Wednesday, August 10, 2016

The smart girl penalty

It applies to a woman unless she is unusually hot:
It is enough to make every erudite woman weep.

Research suggests that when it comes to choosing a romantic partner, men are actively turned off by intelligence – and can only overcome this massive obstacle if they find the woman particularly attractive.

The study, in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, states: ‘While seeking partners, women do not exclude men who are perceived as less physically attractive. Even those men who are not perceived by women as physically attractive may receive positive speed-dating decisions, if only those men seem intelligent.

‘Males demonstrate a clearly different approach to mate selection. In men’s perception, for relatively high values of women’s perceived intelligence, this personal trait turns out to be an economic bad.

'Increases in already high levels of women’s intelligence have to be compensated for by increases in women’s perceived physical attractiveness to keep the probability of being chosen by men the same.’
Like it or not, this IQ-penalty for women makes a tremendous amount of sense due to a) hypergamy, and b) female shit-testing.

Smart women can be a massive pain in the ass, simply because they are better able to rationalize and justify their actions. And unlike men, women do not respect less intelligent men, which means they will tend to lose attraction to a less intelligent man over time and make his life a living hell. Most men instinctively grasp this, and avoid pursuing women they know are more intelligent than they are.

Even the highly intelligent man is likely to disfavor smart women, because smart women are constantly trying to demonstrate their intelligence, often by adopting a cantankerous and contrarian stance, constantly contradicting everything everyone around them says. Even if you are capable of consistently knocking back their challenges, is that something you really want to put up with all the time?

Probably not. Unless, of course, she's unusually hot. Heather #1 can afford to be a bitch, because she's beautiful. Most smart women can't.

This suggests that when women play dumb, what they're really trying to signal is that they're agreeable, they're not inclined to be a tedious, contrary bitch like the other smart girls.

Speaking only for myself, there are few things for which I hold more contempt than contrary individuals. They will argue that black is white, day is night, and they will do so without hesitation. They're so fucking stupid, and yet they genuinely believe that they are showing off their intelligence. They would be amusing if they weren't so obnoxious.

55 comments:

DCThrowback said...

- An argument isn't just contradiction!
- Yes it is!
- No it isn't!
- If I argue w/ you, I must take up a contrary position!
- Yes, but it's not just saying "no it isn't!"
- Yes it is!

Sorry, it's one of my favorites.

Dexter said...

Also, intelligent women are likely obsessively committed to their career, and you will never supersede that in priority, so why not go find a woman who will prioritize you? Anyone who has dated a female doctor or lawyer has seen this in action.

("Hey, I'm 40 and I've made partner. Now all I need is a husband. Hmmmmm. Hello? Hello?")

Cataline Sergius said...

@VD I'm just curious so feel free to ignore my question as intrusive.

Have you ever been with a woman more intelligent than yourself?

Given your IQ, your opportunities must have been scarce.

Undocumented Pharmacist said...

Intelligence isn't the problem, its the "woman-ness". In whatever scenario you want to discuss, men will put up with more from a hot chick than from a plain or ugly one since a woman's attractiveness is 80-90% of her value to a man, whether she's an MD or a nurse. I don't care if you're a doctor lady. I care that you're a sexy woman.

Verne said...

Your last paragraph sums it up perfectly. What man wants to spend his life with a woman who constantly contradicts him, simply because they are trying to prove their intellect is superior? And no woman wants to be intellectually superior to her man, so if she wins the relationships ends. The truth is men do not care if a woman is smart of not, that is not what attracts us. So if miss uber IQ cant stay civil, why put up with it?

VD said...

Have you ever been with a woman more intelligent than yourself?

Once. She was brilliant, but quite literally crazy, by which I mean that two years later she was institutionalized.

Intelligence isn't the problem, its the "woman-ness".

You are failing to grasp how intelligence compounds the woman-ness issue.

Matamoros said...

The primary concern of a male, after the beauty and youth component, is if she is pleasurable and easy to get along with.

Matamoros said...

By pleasurable, I meant pleasant.

Leo Little Book in Shenzhen said...

Mistress Mary, quite contrary, somewhat smart and acted very.

dolokov said...

Yes. But you don't want a halfwit either. So she's smart enough that your wit doesn't go over her completely, and also who wants dumb kids.

I guess it's like height. She should be the mental equivalent of 3-8 inches shorter.

dave1941 said...

In a cruel twist of irony, many of the genes that regulate intelligence are on the X chromosome, so they are fully expressed only in men but can be passed on only by women. Would you rather have an obnoxious wife or stupid children?

Our ancestors solved this problem teaching girls only cooking, handcrafts, and the piano. That way they could demonstrate their innate intelligence to potential husbands without developing an attitude.

Nate said...

I would argue, while there are downsides to smart chicks that you've covered... the primary issue is one of initial attraction.

Smart women tend to be very educated. And it is widely known that very educated women tend to be a great deal less happy than less educated women.

Men prefer happy girls.. and will choose a happy 6 over a bitchy angry 8 quite often.

liberranter said...

Smart women can be a massive pain in the ass, simply because they are better able to rationalize and justify their actions. And unlike men, women do not respect less intelligent men, which means they will tend to lose attraction to a less intelligent man over time and [make] his life a living hell. Most men instinctively grasp this, and avoid pursuing women they know are more intelligent than they are.

Even the highly intelligent man is likely to disfavor smart women, because smart women are constantly trying to demonstrate their intelligence, often by adopting a cantankerous and contrarian stance, constantly contradicting everything everyone around them says. Even if you are capable of consistently knocking back their challenges, is that something you really want to put up with all the time?


This. The perfect explanation of the "why?" for any woman who really wants an explanation (i.e., a tiny minority of the total).

NO self-respecting man wants to be paired up with a woman who will be his constant competitor in all things, at all times. Men instinctively know that hyper-intelligent women are largely incapable of satisfying the "helpmeet" requirement.

Unless, of course, she's unusually hot. Heather #1 can afford to be a bitch, because she's beautiful. Most smart women can't.

Fewer and fewer men today are willing to put up with "smart bitch" for any length of time, even if she is smoking hot. The Alphas, having options, don't have to put up with her. The Betas are just too ground down and tired to put up with her over the long haul. The costs and risks aren't worth the investment or the aggravation.

Nate said...

" Men instinctively know that hyper-intelligent women are largely incapable of satisfying the "helpmeet" requirement."

This is not the issue.

The issue is... unhappy women are constantly looking for a man to make them happy. But that's not where happiness comes from... so no man will ever succeed.

Men know its a losing game.. and therefore refuse to play.

hank.jim said...

Considering that looks and intelligence don't usually correlate, it isn't hard to prioritize. Also, women select for money and status that assumes intelligence, but not always. Overall, we get what we want.

Unknown said...

Saddam Hussein had some good advice to his jailers at the end about this - choose a woman that's not too smart and not too stupid.

I recall discovering this game early and happily escaping from the predicament. There was nothing enjoyable about every conversation being an attempt by her to demonstrate that she could disagree with me about anything - the weather, the Oxford comma, the color of the sky, any single thing she could grasp onto. It was almost as annoying as the week she tried using a thesaurus with all written communication. Nobody wants to spend one minute more than required with somebody who is tedious.

Didn't Match.com say girls more strongly selected against smart men early this year? I remember it was something like a -0.4 for men choosing "smart" girls, but -0.8 for girls looking for a smart guy. I recall because one of the women in my office brought this to my attention and suggested that it meant women didn't want to have any conversation, just NSA sex, with online dating.

paworldandtimes said...

Young US soldiers who guarded Saddam Hussein in his final days reported that they had developed a friendly rapport with him. Hussein would chat with them about life and was generous with advice. One such piece of advice was "don't marry a woman that's very stupid or very intelligent."

PA

Undocumented Pharmacist said...

You are failing to grasp how intelligence compounds the woman-ness issue.

I'm not sure the multiplier is that significant. A woman's contrariness can be more elaborate due to higher intelligence (I don't agree with you because blah, blah, blah in 5 syllable words), but its the contrariness (I don't agree with you, so there!) that's at issue.

Nate said...

"but its the contrariness (I don't agree with you, so there!) that's at issue. "

unhappy women are argumentative and bitchy. Happy women aren't.

dc.sunsets said...

Part of the problem is today's idiotic culture that marinates relatively intelligent girls in the belief that they must prove to the world how superior-to-men they are.

Sadly, what a good man wants is a partner, not a competitor. He wants a girl who's prettier than she thinks, and smarter than she realizes. Instead, most young women today grossly overestimate themselves in both. There's no humility in girls today. Like the tattoos covering their skin, their facades are microns thick and guaranteed to look like shit for most of their days.

My advice to my granddaughters will be, make of yourself a better person, a better future wife, a better future mother and ignore the moron, herding-animal fools who surround you telling you to emulate men in their worst, most dishonorable behaviors.

Most pretty women today suck. Add in high IQ and in nearly all cases they're intolerable. Men are left to either choose the skin-deep siren or the ball-busting competitor instead of the rarest of all, the girl who wants a husband, kids, the white picket fence and a life filled with traditional happiness.

Most people, men and women alike, are throw-backs.

dc.sunsets said...

I might add, if a girl is still shopping for a man much past her mid-20's, I figure her odds of being a decent life partner begin to dive straight at the zero line.

Life embeds memories. The more memories embedded prior to marriage, the more marital problems are also embedded.

It used to be that the main degree sought at college by women was the MRS degree. Now that college is seen by women as a path to prove their superiority to men, it makes young women of any noticeable intelligence into harpies and harlots. They're simply too stupid to break out of the self-destructive social milieu. Even their idiot mothers encourage them to get the "full college experience," i.e., whore themselves out like toothless streetwalkers.

Of the few young women grads who begin to grasp what actually leads to happiness, they often come to the altar with a massive "reverse dowry," where hubby spends most of his excess earnings paying off her bloated college loans.

Jehu said...

Guys normally look for girls at their own intelligence level or a sigma or sometimes almost two below. Women generally look for guys at least slightly smarter than they are. They also demand that said guy have status commensurate with her overall attractiveness. If they're career invested in terms of their identity, they generally also demand that he make as much or more than they do. This can create some odd shapes in terms of the solution space for girls above 2 sigmas who aren't overweight (just not being overweight drives them up into the 80th percentile regions in the US).
The thing is, status for guys with much more than +3 sigmas of intelligence is weird.

Feather Blade said...

Well, that certainly will make it more difficult for women to pop out high-IQ white babies.

paworldandtimes said...

Well, that certainly will make it more difficult for women to pop out high-IQ white babies.

A brilliant man and a perky cheerleader will make a child that's both smart AND healthy.

PA

Mo said...

This, like so much of the dysfunction in the sexual marketplace, is the result of the "you go grrlll" feminism that has been shoved down our throats for the past few decades. There's nothing inherently unattractive about intelligence in a woman. It's the way she presents that intelligence - along with her view of men - that makes her unattractive. In short - learn when to shut your piehole, put your intelligence to work in running a successful home and learn to appreciate and respect good men.

My husband is so much more capable than me in so many ways, and I recognize and appreciate that. I have a higher IQ and have read more books, but his ability to kill a deer, build a house, fix the car - hell, fix ANYTHING - weld a seam, etc. is a hell of a lot more valuable than anything I do at my job. So I suppose that's still hypergamy of a sort. The issue is that women today have been taught to vastly overestimate the value of being smart and successful, and underestimate the strengths and talents in men that will literally save their lives if push comes to shove. It's perverse.

The only answer..choose wisely and teach your daughters well.

Leo Little Book in Shenzhen said...

There's nothing in a woman's education that a good spanking won't fix.

"Taming the Shrew" employed starvation because the alternative was a brief porno.

Cataline Sergius said...

I would argue, while there are downsides to smart chicks that you've covered... the primary issue is one of initial attraction.

I quite agree with Nate on this point.

Lady Cataline is one or possibly two SDs above Cataline himself.

There were any number of reasons she should NOT have found me attractive but she had the Warrior Gene on both sides of family and that sealed the deal for her.

If you weren't a fighter, a leader and a killer-of-men, you were (and are) dead to her and girls like her. The Attraction, there, is hard wired.

Bad news for Lady Cataline. Fate should have made her a rich man's wife. Her gene-code made her mine.

dc.sunsets said...

In my experience, people differing by much more than 1 SD in IQ tend not to like each other's company.

Maybe this explains the bright guy, married to the super hot (but dull-witted) girl, who spends all his free time with the bros or on the links while she runs the plastic at the mall.

Maybe it works for them; not my idea of a good marriage.

It took me no more than 3-4 dates to discern the boredom quotient in a girl, and it had nothing to do with how hot (looks or willingness for passion) she was. As I aged, I also realized that a girl's willingness to emulate a porn star is most likely an act, and I watched more than a few men fall for it, to their lifelong detriment.

Lastly, while this discussion is logically sound, the original research that prompted it is based on 4 minute speed dating, hardly a deep and broad basis on which to hang life changing conclusions. Initial impressions only bait the hook. Reeling in the fish is orders of magnitude more complicated.

dc.sunsets said...

There were any number of reasons she should NOT have found me attractive but she had the Warrior Gene on both sides of family and that sealed the deal for her.

I assume that you do NOT mean the MAO-A 5 repete allele. This is what is usually referred to as the Warrior Gene, and would be better characterized as the Career Violent Criminal gene.

Erynne said...

I hate it when people "play devil's advocate." If I'm talking to someone about something, I'm not trying to concoct a foolproof argument of epic proportions. "Smart" people like to think they are helping "iron sharpen iron" by being an asshole-I mean-"devil's advocate" but it's annoying in every instance unless I want my iron sharpened.

Whenever my wife becomes a D.A. it always turns into a conversation I don't want to have that just circles.

Her: "But can he (anti-Clinton author) prove it? That Bill Clinton was a rapist?"
Me: "Shouldn't you read his book and look at his sources to find out?"
Her: "Well, you read the book, do you think he's being honest?"
Me: "Are you questioning the book by its reader?"
Her: "I'm just being skeptical."
Me: "How can you be skeptical of something you haven't read?"
Her: "Well you read it and you told me."
Me: "Yes, and I was saying that this book has strong evidence Bill raped women."
Her: "I know, but the author could be wrong."
Me: "How is he wrong?"
Her: "Well, you know, how do you know he isn't just making it up?"
Me: "Because I read the book."
Her: "Ok, but that doesn't make it real."
Me: "Do you want to read the book?"
Her: "No, I don't have time, and I'm not really interested."
Me: "Don't you want to know the truth?"
Her: "Everyone just has their own opinion anyway, we can't know for sure what really happened."
Me: "So, you don't want to know the truth, then."
Her: *getting mad now* "I don't want to talk about this anymore."
Me: "We didn't talk about this, though, because you rejected everything and then refused to look at the source."

Ad nauseum.

tommono said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cataline Sergius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tommono said...

I never got this before I started dating my current girlfriend. There's no denying that she's got a lot of brainpower and her quickness can be amazing. On the other hand she can be a massive pain sometimes. I can banish her hamster when I need to and I've been teaching her to be more pleasant overall but there are times that the emotional strain seems more than it's worth. There are times that I wish I had a few years and IQ points on her so that it could be more natural for her to submit to me and trust me.

What saves her is that she's feminine and beautiful, like the article describes, and that she's smart enough not to believe what the culture tells her she ought to do.

Also on the upside, when the hamster comes out to play, it can be a spectacular performance.

Matamoros said...

Don't you just love the 1 + 1 = 3 arguments. After all, it could be. And it wouldn't be fair to discriminate.

Forbes said...

Men and women are different. News at 11.

Though the tenor of the article is not difference, but good/bad, right/wrong--as if innateness will be changed by social engineering.

VFM #7634 said...

In a cruel twist of irony, many of the genes that regulate intelligence are on the X chromosome, so they are fully expressed only in men but can be passed on only by women. Would you rather have an obnoxious wife or stupid children?

@dave1941
That may be true to an extent. But, if intelligence were entirely determined by the X chromosome, the half-black sons of white women would be just as intelligent as whites. Now, I haven't been around too many of them in person, but Obama doesn't strike me as all that brilliant, especially without the TOTUS.

S1AL said...

@7634 - You're making the mistake of assuming a standard distribution of intelligence among the women in question.

Ceerilan said...

There's measurable IQ type intelligence and social ability intelligence. A woman sufficiently self aware should be able to tone down the hypergamy, surround herself with married friends, and limit contact with temptation. Western women also tend to be culturally feminist. I think natural intelligence just makes that aspect harder to deal with.

It's similar to how a man's intelligence can work against him until he learns game.

Cataline Sergius said...

@ dc.sunsets

So, your mommy wouldn't let you join the military?

JCclimber said...

"A woman sufficiently self aware should be able to tone down the hypergamy, surround herself with married friends, and limit contact with temptation."

When you find this woman, who is self-aware, please post her picture here so we can observe what a magical unicorn looks like in the flesh. Beyond having a few minutes of self-awareness that quickly fades after those few minutes (15 minutes maximum), I have never met a woman who manages the hamster who is less than 50 years old. And have only met a few who are over 50.

Whisker biscuit said...

Almost all modern college educated women lean toward the feminist hive-mind. What sucks is when you meet a girl at church and she follows this pattern. It as if her education allows her to outsmart the gospels.

Nate said...

Erynne


You married a liberal?

You deserve what you get.

S. Misanthrope said...

I read the study. The finding is not as the article indicates, but still very interesting. It found that there is an optimal level of intelligence for a woman to have, and that level depends on her attractiveness. So a woman who is a 10 in body and in brain is going to have marginally fewer men interested in her than a woman is a 10 in body and an 8 in brain. Not drastically fewer or no interest; just somewhat less.

While at the high end of the attractiveness scale, optimal intelligence rank is lower than attractiveness rank, at the lower end of the attractiveness scale, optimal intelligence exceeds attractiveness. The optimal 4 body has a 6.5 brain.

There are a ton of fascinating results in this study, but unfortunately it's $35 to access it. For instance it also shows that women are harsher in their judgement of men's attractiveness than men are toward women, and women are slightly more generous in assessing intelligence in men vs men in women.

Another finding that's more helpful to the purpose of this site: while more perceived intelligence and more attractiveness always* drove more "yes" results from women (the study looked at a speed-dating environment; actual IQ was not used and a halo effect was observed), if you are already perceived as intelligent (8 or higher) your marginal gains are much greater for increasing physical attractiveness than perceived intelligence. Confirming literally every piece of PUA advice I've ever seen. Thanks, academia!

*Actually, intelligence hits a max value for men as well- women don't like men over 9.87/10 on the intelligence scale as much, regardless of their physical attractiveness.

Oh, and by the way, attractiveness and IQ are significantly positively correlated and have been for some time:
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/i2011.pdf

javaloco said...

I will take the stand that the one thing worse than a more intelligent woman is one who thinks she is but is not.

Erynne said...

Nate

She's politically apathetic, it's just an example of how any topic I bring up can suddenly become a Devil's Advocate discussion without notice. She did the same thing to me when I talked about Biocentrism and the quantum physics experiments mentioned in the book. That was a can of worms I regret to have opened. It's like trying to walk someone through an explanation of a mathematical formula, but they just want the solution, but then they reject the solution because it doesn't feel right, so you try to go back to the formula but they resist that. Anyway, it's taking awhile to break the habit, but I've made progress.

Dexter said...

When you find this woman, who is self-aware, please post her picture here so we can observe what a magical unicorn looks like in the flesh.

If he chants the Word of Power ("NAWALT!") often enough and loud enough, she will appear!

Bob Loblaw said...

Even the highly intelligent man is likely to disfavor smart women, because smart women are constantly trying to demonstrate their intelligence...

From what I can see truly smart people of both sexes don't put any effort into demonstrating intelligence outside very narrow circumstances (like job interviews). Because they don't have to - they're used to just doing their thing and having people remark "that guy/gal is really smart". If a woman is constantly trying to prove she's very intelligent she's probably of only average intelligence and it bothers her.

Personally I blame secularism. Back when Christianity was the basis for society people were considered worthy because they had souls. I have a soul, you have a soul, the king has a soul, and so does the gong farmer. We may have a different place in the social hierarchy, but we're all of equal worth in God's eyes.

Without God, though, the measure of a person is his intelligence, which is why people get so embarrassed when they do something stupid and so angry when their intelligence is called into question.

Mooga Booga said...

"Personally I blame secularism. Back when Christianity was the basis for society people were considered worthy because they had souls. I have a soul, you have a soul, the king has a soul, and so does the gong farmer. We may have a different place in the social hierarchy, but we're all of equal worth in God's eyes."

Truer words were never spoken. In this new secular, post-humanist world, nobody has any inherent worth. Everyone's value can be quantified. That's why left-wingers dig furiously for evidence of unearned privilege; it's why we're all here stressing about SMV.

In fact, that way of thinking is even sneaking into religion. No doubt you've read that the Catholic Church has assembled a commission to investigate the question of whether women can be ordained deacons? I take it as evidence that many Catholics, particularly women, have come to see Holy Orders less as a divine calling than as a status that can be aspired to and won. My suspicion is that such people would treat the laity like insects - if they were worth a damn, they'd be wearing the dalmatic themselves.

Jace said...

cant say i agree with this at all. Talking to unintelligent people of any gender is fucking painful.

Jace said...

cant say i agree with this at all. Talking to unintelligent people of any gender is fucking painful.

Matamoros said...

It is interesting that such a study had to come out of Eastern Europe (Warsaw) rather than the feminized West.

dc.sunsets said...

@ Cataline, no, the groupthink, homogenization of the military didn't appeal to me. I didn't like my short time in a college fraternity, either. I was offered a spot in the Navy's nuclear engineering program (contingent on a calc-based physics class) but sitting in a steel can or on a floating airfield was not attractive, either.

To each his own.

dc.sunsets said...

@ JCclimber, I guess you must be assuming that Life's Path of Happiness is
1. Use Game to get an 8, 9 or 10 to marry you.
2. Use Game during the time you're with her. Spend most of your time with the bros.
3. When she passes her 1st (or for sure, her 2nd) wall, can her and begin at #1 again.

There are actually women who are reasonably attractive, reasonably smart, and yet not saturated in toxic female-spectrum behaviors. Don't sully or marry one, however, if you intend to still spend most of your time with the bros. Leave such gals for men who actually would value what they bring to the table.

S. Misanthrope said...

Does anyone have a theory to explain why there's a relationship between attractiveness and the optimal level of intelligence? If it were as simple as "women who are too smart are difficult to live with," then the optimal level of intelligence would not depend on the woman's attractiveness. Why does a 4 become optimally smart at 6.5/10 while an 8.5 is optimal at 7.5/10?

Looking at these indifference curves in the paper, while technically the inflection points vary as above, it also looks like the slope steepens significantly at 8/10 intelligence at all levels of attractiveness. So maybe 8 is that universal "too smart" threshold, but the penalty for going from 8 to 10 in intelligence still varies from a max of 10% lower probability of a yes to min a 5%. Interestingly, it's the most and least attractive (5s and 8s) who get a 5% penalty and those in between who get 10%.

Is this just a quirk of the dataset or does this fit some larger theory of attraction?

On another topic, the Daily Mail of course puts a misandrist spin on this study, but IMO the results reflect much worse on women. A 1.5 intelligence woman had to be a 9 or 10 in looks in order to get just 10% of men to say yes to a date. On the other hand, 30% of women said yes to men with 0 (zero!) intelligence if they were a 10 in looks. I seriously can't even. Hilariously, the authors of the paper speculate that it's men who are more likely to be seeking a hookup in the speed-dating environment than the woman. Yeah, right.

adam said...

I definitely prefer women smarter than me, but it's like a wife's sexuality. I want a woman to let her genius shine when raising my children but keep it under wraps when with me, unless she is parenting in my presence. Similarly, I like a woman that is a complete freak in my bedroom, but the model of propriety in public.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.