Would you date someone who is not as smart as you?

fizix2 · October 30, 2007, 7:06pm

You could find out still more about him if you read his [url=<a href=“http://simfish.■■■■■■■■■■■■■%5Dblog%5B/url”>http://simfish.■■■■■■■■■■■■■]blog[/url</a>].
It’s interesting, most of the time. And fun to make random comments on. :p

InquilineKea · October 30, 2007, 7:13pm

Okay. :)

or probably more - if not for your caltech psets. ^_^

There’s certainly a correlation. (or I’m assuming there is one). Or I have reasons to believe that such a correlation exists. After all, your “level” of “functional conversation” is contingent upon such a correlation.

But it does take intelligence to RECOGNIZE intelligence. I think that fits.

But it’s really hard to say, anyone at the 50th percentile is going to call anyone at the 97th percentile a genius. And they’d be hard pressed to distinguish between someone at the 97th and the 99th. hmm.

I’m mostly talking about percentiles actually (for MOST of us, someone at the 50th percentile is too stupid to be dateable). Someone at the 80th percentile is probably too stupid to be dateable. (if you’re at the 80th percentile, you’ll probably score lower than 600 on the SAT). But to have the intelligence to carry on a functional conversation is certainly correlated with test scores (just like social outcomes are correlated with test scores - not absolute correlations, but good enough for the government and military to trust them).

But let’s be honest here - it’s easier to carry on a functional conversation with the kids at CTY, who MUST be > 99th percentile, as compared to your average middle school student. But one’s standards of functional conversation vary as according to environment (before I discovered CC, my thresholds were a lot lower than they are now). If many of us care so much about intelligence, then there certainly is already a large proportion of students who we are unable to carry on a functional conversation with (especially if most of us on CC are already > 97th percentile)

InquilineKea · October 30, 2007, 7:19pm

BTW, the CAA cutoffs, which are MUCH lower than those of CTY (40-50 pts?), are still placed at the 98th percentile.

ugh, freak it, the CTY website changed itself since I last came to it

===

anyways though fizix, why do you perceive that my intelligence is lower than yours? Does it show up in our conversations? Or in the obvious discrepancies between our relative levels of academic achievement? (it would make a lot more sense if you conformed to the latter definition, since if you are intellectual, your level of intelligence doesn’t really seem to show up in a conversation - especially if you aren’t as passionate as the person is into the subjects he always talks about). This obviously comes from impressions, but I do sound a lot smarter than most people I know who would score higher than me - the only reason being that I am unusually intellectual (after all, it takes test scores and GPA to make an intellectual seem dumber than he actually appears).

InquilineKea · October 30, 2007, 7:52pm

“since if you are intellectual, your level of intelligence doesn’t really seem to show up in a conversation - especially if you aren’t as passionate as the person is into the subjects he always talks about”

=>“since if someone is intellectual, his level of intelligence doesn’t really seem to show up in a conversation - especially if you aren’t as passionate as the person is wrt the subjects he always talks about”

After all, you can’t really discern intelligence when you’re reading a book or understanding a lecture, can you? (as long as the intelligence is above a threshold)

fizix2 · October 30, 2007, 8:06pm

I’ve carried on functional conversations with people who got 1000 (V+M) on the SAT before. It doesn’t take a genius, per se. (Your observations may be skewed by the fact that you don’t deign to speak with people you don’t see as “intelligent.”)

And by the way, sometimes it’s harder to carry on conversations with “smart” people, since often they’ve spent a lot more time learning math etc. than learning how to talk to people. :)

Yes. That would be it.

I don’t really know which of us is more intelligent. It’s very difficult to judge intelligence unless you know someone in real life (how quickly does he react to new ideas or situations? how quick is he to notice things? if we were lost in the forest and had no means of communication with the outside world, how quickly would he figure out what to do to survive?)

But probabilistically, a 16-year-old girl with a full ride to Caltech is most likely more intelligent than – well, you.

enderkin · October 30, 2007, 8:16pm

I will respect anyone who can hold a conversation with me.

It is not easy. But it is oh-so-nice when I find someone who can.

InquilineKea · October 30, 2007, 8:18pm

that’s true. But nonetheless, there is still a correlation. As for intelligence, i’m really speaking of intellectual convos since those are what I live on - if people less intelligent than I were had more ideas that related to my interests, I would listen to them (but the problem is that most people less intelligent than I am aren’t interested in anything intellectual).

On online forums, where your level of “intellectual-ness” is demonstrated online, I tend to look at the forumers with the most intellectual/insightful posts. But on the other hand, I often don’t see them as approachable (actually to be honest, I don’t even approach a lot of the most intelligent people - especially on CC - the reason I contacted you was because I saw your homepage and then stalked “implicitlydefined”). Generally I approach (a) people who seem approachable, (b) people with asperger’s syndrome, or (c) people who seem disillusioned with their social life. [on online forums like this, most people are intelligent enough]

there’s a reason why i’m so scared of ben golub and randomperson, you see. :p

after all, one of the people i contacted/PMed was phuriku (whose test scores were abnormally low) - but who would outperform expectations (expectations formed out of such test scores0

It’s just that at the level of the school, most students really aren’t capable of carrying on a functional conversation, but the students with the highest scores are more capable of such convos (and I know this from experience - because i tried talking with all the regular kids at my school in 7th/8th grades - when I realized that none of them had anything to say)

remember that I value intellectual-ness (or potential thereof) more than intelligence (after all, why do i seem so sympathetic to chaostheory?) [to be honest, I don’t see him as THAT intelligent anymore, but I still see him as capable]. Don’t we all value measures of a person’s ability to hold a conversation? (somewhat related to intellectualness) I use test scores only as proxies of percentiles - the fact is that a lot more people at the 99th percentile are going to be capable enough of holding a convo than people at the 80th percentile than people at the 50th percentile. Once you know someone very well, of course, percentile scores don’t mean anything anymore (it’s only when you have to select from a population you know nothing else about when it matters). I’m still resentful against IQ tests anyways :p

LOL then I would be more intelligent than Norbert Wiener or the USAMO qualifier at my school. :p

There are many varieties of intelligence (correlated with each other in the general population, true, but not necessarily so in individuals) - but that you speak of yourself as more intelligent than me - that betrays that it’s really one type of intelligence that you’re looking at.

okay that’s true. (though one must account for the fact that I started out really behind compared to most such people - due to the fact that I went to crappy schools - that being said, many nobel laureates went to schools crappier than mine and still managed to catch up very very easily)

==

so really, what I’m saying is that the reasons for my caring for a person’s intelligence are little different from your reasons. We only care about it inasmuch as it determines someone’s ability to hold a “functional conversation” with us. my forms of “functional conversation” are just different - since the topics that I hold for “functional conversation” are academic ones.

InquilineKea · October 30, 2007, 8:59pm

And again it holds the same idea as the idea that we do rate intelligence in terms of test scores and achievements, at least probabilistically, even though there may be people with SAT scores of 1000 you’re capable of holding a functional conversation with.

(and I said above that my “intelligence standards” increased after i came to CC - since my standards for “functional conversation” increased). although I do think it’s entirely possible that some of the girls at my school were intelligent enough to hold a truly functional conversation with me (if they were more intellectual - obviously “functional conversations” are dependent on intelligence - but people with lots of intelligence can jump on a functional conversation without being too intellectual - whereas people with lower intelligence need to be more intellectual in order to hold a functional conversation - it’s like the findings from neurobiology that “smarter” = “more efficient” = “less resources needed for task of particular difficulty”). I did have conversations with a couple of them that were kind of functional and that could last a couple of hours (but not all the way to the level that would make me feel comfortable about, say, a relationship - that would entail them being more intellectual). Although actually it would depend - if some girl approached me, I might lower my standards (but it’s assumed that this isn’t the scenario) - and it would come at the cost of (lawl) [yeah, editing, my perception of my past has changed - CC definitely did raise my standards, but it did not raise my standards to the exclusion of everyone else at my school - there were a number of girls who I thought as possibly more intelligent than me - such perceptions changed over the next 2 years]

edit: or actually since I can’t ascertain my thoughts two years ago, maybe it was true that CC raised my standards in that I DID judge people as according to their stats 2 years ago, so then I did judge people on basis of stats rather than “functional conversations” back then (CC and moreso AoPS made me frustrated at my school)

Keshira · October 30, 2007, 11:10pm

I was going to say something about how love can’t be quantified and that with each person it’s more about the ‘fit’ than specific guidelines he has to fit, but… I just realized that I really can’t be attracted to a guy that’s not as intelligent as me. Now by intelligent I don’t mean (Oh, he could be worse than me at chemistry and better than me at ZOOLOGY) academic prowess necessarily, even though there is def. a correlation, but I’m attracted to a guy that’s insightful, a quick thinker and complex. I find that if a guy possesses these qualities I immediately discount the effect of average looks, average athleticism, and any other qualities I’d normally gravitate towards. I do this subconsciously. And while I do crush on hot guys, it’d be impossible to actually have a relationship with them besides casual friendship. I’m different from most girls I think in that I’d prefer a guy that’s about the same as me, with quite a bit of leeway BOTH WAYS into smarter and uh… not as smart.

Most guys tend to prefer girls who are slightly less intelligent than them, and girls prefer guys who are slightly more intelligent. The funny thing though, is that many smart guys would date girls who are vastly, vastly less intelligent if they were hot But that’s really the easiest thing for girls to achieve. With some makeup, a pretty hairstyle, nice clothes and confidence, almost any girl can fit this moniker. Anyway, I just think this is funny and it probably makes romance hard for the smartest girls.

fizix2 · October 30, 2007, 11:11pm

It’s funny, since by that definition, most of the conversations we’ve had are nonfunctional. In fact, I can think of only two or three that actually were “functional,” and they usually became one-sided after a short while. :p

Why didn’t you break up with me first, then?

Intelligence, yes. Worthiness as a friend – no. I believe in earlier conversations I specified that they were not necessarily more intelligent, but certainly intelligent enough.

Intelligence is a weighted average of several traits. “Quick-wittedness” is one of the most important ones. Verbosity does not make the list, nor does going off on random slightly-relevant tangents. Writing long, poorly-thought-out “impulse” emails is a symptom not of intelligence, but of an inability to relate to an audience. (Especially sending several short emails in a row. This is good conversation style, but if you wish to appear “insightful,” think more carefully and do us the courtesy of organizing your thoughts before you present them.)

“This letter is only so long because I have not had the time to make it shorter.” – Pascal

Edit: Incidentally, I think we’re the only ones who are listening to this conversation now. :D

InquilineKea · October 30, 2007, 11:49pm

But there was certainly some potential for functional conversations.

Yeah, that’s kind of true though. I did send you long e-mails, but you didn’t reply to some of the deeper ones (or I just looked back, hm - my deepest e-mail came after you broke up with me - that one was what i was most thinking about). But i’m somewhat guilty of the same sin - since I didn’t respond to a string of your e-mails (it goes in a cycle :p).

Yes, that’s true. do I hold people with better stats as “worthy friends” though? not necessarily actually (I’m serious though - since the people I’ve talked to the most over the last 2 years have INSANE stats but I’ve always been a bit insecure around them since their academic credentials clearly outstripped mine - at least after 10th grade - since that was my academic peak). But they were the only 2 of 4 people in 2006 who actively sought contact with me when I’m gone (of the other 2, one also has insane stats in the humanities, the other I felt more secure around :p).

One held me as an emotional bedrock though.

Many of the e-mails were impulse e-mails. But you seemed to have a higher response rate to them (as compared to my longest most insightful e-mails). Although part of it was because I anticipated it. Insightfulness can come in short spurts (actually there was a girl I exchanged thoughts with who told me that she valued me precisely for my insight, more than anything else). though I tend to think in stream-of-consciousness format, where insight is often in the middle of other thoughts.

Especially when we were back on our LJs (where I organized my thoughts more - but my most theoretical comments went unreplied to).

Actually my MOST theoretical posts were on my Invisionfree.

On the other hand, relationships tend to be more tolerant of stream-of-consciousness e-mails (with random insights in the middle of them).

I tend to send e-mails with the highest response rates, you see. (short e-mails = highest response rates)

(although yeah, to be honest, there was a time when I didn’t respond to a string of your e-mails).

As a general rule though, most convos will be non-functional. At least a few of them should be functional (though the funny thing is that neither of us held each other as emotional bedrocks for each other - I held someone else as an emotional bedrock for a couple of years)

<h1>the problem with me of course, is that my ratio of impulse/insight e-mails tends to increase as I know the person better I originally directed my impulse e-mails to someone else, but since he stopped replying to them (he took to my facebook wall instead) I sent them to you :p</h1>

I do have to admit though - you weren’t necessarily into the same academic areas I was into (and I didn’t know if I should have encouraged your interest in them or not - since it would take your time away from nethack)… This question kind of motivated me not to discuss my more theoretical/insightful interests with you.

fizix2 · October 31, 2007, 12:00am

As I’ve said, I don’t pick friends (or romantic partners) based on how “insightful” they are, or what they can teach me. If I did, I’d spend my days reading books, not making friends.

I’m not the type of girl who’d use you for your knowledge. Your knowledge was not even the reason I liked you. I valued you for your character, for who you were as a person. I valued you as a person, not a textbook. You’re not an “it” to me – you’re a “thou.” (And I hope the feeling was mutual.)

It makes sense, then, that I would respond more to the emails that revealed who you were than what you could come up with.

And by the way, your longest emails were not always your most insightful ones. And you could have done quite a bit to shorten them. :)

enderkin · October 31, 2007, 12:13am

Damn it just go out already and be done with it.

InquilineKea · October 31, 2007, 12:14am

haha, okay. The difference with me is that I generally have few friends, which tends to influence my motivations (for example I get more focused with maintaining daily contact than anything else in particular). hm.

to be honest, I kind of felt it was a relationship more in name than in reality (since what could we do together? :p). So I naturally sent you e-mails about myself, and was open to e-mails about yourself (but then there was the question “what could we do?”). I value people for who they are as well. (I’m scared of people who are too impersonal despite my aspieness ^_^).

I also hoped that you would overlook my general tone of social awkwardedness - since I really am awkward.

yeah, I understand that (it tends to happen with non-relationships as well, actually, with all the other people I exchange e-mails with). Of course it doesn’t necessitate a relationship to exchange knowledge. ^_^

I was kind of confused though - in part because we didn’t really use each other as emotional support (I used someone for that in the past, but I don’t really need it now anymore). And then I sent e-mails with insightful comments that motivated someone else to write such comments - but then our conversations switched to ourselves, and then I sent impulse e-mails that led her to say 'i don’t have time" [obviously with other meanings] :p.

fizix2 · October 31, 2007, 12:30am

I broke up with him. :p

enderkin · October 31, 2007, 12:31am

yet you two still write half-page entries to each other on public forums.

methinks that there’s some romance still a-tinglin in the land of CC.

InquilineKea · October 31, 2007, 12:33am

it’s not mutually exclusive with being cute? :)

enderkin · October 31, 2007, 12:37am

Accursed lovers’ lanes…always turning down the wrong street…grumble grumble…

fizix2 · October 31, 2007, 5:16am

Well, I’m used to having no friends, so I’m not focused on maintaining contact with anyone. And I am certainly not accustomed to using others as “emotional support” (or, indeed, returning the favor). I suppose having a few friends that you are close to is very different from having many acquaintances that say hi to you in the halls and vote you homecoming princess.

It is probably my deficiency more than yours.

Consider my background.

No. You have no problem talking (at least on the Internet).
You’re just scared of doing things you haven’t done before. (A scared little parrot. How adorable.)

InquilineKea · October 31, 2007, 7:48am

Though I initially thought you were very popular. Still, I was very shy on maintaining contact (if you didn’t keep on replying to my posted items, I would have done nothing). Actually if I even remotely suspect that someone hates me, I’ll hesitate from sending the person e-mails. Usually I grab information (sometimes from a fake account) and then hide. I was initially planning on doing that with you too (hence why I didn’t send you a friend request) - after all - your stats made me feel insecure but yet your internet profile was very intriguing

Besides, there was no good reason for you to contact me anyhow, and I fully realized that.

I actually DID think of sending ben golub a long e-mail message (i planned on doing it) but decided against it. i’m so glad i did. i would have made myself look so ■■■■■■■■ that i’d permanently kill simfish for it.

==

I PMed someone on CC this year as well - and I thought that the PM session was over. Then big brother 1984 asked for our PMs and he friended that person for me

or got discouraged through failure :p

oh, and as for my history, i actually told someone that i was willing to be that someone’s slave :p

see, I have self-esteem issues… :p

though i pretend that i’m willing to sacrifice my ambitions for someone else (as long as I get to keep my personal possessions). hard to say, but i’m still really insecure >>.<<

Would you date someone who is not as smart as you?

CONNECT WITH US