In animals, certain traits function as ‘fitness indicators’. These traits (like the peacock’s tail) are signs of genetic quality or health that indicate the desirability of individuals as mates. To be a fitness indicator, a trait has to be an honest signal – it has to be detectable and be a dependable proxy of genetic quality.
Some scientists consider intelligence the human equivalent to the peacock’s tail. They contend that human intelligence, an outlier among apes, is a product of sexual selection. It has been suggested that an individual’s ability to formulate and communicate ideas, make jokes or produce satisfying bullshit may function as honest signals of intelligence. However, there is no conclusive evidence that intelligence can be accurately detected (i.e., perceived intelligence is correlated with actual intelligence). Do the supposed signs of intelligence like humour increase the desirability of potential mates, and more importantly, are they correlated with actual intelligence?
“For a trait to be intersexually selected, either the trait itself or a correlated trait must be detectable by members of the opposite sex. This detection can be conscious or subconscious.”
A recent paper by Julie Driebe et al. describes how they tested whether women are more attracted to men they perceive as intelligent or funny, and if this perceived intelligence or funniness is correlated with actual intelligence.
Study 1
In study 1, researchers first measured the intelligence of male participants using a series of cognitive ability tests. They were then photographed, and videotaped performing tasks. Tasks included reading vowels on a screen, reading five newspaper headlines from German newspapers, pantomiming the word ‘Bankverbindung’, and making the experimenter laugh by telling an anecdote or joke.
Female participants were shown these photograph and videos, and then asked to rate these men on the following attributes – physical attractiveness, intelligence, funniness, and attractiveness as long-term/short term mate. Researchers found that perceived intelligence was correlated with measured intelligence.
“Women are able to perceive intelligence with some degree of accuracy based on our three cues (cue 4: videos of men reading newspaper headlines aloud, cue 5: performing a pantomime task and cue 6: trying to make the experimenter laugh).”
While men who were perceived as funny were more likely to be perceived as intelligent, perceived funniness was not associated with objectively measured (actual) intelligence. Also, while men who were perceived as more funny or more intelligent had a higher sexual appeal, intelligent men had slightly lower sexual appeal. Physical attractiveness was the main predictor of sexual mate appeal.
“Women did not find intelligent men more appealing.”
Study 2
In study 2, participants took part in multiple speed-dating sessions in which they were instructed to “speak about any topic”. Each session lasted three minutes. In total, there were 123 speed-dating sessions with 729 participants. Participants (both sexes) rated their date’s intelligence, funniness, and mate appeal and also had their own intelligence measured using cognitive tests.
Once again, more intelligent people were perceived (and rated) as more intelligent, suggesting that intelligence was consciously and/or subconsciously evaluated with some accuracy. Also, like in the first study, women found men who they perceived as more intelligent or funny, more attractive as mates.
However, they did not find men who were objectively more intelligent more attractive as partners. Also, once again, researchers found no correlation between measured intelligence and perceived funniness.
Findings suggest that although an increase in perceived intelligence increases one’s desirability as a partner, actual intelligence does not. In some cases (as found in study 1) it may even reduce mate appeal.
The study brings into question the notion that intelligence and funniness act as fitness indicators. Read more about the study by Julie Driebe, Morgan Sidari, Michael Dufner, Juliane von der Heiden, Paul Bürkner, Lars Penke, Brendan Zietsch, and Ruben Arslan here or preprint here.
