shadowplay Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 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. I agree. It seems like a den of insecurity and overcompensation. If somebody is so smart and successful why would they need a test and club membership to prove it? I'd rather date somebody who is out there in the world doing interesting things.
alclarkey Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 I haven't read this entire thread (17 pages is a bit much) but I will throw this out there: I find myself attracted to smart women. I don't like dumb women, and I don't like smart women that always have to prove it to you. If I date a smart woman there is a chance she will be smarter than me. If she never tries to lord it over me, or prove it to me, then I don't care. I want to enjoy her intelligence, not compete with her.
Author always_searching Posted November 27, 2009 Author Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) Sam Spade listed Krugman as an intellectual, hence my point. I disagree that the Dalai Lama is an intellectual. He's just a symbol. Really, TBF? Well, the Dalai Lama as a religious station, perhaps, but the current Dalai Lama is what I'd deem as "an intellectual." All of them should be, however, since they dedicate their entire lives to mastering a spiritual living that very much is dependent upon intellectual understanding and pursuit...much like the Papacy. Course, as a Catholic, I'm not sure I should be making the comparison, but from a purely rational perspective, the two are similar stations; and the station, by its nature, requires an intellectual. Edited November 27, 2009 by always_searching
Author always_searching Posted November 27, 2009 Author Posted November 27, 2009 I'd rather date somebody who is out there in the world doing interesting things. And how! :love:
threebyfate Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 Really, TBF? Well, the Dalai Lama as a religious station, perhaps, but the current Dalai Lama is what I'd deem as "an intellectual." All of them should be, however, since they dedicate their entire lives to mastering a spiritual living that very much is dependent upon intellectual understanding and pursuit...much like the Papacy. Course, as a Catholic, I'm not sure I should be making the comparison, but from a purely rational perspective, the two are similar stations; and the station, by its nature, requires an intellectual.Okay, I'll fold to the following rationale: religious icons = connected to never-neverland intellectuals = connected to never-neverland hence religious icons can be viewed as intellectuals :laugh:
Ody Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) 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. Sorry, I'm new here and the thread is very long. Also I was asking women in general but I do appreciate your response. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe I've ever claimed otherwise. You didn't. The thread is getting into mensa and SAT scores and the definition of a true intellectual and such. In terms of advice for the dating trenches that stuff is less applicable than a relative definition as proposed by umlaut. Basically I was kissing umlaut's ass. My question is: assuming that the man thinks the woman is more intelligent than he is, would he find her romantically attractive? Gotcha, then my short answer is yes I would find her attractive. My long and the better answer is that it's not a particularly relevant question (for me) because I don't think it's feasible (for me) to determine who is more intelligent among me and the sort of chicks I ideally prefer to roll with. 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. Yes I do agree with you that such an underlying consideration probably often exists for men and comes into play here sometimes. Fortunately not for me in particular, or at least I'd like to think so! I am neanderthal now and again though so perhaps guilty as charged. Also, I don't think that's the only or dominant factor because I think women often have similar issues when they think their mate is smarter. I mentioned one personal example before, and since I'm already kissing umlaut's ass I'll agree with him on his other point that he doesn't specifically try to advertise his intellect when looking for women. I don't know that it hurts more than it helps, as he said, but it sure muddies the waters. 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. In a particular case where a man (or anyone, for that matter) thinks that his mate is smarter than him, but actually she is not, I would suspect that there are more fundamental esteem or perception issues at play that dominate the gender considerations. In the other cases... I suspect you are right but don't really know or feel strongly, and do feel that even though there are probably gender specific considerations, they may be largely overshadowed by gender neutral ones. It's an interesting question. Edited November 27, 2009 by Ody
Author always_searching Posted November 27, 2009 Author Posted November 27, 2009 How old are you, AS? 24. You, Vertex?
Vertex Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 The thing about an "intellectual" is that I think it has dual meaning. On one hand, you have "intellectuals" who deal with things pertaining to abstract/complex levels of knowledge, thought, and philosophy in a sort of epistemological format. But I'd also say you can have "intellectuals" that are just very rational individuals with a high level of practical application. Are we just going to make the assumption that all philosophers are inherently intellectuals? Because I would argue that the Dalai Lama is more of a philosopher than an intellectual.
Vertex Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 24. You, Vertex? 23. I was curious because you seemed to have an attraction for men in their 30's-40's (unless I have totally misread you!). Would you say you're more attracted to "father figures" with "wisdom" or is it that you just happen to find more "intellectual faculties" in older men?
Author always_searching Posted November 27, 2009 Author Posted November 27, 2009 Okay, I'll fold to the following rationale: religious icons = connected to never-neverland intellectuals = connected to never-neverland hence religious icons can be viewed as intellectuals :laugh: Hahaha! Good syllogism and touche. :lmao:
shadowplay Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 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 think the truth lies somewhere in-between. Somebody doesn't need to be accomplished or an ascetic hermit to be an intellectual. (I also don't agree that devoting your life to ideas means living in never-never land.) It has more to do with how somebody spends their free mental energy. There are many smart people who are completely unsophisticated outside of their professions. This is particularly true in certain fields: medical, business, finance. I consider people like this only intelligent in a narrow fashion, because they often become average once you talk to them about anything outside of their job. Being intellectual also isn't about amassing a certain amount of knowledge or getting a superficial education in a bunch of different areas with no real depth on any given topic. Some amount of knowledge is essential, but it has more to do with how the person thinks. Whether they take the time to observe the world around them, absorb and analyze new ideas. And most importantly whether their ideas are nuanced and logical. Not just superficial or driven by some personal agenda.
Author always_searching Posted November 27, 2009 Author Posted November 27, 2009 23. I was curious because you seemed to have an attraction for men in their 30's-40's (unless I have totally misread you!). Would you say you're more attracted to "father figures" with "wisdom" or is it that you just happen to find more "intellectual faculties" in older men? Well, I've actually dealt with that issue viz. "father figure" in other threads. I am indeed attracted to older men (30's-40's). I'm not sure if it's to do with transference or if it's just that I find more "intellectual faculties" in older men. I think it's a combination of the two. I've never met a 24 year old man who knows significantly more than I do--I think there needs to be that age gap to allow for the experience and extra time necessary to accumulate more knowledge. Does that make sense?
Vertex Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 Well, I've actually dealt with that issue viz. "father figure" in other threads. I am indeed attracted to older men (30's-40's). I'm not sure if it's to do with transference or if it's just that I find more "intellectual faculties" in older men. I think it's a combination of the two. I've never met a 24 year old man who knows significantly more than I do--I think there needs to be that age gap to allow for the experience and extra time necessary to accumulate more knowledge. Does that make sense? Yep, makes sense. I ask because I have a friend with a similar taste in men, and I've discussed the concept with her at length. Not sure if this applies to you at all, but would you say that confidence in one's own knowledge has anything to do with it? For example, an older man is more or less established with his life and is more confident in his knowledge than a younger man who is still going through transitional periods in terms of acquiring knowledge at a proportionally greater rate and may have not yet had the time to truly harness it all in a unified, cohesive way?
Author always_searching Posted November 27, 2009 Author Posted November 27, 2009 Are we just going to make the assumption that all philosophers are inherently intellectuals? Because I would argue that the Dalai Lama is more of a philosopher than an intellectual. The etymology of "philosopher" is Greek for "Lover of Wisdom." So, yes, I'd say that "philosopher" in the fullest sense of the term (Note: I'm not indicating that the goth girl at the coffee shop reading Nietzsche is a "philosopher" in this sense, or any sense really) is indeed in the realm of "intellectual." Of course, that's not to imply that all intellectuals are philosophers, but rather that all philosophers are intellectuals.
Ody Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 Of course, that's not to imply that all intellectuals are philosophers, but rather that all philosophers are intellectuals. So are you a Heidegger or Jaspers kind of gal?
Vertex Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 The etymology of "philosopher" is Greek for "Lover of Wisdom." So, yes, I'd say that "philosopher" in the fullest sense of the term (Note: I'm not indicating that the goth girl at the coffee shop reading Nietzsche is a "philosopher" in this sense, or any sense really) is indeed in the realm of "intellectual." Of course, that's not to imply that all intellectuals are philosophers, but rather that all philosophers are intellectuals. Granted, but the pitfall I want to avoid here is the notion that simply thinking about knowledge or "wisdom" automatically makes one an "intellectual," because I'm not entirely convinced that this is true. This brings up a contrast to what others have been saying in this thread, using "ability" as a supplemental gauge with respect to intellectual performance. Is it possible to have a "dumb intellectual"? I think "ability" only rears its true form in the ability to ask the right questions, and I think this is the grey area in which that gauge has the greatest weight in pulling the status of "intellectual" forward.
Author always_searching Posted November 27, 2009 Author Posted November 27, 2009 Not sure if this applies to you at all, but would you say that confidence in one's own knowledge has anything to do with it? For example, an older man is more or less established with his life and is more confident in his knowledge than a younger man who is still going through transitional periods in terms of acquiring knowledge at a proportionally greater rate and may have not yet had the time to truly harness it all in a unified, cohesive way? I'd say that has quite a bit to do with it. I've met intelligent young men, but they certainly don't present themselves in an as appealing of a manner as the older, more confident man does. I think confidence is the underlying issue with any attraction, be it intellectual, physical, or otherwise. So, for example, an attractive young man doesn't look nearly as good as an attractive older man who has the confidence that seems to be established with age. There is just something about older people...they're very much like a vintage wine with a full-bodied taste and appeal that is universally recognizable.
Author always_searching Posted November 27, 2009 Author Posted November 27, 2009 So are you a Heidegger or Jaspers kind of gal? Awww...I like reading both. However, I'm not very fond of existentialism; so, I'd probably read Heidegger over Jaspers, if I had to chose. I have to say, I like Jaspers work in psychology better than his work in philosophy. You?
threebyfate Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 The etymology of "philosopher" is Greek for "Lover of Wisdom." So, yes, I'd say that "philosopher" in the fullest sense of the term (Note: I'm not indicating that the goth girl at the coffee shop reading Nietzsche is a "philosopher" in this sense, or any sense really) is indeed in the realm of "intellectual." Of course, that's not to imply that all intellectuals are philosophers, but rather that all philosophers are intellectuals.I had to laugh at the goth girl and Nietzsche example! An intellectual is solely driven by the intellect. A philosopher isn't solely driven by intellect. There are enough philosophies which are driven by a combination of intellect and emotion. So in this, I'll have to disagree.
Vertex Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 I had to laugh at the goth girl and Nietzsche example! An intellectual is solely driven by the intellect. A philosopher isn't solely driven by intellect. There are enough philosophies which are driven by a combination of intellect and emotion. So in this, I'll have to disagree. I would definitely agree with this.
Ody Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 Awww...I like reading both. However, I'm not very fond of existentialism; so, I'd probably read Heidegger over Jaspers, if I had to chose. I have to say, I like Jaspers work in psychology better than his work in philosophy. You? Jaspers kind of gal. Except I'm a boy.
northstar1 Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 I had to laugh at the goth girl and Nietzsche example! An intellectual is solely driven by the intellect. A philosopher isn't solely driven by intellect. There are enough philosophies which are driven by a combination of intellect and emotion. So in this, I'll have to disagree. Argh, you took the words of out my mouth TBF, curse you
threebyfate Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 I would definitely agree with this.I can't take credit for the goth girl example, which is the best part of my post. That one's owned by always searching. Argh, you took the words of out my mouth TBF, curse you Ha...get typing faster northstar!
Author always_searching Posted November 27, 2009 Author Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) I had to laugh at the goth girl and Nietzsche example! An intellectual is solely driven by the intellect. A philosopher isn't solely driven by intellect. There are enough philosophies which are driven by a combination of intellect and emotion. So in this, I'll have to disagree. Hahaha, as an undergraduate, I use to know so many of those girls... I think they're probably still on the same chapter of On the Genealogy of Morality that they were on three years ago...probably still pissed off at the world, while hanging out at the same coffee shops too! As far as you're statement that "An intellectual is solely driven by the intellect", I have to disagree. The only people who are solely driven by the intellect are (maybe) Platonists, neo-Platonists, stoics, and/or Vulcans. Actually, try as they may, it's impossible for even those I cited in my previous paragraph--except, maybe, Vulcans --to totally ignore emotion when considering something intellectually. Human-beings are emotional creatures, try as we may, we can't separate our emotions from any area of our life, even within the realm of the intellect; we can only "tone them down" in order to be as un-bias as possible, which is something most philosophers and other intellectuals try to do. Edited November 27, 2009 by always_searching
Recommended Posts