Sex and Intelligence

[user43770]

double post.

 

[user43770]

Fair enough but that's not the point at all - what's with the obsession with keeping count? Do we count and log ALL our bodily functions now?

It's a self-validation thing. The funny thing is - it doesn't matter how many girls I bang - I still have issues with self-confidence.

 

[user43770]

The guys that impress me to this day are the ones that currently have a "bang" sweet girl - hot, intelligent, maybe rich, dignified, etc. If you have just one of those, you get my thumbs up.

We have trash hoes all throughout our state to rack up a tally on, if that approach suits your fancy. Any redneck here can rack up a high hoe tally.

Well said.

 

[bigjohnson]

It's a self-validation thing. The funny thing is - it doesn't matter how many girls I bang - I still have issues with self-confidence.

Fair enough. You'll get over that I'd wager.

 

[SmoothTalker]

Azanon...

http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/mutually exclusive
Main Entry:
mutually exclusive
Function:
adjective
Date:
1874

: being related such that each excludes or precludes the other <mutually exclusive events> ; also : incompatible <their outlooks were not mutually exclusive>

Now, do tell how two things that are completely incapable of happening at the same time can be positively correlated? How does having more of one thing increase your odds of having more of another thing which CANNOT happen at the same time?

 

[azanon]

Azanon...

http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/mutually exclusive
Main Entry:
mutually exclusive
Function:
adjective
Date:
1874

: being related such that each excludes or precludes the other <mutually exclusive events> ; also : incompatible <their outlooks were not mutually exclusive>

Now, do tell how two things that are completely incapable of happening at the same time can be positively correlated? How does having more of one thing increase your odds of having more of another thing which CANNOT happen at the same time?

I earlier said: "IQ and insanity are mutually exclusive. Actually, I suspect they're slightly positively correlated" referring to Einstein.

I'm glad you looked up the definition!

Your assumption is wrong - they can happen at the same time. Mutually exclusive variables are those that are not dependent on each other. In this example, that means you can have high or low IQ, and at the same time be either insane or not insane. All 4 arrangements are possible.

That said, if statistics show that insanity tends to occur more often in high intelligence individuals, then they would have some degree of positive correlation. Now here's the important point: Two variables can be positively correlated, but not necessary because one is affecting the other. There can also be a third unknown, or undiscovered variable that completely accounts for the positive correlation. Thus, you can have mutually exclusive variables that still statistically show positive.... or negative correlation.

Do you like logical fallacies? The related logical fallacy is "ignoring a common cause": http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html

Ok, for tonight, read pages 200-225 and write a one page review! That's all. Class dismissed. :rockon:

 

[bigjohnson]

I earlier said: "IQ and insanity are mutually exclusive. Actually, I suspect they're slightly positively correlated" referring to Einstein.

I'm glad you looked up the definition!

Your assumption is wrong - they can happen at the same time. Mutually exclusive variables are those that are not dependent on each other.

I'm not a statistics expert but I thought that was the difference between a dependent and independent variable. Mutually exclusive was usually used to refer to the values or states a variable could assume. It's been a while, wow.

 

[Alle_Gory]

IQ and insanity are mutually exclusive. Actually, I suspect they're slightly positively correlated.

Better be smart and slightly nutty than dumb and... uhhhh.....

 

[Jules Verne]

Dumber.

 

[The Bat]

I know you didn't actually say this, but to be clear, I don't personally equate social intelligence with your laid number. The guys that impress me to this day are the ones that currently have a "bang" sweet girl - hot, intelligent, maybe rich, dignified, etc. If you have just one of those, you get my thumbs up.

We have trash hoes all throughout our state to rack up a tally on, if that approach suits your fancy. Any redneck here can rack up a high hoe tally.

Then it's a good thing that I'm not trying to impress you...

I love how monogamists jump on the "Quality" horse as soon as possible. If you are married to a hot, intelligent, rich, dignified woman, then you're A-ok. The rest of the bachelors with high lay count are rolling in the dirt with all the low quality hoes.

Please...don't make assumptions next time if you want to get your point across.

 

[STR8UP]

Damn....I was wondering why I wasn't getting more pu$$y. Now I can blame it on my brain!

Then it's a good thing that I'm not trying to impress you...

I love how monogamists jump on the "Quality" horse as soon as possible. If you are married to a hot, intelligent, rich, dignified woman, then you're A-ok. The rest of the bachelors with high lay count are rolling in the dirt with all the low quality hoes.

Please...don't make assumptions next time if you want to get your point across.

I didn't really get that from what Azanon was saying, but I totally get your point. When you are in a relationship it's an easy trap to fall into to protect your ego investment by "getting on that horse".

 

[SmoothTalker]

I normally never nitpick, I just pointed it out as a joke, but now it amazes me how stubborn you are when you are clearly wrong. You are referring to INDEPENDENCE. As in, variables that are not dependent on each other, are independent.

Mutually EXCLUSIVE does in fact mean things can't happen at the same time. This is clearly stated in the definition I provided, but no doubt you know better than the dictionary or any possible source on statistics.

And yes bigjohnson you're right.

 

[speakeasy]

I watched a biographical documentary on Einstein last night on the History Channel. I found it interesting to hear that he was a ladies man in his youth. So I guess this correlation of high IQ and getting no play doesn't always pan out.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Of course, lying about sexual frequency might be an indicator of intelligence,..

Just saying.

 

[azanon]

I love how monogamists jump on the "Quality" horse as soon as possible. If you are married to a hot, intelligent, rich, dignified woman, then you're A-ok. The rest of the bachelors with high lay count are rolling in the dirt with all the low quality hoes.

I didn't say anything like that. You completely changed my point.

Please...don't make assumptions next time if you want to get your point across.

Please try to concentrate harder the next time you read one of my posts so that you don't completely misinterpret what I said like you did this time.

..............

I'm just thinking here for the most part.... who cares. I can see the virtue of tons of "strange". Hey, I like strange too. But there's virtue to one awesome woman too. Being a DJ doesn't require one or the other, and it can include both. I'm just saying I don't think a very healthy goal would be to score, say, 50 minimum because one mistakenly thinks any self-respecting DJ is going to do that.

 

[TheHumanist]

First on this site, obviously a site that have people either trying to get good and guys who are already there, this is not a site that represents the population as a whole.


I have to find correlation with my observations and experience to what the article said. One who is more intellegent is less likely to have sex, both the girl and the guy. I recall another study a while ago that look at Harvard and other elite college have that correlation. As for my experience, I find that many of the smarter girls, even if they have looks, based on the they trend to be in higher level classes of honors and seems to have less drama amongst themselves, relationships seems to last longer and more harmonious, and definately not as promiscuous.

Obviously it doesn't always pan out, just if we look as a whole here. In a group of 10 smart guys, one can be easily an exception, sciences look at all 10 as a whole.


Hey Rollo, what do you think of the trend? Knowing you are a very interested evolutionary phsycology. Also you know very well studies try very hard to take note of lying and other similar factors.

 

[The Bat]

I didn't say anything like that. You completely changed my point.

I'm just thinking here for the most part.... who cares. I can see the virtue of tons of "strange". Hey, I like strange too. But there's virtue to one awesome woman too. Being a DJ doesn't require one or the other, and it can include both. I'm just saying I don't think a very healthy goal would be to score, say, 50 minimum because one mistakenly thinks any self-respecting DJ is going to do that.

See what you did there at the end. You started to think like what I wrote in my last post.

I think I see what you're trying to get at which is, "Don't fvck women to inflate your ego and self-esteem."

And I'd agree with that. It's tough to walk the lines BETWEEN inflated ego simply because I've laid at least 50 women AND the self-realized ability to attract women whenever I please. You see what I'm trying to get at?

Instead of saying, "If you do X, you are a DJ", we should be saying, "If you ARE X, you are a DJ."

Which would demand that you stop saying, "If you find and marry a quality girl, you are a DJ" and it would demand me to stop saying, "If you have laid at least 50 girls, you are a DJ".

Ironically though, I've always preached to bang as many women as possible. :nervous:

Guess we're made of different molds, you and I, azanon.

 

[search1ng]

can't we all just find and bang quality girls? ...

 

[CapedCrusader08]

Hmm, all this talk of sex,intelligence,testosterone etc, has me wondering. Well, how much does jerking off factor in? I try to go for periods,week,2 weeks without, but then I go off on tangents where I do it a few times over a few days.

I have scored high on certain parts of IQ tests. Mostly reading,vocabulary,science and history. But poorly in math. Add in a learning disability,and a few years out of a normal education loop as I see it, and that's quite a frustration.

Also, one of my other frustrations has been educationally related. I have always wanted to be in the top honors class(es), the student who passes everything with flying colors and get's straight a's. But, reality is different from that. I have always held people with great academic success in high regard. As well as those with great artistic talents as well. Painting/drawing, writing, filmmaking, etc. So do I possess these "nerd" traits that the highly intelligent have that causes problems in they're love life?

As for sex/women, I believe more so in quality over quantity. Yet, the idea of banging random hot chicks, or not so random, is obviously appealing to me. Ideally, all I have ever wanted is that one special someone to be a loyal,loving,lifelong wife.

I mean, I guess I am an example of what the article is talking about. I feel I lack the "attraction" skills. Which concerns me.