NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/singles/38032

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-26 | 8.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!maserati!zx!danb
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Benbenisty)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Credibility...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:15:27 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Quality Software Products, LA, CA
Lines: 166

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>
>>     Gosh, I wish that you could give Daniel and the other people that
>>have responded to you in this thread the benefit of the doubt and trust
>>what they say instead of calling them liars.
>
>In my experience, people who are truly happy rarely have a
>desperate need to *prove* their happiness to other people.
>Anyone who shows so much anger and hostility, just because
>someone else does not believe in his happiness, probably
>does not really believe it himself.  "Methinks thou dost
>protest too much."

1. Yeah and 400 years ago, those witches who protested the accusations
of witchery the most (especially the ones that showed anger and hostility)
MUST have been guilty.  People protest being called liars - It doesn't mean
they are liars.  Lots of people have accused you of lying, and you have
protested.  However, no one needs to draw silly conclusions from the >fact<
of your protests - your arguments >per se< are silly enough to dismiss.

2. Going by the number of posts to this thread per individual, you would
probably be in the 99th percentile of desperation, Ed.  Of course, this
desperate=wrong argument of yours is ridiculous and childish, so I won't
draw any conclusions from it.  Please refrain from doing so yourself.

>I can understand this reaction.  I know the pain of being
>lonely and understand the desperate desire to do something --
>anything -- to lessen it.  And it has been medically proven
>that denying pain does, indeed, lessen it.  The problem is,

Why do you insist on externalising this pain, assuming that *everyone*
else who is single has the same pain at all times?

I think that most, if not all, of us have experienced the pain of
being single, and we have also experienced the pain of being in a
relationship!  We've experienced the pleasure of a relationship,
and we've also experienced the pleasure of being single, as the
result of a positive choice.  I happen to be in the latter category;
widen your world view a bit.

>denying pain may also stop you from treating the symptom.
>Unlike the delusional "Doctor" Charlie Martin, I do not believe
>that self-deception is an effective way of dealing with reality.

Then stop deluding yourself that your single-ness is entirely
the fault of society's pre-occupation with athletics and
physical appearance.

>I have had many friends who claimed that they were happier doing
>something else than being involved with someone (though none of
>them ever went so far as to put commuting, vacuuming, or laundry
>into the "more desireable" category).

Hey, why stop at commuting, vacuuming, laundry?  Let's include
homework (if one were in school), house repairs, visiting the
doctor or dentist, etc.  The point is their are lots of things
people make themselves do that don't necessarily give you the
pleasure of long walks on the beach with your SO.

But we do them anyway, AND prioritize them.  In my case (but not
in your friends' case) this is difference between a mature adult,
and a lovelorn puppy who lets his life fall apart to spend enough
time with his love partner.  Now, if I didn't have as much important
stuff going on in my life, I could afford (and would enjoy) be a
lovelorn puppy AND a mature adult at the same time.  As it is, it's
one or the other for me.

>readily admit, now that they have found someone, that they were
>only deceiving themselves.  Not that I imagine they would spend
>too much time arguing the point.  They are too busy *being* happy
>to argue about it.

And after I broke up with my last girlfriend, I was ready to admit
that I had been too scared to do so for a long time.  I was also
deluding myself that I could be happier with her than without her.

I'm happy for your friends - but they're not me.

>Daniel, on the other hand, seems to be something of a special case:

Like I said, there have several friends who are just like me in this
case.  Two of them are going to school, and have given up relationships
in order to concentrate on the regimen of undergrad and grad work in
science and engineering.

>Someone who chooses to say he is not in a relationship, even though
>he continues to do the same things he did when he was in a relationship.
>That may indeed make him happier, since he the benefits of the
>relationship without acknowledging its existance (which, apparently,
>would cause him a bit of trouble).

Talk about desperate arguments!

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have not yet read
my post which already dismissed this specious argument, and reiterate:
I only spend about 20 hours PER YEAR on my "continued" relationship
with this woman.  Before I broke up with her, I was spending  15-30
hours PER WEEK.  For about three months after our breakup, I did not
see her at all.  One more important thing - we don't have sex anymore.
This was an important benefit of the relationship, among others, that
I gave up.

>>Ed, whoa - why is being single a pathological condition?
>
>Being single is not a pathological condition.  *Enjoying*
>being single would be.  Evolution would have eliminating
>any such trait from the species long ago.

Well, I've seen alot of excellent counter-arguments to this in the posts
following-up to the above statement.  Frankly, unless you can refute ALL
of them, your point is dead.  Let me just add mine to the pile.

1. Have you ever considered the evolutionary advantage of a man working
on himself or proving himself to be valuable genetic stock (going on long
mammoth-hunting treks, for example), thus temporarily foregoing being
with any woman for a long time?  When he's done with this self-improvement,
whether it's building a big business, becoming a successful doctor, or
fronting a famous rock band, he can then pick and choose from a greater
number of females - the 'best' of whom may have been saving herself for a
genetically 'superior' man.  In all probability, this 'proven' man can
impregnate >many< woman!

Now do you see an evolutionary basis for my need to improve myself
('prove' myself?) - to fulfill my genetic potential in terms of my
contributions to society, even if I temporarily have to give up a
woman to do it?

2. If you refuse to subscribe to this point of view, and you feel that
there is no evolutionary basis for choosing to remain single while
pursuing a plan of self-improvment, consider this: civilization can
has a perverted effect on the optimal evolution of a species - even
w/r individual behavior.

As one example, consider the following:

Given a non-infinitesmal potential for upward/downward mobility in
the U.S., I claim that it is more probable for a poor person with
intelligence, determination, etc. to accumulate wealth than a poor person
without these qualities - and it is more probable that a wealthy person
with these qualities will retain his/her wealth.  For the purposes of this
discussion, let's call those qualities which tend to result in wealth
"desirable."  Further, it has been shown that education improves one's
chances for greater income.  Successful education can certainly be seen
to be partly dependent on "desirable" qualities.  Please don't tell me
about your cousin Larry who dropped out and made a million, or some brilliant
starving artist that you've known - we're talking statistics here).

Poor people and un-educated people in the U.S. have many more kids than
rich and educated people.

The net result may be that we are devolving, as a species, since desirable
traits are no longer necessarily resulting in more offspring.  This has been
going on for a while - for example, in 12th century Europe the brightest
boys in the village were inducted to the Priesthood, and did not have the
chance to reproduce.

Given there are some forms of behavior that do not have an evolutionary basis,
please consider another form - being happy as a result of being single.

So there you have two different explanations for my behavior.  Pick
either one that you like.  In the meantime, I will just be happy doing
what I'm doing!

>>>===Pan-Handle-Dan===>    [e-mail]
Daniel Benbenisty        Guitarist for EARWURM