HughRistik comments on Love and Rationality: Less Wrongers on OKCupid - Less Wrong

19 Post author: Relsqui 11 October 2010 06:35AM

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

Comments (329)

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

Comment author: HughRistik 15 October 2010 05:09:29PM *  9 points [-]

I think women want guys with values, in principle, and are tempted by guys without values, in practice, because they like "masculine" or "alpha" behavior. It doesn't mean that the desire to date a good person isn't a real desire.

I think this hypothesis makes a lot of sense: masculinity is the main cause of attraction, and bad values just tag on along for the ride. This hypothesis is entirely plausible to me, but I have to wonder whether it's the whole story. For some the nastier forms, I'm not sure that masculinity and bad values are always separable; they are intertwined.

There could be several different paths by which different types of women are attracted to assholes; you've certainly named one of them.

If someone desires to get work done, but also procrastinates, would you say she doesn't "really" want to get work done?

Not necessarily, but it could be the case.

(Read or watch Gone With The Wind again -- Rhett is actually the male character with the most integrity and smarts.)

It's one specific scene that I'm thinking of: the quasi-rape scene.

There's not a one-to-one relationship between horribleness and attractiveness to women -- you never hear about women being hot for Jeffrey Dahmer.

You might be surprised! Famous serial killers are very popular with women and have groupies. Female serial killers don't have male groupies. Now, women with these preferences are probably pretty rare; women attracted to shy nerds are probably more common (2% of women are into shyness), but there are a lot more shy nerds than women into them, whereas serial killers are a scarce resource for women who are into them.

More hilariously, I have an article on my hard drive about Western women attracted to Osama bin Laden written after 9/11 (I'll write it up sometime, but it's behind a paywall.)

This behavior might initially seem like some sort of weird fluke, but looking at female attraction to Eminem, who raps about doing some of the things that serial killers are in for, these preferences could be conceptualized along the same continuum: serial killers are hypermasculine ultra-assholes.

See also the Draco In Leather Pants (TVTropes) phenomenon, where fangirls turn villains into objects of desire (there are some hilarious example pages at the bottom).

Fantasy is different from reality, of course. These women may have different desires in real life. Even if they have similar desires, they know better than to try to act them out, consistent with your model. The point is that such psychology seems like a watered-down, fantasy-only version of the psychology of serial killer groupies, who act out these same sorts of desires in reality.

Although there are categorical distinctions between women who lust after Eminem or dress Draco Malfoy up in leather pants, and women who go for serial killers, all these women may be the same continuum on other variables. Serial killer groupies are just at the far right of the bell curve of women attracted to assholes.

Rappers swagger, make it obvious that women can't resist them, and they're typically in great shape.

They swagger, but I'm not sure their swagger is always distinguishable from their misogyny. I hypothesize that being misogynistic in the context of swagger reads as attractive masculinity to some women in some subcultures. I guess the question is what sorts of female fans these rappers would gain or lose if they weren't so misogynistic. I do think your hypothesis explains many or even most cases of female attraction to these guys; I just don't think it's the whole story. There are swaggering masculine guys who aren't misogynistic; why no go for them instead?

But it's unfair for a man to assume that every woman is going to do that, and I'd find it sad if a man compromised his more serious principles just to pick up the less self-aware women.

Agreed.

You can make yourself more attractive without becoming a person you'd hate.

That's the conclusion of my experience. Though part of the way that I do this is by trying to have the same mystique or bad boys and aesthetic appeal, just without actually being an asshole. For instance, the way I dress is partly inspired by villains in movies... though I've stopped short of wearing leather pants.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 October 2010 05:36:37PM 1 point [-]

For instance, the way I dress is partly inspired by villains in movies...

I've had some success while dressed as Darth Sideous... but I've got my suspicions that was despite not because. ;)

Can you give some examples of the sort of villains you are considering here?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 16 October 2010 02:24:22PM 0 points [-]

It's very odd that a lot of women find Snape attractive. Where does he fit into the theory?

Comment author: HughRistik 16 October 2010 09:09:59PM 5 points [-]

Masculinity + authority + sarcasm + disagreeableness is an attractive combination for a reasonable subset of women. Alan Rickman's looks and voice may help.

See also House, M.D. for another attractive character close by in the same region of guyspace.

Comment author: erratio 16 October 2010 07:56:16PM 2 points [-]

I would go with villain-type + played by Alan Rickman in the movies

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 16 October 2010 08:04:22PM 1 point [-]

The thing is, he's a medium-status villain. He's a teacher and not in charge of more than his classroom. He's not good-looking or well-dressed.

I believe he was the subject of a lot of fan fiction before the movies came out.

Comment author: erratio 16 October 2010 08:14:06PM 4 points [-]

Harry treated him as though he was a major villain though. He and Ron spend pretty much the whole series blaming him every time anything goes wrong. I'm guessing that simultaneously raised his villain-status and his misunderstood-guy-in-need-of-love status.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 October 2010 08:20:11PM 3 points [-]

The thing is, he's a medium-status villain. He's a teacher and not in charge of more than his classroom. He's not good-looking or well-dressed.

He is a lot higher status in the movies, purely due to the way he is acted. He exuded power.

I'll also note that Snape is in charge of a house and could reasonably be considered the third most powerful in Hogwarts. Given the role Hogwarts has in Magical Britain his status would seem to be rather high.

Comment author: arundelo 16 October 2010 08:24:21PM 4 points [-]

He's not good-looking or well-dressed.

He is a lot higher status in the movies

And he looks and talks like Alan Rickman!

Comment author: HughRistik 16 October 2010 09:25:46PM 2 points [-]

Also, the theory of female attraction to status is not so much about global status, but about local status in interactional contexts. That's part of why members of small-time crappy bands can do so well with women (that, plus good genes from being a musician). Global status in men is great, but local status is good enough, and it's more attainable.

Comment author: taryneast 09 March 2011 06:21:11PM 0 points [-]

I'll agree here. I didn't like him at all in the books, but after the movies...

Comment author: CronoDAS 17 October 2010 06:08:27AM *  1 point [-]

Oddly, after reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for the first time, long before any of the movies came out, I too found Snape to be oddly charismatic... sure, he seemed to hate Harry for no apparent reason and go out of his way to be mean to him, but he seemed interesting in a way that many of the other characters weren't. A hero who is consistently heroic is often a Flat Character and therefore boring.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 October 2010 09:12:00AM 1 point [-]

For me, bullies children = utterly revolting.

I'm surprised this isn't widely shared, but I seem to be an odd person in many respects.

Comment author: komponisto 17 October 2010 09:48:52AM *  6 points [-]

Your perspective is that of an adult, of course; but the Harry Potter books are children's literature, and thus (I presume) take a child's point of view on the world. Children often perceive adult authority figures as "mean" even when they are well within the bounds of what (adult) society considers to be acceptable behavior. Such "meanness", while unpleasant, is not something children are necessarily shocked by; they expect it in more or less the same way that adults expect "outrageous" actions from the government .

Comment author: wedrifid 17 October 2010 11:51:40AM 2 points [-]

Snape doesn't even beat the children does he? That puts him ahead of what has often been considered acceptable behaviour to direct towards children.

Comment author: gwern 18 October 2010 04:59:41PM *  1 point [-]

He mentally beats them - between the implied Legilimency and verbal humiliation, I think a lot of his students would have preferred the occasional physical slap or kick.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 October 2010 10:38:29AM 1 point [-]

Is your point that Harry isn't shocked by Snape's behavior, so that a good many readers aren't, either? I don't remember if Harry had a general opinion about Snape's viciousness.

The women who find Snape attractive aren't children themselves-- I don't know what the typical lower age limit for liking Snape is.

IIRC, Rowling hated the way Snape taught. She could have presented his nastiness as part of a useful toughening process, but she didn't.

Of course, as the books went on, not only did he eventually redeem himself, but (earlier) Umbridge made him look like a relatively less awful teacher.

Comment author: CronoDAS 17 October 2010 07:28:46PM 2 points [-]

I agree; Snape ought to have been revolting. I don't know why he wasn't.