Where are all the men?

[Sir Victor]

This idea that dinner is payment for something/anything is amusing. I like to go out for fine dining and do it often; if a like a lady then I might welcome her company.
I've been out with ladies who I like but was not dating just because they needed a date to an event. Been told that I'm a good gentleman type escort.

I also give compliments, often not as a pick up, just because I like what I see.

Some ladies do read a lot more into it, must be flattering for themselves!

 

[Keroin]

I don't see why coffee is a big deal, and I don't see why a dinner date is a big deal, either. That notion is just really foreign to me.

Rushing into things = making *commitments* without knowing each other well.

Dinner = conversation with food, period.

I'm not saying your perspective is "just you," but I've had success getting to know women one-on-one through coffee, dinner, athletic endeavors, sporting/music/art events, etc. all my life.

Coming from me, an initial invitation to dinner just means: "I want to get to know you better." It's no guarantee of an invitation to my bedroom, a 2nd date, or anything else. It is what it is: dinner. That's all.

If dinner goes well, then I may extend an invitation for something more. At which point, she would be free to accept or decline. And so on, and so on. That's the way pre-commitment dating works, in my world.

I was just pondering this while making tea. I think part of the reason I consider something like a dinner invitation a big deal may be because I know my nature. (Frankly, I was surprised to discover I find this a little uncomfortable to talk about).

That small, submissive part of me is not a good judge of character and does not think things through very clearly. And, if I like someone, if I feel a physical and emotional attraction to someone, that part of me rises to the surface and wants to take over. This is not something I enjoy but I know it to be true. You could say I don't trust myself.

If I have the opportunity to observe someone in a group/work/sports/social setting, I can make more rational judgments. How does he interact with others? What are his reactions to stress? Is he a good sport? Etc. If I'm happy with what I see, while I still have the power of objectivity, then I feel more at ease about letting that not-so-objective side of me come out. I don't throw all caution to the wind but at least I can relax.

This all sounds very clinical but it's really not. I swear I don't walk around with a pen and clip board jotting down notes. It happens fluidly and mostly subconsciously. If you met me in a social situation, you wouldn't think I was uptight, quite the opposite. But I have been duped before - some guys have really, really good game - so I take precautions.

Maybe this is part of the reason my yes is always, unmistakeably yes, and my no is always, unmistakeably no, because I've already done my homework and made decisions before I find myself in a clinch?

Anyway, that's how pre-commitment dating works in my world. LOL.

Added: If a man asks me out for a coffee or a bite to eat and I have no attraction to him and I know he's not interested in me in that way either, then I'd have no problem saying yes. I have lots of male friends and we hang out all the time, one-on-one, very naturally. Sorry, I'm just feeling a bit freakish all of a sudden and feel the need to defend myself.

 

[rida]

I was just pondering this while making tea. I think part of the reason I consider something like a dinner invitation a big deal may be because I know my nature. (Frankly, I was surprised to discover I find this a little uncomfortable to talk about).

That small, submissive part of me is not a good judge of character and does not think things through very clearly. And, if I like someone, if I feel a physical and emotional attraction to someone, that part of me rises to the surface and wants to take over. This is not something I enjoy but I know it to be true. You could say I don't trust myself.

*snip*

The above bolded part, I have discovered now that I do date, is incredibly spot on for me as well, especially if the other person has a dominant personality. I'm lucky that since I date as a married woman, we know from the beginning what the game plan is, no illusion of romance or anything. Still I am very cautious.

When in college, I did not date much. Or rather, I snatched up a safe and nice guy as a boyfriend and then have a little fun on the side. And since I was supposedly taken, not many would try to pick me up and it let me do the picking, sort of.

It is interesting because I am actually a very good judge of characters. But I also want to please and hate to make people feel bad.

That is why I find the internet route a good one. I find it easier to be objective and find out about the other person via e-mail and IM exchanges. Yes they could lie, but I still find it easy to gather the true person behind the words. Of course I would not commit over e-mail or IM. I'll still have to meet and see if the chemical connection is there. But with the written exchange I have an idea of what to expect, and reality can either confirm or blow the cover.

 

[gregg4]

The above bolded part, I have discovered now that I do date, is incredibly spot on for me as well, especially if the other person has a dominant personality. I'm lucky that since I date as a married woman, we know from the beginning what the game plan is, no illusion of romance or anything. Still I am very cautious.

When in college, I did not date much. Or rather, I snatched up a safe and nice guy as a boyfriend and then have a little fun on the side. And since I was supposedly taken, not many would try to pick me up and it let me do the picking, sort of.

It is interesting because I am actually a very good judge of characters. But I also want to please and hate to make people feel bad.

That is why I find the internet route a good one. I find it easier to be objective and find out about the other person via e-mail and IM exchanges. Yes they could lie, but I still find it easy to gather the true person behind the words. Of course I would not commit over e-mail or IM. I'll still have to meet and see if the chemical connection is there. But with the written exchange I have an idea of what to expect, and reality can either confirm or blow the cover.

didn't we date in college, sounds familiar!!!

 

[YourCaptor]

You know I think its just hard meeting girls in class.

People are there with a purpose, its not like work where you have down time, or some other event where you can causally chat.

Not to mention you have at least 50 other people packed close together in the same room, so anything you say to her, everyone is going to hear.

Then you also have the time limit before the professor starts lecturing.

 

[ZRT]

You know I think its just hard meeting girls in class.

People are there with a purpose, its not like work where you have down time, or some other event where you can causally chat.

Not to mention you have at least 50 other people packed close together in the same room, so anything you say to her, everyone is going to hear.

Then you also have the time limit before the professor starts lecturing.

Funny, after getting out of college a couple of friends lamented how removing the academic environment removed the easy hunting ground, as it were. Classrooms give easy common ground for discussion, not to mention the campus environment in general.

Personally, I've never liked the idea of picking up at work. Too much potential damage to the job from a blown-up relationship.

 

[thebigdave]

I got to agree with you that it's easier to judge people online. it is after all easier for someone to be honest over this medium. when there's less chance of being directly identified.

especially when people tend to judge you real quick if you actually open up about what you want.

i've never gone on to higher education and so can't draw on personal experience but with what i've worked out about myself and others i think the naivety of people about that age and when they're busy thinking about meaningless study they're a pretty easy target.

 

[MisterSir]

i've never gone on to higher education and so can't draw on personal experience but with what i've worked out about myself and others i think the naivety of people about that age and when they're busy thinking about meaningless study they're a pretty easy target.

You know what they say about generalising, when you generalise you make an ass out of yourself.

Admittedly, I don't actually think "they" have ever said that, but you are making an ass out of yourself nonetheless.

 

[ZRT]

You know what they say about generalising, when you generalise you make an ass out of yourself.

Admittedly, I don't actually think "they" have ever said that, but you are making an ass out of yourself nonetheless.

For what, the meaningless study comment, or the naivety of the young?

Because by and large the young are naive and as such are easily targeted. I sure as shit was myself.

ETA: I believe you're thinking of 'when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me'.

I prefer Samuel L. Jackson's variant of 'when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and umption.'

 

[MisterSir]

For what, the meaningless study comment, or the naivety of the young?

The meaningless study comment - by and large, the young are not the sharpest bulbs in the chocolate box - and I've had the same logic used on me way too often to pass up this opportunity, so...how can somebody who's never been part of higher education comment on meaning or the lack of it university offers?

Besides, I remember what the genuine expression was. He's still an ass.

 

[satindesire]

The meaningless study comment - by and large, the young are not the sharpest bulbs in the chocolate box - and I've had the same logic used on me way too often to pass up this opportunity, so...how can somebody who's never been part of higher education comment on meaning or the lack of it university offers?

Besides, I remember what the genuine expression was. He's still an ass.

I concur. College is not MEANINGLESS. These days, you can't hardly freaking get a decent career and provide for your family unless you at least have an Associate's degree.

And I'm sorry but people of any age can be 'naive'. Ageism is an ugly thing, we shouldn't think that people under the age of 35 or so are brainless.

 

[Shankara20]

One aspect of myself I attribute to being a man is my lust for battle .

I do not enjoy physical battle in any of its many forms from war to contact sports (this allows for when I played racquetball years ago).

My lust for battle surfaced in sales competition. Making contacts and developing relationships was all well and good, but when it came time to go after a contract - BAM! - I was after it. I loved the time face to face with the customer overcoming objections.

I loved staff meetings when they were open for discussion (battle). Express my point of view - counter the other perspective - overcome objections - prevail when setting policy - place the decenter into the minority!

This does not endear me in discussions with my lover, so I suppress. Nor is it welcome in staff meetings now where I'm the only male with 15 females, so I suppress. But let me get in front of an audience that is heavily male that I can sucker into engagement - BAM! - battle! (note that I am not using PC -talk here).

"Sucker into engagement" may not be the best way to say it but I will admit that I can resort to that when at some level I hunger for battle. A review of this thread might even hint at my propensities.

I loved that scene in the Travolta movie Michael when he saw the bull and shouted "Battle!".

More thoughts later.

 

[ZRT]

The meaningless study comment - by and large, the young are not the sharpest bulbs in the chocolate box - and I've had the same logic used on me way too often to pass up this opportunity, so...how can somebody who's never been part of higher education comment on meaning or the lack of it university offers?

A lot of college study is meaningless. Sorry, but that's the truth. There's a lot of tail-chasing that goes on in academia that simply doesn't translate to life skills or professional skills, in part because a lot of professors went straight through the system from being educated to being an educator.

One can comment on this without having been a part of it when one has had to deal with any number of 4 year wonders coming out into the field with shiny new degrees and getting corresponding positions while having little to no practical knowledge of the field they're going into. Yeah, it's great that it worked that way in the lab and it's jiffy-keen that you did your thesis on it and all, but when the temp is over 115 F ambient and the wind's coming out of the south at 35mph and the equipment isn't shiny-new from sitting in a storage closet between uses, all that nifty academic material isn't doing a lot of good.

I've recently returned to college myself to finish out a bachelor's. There is a lot of useful material, don't get me wrong, but the world works differently. That's why those outside the ivory towers make the distinction between academia and the real world.

Take a simple and basic fundamental of rad work- determining radiation levels for shielding packages, or hell, just establishing the perimeter. On paper, it's pretty simple stuff- inverse square law, if your source is radiating at X power, at a distance of a few feet, it'll be radiating at 1/8x (I'm just poma*-ing on the figures here, I'm not an HP or tech.)

Except that it's not as simple as it looks on paper because of the endless variability involved. I'm not a rad tech, but the ones I know use the paper as a benchmark and back it up by metering the actual dose rates at the benchmarks. There's always a variance and it can be a pretty crucial one.

Or take a textbook shield package but don't account for overhead shine, and suddenly you have detectors blipping all over the place.

Academics aren't meaningless, but those who think that a pure college curriculum renders them completely vocationally functional are sadly misinformed, unless it's for a straight-paper shuffling job or somesuch.

*POMA= pulling out of my ass

I concur. College is not MEANINGLESS. These days, you can't hardly freaking get a decent career and provide for your family unless you at least have an Associate's degree.

That has more to do with the deflation of the value of degrees than it does with the actual value of the education. It's pretty damned easy to get an associates these days, and the market is utterly saturated with them. Rather than taking them as a genuine demonstration of competence, it's often a way that employers filter applications in order to save time on filling a position.

I personally think the US university system is grand larceny, but that's a topic for another time.

And I'm sorry but people of any age can be 'naive'. Ageism is an ugly thing, we shouldn't think that people under the age of 35 or so are brainless.

Six year old children are pretty much universally naive. Is that a discriminatory statement? Is restricting the driving privileges of children out of bounds? Smoking age, voting age, drinking age?

Each person should be evaluated by their merits, sure, and some people get to the end of their lives while still managing to be naive and obtuse while others pick things up young. But the simple fact is that most young people haven't had the depth of experience to be worldly yet.

I'm 34, I'm a lot wiser to a lot of things than I was when I was 20. Experience counts, for most people it counts more than training because the switch that flips for people to comprehend things generally doesn't flip -until- they've had experience with the issue.

 

[ZRT]

One aspect of myself I attribute to being a man is my lust for battle .

I do not enjoy physical battle in any of its many forms from war to contact sports (this allows for when I played racquetball years ago).

My lust for battle surfaced in sales competition. Making contacts and developing relationships was all well and good, but when it came time to go after a contract - BAM! - I was after it. I loved the time face to face with the customer overcoming objections.

I loved staff meetings when they were open for discussion (battle). Express my point of view - counter the other perspective - overcome objections - prevail when setting policy - place the decenter into the minority!

This does not endear me in discussions with my lover, so I suppress. Nor is it welcome in staff meetings now where I'm the only male with 15 females, so I suppress. But let me get in front of an audience that is heavily male that I can sucker into engagement - BAM! - battle! (note that I am not using PC -talk here).

"Sucker into engagement" may not be the best way to say it but I will admit that I can resort to that when at some level I hunger for battle. A review of this thread might even hint at my propensities.

I loved that scene in the Travolta movie Michael when he saw the bull and shouted "Battle!".

More thoughts later.

Yeah baby, I'm feeling you completely here.

 

[Keroin]

One aspect of myself I attribute to being a man is my lust for battle .

I do not enjoy physical battle in any of its many forms from war to contact sports (this allows for when I played racquetball years ago).

My lust for battle surfaced in sales competition. Making contacts and developing relationships was all well and good, but when it came time to go after a contract - BAM! - I was after it. I loved the time face to face with the customer overcoming objections.

I loved staff meetings when they were open for discussion (battle). Express my point of view - counter the other perspective - overcome objections - prevail when setting policy - place the decenter into the minority!

This does not endear me in discussions with my lover, so I suppress. Nor is it welcome in staff meetings now where I'm the only male with 15 females, so I suppress. But let me get in front of an audience that is heavily male that I can sucker into engagement - BAM! - battle! (note that I am not using PC -talk here).

"Sucker into engagement" may not be the best way to say it but I will admit that I can resort to that when at some level I hunger for battle. A review of this thread might even hint at my propensities.

I loved that scene in the Travolta movie Michael when he saw the bull and shouted "Battle!".

More thoughts later.

Yeah baby, I'm feeling you completely here.

Me too!

Battle. Mmmmm. Yes. Good. (I think my manhood is well established by now).

Mental challenges, I love, but nothing beats a good physical battle, for me – whether it’s just trying to beat a PR or facing down a human foe on the tennis court.

Favourite battle memory: A special workshop for black belts on fighting techniques, with a focus on the psychology of fighting. Two volunteers were asked for – my hand shot up, (the teacher’s pet is strong in me) – as did that of another student, male, taller and stronger than me. The instructor removed his belt, tied one end to my belt, one end to B’s belt, leaving about four feet between us. We were bare-fisted; he told us to fight each other like we meant it. Basic concept was to overcome the fear of getting in close with your opponent by removing the ability to back away. End result was, after initial trepidation, we eventually beat the crap out of each other. Terrifying and thrilling! Endorphins galore.

There’s something about taking a blow, pulling yourself together and summoning the will to keep fighting that I find so addictive.

I’m a good sport but I always want to win. I've also learned to stifle this behaviour at work, which is difficult after you've spent a lot of time in a highly competitive environment. There's nothing PC about battle lust. Interesting , though, in personal relationships, I'm a conflict avoider.

The bull scene was great!

 

[satindesire]

I'm 34, I'm a lot wiser to a lot of things than I was when I was 20. Experience counts, for most people it counts more than training because the switch that flips for people to comprehend things generally doesn't flip -until- they've had experience with the issue.

Comprehension does not equal non-naivety.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree when it comes to college.

 

[Keroin]

A lot of college study is meaningless. Sorry, but that's the truth. There's a lot of tail-chasing that goes on in academia that simply doesn't translate to life skills or professional skills, in part because a lot of professors went straight through the system from being educated to being an educator.

One can comment on this without having been a part of it when one has had to deal with any number of 4 year wonders coming out into the field with shiny new degrees and getting corresponding positions while having little to no practical knowledge of the field they're going into.

I've recently returned to college myself to finish out a bachelor's. There is a lot of useful material, don't get me wrong, but the world works differently. That's why those outside the ivory towers make the distinction between academia and the real world.

Academics aren't meaningless, but those who think that a pure college curriculum renders them completely vocationally functional are sadly misinformed, unless it's for a straight-paper shuffling job or somesuch.

Six year old children are pretty much universally naive. Is that a discriminatory statement? Is restricting the driving privileges of children out of bounds? Smoking age, voting age, drinking age?

Each person should be evaluated by their merits, sure, and some people get to the end of their lives while still managing to be naive and obtuse while others pick things up young. But the simple fact is that most young people haven't had the depth of experience to be worldly yet.

I'm 34, I'm a lot wiser to a lot of things than I was when I was 20. Experience counts, for most people it counts more than training because the switch that flips for people to comprehend things generally doesn't flip -until- they've had experience with the issue.

Comprehension does not equal non-naivety.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree when it comes to college.

I have to go with ZRT on this one. Education is a good thing but the text in bold highlights one of the problems. Also, to some degree, comprehension does equal non-naivety.

Example: We've all seen those World Hunger commercials and such. Most of us believe we understand that poverty is a terrible condition and that people who live in it are to be pitied. What you can't know, until you're in it, smelling it, brushing up against it, looking at it in three dimensions, is the depth of "terrible" and also the heights of dignity and pride and even happiness that can exist, even in squalor. It is also impossible to understand the many roadblocks that prevent people from rising out of poverty, (I'm talking third world poverty, not civilized poverty). You may tell me, "Yes, I understand this" but I assure you, until you've experienced it, you do not. This is comprehension, this is loss of naivety.

I use this example because I have a friend who earned a masters degree in (sorry, can't recall exact title of the discipline) economic development for developing and third world nations. We had a long discussion, while in Central America, about some of the places we'd seen. Now here was someone far more versed in the subject than you or I or most people in North America and she told me that no amount of school could have prepared her for the reality of what she had to deal with on a human level. No films, no books, no photos, nothing...and she's a clever girl.

I don't know why "age = experience" is so often interpreted as ageism? Yes, there are exceptions but generally this is the case. Most of the knowledge I posses cannot be possessed by a twenty-year-old simply because that person has not had enough time to have all the experiences I've had. This is not a judgement, just a statement of fact. Why do I continually see people on the board, people whose opinions I have acknowledged as valuable, being offended by this?

 

[ZRT]

Comprehension does not equal non-naivety.

No, but increases the probability of it. It's not a black/white kind of thing, and even the wary can be suckered occasionally, especially if hit in a vulnerable spot.

This isn't saying that kids are dumb or less valuable or anything of the sort. It's simply saying that experience is the best teacher and the more experience one is exposed to, the more likely one is to be capable of handling things.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree when it comes to college.

Okay. I still wub you.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I don't know why "age = experience" is so often interpreted as ageism? Yes, there are exceptions but generally this is the case. Most of the knowledge I posses cannot be possessed by a twenty-year-old simply because that person has not had enough time to have all the experiences I've had. This is not a judgement, just a statement of fact. Why do I continually see people on the board, people whose opinions I have acknowledged as valuable, being offended by this?

That's a question I've asked myself more than a few times in my life. In almost 60 years of life, I've had experiences that younger people, for the most part, simply have not had the time to have - yet. That doesn't necessarily make me smarter, wiser, tougher, stronger, or even less naive... it just means that I've been around for 21,000 or so days as opposed to their 7,000 or 10,000 or 15,000, and thus had more opportunities than they to have those experiences.

I think, though, that some of the younger folks may get aroused when they feel that an older person is denigrating their (the younger folks') opinion or experiences in favor of the more experienced person's opinion/experience, etc. In many cases, this probably isn't true, but can be perceived because of (either) awkward transmission of the older person's thoughts or even that the younger person(s) may feel at a disadvantage and thus perhaps feels disrespected. I dunno. I'm not communicating this point well.

 

[Keroin]

That's a question I've asked myself more than a few times in my life. In almost 60 years of life, I've had experiences that younger people, for the most part, simply have not had the time to have - yet. That doesn't necessarily make me smarter, wiser, tougher, stronger, or even less naive... it just means that I've been around for 21,000 or so days as opposed to their 7,000 or 10,000 or 15,000, and thus had more opportunities than they to have those experiences.

I think, though, that some of the younger folks may get aroused when they feel that an older person is denigrating their (the younger folks') opinion or experiences in favor of the more experienced person's opinion/experience, etc. In many cases, this probably isn't true, but can be perceived because of (either) awkward transmission of the older person's thoughts or even that the younger person(s) may feel at a disadvantage and thus perhaps feels disrespected. I dunno. I'm not communicating this point well.

No, I think your point was communicated very well.

I feel the same as you do. I'm not "better" because I'm older, I'm just different and my age gives me a different perspective. Sometimes that perspective is relevant to a discussion and in those instances I will mention it. Maybe I'm the one not communicating well? I certainly never mention someone's age with any intention of disrespect.

Also, there are things I cannot understand simply because I am older. My young nephews can bear witness to this, LOL.

 

[YourCaptor]

Ok, classroom smarts vs street smarts, both are needed to really be good at what you do.

I think that classroom smarts should come first though, its better to arrive in the field knowing what you are talking about rather then arriving in the field with good intentions alone.

Also I know some people who do better in the field then in the classroom. One girl in particular, she’s a nurse now. When going through school, paper test meant days of study for her, but when she’s face to face with a patient its all automatic, instant action. She even says cries of agony and blood everywhere is less anxiety producing then a final exam.

I would also say that street smarts is not relevant to age as much as experience.

I also agree with satin on college education being necessary these days.

You can’t work your way through the ranks anymore, there are no mid level jobs, they are all gone. You either get an entry level job and stall out soon after, or you go to school and jump the gap into higher level jobs. That’s just how it is in America these days.

Also to say universities are crap is just stupid. While American education generally has the reputation of being total crap, at the university level its just as good if not better then that of the rest of the world. If my degree was garbage then why are rich Japanese kids flying in by the dozen just to get it?

PS, just to piss of everybody, the brain is at its highest level of maturity when we are 5. After that it only deteriorates. Considering how much learning a 5 year old is capable of in 1 day, we all suck.

 

[satindesire]

I don't know why "age = experience" is so often interpreted as ageism? Yes, there are exceptions but generally this is the case. Most of the knowledge I posses cannot be possessed by a twenty-year-old simply because that person has not had enough time to have all the experiences I've had. This is not a judgement, just a statement of fact. Why do I continually see people on the board, people whose opinions I have acknowledged as valuable, being offended by this?

Because it's a generalization, and a wrong one at that. I can't believe for a second that no one has met just as many naive older people than naive younger ones.

Ageism to me means...Being a know-it-all and overconfident, and thinking that because you lived this many days longer than someone younger than you that you automatically are smarter, wiser, and more capable...and anyone at any age can be like this. "I know what I'm talking about and you don't, because you're younger/older than me."

I'm literally shocked that so many people on this board-people that have been judged because of their gender, race, sexual kinks, etc etc...can STILL BE OKAY with ageism when THEY KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE UNFAIRLY JUDGED.

I can tell you from personal experience that compared to my husband, I'm a moron. He's a genius...literally. He can build shit, explain things, and understand and visualize concepts that I've never seen any other person on the planet do. He understands people and can relate and understand situations outside of my comprehension. Street smarts, common sense, book smarts, he has it. It has nothing to do with his age and everything to do with the incredible way his brain works.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

A lot of college study is meaningless. Sorry, but that's the truth. There's a lot of tail-chasing that goes on in academia that simply doesn't translate to life skills or professional skills, in part because a lot of professors went straight through the system from being educated to being an educator.

One can comment on this without having been a part of it when one has had to deal with any number of 4 year wonders coming out into the field with shiny new degrees and getting corresponding positions while having little to no practical knowledge of the field they're going into. Yeah, it's great that it worked that way in the lab and it's jiffy-keen that you did your thesis on it and all, but when the temp is over 115 F ambient and the wind's coming out of the south at 35mph and the equipment isn't shiny-new from sitting in a storage closet between uses, all that nifty academic material isn't doing a lot of good.

I've recently returned to college myself to finish out a bachelor's. There is a lot of useful material, don't get me wrong, but the world works differently. That's why those outside the ivory towers make the distinction between academia and the real world.

Take a simple and basic fundamental of rad work- determining radiation levels for shielding packages, or hell, just establishing the perimeter. On paper, it's pretty simple stuff- inverse square law, if your source is radiating at X power, at a distance of a few feet, it'll be radiating at 1/8x (I'm just poma*-ing on the figures here, I'm not an HP or tech.)

Except that it's not as simple as it looks on paper because of the endless variability involved. I'm not a rad tech, but the ones I know use the paper as a benchmark and back it up by metering the actual dose rates at the benchmarks. There's always a variance and it can be a pretty crucial one.

Or take a textbook shield package but don't account for overhead shine, and suddenly you have detectors blipping all over the place.

Academics aren't meaningless, but those who think that a pure college curriculum renders them completely vocationally functional are sadly misinformed, unless it's for a straight-paper shuffling job or somesuch.

*POMA= pulling out of my ass

College is about much more than just academics. If you think the only skills you learn in college come from the classroom then you are sadly mistaken.

Also, the college or even the professor will play a big part in teaching you more than what's in a textbook.

 

[jondalar77]

I totally agree, I live in the south and it is ironic that here you find the worst public education k-12 but then great higher education universities all aroung...I happen to respect my elders, is that ageism?

 

[Keroin]

Because it's a generalization, and a wrong one at that. I can't believe for a second that no one has met just as many naive older people than naive younger ones.

Ageism to me means...Being a know-it-all and overconfident, and thinking that because you lived this many days longer than someone younger than you that you automatically are smarter, wiser, and more capable...and anyone at any age can be like this. "I know what I'm talking about and you don't, because you're younger/older than me."

I'm literally shocked that so many people on this board-people that have been judged because of their gender, race, sexual kinks, etc etc...can STILL BE OKAY with ageism when THEY KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE UNFAIRLY JUDGED.

I can tell you from personal experience that compared to my husband, I'm a moron. He's a genius...literally. He can build shit, explain things, and understand and visualize concepts that I've never seen any other person on the planet do. He understands people and can relate and understand situations outside of my comprehension. Street smarts, common sense, book smarts, he has it. It has nothing to do with his age and everything to do with the incredible way his brain works.

Of course I've met plenty of naive people of all ages. Age is only one factor among many. There are, however, commonalities among certain age groups and thus I feel I can make some generalizations.

For example, someone 20 years old and under probably has not...

1. Had one or both parents die.
2. Managed or owned a company
3. Gone through bankruptcy
4. Given birth
5. Raised children
6. Been married
7. Been divorced
8. Owned a house

Etc, etc. Yes, some people of that age have done/experienced some of those things but generally, most have not. The kinds of things on that list are the kind of things that dramatically alter one's world view and they generally happen over time, with age. My opinion on any of those things would be/has been different before and after. My naivete was not a bad thing, just a fact. I wish I didn't have to know how it feels to watch a parent die, to be honest, but now I do and it's nothing I could have prepared for.

Am I making sense? If I say to someone, at twenty, who has both parents living and healthy that they don't/can't yet know how it feels to lose a parent I'm not saying they're stupid. Not at all. It is a singular event that must be experienced to be fully understood.

Would you say that you have learned a lot about pregnancy by being pregnant? Would you say that someone who hasn't been pregnant probably doesn't know as much about the experience as you? Would you call yourself a know-it-all for having a deeper understanding of something than someone who has not experienced it?

You know a 100% more about pregnancy than I do. In this area, yes, I am naive.

I have friends of all ages. I love them equally, I respect them equally, I value their opinions equally. I just don't see how I am being an ageist. I freely acknowledge that SW or any of my RL friends who are older than me probably know more about certain things than I do. Someday I will know those things too. What is wrong with that?

Added: Text in bold - Is this the way I appear to you?