Hacker News Reader

Comment by dutchCourage | Hacker News Reader

Behind the scientific lingo, I'm getting incel vibes from this.

Trying to summarize the behavior of half the world population is pointless. Different women look for different things in their partners. For any woman who likes a dark haired, soft spoken thoughtful guy, there's one looking for a blond passionate and outgoing guy.

The criteria are endless, and intelligence is too broad to measure. For example, wearing glasses is associated with being book smart and nerdy, so typically would be a marker of low social intelligence.

From my own experience, people in healthy relationships basically look for a friend they're physically attracted to. Your mileage may vary.

View on HN

You know there are whole academic fields which go beyond, "women are different" and actually try to understand human behavior? Maybe you should question why you have this reaction of wanting to shut down such discussion when it goes beyond what you were told was acceptable speech.

This article and the comments remind me of what I used to think as a sheltered teenager before I actually got to hang out with women and realized they're just other humans.

I'd venture to say that what women are looking for is defined much more by their environment than their biology. And that it's wildly different for each of them.

Now if someone wants to try to understand what motivates women they're welcome to do it. I never said it wasn't acceptable to do so. It's going to be hard though, because there are a lot of women out there with a lot of different motivations.

But this just looks like someone trying to explain why "smart/nice" guys can't get laid, wrapped in a pseudo scientific method.

Your comment just reads as a "just-so" story, which deems female behavior too difficult to study or understand.

It's just as pseudo-scientific if not more than the attempts at explaining group behavior and mating preferences (not this article though, it's also trash).

> I'd venture to say that what women are looking for is defined much more by their environment than their biology.

It's the classic nature vs nurture argument, for which you conveniently provide no supporting evidence. Note that I don't claim either one to be dominant or correct over the other, while you do. The burden of proof here lies on you.

> The burden of proof here lies on you.

I'm trying to share why I think attempting to study women like they're birds is futile. I genuinely think men-women relationships don't work like that. But you're correct, I've done no scientific study. It's all based on personal experience.

I'm only saying it because I think this approach leads to men being frustrated. I know I was.

> wrapped in a pseudo scientific method

I think you missed the scientific papers he cited at the end.

Your comments read overly cynical.

“Incel vibes”

Can anyone conduct research you find uncomfortable? Do they need your permission?

It’s great that you have some personal experience and opinion to share but we’re trying to read the article and discuss it without trashing the writer.

Do people need your permission to find an article creepy?

I realize "incel" is a loaded word but I didn't mean to trash the author.

Simply, I feel like he's coming at the issue from the perspective that men-women relationships are transactional. I think that's wrong, and that it is an incel view of the problem. With no disrespect to incels, because I also grew up thinking like that.

Also I'd say the definition the article uses for "intelligence" is reductive. There's more to intelligence than pure logic.

Romantic relationships aren't that different from friendships. And you wouldn't try to be friends with someone just because they have a nice car or score well at IQ tests. It's all about being a good/fun person. And that can be pretty subjective, compatibility plays a big part. People with similar interests and values are more likely to get together.

I agree that relationships are not transactional. This is my personal viewpoint.

But if I am to observe how others in my community, town, city, and even ethnic background make these decisions, 9 times out of 10 they are transactional. Many of these relationships are loveless and aware of it.

For me to pretend this is not real life would be to bury myself in the bubble of my own experience and assume everyone else loves their partner unconditionally as much as I do, or selected them under similar criteria.

I would go as far as saying what you call “the incel view” is actually how marriage happens in a vast majority of cultures over most of human history. To me that’s not “the incel view”

it’s just life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com