Is there a social hierarchy in the way we select mates?

[OinkBoink]

A is a man who is intelligent, handsome, musically talented and good at science. A1 is a girl who intelligent, pretty, musically talented and good at science.

B is a man who is intelligent, musically talented, good at science but not handsome. B1 is a girl who is intelligent, musically talented, good at science but not pretty.

C is a man who is intelligent, good at science but not handsome nor musically talented. C1 is a girl who is intelligent, good at science but not pretty nor musically talented

Ideally (probably), A, B and C would all want a girl like A1. Ideally (probably), A1, B1 and C1 would all want a man like A.

But A and A1 go for each other which leaves B and B1 no choice but to go for each other. C and C1 would want A1 and A respectively but they're already taken. So their next choice is B1 and B respectively. But they're taken too, so C and C1 end up with each other.

This is a very, very simplified view of how people choose mates that does not take into account a lot of other factors. But I hope you get my drift.

In real life A and A1 may choose C1 and C too respectively.

In short, we all want the best we can get but we're constrained by or make decisions based on other factors in life.

 

[cwjerome]

To whatever extent there are social hierarchies they are certainly not linear and more like a honeycomb, with varying blends depending on the context/person. In other words I doubt much in this matter is neatly arranged into objective categories and is applied equally with everyone.

The very last thing I would recommend is that everyone stay in their own social hierarchy, and thanks to my comment above, I don't think that would ever happen naturally.

 

[OinkBoink]

To whatever extent there are social hierarchies they are certainly not linear and more like a honeycomb, with varying blends depending on the context/person. In other words I doubt much in this matter is neatly arranged into objective categories and is applied equally with everyone.

The very last thing I would recommend is that everyone stay in their own social hierarchy, and thanks to my comment above, I don't think that would ever happen naturally.

Of course. Which is why I said that it was an incredibly simplified view. I just thought it would make for a neat discussion with some interesting ideas from people.

 

[Paul98]

People are attracted to and like different things, it's more about that.

 

[OinkBoink]

Yup. But what different people like isn't all that different in many cases. For instance, people say that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. And yes, beauty is subjective. But there seem to be commonalities between features which a large group of people find attractive. Many of the actors and actresses who are popular today wouldn't be as popular if they weren't perceived as attractive by a large number of people. Not everyone may find a given person attractive. But there are people who are perceived as attractive by many.

Same goes with intelligence.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So are we talking about statistics or individuals? As an individual if the circumstances are right "A" might choose any given person even C, but statistically he is most likely to actually be with A1. But, since we don't know just what factors cause A to choose who, we don't really know anything about what choices A will make.

Perhaps we see A and A1 together more often simply because they tend to be in the same places more often, both of them having similar interests. This would adequately explain the statistical evidence of A and A1 being coupled more often with out there having to be any social hierarchy at all.

We always have to be really careful that we don't confuse correlational relationships with causal ones.

 

[OinkBoink]

We always have to be really careful that we don't confuse correlational relationships with causal ones.

Yes.

 

[Moonbeam]

My opinion, worthless as it is, is that women do the choosing and men, being egotistical air heads, don't seem to see it.

 

[Murloc]

Perhaps we see A and A1 together more often simply because they tend to be in the same places more often, both of them having similar interests. This would adequately explain the statistical evidence of A and A1 being coupled more often with out there having to be any social hierarchy at all.

well social hierarchy could be introduced secondarily if those places are country clubs and such (money), or schools (intelligence, money only in some cases).

Generally I see that fat people tend to form couples with other fat people, but maybe it's because since they're fat they find fat more attractive or something.
Or maybe because once they're living together the non-fat partner invariably becomes fat because he starts eating the food that made the other partner fat in the first place.

 

[sm625]

People want someone they can relate to. Everyone wants to be with the A type but if you've been pissed on and shit on your whole life you are not going to relate to someone who has had it relatively easy. This will come out as soon as you have an argument. But sometimes none of that matters. Some people value the status that the relationship itself brings to them. They value it more than they value having someone they can actually relate to. IMO this is a major contributing factor to spousal abuse. Lack of relation leads to lack of respect, which in turn leads to resentment and abuse.