Frankly, while both of those things are desirable, I look for personality first, looks second, to an extent. I don't want to be with somebody if they're an ass. Plain and simple. It would take a lot of zero's and commas to change that.
C'mon, bro, be real with me! Do you really walk into a room full of strangers to find a mate and approach the girl you think will have the best personality? If so, how could you possibly determine this? By her looks! You can't know a person's personality unless you know their looks first. Every study on partner selection I've read says the same thing: people choose their mates based on the physical appearance of the potential mate they think they have the best chance at getting. It's why I don't approach the hottest chick in the room - I know I'm not the hottest guy. But I know I can do better than the fattest/ugliest chick in the room. With very few exceptions, relationships always start with looks first.
To determine someone's personality you have to know/talk to them. Yes sometimes that happens by being a room and going up to talk to someone you find attractive. Or it could just be you're sitting next to someone you strike up a conversation with. A relationship extends further than who you think is 'hot' and 'ugly'. I think Zethor's point is that you might find someone attractive first but you don't build a relationship solely on that.
Exactly. Sure, I'll talk to the best looking girl in there, but if it turns out she's a jerk, I'm out.
Okay, but what about marrying just to reproduce? With the thought process being, I want to have children and you are healthy enough and have good genes that would mix well with mine and you would make a good mother/father. As a side note, I think a lot of the younger generation get way too caught up in the romance of a relationship and forget to step back and compare goals and (when it starts getting serious) a plan for the future. Things like school, families, where they want to live, budgets, religions, etc all get left out of the relationship until after marriage. So while marrying for money may seem like a formula for a lasting marriage, I think you could also have a lasting marriage as long as you have that talk with your romantic partner *before* tying the knot.
I would say that I do look at personality/personal traits (such as intelligence) before looks. Looks will fade or can be improved - but personality will probably not change. I obviously do factor looks in, but to me, it is more important to find someone you get along with. I'd rather be incorporating someone into an exercise routine rather than marry someone that I don't get along with. One thing people also have to look at in a relationship is whether they truly get along, or if they only get along because the love chemical in their brain makes them get along. And as for the free thinking person... are you a free thinker because you want to be, or are you forced to become a free thinker because of the dopamine release and satisfaction that the act of being, or your perceived status associated with being, a free thinker brings to you?
Wise advice. I do agree that money is just one part of the equation. I also think that marrying a person for their genes is an excellent reason to choose a partner. Good genes is the original motive for partner selection and reproduction. What you said makes perfect sense in my opinion.
I think what you mean to say is that you weight personality more than physical attractiveness. You always have to look at a person and evaluate whether you find them physically attractive enough before you decide to talk to them and get to know their personality.
Why not just love socioeconomic power I agree with this thread, makes sense, I'd still marry for love though, I don't think marrying for money is ever particularly acceptable unless it's like an intentional marrying of a gold digger lel