Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls From: dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Re: Intelligence & SocioBio Message-ID: <899@mtgzz.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 06:56:29 EDT Article-I.D.: mtgzz.899 Posted: Wed Jul 3 06:56:29 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 00:31:08 EDT References:<443@unc.UUCP> <252@rti-sel.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ Lines: 53 >> >> >On a practical every day level, women do chose men, and men >> >women, and they use various criteria to make these decisions. >> >Whether these criteria are somehow genetically controlled seems >> >unimportant to me. They may or may not be. However, they do >> >exist. Women tend to chose men(baring mental illness) that they >> >see some advantage in associating with. >> >> Which women? ALL women? All WASP women? All North American >> middle-class women? All women you personally know? And does this just women. women in general. women everywhere. all females. >> statement imply men DON'T choose women they "see some advantage in >> associating with," or that women do so at a higher statistical >> frequency than men? What's your evidence if you're talking about >> a higher statistical frequency of behavior in a certain population? Did I say any of this? Did I hint at this? Even the smallest bit? Man chose women & women chose men. I think I'm asserting something so commonplace as to make your resistance to the notion curious. >> Statements like this reveal more about personal attitudes toward >> women than they do about the 'nature of womankind.' >> And your resistance to this statement reveals something about you. Why do you feel uncomfortable with the notion that women chose men & men chose women based on some criteria? >> >This is a much broader concept than "a good physique," and it >> >seems to me much better approached via game theory than >> >idle theorizing about sociobiology. >> >> Heh, heh ... I guess idle theorizing about game theory IS preferable >> to idle theorizing about sociobiology ... Let's get a REAL GOOD series >> of flames going about game theory, folks. Count me out, though; I'm >> going fishin.' >> >> -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly Sorry about that. I'd like to cut down on all kinds of idle theorizing and hear more about people's experiences. Game theory & sociobiology are complex topics most usefully discussed by persons who already have training in the field(and this doesn't include me). >> >> >> Dale All opinions are my own, not those of AT&T