So if I ever meet people like them I just hit them with the Shakespeare didn't write his own plays conspiracy. There is absolutely no evidence to any of it but if you double down on it these idiots go absolutely bonkers.
I'm a woman with a STEM PhD, and several of the guys I've dated have decided to prove they are smart enough to date me by looking up my publications from grad school (20 years ago now), reading them, and then trying to impress me by trying to poke holes in them or otherwise making me defend them on the spot.
That tactic is now an instant method to get me to end contact. It betrays a deep insecurity with my having expertise greater than theirs on any topic, even ones I have decades of work in. No Jimmy, you can't become my peer by reading a few papers. I don't think you are dumb, but I'm not spending time with you to massage your ego about your insecurity. Byyyye
This is the most toxic male behavior ever. It has all the hallmarks - arrogance, insecurity, and enough 'subtly' to seem 'ok' at first, only for it to be turned into something terrible
What the hell is with that level of insecurity. My wife is smarter than me, it was pretty clear pretty quick, most people realize she's smarter than them within a few hours of conversation. If you can't handle dating someone smart you desperately need to get the fuck over yourself. But also you can just leave! Or find a constructive way to deal with those feelings! Sigh.
Like I get insecurity about academics, my life in early adulthood was rough and resulted in me leaving after my undergrad instead of staying to the minimum of a masters degree that was expected of me. But I can't fucking imagine trying to deal with that by attempting to poke holes in a partner's achievements.
Some guys are so sexist that a woman knowing more than them about any subject gives them a ton of insecurity, because it makes them feel like they're losing to an "inferior". That's basically the whole explanation.
A person can be highly inteligent and still be clueless for human interaction. But being well spoken, well read, attentative and polite usually indicates someone is well adjusted towards others.
I'm sorry do we have medieval Italian political satirists on the table for basic conversion? the crazy thing is, I've read books by all the individuals mentioned, and most of it is very old, and very specific to it's time, and largely entertainment. this is like someone 500 years from now saying they can't hold a conversation with someone if they don't have a deep familiaity with the deeper meanings of The Simpsons and Family Guy and how they impacted society.
That's a literary technique called "anaphora", or in layman terms, "repeating shit", it's a highly advanced technique used to emphasize the importance of something, his use of it is actually a demonstration of how much of a big brain smart boy he is
Bare minimum to enjoy a beer around a campfire: ACDC, Rolling Stones, Lynyrd Skynyrd, White Stripes, Dire Straits, Genesis, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Kenny Loggings, Gorillaz, Jefferson Airplane, The Animals, Bon Jovi, R.E.M, Bonnie Tyler, Eminem, 50, System of a Down, Rage against the Machine, Rob Zombie, Nirvana, Papa Roach, Tenacious D, Dorothy, Floggin Molly, The Subways, Bush, Disturbed, Wolfmother, Guns and Roses, Scorpions, ZZ Top, Armand van Helden, Die Antwoord, Billy Idol, Fleetwood Mac, Ram Jam, Eagels of Death Metal, deadmau5, Foreigner, Daniel Norgen, The Weekend, Cari Cari, Shakira, Cher, Gaga, Rihanna, Michael, Prince
Meanwhile, I imagine the actual historians and scholars who study and teach of the classical world professionally rarely feel the need to drop lists like this.
Bare minimum for holding a conversation: Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy III, Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy V, Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VII Dirge of Cerberus, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy IX, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy X-2, Final Fantasy Tactics 2, Final Fantasy XI, Final Fantasy XII, Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy XIV, Final Fantasy XV, Final Fantasy XVI, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth
Bare minimum for holding a conversation: Obscure conspiracy theory websites and subreddits, Robert Monroe, Courtney Brown, David Icke, Aldous Hickey, Michael Palin, Steven Greer, John Lear, Richard C. Hoagland, and Linda Moulton Howe
I had a friend like this, too. I have a memory of him saying “uncultured swine” because I enjoyed Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and thought six hours of the Godfather sounded awful.
That was highschool, though. He turned around over the next few years; now we’re thirty and I happily see him every week because he’s our DM. I’m not saying you were wrong to stop talking to that dude, not at all you gotta set boundaries, just wanted to say that there is at least one example of growth!
I personally won't consider a man worthy of having a conversation with unless they know Bell Hooks, Angela Davis, Rosa Lichtenstein, Ursula K Le Guin, Octavia Butler and Judith Butler (token enby)
LeGuinn is such a good test for sci fi nerds. Oh you insist everyone must read Herbert, Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, etc, but you're not including her? Yeah the Left Hand of Darkness and the Dispossessed (and I'll throw in a rec for The Day Before the Revolution) are just as foundational and iconic.
Like, I'll concede Dune reads really good, but where LeGuinn doesn't feel quite so smooth from the start once everything is unfolding her brilliance shines through and you're left just thinking about what she's communicating. Hell, if I dated men I'd want them all to read left hand just for the feminist understanding of it. The Dispossessed remains one of the best pieces of political fiction written. And then the day before is such a powerful look into the mind of an old woman.
Fundamentally LeGuinn is one of the great sci fi authors of the 20th century and imo she's got better staying power than some of the others
Hopefully in 10 years, he will read this and cringe, although it sounds like he’s actively driving away people who think differently and would call him out on his bullshit to help him grow as a person, so maybe not.
I have an advanced degree. I don’t think I know/nor do I want to know everything. But I’m an expert in my field. Outside of that, I like to consume fluffy, shallow media. Because my work is very hard with high burnout and depression, I can’t be super serious all the time. So, I have stayed single after my marriage because it was always “you think you know everything” variants any time I engaged in logic. I don’t want to be run down by people who are supposed to care. I haven’t read classics that often because I simply find them way less interesting than watching JJK. So it’s like being trapped in this space of super serious or super aggrieved potential mates, and as I’m getting older…dying alone is my only sane option.
I get it to some extent.It is a very different experience to read literature that’s aimed at a well-read, educated cohort rather than a society with a 6th grade reading level. So if people like reading in that way it’s…fine. But making it a litmus test/personality is just a bit absurd. If that was the test I’m surely a fool.
Imagine doing this with any field other than humanities and you'll see how ridiculous it is.
Like are you talking to a cohort in your weirdo western canon circlejerk college program? Because otherwise you might have to be flexible about the where the conversation goes. And then you might actually learn something rather than just do keyword association bingo to "impress" your conversation partner with your incredible knowledge.
Compleete side track. I have met a lot of people with "advanced" degrees who were total idiots. Guy/girl/whatever, doesn't matter. And advanced degree means you have a peice of paper. And that just means you convinced a few people at so,e point that you knew something about a very specific topic "usually". I knew calculus at one point. I don't know any of it now.
Yeah, seriously, Melville is on that list. I haven't heard anyone who actually read Moby Dick in modern day say that most people should.
Tbh if someone can't discuss modern or less classical stories or philosophers well I take that as a sign that they don't have the intelligence/well reading to understand/analyze something without relying on other people's observations or to add their own thoughts to it.
I thought this attitude that the "classics" were what made you intelligent and worthy went out of fashion some time in the 50s... guess it still has its holdouts
No, it was what made you (classically) educated, not intelligent. And for people who don't really know each other it is easier to start the conversation if they have something in common. That's one of the reasons it used to be expected to have some education in this direction.
Also, the douchebag in the original picture wrote Cellini twice, so he is not even "intelligent" :)
The second one is the lesser known Bob Cellini from Poughkeepsie, who had a poignant bathroom wall writing style.
A guy asked me one time if I thought I was smarter/better educated than the classically educated American founding fathers, and I was like, "You mean the guys who didn't know about dinosaurs or plate tectonics?" Also they thought they'd finish making the government at some point and then just never did, which we've been dealing with for a long time now. So yeah, those guys weren't idiots, but let's not pretend they were special.
Western classicly educated. Which isn't great as it starts from the false premise that 'i think therefore I am' when eastern classics have it the other way round.
Some people also believe that world is a flat disk that rests on the back of four giant elephants which stand on the shell of a giant turtle. ;-)
"Abundance of knowledge does not teach men to be wise/intelligent", wrote Heraclitus ~2500 years ago. Even then people knew that distinction. Even then ignorant people thought themselves wise or intelligent because they had education, because why otherwise would the philosophers mention that :)
Most of those topics were taught/mentioned in highschool. Does he want a freshly graduated person - bc no way anyone who is not in humanities would retain it long term....
I do wonder sometimes why most of the history nerds I know are men. Not that I know no female history nerds at all, but men appear to be more drawn to history, or more encouraged to be casually interested?
I'm not sure, this could be all exclusively anecdotal and the actual numbers may not reflect my experience.
Most of the male history nerds, especially the ones who are dicks about it, are into war history. Talk to women who are into history and they’re out there building historical recreations of clothes, making historical food(there are some men doing great here, too), talking about niche histories of human rights, and all manner of crafts.
Most importantly, the history men learn is called “history” and the history women learned is called “traditional techniques” or “neat little facts” or basically anything that tries to not count it in the same way. They “don’t know history” and their “traditional techniques” are considered to be just crafting hobbies.
Thank you for writing the comment for me so I didn't have to. Every history nerd I know in my life is a woman except one. The women know all sorts of interesting contextual things ,the origins of traditions, crafts, foods, the local area, and social development. The guy I know knows all about wars and battles amongst other classic History things. Both are valid and count!
I think there is likely a more even gender distribution of history nerds who are truly interested in history when it comes to topics outside of politics and military. A lot of men tend to use it for ego stroking and fantasizing about being the great men of history, while there is no similar avenue for women in that regard.
Exactly this. You'll notice that some men like this only know history from a certain racial or geographical background so it's not so much a general interest in history as it is feeling great vicariously through a historical figure.
oh! That is such a great point! To be fair, a lot of the male history nerds I know use it for practical purposes like writing TTRPGs, which were predominantly played by guys for a long time, but I feel like even that is evening out gender-wise lately as they grow in popularity.
That being said, I have definitely seen examples of the fantasizing and ego-stroking on the internet.
in fact, now that you mention it, I do know a fair few of women with a very deep interest in philosophy, and you can't exactly get deep into philosophy without historical context, ergo, female history nerds. Women are also a lot more interested in history when they are represented, and I don't think I need to soapbox to you about the lack of feminine representation in history texts.
Anecdotally, I've noticed the same thing, but I think it might have something to do with the type of gatekeeping and "well akshually" apparent in the original post.
But if your entire identity is wrapped up in your career subject or an exceedingly narrow slice of reality or a stereotypical commonality that even comedians joke about, imma gonna judge you something bad.
It is vitally important to be well-experienced, to have encountered variety and complexity in one form or another. To have travelled and meant people all over, or taken up hobbies that are hilariously distant from your daily grind, or to have plumbed the depths of literature, or any number of horizon-broadening activities.
Even something as simple as taking up handyman duties around the house, instead of calling companies to handle exceedingly basic tasks, is an improvement.
In a date, people get to know one-another more intimately through discussion of their interests and beliefs - better than they can through brief social encounters that may have led to the date.
137 replies
So if I ever meet people like them I just hit them with the Shakespeare didn't write his own plays conspiracy. There is absolutely no evidence to any of it but if you double down on it these idiots go absolutely bonkers.
I'm a woman with a STEM PhD, and several of the guys I've dated have decided to prove they are smart enough to date me by looking up my publications from grad school (20 years ago now), reading them, and then trying to impress me by trying to poke holes in them or otherwise making me defend them on the spot.
That tactic is now an instant method to get me to end contact. It betrays a deep insecurity with my having expertise greater than theirs on any topic, even ones I have decades of work in. No Jimmy, you can't become my peer by reading a few papers. I don't think you are dumb, but I'm not spending time with you to massage your ego about your insecurity. Byyyye
That's so sweet! It's nice when people make efforts to engage with your interests
...nevermind.
This is the most toxic male behavior ever. It has all the hallmarks - arrogance, insecurity, and enough 'subtly' to seem 'ok' at first, only for it to be turned into something terrible
What the hell is with that level of insecurity. My wife is smarter than me, it was pretty clear pretty quick, most people realize she's smarter than them within a few hours of conversation. If you can't handle dating someone smart you desperately need to get the fuck over yourself. But also you can just leave! Or find a constructive way to deal with those feelings! Sigh.
Like I get insecurity about academics, my life in early adulthood was rough and resulted in me leaving after my undergrad instead of staying to the minimum of a masters degree that was expected of me. But I can't fucking imagine trying to deal with that by attempting to poke holes in a partner's achievements.
Some guys are so sexist that a woman knowing more than them about any subject gives them a ton of insecurity, because it makes them feel like they're losing to an "inferior". That's basically the whole explanation.
It's shit like that that's among the reasons I'm grateful to be gay. I'm sorry for all the women who have to put up with that
Some people mistake knowledge for intelligence
many also mistake arrogance for confidence
Almost everyone mistakes sharts for farts
Might be time to take a look at your diet.
Maybe if I always mistook farts for sharts. It’s pretty forgivable to occasionally in your lifetime do the opposite, especially when you’re old old.
Don't take risks you can't manage imo
Best line (quote?) I've read in a while. Well done sir.
👆
Oh come on, a dude who makes this post definitely has not bothered to read any of the above.
A person can be highly inteligent and still be clueless for human interaction. But being well spoken, well read, attentative and polite usually indicates someone is well adjusted towards others.
There's different areas of intelligence. Having high intelligence in math and logic doesn't necessarily mean you have social intelligence
Cellini so important that it's listed twice.
Cellini so important I never heard of it in my life.
Pathetic. I don't even talk to people who haven't read Cellini's complete works at least thrice.
Only thrice! Percieve the barbarian. Ho ho ho.
I just looked the name up in Wikipedia and found a sculptor with that name. Wild story, talented artist though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benvenuto_Cellini
The Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4028
Now I am honor-bound to read this. I'll let you know how it goes. Thanks!
Oh! He's the one that did the Perseus sculpture that gave me nightmares when I was six. That's neat.
Maybe, it's his reminder to drink some Grappa while reading.
Bare minimum for holding a conversation: don't be like this guy
My guy hasn't even read his own list.
I'm sorry do we have medieval Italian political satirists on the table for basic conversion? the crazy thing is, I've read books by all the individuals mentioned, and most of it is very old, and very specific to it's time, and largely entertainment. this is like someone 500 years from now saying they can't hold a conversation with someone if they don't have a deep familiaity with the deeper meanings of The Simpsons and Family Guy and how they impacted society.
You wrote Cellini twice, idiot.
That's a literary technique called "anaphora", or in layman terms, "repeating shit", it's a highly advanced technique used to emphasize the importance of something, his use of it is actually a demonstration of how much of a big brain smart boy he is
/j
We like Cellini.
Charming...
Maybe it's like Dumas...
Bare minimum to enjoy a beer around a campfire: ACDC, Rolling Stones, Lynyrd Skynyrd, White Stripes, Dire Straits, Genesis, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Kenny Loggings, Gorillaz, Jefferson Airplane, The Animals, Bon Jovi, R.E.M, Bonnie Tyler, Eminem, 50, System of a Down, Rage against the Machine, Rob Zombie, Nirvana, Papa Roach, Tenacious D, Dorothy, Floggin Molly, The Subways, Bush, Disturbed, Wolfmother, Guns and Roses, Scorpions, ZZ Top, Armand van Helden, Die Antwoord, Billy Idol, Fleetwood Mac, Ram Jam, Eagels of Death Metal, deadmau5, Foreigner, Daniel Norgen, The Weekend, Cari Cari, Shakira, Cher, Gaga, Rihanna, Michael, Prince
Name 5 songs
thunderstruck, thunderstruck, thunderstruck, thunderstruck, thunderstruck
Thunderstruck?
Twinkle twinkle little star
Itsy bitsy spider
Mary had a little lamb
Jack and Jill
Row, row, row your boat
black betty
amber lamps.
hopital
How did Hendrix and The Hu not make the list?
no Phish?!? check out billy breathes sometime great campfire album.
Meanwhile, I imagine the actual historians and scholars who study and teach of the classical world professionally rarely feel the need to drop lists like this.
Real historians will be busy out-drinking you
"Not this shit again"
They probably have more insightful conversations avoiding these specific *phers.
"Guy who keeps a Rubiks cube in a display stand on his desk at work so he can explain it's not that hard to solve them" energy.
“I know, I just taught my niece how to solve one. She’s so smart they’re letting her skip kindergarten!”
Bare minimum for holding a conversation: Cézanne, Renoire, Rembrandt, van Eyck, David, Vermeer, Fragonard, Turner, Courbet, Matisse, Kahlo, Picasso, Basquiat, Richter
hey look, i can gatekeep my special interest, too! 🤦
No van Gogh? Fucking casual.
/s
Bare minimum for holding a conversation: Scott, Palmer, Malone, Hudson, Martinez, Martin, Howard, Kapoor, Bratton, Lapin-Vance, Bernard, Lewis, Hannon, Philbin, Halpert, Beesly, Schrute
It’s kind of fun in an ironic meme way!
Bare minimum for holding a conversation: Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy III, Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy V, Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VII Dirge of Cerberus, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy IX, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy X-2, Final Fantasy Tactics 2, Final Fantasy XI, Final Fantasy XII, Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy XIV, Final Fantasy XV, Final Fantasy XVI, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth
Dirge of Cerberus was very underrated.
Bare minimum for holding a conversation: Obscure conspiracy theory websites and subreddits, Robert Monroe, Courtney Brown, David Icke, Aldous Hickey, Michael Palin, Steven Greer, John Lear, Richard C. Hoagland, and Linda Moulton Howe
Also you must be able to quote at length from the original Time Cube by memory.
Buttons. Keeps the saliva moving.
Edit: Sorry, that was just "Cube." Still counts.
Censoring the slurs or no?
Big Dictionary Energy
Intelligence is hot, arrogance is not
I used to have a friend like this. He was always acting like a condescending prick to everyone for not knowing as much about his favorite books.
I don't talk to him any more.
I had a friend like this, too. I have a memory of him saying “uncultured swine” because I enjoyed Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and thought six hours of the Godfather sounded awful.
That was highschool, though. He turned around over the next few years; now we’re thirty and I happily see him every week because he’s our DM. I’m not saying you were wrong to stop talking to that dude, not at all you gotta set boundaries, just wanted to say that there is at least one example of growth!
That hits very close to home.
Unfortunately my friendship with said person ended up blowing up, because he had never had that period of self reflection and course correction.
I'm glad it worked out for you and your friend though.
Wild that hitchikers guide would be considered uncultured
Minimum women authors/thinkers required to be familiar with: 0.
No that's the maximum
And yet so many : Jane Austen
Agatha Christie
Countess of Ségur
...
I personally won't consider a man worthy of having a conversation with unless they know Bell Hooks, Angela Davis, Rosa Lichtenstein, Ursula K Le Guin, Octavia Butler and Judith Butler (token enby)
LeGuinn is such a good test for sci fi nerds. Oh you insist everyone must read Herbert, Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, etc, but you're not including her? Yeah the Left Hand of Darkness and the Dispossessed (and I'll throw in a rec for The Day Before the Revolution) are just as foundational and iconic.
Like, I'll concede Dune reads really good, but where LeGuinn doesn't feel quite so smooth from the start once everything is unfolding her brilliance shines through and you're left just thinking about what she's communicating. Hell, if I dated men I'd want them all to read left hand just for the feminist understanding of it. The Dispossessed remains one of the best pieces of political fiction written. And then the day before is such a powerful look into the mind of an old woman.
Fundamentally LeGuinn is one of the great sci fi authors of the 20th century and imo she's got better staying power than some of the others
Margret Atwood
Why Cellini twice? Also, this guy sounds like a real douche canoe
Cellini underwent mitosisini.
Hopefully in 10 years, he will read this and cringe, although it sounds like he’s actively driving away people who think differently and would call him out on his bullshit to help him grow as a person, so maybe not.
Cool for him that he has a special interest
Making lists
Cellining it twice
I have an advanced degree. I don’t think I know/nor do I want to know everything. But I’m an expert in my field. Outside of that, I like to consume fluffy, shallow media. Because my work is very hard with high burnout and depression, I can’t be super serious all the time. So, I have stayed single after my marriage because it was always “you think you know everything” variants any time I engaged in logic. I don’t want to be run down by people who are supposed to care. I haven’t read classics that often because I simply find them way less interesting than watching JJK. So it’s like being trapped in this space of super serious or super aggrieved potential mates, and as I’m getting older…dying alone is my only sane option.
Man, I don't get people's obsession with classics. I've tried them and outside of a bit of Mark Twain, I just haven't enjoyed them.
I get it to some extent.It is a very different experience to read literature that’s aimed at a well-read, educated cohort rather than a society with a 6th grade reading level. So if people like reading in that way it’s…fine. But making it a litmus test/personality is just a bit absurd. If that was the test I’m surely a fool.
Omg I feel that.
It's edumacated, not edumacted. Get it rite!
Imagine doing this with any field other than humanities and you'll see how ridiculous it is.
Like are you talking to a cohort in your weirdo western canon circlejerk college program? Because otherwise you might have to be flexible about the where the conversation goes. And then you might actually learn something rather than just do keyword association bingo to "impress" your conversation partner with your incredible knowledge.
Compleete side track. I have met a lot of people with "advanced" degrees who were total idiots. Guy/girl/whatever, doesn't matter. And advanced degree means you have a peice of paper. And that just means you convinced a few people at so,e point that you knew something about a very specific topic "usually". I knew calculus at one point. I don't know any of it now.
Dude looked up "famous old authors" and started listing his search results.
A great example of someone that can't have a conversation is someone that thinks those are deciding factors.
Yeah, seriously, Melville is on that list. I haven't heard anyone who actually read Moby Dick in modern day say that most people should.
Tbh if someone can't discuss modern or less classical stories or philosophers well I take that as a sign that they don't have the intelligence/well reading to understand/analyze something without relying on other people's observations or to add their own thoughts to it.
sounds about white
I meet none of those criteria and I actually wish that would stop these people from talking at me.
I thought this attitude that the "classics" were what made you intelligent and worthy went out of fashion some time in the 50s... guess it still has its holdouts
No, it was what made you (classically) educated, not intelligent. And for people who don't really know each other it is easier to start the conversation if they have something in common. That's one of the reasons it used to be expected to have some education in this direction.
Also, the douchebag in the original picture wrote Cellini twice, so he is not even "intelligent" :)
The second one is the lesser known Bob Cellini from Poughkeepsie, who had a poignant bathroom wall writing style.
A guy asked me one time if I thought I was smarter/better educated than the classically educated American founding fathers, and I was like, "You mean the guys who didn't know about dinosaurs or plate tectonics?" Also they thought they'd finish making the government at some point and then just never did, which we've been dealing with for a long time now. So yeah, those guys weren't idiots, but let's not pretend they were special.
Those peole remind me of the line from it's always sunny:
“The government of today has no business telling us how to live our lives because the government of 200 years ago already did.”
It's said by a creep who you'd never leave a kid around giving it's got some extra contextual fit.
isn't he the guy that first scrawled the classic:
here i sit,
broken hearted.
tried to shit,
but only farted
Western classicly educated. Which isn't great as it starts from the false premise that 'i think therefore I am' when eastern classics have it the other way round.
I am, therefore I think.
How does "I am therefore I think" work? Rocks are. Water is.
The amness comes before the delusion and illusion of thought that i think causes.
Evolutionarily and subjectively.
I can tell you're not "western" classically educated, because if you were, you'd add "I know that I know nothing" ;-)
I is an illusion ;)
The bright mirror has no stand? :)
I'm wise enough to know that Socrates knew nothing
But there was a belief that demonstrating that education did correspond to intelligence! I'm not saying it's accurate!
Some people also believe that world is a flat disk that rests on the back of four giant elephants which stand on the shell of a giant turtle. ;-)
"Abundance of knowledge does not teach men to be wise/intelligent", wrote Heraclitus ~2500 years ago. Even then people knew that distinction. Even then ignorant people thought themselves wise or intelligent because they had education, because why otherwise would the philosophers mention that :)
Most of those topics were taught/mentioned in highschool. Does he want a freshly graduated person - bc no way anyone who is not in humanities would retain it long term....
I do wonder sometimes why most of the history nerds I know are men. Not that I know no female history nerds at all, but men appear to be more drawn to history, or more encouraged to be casually interested?
I'm not sure, this could be all exclusively anecdotal and the actual numbers may not reflect my experience.
Most of the male history nerds, especially the ones who are dicks about it, are into war history. Talk to women who are into history and they’re out there building historical recreations of clothes, making historical food(there are some men doing great here, too), talking about niche histories of human rights, and all manner of crafts.
Most importantly, the history men learn is called “history” and the history women learned is called “traditional techniques” or “neat little facts” or basically anything that tries to not count it in the same way. They “don’t know history” and their “traditional techniques” are considered to be just crafting hobbies.
Thank you for writing the comment for me so I didn't have to. Every history nerd I know in my life is a woman except one. The women know all sorts of interesting contextual things ,the origins of traditions, crafts, foods, the local area, and social development. The guy I know knows all about wars and battles amongst other classic History things. Both are valid and count!
I think there is likely a more even gender distribution of history nerds who are truly interested in history when it comes to topics outside of politics and military. A lot of men tend to use it for ego stroking and fantasizing about being the great men of history, while there is no similar avenue for women in that regard.
Exactly this. You'll notice that some men like this only know history from a certain racial or geographical background so it's not so much a general interest in history as it is feeling great vicariously through a historical figure.
oh! That is such a great point! To be fair, a lot of the male history nerds I know use it for practical purposes like writing TTRPGs, which were predominantly played by guys for a long time, but I feel like even that is evening out gender-wise lately as they grow in popularity.
That being said, I have definitely seen examples of the fantasizing and ego-stroking on the internet.
in fact, now that you mention it, I do know a fair few of women with a very deep interest in philosophy, and you can't exactly get deep into philosophy without historical context, ergo, female history nerds. Women are also a lot more interested in history when they are represented, and I don't think I need to soapbox to you about the lack of feminine representation in history texts.
Anecdotally, I've noticed the same thing, but I think it might have something to do with the type of gatekeeping and "well akshually" apparent in the original post.
Surely at least one of these people created something about not being a pretentious asshole?
I'm pretty sure this guy learned nothing from them.
This is the douche character in Good Will Hunting.
Hegel is too mainstream for this one, straight to fucking Holderin.
If there is no "Dick and Jane" school primer on the list then that guy is a posturing phony!
[citation needed]
Bare minimum familiarity with these to go out dancing. Fosse, Graham, Morris, Ailey, Brown.
Ugh these guys were always douches
Bare minimum to hold a campire singalong: Old Macdonald, Wheels on the Bus, the Alphabet Song (optional)
I see "Blake" in the list and my first thought is "Blake Lively"
"dante". ya, cool. when's the prime coming out?
Bartender! I'll take what they thought!
pipe alert
I don’t care what you focus on, as a person.
But if your entire identity is wrapped up in your career subject or an exceedingly narrow slice of reality or a stereotypical commonality that even comedians joke about, imma gonna judge you something bad.
It is vitally important to be well-experienced, to have encountered variety and complexity in one form or another. To have travelled and meant people all over, or taken up hobbies that are hilariously distant from your daily grind, or to have plumbed the depths of literature, or any number of horizon-broadening activities.
Even something as simple as taking up handyman duties around the house, instead of calling companies to handle exceedingly basic tasks, is an improvement.
Why did they date him in the first place?
In a date, people get to know one-another more intimately through discussion of their interests and beliefs - better than they can through brief social encounters that may have led to the date.
Fair, I took "date" to mean "be in a relationship with"
He may be have plenty of knowledge but for sure he's not smart
Neither is she. He clearly turned her down first, so I don't see any reason for her to explain her case at all.
Uhh, that list is too short and too limited but yes anyone who claims to have an advanced degree ought to have a liberal arts education.
Provisionally agree.
Advanced degrees are for focused expertise far beyond the norm.
Liberal arts education is for that cognitive foundation that massively increases intellectual effectiveness across the entire spectrum.
He sure gets around.
Every woman she knows with a degree dated/met the same guy? Small world.
Tf is "woman with advanced degrees"
I'm assuming masters and doctorate
I assume a PhD or maybe even a bachelor's in something other than psychology.