From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 00:50:33 GMT

 
in <ewright.726347138@convex.convex.com>
    ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
 
] In <1993Jan6.063147.1349@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
] writes:
]
] >Now, now; your statement assumes that the set of people a person is
] >likely to meet is a representative sample of the population as a
] >whole--which simply isn't the case.
]
] I don't assume that at all.
 
OK, but since it's a logical requirement to draw the conclusion you drew
from the statement I made, you either have to have assumed it or just be
really inept and sloppy with logic.
 
] The people you meet are not representative
] of the population as a whole; the people I meet aren't, either.  (Though
] probably closer, since I meet hundreds of people a year, and you claim
] you haven't met anyone for years now.)
 
Actually, no, I've never claimed anything of the sort; the closest I've
ever come to such a statement was my recent remark
 
  For the last couple of years, I seem to have gotten rather bogged down
  in the business of running my corporations and have made little (OK,
  virtually no) effort to meet people--not an immediate problem, since I
  don't have any shortage of people willing to make the effort to meet
  me, but at this point I'm starting to feel an urge to meet a little
  greater variety of people.
 
As you can see, the implication (correct in this case) is that I've met
lots of people in the last few years (or at least "no shortage" of them).
 
] That doesn't mean that the people
] you meet are representative of the people I meet, either.  So again, what's
] your point?
 
Well, since you were kind enough to quote it for me later on in your
message, I'll just copy it right up here.
 
] >My point, therefore, is that sources of people who are, on the average,
] >more interested in science than in athletics do exist and are not
] >especially difficult to find.
 
Happy?
 
] >People tend to "clump together" in groups that have some number
] >of characteristics in common--for example, if you hang around at
] >tractor pulls and "Monster Truck Rallies" you'll probably meet people
] >who, on the average, are different in one or more respects from the
] >people you'd be likely to meet at Mensa poetry readings SIG.  (Granted,
] >there may be some overlap, but there will be differences in the averages
] >of some characteristics between the groups.)
]
] I've never attended a tractor pull or Monster Truck Rally, so I can't
] opine on that.  The people I've met at Mensa events seem to differ
] from the general population primarily by being ~85% male.  The Dallas
] chapter doesn't have a poetry-reading SIG but at the last meeting I
] attended (about a year ago) did announce an upcoming trip to the
] Monster Truck Pull.
 
Well, I can't claim any first-hand knowlege of the Dallas chapter of
Mensa, but here in Denver, Mensa is pretty close to evenly distributed
between male and female (I think this may have become less so recently,
but the "management" of Denver Mensa tends to have more women than men)
and it does have SIGs for reading, poetry, philosophy, science, and the
like and the general meetings typically have some sort of
science-oriented talk.
 
Actually, apart from Mensa, there's a woman I know who runs a sort of
informal group where people get together to discuss classic literature
(recent selections including "Othello" and "Art of War") as well as a
waltzing group; the participants are mostly in their twenties and
reasonably even as far as gender distribution.  Perhaps you could start
up something like that in Dallas?
 
] Again, what's your point?
 
Oh, hang on; let me invoke that editor command again...
 
] >My point, therefore, is that sources of people who are, on the average,
] >more interested in science than in athletics do exist and are not
] >especially difficult to find.
 
 
--Wait, I didn't need to do that; here it is already....
 
] >My point, therefore, is that sources of people who are, on the average,
] >more interested in science than in athletics do exist and are not
] >especially difficult to find.
]
] Oh.  That may be true, but nothing you've said so far supports it.
 
Depends on your definition of "support"--by now I've listed more than a
dozen groups and events that fit the bill.  This at least fits the
dictionary definition of "support" and the one that most people use.
 
] >A bit like that, at least as long not having a satisfying, potentially
] >long-term relationship bothers you as little as not having an exercise
] >partner bothers me.  (That is to say, extremely little.)
]
] Well, you can either keep denying that you have a problem, and
] it bothers you, or you can do something about it.  It may take a
] small amount of effort to tap into these sources, but less than
] you've already spent in this conversation.
 
Personally, I think I'll go ahead and keep denying I have a problem.
Since I don't have a problem, this seems like the least time-consuming
and most efficient course of action.
 
] >Gosh, you don't suppose that the fact that I run into people more
] >interested in science than exercise might have something to do with
] >the fact that I tend to go to SF cons and BBS parties
]
] Nope, I think that's just another excuse you've been making.
] Next time you're at an SF con, check out the T2 and Predator
] fans.  You'll find lots of them who are also into bodybuilding.
] Go figure. :-)
 
Well, maybe I'll have to take a closer look next time--to tell you the
truth, I don't recall seeing people who were obviously T2 or Predator
fans at the last few cons I've been to; Trekkies seemed to be the most
common, followed by fantasy types.  Personally, I enjoyed the people
dressed up as fantasy types more--their costumes are much more, ah,
inspiring.  (Though I still haven't quite figured out the belly dancer
who asks me for my phone number at every con but then never calls me;
maybe she doesn't have a phone, but wants my number just in case.)
 
] >Seriously, I don't doubt that I could find a dedicated jock if I looked
] >for one--for starters, I could place an ad
]
] Which is one of the things I suggested when you were crying in
] your beer about this several months ago.  Of course, you haven't
] done a thing about it... :-)
 
Gosh, I must have missed that message.  (For that matter, I must have
missed the message where I was crying in my beer.  (Now that I think
about it, I must have missed that whole experience since I don't even
drink beer, much less cry in it.))
 
] >I'm starting to feel an urge to meet a little greater variety of people....
] >I'd been thinking of some martial arts classes,
]
] I'm not sure that would give you the different variety you're
] looking for.  In case you haven't noticed, there's a big overlap
] between martial artists and the SF crowd.  On the other hand,
] martial-arts training would teach you a certain amount of humility,
] which would balance, if not counteract some of the body-building
] mindset.
 
Oh, I'm sure there's some overlap, but I rather doubt that it's total;
indeed, if there's a bit of overlap, it'll probably be just that much
more comfortable getting to know the rest of the group.  Besides, even
if I don't meet anyone new, it would still be fun and I'd learn some new
skills.
 
(Humility?  Nah--I've always been so good at escaping that particular
vice and, for me to want to pick up another vice, it would have to be
a much more enjoyable one than that.)
 
] >Nope; actually it's not all that difficult to find either.  However, I
] >haven't had the time or motivation to seek out either for the past
] >several years and romantic partners are much more likely than exercise
] >partners to seek one out anyway, hence the illusion that finding
] >romantic partners is easier.
]
] Really?  I know people who seek out exercise partners so anxiously
] that they offer money for it.  I've lost track of how many people
] have come to my office seeking to recruit me for their athletic team.
 
Terrific--you can tell them you know a guy in Denver who owns a well-
stocked gym and might be interested in a partner.  (BTW, I personally prefer
a two or three way split system and to do workouts in the afternoons or
evenings, since I frequently don't get up until noon anyway.)
 
] I can't recall anyone coming to my office seeking a romantic partner,
] though.
 
Well, I just don't know what the problem is, then--maybe it's your
decor; I tend to have things like swords, Lego blocks, my antique fire
extinguisher collection, dark woods (mostly walnut), various small stone
objects (obelisks, spheres, crystals, etc.), small chainmail and stained
glass pieces that I've made, and a reasonably complete home theater in
my office.  (Oh, I've also got a lot of Art Gore photographs; maybe they
have something to do with it too.)
 
Of course you could also try letting them seek you out at other
locations--maybe you'd seem more approachable at parties.
 
] >] For that matter, why are you posting in soc.singles?
] >
] >Entertainment value and convenience--
]
] I guess I was being to subtle here.  Okay, let me rephrase my question.
]
] If you're so smart, how come you're still single? ;-)
 
Lotsa reasons--1) I still have to run across someone willing to put up
with me for that long; 2) I don't mind being single, so I don't put much
effort into working to change it; 3) I'm certainly not everybody's idea
of Prince Charming; 4) being single lets me flirt shamelessly with any
woman in range, which I wouldn't feel comfortable doing if I were
involved, so someone would have to persuade me that she was more fun to
be involved with than flirting is (I don't imagine this would be too
difficult, but I think I'd enjoy being persuaded anyway); 5) most single
people in the social groups I hang out with aren't interested in being
in a serious relationship or have standards of behavior within serious
relationships that I'm uncomfortable with (I have, for example, a strong
preference for sexually exclusive relationships involving just two
partners); 6) I have lots of other things to do--I'm often (though
irregularly) very busy with work and my free time tends to be spent in
solitary activities (writing, reading, netting, designing and building
stereo equipment, making stuff, etc.) or with friends with whom a
romantic relationship is not a desirable option; 7) I'm still in my
twenties and am not in any particular danger of running out of time;
8) my financial condition makes me slightly cautious about leaping into
anything that might wind up being very expensive; 9) I'm basically lazy
and, at the present time, it looks like time and effort could be
involved in tracking down a suitable mate; 10) I'm just too close to the
traditional "nice guy" type (I have bad habits in relationships like
buying flowers and cards and occasionally sneaking back into stores that
we walked through and buying things that caught her eye so I can
surprise her with them later) and we all know that nobody wants to be
involved with a nice guy.
 
Zat OK for a start?  If, incredibly unlikely though this is, you haven't
been bored to tears yet and want more reasons, I'm sure I could think of
plenty more.
 
Trygve
--
"'I hate editors,' I thought to myself, gazing at the check the postman
 had just handed over to me, still smelling of garlic and kippers and
 something that I was almost certain was kangaroo, 'sure, I jumped at
 the chance to have my novella printed at forty-four cents a word, but
 how was I to know that they, through a catastrophic error in their word
 processing program, would print it without spaces?  The last straw was
 that the publisher had deducted half of my royalties to pay for the
 stamp.'"
Newsgroups: soc.singles