Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!unc!fsks From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social Subject: Re: Intelligence Message-ID: <443@unc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 22:18:02 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.443 Posted: Thu Jun 13 22:18:02 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 02:39:30 EDT References: Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 82 Xref: linus net.singles:6372 net.social:644 Summary: Frank Silbermann writes: >> Then, on the second day, we came across >> an older man bouncing his pre-school daughter (or grand-daughter) >> into the air and catching her. The child was gigling. My friend said, >> "I used to love it when my father did that to me." >> ... >> After it ended, we were still friends, so I asked her what had >> attracted her to me in the first place. She said, "I first noticed >> my feelings for you after you threw me up in the air at that resort." >> Now this lady is certainly no jock groupie. Most of her other >> dates were computer nerds like me. Yet, it was a showing of raw, >> stupid machismo that got her hormones flowing. In article carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >I doubt it. She had just said that her father used to do that to >her, and she loved it. By tossing her in the air Frank symbolically >took on the role of her father, who showed his love for her by this >kind of play. No wonder she started having positive feelings for >Frank, since he literally reenacted a relationship that must have >been very meaningful and positive for her, to judge from her >spontaneous remark when she saw the child being tossed. I doubt that >Frank could have achieved the same result by bench-pressing 300 lbs. >or beating up six rival suitors. > >People are always attempting (unconsciously) to recreate with other >people childhood relationships (generally with parents) that were >important to them, and this plays a major role in determining who you >fall in love with and the course the relationship takes. Excellent analysis! (no :-) here, I'm serious!) Not only only have you offered a more logical explanation than mine, but it leads to great insight on the dynamics of romantic love. Now, when I am attracted to a woman, one of the first things I will ask is what her father was like, and what she thought of the relationship. This will give me a better idea as to what sort of man she's looking for, and whether I will be able to appeal to her in the long run. ****************************************************************** Frank Silbermann writes: >> It is common among many animals in nature that when mating, the female >> chooses the male who is the best physical specimen. This gives the >> children two advantages -- a greater likelihood of growing up to be equally >> strong, and the greater protection from a father who is dominant in the >> herd. Such instincts probably influence human mating even today. In article carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Perhaps. But given that cooperation and sharing are basic to the >human species (see recent work in paleoanthropology) a woman's >offspring would have a selective advantage if her mate was not only >strong but used his strength to the advantage of his family. This ties in to a previous posting of mine, about why women respond so much better to generous men. ********************************************************************* Frank Silbermann writes: >> You can spend your time whining about >> how the world SHOULD be, or you can recognize the way it IS, >> deal with it, and achieve your goals. >Good advice, but first make sure you have a correct understanding of >the way the world is. In the real world, women not only go for the >Tom Selleck types who resemble a side of beef and have a >corresponding IQ (no insult to Selleck intended), but they also go >for the Dudley Moores, the Woody Allens, and the Billy Joels. In the >long run, trying to be the dominant bull of the herd is a less >effective strategy than being a caring and loving person with a lot >to give. I think fame, wealth, and reputation is a large part of their appeal. If put put Dudley Moore, Woody Allen and Billy Joel in anonymus, mundane jobs (e.g. postal clerk, shoestore owner, hacker), they would have a difficult time attracting female attention. On the other hand, if Tom Selleck lost his fame and fortune and had to work at an ordinary occupation, the local women would STILL go crazy for him. Of course, it's even better if you can offer the best of both types. Frank Silbermann