Asymmetrical Information

Stupider women are less likely to notice they're marrying a guy who has dumped/cheated on his wife, or to realize that they will someday be as old and wrinkly as his ex.

Seriously, men like dumb girls in general because they're less picky than smart ones, and frankly, most of us can't hope to live up to smart girl standards. Also, they give our egos a boost by looking at us with goggle-eyed amazement when we use a multi-syllable word.

oh boy - are reading maureen dowd a lot these days - last week the times ran a piece on how familes of men who married after 60 were faring 10 years into it- didn't directly address the issue you are raising but talked about how for the first time there's census data available on such marriages & some wives regret it too. apparently its still doesn't happen on such a large scale as is madeout to be

No link to Parker's post?

Irrelevant.

That is not why older men marry younger women.

Reagan Fan says:
"Irrelevant. That is not why older men marry younger women."

well yeah, older men don't marry younger women because they want stupid wives, but it's still relevant. Older men go after younger women because of their looks or because of the status that comes with having a "trophy wife." But why do younger women go after older men? Higher incomes probably make them somewhat more attractive, but still, older men are on average going to be less attractive than younger men. Given that older men will have less success in attracting mates, if they place a premium on youth, they might need to settle for lower intelligence.

I think second marriages with older men are much less heavily burdened with male expectations. A mature man will need less of a partner and more of a mate.

I think there are a couple of reasons for going younger, if an older man.

One, you may still want kids and the younger woman can provide them.

Also, you may just want a really hot looking woman, and most women are quite flexible in what they are willing to accept (swapping wealth for looks, or kindness for wealth, or whatever).

Finally, sometimes women of the same age are in competition with you. Your career versus hers, or your income versus hers. If you wanted competition, you would deal with men, where you can compete straight out without considering "sensibilities". You can find a younger woman sometimes who is not trying to compete (whether deliberately or accidentally). Same with a less intelligent woman.

But I would doubt men seek stupid women. They just seek women who look good, give them a certain amount of praise, and who are easygoing, supportive and loyal to "the team". Sometimes you get tired of a tug of war.

There's really no such thing as a 'trophy' wife. In general, older guys marry pretty young things if they can so they can have sex with them. Not to impress people.

Impressing people can be better looked at as a side effect.

The term, trophy wife, has more to do with the jealousy of discarded wives than with any male thought process

I think Cobb may have hit on it -- older men taking a younger second wife are most likely looking for someone who is content to be the subordinate in the relationship. I'm not sure that means the new woman will necessarily be less intelligent than the first wife, but folk wisdom seems to interpret it that way.

"I'm not looking for anecdotes to the contrary. I want to know about averages. Also, are the children born to second marriages as smart on average as children born to first marriages?"

Yeah, let me pull out my survey of second-marriage offspring and spouses intelligence dataset and run it through SPSS.

/sarcasm

I'm betting that this might be able to pull some grant money, but don't forget to keep a control group.

Maybe the older men have learned that IQ is less important to them than personality, demeanor, and a host of non-IQ factors?

Some people (most, in fact) may well find an IQ of 95 combined with a personality and set of views that is pleasant to be around more appealing than an IQ of 130 without the latter.

(Actual stupidity is a big negative, but just under average IQ need not be. Remember, there aren't many people with high IQs, definitionally.

And that assumes that IQ really does measure stupid/intelligent; in all honesty, I've met more'n a few people with high IQs who are utter idiots in all practical senses.

At that point I'd rather have a sensible mate with a lower IQ.)

The first question is really interesting. The prediction you'd make would be that at the right end of the intelligence distribution, the married couple would have a man a bit smarter than the woman (because there are more men than women wandering around with 160 IQs.) In the middle, people would be more-or-less matched. At the low end, most couples would have a smarter woman paired with a less smart man. This seems like the kind of thing you could plausibly find data on. It would make a good Griffe du Leon article. ("In which a 16-year old prodigy discovers why he will likely marry a woman less brilliant than himself, while his cousin the barely-literate constuction worker will marry someone smarter than himself.")

The second wife thing looks like anecdotes flavored with sour grapes to me. The small number of cases I can think of, off the top of my head, of older men marrying younger women don't show a pattern of the women being at all short on intelligence, or obviously dumber than their first wives.

"Impressing people can be better looked at as a side effect."

Never underestimate status as a motive in human affairs.

"The small number of cases I can think of, off the top of my head, of older men marrying younger women don't show a pattern of the women being at all short on intelligence, or obviously dumber than their first wives."

At the anecdote level, this makes sense to me, too - call it the Jack Welch (or Maria Bartiromo, if you're inclined to believe "Dealbreaker") phenomenon. I wonder what percentage of second marriages involve a co-worker or business associate? My not-particularly-representative sample group suggests it might be high. After all, if you have the status to be attractive once middle age has you in its grip, changes are you're working pretty hard.

I think most of the comments are wrong and that second wives of successful men are likely more intelligent on average than first wives. Successful men are likely to have married before they became successful and therefore end up married to women who are substantially beneath in the marriage market after they succeed. So they are likely to trade up just as with second houses. And trading up means more intelligent among other things. Btw this would also apply to second husbands of successful women.

Link:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004187.html

"In other words, do the men decide to be less choosy on IQ in order to get younger second wives?"

Right, like men could care less what the IQ of a woman they are marrying is in the first place. Jessica Simpson/Britney = morons, yet they are every males fantasy. While watching Jessica Simpsons idiotic antics you sometimes felt a bit sorry for Nick Lachey, but Christ every guy in the universe would still give their bottom dollar to be with her. I reckon at the margin there actually is a negative relationship between IQ and marriagablity, men ususally dislike really smart girls, they want to feel superior.

Right, like men could care less what the IQ of a woman they are marrying is in the first place. Jessica Simpson/Britney = morons, yet they are every males fantasy. While watching Jessica Simpsons idiotic antics you sometimes felt a bit sorry for Nick Lachey, but Christ every guy in the universe would still give their bottom dollar to be with her.

Hm.... not needfully true, actually. I know a lot of guys who just can't stand the women--they'll watch 'em on TV, but the TV will be on mute.
Being physically attracted isn't the ONLY thing that guys go for, despite the jokes and/or male bashing. Not sure if you're exaggerating for effect, but just because the woman are generally accepted as hot-- I have met guys who dislike them, for various reasons*-- doesn't mean that all guys want to marry them.

*their reasons were: Britney looks too much like a child; Simpson looks like a famine victim; they don't like, um, used goods; so utterly idiotic that you'd kill them in ten minutes. (I think the last one was exaggerating, even with his temper)

"I reckon at the margin there actually is a negative relationship between IQ and marriagablity, men ususally dislike really smart girls, they want to feel superior."

You can prove this? And saying that men are attracted to women who look like Jessica Simpson is like saying that women are attracted to men who are as rich/ high status as Prince William. It tells you nothing about the value they place on IQ.

The point of the argument about higher variation among males is that for every "really smart woman" there will be a really smarter guy, but for every dumber than average woman there will be an even dumber than average guy.

But since every woman is young at some point in her life, she may still be able to marry a rich older man.

The beautiful and bright marry the young and rich. Then the beautiful and dumb marry the old and rich, after the beautiful and bright lose their beauty.

In the meantime the new generation of beautiful and bright marry the new generation of young and rich, and the cycle begins again.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that men stay equally rich throughout their lives, whereas some of them (at least) become richer.

Stupider women are less likely to notice they're marrying a guy who has dumped/cheated on his wife, or to realize that they will someday be as old and wrinkly as his ex.

Depends on the age difference. If a 60-year-old dumps his 60-year-old wife to marry a 20-year-old hottie, the guy's probably going to be dead before the hottie turns old and wrinkly.

"saying that men are attracted to women who look like Jessica Simpson is like saying that women are attracted to men who are as rich/ high status as Prince William. It tells you nothing about the value they place on IQ."

Actually the Bell Curve proved that in modern societies IQ is highly correlated with status. Women subconsciously compute 'high status guy - must be really intelligent.' It doesn't always compute correctly (Prince Harry), but it's generally on the ball, in todays meritocratic world most successful men have high IQ's.

'beautiful and bright marry the young and rich.'

Yes but do guys marry these girls because of their brightness, or their beauty? (keeping in mind that there is a link between attractiveness and IQ) Beauty! And little else. For proximity reasons (attending the same college etc) they come together, but it ain't an intentional search for high IQ girls. Avg looking 140'er vs supersmokin 90'er? 90'er thanks very much. I'm a guy, trust me, we're scum.

PS: There are biological reasons for really old guys liking really young girls. Old guys are less fertile than young guys, so their biggest chance to expand their genes is by sleeping with a superfertile young thing, rather than a mediumly fertile 30 year old.

Adrian, I sort of see where you're coming from but I have to push back a little when it comes to the marriage aspect of it. Yes, men would rather have sex with a supersmokin' 90 IQ than an average-looking 140 IQ -- but marrying and having sex are very different things.

In most relationships, by the time marriage enters the picture, the 90 IQ's supersmokin' body will be a non-factor simply from long exposure to it. Personality and mutual interests will generally be more important for the marriage decision.

For that matter, a lot of guys would prefer the 140 IQ for sex if she was more, uh, "enthusiastic and openminded" about it than a super hot 90 IQ who is also a prude.

In my admittedly limited experience, smarter women are more enthusiastic, openminded, and inventive.

It's a very good question. I'm less interested in the differences between 1st and 2nd marriages as between 2nd and 3rd. 1st marriages probably have more to do with pressures and impulses than selection.

The smartest people involved in these matters are the $500 per hour divorce lawyers.

Regarding anecdotal evidence, I can say that there is substantial truth to the notion that "the acorn doesn't fall far from the oak". I knew someone who counseled/coached students to get them in to the college of their choice. In many cases, the choices for second families (for kids born to the "trophy" wife, were quite limited compared to the choices available to his first family. This required some very delicate explaining...

The first premise--that on the top half of the distribution a woman can always find a man smarter-- is faulty. If the male distribution reaches out further(higher standard deviation) then it must be lower near the mean.

"Jessica Simpson/Britney = morons, yet they are every males fantasy. While watching Jessica Simpsons idiotic antics you sometimes felt a bit sorry for Nick Lachey, but Christ every guy in the universe would still give their bottom dollar to be with her. I reckon at the margin there actually is a negative relationship between IQ and marriagablity, men ususally dislike really smart girls, they want to feel superior." - Adrian

In a battle of wits, I'll take Brittany Spears over Kevin "Soon-to-be-asking-if-you-want-fries-with-that" Federline any day.

I'll take Simpson or Spears over Adrian in that battle of wits as well. Most guys won't "give their bottom dollar" to be with any woman. There are plenty of professionals who look better and are most likely more skilled than either of those women, yet purchasing their services doesn't come close to reaching even my middle-class butt's bottom dollar...or so I hear.

I work and associate with a large number of 150+ IQ people. Almost without exception, they marry people of significantly higher than average intelligence. While they do usually marry people of less intelligence than their own, that is practically mandated by availability. Most intelligent people envision spending a significant amount of time with their spouse. They want that to be time spent with someone with whom they can communicate.

But why do younger women go after older men? Higher incomes probably make them somewhat more attractive, but still, older men are on average going to be less attractive than younger men.

That ain't how Kissenger explained it.

When considering a woman for marriage, ask yourself "Will we be able to converse well into our old age?", all else in marriage is transitory.
Nietzsche

Adrian wrote:

"While watching Jessica Simpsons idiotic antics you sometimes felt a bit sorry for Nick Lachey, but Christ every guy in the universe would still give their bottom dollar to be with her."

This is perhaps the most sweeping, dumb statement I have ever read in a blog comment.

It ain't true, by a helluva long shot.

If I were forced to be married to some dimwit like that and spend the rest of my life as her husband, I would literally kill myself.

If a guy is rich enough, he marries Elisabeth Bennett, and has Jessica Simpson as a mistress.

How do you compare the importance of IQ, beauty, status, money anyway? We don't even have a way of measuring any of these.

The cosmetics industry is really missing something here: "Buy Lipgloss 5: tests show it adds 5 points to your Beauty Quotient"

men ususally dislike really smart girls

Dumb men, maybe. Or guys who are just looking for a hookup. Personally, intelligence is one of the first things on my list after a shared value system and the ability to solve problems in a sane fashion. But then, I'm looking for a relationship (and in one), not just a lay.

Lee:

That's not right. Here's a simple way to see this:

Suppose the male and female mean is the same (100), both distributions are normal, and the male standard deviation is 17 while the female standard deviation is 13. (These are pulled out of the air as an example.)

Now, half the men are above 100, and half the women are above 100. So let's think of the right end of the curve. The top 1% of each distribution is at about 2.3 standard deviations to the right. So, a man smarter than 99% of the men in the population will have an IQ of 139, while a woman smarter than 99% of the population will have an IQ of 130. So if we imagine pairing the men and women off according to where they are in the intelligence rankings within their sex, at the 99th percentile, we'd get a noticeable IQ difference.

On the other end, the same thing will happen in reverse. A woman in the 1st percentile (99% of women are smarter than she is) will have an IQ of 70, while a man in the 1st percentile will have an IQ of 61. This time, the man is noticeably dumber.

At the 50th percentile, there's no difference at all. At the 75th percentile, the man is at 111, while the woman is at 109. At the level of 1/1000 IQs (probably the territory you're in to be a working scientist or mathematician), you are 3.1 standard deviations out--that's 153 for men, 140 for women. And on and on.

The numbers aren't necessarily meaningful, but the relationship between them is. As you head out to the tails, the sexes get unbalanced in intelligence, with women smarter than men at the bottom, and men smarter than women at the top.

All this assumes that this model (two normal distributions, different standard deviations, same mean) applies.

Being a professional population geneticist, I can share not widely known information that this pattern (small dispersion in females, large dispersion in males) is typical to any other measurable quantity, not only IQ, but virtually everything else), and not only in humans, but in all mammalian species. It is defined by chromosome sex determination (XX in females, XY in males) and has tremendous evolutionary consequences. Very dubious "brain genes" has nothing to do with that, even if they really exist.

Comments are Closed.