smart women equal nice guys

Post Reply New Topic

Just FYI,
"Dating Tips for Uptown Divorcées: Middle-Aged Millionaires Are Just Not That Into You."
By Richard Kirshenbaum
http://observer.com/2013/06/dating-tips ... divorcees/

What those women mean:

I want a millionaire but I can't get any!

Kurgan, post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin logical expression meaning just because two things are associated together doesn't necessarily mean there is a causal relationship. But it also doesn't deny the possibility of a causal relationship; it only means it hasn't been satisfactorily established. As an epistemologist myself, I know that establishing absolute causation even in the hard sciences is hellishly difficult; it is the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. And establishing hard correlation in the social sciences is even more difficult. As Aristotle noted, do not require more precision from a discipline than it is capable of rendering.

The reason this is important is that by demanding more precision than a field is capable of rendering, I could show that Asperger Syndrome itself is "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", and therefore doesn't exist. After all, there are aspies who have learned to get along well enough in social situations. And it is definitely true that some aspies deal better with social situations than others. There are also aspies who don't "stim" (me, for instance). In other words, the correlation between AS symptoms and aspies is far less than one hundred percent. In fact, I would suspect that most aspies don't have all possible AS symptoms.

So, assuming your denial of sex differences isn't an article of faith, what would it take to convince you that in many cases, men simply aren't attracted to powerful, smart women? And, assuming you apply "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" consistently, what would it take to convince you are Asperger Syndrome exists?

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 07 Jul 2013, 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Neither can be blamed. If we should blame someone, it should be on an individual level; namely the woman who fails to realize that the hot, young girl who does not have a useless degree probably is as smart as she is, at the end of the day.

If a woman is ugly, she has various genetic flaws that will make reproduction more troublesome--hence, an ugly woman will be less desireable.

Last edited by Kurgan on 07 Jul 2013, 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

The women who think men are intimidated by smart women reason like this: "I'm smart and I can't get a date. Ergo, men don't like smart women". Post hoc ergo propter hoc means after this, hence because of this.

Autism is a spectrum; nobody meats all the criterias. These so-called career women only lists one reason why they can't get a date, and that's because they're "career women" and men are intimidated by them. Asperger's syndrome exists because vastly different people face the same obstacles and frequently have the same set of problems, even though their symptoms aren't necessarily identical per se.

"The women who think men are intimidated by smart women reason like this: "I'm smart and I can't get a date. Ergo, men don't like smart women". Post hoc ergo propter hoc means after this, hence because of this."

This is what "post hoc, ergo propter hoc means, straight from wikipedia, which is just what I said. You must understand the entire definition to understand it at all:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."

"Autism is a spectrum; nobody meats all the criterias. These so-called career women only lists one reason why they can't get a date, and that's because they're "career women" and men are intimidated by them. Asperger's syndrome exists because vastly different people face the same obstacles and frequently have the same set of problems, even though their symptoms aren't necessarily identical per se."

Likewise, because, as Tyrion notes, some smart, successful women do find men, that's part of a spectrum too, as in some men have no problem with smart, successful women while other men do, and there are also men who fall between these two polarities. And, by the same token, men are "vastly different people", some of whom like smart, successful women, and some who don't. Nor are their psychological makeups (i.e., "symptoms") always identical.

The fact of the matter is that all the phenomena studied by the social sciences are spectra insofar as they aren't always true and can vary considerably, and that we all have our own unique psyches. This is why the epistemology of the social sciences is that a given phenomenon that is true half the time is a "pattern", and one that is true seventy percent of the time is known as a fact. Nothing when dealing with people is true one hundred percent of the time.

But you didn't answer my question: What would it take to convince you that men not liking powerful, smart women is either a "pattern" or "fact"? Or is it an article of faith for you, and not to be questioned?

I'm talking about the fallacy. These so-called career women don't take other factors into consideration, hence their reasoning is based on fallacies.



The vast majority of successful women find men and the vast majority of men have no problems with successful women, with the only exceptions being the men who buy mailorder brides. Almost all career women I know are happily married and have children. My mother works as a boss; she's been married for 26 years and has four children. The vast majority of women at my university with a future career are in long-term relationships. Very rarely do you see someone who's a 5/10 or better whine about how men are intimidated by smart women.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that all the phenomena studied by the social sciences are spectra insofar as they aren't always true and can vary considerably, and that we all have our own unique psyches. This is why the epistemology of the social sciences is that a given phenomenon that is true half the time is a "pattern", and one that is true seventy percent of the time is known as a fact. Nothing when dealing with people is true one hundred percent of the time.

These "career women" bring nothing more than their intelligence to the table (let's be frank here: An IQ of 110 does not justify a superiority complex). A more attractive woman will typically bring intelligence + much more to the table. If a women with absolute nothing going for her (i.e. she's ugly, stupid and unpleasant) inherits a sports car, but she still doesn't get a date, does that mean that men are intimidated by sports cars?

Quote:

The burden of proof is not on me, but on the women who claim that men do not like career women. Like I said, at the end of the day, that hot chick that's helped by her looks is JUST AS INTELLIGENT as the "smart women who intimidate men".

"I'm talking about the fallacy. These so-called career women don't take other factors into consideration, hence their reasoning is based on fallacies."

Yes, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is by definition a fallacy. So, you think the fallacy lies with smart and powerful women rather than with the men who reject them? How so?

"The vast majority of successful women find men and the vast majority of men have no problems with successful women, with the only exceptions being the men who buy mailorder brides. Almost all career women I know are happily married and have children. My mother works as a boss; she's been married for 26 years and has four children. The vast majority of women at my university with a future career are in long-term relationships. Very rarely do you see someone who's a 5/10 or better whine about how men are intimidated by smart women."

Now you're switching terms. There is a huge difference between a successful woman and the type of woman we're talking about. Of course most career women find men. It's the women at the very top of the food chain that have the problems.


"These "career women" bring nothing more than their intelligence to the table (let's be frank here: An IQ of 110 does not justify a superiority complex). A more attractive woman will typically bring intelligence + much more to the table. If a women with absolute nothing going for her (i.e. she's ugly, stupid and unpleasant) inherits a sports car, but she still doesn't get a date, does that mean that men are intimidated by sports cars?"

Again, we're talking about smart and powerful women, not women with an IQ of 110. We are talking women CEO's of major corporations, those at the top of the media, the most successful and influential academics, etc. And the higher a woman goes up the socio-economic food chain, the more difficult it becomes for her to find a man.

The fact is that both women and men want a mate similar to themselves not only in terms of attractiveness and values, but in terms of socio-economic success, which include intelligence and power. The problem is that when women get to the top of the food chain, their male peers would generally rather have trophy wives instead of their middle-aged female peers, though these marriages hardly tend to be built on love, but instead show high male status.

This is one exception to the similarity rule, though even the men at the top tend to start out with women similar to themselves. Many of them do tend to dump their first wives in favor of trophy wives though.

This is a sociological phenomenon well studied if you care to investigate.

"The burden of proof is not on me, but on the women who claim that men do not like career women. Like I said, at the end of the day, that hot chick that's helped by her looks is JUST AS INTELLIGENT as the "smart women who intimidate men"."

I agree with you insofar as the successful women you are describing and the kind of women we are supposed to be discussing are two different things.

If you are interested in expanding your horizons on this matter, here is a book I can recommend. It was written by one of the women I describe who is very smart, very powerful, and very liberal:

http://www.amazon.com/Are-Men-Necessary ... ureen+dowd

Don´t think so. Smart + Beautiful = jackpot.

The thing is, certain men's definition of smart is quite ridiculous.

Cafeaulait, I personally agree with you. I wouldn't have a woman who wasn't intelligent. But smart women do tend to intimidate a lot of men, which is hardly conducive to a fulfilling romantic relationship.

What happens when smart women are fifty, at the tops of their fields, and no longer beautiful in the eyes of most men?

Men who are intimidated by this are few and far between.



Still married to the same men for 25 years with children, in most cases.

Those smart women probably think they're equal to rich men and deserve one - even if they're not rich themselves.

"Men who are intimidated by this are few and far between."

How do you know this? It's a fair question since your statement defies everything the social sciences tell us, namely that the bowling alley and country club crowds rarely mix. For example, do you think you could be in a happy relationship with a woman who thought the KKK was a good idea? And would a woman like that want to be in a relationship with you? The answer is quite clearly no.

"Still married to the same men for 25 years with children, in most cases."

How about those who put off marriage and children to get to the top?

In my opinion, that has a very logical reason: both men and women try to give what they desire to receive. If you want to treat somebody well, you treat him/her as you would desire to be treated.

For men, this is being nice and careful. Because men usually like nice and careful girls.

For women, this is being successful, smart and self-confident. Because this is the way they like men.

And yeap, you're right: it's a symetrical situation. Men and women giving that they would like to receive... and of course, failing.

Yes, the fallacy lies with the said women who live in denial. If they have nothing whatsoever (looks, personality, fun to be with etc.) to offer besides their full-time job, a bachelor's degree in English litterature and an IQ of 105, then they're a bad catch--and men should be allowed to reject them.



Then please explain why Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Meg Whitman and Virginia Rometty are/were married women with children.



Most of these women married their college boyfriend and passed their genes on to their kids.



The fact that most men are not hypergamous does not mean that men are intimidated by alpha women. Generally speaking, there are many pretty boy golddiggers--and there are men who are turned on by cougars as well.

I haven't really thought about the whole smart powerful women vs. "dumb" women. I haven't seen many women around here who make lots of money.

I have no observations to give on smart or powerful women. Chances are they are looking for someone who can keep up in a conversation with them. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Just a generalization though.

Others I have dated that you might call "dumb" might be more emotionally in tune with their emotions, but often pick people based on emotions rather than rational choices. Might be generalizing there as well.

To find a fine balance between rational and emotional is a very difficult process. I came across one person that might be close to that, but they don't live where I live right now. She was definitely attractive and smart and we got along great.