# Would you date someone significantly less intellegent than yourself?



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

I'm asking because I just read that it was a tenet of red pill ideology that women want to date more intellegent men, while men don't mind being with a woman less intellegent. From what I've read and personally experienced on NTPs about wanting a partner, it seems most of us want a partner who can keep up intellectually, and is interesting and can banter. It would seem this redpill doesn't really hold true. I'm going to ask every subfourm to see if some are more in agreement with the premise than others, or if there is a correlation across the board for men and women.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

This idea that women want intelligent men is one of their (the manosphere i.e.) most toxic beliefs and a method of protecting their own fragile self-esteem. That's not the only thing they say about women. They have some extremely toxic beliefs on top of this nonsense as well. 

I don't care about intelligence. I never did. Why? Because I perceive intelligence as subjective. I don't see it as any kind of objectively measurable variable therefore in the grand scheme of things it's absolutely irrelevant. 

I had compatibility issues on account of different likes and preferences that my ex and I had but I was always happy to appreciate her positives and ignore the negatives I perceived. 

Intelligence is one of those measures that is entirely subjective, personal and relative, therefore those who try to establish some sort of criteria for it and try to spot (project) their own view of what is intelligence on others ... absolutely lack wisdom. 

It's also weird now that people claim that they are attracted to intelligence (sapiosexuals) .. Not really imo. 

I think what they're really attracted to is what they sub-consciously don't realize is lacking in themselves. IMO, they're just attracted to things they can learn for themselves if they just spent an hour or two a day reading newspapers, books, articles, watching videos etc. 

Others are others. They have parts of theirselves (for lack of a proper word) that are unique and special to them. The only problem imo isn't that of them lacking in something, but that the other person perceiving a lack of something as detrimental to the health of a relationship. It's a projected desire to consider that you need someone else to complete parts of you that you can't complete for yourself. 

Providing you "intelligent" conversation is the assignment of labor onto the other person. Think about it. There is definitely a provision of value between significant others, but why should there be an expectation to provide services that are naturally beyond the capability of that person to provide to you. If you want your partner to service you through intelligent conversation, but they are incapable in your own perception, then you are already making a mistake in your methodology. You have an expectation and you require that expectation to be met ... Notice something here? The number of yous .. the amount of selfishness ... 

For me, when I love, I consider the fact that there is compatibility at the foundational level. Absolutely, certain criteria need to be met, but I'm cognizent of the fact that no one can provide you with _absolute perfection _because for that to happen, *they *would have to be _*crafted *_as per _*your required *_image .. See how narcissistic that is? 

I see huge lists of requirements laid out by people for their imagined, or even existing significant others and I say to myself "Man, where is your ability to _actually _love, _unconditionally_? Isn't that your _own _flaw?" 

I absolutely believe that unconditional love is possible as a human. Unconditional love includes exalting the person _as they are_. Limitations and all.


----------



## Sidhe Draoi (Nov 25, 2016)

No, probably same intelligence or higher. I've tried dating less intelligent men and I just can't seem to find common ground with them OR anything new to learn from them. Also I find them less attractive for it.

I'm a Gemini venus so one of the things I love most about relationships is learning new things and talking about intelligent things.

If they're TOO intelligent I might start feeling inferior and like I have to compete with him, but I don't feel like that's necessarily a bad thing. Plus I'd be WAY more attracted to him.

Basically I'd rather date someone way more intelligent but realistically I'd probably do longer term with someone around my own intelligence level.

Actually I take that back. I can have a LOT of fun with less intelligent guys. But they HAVE to be adrenaline junkies. And I probably wouldn't marry them.

They'd probably be too interested in sex. I'm practically asexual.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

Crosspost much?

To answer your question:
I can't imagine having a serious long-term relationship with someone I would consider dumb. I don't see how that sort of thing could work without mutual respect, and from experience I never manage to retain respect for really dumb people over time.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

I already voted in intp, but I said the same. 
I mean technically any of us could vote in all of them, but I made the poll open and that would just be sad.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

zynthaxx said:


> Crosspost much?
> 
> To answer your question:
> I can't imagine having a serious long-term relationship with someone I would consider dumb. I don't see how that sort of thing could work without mutual respect, and from experience I never manage to retain respect for really dumb people over time.


How am I supposed to gather the data I want without posting various places? I could put up one poll, BUT certain people stay on certain sections and it would be nice to have it separated by type or at least where someone frequents as it could also give a lead to what mindsets are more comfortable where. 

And thanks for answering!


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

Redpillers are dumbasses who can't think past their wizard cocks. You need intelligence for chemistry. I've found that I prefer women who are at least as intellectually curious as I am, if not a bit more. Significantly more works, too, I'm always up for learning something new!


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I voted around the same as me, preferably also a scientist so we can have things in common. But it's not always easy to compare, especially if we have some different things we're good at. I guess these differences are more obvious in daily life and how the partners can keep up with one another.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> I voted around the same as me, preferably also a scientist so we can have things in common. But it's not always easy to compare, especially if we have some different things we're good at. I guess these differences are more obvious in daily life and how the partners can keep up with one another.


I thought about that also. If someone is mathematically brilliant and one linguistically it may be difficult to compare. I landed on just asking in more broad strokes because it is a bit subjective to the person answering anyway. If they are the mathematical partner but consider linguistics below them then it does affect the results. So of course, it would be nice to have one standard example, but as that's not really possible I've decided I'd rather know how someone votes based on what they view as intellegent.


----------



## Marvin the Dendroid (Sep 10, 2015)

Same or more intelligent than me - nothing turns you on quite like having your brain turned on.


----------



## WindChime (Jun 28, 2016)

If you want to go by that ideology, it's basically broken down into:

1) Women wants a provider -> Intelligence = Better chance for resources/become successful -> Better chance of survival for woman + children. 
2) Men wants to procreate as much as possible -> Looks are prioritized, whereas intelligence not so much. 

-----
As a male, I wouldn't want to date someone who is significantly less intelligent than myself. Long-term thinking, it's a recipe for disaster, as the partner is question would be rather dull to interact with...and if you have to live with that, day in and day out, I would imagine that it wouldn't be exactly pleasant for someone who has higher intelligence. 

That said, there are various forms of intelligence, so I'm under the impression that you meant the standard IQ score.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

WindChime said:


> If you want to go by that ideology, it's basically broken down into:
> 
> 1) Women wants a provider -> Intelligence = Better chance for resources/become successful -> Better chance of survival for woman + children.
> 2) Men wants to procreate as much as possible -> Looks are prioritized, whereas intelligence not so much.
> ...


I intentionally left it open for interpretation for that very reason. I could define intellegence in a finate way (such as IQ) but what if the person responding doesn't value that system? Of course this could run into some issues also (someone who only thinks people who like blue are intellegent) so there probably should be a way to quantify intellegence in a coherent way. Then again, I gave the example earlier of a mathematican and a linguist... It's hard to quantify who would be more intellegent. 

Basically: I'm leaving it up to you, the voter to decide what you view as intellegent and if that matters in a relationship. I am trusting enough people probably don't have the oppinion only people who like blue are intellegent.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

*Would you date someone significantly less intellegent than yourself? (Fixed poll)*

I'm asking because I just read that it was a tennet of red pill ideology that women want to date more intellegent men, while men don't mind being with a woman less intellegent. From what I've read and personally experienced on NTPs about wanting a partner, it seems most of us want a partner who can keep up intellectually, and is interesting and can banter. It would seem this redpill doesn't really hold true. I'm going to ask every subfourm to see if some are more in agreement with the premise than others, or if there is a correlation across the board for men and women.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Here's the new thread. I wanted to add a seventh "other" option (which I did to the poll on all the other subfourms) as well as making the poll open (which it is on all the other subfourms) to keep the data consistent. Sorry about the clutter, but I hope you understand.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I already voted in intp, but I said the same.
> I mean technically any of us could vote in all of them, but I made the poll open and that would just be sad.


I had to remake their thread anyway so I'll vote here.


----------



## WindChime (Jun 28, 2016)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I intentionally left it open for interpretation for that very reason. I could define intellegence in a finate way (such as IQ) but what if the person responding doesn't value that system? Of course this could run into some issues also (someone who only thinks people who like blue are intellegent) so there probably should be a way to quantify intellegence in a coherent way. Then again, I gave the example earlier of a mathematican and a linguist... It's hard to quantify who would be more intellegent.
> 
> Basically: I'm leaving it up to you, the voter to decide what you view as intellegent and if that matters in a relationship. I am trusting enough people probably don't have the oppinion only people who like blue are intellegent.


First off, there is no example of mathematician vs linguist in your post at all, regarding different kinds of intelligence. 

Second, you brought in the red pill theory, which is classic for comparing IQ score. 

So your post is all over the place and contradicts one another.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

WindChime said:


> First off, there is no example of mathematician vs linguist in your post at all, regarding different kinds of intelligence.
> 
> Second, you brought in the red pill theory, which is classic for comparing IQ score.
> 
> So your post is all over the place and contradicts one another.


I didn't clarify: I brought up the mathematician and linguistics in the poll thread I made for infp. I only mentioned it in this thread to give an example of being aware that it can be viewed differently. 

I am also not a redpiller and so I don't view IQ as the only type of intellegence. I brought up redpill to explain where the question came from. My interest was peeked on reading the hypothesis I posted and I want to test it. 

My post doesn't contradict itself at all, BUT I am an entp that uses NE leaps over something (i.e a -> b -> c, I'll just go a -> c as that's the natural progression) I forget that not everyone does this or understands it. I also don't have very much experience with isfjs. Let me know if you need any more clarification.


----------



## WindChime (Jun 28, 2016)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I didn't clarify: I brought up the mathematician and linguistics in the poll thread I made for infp. I only mentioned it in this thread to give an example of being aware that it can be viewed differently.
> 
> I am also not a redpiller and so I don't view IQ as the only type of intellegence. I brought up redpill to explain where the question came from. My interest was peeked on reading the hypothesis I posted and I want to test it.
> 
> My post doesn't contradict itself at all, BUT I am an entp that uses NE leaps over something (i.e a -> b -> c, I'll just go a -> c as that's the natural progression) I forget that not everyone does this or understands it. I also don't have very much experience with isfjs. Let me know if you need any more clarification.


The fact that you didn't bother to include it into this thread in the opening post and assumed that we knew what is going on in your mind (because you wrote about it in a different thread) was already a bad idea. There was no context or reasoning behind it, which made you look cracked out. 

Bringing up the mathematician vs linguist now, while casually mentioning the red pill thing in the OP was a recipe for disaster on your part. You could've simply left out both the two examples and asked "Would you date someone significantly less intelligent than yourself" and kept it open ended at that. Instead, you brought in two very specific examples that are two vastly different ideals. Hence, the contradiction. 

Any sane person wouldn't understand what your leaps were. Your post explicitly stated "I gave the example earlier of a mathematican and a linguist". A simple glance at your first post showed no indication of that example. And since you are in the ISFJ forum asking us, that meant in this thread. Not any other thread outside this one. 

Your lack of education on your target audience is something that you need to work on if you wish to acquire information from them through a presentation.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

WindChime said:


> The fact that you didn't bother to include it into this thread in the opening post and assumed that we knew what is going on in your mind (because you wrote about it in a different thread) was already a bad idea. There was no context or reasoning behind it, which made you look cracked out.
> 
> Bringing up the mathematician vs linguist now, while casually mentioning the red pill thing in the OP was a recipe for disaster on your part. You could've simply left out both the two examples and asked "Would you date someone significantly less intelligent than yourself" and kept it open ended at that. Instead, you brought in two very specific examples that are two vastly different ideals. Hence, the contradiction.
> 
> ...


I didn't include it in the op of the other thread also, I just added it when someone asked. So when you asked what I meant by intellegence I simply said "I used an example of a linguist and a mathematican earlier" I completely understand why that would be confusing in hindsight and I appologize for that. It would have been weird (for myself) to just repeat myself and use the example in the same way again, but that's what I should have done.

I wanted to explain my thought process on where the question was coming from which was: redpiller said women are attracted to significantly smarter men, and men don't care about intellegence. I personally do not relate to this (the men I've dated seem to value it, and I don't think men are all looking for mindless drones) so I laughed him out, but instantly regretted that as just because my anecdotal evidence does not point to that, I was curious if it was true as a generalization. Therefore I posted the question as "I read that it was a tenet of redpill ideology" because I did and that is what is driving the question. 

As far as "any sane person" I think any one with high ne would have understood (because they did). 

My target audience is not redpillers, it's the general populus which is why I posted the same question on every keisery subfourm. In doing so I can look at the results and break them down into male/ female / or other and mbti type to see if there are any correlations.

Do you happen to be a bureaucrat?


----------



## entheos (Aug 18, 2013)

Voted _i am female & around same int as me_.

I have dated men of the three "types": less int, same int, more int, and actually the majority of them fell in the category of "less int than me", including my only long-term relationship. 
Also, intelligence is a vague concept imo, so what I consider intelligent, someone else won't, and viceversa. So it's a tricky question. I'm just going with my own personal impression of what intelligent means.

The relationship with my less-int ex became very unfulfilling, tbh, and over time I felt like I was trying to raise a child or something. And over time I lost respect for him when it came to making life decisions, and scenarios that required social intelligence, plus scenarios about jobs and doing certain work for us to move forward in life, and conversations had a glass ceiling, I would turn to my "more intelligent" friends in order to seek mental fulfillment/stimulation.
That was the long-term thing. Then less-int people I casually dated, well one of the various reasons why I felt constantly turned off by them was their lack of intelligence; once again, I had the sensation that I was speaking to a child and I had to teacher/mommy them or something.

My most fulfilling dating scenarios have been with people around the same intelligence as me (again, this concept is so subjective it's hard to discuss). 

Men who were more intelligent than me, that wasn't fulfilling because I couldn't keep up with a lot of topics, I just didn't understand shit they were talking about, and having a conversation with them felt so complicated that it backfired and became unstimulating. And I absolutely need proper mental stimulation to get turned on/attracted. Their "heart" is just not enough for me, I _need _their mind.

The great thing about people with the same int as me is that we end up complimenting each other, cause each person has different knowledge about different things. So for example I'll have superficial knowledge about X, and they have deep knowledge about X cause they do tons of research on it; and they'll have superficial knowledge about Y, but I'll have deep knowledge about that. So we exchange information, we show each other topics of the world that we never knew, and then we discuss personal opinions and conclusions about the topics, wich is where I can see their intelligence. Cause research is just curiosity; knowing a ton of facts doesn't make you intelligent, it just shows you're courious. How you process the facts is the fun part. And I enjoy exploring this process with people with same int as me, more than more-int cause they can get exhausting and I just get lost and that's a turn off.

But if I have to choose between less-int or more-int, ofc I'll go with more.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Wait till individuals pick up on the redpill comment in the INFJ section.
> 
> There have been some very _interesting_ posts in there with regards to male oppression. Lots of _fascinating _and _stimulating _conversation.


So far the infj males who have answered have said they'd want to have a relationship with someone either equal to their intellegence or someone with greater intellegence. 

One made an interesting distinction also that he wouldn't mind if it were short term but in a lasting relationship would prefer an equal level of intellegence.


----------



## Crystal Winter Dream (May 27, 2018)

depends.

as a woman I feel as long as he's willing to listen and learn when I get a little over his head, it may be fun to date someone with less intelligence. At the same time I like being able to have intellectual discussions so if he wasn't interested in anything of the sort, I'd be disappointed.


----------



## Marvin the Dendroid (Sep 10, 2015)

@daleks_exterminate

I think your choice of "significant" is problematic, don't think a lot of people would openly admit to preferring "significantly" more or less. Would probably have been enough just to ask for more intelligent, same or less intelligent.



Facile said:


> I don't mind dating someone less intelligent if I don't really care about her except for the sex or good company that she provides.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

daleks_exterminate said:


> So far the infj males who have answered have said they'd want to have a relationship with someone either equal to their intellegence or someone with greater intellegence.
> 
> One made an interesting distinction also that he wouldn't mind if it were short term but in a lasting relationship would prefer an equal level of intellegence.


That will be very consistent because the red pill community's own idea about this is objectively wrong and your results will prove it. 

However, you suggesting that about the red pill community itself might become the issue - as wind chimes response to you:



> Bringing up the mathematician vs linguist now, *while casually mentioning the red pill thing *in the OP was a recipe for disaster on your part. You could've simply left out both the two examples


Suggests. This is interesting because the whole point of your question is to test the truth of the idea put out by the Red Pill community, therefore it _can't_ be left out since their belief _is _the variable being tested from my perspective. 

To me it actually suggests that part of the annoyance is in bringing up the community itself. 

If you want a good look into modern psyche of individuals who don't seemingly belong to the manosphere, but show obvious signs of _believing _a lot of things that they _believe _, read this thread:

https://www.personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/1280307-brutal-take-infj-males.html

There is a lot of healthy disagreement of course (which is good), but if you know about manosphere beliefs and attitudes, then you'll see them being parroted in that thread. 

We never have such discussions in the ESTP section. But from my recent observation after returning to PerC, I've seen a growth in such commentary taken straight from the manosphere in at least the INFJ section.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

WindChime said:


> I judge  If he classified me as a mierenneuker, then that indeed points that I'm an ISFJ. All about the details.
> 
> I also didn't make the argument of "you must be asking because of your relationship". Your Ne is going into overdrive and putting words into my mouth that I didn't type. You can use the find function and there isn't any indication of that. I was simply insulting your intelligence. Nothing further to read into.
> 
> ...


"oh no a rando nit picker is mocking me and insulting my intellegence after he had trouble with a simple question. I'm so deeply and profoundly troubled by this. He also likes starwars. How would someone who likes starwars be like this?! My entire existence will consist of thinking about this one moment. He's so smart and brilliant for pointing out that I'm not good at using spell check. He's so clever. So smart. So brave. I.... think I'm falling in love with him. I can only hope he prefers less intellegent women than himself. He'd have to or be forever alone."


----------



## WindChime (Jun 28, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> That will be very consistent because the red pill community's own idea about this is objectively wrong and your results will prove it.
> 
> However, you suggesting that about the red pill community itself might become the issue - as wind chimes response to you:
> 
> ...


Interesting thread. I'll browse through it, when I get a chance. 

The communication issue between Si vs Ne is very apparent in this thread. It probably shouldn't have escalated the way it had. 



daleks_exterminate said:


> "oh no a rando nit picker is mocking me and insulting my intellegence after he had trouble with a simple question. I'm so deeply and profoundly troubled by this. He also likes starwars. How would someone who likes starwars be like this?! My entire existence will consist of thinking about this one moment. He's so smart and brilliant for pointing out that I'm not good at using spell check. He's so clever. So smart. So brave. I.... think I'm falling in love with him. I can only hope he prefers less intellegent women than himself. He'd have to or be forever alone."


I appreciate you fawning over me. But I'm not a homewrecker and I'm already taken. 

I wish you the very best in your relationship, as I'm sure your husband is reading your change of heart in your devotion to him and your marriage. :crying:


----------



## Morpheus83 (Oct 17, 2008)

It depends on how you define 'intelligent'. 'Intelligence' comprises different interests, skills and talents--different people are 'good at' and are knowledgeable about different things. I tend to get along with people who're curious about learning new things (and are able to pinpoint what they don't already know). I'd rather date someone who's curious but ignorant of many things than someone who's a 'know it all' and is aware of only a few things within a narrow field of specialisation. So it's not an easy question to answer: it mostly depends on what kind/s of 'intelligence' you value, and this will influence your overall perception of somebody's character (not to mention overall 'intelligence'). While somebody who's 'emotionally intelligent' (that is, somebody who's able to communicate with tact, honesty and is also aware of other people's needs and feelings) is better for me in the long run as a partner, one form of intelligence that makes a good initial impression on me is somebody's facility with critical reasoning in a field like philosophy. 

I'm a gay man.


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

Would you date somebody dumber than yourself,

in all seriousness, every INTJ I know married somebody much dumber than themselves, they have a need to feel superior... every... single... time...

edit: Just saying, that's men only. I don't know about INTJ women, as I'm instinctively turned off so I'm not aware of meeting any while I did date, and now I'm married I don't have women friends... so that's why my sample size is limited to men.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

I think their attitude and moral is more important then if th...oh the phone is calling


----------



## OneMind (Apr 14, 2012)

I voted for the first option because there was no "around the same intelligence or more intelligent than myself". I don't think that I would date someone who's not at least as intelligent as I think I am, so I voted for the least required level of intelligence for dating.

I think it's also worth noting that this is all probably entirely subjective since I don't know how intelligent I am. It's just something that I'd have to "eyeball". So in the end it comes down to compatibility and being attracted to smart women.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

WindChime said:


> I appreciate you fawning over me. But I'm not a homewrecker and I wish you the very best in your relationship, as I'm sure your husband is reading your change of heart in your devotion to him and your marriage. :crying:


I wrote you this song so you can always remember me: 

A pity he does not wreck homes;
A shame he's not into women as dumb as bags,
The only man I've ever loved was a pedantic miereneuker

There is no hope of love for me,
From here on I'll go stag
The only man I'll ever love is a pedantic miereneuker
pedantic miereneuker
pedantic miereneuker
pedantic miereneuker
Yeah. 

I don't know how I even fell for his nitpicking
It's really not my bag
Just thought it may be funny to see wind chimes be bureaucratic
The moment he said "actually" I became attached
Attached like a little dum dum for pedantic miereneuker.
pedantic miereneuker
pedantic miereneuker
pedantic miereneuker
Yeah. 

I've always attracted men who like intellegent women and I don't have to brag, 
But I'd become a blumbering bimbo for pedantic miereneuker 
I'd sign away my trust fund 
I'd even sell the jag'
If I could spend my mispent youth with pedantic miereneuker
pedantic miereneuker
pedantic miereneuker
pedantic miereneuker
Yeah. 

So have him correct me semantically and he's the only man I'd shag. 
The only man I'd anything is pedantic miereneuker.
I'll never see that man again, he doesn't wreck homes. 
I'll pine away forevermore for pedantic miereneuker


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

knifey said:


> Would you date somebody dumber than yourself,
> 
> in all seriousness, every INTJ I know married somebody much dumber than themselves, they have a need to feel superior... every... single... time...
> 
> edit: Just saying, that's men only. I don't know about INTJ women, as I'm instinctively turned off so I'm not aware of meeting any while I did date, and now I'm married I don't have women friends... so that's why my sample size is limited to men.


Maybe that's why @vinniebob hadn't settled. I just wasn't available/alive yet when he was younger. :tongue:


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

Well, this is probably the most excitement an ISFJ thread has ever had.... 

I'm not really sure how to answer the question because, as has already been covered, intelligence has many different definitions, but in general, I've always been attracted to the stereotypical "nerdy" guys who have a deep passion or interest in something that I will never grasp. If we take the 9 types of intelligence (https://blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-intelligence-infographic/) that would come under *logical-mathematical and existential. *Logical-mathematical is the type of intelligence I find most difficult, as though my brain isn't wired to think that way and existential intelligence is something I enjoy and finding someone on that same level or higher helps me explore those types of questions and make me fulfilled. On the other hand, I would say my type of intelligence *interpersonal *firstly, then *intrapersonal and linguistic *(yknow, the ones that people often don't consider intelligence ). So I like men who have greater intelligence in my weaknesses but I'm not attracted to guys who have a greater intelligence in _my _type of intelligence. Basically, I have a thing for guys with mathematical/logical minds who are a little bit awkward with people and finding the "appropriate" words because then we can learn from each other.


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Maybe that's why @vinniebob hadn't settled. I just wasn't available/alive yet when he was younger. :tongue:


lmao, pretty sure ENTP's are waaaaaaaay too confrontational. They need more of an XXFP personality.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

knifey said:


> lmao, pretty sure ENTP's are waaaaaaaay too confrontational. They need more of an XXFP personality.


:laughing: I don't know what you're referring to...

I am extremely curious how these results change depending on type.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Marvin the Dendroid said:


> @*daleks_exterminate*
> 
> I think your choice of "significant" is problematic, don't think a lot of people would openly admit to preferring "significantly" more or less. Would probably have been enough just to ask for more intelligent, same or less intelligent.


It's not _hers _though. It's taken from the source (redpill community as she specified) where some individuals advocate this idea, so I'm sure she's testing the validity of that claim.


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

honestly same or greater would be more accurate. I don't need her to be more intelligent than me, but it's nice.

That's dating in order to get married though. That doesn't reflect one night stands or.... "dating" somebody I didn't give a shit about... cuz you know... I'm quite a slut h:


----------



## Kenkao (Dec 18, 2016)

Hmmm.. I'm female

Well it never happened yet so I don't know. Please qualify what is less intelligent? I prefer Street smart people but with good sense of logic / deduction. However arrogance is a big turn off for me and also bullies and know it all's. So even if you're the smartest person alive, if you're arrogant, bully or know it all, I won't still date you.


daleks_exterminate said:


> I'm asking because I just read that it was a tenet of red pill ideology that women want to date more intellegent men, while men don't mind being with a woman less intellegent. I'm going to ask every subfourm to see if some are more in agreement with the premise than others, or if there is a correlation across the board for men and women.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Marvin the Dendroid (Sep 10, 2015)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> It's not _hers _though. It's taken from the source (redpill community as she specified) where some individuals advocate this idea, so I'm sure she's testing the validity of that claim.


Ah. Wasn't aware.


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

Absolutely not. Tried it once and will not again. 

Of course an average man wouldn't mind a less intelligent woman. Most of them aren't dating her for her mind, anyway. It's about the "heart" (lmao).


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

I'd 100% 9o for someone more intelligent in ways like plannin9.


----------



## Igor (May 26, 2010)

Voted for 'around the same' but, honestly, I tend to think that everyone is intelligent, in different ways. Just because a cow can't climb a tree and a cat can, doesn't mean the cat is more intelligent because of that fact. Trying to quantify smarts begs so many questions, especially since most people will assume themselves to be on the top side of the bell curve, regardless of their actual measurable IQ, education, proclivity towards inquisitiveness, etc. So then, while I understand and applaud the premise behind inquiring to test the validity of these redpillers assumptions, I just can't help but find myself chuckling on the inside about the underlying absurdity of the whole mess.


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

shazam said:


> I'd 100% 9o for someone more intelligent in ways like plannin9.


Or buying a new keyboard


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Wild said:


> Or buying a new keyboard


Hah. If he's anything like me that's not happening till the keyboard can't be used anymore at all. I used a pair of $14 headphones for 4 years and only got rid of them after they literally broke into two pieces.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Wild said:


> Or buying a new keyboard


:dry: you know what wild...


----------



## Row (Apr 28, 2018)

I'd prefer to date someone kind rather than intelligent. Also what type of intelligence (academic/scientific/artistic/interpersonal)? The only reason I wouldn't date someone "less intelligent" is if it makes her feel inferior to me, otherwise I don't really have a preference.


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Hah. If he's anything like me that's not happening till the keyboard can't be used anymore at all. I used a pair of $14 headphones for 4 years and only got rid of them after they literally broke into two pieces.


I'm the exact same way TBH. 

Although it takes me about a month to utterly ruin $14 headphones :sad:


----------



## Theories (Mar 24, 2016)

This theory does not apply to INTJs. Only to the more _common_ "man".

Deep in-depth conversations which INTJs crave, will not be had with someone of lesser intelligence. Non-compatible.

I'd prefer to be with someone at least of same or higher intelligence.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Wild said:


> I'm the exact same way TBH.
> 
> Although it takes me about a month to utterly ruin $14 headphones :sad:


Man I really got lucky with those. I was not expecting them to last a month when I got em and then they just kept going and going... Even when all the padding wore off. Then the wire got frayed. Still kept working. And then finally 4 years later the left ear piece just broke in two. 

In the meantime, I replaced two $400 phones cuz I dropped them once each  

What a world we live in.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

shazam said:


> :dry: you know what wild...


Man, i was gonna start teasing yah about your love for BANANAS, but I think with Wild you already have enough on your plate. h:


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Man I really got lucky with those. I was not expecting them to last a month when I got em and then they just kept going and going... Even when all the padding wore off. Then the wire got frayed. Still kept working. And then finally 4 years later the left ear piece just broke in two.
> 
> In the meantime, I replaced two $400 phones cuz I dropped them once each
> 
> What a world we live in.


Someone needs to start manufacturing Se-dom proof electronics. Put a patent on that shit.


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

One of reason i still have phone like this:













Smart phones my ass. Break easily, battery last day not a month ;p


----------



## Robert2928 (Apr 6, 2012)

Simple. If the cereal is good at every bite it risks becoming bland over time. I mean yeah you enjoy Raisin Bran or Honey Bunches of Oats the first month but...if that's the only cereal you've had over years then eventually the curiosity of the the sugar cereals will increase and you will likely be more tempted to try them.

I mean have you compared the cereal mascots? Lucky is always out on adventures at exotic locations. Meanwhile what is the Raisin Bran or Honey Bunches of Oats mascots doing? *Spoiler alert* something mundane lol


----------



## EyesOpen (Apr 3, 2013)

About the same or more intelligent than me is probably ideal but I would date someone less intelligent - I don't EXACTLY know what that means though or how that looks practically. Really, intelligence isn't the issue to me - it's a willingness and openness for learning and experience. A curiosity about life, ideas, etc. That is what matters most to me.

I suppose I had a supervisor once who was really just not bright and it stood out to me. I'm not sure I could have a mate that was kind of...just not that bright either. So, probably would lean less toward someone who was less intelligent than me. But I don't really walk around rating people's intelligence in general. I think it's just kind of a part of manner of personality that comes across (again, that openness to exploring ideas and such). 

I am with someone who I would say is more intelligent than me and it is a bit of a surprise as I am used to being kind of seen as "the intelligent one" when around friends and back when I was in undergrad/grad school and all. So, it's sometimes a bit of an adjustment for me to be a bit "slower" in comparison when I'm usually the quick one in relation to others.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Wild said:


> Someone needs to start manufacturing Se-dom proof electronics. Put a patent on that shit.


They used to. I remember the good old days of the Nokia when I would toss that beast halfway across the room in the midst of an argument knowing that it won't break .. just for dramatic effect.

Then came that little bitch Razr and it changed the game forever, because now everyone realized that they didn't need to make phones that last 



Elwinz said:


> One of reason i still have phone like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I.can.t.live.life.without.a.phone. 

I would rather accept death by being buried in a put of scorpions and snakes than accept life without a screen in front of muh face.


----------



## Robert2928 (Apr 6, 2012)

JennyJukes said:


> Well, this is probably the most excitement an ISFJ thread has ever had....
> 
> I'm not really sure how to answer the question because, as has already been covered, intelligence has many different definitions, but in general, I've always been attracted to the stereotypical "nerdy" guys who have a deep passion or interest in something that I will never grasp. If we take the 9 types of intelligence (https://blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-intelligence-infographic/) that would come under *logical-mathematical and existential. *Logical-mathematical is the type of intelligence I find most difficult, as though my brain isn't wired to think that way and existential intelligence is something I enjoy and finding someone on that same level or higher helps me explore those types of questions and make me fulfilled. On the other hand, I would say my type of intelligence *interpersonal *firstly, then *intrapersonal and linguistic *(yknow, the ones that people often don't consider intelligence ). So I like men who have greater intelligence in my weaknesses but I'm not attracted to guys who have a greater intelligence in _my _type of intelligence. Basically, I have a thing for guys with mathematical/logical minds who are a little bit awkward with people and finding the "appropriate" words because then we can learn from each other.


I didn't even know ISFJs made threads lol


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

Robert2928 said:


> I didn't even know ISFJs made threads lol


Well no-one else wants to know about us :crying:


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

Wild said:


> Someone needs to start manufacturing Se-dom proof electronics. Put a patent on that shit.


Its counter productive for manufactures to make unbreakable ones. Customer break device, so need to buy new one. The good old times of durable devices are gone.
I still have my "indestructible" logitech MX518 mouse, but i know once it eventually breaks there is no replacement for it anymore


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Man, i was gonna start teasing yah about your love for BANANAS, but I think with Wild you already have enough on your plate. h:


She's very bold... bananas are delish.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

shazam said:


> She's very bold... bananas are delish.


You like pickles too?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

I may date one, but in the first place how much less intelligent person could impress my? I mean, person should really feel relatively much dumber than me and would lack ability to even keep up with me in any conversation and etc. On the other hand, I don't really want to data anyone, so yeah. This question is too hard to answer, but we generally seek in person what we find important and quite often that's part of their intelligence. But if we could talk about animals too, then I'm not really against meeting monkey, which should be much less intelligent than people. Still question a bit on series of "If you have poop coming out, will you chose black or white toilet or bucket?"


----------



## Robert2928 (Apr 6, 2012)

JennyJukes said:


> Well no-one else wants to know about us :crying:


That's not true (it kinda is doe lol) I wanna know more about yall and this thread seems like a good start *grabs popcorn*
You can be my tour guide in this foreign land. We are practically best friends already.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Elwinz said:


> Its counter productive for manufactures to make unbreakable ones. Customer break device, so need to buy new one. The good old times of durable devices are gone.
> I still have my "indestructible" logitech MX518 mouse, but i know once it eventually breaks there is no replacement for it anymore


Oh yes. And on top of that, they've actually converted "rugged" into a marketing strategy to sell us "unbreakable" shit and added like a 300% premium on them just for that. 

I just tossed a 7 year old logitech mouse (m187) and I was really, really sad to see the little guy go. But I had it long enough and it served me well. Poor little guy. I'm gonna miss him.


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

Robert2928 said:


> That's not true (it kinda is doe lol) I wanna know more about yall and this thread seems like a good start *grabs popcorn*
> You can be my tour guide in this foreign land. We are practically best friends already.


Ha, I made a typing thread and you PMed me (something which left a lasting impression on me actually) to figure out my type... you typed me as an ESFJ! 

_But alas us isfjs are forgettable... _


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> You like pickles too?


Nope, hate em.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

shazam said:


> Nope, hate em.


Ooh. A picky man with discerning tastes :wink:


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

Yes I am smart enough for the both of us. On the other hand intelligent women turn me on. I am a Sapiophile somewhat


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

I don't really care. I care more about what's in a woman's heart than what's in her head. I actually find that a relationship with a very intelligent women usually devolves into a debate competition in which we're more interested in winning than relating.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Robert2928 said:


> Y'all not gonna like what I have to say but it is what it is. Ladies...if a guy trying to get with you it's because he's trying to f**k. In his eyes you have a pretty face, nice body, phat ass, etc. something that makes you "attractive" to him and, honestly, that is good enough for him...and frankly "Intelligence" isn't a factor for many guys.
> 
> ...and here is likely why: Intelligence can be a buzzkill. Intelligence is a roadblock for sex. I believe there is a correlation between the more intelligent you are and the more sex becomes less "short term f**king around" and become more "long term life goals" or some bullshit. A guy is after short term gains (aka sex) and will take the path of least resistance to get there. The more intelligent you are, the more effort that has to be put in to reach the goal.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your opinion. There are of course people who also agree with you and that's fine. However there are also people who don't. Which is exactly why im asking. I'm curious about majorities.

Out of curiosity: you mentioned drama and other shit you have to put up with in relationships, but do you care about having conversations with a SO or anything else besides sex/ physical attraction?


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Actually Robert2928,


* *





Now that you've mentioned the Lucky charms thing, I'm realizing it's exactly the same way I think, but with friends. 

I've never really needed a lot of friends & prefer more interesting people. So if there is going to be drama/annoyance in a friendship, or a lot of emotional bullshit, they better be really fucking interesting or I'll drop really fast. However, once I'm invested I'm invested.

Note:
I am also really bad at keeping in touch/ loose sight of people, but that's not the same thing.




This is completely off topic, but also reminds me of the same way of thinking.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Ooh. A picky man with discerning tastes :wink:


yayayaya


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

Female and I'm not dating someone dumber than me because 0.5 + 0.75 doesn't equal 1.0 and even with two halves together we wouldn't make a functional idiot.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

I'm now wondering if inferior se can lead to redpillism. (Like in the case of enfjs) 

Like inferior Fi can make intps sometimes weird in relationship
Or inferior si can make me weird about physical comfort.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I'm now wondering if inferior se can lead to redpillism. (Like in the case of enfjs)


Inferior Se seems like a motivating factor for INJ's to become order advocates because they perceive the world around them as innately chaotic and thus get driven to try to impose their own desire for order on society as a whole. INTJ's through systems and processes. INFJ's through organizing groups and people. (This is based on a lot of posts I've seen from NJ's about their perception of the world as chaotic). 

I would imagine that a lot of INFJ's because of the inferior Se problems struggle in relationships because them being future oriented have a hard time with practical matters and day to day life .. Chores are mundane. Expectations are hard to maintain. Many of them have visions of greatness and they see potential more than they see reality .. both in their partnerships as well as in themselves. They find it hard to let go of those visions .. They become less satisfied with the state of their life because they consistently dream about the ideal. 

I can understand them, but unfortunately they need to understand the limitations of the world and reality itself with respect to the practical implementation of their visions. 

And therefore, if you see the connections above, you'll understand why they're drawn to others who give them the ability to maximize their own potential as well as drive towards this promised utopia. Like other utopian communities (I consider the manosphere at its core to be a utopian community for men specifically) they tend to latch on to those ideas because it gives them an explanation for their problems as well as feeds into their fantasies of a world where if the world would just be organized a certain way, they will find their place in it.


----------



## UpClosePersonal (Apr 18, 2014)

This poll begs the question, How intelligent does one have to be to spell "intelligent" correctly?

This is a good question. Intelligent women can be lacking in a certain amount of warmth. I'm comparing someone who earned a college degree with someone who only went so far as high school.


----------



## Kelly Kapowski (Apr 26, 2018)

Marvin the Dendroid said:


> @daleks_exterminate
> 
> I think your choice of "significant" is problematic, don't think a lot of people would openly admit to preferring "significantly" more or less. Would probably have been enough just to ask for more intelligent, same or less intelligent.



That gif :rolling:


----------



## poco a poco (Nov 21, 2013)

Yeah, I'm fine with it. I would also date someone of same level or higher level intelligence than me, but I do seem to have a preference...
(r/iamverysmart) I tend to be more ~intelligent~ than the guys I date.
BUT, there are many areas of intelligence... while I might be more _conversationally _intelligent than guys I date, they're usually more responsible and effective in the real world.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

So no one is mentioning the typo in the title?
The irony of the question with the typo?

My disappointment is profound.
:crying:


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I'm asking because I just read that it was a tenet of red pill ideology that women want to date more intellegent men, while men don't mind being with a woman less intellegent. I'm going to ask every subfourm to see if some are more in agreement with the premise than others, or if there is a correlation across the board for men and women.


I will go the non PC route and admit I conform to this prejudice. I prefer to date more intelligent men and learned that by experience. To put it simply, intelligence is a turn on and so if a man is more intelligent it is sexy. Also, I like someone who can challenge me to try harder, haha.


----------



## Kelly Kapowski (Apr 26, 2018)

I’m with you @SurrealSnake - Sapiophiles uniiiite :sun-smiley:

Intelligence can be defined in many ways and I find them all attractive. I’m def a sapiosexual. I want to drag my husband to the bedroom when he lets his brains pour out all over the place.


----------



## JJINFP (Jun 18, 2018)

This is an interesting question because I’ve found that what I once considered “intelligent” really meant intelligent in the same way as myself. I just separated from someone who I didn’t find all that intelligent when we met but I was still very drawn to him. Over the years I learned that he was more intelligent than myself in many areas. For example he is amazing at doing math quickly in his head and he always beat me at Jeopardy. But when it came to deep, meaningful conversation, the use of language - and often times just common sense - I felt that we were not on the same level. I also have more education, which could have something to do with it. In the end I felt frustrated and like I was starving for a deeper connection. So I think it has more to do with being intelligent in similar areas, having similar sensibilities and world views. I wouldn’t invest in a relationship again where that wasn’t the case.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

UpClosePersonal said:


> This poll begs the question, How intelligent does one have to be to spell "intelligent" correctly?
> 
> This is a good question. Intelligent women can be lacking in a certain amount of warmth. I'm comparing someone who earned a college degree with someone who only went so far as high school.


I'm an atrocious speller. However, I'm in pretty good company: http://mentalfloss.com/article/51224/11-historical-figures-who-were-really-bad-spelling

You're suggesting that attending college removes warmth? If so, would certain degrees (in your opinion) change this: i.e. nursing, elementary teaching, etc. Why would someone become less warm just from becoming more educated? Are you suggesting that all women are inherently warm? Also how to you define warm? 

Thanks!


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

TheTechMan said:


> /sarcasm


It actually wasn't.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Blue Ribbon said:


> @daleks_exterminate is this idea related to the ridiculous notion of "female hypergamy?"


I'm sure it's related, but again, it's not actually my idea. I'm just trying to test if what redpillers say is accurate, or at least if it would be on this fourm.


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

Kenkao said:


> Hmmm maybe you haven't seen an angry infp yet


eh nah I've seen them storm off and yell to themselves about how they should murder everybody... still pretty cute. It's somebody in my family and everybody on the other side of the door is sniggering.


----------



## Kenkao (Dec 18, 2016)

knifey said:


> eh nah I've seen them storm off and yell to themselves about how they should murder everybody... still pretty cute. It's somebody in my family and everybody on the other side of the door is sniggering.


Hmmm infps can be violent. There's a thread in the infp forum. I thought it was unique to me but when someone created that thread, ir seems that other infps can become violent too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

Kenkao said:


> Hmmm infps can be violent. There's a thread in the infp forum. I thought it was unique to me but when someone created that thread, ir seems that other infps can become violent too.


lol it's pretty funny isn't it, it seems to be quite common for sure


----------



## Morpheus83 (Oct 17, 2008)

A question about intelligence: If you're looking for somebody more 'intelligent' than yourself to compensate for your perceived weaknesses, then is it easy to tell if the other person isn't leading you up the garden path? It's said that it takes intelligence to perceive intelligence (when I say 'intelligence', I'm not talking about conventional IQ: I'm talking about a set of diverse skills and interests). If you're tone deaf and unable to sing in tune, then are you discerning enough to identify somebody who actually does sing in tune? I have a sneaking suspicion that some people looking to 'date down' are actually full of bullshit but don't want to be called out on it. Heck--I even know someone (sees herself as a 'sophisticated trained poet') who brags about her 'experience', misuses terms, and can't form a coherent argument to save her life. But if you didn't know much about literature, you'd probably be easily 'impressed'.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I'm sure it's related, but again, it's not actually my idea. I'm just trying to test if what redpillers say is accurate, or at least if it would be on this fourm.


You don't need to test to know they're completely delusional. I don't think their ideas are completely baseless. I'm sure some women exist who just want to marry up. But I doubt it's the majority of people, since I happen to know a lot of couples. 

Even then, I think it's a matter of perspective. It may look like hypergamy to them, but how would they know for sure? Maybe it is real love? Maybe the woman is not as unintelligent as she appears to be, maybe the man isn't as intelligent as he appears to me. There's too many variables here that are unaccounted for. But then again, red pill and black pill communities tend to view the world as black and white. "Most/all women are like this" which may or may not be true.


----------



## Kenkao (Dec 18, 2016)

knifey said:


> I find it amusing you're fascinated with them. It does seem likely xxFP's end up with xNTJ's, but usually extroverts end up with introverts in that pairing (from the half a dozen i've seen, they are all E/I, female I).
> 
> And the anger may seem scary but, I really don't know what temperament being angry wouldn't scare INFP. INFP are themselves the most adorable and soft personalties. It's like being around a bunny or a kitten. Even when they get angry it's like being around and angry bunny or kitten. Still adorable even as they're flipping over the game board because they feel like everybody is picking on them. You just want to cuddle them.


I read your post again just to make sure i didn't miss anything and yes i did haha.

Just to comment about the last part - Still adorable even as they're flipping over the game board because they feel like everybody is picking on them. You just want to cuddle them - why didn't anyone do that to me when i was so angry or stressed out? You are 100% absolutely correct in this one. At least for me and i posted this not so long ago, that when I'm angry or stressed out, the worst thing you can do is meet my anger and provide unsolicited advices. What i would need in times of stress, like when i started crying and throwing things around (hehehe) is a cuddle to reassure me that everything is going to be alright. 

You may be an exception than a rule 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

Morpheus83 said:


> It's said that it takes intelligence to perceive intelligence


I agree with you so much... people who marry are rarely more than 2/10 away from each other in intelligence, same goes for beauty. Ugly and Stupid people flock together, but they don't think they're particularly ugly or stupid and their partners are not much different to them, so they rank them accordingly. Nobody wants to be looked down on, and only closet pedo's want somebody to look up to them as a child looks up to an adult. If there is a large gap in intelligence, there is something very wrong.



Kenkao said:


> You may be an exception than a rule


 I don't know why I understand INFP's so well. They have always been an open book to me and I really like them. I still stay away from them, as there is a deep desire within me to squash the cuteness in them, burst their bubble, and shake them. Make them see the horrible torture in the world and extinguish every hope and dream they have for life and love. I want to pluck them from the romantic anime they live in and drop them in a live action saw movie and watch their head explode from being forced into reality.

I'm a horrible brutal sadist... the only one who can be with me is an ISFJ lol, because they already think life is a saw movie. <3 my isfj.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Blue Ribbon said:


> @*daleks_exterminate* is this idea related to the ridiculous notion of "female hypergamy?"


Yeup. That is exactly what it is. Daleks seems to have stumbled upon the manosphere recently and seems like she's trying to validate/invalidant/verify their ideas.

PerC has more of the average/intellectual sampling therefore her results are for a very strict sample. 

The responses she would have gotten for this question within the manosphere (and even some extreme far right forums) would have been completely different.


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

Squirt said:


> I will go the non PC route and admit I conform to this prejudice. I prefer to date more intelligent men and learned that by experience. To put it simply, intelligence is a turn on and so if a man is more intelligent it is sexy. Also, I like someone who can challenge me to try harder, haha.


I'm growth oriented. If I can't learn much from a relationship, then I won't bother getting attached in any way. A cute boy with a nice "personality" can only go so far with me. Not even a big dick is enough, sor~ry.


----------



## Robert2928 (Apr 6, 2012)

daleks_exterminate said:


> This is really interesting. We're so different :O lol. While I like going places occasionally, Its extremely important for me to have interesting/ novel conversation. I don't mean talk about our lives or who has different hair at work or the weather. I fucking hate small talk. I like taking about anything and everything with my SO that's interesting (topics like: space exploration, artificial intelligence, simulations, mbti, random hypothesis and questions of existence, even just dumb stuff like "would you rather fight one horse size duck or 100 duck size horses"... actually we mostly talk about that stuff. Haha) and playing strategic board games.
> 
> I've never felt the need to parade my so off or care what other people think about my SO. Imo, you can go do activities and have fun together, but not really ever know the person. I have no interest in that. Also in a long term relationship it seems short sighted like all the novelty of impulse would wear off and then you're just kind of stuck in a shitty situation with someone you don't know unable to talk about anything interesting.
> 
> To each their own though. You'd probably be miserable in my type of relationship, and I'd be miserable in yours. It's facinating how humans can be so different, don't you think?


Ok so they merged the things into one super thing (What is this? Some marvel crossover event?)

I'd hope we would be different lol Well first I'm a guy and you aren't, which is obvious, and second our cognitive functions are different. 

*Male vs Female:*
Our views on relationships should be different because our goals are going to be different. Guys tend to be more competitive making EVERYTHING a competition. Like seriously I remember stuff as stupid as who could pee the longest. So it only makes sense that who you date would be dragged into it. I mean we all know about the numbers game with how many women you can have sex with but there is also the "trophy" game where you find someone extremely attractive to date (although both of these games can be played together) That's probably why the parading around thing happens so other guys can see what you accomplished. It's kinda of a "you can look but you can't touch...but I can touch because she's mine" type of deal *assuming the woman is not touched more a doorknob lmao* The exclusivity becomes prestige because having another guy's sloppy seconds leads to sick burns like "how does my dick taste?"!!!XD I'm sure women have their little games as well 

*Cognitive functions: *
Not mentioning with your dominant function I could see why the value you have in the conversation thing in a partner. A difference worth noting is the direction of the intuition function. Mine is introverted so I work better alone because if I'm not 100% by myself my dominant Fe won't allow any sort of introspection (not to mention being a type 5 on top of that) so I enjoy being undisturbed left to my own devices. Needless to say that goes against my dominant function so there is this consistent struggle for Fe's desire to be attached to people and the type 5's desire to be detached from people. Since the type 5 usually wins I need a counterbalance to prevent me from becoming a complete "hermit"...basically a tether to keep me somewhat "grounded" so I don't become too out of touch with reality. While it's sometimes like pulling teeth to get me out to do things...I personally need a partner who can get me out of head. Worth mentioning is that intuitives tend to "want to know" while sensors tend to "just do." Since my perception functions are in the middle I see value in both sides but, for me, the sensor's way is more fun. Like you go out doing activities and have fun together and that's good enough. There is an elegance to that simplicity. Truth be told intutitves seem so miserable while sensors are out there having fun so I switched camps and having been trying to embrace that tertiary Se more. 

Like if you asked me this question a couple of years ago I would have been one of the many "I want someone of equal or similar intelligence" but now...if a woman can figure out how to have sex and, if we have kids, NOT constantly put them in danger (assuming she's not like a crazy axe murderer or something) then she is intelligent enough for me...but I have to find her attractive

Speaking of attractive, @*Nicholasjh1 *

"Horny intelligent women" =/= "attractive." For all I know, you could be a chubby chaser and I have a strict "not fat chix" policy LMAO I get there is a pool of horny women in the world but just because they a dtf doesn't mean I'm going to be going after land whales, pepperoni faces, cougars, etc. I have standards you know! (not saying that you don't) It depends on what you consider attractive bro. For example, I'm an ass man. I'd be willing to look past a woman not having much of a chest if she has a nice ass but you could be a boob guy and look past a flat ass if a woman has a chest.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

UpClosePersonal said:


> This poll begs the question, How intelligent does one have to be to spell "intelligent" correctly?
> 
> This is a good question. Intelligent women can be lacking in a certain amount of warmth. I'm comparing someone who earned a college degree with someone who only went so far as high school.


The best post so far.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Yes. Just because they're not intelligent doesn't mean they're not still a complex individual. If they have a good personality then I'm sold.

I'd see myself as an intelligent joker enjoying my silly but adventurous Harley Quinn. 

Complexity of mind or soul, both count.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Cal said:


> The best post so far.


If you think so, perhaps you could respond to my comment as he hasn't?



daleks_exterminate said:


> I'm an atrocious speller. However, I'm in pretty good company: 11 Historical Figures Who Were Really Bad At Spelling | Mental Floss
> 
> You're suggesting that attending college removes warmth? If so, would certain degrees (in your opinion) change this: i.e. nursing, elementary teaching, etc. Why would someone become less warm just from becoming more educated? Are you suggesting that all women are inherently warm? Also how to you define warm?
> 
> Thanks!


Thanks.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

daleks_exterminate said:


> If you think so, perhaps you could respond to my comment as he hasn't?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.


It doesn't really matter. It sounds more so as though you are trying to prove that you are still intelligent, but if you were already aware of your intelligence than you wouldn't need to prove it. Trying to use historical figures as a way to justify intellect does not work well when considering the fact that this was back when things certain things, such as education and access to education was much different from now. We live an era in which we already have way more resources to help us with spelling than we did back than. So if you cannot spell basic words, then that is automatically on you. You do not much to justify this these days. Even I know that my poor spelling is on me, but I am not going to act as though it is justified, or act as though it does not say anything about intelligence in terms of linguistics.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Cal said:


> It doesn't really matter. It sounds more so as though you are trying to prove that you are still intelligent, but if you were already aware of your intelligence than you wouldn't need to prove it. Trying to use historical figures as a way to justify intellect does not work well when considering the fact that this was back when things certain things, such as education and access to education was much different from now. We live an era in which we already have way more resources to help us with spelling than we did back *than.* So if you cannot spell basic words, then that is automatically on you. You do not much to justify this these days. Even I know that my poor spelling is on me, but I am not going to act as though it is justified, or act as though it does not say anything about intelligence in terms of linguistics.


Yes, of course spelling poorly/not checking is on me. Spelling is reliant on visual memory which is a fourm of intelligence. That raises the question again of "how do we define intelligence". I have severe adhd which makes being able to spell even basic words much more difficult than it is for neurotypical people. 

If someone valued linguist intelligence and cared about a partner who was intelligent in that way, I would not be a good choice.

With all of that being said, I was asking for clarification on the idea of warth/education, which neither he nor you have addressed.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

knifey said:


> eh nah I've seen them storm off and yell to themselves about how they should murder everybody... still pretty cute. It's somebody in my family and everybody on the other side of the door is sniggering.


My husband is INFP and his anger is always more funny and cute than threatening - and rather than cause mayhem he is out to change the world to “fix” it. What makes him angry is generally some principle being violated, so it doesn’t lend to much violence or force.

And he is still massively intelligent. h:


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

They must be intelli9ent in the way I am not... :Smilies3:


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Yes, of course spelling poorly/not checking is on me. Spelling is reliant on visual memory which is a form of intelligence. That raises the question again of "how do we define intelligence". I have severe ADHD which makes being able to spell even basic words much more difficult than it is for neurotypical people.
> 
> If someone valued linguist intelligence and cared about a partner who was intelligent in that way, I would not be a good choice.
> 
> With all of that being said, I was asking for clarification on the idea of worth/education, which neither he nor you have addressed.


First off, using ADHD as an excuse for specific things, such as poor spelling, does not work very well, especially at your age. That is like when someone uses having a child with a severe disability as an excuse for them being allowed to be violent towards other children. Spelling can still be checked by things, such as the internet or grammar programs(such as grammar.ly). This again sounds excuses to justify something that is fully on you. Linguistics is one of the well-known types of intellect, and so far you have failed to justify your views on education too. You are talking about education, careers, etc, in relations to "warmth", which has nothing to do with my post, which is an obvious reference to your spelling errors when I said, "best post so far".


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

Cal said:


> First off, using ADHD as an excuse for specific things, such as poor spelling


you need an excuse for poor spelling? My excuse is... I don't care about spelling. I can't spell for shit, and I have a really high IQ... I literally can learn anything quite quickly... I program in html,css,php,C#, I play multiple instruments, I have qualifications in about 4 unique unrelated feilds of study lol... why the fuck would anybody need an excuse for something as useless as spelling... Honestly... is it supposed to be some indicator of intelligence? Give me a break...


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

knifey said:


> you need an excuse for poor spelling? My excuse is... I don't care about spelling. I can't spell for shit, and I have a really high IQ... I literally can learn anything quite quickly... I program in html,css,php,C#, I play multiple instruments, I have qualifications in about 4 unique unrelated feilds of study lol... why the fuck would anybody need an excuse for something as useless as spelling... Honestly... is it supposed to be some indicator of intelligence? Give me a break...





Cal said:


> First off, using ADHD as an excuse for specific things, such as poor spelling, does not work very well, especially at your age. That is like when someone uses having a child with a severe disability as an excuse for them being allowed to be violent towards other children. Spelling can still be checked by things, such as the internet or grammar programs(such as grammar.ly). This again sounds excuses to justify something that is fully on you.* Linguistics is one of the well-known types of intellect*, and so far you have failed to justify your views on education too. You are talking about education, careers, etc, in relations to "warmth", which has nothing to do with my post, which is an obvious reference to your spelling errors when I said, "best post so far".


Your welcome.


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

Cal said:


> Your welcome.


so putting my post calling out your bullshit, above your actual bullshit is a present? okay weirdo... I'm welcome...


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

knifey said:


> so putting my post calling out your bullshit, above your actual bullshit is a present? okay weirdo... I'm welcome...


For someone claiming to have a high IQ, you are not doing a very good job at demonstrating it. Linguistics is an area of intelligence and this does not rocket science to realize that is what I am referring to, considering the line," one of the well-known types of intellect", part of my post.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

sshhhhh...


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

My first marriage was with a man who was one standard deviation below. It didn't last for a number of reasons of which one was frustration on my part with the state of our communications. After that experience, it taught me that it's not a wise move for me (not anyone else) to partner with men who can't keep up. My current marriage is with a partner who I consider more intelligent, even though our IQs are close. He's stronger in quantitative reasoning and mine is abstract/visual reasoning. The balance areas are close.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

shazam said:


> sshhhhh...


*GASP* Now I need to overreact, CAUSE I FEEL OPRESSEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Duo said:


> My first marriage was with a man who was one standard deviation below. It didn't last for a number of reasons of which one was frustration on my part with the state of our communications. After that experience, it taught me that it's not a wise move for me (not anyone else) to partner with men who can't keep up. My current marriage is with a partner who I consider more intelligent, even though our IQs are close. He's stronger in quantitative reasoning and mine is abstract/visual reasoning. The balance areas are close.


hmm :thinking2:


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Cal said:


> *GASP* Now I need to overreact, CAUSE I FEEL OPRESSEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:laughing:


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

shazam said:


> hmm :thinking2:


Explain.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Cal said:


> First off, using ADHD as an excuse for specific things, such as poor spelling, does not work very well, especially at your age. That is like when someone uses having a child with a severe disability as an excuse for them being allowed to be violent towards other children. Spelling can still be checked by things, such as the internet or grammar programs(such as grammar.ly). This again sounds excuses to justify something that is fully on you. Linguistics is one of the well-known types of intellect, and so far you have failed to justify your views on education too. You are talking about education, careers, etc, in relations to "warmth", which has nothing to do with my post, which is an obvious reference to your spelling errors when I said, "best post so far".


You quoted a post mentioning education/warmth and called it the best post. You're seriously suggesting that I should have known you were only referencing the spelling and not the correlation between education and "warmth" when that was the majority of his post without removing that part from your quote? 

I am not going to run every conversation I have through a program to check if I have spelled everything correctly before sharing it. If you want to do so that is your prerogative as if you want to judge others for not doing so. 
Your program missed your use of than instead of then earlier so it doesn't appear to greatly help.

I do not actually care if you think that mentioning ADHD in regards to bad spelling is an excuse that should not be given, despite numerous studies showing not only correlation, but also causation. 

I asked you a question with the expectation that you would have something to contribute to what you said was the best post due to it having a great deal to do with warmth and education. Apparently you have no interest in that part and just took a long/petty path to saying you think I'm not intelligent with nothing more to add. Super good contribution, sparky.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

daleks_exterminate said:


> You quoted a post mentioning education/warmth and called it the best post. You're seriously suggesting that I should have known you were only referencing the spelling and not the correlation between education and "warmth" when that was the majority of his post without removing that part from your quote?
> 
> I am not going to run every conversation I have through a program to check if I have spelled everything correctly before sharing it. If you want to do so that is your prerogative as if you want to judge others for not doing so.
> Your program missed your use of than instead of then earlier so it doesn't appear to greatly help.
> ...


Oh, that is on me. I thought I had bolded what I was saying in reference to the post, but I had not.

ADHD cannot be used as an excuse for it, because even with Dysgraphia, there still are many ways to cope with it, and by now you should already be old enough to have learned how too. Not to forget that you still have the internet to look up the spelling of words, and programs to help with spelling and grammar. So again, your excuses here are not very good. Your questions have nothing to do with what I am talking about. If I am mainly referring to spelling then we should be talking about spelling. Though all these posts I am mainly referring to spelling, so asking me these questions would make no sense. So far, in all of my posts, I have referred to your inability to stop making up excuses for poor spelling, and the only reason why intelligence has popped up here is due to your responses trying to justify your spelling skills and your intelligence. This is partly on me, but it is also partly on you too.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Cal said:


> Oh, that is on me. I thought I had bolded what I was saying in reference to the post, but I had not.


Perhaps your program needs a better AI for catching errors...


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Would you like me to copy pasta my response to the identical thread in the ISTP forum?


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Perhaps your program needs a better AI for catching errors...


?

My program is fine, I probably didn't click on the bolded icon hard enough for the information to be transferred(which happens very often).


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Cal said:


> considering the fact that this was back when things certain things, such as education and access to education was much different from now. We live an era in which we already have way more resources to help us with spelling than we did back than.


Also, do you not think dictionaries were not readily available back then? Even if they weren't, you're implyingng that Winston Churchill, Earnest Hemingway, Agatha Christie etc didn't have access to dictionaries? Or a high enough level of education? Seriously?


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Cal said:


> ?
> 
> My program is fine, I probably didn't click on the bolded icon hard enough for the information to be transferred(which happens very often).


Fair enough.


----------



## UpClosePersonal (Apr 18, 2014)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I'm an atrocious speller. However, I'm in pretty good company: 11 Historical Figures Who Were Really Bad At Spelling | Mental Floss
> 
> You're suggesting that attending college removes warmth? If so, would certain degrees (in your opinion) change this: i.e. nursing, elementary teaching, etc. Why would someone become less warm just from becoming more educated? Are you suggesting that all women are inherently warm? Also how to you define warm?
> 
> Thanks!


You came away with an unusual idea. I don't see it as education being the culprit entirely. Rather, higher education prepares people for careers where the manipulation of others requires you to separate oneself emotionally from yourself. Are people who do well with school work and therefore pursue higher education emotionally stunted? Hard to say. I wonder how many are introverts...people with very little ease with others to begin with.

Nurses in particular have a very hard time connecting with others in a warm way. I believe it is because, as my brother who worked in hospitals as a pharmacist observed, it is necessary to turn off the human part of yourself (your emotional self) for long hours in order to do your job and not be taken down by the experience. Teaching is also a job where all day long you must remain aloof and deal objectively with quite a number of various and sometimes difficult personalities.

It's not so much the education therefore but the demands of jobs requiring you to be large and in charge of others all day long.

A warm person is much more in touch with their feelings about many things. They can understand themselves and therefore understand others more easily.


----------



## nicoloco90 (May 3, 2010)

So i'm really the only one here? That explains a lot.

''_I'm a man and I'd prefer to be with someone significantly more intellegent than myself.''_


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Robert2928 said:


> ...and I believe this is on topic because people commonly associate education with intelligence so...would you nerds with degrees date a person without a degree? Would you date a person who never graduated high school?


I still think the rest of your post is biased and maybe correlation at best, not causation. I think some people are entitled, going to school shouldn't change anyone's personality. I've met people "like her" of both genders. I graduated from school in America. 

I have a degree in something pretty theoretical so I guess this applies to me. I have dated people without degrees. I don't think degrees prove intelligence, nor do most people at University... Hell, 2 of my husbands immediate family are Mensa members who never completed a program they entered. Some are in Mensa and have completed higher education. Some are not in Mensa. (just adding the extras before someone tries to say something like it's proof that people at a high IQ level would never survive in higher education or something weird like that.) 

As far as "would I date someone that never graduated highschool?" It depends on why they dropped out. If they were lazy/hate learning then no I don't think that would work. However my grandfather dropped out at 14 to enlist in the military with his older brothers ID (during ww2) and he studied math on his own because he loved math/logic. We talked about physics a lot. He never went past being a freshman. I also had a boss that dropped out really early because he wanted to open a buisness and actually did/made it work/is running several now. He knew what he wanted to do and made it work. If I had a time machine I'd quit highschool early, get a ged and go straight to uni (because I seriously enjoy learning, not because I think its any better than someone who wants to be a woodworker and decides to go to trade school for woodworking. If I had enough time I'd love to learn woodworking.)


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

However, @Robert2928 I'm really not sure why you're making this about women specifically as the op/quiz asks everyone if they would date someone less intelligent than themselves. I would not date someone less intelligent, but I would have dated someone with less education than myself.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

I'm retarded so that would be very difficult. A partner of that quality would probably not know we're a couple.


----------



## TeamPB (Aug 10, 2017)

What? Some people are actually more stupid than me?


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

shazam said:


> I'm retarded so that would be very difficult. A partner of that quality would probably not know we're a couple.


Omfg you've killed me. 

I've always wondered in an intp + intj relationship if they'd know they were dating.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Omfg you've killed me.
> 
> I've always wondered in an intp + intj relationship if they'd know they were dating.


hehe


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

shazam said:


> I'm retarded so that would be very difficult. A partner of that quality would probably not know we're a couple.


I was wondering why you sounded smart and then I realized it's because there aren't any g's in this. :skeleton::skeleton::skeleton:

Omg, did you purposefully try to avoid them? lmao.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Wild said:


> I was wondering why you sounded smart and then I realized it's because there aren't any g's in this. :skeleton::skeleton::skeleton:
> 
> Omg, did you purposefully try to avoid them? lmao.


It would be someone like wild...


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

shazam said:


> It would be someone like wild...


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Wild said:


>


Don't 9ive me that face!


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)




----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

Robert2928 said:


> ...and I believe this is on topic because people commonly associate education with intelligence so...would you nerds with degrees date a person without a degree? Would you date a person who never graduated high school?


I have a high IQ and one degree. 
I've dated many people without degrees.
I've dated many people who didn't graduate high school.

I don't associate education with intelligence. I spent the last 15 years working for/with MAs and PhDs, and in the end I considered most of the PhDs intelligent and most of the MAs not intelligent. I've also worked and lived around many uneducated people, and some of them are very intelligent. 

My brother is very intelligent, and he didn't even finish grade school because he just didn't care about school. Basically he got kicked out at age 14 because he was never there--he was busy fixing cars and stuff. Now he's a successful builder. 

Somewhere I read that ISTPs are the worst suited to the school system. To my knowledge I've dated two ISTPs, neither of whom had a degree. One went to industrial college; the other only made it to Grade 9--he said it was the only grade he ever actually passed. Both were/are geniuses. One is dead now and the other is my current honey.

As for highly educated guys, I guess they don't really appeal to me. I don't want to generalize, but it seems to me that if someone has committed that much toward a career or area of study, their lives might be limited in certain ways. For example, a professor or doctor might have a certain routine or lifestyle, maybe a certain kind of social life, etc., that I might not want to go along with.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Robert2928 said:


> @*daleks_exterminate*
> 
> ...except I never said the video proved all educated women are entitled (however I will play devil's advocate nonetheless)
> 
> ...


I'm not quite sure I agree with you or not. I'm not from the US, though I plan on completing my education from there. 

I get really pissed when people associate intelligence with education. Academia in general requires aptitude, not intelligence. I had my IQ tested once by a professional, I scored a whopping 105 points. But I'm good at engineering, because I have the mental skill required to be one. I do quite well in an environment of structured education. So from my own experience, I can say, I'm more impressed with people's education than their IQ score. Because I'm an example you don't need a high IQ to be an engineer. 

As for lacking basic skills, what exactly are they lacking? They can make money and know how to live. Being entitled like the woman is, I'm sure you would find it in women who are also not educated. Maybe it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't know. Our campuses don't coddle people. In fact, it had the opposite effect on me...


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Edit: Did not answer (Post #1).

I tend to end up with high (EQ) specimens with significant amounts of bodily/kinesthetic intelligence that is around equal to higher than myself. Not interested in discussing (NT)-stereotypical related topics/academic accomplishments in romantic/private/intimate-affairs unless out with friends or some other intellectual-related occassion. Deffo' vaginal dryer, regardless. Pretentious intellectual-types will swipe this off as a lack of capacity on my end - but I am just humble about this type of thing and do not bring it up unless they ask. 

If I had a penny for every NTP-dude that is like, "_I would have never guessed you were INTJ and (X, Y, Z)_!" - well, no shit buddy, I thought we were going to talk about our emotions/feelings, connect, fuck and stuff. Then this weird intelligence/INTJ fetish starts, and this is a reason why I do not date these types. My entire day is spent doing "intelligent" stuff. That is what I do naturally. I do not want to come home to it, as well.


----------



## WildRaspberries (Jun 7, 2015)

I've always dated men who were not only significantly more educated and intelligent than I, but who were eager teachers. I'm very comfortable in the role of the student/lover, despite the unsavoury implications.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

I think adventurous learner is more appropriate than intelligent. I prefer someone who is not afraid to learn something new. Not afraid to fail and rarely gives up. Wisdom can be readily obtained and it doesn't matter if you are not really smart but the passion for wanting to know things should be present. Personally, that is not a sign of weakness, but strength that I look for, not only in searching for potential partners but also friends.


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Blue Ribbon said:


> As for Zidane, IDK what he's got against educated women. Some people actually enjoy the subject they're learning. Plus, you wouldn't want a random person to operate on you, you'd want a trained surgeon. Like there has to be some standards for this stuff. As for logic, they do teach that in most stem courses.


I think you misunderstood my post. It might have come off that way, but my point was just that I don't care what her education/intelligence level is. I have absolutely nothing against intelligent women and I don't mind dating them. But intelligence is not a criteria that has to be fulfilled like it is with many it seems. And yes, there are actually women that think that their degrees make them a more attractive dating partner (maybe not the case for you), who don't seem to understand that most men do not really care about that. Why would we?


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Zidane said:


> I think you misunderstood my post. It might have come off that way, but my point was just that I don't care what her education/intelligence level is. I have absolutely nothing against intelligent women and I don't mind dating them. But intelligence is not a criteria that has to be fulfilled like it is with many it seems. And yes, there are actually women that think that their degrees make them a more attractive dating partner (maybe not the case for you), and my point was just that most men do not care about that. Why would we?


Some men do/ some don't. Attraction is subjective and all humans are weirdos.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Some men do/ some don't. Attraction is subjective and all humans are weirdos.


Are you:
1. All women
2. Most women
3. Some women
4. Several women
5. Few women 
6. 'Weird' and one of a kind woman

Quantify yourself. Select 1.

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Honestly dating someone slightly dumber than me is an ego boost. Makes me feel smarter, like a leader, in charge. But after awhile this gets boring and when you are in need of a like mind or someone who can actually help you, it's easy to feel more attracted to someone who does bring new information to the table especially in areas that you are not familiar with, and once you get over your low-self esteem and trying to use your partner to fix that in you, it becomes much more appealing to choose someone whose smart in areas you are not. Well this is just me at least, but I wouldn't be surprised in other's relate.

Someone too low then I cannot relate to them and might get bored being the smartest.

Someone too high I cannot relate to them and they might look down on me.

Someone at the same level I don't see much problem with besides the fact that we might have similar blindspots.


----------



## Alfonzalo (Jul 6, 2018)

I feel like everyone is intelligent on a different level that one another, but society has many very specific criteria for defining wits that may not resonate with most of the population. For instance, a person may be miserable at performing well on tests, but are quite logically adept when it comes to reasoning in other circumstances. Or, another could be very emotionally intelligent but may struggle on understanding certain levels of math. Maybe a mathematical genius completely lacks depth. Or maybe a person who ponders the deepest questions about life and human nature lacks the eloquence to communicate any of their wisdom. And yes, I am an ENFP who some might consider incompetent at first glance because I have an acute sensitivity to- whoa! FEELINGS.

The point is that in reality, people are forced to make a genuine effort to conform (and in fact, improve themselves) to these general ideas of intelligence that society has in attempt to better themselves for the future. The people considered intelligent might have worked to the best of their abilities in school to gain acceptance into a good college to get a good job that they enjoy and will earn a liberal amount of money to sustain a future family with a happy, relaxed life rather than having to live paycheck to paycheck and suffer. Intelligence is something that shows that the person probably cares a whole lot about how they live their life and who they would choose to live it with. However, they could still end up poor in the end.

But more important than all of this, I feel, is if the person is seen as intelligent through your eyes. If you see the person as intelligent in your standards, then perhaps you understand them much better than a person who you see as stupid. This is also more likely for you two to see each other as equals, making the relationship stronger and making it less likely for an abusive relationship to emerge.

At least, this is why I think that women might feel the urge to avoid dating those significantly less intelligent than themselves, and for the most part, I relate.

Or maybe they just want to steal their partner's money. I don't know.


I would also like to address why I think that a lot of men might be fine with dating those less intelligent with themselves. It may be because of the generally misogynistic images that are forced upon many males throughout their upbringing taking act, corrupting their better judgement into wanting to date someone like this so that they can take advantage of them. And this is truly a large issue that people need to turn their attentions toward.

Or, they may want to support a less intelligent partner so that they can live a happy life because, after all, doesn't pretty much everyone deserve that? Maybe they have an inkling of understanding between them and their partner, but it's mostly fleeting because of a screwed-up education, so they support them to go to college whilst dating.


I know that I can't read people's minds, but this is my best attempt to justify both sides, although perhaps not for the better.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Lol, we're just going to assume everyone answers truthfully.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Denature said:


> Lol, we're just going to assume everyone answers truthfully.


Why wouldn't they? What does anyone possibly get out of lying online on an anonymous poll?online on top of that... I don't understand repillers obsession with "people don't really know what they want/if they do know they lie" to fit your narriative. It's really amusing.

If your system only works by saying people work a specific way even if they don't admit it or dont know then does it actually work?


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Why wouldn't they? What does anyone possibly get out of lying online on an anonymous poll?online on top of that... I don't understand repillers obsession with "people don't really know what they want/if they do know they lie" to fit your narriative. It's really amusing.
> 
> If your system only works by saying people work a specific way even if they don't admit it or dont know then does it actually work?


It's called 'self deception' and social phenomena is better understood by *observable behavior*, not what people *self report*.

In reality, many of the people claiming to want someone of their same intelligence will settle for someone much less intelligent or only have the standards for someone of much higher intelligence. I don't even need to say which gender would act in which manner because it's obvious.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Denature said:


> It's called 'self deception' and social phenomena is better understood by *observable behavior*, not what people *self report*.
> 
> In reality, many of the people claiming to want someone of their same intelligence will settle for someone much less intelligent or only have the standards for someone of much higher intelligence. I don't even need to say which gender would act in which manner because it's obvious.


There a few studies between couples and they show a correlation & similarity in intelligence. And observing real life you'd see the same pattern emerging. Most people are in relationships with people of comparable intelligence, especially long term. Exceptions are just very visible, especially if you have confirmation bias.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> There a few studies between couples and they show a correlation & similarity in intelligence. And observing real life you'd see the same pattern emerging. Most people are in relationships with people of comparable intelligence, especially long term. Exceptions are just very visible, especially if you have confirmation bias.


Yeah, but y'know, this kind of view isn't supposed to be based on science/studies of any kind
Just on gender stereotypes/opinions that are taken as universal truths


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> There a few studies between couples and they show a correlation & similarity in intelligence. And observing real life you'd see the same pattern emerging. Most people are in relationships with people of comparable intelligence, especially long term. Exceptions are just very visible, especially if you have confirmation bias.


How are we measuring intelligence here and what does similar intelligence mean?

Even minimal differences in intelligence make for large differences in behavior and depending on how we determine intelligence can account for some other errors in gathering the data.



Aiwass said:


> Yeah, but y'know, this kind of view isn't supposed to be based on science/studies of any kind
> Just on gender stereotypes/opinions that are taken as universal truths


Stereotypes almost always have some truth to them.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Denature said:


> It's called 'self deception' and social phenomena is better understood by *observable behavior*, not what people *self report*.


And you're suggesting that people on a personality site that's based around self observation and introspection wouldn't be able to accurately introspect? That this would be as bad as the "general population?" You're suggesting that the majority of this site wouldn't self report accurately. Well ok, go look at any of the types dating questions. From what I've observed ntps at least don't want someone less intellegent/get bored easy with someone who can't keep up. Ntjs seem to be in the same boat for long term relationships (but don't mind for short term), infjs typically have said things about wanting someone that makes them think regardless of gender. The group I've found to most agree with you/ not care about conversation are enfjs. So some types care more about this than others. 



> In reality, many of the people claiming to want someone of their same intelligence will settle for someone much less intelligent or only have the standards for someone of much higher intelligence. I don't even need to say which gender would act in which manner because it's obvious.


A lot of people will settle, but "being willing to settle" and "preference" are two very different things, aren't they? This poll isn't "what would you settle for?" Because some people will settle for someone they don't like / don't converse with etc doesn't make that ideal, now does it? You could settle for a blow up doll you dress up and take on dates... Some people do that. Maybe it's some people's preferance but your argument flipped would be "that's most people's preferance because some will settle for it." See how that is ridiculous? 

On top of that, I'm not asking what the majority of people prefer. I'm asking what individuals here do. I've already specified that I don't mind if people prefer people less intelligent than themselves, I'm just curious if that's the case. 

So really, what are you on about except whining that people don't seem to be agreeing with your ideologies?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Denature said:


> How are we measuring intelligence here and what does similar intelligence mean?
> 
> Even minimal differences in intelligence make for large differences in behavior and depending on how we determine intelligence can account for some other errors in gathering the data.


Well, these studies used IQ testing as far as I remember, also the spouses were of similar educational backgrounds, and other such indices. They did notice some differences in a few areas of ability, but it makes sense that they can't be entirely similar. 

Your claim about 'minimal differences' really begs for proof


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Denature said:


> It's called 'self deception' and social phenomena is better understood by *observable behavior*, not what people *self report*.
> 
> In reality, many of the people claiming to want someone of their same intelligence will settle for someone much less intelligent or only have the standards for someone of much higher intelligence. I don't even need to say which gender would act in which manner because it's obvious.


typically yes and its cool you bring your red pilling tendancies again here, but lets be honest you wouldnt really fall for a dumb woman (I dont mean pointless relationships for sex, those dont matter)... Im not saying you want someone of higher itnelligence than you but i doubt you would want someone who doesnt understand shit of what you got in your mind


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> And you're suggesting that people on a personality site that's based around self observation and introspection wouldn't be able to accurately introspect? That this would be as bad as the "general population?" You're suggesting that the majority of this site wouldn't self report accurately. Well ok, go look at any of the types dating questions. From what I've observed ntps at least don't want someone less intellegent/get bored easy with someone who can't keep up. Ntjs seem to be in the same boat for long term relationships (but don't mind for short term), infjs typically have said things about wanting someone that makes them think regardless of gender. The group I've found to most agree with you/ not care about conversation are enfjs. So some types care more about this than others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since this one is a closed community, not like reddit/4chan with the same members running over and over i believe its obvious that some people restrain themselves for adressing any not "appropriate" behavior of theirs out freely in order to avoid getting labeled and actually be taken seriously.

So red pill guy above got a point here, but then again i doubt its as extreme as it seems. I believe since we are online and all and this got nothing to do with out social lives, the extent of that happening should be low.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

SirCanSir said:


> Since this one is a closed community, not like reddit/4chan with the same members running over and over i believe its obvious that some people restrain themselves for adressing any not "appropriate" behavior of theirs out freely in order to avoid getting labeled and actually be taken seriously.
> 
> So red pill guy above got a point here, but then again i doubt its as extreme as it seems. I believe since we are online and all and this got nothing to do with out social lives, the extent of that happening should be low.


Oh sure, but as the poll is closed why not be honest as no one would know. Besides that many people here aren't personally invested. 

That being said, let's get our blow up dolls, pick up @Denature and go on a tripple date. Sounds like good times.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Oh sure, but as the poll is closed why not be honest as no one would know. Besides that many people here aren't personally invested.
> 
> That being said, let's get our blow up dolls, pick up @Denature and go on a tripple date. Sounds like good times.


I will probably have a strong urge to go to the bathroom (if its got windows) if that happens


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> Well, these studies used IQ testing as far as I remember, also the spouses were of similar educational backgrounds, and other such indices. They did notice some differences in a few areas of ability, but it makes sense that they can't be entirely similar.
> 
> Your claim about 'minimal differences' really begs for proof


So a study looking at couples of similar educational background found they had similar IQs? Isn't that obvious?

Anyways, as for the further proof you're asking for I don't think it's any secret that women love smarter men whereas men couldn't care less about how smart a woman is. (At least to a certain point). This is where data on online dating sites is useful.



SirCanSir said:


> typically yes and its cool you bring your red pilling tendancies again here, but lets be honest you wouldnt really fall for a dumb woman (I dont mean pointless relationships for sex, those dont matter)... Im not saying you want someone of higher itnelligence than you but i doubt you would want someone who doesnt understand shit of what you got in your mind


I'm not saying that men will fall for dumb women. I'm saying that intelligence is valued more in men by women than in women by men. Quite obviously. So when women say they want a man with similar intelligence, I call bs.



daleks_exterminate said:


> And you're suggesting that people on a personality site that's based around self observation and introspection wouldn't be able to accurately introspect? That this would be as bad as the "general population?" You're suggesting that the majority of this site wouldn't self report accurately. Well ok, go look at any of the types dating questions. From what I've observed ntps at least don't want someone less intellegent/get bored easy with someone who can't keep up. Ntjs seem to be in the same boat for long term relationships (but don't mind for short term), infjs typically have said things about wanting someone that makes them think regardless of gender. The group I've found to most agree with you/ not care about conversation are enfjs. So some types care more about this than others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's simple. Behavior > self reported preferences. Believe it or not, they actually differ quite a bit. Asking for preferences is stupid if you're expecting actual useful data.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

SirCanSir said:


> I will probably have a strong urge to go to the bathroom (if its got windows) if that happens


Well.... I didn't have to settle, despite being an abrasive, entp female so my "blow up doll" will be exchanged for literally the most awesome man I know...
....so at least 3 ntps 1 what ever Denature is and 2 blow up dolls could be funny.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

No love for ntj?

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## casepag (Feb 28, 2017)

starberryGhost said:


> No, probably same intelligence or higher. I've tried dating less intelligent men and I just can't seem to find common ground with them OR anything new to learn from them. Also I find them less attractive for it.
> 
> I'm a Gemini venus so one of the things I love most about relationships is learning new things and talking about intelligent things.
> 
> ...


You're practically asexual?! Why


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

contradictionary said:


> No love for ntj?
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk


Of course! Pick you up at 8.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

I've screwed dumb women, but I've never dated one.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Denature said:


> So a study looking at couples of similar educational background found they had similar IQs? Isn't that obvious?
> 
> Anyways, as for the further proof you're asking for I don't think it's any secret that women love smarter men whereas men couldn't care less about how smart a woman is. (At least to a certain point). This is where data on online dating sites is useful.


They were not chosen based on that. It was just another data found.

That's not proof. You might be conflating desiring things like confidence, or specific types of achievement for 'being smarter' when that's not necessarily true, or the same. Women caring about how smart a man is, again doesn't mean they want someone smart*er*, they just care about his intelligence in general.


----------



## Josef (Apr 15, 2012)

Most likely in the same sphere would be nice. One thing that I'm a bit negative about is that I've met a girl in university who seemed maybe more intelligent - but definitely more aggressive in showing her intelligence - than I was at the time. Her behavior was atrocious towards everyone despite seeing her actually helping a girl with her studies.
I remember thinking if this is how intelligence is manifested (and this was the only example of a more intelligent girl) then that's not something I want.

Will this affect my future judgements? Not sure.
BTW i'm not talking about dates, I'm talking about living with a person and having to tolerate them consistently.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)




----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

poor mr bennet


----------



## Sidhe Draoi (Nov 25, 2016)

casepag said:


> You're practically asexual?! Why


I'm just not a fan of sex.. I dunno.. I sort of think it could be amazing, but I've never had good experiences.. but so far it has felt like a chore.
I have gotten sexual urges before, though, so I'm not a complete asexual. I'm what is known as a graysexual.


----------



## Mange (Jan 9, 2011)

My IQ is 75 . I prefer women at the 200/300 level


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Sarcoptic Mange said:


> My IQ is 75 . I prefer women at the 200/300 level


This, I approve. Intelligent women of PerC please marry him to improve his genes.    

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Being of similar intelligence is probably the most important thing when it comes to connecting to another human-being. Or it's very high up at least I'd think.


----------



## RLam (Sep 21, 2017)

contradictionary said:


> This, I approve. Intelligent women of PerC please marry him to improve his genes.
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk


Mange is my very own human wife


----------



## casepag (Feb 28, 2017)

starberryGhost said:


> I'm just not a fan of sex.. I dunno.. I sort of think it could be amazing, but I've never had good experiences.. but so far it has felt like a chore.
> I have gotten sexual urges before, though, so I'm not a complete asexual. I'm what is known as a graysexual.


To be honest, I thought I was too for a long time because I didn't have good sexual experiences before my boyfriend now. I questioned my sexuality when in reality I hadn't found the right person.


----------



## Sidhe Draoi (Nov 25, 2016)

casepag said:


> To be honest, I thought I was too for a long time because I didn't have good sexual experiences before my boyfriend now. I questioned my sexuality when in reality I hadn't found the right person.


I found a guy I was super sexually interested in, but when I had the chance to have sex with him I said no because I wanted a relationship with him a lot more and he wasn't interested in having a relationship with me.


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

My ex was less intelligent than me. My current boyfriend is more intelligent than me, or at least the same.

I don’t think intelligence actually matters to me that much in a relationship. Other attributes like their sense of humor, compassion, and the chemistry between us matters to me more.


----------



## NathanD3V (Jun 24, 2018)

This question reminded me so much of the events in love island this year. Y'know when Eyal and Hayley were coupled up, it was clear from the "what's Brexit?" scene that Hayley was *significantly* less intelligent than Eyal (to sugar-coat it lightly).

I personally can't see myself with anyone who doesn't have a range of general knowledge and isn't able to contribute to deep conversations about current events, hot topics and interesting debates.

For me, I don't really have a checklist of things I'd like in a partner, more the opposite - a checklist of negative qualities which I wouldn't be able to stand in a partner. Lacking a moderate level of intelligence is one of them. Not saying I want to date the equivalent of Einstein or Stephen Hawking, but someone who's on a similar level to me and can engage in meaningful logical discussions.

Although stimulating the eyes is nice... stimulating the brain is orgasmic.


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

It has to be a combination of common sense and book smarts. They have to have a witty humor as well.

I do not want someone to sit there and recite to me something they read in a book and drone on and on and on just, to hear their self talk and make them feel superior because, they are insecure. 

I picked more intelligent because, sometimes, I need to be outsmarted for my own benefit. h:


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

I chose equal intelligence, and I was thinking of intelligence in the sense of cognitive capacity—the ability to understand a variety of things relatively quickly/easily. 

Education, domains of expertise, and anything beyond basic skills don't much matter to me, in part because an intelligent person will be able to learn whatever she needs/wants to learn. I'm also not exactly looking for someone to stimulate my mind (I'd read a book for that), but I do like to get feedback on my ideas, so some kind of intelligent conversation is important.

I mainly want someone who can understand relatively easily what people (especially I) say, even if the topic is unfamiliar and complex. Some level of intellectual curiosity seems necessary as well (I imagine that a person would be a bit dull without it).

In contrast to what a few other people have said, I think intelligence (in this sense) actually does strongly affect personality. The ability to understand one's partner can prevent or fix relationship problems, the ability to truly understand issues can help a person develop sound morals and effective politics, the ability to understand oneself can help a person overcome personal failings, etc.

I doubt that many people who are _significantly_ more intelligent than I am even exist, I expect that most of them are men (in whom I'm not interested), and I think that maybe the most salient differences between me and many such people would amount to quantitative (as opposed to qualitative) differences that would irritate us both (such as processing speed) without providing either of us with anything positive. 

On the other hand, such differences may not come up too often in the context of a relationship. I think the potential problems of dating someone significantly more intelligent than I am depends somewhat on how super intelligent people deal with less intelligent but not very unintelligent people, which I don't know about. I would certainly give it a chance, however.



SirCanSir said:


> There are other forms of intelligence that arent measured and are underappriciated like a strong detailed memory, the ability to make calm and quick decisions, the ability to always have a strong image of your suroundings, or the ability to be precise with your words and logic.
> 
> Why are those not considered to be a form of intelligence? ^^


These sorts of things _are_ tested on *real* IQ tests.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

Blunt Trauma Benty said:


> I doubt that many people who are _significantly_ more intelligent than I am even exist


OMG ur IQ 160 member of Mensa


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Blunt Trauma Benty said:


> These sorts of things _are_ tested on *real* IQ tests.


I doubt it but im currently bored to search for arguments and proof to counter your saying that Iq tests really measure *every* kind of intelligence.

Also your kind of perception of intelligence is the one i said before that IQ tests are all about which is the ability for quick problem solving. So yeah if you mean that one then of course IQ tests by the meaning of intelligence you understand as sure cover it and are completely successful if they are *real* to value and rank your "intelligence".

Then again i dont accept that as the only form of intelligence there is and i beleive we are way behind in terms of knowledge to measure the whole term of intelligence objectively. 

Nevertheless we dont agree on this one.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

*I'm a man and I'd prefer to be with someone significantly less intellegent than myself.*, though i actually would like someone around the same intelligence as myself as well, but they're rarer. People significantly more intelligent are even more rarer, and also more boring and weirder, and i don't think i would like such a girl. It's not how smart a lady is that will attract in me. The only requirement is that they have some basic knowledge, and aren't stupid, but i care more about looks, personality and common interests tbh than intellect.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

I had to ponder a lot before writing this answer.

I wouldn't be attracted to/seriously consider a relationship with someone I find dumb. Exchanging ideas and theories is a big factor in what makes relationships interesting to me, and I need a person who can keep up with my phrenic activity. I generally test high on both verbal and existential intelligence, and even though my logical-mathematical skills aren't that great, they are above average.

On the other hand, I've met some "high IQ" people who I found boring. Boring as in, not really creative, engaging or lively. Doesn't matter how "smart" you are, if you don't have other qualities which are even more fundamental, I won't be attracted to you. I will find you a dullard.

I think IQ tests are limiting. I won't say their results don't say anything about a person (they do), but I think there are many other aspects of a person's cognition/mental world which aren't measured there. If I find someone dumb and this individual happens to score high on a IQ test, I will still find them dumb.

Edit: Omg this forum is full of geniuses


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

IQ tests aren't perfect as well and in my opinion only should be used to create an idea about the general intelligence in the lower perciles. IQ tests can be trained on, don't measure every aspect of intelligence (that's not possible), are way too reliant on form of the day, but the biggest flaw of IQ testing is that they don't measure the intellectual potential of an individual. In the right family and with decent education in decent environment, most people would achieve a higher IQ than if they aren't (like is the case in Africa). That's why IQ tests should never be used to determine whether a child should gain access to a certain college or not. It should be only used to give advice, or an indication.

My IQ was - when i last tested on WAIS-4 - 120. After child abuse (when i was 5-6 years old), my IQ was (a special toddler's IQ test) was less than 50. In general people value intelligence and especially IQ way too much.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Aiwass said:


> Edit: Omg this forum is full of geniuses


Actually, most likely, this is just the case. Normal people are generally not interested in internet forums about personality / psychology, and don't go in depth as much as we do. If we talk in IQ terms, i have an IQ of 120. Some people might perceive that as not very high or as not enough to be considered a genius - i wouldn't get access to Mensa, and don't worry, i don't want to. But when my IQ is 120 it means that 2% of the people are smarter than myself. We're talking in this poll about dating with people _significantly_ more intelligent than i am. It's most likely that i won't meet these kind of people every day, and that i will have to search very specifically for that kind of people, if i want to meet them (though you can argue that this could be some kind of place where you could find them, or if you want to find them in real-life, on university in maths / physics / engineering courses), and i'm not interested in maths / physics and engineering. In addition, such people might also be more likely to be asexual and/or not be interested in kids.

The pool of people i can date below me is just more accessible and much higher. That's not just me being a cock or being arrogant, it's just how it works. I don't value intelligence that much, though, i think people need some kind of intellectual ability to get on par with me, to have similar morals and feelings, to have similar ideas around some political issues and to be interested me, and to get me interested in me, but after all, all i want is just a normal relationship, and i think any girl with normal intelligence can fit that criteria as long we have similar morals and we love each other and our personality fits.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

SirCanSir said:


> I doubt it but im currently bored to search for arguments and proof to counter your saying that Iq tests really measure *every* kind of intelligence.


You don't need an argument. Just look up the tests. Look up the Wechsler for example. Many different skills are tested.



> Also your kind of perception of intelligence is the one i said before that IQ tests are all about which is the ability for quick problem solving.


That's not what I said. Understanding is not problem-solving.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Aiwass said:


> If I find someone dumb and this individual happens to score high on a IQ test, I will still find them dumb.


It's definitely not something to use in an argument, and when people use the authority argument, they use it often in discussions/arguments/argues they are losing, because than, and only than, they will start to talk about their accomplishments, even if it's sometimes not relevant. It's actually pretty funny to see that. The authority argument is pretty weak, but can be used to convince dumb people unfortunately.

Donald Trump is maybe an example of an individual that scores high on an IQ test, but isn't that smart as he says he is... He will most likely indeed have ridicilous high IQ (and higher than me), but it doesn't say a lot about his intelligence as a person. Having a high IQ doesn't mean you're always right... Having a high IQ, doesn't mean you know everything...

In fact the smartest people in the world (if there is even some thing as that, and if that's even measurable) are the first to acknowledge that they actually don't know a lot at all, because they realize the vastness of our universe and the many secrets it still carries, best.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

Lakigigar said:


> Actually, most likely, this is just the case. Normal people are generally not interested in internet forums about personality / psychology, and don't go in depth as much as we do. If we talk in IQ terms, i have an IQ of 120. Some people might perceive that as not very high or as not enough to be considered a genius - i wouldn't get access to Mensa, and don't worry, i don't want to. But when my IQ is 120 it means that 2% of the people are smarter than myself.


Sorry, I've listened to this line of reasoning multiple times. "No normies on this forum", or "if you're here, you're prolly N!!". I don't buy it. There's nothing so special about this personality theory that would make me think most people who are into it are special snowflakes/high IQ. If anything, I think neuroticism is higher here than on other sites (in Big 5 terms), because many are looking for a magic label to fulfill an inner void.

And btw, who told you your IQ is 120? Some internet test? Why is this test correct? You do know that there are many different internet IQ tests out there which use different parameters to measure intelligence, right?


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Aiwass said:


> Sorry, I've listened to this line of reasoning multiple times. "No normies on this forum", or "if you're here, you're prolly N!!". I don't buy it. There's nothing so special about this personality theory that would make me think most people who are into it are special snowflakes/high IQ. If anything, I think neuroticism is higher here than on other sites (in Big 5 terms), because many are looking for a magic label to fulfill an inner void.
> 
> And btw, who told you your IQ is 120? Some internet test? Why is this test correct? You do know that there are many different internet IQ tests out there which use different parameters to measure intelligence, right?


It was an official test in a private psychology practice. In online internet tests, i often had the maximum score as a child, and i don't take those anymore. Why do you assume i took an internet test?

In a world where social media like Facebook threaten the existence of online internet forums in which social media might be more shallow and in which forums contain more in-depth talk about certain topics, i do believe more N-types will be drawn towards forums, also since we're more anonymous here than on social media. I don't say that no-one is mistyped here, and that N is overtyped, but it's just a fact that the reason why there are so many N's on the forums is simply because there are many N's on the forums. N's are just more drawn towards psychology and typology, unlike S's who like to experience life to the fullest, and honestly sometimes i wish i was able to enjoy life to the fullest just like they do. N-types might see iNtuition as more preferrable, and i think that this is a myth, because both iNtuitives and Sensors have their advantages and disadvantages. There is no such thing as a best type or a bad type... Some people here might idealize iNtuitives but that's not justified in my belief. If intuitives are rare or even balanced on the forums here, they might be extremely rare in real-life, because i have a hard time spotting them in real-life, and i think the majority here are iNtuitives.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

my mother has above average intelligence but she wasn't a very healthy human being and abused me as a child. She is almost certainly INxx. My father was ISTJ 9w8 and has around average intelligence. He is definitely dumber than me, but i'm not sure to what degree he didn't achieved his potential due to poor education (he left school when he was 14 years old). My foster moms have higher than average intelligence, maybe just by a bit (110/115 - ESFJ and 100/105 - ISFJ). My best friend has high intelligence as well (110-120). I even said to him that i think he has similar IQ than i have, around 120 but he didn't believed that. I said he underestimates his intellectual capability, because in my belief he is smart. I'm not friends with him because he's smart, because i don't care to it, but we might unintentionally be drawn towards similar-minded people (he's ISTP, possibly INTP but most likely ISTP enn9). My second best friend who insults me from time to time is probably a reactive ISFJ enn6w7 and i think he has slightly below average IQ. (+-95). In our friend group, the ESTJ might have above average intelligence (and is especially very practical) and he can come off as a bully sometimes just like the ISFJ (but the ISFJ has issues...), and we also have an ISTP (but below average IQ - 90-95), and two/three people i don't know enough to type, and the ISTP 9w8 also sometimes games with us, but he barely talks... The ESTJ, ISFJ with issues and the INFP (me) are the loudest. They often tell me to shut up because i talk too much!!! haha


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

@Aiwass You might be right however in the sense that most of us seek validation and understanding here through typing and mbti, but than again who doesn't. Other people might seek validation in a different way (through perfectioning their looks, by being generous to other people, by bossing other people or impressing them in a way, by winning in competition (gaming, poker, sports), by achieving something or just by starting a family. The world is very diverse, and i don't think anything is wrong with that. Yes, we seek validation. I certainly do and i'm very image-driven (that's why my enneagram is either 4w3 or 6w5 desintegrating into 3 with social subtype and suffering from shame issues). I can recommend the documentary *The King of Kong* which go more in-depth about our sometimes pathetic search for acknowledgement.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

I wonder if the people protesting "intelligence is not very important" say so because they are surrounded by people who are more or less as smart as they are?...when everyone around you is equally smart, intelligence is not something you have to consider since you have nothing to choose from...indeed, it might not even occur to you that intelligence is something people even consider


to see my point, consider an example of another trait people select for...tits...it's normal for women to have two tits and almost all women do...you don't have to choose between women with one tit, two tits, or three (or more) tits when you select partners...the number of tits isn't something you even think of


intelligence would be like tits if everyone was equally intelligent...no-one would give it a thought just as no-one thinks about the number of tits


so if the people you work with, socialize with, rub shoulders with are about as smart as you, you might not even think of intelligence or it might take a backseat to traits that do vary in the population of partners available to you, eg, physical attractiveness, personality, sense of humor, etc


otoh, if you are surrounded by people whose intelligence varies widely, then you will probably notice intelligence...it may still not matter to you...but you will probably be forced to give it more consideration than if everyone was equally as smart as you


----------



## Sybow (Feb 1, 2016)

Around the same. Might be more, might be less, but I don't want someone who is just dumb.

My ENTJ buddy had a girlfriend who couldn't even watch movies without subtitles because she couldn't understand English..

Really bothered me, and it was not even my girlfriend..


----------



## malphigus (Jan 15, 2014)

I'm a man and I don't have preference. If they're intelligent, yay, that's a nice bonus, but it's not mandatory. There's worse ways to be than being unintelligent. Like being irresponsible, being inconsiderate, etc etc.

Sure, being able to talk about things and figuring stuff out together is nice, but really, as long as they have enough to function as a, you know, normal adult person, that's enough. We don't have to talk about philosophy or politics or the hidden agendas of religions etc etc. I don't base how I'm attracted to a person or how deeply I can love a person based on that. Because intelligence is something that is really dependent on upbringing, privilege, etc. Not everyone has that access. I don't want to exclude seemingly "less intelligent" people because of their circumstance. 

As long they're willing to learn, and have the best intentions, I'll go for it. In this sense, I'd happily date someone who started out as ignorant, because that's easily fixed, if they're willing to learn and have the best intentions. Now, an attitude problem is something else entirely, and I'm not lenient on that as much as I am with intelligence.

And besides, to have a preference over more/equal/less intelligence means I have to judge my own level of intelligence, and judge others relative to my own level. That's something I'm not willing to do, because I'm incapable of doing that fully and objectively. It's not my call to decide whether a person is less/equal/more intelligent than me. So. There.


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

Aiwass said:


> Sorry, I've listened to this line of reasoning multiple times. "No normies on this forum", or "if you're here, you're prolly N!!". I don't buy it. There's nothing so special about this personality theory that would make me think most people who are into it are special snowflakes/high IQ. If anything, I think neuroticism is higher here than on other sites (in Big 5 terms), because many are looking for a magic label to fulfill an inner void.
> 
> And btw, who told you your IQ is 120? Some internet test? Why is this test correct? You do know that there are many different internet IQ tests out there which use different parameters to measure intelligence, right?


I agree. MBTI isn't some ground-breaking outstanding piece of work. Cognitive functions are so basic. To suggest it's an "intuitive" thing is more insulting on their intelligence than anything. Half the time these Ns can't even apply the most basic understanding of functions, relying on gross oversimplified sterotypes. Personality theory attracts people who want to learn about themselves and/or others - I don't think that can be limited to one function or type. There's something for everyone here, for different reasons.



Lakigigar said:


> In a world where social media like Facebook threaten the existence of online internet forums in which social media might be more shallow and in which forums contain more in-depth talk about certain topics, i do believe more N-types will be drawn towards forums


Yawn . I've used forums for 12+ years and I'm a sensor of the most common type. An SF that is getting considerably pissed off at the suggestion I'm shallow. My social media is used only for keeping in touch with people I know and care about. I've never used social media as a platform to show off about my life, show off my status or anything else people think about sensors. I've used forums to meet people of all different backgrounds and learn new things. I like in-depth as much as an N does. And actually, social media can be deep too, it doesn't have to be limited to "shallow" things.



> also since we're more anonymous here than on social media. I don't say that no-one is mistyped here, and that N is overtyped, but it's just a fact that the reason why there are so many N's on the forums is simply because there are many N's on the forums. N's are just more drawn towards psychology and typology, unlike S's who like to experience life to the fullest, and honestly sometimes i wish i was able to enjoy life to the fullest just like they do.


Also please stop equating S to the stereotypical version of extroverted sensation. I live inside my head thinking about my past and worrying about my future and I have to pull myself out of that everyday and try to live in the real world because that is what matters. I know many an ExFP that tells me to go live my life to the fullest, be my authentic self, or NTPs that tell me I'm worry about nothing and _they _teach me how to let go and "live".

I don't know where this shit about Ns being more drawn towards psychology comes from either. My degree is in psychology and I have been interested in it in a very long time. Interest in the self and others can't be contained to one simple function and people forget we're all made up of four functions (technically them all) yet we're stereotyped based on where the S function fits in our stalk? One of the main things you're taught in psychology is to critique work yet Ns are all up on this typology taking it as gospel. That is not what psychology is about, it serves as a starting point but should always be analysed in order to improve on our understanding. False stereotypes and using MBTI to excuse your own problems does nothing but hold people back.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

JennyJukes said:


> I don't know where this shit about Ns being more drawn towards psychology comes from either.


Errr.... from this site demography statistics?


Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## MarthePryde (Oct 1, 2017)

I certainly don't think intelligence is the most important attribute of a potential partner. Attributes such as kindness, calmness, sociability, humility and hard-work are often more important in my view. With that said, I would appreciate having a partner who could intellectually keep up with me. Not the most important attribute, though, like I said. These more important attributes can be summarised as maturity, and so I would certainly want my partner to have such maturity.


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

contradictionary said:


> Errr.... from this site demography statistics?


My mistake, didn't realise the world revolved around PerC.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

@JennyJukes Some people seem to think that using internet forums is a very abstract and non-conventional activity. Lol. 

I said it before and I'll say it again here: S is sometimes conceptualized in a way, only brain-dead people would relate to it.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Geez, only me and 4 other dudes wanted to be with someone smarter.

Rip.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Yeah, if you're a sensor, than how many intuitives are there on the world? 0.5%. 40% of the world is an intuitive according to theories? Sorry but that's absolutely not the case if at least 20% on the forums here are sensors. I have sometimes the feeling that i never come across intuitives in real-life. If they even don't exist here... well than maybe N's simply don't exist and everyone is a sensor, and we have 8 types... IFP, ITP, ETP, EFP, EFJ, ETJ, ITJ, IFJ... Sensors also don't necessarily use social media. They might just not care about the internet as much, as we do.

Well you might be an exception or mistyped... I'm not saying sensors are shallow. I have never said that. And... it seems like it's extremely easy to offend you.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

JennyJukes said:


> I don't know where this shit about Ns being more drawn towards psychology comes from either.






JennyJukes said:


> My mistake, didn't realise the world revolved around PerC.


Your innate inability to connect the fact that PerC has majority N people in its demographic with the fact that it is a personality site and also your own rhetorical question, does not help your standing at your profession at all.

Stay confused, milady.


Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

I think it is most important to have intellectual connection. I'm voting "around the same" because we have to have some reasonable overlap to have that connection. Whether that is with a partner who is "more" or "less" doesn't really matter - if it is even really possible to quantify intelligence that way.

Redpill itself overall just seems like an unhealthy avenue to propping up self-worth by disparaging others. I'm a definite proponent of gender equality (meaning _equal opportunity and equally respectful treatment_, not that genders are "all the same") across the board and agree that there are still strides to be made in equality for men as well as for women and minority genders. Redpill isn't the right way to go about that, however.



contradictionary said:


> Your innate inability to connect the fact that PerC has majority N people in its demographic with the fact that it is a personality site and also your own rhetorical question, does not help your standing at your profession at all.


To be fair, the relative ratio of people who identify as N on this site doesn't accurately reflect the relative ratio of N-identifying people into psychology in the greater world, nor does that accurately reflect the relative ratio of people who really have N preference nor of those who actually have interest in the psychological realm. Three people I know well who use psychological theory daily in their jobs under other umbrellas are an ESFJ in special education assessment, an ESTJ in academic administration, and an ESFP in physical therapy - none of them really captured in the psychological field but certainly having training and knowledge of it and making extensive use of it. Moreso than myself as a casual poster on a psychology forum, really.



Lakigigar said:


> I have sometimes the feeling that i never come across intuitives in real-life.


Really? I often feel like I have met more Ns than Ss. Maybe because of my background/education/interests etc. I assume there are pockets of higher concentrations of preferences in certain areas. Overall I think it would be very, very, very hard to ever get a near-accurate read of relative ratios of S and N preference in the population. First you'd have to have a test that accurately captured preference... then a truly randomized sample across the globe...


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

I don't have that background @angelfish. It's like i live in a sensor's world :crying:

Of course, if all those sensors were like Schuyler, we wouldn't have a problem, but unfortunately it's not like that... Or i underestimate the amount of uninteresting intuitives

Worth noting that a lot of those sensors are just ST. Many ISTP's especially.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

angelfish said:


> To be fair, the relative ratio of people who identify as N on this site doesn't accurately reflect the relative ratio of N-identifying people into psychology in the greater world, nor does that accurately reflect the relative ratio of people who really have N preference nor of those who actually have interest in the psychological realm. Three people I know well who use psychological theory daily in their jobs under other umbrellas are an ESFJ in special education assessment, an ESTJ in academic administration, and an ESFP in physical therapy - none of them really captured in the psychological field but certainly having training and knowledge of it and making extensive use of it. Moreso than myself as a casual poster on a psychology forum, really.


Most people here already know how the mbti ratio in real world. What most people do not realize is how far the ratio so skewed in this forum. For example 75% are introverts and more than 60% are from the 4 INXX types. Of course there are always dispute especially on the self report typing but considering the large numbers then it won't matter much to change the above proportion. It is skewed.

And by "drawn into psychology" for me can be inferred from the willingness to be drowned into this forum. 

Clear beyond doubt.





Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## outofplace (Dec 19, 2012)

I had to end it with the last guy I dated because he never had an opinion or thoughts about any topic I brought up be it social issues, politics, pop culture, or even movies we've watched together. He didn't have any critical-thinking skills and was not a deep thinker. Generally, he was just plain boring to be around. It felt like dating an android. 

I'm not saying that I want to date an intellectual, however I would like to date a well-rounded person who can share their life experiences and wisdom with me.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

To start on topic... I chatted with my partner about this, this morning - I think he'd score a bit higher than me on an IQ test, and that's fine with me... I am happy to benefit from his solid grasp of logic and his quick decision-making. I have him beat on the artistic plane and that is enough for me, lol. He says he'd prefer to date someone close enough to his intelligence level to be competent at discussion, but would have to consider it for someone much more intelligent. We discussed that... including that it would be intimidating and hard to feel on two separate planes. I also think that people who are extremely intelligent tend to become quite specialized in the application of their intelligence, which could be great if you love that area, but difficult to deal with if they always prioritize that area over the relationship.



contradictionary said:


> Most people here already know how the mbti ratio in real world. What most people do not realize is how far the ratio so skewed in this forum. For example 75% are introverts and more than 60% are from the 4 INXX types. Of course there are always dispute especially on the self report typing but considering the large numbers then it won't matter much to change the above proportion. It is skewed.
> 
> And by "drawn into psychology" for me can be inferred from the willingness to be drowned into this forum.
> 
> Clear beyond doubt.


That's funny because I think most people on this site are convinced that Ss are significantly more prevalent in the real world - I've heard some numbers thrown out there as high as 3:1 S:N - when I believe the real ratio is much closer to 1:1. If, that is, type can even be quantified in that way, and I don't know that it really can. For one, is there really a "true" type for each person? Or just a type that's a _better_ fit than the others? And really it'd be more accurate to have a sort of scale to indicate where people stand on the preferences... for example, maybe there are more people who prefer N, and less who prefer S, but if the N's preferences are weaker, and the S preferences are stronger, then realistically, you end up with a closer-to-equal statistic instead of a significant skew towards N. But as you pointed out, most people on this site are INxx, and I think that's _why_ they're convinced the majority of people are S. For INxx it can be easy to feel that the majority is categorically separate from us and try to paint that any number of ways... 



Lakigigar said:


> I don't have that background @angelfish . It's like i live in a sensor's world
> 
> Of course, if all those sensors were like Schuyler, we wouldn't have a problem, but unfortunately it's not like that... Or i underestimate the amount of uninteresting intuitives
> 
> Worth noting that a lot of those sensors are just ST. Many ISTP's especially.


That's so interesting, though I'm sorry. For what it's worth, I do often feel like I am not living in the correct world, but I see my ESFJ mom and ISTP brother struggle in the same way at times so I don't tend to attribute it to N/S difference. Maybe you're in a big demographic pocket of STs. I would assume somewhere like Silicon Valley would have a big pocket of NT/ST. I also think that my college town had a good concentration of NFP/SFP; it was a bit of a hippie magnet. My current workplace is definitely an STJ sort of environment, which is navigable enough, though I sort of feel like an oddball (which is comfortable enough for me I suppose, ha...).

Anyway... I do I feel like I know a lot of Ss and Ns, both, and at least personally I don't really find the Ss any less interesting than the Ns on the whole. IRL I tend to "click" well with SFJs typically and often find them easier and more pleasant to engage with than NFs, because NFs tend to be VERY INTO the conceptual things they're into and it gets a bit annoying (I am like that too, haha). I can work more easily with the SF way of being into things - wanting to do/engage tangibly - and I like that they draw me into the real world and out of my head. I feel like NTs and STs are always a toss-up, just depends on if we tend to see things ideologically similarly and/or if we care about similar topics. I once worked as a home health aide for a young man whose older brother was an ESTP and surprisingly we always seemed to be on the same page. We had a great connection and he was definitely an interesting guy. Always had something new to share, something fun to do, something useful to contribute. On the other hand... two of the most boring people I know are an ENTJ/ISTP couple. I don't really understand it because they're actually both very intelligent people with engaging careers and life histories. They just are terrible in casual social situations, I guess.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

angelfish said:


> That's funny because I think most people on this site are convinced that Ss are significantly more prevalent in the real world - I've heard some numbers thrown out there as high as 3:1 S:N - when I believe the real ratio is much closer to 1:1. If, that is, type can even be quantified in that way, and I don't know that it really can. For one, is there really a "true" type for each person? Or just a type that's a _better_ fit than the others? And really it'd be more accurate to have a sort of scale to indicate where people stand on the preferences... for example, maybe there are more people who prefer N, and less who prefer S, but if the N's preferences are weaker, and the S preferences are stronger, then realistically, you end up with a closer-to-equal statistic instead of a significant skew towards N. But as you pointed out, most people on this site are INxx, and I think that's _why_ they're convinced the majority of people are S. For INxx it can be easy to feel that the majority is categorically separate from us and try to paint that any number of ways...


Internet forums, almost all of them, from the beginning of time (lol), had almost always been the 'hiding caves' for introverts. Only there those introverts can be more relaxed, mingled more casually and able to articulate themselves much better, in writings.

So the population skew is not entirely unexpected although one must note that out of 8 types of introverts, 4 of them are overtly overrepresented while the other 4 in contrary are heavily underrepresented. Such extreme measurement.

As for your last point, every single human will see the external world as hostile alien nvironment that is way too different from him/herself. 

Wellllllll... if the majority types somehow think that way, could you imagine how drastically the minority types would think?

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

I'd prefer someone around the same intelligence level, but I'm open to the idea of dating someone significantly less intelligent.


----------



## Chompy (May 2, 2015)

My best friend and I have vastly different types of intelligence. As far as book smarts go, I am smarter...but in regard to kinesthetic and artistic intelligence, she comes out on top.

For that reason, I suppose I enjoy the company of similar levels of intelligence, however, the type of intelligence doesn't have to be the same by any means. We just have to have some common ground for communication.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Polls and comments here shows strong tendency to pareto result, where most people will want to associate, befriend, bonded, with "similar" others. This time in the term of intelligence as the discriminating aspect.

Not suprising at all because our brain does hardwired in such associative ways.

BUT suprisingly, there are now movements to strongly DENY any kind of preference and association towards similar kind of people with such deregatory labels such as racist, supremacist, and so on. Where discussion on intelligent differences among people in different continents, countries, are also shunned and labeled the same way. 

I guess people simply can't be in denial forever, can they? h:


----------



## Bumfuzzle (Sep 10, 2016)

Done it before. Conversations were uninteresting, and it didn’t help that he just agreed with me all the time. I’d rather someone of equal intelligence, maybe slightly more but no significantly more intelligent than me.


----------



## salt (Jun 22, 2015)

if you think youre completely more intelligent than someone then youre just an arrogant little asshole
there are many diffirent types of intelligence, if youre a nerd whos on the internet all the time, you are probably less spatial and kinesthesis intelligent than him/her for example
so if youre the type to only date the person you SHOULD date, not you WANT TO date, then figure out what youre dumb at, and find someone who is good at those things, to help you better yourself


----------



## Aerari (Jun 27, 2018)

I tend to enjoy people, who have high levels of those types of intelligence, that I do not have. Like some sort of "let us use our strengths with each other".


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Probably been repeated to death but, I think I'd need someone pretty clever who is able to plan and go out of her ways in order to show that she understands that I'm all about the meaning of actions rather than said actions. It confused too many people until now and I'm dead tired of it lol 

Other than that I don't really care about booksmart. Its nothing more than ego brushing at that point and I'm 100% repulsed by it

I'd take a really ressourceful, confident street smart person any time of the day, who's able to have good convos. That stuff is sexy as hell


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Poll closed. Vast majority of men and women voted someone equal to themselves.
@Sillyasaurus  @contradictionary @Denature 

(I'm not sure if it was only you three in the convo when I opened this poll, but here you go.)


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Abraxas said:


> Geez, only me and 4 other dudes wanted to be with someone smarter.


Not all of us have submission fantasies. :laughing:


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Poll closed. Vast majority of men and women voted someone equal to themselves.
> @Sillyasaurus  @contradictionary @Denature
> 
> (I'm not sure if it was only you three in the convo when I opened this poll, but here you go.)


No surprise whatsoever.

Now let's see by each sex, most men wants their equal, some wants less, some want more. On average, men wants equal.

While most women also wants their equal, some want more BUT zero want any less. On average, women trade up.

:exterminate:

I even have hindsight that there are more women who actually want more and skew the distribution further... _deep down inside_...

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

Yes I am smart enough for the both of us


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

contradictionary said:


> No surprise whatsoever.
> 
> Now let's see by each sex, most men wants their equal, some wants less, some want more. On average, men wants equal.
> 
> ...


I don't buy into the "people lie or don't admit what that actually want" narriative because it's way too easy to make that argument with out any proof and nothing anyone can say to defend themselves. It's about as good as me saying "guys who buy into redpill are all under evolved and don't understand basic logic, but they won't admit this" you can't prove that it isn't the case. I don't have to support my claims. 


So really, is it more likely that people lie to protect themselves on a closed poll where you can't see who chose what, OR is it more likely people were honest? I think honesty in this poll makes far more sense. 

Also for dudes wanting a significantly less intelligent significant other, they may want to consider not reproducing as there's a lot of recent studies (from 2017/2018) that have found more proof from the study in 2016 suggesting that intelligence is more likely to be passed from the mother than the father to the children.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I don't buy into the "people lie or don't admit what that actually want" narriative because it's way too easy to make that argument with out any proof and nothing anyone can say to defend themselves. It's about as good as me saying "guys who buy into redpill are all under evolved and don't understand basic logic, but they won't admit this" you can't prove that it isn't the case. I don't have to support my claims.
> 
> 
> So really, is it more likely that people lie to protect themselves on a closed poll where you can't see who chose what, OR is it more likely people were honest? I think honesty in this poll makes far more sense.


It's too easy to distract you with side (unimportant) hypothetical things, daleks. Proven.



daleks_exterminate said:


> Also for dudes wanting a significantly less intelligent significant other, they may want to consider not reproducing as there's a lot of recent studies (from 2017/2018) that have found more proof from the study in 2016 suggesting that intelligence is more likely to be passed from the mother than the father to the children.


Owww, not hoax againnnnn. Cmon, daleks, you could ask your gay partner, he knows how to research properly, the trait run deep in his vein.



Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

contradictionary said:


> It's too easy to distract you with side (unimportant) hypothetical things, daleks. Proven.


So using non sequiturs and an appeal to ignorance was actually an attempt to distract when called out for it? That seems unlikely. 



> Owww, not hoax againnnnn. Cmon, daleks, you could ask your gay partner, he knows how to research properly, the trait run deep in his vein.


I love that you're telling me to ask @Pifanjr how to research. He's incredibly intelligent, but I'm way more likely to read large studies. I do this a lot, for fun. Also this isn't a hoax.


----------



## Pifanjr (Aug 19, 2014)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I love that you're telling me to ask @Pifanjr how to research. He's incredibly intelligent, but I'm way more likely to read large studies. I do this a lot, for fun. Also this isn't a hoax.


He said your _gay_ partner. Unless you suspect something I'm not aware of...


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Pifanjr said:


> He said your _gay_ partner. Unless you suspect something I'm not aware of...


We're clearly two dudes gay together


----------



## Pifanjr (Aug 19, 2014)

daleks_exterminate said:


> We're clearly two dudes gay together


Ah, of course, my dudebro.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

YEa but Gon b herd to fine tbh.


----------



## Lucan1010 (Jul 23, 2018)

Probably not. If they were a little less intelligent than me, sure (of course there are many types of intelligence). Generally, the people I'm attracted to are moderately more intelligent than me, though a few have been much more or somewhat less in terms of intelligence.


----------

