The Attack on Intelligent people.

reply to post by Aeons

Does it hurt your head to be that disingenuous? Or does it come naturally?

Are you naturally an ignorant shill?

Or is that something you have to work hard on every day?

If it makes you feel better, I am distantly related to the woman in the picture. I'd prefer to be related to the character.

Most misandrists would.

That smart teenage boys may not loose their virginity until they get a bit older is not the same thing as adult men who can't get laid because they are arrogant women-hating jackasses and it shows.

Oh?

So, you are attacking Intelligent men who are not that practiced at sexual relationships, by labeling them AS AXIOM as "woman hating jackasses"?

You are so transparent, It's like you are made of glass.

Go back to your Gloria Steinem Worshiping "Sisterhood", Your misandry is obvious, and smells like fish.

Therefore, those men's commentary on how this study explains their inability to get laid is just ridiculous and sad.

Parallels drawn from obvious straw-man and red herring fallacies, proported to be true merely because you CLAIM them to be, is the exact OPPOSITE of logic.

You really suck at arguing, don't you?

That clearer for you? Logic - it is grand.

Yes, Logic *IS* grand, and you are going to have to take my word for it, because you obviously don't have the faintest inkling what it is.

Such a great cycle -These guys logic in a nutshell:

TRANSLATION: ARROGANT FEMINAZI CONJECTURE PRESENTED AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH JUST BECAUSE THIS TRANSPARENT SHILL SAYS IT IS.

I hate women, and they notice.

Validate your hypothesis, with evidence, as opposed to your own emotional conjecture.

Prove, USING QUOTES FROM THIS THREAD, that the men here HATE WOMEN.

Do this, or Go away.

Shill.

I did an entire post on the ubiquitousness of good men. I'm married happily, and my mate is a happy man. These are not traits of someone who hates men.

Pretty much blows your argument away.

And yes - most of the men who can't get any IN THIS THREAD are indeed exactly that. And people inconveniently notice. And they are sure that is not their own fault.

If they're so damn smart - how come they can't analyze something that even amoebas can negotiate?

On another note - using the language of logic isn't the same as actually being logical.

Adult men are not teenagers. The study is about teenagers. Most of whom will negotiate perfectly acceptable sexual relationships in their early adulthood. Using this study to explain why adults can't get laid is pure fiction.

reply to post by Aeons

I did an entire post on the ubiquitousness of good men. I'm married happily, and my mate is a happy man. These are not traits of someone who hates men.

You clearly have issues with them, else you would not attack them.

Pretty much blows your argument away.

Hardly... I know that it looks that way in your mind, but I assure you, that is not the case.

LOL!

And yes - most of the men who can't get any IN THIS THREAD are indeed exactly that. And people inconveniently notice. And they are sure that is not their own fault.

If you are going to assert something as true, you better have some evidence to back up your statement, so *AGAIN*

Put up or shut up...

Provide evidence that the men here hate women.

Do it, Or BEGONE, Troll.

You are not all men. The men who can't get laid and think it is because they are so darn special are also not all men. They aren't even all smart men - if we take the claim to be smart at face value. They aren't even a tiny fraction of those men.

Intelligent teenagers don't have sex as early because they have other things to do, and probably because they have a slightly better perception of consequences.

If the "smart guys" in this thread were really that smart, that probably should have jumped out at them along with the fact that almost all human being have sex as adults and that includes these smart teens.

Women sometimes fall into this group along with these men. Though the women who think that they are having this issue are less likely to be like these men as they are women. If they really wanted to have sex, sociological experiments pretty clearly show that it isn't that difficult to find a man who'll do the deed. Walk out the door, start asking men. It won't take you long to find one.

Their issue isn't not being able to get sex - their issue is not being able to get sex from the teeny-tiny population of men they find acceptable off a list of ridiculous traits, and expecting to find that man while never leaving their home or office.

reply to post by Aeons

You are not all men.

IT's very observant that you would come to that conclusion, after only 6 pages of the topic being "Intelligent People" as opposed to "Intelligent Men"

Welcome to the present.

The men who can't get laid and think it is because they are so darn special are also not all men.

This topic is about an attack against Intelligent people, that uses "Social Proof" and "Information Cascades" to make it more difficult on average (speaking probabilistically and statistically) for intelligent people to pass on their genes.

They aren't even all smart men - if we take the claim to be smart at face value. They aren't even a tiny fraction of those men.

So, you are saying that your generalizaitons are fallacious?

Very Well, I accept your apology.

Intelligent teenagers don't have sex as early because they have other things to do, and probably because they have a slightly better perception of consequences.

YOu must have missed the part of the article where they talk about the students at MIT and other leading technical colleges.

That's ok though, I forgive you.

If the "smart guys" in this thread were really that smart, that probably should have jumped out at them along with the fact that almost all human being have sex as adults and that includes these smart teens.

And if you were all that smart, you would have read the entire article before posting an uninformed opinion, based more on presumption, than actual reality.

Their issue isn't not being able to get sex - their issue is not being able to get sex from the teeny-tiny population of men they find acceptable off a list of ridiculous traits, and expecting to find that man while never leaving their home or office.

Yeah, this is kinda what I am talking about, that of social engineering causing the general populous to "weed" intelligence out of the spheres of relationships, due to social proof.

It's an interesting phenomenon, Social Proof, that is.. I suggest you look it up, as well as "Information Cascades"

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

You might learn something about social dynamics that you weren't previously aware of.

And for someone who fancies herself the leader of an entire species... I would think that learning about how one's species interacts would be a good thing.

(The social proof I am talking about, is Television, Duh)

What a lot of blather about the fact that you can't negotiate a simple romp in the sack.

Try this on.

We are social creatures. Our safety is best dealt with in communities. Our greatest predators are other humans.

Mating with people who clearly cannot negotiate social interactions, or worse make enemies everywhere, and are lacking social intelligence is just about the stupidest genetic move any germ line can make.

Grasp this concept, and modify yourself. It isn't going to change.

reply to post by Aeons

What a lot of blather about the fact that you can't negotiate a simple romp in the sack.

You are presuming again, you might want to keep that [snip] under wraps.

Mating with people who clearly cannot negotiate social interactions, or worse make enemies everywhere, and are lacking social intelligence is just about the stupidest genetic move any germ line can make.

You are completely missing the point, and it's probably not your fault... you seem like the kind of person who believes that "Social Intelligence" is an actual thing, as opposed to a made up term for people who are dumb to console themselves that they spent more time on social interaction than people who spend their time understanding how to keep society running.

The society, that your "Social Interaction" depends upon, by the way.

And the next time you think for a single second that your social intelligence is more important than ACTUAL intelligence, console yourself with petty delusions of being able to manufacture food out of the raw Ether, by wit of your "Emotional Appeals"

You know, as opposed to Ammonia cracking for the purpose of nitrogen fertilizers that make 1/3 of the worlds food grow.

Grasp this concept, and modify yourself. It isn't going to change.

You are not grasping the underlying concepts that I am speaking of, and instead of admitting that you are out of your intellectual element, you have decided to disgorge vitriolic emotional hyperbole all over the boards here.

Your life, The totality of it, depends upon Intelligence.

Your society is comprised of thousands of intricately linked systems, that you did not design, nor conceive of, nor could probably comprehend.

And you think that Socialization is the sum total of the health of a society?

Wow, only a DUMB woman would think like that.

Interesting little spat thats going on here, were you two aren't even arguing about the same thing, it's freaking hilarious. You know you maybe you two should get a room, not for nothing sexual. But just to see who comes out of the room alive in the end.

Anyways back on topic. I still think that at the end, all it comes down to is that people need to be on the same wavelength, or close enough for this whole mating thing to work. And thats pretty much all there is to it really, and both genders have there things that they are attracted to for there personal reasons, and biological rules and constructs, and needs, and social conditioning, but mostly it's no big deal or secreat, what the "few" things are that it all comes down to.

So if your on the more intelligent brainy side, then find a more intelligent and brainy mate who would share your conditions, and if your a controlling type then find somebody who would want to be controlled, and your both happy because you both got what you wanted. And if your a sexual type then find somebody who is sexual. And if your all about business and money then find somebody who is all about that as well, shouldn't be that hard, and so on and so forth. The rest and the whole "love" thing, I think it's just talk, and over rated feelings, and exaggerations of how things actually are.

Originally posted by Aeons


Mating with people who clearly cannot negotiate social interactions, or worse make enemies everywhere, and are lacking social intelligence is just about the stupidest genetic move any germ line can make.

Grasp this concept, and modify yourself. It isn't going to change.

this thread again, d'uh... well, let me try to interpret this by phrasing a question:

what do you think is more important, popularity or accurate perception?

because let's face it, since the dawn of humankind, mandated ignorance has been a fact of life - much like wisdom teeth, taxes, death and the common cold. most of the time (giving the benefit of the doubt here), the majority was dead wrong when it came to perception of the world around them, thereby they typically didn't contribute much when it came to profound insight.... your world hinges on quite few distinct events and the contribution of the lives of only a handful of people.

before you call me out for megalomania, no i don't think the posters on this thread are all incarnations of Galileo himself, but isn't the same concept at work on every level, even down to common everyday issues? should everything in life be devoted to submission before the god (specter?) of a given day's consensus?

for one, tell us who's only making enemies and how they do it. i'm willing to bet my armchair it's only for something they said, isn't it? in exaggerated terms: shut up and smile with the zombies isn't a satisfactory way of life (for me at least) and i can see how people will react, which will inevitably be construed as contrarian and hysterical. either that or apathetic aka. depression. can you see where i'm going?

soma alone is a source of huge revenues and users are getting younger.


i can see the underlying fallacy in your line of thinking: individualistic values are mostly incompatible with the notion of group (herd?) influence, so any experience automatically becomes a person's own exclusive responsibility. this type of thinking leads directly to the misguided 'law of attraction' sophistry, which is therefore essentially only a radical version of a subset of well established mainstream values.

presume the world is a decent place and if something goes wrong, just knock the next best person available. typically this involves people who for some reason lack status and experience in the 'game' such as - children !

'our kids aren't what they use to be'

'this generation wouldn't have cut it in the 1920s'


or to quote a complete post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by itsawild1
all you teens and people in your twenties can laugh but YOU WILL NOT SEE MY AGE OF 55. your world will be gone, you will be living in a wasteland soon-laugh at global warming, gmo food, poullution all you dummies want, i laugh at you .-HA HA HA HA!!! We protested viet-nam in my day and stopped that ugly war. What have you young people today fighting for???? Nothing-so you will die simple as that if you dont get off you butts and change the corporate america. go protest like us wisconsinites-- take back control of your country and world or DIE HORRIBLE DEATHS-

This way, systemic faults can be ignored at will (at everybody's peril i might add) but too bad that an entire generation turning 'bad' is statistically quite unlikely... maybe there's a common underlying cause which begs to be investigated ?? yes, too lax, i can hear it now. maybe you should just kill us and instead turn to cloning yourselves?


society, if measured by the decisions they make and actions they take is of course highly insane, the examples are glaringly obvious (becoming more so everyday), too but from what i gathered many would rather tell the people to get with the program 'lest they select their germlines out of existence' - just to paraphrase - than address any undesired input by means other than shunning, outright hostility or good old fashioned intrigue.

take the ever encroaching police state, 750k+ people as of 2007 now more than a million, take the western gov'ts' glorious energy policy of burning food for fuel, while harvests are tight and 1bn people are suffering from undernutrition.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

on the flip side, one can almost calculate when the lights will go out, but talking about such issues is probably a sign of paranoia, right? none if this is a laughing matter by any stretch of the imagination, but what to do? tell me how to stay in the holy 'community' and even mention these things without being stared at. tell me why and how to address any issue rooted remotely in reality when such quite simple concepts are rejected off hand.


intentional or not, it's crazy and these are the type of decisions the collective actually makes and the personal level isn't any different or how do you explain that everybody and his pet canary is up to the neck in credit card debt? of course i presume the bankers who tanked the entire stock market all had (still do) great lives including Madoff while the one who's trying to live responsibly is perceived at best as eccentric or weird, but typically is just deemed stupid - and unattractive. note that i didn't say broke.

what does it imply again if you're universally loved in an insane society? somebody needs to look in the mirror, some have already done it and found out that they'll have to refrain from saving the world from itself, because it chose otherwise. free will remains free, no matter the eventual cost and i won't delude myself into thinking that anyone who's wittingly and unwittingly working the system into (radioactive) dust is doing it through manipulation and|or coercion.

in a nutshell, people love the world as it is, let's see if you'll be fine with the consequences, too. don't believe for one second that you'll ever be missed by anyone, though.


PS: as you could probably guess from my posts, i think the underlying issues go deeper than sex or procreation, it is a sign of a degenerate society (species?) that it loses ever more abilities, culminating in eventual sterility. try to fight it, but you can't save someone (rather: something) with a death wish

reply to post by Long Lance


It doesn't matter if most people are wrong - if you can't negotiate the difference, being right means being dead or being gone from the pool.

Which makes it ultimately very dumb.

Being intelligent is clearly a trait which has selection advantage. Otherwise you'd be a tree squirrel.

Being one of the crowd ALSO has a selection advantage.

These things are NOT mutually exclusive.

Individuality is great. It is likely what pushed the ancient ancestors to start following the herd. At the same time, become part of the wandering herd is also what prompted them to become what we are today. Again, the two things are NOT mutually exclusive.

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.

Originally posted by Aeons

Such a great cycle -These guys logic in a nutshell:
I hate women, and they notice. Those women then don't want to be around me. I then get frustrated because I want sex and can't get it. I hate the women even more. It shows more. I claim to not need or want sex, while at the same time denigrating the women won't give it to me. Women notice and avoid me like a plague. I become more frustrated with "not wanting" sex, and become even more hateful towards women. They continue to notice. I make up stories for myself that people are intimidated by my too-worthy self and claim to continue to not want sex with those horrible things with vaginas. Those horrible people with vaginas continue to notice I hate them, and still avoid my ever-so-amazing self.

edit on 2011/3/3 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

And how do you know this cycle begins where you say it does? With men hating women? What evidence do you have that the cycle doesnt actually begin with the females rejecting the guys, which then leads to them resenting females, etc.

You are just making a claim you have no evidence for. Women do NOT universally love and want to have sex with men who "like" women and treat them good. There is a fair percentage of women who would (And do,) happily have sex with misogynists as long as they are hot or rich enough.

Lets not pretend that attraction between the sexes is as simplistic as you would like to argue it is.

Ah, but you see, if women reject a man he has many many many options to fix that issue. Many more than most women have in most societies.

So, I would trace it back to these guys being angry and not being able get out of being angry.

I made no mention of "nice guys." I would suggest that in societies where women have a say in there selections, having undesirable traits AND being an smoldering angry jerk probably doesn't go over well. Many men over the world have fixed this issue, by making it impossible for women to say no, women are given away a presents in their teens, and making sure that they have very few rights when not staying with the man who bought them.

See - the ickly boys who can't figure it out make their Daddy's buy them wives and make sure they can't get away, in places where the icky boys couldn't figure out how to become successful, or can't analyze what they are doing wrong.

Originally posted by Aeons
Ah, but you see, if women reject a man he has many many many options to fix that issue. Many more than most women have in most societies.

Thats just sexist.

Originally posted by Aeons
So, I would trace it back to these guys being angry and not being able get out of being angry.

But you are basing your belief on your desire to believe that. Not on evidence. You dont have any way of knowing which came first, the rejection of the male by the female, or the resentment of the male for females.

But we can look at how females treat other females and get an idea which it might be. Little girls are pretty adept at forming cliques, and deciding who the in person is, and ostracizing those who dont meet their requirements. And this is not just an attribute of human females, that you might them want to blame on the patriarchy, and the victimization of women. Because other primate females do it too.

And there are some interesting studies out about what attracts women, and how that even varies across their menstrual cycle, with females who are fertile preferring one type of male, and females at other times in their cycle preferring the nice guys they hope will stick around and raise the hot guys offspring.

Its a lot more complicated than you want it to be, and while the patriarchal religions imported into Europe from the south did have an impact on mate selection strategies, women actually have strategies to deal with that too. As one researcher discovered when researching blood types, there are a lot of men raising children who are not their own.

Originally posted by Aeons
See - the ickly boys who can't figure it out make their Daddy's buy them wives and make sure they can't get away, in places where the icky boys couldn't figure out how to become successful, or can't analyze what they are doing wrong.

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)

There is actually a ton of interesting scientific research on mate selection, and rather than just spouting off tired and inaccurate 1970's feminist propaganda, you might want to look into it.

Actually, quite a few of the icky boys are pretty attractive physically. Many men who are not physically attractive are highly desirable mates.

I'm getting tired of this debate.

Men who can't get any are trying to use a study done on TEENAGERS to make up a personal story about how they can't get laid because they are smart, and it isn't their fault.

Many smart people get laid. Many smart people breed.

If most do fine - and you do not - maybe the problem isn't that you're smart. Maybe the evidence shows its something else.

Further - it isn't sexist to recognize that most societies have significantly reduced women to chattel. It may be sexist to pretend that you don't know that because it makes you feel better.

Again - you may go back and see that I specifically told a woman on this thread that good men are not hard to find. Does that make me sexist too? Or am I just sexist when I tell men who are unsuccessful with women that they are doing something wrong, and doing it so wrong that it belies their viewpoint that they are smart.

The viewpoint I've "spouted off" isn't "70s propaganda." It is sensible and obvious around you. But on top of that - you can find an article in Scientific American about it this month.

I'm tired of this argument now. It really isn't in my best interests as a productive and reproductive smart person in the gene pool to encourage men who are not to put down their psychological self-defense and look at themselves objectively. If you're THAT bad with women, I probably don't want you as my descendant's mates.

reply to post by Aeons


I am surprised you even ask a question like that about sexism. You come across as fairly logical and intelligent, but there seems to be a blind spot in your thinking.

Of course someone can be sexist in some instances but not all instances. The world is not as black and white, this or that, as you would like it to be. People, and cause and effect relationships, are more complex and shaded than you seem to be convinced they are.

It isn't sexist to know that women have little rights in most of the world, and have reduced and constrained rights throughout most of history.

And that that probably is probably a sexual/reproductive strategy.

reply to post by Aeons


I agree that with the first part of your argument, that sexism has affected women a good deal.

As for the second part, I would only say, its not as simple as you think it is. Look at the actual science. Women are not pure helpless victims in the war of the sexes. They actually have some very interesting strategies of their own.

And just as one human being to another, the racism never excuses racism. Black people are not justified in hating all whites just because some whites have harmed them or their ancestors.

Just so, the fact that some males have dominated and oppressed women does not justify man hating. Many of the men who are paying the price for the sins of their fathers have never dominated or oppressed anyone. Its not fair to browbeat the innocent for crimes they personally have not committed.

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. There is more variability in men than women which tends to mean there are more "exceptionals" physically and mentally, and more who fall on the other end of the curve too. This is natures doing, not theirs. The simple truth is that in primate groups, the females tend to compete for the best males, and there are often clumps of males who end up not reproducing at all, unless they can find some strategy to force past female choice.

.