RE: Smarts?

RE: Smarts? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

LaTigresse -> RE: Smarts? (3/30/2011 1:17:01 PM)
So says a woman that is obviously quite bright and well educated! I adore intelligent women. I am utterly fascinated by them. At one time, many years ago, I was intimidated by those better educated than I. Now I only see it as a win win for me. Not only would a slave that is well educated be serving herself, but to have that bonus of education in my service also.....double win.

porcelaine -> RE: Smarts? (3/30/2011 1:39:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse So says a woman that is obviously quite bright and well educated! I adore intelligent women. I am utterly fascinated by them. At one time, many years ago, I was intimidated by those better educated than I. Now I only see it as a win win for me. Not only would a slave that is well educated be serving herself, but to have that bonus of education in my service also.....double win. You're such a charmer. Thank you. [;)] I remember an IT Director i used to converse with years ago. i went into his office and he had a diagram on the whiteboard. i stole a glance at it and shared an opinion. He laughed and said something i've never forgotten. He remarked about the staff members with numerous certifications that could expound on obscure problems in a blink of an eye. They could tell him this and that but lacked the capacity to troubleshoot. There's a wisdom in simplicity that some never comprehend. I encounter intelligent people that couldn't drill down a concept if you gave them a jackhammer. Sometimes i'm helpful and ask them to simplify it in a sentence or two. The results are pretty telling. Namaste, ~porcelaine

crazyml -> RE: Smarts? (3/30/2011 2:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep Lately, i've met a few fellas who only seem interested in women they can talk down to. they say they aren't threatened by chicks who aren't lacking upstairs, but they don't seem interested either. Really, truly - I'd bet a high proportion of them are just saying that they're not threatened by intelligence (intelligence used in its broadest sense). Personally, there's no joy whatsoever in dominating someone who isn't intelligent. The smarter, more independent, more successful a woman, the more exciting (and challenging) it is to have her submit. quote: i remember a thread somewhere, either here or on FL, where a girl's friend told her something to the effect of "if you want to find someone, you have to dumb yourself down." while i don't believe that's universally true, i think in a lot of cases, it is. is it an ego thing? Here's what I'd have said to the girl's friend:- If you dumb down, you're essentially changing the way you behave in order to make yourself appear attractive to dumb people. If you'd be happy with a dumb dom then I guess this would work for you. If you're smart though, I can see the charm ebbing away after a time. That said, if you just want lots and lots of sex... you wont be deterring the kinda man who'd be threatened ;-)

mnottertail -> RE: Smarts? (3/30/2011 2:29:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep Lately, i've met a few fellas who only seem interested in women they can talk down to. they say they aren't threatened by chicks who aren't lacking upstairs, but they don't seem interested either. You said you were short and didn't have the biggest tits in the world and I sorta leaned a little to even it up....[8\|]

Awareness -> RE: Smarts? (3/30/2011 10:05:45 PM)
FR. In response to the thread topic - generally speaking women require a guy they can look up to. If it's not in the arena of intelligence then he'd better be a damned sight more accomplished than she is. And no, there is not more than one type of "intelligence". Threads about intelligence generally turn into ego-massaging exercises in which total thickheads attempt to convince us of the virtue of "street smarts" and "emotional intelligence", then demonstrate a lack of both by attempting to disparage "book learnin'" in a vain effort to compensate for the fact that they're generally fucking morons. I know bright when I see it. I also know a total boofhead when I see one. For myself, I prefer a woman who can keep up with me, but not one who's smarter. That would irritate me. At a guess, as long as she's within 5 or 10 IQ points, we're probably going to be all good - although I don't have any scientific rationale for this, merely anecdotal evidence.

Selectivelight -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 12:28:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness FR. In response to the thread topic - generally speaking women require a guy they can look up to. If it's not in the arena of intelligence then he'd better be a damned sight more accomplished than she is. And no, there is not more than one type of "intelligence". Threads about intelligence generally turn into ego-massaging exercises in which total thickheads attempt to convince us of the virtue of "street smarts" and "emotional intelligence", then demonstrate a lack of both by attempting to disparage "book learnin'" in a vain effort to compensate for the fact that they're generally fucking morons. I know bright when I see it. I also know a total boofhead when I see one. For myself, I prefer a woman who can keep up with me, but not one who's smarter. That would irritate me. At a guess, as long as she's within 5 or 10 IQ points, we're probably going to be all good - although I don't have any scientific rationale for this, merely anecdotal evidence. First, I am inclined to disagree with your evaluation of what intelligence is. There's a lot more to a functional brain than sitting in front of a stack of books until it all sinks in. I've known more than a few brilliant scholars who time and time again proved their own inadequacies. Stories of not realizing that police officer didn't have a badge, or being in a hurry and couldn't figure why walking through a dark alley at night was a bad idea. Educated idiots. I've also known a few people who didn't have a mind for numbers, or perhaps spoke very plainly, but were craftsmen, tradesmen who knew more about their field of expertise than just about anyone else you'll ever meet. The world is full of examples of people who seem deficient at a glance, but would prove you quite wrong, given half of an opportunity. I would certainly hope you do not presume to judge a person's mind based on one aspect of their existence. Furthermore, it has been my experience (and results may vary) that women are less concerned with what a man is, or what he does, when compared with how he treats her. [Now, can anyone please tell me why, by all that is unholy and wrong, I graced -this- with a response? It's two AM. I'm going to bed.]

ranja -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 8:40:27 AM)
with a dictionairy at hand and an awful lot of concentration i can... if i take the time... just about understand whatever porcelaine is posting on the boards.... i must be mad i really prefer sex to thinking

FukinTroll -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 8:42:06 AM)
What does plunder mean to you porcelaine? It has a powerful meaning to me. Slurp~

porcelaine -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 8:43:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ranja with a dictionairy at hand and an awful lot of concentration i can... if i take the time... just about understand whatever porcelaine is posting on the boards.... i must be mad i really prefer sex to thinking i find it entertaining that you hold me responsible for your deficiency in mental gymnastics. To the degree that you invest energy in making note of it whenever the mood strikes. i can see you've given it much thought. i agree, you are rather mad. Namaste, ~porcelaine

porcelaine -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 8:53:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll What does plunder mean to you porcelaine? It has a powerful meaning to me. It is not the act or the operation in itself that begs the question. But the intent that fuels its execution that matters most. For some, it's the thrill of the hunt. Others delight in the spoils for a time. And a select few savor what happens after captivity and don't place an inordinate emphasis on securing the prey. They're after something far larger than the "game." Namaste, ~porcelaine

ranja -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 9:28:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine i find it entertaining that you hold me responsible for your deficiency in mental gymnastics. To the degree that you invest energy in making note of it whenever the mood strikes. i can see you've given it much thought. i agree, you are rather mad. Namaste, ~porcelaine Thank you p i am always happy to entertain, also good to see we agree on the madness... oh and don't worry, i do not hold you responsible for my deficiency in mental gymnastics, i generally don't give it much thought

FukinTroll -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 9:31:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll What does plunder mean to you porcelaine? It has a powerful meaning to me. It is not the act or the operation in itself that begs the question. But the intent that fuels its execution that matters most. For some, it's the thrill of the hunt. Others delight in the spoils for a time. And a select few savor what happens after captivity and don't place an inordinate emphasis on securing the prey. They're after something far larger than the "game." Namaste, ~porcelaine Perhaps you overlooked my proclivity to cosset and nurture a relationship, holding on to and feeding the fire as if my life, and in many ways it does, depends on it? Slurp~

LaTigresse -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 9:33:39 AM)
But FT, isn't that something in reality........just gets proven over time?

porcelaine -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 9:50:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll Perhaps you overlooked my proclivity to cosset and nurture a relationship, holding on to and feeding the fire as if my life, and in many ways it does, depends on it? That was never taken into account because it would require a level of insight and intimacy i'm not in possession of. What i responded to was the comment, which i did agree with on many levels. i merely noted that plunder isn't always benevolent and the rules of engagement require one to give consideration to the real goal of the operation. Oftentimes the victim isn't privy to that part. Discovering the attributes you've noted is part of ones due diligence. They're ideally unearthed before the manacles are applied rather than afterward. When you consider things held in captivity, domestication has its pitfalls. This is of no consequence if the individual intends to keep its prey. However, if the ultimate goal is betterment and release, it is preferable that the captive is made aware of her impending freedom before she is secured. And more than this, plunder brings its own energy that many have a challenge replicating once the deed is done. In the best situations, the hunter covets an individual with the capacity to feed the beast in a manner that doesn't require future coups for sustenance. Of course that works in both directions. The hunted has her own energy that requires some measure of attention for real fulfillment. Many can appease this through submission. However, for some, there is a marked difference between the two that requires a multifaceted approach. Much of this is remedied by the complement gainfully acquired through the sting. :) Namaste, ~porcelaine

FukinTroll -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 9:54:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse But FT, isn't that something in reality........just gets proven over time? Yep. However I feel that in this medium, and community, the best thing that any of us can do is express who we really are, to post from where we feel and not from an analytical/theoretical view and to express ourselves sans illusions or delusions so people know exactly what they are signing up for. I would rather everyone understand, the best I can express it, who I am, what my dynamic looks like and the smart ass monster they will be putting up with so there is not ever a point where they think or say, "Wow, you're not who I thought you were." I would prefer people to SEE me and think little of me, than SEE someone that I am not. I am picky as hell and have these pesky standards for what I need in my relationship, but to change any of those things would put any relationship in danger of failure. I am not, in any way, looking for a perfect relationship... but I refuse to settle for less than exceptional. By sticking to my guns, finding or attracting the girls that see me and what my dynamic consists of the reality is easily obtainable. I am absolutely crazy over most of the girls here, spechully you, and truly love and care about my friends here. What makes it so easy for me to hold love for the people here is that you understand me and are privy to the things that make the Trollish one tick. I would rather miss an opportunity than invite disaster, and many of the boys and girls (love them all) know what I am looking for, honestly see that they are not it and still want to be my friends. I try very hard to convey what the day to day looks like with me and give insight into life under Trollish rule, and 90% of that can be found in my posts. The profile is curt but concise and it is easy for me to say, "Wow, I could really entertain a relationship with X." But I also know when I am good for someone or bad for someone. There are a LOT of girls that I would dearly love to be in an intimate relationship with from this side, but I know in the end I would bring pain to them. I wouldn't do it deliberately, however the things I want and need in my life are things they cannot facilitate and if I brought a girl in that could meet those needs it would cause the girl pain.

LaTigresse -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 11:03:42 AM)
FT, I understand what you are saying, and yes we can assume that what you say is so. My point is more that, we can talk and talk and type and type........the reality for all of us is in the doing. Hell, the reality might be, that you've never had a successful long term relationship in your life......until a certain woman might come along that just 'fits' you and your life better than anyone before. Or, another reality might be, that while all the talking and typing is how you desire to be, to have your life, you've not quite managed to put the words into successful practice. Please do not take offense, I am not suggesting any of the above is true......only creating imaginary 'what ifs' to illustrate my point. (aka using you for a guinea pig because I know you will not misunderstand and get upset ) That for any of us, it's the doing and our physical track record that is the proof of the pudding. Ultimately that is all anyone that considers being a part of our life can experience. At some point we all have to take that leap of faith and experience what we are talking/writing about. Especially in using this medium.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 1:31:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig If she can outsmart me or best me in an debate...Right on!! I'll have to be on my toes the next time. in my experience, this is a really rare perspective. =p people say it a lot, but very few of them live up to it, yanno? Okay, so you think you're smart. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is: will the type of men you want to attract think you are smart? Serious question. If your man-pattern is as you describe, you might want to step up your game, because you're not catching the eye of people who value brains. Speaking just for myself, nothing is hotter than a woman with an advanced degree, who makes major decisions in the working world, and who goes down on me hungrily while I beat her red ass.

NihilusZero -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 1:56:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Selectivelight There's a lot more to a functional brain than sitting in front of a stack of books until it all sinks in. Well, there's the ability to assimilate factual knowledge, the ability to incorporate it functionally in a consistent worldview, and the ability to apply it. That does cover more ground than just the accumulation of bullet points, but the free-tossing of "emotional intelligence" and "street smarts", as mentioned, is nonsense. What has taken place in terms of actual intelligence is that it has become, to far too many, a term that cannot be divided from the structure of human value. Consequently, varied "intelligences" get paraded all over the place as some open floodgate of intellectual affirmative action that can frame "intelligence" in so wide an expanse that nearly anyone can garner at least some piece of the pie. Granted, we are honestly just talking about whether a term that, at one point, was meant to be descriptive of a certain ability/skill has just been colloquially mangled to mean something entirely new now.

leadership527 -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 2:25:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Granted, we are honestly just talking about whether a term that, at one point, was meant to be descriptive of a certain ability/skill has just been colloquially mangled to mean something entirely new now. Or, a different viewpoint (and one I suspect would be well received among cognitive scientists) is that we are learning a lot more about what "intelligence" actually is and the ways it manifests. In both your scenario and mine the definition is changing. The question is "why" and is that change useful. For myself, what I know is that Carol would not score in the genius or above categories on an IQ test but I still find it extremely useful to listen to her thoughts, viewpoints, and insights into a situation. Whatever the IQ test is missing about her "intelligence", my brain is not.

porcelaine -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 2:26:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I don't think the allure of internet-community-recognition is necessarily his priority. I also don't see why it should be a priority for anyone who doesn't have such a demeanor to begin with...or who is not in desperate enough need of companionship to play the marketing game for the traffic it could bring. Nicely put. Probably more so than i would have done. :) quote: This community has historically not been altogether honest and forthright in terms of dealing with critical posters when said posters threaten the community. i agree and i mentioned this to someone yesterday. The reception is largely dependent on who's delivering the message. Two people can posit a similar idea and one is shot down and the other accepted merely due to their standing within the community noted. quote: Curiously, this is an incredible parallel to the overt thirst for the more challenging chase that so many cradle. It's a prioritization of the veils and games that precede an actual relationships; as if we are all fundamentally suffering from insecurity complexes and need the prestige and notoriety that being skilled in these games offers (perhaps to convince ourselves, or perhaps because we fear everyone else is also drinking the same kool-aid). Whether the games involve a great technique of ravenous pursuit or a great online alter ego is just an issue of variation. It's the cool kid complex. [;)] Namaste, ~porcelaine

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875