[AndersB]

I am so hideously ugly and have an abrasive personality to boot, such that I never get offers. Basically, my presence scare children, wilt plants, and make women clutch their handbags.

It therefore seems strange that I managed to get married at all. Even my dad exclaimed surprise that my then girlfriend would go out with a guy like me! Gee.... thanks, dad!

Warren Buffett gave the advice that choosing your marriage partner is the most important decision in your life. Just make sure you pick someone with low expectations.

I tend to agree with that. After more than 30 years of being together with my wife, I think the secret for a long marriage is to make sure that she starts with no expectations at all and that she has a superhuman forgiving nature. It then also helps that nobody else would have me as second hand goods anyway. It is a match made in heaven - like Florence Nightingale and Quasimodo.

[tor]

ummester, on 30 September 2011 - 01:55 AM, said:

Yea, but didn't you have a different orientation when you were younger?

Nah same old, same old for me.

[tom]

AndersB, on 30 September 2011 - 03:02 AM, said:

I am so hideously ugly and have an abrasive personality to boot, such that I never get offers. Basically, my presence scare children, wilt plants, and make women clutch their handbags.

It therefore seems strange that I managed to get married at all. Even my dad exclaimed surprise that my then girlfriend would go out with a guy like me! Gee.... thanks, dad!

Warren Buffett gave the advice that choosing your marriage partner is the most important decision in your life. Just make sure you pick someone with low expectations.

I tend to agree with that. After more than 30 years of being together with my wife, I think the secret for a long marriage is to make sure that she starts with no expectations at all and that she has a superhuman forgiving nature. It then also helps that nobody else would have me as second hand goods anyway. It is a match made in heaven - like Florence Nightingale and Quasimodo.

I am right with you but I am super glad my wife does not read this forum stuff...


Going back to men v women there is also an argument that mixed teams perform better.

Is it possible that an all men group (or all women) for that matter do not think of the team as much as mixed. Men are conscious of being pig headed around women and women are conscious of being bitchy around men. I have seen all women groups at work fighting to the degree that if you let them loose on teh western front the deadlock would have been broken by 1916. send in the shock troops...

Back on a serioud note if there was a woman or two amoung a group of men would these men be less likely to turn tail and run for example?

Teams do not necessarily perform based on the aggregated ability of a group. Often team dynamics can see a team of average people overcome a team of elites just because they work better as a team. As Solomon mentioned the Viet Kong are a good example of this, though no doubt years of being dowtrodden by the French had hardened their resolve as well.

[ummester]

tom, on 30 September 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

Back on a serioud note if there was a woman or two amoung a group of men would these men be less likely to turn tail and run for example?

Possibly. But isn't that in itself proving some kind of discrimination in the ranks. Like platoon 1 has a couple of women and platoon 2 doesn't. Platoon 2's performance is worse in combat so Leitenant of that platoon argues they need a couple of mandatory women for performance purposes.

tom, on 30 September 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

Teams do not necessarily perform based on the aggregated ability of a group. Often team dynamics can see a team of average people overcome a team of elites just because they work better as a team. As Solomon mentioned the Viet Kong are a good example of this, though no doubt years of being dowtrodden by the French had hardened their resolve as well.

Yea, that I am in full agreeance with and experience 1st hand every working day. My number 2 is a woman because she is the best person for the job and the least slack, whiny or bitchy. Trouble is, I can't find a number 3 because the rest of the men and women worru about each other so much that they cant improve themselves = or they think they are elite when they are actually kind of useless and unpromotable:)

What I find, generally however, is that men in a team are slacker (when it comes to office based work) but less conscious of what the rest of the team is up to. Women generally work harder in that environment but are constantly comparing themselves to everyone else in the team. I honestly don't know what is worse for moral.

If they were all blokes I could just address the slackness, which I think is easier to quantify and comment on. Work based performance targets are easy to set and judge.

Bitchiness is a harder thing to manage. Where is the line drawn at someone talking about someone else if it is not discriminatory but definately has a negative effect on morale. And bitchy women seem to make slack men whiny.

[Ugg]

AndersB, on 30 September 2011 - 03:02 AM, said:

I am so hideously ugly and have an abrasive personality to boot, such that I never get offers. Basically, my presence scare children, wilt plants, and make women clutch their handbags.

I should be so lucky!! Because this is the faceless internet, I can tell you that I have exactly the opposite problem. I am so devilishly handsome that I have had to deliberately adjust my looks to provide a few moments of peace during the day from screaming women ripping their clothes off and demanding they gratify me. You know, I have to pretend I am balding, I push out my belly, stoop, encourage a pasty complexion, so on and so forth. It really is a chore. I've had to take on a rather plain wife to keep the charade alive. The benefit is it frees up valuable time to read blogs on the internet.

I once would have humoured the idea that boys and girls brains are the same at birth and it is our concious and subconcious differential treatment of them that makes the gender differences. I am now almost certain this is wrong. My experience of my kids and other kids is that the kids pop out with their own future personality ready to go. The core characteristsics both my kids have, they have always had, but they are night and day to each other. The only change in environment I can see is first child versus second child. We recently held a 4 year old children's party. The difference in the behaviour between boys and girls was startling. I realise that this could be environmental still but I am 'buying it' less and less.

Having a human baby is a real burden and a big time committment. It is hard to hunt with a baby strapped to you, but biology pushes for you to breed. These are powerful competing forces. We could be fish and lay our eggs and move on, having no further committment to our brood. That way we would satisfy both biological needs (breed and feed). But humans (and other animals) have another fitness strategy. Human's primary advantage is our big brains. Our big brains make childbirth a chore so we push the young out immature (the extra stimulus outside the womb is probably also good for our brain development). This means our offspring need a carer. Unfortunately the carer is penalised in food gathering (and in being preyed upon). It makes sense to team up and specialise i.e. I'll care you hunt/forage. The hunter/forager should be strong, reliable, manipulable, stoic and like team sports. The carer should be empathatic, reliable and attentive, manipulative with bountiful breasts. There are powerful biological forces driving these specialisations. Let me add all the usual caveats about 'on average' 'in a population' 'historically' and 'no -- I didn't mean you personally'.

I think as you get older you see the human mating game for what it really is and it is frightening. For example, university is not about education it is a stage for a mating ritual.

This post has been edited by Ugg: 30 September 2011 - 08:16 AM

[AndersB]

Ugg, on 30 September 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

I should be so lucky!! Because this is the faceless internet, I can tell you that I have exactly the opposite problem. I am so devilishly handsome that I have had to deliberately adjust my looks to provide a few moments of peace during the day from screaming women ripping their clothes off and demanding they gratify me. You know, I have to pretend I am balding, I push out my belly, stoop, encourage a pasty complexion, so on and so forth. It really is a chore. I've had to take on a rather plain wife to keep the charade alive. The benefit is it frees up valuable time to read blogs on the internet.

Oh, you poor, poor man!

There, there!

Quote

I think as you get older you see the human mating game for what it really is and it is frightening. For example, university is not about education it is a stage for a mating ritual.

Oh crap! Is THAT what it was for?

[staringclown]

tor, on 29 September 2011 - 11:17 PM, said:

Quoting Monty Python is a guaranteed contraceptive however

Sorry

Quote

I am so hideously ugly and have an abrasive personality to boot, such that I never get offers. Basically, my presence scare children, wilt plants, and make women clutch their handbags.

You look so cute and cuddly in your photo...

I found this piece by Clive Hamilton.

Clive argues that the womens liberation movement was subverted by feminists that have settled for equality rather than liberation. That where ever women have succeeded (boardrooms etc) they have been forced to subjugate their feminine traits in favour of the masculine. This defeats the purpose of women getting into these roles in the first place.
If we let women serve on the front line then we are "compromising a subtle, civilising power that has always worked to restrain the violent tendencies of men".


I find this a strange argument. I don't know that personalities, especially ambitious personalities can be suppressed that easily. The women I have worked with are no less capable of getting the job done than the males. They are not surrogate males.

I also don't see much evidence for the "compromising a subtle, civilising power that has always worked to restrain the violent tendencies of men" argument. We still have wars same as always. Threaten a woman's children and see if she don't fly at you like a banshee. I don't know that soldiers really fight for a flag. I think they fight mostly for their families. If what Clive suggests is true then maybe that civilising influence of females will be of benefit on the front line. My Lai for example may not have happened. Not knowable of course. Although given the experience of Abu Ghraib maybe not. Women can be just as ruthless as males in the right circumstances.

Clive seems a bit down on blokes. Blokes have their faults but we're not that bad? Are we?

Edit: War screws up plenty of blokes as well.

This post has been edited by staringclown: 30 September 2011 - 10:03 AM

[ummester]

Ugg, on 30 September 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

I once would have humoured the idea that boys and girls brains are the same at birth and it is our concious and subconcious differential treatment of them that makes the gender differences. I am now almost certain this is wrong. My experience of my kids and other kids is that the kids pop out with their own future personality ready to go. The core characteristsics both my kids have, they have always had, but they are night and day to each other. The only change in environment I can see is first child versus second child. We recently held a 4 year old children's party. The difference in the behaviour between boys and girls was startling. I realise that this could be environmental still but I am 'buying it' less and less.

Having a human baby is a real burden and a big time committment. It is hard to hunt with a baby strapped to you, but biology pushes for you to breed. These are powerful competing forces. We could be fish and lay our eggs and move on, having no further committment to our brood. That way we would satisfy both biological needs (breed and feed). But humans (and other animals) have another fitness strategy. Human's primary advantage is our big brains. Our big brains make childbirth a chore so we push the young out immature (the extra stimulus outside the womb is probably also good for our brain development). This means our offspring need a carer. Unfortunately the carer is penalised in food gathering (and in being preyed upon). It makes sense to team up and specialise i.e. I'll care you hunt/forage. The hunter/forager should be strong, reliable, manipulable, stoic and like team sports. The carer should be empathatic, reliable and attentive, manipulative with bountiful breasts. There are powerful biological forces driving these specialisations. Let me add all the usual caveats about 'on average' 'in a population' 'historically' and 'no -- I didn't mean you personally'.

I think as you get older you see the human mating game for what it really is and it is frightening. For example, university is not about education it is a stage for a mating ritual.

This makes a lot of sense and I agree with it apart from the kids coming out pre-designed. I've watched mine grow from 0-9&11 and I think that it's a bit half and half. There is some pre-design based on genetics and so on but some of an individuals personality is determined by experience (especially the experiences had in the first 5 years of life).

So, if maternal and paternal roles have a biological purpose, do things like women in the military have the potential to make our species biologically weaker or are we at a stage where we can control our environment so well via technology that it doesn't matter?

[ummester]

staringclown, on 30 September 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

Although given the experience of Abu Ghraib maybe not. Women can be just as ruthless as males in the right circumstances.

Re that woman in Abu Ghraib - I always wondered if she was especially nasty to those prisoners just because she was competing in a predominantly male environment. If the majority of torturers were women, would they have behaved more like guards?

[staringclown]

ummester, on 30 September 2011 - 10:53 AM, said:

Re that woman in Abu Ghraib - I always wondered if she was especially nasty to those prisoners just because she was competing in a predominantly male environment. If the majority of torturers were women, would they have behaved more like guards?

It's an interesting question isn't it? The military is a very male world. War is secret mens business. According to Clive women are more caring than so maybe the excesses wouldn't have occurred.

All sorts of questions can be raised. What impact would having women in front line "peace keeping" roles have? For instance muslim women being able to talk to the occupying force woman to woman. Speaking to men is forbidden in many places. Winning hearts and minds is important in any conflict. Saves loads of trouble.

[Easy Tiger]

ummester, on 30 September 2011 - 10:53 AM, said:

Re that woman in Abu Ghraib - I always wondered if she was especially nasty to those prisoners just because she was competing in a predominantly male environment. If the majority of torturers were women, would they have behaved more like guards?

That’s the accusation thrown at some women in the IDF

[AndersB]

All this talk about the differences between men and women got me thinking about something that happened to me a few years ago. The event is a bit of a mystery to me, and perhaps all you S&S'ers could help me solve it for me.

A work colleague (let's call her Sally) and I were off to a conference where we each had to make a presentation. Sally and I had a great working relationship and she was always one of the friendliest team members in my opinion.

We arrived the night before to the city where the conference was to be held. I'll keep the details deliberately vague for privacy reasons.

There was a great seafood restaurant in town and Sally and I had a fantastic meal involving crustaceans, mollusks and white wine in far too much quantity. We had a great time.

Here is the mystery: as we were walking back to the hotel, Sally stopped just outside the entrance, leaned towards me and said in a quiet voice - "Tonight was one of the most enjoyable times I've had in a long time. Look, Anders; I have worked hard all day on my presentation. Why don't you come up to my room and I'll show you my pie charts and perhaps you could go over my figures? I'm sure you could massage them and give me a stronger conclusion."

I was a bit surprised at this suggestion. I blinked a few times and replied: "Oh, Sally - I... I... I'm really flattered. But our blood alcohol content must be way over 0.063% by now. There is no way we could improve your presentation in this condition. You are a highly competent woman and I'm sure you can take care of it yourself."

She looked kind of disappointed as we headed for the lifts. She gave me a tired look and said as we parted ways: "I guess you're right. See you at breakfast in the morning."

Our working relationship was just never the same after that evening. She seemed more distant and cold. It has always bugged me if I did something wrong.

But it just occurred to me today, that perhaps she was not after a peer review of her finished presentation at all? What she was really after was probably some help completing the conclusion.

[ummester]

Before I can give you a definitive answer, I need to know how you used your tongue to eat your mollusks?

Also, are you sure she asked you to massage her figures? I guess I also need to know if Sally was an own postcode kind of girl or not?

Finally, I need to know why you weren't listening to her:)

[AndersB]

ummester, on 01 October 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Before I can give you a definitive answer, I need to know how you used your tongue to eat your mollusks?

Also, are you sure she asked you to massage her figures? I guess I also need to know if Sally was an own postcode kind of girl or not?

Finally, I need to know why you weren't listening to her:)

Well, I don't use the tongue much at all for oysters. I just kind of slurp them off the shell and then suck on them a bit as they melt in my mouth.

She referred to massaging "them", so the grammatical reference must have been the figures.

Sally is drop-dead gorgeous.

What? I did listen to her intently. She is a fascinating woman. Although her charms could be distracting at times.

[AndersB]

Hmmm... no, you may be right.... the grammatical reference could have been to the pie charts.

This post has been edited by AndersB: 01 October 2011 - 12:16 PM

[Easy Tiger]

[ummester]

AndersB, on 01 October 2011 - 12:13 PM, said:

Well, I don't use the tongue much at all for oysters. I just kind of slurp them off the shell and then suck on them a bit as they melt in my mouth.

Suckings fine. Slurping, well, depends:)

AndersB, on 01 October 2011 - 12:13 PM, said:

She referred to massaging "them", so the grammatical reference must have been the figures.

Sally is drop-dead gorgeous.

So she was definately referring to the work, or, not openly referring to herself.

AndersB, on 01 October 2011 - 12:13 PM, said:

What? I did listen to her intently. She is a fascinating woman. Although her charms could be distracting at times.

No you didn't. She asked for a stronger conclusion and you told her you couldn't help improve her presentation. By your own admission you only finally worked out it was the conclusion she was interested in. If sally was a fascinating and gorgeous woman, why didn't you just offer to go over her conclusion with her?

Either, she honestly wanted help with her work and you could have provided your opinion which she obviously thought was valuable by asking for it.

Or, she liked the way you ate your oysters.

It's a funny story - is it true?Edit - or even based on something true?

Oh yea, the answer to your question is - yes, you did something wrong:)

This post has been edited by ummester: 01 October 2011 - 12:31 PM

[AndersB]

ummester, on 01 October 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

Suckings fine. Slurping, well, depends:)

I just don't understand why my method of consuming mollusks has anything to do with this mystery. You are speaking in riddles. It is not helpful at all.

Quote

So she was definately referring to the work, or, not openly referring to herself.

Look, mate... I thought you were in the IT industry. Not wanting to brag, but I know how to parse syntax. Could even make decent use of yacc, lex and know what Backus–Naur Form is useful for. The grammatical reference was for the pie charts, the figures, or possibly both.

Quote

No you didn't. She asked for a stronger conclusion and you told her you couldn't help improve her presentation. By your own admission you only finally worked out it was the conclusion she was interested in. If sally was a fascinating and gorgeous woman, why didn't you just offer to go over her conclusion with her?

Either, she honestly wanted help with her work and you could have provided your opinion which she obviously thought was valuable by asking for it.

Yeah, that may be it. She was struggling with her presentation and was too insecure to insist that even in my inebriated condition, I could have provided valuable review comments.

Quote

Or, she liked the way you ate your oysters.

Now, you're at it again!

Quote

It's a funny story - is it true?Edit - or even based on something true?

What's so funny about it? It is sad that I somehow failed to analyse the situation properly. Even if it was late and while a bit intoxicated, I should have been a better work colleague and team player.

>Sigh<
I sometimes daydream about women like Sally making me "offers". Instead they seem to just want to use my intellect.

And BTW, the story is as true as any you will find published on the intertubes.

[Easy Tiger]

[ummester]

AndersB, on 01 October 2011 - 12:40 PM, said:

I just don't understand why my method of consuming mollusks has anything to dowith this mystery. You are speaking in riddles. It is not helpful at all.

Yea, you’re right. Suck oysters in front of an attractivewoman however you want. It shouldn’t matter, should it? It’s just the eating ofa slimy but sometimes tasty thing that has no similarity to anything on a humanbody.

AndersB, on 01 October 2011 - 12:40 PM, said:

Look, mate... I thought you were in the IT industry. Not wanting to brag, but Iknow how to parse syntax. Could even make decent use of yacc, lex and know whatBackus–Naur Form is useful for. The grammatical reference was for the piecharts, the figures, or possibly both.

I run a team that provides administrative, audit,reporting and support functions for IT. So process is more important to me thansyntax. Perhaps that is what is going wrong here – you may be overly concernedabout the technical syntax details and I’m just saying you should have beenmore interested in the process that you were dealing with.

I’m not saying you can’t do your job. You’re probably verygood at it. You just might need to think outside of its parameters every nowand then in some of your workplace dealings – like an attractive woman you haveshared oysters with, for instance.

AndersB, on 01 October 2011 - 12:40 PM, said:

Yeah, that may be it. She was struggling with herpresentation and was too insecure to insist that even in my inebriatedcondition, I could have provided valuable review comments.

<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">If that is what it took for you to convince yourself togo into her room – I’m sure she would have been ok with it:)

AndersB, on 01 October 2011 - 12:40 PM, said:

What's so funny about it? It is sad that I somehow failed to analyse thesituation properly. Even if it was late and while a bit intoxicated, I shouldhave been a better work colleague and team player.

Yea, you should have. That’s the whole point. If takingone for the team means escorting an attractive lady into her hotel room to makeher feel better about her ‘figures’ and ‘conclusions’ who are you to second guess it?<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">

AndersB, on 01 October 2011 - 12:40 PM, said:

>Sigh<
I sometimes daydream about women like Sally making me "offers".Instead they seem to just want to use my intellect.

And BTW, the story is as true as any you will find published on the intertubes.

Well at least they want to use something you have.

Let me ask you this, if a lady said to you ‘Ander’s, Ineed to feel you inside me’, would you be thinking:

1) Shewants some kind of deep mental connection on a level you may not be able toprovide

2) Sheis asking for a medical examination that you aren’t qualified to make

3) It isa grammatical mystery that doesn’t relate to correct syntax4)It’s an offer and shewants little Anders to rise to the occassion