Men: Do women of superior intellect romantically interest you?

[Ody]

Men, my questions for you are: (1) what are your thoughts on intellectual women, (2) is there a limit to how intellectual a woman can be and still be considered romantically attractive, and, finally, (3) what is your current age and social position?

 

1 - Yes please may I have another.

2 - No.

3 - 29, but I've always been this way. Well employed and self employed, unusually competitive educational background.

 

The men responding in this thread are a very self-selective group. Despite being just one voice in a chorus here I suspect those answers are not the norm generally.

[Bullfrog0689]

1) depends on what kind of guy you are looking for, intellectual or just the average joe. me personally prefer a girl i can have a intellectual conversation with.

2) limit is the same when two people are talking, one about metaphysical theories/mathematical equations and the other football =\ it would make it uncomfortable for both. If someone is way smarter than the other, then the other could feel inferior(thats just a self esteem problem).

3) 20, college

[radwimps]

both women I dated were ... each slightly smarter(Educationally speaking) and the other was slightly less smarter(again, educationally speaking) than I was.

 

However, to be honest, I don't really care, I just want someone with Good COMMON SENSE and some education. I don't want a bookwarm or a bookeater. Just something in between, not on the extreme of either side if you know what I mean.

 

Say my Intellectual was 10, then I'd prefer someone +- 3 of me. so Id prefer 7~13 figuratively speaking. You dont want the other person to be so smart that they get annoying, or be so dumb that they get annoying.

 

 

its all about balance you see? However at the end of the day, the FACE and PERSONALITY plays a MUCH LARGER role than your intellectual. Sharpen those up first.

[always_searching]

However at the end of the day, the FACE and PERSONALITY plays a MUCH LARGER role than your intellectual. Sharpen those up first.

 

Hahaha, sharpen-up my face and personality?

 

Well, let's see, I have pretty soft facial features...not sure I can "sharpen" them as I can't afford plastic surgery. LOL, but I have been doing these really good yoga facial exercises! My cheeks are looking much pointier these days...

 

My personality, on the other hand, could cut you, it's so damn sharp!

 

:lmao:

[radwimps]

hey I like sharp chins over double chins! haha

[always_searching]

hey I like sharp chins over double chins! haha

 

Haha, when I said I have "soft facial features," I didn't mean that soft!

 

[theumlaut]

Let's take the general issue and then turn it around: How big of a role does intelligence/intellect play in women's seeking out male partners?

 

There's confusion from your initial post: "Intellectual" and "intelligence" are different things. Intelligence=smarts, intellectual=a general style of relating to the world, perspective, and usually expressed in education efforts, careers, or hobbies/interest that deal with matters of ideas for the sake of a general interest in ideas.

 

A some here have suggested about relative IQ's of partners, studies do show that male and female partners have highly correlated IQ's. One study from the '40s showed that of all personal traits, the strongest relation between husbands and wives was IQ rather than education, height, weight, family background, money, etc.

 

Intelligence is relative; I think, as someone previously mentioned, what people want above all is someone they don't consider intellectually inferior, that they can relate to. Analogously, everyone wants someone physically attractive—to them, a tautology. Many people have a lower acceptable limit, but no upper bound. “Not attractive enough” exists but not "too attractive­." (By definition, if someone's "too attractive" then they're not attractive to that person). There’s a lower limit re: brains: “Not smart enough.” But I think there's also a "too smart" upper bound for most. Someone with an IQ of 90 likely won’t feel very comfortable or happy with another whose IQ is 140, and vice-versa.

 

It's a bit of a fallacy and tautology that women put a high priority on finding men of high intelligent­ce. Women say it all the time, and in personals ads, adn elsewhere, it's one of the most common things women refer to as desiring, if not the most common. Really? It doesn't play out that way.

 

In personals a guy can acceptably say he’s tall, athletically built, has a lucrative/­high-statu­s profession, various degrees, is (and show) he’s a very good looking (a model even)--which attracts much attention from women, volunteers helping disabled children, or all sorts of “desirable­/admirable­” things. Would a man have hordes of women contact him, if he, truly, has or says he has a genius-level IQ? No. Talking about one’s own intelligence as extraordinary—even if objectively true—is generally very obnoxious and unacceptable. What people say they want can differ form what they act on, which personals ads show where women give the highest priority in objective characteristics (beyond age) to height. If people listed IQ, or SAT, or GRE, etc scores do you think women would give more due to that than height? Doubt it. Nor would men give it great attention relative to looks, weight, etc. I think.

 

If most women were really serious about wanting really smart men as a very high priority, it would be a different world. Women would troll university campuses and faculty parties for dates. Women, like men, want someone not too unintelligent, not too intelligent (relatively). I can see where perhaps men are less concerned with finding equals in terms of intelligence with men, but overall statistics as I referred to show that for long-term partnerships, that isn't so very different.

 

Me: I am one of those extremely, extremely high IQ types (which I do not state in my personals ads). I've done 3 years of PhD work at an Ivy League university--have an MA for now. Do I think it my intelligence levels helps in the getting dates in higher numbers? No, it hurts more than helps. It helps with women who are very intelligent themselves.

 

My personals profiles attract the most ardent attention from women who are both very smart and, generally, intellectual--I am also very intellectual, too much for almost everyone. I aim for attracting those kinds of women. I pay a great deal of attention to what I wrote as the opportunity to show my intelleigence, creativity, etc.

 

Yes, I want those very bright women: there's no such thing--as I write in my profile--as "too smart" for me. Women I'd date need to be very intelligent, but not necessarily so much intellectual. Very creative types have that kind of "complementary" intelligence that others spoke of. Not all of my girlfriends have been "intellectual." Some smarter than others, advanced degrees are common; no education at all would be fine were she to be very smart and intellectual stimulating enough otherwise.

 

45, suffering significant health issues for a few years now that prevent me from working. Am doing some independent scholarship and high-level public policy stuff on a non-paid basis.

[jerseyboy]

Never really thought about it, but a good question.

 

Im thinking about it, and including the woman I am seeing now, have all been fairly accomplished and intelligent. Im not sure thats by design or by innstinct,, or just a simple mater that I tend to date a lot in my extended social circle. As in those are the kind of woman I tend to meet.

 

I dont know that Ive ever dated anyone "brighter" than me. But then again I've met few people, men or women, I would put in that category. Ive defdinitely dated women more accomplished than me, and much more knowledgable in their specialties. Also those that have been more refined in many ways.

 

But if they werent attractive physically I wouldnt have asked them out, so Im as shallow as anyone. Like the poster stated above, a womans facial beauty is waaay important to me as well.

 

Not to get in a political fight, just some women that readily come to mind. I really dont care what you think of them or their views. It isnt about those

 

I think Peggy Noonan is f'ing hot. The "poetic" way she expresses herself. The way her mind works. And that sensual classy way she communicates both verbally and with her gestures. She has to be 60ish now and Id still do her.

 

I dont agree with many of her views, but I think Ann Coultr has a sexy mind. I love her sharp cutting wit. I dont find her physically appealing though. Horse faced and blonde. But shes passionate and extremely intelligent/quick.

[threebyfate]

And I do party a lot but with my own group of friends not particularly in college. I don't dorm and my college isn't really a party school. Besides I find it hard to hang out with random people I don't know.

I've bolded this component, since it's applicable to the last part of my response.

 

I know that very well. I don't understand what your point is since that is my point. Booksmarts are irrelevant.

You complain about women being unable to apply booksmarts to the real world but from what I read of your responses or actually, avoidance to previous questions about application of higher learning towards real life, doesn't convince me of your intelligence, one bit.

 

It's fine that you've denounced materiality in your life. But it's not fine that your view is that anyone who doesn't agree with you, is not intelligent.

 

I really don't give a **** about your world, what you call the "real world". It's superficial and dumb. I just need enough money to survive and I am perfectly content.

 

I have a very active social life, with my two best friends. I'm not interested in making "disposable friends" in order to get some business opportunity in the future, I don't have the patience for it. I would rather live in the now and if one day need a favor I know for sure my best friends would help me out.

 

I plan on having an active social life in another environment where people generally are more like me . I won't say where but I have a pretty good idea, places where I spiritually and intellectually fit. I just need to raise enough money and tie up some loose ends and I'll be living moving there. This life in new york ****ty is just a temporary stop and I would rather die than live here the rest of my life.

 

I don't feel this way because I want to . I am just reporting what I witness every single day. Again you refuse to tell me where all these amazingly intelligent and easy to get along with women are at because in my every day life I do not see them.

 

Would pretending I don't see what I see help me meet them?

cognac, do you realize the entire issue? If people don't view life the same way or process it the same way you do, they're not intelligent.

 

So the vast majority of women value life a different way than you do, which makes them dumb, since they don't get your pop culture references like your friends do.

[threebyfate]

There aren't very many true intellectuals in the world. Intellectual is not someone who is smart (just try talking to laywers, doctors or bankers ).

Intellectual is someone who not just enjoys, but is actually devoted to the exploration of ideas for discourse's sake, and the ideas in question are usually globally relevant (i.e. transcend particular policy issues). Also, such person is typically is good enough in this to do it for a living (i.e. at least maybe make some money out of it on the side, rather than just blabber in their free time). Plato is an intellectual, Sartre is an intellectual, Popper is an intellectual, Paul Krugman is an intellectual etc. etc. etc. The point is that the run of the mill smart person in the professions is not an intellectual.

 

Per this definition, intellectuals are exceedingly rare, and the few little that exist are generally obscure since the mainstream doesn't care about ideas (unless there is some apparent usefulness to them).

 

So, if anybody really wants to date an intellectual, they probably need to be a proven one themselves, simply because otherwise their paths will never intersect.

Krugman is not an intellectual. Many of his theories mesh with reality.

 

I'm also not an intellectual and reject the intellectual state. But I'm intelligent and aren't afraid to say so.

 

Someone intelligent, can have intellectual discourse, albeit not make it their life's occupation to live in never-never land. Someone intelligent can and does apply their higher learning to real life, getting the most, out of both worlds.

[always_searching]

There's confusion from your initial post: "Intellectual" and "intelligence" are different things. Intelligence=smarts, intellectual=a general style of relating to the world, perspective, and usually expressed in education efforts, careers, or hobbies/interest that deal with matters of ideas for the sake of a general interest in ideas.

 

Thank you for making the distinction. I do indeed see why there needed to be clarification as the two are quite different.

 

I suppose I was intending to suggest both: a woman of higher intelligence and more intellectual.

 

If people listed IQ, or SAT, or GRE, etc scores do you think women would give more due to that than height? Doubt it. Nor would men give it great attention relative to looks, weight, etc. I think.

 

Well, personally, I don't think that the SAT, GRE, etc. are good indicators of intelligence. They might provide some insight into the areas that a person is better versed in i.e. higher math score versus English score, etc. However, I measure intelligence by an understanding of and contribution to a particular field of study. So, for example, a person who is a philosopher is intelligent in the field if he knows what he is talking about--authors, theories, dates, historicity, etc.--and he's made contributions to the field. Generally, this also indicates that the person is well read, has a larger vocabulary, and, as you'll find this tends to happen as well: just has an all around better understanding of other areas of study due to his intensive study of one area.

 

So, this is where I think that "intelligence" and "intellectual" can merge. I don't think one can be intelligent in the fashion that I'm implying without being an intellectual as well.

 

Now, does being an intellectual require some pre-established level of intelligence? Yeah, probably. However, I also think that intelligence can be greatly improved with intellectual pursuit.

 

If most women were really serious about wanting really smart men as a very high priority, it would be a different world. Women would troll university campuses and faculty parties for dates.

 

Haha, but I do this!

 

:lmao:

 

I don't go to faculty parties--I don't think I'm allowed! Maybe after I graduate, I'll start hanging around campuses to scour the faculty, find out dates for faculty events, etc.

 

Me: I am one of those extremely, extremely high IQ types (which I do not state in my personals ads). I've done 3 years of PhD work at an Ivy League university--have an MA for now. Do I think it my intelligence levels helps in the getting dates in higher numbers? No, it hurts more than helps. It helps with women who are very intelligent themselves.

 

Me: I'm interested.

 

And you're 45 to boot! That's right up my alley.

[Ody]

I suppose I was intending to suggest both: a woman of higher intelligence and more intellectual.

 

Let's turn this question around. How do you or other women feel about more intellectual men?

 

My first serious girlfriend had a bit of a hangup that she felt I was smarter than her, it always frustrated me because I felt that was nonsense. She wound up at an ivy and is now pursuing her PhD in literature, and is a wonderful person to boot. There was no need for such thoughts. So ever since then I get a little queasy when conversation steers towards anything like "who is more intelligent or intellectual". My feeling is that once you reach a certain level of education, maturity and brains everyone's pretty much in the same boat. Sure one person might have out-SAT'ed the other a little bit or have a slightly better CV, or work in a more intellectual field... but really how can one measure this notion of intellectualism? It does not seem like a fruitful endeavor, to me its more like how first year u'grads are always comparing to see who has more credits. When you're in that boat it's more about what choices you've made with your life, how you choose to spend your time, etc than who's more intellectual or intelligent.

 

What gets me more just the intellectualism is if someone is applying it to something they are passionate about. So if I think to myself "wow these stories she is writing really are killer," or "hmm maybe just maybe those health policy ideas of hers might really become widely relevant some day," that's pretty intoxicating.

 

Otherwise I think umlaut said it pretty well regarding the notion that these things are best considered in the light of "relative to oneself" rather than trying to arbitrarily define levels of intellect. Also that other manner of intelligence and mental stimulation are good too - rather than exclusively looking for educational pedigree.

[InspiredbyYou]

This thread is hilarious, reading all your posts going in circles about semantics is too funny!

 

Intelligence and intellect is the same thing, it is the capacity to obtain information and to rationalize. Intellectuals have a high capacity for rationalization rather than going on "feelings" which is what the less intelligent tend to do. But it's all the same, sophistication is what distinguishes someone who is simply intelligent from someone who is worldly and cultured. For example the Dalai lama is an intellectual, however he is not sophisticated.

 

I really don't think I would want the Dalai Lama or Steve Hawkins as my mate....but that's just me.

[Sam Spade]

Krugman is not an intellectual. Many of his theories mesh with reality.

 

I'm also not an intellectual and reject the intellectual state. But I'm intelligent and aren't afraid to say so.

 

Someone intelligent, can have intellectual discourse, albeit not make it their life's occupation to live in never-never land. Someone intelligent can and does apply their higher learning to real life, getting the most, out of both worlds.

 

Obviously not as intelligent as you think or else you wouldn't have assumed that making a living out of exploring and understanding ideas doesn't have to mean living in never-never land . True intellectuals are among the most influential public figures, and I wonder how could that be if their ideas were all way out there .

 

What you describe is merely having rich enough parents to expose their offspring to the collage of civilization's accomplishments as prepackaged in the college curricula. Big effin deal .

[Ody]

Obviously not as intelligent as you think or else you wouldn't have assumed that making a living out of exploring and understanding ideas doesn't have to mean living in never-never land . True intellectuals are among the most influential public figures, and I wonder how could that be if their ideas were all way out there .

 

What you describe is merely having rich enough parents to expose their offspring to the collage of civilization's accomplishments as prepackaged in the college curricula. Big effin deal .

 

If, as you suggested before, we're limiting "intellectuals" to the sort of folks whose work is the foundation of the western canon, or whom were awarded a nobel prize, we might as well end this thread now...

[threebyfate]

If, as you suggested before, we're limiting "intellectuals" to the sort of folks whose work is the foundation of the western canon, or whom were awarded a nobel prize, we might as well end this thread now...

I was getting ready to respond to Sam Spade but read your post first. There's no better way of putting it!

[InspiredbyYou]

. True intellectuals are among the most influential public figures,

 

Agreed!

[threebyfate]

Agreed!

I doubt you've read Krugman's books. He's got some solid statistics and facts, to back his theories but oh lord, sometimes it's so very difficult to get beyond the way he writes, in a conspiracy theorist-like manner.

 

While I have a lot of respect and admiration for Krugman, no one can deny that he's got a pretty big chip on his shoulders.

[sally4sara]

1) I like women who are intellectually stimulating the most. I had my best times with a girl that we connected with on an intellectual level.

 

2) YES. I can't stand when a woman's intellect dominates her personality. For that matter, I can't stand guys OR girls that get that ellitist personalty because they were accepted into Mensa. I like people with some reservation, and humility.

 

3) 29, married, self-employed, entrepreneurial.

 

You can buy membership into Mensa. It doesn't really make a person intellectual. Knowing this just makes people who brag about being Mensa members twice as obnoxious.

 

Be smart, but please please, don't be a twat about it.

[always_searching]

Let's turn this question around. How do you or other women feel about more intellectual men?

 

My first serious girlfriend had a bit of a hangup that she felt I was smarter than her, it always frustrated me because I felt that was nonsense. She wound up at an ivy and is now pursuing her PhD in literature, and is a wonderful person to boot. There was no need for such thoughts. So ever since then I get a little queasy when conversation steers towards anything like "who is more intelligent or intellectual". My feeling is that once you reach a certain level of education, maturity and brains everyone's pretty much in the same boat. Sure one person might have out-SAT'ed the other a little bit or have a slightly better CV, or work in a more intellectual field... but really how can one measure this notion of intellectualism? It does not seem like a fruitful endeavor, to me its more like how first year u'grads are always comparing to see who has more credits. When you're in that boat it's more about what choices you've made with your life, how you choose to spend your time, etc than who's more intellectual or intelligent.

 

What gets me more just the intellectualism is if someone is applying it to something they are passionate about. So if I think to myself "wow these stories she is writing really are killer," or "hmm maybe just maybe those health policy ideas of hers might really become widely relevant some day," that's pretty intoxicating.

 

Otherwise I think umlaut said it pretty well regarding the notion that these things are best considered in the light of "relative to oneself" rather than trying to arbitrarily define levels of intellect. Also that other manner of intelligence and mental stimulation are good too - rather than exclusively looking for educational pedigree.

 

I've said over and over (and over) again that I LOVE a man who is more intelligent AND intellectual than I am. Because I enjoy the intellectual pursuit, I enjoy learning. I want a man who can TEACH me. That's hot.

 

Still, I'd want to be able to understand what he is saying and have discourse with him.

 

I absolutely agree that all these things are "best considered in the light of 'relative to oneself' rather than trying to arbitrarily define levels of intellect."

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe I've ever claimed otherwise.

 

The question is implying the psychology of the person who finds his significant other to be more intelligent than him. The question is assuming that the man thinks the woman is more intelligent than him, regardless of whether she actually is.

 

My question is: assuming that the man thinks the woman is more intelligent than he is, would he find her romantically attractive?

 

Most, though not all *cough* alphamale *cough*, men want a woman they can converse with but not one who he deems as being far superior to his intellect.

 

(Not that I realize in many of my posts I'm switching between third-person singular and plural by avoiding the use of "they" in relation to "men" and "women," because I am discussing both genders in the sentence and the use is tricky as "they" doesn't indicate the gender distinction in English that "he/she" does.)

 

I don't think the same holds true for women in the way that it does for men. Probably due to some "being the breadwinner" i.e. intellectual-heavy issue that many men have.

 

So, just as a number of men don't want their wives to support them while they stay at home, a number of men don't want a woman whom THEY THINK is superior to his intellect.

[Vertex]

Mensa is one of those things that, to me, indicate an ego moreso than intellect!

 

Intelligence is great because I want a woman who can make rational decisions with good judgment in any setting. I also find that more intelligent women have a better capacity for a stronger sense of humor. Someone who is an observant, quick learner and good communicator with a good sense of self-introspection and a firm understanding of their feelings/beliefs/relationships/etc is very attractive to me.

[InspiredbyYou]

I doubt you've read Krugman's books. He's got some solid statistics and facts, to back his theories but oh lord, sometimes it's so very difficult to get beyond the way he writes, in a conspiracy theorist-like manner.

 

While I have a lot of respect and admiration for Krugman, no one can deny that he's got a pretty big chip on his shoulders.

 

 

But what's your point?

 

I was saying that Sam spade had it right, if people actually understood what it takes to be an intellectual in the TRUE sense of the word, their romanticized perceptions would vanish in thin air. A lot of the time people think they know what an intellectual is, and they don't even know what they are talking about. Hence this entire thread.

 

The Dalai Lama is an intellectual, how many women fantasize about doing it with the Dalai Lama? Or are we creating archetypal Frankensteins of the perfect man, Brad Pitt's body, with the intellect of Ralph Emerson, and the romantic appeal of Antonio Banderas? Then sure, being an intellectual is a hot commodity!

[always_searching]

The Dalai Lama is an intellectual, how many women fantasize about doing it with the Dalai Lama?

 

:bunny::bunny:If he wasn't celebate...*raises hand*:bunny:

 

[InspiredbyYou]

Sorry I meant to correct my last post, I meant "some of the comments in the thread" not the entire thread.

[threebyfate]

But what's your point?

 

I was saying that Sam spade had it right, if people actually understood what it takes to be an intellectual in the TRUE sense of the word, their romanticized perceptions would vanish in thin air. A lot of the time people think they know what an intellectual is, and they don't even know what they are talking about. Hence this entire thread.

 

The Dalai Lama is an intellectual, how many women fantasize about doing it with the Dalai Lama? Or are we creating archetypal Frankensteins of the perfect man, Brad Pitt's body, with the intellect of Ralph Emerson, and the romantic appeal of Antonio Banderas? Then sure, being an intellectual is a hot commodity!

Sam Spade listed Krugman as an intellectual, hence my point.

 

I disagree that the Dalai Lama is an intellectual. He's just a symbol.