Geoffrey Miller’s book The Mating Mind was very influential on me, and so I spent several posts on his book Spent. He has a new book out, coauthored with Tucker Max, called Mate: become the man women want
which is why really rich people don't need to wear Armani, but can drive around in a Ferrari with jeans or trash out on a mega yacht. Rock stars wearing torn jeans demonstrates that something other than clothes are at work in female mate selection. Clothes are a representation of wealth, studies find men in expensive cars are attractive while the same guy in the same attire in a cheap car is not. A woman who can buy a Ferrari in unlikely to view a guy in a lower status vehicle favourably, she already has the 3 dead antelope, she is now looking for 4.
[Added.] If clothes are exclusively about differential resources, then knowledge of a suitor's resources should completely offset style of dress in romance.
If you're interested on a signaling self-help book about education, Cal Newports "How to be a High School Superstar takes a very heavy signaling view (and is about as well receieved Mate)
"I find it pretty clear that signaling differential resources is not clothes' exclusive social function. There's also signaling tribal membership and signaling the ability to see trends."
Exactly: clothes and jewelry signal status pretty strongly, on the streets of Britain for example you can clearly see who is "old" upperclass and who is from a poor neighboorhood and just draping himself in gold chains, labels and tanning spray because they think that makes them look rich (what exactly constitutes the real deal and what is "tacky" depends is culturally based), at least the difference is clear when you yourself do not belong to the latter group. I don't know what useful trait this signals because I don't think it's linked to emotional intelligence per se and merely being good at distinguishing trends serves no purpose on its own, maybe it's an accidental byproduct of other processes, a bit like religion or maybe in some weak way it signals a person possesses both at least average IQ and at least average EQ (which may be a more useful combination than having an incredibly high IQ with a below average EQ or an incredibly high EQ with a below average IQ).
Trends are a status thing and no one likes early adopters, clothes in a modern context signify wealth hence resources, but they need to be viewed in context. On the plains of africa 3 dead antelope will get you way more sex than an armani suit.
women respond to differential resource acquisition
I find it pretty clear that signaling differential resources is not clothes' exclusive social function. There's also signaling tribal membership and signaling the ability to see trends.
I don't know why clothes are of such symbolic importance. I wonder if Miller and Max explain it.
We ran a little study on MTurk of what shoes to wear on a first date, based on 434 women's trait attributions in response to 32 best-selling shoes from zappos.com: http://observer.com/2015/09...
Yes, the thrust of this application of signaling isn't anti-feminist. The book will be perceived as raising the status of women because it advises men to refashion themselves to better please them. [And it advises against dishonest forms of signaling.]
Or you could look for a more generally perceptive mate with whom you could produce more generally perceptive offspring and be ahead of the coming advantage for them. The external sign of a generally perceptive mate is liking your nerdy focus on the thing you do best. (Just wanted to speak in the Devil's voice.)
Just read the first Geoffrey Miller link.It's quite fascinating how closely people have adopted the signaling tactics he recommends, which essentially boils down to the current coastal urban hipster consumption ethos (i.e. don't by new, retail brands; invest time in wearing/eating/doing things that tell a story about how interesting you are).
Doesn't seem an issue to me. Intelligence and wealth are of little value unless used. Understated may be sufficient but unstated likely isn't.
As our subsistence rises to our income might be a better way of putting it as we reduce propagation to preserve considerations of ordinary and customary.
This is retarded, it simplifies to stupid what women want and that is someone who can feed her offspring, nothing more, the game is reproduction. The question in a modern context is what do women use as markers to differentiate potential partners. Women didn't evolve to use clothing or wit, smart people are in general funnier as their jokes are better and smart people tend to make more money(resources).
Mate how do "nice clothes" fit into an evolutionary context when we spent 4 million years naked, women respond to differential resource acquisition, "he has more than me, he's a catch", clothes in a modern context are a signifier of wealth as are cars watches or a yacht. Depending on the parasite you are going for you need to display a differential to her wealth and/or status.
"women never evolved general ways to see and appreciate things like wealth and intelligence; women instead evolved to appreciate more specific signals like nice clothes and wit."
I recall a study from a few years ago arguing that wearing fashionable clothing brands such as Lacoste or Gucci was more of a factor in social, economic, and romantic success than going to college.
which is why really rich people don't need to wear Armani, but can drive around in a Ferrari with jeans or trash out on a mega yacht. Rock stars wearing torn jeans demonstrates that something other than clothes are at work in female mate selection. Clothes are a representation of wealth, studies find men in expensive cars are attractive while the same guy in the same attire in a cheap car is not. A woman who can buy a Ferrari in unlikely to view a guy in a lower status vehicle favourably, she already has the 3 dead antelope, she is now looking for 4.
no one likes early adopters
Really?
[Added.] If clothes are exclusively about differential resources, then knowledge of a suitor's resources should completely offset style of dress in romance.
If you're interested on a signaling self-help book about education, Cal Newports "How to be a High School Superstar takes a very heavy signaling view (and is about as well receieved Mate)
"I find it pretty clear that signaling differential resources is not clothes' exclusive social function. There's also signaling tribal membership and signaling the ability to see trends."
Exactly: clothes and jewelry signal status pretty strongly, on the streets of Britain for example you can clearly see who is "old" upperclass and who is from a poor neighboorhood and just draping himself in gold chains, labels and tanning spray because they think that makes them look rich (what exactly constitutes the real deal and what is "tacky" depends is culturally based), at least the difference is clear when you yourself do not belong to the latter group. I don't know what useful trait this signals because I don't think it's linked to emotional intelligence per se and merely being good at distinguishing trends serves no purpose on its own, maybe it's an accidental byproduct of other processes, a bit like religion or maybe in some weak way it signals a person possesses both at least average IQ and at least average EQ (which may be a more useful combination than having an incredibly high IQ with a below average EQ or an incredibly high EQ with a below average IQ).
Trends are a status thing and no one likes early adopters, clothes in a modern context signify wealth hence resources, but they need to be viewed in context. On the plains of africa 3 dead antelope will get you way more sex than an armani suit.
women respond to differential resource acquisition
I find it pretty clear that signaling differential resources is not clothes' exclusive social function. There's also signaling tribal membership and signaling the ability to see trends.
I don't know why clothes are of such symbolic importance. I wonder if Miller and Max explain it.
Or is it that Miller's supposedly insightful recommendations are just rehashes of current fashions?
We ran a little study on MTurk of what shoes to wear on a first date, based on 434 women's trait attributions in response to 32 best-selling shoes from zappos.com: http://observer.com/2015/09...
But if you don't find a unicorn in two decades, have a fall-back plan.
Yes, the thrust of this application of signaling isn't anti-feminist. The book will be perceived as raising the status of women because it advises men to refashion themselves to better please them. [And it advises against dishonest forms of signaling.]
Or you could look for a more generally perceptive mate with whom you could produce more generally perceptive offspring and be ahead of the coming advantage for them. The external sign of a generally perceptive mate is liking your nerdy focus on the thing you do best. (Just wanted to speak in the Devil's voice.)
Just read the first Geoffrey Miller link.It's quite fascinating how closely people have adopted the signaling tactics he recommends, which essentially boils down to the current coastal urban hipster consumption ethos (i.e. don't by new, retail brands; invest time in wearing/eating/doing things that tell a story about how interesting you are).
Doesn't seem an issue to me. Intelligence and wealth are of little value unless used. Understated may be sufficient but unstated likely isn't.
As our subsistence rises to our income might be a better way of putting it as we reduce propagation to preserve considerations of ordinary and customary.
This is retarded, it simplifies to stupid what women want and that is someone who can feed her offspring, nothing more, the game is reproduction. The question in a modern context is what do women use as markers to differentiate potential partners. Women didn't evolve to use clothing or wit, smart people are in general funnier as their jokes are better and smart people tend to make more money(resources).
Mate how do "nice clothes" fit into an evolutionary context when we spent 4 million years naked, women respond to differential resource acquisition, "he has more than me, he's a catch", clothes in a modern context are a signifier of wealth as are cars watches or a yacht. Depending on the parasite you are going for you need to display a differential to her wealth and/or status.
"women never evolved general ways to see and appreciate things like wealth and intelligence; women instead evolved to appreciate more specific signals like nice clothes and wit."
I recall a study from a few years ago arguing that wearing fashionable clothing brands such as Lacoste or Gucci was more of a factor in social, economic, and romantic success than going to college.