I was worried when I voted that I'd be an elitist snob, but I see it's a valid concern for many! I just couldn't be involved with someone where there was a serious gap in intelligence, either way. I'm not sure that his statements indicate a lack of intelligence, though, or stuff he just doesn't focus on or care about. I'm in Michigan too, and for many years we barely had any snow, so maybe he just never noticed the details! Don't rule it out yet!
I'd say maybe, but close to yes. The whole idea of an indestructible, deep relationship is to find my soulmate, who's obviously not going to be someone who only knows the different words for sex or whatever have you. But I also like to teach and share what I know if it's something new for others, so I say the lack of capability is worse than being uninformed. The latter can be fixed.
Gen, you know damn well none of those are befitting for you! Where's 'omnipotent'? =P To keep it simple, so long as we're able to mesh together, and discuss things, I'm fine. If we find ourselves having more problems than solutions, something needs to be worked on -- and if we can't come together to do that, then, most likely, we aren't going to work out.
It entirely depends on how big the gap is, I mean if they say afew questionable things I would probably just laugh and move on if I like them. If it was like a huge gap and then it probably would be a deal breaker but the gap would have to be pretty big, I mean it isn't something that bothers me too much, as long as I could have a intellectual conversation with them now and again I wouldn't mind too much.
On a very general note, and I don't mean this specifically at you, biguy, but I do think that a big intelligence gap can make that person more susceptible to abusive/manipulative relationships. Case in point, my aunt who lives about 15 minutes from here. She's a loving mother and everything, but she's dumber than a box of rocks. She took my cousin, who suffers from depression and anxiety and also has ADHD, off his antidepressants and his Concerta, against the psychiatrist's advice, I might add, because she read some website about how antidepressants are all a global conspiracy to warp children or some other crazy BS like that. She's left her abusive husband about 8 times in the 17 years they've been together, and yet each time she's come crawling back because she cheated on him once and so she thinks that justifies what she goes through in staying with him. Not to mention she's tried to warm up her coffee by putting her metal coffee cup in the microwave, dumped a bag of frozen chicken bites into boiling oil, and tried making lasagna on the stove.
Hrm. I voted Not Sure. The main reason being that I think I'm rather leaning toward Gen's view on this matter, or something in the same ballpark. I see a lot of folks on here talking about how they need to be with someone they can 'have an intelligent conversation with'. My two thoughts on reading this are: a) you seem to be assuming that everyone will need to be up to your level b) intelligent conversation about what, exactly? Unless you are the worlds foremost living expert on everything, I'm pretty confident there are any number of subjects about which you are totally ignorant and unable to hold an 'intelligent' conversation on. Plus some number of subjects you know a lot about (possibly up to expert level) due to either interest, job or life experience, or some combo of these. And some number of subjects you at least know (or think you know) a bit about. So, depending on the subject being discussed you may come across as a genius or a complete idiot. So which characterization is correct, exactly? Who decides? This is before we get into areas such as social intelligence (if a person can captivate/motivate an entire room with their witty conversation while you nearly have a meltdown at even the thought of talking with a stranger (especially an attractive stranger), who is the more intelligent one?), and technical skill or ability (how do you characterize the intelligence of someone who never went past HS, but who is an amazing chef/gardener/mechanic/woodworker/artist/whatever, all while being self-taught?). Hmm. To get back to the OPs original question - If I'm understanding you correctly, these are a few specific things that have made you wince, rather than a constant pattern. And you haven't even met him in person yet. Based on that, I think it is a bit premature to give up on him before you've even really started. If it turns out that he is constantly without a clue on practically everything such that you are constantly being annoyed by him (and you haven't been able to discover some number of other qualities/areas of intellect or skill that he may have that compensate for them) , then that may be the time to consider ending things. But at this point it doesn't sound like you know him well enough to make an informed decision. My 2c worth, Todd
Ah, I don't know about "intelligence", there are many kinds of this and surely I don't care if my partner is good at maths or languages. I just want someone who gets me and I get them. Compatibility is a complex thing and it's too late now and I'm too lazy to make the effort to explain, especially in english. One sure thing is that I like people who have the ability to question everything. And who are independent yet sweet and give me new interesting and beautiful perspectives of the world.
No, definitely not. There's nothing wrong with not knowing specific things, there's always room to teach and learn from others.
Well, surely, in order to have well-argued, logical, 'meaningful' conversation about a particular topic, one would need to understand what they're talking about and "articulate" themselves quickly enough in order to fluently express themselves. Thus, a certain level of general intelligence is indeed in need.
Every healthy human being is born with a general degree of intelligence. Intelligence is not a matter of have and have not. It is a matter of degree. When we are talking about intelligence, it is rarely a matter of ability rather than efficiency. For instance, the primary reason why highly intelligent individuals perform better academic on average is not because they are born into this world already enlightened. It is because they will process and analysis concepts and information with much more ease and at a faster rate than those around them. This is why intelligence is not a matter of knowledge. The most intelligence being in the world could just as easily be the most ignorant. Additionally, people are viewing the presence or lack of significant intelligence in extremes and that is extremely misguided. It is not a matter of intelligence or incompetence. Competence is the ability to perform tasks successfully. Most of the general public are competent, yet not specifically intelligent as intelligence is inherently measured on a scale. (i.e. What is the norm of ability within a population? Who are the individuals who exceed it?) Those who believe that significant intelligence would be necessary in a companion in order for them successfully carry out a conversation with them, peak their interests, and live effectively with them are either living extraordinary lives or are horribly mistaken when it comes to their own ability. In most cases, I find the latter to be true.
For me, yes. Intelligence is just as important to me as physical appearance. I prefer someone smarter or equally as smart as me. I need someone who can keep up when I'm in the mood to be philosophical. I also need someone who can keep me in line because I can be ditsy. >_>
Obviously blonde moments aren't a bad thing. But I find that if someone is significantly more or less intelligent than I am, it can be difficult to be on the same page on the emotional side of the relationship. I know if you have to explain common phrases to someone quite regularly, that would get annoying. ("If I had a penny for everytime someone said that to me?" and they ask "Why would someone give you a penny for that?" etc).
I'm quite introverted, so I don't talk to a huge amount of people. If I have a conversation with someone, it's probably because they challenge my thinking and inspire me (and I'm attracted to that). I don't think it's harsh, because I know there are elements of demisexuality in me and that's just the way attraction happens for me.
Interesting, reading people's answers, I don't really see anyone saying they HAVE rejected someone for lack of intelligence, only that they WOULD. I wonder if meeting someone where the gap is that significant really doesn't happen all that often?
I rejected a guy for asking if Lucy Liu was Bill when watching Kill Bill on our second date. I just couldn't...