Konkvistador comments on The Irrationality Game - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Will_Newsome 03 October 2010 02:43AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (910)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 December 2010 12:11:28PM *  3 points [-]

(obviously there are certain physical traits that are attractive in one sex and not another, which does lend itself to certain aesthetic preferences).

Some personality traits are considered attractive in one sex and not another.

Comment author: tenshiko 12 December 2010 10:33:54PM 0 points [-]

As I implicitly stated, I don't think that personality traits for the most part should be considered attractive in one sex and not another. There are some physical traits that are arbitrary, like long hair, with attractiveness dimorphism, but I'm talking about physical traits that distinctly vary in whether they would be healthy between males and females. Like having pronounced mammary glands. That's obviously not a fertility marker in both sexes.

Comment author: RomanDavis 17 December 2010 10:46:07PM 2 points [-]

Are you sure this doesn't apply for personality traits as well?

Going into evopsych is so tempting right now, but the "just so story" practically writes itself.

Here's an alternative:

Since major personality traits are associated with hormones produced by parts of our body produced through embryogenisis based on our genes and the traits of our mother's womb. And since our reproductive organs are also so, it would be very surprising to find there was no correlation between personality traits and fertility/ virility, and it would be a major blow against your argument if it turned out to be one that is both strong and positive.