how women judge you (opposite sex)

[sushi]

mind
body
appearance
personality


(career, wealth)
now go reflect on it.

 

[Puffy]

May I ask, why?

 

[sushi]

not a woman, but i am guessing thats their judging criteria.

yes they are judgemental fucks.

 

[redbaron]

actually women judge men by their serial number and use complex quantum algorithms to determine compatibility

your utter confusion and frustration is not a bug, but a feature =)

 

[Cognisant]

Men select almost exclusively for traits that indicate fertility, our preferences are almost exclusively dictated by our biology and natural selection precludes any women who can't gestate offspring which is an incredibly taxing process.

For women it's a different game, men generally don't lose their fertility with age and even if they do a woman can get seed from elsewhere, what's important is that the man can provide a safe/stable/prosperous environment for the raising of children. He has to be mentally/emotionally stable, reasonably intelligent, reasonably prosperous, reasonably popular, reasonably independent (not beholden to anyone), and above all he has to be "sweet" (she wants to know she's your no.1 priority).

 

[redbaron]

here in this thread we will generalize large groups of people's preferences regardless of how inaccurately they may apply to many members of the group

stay tuned to lose iq points

 

[Minuend]

I vote to just close dumb threads. It's spam.

 

[Cognisant]

here in this thread we will generalize large groups of people's preferences regardless of how inaccurately they may apply to many members of the group

Yes that's what generalizing means and if we are speaking about demographics it is a natural assumption that we are speaking about them in general terms, to do otherwise would be... impractical.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

No, every human - and especially every woman - is a unique snowflake with his/her own original thoughts and rigorously reasoned reasons for every action they do. Psychology is all wrong because it tries to generalize said unique snowflakes. I have thus destroyed all arguments about human cognition, physiology and psychology and I would also add that everyone here has a low IQ

Everyone who has a high IQ knows that a woman’s preferences and romantic interests are completely unpredictable for an external observer because a woman exists in a different plane of reality that overcomes the limitations of human biology. Any “scientific” evidence against this is sexist and merely an attempt at maintaining the patriarchy

 

[Cognisant]

Ugh why does everyone have to talk about their IQ? It makes me feel so insecure.

Everyone who has a high IQ knows that a woman’s preferences and romantic interests are completely unpredictable for an external observer because a woman exists in a different plane of reality that overcomes the limitations of human biology.

I can't help that I'm stupid ok!? [cries]

 

[washti]

what can be said based on psychology/biology about judgment of women deciding to stay and staying childless?
what are known generalities about how they evaluate men?

 

[Cognisant]

what can be said based on psychology/biology about judgment of women deciding to stay and staying childless?

Psychologically they're sane, biologically they're defective.

I'm not making judgements based on values I'm looking at this as an engineer looking over someone else's machine and remarking on their design, if you don't like it don't blame me, it's not my design. Natural selection favors genes that propagate by the simple fact that those that do are more competitively fit those that don't, so it follows that people's genes and by extension their psychology is the direct result of natural selection. If you think about it tits and ass are incredibly arbitrary things to be attracted to, guys don't find them attractive by coming to the logical conclusion that they're objectively aesthetically pleasing, it's dictated by instinct and profoundly so, you can't brainwash/condition/force a gay person to find the other gender attractive, people have tried.

We're all machines of a sort, designed by an idiot (chance) and often defective in some way but machines none the less, we exist for a purpose and that purpose isn't to exist for its own sake, it's to propagate genes, refine the code.

To this purpose our individual identities are superfluous, do you find that insulting?
Then we agree.

 

[washti]

The topic is about how women evaluate men. My question narrows the issue to women who don't want children.
What criteria do they use when judging men? What type of biological? The same as women who want to have or already have children? What are the differences? Or maybe there is convincing evidence that there are no difference? Give me it.

Decision like this seems to be heavy blow in gene supremacy(its selfishness) over the selfishness of the whole organism (woman)?
After all, there are no evolutionary benefits from abandoning reproduction. Neither for the gene nor the organism nor the population. More and more healthy women in developed countries make this decision. Why in their case gene control over the organism is weakened? If genes dictate everything, what is this biological anomaly about?

How different science disciplines explore on this topic? Maybe someone has encountered a theory other than evolutionary also?
I will be grateful for a variety of sources - if someone wants to provide for me - tho may they be only actual scientific publications - I am not interested in popscience books.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@washti so if I put on a condom, this should rewire my brain on the spot and change what I’m interested in sexually?

 

[washti]

Is sexual interest some form of constant, which operates based on the reproduction instinct?
Does your question result from this conviction?

If so, well that's not the case? People eagerly have sex with other humans and beings who possess traits deviating from preprogramed ones? So - trusting in evolutionary theory - their brains have actually undergone some transformations, deviations from the instinctive preference.
why? like why heterosexual men do it with shemale? How even he can do it? How humans can redirect their sexual interests and achieve full arousement? what adaptive benefits it can give?
Is natural selection power really so fleeting?


You may be still atracted to same traits with or without condom but you are seeking to control your instinct. Serac vs Serac's reproductive instincts 1:0.

 

[Marbles]

@washti Evolution didn't have to convince organisms to procreate, it just had to convince them to fuck. Then humans invented condoms. Women who wish to procreate might have a somewhat stronger preference for masculine men than women who do not, as that is what we see in ovulating women. When women seek long term partners they look for more androgynous men than when they look to get pregnant. After all, you could always cheat for those alpha genes, while you have a caring partner to raise your kids.

 

[washti]

Evolution doesn't convince anyone to anything. Sex drive is now fully controllable. Man invented substances that are able to inhibit, increase or destroy it forever. Why do people do this to themselves when suprime drive is gene propagation? Aren't those inventions explicit evidence that genes are not in control of organism? How did this happen?

 

[Marbles]

It's a figure of speech, washti. I think that between Serac and me, your question has been answered. Go over it, again.

 

[washti]

Are people who actively control their instincts and break out of these general behaviors described by evolutionary psychologists
more evolved?
Does the discovery of the human genome and the creation of genome editors mean that the theory of evolution will soon become obsolete for describing human behavior and will only serve to describe development and taxonomy of organisms?

@Marbles , which question was answered, really? I asked many.

 

[washti]

Also @Marbles why I should 'Go over it'? Do you have problem with me asking questions, why?
Also, I hope maybe someone else will be ineterested in picking up this topic and will give a shot to my questions as well.
You don't possess some definitive voice , do you?

 

[Marbles]

These questions have been answered: "Why do people do this to themselves when suprime drive is gene propagation? Aren't those inventions explicit evidence that genes are not in control of organism? How did this happen?".

Your questions are fine, I dunno if you think I meant "get over it"? I didn't, I just suggested you read through the replies again. People have tried to answer them, but you might have missed it. Anyway, I'm off for the booze again, good night, man

 

[washti]

I can't see where it was answered. I hope you will point me to it after you get booze, get drunk and after -i wish- not overcoming a hangover. Do so please. I honestly don't see it who and where aswered this question.

 

[The Grey Man]

The 'I' that has thoughts and beliefs about whether or not I want children and the body that actually produces children are quite heterogeneous. It is as true to say that I am writing this post because I want to as it is to say that I am writing it because my environment is forcing me to, but the meaning of the word 'because' changes according as I give either a voluntaristic or a deterministic account of my actions. In the voluntaristic account, it is an Aristotelian final cause to which I refer; in the deterministic account, it is an efficient cause. The theory of evolution, like all naturalistic theories, presumes that by 'cause', we mean efficient causality. It can therefore furnish no explanation of the will of man, nor will it ever. The mere moment-to-moment living of life remains as invisible to the eye of science as it was when the Greeks were disputing whether water or fire was the Hypostasis. We can no more tame the all-devouring flame, the all-enveloping wave that is Love than we can pull Leviathan in with a fishhook.

 

[Marbles]

I can't see where it was answered. I hope you will point me to it after you get booze, get drunk and after -i wish- not overcoming a hangover. Do so please. I honestly don't see it who and where aswered this question.

The most robust way for evolution to drive human propagation has been to make people have sex, because until contraception was invented, that often resulted in kids. Evolution needs some time to find another way to make humans propagate now that sex no longer reliably leads to offspring.

 

[redbaron]

here in this thread men who regularly speak for women and regularly get told they wrong by women will once again repeat this process and then act petulant when they get mocked for it

stay tuned for more comedy

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This topic has been on this forum since times immemorial and it continues to exhaustively run through the same kinds of misconceptions.

There is little to reflect on, your pondering and resistance to sophisticating your worldview are legendary

You could...you know...meet an actual woman and see for yourself. Unless you are just looking for sex in which case your materialistic query is pertinent.

 

[washti]

The most robust way for evolution to drive human propagation has been to make people have sex, because until contraception was invented, that often resulted in kids. Evolution needs some time to find another way to make humans propagate now that sex no longer reliably leads to offspring.

It seems that you didn't understand my question at all. Not to mention answering it. Instead you wrote the obvious thing everyone knows plus... wait:

Human already control evolution how it can catch up? Always here to read interesting speculation.

Now, I will restate my dilema.
Human inventions give greater adaptive advantage than the functioning of both selections (natural and sexual).
According to theory, both selections are here to ensure man's (or more popular - gene) success of survival and reproduction. And yet both selections were crushed.
Evolution as an independent driving force of the world has been put out of date by one of its manifestations - man.

If evolutionists say we're just a tool for genes - how it's even possible that the organism they determine, was able cut them out of DNA?
How is it in the self-interest of the proverbial gene?

 

[Black Rose]

It doesn't matter if I am judged or not. What matters is that I feel judged. I have had several opportunities to talk with women but felt embarrassed and so didn't engage them. I do not have the confidence to talk to them. I do not know when they take an interest in me. It's not hard to know the right person for me is. It is much easier to get along with women who are my type. It is just that I meet few of them anywhere.

The problem is that I am shy. Which makes me sensitive to rejection. I can only talk to women if it feels right to do so. So it is like I know what they think of me in the moment. I can see it in their face. What would be called judging.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I judge men entirely by how much they irritate me.

The pussy game favors those who aren't obnoxious. Unfortunately, for many, there is no cure for twat.

 

[Cognisant]

The topic is about how women evaluate men. My question narrows the issue to women who don't want children.
What criteria do they use when judging men? What type of biological? The same as women who want to have or already have children? What are the differences? Or maybe there is convincing evidence that there are no difference? Give me it.

Assuming they're mostly the same as women who do want children then their criteria should be similar, otherwise all bets are off. There's people who legitimately fall in love with objects and structures, biology is fucking weird.

Decision like this seems to be heavy blow in gene supremacy(its selfishness) over the selfishness of the whole organism (woman)?
After all, there are no evolutionary benefits from abandoning reproduction. Neither for the gene nor the organism nor the population. More and more healthy women in developed countries make this decision. Why in their case gene control over the organism is weakened? If genes dictate everything, what is this biological anomaly about?

The same reason some people need glasses or are lactose intolerant or are homosexual or any other trait that negatively affects their reproductive fitness, evolution is not a precise process, detrimental mutations occur more often than beneficial ones because it's all random. I'm amazed it works at all.

How different science disciplines explore on this topic? Maybe someone has encountered a theory other than evolutionary also?

Does it really bother you that men are not attractive unless they're:
Not overly emotional,
Not stupid,
Not poor,
Not unpopular,
Not still living with his parents,
And not likely to pursue other women?

Compared to legs, tits and ass that's all very sensible.

 

[The Grey Man]

I agree with Cog. As foolish as it is to ignore the manifold differences between woman and woman, so foolish is it to emphasize them so much that idiosyncrasies stand on equal footing with prevalent characteristics. Women normally seem to prefer strong and wealthy men, even if they are cruel, to magnanimous weaklings, and there's nothing wrong with that, from a biological point of view. As far as reproductive fitness is concerned, power is worth more than sublime sentiments and pretty words about beauty. A few idiots like me still hold out hope that they might consummate a union that typifies divine grace, in which lover and beloved are tangled up in a single knot of bliss that leaves no room for anxiety about money and power, but such rare ecstasies can only be the exception, not the rule.

 

[peoplesuck]

Ive seen how two women use dating apps, they may have been doing things differently bc I was there, but it seemed incredibly sporadic and random.

 

[Marbles]

It will be very tiresome if a core part of this community will object to any discussion on gender and sexuality. Your political leanings may make you weary of these topics in their entirety, but live and let live. You anticipate misogyny? Fine, but wait until it actually rears its head before you get hostile. (edit: alright, I see Sushi wrote that women are judgmental fucks. I'm hoping that was tongue in cheek, but get that it could upset people).

Everyone with interest in evolutionary psychology is not an incel, a misogynist, or even, dare I say it, on the political right.

Can everyone please calm down and discuss like adults? The forum is almost barren after the Kormak incident. No need to rock the boat further.

@washti I'll make one more attempt, but that will be it, as you are starting to get rude.

That evolution has a will is a common figure of speech. It saves time in writing, and presumes that the reader is already familiar with how evolution is survival of the stable. Perhaps it is akin to how many atheist physicists used god as a metaphor.

You wonder how a process that was meant to ensure our survival could lead to us developing tools that threaten it.

The answer is that our traits developed because they made people stable in the environment they developed. One of the traits we developed was an intelligence specialized in changing our environment. Therein lies the power and frailty of man, and I agree that it is quite curious, although not mysterious; our adaptations make us capable of constructing an environment we are not well adapted to.

 

[Black Rose]

girls have cooties but I'm ok with that. girls are nice

 

[Minuend]

I didn't see any discussion in the OP. Maybe these intellectual arguments are just 2 advanced 4 me.

mind
body
appearance
personality
(career, wealth)
now go reflect on it.

This topic was never made to have a serious discussion, it's just shitposting aka spam. And it's not even good, entertaining or funny. It's bottom tier shitposting.

 

[Marbles]

Luckily, everyone has the freedom to avoid threads that don't interest them.

Exploring what attracts each gender to specific specimens of the other one is interesting to me. Perhaps shockingly, as I'm speaking like I want to disect women with a scalpel right now, I do not have trouble getting laid, I am not a misogynist, and I understand the limits of generalizations. I have to believe I have this in common with a substantial amount of members.

We could turn this place into an echo chamber, but I have a feeling it would then rapidly empty. I guess that would improve acoustics. A kingdom of none.

 

[peoplesuck]

here in this thread we will generalize large groups of people's preferences regardless of how inaccurately they may apply to many members of the group

stay tuned to lose iq points

Hey I wonder if I can make someone want to use intpf today.

here in this thread men who regularly speak for women and regularly get told they wrong by women will once again repeat this process and then act petulant when they get mocked for it

stay tuned for more comedy

Hey maybe this will make people want to stay on intpf

This topic has been on this forum since times immemorial and it continues to exhaustively run through the same kinds of misconceptions.

There is little to reflect on, your pondering and resistance to sophisticating your worldview are legendary

You could...you know...meet an actual woman and see for yourself. Unless you are just looking for sex in which case your materialistic query is pertinent.

Doesnt link the threads, knowing the intpf search feature is terrible and unreliable. Perhaps its was made to see if their views were wrong?

I judge men entirely by how much they irritate me.

The pussy game favors those who aren't obnoxious. Unfortunately, for many, there is no cure for twat.

you sound like a lot of fun to be around, would you like to switch usernames, im down?

 

[Rolling Cattle]

@washti Evolution didn't have to convince organisms to procreate, it just had to convince them to fuck. Then humans invented condoms. Women who wish to procreate might have a somewhat stronger preference for masculine men than women who do not, as that is what we see in ovulating women. When women seek long term partners they look for more androgynous men than when they look to get pregnant. After all, you could always cheat for those alpha genes, while you have a caring partner to raise your kids.

By masculine, do you mean machismo? I'm guessing being patient, and empathetic are not considered masculine? I couldn't find evidence that women seek androgynous men for relationships. What are alpha genes?

Where are you getting your info from?

 

[Marbles]

@washti Evolution didn't have to convince organisms to procreate, it just had to convince them to fuck. Then humans invented condoms. Women who wish to procreate might have a somewhat stronger preference for masculine men than women who do not, as that is what we see in ovulating women. When women seek long term partners they look for more androgynous men than when they look to get pregnant. After all, you could always cheat for those alpha genes, while you have a caring partner to raise your kids.

By masculine, do you mean machismo? I'm guessing being patient, and empathetic are not considered masculine? I couldn't find evidence that women seek androgynous men for relationships. What are alpha genes?

Where are you getting your info from?

I haven't looked into this for years, but about a decade ago, several studies indicated that women prefer more masculine men when they are ovulating, than when they are not. While it is reasonable to asume the preference extends to behaviour, the research I recall right now pertains to body odour (I'm guessing they were testing for preference for testosterone in sweat), and male face dimorphism. These things are easier to research than preference for testosterone driven behaviour. I think I originally read about it in Scientific American, but I don't have that magazine anymore. Here are some relevant reads:

Do Women Prefer Men with Masculine Faces? Not Always.

When (and where) women like macho men for one-night stands

www.google.com

Women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle - PubMed

Women prefer both the scent of symmetrical men and masculine male faces more during the fertile (late follicular and ovulatory) phases of their menstrual cycles than during their infertile (e.g., luteal) phases. Men's behavioral displays in social settings may convey signals that affect women's...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Ovulating women favour dominant men's smell - Nature

Sniff test suggests when, and with whom, women are most likely to cheat.

www.nature.com

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

This study found a relatively weak correlation:

A Comparison of Masculinity Facial Preference Among Naturally Cycling, Pregnant, Lactating, and Post-Menopausal Women - PMC

Women show cyclical shifts in preferences for physical male traits. Here we investigated how fertility status influences women’s facial masculinity preference in men by analyzing a large sample of heterosexual women (N = 3720). Women were regularly ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This article from last year suggests that older research has become controversial:

Do Hormones Change Women’s Taste In Men?

New work challenges the idea that hormones influence women’s mate preferences.

www.google.com

"Alpha genes" was tongue in cheek. Just an attempt to be funny since the internet is obsessed with alphas and betas. I'm just talking about testosterone levels.

Anyway, it was good to revisit this. I was in my teens when I last looked at this research.

 

[moody]

All people are judgmental, regardless of gender. If you have thought that more women are judgmental in your life than men, it's because you probably don't have a lot of casual female friends. We're naturally all more judgmental of strangers, or people we size up as potential love-interests.
Though, evolutionary speaking, women have developed to me more picky about their male partners than men. No woman wants an ugly, sick baby.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I know it won’t be a favorable perspective, but I think most men are way off in their interpretation of how women judge men....and even perhaps, to some degree, how men judge women.



It’s a misunderstanding that usually seems to occur most in men who feel disconnected from society or who perhaps don’t date very often, or don’t really have many female friends.



The belief is that women and men generally choose mates based on biological advantages according to theories of evolutionary biology, and that women almost always prefer men that are physically the strongest, or are the wealthiest.



It’s a tragically flawed philosophy. It’s very limited, and it’s often inaccurate.



I’m all for generalizations, but the issue with this frame of thought is that I feel like it is wrong too often to be suitable as a generalization.



However, I think that people really prefer the oversimplification that is the “evolutionary biology” explanation. Men, in particular. It seems comforting, somehow, to assume we’re simple animals driven by deep sexual impulses designed to yield offspring that have the best chance for survival. It means your rejection is nothing personal. It’s just science.

 

[Inexorable Username]

@washti Evolution didn't have to convince organisms to procreate, it just had to convince them to fuck. Then humans invented condoms. Women who wish to procreate might have a somewhat stronger preference for masculine men than women who do not, as that is what we see in ovulating women. When women seek long term partners they look for more androgynous men than when they look to get pregnant. After all, you could always cheat for those alpha genes, while you have a caring partner to raise your kids.

By masculine, do you mean machismo? I'm guessing being patient, and empathetic are not considered masculine? I couldn't find evidence that women seek androgynous men for relationships. What are alpha genes?

Where are you getting your info from?

I haven't looked into this for years, but about a decade ago, several studies indicated that women prefer more masculine men when they are ovulating, than when they are not. While it is reasonable to asume the preference extends to behaviour, the research I recall right now pertains to body odour (I'm guessing they were testing for preference for testosterone in sweat), and male face dimorphism. These things are easier to research than preference for testosterone driven behaviour. I think I originally read about it in Scientific American, but I don't have that magazine anymore. Here are some relevant reads:

Do Women Prefer Men with Masculine Faces? Not Always.

When (and where) women like macho men for one-night stands

www.google.com

Women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle - PubMed

Women prefer both the scent of symmetrical men and masculine male faces more during the fertile (late follicular and ovulatory) phases of their menstrual cycles than during their infertile (e.g., luteal) phases. Men's behavioral displays in social settings may convey signals that affect women's...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Ovulating women favour dominant men's smell - Nature

Sniff test suggests when, and with whom, women are most likely to cheat.

www.nature.com

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

This study found a relatively weak correlation:

A Comparison of Masculinity Facial Preference Among Naturally Cycling, Pregnant, Lactating, and Post-Menopausal Women - PMC

Women show cyclical shifts in preferences for physical male traits. Here we investigated how fertility status influences women’s facial masculinity preference in men by analyzing a large sample of heterosexual women (N = 3720). Women were regularly ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This article from last year suggests that older research has become controversial:

Do Hormones Change Women’s Taste In Men?

New work challenges the idea that hormones influence women’s mate preferences.

www.google.com

"Alpha genes" was tongue in cheek. Just an attempt to be funny since the internet is obsessed with alphas and betas. I'm just talking about testosterone levels.

Anyway, it was good to revisit this. I was in my teens when I last looked at this research.

I’ve come across these studies before. My issue with them is not the studies themselves but the way they’re applied.



Men seem to choose mates based primarily on physical cues, but women don’t really seem to do this. These studies take the context of mate selection out of the picture and only demonstrate a woman’s response to physical cues.



If you were to show a woman a picture of an ugly man, and an attractive man, and ask her which she prefers, she will probably say the attractive man. (Although women with very low self-esteem may not.)



But in the real world, the results are not necessarily that clear cut. The ugly man may be more useful, more socially adaptable. The handsome man may suffer from drug addiction, or have poor morals. Maybe the attractive man has an unusual gate, or an intense stare.



When it comes right down to it, women are rarely so close to you so as to smell your armpits. And in the kind of situation you’re like to meet a woman, there are probably a number of smells available.



As far as a man’s appearance is concerned...well, your appearance doesn’t do much if you dress poorly, don’t shave/maintain facial hair, slouch, or, for instance, you’re in a crowded area, wearing a bulky coat, or wearing sunglasses.



While there may be somewhat of a correlation there, it’s just likely very minimal in my mind. I doubt it makes much of a practical difference in the actual results of who women choose to date and/or hook up with.

 

[Cognisant]

It’s a tragically flawed philosophy. It’s very limited, and it’s often inaccurate.

Generalizations of broad demographics are almost always inaccurate predictors of an individual's behavior, that doesn't mean useful observations cannot be made.

E.g. if 50% of people are male and 50% are female then the average person is 50% male and 50% female, which obviously isn't the case, I usually bring up this fallacy in regards to trying to market a product/show/whatever to broader audience.

I’m all for generalizations, but the issue with this frame of thought is that I feel like it is wrong too often to be suitable as a generalization.

It depends what question we're trying to answer, certainly generalizations are a poor answer to "how do I appeal to a specific someone" which is a question we probably couldn't answer anyway since any information we have on that specific someone is from the person asking the question. But generalizations are useful when answering "how do I become more appealing to men/women" because in that case a generalization is the only kind of answer that can be given.

 

[Inexorable Username]

It doesn't matter if I am judged or not. What matters is that I feel judged. I have had several opportunities to talk with women but felt embarrassed and so didn't engage them. I do not have the confidence to talk to them. I do not know when they take an interest in me. It's not hard to know the right person for me is. It is much easier to get along with women who are my type. It is just that I meet few of them anywhere.

The problem is that I am shy. Which makes me sensitive to rejection. I can only talk to women if it feels right to do so. So it is like I know what they think of me in the moment. I can see it in their face. What would be called judging.

Hopefully I can give you a perspective that might help you a bit. I realized this from a comment a male youtuber made about the difference between hanging out with women and hanging out with men.

When women talk, generally, they are processing a lorn of social cues. Facial expressions, mostly. The words and any hidden underlying meanings, or the lack of words and what that may mean. They process a lot of emotional content - like shyness.

Men, generally, process more physical things. A woman’s body, what she’s is wearing - and actually, I did come across a study that suggested that men process body language more than women do.

When you are feeling “judged”, it may be helpful to realize that the way you naturally judge others is probably not the same way women do. You might judge people more based on their physical qualities, so that is how you expected to be judged.

However, women are more likely to be picking up on your verbal and emotional cues than your physical appearance or body language.

Men often struggle with shyness around women when they don’t really understand the way that’s most women think and feel...at least, that’s the pattern I’ve seen. When you better understand the way women process social interactions, I bet you’ll find that there’s very little to fear.

 

[Cognisant]

However, I think that people really prefer the oversimplification that is the “evolutionary biology” explanation. Men, in particular. It seems comforting, somehow, to assume we’re simple animals driven by deep sexual impulses designed to yield offspring that have the best chance for survival. It means your rejection is nothing personal. It’s just science.

Men thrive on clear goals, particularly young men, tell a man that being muscular will make him attractive and he'll join a gym, tell him that being prosperous will make him attractive and he'll pursue that degree/promotion, tell him it's being deep/thoughtful and he'll start writing poetry, tell him it's being kind and emotionally available and he will focus on that.

Tell him all of the above is important and the result will be a fantastic man.

Tell him none of the above is particularly important and the main determining factor is someone else's whimsical discretion then he'll go play videogames and jack off to hentai.

 

[Inexorable Username]

It’s a tragically flawed philosophy. It’s very limited, and it’s often inaccurate.

Generalizations of broad demographics are almost always inaccurate predictors of an individual's behavior, that doesn't mean useful observations cannot be made.

E.g. if 50% of people are male and 50% are female then the average person is 50% male and 50% female, which obviously isn't the case, I usually bring up this fallacy in regards to trying to market a product/show/whatever to broader audience.

I’m all for generalizations, but the issue with this frame of thought is that I feel like it is wrong too often to be suitable as a generalization.

It depends what question we're trying to answer, certainly generalizations are a poor answer to "how do I appeal to a specific someone" which is a question we probably couldn't answer anyway since any information we have on that specific someone is from the person asking the question. But generalizations are useful when answering "how do I become more appealing to men/women" because in that case a generalization is the only kind of answer that can be given.

Right. That’s where the problem is. I’m saying that the prevailing male philosophy seems to be incorrect insofar as how, in general, women judge the sexual appeal of men.

 

[Inexorable Username]

However, I think that people really prefer the oversimplification that is the “evolutionary biology” explanation. Men, in particular. It seems comforting, somehow, to assume we’re simple animals driven by deep sexual impulses designed to yield offspring that have the best chance for survival. It means your rejection is nothing personal. It’s just science.

Men thrive on clear goals, particularly young men, tell a man that being muscular will make him attractive and he'll join a gym, tell him that being prosperous will make him attractive and he'll pursue that degree/promotion, tell him it's being deep/thoughtful and he'll start writing poetry, tell him it's being kind and emotionally available and he will focus on that.

Tell him all of the above is important and the result will be a fantastic man.

Tell him none of the above is particularly important and the main determining factor is someone else's whimsical discretion then he'll go play videogames and jack off to hentai.

Lol! Well if that were true, then there would be quite a few fantastic men. The prevailing theory is that it is evolutionary biology that determines how successful a man will be - so physical prowess and wealth. I would argue that quite a lot of young men are told that being muscular makes them attractive, and being prosperous does as well.

I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make in that regard though. Unless it's that you're agreeing with me that men are often mislead into believing in an oversimplified, biological approach to mate selection, due to the theories of evolutionary biology, and that this perspective causes a lot of failures on the part of men to understand what it is that women "really want" in a man. (Sorry if that was convoluted)

The point I'm trying to make is that it's precisely because men want simple goals with tangible products, that men so often miss the mark when it comes to guessing what women look for.

 

[Inexorable Username]

And to be fair, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a person who values simple or physical goals, which yield results you can see, feel, hold, touch...
It's not that it's a problem, or something to look down on.

It's just that it's a great limitation when it comes to men understanding women. (In general, of course).

Either - you want a simple, straightforward, masculine solution...in which case, it's very likely inaccurate...or you're after the truth - even if the truth is a bit out of your comfort zone. Abstractly, that's sort of how I see the issue.

Men feel that things like evolutionary biology provide comfortable "answers". Even if they're not fundamentally accurate answers, they can at least give a person a sense that they're "doing something" and that, should they get rejected by a woman, it's really nothing personal. It's just some kind of scientific fault in their personal makeup or biology. So, in a way, it's not really their "fault", at all - it's just women being superficial and judgmental.

Obviously, we're generalizing here. That's just the kind of attitude I feel like I've interpreted from a lot of guys who are trying to understand why they're not successful with women, and who feel comforted by the paradigm offered by evolutionary biology. The same men seem to, in my experience, get very defensive if you try to demonstrate why that view may be inaccurate. That defensiveness, to me, shows that the view itself is sort of a crutch, or a safety net for people. It's something that makes an unfamiliar or alien concept easy to ingest and live by, and it also makes for a good excuse.

 

[Cognisant]

I agree that the truth isn't simple, that the factors that go into whether or not a specific woman takes a liking to a specific man are so complex as to be practically irreducible, however true as that may be it is an incredibly unhelpful thing to tell a confused young man who just wants to know what he has to do to be more successful with women.

I've been there, I know that feeling of not knowing what the problem is, of being told a myriad of different things many of which are contradictory, it is a terrible feeling that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. At the same time I understand you can't just tell young men "do X to get Y" because they are very driven and if they think building muscle is going to make them popular with women and it doesn't then they're going to feel angry.

So the right thing to do is to tell them that in general women like: <a list of traits>

Put it this way, in your own words what advice would you give a lonely young man, what is it that women really want that men aren't understanding?

The way I see it you're not being helpful, you're just obfuscating and being a little bit condescending.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I agree that the truth isn't simple, that the factors that go into whether or not a specific woman takes a liking to a specific man are so complex as to be practically irreducible, however true as that may be it is an incredibly unhelpful thing to tell a confused young man who just wants to know what he has to do to be more successful with women.

I've been there, I know that feeling of not knowing what the problem is, of being told a myriad of different things many of which are contradictory, it is a terrible feeling that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. At the same time I understand you can't just tell young men "do X to get Y" because they are very driven and if they think building muscle is going to make them popular with women and it doesn't then they're going to feel angry.

So the right thing to do is to tell them that in general women like: <a list of traits>

Put it this way, in your own words what advice would you give a lonely young man, what is it that women really want that men aren't understanding?

The way I see it you're not being helpful, you're just obfuscating and being a little bit condescending.

Well, I tend to get long-winded, and give advice where advice isn't asked for (of me, specifically). So I felt it was useful to point out that the prevailing evolutionary biology approach might be misleading...but just kind of leave it open-ended as to whether or not anyone cared to hear my opinion mores than that.

And yeah, I agree with you. Specific factors are too varied and complex to be of use in giving generalized advice. Generalized advice is really important, and people should seek it, because in doing so, you learn more and more about the opposite gender, which enables you to bridge that gap of understanding between males and females. Without generalizations, you can't really do that.

Here's my advice for young, lonely men:
(1) Surround yourself with women. Listen to them talk. Learn to relate to how they feel.
(2) Identify your insecurities. Spend time understanding why you are insecure about them. Develop a strategy to address the things you are insecure about.
(3) Decide what your ideal future life would be. Develop a set of goals to strive for that will give you the future you desire.

That's it. That's as basic and simple as I can make my generalized advice.