While I agree that there must be some sort of “spark” to a relationship, I seriously don’t believe that this spark must be supplied by an identity of intellectual interests. In fact, and identity of interests may even be a drawback for a truly long-term relationship – interests change over time; personalities, less so.
I’ve been with my now-wife since I was 20 or so; that’s now 18 years. We don’t share every intellectual pursuit in common, by any means. But then, if I was to meet up with my 20 year old self, I’m pretty sure I would not have all that much in common with him, too.
What I think makes for a lasting relationship is not compatibility of intellectual pursuits, but compatibility of temperment, life expectations, sense of humour and the like. After all, if your relationship is based on (say) a fondness for discussing the impact of the latest legal development on society, what if one of you gets bored with that one year?
I wasn’t clear enough: I never meant (or said) that intellectual interests should be the same, though I can see how you might have inferred that from the OP.
What I mean by clicking with someone intellectually is being on the same level – being able to comfortably/naturally debate and discuss, having roughly the same vocabulary (excluding jargon), etc. And not in a “he’s not smart enough for me” way, just that our relative intelligence and knowledge need to be similar enough. Sometimes that means having similar levels of education, but not always.
My point was that I know people I really click with intellectually (but not romantically), and because I know that kind of connection is possible I’m not willing to settle for less in the interest of romance.
I think that both are pretty malleable, but I don’t believe that all interests change over time: at 34, I feel that I have a decent handle on which of my interests might be fleeting/temporary (like poker) and which are more intrinsic (like music and language).
Something like third-cousins (great-grandparents are siblings) would be considered doubtful; family trees on both sides would get carefully examined to make sure they aren’t something like “third-cousins on one side, 4th on another, and some-degree-uncle/niece in a third”.
Once you get to “our great-grandparents were cousins” it becomes a family anecdote.
This varies wildly between different parts of Spain: what I’m describing here is the way my father’s family sees it (Navarrese; our capital is Pamplona, a town most often visited by foreigners in search of loose bulls). My ancestors on that side were a pretty close-knit bunch, once we had to bring our family trees to class for a teacher who still hadn’t learned NOT to say “as far as you can go” when it’s about navarrese family trees and I found out I had common lastnames with about 75% of my classmates, in the last 300 years. Go another century, it probably would have been 100%.
My mother’s family is from places with a lot more genetic movement, therefore much looser incest taboos. One of her cousins is married to a first-cousin who is also the son of first-cousins. Makes me feel kind of icky when I look at that part of the family tree.
Ah. Well, I too know many people whom I “click” with intellectually (but not romantically). For me, that sounds like a good description of friendship.
I suppose that the assertion then becomes “I have such a good time with my friends, so I will not settle for anything less from a romantic partner”. Which is fair enough.
I just think that there are quite different qualities which one would expect or value from a long-term romantic partner, as opposed to a friend. Naturally, one would want someone who has all good qualities, and no bad ones - the issue in my mind would be relative ranking. And I don’t just mean qualities of the “hot in bed” kind.
For example, in a friend it isn’t nearly as important whether or not you can rub along without a lot of conflict, or whether their tollerance for personal clutter is similar to yours; nor is it so much of an issue how forgiving they are (or how much of their behaviour you will be expected to forgive).
I have some friends with whom it is an intellectual treat to spend an evening over wine discussing history, literature and art; but their personalities are such that I could never in fact live with them - we’d kill each other in a month. Frankly, if it is a long-term relationship at stake, I’d choose someone who I could genuinely get along with in terms of livability over someone with whom I could share the most profound intellectual dialogue, if the choice was between the two. After all, I still have my friends …
Frankly, if it is a long-term relationship at stake, I’d choose someone who I could genuinely get along with in terms of livability over someone with whom I could share the most profound intellectual dialogue, if the choice was between the two. After all, I still have my friends …