high IQ dating...?
D.@home.co.uk Mr D.
Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e. 144 and
above)...?
Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
Ta.
M.
foolsrushout
They all lie.
Phil Holman
"Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
To me, that's just as bad as wanting to date women with big knockers.
There are many, many more characteristics that are important so I don't
see a reason to limit oneself to 0.1% of the female population. Good
luck with that.
Phil H
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> > Hi folks.
> >
> > Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
> > 144 and above)...?
> > Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
> >
> > Ta.
> >
> > M.
>
> To me, that's just as bad as wanting to date women with big knockers.
I don't understand the concept: Big knockers ... bad.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Time is the best teacher; Unfortunately it kills all its students.
Phil Holman
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:47C0D99A...@hovnanian.com...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>> > Hi folks.
>> >
>> > Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
>> > 144 and above)...?
>> > Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
>> >
>> > Ta.
>> >
>> > M.
>>
>> To me, that's just as bad as wanting to date women with big knockers.
>
> I don't understand the concept: Big knockers ... bad.
>
Big knockers, the only consideration............bad.
Phil H
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Big knockers is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the
means he uses to frighten you. -- Eric Hoffer
Geopelia
> Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
>> news:47C0D99A...@hovnanian.com...
>> > Phil Holman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>> >> > Hi folks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
>> >> > 144 and above)...?
>> >> > Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
>> >> >
>> >> > Ta.
>> >> >
>> >> > M.
>> >>
>> >> To me, that's just as bad as wanting to date women with big knockers.
>> >
>> > I don't understand the concept: Big knockers ... bad.
>> >
>>
>> Big knockers, the only consideration............bad.
>>
>> Phil H
>
> Big knockers is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
>
> --
> Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
Thank goodness some women are still too intelligent to get themselves big
silicone knockers at great expense.
I would rather have my average (for this group) IQ of around 125 and a C
cup than be a dumb blonde with a huge bust.
It doesn't worry Hubby or me. I'm the brains and he's the practical
handyman.
Good luck in finding a very intelligent woman. But unless you are also super
intelligent, will she want to date you?
What can you offer her?
Geopelia
Phil Holman
"Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:fq015a$3q8$1...@aioe.org...
What would she be looking for?
Phil H
Geopelia
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:Q7idnV_8POi-AV7a...@comcast.com...
Probably a companion as intelligent as herself, but she might just want a
good looking toyboy.
It doesn't really matter which partner has the high IQ or which takes the
lead, as long as it suits them both. The days when women had to act "dumb"
to get a husband are long gone.
Geopelia
D.@home.co.uk Mr D.
>> >> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>> >> > Hi folks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
>> >> > 144 and above)...?
>> >> > Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
Perhaps MENSA has a 'dating personals' page that I've not seen...?
Anyone know...??
Ta.
M.
The Natural Philosopher
One would have thought that someone with a high enough IQ could have
sorted this one out themselves..
> Ta.
>
> M.
>
>
foolsrushin.
> Mr D. wrote:
> >>>>>news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >>>>>> Hi folks.
> >>>>>> Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
> >>>>>> 144 and above)...?
> >>>>>> Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
> > Perhaps MENSA has a 'dating personals' page that I've not seen...?
> > Anyone know...??
> sorted this one out themselves..
> > Ta.
> > M.
Indeed!
'And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right;
Where I belong is right.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5anA4ZIdVQk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXFoOYxMnvg&feature=related
Nobody will convince me that he was not permanently pissed!
Great guy, though!
--
'foolsrushin.'
foolsrushin.
> >>>>> "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
Indeed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbDnfc759E&feature=related
--
'foolsrushin.'
Mary Ann
> >> >> "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
I understand that happy couples have similar IQs so the first thing
the OP should confirm is that he has an IQ of 144 or above.
Mary Ann
sjb@dfv3rjgn34
news:aabb3a0c-7060-4c3e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Feb, 18:57, "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
No, that's not true. I'm much more intelligent than my partner. He is
however socially blessed. Maybe everyone feels intimidated by me, but we're
not in debt. I control ALL of the money, God I wouldn't let him do it!
Mary Ann
> "Mary Ann" <tuliwoma...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
OK, I should have said that there is a general correlation. Of course
I know that it won't be true for all couples.
Mary Ann
D.@home.co.uk Mr D.
Something I have seen touted as a 'scientific' finding is that it isn't
really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful relationship with
someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
M.
Patrick Byrne
> really possible for a person to have a properly meaningful relationship with
> someone more than 20 IQ points away from them.
are there any meaningful measurements of animal IQ?
The Natural Philosopher
Good grief. A genius can shag a mental defective and have kids.and a
surprising number do,...just how 'meaningless' is that?
The real problem is people who THINK they are 'more intelligent' than
other people, or than they actually are. Unless you are a masochist, it
isn't possible to have a relationship with someone like that at all.
The best reason to avoid Mensa like the plague...
> M.
>
>
Big Bill
wrote:
Sez who?
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/
Big Bill
Why 144?
Big Bill
How would you define a properly meaniungful relationship?
Scientifically, of course?
Fevric J Glandules
> "Mary Ann" <tuliw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aabb3a0c-7060-4c3e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On 26 Feb, 18:57, "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
>
> No, that's not true. I'm much more intelligent than my partner.
But stupid enough to write the above.
--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.
sjb@dfv3rjgn34
news:120412580...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>
> The real problem is people who THINK they are 'more intelligent' than
Hey, I was being silly :-)
The Natural Philosopher
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:34:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
> wrote:
>
>> Mr D. wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>>> Hi folks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
>>>>>>>> 144 and above)...?
>>>>>>>> Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
>>>
>>> Perhaps MENSA has a 'dating personals' page that I've not seen...?
>>>
>>> Anyone know...??
>>>
>> One would have thought that someone with a high enough IQ could have
>> sorted this one out themselves..
>
> Sez who?
>
> BB
Quoi?
The Natural Philosopher
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:26:42 +0000, Aly wrote:
>
>> "Mary Ann" <tuliw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:aabb3a0c-7060-4c3e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 26 Feb, 18:57, "Mr D." <Mr D...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> I understand that happy couples have similar IQs
>> No, that's not true. I'm much more intelligent than my partner.
>
> But stupid enough to write the above.
>
relationship with them. I growl and they roll on their backs and spread
their legs...
Jon Green
>>
> I am much more intelligent than our dogs. I have a very meaningful
> relationship with them. I growl and they roll on their backs and spread
> their legs...
*choke* Good job I had a spare keyboard...
Jon
(desperately trying to avoid making the obvious rejoinders!)
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
News+...@torrens.org.uk
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
Stated as a human defining intelligence...
But there's no real definition of intelligence!
> I have a very meaningful relationship with them. I growl and they roll
> on their backs and spread their legs...
And make you do their will no doubt?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>> I am much more intelligent than our dogs.
>
> Stated as a human defining intelligence...
>
> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>
>> I have a very meaningful relationship with them. I growl and they roll
>> on their backs and spread their legs...
>
> And make you do their will no doubt?
>
Absolutely. They have their wicked way with me all the time.
Fevric J Glandules
> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>> In article <120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
>
>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>
> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
<sigh>
Paul Rudin
> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>> In article <120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>> I am much more intelligent than our dogs.
>>
>> Stated as a human defining intelligence...
>>
>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>
> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
OK here's another definition: someone who eats bananas. They're both
"definitions" but is either a "real definition"?
Jon Green
>
> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
Doesnotcomputedoesnotcompute*boom*
Jon
The Natural Philosopher
I cannot see what a 'real definition' means.
The point of a definition is to clarify woolly qualitative areas into
precise quantitative things.
What is the real definition of a 'yard'
Once it was how far you could pull a bowstring.
Now its probably some vast number of wavelengths of something or other.
Which definition is 'real'?
All definitions are to a greater or lesser extent consensual. None are
'real'
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>>
>> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>
> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
>
> Doesnotcomputedoesnotcompute*boom*
>
No. Your logic is flawed.
Who was it once said 'it is better to remain silent and be thought
stupid, than to open ones mouth and have it confirmed'
> Jon
Paul Rudin
The point was that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence (or do so
only very poorly). Claiming to define intelligence by equating it to an
IQ test score is not a useful definition in this context.
As a kid I took a few IQ tests - they were quite fashionable in those
days - and the range of scores was really large. What exactly is the
test measuring? Does my intelligence change a lot according to the day I
take the test?
Jon Green
> Jon Green wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>>>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>>>
>>> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>>
>> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
>>
>> Doesnotcomputedoesnotcompute*boom*
>>
>
> No. Your logic is flawed.
Explain.
Your "real definition of intelligence" is "someone who scores well on an
IQ test".
Ergo, anyone who does not score well on an IQ test, or does not take
one, is not intelligent, because they have failed to satisfy both your
criteria of (1) having taken the test, and (2) scored well on it.
If you had said, "One possible definition is [...]", you'd have some
wriggle-room.
> Who was it once said 'it is better to remain silent and be thought
> stupid, than to open ones mouth and have it confirmed'
Abraham Lincoln. The exact quote is, "It is better to remain silent and
be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
I'm surprised you didn't pay more attention.
Fevric J Glandules
> Does my intelligence change a lot according to the day I take the test?
Probably.
Right now, for instance, I'm probably ten points under par.
Must drink more tea.
The Natural Philosopher
I actually think they measure something very useful, very well.
Whether you want to call it intelligence, or something else, is up to
you and your prejudice.
> As a kid I took a few IQ tests - they were quite fashionable in those
> days - and the range of scores was really large. What exactly is the
> test measuring? Does my intelligence change a lot according to the day I
> take the test?
I very much doubt if they varied from 60 to 190 on a daily basis.
ISTR that mine were all in the +- 10 points range.
Of course its not exact nor utterly repeatable, and yes, you can get
better at them with practice, BUT in terms of what they are devised for
they do a very good job of roughly categorising people according to a
*certain sort of aptitude*.
Now of course among the stupid of the world, that lead to two disastrous
conequences, people who didn't do well thought that test were unfair,
didn't mean anything etc etc, and people who did do well thought that
meant they were god's gift to creation, and started silly little mutual
masturbation societies like MENSA.
Intelligence is real, its there, and measurable by IQ tests, broadly.
HOWEVER its only one aspect of a total persons aptitude and worth, BUT
on the other hand if it could be legislated that every Cabinet member
had to have an IQ of least 140.. along with at least 15 years
experience in a completely apolitical field... and a few other
critreria, we could at least get rid of the mental defectives that
litter it now..
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>>>>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>>>
>>> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
>>>
>>> Doesnotcomputedoesnotcompute*boom*
>>>
>>
>> No. Your logic is flawed.
>
> Explain.
>
> Your "real definition of intelligence" is "someone who scores well on an
> IQ test".
>
> Ergo, anyone who does not score well on an IQ test, or does not take
> one, is not intelligent, because they have failed to satisfy both your
> criteria of (1) having taken the test, and (2) scored well on it.
>
Typical crap logic.
All bananas are yellow
My house is yellow
My house is a banana.
My statement says nothing about anyone who does not take an intelligence
test *at all*.
> If you had said, "One possible definition is [...]", you'd have some
> wriggle-room.
>
>> Who was it once said 'it is better to remain silent and be thought
>> stupid, than to open ones mouth and have it confirmed'
>
> Abraham Lincoln. The exact quote is, "It is better to remain silent and
> be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
>
> I'm surprised you didn't pay more attention.
I wasnt there, I must have heard it second hand.
>
> Jon
Jon Green
>
> Typical crap logic.
See my reply to "foolsrushout".
News+...@torrens.org.uk
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
> > In article <120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
> > The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> >> I am much more intelligent than our dogs.
> >
> > Stated as a human defining intelligence...
> >
> > But there's no real definition of intelligence!
> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
Doesn't actualy work: tests are too culturally and educationally biased.
There are plenty of dimensions that can only be described as inelligence
that cannot be tested in that way.
News+...@torrens.org.uk
Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
> >> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
> >
> > Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
It could be argued that it's pretty stupid wasting time on such tests!
I have 3 children. Oldest (20) has downs syndrome, has very little speech
and would score low on any 'test'.
Middle one (16) is borderline asberger's. Has been tested and is 'above
average' intelligence.
Youngest (11) is way more intelligent that the other two, by any judgement
I can make.
Yet the oldest notices things the other two do not, can manipulate people
exceedingly well (almost as well as our siamese cat can!) and certainly
has a liveliness of personality that is quite astonishing in one so
disabled.
It makes me wonder at the whole nature of 'intelligence'. It ain't just
passing tests!
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hcSdnUrdA6atdVra...@bt.com>,
> Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>>>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>>> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>
>> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
>
> It could be argued that it's pretty stupid wasting time on such tests!
>
>
> I have 3 children. Oldest (20) has downs syndrome, has very little speech
> and would score low on any 'test'.
>
> Middle one (16) is borderline asberger's. Has been tested and is 'above
> average' intelligence.
>
> Youngest (11) is way more intelligent that the other two, by any judgement
> I can make.
>
> Yet the oldest notices things the other two do not, can manipulate people
> exceedingly well (almost as well as our siamese cat can!) and certainly
> has a liveliness of personality that is quite astonishing in one so
> disabled.
>
> It makes me wonder at the whole nature of 'intelligence'. It ain't just
> passing tests!
>
tests, broadly..tests that mimic a range of real live situations to
which intelligence as so defined is a way of getting to the solutions
quicker and more efficiently.
There are plenty of other real life situations that are not amenable to
this approach however.
IQ is justs one aspect of the total person. Like height, weight, skin
color, ability to run fast, do without sleep, strength, sexual
attractiveness, ability to do dull routine work without getting
bored..ability to hear exact musical tones..the list is endless.
IQ was originally developed as a concept to identify 'officer material'
in the military. That is the ability to see patterns, think on your feet
as it were, and tackle situations not covered by the rules.
It doesn't say anything about leadership though.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <120428131...@proxy00.news.clara.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>> News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>>> In article <120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
>>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>> I am much more intelligent than our dogs.
>>> Stated as a human defining intelligence...
>>>
>>> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>
>> Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>
> Doesn't actualy work: tests are too culturally and educationally biased.
>
> There are plenty of dimensions that can only be described as inelligence
> that cannot be tested in that way.
>
Tests are not necessarily culturally baised. Thats been promoted by
groups of people who don't score well.
And even if they were, that's no reason not to use them. Someone who
doesn't understand the concept of a screwdriver, isn't going to be much
use on an assembly line, no mater how smart they appear to be at
tracking down lion spoors.
Big Bill
wrote:
>In article <hcSdnUrdA6atdVra...@bt.com>,
> Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> > News+...@Torrens.org.uk wrote:
>> >> But there's no real definition of intelligence!
>> >
>> > Well, actually there is. It's someone who scores well on an IQ test.
>
>> Corollary: anyone who doesn't take an IQ test is not intelligent.
>
>It could be argued that it's pretty stupid wasting time on such tests!
>
>
>I have 3 children. Oldest (20) has downs syndrome, has very little speech
>and would score low on any 'test'.
>
>Middle one (16) is borderline asberger's. Has been tested and is 'above
>average' intelligence.
>
>Youngest (11) is way more intelligent that the other two, by any judgement
>I can make.
>
>Yet the oldest notices things the other two do not, can manipulate people
>exceedingly well (almost as well as our siamese cat can!) and certainly
>has a liveliness of personality that is quite astonishing in one so
>disabled.
>
>It makes me wonder at the whole nature of 'intelligence'. It ain't just
>passing tests!
This is a consequence of the family unit. The eldest needs to find
ways of surviving. The youngers ones don't, they have someone to do
that already, the parents and the eldest child. The family unit is an
unnatural one, introduced (I think, I'd have to look it up) to bolster
the authority of those professing to be Christian authorities. The
more natural order is tribal, and I imagine that that would remove the
famility unit consequences, as every child would go through stages of
being the youngest and eventually the eldest too, assuming they didn't
get killed or whatever in the considerble interim. So in a tribal
unit, you wouldn't have those problems. I imagine you'd have problems
of some kind, though, anyone any ideas as to what?
Big Bill
wrote:
I think they might be more so people can find company actually, that's
reasonably on the same intellectual level. Brainy folk get lonely too,
you never heard about that?
Reality...@webtv.net
much.Not good with small talk.Actually found a place and person,only on
net though.He seems to be everything,only paranoid,ha! Must be his
computer adventures. Well,I never sent a pic also.Never saw his,but felt
something.We had this connection.I tune into things.Don't get the wrong
idea.There are many ways to see intelligence.We only measure by our
standards.There is much more to it.I never thought it fair.How can you
measure when all is not known? Intellingence doesn't dictate
happiness,only conversation.Ok,maybe in financial matters it helps.They
would need to have compassion also for me and strive to go beyond the
normal realm.One I can grow with.Gee,I miss him.
Maybe you should start a place,unless that's what this is.:)
Well,good luck to both of us.
Reality...@webtv.net
bottom.That was selfish of me.I don't usually do this type of
chat.Anyway,concerning the tribal thing...I imagine some of the same
problems may still exist as there may be some anxiety with the younger
children on anticipating the role of the eldest.Maybe I missed
something,but what makes you think everyone can handle that? Some are
better with being nurtured.Some are better with authority.I guess they
would know for sure,but in my opinion this would create worse
problems.Give reference,I will read.
Reality...@webtv.net
secret all this time.Well,that's what I get.:)
Info
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:47C0D99A...@hovnanian.com...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Mr D." <Mr D.@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:CuZvj.6734$d62....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>> > Hi folks.
>> >
>> > Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e.
>> > 144 and above)...?
>> > Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
>> >
>> >
>> > M.
>>
>> To me, that's just as bad as wanting to date women with big knockers.
>
> I don't understand the concept: Big knockers ... bad.
Don't knock them
> --
> Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Time is the best teacher; Unfortunately it kills all its students.
Info
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:120419852...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
It's a dog's life.
Damaeus
2008 18:21:22 GMT:
> Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high Iqs
> (i.e. 144 and above)...? Is there a dating site of that kind
> somewhere online...?
You'd think that someone needing a date with an IQ of 144 or higher
would know how to use a search engine. Then again, that may be why he
needs an intelligent companion.
Damaeus
Geopelia
"Damaeus" <no-...@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:sl537452bcs5i5b03...@4ax.com...
Would a woman with an IQ of 144 or above want to involve herself with a mere
male?
Sanforized
Reproduction?
Lars Kecke
> Would a woman with an IQ of 144 or above want to involve herself with a mere
> male?
Yes :-). But I'm not sharing her.
Lars
Geopelia
"Sanforized" <sanfo...@naol.con> wrote in message
news:60be8$4876b471$cdd0855e$18...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Isadora Duncan said to Bernard Shaw that if they had a child together it
could inherit her beauty and his brains.
Shaw replied "but suppose it inherited my beauty and your brains?"
Lars Kecke
> Isadora Duncan said to Bernard Shaw that if they had a child together it
> could inherit her beauty and his brains.
> Shaw replied "but suppose it inherited my beauty and your brains?"
Since both beauty and intelligence are multi-factored, you would expect
some kind of regression to the mean. Since both are fitness indicators,
we even get a correlation between beauty and intelligence:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInstitute/pdf/SKanazawa/I2004.pdf
Lars
Geopelia
"Lars Kecke" <lars...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dp6reF...@mid.individual.net...
The girls in the beauty contests are intelligent enough to trot out the
usual dumb stuff about helping various good causes and being good
ambassadors for their countries because they have worked out that that is
what the judges expect to hear.
But what does that say about the intelligence of the judges?
Geopelia
foolsrushin.
> "Lars Kecke" <larske...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> The girls in the beauty contests are intelligent enough to trot out the
> usual dumb stuff about helping various good causes and being good
> ambassadors for their countries because they have worked out that that is
> what the judges expect to hear. [Then, you can't tell anything, anyway!!]
> But what does that say about the intelligence of the judges? [Very bright > Tabloid Editors!]
> Geopelia
Not a lot about either, but I suspect altruism is more a quality of
emerging personality and social upbringing than an unavoidable genetic
ingredient. There is latitude! It is the chemistry between people that
matters!
--
'foolsrushin.'
Sanforized
When the only choice is a dumbelle they need only
visual appreciation in order to fulfill their
function. There's no bifurcation on the verbal
aspects of the contest which is only used to avoid
criticism that the whole event is only skin deep.
foolsrushin.
> Geopelia wrote:
> > "Lars Kecke" <larske...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:6dp6reF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>Geopelia schrieb:
> >>>Isadora Duncan said to Bernard Shaw that if they had a child together it
> >>>could inherit her beauty and his brains.
> >>>Shaw replied "but suppose it inherited my beauty and your brains?"
> >>Since both beauty and intelligence are multi-factored, you would expect
> >>some kind of regression to the mean. Since both are fitness indicators, we
> >>even get a correlation between beauty and intelligence:
> >>Lars
> > The girls in the beauty contests are intelligent enough to trot out the
> > usual dumb stuff about helping various good causes and being good
> > ambassadors for their countries because they have worked out that that is
> > what the judges expect to hear.
> > But what does that say about the intelligence of the judges?
> When the only choice is a dumbelle they need only
> visual appreciation in order to fulfill their
> function. There's no bifurcation on the verbal
> aspects of the contest which is only used to avoid
> criticism that the whole event is only skin deep.
> "Lars Kecke" <larske...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> The girls in the beauty contests are intelligent enough to trot out the
> usual dumb stuff about helping various good causes and being good
> ambassadors for their countries because they have worked out that that is
> what the judges expect to hear. [Then, you can't tell anything, anyway!!]
> But what does that say about the intelligence of the judges? [Very bright > Tabloid Editors!]
> Geopelia > "Lars Kecke" <larske...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> The girls in the beauty contests are intelligent enough to trot out the
> usual dumb stuff about helping various good causes and being good
> ambassadors for their countries because they have worked out that that is
> what the judges expect to hear. [Then, you can't tell anything, anyway!!]
> But what does that say about the intelligence of the judges? [Very bright Tabloid
> Editors!]
> Geopelia
Not a lot about either, but I suspect altruism is more a quality of
emerging personality and social upbringing than an unavoidable
genetic
ingredient. There is latitude! It is the chemistry between people
that
matters!
--
'foolsrushin.'
I went out for a year with a girl who was doing a PhD on
'Philosophical Investigations'. Dishy as you'll ever get, she had to
'discover and illustrate the methodology underlying the language games
in Philosophical Investigations.' 157, but so fascinated by the daft
bastard that she could not grasp his simple and rather silly trick.
When I first read 'Ulysses', I was enchanted. The glue that holds
'Investigations' together is 'situational logic'; the glue that holds
Ulysses together is, simply, Dublin life, strangely and mesmerically
evoked by an exile who often confessed a hatred for Dublin! Anyway,
the doctorate became more important than my opinions, and the
relationship ended.
We didn't need money, but had she entered a beauty competition, I am
sure she would have won it! I'd not have been jealous, either! Proud,
rather!
--
'foolsrushin.'
Geopelia
"foolsrushin." <dolo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b3f8d99-fd07-4a2d...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
When the film of Ulysses was shown in New Zealand years ago, there were
separate sessions for men and women !
How times change.
Sanforized
One exception, of many, is Hollywood. Marilyn Monroe
was not generally thought of as being smarter than
a doorknob but she was generally considered a raving
beauty. I note also that she was not a solitary example
in a region filled with strongly correlated beauty and
stupidity.
With so many exceptions I consider the cited paper to be
a fluff piece.
Dante Alighieri
**> Would a woman with an IQ of 144 or above want to involve herself with a mere
**> male?
Travelling in academic circles I meet many high IQ women.
Vast majority are happily married or involved in a long term
hetero-relationship.
None have to nor feel compelled to state their intelligence.
I suppose they think their natural abilities will make that statement
for them and would likely consider that anyone not intelligent
enough to see the fact for themselves should remain
blissfully unaware of their intelligence.
The people I have met seem to consider compatibility to be of prime
importance and usually, but not necessarily, related to the other
person's IQ.
To imply that any woman who is not a tribade is stupid
is an insult to all humanity not just to those women who are not.
Considering that intelligence is hereditary carries the
implication that all tribades consider their moms to be
the lowest of all persons intelligence-wise thus implying
that they are the end product of ...
two of the stupidest people in the entire universe,
thus making themselves ...
ROTFL
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Dante Alighieri
**> intelligence of the judges
some of whom are women ?
who must be
(by your estimate of their intelligence)
natural blondes ?
Dante Alighieri
**> One exception, of many, is Hollywood. Marilyn Monroe
**> was not generally thought of as being smarter than
**> a doorknob but she was generally considered a raving
**> beauty. I note also that she was not a solitary example
**> in a region filled with strongly correlated beauty and
**> stupidity.
It is the hair color
Norma Jean Baker was intelligent and pretty.
Marilyn Monroe was intelligent and beautiful.
Even an intelligent person can make a mistake
like publicly flaunting
what should have remained
a private matter.
futo...@gmail.com
Shadow
>i would not want to be in any club that would have me as a member-Groucho Marx
Sums it up.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
aaronscr...@gmail.com
> Hi folks.
>
> Anyone know of a good place to search for women with high IQs (i.e. 144 and
> Is there a dating site of that kind somewhere online...?
>
>
> M.
Checkout the IQ Catch website www.iqcatch.com