kallend 2,131 #51 October 6, 2009 Quote but I earn more than you guys and get laid more often" Well, ability to get laid is really the ultimate test.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 604 #52 October 6, 2009 Quote Quote but I earn more than you guys and get laid more often" Well, ability to get laid is really the ultimate test. Well 10 years ago I defined myself by my perceived intelligence. As time has gone by I have realised that actually self-worth and happiness is all that counts. It seems that most sectors of society judge success on their specific benchmarks. So you get wealthy business men who have not completed high school making derogatory comments about proffessors, you get sports people who can barely count to 10 being seen as successful, people who are "good looking"/super models etc, the list is endless. Much to my wifes disgust I am fascinated by the use of equivocal language and how certain politicians are clever enough to not lie or tell the truth (Tony Blair was one of the best). I believe it takes genuine skill and grasp of language/psychology to be able to say something that 2 oppossing viewpoints perceive to be true or in agreement with their viewpoint. So while intelligence is defined differently (acedemic learning, problem solving etc) I think that a pre-requisite for true intelligence is the capacity to exploit multiple area's of knowledge/expertise. Far to often I think people mistake academic achievement for intelligence rather than a reflection of hard work and determination. I have had both clever and "stupid" phd's work for me as an example. Similarly I know a handful of people who left school at between 14 and 18 years of age (admittedly all but 1 are older people) who are genuinely brilliant.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #53 October 6, 2009 Quote Quote but I earn more than you guys and get laid more often" Well, ability to get laid is really the ultimate test. Soc Biol. 1999 Spring-Summer;46(1-2):146-53. New evidence for dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States. Lynn R. University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland. Data were taken from the 1994 National Opinion Research Center survey of a representative sample of American adults to examine the relation between the intelligence of adults aged 40+ and their numbers of children and their numbers of siblings. The correlations were found to be significantly negative at -0.05 and -0.09, respectively, indicating the presence of dysgenic fertility. Further analysis showed that dysgenic fertility is present only in females. The correlation for females between intelligence and ideal numbers of children was effectively zero, indicating that if women had the numbers of children they consider ideal, dysgenic fertility would be reduced. WAIT A MINUTE! So being smarter is correlated with less babies!? But only in females? GUYS, WTF!? Don't like the smart chicks? But those librarian fantasies and in bonfire they said... (so do I believe 10 year old research or bonfire?) -Good thing that I'm normal. But this is information to tell my patients. --The real question is the reason why? What are the confounding variables here? Were those females "harder to get" and so more guys gave up? Did those women spend too much time actually focused on learning and not chasing / being chased? Were the guys that they associated with also more interested in discovering "the meaning of life" that they miss out on "play time"? Ya know... the guys on big bang theory never really seem to do well on their dates (except Leonard and Penny are now *WOO HOO*) and it seems, per a bonfire thread, that engineers have "no game." Logically one would think that a higher ability to process threats and solutions would be a trait that one would want in someone to continue your lineage.... why would it be inversely related? ---or maybe smart girls just think too much and it kills the mood when instead of moaning and panting, she analyzes technique ----(and just to CLARIFY) Good thing that I'm normal. But this is information to tell my patients. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,583 #54 October 6, 2009 Well, to start off with, smart chicks are more likely to know how pills and condoms work. Also, not sure how true it is in the States, but in the UK children = benefits. Not smart enough to get a job? Get a kid!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #55 October 6, 2009 Let's not confuse getting laid with having babies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 October 6, 2009 Quote Just a side note (and because this is speakers corner) why the developed world - are people in developing nations less intelligent? Most tests for intelligence require a minimum level of education to give useful results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #57 October 6, 2009 Quote Do you consider your level of intelligence to be above average relative to other people in the developed world? . Yes I do. But that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1888 0 #58 October 8, 2009 Now really - if I were would I be reading this crap? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
