51 ms·

> Well, you know, just as long as she doesn't have a mind of her own. Zing! Nicely said. > I honestly find discussion about dating on HN a bit disturbing. H

by tjic 17y ago

> Well, you know, just as long as she doesn't have a mind of her own. Zing! Nicely said. > I honestly find discussion about dating on HN a bit disturbing. Huh? Why? It's of interest to hackers, and I find it quite an interesting thread. > I mean, would you be comfortable with a girl that you wanted to date reading this post? Speculating on her "quality" as if she was a horse. Yes, by all means, let's PRETEND that when it comes to software engineers there's such a thing as quality, and when it comes to cofounders there's such a thing as quality, and when it comes to friends there's such a thing as quality, but OH, NO, NO, there's no such thing as quality in women - because every single woman on the planet is equally perfect, and it would be SO politically incorrect to say that one woman is cuter, funnier, more intelligent, more loyal, sexier, or tolerant of weekly board game night.

foldr 17y ago
It would be nice if you could exercise some minimal charity in interpretation. Of course I'm not saying that all women are equally attractive -- who would say such a thing? My reaction is to the tone of the comments, which seem to indicate a minimal interest in women as people as opposed to "mates". It's the obsession with casting everything in terms of genes and gene "quality", because some people apparently can't bear to make even the most important decisions in their lives on grounds that are actually personal or emotional. Pop evolutionary psychology (which is about a scientific as astrology, frankly) is not going to make you happy or find you a partner. I think a lot of nerds like to cast dating in these pseudoscientific terms because they are basically terrified of things like people, feelings, desires and emotions -- the things that actually matter when you are dating. > Huh? Why? I mean that I find the content of the actual discussions disturbing, not the mere idea of discussing this subject on HN.
- PieSquared 17y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding what he meant. At least, it seems that what you got out of what he said isn't what I did. When he said 'quality', I didn't think he was talking about people as "mates" or as gene quality or some such. I took 'quality' to mean exactly what you want it to mean - attractiveness, how much fun they are to be around, etc etc. Basically, whatever you would look for in a 'significant other' - certainly not just gene quality or whatever. As for the tone, it is a bit unusual, I guess. Our crowd - hackers, programmers, engineers, nerds, whatever you want to call them - does tend to like abstracting things away, trying to model life that goes on around us in a precise and systematic way. The tone is due just to that.
  - foldr 17y ago
    Don't you think that "quality" is an odd word to use for that? I make no apologies for responding to the connotations of a word in context as well as its literal meaning.
    - PieSquared 17y ago
      Eh, not really. You can talk about quality of conversation, quality of life, quality of friendship. Why not quality of people?
      - foldr 17y ago
        I find the phrase "quality of people" pretty jarring. YMMV, I suppose.
        enneff 17y ago
        I suppose it is important to note that we're talking about the subjective quality of the person. You're lying if you can't look at someone and tell me whether they appear to meet your personal criteria for physical quality. My suspicion is that there is a correlation between self-esteem and ones comfort with the word "quality" when applied to people. I know that anyone whose judgment I respect would view me as a "quality person", so I have no problem with the term. If I was insecure and didn't think of myself as a person of quality, then I might have an issue with the concept.
        foldr 17y ago
        Do you honestly think I am arguing against the banal and obvious truth that some people are more attractive than other people? I'm not going to rehearse my point all over again, but please, give me some credit... > I know that anyone whose judgment I respect would view me as a "quality person" But then, presumably you wouldn't respect their judgment if they didn't :)
        17y ago
- pohl 17y ago
  Would you also assume that botanists - upon hearing them discuss microsporangia, nectary, and calyx - are unable to also find beauty in a flower?
  - foldr 17y ago
    I might if they didn't display any appreciation of the flower's beauty, yes. However, I'm not sure if this is a very good analogy. I don't think many people here have anything more than a passing interest in the evolutionary biology of mate selection. It seems to function more as an excuse to avoid talking about dating in more personal terms.
    - pohl 17y ago
      Hmm...if I were a botanist, I think I'd get a bit weary of always having to interrupt a high-bandwidth dialogue with a peer to insert sufficient fawning to appease those who might otherwise judge us for the things we did not say. About the merits of the analogy: professional versus passing interest is not really relevant. The salient point is that anything can be discussed on multiple, distinct levels of abstraction, and speaking of it on one level of abstraction does not invalidate or denigrate another level. Have you read Douglas Hofstadter's classic Godel, Escher, Bach? I recommend it highly.
      - foldr 17y ago
        I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, there are multiple levels of abstraction. Yes, from the fact that someone hasn't said X, you cannot infer with 100% certainty that they do not believe X. I doubt anyone could disagree with these banal statements, but they don't have anything to do with this discussion. >Have you read Douglas Hofstadter's classic Godel, Escher, Bach? Yes, I've read it. Thanks for the recommendation.
      - yters 17y ago
        His point is the important thing about people is themselves, not their qualities. If the relationship is based on "quality" and not on love, he (and myself) thinks it is missing something much more deeper.
CaseOfEmergency 17y ago
> tolerant of weekly board game night. Ooo, that's a good idea.

by tjic 17y ago

foldr 17y ago

It would be nice if you could exercise some minimal charity in interpretation. Of course I'm not saying that all women are equally attractive -- who would say such a thing? My reaction is to the tone of the comments, which seem to indicate a minimal interest in women as people as opposed to "mates". It's the obsession with casting everything in terms of genes and gene "quality", because some people apparently can't bear to make even the most important decisions in their lives on grounds that are actually personal or emotional. Pop evolutionary psychology (which is about a scientific as astrology, frankly) is not going to make you happy or find you a partner. I think a lot of nerds like to cast dating in these pseudoscientific terms because they are basically terrified of things like people, feelings, desires and emotions -- the things that actually matter when you are dating. > Huh? Why? I mean that I find the content of the actual discussions disturbing, not the mere idea of discussing this subject on HN.

PieSquared 17y ago
I think you're misunderstanding what he meant. At least, it seems that what you got out of what he said isn't what I did. When he said 'quality', I didn't think he was talking about people as "mates" or as gene quality or some such. I took 'quality' to mean exactly what you want it to mean - attractiveness, how much fun they are to be around, etc etc. Basically, whatever you would look for in a 'significant other' - certainly not just gene quality or whatever. As for the tone, it is a bit unusual, I guess. Our crowd - hackers, programmers, engineers, nerds, whatever you want to call them - does tend to like abstracting things away, trying to model life that goes on around us in a precise and systematic way. The tone is due just to that.
- foldr 17y ago
  Don't you think that "quality" is an odd word to use for that? I make no apologies for responding to the connotations of a word in context as well as its literal meaning.
  - PieSquared 17y ago
    Eh, not really. You can talk about quality of conversation, quality of life, quality of friendship. Why not quality of people?
    - foldr 17y ago
      I find the phrase "quality of people" pretty jarring. YMMV, I suppose.
      - enneff 17y ago
        I suppose it is important to note that we're talking about the subjective quality of the person. You're lying if you can't look at someone and tell me whether they appear to meet your personal criteria for physical quality. My suspicion is that there is a correlation between self-esteem and ones comfort with the word "quality" when applied to people. I know that anyone whose judgment I respect would view me as a "quality person", so I have no problem with the term. If I was insecure and didn't think of myself as a person of quality, then I might have an issue with the concept.
        foldr 17y ago
        Do you honestly think I am arguing against the banal and obvious truth that some people are more attractive than other people? I'm not going to rehearse my point all over again, but please, give me some credit... > I know that anyone whose judgment I respect would view me as a "quality person" But then, presumably you wouldn't respect their judgment if they didn't :)
        17y ago
pohl 17y ago
Would you also assume that botanists - upon hearing them discuss microsporangia, nectary, and calyx - are unable to also find beauty in a flower?
- foldr 17y ago
  I might if they didn't display any appreciation of the flower's beauty, yes. However, I'm not sure if this is a very good analogy. I don't think many people here have anything more than a passing interest in the evolutionary biology of mate selection. It seems to function more as an excuse to avoid talking about dating in more personal terms.
  - pohl 17y ago
    Hmm...if I were a botanist, I think I'd get a bit weary of always having to interrupt a high-bandwidth dialogue with a peer to insert sufficient fawning to appease those who might otherwise judge us for the things we did not say. About the merits of the analogy: professional versus passing interest is not really relevant. The salient point is that anything can be discussed on multiple, distinct levels of abstraction, and speaking of it on one level of abstraction does not invalidate or denigrate another level. Have you read Douglas Hofstadter's classic Godel, Escher, Bach? I recommend it highly.
    - foldr 17y ago
      I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, there are multiple levels of abstraction. Yes, from the fact that someone hasn't said X, you cannot infer with 100% certainty that they do not believe X. I doubt anyone could disagree with these banal statements, but they don't have anything to do with this discussion. >Have you read Douglas Hofstadter's classic Godel, Escher, Bach? Yes, I've read it. Thanks for the recommendation.
    - yters 17y ago
      His point is the important thing about people is themselves, not their qualities. If the relationship is based on "quality" and not on love, he (and myself) thinks it is missing something much more deeper.

CaseOfEmergency 17y ago

> tolerant of weekly board game night. Ooo, that's a good idea.