Which would bother you more?

[7Wannabe5]

If you were being forced into accepting an arranged marriage, and all other things being equal, your choice was between somebody who could understand abstract algebra but also believed in the predictions of Nostradamus, astrology or non-metaphorical virgin birth, or somebody who could not possibly understand abstract algebra but did not believe in anything like the predictions of Nostradamus, astrology or non-metaphorical virgin birth, which would you choose?

[Dragline]

Neither seems desirable, but the latter sounds safer (and boring). But who cooks better? Day-to-day interactions usually matter more than abstract skills or metaphysical beliefs.

I think I'd also be making contingency plans to move somewhere else post-nuptials and get a divorce or an annulment.

[jacob]

The latter! Lacking a grasp of reality is more destructive than grasping abstract algebra is constructive.

In personal finance business terms:
Abstract Algebra: $5 asset (ability to use group theory to fairly divide a pizza and prove that slicing is an Abelian operator)
Crazy belief system: $50000 liability (from making bad decisions based in fantasy land, also see fractal wrongness)

However, if it was more for entertainment purposes, the former is likely to be far more fun, as a friend.

[jennypenny]

The first one, no question. The capacity for faith makes a person happier, which IMO makes them a better partner.

From WaPo: Religion is a sure route to true happiness "It also turns out that people who have religious or spiritual beliefs are happier than those who don’t, no matter what their beliefs. ... Happy people are more helpful, more productive and more loyal. Happy people are in better physical shape, healthier and heal faster."

Sounds good to me. Being good at math would just be a bonus.

[George the original one]

Apparently I married the latter, LOL!

[jacob]

There is of course a big practical difference depending on whether person A guides their life according to those beliefs (my horoscope told me that the universe will provide and, lo and behold, the universe provided for me and approved me for a loan so I bought a new car, honey) or they're just inconsequential pastimes (I was just thinking of about how I really miss my dead cat and then I looked over at the clock and it was 11:11... This means something!)

[IlliniDave]

Well it's hard to see either of those qualities being of critical importance, but I suppose I would get on better with someone who had the ability to deal with the abstract and think beyond the mundane. I would consider behaviors to be more important, however, than what someone thought or didn't think or could or couldn't think.

[C40]

Really depends on how extreme the beliefs of the first person are. If it's the kind of person who accepts those kinds of beliefs as absolute facts, and especially if it's the kind of person to live according small details that so-and-so says the bible/stars/etc, no way. If it's a person who's going to try to indoctrinate me and not accept that I have no interest in it, and who can't recognize the other ways I improve myself just because I don't believe in what they believe, no way.

Not knowing math, or especially not having the capacity to learn math, is also a liability (they likely won't be able to understand investing, capital accumulation and use, etc.)

Anyways, going by only the info in the original post, the first type would bother me more and o would choose the latter.

[7Wannabe5]

Dragline said: But who cooks better? Day-to-day interactions usually matter more than abstract skills or metaphysical beliefs.

IlliniDave said: I would consider behaviors to be more important, however, than what someone thought or didn't think or could or couldn't think.

Right. Dang it. I keep forgetting that the best practice mantra is "Behaviors not qualities, behaviors not qualities, you are choosing a relationship NOT a person!" and poor practice to predict behavior based on qualities. Also, abstract algebra was too narrow a descriptor. Let me rephrase question.

If you had to choose between entering into a significant long-term relationship with somebody who sometimes made important decisions in your relationship based on beliefs which you regarded to have no basis in reality, or somebody whose contribution (conversation, cooking, sex, lawn maintenance) to your relationship was rarely indicative of what you considered complex or creative thought, which relationship would you choose?

jennypenny said: The first one, no question. The capacity for faith makes a person happier, which IMO makes them a better partner.

I read this research several years ago myself, and that is why Item #3 under Category #2 "Social Practice" of my Excel Document entitled "What My Life Will Be Like in 2012" was "Find and Join a Fellowship." BUT what following this piece of poor logic (religious/spiritual people more happy ergo if I try religion I might be more happy) resulted in eventually was finding myself "talking to the shame puppet" in couple's therapy and accused of "making a mockery" of my partner's religion by flagrantly violating the term of the Islamic marriage contract into which I freely chose to enter. Apparently, the limits to my ability to suspend disbelief and thereby increase my happiness in this realm is only at the level of choosing to hit "Like" when somebody posts an excerpt from "Yes, Virginia..." or feeling a bit of warm-fuzzy if I happen upon a blessing of the animals, etc. etc. Of course, my idiotic attempt to apply this to myself does not necessarily speak to the question at hand. The reason why I would never again choose to enter into significant relationship with somebody who makes decisions based on beliefs which I regard to have no basis in reality would be because I KNOW that I would eventually either bail out the passenger door or grab the wheel and that would be the sad, sorry endgame. Not limiting this to literal miracle religious beliefs, I was also in a serious relationship with a member of the leadership of Mufon. Like my recent-ex, he held a PhD in an unrelated realm and evinced expertise/intelligence/talent in other matters-thus my false dichotomy offered above. I never even attempted to believe in UFOs; I just succumbed to my weakness for the mix of brains, dominance, charm and man-candy and tried so very hard not to see the crazy-in-my-book. Last but not least, I was also in a serious relationship with a man who believed he could win at craps; a belief I had to test first but then thoroughly dismissed as extremely unlikely.

Obviously, option number two is not going to fly either. I'm bored just thinking about it. Gonna have to break up the false dichotomy. Which leads directly to the false tri-chotomy where I add degree of man-candy to the choice matrix. Okay, forgot again. Man-candy is a quality not a behavior. Rephrase.

If you had to choose between entering into a significant long-term relationship with somebody who sometimes made important decisions in your relationship based on beliefs which you regarded to have no basis in reality, or somebody whose contribution (conversation, cooking, sex, lawn maintenance) to your relationship was rarely indicative of what your considered complex or creative thought, or somebody who made little effort to appeal to you at a reasonable level of "candy" through, for instance, whatever behaviors would keep paunch-to shoulder-bicep-development ratio not so very, very much outside of the Alec Baldwin level that Hawaiian print shirt can't even possibly be tucked in and not choosing to get ear gauges if over 50 years of age and comb-over or pony-tail thinning hair and put bright-white-shoes-like-nurses-wear on feet, or whatever your personal druthers would dictate.

[George the original one]

1) If you and your partner don't share the same reality, then there's little basis for a relationship.
2) Leaves you the leader of ingenuity, even if you didn't want to be the leader. Not really a problem unless you're only a follower.
3) Partner not making an effort for something you consider important should be open for negotiation. No negotiation, no relationship.

[sky]

If this is an arranged marriage, you don't get to choose which partner, since it has already been arranged.

[Ego]

Which one is unkind? Who could I not have a conversation with? Which one can I not trust? Is either obese? Does either smell really bad? Which one lacks a sense of humor? Which one enjoys schadenfreude? ...

Off the top of my head those are some of the things that would bother me more than what you mentioned.

[Dragline]

If you had to choose between entering into a significant long-term relationship with somebody who sometimes made important decisions in your relationship based on beliefs which you regarded to have no basis in reality, or somebody whose contribution (conversation, cooking, sex, lawn maintenance) to your relationship was rarely indicative of what your considered complex or creative thought, or somebody who made little effort to appeal to you at a reasonable level of "candy" through, for instance, whatever behaviors would keep paunch-to shoulder-bicep-development ratio not so very, very much outside of the Alec Baldwin level that Hawaiian print shirt can't even possibly be tucked in and not choosing to get ear gauges if over 50 years of age and comb-over or pony-tail thinning hair and put bright-white-shoes-like-nurses-wear on feet, or whatever your personal druthers would dictate.

Man, that's even more bleak. Ideally, you have someone that has the same irrational (or rational, if you prefer) beliefs as yours. Then you go with them. Absent agreement or acceptance on that, door number two seems better. I can't see much value in door number 3 -- that seems like the door with the goat behind it.

[JamesR]

The third choice is probably your best bet.

Basically, you can select on the mental/behavioral traits you desire, and then ensure there's a high degree of openness. With the openness (low stubborness) in hand, the cosmetic "man-candy" issues can be easily resolved with lifestyle changes, changing environment, going on a year long bike trip, whatever. Basically the third choice is the more intelligent choice if you're playing for the long run. In reality men tend to look better/sexier/more dominant when they're 40+ anyways, especially if they're fit and well-kept, etc.

Basically those guys lacking the 'man-candy' can potentially be hidden gems. But you probably have to dig through a lot of rocks for that?

[IlliniDave]

If you had to choose between entering into a significant long-term relationship with somebody who sometimes made important decisions in your relationship based on beliefs which you regarded to have no basis in reality, or somebody whose contribution (conversation, cooking, sex, lawn maintenance) to your relationship was rarely indicative of what your considered complex or creative thought, or somebody who made little effort to appeal to you at a reasonable level of "candy" through, for instance, whatever behaviors would keep paunch-to shoulder-bicep-development ratio not so very, very much outside of the Alec Baldwin level that Hawaiian print shirt can't even possibly be tucked in and not choosing to get ear gauges if over 50 years of age and comb-over or pony-tail thinning hair and put bright-white-shoes-like-nurses-wear on feet, or whatever your personal druthers would dictate.

Well, as long as the first choice made decisions I could live with, I could possibly overlook the why. But obviously it's a big deal to you. So you're asking for our preference for dinner among a menu of dog turds, cat turds, and rat turds based on which one is the least offensive. I'd order steak because it actually has virtues.

Oh, and I'd rather she did not have Alec Baldwin's proportions. That would definitely be a deal-breaker for me. But that's a nit.

[jennypenny]

Oh, and I'd rather she did not have Alec Baldwin's proportions. That would definitely be a deal-breaker for me. But that's a nit.

I dunno, he has pretty big boobs these days.

[Riggerjack]

7wannabe5, you have the most messed up thought processes when it comes to relationships.

Number one, nobody has the right/authority/ability to force anyone (competent) to do anything, long term. I mean sure, actual violence and coercion happen, but they are short term, and then the proper response is escape and evade, not make the best of captivity.

Secondly, you bring up irrelevancies as determining factors in partners. Seriously, that is the right word, partner. Never, in all your writing about relationships, have you said anything about achieving effective partnership. It's always about tradeoffs.

Don't get me wrong, I've been in plenty of relationships that were more competitive than co-operative. Or solely competitive, for that matter.

The quality of the relationship is determined by the quality of the day in, day out interactions. I've never found mathematical skill, body measurements, financial ability, or faith based lifestyle to be indicators of someone's relationship skills. Though there are definitely disqualifiers...

This is the age of internet dating. Choices are effectively limitless, the only limits are in your ability to choose the right guy, and to be the right girl for him. You've pointed out that you have no problems attracting men, so it would seem your efforts would be best rewarded by developing your selection criteria, or your ability to be the woman that right guy would want to be with.

This whole thread just seems so junior high...

[Scrubby]

Probably the last one. People who excel at rationalizing their irrational theories are really tiresome.

[7Wannabe5]

George the original one said:
1) If you and your partner don't share the same reality, then there's little basis for a relationship.
2) Leaves you the leader of ingenuity, even if you didn't want to be the leader. Not really a problem unless you're only a follower.
3) Partner not making an effort for something you consider important should be open for negotiation. No negotiation, no relationship.

1) True
2) Am I the "leader of ingenuity" or the "leader due to ingenuity?, subtle but important difference that I shall consider. Generally, like most ENTPs, I am an independent with some ability to switch. In the social or economic hierarchy, I usually take the lead (manifest authority matched to responsibility) with "babies" (widely defined) and "artists" (widely defined) and the occasional "mad scientist." IOW, it has been my experience that I can always take care of myself, and I can maybe even take care of 2 babies and 1 artist too, but not for very long without practical assistance. Anyways, I don't think a dull person is like a baby or an artist, so what would be my motivation for exerting authority/taking responsibility?
3) I think maybe it is too difficult to seriously consider physical attractiveness as just the result of a set of behaviors rather than depending on some innate qualities.

James R said: Basically the third choice is the more intelligent choice if you're playing for the long run. In reality men tend to look better/sexier/more dominant when they're 40+ anyways, especially if they're fit and well-kept, etc.

Up to a point. I'm 50, and in the course of my lifetime I have dated boys/men from age 16 to 70. Men often tend towards being most attractive in their 40s because that is the age when they have gained enough experience to be the coach, but still have the vigor to be a player. OTOH, in any group of men, whether 16 or 60, there will frequently be a hierarchy of dominance, which is why I am happy that I am not a man. Of course, it is also all relative, so a man in his early 40s can seem like a callow youth to me. Sweet spot or comfort zone for me tends to be men who are 7 to 12 years older, but I am finding it more difficult to find men who are still physically fit enough for me in the 57-62 range. Also, I need to bear in mind the actuarial reality of likely number of good years to share before I may find myself in the caretaker and/or widow role. So, I am trying to be open to dating some younger men.

sky said: If this is an arranged marriage, you don't get to choose which partner, since it has already been arranged.

IlliniDave said: Well, as long as the first choice made decisions I could live with, I could possibly overlook the why. But obviously it's a big deal to you. So you're asking for our preference for dinner among a menu of dog turds, cat turds, and rat turds based on which one is the least offensive. I'd order steak because it actually has virtues.

Riggerjack said: Number one, nobody has the right/authority/ability to force anyone (competent) to do anything, long term. I mean sure, actual violence and coercion happen, but they are short term, and then the proper response is escape and evade, not make the best of captivity.

Okay, okay, bad analogy. Try again. For goddess only knows what reason, you have once again freely chosen to present yourself in the form of something like a wriggling worm attached to the end of a line and dangled into the water. You are also in possession of the free will and intelligence to install and maintain a series of filters in the channel through which the varieties of fish will have to pass. There are some very good filters which you already have firmly in place. For instance, no fish which exhibits unkind, unreliable, poor hygienic or plain-old-rude behavior will get through to you. If a man says that he will call on Wednesday to make plans for Saturday and doesn't call until Friday, the first time you will be unavailable on Saturday and the second time you will be unavailable ever. The first time he says something hurtful, you say "Ouch." The second time he does it, you say "Goodbye." etc. etc. standard good practice is in place. What you are considering are your level 2 or 3 filters based on your experience of past mistakes and the fact that virtually every person who cares about you has informed you that your number one error in judgment is that you do not have a good enough filter for "crazy." Even your mother who used to be literally crazy (bi-polar 2)herself, has informed you that she feels guilty because it is likely exposure to her behavior in your youth which is the cause of your inability to filter for this.

Riggerjack said: Secondly, you bring up irrelevancies as determining factors in partners. Seriously, that is the right word, partner. Never, in all your writing about relationships, have you said anything about achieving effective partnership. It's always about tradeoffs.

Well, there are two reasons why that may have been the case (subject to change.) The first reason being that I believe that engaging in self-aware, self-care in alignment with self-interest is essential whether or not you are in relationship, and certainly during the course of negotiating relationship. The second reason would be because in recent years I have been considering the validity of sexual dichotomy theory and the word "partnership" is best understood as analogous to dance partners rather than business partners in the context of this theory, and I think most of the member of this forum would read the word "partner" more in the business partner sense. What I do hold to be very, very true is that shared mission statement is critical to either sort of partnership. In alignment with sexual-dichotomy practice, the primary shared mission in relationship would be to achieve "ecstatic sexual union." In alignment with standard business practice, the primary shared mission in relationship might be something like "chip in together to buy a condo and feed a dog." Of course, the person with whom you might be best able to achieve ecstatic sexual union might not also be the best person with whom to form a business or domestic partnership. So, either there will be trade-offs or some serious hard work in boundary formation to be accomplished. I should note for the record that believing in "ecstatic sexual union partnership" is nothing at all like believing in "soulmates", in fact it is almost the opposite. It's all about mastering very difficult practice and nothing to do with fate. For instance, if you are choosing to be the partner who inhabits the masculine, you have to learn how to backwards ejaculate and manifest your internal killer. I'm actually pretty weak at inhabiting the feminine. but since very few women even self-aware attempt it these days, I do okay when I bother to make the effort. Anyways, I hope this makes some kind of sense and YMMV : )

[George the original one]

Music time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFA6dEwWOb4