From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:31:35 GMT
	<ewright.717351456@convex.convex.com> <sd#pfm-@lynx.unm.edu>
	<ewright.717639272@convex.convex.com>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: ewright@convex.com's message of 28 Sep 92 00:14:32 GMT

In article <ewright.717639272@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

   In <sd#pfm-@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:

   >The history book will show you that throughout the >entire< history of
   >Human Beings, many major events have occured based on physical appearance.
   >Lets just take recent history for example. The US Civil war? Hitler's 3rd
   >Reich? Those two are big events that started almost exclusivley on the fact
   >that one person looked different from another person. The point? Human Beings
   >take personal appearances seriously.

   If the Civil War and the 3rd Reich are the results of people taking
   physical appearance seriously, perhaps that is a sign that people
   ought not to take physical appearance seriously.

I think he's got you there.

   >The other book, on animal mating, shows that animals, in general, base thier
   >mate selection on a combination of two things- physical appearance and
   >dominance in a social strata. This is important because Human Beings, like
   >it or not, are animals. Some of these things are ground into our being.

   I think you would do well to read such a book.  It just so happens
   that in one of my former lives I happened to be a biologist.

   It is not true that animals, in general, select their mates based
   on physical appearance.  The animals that rely on appearance to
   select their mates are generally those that have good vision, such
   as birds.  Mammals, in general, have very poor vision and usually
   rely on their sense of smell for mating instead.  

On the other hand, humans do seem to be *extremely* dependent on vision,
more so perhaps than any other mammal.  Not as good as birds, but
certainly we depend on vision more than most or all other primates.

   How did our close ancestors really choose their mates?  According
   to Edward O. Wilson's textbook on sociobiology, "Because of the
   exitance of a high level of cooperation with the band, a legacy of 
   the original Australopithecus adaptation, sexual selection would
   tend to be linked with hunting prowess, leadership, skill at tool
   making, and other visible attributes that contribute to the success
   of the family and the male band."  So, if you really want to say
   you're choosing your mate the same way our ancestors did, you should
   value an engineering degree (toolmaking skills) at least as highly
   as physical appearance.

That's a *whole* lot of stew from one oyster there.  First of all on
Wilson's part, since there is *damn* little in the fossil record to
indicate what H. whatever did on Saturday night (and the little there is
suggests that prostitution may *well* be the oldest profession!)  Second
on your part, to the extent that you imagine an engineering degree has a
lot to do with tool making skill.

But then we've got Herb's real live numbers to suggest that neither of
these are major predictors, but that long fingers are.  (!!!)

Shit, I'm also known for my short thick fingers.
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
O/Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am he who walks the States with a barb'd tongue, questioning every
one I meet,/Who are you that wanted only to be told what you knew
before?/ Who are you that wanted only a book to join you in your
nonsense?"  _Leaves of Grass_ xxiii.4.