|
A recent post on one of my blogs, brought up and interesting thought:
Brains or Brawn?
Well, truthfully, I know the answer when it comes to myself. I always place intelligence over looks. If a guy typed and spoke like he had just failed 7th grade English... again, I wouldn't even consider dating him even if he was the most attractive man on the planet. Albeit, spelling and grammar is not exactly the best sign of intelligence or lack there of, but... damn, the grammar nazi in me is really stubborn.
Actually, recently I dated a person who I could easily consider the most attractive person I have been with. He is getting a pre-med degree, so he's pretty intelligent. You know what our major issue was? Debating! Or "arguing" as he liked to call it.
Seriously, if I ever have to explain my Darwin view on evolution again and told I am being illogical when the counter argument is that animals somehow "modify" their genes to adapt to their environment... I am going to throw the closest object out of the closest window.
*Raaaagggeeeee*
I hope you all agree that debating is a great, friendly thing that you can do with your friends to improve your own knowledge and that challenges you to justify your opinions or find new ones.
Anyway, yes, yes, brains and brawn. Of course, I think a balance is nice. Spending absolutely all of your time and energy into improving your intelligence, but none into improving your physical health is not ideal! Actually, I think that's why I always got crushes on people on the cross-country team when I was in high school. They were all extremely intelligent, but enjoyed going on runs through the woods, too. Fit and intellectual. Mmm...
Alright, I'll apologize for this being more of a rant-blog than usual and see if I can post something more amusing later.
Riku out!
 
|
If he's getting a pre-med degree, doesn't that make him studious, determined and soon-to-be financially successful, not necessarily intelligent?
Doesn't one go to school to become intelligent or educated, not because they are smart.
You should write a blog trying to define intelligence, that would be good.
|
Hyrule19188 Posts
So what you're saying is that religious beliefs that differ from your own are stupid? I don't really understand how you prefer intelligence over everything and dismiss someone completely because they believe something different.
Meh.
|
Of course animals modify their DNA to adapt to the environment, how do you think Mutalisks fly in space?
|
On June 03 2011 02:06 tofucake wrote:
So what you're saying is that religious beliefs that differ from your own are stupid? I don't really understand how you prefer intelligence over everything and dismiss someone completely because they believe something different.
Meh.
He's not religious at all..
He just could not comprehend how it would all happen by a kind of genetic "trial and error."
|
I wouldn´t go for either of these options.
"Meat from a pig's or calf's head that is cooked and pressed in a pot with jelly."
|
Hyrule19188 Posts
On June 03 2011 02:07 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:06 tofucake wrote:
So what you're saying is that religious beliefs that differ from your own are stupid? I don't really understand how you prefer intelligence over everything and dismiss someone completely because they believe something different.
Meh. He's not religious at all.. He just could not comprehend how it would all happen by a kind of genetic "trial and error."
Well then I misinterpreted, although the two commonly go together. Assumptions ftl
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
do you make a blog every day
|
pre med.. yet he has problems with evolution? <boggle>
|
In formal debating, one of the key skills for rebuttal is to directly assess and dissect your opponents' arguments. Rather than simply rejecting every point they make, a skilled debater needs to be able to consider their opponents' assumptions and address the flaws in their reasoning.
Something similar applies in friendly debates. You need to be willing to look at and understand their points, and if there is a problem with their reasoning, you should be able to point out exactly where it is. Vague disagreement without specifics is for the feeble-witted and close-minded.
In other words, don't waste time worrying about someone dismissing your arguments as illogical if they cannot explain why, and certainly don't take something like studying pre-med as a guarantee of great intelligence. I assure you it isn't.
|
On June 03 2011 02:12 intrigue wrote:
do you make a blog every day
ROFL
Anyways I don't really consider either to be important, I always end up with idiotic guys who aren't very attractive (not because I can't do any better lol, just somehow it always ends up that way)
As long as they shower regularly it's okie~
It doesn't work out with smart guys because they want to talk about intellectual shit too much and I honestly just don't give a fuck. Super attractive guys? Like hell I would get any l0l. I always end up liking guys who play games too and no offense but they are not the hottest =( zZzzzZzzz
|
On June 03 2011 02:20 unichan wrote:ROFL Anyways I don't really consider either to be important, I always end up with idiotic guys who aren't very attractive (not because I can't do any better lol, just somehow it always ends up that way) As long as they shower regularly it's okie~ It doesn't work out with smart guys because they want to talk about intellectual shit too much and I honestly just don't give a fuck. Super attractive guys? Like hell I would get any l0l. I always end up liking guys who play games too and no offense but they are not the hottest =( zZzzzZzzz
Ah, well, I like talking about "intellectual shit."
And I find that many intellectual guys play games, so I'm set there!
|
Riku, please make a video with you holding a TL sign or something to that effect so as to prove you're not a troll.
Best Regards, SpoR
|
God balanced men out with intellect and attractiveness. It's why people with higher IQs can cherish sex longer because God knew they would be ugly and get less sex than their dumb counterparts. Praise Jesus
|
|
|
On June 03 2011 02:32 SpoR wrote:
Riku, please make a video with you holding a TL sign or something to that effect so as to prove you're not a troll.
Best Regards, SpoR
Video or photo? I do have a stream that I haven't used in months. If you go check the old videos there is much ranting from me about my druid in WotLK, which should be proof enough. I guess I could make a stream today, though.
|
On June 03 2011 02:12 intrigue wrote:
do you make a blog every day
Yep, too much Riku ^_^''
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pjb31.jpg)
|
Actually, screw it. I'll do a stream at 1300 PST.
Mod Edit: Error. This user does not have a registered stream.
SEE YOU THERE.
|
On June 03 2011 02:46 Lucumo wrote:Yep, too much Riku ^_^''
It's really not my fault someone bumped up a blog from almost a month ago.
|
Gauging a person's attractiveness by just "intelligence" or looks kinda misses the entire point. It's really all just about compatibility. Regardless of how intelligent or attractive a person may be, if they aren't compatible with you then everything is completely moot.
|
On June 03 2011 02:50 koreasilver wrote:
Gauging a person's attractiveness by just "intelligence" or looks kinda misses the entire point. It's really all just about compatibility. Regardless of how intelligent or attractive a person may be, if they aren't compatible with you then everything is completely moot.
I agree completely.
However, I find I have fairly low compatibility with dumbasses.
|
United States4796 Posts
Wow. Reading your blog is like reading Imgur or Cracked now, huh. There's something new every day. 
|
i dont get the question, you seem to have it all figured out already
|
On June 03 2011 02:20 unichan wrote:
I always end up with idiotic guys who aren't very attractive (not because I can't do any better lol, just somehow it always ends up that way)
As long as they shower regularly it's okie~
don't set the bar so low for yourself t.t
i see this all the time with my roommates, so i understand the underlying bs
|
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either
|
Calgary25991 Posts
On June 03 2011 02:47 Riku wrote:
Actually, screw it. I'll do a stream at 1200 PST.
Mod Edit: Error. This user does not have a registered stream.
SEE YOU THERE.
In order to stream on Teamliquid, we require you to sign up through the stream application process:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=175682
|
All too often I encounter intellectuals who haven't an ounce of common sense, which is not only highly important to me, but proves beneficial throughout life. Nothing frustrates me more than a book smart idiot.
Whilst eye-candy is nice, the jocks usually suck sexually. It's a scientific fact that a well-educated male can last longer in the sack. (Well, that's what a well-educated man once told me lol) I never verified the statement.
Anyway, I came across this article today, which claims "geeks" are better dating material:
http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/seven-reasons-to-date-a-geek?gt1=32092
Between brains and brawn - I opt for common sense, with intelligence and fairly good looks (God forbid they spend more time in the mirror than I do)
|
On June 03 2011 03:32 Arkansassy wrote:
All too often I encounter intellectuals who haven't an ounce of common sense, which is not only highly important to me, but proves beneficial throughout life. Nothing frustrates me more than a book smart idiot.
Ugh tell me about it.
Even completely unrelated to the dating realm, I deal with people like this on a daily basis. One of my clients recently had like...4 PHDs or something just absolutely absurd and they couldn't figure out how to get their laptop to display on a projector.
People without common sense don't get along well with me - I just get so frustrated with them. You can be absolutely book stupid and not know a thing about anything, but if you know how not to make yourself look like an idiot, we're cool.
|
I like girls who are a mix of intelligence and looks too  . Clever but ugly/ fat is just as bad as hot but airhead.
|
On June 03 2011 02:16 deepfield1 wrote:
pre med.. yet he has problems with evolution? <boggle>
You would be surprised at the number of medical students (yes students, not premeds. premeds are a dime a dozen, I'd bet >80% of premeds never make it to medical school) don't believe in evolution, or maybe believe in the "micro" vs "macro" evolution bullshit. This is especially true here in the good ole south.
While medicine is founded on the basis of biological science, learning to be a doctor is more like learning to be a mechanic than a scientist, the facts that support evolution that are everpresent in biology don't present themselves as much in the medical field.
|
That sticky will forever be my homeland!
|
On June 03 2011 02:06 IskatuMesk wrote:
Of course animals modify their DNA to adapt to the environment, how do you think Mutalisks fly in space?
You, sir, are truly hilarious.
On topic, I was recently talking to a bunch of people about how sexy a girl who know her math is. I think I said,"Yeah, if they're good looking, that's nice, but if they don't know their math, I'm not touching that!"
And my standard for women: If they don't know calculus, they're either too young or to stupid.
|
Brains win easily, eye candy is nice but I still have to live with you. I also love debating, to the point that I will scare most people away, but if you don't get scared away then I know I can enjoy the relationship without having to repress my own thoughts. I also love to just speak my mind, which often leads to debates, if a girl wants me to prepare everything I say like some kind of PR monkey she can get the fuck out.
That said, people view intelligence in many different ways, we could even have a debate about that! Riku is right to say that the ability to use language isn't much of in indicator, though it can be annoying if it is so bad that they can't communicate anything well. Nothing is worse than a debate that end up being a debate over word meanings. For me, intelligence is the ability to think critically and accurately, to understand logical fallacies and avoid them, to think outside of the box and not rely on popular support of an idea or preconceived notions, to be willing to abandon incorrect thoughts and ideas even after investing heavily in them, and to have the confidence to challenge the world.
|
On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either
I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough.
However, if I must spell it out:
I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc.
Erm... I'll work on that.
On June 03 2011 03:46 Torenhire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:32 Arkansassy wrote:
All too often I encounter intellectuals who haven't an ounce of common sense, which is not only highly important to me, but proves beneficial throughout life. Nothing frustrates me more than a book smart idiot.
Ugh tell me about it. Even completely unrelated to the dating realm, I deal with people like this on a daily basis. One of my clients recently had like...4 PHDs or something just absolutely absurd and they couldn't figure out how to get their laptop to display on a projector. People without common sense don't get along well with me - I just get so frustrated with them. You can be absolutely book stupid and not know a thing about anything, but if you know how not to make yourself look like an idiot, we're cool.
Yeah, my dad always told me that I should try my hardest in school, but not sacrifice the rest of my life for it. He said that they might get slightly better test scores, but at least I can ride a bike.
On June 03 2011 04:33 jrkirby wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:06 IskatuMesk wrote:
Of course animals modify their DNA to adapt to the environment, how do you think Mutalisks fly in space? You, sir, are truly hilarious. On topic, I was recently talking to a bunch of people about how sexy a girl who know her math is. I think I said,"Yeah, if they're good looking, that's nice, but if they don't know their math, I'm not touching that!" And my standard for women: If they don't know calculus, they're either too young or to stupid.
That's a good prerequisite, I should adopt that for my own!
On June 03 2011 04:40 Treemonkeys wrote:
Brains win easily, eye candy is nice but I still have to live with you. I also love debating, to the point that I will scare most people away, but if you don't get scared away then I know I can enjoy the relationship without having to repress my own thoughts. I also love to just speak my mind, which often leads to debates, if a girl wants me to prepare everything I say like some kind of PR monkey she can get the fuck out.
That said, people view intelligence in many different ways, we could even have a debate about that! Riku is right to say that the ability to use language isn't much of in indicator, though it can be annoying if it is so bad that they can't communicate anything well. Nothing is worse than a debate that end up being a debate over word meanings. For me, intelligence is the ability to think critically and accurately, to understand logical fallacies and avoid them, to think outside of the box and not rely on popular support of an idea or preconceived notions, to be willing to abandon incorrect thoughts and ideas even after investing heavily in them, and to have the confidence to challenge the world.
I think we could be friends. :D
|
What's wrong with stupid people 
|
the Dagon Knight4010 Posts
I really don't want to be that guy...
On June 03 2011 01:59 Riku wrote:
Albeit, spelling and grammar is not exactly the best sign of intelligence or lack there of, but... damn, the grammar nazi in me is really stubborn.
I'd have understood a generally lax approach for a blog post, but in a sentence in which you describe how stubborn a grammar nazi you are?
I'm no grammar nazi myself; I just think that anyone who claims they are (and then does that to a sentence) should be made to work in a camp, mining singulars and plurals for others to use.
|
On June 03 2011 07:22 obesechicken13 wrote:What's wrong with stupid people
Good stupid:
I'm still not grasping the concept of theoretical physics and...
okay kidding.
The okay kind of "stupid"
I don't know who Rommel was.
How do I get a network printer to show up on my computer?
I'm having my mechanic install a new O2 sensor on my car, because I don't know what it is.
The "I'll never date anyone like this" kind of stupid:
I can never remember which side the gas pedal is on.
Backing down the shoulder of the interstate because I missed my exit
Spraying air freshener near a lit candle. (have had an ex do this before..)
I think her point (Or at least mine) is that you don't have to be intelligent necessarily, but you can't be stupid.
|
I mean this in the nicest way possible. I miss TL when the only girls around were lilsusie and neverGG. Things are getting silly. I guess sex sells.
|
edit: nvm someone delete this
|
On the topic of debating: maybe it's just me, but I generally find people who are on debate teams and love debating to be highly annoying, because all they want to do is argue about everything. Even when I tell them I don't want to, that only pushes them more to trick me into an argument because they know they're good at debating and I'm not, thus they can use me as a punching bag. I hate it when people do this, they just want to gratify themselves at my expense.
|
On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out: I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc.
Interesting...
I have a similar view point however I would ask what is your view on Lamarkism and the possible role of epigenetics in evolution? Given during oogenesis the female leave imprints on the methylation pattern of her eggs, does that not provide a mechanism, for traits obtained during life to be passed on to offspring. Methylation just alters the expression of genes, not the base genes themselves. Granted, this is a turn on/off mechanism, however the implication is clear.
Methylation patterns are affected by one's environment. One can pass on methylation patterns to offspring. Therefore one's environment can have a survival effect on one's offspring.
It is an interesting development in modern genetic evolutionary theory and hopefully will take the focus away genes being the "be all and end all" of evolution. It is far more complex than that.
|
On June 03 2011 13:13 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out: I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc. Interesting... I have a similar view point however I would ask what is your view on Lamarkism and the possible role of epigenetics in evolution? Given during oogenesis the female leave imprints on the methylation pattern of her eggs, does that not provide a mechanism, for traits obtained during life to be passed on to offspring. Methylation just alters the expression of genes, not the base genes themselves. Granted, this is a turn on/off mechanism, however the implication is clear. Methylation patterns are affected by one's environment. One can pass on methylation patterns to offspring. Therefore one's environment can have a survival effect on one's offspring. It is an interesting development in modern genetic evolutionary theory and hopefully will take the focus away genes being the "be all and end all" of evolution. It is far more complex than that.
Quite interesting. I really can't express my view on this until I read more on the subject. I'll have to research it when I have some time.
|
On June 03 2011 01:59 Riku wrote:
Seriously, if I ever have to explain my Darwin view on evolution again and told I am being illogical when the counter argument is that animals somehow "modify" their genes to adapt to their environment... I am going to throw the closest object out of the closest window.
I found this amusing considering that the real-life namesake of my SC2 character and TL account name, Trofim Lysenko, was a major proponent of these ideas in the Soviet Union, and his prominence led to a couple of Stalin's purges of academic geneticists in the 1930s.
Seemed like an appropriate name for a Zerg player, since the Zerg are always "evolving" things in response to their environment. 
I am not, for the record, actually a proponent of Lamarckism, though I have heard recently that there is some renewed interest in the idea as it relates to certain processes involved in genetic expression. Sounds a little like what the previous poster is talking about, but I am not enough of an expert to tell if we're talking about the same research.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 03 2011 13:17 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 13:13 Probulous wrote:On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out: I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc. Interesting... I have a similar view point however I would ask what is your view on Lamarkism and the possible role of epigenetics in evolution? Given during oogenesis the female leave imprints on the methylation pattern of her eggs, does that not provide a mechanism, for traits obtained during life to be passed on to offspring. Methylation just alters the expression of genes, not the base genes themselves. Granted, this is a turn on/off mechanism, however the implication is clear. Methylation patterns are affected by one's environment. One can pass on methylation patterns to offspring. Therefore one's environment can have a survival effect on one's offspring. It is an interesting development in modern genetic evolutionary theory and hopefully will take the focus away genes being the "be all and end all" of evolution. It is far more complex than that. Quite interesting. I really can't express my view on this until I read more on the subject. I'll have to research it when I have some time.
Ironically on an internet forum I thought the following would be an interesting link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
The idea with epigenetics is linked with "information memes", or genetic memes. Dawkins himself in his follow up to the Selfish Gene outlined how the gene is not the only unit of information passed on, simply the most basic.
If you have read the Selfish Gene I would suggest you read The Extended Phenotype where he expounds on the concept of information memes. It fits quite nicely with epigenetics.
Just for information sake here is the wikipedia link for Epigenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
|
so lyk i totelli hred yuo leik kreayshinizm n stuff, n intelijense is leik really importent n stuff.
I know some people that type like that and it really irks me. Its like you're 20+ years of age, surely the little extra effort can't do that much harm...
|
It's both. They go hand in hand with each other.
Why is it even a question?
|
On June 03 2011 01:59 Riku wrote:
Seriously, if I ever have to explain my Darwin view on evolution again and told I am being illogical when the counter argument is that animals somehow "modify" their genes to adapt to their environment... I am going to throw the closest object out of the closest window.
Reminds me of early HS and a programming contest. Had a problem where I had absolutely no clue how to get even close to a solution within the maximum run time of 1s. So I just looped with rand() solution vectors and checked them. I managed to pass 20% of the tests. So if I could play god and get it right 20% of the time with a 1s limit then I'm pretty sure the universe playing god with billions of years limit can't do much worse. And I'm not even touching well thought evolutionary algorithms here.
|
On June 03 2011 13:13 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out: I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc. Interesting... I have a similar view point however I would ask what is your view on Lamarkism and the possible role of epigenetics in evolution? Given during oogenesis the female leave imprints on the methylation pattern of her eggs, does that not provide a mechanism, for traits obtained during life to be passed on to offspring. Methylation just alters the expression of genes, not the base genes themselves. Granted, this is a turn on/off mechanism, however the implication is clear. Methylation patterns are affected by one's environment. One can pass on methylation patterns to offspring. Therefore one's environment can have a survival effect on one's offspring. It is an interesting development in modern genetic evolutionary theory and hopefully will take the focus away genes being the "be all and end all" of evolution. It is far more complex than that.
Don't know why you mention Lamarkism here; has nothing to do with any of this. Epigenetics and imprinting is a very interesting and current topic, but does not run contrary to the ideas of modern evolutionary synthesis. In fact, it has more to do with smaller-scale gene expression transfer between 1-2 generations (ok, more research needs to be done here, but generally speaking..) rather than large-scale changes in gene pool (which essentially is what evolution is).
EDIT: Ok, wikipedia, as always, explains this better than I did. Wikipedia on epigenetics' implications on evolution:
Evolution
Although epigenetics in multicellular organisms is generally thought to be a mechanism involved in differentiation, with epigenetic patterns "reset" when organisms reproduce, there have been some observations of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g., the phenomenon of paramutation observed in maize). Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation. A sequestered germ line or Weismann barrier is specific to animals, and epigenetic inheritance is expected to be far more common in plants and microbes. These effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[37][38]
|
On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out:
Ok. No need for evolution 101. I just thought "my Darwin view on evolution" was an awkward phrase -- sort of in a double positive way -- and wasn't sure what you meant. "Darwinian view" would have sufficed and would be clearer.
|
Norway28733 Posts
I liked unichan's post the most in this thread. it shows a realistic outlook on the whole process.
as for dating, it's pretty damn simplistic and can essentially be covered by a couple questions determining whether you are sexually and relationally compatible, and a couple more questions determining whether you should approach a relationship.
do you like talking to *person*? both need to answer yes there.
do you like looking at *person*? and both need to answer yes there as well.
then you need to ask "do I like talking to and looking (the combination of the two - nothing wrong with finding another person more physically attractive than your girl or boyfriend) at another person more than this person?" both need to answer no here.
then you need to ask "are we both looking for the same?", because if one person is looking for sex and the other is looking for a soulmate, it's not gonna work out.
if you're just looking for sex which is fair enough then you can remove "talk to" from the equations, but if you actually want a relationship then none of these questions should yield a wrong answer.
|
On June 03 2011 04:33 jrkirby wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:06 IskatuMesk wrote:
Of course animals modify their DNA to adapt to the environment, how do you think Mutalisks fly in space? You, sir, are truly hilarious. On topic, I was recently talking to a bunch of people about how sexy a girl who know her math is. I think I said,"Yeah, if they're good looking, that's nice, but if they don't know their math, I'm not touching that!" And my standard for women: If they don't know calculus, they're either too young or to stupid.
I feel bad for that girl who has to pass a math test to date you ^^. You know. Girls being academics is kind of a new phenomenon from the 20 century. Many people were happily married also before that
|
On June 05 2011 05:50 Mactator wrote:I feel bad for that girl who has to pass a math test to date you ^^. You know. Girls being academics is kind of a new phenomenon from the 20 century. Many people were happily married also before that
Of course if a guy would prefer to talk math with his partner, it's a valid enough standard that she have an interest in it.
|
On June 05 2011 05:50 Mactator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 04:33 jrkirby wrote:On June 03 2011 02:06 IskatuMesk wrote:
Of course animals modify their DNA to adapt to the environment, how do you think Mutalisks fly in space? You, sir, are truly hilarious. On topic, I was recently talking to a bunch of people about how sexy a girl who know her math is. I think I said,"Yeah, if they're good looking, that's nice, but if they don't know their math, I'm not touching that!" And my standard for women: If they don't know calculus, they're either too young or to stupid. I feel bad for that girl who has to pass a math test to date you ^^. You know. Girls being academics is kind of a new phenomenon from the 20 century. Many people were happily married also before that
I argue that you are wrong or that our definitions of "happily married" differ greatly. I see your happy and raise you constant wars including two global!
|
Lamarkism
Normally I wouldn't correct spelling on TL, but since it appears that there's some somewhat-informed knowledge of this topic here, it's worth pointing out that it's "Lamarckism."
|
On June 03 2011 03:48 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:16 deepfield1 wrote:
pre med.. yet he has problems with evolution? <boggle> You would be surprised at the number of medical students (yes students, not premeds. premeds are a dime a dozen, I'd bet >80% of premeds never make it to medical school) don't believe in evolution, or maybe believe in the "micro" vs "macro" evolution bullshit. This is especially true here in the good ole south. While medicine is founded on the basis of biological science, learning to be a doctor is more like learning to be a mechanic than a scientist, the facts that support evolution that are everpresent in biology don't present themselves as much in the medical field.
A lot of med students suck balls. They're just tryhards who want a guaranteed income. Scientists on the other hand. Those are badasses.
|
On June 05 2011 05:10 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 13:13 Probulous wrote:On June 03 2011 07:02 Riku wrote:On June 03 2011 03:04 phosphorylation wrote:
whats ur view on evolution again?
for someone who complains about bad grammar, your writing isn't too clear either I figured "my Darwin view on evolution" should be descriptive enough. However, if I must spell it out: I believe genetic mutations occur when replicating the DNA to produce offspring. Those genetic mutations which are beneficial give those offspring a higher survival and reproduction rate, which causes it to become more prevalent in the population. On the other hand, mutations that aren't beneficial do not become more prevalent. Over millions of year these "micro" evolutions collect to "macro" evolutions, etc, etc. Interesting... I have a similar view point however I would ask what is your view on Lamarkism and the possible role of epigenetics in evolution? Given during oogenesis the female leave imprints on the methylation pattern of her eggs, does that not provide a mechanism, for traits obtained during life to be passed on to offspring. Methylation just alters the expression of genes, not the base genes themselves. Granted, this is a turn on/off mechanism, however the implication is clear. Methylation patterns are affected by one's environment. One can pass on methylation patterns to offspring. Therefore one's environment can have a survival effect on one's offspring. It is an interesting development in modern genetic evolutionary theory and hopefully will take the focus away genes being the "be all and end all" of evolution. It is far more complex than that. Don't know why you mention Lamarkism here; has nothing to do with any of this. Epigenetics and imprinting is a very interesting and current topic, but does not run contrary to the ideas of modern evolutionary synthesis. In fact, it has more to do with smaller-scale gene expression transfer between 1-2 generations (ok, more research needs to be done here, but generally speaking..) rather than large-scale changes in gene pool (which essentially is what evolution is). EDIT: Ok, wikipedia, as always, explains this better than I did. Wikipedia on epigenetics' implications on evolution: Evolution Although epigenetics in multicellular organisms is generally thought to be a mechanism involved in differentiation, with epigenetic patterns "reset" when organisms reproduce, there have been some observations of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g., the phenomenon of paramutation observed in maize). Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation. A sequestered germ line or Weismann barrier is specific to animals, and epigenetic inheritance is expected to be far more common in plants and microbes. These effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[37][38]
Thanks. I only mentioned it because it has relevance in the macro/micro evolution "debate". Like I said my view is very similar, this is just an interesting development. I personally believe that genes are going to be found to be less and less relevant as the research progresses. The fact that we have so few genes that are interpreted in such a variety of ways suggest to me that there is something we are missing. As of now there is little evidence to support this but epigenetics seems one possible route of exploration.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
|
On June 05 2011 05:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I liked unichan's post the most in this thread. it shows a realistic outlook on the whole process.
as for dating, it's pretty damn simplistic and can essentially be covered by a couple questions determining whether you are sexually and relationally compatible, and a couple more questions determining whether you should approach a relationship.
do you like talking to *person*? both need to answer yes there.
do you like looking at *person*? and both need to answer yes there as well.
then you need to ask "do I like talking to and looking (the combination of the two - nothing wrong with finding another person more physically attractive than your girl or boyfriend) at another person more than this person?" both need to answer no here.
then you need to ask "are we both looking for the same?", because if one person is looking for sex and the other is looking for a soulmate, it's not gonna work out.
if you're just looking for sex which is fair enough then you can remove "talk to" from the equations, but if you actually want a relationship then none of these questions should yield a wrong answer.
That covers a lot of the basics, for example whether you should date or not to begin with, but I find that trust is a very important concept in a relationship that is inherently tied with self-esteem. If you or your partner, or both, have self-esteem issues then you will probably have trust issues in the relationship. This can strain the relationship unnecessarily, and may lead to a break up (or may not, it depends). Jealousy also factors in here, as those with self-esteem issues are also more likely to be jealous, even if their partner hasn't done anything wrong.
On topic, brains and looks are both important. I probably wouldn't become friends with a girl if she was stupid, and I wouldn't sleep with a girl if I didn't find her attractive, so to date her I would probably need both. I am, however, more likely to date a girl initially if I find her attractive. Later on, if she turns out to be stupid, then I would probably break off the relationship since I find that I like talking about "the intellectual shit", as someone earlier called it, more than hanging out getting drunk and partying. Not to say that the two are opposed, but I mean it as a I prefer to talk over doing something, and I am terrible at small talk. I would much rather discuss our place in the universe or analyze people. But that just happens to be me, and "intellectual shit" is different for different people. My knowledge of math or physics is pretty poor when compared with my knowledge of history or philosophy, so I will gravitate towards the latter. *shrug*
|
Sort of an odd OP, just imo, but the responses/the overall thread are/is really interesting :>
...and as usual, discussion dies after my post ;;
|
On June 07 2011 12:50 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I liked unichan's post the most in this thread. it shows a realistic outlook on the whole process.
as for dating, it's pretty damn simplistic and can essentially be covered by a couple questions determining whether you are sexually and relationally compatible, and a couple more questions determining whether you should approach a relationship.
do you like talking to *person*? both need to answer yes there.
do you like looking at *person*? and both need to answer yes there as well.
then you need to ask "do I like talking to and looking (the combination of the two - nothing wrong with finding another person more physically attractive than your girl or boyfriend) at another person more than this person?" both need to answer no here.
then you need to ask "are we both looking for the same?", because if one person is looking for sex and the other is looking for a soulmate, it's not gonna work out.
if you're just looking for sex which is fair enough then you can remove "talk to" from the equations, but if you actually want a relationship then none of these questions should yield a wrong answer. That covers a lot of the basics, for example whether you should date or not to begin with, but I find that trust is a very important concept in a relationship that is inherently tied with self-esteem. If you or your partner, or both, have self-esteem issues then you will probably have trust issues in the relationship. This can strain the relationship unnecessarily, and may lead to a break up (or may not, it depends). Jealousy also factors in here, as those with self-esteem issues are also more likely to be jealous, even if their partner hasn't done anything wrong. On topic, brains and looks are both important. I probably wouldn't become friends with a girl if she was stupid, and I wouldn't sleep with a girl if I didn't find her attractive, so to date her I would probably need both. I am, however, more likely to date a girl initially if I find her attractive. Later on, if she turns out to be stupid, then I would probably break off the relationship since I find that I like talking about "the intellectual shit", as someone earlier called it, more than hanging out getting drunk and partying. Not to say that the two are opposed, but I mean it as a I prefer to talk over doing something, and I am terrible at small talk. I would much rather discuss our place in the universe or analyze people. But that just happens to be me, and "intellectual shit" is different for different people. My knowledge of math or physics is pretty poor when compared with my knowledge of history or philosophy, so I will gravitate towards the latter. *shrug*
Lawl when I said that I didn't like talking about intellectual bs I meant like long-winded political or science/math type discussions that I see some my friends as couples having. This is probably because I don't give a damn about politics and intellectual stuff beyond school extends to math competitions and that's it - not necessarily something I'd want to discuss with a significant other anyways, I don't want to get too competitive with a boyfriend about this kind of stuff. I'm not saying that I like small talk, or just talking about ourselves all the time, it's just that I like to discuss chill things like games or TV or movies, but I really hate it when this devolves into theorycrafting or discussions on the film maker's purpose, or the underlying theme/meaning/crap blah blah. That kind of stuff is better left to talking about with friends or in classroom settings because I hate it when people try to push their opinions on me and I hate feeling like I'm pushing my opinions on others - which inevitably happens in a one on one conversation. In a discussion with multiple people it feels less like you're shoving your ideas in their face and more like you are gently presenting them. Obviously I don't want to just go out with an idiot who is like hurr durr derp all the time and says things that are so stupid they make me cringe, or someone who is completely clueless when I mention something like quasars or p-values (to be fair, I'd probably be completely clueless if someone mentioned something relating to current world issues or politics). This probably relates to the fact that I am a super chill person and never take anything seriously - when someone is taking shit more seriously than me I start to get kind of mad and I type out long things where I yell at them for coming to me about their serious crap since they know I can't help and I don't care (yeah this happened recently lol, I don't mean personal problems I meant he kept complaining to me about balance and shit, which I really don't give a shit about). You're probably like wtf right now, this isn't a chill post unibro you just typed a whole fucking essay, which is kind of true, but sometimes I start typing and I can't stop, gg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
