[net.social] Looks, Brains, and Love

diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) (06/18/85)

Life and our social interactions are anything but simple.  Each society
and subculture creates its own variations on the central themes
established sometime in our prehistory.  Thus, we find a wide variety of
courtship rituals, matchmaking schemes, and bondings in vogue around the
world.  Rather than looking simply at the solutions common to our
immediate surroundings, it is edifying to consider in the broader scope
what function such differing patterns might have.

First, net writers have been debating the significance of looks in the
process of selecting SOs.  Consider, for a moment, life in a small
society where the skills necessary for survival were limited in number
and possessed by many of the members of the society.  While the ability
to support one's family would certainly be important (as would
sociability, cooperativeness, etc.), physical appearance may very well
be decisive.  For one thing it might be a sign of health and vigor,
surely strong characteristics (even in our far less physical society).
In addition, general social values tend to favor certain physical
attributes if only from seeking the features of admired elders (parents,
uncles or aunts, tribal chiefs and other leaders).  In general, it seems
probable that selection of mates for physical characteristics goes back
a long way in our species.  (It is, by the way, Robert Ardrey's primary
contention that humans are more similar in their social behavior to
other animals than we generally care to admit.  No social,
anthropological, or biological evidence in recent years refutes that
claim.)

Second, there is a considerable spread of opinion on the role that
intelligence plays in selection of partners.  In modern American
society, we are stratified in many more ways than our hypothetical
society above.  There is the educational bias (college educated vs high
school -- even public college vs private), economic bias, regional bias,
racial bias, religious bias, etc.  One thing that is common, however, is
that intelligence applies to specific environments; few of us would
succeed in the streets of New York or Chicago or other large urban
center.  Few trained artisans could be successful in the labs and
offices of a high-tech corporation.  Yet, within their normal
environments, each group demonstrates considerable savvy, appropriate
interpersonal skills, and reaps rewards commensurate with expectations.
Also within their strata, each is considered suitable as a partner and
provides a comfortable level of family life.

If you mean by intelligence that you see what is of "true" value in
human life while others around you devote their thoughts to the
"mundane," perhaps it is you whose horizons need espansion.  It is very
wonderful to consider the dynamic forces in the universe, the
mathematical foundations of modern physics, the marvelous intricacies of
the latest electronic microcircuit.  Yet the person who is excited about
a vacation, his or her dog's latest trick or child's tooth is responding
to wonderful events, too.  It is not a difference in intelligence, it is
one of value.

Third, there is a question of ability to relate socially.  I suspect
that this issue rises in part from the two previosly discussed.  A
common thread among the writers to the net on this issue is that by
looks, intelligence, or innate shyness people have felt themselves
separated from the mass of society.  Is that really an uncommon feeling?
I don't think so.  Most people tend to think of themselves as unique in
one or more ways.  Still, to "get along" they study to understand how
others think, what others find interesting or important, and if not to
be like everyone else at least to have sympathy with others' points of
view.  This process can take a fairly long time and be accompanyed by
considerable feelings of loneliness and depression.

I used to see myself as so unusual and complex that no one could ever
understand me.  To some extent that view was correct, but what I had
overlooked was that there were caring people who were willing to
understand what they could and accept the rest.  I have many truly
wonderful and generous friends today.  But I give something in return;
my efforts to understand and accept each one of them.

Finally, there is the question of what we seek in our SOs.  To the
greater extent, we seek ourselves.  The more we come to understand
ourselves, the more we are able to define what is important in the
person (people) with whom we most intimately relate.  We seek some
similarities (you wouldn't want to go out with non-movie-lover if you
wer simply "mad" about cinema, would you?), but grow in our admiration
for different ways of viewing life.  We seek partners with whose
physical attributes and "intelligence" we feel comfortable.  One cannot
expect to find the perfect balance of qualities on the first encounter
or even after many encounters.  There is always a necessary compromise
(or two or three) in our "ideal" lists.  We're not (nearly) perfect
ourselves, so our SOs are making compromises, too.

For those shy persons (who are making great profits for Powdermilk
Biscuits), spend a lot of time listening.  Gauge the interests and
attitudes of those with whom you'd like to develop closer relationships.
If you are going to ask someone to go out with you, try MOTAS about whom
you have some sense.  Usually, someone who has a mutual interest in
*you* will give some type of signal of that interest.  Sociability is
not something anyone is born with, but those who acknowledge the reality
of humans' need for one another's company learn the necessary skills.
To the more sheltered of us, it often seems a totally alien form of
behavior.  But even those social butterflies have secret fears: of
rejection, of loneliness, of never having a long-term relationship.
What I say is, "Don't let idealistic pickiness stand in the way of your
happiness."

You get one life.  There are bound to be disappointments, even
tragedies, in that experience.  But there is plenty of fun, romance, and
love to go around.  One thing's for sure, though -- people don't care
for people who don't care for themselves.  I've known folks over the
years who were not graced with "movie star" looks, great cleverness, or
high ambitions.  Still they respected themselves, were warm and selfless
towards their friends, and have always had strong positive relationships
with their SOs.  It's perspective, and most of our lives can be spent
refining it.  You balance reality with your dreams.  What you get tells
you how you're doing.