1. Why does Darwinism exclude technology? 2. Smart people have less children, they are also less likely to get married. Dysgenic breeding: More intelligent people have lower sex drives, are less attractive, and therefore have fewer children http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/07/smarter_people_.html And finally, you're not the first to put forward this "proposal" : http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html
Did you open it in Science and Society? This is the only thread here, opened by francois. Edit: your thread was cesspooled. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79762
Such synchronicity. I was just going to start a thread about a survey that was reported in this morning's Washington Post. Two Dutch psychologists interviewed people in their early 20s--marriage age--to find out what traits they considered important in a mate, and also what traits their parents considered important. They interviewed Americans, Dutch people and Kurds. The results were surprising, particularly as concerns this discussion. Four of the five most important traits to the Westerners were: Exciting personality Sense of humor Physical attractiveness Smell For Americans, the fifth trait was "about the same height" whereas for the Dutch it was "not fat." Only the Kurds considered intelligence important! They also valued physical fitness, smell, humor and lack of fat. To parents of all three groups, on the other hand, the most important trait was a similar ethnic background. They also did not want a bad family background, poverty, or divorce. Western parents did not want different religious beliefs. Westerners and their parents were both turned off by many previous sexual partners, whereas the Kurds put a higher value on education. The participants in the survey were all students, so the results may not apply to a broader cross-section of the population. Still, one expects university students to be somewhat more tolerant, liberal and open-minded than the average person, and it must be annoying to them that their parents are so fixated on race, religion and "family background," whatever that is. Considering the divorce rate in the West, would that be the biological family or the last family you lived with? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thats the most surprising to me. Aren't westerners supposed to be more liberal about sexual experience?
Smart!? There are many kinds of intelligence - let alone all the problems with IQ testing. The people at Microsoft and Google would tend to be smart about certain things, sure. Probably dumb at others as tendencies. In any case I don't see much culling going on. Social circles with some tendencies, sure.
Dr Lou makes his succinct points most abrasively. Just think of him as someone who had the political correctness lobotomised out of him and you'll find him a most enjoyable read.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sexual mores Mayhaps. You might be overlooking whatever portion of the population, because of their liberal sexual outlooks, view long-term relationships differently. Remember, this is the age of trendy notions like the "bromance". I see this sort of thing a lot. Compared to what seems to happen in long-term heterosexual relationships, a lot of men seem content these days with the occasional fling and maybe a hooker now and then. Really, it's kind of a question in Seattle. I'm surprised it took them until this month to get around to it. Think of it like unemployment numbers. During the Bush administration, we've heard a lot about the economy and unemployment, and one of the things that many will argue keeps the unemployment numbers down is an alleged dramatic increase in the number of people who have withdrawn from the job market. Well, the same sort of thing may well be happening with marriage and long-term mating. Speed dating, online dating services, and any number of ridiculously overdramatized episodes blamed on feminism; add to all that rhetoric and politics about homosexuals, a rise in the visibility of polygamy in the country, and the cheapening of human relationships brought on by television shows like The Bachelor and Whose Wedding Is it Anyway? or whatever that one's called, and suddenly it doesn't seem so strange that people are looking at the "love market" and saying, "Fuck it." Thus, when it comes to prior sexual partners, we have to stop and consider a couple of things. • Who is answering the survey. • What constitutes "many". I thought I found the Washington Post story, but maybe not. Anyway, it didn't help me place the various blocs of respondents. My point being that that liberalization of sexual mores may be more dramatic outside the range of people who look forward to getting married. ______________________ See Also: Bindley, Katherine. "Bromances aren't uncommon as guys delay marriage". Seattle Times. April 7, 2008. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004328748_bromance07.html Vedantam, Shankar. "Parents and Children at Odds In Defining Mr. or Mrs. Right". Washington Post. April 14, 2008; page A07. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/13/ST2008041301826.html
I usually focus on facts rather than crudity. If the man is making a point, I will keep him around. He can't help being socially challenged. Besides as leopold said: I have a fondness for f*cking retards.
I would say it fits in very well indeed. Spontaneity is clearly more advantageous to survival than thinking in a linear rut.
