I am not surprised at all.....I have had a number of guys approach me over the years because of the smile that I gave them. I have been told by them that my smile was warm and made them feel accepted. It doesn't hurt to have perfect teeth, a body that is fit and shows that I exercise and care about my looks, and the brains to engage in a challenging conversation. Men are hunters....Ann
Who would admit to being aroused by a picture of copulating bonobos?
"When men see someone of the opposite sex smile at them they tend to think "she must be interested." Women simply see a smile."
I imagine that a person smiling at a member of the opposite sex is more likely to be interested in that sense than a person smiling at a member of the same sex.
Especially if the person they are smiling at is more attractive than usual in some way. Are other attractive people likely to take a similarly optimistic view of opposite sex smiles?
Do women also "over estimate" the meaning of a smile in other women talking with men?
Also, do they really over-estimate. I suspect that the reality isn't that there is no interest, the reality is that interest is fleeting and fickle.
An amusing book that exemplifies this is The Game (about a society of pick-up artist, their attempts to better understand, meet, and communicate with women, and their devolution into a competative, political, and catty reallity TV show like culture). Basically when talking with women, the goal wasn't to impress them, it was just to avoid turning them off or making them uncomfortable.
You seem to suggest that the women are actually turned on by the smart men, though they don't recognize it, in the way that they are turned on by viewing sex. But the evidence presented does not suffice for the claim that they are turned on by viewing sex.
It is plausible that being turned on involved something more than genitals becoming "measurably congested and lubricated". If the smart guys just think they are affecting women like copulating bonobos would, then they may be correct. But the men supposedly think "she must be interested", and being interested surely involves some conscious awareness of arousal or attraction.
Of course, there are reasons to suppose that high-IQ men are more frequently found to be attractive by women. (They are on average more physically attractive, and they have more status). But this doesn't mean that the high-IQ man knows better than the woman smiling at him what her true feelings are about him.
Damn straight there's a discrepancy. Men who are successful with women have learned to make use of it, lulling the beliefs that are stated (or consciously believed) and playing to the actual truth beneath, getting it to overwhelm the outer mask. Women who are introspective (as differentiated from self-absorbed or otherwise self-deceptive) also make use of it, both to strengthen their own congruency and to see through other women.
Perhaps there's an important distinction to be made here between a person's genes and the person: my genes might be sexually interested in you, but I might not be. Aroused, yes. Interested, no (if interested means, "would hop in the sack with you if invited).
Why do "smart" people make this mistake: becuase they're aroused by their own smartness (or, would themselves be more interested in a smart partner than a dumb one).
I am not surprised at all.....I have had a number of guys approach me over the years because of the smile that I gave them. I have been told by them that my smile was warm and made them feel accepted. It doesn't hurt to have perfect teeth, a body that is fit and shows that I exercise and care about my looks, and the brains to engage in a challenging conversation. Men are hunters....Ann
Who would admit to being aroused by a picture of copulating bonobos?
"When men see someone of the opposite sex smile at them they tend to think "she must be interested." Women simply see a smile."
I imagine that a person smiling at a member of the opposite sex is more likely to be interested in that sense than a person smiling at a member of the same sex.
Especially if the person they are smiling at is more attractive than usual in some way. Are other attractive people likely to take a similarly optimistic view of opposite sex smiles?
Do women also "over estimate" the meaning of a smile in other women talking with men?
Also, do they really over-estimate. I suspect that the reality isn't that there is no interest, the reality is that interest is fleeting and fickle.
An amusing book that exemplifies this is The Game (about a society of pick-up artist, their attempts to better understand, meet, and communicate with women, and their devolution into a competative, political, and catty reallity TV show like culture). Basically when talking with women, the goal wasn't to impress them, it was just to avoid turning them off or making them uncomfortable.
It is a rare web site where one can have an intelligent, refined discussion about how high-IQ men are like copulating bonobos.
"Why is this surprising? I see no reason that 'smart' should correlate with 'ability to gauge sexual interest'. "
If that's the case, they shouldn't be more likely to be wrong.
You seem to suggest that the women are actually turned on by the smart men, though they don't recognize it, in the way that they are turned on by viewing sex. But the evidence presented does not suffice for the claim that they are turned on by viewing sex.
It is plausible that being turned on involved something more than genitals becoming "measurably congested and lubricated". If the smart guys just think they are affecting women like copulating bonobos would, then they may be correct. But the men supposedly think "she must be interested", and being interested surely involves some conscious awareness of arousal or attraction.
Of course, there are reasons to suppose that high-IQ men are more frequently found to be attractive by women. (They are on average more physically attractive, and they have more status). But this doesn't mean that the high-IQ man knows better than the woman smiling at him what her true feelings are about him.
It is surprising to see smarter people being less accurate.
Why is this surprising? I see no reason that 'smart' should correlate with 'ability to gauge sexual interest'.
Damn straight there's a discrepancy. Men who are successful with women have learned to make use of it, lulling the beliefs that are stated (or consciously believed) and playing to the actual truth beneath, getting it to overwhelm the outer mask. Women who are introspective (as differentiated from self-absorbed or otherwise self-deceptive) also make use of it, both to strengthen their own congruency and to see through other women.
Perhaps there's an important distinction to be made here between a person's genes and the person: my genes might be sexually interested in you, but I might not be. Aroused, yes. Interested, no (if interested means, "would hop in the sack with you if invited).
Why do "smart" people make this mistake: becuase they're aroused by their own smartness (or, would themselves be more interested in a smart partner than a dumb one).