10,000 Views!

[Lmn55d]

Good point, height is the single exception to my point and it holds true for both men and women (women seek taller men, men seek shorter women). This happens across the world too, not just in American Society. In men, I read somewhere that every inch was calculated to be worth $6,000 in modern American salary. So the question then is what is the value of height for women...is it correlated with status/power, ability to fight, or is it just a simple unexplainable preference (which i find doubtful)?

[James Boston]

I guess that was a joke, but you're going to have to dumb it way down before I get it.

[Wayfare]

I believe what Sklansky is doing is making a post so filled with ridiculously assasine comments that people will flame him. He wants to make another 10,000 view post...

Btw, way to play into his hand by mocking him.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
Or that social evolutionary theory postualtes that most young women get PHYSICALLY aroused in the presence of intelligent men.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry David....

but 50 million nerds in the US disagree with you....

I was a calculus guy in HS myself...and it NEVER got me laid....EVER...

Marilyn Monore was a tramp anyways....face it... - she slept with married men.

LOL
RB

[andyfox]

What do you mean by "this"?

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
I was a calculus guy in HS myself

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, what exactly does a "calculus guy" do? Did you engage in calculus conversations outside of the class room, like football players would do with football? Or, are you just saying you were good at calculus? Because the former is just lame, of course I was in the band.

[Gabe]

I’m sorry, but I think success in this area is where athletics and music have a decided edge.

From your post in the Psychology Forum:

“Someone posted that they ageed being or getting good at ML will help you become a success but the same can be said for other things such as athletics or music.”

I don’t have any data in front of me, but I seriously doubt that professional mathematicians or physicists get any where near the pussy that professional athletes and musicians do.

Before you start, I’m not buying the argument that Stephen Hawking being in a wheel chair for most of his adult life, while Wilt Chamberlain and Mick Jagger were not, has anything to do with it.

[Porcupine]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you see why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

Why isn't that obvious?

I asked for a reason. That is all the clue you are getting.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I think their ability to provide for their children outweighs the benefit of passing genes for intelligence to the children. First, the children will only receive half of the husband's genes, but an intelligent husband (who in the Pleistocene period when we evolved could presumably protect his mate better and provide for his wife and children better as well as protect them better) will allow for the couple to have more children, whose children in turn will have a good chance of receiving these genes for intelligence...but it is this first generation that is most important.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think they put that much thought into it? For one, they had no idea about genes or generations. The woman (if she really had a choice, and most didn't) put more enphasis on strength than intelligence. And if she didn't, the strong man slay the smart one. And one reason for wanting strength, and size, was so their children would be big and strong and survive. Smarts certainly helped, but a certain degree was all that was necessary. If someone as smart and big as David competed for the same woman as someone as smart and big as me, the first wouldn't stand a chance. First sign of being overshadowed and the second would crack open the skull of the first. Duh!

Perhaps that explains why, in part, so many advances have been made in the past few hundred years. Society first had to protect the people from each other before the intelligent ones could flourish to their full potential.