Monday’s Post: Do young people and their parents really disagree about the qualities of a suitable mate? … A study involving Dutch, American and Kurdish students … found that the cliche is, in fact, true. Young Americans told the researchers that qualities they would find unappealing in a potential mate included low intelligence and physical unattractiveness. But they said their parents would object to a mate who was of a different ethnicity, was poor or lacked a good family background.
I have dated the same man for 5 and half years and his parents can not stand me even made it clear they will disown him if he married me my daughter who is now 10 does not have a opinion and I love him with everything I am but he keeps pulling back. I am 33 and white he is 37 and black I am a CNA at a nursing home he is a assistant Dean at a private college. What do I do?
Sorry I'm late, just caught up on backposts after moving cities.
but the size of the conflict seems surprisingly large - do parent and kid genetic interests really diverge that much?
While I question the study's value as evidence for it, I'd expect that conclusion.
As a hunter-gatherer teenager's "choice" of mate is influenced by preferences of both parent and kid (though the balance varies), it makes sense that those preferences would diverge significantly more than would be best for the genes of the parent or kid if the choice of mate was made just on the preference that parent or kid.
A gene that would lead the kid to choose the best mate if it's parent's influence was not a factor will be out-replicated by a gene that instead counterbalances the preferences of the parent relative to it's own best interests. Cue the arms race.
How about the idea of complimentary coevolution such that parents' preferences only kick in to modify outcomes if those preferences lead to better fitness? Something like...
IF: environment is such that socio-cultural factors are very important
THEN: parental influence over mate choice is likely to be relatively strong due to these factors, and such influence would lead to the higher probability of a mate with higher social quality, which is beneficial for that given environment.
ELSE: parental influence is less, the child's preferences dominate and individual genetic fitness (discounting social quality) is more heavily weighted in the mate selection process, social quality being less important for this environment.
Well, the evolutionary argument is exogamy versus endogamy, with some amount of the formerclearly having evolutionary advantages. Now, why it is the young who currently seem tofavor exogamy over endogamy is not entirely clear, but it may be a matter of people becomingsomewhat more ethnocentric and racist as they age, along with them worrying about the broadersocial aspects of fitting in with the extended family and "will we get along with the in-lawsat the wedding" and other such tripe. Thus, they may end up being the relative advocates ofmore endogamy as it were.
Staying in the dating game.Parents often disagree with kids' choices of spouse (oh, really?)Do people really like having kids?The breakdown of marriage costs the taxpayers $112 billion/year. JulesWell, I guess there's always gay marriage as an alternative
Could this be seen as an agency problem, as opposed to differential genetic motivation? It seems reasonable that a spouse gains utility from the attractiveness and intelligence or cleverness of their partner, while a parent is indifferent. Anecdotally, some variant of parent-child conflict over the attractive but poor poet seems a recurring theme in fiction.
The EvPsych explanation really does seem like a reach, even ignoring the experimental design flaws. The preference of kids makes plenty of sense. The preference of parents seems to be entirely pragmatic - if I marry some fat, ugly, bad-smelling person, it only affects my parents the few times a year they see me. If I marry someone of a different race or religion, then it might affect my parents socially (it wouldn't in reality, but it might for a hypothetical person). That seems like a cleaner explanation.
It's also interesting to note that the study doesn't seem to measure how much people care, but only how much they care in relation to their parents. Thus, if I don't care about something, but I know my parents totally don't care about it, it ends up way on the left side of the scale.
Considered as a study about actual choices, it's not even worth speculating about the results of the study given how badly designed it was (i.e. getting the parents' alleged opinions second hand). But above that, even asking the kids themselves what they would choose is not especially useful. The sizable difference between what people say about how they would choose, and how they actually choose, is sufficiently notorious to be a cliche.
However, considered as a study about what people will say about themselves and others, it's not all that bad, though admittedly it should ideally be contrasted with a study about the reality that they are talking about. I hypothesize that the kids will greatly exaggerate the political correctness of their own choices, and they will greatly exaggerate the political incorrectness of their parents' choices. The actual results are consistent with this hypothesis.
"Parents and offspring ... genetic self-interests, while overlapping, are not identical. The reason young people care so much about intellectual and physical attractiveness, the scientists suggested, is that these characteristics are markers of genetic fitness. By contrast, they said, parents care about group affiliations because parents are primarily interested in whether an incoming member of the family is likely to make a good parent -- and a good all-around team player."
This is completely bogus. Yes, parent and offspring genetic interest differ - because offspring have a closer genetic tie to their kids than their parents do to the grandkids. But to go from there to saying that kids care about genetic fitness but parents don't is just ridiculous. Parents genetic self-interest means they care about the genetic fitness of their kids mates. If "good parent" and "all-around team player" are part of "genetic fitness", then the kids should care too. If they aren't, then the parents shouldn't care very much.
The difference is interesting, and there may well be an EvBio explanation for it, but this explanation is clearly not it.
I agree that asking the children what their parents’ preferences are isn’t useful for supporting the conclusions drawn, but I think it is still interesting. Aside from producing inaccuracy, asking the children will skew the parents’ recorded opinions toward what the children notice, for instance what they disagree with (thus giving the appearance of greater divergence of interests). While the data does not show what parents opinions are, it might show what messages they most forcefully communicate to their children. Perhaps people like intelligent good looking people generally, so it is only useful for parents to assert the bits that are missing from the parents' optimal choice, again meaning the gap between the interests of the two groups is less than inferred from the other explanation.
Why parents' and children's interests diverge in this case:Social connections and wealth of spouses are a tragedy of the commons if the extended family shares resources. If a child who marries poorly will require more support from the parents, the child doesn't have the full incentive to avoid this. The parents do because it detracts from the resources available to other siblings, so is a net loss to their genetic interests. Benefits from partner attractiveness and intelligence accrue mostly to the smaller family group because they are mostly beneficial genetic additions to the offspring.
Mitchell,
That the person who has to live with the partner should be more interested in looks and intelligence is still a result of evolution, as is human cognitive competence (or lack). To ask whether an evolutionary explanation is always appropriate is like asking whether an atom based explanation for physical occurrences is always appropriate. While there might be other levels on which to analyse the system, it isn’t incorrect. The brain came about through evolution, so there is some explanation of how this occurred, whether it resulted in a simple trait optimised for a certain aspect of the environment or a more complicated and/or apparently not optimal outcome.
As a parent, I want my kids to be happy and fulfilled in their relationships, but I would be concerned that hormonal influences can be so strong as young adults that it is hard for them to look beyond superficial features. Things like different religions, ethnic background, family status, may show up down the line as sources of potential conflict when challenges arise or when it is time to raise children. It seems like the parents here are looking at longer-term issues while the kids are using a shorter time scale.
Here is a paper I found (only read the 1st page) which offers an evolutionary model of why young adults should discount the future more than older people: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2118062. That might partially explain these survey results.
The difference is that the parents are guaranteed at least 50% of their childrens' genetic make-up while the gandparents are only guaranteed 25%.
Genes want to make copies of themselves, and the also want other fitness genes around to help protect those copies. The trade off is different for grandparents and parents. Grandparents want their children to mate with somebody with copies of their genes, while children are more willing to give this up in exchange for fitness. This may simply be wealth effects in terms of genes to be passed down.
Only the American kids weren't repulsed by a fat mate.
As for the different social background, that's definitely true, and it's not just what kids imagine. Latino and black parents are just as racist if not more than white parents when it comes to their kids dating someone of a different race.
[citation needed]
Yeah, ad nauseam http://lesswrong.com/lw/l1/...
I have dated the same man for 5 and half years and his parents can not stand me even made it clear they will disown him if he married me my daughter who is now 10 does not have a opinion and I love him with everything I am but he keeps pulling back. I am 33 and white he is 37 and black I am a CNA at a nursing home he is a assistant Dean at a private college. What do I do?
Sorry I'm late, just caught up on backposts after moving cities.
but the size of the conflict seems surprisingly large - do parent and kid genetic interests really diverge that much?
While I question the study's value as evidence for it, I'd expect that conclusion.
As a hunter-gatherer teenager's "choice" of mate is influenced by preferences of both parent and kid (though the balance varies), it makes sense that those preferences would diverge significantly more than would be best for the genes of the parent or kid if the choice of mate was made just on the preference that parent or kid.
A gene that would lead the kid to choose the best mate if it's parent's influence was not a factor will be out-replicated by a gene that instead counterbalances the preferences of the parent relative to it's own best interests. Cue the arms race.
How about the idea of complimentary coevolution such that parents' preferences only kick in to modify outcomes if those preferences lead to better fitness? Something like...
IF: environment is such that socio-cultural factors are very important
THEN: parental influence over mate choice is likely to be relatively strong due to these factors, and such influence would lead to the higher probability of a mate with higher social quality, which is beneficial for that given environment.
ELSE: parental influence is less, the child's preferences dominate and individual genetic fitness (discounting social quality) is more heavily weighted in the mate selection process, social quality being less important for this environment.
Well, the evolutionary argument is exogamy versus endogamy, with some amount of the formerclearly having evolutionary advantages. Now, why it is the young who currently seem tofavor exogamy over endogamy is not entirely clear, but it may be a matter of people becomingsomewhat more ethnocentric and racist as they age, along with them worrying about the broadersocial aspects of fitting in with the extended family and "will we get along with the in-lawsat the wedding" and other such tripe. Thus, they may end up being the relative advocates ofmore endogamy as it were.
No mention of Robin Trivers yet?
Love, marriage, and kids
Staying in the dating game.Parents often disagree with kids' choices of spouse (oh, really?)Do people really like having kids?The breakdown of marriage costs the taxpayers $112 billion/year. JulesWell, I guess there's always gay marriage as an alternative
Could this be seen as an agency problem, as opposed to differential genetic motivation? It seems reasonable that a spouse gains utility from the attractiveness and intelligence or cleverness of their partner, while a parent is indifferent. Anecdotally, some variant of parent-child conflict over the attractive but poor poet seems a recurring theme in fiction.
The EvPsych explanation really does seem like a reach, even ignoring the experimental design flaws. The preference of kids makes plenty of sense. The preference of parents seems to be entirely pragmatic - if I marry some fat, ugly, bad-smelling person, it only affects my parents the few times a year they see me. If I marry someone of a different race or religion, then it might affect my parents socially (it wouldn't in reality, but it might for a hypothetical person). That seems like a cleaner explanation.
It's also interesting to note that the study doesn't seem to measure how much people care, but only how much they care in relation to their parents. Thus, if I don't care about something, but I know my parents totally don't care about it, it ends up way on the left side of the scale.
Considered as a study about actual choices, it's not even worth speculating about the results of the study given how badly designed it was (i.e. getting the parents' alleged opinions second hand). But above that, even asking the kids themselves what they would choose is not especially useful. The sizable difference between what people say about how they would choose, and how they actually choose, is sufficiently notorious to be a cliche.
However, considered as a study about what people will say about themselves and others, it's not all that bad, though admittedly it should ideally be contrasted with a study about the reality that they are talking about. I hypothesize that the kids will greatly exaggerate the political correctness of their own choices, and they will greatly exaggerate the political incorrectness of their parents' choices. The actual results are consistent with this hypothesis.
"Parents and offspring ... genetic self-interests, while overlapping, are not identical. The reason young people care so much about intellectual and physical attractiveness, the scientists suggested, is that these characteristics are markers of genetic fitness. By contrast, they said, parents care about group affiliations because parents are primarily interested in whether an incoming member of the family is likely to make a good parent -- and a good all-around team player."
This is completely bogus. Yes, parent and offspring genetic interest differ - because offspring have a closer genetic tie to their kids than their parents do to the grandkids. But to go from there to saying that kids care about genetic fitness but parents don't is just ridiculous. Parents genetic self-interest means they care about the genetic fitness of their kids mates. If "good parent" and "all-around team player" are part of "genetic fitness", then the kids should care too. If they aren't, then the parents shouldn't care very much.
The difference is interesting, and there may well be an EvBio explanation for it, but this explanation is clearly not it.
Elise and Michael,
I agree that asking the children what their parents’ preferences are isn’t useful for supporting the conclusions drawn, but I think it is still interesting. Aside from producing inaccuracy, asking the children will skew the parents’ recorded opinions toward what the children notice, for instance what they disagree with (thus giving the appearance of greater divergence of interests). While the data does not show what parents opinions are, it might show what messages they most forcefully communicate to their children. Perhaps people like intelligent good looking people generally, so it is only useful for parents to assert the bits that are missing from the parents' optimal choice, again meaning the gap between the interests of the two groups is less than inferred from the other explanation.
Why parents' and children's interests diverge in this case:Social connections and wealth of spouses are a tragedy of the commons if the extended family shares resources. If a child who marries poorly will require more support from the parents, the child doesn't have the full incentive to avoid this. The parents do because it detracts from the resources available to other siblings, so is a net loss to their genetic interests. Benefits from partner attractiveness and intelligence accrue mostly to the smaller family group because they are mostly beneficial genetic additions to the offspring.
Mitchell,
That the person who has to live with the partner should be more interested in looks and intelligence is still a result of evolution, as is human cognitive competence (or lack). To ask whether an evolutionary explanation is always appropriate is like asking whether an atom based explanation for physical occurrences is always appropriate. While there might be other levels on which to analyse the system, it isn’t incorrect. The brain came about through evolution, so there is some explanation of how this occurred, whether it resulted in a simple trait optimised for a certain aspect of the environment or a more complicated and/or apparently not optimal outcome.
As a parent, I want my kids to be happy and fulfilled in their relationships, but I would be concerned that hormonal influences can be so strong as young adults that it is hard for them to look beyond superficial features. Things like different religions, ethnic background, family status, may show up down the line as sources of potential conflict when challenges arise or when it is time to raise children. It seems like the parents here are looking at longer-term issues while the kids are using a shorter time scale.
Here is a paper I found (only read the 1st page) which offers an evolutionary model of why young adults should discount the future more than older people: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2118062. That might partially explain these survey results.
A hypothesis:
The difference is that the parents are guaranteed at least 50% of their childrens' genetic make-up while the gandparents are only guaranteed 25%.
Genes want to make copies of themselves, and the also want other fitness genes around to help protect those copies. The trade off is different for grandparents and parents. Grandparents want their children to mate with somebody with copies of their genes, while children are more willing to give this up in exchange for fitness. This may simply be wealth effects in terms of genes to be passed down.
Only the American kids weren't repulsed by a fat mate.
As for the different social background, that's definitely true, and it's not just what kids imagine. Latino and black parents are just as racist if not more than white parents when it comes to their kids dating someone of a different race.