[Stelmaria]

Moral Virtues are Sexy. :wink:

http://hss.caltech.edu/~steve/miller.pdf

"Sexual selection for moral virtues"

Abstract.
Moral evolution theories have emphasized kinship, reciprocity, group selection, and equilibrium selection. Yet, moral virtues are also sexually attractive. Darwin suggested that sexual attractiveness may explain many aspects of human morality. This paper updates his argument by integrating recent research on mate choice, person perception, individual differences, costly signaling, and virtue ethics. Many human virtues may have evolved in both sexes through mutual mate choice to advertise good genetic quality, parenting abilities, and/or partner traits. Such virtues may include kindness, fidelity, magnanimity, and heroism, as well as quasi‐moral traits like conscientiousness, agreeableness, mental health, and intelligence. This theory leads to many testable predictions about the phenotypic features, genetic bases, and social‐cognitive responses to human moral virtues.

The paper discusses a few things, how moral virtues can reflect mate fitness with regards to various dimensions. The association of moral virtues with other characteristics such as personality and intelligence. The finding that specific moral virtues are associated with higher sexual attractiveness or relationship stabilization, though the paper suggest it is unclear what this implies - does it suggest they have good genes, or will be good partners, or will be good parents. The author also asks the question, Could sexual choosiness itself be a moral virtue? (The article becomes a bit more colourful towards the end, so I will stop here.)

My questions are,:

Do you try to conspicuously display any moral virtues that you may have, to be attractive to potential mates?

To what degree do you seek moral virtues in potential mates? Are you more likely to be attracted if these traits are conspicuously displayed (along with other conspicuous displays of status). Or do you prefer if such virtues are present but more subtle and only displayed for an important purpose?

Do you think this is an important selection factor in your country or do you think it is often overlooked?

 

[bellisaurius]

I find morality and disgust tend to pretty linked in most folks, and that the feeling you get when you don't respect someone is also a repulsion feeling, so I think the morality issue definitely can come into play. I just think that it usually doesn't because people tend to go out with people who aren't culturally all that different. Or, perhaps, most of our moralities aren't unrecognizable to each other.

As to immoral people, well early in a relationship, they're under such a favorable light that I think we would overlook so many transgressions that morality doesn't come into play until a ways down the road.

 

[onebelo]

im not sure i fully understand your point here

relatableness = more likely to mate

that can be through ethics, values, job type, religion, location

seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Sina]

I am reading the article as I type, and I will likely have more to say once I've read it.

But, I will answer your questions anyway. I'd like to see how they end up in relation to the findings/evidence provided in the paper.
I am amoral, but in keeping with the subject, I will be using the term "moral virtues".


Do you try to conspicuously display any moral virtues that you may have, to be attractive to potential mates?

Very good question. I am kind, determined and unafraid of taking a stand/helping someone in need. I don't put any special effort into displaying these "moral virtues", but I do display these as and when the situation demands.

When I was younger (16-19), I wasn't completely able to critique the pointlessness of gender roles. The first guy I dated expressed that he was intimidated by me (my 'masculinity'). So, as an experiment of sorts, I decided to act more traditionally feminine around him to gauge his responses. I put on a rather pretentious display of nurturing behaviour etc. I wasn't doing it to attract him, per se. It's more like I wanted him to learn that trying to compel me to act conventionally "feminine" (virtues aren't gender specific at all, but some are associated with women) was going to come across as unnatural, forced and, decidedly, unattractive. He got my point.

To what degree do you seek moral virtues in potential mates? Are you more likely to be attracted if these traits are conspicuously displayed (along with other conspicuous displays of status). Or do you prefer if such virtues are present but more subtle and only displayed for an important purpose?


I want to know if my partner is compassionate, courageous, determined, rational and so on. I am likely to be attracted to these traits when they're displayed on a circumstantial basis or as a constant, and this depends on the type of virtue (kindness, determination and rationality would be good examples of the latter). It's not about subtlety or conspicuousness. It's about authenticity.



Do you think this is an important selection factor in your country or do you think it is often overlooked?

Well, it's an important selection factor for me. As for country, people are becoming more materialistic and superficial globally. At any rate, such "moral" traits are far more important than money and appearance. People need to realize that.

 

[aef8234]

Derpaherpderp.

 

[Wellsy]

Some ladies just want a good man reow!

 

[angelfish]

Yes, moral virtues are sexy!

Do you try to conspicuously display any moral virtues that you may have, to be attractive to potential mates?

Not when I'm alone, acting individually. When I have a target mate/partner, I do emphasize whatever I know to be attractive to them.

To what degree do you seek moral virtues in potential mates? Are you more likely to be attracted if these traits are conspicuously displayed (along with other conspicuous displays of status). Or do you prefer if such virtues are present but more subtle and only displayed for an important purpose?

I am very attracted by values similar to mine and I definitely look for them in partners. I like the walk to match the talk - it's great if they're very open about their values as long as they're acting on those values in accordance with how much they talk about them. I don't really want them to hide their values - because I like when people overtly try to change the world - and I definitely don't want someone who is a lot of hot air.

Do you think this is an important selection factor in your country or do you think it is often overlooked?

I think it's more important than people in my country (US) tend to discuss outwardly. Generally in very stable, longterm serious relationships people reference values as a reason they appreciate their partners, even though it seems like the more superficial criteria are more talked about when it comes to dating. But, then, dating is more temporal anyway.

 

[tanstaafl28]

Yeah, I include my moral virtues in my mating ritual because I want to attract a quality mate.






(Said no one ever) :exterminate:



Point is, you spend time with someone. You get to know them. You figure out where their lines are drawn. They figure out where yours are. You see whether they match up enough with yours whether you still have the hots for them after the comparison (or not). Sometimes you don't figure it out right away. Other times you do. Attraction and relationships is more of an art than a science. It is very subjective and therefore, extremely difficult to quantify.

 

[VinnieBob]

Morals?

 

[Meliodas]

I want to make the following caution:

People who live a good life are sexy. People whose life is telling other people to live a good life are not.

 

[AnneM]

I want to make the following caution:

People who live a good life are sexy. People whose life is telling other people to live a good life are not.

Well said!

 

[Wellsy]

Moralizers, or as I’d call em, wowsers really are uptight cunts who clearly do not understand the good life or how to be good.

 

[AnneM]

Yay!! Wellsy said cunts!!!

 

[Cat Pirate]

Wouldn't anyone want to be with a good person who will help them in life? And if you have very different morals you won't get along. I'm all too familiar with the homophobia some churches teach. I also think it would be hard to have a relationship with someone who wildly parted from your cultural ways. I would feel uncomfortable with most people than my own wife, to start with, but I doubt I could have gotten to know her if she was cruel to animals or if she prayed seven times a day on a genie carpet. No offense to those people (well not to the praying people) but how would we even relate?

 

[Meliodas]

Wouldn't anyone want to be with a good person who will help them in life? And if you have very different morals you won't get along. I'm all too familiar with the homophobia some churches teach. I also think it would be hard to have a relationship with someone who wildly parted from your cultural ways. I would feel uncomfortable with most people than my own wife, to start with, but I doubt I could have gotten to know her if she was cruel to animals or if she prayed seven times a day on a genie carpet. No offense to those people (well not to the praying people) but how would we even relate?

I don't really care whether you agree with my ideas, which means I can (at least in theory) be friends with Muslims, evangelical Christians, feminists, climate change activists, all of whom would have very different perspectives on life to me. What I tend to judge people on is their affect and their openness: whether someone is warm, enthusiastic, playful, entertaining and not easily offended. So in reality I have very few friends from the above groups of people, but that is not because I disagree with their views; it is because of the unpleasant personality traits that tend to accompany those views.

Fi valuers tend to judge people on the former (e.g. all homophobes are bad, regardless of whether the person is nice, funny, intelligent, attractive etc) while Fe valuers judge on the latter (e.g. all criticism and spitefulness is bad, regardless of the person's beliefs and intentions).

In a Fe heavy group it is vital to grow and ideally embellish an emotional affect, even if it's not one the group expects (whether that's joy, anger, sadness, lust, serenity or whatever else). Strong Fi users often come across as cold, intolerant and mean-spirited people to me.

 

[contradictionary]

Interesting question in OP.

It is sexy if and only if these two conditions are met:
1. They are genuine and as consistent as any mortal can possibly do. Walk the talk. Or else!
2. They are not being forcefuly imposed to others. You can always try to sell but you better make it enticing. Or else!

 

[Cat Pirate]

I don't really care whether you agree with my ideas, which means I can (at least in theory) be friends with Muslims, evangelical Christians, feminists, climate change activists, all of whom would have very different perspectives on life to me. What I tend to judge people on is their affect and their openness: whether someone is warm, enthusiastic, playful, entertaining and not easily offended. So in reality I have very few friends from the above groups of people, but that is not because I disagree with their views; it is because of the unpleasant personality traits that tend to accompany those views.

Fi valuers tend to judge people on the former (e.g. all homophobes are bad, regardless of whether the person is nice, funny, intelligent, attractive etc) while Fe valuers judge on the latter (e.g. all criticism and spitefulness is bad, regardless of the person's beliefs and intentions).

In a Fe heavy group it is vital to grow and ideally embellish an emotional affect, even if it's not one the group expects (whether that's joy, anger, sadness, lust, serenity or whatever else). Strong Fi users often come across as cold, intolerant and mean-spirited people to me.

Mmmhmm. That's not really true. Fe Dom's identify with in-group. They don't have to be sweet, loving it warm, or even tolerant. ISFJ are actually a bit of an expert on this. People being sexually attractive doesn't seem to be a dominant value.

People tend to engage more with the Family. Family is more important than Sexual.

If Family judge people on environmental value they get it, if you have ever lived in Northern California you get compost bins. And people express antipathy toward racism with coldness.

Anti Racism and Recycling are dominated aspects in Northern California.

That you think Fe is all warm and Fi is all cold judgments is stupidity.

It's not that straight forward. You might get warm acceptance on grass fed beef and coldness on recycling.

In reality, you're likely to get cold response on red meat eating and warm resonates on vegetarians, with cold vegans saying God we tried.

Characterization of warm as supportive of racism and cold hating black people is so stupid, I have this sequined costume.

 

[Dustanddawnzone]

Many human virtues may have evolved in both sexes through mutual mate choice to advertise good genetic quality, parenting abilities, and/or partner traits. Such virtues may include kindness, fidelity, magnanimity, and heroism, as well as quasi‐moral traits like conscientiousness, agreeableness, mental health, and intelligence.

Sounds like "virtue" here is being broaden to the point of just being what is commonly held to be a positive trait. In which case, someone being attractive due to positive traits seems pretty obvious.

 

[Gurthang]

Once there were two brothers in a household of five. One day their mother fell ill and the youngest brother then dutifully cared for her all throughout the day before attending to his own leisure. While this was happening his older brother were sitting at the nearest tavern, drinking with his comrades while loudly boasting about how he would tend and care for his ill mother.

Which brother do you think was first to marry?

 

[Samari]

Once there were two brothers in a household of five. One day their mother fell ill and the youngest brother then dutifully cared for her all throughout the day before attending to his own leisure. While this was happening his older brother were sitting at the nearest tavern, drinking with his comrades while loudly boasting about how he would tend and care for his ill mother.

Which brother do you think was first to marry?

I want to know what the other two members of the house were doing?? :wink:

Also, to the OP: sometimes they are, but they can be off-putting when overdone. Mostly I think they are. Especially verbal chivalry. I'm not talking about doorholding sweet talking "after you". I mean when you open up and speak your thoughts in a group and then get verbally slighted for it, and then somebody stands up for you in a kind, fair, firm way. THAT type of thing is very attractive.