[rcoreyus]

The ladder theory has two problems:
1. It assumes that you can compare two people for desirability. It doesn't take into account that desirability very complex, not simple a combination of a bunch of physical parameters and wealth.

2. It assumes that everyone is looking for the same thing. That there is a most desirable man or most desirable woman out there. This is in marked contrast to the large variation in human interests.

I think it is absolute poison to relationships. Since you are not the most desirable man in the world, and never will be, you will always feel like you must be "settling" for the women you date. There will always be this sense that if you can somehow improve yourself that you will then get a "better" partner. If you partner moves down the ladder (as they age), if you are still attractive you will turn them in for an improved model.

Meanwhile there are lots of happy couples out there who would not trade their partners for anyone on earth. Obelisk will assume that this is being PC and that I'd happily trade my wife for a more attractive one - no way I can convince him .

[Obelisk]

Meanwhile there are lots of happy couples out there who would not trade their partners for anyone on earth. Obelisk will assume that this is being PC and that I'd happily trade my wife for a more attractive one - no way I can convince him .

No man you got me all wrong. Ladder Theory isn't an all encompassing rule that says people always want to move up the ladder under all circumstances, and that people don't do it because they can't. Ladder Theory works as an underlying weak force that, I suppose you could say works in the primate level of our brain?

In simple terms, at the primal level, everyone wants the most attractive person they can get. For men, this is almost entirely based on looks, again, at the primal level. As a man, you don't see a really hot woman, particularly if she's naked, and start to rationalize "hmm, you know, this lady is pretty hot, I think I'm going to tell my brain to get aroused at the sight of her...."

No. What happens is bam! you get aroused.

I think it was you that spoke of attraction being like a multi dimensional vector space. Let me give you a mathematical analogy for Ladder Theory. It works not as a linear scale, but rather like a logarithmic one. Each order of magnitude would equal a "point of attractiveness" in the scale.

1. It assumes that you can compare two people for desirability. It doesn't take into account that desirability very complex, not simple a combination of a bunch of physical parameters and wealth.

On the primal level it can. Assume you're single. Assume there's 2 beautiful women who are about the same physically, same shape, same height. Whichever one you pick will become your loving wife.

Who do you pick? This is sort of like that whole Archie comic scenario, where he has two phenomenally hot women both wanting him, and the only difference in looks is that one is a blonde and the other is a brunette.

In real life you probably wouldn't get 2 nearly identical women like that. They would have differences, that, assuming you get along great with either personality wise, you're likely to start nitpicking minor details in preference of one to the other. Would you agree or disagree with this?

2. It assumes that everyone is looking for the same thing. That there is a most desirable man or most desirable woman out there. This is in marked contrast to the large variation in human interests.

I agree that not everyone has the same tastes, but I would argue that the differences are minor. Perhaps a guy prefers asian women, yet if a beautiful white or black woman threw herself at him, he's not likely to reject her. There is a template for what constitutes "beauty" that cannot be changed. It makes up, I would argue, a good 90% of attractiveness, with the 10% filled in by our personal preferences (things like body shape, hair color, eye colour, etc etc)

I would also say there's a similar template that women would follow in what they would consider the ideal man. I do agree that women have more leeway, but that's because physical attraction is only half of the total attraction for them. Other things like status, money have a larger percentage of the pie, as stated in Ladder Theory.

I think it is absolute poison to relationships

So, ignorance is bliss? Other can ignore the facts. I can't. Yes it affects me, but I am not sorry I've opened my eyes.

Since you are not the most desirable man in the world, and never will be, you will always feel like you must be "settling" for the women you date.

I am always going to be settled for, as I am going to settle for someone (maybe).

Again, logarithmic scale.

Think about that show "Who wants to be a millionaire". How many people go for the million? Some people get to a certain level, and call it quits. They "settled" but their winnings were not small. Let's say someone that got to $100k, the next step is $500k, but if they lose the question they lose it all. They'll keep the $100k and be happy.

You could say the "perfect 10" is the million. A 9 would be the $500k. An 8 the $100k, and so on. If you got yourself an 8, you "settled" but it didn't feel like a loss. It would feel like a win wouldn't it? What if you stopped playing at $25k (a 6) you "settled" but the settling was more pronounced.

In a logarithmic scale, once you get to a certain magnitude, it really doesn't matter anymore since the numbers are so high, they become redundant .

There will always be this sense that if you can somehow improve yourself that you will then get a "better" partner.

If I want to settle for someone who would still feel like a winning scenario to me, yes. Improving myself means getting more lifelines to keep shooting for higher orders of magnitude.

If you partner moves down the ladder (as they age), if you are still attractive you will turn them in for an improved model.

This is where the higher brain kicks in. Ladder Theory deals with this. It's called loyalty. I know that I will never be forever young. I know my partner wouldn't be either. If she would happen to age faster than me, I'd be loyal if she was loyal. This is higher brain reasoning.

Ladder Theory only deal with that primate sub level of consciousness.

A lot of people settle for way less. How many good looking guys have I seen with not so good looking women? I actually saw a dude 2 days ago with his gf like this. I have no idea, I'm sure he's happy. I don't believe that girl was his primary choice though, maybe the hotter women are pure attitude?

Like I said, should I have to settle for a woman so below me that it no longer feels like a win to me just to gain better personality traits? If I can improve myself I have a better chance of getting a woman at least a couple of steps up and have good personality traits.

I probably won't, but at least I can be confident that it's not because I don't have the looks. Even if I die alone, heck I will still go out in style

[rcoreyus]

You keep mentioning primal instincts - but them men would find women who are most likely to bear healthy children to be the most attractive: wide hips for easy child birth, extra body fat to nourish the growing child before and after birth. Hair and eye color would be irrelevant. If you look at the European stone age "venus" figurines that is what you will see - that is what men's primal instincts will drive them towards.

In the modern world you see men attracted to a range of women. Some like the tall think busty blond - doesn't do much for me. Some small dark-haired Asian women. For some a curly-haired petite Irish girl with freckles is the sexiest thing out there. For others an athletic dark skinned woman. Some like large breasted women, others small.

The same applies to women - some like muscular men, others want slender. Heck a lot (including my wife) think Tom Cruise is attractive - something I've never understood . I think more women find Robert Pattinson (Cullen from twilight) attractive than Manu Bennett (crixus from Sparticus), even though Bennett is far more muscular.

Your logarithmic latter still assumes that there is a metric - that you can compare the desirability of any two people, and that most people will have very similar metrics, that they will have a roughly similar ordering of desirability.

I believe that you feel this way. I just think it is unfortunate because it will leave you forever feeling unsatisfied. Feeling that there is something better out there that you can't have. Your partners will pick up on this and be unsatisfied as well. You will "settle". They will "settle".

[Stillness]

Like I said, should I have to settle for a woman so below me that it no longer feels like a win to me just to gain better personality traits?

I understand finding someone unattractive based on personality, looks, or both. I understand setting standards for yourself - age, height, credit score, or whatever. But going around thinking that other people are below you seems arrogant and self-centered. It also seems counterproductive if the end goal is to have a mutually fulfilling relationship.

Even if you "win" a woman that was above yourself, that value would be based off of her appearance. This is exactly the type of backwards thinking about women that we need to get rid of. A good woman is so much more. She'll balance you, elevate your thinking, and help you be a better person.

You can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. If that is where your beliefs lead you, I think they're rotten. (And it's not a case where it's an ugly truth. While I do believe that some people process the world like that. All of us certainly do not. It's a false concept.)

[rcoreyus]

I believe that I am really lucky to have my wife. I also believe that she is really lucky to have me. It is not that one of us is higher on the "ladder" the other, it is that we have each found someone that makes us happy.

If there really were a ladder, the best you could hope for is to get into a relationship with someone far "above" you. then hope that person was somehow stuck and had to "settle" with you even though they could find "better".

[Obelisk]

Ok let me answer both you guys with a Bible quote and a Star Trek quote:

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Interesting passage huh? So what exactly is this true love?

I think a quote from Star Trek The Next Generation answers it quite scientifically:

(For those not into Star Trek, this quote was said by a character in the show who is basically a robot that wants to to learn how to be human)

As I experience certain sensory input patterns my mental pathways become accustomed to them. The inputs eventually are anticipated and even missed when absent

Translation: "My brain gets used to you and misses you if you're gone"

rcoreyus, you say you feel lucky to have your wife. I believe you. I'm lucky to have my dad. But objectively, any other man could have been my dad, and if I grew up with him instead, I'd love that man as my dad instead of who I love as my dad right now. My mental pathways have become accustomed to the sensory input patterns my brain processes with my dad.

We all form detailed mental templates of the people we know and love. I'm shocked sometimes that if I dream about my friends or my family, in my dreams they act exactly the same as they do in real life. That means my brain has learned to predict their behaviour.

In that sense, anyone can fall in love with anyone. I never doubted this. I never argued against it.

However, that rule doesn't seem to apply to a lot of people right now. I haven't found a girl that is just willing to take a chance and love me for what I am. I've tried in churches, in malls, at work. There's always strings. And I've only dated maybe 2 women I would consider above me on the ladder. Most have been lower. A couple significantly lower. Yet the strings are still there.

I didn't make the rules about the ladder theory. It's simply a framework that people follow unconsciously. Men and women. How many guys do I know that are always trying to go for the hottest women they can get? I honestly haven't. There's no point. The hottest girl I've dated (which happens to be the first girl I slept with also) was probably used to the extreme attention she gets from her looks, so I wasn't worth anything to her unless I ponied up significant financial effort in keeping her. What was the point? Do I want what is basically an escort to be my wife? Obviously not. Other guys would think I'm an idiot, and they would be willing to be the ATM machine guy for a girl like that.

So you both keep trying to convince me that it's not about looks. I've spent maybe 10 years being proven otherwise by life. It hasn't changed who I am. This is who I am:

1. I have no shame in admitting that, yes, I would love to have a hot woman.
2. However, an agreeable woman who doesn't just want my wallet, and is sane would go much further. I'd be willing to settle down the ladder. I won't settle for less than a 4 however. If I can't at least something physically attractive in a woman, then why bother at all?
3. It seems that, for men, at least where I live, you need to be a 7 higher to have a chance with a 4.

I used to go to church, it wasn't any different that secular girls. It was ridiculous actually. I could have slept with a bunch of them if I wanted to. I was the one always saving myself. Malls are pretty much useless. I'm thinking the social club route, but what? Maybe I should take cooking classes or something, where there's a lot of women.

But I have to work on the other end as well, making the bait tastier (me).

[Guest]

Obelisk,

Theory without facts is fantasy.

One must be cautious of what one decides is scientific. Social science is nascent (maybe a 125 years' old) in terms of academic disciplines. Too many confounding variables attach to social science "research" to declare any conclusions as factual. Worse, social scientists often attach an illusion of validity to their research by couching it it hard science research methodology and presenting it in intellectual rhetoric. But when intellectually analyzed, it's nearly always indefensible as definitive knowledge. For instance, I know many lawyers who refer to psychologists as practitioners of voodoo.

Analyzing people from the perspective of psychology is dicey at best. Psychology is not a hard science. Freud (a drug addict), the "father" of psychology, did more harm to it as a discipline than any other way of analyzing it. For decades "practitioners" of psychology adhered to Freud's deeply flawed & unproved theories (penis envy, etc). To this day, physicians do not consider psychologists to be scientists. However, I have yet to meet a psychologist who didn't think s/he was a physician. God only knows how many people psychologists harmed using Freud's "theories".

Gold diggers I know or have known of were all in miserable marriages. Money will buy happiness...most of the time. I have known gold diggers who hated having to have sex with their husbands. They were able to assuage their emotions with extravagant lifestyles and shopping sprees. From the outside, most would describe gold digger relationships with pejorative adjectives. I'm sure those in gold digger relationships are quite adept at rationalizing them. For me, how people decide to live their lives is none of my business.

There is no scientific law applicable for determining why people are attracted to each other. There are too many confounding variables to declare a theory of sexual attraction as valid; most prominently, research subjects will lie. Hard science does not lie.

Hence, pared to its core -with the exception of the obvious- what one decides to believe defines sexual attraction is nothing more than one's opinion.

[Guest]

BTW,

In my about post about gold diggers in miserable marriages, that was merely my opinion. I'm sure that they'd say they're quite happy; however, I wonder what they'd say if their money disappeared.

[rcoreyus]

To me a defining characteristic of a "gold digger" is that they are staying with someone for the money, not love. I would not consider it "gold digging" if a woman was with a man she loved who happened to be wealthy.

I think the reason that many people in gold digging relationships are unhappy is that boarders on contract prostitution - essentially they are having sex with a man in return for money. There are a few people for whom this will work and they may be happy - just as there are happy prostitutes and happy porn stars. For most people though sex is to involved emotionally to simply trade for money.

BTW - I have no objection to anyone who is happy in a gold digger relationship. I just think that for many people it is not a good path to happiness. They would be much better finding someone they love. It is fine to also want someone who is capable of providing a comfortable life, but to me that is a long step away from gold digging.

[Obelisk]

There is no scientific law applicable for determining why people are attracted to each other. There are too many confounding variables to declare a theory of sexual attraction as valid; most prominently, research subjects will lie. Hard science does not lie.

I don't believe this.

Freud has pretty much been dismissed as archaic as phrenology. Not by his own fault though. He was at the pioneering stage of trying to understand the human mind, so I don't fault him for believing a lot of the crazy crap he believed.

But there is a template that men seem to find attractive in women, and vice versa in men.

I think it's possible to suppress these primal physical instincts if you find someone that fulfils you emotionally though, which is what stillness and rcoreyus are trying to explain.