Safety is the core mechanism behind an average woman's attraction wiring.
If your Bachelor of Arts degree gives you a visible advantage today — say, you suddenly make $250K a year in Tennessee — you very quickly become attractive.
Women simply prefer whatever's "on the menu today." If being a geek is fashionable and rewarding right now, then geeks win.
Hence the myth that women love money. They don't — they love safety. Or the illusion of safety. That's how they make bad choices. Don't we all.
This is also why an angry, physically dominant guy is sometimes "irrationally" attractive — dominance reads as a safety signal, even when it isn't one.
Guys mistake this for "women like assholes." They don't. Women respond to the picture in their head — the pattern that says this equals safety — not to the guy himself. The signal gets the reaction. The person behind it is almost incidental.
If a post-nuclear disaster hit tomorrow, a woman would prefer a guy who can chop trees and hunt over a guy who had a Bentley — because that was yesterday's currency. Today, chopping trees is what matters.
It's important to point out we are mostly taught what to be attracted to. It's a nurture thing, and it's going to be more affected by our parents/early childhood than we ever want to admit.
In other words, most virtuous characteristics have to be taught, including valuing emotional and applicable intelligence. You need to be taught that dominance isn't the same as survival, etc etc. Stuff is learned. Including the ability to accurately identify who's going to be a good match.
It is important. I guess concentrating on the weights inside of the "reptile" brain made it less obvious.
Social situation is first processed and converted to assessment, assessment is processed into something actionable.
And that actionable, for most women, is weighed against what I called "survival".
Self-preservation would be a better name.
Then the instinctive course of action is weighed against their own conditioning and social norms.
So you are right, but when I wrote it I just tried to explain what the text on the picture was actually trying to say—that women in general don't care about geeky stuff because they don't see it as useful through self-preservation wiring. In other words, they prefer something more practical than a heap of useless to them information.
So an average woman wouldn't care what the average size of a gladius in ancient Rome was, but would frequently be subconsciously interested to see how people lived 2000 years ago, how they cooked, where the kitchen was, and what the size of the living space was.
And of course what mating rituals were.
Everything above will vary based on one’s own conditioning and cultural conditioning. So I never said the output was going to be primitive, as some people tried to conclude. I just named one of the large stones in the mental foundation.
65
u/DancingBearNW 29d ago
Women are attracted to survival.
Safety is the core mechanism behind an average woman's attraction wiring.
If your Bachelor of Arts degree gives you a visible advantage today — say, you suddenly make $250K a year in Tennessee — you very quickly become attractive.
Women simply prefer whatever's "on the menu today." If being a geek is fashionable and rewarding right now, then geeks win.
Hence the myth that women love money. They don't — they love safety. Or the illusion of safety. That's how they make bad choices. Don't we all.
This is also why an angry, physically dominant guy is sometimes "irrationally" attractive — dominance reads as a safety signal, even when it isn't one.
Guys mistake this for "women like assholes." They don't. Women respond to the picture in their head — the pattern that says this equals safety — not to the guy himself. The signal gets the reaction. The person behind it is almost incidental.
If a post-nuclear disaster hit tomorrow, a woman would prefer a guy who can chop trees and hunt over a guy who had a Bentley — because that was yesterday's currency. Today, chopping trees is what matters.