Significant others and what to value

I recently had an interesting chat with a person who I know regarding relationships and what to value in them. I'll grant that the person in question is a young person (even when compared to me), so we'll be very nice to them. But regardless, I was more or less appalled by what I heard from her. Supposedly the three main attributes in the significant other, in order of importance, are 1) outlook, 2) IQ, and 3) social networks. I don't even know where to start enumerating the issues that I have with this approach, but I shall try, anyway.

Outlooks. This is entirely random, and if you are looking for a person with whom to spend the rest of your life, it is of course important, but hardly the deciding factor, I would say. The issue is that however beautiful or ugly a person is, if it doesn't click, it doesn't click. The physical appearance, I would argue, is a sanitary issue: your significant other needs to look good enough that you will in fact want to wake up next to him/her. But I would hardly say that outlooks weigh much more than that; in fact, physical attractiveness is a diminishing attribute in the sense that people get old and unattractive. Even more so with women. So in the list of things to score, I agree that physical attractiveness is important, but it is hardly the most important aspect. And to top if off, physical attractiveness is in fact entirely random: the way you look is more or less random and you typically have not really had that much say in it yourself.

Then... IQ. Intelligence is traditionally measured by Mensa and other such institutions. The metrics have received a lot of criticism and rightly so, as there are many different types of intelligence. I understand that what she may have meant was intelligence on a larger scale, but she did not specify the criteria in any more detail. Again, while I list intelligence fairly high in my list of things to value in a significant other, it is again, at least, secondary to that "click". Intelligence is hard to measure and again mostly the way the metrics work can be studied and learned and thus if traditional IQ metrics are used, I venture that it is possible to train oneself in those. This is why Mensa does not allow you to do the test very many times and this is also the reason why traditional IQ exams have favored people with western educations... The tests are biased. Again, I would suggest that the metrics are difficult and again, even if an absolute IQ that covered the Mensa intelligence as well as e.g. emotional intelligence could be determined, the problem is still that these are things that you are essentially still more or less born with, and again can't affect too much.

Now, social networks. These are of course important. I would argue that from a "young" persons perspective there are multiple types. From my personal perspective I know two types of people: people who actively shape the world via political and economical (e.g. business) mechanisms and then the rest. The problem here, as I see it, is that you on some level inherit social networks. I personally wouldn't know these "big names" based on my own merits, but I do know them via other routes. And then again, if valuing a social network, the "other people" aren't really that important. So valuing the social networks that a person has is again fairly silly, since the most valued acquaintances are again established beforehand. If you are born into circles who know people, then you will more or less automatically learn to also know the people who have the power.

Out of these three dimensions the common denominator appears to be that these are in essence things that you can, at best, inherit through your parents and your genes. And because I'm a keen advocate of meritocracy, I reject this view right up front. I personally don't see any intrinsic value in these: you are either born beautiful or not, you are either born intelligent or not, and you either have social networks or you do not. As I discussed previously, it is in fact the movement that I value. I personally don't really give a damn where someone comes from, it is the amount of movement and velocity that they demonstrate, be it in a career or by building a functioning family or whatever, that's what counts. Out of the three dimensions listed above, I would argue that only the third one, social networks, is one that a person can actively develop, and thus might be a thing to consider. And in fact, many people in the venture captital world who I've had the pleasure of meeting also agree that it isn't necessarily what you know but who you know that counts. But the discussion at hand is about significant others, and I personally do not give a damn who my ideal significant other knows or doesn't know.

In light of this, in the scope of significant others, I value this intrinsic and extremely vague concept of "click". If things "click", then you've found a good significant other. If things don't "click", then get rid of the situation and move along. What that means, I have no idea. Base it on intuition, I would suggest. But whatever you do, do not apply the same metrics as you would apply at work; they should be kept very separate. Along with "click", I also judge by the amount of movement and momentum that a person is able to gain. In terms of outlook and appearance, I would not value (outside the basic sanitary requirements) how the person looks by default, but I would in turn emphasize the way they've created and found their own style, how comfortable they are in that style and so on. Intelligence is difficult to measure and arguably should not even be done, but if movement is required, I would value intelligence from the perspective of how well a person is able to manage abstract concepts, deal with social situations (e.g. behave in public, understand and discuss about emotions, etc.), discuss about current events, be opinionated, etc. This is not necessarily movement as such, but again, I would not wish to measure this. Instead I would use the concept of wavelength. You are either on the same wavelength or you are not. If you are, you are able to communicate very well with your significant other, otherwise not. And finally social networks: depends on the type. Facebook friends do not carry any value at all. If you seriously want to value social networks, then you need to analyze the networks in respect to what you can benefit out of them. The beneficial type of social networks may be a good indicator for some attributes that a person may have (e.g. leadership, sociability, etc.), but I would hardly classify it as an intrinsic value by itself. In business acquaintances I value connectedness, but in a significant other I just value the match and the "click".

It may be that I am very simple (hell, I am from the country-side, so what can you expect from a simpleton like me ;), but I feel that in this case the metrics are very skewed. I venture that it has quite a bit to do with me being a supporter of meritocracy (i.e. movement and momentum), but on the other hand with meaningful, romantic relationships, I'm just a simple person who values the concept of "click". If I am happy in a relationship, then I'm happy. If not, then do something about it. Relationships are just one aspect of life, so even though it is very important, it should not be overstressed. Instead, I argue that sustainable happiness (is this analogous to sustainable competitive advantage in the business literature? :) comes from two aspects: 1) a relative balance of different aspects of life (social life, romantic life, work/career, children, education, intellectual pursuits, etc.) and 2) perceived movement and advancement in the different aspects.