Money vs. Good looks
Brad Templeton
and women go after one another for good looks. But being attracted to
wealth, fame, power or position is considered sinful. In a society
that tries so hard (on the surface) to get people treated according to
what they are and what their abilities are, instead of their genetic
heritage, isn't this a contradiction?
Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work,
but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as
long as they are self made.
Is the problem that it's hard to split "she loves me because she admires
my ability to make money" from "she loves having access to my money"?
Otherwise, it seems to me that ability to do things (and earn money for
it) should be one of the primary attractive qualities, above good looks.
Of course, a person's intelligence or earning power don't show (normally)
on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do.
--
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
J. Eric Roskos
>sinful. In a society that tries so hard (on the surface) to get people
>treated according to what they are and what their abilities are, instead of
>their genetic heritage, isn't this a contradiction?
You've raised a good philosophical point here.
Why should people be attracted to "good looks"? Well, this is strange and
difficult to determine for all cases, especially when people are attracted
to artificial personal attributes; but at one level, at least, "good looks"
relate to various primitive physical abilities. Thus, we may hypothesize,
women are attracted to large, strong men because they (at least in a
primitive society) are good defenders and providers; they can go out and
spear caribou, or fight off grizzly bears, or something like that.
Likewise, perhaps, men are attracted to women who are best adapted to
childbearing. (Note, however, that this is not really "genetic heritage"
at all.)
Of course, such statements are heretical and sexist today. Women don't need
defending, and are good for other things than childbearing; &c.
But, then, you've brought up a sort of modern-day equivalent, perhaps a
more just alternative to this [notice how it doesn't center around women
and bearing children the way the above attributes did]:
>Otherwise, it seems to me that ability to do things (and earn money for
>it) should be one of the primary attractive qualities, above good looks.
It's really a sort of generalization and de-primitivization of the physical
attributes; that a person should be attractive because he or she can do
good things (and provide for his or her family, in a more contemporary
sense, in the process).
Yet, people still are attracted to men who are good at fighting off grizzly
bears and spearing caribou, and to women who are well-adapted to childbearing.
Makes you think, doesn't it.
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Vg'f whfg guvf yvggyr puebzvhz fjvgpu urer... lbh thlf
ner FB fhcrefgvgvbhf!"
H.M.Moskovitz
> Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work,
> but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as
> long as they are self made.
>
> on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do.
This past weekend, (Saturday night, I believe) ABC aired a special entitled:
LOOKS
which discussed how our looks affect us in society. I found a very
interesting point ( that I suspected for some time) is that more
attractive people tend to get better jobs, promotions, and pay. In
fact if two people are at the same experience and competence levels,
and are performing the same job, the more attractive of the two will
most likely be earning a higher salary than the less attractive person!
So, taking this into consideration, maybe physical attraction and monetary
attraction are directly related.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well he came down to dinner in his Sunday best,
and he rubbed the pot-roast all over his chest..."
- Warren Zevon
Howard Moskovitz
AT&T Info. Systems
attunix!howard
marie desjardins
> and women go after one another for good looks. But being attracted to
> wealth, fame, power or position is considered sinful. In a society
> that tries so hard (on the surface) to get people treated according to
> what they are and what their abilities are, instead of their genetic
> heritage, isn't this a contradiction?
I don't think this is true. I will agree that people are probably more
likely to think that it's OK to choose a partner on the basis of looks
than on the basis of power, etc. But I don't think that (in theory at
least) society really "applauds" this. In reality, lots of people DO
choose partners on the basis of all of these factors, but I think that
most people believe that you should judge people based on their
personalities, attitudes, values, and so forth.
> Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work,
> but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as
> long as they are self made.
I'm not convinced of this totally. For example, a question that bothers
me (I have no answer to it, unfortunately) is "why do we judge people on
the basis of their intelligence? why do intelligent people often have it
so much better than unintelligent people?" Why should intelligence, which
is not really a self-determined trait (I don't know what a psychologist
would say, but it seems to me it has more to do with genetics and early
environment, e.g. parental influence, than any kind of desire or will to
be intelligent), be used to judge a person? I think the answers to this
question are not as simple as one might think. (You may disagree, that's
fine.)
What point am I trying to make here? No point, just something to think
about and see if anyone has anything (intelligent, of course! :-) ) to
contribute.
marie desjardins
Dave Katz
>>
>> Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work,
>> but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as
>> long as they are self made.
>>
>> Of course, a person's intelligence or earning power don't show (normally)
>> on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do.
>
>This past weekend, (Saturday night, I believe) ABC aired a special entitled:
>
> LOOKS
>
>which discussed how our looks affect us in society. I found a very
>interesting point ( that I suspected for some time) is that more
>attractive people tend to get better jobs, promotions, and pay.
Not necessarily true. In a short T.V. news story I saw recently, it
was related that while more 'handsome' men tend to get better jobs,
promotions, etc., quite the opposite was true for women. The more
attractive a woman is, the less likely she is to gain promotions,
especially in the higher echelons of a company. The reporter, quoting a
recent study, stated that good looks in a woman were taken as a negative
indicator of business skills.
+---------------------------------------------------+
| Replace this line with your disclaimer. | D. Katz
+---------------------------------------------------+
Michael M. Sykora
The criterion people use to choose partners is not a matter of OK
or not OK. Anyone who made such a decision mainly on the
basis of what criterion society thinks is OK is a fool indeed.
There are no SHOULDs in these matters (altho there probably are a
few SHOULDN'Ts, like -- it's probably not a good idea to get involved
with a mass murderer, etc.), only personal preferences.
Mike Sykora
Estelle Mabry
"POWER is the most powerful aphrodisiac!" (SMIRK by Henry)
If you didn't hear that phrase, you're young (<30); if you don't believe it,
look at his wife! Let's now mention the Hollywood starlets (: I know) who threw
themselves at Henry.
"Learn to love the one you're with"* and yourself!
Estelle
*Crosby, Stills & Nash, a long time ago.
Isaac Dimitrovsky
> ... but at one level, at least, "good looks"
> relate to various primitive physical abilities. Thus, we may hypothesize,
> women are attracted to large, strong men because they (at least in a
> primitive society) are good defenders and providers; they can go out and
> spear caribou, or fight off grizzly bears, or something like that.
> Likewise, perhaps, men are attracted to women who are best adapted to
> childbearing.
If this were so, men should be attracted to women who are as fat as
possible, shouldn't they? In fact, I think that 1) what is considered
attractive changes a lot from time to time and society to society,
and 2) lots of men and women have their own ideas of attractiveness
which don't necessarily have anything to do with the current
ideas of attractiveness.
Isaac Dimitrovsky
A Beaver
> my ability to make money" from "she loves having access to my money"?
>
ability to make money, as a factor of my relationships, I have
changed my thinking.
It is SO much nicer when one is thinking "They love me because
of the way that I try to communicate with them." and "I love the
way that they share my desire of working in each other's interests".
It seems that in having finally found this in genuine form, the money
issue doesn't even come into play. We both do what it takes to get
by.
> Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work,
> but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as
> long as they are self made.
>
> on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do.
> --
> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
To a toad, another toad is beautiful.
It is all in where your head's at.
Annadiana Beaver
A Beaver@Tektronix "Angel Lips was built for pleasure"
"and Angel Lips was well built."
- T.J.Teru -
John Dowding
Because "good looks" is by definition what people are attracted to!
Mark Terribile
>> LOOKS
>> .....
>Not necessarily true. In a short T.V. news story I saw recently, it
>was related that while more 'handsome' men tend to get better jobs,
>The reporter, quoting a recent study, stated that good looks in a woman were
>taken as a negative indicator of business skills.
During WWII, the British Secret Service, under the command of INTREPID (Wm.
Stephenson) had hundreds of people opening other peoples' mail. The ``other
people'' were known or suspected spies, and it was important that the letters
be opened carefully and resealed perfectly. For some reason, the fellow in
charge of this operation found that women with attractive ankles did well,
and women who did poorly almost always has less well-shaped ankles. You
may speculate what you like about muscle tone in the limbs, but this is what
was reported.
On a more analytical note, is it possible that attractive women learn (or are
taught) to exploit their attractiveness, and that as you move higher and
higher up the management chain, where other people can't afford the time and
effort to keep supporting her, the women who does this becomes less a pleasure
and more a liability?
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
Brad Templeton
of attraction. Look how big the fashion, cosmetic, and clothing industries
are. Most of societies accepted courting rituals are based on attraction by
looks. Now there are exceptions, like computer dating, and certain clubs,
but in the long run that first initiative is supposed to be based on looks.
You see several MOTAS and you decide to introduce yourself to one. My
personal preference is to make that introduction only after first finding
out something more important about the person than her looks, but this
preference is rare, it seems. I'm lamenting that society isn't geared
up for the type of meeting that I prefer to do.
2) On the subject of "she loves me for my ability to make money" one poster
said he preferred to deal with love based on common interests and
good converstation. Of course, this is nice, but that doesn't get away
from the main point, which is that my ability to make money and what I
do to make it are major parts of what makes up me. Like most entrepreneurs,
I'm in the office 12 hours a day or more. My company takes up so much
of me that it is a big part of me. So it's hard to say you like me if
you don't even consider what I devote myself to.
So I desire people to like and respect me for all my facets, but
unfortunately this money facet has all sorts of bad impressions in the
real world. That's the problem. I want to be loved for my conversation,
humour and love of life, too, perhaps even foremost. But the other part
is also important.
to make money
Richard Mateosian
>Why do we judge people on the basis of their intelligence? Why do intelligent
>people often have it so much better than unintelligent people?
I don't think that people are judged on their intelligence, since I don't
think that most people can tell when "general intelligence" is the principal
factor in behavior that they like or dislike in others.
As to "having it so much better", one would expect that recognition and
application of the techniques leading to success in society would be
facilitated by intelligence. On the other hand, there seems to be a
contrary factor as well. A sufficient quantitative difference in
intelligence can actually become a qualitative difference. People who
differ greatly in intelligence actually think differently and have trouble
empathizing with each other. From this phenomenon arises what you might
call optimal intelligence.
For any group, the optimal intelligence for leaders, teachers, etc, is
about 1 standard deviation above the group average. This helps to
explain why some people can achieve success among higher intelligence
groups like techies, political leaders, etc, but may not function as well
among "ordinary" people.
--
Richard Mateosian
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!s...@decwrl.ARPA
ron vaughn
>me (I have no answer to it, unfortunately) is "why do we judge people on
>the basis of their intelligence? why do intelligent people often have it
>so much better than unintelligent people?" Why should intelligence, which
>be intelligent), be used to judge a person? I think the answers to this
>question are not as simple as one might think. (You may disagree, that's
>fine.)
>
i think it's partly because people "admire" intelligence. that is THE
NUMBER ONE way someone can really impress me, with their intelligence.
while not everyone feels as strongly about this, almost everyone *is*
impressed with intelligence. if a bunch of us are working on a tough
math problem and are stuck, but joe schmoe comes along, screatches his
head, and figures it out, let's face it, we are impressed. we think
"ghee, why didn't i see that" etc.
why do intelligent people have it so much better? depends on what you
mean by intelligence, it's a pretty wide open term, but part of intelligence
(to me) means you can, like the example above, solve problems better.
intelligence is a profitable, marketable asset to have. you do your
job better, "smarter", more efficiently etc. if you are intelligent
and apply your intelligence to your job, life, studies etc., (and
most (not all) intelligent people are intelligent enough to do so), you
will go far and be "so much better".
i think intelligence is a very good, but not complete, way to judge someone.
for the record, when it comes to "how i judge women" in terms of
being my SO, here are some of the major items:
good looks // yes, she must be good looking
good sense of humor // i have an ever running sense of humor, and
i'm an unstoppable kidder
intelligence // see above
spirit of adventure // "what the hell, let's do it!!"
good communication // has to be for good relationship
skills
honest // has to be for good relationship
can put up with me // we all have our quirks, mine aren't
necessarily awful, but i have my share
like everyone else.
some may give me crap about the "good looking" part, but i'm being honest.
there are BILLIONS of women out there. when i choose a mate (actually,
i already have) i'm going to choose a good looking one. one might
argue "but ron, what about ms. X, who has all the qualities but looks?? aren't
you being mean, cruel, heartless??" and i reply "yes, there are millions
of ms. X's out there, but there are also thousands of ms. Y's out there,
so that's the group i'm targeting for." other's say "i don't want a dumb
broad" or "he HAS to have a sense of humor" etc. this is no different.
like i said, i'm just being honest.
and i met a wonderful girl a couple of years ago who meets all of these
qualities (and has many more terrific qualities), and things are hunky-dory.
summary: just about everyone admires intelligence, intelligence seems
like a good thing to have, rons has a tough set of rules for becoming
his mate, ron has met miss wonderful who passed all the rules and
is now living happily ever after.
tab witty saying comma new-line
ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv
ps: one more things, her name must NOT rhyme with 'vaughn' -- nevonne,
yevonne, shawn.... luckily melinda's name is melinda.
ron vaughn
....
>about 1 standard deviation above the group average. This helps to
>explain why some people can achieve success among higher intelligence
>groups like techies, political leaders, etc, but may not function as well
>among "ordinary" people.
>--
>Richard Mateosian
you actually believe that political leaders can be classed as generally
intelligent?? your average political leader at the city, county, state,
and most national levels does not come across to me as being intelligent.
the only thing you can positively say about them is they have run for
and gained public office. intelligence has little to do with this.
there are of course numerous exceptions, but there are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS
of elected officials out there. your average congressman doesn't know
his asshole from his elbow. standard reply: "you have to understand ron,
you don't become a congressman by being stupid." sure, not stupid, but
certainly not intelligent. do you think ronald reagan is intelligent, or
a good politician? i always considered carter intelligent, most people
agree to that, but he was a pretty poor pres. maybe you should have
average intelligence to be a politican, if need be surround yourself with
specialist (intelligent on the given subject). this seems to be what most
major politicians do. lower level politicians (small town mayor, city-ward
representative etc.) have the same ol' average intelligence (at best)
but can't afford the specialist.
summary: ron doesn't think politicians are very intelligent, at lest
not significantly more so than the average door-knob.
VOTE FOR: ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv
Michael M. Sykora
>. . . This helps to
>explain why some people can achieve success among higher intelligence
>groups like techies, political leaders, etc, but may not function as well
>among "ordinary" people.
Higher intelligence groups like . . . political leaders . . . ?
Oh, you mean like Reagan, right? :-)
Jeff Lichtman
> Stephenson) had hundreds of people opening other peoples' mail. The ``other
> people'' were known or suspected spies, and it was important that the letters
> be opened carefully and resealed perfectly. For some reason, the fellow in
> charge of this operation found that women with attractive ankles did well,
> and women who did poorly almost always has less well-shaped ankles. You
> may speculate what you like about muscle tone in the limbs, but this is what
> was reported.
What sample size did he have?
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
--
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak
{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
Michael M. Sykora
> . . . My
>personal preference is to make that introduction only after first finding
>out something more important about the person than her looks, but this
>preference is rare, it seems.
I agree. Otherwise, she may be just another pretty face. Unfortunately,
this is often infeasible, so one just has to approach a MOTOS and hope
for the best.
Mike Sykora
J. Eric Roskos
>possible, shouldn't they?
No... fat people die from heart disease before the children have fully
grown and become independent. (One could get into some really heated
arguments over complicated genetic issues, here too! Like, I could argue
1) Fat people are fat because their parents thought fat children
were cute.
2) Philosophies of cuteness are inherited.
3) Fat people will therefore produce fat children.
Now, my initial statement was that people who are overweight tend to die
earlier from heart disease, so people who produce fat children produce
children who are more likely to die from heart disease. So fat people
should (according to the way back there original hypothesis) be less
attractive.
But, all the above is just a hypothetical argument in itself! I am not at
all sure I believe that; my own theories of why "fat" people are more fre-
quently thought of as not attractive are very much more complicated than
that, and I have already written about 5 articles in here defending my
previously posted arguments, and am very tired.*
See? This is philosophy that is not inbred; this is a love of knowledge
not narcisissistic.
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"V'q engure or n puvgva, jerfgyrq va n frrq bhgjbea,
Naq urne byq Rora, jvaqvat n fvyrag ubea."
Brian Ross Gardner
It seems, from people I know and consider bright, that there is a
jealousy factor involved. (Not the 'envey' type.) Very bright people
are usually also highly involved with their career. I've known several
people who seem half married to their career and half dedicated to
their relationship. Unfortunately, people can get jealous of
more than just other human interests.
Has anyone else encountered or noticed this?
j...@faust.uucp
"But if you can't be with the one you love, honey
Love the one you're with
love the one you're with
love the one you're with
dei-dei-det de det dei da-det,
dei-dei-det de det dei da-det,
da-da-det
da-da-det "
not sooo long ago ...
CSN
you don't need to *learn to love*, just love.
"...don't give it up, ya got an empty cup,
only love can fill ...."
pasta fazool.
josepi
Dave Bursik
>Why do we judge people on the basis of their intelligence? Why do intelligent
>people often have it so much better than unintelligent people?
Those of you who grew up in a small town as "the smartest kid in the class"
may want to dispute the comment that intelligent people have it so much better.
While it's true that intelligence may be more highly valued among many adults,
it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.
Meanwhile, it takes a lot of years (most of them formative) to get to the
stage where intelligence is regarded as an asset by people other than your
parents (and even they weren't too sure sometimes :-)).
I suspect that the more intelligent one is, the more one uses intelligence
as a measure of worth (that has a nice, self-fulfilling prophetic ring to it).
Michael M. Sykora
>Those of you who grew up in a small town as "the smartest kid in the class"
>may want to dispute the comment that intelligent people have it so much better.
>While it's true that intelligence may be more highly valued among many adults,
>it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
>normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.
Not onlt that, but being at the end of the normal curve also makes it
harder to find friends and SOs that have a similar level of intelligence.
Michael M. Sykora
>Those of you who grew up in a small town as "the smartest kid in the class"
>may want to dispute the comment that intelligent people have it so much better.
>While it's true that intelligence may be more highly valued among many adults,
>it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
>normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.
Not only that, but being at the end of the normal curve also makes it
Rick Lindsley
>>people often have it so much better than unintelligent people?
>
>Those of you who grew up in a small town as "the smartest kid in the class"
>may want to dispute the comment that intelligent people have it so much better.
You said it. I was one of those at the upper end of the SAT scores in high
school, and it took tremendous effort to be invited (or even considered) to
any social functions. It wasn't a cruel crusade or anything -- it was just an
attitude of "well, I didn't think you'd be interested." Girls did not want to
be seen with "a brain"; they'd rather be seen with "a jock". (Please no
comments on overgeneralization -- remember this is from someone who necessarily
has a rather colored view.) It was only after I both moved up in the high
school government AND joined the basketball team that I became "acceptable".
The same thinking also persisted through most of college, unfortunately.
Because I did not like to get blind drunk or sky high at least once a week,
I was at best peculiar and at worst an outcast, rarely included in any
social events.
Now that I'm through college and in the "real world", I have to say that the
same intelligence which caused me social problems in high school have enabled
me to get a well-paying job doing something I enjoy. So in that respect,
perhaps, I DO have it better than less intelligent people who had to settle
for something less. Now. But I've only had one steady girlfriend in six years,
and that for only four months. So I would not say I've had it all that much
"better" or "easier" -- emotional support is as necessary as financial
support.
Rick Lindsley
...{ihnp4,decvax,hplabs,allegra}!tektronix!daemon!richl
J. Eric Roskos
>It seems, from people I know and consider bright, that there is a
>jealousy factor involved. (Not the 'envey' type.)
I think this is more common in relationships in which one person is of the
"bright" type you described, and the other is not. The latter does not
understand intellectual motivation, and can't thus understand why he or she
is not more important than some purely intellectual pursuit.
Really, though, I think it is more a function of a different personality
trait. The people who are "bright" in such a case perhaps tend to be that
way BECAUSE they have this interest in such pursuits. I'm not sure that
intelligence is the cause here.
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"V'z bss gb gur Orezbbgurf, gb jngpu gur bavbaf
na' gur rryf!" [Jryy, jbhyq lbh oryvrir Arj Wrefrl?]
Greg Woods
> it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
> normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.
This is a very accurate observation, and applies to other attributes equally
well as it does to intelligence. The only exception to this seems to be
athletic ability among males, where the better you are, the more you are
respected in a linear relationship. (Is there a female equivalent to this?
While I recognize that females participate in sports too, there doesn't seem
to be the social "pecking order" among girls based on athletic ability as
there is among the boys)
I speak from experience, having been one of those "smartest kid in the class"
types and also a "Fat Albert" type (heavy, slow, and poor at sports) when I
was in high school. The only difference between someone who suffered this kind
of ostracism and those who didn't is that it takes my kind longer to "grow up".
(For example, I didn't have my first girlfriend until I was 24. Most people
have their first SO in high school or college). I think adolescents are
extremely cruel, primarily because they have not yet learned to see the world
through someone else's viewpoint.
But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a kick
out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are married (or
divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, and do not seem to
be as happy with their lives as I am with mine.
--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
!hao!woods
CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
"...I may not be right but I've never been wrong
It seldom turns out the way it does in the song..."
Peter Barbee
again |-).
This is probably a stupid and naive thought but, does it matter? Does
it matter why you are attracted to another person? Maybe it would be nice
if the two of you were honest (I've always liked women whose second toe
is longer than their big toe) about what the big attraction is, but it seems
to be most important that there is one. Later it will be important that is
still exists, of that there is a new attraction.
I have asked women to share some time on the basis of their good income, or
their shapely legs, or any of a hundred (well maybe a couple of dozen) other
reasons. I mean there has to be some reason to notice that particular person
in the first place. What keeps me (and I hope her) coming back is simply a
feeling of enjoyment. I know I never enjoyed an afternoon bike ride because
of her good income (her shapely legs might be a different story |-)) but
because of how I felt in her company.
Does is really matter why? No, we just want to have fun.
Peter B
Sophie Quigley
> > it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
> > normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.
>
> This is a very accurate observation, and applies to other attributes equally
> well as it does to intelligence. The only exception to this seems to be
> athletic ability among males, where the better you are, the more you are
> respected in a linear relationship. (Is there a female equivalent to this?
> While I recognize that females participate in sports too, there doesn't seem
> to be the social "pecking order" among girls based on athletic ability as
> there is among the boys)
Actually in my school (an all-girls school) the pecking order was also based
on athle,tic ability.
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
Gene Spafford
aren't familiar with the "good old days" when I posted beaucoup articles.
For those of you who've seen this -- my apologies for the rerun.)
Let me start off by pointing out that intelligence is hard to identify.
There are many different kinds of intelligence, and some people have
more of one than another. Grades, test scores, problem solving ability --
these measure limited forms of intelligence, if they measure any at all.
Be careful who you label as intelligent and who you label as not.
With that out of the way, let me note that I am one of those
"intelligent" people, at least as far as all the tests I've taken have
shown. I always was a bit of an outcast because of it, and I had a
really difficult time socially during my pre-college years. I didn't
fit in as an undergrad, either. As a grad student I've sort of found
my own level and am involved with others at the same approximate level,
and I am very comfortable in this environment (perhaps too much so).
Romance is difficult when you look for intelligence approximating your
own. I mean, physical attraction is nice, but I do need a break now
and then {:-)} and being able to talk with someone I consider an
equal is a must for a healthy long-term relationship. Finding
intelligent women with complimentary interests isn't always easy
in an academic environment. So, I looked elsewhere -- I joined
Mensa. It's not an elitist group as some would charge. It is simply
a group of people with something in common who get together to form
a social environment that offers a break from the workday environment.
Members have only one thing in common -- they scored in the top 2%
on some standardized intelligence test. That doesn't mean that they're
more intelligent than anyone else, it just means they did well on
those tests (see the second paragraph).
In short, I met a lot of very nice (and some very crazy) people, including
a number of attractive, intelligent, amusing women. In fact, one of them
is living with me now and we're getting married this fall (after I finish
my degree {if I finish my degree}). At least 3 other couples have met
through the group and married or posslq'd in the last 2 years.
If you're not willing to settle for less than you think you deserve, and
if you think you deserve the best, it might be worth checking out.
If you want more info, drop me a note.
--
Gene "3 months and holding" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
Gregg Mackenzie
> (Is there a female equivalent to this?
> While I recognize that females participate in sports too, there doesn't seem
> to be the social "pecking order" among girls based on athletic ability as
> there is among the boys)
You're right, Greg. The female pecking order is based on 1) looks and 2) "Does
she put out?" rather than athletic ability. And, concerning boys, athletic
ability isn't always enough; see (1), above. I, too, speak from experience.
While I was not a "smart kid", I did play ice hockey. However, I was also a
band-nerd/pizza-face/four-eyes type kid. Athletic ability did not improve my
social life. I had less than five dates all through high school. My brother
(younger) black-mailed a friend so I could go to the senior prom. High school
is where you learn what shallow people are all about.
> But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a kick
> out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are married (or
> divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, and do not seem to
> be as happy with their lives as I am with mine.
Every now and then I run into one of those girls who blew me off whenever I
asked for a date and it's funny to see how they're all of a sudden interested,
now that my looks have improved. (Also, learning to lick your eyebrows does
wonders for your popularity with women.)
Gregg Mackenzie
denelcor!gmack
Frank Silbermann
>>While it's true that intelligence may be more highly valued among many adults,
>>it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
>>normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.
In article <hao.1571> wo...@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:
> This is a very accurate observation, and applies to other attributes equally
>well as it does to intelligence. The only exception to this seems to be
>athletic ability among males, where the better you are, the more you are
>respected in a linear relationship. Is there a female equivalent to this?
How about beauty?
> But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a kick
>out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are married (or
>divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, and do not seem to
>be as happy with their lives as I am with mine.
Unfortunately, no matter what successes you may achieve in life,
there is no glory equal to the adulation received by a high school
football star. Not even if you become President.
Frank Silbermann
Kchula-Rrit
>
> Now that I'm through college and in the "real world", I have to say that the
> same intelligence which caused me social problems in high school have enabled
> me to get a well-paying job doing something I enjoy. So in that respect,
> perhaps, I DO have it better than less intelligent people who had to settle
> for something less. Now.
> But I've only had one steady girlfriend in six years,
> and that for only four months.
To my mind, in relationships, quality is better than quantity; i.e. I
would rather have one good relationship than a lot of mediocre ones.
However, finding that one good one can be QUITE difficult...
> So I would not say I've had it all that much
> "better" or "easier" -- emotional support is as necessary as financial
> support.
Same here.
>
> Rick Lindsley
Kchula-Rrit
Michael M. Sykora
>Does is really matter why?
It may to her.
I wouldn't find it comforting to know that an SO of mine didn't think
the difference in personality between myself and a look-alike is
important. I'm not advocating petty self-importance, but I suspect
most of us want our SOs to consider us distinct from the crowd.
Mike Sykora
nyssa of traken
>as a measure of worth (that has a nice, self-fulfilling prophetic ring to it).
Do you mean self-worth, or how one values others? I know that I can not
successfully date somebody with whom I can not discuss things. This
implies that the persons I date be of some intelligence, the higher the
better. Therefore, I do use it as an "evaluator" when I decide to
allocate my resources.
--
James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa
The Boss gave me one of these, ten seconds, he said. Let's see
if it works...
Dana S. Nau
> ... So, I looked elsewhere -- I joined
>Mensa. It's not an elitist group as some would charge. It is simply
>a group of people with something in common who get together to form
Personally, I have mixed feelings about Mensa. I met some very nice people
that way, but I also met some people who didn't seem to be very good at
interacting with other people and who appeared to be using their
intelligence as an excuse for their lack of social skills.
I found Mensa to be a good way to meet people at times when I had just moved
to a new location--but in each case, after I had lived there for a while and
had formed closer friendships, I ended up losing interest in Mensa.
However, I realize that other people's experiences may differ!
--
Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932
Adrienne Regard
>You said it. I was one of those at the upper end of the SAT scores in high
>school, and it took tremendous effort to be invited (or even considered) to
>any social functions. It wasn't a cruel crusade or anything -- it was just an
>attitude of "well, I didn't think you'd be interested." Girls did not want to
>be seen with "a brain"; they'd rather be seen with "a jock".
Well, speaking from the female point of view, I was at the upper end of SAT
scores, too, and I was not invited places because that was intimidating.
(Plus, my social skills left something to be desired, I'm sure). The jocks
wouldn't go out with me because many had trouble understanding English, and
the smart guys were so downtrodden because the cheerleaders turned up their
noses that they didn't have the guts to ask me either. I asked guys out as
often as I was asked out, and I wasn't ever turned down, either (in high
school. I has some setbacks in college). I can remember having a good
time, and not caring about being "seen" with the people I wanted to spend
some time with.
You shoulda realized then what I did -- there are plenty of fish in the sea --
interesting fish at that. "Girls" in the sense used above means really one
specific group of females who had a specific sense of values that didn't
include you.
>Now that I'm through college and in the "real world", I have to say that the
>same intelligence which caused me social problems in high school have enabled
>me to get a well-paying job doing something I enjoy. So in that respect,
>perhaps, I DO have it better than less intelligent people who had to settle
>for something less. Now. But I've only had one steady girlfriend in six years,
>and that for only four months. So I would not say I've had it all that much
>"better" or "easier" -- emotional support is as necessary as financial
>support.
There is something dangerous in believing your situation doesn't have it's
counterpart in the females of the world, and not trying to find those
females who feel similarly to you. Why do I get the feeling you are still
missing the wealth of the population pool? (Not trying to put words in
your mouth here -- trying for clarification).
Adrienne Regard
The Polymath
>
>You shoulda realized then what I did -- there are plenty of fish in the sea --
>interesting fish at that. "Girls" in the sense used above means really one
>specific group of females who had a specific sense of values that didn't
>include you.
>
>counterpart in the females of the world, and not trying to find those
>females who feel similarly to you. Why do I get the feeling you are still
>missing the wealth of the population pool?
The problem you're overlooking is that having a high I.Q. can give a whole
new meaning to "lonely at the top". I've scored well enough on various
tests to qualify for membership in several of the "high IQ" societies.
The problem is not just finding women who want to go out with me, but also
finding women with whom I can interact on my level.
Screening on intelligence alone narrows my choices to less than 2% of the
general population. From that reduced pool I have to find people who meet
my other criteria for compatability (brains aren't everything (-: ), and
from _that_ tiny minority I have to find those who find _me_ acceptable.
Looked at from this perspective, there aren't that many fish in the sea
after all, at least not useful ones. The best one can do is to look for
the better fishing grounds, i.e.: join Mensa and attend their various
activities. At least the preliminary screening has mostly been done for
you.
Granted, there are high IQ type people who prefer their SOs to be less
intelligent than they are. They do have a wide population to choose from.
For those of us who aren't intimidated by other people's brains and want to
share our interests with our SOs, the choice is _much_ narrower.
And remember:
"Before you find your handsome/beautiful prince(ss) you'll have to kiss a
lot of frogs."
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI "How goes the rat race?"
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. "The rats are winning."
Santa Monica, CA 90405 -- Paul Lynde
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
Michael M. Sykora
Unfortunately, no matter what successes you may achieve in life,
there is no glory equal to the adulation received by a high school
football star. Not even if you become President.
Are you serious???????
Chris Andersen
> I speak from experience, having been one of those "smartest kid in the class"
> types and also a "Fat Albert" type (heavy, slow, and poor at sports) when I
> was in high school. The only difference between someone who suffered this kind
> of ostracism and those who didn't is that it takes my kind longer to "grow up".
come to terms with oneself much earlier in life then those who have little time
for self-reflection (ie those that are more popular in school). In many ways,
those kids who act the most "adult" are the least qualified to be adults while
those who don't act "grown up" are matured before their time.
> (For example, I didn't have my first girlfriend until I was 24. Most people
> have their first SO in high school or college).
Same with me, my first (and only) SO didn't happen till this past year in
college. But again, I don't consider having an SO as a qualification for being
"grown up".
> ... I think adolescents are
> extremely cruel, primarily because they have not yet learned to see the world
> through someone else's viewpoint.
> But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a kick
> out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are married (or
> divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, and do not seem to
> be as happy with their lives as I am with mine.
Ahhh, sweet revenge.
>
> --Greg
> --
> {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
> !hao!woods
>
> CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
>
Chris Andersen
tektronix!azure!chrisa
Greg Woods
> general population. From that reduced pool I have to find people who meet
> my other criteria for compatability (brains aren't everything (-: ), and
> from _that_ tiny minority I have to find those who find _me_ acceptable.
Jerry, I'm really surprised. From previous postings I've always thought of
you as a very sensitive and open-minded person, but this sounds like a really
closed attitude. Have you ever even *tried* dating a woman who doesn't score
as high as you did on those IQ tests? And even if you did, and had a bad
experience, does that necessarily mean it could *never* work out with someone
like that? It seems to me that *any* selection criteria that eliminates 98%
of the candidates is self-defeating. It sounds to me like you have a belief
about what people who score lower than you on IQ tests are like, and you are
unwilling to open your mind up to being wrong about it, even to the point
of eliminating 98% of women as possibilities. My advice to you is open your
mind to a relationship not necessarily looking like this picture you have in
your mind about it. You might be pleasantly surprised sometime.
Frank Silbermann
Greg Woods:
>> While I recognize that females participate in sports too, there doesn't seem
>> to be the social "pecking order" among girls based on athletic ability as
>> there is among the boys)
In article <denelvx.41> gm...@denelvx.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) writes:
>You're right, Greg. The female pecking order is based on 1) looks and 2) "Does
>she put out?" rather than athletic ability. And, concerning boys, athletic
>ability isn't always enough; see (1), above. I, too, speak from experience.
>While I was not a "smart kid", I did play ice hockey. However, I was also a
>band-nerd/pizza-face/four-eyes type kid. Athletic ability did not improve my
>social life.
>
>Every now and then I run into one of those girls who blew me off whenever I
>asked for a date and it's funny to see how they're all of a sudden interested,
>now that my looks have improved. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Aha! At least one person agrees with me on the value of being good-looking.
But don't be too hard on theses women, Gregg. They're only behaving normally.
To bad your athletic ability didn't help you much. I guess having the
athletic IMAGE is more important that actual skill. But maybe you are
just the exception that proves the rule.
It is common among many animals in nature that when mating, the female
chooses the male who is the best physical specimen. This gives the
children two advantages -- a greater likelihood of growing up to be equally
strong, and the greater protection from a father who is dominant in the herd.
Such instincts probably influence human mating even today.
Nowadays, intelligence, cunning and wealth are more important than
physical strength when establishing dominance, but women are still
affected by their instincts that say "Go for the hunk."
This is especially true about younger women (high school hackers
take note!) whose thinking is more emotional and instinctive.
When they get older, they learn that jocks don't always make
the best partners, so the their rational mind begins to ignore
these stirrings of the reptilian cortex.
As a child I was a skinny ectomorph with had asthma and flat feet.
I suffered greatly -- not from the disabilities themselves,
but from the way the other kids reacted to them.
Starting in high school, my health slowly began to improve.
Custom orthotic shoe inserts improved my walk, and by my mid-twenties,
weight training had made my body hard and wiry (though still very slender).
About this time I went to a singles weekend at a rustic resort in
the Catskill mountains. The singles group made up half the clientel
that weekend -- the other half were families on longer vacations.
All the other participants, it seemed, were Jews from Brooklyn and
Queens, NY. I must mention that among all the ethnic groups in America,
Jews de-emphasize athletics the most (many of the older crowd spent
their time out in the country sitting indoors playing cards).
I bring this up because it gives special emphasis to the following
anecdote's lesson.
I met a reasonably attractive young woman there with whom I felt
I had much in common. She was friendy, yet cool and reserved.
Though other singles were pairing off, she still seemed to treat me
as merely "one of the gang." Then, on the second day, we came across
an older man bouncing his pre-school daughter (or grand-daughter)
into the air and catching her. The child was gigling. My friend said,
"I used to love it when my father did that to me."
I thought to myself, "Dare I risk it? Will she think I'm a jerk?
Nah, go for it!" I picked the woman off her feet and began tossing
her into the air and catching her, just as the man had done with his
daughter. That really broke the ice between us, and began a very
serious relationship (which unfortunately ended some months later).
After it ended, we were still friends, so I asked her what had
attracted her to me in the first place. She said, "I first noticed
my feelings for you after you threw me up in the air at that resort."
Now this lady is certainly no jock groupie. Most of her other
dates were computer nerds like me. Yet, it was a showing of raw,
stupid machismo that got her hormones flowing.
So it never hurts to play up the your athletic side. It may help
a great deal. You might not like being judged on looks and athletics,
but it's a fact of life. You can spend your time whining about
how the world SHOULD be, or you can recognize the way it IS,
deal with it, and achieve your goals.
Happy huntin'
Frank Silbermann
ANYBODY OUT THERE FROM PALATKA, FLORIDA, OR THEREABOUTS?
Dana S. Nau
>
>The problem you're overlooking is that having a high I.Q. can give a whole
>new meaning to "lonely at the top". I've scored well enough on various
>tests to qualify for membership in several of the "high IQ" societies.
>The problem is not just finding women who want to go out with me, but also
>finding women with whom I can interact on my level.
I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have
problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social
skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners.
Several years ago I agreed with your point of view, but I believe I was
fooling myself. Things started working out a LOT better for me once I
started learning how to feel more comfortable around people, to value them
for who they were, and to stop being so hung up about how "smart" I was.
The same might be true for you.
>Looked at from this perspective, there aren't that many fish in the sea
>after all, at least not useful ones.
That attitude is insidious because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. One is
much more likely to meet interesting people if one STARTS OUT with the
attitude that other people are interesting.
>Granted, there are high IQ type people who prefer their SOs to be less
>intelligent than they are. They do have a wide population to choose from.
>For those of us who aren't intimidated by other people's brains and want to
>share our interests with our SOs, the choice is _much_ narrower.
Are you saying you aren't interested in someone unless her IQ score matches
yours? That strikes me as a rather artificial criterion. I know a woman
who has an uncanny ability to figure out what other people are like and what
they are thinking. In terms of that particular ability, she is smarter than
I can ever hope to be--but that ability is NOT something that is ever
measured on an IQ test.
Jonathan Corbet
This discussion is one of the more interesting ones I have seen in
this group for a while. It strikes a lot of nerves. Let me say from a lot
of personal experience that being the "smart kid" in a small town school
(try Wilson, Wyo. for SMALL!) is not an easy experience, especially when one
is not all that strong (most of the boys were cattle-wrestlers, literally),
and tends to have longish hair and liberal attitudes. And people wonder why
I came to Colorado...
But anyway, I, too, have found that I have a hard time getting close
to women whose intelligence does not impress me. Sometimes I think that I am
just to finicky for my own good, and that's why I spent so much time without an
SO, but then I find somebody with whom I can really talk, and I understand what
I am waiting for.
>> Screening on intelligence alone narrows my choices to less than 2% of the
>> general population.
> It seems to me that *any* selection criteria that eliminates 98%
>of the candidates is self-defeating.
I must disagree, Greg; I would say that I am probably just as fussy
as the person (I don't know who that was) in the first quote. Sure enough,
that makes it hard to find people, but bad experiences with the wrong people
can make it even harder.
Has anybody else found any solutions to this type of problem? I went
to one of the local Mensa parties at the invitation of a member, and I
found a bunch of people (mostly male) sitting around talking about how they were
so much smarter than everybody else. I was not impressed. I have found that
most of the truly intelligent women I meet are at work, since there are a lot
of women who go into atmospheric sciences. But that is not a good place to be
looking for romance, so I am at a loss. I am trying to find a good literary
discussion group or some other place to meet intelligent women, but little
luck so far. Maybe it's time to go back to school.
jon
--
Jonathan Corbet
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Field Observing Facility
{seismo|hplabs}!hao!boulder!jon (Thanks to CU CS department)
William Ingogly
> ... Have you ever even *tried* dating a woman who doesn't score
>as high as you did on those IQ tests? And even if you did, and had a bad
>experience, does that necessarily mean it could *never* work out with someone
>like that? It seems to me that *any* selection criteria that eliminates 98%
>of the candidates is self-defeating. It sounds to me like you have a belief
>about what people who score lower than you on IQ tests are like, and you are
>unwilling to open your mind up to being wrong about it, even to the point
>of eliminating 98% of women as possibilities. ...
Someone whose main criterion for finding friends (romantic or not) is that
their capabilities and interests closely match his/hers is going to find
himself/herself alone more often than not. I agree that this attitude is
self-defeating, for I was guilty of it myself in my younger years.
Qualities like empathy, enjoyment of athletic activities, enjoyment of
music, a sense of humor, and so on have little to do with IQ scores
and are MUCH more important in relationships than things like
mathematical and spatial skills. See how much your knowledge of
quantum mechanics helps you when your SO is tired or depressed and
needs comforting ...
But a caution is in order; someone who feels that broadening his
criteria for friendship is in some way lowering his standards has a
problem. He shouldn't abandon his search for the perfect, mirror-image
mate until he understands WHY it's a problem and is prepared to deal
with it.
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
Greg Woods
> >of the candidates is self-defeating.
>
> I must disagree, Greg; I would say that I am probably just as fussy
> as the person (I don't know who that was) in the first quote. Sure enough,
> that makes it hard to find people, but bad experiences with the wrong people
> can make it even harder.
Well, I suppose my statement is also a bit too generalized, because
ultimately most of us want to eliminate 99.9999999% of the population (i.e.
all but one). But scores on an IQ test seems like such an *arbitrary* criterion
for eliminating 98% of the available possibilities before even *meeting* them.
I still think that's taking the "selection" process a long way overboard.
Essentially, it is a case of making up one's mind about someone without
even giving them a chance. It is quite likely to lead to passing over some
very good potential mates, and for what? So he can be right about how smart
he is? Seems dumb to me.
> I have found that
> most of the truly intelligent women I meet are at work, since there are a lot
> of women who go into atmospheric sciences. But that is not a good place to be
> looking for romance, so I am at a loss.
Why not, Jon? I know two people who are getting married this summer who met
at NCAR. Sounds like yet another arbitrary advanced elimination criteria to me.
At least consider the possibility that you are closing yourself off from some
potentially rewarding relationships.
Richard Mateosian
>of the candidates is self-defeating.
That depends on how many you're selecting from and how many slots you have
to fill. And if a REQUIREMENT is *not* used as a selection criterion, then
you're wasting your time, even if 99.99999% of candidates would be eliminated.
In other words, if you're selecting a one-and-only lifelong mate from the
n billion people in the world, a selection criterion that cuts out 98% is
a good start.
--
Richard Mateosian
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!s...@decwrl.ARPA
Greg Skinner
>> adults, it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends
>> of the normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.
> The only difference between someone who suffered this kind
> of ostracism and those who didn't is that it takes my kind longer to "grow
> up". (For example, I didn't have my first girlfriend until I was 24. Most
> people have their first SO in high school or college). I think adolescents
> are extremely cruel, primarily because they have not yet learned to see the
> world through someone else's viewpoint.
I had the same experiences when I was in junior high and high school. I was not
only smarter than most of the kids (junior high) but I wore thick glasses which
made me look like a nerd. I was teased a lot and I was miserable and started
seeing myself as they saw me, instead of appreciating myself. When I got to
high school things got better because I was around other smart kids, but I still
wasn't over being teased. I was still emotionally scarred, which led to shyness
which is still with me to some degree today (for example, I get nervous when I
have to say something in front of a group). Does anyone have any ideas why
adolescents treat each other so cruelly? Has anyone done a study on it? I
think it would make a good study in child psychology.
> But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a kick
> out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are married (or
> divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, and do not seem to
> be as happy with their lives as I am with mine.
A lot of the people who teased me back in junior high don't have such well pay-
ing jobs as mine, or are not even working, so I can say the same. Some of them
even have kids they don't want.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes we wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
gregbo%houxm...@harvard.arpa
Greg Skinner
>>Now that I'm through college and in the "real world", I have to say that the
>>same intelligence which caused me social problems in high school have enabled
>>me to get a well-paying job doing something I enjoy. So in that respect,
>>perhaps, I DO have it better than less intelligent people who had to settle
>>for something less. Now. But I've only had one steady girlfriend in six years,
>>and that for only four months. So I would not say I've had it all that much
>>"better" or "easier" -- emotional support is as necessary as financial
>>support.
> There is something dangerous in believing your situation doesn't have it's
> counterpart in the females of the world, and not trying to find those
> females who feel similarly to you. Why do I get the feeling you are still
> missing the wealth of the population pool? (Not trying to put words in
> your mouth here -- trying for clarification).
True. I have started wondering recently how women my age and older feel who
haven't dated at all, or haven't dated much, or were never married, or were
married once but are no longer. I wonder if they think they'll never be mar-
ried, or whether they've given up on the idea of marriage. I wonder if they
think they'll never meet the man for them, because most men their age are
already married and the others are too young. I wonder if career women have
it easier, because they can dedicate their lives to their careers, but maybe
they are just using their careers as substitutes. Particularly, I wonder if
they feel they won't ever have children.
Comments welcome.
j...@boulder.uucp
> From hao!woods (greg):
> But scores on an IQ test seems like such an *arbitrary* criterion
>for eliminating 98% of the available possibilities before even *meeting* them.
>I still think that's taking the "selection" process a long way overboard.
OK, let's differentiate between intelligence and IQ scores. I guess I
measure intelligence by how stimulating (mentally! :-) I find it to talk to
another person, and in particular how much I can learn from this person. I
don't even know what my IQ is, I certainly would not use such an arbitrary
number to judge others. My "intelligence criterion" can not be applied until
I have talked to a person for a while.
>> (me):
>> I have found that
>> most of the truly intelligent women I meet are at work, since there are a lot
>> of women who go into atmospheric sciences. But that is not a good place to be
>> looking for romance, so I am at a loss.
> Why not, Jon? I know two people who are getting married this summer who met
>at NCAR. Sounds like yet another arbitrary advanced elimination criteria to me.
>At least consider the possibility that you are closing yourself off from some
>potentially rewarding relationships.
This comes down to the old question of dating those with whom you work.
I have no qualms against dating people from another division, but, being
isolated from most of NCAR by my location, I don't get to do much of that. You
have a good point, though, and I will just have to work on that....hmm...
Michael M. Sykora
>I must mention that among all the ethnic groups in America,
>Jews de-emphasize athletics the most (many of the older crowd spent
>their time out in the country sitting indoors playing cards).
Perhaps secular Jews, but not traditional Jews, many of whom tend to be
sports fanatics. Also, Jews aren't really an ethnic group.
Mike Sykora
Frank Silbermann
>>Unfortunately, no matter what successes you may achieve in life,
>>there is no glory equal to the adulation received by a high school
>>football star. Not even if you become President.
In article <acf4.1560065> mms...@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
> Are you serious???????
"High school football hero" is a role with all the privileges of royalty,
but none of the responsibilities.
Frank Silbermann
dimi...@csd2.uucp
>> I must mention that among all the ethnic groups in America,
>> Jews de-emphasize athletics the most (many of the older crowd spent
>> their time out in the country sitting indoors playing cards).
>
> Perhaps secular Jews, but not traditional Jews, many of whom tend to be
> sports fanatics.
Not the traditional Jews *I* grew up with!
Isaac Dimitrovsky
Richard Carnes
> Then, on the second day, we came across
> an older man bouncing his pre-school daughter (or grand-daughter)
> into the air and catching her. The child was gigling. My friend said,
> "I used to love it when my father did that to me."
> ...
> After it ended, we were still friends, so I asked her what had
> attracted her to me in the first place. She said, "I first noticed
> my feelings for you after you threw me up in the air at that resort."
> Now this lady is certainly no jock groupie. Most of her other
> dates were computer nerds like me. Yet, it was a showing of raw,
> stupid machismo that got her hormones flowing.
I doubt it. She had just said that her father used to do that to
her, and she loved it. By tossing her in the air Frank symbolically
took on the role of her father, who showed his love for her by this
kind of play. No wonder she started having positive feelings for
Frank, since he literally reenacted a relationship that must have
been very meaningful and positive for her, to judge from her
spontaneous remark when she saw the child being tossed. I doubt that
Frank could have achieved the same result by bench-pressing 300 lbs.
or beating up six rival suitors.
People are always attempting (unconsciously) to recreate with other
people childhood relationships (generally with parents) that were
important to them, and this plays a major role in determining who you
fall in love with and the course the relationship takes.
> It is common among many animals in nature that when mating, the female
> chooses the male who is the best physical specimen. This gives the
> children two advantages -- a greater likelihood of growing up to be equally
> strong, and the greater protection from a father who is dominant in the
> herd. Such instincts probably influence human mating even today.
Perhaps. But given that cooperation and sharing are basic to the
human species (see recent work in paleoanthropology) a woman's
offspring would have a selective advantage if her mate was not only
strong but used his strength to the advantage of his family. In
other words, if he cared for them. But these biological arguments
can only be speculative at this point, in my opinion.
> You can spend your time whining about
> how the world SHOULD be, or you can recognize the way it IS,
> deal with it, and achieve your goals.
Good advice, but first make sure you have a correct understanding of
the way the world is. In the real world, women not only go for the
Tom Selleck types who resemble a side of beef and have a
corresponding IQ (no insult to Selleck intended), but they also go
for the Dudley Moores, the Woody Allens, and the Billy Joels. In the
long run, trying to be the dominant bull of the herd is a less
effective strategy than being a caring and loving person with a lot
to give.
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
P.CARSTENSEN
Anyone who had fun in high school is not worth knowing now.
(actually I know exceptions to the above....about 3 of them)
P.
--
Patty ihnp4!homxa!carson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To most people a savage nation is wan that doesn't wear oncomf'rtable
clothes...Finley Peter Dunne (aka Mr. Dooley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Caputo
>school, and it took tremendous effort to be invited (or even considered) to
>any social functions. It wasn't a cruel crusade or anything -- it was just an
>attitude of "well, I didn't think you'd be interested." Girls did not want to
>be seen with "a brain"; they'd rather be seen with "a jock".
I went through it too, and it's no more fun for a teenage girl than for
a teenage boy, believe me. I didn't help it any by turning down dates
with anybody who wasn't "appropriate" (practically everybody). I wish
I'd had the sense to ask the appropriate ones out, but that was a *long*
time ago :-) and that kind of thing just wasn't done, even by adult women.
The female "brains" just decided we had more worthwhile things to do with
our time than dating.
One thing we had was a great supply of equivalent boys who also didn't date,
the intellectuals, the nerds, the arty types, and a couple of drug-using
meditating types (I'm talking the very early sixties here, when this was
unheard of in a small town.) We were terribly defensive and downtrodden by
all those jocks and cheerleaders (terminal depression was a requirement for
admission to the group), but we also had a great sense of being a separate,
horribly superior, world unto ourselves. And in the course of providing
mutual support through our depressing, dateless Saturday nights we managed to
have some wonderful parties.
All in all, I have never found a more fascinating group of people than my
old high school crowd from Longview, Washington (pop. 25,000), and I've been
in some pretty high-powered intellectual environments since then. I ended up
going to New York City when I graduated, directly because of the influence
of those friends.
And to top it all off, I had the satisfaction of going back to my 20-year
reunion and hearing that several of those jocks wanted to ask me out,
but were afraid to (with good reason). Now, I don't know if that was really
true, or if that's what comes from having a few drinks and taking a good hard
look at their small-town wives, but anyway I'm thoroughly convinced I got the
best of the deal.
I still have a tough time finding men as intelligent as I am, and I'm
convinced it's harder for a woman because a significant number of even the
most intelligent men are intimidated women with equal ability. And even
more are intimidated by strong-minded, independent women. But I keep
looking. Getting there is definitely half the fun. :-)
Jane Carrasco Caputo
{allegra, ihnp4, decvax, ucbvax...}!tektronix!tektools!janec
Jane Carrasco Caputo
Tektronix, Inc.
M.S. 74-900
P.O. Box 500
Beaverton, OR 97077
Gene Spafford
about Mensa, or asking me about how and why I joined. That's a pretty
heavy response for one of my postings, and I expect more will come in
the mail over the next few days. So, I figured I might as well post
this here for everyone's amusement and/or edification.
Why/when I joined:
I almost joined when I was about 11. Our 6th grade class had just
taken some battery of apptitude and intelligence tests because our
school was being tracked as part of a state education study. The
psychologist in charge of the tests told me about Mensa because, he
claimed, they couldn't even score me on the test. Since I was the
usual 4-eyed fat kid who wasn't overly popular unless someone needed
help with homework, I thought it might be a good idea to investigate a
potential source of intellectually stimulating peers. Or something
like that. So I checked it out. (Note: there is no real age limit for
joining Mensa. Current US Mensa members range from 4 to 94.)
The group local to where I lived was composed mostly of snobs, it
seems. They were all in their 30's and 40's and really didn't like the
idea of a "little kid" joining them. I took the hint and didn't bother
to join. (Many groups, especially some of the smaller ones, tend to
"inbreed" and develop a cliquish, snobbish attitude. It isn't
encouraged nor part of the Mensa philosophy, but that sometimes happens
in a group of strong-willed people. Look at some of the net groups!)
I came to Georgia Tech about 5 years ago to get my MS and PhD in
Computer Science (as an aside, the "3 months and holding" is a
reference to the expected amount of time until I defend the thesis; it
was supposed to be September, but now appears to be November). About 3
years ago, a very cherished romance broke up rather suddenly (as many
long-time net.singles readers may remember). I was lied to, cheated on,
and generally trampled under foot, and it devastated me. I really had
second thoughts about continuing on for my degree...the social
atmosphere at school suddenly became stifling. Not because of any of
the people here, but because everyone had the same interests and saw
each other all the time. I felt I needed something different to help
me make it through.
One of my advisors here was, at that time, the LocSec (Local
Secretary) of the Atlanta chapter of Mensa, and he suggested I join
Mensa as a way of meeting some amusing people with interests in
different fields. I did. He was right. Things got much better (for
various reasons -- not just Mensa), and I enjoyed the people and the
meetings. I also found True Romance. (Interestingly enough, he also
found True Romance through the local group. His wife joined while
he was the LocSec.)
How my fiancee joined:
3 years ago, Kathy was just recently divorced, and not too positive on
herself at the time. She was working in what seemed to be a menial
dead-end job despite talent out the wazoo (and elsewhere!). She had
worked hard for her degree, but there wasn't a demand market for
English Lit majors right then (or now), and she really wondered if it
was all worth it. She was lonely but she's not the type to hang out at
nightspots, and she didn't read net.singles so she would know where
else to go to meet nice guys {:-)}. Her sister-in-law-to-be was a
Mensa member and suggested Kathy join. So, Kathy took the test as a
sort of a lark, and went to a few meetings. She met some nice people
(in fact, I was the 3rd person she met at Mensa; she went out with #2
for 3 months before we started dating), liked it and stayed. Things
have vastly improved for her too.
If you want to join Mensa:
National Mensa organizations exist in at least 15 countries around the
world, and there are Mensans in at least 98 countries. Below I will
put the address and phone number of the national headquarters of the US
and Canadian Mensa groups. I may also include some of the Mensa
addresses for some of the other groups, if I can find them. You should
write to your national group for specific information. If you can't
find your country in the list, write to one of the ones on the list and
they'll be able to direct you. The info below is based on my knowledge
of the US group -- the groups in other countries are probably similar,
but not identical.
Let me suggest that if you're interested, ask for the name and phone
number of the local LocSec so you can arrange to visit a few meetings
of the local group, if there is one, and see what the group local to
you is like. Some groups are lots of fun, and some are real drags.
Some groups consist of friendly sociable people who are a joy to see,
and others prefer to just sit around and brag about how smart they
think they are. Even if the local group isn't too interesting, you
might want to join the national group because of the publications and
national meetings.
Membership is open to anyone showing a qualifying test score and paying
the membership fee. The yearly US fee is $30, which is waivable if
someone can't afford it. There is *no* other qualification to
joining. Ages of members range (currently) from 4 to 94. Mensa
espouses no political, religious, racial, or economic actions or
theories.
In lieu of the standard Mensa exam, evidence of the following test
scores will gain you admission (there are many others -- write to
find out what they are):
S.A.T. combined score better than 1300, prior to 9/77
combined score better than 1250, after 9/77
G.R.E combined score better than 1250
LSAT better than 662
ACT composite better than 29
Standford Binet, form L-M 132 or better
and so on. I submitted a notarized xerox copy of my GRE scores and
that was accepted. If you don't have any qualifying test then Mensa
(in the US, at least) will administer one to you in two stages:
1) you take an at-home exam for $8 which indicates whether
you probably qualify for admission. Parts of this exam
often show up in magazines like Reader's Digest and seem
simple -- often they are. The idea is to exclude about
60% of the population right off, but not exclude anyone
who might do well on the real test.
2) The second test is $15 and proctored. This is a lengthier
and more difficult test which is considered to be a
certified IQ test.
Let me know if any of you have other questions and I'll try to
answer them.
American Mensa, Ltd. Mensa Canada
1701 West 3rd St. POB 505
Brooklyn, NY 11223 Station S
(718) 376-1925 Toronto, ONT M5M 4L8
(416) 497-7070
U.K. call Mensa office in Wolverhampton, (0902) 26055 up to 1600
West Germany Kiel (0431) 52 12 69 (H) Udo Shultz
I also have about 8 numbers for Australia, depending on the city, and
Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand,
Norway, Philippines, and South Korea. Write me if you want one
of those -- specify your city, please, as some have multiple
contacts.
--
Gene "3 months and holding" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
mms...@acf4.uucp
>But a caution is in order; someone who feels that broadening his
>criteria for friendship is in some way lowering his standards has a
>problem. He shouldn't abandon his search for the perfect, mirror-image
>mate until he understands WHY it's a problem and is prepared to deal
>with it.
> -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
It seems to me that there is a tradeoff between what you want and your
probability of getting it. What I mean is that one should be trying to
maximize the expected value of one's SO (soory to be so coldly mathematical,
but this seems to me to be the intelligent way to make all decisions). Since
the expected value is determined by subjective values in this case, and the
corresponding probabilities vary considerably from one individual to the
next, it is not clear that much can be said about this in a general way,
other than: know -- a) who you want, ..., who you're willing to settle for
b) how likely you are to succedd in each of these cases
Mike Sykora
mms...@acf4.uucp
>"High school football hero" is a role with all the privileges of royalty,
>but none of the responsibilities.
I was not questioning the amount of adulation, I was questioning whether
it was actuallyyour contention that this adulation was worth so much, which
you seemed to be implying.
Mike Sykora
gm...@denelvx.uucp
> >Every now and then I run into one of those girls who blew me off whenever I
> >asked for a date and it's funny to see how they're all of a sudden interested,
> >now that my looks have improved.
>
> But don't be too hard on theses women, Gregg. They're only behaving normally.
The temptation to gloat does present itself. However, rejecting them out of
vindictiveness only makes me feel lower than whale dung later.
> athletic IMAGE is more important that actual skill.
> affected by their instincts that say "Go for the hunk."
> Frank Silbermann
Athletic skill, real or perceived, and/or being a "hunk", real or perceived,
is the scale by which some people measure a man's PERCEIVED virility. "My
gun got no buwets." -- Elmer Fudd
Gregg Mackenzie
denelcor!gmack
mms...@acf4.uucp
>"High school football hero" is a role with all the privileges of royalty,
>but none of the responsibilities.
I was not questioning the amount of adulation, I was questioning whether
it was actually your contention that this adulation was worth so much, which
Herb Chong [DCS]
>I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have
>problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social
>skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners.
have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills?
growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact
with people when you're not allowed to belong.
from sad experience...
Herb Chong...
I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie
CSNET: herbie%wat...@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterlo...@csnet-relay.arpa
NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
Frank Silbermann
>
>>Jews de-emphasize athletics the most (many of the older crowd spent
>>their time out in the country sitting indoors playing cards).
In article <acf4.1560066> mms...@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
>Perhaps secular Jews, but not traditional Jews, many of whom tend to be
>sports fanatics.
Fanatic as Spectators or participants? The traditional Jews I knew in N.Y.
followed all the major teams, because they enjoyed gambling on the outcomes.
But as for sports participation -- most considered sports to be merely
a way to pass the time, when you had nothing better to do (a rare occasion).
The non-Jews I grew up with in Palatka, Florida, on the other hand,
considered athletic prowess to be the prime measurement of manhood.
>Also, Jews aren't really an ethnic group.
No? Then what is your definition of "ethic group",
that American Jews do not qualify?
Frank Silbermann
Frank Silbermann
>>"High school football hero" is a role with all the privileges of royalty,
>>but none of the responsibilities.
In article <acf4.1560074> mms...@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
>I was not questioning the amount of adulation, I was questioning whether
>it was actually your contention that this adulation was worth so much,
>which you seemed to be implying.
Is it really worth so much to always have dozens of beautiful girls
(maybe even women!) chasing you, horny for your bod? To have your
faults and indiscretions overlooked? To have younger boys coming
up to you and telling you how they hope to grow up to be just like
you some day? To get special attention and favors from strangers
who recognize you?
I guess you're right, this kind of treatment would get kind of boring,
especially after a couple of decades. :-)
Frank Silbermann
Craig Sersain x4615
and careers and life in general:
A friend of mine who is noticeably fortunate in many endeavors, especially
his rich home and family life, but who is only somewhat smart, says:
"I would rather be lucky than smart, anyday!"
So would I, if I could choose.
Craig!
ga...@ism780.uucp
--------
This isn't really appropriate to net.singles, but after reading the
posting about Mensa, I thought some of you might enjoy this little
anecdote.
A few years ago a local (L.A.) Mensa chapter invited Bucky Fuller to
speak, and the event was open to the public. Several of my friends
and I (all with design degrees) decided to go. Bucky was a little
late, so a lady came out for a warm-up session. After some kind words
about Mensa, Bucky, and that night's program, she asked how many people
were Mensa members, and about 1/3 of the audience stood up. Everyone
applauded. Next she asked how many people were invited guests of
Mensa members, about another 1/3 of the audience stood up, and
everyone applauded. Then she asked how many people from the "general
public" had come, and I stood up with the remaining approx. 1/3 of the
audience.
At that point (being somewhat of a smartass, but probably not Mensa
material) I couldn't resist. In that taunting sing-songy voice that
children use to tease someone, just load enough for most of the
audience to hear, I yelled, "Looook at all the duuuuuummies!" Well, it
nearly brought the house down with laughter, and everyone applauded.
Gary Swift, INTERACTIVE Systems Corp., Santa Monica, Ca., (213) 453 8649
{decvax!cca | yale | bbncca | allegra | cbosgd | ihnp4}!ima!ism780!gary
buch...@agrigene.uucp
I would have agreed with the origonal statement, and would have guessed that
secular Jews, not religious ones, would be most likely to be athletic. Moral:
steriotypes are often worthless.
As far as I'm concerned, Jews ARE an ethnic group. I suppose it depends how
you define the term ethnic group. We have genetic, cultural, religious, social,
sociological, historical, linguistic, and sentimental links (etc.). Most Jews I
know perceive the Jews as being an ethnic group. What's your definition of
ethnic group?
--
Barry Buchbinder
Agrigenetics Corp.
5649 E. Buckeye Rd.
Madison, WI 53716 USA
(608)221-5000
{seismo,ihnp4,harpo}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind
GEOFFREY KIM
Ed Hall
measures is but a tiny fraction of a person's intellectual ability--
and sometimes isn't measuring intellect at all, but rather cultural
awareness (white middle-class culture, of course). Read Steven Jay
Gould's *The Mis-measure Of Man* for a good treatment of this and
other attempts to find a simple quantifier for intelligence.
It's interesting that measured intelligence correlates only moderately
with future success, and that for IQ's above about 120, the correlation
vanishes. There are people who measure under 75 on IQ tests who live
normal lives, are articulate and independent, and really don't seem all
that ``stupid'' to those around them.
I'm certain that there are many different kinds of intelligence. Some of
the most brilliant people I've known are in the social sciences or other
such fields and are simply ``all thumbs'' where it comes to computers or
other technology. No, it isn't just an emotional reaction--I've worked
with these people, and their minds simply do not function very well in
this area, despite their enormous abilities in other modes of thought.
And, of course, I've met folks who were the opposite of this. And some of
the most brilliantly creative people I've known seemed kinda average in
areas we'd probably call ``intelligence''.
So think about it: do you really want to limit yourself to a group of
people just because they scored high on some test? ``Smarts'' come
in lots of different shapes, and show themselves in lots of different
ways. Granted, IQ tests *do* measure *something*, and a lot of the
folks who do well on them seem ``smart'' to us. But I know from
experience that this doesn't form an exclusive group--there are
some things far more valuable than the ability to do well on a bunch
of word- and sight-puzzles.
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
John Purbrick
> that American Jews do not qualify?
>
> Frank Silbermann
Talk about Freudian slips.
Michael M. Sykora
It may be that Jews are a set of ethnic groups. But there are so many
differences between the various Jewish communities that I don't believe they
can be considered a single ethnic group.
Mike Sykora
Michael M. Sykora
>Fanatic as Spectators or participants? The traditional Jews I knew in N.Y.
>followed all the major teams, because they enjoyed gambling on the outcomes.
>But as for sports participation -- most considered sports to be merely
>a way to pass the time, when you had nothing better to do (a rare occasion).
Both. However, I realize I may have spoken hastily. I think the sports
fanaticism of the Jews I grew up was perhaps an attempt to assimilate.
This fanaticism may in fact have been significantly less intense than for
the average American community, but it struck me as insane nevertheless.
>The non-Jews I grew up with in Palatka, Florida, on the other hand,
>considered athletic prowess to be the prime measurement of manhood.
Among the Jews I grew up with here in the ghetto (:-), athletics were also
considered as such, as were the abilities to tell jokes and to make money.
>No? Then what is your definition of "ethic group",
>that American Jews do not qualify?
Jews don't seem to be single ethnic group, but rather several, tied together
by a religious bond.
> Frank Silbermann
Mike Sykora
Dana S. Nau
>In article <2...@tove.UUCP> d...@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes:
>>I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have
>>problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social
>>skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners.
>
>have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills?
>growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact
>with people when you're not allowed to belong.
>
>from sad experience...
>Herb Chong...
I don't disagree with that statement. But it's far more useful to
work on IMPROVING one's social skills rather than lamenting the "slim
pickings" one has without those skills.
--
Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932
rich
I bicycle
I run
I work out, but not at those yuppie clubs.
I preffer non-team sports where everybodies' god damn egos get in
the way.
I play soccer.
I do not gamble.
I hate the 'thrill of victory'. I feel that it is the wrong
motivation.
I saw a baseball game in 1978
I saw a hockey game in 1981
I saw a football game in 1982
I once watched part of a fight.
I am jewish, in race.
And what the hell am I replying to this stupid article for??
-rich
ps. Judy , are you proportional?
.............
Frank Silbermann
>> Then, on the second day, we came across
>> an older man bouncing his pre-school daughter (or grand-daughter)
>> into the air and catching her. The child was gigling. My friend said,
>> "I used to love it when my father did that to me."
>> ...
>> After it ended, we were still friends, so I asked her what had
>> attracted her to me in the first place. She said, "I first noticed
>> my feelings for you after you threw me up in the air at that resort."
>> Now this lady is certainly no jock groupie. Most of her other
>> dates were computer nerds like me. Yet, it was a showing of raw,
>> stupid machismo that got her hormones flowing.
In article <gargoyle.478> car...@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>I doubt it. She had just said that her father used to do that to
>her, and she loved it. By tossing her in the air Frank symbolically
>took on the role of her father, who showed his love for her by this
>kind of play. No wonder she started having positive feelings for
>Frank, since he literally reenacted a relationship that must have
>been very meaningful and positive for her, to judge from her
>spontaneous remark when she saw the child being tossed. I doubt that
>Frank could have achieved the same result by bench-pressing 300 lbs.
>or beating up six rival suitors.
>
>People are always attempting (unconsciously) to recreate with other
>people childhood relationships (generally with parents) that were
>important to them, and this plays a major role in determining who you
>fall in love with and the course the relationship takes.
Excellent analysis! (no :-) here, I'm serious!)
Not only only have you offered a more logical explanation than mine,
but it leads to great insight on the dynamics of romantic love.
Now, when I am attracted to a woman, one of the first things I will ask
is what her father was like, and what she thought of the relationship.
This will give me a better idea as to what sort of man she's looking for,
and whether I will be able to appeal to her in the long run.
******************************************************************
Frank Silbermann writes:
>> It is common among many animals in nature that when mating, the female
>> chooses the male who is the best physical specimen. This gives the
>> children two advantages -- a greater likelihood of growing up to be equally
>> strong, and the greater protection from a father who is dominant in the
>> herd. Such instincts probably influence human mating even today.
In article <gargoyle.478> car...@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>Perhaps. But given that cooperation and sharing are basic to the
>human species (see recent work in paleoanthropology) a woman's
>offspring would have a selective advantage if her mate was not only
>strong but used his strength to the advantage of his family.
This ties in to a previous posting of mine, about why women respond
so much better to generous men.
*********************************************************************
Frank Silbermann writes:
>> You can spend your time whining about
>> how the world SHOULD be, or you can recognize the way it IS,
>> deal with it, and achieve your goals.
>Good advice, but first make sure you have a correct understanding of
>the way the world is. In the real world, women not only go for the
>Tom Selleck types who resemble a side of beef and have a
>corresponding IQ (no insult to Selleck intended), but they also go
>for the Dudley Moores, the Woody Allens, and the Billy Joels. In the
>long run, trying to be the dominant bull of the herd is a less
>effective strategy than being a caring and loving person with a lot
>to give.
I think fame, wealth, and reputation is a large part of their appeal.
If put put Dudley Moore, Woody Allen and Billy Joel in anonymus, mundane
jobs (e.g. postal clerk, shoestore owner, hacker), they would have
a difficult time attracting female attention.
On the other hand, if Tom Selleck lost his fame and fortune and had
to work at an ordinary occupation, the local women would STILL go
crazy for him.
Of course, it's even better if you can offer the best of both types.
Frank Silbermann
Dave Bursik
one's search by some arbitrary "intelligence" criterion, one should
keep in mind that there are a *lot* of people in the U.S.
Based on my vague notion of the current U.S. population, 2% gives us
4.6 *million* people. Division by 2 (to separate into MOTOS) leaves
2.3 million. Further divisions/subtractions to allow for other forms
of "ineligibility" (geography, marriage, you prefer MOTSS, whatever)
still leaves a *lot* of people.
Things ain't as bad as we could make them!
Dave Bursik/..cbosgd!db
J. Shapiro
a particular kind of logic, and that such tests are invalid for many of
the testees - the fact that your logic and the test's logic do not agree
does not render you stupid.
Also, IQ tests are only as good as the people who make them up. They are
probably not valid much over the median IQ of the testwriters. Would all
IQ test writers with an IQ of 200 please raise your hand?
Mark Terribile
>>problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social
>>skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners.
>
>have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills?
>growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact
>with people when you're not allowed to belong.
>
>from sad experience...
>Herb Chong...
I'm coming to realize that this is true for me. I've always taken
great joy in understanding things. When I sat up one night at the begining
of 12th grade and read ahead in the calculus text, and discovered how limits
turn into derivatives, I was ecstatic. Suddenly my whole understanding of the
world had room to expand -- to explode. There's no way I could ever share that
with people. I'd be rejected out of hand -- and I have been.
Fact is, I have so much anger and hurt stored up over this that sharing
simple things with the people around me is very painful. When my officemate
(a wonderful lady, and a dear friend) is excited about her new outfit, or about
where whe will be going on vacation or ..., I just cannot share the joy she
feels. It just hurts too damn much.
I lost 90 lbs a few years ago (since gaining it back) All my friends
and relatives were delighted. When I look back, I can't understand how I
didn't realize that I was seething with anger -- anger about how they could
want me to be joyful with them on my behalf about the mere removal of a
negative factor (see the two-factor theory, often discussed along with Theory X
and Theory Y, or send me mail) after they rejected the things that were really
important to me.
Recently, a friend told me that he had the same experience, only with
appreciating things of nature -- being deeply moved by them -- rather than
with the technical insight that is dear to me.
What we have is a chasm, seperating the emotional worlds of some
of us highly focused individuals from the emotional worlds of most others.
I want to bridge that chasm, and I expect it will be long and painful, but
I see no other way. My best wishes, and my sympathy, to anyone on a similar
voyage.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
William Ingogly
>Frank Silbermann writes:
>>> It is common among many animals in nature that when mating, the female
>>> chooses the male who is the best physical specimen. This gives the
>>> children two advantages -- a greater likelihood of growing up to be equally
>>> strong, and the greater protection from a father who is dominant in the
>>> herd. Such instincts probably influence human mating even today.
>
>In article <gargoyle.478> car...@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes
>
>>Perhaps. But given that cooperation and sharing are basic to the
>>human species (see recent work in paleoanthropology) a woman's
>>offspring would have a selective advantage if her mate was not only
>>strong but used his strength to the advantage of his family.
>
>This ties in to a previous posting of mine, about why women respond
>so much better to generous men.
There appear to be a lot of amateur sociobiologists out there on the
net. I hope they realize that much of what they're saying is based on
certain half-respectable popularizations by people like Robert Ardrey
(sp?) and his ilk. Just because it's published in Psychology Today
don't make it so.
If you want to talk sociobiology, go read E. O. Wilson's book by the
same title. But be sure and read the volumes of criticism that have
been leveled at his work and the work of other sociobiologists.
To be specific: I challenge ANY of you to point to a study that's
linked a genetic component to ANY of the behavior you're talking
about. The early chapters of E. O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" say a lot
of valid things; he's a good scientist (see for example his important
work on insect societies). But the chapter that's most interesting to
his popularizers is the final chapter (or at any rate one of the last
chapters) that speculates about the inherited nature of much of human
behavior. It's fun to read, but it's NOT science. It's instructive to
read this chapter and make a list of the HARD FACTS contained in it.
There's a real danger in using pseudoscience to support our personal
prejudices and beliefs about human behavior, even if the pseudoscience
is qualified by words like "perhaps" and "probably." If you don't
believe it, check out a few history books from the library. A book
I've cited before and that someone else in this book has recently cited
that deals with the political misuse of science is "The Mismeasure
Of Man," by Stephen Jay Gould. Must reading for anyone who gets most
of his/her science from popular magazines like Psychology Today or
Science Digest.
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
Gadfly
> >>Unfortunately, no matter what successes you may achieve in life,
> >>there is no glory equal to the adulation received by a high school
> >>football star. Not even if you become President.
>
> > Are you serious???????
>
> "High school football hero" is a role with all the privileges of
> royalty, but none of the responsibilities.
>
An illusion, Frank. I was a scrawny, spastic nerd in high school,
and I fantasized about such a glorious life often. But I
met a few guys in college who had been high school football
heroes. It was torture for them, and fear too (mostly of the
coach, not the other teams). The experience really screwed
them up--if not their heads, their knees.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 14 Jun 85 [26 Prairial An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7753 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
Lord Frith
> But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a
> kick out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are
> married (or divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities,
> and do not seem to be as happy with their lives as I am with mine.
Ahhhh... 'tis just. The jocks at my typical American high school were
high on the pecking order but unfortunately for them low on intelligence
and perception. Where are they today? Swilling beer in front of the
television. Married/divorced/re-married. Re-living adolecent glories
at the local redneck bar...
Oddly enough, the "geeks" who were lousy at sports and ostracised by
everyone, turned out to be among the most successful. In this age of
computers and high-technology, it's not the jock that gets the good
job and the classy girls, it's the nerd who once sported the
slide-rule on his belt.
Success is the best revenge.
--
UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO
"Give a man a horse... and he thinks he's enormous"
Frank Silbermann
In article <14...@watdcsu.UUCP> her...@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) writes:
>>>I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have
>>>problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social
>>>skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners.
In article <2...@tove.UUCP> d...@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes:
>>have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills?
>>growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact
>>with people when you're not allowed to belong.
In article <tove.236> d...@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes:
>I don't disagree with that statement. But it's far more useful to
>work on IMPROVING one's social skills rather than lamenting the "slim
>pickings" one has without those skills.
I agree. Of course some people in this group (hint, hint, Greg and Dana)
believe that preparing for social encounters is a waste of time, and that
we should just "be spontaneous."
Frank Silbermann
Michael M. Sykora
>In this age of
>computers and high-technology, it's not the jock that gets the good
>job and the classy girls, it's the nerd who once sported the
>slide-rule on his belt.
Do you really want women to go out with you because you are in a field that
has a future? Are women who would go out with you for this reason necessarily
"classy?" Are such women worth "getting?"
>Success is the best revenge.
I realize you probably suffered considerably from social ostracism in high
school. But the fact that you see your success as revenge against the
ostracizers indicates that you have not yet succeeded to the degree that
you might.
Mike Sykora
Frank Silbermann
> I do not gamble.
> I hate the 'thrill of victory'. I feel that it is the wrong
> motivation.
> I saw a baseball game in 1978
> I saw a hockey game in 1981
> I saw a football game in 1982
> I once watched part of a fight.
>
> I work out, but not at those yuppie clubs.
> I preffer non-team sports where everybodies' god damn egos get in
> the way.
> I play soccer.
Frank Silbermann
Michael M. Sykora
>I agree. Of course some people in this group (hint, hint, Greg and Dana)
>believe that preparing for social encounters is a waste of time, and that
>we should just "be spontaneous."
>
> Frank Silbermann
I believe that they feel it is a waste of time to prepare for specific
instances and particular situations, but not that it is a waste of time to
improve one's sociability in a general way.
Mike Sykora
Michael M. Sykora
>still leaves a *lot* of people.
>Things ain't as bad as we could make them!
>Dave Bursik/..cbosgd!db
I agree with the second statement. However, you seem to be ignoring the fact
that there are only so many opportunities to meet people, so that if the
percentage of "eligible people" is relatively small, even if the absolute
number seems large, one still may be in for rough times.
Mike Sykora
Michael M. Sykora
>I think fame, wealth, and reputation is a large part of their appeal.
>If put put Dudley Moore, Woody Allen and Billy Joel in anonymus, mundane
>jobs (e.g. postal clerk, shoestore owner, hacker), they would have
>a difficult time attracting female attention.
I suspect they would only have time attracting the attention of females
who are largely concerned with fame, wealth, and reputation. This
does not include most or all women.
> Frank Silbermann
Mike Sykora
Michael M. Sykora
>Is it really worth so much to always have dozens of beautiful girls
>(maybe even women!) chasing you, horny for your bod? To have your
>faults and indiscretions overlooked? To have younger boys coming
>up to you and telling you how they hope to grow up to be just like
>you some day? To get special attention and favors from strangers
>who recognize you?
No. If the girls are chasing me because I'm a high school football hero,
then that's not enough. They are chasing someone they don't know, and perhaps
don't care to know. I'd rather be "chased" for me, i.e., for something that
distinguishes me more than merely being a football hero. For a personal
reason. Besides, airheads who chase jocks are of little interest to me.
I could care less if younger boys came up to me and said that they would
like to grow up like me. I'd likely get annoyed and tell them that they
needn't be like anyone. I'd much prefer them asking me questions about
life, if anything.
As for strangers doing special favors, etc., I'd either get annoyed at such
stupidity or be amused.
> Frank Silbermann
Mike Sykora
d...@tove.uucp
>In article <14...@watdcsu.UUCP> her...@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) writes:
>>>>I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have
>>>>problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social
>>>>skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners.
The above quote is incorrectly attributed. I authored it, not Herb Chong.
>In article <2...@tove.UUCP> d...@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes:
>>>have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills?
>>>growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact
>>>with people when you're not allowed to belong.
The above quote is also incorrectly attributed. I DIDN'T author it.
>In article <tove.236> d...@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes:
>>I don't disagree with that statement. But it's far more useful to
>>work on IMPROVING one's social skills rather than lamenting the "slim
>>pickings" one has without those skills.
This one is attributed correctly.
>I agree. Of course some people in this group (hint, hint, Greg and Dana)
>believe that preparing for social encounters is a waste of time, and that
>we should just "be spontaneous."
>
> Frank Silbermann
Judging from your recent berating of Greg Woods for his dislike of opening
lines, and your previous references to books on "how to pick up girls",
etc., I suspect I "prepare for social encounters" in rather different ways
than you do.
Part of what "improving one's social skills" means to me is developing the
ability to be both comfortable and spontaneous (in appropriate ways) in
social situations. For me, at least, that doesn't involve memorizing
opening lines.
Chris Andersen
>great joy in understanding things. When I sat up one night at the begining
>of 12th grade and read ahead in the calculus text, and discovered how limits
>turn into derivatives, I was ecstatic. Suddenly my whole understanding of the
>world had room to expand -- to explode. There's no way I could ever share that
>with people. I'd be rejected out of hand -- and I have been.
I had much of the same problem, though I was lucky enough to have parents
with whom I could share this knowledge without getting blank looks in return.
> Fact is, I have so much anger and hurt stored up over this that sharing
>simple things with the people around me is very painful. When my officemate
>(a wonderful lady, and a dear friend) is excited about her new outfit, or about
>where whe will be going on vacation or ..., I just cannot share the joy she
>feels. It just hurts too damn much.
Over the years I have become numb to what makes the rest of the world run.
Things like fashion, looks, etc. just don't seem that important to me.
Because of this, I have so little opportunity to get into the conversations
of others I happen to being hanging around with. Usually, whenever I'm with
a group of people, I end up sitting on the sidelines listening to what they're
saying and finding I have nothing to contribute. I feel in this situation like
I have no anchor holding me down to reality. What's worse, I can't explain
this problem to them because I subconsciously feel that they *really* don't
give a damn about my personal problems (it doesn't have anything to do with
them).
> I lost 90 lbs a few years ago (since gaining it back) All my friends
>and relatives were delighted. When I look back, I can't understand how I
>didn't realize that I was seething with anger -- anger about how they could
>want me to be joyful with them on my behalf about the mere removal of a
>negative factor (see the two-factor theory, often discussed along with Theory X
>and Theory Y, or send me mail) after they rejected the things that were really
>important to me.
ditto again.
So many people around me seem to be hung up on what I consider to be such
unimportant things. You may ask, "what do you consider important", and
frankly, I can't tell you. I've begun to lose all conception of what is
important to me because: 1) What is important to me is unimportant to
everyone else, and 2) if I want to get to know everyone else, I have to
ignore what I consider important to listen to what they consider to be
important.
> Recently, a friend told me that he had the same experience, only with
>appreciating things of nature -- being deeply moved by them -- rather than
>with the technical insight that is dear to me.
For me, it would have to be the wonderment and joy I feel at the totality
of creation (boy isn't that a loaded sentence (<--ignore this, it's just
me trying to be cute for cuteness sake (*sigh*))).
> What we have is a chasm, seperating the emotional worlds of some
>of us highly focused individuals from the emotional worlds of most others.
>I want to bridge that chasm, and I expect it will be long and painful, but
>I see no other way. My best wishes, and my sympathy, to anyone on a similar
>voyage.
And from me to you, the same.
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
Chris Andersen (just another piece of flotsom in this thing called life)
Frank Silbermann
>
>Oddly enough, the "geeks" who were lousy at sports and ostracised by
>computers and high-technology, it's not the jock that gets the good
>job and the classy girls, it's the nerd who once sported the
>slide-rule on his belt.
Is this really true? I will admit that I am treated with more respect
than when I was younger, but I assumed that was merely because adults
are more polite than adolescents. People do appreciate my ability
to earn a comfortable living, but let's face it -- most of our incomes
are much closer to that of a plumber or crane operator than that of a
physician or an ESTABLISHED lawyer.
Judging from the complaining I read in this newsgroup, I believe that
techies do NOT such have an easy time attracting "classy" women.
Frank Silbermann
Michael M. Sykora
>I think fame, wealth, and reputation is a large part of their appeal.
>If put put Dudley Moore, Woody Allen and Billy Joel in anonymus, mundane
>jobs (e.g. postal clerk, shoestore owner, hacker), they would have
>a difficult time attracting female attention.
I suspect they would only have trouble attracting the attention of females
J. Eric Roskos
> measures is but a tiny fraction of a person's intellectual ability--
> and sometimes isn't measuring intellect at all, but rather cultural
> awareness (white middle-class culture, of course).
My goodness. Seems like I saw this in a "Diff'rent Strokes" episode.
Now, how does a question like:
Identify the next number in this series.
2 1 4 5 6 11 8
measure "cultural awareness"?
Or do you mean questions like
Which of the following words is most nearly opposite "jibe"?
1) deceive 2) tack 3) mismatch 4) flounder
I can believe the latter, but not the former. Eventhough one of the
culturally probable answers is still wrong ...
But you know... one thing has always bothered me about these intelligence
tests. Sometimes, in the questions that say "find the next in the series,"
you can find another way of validly determining the next in the series,
besides the one the writer of the question intended. This is especially
true of the graphical examples (which show various geometric shapes shaded
in different ways, etc.). Since these are "harder to find" (the writer of
the question maybe never realized they were there), couldn't getting the
"wrong" answer indicate higher "intelligence" than getting the right answer?
[I know this has little to do with "singles"... sorry.]
PS - try it yourself! The "correct" answer to question 1 is 19... can you
find another correct one? (No, don't post it!!!)
"I came here on account of it was cold."
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Gnyx gb gur fhayvtug, pnyyre..."
Frank Silbermann
In article <tove.237> d...@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes:
>Judging from your recent berating of Greg Woods for his dislike of opening
>lines, and your previous references to books on "how to pick up girls",
>etc., I suspect I "prepare for social encounters" in rather different ways
>than you do.
>Part of what "improving one's social skills" means to me is developing the
>ability to be both comfortable and spontaneous (in appropriate ways) in
>social situations. For me, at least, that doesn't involve memorizing
>opening lines.
You have a very good point. How you prepare for social encounters
really depends on where your difficulties lay. Suppose you are in the
mood to meet someone new, and suddenly you see an attractive prospect.
What is your reaction? If you think:
"Gosh, I'd like to meet her, but I'm too scared to approach her."
then you need to learn to be relaxed, comfortable and spontaneous, as
you stated.
But if your first reaction is:
"Gosh, I have no idea what to say to her."
then you would benefit from learning some opening lines. Not that you
would recite one in cookbook fashion, but rather to get an idea of what
sort of approachs might be appropriate (and you may be lucky; one of the
lines may be just right for the situation).
Of course, the opening line only gets her attention. In the February 1978
edition of Oui magazine (Oui was then owned by Playboy Enterprises,
and was not the trashy rag you see on the stands today), Eric Weber
published an article, "Beyond the Opening Line." To paraphrase his
opening paragraphs, suppose you walk up to the woman and say:
"Haven't I met you somewhere before?"
If she replies,
"No, thank God!"
or
"Yes. Let's f*ck!"
Then you know what to do. But if she looks you over and says:
"I don't know, maybe."
then what do you do next? Eric then offered some good ideas for keeping
things moving. They helped me. I don't know what more to say.
Alot of you guys seem to be rejecting ideas that you haven't even heard.
Frank Silbermann
Frank Silbermann
>>believe that preparing for social encounters is a waste of time, and that
>>we should just "be spontaneous."
In article <acf4.1560079> mms...@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
>I believe that they feel it is a waste of time to prepare for _SPECIFIC_
>instances and particular situations, but not that it is a waste of time to
>improve one's sociability in a _GENERAL_ way.
Exactly how does one go about doing that?
When I studied German and Dutch, I took more than one approach.
True, I did study _GENERAL_ concepts, such as grammar and vocabulary.
But these would not have been as effective without additional drill
using canned conversations dealing with _SPECIFIC_ topics and situations.
Most textbooks use this approach.
For many years, "small talk" was a foreign language to me.
It seemed natural to apply the techniques I used when learning
other foreign languages, including practice drills. Doesn't
that make sense?
Frank Silbermann
Frank Silbermann
>>I think fame, wealth, and reputation is a large part of their appeal.
>>If put put Dudley Moore, Woody Allen and Billy Joel in anonymus, mundane
>>jobs (e.g. postal clerk, shoestore owner, hacker), they would have
>>a difficult time attracting female attention.
In article <acf4.1560083> mms...@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
>I suspect they would only have time attracting the attention of females
>who are largely concerned with fame, wealth, and reputation. This
>does not include most or all women.
Seriously, you claim that most women up there in New York are
NOT concerned with a man's good-looks, wealth, or prestige?
Or is that just what they TELL you?
Frank Silbermann
The Polymath
>It's been pointed out before, but it bears re-stating: what an IQ test
>measures is but a tiny fraction of a person's intellectual ability--
>and sometimes isn't measuring intellect at all, but rather cultural
>awareness (white middle-class culture, of course).
I recall this discussion here before. Anyway, the fact is there is _no
such thing_ as an intelligence test. Try to define 'intelligence' (yes, I
know it's in the dictionary). How can you test for something that the
greatest minds in the field can't agree on a definition of?
IQ is a misnomer, invented by Dr. Binet, which we've had to live with the
implications of ever since. _All_ of the so-called IQ tests are designed to
do one thing: predict academic performance (i.e.: how well a given person
is likely to do in school). This they do fairly well (about 70% -- better
than almost any other psychological instrument).
>I'm certain that there are many different kinds of intelligence. Some of
>the most brilliant people I've known are in the social sciences or other
>such fields and are simply ``all thumbs'' where it comes to computers or
>other technology.
I agree. I generally score at about the 99.9th percentile on most such
tests. I've earned a Master's in Clinical Psychology, an Airplane
Mechanic's license (among other things), and have made my living as a
Senior Programmer for most of the last 5 years. Much of my academic energy
over the past decade has been spent in finding ways to progress
academically without having to study calculus. My mind simply shuts off
and refuses to deal with it.
>So think about it: do you really want to limit yourself to a group of
>people just because they scored high on some test? ``Smarts'' come
>in lots of different shapes, and show themselves in lots of different
>ways.
Actually, I probably limit myself to a much smaller group than that. The
tests are just a convenient first cut. Of course, I don't ask every woman
I meet to show me her SAT scores, but if I get frequent blank looks and
find myself doing a lot of elementary explaining in our conversations I
usually get bored pretty quickly and move on.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI "How goes the rat race?"
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. "The rats are winning."
Santa Monica, CA 90405 -- Paul Lynde
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
The Polymath
>Concerning all this talk about the value of intelligence in relationships,
>and careers and life in general:
>
>A friend of mine who is noticeably fortunate in many endeavors, especially
>his rich home and family life, but who is only somewhat smart, says:
>
> "I would rather be lucky than smart, anyday!"
>
>So would I, if I could choose.
If I could choose, I'd rather be lucky _and_ smart (if you're going to
wish, you may as well wish big). Unfortunately, I can't choose and neither
can anyone else that I know of. We can only play the hand we're dealt as
best we can.
The Polymath
>Has anyone out there noted yet that the standardized IQ tests test only for
>a particular kind of logic, and that such tests are invalid for many of
>the testees - the fact that your logic and the test's logic do not agree
>does not render you stupid.
There are many different types of test, each looking at different aspects
of performance, some looking at many. The Miller's Analogies test is
certainly very different from the SAT, for example. Many people do well on
one test and poorly on another. That's why Mensa accepts adequate scores
on _any_ standardized test of intelligence as criteria for membership.
Mensa will also accept the word of a qualified psychologist if test scores
are unavailable or inappropriate for any reason.
>Also, IQ tests are only as good as the people who make them up. They are
>probably not valid much over the median IQ of the testwriters.
Not true. The people making up the questions and answers don't have to do
so under test conditions. They have reference works available. Also,
these tests are normed on the general population and questions that don't
distinguish are weeded out. Some tests do have an upper limit above which
they don't discriminate and this is noted in their scoring instructions.
The process of creating and norming a new test of this type is very complex
and _very_ expensive (millions of dollars to do it right). That's why new
ones are seldom published. The market is too limited to make it worth the
test developers' trouble.
The Polymath
>to earn a comfortable living, but let's face it -- most of our incomes
>are much closer to that of a plumber or crane operator than that of a
>physician or an ESTABLISHED lawyer.
I don't know what crane operators make these days but I suspect my salary
would make an apprentice plumber collapse with laughter. They start at
about $30/hr., I'm told, and six-figure incomes are very common among
plumbers in general.
It's an ancient truism that wealth and intelligence aren't significantly
correlated.