Would you date someone considerably less intelligent?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I did once it didn't work out in a positive way. Would not go that route again.

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!

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.

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.

I have, however, been known to buy shoes when I can't afford them.

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.

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.

Rock on, poet.:flowerforyou:

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:

My thoughts exactly...

I'm gonna admit, my husband did... but I'm not stupid.

I agree. My boyfriend is far more intelligent then me...but thats not saying much because he's a freaking genius!

Smart's fun, but it don't get the job done. I don't consider intelligence to be a primary motivator when it comes to partner selection.

I think it goes

1) Purty
2) dat *kitten*
2) fun
2) nice
2) smarts
6) fecundity

depending on the day of course.

That said, I just don't think I'd have enough in common with women who have below average intelligence. On the other end, I find that the incidence of jackholes in Mensa is slightly higher than the general population, though it may be the self-selecting nature of that group. It may be that you will find less jackholery in people who could join Mensa but don't.

If she was hot, absolutely. It's not like paying attention to what she says anyway.

I mean is she even talking? It's just a date. If she's that dumb, just take her to a movie so the giant people on the big square can do all the talking, and then take her to dinner to keep her mouth busy. Then, I guess its up to you after that.

ETA: the pressure to punctuate correctly on this thread is going to make my head explode.