/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2984457]

Sup /sci/, I'd like to make a confession.

I have been, up until now, upholding the standard of high intelligence in women that I'd like to pursue a relationship with to the extent of denying any prospect with any girl who isn't of my extreme caliber of intelligence (not bragging, simply illustrating the point). I know that many dwellers in this board agree with me and share that very same notion. I know this because we've had endless discussions on the matter.

Until recently, that I came across a unique specimen.
She is physically gorgeous and pretty much perfect from a personality stand point.
Only problem is...she's just not very smart (though she's far from dumb).
She has sincere appreciation for the sciences, but simply cannot really cope with any of them.

Up until now I was under the notion that - as a physics undergrad who's practically dedicated his life for the pursue of scientific knowledge through zero material gains - could not hold long and rewarding conversations of topics lacking in the high merit dept.

Boy was I wrong. While she may not be able to appreciate my special mental abilities, and loses track of my line of thought when I go too fast, she definitely appreciates our conversations, as do I.

So this is me, one of you guys, a /sci/borg, signing out while telling you that it's okay to go beyond the highly restrictive scope of mental prowess that you're willing to sample and I promise you...you'll find a whole new world out there.
(And that's coming from practically a fascist in the standards of dating field.)

Also, to diversify the thread - give me your stories. Let's see if my request can hold retroactively.

[Anonymous No.2984463]

[Anonymous No.2984472]

compromise

[Anonymous No.2984473]

>>2984457
OP, perhaps you should focus on whether or not you're have smart children.

If you think you'd have smart children, then morally you should be fine.

However, if you think your offspring would be dumbfucks, then walk away.

[Anonymous No.2984474]

I don't give a fuck about your anecdote OP I want me an Eleanor Arroway.

[Anonymous No.2984478]

>>2984473
I know, that's one of the main reasons for the intelligence restriction. I will be making no crimes against eugenics.
However, I don't intend on getting married for at least another 6-7 years and we're simply dating.

I think I've made the right choice.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2984490]

>>2984474
I never realized how potentially awesome an Ellie Arroway would be as a girlfriend till your comment

[Anonymous No.2984516]

I'm dating someone, who I'd not look at as less intelligent, but less passionate about hoarding knowledge and discussing it as I am. I wouldn't consider myself highly intelligent either, granted, but I'm still somewhat above average.

I don't particularly care, really. Why should I?
He's the calm, slowly pondering lake to my shrill, irritatingly active stream of thoughts.

[Anonymous No.2984527]

>women
>high intelligence
>expecting serious discussion

Bah.

Anyway

>give me your stories.

I've been married for a year to a girl I met 5 years or so ago. We're 28. Her dad is extremely well off and put her through all the best schools. She ended up working in the Tate Modern and I met her at the tennis club.

She's absolutely lovely and despite differences we got on really well. She's not into sciences - her family are all landed Gentry - but she's clever enough to pick up concepts about anything.

Married her because she's got money and I find her incredibly attractive. No need for me to buy her anything as her dad sorts it out and she's incredibly easy going for a Sloane Ranger.

Have fun OP.

[Anonymous No.2984528]

>>2984478
I'd say if she complements your personality, then I wouldn't really give a shit if she can't comprehend your brand of gibberish.

The only problem is your ego, and how much power you think you have in the relationship.

[Anonymous No.2984539]

>woman
>intelligent

choose one

The intersection of the two sets is usually fat, grotesque, or manly.

[Anonymous No.2984548]

>>2984474
Right. Keep dreaming. No such astrophysicists exist.
And had they existed, why would they choose you?

[Anonymous No.2984555]

>>2984478

Clever people don't necessarily have clever children. The most intelligent and resourceful person I know is the son of a crack addict and a former amateur boxer.

The only thing you should be concerned about when getting married is how likely she is to try and get hold of your money. Keep her away from your money and completely uninvolved in your finances as a whole and you've got it all covered. Doesn't matter if she's an Oxford professor or a shop worker, she'll still rob you of everything if you give her half a chance.

[Anonymous No.2984557]

See...it's egos like this that turn women off from science.

[Anonymous No.2984562]

>>2984557

Women avoid traditional academics and the sciences because they're hard, not because of all the mean men doing them.

[Anonymous No.2984570]

>>2984528
I don't really have any ego issues whatsoever, so that's irrelevant.
>>2984527
There actually are a handful of them...but that's where it ends.

[Anonymous No.2984589]

>>2984570

They aren't worth talking to though. The only reason you talk to a woman that isn't a family member is because you want to fuck her. That's all there is to it. If you claim to give a shit about how intelligent or academic she is, then you're lying to "validate" your hunger for sex.

Clever women do not attract me. Attractive women attract me. As long as a woman speaks formally, acts maturely and is mentally sane then I couldn't give a damn what she's educated in.

It's like buying a dog. You don't buy it because it's intelligent.

[Anonymous No.2984598]

>>2984555
Well I personally wasn't suggesting eugenics, I was merely placing another frame to make a choice about intelligence.

It's a way to project on what level you deem the other person's intelligent. Are they just ignorant and need to be exposed? Are they a mind numbing gossip queen? Are they simply not analytical?

OP's children would take on certain ferocious ignorance or gossiping, as the mother's DNA+Attitude would moderate any intelligence OP brings.

As such, it's a suitable question if you're trying to determine whether your ego will get in the way of your attraction.

[Anonymous No.2984597]

Well I can tell you one thing: you're not getting far with her if you keep calling her a "specimen."
Also, congratulations; you're no longer a pompous, self-righteous ass.

[Anonymous No.2984606]

>>2984562
LOL?

I hope you meant

>because men had more wealth and rights during historical scientific discovery and still do.

[Anonymous No.2984623]

>>2984516
And that's the main problems if you'd call it a problem.

I don't think women are less intelligent than men, it just seems that most of them aren't that interested in scientific mindstorming or exchanging utopic ideas. It's not because we actually believe we are genuses... it's because it's fun

That said I never met a lady that shares my love for astronomy. Or at least hid it well.

[Anonymous No.2984631]

>>2984606

Yeah because they earned them. Through hard work and toil. Not through whining and complaining, which is the woman's approach.

[Anonymous No.2984663]

Be real. Be fucking real, for a single second in your life. All of you.

Are you even serious about the expectations you hold when it comes to women?

It's not about them being unable to meet your standards. Its about a fuckton of standards that need to be met to count as a valuable female partner in today's society -- while trying to appear attractive in many ways to many groups.

You've got it easy, fucking assholes. Crass generalization: You either need to be rich, or good-looking to appeal to a lot of women. Provider mentality.

As a woman... you have to be fucking perfect.

>>2984539
This anon provides a perfect example.
NO FUCKING COMPROMISES.

Either the bitch is perfect in every way, or she can go eat shit.

Now, ask yourselves: What is it, that you could offer? A whole lot of you are merely a bunch of pseudo-intellectual shits, hoping to accomplish something big in their life, because the only thing they were ever proud of is their normally functioning, average brain.

[Anonymous No.2984665]

>>2984631
Well, not gonna argue with your biases. Or how you've completely presented an ironic irrationality in your approach to the topic.

>hehehe

[Anonymous No.2985090]

>>2984663
You will never get laid.

[Anonymous No.2985621]

>>2984457
OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_basis_for_love

It's not about compromises, its about cliché movie bullcrap thats actually real! You've got to feel the love.

[Anonymous No.2987124]

>>2985621
Oh you

[Anonymous No.2987185]

I'm not even going to read what this thread is about.

IS ANYONE ELSE GODDAMN TIRED OF SEEING THAT BRAIN IMAGE AS THE OP IMAGE OF RANDOM THREADS?

[Anonymous No.2987189]

>>2984663
>umad
I understand your point, but you fail to realize that having criteria for a potential or desirable mate is something that roughly 100% of the human population has. Having higher standards doesn't mean that all those poor girls who don't meet our standards end up alone, wallowing in despair, sad and alone. They just end up with men who have lower standards, or are just plain stupid.

Also worth mentioning that there are more men than women born each generation, meaning that women have the better odds of finding a relationship than men.

Finally, putting trifling emotions out the window, and actually THINKING, why WOULDN'T you have a list of criteria to use in finding a mate? Why WOULDN'T you want a mate who is healthy, with good immune function and no genetic disorders, as well as higher than average intelligence?

>>2984555
Intelligence is partly genetic. It's been shown that having a larger cerebral cortex has a positive effect on intelligence. Size of your brain is governed by genes. How you use it comes down to upbringing and identity.

Plus, why wouldn't you want to be with someone intelligent on a parental basis anyways? Raising a child involves a lot of decision making. The more intelligent your partner is, the more likely you'll be able to make good decisions with them regarding how to raise your child.

[Anonymous No.2987221]

good god i thought reading r9ker's thoughts about women were bad, but this is really awful. Specimen? What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.2987294]

>>2984663
You make me ashamed to be a femanon.

OP, I'm happy for you.

[RAGE !!R2AdvucIOtW No.2987365]

OP, you obviously aren't very intelligent at all, because you simply bend your thought to the same standard as everyone else, that, in terms of women's qualities, the more intelligent, the better. From that non-unique point of view you come to us telling us that you had "high standards," but all you've really done is shown us that you're nothing more than a sheep who doesn't understand what standards are at all. People don't have higher or lower standards, simply different paradigms that attract them to certain women. From this more logical point of view, the women you were dating before were obviously shit, and this one is better. Just like all the women I've dated before would be considered shit if I found one that I'd actually want to marry. And this doesn't come from them necessarily being more beautiful, intelligent, athletic, wealthy, or any other petty social characteristic. It comes from her set of qualities being a better fit for my ideal paradigms.

Anyways, you're still a moron who should have learned this long ago.

[RAGE !!R2AdvucIOtW No.2987379]

>>2987189

>Intelligence is partly genetic. It's been shown that having a larger cerebral cortex has a positive effect on intelligence. Size of your brain is governed by genes.

you couldn't have possibly been implying that having a larger brain makes you more intelligent. No, i refuse to believe that anyone on this board is that god damn stupid.

[Anonymous No.2987400]

>>2987294
Really? Strange, how you took your time to even reply, in that case. And strange, how little you care about being a woman. Even stranger, that it doesn't take all that much to make you feel ashamed.
Hint: There is absolutely no reason to be proud to be either a woman, or a man. Neither is there, or will there ever be a reason to be ashamed.
Seriously, fuck off.

>>2987189
>I understand your point, but you fail to realize that having criteria for a potential or desirable mate is something that roughly 100% of the human population has.
That isn't remotely what I fail to understand. I know and accept that everyone has "standards". I'm merely worried about the type of "standards" there are. I don't even mind OPs post, because -- honestly, good for him. What I do mind is the rest of the utter bullshit found in this thread.
Today, our "standards" aren't even strictly controlled or motivated by procreation anymore. We've started to define ourselves by the partners we have, and that's fucked up.

>Having higher standards doesn't mean that all those poor girls who don't meet our standards end up alone, wallowing in despair, sad and alone.
>poor girls
Oh, come on. I don't give a fuck about them. I'm not even one of them. I see no need to defend them. I'm only accusing some of today's men (and women) of being ridiculous. There is no such thing as an ideal partner. There is no such thing as perfection. Relationships ARE compromises, always. Who fails to realize that, will never be happy with anyone.
Also, men and women can shove their conscious and unconscious sexism. Fuck that.

>They just end up with men who have lower standards, or are just plain stupid.
Right.

>cont.

[Anonymous No.2987402]

>>2987400
>Finally, putting trifling emotions out the window, and actually THINKING, why WOULDN'T you have a list of criteria to use in finding a mate? Why WOULDN'T you want a mate who is healthy, with good immune function and no genetic disorders, as well as higher than average intelligence?
Because I'm a human, not a machine. Absolute logic is for the weak. I wouldn't ever decide to not be with a man, simply because he has a few genetic "disadvantages". This might sound humanitarian to you, and that's exactly what it is -- even though I'm not even one to get all uppity about morals and ethics.
I'm almost certain that someone will get their panties in a knot over me being one of those responsible for the stalling of human evolution, almost refusing to procreate efficiently, but -- be serious. Some people need to pull their head out of their asses. And while this is obviously an opinion, and basically anyone can do whatever the fuck they want, I still felt the need to state it.

[Anonymous No.2987407]

>>2987189
>The more intelligent your partner is, the more likely you'll be able to make good decisions with them regarding how to raise your child.
Wrong-o. The more intelligent you are, the more hesitant you are to follow your instincts, the more reluctant you are to make important decisions, the more likely you'll turn to biased "how to baby" guides, and so on.
Intelligence isn't the most important factor in raising a child. It's fucking common sense and affection.

There are phases in your life, where you need to be a little bit stupid. Those who cling to their intelligence with the fierceness of a drowning man need to chill out.

[Anonymous No.2987408]

>>2987379
>you couldn't have possibly been implying that having a larger brain makes you more intelligent. No, i refuse to believe that anyone on this board is that god damn stupid.

[Anonymous No.2987414]

>>2987402
BEAUTIFULY stated..
Absolute logic is for the weak.
can i quote you on that?
i'll be sure to spell your name right

[Anonymous No.2987417]

>>2987414
Am I sensing sarcasm?

[Anonymous No.2987418]

>>2987402
>Absolute logic is for the weak.

>I wouldn't ever decide to not be with a man,

You're a woman. Now it all makes sense.

[Anonymous No.2987423]

>>2987417
No, what you're sensing is outright justified hostility towards what is most likely the dumbest statement I've heard in a very long time, not to mention it being completely antithetic of this board and all that most of its dwellers aspire to be and represent.

[Anonymous No.2987426]

>>2987402
Let me guess...you're a liberal?

[Anonymous No.2987430]

>>2987418
I'm basically of no gender when it comes to discussions and try to maintain a neutral point of view in most cases. If you think that me being of female gender is even remotely of interest at the moment, I pity you.

[Anonymous No.2987433]

>>2987430
>If you think that me being of female gender is even remotely of interest at the moment
Sure it is. As a woman you're faaaaar more likely to abandon reason (as you just indicated to be doing) and retreat to emotions.
>I pity you.
Oh look, a retreat to emotions.

[Anonymous No.2987440]

>>2987417
dont let >>2987423 bother you
you are sensing your own insecurities
i was sincere
just look at >>2987423 's response to see the effects of failed attempts as absolute logic as a substitute for the ability to interact with other humans

[Anonymous No.2987441]

>>2987423
How is that statement antithetic to this board? How could anyone even try to aspire absolute logic when it's something that no human could ever achieve? I'm being realistic. But that's even beside the point. Point is, trying to aim for infallible logic is somewhat of a security mechanism, as it represents the fear of failure and the need of certainty. Science shouldn't be about that. And it isn't. Science basically isn't more than trial and error until you've got somewhat of an idea of what's going on.

>>2987426
I've got no politic agenda whatsoever, as there is none that would represent my point of view.

[Anonymous No.2987443]

>2987440
meant to say failed attempts of absolute logic as...
tired.. 4 A.M. here

[Anonymous No.2987447]

>it represents the fear of failure and the need of certainty. Science shouldn't be about that. And it isn't.
inb4 252 posts and 26 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

[Anonymous No.2987450]

>>2987440
>you are sensing your own insecurities
Nicely observed. Basically, it's one of the reasons, why we can't be entirely logical in any way, ever. We can only apply what we've learned. (Here: Doubt.) If we don't dare to think in a way that isn't logical, we are restricting ourselves.

[Anonymous No.2987452]

>>2987441
Yes, and you attempt to utilize as much of cold and hard logic as humanly possible in the process, not raw emotion in any sense.
Much like I'm doing when it comes to my life decisions, relationships included.
Your argument remains invalid.

[Anonymous No.2987455]

OP is either a troll or pretentious as fuck.

[Anonymous No.2987460]

>>2987450
So how's that liberal arts degree working out for you?

[Anonymous No.2987466]

>>2987455
there is no truer troll than a sincere one

[Anonymous No.2987472]

>>2987433
Oh, you're free of emotion? How's that working out for you? As it seems, it's not working out at all. Also, if emotions weren't in any way important or valuable, science would probably disregard it completely. Retreating to emotions is a human concept, not strictly bound to gender.

>>2987447
Cool, I'm an antagonist now. Why doesn't anyone ever get, that discussions aren't meant to be a bunch of idiots agreeing with each other. Diversity can only be achieved by diverse opinions, and diverse opinions, as well as controverse thinking is nutrition for the mind.

[Anonymous No.2987474]

Why the fuck does every "intelligent" person put off on having a child till there 35. stop being selfish. for the love of progress by the time you have one child. the retards have made 3. FUCK FOR SCIENCE SAKE! if it doesn't work out. our society is full of food stamps and child day care and tax breaks for the child and mother. Why don't you research cost benefit analysis of procreating.
for the last 30 years the quality of life in America has declined on the average. odds are your never ever EVER gonna climb that corporate ladder or ascend into place where you feel comfortable raising a child. our society is set up so that your most productive years are 35 to 40. that is right when your first child should be looking at college.
I had the opportunity at 23 to be a father to a women that would of raised my child in complete support and nurturing environment. and she loved BJ's. but no, I was thinking "bringing a child into this world with out a nice house and 2 cars and company pension is cruel and evil."

There are people on /Sci/ so much smarter then me. I'm surrounded by really stupid people. please! PLEASE! as a desperate cry from someone that stumbles in calculus. Procreate for the sake of science.

[Anonymous No.2987483]

>>2987472
nutrition for the mind?
i really would like some insight to this metaphor

[Anonymous No.2987484]

>>2987474
>have 3 or 4 babbys
>progress your career forward

Choice is yours

[Anonymous No.2987487]

>>2987452
There is a time for cold and hard logic, and there is a time for honest, irritating, confusing and chaotic emotions. The human consciousness is an actual degeneration of instincts -- a lot more complex and a lot harder to maintain. You can't live without emotions, as you can't live without basic logic. But there is no such thing as perfect, absolute logic -- it's an idiotic concept for those who are unable to deal with irrationality.

[Anonymous No.2987489]

>>2987472
>Oh, you're free of emotion?
Strawman argument. Never said I was completely free of it as much as able to control and restrict it upon demand. See, logical fallacies such as these occur when you disregard logic.
>How's that working out for you? As it seems, it's not working out at all.
Baseless assumption on an anonymous image board.
>Also, if emotions weren't in any way important or valuable, science would probably disregard it completely.
And it does. Completely.
>Retreating to emotions is a human concept, not strictly bound to gender.
Not bound, yet far more prevalent.

[Anonymous No.2987496]

>>2987472
>Diversity can only be achieved by diverse opinions, and diverse opinions, as well as controverse thinking is nutrition for the mind.
This is what liberals actually believe.
Though I find it to be a little more than food poisoning.

[Anonymous No.2987500]

>>2987483
Basically, we are unable to gain new knowledge if we don't accept to reconsider our motives, opinions, etc. I've learned from "simple", hard-working people, who couldn't care less about a scientific approach to things. I've also learned from bitter, highly intelligent people. And I've learned from gentle philosophers. Of course, those are merely examples.
Controverse thinking is achieved by striving to go beyond your own limits, evaluating even thoughts and opinions that don't seem logical, even offending or confusing to you.
And the most efficient manner to go about this is to discuss, to converse with anyone about everything, even if they despise you for it (even though only the most stubborn do so).
Discussing controversely isn't about proving you're right, or proving the other is wrong, it's about evaluating both sides.

[Anonymous No.2987503]

>>2987487
I am able to deal with it, just decide not to.

[Anonymous No.2987510]

>>2987484

why not have one of you stay home and raise the child and support the others career. We have already learned form Maslow's hierarchy of needs that growth is hard/slow/impossible when the basic needs are not meet. now I'm not saying you should be a codependent on someone. But it's fucking lonely at the top and having needs being taken care of with someone you can go home to every night makes climbing that ladder so much easier. so much faster. you only have one you. and one brain. and a hell of a lot of distractions go away when one parent stays at home. who ever stays home gets to shape a child and help it develop mentally into a academic master. and the other will be there to provide the financial support when it is needed. maybe looking for an equal with equal ambitions is not the smartest thing. Maybe finding someone that wants to support your ass so that your children will grow up better then both of you alone could provide is the right thing.

[Anonymous No.2987523]

>>2987496
Enlighten me, then. Also, stop playing the "liberal" card. It gets boring after a while.

>>2987489
>Strawman argument. Never said I was completely free of it as much as able to control and restrict it upon demand. See, logical fallacies such as these occur when you disregard logic.
Actually, that's not a strawman. It's not even an argument. It was basically only a provocating manner of venting my obvious disagreement.
>Baseless assumption on an anonymous image board.
Baseless? Not at all.
If you were able to control your emotions, you probably wouldn't care about my perspective, as you gain nothing, nor lose anything by pointing out logical fallacies in my posts. Pointless, actually, as I'm willingly admitting to logical fallacies. It's how I learn, or how anyone lerns.
>And it does. Completely.
Psychology, neurology, sociology, theology, biology...
Some of them directly brush the topic of emotion, some of them merely brush it. And science is applied by humans, with emotions. And if you're not even a little bit emotional, passionate about science, that'd be very sad.
>Not bound, yet far more prevalent.
That has to be proven, yet. Genetics only so much determine us. I'm almost sure that a lot of scientists would agree.

[Anonymous No.2987525]

>>2987503
Refusing to deal with it isn't a logical approach. It's neglecting it, for one reason or another. Could be fear, could be frustration, which isn't logical either, because emotions are rarely ever logical. So you're irrationally repulsed by irrationality itself. Very interesting.