Do you prefer men to think you are:-
Find a Conversation
Do you prefer men to think you are:-
| Fri, 06-16-2006 - 10:12am |
Do you prefer men to think you are:-
- Intelligent
- Sexy
You will be able to change your vote.
| Fri, 06-16-2006 - 10:12am |
Pages
>Oh...I see. Either ugly and smart, or pretty and vapid.
>Oh well. I don't really care. I'm not looking for boys'
>approval.
The question is "Do *YOU* prefer men to think you are:-"
If anything it has more to do with your approval. I'd rather have many more women think I was sexy than intelligent. I'd even give up a few IQ points if I could gain that in inches of height. I know women prefer very tall men to very “intelligent” men despite the fact they say "intelligence" is sexy.
So, Hal, it seems to me that your point is that people (in general) aren't saying what they really mean.
The word intelligent is being used casually to incorporate a number of desirable traits, rather than taking the time to identify the traits and list them independently.
This is frustrating to you because you consider intelligence to be a specific measurement of what level a person's brain is functioning.(not worded very well)
I think we all can learn from this to say exactly what we mean and to mean what we say. Words do have meaning and should not be used casually.
Edited 7/2/2006 1:03 am ET by pimbiroo
I know women prefer very tall men to very “intelligent” men despite the fact they say "intelligence" is sexy.
How do you know this?
--How wide is your dating pool? I can’t comment on the sample used for standardising a test because I don’t know.
Actually I'm not in the dating pool right now. Thats not what my point was. If you're going to base a person's intelligence on an arbitrary number on an IQ test, then its an unfair means to describing other people. Think of it this way...when the Minnesota doctors first decided to test/standardize their personality profile, they used white farmers in Minnesota. How do white farmers compare to affluent business men in New York?? God knows that the most widely used personality profile had several flaws in it before they started standardizing it to a very wide group of people (MMPI-2). When IQ tests were first formed (Binet), they were used on men or young white schooled boys. Women were not tested and girls were just starting to go to school. If you're going to test the average population, it needs to be standardized across a wide number of people in order for it to be considered valid and reliable. IQ tests nowadays are better but their basic structure still comes down to the white middle class male. This is why I'm critical of IQ tests.
As another example, I could give the WAIS to an African-American student who comes from an inner city school with poor funding, lack of structure, and poor teachers. His score lets say for arguments sake is 95. I could give the WAIS to a privileged Caucasian student in a private school with private funding, excellent teachers and Ivy-league track classes. His score is 120. What is the real difference here? Their "intelligence" or the obvious differences in status and education??
>The difference between 60 and 100 or 100 vs 150?
>Now you're talking about seeing differences.
>That can tell you if a person needs special ed,
>regular courses or gifted courses
Err…Didn’t you say just a few sentences ago that “IQ scores don’t tell you much at all.”? Now you say they can identify the difference between regular and gifted? Then you end it by saying “Otherwise...that score is useless”.
You have basically explained EXACTLY why IQ scores are meaningful--They COMPARE people using a standardised scale, not an arbitrary one!
My point is people get stuck on the NUMBER. A person with a score of 110 does not make them more intelligent than a person with a score of 109. When you look at numbers on the lower threshold (<70) versus average or above, then you can say, this person is borderline cognitive functioning or MR and needs special ed. A person that is given an IQ test and is told their number can be damaging in my opinion. They become a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Well my IQ is only 75, I'm an idiot and wont amount to anything" Or "I have an IQ score of 145, I'm the smartest ever!!" If my child is ever given an IQ test, they will never know that number. It doesnt help
Intelligence is something not easily understood or clearly defined even by the scientific community. Thats why its so difficult for anybody to describe.
I ascribe to Gardner's intelligences as a means to describe how intelligent people are...check it out.
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
I don't remember who typed it, but there's something else I feel the need to clear up (it's the teacher in me).
IQ scores alone do not determine gifted or special ed. (At least not in my state.)
Around here, it's amost impossible to qualify for special ed (if they can write their name in third grade, they probably won't qualify). A child pretty much has to be at the MR level to get services. It's sad and frustrating.
Instead they are diagnosed as ADHD and given a pill. Sigh...
I strongly dislike head doctors sometimes....
>Obviously I am not in Mensa, as I read and read
>this paragraph and really can't understand what you meant
Ok, I will do my best to clarify. You wrote the following in a previous post:
"The same about intelligence--I have had a couple of nice bf-s over the years who barely have high school education, but have been very nice and good people, open and curious about life, willing to learn... I think that is much more important than a man having a PhD but being a cold and inflexible person otherwise"
You made no mention about IQ's or Mensa, instead you were using intelligence when comparing previous B/f's who barely have high school education to a man with a PhD. It's only in your latest post that you define intelligence as being measured by an IQ test. My point was that a person without any education can be just as intelligent as a person with 3 PhD's. I don't like stereotyping but mensa members range from housewives to Rocket Scientists.
>Anyway, my point was that "intelligence" (as measured by some numbers
>like your Mensa case) is not so important in a partner as emotional
>intelligence, and being an open and curious person, willing to grow and learn.
Ok, this is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think blonde haired women are better at cooking and cleaning than brunettes. Brunettes are much better at darning though.
Ruby,
I plagiarised this:--------------------------------------
Cynics will say that the only thing having a high-IQ proves is that the individual has scored well on an intelligence test. An IQ test, however, remains the only known and tried method of measuring intelligence. Some technical weaknesses do exist, and because of this it is crucial that results be viewed as only one kind of information about an individual. Nevertheless it must be stressed how commonplace IQ tests have become, and that proficiency at IQ tests can improve one’s employment prospects and give a good start to one’s chosen career.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>My point is people get stuck on the NUMBER.
Fine, that is your point but it was never my point. Once again I could bring up other numbers that people get "stuck" on like age, income, height and weight. It seems OK to say you want someone younger than X years and at least X tall but mention IQ level and the anti-IQ brigade comes charging in.
Pages