h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh my. But you do have to admit that it was perhaps the worst comparison you could possibly have chosen. I mean computer knowledge vs bathroom acessories. I haven't laughed so much in ages.

I agree with Potholer; I have to admit I am not the most intelligent, skilled or knowlegable person I know in any field whatsoever. So I know lots of people who are more intelligent than me. I am definitely somewhere on the brighter side of average bell curve here. And I can say, quite conclusively that there is intelligent and then there is intelligent. I mean, obviously you chose a partner and friends who are not gonna be talking over your head all the time or boring you to death with mundane inanieties (though even that is somewhat subjective; what is scintilating and/or boring). But I've met plenty of people who were accademically brilliant yet rather inept outside their field and not only boring but hugely irritating to watch when they were fumbling their way through life, and others who, whilst having never passed an exam in their life were very wise about life and other people, and could (I have an example in mind here) run a business with rigid success (yet complained at length that they were too unintelligent to work the computer so had to employ someone else). And, whilst they couldn't have a meaty discussion about 16th century Venice with me, they were as it goes quite easy to be with.

Terrible paragraph. The point is that intelligence is multifaceted at P says and it is quite possible that when you say that someone is less/more intelligent than you are this may in fact be because their intelligence doesn't fit too well with yours. I mean, obviously there are shades, but that is part of it.

Other than that, sorry, I tend to agree with AMY. Victem mantality it maybe, but I'm fresh out of an arguement about whether women are good at maths ("course women aren't good at maths. There are Nobel prize Winners who women are there?"), so I'm p****d.

Sorry Potholer, but there's mileage in this one yet.

Oh well, at least I did try.

Still, being a pretty typical engineer, it's hardly surprising I failed (if anyone's read the Jargon File, the 'Profile of J. Random Hacker' is a disturbingly accurate match for me).

You failed (although that's not the right word) because the thread wasn't ready to move on. It's not a reflection on you or your chosen career path.

The first time I heard that line was from Hugh Hefner. "I've never met a woman more intelligent than I am," he declared, surrounded by young women wearing rabbit ears on their head.

Amy, could you please come down off of your high horse? "Your examples speak for themselves." "Please let that last stand, even though it violates the terms and conditions."

Actually, it didn't. That's why it is still there.

This argument has become about sterotypes. You claim that all men behave in a certain way. You're wrong. Every stereotype has many exceptions. And when you start applying stereotypes, you offend people, which *is* a violation of the terms and conditions. In this case, you have offended me.

Men are not the brutish dominators that you make them out to be. Yes, there are some out there. But not all. Maybe, before you start blaming everyone else for your failure to find someone, you should start questioning what you might have done better. Are you really finding yourself attracted to decent men, or are you out there proving that nice guys finish last? When you find the right type of guy, are you letting him know that you are interested, or playing coy? Are you totally honest in a relationship, or do you keep a part of yourself back and play games? Are you carrying excess baggage from previous relationships that is poisoning your new ones?

Incidentally, it is that last part that made me consider dating a younger girl. I've dated women at my age or older (within a few years) and I've found them to carry so much baggage that a real relationship was impossible. "Love like you've never been hurt."

Excuse me, but in any of Amy's posts leads you to believe that her purpose is to "find someone"?

CS seems able to conclude much that is not written in my posts. He has concluded that I am lonely, single, heterosexual, "looking for someone" and that men are intimidated by my intelligence.

I suppose he can't be wrong on every point.

Well, I was willing to entertain the idea that you were gay, something which would explain your anti-male ideas. In that case, I would be wrong about all the points... including "men are intimidated by my intelligence." But then, it is always unpolitic to ask if someone is gay without some sort of foreknowledge... some people can be rather sensitive about that sort of thing, and my asking would probably have come out as confrontational or accusational. We've had enough of that already.

But if you were hetero, then, if your point about relationships and intelligence is true, then either you've accepted a man who is demonstrably smarter than you, or you are single. Judging by your tone, the latter was far more likely.

But what has any of that got to do with the price of mints?

For those who have just joined us, this discussion starts at Post 77 with my question "Where do men stand on the subject of intelligence then?"

My assessment of the discussion so far is that men who are intimidated by intelligent women develop coping strategies. These include making unwarranted assumptions about women and making sure that the women in question are aware that they (the women) bring the problem on themselves.

There is some evidence that the intimidation stems from using intelligence as a basis for assessing self-worth and is compounded by confusing intelligence with knowledge, learned skills and experience.

Oh wow! That Colonel just blew his promotion to General. Generals, generally, have to be a bit more diplomatic, not to mention open-minded and able to see beyond their own bathmat.
If I were Amy I'd simply capitulate on item #5 in her list above and admit men and women think differently (apples and bananas). Most of the testosterone bs since that entry only proves how weird guys can get when you challenge them.
The Colonel's rude presumptions do not deserve a civil response. The only thing he got right so far was his prediction that his young girlfriend will get smarter when she grows up. For her sake, I hope she's an early bloomer and smartens up quickly.
GW

Actually, the discussion begins at post #1, and was originally about heterosexual women asking heterosexual men what they look for in women. I think that particular topic drift that started in 77 is irrelevant and counterproductive.

I do not believe that men and women think differently. People think differently but there is no evidence for a clear gender divide in the research literature. My experience as a teacher both of children and adults has not led me to believe that female thought processes differ from male thought processes.

For the record I am heterosexual.

If the discussion since post 77 is off-topic (although I don't agree that it is), why wait until now to say so?

Colonel, do not confuse Amy's crispness of delivery with hostility. Surely we have all got beyond the need to don that stewardess fly-me smile, haven't we?

Whether there are or aren't some inherent differences betwen male and female thinking methods *on average* (a clearly contentious point), I'd suggest one possible explanation why some people may think that differences do exist (or are greater than they are if they do exist) is the matter of attention.

Personally, as a straight male, more of my thoughts are focussed on women, and what's similar and different between myself and women (either as a whole or individually) than between myself and the rest of the male population.

Given that I'm naturally more interested in the differences between things, rather than the similarities (as that seems to be where most useful information lies), I can understand how someone thinking similarly might percieve more differences than actually exist. (Note, at least as far as I'm concerned, I'm talking about things being different, not worse or better)

On the other hand, someone dealing professionally with groups of both men and women as an educator, and presumably striving to treat both groups fairly, might well be less likely to overpercieve a difference, or may even underpercieve such a difference, if one does actually exist.

Gravity Welles is a curious one to lecture on civility, no?

Amy's delivery was not my problem, but her implication that I view women as inferior, intellectually or otherwise. I did not mention that the conversation was (apparently irrevocably) off course because I felt like I was being personally attacked, and I gave in to the emotional need to defend myself. I won't be doing that anymore.

What exactly do you hope to accomplish through this line of questioning? Are you hoping that a man who is intimidated by intelligent women will answer your questions in a clear and honest manner? It's an adversarial question. If you are correct about your "coping strategies," then they would be invoked by any male guilty of what you are trying to detect. And as you said, any discussion about comparative intelligence is meaningless. Therefore, any discussion about the effects of perceived differences in comparative intelligence is likewise meaningless.

I have not stated or implied that Colonel Sellers considers women to be his inferiors. He has however stated, more than once, that his girlfriend is his intellectual inferior. He made those statements of his own free will.

By this line of questioning I hope to make at least one person decide to value a quality in their partner and leave it at that, no competing, no putting down, no rewriting of the rules to make the quality seem less important than their own qualities.

I suspect I have achieved that goal.

The quality in question might be innate intelligence or acquired knowledge or a learned skill or a personality trait. It doesn't matter.

If I have helped people to distinguish between intelligence, knowledge, learned skills and experience then all well and good. The confusion of these can be used as a weapon in relationships. If you're aware of this you become immune to that tactic.

I believe that their are few, if any, inherent differences in the thought processes of men and women but there are learned differences. It strikes me that men are more likely to be taught that "intelligence" is part of the self-worth equation than are women. And, because you can't do anything about innate intelligence, such men are forced to place themselves toward the top of the intelligence ladder and then spend their lives justifying that position. This results in a spill-over into relationships that is real and is experienced by women all the time.

I am happy to report that I am fortunate to know many men who have unlearned this behaviour and are able to value their partners' traits, knowledge and skills without competing or diminishing or obfuscating.

Examine my words. Draw my attention to any logical inconsistencies or false assumptions. But don't muddy the waters with irrelevancies or semantic pedantry.



Amy the Ant

Potholer's argument reminds me of a famous story about a discussion between the famous physicist Richard Feynman and an artist.

It's in Richard Feyman's auto-biography. I would give a link but there's no point.

The artist and the scientist look at a flower. The artist contends that the scientist, having a detailed understanding of the inner workings of a flower, will be unable to comprehend the beauty of the flower. Richard Feynman refutes this, suggesting that the scientist can see more beauty in the flower than the artist can for the scientist sees the beauty on the surface just as well as the artist but he also sees the beauty within.

Could it be that teachers perceive people in the same way as everyone else and then have this additional pool of data on which to draw conclusions.

Teachers are people too.

I would say that the discussion of intelligence is off-topic. Successful relationships are about social interaction not intellectual compatibility. If either of you bothers about the intelligence of the other then IMHO the relationship is doomed from the outset.

However as we're on the subject, I've known many females who are more intelligent than myself, just as I've met many males in the same position. There must be very few people of either sex who can go through the education system and honestly say they haven't met anyone of the opposite sex who is more intelligent than they are. The only examples that spring readily to mind, apart from geniuses, would be people going to a single sex school followed by a uni course dominated by their own sex.

Do intelligent females intimidate me? Yes. Do they intimidate me more than their male counterparts? Definitely not. With both you just have to get your brain out of neutral before replying, although I must admit the preferred course of action is copious quantities of the good old liquid leveller.

As for lesbians being men-haters, in my experience that's a load of crap, and can only hope it was said as a wind-up. Sadly I don't think it was.

CS don't you think that by actively seeking out younger females, it is you who is carrying the baggage from previous relationships?

As for the original question, we are all different, so I don't really see any point in going into specifics. Apart from that I'm having a hard job remembering back that far.

For a long-term relationship, someone whose quirks I can accommodate and who can reciprocate, without either of us having to alter our behaviour and outlook too much.

And you have stated that men are intimidated by women who are their intellectual superiors, and avoid them at all costs, or develop coping mechanisms. Now you have admitted that you know men who have "unlearned" this behavior, so I take that as a tacit concession that you are making a generalization.

"In general", men are perhaps more likely to base self-worth on intelligence because that is the dominant trait in society today. The stereotypical male role has been that of the provider. When being strong meant providing for the family, men competed with each other based on strength. In today's society, intelligence is the key to a comfortable lifestyle, and is therefore more important. Intelligence means a greater ability to provide for a family, and thus makes them a more desirable breeding partner.

The female variant is that they, "in general", place a great deal of their perceived self-worth on their physical appeal, the motivation being that a more attractive woman can choose from a more skilled class of breeding partners. The beautiful woman attracts the gifted male, and they go on to produce brilliant, beautiful children who enhance the global gene pool, while living the life of luxury that the genius can provide.

Of course, we know it doesn't work like this in practice.