December 12, 2012

While discussing the trouble with finding a girlfriend...


35 comments:

  1. Um, just a guess, but I'd say calling girls bitches just might be a bit of stumbling block for this guy's dating prospects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You kidding? Bitches love being called bitches. >.>

      Delete
  2. People like this really exist. That... that is just depressing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not even the cool factor of an Atari logo shirt can save this poor soul.

    ReplyDelete
  4. New tag just for this guy: yeah fuckin' right

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THAT is excellent, commenter!

      Delete
  5. I often wonder if we're missing the tone of what was being said. Was he being sarcastic?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, THAT'S the reason why.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't understand, smug condescension usually just THRILLs the girls!

    ReplyDelete
  8. On the one hand, he probably is smarter than the "hot bitches" at his school.

    But on the other hand he's not smart enough to understand that's not why they won't have anything to do with him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd bet cash money that he in fact is not smarter than said girls. People who thinking others are intimidated by their intellect are nearly ways dumb shits (with the exception of Schopenhauer) and, contrary to popular cultural myths, physical attractive people typically score higher on (on average) on IQ, SAT and other such tests indicating 'smartness'.

      Delete
    2. "contrary to popular cultural myths, physical attractive people typically score higher on (on average) on IQ, SAT and other such tests indicating 'smartness'"

      Who told you such stupidity? That's just a lie.

      Delete
    3. Earl must be one of the "pretty people".

      Delete
    4. Hey, Mr. Tim, ever think of making a comic from one of the commenters? Because Earl here just gave you gold. Pure gold.

      Delete
    5. I think that Earl read a study and took it as a law of science.

      Delete
    6. Earl is correct in that multiple studies have shown that attractive people tend to be more intelligent. Are the lot of you really that incapable of a simple Google search?

      Delete
    7. Nah. Lot of em are just ugly.

      Delete
    8. Since you're "anonymous" you can just be Earl pretending to be someone else. A study is a study, and not something to take with you as fact for the rest of your life. You should go "oh, that's interesting" and hope for a follow-up.

      Who decides who is attractive anyway? Can I decide who you should date, based on how attractive I find her? Who are researchers and scientists to judge who is attractive, then?

      Delete
  9. I don't think what I wrote was snappy enough for a ovc feature, even if my appalling typing was fixed (I'd like to plead iPhone, but that excuse is wearing a bit thin). As to the attractive/intelligent correlation, I honestly though I was just stating otherwise common knowledge for anonymous 5:59's benefit. I've just googled around to check the consensus and haven't managed to find a single study that refutes the concept, even allowing for the admitted subjectiveness of 'who is attractive'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it "common knowledge"? This little tidbit is not something taught in school as fact. A study is a sample of people. Maybe it's a large sample, but It's not an absolute definition. It's not 2+2=4

      Delete
    2. Your failure at performing a simple internet search is not evidence in favor of your untenable position.

      Delete
    3. I did search it. Finding valid internet results doesn't make the findings of a study any more true. I'll tell you a million times: a study are the result of testing a sample size of people to try and prove a theory. A theory is not a fact or a law. Theories can be refuted or disproven.

      Go google that.

      Delete
    4. @Vichus: I was replying to Earl.

      Plenty of real studies have shown a correlation between "attractiveness" and intelligence, and they are easy to find on the internets (regardless of Earl's failure to do so), but the correlation is not linear. It's more of an S curve. The lowest intelligence people are also the least attractive (it stands to reason people without the brains to understand basic hygiene aren't going to be very attractive). Attractiveness rises with intelligence to a peak around low-mid intelligence. As intelligence increases attractiveness drops again to a valley around high-mid intelligence and then starts climbing again as intelligence increases from there.

      Of course it's even more complicated than that. The curve changes with sex and age (favoring intelligence as people get older) and other factors. And this is a curve of averages; there are outliers scattered all over the chart.

      Delete
    5. But it still bares out that statistically the attractive girls at the school as still likely to be smarter than (or as smart as), and not at all intimidated by this prick. ;)

      Delete
    6. @Earl

      No. It does not. We just went over that.

      Delete
    7. No, Earl. It's not a guarantee. I think I've had my fill of this.

      Delete
    8. Oh, now I get it. You guys think you're smarter than the girls who don't like you too.






      :P

      Delete
    9. I am kidding. I get the impression you're actually female yourself anyway, yeah VichusSmith? (not sure why I get that vibe. It's always hard to tell on the internet).

      I'm probably being effected by conformation bias. It always seemed to me like all us comic shop geeks were never anywhere near as smart as we liked to think we were, but that we just clung to the myth of "liking geeky things = smarter than the sporty types" to help us deal with own lack of self esteem and social skills.

      Delete
    10. I had every intention of not commenting on this again, but you called me out, by name.

      I am a guy. Not that being a female would invalidate any comment I've said before. Being a geek does not mean you're smart. Being a nerd does. Being a geek means that you are really into something, and you may be knowledgeable about it.

      The study you went on about was actually interesting to read, and I personally had an experience where I thought an attractive girl was less intelligent than she actually turned out to be. Still, with all the years of conflicting studies, I've learned to give them a big grain of salt.

      Also, Intelligence is not just book smarts. I respect a great mechanic, or a great businessman, or a great dancer. Intelligence isn't just doing good on tests.

      Delete
    11. Fuck's sake, Earl. You're wrong. Get over it.

      Delete
    12. I find it interesting though that in all this time laughing at or arguing over my comment, neither of you took the commentator whom I was responding too (anonymous 5:59) for their: "On the one hand, he probably is smarter than the "hot bitches" at his school." statement which had even less relation to reality (made with absolutely no attempt at justifying the assumption) than my own.

      Even accounting for VichusSmith's `s-curve' break down- NB it would depend on where on the attractiveness scale we could put the costumer and the girls. My assumption was if they were `the hot' ones, that they'd be at the top of the the attractiveness scale, but that's not a provable assumption in this case, and it was an error to make it. (By the way, while I think we've the same definition of `geek' my understanding of `nerd' was simply someone with little social skills. I didn't think either group were automatically `intelligent' especially since their are plenty of intelligent people who aren't particularly geeky about anything, and who wouldn't be called `nerds' by most folk either. As you said, their are various equally valid types of intelligences and varying skills and careers they are associated with).

      It's true that a single study (or, as in this case, ALL THE STUDIES OF THE LAST 20 YEARS THAT IVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND, WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION) does not reality make, but I stand by my initial opinion that anonymous 5:59 opinion that the customer is probably smarter than the most attractive girls at his school is probably wrong, but this time, I don't say it because of a possibly erroneously held view that attractive people are more intelligent than unattractive people, which I hereby formally retract until further notice, but rather only because the customer is clearly an asshole (and most of them are stupid).

      Is that any better? :-O

      Delete
    13. We didn't respond to that commenter because he's a goofball.

      You keep talking about this study (still). I don't think the researcher was just some asshole who made it up. You brought it up, I looked it up, it was an interesting process he went through to come to this conclusion.

      I couldn't care, though, because there's now 7 billion people in the world. Some of them are smart people who are attractive, some are smart, and are not considered attractive. I couldn't care what a person looks like in relation to their intelligence, because if I went around assuming that the beautiful people tend to be more attractive, then I'm discounting other people.

      Yes, we agree on one point: the customer is an asshole.

      Delete
    14. Cool then. We're cool.

      As to everything else, I'm probably just vain ;)

      Delete
  10. I don't think referring to women as "bitches" is going to help him.

    ReplyDelete