The hypergamy hypothesis: much more than you wanted to know(astralcodexten.substack.com)
astralcodexten.substack.com
The hypergamy hypothesis: much more than you wanted to know
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/hypergamy-much-more-than-you-wanted
76 comments
> Ok, how about a Facebook engineer who married a woman that grew up in rural East Tennessee? Is that close enough? I would say the author’s observation is more due to the limited crossover between FANG engineers and the rural southeastern U.S. than any sort of innate principles of attraction.
More to the point, next to the trouble of them meeting, there is also a pretty big cultural difference [1] between these states. A FAANG engineer is probably closer in their views and interests to a cashier working in SF than a similarly positioned businessman in rural Texas.
[1] Note that this is an uninformed opinion from across the pond.
More to the point, next to the trouble of them meeting, there is also a pretty big cultural difference [1] between these states. A FAANG engineer is probably closer in their views and interests to a cashier working in SF than a similarly positioned businessman in rural Texas.
[1] Note that this is an uninformed opinion from across the pond.
>Ok, how about a Facebook engineer who married a woman that grew up in rural East Tennessee?
This is the weakest counter-argument I've read in years.
Anyone with a minimal amount of comprehension would've understood the point being made.
This is the weakest counter-argument I've read in years.
Anyone with a minimal amount of comprehension would've understood the point being made.
People tend to marry people that they have things a common with, that they work with or live in proximity with.
I don't think many people have checklists where they evaluate potential partners based on education, income, looks and so on and consciously choose the best match. People just fall in love.
The social classes just don't really mix that freely and it is not surprising people tend to stick to their own class. Yes, you can find all kinds of people on Tinder but most relationships don't start there.
Relationships are often build on shared goals and having things in common and having similar social status, class and income helps.
I don't think many people have checklists where they evaluate potential partners based on education, income, looks and so on and consciously choose the best match. People just fall in love.
The social classes just don't really mix that freely and it is not surprising people tend to stick to their own class. Yes, you can find all kinds of people on Tinder but most relationships don't start there.
Relationships are often build on shared goals and having things in common and having similar social status, class and income helps.
I for one am completely comfortable having married a woman with advanced degrees and an IQ about 10 points above mine. Even considering the fewer degrees and lower IQ, we both agree I am the smartest one, because I married her.
Woman here: Every single person I've come across using the word hypergamy ends up being a trashy gold digger (from friends to random Facebook group members). I find it counterproductive to think about "meta-relationships". Just meet people and see if it works. None of these insights are useful on a personal level.
[deleted]
I think you're onto something. It seems like thinking about 'meta-relationships' tends to depersonalize the individual interactions and devalue the individuals involved. It's as though successful relationships are a fitting problem, and looking at the macro environment strips out the individual quirks which optimize for one's own fit.
If that kind of thinking were helpful, I think we'd have evolved to have a very accurate guess as to what the majority of our preferred demographic finds attractive - but apart from psychopaths, most of us don't. the optimal mating strategy doesn't actually seem to be to work to approach some generic ideal, but to be most authentically and extremely oneself, then filter out everyone who doesn't like that. It's intuitive why looking too seriously at averages distracts from that project.
If that kind of thinking were helpful, I think we'd have evolved to have a very accurate guess as to what the majority of our preferred demographic finds attractive - but apart from psychopaths, most of us don't. the optimal mating strategy doesn't actually seem to be to work to approach some generic ideal, but to be most authentically and extremely oneself, then filter out everyone who doesn't like that. It's intuitive why looking too seriously at averages distracts from that project.
[deleted](1)
We all go for looks fundamentally. I wouldn't believe any guy that says he wouldn't go for a good looking girl because she only had a high school education. It reminds me of the 2/10 would not bang meme.
[deleted]
Yeah it's so obvious. Take a look at the wives of very successful men, so men who have lots of choice between women. Not many ugly women there but quite a lot of variation in education level.
Why are you looking at wives, and not mistresses?
e.g. all of the ladies Tiger Woods, or David Letterman, etc., was cheating on their actual wives with. The President of the US used to sleep with famous figures like Marilyn Monroe, or occasionally chubby interns.
Jude Law married the model / actress Sienna Miller... but got caught sleeping with his kids' fairly plane-jane nanny.
You marry on your level to be around that person, but that doesn't mean you're not sleeping with cocktail waitresses and bar floozies.
e.g. all of the ladies Tiger Woods, or David Letterman, etc., was cheating on their actual wives with. The President of the US used to sleep with famous figures like Marilyn Monroe, or occasionally chubby interns.
Jude Law married the model / actress Sienna Miller... but got caught sleeping with his kids' fairly plane-jane nanny.
You marry on your level to be around that person, but that doesn't mean you're not sleeping with cocktail waitresses and bar floozies.
I suspect the number of such celebrity-type couples is so tiny as to have no effect on the statistics discussed in the article. Outliers gonna outlie.
Something about this hypergamy concept is strange. At some level, it seems obvious - people will seek out partners with a higher status than themselves. That is not a behavior specific to women.
It feels like this article is portraying women as creatures bound to their nature and men as unchanging monoliths.
It feels like this article is portraying women as creatures bound to their nature and men as unchanging monoliths.
>That is not a behavior specific to women.
And people seek young partners with large breasts. That's not a behavior specific to men. How many men do you know that look for a woman with money?
And people seek young partners with large breasts. That's not a behavior specific to men. How many men do you know that look for a woman with money?
[deleted]
> It feels like this article is portraying women as creatures bound to their nature and men as unchanging monoliths.
Indeed the whole article fails to identify gender roles and cultural norms as the source.
It also uses the term "market value" as something natural and inevitable. There's a lot of hidden bias here.
Indeed the whole article fails to identify gender roles and cultural norms as the source.
It also uses the term "market value" as something natural and inevitable. There's a lot of hidden bias here.
It's just presenting data.
And the data shows that both sexes engage in hypergamy. Men marry up in education. Men marry up in beauty. Women marry up in income but not by a lot.
Data is frequently collected with some kind of bias.
> Data is frequently collected with some kind of bias.
you can't look at electrons without some sort of bias; such is the nature of all research.
however "data is biased", and the implied "statistics are racist / classist / sexist" etc., is most often used by those who don't want to see what the data lays out, and have no other way to discredit it.
you can't look at electrons without some sort of bias; such is the nature of all research.
however "data is biased", and the implied "statistics are racist / classist / sexist" etc., is most often used by those who don't want to see what the data lays out, and have no other way to discredit it.
Better data with possible bias than definitively bias with no data.
The following contains a logical error:
> That is: if men cared about looks more than women, then they would trade off status for looks: faced with a choice between an average-looking woman of the same class, or a beautiful woman of a slightly-lower class, they would choose the beautiful-but-poor woman. But this would mean men would marry lower-class women more often than women married lower-class men, which would imply a less-than-perfect status correlation between husbands and wives. But the data show a pretty perfect status correlation between husbands and wives. Therefore, men can’t care about looks.
The fallacy here is in the last sentence. This assumes the only possible cause for having perfect correlation, would be men not caring about looks. But there are more possible reasons: for instance men could prefer looks over class, and women prefer some other quality over class as well; the result is that both genders equally often marry below class. The data in the article seems to confirm that, because women prefer marrying up wrt income. So it might be like in the song; daddy's rich and mom is good looking.
> That is: if men cared about looks more than women, then they would trade off status for looks: faced with a choice between an average-looking woman of the same class, or a beautiful woman of a slightly-lower class, they would choose the beautiful-but-poor woman. But this would mean men would marry lower-class women more often than women married lower-class men, which would imply a less-than-perfect status correlation between husbands and wives. But the data show a pretty perfect status correlation between husbands and wives. Therefore, men can’t care about looks.
The fallacy here is in the last sentence. This assumes the only possible cause for having perfect correlation, would be men not caring about looks. But there are more possible reasons: for instance men could prefer looks over class, and women prefer some other quality over class as well; the result is that both genders equally often marry below class. The data in the article seems to confirm that, because women prefer marrying up wrt income. So it might be like in the song; daddy's rich and mom is good looking.
In theory, another cause overriding class completely could be true. But the other suggested selection factors from you- class, education, looks, income - are exactly those that were controlled for.
Sure, it could be that people marry by IP address, or ZIP code, or name first and foremost (over looks, class, income and education!), but it seems highly unlikely.
Sure, it could be that people marry by IP address, or ZIP code, or name first and foremost (over looks, class, income and education!), but it seems highly unlikely.
> Finally, a practical question: to maximize your odds of getting a desirable spouse, should you make more money or less? For men this is easy: earn more. For women, it’s a harder question
It's not really that hard, and even mentioned in the article: Make a lot of money, meet rich men over hors d'oeuvres at a vernissage and once you talk about money, simply lie and understate your income.
It's not really that hard, and even mentioned in the article: Make a lot of money, meet rich men over hors d'oeuvres at a vernissage and once you talk about money, simply lie and understate your income.
My partner and I are both more educated than the other one, but each one in its own (very unrelated) field. I'm so proud of how good and recognized she's in her field (from what I can understand), and I hope she appreciates how I can find my way with anything that has some CPU inside.
Win-win situation if you ask me.
Win-win situation if you ask me.
This can be deduced from the mere fact that reproduction and raising is extremely asymmetric between male and female.
Regarding the 'looks don't matter, class does' hypothesis discussed in the article, does anyone know whether attractiveness correlates with social class? Seems like a weird thing to assume is uncorrelated.
It strongly correlated with wealth, which itself strongly correlates with status/class
Or as someone else put it:
Good looks are a function of 1) Genetics, 2) Effort, and 3) Money -- pick two.
Like, if you ain't naturally gifted it takes a bunch of time and cash (clothes, gym membership, makeup, expensive haircuts, etc.) to compensate -- but you can. Lord knows I'm a walking, talking ogre but can pull it off by putting in the effort.
But lots of effort requires the time and ability to invest the energy -- which implies money -- and then there is the literal 3) Money, which aside from clothes and makeup is also things like plastic surgery, teeth whitening, etc.
Good looks are a function of 1) Genetics, 2) Effort, and 3) Money -- pick two.
Like, if you ain't naturally gifted it takes a bunch of time and cash (clothes, gym membership, makeup, expensive haircuts, etc.) to compensate -- but you can. Lord knows I'm a walking, talking ogre but can pull it off by putting in the effort.
But lots of effort requires the time and ability to invest the energy -- which implies money -- and then there is the literal 3) Money, which aside from clothes and makeup is also things like plastic surgery, teeth whitening, etc.
It was mentioned in the comments/notes after the article.
Anybody of high status knows this is true.
The rising trend is people living alone and childlessness. Single person households are the hottest trends for years. The US may be less affected at the moment but they will inevitably follow the trend. Why people still care about hypergamy?
I do think that more research into artificial wombs is needed.
I do think that more research into artificial wombs is needed.
[deleted]
Intellectualization: the reliable, enduring shield for our subtle sexist biases.
I don't know if the Denizens of HN are the best people to be commenting on this.....
Denizens of HN are great as long as they're mystical internet creatures I don't have to interact with or talk to in person.
drumhead in particular. I'm kidding. But you know denizens of HN are all we got here...
Lol, all I want is to play CoD and eat my chicken tenders!
See, that's how we know you're not really one of us. It's _tendies_ not tenders.
I'd like to date a really hot supermodel with education and a lot of money too, but well, I can't, and I can still be (and am) in a happy relationship.
To skip the main controversial topic, I find it interesting (and sad) how in many developed countries, we've left men behind in education (eg. mine, slovenia, 50% more women than men in uni of ljubljana), and nobody is bothered by this. We have a bunch of "get women into stem" programmes and promotions, but a part of stem is the only field where men outnumber women in the university. If it was the opposite (more men in colleges), we'd be hearing a lot more of this topic, but now this always gets ignored.
To skip the main controversial topic, I find it interesting (and sad) how in many developed countries, we've left men behind in education (eg. mine, slovenia, 50% more women than men in uni of ljubljana), and nobody is bothered by this. We have a bunch of "get women into stem" programmes and promotions, but a part of stem is the only field where men outnumber women in the university. If it was the opposite (more men in colleges), we'd be hearing a lot more of this topic, but now this always gets ignored.
None of the men blaming hypergamy on their failure at attracting a rich and beautiful woman have put in the actual time. They say it takes about 10,000 hours to get good at something.
The numbers would seem to not support that everyone can marry above average. But what's above average to one person is below average to another so there's far more room for everyone marrying a person who fits their desires than a naive analysis would show.
Attracting other people is a skill. Growing and maintaining a healthy relationship is a skill. Put in the 10,000 hours if attracting specific qualities in a partner is a high priority.
The numbers would seem to not support that everyone can marry above average. But what's above average to one person is below average to another so there's far more room for everyone marrying a person who fits their desires than a naive analysis would show.
Attracting other people is a skill. Growing and maintaining a healthy relationship is a skill. Put in the 10,000 hours if attracting specific qualities in a partner is a high priority.
10 000 hours is the number observed among elite performers (Olympic athletes, chess grandmasters, concert level musicians and the like) - I don't think most people complaining about the difficulty of contemporary dating are aiming to be in the top 1%.
That's a fair point. Nothing like 10,000 hours is required for most people to attract and keep someone who fits their criteria.
But the point was that if you're blaming other people or something like hypergamy instead of improving yourself then you're just looking for excuses.
But the point was that if you're blaming other people or something like hypergamy instead of improving yourself then you're just looking for excuses.
The only place I've seen this topic discussed is here in Switzerland about men in teaching positions. Maybe also mentioned in healthcare but only as a general observation, not that anybody is thinking to do something about it (the healthcare I mean).
I've also seen this discussed on Swiss national television about more girls going to college (getting a "Matura"). This is also true for the "Berufsmatura". I don't know for sure but I would assume that this would directly correlate to the disproportionate amount of women attending a university.
Would you date someone really hot if she worked in a supermarket, and wasn't all that clever?
> Would you date someone really hot if she worked in a supermarket, and wasn't all that clever?
I would not care about her job, but a large difference in cognitive ability makes a relationship quite hard in my experience. Not only is it harder to grasp/explain complex situations, it usually also comes with stark differences in emotional control and interests. It will also make arguments one-sided, as the more intelligent party will usually be able to argue their position better, which will lead to frustration for either them (if the partner is refusing to change their opinion regardless) or their partner (if they give in, unable to argue).
I would not care about her job, but a large difference in cognitive ability makes a relationship quite hard in my experience. Not only is it harder to grasp/explain complex situations, it usually also comes with stark differences in emotional control and interests. It will also make arguments one-sided, as the more intelligent party will usually be able to argue their position better, which will lead to frustration for either them (if the partner is refusing to change their opinion regardless) or their partner (if they give in, unable to argue).
I'm sapiosexual, so really hot and not all that clever can't co-occur from my perspective. But education is orthogonal to intelligence and really not a factor. I'd probably find e.g. an intelligent woman raised in a hunter-gatherer society more attractive than an equally intelligent woman educated in an academic field I don't respect.
Is she fun? Is she honest? Does she have the same values as me? Is her family very healthy and long lived? There are so many important factors you're leaving out. Not to mention that beautiful people often quickly rise to higher paid positions. Even if not so clever.
[deleted]
man are utilitarian, they choose things with goals in mind
get a good degree, have a good career, be set for life
but now... you could take 3 month training for a blue collar job and make the same money or you could do your own business which is easier than ever (
1. we're wealthier/more developed, you could put together a business plan and get money
2. the internet = low barrier to entry
why woman go to university?
get a good degree, have a good career, be set for life
but now... you could take 3 month training for a blue collar job and make the same money or you could do your own business which is easier than ever (
1. we're wealthier/more developed, you could put together a business plan and get money
2. the internet = low barrier to entry
why woman go to university?
Some people enjoy learning for the sake of it and not as a means to acquisition of capital. Those people are essentially forced to discover said enjoyment through years of mandatory education where that exists. And then those people make decisions based off their desires and dreams, notable not just those about money and status.
Sometimes people just want to learn. Sometimes they think that learning can help people and _that_ is what they really want.
Sometimes people just want to learn. Sometimes they think that learning can help people and _that_ is what they really want.
> Some people enjoy learning for the sake of it
Nothing stops you from buying books about your favorite topic and using your personal time to get a deep understanding on said topics
> Those people are essentially forced to discover said enjoyment through years of mandatory education where that exists.
it's working wonders for modern generation
Nothing stops you from buying books about your favorite topic and using your personal time to get a deep understanding on said topics
> Those people are essentially forced to discover said enjoyment through years of mandatory education where that exists.
it's working wonders for modern generation
That's because it was never about helping "level the playing field" - thats just the message they placated the public with. Rather this is a patronage network; a way of giving gifts to client groups of the power structure.
“Never?” One can argue we’ve gotten as close as possible to a level playing field or even over shot in some areas, but to say that the cultural changes that have been fought and won over the last 100 years or so have never been about leveling the playing field is utterly detached from reality.
You do realize that, for example, a husband could legally rape his wife in any US state until the 1970s? This wouldn’t be illegal in every state until 1993!
Let me reiterate that: there were people in the United States of America who did not have any legal protection from rape until 1993.
Subjugation of women (and of minority groups) is not some mythical injustice and it’s not even a distant injustice.
We’re talking about thousands of years subjugation and vast amounts of progress being made in the last 50-100 years. It’s insane to refer to this as “never” been about fixing real problems.
You do realize that, for example, a husband could legally rape his wife in any US state until the 1970s? This wouldn’t be illegal in every state until 1993!
Let me reiterate that: there were people in the United States of America who did not have any legal protection from rape until 1993.
Subjugation of women (and of minority groups) is not some mythical injustice and it’s not even a distant injustice.
We’re talking about thousands of years subjugation and vast amounts of progress being made in the last 50-100 years. It’s insane to refer to this as “never” been about fixing real problems.
Minor nit: hundreds of thousands?! Maybe let's just take this back to the beginning of recorded history in 2600BC? And ancient Egypt was apparently OK for women (or at least not worse than for men), to pick a random example.
No disagreement with the rest though.
No disagreement with the rest though.
I had typed an argument of that nature, but closed the tab because I didn't want to spend time arguing.
Now that you mention it, though, my problem is with the word subjugation, which isn't an accurate descriptor of what was happening 200,000 years ago when we were living in small bands in the woods, starving, being hunted by animals stronger than us.
Now that you mention it, though, my problem is with the word subjugation, which isn't an accurate descriptor of what was happening 200,000 years ago when we were living in small bands in the woods, starving, being hunted by animals stronger than us.
There is no reason (that I’m aware of) to think that prior to recorded history we were somehow more restrained with groups/individuals who were weaker than us or outsiders.
But hey, I suppose you never know.
Edited to be sure not to distract from the actual thrust of the argument :)
But hey, I suppose you never know.
Edited to be sure not to distract from the actual thrust of the argument :)
Is the problem solved?
I mean, who measures at which point "women and minority groups" are not subjugated anymore? Is there any incentive for this moment ever coming to pass?
By the way, I'm not even against whatever progress was made. I do question whether the progress created actual improvement, but in truth I do not really care.
I mean, who measures at which point "women and minority groups" are not subjugated anymore? Is there any incentive for this moment ever coming to pass?
By the way, I'm not even against whatever progress was made. I do question whether the progress created actual improvement, but in truth I do not really care.
These are important and difficult questions and 100% distinct from the claim “this was never about leveling the playing field.”
I sincerely doubt that had any real implication. Transport was quite bad those days and dragging them across 50 states would be quite taxing on a horse. The law changed accordingly as the situation evolved
We're talking about affirmative action. These programmes are not designed to level the playing field, but to reward friends and punish enemies.
“Affirmative action” as an American legal concept emerged in 1961, 3 years before the Civil Rights Act and 14 years before women in America had a legally-protected right to apply for credit.
Feel free to argue that affirmative action was a mistake or is complete or has overshot its goal, or that it’s used as a tool of corruption in some instances, but you are simply incorrect when you suggest that these reforms originated out of some spontaneous ambush on reformers’ “enemies.”
Feel free to argue that affirmative action was a mistake or is complete or has overshot its goal, or that it’s used as a tool of corruption in some instances, but you are simply incorrect when you suggest that these reforms originated out of some spontaneous ambush on reformers’ “enemies.”
fjwoeifge(1)
Just like the patronage network of before, but this time with other people. I like this one more because I'm more closely associated with it.
[deleted]
If you're dependend on your status or looks to attract women, you're probably just really boring and unoriginal.
Status and looks attract women, but your personality keeps them.
your personality doesnt matter if your looks arent good enough to open the door for the personality to be presented.
Given a long enough timeline, everyone gets boring and annoying.
The author says:
> I know many rich male Google programmers, but I have never seen any of them […] marry a beautiful hillbilly from West Virginia
Ok, how about a Facebook engineer who married a woman that grew up in rural East Tennessee? Is that close enough? I would say the author’s observation is more due to the limited crossover between FANG engineers and the rural southeastern U.S. than any sort of innate principles of attraction.
Curiously, my wife is four years older than me and had no interest in moving to the west coast for a so-called “higher status” job. I realize this is anecdata, but already it contradicts the two main premises of hypergamy (men marry younger and women want higher status). In fact, it took quite a bit of compromise for that move to occur, and from my perspective it had nothing to do with class or status either—my motivation was that I am interested in tech and the Bay Area is (was?) the geographical location of the most interesting jobs in that industry.