boytoy Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I have a question for the ladies. Which do you value more in a man: social intelligence, or traditional "book smarts"? Say, for example that you have a choice between two men, one is a brilliant intellectual, say a highly successful writer or scientist or something, and the other a social butterfly with many friends and a way with people. Also suppose that the intellectual is not so great with people and is pretty much a loner, though you enjoy his company, and suppose the social butterfly is of about average intelligence in the classical sense. Which would you pick and why?
Els Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 That's a pretty unfair categorization of the two. The social butterfly gets to be 'average' in the classical sense, but the classically intelligent guy doesn't get to be 'average' in the social sense? I tend towards classically intelligent men who are average socially. Not a social butterfly, I couldn't stand being with those, but not a complete loner either. Someone with a few friends and reasonable social skills, who also likes spending lots of time chilling out at home with me.
Author boytoy Posted June 1, 2012 Author Posted June 1, 2012 Good point Elswyth. I posed the question unfairly. Lets fork it into two questions: intellectual loner vs social-butterfly dummy, and intellectual with average social abilities vs social butterfly with average intelligence. I'd be interested to hear womens' answers to either. That's a pretty unfair categorization of the two. The social butterfly gets to be 'average' in the classical sense, but the classically intelligent guy doesn't get to be 'average' in the social sense? I tend towards classically intelligent men who are average socially. Not a social butterfly, I couldn't stand being with those, but not a complete loner either. Someone with a few friends and reasonable social skills, who also likes spending lots of time chilling out at home with me.
Els Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 Well, I answered the latter already. As to the former, ugh, neither.
Emilia Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 No dummies thanks but when it comes to 'average' I'd rather have the social butterfly than the bookworm. Extroverted guys are good for me because I can have introverted tendencies. I like men with good social skills and there are a lot of people I can have heavy intellectual conversations with, including the debating group I have just joined.
Julesy Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) Classically intelligent with average social skills is the only one worth dating. Edited June 1, 2012 by Julesy
LittlePrince Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 Women will pick the one with the most social status so the one with the friends. Nerds don't have social status.
FitChick Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 Not all PhDs are the same. I dated one who wanted to constantly debate me on everything and it was exhausting. Another guy had a very relaxed attitude and a great sense of humor. Balance is important.
verhrzn Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 That's a pretty unfair categorization of the two. The social butterfly gets to be 'average' in the classical sense, but the classically intelligent guy doesn't get to be 'average' in the social sense? I tend towards classically intelligent men who are average socially. Not a social butterfly, I couldn't stand being with those, but not a complete loner either. Someone with a few friends and reasonable social skills, who also likes spending lots of time chilling out at home with me. Doubled agree.
LittlePrince Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 Not all PhDs are the same. I dated one who wanted to constantly debate me on everything and it was exhausting. Another guy had a very relaxed attitude and a great sense of humor. Balance is important. One wasn't a real PhD
threebyfate Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 Why the dichotomous needs? Most guys sit center spectrum.
LittlePrince Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 Why the dichotomous needs? Most guys sit center spectrum. If center spectrum is socially retarded and classically retarded then yes most people are both.
ThaWholigan Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I would imagine that a happy medium of the two would be more desirable to most women, considering that many women would possess a reasonable amount of both social and classical intelligence. I admit that I believe myself to be naturally very intelligent in a classical sense, in a non-big headed way of course . But I have had a strong interest in social intelligence over the years, and would like to have a relatively high level of both classical and social intelligence, but this is simply a personal side-quest of mine . 1
LittlePrince Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I would imagine that a happy medium of the two would be more desirable to most women, Yes, women love to date up. considering that many women would possess a reasonable amount of both social and classical intelligence. I haven't seen that play out. Most women are quite privileged so they haven't had to develop their minds and since they are already socially favored they haven't had to develop socially either.
pteromom Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 intellectual loner vs social-butterfly dummy Neither! I'd be single forever if these were my only choices. But I'd have both of them as friends. I'd go have deep conversations with loner, and would go out with dummy. intellectual with average social abilities vs social butterfly with average intelligence. And - either! I value both book smarts and social smarts, so either of these would be ok. If everything else about them was equal, I'd probably go with the social guy.
Recommended Posts