On Fri, 13 May 2005, Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>732. The race to the top -- and the bottom
>Any beautiful girl with a moderate degree of intelligence can, if she so
>wishes, marry as high up the class system as she wishes if she plays her
>cards correctly. This can be seen from most photographs of rich or
>powerful men with their spouses in almost any newspaper on any day of the
>week. More usually than not, these men have married twice or thrice, and
>when they do so they nearly always marry someone younger than themselves
>and someone who is very beautiful.
>
>Almost all women marry upwards -- to a male of more intelligence and
>fitness leaving the less competent males behind. The only females who
>don't tend to marry upwards are those with very high intelligence because
>males of sufficient intelligence have usually been snapped up already.
Well, no, I have to generally disagree, on two points. First, you have
made a category error in equating rich with intelligent. Intelligence is
not a requirement for accumulating wealth, and generally, what is required
is only a minimally serviceable intelligence, with a disappointingly small
horizon to the imagination coupled with a large ambition; emotional
pathologies are just a bonus.
You are the first person I have come across who would disagree with all IQ specialists who say that success in life is generally closely coupled to intelligence. There are many exceptions of rich men who are stupid and clever men who remain obscure. But the case generally holds and I think you would be hard put to find any human scientist who would agree with you.
Note I said only requirement - individuals
with greater intelligence are not particularly precluded from the
self-enriching, but neither are they selected for. Those of significant
intelligence more commonly find no fascination in mere mercenary
pursuits, but rather pursue occupations which challenge their capacities,
and their imagination. Such occupations are only loosely coupled
with monetary success, and subject to the fads and vagueries of
the job market.
The second error is in your assessment of female mate selection behaviour.
My observations over a lifetime are replete with examples of women of
apparently substantial intellect selecting men of clearly lower
intellectual capacity.
Of course, this happens. But I did not base my statement on my own necessarily restricted experience but on the 99% verdict of all those who study social mammals.
Physical appearance plays some part in these
selections, but far greater correlation attaches to the "air of
confidence" exuded by the male. It is self-assurance which is the
unconscious magnet for women; a clearly genetic operand, which no doubt
had some practical effect sometime far back in our small brained past,
but which now is actively self defeating, as self-assurance is negatively
correlated with intelligence in modern males. The greater their
intelligence, the more they understand that self-assurance comes from
belief that you have the answers, and such a belief is the greatest
obstacle to actually knowing the answers. The best, brightest, most
successful and productive knowledge workers - scientists, engineers,
technicians, physicians, etc. - are those who are most ready to
acknowledge the possibility that they are wrong, and to be open to
learning a better alternative. The most self confident and self-assured
men I have known in my life were without exception the stupidest,
most closed minded, unimaginative, dogmatic, and generally unworthy
of credence. They were also mostly "chick magnets". Until and unless
this situation is altered, there is little worry that mutual selective
breeding will generate a subpopulation of geniuses.
You are making a straw man argument. I did not say what you are implying I said. A subpopulation of geniuses can only arise if they have more children than the hoi polloi.
Keith
I wouldn't hold my
breath, for maybe another ten thousand years. These motivations are
buried very deeply.
-Pete
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
