Beauty and the Geek
Virgo Cluster
TV show "Beauty and the Geek" in any of the groups this
is being posted to. At least, as of Noon EST June 3,
a google Usenet search shows that it hasn't been
mentioned. I saw the last 35 minutes of it this past
Wednesday night June 1. (I had to leave the gym early
just to see this much of it.) What I saw seems to
partially support some of what Paul Graham has written
about, which I've pasted below. See my May 29'th post
in my alt.support.shyness thread "Why Nerds Are Unpopular"
or <http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html> for the full
text of Graham's essay.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from Paul Graham's
February 2003 essay
"Why Nerds Are Unpopular"
Much as they suffer from their unpopularity, I don't think
many nerds would. To them the thought of average intelligence
is unbearable. But most kids would take that deal. For half
of them, it would be a step up. Even for someone in the
eightieth percentile (assuming, as everyone seemed to then,
that intelligence is a scalar), who wouldn't drop thirty
points in exchange for being loved and admired by everyone?
And that, I think, is the root of the problem. Nerds serve
two masters. They want to be popular, certainly, but they
want even more to be smart. And popularity is not something
you can do in your spare time, not in the fiercely
competitive environment of an American secondary school.
Alberti, arguably the archetype of the Renaissance Man,
writes that "no art, however minor, demands less than
total dedication if you want to excel in it." I wonder
if anyone in the world works harder at anything than
American school kids work at popularity. Navy SEALs and
neurosurgery residents seem slackers by comparison. They
occasionally take vacations; some even have hobbies. An
American teenager may work at being popular every waking
hour, 365 days a year.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll probably wind up missing next week's episode (I'll be
out of state for a job interview), but here are my thoughts
on what I saw. The girls seemed to be too uninformed to be
real. I can believe someone not knowing who the Prime Minister
of England is, as was the case for one girl during the
politics/geography competition part. However, another girl
picked North Carolina as being further south than South
Dakota, and there were other things just as bad. This last
thing goes way beyond what you'd expect from a socially
adept but perhaps academically inept U.S. resident. I find
it hard to believe that anyone who's even remotely socially
active wouldn't know this, even if they spent all their
time in front of the TV or on-line and never left their
apartment or house, or if they've had more than a few
conversations with anyone besides their next door neighbor,
or if they've traveled beyond the town 30 miles down the
highway from where they live (I put it this way because
I can't imagine anyone who doesn't live way out in the
wilderness not knowing this). In fact, my feeling is that
most of the questions that were asked of the girls didn't
fall into the geek category -- these were the kinds of things
that an average U.S. resident ought to know unless they've
been hiding under a rock all their lives (which supposedly
was the opposite of what these girls did).
As for their attractiveness, the girls were certainly
attractive, but I'd say that their lack of everyday
knowledge was their _defining_ characteristic, not
their looks. I'd bet that 15% of girls their age on
college campuses look at least as good as they do.
Also, none of them appeared to be all that athletic,
at least not so much so that you could explain their
ignorance of everyday knowledge from spending 6 to 8
hours a day with gymnastics or something.
A few of the guys were geeky looking (the winner for
the first week looks somewhat like alt.support.short's
"Classic Collector" = "suicide daily" = "no one",
by the way), but at least half seemed to have no geek
aspect to their looks that I could tell. This half was
entirely normal, and at least one of them was well
above average in appearance. Of course, their defining
characteristic was social ineptness, which doesn't have
to be caused by a below average appearance. Unfortunately,
I missed the first part of the show where the backgrounds
of the guys was discussed, but from what I've read (see
the posted reviews in the web pages below), most of the
guys were borderline alt.support.shyness types, and maybe
a two or three of them are actually at this level: "The
show introduces him as "never kissed a girl," and he tells
us right off, 'If there is one thing in the universe I can
probably be sure of, it's that I will probably never
(have sex).'" (from 2'nd URL below; see the last URL also)
http://tinyurl.com/axlvq
Message ID: 1117630403.227311.57640-AT-g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
http://tinyurl.com/ar3zu
Message ID: qdhv919o52rfikeg5m81lridhghh6gtq39-AT-4ax.com
http://tinyurl.com/c6n2d
Message ID: ldom91dnoort87h7d642vmm3h6v21ugoe6-AT-4ax.com
http://tinyurl.com/d7ed9
Message ID: BJCdnbdaJ4dKUQDfRVn-pg-AT-giganews.com
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=never-kissed&as_epq=beauty+and+the+geek
Virgo Cluster
. "Stupid Government and Bureaucracy in the U.S.A.
..
.. The U.S. government -- and all other official and
.. quasi-official bureaucracies -- is the source of much
.. material on the stupid side of things. Perhaps this
.. surprises you. Perhaps you think, as a red-blooded
.. patriot, that it is impossible for the government
.. (whether federal, state, or municipal) to do anything
.. stupid ... and for our elected or appointed officials
.. to do anything stupid. (Perhaps you also haven't been
.. reading the papers, watching television news, or keeping
.. up with current events. But that is none of our business.)
..
.. FUN CONGRESSIONAL FACTS
..
.. Let us now turn our eye on a different group: those who
.. serve the public in Congress.
.. We hare, of course, not putting forth the idea that
.. our esteemed public servants, those men and women who
.. put aside personal gain to toil as representatives or
.. senators, are stupid.
.. Far from it.
.. What might be construed as stupid is the fact that we,
.. the public, call these people "servants". A few salient
.. facts:
..
.. Monthly premium for individual coverage under the
.. congressional health insurance plan: $73.04
..
.. Average monthly premium for individual HMO coverage
.. in the U.S.: $212.71 (as of 2002; expected to increase
.. by about 18% in 2003)
..
.. Percentage of congressional insurance premium paid for
.. by taxpayers: 72% of "program-wide weighted average of
.. premiums in effect each year" or 75% of the "total
.. premium for the particular plan an enrollee selects"
..
.. Annual fee members of Congress pay to use Attending
.. Physician's Office medical facilities (which include
.. 20 doctors, nurses, and technicians in three separate
.. facilities): $332 for House members, $520 for senators
..
.. Annual taxpayer subsidy for Attending Physician: about
.. $1.6 million"
..
<< Kathryn Petras and Ross Petras, "Unusually Stupid
.. Americans: A Compendium of All-American Stupidity",
.. Villard Books, 2003, pp. 33 & 38 & 40-41 >>
Virgo Cluster
> However, another girl picked North Carolina as being
> further south than South Dakota, and there were other
> things just as bad.
This should have been "picked South Dakota as being
further south than North Carolina".
Virgo Cluster
.. Annual cost for members of Congress to use the Senate or
.. House health clubs: $400
..
.. Number of physical therapists on staff at health
.. clubs: 11
..
.. Amenities of those health clubs: swimming pools,
.. saunas, steam baths, bodybuilding and exercise
.. equipment, whirlpools, heated pool, and more
..
.. Daily number of hours Senate and House health clubs
.. are open: 16"
..
<< Kathryn Petras and Ross Petras, "Unusually Stupid
.. Americans: A Compendium of All-American Stupidity",
.. Villard Books, 2003, pp. 33 & 38 & 41 >>
Michael Snyder
"Virgo Cluster" <gamma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117817179.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Virgo Cluster wrote:
>
> > However, another girl picked North Carolina as being
> > further south than South Dakota, and there were other
> > things just as bad.
>
> This should have been "picked South Dakota as being
> further south than North Carolina".
Yes.
Yes it should.
;-|
the Danimal
> I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned the recent
> TV show "Beauty and the Geek" in any of the groups this
> is being posted to.
Perhaps Usenet addiction leaves little time for watching TV.
[...]
> I'll probably wind up missing next week's episode (I'll be
> out of state for a job interview), but here are my thoughts
> on what I saw. The girls seemed to be too uninformed to be
> real. I can believe someone not knowing who the Prime Minister
> of England is, as was the case for one girl during the
> politics/geography competition part. However, another girl
> picked North Carolina as being further south than South
> Dakota, and there were other things just as bad. This last
> thing goes way beyond what you'd expect from a socially
> adept but perhaps academically inept U.S. resident.
Perhaps if you don't get out much and get to know some
average people.
> I find
> it hard to believe that anyone who's even remotely socially
> active wouldn't know this, even if they spent all their
> time in front of the TV or on-line and never left their
> apartment or house, or if they've had more than a few
> conversations with anyone besides their next door neighbor,
> or if they've traveled beyond the town 30 miles down the
> highway from where they live (I put it this way because
> I can't imagine anyone who doesn't live way out in the
> wilderness not knowing this).
Read what _The Bell Curve_ has to say about social
stratification.
Modern society is pretty good at grouping people together by
IQ.
For example, only about 15% of U.S. adults hold a four-year
college degree, but if you hold a college degree yourself,
odds are that out of your closest friends and associates,
a staggeringly improbable fraction of them also hold college
degrees. "Improbable" if you selected your friends and associates
at random from the general population. You do not, of course.
Thus if you are fairly smart, it's probably hard for you
to believe how stupid some people can be, because you don't
interact much with the full range of IQs out there.
If you work in technical support, you might get some hints,
but even there you probably aren't talking to many people
who are much below average.
Try working as a drill sergeant or a prison guard or a
welfare official, or spend a lot of time riding the bus
and talk to people who use it not by choice but by necessity.
> In fact, my feeling is that
> most of the questions that were asked of the girls didn't
> fall into the geek category -- these were the kinds of things
> that an average U.S. resident ought to know unless they've
> been hiding under a rock all their lives (which supposedly
> was the opposite of what these girls did).
Why do these girls need to know where South Dakota is on a
map?
One of my friends told me a story about his sister. It seems
she went on a road trip with a group of her (female) friends.
The plan was to drive south from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Florida
on Interstate Highway 75. One highway goes all the way to Florida,
so it shouldn't be too tough, right? They realized something
was wrong after driving for about five hours when they saw
a sign that said "Welcome to Michigan"*.
If I recall correctly, they were all college students.
[*For readers unfamiliar with the political geography of
North America: Michigan is north of Ohio, the opposite way
from Florida, unless you were to drive clear around the
planet, which would require a pretty versatile automobile,
given the oceans and mountain ranges and ice caps and
rain forests in the way.]
> As for their attractiveness, the girls were certainly
> attractive, but I'd say that their lack of everyday
> knowledge was their _defining_ characteristic, not
> their looks. I'd bet that 15% of girls their age on
> college campuses look at least as good as they do.
> Also, none of them appeared to be all that athletic,
> at least not so much so that you could explain their
> ignorance of everyday knowledge from spending 6 to 8
> hours a day with gymnastics or something.
If they spent 6 to 8 hours a day riding bicycles I bet
they would get better at reading maps.
> A few of the guys were geeky looking (the winner for
> the first week looks somewhat like alt.support.short's
> "Classic Collector" = "suicide daily" = "no one",
> by the way), but at least half seemed to have no geek
> aspect to their looks that I could tell. This half was
> entirely normal, and at least one of them was well
> above average in appearance. Of course, their defining
> characteristic was social ineptness, which doesn't have
> to be caused by a below average appearance.
A man's "social ineptness" is caused by the fact that
women will generally ignore a man completely until he
takes the initiative to grab their attention somehow and
engage them in conversation.
I have found that almost every woman seems to change
completely when I start talking to her. She becomes human.
Not always a friendly human, but something different than
the kind of motorized statue that almost every woman acts
like when I haven't said anything to her yet.
I suspect these "socially inept" males haven't figured out
how to ignore the evidence of their senses, and believe
instead that all the women they haven't talked to are
really humans, rather than the motorized statues they seem
to be. A "socially skilled" male knows how to butt in, so
to speak, and force a woman to acknowledge his existence.
It's basically a mild form of social aggression.
Probably the "socially inept" males get confused because
they try to interpret women through male rules. When a man
sees another man he doesn't know, there isn't usually that
studied indifference. If you look at the guy, he'll look at
you back, and it's obvious from his body language that he
knows you exist and you could talk to him if you wanted to.
He already acts as if he can distinguish you from the
furniture. And, of course, there's never any question about
what you can use as a conversation-starter. Obvious things
like sports always work. Or you can talk about relevant
items in the immediate surroundings, such as the interesting
machines. But what does a woman stranger want to talk about?
For example, if you are in a gym, and one of the exercise
machines has a loose part, you can point it out to some
man you don't know, and it wouldn't be too surprising if
he spontaneously helps you fix it. But if you point it out
to some woman you don't know, it's like it doesn't even
register with her, like you spoke to her in Mongolian or
something. Or if you need a "spot" on some free weight
exercise, asking a man generally gets you a "spot," whereas
asking a woman usually gets you nothing or maybe a weird
look. It's like women haven't decided yet that they really
want to be part of human society.
For a man to really be "socially inept" he would have to
be handicapped somehow in his ability to deal with other men.
There aren't too many men like that. Almost every man can
get on with other men. But dealing with women, in a romantic
sense, is a whole other animal. I wouldn't say a man who
can't do that is "socially" inept. Instead he lacks a
particular specialized skill that goes way beyond what
is necessary to just socialize with humans. He probably deals
OK with old women, because he doesn't find them attractive,
and they know they are no longer attractive, so they don't
have the giant defensive attitude thing going at all times.
The other thing to consider is that most men are "socially
inept" with most women at most times. Go to a gym, for
example, and see how few of the dozens of men and women
there are actually talking to each other.
The average man only breaks through with a small percentage
of the women he sees. And often he needs some help from
special circumstances, such as introductions by friends,
or some situation that practically forces some women to
talk to him.
It's not hard to imagine that for some men, their percentage
of success is so small as to become zero for extended
lengths of time. If you only have a real shot with maybe
two or three women in a year, it would be pretty easy to
miss all of those chances. The longer a man misses, the
more confidence he loses, making him even more likely to
miss what opportunities he might get in the future.
Women don't get into the same self-reinforcing cycle of
failure, because as long as they look good, at least a
few men will automatically hit on them no matter what
their mental state might be.
> Unfortunately,
> I missed the first part of the show where the backgrounds
> of the guys was discussed, but from what I've read (see
> the posted reviews in the web pages below), most of the
> guys were borderline alt.support.shyness types, and maybe
> a two or three of them are actually at this level: "The
> show introduces him as "never kissed a girl," and he tells
> us right off, 'If there is one thing in the universe I can
> probably be sure of, it's that I will probably never
> (have sex).'" (from 2'nd URL below; see the last URL also)
Well, appearing on television even in a loser role might
score him enough celebrity points to close the deal if
he lowers his requirements enough.
-- the Danimal
KC Carter
This is a really great post, a must read for all group members.
KC
Ivan Marsh
<snip>
>
> This is a really great post, a must read for all group members.
Yes, except that the women on that show are all idiots and no
self-respecting geek would have anything to do with any of them.
Sorry, but if you don't know the basics of the geography of the country
you live in or who's on the one dollar bill and think your knowledge of
the Simpsons (Jessica not Homer) is a high point of your intelligence you
should be walked swiftly into an industrial meat grinder.
--
Life is short, but wide. -KV
michaelashouse
>
> Excerpt from Paul Graham's
> February 2003 essay
> "Why Nerds Are Unpopular"
>
> two masters. They want to be popular, certainly, but they
> want even more to be smart. And popularity is not something
> you can do in your spare time, not in the fiercely
> competitive environment of an American secondary school.
Unless it comes easily to you. Love and compassion can be taught
when one is a child. If we aren't popular it's also possible that it is
because we genuinely aren't interested in others.
> us right off, 'If there is one thing in the universe I can
> probably be sure of, it's that I will probably never
> (have sex).'" (from 2'nd URL below; see the last URL also)
That's one helluva affirmation he's got going there.
- Michaela
michaelashouse
> A man's "social ineptness" is caused by the fact that
> women will generally ignore a man completely until he
> takes the initiative to grab their attention somehow and
> engage them in conversation.
Maybe all he has to do is be noticed? To stand apart from
"all other men"?
> The average man only breaks through with a small percentage
> of the women he sees. And often he needs some help from
> special circumstances, such as introductions by friends,
> or some situation that practically forces some women to
> talk to him.
Of course it couldn't be up to him to make a gap for someone
to talk to him, right?
> -- the Danimal
michaelashouse
> KC Carter wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> This is a really great post, a must read for all group members.
>
> Yes, except that the women on that show are all idiots and no
> self-respecting geek would have anything to do with any of them.
>
> Sorry, but if you don't know the basics of the geography of the
> country you live in or who's on the one dollar bill and think your
> knowledge of the Simpsons (Jessica not Homer) is a high point of your
> intelligence you should be walked swiftly into an industrial meat
> grinder.
Nice baby you turned out to be.
- Michaela
Ivan Marsh
The premise of the show is that these women are too good for these men
because the men are geeks.
Where's the show about the hot girls being too fucking dumb to live?
I make no apologies for knowing I'm better than people who's egos are
their only virtue.
Good luck next time you're on Blind-Date... remember to give head in the
hot-tub to the guy you just met on national TV.
--
Impeach Clinton for getting a hummer...
Praise Bush for killing thousands...
Makes perfect sense.
ags...@yahoo.com
Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:45:24 -0700, KC Carter wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > This is a really great post, a must read for all group members.
>
> Yes, except that the women on that show are all idiots and no
> self-respecting geek would have anything to do with any of them.
And no self-respecting woman would look so good.
> Sorry, but if you don't know the basics of the geography of the country
> you live in or who's on the one dollar bill and think your knowledge of
> the Simpsons (Jessica not Homer) is a high point of your intelligence you
> should be walked swiftly into an industrial meat grinder.
It all depends on what your intentions are. If you're just trying to
bag them, then who cares about their mental capacity?
Regards...
the Danimal
> The premise of the show is that these women are too good for these men
> because the men are geeks.
It's all about sexual market value. Physically attractive women
generally have a lot. Men who are geeks generally have little.
Simply by examining the women who do end up with geeks, we can
see, for the most part, that physically attractive women are
too good for them.
Someone could write a similarly funny show about homeless
indigents trying to talk their way into a pricey gated
community.
> Where's the show about the hot girls being too fucking dumb to live?
You can probably watch re-runs of "The Beverly Hillbillies."
There was a show about Jessica Simpson that ridiculed her low
intelligence. Her remarks about "Chicken of the Sea" became a
pop culture gem. Also, Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie were
spoofed a bit in "The Simple Life" as they struggled to
comprehend the way average people live.
Then there is the whole B-movie genre featuring a long parade
of light-headed lovelies.
> I make no apologies for knowing I'm better than people who's egos are
> their only virtue.
Are you also better than people who know how to spell their
possessive pronouns?
-- the Danimal
the Danimal
Which is farther west:
1. Los Angeles, California
2. Reno, Nevada
Mxsmanic
> If men waited for women to initiate the species would go extinct.
If all men waited for women to initiate, then women would rapidly become
the initiators. Women wait because men refuse to wait.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
> It's all about sexual market value. Physically attractive women
> generally have a lot. Men who are geeks generally have little.
Geeks run society. They just aren't on television very much. Better to
be master of the world than to have some ephemeral physical beauty, I
should think.
Ivan Marsh
Farthest west of where?
There are north and south poles on this planet... there are not east and
west poles.
Curious_Orange
Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:50:11 -0700, the Danimal wrote:
>
> > Michael Snyder wrote:
> >> "Virgo Cluster" <gamma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1117817179.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Virgo Cluster wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > However, another girl picked North Carolina as being further south
> >> > > than South Dakota, and there were other things just as bad.
> >> >
> >> > This should have been "picked South Dakota as being further south
> >> > than North Carolina".
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >> Yes it should.
> >> ;-|
> >
> > Which is farther west:
> >
> > 1. Los Angeles, California
> > 2. Reno, Nevada
>
> Farthest west of where?
>
> There are north and south poles on this planet... there are not east and
> west poles.
Speaking as a Brit, I can hardly resist not answering this.
You need to do some research on the longitudinal co-ordinate system and
its relation to the zero meridian line - which passes through
Greenwich, London, UK ;) It's been established for some while I believe
:)
All places are respectively East or West of this line. Happy to help :)
Ivan Marsh
> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>> I make no apologies for knowing I'm better than people whos egos are
>> their only virtue.
>
> Are you also better than people who know how to spell their
> possessive pronouns?
...and idiots who defend the arrogant stupid.
Better not hit the wrong key in any of your posts from this point forward
I guess.
Ivan Marsh
Okay stupid.
Travel west... stop when you're suddenly traveling east.
michaelashouse
> I make no apologies for knowing I'm better than people who's egos are
> their only virtue.
Does it shock you to realise that that's your ego talking?
- Michaela
Ivan Marsh
Does it shock you to realize that I'm well aware of that? I guess stupid
arrogant people aren't any fun unless they're on television.
Largo
> > the Danimal wrote:
> > The average man only breaks through with a small percentage
> > of the women he sees. And often he needs some help from
> > special circumstances, such as introductions by friends,
> > or some situation that practically forces some women to
> > talk to him.
> michaelashouse wrote:
> Of course it couldn't be up to him to make a gap for someone
> to talk to him, right?
Moot point. How would making such a "gap" help if someone's sexual
market value is so low that no MOTUS the gap-maker finds worthy would
ever approach? Think about the MOTUS of many of the people who post
here for a moment.
This is like me going out and loudly giving everybody the fabulous
opportunity to purchase my 11-year-old Ford for 50K. The line starts
here.
A offerer has to have something of value to offer for there to be
offerees.
Coats
Curious_Orange
stupid? I love you too darling ;)
> Travel west... stop when you're suddenly traveling east.
hmm maybe I'm missing something, but by my understanding you wont be
suddenly travelling east at any point if you are heading west. Once you
cross the international date line well.. you'll still be *travelling*
west.
I think you are too hung up on the North/South pole idea which I guess
is where your "clever" question is coming from. (ie once you head north
beyond the north pole you will then be heading south)
North, South, East, West are human constructs. You might as well use
left right or up or down.
And if you are basing the correctness of the North/South pole concept
on the spin of the earth, maybe you should have a look at the
(horizontal) spin of Uranus....to realise that the concept of north and
south poles becomes rather shaky.... a small part of my Brit sense of
humour wants to make a joke about the "spin of Uranus" at this point,
but Im sure you are all thinking it already. And it is rather late
here at the zero meridian for word play;)
Anyway, the original question posed, and answer seemed rather obvious
to me.. .so maybe its you thats stupid, stupid ;)
Curious_Orange
Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 23:39:30 +0200, michaelashouse wrote:
>
> > Ivan Marsh wrote:
> >
> >> I make no apologies for knowing I'm better than people who's egos are
> >> their only virtue.
> >
> > Does it shock you to realise that that's your ego talking?
>
> Does it shock you to realize that I'm well aware of that? I guess stupid
> arrogant people aren't any fun unless they're on television.
when are you on? what channel?
I'll bet it's US TV only. What a shame.
We only get Jerry Springer when he's all washed up over there.
;-p
Mxsmanic
> Which is farther west:
>
> 1. Los Angeles, California
> 2. Reno, Nevada
Reno is about one degree further west than Los Angeles, depending on the
exact spot that have in mind (one degree of longitude is around 57 miles
at the latitude of Los Angeles, for example).
Michaela Mackenzie
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 23:39:30 +0200, michaelashouse wrote:
>
> > Ivan Marsh wrote:
> >
> >> I make no apologies for knowing I'm better than people who's egos are
> >> their only virtue.
> >
> > Does it shock you to realise that that's your ego talking?
>
> Does it shock you to realize that I'm well aware of that? I guess stupid
> arrogant people aren't any fun unless they're on television.
I have no idea what you are on about but please let
me in on what virtues you possess.
- Michaela
Leo Fellmann
> I'd rather wash dishes than be a victim anyday.
Then please go and wash dishes and stop crossposting contextless replies
to 5 newsgroups.
Michaela Mackenzie
Sorry. Didn't see alt.support.short up there.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> <Michaela> wrote
> > If we aren't popular it's also possible that it is
> > because we genuinely aren't interested in others.
>
> So according to your flowed logic, popular people are caring good people.
> How true. Now go back to washing the dishes.
It doesn't necessarily follow that being interested in
others leads to being caring people. For all I know
these popular people don't even like the people they are
interested in. Perhaps sometimes they are only interested
in others to the extent that those others can help them
further their own aims (they may just be good at picking
up cues from others).
I have a friend who is extremely entertaining. And self-centred.
She goes on about herself for hours, and then just before you've
had enough, she mentions something like "O. I see you're still
using such-and-such a dishwash liquid. Whenever I see that
dishwash liquid I think of you." And one is immediately put
at ease because they have been noticed by that other person.
But it is good to see you putting a little thought into
your posts. Well done, Troll
- Michaela
the Danimal
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:13:25 -0700, the Danimal wrote:
>
> > Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
> >> I make no apologies for knowing I'm better than people whos egos are
> >> their only virtue.
> >
> > Are you also better than people who know how to spell their
> > possessive pronouns?
>
> ...and idiots who defend the arrogant stupid.
I'm not sure who you are talking about there. Pointing
out your error does not amount to defending anyone else.
Whatever might be wrong with their ideas or persons will
still be just as wrong.
If we are rational, we judge everything on its own merits,
independently of the merits of other unrelated persons or
things.
> Better not hit the wrong key in any of your posts from this point forward
> I guess.
I make my share of mistakes. I just find it amusing when
someone includes the obligatory typo when declaring his
superiority over some other group of people. This is so
common on Usenet that I suspect some sort of cosmic principle
is at work.
If I ever do feel the need to buttress my ego with explicit
declarations of superiority on Usenet (as if this would somehow
not be obvious enough from context), I will check carefully
to make sure I am not contradicting my claim to superiority
with some glaringly stupid error.
-- the Danimal
Ivan Marsh
Well... You missed the whole point didn't you?
Largo
> > An offerer has to have something of value to offer for there to be
> > offerees.
> >
> > Coats
Michaela Mackenzie wrote:
> Perhaps it's your belief system that needs addressing?
>
> - Michaela
Well, only with some solid evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, I'm a
firm believer in sexual market value.
Coats
the Danimal
> Virgo Cluster wrote:
> >
> > Excerpt from Paul Graham's
> > February 2003 essay
> > "Why Nerds Are Unpopular"
> >
> > And that, I think, is the root of the problem. Nerds serve
> > two masters. They want to be popular, certainly, but they
> > want even more to be smart. And popularity is not something
> > you can do in your spare time, not in the fiercely
> > competitive environment of an American secondary school.
>
> Unless it comes easily to you. Love and compassion can be taught
> when one is a child.
So can lying, an essential ingredient in popularity:
"You look nice today." "I'm very impressed by the job you
do." "Great play! I know you will win the championship."
Tell people what they want to hear, and they will
never be skeptical, no matter how absurdly over the top
your flattery goes. Even if you are a poor actor.
One problem with nerds is that they are simply too honest
for their own good. They are the opposite of dogs, who
celebrate their owners every day, no matter how incompetent
their owners actually are by human standards.
> If we aren't popular it's also possible that it is
> because we genuinely aren't interested in others.
Nerds are genuinely interested in finding fault in others.
Thus their only hope is to be genuinely interesting to others.
Is Barry Bonds genuinely interested in others? Not according
to what reporters write about the man. And yet he is a huge
sports star who gets paid tens of millions of dollars by
fans who desperately wish he would be nice to them.
If Barry Bonds didn't have his physical gifts, he would just
be another angry nerd, except that he's not smart enough to
be a nerd. Maybe he would be in prison.
> > us right off, 'If there is one thing in the universe I can
> > probably be sure of, it's that I will probably never
> > (have sex).'" (from 2'nd URL below; see the last URL also)
>
> That's one helluva affirmation he's got going there.
It's a coping strategy. If he truly believes he will get sex
someday, how is he supposed to withstand the anguish of not
getting any sex right now? It's better to put the whole horrid
thought out of his mind, rather than teasing himself with
unrealizable possibilities.
Have you ever ordered some product you really wanted, only to
have it backordered for two months? At least you know when it's
coming. In the meantime, best to just put it out of your mind.
Imagine being detained indefinitely under the Patriot Act.
Without charges being brought, a formal hearing, or access to
an attorney, you would have no idea how long your detention
would last. Should you torture yourself every day by repeatedly
telling yourself that you are going free soon? Perhaps it would
be best to get used to your 4x8 cell. If they ever let you out,
you won't have any trouble accepting it.
When a man hits on women, he handles rejection best if he
expects it. After all, he is already sexually attracted to
them. (Why else would he be hitting on them?) Imagine how
awkward it would be if you wanted to have sex with someone
you hadn't even met yet, before you have any idea whether
you even like her as a person, and there you are trying to get
through an introduction. Yikes! That's what being a man is
all about.
If he lets his optimism get ahead of the game, all the blood
will drain out of his brain and pool in his groin, rendering
him incapable of carrying on a coherent conversation. For some
reason, probably because they don't understand much about men,
women expect a certain degree of coherence from a man in the
earliest going. At least so long as the women remain coherent
themselves.
Anyway, the man can be pretty sure when he introduces himself
to a woman stranger, he is not going to get laid in the first
30 minutes. So he might as well try to forget about the possibility
for that long at least.
-- the Danimal
Michaela Mackenzie
So'd I. Would you explain it to me without insulting
me?
- Michaela
Ivan Marsh
Sure... just a little social experiment of my own to see how people react
to arrogant stupid people. Appears that they aren't any fun if you're the
person at the receiving end.
But let's make sure they're the only people on the TV.
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <1118174465....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Largo
<coat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, only with some solid evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, I'm a
>firm believer in sexual market value.
Do your beliefs influence your SMV at all? If you don't know, how would
one find out?
- --
There is a lot of food in a supermarket, too, but a supermarket isn't
the best place to hold a dinner party. -- Christopher Faylor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFCpyBj/FmLrNfLpjMRAq6uAJ92n74p+SSbKdTPErvcr2QVyvG3EgCdGKdU
U1EiCQYIb3JikCUvQ75iyL4=
=sBeA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Largo
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <1118174465....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Largo
> <coat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Well, only with some solid evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, I'm a
> >firm believer in sexual market value.
>
> Do your beliefs influence your SMV at all? If you don't know, how would
> one find out?
No. I can safely say, given the fair measure of wisdom I have, my life
experience, and empirical evidence, that my SMV is so low as to
approach the pathological. I feel I can say that with as much certainty
as I can that I cannot a dunk basketball given my relatively short 5'8"
unathletic 39-year-old body.
As for your second question, this is a lot more difficult if you lack
the required experience, empirical evidence, mental health, etc
required to lead to the sober reflection required to realize that one's
chances of attracting a mate one in turn finds attractive are slim to
vanishing and that that effort should be placed into endeavors to
develop skill and promise in another field.
That's why I look narrowly at teens and early 20-somethings who come in
here and claim that their SMV is so low that they will never get
anybody. They probably do not have the evidence to make such claims.
Have you been following Danimal's discussion of SMV in the "Female
Desires..." thread? Excellent, thoughtful stuff in the large part.
Coats
Mikaël Hautin
Could you tell me what is an SMV ?
Hoping it wasn't too stupid to ask this,
--
Mikaël hautin
Michaela Mackenzie
> Excuse me,
>
> Could you tell me what is an SMV ?
>
> Hoping it wasn't too stupid to ask this,
> Mikaël hautin
Sexual market value. Something which seems to have
its place, but to me if one believes they don't have
any it doesn't leave any room for individual potential.
So if I [conveniently, imo] don't believe I have
any SMV I don't have to make any effort to improve
my chances.
- Michaela
Mikaël Hautin
> any SMV I don't have to make any effort to improve
> my chances.
Well said ! Thanks for the explanation.
I think my SMV is below zero, but I can live with it. There's still a
room for my potential, when it's not about sex, eg. Intelligence Market
Value, or Empathy Market Value, or anything else.
Thanks again,
--
Mikaël Hautin
Ed
One never knows. No women has been interested in me at all for ages,
but suddenly one came along who thinks I'm the greatest guy she's ever
met, and she can't keep her hands off me! We had sex for the first
time last night, and it was great.
I was introduced to her at a charity event I attended.
Ed
Ed
Troll wrote:
> "Ed" <Ed...@volcanomail.com> wrote in news:1118421413.231501.82220
> @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> How old are you/her?
I am 43, and she is 36. Neither of us has ever been married, or has
kids.
Ed
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> > A man's "social ineptness" is caused by the fact that
> > women will generally ignore a man completely until he
> > takes the initiative to grab their attention somehow and
> > engage them in conversation.
>
> Maybe all he has to do is be noticed? To stand apart from
> "all other men"?
A woman gets noticed by showing up. A man must do more
to get noticed. Perhaps a lot more.
OK, not all women get noticed. The obese, the elderly,
and the disfigured can be sexually invisible most of the
time.
But I would say the percentage of women who get noticed
by men, without having to make any specific effort to get
noticed by those men, is much higher than the percentage
of men who can command similar attention from women they
don't know merely by showing up.
Men are genetically programmed to notice women who look
like they might be fertile. There are lots of women who
meet that requirement easily, for a few years of their
lives.
> > The average man only breaks through with a small percentage
> > of the women he sees. And often he needs some help from
> > special circumstances, such as introductions by friends,
> > or some situation that practically forces some women to
> > talk to him.
>
> Of course it couldn't be up to him to make a gap for someone
> to talk to him, right?
It's up to him to do much more than that.
-- the Danimal
the Danimal
> Sexual market value. Something which seems to have
> its place, but to me if one believes they don't have
> any it doesn't leave any room for individual potential.
That makes no sense. Even men who have not heard of the
"sexual market value" term (which I invented) are well aware
that a man's attractiveness to women can change substantially
depending on his circumstances.
That is, most men understand that women are not just attracted
to who a man is, but also (maybe even primarily) to how things
are going for a him.
Women want to amplify the trends in a man's life. If his life
is good, women want to make it better. If his life is bad,
women want to make it worse.
> So if I [conveniently, imo] don't believe I have
> any SMV I don't have to make any effort to improve
> my chances.
That depends on what you believe your SMV depends on.
And what chances are you talking about here?
Most men know their chances with women would improve if they
made a billion dollars, or recorded some songs that charted
at #1. Most men also know it is difficult to do almost anything
proven to substantially increase their attractiveness to women.
How exactly should a man who isn't doing well with women
earn his billion dollars? Do you have a specific procedure
he can follow?
At the moment, earning a billion dollars pretty much requires
(somehow) organizing a sizable number of other people to work
very hard on your behalf. Probably no man alive can do anything
all by himself that is really worth a billion dollars, all by
itself. To accumulate a billion dollars for himself, he must
somehow put a lot of other people in a structure that lets them
crank out value while he skims a chunk of it.
Even an inventor who invents some brilliant thing probably
cannot build enough of those things by himself to be worth
a billion dollars. He needs a lot of help from lots of people.
There are lots of books about how to get rich, or how to
become a popular musician, etc. It is much easier to read
such books than to apply them successfully. It is also very
hard to predict who is going to succeed. Recall the record
executive who refused to sign the Beatles just before they
became famous. I'd hate to be that guy.
-- the Danimal
Ed
> "sexual market value" term (which I invented) are well aware
> that a man's attractiveness to women can change substantially
> depending on his circumstances.
[snip]
> Most men know their chances with women would improve if they
> made a billion dollars, or recorded some songs that charted
> at #1. Most men also know it is difficult to do almost anything
> proven to substantially increase their attractiveness to women.
>
> How exactly should a man who isn't doing well with women
> earn his billion dollars? Do you have a specific procedure
> he can follow?
While it's true that a man with a billion dollars is, in general, more
desirable to women than a penniless bum, there is a HUGE, HUGE gap
between the two.
It's not an all-or-nothing thing: If you earn a billion dollars you
can have any woman you like; if you don't you can't have any one. It's
more like a sliding scale. The more you earn, the more women will find
you desirable.
The point at which you earn enough to find at least one woman you are
attracted to and who is attracted to you is MUCH, MUCH less than a
billion dollars, for just about any man.
Ed
Mikaël Hautin
I'm sincerely impressed. If this could happen to me, I'll be happy.
--
Mikaël hautin
Mikaël Hautin
I'm sincerely impressed. If this could happen to me, I would be happy.
--
Mikaël hautin
Ed
I went through many LONG stretches (years and years) with no female
attention whatever. Lots of times I felt pretty hopeless about it.
This fell pretty much out of the blue. If it can happen to me, it can
happen to just about anyone. So I hope it gives some people a little
hope.
One thing: I mentioned that I was introduced to this lady at a charity
event, and it took some doing to make that possible, and most of that
didn't have "meeting a woman" as a goal. I had been a financial
contributor to this charity for years when I got an invitation to this
event. When I was there one of the organizers recognized my name and
introduced me to some of the other people in attendance, one of whom
was this attractive single woman.
My point is that you never know what activities in your life will lead
you to your partner, so don't restrict yourself to those that you think
will -- like going to bars, for instance. How could I have guessed
that writing that first check to this particular charity three years
ago would be the first step towards finding this lady?
Ed
Ed
Hardpan wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2005 21:46:51 -0700, "Ed" <Ed...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mikaël Hautin wrote:
> >> Wow.
> >>
> >> I'm sincerely impressed. If this could happen to me, I would be happy.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mikaël hautin
> >
> >I went through many LONG stretches (years and years) with no female
> >attention whatever. Lots of times I felt pretty hopeless about it.
> >This fell pretty much out of the blue. If it can happen to me, it can
> >happen to just about anyone. So I hope it gives some people a little
> >hope.
>
> You are not helping most shy guys by posting this story.
>
> What happened for you is all well and good, and I am glad that you
> found someone, but for most of us, this will never happen.
>
> The fact is, that just like with non-shy's, you must get out and look
> for woman to find them.
>
> Most of the younger Men here simply have a very hard time doing that.
>
> Most of them cant even get up the stones to go see a real woman who
> likes to have sex, like a pay-as-you-go, call girl.
>
> You did get lucky, if what you have makes you happy, but this is an
> exception, not the rule.
Always the pessimist, eh?
I admit I was lucky this time (although it wasn't ALL luck -- I was
proactive in attending the event, and in having a good conversation
with the elderly, married organizer sufficient to make her think I was
worthy of being introduced to other people).
But I fill my life with activities which I enjoy anyway, and so that
makes chances for this kind of lucky thing to happen greater, I
believe. I guess that's my main point for shybies.
You see, most people I know in my real life did NOT meet their spouses
in a random meeting -- they were introduced by friends or
acquaintances. So, for shybies, getting more friends and acquaintances
so you can be introduced to more women is probably one of the best ways
to meet a woman for a long-term relationship. It's a heck of a lot
easier to talk to a woman when she's already been told by someone she
trusts that you're a great guy!
Ed
michaelashouse
the Danimal wrote:
> Men are genetically programmed to notice women who look
> like they might be fertile.
So you are saying that perpetuation of his genes is more important
to him than who he's going to spend the next forty or fifty years of
his life with?
> -- the Danimal
- Michaela
Mxsmanic
> The fact is, that just like with non-shy's, you must get out and look
> for woman to find them.
The same problem exists for shy women. No man is likely to find them if
they sit at home.
> Most of the younger Men here simply have a very hard time doing that.
No doubt ... but what other options are there? Women are not going to
come knocking on the doors of shy men.
> Most of them cant even get up the stones to go see a real woman who
> likes to have sex, like a pay-as-you-go, call girl.
That is largely uncorrelated with shyness. And I don't see why meeting
women and having sex must be considered synonymous.
Some shy people are too shy to be interested in sex, so going to a
prostitute makes no sense and serves no purpose.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik <nil...@invalid.com.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:slska1dis9r498rrj...@4ax.com...
> In Message-ID:<pan.2005.06.06....@you.now>
> posted on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:47:03 -0500, Ivan Marsh
> <ann...@you.now>, wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:50:11 -0700, the Danimal wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Snyder wrote:
> >>> "Virgo Cluster" <gamma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:1117817179.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>> > Virgo Cluster wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > However, another girl picked North Carolina as being further south
> >>> > > than South Dakota, and there were other things just as bad.
> >>> >
> >>> > This should have been "picked South Dakota as being further south
> >>> > than North Carolina".
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>> Yes it should.
> >>> ;-|
> >>
> >> Which is farther west:
> >>
> >> 1. Los Angeles, California
> >> 2. Reno, Nevada
>
> Reno Nevada is further west, being located at Latitude 39.53
> North, Longitude 119.81W
>
> Los Angeles Latitude: 34° 05' North
> Longitude:118° 22'West
> >
> >Farthest west of where?
>
> Longitude is the angular distance on the earth's surface,
> measured east or west from the prime meridian at Greenwich,
> England, to the meridian passing through a position,
> expressed in degrees (or hours), minutes, and seconds.
> >
> >There are north and south poles on this planet... there are not east and
> >west poles.
>
The Pomeranians are North Poles,
The Silesians are South Poles,
The Lubuskie are West Poles,
and the Lubelskie are East Poles.
So there _are_ East and West Poles, but not as well-known as North and South
Poles.
Hope this helps.
Uncle Davey
Mxsmanic
> I admit I was lucky this time (although it wasn't ALL luck -- I was
> proactive in attending the event, and in having a good conversation
> with the elderly, married organizer sufficient to make her think I was
> worthy of being introduced to other people).
You weren't that lucky.
A very good way to meet possible partners is to participate in
activities that bring you into contact with people similar to yourself.
That's what you did here, and by happy chance you met a compatible
partner.
The mistake many make is to always go to places that have a reputation
for pairing people, such as bars, even though the people who hang around
bars habitually might be lightyears away from the type of partners being
sought. You're better off going somewhere where a small number of
compatible partners are available than going somewhere where a large
number of incompatible partners are available.
Bars and such are occasionally useful for finding temporary sexual
partners, but few long-term relationships are born in bars, except among
people who like to spend their lives in bars, anyway.
> But I fill my life with activities which I enjoy anyway, and so that
> makes chances for this kind of lucky thing to happen greater, I
> believe. I guess that's my main point for shybies.
Exactly.
> You see, most people I know in my real life did NOT meet their spouses
> in a random meeting -- they were introduced by friends or
> acquaintances. So, for shybies, getting more friends and acquaintances
> so you can be introduced to more women is probably one of the best ways
> to meet a woman for a long-term relationship. It's a heck of a lot
> easier to talk to a woman when she's already been told by someone she
> trusts that you're a great guy!
That's a good idea for anyone, not just shy people. Many relationships
are started this way.
Mxsmanic
> So you "need" other people to make a woman feel that you are worthy
> enough to be introduced to her?
Everyone needs to network. It's hard to succeed at anything involving
human interaction if you are a hermit. (That's why shy people have
problems, since they network only with great difficulty and they tend to
be reclusive).
> And you think shy Men don't have any activities that they enjoy?
That's not what he said. He seemed to be implying that going to
uninteresting places like bars isn't a good idea, which is true. You're
better off going to a place where you'll meed like-minded people. So
unless you like to spend all your time in bars, it's not a good idea to
go to bars to try to meet people.
> So you need the help of other people to find a woman that might find
> you attractive, because they tell her you are a great guy?
As I've said, networking is important. Unless you are remarkably
attractive in some obvious way, you're far better off if you have a
network of friends and acquaintances who know you and are likely to
think of introducing you if they meet someone who might be a good
partner for you.
> BTW, I have also been donating to a charity organisation for well
> over 20 years and I have never seen or met any single, available
> interested women, that I found attractive, in all that time, but that
> isn't why I go there either.
That's your problem.
> Like I said, you just lucked out, pal.
I don't think so. He had the right attitude, and when opportunity
knocked, he opened the door. You've written all possibilities off
before you start, so opportunity will probably never knock, and even if
it did, you probably wouldn't answer.
Mxsmanic
> You don't have to network, but you do have to take some risks and go
> out, yes indeed.
You can do either, or both. They are very similar, anyway.
> This I can agree with. But I still think Ed was implying that shy Men
> have no real hobbies or ones that women might enjoy.
I didn't see that at all.
> Having lots of money or being a celebrity, a local small-time one or a
> big time star of some sort easily bypasses this hangup with networks
> of people.
Only a very small minority of the population is in one of these
categories. The rest of us have to resort to things like networking.
And actually, celebrities have vast networks, which they do use in
discreet ways.
> I have had some friends introduce me to females they knew
> in the past and I never would have looked at any of them twice.
Okay. So what is your point?
> I simply disagree that you absolutely need to have a network to meet
> and screw women.
Absolutely? Perhaps not. But it sure helps.
However, a distinction must be made between "meeting and screwing women"
and finding longer-term partners for something other than just sex. The
methods are not the same for achieving these two goals.
> What makes you think that?
Your negativity. People who think something won't work typically never
try it.
Mxsmanic
> True. Then there is online dating.
Online dating works best for platonic friendships, although one could
conceivably build long-term romantic relationships with it (but it's
rare, because often the people in question are not physically compatible
once they see each other in the flesh).
> I cant speak for All men, but for most Men, meeting women is all about
> chasing tail.
Maybe that's why so many of them have problems with it. Why don't they
just hire prostitutes?
> I am sure that most Men would agree that without a vagina to bang, a
> woman has no real purpose in fulfilling a Man's happiness, and that is
> all that matters.
I don't think any but a small minority of men would agree on this,
particularly in countries with some degree of equality between the
sexes.
> On what basis do you make this claim?
It seems intuitively obvious.
> First, I am sure that many shy men masturbate, so that means they are
> interested in sex.
Only to the extent that they are interested in going to the toilet or
eating something. Masturbation is handy for eliminating an interest in
sex for a time, and it has the advantage of being easy to schedule,
fast, convenient, safe, and without any requirement for human
interaction. However, someone with a keen interest in sex for the sake
of sex isn't likely to be happy with masturbation. Masturbation works
better for people who aren't interested in sex and just want to get any
physical desire out of the way.
> Secondly, seeing a call girl or a very slutty chick for some cheap
> sex is a good way for a Man to get past that "virgin" barrier, that
> most of them complain about and get on with life.
What "virgin barrier"?
> And there is nothing wrong with seeing a call-girl to lose your fear
> of sexual intercourse, if that is what is bothering you.
I don't know that very many men are afraid of sexual intercourse to
begin with. And if one is afraid of intercourse, why bother engaging in
it at all? It's hardly necessary.
> After all she is still a woman, like all women, and just more honest
> about the money-for-sex basis, that all intimate relationships that
> Men have with women, are based on.
Not all relationships between men and women are based on this.
Ed
Hardpan wrote:
> You don't have to network, but you do have to take some risks and go
> out, yes indeed.
Networking helps a LOT.
> This I can agree with. But I still think Ed was implying that shy Men
> have no real hobbies or ones that women might enjoy.
No, that's certainly not what I meant. Or at least, it's not
necessarily true.
> Having lots of money or being a celebrity, a local small-time one or a
> big time star of some sort easily bypasses this hangup with networks
> of people. I have had some friends introduce me to females they knew
> in the past and I never would have looked at any of them twice.
>
> I simply disagree that you absolutely need to have a network to meet
> and screw women.
It's not a question of what's absolutly necessary. It's a question of
what makes things easiest. For most people, becoming a celebrity or
getting a lot of money is much harder than finding a friend to
introduce them to possible partners.
And I, too, have been introduced to people that were wrong for me --
lots of times. But I didn't give up! Just a couple of months ago I
was set up on a date by a friend of a friend. It was not a match, to
put it mildly. How could I have known that I only had to wait one more
month?
Actually, Mxsmanic explained things much more eloquently than I could.
I just provided a real-life example.
Ed
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <fpydnZX1pqq...@is.co.za> michaelashouse <Michaela>
wrote:
>the Danimal wrote:
>> Men are genetically programmed to notice women who look like they
>> might be fertile.
>
>So you are saying that perpetuation of his genes is more important to
>him than who he's going to spend the next forty or fifty years of his
>life with?
Yes, I think so. More important to his *genes* anyway. OTOH, it might
turn out that "falling in love" and spending the next forty or fifty
years with just one woman is one good way to perpetuate his genes. But:
that will work *only if* he gets something in return for foregoing
opportunities for copulating with other women: *her* loyalty.
- --
There is a lot of food in a supermarket, too, but a supermarket isn't
the best place to hold a dinner party. -- Christopher Faylor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFCqxhx/FmLrNfLpjMRAoYcAJ4h1wGfxRHt1YfF6OsN5LgZb7Sh3gCfeu9o
LNN2MS2dmhbNR/ZsNzbZfYw=
=cj+n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
hesacopo...@yahoo.com
Largo wrote:
> Moot point. How would making such a "gap" help if someone's sexual
> market value is so low that no MOTUS the gap-maker finds worthy would
> ever approach? Think about the MOTUS of many of the people who post
> here for a moment.
>
> This is like me going out and loudly giving everybody the fabulous
> opportunity to purchase my 11-year-old Ford for 50K. The line starts
> here.
>
> An offerer has to have something of value to offer for there to be
> offerees.
It sounds to me like you've been selected out of dating, that's all.
-F.R.
the Danimal
> Dan, you and I think so differently.
In some ways that would probably be true for any two people.
Have you ever agreed with anyone about everything? You already
know I have not.
> the Danimal wrote:
>
> > Men are genetically programmed to notice women who look
> > like they might be fertile.
>
> So you are saying that perpetuation of his genes is more important
> to him than who he's going to spend the next forty or fifty years of
> his life with?
Having sex with apparently fertile young women, the more
the merrier, is FAR more important to his emotional brain.
That is, he will see apparently fertile young women and
routinely feel urges to bang them all. His emotional brain
will constantly ratchet up the priority of those urges to
the maximum level that does not conflict with the basic
goal of staying alive. And sometimes the emotional brain
will ratchet them beyond that level. He would be an
unusual man if he felt similarly strong and insistent
thoughts about who he is going to spend the next forty
or fifty years of his life with.
That's just the way men are. I'm not saying it's the way
they "should" be. Obviously there aren't nearly enough
young women to provide each man with enough of them for his
whole life, so I'm not saying evolution was particularly
kind to us here. But eventually there should be various
technological fixes.
How many men go out to bars with the goal of finding a life
partner, with the same urgency as when they are looking for
the next woman to have sex with?
Men who do think that far ahead tend to be horrified when
they see what women who are forty or fifty years ahead of
them look like.
Consider this: what do men dream about when they sleep?
Being married to old women? I doubt that is common.
As a woman, of course, you are worried about the next forty
or fifty years because you know by then you will be almost
completely worthless to men. If you haven't somehow chained
a man to yourself by some method that doesn't rely on him
still finding you sexually attractive, finding a man to
chain up will become increasingly difficult.
Some men do sort of have an interest in getting married, but
usually this is because they find picking up hot young chicks
to be very difficult.
It's like signing a long-term contract to work in fast food.
If fast-food joints tried to lock up their help with
long-term contracts, a person would probably only do that
after giving up all hope of being able to hop to better jobs
as they become available.
-- the Danimal
Dolores
> the Danimal writes:
>
>
>>It's all about sexual market value. Physically attractive women
>>generally have a lot. Men who are geeks generally have little.
>
>
> Geeks run society. They just aren't on television very much. Better to
> be master of the world than to have some ephemeral physical beauty, I
> should think.
I am grateful to have more brains than beauty. Can you imagine life
without intelligent conversation? Life as, say, a model or houseboy
would be awful beyond words.
--
-=Lola
----------------
You're living in your own private Idaho
Living in your own private Idaho
Underground like a wild potato.
--B52s.
Dolores
>
> Mikaël Hautin wrote:
>
>>>So if I [conveniently, imo] don't believe I have
>>>any SMV I don't have to make any effort to improve
>>>my chances.
>>
>>Well said ! Thanks for the explanation.
>>
>>I think my SMV is below zero, but I can live with it. There's still a
>>room for my potential, when it's not about sex, eg. Intelligence Market
>>Value, or Empathy Market Value, or anything else.
>
>
> One never knows. No women has been interested in me at all for ages,
> but suddenly one came along who thinks I'm the greatest guy she's ever
> met, and she can't keep her hands off me! We had sex for the first
> time last night, and it was great.
>
> I was introduced to her at a charity event I attended.
>
> Ed
In general, I think women are very strongly influenced by smell. It's
not whether you smell "good", it's whether you smell "right". Smell has
more to do with whether you're attractive to a particular woman than
looks. Most women are very familiar with the scenario of being
inexplicably incredibly attracted to a man who they don't find visually
or intellectually attractive at all... it's all in the smell.
Incidentally, the Pill and Depo-Provera both mess up a woman's ability
to detect pheromones, and so do any mind-altering drugs, so they
probably severely impact a woman's ability to select a suitable mate.
the Danimal
> While it's true that a man with a billion dollars is, in general, more
> desirable to women than a penniless bum, there is a HUGE, HUGE gap
> between the two.
Something like nine orders of magnitude.
> It's not an all-or-nothing thing: If you earn a billion dollars you
> can have any woman you like; if you don't you can't have any one. It's
> more like a sliding scale. The more you earn, the more women will find
> you desirable.
Thank you for stating the obvious, in case it wasn't already obvious
to someone reading this thread (I'm sure it wasn't).
I believe a woman's response to a man's wealth has both of
these characteristics:
1. Her response is relative to some base income she considers
essential. This might be the mean income where she lives,
or perhaps her own standard of living as she grew up (in
which case it would be difficult to impress Paris Hilton
with wealth alone).
2. Her response is logarithmic (i.e., to gain each increment of
incremental attractiveness to women, a man must multiply his
wealth by some factor).
> The point at which you earn enough to find at least one woman you are
> attracted to and who is attracted to you is MUCH, MUCH less than a
> billion dollars, for just about any man.
I don't think it is much less on a logarithmic scale. For example,
let's say a woman's logarithmic wealth-response factor is 10.
That is, for two otherwise similar men to differ in attractiveness
noticeably to her as a function of their wealth, one man would have
to be at least ten times wealthier than the other. (I don't know
if the actual factor is 10; but I am pretty sure few women would
favor a man with $7 million much more than a man with $6 million
on the basis of their wealth difference alone, even though in
absolute terms a million dollars is a lot of money to most people.)
So let's say a man is not having great luck with women even after
accumulating his first $1 million. I think for him to move to a new
league of attractiveness to women, he would probably have to get
up to something like $10 million. And of course I don't mean this
is some hard threshold with a resolution of $1. If he only has
$9,999,999.99 he will still be OK.
A million dollars sounds like a lot, and it is, but it's only
enough for a conservatively-invested young man to retire on
if he maintains a modest consumption level for the next five or
more decades. The young millionaire still has to work, so the
impact on his life is not that spectacular.
Having ten million dollars puts him in a distinctly different
class. Now he can retire, even at a young age, and with conservative
investments maintain a pretty substantial annual consumption level
for decades. I.e., he no longer needs to work, and he can still
deplete the world's natural resources at several times the
rate of the average first-world wage earner. But he might still
work, and still feel he needs to work.
For a billionaire to "work" in the normal sense of the word
is almost an absurdity. If he does have a job, it will probably
consist mostly of letting his army of underlings compete
against each other to impress him. Certainly, the billionaire
would never have to do any sort of work he did not find
interesting. Even with Mike Tyson's help, he would have
trouble spending his annual return on investment, even
if his whole portfolio consists of Treasury bonds.
Anyway, if a man needs to accumulate $10 million to compensate
for his low attractiveness to women, that puts him only two orders
of magnitude below a billionaire on a woman's logarithmic
wealth-response scale. Assuming her emotional brain works on
base 10.
-- the Danimal
Dolores
I keep expressing the same thing, but there are a lot of people here who
really don't want to believe it. I'm glad you're saying it; maybe it
will have more weight coming from a man who has been in much the same
situation.
Dolores
>>That makes no sense. Even men who have not heard of the
>>"sexual market value" term (which I invented) are well aware
>>that a man's attractiveness to women can change substantially
>>depending on his circumstances.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Most men know their chances with women would improve if they
>>made a billion dollars, or recorded some songs that charted
>>at #1. Most men also know it is difficult to do almost anything
>>proven to substantially increase their attractiveness to women.
>>
>>How exactly should a man who isn't doing well with women
>>earn his billion dollars? Do you have a specific procedure
>>he can follow?
>
>
> While it's true that a man with a billion dollars is, in general, more
> desirable to women than a penniless bum, there is a HUGE, HUGE gap
> between the two.
>
> It's not an all-or-nothing thing: If you earn a billion dollars you
> can have any woman you like; if you don't you can't have any one. It's
> more like a sliding scale. The more you earn, the more women will find
> you desirable.
I think this "any woman you like" notion needs to be eliminated from
people's thought processes. There is absolutely nothing on Earth any
human being can do to secure the affections of any other person on
Earth, and the idea that having lots of money will make you
automatically attractive has been the gateway to loneliness for a number
of single, rich, lonely, depressed men I know.
> The point at which you earn enough to find at least one woman you are
> attracted to and who is attracted to you is MUCH, MUCH less than a
> billion dollars, for just about any man.
>
> Ed
>
Mxsmanic
> I am grateful to have more brains than beauty. Can you imagine life
> without intelligent conversation? Life as, say, a model or houseboy
> would be awful beyond words.
Stupid people often are too stupid to realize what they are missing,
which diminishes the hardship of stupidity to a certain extent, although
stupidity is still a serious handicap.
In fact, the most serious handicap a person can have, according to some
research I've seen, is mental retardation (or simply very low
intelligence). This includes physical handicaps like quadriplegia, etc.
Mxsmanic
> In general, I think women are very strongly influenced by smell. It's
> not whether you smell "good", it's whether you smell "right".
Human beings are sensitive to smell in general, but it is true that
women have a better sense of smell than men. Given the way some men
smell, they must be complete devoid of any olfactory sense.
My sense of smell is poor, and I often worry whether I "smell right" or
not to the opposite sex, since I'm sure they can smell better than I
can. About all I can do is try to keep clean.
> Smell has
> more to do with whether you're attractive to a particular woman than
> looks. Most women are very familiar with the scenario of being
> inexplicably incredibly attracted to a man who they don't find visually
> or intellectually attractive at all... it's all in the smell.
Pheromones. Men detect them too, but not as well. Some women smell
naturally nice, without any perfume or artificial fragrance, provided
that they are clean. It's also possible in some cases to detect that a
woman is menstruating by smell alone, particularly if she uses sanitary
napkins.
I don't know if men are strongly influenced by smell, though.
Mxsmanic
> Having sex with apparently fertile young women, the more
> the merrier, is FAR more important to his emotional brain.
Why do so many people persist in believing that human beings are mere
machines? Even some higher animals other than man demonstrate the
ability to act independently and individually irrespective of instincts,
and certainly human beings demonstrate this abundantly and indisputably.
I also wonder where people get these apparently well-formed notions of
what is and is not engendered by evolution or biology or our
cave-dwelling ancestry. We have no experiments to prove anything, no
comparisons we can make, and virtually no data. It's all pure
conjecture ... popular mythology.
> That is, he will see apparently fertile young women and
> routinely feel urges to bang them all. His emotional brain
> will constantly ratchet up the priority of those urges to
> the maximum level that does not conflict with the basic
> goal of staying alive. And sometimes the emotional brain
> will ratchet them beyond that level.
Yeah, right. Show cause and effect. Show the experiments that prove
this.
> How many men go out to bars with the goal of finding a life
> partner, with the same urgency as when they are looking for
> the next woman to have sex with?
Both men and women go to bars looking for sexual partners. Nobody of at
least normal intelligence who has gone to bars with any frequency could
possibly have any illusions of finding anything else in them.
> Consider this: what do men dream about when they sleep?
The same things that women dream about.
I need to pay closer attention to those little paperbacks next to the
checkout stand, so that I can get a better idea of what the masses
believe.
the Danimal
> I think this "any woman you like" notion needs to be eliminated from
> people's thought processes.
That depends on whether the phrase means "at least one of the
women you like"* or "every woman you like." It also depends
on which women "you" like.
*The phrase could mean this in negation, for example if a man
were to say: "I can't attract any woman I like." I guess that
is an idiom, because he probably means "I can't attract one
woman I like."
> There is absolutely nothing on Earth any
> human being can do to secure the affections of any other person on
> Earth,
The way you worded that makes the statement not quite true.
For any person Y, there are probably some people who aren't
attracted to him now, but could be if he was just a little
more attractive.
Reversing genders, suppose a woman is young, slender, and
attractive. Probably a lot of men find her attractive enough
to pursue.
Suppose she then gains 100 pounds of slovenly fat. Probably a
large fraction of the men formerly interested in her will lose
interest.
If she loses the 100 pounds of fat, and assuming there is no
permanent damage, she will go back to being attractive to
those men again.
So for her, there could be a large group of men whose affections
she could secure by abstaining from gluttony.
A man's wealth works the same way. If a moderately well-to-do
man loses all his money and has to eat from dumpsters and live
under a highway bridge, a large fraction of the women who
formerly found him interesting will lose interest.
> and the idea that having lots of money will make you
> automatically attractive has been the gateway to loneliness for a number
> of single, rich, lonely, depressed men I know.
So, what is wrong with these men? Are they extremely short?
They must not be rich enough to hire professional matchmakers/
relationship consultants. They don't even sound rich enough to
open their own strip clubs!
For example, if a man has a billion dollars, he can hire the
best experts in any service field, and not even begin to feel
the cost. I am sure there is someone out there who can find
a woman who likes him, for a sufficient finder's fee.
Suppose he offers a million dollar reward to whoever hooks
him up, and he takes out full-page ads in his city's newspaper.
That's only 1% of his wealth, less than what the average single
man spends directly or indirectly to pursue women.
An ultra-rich man does not have to pursue women in the normal
humiliating way. He can hire proxies to handle the shitwork
for him.
But there may be better ways to spend that million dollars.
He could open his own gentlemen's club and sleep with some of
the dancers he hires. Do the Hugh Hefner thing. Hire a bunch
of women whose careers involve taking their clothes off.
Some percentage will use the strategy of sleeping their way
to the top.
-- the Danimal
michaelashouse
you doing here?
- Michaela
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
Virgo Cluster
> I'll probably wind up missing next week's episode (I'll be
> out of state for a job interview), but here are my thoughts
> on what I saw.
I thought I'd drop in to give a short update for all those
who have been eagerly awaiting to hear what happened.
Well, if everything had gone as scheduled, I would have
arrived at my final destination airport around 7 P.M.
this past Wednesday, followed by a 40 minute ride in
the airport shuttle to the hotel they put me up in.
This would have allowed me to see this week's 8 P.M.
showing of "Beauty and the Geek". Unfortunately, my
flight schedule had me changing planes at the Chicago
airport. As anyone in the U.S. who saw a news broadcast
Wednesday evening knows, I was lucky to get out of
Chicago at all. I eventually got to my hotel room
a little before 1 A.M.
Hey, if anyone reading this happened to be in Chicago's
Concourse E or Concourse F, between 5 P.M. and 9 P.M.
Wednesday evening, you probably saw me. Sure, there were
several thousand people with cancelled or delayed flights
(my original flight out of Chicago was cancelled, by the
way) who were milling about the area during this time,
but I was the fairly conspicuous guy who walked the full
circuit around Concourse E and F 12 to 15 times (for the
exercise, and because I'd already finished all the work
I brought with me between noon and 4 P.M. at another
airport while waiting for my multi-delayed flight to
Chicago).
My wife is overly concerned about the terrorist problem.
I say "overly" because, if you go more than 2 miles from
the center of town where we live, in any direction,
there's nothing but cow pastures and Amish communities
and towns with 3000 or fewer people for at least 60 miles.
Anyway, my having to go through the Chicago airport had
her thinking the worst would happen. When I called her
on the phone after getting to the hotel, I told her that
she can stop worrying about terrorists, at least while
I'm arriving at or departing from the Chicago airport.
Things were so bad there this week that there's no way
terrorists would try to coordinate an attack!
Virgo Cluster
. "Stupid Government and Bureaucracy in the U.S.A.
..
.. The U.S. government -- and all other official and
.. quasi-official bureaucracies -- is the source of much
.. material on the stupid side of things. Perhaps this
.. surprises you. Perhaps you think, as a red-blooded
.. patriot, that it is impossible for the government
.. (whether federal, state, or municipal) to do anything
.. stupid ... and for our elected or appointed officials
.. to do anything stupid. (Perhaps you also haven't been
.. reading the papers, watching television news, or keeping
.. up with current events. But that is none of our business.)
..
.. JUST PLAIN FOLKS: WHEN POLITICIANS TRY TO ACT LIKE YOU AND ME
..
.. Often, in efforts to garner votes or support, politicians
.. pretend that they're not millionaires or Washington insiders
.. but regular Joes. The kind of person who shops at Wal-Mart,
.. needs his tax refund to buy a new couch, and so on. clearly,
.. politicians feel that John or Jane Q. Voter will think,
.. "Gee. He or she is not a wealthy Washington insider who
.. could buy and sell my entire neighborhood. He's just plain
.. folks." However, all too often, this thought never occurs
.. to said John or Jane as this time-honored campaign trick
.. has a fascinating tendency to backfire . . . .
..
.. Best Back-to-the-Land Moment
..
.. "I'm very familiar with the importance of dairy farming
.. in Wisconsin. I've spent the night on a diary farm here
.. in Wisconsin. If I'm entrusted with the presidency,
.. you'll have someone who is very familiar with what
.. the Wisconsin dairy industry is all about."
.. -- Al Gore to Wisconsin dairy farmers"
..
<< Kathryn Petras and Ross Petras, "Unusually Stupid
.. Americans: A Compendium of All-American Stupidity",
.. Villard Books, 2003, pp. 33 & 41-42 & 43 >>
Dolores
> Dolores writes:
>
>
>>I am grateful to have more brains than beauty. Can you imagine life
>>without intelligent conversation? Life as, say, a model or houseboy
>>would be awful beyond words.
>
>
> Stupid people often are too stupid to realize what they are missing,
> which diminishes the hardship of stupidity to a certain extent, although
> stupidity is still a serious handicap.
>
> In fact, the most serious handicap a person can have, according to some
> research I've seen, is mental retardation (or simply very low
> intelligence). This includes physical handicaps like quadriplegia, etc.
Yes, I have a quadriplegic friend who has a wife and career and friends,
and while mentally retarded people often have friends, marriage and
careers are usually not attainable for them. That makes the security of
their futures very poor.
I was reading a model's blog the other day, though, and although part of
me was going, "Wow, she's so so pretty!" another part of me was going
"Oh, what an awful, meager life!" and I know she doesn't realize it, and
probably feels really lucky to have what she has, but still...
Dolores
> Dolores writes:
>
>
>>In general, I think women are very strongly influenced by smell. It's
>>not whether you smell "good", it's whether you smell "right".
>
>
> Human beings are sensitive to smell in general, but it is true that
> women have a better sense of smell than men. Given the way some men
> smell, they must be complete devoid of any olfactory sense.
>
> My sense of smell is poor, and I often worry whether I "smell right" or
> not to the opposite sex, since I'm sure they can smell better than I
> can. About all I can do is try to keep clean.
I really don't think it's about smelling nice to the opposite sex in
general, but about meeting the particular members of the opposite sex
who are attracted to your particular smell. My friend Chris (#8) smells
wonderful, all cinnamony and clean and nice, but he absolutely has
nothing at all that attracts me. He's a good-looking guy, but nope. The
feeling is mutual, thank goodness. OTOH, I used to work with a
goofy-looking gardener who had some ineffable quality that drove me
crazy. I eventually realized that it was something about his *smell* -
if I was close enough to smell him, I was a goner. Not his cleanliness
or anything like that, but something that he was completely not in
control of. I think women are very strongly affected by pheromones, and
that it's not well controlled by us. The Pill tends to make us choose
the wrong men, IMO, because it screws with our hormones and affects our
reactions to pheromones.
>>Smell has
>>more to do with whether you're attractive to a particular woman than
>>looks. Most women are very familiar with the scenario of being
>>inexplicably incredibly attracted to a man who they don't find visually
>>or intellectually attractive at all... it's all in the smell.
>
>
> Pheromones. Men detect them too, but not as well. Some women smell
> naturally nice, without any perfume or artificial fragrance, provided
> that they are clean. It's also possible in some cases to detect that a
> woman is menstruating by smell alone, particularly if she uses sanitary
> napkins.
>
> I don't know if men are strongly influenced by smell, though.
I don't think they're as overtly influenced by smell as women are in
terms of sexual attraction, but I do suspect that when it comes to love,
men fall for women who smell "right". Not just good, but compatible on
some odd pheromonal level.
Dolores
> Dolores wrote:
>
>>I think this "any woman you like" notion needs to be eliminated from
>>people's thought processes.
>
>
> That depends on whether the phrase means "at least one of the
> women you like"* or "every woman you like." It also depends
> on which women "you" like.
>
> *The phrase could mean this in negation, for example if a man
> were to say: "I can't attract any woman I like." I guess that
> is an idiom, because he probably means "I can't attract one
> woman I like."
>
>
>>There is absolutely nothing on Earth any
>>human being can do to secure the affections of any other person on
>>Earth,
>
>
> The way you worded that makes the statement not quite true.
> For any person Y, there are probably some people who aren't
> attracted to him now, but could be if he was just a little
> more attractive.
I think that my intent was clear; you can't do anything to make any
given person to be attracted to you. You can increase your odds with
people in general, but the "any woman/man you want" line is a fallacy.
> Reversing genders, suppose a woman is young, slender, and
> attractive. Probably a lot of men find her attractive enough
> to pursue.
>
> Suppose she then gains 100 pounds of slovenly fat. Probably a
> large fraction of the men formerly interested in her will lose
> interest.
>
> If she loses the 100 pounds of fat, and assuming there is no
> permanent damage, she will go back to being attractive to
> those men again.
>
> So for her, there could be a large group of men whose affections
> she could secure by abstaining from gluttony.
>
> A man's wealth works the same way. If a moderately well-to-do
> man loses all his money and has to eat from dumpsters and live
> under a highway bridge, a large fraction of the women who
> formerly found him interesting will lose interest.
>
>
>>and the idea that having lots of money will make you
>>automatically attractive has been the gateway to loneliness for a number
>>of single, rich, lonely, depressed men I know.
>
>
> So, what is wrong with these men? Are they extremely short?
LOL! No. The only short single guy I know has a bad personality. He
makes plenty of money and has a nice house, too, plus he's pretty damn
cute. Meanwhile, short guys I know who aren't so hot and don't have
money or houses are shacked up with/married to attractive, thin women.
They also aren't hung up on being short. By short, BTW, I mean ACTUALLY
short, not this 5'8" nonsense some people sling around as if it were
short. I'm talking my height, 5'3" and below.
> They must not be rich enough to hire professional matchmakers/
> relationship consultants. They don't even sound rich enough to
> open their own strip clubs!
I don't think it's occurred to them. It's a personality/social
ineptitude thing.
> For example, if a man has a billion dollars, he can hire the
> best experts in any service field, and not even begin to feel
> the cost. I am sure there is someone out there who can find
> a woman who likes him, for a sufficient finder's fee.
>
> Suppose he offers a million dollar reward to whoever hooks
> him up, and he takes out full-page ads in his city's newspaper.
> That's only 1% of his wealth, less than what the average single
> man spends directly or indirectly to pursue women.
>
> An ultra-rich man does not have to pursue women in the normal
> humiliating way. He can hire proxies to handle the shitwork
> for him.
>
> But there may be better ways to spend that million dollars.
>
> He could open his own gentlemen's club and sleep with some of
> the dancers he hires. Do the Hugh Hefner thing. Hire a bunch
> of women whose careers involve taking their clothes off.
> Some percentage will use the strategy of sleeping their way
> to the top.
That doesn't really preclude loneliness or depression, if what a man
wants is someone who is his equal, who loves him for who he is.
> -- the Danimal
Mxsmanic
> I was reading a model's blog the other day, though, and although part of
> me was going, "Wow, she's so so pretty!" another part of me was going
> "Oh, what an awful, meager life!" and I know she doesn't realize it, and
> probably feels really lucky to have what she has, but still...
Models and actresses tend to be a bit stupid. Smart people can become
models, if they are attractive enough, but the work tends to become
boring fairly quickly, so smart models don't remain models. Stupid
models have no other comparable source of income and so tend to remain;
and they are bored less easily as well.
Actors and actresses, for some reason, often seem a bit dim. There are
certainly smart ones around, but not as many as one would expect
statistically. Some actors who perform superbly on screen in all sorts
of roles sound very dense when they are interviewed or otherwise appear
outside of a role as themselves.
Methuselah Jones
Marsh of alt.geek make plain:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:50:11 -0700, the Danimal wrote:
>>
>> Which is farther west:
>>
>> 1. Los Angeles, California
>> 2. Reno, Nevada
>
> Farthest west of where?
>
> There are north and south poles on this planet... there are not east
> and west poles.
West is west. If you were traveling west, which of those locations would
you reach first? As you pointed out a couple of posts down, there is no
place on the planet where, traveling west, you would suddenly be
traveling east. East and west are *not* relative, but you have your logic
backwards.
--
Methuselah
"The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite
at one end and no responsibility at the other."
-- Ronald Reagan
Methuselah Jones
Carter of alt.geek make plain:
> the Danimal wrote:
[a whole lotta stuff]
> This is a really great post, a must read for all group members.
And which group might that be?
--
Methuselah
Fig Newton: The force required to accelerate a fig to 39.37 inches/sec.
Methuselah Jones
Marsh of alt.geek make plain:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:13:25 -0700, the Danimal wrote:
>
>> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>>> I make no apologies for knowing I'm better than people whos egos are
>>> their only virtue.
>>
>> Are you also better than people who know how to spell their
>> possessive pronouns?
>
> ...and idiots who defend the arrogant stupid.
>
> Better not hit the wrong key in any of your posts from this point
> forward I guess.
"Whose" -> "who's" is not a matter of a simple typo. A brain fart,
perhaps; momentarily forgetting the correct form. But not simply hitting
a wrong key.
--
Methuselah
"I'm not saying I didn't enjoy myself, but I didn't."
-- Woody Allen
Methuselah Jones
> The girls seemed to be too uninformed to be real. I can believe
> someone not knowing who the Prime Minister of England is, as was the
> case for one girl during the politics/geography competition part.
> However, another girl picked North Carolina as being further south
> than South Dakota, and there were other things just as bad. This last
> thing goes way beyond what you'd expect from a socially adept but
> perhaps academically inept U.S. resident. I find it hard to believe
> that anyone who's even remotely socially active wouldn't know this,
> even if they spent all their time in front of the TV or on-line and
> never left their apartment or house, or if they've had more than a few
> conversations with anyone besides their next door neighbor, or if
> they've traveled beyond the town 30 miles down the highway from where
> they live.
People are amazingly capable of failing to absorb information they are
exposed to, but which doesn't interest them or they don't feel applies to
them.
Stupidity is an inability to observe. This inability can stem from a
number of things. Lack of mental capacity is one. Fear of observing is
another. There are others.
Thus a person can be stupid in some areas and not others. I knew a man
who was severely autistic. He was almost completely non-functional. But
he could sit at a piano or organ and play better than many professionals.
In that one area he was able to observe and thus learn, despite his
extreme inability in all other areas.
Ignorance is a lack of information. Ignorance often stems from stupidity,
but that is not the only cause. I know enough about football that I can
watch and enjoy a game, but that's it. Sometimes there are plays I don't
follow, rulings I don't understand. I don't know what teams have played
in all the Superbowls, what the scores were, or who was on the teams. In
the overall subject of football I'm quite ignorant. But that is due to a
lack of interest, not from an inability to observe.
When a person demonstrates ignorance in an area in which you are
knowledgeable, it is quite common to assume they're stupid. Sometimes,
perhaps quite often, they are. But lack of interest is also a very common
factor, and people have enormously varied criteria for determining what
is important. What a person values is an extremely personal thing. There
are a few values which can be considered more or less absolute, such as
survival. A person who doesn't assign some importance to survival and the
things which contribute to survival, usually doesn't, and just as usually
takes any number of other people down as well.
The point I'm coming to is, social skills are just another subject of
potential observation. It has a set, finite body of rules and data. It
yields to observation, study and practice, just like anything else. When
I was younger, I was incredibly awkward socially. But I decided to watch
and learn, and I did. I can now mingle and schmooze with the best of
them.
Lack of social skills is simply a matter of ignorance. And that ignorance
can stem from lack of interest or from stupidity. And that stupidity can
stem from lack of mental capacity, or simply fear. My autistic friend
lacked the mental capacity to observe social interactions, and so
remained ignorant. For those with demonstrated mental capacity, then, the
most likely root matter is fear. It certainly was for me. So that's the
thing that must be overcome. Once you've inured yourself to that, the
rest is cake.
And speaking from a very broad body of observation, most people's fear of
learning something new is based on the fear of failure. I'm a very
accomplished baker, and have won awards for my bread. But I can still
remember my first batch, and it was barely edible. A scientist embarking
on a line of research *knows* s/he is going to have some failures. So
what? The thing to do is start.
--
Methuselah
"I have not failed, I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
-- Thomas Edison
Methuselah Jones
of alt.geek make plain:
>> > the Danimal wrote:
>> > The average man only breaks through with a small percentage
>> > of the women he sees. And often he needs some help from
>> > special circumstances, such as introductions by friends,
>> > or some situation that practically forces some women to
>> > talk to him.
>
>> michaelashouse wrote:
>> Of course it couldn't be up to him to make a gap for someone
>> to talk to him, right?
>
> Moot point. How would making such a "gap" help if someone's sexual
> market value is so low that no MOTUS the gap-maker finds worthy would
> ever approach?
But what determines "sexual market value"? There has been a lot of focus
on physical appearance, but that is far from the sole factor, and I would
say it is not even the prime factor. When I was stationed in San Diego,
there was another guy on base who, as they say, fell out of the ugly tree
and hit every branch on the way down. I don't mean to be nasty, but this
guy was seriously ugly. But he was a genuinely friendly guy, and very
skilled socially. And he dated some of the best-looking women around. The
rest of us would just look on in amazement and wonder how he did it.
So no, physical appearance has little to do with it.
--
Methuselah
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was.
Methuselah Jones
> I cant speak for All men, but for most Men, meeting women is all about
> chasing tail.
>
> I am sure that most Men would agree that without a vagina to bang, a
> woman has no real purpose in fulfilling a Man's happiness, and that is
> all that matters.
Wow. I'd call that a major case of can't see the forest for the cynicism.
--
Methuselah
"You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty."
-- Sacha Guitry
Methuselah Jones
> Dan, you and I think so differently.
>
> the Danimal wrote:
>
>> Men are genetically programmed to notice women who look
>> like they might be fertile.
>
> So you are saying that perpetuation of his genes is more important
> to him than who he's going to spend the next forty or fifty years of
> his life with?
Biologically, yes. He did say "genetically", and yes, that's all his
genes care about. But we are more than simple biological creatures, so
looking at the whole picture, no, it's not necessarily more important.
--
Methuselah
"The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas."
-- Linus Pauling
Dolores
> Dolores writes:
>
>
>>I was reading a model's blog the other day, though, and although part of
>>me was going, "Wow, she's so so pretty!" another part of me was going
>>"Oh, what an awful, meager life!" and I know she doesn't realize it, and
>>probably feels really lucky to have what she has, but still...
>
>
> Models and actresses tend to be a bit stupid. Smart people can become
> models, if they are attractive enough, but the work tends to become
> boring fairly quickly, so smart models don't remain models. Stupid
> models have no other comparable source of income and so tend to remain;
> and they are bored less easily as well.
I would not like the being made up/dressed up/bossed around part, at
all. Boring, tedious, useless, futureless. There is no way to make a
mark on the world as a model; hell, nor as a beadmaker for that matter,
but at least I'm not pinched, poked, prodded and pushed around. I've
done just enough modeling to fulfill the novelty sense of "Oh, that's
what it's like" and since I'm not a professional I was treated with
decency and dignity, which apparently career models don't get a lot of.
> Actors and actresses, for some reason, often seem a bit dim. There are
> certainly smart ones around, but not as many as one would expect
> statistically. Some actors who perform superbly on screen in all sorts
> of roles sound very dense when they are interviewed or otherwise appear
> outside of a role as themselves.
>
--
Mxsmanic
> I would not like the being made up/dressed up/bossed around part, at
> all.
Even stupid models don't like that, which is why they can be very
difficult to manage.
> I've done just enough modeling to fulfill the novelty sense of
> "Oh, that's what it's like" and since I'm not a professional I
> was treated with decency and dignity, which apparently career
> models don't get a lot of.
If they act like professionals, they are more likely to be treated as
professionals, although there is much variation.
The problem is that models are hired for their appearance, and nothing
more. Their personalities run all across the spectrum. They are
essentially just breathing mannequins. Mannequins are cheaper and
easier to handle but not as pretty to look at (after make-up and
photography).
Mxsmanic
> So you think any rational Man with a set of cojones', would marry a
> woman that had no vagina, then?
Some do.
> If you dont like reading the truth about relations between Men and
> their lesser counterparts, females you had better go somewhere else to
> play, child.
Where can I find the truth?