How important is it to be able to have deep or intellectual conversations with an SO?

[Trialbyfire]

A curious mind, is just as important as the ability to have deep, intellectual conversations. While they're not synomymous, there's definitely a correlation.

 

I can't imagine being with someone who's interests are so narrow, they can't be bothered to learn anything new. It's very self-centric, where the world solely revolves around you and your mate is a satellite of you.

[IrishCarBomb]

Heh, you probably wouldn't enjoy hanging out with me then [as a friend]. I'm incapable of anything beyond single variable calculus.

 

Yeah I think you're right. I cannot tell you how many times I can't get those "math-people's" jokes because I am rusty on my Fourier transform operations.

[You'reasian]

Heh, you probably wouldn't enjoy hanging out with me then [as a friend]. I'm incapable of anything beyond single variable calculus.

 

 

Can I take your derivative??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cause I wanna lay tangent to your curves!!!

[Sam Spade]

I realized that the ability to hold 'intellectual' conversations is not conditional on the other person's "credentials", but on personal maturity and common interests.

 

Case in point: I have a PhD, and my ex is about to finish hers, so pretty educated. However, we almost never had such conversations, simply because I was a jackass and felt compelled to prove that I'm right every tim, no matter what. I was, indeed 'right' many times, but that was irrelevant since it ruined the whole interaction.

 

My current girlfriend is a silly, down to earth, pretty simple person. But I've found that i have a lot more such conversations with her that I used to have with my ex. Although she's working on a graduate degree as well, we have pretty big discrepancy in educational backgrounds and upbringing - I've read a lot more than she has, but I don't find this detrimental to having good conversations about common existential problems that basically bother every human. So the quality of such conversations is dtermined more by mindset/emotional intelligence rather than the level of obscurity of the topic. the content of a conversation is not what makes it intelligent. (I've seen plenty of doorknobs talk about art. )

[You'reasian]

Can I take your derivative??

 

Cause I wanna lay tangent to your curves!!!

 

 

Couldn't help myself with that one.

[IrishCarBomb]

Deep or intellectual conversations are not only not important, but they are a negative. No woman can disobey, challenge, disagree, or even look me in the eye. Eye contact is grounds for immediate corporal punishment.

 

The best romantic relationships are based upon the traditional slave-master relationship anyways. When one side isn't free to complain, everybody's happy.

 

....right?

[You'reasian]

My current girlfriend is a silly, down to earth, pretty simple person. But I've found that i have a lot more such conversations with her that I used to have with my ex. Although she's working on a graduate degree as well, we have pretty big discrepancy in educational backgrounds and upbringing - I've read a lot more than she has, but I don't find this detrimental to having good conversations about common existential problems that basically bother every human. So the quality of such conversations is dtermined more by mindset/emotional intelligence rather than the level of obscurity of the topic. the content of a conversation is not what makes it intelligent. (I've seen plenty of doorknobs talk about art. )

 

Awesome. I love the silly, down to earth pretty simple women!

[You'reasian]

Deep or intellectual conversations are not only not important, but they are a negative. No woman can disobey, challenge, disagree, or even look me in the eye. Eye contact is grounds for immediate corporal punishment.

 

The best romantic relationships are based upon the traditional slave-master relationship anyways. When one side isn't free to complain, everybody's happy.

 

....right?

 

Nope, I'd say the best one is where the man succumbs to the needs and wants of a womyn (note the spelling lol). She should wear the pants and he should be a sensitive, pacificstic fellow who plays X-box and runs from his own shadow...

 

I kid, I kid!

[Yamaha]

I like a women who streaches my mind, who challenges me as well as listens to what I have to say. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate it a 9. It is very important to me in a relationship. It is one of the things that causes chemistry for me and makes me want to be around that person. Yes, I still need to be attracted physically but the intelligential stimulation between us gets me very interested and keeps the relationship new and exciting.

[alphamale]

On a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being "this is crucial/a dealmaker or breaker" and 1 being "not important in the slighest," how important is this to you?

long-term/marriage = 10

FWB = 5

casual/ONS = 1

[anne1707]

Eye contact is grounds for immediate corporal punishment.

 

Now that's my kind of talking

[Isolde]

long-term/marriage = 10

FWB = 5

casual/ONS = 1

 

gotta love your honesty alpha

[Isolde]

A curious mind, is just as important as the ability to have deep, intellectual conversations. While they're not synomymous, there's definitely a correlation.

 

 

Exactly!!!

[mental_traveller]

This is something I've been thinking about for a while. Some couples, often but not always those in similar professional fields, can talk about all kinds of esoteric and random things with one another. Others may consider each other best friends but nevertheless don't really have intense, intellectually charged conversations over dinner.

 

I have friendships with guys that involve these kinds of conversations, and as much as I value them, I'm not sure if this is an essential component for a relationship or not.

 

On a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being "this is crucial/a dealmaker or breaker" and 1 being "not important in the slighest," how important is this to you?

 

I've always got bored of women who don't have this.

[carhill]

Vital ....

[BlueEyedGirl]

I still don't think lots of people in this thread are differentiating between true intellectual conversation in a specialized area and general intelligence in discussing say current events and world in depth.

[mental_traveller]

I still don't think lots of people in this thread are differentiating between true intellectual conversation in a specialized area and general intelligence in discussing say current events and world in depth.

 

The thread title referred to "deep or intellectual conversations", it didn't mention anything about specialist areas. So it could be about anything, the only thing that matters is that the conversations are deep or intellectual. Current events can stimulate deep or intellectual conversations just as much if not more so than plant hydroponics or astrophysics.

[sumdude]

long-term/marriage = 10

FWB = 5

casual/ONS = 1

 

Ahhh.. so the importance of deep intellectual conversation with a potential mate is a function of the projected duration and/or depth of the relationship?

 

Brilliant!! Now for that beer and a game of darts.

[BlueEyedGirl]

The thread title referred to "deep or intellectual conversations", it didn't mention anything about specialist areas. So it could be about anything, the only thing that matters is that the conversations are deep or intellectual. Current events can stimulate deep or intellectual conversations just as much if not more so than plant hydroponics or astrophysics.

 

I still think that most of the posters who rate this as "10" have not been subjected to hour long monologues on say plant hydroponics on regular basis or to true intellectuals (which I have very rarely met before working in academia). So "10" to them and "10" to me are very different things. I guess what I am trying to say that what they consider in depth intellectual conversation (say discussing world events at depth) and discussing ins and outs of relativity theory rate differently on an intellectual scale. I doubt they would find someone who talks about topics they know nothing about in depth, without consideration of getting any feedback from the listener but is almost incapable of having light, fun conversation a turn on.

[Land Shark]

I doubt they would find someone who talks about topics they know nothing about in depth, without consideration of getting any feedback from the listener but is almost incapable of having light, fun conversation a turn on.

 

I usually assume that's what women like about me most. So I can't say I agree with you.

[D-Lish]

It's extremely important to be on the same wave length.

 

Not everyone is deeper than a puddle- and those that are barely submerged will probably fare better with people of the same mind (or lack of mind).

 

I have a beautiful friend that dates a beautiful guy. They don't have much to say to one another other than "you're hot".... But those mundane exchanges work for both of them.

 

I could not date someone for too long if they couldn't stimulate my mind.

[BlueEyedGirl]

I will probably be bashed for this, but people tend to overestimate the value of intelligence in a partner because they are overestimating their own intelligence.

[Tony T]

I will probably be bashed for this, but people tend to overestimate the value of intelligence in a partner because they are overestimating their own intelligence.

 

It would be impossible for me to overestimate my intelligence! No bashing from me!

[Land Shark]

As smart as I think I am, I still find I generally underestimate my intelligence.

[BlueEyedGirl]

As smart as I think I am, I still find I generally underestimate my intelligence.

 

 

Fine. Just go ahead and disagree with everything I have to say