Gay men - a question?

[B_dxjnorto]

wealth has a certain correlation to intelligence.

Okay, but if I say, gays may have more disposable income because they have less domestic responsibilities [kids], and you know, more time for arts and education, then what do you say?

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

If you were to say that, I would agree but I would say that it simply means that gays don't have to be quite as smart as straight married couples have to be to get into certain economic brackets.
It doesn't quite refute the idea that intelligence is going to be correllated to the open practice of homosexuality in any way. The differences seem slight enough that this observation would be consistent with it.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Things tend to regress toward the mean. Which means we are a lot more alike than we are different.

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

"sexual proclivities" than members of the lower classes, with the latter viewing them merely as unnamed desires.

my guess is that this is due to both intelligence's correllation to wealth (which admittedly, is not stable between societies and time periods) and to a certain traditional moral beliefs that would encourage a lack of explicit self-admittance or acknowledgement of one's own homosexual feelings. My sense is that it is primarily the latter. The inclinations would still exist however...

We should also make the distinction between homosexuals period and homosexuals who practice the life style openly. Did Hirshfield find that the open practice of it was uncorrellated to income?

 

[Dr Rock]

wealth has a certain correlation to intelligence

that's a peculiar assumption. where on earth did you get that idea from?

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

a really esoteric source: common sense.

i shouldn't have to say this but i'll give you the first part of the argument and let you fill in the rest

if you consider a good which is widely desired and limited in supply, there will be a lot of competition to get it...

 

[Lordpendragon]

You know, I have to say I can understand your line of thinking, LPD. I noticed the conversation levels when I first got here and it prompted me to start a thread on whether intelligence was related to big dicks, haha.

I remember that one. Didn't we conclude that smart women are attracted to men with big cocks and so may produce smart kids with big cocks? :smile:

I'll go change the diapers now. You guys carry on with the clever stuff.

Do any of you smart gay guys have smart liberal mothers and wealthy dads?

 

[surferboy]

a really esoteric source: common sense.

well, yer source iswrong. some of the dumbest people are amongst the wealthiest in the world, and vice versa. and, to prove the gays are smarter theory, i couldn't follow andrew and alex's posts well lol. they used a lot of big sentence structure, and some big words. :tongue:

 

[B_dxjnorto]

It sounds better if you say socioeconomic status is correlated to opportunity--opportunity correlates to intelligence (better food, sanitation, education, etc.) While poverty has an inverse correlation.

Innate intelligence ranges and may depend on many developmental and personal factors.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Okay, but if I say, gays may have more disposable income because they have less domestic responsibilities [kids], and you know, more time for arts and education, then what do you say?

Interesting supposition. Does it also take into account gays who have children, and childless straight individuals and couples?

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

well, yer source iswrong. some of the dumbest people are amongst the wealthiest in the world.

correllation, correllation, correllation goddammit!

 

[D_alex8]

my guess is that this is due to both intelligence's correllation to wealth (which admittedly, is not stable between societies and time periods) and to a certain traditional moral beliefs that would encourage a lack of explicit self-admittance or acknowledgement of one's own homosexual feelings. My sense is that it is primarily the latter. The inclinations would still exist however...

We should also make the distinction between homosexuals period and homosexuals who practice the life style openly. Did Hirshfield find that the open practice of it was uncorrellated to income?

By "unnamed desire", I mean, specifically, that these people were performing homosexual acts, but had no idea of how to term these. In this sense, we move into the area of unwritten history... the upper/educated classes not only holding sway over the writing of history in general at that point, but also being the only ones sufficiently familiar with the new terminology relating to homosexuality (itself a very unstable term into the 1910s and beyond anyway, and more usually subsumed within the notion of 'sexual intermediacy', a category in which it was conflated with androgyny, transvestism, [pseudo-]hermaphroditism and other sexual identities perceived as being located 'between' male and female gender) to be able to record it in written form as well.

Hirschfeld's findings, as well as those of numerous other sexologists around the fin-de-siècle (including, but not limited to Edward Carpenter in the UK, Xavier Mayne in the US, Arnold Aletrino in the Netherlands, or Albert Moll in Germany) was that class identity played only a nominal role in the experiential practice of homosexuality. Rather, these authors and researchers found that a key factor was the dichotomy of rural/urban, with the modern metropolis for the first time facilitating the emergence of gay/sexual-intermediate communities (indeed, this was the central thrust of Iwan Bloch's 1906 tome Das Sexualleben unserer Zeit in seinen Beziehungen zur modernen Kultur, published to great acclaim in English in 1908 as The Sexual Life of Our Time in its Relation to Modern Civilisation; in the US context, the central texts are meanwhile referred to in George Chauncey's 1994 study Gay New York: The Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940). Insofar as there was a class bias, this related generally to members of the lower classes having a higher suicide rate, not least due to greater problems with their own moral beliefs, as per your suggestion above, but also because their lack of financial resources could mean that their being 'outed' to employers could effectively end their career, something that was scarcely an issue in moneyed or artists' circles.

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

ah,an unnamed act can't be decried by a pastor.

I see your point about the economic structure. that probably relates the the dichotomy between rural and urban homosexuality. Those of rural areas are more dependent upon traditional family structures for their income, whereas those in urban areas have a greater degree of independence (though as you point out, not total indepenence). You can't work on Pop's farm if you're openly gay.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Interesting supposition. Does it also take into account gays who have children, and childless straight individuals and couples?

Well, I'm mostly gay and have no children and I don't have a pot to piss in, but I do have a lot of time and interest for things that my married with children siblings have no time and interest for.

I'm more intelligent than all of them even though we come from the same socioeconomic background and gene pool. But of course our intelligences came before their marriages and kids.

The main difference as I see it is I am interested in almost everything and they are mostly interested in what everyone else is interested in. I would call them incurious, as I would call a lot of people I regularly associate with.

Maybe the difference is curiousity?

 

[surferboy]

oh my god, you don't have to talk all intellectually. if you wanna get yer point across, you'd speak the common man's tongue!

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Surfer you're cute. Now you need that ejumacation.

What part don't you understand? If you let me know I can help.

 

[surferboy]

i think you guys are like, tryin to come off as intelligent as possible. what i mean is like, yer using big words just to seem smart, ya know?

 

[Dr Rock]

a really esoteric source: common sense.

really? common sense would seem to indicate the opposite. in the majority of cases, in order to accumulate a large amount of wealth, one would, by necessity, need to be stupid enough to spend a correspondingly large amount of one's time earning or otherwise acquiring it.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Well certain words do have specialized meanings.

The more you get into most things, the more specialized the words are, not to sound all scientific, although that is true, but because you run out of ways to describe things with a casual vocabulary.

You've got the whole dictionary at your fingertips.

http://www.m-w.com/

 

[D_alex8]

i think you guys are like, tryin to come off as intelligent as possible. what i mean is like, yer using big words just to seem smart, ya know?

If one oversimplifies, one loses specificity, which can be crucial where subtle distinctions are involved.