I thought the whole article was terrible, mostly because, like you said, his definition of smart is, at best, inconsistent.  His fifth point was the only one that came close to feeling relevant or accurate to me, and even that wasn't really handled particularly insightfully.  

So I take it you wanted to get into Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Columbia, Cornell, Swarthmore, Amherst, Dartmouth, Brown, Oxford, Cambridge, Berkeley, Penn, Caltech, or Duke and got rejected...

At least you're getting laid, so stop whining.

I'm at one of those top graduate schools, surrounded by very intelligent nerds. They're well beyond the top 5%; perhaps in the top .1% or less of the population. Some of them get laid. Many of them don't. Intelligence doesn't seem to make attracting women any easier, as far as I can tell.

Well, in MY opinion Jordan's breasts are a little too much. But on the OTHER hand, this guy's a smug idiot and I wouldn't wipe my ass with his book.

They're WAY too much.  But she's had 'em taken in since, thank heavens.

It's not a great article.

But I agree with Leon, going to a very selective school myself.

Maybe the article would have been better titled something about how "accomplished" people have trouble getting laid, as opposed to smart, as I do know some smart slackers who get laid plenty.

"I mean, do you think all those brainiacs who invented google, or yahoo, or shmoogle, or whatever the fuck.. do you think those nerds AREN’T getting laid?"

Yes, actually.  I went to high school with some of those nerds, at a selective public high school.  We didn't get laid much, trust me.  People who are studying a lot to get into competitive graduate schools, get good jobs, etc. don't have a lot of time for partying or dating.  It's true...

I know a lot of professional academics who teach at top tier schools, and most of them party like rock stars and rarely keep their trousers up.  Getting laid is nowhere near a problem for most of them... not nearly as much as marital fidelity.  Some of these conferences are like love-ins after the boring key note address ends.  

Toluca, I agree with you. If he'd said "Why Accomplished People Can't Get Laid" it would have been a stronger article.

Peter - I got into one of the schools you mentioned and I still thought the article was lame.

I read that thing this morning and thought "How Lame!". It seemed like the journalist was looking for an ego-boosting way to excuse their own track record.

Yes, apparently many academic conferences involve a certain amount of partying. But in male-dominated fields (e.g. computer science, where those Google or Yahoo people were), there aren't enough women around to worry about fidelity, much less have a proper love-in. Instead, it's just about alcohol and skiing, or at least those are all the stories that I hear.

Why else are there so many smart nerds on dating sites like Hooksexup? They're having a hard time finding interested women in real life.

I do have to add that outside of academic circles, I know quite a few women that are seriously intelligent that don't have much luck dating.  It does seem that there are a lot of men that are intimidated by smart women, and this is not limited to low IQ sorts of men.  They would seem to prefer that a woman hide her brains and sit enrapt awaiting pearls of wisdom to drop from the man's lips.  

This is true on both social and professional planes.  It's almost to a woman's detriment to be "too smart."  I've witnessed rather brilliant women play dumb to play up to guys.  It's sad.  And I've seen men condescend to women that they're not fit to caddy for, let alone date.  

And zeitgeisty, don't take this for a knock, but you seem a bit insecure about people with academic accomplishments.  It's true that it doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence, but the premise of the article isn't that college educated people are smarter, but that highly educated people have said they feel their intelligence has hindered dating.  The study might have proven more valid (or equally invalid and inconclusive) were he to have included a control group of people of lower or more moderate education levels.  

Yet if I were going to do an article on intelligent people and dating success, I'd also probably steer towards academia and not the gin mill next to an OTB at 10 am or a Linkin Park concert.  Just a thought...

dude! smart people THINK! the rest just goes for it. so stop whining. you aren't smart but you used to get some, like it matters

"I’ve known so many academics that were as dumb as dirt when it came to anything outside their specialized little field of expertise. Conversely, I’ve known many people in my life that never graduated from college that were amongst the most brilliant I’ve ever met"

And, of course, you're so fucking brilliant yourself that you are capable of being the god-of-assessment when it comes to who's smart and who isn't.  Bloody arrogant and a cliched arrogance at that.  

Hmm... which academic conferences would you be referring to?

I mean, I have an easy enough time believing in places like in San Francisco, or Boston, or Brown University -you know, the uber-liberal places with a slightly-hippie reputation, some academics party like rock stars...  But I also know schloads of academics who DON'T.  Who practically don't have a personal life, let alone get laid more than your average Joe (or Jill)...  Yep, I'd need empirical evidence to be convinced I think...

As a female working on my PhD, I can't find a date nor get laid. I don't know if that has to do with my brains (or the perception of their presence based on my education) intimidating men or if it is more a product of the environment I am in. I find it hard to meet new people therefore meet people to date. But I don't know whether that is true for most academics or if that is because I live in a smallish university town.

On a slightly related note: The episode of This American Life from Valentine's day weekend had a funny intro about physics grad students at Harvard calculating the odds that they could find a girlfriend using an equation similar to the one used to calculate the odds that there is other life in the universe.

I agree that one can find hugely intelligent people for whom academia was a washout -- one of my best friends is a college dropout, and my wife is a high-school dropout (who has two IQ points on me, and I've ended up in the top 1% of pretty much every standardized test I ever took, which admittedly tests only the ability to take standardized tests).  But they are the exceptions, not the rules.  To misattribute to Willie Sutton, you go to top-school graduates to find brains because that's where they most likely are.

My own experience is that, as an over-educated, supersmart nerd, it was really hard to get laid -- until I hit about 28, and all of a sudden women started realizing that dangerous badboys were actually not so enticing, and that guys with real jobs, real incomes, the ability to return phone calls and show up when they say they will suddenly became hot and sexy.  From that point on, getting laid was never an issue -- getting into a good, healthy relationship, well, that was another matter, but that wasn't a brain-power issue, that was a me-becoming-decent-partner-material issue.

Z, I gotta say, you do seem a bit defensive about academic credentials.  You say you graduated from the top of your class; I'm hoping you weren't referring to Apex Technical [ducks].

Please state your percentile rank (doesn't matter for what)before every Hooksexup comment.  Thanks.

I assume you're being provocative merely for the sake of being provocative, but no, I really respect people who dedicate themselves to teaching (whether it's math or anything else, in high school or primary school).  It's hard work, particularly if you're going to do it well, and you don't do it to get lots of money or thanks (q.v. your remark above).  A few years back, I thought very seriously about applying for the NYC Teaching Fellows program, but realized I don't have the self-discipline to put in the effort -- practicing and teaching law is much easier.

Then I suggest you write more precisely -- being a shitty, incompetent teacher is among the lowest of the low because you're robbing kids of an education they deserve.  Your Mom, and my friends and relatives who are or were teachers, are heroes in my book.

My IQ's been measured at both 125 and 137; even if we go by an average, I land somewhere in the top 2% of intelligent people on the planet.

I never had a strong fondness for school, mostly due to the fact that I couldn't - or wouldn't - suffer the ignorance of people who thought they knew best. Hence, reading books for other classes during classes I'd already done the work for.

I tried, briefly, to downplay my intelligence in high school, and did much the same in college. I slacked off. I didn't care about grades - still don't - but now I care about doing well, and putting the best effort forth in things I think are worth pursuing.

Women, on the other hand... I'm torn between conflicting opinions and varying levels of complication. On the one hand, Caveman Me says, "Oogh, Her! Her! Knock up! Oogh!", with a wide, indiscriminate attitude. Logical Me says, "No, not her. She's pretty, but she's barely coherent. Not her, she's fat. Not her, she probably thinks the French Revolution had to do with haircare..." and goes from there.

The simplistic Caveman is overwhelmed, retreats to his cave, and only comes out when he knows he's got a fighting chance. Surprise surprise, I get laid every couple of months, and there's usually booze involved, when I can turn my brain off, be ballsy, and my standards fall lower than they normally would be.

I'd agree with the gist of the fifth point; when you get to the top 5% of anything, it's going to be hard to find somebody at your level. While lowering one's standards is an excellent idea numerically, and turning off the brain to go get the opposite sex is a great idea, it's hardly productive advice for smart people who can't get laid.

And given the resultant messiness that ameliorating the process with booze creates, I think I'll just take my chances, be resourceful, and most of all, be goddamned picky.

Well, some of us think finding our equal would be hot.

I happen to know plenty of people who I find physically hot enough who also share interests and intelligence with me (now whether they always find me physically hot enough is a separate point, of course)

I think some people PREFER finding a compliment over an equal, and then some prefer vice versa.  I think either way can work out.  I think it all comes down to individual preferences...

Please stop misspelling complement in this context; it's getting embarrassing.

God...you reacted stupidly. For instance...smart people do not eliminate those who are not geniuses, they don't fuck the skank who might have VD.

you are all full of shit. Zeit already identified the problem way back: if you are ugly then you have trouble "getting laid" it's that simpple. I know, becuase I am ugly and very smart--I can build a rocket and cut your brain open without fucking you up. Oh and there's this one fellow I know who is very smart and good looking and he gets all the girls. He seems to prefer Scandinavian girls though, so you are out of luck airheadgenius...

huh

i wasn't getting laid at the time, but i well remember the time in high school when i realized that i just didn't like most of the people deemed "smart" (i was a "bit smart").  so that leads to your next topic:  do you fuck only people you like?

I'm smart alright, but spelling has never been my strength.  I mean how often do we really see "complement" in print, anyway?  Well me, not much.  I'm guessing you don't either.

And I wasn't talking about equal in looks.  I was saying to me it's HOT when someone knows about the things I know about.  And that to me that IS a pretty big priority.  But I know for some people it isn't -some people PREFER finding a complement.  I mean for instance, I think as someone with a pretty strong persoanlity my complement in most ways might be someone who was more passive -a lot of men with strong personalities tend to be perfectly happy to date women who are more passive.  But me?  I would NOT find that hot...

"have you ever been involved witgh someone you've been head over heels with? did they share the same interests as you?"

It didn't get terribly far (it was a little unclear to me whether it was because I was acting cold, or he just didn't feel the chemistry, or he just wasn't feeling the chemistry BECAUSE I was acting cautiously) BUT from my end at least?  Yes and yes.  I mean he was really cute, but what really got me hooked was that we shared almost all of the same interests as well as same sense of humor and sexual proclivities.  *Sigh*  Still not completely over that one.  We're still friends.  Friends who flirt. ...?shrug?... I've heard a wide variety of advice on what to do about that, but that's a conversation for another day I suppose...

Judging from this article, I'd say the reverse hypothesis is a  lot more likely: people with low social/emotional intelligence channel all their energy into academic achievement and success at business.

My mind-movie now features scenes from a nerd orgy. You guys suck.  

I dunno, z'geisty, in most measurable ways I'm in the top 5% (IQ 140, a bunch of degrees, a job I hate, some expendable income), and I clean up real nice and all, but I don't have the easiest time getting laid. Why? Because I have standards, and among those are a person's ability to have a conversation that doesn't include the words "American Idol." Also, smart girls are very very scary to most guys, and very very annoying to others.

So, although I agree with you that the doofus's list is spurious at best, I do agree with the basic premise that "smart" people are probably having less sex than the hoi polloi.