Random Musings: August 2004 Archives

Why do modern humans tend to value intelligence more than strength? Probably because almost any task that can be performed by a strong man can be performed equally well by two average men working together; contrariwise, there are many tasks that can be performed by a smart man but cannot be performed by any number of average men working together.

Tools are great, and can serve to multiply strength (a hammer) and intelligence (a calculator), but the creation and use of tools relies mostly on intelligence. Thus, smart men can use tools to convert intelligence into strength when necessary, and in the necessary form. Unlike lions, for instance, we aren't stuck with teeth and claws -- we can trade a sword for a hammer almost instantly.

This modern situation is a boon to women -- as a particular group -- because women tend to be just as smart as men, but much weaker. Without tools, women are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to strength, but with tools the genders are much more equally capable. Still, biology being what it is, men and women perceive each other very differently without taking tools into much account.

Tools are also the foundation of capitalism at the archetypical capital investment. They can be passed on to children and they allow families to build wealth over generations (counting artificial structures such as houses and fences as tools, which seems reasonable). As such, tools are essentially physical manifestations of intelligence -- stockpiles of smartness we can save for later and use over and over again, and even share with others.

If you're not a military guy -- as I'm not -- you may be interested in this (ugly) chart of American military awards in order of importance. Included are the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, which were the main impetus behind my search, since John Kerry wants me to vote for him based on his possession of those two awards.

Update:
John Callender reminds me that John Kerry also has a Silver Star.

Why is it that the people who are most eager to be publically nude are generally the last people anyone would want to see with their clothes off?

This week marked a first: A political e-mail with skin pictures. Upon opening the "Axis of Eve" e-mail, we were greeted with a photo that showed the torso of a young woman holding up her skirt to reveal red undies with the words "Weapons of Mass Seduction" across the front.

Sound good? Then any Republican perv planning to attend the New York convention won't want to miss the Sept. 1 "Mass Flash" planned by Axis of Eve. More than 100 women will add to the political discourse by simultaneously showing their underpants. Among the slogans to be revealed in the process "Give Bush the finger." NOW must be so proud.

I've got a feeling these women aren't going to be particularly attractive specimens.

Actually, now that I've given it some thought, it makes sense. Women are taught that they should be valued for their appearance, and the ones that are so valued quickly learn to limit the supply so that their value stays high. Women that aren't valued for their appeance have to flood the market in order to get any utility from their looks at all.

I posted this a while ago but it got lost when the server crashed. Since I find myself wanting to refer to it in conversation, I'm rewriting my conception of the social hierarchy. This ordered list represents who's higher than whom in the social pecking order, in descending order of power, based on common understandings of success and desirability.

1. Top 1% of men.
2. Top 10% of women.
3. Next 9% of men.
4. Next 40% of women.
5. Bottom 90% of men.
6. Bottom 50% of women.

If you consider this representation I think you'll find it interesting, even if you want to quibble about the numbers. Note that the least desirable half of women are below all men, but the most desirable half of women are above most men. Other divisions are possible, with finer gradations, but this conveys my intentions well enough.

Says a man who re-enacted Jesus' cruicifixion, "You have to do things to shock people." Really? Why is that? What's the attraction in shocking people? It's pretty obvious that the only goal is to get attention, not to spread a useful message.

Apparently quite a lot.

So what are the ingredients of a sexy name? For boys, a good name will contain vowel sounds made at the front of the mouth, such as 'e' or 'i' sounds; names with fuller, rounder vowel sounds such as 'u' tend to score lower. So pat yourself on the back if you're called Ben... but if your name is Paul you might have to work harder to snare a date.

The opposite is true for girls, Perfors found. Women with round-sounding names such as Laura tended to score higher than those with smaller vowel sounds. "Unfortunately for me, Amy is one of the bad names," Perfors laments. ...

Predictably, guys with the names deemed most masculine tended to score highest. Names were generally judged masculine because they contained strong consonants such as 'b' and 'k'. But girls scored higher when they had either a very feminine or a strongly masculine name; names judged to be somewhere in the middle scored worst.

The finding seems say that guys need a rugged name to impress the ladies, whereas being a tomboy is cool for girls. "So much of our culture says that tomboy stuff is ok, but wimpy guys are not," Perfors says.

Perfors argues that the discovery that vowel sounds can influence a person's perceived attractiveness is the more interesting finding, because it seems to be a subconscious effect. Experts, including the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, have previously argued that vowel sounds are arbitrary building blocks with no intrinsic meaning.

Fortunately, "Michael" has both "i" and "k" sounds, which probably also explains why it has been one of the most popular boys names for decades. Naturally, there are other factors as well (the Catholic Church led to many millions of "Mary"s, for example), but it seems most implausible to me that anyone could believe that something as fundamental to humanity as name sounds could be entirely arbitrary and devoid of low-level meaning.

(HT: GeekPress.)

My dad was a Marine. Marine Corps Moms posts a retrospective by LtCol George Goodson, USMC retired, on his experiences as a casualty officer.

One morning, as I walked in the office, the phone was ringing. Sergeant Jolly held the phone up and said, “You’ve got another one, Colonel.” I nodded, walked into my office, picked up the phone, took notes, thanked the officer making the call I have no idea why and hung up. Jolly, who had listened, came in with a special Telephone Directory that translates telephone numbers into the person’s address and place of employment.

The father of this casualty was a Longshoreman. He lived a mile from my office. I called the Longshoreman’s Union Office and asked for the Business Manager. He answered the phone, I told him who I was, and asked for the father’s schedule.

The Business Manager asked, “Is it his son?” I said nothing. After a moment, he said, in a low voice, “Tom is at home today.” I said, “Don’t call him. I’ll take care of that.” The Business Manager said, “Aye, Aye Sir,” and then explained, "Tom and I were Marines in WWII.”

I got in my staff car and drove to the house. I was in uniform. I knocked and a woman in her early forties answered the door. I saw instantly that she was clueless. I asked, “Is Mr. Smith home?” She smiled pleasantly and responded, “Yes, but he’s eating breakfast now. Can you come back later?” I said, “I’m sorry. It’s important, I need to see him now.”

She nodded, stepped back into the beach house and said, “Tom, it’s for you.”

A moment later, a ruddy man in his late forties, appeared at the door. He looked at me, turned absolutely pale, steadied himself, and said, “Jesus Christ man, he’s only been there three weeks!”

Why are there so many a-holes? Is there anything we as a society can do about them? My impression is that in the past, if you were an a-hole you'd get beat up a lot and eventually learn how to be nice, but these days it seems like a-holes are protected by law and rewarded with attention. Am I right in thinking that, like packs of animals, humans need to beat the crap out of a-holes in order to keep them in line, and by refusing to do so we're stuck dealing with the consequences?

I know there are all sorts of non-violent approaches to dealing with a-holes, but do they work? Simple discussion sure seems not to -- it just validates the a-holes' sense of self-righteous self-importance. Nothing's better for bringing someone down a notch than getting beat down in public. We're social creatures, and violence is an important part of how we relate to each other and send messages about the social structure.

That's one of the obvious problems with the internet, as many have pointed out previously. There's no way to beat up the a-holes.

Test your reflexes. Via michelle.

If you're looking for something fun to try, check out Bonsai Kitten. It really works, and it's got the Mr. Miyagi Seal of Approval.

I'm playing around with Google's Orkut community software, and it's pretty cool. It's basically like Friendster, except much less annoying (from what I can tell so far). I recommend giving it a try... searching through the "communities" for topics of interest can be a little addicting.

Update:
For example, here's a list of communities I've joined so far.

2nd Amendment
80s
A.I. Programming
America Rules!
American Politics
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Life
Artificial Thinking
Back To The Future
Bible
Big Trouble In little China
Bill Murray
Bloggers
Bruce Campbell
Buffy
BushIn2004
Calvin and Hobbes
Capitalism
Cato University
Christian
Christian Friends
Christian Singles
Christopher Walken
Computer Science
Concealed Firearms
CTY
Discordians
Dungeons & Dragons
Election 2004
Eliza Dushku
Embedded Systems
Fallout
Fallout 2
Free-Market Capitalists
Ghostbusters
Girls with brains
Guns
Hackers
Halloween
Hip Guys for Hot Geeky Girls
Illuminati
Indiana Jones
Late Night with Conan O'Brien
Law & Order
Libertarians
Lord Of The Rings
Military
Military Technology
Monty Python
No more Communism
Old School
Orkut's Most Beautiful People
Republicans
reversi / othello
Roleplaying Games
Save Ferris!
Sherlock Holmes
Shining Force
Short Fiction
Silmarillion
Sixteen candles
South Park
Spike
Star Wars
Stephen King
The Art of War
The Dark Tower
The Goonies
The Nightmare Before Christmas
The Princess Bride
The Simpsons!
Tolkien
UCLA
UCLA Engineering
Unfortunate Events
Vampires
Venice Baptist Church
What's she trying to say?
Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan
Will Ferrell
Wizardry
Women Who Wear Skirts
Worshippers Of Eris

About this Archive

This page is a archive of entries in the Random Musings category from August 2004.

Random Musings: July 2004 is the previous archive.

Random Musings: September 2004 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Supporters

Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Random Musings: August 2004: Monthly Archives

Site Info

Support