Do you need to date your "intellectual equivalent-or-superior" ?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
How important is it for you to regard someone you're romantically involved with as being an intellectual peer, someone "as smart" as you (if not "smarter")?

Where does all this figure into your list of dating priorities? And what are some of the surefire ways of determining it in an expeditious manner as possible?

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:14 (twenty-one years ago)

And what are some of the surefire ways of determining it in an expeditious manner as possible? - Plz no mention of online "networking" / 'dating" websites thx!

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

i've never had a lasting relationship with anyone who was dumber than i was, and if i did i'd probably lose interest pretty quickly. but on the list of priorities, "philosophically equivalent" is just as important.

Did the glacier in the library bounce today? (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Usually, but I really have to lower my standards locally. "Philosophically equivalent" -- I like that, that's true with me also.

Ian Riese-Moraine's Plateau Rouge! (Eastern Mantra), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:23 (twenty-one years ago)

why is cerebral egalitarianism so important if one is otherwise a good/kind/honest soul, musically/artistically/spiritually talented, and/or physically resplendent and highly skilled in the conjugal arts?

should say, spelling and grammar errors matters so much in the scheme of things? i realize i'm asking all this on a website overfilled with writers, analysts, and the intellectually inclined, so the answers might be skewed one way

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:25 (twenty-one years ago)

why is cerebral egalitarianism so important if one is otherwise a good/kind/honest soul, musically/artistically/spiritually talented, and/or physically resplendent and highly skilled in the conjugal arts?

Because they don't often come hand-in-hand, maybe. Well, not from my (limited) experience.

Ian Riese-Moraine's Plateau Rouge! (Eastern Mantra), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i didnt meant to weigh all those onone hand to make it sound like they come together, with "intelligence" on the other. i was just making a list of other factors...and am wondering why intellectual reasoning is always on the top for some

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

you have to talk to them, right?

Did the glacier in the library bounce today? (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I personally do, and as an excessively communicative person at times for me the mental thing _is_ most important. But I wish this wasn't the case at times, and that, on some level, i'm being just as shallow as those who choose their partners on looks or material assets alone

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:36 (twenty-one years ago)

is intelligence here just being equated with a good and interesting personality?

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean i know smart people that are boring as shit and twice as obnoxious

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

i think the use of "intellectual" here is going to piss off some people (in that "maaan, fuck you and your ivory tower; i was working three jobs by the time i was FOUR" kinda way). presumably we're talking about native intelligence and not fancy book learnin', right?

Did the glacier in the library bounce today? (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

This is an excellent and important question.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

http://dusan.satori.sk/i/pix/heidegger.jpg

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't know how I wanted to define "intelligence" - I just wanted to leave it open. I personally meant the native kind, but this would be applicable for some towards the other sort as well, wouldn't it?

Also: having a good communicaive rapport with someone doesnt always = intellectual reasoning abilities either. These are two separate things. You know people who you have very good chats with and who are conversational....but you still regard them as somewhat of an "intellectual inferior" ? I didn't mean them... and no, i'm not intentionally tryingt o be provocative here. I know it's terribly un-PC though and whoever might get pissed at this paragraph...

...I mean, say, someone who isn't much of a "thinker," or a writer, and doesnt read as much as you or have as many opinions on subjects that you may care about, but one you can still have good personal discussions with (in particular, about feelings and where the relationship is going), along with an emotional bond. What if they are terrifically talented or attractive in some other arena in life, but just not given to much intellectual activites? Someone who'd prefer surfing over the museum every time - but this is again, just another flawed example. I can't realy use them, since this can apply to a number of different situations...

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Does it really matter? That fact that you think of your significant other as being inferior, equivalent or superior likely shows that you're not in love with them anyhow.

Community Cornerstone (deangulberry), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:54 (twenty-one years ago)

But if you take the "equivalent" out of that, maybe it's impossible to even fall in love with someone who's not at your "level" in the first place?

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I would add class associations and "attractiveness" to this discussion as well.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I would say instead that it flows upward. I could easily see someone being in love with a person they thought to be intellectually superior to them. But then again, maybe that is just lust and not love ... oh, the can of worms. Thanks Vic.

Community Cornerstone (deangulberry), Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Who's talking about love when I used the word "dating" ?

I know for a numer of heterosexual _and_ homosexual men, this is not important as long as hey have a "trophy" partner that they can show off to their friends. Is there some sort of mental equivalent to the physical "catch" as such?

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:58 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, the can of worms. Thanks Vic.

it's a dirty job but you can thank me now

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

..as you did! you're welcome Senor!

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:00 (twenty-one years ago)

[ again reiterating one last time: i'm not asking to be "provocative," these are genuine questions my brane is taken with right now. thank _you_ for participating. ]

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

most people are intelligent about things they care about.

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean i can listen to people talk about basketball or stocks or gardening on a level i can't really follow. i can talk about philosophy and literature. just different fields.

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

but surely for a equal number of men it is important to have someone who is not as smart as they are so they can all superior and teach them stuff? For this also presents an opportunity for showing off?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care one way or another - I'm far more interested in whether a potential partner is fun to be with or not and whether or not they like doing the same stuff as me. For example, someone who has no interest in music is unlikely to hold my interest for very long.

I think I'm good at communicating at different levels anyway. It's one of my strengths. So that's probably a big factor.

MarkH (MarkH), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Who's talking about love when I used the word "dating" ?

True. I guess the underlying point is that if you are merely "dating" someone and you're not in love with them, then it likely doesn't matter how you feel about them intellectually, if they possess other qualities that you find attractive enough to keep you interested.

Community Cornerstone (deangulberry), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I need to date someone I find consistently interesting. I'm not sure that requires their being my "intellectual equivalent," whatever that means, but I do think it requires in part their having at least one form of intelligence (which need not necessarily be "intellectual" in nature) comparable to or greater (but maybe not too much greater?) than mine. I think that being a "good/kind/honest soul" and having "a good and interesting personality" necessarily involve forms of intelligence. Is a mutual comparative advantage (one partner smarter in one way, the other smarter in another) a prescription for a good or a bad relationship, necessarily?

physically resplendent and highly skilled in the conjugal arts

!

gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

ryan - you don't ascribe to a hierarchy of intellectual achievement then? i think thats a good thing, and theoretically and idealistically speaking, i don't either. but you know there's quite a difference in the regard most have to the knowledge of gardening vs. the knowledge of literature. and since we are all societal creatures, affected by its prejudices, it isn't all so egalitarian when it comes down to it...for a lot of us, i guess. not all.

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:11 (twenty-one years ago)

the most important thing to me is a similar sense of humor. I think being smart is tremendously sexy, but there are a lot of different ways of being smart. I'm insecure enough that I like to have my own area where I can be the smart one, but I love asking my husband questions about his areas of authority. Like we're both history majors, but I'm American history and he's classics, and I love it when we're talking politics and can each draw an analogy from a current situation back to our area of study, for example. He definitely challenges me and I enjoy that, and he also respects my abilities, and that mutual respect is possibly the cornerstone of everything. Then again maybe I can't really draw on my own experiences because he's the only person I've ever been in love with as an adult. I have dated a couple of other men but I didn't have any attraction to them whatsoever.

teeny (teeny), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm along similar lines to Gabbneb, except thoughts like 'comparable to mine' don't enter into it. I need to find any potential partner interesting, and intelligence seems to improve the odds of that greatly. This isn't to say anything like 'it's all that matters', but it's very important.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:15 (twenty-one years ago)

x-posts: i think people value much different things. frankly i deeply admire people who know a lot about fishing and gardening and cars. because i am stupid about them i guess, and because i value that kind of practical wisdom a lot.

i don't really respect anyone who thinks they have cornered the market on what is "important" intelligence or knowledge. in fact that's a pretty good give away they aren't as smart as they think they are.

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:16 (twenty-one years ago)

some people come alive about certain topics i am struck dumb by, and i find this exciting. it's just a matter of finding that. i dont place much value on them getting off on the same stuff i do. in fact i like it when someone can teach me how to get off on something new!

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:18 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't really respect anyone who thinks they have cornered the market on what is "important" intelligence or knowledge. in fact that's a pretty good give away they aren't as smart as they think they are. - And probably that they're lacking in the good-kind Heart Dep't.

Gabbneb: that was just my alternate way of saying cream-your-jeans-hott & mind-blowingly fantastic in bed

Vichitravirya XI, Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)

i sound a bit ridiculous on this thread so i should add that i love when someone, even someone not interested in philosophy or literature or film, is willing to try to talk to me about those things, and i love trying to express why i value them, and hopefully making myself understood.

so it goes both ways. it's called a relationship!

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I need to date someone who can save me from despair. I think what will save me from despair is the realization of intellectual value that is very close to moral value. This sounds awfully pretentious and sort of dumb, but I know what I mean. In relation to intelligence, I think this involves being able to see and to explain the relevance of abstruse or common ideas to everyday life or to live those ideas, but there should be immediacy and spontaneity and this should not be an exercise in translation.

youn, Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:33 (twenty-one years ago)

On second thought, I should try it myself.

youn, Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't think that realization ever really happens unfortunately. it's what emerson calls the "unhandsome" part of our condition--the distance between our minds and the world.

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 29 May 2005 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I'd be thoroughly intimidated by someone intellectually smarter than me, and I dont really look at relationships in a smarts context anyway. Having said that I wouldnt want to be with someone who was narrowminded through ignorance/beliefs/etc and was totally at odds with my own worldviews.

My partner for example never even finished school, and neither of us have what youd call book smarts or know much academic stuff; but you get him talking about high math 3d vector concepts and spatial code and whatnot and he'll go off til my eyes glaze over. I am incanable of thinking at his high level of spatial/logic conceptualisation. And he's like that naturally, without schooling - this is something I am in HUGE awe of, especially considering he's 12 years younger than me!

Trayce (trayce), Monday, 30 May 2005 02:02 (twenty-one years ago)

And on the other hand I'm sure he admires my writing and speaking abilities.

Trayce (trayce), Monday, 30 May 2005 02:02 (twenty-one years ago)

i never thought i cared but the last time i got my heart broken one of the primary reasons was that he was intimidated that i was smarter/more educated/had a better job. he didn't tell me that until the breakup speech and it wasn't because i was rubbing it in or anything, he said it was just because aussie blokes are socialised to be the dominant one in the relationship. now i have a real issue about it. to add to the other ones. great.

gem (trisk), Monday, 30 May 2005 02:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Philosophical/moral compatibility is DEF important. Smarts aren't THAT important up to a point. I actually had this conversation with a mate of mine last year and we both agreed that we should "dumb down" a bit if we wanted to have more luck - in my case, people assume I'm a gigantic mega-brain when they meet me (which I'm not) and are probably intimidated a bit, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE.

Intellectual maturity is probably more important than actual intellect, too, as I found out last year when a complete airhead (who was a final-year law student, so quite brainy) had a thing for me. I tend to fall for shy, quiet, brainy people who are smart in a different field/way to me - the fascination factor, mostly.

edward o (edwardo), Monday, 30 May 2005 02:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I have always been the pretty, dumb one. Always. It's like 60% ace and 40% "I want to recommend books now, damnit"...

Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Monday, 30 May 2005 02:10 (twenty-one years ago)

teh JBR is teh OTM.

Ken L (Ken L), Monday, 30 May 2005 02:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Willingness to argue with me about politics or music or art (general engagement with the world) is so hot. I don't care who wins or who's 'smarter,' but just being passionate about thinking, I guess, is key.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 30 May 2005 02:25 (twenty-one years ago)

OTM. My wife and I have had an ongoing discussion/argument about the essential nature of art for about 22 years now, and when I think about that I just want to get freaky-nasty with her.

Rock Hardy (Rock Hardy), Monday, 30 May 2005 02:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I have a somewhat ambivalent relationship with my own left-brain, verbal skills, and that in turn maps to a restlessness or dissatisfaction with people of my own age, social class and culture. In my partners I'm willing to put up with almost total verbal inarticulacy if they have a strong aesthetic sense, particularly visual. Most of my partners have been Japanese for the last decade or so, and although there's huge variation in Japanese personality, there's also a core value system which works for me. I am familiar and compatible with this core value system, this habitus, in the same way I am with the Mac OS.

As for love, love isn't really necessary for a successful relationship. I've loved my partners to different degrees, and it doesn't seem to correlate to intelligence at all, or to the success of the relationship either. Love is perverse; sometimes you love someone because of the adversity of the context, their inaccessibility, their inarticulateness, their difference from you, etc. Love and things like understanding and familiarity are to some extent at odds, I think. Perhaps I'm talking about infatuation rather than love.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 30 May 2005 02:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Another way of putting that would be "knowing poems versus being a poem".

Momus (Momus), Monday, 30 May 2005 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)

No stupidz.

giboyeux (skowly), Monday, 30 May 2005 04:57 (twenty-one years ago)

My wife and I have had an ongoing discussion/argument about the essential nature of art for about 22 years now, and when I think about that I just want to get freaky-nasty with her.

That is so awesome. I want to be like this someday (except I don't know jack about art, so it'll have to be about music or something like that).

most people are intelligent about things they care about

YES. OTM, there's the entire thread answered and summarized in nine words, etc.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 30 May 2005 05:21 (twenty-one years ago)

wanko and I could never marry

RabiesAngentleman, Saturday, 7 June 2008 15:07 (eighteen years ago)

I never will marry or be no man's wife
I expect to live single all the days of my life
The shells in the ocean shall be my deathbed
The fish in deep water swim over my head

wanko ergo sum, Saturday, 7 June 2008 15:15 (eighteen years ago)

no one prefer their intellectual inferior?

titchyschneiderMk2, Saturday, 7 June 2008 15:17 (eighteen years ago)

Of my four significant relationships, they were all at least as intelligent as I am, and probably more intelligent in most regards. I have no idea why any of the first three dated me, and even less of an idea (most days) of why my wife married me ;-).

I dated "dumb" girls, and they were...dumb. I don't mean to call them that because I KNOW I WAS SMARTER, but they acted dumb. You know? Look...here's what I mean...

There are very few people who are CLEARLY smarter than everyone about everything. Most of us have our intelligences, and spend our late adolesence-early adulthood learning how to maximize/utilize those to achieve the life we want. That's what I think I find most attractive about people I am attracted to...that search and constant refitting of themselves into life.

The "dumb" girls simply went along with whatever was told them, regardless of how much intellectual horsepower they had and chose not to use. Shit, I dated dumb girls who went to great schools, dumb girls who had great, challenging jobs, but they were emotional idiots who weren't in touch with what THEY wanted at all. I dated girls who constantly contradicted everything I said or wanted to do, but in a "Oh yeah!?!?! FUCK THAT!!!!" sort of way, instead of "Well, why? Okay, if that's why, howsabout THIS instead?"

I don't know...the thread question sounds like we should all have our SAT scores tattooed on our foreheads.

B.L.A.M., Saturday, 7 June 2008 15:23 (eighteen years ago)

Dude, Rabies, quit playing guitar and start rocking the shit out of a synthesizer.

Abbott, Saturday, 7 June 2008 16:45 (eighteen years ago)

Mainly the main thing is one person should be able to make the other laugh ass off, constantly. And then if you both discover you love talking about evidence of old world diseases in Roman skeletons or something, too, then all the better.

Abbott, Saturday, 7 June 2008 16:46 (eighteen years ago)

To attract...prog chicks? I DUNNOOOO... (xp)

As for the following post... I agree but I think I'd be asking for a severe grass-is-always-greener scenario without the latter.

RabiesAngentleman, Saturday, 7 June 2008 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

I mean I would eventually find myself thirsting for that and do something stupid like leave her (hypothetical funny but dumb girl) for some crusty academic schmuck.

RabiesAngentleman, Saturday, 7 June 2008 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

Mainly the main thing is one person should be able to make the other laugh ass off, constantly.

I dunno. My wife thinks that my jokes are terrible, but we still get on. I did actually make her laugh the other day, to mildly catastrophic consequences. We were making sweet love and I said to her, "baby, we fit together like a glove. A glove with one finger." The amount of laughter I got out of her was totally worth the end of the sexing.

libcrypt, Saturday, 7 June 2008 17:56 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, all my jokes are kinda dorky like that.

libcrypt, Saturday, 7 June 2008 17:59 (eighteen years ago)

ok that's hilarious.

tehresa, Saturday, 7 June 2008 18:05 (eighteen years ago)

it was an informative post -- maybe a little too informative.

banriquit, Saturday, 7 June 2008 18:10 (eighteen years ago)

yeah i was thinking that... but still laughing at the joke.

tehresa, Saturday, 7 June 2008 18:10 (eighteen years ago)

most people are intelligent about things they care about.

-- ryan (ryan), Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:05 AM (3 years ago)

Just to requote one of the most salient points made in this thread.

And just to say again what most people already know, compatibility is not the same as equivalence. What is far more important is that the two people can consider themselves as equals in the broadest sense and share a mutual respect on that basis.

Aimless, Saturday, 7 June 2008 18:15 (eighteen years ago)

I'm really not sure how to measure intelligence, if we can carry on a conversation that's smart enough for me. The guy I'm currently hung up on has a different education level & his emails are full of awful misspellings, but it's endearing because I think HE'S wonderful. (*sigh of sadness at communicating via email*)

What IS important is that I cannot date someone who says that I read too much, am too analytical, or think I am too smart. I really LIKE to read and don't plan to stop. I do tend to be more analytical and less emotionally expressive than a lot of people, that's just a personality trait. (Also, I don't think I'm smarter than anyone else, that comment is something a couple of people have assumed due to the first two.) Guys just have to accept that, and if they have problems it has less to do with intelligence than a personality clash.

Maria, Sunday, 8 June 2008 00:06 (eighteen years ago)

"We were making sweet love and I said to her, "baby, we fit together like a glove. A glove with one finger." The amount of laughter I got out of her was totally worth the end of the sexing."

That's absolutely hilarious.

j-rock, Sunday, 8 June 2008 00:25 (eighteen years ago)

I do tend to be more analytical and less emotionally expressive than a lot of people, that's just a personality trait. (Also, I don't think I'm smarter than anyone else, that comment is something a couple of people have assumed due to the first two.) Guys just have to accept that, and if they have problems it has less to do with intelligence than a personality clash.

Yeah this holds pretty true for me as well. It's started to bother my gf, she's complained recently that I'm "always so fucking logical about things" and "can't you show a little emotion about something for once?"

I don't have the temerity to suggest that she's covering the emotional quadrant for the both of us.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 8 June 2008 01:03 (eighteen years ago)

Big Trouble in Little Hoosville

milo z, Sunday, 8 June 2008 01:27 (eighteen years ago)

It's weird though, I feel like I need a fireball as a foil. Otherwise (I worry) I might spend all my time reading and tut-tutting and listening to rap alone.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 8 June 2008 01:32 (eighteen years ago)

Like I don't know that I'm compatible with someone like myself.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 8 June 2008 01:35 (eighteen years ago)

Mainly the main thing is one person should be able to make the other laugh ass off, constantly. And then if you both discover you love talking about evidence of old world diseases in Roman skeletons or something, too, then all the better.

i think so! tho i tend to laugh a lot, i am in truth kinda picky abt what i laugh at, to the point of getting mildly annoyed at people laughing at stupid stuff that i don't think is funny, haha, like how are you laughing at *that* when *this* is clearly faaar more funny?? so yeah, lols are kind of my gauge of intelligence

rrrobyn, Sunday, 8 June 2008 03:59 (eighteen years ago)

I've never ever ever ever ever ever ever in my life been able to bag a "norm"; personalities just don't mix, I guess. "omg derek jeter is sooooo hot" "uhhh, yeah." So, by default, the only matches I've ever made were with smarties. Screw you, norms, u dont know wat u r missing

burt_stanton, Sunday, 8 June 2008 04:01 (eighteen years ago)

of course it's been shown (by scientists) that smarter people are often more attractive, so whatever.

burt_stanton, Sunday, 8 June 2008 04:05 (eighteen years ago)

haha scientists would say that!

rrrobyn, Sunday, 8 June 2008 04:10 (eighteen years ago)

"I don't have the temerity to suggest that she's covering the emotional quadrant for the both of us."

yes EXACTLY! i have wanted to say that. (yet i have also had a relationship where i definitely was covering the emotional quadrant for the both of us, and when you've got me doing that, it's basically a sign of failure.)

Maria, Sunday, 8 June 2008 06:37 (eighteen years ago)

hahaha rrrobyn

my own answer to this q. is that i'm generally attracted to intelligent ppl, but the sort of intelligence i like is often verbal or emotional rather than academic. current crush has all 3

Just got offed, Sunday, 8 June 2008 08:56 (eighteen years ago)

They have to fucking read. This is non-negotiable. I was in a relationship with someone whose literary diet was paltry enough to convince me that things would never last.

kingfish, Sunday, 8 June 2008 09:55 (eighteen years ago)

she's complained recently that I'm "always so fucking logical about things" and "can't you show a little emotion about something for once?"

Hoos, this needs commenting on.

Having emotions is not a choice. They arise spontaneously and can't be willed into existance. If they are arising, but weakly, then there is little to show and that's all there is to it.

OTOH, it is possible to supress emotions, which is not the same thing as not having them, but more a matter of smothering them, in the way you can smother a fire by depriving it of oxygen. The emotional equivalent of oxygen is expression.

The purpose of emotions is to motivate you. If you never felt sadness, happiness, or anger, you would simply sit in a chair with a thousand mile stare and never have a reaosn to budge.

The purpose of emotion is not to discern right action from wrong action. That is the value of reason (a better word than logic, which is more mathematical than reason) and imagination.

Reasoning allows you to foresee consequences and imagining those consequences can help you identify how you would feel about that outcome, iow, discover if you desire it or would rather avoid it. All three of these are needed to steer your course.

It is perfectly possible to express emotions without letting them control your actions. You can rage without hurting others, cry without wounding yourself with self pity, laugh without becoming antic, fear without cowering. This is healthy. Supressing emotions is not.

So, you need to understand the dynamic that is causing your girlfriend's complaint. If it is just a matter of not showing emotion because most daily events do not strongly give rise to them, you're ok. But, if you are not showing emotions in deeper matters of love and relationship, consider this as a warning sign. Try to figure out what is intercepting the normal expression of your emotions and unblock them. Your life will be much richer (although more dangerous) if you do.

Aimless, Sunday, 8 June 2008 17:57 (eighteen years ago)

There's a difference between feeling emotions and expressing them as they come, though. Personally, I distinguish between laying out all your emotional reactions, on the one hand, or discussing a situation and what the best possible outcome is, on the other. Of course, you can do both, and in situations that aren't too charged it's best to. But if you're disagreeing with someone or dealing with a concrete problem, I would definitely rather discuss and plan responses than have an emotional free-for-all first because once you start voicing negative feelings toward the other person in the heat of strong emotion...well, most people can't do that in a way that's not incredibly hurtful, so maybe it's best to just wait until you calm down.

"Analytical" for some people also means "offers advice, ideas, or questions when really I just want to wallow in self-pity," and I am trying to figure out when that's what they mean so I can say "how rotten" and let them wallow.

Maria, Sunday, 8 June 2008 18:16 (eighteen years ago)

That is about 95% of the time, or more, actually.

Abbott, Sunday, 8 June 2008 18:26 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, I think that's true. I am that 5% freak who brings things up because she actually wants solutions (if the problems are the solvable sort).

Maria, Sunday, 8 June 2008 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

I don't have the temerity to suggest that she's covering the emotional quadrant for the both of us.

Um, you absolutely need to say this in some form or other, IMHO, if this is what's going on -- say, if she's not giving you the space to loosen up and be expressive because she's melting down too often.

Also, I hate the idea that logic and emotion are polar opposites -- they're totally not, and a person can be profoundly logical and expressive at the same time (or totally irrational and completely inexpressive).

xpost if/when people need to wallow in self-pity, then "I want to be alone for a few hours" is the key phrase there, sooner or later at least

Charlie Rose Nylund, Sunday, 8 June 2008 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

In short, yes. Everyone I've ever dated has been as smart if not smarter and my husband is honestly the most (almost freakishly lol) intelligent person I've ever met - no question. I once "dated" a very cute but dim guy in college and it was horrible. We had absolutely nothing to talk about and he complained that I was "too serious"!!

ENBB, Sunday, 8 June 2008 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

where I said "logic(al)", above, substitute "reason(able)"

Charlie Rose Nylund, Sunday, 8 June 2008 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

In my experience, girlfriends who've complained that I'm not "emotional" enough have themselves harbored serious conflict-attraction tendencies. You know, the kind who thinks that life isn't real unless you are fighting about something? Maybe that's not the case here, but just keep in mind that there are other logical, rational, reasonable fish out there in the sea.

libcrypt, Sunday, 8 June 2008 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

odd, never saw the thread, but have been thinking about this recently.

like people said upthread, Interesting != Intelligent

there are lots of ways to get along

people have to give each other a chance

I'd rather not hang out with too many academics too much of the time

reading, books - these are important for sure. but so are pop (music) and (alcoholic) drink.

the pinefox, Sunday, 8 June 2008 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

My boyfriend has no complaints about emotion as such, but complains a LOT that I argue too much. I think he thinks I do it to try to be right, but actually I do it to gauge my own position on things that he knows a lot about (theology) and I don't. I have to argue it out to work out what I think of what he's saying. What am I supposed to say? He half-jokingly tells me to 'say 'yes, dear'' but he really is only half joking.

ljubljana, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:30 (eighteen years ago)

I love arguing about theology for exactly that reason! Most people don't though, they think it's confrontational or just weird and not as interesting as I do. I would offer to argue with you...but I don't know a lot about it.

Maria, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:32 (eighteen years ago)

I originally argued very carefully and respectfully around it to try to get some kind of handle on my Christian boyfrien. It's only lately, after much angst over why I am not very happy about how these conversations go, that I realised it's all going one way. He thinks he knows how liberal atheist tolerant types think already, so he doesn't often bother unpicking anything I say very much. So now I just go in guns blazing with only a glancing regard for his deepest feelings, the place of God in his life, etc. This is not going well :-( And I'm sure his side of the story doesn't pile all the blame on his side as easily as I've just done.

ljubljana, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:40 (eighteen years ago)

xpost Maria, are you a Christian? - do you not believe in God as well as not know about theology, and argue anyway? I end up arguing like Yossarian's bit on the side in Catch 22: “But the God I don’t believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He’s not the mean and stupid God you make Him out to be.”

ljubljana, Sunday, 8 June 2008 20:44 (eighteen years ago)

I am a Christian, which I think helps because other Christians are much less likely to take my arguing as antagonism and much more likely to realize it's me trying to figure things out. But I'm an often doubtful and non-conservative recent convert, so I am actually more comfortable and familiar with the non-believer stance (and refuse to believe in a God who isn't good, just, and merciful beyond belief!). It really does seem to matter *why* you're arguing...is that something you can talk about with your boyfriend, so he realizes it is not about you shooting him down, or do you feel like it's too much about him trying to shoot YOU down?

Maria, Sunday, 8 June 2008 21:27 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, I think I should explain it better to him. I have tried a couple of times, but feel like I'm throwing accusations....

To get back on-topic: he's as smart as or smarter than me, but doesn't always act it. This is important as well. Also, he forgets he's told me things that he's told me tens of times before, and is hurt when I'm not interested or feel I'm having his favourite ideas rammed down my throat. So, intelligence needs RAM and application for it to be any bloody use in a relationship, I feel...

ljubljana, Sunday, 8 June 2008 21:54 (eighteen years ago)

It is perfectly possible to express emotions without letting them control your actions. You can rage without hurting others, cry without wounding yourself with self pity, laugh without becoming antic, fear without cowering. This is healthy.

I absolutely agree, and that's what I try to do. She comes from a highly emotional family though: her mother is a Cuban woman with serious anger issues. She feels intensely and expresses it all the time, and surrounds herself with people that are the same way. That's not really me though.

If it is just a matter of not showing emotion because most daily events do not strongly give rise to them, you're ok. But, if you are not showing emotions in deeper matters of love and relationship, consider this as a warning sign.

I feel it's the former. She hasn't suggested it's the latter, which leads me to believe she wants me to get crazy amped every time a song I like comes on the radio or something.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 8 June 2008 23:29 (eighteen years ago)

BTW thanks for the counsel, all. It's appreciated.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 8 June 2008 23:29 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry to the rest for the derail!

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 8 June 2008 23:30 (eighteen years ago)

Nah Hoos it's cool, this thread got quite a bit more interesting during the latter half imo. I feel like commenting on a few things but I need to be walking to work in five minutes, so I'm off!

RabiesAngentleman, Monday, 9 June 2008 00:43 (eighteen years ago)

her mother is a Cuban woman

i'm not cuban, but growing up about 50% of the people i knew were. you seem to know this as well as anyone, but CAREFUL! CRAZY!

elan, Monday, 9 June 2008 01:05 (eighteen years ago)

anger is a big thing

elan, Monday, 9 June 2008 01:05 (eighteen years ago)

My wife says she can't answer the question, as -- que comedy drumroll -- she's never dated anyone who is her "intellectual equivalent or superior."

Daniel, Esq., Monday, 9 June 2008 01:18 (eighteen years ago)

She isn't wrong.

Daniel, Esq., Monday, 9 June 2008 01:18 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.