You know, they sometimes say intelligence is likened to the ability to easily see relationships and draw analogies between things (activities, objects, ideas, etc) that others can't.
*ahem*
Playing the guitar through a digital delay pedal is like eating nothing but fatty, sugary, salty foods: when one switches back to something less indulgent, initially it's perceived as bland and awful. But, when you get used to it, not only does it satisfy you, but your mind develops a particular, subtler fondness for the less extravagant -- the new, toned-down form actually seems preferable, while the other is too rich, dressed-up, and devoid of nuance.
I imagine the same applies to just about everything.
I've heard the theory that people who are unable to breed are being selected out of the gene pool. This was probably true of cavemen (some traits are undesirable for survival and therefore their outward clues are avoided), but isn't all that valid anymore. The problem is, we retain a lot of these old behaviors that aren't appropriate for the health of contemporary society.
I recently made a rule for myself: I'm not going to write about human behavior being instinctive or 'hard-wired', because I feel that this is usually just a good way to talk about absolutes, and push agendas. For instance, if one's agenda is to promote capitalism, one says 'people are hard-wired for competitive behavior, because it was essential to their survival.' if one is promoting socialism, one says 'people are instinctively cooperative, because it was essential to their survival.' likewise with mating behavior -- any cultural or personal preferences are written off as hard-wired and biologically deterministic.
Geeks are especially prone to talking about absolutes, probably because they're science-minded and computer-minded. These things require precision, control, and judgments into hard-lined categories (right or wrong, one or zero, conclusive or inconclusive, etc). I've discussed this before, at length.
Geeks will often resort to arguments based on 'hard wiring' or 'instinct' when making their observations on sociology, which are more often than not fueled by their own social frustrations. Eric raymond, a geek, open source advocate and writer who is well-known in internet circles, writes the word 'instinctive' as it pertains to human behavior in five different essays in his blog, according to google: 'instinctive fighting style of human beings,' 'female instinctive wiring', 'instinctive fears', 'instinctive distrust', and 'instinctive basis' (of reproductive behavior).'
Even though arguments for behavioral hard-wiring are more rooted in determinism, and these world-views tend to be seductive to me, I'm still inclined to think that humans are 'free' in the sense that they are adaptable -- they are determined and hard-wired to be flexible creatures.
In keeping with the spirit of forbidding absolutes, it's necessary to avoid the statement 'there are absolutely no absolutes.' kept in an abstract realm, this is just another annoying strange-loop. But in practical terms, there might be some human behaviors that are hard-wired, that are biologically determined, even though humans are largely adaptable (and I happen to have a pet peeve with talking about 'hard wiring'). Clearly I'm not qualified to judge, not having studied evolutionary biology, neurology, anthropology, psychology, etc. But I can still speculate, and my speculation is that while humans are largely adaptable creatures, there are a few behaviors that are, if you will, 'hard-wired.' this is not to say that the hard-wiring can't be overcome with learned behavior, but only that a predisposition exists.
The predisposition, in this case, is to find certain traits unacceptable in a potential mate. The ability to identify these traits (or the lack thereof) served a purpose, as the traits were (and are) indicative of desirable qualities. Just to name a few obvious ones: strength and aggressive behavior in men signals the ability to defend a family unit, and hunt for things. In women, waist-hip ratio as well as big eyes, little nose, etc, signaled estrogen production and fertility.
Blah blah, everyone knows these; they're cited a lot, and hearing about them has become annoying. Nevertheless, we have these leftover tendencies to be attracted to these traits that really aren't relevant anymore. Who needs to hunt and defend the family against marauders with their bare hands? And we certainly don't need any more babies. Most favorable traits of pre-civilized peoples are outdated, and yet we hold on to them, and judge our mates by them.
Even though many are obsolete, some of these traits cross over from pre-civilization to civilization: intelligence and creativity would enable homo erectus to figure out some pattern of elk migration, and homo sapiens to design a circuit. A good portion of 'attractive' traits, though, are relics.
The idea of talent (or lack thereof) is related in that it is usually described as an example of hard-wiring that isn't changeable by learning. There are some people who will NEVER, no matter how much they practice, play a musical instrument very well. They could be locked in a room for 1,000 years with a saxophone, and never be anywhere near as good as john coltrane was, one week after he started on the instrument. These 'untalented' people's auditory nerves and auditory processing centers just aren't configured to recognize notes, or their fingers aren't coordinated enough to play the keys, or their auditory centers can't coordinate with their fingers, or something. There are some things that, while they might be teachable to some degree, require a predisposition of natural ability in order to achieve competence.
This idea, that there is a predisposition but that the predisposition is affected by experience, is a solution to the 'nature vs. Nurture' argument: yes, there is nature, but then nurture comes along and diminishes, strengthens, or otherwise changes it. In the study of mental illness, this pattern is exemplified by the 'diathesis stress' model: there is a diathesis (predisposition to mental illness), which is brought to the surface by environmental stressors. In a very general sense, the statement 'there is a natural disposition that is in turn affected by environmental factors' is a good way of explaining just about anything.
Perhaps there are some people who will NEVER be attractive to the opposite sex, unless they find someone who's willing to throw out their predispositions, their absolutes, and replace them with learned behavior. But in the mean time, until this day of enlightenment comes, unattractive cave men are still being selected out of the gene pool because they can't run out of their cave fearlessly and club a mammoth.