You know the really great part? You sort of touched on this, but... It's not because you're smart that we love you. In a place like CMU where that's pretty much a given, other rarer qualities become more important, like empathy, the capability to see people both for who they are and who they wish they were (and to tell the difference), and the bravery to make yourself just a little bit vulnerable when there's a good reason to do so. All these things you have, and then some. That's a pretty long way from a prideful, mistrustful middle-schooler, don't you think? :)
My intent was the former, not the latter, as I thought was pretty clear from my saying that being smart is pretty much a given.
Also, I am apparently misreading your "perhaps it's not for you" comment, because that sounds an awful lot like an attempted insult, which I feel is most likely not what was intended.
Well, you said, "It's not because you're smart that we love you," which is inaccurate, in that it can be interpreted as "it is not a factor" when I think it really is "it is not a determining factor" (due in some part to lack of discriminative power in this context).
The comment was because of the possible implication "it is not a factor". I wasn't sure if you were coming from the angle of "valuing intelligence is arrogant/elitist/whatever" which some people seem to espouse.
Ah, I see. At the risk of further polluting these comments with semantics, that was not at all clear to me from your original comment. I interpreted "the coefficient of smart is low" to mean that you thought I was implying that people in our social group are not in fact intelligent. If possible, could you please be a bit plainer instead of falling back upon metaphor and indirect references? I think clarity is especially important when your point hinges upon the capacity of a phrase to be interpreted in a particular way.
As an aside, I actually stand behind my original comment regardless of which interpretation you use. While I certainly value intelligence, I find it to be neither necessary nor sufficient for any of the many things that can be represented by the term "love."
Also, I find it somewhat silly to be having this argument here.
Reply
Like Alan said, it's because you're awesome.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Also, I am apparently misreading your "perhaps it's not for you" comment, because that sounds an awful lot like an attempted insult, which I feel is most likely not what was intended.
We'll make it misunderstandings all around, then?
Reply
The comment was because of the possible implication "it is not a factor". I wasn't sure if you were coming from the angle of "valuing intelligence is arrogant/elitist/whatever" which some people seem to espouse.
Reply
As an aside, I actually stand behind my original comment regardless of which interpretation you use. While I certainly value intelligence, I find it to be neither necessary nor sufficient for any of the many things that can be represented by the term "love."
Also, I find it somewhat silly to be having this argument here.
Reply
Leave a comment