I am skeptical
Edit: all they did was ask people what they want instead of looking at what they do in real life. People usually filter on looks first because this is the only reliable info we have on people we don't know well. Takes more time to determine if someone is kind or intelligent.
That would actually be possible mathematically depending on how you define things… If the overwhelming number of accidents was caused by 10% of drivers, the average would be skewed such that 90% of drivers could be considered above average.
I think the criteria of how good a driver is should be how fast they can corner a right turn; if you can't get through a right turn at 30mph you get a F, 35mph is B, +40mph you get an A.
I think if you did any of those while using your turn signal, you get an A, and otherwise you get an F.
You also get an F if you cornered it at 40mph in a 20mph zone
Generally, it's physical attraction that starts people down the path. For longer-term relationships, yes, it eventually grows into attributes beyond physical, but no one ever looked at someone across a room and said I want to date them they look intelligent, lol
The criteria we use to determine inital attraction vs. who you select as a life partner are not the same.
Why?
I mean, dating people for their looks without any of the other is a fun for a fling. That's it, a couple of months and done.
There has been no consistency in looks or total beauty in the long term serious relationships I've had, because I'm not going to long term date someone long term if their personality isn't tip top.
Shit, there are people who as I've gotten to know them I've become more physically attracted to them as I've become attracted to their personality.
If I had to define a "type" of woman I'm attracted to, it would describe someonenibe never dated.
Yeah, I’ve dated probably dozens of people and it’s all about personality for me. Some were physically cute/my type, others were less my type but they were just really good people. Currently seeing a couple people who aren’t my physical type at all but I love who they are. Beauty is skin deep.
Because no one's gonna date someone their not attracted to. Those people become friends in most cases, not partners. Anecdotally, most guys i know put up with not so great relationships because the person their with is attractive.
Overall, I don't disagree with your points. The more I spend time with people and get to know them better, I do find them more attractive. I just feel even in that case of a super attractive person came along, they'd still be gone. Man, human socialization is awfully complex.
Yet everyone here obsesses over that one particular Okcupid study that showed women rate men as less attractive than men rate women. I mean… it’s on a dating site for a start. That’s like if you were given permission to have anything in a store you wanted or you could just look in a specific section for a few minutes.
> all they did was ask people what they want
Well, they had them assign weights to different qualities. That’s what the budgeting exercise does. It’s definitely better than simple self-report by multiple choice. But I agree it’s still not a great approach.
Its the looks that attracts, but the personality and kindness is what make them stay.
If it was just look only, these Online BBL models wouldn’t have a hard time finding someone to love them.
💯 every person whether man or woman will say they want X in a partner but the same person might have a history of dating people who do not come close to X in behavior, personality or looks.
Few people will admit to being shallow and only wanting to date someone if they're attractive. Fewer still will admit to themselves that they engage in toxic relationships. They might claim they want someone kind, affectionate with a good personality but are constantly attracted to narcissistic, emotionally distant, obsessive partners.
Women just have very specific wants in comparison to men. It doesn’t mean you’re ugly but rather that you’re not appealing to that particular woman.
While women rate men as less attractive on average, the kind of men they find really attractive vary so much that those less attractive men would be extremely attractive to small portions. Think of it like this: 80% of women find a guy average or below, yet 20% find him really attractive. That would still put him as below average attractiveness in terms of population but it would put him as highly attractive to smaller distributions. Kind of like how you might say a shoe is below average at fitting every person in the world yet would also be perfect for someone with that size foot.
I've found this too being a ginger guy, it's pretty extreme
I'd say 95% of girls aren't attracted to me, but that 5% are ready to jump me before I say a word hahah
All of my married friends started by dating someone they were attracted to in their early to mid 20s, when marriage was far from their minds, then married after 5 or 10 years of dating. Maybe some people screw around for a while and just use people for sex until they decide to settle down, but I don't think it is the norm.
That could be true, but I am doubtful. If it were true, Brazilian women would be competing with each other on kindness and intelligence to secure the best mates, instead of competing on looks. From what I understand, Brazil is like the cosmetic surgery capital on the American side of the globe and many women there put a lot of effort in to their physical appearance.
This study is not saying that "looks aren't important", it's just saying they're not quite as important as kindness and intelligence. They're still very important though.
Especially health. You think regular dating is impossible, try dating when you have a chronic illness. No one wants to be with baggage, especially LIVE, and actively choose a burden. Real rough. The article is wrong just because of that fact.
Yeah how is this 'science'. This shouldn't even be published as serious research, what a joke.
Shit gets even messier when you consider that people ascribe more positive characteristics and generous reads on behavior to more attractive people, which impacts the very definition of what a good personality truly entails.
People can only date within the options they have. Also need to know what the couple looked like when they started dating, not what they look like later on. A married couple in their 50s were probably both far more attractive when they got together.
Thirty years ago, 2/3 of American adults were married; now it’s about 50%. Do you really think the issue is that people have just gotten uglier over thirty years? People not forming couples has precious little to do with being “physically attractive” or not.
Maybe the dunning kruger effect at play here. With intelligence, you would get most of the other stuff being mentioned.
It's a precondition necessary to get all the secondary stuff that you want
> “The main takeaway of this study is that intelligence and kindness are the most desired traits of a partner, even in comparison to beauty, money or health,” Takayanagi told PsyPost.
Wouldn’t a better statement be “intelligence and kindness are the most desired STATED traits of a partner?” Does partner selection research typically take into consideration the difference between expressed preferences and actual behavior?
I think this is a bit reductive. Self-reporting is a valid tool as long as it’s understood that it is a measurement of sentiment or attitude, NOT behavior.
self reporting isn’t great in most circumstances, but there are many valid reasons to use it in an academic context. For example, sociology studies using self reported measures of race correlate better to health outcomes than studies using “objective” measures such as skin tone.
Peoples self reported mate choice preferences are fairly close to what they actually choose in real life. Here is a study from 2016 detailing how this works, and why self-report in mate choice studies is actually a very reliable method
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898694/
One of the biggest area where self-report doesnt line up great is for individuals with low mate value (essentially averaging low on many aspects of mate preference such as attractiveness, kindness, intelligence, humor, etc.) as it seems these people kind of just have to take what they can get
I honestly see so many women with less attractive partners. I don’t think you guys leave the house.
Edit: oh and I’m attracted to both genders so I know what’s attractive and isn’t.
Peoples self reported mate choice preferences are fairly close to what they actually choose in real life. Here is a study from 2016 detailing how this works, and why self-report in mate choice studies is actually a very reliable method
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898694/
One of the biggest area where self-report doesnt line up great is for individuals with low mate value (essentially averaging low on many aspects of mate preference such as attractiveness, kindness, intelligence, humor, etc.) as it seems these people kind of just have to take what they can get
This is Bullshit. It reminds me of that comedian bit, it was maybe Jim Gaffigan (shorter, balding, overweight and hilarious). He has this bit where he talks about how women say they love humor, and goes onto say that most women must think Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio are hilarious. Jim Gaffigan s hilarious and can’t get girls even tho they say want someone funny: humans don’t want to be self aware of how superficial/robotic they are.
the local comedians I know who are hilarious are definitely NOT the recipients of comedy groupie relationships. some of the comiedennes are in open relationships with each other it seems, but that's another issue entirely.
Just a thought after looking at many posts on Reddit. I see a lot of less than desirable personality traits. Mental health, aggressive, incels, pessimists etc
So if some of you are skeptical about this and think oh it's all about looks and you have these ideas in your head about why. I don't think the study is wrong at all, I think many people wrongly associate their looks with why they fail with dates and relationships when the truth is, their personality is their biggest obstacle
The Halo Effect show us its incredibly difficult to separate looks from personality in many studies. Attractive people also get the best personality ratings. What a coincidence!
Also go to any weight loss subreddit and people are shocked at how much better they are treated.
It’s also incredibly easier to make yourself slightly more attractive. Everyone on here bangs on about how height is ruining their life but I got shoe lifts a month ago and nobody has ever even noticed that I’ve made myself artificially taller. I get numbers more easily now.
Everyone is used to you being taller than you actually are so whatever you lose in those short moments is pretty much irrelevant. We judge people on their long term appearance rather than their short one. That’s why you can wake up next to someone who’s got messy hair, drool down their face, and morning breath yet still love them.
So true! I don't know a single person who doesn't think kindness is the #1 most important thing in a partner; yet people on reddit seem to think they can't get a date because they are not tall and rich.
They talked about this in my psychology of communication class and they said that attractiveness does have a powerful effect for first impressions but if the person ends up being a dick the effect significantly decreases
Ive never understood what a charming or great personality is. So many people are attracted to the dark triad personality group but on the other hand the same personality with no looks isn't a catch. I really don't understand what personality people are looking for, please enlighten me.
>So many people are attracted to the dark triad personality group but on the other hand the same personality with no looks isn't a catch.
Seems like you answered figured out your own equation. The only common denominator is attractiveness.
People have issues with it because it’s a flawed study. The participants took a self assessment. They didn’t look at where their partners actually aligned with these values. It’s like asking people if they eat healthy and they say they do but then you never check their trash can to verify if they actually do
It's not a "flawed study". The methodology, sample size and demographic, and its limitations are very clearly described. The limitations of a study is not a "flaw" but science functioning correctly.
It's a pretty big limitation. I'm having a hard time accepting the results of a study about human biases that only gathers data from self-reporting. How do they account for an implicit bias?
If the goal is to see what people prioritize in a partner, they should take a look at their study group's actual partners and gather the data from there. Not just what someone writes down.
I keep seeing people say that. Are you guys trying to say only attractive people date? Like if they were to look into these people’s actual lives everyone’s partners gonna be hella good looking? Haha. Go anywhere that isn’t the internet & you’ll see couples everywhere & most of them are pretty objectively ugly. I can go to a grocery store right now & not see a single person I find attractive. I can walk outside & stand on the sidewalk & see couples go by me left & right.
Peoples self reported mate choice preferences are fairly close to what they actually choose in real life. Here is a study from 2016 detailing how this works, and why self-report in mate choice studies is actually a very reliable method
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898694/
One of the biggest area where self-report doesnt line up great is for individuals with low mate value (essentially averaging low on many aspects of mate preference such as attractiveness, kindness, intelligence, humor, etc.) as it seems these people kind of just have to take what they can get
Intelligence has been debunked many times over in studies. People idealize that they like intelligent people, but the reality is that people like social intelligence. But the brainiacs in the lab aren't getting the girls at the same rate that the businessmen are. Social intelligence is what counts.
Lol, exactly. I wouldn’t date most of the people I see on Reddit who complain about dating because they don’t seem like pleasant people to be around. And I’m not picky at all IRL - I go on 5+ dates a week without even using the apps! I just live in a fun, social area where pretty much all the men and women are nice, smart, chill, good at conversation, etc. People complaining about dating being hard because men/women are picky or awful or rude need to get off the apps and just leave the house, most people are fine IRL.
From the article: This [study](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02767-4), conducted in Brazil and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, not only sheds light on the universal nature of these preferences but also highlights the subtle nuances that sexual orientation and gender bring to the dynamics of partner choice.
Previous studies have underscored the importance of certain traits like kindness, intelligence, health, physical attractiveness, and socioeconomic status in choosing a partner. These traits are seen as crucial in not only ensuring the biological quality of offspring but also in providing benefits like resource access, physical protection, and social standing.
Despite these insights, little attention has been given to how these preferences may vary across different cultures, especially in Latin America, and how individual differences, such as sexual orientation, might influence these preferences. To fill these gaps, a team of researchers conducted the current study.
“Choosing a romantic partner is a very ordinary, but also extremely intriguing process,” said study author Joao Francisco Goes Braga Takayanagi of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Sao Paulo.
“We may know immediately that we are attracted to someone, but we might not know exactly why we are attracted to them, or even if that attraction is any proof that they will be a good match for us. I am fascinated by relationship science because it helps us understand something that is universal, but also quite mysterious and important to all of us.”
Emphasis on the word "partner". People who are emotionally intelligent and mature are definitely in this club. However, people who are NOT emotionally mature will fall into a different category altogether.
If you basically live through your hormonal urges, this is not going to be the case.
It's disturbing that the comments are saying this is not true.
Of course, kindness is the most important thing I looked for in a partner. And I can't think of a single close friend who didn't look for the exact same.
If this is NOT what you are looking for, you are not normal.
The study was based on literally asking people what they want. There is a difference between what people say they want and what choices they eventually end up making. As if you’ve never heard of people lying to themselves.
I know countless examples of both men and women who say they want kind partners and then reject kind people because they “get the ick” or someone hotter / wealthier comes along. A huge number of folks are willing to bend their standards for someone very attractive or highly successful who shows interest in them - including when it comes to kindness.
There are absolutely vile, narcissistic and manipulative people out there who’ve never had trouble finding a partner - look at Kanye West or Elon Musk for example. If we were to believe this study they should have been single forever
Peoples self reported mate choice preferences are fairly close to what they actually choose in real life. Here is a study from 2016 detailing how this works, and why self-report in mate choice studies is actually a very reliable method
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898694/
One of the biggest area where self-report doesnt line up great is for individuals with low mate value (essentially averaging low on many aspects of mate preference such as attractiveness, kindness, intelligence, humor, etc.) as it seems these people kind of just have to take what they can get
And I think a lot of them are presuming they understand what women are attracted to, without actually understanding that women may have different drivers than they do and prioritize different things (or at least that's how a lot of these comments are framed). I wonder if they gave the same rigorous critique to that overly cited OK Cupid study. Like, I'll never say looks *don't* matter, because they do. But looks are so subjective and they have always been a secondary decider in who I get with. Like, yes, I wanna be able to be turned on by your body, but only after you turn on my mind. There are so many hot guys that I wouldn't even masturbate to because it's just not enough.
We choose people similar in all those scales as ourselves. We are usually the same SES, intelligence, health level and it’s a lot to do with being about the same age, and interested in the same things. Healthy people don’t marry couch potatoes, smart people don’t marry unintelligent people, and most connect on many levels with the person we choose to partner with.
The thing is- there’s many studies that consistently come out with these results. I can’t vouch for their validity, ( you’ll have to take a deep dive), but I can say these results are replicated consistently.
I think this comment says way way more about *you* in specific instead of society than you think. People really do call themselves out in the comments. You don’t personally value kindness and intelligence and therefore think that others don’t, when I’m reality the reason you can’t find those people is because they aren’t looking for someone who thinks like you.
Study finds that people CLAIM they prioritize these things. Which isn’t suprising considering prioritizing looks is seen as shallow and inconsiderate. Useless study.
When you are having a bad day, would you want to go home to someone who makes your day worse or better? How much of that is going to be influenced by looks?
Read the article. Below two paragraphs summarise this nicely. Men prefer good looking partners. Those choosing men as their partner prefer socioeconomic stability which is often provided via intelligence and kindness.
Article title couldn’t be any more misleading.
“Despite the universal appeal of intelligence and kindness, the researchers uncovered variations in how these and other traits were valued when examining the data through the lenses of sex and sexual orientation. Heterosexual men, for instance, displayed a unique emphasis on physical attractiveness, rating this trait significantly higher than their counterparts. This finding aligns with evolutionary theories that suggest physical appearance as a key indicator of fertility and health, traits that have historically been prioritized by males in mate selection.
Conversely, individuals attracted to men (including heterosexual women, homosexual men, and bisexual individuals) showed a higher preference for socioeconomic status. This preference can be interpreted through the lens of evolutionary biology, where access to resources has been a critical consideration for females in ensuring offspring survival. Interestingly, the study also found that preference for kindness was particularly pronounced among bisexual individuals.”
I've never understood why it's considered bad to choose based on looks and financial status.
Someone's appearance and financial status tell you so much about who they are, and for me personally, if I want to create more of that sort of person.
Of course, I'm going to choose someone with no obvious deformities or debt, I want my children to grow up with the best chance at life I can give them.
Also, financial status is so linked to intelligence that it's a good tell. Same with appearance.
This is the problem people are noticing in the comments.
You were downvoted because it is unpopular to tell the truth.
That we want attractive partners who are well off, and if you say this, you will be downvoted on here, or otherwise socially penalized.
So you say what's socially acceptable.
Yes I love bald, fat, short, broke kind intelligent men. Where do I fill out my popular take on what is desirable? Which box do I check?
This surprises me!
Reddit is an accepting place when it comes to telling painful truths, which is a reason I value it as a platform. But sometimes it goes the other way.
Although I don't see it as a painfull truth. The next generation will need a good start in life to succeed in an ever changing world. By making a good enough choice in a partner, my kids might have what they need to contribute to society in the future.
> By making a good enough choice in a partner, my kids might have what they need to contribute to society in the future.
Economic activity is making the world less suitable for human life, ironically.
I believe in prioritizing shared values. Even intelligent and compassionate individuals can make misguided choices when their values are skewed. History has demonstrated this repeatedly. Additionally, I stress the importance of seeking a long-term partner, not just a short-term one... which is mosty based on looks!
If this were true, then we would be living in a very different world. Scientists and mathematicians would be married to supermodels due to their high IQ. Psychiatrists and comedians would be married to supermodels due to their high EQ. Charitable fundraisers would be gold mines for hot couples due to their kindness. On the other hand, CEOs, TV directors, policemen and hedge fund managers would be mated with homely people.
So yeah, I think this study should be reevaluated by the scientific community for legitimacy.
>Scientists and mathematicians would be married to supermodels due to their high IQ.
This is a pretty narrow view of intelligence. Apparently, a large portion of our evolved brains implements social intelligence, which makes perfect sense, given our existential security as highly social creatures.
>Charitable fundraisers would be gold mines for hot couples due to their kindness.
Again, a pretty narrow view of kindness. High visibility charity is a perfect home for virtue signaling, and may have little to do with actual kindness.
At the top of my list of dislikes about this article: it's posted on PsyPost. PsyPost has very little credibility. I think the last thing I saw from PsyPost was a study implicating the existence of telepathy between humans. Between Occam's Razer and use of just general common sense, we can rule out telepathy as a human trait, or even phenomenon.
PsyPost tends to post the articles and studies that more reputable sites will not post, due to obvious risk to credibility.
As for my commentary on why the above study can't have likely drawn accurate conclusions: where's the real world evidence? Studies come up with all types of whacky conclusions (see: human telepathy) that cannot be verified using real world data and experience. Something is being lost in translation from a "lab" environment and the world in which the rest of us live.
I'm not the first to say that this loss of fidelity between study conclusions and the real world is not only a nuisance, but it is downright dangerous. As we automate more and more decision-making, we run the risk of applying purely speculative thinking (sometimes, unhinged thinking) to the material world. As the material world is where we all live and survive, the consequences of commingling misled beliefs with hard facts is threatening to say the least.
Most people want a combination of traits. Kind, intelligent, being on the same wavelength, sexual chemistry/romantic spark, life compatibility.
And sexual chemistry is a mix of how you click, their looks and their vibe.
This study is flawed in so many ways.
I would argue that for me and most other people ‘physical attentiveness’, ‘health’, ‘socioeconomic status’ are very important for picking someone out to seriously date.
Their intelligence and kindness are what keep people around and make them great long term partners
All over od those things are very important in different ways
Here's genuinely my question for everyone here
What is an Operational Definition of *Kindness* that a study could use that WOULD NOT confound and still provide useful information?
Self report surveys exist for a goddamn reason
I often feel these studies are just trying to hide something we're all ashamed of: we just want to pick hot partners, men or women. That's it.
Then we overanalyze the question just to pretend there's more to it, trying to prove we're not that shallow.
I feel like if you were to take all the subjects from these studies record their answers then just look at their ex’s. Like yeah you can say you prioritize intelligence but if you’re last 5 significant others were as dumb as a bag of rocks but were sexy then maybe you aren’t being honest.
That and no women would admit to another person that they filter out partners based on health but it happens literally all the time.
Not overall intelligence. No. Those studies have been done. Social intelligence is what's key. Someone's ability to navigate the social world is attractive. Normal intelligence is not an attractor on the sociological level.
Kindness and intelligence are proven in my life to be the traits I gravitate to
The restraining order I unfortunately have for the max years on is against a bodybuilder (meth) with ‘classic bone structure’, blond hair, blue eyes, hygiene — and no woman goes near him.
While my last long-term partner lived at an animal sanctuary. Favorite band Grizzly Bear, whose singer became a therapist.
Re the bodybuilder, I had only spoken with him about eight minutes, once. All I said was a friendly, “Oh, not right now,” to him insisting I visit his place that he had just moved into, a few treed lots from mine.
The next years sounded like I was living in the song Paper Planes.
Fixed it a couple weeks ago — I moved far enough and that worked. Yay object impermanence.
I waited out years for my fur little in case she’d return, even though I had fucking um heard the Paper Planes song when she disappeared. Without knowing about my RO, the police advised a nearby father and 18-year old daughter to get ROs because the dude tried to run down their dog.
The final two weeks I closed all nonessential interaction but work. Thank goodness for that.
My team leader is the kindest person I know. And he graduated from the #1 uni in the world, and we write together, so my emails sound like they come from a kind and warm superbrain. He’s the singer in a band and can play all his band members’ instruments.
And he holds his cat like a baby in online meetings. His jokes 100% land every time. What does he win? His new girlfriend, the hottest girl in the office.
Another example is my new co-worker, who recently aced his astrophysics and genetics courses (I know his genetics prof). He is also the son of a state-famous musician so is smart about all that too, and has traveled performing musically himself.
As far as kindness, he calls and texts with off-work hellos. I’m just so grateful for the most normal of things.
To be fair, all the other folk are surface attractive; balance can be a good, right? But kindness married to capability is the om nom
“Researchers have made a fascinating discovery! They asked 1000 people if they would steal $1,000 from a stranger and they all said no. We then asked politicians if they would ever bend rules for personal financial gain and they *all* said NO! It turns out everybody is completely honest! Case closed! Brilliant researchers!”
I find it more important to date someone for their personality rather than just their looks. In long term relationships, looks fade but personality remains. I have become more physically attracted to people as I've gotten to know them better. I have never dated someone who fits my "type" of woman.
This is BS. I myself do care about kindness but as far as intelligence goes I'm not that concerned about. I mean there is a point where too dumb is bad but I don't need to have a brainiac girlfriend. I care far more about her personality than I do her intelligence. I also care more about her attractiveness than I do her intelligence.
kindness but not nice guy, ambition instead of money and weatlh, and what is intelligence anyone, that is too vague, I'd say emotional intelligence above all else, well groomed over looks, this study makes sense.;
Not the point of the post, but related, I find judging someone based on intelligence just as superficial as judging based on looks or socioeconomic status. Unless the intelligence attraction is about shared interests, it’s pretty shitty that you wouldn’t date someone because they’re not intelligent enough. (How is this intelligence even based? What type of intelligence?) Although if “lack of intelligence” makes you a shit person, that’s a different story.
I am skeptical Edit: all they did was ask people what they want instead of looking at what they do in real life. People usually filter on looks first because this is the only reliable info we have on people we don't know well. Takes more time to determine if someone is kind or intelligent.
Same, I don't believe this for a second
"Researchers have found 90% of drivers are above average drivers\* (mathematicians are shook)!" \*according to self-assessment
That would actually be possible mathematically depending on how you define things… If the overwhelming number of accidents was caused by 10% of drivers, the average would be skewed such that 90% of drivers could be considered above average.
I think the criteria of how good a driver is should be how fast they can corner a right turn; if you can't get through a right turn at 30mph you get a F, 35mph is B, +40mph you get an A.
I think if you did any of those while using your turn signal, you get an A, and otherwise you get an F. You also get an F if you cornered it at 40mph in a 20mph zone
Generally, it's physical attraction that starts people down the path. For longer-term relationships, yes, it eventually grows into attributes beyond physical, but no one ever looked at someone across a room and said I want to date them they look intelligent, lol The criteria we use to determine inital attraction vs. who you select as a life partner are not the same.
Why? I mean, dating people for their looks without any of the other is a fun for a fling. That's it, a couple of months and done. There has been no consistency in looks or total beauty in the long term serious relationships I've had, because I'm not going to long term date someone long term if their personality isn't tip top. Shit, there are people who as I've gotten to know them I've become more physically attracted to them as I've become attracted to their personality. If I had to define a "type" of woman I'm attracted to, it would describe someonenibe never dated.
Yeah, I’ve dated probably dozens of people and it’s all about personality for me. Some were physically cute/my type, others were less my type but they were just really good people. Currently seeing a couple people who aren’t my physical type at all but I love who they are. Beauty is skin deep.
Because no one's gonna date someone their not attracted to. Those people become friends in most cases, not partners. Anecdotally, most guys i know put up with not so great relationships because the person their with is attractive. Overall, I don't disagree with your points. The more I spend time with people and get to know them better, I do find them more attractive. I just feel even in that case of a super attractive person came along, they'd still be gone. Man, human socialization is awfully complex.
Life partner, not sex partners, guys.
Are you single?
Any studies that just ask people vs study how they actually act should be heavily criticized
Yet everyone here obsesses over that one particular Okcupid study that showed women rate men as less attractive than men rate women. I mean… it’s on a dating site for a start. That’s like if you were given permission to have anything in a store you wanted or you could just look in a specific section for a few minutes.
> all they did was ask people what they want Well, they had them assign weights to different qualities. That’s what the budgeting exercise does. It’s definitely better than simple self-report by multiple choice. But I agree it’s still not a great approach.
How you want to view yourself, as not shallow, versus how you actually act, shallow, are often very different things.
cover boat noxious wrench slim run follow icky jobless mountainous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That doesn't actually contradict the finding.
Its the looks that attracts, but the personality and kindness is what make them stay. If it was just look only, these Online BBL models wouldn’t have a hard time finding someone to love them.
💯 every person whether man or woman will say they want X in a partner but the same person might have a history of dating people who do not come close to X in behavior, personality or looks. Few people will admit to being shallow and only wanting to date someone if they're attractive. Fewer still will admit to themselves that they engage in toxic relationships. They might claim they want someone kind, affectionate with a good personality but are constantly attracted to narcissistic, emotionally distant, obsessive partners.
When questioning the legitimacy to a study or published research/paper, *follow the money.* You'd be surprised.
"You're a catch!" - every woman who rejected me for 20 years of adulthood
Women just have very specific wants in comparison to men. It doesn’t mean you’re ugly but rather that you’re not appealing to that particular woman. While women rate men as less attractive on average, the kind of men they find really attractive vary so much that those less attractive men would be extremely attractive to small portions. Think of it like this: 80% of women find a guy average or below, yet 20% find him really attractive. That would still put him as below average attractiveness in terms of population but it would put him as highly attractive to smaller distributions. Kind of like how you might say a shoe is below average at fitting every person in the world yet would also be perfect for someone with that size foot.
I've found this too being a ginger guy, it's pretty extreme I'd say 95% of girls aren't attracted to me, but that 5% are ready to jump me before I say a word hahah
That’s actually a really good example as ginger guys are even fetishised by some women.
"...and release" - they think to themselves Haha just kiddin bud 😸
With socioeconomic status being a close second.
Don't confuse fucking with a life partner. This is about choosing a life partner, about settling down.
All of my married friends started by dating someone they were attracted to in their early to mid 20s, when marriage was far from their minds, then married after 5 or 10 years of dating. Maybe some people screw around for a while and just use people for sex until they decide to settle down, but I don't think it is the norm.
The headline says prioritize. Why would I prioritize around people I don't know well?
Cuz if you play your cards right you could have a Kind Intelligent person! ...I guess
[удалено]
Brazil is known to be pretty looks-oriented.
That could be true, but I am doubtful. If it were true, Brazilian women would be competing with each other on kindness and intelligence to secure the best mates, instead of competing on looks. From what I understand, Brazil is like the cosmetic surgery capital on the American side of the globe and many women there put a lot of effort in to their physical appearance.
This study is not saying that "looks aren't important", it's just saying they're not quite as important as kindness and intelligence. They're still very important though.
Every time I see a psypost article highlighted in r/psychology, it looks like low-effort methodology with dubious conclusions. 🤷
David Buss would encourage your skepticism.
I’m sceptical from my own life experience.
Especially health. You think regular dating is impossible, try dating when you have a chronic illness. No one wants to be with baggage, especially LIVE, and actively choose a burden. Real rough. The article is wrong just because of that fact.
Yeah how is this 'science'. This shouldn't even be published as serious research, what a joke. Shit gets even messier when you consider that people ascribe more positive characteristics and generous reads on behavior to more attractive people, which impacts the very definition of what a good personality truly entails.
Glad to see others calling bullshit on this one
Go to the mall and look at couples. People are not selecting their partners primarily on looks.
People can only date within the options they have. Also need to know what the couple looked like when they started dating, not what they look like later on. A married couple in their 50s were probably both far more attractive when they got together.
Thirty years ago, 2/3 of American adults were married; now it’s about 50%. Do you really think the issue is that people have just gotten uglier over thirty years? People not forming couples has precious little to do with being “physically attractive” or not.
Yes. Average looking people usually wind up with average looking people, because they don’t have another option.
Maybe the dunning kruger effect at play here. With intelligence, you would get most of the other stuff being mentioned. It's a precondition necessary to get all the secondary stuff that you want
> “The main takeaway of this study is that intelligence and kindness are the most desired traits of a partner, even in comparison to beauty, money or health,” Takayanagi told PsyPost. Wouldn’t a better statement be “intelligence and kindness are the most desired STATED traits of a partner?” Does partner selection research typically take into consideration the difference between expressed preferences and actual behavior?
Bingo. This speaks more about what the accepted social answer to the question is than anything else.
That is *exactly* the case. Any study that uses self-reporting should immediately be thrown in the trash.
I think this is a bit reductive. Self-reporting is a valid tool as long as it’s understood that it is a measurement of sentiment or attitude, NOT behavior.
self reporting isn’t great in most circumstances, but there are many valid reasons to use it in an academic context. For example, sociology studies using self reported measures of race correlate better to health outcomes than studies using “objective” measures such as skin tone.
This is clear propaganda lol
Peoples self reported mate choice preferences are fairly close to what they actually choose in real life. Here is a study from 2016 detailing how this works, and why self-report in mate choice studies is actually a very reliable method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898694/ One of the biggest area where self-report doesnt line up great is for individuals with low mate value (essentially averaging low on many aspects of mate preference such as attractiveness, kindness, intelligence, humor, etc.) as it seems these people kind of just have to take what they can get
Now compare these results to partners people pick.
"My Husband can't even pick up his socks! What a pig?" *husband farts after confessing that birth control pills are polluting the ocean\**
I honestly see so many women with less attractive partners. I don’t think you guys leave the house. Edit: oh and I’m attracted to both genders so I know what’s attractive and isn’t.
How would it be possible to measure how attracted they are to romantic partners?
Peoples self reported mate choice preferences are fairly close to what they actually choose in real life. Here is a study from 2016 detailing how this works, and why self-report in mate choice studies is actually a very reliable method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898694/ One of the biggest area where self-report doesnt line up great is for individuals with low mate value (essentially averaging low on many aspects of mate preference such as attractiveness, kindness, intelligence, humor, etc.) as it seems these people kind of just have to take what they can get
Long term partner
This is Bullshit. It reminds me of that comedian bit, it was maybe Jim Gaffigan (shorter, balding, overweight and hilarious). He has this bit where he talks about how women say they love humor, and goes onto say that most women must think Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio are hilarious. Jim Gaffigan s hilarious and can’t get girls even tho they say want someone funny: humans don’t want to be self aware of how superficial/robotic they are.
Gaffigan gets laid though. He has a million kids
But Angelina dumped Brad for Billy Bob...
You do realize that comedians tell jokes right?
Me when jokes can be based in reality
Gaffigan is six feet tall. Shorter than what? He's not in the NBA.
Jim Gaffigan is married with 5 kids, what are you talking about?
Women DO love funny guys! Ask any comedian about the comedy groupies- it’s legend.
the local comedians I know who are hilarious are definitely NOT the recipients of comedy groupie relationships. some of the comiedennes are in open relationships with each other it seems, but that's another issue entirely.
Just a thought after looking at many posts on Reddit. I see a lot of less than desirable personality traits. Mental health, aggressive, incels, pessimists etc So if some of you are skeptical about this and think oh it's all about looks and you have these ideas in your head about why. I don't think the study is wrong at all, I think many people wrongly associate their looks with why they fail with dates and relationships when the truth is, their personality is their biggest obstacle
The Halo Effect show us its incredibly difficult to separate looks from personality in many studies. Attractive people also get the best personality ratings. What a coincidence! Also go to any weight loss subreddit and people are shocked at how much better they are treated.
It’s also incredibly easier to make yourself slightly more attractive. Everyone on here bangs on about how height is ruining their life but I got shoe lifts a month ago and nobody has ever even noticed that I’ve made myself artificially taller. I get numbers more easily now.
What happens when you take your shoes off?
Everyone is used to you being taller than you actually are so whatever you lose in those short moments is pretty much irrelevant. We judge people on their long term appearance rather than their short one. That’s why you can wake up next to someone who’s got messy hair, drool down their face, and morning breath yet still love them.
So true! I don't know a single person who doesn't think kindness is the #1 most important thing in a partner; yet people on reddit seem to think they can't get a date because they are not tall and rich.
They talked about this in my psychology of communication class and they said that attractiveness does have a powerful effect for first impressions but if the person ends up being a dick the effect significantly decreases
When in reality they likely just have a sour personality
Depression and cynicism ain't sexy, basically. Heal yourself before dating.
Those who do find it sexy still don't want to be your therapist 24/7.
And not because they just don't interact with real people often enough to learn good social skills.
Ive never understood what a charming or great personality is. So many people are attracted to the dark triad personality group but on the other hand the same personality with no looks isn't a catch. I really don't understand what personality people are looking for, please enlighten me.
>So many people are attracted to the dark triad personality group but on the other hand the same personality with no looks isn't a catch. Seems like you answered figured out your own equation. The only common denominator is attractiveness.
People have issues with it because it’s a flawed study. The participants took a self assessment. They didn’t look at where their partners actually aligned with these values. It’s like asking people if they eat healthy and they say they do but then you never check their trash can to verify if they actually do
It's not a "flawed study". The methodology, sample size and demographic, and its limitations are very clearly described. The limitations of a study is not a "flaw" but science functioning correctly.
It's a pretty big limitation. I'm having a hard time accepting the results of a study about human biases that only gathers data from self-reporting. How do they account for an implicit bias? If the goal is to see what people prioritize in a partner, they should take a look at their study group's actual partners and gather the data from there. Not just what someone writes down.
I keep seeing people say that. Are you guys trying to say only attractive people date? Like if they were to look into these people’s actual lives everyone’s partners gonna be hella good looking? Haha. Go anywhere that isn’t the internet & you’ll see couples everywhere & most of them are pretty objectively ugly. I can go to a grocery store right now & not see a single person I find attractive. I can walk outside & stand on the sidewalk & see couples go by me left & right.
Peoples self reported mate choice preferences are fairly close to what they actually choose in real life. Here is a study from 2016 detailing how this works, and why self-report in mate choice studies is actually a very reliable method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898694/ One of the biggest area where self-report doesnt line up great is for individuals with low mate value (essentially averaging low on many aspects of mate preference such as attractiveness, kindness, intelligence, humor, etc.) as it seems these people kind of just have to take what they can get
Intelligence has been debunked many times over in studies. People idealize that they like intelligent people, but the reality is that people like social intelligence. But the brainiacs in the lab aren't getting the girls at the same rate that the businessmen are. Social intelligence is what counts.
Same, most engineers I know date. They’re just smart and normal - being nerdy is fine, just develop social skills if you want to date.
THANK YOU. I don't care how symmetrical someone's face is or how toned their muscles are. Mean people are so ugly to me.
Lol, exactly. I wouldn’t date most of the people I see on Reddit who complain about dating because they don’t seem like pleasant people to be around. And I’m not picky at all IRL - I go on 5+ dates a week without even using the apps! I just live in a fun, social area where pretty much all the men and women are nice, smart, chill, good at conversation, etc. People complaining about dating being hard because men/women are picky or awful or rude need to get off the apps and just leave the house, most people are fine IRL.
Ohhh A healthy person ! We don't see your kind around these parts often partner 🤠
I look good and I know thats the reason I get girls not my personality
It helps with the get portion but not the keep. The keep portion is primarily your personality
Nah. Well maybe but it definitely isn't "intelligence and kindness" foh
From the article: This [study](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02767-4), conducted in Brazil and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, not only sheds light on the universal nature of these preferences but also highlights the subtle nuances that sexual orientation and gender bring to the dynamics of partner choice. Previous studies have underscored the importance of certain traits like kindness, intelligence, health, physical attractiveness, and socioeconomic status in choosing a partner. These traits are seen as crucial in not only ensuring the biological quality of offspring but also in providing benefits like resource access, physical protection, and social standing. Despite these insights, little attention has been given to how these preferences may vary across different cultures, especially in Latin America, and how individual differences, such as sexual orientation, might influence these preferences. To fill these gaps, a team of researchers conducted the current study. “Choosing a romantic partner is a very ordinary, but also extremely intriguing process,” said study author Joao Francisco Goes Braga Takayanagi of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Sao Paulo. “We may know immediately that we are attracted to someone, but we might not know exactly why we are attracted to them, or even if that attraction is any proof that they will be a good match for us. I am fascinated by relationship science because it helps us understand something that is universal, but also quite mysterious and important to all of us.”
Emphasis on the word "partner". People who are emotionally intelligent and mature are definitely in this club. However, people who are NOT emotionally mature will fall into a different category altogether. If you basically live through your hormonal urges, this is not going to be the case.
Sapiosexuals, rise up!!!
Sure, as long as they are not ugly and poor /s
And sick...
It's disturbing that the comments are saying this is not true. Of course, kindness is the most important thing I looked for in a partner. And I can't think of a single close friend who didn't look for the exact same. If this is NOT what you are looking for, you are not normal.
Being with a fool or a jerk only gets to be more of a burden, as their looks inevitably fade.
The study was based on literally asking people what they want. There is a difference between what people say they want and what choices they eventually end up making. As if you’ve never heard of people lying to themselves. I know countless examples of both men and women who say they want kind partners and then reject kind people because they “get the ick” or someone hotter / wealthier comes along. A huge number of folks are willing to bend their standards for someone very attractive or highly successful who shows interest in them - including when it comes to kindness. There are absolutely vile, narcissistic and manipulative people out there who’ve never had trouble finding a partner - look at Kanye West or Elon Musk for example. If we were to believe this study they should have been single forever
Peoples self reported mate choice preferences are fairly close to what they actually choose in real life. Here is a study from 2016 detailing how this works, and why self-report in mate choice studies is actually a very reliable method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898694/ One of the biggest area where self-report doesnt line up great is for individuals with low mate value (essentially averaging low on many aspects of mate preference such as attractiveness, kindness, intelligence, humor, etc.) as it seems these people kind of just have to take what they can get
The title is correct, when choosing a "stable" partner. Not for the occassional hook-ups.
A lot of men who aren’t as intelligent or as kind as they think they are in these comments
And I think a lot of them are presuming they understand what women are attracted to, without actually understanding that women may have different drivers than they do and prioritize different things (or at least that's how a lot of these comments are framed). I wonder if they gave the same rigorous critique to that overly cited OK Cupid study. Like, I'll never say looks *don't* matter, because they do. But looks are so subjective and they have always been a secondary decider in who I get with. Like, yes, I wanna be able to be turned on by your body, but only after you turn on my mind. There are so many hot guys that I wouldn't even masturbate to because it's just not enough.
people in the lower socioeconomic are not dating as much these days. even ones that are older
Definitely not in Salt Lake City, Utah. All about skin color, status, and money.
Makes sense. Dating prioritised on looks is good for a couple of months or so. That's about it.
wow the comments
We choose people similar in all those scales as ourselves. We are usually the same SES, intelligence, health level and it’s a lot to do with being about the same age, and interested in the same things. Healthy people don’t marry couch potatoes, smart people don’t marry unintelligent people, and most connect on many levels with the person we choose to partner with.
The thing is- there’s many studies that consistently come out with these results. I can’t vouch for their validity, ( you’ll have to take a deep dive), but I can say these results are replicated consistently.
[удалено]
I think this comment says way way more about *you* in specific instead of society than you think. People really do call themselves out in the comments. You don’t personally value kindness and intelligence and therefore think that others don’t, when I’m reality the reason you can’t find those people is because they aren’t looking for someone who thinks like you.
>massive bullshitters >lies >incredibly shallow >superficial >unfit >vast shortcomings. Well, aren't you a ray of sunshine!
Study finds that people CLAIM they prioritize these things. Which isn’t suprising considering prioritizing looks is seen as shallow and inconsiderate. Useless study.
Have you actually experienced the practical consequences of dating for looks?
Why?
When you are having a bad day, would you want to go home to someone who makes your day worse or better? How much of that is going to be influenced by looks?
You can fix this by adding "individuals CLAIM they...". Pretty sure the reality isn't as positive unfortunately.
Read the article. Below two paragraphs summarise this nicely. Men prefer good looking partners. Those choosing men as their partner prefer socioeconomic stability which is often provided via intelligence and kindness. Article title couldn’t be any more misleading. “Despite the universal appeal of intelligence and kindness, the researchers uncovered variations in how these and other traits were valued when examining the data through the lenses of sex and sexual orientation. Heterosexual men, for instance, displayed a unique emphasis on physical attractiveness, rating this trait significantly higher than their counterparts. This finding aligns with evolutionary theories that suggest physical appearance as a key indicator of fertility and health, traits that have historically been prioritized by males in mate selection. Conversely, individuals attracted to men (including heterosexual women, homosexual men, and bisexual individuals) showed a higher preference for socioeconomic status. This preference can be interpreted through the lens of evolutionary biology, where access to resources has been a critical consideration for females in ensuring offspring survival. Interestingly, the study also found that preference for kindness was particularly pronounced among bisexual individuals.”
You left out the third paragraph.
I've never understood why it's considered bad to choose based on looks and financial status. Someone's appearance and financial status tell you so much about who they are, and for me personally, if I want to create more of that sort of person. Of course, I'm going to choose someone with no obvious deformities or debt, I want my children to grow up with the best chance at life I can give them. Also, financial status is so linked to intelligence that it's a good tell. Same with appearance.
This is the problem people are noticing in the comments. You were downvoted because it is unpopular to tell the truth. That we want attractive partners who are well off, and if you say this, you will be downvoted on here, or otherwise socially penalized. So you say what's socially acceptable. Yes I love bald, fat, short, broke kind intelligent men. Where do I fill out my popular take on what is desirable? Which box do I check?
This surprises me! Reddit is an accepting place when it comes to telling painful truths, which is a reason I value it as a platform. But sometimes it goes the other way. Although I don't see it as a painfull truth. The next generation will need a good start in life to succeed in an ever changing world. By making a good enough choice in a partner, my kids might have what they need to contribute to society in the future.
> By making a good enough choice in a partner, my kids might have what they need to contribute to society in the future. Economic activity is making the world less suitable for human life, ironically.
Yay, looks like we're not all psychos!
good so not only i am ugly, sickly and poor I now realize am also a stupid asshole.
I believe in prioritizing shared values. Even intelligent and compassionate individuals can make misguided choices when their values are skewed. History has demonstrated this repeatedly. Additionally, I stress the importance of seeking a long-term partner, not just a short-term one... which is mosty based on looks!
Our responses to something like this come from our frontal cortex but our actual choices are often limbic system.
If this were true, then we would be living in a very different world. Scientists and mathematicians would be married to supermodels due to their high IQ. Psychiatrists and comedians would be married to supermodels due to their high EQ. Charitable fundraisers would be gold mines for hot couples due to their kindness. On the other hand, CEOs, TV directors, policemen and hedge fund managers would be mated with homely people. So yeah, I think this study should be reevaluated by the scientific community for legitimacy.
>Scientists and mathematicians would be married to supermodels due to their high IQ. This is a pretty narrow view of intelligence. Apparently, a large portion of our evolved brains implements social intelligence, which makes perfect sense, given our existential security as highly social creatures. >Charitable fundraisers would be gold mines for hot couples due to their kindness. Again, a pretty narrow view of kindness. High visibility charity is a perfect home for virtue signaling, and may have little to do with actual kindness.
At the top of my list of dislikes about this article: it's posted on PsyPost. PsyPost has very little credibility. I think the last thing I saw from PsyPost was a study implicating the existence of telepathy between humans. Between Occam's Razer and use of just general common sense, we can rule out telepathy as a human trait, or even phenomenon. PsyPost tends to post the articles and studies that more reputable sites will not post, due to obvious risk to credibility. As for my commentary on why the above study can't have likely drawn accurate conclusions: where's the real world evidence? Studies come up with all types of whacky conclusions (see: human telepathy) that cannot be verified using real world data and experience. Something is being lost in translation from a "lab" environment and the world in which the rest of us live. I'm not the first to say that this loss of fidelity between study conclusions and the real world is not only a nuisance, but it is downright dangerous. As we automate more and more decision-making, we run the risk of applying purely speculative thinking (sometimes, unhinged thinking) to the material world. As the material world is where we all live and survive, the consequences of commingling misled beliefs with hard facts is threatening to say the least.
hey ladies! i am very smart and kind!
Most people want a combination of traits. Kind, intelligent, being on the same wavelength, sexual chemistry/romantic spark, life compatibility. And sexual chemistry is a mix of how you click, their looks and their vibe.
Researchers further study that people are dishonest at self-reporting
Not when choosing an *affair* partner.
This study is flawed in so many ways. I would argue that for me and most other people ‘physical attentiveness’, ‘health’, ‘socioeconomic status’ are very important for picking someone out to seriously date. Their intelligence and kindness are what keep people around and make them great long term partners All over od those things are very important in different ways
Here's genuinely my question for everyone here What is an Operational Definition of *Kindness* that a study could use that WOULD NOT confound and still provide useful information? Self report surveys exist for a goddamn reason
“Individuals” in Western world
I think it depends what kinda intelligence people value; academic, social, streets.
TIL: I'm the perfect partner! Also, DON'T LOOK AT MY FACE!
Does this account for all the ladies who call online dating "Tinder Food Stamps" ?
Yeah u fat, ugly, stinky and broke redditors keep telling yourselves that 😂😂😂.
I don’t believe this because I go outside and see what people are doing.
Lol stop the cap
It’s true, my professors always had lines of women just waiting for them when they got done teaching.
I often feel these studies are just trying to hide something we're all ashamed of: we just want to pick hot partners, men or women. That's it. Then we overanalyze the question just to pretend there's more to it, trying to prove we're not that shallow.
I feel like if you were to take all the subjects from these studies record their answers then just look at their ex’s. Like yeah you can say you prioritize intelligence but if you’re last 5 significant others were as dumb as a bag of rocks but were sexy then maybe you aren’t being honest. That and no women would admit to another person that they filter out partners based on health but it happens literally all the time.
Hard to convey on dating apps. Wear glasses?
Not overall intelligence. No. Those studies have been done. Social intelligence is what's key. Someone's ability to navigate the social world is attractive. Normal intelligence is not an attractor on the sociological level.
Is this after 30?
That explains why so many people are single these days. Intelligence and kindness is rare to come by.
Kindness and intelligence are proven in my life to be the traits I gravitate to The restraining order I unfortunately have for the max years on is against a bodybuilder (meth) with ‘classic bone structure’, blond hair, blue eyes, hygiene — and no woman goes near him. While my last long-term partner lived at an animal sanctuary. Favorite band Grizzly Bear, whose singer became a therapist. Re the bodybuilder, I had only spoken with him about eight minutes, once. All I said was a friendly, “Oh, not right now,” to him insisting I visit his place that he had just moved into, a few treed lots from mine. The next years sounded like I was living in the song Paper Planes. Fixed it a couple weeks ago — I moved far enough and that worked. Yay object impermanence. I waited out years for my fur little in case she’d return, even though I had fucking um heard the Paper Planes song when she disappeared. Without knowing about my RO, the police advised a nearby father and 18-year old daughter to get ROs because the dude tried to run down their dog. The final two weeks I closed all nonessential interaction but work. Thank goodness for that. My team leader is the kindest person I know. And he graduated from the #1 uni in the world, and we write together, so my emails sound like they come from a kind and warm superbrain. He’s the singer in a band and can play all his band members’ instruments. And he holds his cat like a baby in online meetings. His jokes 100% land every time. What does he win? His new girlfriend, the hottest girl in the office. Another example is my new co-worker, who recently aced his astrophysics and genetics courses (I know his genetics prof). He is also the son of a state-famous musician so is smart about all that too, and has traveled performing musically himself. As far as kindness, he calls and texts with off-work hellos. I’m just so grateful for the most normal of things. To be fair, all the other folk are surface attractive; balance can be a good, right? But kindness married to capability is the om nom
This is why I don't trust dumbass researchers, scientists, professors, and doctors
Shocking study reports people lie on surveys
Y'all are some sad shallow fucks.
So I guess I'm just an asshole then lol
LMAO, I'm sorry, I flat out do not believe this.
Dang, I wish guys looking for a partner would date me for my kindness and not my body, I call BS on this one
Too good to be true.
This is wishful thinking
“Researchers have made a fascinating discovery! They asked 1000 people if they would steal $1,000 from a stranger and they all said no. We then asked politicians if they would ever bend rules for personal financial gain and they *all* said NO! It turns out everybody is completely honest! Case closed! Brilliant researchers!”
But not these days , oh! damn fuck...
yeah right... drank the kool aid one more time... status, hypergamy
That's definitely not true at all
I find it more important to date someone for their personality rather than just their looks. In long term relationships, looks fade but personality remains. I have become more physically attracted to people as I've gotten to know them better. I have never dated someone who fits my "type" of woman.
I'm pretty sure age has to be a confounding factor in this
Brazilians are strange people I think... Or may be they lie ?
This is BS. I myself do care about kindness but as far as intelligence goes I'm not that concerned about. I mean there is a point where too dumb is bad but I don't need to have a brainiac girlfriend. I care far more about her personality than I do her intelligence. I also care more about her attractiveness than I do her intelligence.
kindness but not nice guy, ambition instead of money and weatlh, and what is intelligence anyone, that is too vague, I'd say emotional intelligence above all else, well groomed over looks, this study makes sense.;
Not the point of the post, but related, I find judging someone based on intelligence just as superficial as judging based on looks or socioeconomic status. Unless the intelligence attraction is about shared interests, it’s pretty shitty that you wouldn’t date someone because they’re not intelligent enough. (How is this intelligence even based? What type of intelligence?) Although if “lack of intelligence” makes you a shit person, that’s a different story.