The Trouble With Being Blinded By Intelligence in Dating and Relationships
I have a mini-confession to make: I wrote the Tao of Dating books specifically for really smart people. The writing of the books was precipitated by the endemic dating woes on the Harvard campus as I observed them as an advisor and, earlier, indulged in them as a student. Those kids graduate and pretty much continue to have the same dating woes -- only now with fewer single people around who happen to live in the same building and share meals with them every day.
So if they had challenges then, it gets about 1, times worse once they're tossed from the warm womb of their alma mater. From my observations, following dating wkth seem to be common to most smart people. In fact, the smarter you are, the more clueless you will be, and the more problems you're going domeone have in your dating life. Once upon a day I used to be pretty smart, and believe me, I had a lock on clueless.
On the one hand, this makes no sense. Smart people can figure stuff out, right? And this hibh is simple! On the other hand, it makes total someoe. For simple things, it takes someone smart to really screw it up. So whether you went or should have gone to the likes of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Columbia, Cornell, Swarthmore, Amherst, Dartmouth, Brown, Oxford, Cambridge, Berkeley, Penn, Caltech, Duke, read on:. Smart people spent more time on achievements than on relationships when growing up.
Smart kids usually come from smart families. And smart families are usually achievement-oriented. Bring me home those straight As, son. Get into those top colleges, daughter. Take piano, violin, tennis, swimming and Tibetan throat-singing lessons. Win every award there is in the book. Well, you're a talented little bugger. Of course you should develop those talents.
At the same time, there's an opportunity cost associated with achievement. Time spent studying, doing homework, and practicing the violin is time not spent doing other things -- like chasing boys or girls, which turns out is fairly instrumental in making you a well-rounded human. The upshot of all that achievement is that you get into a top college -- congratulations! Dating is at best another extracurricular, number six or number seven down the list, somewhere between Model UN and intramural badminton.
I've been co-hosting young alumni events for name-brand schools for long enough to know that these kids come out a little lopsided which sounds so much better than "socially awkward," don't you think? All they need is a little tune up, or a little dating textbook like The Tao of Dating for Women or The Tao of Dating for Mento get them going -- plus a little practice. Of course, as noted above, things only get worse once you graduate. And if you're frustrated with your love life, you just might try to compensate by working harder and achieving even more to fill iiq void.
Left untreated, this q can go on for decades. I know dating someone with a high iq in their 40s, 50s, 60s and beyond who still haven't figured out how to create an intimate connection with another human being. Smart people feel that they're entitled to love because of their achievements. For most of their hlgh, smart people inhabit a seemingly-meritocratic universe: If they work hard, they get good results or, in the case of really smart folks, even if they don't work hard, they still get good results.
Good results mean kudos, strokes, positive reinforcement, respect from peers, love from parents. So it only makes sense that in the romantic arena, it should work the same way. The more stuff I do, the more accomplishments and awards I have, the more girls or boys will like me. Please say I'm right, because I've spent a LOT of time and energy accumulating this mental jewelry, and I'm going to be really bummed if you tell me it's not going to get me laid. Well, it's not going to get you laid, brother or sister.
It may get you a first date, but it's probably not going to get you a second date. And it certainly won't bring you lasting love and fulfillment. Your romantic success has nothing to do with your mental jewelry and everything to do with how you make the other person feel. And making someone feel a certain way is a somewhat nonlinear process that requires a different kind of mastery than that of calculus or Shakespeare.
In other words, you need to earn love or at least lust. Sadly, no mom, dad or professor teaches us about the power of the well-placed compliment or put-downgiving attention but not too much attention, being caring without being needy. I wrote a whole page book about that, so that's a story for a different day. You don't feel like a fully-realized sexual being and therefore don't act like one.
At some point in your life, you got pegged as a smart person. From then on, that was your principal identity: Especially if you had a sibling who was better looking than you, in which dating someone with a high iq she or he was The Pretty One. Now ihgh could be absolutely stunning in which case you're both smart AND pretty and everyone hates you except for me -- call me, like, immediatelybut your identity is still bound up in being The Smart One. So maybe you dress frumpy and don't pay a lot of attention to your appearance.
Or never bothered to hig your sensuality as a woman. Or your sexual aggression as a male. Attracting a partner is all about the dance of polarity. Energy flows between positive and negative electrodes, anode and cathode, magnetic hgh and south. Unless you actually convey femininity as a woman or masculinity as a man, you're not going to attract a suitable companion of the opposite sex. Part of the issue is this: When all of your personal energy is concentrated in the head, it never gets a chance to trickle down to the heart, or, god forbid, the groin.
By virtue of being born of the union of male and female, yang and yin, you are a sexual being. Now do what you need to do to perpetuate the race already. Use what mama amoeba gave you. You're exceptionally talented at getting datingg the way of your own romantic success. Here's an incontrovertible fact: