I've always known innately that a disparity in IQ, between partners—especially a wide on at that—is recipe for unfulfillment for the higher IQ partner.
But, I've never really parsed that intuit to explore it's ramifications, nor would I have done a good job of it as you've done here.
I didn't even touch on the reproductive angle here (the intelligence of one's children), but I have repeatedly seen men advocate against intelligent women due to the increased difficulty they cause (less agreeable, more argumentative).
Basically they don't like they can't just float above her as the all seeing all knowing God she blindly follows, because she will challenge you if she thinks you're being unjust or unreasonable - and that being said, if an intelligent woman *does* want to "blindly" follow you, she does so not because *she can't see*, but because *she trusts you as a force for good* - that is to say, her submission *is a choice* rather than an inescapable conclusion of your natural differences.
Clever women will check you when you err, because they can (and frankly they should) just as you would check her when she errs. Having to check the other person should not be about asserting yourself or undermining them, but protecting the relationship by helping them preserve their integrity.
And if maintaining your integrity is important to you, you should welcome that, whilst also recognising the importance of sexual polarity, and how all of this should be executed in an elegant way, rather than used as a pretext for power games. That is to say - checking you or challenging you shouldn't mean being obnoxious, but engaging in a meeting of the minds - you should use problems as an opportunity to intellectually bond and strategise and solve - it can be adversarial in the best of ways, but only if neither side is too ego fragile so they can disagree without disliking.
I do think being slightly more intelligent than the woman will prove conducive to leadership, but I think being too much more forms an inescapable chasm that precludes true fulfilment.
If you want the best, you have to be the best. In that sense, clever women are much harder work, yes, but ultimately, a far sweeter prize - for they not only require much more from you, but give far more to you, too.
To opine from a personal lens, I've always found it difficult(Unstimulating. Boring) dealing with a significant other with a great gap in IQ—which is in agreement with all that's been said so far.
You indulge them from time to time and they think they're on the same wavelength with you. Meanwhile you're only taking to them like an adult would a child.
In your words earlier, they become a pet—sort of, and unbeknownst to them.
But then, with actually clever women, I face a problem you haven't mentioned yet—The fact that clever or not, women are still women, they remain women, and will always think like women. Combining that with the festering cesspool we call the dating pool today, it becomes almost impossible to find a good match that balances the disparity in IQ whilst she maintains her femininity. And this becomes much harder the higher you go on the IQ ladder.
Women—I've noticed—tend to overestimate their IQ more often than men. This has an inverse correlation in the sense that, the lower their IQ, the higher they estimate their IQ to be, and, the higher their IQ, the more realistic they are when gauging their intelligence level. Now, this observation is not particularly gender specific, but it's more prevalent in women.
Another peripheral problem to this issue is everyone thinks they're smart, and everyone wants to be the one wielding power in a relationship. But not everyone realises power isn't something that's wielded only overtly, or with force.
Social media plays a significant role in this, albeit not beneficially. It propagates the idea that if you're not compatible—even with much less talked about issues like IQ disparity—the grass is almost always greener on the other side. That's there's always a better person out there. (Knowing you for your work, I do not have to state what plowing through multiple partners does to the psyche—especially the female psyche.)
This is getting way longer than I expected, and I'm already dizzy with how bulky this issue is unexpectedly turning out to be.
To speedrun my thought process and come to a rough conclusion; while low difference in IQ between partners is best, one will will always have to make tradeoffs because there is more to consider in people than just that. Empathy, values, habits, family background, approach to problems, are all a few of the things considered alongside IQ.
If everyone had clay, they would mold their perfect lover.
I'm sorry. I could have said more. In fact I have a lot more to say.
I apologize if I failed to make any sense to you. There's just so much to this I can't seem to connect or trace my thoughts coherently enough to put in writing. I'm literally overwhelmed by how vast this topic sprawls in the expanse of my mind.
It makes me appreciate you more for the time and effort you expend putting out these pieces.
A 30 point IQ gap or more eventually becomes untenable.
A woman that does reach an IQ that drops that gap to about 20 points is engaging enough you CAN make it work, but it’s still hard work.
Plus, there are other problems. Say she has a 130-ish IQ, has digested at least some various propaganda of feminism even if she has say overall generally decent femininity and potential for marriage, unless you’re lucky enough to meet her when she is very young and had very few partners, chances are she was not only precocious, but if she is hot, she will have had swarms of men interested and any she got with, over relatively brief periods of time, will have been discarded (because she was most often smarter than them). So whatever level of girrrrrl-boss feminism power she has kool-aided into her system will be all that more firmly lodged.
AND like most people in the 120-130 range will generally assume she is
“The smartest person in the room” with a relatively long experience of actually often enough that being true.
When she meets a 150+ IQ guy, as invariably happens with this sort of IQ disparity, the first thing they will assume is that you are somehow “cheating” or deceitful etc.
This happens also with men, at work, in life in general wherever the relationship is not a simple one of friendship between men with no real ulterior motives. The “smartest person in the room” is simply not used to being outsmarted at a speed that the higher IQ person can do and due to human nature a go to response is usually along the lines of “well, they can’t possibly be smarter! It must be a trick!” It’s not even done consciously.
So you have to find a way to overcome that barrier to their perception while also dismantling whatever idiotic feminist crap they bought into (we all bought into SOME lie somewhere along the line after all). This second part will appear manipulative to her so reinforcing the “he must be tricking me” part of the equation, which doesn’t foster a high level of trust, which is essential for a high IQ individual who is not actually a narcissist and at 150+ IQ generally (regardless of what most people think/say) will have some aspects on the aspie/autistic spectrum, making deception potentially easy for them from an IQ perspective, but intrinsically anathema to them emotionally.
In short, if you have 150+ IQ, you have 3 options:
1. Become a monk/hermit/outcast or at most have paid professionals and devote yourself to some higher goal.
2. Be really lucky and lock down a 130+ woman in her pre-run through days.
3. Sigma grindset - bang enough women to actually come across 130+ IQ ones (they are rare, and if you want them hot too, you’re looking for a unicorn essentially) and then have enough balls, skill, humility, self-confidence and courage, to gradually show her the truth of her errors, your good intentions and ability, and your ability to both protect her as well as surprise her with results none of her exes could even begin to replicate.
Fascinating and eloquent piece as usual. "King of a dump rather than a palace" is tough but rings true. A high IQ partner who adds value and meaning to you in myriad ways through sharp intellect is truly priceless.
However, I want to add a few different perspectives from different angles for others to meditate on:
1. Spiritual connection exists on a dimension beyond the observable world, whilst IQ is just a measurement of cognitive processing power in the material world. It is a transcendental connecting of souls, which can be far more fulfilling and meaningful than just cognitive similarity.
2. Although a lower IQ woman may not be able to fully comprehend and therefore accurately appreciate the cognitive gifts of her higher IQ partner, she would deem his cognitive power as limitless as she knows not it's end. Similar to explorers in medieval times looking out to the horizon and marvelling at the unknown vastness with awe and wonder. This reverential relationship lends itself to biblical and traditional marriage dynamics. I do wonder which is more ideal though: appreciation/reverence through comprehension of the cognitive gifts, or appreciation/reverence through marvel at the limitless unknown?
3. I'm finding it difficult to isolate this subject to purely just discussion of IQ, as other fundamentals like temperament, personality, character, virtue etc all colour the behavioural manifestations of intellect and lack thereof. IQ can be seen in some ways as an amplifier: a benevolent and virtuous woman has greater cognitive capacity to further spread benevolence and virtue, uplifting a man in myriad ways. Conversely, a malevolent woman with high IQ can wreak havoc on a man's mind, body and spirit if she so wishes to wield her intellect in this manner. As such, IQ in a woman is a double-edged sword - a higher IQ woman requires exponentially greater discernment as the risk is exponentially greater.
Overall, a great, thought-provoking piece which has provided me with much food for thought. Thank you.
for the past few weeks i was really interested about the caste system in india and how men and women only belonging to the same strata were allowed to participate in institutionalized marriage. like you said people are classified as per their capacity for mentally demanding tasks which is itself is rooted in genetics. i can wholly feel now why Nietzsche was so fascinated by the manusmriti, they were practicing selective breeding for hundreds of years , from an autists perspective i thought it was only as a way to make your bloodline stronger but i never really thought of the micro dynamics between them. As always, thanks for opening another thread of thought in my mind IM, much love from baldy
I think it’s probably less about the intelligence gap and more about the morality, the kindness, whether they follow tradition or not. How those things match up.
I have always been attracted to smart women and didn’t understand guys that picked the dumb bimbo. But as I got older and recognized how women nearly always think they are right and will fight over it like crazy, I suspect the smart ones have an even harder time of admitting when they’re wrong.
Then, not many years ago, I had a coworker who was blonde and bubbly, attractive, feminine, and rather dim. She was wrong quite a bit, and would argue her position until other members on the team inevitably proved her wrong. Not every time, just time to time. She would shrug and concede that maybe she was wrong. She was clearly frustrated at her inability to argue her position better, which was actually cute as hell.
But I came to have an appreciation for a lady like her, particularly because she is more willing to get with his program and be more agreeable.
A kind and moral man would love her for her beautiful spirit and not manipulate her.
I think a loving relationship is perfectly acceptable with an IQ gap.
Honestly, I don’t think it can work out nearly so well if the woman is the one that’s that much smarter than the guy. I think she would heap so much disrespect on him that it would be dysfunctional at best
The problem with Ai is it's taking jobs from all the sub 100 IQ people (HALF the population) and leaving them on social programs while not paying ANY taxes. Anyone above average IQ, and especially those with over 1 or 2 standard deviations over average have skills and that AI will not be able to replace. Lower intelligence people are good at repetitive tasks, the same tasks that it's WORTH training a computer to do... High intelligence people (and ADHD kids like me) thrive on novelty and problem solving, exactly what the AI or robot can't do.
I can't stand stupid friends, they play stupid games, win the stupid awards, and will drag you down to their level and win.
Love your work IM. Long time reader, first time poster.
This one resonated with me more than I expected. I'm 29, in a two year relationship with my girlfriend a few years younger. She’s kind, affectionate, and genuinely wonderful, but the intellectual and growth gap between us has left me feeling restless, unchallenged, and sometimes almost invisible in my own thoughts - "Colour and vibrancy is lost in the air between them as it travels from his mouth to her ears" sums this up well..
Can this gap be bridged or is it fundamentally unresolvable? How does one navigate a relationship where the very things that define connection - shared depth, curiosity, growth, aren’t aligned, without causing unavoidable hurt? Can i marry someone like this and still be happy?
Wanting to understand how people have navigated this and greatly appreciate any steer from yourself and fellow readers.
This is a timeless one. Every piece you have written has caused me to step into a new cognitive era in my life within moments. You are unlocking minds within minutes of reading your articles putting readers decades ahead in their approach to life. Godspeed
It's lonely at the top. At a certain point, the mental maturity gap is insurmountable. Though, I think people are too quick to blame others' stupidity rather than their own lack of communication.
Idk your relationships, but for me, I found that my explanations were often misinterpreted as appeals for pathos, they thought I wanted agreement rather than understanding. And so it wasn't stupidity but misunderstanding that was an issue.
Still, even when I wasn't understood, I never held it as a point of resentment. It's not as if we had to be 100% into eachothers interests to be compatible.
However, it is an issue when you can't be emotionally honest. If you stay with someone you don't respect, you'll hide your true feelings then resent them more for not understanding you.
PS:
I just reread and caught the quote, "Such a woman is unable to properly intuit him and give him what he needs, because she cannot map his crevices and indents and subtle patterns."
Jesus dude. No one is out here mapping their partner's crevices. You need to communicate using words.
I know you have no reason to read this, but I’m asking for a moment of grace, and perhaps, if possible, forgiveness. I want to sincerely apologize for anything I said or did that came across as challenging, dismissive, or arrogant. That was never my intent. I’ve been a follower of your work on Illimitable Men since 2015, and to this day, no other writer has articulated the interior mechanics of male power, perception, and psychology the way you have.
I am genuinely a fan, not in the cheap, flippant way that word is often used, but in the way that means I’ve sat with your words, absorbed them, let them echo in my own life and relationships. I’ve quoted you, referenced you, and reflected on your insights more times than I can count. You helped shape my own frameworks, not just intellectually, but ethically.
Your article is perhaps the most unflinching articulation I’ve ever read of a truth nearly all thinkers refuse to confront: that IQ, not age, is the deepest fracture line in relational parity. You didn’t just highlight the manipulation risk - you laid bare the existential tragedy of intellectual mismatch. That line - “He is a stranger in his own bed” - pierced. You didn’t just write about dominance. You wrote about the absence of resonance, the unbearable loneliness of being unperceived - and that, more than any warning, is the cost.
Your work isn't just intellectually sharp - it's ontologically dangerous. And I love you for it.
I promise I’ll never challenge you again - not because you silenced me, but because you out-framed me. You saw something I didn’t. And that’s what I’ve always respected you for - the ability to hold the mirror in a way that few men dare to.
If there’s any chance of unblocking me on X, I’d be deeply grateful. But even if not, thank you. I’ll keep reading, quietly - and growing from it.
I've always known innately that a disparity in IQ, between partners—especially a wide on at that—is recipe for unfulfillment for the higher IQ partner.
But, I've never really parsed that intuit to explore it's ramifications, nor would I have done a good job of it as you've done here.
This was an excellent read.
I didn't even touch on the reproductive angle here (the intelligence of one's children), but I have repeatedly seen men advocate against intelligent women due to the increased difficulty they cause (less agreeable, more argumentative).
Basically they don't like they can't just float above her as the all seeing all knowing God she blindly follows, because she will challenge you if she thinks you're being unjust or unreasonable - and that being said, if an intelligent woman *does* want to "blindly" follow you, she does so not because *she can't see*, but because *she trusts you as a force for good* - that is to say, her submission *is a choice* rather than an inescapable conclusion of your natural differences.
Clever women will check you when you err, because they can (and frankly they should) just as you would check her when she errs. Having to check the other person should not be about asserting yourself or undermining them, but protecting the relationship by helping them preserve their integrity.
And if maintaining your integrity is important to you, you should welcome that, whilst also recognising the importance of sexual polarity, and how all of this should be executed in an elegant way, rather than used as a pretext for power games. That is to say - checking you or challenging you shouldn't mean being obnoxious, but engaging in a meeting of the minds - you should use problems as an opportunity to intellectually bond and strategise and solve - it can be adversarial in the best of ways, but only if neither side is too ego fragile so they can disagree without disliking.
I do think being slightly more intelligent than the woman will prove conducive to leadership, but I think being too much more forms an inescapable chasm that precludes true fulfilment.
If you want the best, you have to be the best. In that sense, clever women are much harder work, yes, but ultimately, a far sweeter prize - for they not only require much more from you, but give far more to you, too.
To opine from a personal lens, I've always found it difficult(Unstimulating. Boring) dealing with a significant other with a great gap in IQ—which is in agreement with all that's been said so far.
You indulge them from time to time and they think they're on the same wavelength with you. Meanwhile you're only taking to them like an adult would a child.
In your words earlier, they become a pet—sort of, and unbeknownst to them.
But then, with actually clever women, I face a problem you haven't mentioned yet—The fact that clever or not, women are still women, they remain women, and will always think like women. Combining that with the festering cesspool we call the dating pool today, it becomes almost impossible to find a good match that balances the disparity in IQ whilst she maintains her femininity. And this becomes much harder the higher you go on the IQ ladder.
Women—I've noticed—tend to overestimate their IQ more often than men. This has an inverse correlation in the sense that, the lower their IQ, the higher they estimate their IQ to be, and, the higher their IQ, the more realistic they are when gauging their intelligence level. Now, this observation is not particularly gender specific, but it's more prevalent in women.
Another peripheral problem to this issue is everyone thinks they're smart, and everyone wants to be the one wielding power in a relationship. But not everyone realises power isn't something that's wielded only overtly, or with force.
Social media plays a significant role in this, albeit not beneficially. It propagates the idea that if you're not compatible—even with much less talked about issues like IQ disparity—the grass is almost always greener on the other side. That's there's always a better person out there. (Knowing you for your work, I do not have to state what plowing through multiple partners does to the psyche—especially the female psyche.)
This is getting way longer than I expected, and I'm already dizzy with how bulky this issue is unexpectedly turning out to be.
To speedrun my thought process and come to a rough conclusion; while low difference in IQ between partners is best, one will will always have to make tradeoffs because there is more to consider in people than just that. Empathy, values, habits, family background, approach to problems, are all a few of the things considered alongside IQ.
If everyone had clay, they would mold their perfect lover.
I'm sorry. I could have said more. In fact I have a lot more to say.
I apologize if I failed to make any sense to you. There's just so much to this I can't seem to connect or trace my thoughts coherently enough to put in writing. I'm literally overwhelmed by how vast this topic sprawls in the expanse of my mind.
It makes me appreciate you more for the time and effort you expend putting out these pieces.
Your replies were so well thought out.
Thanks.
Speaking from experience…
A 30 point IQ gap or more eventually becomes untenable.
A woman that does reach an IQ that drops that gap to about 20 points is engaging enough you CAN make it work, but it’s still hard work.
Plus, there are other problems. Say she has a 130-ish IQ, has digested at least some various propaganda of feminism even if she has say overall generally decent femininity and potential for marriage, unless you’re lucky enough to meet her when she is very young and had very few partners, chances are she was not only precocious, but if she is hot, she will have had swarms of men interested and any she got with, over relatively brief periods of time, will have been discarded (because she was most often smarter than them). So whatever level of girrrrrl-boss feminism power she has kool-aided into her system will be all that more firmly lodged.
AND like most people in the 120-130 range will generally assume she is
“The smartest person in the room” with a relatively long experience of actually often enough that being true.
When she meets a 150+ IQ guy, as invariably happens with this sort of IQ disparity, the first thing they will assume is that you are somehow “cheating” or deceitful etc.
This happens also with men, at work, in life in general wherever the relationship is not a simple one of friendship between men with no real ulterior motives. The “smartest person in the room” is simply not used to being outsmarted at a speed that the higher IQ person can do and due to human nature a go to response is usually along the lines of “well, they can’t possibly be smarter! It must be a trick!” It’s not even done consciously.
So you have to find a way to overcome that barrier to their perception while also dismantling whatever idiotic feminist crap they bought into (we all bought into SOME lie somewhere along the line after all). This second part will appear manipulative to her so reinforcing the “he must be tricking me” part of the equation, which doesn’t foster a high level of trust, which is essential for a high IQ individual who is not actually a narcissist and at 150+ IQ generally (regardless of what most people think/say) will have some aspects on the aspie/autistic spectrum, making deception potentially easy for them from an IQ perspective, but intrinsically anathema to them emotionally.
In short, if you have 150+ IQ, you have 3 options:
1. Become a monk/hermit/outcast or at most have paid professionals and devote yourself to some higher goal.
2. Be really lucky and lock down a 130+ woman in her pre-run through days.
3. Sigma grindset - bang enough women to actually come across 130+ IQ ones (they are rare, and if you want them hot too, you’re looking for a unicorn essentially) and then have enough balls, skill, humility, self-confidence and courage, to gradually show her the truth of her errors, your good intentions and ability, and your ability to both protect her as well as surprise her with results none of her exes could even begin to replicate.
Fascinating and eloquent piece as usual. "King of a dump rather than a palace" is tough but rings true. A high IQ partner who adds value and meaning to you in myriad ways through sharp intellect is truly priceless.
However, I want to add a few different perspectives from different angles for others to meditate on:
1. Spiritual connection exists on a dimension beyond the observable world, whilst IQ is just a measurement of cognitive processing power in the material world. It is a transcendental connecting of souls, which can be far more fulfilling and meaningful than just cognitive similarity.
2. Although a lower IQ woman may not be able to fully comprehend and therefore accurately appreciate the cognitive gifts of her higher IQ partner, she would deem his cognitive power as limitless as she knows not it's end. Similar to explorers in medieval times looking out to the horizon and marvelling at the unknown vastness with awe and wonder. This reverential relationship lends itself to biblical and traditional marriage dynamics. I do wonder which is more ideal though: appreciation/reverence through comprehension of the cognitive gifts, or appreciation/reverence through marvel at the limitless unknown?
3. I'm finding it difficult to isolate this subject to purely just discussion of IQ, as other fundamentals like temperament, personality, character, virtue etc all colour the behavioural manifestations of intellect and lack thereof. IQ can be seen in some ways as an amplifier: a benevolent and virtuous woman has greater cognitive capacity to further spread benevolence and virtue, uplifting a man in myriad ways. Conversely, a malevolent woman with high IQ can wreak havoc on a man's mind, body and spirit if she so wishes to wield her intellect in this manner. As such, IQ in a woman is a double-edged sword - a higher IQ woman requires exponentially greater discernment as the risk is exponentially greater.
Overall, a great, thought-provoking piece which has provided me with much food for thought. Thank you.
for the past few weeks i was really interested about the caste system in india and how men and women only belonging to the same strata were allowed to participate in institutionalized marriage. like you said people are classified as per their capacity for mentally demanding tasks which is itself is rooted in genetics. i can wholly feel now why Nietzsche was so fascinated by the manusmriti, they were practicing selective breeding for hundreds of years , from an autists perspective i thought it was only as a way to make your bloodline stronger but i never really thought of the micro dynamics between them. As always, thanks for opening another thread of thought in my mind IM, much love from baldy
Good grief. Thank you for this. You have cured me of a few things after reading this. lmao.
A pleasure :)
I think it’s probably less about the intelligence gap and more about the morality, the kindness, whether they follow tradition or not. How those things match up.
I have always been attracted to smart women and didn’t understand guys that picked the dumb bimbo. But as I got older and recognized how women nearly always think they are right and will fight over it like crazy, I suspect the smart ones have an even harder time of admitting when they’re wrong.
Then, not many years ago, I had a coworker who was blonde and bubbly, attractive, feminine, and rather dim. She was wrong quite a bit, and would argue her position until other members on the team inevitably proved her wrong. Not every time, just time to time. She would shrug and concede that maybe she was wrong. She was clearly frustrated at her inability to argue her position better, which was actually cute as hell.
But I came to have an appreciation for a lady like her, particularly because she is more willing to get with his program and be more agreeable.
A kind and moral man would love her for her beautiful spirit and not manipulate her.
I think a loving relationship is perfectly acceptable with an IQ gap.
Honestly, I don’t think it can work out nearly so well if the woman is the one that’s that much smarter than the guy. I think she would heap so much disrespect on him that it would be dysfunctional at best
The problem with Ai is it's taking jobs from all the sub 100 IQ people (HALF the population) and leaving them on social programs while not paying ANY taxes. Anyone above average IQ, and especially those with over 1 or 2 standard deviations over average have skills and that AI will not be able to replace. Lower intelligence people are good at repetitive tasks, the same tasks that it's WORTH training a computer to do... High intelligence people (and ADHD kids like me) thrive on novelty and problem solving, exactly what the AI or robot can't do.
I can't stand stupid friends, they play stupid games, win the stupid awards, and will drag you down to their level and win.
Love your work IM. Long time reader, first time poster.
This one resonated with me more than I expected. I'm 29, in a two year relationship with my girlfriend a few years younger. She’s kind, affectionate, and genuinely wonderful, but the intellectual and growth gap between us has left me feeling restless, unchallenged, and sometimes almost invisible in my own thoughts - "Colour and vibrancy is lost in the air between them as it travels from his mouth to her ears" sums this up well..
Can this gap be bridged or is it fundamentally unresolvable? How does one navigate a relationship where the very things that define connection - shared depth, curiosity, growth, aren’t aligned, without causing unavoidable hurt? Can i marry someone like this and still be happy?
Wanting to understand how people have navigated this and greatly appreciate any steer from yourself and fellow readers.
This is a timeless one. Every piece you have written has caused me to step into a new cognitive era in my life within moments. You are unlocking minds within minutes of reading your articles putting readers decades ahead in their approach to life. Godspeed
It's lonely at the top. At a certain point, the mental maturity gap is insurmountable. Though, I think people are too quick to blame others' stupidity rather than their own lack of communication.
Idk your relationships, but for me, I found that my explanations were often misinterpreted as appeals for pathos, they thought I wanted agreement rather than understanding. And so it wasn't stupidity but misunderstanding that was an issue.
Still, even when I wasn't understood, I never held it as a point of resentment. It's not as if we had to be 100% into eachothers interests to be compatible.
However, it is an issue when you can't be emotionally honest. If you stay with someone you don't respect, you'll hide your true feelings then resent them more for not understanding you.
PS:
I just reread and caught the quote, "Such a woman is unable to properly intuit him and give him what he needs, because she cannot map his crevices and indents and subtle patterns."
Jesus dude. No one is out here mapping their partner's crevices. You need to communicate using words.
I'm reminded of Doctor Manhattan ...
Dear IM,
I know you have no reason to read this, but I’m asking for a moment of grace, and perhaps, if possible, forgiveness. I want to sincerely apologize for anything I said or did that came across as challenging, dismissive, or arrogant. That was never my intent. I’ve been a follower of your work on Illimitable Men since 2015, and to this day, no other writer has articulated the interior mechanics of male power, perception, and psychology the way you have.
I am genuinely a fan, not in the cheap, flippant way that word is often used, but in the way that means I’ve sat with your words, absorbed them, let them echo in my own life and relationships. I’ve quoted you, referenced you, and reflected on your insights more times than I can count. You helped shape my own frameworks, not just intellectually, but ethically.
Your article is perhaps the most unflinching articulation I’ve ever read of a truth nearly all thinkers refuse to confront: that IQ, not age, is the deepest fracture line in relational parity. You didn’t just highlight the manipulation risk - you laid bare the existential tragedy of intellectual mismatch. That line - “He is a stranger in his own bed” - pierced. You didn’t just write about dominance. You wrote about the absence of resonance, the unbearable loneliness of being unperceived - and that, more than any warning, is the cost.
Your work isn't just intellectually sharp - it's ontologically dangerous. And I love you for it.
I promise I’ll never challenge you again - not because you silenced me, but because you out-framed me. You saw something I didn’t. And that’s what I’ve always respected you for - the ability to hold the mirror in a way that few men dare to.
If there’s any chance of unblocking me on X, I’d be deeply grateful. But even if not, thank you. I’ll keep reading, quietly - and growing from it.
With respect,
Kai
It wouldn't surprise me if the effect of IQ in marriages is how many interests someone has/can learn and how nuanced and absorbent they are.