Money vs. Good looks

51 views
Skip to first unread message

Brad Templeton

unread,
May 20, 1985, 12:00:00 AM5/20/85
to
I've always found this a fascinating issue. Society applauds when men
and women go after one another for good looks. But being attracted to
wealth, fame, power or position is considered sinful. In a society
that tries so hard (on the surface) to get people treated according to
what they are and what their abilities are, instead of their genetic
heritage, isn't this a contradiction?

Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work,
but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as
long as they are self made.

Is the problem that it's hard to split "she loves me because she admires
my ability to make money" from "she loves having access to my money"?
Otherwise, it seems to me that ability to do things (and earn money for
it) should be one of the primary attractive qualities, above good looks.

Of course, a person's intelligence or earning power don't show (normally)
on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do.
--
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

J. Eric Roskos

unread,
May 21, 1985, 8:55:18 AM5/21/85
to
>... but being attracted to wealth, fame, power or position is considered

>sinful. In a society that tries so hard (on the surface) to get people
>treated according to what they are and what their abilities are, instead of
>their genetic heritage, isn't this a contradiction?

You've raised a good philosophical point here.

Why should people be attracted to "good looks"? Well, this is strange and
difficult to determine for all cases, especially when people are attracted
to artificial personal attributes; but at one level, at least, "good looks"
relate to various primitive physical abilities. Thus, we may hypothesize,
women are attracted to large, strong men because they (at least in a
primitive society) are good defenders and providers; they can go out and
spear caribou, or fight off grizzly bears, or something like that.
Likewise, perhaps, men are attracted to women who are best adapted to
childbearing. (Note, however, that this is not really "genetic heritage"
at all.)

Of course, such statements are heretical and sexist today. Women don't need
defending, and are good for other things than childbearing; &c.

But, then, you've brought up a sort of modern-day equivalent, perhaps a
more just alternative to this [notice how it doesn't center around women
and bearing children the way the above attributes did]:

>Otherwise, it seems to me that ability to do things (and earn money for
>it) should be one of the primary attractive qualities, above good looks.

It's really a sort of generalization and de-primitivization of the physical
attributes; that a person should be attractive because he or she can do
good things (and provide for his or her family, in a more contemporary
sense, in the process).

Yet, people still are attracted to men who are good at fighting off grizzly
bears and spearing caribou, and to women who are well-adapted to childbearing.
Makes you think, doesn't it.
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

"Vg'f whfg guvf yvggyr puebzvhz fjvgpu urer... lbh thlf
ner FB fhcrefgvgvbhf!"

H.M.Moskovitz

unread,
May 21, 1985, 11:38:00 AM5/21/85
to
>
> Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work,
> but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as
> long as they are self made.
>
> Of course, a person's intelligence or earning power don't show (normally)
> on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do.

This past weekend, (Saturday night, I believe) ABC aired a special entitled:

LOOKS

which discussed how our looks affect us in society. I found a very
interesting point ( that I suspected for some time) is that more
attractive people tend to get better jobs, promotions, and pay. In
fact if two people are at the same experience and competence levels,
and are performing the same job, the more attractive of the two will
most likely be earning a higher salary than the less attractive person!
So, taking this into consideration, maybe physical attraction and monetary
attraction are directly related.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Well he came down to dinner in his Sunday best,
and he rubbed the pot-roast all over his chest..."
- Warren Zevon


Howard Moskovitz
AT&T Info. Systems
attunix!howard

marie desjardins

unread,
May 21, 1985, 6:30:23 PM5/21/85
to
> I've always found this a fascinating issue. Society applauds when men
> and women go after one another for good looks. But being attracted to
> wealth, fame, power or position is considered sinful. In a society
> that tries so hard (on the surface) to get people treated according to
> what they are and what their abilities are, instead of their genetic
> heritage, isn't this a contradiction?

I don't think this is true. I will agree that people are probably more
likely to think that it's OK to choose a partner on the basis of looks
than on the basis of power, etc. But I don't think that (in theory at
least) society really "applauds" this. In reality, lots of people DO
choose partners on the basis of all of these factors, but I think that
most people believe that you should judge people based on their
personalities, attitudes, values, and so forth.

> Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work,
> but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as
> long as they are self made.

I'm not convinced of this totally. For example, a question that bothers
me (I have no answer to it, unfortunately) is "why do we judge people on
the basis of their intelligence? why do intelligent people often have it
so much better than unintelligent people?" Why should intelligence, which
is not really a self-determined trait (I don't know what a psychologist
would say, but it seems to me it has more to do with genetics and early
environment, e.g. parental influence, than any kind of desire or will to
be intelligent), be used to judge a person? I think the answers to this
question are not as simple as one might think. (You may disagree, that's
fine.)

What point am I trying to make here? No point, just something to think
about and see if anyone has anything (intelligent, of course! :-) ) to
contribute.

marie desjardins

Dave Katz

unread,
May 22, 1985, 11:27:15 AM5/22/85
to
In article <5...@sfmag.UUCP> how...@sfmag.UUCP (H.M.Moskovitz) writes:
>>
>> Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work,
>> but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as
>> long as they are self made.
>>
>> Of course, a person's intelligence or earning power don't show (normally)
>> on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do.
>
>This past weekend, (Saturday night, I believe) ABC aired a special entitled:
>
> LOOKS
>
>which discussed how our looks affect us in society. I found a very
>interesting point ( that I suspected for some time) is that more
>attractive people tend to get better jobs, promotions, and pay.
> .....

Not necessarily true. In a short T.V. news story I saw recently, it
was related that while more 'handsome' men tend to get better jobs,
promotions, etc., quite the opposite was true for women. The more
attractive a woman is, the less likely she is to gain promotions,
especially in the higher echelons of a company. The reporter, quoting a
recent study, stated that good looks in a woman were taken as a negative
indicator of business skills.

+---------------------------------------------------+
| Replace this line with your disclaimer. | D. Katz
+---------------------------------------------------+

Michael M. Sykora

unread,
May 22, 1985, 7:46:00 PM5/22/85
to

The criterion people use to choose partners is not a matter of OK
or not OK. Anyone who made such a decision mainly on the
basis of what criterion society thinks is OK is a fool indeed.

There are no SHOULDs in these matters (altho there probably are a
few SHOULDN'Ts, like -- it's probably not a good idea to get involved
with a mass murderer, etc.), only personal preferences.

Mike Sykora

Estelle Mabry

unread,
May 22, 1985, 9:04:11 PM5/22/85
to
Let's not forget Henry Kissinger's famous line:

"POWER is the most powerful aphrodisiac!" (SMIRK by Henry)

If you didn't hear that phrase, you're young (<30); if you don't believe it,
look at his wife! Let's now mention the Hollywood starlets (: I know) who threw
themselves at Henry.

"Learn to love the one you're with"* and yourself!

Estelle

*Crosby, Stills & Nash, a long time ago.

Isaac Dimitrovsky

unread,
May 23, 1985, 10:16:00 AM5/23/85
to
[]
> ... but at one level, at least, "good looks"

> relate to various primitive physical abilities. Thus, we may hypothesize,
> women are attracted to large, strong men because they (at least in a
> primitive society) are good defenders and providers; they can go out and
> spear caribou, or fight off grizzly bears, or something like that.
> Likewise, perhaps, men are attracted to women who are best adapted to
> childbearing.

If this were so, men should be attracted to women who are as fat as
possible, shouldn't they? In fact, I think that 1) what is considered
attractive changes a lot from time to time and society to society,
and 2) lots of men and women have their own ideas of attractiveness
which don't necessarily have anything to do with the current
ideas of attractiveness.

Isaac Dimitrovsky

A Beaver

unread,
May 23, 1985, 11:32:27 PM5/23/85
to
> Is the problem that it's hard to split "she loves me because she admires
> my ability to make money" from "she loves having access to my money"?
>
After many years of making the mistake of taking money and the
ability to make money, as a factor of my relationships, I have
changed my thinking.
It is SO much nicer when one is thinking "They love me because
of the way that I try to communicate with them." and "I love the
way that they share my desire of working in each other's interests".
It seems that in having finally found this in genuine form, the money
issue doesn't even come into play. We both do what it takes to get
by.

> Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work,
> but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as
> long as they are self made.
>
> Of course, a person's intelligence or earning power don't show (normally)
> on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do.
> --
> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

To a toad, another toad is beautiful.
It is all in where your head's at.

Annadiana Beaver
A Beaver@Tektronix "Angel Lips was built for pleasure"
"and Angel Lips was well built."
- T.J.Teru -


John Dowding

unread,
May 24, 1985, 10:06:34 AM5/24/85
to
>Why should people be attracted to "good looks"?

Because "good looks" is by definition what people are attracted to!

Mark Terribile

unread,
May 24, 1985, 8:40:36 PM5/24/85
to
>> This past weekend, (Saturday night, I believe) ABC aired a special entitled:
>> LOOKS
>> ... more attractive people tend to get better jobs, promotions, and pay.

>> .....
>Not necessarily true. In a short T.V. news story I saw recently, it
>was related that while more 'handsome' men tend to get better jobs,
>promotions, etc., quite the opposite was true for women. ...

>The reporter, quoting a recent study, stated that good looks in a woman were
>taken as a negative indicator of business skills.

During WWII, the British Secret Service, under the command of INTREPID (Wm.
Stephenson) had hundreds of people opening other peoples' mail. The ``other
people'' were known or suspected spies, and it was important that the letters
be opened carefully and resealed perfectly. For some reason, the fellow in
charge of this operation found that women with attractive ankles did well,
and women who did poorly almost always has less well-shaped ankles. You
may speculate what you like about muscle tone in the limbs, but this is what
was reported.

On a more analytical note, is it possible that attractive women learn (or are
taught) to exploit their attractiveness, and that as you move higher and
higher up the management chain, where other people can't afford the time and
effort to keep supporting her, the women who does this becomes less a pleasure
and more a liability?
--

from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.

Brad Templeton

unread,
May 25, 1985, 12:00:00 AM5/25/85
to
1) Society (whatever that is) *does* applaud good looks as the first factor
of attraction. Look how big the fashion, cosmetic, and clothing industries
are. Most of societies accepted courting rituals are based on attraction by
looks. Now there are exceptions, like computer dating, and certain clubs,
but in the long run that first initiative is supposed to be based on looks.
You see several MOTAS and you decide to introduce yourself to one. My
personal preference is to make that introduction only after first finding
out something more important about the person than her looks, but this
preference is rare, it seems. I'm lamenting that society isn't geared
up for the type of meeting that I prefer to do.

2) On the subject of "she loves me for my ability to make money" one poster
said he preferred to deal with love based on common interests and
good converstation. Of course, this is nice, but that doesn't get away
from the main point, which is that my ability to make money and what I
do to make it are major parts of what makes up me. Like most entrepreneurs,
I'm in the office 12 hours a day or more. My company takes up so much
of me that it is a big part of me. So it's hard to say you like me if
you don't even consider what I devote myself to.

So I desire people to like and respect me for all my facets, but
unfortunately this money facet has all sorts of bad impressions in the
real world. That's the problem. I want to be loved for my conversation,
humour and love of life, too, perhaps even foremost. But the other part
is also important.
to make money

Richard Mateosian

unread,
May 25, 1985, 4:43:53 PM5/25/85
to
In article <3...@h-sc1.UUCP> desja...@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes:

>Why do we judge people on the basis of their intelligence? Why do intelligent


>people often have it so much better than unintelligent people?

I don't think that people are judged on their intelligence, since I don't
think that most people can tell when "general intelligence" is the principal
factor in behavior that they like or dislike in others.

As to "having it so much better", one would expect that recognition and
application of the techniques leading to success in society would be
facilitated by intelligence. On the other hand, there seems to be a
contrary factor as well. A sufficient quantitative difference in
intelligence can actually become a qualitative difference. People who
differ greatly in intelligence actually think differently and have trouble
empathizing with each other. From this phenomenon arises what you might
call optimal intelligence.

For any group, the optimal intelligence for leaders, teachers, etc, is
about 1 standard deviation above the group average. This helps to
explain why some people can achieve success among higher intelligence
groups like techies, political leaders, etc, but may not function as well
among "ordinary" people.
--
Richard Mateosian
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!s...@decwrl.ARPA

ron vaughn

unread,
May 26, 1985, 2:05:19 AM5/26/85
to
In article <3...@h-sc1.UUCP> desja...@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes:
>I'm not convinced of this totally. For example, a question that bothers
>me (I have no answer to it, unfortunately) is "why do we judge people on
>the basis of their intelligence? why do intelligent people often have it
>so much better than unintelligent people?" Why should intelligence, which
....

>be intelligent), be used to judge a person? I think the answers to this
>question are not as simple as one might think. (You may disagree, that's
>fine.)
>
> marie desjardins

i think it's partly because people "admire" intelligence. that is THE
NUMBER ONE way someone can really impress me, with their intelligence.
while not everyone feels as strongly about this, almost everyone *is*
impressed with intelligence. if a bunch of us are working on a tough
math problem and are stuck, but joe schmoe comes along, screatches his
head, and figures it out, let's face it, we are impressed. we think
"ghee, why didn't i see that" etc.

why do intelligent people have it so much better? depends on what you
mean by intelligence, it's a pretty wide open term, but part of intelligence
(to me) means you can, like the example above, solve problems better.
intelligence is a profitable, marketable asset to have. you do your
job better, "smarter", more efficiently etc. if you are intelligent
and apply your intelligence to your job, life, studies etc., (and
most (not all) intelligent people are intelligent enough to do so), you
will go far and be "so much better".

i think intelligence is a very good, but not complete, way to judge someone.
for the record, when it comes to "how i judge women" in terms of
being my SO, here are some of the major items:

good looks // yes, she must be good looking
good sense of humor // i have an ever running sense of humor, and
i'm an unstoppable kidder
intelligence // see above
spirit of adventure // "what the hell, let's do it!!"
good communication // has to be for good relationship
skills
honest // has to be for good relationship
can put up with me // we all have our quirks, mine aren't
necessarily awful, but i have my share
like everyone else.

some may give me crap about the "good looking" part, but i'm being honest.
there are BILLIONS of women out there. when i choose a mate (actually,
i already have) i'm going to choose a good looking one. one might
argue "but ron, what about ms. X, who has all the qualities but looks?? aren't
you being mean, cruel, heartless??" and i reply "yes, there are millions
of ms. X's out there, but there are also thousands of ms. Y's out there,
so that's the group i'm targeting for." other's say "i don't want a dumb
broad" or "he HAS to have a sense of humor" etc. this is no different.
like i said, i'm just being honest.

and i met a wonderful girl a couple of years ago who meets all of these
qualities (and has many more terrific qualities), and things are hunky-dory.

summary: just about everyone admires intelligence, intelligence seems
like a good thing to have, rons has a tough set of rules for becoming
his mate, ron has met miss wonderful who passed all the rules and
is now living happily ever after.

tab witty saying comma new-line
ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv

ps: one more things, her name must NOT rhyme with 'vaughn' -- nevonne,
yevonne, shawn.... luckily melinda's name is melinda.

ron vaughn

unread,
May 26, 1985, 1:15:13 PM5/26/85
to
In article <27...@nsc.UUCP> s...@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) writes:
....

>about 1 standard deviation above the group average. This helps to
>explain why some people can achieve success among higher intelligence
>groups like techies, political leaders, etc, but may not function as well
>among "ordinary" people.
>--
>Richard Mateosian

you actually believe that political leaders can be classed as generally
intelligent?? your average political leader at the city, county, state,
and most national levels does not come across to me as being intelligent.
the only thing you can positively say about them is they have run for
and gained public office. intelligence has little to do with this.

there are of course numerous exceptions, but there are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS
of elected officials out there. your average congressman doesn't know
his asshole from his elbow. standard reply: "you have to understand ron,
you don't become a congressman by being stupid." sure, not stupid, but
certainly not intelligent. do you think ronald reagan is intelligent, or
a good politician? i always considered carter intelligent, most people
agree to that, but he was a pretty poor pres. maybe you should have
average intelligence to be a politican, if need be surround yourself with
specialist (intelligent on the given subject). this seems to be what most
major politicians do. lower level politicians (small town mayor, city-ward
representative etc.) have the same ol' average intelligence (at best)
but can't afford the specialist.

summary: ron doesn't think politicians are very intelligent, at lest
not significantly more so than the average door-knob.

VOTE FOR: ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv

Michael M. Sykora

unread,
May 26, 1985, 10:31:00 PM5/26/85
to
>/* s...@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) / 4:43 pm May 25, 1985 */

>. . . This helps to

>explain why some people can achieve success among higher intelligence
>groups like techies, political leaders, etc, but may not function as well
>among "ordinary" people.

Higher intelligence groups like . . . political leaders . . . ?
Oh, you mean like Reagan, right? :-)

Jeff Lichtman

unread,
May 27, 1985, 7:15:37 AM5/27/85
to
> During WWII, the British Secret Service, under the command of INTREPID (Wm.
> Stephenson) had hundreds of people opening other peoples' mail. The ``other
> people'' were known or suspected spies, and it was important that the letters
> be opened carefully and resealed perfectly. For some reason, the fellow in
> charge of this operation found that women with attractive ankles did well,
> and women who did poorly almost always has less well-shaped ankles. You
> may speculate what you like about muscle tone in the limbs, but this is what
> was reported.

What sample size did he have?

> from Mole End Mark Terribile

--
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff

Michael M. Sykora

unread,
May 28, 1985, 12:43:00 AM5/28/85
to
>/* br...@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) / 12:00 am May 25, 1985 */

> . . . My


>personal preference is to make that introduction only after first finding
>out something more important about the person than her looks, but this
>preference is rare, it seems.

I agree. Otherwise, she may be just another pretty face. Unfortunately,
this is often infeasible, so one just has to approach a MOTOS and hope
for the best.

Mike Sykora

J. Eric Roskos

unread,
May 28, 1985, 10:03:21 PM5/28/85
to
>If this were so, men should be attracted to women who are as fat as
>possible, shouldn't they?

No... fat people die from heart disease before the children have fully
grown and become independent. (One could get into some really heated
arguments over complicated genetic issues, here too! Like, I could argue

1) Fat people are fat because their parents thought fat children
were cute.

2) Philosophies of cuteness are inherited.

3) Fat people will therefore produce fat children.

Now, my initial statement was that people who are overweight tend to die
earlier from heart disease, so people who produce fat children produce
children who are more likely to die from heart disease. So fat people
should (according to the way back there original hypothesis) be less
attractive.

But, all the above is just a hypothetical argument in itself! I am not at
all sure I believe that; my own theories of why "fat" people are more fre-
quently thought of as not attractive are very much more complicated than
that, and I have already written about 5 articles in here defending my
previously posted arguments, and am very tired.*

See? This is philosophy that is not inbred; this is a love of knowledge
not narcisissistic.


--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

"V'q engure or n puvgva, jerfgyrq va n frrq bhgjbea,
Naq urne byq Rora, jvaqvat n fvyrag ubea."

Brian Ross Gardner

unread,
May 29, 1985, 2:40:26 AM5/29/85
to
I was thinking that intelligence is probably 'problem' for relationships.
It seems, from people I know and consider bright, that there is a
jealousy factor involved. (Not the 'envey' type.) Very bright people
are usually also highly involved with their career. I've known several
people who seem half married to their career and half dedicated to
their relationship. Unfortunately, people can get jealous of
more than just other human interests.
Has anyone else encountered or noticed this?

j...@faust.uucp

unread,
May 29, 1985, 2:30:00 PM5/29/85
to

"But if you can't be with the one you love, honey

Love the one you're with

love the one you're with

love the one you're with

dei-dei-det de det dei da-det,

dei-dei-det de det dei da-det,

da-da-det

da-da-det "


not sooo long ago ...

CSN

you don't need to *learn to love*, just love.

"...don't give it up, ya got an empty cup,

only love can fill ...."

pasta fazool.

josepi

Dave Bursik

unread,
May 29, 1985, 11:09:05 PM5/29/85
to
In article <3...@h-sc1.UUCP> desja...@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes:

>Why do we judge people on the basis of their intelligence? Why do intelligent
>people often have it so much better than unintelligent people?

Those of you who grew up in a small town as "the smartest kid in the class"
may want to dispute the comment that intelligent people have it so much better.
While it's true that intelligence may be more highly valued among many adults,
it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.

Meanwhile, it takes a lot of years (most of them formative) to get to the
stage where intelligence is regarded as an asset by people other than your
parents (and even they weren't too sure sometimes :-)).

I suspect that the more intelligent one is, the more one uses intelligence
as a measure of worth (that has a nice, self-fulfilling prophetic ring to it).

Michael M. Sykora

unread,
Jun 1, 1985, 4:25:00 AM6/1/85
to
>/* d...@cbosgd.UUCP (Dave Bursik) / 11:09 pm May 29, 1985 */

>Those of you who grew up in a small town as "the smartest kid in the class"
>may want to dispute the comment that intelligent people have it so much better.
>While it's true that intelligence may be more highly valued among many adults,
>it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
>normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.

Not onlt that, but being at the end of the normal curve also makes it
harder to find friends and SOs that have a similar level of intelligence.

Michael M. Sykora

unread,
Jun 1, 1985, 10:54:00 AM6/1/85
to
>/* d...@cbosgd.UUCP (Dave Bursik) / 11:09 pm May 29, 1985 */

>Those of you who grew up in a small town as "the smartest kid in the class"
>may want to dispute the comment that intelligent people have it so much better.
>While it's true that intelligence may be more highly valued among many adults,
>it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
>normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.

Not only that, but being at the end of the normal curve also makes it

Rick Lindsley

unread,
Jun 2, 1985, 4:34:21 PM6/2/85
to
>>Why do we judge people on the basis of their intelligence? Why do intelligent
>>people often have it so much better than unintelligent people?
>
>Those of you who grew up in a small town as "the smartest kid in the class"
>may want to dispute the comment that intelligent people have it so much better.

You said it. I was one of those at the upper end of the SAT scores in high
school, and it took tremendous effort to be invited (or even considered) to
any social functions. It wasn't a cruel crusade or anything -- it was just an
attitude of "well, I didn't think you'd be interested." Girls did not want to
be seen with "a brain"; they'd rather be seen with "a jock". (Please no
comments on overgeneralization -- remember this is from someone who necessarily
has a rather colored view.) It was only after I both moved up in the high
school government AND joined the basketball team that I became "acceptable".
The same thinking also persisted through most of college, unfortunately.
Because I did not like to get blind drunk or sky high at least once a week,
I was at best peculiar and at worst an outcast, rarely included in any
social events.

Now that I'm through college and in the "real world", I have to say that the
same intelligence which caused me social problems in high school have enabled
me to get a well-paying job doing something I enjoy. So in that respect,
perhaps, I DO have it better than less intelligent people who had to settle
for something less. Now. But I've only had one steady girlfriend in six years,
and that for only four months. So I would not say I've had it all that much
"better" or "easier" -- emotional support is as necessary as financial
support.

Rick Lindsley
...{ihnp4,decvax,hplabs,allegra}!tektronix!daemon!richl

J. Eric Roskos

unread,
Jun 3, 1985, 9:49:09 AM6/3/85
to
>I was thinking that intelligence is probably 'problem' for relationships.
>It seems, from people I know and consider bright, that there is a
>jealousy factor involved. (Not the 'envey' type.)

I think this is more common in relationships in which one person is of the
"bright" type you described, and the other is not. The latter does not
understand intellectual motivation, and can't thus understand why he or she
is not more important than some purely intellectual pursuit.

Really, though, I think it is more a function of a different personality
trait. The people who are "bright" in such a case perhaps tend to be that
way BECAUSE they have this interest in such pursuits. I'm not sure that
intelligence is the cause here.


--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

"V'z bss gb gur Orezbbgurf, gb jngpu gur bavbaf
na' gur rryf!" [Jryy, jbhyq lbh oryvrir Arj Wrefrl?]

Greg Woods

unread,
Jun 3, 1985, 2:44:05 PM6/3/85
to
> While it's true that intelligence may be more highly valued among many adults,
> it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
> normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.

This is a very accurate observation, and applies to other attributes equally
well as it does to intelligence. The only exception to this seems to be
athletic ability among males, where the better you are, the more you are
respected in a linear relationship. (Is there a female equivalent to this?
While I recognize that females participate in sports too, there doesn't seem
to be the social "pecking order" among girls based on athletic ability as
there is among the boys)
I speak from experience, having been one of those "smartest kid in the class"
types and also a "Fat Albert" type (heavy, slow, and poor at sports) when I
was in high school. The only difference between someone who suffered this kind
of ostracism and those who didn't is that it takes my kind longer to "grow up".
(For example, I didn't have my first girlfriend until I was 24. Most people
have their first SO in high school or college). I think adolescents are
extremely cruel, primarily because they have not yet learned to see the world
through someone else's viewpoint.
But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a kick
out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are married (or
divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, and do not seem to
be as happy with their lives as I am with mine.

--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
!hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY

"...I may not be right but I've never been wrong
It seldom turns out the way it does in the song..."

Peter Barbee

unread,
Jun 3, 1985, 7:59:10 PM6/3/85
to
So here we are talking about what promotes interest from MOTAS, and why,
again |-).

This is probably a stupid and naive thought but, does it matter? Does
it matter why you are attracted to another person? Maybe it would be nice
if the two of you were honest (I've always liked women whose second toe
is longer than their big toe) about what the big attraction is, but it seems
to be most important that there is one. Later it will be important that is
still exists, of that there is a new attraction.

I have asked women to share some time on the basis of their good income, or
their shapely legs, or any of a hundred (well maybe a couple of dozen) other
reasons. I mean there has to be some reason to notice that particular person
in the first place. What keeps me (and I hope her) coming back is simply a
feeling of enjoyment. I know I never enjoyed an afternoon bike ride because
of her good income (her shapely legs might be a different story |-)) but
because of how I felt in her company.

Does is really matter why? No, we just want to have fun.

Peter B

Sophie Quigley

unread,
Jun 4, 1985, 2:29:51 PM6/4/85
to
> > While it's true that intelligence may be more highly valued among many adults,
> > it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
> > normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.
>
> This is a very accurate observation, and applies to other attributes equally
> well as it does to intelligence. The only exception to this seems to be
> athletic ability among males, where the better you are, the more you are
> respected in a linear relationship. (Is there a female equivalent to this?
> While I recognize that females participate in sports too, there doesn't seem
> to be the social "pecking order" among girls based on athletic ability as
> there is among the boys)

Actually in my school (an all-girls school) the pecking order was also based
on athle,tic ability.
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie

Gene Spafford

unread,
Jun 5, 1985, 1:05:34 AM6/5/85
to
(I've said this here before, but many of the readers of this group
aren't familiar with the "good old days" when I posted beaucoup articles.
For those of you who've seen this -- my apologies for the rerun.)

Let me start off by pointing out that intelligence is hard to identify.
There are many different kinds of intelligence, and some people have
more of one than another. Grades, test scores, problem solving ability --
these measure limited forms of intelligence, if they measure any at all.
Be careful who you label as intelligent and who you label as not.

With that out of the way, let me note that I am one of those
"intelligent" people, at least as far as all the tests I've taken have
shown. I always was a bit of an outcast because of it, and I had a
really difficult time socially during my pre-college years. I didn't
fit in as an undergrad, either. As a grad student I've sort of found
my own level and am involved with others at the same approximate level,
and I am very comfortable in this environment (perhaps too much so).

Romance is difficult when you look for intelligence approximating your
own. I mean, physical attraction is nice, but I do need a break now
and then {:-)} and being able to talk with someone I consider an
equal is a must for a healthy long-term relationship. Finding
intelligent women with complimentary interests isn't always easy
in an academic environment. So, I looked elsewhere -- I joined
Mensa. It's not an elitist group as some would charge. It is simply
a group of people with something in common who get together to form
a social environment that offers a break from the workday environment.
Members have only one thing in common -- they scored in the top 2%
on some standardized intelligence test. That doesn't mean that they're
more intelligent than anyone else, it just means they did well on
those tests (see the second paragraph).

In short, I met a lot of very nice (and some very crazy) people, including
a number of attractive, intelligent, amusing women. In fact, one of them
is living with me now and we're getting married this fall (after I finish
my degree {if I finish my degree}). At least 3 other couples have met
through the group and married or posslq'd in the last 2 years.

If you're not willing to settle for less than you think you deserve, and
if you think you deserve the best, it might be worth checking out.
If you want more info, drop me a note.

--
Gene "3 months and holding" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf

Gregg Mackenzie

unread,
Jun 5, 1985, 6:50:20 AM6/5/85
to
Greg Woods:

> (Is there a female equivalent to this?
> While I recognize that females participate in sports too, there doesn't seem
> to be the social "pecking order" among girls based on athletic ability as
> there is among the boys)

You're right, Greg. The female pecking order is based on 1) looks and 2) "Does
she put out?" rather than athletic ability. And, concerning boys, athletic
ability isn't always enough; see (1), above. I, too, speak from experience.
While I was not a "smart kid", I did play ice hockey. However, I was also a
band-nerd/pizza-face/four-eyes type kid. Athletic ability did not improve my
social life. I had less than five dates all through high school. My brother
(younger) black-mailed a friend so I could go to the senior prom. High school
is where you learn what shallow people are all about.



> But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a kick
> out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are married (or
> divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, and do not seem to
> be as happy with their lives as I am with mine.

Every now and then I run into one of those girls who blew me off whenever I
asked for a date and it's funny to see how they're all of a sudden interested,
now that my looks have improved. (Also, learning to lick your eyebrows does
wonders for your popularity with women.)

Gregg Mackenzie
denelcor!gmack

Frank Silbermann

unread,
Jun 5, 1985, 12:30:45 PM6/5/85
to

>>While it's true that intelligence may be more highly valued among many adults,
>>it's also true that the kids at the fringes of the group (both ends of the
>>normal curve) often get treated rather shabbily.

In article <hao.1571> wo...@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:

> This is a very accurate observation, and applies to other attributes equally
>well as it does to intelligence. The only exception to this seems to be
>athletic ability among males, where the better you are, the more you are

>respected in a linear relationship. Is there a female equivalent to this?

How about beauty?

> But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a kick
>out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are married (or
>divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, and do not seem to
>be as happy with their lives as I am with mine.

Unfortunately, no matter what successes you may achieve in life,
there is no glory equal to the adulation received by a high school
football star. Not even if you become President.

Frank Silbermann

Kchula-Rrit

unread,
Jun 5, 1985, 1:17:39 PM6/5/85
to
> ...

>
> Now that I'm through college and in the "real world", I have to say that the
> same intelligence which caused me social problems in high school have enabled
> me to get a well-paying job doing something I enjoy. So in that respect,
> perhaps, I DO have it better than less intelligent people who had to settle
> for something less. Now.
> But I've only had one steady girlfriend in six years,
> and that for only four months.

To my mind, in relationships, quality is better than quantity; i.e. I
would rather have one good relationship than a lot of mediocre ones.
However, finding that one good one can be QUITE difficult...

> So I would not say I've had it all that much
> "better" or "easier" -- emotional support is as necessary as financial
> support.

Same here.

>
> Rick Lindsley

Kchula-Rrit

Michael M. Sykora

unread,
Jun 5, 1985, 9:37:00 PM6/5/85
to
>/* tr...@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) / 7:59 pm Jun 3, 1985 */

>Does is really matter why?

It may to her.

I wouldn't find it comforting to know that an SO of mine didn't think
the difference in personality between myself and a look-alike is
important. I'm not advocating petty self-importance, but I suspect
most of us want our SOs to consider us distinct from the crowd.

Mike Sykora

nyssa of traken

unread,
Jun 6, 1985, 7:20:22 AM6/6/85
to
>I suspect that the more intelligent one is, the more one uses intelligence
>as a measure of worth (that has a nice, self-fulfilling prophetic ring to it).

Do you mean self-worth, or how one values others? I know that I can not
successfully date somebody with whom I can not discuss things. This
implies that the persons I date be of some intelligence, the higher the
better. Therefore, I do use it as an "evaluator" when I decide to
allocate my resources.
--
James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa

The Boss gave me one of these, ten seconds, he said. Let's see
if it works...

Dana S. Nau

unread,
Jun 6, 1985, 4:28:45 PM6/6/85
to
In article <2...@gatech.CSNET> sp...@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes:
> ... So, I looked elsewhere -- I joined

>Mensa. It's not an elitist group as some would charge. It is simply
>a group of people with something in common who get together to form
>a social environment that offers a break from the workday environment. ...

Personally, I have mixed feelings about Mensa. I met some very nice people
that way, but I also met some people who didn't seem to be very good at
interacting with other people and who appeared to be using their
intelligence as an excuse for their lack of social skills.

I found Mensa to be a good way to meet people at times when I had just moved
to a new location--but in each case, after I had lived there for a while and
had formed closer friendships, I ended up losing interest in Mensa.

However, I realize that other people's experiences may differ!
--
Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932

Adrienne Regard

unread,
Jun 6, 1985, 5:14:55 PM6/6/85
to

>You said it. I was one of those at the upper end of the SAT scores in high
>school, and it took tremendous effort to be invited (or even considered) to
>any social functions. It wasn't a cruel crusade or anything -- it was just an
>attitude of "well, I didn't think you'd be interested." Girls did not want to
>be seen with "a brain"; they'd rather be seen with "a jock".

Well, speaking from the female point of view, I was at the upper end of SAT
scores, too, and I was not invited places because that was intimidating.
(Plus, my social skills left something to be desired, I'm sure). The jocks
wouldn't go out with me because many had trouble understanding English, and
the smart guys were so downtrodden because the cheerleaders turned up their
noses that they didn't have the guts to ask me either. I asked guys out as
often as I was asked out, and I wasn't ever turned down, either (in high
school. I has some setbacks in college). I can remember having a good
time, and not caring about being "seen" with the people I wanted to spend
some time with.

You shoulda realized then what I did -- there are plenty of fish in the sea --
interesting fish at that. "Girls" in the sense used above means really one
specific group of females who had a specific sense of values that didn't
include you.

>Now that I'm through college and in the "real world", I have to say that the
>same intelligence which caused me social problems in high school have enabled
>me to get a well-paying job doing something I enjoy. So in that respect,
>perhaps, I DO have it better than less intelligent people who had to settle
>for something less. Now. But I've only had one steady girlfriend in six years,

>and that for only four months. So I would not say I've had it all that much


>"better" or "easier" -- emotional support is as necessary as financial
>support.

There is something dangerous in believing your situation doesn't have it's
counterpart in the females of the world, and not trying to find those
females who feel similarly to you. Why do I get the feeling you are still
missing the wealth of the population pool? (Not trying to put words in
your mouth here -- trying for clarification).

Adrienne Regard

The Polymath

unread,
Jun 6, 1985, 7:15:24 PM6/6/85
to
In article <4...@ttidcc.UUCP> reg...@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>You shoulda realized then what I did -- there are plenty of fish in the sea --
>interesting fish at that. "Girls" in the sense used above means really one
>specific group of females who had a specific sense of values that didn't
>include you.
>
>There is something dangerous in believing your situation doesn't have it's
>counterpart in the females of the world, and not trying to find those
>females who feel similarly to you. Why do I get the feeling you are still
>missing the wealth of the population pool?

The problem you're overlooking is that having a high I.Q. can give a whole
new meaning to "lonely at the top". I've scored well enough on various
tests to qualify for membership in several of the "high IQ" societies.
The problem is not just finding women who want to go out with me, but also
finding women with whom I can interact on my level.

Screening on intelligence alone narrows my choices to less than 2% of the
general population. From that reduced pool I have to find people who meet
my other criteria for compatability (brains aren't everything (-: ), and
from _that_ tiny minority I have to find those who find _me_ acceptable.

Looked at from this perspective, there aren't that many fish in the sea
after all, at least not useful ones. The best one can do is to look for
the better fishing grounds, i.e.: join Mensa and attend their various
activities. At least the preliminary screening has mostly been done for
you.

Granted, there are high IQ type people who prefer their SOs to be less
intelligent than they are. They do have a wide population to choose from.
For those of us who aren't intimidated by other people's brains and want to
share our interests with our SOs, the choice is _much_ narrower.

And remember:

"Before you find your handsome/beautiful prince(ss) you'll have to kiss a
lot of frogs."
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI "How goes the rat race?"
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. "The rats are winning."
Santa Monica, CA 90405 -- Paul Lynde
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe

Michael M. Sykora

unread,
Jun 7, 1985, 1:08:00 AM6/7/85
to
>/* fs...@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) / 12:30 pm Jun 5, 1985 */

Unfortunately, no matter what successes you may achieve in life,
there is no glory equal to the adulation received by a high school
football star. Not even if you become President.

Are you serious???????

Chris Andersen

unread,
Jun 7, 1985, 2:29:29 AM6/7/85
to
> [...]

> I speak from experience, having been one of those "smartest kid in the class"
> types and also a "Fat Albert" type (heavy, slow, and poor at sports) when I
> was in high school. The only difference between someone who suffered this kind
> of ostracism and those who didn't is that it takes my kind longer to "grow up".

Actually, I think it's the other way around. Being ostracised forces one to
come to terms with oneself much earlier in life then those who have little time
for self-reflection (ie those that are more popular in school). In many ways,
those kids who act the most "adult" are the least qualified to be adults while
those who don't act "grown up" are matured before their time.

> (For example, I didn't have my first girlfriend until I was 24. Most people
> have their first SO in high school or college).

Same with me, my first (and only) SO didn't happen till this past year in
college. But again, I don't consider having an SO as a qualification for being
"grown up".

> ... I think adolescents are

> extremely cruel, primarily because they have not yet learned to see the world
> through someone else's viewpoint.
> But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a kick
> out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are married (or
> divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, and do not seem to
> be as happy with their lives as I am with mine.

Ahhh, sweet revenge.


>
> --Greg
> --
> {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
> !hao!woods
>
> CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
>

Chris Andersen
tektronix!azure!chrisa

Greg Woods

unread,
Jun 7, 1985, 3:14:32 PM6/7/85
to
> Screening on intelligence alone narrows my choices to less than 2% of the
> general population. From that reduced pool I have to find people who meet
> my other criteria for compatability (brains aren't everything (-: ), and
> from _that_ tiny minority I have to find those who find _me_ acceptable.

Jerry, I'm really surprised. From previous postings I've always thought of
you as a very sensitive and open-minded person, but this sounds like a really
closed attitude. Have you ever even *tried* dating a woman who doesn't score
as high as you did on those IQ tests? And even if you did, and had a bad
experience, does that necessarily mean it could *never* work out with someone
like that? It seems to me that *any* selection criteria that eliminates 98%
of the candidates is self-defeating. It sounds to me like you have a belief
about what people who score lower than you on IQ tests are like, and you are
unwilling to open your mind up to being wrong about it, even to the point
of eliminating 98% of women as possibilities. My advice to you is open your
mind to a relationship not necessarily looking like this picture you have in
your mind about it. You might be pleasantly surprised sometime.

Frank Silbermann

unread,
Jun 7, 1985, 3:39:02 PM6/7/85
to

Greg Woods:

>> While I recognize that females participate in sports too, there doesn't seem
>> to be the social "pecking order" among girls based on athletic ability as
>> there is among the boys)

In article <denelvx.41> gm...@denelvx.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) writes:
>You're right, Greg. The female pecking order is based on 1) looks and 2) "Does
>she put out?" rather than athletic ability. And, concerning boys, athletic
>ability isn't always enough; see (1), above. I, too, speak from experience.
>While I was not a "smart kid", I did play ice hockey. However, I was also a
>band-nerd/pizza-face/four-eyes type kid. Athletic ability did not improve my
>social life.
>

>Every now and then I run into one of those girls who blew me off whenever I
>asked for a date and it's funny to see how they're all of a sudden interested,

>now that my looks have improved. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Aha! At least one person agrees with me on the value of being good-looking.
But don't be too hard on theses women, Gregg. They're only behaving normally.

To bad your athletic ability didn't help you much. I guess having the
athletic IMAGE is more important that actual skill. But maybe you are
just the exception that proves the rule.

It is common among many animals in nature that when mating, the female
chooses the male who is the best physical specimen. This gives the
children two advantages -- a greater likelihood of growing up to be equally
strong, and the greater protection from a father who is dominant in the herd.
Such instincts probably influence human mating even today.

Nowadays, intelligence, cunning and wealth are more important than
physical strength when establishing dominance, but women are still
affected by their instincts that say "Go for the hunk."
This is especially true about younger women (high school hackers
take note!) whose thinking is more emotional and instinctive.
When they get older, they learn that jocks don't always make
the best partners, so the their rational mind begins to ignore
these stirrings of the reptilian cortex.

As a child I was a skinny ectomorph with had asthma and flat feet.
I suffered greatly -- not from the disabilities themselves,
but from the way the other kids reacted to them.
Starting in high school, my health slowly began to improve.
Custom orthotic shoe inserts improved my walk, and by my mid-twenties,
weight training had made my body hard and wiry (though still very slender).

About this time I went to a singles weekend at a rustic resort in
the Catskill mountains. The singles group made up half the clientel
that weekend -- the other half were families on longer vacations.
All the other participants, it seemed, were Jews from Brooklyn and
Queens, NY. I must mention that among all the ethnic groups in America,
Jews de-emphasize athletics the most (many of the older crowd spent
their time out in the country sitting indoors playing cards).
I bring this up because it gives special emphasis to the following
anecdote's lesson.

I met a reasonably attractive young woman there with whom I felt
I had much in common. She was friendy, yet cool and reserved.
Though other singles were pairing off, she still seemed to treat me
as merely "one of the gang." Then, on the second day, we came across
an older man bouncing his pre-school daughter (or grand-daughter)
into the air and catching her. The child was gigling. My friend said,
"I used to love it when my father did that to me."

I thought to myself, "Dare I risk it? Will she think I'm a jerk?
Nah, go for it!" I picked the woman off her feet and began tossing
her into the air and catching her, just as the man had done with his
daughter. That really broke the ice between us, and began a very
serious relationship (which unfortunately ended some months later).

After it ended, we were still friends, so I asked her what had
attracted her to me in the first place. She said, "I first noticed
my feelings for you after you threw me up in the air at that resort."
Now this lady is certainly no jock groupie. Most of her other
dates were computer nerds like me. Yet, it was a showing of raw,
stupid machismo that got her hormones flowing.

So it never hurts to play up the your athletic side. It may help
a great deal. You might not like being judged on looks and athletics,
but it's a fact of life. You can spend your time whining about
how the world SHOULD be, or you can recognize the way it IS,
deal with it, and achieve your goals.

Happy huntin'
Frank Silbermann

ANYBODY OUT THERE FROM PALATKA, FLORIDA, OR THEREABOUTS?

Dana S. Nau

unread,
Jun 8, 1985, 1:53:11 AM6/8/85
to
In article <4...@ttidcc.UUCP> holl...@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes:
>
>The problem you're overlooking is that having a high I.Q. can give a whole
>new meaning to "lonely at the top". I've scored well enough on various
>tests to qualify for membership in several of the "high IQ" societies.
>The problem is not just finding women who want to go out with me, but also
>finding women with whom I can interact on my level.

I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have
problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social
skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners.

Several years ago I agreed with your point of view, but I believe I was
fooling myself. Things started working out a LOT better for me once I
started learning how to feel more comfortable around people, to value them
for who they were, and to stop being so hung up about how "smart" I was.
The same might be true for you.

>Looked at from this perspective, there aren't that many fish in the sea
>after all, at least not useful ones.

That attitude is insidious because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. One is
much more likely to meet interesting people if one STARTS OUT with the
attitude that other people are interesting.

>Granted, there are high IQ type people who prefer their SOs to be less
>intelligent than they are. They do have a wide population to choose from.
>For those of us who aren't intimidated by other people's brains and want to
>share our interests with our SOs, the choice is _much_ narrower.

Are you saying you aren't interested in someone unless her IQ score matches
yours? That strikes me as a rather artificial criterion. I know a woman
who has an uncanny ability to figure out what other people are like and what
they are thinking. In terms of that particular ability, she is smarter than
I can ever hope to be--but that ability is NOT something that is ever
measured on an IQ test.

Jonathan Corbet

unread,
Jun 8, 1985, 12:00:57 PM6/8/85
to

This discussion is one of the more interesting ones I have seen in
this group for a while. It strikes a lot of nerves. Let me say from a lot
of personal experience that being the "smart kid" in a small town school
(try Wilson, Wyo. for SMALL!) is not an easy experience, especially when one
is not all that strong (most of the boys were cattle-wrestlers, literally),
and tends to have longish hair and liberal attitudes. And people wonder why
I came to Colorado...
But anyway, I, too, have found that I have a hard time getting close
to women whose intelligence does not impress me. Sometimes I think that I am
just to finicky for my own good, and that's why I spent so much time without an
SO, but then I find somebody with whom I can really talk, and I understand what
I am waiting for.

>> Screening on intelligence alone narrows my choices to less than 2% of the
>> general population.

> It seems to me that *any* selection criteria that eliminates 98%
>of the candidates is self-defeating.

I must disagree, Greg; I would say that I am probably just as fussy
as the person (I don't know who that was) in the first quote. Sure enough,
that makes it hard to find people, but bad experiences with the wrong people
can make it even harder.
Has anybody else found any solutions to this type of problem? I went
to one of the local Mensa parties at the invitation of a member, and I
found a bunch of people (mostly male) sitting around talking about how they were
so much smarter than everybody else. I was not impressed. I have found that
most of the truly intelligent women I meet are at work, since there are a lot
of women who go into atmospheric sciences. But that is not a good place to be
looking for romance, so I am at a loss. I am trying to find a good literary
discussion group or some other place to meet intelligent women, but little
luck so far. Maybe it's time to go back to school.

jon
--
Jonathan Corbet
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Field Observing Facility
{seismo|hplabs}!hao!boulder!jon (Thanks to CU CS department)

William Ingogly

unread,
Jun 8, 1985, 3:36:14 PM6/8/85
to
In article <15...@hao.UUCP> wo...@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:

> ... Have you ever even *tried* dating a woman who doesn't score

>as high as you did on those IQ tests? And even if you did, and had a bad
>experience, does that necessarily mean it could *never* work out with someone
>like that? It seems to me that *any* selection criteria that eliminates 98%
>of the candidates is self-defeating. It sounds to me like you have a belief
>about what people who score lower than you on IQ tests are like, and you are
>unwilling to open your mind up to being wrong about it, even to the point

>of eliminating 98% of women as possibilities. ...

Someone whose main criterion for finding friends (romantic or not) is that
their capabilities and interests closely match his/hers is going to find
himself/herself alone more often than not. I agree that this attitude is
self-defeating, for I was guilty of it myself in my younger years.

Qualities like empathy, enjoyment of athletic activities, enjoyment of
music, a sense of humor, and so on have little to do with IQ scores
and are MUCH more important in relationships than things like
mathematical and spatial skills. See how much your knowledge of
quantum mechanics helps you when your SO is tired or depressed and
needs comforting ...

But a caution is in order; someone who feels that broadening his
criteria for friendship is in some way lowering his standards has a
problem. He shouldn't abandon his search for the perfect, mirror-image
mate until he understands WHY it's a problem and is prepared to deal
with it.
-- Cheers, Bill Ingogly

Greg Woods

unread,
Jun 8, 1985, 8:08:49 PM6/8/85
to
> > It seems to me that *any* selection criteria that eliminates 98%
> >of the candidates is self-defeating.
>
> I must disagree, Greg; I would say that I am probably just as fussy
> as the person (I don't know who that was) in the first quote. Sure enough,
> that makes it hard to find people, but bad experiences with the wrong people
> can make it even harder.

Well, I suppose my statement is also a bit too generalized, because
ultimately most of us want to eliminate 99.9999999% of the population (i.e.
all but one). But scores on an IQ test seems like such an *arbitrary* criterion
for eliminating 98% of the available possibilities before even *meeting* them.
I still think that's taking the "selection" process a long way overboard.
Essentially, it is a case of making up one's mind about someone without
even giving them a chance. It is quite likely to lead to passing over some
very good potential mates, and for what? So he can be right about how smart
he is? Seems dumb to me.

> I have found that
> most of the truly intelligent women I meet are at work, since there are a lot
> of women who go into atmospheric sciences. But that is not a good place to be
> looking for romance, so I am at a loss.

Why not, Jon? I know two people who are getting married this summer who met
at NCAR. Sounds like yet another arbitrary advanced elimination criteria to me.
At least consider the possibility that you are closing yourself off from some
potentially rewarding relationships.

Richard Mateosian

unread,
Jun 9, 1985, 8:16:50 AM6/9/85
to
>It seems to me that *any* selection criterion that eliminates 98%

>of the candidates is self-defeating.

That depends on how many you're selecting from and how many slots you have
to fill. And if a REQUIREMENT is *not* used as a selection criterion, then
you're wasting your time, even if 99.99999% of candidates would be eliminated.

In other words, if you're selecting a one-and-only lifelong mate from the
n billion people in the world, a selection criterion that cuts out 98% is
a good start.
--
Richard Mateosian
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!s...@decwrl.ARPA

Greg Skinner

unread,
Jun 9, 1985, 11:51:46 AM6/9/85