|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2003 : 18:33:23 [Permalink]
|
I am female.
That said, I am more interested in real science than in the silliness of others. My skepticism has been a steady, life-long affair and I see no way of preventing the stupidities of true believers. I tend to ignore those stupidities of others and hope that others will ignore mine.
ljbrs |
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
 |
|
|
Camera Obscura
New Member
1 Post |
Posted - 06/11/2003 : 12:13:57 [Permalink]
|
| I've arrived with old news I suppose, but I think it's odd (and perhaps telling) that various forum searches for the Women Empowering Women "dinner party" pyramid scheme produce no results. Meanwhile, I voted in the poll first and joined afterwards. It's taken me a long time to get back into all this stuff for various reasons. I finally decided I had to when I noticed that having a baby made me shockingly prone to sentimentality. I really have to fight to keep myself from dividing information into three categories (cute baby news, sad baby news, other). Before I thought people who considered skepticism a matter of will power as overly macho or just simpleminded. |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2003 : 14:49:40 [Permalink]
|
My skepticism has been a steady, life-long affair and I see no way of preventing the stupidities of true believers.
Actually, I understand the true believers and feel a little sorry for their predicament. They are actually tremendously fearful of their religious beliefs and worry about even thinking about any alternatives for fear of going to whatever their version of "HELL" happens to be.
Of course, the perpertrators of religions (those who want financial gain from delivering pap [and FEAR] to true believers) get no sympathy from me.
I have been lucky throughout my life to have been able to withstand the overtures of the true-believing proselytizers and have usually offered them the following: "Would you like to hear about MY religion?" That stops everything in the bud right then and there. The proselytizers run away in great fear that I might tell them something they do not want (and are afraid) to hear. Poor, poor things...
ljbrs |
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
|
|
|
Sanity
New Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 14:58:17 [Permalink]
|
My experience on other skeptical forums has been that skeptical posters are overwhelmingly male. Participants overall have been at least 80% male. It is usually assumed that I am male. When I correct this, surprise is expressed.
The female respondents to a recent Harris poll were significantly more apt to believe in all sorts of supernatural mumbo-jumbo than male respondents. This wasn't limited to religion. 25% of males and 36% of women believe in astrology; 77% of men and 90% of women believe in miracles; 45% of men and 58% of women believe in ghosts; 23% of men and 30% of women believe in reincarnation.
Oddly, 86% of women believe in the resurrection of Christ and 89% believe in heaven - so some of the women who believe in reincarnation are Christians who believe in heaven. I am at a loss to explain how they intergrate these two belief systems. |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2003 : 13:59:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The female respondents to a recent Harris poll were significantly more apt to believe in all sorts of supernatural mumbo-jumbo than male respondents. This wasn't limited to religion.
It has always been bothersome to me when anybody lumps my ideas into the female category. I think silly women pretend to be ignorant simply to get the interest of men who are somewhat more ignorant than they are pretending to be. Such silly women pay a big price. From what I have observed, it must be infinitely bothersome to be married to an ignoramus, male or female. Then again, ignorant people beget ignorant children and the cycle continues ad infinitum.
Poor, poor dears...
ljbrs :) :(
|
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2003 : 19:44:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ljbrs
I think silly women pretend to be ignorant simply to get the interest of men
Isn't that what most women do? LOL
Everyone pretends something to get what they want!
Fish pretend to have worms on the end of their mouths to get other fish to swim near.
How silly is that when they want to eat? |
|
|
|
Sanity
New Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2003 : 00:32:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ljbrs
I think silly women pretend to be ignorant simply to get the interest of men who are somewhat more ignorant than they are pretending to be.
I don't think the poll respondents were pretending to believe in what they said believed was true. The other females I know and have known aren't pretending when they tell others in an all female group that astrology or psi is true.
Pretending to be ignorant in order to get a mate is one thing. Pretending to be knowledgable about something the male doesn't believe in, is something else altogether. The later isn't apt to be successful in getting a mate. The former isn't apt to create a trusting long lasting marriage.
Even back in the "old days," men with healthy self-esteem didn't care to marry ignorant women. Those with low self-esteem, and who were ignorant themselves, were more apt to prefer ignorant spouses. 25 to 35 years ago, when I was of courting age, my mind wasn't a problem. In fact, it offset what was a problem - flat chest and general homeliness.
As tempting as it is to criticize men for their preference for attractive women, we must admit that this is biological programming. Females are also so programmed. All other things being equal, we too prefer the more attractive guy. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2003 : 16:59:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanity
The former isn't apt to create a trusting long lasting marriage.
I can't on Earth figure out why someone would want a 'long lasting marriage' but that's another story.
quote:
when I was of courting age, my mind wasn't a problem. In fact, it offset what was a problem - flat chest and general homeliness.
IMO, even more so than being blond, women with larger boobs seem dumber than regular people. Great example is that person they call an actress, (although I have to admit I've never seen her in an acting roll, only briefly on talk shows) but Pamela Anderson, geess all one can do is stare at her chest 'cause what she says is so stupid.
If I was so inclined to like women I don't think I'd pick one who was too big, it's weird looking.
quote:
As tempting as it is to criticize men for their preference for attractive women, we must admit that this is biological programming. Females are also so programmed. All other things being equal, we too prefer the more attractive guy.
That's a very general statement.
After all what's attractive?
There are so many variables.
I've seen some shows (might have been 'Dateline' or '20/20' one of those programs) where they've done research on what people like or what are supposed to be the standards that are the reasons someone picks a mate and none of the people who they said were attractive appealed to me.
ALso, I would prefer short term 'romantic relationships' and looks are the only thing I go by. (as I've said before on this site, any men out there with long jet black hair and slanty eyes? I'm waiting!) Who cares if someone can recite poetry?!
For 'long term relationships' that include conversations one has friends. Or web sites like this one, why ruin a good physical relationship by talking too much? |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2003 : 22:48:43 [Permalink]
|
I have seen a few research papers on what it considered attractive.
First off, alot is subjective to culture, generation, and individual.
However, there seem to be several recurring guidlines. People with more symmetrical features generally are more attractive than those with less symmetrical features. General shape seems to play a part as well. For women, large hips and breasts with a smaller waist indicates that women are generally fit, have enough fat to carry a child to term, and the thin waist is generally more chareristic of younger women, and thus women more likely to be of prime child bearing age. Of course, alot of this stems from our distant past. Likewise, men who are generally more fit, generally taller, and more muscular have an edge in appeal, since they were more likely in the distant past to be good providers. There were several other common traits that are found attractive by most people, but I forget what they are.
Personally, I think looks are great, but they aren't much on which to base a relationship. Personality and brains are far more important. I can't imagine how bored I would be if my wife didn't think and communicate at the same level I do. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2003 : 23:17:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm
People with more symmetrical features generally are more attractive than those with less symmetrical features
Yes, that's the exact same thing they mentioned on the show I was watching. I think it's a bunch of bull. Either that or most people have really poor taste in what's beautiful.
Perhaps they do, Julia Roberts is supposed to be a top 'actress'. She's pitifully ulgy at least if she chould act it might be different but she can't do that either. Well, the public is not right most of the time.
quote:
I can't imagine how bored I would be if my wife didn't think and communicate at the same level I do.
That's why one needs 2 (or more) wifes!
If mine weren't drunk so much I think I could communicate with him but I've had to go out and find others. Wait....they weren't for talking to. Ok, forget it.
But really, Man wasn't meant to have only one partner. It's no fun, either. |
|
|
|
Sanity
New Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2003 : 14:59:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
I can't on Earth figure out why someone would want a 'long lasting marriage' but that's another story.
Back when marriages lasted a lifetime, the average life span was 45 years. So if a man married at 20, he was married 25 years max. While in many cultures women were 12 to 15 at marriage, men often waited until they were 25 to 30, if not older. Women frequently died in childbirth, so neither of them were usually married all that long.
With average life expectancies of about 80 years, the idea of life-long marriage is something completely different than it used to be. People change, and one would expect more change in 60 years than in 20. (My dad has been married 55 years - 20 years to one women and 25 to another )
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
If I was so inclined to like women I don't think I'd pick one who was too big, it's weird looking.
My son tends to prefer women of small to "average" size - he finds overlargeness bazare. (But he puts brains - and common beliefs - above looks, which is why he's still single. Try to find a smart atheist 25 year old female down here in the Bible Belt.)
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
Yes, that's [symetrical features] the exact same thing they mentioned on the show I was watching. I think it's a bunch of bull. Either that or most people have really poor taste in what's beautiful.
These studies have been carried out by neuroscientists as well as social scientists. No matter how they do the tests, the symetrical features always win. There is a bit more to it though. Distance between nose and mouth, size of eyes, etc. are also highly rated.
We are biological creatures. We have inherited the genes, and the associated traits and behaviors, that, if not benign, were useful to our ancestors over the millions of years between us and the first single cell life form. It would be unrealistic to expect that genetic predisposition toward certain qualities in a mate isn't a part of our make-up.
There is a difference between recognizing that someone is attractive and being attracted to them. Many women are attracted to very homely, yet powerful, men. This makes genetic sense. This makes genetic sense for primates and many other mammals as well. It would make genetic sense for male humans today to be attracted to more intelligent women, but this wouldn't make as much sense for our pre-human ancestors. One of the biggest advantages humans have is the mental elasticity that enables us to re-define our preferences so that intelligence can be seen as equal to "beauty."
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2003 : 23:45:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanity
These studies have been carried out by neuroscientists as well as social scientists. No matter how they do the tests, the symetrical features always win. There is a bit more to it though. Distance between nose and mouth, size of eyes, etc. are also highly rated.
We are biological creatures. We have inherited the genes, and the associated traits and behaviors, that, if not benign, were useful to our ancestors over the millions of years between us and the first single cell life form. It would be unrealistic to expect that genetic predisposition toward certain qualities in a mate isn't a part of our make-up.
There is a difference between recognizing that someone is attractive and being attracted to them. Many women are attracted to very homely, yet powerful, men. This makes genetic sense. This makes genetic sense for primates and many other mammals as well. It would make genetic sense for male humans today to be attracted to more intelligent women, but this wouldn't make as much sense for our pre-human ancestors. One of the biggest advantages humans have is the mental elasticity that enables us to re-define our preferences so that intelligence can be seen as equal to "beauty."
I still say it's a bunch of crap.
I grew up not too far from a school that I think is well known and some people think anyone who went there is smart, it's called UCLA. I have yet to find anyone from there to be intelligent. My own cousin got a doctorate there and she's not so perceptive. So IMO, they can do all the studies they want, it doesn't mean a thing. Real people are going to chooes who they want to be with and they don't need to know why.
All that money wasted at those universitys doing that 'research'...for what?
Too bad about your son. Does he like anyone older than he(sort of twice his age!), and is he willing to move? I live in California. Only thing is I'd need to loose about 200 pounds(and I'm legaly married-not a big problem though). |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2003 : 09:57:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Snake: I grew up not too far from a school that I think is well known and some people think anyone who went there is smart, it's called UCLA. I have yet to find anyone from there to be intelligent. My own cousin got a doctorate there and she's not so perceptive. So IMO, they can do all the studies they want, it doesn't mean a thing. Real people are going to chooes who they want to be with and they don't need to know why. All that money wasted at those universitys doing that 'research'...for what?
What is all that stupid science for anyway? All that money wasted on what? Studies that don't agree with Snakes views. How silly. A phone call to Snake would be so much cheaper and easier. Just call and ask her opinion. I say close the universities. Who needs them? Educated dummy's. Worse, educated dummy's with (some of them) big boobs! A sure sign of stupidity! (I'm sure Michelle and Bonnie would agree. Or maybe not since they are clearly stupid. Just look at them...) |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2003 : 21:51:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
What is all that stupid science for anyway? All that money wasted on what? Studies that don't agree with Snakes views. How silly. A phone call to Snake would be so much cheaper and easier. Just call and ask her opinion. I say close the universities. Who needs them? Educated dummy's. Worse, educated dummy's with (some of them) big boobs! A sure sign of stupidity! (I'm sure Michelle and Bonnie would agree. Or maybe not since they are clearly stupid. Just look at them...)
Those studies weren't science. But more than that you are twisting or not understanding what I'm saying.
And what are you talking about with Michelle and Penny? As I tried to explain to Froy, she's not a woman she's someone I know (that puts her in another category). There's a difference.
And before you say...I know my cousin, we are distanct now and I never did like her attitude or her mother, thereby putting her in a different category.... the stupid snoby one. |
|
|
|
Sanity
New Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2003 : 00:58:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
I still say it's a bunch of crap.
I grew up not too far from a school that I think is well known and some people think anyone who went there is smart, it's called UCLA. I have yet to find anyone from there to be intelligent. My own cousin got a doctorate there and she's not so perceptive. So IMO, they can do all the studies they want, it doesn't mean a thing. Real people are going to chooes who they want to be with and they don't need to know why.
All that money wasted at those universitys doing that 'research'...for what?
Come on, Snake, don't take pages from the fundies's book and reject out of hand things that don't conform to your personal beliefs. Please read four or five books on the neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience research of the last 2 decades, done in many different countries, some by universities and some by medical centers and some by independent researchers, before you decide its all a bunch of crap.
The skeptic only rejects, for now, those things for which valid evidence has yet to be provided. After reading over 15 books, and hundreds of science magazine articles, on this subject, it is obvious to me that the evidence is valid and widespread.
As to the smarts of todays university students, no wonder. They've dumbed down the SAT test twice since I went to school. Kids are getting into Ivy League schools today with scores that, when converted to the old scores, would have barely gotten them into local state or city colleges - if they could have gotten into any college at all. Studies have shown that there are kids in college - and people with college degrees - who are barely literate. But that doesn't mean every kid at every college is.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
