Are you a Sapiosexual?

[elsol]

Nope... I'll happily bang a dummy too.

 

[impressive]

You can say that you put honesty, integrity and altruism first on the list with intelligence on down or not on the list at all. But to say that you don't find brians sexy if you can't trust them is disingenuous because intelligence doesn't imply any such thing.

I repeat: I do not find brains sexy if I can't trust them. There's not a damned thing disingenuous about that.

 

[poppy1963]

No. I'd rather be with a funny, sexy guy than with a super smart one.

But I have crushed on some profs that upon reflection weren't that physically hot.

I need "funny AND intelligent"...physical attributes will adapt themselves to how much I enjoy these other attributes. I've had many experiences of meeting people that I didn't find all that physically appealing initially. But once getting to know them, if I really liked and enjoyed them, they became increasingly more physically attractive to me as well and it carried over to those that might resemble them. The converse of this concept also holds true.

Intelligent & Funny...the rest will follow!

So yes, I definitely am a "sapiosexual"!!!

 

[BlackShanglan]

I like both the original post and Impressive's point - although I am also close to Rob's perspective. Nearly anyone who behaves in an untrustworthy fashion strikes me as less intelligent. It's such a pointless way to be in the long run, and such a poor way of dealing with one's issues.

But at any rate - intelligence, compassion, integrity, honor, sense of humor: the mental game is definitely where it's at for me.

 

[cloudy]

I like both the original post and Impressive's point - although I am also close to Rob's perspective. Nearly anyone who behaves in an untrustworthy fashion strikes me as less intelligent. It's such a pointless way to be in the long run, and such a poor way of dealing with one's issues.

But at any rate - intelligence, compassion, integrity, honor, sense of humor: the mental game is definitely where it's at for me.

I agree, completely.

 

[Recidiva]

I like both the original post and Impressive's point - although I am also close to Rob's perspective. Nearly anyone who behaves in an untrustworthy fashion strikes me as less intelligent. It's such a pointless way to be in the long run, and such a poor way of dealing with one's issues.

But at any rate - intelligence, compassion, integrity, honor, sense of humor: the mental game is definitely where it's at for me.

I'm not actually all that big on trust. I guess I don't necessarily believe in it. I trust myself to heal from anything that gets thrown at me, unless I don't.

I believe in the frailty of humans and that they'll mess up a lot, and I rely more on my ability to forgive than I do my ability to trust.

Smart generally means for me that a person will work out for themselves how to make things work better.

Once heard someone say there were book smarts, common sense and street smarts. One type of smart will not carry you, to be really intelligent, you need all three.

So I'm generally fascinated by deeply intelligent people, and I'll hang out with them even if I know they're lying to me, sometimes particularly if they're lying to me. I've been known to make a game out of it so I'm not interested in facts. I'm interested in the person.

Once I see things their way, and it may take me a good long time to fully appreciate it, the view is stunning.

 

[poppy1963]

I agree with recidiva on the trust issue. Being "trustworthy" as in how most people would define it...is something I don't see as part of "human nature". People have to work and work hard to be "trustworthy" and most of us fail at it now and then...at least by others' definitions.

I find a forgiving spirit in myself and in others...empathetic and realistic with HUMOR...much more attractive and that, to me, shows another level of intelligence that I like!

 

[R. Richard]

Intelligence is a fine, and for me necessary, attribute in a woman. However, you have to interact with the whole package, not just one attribute.

If a woman is intelligent but untrustworthy, then the intelligence becomes a negative attribute. If a woman is intelligent but does not have social skills, then the intelligence is somewhat wasted. If a woman is intelligent but does not take care of herself, then the intelligence is not only wasted, it becomes a weapon to be used when she falls short in other areas.

You have to deal with a person, not just one attribute.

 

[3113]

I repeat: I do not find brains sexy if I can't trust them. There's not a damned thing disingenuous about that.

I will grant that you are being sincere in what you're saying. What I'm saying, however, is that you, and others, seem to be saying that we who are admitting to Sapiosexualism (word?), are too dumb to see any other qualities. But I don't think any of us believe, as Richard's long post would seem to imply, that intelligence exists in a vacuum. You want your intelligence with qualifications...well, hey, so do most of us! Few folk want a lying, cheating, selfish asshole even if they are Einstein (even Mrs. Einstein didn't want it--which is why his first wife divorced him).

But all the original post and definition seemed (IMHO) to be talking about whether intelligence, in and of itself, is sexy. Period. No other qualities considered--though OBVIOUSLY--other qualities might make or break the deal.

So: you meet a person at a party, first time, and strike up a conversation. You have no idea if they're trustworthy or honest. It's your very first conversation with this stranger and all you know at this early stage is that (1) You do not find them outwardly repulsive, (2) they seem to be very intelligent. Would you find that, all on its own, sexy? We're not talking long-term relationship, marriage, commitment. Just sexy.

If you put "trustworthiness" first, if a stranger who seems honest is what attracts you, even if they're dumb as a post, then I'd say that you're not sapiosexual.

 

[impressive]

I will grant that you are being sincere in what you're saying.

Wow. Big of you to allow me my feelings. I'd thank you if I didn't find it monumentally arrogant.

What I'm saying, however, is that you, and others, seem to be saying that we who are admitting to Sapiosexualism (word?), are too dumb to see any other qualities.

Um, I neither said nor implied any such thing. I have, from the start, applied my criteria -- my qualifications -- only to myself.

So: you meet a person at a party, first time, and strike up a conversation. You have no idea if they're trustworthy or honest. It's your very first conversation with this stranger and all you know at this early stage is that (1) You do not find them outwardly repulsive, (2) they seem to be very intelligent. Would you find that, all on its own, sexy? We're not talking long-term relationship, marriage, commitment. Just sexy.

You've already qualified this by adding (1). The most I can say is that in the absence of any data re the qualities that are most important to me, an intelligent person would spark more of my interest than one who is as "dumb as a post." Whereas, in the absence of data re intelligence, a dishonest person would spark absolutely NO interest.

If you put "trustworthiness" first, if a stranger who seems honest is what attracts you, even if they're dumb as a post, then I'd say that you're not sapiosexual.

As I said from the beginning, I don't claim to be sapiosexual.

 

[The_Fool]

Kind of reminds me of rolling up a character in Dungeons and Dragons. As I remember there are six primary attributes for each character. The type of character you desire needing strengths in specific attributes. The attributes being Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, Knowledge (Intelligence) and Charisma. Then there is the alignment of the character being a quadrant of a square composed of Good, Neutral, Evil on the X-Axis and Chaotic, Neutral, Lawful on the Y-Axis. Makes for complex characterizations that provide strengths and weaknesses for each character.

So who cares? I just used that as a starting point to say that my opinion of people is that they are a complex set of attributes and characteristics. Certainly more complex than a D&D character and subject to change with time and a whim. The Intelligence role of the dice is the most important role for the Magician character. If I am always going to play a Magician, then that is the first roll that is my concern. But in real life, I am not necessarily looking for that static of person to share time with. I am not looking for someone that is one dimensional, as a person that exists in a single dimension is boring to me. Each person is complex with fixed and dynamic strengths and weakness. So with the dynamic nature of my desire coupled with transition state of human nature, my ideal changes from moment to moment. As with D&D there are certain attributes that I will always steer away from such as heartlessness, mean-spirited, heavily addicted and hypocritical. But also zealous, saintly and religious to an extreme. I am uncomfortable with extremes, which once again tend to be one dimensional.

 

[3113]

Wow. Big of you to allow me my feelings. I'd thank you if I didn't find it monumentally arrogant.

It wasn't meant to be arrogant--I was simply saying what I saw and believed. But then, we seem to be misunderstanding each other. You took that as an implication of arrogance. Just as I took YOUR words as an implication of judgement on those of us who were admitting to sapiosexual.

I apologize for misunderstanding you, and I humbly and *sincerely* apologize for offending you and using poor wording which came across as offensive. My bad.

You've already qualified this by adding (1)

Fair enough. My bad for using the party example where most folk would avoid someone who outwardly repulsed them. I'll erase that qualification and modify the example to: you meet someone online and you know nothing about them--except that they're intelligent.

That work?

 

[poppy1963]

Kind of reminds me of rolling up a character in Dungeons and Dragons. As I remember there are six primary attributes for each character. The type of character you desire needing strengths in specific attributes. The attributes being Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, Knowledge (Intelligence) and Charisma. Then there is the alignment of the character being a quadrant of a square composed of Good, Neutral, Evil on the X-Axis and Chaotic, Neutral, Lawful on the Y-Axis. Makes for complex characterizations that provide strengths and weaknesses for each character.

So who cares? I just used that as a starting point to say that my opinion of people is that they are a complex set of attributes and characteristics. Certainly more complex than a D&D character and subject to change with time and a whim. The Intelligence role of the dice is the most important role for the Magician character. If I am always going to play a Magician, then that is the first roll that is my concern. But in real life, I am not necessarily looking for that static of person to share time with. I am not looking for someone that is one dimensional, as a person that exists in a single dimension is boring to me. Each person is complex with fixed and dynamic strengths and weakness. So with the dynamic nature of my desire coupled with transition state of human nature, my ideal changes from moment to moment. As with D&D there are certain attributes that I will always steer away from such as heartlessness, mean-spirited, heavily addicted and hypocritical. But also zealous, saintly and religious to an extreme. I am uncomfortable with extremes, which once again tend to be one dimensional.

You know...often when I read your posts I think: This guy is no Fool.

 

[Recidiva]

Kind of reminds me of rolling up a character in Dungeons and Dragons. As I remember there are six primary attributes for each character. The type of character you desire needing strengths in specific attributes. The attributes being Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, Knowledge (Intelligence) and Charisma. Then there is the alignment of the character being a quadrant of a square composed of Good, Neutral, Evil on the X-Axis and Chaotic, Neutral, Lawful on the Y-Axis. Makes for complex characterizations that provide strengths and weaknesses for each character.

So who cares? I just used that as a starting point to say that my opinion of people is that they are a complex set of attributes and characteristics. Certainly more complex than a D&D character and subject to change with time and a whim. The Intelligence role of the dice is the most important role for the Magician character. If I am always going to play a Magician, then that is the first roll that is my concern. But in real life, I am not necessarily looking for that static of person to share time with. I am not looking for someone that is one dimensional, as a person that exists in a single dimension is boring to me. Each person is complex with fixed and dynamic strengths and weakness. So with the dynamic nature of my desire coupled with transition state of human nature, my ideal changes from moment to moment. As with D&D there are certain attributes that I will always steer away from such as heartlessness, mean-spirited, heavily addicted and hypocritical. But also zealous, saintly and religious to an extreme. I am uncomfortable with extremes, which once again tend to be one dimensional.

I'm a game player and an actress by history.

Extremes are lots of fun, and so are playing all the characters you've described as one dimensional.

Scarlett O'Hara and Hannibal Lecter are horrible people, but complicated and interesting.

When you have to BE that person, you learn a bit more, I believe. And seeing the other side of the coin an making it real, is of interest.

Serves me well as an author as well. To understand how and why people believe in what they do and act the way they do.

 

[Liar]

Imagination.

All else is more or less marginal.

A nice ass is a plus though.

 

[stirbird]

Many people on Lit like intelligence (along with other good traits), that's clear. But how do feel about a partner who's quite a bit more intelligent than you? Does that work for you?

Is in your ballpark but somewhat less intelligent than you Ok?

Another thing I'm curious about: if you have a partner, who is the smarter? It's easy (and probably true) to say, "Oh, s/he's smarter in some areas and I am smarter in others." But let me put this way: you're both told that only one of you must face a challenge that, to surrmount, will require considerable intelligence. You aren't told anything more specific. If you or your partner do not surrmount this challenge, you will both be killed, slowly. You must choose between yourselves who faces the challenge, and you are highly motivated to send the best contender. Whom would you send?

 

[Recidiva]

Many people on Lit like intelligence (along with other good traits), that's clear. But how do feel about a partner who's quite a bit more intelligent than you? Does that work for you?

Is in your ballpark but somewhat less intelligent than you Ok?

Another thing I'm curious about: if you have a partner, who is the smarter? It's easy (and probably true) to say, "Oh, s/he's smarter in some areas and I am smarter in others." But let me put this way: you're both told that only one of you must face a challenge that, to surrmount, will require considerable intelligence. You aren't told anything more specific. If you or your partner do not surrmount this challenge, you will both be killed, slowly. You must choose between yourselves who faces the challenge, and you are highly motivated to send the best contender. Whom would you send?

I'd pick him. I'm thrilled with the ways he's smarter than I am.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I wouldn't consider myself especially sapiosexual, I don't think... Although I've been utterly repulsed by a level of stupidity, and certainly been seduced and charmed by enormous intelligence, I don't think it's my very first requirement. I'm not sure what is!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Many people on Lit like intelligence (along with other good traits), that's clear. But how do feel about a partner who's quite a bit more intelligent than you? Does that work for you?

Is in your ballpark but somewhat less intelligent than you Ok?

Another thing I'm curious about: if you have a partner, who is the smarter? It's easy (and probably true) to say, "Oh, s/he's smarter in some areas and I am smarter in others." But let me put this way: you're both told that only one of you must face a challenge that, to surrmount, will require considerable intelligence. You aren't told anything more specific. If you or your partner do not surrmount this challenge, you will both be killed, slowly. You must choose between yourselves who faces the challenge, and you are highly motivated to send the best contender. Whom would you send?

We're screwed!

 

[cloudy]

Another thing I'm curious about: if you have a partner, who is the smarter? It's easy (and probably true) to say, "Oh, s/he's smarter in some areas and I am smarter in others." But let me put this way: you're both told that only one of you must face a challenge that, to surrmount, will require considerable intelligence. You aren't told anything more specific. If you or your partner do not surrmount this challenge, you will both be killed, slowly. You must choose between yourselves who faces the challenge, and you are highly motivated to send the best contender. Whom would you send?

I'd go.

It's not that he's not intelligent; he is. In our situation, though, I have a very extensive education, and he has a very limited one. Raw intelligence is great to have, but you have to also do something with it.

 

[Guest]

Imagination.

All else is more or less marginal.

A nice ass is a plus though.

Hey Liar!

Good to see you!

I thought you were on vacation?

 

[impressive]

It wasn't meant to be arrogant--I was simply saying what I saw and believed. But then, we seem to be misunderstanding each other. You took that as an implication of arrogance. Just as I took YOUR words as an implication of judgement on those of us who were admitting to sapiosexual.

I apologize for misunderstanding you, and I humbly and *sincerely* apologize for offending you and using poor wording which came across as offensive. My bad.


Fair enough. My bad for using the party example where most folk would avoid someone who outwardly repulsed them. I'll erase that qualification and modify the example to: you meet someone online and you know nothing about them--except that they're intelligent.

That work?

I apologize for having a short fuse today.

As to your online scenario ... I can only reiterate my converse logic: If intelligent, I may be intrigued enough to dig deeper. If dishonest, I won't, regardless of how intelligent.

 

[BlackShanglan]

But let me put this way: you're both told that only one of you must face a challenge that, to surrmount, will require considerable intelligence. You aren't told anything more specific. If you or your partner do not surrmount this challenge, you will both be killed, slowly. You must choose between yourselves who faces the challenge, and you are highly motivated to send the best contender. Whom would you send?

Very tough call. I think we're about even in intelligence. The SO's knowledge base is more attuned to practical material problem-solving; mine is more attuned to arts, history, and philosophy. With that said, I'm the more decisive of the two, which can be good or bad. If the problem allows a long time to think things through and plan, the SO is meticulous and cautious, which is a bonus in that situation. If it calls for a swift decision that has to be followed through immediately, I might be the better choice. And that would all be complicated by the dynamics by which we normally make decisions. We'd probably end up confusedly choosing whoever was closest to the doorway. *laugh*

One thing I am sure of; it would be some consolation to know that whoever was not chosen would continue with all of his/her might to attempt to find another way around the problem. I wouldn't be at all surprised if I failed the challenge itself but was rescued by the SO who had managed to escape the holding cell.

 

[3113]

Many people on Lit like intelligence (along with other good traits), that's clear. But how do feel about a partner who's quite a bit more intelligent than you? Does that work for you? Is in your ballpark but somewhat less intelligent than you Ok?

Quite a bit more? No. They'd be attractive to me, but I want to feel I have something to contribute to the partnership. Ballpark is more like it--but more intelligent rather than less.

Another thing I'm curious about: if you have a partner, who is the smarter?...You aren't told anything more specific. If you or your partner do not surrmount this challenge, you will both be killed, slowly. You must choose between yourselves who faces the challenge, and you are highly motivated to send the best contender. Whom would you send?

Oh, the answer that question is easy. My partner and I would take the decision-making time given to us to figure out a way to escape the situation--or commit quick and painless suicide. If we're not intelligent enough to escape, we're probably not intelligent enough to manage the challenge.

And we're not going to let anyone fuck with us

 

[Liar]

Hey Liar!

Good to see you!

I thought you were on vacation?

I yam.

Finally gots me modem working out at the cabin.

Won't be on much though, since the slow speed is driving me bonkers.