Nixie said:
"elitist, snobby" reasons and who gets to define these terms and apply them to specific situations.
I'm not saying it's elitist if someone chooses to have intimate relations based on attraction in a physical sense, no, any more than I think someone can't choose whom to collaborate with on a research project on theoretical physics based on perceived skill in it.
It's only snobby if someone brings a value judgment of people's self-worth into it, vs simply rating them on objective criteria and proceeding with the path that is functional. The only thing you can really fault people for if anything at all is on reasonableness and morality. On a related note, it's also snobby if not recognizing that, while yes that's how it is, some are simply more gifted at physics, that doesn't make there a good reason for it or make it fair.
I do think it is unfair that many are simply not gifted enough, by random chance of natural selection, to get the same pleasures. However, that by itself doesn't make it snobby for someone to choose, e.g., a fitting partner to collaborate on string theory for. It just doesn't make
sense to collaborate on string theory with someone who can't be up to the job.
The only fallacy committed by those who feel resentment at these circumstances is when they blame people for continuing string theory research despite not everyone having the chance to do it. That's like saying everyone should die of poverty just because some do -- it's probably better to hope that in future, we'll innovate more in science to close the gaps that seem to exist for no great reason beyond random chance.
As to the whole shopping vs intimacy thing, my entire point is that on a purely logical note, I could make the same point with shopping that I did with intimate relations -- while you are right that there
is a difference (who ever denied that?!), I didn't need to
use that difference in making my point.
