smarty pants girl can't find a smarty pants boy

[lindya]

There is something I do not get.

What does your wife do in her free time?

Does she have any hobbies/interest?.

 

That's a good point. Most people are capable of having a passion for something. Some people might be able to walk through a park and tell you the name of every tree and plant they see. Others could discuss psycho-analytic theory for hours on end. A could have an impressive knowledge of physics, B might be a mine of information about the rules, history and techniques of a particular sport - while C speaks several languages simply because she loves collecting words and communicating with other people.

 

Sometimes people need a bit of help and encouragement to find their passion. To provide that encouragement effectively, a person maybe needs to be able to step away from their own particular passion for long enough to say "hey - I've noticed you seem to have a talent for X. Why don't you start developing that?"

 

Isn't that one of the things good friends, lovers and partners do for eachother?

 

(But when you're choosing your partner, and you're an intellectual, it is advisable that you seek to find one.)

 

Gee but that's helpful.

 

Good thing to tell people to look. How's about suggesting where to look?

 

What about Mensa? Don't they have social get togethers?

[Adunaphel]

What about Mensa? Don't they have social get togethers?

 

A girl I know managed to enter Mensa (passing the IQ test they set up)... her comment about the Mensa people was "what a bunch of weirdos"....

[lindya]

A girl I know managed to enter Mensa (passing the IQ test they set up)... her comment about the Mensa people was "what a bunch of weirdos"....

 

That's what I've heard. I used to work with a guy who was a member, and he was maybe a little bit strange but generally an okay bloke. My gut reaction was "it's sad that he needs the validation of belonging to a high IQ club", but those were just my assumptions at work. Some people might join it for that reason, but others may be attracted to the idea purely because a high level of intelligence is top of their "potential friends/partners must have.." list. Mensa gives them a guarantee that people they meet through the club will not fall below that requirement.

 

The drawback is, of course, that a high IQ doesn't guarantee that a person will be attractive in other ways, emotionally intelligent or fun to spend time with. If a person's need for intellectual stimulation outweighs their other needs, then Mensa might be as good a starting point as any, though. If nothing else, meeting fellow members may well be the acid test in helping someone to decide whether intellectual ability really does top that list of "must haves."

[burning 4 revenge]

What's the minimal IQ

 

Mine is 125, but I'm hispanic, so I think that should be sufficient

[Adunaphel]

What's the minimal IQ

 

Mine is 125, but I'm hispanic, so I think that should be sufficient

 

To join Mensa?

 

I think it's 131 in the Wechsler Intelligence Scale (just checked on the local mensa website).

[Guest]

If someone describes himself as an intellectual, I'll want to read the book he's had published.

 

I'm fairly sure that neither Webster nor Oxford delineate 'intellectual' only as 'published author'. Indeed, I've read some books that were clearly not written by intellectuals LOL.

 

I don't know why people are giving mine own self such a hard time. I've run into plenty people for whom 'learning' equates to 'torture on the rack'. Who are proud of never reading newspapers. In fact, in parts of North America, there's an undercurrent of anti-intellectualism.

 

He has a passion for learning and says he has a wife who hasn't one. Doesn't mean the wife is bad, but I can fully understand how difficult it would be to have as a life partner someone who doesn't share that passion.

 

The way people are responding is very interesting.

[Ripples]

I'm fairly sure that neither Webster nor Oxford delineate 'intellectual' only as 'published author'. Indeed, I've read some books that were clearly not written by intellectuals LOL.

 

"Some intellectuals write books" does not equate to "all books are written by intellectuals".

 

LOL

[DanielMadr]

Im sorry to break the news for you....We men are mainly attracted by looks....7/10 looks and 3/10 personality. Put more effort in your sexappeal. Dont slouch, maintain eye contact, flirt a little bit, smile, be sexy, show some skin....be a woman, girl

[burning 4 revenge]

Im sorry to break the news for you....We men are mainly attracted by looks....7/10 looks and 3/10 personality. Put more effort in your sexappeal. Dont slouch, maintain eye contact, flirt a little bit, smile, be sexy, show some skin....be a woman, girl

speak for yourself danielmadr.

 

i would reverse your ratios for myself and a lot of guys i know

[Adunaphel]

speak for yourself danielmadr.

 

i would reverse your ratios for myself and a lot of guys i know

 

:love: :love:

[Guest]

We men are mainly attracted by looks....7/10 looks and 3/10 personality.

 

Boys are attracted by looks. Men are attracted by the whole of the woman.

 

Imagine if you were told that the only truly significant aspect of your whole self was the outer layer of epidermis that coats your organs. Bet you'd have a TON of respect for someone who basically would adore the lobotomized you if only the front bit looked nice.

[lindya]

I'm fairly sure that neither Webster nor Oxford delineate 'intellectual' only as 'published author'. Indeed, I've read some books that were clearly not written by intellectuals LOL.

 

I don't know why people are giving mine own self such a hard time.

 

That comment about wanting to read the intellectual's book wasn't aimed at MOS. Given that he's worked in Academia, he probably does have published works to his name. What I had in mind with my "where's the book?"

comment was the person who describes themselves as an intellectual - but who, in reality, does nothing more than regurgitate other people's theories.

 

To me, that's a person who perhaps enjoys intellectual stimulation - but the intellectual is surely the person who provided that stimulation through the research, development and recording of their own ideas and theories. In that sense, I find it misleading when people describe themselves as being intellectuals. The word suggests to me that they have been involved in a ground-breaking area of study, when often they just view themselves in that light because they enjoy reading.

 

Maybe that's not how you interpret the word, and perhaps you class as an intellectual anyone who happens to spend a lot of time reading. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, because I don't suppose there's any conclusive evidence to back up either your perspective or mine.

 

I've run into plenty people for whom 'learning' equates to 'torture on the rack'. Who are proud of never reading newspapers. In fact, in parts of North America, there's an undercurrent of anti-intellectualism.

 

There may well be. I don't live there. What do you think anti-intellectualism stems from? Why might learning seem like torture to some people? Some intellectuals have the gift of making their subject interesting to other people. Others are so absorbed in their own train of thought that it's very difficult for them to hold a conversation, or show interest in other people. Do you think exposure to the latter might encourage some people to be turned off intellectualism?

[burning 4 revenge]

Well, I guess we can't arrive at a clear definition ot intellectual, but I'll just call it a person who's more concerned with ideas than the physical world. Perhaps thats simplistic as many ideas are intertwined with the physical world, but if your priorities are ideas, or the arts ,as opposed to money and physical pleasure (i'm talking about priorities, not absolutes) then I would consider you an intellectual, even if you're not extremely intelligent. Of course, if you're stupid then it would be difficult to class you as an intellectual.

 

I agree with the poster who says there is an anti-intellectual undercurrent in the U.S. Look at our state of culture. The music industry and the popular television programs. Not very many lofty artistic visions there.

 

Also, in the last election, the Republicans were trying to denegrate John Kerry as an elitist. It had nothing to do with money, because Bush is also rich. By elitist they meant intellectual snob and that type of demonizing the intelligensia works over here.

[lindya]

Well, I guess we can't arrive at a clear definition ot intellectual, but I'll just call it a person who's more concerned with ideas than the physical world. Perhaps thats simplistic as many ideas are intertwined with the physical world, but if your priorities are ideas, or the arts ,as opposed to money and physical pleasure (i'm talking about priorities, not absolutes) then I would consider you an intellectual, even if you're not extremely intelligent. Of course, if you're stupid then it would be difficult to class you as an intellectual.

 

I agree with the poster who says there is an anti-intellectual undercurrent in the U.S. Look at our state of culture. The music industry and the popular television programs. Not very many lofty artistic visions there.

 

Also, in the last election, the Republicans were trying to denegrate John Kerry as an elitist. It had nothing to do with money, because Bush is also rich. By elitist they meant intellectual snob and that type of demonizing the intelligensia works over here.

 

There's certainly a lot of sense in that. On the other hand, not every intellectual is a Democrat. Isn't public opinion is influenced by behind-the-scenes intellectuals? People who are adept at exploiting the growing distaste for political correctness, and encouraging the public to associate ludicrous examples of it with the left wing intelligentsia?

 

I think there's a temptation for people to confine the "intellectual" label to those who share their values and political allegiances. I'm sure there are quite a few Democrats who would be quick to dismiss the notion, for instance, that Ayn Rand was a formidable intellectual - purely because they don't like the views she expressed.

 

We talk about society being dumbed down, but to my mind some of the worst dumbing down occurs when people will only class as "intellectually brilliant" that which they like and approve of.

[DanielMadr]

speak for yourself danielmadr.

 

i would reverse your ratios for myself and a lot of guys i know

 

Thats because you are hypocrite. Relationship between man and woman is sexual primarily (making children). Soulmate theory is myth. Ofcorse personality is important but sexappeal (which is also made of personality) is crucial.

[DanielMadr]

Boys are attracted by looks. Men are attracted by the whole of the woman.

 

Imagine if you were told that the only truly significant aspect of your whole self was the outer layer of epidermis that coats your organs. Bet you'd have a TON of respect for someone who basically would adore the lobotomized you if only the front bit looked nice.

 

Yep. You need 10/10 to complete the picture. It is about what has more weight. Ofcourse it has to be whole package.

 

You can respect and even like someone without sexappeal but you wouldnt have sexual relationship with him.

 

Women has it in reverse. 7/10 to personality....good looking wimps are doomed the same way as ugly sunshine girls.

[burning 4 revenge]

Thats because you are hypocrite. Relationship between man and woman is sexual primarily (making children). Soulmate theory is myth. Ofcorse personality is important but sexappeal (which is also made of personality) is crucial.

im not a hypocrite daniel madr.

 

i'm telling you how it with me and other guys i know

 

my friend derek is a very good looking attorney, 6'2, broad shoulders, pretty boy features and at 31 and now making a six figure income he could have anyone he wants, right? he lives not far from orlando lots of nice looking girls there.

 

his wife is decent looking, but not all that pretty. she's extremely smart though and has great personality. by that i don't mean she's nice, she is for the most part, but can be a bitch sometimes...what i mean is she's a character and she's interesting to talk to and believe me he adores her.

 

like the poster above said, little boys are all about the superficialities, but grown men look for substance.

 

i'd take an average looking woman with a wit and a personality over some vacuous bimbo any day of the week. i could never fall in love with a vacuous bimbo.

[Sand&Water]

Burning_4_revenge,

 

Very well said!

 

I completely agree. I would take a man with substance [personality, depth, glory, smarts, spontaneity, et cetera], any day of the week.

 

Sand&Water

[SmoochieFace]

Thats because you are hypocrite. Relationship between man and woman is sexual primarily (making children). Soulmate theory is myth. Ofcorse personality is important but sexappeal (which is also made of personality) is crucial.

 

Oh, stop that.

 

You may find it of interest that a woman's personality can easily carry over into her sex appeal and thus make her look 'better'. It's a combination of the two but personality does edge out looks in the end. Personality is what really makes up a person and remains constant whereas looks can and do change over time - sometimes drastically.

 

Get out and meet some 'real' women - you may be enlightened.

[Kenyth]

You know, relationships and what people look for are very personal things. They also constantly change through life with experience. None of it is necessarily right or wrong, just opinion. Putting someone down for their preference really isn't constructive.

 

Looks are important. More important to some than others, but important nontheless. The same with intellect, charisma, income, age, religion, race, social status, and innumerable other criteria people perceive as important to them. Most of the time, people naturally want someone roughly at their own level or better in the criteria they perceive to be important. With experience, they may adjust their criteria to something that works better for them, or meshes better with their lifestyle. They may even lower their standards to make the dating game easier. Conversely, they may have inflated opinions of themselves and dating can become nearly impossible for them. To further complicate matters, the other person has an equally complex set of standards they are weighing YOU against! Both sides must find what they're looking for if a successful relationship is to bloom.

 

After it's all said and done, it's still mostly a numbers game. The more people you meet and date, the more likely you are to meet one you like, who likes you also. From my experience, true intellectuals tend to not be extremely social. They have more important non-social activities they spend time on. Successful dating must be worked at. You must give yourself exposure and practice the art of flirting and getting to know someone. Deep conversation by the way, is generally accepted as a taboo for the first few dates. Things are too fragile at that point, so conversation should be kept light and humorous. You have to build a foundation before laying on the heavy thoughts. That way, your date is more comfortable with you and not likely to take offense or be put back easily, even if you do unintentionally make him feel stupid.

[DanielMadr]

 

i'd take an average looking woman with a wit and a personality over some vacuous bimbo any day of the week. i could never fall in love with a vacuous bimbo.

 

You are using extremes...and you wrote average looking over vacuous....why not UGLY one over Jenna Jameson?

 

I say 70% looks 30% personality. In a wife 60% and 40%. It is not preference scale....it is whole packege scale btw.

 

Your friend might be submissive or is not good with women....

[DanielMadr]

Burning_4_revenge,

 

Very well said!

 

I completely agree. I would take a man with substance [personality, depth, glory, smarts, spontaneity, et cetera], any day of the week.

 

Sand&Water

 

Because you are woman;) You give more weight on personality 70%

[DanielMadr]

You know, relationships and what people look for are very personal things. They also constantly change through life with experience. None of it is necessarily right or wrong, just opinion. Putting someone down for their preference really isn't constructive.

 

Looks are important. More important to some than others, but important nontheless. The same with intellect, charisma, income, age, religion, race, social status, and innumerable other criteria people perceive as important to them. Most of the time, people naturally want someone roughly at their own level or better in the criteria they perceive to be important. With experience, they may adjust their criteria to something that works better for them, or meshes better with their lifestyle. They may even lower their standards to make the dating game easier. Conversely, they may have inflated opinions of themselves and dating can become nearly impossible for them. To further complicate matters, the other person has an equally complex set of standards they are weighing YOU against! Both sides must find what they're looking for if a successful relationship is to bloom.

 

After it's all said and done, it's still mostly a numbers game. The more people you meet and date, the more likely you are to meet one you like, who likes you also. From my experience, true intellectuals tend to not be extremely social. They have more important non-social activities they spend time on. Successful dating must be worked at. You must give yourself exposure and practice the art of flirting and getting to know someone. Deep conversation by the way, is generally accepted as a taboo for the first few dates. Things are too fragile at that point, so conversation should be kept light and humorous. You have to build a foundation before laying on the heavy thoughts. That way, your date is more comfortable with you and not likely to take offense or be put back easily, even if you do unintentionally make him feel stupid.

 

Brilliant.

[Guest]

By your age I had at least two relationships that had lasted a year or more. You might be phobic of intimacy, it would appear. Not sure really.

 

I frowned when I read this. There are a lot of smart, attractive, sane, funny women -- myself included -- who have trouble finding someone. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with us.

 

Earlier this week, a study came out declaring the new minority in this country to be...wait for it...married people.

 

There are more singles now. It's just hard to make connections.

 

Rather than tear your hair and heart out trying desperately to find someone, I would try to relax. You're so young! You have plenty of time. I'm 30 and I've never had a real boyfriend. I can get really sad about it, or I can try to enjoy the lift that I have and keep hope alive that someone good will come along when the time is right.

 

Good luck.

[Guest]

The word suggests to me that they have been involved in a ground-breaking area of study, when often they just view themselves in that light because they enjoy reading.

 

It's interesting how individuals come to nuance words. Semantics is fascinating. However, call me a pedant if you will, but nowhere in the standard definitions of 'intellectual' is there a requirement for original research. It sounds as though, for you, 'intellectual' is synonymous only with 'PhD'. However the formal definition is broader.

 

Maybe that's not how you interpret the word, and perhaps you class as an intellectual anyone who happens to spend a lot of time reading. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, because I don't suppose there's any conclusive evidence to back up either your perspective or mine.

There's this little book called a 'dictionary'

 

What do you think anti-intellectualism stems from? Why might learning seem like torture to some people?

 

Probably because it's difficult for them.

 

Some intellectuals have the gift of making their subject interesting to other people. Others are so absorbed in their own train of thought that it's very difficult for them to hold a conversation, or show interest in other people. Do you think exposure to the latter might encourage some people to be turned off intellectualism?

 

That wouldn't make sense. If you enjoy learning, you enjoy it and can't be turned off by someone else's approach to learning or teaching. You're either curious and interested or you're not. Just like you're an artist or you're not (artists can say what they will but nothing I ever produce will be bought as 'art' no matter how many years I might work at it).

 

No, the problem is that politicians, attempting to be populist, appeal to the larger part of the bell curve that is at average IQ or lower (a very big bump) by mocking the thin end of the curve. Everybody who ever felt dumb in the presence of a smarter person and resented it can vent his spleen on 'intellectuals' by not voting for them and voting for some person who pretends to be 'just one of the folks like you'. And once a 'higher' level of society makes it ok to denigrate a group, the sheep follow.