From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Sexual Selectivity and Barbary Macaques
Keywords: selectivity, sociobiology, complexity
Date: 12 Aug 92 01:49:48 GMT
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...

In article <1992Aug10.195419.3814@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
> 
>in <1992Aug7.233348.17875@nuchat.sccsi.com>
>    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
> 
>] In article <1992Aug7.075058.10627@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>]             tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>] >
>] >Nah, a few years in the gym and a little bit of practice, and you'll
>] >find being "fully functional" and "programmed in all forms of physical
>] >pleasure" isn't difficult at all.
>]
>] Yeah, but what about the ability to open wedged steel doors with the flick of
>] a finger?  :-)
> 
>OK, maybe things like that will take two fingers, but people usually
>aren't too picky.  Most people are easilly impressed by simple things
>like picking up a refrigerator.

I can pick up one of those mini-refrigerators with no problem.  :-)

>] "Caring" people?  *Where*???  The only people (besides family, of course)
>] that seem to care at all are the people I've made friends with...
> 
>All over the place--most people are pretty caring and compassionate; you
>just may not have had the chance to get to know them yet.

That's probably the case.

>] >Well, you can always find people who do like to be around you (for
>] >romantic purposes).
>]
>] Since when?  *I* haven't managed to find such people.  If I had, then I
>] wouldn't be talking about this.
> 
>Or, more likely, you haven't noticed the ones you've found.

Well, now here we have an interesting problem.

You say that I might not have noticed.

Sheba says I'm guaranteed to notice.

Which one of you is right?

>] The people that I know in person seem to think that I'm a reasonably
>] friendly person from day one, so I don't think that's the problem (though
>] it might be).
> 
>You don't have to be unfriendly to keep people at bay romantically--in
>fact, I find one of the most effective ways of keeping someone at bay
>without hurting his or her feelings is simply to ignore their advances
>and act like you didn't notice them.  Perhaps you're doing this without
>meaning to,

Yes, I've considered this possibility.

Again, which of is right?  Sheba or you?

>] Precisely.  The problem is that the only thing I've noticed so far is a
>] basic lack of results regardless of *what* my actions are.  You can't do
>] anything with no data except punt.
> 
>So punt a few times.  As long as you're not making bets, what do you
>have to lose?

Time, effort, money.

Emotional stability.  :-)

>] Why should I bother to try to rewrite the rules when all it does is cause me
>] pain?
> 
>To learn to do it well?

Depends on whether or not doing it well yields more pain than doing it badly.
:-)

>] >Actually, human relations are pretty much completely logical too--you
>] >just need to know what the underlying values of the people involved are
>] >(something made a little more difficult by the fact that a lot of them
>] >don't know themselves).
>]
>] True, but it's harder than that.  The values differ from person to person,
>] and are often not observable.
> 
>Oh, absolutely--but you can still observe them indirectly.

How?

>] >So have you applied the scientific method to human relationships and, in
>] >particular, romantic involvement?
>]
>] Yup.  That's where I got the "women seem to be attracted to men who show
>] signs of success, and men seem to be attracted to women with appealing
>] appearances" stuff from.
> 
>Actually, I think it's more "MOTAS seem to be attracted to people with
>whatever qualities you don't have."  

Well, no.  You don't see people who have huge wads of cash lying around
complaining about not being able to get a date, do you?

Or do you?

[Ronco combination date-getter and tomato seeder ad deleted :-)]

>] I can't use that myself because my self-confidence and other such traits
>] are determined *strictly* by how successful I am at something.  The only
>] environments where I have any real self-confidence are highly male-dominated
>] environments (you didn't expect anything else, did you?  :-), i.e.
>] environments in which that self-confidence is *useless* for the purposes
>] of being attractive to women.
> 
>"Male-dominated" doesn't mean exclusively male.  Actually, now that I
>think about it, I know two female race-car drivers but no male ones; I
>understand that there are even women out there who like fast cars and
>the people who race them, so your skills and hobbies don't sound at all
>useless in this regard.

I don't deny that it's *possible* (i.e., probability > 0) that I'll find
a Right Woman For Me in an almost exclusively male environment.  But it
sure hasn't worked so far.

Let me put it this way: I have *never* met a woman in any of these environments
who wasn't attached unless she explicitly didn't *want* to be attached.  In
other words, *none* of them was having problems finding boyfriends.  Does this
tell you anything?

>Trygve


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com