From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 17:21:43 MDT
Sally Pitts writes, quoting Robin's paper:
> >>>The theory is that we similarly have "mating minds", i.e., minds that are
> >>>designed in large part to impress potential mates and allies. When we
> >>>display to observers how agile and creative we are at love, humor, talk,
> >>>story, art, music, fashion, sport, charity, religion, and abstract ideas,
> >>>we show those observers that we have high quality genes, with few bad
> >>>mutations. Having such minds also helps us to judge the quality of
> >>>others' genes from their displays. >>>
>
> But that would make Cliff Claven (a trivia buff and wannabe polymath barfly
> from the TV series Cheers) the ideal mate (he wasn't!).
>
> So how does this theory jibe with the fact that know-it-alls are not
> particularly popular?
Well, it's true that Cliff was very knowledgable, but he obviously had
many deficiencies as well. He didn't have a very good sense of humor,
he wasn't socially aware of people's reactions to him, his voice and
mannerisms were irritating. Also, despite his knowledge he had not been
very good at exploiting it for economic and personal success. I think
these other factors matter more than just specific detailed knowledge
in certain areas.
Also, I can imagine that, with a somewhat less selective partner,
someone like Cliff could actually benefit from his stored facts.
Imagine someone otherwise like Cliff who didn't know much about anything,
compared to Cliff, and you can picture some women preferring a guy who
seemed pretty smart.
So I don't think it's Cliff's knowledge that is the problem, but rather a
deficiency in other areas which prevents him from exploiting his knowledge
effectively, both in attracting women and in being successful in life.
The problem with a know-it-all isn't that he knows it all, but that he
won't shut up about it.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:16 MST