liberalism atheism and sexual exclusivity in men linked to IQ

[Guest Raidne]

:)

I wasn't claiming there was group think in this thread in particular, rather that we can see some patterns in the board in general.

Raidne - I'm an admitted contrarian who plays an obvious devil's advocate at times to stimulate debate. I advertized as much when I introduced myself to the board. But I like to think this is still slightly above just trolling for lulz.

And I'm claiming (1) that it's less common on the Board than elsewhere and (2) being a "contrarian" is so damn popular on this board that it is probably, paradoxically, the most common kind of groupthink.

The problem I have is, like Raids, any kind of 'seemingly reasonable inference that could be interpreted as,' isn't exactly conclusive.

I feel like it's still not entirely clear that I don't have any problem with psychologists hedging their arguments. They have to account for the possibility of intervening variables and all manner of things that require them to speak that way. What I have a problem with is the idea that a person would phrase a sentence in such a way that implies that they are not even sure if they're own argument is reasonable. That is not exactly what the people linking delayed gratification to monogamy have been doing.

And, well, when it comes to infidelity, we're only talking about delaying satisfaction if the male in question isn't sexually active at home. What if he is getting it on a regular basis at home? What's the selection process then? My SO doesn't have those, [big tits, legs, ass= preference bias] or that [this woman understands me, I feel a connection here = emotional bond, gratification] But you guys are bringing me kids with candy and telling me how that is.

Well, I'm only a little woman who might not have a full understanding of whatever is going on with the male in question, but, IMO, staying faithful to your relationship when you're tempted not to sure feels like delayed gratification, no matter how much you're getting at home. You're choosing the greater reward of the health of your relationship over the immediate satisfaction of screwing around with someone new.

[JGP]

I feel like it's still not entirely clear that I don't have any problem with psychologists hedging their arguments. They have to account for the possibility of intervening variables and all manner of things that require them to speak that way. What I have a problem with is the idea that a person would phrase a sentence in such a way that implies that they are not even sure if they're own argument is reasonable. That is not exactly what the people linking delayed gratification to monogamy have been doing.

Nah, it's clear to me. I don't have a problem with them covering their bets either. What gets my feelers going however is them feeling they need to. I mean, if I feel I need to caveat qualify prevaricate what I'm about to say because the only thing I am certain about is that my conclusion can't be certain, then... What the fuck. Why would any right-thinking individual point at what I said and claim, 'Fact.'

Well, I'm only a little woman who might not have a full understanding of whatever is going on with the male in question, but, IMO, staying faithful to your relationship when you're tempted not to sure feels like delayed gratification, no matter how much you're getting at home. You're choosing the greater reward of the health of your relationship over the immediate satisfaction of screwing around with someone new.

But what if the male in question isn't satisfied with his relationship yet remains faithful? What's he delaying then? Good relationships with his kids? Dad's a stand-up guy. What if they don't have kids? Could it be his reputation amongst family and peers? What would everyone think. Is that really intelligence speaking up in the background?

Based on HE and the other guy's assertion, could we reasonably conclude: that if he stays faithful to a woman who may not be the best match for him, dude might not be intelligent?

Maybe I'm just in a mood. What am I missing?

[Happy Ent]

And I'm claiming (1) that it's less common on the Board than elsewhere and (2) being a "contrarian" is so damn popular on this board that it is probably, paradoxically, the most common kind of groupthink.

No, it isn’t.

[Guest Raidne]

Ha, ha. That actually took me a second, but I'm not either conservative or religious. Which is your answer TOH - we're only talking about averages here.

[Eponine]

Based on HE and the other guy's assertion, could we reasonably conclude: that if he stays faithful to a woman who may not be the best match for him, dude might not be intelligent?

Maybe I'm just in a mood. What am I missing?

I'm still not really sure what the definition of sexual exclusivity is, but I don't think that it necessarily means that the man is only with one person for his entire life, but rather that if he's in a relationship, he won't cheat on his partner.

So the intelligent man in that situation might make sure to get out of one relationship before starting to look for another relationship. It wouldn't necessarily mean that he would never get divorced.

[mcbigski]

The liberal atheists are smarter bit seems to smack of self congratulation and perhaps some social signaling.

As for the sexual exclusivity bit, that makes more sense to me. A high IQ male is generally going to want a comparably high IQ female, all other things being equal (age, attractiveness, social standing etc). There's a vast swath of women that I find so insipid that they are automatically disqualified as potential long term partners. (Which is not to say that there aren't a bunch of idiotic men around too.) Since the bell curve for male intelligence has fatter tails, women are scarcer at a given high IQ level, so men who are selecting for a comparably intelligent partner have fewer alternatives, and should value their current relationship more.

I also wonder if the reason the study found higher IQ tends towards male, but not female, sexual exclusivity is because high IQ men also tend to value high IQ women more than the reverse.

[Guest Raidne]

I also wonder if the reason the study found higher IQ tends towards male, but not female, sexual exclusivity is because high IQ men also tend to value high IQ women more than the reverse.

Let's think hard about that: does it really seem that way to you? When you take a look at the world, do you really see women seeming to value things, like, say, youth and physical attractiveness, over intelligence more than men do?

[sologdin]

yeah, it's so shallow, all of the old women hitting on young men, such as myself, for instance, all the time. don't they realize that i have a mind, a personality, a generous disposition? of course not. all they think about sweaty cougar sex in their limosines after the opera house closes.

[mcbigski]

Let's think hard about that: does it really seem that way to you? When you take a look at the world, do you really see women seeming to value things, like, say, youth and physical attractiveness, over intelligence more than men do?

So we agree that men and women have different priorities when it comes to valuing potential mates.

The question though was whether high IQ men have a greater preference for high IQ women than higher IQ women have for higher IQ men, and whether the relative scarcity of replacement candidates would drive high IQ men, but not high IQ women, to be more loyal. I suppose on the flip side, you could argue that higher IQ women are less exclusive because they get dumped more often since guys prefer airheads. I'm just trying to figure out the dynamic at work here.

[Paddy]

Well, I'll agree that I probably have different priorities to you.

[JGP]

Raids:

Ha, ha. That actually took me a second, but I'm not either conservative or religious. Which is your answer TOH - we're only talking about averages here.

Is TOH me? [confuzzled]

Eponine:

I'm still not really sure what the definition of sexual exclusivity is, but I don't think that it necessarily means that the man is only with one person for his entire life, but rather that if he's in a relationship, he won't cheat on his partner.

So the intelligent man in that situation might make sure to get out of one relationship before starting to look for another relationship. It wouldn't necessarily mean that he would never get divorced.

I see what you mean. I guess I just can't accept the presupposition that what you've described here, and others elsewhere in thread, is intellect based. If I feel around it, think about it-- a sense of security, emotional well being, commitment, love, integrity, and/or all the various reasons we have [for remaining faithful] are intellectual post-rationalizations of something we've already decided.

Aren't they?

[Guest Raidne]

So we agree that men and women have different priorities when it comes to valuing potential mates.

It's not really a personal opinion of mine - there are mountains of evidence supporting that conclusion, although it varies hugely cross-culturally.

You know, that reminds me, you'd think that no evolutionary psychologist would ever seek to publish anything using data from one country.

The question though was whether high IQ men have a greater preference for high IQ women than higher IQ women have for higher IQ men, and whether the relative scarcity of replacement candidates would drive high IQ men, but not high IQ women, to be more loyal.

It was? Where did that come from? I thought the question was why, for men, having a higher IQ was associated with sexual exclusivity, and for women there was no relationship between IQ and sexual exclusivity?

The answer was that lower IQ women still thought sexual fidelity was important in a good relationship, but the lower IQ men disagreed with the higher IQ men to a statistically significant degree on that point.

I suppose on the flip side, you could argue that higher IQ women are less exclusive because they get dumped more often since guys prefer airheads. I'm just trying to figure out the dynamic at work here.

Again, the data didn't say that. The data just said that higher IQ women did not care about sexual fidelity more than lower IQ women. It did not say that higher IQ women cared less about sexual fidelity than higher IQ men.

The question, should we want to ask one, is why lower IQ don't care as much about sexual fidelity as everyone else.

The answer, IMO, is that they can't keep a mate, and so don't ascribe much importance to it out of a drive to preserve the ego.

Raids:

Is TOH me? [confuzzled]

Oops. Yeah. I crossed acronyms with someone from another thread, I think.

[Ken Stone]

The liberal atheists are smarter bit seems to smack of self congratulation and perhaps some social signaling.

As for the sexual exclusivity bit, that makes more sense to me. A high IQ male is generally going to want a comparably high IQ female, all other things being equal (age, attractiveness, social standing etc). There's a vast swath of women that I find so insipid that they are automatically disqualified as potential long term partners. (Which is not to say that there aren't a bunch of idiotic men around too.) Since the bell curve for male intelligence has fatter tails, women are scarcer at a given high IQ level, so men who are selecting for a comparably intelligent partner have fewer alternatives, and should value their current relationship more.

I also wonder if the reason the study found higher IQ tends towards male, but not female, sexual exclusivity is because high IQ men also tend to value high IQ women more than the reverse.

Did we just find another conservative, religious, sexual exclusive leaning male?

[Guest Raidne]

Did we just find another conservative, religious, sexual exclusive leaning male?

Let's not get our terms confused. Apparently, it's not unheard of for conservative relgious men to be the type that you know would assign a "5" to the question "how important is being sexually faithful to your spouse to a successful relationship; 1 is not important, 5 is very important" right before walking into a bathroom stall at the Minneapolis airport or doing speed all night with a gay escort.

[mcbigski]

Did we just find another conservative, religious, sexual exclusive leaning male?

Not me. I'm pretty much a non proselytizing atheist (as opposed to the stereotypical loudmouth intolerant athiest fuckwads out there). And frankly only conservative relative to the board. Politically, I mostly just tend to appreciate that Republican nuttery is usually the tried and tested kind, instead of some totally whack departure with unknowable side effects.

The data just said that higher IQ women did not care about sexual fidelity more than lower IQ women. It did not say that higher IQ women cared less about sexual fidelity than higher IQ men.

That makes more sense. That's not the impression the article left with me, but I could see how they got there.