Men: Do women of superior intellect romantically interest you?

[threebyfate]

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!

I can see the stage now. A smoky coffee shop, a little sensuous jazz playing in the background, one man in a black beret, spouting really bad poetry on stage and many goth girls, in the front row tables, sobbing over the beauty of nihilism, Nietzsche in hand.

 

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 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.

You've made my argument for me in some ways. It's why I discount so many "intellectuals".

[always_searching]

Argh, you took the words of out my mouth TBF, curse you

 

"You took the words right out of my mouth...oh, it must of been while you were kissing me. You took the words right out of my mouth...oh, I swear it's true I was just about to say 'I love you'!"

 

 

TBF and Northstar1! I'm shocked at you both!

[Ody]

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.

 

Heh this is what my silly little Heidegger Jaspers thing was getting at. I should really go back to the low hanging fruit, fart jokes in the sex threads and such.

 

Anyway now we're even, I think I said something for you about 10 posts ago.

[always_searching]

You've made my argument for me in some ways. It's why I discount so many "intellectuals".

 

But you are an intellectual, TBF! Acceptance is the first step...

[Vertex]

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.

 

I disagree with this. I think it is very much possible to remove emotion from the equation when considering something rationally. We're capable of emotion and may even be biologically inclined to view the world through a lens of emotion in many instances, but it does not mean we're confined to it.

[always_searching]

Heh this is what my silly little Heidegger Jaspers thing was getting at. I should really go back to the low hanging fruit, fart jokes in the sex threads and such.

 

Anyway now we're even, I think I said something for you about 10 posts ago.

 

So, you were jesting with your question? Or attempting to illustrate how someone who is an intellectual can't have emotional preferences?

 

I did state I enjoy reading both. I read a number of philosophers who I don't care for in the slightest--just because I don't like them doesn't indicate that there is nothing of worth in what they have written.

 

Yes, prehaps you should go back to the fart jokes...

[threebyfate]

"You took the words right out of my mouth...oh, it must of been while you were kissing me. You took the words right out of my mouth...oh, I swear it's true I was just about to say 'I love you'!"

 

 

TBF and Northstar1! I'm shocked at you both!

northstar is my twin, separated by birth, sibs from different mothers, so don't be shocked.

 

Heh this is what my silly little Heidegger Jaspers thing was getting at. I should really go back to the low hanging fruit, fart jokes in the sex threads and such.

 

Anyway now we're even, I think I said something for you about 10 posts ago.

 

But you are an intellectual, TBF! Acceptance is the first step...

Look, no need to stoop to personal insults.

[mem11363]

AS,

 

I am not certain you are describing your desires accurately. You claim to want a mate who is both more intelligent and more knowledgeable so they can teach you. Actually a randomly selected male of equivalent intelligence and curiosity would be able to teach you a lot since they will likely know many things you do not and vice versa. And that will be a combination of true knowledge/wisdom as well as factual information.

 

What you appear to want is someone who can intellectually dominate you. For someone such as yourself who places such a premium on brains, this makes sense. The average woman is turned on by males who are physically far more powerful, and you are simply seeking the cognitive equivalent.

 

Personally I would gladly choose a playful, humorous partner who is a cognitive peer over a far more intelligent partner who lacks the ability to banter.

 

 

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?

[Ody]

So, you were jesting with your question? Or attempting to illustrate how someone who is an intellectual can't have emotional preferences?

 

I did state I enjoy reading both. I read a number of philosophers who I don't care for in the slightest--just because I don't like them doesn't indicate that there is nothing of worth in what they have written.

 

Yes, prehaps you should go back to the fart jokes...

 

Ouch! I was actually just being self-depricating with TBH about how I can't pull off ambitious and intellectual humor.

 

I personally see Heidegger as having a highly systematic and intellectual approach that assumes one can have a universal applicable philosophical system. Jaspers, not so much. It's a (drastically dumbed down and bastardized for quick e-consumption and humor) Jaspers versus Heidegger comparison I've encountered often before, hence whether all philosophers are intellectual, blah blah blah. Never mind. Any joke that requires explanation is not a good one, so I'll go back to the drawing board.

 

So... a flatulent sex fiend and two hyenas walk into a bar...

[always_searching]

I disagree with this. I think it is very much possible to remove emotion from the equation when considering something rationally. We're capable of emotion and may even be biologically inclined to view the world through a lens of emotion in many instances, but it does not mean we're confined to it.

 

We are just as confined to our emotion as we are to our body--we can no more intellectually turn off our emotion than we can intellectually step outside of our bodies. Once we become brains without bodies, or purely spiritual beings: then yes, I agree that pure rationality is a possibility. As much as I love Descartes and the other neo-Platonists: it's just not possible be purely rational beings without having some element of our biological humanity i.e. body/emotion seep-through.

[always_searching]

So... a flatulent sex fiend and two hyenas walk into a bar...

 

AND? What happens next?!

[Vertex]

We are just as confined to our emotion as we are to our body--we can no more intellectually turn off our emotion than we can intellectually step outside of our bodies. Once we become brains without bodies, or purely spiritual beings: then yes, I agree that pure rationality is a possibility. As much as I love Descartes and the other neo-Platonists: it's just not possible be purely rational beings without having some element of our biological humanity i.e. body/emotion seep-through.

 

So what is your opinion of science, given this logic?

[always_searching]

So what is your opinion of science, given this logic?

 

A science is an organized body of knowledge. Philosophy is a science, as is psychology, sociology, etc. I'm assuming you mean natural science (i.e. physics, or some other area that seems to have a more unbiased factual database) and not social science?

 

Regardless of what you mean, science is part of any discipline that observes, records, and analyzes. Granted, there are some areas of intellectual pursuit that don't necessarily have emotions involved, mathematics, for example. LOL, but even then, when you get into more abstract theories of math that have a more lucid structure than, say, basic algebra: people get heated, emotions get involved, and theories get criticized, critiqued, and altered.

 

Unless you are referring to basic observation, I don't think that there are any fields that don't have elements of emotional experience tied to them in one way or another. Even when you are merely observing, you are doing so from the eyes of an emotional being, which will skew your results to your perspective regardless of how hard you try to be neutral and unbiased.

[always_searching]

I'm still eagerly awaiting the rest of your joke!

[Ody]

I'm going to have to obey the first rule of showbiz on this one.

[Vertex]

A science is an organized body of knowledge. Philosophy is a science, as is psychology, sociology, etc. I'm assuming you mean natural science (i.e. physics, or some other area that seems to have a more unbiased factual database) and not social science?

 

Regardless of what you mean, science is part of any discipline that observes, records, and analyzes. Granted, there are some areas of intellectual pursuit that don't necessarily have emotions involved, mathematics, for example. LOL, but even then, when you get into more abstract theories of math that have a more lucid structure than, say, basic algebra: people get heated, emotions get involved, and theories get criticized, critiqued, and altered.

 

Unless you are referring to basic observation, I don't think that there are any fields that don't have elements of emotional experience tied to them in one way or another. Even when you are merely observing, you are doing so from the eyes of an emotional being, which will skew your results to your perspective regardless of how hard you try to be neutral and unbiased.

 

Again, I disagree. Again, just because we're emotional beings doesn't mean we're confined to it. Your example of "people getting heated over argument" is just a function of emotional pertaining to argument, and doesn't mean we're incapable of finding the right approach with a rational structure. Usually heated debates come to life because someone is misinterpreting something or feel their idea of the unknown is better than another's (dare I bring up the infamous 0.999... = 1 argument that so many people misunderstand). Same goes for physics -- we can derive all sorts of explanations that have nothing to do with emotion. When it comes to the unknown, though, people can get "heated" but this doesn't mean that we can't be fully rational in that which we can explain. This is one function of an "intellectual" in my opinion -- someone who can approach the known AND the unknown in a very rational fashion and leave emotion out of the equation unless the concept at hand is, by definition, partly emotional.

 

It is true that, as humans, we are evolutionarily predisposed to noticing certain patterns/functions in a given setting, meaning that there is a lot we can't observe. It is true that "meaning" is purely a human construct. From a rational standpoint, this is why I think there is no reason, for example, to believe that life has any inherent meaning or purpose other than what we make of it on an emotional/utilitarian/socially optimal level.

 

Either way, I think a true "intellectual" seeks questions and answers through rational intellect, and this differs from a philosopher, who is indeed a "lover of wisdom," but is still prone to examining various philosophies through the lens of emotion. If one is an intellectual, it doesn't mean he/she can't analyze emotion or its implications with respect to human interaction, but I do think that you have to be rational. I think it's a subtle but important distinction.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Vertex

[theumlaut]

Well, personally, I don't think that the SAT, GRE, etc. are good indicators of intelligence.

 

Yes, a very ripe point of discussion. I just threw those out as generally accepted ways of trying to measure intelligence that are easily stated as a way to make my point. SAT, GRE and the like, of course, are considered tests of "g," so are IQ tests in the end according to psychometricians and others (and I totally blew the GRE away, so I'm biased!). But in your further explanation for your views, you have a much more complex understanding of it all, so perhaps the notion of an innate intelligence level is not accepted by our.

 

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.

 

You know to answer your question in another way, the intelligence level of women that I'm attracted to is so important to me that in part, I realize now, I was motivated to go to grad school in part to meet very bright women. There are a lot of fish in the ocean, but the avg. level of intelligence of fish in the PhD ocean is much higher than for the general population. (Even more so in the very elite schools). Over and over I mourn the loss of being surrounding by very smart, intellectually-inclined people all the time, everywhere, in having had to leave grad school and the academic environment. Particularly being around so many good women, most of whom were "smart enough" for me, who wouldn't think I was weird for my intellectual leanings and dominant abstract reasoning process.

 

In my searching of personals ads, I have a search for people just with BA's, one for those with doctorates of some sort, and one for other grad degrees, with an emphasis on the latter two for whom I contact, so I walk the walk.

 

Me: I'm interested.

 

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

 

Me, too. Let's talk.

[Curious-One]

I love smart girls... i actually am attracted to smart girls so much that i have gone after some very nerdy girls!

[Ariadne]

I love smart girls... i actually am attracted to smart girls so much that i have gone after some very nerdy girls!

 

In my experience men love smart girls, and the smarter the better.

 

I've never seen a man being disheartened by that, except by a woman that is trying to compete with him.

[threebyfate]

IME, there are all kinds of men. The following are a few of them:

• Some want a woman who's intelligent enough to laugh at their witticisms and be entertaining to them but intelligence isn't as important as looks. This kind of man is all about himself.
  
• Some want an intelligent woman, for many reasons, whereby intelligence is a coveted attribute.
  
• Some immediately assume that intelligence in a woman is a negative, in that it automatically competes with them or puts them at a disadvantage. This is a self-esteem issue.
  

[fral945]

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?

 

I ask the latter, because I find that older men are more open to being with intellectual women than younger men are; but, I'm also in college, so maybe my demographic is altering the outcome.

 

(1) I would prefer someone intellectual but not greatly above me. Lower or equal is fine, though. Honestly I'd be uncomfortable with someone greatly above or below me in intelligence.

 

(2) Well, if she's too smart, we probably won't have a lot in common. I consider myself smart but not a genius. I value learning and education but believe in too much of a good thing, so I believe someone can be too educated to be romantically interesting. If I'm looking for a wife/GF, education is only a small part of the package. Other factors like love, affection, physical beauty, sex life, living a healthy lifestyle, how she handles kids, housework, stress, etc are more important IMO. Intelligence is a smaller (but still necessary) part.

 

(3) Age: 29. Social position: I have no idea. Engineer with a bachelor's degree. Not rich but not quite a bum either, lol.

[calizaggy]

Men do not think in that manner when seeking a mate.. If you are attracted to a woman, and she is kind, and likes you, then great.

 

I have dated several women, and never thought "Oh she is too intelligent",or "She is more intelligent than me"

 

What men do not like is a "know it all", that constantly thinks they are right, constantly wants to argue, correct you, etc.

[burning 4 revenge]

Ill bring the beauty and she can bring the brains (and the steady high paying job)

[Sam Spade]

Either way, I think a true "intellectual" seeks questions and answers through rational intellect, and this differs from a philosopher, who is indeed a "lover of wisdom," but is still prone to examining various philosophies through the lens of emotion. If one is an intellectual, it doesn't mean he/she can't analyze emotion or its implications with respect to human interaction, but I do think that you have to be rational. I think it's a subtle but important distinction.

 

Absolutely...

 

It is no coincidence that the Russian word "intelligentzia" has NO analog in the English language. The reason is simply that it describes the class of artists, scientists, and poets in the former USSR whose occupations gave them marginal freedoms to examine and question the premises of the totalitarian regime. In this sense the regime made it easier for such class to exist since its obvious shortcomings fueled the intellectual aspirations of many people to look beyond that, even as a serious cost to themselves. Thus although many of the "intelligentzia" intellectuals were poets or artists (not just scientists), they qualify as intellectuals since their work and life for the most part have been devoted to questioning the existing social order and discussing ideas of what alternatives are out there, even if the means of doing so are often just subtle forms of social criticism hidden in creative expression.

 

Needless to say, the establishment poets/artists on the party's payroll don't quite qualify as "intelligentzia" even though some of them are of course quite tallented. Similarly, while many intellectuals are college professors, most college professors are not intellectuals (I surely am not:o). Currently, the west is way too content with the way things are, hence the absence of strong intellectual class.

 

At the end of the day, although intellectual-not intellectual is a continuum rather than discrete categories, the necessary and sufficient condition is that this is someone who seeks to understand and influence the world through the rigorous development and application of ideas. This typically excludes hipsters with stingy brim fedoras and most dinner party conversations:lmao:.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Sam Spade

[threebyfate]

most dinner party conversations.

Actually, dinner party conversations run this world, but only if you're paying attention.