Would you date someone considerably less intelligent?

Options
1…5791011

Replies

  • Bikini27
    Bikini27 Posts: 1,298 Member
    Options
    How do you even judge that? I have no clue and have probably been both the smarter and dumber in my relationships. Meh.

    if you judge a fish by how well it climbs a tree it will think it is stupid for the rest of it's life.
  • MADDUKE1
    MADDUKE1 Posts: 13
    Options
    I prefer them less intelligent. Their easier to read like an open book. You can understand their motivations and follow their inept logic to its conclusion. Their secrets and lies are easier to see through, which make them far easier to trust. Intelligence has no hold on morality. The difference is those with poor morality and low intelligence are easier to spot. However a smart person with poor morality can easily deceive, betray and hurt others.
  • Cp731
    Cp731 Posts: 3,195 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't date someone that I couldn't have an intelligent conversation with.
    .

    This for sure! I have dated people that have their Masters and still were boring to have a conversation with.

    Yea, me too. That's why I was asking all of those questions, that no one seems to want to answer.
  • Mustang_Susie
    Mustang_Susie Posts: 7,045 Member
    Options
    My ex
    Nuff said
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Options
    I love every post in here that says 'no' but is riddled with rudimentary grammatical inaccuracy.

    If we're splitting hairs, wouldn't "inaccuracies" work better here, due to the visual implied by "riddled?"

    I know, I know. Bring on Colonel Klink.

    Actually, I think either word would be correct in that sentence. Inaccuracy as a general concept, as opposed to specific incidents of inaccuracy.
  • tallvesl99
    tallvesl99 Posts: 231 Member
    Options
    funny:laugh:
  • galenofedgewood
    galenofedgewood Posts: 146 Member
    Options
    I'm so going to get smacked for this, but I had actually married one. I guess she wasn't stupid, but she's definitely not as intelligent as my current wife.

    I can tell you, though, I'm much happier with my current wife (I love smart women). Of course, I think people wonder why she married someone so much less intelligent than her! lol
  • tallvesl99
    tallvesl99 Posts: 231 Member
    Options
    i meant about the hello squirrel...i'm still laughing!
  • PomegranatePriestess
    PomegranatePriestess Posts: 2,455 Member
    Options
    Just curious.

    I think my my wife and are about equal on all quantifiable measures of intelligence.

    "quantifiable measures of intelligence" these big words are hurting my head.

    That too


    No offense to the original poster, but in my experience when people make a point to use bigger words like that, it's because they're trying to sound smarter and better than they are.

    I know what you mean, but in this case I don't think it was gratuitous. If he had simply said "about equal in every way," someone could have taken issue with it for being too general. I think he was just being specific. But then, I don't get intimidated by people who have a sizable vocabulary and enjoy using it.
  • dlecorchick
    dlecorchick Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    I can't afford to be picky. I'll date anyone who's nice to me.

    hehe... I'm Ed.D. (ABD) and this still sums it up! ^^^
  • devil_in_a_blue_dress
    devil_in_a_blue_dress Posts: 5,214 Member
    Options
    I did once it didn't work out in a positive way. Would not go that route again.
  • iysys
    iysys Posts: 524
    Options
    when i was in my teens and early twenties i dated a lot of super freaking hot guys who were less than intelligent. i wouldn't say any of them were flat out dumb but there was never going to be a conversation about the state of world politics, classic literature, or fine art. that said, as i mentioned they were hot and a lot of fun to hang out, party, travel, and dance with.
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Options
    I can't afford to be picky. I'll date anyone who's nice to me.

    hehe... I'm Ed.D. (ABD) and this still sums it up! ^^^

    In the past, I only dated guys who weren't nice to me, so a guy who was nice to me would be great!
  • InnerConflict
    InnerConflict Posts: 1,592 Member
    Options
    jessica-simpson-dancing.gif
  • PomegranatePriestess
    PomegranatePriestess Posts: 2,455 Member
    Options
    I love every post in here that says 'no' but is riddled with rudimentary grammatical inaccuracy.

    If we're splitting hairs, wouldn't "inaccuracies" work better here, due to the visual implied by "riddled?"

    I know, I know. Bring on Colonel Klink.

    Actually, I think either word would be correct in that sentence. Inaccuracy as a general concept, as opposed to specific incidents of inaccuracy.

    Agreed, either word could be considered correct, but the plural would be preferable given the implications of "riddled." That's why I started with "If we're splitting hairs." It's the poet in me, I suppose, that would insist on the harmony, above and beyond mere precision.
  • BurtHuttz
    BurtHuttz Posts: 3,653 Member
    Options
    Agreed, either word could be considered correct, but the plural would be preferable given the implications of "riddled." That's why I started with "If we're splitting hairs." It's the poet in me, I suppose, that would insist on the harmony, above and beyond mere precision.

    You may critique my intellect or my word choices, but you shall not critique my prose!
  • Cognito1025
    Cognito1025 Posts: 323 Member
    Options
    So, when you say less intelligent what does this require?
    Someone who can't solve a crossword puzzle in the Sunday paper?
    Someone that's not intellectually stimulating?
    Someone who doesn't think through a decision and buys a new pair of shoes, even tho they are broke?
    Cant recite the Declaration of Independence?
    Someone who cant name the 50 States of America?
    Someone who cant follow along with Jepordy?
    Not good with computers?
    Or are you talking about someone with no thought process?
    That cant contribute to a conversation?
    Agrees with everything you say?

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....

    That's all I remember. :D

    I have, however, been known to buy shoes when I can't afford them.
  • PomegranatePriestess
    PomegranatePriestess Posts: 2,455 Member
    Options
    I love every post in here that says 'no' but is riddled with rudimentary grammatical inaccuracy.

    If we're splitting hairs, wouldn't "inaccuracies" work better here, due to the visual implied by "riddled?"

    I know, I know. Bring on Colonel Klink.

    It's so funny you mention that. I initially typed "inaccuracies" and my edit was to change it to singular. "Riddled" does express a plurality and "inaccuracy" is singular noun. "Inaccuracy," however, is the quality or state of being inaccurate, and/or having errors, usually more than one. It is a short inductive leap to then state that the word inaccuracy in this context describes the collective inaccuracy of the plurality of errors in the singular "every post" described, which are captured by the singular noun "inaccuracy" . . . or so I contend.

    Wanna date? :flowerforyou:
  • ldrosophila
    ldrosophila Posts: 7,512 Member
    Options
    I love every post in here that says 'no' but is riddled with rudimentary grammatical inaccuracy.

    If we're splitting hairs, wouldn't "inaccuracies" work better here, due to the visual implied by "riddled?"

    I know, I know. Bring on Colonel Klink.

    LOL! Once we all got e-mail accounts and learned acronyms are where its at grammar went the way of the dodo bird.
  • isefluffy44
    isefluffy44 Posts: 47 Member
    Options
    No.

Categories