If people really fell in love for non-superficial reasons, shouldn’t we expect to see more couples who don’t match on superficial criteria such as age?
That is from Katja Grace. Which observable characteristic of a relationship is the best predictor of its expected depth and non-superficiality?
Age seems pretty non-superficial when it comes to the whole point of romantic relationships; family formation.
Age seems non-superficial, period.
Family formation is the whole point of romantic relationships in about the same sense that family formation is the whole point mountain climbing.
Age similarity is slightly less superficial than speaking the same language.
Don’t be cute, William. Family formation is much more directly related to romantic relationships than mountain climbing.
That’s not cute, that’s deliberately obtuse.
rich ugly people dating each other?
Wealth is not superficial.
We don’t see more age mismatched couples mainly because most people are conformists. Typical people don’t like to stand out in day to day situations. About the same reasons that I don’t wear pink shoes and an orange jacket.
You don’t wear pink shoes and an orange jacket because it would drastically increase the chance that your spouse would die before your kids graduate from high school?
Some unions may not be intended for procreation.
Of embarrassment, probably.
Hmmm…the reasons you don’t wear those are to conform? Not because you think they would look godawful?
Or to put it another way, you want to wear that, but you can’t yet work up the nerve?
I also agree that age isn’t superficial. I might want to have a non-superficial relationship with someone that lasts until we’re both in old age.
Net worth.
Who says age is superficial? Hobbies, musical taste, politics, attitude toward money, etc. are all closely associated with age. So while the number itself may be arbitrary, the qualities it represents are anything but.
Like others, I don’t see age as non-superficial. Indeed, if Ms. Grace made a list of superficial and non-superficial judgments, I suspect we would only be in the realm of opinion on many of them.
Intelligence differential. Use whatever measure you’d like, IQ, SAT score.
I would not call age superficial. It has a sound evolutionary basis. The genes of young men who had a preference for women past their reproductive prime are no longer with us.
On your question, the best predictor of non-superficiality is the presence of children.
If the desire to produce low-fidelity copies of a string of digital information isn’t a superficial basis for a relationship, then I don’t know what is.
Regular folks call these “children.” For many, they are one of the primary personal projects that gives at least their life meaning and purpose.
There are a great many things you don’t know.
Would you call physical attractiveness non-superficial? The bias for those who are physically attractive also has a sound evolutionary basis. Physical attractiveness is a strong marker of health.
I agree that age isn’t superficial – but also – who says that people don’t fall in love for superficial reasons? Initial attraction – including look, manner of dress, and smell (not sure if the latter is superficial or not) obviously matters, definitely for the probability of getting to know someone enough to fall in love, but likely also for the actual probability of falling in love. .
It seems MR readers understand, and Ms. Grace doesn’t understand, the whole concept of unobserved variables being correlated with observed variables (age).
That’s the sort of thing you’d expect from someone as young as she is.
Age isn’t just deep in an evolutionary sense. Any decent theory of culture would suggest that age is a good predictor of common interests. Similar age also increases the probability that they met in some non-superficial, even cultural context, since people tend to associate with people of similar ages all the way up to the middle of a working life. So age is quite deep in the sense that it reflects shared experiences.
Really, the first question is not sound.
My initial reaction is: occupation. This ties together a lot of aspects of social status as well as education levels and various interests.
Crap, it’s too late to make a joke about the couple that gets raptured together, stays together.
But in seriousness, I’d guess that common religion has some correlation with the length of a relationship, but I think we’d first have to define “depth” and “non-superficiality” before we could come anywhere close to those answers, as evidenced by the many disagreements about age already shown above.
What is the difference between superficial and non-superficial? The distinction is superficial.
Superficial is anything that society bases decisions on; but is ashamed to publicly admit it is doing so.
dirk and Rahul nailed it. When we think superficial, we think money or looks, e.g. “he’s dating her because she’s hot” or “she’s dating him because he’s rich. However, when you break it down and pinpoint precise reasons, all reasons for dating someone start to seem superficial. For example, “she’s dating him because he’s funny, which allows her a source of entertainment and is also evolutionary-speaking an indicator of mental agility, and also because he’s a supplier of attention and validation, which would signal a willingness to provide resources for her and potential offspring.” It is only because we don’t think too intensely about why exactly people are dating each other that the underlying reasons are allowed to hide behind the veil of “non-superficial.”
I disagree that age is superficial. I want a spouse who has lived through similar times to me, who has a similar life expectancy, and who can go through life’s transitions at the same time I do.
I guess you could say that makes me superficial, but I wouldn’t agree.
“as evidenced by the many disagreements about age already shown above.”
Everybody up there agrees about age. The only different opinion is the one of the author.
If a trait is relevant only so far as it is a good predictor of other relevant traits; does that make the base trait superficial or non-superficial?
“Which observable characteristic of a relationship is the best predictor of its expected depth and non-superficiality?”
Duration so far.
Second choice: net worth of joint property minus net worth of separate property.
(net worth of joint property – net worth of separate property) / net worth of joint property
Average words exchanged per day, weighted by the length of the words.
The best indicator of a non-superficial relationship is probably a large discrepancy in attractiveness between the couple. Though this would mainly measure the more attractive person’s superficiality.
a large discrepancy in attractiveness between the couple
Measured how? By asking them to rate each other? Some jury of third-party raters (who will probably disagree with each other)?
An observable characteristic of a relationship that predicts its expected depth and non-superficiality: time content in each other’s presence without exchanging words. I suppose the ‘content’ part may be hard to observe.
My uncle used to say: “my dream woman is a 90-60-90: 90 years of age, 60 days to live and with 90 million in her bank account.”
This joke works better in metric countries.
A lot of matching between couples reflects the way they found their mates, not anything deeper. When people meet at college, they typically have comparable educational backgrounds, intelligence, family social status, and of course they went to the same school. And yet, it’s not like there’s some inherent reason why University of Maryland graduates are more compatible with one another than with, say, Iowa State graduates. It’s just that when it was biologically and socially time to start finding a mate, that University of Maryland guy was surrounded by women who were at the same school. Similarly, if you meet your mate at work, you’re likely to share an occupation or field, educational background, social status of your job, etc. If you meet your mate at church, you’ll presumably share a religion and a level of religious interest and some surrounding values. And so on.
I not only see age as non-superficial, but when I see couples that differ greatly on age I infer that there is probably some especially superficial reason for them being together (e.g. Hef).
But Katja does make a good point, it’s just that the relevant data point is looks, not age. You rarely see people horribly mismatched in looks unless there is some mitigating differential.
I think you quite often see unattractive wealthy men with very attractive mates. Relative wealth is likely the primary mitigating differential. Is that superficial?
Attraction to wealth above some threshold certainly meets the criteria for superficiality in my mind, as wealth beyond a certain point has little correlation (probably negative) with reproductive success. Certainly one of the most superficial things is having a high rate of marginal substitution from other factors for wealth (think Iscariot).
The only thing that is non-superficial are outcomes. But we’ve spent so much time evaluating attributes which influence outcomes that now attributes themselves are considered more relevant and “realer” than outcomes, so when outcomes don’t correlate with what are thought to be relevant attributes, the outcomes — not the attributes — are regarded with suspicion.
This is a nice point, though hard to investigate. If we look at likelihood of divorce, bankruptcy, raising of successful children, pleasant retirement, financial stability, or just plain happiness, that’s probably a good measure of whether the stuff that holds the couple together is important or superficial. Though maybe it just means that superficial stuff works fine–a sexually compatible couple where the man makes enough money and the woman keeps a good house might work fine even without a bunch of deep, abiding connections between them in terms of religion or upbringing or whatever–I don’t know.
If age compatibility were only about shared assumptions and references, then we’d see two things I don’t think we see so often:
a. Couples where the man is 50 and the woman 40 would be no more common than couples where the man is 40 and the woman is 50.
b. Couples very far apart in age (60 year old man with 30 year old woman) would be no less common than couples of about the same age, but born in different cultures, say American/Brazilian or English/Chinese couples.
Clearly, a big part of the role of age differences here is simply about planning a future together. Being relatively close in age means that you’ll be ready for kids around the same time, you’ll age together, etc. If you want kids, the woman has a much more narrow age window for that than the man in any event–marry a woman at 40, and you’ll be needing to have any kids you want very soon, ready or not. If the woman wants to stay home with the kids, having a man who’s pretty well established in his field and job when she’s ready to have kids is a big help, and that supports having the man be the same age or a little older.
Another big part seems to be attractiveness (20 year old men usually don’t pursue 40 year old women, for a reason). That seems likely to be burned in and biological, though I imagine it would be hard to completely convince yourself of that.
Agree with albatross, if age were truly about commonalities and references, the age gaps between men and women in couples would be independent of gender. To some extent it is about biology, or more precisely, at least a societal difference in the ages at which men and women typically wish to add children to their lives, preferences that are at least partly driven by the differing effect of age on fertility. (How many men have I met in their early thirties who won’t date women their own age, simply because while they want kids some day, they don’t want them soon?)
I’d say that the best indicator of the depth of the relationship is the quality of the interaction between two individuals, and the extent to which one enjoys being in the company of them together — admittedly a better indicator as relationship duration increases.
In other words, the humans are to be encouraged to regard as the basis for marriage a highly coloured and distorted version of something the Enemy really promises as its result. Two advantages follow. In the first place, humans who have not the gift of continence can be deterred from seeking marriage as a solution because they do not find themselves “in love,” and, thanks to us, the idea of marrying with any other motive seems to them low and cynical. Yes, they think that. They regard the intention of loyalty to a partnership for mutual help, for the preservation of chastity, and for the transmission of life, as something lower than a storm of emotion.
Female minus male height, positively correlated.
Female minus male age, positively correlated linearly, negative correlated in the cube.
This is great. Can we add female BMI minus male BMI at the start of the relationship?
Heh. Funny how many assumptions that “relationship” is taken to mean “lifetime reproductive relationship.” If the only valid romantic relationship is one that leads to raising children then yeah, past a certain point age can be a critical factor. Or would be if there wasn’t such an incredibly large history from 19th and 20th Century Ireland and India to contemporary Afghanistan and southern Utah to Imperial Rome of men waiting till their 30s and 40s to marry girls as young as their early teens. (And even then “romance” probably isn’t the right word.)
There’s also something sweet about commenters who in other contexts might speak with brusque assurance about men’s “natural” promiscuity and women who “trade up” taking lifelong monogamy as a given.
In fact, though, I’m given to understand that many human romantic and sexual relationships are *not* reproductive. Not even all the sexual ones where pregnancy avoidance technology was low. And so when Jason Collins says something like “the genes of young men who had a preference for women past their reproductive prime are no longer with us” he’s omitting a great deal of… let’s call it social, relational, and reproductive nuance. In human society, preparing for let alone insuring the successful survival of one’s offspring has generally depended on more than a single, isolated partner.
figleaf
“In fact, though, I’m given to understand that many human romantic and sexual relationships are *not* reproductive. Not even all the sexual ones where pregnancy avoidance technology was low.”
Not every field goal attempt taken by a basketball players goes in, but the aim of the FGA is what? Just because not all relationships result in offspring, even in pre-contraception eras, doesn’t mean they don’t involve reproductive “goals.”
If age is not superficial, and reproductive success is the goal, then shouldn’t we get behind and praise the man who leaves his menopausal wife for a 21 year old (or any pre-menopausal woman)? After all, he’s trading up in terms of possible reproductive success. So, a man’s interest in much younger women is even more deep and profound than I ever realized.
figleaf:
Many romantic and sexual relationships are not reproductive, including all same-sex relationships (though the stable pair bond may support raising kids) and pretty much all relationships where the woman is over 45 or so. But in evolutionary terms, non-reproductive relationships only matter to the extent they help with survival of offspring, kin, or ingroup members, right? If those same-sex or autumn/autumn relationships help hold the tribe together, or make sure the grandkids or nephews and nieces get watched, they will have some effect on fitness and be selected for at some level.
Obviously, there’s plenty of important human experience that probably has little or nothing to do with selection and fitness, other than being “unintended” products of the unthinking processes that have shaped us. Math, art, and philosophy probably don’t bring about more offspring, make the tribe tougher to kill off, make us more resistant to disease, etc., but I’m not too keen to give them up in favor of some Protector-like obsessive guarding of my gene-line.
Nicely said, Albatross. Two human parents alone in a cave can (often) manage to raise offspring to maturity. But two parents integrated into a much larger community can typically raise a lot more offspring to maturity. Even in circumstances where the partners aren’t able to Ozzie and Harriet their children. This despite the fact that, as you say, not every single act in the community can be said to have direct reproductive value to individual partners.
“But two parents integrated into a much larger community can typically raise a lot more offspring to maturity.”
Indeed, especially with income redistribution to allow individuals to have more kids along the Malthusian trap.
Age relates directly to maturity. How is that superficial?
Goals. The best predictor is having similar goals. When you have different goals it pulls you apart. It doesn’t matter if you come from from different places. What matters is whether you’re going in the same direction now and into the future.
Perhaps the goal of being popular contains the best predictor of expected depth and non-superficiality. The amount of small talk between the couple and others may be the observable link.
The journey is what makes it deep. Having similar goals is just the predictor.
I don’t see how age is superficial. 11 year olds have different personalities to 50 year olds.
If a 50 year old goes for an 11 year old, superficiality is the least of his problems.
I think a point that is being missed here is that non-reproductive couples- whether homosexual or heterosexual- might actually serve the evolutionary process in their own right.
Isn’t it possible that a certain proliferation of homosexual coupling would help keep population growth to a manageable level?
And isn’t it equally possible that non-reproducing heterosexual couples might be- however accidentally- helping to eliminate undesirable genes from the local gene pool?
Gay people have no effect on the population levels. There aren’t that many of us and many of us procreate. Being gay doesn’t mean being sterile. We have fully functional reproductive systems just like straight people. Gay men and lesbians can even procreate with each other. All they have to do is either bite the bullet and have sex, or get a turkey baster (although needless syringes work better). If a person wants a biological child and has a functioning reproductive system, they’ll have one. It really is not that difficult to make a baby. Raising a child, however, does take a village.
Gay people often refer to each other as “family”. Even gay people they don’t know. In fact, it has long been a codeword. In social situations where you can’t say “they’re gay,” we say “they’re family.” Familial bonds don’t necessarily depend on biological bonds. (Obviously, since every non-incestual romantic couple whether homosexual or heterosexual is comprised of two people who aren’t closely related.) Biological bonds don’t even necessarily translate to familial bonds, as any gay person who was disowned by their biological family the moment they came out can tell you.
If there’s any evolutionary purpose for the existence of gay people, it’s to teach humanity that the necessity of family isn’t just genetic.Gay people, as a group, have evolved. We didn’t used to be a community. We became a community out of necessity–to save each other and save future generations of gay people. Don’t you see how we fight for each other?
Many AIDS activists in the 80s and 90s were lesbians, the ones with the least risk of contracting it, while society at large turned a blind eye so long as it was mostly just killing gay men. The driving philosophy behind coming out is to make it easier for other gay people to come out and serve as a lifeline. We’ve changed society not just for ourselves, but so future generations of gay kids won’t have to go through what we went through. When I hear of some gay kid committing suicide, I feel a sense of loss. I grieve for gay people who get beaten to death, commit suicide, overdose on drugs, or die of an epidemic that was allowed to spread because not enough people cared. And one might say I should care as much about everyone whether they’re gay or straight. But the hurt comes from knowing that person likely would not have died if people closer to them had cared. The reason people around them didn’t care is because they care less about whether gay people live or die probably because they don’t think gay people serve any purpose to society–evolutionary or otherwise. Community, and the communal bond, is absolutely essential to survival because it makes us care about each other. That’s the function of love and empathy.
Besides, humans evolve as a group, not simply in the act of passing genes from biological parent to child. We pass on our knowledge, our technology, our civilization onto the next generation. The father of computer science was a gay man, Alan Turing. We give birth to more than just children.
I don’t think much gay bashing is done by people who have spent a lot of time thinking about the evolutionary implications of hereditary homosexuality. My rather uninformed guess is that it’s mostly thugs looking for easy targets–being a socially acceptable object of hatred and mistreatment means you’re an easy target.
There are interesting questions surrounding genetic predisposition to homosexuality and how it could be preserved by evolution. I think those are much less hard to work out for lesbians, since it’s easy to see how a woman could prefer women for sex, but still end up having a few kids via the family-arranged or tribally-mandated marriage. Womens’ reproduction is much more rate-limited by resources (too many kids means they starve or otherwise perish for lack of care) than by sex. But for a man, a tendency to prefer men to women for sex seems like it *has* to decrease his fitness in genetic terms, even if he does his biological/tribal duty and produces a couple kids via *his* family-arranged or tribally-mandated marriage. (Note that “fitness” here isn’t a moral distinction, but a bookkeeping one–how many offspring do you expect to have survive you?)
Now, like I said above, there’s lots of stuff in human behavior that doesn’t really seem to be about fitness, and maybe homosexuality is like math or philosophy or art, in that it’s just an emergent property of the kind of complicated brains we have. Perhaps the fitness cost of each of these things is simply too hard to avoid by any changes that evolution can reach–too many genes needing the right simultaneous mutation or something. Or maybe homosexualty (and math, philosophy, art, etc.) are side-effects of stuff that does increase fitness a great deal, and getting rid of them costs more than it’s worth. (Think about allergies–they impose a serious cost, sometimes kill people, and yet getting rid of IgE in a world full of parasites is probably a big lose.)
The presumed genes to keep the overall population level down are suicidal. If you deliberately try to engineer such group selection you wind up with cannibalism instead. If you want to understand the lack of reproduction among some, ask Greg Cochran.
Cochran probably thinks feminism is caused by a pathogen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, lowers birth rate like gender equality.
Gender equality’s not causing lower birth rates. Widespread knowledge of contraception coupled with the understanding that less kids means a higher standard of living for each kid (employing K selection instead of r selection) causes lower birth rates. Gender equality just happens to be collinear with what I just described.
Clever sillies.
For highly social animals like humans, everything is signalling, and therefore either fundamentally superficial or fundamentally not-superficial, depending on your point of view.
Well, the low-fidelity aspect is one of the major forces behind evolution.
Also, from the perspective of a normal human being, and like ck said, it’s not about the information for the information’s sake, it’s about what the information does, who it becomes, the new dimension of experience that it adds to your life.
How is age not superficial? Superficial characteristics are those you can see on the surface, and you can definitely make an accurate guess at someone’s age just by looking at them (no 45 year old looks 25). Sure other characteristics might correlate with age, but not as much as some people here seem to think. Within any age range you’re going to find a wide range musical tastes, political views, morals, beliefs, intelligence levels, etc. Trust me, you have more in common with 1% of people 20 years older/younger than you than 95% of people your own age. It seems like some people here are trying to justify dating/marrying someone their own age. Even educated people in the 21st century want to believe that they are with their partner for higher, non-superficial reasons.
A lot of people also seem to be making the assumption that because it has an evolutionary purpose it isn’t superficial. This is ridiculous. We have evolved to respond to superficial characteristics- height, physical attractiveness, age, curves for women, etc. We respond to things we can see much more than abstractions. A man driving a Ferrari with $5k in the bank will probably pull more women than a man driving a 94 Camry with $50 million in the bank. A 25 year old woman will have a lot more dates than a 45 year old woman, and few of them care if they have more in common with the older woman. This is all based on superficial judgements. This is not to say that there is not a good reason for using these superficial judgements or that they don’t signal other important traits, but very few people dig to see if those other traits are actually there. The superficial traits are usually enough.
As for observable characteristics to predict depth, Karl Smith’s ideas might be good “Female minus male height, positively correlated. Female minus male age, positively correlated linearly, negative correlated in the cube.” or TallDave’s average number of words exchanged per day.
This shows which they last very much lengthier and thus saving you income which could otherwise are actually utilized to purchase new ones.
00260
Comments on this entry are closed.