Have you ever noticed the deluge of LVM profiles that state how much they want to “discuss deep topics, like philosophy, or politics, or history”? I have. I’d say “plague proportions”, but that’d be on the nose at the moment. But someone once told these guys that flagging a desire to really get down to an r/iamfourteenandthisisdeep level of discourse is sexy and sophisticated. And I want to find that person, and put a minor curse on them. Like, not a fatal one; just an inconvenient and slightly embarrassing one. Like being cursed with hearing other people’s chewing at ten times the volume. But much like the $5000 rims on a 1996 Hyundai Excel, it’s a shitty bolt-on for a couple of reasons.

In my faculty, we’ve noticed that the frequency with which a student uses the word “deep” in their essay is inversely proportional to the actual depth of their ideas. There’s something to that, I think. I never award those essays any more than a C, and the same goes for the waffly, convoluted drivel that confuses long words with complexity and painful diction with academic tone. Good communicators respect the reader: they make complex ideas as accessible as possible, and know exactly how much information is needed to keep their readers engaged.

Likewise, the smartest people I know are exceptionally gifted socially also: of the most successful people I know academically and professionally, all are equally gifted at making their conversational partners feel as bright as they are. On catching up with a good friend of mine via Skype who lives in the UK on a Gates Cambridge scholarship, we talked about baking, Arrested Development, annoying housemates, and which Australian politician is the least fuckable. (It’s Peter Dutton; it will always be Peter Dutton.) We did have a five minute detour into Charles Dickens, but only briefly. My friend has excelled in every avenue of his life: in high school, university, grad school, and his hobbies, he has been ranked at the top nationally and internationally - but his real gift is building community, and his partner is a HVM as much as my friend is.

What are these “intellectual conversation topics”, really? They're never anything specific or technical - they don’t want to get into fluid dynamics, or an arcane area of legal practice. It’s always basic bitch shit like “philosophy”, or “politics”, or “the meaning of life”, or “quantum physics”. (Why the fuck is it always “quantum physics? Yes, Travis, who did not pass Secondary Maths or Science, I firmly believe you are personally passionate about quantum physics. The fuck.) But what it really is is a smoke screen to hide emotional immaturity; to prevent authentic connection; to masquerade as wise and educated and urbane. It’s performative pablum for people who want leather-bound books as room decor; a convenient shorthand for people dissatisfied with their educational attainment. My own data collection of profiles over the years has found that men who brag about loving “deep stuff” are often undereducated and deeply self-conscious about it: men who lack the physical rigour and endurance for manual labour and trades, or who lack the grit and discipline to establish entrepreneurial ventures well, or who lack the people skills to excel in a valuable care or service role. “Deep stuff” is for the guy who loves Joe Rogan - who “didn’t see the point in being a sheep and going to college” but who still wants to speak like an expert on an academic topic. I bet he has a really, like, sick idea for an app, bro.

Despite what the sapiosexual neckbeards of Tinder will tell you, smalltalk and engaging with the lives and emotional depth of your friends and dates is critical for forging a quality bond - to ascertaining core values, worldviews, life goals and to getting a read on your partner’s personality. This is the stuff relationships are built on: a person reveals far more about their capacity to be a considerate, compassionate and contributory spouse by how they talk about their parents or housemates than they might by waffling off their canned response to Foucault which is probably just cribbed from a shitty Jordan Peterson video anyway. The truly intelligent get that way by learning about people - rather than by needing to be the expert. Listening actively, asking quality questions, and responding with empathy and warmth are the behaviours of the gifted; lectures, debates and negs are the rudimentary tools of the socially inept. Ultimately, when they spend a date lecturing some poor girl about their opinions on WW2, they’re able to prevent real conversation - and that’s their plan.

So just swipe left at any reference to being a sapiosexual, or to dudes who use unnecessary (or contextually incorrect) complex vocabulary, or if they mention their IQ, or if their chosen qualities are “witty” or “nerdy” or "intelligent" or “sarcastic”. Pick the dude with EQ: they’re far more likely to be HVM.