Spring Break
Attraction: It's The Same For Every Species
Ryan Tansey
Issue date: 6/9/08 Section: Commentary
Attraction. While many maintain that it is one of the world's most elusive concepts, it is actually one of its most easily quantifiable. Indeed, though many people seem determined to view human attraction as a matter of "fate" or "destiny," the truth is that human attraction, at its heart, is almost identical to all other animal attraction. Thus, human attraction is easily reduced to a Darwinian-like struggle for simple species survival. Indeed, if one delves a bit deeper into the confines of the human mind, it becomes apparent that human attraction is no different than the shallow, evolutionarily-based purpose that attraction serves for all species.
For starters, it is common psychological knowledge that the deep emotional bonds humans believe they feel with each other are attributable to nothing more than combinations of superficial characteristics that are appealing from an evolutionary standpoint. Examples of this are clear when one polls the characteristics both sexes deem as necessary in a long term partner. In men, some of the top traits valued in a long-term female partner are faithfulness, attractiveness and honesty. For women, the same obvious traits are valued, with one important evolutionary difference: wealth and financial stability are generally also found at the top of the list for most polled women. This qualitative difference between men and women in terms of attraction speaks to an important evolutionary influence on subconscious human emotion. It seems that, despite the advanced nature of our society and the self sustaining ability of most women, their brains are still somewhat wired to favor wealth (and, likely the security it comes with) over many other seemingly more important qualities.
Popular culture attempts to superficially dispel the myth that human emotion is nothing more then an evolutionary tool used for propagation of the species. Looking at classic movies such as "Sixteen Candles," one might believe that society has evolved to a point where a sweet, lovable loser can, in fact, get a date with the high school hottie. However, what one has to realize is that these are accounts of pure fiction, bearing no application to how reality actually functions. The lovable loser NEVER gets the hottie in the real world, because the loser does not possess the qualities that the opposite sex would view as evolutionarily dominant, and thus attractive in a potential mate. This is the reason someone like Angelina Jolie was attracted to someone like Billy Bob Thorton; it has nothing to do with her needing his wealth, but rather the fact that subconsciously, successful, wealthy men are more attractive to women in a general sense, regardless of what other seemingly desirable characteristics they might be lacking.
For starters, it is common psychological knowledge that the deep emotional bonds humans believe they feel with each other are attributable to nothing more than combinations of superficial characteristics that are appealing from an evolutionary standpoint. Examples of this are clear when one polls the characteristics both sexes deem as necessary in a long term partner. In men, some of the top traits valued in a long-term female partner are faithfulness, attractiveness and honesty. For women, the same obvious traits are valued, with one important evolutionary difference: wealth and financial stability are generally also found at the top of the list for most polled women. This qualitative difference between men and women in terms of attraction speaks to an important evolutionary influence on subconscious human emotion. It seems that, despite the advanced nature of our society and the self sustaining ability of most women, their brains are still somewhat wired to favor wealth (and, likely the security it comes with) over many other seemingly more important qualities.
Popular culture attempts to superficially dispel the myth that human emotion is nothing more then an evolutionary tool used for propagation of the species. Looking at classic movies such as "Sixteen Candles," one might believe that society has evolved to a point where a sweet, lovable loser can, in fact, get a date with the high school hottie. However, what one has to realize is that these are accounts of pure fiction, bearing no application to how reality actually functions. The lovable loser NEVER gets the hottie in the real world, because the loser does not possess the qualities that the opposite sex would view as evolutionarily dominant, and thus attractive in a potential mate. This is the reason someone like Angelina Jolie was attracted to someone like Billy Bob Thorton; it has nothing to do with her needing his wealth, but rather the fact that subconsciously, successful, wealthy men are more attractive to women in a general sense, regardless of what other seemingly desirable characteristics they might be lacking.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Mark
posted 6/09/08 @ 11:26 AM EST
What people are actually attracted to and what they SAY they are attracted to when some guy doing a survey asks them are 2 different things entirely. Most people have absolutely no idea what they're really attracted to, because its all emotional and done without conscious thought or choice. (Continued…)
Post a Comment