Let them eat cake: Interpersonal Problems vs Tasks

just to correct a bit here, Natalie Portman apparently has a rather high IQ, her being a multilingual Harvard graduate and all... Poor example is all I'm saying, not questioning your point (yet)

Actually, some of my more intelligent friends complain that they can't find a man (that they would consider dating) that isn't threatened by their intelligence.

Now is this a social narrative, a post hoc justification of a failed relationship fueled by the self serving bias, or something else entirely?

Dating is one area of interest where anecdotage should be taken with a mountain of salt.

Thank you for your input, Laura, but you have not quoted a study that would persuade me that what I know from other study reports is false. As far as I know, extreme IQ's simply are more common among men than they are among women.

Since this is compatible with my own anecdotal experience, it is hard for me to be persuaded by your anecdotal experience, unless you can point to evidence stronger than that.

I would prefer this to be evidence that doesn't attempt to disqualify the whole concept of IQ because of discomfort with the findings of IQ studies.

Now, as for the other issues you raise, those are fun to discuss, so I'll engage, lack of scientific quality regardless... :)

"Smart girls go for successful men and not isolated introverts" is another way of saying "females are attracted to confidence and dominance", as well as "high IQ does not necessarily mean confidence and dominance". I would agree with that.

"Some of my more intelligent friends complain that they can't find a man that isn't threatened by their intelligence" probably means that those friends of yours aren't that hot. Their intelligence compels them to find a guy that's successful and at least as smart, but guys like that can get hot women, and guys prefer hot women to intelligent, but not that hot women.

I would personally not mind an extremely smart partner at all, but frankly, when one person is able to earn enough for the whole family, I do think it's more convenient for the other person to be someone who is along for the ride, rather than someone whose career will try to pull the partnership, and the family, in conflicting directions. A successful career woman would possibly do better with a stay-at-home husband, which do exist, although it's not quite the most traditional role.

AnlamK, I agree that IQ is the measure of a mere shadow of actual ability. When describing a single individual, their IQ does provide a partial indicator as to their competence, but does not even begin to describe a human being.

In more macroscopic terms, however:

(1) People with an average IQ lower than X will not be able to perform task Z which requires IQ much greater than X.

(2) Having a higher IQ than needed for task Z does not make you much better at it, but may qualify you for another job, Q, which is more demanding.

(3) Contrary to what many people think, average IQs can be compared somewhat across cultures; they can be compared somewhat to a common point of reference; and the resulting average IQ measures can differ greatly across countries. Countries that have lower average IQs do not perform nearly as well, which I attribute mainly to argument (1), above.

There are a variety of reasons I can think of that would cause people with extreme IQ's (150+) to perform randomly on average. In general, my interpretation is that the higher IQ hurts them more than it helps them. With an extreme IQ, it is hard to find an environment in which to develop social skills, and it is harder to enjoy random company. Meanwhile, there are few occupations that require such a high IQ. Instead, the most high-end occupations can be performed by people whose IQs are less extreme, but are more socially developed, and would thus be preferred for those occupations over the maladjusted extreme ones.

I would be very surprised to learn, however, that a study of subjects with merely above average IQs - rather than extremely high ones - didn't show them to have markedly improved outcomes over subjects whose IQs are below average.

A mostly static view of human potential is probably correct. If you'll agree that other animals don't have the same potential as humans because of their genetic differences, then it is far fetched to assume that there are no differences in potential among humans, too.

Have you found ways for them to nevertheless socialize with their peers?

I will have a similar policy if and when I happen to breed. As Jowibou alludes to, this means I will have to take the initiative in seeking high quality social interactions for my children myself. It may be a better option for my children but it certainly will not be easier!

(Care to share your thoughts on the subject?)

Children of widely different ages playing together are a wonderful but increasingly rare sight. I strongly agree that age segregation within schools is a big part of the problem. But in a sense it's a subset of what I'm talking about on the scale of the whole culture. I'm not advocating a return rigid to social ritual or an overly formal system - say, the Masai cattle raid or even the Scouts. But something must be found to fill the gap. Groups and subgroups of teenagers are left to make do in a system that merely tries to keep them together, under control -- and obediently consuming junk. And the rest of us end up with a social system that mirrors High School instead of schools that reflect society as a whole.

Cute!!! I would note that most men are too conservative with touch in general. What you're touching is not always as important as that your touching, which immediately establishes an intimacy not achievable by mere conversation. The woman will let you know in one way or another if she wants you to stop, but she will almost never say she wants you to start, or even know it herself. Learning how to give a backrub is probably a good idea.

That's a great diagram!

I'd personally move the back of the neck to the purple zone - it can be considered intimate touch.

I'd also add feet to the diagram (they're currently in white) and I'd personally colour them purple. Note that offering a foot-massage, is often a good "move" to test the waters (or even just be nice to a friend who's had a hard day).

But I fully applaud this kind of clear instruction - I like it.

Thirded - but don't take my interest as evidence one way or the other as to whether most women would find such a thing offensive.

It also depends on where the woman is from.

Now you have to show it.

No data on boko-maru? :)

Nice one! True(ish). A bit on the conservative side, but that's probably what you were aiming at!

Link?

That diagram seems... about right, actually.

With that said, here's the diagram. You'll probably laugh, or deem it true, or both.

This is the coolest shit I've seen on LW in a long while. Probably about two months. You're officially my nigga, mate.

Too bad you're inactive :(

I used the word "manipulation" as a provocation to get across my point. Exactly those negative connotations made that provocation possible. So my use of the term "manipulation" was already a manipulation of the reader.

Although "influencing" is a broader notion, it is often too general.

Let us consider the following situation: I tell my 2 years old daughter: "Do you want me to read you a story, or you rather watch some video before going to sleep?"

This is a very common technique: focusing her attention on something pleasant in order to make her do something else I want. More sophisticated variants of the same trick work even with adults, for example this is the base of all "bait and switch" scams.

I think most people would agree: I manipulated my daughter. ("Influencing" is also true, but it sounds like a strange euphemism in this context.) Still, I did nothing wrong. "Manipulating" just means that I consciously employed some technique to modify her behavior in a way she did not perceive consciously.

One could argue that manipulation is not necessary with adults, because it is always more efficient to argue rationally, so manipulation necessarily means scam.

I don't buy that, since it could even make sense to employ mind hacks on your own future self: for example enter a situation you know you won't like just to force yourself to achieve some more important goals. I think the term "I scammed myself" does not make much sense in such a situation.

Women are great manipulators. They employ all kinds of tricks to make men, each other and children to do stuff they deem desirable while avoiding conflicts. On average, they outperform the average man in this respect by great lengths, which makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary point of view. Funnily enough, women also are attracted to manipulative men, which again, makes just as much sense from an evolutionary point of view. :)

So, when women say, they like "charming men", they really mean: "shameless manipulators". Males that can manipulate well enough to show their genes are worthy enough to be combined with theirs, (at least in this respect).

Still, this does not mean, a "shameless manipulator" has to be a jerk, evil or dehumanizing. It is simply independent. Being unskilled does not imply being ethical, just that one can inflict less harm when trying hard.

This is one aspect of partner dancing I found extremely educational: Leading skills are the parallels of this kind of seductive manipulation in a nonverbal setting. Good leaders can make beginner followers to make what they want by using a set of carefully trained tricks to exploiting her own movement and momentum and modify it subtly at the right time and place to achieve their goals. It is very similar to soft martial arts that employ the same techniques in a confrontational setting.

What is meant here by "magic?" To me, it seems that it is synonymous with effortlessness; anyone skilled in a craft makes it look easy. In order to create this magic, a person toils in private. Since no one saw the preparation, the result looks like it came from nowhere--i.e., magic.

Hugh, your complaint as I understand it is that society not only doesn't provide rituals which turn "dating and mating" into a well defined process with agreed upon rules, but in fact actively resists the demands of people who would use such rituals.

Yet when one researches the question "what are the formalized rituals of dating and mating", well, there's plenty of information out there. May I suggest that it would be wortwhile to yourself and to your readers to do the research, and report back on what you found, and then possibly point out any remaining large gaps?

Disclosure: I may not have much to say about dating and mating in general, as I have been out of the dating market for twenty years.

I do have a little experience in deliberately transforming myself (from 2000 onwards) from an introverted geek with no friends into an avid business networker with an excellent reputation. I found excellent procedural information for doing so in a book called "Why Should Extroverts Make All The Money".

Back around that time I formulated an informal theory that made the parallel between "finding a job through the want ads" and "finding a partner through classifieds". The gist of the theory was that in both cases there were too many incentives to lie and one would get burned quite easily. The strategy that relied on building up a social network looked a lot more appealing to me, at least in the professional domain.

Even though a website provides an avenue where people can contact each other, what do you do then?

This seems to some extent taskified, Google "speed dating". My point isn't that encounters on online dating sites systematically lead to speed dating, but that "society" has come up with at least one taskified version of the supposed "problem" of the first meeting with a prospective date. Speed dating wouldn't exist if "society" were as reluctant as you say it is to taskify in matters of intimacy.

And if you do end up meeting someone, what do you do?

That rather depends on the specifics of your problem statement. The "problem" of sexual encounters is at least partly taskified (think "oldest profession in the world")...

Online dating is only a very small part of the taskification of dating. Even though a >website provides an avenue where people can contact each other, what do you do >then? And if you do end up meeting someone, what do you do?

The algorithm for what to do when you meet someone is simple. You talk about yourself and listen to them talk about themselves and ask them questions about themselves. The goal is to get to know them and help them get to know you so that you both decide whether you are interested in spending more time together. If you are compatible and open the conversation will flow naturally, and you will both have a good time. This algorithm won't work well for you if your communications skills are poor or if you are genuinely unlikeable/unattractive. I had to work on both of those issues to become successful at dating. My communication skills are still pretty terrible, but I focused enough effort on becoming attractive that eventually it worked out.

I think your description of the alien with the cigarette pack highlights the fact the problem with advice often lies in the fact that it's too chunky. By that I mean the steps are described at too high a level. This can happen when there's a great difference in the levels of experience of the advisor and the advised, and the advisor has become so familiar with the processes they have been conceptually black boxed. In fact the black boxing is a necessary part of the process - you ride a bike well when you no longer think about how to ride a bike, and you socialise well when you're no longer aware of what you're doing to make your socialising successful. If the advisor doesn't realise that the advised has no idea how these black boxes work, the advice isn't worth much to him.

I've entertained the idea of suggesting to Alicorn that she apply her superior understanding of women to teach pickup to male students. I imagine her entering the classroom, glancing at the audience composed of actual average guys and going "...oh, you meant that kind of average? I had no idea such people even existed. Obviously, teaching them to approach women would be disgusting and a gross betrayal of my sex. I'm outta here."

It's not at all clear to me why I'd enter the classroom in the first place, unless I had a corresponding roomful of women and was going to play Yentl for my own amusement. I don't really consider myself someone with expertise in the matter! Apart from a few vague hints like my remarks about meeting people through other people, I've confined myself to ethical claims, not practical advice. My ethical claims have been peppered with reassuring remarks that they don't spell practical disaster (excessively demanding ethical philosophies tend not to be very popular), but they are still just ethical claims. I don't have that stellar of a dating history to draw on for practical help: mostly, I collect admirers through the Internet and they turn out to live far away. In terms of actually going to a physical location alone with a romantic interest on an explicitly-purposed date, I've been on two.