It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Attack on Intelligent people.

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


That you think there is a "war of the sexes" is in itself a pervasive male-bias in science clearly demonstrated in language.




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I have a feeling that a lot of intelligent children in this country only grow up with confidence in their mental capacities instead of themselves in total...while not fully developing social skills as an effect of that. I say this because I am one of those people. I find intelligence far superior to any physical trait and do not care about my appearance. I had years of hating myself, being self concious, and being extremely socially anxious...why? Because intelligence "isn't enough" and people judge based on outward apppearances (and if you like to think for yourself, forget about it). I had friends, yes, but the disconnect between the 2 seems to be enough to make people (especially men) cower from coming out of ther shell...or even having the desire to.

Not because they can't, because deep down they don't want to settle for someone stupid, vapid, and egotistical. They realize their intelligence is worth something. That mixed with being socially akward in the formative years, it's hard to find a group (or someone) to support them while they grow into that attractive person who can express themselves and knows what they want (and can show others that without driving them away).

I was fortunate to find a man who is extremely intelligent, handsome, non-competitive, and a "feminist" at heart (he respects women and has never said one ill thing against us). All I know is that it took years before that to force myself to have enough confidence in something other than my intelligence... and to ALLOW MYSELF to be happy.

And who knows? Perhaps only having confidence in one's intelligence drives one to heights where finding a partner and having children isn't a priority. OR you have the man who thinks he is smarter than everyone and has an ego, which is also a huge reppelant.

Overall, honestly, I think the study is a little skewed. There are so many variables and that leads to speculation. All I know is that there is a growing "cult of ignorance" in this country and it's become fashionable to be stupid and not think for yourself.....(I could go into how mass media may be to blame...or our horrible competitive spirit--stereotypes ruin real love and connection, yearning for something not real, etc)

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
~Isaac Asimov



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
..
EVERY generation says things like what you posted. Every Single One. Dear Abby once printed a letter about exactly that. The letter was from Ancient Rome, translated to modern English.

Still adults grasping at straws about why they are angry about not getting laid. The smart teenagers in the study eventually negotiate perfectly fine sexual relations. Which makes it more likely that they will breed. Just not when they are teenagers. Which is also a selection advantage, because teenage pregnancies are more likely to have adverse outcomes.




do you believe i'm actually trying to play the missionary? of course not, otherwise i'd fall into one category of insanity by repeating the same over and over again while expecting a different result.

as far as i can tell, reproduction has assumed a role of the afterlife in classic religions, why do you care so much if your 'seed' lives on? is that really a healthy motivation or one just vainglory trying to defy death? i find this line of thought quite amusing in what advertises itself as a materialistic culture, just saying.


i find it strange how this accusation of anger gets trotted out at every ever so slight form of criticism. newsflash, you're either apathetic and uncaring (maybe even hedonistic?) or a zealot, a radical or any other cussword du jour. say what you want, positions are well established for all i care and if i'm damned if i do and damned if i don't, i might as well choose along the lines of preference rather than ideology.

i have no reason to be angry, because i have abandoned you and what you stand for, mentally speaking. just for the record, shouldn't old curmudgeons do all the sour talk? do you believe none of the issues i listed will have any lasting effect? hope dies last i know but really, brushing it all off just because something you deem similar has been said before just means you're unwilling to even consider any point. the exalted belief that society will stand tall forever just because is unfounded, to say the least and your view of mandatory conformity is just as bad as i originally feared it was. the 20th century is full of regimes embracing similar values and the results were pretty spectacular, but there was a significant downside: i'll take it you have heard of WW1+2? maybe it was a fun time to live in, (especially for those who stayed behind), maybe it wasn't, but if people are so obnoxiously unwilling to listen and policies are ever more (visibly) out of whack, maybe in time we will all have to reiterate that experience for all the valuable lessons such times teach, like humility, which is such a precious attribute, maybe you'll be able to appreciate it once it reaches your heart... but please don't construe this as a wish on my part, because i frankly don't care anymore.


ignorance is bliss they say, but i feel the need to add that it's also quite fragile.
edit on 2011.3.5 by Long Lance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Idiocracy rung true for me.

I am a high IQ, career female. I was sold the dream that I could do it all.

I can't. I support my partner - I dont feel our financial situation would support a child...I need security to bring a child onto the planet.

I am now 39 and will have no chance of children.




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by stellify
 


That's a choice. If its idiocracy, and it is a choice you made......



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


You can call it sexist if you will. I am going to flat out say that you feel that way because you are ignorant of the science, and it appears your desire to hold on to your belief system will keep you that way.

There are many female scientists and researchers in fact one of the most famous in the field of love and sex id a female. en.wikipedia.org... . The idea of a "war between the sexes" is still in existence because that is what we actually see. A reproductive war. I cant make you educate yourself. But I will tell you you are wrong. Perhaps you simply dont believe in evolution, but evolution puts all of us in a form of competition with one another.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Sorry - I usually ignore your comments because I find you unnecessarily agressive.

Yes, it's a choice I made and your point is?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by stellify
 


Thank you for not bringing a child into the wold you weren't sure you could financially handle. The only issue is, and it's sad, that people of high intelligence (such as yourself) will rationalize their decision... while people on the other end of the spectrum may not.

Perhaps things will change for you, and you will be able to adopt and change a child's life for the better. (I am sorry to go out on a limb, I don't want to be insulting, just positive).



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by donatellanator
 


Thanks. I get involved.

My mother has fostered disadvantaged kids since my dad died.

A wee boy has come into play - he's lovely...was beaten by his mother and stepfather and is a good kid. He has some challenging behaviour, but is able to rationalise his experiences well.

We want him to stay with our family...I am playing with the idea of adoption!



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stellify
reply to post by donatellanator
 


Thanks. I get involved.

My mother has fostered disadvantaged kids since my dad died.

A wee boy has come into play - he's lovely...was beaten by his mother and stepfather and is a good kid. He has some challenging behaviour, but is able to rationalise his experiences well.

We want him to stay with our family...I am playing with the idea of adoption!


That is great to hear! What an uplift to the community to give such service. There are so many children out there who need help. I wish you the best with your decision.

I hope to have children some day and adopt at least one (if for some reason I can't have children of my own I'd adopt)...but shhh don't tell my fiancee I want a big family.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by donatellanator
 


Maybe a dumber humanity overall will not be such a bad thing.

I read a book once called "Towards a more natural science" and part of the argument contained in it was the simple truth that it is the intelligent that cause us to be out of balance with nature, and it is the intelligent that have figured out clever ways to exploit one another, and maybe we are a little too smart for our own good.


I dont know, I withhold judgment. But it was a line of reasoning I had never considered before. As someone with a higher IQ I had always assumed that if everyone was smarter we would have no problems. But he pointed out how generally happy and gentle and content those with Down Syndrome are. It made me think about it in a more open minded way.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Your sexism is showing. I htink we should just face the fact that women discriminate against men for physical reasons just like men discriminate against women for physical reasons and the "ickiness" to use your term, of some men to women is stuff they have little or no control over, and has nothing to do with whether or not they hate women. Men become instantly more attractive merely by having the scent of another woman on him, or by being seen with women acting interested in him, indicating that the "clique" effect is part of the equation. (ie; if the other girls like him, he must be ok)



you know what, none of this matters, since (again)

There is No Right to Get Laid

i have so far (almost with contempt) rejected a couple of women, not because they were disgusting ( or 'icky'
) not because they didn't have friends or were inexperienced or something, but due to a pronounced Lack of Interest on my part. sorry, that's my right as much as it is theirs.

PS: my observation regarding crowd weirdness was slightly different, namely that mating was negotiated between two groups, which unfortunately turned me off to no end, at men AND women, because this behavior is not just unnatural, from what i understand (context included) it is the result of that miscreant 'philosophy' a certain poster is engaged in here, which views every interaction in life as a variation of war.

let me just say if that is what you want, bring your poison, cloak and dagger and your army, but don't mess up the entire concept of relationships. my guess is that people who understand they would be cut into ribbons in actual conflict will resort to a tactic similar to poisoning the well. on the long run, escalation will happen, though - no regrets on my part, no matter my own fate.
edit on 2011.3.5 by Long Lance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
you know what, none of this matters, since (again)

There is No Right to Get Laid


Im not sure why you are suggesting I was saying that getting laid is right. I would be very surprised if I had said that, because I am, as should be obvious by many of my arguments, quite the student and fan if you will of natural selection. And......................you dont have a right to survival. Its a competition, and you WIN it, you arent guaranteed it just by being born.

Im not sure what your point was with your rejection of some females. Just like a small percentage of humanity is homosexual, there appears to be a small percentage of humanity, (and other species as well) who are asexual, and really have no desire to mate at all, with anyone.

Perhaps you fall into that category if you have no desire to participate in the mating game. Some people who do identify as asexual use terminology like you do, and appear to be disgusted by the whole thing.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by donatellanator
 


Maybe a dumber humanity overall will not be such a bad thing.

I read a book once called "Towards a more natural science" and part of the argument contained in it was the simple truth that it is the intelligent that cause us to be out of balance with nature, and it is the intelligent that have figured out clever ways to exploit one another, and maybe we are a little too smart for our own good.


I dont know, I withhold judgment. But it was a line of reasoning I had never considered before. As someone with a higher IQ I had always assumed that if everyone was smarter we would have no problems. But he pointed out how generally happy and gentle and content those with Down Syndrome are. It made me think about it in a more open minded way.


Not to be harsh, but I totally disagree with that theory. They are siding with the fact that almost all people of intelligence are inclined to exploitation and have a disconnect with nature. This isn't true.

If you have a bunch of "stupid people breeding" and that is the majority of the reproductive population, Can you IMAGINE the implications on our society?? We'd be back to the dark ages, and I am not being dramatic. As the intelligent populace slowly dies off, the ignorant will "inherit the earth"... billions upon billions more mouths to feed while there is no "spark" of ingenuity anywhere. Maybe you should read "Atlas Shrugged"... and come back to me on this theory.

UHM........ One other note, I have volunteered extensively with severely disabled children and "happy and gentle and content" isn't always the case. What an ignorant statement that author makes. There are so many sides and ugly truths about disability most have no idea about. It's quite sad. I think you need to explore other ideas and think this through.
edit on 5-3-2011 by donatellanator because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by donatellanator
 


Well, part of his argument was that the road we are on now, may lead us to the complete extinction of our species.

And that while "dumb people breeding" might set us back technologically, our numbers were relatively stable before our technology increased significantly, and we were less likely to go completely extinct at a lower level of technology.

Not that I am defending the argument. Just offering it. I like to think about things from more than one position, and I have to say, the author really did build a very good case.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by donatellanator
 


Well, part of his argument was that the road we are on now, may lead us to the complete extinction of our species.

And that while "dumb people breeding" might set us back technologically, our numbers were relatively stable before our technology increased significantly, and we were less likely to go completely extinct at a lower level of technology.

Not that I am defending the argument. Just offering it. I like to think about things from more than one position, and I have to say, the author really did build a very good case.


Please read Atlas Shrugged. I don't agree with all of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but there is truth in it. I think it takes thi subject full circle. Long book though.


* Atlas Shrugged is the "second most influential book for Americans today" after the Bible, according to a joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club

edit on 5-3-2011 by donatellanator because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by donatellanator
 


You are assuming I havent. I majored in Philosophy.

You also, for someone with a high IQ, having trouble with the idea that I can present someones argument without endorsing it. How many times do I need to say that I am not advocating his position, merely throwing it out there because there is more than one way to think about the issue.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Long Lance
you know what, none of this matters, since (again)

There is No Right to Get Laid


Im not sure why you are suggesting I was saying that getting laid is right. I would be very surprised if I had said that, because I am, as should be obvious by many of my arguments, quite the student and fan if you will of natural selection. And......................you dont have a right to survival. Its a competition, and you WIN it, you arent guaranteed it just by being born.

Im not sure what your point was with your rejection of some females. Just like a small percentage of humanity is homosexual, there appears to be a small percentage of humanity, (and other species as well) who are asexual, and really have no desire to mate at all, with anyone.

Perhaps you fall into that category if you have no desire to participate in the mating game. Some people who do identify as asexual use terminology like you do, and appear to be disgusted by the whole thing.


you said, that some men were cruelly left out,for no fault of their own - well, that's what they feel, it's not what the women who rebuffed them felt. my experience was of course reversed (being male and all, d'uh). i didn't enjoy rejecting them and i have no idea how they felt, but if i had, i wouldn't have affected my decision in the slightest.

cruel maybe, the lesser evil, too.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by donatellanator
 


You are assuming I havent. I majored in Philosophy.

You also, for someone with a high IQ, having trouble with the idea that I can present someones argument without endorsing it. How many times do I need to say that I am not advocating his position, merely throwing it out there because there is more than one way to think about the issue.



Argh. I got disconnected andmy reply vanished. ^^

I never said you endorsed it. I was merely repeating myself because the suggestion was buried in the first post. I don' understand why on ATS the most minute misunderstanding leads to insults. I am glad you read it.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

you said, that some men were cruelly left out,for no fault of their own - well, that's what they feel, it's not what the women who rebuffed them felt.


Actually that is not what I said. What I said was,



Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Some men get selected against in the mating game for no fault of their own, and its cruel of you, and dishonest, to suggest otherwise. Some are selected against because they are physically unattractive, of low social status, disabled, etc., and often those are things they cannot change.


It was in reply to an argument put forth by Aeons that men who had trouble getting laid were responsible for that by virtue of their hatred of women.

I wasnt making any statement whatsoever that the men felt a certain way, but I was pointing out that Aeons was in some cases blaming the victim. Some of the men who are rejected by females for dating purposes are not woman haters, and they are very nice guys, and they are rejected for reasons that they cannot control.

I dont think I would say that the fact that some people get skipped over for mating purposes is "cruel" in and of itself, it just is what it is. I feel badly for those who want to date and cannot, but nature is not cruel, only indifferent. People can be cruel, and Aeons argument that generalized men who dont get laid as being women haters was cruel, and untrue.




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join