I wrote this before the topic got off-track, was going to delete it, but decided to post it anyway. It's too long for the other forum, though, so I'm going to save it from the depths by putting it here. This discussion began here and lasted a few pages.


Say it with me, everyone. Correlation is not causation.

OK, I'll say it again.

Correlation is not causation.

The claim that smart girls are ignored or feared is dubious in and of itself (I know that I barely give the time of day to a girl if I don't think they're at least somewhat intelligent, but I'll listen/hang out/do whatever comes up with a smart girl regardless of what they look like). But that's actually immaterial. The idea that they are ignored or feared, stated as such, implies they are ignored or feared BECAUSE they are smart. That's a logical fallacy. A rather unnecessary one.

You constantly peg us as (in all probability) creepy and ugly. Well, that implies that you believe that as guys get smarter the chances of them being creepy and ugly increase. If you think that relationship between those variables exists, why is it so hard for you to make the leap that the same exact thing would hold for women? To clarify, I don't think that (I think the opposite, in fact) -- but your logic is circular and self-defeating. On the whole talk about independent women... I don't "fear" liberation-themed, independent women. I just wouldn't want to date one that's particularly vocal and forthright about it, because we'd disagree on things so often that the relationship would be argument-prone to an extreme degree. Part of dating is trying to find someone you can have fun with while minimizing confrontation. This is another point -- what if smart girls/smart guys avoid smart people because they feel that it invites more confrontation, ADB? Again. I don't believe that either. But I think it's just as likely as what you're asserting. Speaking of which...



What about all those factors? What if being smarter means that there's less of a chance that one is always honest? (Not an entirely incorrect assertion, though not rock-solid; the most habitual little-white-liars I know are also some of the smartest, because they're finding a pareto optimal social decision set from a set of choices of what to say.) What if intelligence leads to, often, decreased common sense? (Okay, we all know that for a lot of people here this is completely, utterly true. Increased intelligence does usually as a trade off (at least at our age) imply lessened common sense. Not always, but usually.) What if being smarter leads to decreased devotion? (The realization that you could get the same with someone else could tend to come earlier for smarter people, and as thus, smarter people could be less devoted.)

Your posts in this topic remind me of my friends' grandfather. He would see the statistics on how well Asians do on tests and complain about affirmative action. The statistics he was looking at overrepresented upper-class Asians, and if you controlled for other variables, the relationship between race and test scores is marginal to nonexistant. But nobody could dissuade him of his opinion; he was looking at a two variable model (race and intelligence) where the reality of the matter is a multivariate landscape of options and choices, where true analysis requires accounting for all other variables and more math than you can shake a stick at. Your posts in this topic are a gross oversimplification of the multivariate system that is dating. It's not like men as a whole look at women and date them based on how smart they are; there's such a huge variety of factors that go into how individuals choose who to date that trying to isolate one or two "key" variables is about as profitable as buying stock in the newspaper industry.

There is an awfully high correlation between the price of rum in the Havana black market and the salaries of Presbyterian ministers in Massachusetts. But that doesn't mean all of Havana's bartenders are sitting at their desks ctrl-F5-ing MA salary estimates. Sometimes false relationships between actually independent variables exist -- you can argue (quite effectively) that they are related, but you cannot categorically deny that your assertion is false. Because nobody can, and doing so makes you look more than a little juvenile.

I remember when you showed me the quote about MA and Havana in your book. Is it How to Lie Using Statistics? Anyway, interesting statistical approach there. You make a good point on a whole.

I think this post won the topic.

In all seriousness, I don't think anybody wanted to make it a battle of the sexes. I think many guys on this forum are both intelligent AND in possession of more valuable traits: honesty, morals, and above all, respect for women. It annoys us in the extreme when these traits are not appreciated, either by the objects of affection or by those with whom they associate.

I don't think your largely statistical approach works here, nor do I think you totally understood what I originally meant. But, nonetheless, I won't argue the point any further.

So, as soon as that whole debate ended, this girl I'm friends with and sorta kinda like goes on AIM and starts telling me about her obsession with this guy she doesn't know, thus setting back my opinion of women in general a few months.

Actually, I think Dr. Roffles' statistical approach works amazingly well here, and his post is an amazing post that shall now be preserved as a gem of DDT's reasoning power.

Yep. Darrell Huff's book. Incredibly outdated (the section on political polls might as well be ignored, or read only because of how enjoyable Huff is to read), but also one of the most engaging statistics texts I've ever read. Anybody here who likes stats should try picking it up from their college library. If you ask a few stats teachers, one of them is bound to have it.


As is your wont. Hey, I don't actually think you're entirely wrong -- this is sort of like what happens whenever I talk politics with my objectivist friends. Just because I don't entirely disagree with you doesn't mean I like how it's being presented...

Also, I might as well change my name back at this point. I'm Roffles for life here.

EDIT: Woah, who changed the title? Ha.

So, back on topic, guys.

The last half hour or so of conversations I've had has removed the tiny bit of faith I once had in the fairer sex.

Don't be so cynical. There are wonderful women out there; even good people make mistakes.

In other words, I foresee in the near future a thread of epic brilliance being defiled by an epic-fail conversation about the word "noob". Nope, not happening.

I'm actually not worried about what people i never met think about me.

Yeah, way to ignore the post above you.

I know it's ridiculous to think there aren't any girls who are... good?... but it's hard for me. I'm constantly disappointed.

Oh sorry. Ixnay on the abnooay.

I know what you mean. At the moment I often think there's almost nobody in the world who really cares about doing what's right and respecting other people, especially when it comes to relationships. But ultimately I have to tell myself not to stoop to their level, and to hold to my core beliefs: that people do deserve chances (no one is perfect), and that devoting yourself to being good to another is a great part of life.

(I think I'm rehashing our Facebook chat last night )

It just gets ridiculous when girls admit they know a guy is an smurf, and then still find him really attractive. And all the excuses when it's really just superficiality! "He seems cool," what does that even mean? That means you think he's hot, is what it means.

/truncated rant

Long story short...don't date anybody and live your life as a hermit away from society. It'll save you a bunch of unnecessary headaches.

If your post is serious, this is the first time I have ever disagreed with you. True, the hermit thing works for a while, but there are plenty of really nice people out there to have as friends, etc.

Smurf Thoreau.

would have been the greatest cartoon character ever.


anyway.


i don't understand dating drama. I'm on my second girlfriend in my life and we have been together almost 3 years now, i don't find it "difficult" to maintain a relationship or anything like that. i just, i don't know, don't get it.

Protip: It's harder to maintain a relationship when it's actually with a girl.


BUUUURRRRN!

I'm not a hermit, so obviously I wasn't being serious.

But once you've moved past the "high school" phase of relationships, you tend to run into a lot of...ARGH. And SMURF.

you wear argyle vests and fraternize with disney leaf sculptures. how are you not a hermit?

Yeah, you never run into that in high school.

High school is a magical land, without drama and any quantity of Argh. What are you talking about? I remember nothing of the sort in high school. As the resident dude-rapidly-turning-into an old and critical man, I will back OCM up on this one. Forever.

Gotcher back, Terry. Fogies gotta represent the true fax.

like RM's illegitimate children?
inb4 everyone else on this one.

I entirely agree. In fact, if girls tend to peg smart guys as "creepy" and "ugly", isn't it just as likely that this stems from the same fear of intelligence that you accuse men of harboring? Worth thinking about.


I do not agree with this part. How does being smarter make you have less common sense? That doesn't make common sense to me. Furthermore, as a person who greatly values both intellectual ability and the emotional/moral attribute of devotion to one's partner, I would say that someone does not recognize the moral values of devotion and honesty is also lacking in a certain form of intelligence.


Excellent point. It's impossible to tell how smart someone is when you don't know them (or sometimes even when you know them pretty well). I know many people who are "smart" in the stereotypical sense of being academically successful, but whom I would not consider among the best minds because they make no effort to consider their values, beliefs and actions---and how those things affect others---beyond a superficial level.

Hm. Well, I actually agree with you here in the sense that man is endowed with a certain amount of moral intelligence. That is, purely academic intelligence does not, perhaps, make a man intelligent to the furthest degree of his being -- to get there, one needs a certain moral acumen that you describe. However, what I mean with the common sense has to do with book smarts versus street smarts. I know plenty of people who are really, really smart but who couldn't navigate around a bad neighborhood to save their lives. The extreme example of this would be people like my brother, who have disorders like Aspergers that make them extremely lacking in common sense but extremely smart in academic subjects.

I think that, personally, most people who are very smart do end up lacking a bit in common sense by necessity. The time we spend sitting and reading and studying is time that others spend getting out into the world and learning things the hard way. I mean, certainly, we aren't terribly off or anything... but I would think (personally) that some objective measure of intelligence (of which the human race has yet to produce) probably has a slight negative correlation with any objective measure of the sort of "common sense" I'm thinking of. If not a strictly negative correlation, I'd look at my view of it as a stratified correlation; perhaps a strong positive at lower intelligence, neutral at middling intelligence, but negative at very high intelligence. I'd think that's fair, wouldn't you? It's all my opinion, granted, but I don't think it's altogether irrational or ill advised.

I think you're right about moral values, but be careful there. That's connecting a specific morality with a specific intelligence. The problem presented here is the same that Dostoevsky presents in The Possessed (great book, everyone go read it) with Stavrogin. He's quite possibly the most depraved, soulless, morally lacking character in all of literature -- but he is not a villain, he is the generalized protagonist. And his morality does not really affect his intelligence in any significant philosophic way. There is a great danger in connecting objective intelligence with a specific, standardized morality -- none exist. Depravity can be moral if given the right circumstances. And while I think you're right, that's only because you and I share the same relatively strict and often slightly puritanical view of morality. I would cede instantly that if we differed on this, I would disagree with you greatly. As I do not, there's no issue between us on that one -- but I do think there very easily could be, if you know what I mean. Definitely disagree with placing some hyperrational construct on our shared conclusion here...

I intensely dislike the term "street smarts". I think it's a stereotype with no substantive meaning that's been engineered to create a sense of superiority for academically and intellectually deficient people. There's an incredibly broad range of knowledge and skills that people can possess, and it can't be neatly broken down into "book smarts" and "street smarts". Despite having a reputation as relatively intelligent, I'd never dream of claiming a natural instinct for literary criticism, fashionable decor, or athletic training. All of these instincts fall under different categories of intelligence. Now, I do think you have a point about people not developing common sense if they don't get enough hands-on experience in the "real world" (although again that's a tricky term---what exactly is part of the real world and what isn't?) But it's important to remember that so-called real-world experience can easily lead us to faulty conclusions (see the political-economic beliefs of most members of the working class).

I wouldn't say I connect objective intelligence with a specific morality, although I do firmly adhere to (as you said) rather puritanical views. Rather, I connect it with the ability to intellectually consider one's moral beliefs, allow them to evolve, and justify them. A person who considers morals irrelevant due to the supremacy of rationality and science is, I would say, missing out on one of the most important aspects of rational thought and intelligence.

Several recent studies say we prefer hunkier men when fertile

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18077810

Other studies say you can tell when we're fertile

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626255.100-lap-dancers-in-heat-are-the-ones-to-watch.html

Who cares as long as we have fun?

Probably one of the greatest scientific article names ever

I believe that any good relationship has to start with an intellectual connection. I am fortunate to have such a relationship now.



p.s Dr. Roffles is one of few who can use my signature emoticon (sunglasses guy)

First of all, I must say I totally agree with Abuelo on the point of great relationships starting with an intellectual connection.

Second, I'm intrigued by all the jaded cynicism in this thread about opposite sex relationships, especially from so many who admit to a lack of experience. Guys run into the same problems as girls. Guys complain about girls who go after the sexy bad boy who's no good for them, while girls complain about the guys who go after the airhead who can't remember how to spell her first name. I think the bottom line is that people do strange things when it comes to the struggle between basic instincts and something more sustaining than increased blood flow.

in other news WHAT THE smurf IS THAT IN YOUR HAND MONICA

That's what she said........?
("she" apparently is Monica's mom......)

I was going to respond to this and then never got around to it for some reason...

I'm not sure relationships need to start with an "intellectual" connection, but definitely a mental or emotional one rather than purely physical. I completely agree that guys and girls often face the same problems, although I think the different sexes do have different bad tendencies...Essentially, a lot of people just do stupid things and don't care enough about their fellow human beings, which is reinforced by society's shallow and dismissive attitudes toward relationships. But that doesn't mean relationships aren't worth anything, which I think is the most important thing to remember, despite all the pain I've been going through.

Dude, Coke >>>>>>>>>>> Mountain Dew

I just would like to bump this topic in order to remind everyone about Monica and Mountain Dew.

The few of us who were around for that anyway.

Monica is awesome because she tried to buy me a pizza. And she sent me a letter (kinda)

necessary gravedig.