AIBU to leave DP because he's not very bright

[williaminajetfighter]

It's brutal I know but I just don't think I can stay with DP any longer because I find him quite ignorant and not very bright, and it is causing huge problems in our relationship and communication.

I know DP had a pretty poor education, left school at 15 and so is lacking in traditional educational knowledge. Grammar, spelling are very poor as is his general knowledge of maths, literature etc. His parents did nothing to foster a love of learning.

But then there is 'learned knowledge' since then and he isn't intellectually curious, hasn't really picked up a book since school, barely reads a paper (except the Metro) and thus has a fairly limited worldview. He actually shows disdain for knowledge, IYSWIM.

Finally I just don't think he's very sharp so he doesn't pick things up quickly.

It sounds incredibly mean when I write it all down but it causes huge problems on an everyday basis. For instance things I've faced this weekend in our conversations:

(a) I tried to talk to him about politics but the conversation blew up because he's so uninformed and got angry when I used the word 'libertarian' (really);
(b) I tried to have a conversation with him about household finances (which I lead) but he hates numbers and got cross;

(c) I tried to have a conversation with him about some elements of childcare such as more natural ways of dealing with baby eczema or limiting paracetemol but he thinks whatever I read is nonsense because all parenting should be 'assumed' and
(d) I tried to talk to him about about being a vegetarian and having veggie-only nights for the children but he scoffs at me because he's read nothing about the merits of vegetarianism.

These are just a few things I dealt with over the weekend and a reflection of my day to day. The other day I made a reference to Pip from Great Expectations - a pretty well known tome - and he just looked at me blankly. It sounds trite but it's pretty wearing.

When we got together I found him 'light and fun' and the years after were heavily 'operational' focusing on getting a house and having young children. Now that time has passed and we have more time for each other I am finding that we are just not a meeting of the minds and his ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity is really offputting. I would like to grow older with someone who I can have engaging conversations with and although he is a fine father and a supportive partner who has never cheated and is really loyal, I just don't think I can be with him.

It sounds so harsh but AIBU? Has anyone else experienced this? From his POV I suppose it's not really fair to stay with him if I think he's not bright!

Dp is incredibly bright. He is however, deeply lacking in practical skills and has more than the occasional common sense bypass. This infuriates me no end, but at least we can buy in skilled help to get things fixed around the home. I'll take bright but daft over skilled but lacking in interesting conversation.

I am in no way implying the two are mutually exclusive, by the way, but if you have a dp who combines the 2, I'm bloody jealous

Still think it's his attitude that stinks rather then his intelligence. With the great expectations thing for example, he could have been extremely interested in the similarity of the situations despite not knowing the story. I'm sure you don't need someone who has exactly the same knowledge as you but you do need someone has vaguely similar values and is interested

My brother is the opposite of this. Super intelligent to the point his brain isolates himself from people. If it's not about molecules, he can't relate. He doesn't have much compassion or humour, doesn't cope with the kids on his own, couldn't put up a shelf, doesn't lift a finger with house work because he doesn't see what needs doing.

steam there's not interested in politics as in not too interested in the current position regarding fishing policies and not interested as in can't even name the chancellor.

Not being interested in politics that affect us all day to day, means not being interested in life. Surely?

Why would anyone want to be married to someone who doesn't care about the economy, the environment, the education system? If we have a children surely these are things that should matter deeply?

He has an interest in Imperial Japan and pre-WW1 Europe. I made the mistake of introducing him to a history graduate. Won't do that again! I found out he does not differentiate between a GCSE and PHD in History; the PHD just requires more BS. He regards all humanities as hobbies/jokes and History esp. as nothing more than an individual view or opinion - he does have a point.

Absolutely hereandtherex. History doesn't involve anything at all that could be considered as factual, it's all just individual views. Dates of certain historical events, for example, are not a thing. At all. The point at which Britain formally declared war on Germany in 1939, for example, is merely a matter of opinion. As is which king came after Henry VII.

Alternatively, your husband should probably just stick to what he's good at.

Many years ago I split with someone for this very reason, he was a lovely guy but I couldn't talk about anything like politics, literature anything that didn't involve soaps or rugby for that matter. It had to be done, even though it was difficult at the time.

Had to Google STEM. I got an open exhibition to Oxbridge, have several degrees, two a "higher" level.

And all in STEM

No hope for me!

LadyTurd - you're the type of person I have to keep DH away from at parties.

What you are describing are events not history. Events are a factual occurrences; history is the interpretation of the hows + whys of events and the people involved.

DH is OK wit historical events - just print them out, and say which country/side/perspective you are from.

History depends on which side the historian is on. DH is part Russian, who see events such as WWII in a totally different way to the UK/West.

Look, the history of WWI is still being updated 100 years on.

As far as exams and degrees in History go, passing is a matter of second guessing what the examiner thinks is correct. DH deals will hard, proven proofs rather than second guessing some unemployable, cardi wearing idiot (His words).

Right, so what you are saying is that their are facts and, separately, theories about them. And the background of the person observing/studying can influence their perception of the theories?

So, not like science then? Suggest your dh delves into the history and philosophy of science a bit cause he sounds pretty ignorant.

No, nothing like science.

Science is revised as the tools + techniques are updated.

DH leans more to pure maths.

I was one of those children who was clever at school, did a very academic degree and mainly socialised with colleagues. I had a few rebellious years where I went out with completely different men who at the time I thought were more interesting and broad-minded, lack of formal qualifications notwithstanding. And to be fair, some were interesting and quick and funny. However, most just didn't "get" me, said I talked too quickly and didn't really like to chat about day to day stuff. For me, it's not necessarily about being able to talk about specific topics but being able to share observations and to understand day-to-day inferences without having to tone things down. Eventually I did marry someone clever and we're very happy.

FWIW I was friends once with an A and E doctor who was in love with a woman who was not very clever and he AGONISED over how much it would bother him. He was pretty bright but reasoned that he could have work for intellectual stimulation and keep things simpler at home. In the end though he ended up with a feisty, razor-sharp lawyer; it was the idea of having kids with someone pleasant but dim that tipped the balance.

Totally like science. Science is revised as tools and techniques are updated but also as societal ideas and opinions are updated. What is examined and observed changes through time due to 'fashions' and wider societal pressures. The way findings are explained also changes over time - and part of that is in response to who is doing the explaining and what they believe.

When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution he met huge resistance - because his theories didn't 'fit' with the umwaltschatz of the day.

In the 1960s, when the theory of plate tectonics was first proposed, it was widely derided. 10 years later it was completely accepted.

Get into particle physics and this sort of thing happens a lot. It's not just what you observe that makes people listen to you but who you are and what you are saying.

People do science, not machines. And scientists are as partial and prejudiced as anyone.

Barbarian totally agree with you, here your husband does indeed sound like someone to avoid at parties, because they want to go around displaying their cleverness and superior knowledge (which he may indeed have) rather than helping people have a nice time, showing interest in them. My husband can be a tiny bit like that, but more through his passion for his subject which can cause others to glaze over.

This demonstrates there is more than one type of intelligence, however, OP, it doesn't sound like you think your husband has ANY type of intelligence you value (e.g. being fantastically social and welcoming, kinetically good, a great engineer). You also say he's not attractive or funny.

Obviously for a reason we can't guess at you have attached yourself to someone you don't really like or indeed get on with on a day to day basis or really fancy or make you laugh. This does happen- I am not sure what you can do other than split because you do seem to despise/dislike him and I think once you get to that stage, it's very destructive for everyone. It also sounds like you could both be happy with other people, so this might be the best option.

He isn't going to get more intelligent, that's for sure.

I think hereandthere may have been sharing the observation that science tends to be proven in a different way to history - the academic approach is very different.

You get the same thing in my field - law. Its technically regarded as a social science, but there is a more scientific approach to it (which often has a practical application, e.g. in competition law there are various formulae for working out market saturation, market dominance, SNIPP tests, etc.) and a more arts based approach - very jurisprudential topics tend to fall within this.

Its an important distinction, because in practice, there is little scope for being too jurisprudential in scope and you need to follow established norms and evidential procedures.

But honestly OP, are you sure what you're trying to discuss is interesting? I'm a vegetarian, but I tend to clam up if I cannot run away from a vegi fanatic - its just so boring. And after a day at work, during which I often have to talk a lot, I just like to chill and relax. That said, DH is a maths person but will have a good discussion about a lot of topics, but I think we agree on what is dreadfully boring and impractical - probably both quite practical people.

I guess what I'm saying is that I find great claims to superior intelligence a bit meaningless unless it has a practical application e.g. if it results in a well paid job. Some of the worst people I've known for this (and I've had to deal with a recent example at work doing an unpaid internship) have little history of professional level employment, but are simply very good at finding fault in others.

But I do think that if this had been a thread about a man complaining about his DW, and described her as not being very bright, he would have been torn to death. At best, he would have been told to appreciate the things she brings to the relationship, and maybe told that she had never had the opportunities he had benefitted from to develop her intelligence, particularly if she were a SAHM.

I would tend to agree with you TheChandler and I was having this conversation with my DH just yesterday. There are many super-intelligent people about who have the most appalling inter-personal skills, no idea how to manage people in the workplace, no empathy, not a creative bone in their body, they are not very verbally articulate, they can't be flexible or versatile, they have no vision and sometimes they can come across as either very smug and arrogant or like social cripples.

Being super-intelligent is great if it's paired with other skills, the world's your oyster then, but on its own and of itself its nothing more than a useless party trick.

Though there are very intelligent people who would still have given you the same replies to all of your examples ... but perhaps given you a harder time if for example they had a degree in politics but voted differently, were a HCP and had no truck with limiting paracetamol or vegetarianism. Rather than getting angry or ending the conversation they might end up with you being the frustrated one.
Would you be able to handle that?

Because to me it doesn't sound as much like an intelligence problem as a completely different opinion/outlook problem.

Do not fall into the middle class trap error of assuming IF people are clever they think just like you!!

But the world needs these freakishly bright (but often socially limited) people. It does seem that some people with truly phenomenal maths and science abilities do seem to have more social difficulties than others. Without descending into pseudoscience maybe that "kind" of brain is more likely to be associated with some high functioning autistic traits. But it's these people who are often at the forefront of scientific research. True, they've possibly got a wife or husband at home who's helping them function in the real world but it's unfair to belittle their accomplishments just because they're odd.

Though that's different from the ranty bores who just think they're brilliant and could've done ever so well in life if it wasn't for...

TheChandler

It was the examples the OP provided of her comments that you dubbed 'pseudo intellectual' - not specifically the fact that she called him 'not very bright' for not wanting to discuss them:

your examples are all liberal, wooly minded pseudo-intellectual type comments that anyone of a more practical nature would find possibly rather irritating

You seem to interpret the OP's attempts to discuss standard parenting issues such as Calpol, eczema and household finances as an attempt to make her seem more intellectual than she is. That is bizarre in itself, but added to the suggestion that the OP needs degrees in mundane aspects of family life in order to discuss them legitimately is even more peculiar.

The phrase 'pseudo-intellectual' is one you generally hear from people who are intellectually insecure. Rarely is it apt, and certainly not in this instance as per the evidence from the OP.

I probably am the type of person you have to keep your DH away from at parties hereandthereex, though that's a shame for him as a chat with me would do him a lot of good. You too, by the sounds of things. I do hope for your sake he didn't communicate his views to the doctoral level historian you met though, he'll have shown himself up dreadfully.

You, and apparently him, make the fatal mistake of assuming that everything that has happened in the past is a matter of opinion, or that one view is automatically as valid as another, and this is simply not the case. That's a stage a lot of humanities students go through in sixth form, but you usually get pretty short shrift if you can't manage anything more sophisticated than that by degree level. The distinction you make about history and events is a flawed one. The history of WW1 is indeed still being discovered, debated and re-interpreted and is likely to continue being so for a long time, but that absolutely, unequivocally and without question doesn't mean there are no facts. The date the armistice formally occurred is not a matter of opinion, the causes of it and the impact it had to some extent are. Also, you clearly haven't attempted to pass any higher level history exams, certainly not using the approach you outline. Do yourself a favour and don't.

I'm a lawyer too TheChandler. Law is indeed similar to history in that respect, in that there are some things that are a matter of opinion and some that just aren't. Can't speak for the study of law as an academic subject though, as I only did the GDL, so I come from a practice-based perspective. And I always think it's best to refrain from pontificating about academic disciplines one knows sod all about, so I'll take your word for it.

.

back in a bit x

I totally agree Coffee

And it's not just scientists and mathematicians, the same can be true of artistic, literary, musical geniuses etc

Great musicians or composers, for example, may be absorbed in developing their art from a very young age. Practicing is a solitary activity thus they may spend less time interacting with their peers.

I find the idea that high intelligence needs to be validated by practical applications or high pay - naïve and philistine, and disregards many of the greatest geniuses across all subjects in history.

Hereandtheex So someone with just a Masters thinks he knows more than, say, a Cambridge PHD in History?
Not snobby. Deluded and pompous in the same way as a kid who just passed their Physics A level and thinks they're cleverer than all the bio kids and teachers ... and possibly one day to have his arse handed to him in discussion (but then again, if he can write off losing an argument as it just being the other person's opinion he might not realise...).

Out of interest, can he engage with high level discussions about scientific and financial ethics? Or is that considered flim flam too?

Sorry to hear your friends couldn't get jobs. Perhaps they just went to the wrong university or couldn't make tge cut. And yes, I am being a snob there. Most graduate employers welcome humanities graduates but they need a high 2:1 from a good university.

Twinklestein You seem to interpret the OP's attempts to discuss standard parenting issues such as Calpol, eczema and household finances as an attempt to make her seem more intellectual than she is.

Why is that bizarre? It seems quite a logical interpretation. In your opinion it might be bizarre, but that is hardly evidence that it is bizarre.

Or to put it more colloquially, since you have shown prior signs of objecting to logic-based conclusions - someone forcefully shoving opinions down your throat that are based on their personal opinion, who has little discursive skill, is likely to turn people off.

The phrase 'pseudo-intellectual' is one you generally hear from people who are intellectually insecure.

Fascinating. Again, why are you sharing this observation? Presumably you aim to make me feel insecure, and examine my own failings, but you haven't said anything clever enough to make that likely. I think you are possibly obsessing a little over extrapolating a hidden meaning from the phrase "pseudo-intellectual" - I used it to mean a fake, over-assessment of a person's own intelligence, in the absence of publication of academic articles (I have been published, and don't suffer from the insecurity you profess). I'm not saying that you have to publish academic articles in order to be intellectual (before you go off on a tangent on that one), simply that there is little use in practice for the unemployed self-appointed genius.

The OP seems to be in employment, and it doesn't apply to her. I think she has mentioned that she works in the education sector, so is it a possibility that she is used to teaching/preaching/lecturing and having a captive audience, and her DH has zoned out?

What about superior intelligence that results in a poorly paid but arguably valuable in other ways job TheChandler? I'm in social welfare law, as is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met (he did a history doctorate, as it happens!) He gets paid peanuts, as we all do in this line of work, but is nationally renowned in the field, spends all his time doing what he loves and makes what he considers to be a positive difference to society and people's lives. Does that mean his intelligence is meaningless, or do those things count as practical application? I hope so, because otherwise I'm wasting mine too!