# Evolutionarily speaking, is the ability to reason an attractive trait? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 7, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009 "2005-08-07T17:43:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MadderMitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@MadderMitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MadderMitch)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/1 "2005-08-07T17:43:23Z")
All joking about specific individuals aside, are/were logical faculty in human beings an instrument that can (or did) attract potential mates? It seems to me that all (physically) normal humans have the ability to reason. Starting from a given point (_premises_), they can follow the chain of logic to an argument until they arrive at a certain _conclusion_. This ability doesn’t need to be limited to arguments, of course. It can be used to extrapolate certain meaningful trends and patterns. Now this _could_ confer important advantages for survival. For example, let’s say that pre-historic man could link a particular type of berry with death. Those who were better at recognizing this pattern quickly would probably stand a better chance of survival than those who couldn’t. Hence this is _natural selection_. The better the chances of your survival, the more likely it is that you’ll stick around to breed all night long and produce lots of wonderful babies, most significantly with a capacity for logical reasoning. However, how attractive were these traits to members of the opposite sex? Natural selection in the above example sorta implies that these “LOGIC” guys were the only ones left to mate with. But was the ability to reason well identifiable to humans when seeking a potential mate? Did Otis look at PeyPey and think, “My God, that woman can REASON!!!” If this trait _was_ identifiable, did Otis also think, “WooHoo! I’m gonna have me some sweet Logical ass!” So in sum, was the ability to reason well a naturally attractive trait in human beings? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/2 "2005-08-07T17:59:50Z")
I dunno, I find intelligent women hot. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/3 "2005-08-07T18:01:30Z")
If you are asking if smart women are hot then the answer is yes. stupid is one of my biggest turn offs. but thats just me, I would guess that its like everything else, subjective and going to vary quite a bit. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/4 "2005-08-07T18:11:20Z")
Okay, generally AFAIK the way a genetic trait becomes a sexual selection trait is theorized to go like this. (Not sure if we have any proof that it happens or when.) To start with, you have a population of males and females of various intelligence. Also, the individuals probably have a normalized distribution of preference for intelligence in their mates… some few really like stupid mates, some few really like smart mates, the majority may not care. We have to assume that the members of our species are able to observe and guage the intelligence of prospective mates for this to work. Generally, all other things being equal, the males who have a high preference for intelligent mates will probably tend to get more intelligent mates than the average. (This is before intelligent mates have become highly desirable in the population generally.) Also, males with a high preference for unintelligent mates will probably get less intelligent mates than the average. Next generation, the males with a high preference for unintelligent mates have had a lot of slightly stupid kids. A lot of them ate bad berries before they grew up and died. Some of the kids of the males with no particular preference for the intelligence of their mates also ate the wrong kinds of berries and died. Probably very few of the bright kids born to smart female and males who like smart females died. Now, all of this doesn’t mean much if the sons of the guys who like smart females aren’t more likely to have a preference for smart females themselves. If they do, then they’re going to come, over many many generations, to dominate the population more and more, and to compete in some way over the most intelligent females. (Luckily, evolution will also have been selecting for smart females.) Hope this helps. I really don’t know that much about evolution meself. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/5 "2005-08-07T18:25:25Z")
> [@MadderMitch](#): > > All joking about specific individuals aside, are/were logical faculty in human beings an instrument that can (or did) attract potential mates? Women tend to be attracted to men who can be good providers. Given a choice between an intelligent man with a great mind, or some good looking guy without a lick of sense, who likely would be a better provider? ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/6 "2005-08-07T19:31:00Z")
Call this theory whatever you like (racism, reverse-racism, sour grapes, ???), but I not long ago read some online think piece propounding the idea that Jews tended to do so well on intelligence tests because intelligence (or some kinds of intelligence) was inheritable and selected for within the Jewish population. The reasoning: Jews had historically been barred from most professions and trades, and thus had to develop unusually acute mental faculties to survive. For this reason, they supposedly chose intelligence as the number one desirable trait in potential husbands, thereby bringing genetics into the picture. (If people really want to read this, I’ll try my Google-fu at finding it.) IANAJ, but I’d also be tempted to speculate that **logic, recall, and accuracy** were some of the skills most prized – skills well developed by traditional Jewish styles of religious teaching. ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/7 "2005-08-07T19:38:10Z")
You have to establish that Caveman Poindexter actually is a better mate than Caveman Meathead. Non-trivial, IMO. You have to establish that women can tell which men are smarter. Also non-trivial IMO. Frankly, it’s not clear to me at all that smart men are better mates. Or vice versa. It seems to me the closest you can get is that smarter men may achieve more status in a group. More status implies more power, power to protect mates and offspring. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/8 "2005-08-07T19:39:35Z")
> [@Beware of Doug](#): > > Call this theory whatever you like (racism, reverse-racism, sour grapes, ???), but I not long ago read some online think piece propounding the idea that Jews tended to do so well on intelligence tests because intelligence (or some kinds of intelligence) was inheritable and selected for within the Jewish population. > > The reasoning: Jews had historically been barred from most professions and trades, and thus had to develop unusually acute mental faculties to survive. For this reason, they supposedly chose intelligence as the number one desirable trait in potential husbands, thereby bringing genetics into the picture. > > (If people really want to read this, I’ll try my Google-fu at finding it.) > > IANAJ, but I’d also be tempted to speculate that **logic, recall, and accuracy** were some of the skills most prized – skills well developed by traditional Jewish styles of religious teaching. Probably not the same piece, but your article reminded me of this: [Why Jews Don’t Farm](http://www.slate.com/id/2084352) by Steven E. Landsburg for Slate magazine. Not really getting in genetics and such, but it does touch on (and cast doubt on) the idea that jews had been barred from most professions and trades, suggesting instead that since the jewish religion imposed “an obligation to be literate”, Jews were naturally drawn to educated occupations. An interesting read at any rate, I think. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/9 "2005-08-07T19:42:29Z")
> [@muttrox](#): > > You have to establish that Caveman Poindexter actually is a better mate than Caveman Meathead. Non-trivial, IMO. > You have to establish that women can tell which men are smarter. Also non-trivial IMO. > > Frankly, it’s not clear to me at all that smart men are better mates. Or vice versa. It seems to me the closest you can get is that smarter men may achieve more status in a group. More status implies more power, power to protect mates and offspring. Um, was that specifically aimed at rfgdxm’s post?? It’s not necessarily about whether caveman poindexter of caveman meathead is a better mate. There’s also the question of which of them can give cavewoman carrie babies that will be more likely to survive long enough to have babies of their own. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/10 "2005-08-07T19:59:02Z")
> [@chrisk](#): > > Probably not the same piece, but your article reminded me of this: > [Why Jews Don’t Farm](http://www.slate.com/id/2084352) by Steven E. Landsburg for Slate magazine. > > Not really getting in genetics and such, but it does touch on (and cast doubt on) the idea that jews had been barred from most professions and trades, suggesting instead that since the jewish religion imposed “an obligation to be literate”, Jews were naturally drawn to educated occupations. An interesting read at any rate, I think. Sure was, thanks. Still not incompatible with hereditary traits for intelligence, if they exist. (Irony abounds; the author didn’t know about the land-grant colleges… :dubious:) ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/11 "2005-08-08T12:36:25Z")
This is a theory put about by several prominent sociobiologists. Even Darwin had a go at it in various forms. The best book to read on the subject is probably “The Mating Mind : How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature” by Geoffrey Miller. essentially he argues that all forms of artistic and intellectual endevour-music, arts, computer geeks etc have been selected for by sexual choice. As to why, it is a bit like a peackocks tail - the tail is not useful in itself, and is actually a hinderence to survival. But it tells females that the owner must be very fit. Similularly, a big brain/intelligence is not necessarily a good survival tool (e.g. jellyfish will probably be around long after humans have disappeared), but the owner is generally very fit, because he/she has resources to spare keeping his brain going (which consumes an enormous amount of the energy the body uses. ---
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/12 "2005-08-08T14:29:24Z")
We also must remember that mate selection does not have to be the only selection method. If in a tribe of a 100 individuals, every once in a while comes upon a violent genius who exterminates every single potential rival applying intelligent methods, that is also selection in his favor(given that he now fathers every single child in the tribe). Don’t underestimate the potential for violence in smart people. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/13 "2005-08-08T16:27:39Z")
> [@](#): > > However, how attractive were these traits to members of the opposite sex? Very attractive, I imagine, to the _logical_ members of the opposite sex. They’d be thoroughly annoyed with members of my sex who were _not_ logical and could not, therefore, follow their reasoning when they explained things. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/14 "2005-08-08T17:56:18Z")
Evolution works by those individuals in a population best able to stay alive long enough to reproduce and passing those traits on to their offspring. Ability to reason is, of course, an evolutionary advantage because an individual who can reason can prepare or respond to various situations instead of simply passively reacting to them. Those who cannot reason would tend to do more boneheaded things and thus die before they can reproduce. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/15 "2005-08-08T18:17:18Z")
It’s all driven by sex and language. Some scientists (Matt Ridley IIRC) argue that it’s less a case of men selecting smart(er) / more rational women, and more a case of a biological arms race with language being the weapon/tool, where women select more able male seducers, who use their brains to figure out what the other person (female in this case) wants in exchange for mating privileges. Brighter men aren’t chosen preferentially because they’re _necessairly_ smarter, they’re chosen because they’re better at language use and seduction techniques which is preferentially enabled by being bigger brained. ---
**Author:** ![MadderMitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@MadderMitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MadderMitch)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/16 "2005-08-08T21:18:03Z")
> [@astro](#): > > It’s all driven by sex and language. > > Some scientists (Matt Ridley IIRC) argue that it’s less a case of men selecting smart(er) / more rational women, and more a case of a biological arms race with language being the weapon/tool, where women select more able male seducers, who use their brains to figure out what the other person (female in this case) wants in exchange for mating privileges. > > Brighter men aren’t chosen preferentially because they’re _necessairly_ smarter, they’re chosen because they’re better at language use and seduction techniques which is preferentially enabled by being bigger brained. Could this be the reason that Linguistics and English majors get laid like fruit flies? ---
**Author:** ![MaceMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@MaceMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaceMan)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/17 "2005-08-09T03:04:01Z")
**Beware of Doug,** this [site](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050605_iq.htm) discusses your theory and provides a good overview. It claims that an unfortunate side effect of this strong selection for intelligence was the concomitant development of rare genetic diseases, like Tay Sachs, in the Ashkenazi Jews. Interesting reading. ---
**Author:** ![MadderMitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e7dd6/32.png) [@MadderMitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MadderMitch)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/18 "2005-08-13T18:41:52Z")
> [@MaceMan](#): > > **Beware of Doug,** this [site](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050605_iq.htm) discusses your theory and provides a good overview. It claims that an unfortunate side effect of this strong selection for intelligence was the concomitant development of rare genetic diseases, like Tay Sachs, in the Ashkenazi Jews. Interesting reading. > [@MaceMan](#): > > **Beware of Doug,** this [site](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050605_iq.htm) discusses your theory and provides a good overview. It claims that an unfortunate side effect of this strong selection for intelligence was the concomitant development of rare genetic diseases, like Tay Sachs, in the Ashkenazi Jews. Interesting reading. Yeah no offence but you really got to check out the rest of that [link](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/index.htm). It contains such wonderies as [Blonde Bad Guys; Hollywood’s other obsession](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050619_obsession.htm) [Blondes have deeper roots](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050612_blondes.htm) (or pale chicks got ass) [The Blonde Wars](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/blonde.htm) (Which incidentally I have to quote, being of the dark-haired persuasion): > [@](#): > > The press typically attributes the popularity of blondeness to the evil monopoly of the WASP elite (or whatever). But that doesn’t make much sense because there’s little demand for blond men. Hollywood, for example, believes that ladies prefer their gentlemen tall, dark, and handsome, a phrase coined by Mae West about Cary Grant. There are dramatically more blonde actresses than actors, because audiences apparently associate darker hair with mature masculinity. In the vast majority of love scenes in movies, the man is darker in hair and skin color than the woman. Actors typically described as blond, such as Leonardo DiCaprio, generally wear their hair much darker than do blonde actresses, such as Meryl Streep or Kate Hudson. Even Conan the Barbarian was played as a brunet by Arnold Schwarzenegger. {Extremely scientific} [UK vs US white working class](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050410_ruin.htm) (I told you us white folks should stick together) > [@](#): > > Why have the morals of the white working class in the U.S. proven more resilient than those of their white counterparts in Great Britain?.. > > How come? > > Religion. Perhaps the most striking and important difference: the strength of Christianity here—whereas the main religious emotion in Britain is apathy. Phil Zuckerman has noted > > “84 percent of Americans believe that Jesus is God or the son of God, compared to 46 percent of the British… And over 70 percent of Americans believe in hell, compared to only 28 percent of the British… Nearly 45 percent of Americans attend church … once a week, compared to … 13 percent of the British… Between 39 and 46 percent of Americans describe themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians.” > > At least some American Christians are building alternative institutions to shield their families from decadent popular culture. But the British working class appear wholly addicted to the prolefeed on the telly. {Socialogist extraordinaire} [The white guy gap](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050313_gap.htm) {I’ll let you read this one - it’s just too easy} [Sailor’s rule of three](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/rule_of_three.htm) {To his credit, at least it _seemed_ like he was trying to be scientific here} [Iraq, Israel… and IQ](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/podhoretz.htm) And finally, my favourite - in a batch of three but I’ll give ya the best one: [America’s imported caste system](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/mexico_part3.htm) > [@](#): > > Now, imagine a conquistador and his Indian woman have two sons in the 1520s. These two mestizo brothers grow up and go out in the world to seek their fortunes. One is smarter, and he strikes it rich. The other wasn’t so lucky in the genetic lottery, and he becomes poor. The rich son has a wide variety of potential wives to choose from. Like most men, and like almost all Mexican men, he is more attracted to blonde women, and thus marries one. (If you aren’t familiar with the depths of Mexico’s blonde obsession, try watching Spanish-language TV shows. Almost all the women on Mexican TV look like Finns.) His impoverished brother, in contrast, cannot attract a blonde wife. So he marries an Indian girl. > Then, the brothers have children. On average, the smarter, richer brother’s kids, who are 3/4 white, are smarter than their underprivileged 1/4 white cousins. They’re smarter not because they are whiter, but because their father had more smartness genes than their uncle. This trend continues: in both families, the smartest, most energetic, and most ruthless sons marry the blondest wives, while the blondest daughters marry the husbands with the most Right Stuff. Repeat for another dozen and a half generations. By 2000, this pattern could lead to the most European-looking people being the most naturally formidable, even if they weren’t when they arrived in 1519. In all fairness - this _really_ did make me wanna date a blonde again. I’m off to tell the wife where da shit’s at… ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionarily-speaking-is-the-ability-to-reason-an-attractive-trait/316009/19 "2005-08-13T19:08:33Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Women tend to be attracted to men who can be good providers. Given a choice between an intelligent man with a great mind, or some good looking guy without a lick of sense, who likely would be a better provider? There was a study done a few years ago that showed women tended to pick different mates for bearing and raising children–they picked guys who looked more lunkheaded to be the genetic father and gentler-looking guys to be the person who helped them raise the child. Could this be trying to get the best of both worlds? I tend to believe that intelligence is mostly environmental whereas strength is mostly genetic, so in that case it would be most advantageous to pick a strong dumb guy for his genes and cultivate intelligence through a weak smart guy. And no, a caveman-ish face doesn’t necessarily mean the guy is an idiot and vice-versa. But still, an interesting study.