that smart women may be very attractive. There are attractive women who are smart, and others who are less intelligent, or even complete idiots. On the whole, research suggests that smarter people are more attractive – it’s not my opinion, it’s empirical evidence. You have yet to offer any evidence to support your argument. Offering up Hillary Clinton is not an argument. If you want a bunch of ugly, smart women to throw out there, you might start with the sex positive feminists.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian
      I have thoroughly discredited Maxim as the be-all and end-all of what the male species wants. If their list was based on a poll, it might have at least some relevance, but as it was conjured by a handful of guys, it says zip, except that young, single guys like to look at pics of boobs. Like we didn’t already know that. It would be interesting to see what kind of women those guys wind up choosing to marry. If your argument is that men would rather jerk off to pics of slutty looking bimbos, I’ll cede the point.
      .
      You said that women who enjoy Jane Austen are unattractive. And linking to the Maxim 100 does nothing to back up your assertion.

  • Vjatcheslav

    “And the way to get me to do anything, is to come at me in way that was decidedly different from our friend Vjatslav (sorry for the spelling!), who bascially “demanded” that I “prove” something to him. ”

    Maybe you should learn the layout of a keyboard. You’ll see that there are possibilities to correct errors in spelling.

    And if you want to make an argument that something is true, you’ll have to give some evidence – which you’ve completely failed to do, while demonstrating that you clearly need some remedial lessons in logic and the scientific method (you should try using it sometimes – even being a black working class male doesn’t exempt you from reality, and being Chairman Mao isn’t a ground for exemption either) – or accept that you’ll be run out of town on a rail. Just saying “do your homework” is lazy and irresponsible (the courtiers’ reply you use is suspiciously endearing to creationists, by the way) when you posit something that goes against the null hypothesis. So what if my demanding that you fulfil some basic requirements for scientific thougth rattles you? I don’t care about your feelings (though your narrow-mindedness is irritating in and of itself).

  • Hope

    A word of advice to all the unmarried women reading: guys who actually care about Maxim’s top 100 list of hot women are not long-term material. Do yourselves a favor and find a man who’s not into this kind of thing. The less a man knows about celebrities and pop culture, the better. It’s usually women who are into the tabloids and pop culture stuff (though I recommend not being into it yourselves either).

    Different strokes for different folks. All the men who love KK and other such women, go for it! Good on ya! Personally, I’m quite happy with my man who loves my look and my body type, and who didn’t want to have anything to do with dumber girls. He also has no idea who KK is.

    We watched The Prestige the other day, and I mentioned that Scarlett Johansonn was in it. He said, “Never heard of her.” He didn’t think she was a big deal either. After the move, we had a wonderful discussion about how the entire movie is a symbolic magic trick, about the invocation of the Tesla myth, and how male ego was the pivotal thing without which the plot wouldn’t have worked.

    Life is good when you’ve got an awesome man. ;)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      A word of advice to all the unmarried women reading: guys who actually care about Maxim’s top 100 list of hot women are not long-term material.

      Well, to be fair, their demographic is guys 18-34, mostly single. I think it includes a lot of puppies who will grow out of Maxim as reading material.

  • dragnet

    “I didn’t set out to argue that smart women are more attractive. I was simply calling BS on Obsidian’s claim that smart women are beat, though not as bad as the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Faint praise. It was actually when I began researching the topic that I found three empirical studies finding that physical attractiveness is positively correlated to intelligence.”

    Gotcha. Although I would I guess that there is a ceiling to this phenomenon. I’m guessing past a certain IQ threshold—170? 180??—both males and females become less physically attractive, generally speaking.

    “I would also agree that intelligence is not at the top of the list for most men, though I think most intelligent men have a threshold of intellectual vivacity for a LTR.”

    I certainly do—no argument here. Although I would guess that the intelligence threshold is generally a bit lower than (educated) women think it is…which would make sense as people tend to overvalue what they consider to be their good qualities. And I also think that women who aren’t so bright can compensate in other ways.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    I take it you’ve rea Andrew Hacker’s book Mismatch? In it he makes pretty much the same argument I’m making, that the kinds of issues Deery, the Essence writer Bene Veira and indeed quite a few Women here are making, are the kinds of concerns that are germane largely to Women. Most guys simply aren’t concerned about about their mate NEEDING to jest in Latin, or expounding on the works of Marcel Proust, etc. Bottomline, it’s just not that important, and Hacker notes this in Mismatch.

    And I note that no one, not Deery, or for that matter, YOU, have actually answered my question: why MUST it be necessary, for a Man to do these things? What tactical difference does it make to the relationship? Please explain, somebody…anybody…everyybody…???

    Holla back

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian
      I believe what Hacker said was that women seek intellectual discussion at the end of the day, at a time when men are tired and want to retire to their “castle.” It’s one of the ways that women are dissatisfied in marriages. Again, you give extreme examples. Jesting in Latin? Marcel Proust? How about a coherent conversation about what’s happening in the world? I bet a few of the women on your Top 100 list can’t name POTUS, and very few even know what health care reform is. So how do you spend years with a stupid woman? Do you recommend avoiding conversation altogether?

  • Obsidian

    RT,
    Replies below:

    RT: You’ve been asked repeatedly to provide some sort of reasoning to explain why astrology holds any sort of merit and have yet to produce anything. Instead you jump to saying we should go do our own homework. When someone says something like that, they’re hardly persuasive. What they’re saying to me is that they don’t really have any solid evidence to support their case. In fact, if you were one of my students and had been charged with writing a persuasive essay on the subject you would have failed because you have no provided any sort of evidence. You seem incapable of responding to people who reply with evidence. In fact Snowdrop provided a great amount of detail on the matter and you simply reply by essentially saying astrology is different than astronomy. Then provide zero supporting evidence to further elaborate on your point.

    O: LOL. Well, for one thing RT, I’m NOT one of your students, this is NOT a class, and I don’t have to prove anything to anyone. I was discussing things I saw from an astrological perspective. Period. And the way to get me to do anything, is to come at me in way that was decidedly different from our friend Vjatslav (sorry for the spelling!), who bascially “demanded” that I “prove” something to him.

    Well, we see how that turned out.

    If astrology ain’t your thing, hey, all well and good; I won’t try to “convert” you, that’s never been my bag. But I’ll be damned before I let you, V, or ANYONE attempt to force me to explain or prove myself to any one of you. You don’t like what I’m saying, here’s a really novel idea:

    DON’T READ IT.

    Capice? Try that on for size, hmm?

    SW: I don’t recall saying that everything has to have a rational basis. I believe what I said was – “It’s fun to sit around with your girlfriends and read you horoscopes and laugh about it, but is it something to base a rational argument on? Doubtful.” I hardly think that’s a sweeping blanket statement in claiming everything/everywhere about everyone has a rational explanation. What I said was astrology does not have a rational basis in my opinion.

    O: Nor does a whole heck of a lot of things, RT, and that WAS MY POINT. Do you deny this? Because if you do, I can rattle off a whole bunch of things, that are quite germane to THIS very discussion, where folk couldn’t be more irrational. Shall we dance?

    SW: Additionally, you seem to think you alone hold the key to what men find attractive and again pander about the idea that smarts and sex appeal are mutually exclusive. Given that I have a variety of guy friends there is one thing I’ve learned over the years – every guy has a different idea of what he likes, and it’s also flexible.

    O: Well, like I’ve said for the umpteenth time, none of this is personal on my part, just relaying objectively what I’ve seen out there. For example, Marilyn Monroe remains as one of if not thee symbol of the American Blonde Bombshell – and she does absolutely nothing for me. But there she is, as popular as ever. So, shoud I attempt to poo poo that, simply because it doesn’t work for me?

    To ask the question, is to answer it.

    Holla back

    O.
    .

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh says:
    “One of Obsidian’s favorite tactics is to give orders – go read this book, get back to me with proof on that, etc. He’s made an argument with zero proof. The burden is his.”

    O: Meh. In the words of Chaiman Mao – no investigation, no right to speak.

    Do the homework and holla back

    O.

    PS: You remember me telling you that about the books The Game & The Mystery Method, right Ms. Walsh? ;)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You remember me telling you that about the books The Game & The Mystery Method, right Ms. Walsh?

      Haha, yeah. Here’s the difference: I was on a Game blog talking about Game. To do so intelligently I needed to understand the concepts, or would have no credibility, a la LR and Denise Romano. This is not an astrology blog. No one here but you thinks astrology is relevant to the question of the link between intelligence and beauty. Those who consider this a red herring are not obligated to engage on your terms, but may dismiss your argument out of hand, seeing as how you have provided no evidence, only opinion. If you want to give us Jane Austen’s chart, fine, but don’t be surprised if everyone just shrugs – it’s not relevant to the discussion.

  • Hope

    As someone who has been reading reddit for over 2 years, rather than following pop culture hot lists, one of the girls that the young Internet men are interested in… is Hermione from Harry Potter. Look up the Emma Watson subreddit. And, pictures of Natalie Portman get far more exposure among the reddit guys than less intelligent celebrities.

    Now, reddit has a self-selective crowd of mostly men with above average IQ, who tend to work in the tech sector, who have nerdy interests like video games, programming, web development, start-ups (the site itself was a venture capital start-up), economics and politics. There are many young men who love hot girls on reddit, but they are often singing the praises of smart hot girls.

    Although, their holy grail is not a smart girl who reads Jane Austen and talks Proust, but who plays video games and likes techie stuff. It’s just difficult for them to find girls who are nerdy and into the same stuff they are. A lot of those men dream of a girl who is smart, sane, loving and decently attractive, not supermodel or celebrity hot.

    And as for porn, Internet men these days love amateur porn, not professional. That is, natural young girls who aren’t all made up and who don’t have tats or implants. Word on the street is that amateur porn is causing the professional porn industry to go kaput, posting record low profits, because people would rather see al naturale than fake.

  • Snowdrop111

    Although I agree with Obsidian on his point about men not making women have to know about the NFL or history of hiphop while women insist that men know the wine list and opera… and although I do agree that know-it-all women can come across as quite unpleasant to be around … I simply must show off that this ugly old white lady did indeed know what an “SP1200″ as he called it was. I think he means this turntable on Ishkur’s Guide to Electronic Music http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/
    When the intro stops playing, click on Tech 12 under “Gear.” I’m a longtime rabid fan of electronic music although I do not know the history of hip-hop. I appreciate Obsidian’s point that men don’t insist women know certain bodies of knowledge in order to be dateable, and it seems the women I know do insist guys know the wine list or not be dateable. But that’s kinda upper-middle-class-wannabee women. I don’t insist my boyfriend be up on all my interests but that he not be dismissive. I can’t tell you how many times I have said “I read in a book blah blah” (for example the book Collapse about Easter Island having used up all their wood) and even though I said “I read in a book…” the guy just immediately goes BWAH HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as if I’d just said something about, well, astrology. I don’t think so may women should insist the guy know the wine list. My boyfriend certainly knows more than me about a lot of things, and I appreciate that about him…I think if he didn’t know a lot and have a wide range of interests, and were dull, it would be a dealbreaker…but I don’t insist he have sophistication and the kind of polish to put me in certain circles. I think sometimes refinement is something women are looking for on top of intelligence. It so happens my boyfriend loves and knows opera, but we don’t go anywhere where name-dropping about it would get us any social points.
    We are hopeless nerds in torn and tattered old jeans although I don’t like the slob factor. I accept it because life’s too short to try to insist on the perfect guy and miss out. <— a kernel of Obsidian's point that I agree with. HOWEVER I KNEW WHAT A TECH 12 WAS , said the nerd who wants attention at the cost of popularity. Unless Obsidian meant something different.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    The problem with your line of argument is that you actually believe guys will refer to your empirical studies when out there on the prowl, LOL. All they know is, that chicks like Chelsea Clinton DON’T appear on the Maxim Hot 100. Period.

    So, look, this is what I said in response to your argument…

    “A simple law of nature states, that in all things, there are tradeoffs. Simply put, more brains equals less sex appeal, all things being equal. This explains why really smart folk have fewer kids, for example, if one accepts that kids are a rough proxy for having sex. They have a harder time getting together and making whoopee, and this is especially true for really smart Women – I remember reading Half Sigma, a Jewish HBD blogger out of NYC, who cited the GSS that indicated that really smart ladies had a tougher time finding a mate and settling down with him, or if they did, they had a higher rate of divorce. Surely really smart gals tend to be more nuerotic than gals of middling or a bit above average IQs – in other words, like their Male Mensa counterparts, there comes a point where having a scalebusting IQ becomes counterproductive, when it comes to forming close relationships. We all know well the nerd archetype. There’s a Female version of this, too. It’s called the Jane Austen Club(s). (By the way, please take note of the painting of Austen; case in point.)”

    “Look, why any of this should come as a surprise to the Hooking Up Smart crew is a bit beyond me – it just comes as commonsense to me that everyone can’t be smokin’ hot, that’s just Life. But that doesn’t mean that one can’t be happy, either; a big part of life is knowing what your limitations are, staying in your lane and yea, I’m gonna say the dreaded “S” word – settling. For Women, this is extremely hard to do, especially in a time where the doors of limitations restrictions are blown off for them. But what I’m saying above, about who Men in aggregate find hot, isn’t likely to change anytime soon, and it is a serious Fool’s Errand to attempt to do otherwise. If one accepts that we are the result of tens of thousands of years of shaping and molding by our environment and the adaptations to same, then it only makes sense to simply acknowledge these truths and move on with our lives.”

    “I know I did. Readers here will know that I’m not exactly the tallest guy in the room; at 5’8″, I’m actually quite short in stature for a Man. And, being on the smaller side has its disadvantages.

    How so, you may ask? Easy – for one thing, Women don’t prefer Men my height. Don’t take my word for it, see for yourself – go hit up Match.com, or OKCupid, or eHarmony, or Craig’s List, and take a look at listings from the ladies seeking gents – five will get you ten that few if any will actually call for a Man UNDER 5’10″, which in America, is the average height for a Male. I know I certainly haven’t. Nor will Women experience any bit of cognitive dissonance in the least for their outright prejudice and clinging to double standards in this regard, while decrying Men for their “superficial” likes, wants and desires in a Woman – if anything, they’ll defend it, and vociferously at that, coupled with a goodly bit of shaming language; you’re merely a loser for mentioning such a thing, and so forth. Simply put, when Women can choose – and anyone who knows anything about Game knows that Women do the choosing most of the time – they choose a taller Man over a shorter one, all things being equal. That’s just the way it is.

    So too, is it this way on the job – the University of Pennsylvania, in my hometown of Philly, did an extensive study on Male height and how it impacts Men’s lives; they found, that for every inch over 6′ or so, a Man earns an extra thousand dollars a year. And the reverse is true for every inch a Man is under 6′. So, in other words, there are real costs to being a shorter guy like me. I’ve been judged in all kinds of ways, simply because of my lack of height. Nothing more. But that’s the way we human beings are wired – out in the hinterlands of the Savannah, a Man with Size mattered, and it made sense for a Woman to seek out such guys. (I always chuckle at those ladies who like to pretend their oh so enlightened, and then turn right around and betray their brains for declaring thier thing for tallish Men. At least we guys are honest about being in thrall to our hindbrains.)”

    “I could curse the darkness for enduring the slings and arrows of Fate, but instead, I sought ways to overcome my shortcomings, pardon the pun, and compensate for it. In the years since that time, which was very long ago, I think I’ve done OK for myself – I’ve led Men in the business world of sales, and not only was the highest paid man in my union shop who wasnt management or a journeyman in less than three years by standing out as the hardest working and smartest Man in the room and was in the running for union shop president, but I also have date quite a few ladies who were 5’10″ or taller – including my current lady, Ms. Brown Sugah. I haven’t had any complaints. To paraphrase another Little Big Guy: “Look at me! Judge me by my size, do you? And well you should not. For Game is my ally; and a powerful ally it is.”.

    And that’s the message I bring to the ladies of Hooking Up Smart – when it comes to guys, brains are nice, but they don’t come before other things Men find appealing, first and foremost being looks. And if you don’t have a heck of a lot of that, there are things you can do to address it. It’s called Sephora. If you can’t catch a Man’s eye, what you say out of your mouth, is at best, moot. Being a Gal with a Big Brain is of interest, nine times out of ten, only to YOU. For most guys, it’s most definitely a plus, but it don’t come before being easy on the eyes, being loyal, being good in bed, and not being a headcase.”

    Again: http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/are-smarts-sex-appeal-mutally-exclusive-well-as-far-as-women-go-in-a-word-yes/

    Now, I post that above to make the case, that there ARE real tradeoffs in life, Ms. Walsh. And we don’t do anyone any good to attempt to poo poo that. Sure, there are SOME Women who are a combo like Asia Carrera or Sharon Stone. I don’t deny that. But I’m telling you, you’re not likely to run into them on the campus of Brown, or Columbia, or Spelman or Wellsley. You’re just not. And the ladies need to know that.

    That’s all I’m saying.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Sure, there are SOME Women who are a combo like Asia Carrera or Sharon Stone. I don’t deny that. But I’m telling you, you’re not likely to run into them on the campus of Brown, or Columbia, or Spelman or Wellsley. You’re just not. And the ladies need to know that.

      False. Have you ever seen the Girls of the Ivy League calendars? Check out the sororities at Vanderbilt or Duke sometime. The top three alone will contain 500 hot and smart girls. When was the last time you were on Columbia’s campus? An international supermodel named Cameron Russell went to school with my son and then to Columbia.
      http://nymag.com/fashion/models/crussell/cameronrussell/
      The new Miss Massachusetts double majored in pre-med and English at Harvard.
      http://www.missmassachusettsusa.com/ma_2010/images/contestantphotos-miss/fullsize/78._Loren_Galler-Rabinowitz_fs.jpg
      These women would never stoop to aspire to appearing in Maxim. Just saying.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ms. Walsh,
      The problem with your line of argument is that you actually believe guys will refer to your empirical studies when out there on the prowl, LOL.

      You miss the point. No one is telling guys who to go for. No one is suggesting that men are in any way obligated to prefer smart women. You said smart women are ugly. I have disproved that point. In fact, it’s clear from the evidence that less intelligent men will pursue less intelligent women, for the most part. Since you’ve acknowledged that less intelligent women are more likely to get plastic surgery and wear a lot of makeup, I guess we can see who goes for who. Which is what I said in the beginning – it’s a matter of personal preference, not objective reality.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh and Gerp,
    Agreed! So, why don’t the gals just go to the STEM depts on campus? Ooodles of nice boys there, right? Problem solved!

    Comments?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So, why don’t the gals just go to the STEM depts on campus? Ooodles of nice boys there, right? Problem solved!

      Many women will indeed marry men in those fields. Here’s something that will blow your mind Obsidian – smart men are also attractive!

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Obsidian
    I don’t think there are very many guys in the predicament you describe as a percentage of the population. Furthermore, we know that historically 40% of men reproduced, so it may be that more guys have a shot today than ever before.
    .
    Re Hacker, I wish I could refer to that book – I don’t own it. Will check my notes and respond if I have anything to contribute.

  • Hope

    Stop changing the subject to what women want and why they won’t go after STEM guys. The subject is what men want — based on “aggregations.”

    I’ve posted one aggregation: a particular demographic of reddit.com a popular website ranked #89 in the US for Internet traffic on Alexa. By contrast, maxim.com has a traffic ranking in the US of #1,613.

    True, the Internet demographic of users 18-34 is certainly different than the average man on the street, 18-34. But it’s clear enough that many men find even moderately good-looking women who demonstrate intelligence to be very attractive, yes, even sexually… judging by the number of nudie Emma Watson pictures.

  • dragnet

    @ Susan

    “We’re weeping because the most rapidly growing market for Viagra is males aged 18-26.”

    Holy shit—is this really true? Link??

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Yea, I can dig it, but that’s not whnat happened. I was accosted by Vjacslav to “prove” astrology to his satisfaction. If he simply said that he didn’t go in for it, that would have been fine with me. *shrugs* But he didn’t. Go back and read the thread.

    And the bottomline here is that YOU actually went and did some homework. These other folks, WON’T – yet, they feel completely confident to discuss, with some measure of “authority” of what is or is not astrology. Rubbish.

    Now, for the Mismatch book…

    Actually, that’s not what Hacker said. Hacker said that today’s Woman wants their guy to watch Masterpiece Theater type stuff and then discuss it afterwards, and that their guy’s failure to do so plays a role in way the marriages/relationships fail. What I said about Proust and latin didn’t come out of thin air – they are taken from real life exchanges I had with Deery, a reader of my blog whom you know fairly well. When asked why it was so necessary for her that her guy knew these things. her response was because she wanted him to be able to join in on the discussions with her friends. If you will kindly scroll back up to the Essence article I linked to, “Dumb It Down” the author, Bene Viera, of the blog Writing While Black, says the exact same thing. Deery has said that she and her friends joke in Latin, or make offhand references to Shakespeare, and that her hubbie was “sharp” enough to get the joke.

    But when I asked her WHY all of this was so very important to her, WHY her Man had to do this, she couldn’t explain it in utilitarian terms – and that’s what I think the real bone of contention is between the sexes. For Men, like I said earlier, it’s simply not a pre-requisite that their Woman be a walking NFL archive. It’s not a dealbreaker. Why then cannot Women make that same adjustment?

    Well, for one thing, Hacker, again in his book Mismatch, argues that the reason for this is because, Men are just simpler than are Women; in aggregate, our needs and desires are simpler. One reason why Women in aggregate are having a much harder time out there on the dating scene, is because the environment supports their ever-growing complexity. Men just aren’t interested in all that. And a lot of Women are deeply disappointed by all of that.

    Anmd the beat goes on.

    Again – this is an issue that is an area of intense concern in Black America. For many years, lots of Educated Sistas have been quite upset at the Brothas for not “bneing on their level”, to which I’ve always found to be a rather specious argument. But it’s there, and as we can see, is beginning to show up more and more in White middle class America.

    So this is definitely a conversation we need to have.

    Comments?

    O.

  • Hope

    I still don’t understand why Obsidian is obsessed with the STEM guys. I’ve been around these guys all my life, and I’ve been dating them since I was a teenager. All of the guys I dated loved computers, technology, video games, and really into engineering/math/physics. I’m married to a man who is studying applied mathematics and who programs in matlab.

    Most of the STEM-type guys I have played video games with have girlfriends or wives. The D&D group I was in only had one guy who is single, and it’s not because he’s a nerd, but because he hit on every walking female with total lack of tact and complete reckless idiocy. He could use a lesson in politeness, not “game.”

    Anyway, what does any of this have to do with whether or not smart women can be considered sexually attractive by men?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I still don’t understand why Obsidian is obsessed with the STEM guys…Anyway, what does any of this have to do with whether or not smart women can be considered sexually attractive by men?

      STEM guys drive Obsidian crazy because a lot of the HBD crowd are in these fields. I understand, but it’s not relevant to this discussion at all.

  • Meg

    Chicks like Chelsea Clinton don’t make the Maxim 100, but they apparently do land good looking, Ivy league, investment banker husbands. Same with her mom. Most men might not care about a girl’s intelligence when it comes to picking her up at a bar, but as far as a long-term mate (which is what most women are concerned about), it seems that smart goes for smart.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Meg

      I’d say that Chelsea Clinton and her husband seem to be about the same level of attractive and smart. I’d bet their marriage will be very successful.

  • mgambale

    Any of the quoted IQ scores that were attained before adulthood are measures of precocity more than they are measures of innate intelligence. Children who mature quickly tend to see their scores peak and then regress to the mean as they age. Moreover, when a celebrity is admitted to a prestigious college or university it only proves that they met that institution’s lowest standard. I don’t suppose you think George W. Bush was admitted to Yale and Harvard strictly because of his intellect, do you?
    .
    Perhaps it’s worth considering the likelihood that women and men might be attracted to different kinds of intelligence. It seems to me that women can get their tingles from the mere reputation of a dude who is a highly credentialed expert in a very narrow field — one in which he dominates to bring home the bacon. Men, on the other hand, seem to be impressed by breadth of intelligence that’s actually demonstrated to them — particularly if it’s social intelligence — and don’t care whether or not it’s credentialed.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @mgambale

      It seems to me that women can get their tingles from the mere reputation of a dude who is a highly credentialed expert in a very narrow field — one in which he dominates to bring home the bacon. Men, on the other hand, seem to be impressed by breadth of intelligence that’s actually demonstrated to them — particularly if it’s social intelligence — and don’t care whether or not it’s credentialed.

      That seems very likely, actually, at least based on my own observations. You’re right, of course, that admission to excellent schools depends on many factors other than intelligence. As for Dubya, his idiocy is a myth – I believe he has an IQ of 125 if I remember correctly – 4 points higher than John Kerry’s. Both of them took IQ tests for the military, which was the source of the data.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Again, Maxim is a business. They survive/thrive on their ability to cater to the needs, interests and desires of their target demographic. That the Women selected to appear on their lists seem to only drive Maxcim subscriptions and sales, says to me that they’re doing something right. By the way, full disclosure: I am NOT a Maxim reader or fan. Just simply saying that if a Woman wants to know what Men think of who’s hot and who’s…not…they need to see what Men in aggregate vibe to.

    Why that is so hard for you (and perhaps others of your readers?) to grasp, is really fascinating to me.

    :)

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Again, Maxim is a business. They survive/thrive on their ability to cater to the needs, interests and desires of their target demographic.

      That’s true, and their business is soft porn. What men find attractive on the internet when they’re rubbing one out may differ from what they find attractive in their Economics class.

  • Snowdrop111

    Finally something sort of back to the hookup culture subject…dragnet, I haven’t seen the viagra statistic but I did read an article I think in New York Magazine about two or three years ago to the effect that doctors in New York were seeing more and more young men with erectile problems and there was some discussion about sex just being so out there on the table everywhere blatant nowadays. No mystery and right in your face. Wait, looks like it was in 04. http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/features/6204/

  • Average Joe

    “The less a man knows about celebrities and pop culture, the better.”

    You can’t spell pop culture without popular, so if you like guys who live in a cave then by all means listen to Hope. And more power to you.

    Unless a guy is a social retard he will know who Kim K is because well he goes to the super market, watches football, and/or has female friends other than his mom.

    As a matter of fact, if you really want to assess compatibility you should ask your guy for his specific list. The women who are or aren’t on this list will speak volumes about what your man finds attractive in both LTR’s and STR’s. You should be some mix of the “attractive” female qualities, else you are in trouble. If everyone on his list is a DD cup and you are flat chested, then worry. If he has funny ladies and you are an introvert, then ouch. Here’s a few of my top 10 picks. No particular order…

    1. Tina Fey http://theflickcast.com/wp-content/uploads//datenight-thumb-500×694-1895.jpg
    2. Alicia Keyes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rywUS-ohqeE
    3. Stephanie Sadorra http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19063059280
    4. Olivia Munn http://iknowtheledge.com/images/2008/07/oliviamunn01nd7.jpg

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Average Joe
      By virtue of your choice of Tina Fey, you have earned a permanent exemption from verbal abuse by me. Not saying it’s unbiased, but I adore her.

  • http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/ hambydammit

    {Insert Tongue Firmly in Cheek}

    Hmm. One of these days, I’ll meet a girl who’s smarter than me, but until then, I have no data pool from which to form a hypothesis on my feelings towards women who are smarter than me.

    {Remove Tongue}

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Hmm. One of these days, I’ll meet a girl who’s smarter than me, but until then, I have no data pool from which to form a hypothesis on my feelings towards women who are smarter than me.

      Ha! Well if you will only date women who have at least a passing ability to discuss your blog, you’re going to be getting a couple of standard deviations about the mean.

  • J

    “We’re weeping because the most rapidly growing market for Viagra is males aged 18-26.”

    Holy shit—is this really true? Link??

    If it is true, I doubt impotence is the reason. It’s more likely drug experimentation and sensation-seeking.
    My friend’s son, a risk-taker and high-T kid, decided to take some Cialis and wound up with “an erection that lasted over four hours” just like the commercials warn about. He ended up in the hospital. They know him well there; he’s a repeat customer with loads of risky behavior-related incidences behind him. He didn’t need the drug to produce an erection; he just wanted to see how it would affect his already over-active sex drive.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @J
      You’re correct – there is a lot of thrill seeking and use of Viagra as a recreational drug. There’s also an increasing amount of ED among young men, due to performance anxiety (sexually experienced women demanding great skill) and inability to separate visual porn images from arousal.

  • Average Joe

    @Meg

    Chicks like Chelsea Clinton don’t make the Maxim 100, but they apparently do land good looking, Ivy league, investment banker husbands. Same with her mom.

    Lol. Do you not know who Monica Lewinsky is? And do you really think political marriages count as proof of what men want in an LTR?

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    @ Obsidian
    .
    “LOL. Well, for one thing RT, I’m NOT one of your students, this is NOT a class, and I don’t have to prove anything to anyone. I was discussing things I saw from an astrological perspective. Period. And the way to get me to do anything, is to come at me in way that was decidedly different from our friend Vjatslav (sorry for the spelling!), who bascially “demanded” that I “prove” something to him.”
    .
    Well, thank god for small mercies. I don’t particularly enjoy failing students.
    .

    ‘If astrology ain’t your thing, hey, all well and good; I won’t try to “convert” you, that’s never been my bag. But I’ll be damned before I let you, V, or ANYONE attempt to force me to explain or prove myself to any one of you. You don’t like what I’m saying, here’s a really novel idea:

    DON’T READ IT.

    Capice? Try that on for size, hmm?’
    .
    The fact remains that even when questioned on your reasoning/logic behind using astrology, you have failed to present any sort of evidence to support your case. Therefore, your opinion comes across as invalid. The fact remains that when trying to persuade and audience to see things from your perspective, you need to provide persuasive evidence to convince them. You can say you don’t care about converting people to your mindset all you want, but I find that very hard to believe. You may not want to convert people outright, but then why get so defensive about it? Quite frankly such an immature reaction – as shown in the above quote – along with frequently saying “LOL” as a response to any sort of attempt at engaging you in a proper discussion is rather telling in my opinion.
    .
    “Nor does a whole heck of a lot of things, RT, and that WAS MY POINT. Do you deny this? Because if you do, I can rattle off a whole bunch of things, that are quite germane to THIS very discussion, where folk couldn’t be more irrational. Shall we dance?”
    .
    You’re point about what? That astrology is not rational and therefore has no basis in a rational discussion?
    .
    “Well, like I’ve said for the umpteenth time, none of this is personal on my part, just relaying objectively what I’ve seen out there. For example, Marilyn Monroe remains as one of if not thee symbol of the American Blonde Bombshell – and she does absolutely nothing for me. But there she is, as popular as ever. So, shoud I attempt to poo poo that, simply because it doesn’t work for me?”
    .
    To think you can be objective about the matter simply because you yourself do not find a particular woman attractive is laughable. True objectivity is impossible when it comes in the form of an opinion with no hard evidence. The truth of the matter is any sort of ranking list when it comes to celebs is going to be incredibly biased – particularly when it is done by a small group of individuals and not even based on some sort of poll.
    .
    Since you’re so keen to give everyone else “homework” as it were in the form of going and doing their own research, may I recommend you perhaps take your own advice? I’d also like to recommend that you watch The Argument Sketch from Monty Python. You remind me of the John Cleese character, simply saying yes or no in response. You’re only engaging in contradiction at this level.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    LOL. Nice try. I am talking about the AGGREGATE females on these campuses, NOT the Asia Carreras and Sharon Stones. So yea, I can completely and freely acknowledge your calendar examples, but they don’t in any way kill my point. Try again.

    V (I hope you don’t mind my using the first letter of your name),
    I don’t recall thnis being an academic or scientific forum, or that you were the designated interlocutor for it. Moreover, my social standing in the American pecking order has nothing to do with the matter under examination – Ad Hominem, anyone?

    What I noticed that we very interesting about this entire thread, is that you have yet to actually comment on the topic, which I’ve done from quite a few angles. The only time you’ve had something to say, was to attempt to upbraid me about astrology. Hmm.

    When I first stumbled on the HBDsphere, I didn’t do as you did, which was to immediately attack the hosts/commenters. I saw that a number of books were mentioned prominently and frequently, and the light came on in my head that it might be a good idea to go out and read these books so that I knew what was going on and could participate in the discussions intelligently. No one had to hold my hand on the way to Borders bookstore to get a copy of The Bell Curve. I did it all on my own.

    So, when I hear from folk like you, the firt thing that comes to mind is, why can’t this seemingly intelligent guy educate himself on the matter first and hthen come back to discuss it Even if he disagrees, that’s cool, but at least he’ll be in a position to state his disagreements from an informed point of view. Who can’t respect that?

    Holla back

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I am talking about the AGGREGATE females on these campuses…try again.

      No need. There are no aggregate females on campuses. You stated that the Sharon Stones and Asia C’s will not be found at the best universities. That is untrue. If Satoshi Kanazawa is correct, you’re more likely to find them there than dancing at the Bada Bing.

  • Obsidian

    Look Ms. Walsh, I know you have a personal dog in the fight here, and I can respect that, as i’ve said umpteen times now, I don’t. Couldn'[t care less about KK or NP, not a fan of either. All i’m saying is that really brainy gals tend to have tradeoffs just like real brainy guys (does anyone really dispute the latter point? If not, why all the agita about the former one?), and I showed that with my own personal life with the height issue. Again, no one is disputing that, right?

    And again, you keep missing the point. It’s not about what you or your studies cite, it’s about what Men, in aggregate, want and like. *shrugs*

    O.

  • Aldonza

    But Obsidian’s point was that a smart woman – specifically a woman who enjoys Jane Austen (not the most inaccessible literature in the world) is bound to be unattractive.

    .
    Do women normally advertise the fact that they like Jane Austen? Heck, I belong to a Jane Austen fan club…but it’s not something I think I’ve ever brought up to a potentially romantic partner. I don’t think it’s possible to prove that Jane Austen fans are any less attractive than any other women.
    .
    Now women who like Ayn Rand are an entirely different matter.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Now women who like Ayn Rand are an entirely different matter.

      Haha! Will you hold it against me if I tell you I was one of those women at 18?

  • Obsidian

    Yea, but Ms. Walsh, how does what you said square with what guys like White & Nerdy say, or the thousandsa of guys in Mystery style bootcamps? Doesnt that kind of challenge your point about them getting married? And why aren’t these guys getting stepped to by all these smart and enlightened college gals, Ms. Walsh? What’s up with that?

    I smell a rat.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian
      I don’t have stats on men in the STEM professions – but you’re lumping in a lot of different guys there. You’re saying all guys who are analytical and quantitative, fair enough? My guess is that the guys with super high IQs – say, >160 are less likely to marry, and the same is probably true for women that smart (see Dragnet comment too). For one thing, they aren’t likely to meet many people of the opposite sex who can keep up intellectually. The fact that men cluster at the highest end of the IQ range means that there’s a shortage in the supply of compatible women. However, I imagine that men in the 130-160 range are just as likely to marry as anyone else. Furthermore, all of these smart men are as likely to be handsome as anyone else. If the studies I cited in this post are accurate, more likely. Super handsome men with an IQ of 150 are probably going to marry super attractive women with an IQ >120. That’s just a guess – if you have a relevant link, I’m all ears.

  • Obsidian

    Actually Ms. Walsh, Porn is a very good indicator of exactly what turns Men on. Read it and weep, ladies.

    :)

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Actually Ms. Walsh, Porn is a very good indicator of exactly what turns Men on. Read it and weep, ladies.

      Oh, we’re weeping believe me. We’re weeping because the most rapidly growing market for Viagra is males aged 18-26.

  • Average Joe

    @ Susan

    Actually the #1 reason is that recreational drugs have always been popular with the <25 demographic. ED pills are now in same category as weed, liquor, and X. I think porn and especially performance anxiety are marginal reasons though they make for good TV.

  • Obsidian

    Alright, Ms. Walsh. So the exceptions prove the rule, right?

    OK, so, how many of those STEM guys are actually DATING those Asia Carreras and Sharon Stones on campus, now? I didn’t hear that number…

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      OK, so, how many of those STEM guys are actually DATING those Asia Carreras and Sharon Stones on campus, now? I didn’t hear that number…

      As I’ve said many times on HUS, these men come into their own quite nicely over time. They’re not the socially dominant athletes or frat stars, with a few exceptions. Don’t forget, though, that this will vary by school. The hottest guys on Harvard’s campus are super smart, as are the hottest girls. I don’t see why you focus exclusively on STEM guys – why not a brilliant philosophy major?

  • Hope

    @Average Joe, sure, he might run across a name or two in the checkout stand, or have some guys talk about it with him. But he shouldn’t want to know “all about” the various celebs. Popular culture has its place, but to get all into it is not a good sign for a guy.

    Early on, when I first started talking to my husband, I remember he and this other guy having a conversation about Megan Fox. The other guy was obviously raving about how hot she is in Transformers, and he was just, “Yeah, she’s good looking. So what?” I remember that leaving an impression on me.

    Celebrities don’t mean much to him at all. His head is filled with other things. Right now he’s probably planning for the next math lecture for his students. Rather than the name of some celebrities, it’s my name that occupies the spots in his top list. And maybe the nicknames of my video game characters that I’ve played with him.

    That’s just one of a gazillion reasons why I feel really lucky.

  • Average Joe

    @Alondza

    Now women who like Ayn Rand are an entirely different matter.
    LMAO. And one would expect them to be more like Ayn and be able to land a guy 15 years her junior, but alas they are indeed the ugly ducklings of the fan club world.

  • PJL

    @Susan,

    Just to clarify, I’ve been agreeing with you throughout the thread. My first post was directed to anonymous and the one to which you’ve responded was just a clarification of what I had earlier written. In neither case was I criticizing you, nor was I really making an argument. I was just saying things I consider fairly obvious.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @PJL
      No worries, if anyone is in my JA fan club corner, I know you are.

  • Obsidian

    Hope,
    Again, I ask: if all you and Ms. Walsh say is true, WHY are the STEM dept guys spending their entire careers in college working it out with the left hand, and packing it to the gills at those Mystery workshops? where are all those smart and enligheted gals who just know better? Why aren’t they snapping up those guys? What gives?

    O.

  • Basil Ransom

    Women in high IQ AND mostly male areas like computer science and engineering are ugly. This may be because of a correlation between IQ, or because hotter girls are more feminine and/or conformist, and prefer less male dominated domains. Among smart women, the hot ones are usually more verbally talented, than mathematically gifted. Hedy Lamarr is another great exception.

    Look at State Schools. They have the hottest girls, and their average IQ is probably ~110. That’s above average, but not noticeably smart. The hottest girls are probably somewhat smart, i.e. IQ of 110, and veering away from that IQ in either direction yields uglier girls.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Basil Ransom
      Do you have a source for your data about state schools? Or why 110 is the sweet spot?

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan,
    Interesting discussion…
    .
    I think as Brendan mentioned, there is some assortive mating, particularly at the very high end of the IQ range. However, below the world class physicist level of IQ, intelligence is one of many qualities that are valued, subject to a larger variation in importance. Some guys would very easily trade off Phi-Beta-Kappa for more femininity, straight book smarts for general intellectual vivacity and curiosity. It’s not not requirement for me be able to discuss the latest technological advances with my LTR. Heck, I do that all day with the coworkers. I think a lot of us prefer a more “generalist” intelligence in our partner, preferably outside our own fields, to balance us out, and to give us someone to learn other things from.
    .
    I do agree to a large degree with what Obsidian is saying about STEM guys. The “smart” women, lets say, from Hillary’s alma mater, really didn’t care for for STEM guys at all. Of the two cases I saw that didn’t hold that pattern, one was a case of a woman from an ethnic group that “strongly” encouraged same group dating, and the other a transfer student who was dating a good friend of mine before she transferred. Otherwise, the women there (if they weren’t wedded to their studies, or were interested in men) preferred more “aggressive” guys in the Ivy School up the street (and not the physics guys studying there either).
    .
    The only women, in the college years, that I saw actually prefer STEM guys were a subset of STEM women (and not a majority subset at that). And since even though the numbers of women in STEM fields has been increasing, the ratio is still not very favorable for your average STEM guy.
    .
    Now, once in the work world, things can change somewhat for STEM guys, particularly if work success begins to translate to confidence. You do see the more confident guys pairing off with women at the workplace, in departments such as finance, accounting, HR, even marketing. It helps that women in those areas start seeing that not all STEM guys are playing WOW in the parent’s basement :-) and see guys at work, in the area of their competence. But, with the ratios still skewed, your average STEM guy is still at a disadvantage.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ExNewYorker

      I think a lot of us prefer a more “generalist” intelligence in our partner, preferably outside our own fields, to balance us out, and to give us someone to learn other things from.

      Yeah, that seconds what mgambale said. Although my husband and I met at b-school, we’re opposites wrt intelligence. We’ve talked about this as his being “sharp points” and my being “round.” I think that’s pretty much what you’re saying. I don’t know how many couples there are where the woman is sharp points and the guy is round. Like a brilliant medical researcher and an artist, for example. It seems like a less likely combination.
      I will agree with what you said about STEM guys – they’re at a disadvantage re the ratios, and they definitely improve with age ;-)

  • pops3284

    Smart and attractiveness do not always go hand and hand. Can a woman be smart and hot, yes, but what men would most often go for is more hot and curvy than smart. Jennifer Connely and Geena Davis and Sharon Stone are smart women, but that isnt what put is the door of hollywood it was their hotness and curves. Intelligence for men is more of a LTR reqiurement after the pshycial requirements of physical attractiveness is met. Its face,bust,butt lips, sexual ability, then intelligence loyalty fidelity if they want to get in :LTR status.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Wait, you mean to tell me that you don’t have any actual empirical studies on any of this? LOL

    Look, all I’m saying is that there is a clear disconnect here, Ms. Walsh. If indeed what you say is true, and smart gals are also attractive, who know which end is up, WHY are the STEM guys alone on campus, in aggregate? WHY are guys like White & Nerdy alone, out in the adult world? WHY are Mystery’s bootcamps packed to the rafters with mainloy White, STEM guys, to the tune of TWO GRAND A POP? If what you say is true, WHY aren’t these guys being snapped up, EARLY, by these oh so smart and enl;ighted gals?

    WHY?

    Please explain?

    And, looking to hear back from you on my Hacker “dumb it down” post above…

    O.

  • pops3284

    Dont get me wrong I like Tina Fey, but really if a person who wasnt famous(cause fame does add a few points to the scale for both men and women) that looked like Tina Fey, would that person most mens first choice, or would it be someone who looks like say Britney Spears circa 2000 or Jessica simpson in dukes of hazzard?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @pops
      Actually, I think Tina Fey is rarely mentioned as a sex symbol. She’s just really, really funny and self-deprecating. She has a lot of charm. That’s why I was surprised Average Joe mentioned her. No question that a young Britney or Jessica S. would trump her. Really, talking about “attractive” and “hot” are overlapping but distinctly different adjectives. Sex symbol is not the same as “woman I want to date.” The question is not whether smart women make good sex symbols. It’s whether they could be attractive enough to make the grade, assuming they got the boob job, layered on the heavy makeup, etc.

  • Aldonza

    Now women who like Ayn Rand are an entirely different matter.
    Haha! Will you hold it against me if I tell you I was one of those women at 18?

    .
    Oh, I had a strong suspicion you were an Ayn Rand fan. I was poking a little at you. ;-)

    Women in high IQ AND mostly male areas like computer science and engineering are ugly.

    .
    Dang, I had to come to the interwebz to learn that I’m ugly.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Dang, I had to come to the interwebz to learn that I’m ugly.

      Imagine how I felt as a frequent quoter of Jane Austen! I would have never read her if I’d known it meant I’m a Creature of the Black Lagoon.

  • J

    inability to separate visual porn images from arousal

    There used to be a frequesnt commenter at Roissy with that problem.

  • Hope

    It is true that men won’t go for smarts before looks. But some men will tolerate/want more weight than other men, some men want tall girls over short girls, and some men prefer the skinny petite girls.

    I’ve known lots of guys to call my type of figure like a little boy. Lots of guys don’t find it “sexy.” Even at 4 and 1/2 months pregnant, most people can’t tell that I’m carrying.

    But some guys, like my husband, prefer my body type to that of a woman with a much fuller figure. It’s an individual preference. Yet it is often said that petite women are not sexy whereas huge boobs and ass are sexy.

    Now is this the kind of different strokes for different folks that people want to refute?

  • Matt T

    Fate doesn’t give gifts to everyone equally. There are beautiful, intelligent women, and there are ugly women who have difficulty telling time (ok, slight hyperbole), and everything in between. In short, I see no reason to suspect that there is ANY relationship between attractiveness and intelligence: the two variables are independent.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Matt T

      In short, I see no reason to suspect that there is ANY relationship between attractiveness and intelligence: the two variables are independent.

      I’m quite happy to accept this, Terman and Kanazawa notwithstanding.

  • Sox

    It’s an individual preference. Yet it is often said that petite women are not sexy whereas huge boobs and ass are sexy.

    Now is this the kind of different strokes for different folks that people want to refute?

    Wouldn’t you agree that most men find qualities like huge boobs/ass sexy? Have you read anything about ideal waist:hip ratios? Implants are pretty popular after all. What does citing an exception to a general rule prove?
    .
    At 5’9″ I’m well aware that I fall below the male ideal height professed by most women. That doesn’t mean no woman will find me attractive or that there aren’t women who don’t value height as much as the aggregate.
    .
    Different strokes for different folks, but I’m starting to think that men like to think of things in a way that supports the establishment of general rules more than women do, and that women hate being pigeonholed even more than men do.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’m starting to think that men like to think of things in a way that supports the establishment of general rules more than women do, and that women hate being pigeonholed even more than men do.

      Haha, I’d have to agree. After all, we’re each one of us a special little snowflake…;-)

  • Average Joe

    @Susan
    By virtue of your choice of Tina Fey, you have earned a permanent exemption from verbal abuse by me.

    Thank you. I’ll take a permanent free pass any day. But… a lot of women only see her LRT qualities while missing all the yummy STR qualities Tina possesses. I like her because has sick LTR value yet ALSO does “hot” really well.

    http://ny.racked.com/uploads/2010_05_tinafey.jpg
    http://cdn.thefrisky.com/images/uploads/tina_fey_esquire_laundry_m.jpg
    http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/2000000/Tina-Fey-tina-fey-2046840-620-400.jpg
    http://www.loganotron.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/tina_fey.jpg

    Interestingly,Tina is a bigger threat to woman feeling inadequate than porn starlets could ever be, though TF is not thought of that way. And of all the women on my list, she is most like my Lady. I am so blessed!

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:

    SW: As I’ve said many times on HUS, these men come into their own quite nicely over time. They’re not the socially dominant athletes or frat stars, with a few exceptions. Don’t forget, though, that this will vary by school. The hottest guys on Harvard’s campus are super smart, as are the hottest girls. I don’t see why you focus exclusively on STEM guys – why not a brilliant philosophy major?

    O: Because that’s where the pure brainpower tends to be, per the STEM guys themselves, that’s why. Besides, per your researches, the smart gals know the deal – why don’t they snap em up and chat em up EARLY, Ms. Walsh? I mean, these smart gals don’t go in for all that vapid jocky stuff anyway, right? I mean, it makes perfect sense to me, what you’re saying – so, what’s up with why these guys get virtually NO attention from the Smart Gal Cohort?

    And, why don’t you have any data for how well these STEM guys do later on in life? Why is it that these guys are either like White & Nerdy, or like the many guys in Mystery’s workshops, if indeed what you say is true?

    Please explain?

    O.

  • Aldonza

    The only women, in the college years, that I saw actually prefer STEM guys were a subset of STEM women (and not a majority subset at that).

    .
    I’m a STEM woman. In our defense, a lot of STEM guys are a pain in the ass. They can be arrogant as all hell, particularly if you admit a lack of knowledge in their area of expertise. I mean, really, I’m an expert in my area, can you hold it against me if I don’t actually know that an erythrocyte is a red blood cell? This great fondness for arcane jargon allows them to identify one another and separate themselves from the “great uneducated masses” of non-techies.
    .
    It can be a lot of fun to run across one of those alpha-geeks in my own field though, particularly if I’m out of context. It’s like a hit-and-run geek attack.

  • Aldonza

    WHY are the Mystery pickup seminars and the like, packed to the gills with STEM guys, in the main?

    .
    It’s quite simple: if a geek doesn’t understand something, he goes and researches it. He reads blogs, books, and ultimately finds himself at a bootcamp. A non-geek just watches more porn.

  • Obsidian

    Snowdrop,
    Thanks for the comments. But, what remains unanswered is this:

    WHY is it so very necessary for a Man to know the wine list? What practical difference does that make? Why is it so very important, these things, to Women? That has yet to be explained.

    What, say you?

    I’m curious – what’s a middle aged White Woman doing knowing what an Emu-SP1200 is? How’d that happen?

    Avg Joe,
    Excellent points, my friend. I don’t have a particular axe to grind against Ms. Hope, but I’ve always found her to be a bit outside of the realm of reality in her communications. Different strokes for different folks and all that, but I just don’t see them as being all that practical for the ladies of today.

    Keep up comin’!

    Holla back

    O.

  • Sox

    My top 5 sexiest actress picks:

    1. Scarlett Johansson
    2. Salma Hayek
    3. Rachel McAdams
    4. Elizabeth Brown
    5. (guilty pleasure) Christina Hendricks
    .
    Based on pure sex appeal I don’t really care what any of their IQs are.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sox
      Well, there’s the proof that you are definitely a boob man.

  • http://www.chicnoirhouse.blogspot.com chic noir

    I’ve seen Kim K without makeup before, she’s rates as a 7 without makeup. You got a bad picture of her. She looks younger without makeup.

  • Hope

    Sox, I had read up on waist-to-hip ratios when I was 17, and from that time until recently when I got pregnant, I fell within the “good” range of around .7. I still got jeers of looking too skinny, looking like a boy, and so on.

    Of course there are men who like huge breasts. But there are also men who like them smaller. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean the alternative is necessarily the “exception to the rule.”

    There are men who think outside the rules, too. In fact I daresay it is usually men who do this, who innovate and come up with new ideas that come and replace the old. There are lots of men who say they hate fake breast implants these days. I’d say that’s plenty of proof that the exception (rather than bigger is always better) can sometimes gain quite a bit of traction.

  • Sox

    I don’t know about other guys here, but I think I’d value intelligence in a girl as a complementary quality that enhances the total package and the chase involved. All the greater to conquer. We like to plant our flags, right?
    .
    Seems like the difference with women is they’re most turned on by a guy who chases them and finally conquers them, no? A guy who challenges them every step of the way and neutralizes their defenses. Any failure to do so results in a loss of tingle. Just another way of discussing hypergamy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sox
      Interesting point about an intelligent woman being a bigger challenge, or at least a bigger prize. And yes, we want to send up our own white flag, no question. Surrender is sexy.

  • Aldonza

    @Average Joe

    LMAO. And one would expect them to be more like Ayn and be able to land a guy 15 years her junior, but alas they are indeed the ugly ducklings of the fan club world.

    .
    Actually, Ayn Rand’s boyfriend was 19 when they met…she was 45. Who says there’s no such thing as intellectual attraction?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Actually, Ayn Rand’s boyfriend was 19 when they met…she was 45

      Wow, if he was anything like Howard Roark she did well for herself.

  • Average Joe

    @pops
    Dont get me wrong I like Tina Fey, but really if a person who wasnt famous(cause fame does add a few points to the scale for both men and women) that looked like Tina Fey, would that person most mens first choice, or would it be someone who looks like say Britney Spears circa 2000 or Jessica simpson in dukes of hazzard?


    “Check out my undercarriage” is a sexy line, but not nearly as hot as “drill, baby drill”. And Jessica Simpson is hard to beat for any woman because of her big boobs and golden, flowing locks. But… a 19 year old Tina Fey, styled and gyrating just like a pop star would take Brittany’s lunch money. Tina has a better body AND face than Brittany.

  • http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com MuleChewingBriars

    “A [wo]man’s wisdom maketh h[er] face to shine, and the boldness of h[er] face shall be changed” Ecclesiastes 8.1, with some liberties taken for the sex.

    There is something about the look on a woman’s face when she “gets it” that is as boner-producing as a peek down Kim Kardashian’s blouse.

    I couldn;t believe that something this self-evident had generated over 170 replies, until I saw that 35% of them were about astrology.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mule

      There is something about the look on a woman’s face when she “gets it” that is as boner-producing as a peek down Kim Kardashian’s blouse.

      Well, as I recall you’re a literary type, and perhaps even an Austen fan? In any case, you’ll win hearts with this comment.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Aldonza,

    There will be some subset of STEM guys who will be pains in the ass, as in any other population. Heck, there’s a few here at work, but on the whole, they’re fairly easy to identify. It doesn’t take much interaction to see that side of them come out.
    .
    The types of STEM guys aren’t really a majority, though. However, on the interwebs, they are a lot more common, unfortunately.

  • Aldonza

    Yea, but why doesn’t the smart gal simply graviatate to the geeky STEM guy?

    .
    I already answered that above. Smart women do like smart men. But a lot of STEM guys have an attitude of intellectual superiority that actually distances them from women. I have a very intelligent, non-STEM, female friend (yes, she’s attractive) who’s tried to bond with STEM guys, only to be shut down because she didn’t understand their work or interests. Would they have fucked her? Probably, if they caught the social cues that she was sexually available. But then that starts up the secondary discussion of STEM guys and their ability to read social cues.

  • Aldonza

    The types of STEM guys aren’t really a majority, though. However, on the interwebs, they are a lot more common, unfortunately.

    .
    Agreed. I think a lot of them mellow out as they get into the real working world, but in college they seem almost rabid about their “techie” status and tend to band together.

  • Meg

    @Average Joe

    No, who’s that? Is she an example of a stupid but really hot girl that Bill would obviously have rather been with? No that doesn’t seem right, because most people say she’s not all that hot and since she was a White House intern, she probably isn’t stupid. Obsidian was using Chelsea as an example of a smart but not hot girl, and all I was doing was pointing out the fact that not hot doesn’t necessarily make you unattractive, particularly when it comes to finding a long-term mate.

  • Sox

    Hope,

    There are men who think outside the rules, too. In fact I daresay it is usually men who do this, who innovate and come up with new ideas that come and replace the old.

    You mean like fake breasts? :)
    Hey, I agree…I would take natural over fake any day.
    .
    Obs alluded to this – you want to find what men are *most* attracted to wrt raw sex appeal, look at porn. There are all manner of fetishes, genres, etc… but I would say busty women are near ubiquitous.
    .
    This is totally speculation on my part, but I wonder what influences different male’s preferences in female breast size. A good friend of mine has always preferred them to be on the smaller side and he’s admitted to me a couple of times that he thinks he has a low sex drive/low T levels. I’m on the other end of the spectrum on both counts.

  • Hope

    I installed my own 56k modem when I was in middle school, member of the chess club and have indeed played WoW in a basement. I’ve been hanging out with other nerds all my life.

    The lack of seeming “success” that nerdy men have with women is definitely due to ratio. I simply haven’t met too many nerdy women. There is maybe 1 for every 5 guys, maybe worse than that. The nerdy women I have met playing D&D, video games or mmorpgs are all either in a LTR or married, every one of them to another nerd.

    For sure nerdy girls gravitate to nerdy guys. But nerdy girls don’t really sleep around a lot, so the one nerdy guy who’s got her, well, he’s got her. There isn’t any “sharing” of the girl like what goes on in the hook up scene, where one girl might sleep with the whole football team, and so all the jocks get “some.”

    Do the simple math. We nerdy girls don’t put out as much, and there aren’t as many of us, so a large number of the nerdy guys who are our natural targets get left out without sex and companionship as soon as we get into a LTR. What can we do about it? Convert more women to nerdy pursuits? Not likely. And I’m not going to apologize for not being a slut.

  • Aldonza

    But… a 19 year old Tina Fey, styled and gyrating just like a pop star would take Brittany’s lunch money. Tina has a better body AND face than Brittany.

    .
    She’s definitely hot now (a walking example of my assertion that all you need is a personal trainer and a good stylist). But it wasn’t always so: But… a 19 year old Tina Fey, styled and gyrating just like a pop star would take Brittany’s lunch money. Tina has a better body AND face than Brittany.

  • Obsidian

    RT,
    Replies below:

    RT: Well, thank god for small mercies. I don’t particularly enjoy failing students.

    O: Perhaps you should consider getting another job if it’s so uncomfortable…
    .

    ‘If astrology ain’t your thing, hey, all well and good; I won’t try to “convert” you, that’s never been my bag. But I’ll be damned before I let you, V, or ANYONE attempt to force me to explain or prove myself to any one of you. You don’t like what I’m saying, here’s a really novel idea:

    DON’T READ IT.

    Capice? Try that on for size, hmm?’
    .
    RT: The fact remains that even when questioned on your reasoning/logic behind using astrology, you have failed to present any sort of evidence to support your case. Therefore, your opinion comes across as invalid. The fact remains that when trying to persuade and audience to see things from your perspective, you need to provide persuasive evidence to convince them.

    O: Why? Do you give anyone else here that kind of workout, RT – demanding that they prove and persuade everyone on what they say? If not, why single me out? Please explain?

    This is a discussion forum, it’s not a thesis defense. A big part of life is knowing the kinds of venues one is in. If i were indeed in class I would have no problem doing what I needed to do, but you ain’t my taecher, this ain’t no class, and I don’t have to explain ANYTHING to you or anyone else. What part of that don’t you get, RT? Because if you want, I can type it agin fcor you…slowly…

    RT: You can say you don’t care about converting people to your mindset all you want, but I find that very hard to believe. You may not want to convert people outright, but then why get so defensive about it? Quite frankly such an immature reaction – as shown in the above quote – along with frequently saying “LOL” as a response to any sort of attempt at engaging you in a proper discussion is rather telling in my opinion.

    O: OK, so now using popular internet venacular is somehow a “tell” about my maturity level too, right? And, who’s being defensive again? RT, Jeez, just drop it already. You don’t get astrology, fine. No big whup. Let it go.
    .
    “Nor does a whole heck of a lot of things, RT, and that WAS MY POINT. Do you deny this? Because if you do, I can rattle off a whole bunch of things, that are quite germane to THIS very discussion, where folk couldn’t be more irrational. Shall we dance?”
    .
    RT: You’re point about what? That astrology is not rational and therefore has no basis in a rational discussion?

    O: No, that A WHOLE LOT ABOUT LIFE isn`t rational – like sexual attraction in relationships, etc. Has no rational basis, much of it. I gave a prima facie example with the height thing above. Has no rational use in lour time, yet like I said, name me the Woman who, in her online ad, actually requests Men UNDER 5`10`É IO`ll wait for you to rationally explain that one to me…
    .
    “Well, like I’ve said for the umpteenth time, none of this is personal on my part, just relaying objectively what I’ve seen out there. For example, Marilyn Monroe remains as one of if not thee symbol of the American Blonde Bombshell – and she does absolutely nothing for me. But there she is, as popular as ever. So, shoud I attempt to poo poo that, simply because it doesn’t work for me?”
    .
    RT: To think you can be objective about the matter simply because you yourself do not find a particular woman attractive is laughable. True objectivity is impossible when it comes in the form of an opinion with no hard evidence. The truth of the matter is any sort of ranking list when it comes to celebs is going to be incredibly biased – particularly when it is done by a small group of individuals and not even based on some sort of poll.

    O: Sure it is, and I never denied that. But what I said about Marilyn Monroe still stands, regardless as to my own views one way or another. Do you agree or disagree and why?
    .
    RT: Since you’re so keen to give everyone else “homework” as it were in the form of going and doing their own research, may I recommend you perhaps take your own advice? I’d also like to recommend that you watch The Argument Sketch from Monty Python. You remind me of the John Cleese character, simply saying yes or no in response. You’re only engaging in contradiction at this level.

    O: No, thank you; you see, I didn’t ask you anything about comedy, and besides, I like Dave Chappelle. :)

    Let’s move on, shall we? What do you have to say about what I posted about the “dumbing it down” issue? It’s upthread.

    O.

  • Hope

    @Sox, how then would you explain nearly the biggest and most popular porn category, teen porn? Or, as some like to say, “jailbaits.” Most of the girls have not too developed chests, not gigantic butts, and don’t look as voluptuous as “normal” porn stars. Youth and innocence, as it would appear, are bigger turn ons for at least a sizable portion of men than huge breast size.

    Not PC to admit this for most adult men, but they do find the young girls sexy. The “mature” category of porn is the exception, not the rule. In fact most porn stars are 18-24 in age, and they get breast implants because most of them simply don’t have big boobs at that age. If it’s really all about the boobs, why not get older women to showcase theirs?

  • Sox

    @Hope

    @Sox, how then would you explain nearly the biggest and most popular porn category, teen porn?

    Youth/innocence/purity and the idea of conquering that turns a lot of guys on. Actually I recant my last comment about that friend I mentioned- he’s admitted to being turned on by young girls.
    .
    This is a tangent but found it interesting: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/05/male-preferences-and-debunking-myths.php

  • Obsidian

    The reason why I tend to focus on the STEM guys isn’t because of anything personal on my part, but rather that’s the cohort of guys who tend to circulate the most, or at least are the most vocal, in this corner of the blogosphere. I mention them because they’re the ones least likely to get any action, and they rub right up against what Ms. Walsh and Hope, etc are talking about – if indeed these gals are so on the balll and aren’t swayed bny the jocks, etc of the world, WHY are the STEM guys, in the main, taking matters into their own hands for much if not all of their college careers and beyond?

    I would like to direct everyone’s eyes to Ex New Yorker’s comments above. Then, to White & Nerdy’s. Now, what are we to make of what they say? Are they simply anomalies that should be dismissed – or, do they speak to a more deeper, and inconvenient truth – that the smart gals ain’t none too keen to get with Mr. Dilbert either.

    Hmm?

    WHY are the Mystery pickup seminars and the like, packed to the gills with STEM guys, in the main? If what Ms. Walsh and hope says is true, this shouldn’t be happening – right? What gives?

    Something’s not right here. I need some serious clarifcation.

    Can the ladies do it? We’ll soon find out…

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      they rub right up against what Ms. Walsh and Hope, etc are talking about – if indeed these gals are so on the balll and aren’t swayed bny the jocks, etc of the world, WHY are the STEM guys, in the main, taking matters into their own hands for much if not all of their college careers and beyond?

      That is not what we are talking about! This post has nothing to do with STEM guys! In fact, if anything, it has more to do with STEM women. You’re free to focus on that topic on The Obs Files, but it’s off topic here.

  • Sox
    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sox
      A belated thank you for those links to Gene Expression. What an awesome blog – I grabbed it for my reader.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    What kind of actual empirical evidence can you off me, Basil Ransom and Ex NYer, that STEm guys actually do better with time? How does that square with what he and White & Nerdy have said? How does that square with Mystery’s sold out bootcamps, etc? How??? Please explain?

    If indeed the smart gals exist in the numbers you say they do, that they’re easily as attractive if not moreso than the socalled bimbos, why aren’t tnhey following their keen intellects and snapping up the STEM guys at younger ages? I mean, the jocks don’t have to wait, etc. What gives?

    Finally, waiting to hear back to you on what I said about Hacker, “Dumb it Down”, etc. It is clearly a powerful issue in Black American, and becoming more and moreso in middle class White America, as more White go on to college tha n the Men. I need you and the other very smart Women here to explain to me why it is so vital to the very existence of the relationship that the Men MUST know the wine list, know about Proust, etc? WHY is this so very important? What practical difference to the relationship does this make?

    Thanks.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If indeed the smart gals exist in the numbers you say they do, that they’re easily as attractive if not moreso than the socalled bimbos, why aren’t tnhey following their keen intellects and snapping up the STEM guys at younger ages?

      Attractive smart women do generally marry attractive smart men. Furthermore, as I’ve stated elsewhere, there are smart men at most, if not all colleges. Your average alpha asshat at Berkeley is plenty smart for a sharp young woman. And we know how young women love alpha asshats! I never said that attractive smart women get wet thinking about Bill Gates.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I need you and the other very smart Women here to explain to me why it is so vital to the very existence of the relationship that the Men MUST know the wine list, know about Proust, etc? WHY is this so very important? What practical difference to the relationship does this make?

      Well, again, this is off topic, but I’ll give my .02. It’s not vital. I don’t care about wine knowledge, or Proust. Laurie Gottlieb cared about those things and look where it got her. Here’s what I care about – I can’t speak for other women:
      .
      Is a man curious? Does he have a range of interests? Is he active – does he maintain a healthy physique? Is he a sensual person – does he enjoy good food? Music? Does he indulge himself with moderation – whether it’s alcohol, games, etc? Does he have a sense of humor – he needn’t be a stand-up comedian, but does he have a hearty laugh and an appreciation for wit? Does he have convictions that he is prepared to argue and defend? Is he a spiritual person – does he think about the big questions? Does he have a nurturing side – is he a giver of gentle hugs? Is he interested in what I think, and does he value my opinion? Is he a good and loyal friend? Does he like to read? Does he stay informed and care about world events?
      .
      Other women may have other suggestions.

  • Snowdrop111

    “WHY is it so very necessary for a Man to know the wine list? What practical difference does that make? Why is it so very important, these things, to Women? That has yet to be explained.”

    Refinement is very important, in fact a deal-breaker, for some women, in some circles. I think also for men in those same circles. I’m not in those circles, but an insufferable male prig friend of a friend won’t talk about anything else. (gag.) Where was I?

    There’s a stereotype that some women congregate to gay guys so they can discuss shoes and styles and celebrities etc. but from what I have seen, some women value refinement so extremely highly that they will choose guys I would 99 percent swear are gay, over guys that seem more easygoing, fun, and masculine to me. It’s their business, and not that anything’s wrong with gay guys and not that all refined guys are gay.

    But there’s a certain sort of man who is refined and doesn’t have to be tall, built, funny, witty, wealthy, connected, strong, know car stuff or even have a chin (there’s a whole book on why these guys don’t have chins) (Just kidding sorta) and bookish women will love and compete for him. The Jane Austen book club set I guess. Aldonza don’t read that or was it Hope who is in a Jane Austen book club. I am sure your husband is not a chinless wonder in a pink shirt and khakis and a high pitched nasal voice.

    Refinement is so prized in some circles, the guy in the pink shirt with the Floyd the Bartender voice and the SAAB that never runs will clean up. And this is not a small set of people.

    If I were a guy with no muscles and no money and I really wanted a woman I’d learn the wine list and get season tickets to the ballet stat. I wouldn’t have to do anything else.

    The book about why chinless wonders are in demand is Paul Fussell’s “Class.” He has a drawing of the upperclass male facial structure vs. the working class bigger-boned facial structure in the gimme cap. I thought it was b.s. but damn if my better-looking blonde friend didn’t disdain all men until she got her very own chinless wonder , who’s a nice guy, I guess, but I feel these people are a little boring. They seem to have a very narrow range of interests, just like nerds only their interests are books, plays, restaurants, art, and sometimes travel. Don’t ask them what’s on the news. That’s not refined. Meow.

    I think in some circles the couple’s status derives from the man’s social status, and that’s why refinement is so highly sought after in men.

  • Obsidian

    Aldonza,
    Replies below:

    A: It’s quite simple: if a geek doesn’t understand something, he goes and researches it. He reads blogs, books, and ultimately finds himself at a bootcamp. A non-geek just watches more porn.

    O: Yea, but why doesn’t the smart gal simply graviatate to the geeky STEM guy? I mean, she does know that he’ll make a great fugture prospect, right? Isn’t that what Ms. Walsh’s been saying all along, that smart gals make for better LTRs and seek out such things themselves? Something just doesn’t add up here. These guys aren’t being sought out, but the jocky guys are, and non one’s gonna tell me thnat the only gals going after the latter are the bimbos of the world – according to Ms. Walsh, it’s kinda hard to have many bimbos on campus to begin with.

    I think what Ex NYer said is on the one. I am just waiting to see which brave Female soul will just come out and boldy admit it…

    O.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    @Obsidian – Again, your entire reply to me amounts to dodging anything that would amount to you actually supplying an answer with any amount of support and dismissing anything I say. This may not be a thesis class, but one should still be able to construct a coherent argument and understand how supplying proof will bolster their claims. Replying to a question for more evidence for your claims by attempting to be snarky and saying things like “Because if you want, I can type it again for you…slowly…” does not a constructive argument make. In fact, it’s reading comments like that that have influenced my perception of your maturity.
    .
    I could go read your bit on “dumbing down,” but I’d imagine the short version amounts to “ladies if you want to get a man, don’t show how smart you are” and it’s clear that anyone who tries to question you on anything is not going to receive any coherent/rationally supported arguments.
    .
    As to suggesting a career change because I find failing students unpleasant, really? The mark of a poor teacher is someone who doesn’t care enough to question why their students are doing poorly in the classroom.

  • Mike

    Obviously, as a woman I have different standards than the guys do, but for beauty and symmetry, I’d say Portman trumps Kardashian by at least 4 points. I predict that KK will look heinous by the time she’s 50.

    4 points might be pushing it, but to reiterate, basically little to no makeup, Portman has more natural beauty where beauty really is more about the face. Now it was either Dragnet or Average Joe that hit the nail on the head which is that “hot” or “sexy” really is more about the body then the face.

    KK “make-ups” well in the sense that a talented make-up artist can really improve her facial looks by a very large amount because honestly her raw face sans makeup is average at best. Like I said, my GF is a make-up artist and at the risk of bragging a top-notch one. She works for an upscale salon and does a bunch of work for model shoots. I’ve seen the before and afters on more then a few. A really good make-up artist can work absolute wonders with even a below average or average face. So that just really leaves the body, and any woman can develop a good body.

    Some free fitness advice for the women regarding bodies. For Christ’s sake, please, please, please, please get off the elliptical and stop spending marathon sessions on it. Lift some weights. No, you won’t get man muscles. Not possible unless you are on drugs. You don’t have enough free testosterone to build super big muscles and unless you diet hard, you won’t look real cut either. But lifting weights will help with the “skinny fat” look that I see many have.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      For Christ’s sake, please, please, please, please get off the elliptical and stop spending marathon sessions on it. Lift some weights.

      I’m addicted to spinning, and the trainers say it’s really important to switch it up so that you don’t wind up with “spinning butt,” which apparently is kind of a butt shelf. Lifting weights helps a ton with metabolism too. I like an occasional elliptical workout, but honestly, I see so many women looking lazy on it. They can’t possibly be burning that many more calories than just walking at a slow pace!

  • Obsidian

    Aldonza,
    Seems like what’s being said here, is that the STEM guys are screwed no matter what the IQ of the ladies in question. Which, when put together with what Ms. Walsh has been saying in this thread, is really, really interesting. It points to a lot of things.

    Hmm…

    O.

  • Snowdrop111

    “It’s quite simple: if a geek doesn’t understand something, he goes and researches it. He reads blogs, books, and ultimately finds himself at a bootcamp.”

    That’s true! I’m a geek, and I was SO AFRAID of hair stylists lest they look at me disapprovingly, cluck-cluck, or worst of all ask my plans for the weekend. I was so afraid to talk to another woman about hair color. The slightest tsk tsk tone from a hairstylist and I was always “Just the usual pageboy this time, I’ve got a meeting at work.”

    Then the Internet came along and at LAST a CHEMIST explained hair color, bleach, and maintenance. I immediately tried it myself and now I do my own hair color. Money isn’t the reason. Being able to read what the products are and what they do without having to ask a beautiful or social person is the reason. Now if I go to a hairdresser and they seem like cluck-cluck at my do-it-yourself hair color, it’s too late. I say it was an accident. I am one messed up geek, but I get my share of compliments on my hair–mostly because it can take a lot of punishment. Now that I’ve read, geek-style, what the chemicals do, I am sometimes tempted to offer unsolicited advice to my social betters when I see they are using too much protein conditioner and not enough moisturizing conditioner. But all the beauty products in the world won’t make a geek desirable. But it’s still fun being a geek.

    As for why smart women don’t seek out the STEM guys … they would if there were an STEM guy with a fun personality. Hate to say it but there are many who give off a negative vibe. Me included. That will never attract people.

    One way for a guy to clean up with women is to bring the fun, because women are so uptight and stressed these days and can’t seem to break out of it, probably because of worrying what others think. There is just a feeling when a guy brings the fun and a woman feels she can relax. So many women are using alcohol to de-stress but they would probably be drawn to a FUN guy. Too bad more STEM guys are not that kind of fun. They could clean up even without looks or money, if they were, I think.

  • Snowdrop111

    Obsidian, I will have to think on your question of why refinement seems so important to many women. I have to go somewhere (finally) this evening.

    I was wrong on the SP-1200. I thought you meant the Technics SL-1200 turntable but the reason I know about that kind of equipment is Ishkur’s Guide to Electronic Music. His tutorial is funny as hell.

  • Obsidian

    Aldonza,
    Reply below:

    A: I already answered that above. Smart women do like smart men. But a lot of STEM guys have an attitude of intellectual superiority that actually distances them from women. I have a very intelligent, non-STEM, female friend (yes, she’s attractive) who’s tried to bond with STEM guys, only to be shut down because she didn’t understand their work or interests. Would they have fucked her? Probably, if they caught the social cues that she was sexually available. But then that starts up the secondary discussion of STEM guys and their ability to read social cues.

    O: Yea, but Aldonza, but don’t Women fall for arrogant jerks all the time? And if that’s so, what’s the excuse with the STEM guys?

    Besides, we’re not talking about the average gal, we’re talking about gals who are clearly ahead of the curve cognitively. These are the gals who would recognize the superior earning potential and just all around LTR potential of such a STEM guy – right?

    As for social cues, that’s an easy workaround, after all, we’re talking about the Smart gals! Piece of cake.

    Right?

    I need clarification here. something just not adding up…

    Why aren’t the Smart Gals and STEM Guys hooking up?

    O.

  • Hope

    I don’t like Jane Austen at all, I’m afraid. I’d sooner read a manual for a computer game than Pride and Justice.

    Anyway, here’s one possible reason why STEM guys have trouble meeting smart girls on campus. They aren’t looking online.

    “I met my wife on a dating site since I couldn’t find the type I was looking for in bars/clubs – the nice quiet ones don’t go clubbing/bar hopping. Online dating is the shit.”

  • Basil Ransom

    It’s commonly agreed that state schools have the hottest girls, and state schools usually have SAT averages of 1100-1200 on the SATs, which is 0.5-1.0 SD above the mean. (USC is a fairly hot and smart school. I hear UVA and Vanderbilt are too.)

  • Brendan

    Yes in college there is a lot of screwing around. It was that way when I was in college in the 80s, too, even with very smart women. People take college as a screwing around time, that isn’t that new. The best for the guys is to find one of the women who is opting out of that (and there are plenty who do, they are just less visible if you yourself happen to be attending frat parties and so on) and who may be interested in something else, or wait until you’re a bit older and more attractive to younger women.

    I don’t understand the focus on STEM here, really. Harvard has relatively few people in STEM compared to other disciplines, but that doesn’t mean that the people there aren’t really, really smart. A very smart woman may be more attracted to a very smart political science/lawyer/business type, or she may find the very smart STEM type attractive. I haven’t noticed that much of a difference, really, and the school I attended had more STEM types than, say, Harvard did. It may very well be that, among smarter people, STEM types may be “geekier than average”, which impacts their social skills negatively. But there are plenty of other very smart guys for the women of Berkeley and Stanford and so on to choose from beyond them, and they do get chosen.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    Hey Susan – I feel you might enjoy this – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2PM0om2El8

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @RT
      Haha, thanks for the link to Jane Austen’s Fight Club – very funny.

  • Obsidian

    Hope,

    We aren’t talking about “nerdy” gals, since Ms. Walsh has put forth the idea that smart gals can be quite attractive too, in fact, she’s made the case that there are legion such gals on America’s college campuses. So there isn’t a shortage of such gals to go around for the hard science and STEM guys. It’s just that for some reason, despite their own smarts, they just don’t seem to gravitate toward their natural equals.

    WHY IS THAT???

    O.

  • Brendan

    By virtue of your choice of Tina Fey, you have earned a permanent exemption from verbal abuse by me. Not saying it’s unbiased, but I adore her.

    Tina Fey is pretty objectively hot, although I would have chosen a better picture for her, more like this one: http://tinyurl.com/27yyyp9

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Brendan
      Oh, that is a nice pic. She’s got a nice, slim figure. Personally, I love it that she has had sex with one man – her husband, at age 24 (before marriage). I give her enormous credit for holding out until she fell in love. She says that guys never thought she was attractive :( – she was funny, which often works against women in terms of sex appeal, I think.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    @Obsidian
    .
    OK, I’ll bite and reply before I go off to dinner.
    .
    Personal attacks, really? Although I’m surprised it took you this long to be honest to bring out the big guns by questioning if I have a man in my life. And don’t flatter yourself in thinking my grilling techniques have been reserved solely for you.
    .
    And I doubt I’d really be described as a buzzkill by my friends…in fact I’m usually the optimistic one who is cheering them up and I’m well known for being the last one to leave the dance floor at the club. This makes sense given that I am a Sagittarius after all.
    .
    As for the state of the American education system, well, that’s not really something I’m going to be really dealing with as I happen to be a part of the Canadian one.

  • Brendan

    The question is: WHY?

    I gave you an answer. On average it’s probably the case that the STEMs, compared with other very smart types, are more socially awkward and “geekier”. That’s probably true, based on my own observations, on average, but certainly not in every case (yes, there are engineering majors who are chick magnets, too). But as a general trend it’s probably true. Meaning that the whole discussion has more to do with geekiness/social skills and less to do with intelligence and smarts.

  • Obsidian

    Snowdrop,
    Please forgive me for being a bit slow, but I’m having trouble with the word “refinement” – what does that mean? It sounds like just putting on appearances for the sake of others who don’t have anything to do with the actual relationship itself – and if you will kindly go back to the Essence “Dumb It Down” article that I linked to a little while back in this thread, the author says pretty much the same thing. Yet, I just fail to see what PRACTICAL difference this makes to a relationship. Please explain this to me? Or somebody, explain it?

    O.

  • Hope

    I don’t know how girls meet guys on campus these days, but when I went to college I didn’t meet any guys that weren’t in my dorm or work. I never met any guys in any of my classes. It’s not as much of a village in the larger universities, but rather very impersonal. I knew the guys in my college work better, and most of them were the techie types since I worked at the college IT place.

    Likewise, when my husband went to college, he mostly knew people in his math department and the math tutoring center where he worked. The girls he met were through his guy friends. He never once wandered over to girls in the liberal arts departments to try to chat them up. Girls also don’t just saunter over to the STEM departments to meet guys. That’s just not really how meeting people works in big universities.

    For introverts who tend to populate the STEM departments, it’s even more of the case. I’m an extreme introvert and made a total of 5 “Facebook” friends who were fellow students, 4 of whom are female, during undergrad. I don’t talk to any of them anymore, and they most likely just remember my face but not my name. I don’t see how anyone should expect us shy girls who aren’t looking for a casual hook-up to just randomly go up to these guys in the maths and sciences and strike up a conversation.

  • Obsidian

    Oh, you still on that, Ms. Walsh? LOL That “Creature from the Black Lagoon” reference really got to ya, huh? ;)

    O.

  • Mike

    We’re weeping because the most rapidly growing market for Viagra is males aged 18-26.

    Just curious, do you have a link or source for that. That seems really hard to believe. Testosterone levels at 18-26 are at the highest they will ever be in a male.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike
      I gave three links in my reply to dragnet, and Snowdrop also provided a link above. Based on what others have said, there are three reasons for this:
      1. recreational use
      2. performance anxiety due to the high expectations of sexually aggressive women
      3. inability to achieve arousal without the visual stimulation of porn

  • Mike

    As for Dubya, his idiocy is a myth – I believe he has an IQ of 125 if I remember correctly – 4 points higher than John Kerry’s. Both of them took IQ tests for the military, which was the source of the data.

    Many people seem to confuse being articulate with intelligent. There is obviously some overlap but they are not completely synoymous. Some smart people also are not good public speakers, and can trip up on their words a little in front of a crowd.

  • Average Joe

    @Aldonza

    Actually, Ayn Rand’s boyfriend was 19 when they met…she was 45. Who says there’s no such thing as intellectual attraction?

    I’m gonna have to take your word on that. Last two times I was attracted to a woman 20 years my senior it had nothing to do with intellect!

  • Obsidian

    Yes, but Ms. Walsh, you have repeatedly said that like attracts like – yes? So, if we are to accept your argument – that smart, cute gals proliferate throughout America’s top colleges – why aren’t thney gravitating to their smart and you say, often cute Beta equals? Isn’t there something wrong with that? I mean, why are Ex NYer and White & Nerdy and the Mystery bootcamps all reporting something completely different from what you’re saying – for that matter, completely different from what Aldonza’s saying? I mean, if you want, we can kill the topic. But it seems to me pretty clear – that at the end of the day, the guys with the most brainpower are being left standing when the music stops, and that ain’t just ain’t in schoo, it’s for quite a few years afterwards.

    What gives? Especially if there are so many smart and cute gals on campus as your data points out?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So, if we are to accept your argument – that smart, cute gals proliferate throughout America’s top colleges – why aren’t thney gravitating to their smart and you say, often cute Beta equals?

      Aha, we get to the heart of the matter. You know the answer to your question perfectly well: hypergamy. Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that. The socially dominant women are gravitating to the socially dominant men – let’s assume they’re all about the same intelligence, with some exceptions made for dumb jock recruits :-) So that 20% is getting busy. I’d estimate that 80% of women and 80% of males are not in that scene. Most of them will have sex during college, though not all. The stats are the same for both sexes. What Ex New Yorker is saying is that women out and about at parties, in bars, etc. don’t go for STEM guys. No argument there. The Mystery bootcamps? They’re not a factor – how many men attend PUA bootcamps every year? As a percentage of the male population in their age range? As we all know, there will always be men who struggle to reproduce. With a bootcamp, they have a shot at learning what it takes to get laid. That’s more than they’ve had since the Sexual Revolution.
      As we all know, women select for numerous traits, including intelligence and appearance. If good-looking engineering majors aren’t getting lucky in college, the explanation must lie outside those two traits. One explanation is the relative dearth of women in their classes. As I’ve said, I have no expertise in which majors do or do not get laid. I suggest you ask STEM guys what’s up.

  • Brendan

    But you’re speaking on the margins. The vast, vast majority of STEMs are not higher IQ than the vast majority of very smart non-STEMs. I went to a university which had a very prestigious STEM area, as well as a very good non-STEM area. The highest in the STEM were probably the smartest on campus, yes, but the rank and file of the STEMs were no more intelligent, IQ or test-wise, than the non-STEMs. They were probably, on average, a bit more socially awkward, however, which probably explains the trend you are talking about. The STEM guys I knew who were not socially awkward did just as well with women as the non-STEMs did, and yes some of those STEM guys were fratboys and so-on, too.

    Again, it has more to do with geekiness than it does with intelligence.

  • Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    Reply below:

    SW: Attractive smart women do generally marry attractive smart men. Furthermore, as I’ve stated elsewhere, there are smart men at most, if not all colleges. Your average alpha asshat at Berkeley is plenty smart for a sharp young woman. And we know how young women love alpha asshats! I never said that attractive smart women get wet thinking about Bill Gates.

    O: Yes, but per your article, shouldn’t the Kim Kardashians of the world be chasing down the Alpha asshats – not the Natalie Portmans? I mean, per what you said above, the Portmans of the world are chasing down the Anakin Skywalkers, NOT the Obi Wans, LOL. I mean, something about that just ain’t right.

    WHY are the natural equal and fit per the assortative mating model you noted so frequently – the really smart Beta guys, which tend to be in the hard sciences/STEM fields – WHY are the smart gals you’re talking about passing them up? Per yopur argument, these are gals who know which end is up, right? I don’t get it.

    Please explain?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs
      I did not note the assortative mating model, Brendan and Ex NY did. I don’t know who Kim Kardashian chases down, and have no evidence as to her intelligence level, other than that silly tweet and her sex tape. You’re suggesting she’s stupid – she must be, because she’s attractive, right? My guess is that if you’re right, she will be quite happy with a similar kind of intellect in a man. Alpha asshats are not necessarily stupid, by the way, as you imply here – Tucker Max, the biggest one of all, graduated from Duke Law. There are alpha asshats to be found at every college in the land, I’d assume. So there are alpha asshats aplenty for the Natalie Portmans of the world, even within their own section of the bell curve. You keep insisting that smart guys are STEM majors, therefore everyone else must be dumb. There are plenty of colleges that don’t even have engineering schools – and the numbers go way down when it’s just STM. Consider that S is probably 50% female (pre-med), and you’re now just talking about math majors – a small number, and comp sci majors. You don’t appear to really understand the distribution of the college population very well.

  • Obsidian

    Hi RT,
    Replies below:

    RT: Obsidian – Again, your entire reply to me amounts to dodging anything that would amount to you actually supplying an answer with any amount of support and dismissing anything I say. This may not be a thesis class, but one should still be able to construct a coherent argument and understand how supplying proof will bolster their claims. Replying to a question for more evidence for your claims by attempting to be snarky and saying things like “Because if you want, I can type it again for you…slowly…” does not a constructive argument make. In fact, it’s reading comments like that that have influenced my perception of your maturity.

    O: Uh huh. And, exactly who has the handle of “reformed tomboy” here? Projection much, hmm?

    Like I said – do you give everyone this kind of workout, or did you reserve this just for lil ole me? Can I go back through the HUS archives and find you grilling such folk, doing your school marm routine, unsolicited? Are you such a buzzkill in real life? Do you do this to your Man on the regular? Do you have a Man?

    .
    RT: I could go read your bit on “dumbing down,” but I’d imagine the short version amounts to “ladies if you want to get a man, don’t show how smart you are” and it’s clear that anyone who tries to question you on anything is not going to receive any coherent/rationally supported arguments.

    O: OK. Actually, I’m glad that you have elected to drop it all together, in fact, you’d be doing me a huge favor if you just skip past any and all of the rest of my posts, I’d really appreciate that. Thanks!
    .
    RT: As to suggesting a career change because I find failing students unpleasant, really? The mark of a poor teacher is someone who doesn’t care enough to question why their students are doing poorly in the classroom.

    O: Then the American educational system is truly in trouble indeed…

    Though I’m not at all sure you’re the cure…

    O.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    I don’t deny that my queries were off topic, but in all fairness, there were by no means the onl;y ones. Back at near the top of the thread there was a discussion, which as I recall you might have even taken part in, where the idea that Men or at least some, had trouble dealing romatntically with smart Women. I then simply took the discussion a step further, by posting up excerpts from a post on my blog that dealt withn the very same topic, as well as posting up an Essence magazine article called “Dumbing it Down”, and noted that this was a huge issue of import in the Black community. Now, we’re beginning to see this play itself out in the White community, and again I have to cite Hacker here, as he has suggested that a “racial convergence” is occuring. In that the discussion was indeed about smart Women, and in that the question of Men being putatively intimidated by smart Women, and/or her needing to “dumb it down” was already on the table, I merely took it a step further.

    If I’m out of line, so are the ladies, including Reformed Tomboy, near the top of the thread.

    Thanks at any rate for attempting to answer my question, but as you rightly note with Ms. Gottlieb and with the author of the Essence article, and even one of my readers, Deery, this is a huge issue where potentially millions of Women are thinking in exactly the same way. Now, we can choose to turn a blind eye to it, or, we can choose to engage it, head on.

    We can’t have bunches of Smart Women around, andthen simply choose not to grapple with the issues such a cohort presents. This, as Hacker’s book(s) clearly points out, is one of them, the whole “dumbing it down” issue.

    *shrugs*

    O.

  • Obsidian

    Brendan, Hope,
    Interesting comments. But, here’s the problem:

    1. Everyone knows that college campuses, even the bigger ones, are basically villages. Where everyone klnows everyone else, or at the very least, where the various “groups” hang out. I simply don’t buy the argument that the gals on campus don’t know where the STEM depts are. I say they know exactly where they are, they’re just not that into those guys, despite the fact that these gals are quite smart themselves.

    2. That leads me to Brendan’s point – that when these Smart Gals can choose – and like I said in my post at my blog earlier today, anyone who knows Game knows that more often than not, the Woman always chooses – she chooses the really smart PoliSci/Big Law/MBA guy, OVER the STEM guy.

    The question is: WHY?

    Comments?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      the Woman always chooses – she chooses the really smart PoliSci/Big Law/MBA guy, OVER the STEM guy.

      This is hilarious, and it proves you don’t understand educational demographics. A third of my MBA class were engineering majors. Economics was second – lots of brainy guys there. Tons of comp sci majors, separate from engineering, and quite a few math geeks. And quite a few science majors as well. But the minute a guy is studying for an MBA he’s no longer a geek? Who do you think works on Wall St? Outside of Sales, it’s 100% geeks!

  • Brendan

    And WHY IS IT that the geeks tend to be found in the STEM-related fields? What gives?
    I say that it’s a part of the hardwiring that comes as “side effect” of the kind of brainpower required to do STEM stuff in general.

    @O — I think it has more to do with the kind of personality who is attracted to that kind of work. Lots of the STEM guys spent a lot of time in their teen years programming before their PCs and so on and tend to be more introverted on average. It’s a personality-type we’re discussing here, not an intelligence threshold. It’s not true that STEM requires more brainpower, it’s just that it requires different kinds of brainpower.

    My college roommate was STEM and had lower board scores and a lower GPA than I did. He nevertheless did not do so well with women at the time (he has improved since) because his persona was more introverted and geeky at the time. He changed as he grew older and found a very pretty woman as his wife. Other STEM guys on my dorm floor were the opposite — higher board scores and GPAs but did fine with women. Why? They were better looking, on average, and had more confidence. The women were not avoiding them because they were “icky STEM guys”, but were drawn to their confidence. In my experience women don’t care about what your major is, they care about your persona. Yes, there are more geeks on average in STEM than elsewhere, that’s because that persona tends to be more drawn to those fields. But the idea that these guys are across the board more intelligent is not true. Sure, the ones on the Einstein/Feinman level are, but that’s a tiny/tiny proportion of guys.

    You’re making the same mistake that the HBDers do by focusing on the extreme right tail of the curve. Move over a SD or 2 or 3 to the left and you’re still dealing with very, very smart people, but it’s much more balanced between STEM and non-STEM than it is at the extreme far right (which is an infinitesimal proportion of the population in any case).

  • ExNewYorker

    @Hope,

    It isn’t a matter of of STEM guys having trouble meeting smart girls on campus. At the STEM school I went to, there were a reasonable number of women (for a STEM campus at least). There were a lot of smart women at Hillary’s alma mater, and at the tons of other schools in the Boston area. The problem wasn’t meeting the smart women, the problem was that the “smart” women in question didn’t have us STEM guys high on their “list”, if we were on the list at all.
    .
    There were exceptions, of course. As I’ve mentioned, there was a reasonable percentage of STEM women who preferred STEM guys, but it was still a minority of the total number of STEM women. The STEM guys who managed to avoid this scenario had one thing going for them, what is now referred to as “natural game”. Your average STEM guy doesn’t often have that. Between awkward pedestalizing of women, generic introversion, and a lack of awareness that a large percentage of women prefer certain qualities present in the alpha cads, it can make for a tough time for STEM guys during the college years (including grad school).
    .
    I think what it boils down to is that many women who say they want intelligent men really move that to a more secondary criteria, behind the main criteria they really prefer. It’s a nice to have, behind all the others. And at the schools we’ve been alluding to, your average guy isn’t going to be a dummy, so it works out. I will point out one caveat…this doesn’t seem to be true at the really high end of the IQ spectrum…you’ll tend to get Brendan’s assortive mating at that point. But then again, even at the Ivy’s and STEM schools, everyone is not a supra-genius. Smart, talented, yes, but not everyone there is going to change the world with their or so great IQ…

  • Brendan

    Personally, I love it that she has had sex with one man – her husband, at age 24 (before marriage). I give her enormous credit for holding out until she fell in love. She says that guys never thought she was attractive – she was funny, which often works against women in terms of sex appeal, I think.

    It could be that. Her sense of humor can be cutting, I think, but overall she’s a very attractive woman. And not just “for her age”.

  • Obsidian

    RT,
    Replies below before you go off to dinner (whew!):

    RT: OK, I’ll bite and reply before I go off to dinner.
    .
    Personal attacks, really? Although I’m surprised it took you this long to be honest to bring out the big guns by questioning if I have a man in my life. And don’t flatter yourself in thinking my grilling techniques have been reserved solely for you.

    O: Good! Then you can direct me to those post threads where you’re in all your grilling, unsolicited school marm glory? I’ll wait until you get done with din din to provide those links…

    And personal attacks? Where I come from, don’t dish if you can’t take it. You call me immature, I call you hard for a Man to deal with. *shrugs*
    .
    RT: And I doubt I’d really be described as a buzzkill by my friends…in fact I’m usually the optimistic one who is cheering them up and I’m well known for being the last one to leave the dance floor at the club. This makes sense given that I am a Sagittarius after all.

    O: Uh huh.
    .
    RT: As for the state of the American education system, well, that’s not really something I’m going to be really dealing with as I happen to be a part of the Canadian one.

    O: Than God, I’lll drink to that…

    O.

  • Average Joe

    @Aldonza,
    @Aldonza,

    She’s definitely hot now (a walking example of my assertion that all you need is a personal trainer and a good stylist). But it wasn’t always so

    More like fact than assertion. Rare is the woman that does not look better after hitting the gym regularly. Look what happens to Spears and Simpson when they fall off the wagon! As I said before “smart” girls are not gonna be “hot” unless they try to be “hot” and too often they do not. I went to college where there were absolutely, positively zero women with IQ’s as low as 100, yet unlike the state school girls, they wore sweat pants to class ever day.

  • Brendan

    I think what it boils down to is that many women who say they want intelligent men really move that to a more secondary criteria, behind the main criteria they really prefer. It’s a nice to have, behind all the others. And at the schools we’ve been alluding to, your average guy isn’t going to be a dummy, so it works out.

    This I agree with. At an elite school, pretty much everyone is over the intelligence threshold, so it comes down to personae as the principal selection trait. Once you graduate from school, though, that isn’t the case, and assortative behavior begins, at some stage, to kick in among the smarter people (not just the right tail). And even then, it isn’t that women are selecting solely on the basis of intelligence — both Susan and I agree that this is pretty much *never* the case. You need a persona, you need other things going for you. It is true, though, that smarter women to very smart women are typically going to want intelligence as one of the things in your bag of tricks if they are looking for an LTR post-schooling. In school, if they are at an elite institution, it’s a given that this is a part of your bag of tricks, whereas afterwards it isn’t.

  • Obsidian

    Hi Brendan,
    Reply below:

    B: I gave you an answer. On average it’s probably the case that the STEMs, compared with other very smart types, are more socially awkward and “geekier”. That’s probably true, based on my own observations, on average, but certainly not in every case (yes, there are engineering majors who are chick magnets, too). But as a general trend it’s probably true. Meaning that the whole discussion has more to do with geekiness/social skills and less to do with intelligence and smarts.

    O: Actually B, per the basic laws of evo-psych and nature, it DOES have to do with intel/smarts. The higher you guy in terms of IQ for males, the more likely the social awkwardness, etc. Indeed, the two are correlated.

    Again – in aggregate, who makes up all the bootcamps that Mystery and others give – the Big Law/PoliSci/Sales/MBA types? Or is it the STEM guys? Come on.

    See, I have a theory as to why even the smart gals Ms. Walsh has been singing the praises about tends to avoid the STEM guys, and when they can choose – and again, Women always choose -they tend to go for the guys you mentioned.

    But I want to see if any of these smart, brave yong ladies will step up to the plate and tell it like it is…

    This is fun! :)

    O.

  • Obsidian

    Hope,
    Look, you knew who the Greeks were and where they were likely to hang out. You knew who the jocks were. You knew where the PoliSci/Humanities bldgs were. The STEm bldgs were. The MBA bldgs were. The Law School bldgs were. You may not have hung out with these crowds, but you knew where they were.

    So let’s stop the BS, OK?

    Like I said: college campuses are like little villages unto themselves. You may not have hung out with the blacksmith, but you knew where he was likely to be found.

    So…why don’t the Smart Gals, as a group, didn’t naturally gravitate to the putatively smartest guys on campus?

    Hmm?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      So…why don’t the Smart Gals, as a group, didn’t naturally gravitate to the putatively smartest guys on campus?

      This is tedious. I have been answering this question all day, and plenty of others have given it a shot as well. You absorb none of the information we’re providing, you just keep asking the same thing again and again. The answer has nothing to do with women stepping up bravely – you just aren’t getting the validation you want. I’m not going to address this again in this thread.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Obs
    Honestly, Brendan has said it very well. Please read his explanation, as I am in total agreement with him on this issue. It’s really not very complicated, I don’t know why you’re finding it so difficult.

  • Obsidian

    Brendan,
    Again, nature/evo says otherwise, or at the least suggests it. I mean, would you agree that you’re highly unlikely to find many geeks in the Big Law/PoliSci/MBA tracks? If you do agree, the question we have to ask is, WHY IS THAT?

    And WHY IS IT that the geeks tend to be found in the STEM-related fields? What gives?

    I say that it’s a part of the hardwiring that comes as “side effect” of the kind of brainpower required to do STEM stuff in general.

    What is it? And why, *as a group* don’t putatively smart gals on campus gravitate to it?

    O.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    OK, so I don’t know jack about college life.

    Fine. How do you explain what Ex NYer has said? Is he out to luch, too? How is it that I, who’ve never been a college student, and he, who has, and at quite a fairly high level, see the exact same things? When we don’t know each other? Don’t move in the same social circles? Heck, we don’t even talk much in this forum? How is that possible?

    Come on Ms. Walsh – there’s a “there”, there. From what I’m getting out of all this, is that pure brainpower ain’t enough for the Smart Gals – and let’s be clear here, Ms. Walsh. We’re not talking about the big state schools, which is where the NFL tends to get its talent from, but rather say, the Ivy League, or other “name ” schools, like Northwestern, or Stanford. So, we’re basically saying that everyone there, or at least almost everyone, is basically a cut above the rest cognitiviely. If you agree with that, then we have to say, that not only are the gals there really on the ball in aggregate, but the really smart guys have to be, well, really smart.

    Yet, as Ex Nyer says, the STEm guys lose out, and there’s something inherent in the personality there that tends to turn away even Smart gals who know better. Very curious.

    Oh, and I never said anything about Kardashian’s smarts, you did, yesterday before your post and then on your post on which we’re commenting on. You even went so far as to suggest that she wasn’t so smart at all. I don’t care either way because that was never an issue for me. You on the other hand, because you felt some kind of way about what I said about the whole jane Austen thing, have a dog in the fight. *shrugs*

    Look, all’s I know is, that per the idea of like attracts like – and that is what you said -the really smart gals don’t seem to be pairing off with the putatively really smart guys, unless of course, one wants to say that the really smart guys can be found in the softer” fields, such as Law, Sales/Business and PoliSci. Coolbeans – but the fact that the STEM Guys, as a group, tends to have a hard time, tells me thnat there are that much of a differnce between the Smart Gals and everyone else. In the end, the STEM Guys, as a group again, tend to finish last.

    White & Nerdy, and Ex NYer, are living proof of this. You can poo poo me, all well and good.

    You gonna poo poo them, too?

    O.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    I’m finding it difficult because I am having a hard time assimilating your point, which is that the Smart gals simply arent the same as the bimbos – but I can’t tell. They seem to fall for the guys like Tucker Max just as fast – after all, by your own admission, he graduated Duke Law – so I’m not getting this at all. If “smart” means “better decision making” – and let’s be honest, we attach positive value judgments to the word “smart” – then why is it that these gals seem just as likely to fall for the asshats as their less cognitiviely blessed sisters? At least in their case, they can blame it on less brains? What’s the Smart Gals’ excuse?

    I mean, if they have it going on upstairs, why couldn’t they make the rational (Reformed Tomboy, are ya listening?) decision to go for the guy LEAST likely to give her agita and heartache? And, again as White & Nerdy and Ex NYer noted, this doesn’t stop after school’s over – so why aren’t they going for these guys before they hit the wall?

    Again, I really don’t get it.

    O.

  • Rum

    Maybe this will help: Being really smart helps a woman a lot with guys because she can say the right things in all situations so much better than her dimwitted sisters.. But this has NOTHING to do with degree-sucking or credential slurping behavior of modern women. Piling up name brand credentials gains you nothing beyond what you get for just getitng my obscure humor.
    Young women fall into stupid projection traps when they imagine that when they get an MBA, etc. desireable guys will spring boners for them the same way they get moist for elite male graduates of prestigious places.
    Their idea is stupid and wrong and everything that will happen thereafter will punish them until they get their head back on straight
    To review:
    Guys like non fat girls who act sane and supportive of their generitive needs,

    Guys like smarter girls because they are more fun to be around. High voltage is better.
    But truthness stops here. Every extrapolation is stupid and wrong. JUST BECAUSE CHICKS RATE HIM BY HIS CREDENTIALS that does NOT MEAN HER RESUME will overcome HER fattish WAIST TO THIGH RATIO. It never will in the case of smart guys with options.
    Besides, if a young woman in the dating scene is noxiously fat she is NOT smart … in all the ways that count, regardless of her sat scores. She is ACTING STOOPID on a lifetime scale And only a fool would overlook it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rum

      Young women fall into stupid projection traps when they imagine that when they get an MBA, etc. desireable guys will spring boners for them the same way they get moist for elite male graduates of prestigious places.

      Ha! I can verify this – the guys in my MBA program treated us with a distinct lack of sexual interest, for the most part. They’d all try to bring Fine Arts majors to our parties. Out of a class of 650, there were about a dozen couples in the program, and I was in that number, but I can assure you that being a woman studying business was a bonerkiller for many guys. Of course, this may just prove Obisidian’s point – perhaps we were unattractive, simple as that. :-/

  • Obsidian

    Brendan,
    As I said to Ms. Walsh, what I don;t get is that if the Smart gals are really indeed so very smart, why couldn’t they jusgt make more rational mating decisions, starting with the very things Ms. Walsh hersaelf frequently promotes – like the idea of the Betas coming into their own in time. Isn’t future time orientation a big part of what it means to be smart? If so, whny can’t these gals get with the guys who will go on to be successful in gthe future? And, why can’t they get with the guys LEAST likely to give them heartache?

    See, I’m having a very hard time squaring this notion of Smart gals being a cut above the “bimbos” if all they wind up doing is getting with Tucker Max like asshats. Like Ms. Walsh said, he’s clearly not dumb, but he clearly has traits that are problematic, to say the least, and to which doesn’t “innoculate” the Smart gals.

    What gives?

    O.

  • Brendan

    @O —

    Because when you attend an elite school you understand that the following are disaggregated: (1) intelligence, (2) sense, (3) morals. These are not interlinked. So you have smart people behaving in a way that makes no sense, or in a way that it immoral. That is simply the case. Just because you are smart, does not mean you have great common sense, or that you are immune from making bad personal life decisions. Intelligence in class is different from sense.

  • Hope

    I think somebody likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

    Yeah, smart girls who are young and ignorant make dumb decisions. News at 11.

  • Brendan

    isnt it true that we do indeed make value judgments about intelligence; that smarter people are given toward making better decisions, than people who aren’t so very smart? Isn’t this true?

    It may be for people who have not spent a lifetime around well above average intelligence people. Anyone who has done, knows better.

    In the end, the Smart Gals ain’t that different from the so-called bimbos – they’re just making dumb decisions in a higher standard deviation.
    Right?

    Yes, smart women make mistakes, too. Your point at the beginning of this thread was that smart women are not hot. How did we get to the rather obvious point that smart people make mistakes and may suffer from poor judgment?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Brendan @Obsidian

      Yes, smart women make mistakes, too. Your point at the beginning of this thread was that smart women are not hot. How did we get to the rather obvious point that smart people make mistakes and may suffer from poor judgment?

      My thoughts exactly. Obsidian, your deductive reasoning is whacked in this thread.
      .
      Note: For the record, I will delete any comments that refer to someone’s personal life or decisions. Casting the first stone and all that. I’ve shared my history of poor decisions here, so I’ll make an exception for myself, but other readers are off limits.

  • Brendan

    And before you say “Ha! That means they select men other than on the basis of intelligence”, it needs to be repeated, again, that intelligent women may select dumber men for STRs, because in an STR, intellect is relatively unimportant. When an intelligent woman wants a LTR, whether that happens in college or later, she will include intelligence in the list of what the guy needs to have, without question. Women also select differently based on whether they anticipate a STR or a LTR, as the Michigan study a few years ago confirmed.

  • Obsidian

    Yes, but Brendan, isnt it true that we do indeed make value judgments about intelligence; that smarter people are given toward making better decisions, than people who aren’t so very smart? Isn’t this true? If so, it just doesn’t make any sense for the Smart gals *not* to make rational mating/dating decisions, by first and foremost, choosing the guys who pose the least likely threat of drama. Right?

    Otherwise, if smarts don’t really play a role, then theis entire discussion is kinda a moot point, no matter who’s “right” – right? In the end, the Smart Gals ain’t that different from the so-called bimbos – they’re just making dumb decisions in a higher standard deviation.

    Right?

    O.

  • http://grerp.blogspot.com grerp

    Obsidian,
    Your point seems to be that smart girls are not only not hot but also shallow, elitist, and kind of mean. Have I covered everything? Where is this going? Are we all supposed to have an orgy of self-flagellation because smart girls aren’t often doing what’s in their own best interests while young? Intelligent people – men and women – don’t always make good decisions. Sometimes their emotions get in the way, sometimes pressure, sometimes alcohol. Sometimes they take the path of least resistance or the direction the culture steers them towards. Sometimes they completely pancake morally. This blog is here to help at least clarify the playing field and help women make those better decisions. Susan has been a strong advocate of looking beyond the alpha cad. What else do you want, a communal confession? Forgive us, for we smart girls have sinned…in what we have done and what we have failed to do…

  • Dilithium

    grerp — Is it just fate (or an alignment of the planets, maybe) that this line in your post:

    .

    Forgive us, for we smart girls have sinned…in what we have done and what we have failed to do…

    .

    appears directly above this line:

    .

    grerp´s last blog ..Piece of Advice 67- Admit when youre wrong

    .

    A bit of irony in the diet, as it were; or was that intentional?

  • http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com white and nerdy

    The point of contention, and what got the White guys over there’s blommers in a twist, was my having the gall to suggest that I didn’t understand why guys who putatively have everything on the ball were so very bitter and vitriolic toward Women on a whole to the point of misogyny

    Do you realize that you’re just repeating feminist nonsense? Face it. You pedestalize women and got called out on it. Making up nonsense that the men of The Spearhead don’t take showers doesn’t change that fact.

    As for Elijah Muhammad, I only made ONE reference to something he said, and in no way are he and David Duke comparable.

    Making one reference to David Duke will get you in trouble too.

    Why should anyone take a man seriously who claims white people were created by a mad scientist 6000 years ago? Or anyone who speaks positively of such a lunatic?

    Yo Man, I gotta ask – how’s that hatred and vitriol working for ya? Has it made you happier? Gotten you laid? Gotten you a raise? Gotten you more blog hits? Why don’t you write something for the Spearhead, at least you’d be putting your bile to some good use.

    Gotten me laid? No but not being this way didn’t get me laid either.
    Gotten me a raise? Yes. My hatred and vitrioldesire for freedom inspired me to become self employed where I will make more money so it did get me a raise.
    Gotten me more blog hits? Based on my blog stats for this week, yes.

  • http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com white and nerdy

    As I’ve said many times on HUS, these men come into their own quite nicely over time.

    Susan, as a guy working the STEM sector I can tell you that most of the STEM guys are still being ignored by women. In every place I have worked at least 70% of the STEM guys that weren’t born in East Asia or India were not married and clearly did not have much in the way of prospects for girlfriends. The fact that they had been out of college for years or decades hadn’t changed anything.

    I will end this here since it is way off topic.

  • Obsidian

    Brendan,
    It all seems like a seriously moving target to me, and I’m not White, not middle class or above, and not a STEM guy-so if I can see it, I’m pretty damn sure they can see it, too.

    In a word, it all comes off as a serious crock.

    Future time orientation is supposed to be a hallmark of smarts. Ms. Walsh had a parakeet and wrote an entire post, based on a comment I made the other day. Yet, those very same Smart Gals that she sings the praises about, well, they fall prey to the Tucker Max’s of the world too, and the nice boy in Engineering-he’ll just have to wait.

    Hey look, it’s a free country and all that. But at some point, we just gotta call a spade a spade. If being a Smart Gal doesn’t give you any real advantage in terms of making better mating decisions WHEN IT COUNTS, ie, before age 30, then what good is it?

    Rational thought would say that these gals would snap up the guys least likely to give em grief and most likely to blossom into those successes Ms. Walsh always is talking about, early on, you know, getting in on the ground floor. But by and large that don’t happen.

    Like I said in my post in rebuttal to Ms. Walsh (did you read it?), at least we guys, for the most part, are honest about being enthrall to our hindbrains.

    Women-even the Smart ones-not so much.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      at least we guys, for the most part, are honest about being enthrall to our hindbrains.

      Women-even the Smart ones-not so much.

      I’ll resist the temptation to write a post refuting that women are liars.

  • PuffsPlus

    W&N, my experience is different. I’ve worked in IT now for almost 15 yrs, and virtually all of the white guys I’ve worked with were married or got married. Some of the youngsters found love at the office, pairing off with their coworkers. A few of the older ones were divorced. But I see no difference in the success of nerdy STEM guys vs. the rest of the world. Why wouldn’t STEM guys be attractive? They tend to have good jobs.

  • PJL

    One thing to throw in the mix: Do very pretty girls sometimes not develop themselves intellectually (for whatever reason)? I often notice that, sometimes, intelligent and pretty girls often lack that burning desire to know. Sometimes, you’ll get professional school ambitions but rarely do you get the genuine desire to self-improvement. Maybe, this is just something rare in the human race in general, however.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @PJL

      Do very pretty girls sometimes not develop themselves intellectually (for whatever reason)? I often notice that, sometimes, intelligent and pretty girls often lack that burning desire to know.

      This is a fair question, and a good one. I’m sure this is quite common, actually. When you have a girl growing up pretty from an early age, receiving attention for her looks from both children and adults, she will enjoy some advantages with minimal effort. The first study in the post addresses this – in classes where the grading is subjective, there may even be a bias toward pretty girls. It stands to reason that some girls will become complacent or even downright lazy as a result.
      .
      Another thing that I think can happen is that pretty girls play dumb – this is a cornerstone of the argument for single sex education. Whether due to intimidation, or fear of outshining boys, or just general distraction, girls act brainier, for the most part, when guys aren’t around.

  • Obsidian

    Good morning everyone,

    I don’t know about everyone else, but this has been a most fascinating discussion! I would like to just briefly recap before moving forward, if I may:

    Ms. Walsh has presented what she considers to be empirical evidence, three times in her essay, that there is a scientific correlation between intelligence and attractiveness – and that her “poster child” for this position, actress Natalie Portman, is a perfect case in point – she is not only a critically acclaimed actress (hence not just a pretty face) but she is also a graduate of Harvard U, having enrolled there to get a degree in psychology, which she received in 2003.

    Aside from my rebuttal to Ms. Walsh’s post, I have come to the conclusion that I will concede the point she’s making, because something else has occurred to me since last night. And that’s this…

    Yesterday evening, one of HUS’s commenters, I can’t remember who, mentioned the fact that Portman had been known to be keeping company with one Mr. Sean Penn. I vaguely recall hearing about the story a few years back but had totally forgot about it until I read that comment last night.

    So I decided to look the matter up online when I arose this morning; Portman’s Wikipedia page doesn’t mention the alleged affair; neither does Penn’s.

    However, when I Google both their names, I get quite a few hits coming back that speak to their time together, mostly from “Variety”-type websites. Quite a few have them in rather compromising positions in public, and so on.

    Then, I see a Huffington Post article which contains a public statement from Portman saying that the rumors of her and Penn being together simply aren’t true.

    It should be noted that the time of the alleged affair was around the time of Penn’s separation and eventual divorce from his ex-wife, Robin Wright-Penn.

    So, here’s my thing…

    If we indeed agree that Smart Gals, like Portman, basically make better decisions than Kim Kardashian – how are we to explain the above? Sure, she says it’s a rumor, I haven’t seen anything by Penn on the matter – but as a HuffPo commenter said, gossip sites just don’t pull names out of a hat and begin writing about them. There has to be at least *some* truth to the rumors.

    If indeed Portman had a “lapse in judgment” with regard to Penn, it would then raise a heck of a lot of questions – deeply uncomfortable questions – for boosters like Ms. Walsh. And rightly so – after all, Smart gals being well, Smart Gals, aren’t supposed to even be in the same room as the kind of decisions a Kardashian would make – right? I mean, given Portman’s inherent and verified – she IS a Harvard grad, after all – smarts, how would it even be possible to be put into a position that could even look like some kind of improper thing going on – with a still legally married Man at the time, no less?

    We know the deal about the college scene on this score – and again, just for the record, we are NOT talking about the local community college or even the big state unis – we’re talking about the Ivy League, the cream of the cognitive crop here. Yet, we know, that the guys of MIT, the “hard sciences” departments of the other schools, like Columbia, or UPenn, they ain’t getting muuch action. Guys like Penn – the guys who are smart, witty, saavy, yet with a decided “bad boy” edge – remember Penn’s more rambunctious days of knocking out the paparazzi? – are the ones getting their wicks wet.

    For those who know and understand Game and sociosexual human dynamics, none of this will come as a surprise in the least. But, because we have accepted the premise that Smart Gals don’t do the boneheaded kinds of things bimbos like Kardashian do (right?), we must ask Portman supporters like Ms. Walsh, what’s up with that?

    Well, for her part, Ms. Walsh has said that those sweet Beta guys, they get better with time, you see. They mature and finallu blossom from ugly ducklings into swans, after they get out of college and into the world of work – you know, after they’ve gained a bit of confidence and swag, they’re good to go! Those Smart gals will see just who these guys are in all their glory, and off they ride into the sunset.

    Only…that’s not how it works.

    And Ms. Walsh has yet to offer any hard, empirical evidence to the contrary.

    Yes, many people of the Ivy League Class still do marry – from the best of stats we have, they marry at a higher rate, and for the record, stay married longer than do couples from other sectors of American society. No argument there. But that only tells a part of the story.

    At least another part of the story is that, for a goodly number of these guys, they simply aren’t getting the action they thought was forthcoming, after all, we’re not talking about doing cold approaches to the Kardashians at the club on Saturday night here. We’re talking about Smart Gals like Portman being ahead of the curve, and seeing the value and worth of these guys – right?

    We simply cannot reconcile what we see out in the world, with what we’re being told here, folks. I know this is America, a deeply ideological place. I get that. But if indeed we are to apply some measure of reason and a “who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes” logic to the whole thing, we simply cannot say, with a straight face, that the Smart Gals like Portman are any better when it comes to warding off the Gina Tingles than her putatively dimmer sisters like Kardashian – in fact, it culd be said that at least in the case of the latter, there is no pretense about it.

    I am wondering what our regular commenters, White & Nerdy and Ex NewYorker, have to say about all this. For my part, while I may not agree with how they choose to respond to the situation, I simply know too much to dismiss their experiences out of hand. There’s a there there, to quote one famous lady in the past. Something doesn’t add up.

    Let’s see who can suss it all out…

    Holla back

    The Obsidian

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If we indeed agree that Smart Gals, like Portman, basically make better decisions than Kim Kardashian – how are we to explain the above?

      Why would you think we agree on this point? Such a claim has been neither made nor discussed. This post did not address smart women and good judgment or future time-orientation. In fact, you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Future time-orientation is a personality trait, not determined by intelligence. Here is a link to the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory, which measures time orientation in individuals:

      http://psychology.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/remark3/rws3.pl?FORM=psych187_ztpi

      You can see it has little to do with intelligence. In fact, studies show that men have greater FTO than women overall:

      From a study by Padawer (2000): http://testas.cas.okstate.edu/cas2/psychology/templates/o-state/files/hershey/2.pdf
      Longer future orientations were found among individuals with higher incomes, those who were older, men, and those who were more highly educated.
      and
      Older women were similar to older men in that for both, education was modestly related to future time perspective. Given the explanation offered above, this suggests that the impact of life tasks on future time perspective is comparable for members of these two groups. However, young women were unique in that their educational level was not related to future time perspective. This begs the question as to what factors are influential in the development of future orientation among young women, beyond the additive effects of age, income, and education.

      So yeah, let’s nip this in the bud before we waste a lot of time.
      IQ is not correlated to mate selection, personality is.

  • Obsidian

    Hello Ms. Walsh,
    Of course, this is your thing and you can do what you wanna – but I think it’s fair to ask some ancillary questions of the thing we’re examining. To answer the question put to me above and to which you responded to, I am doing nothing more than what the whole of society – and by extension – this very forum does. And that is, to put a premium on intelligence. Not only is it seen as a good thing, we valorize it, make value judgments about those who we deem has high amounts of it, give those who have it the benefit of the doubt, and so on. Does anyone here disagree with this basic point?

    Indeed, Ms. Walsh made it clear in her post, that not only are attractive gals smarter more ofteh than not, but they make better decisions, too. Sounds good to me – which is why I posted what I did above about Portman and Penn. Seems to me that the Smart gal cohort may not be as “immune” to certain things as we may think.

    Now to be fair, that wasnt strictly the topic of this thread, but then so wasn’t the idea of Men being “intimidated:” by smart Women either – a sidebar point brought up by Reformed Tomboy above. I didn’t see Ms. Walsh chide RT for this, so I thought it was cool to take the matter a step further.

    As for Ms. Walsh examining my remarks about how Men and Women handle their hindbrains, I welcome it. As I noted in my reply to Ms. Walsh and reposted above in the thread, Women can most certainly be hypocritical and indeed quite shallow when it comes to their hindbrain functions. I illustrated this by mentioning the height issue for Men, and since Ms. Walsh is big on empirical studies, I also mentioned the UPenn study in this regard. At this point, it is pretty much unassailable. Does she or anyone else here refute or disagree with what I have said in this regard?

    Holla back

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ms. Walsh made it clear in her post, that not only are attractive gals smarter more ofteh than not, but they make better decisions, too.

      False. I did not anywhere address decision-making.

      Seems to me that the Smart gal cohort may not be as “immune” to certain things as we may think.

      I don’t think smart women are immune to any human foibles. When I say “Hooking Up Smart” I am referring to using good judgment – perhaps there is where you are getting confused. I often urge women to let their cerebral cortex drive their decisions – but that holds true for women of all levels of intelligence. Women should use their reason to learn from their mistakes and avoid future pitfalls. Again, this depends largely on personality, as there are very few human beings incapable of judging right from wrong, or a good result from a bad result.
      .
      For the record, ancillary topics are not the same as entirely new subjects. In my view, a post about the link between intelligence and physical attractiveness in females does not naturally lead to a discussion of men in STEM careers, whether women are honest about their sexual impulses, or men’s height. However, the question of whether men may be intimidated by intelligence in women is directly related to the post. If you have anything more to say on the post, feel free, but I’m not going down any of these other rabbit holes.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    @ Susan Walsh – I figured you would appreciate it. Oh youtube…what a magical thing!

  • Mike

    No question that a young Britney or Jessica S. would trump her. Really, talking about “attractive” and “hot”
    Must we really consider these 2 rather horrid ‘size queens’ as ultimate examples of feminine beauty?

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Obsidian
    I’m not aware of any studies looking at women’s dissatisfaction with men and the gender divide in college enrollment, though I’d certainly be interested in any that may exist.
    This is clearly a serious and rather intractable problem, one that I have no power to solve. That’s why my blog is geared toward individuals who want to exercise their own agency to improve their lives. The SMP is a brutal place in many ways, and perhaps the best we can do is tilt the odds in our favor individually by making good choices. That’s what I write about, but it isn’t related to intelligence.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    In my four decades of living, I have never find a man who says (when asked about his perfect partner),
    .
    “Yeah, man. I want her to be dumb as a rock, man. The dumber the better so I can be bored for the rest of my life. If they can spell their name, I’m turned off, man”.
    .
    This is laughable and, when so many woman complain about men being intimidated by intelligent women, you know that a very common thing is beneath this complain. Let’s see what this thing is.
    .
    The vast majority of men value intelligent women over dumb women, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. The problem is that all other things are never equal.
    .
    For example, it is impossible to deny that there are intelligent women who are very attractive. But talking about averages, hot women are not likely to cultivate their intelligence, because they don’t have to. They smile and their wishes are catered for. This is done since their childhood (scientific studies have shown that even children prefer to be with beautiful people than with homely people).
    .
    On the other hand, STEM majors are full of non-attractive women. When I was in college (I majored in Computer Science), 90% of women on campus were unattractive (mostly ressembling men). Hot women were in Law (which is easier in my country), Arts, Psychology, Philosophy or Nursing (I used to joke telling that we have to create a new major (IT for Nurses) for our race to be able to reproduce).
    .
    Obviously, STEM majors take a lot of work and you have to be very motivated to study them. Men do it because it is our chance to get a good job and a good woman. But hot women don’t have to bother: they have an easier path. Non-attractive woman are more likely to have the motivation to study these majors, because they are not so sure to find a man willing to economically support them. As always, I am talking about averages. There is alway a sparrow that does not make a summer.
    .
    So, in short, there is a negative correlation between attractiveness and intelligence. It is not that men prefer dumb women, it is that men prefer attractive women. Complain as much as you want, but this is wired and we can’t change it.
    .
    So when homely intelligent women are not having success in the mating game, they use to rationalize it and say: “Men are intimidated by my intelligence”. This is far more protective to the ego than saying “I am not attractive”. And yes, modern women have a very fragile ego. So, when lots of women say the same excuse, a new cliché is born.
    .
    There are two last phenomenon. The first one. Modern women are very picky. A girl who is a 4 will fell entitled to a 7 (because she believes she is a 7, because she gets pumped and dumped by 7). An intelligent woman who is a 4 will feel entitled to a 9 (because she thinks her intelligence makes her more valuable). So, when the 9 rejects her, they have the perfect excuse “He is intimidated by my intelligence”. Lori Gottlieb has an example in her book about a lawyer who was dating a shop assistant. He dated the assistant because she was willing to date him, while their female co-workers (who bitched about good men going with “lower” women) were not willing to date him because they were looking for a better catch.
    .
    The last phenomenon is that intelligent women are usually unsufferable in a relationship. Yes, I know that this will get a lot of complaining and denial but it is the truth. There are always trying to prove that they are more intelligent than you, they think you have to praise them every time for their intelligence. Obviously, having a PhD, two masters and speaking four languages, I am not intimidated by the intelligence of any woman. But it is annoying having a person who is so in love with herself that has to be remembered every time that she is sooo intelligent.
    .
    In short, if men reject intelligent women, it is not because of their intelligence, but because of other things.

  • Mike

    No question that a young Britney or Jessica S. would trump her. Really, talking about “attractive” and “hot”
    Must we really consider these 2 rather horrid ‘size queens’ as ultimate examples of feminine beauty?

    Just for the record, this isn’t ME, the Mike who has been a regular commenter for a long time. Might need to change my handle if there are going to be multiple Mike’s commenting.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @The Real Mike
      Duly noted. This is a first-time commenter, I wouldn’t take any action yet. If I have to, I’ll tell him that #12 is already taken :-)

  • Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    Alright then, fair enough, we’ll move on to the “dumb it down” issue that’s another way of examining the idea that Men may be intimidated by a smarter Woman.

    Here’s the article, in full, that I referenced above; would love your take on the matter:

    “Dumb It Down

    Written by Bené Viera on May 26th, 2010
    http://writingwhileblack.com/2010/05/26/dumb-it-down/

    Is it shocking when I tell you I’ve had to repress my intelligence in past relationships out of fear of emasculation?

    Successful black women are constantly bombarded with haunting statistics suggesting many of us are doomed to be spinsters left to live with our little black cat to die alone. We are also well aware black women graduate from college at disproportionately higher rates than black men, not including those who obtain advanced degrees. So it’s safe to say that most college educated women are open to dating men without degrees. If not, good luck with finding a husband.

    To be clear, the problem is not a matter of a man not possessing a piece of paper that credentials him to the world; but it is the lack of intellect/level of intellect of some men in my experiences. We just were not intellectually compatible.

    I’m going to make an educated guess in terms of numbers and assert black women are more cultured, well read and well-traveled, which also may cause dissent.Whereas black men oftentimes are not as well-rounded as sisters. (Not that Steve Harvey is any authority on any level, but he alludes to this in his book Act Like A Lady, Think Like a Man).

    None of my ex’s-that I’ve dated seriously- has had a college degree. Three of them attended college, but didn’t finish. And one never had any aspirations of going to college, thus he has a trade and is licensed to practice said trade. No problem there. All of them were incredibly street smart; and a couple of them possessed a great deal of book smarts too.

    What became clear over time was the vast difference in topics we would want to converse about. I constantly wanted to discuss new books I had read, international news I was consuming, the black struggle, the Diaspora, or politics. But I didn’t want to “bore” him or make him feel inferior. So instead I would indulge in mundane conversations that had much ado about nothing (ahh you like that Shakespeare reference). I’m an avid reader as well. Dating someone who doesn’t read, like ever, was baffling to say the least. One ex even proclaimed the only book he ever needed to read was the Bible, and anything else would bore him. Say what now?

    By no means am I the brightest crayon in the box. I’m not trying to paint this picture like these men were just dumb nincompoops and I was a genius. Not the case at all. However, it was the life experiences we had which I believe caused our smarts to be on different tiers per se.

    Most people are thinking ‘oh that’s just your poor choices of men. I know plenty of smart black men.’ As do I. But even with a smart man you could still be incredibly more intelligent or more experienced in certain ways. Furthermore, I don’t think this problem can be remedied with the simple response to date college educated men. Education is not synonymous with intelligence or knowledge.

    Intellect is not the only aspect where women are at risk of having to “dumb it down.” If you’re well traveled and your man isn’t, what happens when you’re at a dinner party and everybody is talking about the countries they’ve visited overseas? Then suddenly someone turns to your beau and asks, “So tell us about the countries you’ve traveled to Marcus.” Silence. Crickets. Now he has an attitude for the rest of the night. Do you feel bad for putting him in that situation? Is his ego now bruised forever, and he begins to subconsciously act out towards you because of his feelings of inferiority?

    Another scenario: you both attend your office Christmas party. Everyone there is assumed to have a degree because it’s corporate America. And we all know the only people who move up the corporate ladder without an inch of higher education is white folks. Now you’re very confident in your man who owns a mechanical business that earns him 75K a year. But your nosy ass colleagues want to know, “Marcus, I didn’t catch what college you graduated from.” Again, silence. Crickets.

    What’s a gal to do?

    For me, I know I can no longer be in unfulfilling relationships. I have to be stimulated mentally. Intellectual conversations are better than sex on any given day. Well…on most days. I’m a person driven by the desire to always learn more about any and everything. If my man doesn’t share that same passion our relationship isn’t going to give me what I need. Period.

    I still don’t feel I have to date a man with a degree. But it seems like-minded people meet and frequent similar places. Therefore, the chances of me meeting someone who can analyze the works of Frantz Fanon who is not college educated or doesn’t love to read, are slim to none.

    At what point does dumbing it down in your relationship become a hindrance to your growth as a person? Can a man handle being with a woman who is smarter than him? Is intelligence in a mate really that important if they’re good to you? And when does a woman’s intelligence turn in to emasculation?

    What say ye?”

    Comments?

    Holla back

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian
      I’ve already laid out what I look for in a man, or indeed in a close friend. I don’t really relate to Ms. Viera’s argument here. This is a personal preference, it seems to me, and presumably she’s aware of the tradeoffs. Personally, I would rather be alone that “dumb it down” for anyone. Then again, I don’t share her list of requirements. We all have personal requirements for relationships – it sounds like she has not been successful in getting hers met. She can either alter her strategy or go it alone.

  • Aldonza

    In short, if men reject intelligent women, it is not because of their intelligence, but because of other things.

    .
    I think some men *do* feel threatened by intelligent women. But that has more to do with their own feelings of accomplishment, or lack thereof. But I don’t think these guys are as common as some high-achieving women would believe.
    .
    Further, I agree that some women do have an abrasive attitude about their success. They feel compelled to wave it like a red flag of achievement at every opportunity. They can inadvertently make even successful people feel judged in comparison. Further, they mostly reject the idea that their success does little to make them more attractive to the opposite sex.
    .
    Men like smart women. Men do not like women who have something to prove.

  • Jae

    My first response to this article was, no wait a minute…my very first impulse was to send a copy of this article to each and every one of my husband’s three elder sisters and two sisters-in-laws. My first true response was a very unladylike Dance-of-Victory!!! Excuse me.

    Anyway, as an extremely precocious girl (skipped two grades at grade five), with an IQ “off the charts” to quote the school’s team of experts (and this was quite a long time ago), and a girl descended from three generations of homecoming queens and debutantes and head-cheerleaders with excellent grade point averages, I was raised to think nothing of a girl or women being gorgeous or beautiful and sexy and smart at the same time, my family had plenty of examples. Then, I married into a family where every single one of the women was, and how may I put this..very very plain and very very conservative and Catholic. Yes, they are “very intelligent” and will beat a person to about the ears for hours as to the depths and wonders of their brains.

    However, because of my looks (which to me are just “cute” or maybe it’s because I clean up really nice) as compared to my mother’s or some of my cousins (beauty contest winners, Deb queens, head-turners and heart-breakers) are just “nice”, I was shocked at the disdain and rude attitude towards me. Perhaps it’s because I am so much younger than all of them? I don’t know and truthfully, can’t care anymore. Even when my children were growing up (two boys, both National Merit Scholars that went on to top rated private schools and graduated from them Dean’s Lists, etc.) they predicted my sons would be “not as brilliant” as theirs and well, now, it’s a bit odd because not one single child of these “brilliant” women did well in school at all.

    After about a decade of these attitudes I really just kept my distance from them and still do. I can’t change their minds and I still can’t tell if it is simply because they did have plain, strained girl-hoods and college careers and married rather dull and accountant-type husbands? Often, I look around at the few family functions I attend anymore and I still wonder why my husband chose someone so different from the women in his family and the women his brothers married.

    It’s hard to judge one’s own looks but I know from a fairly young age, I always had lots of attention from men and boys and can turn heads still…but I am not at all conflicted about being very intelligent (well, the tests say so) and pretty and well-dressed too! My sons both like gorgeous brilliant women and have no problems at all with women being beautiful and sexy and brilliant and nice and I get along beautifully with them! And, yes, these two girls-young women are amazing, intelligent and turn heads when they walk into a room!

    Maybe one day, Americans will become a bit more like the French I’ve know, they seem to have little trouble with women being beautiful and smart.

    Sincerely,
    Jae

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jae
      Thanks for sharing that story – it brings up a very interesting angle. That is, how incredibly brutal women are to one another. Intrasexual female competition is ruthless against women who lucked out on both fronts.

  • J

    As for Dubya, his idiocy is a myth – I believe he has an IQ of 125 if I remember correctly – 4 points higher than John Kerry’s.

    Bush’s history of alcohol abuse may have had a deleterious effect on his intellect.

  • Aldonza

    RE: “Dumb It Down – Written by Bené Viera on May 26th, 2010
    .
    I think this woman is tipping her own hand about how *she* feels about these men she’s dating. I’ve been to plenty of those hoity corporate events and never has anyone just flat out asked where someone has gone to college or traveled unless it was offered. Further, even if they did, I wouldn’t give a duck’s ass about what they thought about my partner. If he’s good enough for me, that should be good enough for them.

  • Aldonza

    As for Dubya, his idiocy is a myth – I believe he has an IQ of 125 if I remember correctly – 4 points higher than John Kerry’s.

    .
    George W. Bush wasn’t stupid. He was arrogant and brooked no discussion on his decisions. In hindsight, I think it would’ve been better if he had been stupid.

  • Average Joe

    @Aldonza

    Men like smart women. Men do not like women who have something to prove.
    Well said. Bumper sticker alert!

    The “independent” woman is indeed a pain in the ass! My mom worked for our family & kids in general (she was a school teacher/tutor) not so she could brag how much of her own woman she was. So the accomplishment talk on dates was always like nails on a chalkboard for me.

    Sing it Kelly C.

  • Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    Yes, I recally very well what YOU said what works for YO. However, as I’ve said before in my interactions with one of my readers that you know well Deery, plus what Hacker has said in the book Mismatch, along with Women even in your very forum here, that this is more than merely an issue of “personal preference”. Quite a few Women feel thnat Men simply aren’t “measuring up” – again, this is an issue of intense debate in Black America, and I’m beginning to see it manifest in middle and even upper middle class White America, as the college gender divide widens.

    So, I do think the notion of whether Men are intimidated by putatively Smart Women, is indeed a highly legitimate issue that calls for more than a purely “personal” response.

    I mean, given how much you’re into empirical studies and all…

    O.

  • Snowdrop111

    “Just for the record, this isn’t ME, the Mike who has been a regular commenter for a long time. Might need to change my handle if there are going to be multiple Mike’s commenting.”

    I like the Mike who is a bouncer and a philosophy expert, whichever Mike he is.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I like the Mike who is a bouncer and a philosophy expert, whichever Mike he is.

      Yeah, we’re all a bit in love with that Mike. Brawn + Brains.

  • alexamenos

    I think you’re nailing this one, Susan…
    .
    If I were to compile my short list of super hot celebs (without ever thinking about braininess or lack thereof), Zooey Daschanel, Natalie Portman, Jennifer Connelly, and Claire Danes (before Temple Grandin, anyway) among others would be very high on my list.
    .
    I wonder if it’s men or women driving the celeb status of the likes of Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson? You know what I mean? Does the fame and fortune of certain peroxide enhanced, iq deficient women not depend more upon their appeal to ca 18 year old girls than 25+ year old men? I’d surmise that their attractiveness to men is limited to about 5 minutes surfing on the web before returning ESPN.
    .
    To the extent there is a perception that brains = unattractive, it’s probably because there has been a very high correlation between brains and uber-feminist attitude for lo these many years. That is…it ain’t the brains that’s a turn-off, it’s the bitch.

  • Sox

    If I were to compile my short list of super hot celebs (without ever thinking about braininess or lack thereof), Zooey Daschanel, Natalie Portman, Jennifer Connelly, and Claire Danes (before Temple Grandin, anyway) among others would be very high on my list.

    Is your name alex or alexa? All of those celebs are certainly attractive and very pretty but I doubt most guys would consider them to be among the hottest.

  • alexamenos

    Is your name alex or alexa? All of those celebs are certainly attractive and very pretty but I doubt most guys would consider them to be among the hottest.
    ==================
    “Alexamenos”….just an internets type of name, an allusion to an insignificant ancient dude, and masculine fwiw.
    .
    We first of all need to make a distinction between wank material and real-life off-the-charts sexy. I wouldn’t suggest that any of my list are the sorts that guys pull-up on the internet when they’re indulging in a little alone time.
    .
    And it seems most likely that how much brains a guy finds attractive is highly correlated to his own brainiage..i’m a tad on the right side of the bell-curve, so perhaps my own tastes reflect this.
    .
    But then I’d argue that popularity shoudln’t be the ultimate measure….Jack Daniels may be far more popular than an 18 year old MacAllan, but nonetheless the MacAllan is the superior product.
    .
    Pt being, I don’t care if more guys are indulging themselves to digital images of “Dumb-bimbo X”….Zooey Daschenal is the hotter woman.
    .
    All that said, I think you’d be surprised by the quantity of guys that find my list type girls to be really, really sexy. Granted it’s a subset of guys who’ve seen Requiem for a Dream, but i’d suggest that this subset is heavily weighted towards guy who really wanted to catch Jennifer Connelly’s lesbo scene….likewise, I’d submit that a whole helluva lot of guys couldn’t wait to catch “V” just for the prospects of seeing a clean shaven Natalie Portman.
    .
    (and god was I disappointed)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      We first of all need to make a distinction between wank material and real-life off-the-charts sexy.

      Exactly. I think the problem here is that there are men who make this distinction, and there are men for whom these things are one and the same. Since smart, attractive women have superior genes on two fronts, I’d say you are more highly evolved ;-)

  • Obsidian

    Hey Folks,
    My response to the “Dumb It Down” piece is up at my blog, just in case anyone wants to check it out:

    http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/dealing-with-the-dumb-it-down-dilemma-a-response-to-bene-viera/

    Holla back

    O.

  • Obsidian

    Sox raises an excellent point, one that I find to be absolutely frustrating:

    Ladies, what you think of what makes a Woman hot is IRRELEVANT – it ONLY matters WHAT MEN THINK.

    Please 3X, stop trying to “weigh in” on this issue. You opinion is useless. Instead, see what you can learn from what Men say in this regard. Take notes, without judgment.

    That, would be some serious progress.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ladies, what you think of what makes a Woman hot is IRRELEVANT – it ONLY matters WHAT MEN THINK.

      Don’t know why you keep harping on this. No one has disputed this point. Certainly, women are capable of figuring out how hot they are based on results in the field, no? We don’t really need you to tell us what men like.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    I’m not aware of any such studies either, per se, but, I am aware of some writings and studies on what happens when Women from the college world marries Men who didn’t go, and according to it, the results aren’t good overall. One of my readers posted a link on my site, I’ll go and see if I can dig it up and get back to you. It was originally in the New York Times…

    O.

  • Hope

    Just wanted to thank you Susan for hosting such a great discussion, and for your stance against personal attacks.

    I’ve had my share of being harrassed elsewhere, and it is nice to not have the mudslinging at me again here, from people who do not actually know me and yet feel entitled to attack me.

  • BDS

    I haven’t read the comments thread, so this is my reaction to the post. Apologies if this has been brought up.
    .
    I think the misperception that intelligence is an attractiveness negative is a product of the bell curve, and with confusing attractiveness with compatability. The main reason for this is that people tend to be most compatable with those who are similar in intelligence tothemselves. So, if you are of average intelligence, you have a larger percentage of the population with whom you are potentially compatable with. In other words, for a person of average intelligence, a smart person probably is unattractive (actually incompatable), and since there are more average than smart people, the average person would be more “attractive” to more people than the smart person.
    .
    That’s a whole lot different than saying intelligence as a quality is unattractive. My personal experience has been that relationships with people of average intelligence have been stilted and difficult after the initial fun wore off, whereas my best relationships have been with those on the right-hand side of the bell curve. So personally, I find intelligence attractive, but I realize my intelligence shrinks the pool of people with which I will be compatable.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BDS
      I’m glad you didn’t slog through all the comments, because you were in fact the first person to raise the question of compatibility! I think you’re exactly right – it’s about the match. It stands to reason that when we think about the things we want in a mate, we focus on qualities that we value in ourselves, and perhaps on qualities that will shore up our weaknesses. (For example, a rather anxious person might need a laid back mate.) We’re unlikely to want people who don’t meet the standards we set for ourselves. Although – men did say in the thread that they don’t want to be with women who are smarter than them – whereas I think women do want to be with men at least as smart as them.

  • http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.com dan_brodribb

    Obsidian wrote “if the Smart gals are really indeed so very smart, why couldn’t they jusgt make more rational mating decisions, ”

    Because smart and rational are not the same thing.

    I know people who are smart but not rational. I know people who are rational but not smart.

    I know people who are both and people who are neither.

    Rational is a strategy or an approach. It works great for problem-solving. But life and love are more than just problems to be solved

    My favorite people are the ones who are smart enough to recognize WHEN to be rational and when to let it go.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      My favorite people are the ones who are smart enough to recognize WHEN to be rational and when to let it go.

      Yes, sometimes the best things happen when you dive off a cliff. And sometimes we’re in so deep that we know we might as well hang in there, even if it’s likely to end badly.

  • http://www.atpworldtour.com/ Tennis Pro

    Dumbing down? I wouldn’t want to be with a man I had to dumb down for. That would mean he’s dumber than me and I require an equal in order to relate and bond. Intelligent and secure men of substance don’t require their women to dumb down or be less intelligent than they in order to feel better about themselves. I feel the same way about porn. I couldn’t be with a porn watcher because I’d be asking myself, “is this all I can get? A guy who even has the time to watch porn regularly?”

    If you read some of Dubya’s qoutes and watch some of his speech videos, he does indeed come across as very dumb. “Gynecologists are being denied their right to practice their ‘love’ on patients”?!?! “Does Cuba have Black people?”!?!?

    Come on.

  • alexamenos

    Bush wasn’t a complete idiot, but he did seem to get dumber as time passed.
    .
    I specifically recall a ‘before and after’ piece, one speech from his campaign for Governor of Texas and another from well into his second term. The difference was extraordinary. In the Texas Governor speech he was lucid and sharp, in the 2nd termer speech he sounded like an alcoholic who wasn’t completely off the bottle…
    .
    …..just sayin’.

  • filrabat

    High IQ’s don’t prove anything.

    Now THIS is an intelligent beauty!

    FROM:Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-1162966/Ooh-la-Talulah-The-Boat-That-Rocked-actresss-life-Riley.html#ixzz0z4FUy9bv

    “[acress]Talulah [Riley] couldn’t be further from the average high-living starlet. Instead of clubbing and partying, she’s teetotal and studying astrophysics for the fun of it.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-1162966/Ooh-la-Talulah-The-Boat-That-Rocked-actresss-life-Riley.html#ixzz0z4EVQufm

    “‘I sat philosophy, English literature and theatre studies, and I have no idea how I did in them. I made a deal with my parents that we wouldn’t open the envelope, so we never have,’ she explains matter-of-factly. ‘My philosophy teacher told me that I got 100 per cent in one paper, but other than that I don’t know and I never want to know.’

    “”But she admits, ‘From my great age of 23, I do wish I’d put a lot more effort into school.’

    BTW, according to the article, she met her current husband, the co-founder of Pay Pal, through some happenchance (although he himself is previously divorced and has kids, they both seem to have a lot of common interests). Neither she nor he is a party-goer. She only went to the bar because her friends dragged her along. This is one of the VERY VERY few instances of this.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @filrabat
      Please forgive me, but I feel that I must point out that Talulah Riley played the role of Mary Bennet in the 2005 film Pride and Prejudice, alongside Keira Knightley.

  • Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:

    SW: (quoting me) “Ladies, what you think of what makes a Woman hot is IRRELEVANT – it ONLY matters WHAT MEN THINK.”

    Don’t know why you keep harping on this.

    O: Because YOU, and quite a few other Women, both here and at my blog, DON’T LISTEN (I’ve always said, that the notion that Men have the lock on “not listening” is patently absurd, and this entire thread proves it). If the discussion were reversed and we were discussing what Women found sexy in a Man, I would feel the exact same way-it doesn’t MATTER what Men think, it ONLY MATTERS WHAT WOMEN THINK. Period. I’ve actually had discussions like this before, and you should remember, Ms. Walsh, because you, and quite a few of your readers took part in such a discussion on my blog earlier this year, where I gave a list of guys for the ladies to choose from. What ended up happening?-the ladies, INCLUDING YOU, came up with their own list of Men THEY found sexy.

    Now, do you recall me attempting to alter the conversation? Since you’re so into empirical evidence and all, I welcome the many direct quotes where I do the same thing so many Women are doing here-either coming up with my notions of what Women think of what is sexy in Men, or attempting to belittle said choices (like you did in your post above, ie, Kardashian, etc., instead of just accepting what I, Maxim, even some guys in your own forum, like Sox, etc, have been saying; stop being so defensive!).

    Nope. I didn’t utter a word after my initial post. I let the ladies have at it, for the express purpose of allowing them/YOU having your say, and for the fellas of my forum actually LISTENING to what you all had to say. Now, they could accept it, or eject it. But it would be foolish, given that none of them are Women themselves, to try to tell them what they found sexually appealing in a Man.

    So, what you and a goodly number of other Women are doing here, is downright silly. After quite a few guys have gone out of their way to tell you deal, you still go on and on about “superior genes”, how Kardashian *might* look at 50 (as if such a thing was part of the discussion to begin with!) and so on, is just ridiculous. There, I said it. :)

    SW: No one has disputed this point.

    O: Actually, yes you and they, have. See above.

    SW: Certainly, women are capable of figuring out how hot they are based on results in the field, no?

    O: Read this closely: Rihanna, Zoe Saldana, Kim Kardashian made the Maxim Hot 100 top ten. Natalie Portman didn’t rate anywhere on the list.

    SW: We don’t really need you to tell us what men like.

    O: Based on the comments of guys like Sox, etc, yes, you do.

    *shrugs*

    Holla back

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      From the start my position has been that what a man finds sexy is a matter of personal preference. That’s what I said to you when you offered your opinion in the first place. You didn’t hear me saying KK was ugly without makeup, you didn’t even hear me saying smart women are attractive. I said “to each his own.” You get to decide that – no one has claimed otherwise, least of all me. YOU were the one who said that wasn’t good enough. YOU were the one who said that Maxim was the ultimate authority. YOU were the one who spoke for all men. In doing so, you effectively communicated that my readers, a pretty smart bunch, as it happens, are sexually unappealing. I’m not sure what you expected when you made such a statement on my blog. If you said that on your own blog, I’d just keep my distance. That you feel it’s appropriate to come to HUS and lecture us as white, neurotic members of the “chattering classes” is rather interesting. You made an incendiary and offensive statement while visiting my home.
      .
      I didn’t kick you out, however. I responded the way I usually do when I write a post. I did research, and I shared it. You imply that there’s something odd and even sinister about my presenting empirical data, LOL. For the record, Maxim is not empirical data, it’s anecdotal, representing a sample size of a few writers – possibly even one guy. Pssshhhh.
      .
      As for your claim that quite a few guys have gone out of their way to “tell me the deal,” I disagree. Most of the comments by guys here dispute your claim, with the exception of Sox and Average Joe. Sox argued they don’t try to be, rather than they don’t have the raw material to work with. To him I said, “That sounds reasonable.” Average Joe mostly agreed with you but has a serious thing for Tina Fey, haha, so let’s call that a draw. One thing that clearly came through in the comments from men is that there’s a difference between wanking material and relationship material – at least for the guys who identify as intelligent.
      .
      In any case, we’re right back to where we started. What men find sexy is a matter of personal preference. What has been long understood is that like mates with like, for the most part. That includes both looks and smarts.

  • Obsidian

    Now, let me address this Hope thing…

    I find it very interesting, and telling, that you would instantly jump to her defense on the pretense of not having any “personal attacks”, yet you say NOTHING about quite a few personal attacks being lobbed at me, Ms. Walsh. Yet, did you hear me complain to you or anyone else about it? Nope, I got right in there, Manned Up, and dished it right back. Reformed Tomboy called me, among other things, “immature” even she don’t know me from Adam. 108Spirits called me a “chubby chaser” disparaged 40 year olds, etc, none of which had ANYTHING to do with what we were discussing, even when I went out of my way to state that what I did or didn’t like sexually in a Woman was irrelevant.

    Not. A. Peep. Outta. You.

    If you’re gonna take the high ground, you gotta be consistent.

    Now, again, it don’t matter to me, because I know how to handle myself and I’m a big boy. I would like to think the same thing of Hope, and to be fair, what I said about her was quite mild in comparison to what was said about me in this same thread with nary a peep from you.

    And here I was thinking that white knighting was a guy’s thang…

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ Obsidian re personal attacks
      Your being called immature was based entirely on your commentary in the thread, not personal life choices you’ve made. 108 called you a chubby chaser, it’s true, but even in this thread you’ve made references to “what kind of gals you know I like,” and anyone who reads your blog knows what that means because you’ve posted pics from time to time. So that really is fair game, IMO.
      You know well that people get emotional and defensive commenting on blogs – it’s part of the deal. Because most of us are anonymous, these kinds of insults are not the things that keep us awake at night, haha, precisely because they are impersonal.
      You say you dished it right back, but in fact, you often make generalized offensive statements, saying women are dishonest, incapable of understanding their own motivations, etc.
      Hope is new to this blog, at least as a commenter, so I only just “met” her, and have no knowledge of her history. It’s definitely out of bounds for you to make any insinuation about her past, much less call her out publicly. If you called her a nerd chaser based on what’s she’s said about her husband the math doctoral student, I am pretty sure she’d have no problem with that. If you insinuate something untoward based on experience you’ve had with Hope in other arenas, I’ll shut it down. I would do the same for anyone – if someone came on here and started implying they had information about your past that was unflattering, I’d delete that in a second.
      There’s a difference between what is said online, and what happens offline. Sometimes people let the two overlap, and when they do, they need to live with the consequences. But on this blog at least, let’s limit our remarks to what people are choosing to share in this forum. I’m not asking anyone to tread lightly in debate, but I want to keep it relevant to the discussion, and no hitting below the belt.

  • Obsidian

    Hi White & Nerdy,
    You said a number of things that I wanted to take the time out to address and respond to:

    “The point of contention, and what got the White guys over there’s blommers in a twist, was my having the gall to suggest that I didn’t understand why guys who putatively have everything on the ball were so very bitter and vitriolic toward Women on a whole to the point of misogyny”

    “Do you realize that you’re just repeating feminist nonsense? Face it.”

    O: I am, indeed. Unlike feminists, I don’t take the word misogyny lightly, and only after more than a year of reading the Spearhead regularly, did I come to that conclusion. Now that may be justified on your part and those who think as you do, but its still an intense dislike of and hatred for Women nonetheless.

    WN: You pedestalize women and got called out on it.

    O: No one who’s actually read my blog for any length of time would say what you just did above with a straight face. I’ve been quite hard on Women, but what I refuse to do, is engage in the kinds of blind hatred you and others of you ilk do. You see WN, I actually see many of the points you make and agree with them, I just don’t accept your way of dealing with it. I’ve found a better way of grappling with these issues, and it’s worked out for me. So long as what you’re doing is working for you, and it appears to be doing just that, I really can’t knock that.

    WN: Making up nonsense that the men of The Spearhead don’t take showers doesn’t change that fact.

    O: I didn’t say Men at the Spearhead don’t take showers. I was talking about Men in general, and yea, I’ll be the first to say it, many of them STINK. Badly. WTF does one’s dislike of Women got to do with them washing their funky ass? Please explain that to me.

    “As for Elijah Muhammad, I only made ONE reference to something he said, and in no way are he and David Duke comparable.”

    WN: Making one reference to David Duke will get you in trouble too.

    O: As I recall, among other things, Mr. Duke has denied the Holocaust. Please find me the same or similiar statements made by Mr. Muhammad? I’ll wait.

    WN: Why should anyone take a man seriously who claims white people were created by a mad scientist 6000 years ago ? Or anyone who speaks positively of such a lunatic?

    O: I don’t know, perhaps the same reasons why lots of people take seriously the idea that a Man was killed and then arose back from the dead three days later? Look WN, I only made ONE point Mr. Muhammad spoke to. One. One that, to be honest, the Roissysphere has been making, in fact: that a Nation can rise no higher than its Woman. If she’s brought low, so too is the country. Isn’t that the whole point of F. Roger Devlin’s writings? Isn’t that the point of Roissy’s “Four Sirens” theory? If so, what’s the problem?

    “Yo Man, I gotta ask – how’s that hatred and vitriol working for ya? Has it made you happier? Gotten you laid? Gotten you a raise? Gotten you more blog hits? Why don’t you write something for the Spearhead, at least you’d be putting your bile to some good use.”

    WN: Gotten me laid? No but not being this way didn’t get me laid either.

    O: Fair enough.

    WN: Gotten me a raise? Yes. My hatred and vitriol desire for freedom inspired me to become self employed where I will make more money so it did get me a raise.

    O: Can’t knock that. Respect.

    WN: Gotten me more blog hits? Based on my blog stats for this week, yes.

    O: Again, I can’t argue results. If what you’re doing is working for you, keep on keepin’ on…

    O.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Check this out! A reader just sent me this link from New York magazine – runway models before and after makeup. It’s incredible – from beat to beautiful in just three hours!
    http://nymag.com/fashion/look/2009/spring/transformations/

  • BDS

    I’m gonna have to agree with Obsidian on the attractiveness issue. Basically, what men find attractive is pretty consistent among most of us. What’s that? Cute face, long hair, tight ass, firm tits, flat stomach (the whole 0.7 hips/waist ratio thing). By that standard, the Maxim 100 list is a pretty good representation. As a woman, you’re free to protest, and there are a few picks that each individual guy will not be attracted to, but if you want a good example as to what guys like, there it is. Whether you choose to accept it is your choice.
    .
    By attractive, I mean what will catch our eye first. I think a lot of people, particularly women, confuse attractive and compatable (and I would guess this is because a lot of women see them as one in the same). The good news for you is, few guys, despite what you’ll hear on discussion boards, are such perfectionists that they won’t make compromises from this rather homogenous ideal standard, and you can score points with these personality and intelligence-related positive characteristics. However, the girl whose closest to the ideal standard is the girl who gets approached first by the most men.
    .
    Hey, part of me is bothered by the fact that Mystery does so well, since I’d find wearing big fuzzy top hat and guyliner degrading, but that’s not to say I can’t take a page or two out of his approach to improve my prospects. Do you need to completely emulate Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton to attract men? No, but it would probably help you to acknowledge that men are attracted to them and that you can borrow a thing or two from what they’re doing without compromising your integrity. You will be approached by more attractive men, and while you may not like them all, your dating prospects would improve.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:

    SW: From the start my position has been that what a man finds sexy is a matter of personal preference.

    O: And there’s where the bone of contention lies. By and large, Men have a certain “hard set” of things they look for in a Woman, such as youth, clear skin, long hair, waist/hip ration, bigger eyes, etc. This is true across cultures and times. Once those requirements are met, THEN, other factors can come into play, such as race, etc. But the above things I’ve noted are pretty much constant among Men.

    And that’s why, in my rebuttal to you over at my blog and to which I posted in this thread, I brought up the whole height thing. You dodged it, because you know just as well as I do that a Man’s height AIN’T A MATTER OF A WOMAN’S “PERSONAL PREFERENCE”. You, and everyone reading this knows, that Women prefer taller Men over shorter Men. This is UNIVERSAL. Women do NOT seekout shorter Men-they may wind up with one, but they don’t go LOOKING for one. If they can choose, they go for the taller guy.

    Now, just imagine me trying to do what you’re doing-“is shortness and Male physical attraction mutually exclusive?”-I mean, I could go and dig up stats that could say that shorter Men get married too, and present historical examples of shorter guys doing good things in life like James Madison, or Ulysses Grant and so on.

    But the point is made-Women prefer height in a Man, and this has evo-hardwiring reasons behind it. Just imagine if I went on a tear like you did here, Ms. Walsh. I would look downright foolish.

    SW: That’s what I said to you when you offered your opinion in the first place. You didn’t hear me saying KK was ugly without makeup, you didn’t even hear me saying smart women are attractive. I said “to each his own.”

    O: Please! Your post above savages Kardashian, you called other Women like her “dumb” in your post, etc. It’s pretty clear that I struck a raw nerve in what I said about the more brainy gals. Tough. Such is life, and like I said in my mention of the dating sites and UPenn study, many Women-quite a few I might add, being of the Smart Cohort-would have no problem in the least being straightforward in their rejection of guys who lack vertical cred. Now tell me I’m wrong in the main, across the board? With data? I’ll wait. No dodging, now… ;)

    SW: You get to decide that – no one has claimed otherwise, least of all me. YOU were the one who said that wasn’t good enough. YOU were the one who said that Maxim was the ultimate authority. YOU were the one who spoke for all men. In doing so, you effectively communicated that my readers, a pretty smart bunch, as it happens, are sexually unappealing. I’m not sure what you expected when you made such a statement on my blog. If you said that on your own blog, I’d just keep my distance.

    O: I don’t blame you-I’d do the same thing if I couldn’t handle the truth under my nose…

    SW: That you feel it’s appropriate to come to HUS and lecture us as white, neurotic members of the “chattering classes” is rather interesting. You made an incendiary and offensive statement while visiting my home.

    O: Well, let’s examine that, shall we? I did indeed say, that certain of the type I discussed did tend to be neurotic. That comes with being so brainy-do you dispute this, and if so, on what grounds? I didn’t call you guys the “chattering classes”, though I did mention your standing in the social pecking order, and I don’t know why you got bent outta shape in my doing so-I mean, let’s be honest here, HUS ain’t likely to have many Sistas from Springfield or Roxbury chiming in. So what’s the fuss? I merely put on blast what everyone already knows. *shrugs*

    O: Well, it’s not a problem I can or should solve. If YOU had said, in my house or anywhere else, that Black Males commit more crimes than do their numbers in the general population suggests, there isn’t much I could say in response-nothing rational, at least. Why? Because what you said would be TRUE. Doesn’t matter how I could parse it and tease it out, the bottomline is, that Black Men do indeed have a crime problem. Period.

    The same is true with what I said. Brainy chicks by and large, aren’t regarded as HOT. They are in certain contexts, where highly self-selected guys like the ones you mentioned here will say otherwise, just like the Women I personally like are. But in the main, this is simply not the case. This is what Sox was saying, and all your attempting to parse and tease things out is really at this point, silly. Why it is you and/or your readers simply can’t accept this simple fact of life and keep it moving, is at turns, fascinating and baffling to me, LOL.

    SW: I didn’t kick you out, however. I responded the way I usually do when I write a post. I did research, and I shared it. You imply that there’s something odd and even sinister about my presenting empirical data, LOL. For the record, Maxim is not empirical data, it’s anecdotal, representing a sample size of a few writers – possibly even one guy. Pssshhhh.
    .
    O: See below…

    SW: As for your claim that quite a few guys have gone out of their way to “tell me the deal,” I disagree. Most of the comments by guys here dispute your claim, with the exception of Sox and Average Joe. Sox argued they don’t try to be, rather than they don’t have the raw material to work with. To him I said, “That sounds reasonable.” Average Joe mostly agreed with you but has a serious thing for Tina Fey, haha, so let’s call that a draw. One thing that clearly came through in the comments from men is that there’s a difference between wanking material and relationship material – at least for the guys who identify as intelligent.
    .
    O: Uh, and *who* said anything about demarcating “wanking material and relationship material” Ms. Walsh? Did I ever make that argument? I’ll wait while you go find the direct quote(s). All I SAID was that on average, the brainy gals who are into Jane Austen, don’t tend to be HOT. As defined, by the majority of Men-and by the way, I don’t think most guys here, a highly self-selected group, would be Maxim readers. I’m not either, by the way, and again, YOU know what I like in a Woman, firsthand. Yet that doesn’t change what the majority of guys-and we live in a WHITE country-goes for, in a sexual sense. You have empirical data, I have realworld business data, because Maxim’s gotta be doing something right to still be in business after what, a decade at least? What Men pay for is what they value, Ms. Walsh. You don’t need a to go to Wharton to know that.

    SW: In any case, we’re right back to where we started. What men find sexy is a matter of personal preference. What has been long understood is that like mates with like, for the most part. That includes both looks and smarts.

    O: Really? Then how do we explain the whole Portman/Penn thing, hmm? Or again, the whole host of those sweet boys you sing the praises of who are left out in the cold? Yea, tell me all about it.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You, and everyone reading this knows, that Women prefer taller Men over shorter Men. This is UNIVERSAL. Women do NOT seekout shorter Men-they may wind up with one, but they don’t go LOOKING for one. If they can choose, they go for the taller guy.

      That has not been my experience. I’m 5’3″ and most of the men I dated were 5’10” or under. I won’t deny that many women prefer tall men, but I personally know quite a few women who have married men of average or below average height. Again, this is a matter of personal preference, and individual results may vary.
      .
      I won’t add more here, because you and I are repeating ourselves at this point. I think Netanyahu and Abbas are more likely to come to agreement than you and I are, haha, at least on this question.

  • Sox

    Agree with BDS and Obs.
    Women do generally prefer tall men. Tall being 5’9” and above. Society favors them in general. Look at any dating site- the women explicitly ask for guys 5’9” or 5’10” and above, even if the woman in question is only 5’1” or 5’2”. In fact, the hotter they get, the more height they usually “require”. They know they can be picky, so they are. Male platform/height-increasing shoes are popular for that very reason. We could dig up some studies if you like.

    What has been long understood is that like mates with like, for the most part. That includes both looks and smarts.

    If this were true, Game wouldn’t be so successful. The men women are vying for in any given environment aren’t usually the most intelligent. The women that these brainy-PUA-bootcamp-attending-wannabe’s are trying to lay aren’t usually the most intelligent (read: HB scale doesn’t factor in intelligence). When it comes to long term compatibility, that stuff starts to matter.
    .
    I know in my case, I value general intelligence in a partner a lot, but NOT in the sense that she can debate philosophical topics and discuss my interests. I’m talking about mental quickness, openness to new ideas, and an ability to express herself intelligently. I don’t need her to prove to me she knows things. Other men may care for actual booksmarts and “refinement” more than me, but often in their case they sound exactly like the women that Obs linked to in his blog post…there’s an air of arrogance. Believe me, I self identify as being quite intelligent (omg I even like Requiem for a Dream too!).

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:

    SW: @ Obsidian re personal attacks
    Your being called immature was based entirely on your commentary in the thread, not personal life choices you’ve made. You know well that people get emotional and defensive commenting on blogs – it’s part of the deal. Because most of us are anonymous, these kinds of insults are not the things that keep us awake at night, haha, precisely because they are impersonal.

    O: BS, Ms. Walsh. I didn’t say a damned thing personal to anyone in the thread other than Hope (which again, was quite benign compared to what I endured). There was no need to make it personal simply because I said something your readers didn’t like. What about the age reference, the “chubby chaser” things? What did they have to do with the discussion, at all? What, because I said something others disagree with, in your eyes those remarks are cricket, too, hmm?

    I’m just trying to get where you’re coming from on this one, and it seems pretty clear to me that you’re being inconsistent. No personal attacks means just that.

    SW: You say you dished it right back, but in fact, you often make generalized offensive statements, saying women are dishonest, incapable of understanding their own motivations, etc.

    O: I see you have yet another post up by Mystery here, the second one that I can remember. Instead of of peacocking though, why not put up a post investigating the well-worn truth in Game circles, as to whether Women know themselves sexually as well as they say? We who know Game, know not to listen to what Women say in this regard, but to watch what they actually do. Let’s go back to my points made in my rebuttal to you above, wrt Male height. Many Women, when confronted with the cold, bitter truths I noted on this score wil swear up and down that “they aren’t like that”, or that they know “many Women” who “aren’t like that”-yet, who are we gonna believe, them, or our lying eyes? As I said, we even have studies that show the clear and present preference for height among Women-often the very same Women who want to upbraid Men for choosing “bimbos” because they’re hot sexually (hmm, that sounds familiar).

    So, let’s broach THAT discussion, shall we? I. Can’t. Wait…

    SW: Hope is new to this blog, at least as a commenter, so I only just “met” her, and have no knowledge of her history. It’s definitely out of bounds for you to make any insinuation about her past, much less call her out publicly. If you called her a nerd chaser based on what’s she’s said about her husband the math doctoral student, I am pretty sure she’d have no problem with that.

    O: What SHE would or wouldn’t have a problem with is irrelevant, it’s YOUR blog. Try again.

    SW: If you insinuate something untoward based on experience you’ve had with Hope in other arenas, I’ll shut it down. I would do the same for anyone – if someone came on here and started implying they had information about your past that was unflattering, I’d delete that in a second.

    O: OK-but again, let’s be clear here. It’s OK to personally attack someone if they say something you don’t like-right? So long as you don’t go to making any comments about their past. Hmm.

    SW: There’s a difference between what is said online, and what happens offline. Sometimes people let the two overlap, and when they do, they need to live with the consequences. But on this blog at least, let’s limit our remarks to what people are choosing to share in this forum.

    O: Ms. Walsh, my whole point with Hope is that Women like her again, say one thing and do another. Personally, I couldn’t care less who a Woman chooses or what she chooses to do-it’s a free country and I believe in freedom of association. But I think there’s something to be said for honesty, and for a lot of guys, they see lots of Women talk a mean game about things on the one hand, and then turn right around and do something else. This was the point I was getting at wrt Portman and her dealings with Penn-if indeed she’s so prim, proper and smart, what in the world was she doing with that guy? What’s up with that?

    If you know Game and aren’t hidebound to any notions of “defending” Women, you know why. Otherwise, break out the shiny armor and white steed, LOL.

    SW: I’m not asking anyone to tread lightly in debate, but I want to keep it relevant to the discussion, and no hitting below the belt.

    O: Like I said, I got hit below the belt early on in this thread, and you didn’t say one blessed word. Coolbeans.

    O.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Women do generally prefer tall men.
    Agreed. That is a factual statement. This is a false statement:
    THE PREFERENCE FOR TALL MEN IS UNIVERSAL.
    That was what I debated.
    .
    For the record, all opinions are welcome here. Just as I won’t judge women who admit they’re attracted to socially dominant players, I won’t judge men for the preferences. Again, the entire point of the post was to debate the notion that sexual preference is UNIVERSAL, a matter of OBJECTIVE REALITY. I think we can all say, even based on the responses in this thread, that that has been disproved.
    .
    When I was doing a lot of acting, a director said to me during an audition workshop, “Remember, you are not for all markets.” That was excellent advice, and I’ve returned to it often. Whether we’re talking about college admissions, job interviews, or the SMP, no woman, or man, is right for all markets. And that’s a good thing, IMO.

  • Deery

    This is a silly question. Smarts and sex appeal definitely are not mutually exclusive. One can be both smart and sexy, or dumb and ugly. The thread has drifted into which one some men may value more, but the initial question is just one that can be definitively answered as no. Even if you had one example of a smart girl who is also sexy, that disproves the question.

    I tend to think smart guys, for the most part, prefer smart women, and vice-versa. Yes, both sexes would also like their mates to be attractive, but physicality aside, most people would prefer their partner to smart rather than dumb. I’m pretty sure I’m not stepping out on a limb with this statement. There is also a floor to how dumb you can be, before it starts to negatively affect how you are preceived physically. You don’t see any mentally challenged beauty models for a reason. However, on the other side of the curve, as IQ rises, you don’t see women perceived as uglier, otherwise Brooke Shields or Geena Davis would have been considered dogs in their heyday.

  • Snowdrop111

    Obsidian asked the other day why refinement in men is a deal-breaker for many women. I thought about it especially since the 70’s when it was OK and cool to be working class, and I came up with “Fear of Falling.” There’s a whole book by Barbara Ehrenreich named “Fear of Falling” about the middle class being afraid they were starting to fall through the cracks in the 80’s, so bullshit luxuries such as Dove bars and Haagen-Dasz became all the rage. The so-called Yuppies upped their standards on small everyday luxuries because they were afraid they wouldn’t be able to afford the big luxuries as they fell into the working class, or something like that.

    I think the upper middle class is closing ranks as they see the bottom falling out more and more beneath them. I think women (maybe more than men, not sure) sense that people skills are going to be much more important in today’s and tomorrow’s workplace to avoid falling further and further into the abyss. It’s not enough anymore to have a pretty good job and an adequate house. If you aren’t on the extreme rat race your kids will go to crappy schools and there your descendants go sliding down and there’s no bottom. There’s no working class job for them to be OK with. Increasingly it’s top people skills getting you into the managerial class and managing to hang on or it’s nothing beneath you. There are several whole books on that and I can’t remember the name of one of them DANG IT It might have been “Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle Class” by Robert Frank but there are TWO ROBERT FRANKS who write books on very similar subjects. Richistan was by the OTHER Robert Frank!

    Anyway, I think women sense that the guy who doesn’t show potential to negotiate the treacherous waters of the corporate rat race might not just end up being a happy-go-lucky guy who does OK, with time to teach the kids baseball and take them camping and be reasonably secure and happy because THOSE JOBS ARE GONE. And it’s what her mom, sisters, and friends say about the guy. If this were the 70’s and it were still cool to be who you are and money wasn’t everything, maybe she could tell her mom and friends where to step off if they egged her on comparing their boyfriends’ refinement. But today, she can’t counter that he’s a better dad than all those snoots put together because of the increasing gulf between what’s left of the working class and the upper middle class.

    People who are working class or lower middle don’t KNOW they’re working or lower middle, and they don’t know that gulf is there, and they sometimes don’t know they’re knocking on the door of the upper middles who are closing ranks out of fear.

    I think there’s also a bit of fear that the working and lower middle classes will catch on, and despise the upper middles for their privilege, but it’s all extremely suppressed. For a reason. It keeps a lid on violence.

    Well anyway. “Refinement” trumpets, “I want to and will do what it takes to rub elbows with the managerial class, instead of blindly fall through the cracks or get depressed and retreat into Second Life.” “I get it.”

    I think Fight Club was about this. Women more seem to want the life planned out for them by the upper middle class, without questioning it and at least considering running off to Alaska and being OK with the guy who works on a pipeline or something.

    Back in the 80’s there was all this talk of the woman shortage in Alaska, and all the woman surplus on the East Coast. But it’s more than geography. The further west you go, the more men and fewer women. Guys in San Diego and parts of New Mexico are like “There are NO WOMEN.” So why don’t the women on the east coast move to Alaska, San Diego, and New Mexico like they talked about doing in the 80’s? Because those guys aren’t refined and primed and willing to enter the corporate world like those women were taught to want. Those women are blind to other types of men because they’re blind to other types of lifestyles and probably scared to do it because it also means leaving the lifestyles their moms and sisters told them was the absolute only one.

    Meanwhile, there is something many men love more than they love sex. Adventure, the outdoors, and the land of their fathers.

    There’s a type of guy who couldn’t care less about the land his father tended, and will move to New York and learn the wine list in a heartbeat. There just aren’t enough of them for all the women who do the same. And there aren’t enough women who stay behind or will move west and be happy with the more rough-hewn guy, who may be educated, but isn’t about to move to a big city and learn the wine list and wear wing tips. I’m stereotyping of course.

    Not all these guys are uneducated, but I think sometimes the women from the east coast don’t realize that. I knew a genuine rocket scientist in whatever that government **** is in New Mexico who moved there for the rocket science thing and said THERE ARE NO WOMEN, I kid you not. I heard of a forest ranger in someplace like Wyoming in the same boat. There are guys who grow up all their lives wanting to be a forest ranger, and guess what, they would rather do that where there are no women, than have a woman, and they are educated and good-looking. There’s just something they want more than they want a woman, and it’s to tend the forest. Out west in lonesome country.

    Then there are guys who inherit farms and won’t leave. They can’t even go to a hoedown in the next county because they have to feed the animals. There used to be print publications trying to help these guys find wives, because the women all leave for the big city as soon as they turn 18, because the jobs are easier, safer, and pay better, and the women want the “professional” guy who dresses with “professional” polish. Now whether those farm guys are all educated I don’t know. I know some of those guys in the city with “professional” polish are NOT necessarily all that smart, but they have a look that may trumpet safety to the women who flee to the big city.

    Bottom line more women want the modern, corporate, big-city life today because #1 security. Being able to converse about travel, the wine list, books etc. says the guy has a shot at staying above the abyss where there is no security because the jobs have gone.

    And #2, women today have forgotten about some other qualities that make for a good man, how being close to nature can make a man a good man.

    And #3, women are too uptight about what Mom, sisters, and friends will say, and that too is because of security….women think their friends are a security blanket and men are probably like WHY? Women are mean to each other. It’s competition. But I think women are afraid to buck their friends and their expected lifestyles and give up the quest for the beautiful luxuries and accessories. This has been going on since the 1800’s. Sex and the City wasn’t the first to deal with the subject of Americans losing their values to chase after shallow prestige in the big city in the east.

    Not that I want to date a rural man who isn’t educated, and not that I want one who would refuse to wear anything BUT sneakers even to a play. There are plenty of men, hippie and conservative, who are so against puttin’ on airs that they insist on the sneakers, shorts, and baseball cap everywhere–I know that’s not Obsidian because of his famous Spearhead post about spiffing up a little.

    But the “sivilizing influence of women” has been considered a dubious thing by men farther west for a long time. I got “sivilized” from Huck Finn I think because Aunt Polly was going to “sivilize” him and it meant she was going to teach him bad, selfish, mean values, while she was going to teach him polish and manners.

    There should be more open rebellion against some of the bad values of the corporate “polished” world, and maybe more men who have good values and aren’t Tim McVeigh and have all their teeth should speak up, buck the stereotype, and persuade women to quit wanting the “WHOLE PACKAGE” and quit thinking hippies, mountain men, and rural lifestyles are always something uneducated to make fun of…I don’t know.

    I think the #1 reason refinement is so sought after in men, is the fear that “Settling” (I hate that word because there are great men who don’t know the wine list) means they lost out on some status rat race and their “friends” will drop them. Women need to realize those aren’t real “friends.”

    As for the “Dumbing Down” essay, it was exaggerated. Like Aldonza or Reformed Tomboy said, I have never been at a corporate function where people asked “Where did your date go to college” or “tell us YOUR travel stories.” They are happy if you are in thrall to THEIR travel stories. What’s dumbed down is stories in women’s magazines, like that one. They’re targeted to make women feel inadequate and buy stuff. Everyone should understand that a guy who has his own business and makes 75K is a can-do guy even if he hasn’t read Proust. Now if he can’t or won’t spiff up for one evening every once in a while, that’s different–but I know Obsidian isn’t taking the side of guys who won’t spiff up because of his famous “spiff up a little” post.

    But “refinement” trumpets “will be willing to fit in and try to stay in with the people who make the decision whether to ship my job overseas and stay on their good side,” in an age when there’s not a job at the Coleman factory making ice chests to get by on and have time for LIttle League.

  • Anonymous

    By the way, in case the game brigade start again on how women PICK abusive men despite being smart, shame on these women, etc. Abusive people don’t start out abusive. They turn abusive after they have their hooks in you and after you’re emotionally invested. The female abusers do this to men as well, so it’s not a gender-specific thing.

    Most people from good family backgrounds recognize abuse immediately and won’t put up with it. In my case my family was verbally and emotionally abusive to me, and so it was “normalized behavior.” I thought every relationship was just like that.

    My ex was all sweet and loving in the beginning, and he was still doing doting and nice in between yelling and controlling behavior. He would apologize, I would feel guilty, as if it was all my fault. Given that I had been accustomed to the same kind of behavior, I didn’t know any better.

    I know better now. I’m finally in a healthy relationship with my loving husband. We never have fighting, arguing, yelling, etc. I never think about leaving my husband, whereas I thought about leaving my ex all the damned time.

    Being single is preferable to being in a bad relationship. Even though I never hooked up casually, I still had a terrible time, was chronically depressed and felt like life wasn’t worth living. I left that toxic relationship and was never happier. It was like a huge weight was lifted from my shoulders.

    Once again, being smart doesn’t mean you are automatically equipped with the wisdom and right life experiences to get out from a bad situation immediately. And for the record, I definitely didn’t stay those 8 years for the “gina tingles.” I stayed out of guilt and fear. The sex was terrible, and I avoided it as much as I could. So much for the saying that abuse generates the tingles.

  • Deery

    Hi Deery! First what’s silly is not actually reading what I said. You’re free to do so over at my blog. Please read, carefully, my reply to Ms. Walsh’s piece here. Note how I introduce the very real topic of Male height PREFERENCE, which is EVOLUTIONARILY HARDWIRED into Women. What I am saying, is that Brainy Gals don’t tend to be Kim Kardashians.

    I looked at the question contained in the title, and the answer is no, definitely not. Several studies have in fact, shown the opposite of your position. Beauty and brains actually have a positive correlation (though obviously not 1 to 1). Now if you are trying to say, in your own tortured way, that men don’t select short-term mates primarily on the basis of intelligence, to a certain extent I would agree. I don’t think women really do either. For long-term mates, I think intelligence becomes a very important factor for many, if only because people don’t relish the idea of having dumb progeny.

    But beauty/sexiness and brains can definitely go together. Brooke Shields was considered on of the most beautiful women ever, as was Cindy Crawford. Both were actually brainy as well. Alicia Keyes is not considered a slouch in the looks department either, and she graduated as valedictorian at the age of 16. I think the problem is that very good-looking women, who are also smart, are noted more for their good looks, which are immediately observable, than their brains, which require more digging around.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Deery, I just want to welcome you to HUS – glad you have joined the discussion!

  • Obsidian

    Hi Deery! First what’s silly is not actually reading what I said. You’re free to do so over at my blog. Please read, carefully, my reply to Ms. Walsh’s piece here. Note how I introduce the very real topic of Male height PREFERENCE, which is EVOLUTIONARILY HARDWIRED into Women. What I am saying, is that Brainy Gals don’t tend to be Kim Kardashians.

    So, this kills the trumped up point about Geena Davis-most guys don’t mention her name when it comes to gals who give em adamantium-hard wood. Sorry, but them’s the breaks, there, I’ve said it, and bang, there it is.

    Now, let’s move on to Ms. Walsh’s MISQUOTING of Mismatch, by Andrew Hacker:

    On page 187-188, Hacker writes under the heading “A Culture Gap”:

    “A statistic cited in several chapters is that 57.2 percent of bachelor’s degrees are now being awarded to women, which works out to 75 men completing college for every 100 women. As the chapter on education argued, women seem more suited to the academic regimen. The chapter also emphasized that individuals can show intelligence-not to mention brilliance-in many different ways. So it stands to reason that there are equal numbers of smart people in both sexes, even if their aptitudes are sometimes in different spheres.

    It is a commonplace that pairings that work best if there are some shared interests. Needless to say, this doesn’t have to be accross the board. She doesn’t have to cheer with him at football games, nor need he join her when she searches for exotic olive oil. Indeed, it makes sense to have time and pastimes apart from one another. This acknowledged, let’s imagine a situation where the wife is a college graduate, while the husband learned a trade and now owns a plumbing business.

    For the next three Sunday nights she wants to watch a television adaptation of a Henry James novel. To say that he doesn’t share this interest is an understatement. Well, yes, a lot of homes have several sets, so he could repair to the den and select another channel. Or she might arrange to watch with some women friends, while he goes out with the guys.

    But it is very important to her that they watch The Golden Bowl together, kindled by her hope that afterward they will exchange their thoughts about it. In her view, they’ve not been sharing nough of their lives, and she feels she’s owed his willingness to join in an activity of her choosing. To be sure, the fact that he didn’t go to college isn’t the entire problem. There are men with graduate degrees who find Henry James soporific, just as there are self-made men who become serious connoisseurs. Even so, the college gap is accentuating a cultural divide. (Even women who major in, say, accounting, are affected by the liberals ambience of a campus.)

    Or look at the visitors in an art museum. On weekdays, most will be women by themselves or in pairs. On weekends, when there are more couples, many of the men seem to be there under duress, glancing furtively glancing at their watches and wondering if they are nearing the exit. Doubtless this was ever so. What is different today is that women want more from their mates and expect those goals to be realized. Simply stated, the sexual gulf is greater because sights are being set higher.

    Recall the chapter in which it was asked why women were more apt to initiate divorces. As was seen, husbands can be quite satisfied with a marriage that their wives find deficient. Part of the mismatch is that the man’s needs are simpler, with many of them physical. This includes not just sex, but also having having a fully furnished home, food on hand and meals prepared, and clothes ready for wearing. He also expects emotional support, including cheers for his triumphs and commiseration for setbacks. Modern men aren’t like their fathers in that they are les likely to hide themselves behind a newspaper. But there are still some who try to avoid being drawn into conversations they regard as rambling or having no practical point. Like being asked to analyze the bond between Adam and Maggie Verver in The Golden Bowl.”.

    Now-

    Please note above, that Prof. Hacker mentions NOTHING about “after work” scenarios that Ms. Walsh speaks about above. What Hacker notes here is clearly a cultural divide, between Women and Men along college/non-college lines-something that, interestingly enough since she’s here herself, Deery and I have discussed at some length over at my blog (and the excerpts of our exchanges have been posted upthread). Moreover, the “Dumb It Down” article, speaks to EXACTLY the very same issues Hacker talks above in the above passages.
    So, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. To be sure, I’m doing my part.

    It remains to be seen if venues like HUS, will follow suit.

    We’ll see…

    Holla back

    O.

  • Obsidian

    Deery,
    Well, first of all, since you didn’t see what I actually said, you need to know, that I never said ANYTHING about marriage, relationships, etc, et al. So, what you and Ms. Walsh has said in that regard is wholly irrelevant.

    Secondly, what I said, was that really brainy chicks that are into Jane Austen, don’t tend to be gals looking like Kim Kardashian. Per Maxim and a heck of a lot of guys, she’s hot. Please note that none of the gals Ms. Walsh listed made the cut, save Ms. Zooey what’s her name-at #73. ;)

    Second, I reject the idea that if you’re not Mensa, you’re dumb. Rubbish. The issue here is simple, the really brainy gals ain’t that hot in aggregate, and no amount of studies is gonna change that simple fact.

    I’m NOT talking about “pretty”. I’m NOT talking about “attractive”. I’m NOT talking about “LTRs”. I’m NOT talking about having kids. I’m NOT talking about ANYTHING other than the simple fact that, if a guy’s asked to name a seriously hot chick, Jane Austen’s portrait ain’t likely to come to mind.

    So yea, you can cite Keys, and Ms. Walsh can cite Shakira, etc et al. They’re both brainy and hot. But they aren’t the norm, sorry, but that’s just reality.

    Deal.

    Read the Hacker excerpt above (along with my post in reply to Ms. Walsh’s post above) and holla back

    O.

  • Sox

    Obsidian asked the other day why refinement in men is a deal-breaker for many women.

    Simple…Gen Y(Narcissism + entitlement) + Feminism(Grrrl power + credentialism) + Hypergamy= massive EGOS, unrealistic expectations. Let me state right now that I don’t blame women for this, I blame society at large. They’re actually being set up for disappointment and failure. But in my opinion the most extreme examples of this are found in the 24-28 range. Their sexual power is still at its peak, they’re still riding the high from college, and they’re acting on the belief that they ARE special snowflakes, that the world is their oyster, that they’re independent, accomplished, and powerful. Society’s likely shielded them from anything that might hurt their feelings or challenge their exalted self image. Simply put, they are aware of the power they hold and they are drunk on it. The only problem is they STILL crave a guy who “measures up” according to their own standards; a guy whose status rivals or is superior to their own. A guy who will make them feminine, special.
    .
    GenY men are just as deceived and deluded as their female counterparts are, but their egos are on average much smaller and they’re much less sure of themselves. We’ve already discussed this- today’s betas are even more beta than ever, at a time when women raised the bar and essentially expect men to be more alpha than they ever have. HOWEVER – the 20% of guys that ARE getting laid all the time display all of the narcissism and self-entitlement that the women I mentioned above are.
    .
    The funny thing is, satisfying a checklist or appealing to stated wants in general usually accomplishes nothing. Less intelligent men get with more intelligent women all the time, the women probably know this before even jumping into bed with them. It’s really about who has more confidence and raison d’etre. Once a man loses his cred with the woman, she’ll start to see all the ways that she thinks she’s superior, she’ll lose respect, and she’ll dump his ass. That’s why I think I could easily seduce a girl who’s got me beat in the IQ/degree department. Sorry if this is all redundant – much of it’s already been said elsewhere in this thread.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Gen Y(Narcissism + entitlement) + Feminism(Grrrl power + credentialism) + Hypergamy= massive EGOS, unrealistic expectations.

      I agree 100%. Women have really become a lot more difficult to deal with. Even the ones who have escaped having massive egos still have unrealistic expectations. The checklist mentality is self-defeating, but when I address it with individual women, they say, “Well I can’t help it if I’m not attracted to men who don’t have those qualities!” Which means that they’re pretty much screwed. They’ve been conditioned to expect so much, they are incapable of being satisfied with less than 100% of what they feel they deserve. My generation of parents has a lot to answer for re the entitlement piece, as well as the Grrrl power piece, and actually the whole self-esteem movement in general, which benefits girls, mostly.

  • Anonymous

    Obs:You, and everyone reading this knows, that Women prefer taller Men over shorter Men. This is UNIVERSAL. Women do NOT seekout shorter Men-they may wind up with one, but they don’t go LOOKING for one. If they can choose, they go for the taller guy.

    SW:That has not been my experience. I’m 5’3″ and most of the men I dated were 5’10″ or under. I won’t deny that many women prefer tall men, but I personally know quite a few women who have married men of average or below average height. Again, this is a matter of personal preference, and individual results may vary.

    Susan, my experience mirrors yours. I too am petitie. While I like a man to be <b<taller than I am, anything over 5’10’ is wasted. My DH is about 6″ taller than me–tall enough for me to be able to wear heels or put my head on his shoulder. After that, who cares?

    I know the Roissy-sphere holds the idea that taller is better is some sort of inalienable truth but for a petite gal too much height in a man poses certain…er…logistical difficulties.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      for a petite gal too much height in a man poses certain…er…logistical difficulties.

      Haha, yeah, gotta get on top or on all fours. Missionary has you watching his breastbone. I think you’re onto something – men seem to care a lot about this issue, perhaps more than women. It’s been pointed out that online dating profiles specify tall guys, so I’m not sure, but in my circles it’s never been something women talk about much. Of the young women I’m in regular touch with, only two select for this – and they’re both tall – 5’10” and 6′. Lots of the girls I know actually have a range of heel heights in their closet just so they can adjust their own height as necessary. One other thought I had – the Walsh men are all around 5’8″ to 5’10” – my dad is 5’8″. I wonder if shorter women, having likely grown up with shorter fathers and brothers, are less likely to discriminate wrt height.

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        @Doug1 @Obsidian
        I deleted Doug’s post first, and then Obsidian’s response. Two reasons:
        1. I don’t want to discuss HBD here.
        2. You boys need to “take it outside.” We’re trying to have a nice talk around the dinner table here.
        3. Some of Doug1’s criticism was personal, especially the part about Obsidian’s motives.

  • Snowdrop111

    When Fight Club came out, I thought about it because it seemed women fueled consumer culture. American Beauty came out the same year and had that scene “IT’S JUST A COUCH!!!!!!” Both movies seemed to me to be about the prison that consumer culture becomes.

    But I thought, “Women will change as soon as men start shunning materialistic women and start chasing outdoorsy no-makeup women who want to fly fish and stuff.”

    Men meanwhile thought, “Men will change as soon as women start shunning frat guys and start chasing DEA agents and forest rangers.” That’s my own taste showing because I would rather chase DEA agents and forest rangers than programmers but a lot of the guys on here are always bringing up STEM guys. I would rather chase a forest ranger if I were young and pretty and had my man-chasing to do over, but where were we.

    Men seem to think women do the setting up and dictating of who is at the pinnacle of desirability, and it seems to me that men have the power to do the setting up and dictating of who is at the pinnacle of desirability.

    Guys such as the ones who post on this blog are always talking about going chasing women from other countries instead, because they have better values…if someone would quit talking and go do it, and chase the people from other countries with better values, maybe the consumer culture rat race would turn around. People would have to give up the chase for status and be happy with the person with better values who had simpler aspirations.

    I think both genders are locked in a prison made of status envy and consumer culture and neither gender seems able to break out, unless this economy makes people think about what really is worth chasing.

    My friends wouldn’t watch American Beauty because they thought it was about an affair, or Fight Club because they thought it was about the fighting probably. For one whole year at the height of the boom we got a couple of movies that called consumer culture into question, and then we got more Sex and the City movies. Eat Pray Spend. P.S. I liked Friends with Money too. So few people will even go near that subject, because we are channeled not to think it matters. or something.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh & Lady “Anon”,
    Oh, come one! Do you realize just how disengenuous both of you sound? I said Women prefer taller Men over shorter Men, and BOTH of you have proven my point.

    How?

    Simple! Neither of you have reported actually SEEKING OUT Men of your same height or SHORTER. And that’s what I’m saying. Given the choice, Women want Men taller than themselves. Both of you have proven this.

    Now, do either of you deny that there are great guys who are short, meaning, near your own heights? I mean, is Rob Reich morally bankrupt or cretin merely because of his lack of height?

    Yet, how many Women do you know, who have actually SOUGHT OUT guys like that? I’ll wait while you compile the data, LOL.

    SMH…

    O.

  • ExNewYorker

    @anonymous: “for a petite gal too much height in a man poses certain…er…logistical difficulties.”
    .
    Yes, but the height difference encourages a lot of “experimentation” to see what works.
    .
    Until I met my wife, most of the women I dated were 2″-5″ near my height. But it was quite a discovery to find that petite women offer quite a bit of “alternatives”.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    The height issue, as I’ve pointed out by referring to the UPenn study, is important to Men because it has real, cut and dry impacts on his life. As the UPenn study makes clear, you can and will be judged, quite harshly, for your height or lack thereof. It can cost you real money. And in the dating world, it can mean the difference between getting a goodly bit of action, or little to none at all.

    But perhaps another reason as to why this is an issue for Men, is because Women refuse to be brutally honest about it. Even now, you won’t admit what I just noted above-how many times have you actually sought out guys your height? How many times have Women of more average height, which is about 5’6″, done this? The answer is, “hardly ever”. That’s because WOMEN WANT GUYS TALLER THAN THEM, even though it has no qualitative meaning in our time. It’s a relice in evolutionary terms-but Women not only demand it, but they’ll justify and rationalize it, too. All of which is fine, but then they can’t get mad when guys go into hindbrain mode and push up on Kim Kardashian. No need to hate on her by calling her all kinds of bimbos, dumb, etc-just simply accept that the guys have as much a right to indulge their hindbrains, without judgment, as you do.

    Ah, but that’s the trick, you see. I’ve found that Women, as a rule, are much more sensitive to judgments than are Men, and again, I’m speaking in broad terms. In fact, those who talk the biggest and meanest game about not being judged for their choices and decisions, are Women. Yet, very often, these are the same Women who have no problem in the least with making some of the harshest judgments on guys they can possibly make. One of them has to do with height.

    Funny, that.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Even now, you won’t admit what I just noted above-how many times have you actually sought out guys your height?

      I’ve never sought out guys of any height.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    OK, I see what’s going on here. Fine.

    Would you agree that in the main (YES, I’m pushing you into a corner-i need you to admit something here), Women in general DO NOT seekout Men SHORTER than they are? And if you do agree with that statement, why do you think that is? Would you agree that Male height has no qualitative meaning in our time? Yet, Women doggedly hold on this stereotype.

    And yet, despite all this, Men who are shorter find a way to keep it moving-they don’t knee jerk their way through life. Maybe that’s because Men, as a group, are more willing to make tradeoffs and chalk a lot things up to the cost of doing business.

    I say all that to say that I find it fascinating to compare Men and Women in these contexts-less than 4% of the American Male population is over 6’2″, and a significant portion of that population is well under 5’10”, yet despite virtually all Womens’ desire for a taller Man, Men keep it moving. They simply accept all this as a fact of life and get on with it.

    My point being-why can’t the Jane Austen Crew just accept that the hot babes don’t tend to be them, and keep it moving? Why all the agita? Why the need to poo poo those Women who are hot? Why the trotting out of Women YOU ALL deem “pretty” or “attractive”? Why can’t you Women just do what Men do, and keep. It. Moving?

    What’s up with that?

    Holla back

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      My point being-why can’t the Jane Austen Crew just accept that the hot babes don’t tend to be them, and keep it moving?

      Are you serious right now? Do you think that I have spent the better part of two days discussing this topic only to answer this question from you? Just stop.

  • http://www.jeffreybrauer.blogspot.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    @Snowdrop111

    “Finally something sort of back to the hookup culture subject…dragnet, I haven’t seen the viagra statistic but I did read an article I think in New York Magazine about two or three years ago to the effect that doctors in New York were seeing more and more young men with erectile problems and there was some discussion about sex just being so out there on the table everywhere blatant nowadays. No mystery and right in your face.”
    ^
    What’s “normal” in the U.S. today is to be severely unhealthy (very profitable for the Medical Business).

  • http://www.jeffreybrauer.blogspot.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    @Aldonza
    “But then that starts up the secondary discussion of STEM guys and their ability to read social cues.”
    ^
    The STEM guys are probably mostly NT’s. Our way of being is aggressively invalidated by the S-type society (same with the NF’s), which delays the development of both self-esteem and social skills.
    For example:
    http://keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=5&c=overview

  • http://www.jeffreybrauer.blogspot.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    @Susan W.
    “Again, the entire point of the post was to debate the notion that sexual preference is UNIVERSAL, a matter of OBJECTIVE REALITY. I think we can all say, even based on the responses in this thread, that that has been disproved.”
    ^
    What? SW, have starting sniffing glue again? Srsly, that stuff’s no good for you.(lol)
    .
    What’s sexually attractive for MOST men and women is OBJECTIVE, but it’s not UNIVERSAL. Those are two different things. And I thought the point of the post was about the correlation between intelligence and beauty in women, if any.

  • http://www.jeffreybrauer.blogspot.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    Oh, I almost forgot.
    Re: Natalie Portman
    [Warning: NSFW]

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      WTF!!!! That is AMAZING! Honestly, she is the sh*t! Audrey Hepburn’s face and too, too cool.

  • http://grerp.blogspot.com grerp

    @Dilithium – that bit from the Mea Culpa over my “Admit You’re Wrong” post wasn’t actual intention. Subconscious maybe? Who knows? :)

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Am I serious? Deadly.

    This entire thread has been one big ENORMOUS knee jerk reaction to a simple observation that I made: that by and large, brainy gals don’t tend to be hot. Please note that I didn’t say “attractive”, or “pretty”. Please note that I never said that brainy gals were doomed to be spinsters, or for that matter couldn’t attract guys at all. Nor did I say that such gals were evil.

    All I said was that the really hot babes don’t tend to be the ones who spend lots of time digging on Masterpiece Theater.

    But by the way you many of your readers reacted so strongly, I might have just talked badly about your mamas, LOL.

    My point in bringing up the Male height issue, both here and in my reply at my blog, was that for guys, well, we seem to be more accepting of tradeoffs in life than are Women-and that’s not a very good thing, in my view. It’s just a simple fact of life that everyone can’t be hot; Men accept that most of them will not be tall, and leave it at that-even when we have all manner of studies that clearly show that shorter Men truly do have a rougher row to hoe in life.

    Yet, if I told a bunch of guys that Women tend to deem taller guys hotter than shorter guys, it’s hard to imagine any of them going off to dig up studies to prove that basic, commonsense premise wrong. More than likely, they’d simply shrug in agreement, and on to the next topic.

    And that, again, is my point, Ms. Walsh. It ain’t the end of the world if you didn’t make the Maxim Hot 100, most Women won’t. Or fill in the blank lad’s magazine. Women have to accept life’s tradeoffs, like Men have done with a kind of quiet dignity since time immemorial. Getting bent out of shape over something that you can little to nothing about doesn’t help anyone, least of all, you (I mean the general “you”).

    I think one reason why guys in general tend to be happier than gals, is because, as Hacker noted, guys are just simpler to please; we’re also more willing to settle, to make tradeoffs, and to accept life’s inequities as part of the cost of doing business. I find that Women don’t seem as willing, possibly even able, to do this. And they’re only hurting themselves in so doing.

    O.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    Women have to accept life’s tradeoffs, like Men have done with a kind of quiet dignity since time immemorial.
    .
    To be fair, women before feminism used to accept life’s tradeoffs since time immemorial too and they mostly did it with quiet dignity (well, with exception of some occasional bitching).

    Of course, this was well before our age, where the mantra “You can have it all” is hammered once and again on young women’s brains. Also before the Hollywood movies depicting normal women getting male semi-gods (from Dirty Dancing, to Pretty Woman, to Maid in Manhattan, to Twilight)

  • nothingbutthetruth

    I’ve never sought out guys of any height.
    .
    Obviously, attraction is a subsconscious process. But I bet your husband is taller than you and most of your past relationships also have been.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But I bet your husband is taller than you and most of your past relationships also have been.

      True. At 5’3″ that’s not surprising, and I think it’s also part of the reason I don’t really see guys as short if they’re 5’8″ – I could still wear heels and have to reach up to kiss them. Obviously, a woman who is 5’7″ will be much more aware of her height, and women who are 5’10” or over select on the basis of height first. What is definitely hard-wired, I would say, is the desire to be shorter than the male. It’s rare to see couples where the woman is visibly taller – or even the same height – and when you do, the woman is always in flats.

  • Dilithium

    Having thought about the original topic, I can suggest one vague idea as to why there might be so little overlap between the “smart set” hotties named above, and those found on the Maxim 100 list.

    .

    Everyone in the public eye, including celebrities, actors, models, etc., has a certain “aspect” or “look,” which is the result of many bits of exposure: what the person is quoted as saying, which magazine they appear in/on, how they allow themselves to be photographed, how they pose and dress, how they act on interview shows, etc.; it’s a diffuse but definitely real thing about any celebrity. Now, I don’t spend a lot of time with Maxim, but an impression I get very strongly from the girls in the typical Maxim 100 list is that their aspect is to say “I’m for you” to the reader. It’s a slightly subservient, maybe, or admiring aspect in which the (presumably male) reader can get all the attention: she’s there for him, he is her highest priority. It’s a definite “look” that a model or actress can cultivate, if that’s the strategy she and her publicist decide to follow.

    .

    Projecting the “I’m for you” look can be very appealing to a lot of men — duh! — and I might guess that it’s nearly a necessity if a girl wants the super-sexy image to make the Maxim 100. However, a girl/woman who has smartness as part of her aspect will have a hard time projecting “I’m for you” as convincingly, for the simple reason that she will tend to come across as being interested in other things, higher pursuits, at least part of the time. It’s a little bit harder for the male reader/viewer to picture or imagine the smart woman as being so easily devoted to him, since she clearly has other interests and presumably other options.

    .

    I know I’m not stating this perfectly (see “vague” above), but I think there’s definitely something to contemplate here. It may simply be that a large majority of men find slight subservience to be sexy, and projecting smartness is somewhat incompatible with projecting subservience. If this is true, then it’s certainly more of a comment on men and their tastes! than on women and their attributes. But it would go a some ways toward explaining why certain gals don’t make the Maxim 100 list.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dilithium
      This strikes me as very insightful. I had referred to Maxim as soft porn, but I think this is a better explanation – the “I’m for you” message, like porn, is meant to fulfill a fantasy. In this case, the fantasy is the woman be ready and waiting – no effort required. It’s short-term gratification. The fantasy of conquest, if indeed that’s something that men want, is by necessity a longer-term gratification, requiring substantial effort. The conquest would by definition be the opposite of subservient. I agree that projecting smartness is incompatible with projecting subservience – though I do think there are plenty of women who will soft pedal their intelligence deliberately for the purpose of seeming more available and pliable, if not subservient.
      What I hear from a lot of men here is that while young, reading and willing beats the conquest every time, but as men begin to think about an LTR, not only is the conquest desirable, it’s essential, at least from a sexual point of view.

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Diversity Edition (NSFW)()

  • Vincent Ignatius

    Beauty and intelligence seem to correlate up to a certain level and then drop off. Girls at the 3 sigma level tend to be much less attractive than those at the 2 sigma level, and those in turn are less attractive than those at the 1 sigma level, but the drop-off isn’t as severe as from 2 to 3 sigmas. Just based on my observations, I’d say girls at about 1 sigma above average are the most attractive, but girls at 2 sigmas aren’t much worse.

  • http://www.theracerx.wordpress.com Racer X

    I don’t think looks and intelligence have anything in common. There are some very intelligent, attractive women, and some very rather dull but attractive women. The opposite is true too.

    And Susan Walsh,

    Is that your pic next to your comments? If so you should come visit my blog, you would be more than welcome. I like it when attractive, intelligent women read my blog. Be prepared to blush though.

  • Obsidian

    D,
    Sorry, but I can’t accept your thesis. As I noted on my blog on this issue, “hot” in the mind of Men, definitely leads with a look that the brainy gals simply don’t have, and/or don’t desire to cultivate. Accessibility is a completely different matter, and Game teaches us that if anything, the really hot gals are much harder to get.

    Ms. Walsh,
    Studies show us that there are many more Men below the American average of 5’10” than above it, and indeed, there are quite a few Men your height or shorter-they were just more than likely “inivisible” to you, much like a Woman’s “erotic field of view” that F. Roger Devlin talks about. Vladimir Putin is 5’5″; Dmitri Medvedev is 5’2″. Their public profiles and ambitions aside, its hard to see either guy getting much action in the regular waking world. Per all the studies we have, the results seem clear on this point.

    By the way, Joseph Stalin? 5’5″. Hitler? 5’8″. And Napoleon? Same height, at 5’8″.

    Yet, as I’ve said, all of these guys, and many more, simply worked on themselves to develop other ways they would be attractive to Women. Granted, Women aren’t *as* driven by physicality as are Men. Nevertheless, as I’ve said in my rebuttal post at my blog to you, there IS something the Brainy Gals can do about their relative lack of hotness-it’s called Sephora.

    But simply trying to denigrate the Hot Gals as being bimbos, or highschool dropouts, or theorizing how they’ll look two and three decades from now, all that only comes off as sour grapes and hatin’. Which is yet another serious boner killer.

    Take a page outta the fellas playbook-accept that there tradeoffs in life, do what’s required to achieve the result, and keep. It. Moving.

    The End. :)

    O.

  • http://www.atpworldtour.com/ Tennis Pro

    I get what Obsidian is saying. KK cultivates the sultry, sexy look, which takes a good amount of time, dollar and interest. Supersmart women may not want to invest so much in that look and lifestyle because we have other time consuming interests. That doesn’t mean we are ugly. Quite the contrary. Many of us are natural beauties but we are not going to spend the time and money to cross over into “smoking hot celebrity status sexiness”. I have a voluptuous figure and I’ve hardly ever sought to accentuate that because I don’t like the attention I get from men when I do. So while I dress in pretty, feminine clothes, I often sew or tape up a low cut dress if it shows too much cleavage. I don’t want to get unwanted attention from men, nor do I want women to feel intimidated by me. So while I go about looking moderately attractive, I don’t go out of my way to look “sexy”. In fact, I play down my sexiness for the above mentioned reasons. I grew up being kind of embarassed by my well endowed chest and it just boggles my mind how young girls these days want to show off everything and welcome that kind of attention from guys. I find that creepy. I guess it’s a generation gap.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Racer X
    Ah, glad to see you found this thread. I did visit your blog, and was extremely impressed. I look forward to reading more there. Yup, that’s me in the pic – thanks :)

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Obsidian
    As I continue to steadfastly reject Brainy Gals and Hot Gals as being two distinct groups, your comment makes no sense.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Tennis Pro
    I have a voluptuous figure and I’ve hardly ever sought to accentuate that because I don’t like the attention I get from men when I do. So while I dress in pretty, feminine clothes, I often sew or tape up a low cut dress if it shows too much cleavage. I don’t want to get unwanted attention from men, nor do I want women to feel intimidated by me. So while I go about looking moderately attractive, I don’t go out of my way to look “sexy”.
    .
    This is actually a HUGE factor for many smart women. They don’t want to be objectified for their bodies, so they tend to dress conservatively enough so that doesn’t happen. Also, smart women often wind up working in settings that are male-dominated, which leads to a more conservative dress code for women generally. No woman in her right mind is going to show cleavage in a corporate setting – it’s asking not to be taken seriously, and also inviting sexual harassment.
    Others have pointed out that smart women don’t develop their hotness as much, and less smart women maximize their sex appeal, but there’s also no question that the uniform, or dress code, varies a great deal between the two groups, outside of the entertainment industry, at least.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    What matters is that you understand, and most importantly, ACCEPT what is being said.

    .
    Wrong. It matters to you, apparently a great deal. It’s not going to happen. I understand what you are saying, and I do not accept it. Move on, Obsidian.

  • Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    What I’m saying doesn’t have to make sense to you or any other female reading this. What matters is that you understand, and most importantly, ACCEPT what is being said. Because the simple truth of the matter is, it won’t change.

    Period.

    Tennis Pro,
    Perhaps you’ve heard of the name Deborah Lorenzana? Ms. Walsh has written about her here at HUS, so if you don’t know who I’m talking about, feel free to ask her. She is a Woman who has proven that being “HOT” most definitely pays.

    And given that her command of English wasn’t that strong, I’d say that she wasn’t a particularly a brainy gal.

    *shrugs*

    O.

  • Obsidian

    I do? Who was the one who got so hot and bothered that she just had to devote an entire post to it? LOL

    I’m sorry to disappoint, Ms. Walsh, but no can do. So long as our sisters continue to deny the glaringly obvious truth that stares them right in the face, the Obsidian will be around to help them see the light.

    ;)

    O.

    PS: in case Tennis Pro is reading along, please. Women objectify Men ALL. THE. TIME. Again: see th numerous studies wrt Heightism. It’s just that Women don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Ain’t no fun when the rabbit’s got the gun, now is it?

  • http://www.atpworldtour.com/ Tennis Pro

    1. “Perhaps you’ve heard of the name Deborah Lorenzana? Ms. Walsh has written about her here at HUS, so if you don’t know who I’m talking about, feel free to ask her. She is a Woman who has proven that being “HOT” most definitely pays.”

    Of course being hot pays. But it’s not something that I want to get paid for, thankyou very much.

    2. “Women objectify Men ALL. THE. TIME. Again: see th numerous studies wrt Heightism. It’s just that Women don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Ain’t no fun when the rabbit’s got the gun, now is it?”

    There’s a huge difference between noticing that someone is attractive, taking note of that and moving on, on one hand, and between oogling, staring, cat calling, whistling and stalking them on the other.

    I will mentally take note of a cute baby or if a handsome guy is standing at the corner waiting for the light to change. And I’m sure some men, women and children have noticed my cute smile and curly long hair in public. That’s very different from the type of attention I’ve gotten when I wear a hip hugging, low cut, sexy dress.

    I welcome the former and seek to avoid the later.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Of course being hot pays. But it’s not something that I want to get paid for, thankyou very much.

      Brilliant.

  • Clarence

    Tennis Pro:

    I reserve the right to “ogle”, “stare” ( I have never catcalled nor stalked) or even whistle at you in public if you decide you wish to look like a loose woman. If you don’t want me noticing the goods, please don’t advertise them. A little bit of modesty goes a long way, and will give your complaints more credence.

  • Clarence

    Susan:

    I’m 5’8 and women and men hardly ever notice. See, “average” is 5’9, and that one inch less than isn’t noticed , any more than 5’10 would make me “tall”. Because I’m close enough to “average” I get to be “average”. I find this a blessing as I know that smaller men often do face lots of sexual discrimination.

  • Clarence

    Heh, I find it funny that Obsidian is off about the “average” by one inch.

  • http://www.atpworldtour.com Tennis Pro

    Clarence, you obviously haven’t read my posts.

    I go to the beach often and stare at the surfers there myself. But do so discretely behind sun glasses.

  • Clarence

    Tennis Pro:

    It is true I hadn’t read your previous posts on this thread before I made mine.
    Indeed, I found that out about literally five minutes after I posted.

    That being said, I decided not to apologize.
    Do you want to know why? Well, whatever, I’ll tell you anyway.
    I dislike your general argument, and I decided my post covered that just as well.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    The checklist mentality is self-defeating, but when I address it with individual women, they say, “Well I can’t help it if I’m not attracted to men who don’t have those qualities!” Which means that they’re pretty much screwed.
    .
    Susan, this is BS, think about it for a moment. Attraction is something irrational (something that comes from the primitive parts of the brain) while having a checklist is something rational (something that comes from the rational parts of the brain: the neocortex). To say it in metaphorical terms, attraction comes from the heart and a checklist comes from the reason. And there are two different realms or, as Pascal put it, “The heart has reasons that reason does not understand”
    .
    It is not that you have a checklist with 20 requisites and you take some time to check them off. When you have check off all of them, you suddenly feel a raw attraction to this man. So, for example, if you don’t know the requisite number 13 (for instance, “he must love turtles because I am passionate about protecting turtle’s ecosystem”) and you take one month to figure it out (because there is no turtle available to make the test), only after one month you feel suddenly attracted to this man (when you see how he interacts with a turtle and you finally check off the last remaining item of the list).
    .
    What women think when they tell you: “Well I can’t help it if I’m not attracted to men who don’t have those qualities!” is the following:
    .
    “1. Susan you are telling me that I should settle for less than my checklist but I disagree. I deserve all my checklist and I know that I will find a man with all these prerequisites. So, yes, I’m not buying your theory of giving a chance to dull betas who are not worth to tie my shoelaces. Mr. Checklist will eventually show up and sweep off my feet.
    .
    2. Since I disagree with you but I want to be polite, I won’t tell you “You are wrong. I can have Mr. Checklist”. I will tell you that “I can’t help it”.
    .
    3. Blaming attraction and helplessness for my attitude has other advantages:
    .
    a. It leaves you without an argument to reply. If I tell you I can’t feel attraction, how do you argue against that? Attraction is irrational and can’t be argued against or faked.
    .
    b. It frees me from any responsibility. Since my irrational attraction is the cause of shunning betas, it is not my fault. So, if I am heartbroken now or I eventually end up as a spinster, I can tell myself and other people “I couldn’t help it”.
    .
    c. It is impossible to change. So I will keep on trying to find Mr. Checklist (which is the thing I want to do). And I have the perfect excuse to do so and not to change my ways (“I can’t help it”).

    The next time some woman is BS’ing you, Susan, think about what I have just told you.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @NBTT
    I don’t disagree with this, but I believe that the threshold for female attraction has gone up. Over time, the media, reflecting society’s values (and the Sexual Revolution), has given women a new checklist – a whole new and improved set of expectations. We’re no longer practical – every single woman hopes to star in her own romantic comedy. Perhaps we’re just no longer prevented from indulging our every whim – we custom build our expectations to include eye color, certain interests, a way of dressing, etc. Of course, no such perfect man exists, which creates disappointment. That disappointment is directly born of unrealistic expectations about what women are entitled to.
    .
    I’ve read a lot of advice where women are advised to settle for 80% of what they want in a man. That’s not the solution, IMO. Women must reduce the checklist of what they want in a man, and when they do they can probably get closer to 100% of that.

  • Obsidian

    TP,
    LOL. So, let me get this straight: you don’t deny that what I said about Women objectifying Men just as much as the other way around is true, just that Women go about it a different way. Right?

    LMAO!!!

    Lemme tell ya TP, it makes no difference-and this is coming from a guy who knows what its like to actually be ogled by Women, stalked by Women, etc et al. The whole shot, you name it. I maintain what I said: Women just don’t like it when the rabbit’s got the gun.

    As for what I said about Lorenzana, hey, no one’s saying you have to do anything. All’s I’m saying is that there’s a reason why gals like are deemed smokin’ hot, and gals otherwise…aren’t.

    Brains in and of itself have rarely did it for a guy straightaway, and I doubt they ever will.

    *shrugs*

    Clarence,
    LOL! Right on, Brother. Exercise your 1st Amendment Rights. So you as you keep your hands to yourself and you’re in a common area, you have every right to speak your mind. If the ladies want a different result, they need to go about things a different way.

    Ms. Walsh,

    Hacker makes the point you noted above very clear in his book Mismatch, and its something that has to be critically addressed, and to be frank you’re soft peddling it in your “solution” above. What these ladies need to hear is that one, they ain’t all that to begin with, and two, they need to get a grip on reality. Men learn, at an early age, how to cope with the harsh realities of life-take sports, for example. Whether guys play them or watch them from the sidelines, they learn a very, very important life lesson: LOSS. That’s what life is more often than not, all about, and they must learn to accept this. Sports teaches young Men and boys, that there will be times when you will do all you can, play by all the rules, and still lose the game. This is something that Women, enmasse, never had to learn; unlike boys, who are taught to sublimate aspects of themselves into more productive channels, young Women and girls are never asked to reign in their baser natures. Things like emotions, feelings, and tendencies-such as never wanting to accpet responsibility for anything wrong in their lives. It goes beyond merely being counterproductive; it is deeply dysfunctional. And because this thing is so very pervasive in our time now, it has real public policy implications. If you like, I will be more than happy to lay it all out for you.

    Are you sure you read Hacker’s book Mismatch?

    O.

  • Sox

    Of course being hot pays. But it’s not something that I want to get paid for, thankyou very much

    Does this attitude transfer to your relationships as well?

  • http://www.atpworldtour.com Tennis Pro

    “Attraction is something irrational”

    I don’t entirely agree with this. Initial physical attraction? Sure. I can spot a “hot” guy from across the room based on his physical looks. I’ve dated quite a few of them. With most the attraction did not last because we were incompatible. That leads us back to BDS’s comment. The ones with whom the attraction lasted and and even increased to something beyond just physical attraction were the ones who were similar to me in intelligence and interests.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    We’re no longer practical – every single woman hopes to star in her own romantic comedy.
    .
    It’s funny because Hollywood movies (including rom-coms) are watched all around the world but only American women take them as a documentary instead of an escapist fantasy. For instance, European women are feminist and they watch these rom-coms but they are not living in a fairy land while they expect their Prince.
    .
    When I lived in America, I had a blog to explain my life to the family. When I explained the concept of Prince Charming, I produced a lot of laughter. In Europe, you stop dreaming of Prince Charming when you are six years old or so. But I managed to link an online dating profile of a 56-year-old woman who said: “I am Cinderella and I am waiting for my Prince to come and sweep off my feet”. My brother-in-law commented: “She rather seems the Witch”.
    .
    There may be something in America that makes people live in a fantasy world. Clotaire Rapaille (http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Code-Ingenious-Understand-People/dp/0767920562) says that the culture code for America is “DREAM”.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @NBTT
    I think that might be it exactly – Americans are dreamers. The sky’s the limit, and all things are possible. That’s an essential part of our national character. For many generations, each generation was expected to do better than the one before it. Today, it’s getting pretty difficult to do that. Once you’ve gone from illiterate to Ivy League in three generations, there’s really not much of anywhere for the next generation to go, certainly not to achieve more than its parents. Yet this dream of constantly moving forward and up pervades the American psyche. I suspect that is also at work in the minds of American youth – and women are more focused on relationship dreams. I think there’s probably a corollary of unrealistic dreams for guys – for example, I can’t tell you how many young male college students have told me it’s their dream to work for Goldman Sachs when they graduate. Uh huh.

  • Kurt

    I don’t believe those IQs that you listed and you need to discount the school choices of some of those actresses.  I am sure that you are well-aware that it is much easier for a famous person to gain acceptance into a top school because that school essentially gets free publicity.  Natalie Portman was already a successful actresses before she attended Harvard, so it wouldn’t surprise me if she got in despite not having a top SAT score.
    Also, how were the IQ scores of those actresses determined?  I have heard people brag about having high IQs but then perform poorly or only slightly above average on standardized tests, such as the SAT.  Someone with an IQ of 140 or higher should be testing in the 99th percentile of the SAT and should probably be a National Merit Scholar, which is a tremendous honor.  However, I have not heard of any of those people being mentioned as National Merit Scholars.
    I will admit that one person on your list who I know is smart is Danica McKellar – she co-authored this scientific paper about magnetic fields: http://www.danicamckellar.com/math/percolation.pdf

  • jh

    Not going to read all these comments, but I hope someone pointed out how ridiculous and unbelievable those quoted IQs are for e.g. Madonna and Asia Carrera. I don’t think people have a very good understanding of what the IQ distribution really looks like, or what it means (in terms of cognitive ability) to have a 3 sigma + IQ.