Are Attractive Women More Likely to Be "Crazy"?

Post Reply New Topic

If you'd reread the post, you'd see that I said we were talking about different points on the scale. Sure the mob mentality affords an edge to charisma, but it is not something with a long lifespan. Mobs tend to not only destroy everything in their path, but themselves as well. Those who will persevere will be those capable of functioning independently of such mobs and developing their own systems and culture. You want to see some evidence... spend some time in an over-populated area whose resources are threatened. Stand in line for a food truck in the third world country. Those who have charisma may lead, but are often replaced. Those who endure are those who do.


M.

Didn't you mention of having a bipolar disorder?

Well MissConstrue, I do have some bipolar-like traits but I have NOT been officially diagnosed with bipolar or Any mood disorder for that matter.

What Im trying to point out is that you're making the assumption that those with high social intelligence are incapable of being independent themselves. Think of this: You're in an impoverished 3rd world country and YOU are self-reliant and independent and produce your own food through farming and livestock. Someone else is charismatic and influential but not self-sufficient so they manage to stir up a Mob of people to go after you and seize what little you have by force and transfer the resources of the land to the leader first who then distributes them as he sees fit. Mobs certainly ARE destructive but they provide an oppertunity for a new charismatic leader to create a whole new order. Overpopulation does NOT automatically lead to anarchy! Look at china for example. Groups of people can do certain things more efficiently than individuals and the fact that we live in groups is why we have civilization in the first place. So all in all, social skills DO provide a major advantage in the overpopulated world we live in where living completely independent from other people is pretty much impossible to do.

No, Hal - I've never once stated the two were mutually exclusive. If that is your presumption, please go back and reread what I wrote. Overpopulation leads to catastrophe -when there is insufficient resources- as I said earlier as well. You are latching onto select portions of what is being said without taking the whole into context. A group of eight can be too many if the resources are tight enough... and as I've said twice before and will say again now, we are looking at different points on the timeline. Personally, I think you give personality entirely too much credit, but that is my personal opinion - and in some things, there are only opinions and no facts. This conversation has strayed far enough from the original topic - if you want to continue this discussion, start a new thread.


M.

There was an episode of How I Met your Mother where one of the characters came up with the Hot/crazy scale. The premise is that a woman can be crazy as long as she is equally hot.

Lol I don't think "narcissistic" and "crazy" really have anything in common. And I seriously doubt whether a truly "crazy" (in the authentic sense of the word) woman would give a damn what you thought of her.

I've seen pretty people who were crazy and ugly people who were crazy. Hell, I'd say everybody's crazy. Myself included. We should all be locked up in an asylum, except we already are--it's called Earth.

Actual historical experience is that generals, kings, warlords and tribal elders eat and, in times of crisis, it is the peasants - the ones actually producing the food - that starve, not those higher up in the social hierarchy. If you have armed men at your command you do not starve - therefore the skills to obtain and retain such a position are more valuable at times of anarchy, crisis, etc than the ability to produce food. An economically productive outsider is easily enslaved. The experiment has been done; social status does trump the capacity to produce food.

Again, timeline differences. At first in the breakdown, I am in agreement - the low man on the totem pole is the worse for wear. However, as stress builds there has reached a breaking point time and again where those who are abused and repressed seethe back against the upper classes and create a new structure. If the rebellion fails, eventually the lower class dwindles and the leaders must either create a new class through war or become their own support system... becoming the one who works instead of the connection.


M.

This has pretty much never happened - peasant and slave revolts have almost invariably been successfully put down - lining up roads with crucified rebels is effective at persuading people to go back to work - you don't have to kill all your workforce, just set an example (though even where things were so bad that the elite was indeed running out of workers, as in parts of the Spanish Empire, the result has not been revolution, but importing slaves and resorting to punishments other than execution or other punishments that will impede work). Ruling classes aren't so foolish as to kill too many workers to sustain themselves, nor have they found it necessary to do so - it is enough to set an example (decimation rather than wholesale massacre). Again, the experiment has been made: rebellions usually fail, and the lower class does not dwindle. Note that feudalism ended not because the peasants and other manual workers got fed up, but because the new capitalist class was able to pay and equip more effective armies than the old aristocracy. In Revolutionary France, the peasants ended up revolting against their new rulers as often their lot was worse than under the kings - and the revolts were put down.

In short, attractive women are more likely to get away with being crazy. If a girl is hot enough, she can literally do whatever she wants to people, especially men, and get away with it. It's true.

Well I sort of agree but define crazy or what it means to be crazy?

Hmm...what about attractive men getting away with being crazy? I'm not sure if men can get away with being "crazy" for as long as women, though. Men tend to be very visual, so if the chick is hot, they'd be willing to put up with a lot, whereas women may tend to move on from the crazy hot guy as soon as he gets really unbearably...well...crazy.

I really don't think other women would put up with a crazy, attractive woman's antics, though; not unless she were attracted to the woman in a sexual way.

Lashing out, trolling for info, going on a "rebound" date or simply drifting off into TMI land, and having a drive towards some particular goal are all fairly common, at least AFAIK.

In some cases beautiful girls/woman are a bit on the neurotic side. I knew a girl in college that was model quality. She was stunningly beautiful and I guess a lot of people were intimidated to talk to her. I wasn't though. Yes she did have bipolar disorder but she was also one of the sweetest, most understanding, caring person I've ever met. She was far more beautiful inside then out and its a shame that people only see her for how she looks.

I doubt they're crazier than non attractive women.