Height in Dating?

<p>

</p>

<p>By Earthly standards, humans are highly intelligent. Being humans, humans’ romantic and personal partners ought to make mental connections with each other. One’s SAT score, thus far amassed lexicon, and communication aptitude are all fair though partial metrics for the activity of the mind. The seemingly trivial point people make regarding the inefficacy of, for example, SAT and IQ scores to validly yield conclusions of someone’s “intelligence” becomes starkly important in this context. </p>

<p>For that reason the girl would not need to qualify as a genius (or even anything near it) on any objective measure; she would, however, need to be “smart”/“insightful”/“wise”/“understanding” enough to – and in a matter that could – facilitate the profound meeting of the minds. I could definitely see this happening with someone who is not formally well-educated or able at standardized testing. It would still be unlikely, though.</p>

<p>^Now that is deep.</p>

<p>^Agreed. Great response, silver.</p>

<p>What about race and height? From experience and observation, Caucasian and Asian/Indian girls USUALLY are more comfortable about dating shorter guys than African Americans and Hispanics.</p>

<p>I think that a person’s intellect may or may not be reflected in his/her test score, school performance, etc. When you meet an intellectural person, you know that. (If you belong to that group yourself.) </p>

<p>I think almost for sure a girl/guy (esp. a girl) with charm must have a great sense of humor. :)</p>

<p>Test scores don’t determine intellect, NCLB has proved that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>lol what did I just read. What do you mean by this?</p>

<p>My IQ is 158, on the newer scale where 140 is genius, however, on the same scale, my girlfriend’s IQ is… -drum roll- 87. So I just wanted to point out that it’s quite possible to be in a successful relationship with someone of a glaringly different intelligence level than one’s self. Though I felt like a kindergarten teacher teaching her what “imply” means 40 minutes ago…=P But I don’t see the kind of intelligence she evidently lacks as important in a person whom I’m dating… She’s understanding, caring, pretty insightful, so sometimes the numbers can’t express the words… There are different kinds of intellect, and some breeds of intellect are far more important than others. </p>

<p>PS: About the earlier point, I’m pretty well built, muscular, but not “buff”.</p>

<p>I’m 5 inches shorter, but sufficiently muscular. Among most girls who I’ve seen, muscle content is more important than height.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why did you think that? to me it just sounded like he said that obviously an SAT score can’t be a determining factor for him, because the SAT doesn’t perfectly measure the things that he values in a girl, even if it does a pretty good job.</p>

<p>The explanations were clear and thought out.l</p>

<p>@Political, what is " NCLB "?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s a very subjective concept and therefore difficult to verbalize without abstraction (and in turn abstruseness if the idea does not resonate with you). Basically, I mean to refer to a connection of a depth that the analogous depth of humans’ minds imparts the capacity for–mutual understanding of someone in a way mirrored only by his or her most honest self-awareness.</p>

<p>Or maybe it’s all youthfully romanticized crap.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Thanks for the supportive anecdote. :)</p>

<p>NCLB: No Child Left Behind.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I at least tried to say something more than that. In fact, I wouldn’t agree with the idea that the SAT measures pretty well what I am looking for; the correlation is so much weaker than what I consider my own observational skills to be that I would actually neglect any knowledge of her scores.</p>

<p>No problem(: Just putting a bit of fact behind a valid point.</p>

<p>Okay you are right you did not imply it measures pretty well what you’re looking for. What you did imply was that it does a pretty good job of screening those you are not looking for.</p>

<p>

.</p>

<p>I see. NCLB is the most stupid thing which gives the most stupid tests. just my opinon, of course.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If it were all I had, it would not be a terrible filtering device. Luckily, interpersonal engagement is rife with meaningfully telling signs that render SAT scores moot.</p>