Decoding Women’s Sexual Intent

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Monolith

But isn't that a key to success? The survival of the fittest, or smartest in this case. Humans have always been a highly adaptable species, and adaptation is likely the most important human trait.

Depending on the region, naturally. But I think that it's something primal and thus cannot be changed significantly, regardless of time.

There are primal things in us, of course, that always affect us. But even they are being fought against, however unsuccessful it is, it does consequentially give an unnatural behavior.

Adaptation is a key to success, yes. I just don't find it positive to adapt to modern society, when it implies to adapt the increasingly changing values and ways of modern western (especially) societies. To be successful in that regard is something unconsciously strived for by the masses that always adapt and flow with the main stream.

But that also inflates the changes within the society, when people simply adapt.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

There are primal things in us, of course, that always affect us. But even they are being fought against, however unsuccessful it is, it does consequentially give an unnatural behavior.

Yes it does. This kind of behavior:
link 1* link2*

*It was inappropriate to post such pictures

I just don't find it positive to adapt to modern society, when it implies to adapt the increasingly changing values and ways of modern western (especially) societies.

Me neither. We all have to adapt, to some extent, and live in this world, even though we don't like how it works. But to see that there's still consciousness among the people that things can be different and even better, is more than comforting. And that's what always led to changes through the history.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

But emotional/social intelligence is rather fluid and comes with a strong cultural attachment and dependency.

Yes, you are mostly right. It is a mistake to confuse some societal mores of today with the general human condition, to identify the patterns of behaviour in modern society with some alleged eternal behavioural patterns of all humans at all ages of history (and that is what many sociologists and psychologists today do!) To pretend that some middle class of today - as generalized in Western Europe and Northern America - represents the essence of humanity, is a gross blunder. Many things are purely culture-specific and time-specific (things were different 200 years ago).

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Because to be emotionally intelligent, is about having merit in in social interactions in this particular "modern" society. So those who adapt better and blend in better to the circumstances in the society of today will perform better in romantic relationships.

Sometimes yes, but not always. Many a time those who insist of playing by the rules too much (those of the modern society, that is), do not succeed.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Being able to read the opposite sex depends on the changing behavior of the sexes. So if you have merit in this regard today, you probably have less in 1920, or 1850.

That is correct, with a small objection that the society in 1850 was much more stratified and there were different ways in which these things worked among different strata of the population, unlike today, when all-pervasive egalitarianism has levelled the entire society, which is now composed of very similar individuals, with communitarian links of yore broken.

Originally Posted by Monolith

But isn't that a key to success? The survival of the fittest, or smartest in this case. Humans have always been a highly adaptable species, and adaptation is likely the most important human trait.

This has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of "survival of the fittest" thing. First and foremost, humans make their own decisions, based on some preferences, based on their free will, not paying heed to any sort of "survival of the fittest". Maybe we have those instincts in ourselves, just like the animals have, but we are able to act not in accordance with them. If everything were so simple as to be reduced to such animalistic concepts, then nobody would ever mate or marry a disabled person, to put an example.

Once the mating was done according to rules set by communities, since people lived in and by communities and the individualism of sorts we have today was unheard of. Today, in the indiviualized society, you have only individuals mating other individuals on purely individual criteria. You have a kind of huge "meat market" which functions both way (from men to women and vice versa). We were born into this society of today, so our perspectives for drawing conclusions are a little bit biased. There is nothing quintessentially human in this, it is only one societal pattern.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Marulus

This has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of "survival of the fittest" thing. First and foremost, humans make their own decisions, based on some preferences, based on their free will, not paying heed to any sort of "survival of the fittest". Maybe we have those instincts in ourselves, just like the animals have, but we are able to act not in accordance with them. If everything were so simple as to be reduced to such animalistic concepts, then nobody would ever mate or marry a disabled person, to put an example.

Once the mating was done according to rules set by communities, since people lived in and by communities and the individualism of sorts we have today was unheard of. Today, in the indiviualized society, you have only individuals mating other individuals on purely individual criteria. You have a kind of huge "meat market" which functions both way (from men to women and vice versa). We were born into this society of today, so our perspectives for drawing conclusions are a little bit biased. There is nothing quintessentially human in this, it is only one societal pattern.

I was talking about the impact of our primal drives on our lives and choices we make, and I never implied that we must act in accordance with them. We don't and that's what separates us from animals. People don't bother thinking about who's strongest, smartest, most likely to succeed, etc. because they don't have to. They are simply "drawn" to a particular person. When I was speaking about the survival of the fittest, I particularly meant about sexual selection. It was always about the competition, which is a mechanism that ensures that good genes are passed to one's progeny, and that significantly increases the chance that the progeny will pass the genes forward. If we were animals, we would be guided only by this. But as we are not animals, there are also numerous other elements that affect our choices, including social patterns and emotions. That selection is still present among human beings, and thus we bring (selection) decisions based on our primal impulses which are heavily altered by emotions and social standards of the environment we live in. About the intelligence and selection, it is a fact that intelligence and ingenuity often prevail over raw power. If one is intelligent enough to understand how things work in a certain system and how to utilize the system for his benefit, namely for the continuation of his bloodline, will he not be more successful than others? Will he not be fitter than others? The rise of mankind was induced by its ability to adapt to various conditions, and I still hold that it is our most important quality.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Monolith

I was talking about the impact of our primal drives on our lives and choices we make, and I never implied that we must act in accordance with them. We don't and that's what separates us from animals. People don't bother thinking about who's strongest, smartest, most likely to succeed, etc. because they don't have to. They are simply "drawn" to a particular person. When I was speaking about the survival of the fittest, I particularly meant about sexual selection. It was always about the competition, which is a mechanism that ensures that good genes are passed to one's progeny, and that significantly increases the chance that the progeny will pass the genes forward. If we were animals, we would be guided only by this. But as we are not animals, there are also numerous other elements that affect our choices, including social patterns and emotions. That selection is still present among human beings, and thus we bring (selection) decisions based on our primal impulses which are heavily altered by emotions and social standards of the environment we live in. About the intelligence and selection, it is a fact that intelligence and ingenuity often prevail over raw power. If one is intelligent enough to understand how things work in a certain system and how to utilize the system for his benefit, namely for the continuation of his bloodline, will he not be more successful than others? Will he not be fitter than others? The rise of mankind was induced by its ability to adapt to various conditions, and I still hold that it is our most important quality.

It depends what exactly is meant by intelligence. Abstraction skills that help you understand complex matters wont necessarily help you in this intersexual competition. To be honest, the people that typically end up successful with women these days, are often not highly intelligent individuals. They may have a high emotional intelligence compared to their generalized g, but on the other hand, a lot of people who have a relative success with getting relationships are pretty much macho-types, and such types are associated with resorting to violence (at least as a stereotype, with a minimal amount of truth to it, perhaps the primitive drive they have), and being very mainstream.

A big part of the competition between the sexes is simply in who adapts more successfully to the social structure they are in - and a part of this could be in appealing to the level of intelligence and understanding of the mainstream, which is not amazingly high.