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!

LadyCatherine unfortunately hereandthere seems quite proud of her husband's shortcomings.

For some reason I find this thread really distasteful. If the sexes were reverse what would people say? A man sneering at his wife because she didn't understand the word 'libertarian' etc. etc. You sound a complete bore OP. Both DP and I are graduates but if I started talking to him about the poetry of Baudelaire, he might tell me to STFU (jokingly) because he wanted to watch the football. My husband is an avid reader of military history books but we don't discuss them in depth. Your poor DP.

Twinklestein 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.

So do I - I do think that the greatest geniuses that you mention are known because they have done something of equivalent noteworthiness to make their reputations. Obviously I didn't mean that Confucius should have been a practising barrister! But in the modern era, intelligent people do tend to make themselves known to the world at large by having good jobs, writing books or articles, running successful businesses, and so on.

If I could make an observation, which is intended to be helpful and not denigrating, you need far more attention to detail, particularly if you are going to rewrite your own opinion of what you think people mean.

It did rather seem that way didn't it downwith. Perhaps for the best though, then she won't have to feel any shame at him boorishly flaunting his ignorance.

LadyCatherine and thechandler I'm a law widow wife. Fascinating how men always assume I'm less educated than DH and earn less.

He's a Criminal Barrister ... so self proclaims "5 years training yo decide who hit who with a bottle" ... my job sounds lower status but I'm pretty darn high up and out earn him. I've gathered a few bits of paper (STEM, arts and social science) along the way.

He is more than willing to admit I'm a bit of a brainiac. I still surprise him too ... lately it's been with my knowledge of both Marvel and DC comics ... well come on, I'm a geek!?!

I'm sorry, being good at maths does not excuse one from being kind to people.

My social group contains a lot of freakishly bright pure mathematicians. Got the PhD and in some cases the fellowship.

Guess what? Just like every other set of human beings, they vary from the most lovely, kind, thoughtful people you could ever meet to complete dicks.

The dicks never seem to have moved on from a school culture where getting high marks in exams was a measure of your value as a human being.

Amusingly, as pure mathmos they'd all intellectually view mere scientists like hereandthere's DH as empirical and lacking in rigour. But the only the dicks would go up to him at a party and explain he's inferior.

LadyCatherine 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!

Well, theres a lot of clever people about. While your friend might be incredibly bright, unless there is a practical application for that intelligence, its unlikely, in a competitive world, to result in a high salary. I think what was said upthread about high intelligence being combined with another talent that makes it useful is highly prescient. But if your friend is a lawyer, or working in a professional field, then I would say that is proof of their intelligence. Rather different from someone who is unemployed, but googles articles on the internet, or similar. Incidentally, I was always told that doing a doctorate if you wanted a good career in law was sometimes regarded as a black mark - in that you would be better spending that time gaining PQE. Perhaps not the case in your sector though - I'm not familiar with it.

Talking generally, theres a lot of very arrogant people about, who are not shy of telling you how intelligent they are. Its actually the same in a lot of fields - sport for instance. You come across more arrogant people, who over-assess their own ability and importance, in your local cycling club than you do in the British team!

Hmm,

Doing an Arts + Humanities degree makes you less employable than someone who never went to Uni. Have a google.

DH has never argued with an Oxbridge Historian. They've talked and agreed that they have differing views of history. DH replied: Hugh Trevor-Roper + Hilter Diaries.

As far as HP and science, can someone explain why they dole out antibiotics for colds and the reason for 2 NHS Homeopathic hospitals?

I see what your saying but I'm not sure I agree totally. Quite a few people produce work whose worth is not recognised until long after their death. Hard to become intelligent once you're dead, so does that mean they were all along, or not? I suppose it depends on whether you think a created item/philosophy/theory/series of observations has intrinsic worth or whether worth only accrues as the result of popular acclaim..

Barbarian but I would still distinguish someone whose work becomes famous after their death from someone who produces no work at all! Its unlikely that anyone would become famous after their death for their ability to discuss who is trending on twitter or what random collection of thoughts they have gathered from google or the Daily Mail! I do agree with your point re popular acclaim.

Google. Of course, that highly qualified expert ... ooh I might Google this rash while I'm at it ...

More people do history degrees. Poor quality universities use them as cash cows. Fewer people do STEM.
It is now penalised to just let kids leave school. Those who don't go to uni tend to be placed in apprenticeship (by good schools) or zero hour contract "jobs" (by bad).

Hence the appearance of the headline stats.

My job involves getting people into appropriate jobs.
A shit STEM degree tends not to exist because people just drop out. Waste 2 or 3 years. Because they Googled and thought STEM = job regardless of their skills.

...do you not see the irony of placing yourself up there then getting factoids from Google?

And BTW I'm not including in the "dicks" those who don't find good social skills come naturally or are working with high-functioning autism.

There's a difference between hurting people accidentally because you don't know how to get things right, and a nasty arrogance that gets off on feeling superior to other human beings and putting them down.

(And I realise I am posting in a particularly apposite username today...)

hereandtherex
Doing an Arts + Humanities degree makes you less employable than someone who never went to Uni. Have a google

Sweet of you and your husband to be concerned about other people's employment prospects rather than just being weirdly obnoxious.

I'd imagine being arrogant and lacking social skills would impact strongly on employability. Wonder if Google has stats on that?

Downwiththis she has some unemployed friends, so decided history was for thickos.
People picked her up on this.
Her hands hit that keyboard hard as she angrily Googled links to prove herself right.
Otherwise the stats re employability would have been presented prior to the anecdotal evidence, wouldn't it?

Squit

Downwith I'd imagine being arrogant and lacking social skills would impact strongly on employability. Wonder if Google has stats on that?

I must admit I've been drawn to this topic because I had to deal recently with the most arrogant intern at work. This person has never had full time professional or even any permanent record of more than a few months of employment during his 33 years. He has done various qualifications, eventually resulting in a Masters degree in law (but not having done the Bachelors, he is unable to practice). He was doing an unpaid internship, during which time he took to emailing and verbally criticising qualified solicitors for their supposed lack of quality of work.

Unfortunately, his own work was less than stellar, but his use of Wikipeadia quotations knew no boundaries.

In short, he is unemployable. He is simply far too arrogant to learn, his work consisted of cobbling together a few occasionally workable items but insisting, loudly, that it was quite outstanding, and criticising others.

For some reason, the firm insisted on giving him his full three months. He was not obviously kept on. He was an utter liability. He is not the only one I've come across like that, but generally the need to behave in paid employment teaches them a few lessons.

IIRC it is arts grads rather than arts and humanities grads who earn less than non-graduates as a whole hereandthereex, although those of us who obtained our non-STEM degrees from the ancient universities don't usually have much problem anyway. I doubt there are many Oxford Fine Arts grads in the dole queue, for example. Regardless, even if every history graduate in the country were unemployed, you and your husband would both still be embarrassingly ignorant about the study of history at a high level. He may never have argued with an Oxbridge historian on the matter, but you're doing so now, and you're not doing very well. I can only presume he didn't advance any of his little theories on how to pass a history exam or the distinctions between GCSE and PhD, or the Oxbridge historian on the receiving end would have been too paralysed with amusement to respond.

Squizita I reckon there are people on apprenticeships who are better paid than the average criminal law barrister! My sector looks positively well renumerated in comparison.

TheChandler Yes. I must admit it's something I'm very aware of. A family member has excellent academic credentials but rarely gets past interview stage. On the couple of occasions he has, he hasn't been able to keep the job.

On paper, his qualifications are stellar. He does seem to think this entitles him to a career in his chosen profession whereas I'd say being unemployed for the best part of a decade may mean you have to set you sights slightly lower. His arrogance regarding what he "deserves" is staggering and I think this must be showing through to employers. I don't think it's the market as other people in his chosen field seem to be doing ok.

It's a shame. I feel for him. But, he won't "grow".

TheChandler does he have an evil twin working with young people? Had a "teacher" training at my work who was just like that. To a T.

LadyCatherine but they get to wear natty pinstripe suits and batman cloaks so DH is happy enough as the "non primary wage earner".

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.

Clearly it's my opinion. Perhaps your interpretation seems logical to you, but it's a random assumption for which there is scant evidence.

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.

You haven't actually come up with logic-based conclusions, just some peculiar presumptions. If you had, that would at least have been something.

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

Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of childcare and household management between spouses.

Well yes squizita the pinstripes go a long way to making up for the shit money if you're that way inclined. Personally I loved it when I worked in a law centre and was allowed jeans and trainers I was the non primary wage earner then too.

Yeah I love my job as I can still look like a scruffy goth. Though I suppose legal gear is quite gothic in its own way ...

If I could make an observation, which is intended to be helpful and not denigrating, you need far more attention to detail, particularly if you are going to rewrite your own opinion of what you think people mean

I could make the observation that you are not terribly articulate. That you need to pay more attention to detail not only to what others' say but also way in which you express yourself.

To misquote Lewis Carroll: you should say you what you mean and mean what you say.