I think there are two categories of traits, the fungible and the nonfungible.
Fungible traits are money, height, BMI/weightlifting. Them being able to pull you is a proxy for their social status.
Nonfungible traits are your actual contributions, what type of person you are, what role you play in a friend group or room, etc. Includes kindness, humor, emotional intuitions, etc.
When girls realize that my nonfungible traits aren’t quite their cup of tea, they say “well at least i scored 5′9“ / 6 figures / can pick me up and carry me a dozen feet” and then dump me for someone who’s 5′10” / 7 figures / can pick her up and carry her two dozen feet. But if my nonfungible traits are her cup of tea, fungible traits don’t seem to do much of anything!
In other words, fungible traits are the fallback when a girl doesn’t like you very much. They’re literally only worth considering if you assume she doesn’t like you as a premise.
I think the answer is that clothing is halfway between, or plays both roles. Clothing contributes a lot to the “my friends will think I pulled well if I bring you around them” factor, so they’re like a fungible trait. But clothing is also a vector of self expression, and to many it’s a conscientiousness proxy / proxy to how clean your room is which people are screening for in long term primary relationships.
But if my nonfungible traits are her cup of tea, fungible traits don’t seem to do much of anything!
In other words, fungible traits are the fallback when a girl doesn’t like you very much. They’re literally only worth considering if you assume she doesn’t like you as a premise.
This seems very contrary to my experience and that of other women I know (and makes little sense in the abstract. Your “fungible” and “non-fungible” traits literally funge against one another in people’s assessments; why wouldn’t they?
E.g. I’m a married woman. My husband is my favorite person; I love his “nonfungible traits”; his creativity, his humor, his abiding commitment to making the world better, his refusal to give into motivated cognition, his unerring integrity.
If he were one standard deviation less attractive, I’d probably never feel physically attracted to him, having sex with him would disgust me, and he’d be one of a bunch of nerds I feel vaguely guilty I’d never consider dating because they’re obviously great people.
Of course most women care about money and comfort and attractiveness (which affect your life in many ways other than social status!) while they also care about good character and humor and EQ… doesn’t almost everyone? When you assess a job, doesn’t comp and location trade off somewhat against the company culture and how much you expect to like the work?
I think there are two categories of traits, the fungible and the nonfungible.
Fungible traits are money, height, BMI/weightlifting. Them being able to pull you is a proxy for their social status.
Nonfungible traits are your actual contributions, what type of person you are, what role you play in a friend group or room, etc. Includes kindness, humor, emotional intuitions, etc.
When girls realize that my nonfungible traits aren’t quite their cup of tea, they say “well at least i scored 5′9“ / 6 figures / can pick me up and carry me a dozen feet” and then dump me for someone who’s 5′10” / 7 figures / can pick her up and carry her two dozen feet. But if my nonfungible traits are her cup of tea, fungible traits don’t seem to do much of anything!
In other words, fungible traits are the fallback when a girl doesn’t like you very much. They’re literally only worth considering if you assume she doesn’t like you as a premise.
I think the answer is that clothing is halfway between, or plays both roles. Clothing contributes a lot to the “my friends will think I pulled well if I bring you around them” factor, so they’re like a fungible trait. But clothing is also a vector of self expression, and to many it’s a conscientiousness proxy / proxy to how clean your room is which people are screening for in long term primary relationships.
So idk.
This seems very contrary to my experience and that of other women I know (and makes little sense in the abstract. Your “fungible” and “non-fungible” traits literally funge against one another in people’s assessments; why wouldn’t they?
E.g. I’m a married woman. My husband is my favorite person; I love his “nonfungible traits”; his creativity, his humor, his abiding commitment to making the world better, his refusal to give into motivated cognition, his unerring integrity.
If he were one standard deviation less attractive, I’d probably never feel physically attracted to him, having sex with him would disgust me, and he’d be one of a bunch of nerds I feel vaguely guilty I’d never consider dating because they’re obviously great people.
Of course most women care about money and comfort and attractiveness (which affect your life in many ways other than social status!) while they also care about good character and humor and EQ… doesn’t almost everyone? When you assess a job, doesn’t comp and location trade off somewhat against the company culture and how much you expect to like the work?