NationStates Jolt Archive

This was linked to on Scott Adam's blog, (he's the Dilbert guy) and I thought it was fairly relevant to our little corner of the internet, considering the relatively high levels of virginity that show up on sex related polls around here.

Apparently, the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to have sex.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

That's what the link above shows anyway. It looks at a number of studies to demonstrate the claim, and then uses other studies to try and determine why that is.

I think in the end it all just boils down to intelligent people tending to be less attractive, primarily because they tend to be less physically active.

I believe that it comes down to the fact that intellectuals like to talk big, but aren't that big when it comes down to it (if you know what I mean).

There are many other possible explanations.

-People who are more intelligent may be more likely to perceive long-term risks or consequences from sex, and thus may be more careful about when/if they have sex.

-People who are less intelligent may have more motivation to have sex. For instance, I knew a girl in high school who openly stated that she was too stupid to make a career for herself, but she didn't need to be smart to land a rich husband...she just needed to be hot and good in bed.

-People who are more intelligent or intellectual may have interests that are more likely to get in the way of pursuing their sex life. For instance, if I'm playing chess I'm having to devote a whole lot of mental energy to the game, and I don't really have as much brain power to spare to checking out my opponent or flirting with them. On the other hand, flirting while playing checkers is much easier. Less brainpower needed for the hobby = more brainpower available for flirting/courtship. Maybe "smart" people are more likely to have hobbies that divert their mental energy away from flirting.

And I'm just spit-balling here. There are plenty of other possibilities, too.

There are many other possible explanations.

-People who are more intelligent may be more likely to perceive long-term risks or consequences from sex, and thus may be more careful about when/if they have sex.

-People who are less intelligent may have more motivation to have sex. For instance, I knew a girl in high school who openly stated that she was too stupid to make a career for herself, but she didn't need to be smart to land a rich husband...she just needed to be hot and good in bed.

-People who are more intelligent or intellectual may have interests that are more likely to get in the way of pursuing their sex life. For instance, if I'm playing chess I'm having to devote a whole lot of mental energy to the game, and I don't really have as much brain power to spare to checking out my opponent or flirting with them. On the other hand, flirting while playing checkers is much easier. Less brainpower needed for the hobby = more brainpower available for flirting/courtship. Maybe "smart" people are more likely to have hobbies that divert their mental energy away from flirting.

And I'm just spit-balling here. There are plenty of other possibilities, too.

The link mentions the first and third one.
Personally, I think the number of people that realize that they're idiots is too small to make the second probable.

This was linked to on Scott Adam's blog, (he's the Dilbert guy) and I thought it was fairly relevant to our little corner of the internet, considering the relatively high levels of virginity that show up on sex related polls around here.

Apparently, the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to have sex.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

That's what the link above shows anyway. It looks at a number of studies to demonstrate the claim, and then uses other studies to try and determine why that is.

I think in the end it all just boils down to intelligent people tending to be less attractive, primarily because they tend to be less physically active.

Since when is physical activity the only cause toward attraction? And since when are intelligent people less physically active? And vice-versa?

...I call shenanigans...

hmmm, not only does that have no logical basis, but it also smacks of jealousy.

I beg to differ regarding physical attractiveness; I've never found any academic work difficult in 18 years, and I'm good looking.

I can just feel the modesty lol

I believe that it comes down to the fact that intellectuals like to talk big, but aren't that big when it comes down to it (if you know what I mean).

hmmm, not only does that have no logical basis, but it also smacks of jealousy.

I beg to differ regarding physical attractiveness; I've never found any academic work difficult in 18 years, and I'm good looking.

I beg to differ regarding physical attractiveness; I've never found any academic work difficult in 18 years, and I'm good looking.
Nothing pertaining to human nature or gene expression is universal.

So, you're good looking and intelligent, does your life still follow the trend of the various studies in the link?

I beg to differ regarding physical attractiveness; I've never found any academic work difficult in 18 years, and I'm good looking.
And humble too!

Whataguy!

So intelligent people have lower libidos and less masculine physiques. What hormone is responsible for both sex drive and masculine builds? That's right: testosterone.


I've always known it. Testosterone causes brain damage.

But who's to say you can't be intelligent and have a masculine build? Y'know, like the Hulk?

- they are more likely to have a peer group with similar values, so they are not under as much pressure to have sex

Well, that's circuitous logic. Intelligent people don't have sex because they hang out with other intelligent people, and those other intelligent people don't have sex because they hang out with other intelligent people, etc.

So intelligent people have lower libidos and less masculine physiques. What hormone is responsible for both sex drive and masculine builds? That's right: testosterone.


I've always known it. Testosterone causes brain damage.

Whoa whoa whoa, this article is talking about TEENS, not PEOPLE. It is well-documented that adolescents who do well in school are also more likely to delay sexual activity for a variety of reasons:

- they are more likely to have involved parents, who have communicated their values of doing well in school and delaying sexual activity and also they monitor their activities

- they may very well be more intelligent, which provides for better decision-making capabilities, which leads to not doing as much risk-taking in teen years

- they are more likely to have a peer group with similar values, so they are not under as much pressure to have sex

- as a result of having involved parents and a similar peer group, they probably fill their time with things like sports, social gatherings (not involving drinking/drugs) and other extra-curricular activities

- and lastly, yes, there are some kids who are big-time nerds and spend all their time studying and doing work and have no social skills and whatever, so they aren't likely to be having sex either. But that is a stereotype, and not all teens who get good grades are like that

This article has nothing to do with intelligent adults.

...and lastly, yes, there are some kids who are big-time nerds and spend all their time studying and doing work and have no social skills and whatever, so they aren't likely to be having sex either. But that is a stereotype, and not all teens who get good grades are like that

And who's to say a nerd can't be sexy? Hmmm? I find intelligence very attractive.

I still have yet to find a big-time D&D girl though. But ye, those are rare.

This was linked to on Scott Adam's blog, (he's the Dilbert guy) and I thought it was fairly relevant to our little corner of the internet, considering the relatively high levels of virginity that show up on sex related polls around here.

Apparently, the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to have sex.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

That's what the link above shows anyway. It looks at a number of studies to demonstrate the claim, and then uses other studies to try and determine why that is.

I think in the end it all just boils down to intelligent people tending to be less attractive, primarily because they tend to be less physically active.

I'm going to generalize like only a Generalite can, but I think it's pretty simple, young or old, male or female...

1. Smart people, generally, do not seek out sex with stupid people...

2. Stupid people, generally, don't care who they have sex with...

3. There are a lot more stupid people than there are smart people.


...I thought it was pretty self evident. :p

I'm going to generalize like only a Generalite can, but I think it's pretty simple, young or old, male or female...

1. Smart people, generally, do not seek out sex with stupid people...

2. Stupid people, generally, don't care who they have sex with...

3. There are a lot more stupid people than there are smart people.


...I thought it was pretty self evident. :p

People tend to say things a lot simpler than I can. But yeah.

Of course nerds can be sexy, but it's hard to get partners when you have no social skills. That is a different kind of nerd.

A dork?friggin' time warp

Whoa whoa whoa, this article is talking about TEENS, not PEOPLE. It is well-documented that adolescents who do well in school are also more likely to delay sexual activity for a variety of reasons
Read the whole thing. It goes on to talk about college and adults.

And who's to say a nerd can't be sexy? Hmmm? I find intelligence very attractive.

I still have yet to find a big-time D&D girl though. But ye, those are rare.

Of course nerds can be sexy, but it's hard to get partners when you have no social skills. That is a different kind of nerd.

So intelligent people have lower libidos and less masculine physiques. What hormone is responsible for both sex drive and masculine builds? That's right: testosterone.


I've always known it. Testosterone causes brain damage.

I can believe it.

Here's my take on it -

Most intelligent people are a fair bit arrogant, myself included if we're being honest.

This often makes them seem like complete twats, which isn't that much good when you're trying to pull.

Also, most intelligent people don't get the beginnings of enough exercise, and hence they're not particularly sexually attractive.

Ta-da.

- and lastly, yes, there are some kids who are big-time nerds and spend all their time studying and doing work and have no social skills and whatever, so they aren't likely to be having sex either. But that is a stereotype, and not all teens who get good grades are like that


Funny thing I noticed at my high school, was that all the people who got the best grades weren't nerds at all, but instead took a ridiculous amount of easy/art classes. The nerds take harder classes and get B averages or so. AP classes suck like that.

We all know how valid anecdotal evidence is, though...

Funny thing I noticed at my high school, was that all the people who got the best grades weren't nerds at all, but instead took a ridiculous amount of easy/art classes. The nerds take harder classes and get B averages or so. AP classes suck like that.

We all know how valid anecdotal evidence is, though...

I didn't notice that at all. People tend to slack off on even the minimal amount of work, if that's their perogative. AP classes aren't hard to get an A in at all, since they involve more discussion than assignments.

Read the whole thing. It goes on to talk about college and adults.

Yeah, I see that:

"Not only do intelligent people have a delayed onset of sexual behavior, Half Sigma found that they also have a lower number of premarital sex partners throughout adulthood (18-39)."

Seems pretty smart to me...less booze-related one-night stands, less risk for STDs, more actual intimacy. Imagine that.

Funny thing I noticed at my high school, was that all the people who got the best grades weren't nerds at all, but instead took a ridiculous amount of easy/art classes. The nerds take harder classes and get B averages or so. AP classes suck like that.

We all know how valid anecdotal evidence is, though...

The same at my school. With the exception of myself and two other students (one of which who was still quite immature at times) the entire top ten percent of my high school class were idiots and cheaters.
All the smart people I knew graduated ranked between fifty and thirty (out of a class of three hundred).

Also like the other study, they found teens with IQs ranging from 75 to 90 had the lowest probability of virginity (the authors note this is also the same IQ range where propensity towards crime peaks).

So, lack of intelligence probably implies more breeding (more sex + stupidity->greater chance of contraceptive failure, I'd guess), and also implies a greater chance of being a criminal.

So let's kill all the stupid people. Two birds, one stone.
If you can show that stupid people beget stupid people then that's even more reason.

I didn't notice that at all. People tend to slack off on even the minimal amount of work, if that's their perogative. AP classes aren't hard to get an A in at all, since they involve more discussion than assignments.

There is a difference between having a high IQ and getting good grades. There was a chick at my school who graduated ninth in her class , but she routinely needed help with basic reading comprehension.

I didn't notice that at all. People tend to slack off on even the minimal amount of work, if that's their perogative. AP classes aren't hard to get an A in at all, since they involve more discussion than assignments.

Ah, but the AP teachers at my school were so fond of assignments. Practice essays and such. They were quite brutal in grading these things, too.

I took a general art class one year, along with band, did absolutely nothing in either of them but still got 'A's. Same thing with PE.

So, lack of intelligence probably implies more breeding (more sex + stupidity->greater chance of contraceptive failure, I'd guess), and also implies a greater chance of being a criminal.

So let's kill all the stupid people. Two birds, one stone.
If you can show that stupid people beget stupid people then that's even more reason.

Ah, but how can you measure stupidity?

Ah, but how can you measure stupidity?

Well, they were using IQ tests, as it mentions.
Say everyone below an IQ of 90.

You might argue that a low IQ isn't necessarily your definition of stupidity, but "meh", frankly.

There are many other possible explanations.

-People who are more intelligent may be more likely to perceive long-term risks or consequences from sex, and thus may be more careful about when/if they have sex.


I think this one is fairly common.


And who's to say a nerd can't be sexy? Hmmm? I find intelligence very attractive.

People keep telling me my new glasses make me look like a "sexy nerd." I figure I'll take it as a compliment, since I don't think of "nerd" as an insult anyways.

I still have yet to find a big-time D&D girl though. But ye, those are rare.

Does playing in a weekly game plus occasional RPGA games make one a "big-time D&D girl"? If so, *raises hand*.


There is a difference between having a high IQ and getting good grades. There was a chick at my school who graduated ninth in her class , but she routinely needed help with basic reading comprehension.

Was she dyslexic? I heard an NPR show on dyslexia recently and they were talking about how many of the people with it are highly intelligent, but have problems both with reading itself and with reading comp.

Was she dyslexic? I heard an NPR show on dyslexia recently and they were talking about how many of the people with it are highly intelligent, but have problems both with reading itself and with reading comp.
She could have been dyslexic. I don't know, but I sincerely doubt she was highly intelligent. We were both in the same government AP class and she proved herself utterly incapable of abstract or critical thought on more than one occasion. Luckily for her, those things aren't required to have a straight A average at a public high school in Texas.

This was linked to on Scott Adam's blog, (he's the Dilbert guy) and I thought it was fairly relevant to our little corner of the internet, considering the relatively high levels of virginity that show up on sex related polls around here.

Apparently, the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to have sex.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

That's what the link above shows anyway. It looks at a number of studies to demonstrate the claim, and then uses other studies to try and determine why that is.

I think in the end it all just boils down to intelligent people tending to be less attractive, primarily because they tend to be less physically active.
What are you talking about? If anything, since it's intelligent to BE physically active what with the health benefits, you'd think it'd be the MORE intelligent ones who would be more physically active. What about people who are both on the honour roll and on sports teams? Not that I'm one of them, just that I mentioned that as an example...

I think in the end it all boils down to sexual intercourse involving the risk of having children; having children would take up a significant amount of time and money, therefore not having children would give them much more time and money therefore much more choice as to how to spend both, so I guess AVOIDING having children could be argued to be a way in which people would be keeping their options open.

This was linked to on Scott Adam's blog, (he's the Dilbert guy) and I thought it was fairly relevant to our little corner of the internet, considering the relatively high levels of virginity that show up on sex related polls around here.

Apparently, the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to have sex.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

That's what the link above shows anyway. It looks at a number of studies to demonstrate the claim, and then uses other studies to try and determine why that is.

I think in the end it all just boils down to intelligent people tending to be less attractive, primarily because they tend to be less physically active.

Interesting. It has to be taken into account, though, that the study almost exclusively deals with teenagers, the maximum age of the surveyed would be early 20s.

If I'd venture a guess, the reason is most likely a different schedule in the lifes of the surveyed. Or rather, different priorities at certain ages.
An intelligent teenager, who is well aware that these are the years that will determine his/her success in life is much more likely to concentrate on his/her education and less on personal life and relationships. Simply taking a look at the workload some university students have to handle almost rules out any time for relationships in the first place.
A person leaving school at an earlier stage and getting started in working life will find a lot more time for social life and relationships.

It's my experience, however, that this ratio inverses in later life. Once those university kids get started in their jobs, they too will suddenly find more time for relationships, and will now actively pursue them. They're usually in their late 20s / early 30s by then. At that stage, the less educated part of society is usually quite settled down, in a long-term relationship, quite possibly with kids. Sex happens twice a week, on average.

Does playing in a weekly game plus occasional RPGA games make one a "big-time D&D girl"? If so, *raises hand*.

Some of the girls I know who play only do so when bored, and even then they don't seem very interested.

...So anyway...

SQUEE!

*hugs*

i must be a fucking genius then.

This was linked to on Scott Adam's blog, (he's the Dilbert guy) and I thought it was fairly relevant to our little corner of the internet, considering the relatively high levels of virginity that show up on sex related polls around here.

Apparently, the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to have sex.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

That's what the link above shows anyway. It looks at a number of studies to demonstrate the claim, and then uses other studies to try and determine why that is.

I think in the end it all just boils down to intelligent people tending to be less attractive, primarily because they tend to be less physically active.

Maybe I'm just an anomaly, but I try to be physically active precisely because I'm intelligent and want to have enough energy to use my brains for something worthwhile.

Interesting. It has to be taken into account, though, that the study almost exclusively deals with teenagers, the maximum age of the surveyed would be early 20s.
Another study in the link shows less sexually active adult lives for the intelligent as well.
I think its only in the US though.
What are you talking about? If anything, since it's intelligent to BE physically active what with the health benefits, you'd think it'd be the MORE intelligent ones who would be more physically active. What about people who are both on the honour roll and on sports teams? Not that I'm one of them, just that I mentioned that as an example...
One of the studies mentioned shows that the more intelligent are less likely to be physically active.
And as I already said, the honor role has nothing to with being intelligent. It has to do with knowing how to do school.
I think in the end it all boils down to sexual intercourse involving the risk of having children; having children would take up a significant amount of time and money, therefore not having children would give them much more time and money therefore much more choice as to how to spend both, so I guess AVOIDING having children could be argued to be a way in which people would be keeping their options open.
I have a hard time believing that it's the conscious decision of anyone to have less sex than they could, except for the religious nuts.
Really, contraception has come a long way; it's hard to believe that any intelligent person would fear an unwanted pregnancy too much.

I think it's much more likely that the losers that can't get laid focus their energy elsewhere, such as on studying.

I wasted all my free time on games, though, so I didn't even grow up to be very smart. :(

I think it's much more likely that the losers that can't get laid focus their energy elsewhere, such as on studying.

I wasted all my free time on games, though, so I didn't even grow up to be very smart. :(
You won't get smarter just by studying. You might be able to get good grades if you study enough, even if you aren't intelligent, but that doesn't make you smart, just hard-working.

I have a hard time believing that it's the conscious decision of anyone to have less sex than they could, except for the religious nuts.

Most people don't have as much sex as the could - and by choice. We could all, for the most part, go out to clubs or somesuch every night and find *someone* to sleep with us. But most people don't want to do that, for a variety or reasons.

Really, contraception has come a long way; it's hard to believe that any intelligent person would fear an unwanted pregnancy too much.

Contraception is great, but it isn't 100%. And STDs are a big issue as well. There are measures that can be taken to help prevent STD transmission, but nothing is 100%. So intelligent people (and hopefully a lot of less intelligent people as well) take these things into account when deciding whether, when, and how to have sex.

Most people don't have as much sex as the could - and by choice. We could all, for the most part, go out to clubs or somesuch every night and find *someone* to sleep with us. But most people don't want to do that, for a variety or reasons.
Allow me to rephrase then.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would have less sex than they could with people that they find attractive. Unless you're going to make the argument that intelligent people have higher standards for attractiveness, the whole "they postpone sex on purpose" thing doesn't really stick.
Contraception is great, but it isn't 100%
It can be.
nd STDs are a big issue as well. There are measures that can be taken to help prevent STD transmission, but nothing is 100%. So intelligent people (and hopefully a lot of less intelligent people as well) take these things into account when deciding whether, when, and how to have sex.
Point, but that's what protection is for.

You won't get smarter just by studying. You might be able to get good grades if you study enough, even if you aren't intelligent, but that doesn't make you smart, just hard-working.

Yeah, but didn't they just look at the grades of students? Did they really make a comprehensive IQ test of them? Besides, there is no good way of determining the intelligence of a person. IQ tests are a joke, and the key to scoring well on them is to study and do a lot of IQ tests. A life long hobo that with a different upbringing would have been the next Einstein isn't going to do well on any IQ test. Hm, I probably should have RTFA, right?

Allow me to rephrase then.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would have less sex than they could with people that they find attractive.

You can find it hard to believe all you want.

I've refrained from sleeping with women I found attractive on several occasions because I was concerned about contracting an STD from them.

This study merely means that smart teenagers are fully aware of the risks of sex and are (intelligently) choosing not to have it, despite the many oppurtunities they may have. It is just a mature outlook.
Further more, has anyone ever read the Bible?! Anyone at all?! Sex without marriage is a sin, and the more spiritually active teenagers may choose to recognize this.

The test results don't surprise me really, intelligent people are often less socially-skilled. Although, being intelligent and doing well in the education system doesn't always correlate. And, some are so intelligent that they don't ever need to work hard, so have good social skills and do well in exams and things.

And, welcome back Cabra, haven't seen you post for quite a while :)

And, some are so intelligent that they don't ever need to work hard, so have good social skills and do well in exams and things.

What would not having to study correlate with better social skills?
I've refrained from sleeping with women I found attractive on several occasions because I was concerned about contracting an STD from them.
Once again, isn't that what protection is for?
IQ tests are a joke
Depends on who's administering them, but yeah, most of the time they are.

I believe that it comes down to the fact that intellectuals like to talk big, but aren't that big when it comes down to it (if you know what I mean).
It is a well known fact trolls have small penises.

-People who are less intelligent may have more motivation to have sex. For instance, I knew a girl in high school who openly stated that she was too stupid to make a career for herself, but she didn't need to be smart to land a rich husband...she just needed to be hot and good in bed.
Sadly, that was probably one of the smartest, most pragmatic to earth people in your school.

The test results don't surprise me really, intelligent people are often less socially-skilled. Although, being intelligent and doing well in the education system doesn't always correlate. And, some are so intelligent that they don't ever need to work hard, so have good social skills and do well in exams and things.

And, welcome back Cabra, haven't seen you post for quite a while :)

I'd be one of the later ;)

Yep, I meant to stay away more. I just don't like the way you can't have a discussion any more here these days, even with people I used to regard as fairly rational.

Once again, isn't that what protection is for?

There are some things protection doesn't protect against, interestingly. Unless you're using a whole-body condom or something.

What would not having to study correlate with better social skills?

If you have no need to study because you can answer most things, then you will most likely spend more time socialising or doing some other activity that you find interesting.

Yep, I meant to stay away more. I just don't like the way you can't have a discussion any more here these days, even with people I used to regard as fairly rational.

Well, that's a shame you're not gonna post much anymore, but I kind of agree with you on the attitude of most of the forumgoers. It all seems a bit more hostile than it used to.

Allow me to rephrase then.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would have less sex than they could with people that they find attractive. Unless you're going to make the argument that intelligent people have higher standards for attractiveness, the whole "they postpone sex on purpose" thing doesn't really stick.

And, once again, most people don't have sex with everyone they find attractive, even if they could. I have made, and continue to make, the choice not to have or pursue sex with everyone I find attractive.

I postponed sex on purpose. I could have had sex in high school, but I chose not to. It had nothing to do with religious nuttery. I didn't think it was evil to have sex or anything like that, but I chose not to, for a variety of reasons.

It can be.

No, it can't. If you are having sex, you are risking pregnancy. It doesn't matter if you use every form of contraceptive you know of - all of them have failure rates.

Unless you have your internal sex organs removed or you are pre- or post- fertile age, sex carries the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

Point, but that's what protection is for.

And protection is not 100%. Some STDs can be contracted just with contact. In some cases, condoms help a great deal. In other cases, not so much.

No, it can't. If you are having sex, you are risking pregnancy. It doesn't matter if you use every form of contraceptive you know of - all of them have failure rates.

Anal sex, oral sex.

Smart in inversely proportional to pretty.

Hence, the ugly people aren't getting any.

Except of course, the internet where everyone is smart *and* pretty.

And, once again, most people don't have sex with everyone they find attractive, even if they could. I have made, and continue to make, the choice not to have or pursue sex with everyone I find attractive.
You in some sort of committed relationship or something?
I postponed sex on purpose. I could have had sex in high school, but I chose not to. It had nothing to do with religious nuttery. I didn't think it was evil to have sex or anything like that, but I chose not to, for a variety of reasons.
The only reason a teenager wouldn't have sex with someone they found attractive is if they were religious (maybe still even then) or if someone scared them with tales of pregnancy and STDs.
No, it can't. If you are having sex, you are risking pregnancy. It doesn't matter if you use every form of contraceptive you know of - all of them have failure rates
Sex doesn't have to include vaginal penetration, you know.

Sex doesn't have to include vaginal penetration, you know.

Wuht? My lady friend said she once had oral sex with two guys at once, but she's still a virgin and is still waiting for that "special someone"...

...

...Yeah does anyone actually believe that?

The only reason a teenager wouldn't have sex with someone they found attractive is if they were religious (maybe still even then) or if someone scared them with tales of pregnancy and STDs.


Sorry, I've got to contradict you there.
I didn't have sex as a teenager, but not for any of the above reasons. My reasons were an accute dislike of my body, very low self-esteem, and chronic shyness resulting from the first two reasons. I was well informed about how to avoid STDs and pregnancy, but I simply lacked confidence.

Teenagers can choose not have sex for emotional reasons (I think it might well be the reason for most of them, actually), they don't have to be scared into being abstinent.

You in some sort of committed relationship or something?

Yup. And I've never wanted to have sex outside of such a relationship.

The only reason a teenager wouldn't have sex with someone they found attractive is if they were religious (maybe still even then) or if someone scared them with tales of pregnancy and STDs.

Or maybe they don't want sex without being in a long-term relationship. Maybe they think sex should be reserved for a loving relationship. This is not an idea that is restricted to religion.

Maybe they found that person attractive but wanted to be "just friends". Maybe they found that person attractive, but knew that a close friend had a big crush on that person. Maybe, maybe, maybe....

You are being incredibly close-minded by suggesting that only "religious nutters" don't want to have sex with everything they find attractive.

Nobody "scared me" with any stories and, in fact, my mother offered to take me to get on birth control whenever I wanted to and gave me my first box of condoms. I simply preferred to wait. Good to know that you think you're a mind reader, though.

Sex doesn't have to include vaginal penetration, you know.

No, it doesn't. But vaginal penetration is not the only way to pass on STDs.

This was linked to on Scott Adam's blog, (he's the Dilbert guy) and I thought it was fairly relevant to our little corner of the internet, considering the relatively high levels of virginity that show up on sex related polls around here.

Apparently, the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to have sex.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

That's what the link above shows anyway. It looks at a number of studies to demonstrate the claim, and then uses other studies to try and determine why that is.

I think in the end it all just boils down to intelligent people tending to be less attractive, primarily because they tend to be less physically active.

Hmph. I suppose, considering I'm no Baywatch dude.

The only reason a teenager wouldn't have sex with someone they found attractive is if they were religious (maybe still even then) or if someone scared them with tales of pregnancy and STDs.


Or maybe because they were concerned that their potential partner was emotionally unready for it?

In high school, I dated a guy who I was very attracted to, but he started talking about marriage at 17 years old. I wasn’t going to encourage that by sleeping with him, and wasn’t going to just use him for sex when I had no designs in a future with him since that’s what he was after.

While perhaps rare, I do think it's possible for a teenager to have ethics beyond religion or fear.

Smart people are often socially impaired, due to (usually) being outcast from a young age. If you have few social skills, it's unlikely you'll get any.

Smart people are often socially impaired, due to (usually) being outcast from a young age. If you have few social skills, it's unlikely you'll get any.

Okay, why is it that everyone assumes that smart people are naturally socially impaired and/or outcasts?

Okay, why is it that everyone assumes that smart people are naturally socially impaired and/or outcasts?Naturally? No. They frequently develop that way.
If they were that way naturally, it would be universal amongst smart people. It isn't universal, it's merely a trend.

Sorry, I've got to contradict you there.
I didn't have sex as a teenager, but not for any of the above reasons. My reasons were an accute dislike of my body, very low self-esteem, and chronic shyness resulting from the first two reasons. I was well informed about how to avoid STDs and pregnancy, but I simply lacked confidence.
I don't really consider that stuff to be "choice" based, though. Your psychological damage was not something you willingly took on.
Yup. And I've never wanted to have sex outside of such a relationship.
Okay. When you decided not to have sex, it was because you were already getting it somewhere else. Makes sense.
Or maybe they don't want sex without being in a long-term relationship. Maybe they think sex should be reserved for a loving relationship. This is not an idea that is restricted to religion.
Well, then they would seek those things out.
Maybe they found that person attractive but wanted to be "just friends".
Woah. Why would you only want to be friends with someone you find attractive?
Maybe they found that person attractive, but knew that a close friend had a big crush on that person. Maybe, maybe, maybe....
The number of people that that would actually stop is very small, but yeah, you have a point.
No, it doesn't. But vaginal penetration is not the only way to pass on STDs.
K.
Wuht? My lady friend said she once had oral sex with two guys at once, but she's still a virgin and is still waiting for that "special someone"...

...

...Yeah does anyone actually believe that?
That girl I mentioned earlier in the thread. The one who managed to get straight A's in high school despite being an idiot? She did, and still does to the best of my knowledge.

Yeah, but they are also more likely to have successful, stable and prosperous families than people with lower intelligence. Ultimately, that's the part that matters the most and determines society as a whole.

While perhaps rare, I do think it's possible for a teenager to have ethics beyond religion or fear.
Yeah, but like I said to Dem, people with any real ethics are so rare that I've grown accustomed to just not considering them.

Woah. Why would you only want to be friends with someone you find attractive?

For reasons posted already. I didn't want to have sex with someone until I was in a loving relationship with. I passed on the opportunity before because, even though I found the person very attractive, the emotional element wasn't there. I wasn't about to complicate a friendship just for a nights pleasure

Yeah, but they are also more likely to have successful, stable and prosperous families than people with lower intelligence. Ultimately, that's the part that matters the most and determines society as a whole.
That's not all that comforting considering that most people are not intelligent.

It's also not comforting for the individual intellectual who isn't interested in a family, won't ever be and just wants to get laid.

Naturally? No. They frequently develop that way.
If they were that way naturally, it would be universal amongst smart people. It isn't universal, it's merely a trend.

Why is that, I wonder.

Rhetorical question, I won't be around to comment, going to watch Hardboiled with some friends.

See, I have friends too! And I'm smart! SHUT UP!

For reasons posted already. I didn't want to have sex with someone until I was in a loving relationship with. I passed on the opportunity before because, even though I found the person very attractive, the emotional element wasn't there. I wasn't about to complicate a friendship just for a nights pleasure
Good for you, I guess.
Just as long as you're aware that a great many people have trouble getting far enough in a relationship to consider it anything near "loving" without having sex at some point before then.

Why is that, I wonder.

Rhetorical question, I won't be around to comment, going to watch Hardboiled with some friends.

See, I have friends too! And I'm smart! SHUT UP!Lol.

For those of you who do wonder, I imagine it goes something like this:

Smart child enters grade school.
Smart child answers questions correctly when called by teacher.
Stupid children don't.
Stupid children resent smart child.
Smart child continues to answer correctly and gets good grades.
Stupid children want to feel better about themselves; pick on smart child.
Repeat until smart child feels ostracized.

Why is that, I wonder.
Intelligent kids tend to be more mature than their peers. This creates a gulf between them and other kids, and depending on who those other kids are, they either make fun of or ignore the smart kid.

All the intelligent people I know who are accomplished socially are also a tad immature and were especially so when they were younger.

Good for you, I guess.
Just as long as you're aware that a great many people have trouble getting far enough in a relationship to consider it anything near "loving" without having sex at some point before then.

Just as long as you realise that this :


The only reason a teenager wouldn't have sex with someone they found attractive is if they were religious (maybe still even then) or if someone scared them with tales of pregnancy and STDs.

is false

That's not all that comforting considering that most people are not intelligent.

50% of the population is average or above average in intelligence, and that average has been increasing over time. Intelligence is a beneficial trait and evolution has selected its continual increase...and of course, human technology is also providing more and more potential for cognitive enhancement with each year of development.

It's also not comforting for the individual intellectual who isn't interested in a family, won't ever be and just wants to get laid.

Hey, Einstein seemed to turn out alright.

There is a difference between having a high IQ and getting good grades. There was a chick at my school who graduated ninth in her class , but she routinely needed help with basic reading comprehension.

Sure, it has to do with your values, your motivation, and your support system.

Ah, but the AP teachers at my school were so fond of assignments. Practice essays and such. They were quite brutal in grading these things, too.

I took a general art class one year, along with band, did absolutely nothing in either of them but still got 'A's. Same thing with PE.

I got a B in gym every year for my entire life of having to take gym. I guess it was for the general effort (I always changed and helped set things up) but I was completely inept at pretty much any kind of sport or organized physical activity. No wait, as I recall, I was good at jump-rope.

Yeah, but like I said to Dem, people with any real ethics are so rare that I've grown accustomed to just not considering them.

And we generally find exactly what we're looking for. ;)

Just as long as you realise that this :
is false
Like I said, when speaking in generalizations, I don't consider ethical people.
50% of the population is average or above average in intelligence, and that average has been increasing over time. Intelligence is a beneficial trait and evolution has selected its continual increase...and of course, human technology is also providing more and more potential for cognitive enhancement with each year of development.
It doesn't matter if intelligence is a beneficial trait. What matters is if it allows one to breed more often. Considering that in modern society, an intelligent person and an average person are just as likely to survive through their prime reproductive years, and considering that intelligent people tend to have less sex, tend to choose to have less children and tend to have fewer accidental births, than an argument could easily be made that the country will continue to get stupider and stupider.
Every teacher I know who's been teaching for more than twenty years would support this argument.
Hey, Einstein seemed to turn out alright.
He was, quite literally, one in a billion.

Sure, it has to do with your values, your motivation, and your support system.
Which wouldn't be reflected in a properly administered IQ test.
I got a B in gym every year for my entire life of having to take gym. I guess it was for the general effort (I always changed and helped set things up) but I was completely inept at pretty much any kind of sport or organized physical activity. No wait, as I recall, I was good at jump-rope.
Your school sounds harder than most American public schools.

I don't really consider that stuff to be "choice" based, though. Your psychological damage was not something you willingly took on.


True, it wasn't. However, teenagers are not only going through physical but also emotional development, and this is causing problems for a very good number of them. Their reactions to this newly developing emotional personality are different for each individual, of course, but after working with youth groups for a good few years I think that problems with self-esteem, self-image and security are not limited to my own puberty.

It's not necessarily an issue for all, or even for a majority. But it's simply not true that religious reasons or morals are the only reasons that keep teenagers from fucking everything that holds still for more than 30 seconds.

It's not necessarily an issue for all, or even for a majority. But it's simply not true that religious reasons or morals are the only reasons that keep teenagers from fucking everything that holds still for more than 30 seconds.
Right. Which is why I included the word "choice". There are many things beyond many peoples control that keep many people from having sex.

Okay. When you decided not to have sex, it was because you were already getting it somewhere else. Makes sense.

Uh....no. I said I've never wanted to have sex outside of a long-term relationship. I have only been in a long-term relationship for a fraction of my post-puberty life. As such, there were plenty of times when I was not getting sex, could have had it, and still chose not to.

Well, then they would seek those things out.

If they felt ready for them, yes.

Woah. Why would you only want to be friends with someone you find attractive?

Why wouldn't I? Is there some sort of rule that says you have to try and form a sexual relationship with everyone you find attractive? One of my best friends - he was the best man at my wedding - is incredibly attractive. But, despite plenty of opportunity over the years, we've never had sex. We've kissed a couple of times, and left it at that. Why? Because what we wanted from each other was friendship, not a sexual relationship.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I got a B in gym every year for my entire life of having to take gym. I guess it was for the general effort (I always changed and helped set things up) but I was completely inept at pretty much any kind of sport or organized physical activity. No wait, as I recall, I was good at jump-rope.

Same here. I always get B-'s or something in gym but that's because I'm weak. I try a little, so, yeah.

Why wouldn't I? Is there some sort of rule that says you have to try and form a sexual relationship with everyone you find attractive? One of my best friends - he was the best man at my wedding - is incredibly attractive. But, despite plenty of opportunity over the years, we've never had sex. We've kissed a couple of times, and left it at that. Why? Because what we wanted from each other was friendship, not a sexual relationship.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I could bring out the old stereotype of 'He is a guy', but that may be unfair on him, and myself, considering I think of things similarly to you. There's no reason you have to have sex with someone you find attractive, it may not be right for either of you, or both, at that time in your lives, for a variety of reasons.

Which wouldn't be reflected in a properly administered IQ test.

Your school sounds harder than most American public schools.

Eh, you may be right.

Same here. I always get B-'s or something in gym but that's because I'm weak. I try a little, so, yeah.

Thanks, now I don't feel so bad. :)

It doesn't matter if intelligence is a beneficial trait. What matters is if it allows one to breed more often. Considering that in modern society, an intelligent person and an average person are just as likely to survive through their prime reproductive years, and considering that intelligent people tend to have less sex, tend to choose to have less children and tend to have fewer accidental births, than an argument could easily be made that the country will continue to get stupider and stupider.

As much as I love Idiocracy, I personally feel some of its basic arguments are flawed.

The stupid people will keep getting stupid while smart people keep getting smarter...there would be a divergence between the two that would produce a pyramid effect of powerless, stupid people and disproportionate influence according to intelligence. Ultimately, it's intelligent people that really rule the world and that has only become more and more true...the people actually directing the species are the most intelligent.

Breeding is good and all, but just cranking out illegitimate kids does nothing to affect social development. By and large, the dumber you are, the more apathetic you are, and that means they become more and more disenfranchised and powerless over time.

Ultimately, it's intelligent people that really rule the world and that has only become more and more true...the people actually directing the species are the most intelligent.

I don't get that impression from your current President....

....nor from many other world leaders.

I believe that it comes down to the fact that intellectuals like to talk big, but aren't that big when it comes down to it (if you know what I mean).

I'd gladly show you evidence to the contrary, but I do not believe I can legally post pornographic images of myself on this website.

I don't get that impression from your current President....

....nor from many other world leaders.

Do you really think Bush makes any of those decisions? Hell no, it's guys like Cheney, Rove, and all the others that do it, and they are all extremely intelligent men with some of the best minds in the world with them. And even so, don't let Bush's mannerisms fool you, he is a very intelligent person and this entire "down home" persona is really a carefully crafted political tool...back in the 70's, there were concerns that he would come across as too intellectual as a candidate.

However, don't mistake intelligence for good decisionmaking. Smart people can make some very bad decisions.

I'd gladly show you evidence to the contrary, but I do not believe I can legally post pornographic images of myself on this website.

That would be correct.

Do you really think Bush makes any of those decisions? Hell no, it's guys like Cheney, Rove, and all the others that do it, and they are all extremely intelligent men with some of the best minds in the world with them. And even so, don't let Bush's mannerisms fool you, he is a very intelligent person and this entire "down home" persona is really a carefully crafted political tool...back in the 70's, there were concerns that he would come across as too intellectual as a candidate.

Hehe, I'm joking, they just often do silly things.

However, don't mistake intelligence for good decisionmaking. Smart people can make some very bad decisions.

That is very true. QFT you might say.

Looking at the graphs, for men chances decrease as IQ increases. But for females there is a bell around 95.
Did anyone notice the other graph? As someone working towards a CS specialist degree, I am shocked that computer science did so well compared to the others.

One of the studies mentioned shows that the more intelligent are less likely to be physically active.
Do you have a link to this study then?

And as I already said, the honor role has nothing to with being intelligent. It has to do with knowing how to do school.
Repeating it doesn't make it true. I think the honour roll would be a better guide than a simple IQ test. Knowing how to "do school" (whatever that's supposed to mean) would imply a certain level of intelligence, as those who work hard in school would presumably be smart as working hard in school is simply a smart thing to do, and those who don't need to and still get good grades could also be presumed to be intelligent because they don't need to work as hard to understand the same material.

I have a hard time believing that it's the conscious decision of anyone to have less sex than they could, except for the religious nuts.
No, I'm actually anti-religion.

Really, contraception has come a long way
But it's still no guarantee. It's better to settle for slightly less (masturbation can still give one an orgasm without the risks) than risk unwanted children. (Or STDs)

it's hard to believe that any intelligent person would fear an unwanted pregnancy too much.
See my point about how avoiding such helps keep one's options open.

Looking at the graphs, for men chances decrease as IQ increases. But for females there is a bell around 95.
Did anyone notice the other graph? As someone working towards a CS specialist degree, I am shocked that computer science did so well compared to the others.
I didn't put much stock in it for individual majors. Undeclared was well above sixty percent.
Taken as whole though, Wesley needs to get led.

Thanks, now I don't feel so bad. :)

Yeah. Some of the people are really strong, like one guy who literally runs across the gym (widthwise) and back 100 times (at a good speed too) I'm even weaker than a lot of girls, I think (No offense).

Do you have a link to this study then?
http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/07/smarter_people__1.html
Repeating it doesn't make it true. I think the honour roll would be a better guide than a simple IQ test. Knowing how to "do school" (whatever that's supposed to mean) would imply a certain level of intelligence, as those who work hard in school would presumably be smart as working hard in school is simply a smart thing to do, and those who don't need to and still get good grades could also be presumed to be intelligent because they don't need to work as hard to understand the same material.
Public school requires little to no abstract or critical thinking to get good grades. I know I never had to use them.
Really, the only thing I observed that was consistent amongst nearly all those at the top of my class was parents who got uber-pissed if their kids got anything lower than a B.

I don't have a desire to have sex, honestly. Paradoxically enough, I would not have sex with someone I love for the very reason that I love them. I wouldn't have sex with someone I didn't love if I was in love with someone at the time. And yes, I'm in love with someone.

I don't have a desire to have sex, honestly. Paradoxically enough, I would not have sex with someone I love for the very reason that I love them. I wouldn't have sex with someone I didn't love if I was in love with someone at the time. And yes, I'm in love with someone.
Are you asexual or fucked up(mentally)?

Are you asexual or fucked up(mentally)?

Probably just insane. I've been told so. I've not been very well recently either.

Probably just insane. I've been told so. I've not been very well recently either.

Well, I uh... hope you get better?

And even so, don't let Bush's mannerisms fool you, he is a very intelligent person and this entire "down home" persona is really a carefully crafted political tool...
But he still can't speak in public for shit.

Also, lol at all the suggestions that intelligent people don't get laid by choice. Believe me, for most of them, that ain't it.

Also, lol at all the suggestions that intelligent people don't get laid by choice. Believe me, for most of them, that ain't it.
Yeah. I didn't think there'd be that much resistance to the idea considering the makeup of this forum.
But then, hey, denial's a hell of a coping mechanism.

Maybe it's because smart people have better things to do.

Like post on NS.

Maybe it's because smart people have better things to do.

Like post on NS.

I like posting and all, but I'd rather have sex, frankly. Good sex, of course. Bad sex pales in comparison to the glorious mental masturbation that is NSG debate.

I believe that it comes down to the fact that intellectuals like to talk big, but aren't that big when it comes down to it (if you know what I mean).

Yeah, low self-esteem about attractiveness and a more or less exclusive focus on intellectual achievement often go together.

-People who are more intelligent or intellectual may have interests that are more likely to get in the way of pursuing their sex life.

Yeah, I think that's a big one.

Intelligent people tend to have more interests and concerns beyond social ones than unintelligent people; they are less willing to prioritize having sex other everything else.

For those of you who do wonder, I imagine it goes something like this:

Another crucial element is radically divergent interests.

Intelligent people are interested in a great many things unintelligent people aren't.

Intelligent kids tend to be more mature than their peers.

Indeed. At least in some senses of "maturity."

All the intelligent people I know who are accomplished socially are also a tad immature and were especially so when they were younger.

Depends on the kind of immaturity; sometimes immature intelligent people just manage to make themselves look like idiots when it comes to anything but intellectual activity.

Eh. High school kids are way to dumb to value those of higher intellect, and college kids are just way too stoned. Scratch that, they're all way to stoned. In fact, we should all be stoned right now.

*leaves*

Another crucial element is radically divergent interests.

Intelligent people are interested in a great many things unintelligent people aren't.This is true. The stereotype of the sci-fi loving Dungeons and Dragons geek is at least partially accurate.

I've read most posts and...

Aside from the idea that intelligent people have to be geeks, or wear glasses or anything such, which is simply a fallacy - stupid people are ugly too.

A final reason why intelligent people may have less, is that they consider the consequences of sex more than less intelligent people. Understanding consequences or the ability to emphasize should be a marker of high intelligence. This has nothing to do with STDs and everything to do with making promises you won't keep, commitments you won't uphold and etc.

Intelligent people should be fairly moral people for whom a relationship may be of more value than a one-night stand. I wonder if there's a correlation that intelligent people tend to cheat less than less intelligent people as I think that would back up my poorly explained theory a bit.

Intelligent people should be fairly moral people for whom a relationship may be of more value than a one-night stand. I wonder if there's a correlation that intelligent people tend to cheat less than less intelligent people as I think that would back up my poorly explained theory a bit.You believe there is a correlation between intelligence and morality? Interesting theory.

Understanding consequences or the ability to emphasize should be a marker of high intelligence.

Understanding consequences, yes.

The ability to empathize, not at all--indeed, many very intelligent people are quite awful at that.

Intelligent people should be fairly moral people

Not particularly.

You believe there is a correlation between intelligence and morality? Interesting theory.

Yes I do - in that I think (I hate using the phrase 'intelligent people' but take it to mean people of above average intelligence) intelligent people understand and think about a situation more, it's consequences, and therefore make a better judgment rather than acting on principles based on upbringing or other outside influences - that tends to lead to a more moral decision-making process over acting on preset principle - I think the idea that 'rich people are inherently immoral', for example, is a huge fallacy. A lot depends on what we consider moral but for me, morality is taking in other people's viewpoints and acting accordingly and that takes a certain intelligence.

Understanding consequences, yes.

The ability to empathize, not at all--indeed, many very intelligent people are quite awful at that.

Not particularly.

The aloof professor?

I think many posts on this thread are in danger of basing themselves on generalizations, no personal comment on you intended, but see above.

It really depends on a definition of what is moral but again, a certain thought process independent of preset principles is required for true morality.

There are a few things the article/study (is it even a study? I forgot to check if they did more than analyze data from other studies, and I didn't see anything that looked like a report on their methodology...but I didn't read super thoroughly, either) seems to be missing.

For one, it doesn't take into account certain non-debilitating mental disorders. Asperger's (sp?), mild schizophrenia, etc. are disorders that are often non-debilitating and often go undiagnosed. They result in differing types of pattern recognition (and thus, what some might call, higher intelligence) but also certain levels of social awkwardness.

Anecdotally, I can write fairly eloquently and quickly, be it for a presentation or simply a paper. However, when placed into a situation where I have to verbalize things, especially with a group larger than three or so people, all my talent and skill with language that I easily employ when writing completely disappears and I can come off as somewhat simple minded. This isn't too uncommon, I think, but I don't exactly have studies sitting around that really explore this issue. Now, this might present a chicken-egg dilemma: am I good at writing simply because I find difficulty in verbally expressing myself? Or is the cause-result there switched around?

I'd say that, depending on the type of intelligence (and don't kid yourself, there are many different types of intelligence), there are certain social skills and areas in which development is discouraged and encouraged simply as an inherent characteristics of the skill sets those kinds of intelligence foster. A brilliant actor may not be developing algorithms for NASA or contemplating the complexities of theoretical physics, but their ability to assume varying identities easily is a form of intelligence, in its own right. However, it's also a form that probably fosters a skill set that is invariably more useful in the social realm than, say, a natural predisposition towards statistical analysis.

I will say, though, that I think people seek similar levels of intelligence within their specific predisposed set of intellectual skills in sexual partners, and it has nothing to do with not wanting to have sex as much as "dumber" people. I know I definitely don't have sex as much as I want, but if I can't hold a somewhat intellectual discussion with a girl, I find that a huge turn off. I'm not expecting a girl I meet at a bar or a party to want to discuss economic theory or moral philosophy, but if she doesn't have the intellectual capacity to analyze certain abstract concepts, I find myself wanting to have little to do with her.

It really depends on a definition of what is moral but again, a certain thought process independent of preset principles is required for true morality.There's a good number of philosophers that like to be called sentimentalists that might completely disagree with you. You see, they believe that the appendix is man's moral compass and your silly understanding of rationalist moral philosophy is dumb...because the appendix says so! ;)

A lot depends on what we consider moral but for me, morality is taking in other people's viewpoints and acting accordingly and that takes a certain intelligence.

Okay.

I can accept that intelligent people might be better at taking into account other people's viewpoints and acting accordingly (though intelligent people often have difficulty understanding people less intelligent than them)... but I see no reason why they would be more willing to do so.

The aloof professor?

Sure. For example.

I think many posts on this thread are in danger of basing themselves on generalizations,

This entire thread is based on a generalization.

I do not mean to suggest even that high intelligence and a low degree of empathy tend to correlate, however--merely that they are hardly mutually exclusive.

For one, it doesn't take into account certain non-debilitating mental disorders. Asperger's (sp?), mild schizophrenia, etc. are disorders that are often non-debilitating and often go undiagnosed. They result in differing types of pattern recognition (and thus, what some might call, higher intelligence) but also certain levels of social awkwardness.

Ah, this bit was going to be my point about 'the aloof professor' but I couldn't think of illness examples given I've yet to finish my first coffee of the day.

Yeah. I didn't think there'd be that much resistance to the idea considering the makeup of this forum.
But then, hey, denial's a hell of a coping mechanism.
... who the hell do you think you are to try to act like you would have more say as to what people mean than they themselves would, OR to act like you would even know that it's "denial" for everyone you're talking about?

There's a good number of philosophers that like to be called sentimentalists that might completely disagree with you. You see, they believe that the appendix is man's moral compass and your silly understanding of rationalist moral philosophy is dumb...because the appendix says so! ;)

Again, it's a bit early for rationalist/sentimentalist debate, suffice to say that I personally feel that what separates man from monkey, the genius of our evolution, is that we can rationally decide to ignore both instinct and experience due to the ability to project feelings (I'd like to say 'inject', that is, children generally don't consider 'other people' until a fairly late stage - 6? - whereas adults have that ability to an extraordinary degree), which gives our intelligence huge flexibility.

So I'd have to base morality on rationality although I lean to giving it a 70/30 mix between the two.

(Sentimentalist meaning internal morality, based on upbringing as opposed to experience; not universal harmony)

I can accept that intelligent people might be better at taking into account other people's viewpoints and acting accordingly (though intelligent people often have difficulty understanding people less intelligent than them)... but I see no reason why they would be more willing to do so.

I feel the first sentence answers the second.

I do not mean to suggest even that high intelligence and a low degree of empathy tend to correlate, however--merely that they are hardly mutually exclusive.

True - I can only guesstimate an higher correlation overall, disregarding individual personas.

I feel the first sentence answers the second.

Not at all.

The fact that a person is better at something does not mean that he or she is more inclined to do it. Indeed, in the case of an intelligent person, the weight of realizing the full moral implications of his or her actions may be a reason to not act morally.

Not at all.

The fact that a person is better at something does not mean that he or she is more inclined to do it. Indeed, in the case of an intelligent person, the weight of realizing the full moral implications of his or her actions may be a reason to not act morally.

Yet overall they would - I'm assuming one would, naturally, take the moral course unless set circumstances caused them not to. That is, it's natural to be moral unless outside pressures influence one's decision.

I'm assuming one would, naturally, take the moral course unless set circumstances caused them not to. That is, it's natural to be moral unless outside pressures influence one's decision.

Why would those "outside pressures" interfere any less with an intelligent person than with an unintelligent one?

Well its not simply becuase we are "unnatractive" how ever we are more likly to think about the consquences of our actions. See I value my virginity, so does my girlfriend. I also understand that i am in no position to nock any one up.

I'll start having sex wehn I am at least engaged and ready to take on the challange of raising a functional family.:fluffle:

Why would those "outside pressures" interfere any less with an intelligent person than with an unintelligent one?

...because an intelligent person is better able to go against those outside pressures through rational thought.

(will be away for a couple of hours now)

...because an intelligent person is better able to go against those outside pressures through rational thought.

Intelligent people are no more strong-willed than anyone else. And their intelligence is just as easily put to use constructing excuses for themselves, anyway.

Most people, intelligent and unintelligent, have a fairly good idea of what is moral--and intelligent people possessed of great intellectual honesty may have a clearer idea than most others. But that does not indicate that intelligent people are any more inclined to care--to actually challenge the "outside pressures" that might lead them elsewhere.

Intelligent people are no more strong-willed than anyone else. And their intelligence is just as easily put to use constructing excuses for themselves, anyway.

Most people, intelligent and unintelligent, have a fairly good idea of what is moral--and intelligent people possessed of great intellectual honesty may have a clearer idea than most others. But that does not indicate that intelligent people are any more inclined to care--to actually challenge the "outside pressures" that might lead them elsewhere.

Hmmm, I do see what you're saying but I feel that it's unrelated to my point somewhat - if we take an assumption, purely theoretical, that whether you're intelligent or unintelligent, that given the issue as you see it, you're no more or less inclined to make a moral decision, then:

The intelligent person, who can see further, can bring greater evidence, experience and learning to the decision, is likely to make the more correct decision, which is almost, by default, the moral decision.

Did this survey look at non-Amerikans? You people are oddly hung up on matters of sex.

So geeks who can't get sex like to console themselves with tales of how their enormous brain power compensates for their lack of sexual expression? I suppose if it keeps them happy and stops them from creating some sort of doomsday machine, then it's a positive thing.

Depends on the kind of immaturity; sometimes immature intelligent people just manage to make themselves look like idiots when it comes to anything but intellectual activity.

That's the kind of immaturity I'm talking about.
For one, it doesn't take into account certain non-debilitating mental disorders. Asperger's (sp?), mild schizophrenia, etc. are disorders that are often non-debilitating and often go undiagnosed.
Thankfully, we have wikipedia. Where awkward nerds can go to self-diagnose all sorts of disorders to try and excuse their lazy anti-social behavior!
If I were to make an assumption based on what we know about almost all other such mental defects, most of the people afflicted with those disorders have some other form of mental retardation as well.
Rain Man and A Wonderful Mind were both excellent movies, but they just don't reflect the average person afflicted with those disorders, even if they are based on one true person.

I will say, though, that I think people seek similar levels of intelligence within their specific predisposed set of intellectual skills in sexual partners, and it has nothing to do with not wanting to have sex as much as "dumber" people.
I'd have sex with anyone I found attractive. Intelligence wouldn't figure into it.
... who the hell do you think you are
I am Ozymandias, King of Kings!
Behold my wonders ye mighty and despair!
to try to act like you would have more say as to what people mean than they themselves would, OR to act like you would even know that it's "denial" for everyone you're talking about?
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Thankfully, we have wikipedia. Where awkward nerds can go to self-diagnose all sorts of disorders to try and excuse their lazy anti-social behavior!

I'm usually to lazy to read any of these threads, so explain to me, how are you so different? I hear a lot of "Oh, it's not my fault, I'm just too intelligent." Of course, I just check the first couple pages, so I could be completely off here...

Thankfully, we have wikipedia. Where awkward nerds can go to self-diagnose all sorts of disorders to try and excuse their lazy anti-social behavior!
If I were to make an assumption based on what we know about almost all other such mental defects, most of the people afflicted with those disorders have some other form of mental retardation as well.
Rain Man and A Wonderful Mind were both excellent movies, but they just don't reflect the average person afflicted with those disorders, even if they are based on one true person.

I'd have sex with anyone I found attractive. Intelligence wouldn't figure into it.


Hrmm...anti-social behavior doesn't really equate into laziness in any way. I'm not quite sure how you figure that. I'm also not quite sure what you're trying to say as regards more mild mental disorders. Obviously Rain Man and A Beautiful Mind don't reflect the average victim of such conditions, as you said...that's why they're stories that are worthy of the big screen. A story about someone who lived a mediocre life with a mild case of Down Syndrome isn't exactly what you'd call an interesting story. But what that has to do with people who could be justifiably diagnosed with mild emotional or mental disorders, I'm not quite sure.

And as regards your choice in sex with bimbos...*shrug* personal choice? Aside from a couple of nights that involve retarded amounts of alcohol, I generally talk to (or at least remember talking to) the girls I have sex with. You know, I'm just old fashioned like that, I guess. Similar levels of intellectual capacity are required for anything to go past that.

I'm usually to lazy to read any of these threads, so explain to me, how are you so different? I hear a lot of "Oh, it's not my fault, I'm just too intelligent." Of course, I just check the first couple pages, so I could be completely off here...
I've never blamed my intelligence for my social shortcomings. I'll say right here and now that I'm an ugly piece of shit who really doesn't particularly deserve anything more than what he's got right now, and if there was a just God in the universe would probably have significantly less.

I can't speak for anyone else, but, there you go.

hmmm, not only does that have no logical basis, but it also smacks of jealousy.

I beg to differ regarding physical attractiveness; I've never found any academic work difficult in 18 years, and I'm good looking.

and then proceeds to *not* say what you do for a living :rolleyes:

Read the whole thing. It goes on to talk about college and adults.

there's nothing adult about people who call themselves college KIDS. ;)

Hrmm...anti-social behavior doesn't really equate into laziness in any way. I'm not quite sure how you figure that.
You know, allowing themselves to get fat, going around and talking about things like D&D and anime without expending the energy to recognize that others might not be interested, not shaving, dressing bad etc.
I'm also not quite sure what you're trying to say as regards more mild mental disorders. Obviously Rain Man and A Beautiful Mind don't reflect the average victim of such conditions, as you said...that's why they're stories that are worthy of the big screen. A story about someone who lived a mediocre life with a mild case of Down Syndrome isn't exactly what you'd call an interesting story. But what that has to do with people who could be justifiably diagnosed with mild emotional or mental disorders, I'm not quite sure.
I'm just saying, most people with autism are also mentally handicapped in some other way that would disqualify them from being considered intelligent.
The whole savant thing is very rare, yet the internet is crawling with losers who've self-diagnosed themselves with Asperger's.
And as regards your choice in sex with bimbos...*shrug* personal choice?
Well, it's not exactly a choice I've ever had to make.

Just going by IQ and stuff, as thats whats used in the article, I've got an IQ of 120ish and I had sex when I was 14. I think I'm slightly against the grain. :(

I've never blamed my intelligence for my social shortcomings.

Blaming your intelligence? I guess that's one way to look at it. Certainly a more positive one than to cling to the idea that even if you are a failure socially you are at least intelligent, and that somehow your social ineptness is proof of this.

Not speaking about you personally, I just thought that what looked like a reversal of an attitude I've seen, and experienced myself years ago, was funny.

You know, allowing themselves to get fat, going around and talking about things like D&D and anime without expending the energy to recognize that others might not be interested, not shaving, dressing bad etc.

I'm just saying, most people with autism are also mentally handicapped in some other way that would disqualify them from being considered intelligent.
The whole savant thing is very rare, yet the internet is crawling with losers who've self-diagnosed themselves with Asperger's.

Well, it's not exactly a choice I've ever had to make.

Ah....see, well there's your problem. Fat DnD/anime humpers aren't necessarily intelligent in the way I think most people in this thread are defining intelligent. I've met a good number of such people (I love both DnD and anime...but I'm also not fat because...you know, running is healthy and Ultimate Frisbee is the best sport ever created), they love DnD and they love anime but they aren't all that intellectually impressive. And I'll have you know, being completely comfortable about playing DnD, watching anime and buying your clothes at Good Will can be quite charming if presented in the right light. =p

While I agree there is a lot of silly self-diagnosis that goes on because of the awesomeness that is wikipedia, that doesn't mean there aren't a large number of people who actually could be diagnosed with mild to very mild forms of such disorders. You also have to remember that the portrayal of autism and such makes it seem like it is always a very obvious and noticeable condition when, in reality, such things generally vary along a continuum in terms of severity. Though, I'm no psychologist and I only know for certain that that applies to schizophrenia and the like, maybe someone with experience in the field can weigh in? My understanding is that autism and down syndrome operate under very similar conditions.

Ah....see, well there's your problem. Fat DnD/anime humpers aren't necessarily intelligent in the way I think most people in this thread are defining intelligent.
Yeah. I never said the ones claiming to have Asperger's were intelligent.
running is healthy and Ultimate Frisbee is the best sport ever created
Well, you're in the minority as far as the intelligent are concerned.
And I'll have you know, being completely comfortable about playing DnD, watching anime and buying your clothes at Good Will can be quite charming if presented in the right light. =p
You can make anything charming if you're good looking enough.

As for the whole continuum thing, you're probably right.

Good point, but charm definitely =/= good looks. I've seen some strange looking couples (beautiful girl, not so beautiful guy) even at my age (17) where the charm factor has over come the looks.
I mean, of course it wasn't just charm, but lots of that initial flirtation sure was.

The difference is confidence, and natural confidence is best - good looks go a long way to giving you confidence because, sad to say, people assume good things about you, but confidence can come from many quarters.

I'm confident my post will come before yours because I'm right.

You can make anything charming if you're good looking enough.

Good point, but charm definitely =/= good looks. I've seen some strange looking couples (beautiful girl, not so beautiful guy) even at my age (17) where the charm factor has over come the looks.
I mean, of course it wasn't just charm, but lots of that initial flirtation sure was.

This was linked to on Scott Adam's blog, (he's the Dilbert guy) and I thought it was fairly relevant to our little corner of the internet, considering the relatively high levels of virginity that show up on sex related polls around here.

Apparently, the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to have sex.That is *so* fucked up. *shakes head*

I've seen some strange looking couples (beautiful girl, not so beautiful guy) even at my age (17) where the charm factor has over come the looks.

And how many times, in comparison, do you see a not-so-beautiful girl with a beautiful guy?

It's not just about "charm." It's about what individuals look to get out of relationships, and what they've been taught to expect/desire.

I find it fulfilling to have friend relationships with people who happen to be physically attractive! AMG ALERT THE MEDIA.

Why, to crush their hopes? "No, actually, the six pack you worked on doesn't matter,nothing you do will. Ta."

Just cruel, really. :(

Why wouldn't I? Is there some sort of rule that says you have to try and form a sexual relationship with everyone you find attractive? One of my best friends - he was the best man at my wedding - is incredibly attractive. But, despite plenty of opportunity over the years, we've never had sex. We've kissed a couple of times, and left it at that. Why? Because what we wanted from each other was friendship, not a sexual relationship.

Why is that so hard to understand?
Yeah, I'm a bit surprised at that attitude, myself.

Personally, I think I have managed to cultivate an extremely attractive group of friends. Lots of hotties in my circle. But I don't want to sleep with them. SHOCK. I actually choose to associate with them for purposes OTHER THAN SEX!!! I find it fulfilling to have friend relationships with people who happen to be physically attractive! AMG ALERT THE MEDIA.

I think in the end it all just boils down to intelligent people tending to be less attractive


. . . so Paris Hilton is the most attractive woman in the world?

You are an idiot.

Honest question: does this really still happen?

When I was a kid, being smart was a good thing. Not just in my family, but in my (public) schools. Sure, there were a few kids who'd tease you for being a nerd, but those kids were generally viewed as bullies and jerks. Most kids didn't particularly care how smart you were, as long as you weren't a total kiss-ass or a show-off about it.

By the time we hit middle school being smart was definitely viewed as an advantage. Probably had something to do with the fact that "gifted" kids got to skip three periods each week to go to gifted education group.

I never personally saw a connection between intelligence and poor social skills.

Depends. Are you still a black kid?

Smart people are often socially impaired, due to (usually) being outcast from a young age. If you have few social skills, it's unlikely you'll get any.
Honest question: does this really still happen?

When I was a kid, being smart was a good thing. Not just in my family, but in my (public) schools. Sure, there were a few kids who'd tease you for being a nerd, but those kids were generally viewed as bullies and jerks. Most kids didn't particularly care how smart you were, as long as you weren't a total kiss-ass or a show-off about it.

By the time we hit middle school being smart was definitely viewed as an advantage. Probably had something to do with the fact that "gifted" kids got to skip three periods each week to go to gifted education group.

I never personally saw a connection between intelligence and poor social skills.

The only reason a teenager wouldn't have sex with someone they found attractive is if they were religious (maybe still even then) or if someone scared them with tales of pregnancy and STDs.

Bunk. Here's a list of reasons why I elected to not have sex with somebody I found attractive, back when I was a teen:

-They're dating one of my friends right now
-They're one of my friends, and so I know enough of their personality to know that us having sex would cause drama I don't want to deal with
-They're not ready for sex, or are choosing to wait to have sex
-Their sexual orientation is not towards me
-I am currently taking antibiotics which render my birth control pills ineffective, and I really really really really do not want to get pregnant, so I'm not taking that chance
-They have an STD that I don't want to catch
-One of my other friends has a serious crush on them, and I don't want to hurt my friend's feelings
-The person is very physically attractive, and I probably will have some daydreams about doing naughty things to them, but in reality they're an ass and I wouldn't want to deal with them

I'm sure there are more, too.

Bunk. Here's a list of reasons why I elected to not have sex with somebody I found attractive, back when I was a teen:

-They're dating one of my friends right now
-They're one of my friends, and so I know enough of their personality to know that us having sex would cause drama I don't want to deal with
-They're not ready for sex, or are choosing to wait to have sex
-Their sexual orientation is not towards me
-I am currently taking antibiotics which render my birth control pills ineffective, and I really really really really do not want to get pregnant, so I'm not taking that chance
-They have an STD that I don't want to catch
-One of my other friends has a serious crush on them, and I don't want to hurt my friend's feelings
-The person is very physically attractive, and I probably will have some daydreams about doing naughty things to them, but in reality they're an ass and I wouldn't want to deal with them

I'm sure there are more, too.

Agreed, I'm not sure where he's got this idea from that all teenagers automatically want to have sex with anyone they find attractive. We are not all so hormonally-charged to have no other considerations regarding relationships.

Agreed, I'm not sure where he's got this idea from that all teenagers automatically want to have sex with anyone they find attractive. We are not all so hormonally-charged to have no other considerations regarding relationships.
Word.

Oh, and I forgot to add a really important one to my list:

-I am really attracted to that person. I'm pretty sure I want to get nekkid and do stuff with them. But I'm not entirely sure I'm ready to have sex yet.

I was a virgin for several of my teen years, long after I became "sexually aware," because I wasn't entirely sure how I felt about actually having sex. I decided it was better for me to wait until I was sure I wanted to have sex. I'm glad I did, because it worked out great for me.

I never personally saw a connection between intelligence and poor social skills.
Well, to start off, I don't actually know my IQ. I've just always been good at maths and reading and writing, I was curious and I was reading about the Voyager expeditions in first grade. So I'll sorta leave it at that and assume I was a smart kid.

In the first few grades that was okay. By fifth grade it started to not be as okay anymore. Lots of guys in that age bracket start puberty and social hacking orders become pretty important.

I ended up being in the "not so popular" category. The question is of course whether that was because I got better grades without really trying (ie it had something to do with being smart) and the bullying stunted me developing good social skills...or did I end up on the wrong side of the fence because I had a low EQ and my grades didn't play a role (I seem to have faint memories of me saying things back then about how smart I was that seem incredibly arrogant and stupid today but apparently didn't bother me then).

Either way, I've decided that if you end up bullied in that crucial time when people start having their first boyfriends and girlfriends, you tend to miss out on that moment. And before you know, the girls have all moved on and look for guys who have also moved on, it becomes harder and harder until you give up. The only way to catch up is to find someone really special who likes you despite you not fitting the proper development expectations.

There is an article in the Economist today about a theory that the human brain is like the tail of a peacock - we developed a large brain because things like conversation, creativity etc are attractive to the opposite sex.

There is an article in the Economist today about a theory that the human brain is like the tail of a peacock - we developed a large brain because things like conversation, creativity etc are attractive to the opposite sex.

so men with the biggest tales are the most likely to get themselves into trouble. we strut around, until a woman falls for it or calls bullshit. my yes, the evolutionary similarity is striking!

Funny, I'm smart and get pussy like the SPCA.

Funny, I'm smart and get pussy like the SPCA.

Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?

Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?

Maybe he means 'like rabbits'?

Intelligent people have forum sex.Join in.

There is an article in the Economist today about a theory that the human brain is like the tail of a peacock - we developed a large brain because things like conversation, creativity etc are attractive to the opposite sex.

I'm not sure this is a new theory and I think it's covered in Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker - I'm not sure I fully agree as I think a large amount of factors can be seen as causes behind the growth of rational intelligence.

I don't think all evolution is about attraction - I think a lot is about simple ability to survive - although that sounds rather obvious when written down like this :)

I'm not sure this is a new theory and I think it's covered in Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker - I'm not sure I fully agree as I think a large amount of factors can be seen as causes behind the growth of rational intelligence.

I don't think all evolution is about attraction - I think a lot is about simple ability to survive - although that sounds rather obvious when written down like this :)

There was rather more to it than my brief description. It involved squandering valuable resources as a way of showing evolutionary fitness.

There was rather more to it than my brief description. It involved squandering valuable resources as a way of showing evolutionary fitness.

NO! Your description is clearly your entire philosophy on the subject and, as such, I must attack it.

Yet in other news...

I did read something about this, normally one would think giving food to another is a sign of deference, we leave the best meat to the top dog as it were - but I just read of a species that gave food away to those lower down the order as a show of dominance.

Was it the Economist, my last issue is July 21st - 27th so if that's the same then possibly the same article.

NO! Your description is clearly your entire philosophy on the subject and, as such, I must attack it.

Yet in other news...

I did read something about this, normally one would think giving food to another is a sign of deference, we leave the best meat to the top dog as it were - but I just read of a species that gave food away to those lower down the order as a show of dominance.

Was it the Economist, my last issue is July 21st - 27th so if that's the same then possibly the same article.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9581656

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9581656

Thanks - and it's still troubling me as to where I just read this, probably a similar report in a different publication. This line, in particular, raises strong memory feelings:

It relies on trust, and a good memory for favours given and received, but is otherwise not much different from simultaneous collaboration

...which makes me wonder whether it's off a press release or study synopsis.

I'm heading off into areas I shouldn't go but I think if you look at African states for example - which I propose as less evolved political systems as opposed to people - you blatantly - as opposed to, say, lobbyists - see largesse as a tool used by dictatorial leaders. Personally they're very generous to ensure loyalty around them while simultaneously repressing the people.

So I think largesse is not simply a tool of attraction but also of control and leadership - and, since it's good to be king - the leader might expect the best ladies for laying, so if that's an underlying purpose then fine.

Yet I'm not sure it's correlated to intelligence as such - I can see largesse being a tool for gaining loyalty, but not necessarily intelligence or sexual attraction.

This was linked to on Scott Adam's blog, (he's the Dilbert guy) and I thought it was fairly relevant to our little corner of the internet, considering the relatively high levels of virginity that show up on sex related polls around here.

Apparently, the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to have sex.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

That's what the link above shows anyway. It looks at a number of studies to demonstrate the claim, and then uses other studies to try and determine why that is.

I think in the end it all just boils down to intelligent people tending to be less attractive, primarily because they tend to be less physically active.

Maybe they just think too much about the details of how to get someone to have sex with you, and when they do get it, think too much about the details of how to have sex.

It's not something that requires a lot of thought, and overthinking how to get it or how to do it usually results in no sex or bad sex (bad sex becomes no sex in short order).

Maybe they just think too much about the details of how to get someone to have sex with you, and when they do get it, think too much about the details of how to have sex.

It's not something that requires a lot of thought, and overthinking how to get it or how to do it usually results in no sex or bad sex (bad sex becomes no sex in short order).

How do you overthink sex? Being good at screwing just requires a certain capacity to read body language or, if you've been in a relationship long enough, to just know your partner. I don't really see how you can overthink reading body language. o.O

How do you overthink sex? Being good at screwing just requires a certain capacity to read body language or, if you've been in a relationship long enough, to just know your partner. I don't really see how you can overthink reading body language. o.O

Obviously, you're not intelligent enough to overthink anything. I bet you get laid regularly.

Well, with my utter lack of intelligence, my semen is my only marketable quality. If I spawn enough bastards, one of them will become rich enough to support me and his or her horde of half brothers and sisters. =\

Well, with my utter lack of intelligence, my semen is my only marketable quality. If I spawn enough bastards, one of them will become rich enough to support me and his or her horde of half brothers and sisters. =\

Marry a good looking professional woman who can put up with your habits.

Impress her with your sexual prowess.

Stay home, and wash the Porsche.

Marry a good looking professional woman who can put up with your habits.

Impress her with your sexual prowess.

Stay home, and wash the Porsche.

Pfft, my love cannot be bought by silly cars. I require my sugarmama to buy me helicopters and jet skis.

Btw, in all seriousness, I should note that what I was saying about not understanding overthinking sex is along the lines of can you overthink reading text? Sex = reading body language, the same way appreciating a book = reading text, it isn't something you think about as you're doing. That is, you can't overthink the activity of reading, can you? I don't see how it could be claimed to be any different with regards to body language. o.O

Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?

Yes, the place that gets millions of kittens a year from idiots who refuse to spay/neuter their pets.

Maybe he means 'like rabbits'?

Nope, see above.

That's the kind of immaturity I'm talking about.

Being a laughingstock may make you socially accepted in a certain sense, I suppose.

Honest question: does this really still happen?

When I was a kid, being smart was a good thing. Not just in my family, but in my (public) schools. Sure, there were a few kids who'd tease you for being a nerd, but those kids were generally viewed as bullies and jerks. Most kids didn't particularly care how smart you were, as long as you weren't a total kiss-ass or a show-off about it.

By the time we hit middle school being smart was definitely viewed as an advantage. Probably had something to do with the fact that "gifted" kids got to skip three periods each week to go to gifted education group.

I never personally saw a connection between intelligence and poor social skills.Perhaps your school system is an exception, or perhaps mine is? In my experience, there is a connection between the two.

Pfft, my love cannot be bought by silly cars. I require my sugarmama to buy me helicopters and jet skis.

Fuck that, some group has just made a $90k hovercopter-car.

I think in the end it all just boils down to intelligent people tending to be less attractive, primarily because they tend to be less physically active.
Umm... this is totally not true.

I mean, I'm probably quite up there when it comes to intelligence and I'm also at least somewhat cute. I also have no trouble getting laid... although I don't really do that outside of a relationship sort of context, which might result in less overall sex than someone who goes the one night stand with questionable partners route. Basically, if I have less sex it's because my standards are higher.

I never personally saw a connection between intelligence and poor social skills.
I don't think that this is the case for people who are a bit above average intelligence, but I think that past a certain point it does become an issue, like when you get extremely brilliant people. Some of the most intelligent people I know are also the most awkward socially. I don't think that this is a thing where they were rejected by peers from an early age though, I think it's probably more that they tend to think about things in a completely different way than the average person and they also don't place as much weight on certain social interactions.

Of course, I interact mostly with people who are in physics and astronomy (either at the graduate or undergraduate level) so my sample pool is definitely biased. Perhaps all the people who are brilliant and socially awkward at the same time tend to go into physics (whereas those who are brilliant and awesome socially tend to go into more people-oriented fields) and perhaps there are a large number of socially awkward people who aren't particularly bright that I just don't happen to interact with on a daily basis.
And also, the majority of my peers aren't socially awkward, despite being rather bright. It's just a handful or two who are painfully so.

Either way, I've decided that if you end up bullied in that crucial time when people start having their first boyfriends and girlfriends, you tend to miss out on that moment. And before you know, the girls have all moved on and look for guys who have also moved on, it becomes harder and harder until you give up. The only way to catch up is to find someone really special who likes you despite you not fitting the proper development expectations.
I don't think this is true either. I was definitely not only socially retarded (which I attribute largely to being sheltered and living inside my own head) but picked on and decidedly not popular for my entire childhood and until about grade 11. I didn't have my first real kiss until I was 16 and my first date was at 17 so I definitely missed out on the first bf/gf stage by a long shot. But now I think my sex life and relationship life are just fine... well, I sort of wish I could have one that's more enduring in a healthy manner, but such is life.

hmmm, not only does that have no logical basis, but it also smacks of jealousy.

I beg to differ regarding physical attractiveness; I've never found any academic work difficult in 18 years, and I'm good looking.

actually developement of the brain considers a large quantity of energy. Perhaps what the poster meant was in cases where intellectual developement has been advanced, energy usually used for other things has been siphoned off....kinda like the levees in New Orleans

actually developement of the brain considers a large quantity of energy. Perhaps what the poster meant was in cases where intellectual developement has been advanced, energy usually used for other things has been siphoned off....kinda like the levees in New Orleans
The smarter boys I've encountered also seem to have larger penises... so either I luck out or there's no correlation (though my sample size is statistically insiginficant). I suspect the latter.

The smarter boys I've encountered also seem to have larger penises... so either I luck out or there's no correlation (though my sample size is statistically insiginficant). I suspect the latter.

my sample size being statistically insignificant too.......larger penises seem to belong to smarter boys.

Blacks have huge cocks.

I foresee this thread devolving into a discussion of who has the largest penis.

Blacks have huge cocks.

...

I will, ah, await further study to confirm or deny this. *nod*

*avoids creepy internet comment*

Let me guess, something about you 'studying'? ;)

...

I will, ah, await further study to confirm or deny this. *nod*

*avoids creepy internet comment*

Let me guess, something about you 'studying'? ;)

I am a married woman and a conservative fundamentalist Christian I will have you know sir (yes)

So those of us who get plenty of sex are less intelligent? Is that what you call sour grapes?

So those of us who get plenty of sex are less intelligent? Is that what you call sour grapes?

unless you are a teen then no, that's not what the study said, and even if you are a teen, then no that's not what the study said.

So those of us who get plenty of sex are less intelligent? Is that what you call sour grapes?

Other way around.

Blacks have huge cocks.
From what I've heard that isn't the case.

Like many things when comparing racial groups, there is a greater diversity within each group than there is difference between them.

Other way around.

What is?

From what I've heard that isn't the case.

Like many things when comparing racial groups, there is a greater diversity within each group than there is difference between them.

I also heard this, as well as the "shoe size doesn't matter" but like I said my sampling being statistically insignificant and all has lead to interesting anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

I also heard this, as well as the "shoe size doesn't matter" but like I said my sampling being statistically insignificant and all has lead to interesting anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
It's been my experience that height, shoe size, hand size et c are insignificant.

But actually, I just read up on this a couple of days ago (one of my friends brought up questions about average girth and I looked it up, I don't go around reading these things for no reason) and several studies have shown that there's more variation within racial groups for penis size than between them (at least there's no significant difference) and that there is no correlation with shoe size or the size of particular fingers or whatever.

It's been my experience that height, shoe size, hand size et c are insignificant.

But actually, I just read up on this a couple of days ago (one of my friends brought up questions about average girth and I looked it up, I don't go around reading these things for no reason) and several studies have shown that there's more variation within racial groups for penis size than between them (at least there's no significant difference) and that there is no correlation with shoe size or the size of particular fingers or whatever.

I do look this stuff up for no reason......well, one reason, I like penises.

However, I do think that I have read that shoe size doesn't have any bearing, and yet it seems to.......but like I said my sampling is so small it's nearly useless.

I do look this stuff up for no reason......well, one reason, I like penises.

However, I do think that I have read that shoe size doesn't have any bearing, and yet it seems to.......but like I said my sampling is so small it's nearly useless.
Haha. Well, I like penises too, but I don't really care much about the size. As long as it's at least average then that's fine. One of the nicer penises I've seen was about average size and the ugliest one I've seen was one of the bigger ones (though the very biggest ones I've seen were quite nice). Size isn't the only thing that makes a good penis, basically (without even taking into account what a guy can do with it... just talking about the penis itself).

It's been my experience that height, shoe size, hand size et c are insignificant.

But actually, I just read up on this a couple of days ago (one of my friends brought up questions about average girth and I looked it up, I don't go around reading these things for no reason) and several studies have shown that there's more variation within racial groups for penis size than between them (at least there's no significant difference) and that there is no correlation with shoe size or the size of particular fingers or whatever.

Obviously we're intrested more in averages than the amount of variation.

There's just the issue of sampling...after all, they've gotta agree to any poking and prodding, aye?

Haha. Well, I like penises too, but I don't really care much about the size. As long as it's at least average then that's fine. One of the nicer penises I've seen was about average size and the ugliest one I've seen was one of the bigger ones (though the very biggest ones I've seen were quite nice). Size isn't the only thing that makes a good penis, basically (without even taking into account what a guy can do with it... just talking about the penis itself).

oh, no of course not, that's just what we were talking about. I like to find out anything about them, I have some sort of defect.

oh, no of course not, that's just what we were talking about. I like to find out anything about them, I have some sort of defect.
I doubt it's a defect... but yeah, looking up stuff about penises isn't generally something I'm interested in unless a particular question about them arises. I'd much rather find out more from personal experience.

I foresee this thread devolving into a discussion of who has the largest penis.

Me. :D
PM for pics. ~.^

Me. :D
PM for pics. ~.^How old are ya?

Your personally experience doesn't really matter. There will always be exceptions to the rule.
In any case, the data is on the side of higher intelligence= less attractive.

Data? There's data?

Umm... this is totally not true.

I mean, I'm probably quite up there when it comes to intelligence and I'm also at least somewhat cute. I also have no trouble getting laid... although I don't really do that outside of a relationship sort of context, which might result in less overall sex than someone who goes the one night stand with questionable partners route. Basically, if I have less sex it's because my standards are higher.

Your personally experience doesn't really matter. There will always be exceptions to the rule.
In any case, the data is on the side of higher intelligence= less attractive.

Your personally experience doesn't really matter. There will always be exceptions to the rule.
In any case, the data is on the side of higher intelligence= less attractive.

Where is this data?

Your personally experience doesn't really matter. There will always be exceptions to the rule.
In any case, the data is on the side of higher intelligence= less attractive.

what data?

Where is this data?

In the OP link, sparky. You've got to read the whole thing.

In the OP link, sparky. You've got to read the whole thing.

There is no direct data for that in the OP. It is suggested as a possibility, and two different correlations are made to get there. Meanwhile, the studies mentioned specifically pertain to intelligent men, not to intelligent people in general.

There is no direct data for that in the OP. It is suggested as a possibility, and two different correlations are made to get there. Meanwhile, the studies mentioned specifically pertain to intelligent men, not to intelligent people in general.
Yeah, everyone knows that smart chicks = hot universally.

IIRC, this has been actually studied with both women and men.

Put together the pieces.

First, sex outside of a committed relationship is strongly associated with a number of risks in the modern age. Thus, those who think more about the matter first are less likely to engage in sex before settling into a stable or semi-stable situation (e.g., dating for a while).

Second, partner IQ correlates over time. Unusually high and extremely low IQ individuals have a smaller pool of individuals that they will continue to date for more than a brief span of time.

So, since they're not putting out on the first date and generally not compatible with as much of the population for long term dating, smart people are having less sex overall.

Incidentally, on the race-penis size issue, I've noted this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6161691.stm) article before. However, much like height variance, we may want to look at nutrition before we start talking about race.

IIRC, this has been actually studied with both women and men.

Put together the pieces.

First, sex outside of a committed relationship is strongly associated with a number of risks in the modern age. Thus, those who think more about the matter first are less likely to engage in sex before settling into a stable or semi-stable situation (e.g., dating for a while).

Second, partner IQ correlates over time. Unusually high and extremely low IQ individuals have a smaller pool of individuals that they will continue to date for more than a brief span of time.

So, since they're not putting out on the first date and generally not compatible with as much of the population for long term dating, smart people are having less sex overall.

Incidentally, on the race-penis size issue, I've noted this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6161691.stm) article before. However, much like height variance, we may want to look at nutrition before we start talking about race.

Stop being reasonable, TJ. That's not allowed here.

What silence...

There is no direct data for that in the OP. It is suggested as a possibility, and two different correlations are made to get there. Meanwhile, the studies mentioned specifically pertain to intelligent men, not to intelligent people in general.

You know, I'll be honest, I'm not really all that concerned about how often women get laid. As long as they're decent, they seem to get along fine.

Think about it. Any reasonably attractive women in any Western city could go out to some bar or club with the intention of getting laid and go home with an attractive guy.
A guy on the other hand, unless he's exceptionally wealthy or good looking could never go out with the intention to get laid and expect to succeed 100%.

IIRC, this has been actually studied with both women and men.

Put together the pieces.

First, sex outside of a committed relationship is strongly associated with a number of risks in the modern age. Thus, those who think more about the matter first are less likely to engage in sex before settling into a stable or semi-stable situation (e.g., dating for a while).

Second, partner IQ correlates over time. Unusually high and extremely low IQ individuals have a smaller pool of individuals that they will continue to date for more than a brief span of time.

So, since they're not putting out on the first date and generally not compatible with as much of the population for long term dating, smart people are having less sex overall.

Incidentally, on the race-penis size issue, I've noted this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6161691.stm) article before. However, much like height variance, we may want to look at nutrition before we start talking about race.This post reminds me of Xaviera Hollander, and something cute she had to say about a few of her encounters.

I would say it's because intelligent people are generally less sociable. The more "academic" you are, the less time you have to spend getting high, clubbing, etc.(plus you probably realise that such activities might compromise your intelligence)

I would say it's because intelligent people are generally less sociable. The more "academic" you are, the less time you have to spend getting high, clubbing, etc.(plus you probably realise that such activities might compromise your intelligence)

I think it's more of realizing that you have to be a complete dunderhead to get high in the first place. Can't say the same for clubbing. But didn't somebody say earlier that more intelligent people are usually spending most of their time socializing and therefore have plenty of time?

I think it's more of realizing that you have to be a complete dunderhead to get high in the first place. Can't say the same for clubbing. But didn't somebody say earlier that more intelligent people are usually spending most of their time socializing and therefore have plenty of time?
You don't have to be a complete dunderhead to get high... don't buy into that garbage that they sell of all drugs = bad. Pot's probably better for you than alcohol. As long as you're smart enough to realize that moderation is key, you're fine.

You don't have to be a complete dunderhead to get high... don't buy into that garbage that they sell of all drugs = bad. Pot's probably better for you than alcohol. As long as you're smart enough to realize that moderation is key, you're fine.

I don't believe in drinking alcohol either. That's my moderation.

I don't believe in drinking alcohol either. That's my moderation.
Abstaining isn't moderation, it's abstaining. And generally, just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it stupid, nor does it make people who do these things occasionally stupid.


And fine, let's put it this way. Pot is better for you than tylenol. You don't abstain from tylenol, do you?

Abstaining isn't moderation, it's abstaining. And generally, just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it stupid, nor does it make people who do these things occasionally stupid.


And fine, let's put it this way. Pot is better for you than tylenol. You don't abstain from tylenol, do you?

No, I don't abstain from Tylenol. But Tylenol isn't as addicting as pot is. Or so I've heard...

No, I don't abstain from Tylenol. But Tylenol isn't as addicting as pot is. Or so I've heard...
Pot's not physically addictive. It can be psychologically addictive, but so can message boards... and here we are.

Pot's not physically addictive. It can be psychologically addictive, but so can message boards... and here we are.

Message boards don't cause health problems.

No, I don't abstain from Tylenol. But Tylenol isn't as addicting as pot is. Or so I've heard...

Abstinence is a sign of a lack of intelligence.

Abstinence is a sign of a lack of intelligence.

Explain.

Message boards don't cause health problems.

In the case of an addiction, they can.

Explain.

An unwillingness to think for yourself, to simply take other people's word for it - which, by your statement about the addictiveness of pot, leads me to think you do - shows a lack of intelligence.

I'm not condoning taking drugs, or drinking alcohol, but I am saying that to not explore, experiment or decide for yourself is to show fear of using your own brain.

An unwillingness to think for yourself, to simply take other people's word for it - which, by your statement about the addictiveness of pot, leads me to think you do - shows a lack of intelligence.

I'm not condoning taking drugs, or drinking alcohol, but I am saying that to not explore, experiment or decide for yourself is to show fear of using your own brain.

Incorrect. Taking the word of others that it is bad and not risking using a potentially damaging and addicting substance on myself is very intelligent. If it was a minor risk, I'd take it. But taking a risk that could ruin the rest of my life? No. Not saying that it would or wouldn't. I'm just taking my own precautions.

But this is slightly off-topic.

Incorrect. Taking the word of others that it is bad and not risking using a potentially damaging and addicting substance on myself is very intelligent. If it was a minor risk, I'd take it. But taking a risk that could ruin the rest of my life? No. Not saying that it would or wouldn't. I'm just taking my own precautions.

Go live in a bubble then - we all live according to calculated risks, which we evaluate either through personal experience or the accounts of others.

I can tell you that I've tried, enjoyed and stopped using most drugs - perhaps I'm a rare species but I don't think so.

That's not to say I'm intelligent, but I'm happier to have lived and experienced something for myself as opposed to shutting myself out due to prejudiced opinion of others.

Again, I'm certainly not saying 'go do drugs' because I'm not one to condone anyone using them, and it's a pity we're on the subject of drugs but would you not travel because people told you foreign countries are dangerous?

Open your mind.

Go live in a bubble then - we all live according to calculated risks, which we evaluate either through personal experience or the accounts of others.

I can tell you that I've tried, enjoyed and stopped using most drugs - perhaps I'm a rare species but I don't think so.

That's not to say I'm intelligent, but I'm happier to have lived and experienced something for myself as opposed to shutting myself out due to prejudiced opinion of others.

Again, I'm certainly not saying 'go do drugs' because I'm not one to condone anyone using them, and it's a pity we're on the subject of drugs but would you not travel because people told you foreign countries are dangerous?

Open your mind.

I'm not afraid of risk. But it's proven that drugs affect thought and they're very easy to abuse. Why would I risk that? I have a very open mind, that doesn't mean that I believe everything I hear. I don't believe drugs are good for people, because they aren't. They're proven to be bad and that's that. If they prove to be anything other than making people feel good or addicting, tell me.

And I have nothing against people that use drugs and I'm not going to attack people that do. But I won't use them.

There is a difference between risk and precaution. Obviously one you haven't learned. Fact is fact. Anything else is speculation.

I'm happy with not taking the risk because it's proven to be bad. If they prove it to be good, and good outnumbering the bad, then I'll have nothing against it.

If it was proven that a foreign country was dangerous, like a war zone or something, then I'd stay away. If somebody told me it was dangerous, I'd do some research, take it as a warning. If I find nothing against it, I'd go. It's called smart decision-making.

*snip*

Where do you get your facts from is the question.

...and what's wrong with having your thoughts affected, seeing life through a different perspective, understanding that the way you see life is almost purely down to perception and that to alter that perception can be considered healthy?

Who has a better understanding of the English language, the one who only speaks English or the one who speaks another language as well, one who has a point of comparison?

Who has a better perception of what the world is like, the one who's seen it from just one angle or the one who's seen it from another angle?

...and who has a better judgment of risk, the one who's taken that risk or the one who hasn't?

Who's more intelligent?

Again, this really shouldn't be about drugs, it's a poor example.

Having sex makes you feel good, or at least alleviates boredom - it releases chemicals that alter thought - and the same people against sex seem to be the same people against drugs - coincidence much?

Just to get back on topic.

Fear is a great inhibitor.

Where do you get your facts from is the question.

...and what's wrong with having your thoughts affected, seeing life through a different perspective, understanding that the way you see life is almost purely down to perception and that to alter that perception can be considered healthy?

Who has a better understanding of the English language, the one who only speaks English or the one who speaks another language as well, one who has a point of comparison?

Who has a better perception of what the world is like, the one who's seen it from just one angle or the one who's seen it from another angle?

...and who has a better judgment of risk, the one who's taken that risk or the one who hasn't?

Who's more intelligent?

Again, this really shouldn't be about drugs, it's a poor example.

Having sex makes you feel good, or at least alleviates boredom - it releases chemicals that alter thought - and the same people against sex seem to be the same people against drugs - coincidence much?

Just to get back on topic.

Fear is a great inhibitor.

Who knows more about the English language? Someone who knows it and another or someone who's researched it and therefore knows comparisons, where words come from, etc.. Personal experience gives a unique point a view. That is true. But one who has that point of view doesn't necessarily know the facts.

But you're right, this shouldn't be about drugs.

I'll be fucked if I know!

Thankyou and goodnight ladies and gentlemen ...

EDIT: I like the cut of Bellicous's jib. Standing up to the (arguably) sexiest poster on NSG shows some character.

Message boards don't cause health problems.
Message board addiction can cause health problems.

It can also cause social problems.

Message board addiction can cause health problems.

It can also cause social problems.

I can see the social problems. But what kind of health problems can it cause?

I can see the social problems. But what kind of health problems can it cause?

I'm gonna guess and say eye trouble and obesity as potential physical problems

I can see the social problems. But what kind of health problems can it cause?
Carpal tunnel, eye strain, headaches plus all the downsides of leading a very sedentary lifestyle, especially accompanied with an unhealthy diet. I mean, at least stoners have to leave the house to find their weed, man.

Hey now. I've started smoking(prior to that, I took a small bit once a year to remind myself why I shouldn't), and quit within the span of 3 months while I was in the service. I drink very rarely(read as maybe once a year, and only if severely cajoled), and seldom more than a single cup(most I've ever had was maybe 3 cans of weak lager, and again, I blame the military environment). Drugs are illegal here, and I have no real wish to go find them or blow my money on them.

As far as "altering perception", my brain is already fully capable of seeing things that aren't there, having conversations that don't actually happen, etc. Without the use of drugs. Seriously. Half the time, I'm thinking I told someone something, but it was merely a conversation that I had rehearsed in my head and never actually carried out.

I'll stick to my caffeine, thanks.

Carpal tunnel, eye strain, headaches plus all the downsides of leading a very sedentary lifestyle, especially accompanied with an unhealthy diet. I mean, at least stoners have to leave the house to find their weed, man.

That's not really from the message board is it, just sitting around on your ass at the computer. You could probably do the same thing channel surfing.

That's not really from the message board is it, just sitting around on your ass at the computer. You could probably do the same thing channel surfing.

I was going to say that. But I just came on so, oh well.