You would think that the genetics for shyness would have disappeared. By now everyone should be super outgoing and over-brimming with self confidence.
You would think that the genetics for shyness would have disappeared. By now everyone should be super outgoing and over-brimming with self confidence.
Probably no shyness gene per se, more like bad parenting. Maybe combined with some genetic predisposition toward sensitivity or passivity - not everyone can be alpha.
Why do you say women want assertive confident men? I know plenty who go for the shy-er type.
I have no scientific background but I would guess the following. Women want assertive, confident men because that is Alpha male behavior. Alpha males are those that are highest in the social hierarchy. Being rejected by a woman (or anyone in any way) lowers ones social status. Therefore, if a man is rejected he can no longer be Alpha, so men fear rejection and become shy. The only ones that remain self confident are those with past success or that have another source of social status (riches, sub 4 min mile, etc.)
alcohol
No matter what they say, or even who they are actually with, women want the alpha dog.
they want the guy with the most money, the smartest, the most successful, the best looking, etc...
All men want young women with large breasts and nice round booties... our biology dictates these things... our own short commings means we all settle for less.
Ideally, women need alpha-confident males to sire the offspring and beta-insecure males to raise them.
Some parents do not inspire confidence. Period.
tuesday wrote:
The only ones that remain self confident are those with past success or that have another source of social status (riches, sub 4 min mile, etc.)
Riiight.
Based on your theory, the most confident guys often get with the most desireable females, the moderately confident guys get with the moderately attractive females and the shy guys get with the least attractive females...but there is a lot more to procreation then confidence of the dude and physical attractiveness of the woman.
Clearly exposed by this message board is the indisputable fact that there is no such thing as a shy male runner. Confidence IS running. To run, you MUST be confident. All girls want successful men. Therefore runners rock and will apparently rule the world in no time. Hail to Haile!
Actually, isn't "shy guy" an oxymoron?
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.
I don't care what anyone says. If my ugly self suddenly was really "confident" and "assertive," girls would still not like me. You have to have a REASON to be confident, otherwise its not true confidence but just fake showing off that girls see right through. I'm ugly, I'll deal with it, and I'll adjust my dating prospects accordingly. But don't tell me or my ugly colleagues that it's our lack of confidence (like we have some mental defect) when it is really a physical defect we have no control over (asymmetry, small muscles, etc.).
ok, really... we used to have trouble getting people to understand and accept evolution as a viable theory for how animals interact...
but get serious! humans are much more complex than their animal counterparts! i think evolution determines our very "basic" needs, but it has nothing to do with our cultural needs. sure, it might direct them a little, but social Darwinism is NOT a real thing.
yes, looks, power, money, etc. have a lot to do with choosing a mate... but there are other reasons when it comes to homo sapiens, and i promise that not all men and women fall into the same category of attraction, yet babies are still made at astounding rates. if i see someone else use an evolutionary basis for this who has NO UNDERSTANDING of evolutionary biology at all, i will be assured that evolution has gone over, like Jesus and folk music, to the conservative public.
ah well.
tuesday wrote:
I have no scientific background but I would guess the following. Women want assertive, confident men because that is Alpha male behavior. Alpha males are those that are highest in the social hierarchy. Being rejected by a woman (or anyone in any way) lowers ones social status. Therefore, if a man is rejected he can no longer be Alpha, so men fear rejection and become shy. The only ones that remain self confident are those with past success or that have another source of social status (riches, sub 4 min mile, etc.)
Nah this is garbage. I've known several sub-4 milers who were not good with women as well as less successful (4:20-type) guys who could pull tail like nobody's business. The key with these particular 4:20 types is not that they never are rejected but that they honestly didn't give a shit. After a rejection it is always on to the next target. Usually these guys are annoyingly persistent.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Your problem is that you have no game.
but you just proved his point. Ask why he has no game. There in lies you answer - his explaination
Maybe shyness isn't genetic?
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".
Women want control. They'll try to change you no matter which way you are. If you're shy they'll try to get you to be more assertive. If you're assertive they'll try to get you to be more shy.
Isn't this really a nature vs. nurture issue? I do not believe shyness is genetic.
Ugly and shy people still have sex. Natural selection processes that one might expect don't always happen in the human race, possibly for good evolutionary reasons.