srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (05/25/85)
In article <371@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@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!srm@decwrl.ARPA
rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (05/26/85)
In article <2763@nsc.UUCP> srm@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
brian@bu-cs.UUCP (Brian Ross Gardner) (05/29/85)
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?
db@cbosgd.UUCP (Dave Bursik) (05/30/85)
In article <371@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@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).
richl@daemon.UUCP (Rick Lindsley) (06/02/85)
>>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
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/03/85)
>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?]
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (06/03/85)
> 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..."
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/04/85)
> > 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
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (06/05/85)
(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!spafgmack@denelvx.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) (06/05/85)
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
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/05/85)
>>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> woods@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
nessus@nsc.UUCP (Kchula-Rrit) (06/05/85)
> ... > > 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
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (06/06/85)
>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...
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (06/06/85)
In article <227@gatech.CSNET> spaf@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
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/07/85)
>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
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (06/07/85)
In article <456@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@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
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/07/85)
> [...] > 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
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (06/07/85)
> 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. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/07/85)
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> gmack@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?
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (06/08/85)
In article <457@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@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. -- 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
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (06/08/85)
In article <1586@hao.UUCP> woods@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
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (06/09/85)
>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!srm@decwrl.ARPA
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (06/09/85)
>> 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. > The only difference between someone who suffered this kind > of ostracism and those who didn't is that it takes my kind longer to "grow > up". (For example, I didn't have my first girlfriend until I was 24. Most > people have their first SO in high school or college). I think adolescents > are extremely cruel, primarily because they have not yet learned to see the > world through someone else's viewpoint. I had the same experiences when I was in junior high and high school. I was not only smarter than most of the kids (junior high) but I wore thick glasses which made me look like a nerd. I was teased a lot and I was miserable and started seeing myself as they saw me, instead of appreciating myself. When I got to high school things got better because I was around other smart kids, but I still wasn't over being teased. I was still emotionally scarred, which led to shyness which is still with me to some degree today (for example, I get nervous when I have to say something in front of a group). Does anyone have any ideas why adolescents treat each other so cruelly? Has anyone done a study on it? I think it would make a good study in child psychology. > But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a kick > out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are married (or > divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, and do not seem to > be as happy with their lives as I am with mine. A lot of the people who teased me back in junior high don't have such well pay- ing jobs as mine, or are not even working, so I can say the same. Some of them even have kids they don't want. -- It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes we wonder how I keep from goin' under. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpa
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (06/09/85)
> From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) >>Now that I'm through college and in the "real world", I have to say that the >>same intelligence which caused me social problems in high school have enabled >>me to get a well-paying job doing something I enjoy. So in that respect, >>perhaps, I DO have it better than less intelligent people who had to settle >>for something less. Now. But I've only had one steady girlfriend in six years, >>and that for only four months. So I would not say I've had it all that much >>"better" or "easier" -- emotional support is as necessary as financial >>support. > There is something dangerous in believing your situation doesn't have it's > counterpart in the females of the world, and not trying to find those > females who feel similarly to you. Why do I get the feeling you are still > missing the wealth of the population pool? (Not trying to put words in > your mouth here -- trying for clarification). True. I have started wondering recently how women my age and older feel who haven't dated at all, or haven't dated much, or were never married, or were married once but are no longer. I wonder if they think they'll never be mar- ried, or whether they've given up on the idea of marriage. I wonder if they think they'll never meet the man for them, because most men their age are already married and the others are too young. I wonder if career women have it easier, because they can dedicate their lives to their careers, but maybe they are just using their careers as substitutes. Particularly, I wonder if they feel they won't ever have children. Comments welcome. -- It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes we wonder how I keep from goin' under. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpa
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/10/85)
In article <> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > Then, on the second day, we came across > an older man bouncing his pre-school daughter (or grand-daughter) > into the air and catching her. The child was gigling. My friend said, > "I used to love it when my father did that to me." > ... > After it ended, we were still friends, so I asked her what had > attracted her to me in the first place. She said, "I first noticed > my feelings for you after you threw me up in the air at that resort." > Now this lady is certainly no jock groupie. Most of her other > dates were computer nerds like me. Yet, it was a showing of raw, > stupid machismo that got her hormones flowing. I doubt it. She had just said that her father used to do that to her, and she loved it. By tossing her in the air Frank symbolically took on the role of her father, who showed his love for her by this kind of play. No wonder she started having positive feelings for Frank, since he literally reenacted a relationship that must have been very meaningful and positive for her, to judge from her spontaneous remark when she saw the child being tossed. I doubt that Frank could have achieved the same result by bench-pressing 300 lbs. or beating up six rival suitors. People are always attempting (unconsciously) to recreate with other people childhood relationships (generally with parents) that were important to them, and this plays a major role in determining who you fall in love with and the course the relationship takes. > It is common among many animals in nature that when mating, the female > chooses the male who is the best physical specimen. This gives the > children two advantages -- a greater likelihood of growing up to be equally > strong, and the greater protection from a father who is dominant in the > herd. Such instincts probably influence human mating even today. Perhaps. But given that cooperation and sharing are basic to the human species (see recent work in paleoanthropology) a woman's offspring would have a selective advantage if her mate was not only strong but used his strength to the advantage of his family. In other words, if he cared for them. But these biological arguments can only be speculative at this point, in my opinion. > You can spend your time whining about > how the world SHOULD be, or you can recognize the way it IS, > deal with it, and achieve your goals. Good advice, but first make sure you have a correct understanding of the way the world is. In the real world, women not only go for the Tom Selleck types who resemble a side of beef and have a corresponding IQ (no insult to Selleck intended), but they also go for the Dudley Moores, the Woody Allens, and the Billy Joels. In the long run, trying to be the dominant bull of the herd is a less effective strategy than being a caring and loving person with a lot to give. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
carson@homxa.UUCP (P.CARSTENSEN) (06/11/85)
ok we have Patty's Principle #302: Anyone who had fun in high school is not worth knowing now. (actually I know exceptions to the above....about 3 of them) P. -- Patty ihnp4!homxa!carson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To most people a savage nation is wan that doesn't wear oncomf'rtable clothes...Finley Peter Dunne (aka Mr. Dooley) ----------------------------------------------------------------------
janec@tektools.UUCP (Jane Caputo) (06/11/85)
>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". I went through it too, and it's no more fun for a teenage girl than for a teenage boy, believe me. I didn't help it any by turning down dates with anybody who wasn't "appropriate" (practically everybody). I wish I'd had the sense to ask the appropriate ones out, but that was a *long* time ago :-) and that kind of thing just wasn't done, even by adult women. The female "brains" just decided we had more worthwhile things to do with our time than dating. One thing we had was a great supply of equivalent boys who also didn't date, the intellectuals, the nerds, the arty types, and a couple of drug-using meditating types (I'm talking the very early sixties here, when this was unheard of in a small town.) We were terribly defensive and downtrodden by all those jocks and cheerleaders (terminal depression was a requirement for admission to the group), but we also had a great sense of being a separate, horribly superior, world unto ourselves. And in the course of providing mutual support through our depressing, dateless Saturday nights we managed to have some wonderful parties. All in all, I have never found a more fascinating group of people than my old high school crowd from Longview, Washington (pop. 25,000), and I've been in some pretty high-powered intellectual environments since then. I ended up going to New York City when I graduated, directly because of the influence of those friends. And to top it all off, I had the satisfaction of going back to my 20-year reunion and hearing that several of those jocks wanted to ask me out, but were afraid to (with good reason). Now, I don't know if that was really true, or if that's what comes from having a few drinks and taking a good hard look at their small-town wives, but anyway I'm thoroughly convinced I got the best of the deal. I still have a tough time finding men as intelligent as I am, and I'm convinced it's harder for a woman because a significant number of even the most intelligent men are intimidated women with equal ability. And even more are intimidated by strong-minded, independent women. But I keep looking. Getting there is definitely half the fun. :-) Jane Carrasco Caputo {allegra, ihnp4, decvax, ucbvax...}!tektronix!tektools!janec Jane Carrasco Caputo Tektronix, Inc. M.S. 74-900 P.O. Box 500 Beaverton, OR 97077
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (06/11/85)
I have gotten (so far) 14 pieces of mail asking for more information
about Mensa, or asking me about how and why I joined. That's a pretty
heavy response for one of my postings, and I expect more will come in
the mail over the next few days. So, I figured I might as well post
this here for everyone's amusement and/or edification.
Why/when I joined:
I almost joined when I was about 11. Our 6th grade class had just
taken some battery of apptitude and intelligence tests because our
school was being tracked as part of a state education study. The
psychologist in charge of the tests told me about Mensa because, he
claimed, they couldn't even score me on the test. Since I was the
usual 4-eyed fat kid who wasn't overly popular unless someone needed
help with homework, I thought it might be a good idea to investigate a
potential source of intellectually stimulating peers. Or something
like that. So I checked it out. (Note: there is no real age limit for
joining Mensa. Current US Mensa members range from 4 to 94.)
The group local to where I lived was composed mostly of snobs, it
seems. They were all in their 30's and 40's and really didn't like the
idea of a "little kid" joining them. I took the hint and didn't bother
to join. (Many groups, especially some of the smaller ones, tend to
"inbreed" and develop a cliquish, snobbish attitude. It isn't
encouraged nor part of the Mensa philosophy, but that sometimes happens
in a group of strong-willed people. Look at some of the net groups!)
I came to Georgia Tech about 5 years ago to get my MS and PhD in
Computer Science (as an aside, the "3 months and holding" is a
reference to the expected amount of time until I defend the thesis; it
was supposed to be September, but now appears to be November). About 3
years ago, a very cherished romance broke up rather suddenly (as many
long-time net.singles readers may remember). I was lied to, cheated on,
and generally trampled under foot, and it devastated me. I really had
second thoughts about continuing on for my degree...the social
atmosphere at school suddenly became stifling. Not because of any of
the people here, but because everyone had the same interests and saw
each other all the time. I felt I needed something different to help
me make it through.
One of my advisors here was, at that time, the LocSec (Local
Secretary) of the Atlanta chapter of Mensa, and he suggested I join
Mensa as a way of meeting some amusing people with interests in
different fields. I did. He was right. Things got much better (for
various reasons -- not just Mensa), and I enjoyed the people and the
meetings. I also found True Romance. (Interestingly enough, he also
found True Romance through the local group. His wife joined while
he was the LocSec.)
How my fiancee joined:
3 years ago, Kathy was just recently divorced, and not too positive on
herself at the time. She was working in what seemed to be a menial
dead-end job despite talent out the wazoo (and elsewhere!). She had
worked hard for her degree, but there wasn't a demand market for
English Lit majors right then (or now), and she really wondered if it
was all worth it. She was lonely but she's not the type to hang out at
nightspots, and she didn't read net.singles so she would know where
else to go to meet nice guys {:-)}. Her sister-in-law-to-be was a
Mensa member and suggested Kathy join. So, Kathy took the test as a
sort of a lark, and went to a few meetings. She met some nice people
(in fact, I was the 3rd person she met at Mensa; she went out with #2
for 3 months before we started dating), liked it and stayed. Things
have vastly improved for her too.
If you want to join Mensa:
National Mensa organizations exist in at least 15 countries around the
world, and there are Mensans in at least 98 countries. Below I will
put the address and phone number of the national headquarters of the US
and Canadian Mensa groups. I may also include some of the Mensa
addresses for some of the other groups, if I can find them. You should
write to your national group for specific information. If you can't
find your country in the list, write to one of the ones on the list and
they'll be able to direct you. The info below is based on my knowledge
of the US group -- the groups in other countries are probably similar,
but not identical.
Let me suggest that if you're interested, ask for the name and phone
number of the local LocSec so you can arrange to visit a few meetings
of the local group, if there is one, and see what the group local to
you is like. Some groups are lots of fun, and some are real drags.
Some groups consist of friendly sociable people who are a joy to see,
and others prefer to just sit around and brag about how smart they
think they are. Even if the local group isn't too interesting, you
might want to join the national group because of the publications and
national meetings.
Membership is open to anyone showing a qualifying test score and paying
the membership fee. The yearly US fee is $30, which is waivable if
someone can't afford it. There is *no* other qualification to
joining. Ages of members range (currently) from 4 to 94. Mensa
espouses no political, religious, racial, or economic actions or
theories.
In lieu of the standard Mensa exam, evidence of the following test
scores will gain you admission (there are many others -- write to
find out what they are):
S.A.T. combined score better than 1300, prior to 9/77
combined score better than 1250, after 9/77
G.R.E combined score better than 1250
LSAT better than 662
ACT composite better than 29
Standford Binet, form L-M 132 or better
and so on. I submitted a notarized xerox copy of my GRE scores and
that was accepted. If you don't have any qualifying test then Mensa
(in the US, at least) will administer one to you in two stages:
1) you take an at-home exam for $8 which indicates whether
you probably qualify for admission. Parts of this exam
often show up in magazines like Reader's Digest and seem
simple -- often they are. The idea is to exclude about
60% of the population right off, but not exclude anyone
who might do well on the real test.
2) The second test is $15 and proctored. This is a lengthier
and more difficult test which is considered to be a
certified IQ test.
Let me know if any of you have other questions and I'll try to
answer them.
American Mensa, Ltd. Mensa Canada
1701 West 3rd St. POB 505
Brooklyn, NY 11223 Station S
(718) 376-1925 Toronto, ONT M5M 4L8
(416) 497-7070
U.K. call Mensa office in Wolverhampton, (0902) 26055 up to 1600
West Germany Kiel (0431) 52 12 69 (H) Udo Shultz
I also have about 8 numbers for Australia, depending on the city, and
Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand,
Norway, Philippines, and South Korea. Write me if you want one
of those -- specify your city, please, as some have multiple
contacts.
--
Gene "3 months and holding" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spafgmack@denelvx.UUCP (06/11/85)
> >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. The temptation to gloat does present itself. However, rejecting them out of vindictiveness only makes me feel lower than whale dung later. > athletic IMAGE is more important that actual skill. > affected by their instincts that say "Go for the hunk." > Frank Silbermann Athletic skill, real or perceived, and/or being a "hunk", real or perceived, is the scale by which some people measure a man's PERCEIVED virility. "My gun got no buwets." -- Elmer Fudd Gregg Mackenzie denelcor!gmack
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (06/11/85)
It's been pointed out before, but it bears re-stating: what an IQ test measures is but a tiny fraction of a person's intellectual ability-- and sometimes isn't measuring intellect at all, but rather cultural awareness (white middle-class culture, of course). Read Steven Jay Gould's *The Mis-measure Of Man* for a good treatment of this and other attempts to find a simple quantifier for intelligence. It's interesting that measured intelligence correlates only moderately with future success, and that for IQ's above about 120, the correlation vanishes. There are people who measure under 75 on IQ tests who live normal lives, are articulate and independent, and really don't seem all that ``stupid'' to those around them. I'm certain that there are many different kinds of intelligence. Some of the most brilliant people I've known are in the social sciences or other such fields and are simply ``all thumbs'' where it comes to computers or other technology. No, it isn't just an emotional reaction--I've worked with these people, and their minds simply do not function very well in this area, despite their enormous abilities in other modes of thought. And, of course, I've met folks who were the opposite of this. And some of the most brilliantly creative people I've known seemed kinda average in areas we'd probably call ``intelligence''. So think about it: do you really want to limit yourself to a group of people just because they scored high on some test? ``Smarts'' come in lots of different shapes, and show themselves in lots of different ways. Granted, IQ tests *do* measure *something*, and a lot of the folks who do well on them seem ``smart'' to us. But I know from experience that this doesn't form an exclusive group--there are some things far more valuable than the ability to do well on a bunch of word- and sight-puzzles. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (06/11/85)
In article <228@tove.UUCP> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have >problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social >skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners. have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills? growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact with people when you're not allowed to belong. from sad experience... Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (06/13/85)
In article <1466@watdcsu.UUCP> herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) writes: >In article <228@tove.UUCP> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >>I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have >>problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social >>skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners. > >have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills? >growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact >with people when you're not allowed to belong. > >from sad experience... >Herb Chong... I don't disagree with that statement. But it's far more useful to work on IMPROVING one's social skills rather than lamenting the "slim pickings" one has without those skills. -- Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/14/85)
Frank Silbermann writes: >> Then, on the second day, we came across >> an older man bouncing his pre-school daughter (or grand-daughter) >> into the air and catching her. The child was gigling. My friend said, >> "I used to love it when my father did that to me." >> ... >> After it ended, we were still friends, so I asked her what had >> attracted her to me in the first place. She said, "I first noticed >> my feelings for you after you threw me up in the air at that resort." >> Now this lady is certainly no jock groupie. Most of her other >> dates were computer nerds like me. Yet, it was a showing of raw, >> stupid machismo that got her hormones flowing. In article <gargoyle.478> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >I doubt it. She had just said that her father used to do that to >her, and she loved it. By tossing her in the air Frank symbolically >took on the role of her father, who showed his love for her by this >kind of play. No wonder she started having positive feelings for >Frank, since he literally reenacted a relationship that must have >been very meaningful and positive for her, to judge from her >spontaneous remark when she saw the child being tossed. I doubt that >Frank could have achieved the same result by bench-pressing 300 lbs. >or beating up six rival suitors. > >People are always attempting (unconsciously) to recreate with other >people childhood relationships (generally with parents) that were >important to them, and this plays a major role in determining who you >fall in love with and the course the relationship takes. Excellent analysis! (no :-) here, I'm serious!) Not only only have you offered a more logical explanation than mine, but it leads to great insight on the dynamics of romantic love. Now, when I am attracted to a woman, one of the first things I will ask is what her father was like, and what she thought of the relationship. This will give me a better idea as to what sort of man she's looking for, and whether I will be able to appeal to her in the long run. ****************************************************************** Frank Silbermann writes: >> It is common among many animals in nature that when mating, the female >> chooses the male who is the best physical specimen. This gives the >> children two advantages -- a greater likelihood of growing up to be equally >> strong, and the greater protection from a father who is dominant in the >> herd. Such instincts probably influence human mating even today. In article <gargoyle.478> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Perhaps. But given that cooperation and sharing are basic to the >human species (see recent work in paleoanthropology) a woman's >offspring would have a selective advantage if her mate was not only >strong but used his strength to the advantage of his family. This ties in to a previous posting of mine, about why women respond so much better to generous men. ********************************************************************* Frank Silbermann writes: >> You can spend your time whining about >> how the world SHOULD be, or you can recognize the way it IS, >> deal with it, and achieve your goals. >Good advice, but first make sure you have a correct understanding of >the way the world is. In the real world, women not only go for the >Tom Selleck types who resemble a side of beef and have a >corresponding IQ (no insult to Selleck intended), but they also go >for the Dudley Moores, the Woody Allens, and the Billy Joels. In the >long run, trying to be the dominant bull of the herd is a less >effective strategy than being a caring and loving person with a lot >to give. I think fame, wealth, and reputation is a large part of their appeal. If put put Dudley Moore, Woody Allen and Billy Joel in anonymus, mundane jobs (e.g. postal clerk, shoestore owner, hacker), they would have a difficult time attracting female attention. On the other hand, if Tom Selleck lost his fame and fortune and had to work at an ordinary occupation, the local women would STILL go crazy for him. Of course, it's even better if you can offer the best of both types. Frank Silbermann
mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (06/14/85)
>>I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have >>problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social >>skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners. > >have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills? >growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact >with people when you're not allowed to belong. > >from sad experience... >Herb Chong... I'm coming to realize that this is true for me. I've always taken great joy in understanding things. When I sat up one night at the begining of 12th grade and read ahead in the calculus text, and discovered how limits turn into derivatives, I was ecstatic. Suddenly my whole understanding of the world had room to expand -- to explode. There's no way I could ever share that with people. I'd be rejected out of hand -- and I have been. Fact is, I have so much anger and hurt stored up over this that sharing simple things with the people around me is very painful. When my officemate (a wonderful lady, and a dear friend) is excited about her new outfit, or about where whe will be going on vacation or ..., I just cannot share the joy she feels. It just hurts too damn much. I lost 90 lbs a few years ago (since gaining it back) All my friends and relatives were delighted. When I look back, I can't understand how I didn't realize that I was seething with anger -- anger about how they could want me to be joyful with them on my behalf about the mere removal of a negative factor (see the two-factor theory, often discussed along with Theory X and Theory Y, or send me mail) after they rejected the things that were really important to me. Recently, a friend told me that he had the same experience, only with appreciating things of nature -- being deeply moved by them -- rather than with the technical insight that is dear to me. What we have is a chasm, seperating the emotional worlds of some of us highly focused individuals from the emotional worlds of most others. I want to bridge that chasm, and I expect it will be long and painful, but I see no other way. My best wishes, and my sympathy, to anyone on a similar voyage. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (06/14/85)
In article <443@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >Frank Silbermann writes: >>> It is common among many animals in nature that when mating, the female >>> chooses the male who is the best physical specimen. This gives the >>> children two advantages -- a greater likelihood of growing up to be equally >>> strong, and the greater protection from a father who is dominant in the >>> herd. Such instincts probably influence human mating even today. > >In article <gargoyle.478> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes > >>Perhaps. But given that cooperation and sharing are basic to the >>human species (see recent work in paleoanthropology) a woman's >>offspring would have a selective advantage if her mate was not only >>strong but used his strength to the advantage of his family. > >This ties in to a previous posting of mine, about why women respond >so much better to generous men. There appear to be a lot of amateur sociobiologists out there on the net. I hope they realize that much of what they're saying is based on certain half-respectable popularizations by people like Robert Ardrey (sp?) and his ilk. Just because it's published in Psychology Today don't make it so. If you want to talk sociobiology, go read E. O. Wilson's book by the same title. But be sure and read the volumes of criticism that have been leveled at his work and the work of other sociobiologists. To be specific: I challenge ANY of you to point to a study that's linked a genetic component to ANY of the behavior you're talking about. The early chapters of E. O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" say a lot of valid things; he's a good scientist (see for example his important work on insect societies). But the chapter that's most interesting to his popularizers is the final chapter (or at any rate one of the last chapters) that speculates about the inherited nature of much of human behavior. It's fun to read, but it's NOT science. It's instructive to read this chapter and make a list of the HARD FACTS contained in it. There's a real danger in using pseudoscience to support our personal prejudices and beliefs about human behavior, even if the pseudoscience is qualified by words like "perhaps" and "probably." If you don't believe it, check out a few history books from the library. A book I've cited before and that someone else in this book has recently cited that deals with the political misuse of science is "The Mismeasure Of Man," by Stephen Jay Gould. Must reading for anyone who gets most of his/her science from popular magazines like Psychology Today or Science Digest. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (06/14/85)
In article <1571@hao.UUCPwoods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > But I often get the "last laugh" on the jocks who seemed to get such a > kick out of making my life miserable in those days. Most of them are > married (or divorced), and have kids and other heavy responsibilities, > and do not seem to be as happy with their lives as I am with mine. Ahhhh... 'tis just. The jocks at my typical American high school were high on the pecking order but unfortunately for them low on intelligence and perception. Where are they today? Swilling beer in front of the television. Married/divorced/re-married. Re-living adolecent glories at the local redneck bar... Oddly enough, the "geeks" who were lousy at sports and ostracised by everyone, turned out to be among the most successful. In this age of computers and high-technology, it's not the jock that gets the good job and the classy girls, it's the nerd who once sported the slide-rule on his belt. Success is the best revenge. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Give a man a horse... and he thinks he's enormous"
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/14/85)
In article <1466@watdcsu.UUCP> herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) writes: >>>I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have >>>problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social >>>skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners. In article <228@tove.UUCP> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >>have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills? >>growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact >>with people when you're not allowed to belong. In article <tove.236> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >I don't disagree with that statement. But it's far more useful to >work on IMPROVING one's social skills rather than lamenting the "slim >pickings" one has without those skills. I agree. Of course some people in this group (hint, hint, Greg and Dana) believe that preparing for social encounters is a waste of time, and that we should just "be spontaneous." Frank Silbermann
dsn@tove.UUCP (06/16/85)
In article <446@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >In article <1466@watdcsu.UUCP> herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) writes: >>>>I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have >>>>problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social >>>>skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners. The above quote is incorrectly attributed. I authored it, not Herb Chong. >In article <228@tove.UUCP> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >>>have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills? >>>growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact >>>with people when you're not allowed to belong. The above quote is also incorrectly attributed. I DIDN'T author it. >In article <tove.236> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >>I don't disagree with that statement. But it's far more useful to >>work on IMPROVING one's social skills rather than lamenting the "slim >>pickings" one has without those skills. This one is attributed correctly. >I agree. Of course some people in this group (hint, hint, Greg and Dana) >believe that preparing for social encounters is a waste of time, and that >we should just "be spontaneous." > > Frank Silbermann Judging from your recent berating of Greg Woods for his dislike of opening lines, and your previous references to books on "how to pick up girls", etc., I suspect I "prepare for social encounters" in rather different ways than you do. Part of what "improving one's social skills" means to me is developing the ability to be both comfortable and spontaneous (in appropriate ways) in social situations. For me, at least, that doesn't involve memorizing opening lines. -- 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
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/16/85)
> I'm coming to realize that this is true for me. I've always taken >great joy in understanding things. When I sat up one night at the begining >of 12th grade and read ahead in the calculus text, and discovered how limits >turn into derivatives, I was ecstatic. Suddenly my whole understanding of the >world had room to expand -- to explode. There's no way I could ever share that >with people. I'd be rejected out of hand -- and I have been. I had much of the same problem, though I was lucky enough to have parents with whom I could share this knowledge without getting blank looks in return. > Fact is, I have so much anger and hurt stored up over this that sharing >simple things with the people around me is very painful. When my officemate >(a wonderful lady, and a dear friend) is excited about her new outfit, or about >where whe will be going on vacation or ..., I just cannot share the joy she >feels. It just hurts too damn much. Over the years I have become numb to what makes the rest of the world run. Things like fashion, looks, etc. just don't seem that important to me. Because of this, I have so little opportunity to get into the conversations of others I happen to being hanging around with. Usually, whenever I'm with a group of people, I end up sitting on the sidelines listening to what they're saying and finding I have nothing to contribute. I feel in this situation like I have no anchor holding me down to reality. What's worse, I can't explain this problem to them because I subconsciously feel that they *really* don't give a damn about my personal problems (it doesn't have anything to do with them). > I lost 90 lbs a few years ago (since gaining it back) All my friends >and relatives were delighted. When I look back, I can't understand how I >didn't realize that I was seething with anger -- anger about how they could >want me to be joyful with them on my behalf about the mere removal of a >negative factor (see the two-factor theory, often discussed along with Theory X >and Theory Y, or send me mail) after they rejected the things that were really >important to me. ditto again. So many people around me seem to be hung up on what I consider to be such unimportant things. You may ask, "what do you consider important", and frankly, I can't tell you. I've begun to lose all conception of what is important to me because: 1) What is important to me is unimportant to everyone else, and 2) if I want to get to know everyone else, I have to ignore what I consider important to listen to what they consider to be important. > Recently, a friend told me that he had the same experience, only with >appreciating things of nature -- being deeply moved by them -- rather than >with the technical insight that is dear to me. For me, it would have to be the wonderment and joy I feel at the totality of creation (boy isn't that a loaded sentence (<--ignore this, it's just me trying to be cute for cuteness sake (*sigh*))). > What we have is a chasm, seperating the emotional worlds of some >of us highly focused individuals from the emotional worlds of most others. >I want to bridge that chasm, and I expect it will be long and painful, but >I see no other way. My best wishes, and my sympathy, to anyone on a similar >voyage. And from me to you, the same. > from Mole End Mark Terribile Chris Andersen (just another piece of flotsom in this thing called life)
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/16/85)
In article <trwatf.994> root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) writes: > >Oddly enough, the "geeks" who were lousy at sports and ostracised by >everyone, turned out to be among the most successful. In this age of >computers and high-technology, it's not the jock that gets the good >job and the classy girls, it's the nerd who once sported the >slide-rule on his belt. Is this really true? I will admit that I am treated with more respect than when I was younger, but I assumed that was merely because adults are more polite than adolescents. People do appreciate my ability to earn a comfortable living, but let's face it -- most of our incomes are much closer to that of a plumber or crane operator than that of a physician or an ESTABLISHED lawyer. Judging from the complaining I read in this newsgroup, I believe that techies do NOT such have an easy time attracting "classy" women. Frank Silbermann
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/17/85)
In article <tove.237> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >Judging from your recent berating of Greg Woods for his dislike of opening >lines, and your previous references to books on "how to pick up girls", >etc., I suspect I "prepare for social encounters" in rather different ways >than you do. >Part of what "improving one's social skills" means to me is developing the >ability to be both comfortable and spontaneous (in appropriate ways) in >social situations. For me, at least, that doesn't involve memorizing >opening lines. You have a very good point. How you prepare for social encounters really depends on where your difficulties lay. Suppose you are in the mood to meet someone new, and suddenly you see an attractive prospect. What is your reaction? If you think: "Gosh, I'd like to meet her, but I'm too scared to approach her." then you need to learn to be relaxed, comfortable and spontaneous, as you stated. But if your first reaction is: "Gosh, I have no idea what to say to her." then you would benefit from learning some opening lines. Not that you would recite one in cookbook fashion, but rather to get an idea of what sort of approachs might be appropriate (and you may be lucky; one of the lines may be just right for the situation). Of course, the opening line only gets her attention. In the February 1978 edition of Oui magazine (Oui was then owned by Playboy Enterprises, and was not the trashy rag you see on the stands today), Eric Weber published an article, "Beyond the Opening Line." To paraphrase his opening paragraphs, suppose you walk up to the woman and say: "Haven't I met you somewhere before?" If she replies, "No, thank God!" or "Yes. Let's f*ck!" Then you know what to do. But if she looks you over and says: "I don't know, maybe." then what do you do next? Eric then offered some good ideas for keeping things moving. They helped me. I don't know what more to say. Alot of you guys seem to be rejecting ideas that you haven't even heard. Frank Silbermann
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (06/17/85)
In article <452@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > People do appreciate my ability >to earn a comfortable living, but let's face it -- most of our incomes >are much closer to that of a plumber or crane operator than that of a >physician or an ESTABLISHED lawyer. I don't know what crane operators make these days but I suspect my salary would make an apprentice plumber collapse with laughter. They start at about $30/hr., I'm told, and six-figure incomes are very common among plumbers in general. It's an ancient truism that wealth and intelligence aren't significantly correlated. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 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
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/18/85)
[The referenced article discusses sociobiology, etc.] You should beware, as this is somewhat of the "flame" genre of posting. Now, I don't always agree with the people here who take these behavioristic views of human nature, nor with all the arguments regarding natural selection and its effects on human mate-selection. However, in your article in which you say >There appear to be a lot of amateur sociobiologists out there on the >net. I hope they realize that much of what they're saying is based on >certain half-respectable popularizations by people like Robert Ardrey >(sp?) and his ilk. Just because it's published in Psychology Today >don't make it so. You seem to be strongly espousing the theories of a few people, and thereby claiming others are invalid, largely through name-calling. The problem with psychology, and sociology, and "sociobiology" as you put it, is that these are very inexact sciences. Most psychological research is based on measurement of inherently inexact parameters. As such, it is prone to error. Consider the radically different theories of various aspects of human psychology that exist. But you carry this to an anarchistic extreme, by essentially saying (by allusion to a book you've cited before) that it is impossible to approach these as sciences at all. Furthermore you attempt to argue, again by allusion, that because some "scientific" theories of psychology have been used to bad ends, all of it is invalidated. It is unwise to do this; it is further unwise to assert that people are unable to make hypotheses based on their observations (unless they have read the books you have referenced, at least). Clearly, many hypotheses of people are wrong. This is the nature of science, to make a hypotheses, then attempt to find them right or wrong. The notion that human beings do not have fundamental properties in common with other animals has generally been shown to lead to many more incorrect ideas about the nature of humankind than the opposite. People do have a great deal in common with related animals. The major distinction is that, through rational processes, they can (and often do) rise above primitive motivations. -- Shyy-Anzr: 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 "Fheryl qnloernxf pebff bhe cngu, naq fgnl, znlor, njuvyr..."
sommers@topaz.ARPA (Mamaliz @ The Soup Kitchen) (06/18/85)
I have been sort of mildly following this discussion and I am getting a
little bit pissed off at the technocratic elitism I am seeing (mind you,
I HAVE NOT read every article in the discussion - I must work sometimes.)
The world is not black and white, jocks and nerds, good and bad. Hacking
C is not a requirement for entering heaven. Jocks are not always stupid
and nerds are not always too fat or too skinny or completely clumsy. One
of the brightest men I have ever known (and not a nerd) put himself through
high school, college and a PHD playing (in this order) semi-pro football,
college football, pro football and pro basketball. Sports were a way for him
to leave the ghetto.
When I was in high school (a long time ago and 4 different states) most of
the jocks were also high in the honor society - smart kids were expected to
be well-rounded and healthy. You went to class, you played some sport
(if just for the fun of it) and you played chess at night and on the
weekends. The rest of your time was usually spent in trying to keep your
acne under control and fighting about the length of your hair.
5 members of my graduating class were National Merit Finalists, all but
myself were both athletic and popular (I do not blame my unpopularity on
being a nerd - I blame it on 4 different states in 4 years and my general
level of obnoxisity, political activity and drug abuse).
A lot of people have fallen in love with Calculus (I know I did). A great
many of them are still capable of throwing a frisbee around or playing a
game of touch football.
I am tired of this whining.
--
liz sommers
uucp: ...{harvard, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4!packard}!topaz!sommers
arpa: sommers@rutgersherbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (06/18/85)
In article <236@tove.UUCP> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >In article <1466@watdcsu.UUCP> herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) writes: >>have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills? >>growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact >>with people when you're not allowed to belong. >> >>from sad experience... >>Herb Chong... > >I don't disagree with that statement. But it's far more useful to >work on IMPROVING one's social skills rather than lamenting the "slim >pickings" one has without those skills. i was refering to past, not present. i didn't say that i wasn't doing anything about it now, but everyone else had a head start. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
nessus@nsc.UUCP (Kchula-Rrit) (06/19/85)
>>>I think that's an excuse. Some people with high IQ scores do tend to have >>>problems finding SO's, but I think that's more because they lack social >>>skills than because of a dearth of suitable partners. >> >>have you ever asked yourself why those people lack the social skills? >>growing up being not part of the group makes it very hard to interact >>with people when you're not allowed to belong. >> >>from sad experience... >>Herb Chong... > > I'm coming to realize that this is true for me. I've always taken >great joy in understanding things. When I sat up one night at the begining >of 12th grade and read ahead in the calculus text, and discovered how limits >turn into derivatives, I was ecstatic. Suddenly my whole understanding of the >world had room to expand -- to explode. There's no way I could ever share that >with people. I'd be rejected out of hand -- and I have been. > > Fact is, I have so much anger and hurt stored up over this that sharing >simple things with the people around me is very painful. ... > > What we have is a chasm, seperating the emotional worlds of some >of us highly focused individuals from the emotional worlds of most others. >... > from Mole End Mark Terribile I have this "problem" also. The other people in my last "living" situation couldn't understand that/why I LIKE to play with computers until I fall asleep in my chair. They wanted me to "get away from all those machines and tech freaks and get out and meet some 'real people'". This was usually defined as going out to the bars where I, being basically a quiet and introverted type, would drink my brains out and generally be bored TO TEARS. For a long time I wondered what was wrong with me, but I came to the conclusion that I cannot be what other people want me to be unless it comes from inside. Now, the SO and I have a place to ourselves so we can do what we want without running up against the "herd mentality" that seems so rampant. Fortunately, SO has "come around" and doesn't mind me hacking around with the computer. At least computers don't leak oil that gets all over the house like cars do; I remember my brothers' prime interests all too well,although I sometimes wish they lived near me when the car acts up. This seems to be getting philosophical, so I should stop here... From the alter ego of-- Kchula-Rrit P.S. I've never (knowingly) taken an IQ test partly because I do not believe in them.
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (06/19/85)
> > In this age of > computers and high-technology, it's not the jock that gets the good > job and the classy girls, it's the nerd who once sported the > slide-rule on his belt. > Success is the best revenge. Didn't someone just ask what YUPPIES were???????????????{;-)} -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LIFE IS A TRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (06/19/85)
In article <1092@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >Now, I don't always agree with the people here who take these behavioristic >views of human nature, nor with all the arguments regarding natural selection >and its effects on human mate-selection. > >However, in your article in which you say > >>There appear to be a lot of amateur sociobiologists out there on the >>net. I hope they realize that much of what they're saying is based on >>certain half-respectable popularizations by people like Robert Ardrey >>(sp?) and his ilk. Just because it's published in Psychology Today >>don't make it so. > >You seem to be strongly espousing the theories of a few people, and thereby >claiming others are invalid, largely through name-calling. How's that? What I'm SAYING is that people on the net have a tendency to carry on at great lengths about things they're only half-familiar with. And some of the popularizations I'm putting down are written by people who are neither biologists nor psychologists, or who are considered fringe elements by serious scientists. My authority for making this statement is about three years' graduate work in environmental sciences with a concentration in population biology and terrestrial ecology. I mentioned Ardrey specifically because he was the only popular writer on this subject whose name readily came to mind. >The problem with psychology, and sociology, and "sociobiology" as you put it, >is that these are very inexact sciences. Most psychological research is >based on measurement of inherently inexact parameters. As such, it is prone >to error. Consider the radically different theories of various aspects of >human psychology that exist. "Sociobiology" is not a word of my own coinage, if that's the reason you've put the word in quotes. The postings I reacted to made certain claims about linkages between genotype and behavioral phenotype. Genetics IS much closer to being an exact science than psychology or sociology. Genetics deals with measurable quantities and provides reproducible results. If you doubt this, talk to your local livestock or pet breeder. And the originator of the term "sociobiology," E. O. Wilson, is a respected biologist, not a psychologist or sociologist. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MISUSE OF BIOLOGY AND GENETICS HERE. >But you carry this to an anarchistic extreme, by essentially saying (by >allusion to a book you've cited before) that it is impossible to approach >these as sciences at all. Furthermore you attempt to argue, again by >allusion, that because some "scientific" theories of psychology have been >used to bad ends, all of it is invalidated. Where exactly do I say all of this? You're either misreading what I've said or misquoting me. >It is unwise to do this; it is further unwise to assert that people are unable >to make hypotheses based on their observations (unless they have read the >books you have referenced, at least). Asserting personal observations are scientific hypotheses is both dishonest and dangerous. The big danger is in the misuse of science for political ends, of course. Have you ever heard of Josef Mengele? >Clearly, many hypotheses of people >are wrong. This is the nature of science, to make a hypotheses, then >attempt to find them right or wrong. Just what qualifies the people posting to net.singles to generate "scientific" hypotheses about the genetic origins of human behavior? What these people are doing is using poorly understood half-science to back up their personal opinions and prejudices. >The notion that human beings do not have fundamental properties in common >with other animals has generally been shown to lead to many more incorrect >ideas about the nature of humankind than the opposite. Oh? In what way was I claiming human beings "do not have fundamental properties in common with other animals?" And who exactly has "shown" the generality of the thing you're claiming? >People do have a >great deal in common with related animals. The major distinction is that, >through rational processes, they can (and often do) rise above primitive >motivations. ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ Unfortunately, not often enough, if many of the postings I've seen recently in this group are any indication :-) -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (06/19/85)
In article <2867@nsc.UUCP> nessus@nsc.UUCP (Kchula-Rrit) writes: >going out to the bars where I, being basically a quiet and introverted type, >would drink my brains out and generally be bored TO TEARS. You too?! > Fortunately, SO has "come around" and doesn't mind me hacking around with >the computer. At least computers don't leak oil that gets all over the house >like cars do; I remember my brothers' prime interests all too well,although I >sometimes wish they lived near me when the car acts up. > My SO (who also works with computers) also questioned my not-infrequent extra-curricular use of the computer for leisure purposes, until I responded to her "I don't know how you can sit in front of a tube all day and then come home to the same thing" comment with "Well, would you rather I go wenching?" (Advice: if you use that line, smile when you say it!) -- - joel "vo" plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster "Take what I say in a different way and it's easy to say that this is all confusion."
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (06/19/85)
In article <2309@topaz.ARPA> sommers@topaz.UUCP (Mamaliz @ The Soup Kitchen) writes: > >When I was in high school (a long time ago and 4 different states) most of >the jocks were also high in the honor society - smart kids were expected to >be well-rounded and healthy. You went to class, you played some sport >(if just for the fun of it) and you played chess at night and on the >weekends. The rest of your time was usually spent in trying to keep your >acne under control and fighting about the length of your hair. > >5 members of my graduating class were National Merit Finalists, all but >myself were both athletic and popular (I do not blame my unpopularity on >being a nerd - I blame it on 4 different states in 4 years and my general >level of obnoxisity, political activity and drug abuse). I'm afraid what you're talking about here is the high end of the normal distribution curve. The high school I went to (also long ago) had the highest scholastic rating in Los Angeles at the time. I remember there were always a few sterling examples who were excellent both academically and athletically. There was also a larger group of intellectuals who didn't much care about sports. The great majority of the athletes were average students. On another point, being an athlete doesn't always guarantee popularity. What your sport is has a lot to do with it. I was on the gymnastic team in high school. This was before Olga Korbut was _born_ and most of the school didn't know we _had_ a gym team. Being able to climb a 20' rope in 3.5 seconds from a sitting start did not compensate me for a massive case of acne. Neither did good grades in academic subjects. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (06/20/85)
In article <452@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >In article <trwatf.994> root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) writes: >> >>Oddly enough, the "geeks" who were lousy at sports and ostracised by >>everyone, turned out to be among the most successful. In this age of >>computers and high-technology, it's not the jock that gets the good >>job and the classy girls, it's the nerd who once sported the >>slide-rule on his belt. > >Judging from the complaining I read in this newsgroup, I believe that >techies do NOT such have an easy time attracting "classy" women. > Nor the "classy" men. -- Rob Bernardo, San Ramon, California ihnp4!ptsfa!rob {nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/20/85)
> >Excellent analysis! (no :-) here, I'm serious!) >Not only only have you offered a more logical explanation than mine, >but it leads to great insight on the dynamics of romantic love. >Now, when I am attracted to a woman, one of the first things I will ask >is what her father was like, and what she thought of the relationship. >This will give me a better idea as to what sort of man she's looking for, >and whether I will be able to appeal to her in the long run. > That is if it is a quality in her father that she looks up to. Chris Andersen
akl@leopard.UUCP (Anita ) (06/20/85)
() > > A lot of people have fallen in love with Calculus (I know I did). A great > many of them are still capable of throwing a frisbee around or playing a > game of touch football. > > I am tired of this whining. > > -- > liz sommers Well said, and I definitely agree with you. -- * From the musical keyboard of: ** * * Anita K. Laux leopard!akl * * Bell Communications Research **** 331 Newman Springs Road * * Red Bank, NJ 07701 * * ****
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/21/85)
>> >> A lot of people have fallen in love with Calculus (I know I did). A great >> many of them are still capable of throwing a frisbee around or playing a >> game of touch football. >> >> I am tired of this whining. >> >> -- >> liz sommers > >Well said, and I definitely agree with you. Amen! I agree with you too! All these scrawny wimps who were born with small frames and muscle mass, or who are just too darned interested in other, less important things, like programming computers or wasting their time writing in net.singles when they could be out hurling around little plastic dishes or breaking each other's bones in order to move around an inflated piece of a dead pig on a muddy field all day ought to be naturally deselected by all the wholesome, well-rounded women out there who know an All American Male when they see one, so that in a few generations we'll have a Well Rounded Society! There really are tons of perfect people out there, and to 'eck with those who object to the fact that some people expect everyone to be that way! Oh... by the way... I know there are women out there with large breasts, perfect circumferential dimensions, and an IQ of 170, and, b'gorry, I'm going to remain right here a net.single until I find one of them, too! And I'm tired of women who say "breast size isn't everything". There are plenty of women out there who fit my requirements, so why should I settle for someone who's just warm, intelligent, kind, human, etc., when I can have that AND "large breasts"? In hoc signo vinces [sic]: :-) -- Shyy-Anzr: 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 "Fheryl qnloernxf pebff bhe cngu, naq fgnl, znlor, njuvyr..."
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (06/22/85)
>There appear to be a lot of amateur sociobiologists out there on the >net. I hope they realize that much of what they're saying is based on >certain half-respectable popularizations by people like Robert Ardrey >(sp?) and his ilk. Just because it's published in Psychology Today >don't make it so. > >If you want to talk sociobiology, go read E. O. Wilson's book by the >same title. But be sure and read the volumes of criticism that have >been leveled at his work and the work of other sociobiologists. > >To be specific: I challenge ANY of you to point to a study that's >linked a genetic component to ANY of the behavior you're talking >about. The early chapters of E. O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" say a lot An equally valid comment might be: I challenge ANY of you to point to a study that shows ANY of the behaviour you're talking about NOT to have a genetic component. It's silly to claim that a particular behaviour has no genetic component, since the behaviour depends utterly on the fact that one is a human and not a fish. Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, and more particularly The Extended Phenotype) deals very well with the question of genetic/environmental interaction in behaviour. Even in bacteria, very little behaviour is genetically dictated; it all depends on environmental modification. We are what we have evolved to be, and that includes our patterns of behaviour as well as our skin colour. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/25/85)
> It's silly to claim that a particular behaviour has no genetic component ...
Actually the basic problem here is that this question is a broad philosophical
issue that has been around for centuries in various forms. In one of its
older forms, there was the Lockean notion that the human mind starts out a
"tabula rasa," or blank slate, vs. the notion that we inherit elements of
knowledge (in some ill-defined sense) from our ancestors.
And, fundamental to the problem, too, is that it has become a sociopolitical
one. As such, it is essentially unresolvable, like most of the other issues
of that sort; because there is a widespread feeling about what "should" be
the answer to the question, and much effort to proceed based on that idea.
Unfortunately, it is probably possible to argue, strongly but
hypothetically, for a particular side. Equally unfortunately, whichever
side you argued for [notice I am not taking sides here in this broader
question] would be vehemently opposed by a number of people, who would feel
that you were supporting some dangerous, heretical viewpoint.
And, too, part of the problem is that the "truth" probably lies somewhere
in the middle.
Thus this is likely to become one of those arguments that goes on and on,
generating little new information. Having been the person who originally
complained about the comment on "amateur sociobiologists," I just wanted to
point that out. I don't think further discussion is likely to get anywhere.
--
Shyy-Anzr: 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
"Erny vfgf qba'g hfr Xbqnpuebzr."henrik@topaz.ARPA (Larry DeLuca @ The Soup Kitchen) (06/28/85)
> >> > >> I am tired of this whining. > >> > >> -- > >> liz sommers > > > >Well said, and I definitely agree with you. > > Oh... by the way... I know there are women out there with large breasts, > perfect circumferential dimensions, and an IQ of 170, and, b'gorry, I'm > going to remain right here a net.single until I find one of them, too! > And I'm tired of women who say "breast size isn't everything". There are > plenty of women out there who fit my requirements, so why should I > settle for someone who's just warm, intelligent, kind, human, etc., when > I can have that AND "large breasts"? > > In hoc signo vinces [sic]: :-) > -- > Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos *** REPLACE YOUR TONGUE BEFORE SOMEONE STEPS ON IT *** You just blew your big chance, luser. IQ -- 186. BQ -- 38D. FQ (Frisbee quotient) -- 50 feet. Of course, she's married... larry...
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/02/85)
> Oh... by the way... I know there are women out there with large breasts, > perfect circumferential dimensions, and an IQ of 170, and, b'gorry, I'm > going to remain right here a net.single until I find one of them, too! > And I'm tired of women who say "breast size isn't everything". There are > plenty of women out there who fit my requirements, so why should I > settle for someone who's just warm, intelligent, kind, human, etc., when > I can have that AND "large breasts"? > > In hoc signo vinces [sic]: :-) > -- > Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos I think this is just the point that has been brought up about women still being judged by the "immature high-school standards" of beauty. I am 18, 5'9", 38D, red hair, green eyes, a large and noticeable personality (I have to keep it on a leash), IQ astronomical--and if all someone's after is my body, I RUN, not walk, in the other direction. AMBAR "You shouldn't let people drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance."
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (07/03/85)
Jean D. (AMBAR) at the Indian Hill LPG writes: > I think this is just the point that has been brought up about women > still being judged by the "immature high-school standards" of beauty. Now, this is really embarassing, to have a blatant parody on my part be misinterpreted as serious!!! Wasn't it obvious I was just turning around the "there are lots of men out there who are football heroes as well as everything else" to what I always considered the male equivalent of idolizing athletes, i.e., women with "large breasts"? I mean, you know, men with large upper torsos... real "hunks"... that sort of thing. The quote at the bottom, in which I probably misspelled "vinces" since I don't know how to spell Latin, says, "In this sign, conquer", followed by the well-known :-) symbol. (Some military leader from European history, I think maybe Charlemagne, was supposedly riding along on a horse one day and saw that written in the clouds). By which I intended to indicate that the whole thing was to be taken very non-seriously. Personally, I have always thought the fascination with "large breasts" was rather stupid. But then, so is the fascination with the football types... [I am tempted to tell a sad story here, but I will resist.] -- Shyy-Anzr: 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 "Cvpgherf unatvat va n unyyjnl ba gur sentzragf bs n fbat"
jordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes) (07/03/85)
In article <323@azure.UUCP> chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) writes: >Frankly, I think that any overabundent physical attribute is *too* >much. Small breast are just as sexy (if not sexier) then large >breasts. But I'm not a breast man. To me the sexiest physical >attribute is either eyes, or legs. Personally, I agree. I'd actually say that small-er (rather than large-r) breasts are mouch more sexy. I'd like to think I'm a "breast-man" but everyone else says that I'm an "ass-man"... ------------ jordan: "(something stupid)..." joe_blow: "Jordan, you're an ass, man..." :-) ------------ Jordan Hayes jordan@ucb-vax.BERKELEY.EDU UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan +1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (07/08/85)
>In article <323@azure.UUCP> chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) writes: > >>Frankly, I think that any overabundent physical attribute is *too* >>much. Small breast are just as sexy (if not sexier) then large >>breasts. But I'm not a breast man. To me the sexiest physical >>attribute is either eyes, or legs. By the way, someone wrote me a letter asking me not to start up the "big breast vs. little breast" discussion again. Well, since I've only started to use the net in the last two months, I wasn't here when this was last done, but I get the impression that it filled more space then was nescessary. Anyways, I don't want to be the start of a long and lasting discussion that falls down to a nasty level (such as a previous discussion on bathroom behaviour did). If you feel you have something real to contribute to the net as a whole regarding this topic, then respond in this newsgroup, otherwise respond to me directly through E-Mail. Thanks. Chris Andersen
greg@ncr-tp.UUCP (Greg Noel) (07/13/85)
In article <736@ihlpg.UUCP> jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) writes: >I am 18, 5'9", 38D, red hair, green eyes, a large and noticeable >personality (I have to keep it on a leash), IQ astronomical-- > AMBAR My three addictions are (a) tall women, (b) red-haired women, and (c) long-haired women. You don't say how long your hair is, but "two out of three ain't bad." High IQ is attractive to me -- after all, Mensans do it intelligently. (Sorry, Jerry.) I also like green eyes -- some of my ancestors were Irish, so it must be hereditary. I'm neutral about the 38D; I'm the exception that proves the rule, since I incline toward slender women. In fact, the only statistic that I find troublesome is that you're only eighteen. Um, don't take this badly or anything, Jean, but did you inherit these characteristics from your mother? Is she single? If a smiley-face indicates humor, what indication does one use to indicate whimsy? -- -- Greg Noel, NCR Torrey Pines Greg@ncr-tp.UUCP or Greg@nosc.ARPA