Response to Patton's Feb 13 Wsj Article

In the February 13 WSJ opinion section, Susan Patton gave some unfortunate advice on dating.  My short response, which the WSJ did not publish:

Susan Patton has given the most unfortunate type of advice: falsehood wrapped around a kernel of truth. Ms. Patton is correct that "for most...the cornerstone of future happiness will be [in marriage]." Empirical research as well as the cross-cultural wisdom of ages supports this premise.

Unfortunately, Ms. Patton conflates happiness in marriage with intellectual compatibility. On this point, empirical evidence is lacking.  Rather, the research indicates that kindness, mutual respect, and devotion to the well being of your significant other provide the bedrock for happiness in marriage. Very few marriages were ever made successful via pillow talk discussing Foucault.  For the few individuals who claim to have found happiness in such marriages based upon intellectualism as hobby, the participants might have been better off seeking treatment for neuroses instead.

...

I'd follow the above letter with the addendum:

I don't deny that being able to discuss intellectual interests with a spouse can be a gratifying experience in marriage, but it is not the foundation or source of happiness in marriage.  If intellectual interests (or any interest for that matter, from strat-o-matic baseball to scrapbooking) are the primary sources of fulfillment in your marriage, then what do you really need your spouse for?  Wouldn't he/she be interchangeable for any amicable intellectual?  Such an attitude seems to suggest that your spouse is a means to an end, the end the being whatever hobby you value.  Valuing your spouse primarily for what he/she can do for you, besides being narcissistic,  is not a value system that will allow a marriage to weather the inevitable stresses of life.