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