If women want assertive confident men, why are there so many shy people?

Exactly. Human attraction and sexual behavior cannot be pigeon holed into a rudimentary evolutionary framework. I'll certainly concede that physical traits such as symmetry, strength, paedomorphism, etc., generally contribute to one's "attractiveness", however social and cultural forces are at least equal in power when it comes to human attraction.

As one post mentioned, it is a general belief that women want to have the offspring of the alpha male, while having the beta-male sire that offspring and provide resources and protection for them. This is seen in lower primates, but in humans, even if it is a desirable outcome for the female, it is nearly impossible because of the social stigma involved with such behavior and the fact that it is fairly easily nowadays to determine the paternity of a child. Therefore this simplistic view of mate choice is untenable in humans.

As for the original question re. shyness, it would make sense that our monogamous society would foster genes promoting sensitivity. While alpha males may have sex with many women, their genes are not getting passed on bc of birth control. The so-called "betas" who settle down and have a family are the ones with more reproductive success ultimately.

naturalSelection wrote:

You would think that the genetics for shyness would have disappeared. By now everyone should be super outgoing and over-brimming with self confidence.

I don't think shyness is genetic. It's more of a lack of confidence and uncertainty usually compells you withdraw yourself from social opportunities for fear of more rejection or rejection in general.

That used to be my reasoning when I was shy but just said "screw em" and let go. I've never been happier.

Shyness may also have to do with personality type and preference.

In some cases, personality and career may go hand in hand. In my company, an engineer is much more likely to be shy/introverted, and a sales guy extroverted. Is the sales guy more likely to be "successful"? It depends on your definition. The sales guy will measure it on commission, number of contacts, parties, etc (connections with others). The engineer will measure it on patents, innovations, jobs done (figured out by himself).

Both can be profitable, both can be attractive and both can be alpha in their own way. The engineer is arguably going to be more educated, possibly having the better degree and be the one to "create" the company. The sales guy will be the one doing the selling, getting it through to the end.

If you're shy and you don't have any skills and don't have plans/goals/objectives you are going to suffer.

agree. don't equate introvert/shy with no confidence. I know people who are very 'shy' yet also very capable and self-assured.

Im

shy

good looking (not great looking)

not super rich (100k/yr)

I get chicks

There is a big difference between "getting chicks" and women wanting you for a husband.

Off the Grid wrote:

SimpleJack wrote:

All men want young women with large breasts and nice round booties..

Speak for yourself friend...thats a nice way to describe, "Fat Chick".

Pam Anderson's fat, Carmen Electra fat, Scarlette Johansen fat? Maybe you're one of these guys that likes their females to look like a skinny 12 year old boy but most of the history of the hetrosexual world differs with you.

Shyness is still around because a man or woman has his or her whole life to be shy, while for just one drunken moment do they have to be doing the squelchy to pass it on.

People should just have and shut up.

Getting attractive woman is all about looks or (money/power). It has nothing to do with game. Certain guys eventually realize they don't have the looks that most (attractive) American girls want so they become more and more shy. I am a relatively funny, nice, confident guy...but the classic attractive girls won't have anything to do with me. In my life I have never had an "attractive" American woman show any interest in me. Fortunately I have had many very nice/sweet/smart girls who are not considered attractive show interest and also many non-American women express interest. I think that many men eventually realize that they are not going to get the "classic attractive type"

hardy weinberg wrote:

As one post mentioned, it is a general belief that women want to have the offspring of the alpha male, while having the beta-male sire that offspring and provide resources and protection for them. This is seen in lower primates, but in humans, even if it is a desirable outcome for the female, it is nearly impossible because of the social stigma involved with such behavior and the fact that it is fairly easily nowadays to determine the paternity of a child. Therefore this simplistic view of mate choice is untenable in humans.

I read that paragraph three times trying to figure out what it means. Either something doesn't make sense, or I'm even denser than I thought. If a woman wants to have the offspring of an alpha male, why would she have a beta male sire that child? Perhaps you meant to say that she wants the alpha male to provide the DNA, while the beta male provides care and protection.

Money, power, and/or charisma can get an average guy pretty much any girl he wants.

That's just a fact, I've seen it many many times over.

yeah, I think by "sire" he meant "raise", though it actually means beget

As for the original question re. shyness, it would make sense that our monogamous society would foster genes promoting sensitivity. While alpha males may have sex with many women, their genes are not getting passed on bc of birth control. The so-called "betas" who settle down and have a family are the ones with more reproductive success ultimately.[/quote]

.... ultimately leading to an appreciative effect on the gene pool in around 100,000 years, because that is the timescale of evolution. Will women still be using the pill then?

Have to make sure we only talk about social concepts that have been / will be around for a long long time (I think the concept of an alpha male qualifies). Everything shorter is irrelevant in a discussion about evolution.

lol. You guys think about this stuff waaaay too much.

let me help you out with women and what they want.

first rule of women:

women have no idea what they want, or what they want changes from day to day.

my woman has a thing for clint eastwood westerns - fist full of dollars, the good the bad and the ugly, etc. where clint sports the scruffy beard. she likes the beard - as soon as i grow out the scruff beard, she makes me shave it off ... ewww i don't like it, its all itchy ... tis but one of many examples.

Maybe she just likes how he cocks his gun.

There will always be ugly people who will have to settle for what ever is around. It isn't like the animal world where undesireable/disadvantageous traits may not be passed on to the next generation. And for the record, I'm all about those tiny skinny girls! I hope I get the chance to propogate their genes!

correlation, not causation wrote:

Personally, I think confidence matters, but its not the confidence that gets these \"alpha\" men the ladies. It is their good looks. If a guy is good looking, they will get attention from the ladies (particularly in the formative years of ages 11-15). After getting enough attention through their adolescence, they will naturally get confident. Then, everyone sees these confident and assertive guys getting ladies, and people \"oh, it must be their confidence/assertiveness that gets them girls.\" Nope, it is their good looks that gets them the ladies; their confidence is just another thing that is the natural result of being good looking.

so what do you make of guys that have an awkward stage at 11-15 but get grow out of it and get good looking after? Are you saying all confidence or non-confidence is established within those 4 years?

This is dead wrong. The ancestral environment determines our current genetic predisposition and in that AND the current environment, humans are both openly and surreptitiously promiscuous. Concealed ovulation and the fact that 98% of male sperm can't and don't inseminate the egg but block and attack other male sperm are clear evidence of this competition for insemination. Read "Sperm Wars" by Robin Baker, and you will never buy into the simplistic notions of modern "monogamy" ever again.

hardy weinberg wrote:

As one post mentioned, it is a general belief that women want to have the offspring of the alpha male, while having the beta-male sire that offspring and provide resources and protection for them. This is seen in lower primates, but in humans, even if it is a desirable outcome for the female, it is nearly impossible because of the social stigma involved with such behavior and the fact that it is fairly easily nowadays to determine the paternity of a child. Therefore this simplistic view of mate choice is untenable in humans.