Would you date or marry a nonintellectual?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Honn
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether individuals would date or marry someone who is not capable of engaging in profound intellectual conversations. Participants explore the implications of intellectual compatibility in relationships, considering factors such as common interests, personal values, and the nature of intellectual engagement.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express that having common interests is crucial for a relationship, suggesting that intellectual depth is not the only factor in compatibility.
  • Others argue that being an intellectual is akin to having a hobby, and that differences can create balance in a relationship.
  • A few participants highlight that life encompasses more than intellectual pursuits, suggesting that social compatibility and personal qualities are equally important.
  • Some participants emphasize the variability of what constitutes an "intellectual," noting that formal education does not necessarily correlate with the ability to engage in intelligent conversations.
  • One participant mentions that they have dated non-intellectuals without issue, indicating that personal and professional lives may be conflated in this discussion.
  • Another participant raises the concern that setting high standards for intellectual compatibility may limit dating opportunities significantly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the importance of intellectual compatibility in relationships. Some advocate for its significance, while others downplay its necessity.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying definitions of what constitutes an "intellectual," leading to ambiguity in the discussion. The relationship between intellectual engagement and personal compatibility remains unresolved.

  • #61
Rick21383 said:
<Snip>
Idioms are often NOT logical. The phrase "Head over heels" makes no sense. It used to be "Heels over head" which makes more logical sense but that version isn't used anymore, right?

This "argument" is like something they'd be squabbling over at Reddit.
Interestingly, it seems one of the ways they caught the Unabomber was that he used the expression " You cannot eat your cake and then have it" , which is more precise than " You cannot have your cake and eat it": of course you can: you have it, you eat it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
EverGreen1231 said:
You should be able to talk with your partner. I would also caution against thinking someone 'intellectually simple' because they're not interested in mathematics, physics, or philosophy. The most intellectual people I know couldn't care less about any of those things.
I would imagine a true intellectual ( which I don't claim to be ) would be interested in knowledge for knowledge sake, and so would be interested in all areas. That is what I would associate to any reasonable definition of intellectual.
Still, I would think it comes down to , re the OP, finding someone who is willing to challenge themselves, their views and learn in the process. I think this is what the OP is referring to.
 
  • #63
I'll weigh in on this one, and by no definition am I considered an 'intellectual'. However, even being about average intelligence I'd say the chasm between two mindsets is there, and at times I did call my ex 'stupid', perhaps in the heat of an argument. She knew I meant it, and I knew how hurt it made her.. it sucks, but it doesn't usually work out.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K