Why do you think intelligent people have the least sex?

[WavyWyx]

There have been a lot of studies that demonstrate that intelligent people have less sexual partners, less friends and are more likely to die alone. The explanation often provided is that intelligent people engage in less high risk sexual behavior such as promiscuity, random hook-ups, partying etc. but I don't know if that's true, as intelligent people actually engage in more high risk behavior if it provides a novel experience. For example, the average heroin-addict has a much higher IQ than the average person.

I've heard a lot of theories: they over-think things, they are too full of themselves, they're no fun, etc. Someone even suggested highly intelligent people don't feel emotions as strongly and aren't as capable of showing love, which is an interesting take.

Why do you think intelligent people have a much more difficult time finding love than average people.

[MagiAlphaOne]

Aaron Clarey has the best answer.

Dr. Helen Smith reviewed a book named, "The Curse of the High IQ". She stated...

High IQ people have a harder time in the world since much of society is set up for the average. Those with a high IQ end up wasting a lot of time because the average person wants to buy lottery tickets with a check or doesn't seem to mind standing in line or wasting time. Because of this, a high IQ person's time is wasted since they spend much of it waiting or being annoyed by those who are average. Friends are hard to make because high IQ people have fewer people statistically to choose from. And marriage or partnership? Clarey says it is difficult. For example, abnormally intelligent men face two unique problems when it comes to dating:

1. Very few equally-intelligent women to choose from
2. Not caring because their hormones are rendering their massive IQs completely useless.

[WavyWyx]

I'll have to look into that book. Thanks!

[Aizou]

Intelligence is coherent with depression in this modern society of ours. Intelligent people, as you said, tend to over think things a lot, but they also see a much bigger picture (how the world really is) which tends to cause first confusion, then sadness, and then coldness/loss of emotion. Highly intelligent people also tend to go by logic rather than heart, which in turn is seen as being emotionless. It's also difficult for them to find friends, because people either don't, or can't understand their thought process.. simply because they aren't capable (at the same mental level).

If you want to go even further, you could argue that truly intelligent people would see no purpose or benefit in casual sex.. because, let's face it.. there is none.. outside of just having fun.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

👏👏👏👏

[WavyWyx]

I really want to believe this is true, so I can believe that I'm highly intelligent, but I don't want to believe this is true because... humanity. Either way, it's good food for thought. Thank you.

[Pomegranate139]

MHO for you sir!

[HaveQuestions]

Yes. About a million yes. Intelligent people may lack "social skills" because of how they prioritize. If they have casual sex, you can bet they analyzed the benefit to themself, and then engaged because they wanted to. Not because an opportunity presented itself. There is a further step past the coldness/loss of emotion. It is over-feeling. Like you can feel the entire world's emotion at once. That leads to a loss of self interest/self gratification, and focus on universal interest. Logically, they place themself last, humanity as a whole first. And, in looking at your source material OP, be careful not to read into any study past what it actually studied. For one, the type of analysis used (regression) reduces everyone to an average. Intelligent people will be irritated at best by that, lol. If they had used multivariate longitudinal growth curve modeling, for example, you would find richer and more meaningful conclusions. Results are tiny, in studies. Statistically necessary.

[HaveQuestions]

Besides that, it seems the conclusions state that intelligent people have fewer partners overall. That does not imply they have less satisfying sex. Then another conclusion was less frequency, but I did not see that compared with the fewer partners overall. Perhaps less frequency is an artifact of longer gaps between serious partnerships? I can tell you, the intelligent people I know have very frequent, very intense sex, because they strive for not only partner satisfaction (placing others above self), but also are perfectionististic in being the "best" they can be at everything. Including sex. And it makes sense that higher educated women would have fewer children. Higher education takes intensive effort, as does higher career achievement. Maternity leave places a hold on both. So, over time, women who have taken less time off to have children would attain higher levels in both more rapidly.

[HaveQuestions]

Conclusions are so very difficult to make from a single study, because of the sheer number of variables. Humans are complex. That is why any significant finding should always be explored with follow up research that explores and/or controls for more variables.

[Aizou]

@HaveQuestions It's always a pleasure to read your comments. :)

[HaveQuestions]

Thank you. Same to you 😊

[HaveQuestions]

One more thought. I would venture to say that intelligent people really don't have any desire to fall in line with social expectations or norms. They are the ones analyzing and studying them, lol. I wouldn't say they lack social skills. Just that they are more likely than average to do their own thing despite social norms. They tend to be more than confident in their own direction, and since they tend to be successful in whatever direction that may be, they do not see any need to fit in to social norms. Intelligent women intimidate men? Find me one who sees that as a hindrance to her life path. She will find those who can keep up, and will go beyond in depth sexually with them. Find me an intelligent man who would sacrifice his life path for societal norms. Not going to happen. They pursue their goals with relentless passion, whether those be a significant other or a contribution that could change humanity. The point is, intelligent people are 100% in control of what is in their life.

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions Those are all very good insights. I wasn't aware of the difference between regression and multivariate longitudinal growth curve modeling. I'll have to look into it. One point I would like to make though, strictly semantic. It seems your definition of intelligence is more nuanced than the generally accepted definition. It seems more akin to what I would call "diligence" and confidence, altruism, practicality and ambition are rolled into this definition. To say that intelligent people are always selfless or always driven or always "100% in control of what is in their lives" is I think, a little over-generalizing. No one is 100% control of what is in their life. Smart people are definitely better at adapting to dynamic variables though. Many intelligent people are lazy, whimsical, self-loathing, selfish, aloof, spiteful and/or rude; traits that could feasibly follow a "loss of emotion". I'd bet there are at least a few forgotten geniuses at your local rehab clinic.

[HaveQuestions]

MLGCM is the only statistical method that let's the data dictate the shape of growth. All others reduce the data to an average, then make determinations. MLGCM is the opposite in many ways, from what you know as common analyses. Fair enough. Definitions are hugely important. All studies have to begin with "operational definitions" which means a definition for the current research only. That is part of why research is difficult to interpret. The mass audience innately wants to broaden the definition. My definition may be more nuanced. I don't think I said they are always altruistic, or driven. I said they are in control. What I meant was, they are aware. Your genius in rehab, is aware they could be more. That is part of why they struggle to overcome addiction. Because they know they could be more, and aren't. That's the 100% control I meant. Adapting to dynamic variables, yes. Possibly. They have the capability to, yes. All of your adjectives... I'd urge caution.

[HaveQuestions]

All of those descriptors are your outside judgment of their behavior. You may or may not be accurate, as to their internal states. States and traits are also different.

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions Most academic definitions of intelligence would include some sort of clearly defined metric. It's just one trait, not an overall personality profile. Intelligence and "something else", isn't just intelligence. Don't back-track yourself here. You very clearly did say, "Logically they place themselves last, humanity as a whole first." That's definitive altruism. "But also are perfectionist in being the 'best' they can be at everything" : "being driven". "Awareness" and "control" are not at all the same thing. As for my outside judgment of their behavior, well that might just be relevant when we're talking about something like being "rude" for instance. You seem loathe to admit that someone who is intelligent could possibly possess other less desirable traits. I think you're very analytically intelligent, because your scientific literacy seems very advanced. But you should start caring more about the definitions of our beautiful words, because you're mutilating them.

[WavyWyx]

For clarity's sake, I am defining intelligence simply as "possessing a high IQ." It's not a perfect metric, but it is the one they used to measure it in the study. And IQ is a better metric than anyone's gut-call. Still, I'm aware of the criticisms of IQ, so you don't have to go into them. I'm also aware that those who study such things use the CQ very commonly, but IQ was the metric used in the studies I'm referencing.

[Aizou]

Tell me, without knowing so, how high would you assume your own IQ? I'm interested. :)

[WavyWyx]

@Aizou Who cares? It's the internet. Any time anyone states their IQ on the internet, you can assume they're lying. Guessing one's own IQ is absolutely futile and useless. It only goes to show one's level of self-assuredness. Which is exactly what you're trying to do. Circumstantial ad hominems ftw! I can tell you that I was a very gifted student in high school, who went on to go insane, drop out of college and now I'm a misanthropic drifter, I live in a camper and work part-time as a cashier, although I randomly quit my job every few months and move somewhere else. Psychiatrists tell me I'm bright, but they also tell me I'm mentally disabled. So if you were looking to feel superior to me, in order to invalidate my argument (instead of using words to do that), then here is my gift to you! I certainly don't count myself amongst the highly intelligent, but I do believe I have a rather unique thought process, which can be either novel or disjointed. What do you think YOUR IQ is?

[WavyWyx]

But straight answer: around abouts 81. That way I won't be disappointed if I ever find out what it ACTUALLY is.

[Aizou]

Good answer. I'm simply testing you, don't worry about it. :3 Many people on the internet claims knowledge beyond their understanding, it gives them a sense of, as you said, superiority.. They all react the same when called out on it howver, by getting defensive. It's quite amusing to watch. My IQ? Enough to say that it's enough for me. In the end, all that matters is our opinion and ability to share thoughts and ideas. :)

[HaveQuestions]

Lol, my poor words. Left them bleeding... I do care about them, and it is a challenge to accurately get at what I mean in so few on here. Yes, academic definitions do vary for intelligence. That's why studies are so difficult. The most elegant do not reduce it to an IQ, because that clearly us insufficient. Most include others measures, not gut feelings. I'm not back tracking, just broadening. You certainly can find altruism in your addict as I defined it. Being perfectionistic, aware, in control, those are not mutually exclusive to objective measures of "success" like a high paying job, or social status. I did say you'll find those in intelligent people, and I'm still standing by that. Even in your addict. Outside judgment matters because I have no problem agreeing that intelligent people may seem to others to have undesirable traits. Their traits can be perceived as rude, cold, or otherwise "negative." But that is outside judgment, and does not mean they are. If your Tesla

[HaveQuestions]

appeared cold, removed, rude, exacting and difficult to please, that may have been the expression of his altruism, drive, control, and he did not intend to be anything other than focused on bigger things. He was a very altruistic person, who I'm sure rubbed some the wrong way in his drive to be so. Waiting for parts for his projects, getting angry at the time people took to get them, irritated at social structures that inhibited his goals. The outside perception of traits doesn't diminish the trait. It is the subjective experience of those traits by someone outside of the person exhibiting them. So, sure. Intelligent people may seem rude, but is that their trait? Or is that your perception of your interaction with them in the moment?

[HaveQuestions]

I'm sure, honestly, that most intelligent people are perceived as have negative traito sometimes. Because most of them become frustrated at what they see as the inefficient social structures they are trying to push past due to altruism, drive, awareness, control, etc. The small talk of ordering coffee? When they are working on providing electricity for the whole of humanity? It's hard to adjust your interactions when you feel people are missing the big picture. They may push you uncomfortably past pleasantries. Your addict, may have gotten frustrated, used drugs, viewed himself to be a burden (altruism and perfecrionsim), so removed himself from social structures to avoid damage to other, and is now in rehab knowing he could choose to follow the steps and get clean. It is a choice still, and he would know that. His control then, is in doing it and following social structures, or continuing to put others first and "stay out of their way."

[HaveQuestions]

I never said an intelligent persons qualities were always used in the most socially defined bounds of "success." But that intelligent people possess them. If they are to be measured solely by level of social functioning, that is a different metric also.

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions A point of curiosity for my knowledge alone: You seem to be quite familiar with studies regarding the subject of human intelligence. Do you know of any other metrics they might use to measure intelligence commonly? :) Let's just agree to disagree, semantically speaking, because I don't think we're going to come to much common ground on the definition of "intelligence". Which I think for that specific concept is fine. No two people will have exactly the same opinion on the matter I imagine.

[HaveQuestions]

Lol, works for me, I think we'd have to be able to have more than 1000 words to be able to really discuss any further the semantics 😊 it is far too complex, and rightfully so. I do have quite a lot of background in the topic of human development, intelligence, etc. Part of my job is giving and interpreting intelligence tests, lol. That's part of why I have such a strong opinion against them. Useful tools, but unidimensional. Some other importance measures have to do with outcomes of intelligence. Since an IQ is a sterile number, it fails to give much useful indication of quality of life. So, comparing intelligence with measures that quality and functioning in the world gives a better overall picture. IQ sort of represents latent potential, not the expression of it. The expression of it could be called "true intelligence," because it is how it is used to function in the world. If you want a list of other tests, I can give you that. Wasn't sure if that's what you meant?

[writing_essays]

In Deuteronomy they say that if you obey the Ten Commandments - God will increase your physical fitness, your longevity, your intelligence, the prosperity, happiness and righteousness of your children, the quality of your friendships and romantic relationships, and your earning potential - I would say people with less sexual partners are closer to the Deuteronomy ideal of no sex outside of marriage.

[WavyWyx]

Highly intelligent people also don't tend to care what Deuteronomy says. Not that Deuteronomy is a bad book, it's just statistically highly intelligent people don't tend to factor it into their lives very often.

[wittymilf]

Maybe they don't have a difficult time, maybe they find that person early in life and stick with them until they die and then don't replace them. Maybe they love stronger and have stronger loyalty also. Although people with high IQ are supposedly more likely to lie.. so who knows if the studies are even correct :)

[WavyWyx]

Very optimistic! I'm genuinely going to tell myself I believe that.

[Carina_Teacher]

they are focused on other parts of their lives and tend to be more anti social because they don't know how to be socially acceptable.

[WavyWyx]

Maybe, but why do you think that highly intelligent people, as a group, don't know how to be socially acceptable.

[Carina_Teacher]

i meant in general. that's not true of every one

[WavyWyx]

Yeah, I understood that, but why "as a group" are intelligent people less likely to be "socially acceptable".

[MlleCake]

I think pretty much non of your assumptions are based in any kind of scientific fact. Can you provide some reputable citations?

[MrNameless]

Can you actually post the studies?

[MrNameless]

The only thing I know that's been confirmed with intelligent people and sex, is that they often have less kids than the rest.

[WavyWyx]

I'm looking for it. There is an article on Psychology Today that references it, and several dozen others from The Sun, The AP, etc. but those are hardly scholarly. The researcher whose study I'm interested in is Rosemary Hopcroft and I'm combing through her Google Scholar page and the NCU archives.

[WavyWyx]

Here it is, unfortunately though it looks like you have to have a log in to read the full article. I'm going to go about seeing how to get one: ehbonline. org/article/S1090-5138(05)00061-9/fulltext (once again accomodate for the extra space behind "ehbonline"

[Phantomium]

"the average heroin-addict has a much higher IQ than the average person."
I'd love to see the source of that claim.

[WavyWyx]

jech. bmj. com/content/early/2011/10/28/jech-2011-200252. short

[HaveQuestions]

Ok, I read it, and went to try to find the source material. Found the original psychology today article, but was unable to find the actual study. Here's the problem with interpreting statistics. In the psychology today article, after they go on and on about this supposed trend, they say this: "Once the social and demographic variables are controlled, however, the positive association between childhood intelligence and adult drug consumption is not statistically significant." 3 tenths of a standard deviation... first red flag. I want to see the analyses and the results, because that sentence alone suggests it is not a statistically significant finding. I am not saying that the theory is incorrect, or impossible, but the results have to be read and interpreted carefully. Most anyone with an agenda can pull out what they want, then add in "but.. it wasn't statistically significant." That is exactly the purpose of cutoffs for significance. If it's. 01, .05, or even.10. Cutoff matters

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions I didn't post a psychology today article, I just can't post links, so it apparently gave a 404, even though my path very clearly led to a peer-reviewed journal. But, of course, feel free to attribute my ideas to whatever articles you would like. For someone who "knows" so much about interpreting results, you sure as hell don't know how to do your own research or have a discussion without straw-manning someone. That's my "first red flag".

[HaveQuestions]

Lol. Defensive much? I used your link, read it, then found the article that they cited within it. That's was the original source of your quote.

[HaveQuestions]

www.psychologytoday.com/.../why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs

[HaveQuestions]

Statistical interpretation is by no means "straw manning." It's is an entire established area of science. And acfually, if you want to be technically accurate, the conclusion that 3 tenths of a standard deviation translates to statistical significance would be the straw man argument here. By definition, it is when a person simply ignores a different position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Substituting non significant results as valid would be a "straw man."

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions On the contrary, I was trying to walk away, but your rhetoric is so bad as to the point of being offensive and condescending (which was probably your goal). I linked to the actual study. Even if you don't have the permissions to access it, you can read the abstract. Okay? It's not that I have a problem with what you're saying. It's that you straw-man people, poison the well (you just took a quote from an article I didn't link to), straight up change the definition of words ("control=awareness that you could be better" I can't tell you how stupid that statement is, so I'm just going to point you at a dictionary), talk about why research studies are flawed and proceed to use your own anecdotal evidence ("the intelligent people I know have very frequent, very intense sex" HOW do you know that btw?) So you might be right, but I don't want to have a discussion with you about it, because I get the impression you are an overwhelmingly intellectually dishonest person.

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions And then when you do make a mistake, instead of acknowledge it and say "Oh, I could have used a different word there, yes", you blame the limited space for replying, but I don't know why that should make a difference, since you're apparently aware you can send more than one message.

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions AND You have no idea what a straw-man argument is. When you claim that I am getting my information from an article I did not cite, then that is a straw-man argument. Not the fact that you interpreted the numbers from it.

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions Because I never posted THIS:
www.psychologytoday.com/.../why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs
That is the straw-man argument!

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions And no, substituting non-significant results as valid would NOT be a straw-man argument. That's dishonest, but "I know you are, but what am I?" Actually might not work here.

[HaveQuestions]

Lol, maybe we can have a discussion about your points when you're not quite so defensive. None of what you interpreted about me is true, but if you're done talking, then I can respect that. Discussion takes being willing to listen, as well as talk. I hope you have a good day 😊

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions I used your own words, verbatim, for the love of God. Well another big part of having a discussion is owning what you say and using the agreed upon definition of words, which you have refused to do.

[HaveQuestions]

No, but the discussion of ideas has turned into an emotional, defensive, and personal one rather than discussing differing perspectives or ideas. We may not agree, but that doesn't make mine or your points less valid, the research any less discussion worthy, or the topic less complex. If we can't discuss the merits of the topic rather than your perception if me, I think it best to table it for another time.

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions And yeah, when you're trying to not only twist your own words around, but twist mine as well, then you can generally expect someone to get a little "defensive".

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions We can't discuss your points if you can't decide what they are. And whenever I come up with a flaw in one, you come up with new definitions for your words, so you can say I misinterpreted them. Or if when I post a study, you go find some other article that looks like what I was saying and argue with that. That makes the very concept of LANGUAGE useless.

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions It's not my personal opinions of YOU. It's your rhetoric.

[HaveQuestions]

Offering additional research and perspectives is not twisting your words around. I'm sorry you feel it is. That's why I said I think it best to table it. I hadon't no intention of attacking you, just expanding the discussion of a topic other than you personally. If it is personal, and my comments are why you are defensive, I'd rather not. Ideas, I will happily take apart ruthlessly and discuss the merits of and research on, but not people.

[WavyWyx]

@HaveQuestions Once again, insisting this is my personal opinion of you, and not problems I have with what you are saying, is a "STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT". It's an argument you put in my mouth, which is easier to argue with than what I actually said.

[HaveQuestions]

No, I don't think this has anything to do with your opinion of me. I think the topic, my challenging your research, and different opinions has reduced our discussion to something personal, for you. I don't know why, or what, but when we go from discussing the topic at a level of research, theories, to a level of personal defensiveness, and an inability to find the topic as common ground anymore, that is when I prefer to table a discussion. I'd happily counter your straw man point, but it is unnecessary to the topic at hand. As is arguing with the "you said, I said, you said." That's where the research, the topic itself, the discussion has gotten off track. I will gladly, and ruthlessly, take apart the research and topic. I will not engage in that with you, not because I can't, but because I value discussing topics and theories with people, not tearing apart people who think differently. I respect people, and as much as I like to debate, will not do so at the expense of people.

[HaveQuestions]

I do hope you have a good day. Thanks for the interesting topic, and discussion.

[shyramarie1]

if that is true, i must have very little intelligence

[WavyWyx]

That's not something to be proud of...

[shyramarie1]

Dah... just mean i have sex often

[WavyWyx]

Your trophy's in the mail.

[karahiri]

Poor social skills, overthinking, social anxiety, tendency to be introverted.

[Chico_brah]

You can read my opinion here.
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a35365-what-it-feels-like-to-have-add-adhd

I have slay count in the 40s. If you had a study to reference, then I'd read it and break it down. I can't really offer much other than my word if there is no listed source.

[WavyWyx]

Here it is, unfortunately though it looks like you have to have a log in to read the full article. I'm going to go about seeing how to get one: ehbonline. org/article/S1090-5138(05)00061-9/fulltext

[WavyWyx]

"slay count"... lol

[WavyWyx]

That's a funny phrase. I'm gonna steal that. I can't stop laughing.

[Chico_brah]

Lol. It's bodybuilding forum language. How we all speak.

[WavyWyx]

Dude, I'm taking that. I've heard "I slayed (sic) it", but "slay count" is new. It's so succinct. That's fucking poetry lmao.

[Pomegranate139]

Nah this can't be true. If that's the case then I'm intelligent, and we all know that's hogwash

[WavyWyx]

Hey... stop it. Say something nice about yourself.

[Pomegranate139]

Uh... I have nice feet

[WavyWyx]

Like you mean it.

[Pomegranate139]

I have nice feet 🙂

[WavyWyx]

I'll buy it. You should be kinder to yourself :)

[Pomegranate139]

I know I should. It's kinda difficult though. Just kinda used to being put down. Gave me a great sense of humour though 😂

[WavyWyx]

Preaching to the choir. But remember, self-deprecating humor is a lot like snow-fall. The first of the season is refreshing, but it loses its appeal and becomes tedious very quickly.

[Pomegranate139]

For me or the audience? And that isn't the only type of humour I use 🤡

[oddwaffle]

Which study? Where are the sauces? You have no sauce!

[WavyWyx]

The study is by Rosemary Hopcroft of NCU. I'm only able to find the journalistic articles that reference it (i. e. The Sun, Psychology Today, etc.) I'm combing through her literature on Google Scholar and the NCU archives for the actual study, but in the mean-time, here is an article referencing it: psychologytoday. com/articles/201107/sex-intelligent-intercourse. There are other studies on the same subject, another referenced in the article is a study on high schoolers by Carolyn Halpern. Stay tuned. (Take the space out behind "psychologytoday", stupid site won't let me post links.)

[WavyWyx]

Here it is, unfortunately though it looks like you have to have a log in to read the full article. I'm going to go about seeing how to get one: ehbonline. org/article/S1090-5138(05)00061-9/fulltext

[oddwaffle]

Read the discussion part of the study. It's different than the media say. #1 Men who have higher income have more sex. Women who have higher income have less sex. #2 Men who are smart tend to have higher income but sometimes have less income than normal. #3 combined smart men and women with high and low income then you have a conversion. That means, overall, smart men have less sex dispite the fact they get more sex if they are rich. Conclusion? The women is self explanatory. Successful women are too busy for a family or just too intimidating for average men. #1 it's possible that smart men who got low income jobs would have an extremely hard time getting sex because they either too busy to seek for it or have a hard time getting along with their average peer. #2 it's possible that smart men focus more on quality and building a family that they would have less random sex than normal.

[WavyWyx]

Yes, which indicates they controlled for income in a multi-faceted study. Yes, rich people have more sex, but rich intelligent people have less sex than rich average people. And so on. Meaning that high intelligence is not attractive. Especially for women.

[oddwaffle]

Careful with that conclusion. This is controlled for sex but you have to assume frequency of sex equals to attractiveness. The study didn't say rich and intelligent men has less sex than normal men. The study said when they combine rich and poor men who are intelligent, they have lower average. There is a difference. They also didn't say why the men have less sex. You will want a case study for this before jumping into conclusion. Maybe intelligent rich men aren't that interested in finding a partner because they like their work more. Maybe the rich be average intelligent men inherited their income so they spent all their time fooling around instead of working.

[WaterRat]

I disagree. Einstein married, famous chess players have married, the list goes on. Highly intelligent people are extremely desireable. Who wouldn't want a doctor, lawyer or scientist? Also some of them were gay like DaVinci and probably did have casual sex.

[WavyWyx]

That's all anecdotal evidence. I could just turn around and say Nikola Tesla and Isaac Newton didn't marry, and neither did a lot of famous chess players, and then we're getting nowhere. Although Einstein is a funny case, because he was actually a bit of a hound. For his cousins. Studies (link posted!) done on large portions of the population have shown that more intelligent people have less sex, less sexual partners and are more likely to die alone. Unless most of the respondents were lying, which is always a possibility, although for the deception to be significant enough to be relevant is unlikely. Who wouldn't want to be with an attractive doctor, lawyer or scientist? Now the obvious answer to that question is insecure men (sorry smart women), but a more tangential answer is that many doctors and scientists aren't attractive, unfortunately. Nor are all intelligent people doctors and scientists or vice versa. Achieving high-status is more about being diligent than being intelligent.

[WavyWyx]

In fact, just from my personal (anecdotal) experience, most medical doctors I know are either kind of stupid or kind of mean.

[WaterRat]

Yea I think it just depends on the person, some people just don't want to marry, intelligent or not. I think our arguments would be 50/50 then, not nowhere. And if that study is true then evolution is doing its part. Evolution is more about adaptability and balance than extremes.

[WavyWyx]

@WaterRat Yeah, you're definitely right about that last part. I think that is the most likely answer.

[WaterRat]

Yea there are a lot of different aspects that make a person behave the way they do. Have you seen the girl Allison on the show Intervention? She was a high achieving student but now huffs 10 aerosol cans per day and has a sugar daddy. It's so sad but funny too.
https://youtu.be/3g99h4qaCio

[thatguywithakeyboard]

Hmm. This is loads of rubbish. Intelligence actually makes it harder on wide range of levels, not to mention Intelligence and Social Skills are two different things. You require way more in life then your Intelligence. Now, you wish proof? Computer Programmer, by definition I will say it's a Intelligent and Logical job, especially if you also happen to do Digital Cryptography. However even truth all of this magic, programmers lack Social Skills that would allow for them to create functional relationships. I would know. I have problems even attempting to begin a conversation.

[angelsleep]

I don't know maybe people aren't that into weirdo intellectuals

[WavyWyx]

Lol and award for Most Anti-Intellectual comment goes to...

[NerdInDenial]

Intelligent people tend not to mix well with the average social society. Because not many people understand intelligent people, intelligent people tend to shy away from the social norms. Another reason is that they value their work or worry that a social life will interfere with their work, for example, Nikola Tesla avoided women even though he had women who pursued him.

[WavyWyx]

I wondered how someone as impeccably dressed as Tesla never had sex.

[anon1903]

- lack of social skills
- awareness of STDs
- finding casual sex meaningless and probably have better things to do
- bitterness
- lack of experience as a nerd

[LesbianBusinessWoman]

I'm not as intelligent as Bill Gates. However, I'm still intelligent and I have sex like more than three times a week with my girlfriend. I also know other people who are intelligent who have a sex life. Not sure which studies you're looking at?

[WavyWyx]

I posted a source. I can find a few more too if you give me some time. Also, your personal experience are anecdotal and therefore don't matter. Maybe you're an outlier. An intelligent person such as yourself should realize that. Also, also, I get the feeling (from your screen-name and your reference to Bill Gates) you're the type of person who doesn't measure intelligence in IQ/CQ points or problem-solving ability, but rather in dollars earned, which isn't very accurate.

[beccaboo2]

A lot of really intelligent people lack the social skills necessary to cultivate relationships with other people

[WavyWyx]

Maybe, but then why do you think that highly intelligent people tend to have poorer social skills?

[beccaboo2]

People who lack in one area tend to make up for it in other areas

[WavyWyx]

Possible. I don't know if social prowess and intelligence are correlated all zero-sum like that, but what the hell do I know?

[FýrdracaDócincel]

Book smart people- Yes because they put more thought into unwanted pregnancies and diseases and stuff.

Street smart people- No because their intelligence is geared towards understanding what makes certain people tick and how to work that to an advantage.

[WavyWyx]

What about the people I'm talking about who aren't necessarily either or could be both, i. e. people with high IQ's. Also book-smart vs. street-smart really isn't a very good dichotomy. It's sort of like intelligence vs. wisdom, if the only type of intelligence you are talking about is informational recall and general knowledgeability, and the only type of wisdom you are talking about is cold manipulation and problem avoidance.

[Ali55sven]

Good job you described me in a nut shell. Now crack me open and find out why, because not even i have a clue. why this is.

[KnightCross]

because we don't spend all time so much hanging around meeting so many people for socia purposes, but rather academical or intelecual purposes

or because we simply stay at home studying and doing research, and we have few time for having fun with girls

[WavyWyx]

I like how every poster who counts themselves amongst the highly intelligent has at least 2 or 3 spelling errors per sentence.

[ThatBritishLad]

There's correlation between being intelligent and being a bit of a self-important cunt. Same with having too little brains, you have to straddle the line.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I think because they tend to consider all possible negative and positive aspect of their choices more than a person with average to low intelligence does. Therefore they logically and smartly don't really see the long term benefits of whoring around apart from the thrill and pleasure of it; unless that's what they are seeking to begin with.

[WavyWyx]

I assume there are some highly intelligent thrill-seekers.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Sure are. But the minority.

[WavyWyx]

Lol yeah probably.

[SuccessfulHornDog]

My friend George Costanza once was forced into abstinence and found out that it made him super intelligent, like the apes from that movie, big top pee wee

[WavyWyx]

Lol, hey man, say what you want, but if you pay attention George Costanza actually gets A LOT of women.

[SuccessfulHornDog]

But not during that episôde.