smarty pants girl can't find a smarty pants boy

[mine own self]

He was generally a nice enough person, but he just couldn't live up to the grand opinions he had of himself. Another reason for me being somewhat reluctant to accept other people at their own advertising.

 

If someone describes himself as an intellectual, I'll want to read the book he's had published. If there isn't one, I would tend to think the word intellectual should be replaced with the phrase "aspiring intellectual" which isn't quite the same thing. Then again, I've always been a bit of a stickler for evidence.

 

My brother I believe has a lot more raw intelligence than I do (if you put much stock in IQ-tests or standardized tests they give at various levels of our education. He also makes an excellent impression -- he's very intellectual (adjective, not noun). But he's almost never produced anything. And I think you have a point that producing something is a test of whether a person can "walk the walk" not just "talk the talk". At any rate, it makes a point as to whether the person can do anything useful for humanity -- which is my fervent goal. I always tested above average but not genius like my brother. But unlike my brother, I have accomplishments, scholarly publishing, a little web-publishing (not too much or too good yet), and thousands of pages of text-files in my computer in the process (slow process! ) of becoming publications.

Don't know whether I agree with your definition; but I agree with the sentiment.

[mine own self]

There is something I do not get.

What does your wife do in her free time?

Does she have any hobbies/interest?

 

Well, she's just now starting to get into sewing and quilting as a hobby. Before that, she mainly watched TV, talked on the phone, and spent time with her friends.

 

I used to be like that years ago. I would read about subjects/do stuff that *could* fit in a course (possibly a more advanced one) and of course were not required in mine.

 

But, I did not do it *to learn*, or to look like an intellectual. I did it because I enjoyed it, like other people might enjoy baseball matches, non-intellectual books or hanging out with their friends!

I never considered *my* hobbies more "worthy" than watching sports on tv!

And I'm pretty sure that the student with the maths book that impressed you so much wouldn't, either.

 

What's the difference? If you do it because you enjoy it, then that means you enjoy learning. That's the way I am. I wouldn't do it if I didn't like it. But because I did like it, I wanted a partner who liked it too so we'd be compatible in this sense. The whole point that CNN Junky brought up is really a compatibility-issue: people who enjoy learning may be advised to find others who enjoy the same in the same sense that people who enjoy spending time in nature may be advised to find others who enjoy that.

 

The part I do not get is:

you like to *learn and understand* in your spare time - but do you genuinely *enjoy*it, or is it just something that you do to improve yourself???

If there are other things that might be less "intellectual" but more enjoyable to you ...well, everyone uses his spare time as he likes.

If you genuinely *enjoy* what you do and it does not cost you a lot of effort, then what makes what you do in your spare time more valuable, or more interesting, than what your W does in her?

I am genuinely not getting it.

 

Compatibility. Please see above.

[burning 4 revenge]

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....

I just don't understand where you get these hard numbers from.

 

I don't even care if a woman is plain looking, the only physical turn offs for me are obesity, bad hygiene, bad breath and terrible personal style and it could be argued that all those things are related to personality (except for obesity in some cases)

 

The woman's personality if far, far more important. And I re-iterate that I'm not just saying if they're nice. That has nothing to do with it. i'm saying if they're interesting as people then I'm intrigued.

[mine own self]

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.

 

I would be happy to be in the company of A, B, or C. Those people would all have something to offer me. Part of the problem in my case is that my wife's field is engineering. I used to tell her "talk to me about your field" and she seemed to feel that you can't talk about those fields. But my dad is also an engineer and knows how to talk about it to laymen; so I know you can.

 

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?

 

These are very positive suggestions.

[mine own self]

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.

 

I might suggest you change cities to a place where there are more males than females. Worked for me (changing to a city where there were more females than males in my case) when I was single.

[lindya]

I would be happy to be in the company of A, B, or C. Those people would all have something to offer me. Part of the problem in my case is that my wife's field is engineering. I used to tell her "talk to me about your field" and she seemed to feel that you can't talk about those fields. But my dad is also an engineer and knows how to talk about it to laymen; so I know you can.

 

Perhaps she isn't passionate about what she does for a living? Not everyone can be, which is unfortunate but I guess it's reality. I wonder what her passions were when she was a child. Sometimes those are the things you gravitate back to later on.

 

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.

 

I'm seldom persuaded by people who talk in absolutes. Are you? If, for instance I were to say that people who enjoy debating and exploring concepts don't resort to the dictionary in the hope that a one line definition will provide all the answers....would that be fair or true? Wouldn't that just be me trying to score cheap points by saying "If you do X or don't do Y, it means you're not smart."

 

You mentioned, with disappointment, what you perceive as a culture of anti-intellectualism. If you're encountering this in your own life - if people seem turned off when you talk about the things you find interesting - might it be time to change your approach? Perhaps you could start by examining whether you really do want other people to enjoy the learning process.

[Guest]

I'm seldom persuaded by people who talk in absolutes. Are you?

 

That wasn't an absolute. It might sound like one to someone who wishes to pick nits, however. I'm willing to hear tales of people you know who at one time enjoyed learning but completely lost their enjoyment due to some unpleasant encounter with a boring intellectual.

 

If, for instance I were to say that people who enjoy debating and exploring concepts don't resort to the dictionary in the hope that a one line definition will provide all the answers....would that be fair or true?

 

An assumption that one understands someone else's motivations is always suspect by dint of the fact that people cannot read minds. So this sinner who resorted to the (gasp!) dictionary cannot be assumed to have hoped 'that a one line definition would provide ALL the answers'. Another perfectly plausible motivation would be that this hateful dictionary-resorter wanted to sort out whether a debate was just another of the many discussions over semantics that frequently passes for debate but becomes moot when it becomes clear that it is, in fact, a discussion of semantics.

 

Wouldn't that just be me trying to score cheap points by saying "If you do X or don't do Y, it means you're not smart."

I suppose you'd score points if the listener agreed that your assumption of the dictonary-resorter's motivations was correct. In my book, however, points are lost when people assume motivation. The weakness in the argument is 'if you do X or don't do Y (because the motivation that I've ascribed to you is accurate).'

 

You mentioned, with disappointment, what you perceive as a culture of anti-intellectualism. If you're encountering this in your own life - if people seem turned off when you talk about the things you find interesting - might it be time to change your approach?

 

That doesn't happen in my own life. Even if it had, I'd hardly come to the conclusion that there's a 'culture of anti-intellectualism' due to the reactions of a few people to me. I don't base my conclusions about society on anecdotal evidence - my own or anybody else's. In fact, had I not read about/heard about anti-intellectualism from other sources, I'd not believe it existed because it seems so foolish - why dislike smart people? They're the ones who'll discover the medicines to cure you, who'll create the inventions to make life better, etc.

 

There's a nice little piece in Wiki that discusses the history of anti-intellectualism as a political tool and how it's been used recently on this side of the pond if you want to see how it's not a conclusion I came up with.

 

Oh geeze. But then that would be 'resorting to an encyclopedia to back up an argument with other research' - GASP!

[Teacher's Pet]

I'm after a guy who's smart (not just college-educated, but actually is intelligent), good-looking (but not too good-lucking, i like my men to be men), and driven - lack of ambition is a total turn off.

 

A great song by Meatloaf comes to mind.... "2 Out Of 3 Aint Bad".

 

-tp

smart.

driven.

ecch.

[Noos]

You know, the fact that Daniel is using Jenna Jameson as his standard of hot speaks volumes. You think a porn star is an ideal woman. That is a woman whose vocation focuses on pleasing men sexually and how she looks, right down to plastic boobs, and personality does not enter into the equation for her vocation.

 

You're looking for a Stepford wife (or a blow up doll with a recorded voice would suit your ideal too.)

[burning 4 revenge]

Just on the basis of pure looks, I wouldn't consider Jenna Jameson as much of anything. Blah. Boring. She's too candied to move me.

 

As far as conventional looks I'd go maybe with Rose Macgowan, or Scarlett Johansen off the top of my head. For the younger ones. And Annette Benning...she's fine. Betty Davis in her prime for the ideal bitch.

 

And then there was Eva Braun if you like your women in Bavarian StPauliegirl outfits

 

But Noos is right in infering bad taste

[lindya]

That wasn't an absolute. It might sound like one to someone who wishes to pick nits, however. I'm willing to hear tales of people you know who at one time enjoyed learning but completely lost their enjoyment due to some unpleasant encounter with a boring intellectual.

 

If it wasn't an absolute, does this mean you'd agree that there may well be times that a person's enthusiasm can be dulled (whether temporarily or permanently) by a bad learning experience? I won't provide real life examples, because in view of this..

 

I don't base my conclusions about society on anecdotal evidence - my own or anybody else's.

 

...there wouldn't be much value in doing so.

 

An assumption that one understands someone else's motivations is always suspect by dint of the fact that people cannot read minds. So this sinner who resorted to the (gasp!) dictionary cannot be assumed to have hoped 'that a one line definition would provide ALL the answers'. Another perfectly plausible motivation would be that this hateful dictionary-resorter wanted to sort out whether a debate was just another of the many discussions over semantics that frequently passes for debate but becomes moot when it becomes clear that it is, in fact, a discussion of semantics.

 

Not sure why you're using words like "sinner" and "hateful". I'm not angry that you resorted to a dictionary. I think dictionary definitions can be useful starting points in discussing concepts, but they seem a bit too brief and limited in their scope to provide conclusive endings.

 

...had I not read about/heard about anti-intellectualism from other sources, I'd not believe it existed because it seems so foolish - why dislike smart people? They're the ones who'll discover the medicines to cure you, who'll create the inventions to make life better, etc.

 

There's a nice little piece in Wiki that discusses the history of anti-intellectualism as a political tool and how it's been used recently on this side of the pond if you want to see how it's not a conclusion I came up with.

 

I did look at it. Certainly, hostility against the notion of people receiving a sound education and being encouraged to continue their education throughout life smacks of destructive anti-intellectualism.

 

On the other hand, a good deal of the article seemed to focus on specific groups of intellectuals and their theories being attacked...sometimes by other intellectuals, in which case the term anti-intellectual probably becomes more of a slanging match weapon employed by both sides (each side perhaps viewing itself as having the greater claim to intellectuality).

 

It seems to me that there could be very many forms of anti-intellectualism. Lots of people now like to play amateur doctor/lawyer/psychologist. In some ways this is a good thing if helps people to enhance their own lives and assists their communication with professionals they seek help from. On the other hand, people sometimes over-estimate their own knowledge of a specialist area with adverse effects. That scenario could, I think, result in an "anti-intellectual" response from both sides.

 

From the professional's perspective, the fact that the patient/client has dabbled in an area he's not trained to understand comprehensively might hold up effective resolution of the problem as he insists on arguing with the professional's diagnosis and advice. Ultimately the process of helping him might be lengthier and more complicated than it would be if he hadn't attempted to gather any knowledge about the particular problem he sought advice about. The "non-intellectual" patient or client might be preferred in so far as the process of helping him is simplified.

 

The patient/client might take the view that "just because (the professional) has a certificate on his wall doesn't necessarily mean he really knows more about this particular area than I do." By doing so, he de-values the intellectual training that professional undertook in order to qualify. Does this happen in practice? My anecdotal (sorry) experience is that it does.

 

I don't want to keep labouring the subject in this thread - but if you want to open up a discussion about intellectualism-v-anti-intellectualism in the watercooler, I'm happy to contribute

[Guest]

If it wasn't an absolute, does this mean you'd agree that there may well be times that a person's enthusiasm can be dulled (whether temporarily or permanently) by a bad learning experience?

 

It's starting to sound like a personal experience. Sure. Anything can happen. I can't, however, imagine that it's all that common.

 

Not sure why you're using words like "sinner" and "hateful".

 

Tongue in cheek.

 

I'm not angry that you resorted to a dictionary.

 

Oh so this wasn't a hypothetical!

 

I think dictionary definitions can be useful starting points in discussing concepts, but they seem a bit too brief and limited in their scope to provide conclusive endings.[/quote[

 

Well, you can get only so far away from standard meanings of words before you're inventing your own dialect. And then you have to educate everyone else in your brand of semantics. So, for instance, if you decide that to you, 'love' means 'heartburn' then you have to explain to everyone that that's your particular interpretation when you use the word. Otherwise they'll never understand why you insist that Tums will cure Love.

 

The patient/client might take the view that "just because (the professional) has a certificate on his wall doesn't necessarily mean he really knows more about this particular area than I do." By doing so, he de-values the intellectual training that professional undertook in order to qualify. Does this happen in practice? My anecdotal (sorry) experience is that it does.

 

I wouldn't call that 'anti-intellectual' but rather 'pseudo-intellectual' - if you don't despise the smartypants, then you're not against the smartyness - just that you think you're an even bigger smartypants. I agree it happens but don't think it fits here.

 

I don't want to keep labouring the subject in this thread - but if you want to open up a discussion about intellectualism-v-anti-intellectualism in the watercooler, I'm happy to contribute

 

Guests aren't allowed there. Keeps them from spending too much time on LS.

 

Unfortunately, we haven't helped the OP much - only come up with reasons why her problem exists.

[Mary3]

Hmmm. That very much reminds me of one of my ex boyfriends. "You top my list (of women) because you don't annoy me...but you're not my intellectual equal, and that frustrates me."

 

He was very taken by the notion of his own intellectual superiority, even though we studied the same subjects at university and received similar grades for our assignments. In conversation, he was very garrulous and opinionated. This was (and no doubt still is) what he appeared to base his sense of superiority on.

 

What was it that made you and your friends believe that your wives had nothing going for them - other than the fact that you could "deal with" them? At what point does awareness of one's intellectual ability start to slip over into short-sighted dismissal of other people's skills and talents because they don't mirror the package of skills and talents you personally possess?

 

Lynda, I find you to be extremely intelligent ...what type of man do you prefer ?

[lindya]

Lynda, I find you to be extremely intelligent ...what type of man do you prefer ?

 

 

You're a sweetie There are just different types of intelligence, I think. Like most people I can be smart in some areas and very stupid in a lot of others.

 

I've generally found myself drawn to men who have a slightly sarcastic demeanour but a good heart. Mental stimulation can be drawn from books, friends, work etc - it's unfair to expect a partner to share every one of your interests and fulfil every need. For that reason, I tend to regard it as quite healthy for partners to have a few separate interests, so I don't place such a high value on intellectual compatibility - though there needs to be some common ground. For me, the emotional and physical connections are generally more important.

[BlueEyedGirl]

Question for you all:

 

If I met a guy who is a PhD student is it safe to assume that he is reasonably bright?

[Adunaphel]

Question for you all:

 

If I met a guy who is a PhD student is it safe to assume that he is reasonably bright?

 

No.

 

Being a PhD student and being a complete idiot are not mutually exclusive.

[lindya]

It's starting to sound like a personal experience. Sure. Anything can happen. I can't, however, imagine that it's all that common.

 

Common enough to be recognised as a problem. Here's a link looking at the possible causes of, and potential solutions to, underachievement and the diminished enjoyment of learning among gifted children:

 

http://www.gt-cybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID=2_0&rid=11407

[Guest]

If I met a guy who is a PhD student is it safe to assume that he is reasonably bright?

 

He could be extremely bright in terms of grasping complex theories and applying them - or even coming up with new ones. This does not mean that he will be emotionally intelligent. It may mean that he's over focused on one subject such that he doesn't pay attention to many others.

[Guest]

Common enough to be recognised as a problem. Here's a link looking at the possible causes of, and potential solutions to, underachievement and the diminished enjoyment of learning among gifted children:

 

http://www.gt-cybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID=2_0&rid=11407

 

Thanks. It's an interesting study, but it's a study about under achievement and lack of learning in the school setting

 

Being an underachiever in school doesn't mean a person's uninterested in learning; it means that a person isn't enjoying learning in the school setting. I was an underachiever principally because I never believed I was smarter than other people (it's still a theory that you don't tell smart kids they're smart so they won't get snotty) and therefore saw no need to strive for the heights in school. Most of the time I did extremely well anyway without trying but the theory is that I could have topped my class had I tried. Had someone told me that I had a brain that could get me into NASA if I really wanted it, I would have cared more and tried harder. But I figured I was an average schmoe and could expect no stellar achievements; that was for others.

 

None of which had to do with my learning. I read voraciously and was always interested in the world and people and all sorts of things. Some good teachers definitely made their subjects more interesting or entertaining to learn and others, I suppose, were less good at that but that didn't turn me off llearning as a whole. In fact, I performed much better in university precisely because I was free to study subjects I was interested in. And when I had a boring or inept prof, I studied anyway.

 

And yes, this is anecdotal, but I'm just tossing it in as a comment. I still seriously doubt that a bad teacher or two can turn someone who is passionate about learning away from learning in general but if there's a study proving that poor teachers turn people away from all learning permanently, I'll be glad to read it.

[magichands]

If I met a guy who is a PhD student is it safe to assume that he is reasonably bright?

I agree with Adunaphel. There are no doubt some really bright people studying towards their PhDs, but there are also some absolute clods.

 

Universities will take just about anyone as a PhD student these days - given that they're on a desperate drive for more money. Obviously I'm not talking about the Harvards (Ivy Leagues) and Oxbridges, but they have always been busy sucking the pool of talent dry (and I applaud their efforts) before anyone else gets a look-in.

 

Remember that a fraction of those who take on the PhD actually get their piece of paper. Add to that a disturbing number conducting marginalised research that even their own mother won't give a damn about.

 

And, even if they get their PhD, it may lead to nothing. Well, "nothing" may be something of an exaggeration. You probably get a pat on the back.

 

But that's just the dark side. Some of them want to change the world - largely to the exclusion of any monetary reward beyond that required to maintain their basic needs in life whilst they do it. And hopefully it's not too late for the ones that fail in their quest to do their MBA, haha.

[DanielMadr]

You know, the fact that Daniel is using Jenna Jameson as his standard of hot speaks volumes. You think a porn star is an ideal woman. That is a woman whose vocation focuses on pleasing men sexually and how she looks, right down to plastic boobs, and personality does not enter into the equation for her vocation.

 

You're looking for a Stepford wife (or a blow up doll with a recorded voice would suit your ideal too.)

 

Actually I was using that porn star instead of bimbo sillicone prettyface. We cant make debate because you and lot of people assume that guys (me) are stupid jerks fascinated by silicone and you are saint ready to love mother Theresa.

 

When you get rid of thinking in extremes you would realize that sexual prefferences are based on looks and personality altogether ofcourse. And guys preffers looks over personality.

[magichands]

I still seriously doubt that a bad teacher or two can turn someone who is passionate about learning away from learning in general but if there's a study proving that poor teachers turn people away from all learning permanently, I'll be glad to read it.

Permanently??!! Haha...what in the world are you dribbling on about.

 

I think that's called death. I have heard of people saying their "brain is fried", but I don't think it's meant to be taken literally.

[Guest]

Permanently??!! Haha...what in the world are you dribbling on about.

 

I gather you're asking about my 'drivel' since I'm long past the age of 'dribbling' LOL.

 

In response to this:

does this mean you'd agree that there may well be times that a person's enthusiasm can be dulled (whether temporarily or permanently) by a bad learning experience?

 

I made this statement:

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.

 

Which is being disputed. So it wasn't me who posted the 'dribble' (sic) about 'permanently'.

[lindya]

... if there's a study proving that poor teachers turn people away from all learning permanently, I'll be glad to read it.

 

I don't think any study that aimed to produce that conclusion would have much credibility. It would certainly be a very depressing conclusion in that one would hope people who have been temporarily put off learning are capable of being coaxed back into it. Additionally, people can't really help but learn. We're constantly exposed to new information - whether through television, the internet, conversations we have with other people...

 

I suppose the measure of intellectualism might be how driven a person is to actively seek out and use learning opportunities, the depth in which they're prepared to explore theories, and how adept they are at understanding, comparing and contrasting different theories using some level of original, critical thought.

 

Can a person's enthusiasm for doing that be turned off as a result of their intellectual endeavours being viewed dismissively? I think it's possible. Some people are far less resilient to criticism than others. More inclined to become disheartened by it to the point that they might well give up something they have a talent for unless the criticism is countered by something positive. Studies (Atlas, Taggart & Goodell) have shown, for instance, that adverse criticism can have a very highly negative impact on more sensitive music students' motivation and performance.

 

I'm now trying to think how I could twist all this around to relate it to the OP's original presenting problem. I suppose by suggesting to her that some very able people often lack confidence in their abilities or are innately/have learned to become shy about demonstrating them. Realising that people sometimes conceal their talents/intelligence - and becoming adept at recognising and drawing those things out is probably a very good way to find oneself in more stimulating company.

[BlueEyedGirl]

I agree with Adunaphel. There are no doubt some really bright people studying towards their PhDs, but there are also some absolute clods.

 

Yes that's what I think. This guy I was talking about is a PhD student in one of the better universities in a pretty difficult area of research. Whenever he says what he does and where people are very impressed, yet I fail to detect any form of extreme intelligence in him.