Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of falling for cynical pop-science just so stories. This evolutionary psychology and biology stuff applied to humans is still pretty new and pretty far from "well established biological fact", and it comes with all the caveats of human behavioral research plus the added trappings of being a scientific fad.

In particular, there is plenty of room in evo-psych for pair bonding and long term relationships. Historically and across diverse cultures these relationships have generally been the dominant method of producing children, so I'd say it's a pretty OK evolutionary strategy. The 'scientific' evidence is all around you, evolved bag of meat.

And in long term relationships, effort is not optional.

Note that for many of us human males, it takes a huge effort to avoid seeming needy, predict our significant other's desires, and act to fulfill those desires in a dominant and take-charge kind of way. It's quite a bit harder than making an effort and showing it.

Men who have gone through a divorce actually have more children nowadays (when you add up all kids from all relationships). So in evolutionary terms the long term relationship is less successful.

The problem though is that not all women think like this. And if you actual are humble and not "manly" you may have actually bagged a woman who values that. Likewise, if you're an overweight woman, the man your with may actual like you being overweight. Losing 50 pounds could make you LESS attractive.

There's a big difference between optimizing behavior when you're single and trying to score as much as possible vs being in a relationship and trying to optimize your relations with that one particular person. You're no longer dealing with a population.

> Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of espousing an unpopular opinion amongst the emo hipsters of HN.

No offence, but if you actually had the facts on your side you probably wouldn't feel the need to resort to insulting everyone who doesn't share your opinion. Emo hipsters, really?

"You are aware that the very definition of a fact precludes it from having exceptions, right?"

He's talking about statistical distributions. "It's an established fact that six-year-olds are taller than five-year-olds. There are exceptions."

I'm not sure where he got the "hipster" stuff, though.

I edited my post. The hipster reference was not constructive.

Re: fat nerds and social value:

In 2011, "fat nerds" can wield quite a bit of financial power. This can make them attractive to females by virtue of the fact that they can be utilized as resource providers for their future offspring.

However, it should be noted that sexual attraction and attraction to resources are generally two independent drives in female primates. Many female primates utilize independent strategies, procuring resources and genetic material from different men simultaneously. See the citations in "Sperm Wars" for references to the research on this phenomenon.

> In 2011, "fat nerds" can wield quite a bit of financial power.

While that's true, "fat nerds" (or skinny nerds, or greasy nerds) don't generally do things which display this power. I've met nerds who are effectively retired at 30, fat and happy, who are entirely off the radar of women looking at suits, cars, and Stanford MBA attitudes.

My point is that even though socially we understand that "nerds" have good odds of being reasonably affluent, there's still an awful lot to the "sexy" equation that they don't have.

It's a bit oversimplified, but thinking of there being four areas helps for me. Physical, mental, financial, and emotional/relational. "Nerds" tend to do fine in the financial and mental areas, but they are generally lacking in the physical, and tend to be terrible at relational (which is arguably the most important for attracting women.)