Intelligence and kindness are the most valued traits in romantic partners, study finds

submitted by YoMamma from (psypost.org)

all 23 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]jerkwad152 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In ither news, cows go MOO, and water is wet.

[–]filbs111 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

What about big bazongas?

[–]CheeseWizard 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

AWOOGA

[–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's what all the university kids today want in a man.

[–]oorgias 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What people describe as intelligence and kindness, this means that a meaningless study on long term marriage-cucking now turns into a blackpill and shows women want submissive men.

[–]QueenBread 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

.....So you want stupidity and egoism?

[–]oorgias 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's infinitely better than being a STEM-cuck husband who has other men fuck his wife and is submissive to her.

[–]QueenBread 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah, I understand your point now.

[–]CheeseWizard 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Intelligence" and "kindness". Hah.
Intelligent facial structure, Intelligent height, and kindne$$...

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It shows women say they want weak, submissive men. The author acknowledges women lie about this.

However, the study is not without its limitations. “An important caveat of this study is that it was based on people’s reported preferences, and what they say they like may not match exactly what they are actually looking for,” Takayanagi noted.

[–]YoMamma[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

...weak, submissive

They ain't smart

[–]xoenix 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Gee, thanks "experts." Never would have guessed.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Saiditor

[–]YoMamma[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ROFL!

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I find faithfulness to be most important. Those, other two qualities can be more easily subverted for the purposes of self gain. And what do they mean by 'romantic partnership'? Does that mean 'sexual partners' or imply faithfulness at base? As these are characteristics that can be attributed to an orgy as well.

I'm reading too much into this fluff piece that just drones on. Like a million other time sinks I've seen before, this one is just talking in circles, leaving one to consider their own thoughts on the matter, more than any substance inherent within the article itself.

[–]YoMamma[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Agreed - faithfullness to partners who are intelligent and kind.

Here's the main finding:

The main takeaway of this study is that intelligence and kindness are the most desired traits of a partner, even in comparison to beauty, money or health.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Agreed - faithfullness to partners who are intelligent and kind.

But are you agreeing? Or are you agreeing, just to disagree? As your statment reads as a 'yes, but no'.

Over a thousand words of just repeating the premise of the title over and over again, flourished with unrelated statements.

The researchers also observed a diminishing return pattern for physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status. Beyond a specific threshold of physical appeal and financial standing, individuals placed less emphasis on these traits compared to others.

Another layer of complexity

But is it complex, or is this just thinly veiled conditioning guiding people to be skeptical of their partners, through emotion based reasoning?

≛

[–]YoMamma[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But is it complex, or is this just thinly veiled conditioning guiding people to be skeptical of their partners, through emotion based reasoning?

I don't think it's remarkably complex. You could survy 1000 people, asking them to rate their preferences for intellegence, kindness, beauty, money and health in a partner, and you'd likely get the same results. If we consider evolutionary models, the most competitive partner (for Darwin's competition of the species) would be the smartest. As for health, beauty and money, these aren't as important - I'd agrue - in long-term relationships as kindness.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You just keep looping back to the same established conclusion don't you? In so doing, you are not addressing the actual Question I asked. Which you took time to Quote, and then intentionally misinterpret. As I did not ask , 'is it complex?' I asked; " is this (article) just thinly veiled conditioning guiding people to be skeptical of their partners, through emotion based reasoning?"

[–]YoMamma[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

" is this (article) just thinly veiled conditioning guiding people to be skeptical of their partners, through emotion based reasoning?"

I ignored that question and and your first two questions because they're crazy. No, these researchers aren't assuming that they can condition populations with their research. Indeed, there are many studies like this that find different results.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Of course they are. Which is why you haven't blocked me, nor hit the 'disable inbox replies' button. There is no such thing as social engineering, and our reality is not managed at any level through constructs. Everything I have said is silly. You are right and I am wrong.

🤡🚗

[–]YoMamma[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This discussion isn't about us. It's about the results of that study. There is definitely social entineering, though not by these academics. Their report might be used by corporations that can use it for marketing. The marketers and wealthy consortiums are certainly engaged in social engineering. It's their bread and butter.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Right Of course. The topic I brought up in your thread. Is for you to decide through subversion, and not by simply ignoring it as off topic.

This discussion isn't about us

There is no 'us' bro. I asked Questions, you chose to subvert them in your replies.

The marketers and wealthy consortiums are certainly engaged in social engineering. It's their bread and butter.

To which you are now claiming this article can in no way be a part of. Even though we understand the Cosmopolitans means of writing articles to subvert relationships.

The site is named "psypost.org". Which can be interpreted as psychological posting.

And down the rabbit hole we go!

🐇🕳️