/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15340816
If it consumes too much calories yes

>>15340816
Based on the power difference between a nuke and a bear I would say no from a power sense, and on the sex front it seems the soviets succeeded in making their smartest people into celebrities. Based on the birth rates around the world it seems like it isn't just intelligent people having issues, something is deeply wrong and it started in 1963 according to the data.

Liberal rules, Atheism and hedonism is on a global rise. People in earlier times (pre1800) were more religious and would just get married at a very young. local communities were much smaller and tightly bound. Neigbours would literally know everyone around them and everything about them, but not anything outside a certain range. so the girls were always available for the guys, and the guys had very little to no competetion with the type of playboys or gigachads we have in our time hogging all the girls from million miles away.

>>15340816
No. What a retarded question. Do you think humans would be intelligent in the present day if high IQ hadn't been advantageous for the majority of the millions of years the species has existed?

high intelligence is more important than love.
thats why we need government matchmaking to match these types because they can't do it themselves.

>>15340829
>Based on the birth rates around the world it seems like it isn't just intelligent people having issues, something is deeply wrong and it started in 1963 according to the data
I agree but we're talking about two, seemingly unrelated things. Physically the introduction of plastics, PFAS, and other harmful pollutants into the environment has impacted human fertility negatively, and continues to do so. Socially, the sexual revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

>>15341006
They "can't do it themselves" because we live in an increasingly atomized society where more people are finding themselves isolated and lacking a social network outside of the internet

>>15340829
>engage in social constructivism based on anti-human principles
>humans start disappearing
???

>>15340816
Humans have collective intelligence, individual intelligence is obsolete.
High IQ people can't relate to normal people and can't partake on the collective intelligence.

that's just cope.
plenty of high IQ people have happy relationships.
and so do manlets.
and so do dicklets.
and whatever other excuses you have.
the reason is YOU.

>>15340816
There is no single measure of fitness. Fitness is relative to some specific environment.

>>15341021
>>15341029
You could also introduce urbanization as a factor, cites are called demographic sinks for a reason.
>>15341034
10000 retards couldn't build a the CPU in your PC but the combined intelligence of 10000 engineers can, so it seems collective intelligence exists at all levels until you reach Grigori Perelman tier and dunk on everyone before going back to picking mushrooms
>>15341061
it seems OP is talking about reproductive success

>>15340816
The situation is basically the opoosite what claimed - when woman like you, unwanted men will completely isolate you, and you end up a basement dweller. It's just like in the experiments with mice - healthy mice are not allowed near females, females refuse to have pups with the defective males.

>>15340816
The situation is basically the opposite of what's claimed - when women like you, unwanted men will completely isolate you, and you end up a basement dweller. It's just like in the experiments with mice - healthy mice are not allowed near females, females refuse to have pups with the defective males.

>>15340816
High IQ people that lead "normal" lifes have no problem with love. It's only people that participate in academia that fail, because academia is the field of losers and failures.

>>15341054
>the reason is YOU.
Why do people post these mindbogglingly stupid takes? Is it trolling or is it really possible to write and solve a captcha with an IQ under 70?

If a significant portion of the populace fails at life, it's not a problem of the individuals. It's a problem of the society.

>>15340816
Here's why intelligent people struggle with love!!!

>>15341075
>10000 retards couldn't build a the CPU in your PC but the combined intelligence of 10000 engineers can
You're conflating intelligence with knowledge, assuming these two groups are living in a century where nobody invented CPUs yet it would be impossible for engineers to come up with such thing as well.

But your idea still works, if the problem is to build something that resembles a computer the engineer group will take less time to find a solution as their problem solving system is far more efficient.

>>15341034
>High IQ people can't relate to normal people and can't partake on the collective intelligence.
There is no such a thing.

>>15341179
Humanity thinks collectively as an immortal organism with thousands of years of memory

>>15341075
>combined intelligence of 10000 engineers can
Engineers dont exist in a vacuum, engineers have to be social people to even get along in school and work. A bunch of retards are not what defines human collective intelligence, but all billions of people and their memories over thousands of generations. Thats how computer chips came to be, not because some gigagenius sprung up from the ground with an idea

>>15341187
No.
More people can do more work, but that's it. You will always get limited to the smartest person you have.

>>15341194
There is no such a thing. People only learn what people smarter than them came up with, and that's it. You need smart people who understand how the knowledge was obtained and can keep it intact. You can't preserve knowledge indefinitely, it would decay over time.

>>15341129
>significant portion of the populace fails at life
proof? what's the success criteria? who gathered statistics and how?

>>15340816
off topic thread, even though it seems like everyone on this board pretentiously gives themselves full credit for being a genius, few if any are. /sci/ is a midwit board, stem is a midwit pursuit.

>>15340816
No. The trade-offs are more than worth it.
>>15340829
>Based on the power difference between a nuke and a bear
Virtually every bear has access to bear-like strength. How many men have access to nukes?

>>15341215
Do you have any idea how retarded you actually are?

>>15341212
>People only learn what people smarter than them came up with, and that's it.
A lot of dumb people can be smarter than single geniuses, as long as the work together which they do if they are friendly and sociable.

>>15341297
>A lot of dumb people can be smarter than single geniuses,
No, they can't. It isn't just about thinkung faster or slower. A dumb person will never think on the level that smart people do.

>as long as the work together which they do if they are friendly and sociable.
Friendly and sociable people generally fail at cooperating.

>>15341326
>A dumb person will never think on the level that smart people do.
Not a single person, collectively they can. Smart people dont think on their own, they are dependent on lots of things they learn from their society before they can make their "contribution".

>>15341326
>Friendly and sociable people generally fail at cooperating.
Much less than hostile individualists like neanderthals whos knowledge often died with them

>>15341331
>Not a single person, collectively they can.
No, they just can't.
>>15341336
>Much less than hostile individualists like neanderthals whos knowledge often died with them
Sociable people generally are individualists. They just won't cooperate, at all, except in negative terms.
We don't know what hapoened to neanderthals.

>>15341088
>when women like you, unwanted men will completely isolate you, and you end up a basement dweller
Uhuh
sure

that's it

>>15340816
>Is high IQ an evolutionary disadvantage?
Only if it doesn't lead to high iq people banding together to exterminate the low iq people. There was one man in history who tried doing this.

>>15341054
>>15341129
I think you're both right to an extent. People who are part of the incel community have definitely crossed an event horizon into virulent misogynistic bullshit and delusional self-pity which is profoundly unattractive and self-sabotaging, and that's definitely their own doing. However, this could perhaps be mitigated if society was better at identifying and helping people with social troubles and didn't push toxic standards of masculinity regarding sexual achievement.

>>15340816
Seems to be a negative correlation with IQ and fertility rates, which is the marker of Darwinian or biological fitness, the metric of evolutionary success.

Though for pic related it makes sense, if love is based on finding commonality and shared values, and if the rule that 30 IQ points makes communication incomprehensible than those on tail end have less of a pool of people that speak their language.

>>15341034
i think you're onto something

expertise can easily be decentralized, you don't need a personal immediate access to someone to get one. the cost of information is close to zero, it can be reproduced infinitely.

>>15341034
>Humans have collective intelligence, individual intelligence is obsolete.
>High IQ people can't relate to normal people and can't partake on the collective intelligence.
^This anon has eaten so many bugs, it has become one, and merged with the hive mind.

>>15341503
It is.

>>15341547
If you mean the man I think you do, he actually did the exact opposite. Come on, they went from airships to rockets and jetplanes in just 12 years.

>>15341554
Being attractive to women means social trouble. You protected the "underdog" so much that it stamped everyone into the ground.

>>15341683
>googling musical theory makes me the next Alexi Laigo.

>>15340999
High IQ is good for the species but bad for the individual like suicide bomber ants.

>>15341054
Yea and plenty of people without legs are in the special olympics, that doesn't mean they don't have a disadvantage in sports.

>>15342249
he fucked, case in point

>>15342307
That's retarded. Ants don't reproduce the same way humans do. If the trait weren't individually advantageous, it wouldn't have become so prevalent.

I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to accept the obvious truth that intelligence has been advantageous as a rule throughout history, but hasn't been for the past however many decades due to contraceptives, cultural changes such as declining religiosity, and mechanisms of wealth redistribution that permit the fertility of people who would otherwise starve to death from poverty.

>>15341554
Female selection = toxic masculine standards. This problem is 100 % driven by feminism and sexual liberation. Which is why nothing will be done about it.

>>15341054
>the reason is YOU.
If I am not a sum of my qualities (dick, IQ, height, nervous system, etc), then what am I?

>>15340816
No because higher iq individuals are more likely to contribute meaningfully to society

>>15340816
Yes, concerning the species, because individualism is at odds with communal, family, life. The species shoots off a normal distribution, with a nice bell curve, and there is an optimal amount of intelligence, not too costly but not so useless, that gets propagated through reproduction in a relatively slowly changing environment.

So you essentially have to make a choice between the normie life and the great life. People who chose the normie life are better off this board.

>>15342997
>Yes, concerning the species, because individualism is at odds with communal, family, life.
What point are you trying to make?

>>15342247
>Being attractive to women means social trouble.
What?
>>15342858
Quite the contrary, the problem is not enough feminism and sexual liberation. We need to stop judging people by the amount of sex they have, whether it's a lot or a little, and allow men to be passive or shy or, in a word, feminine, without being condemned for it.

>>15341006
>>15341025
Current dating apps don’t really work. Those apps are only profitable if they keep you in their system constantly looking for better options on the app, they won’t show you the best options because they don’t benefit from it. A nonprofit government funded app could work.

>>15340829
>it started in 1963 according to the data
You mean around the time Eastern European jewish refugees from WWII began really getting established in US industry and academia? You're being pretty anti-Semitic

>>15343278
I've met girls through dating apps. Were they the best available? Fuck if I know but why should I care? If you walk into a random bar and hit it off with a girl, is she the best in town? Does she need to be?

>>15343295
>Based on the birth rates around the world...
>IS THIS ABOUT THE US???
Terminal yankee brain

>>15343307
Retard, this is an American board, so unless you state it clearly, you are assumed to be talking about America.

>>15343332
It was stated clearly. Twice, in fact, since I also explicitly pointed it out to you. Your egocentrism is simply too big to overcome.

>>15343345
wasn't even me. i didn't even read the thread. i just pointed out the obvious. yuropoors refuse to respect Amerika.

>>15343355
>i didn't even read
That much is obvious, but then of course, you are American. I see nothing to respect.

>>15343244
>>Being attractive to women means social trouble.
>What?
1. Undesirable men want to fuck.
2. If women pay attention to you, you are their problem.

love is a concept created to mask the fear of dying alone

>>15343393
what

>>15340816
Maybe because there's a belief that children of geniuses are fucking retarded. Maybe here's a good place to ask if it's true, caused by genes or neglet.

>>15340829
>soviets succeeded in making their smartest people into celebrities
wtf are you talking about? some retards were made into heroes. Knorozov on the other hand was hardly ever known. I was shocked to know how little my compatriots know about that man when he was lauded in 2022 because it was his 100th anniversary.

>>15343301
People can be extremely picky, especially women. That’s what this whole thread is about.

>>15341006
If I was married, I would never be considered a genius, because I would have neither time nor power to succeed in what I'm great at. I allowed a loving woman to live at my place for half a year. Those six month were totally empty, all my interest came down to food and sex. And occasionally I found why: whence I got high and took a bath, a complex thought began its development only to crumble down when I was called from other room for silly question of what I was doing.

>>15343418
But it's not what that reply in particular was about.

>>15342307
No gene that's good for the species but bad for the individual survives, because evolution only selects for genes that are effective at replicating THEMSELVES. Read the selfish gene by Dawkins. Ants only work because the queen reproducing allows the workers to have 75% of their genes passed on instead 50% due to the way the chromosomes work

>>15341577
>if love is based on finding commonality and shared values, and if the rule that 30 IQ points makes communication incomprehensible than those on tail end have less of a pool of people that speak their language.

Why is it easier for me to befriend a wild owl than it is for me to befriend a human female?

>>15343244
>the problem is not enough feminism and sexual liberation

Women really should just be replaced with robots at this point. They're too retarded to be allowed to persist.

>>15340816
People with average intelligence are generally more healthy and fit. Having high IQ is a statistical anomaly and it usually comes with an array of disadvantages.

>>15343658
It doesn't you are fucking worthless.

>>15343403
Undesirable men will cause you trouble when women like you too much.
Do you pretend that you don't understand?

>>15341554
>People who are part of the incel community have definitely crossed an event horizon into virulent misogynistic bullshit and delusional self-pity
muh personality, inkwell!

>>15343629
>That statue
H-Hot

>>15343670
Look, if what you were saying made sense I could've figured it out, but since it has no relation to reality, you should've been clearer with your words.

Lmao you really think the alpha chad who slays bitches left and right gives a single fuck about what seething incels write about him behind his back? They have the opposite of "social troubles".

>>15342307
That's a modern perversion, not the natural state of things.
>>15343564
Termites are regular diploids.
>>15343658
False. Smart people are stronger and healthier. The brain is an organ too after all.

>>15343758
They can absolutely come up with lies that will cause you trouble..

>>15343794
>lol did you hear that creepy Anon who sits in the back of the class was trying to start a rumour about me?
>lol what a tool

>>15343244
> we live in, possibly, the most feminist and sexual liberated age of all history
>these population problems are also novel, founded in the same age
>many sources point that, feminism, women education and sexual freedom is actually related to low level of births, and even "woke" sources can claim the relation of those with the phenomena of inceldom
>having sex, in this age, is not correlated with more births, not even with more relationships ( condoms and social bullshit)
>the best idea that this retard can shit out of his mouth is "lmao we need more feminism and sexual liberation"

>>15343824
That's the mind of a woman for you.

>>15343802
Most people are very bad at telling the truth from lies. You may be able to tell, but that won't save you from all those who are not, and over time less and less people are willing to talk or be seen bear you. You will not know why.

>>15343824
Incels and "population problems" are quite unrelated. You're drawing a false equivalence and you have no awareness of the forces in play. All you can do is gesture vaguely at some possible correlations and throw up your hands. If, on the contrary, we look at the actual shape of society, we can see that men still experience pressure to be sexually voracious, which is not feminist but rather chauvinist, and it is this that is causing them distress in a society where women are independent and free to choose their sexual partners. And of course, if sex wasn't still put up on a pedestal (again, the opposite of sexual liberation) it would be a lot easier for everyone to have sex and at the same time also a lot less necessary.

>>15343842
I'm not too worried about the social clout of incels. But perhaps you can give me an example of this happening in reality?

>>15343846
ok, lets go
>Incels and "population problems" are quite unrelated.
yes, i never claimed that those two were related, i claim that, both of those two, are related with feminism, wich is true. The more educated women are, and the more laboral option they have, the less children they will wanto to have, it shouldnt be nothing negative at first, but it just how it is. The incel phenomena originated not only in the sexual rejection, but also in the new positive conditions that women have gain, that many men see as unfair, more each day.
>All you can do is gesture vaguely at some possible correlations and throw up your hands. nice words you dipshit
> we can see that men still experience pressure to be sexually voracious, which is not feminist but rather chauvinist, and it is this that is causing them distress in a society where women are independent and free to choose their sexual partners.
You are being disingenous or beign retarded here. We can agreed, that social expectations, many that originate in sexism and "macho culture" cause distress in men, but, the election of sexual partner is nothing cultural, attraction factors are natural, in the same way we cant blame homosexual males to be horny about masculine physiognomy, we cant blame women to have a set of features that they find attractive. Even in radical feminist spaces like FDS, they cant negate that exist a set of characteristics that are attractive in a male. So, while you are correct that the distress came from a society where women are independent and free to choose, is not the standar that distress them, but the impotence of dont have options like other times (or even spaces), where having a job and a shack was enough to if not being a playboy, secure a wife, turns out, that females have a natural sexual advantage, like the phrase goes "women have sex with who they want and men have sex with who they can "

>woe is me, muh iq is too big, its so huge!!
but also
>basic problem of life that average people can figure out, but i can't
nice self-assigned, imaginary and plainly nonexistent intellectual superiority
>my iq is 200, but 95% of it dark iq which i can't provide any evidence for
cringe coping mechanism, its fortunate for the rest of us that all the self-identified geniuses acquire atrocious personality disorders that lead them to being genetic dead ends.

>>15343863
I'm saying the whole thing is turned on it's head. It isn't "creepy incels" who gets socially isolated.

>>15343840
truly a mystery my dude
>>15343959
to finish the idea
>if sex wasn't still put up on a pedestal (again, the opposite of sexual liberation) it would be a lot easier for everyone to have sex and at the same time also a lot less necessary.
again, you are giving too much weight in social conditions while ignoring natural ones
The shit you are proposing, is like saying that to normalizing alcohol consume will erase the effect that alcohol produces. Sex can be considered for some, as taboo, can be considered as something special, even as something mundane, but sex cant be denied of the effect that cause in the society, because a core part of any affective relationship is the sex, even in societies where "one-night stands" are generalized, the individuals still look for full-time relations. "Sex cant be simple put out of a pedestal"

>>15343846
>if sex wasn't still put up on a pedestal (again, the opposite of sexual liberation
The number one insult women use is "virgin" followed close second by "incel". Sex is all women talk about. It is entirely how women gauge a person's value. This sex-crazed society is 1000 % a result of sexual liberation and toxic femininity.

>>15344045
A lot of women are not feminists, yes!
>toxic femininity
lol you have no idea what you're talking about

>>15343959
>>15344021
If you're going to write walls of text you better l2English

>>15343991
Well, in the sense that toxic internet communities are a kind of social interaction I suppose you're not entirely incorrect. Incels aren't isolated in the true sense of the word. But still a lot more than socially well-adjusted people who have regular sex.

>>15343846
You're a completely delusional moron and a good example of why women should never have been given rights.

>>15343620
It seems you have a rare gift of owl whisperer

>>15344151
>Top left
That's just basic probability
>Top right
Again, seems to make sense. "Stable marriages" is very suggestive but the caption makes it clear that it could just mean that women who have sex outside of marriage have no desire to marry (or, conversely, women who don't want to marry still have sex)
>Bottom left
Could be inverting cause and effect. Women who are unhappy in their relationships keep searching for different relationships. Ironically, if you convince an unhappy woman that a relationship is the key to happiness, and then she doesn't find it in one relationship, she's likely to keep trying. They probably have more deep-seated issues which aren't directly relationship-related, though.
>Bottom right
Same story as the previous one. In fact the titles are virtually synonymous. This is just padding.

tl;dr your graphs are deliberately misleading and you are bad at interpreting statistics

>>15344058
lol you have no idea what you're talking about

>>15344190
You'd already demonstrated that "no u" is your only comeback when you came out with the utterly meaningless "toxic femininity". This is just belabouring the point.

>>15344189
>tl;dr your graphs are deliberately misleading and you are bad at interpreting statistics

This is clearly coping and projection for the fact that promiscuity is clearly unhealthy and damaging for individuals and society.

It's like listening to an alcoholic explain why his liver failure has nothing to do with his drinking.

>>15344193
Every single point you've made so far has been btfo'd by multiple people, and you still hand wave about toxic masculinity and about how MORE feminism would fix the issues brought about by feminism and toxic femininity. There really is no point in talking to you. You're a religious zealot with literally zero ability to reason or introspect. All you do is engage in sophistry, and you keep throwing around bullshit until there is so much of it that nobody cares to humour you anymore and you can smugly declare yourself the winner.

>>15344183
That Owl makes way more interesting conversation than any birthing person.

>>15344225
>This is clearly coping and projection for the fact that promiscuity is clearly unhealthy and damaging for individuals and society.
Ah yes, "clearly", except of course society has always had unhealthy and damaged people and in the past there were just a lot more unhappy marriages. As well as husbands "falling down the stairs".
>>15344226
>Every single point you've made so far has been btfo'd by multiple people
I suppose it may look that way if you're intellectually dishonest and predisposed to agreeing with things that confirm your biases. I have explained very clearly how the problems I indicated are responsible for this situation and all you can do is go
>Toxic masculinity? But what about... toxic FEMININITY? lol
and act like you're being clever. You're a child. A mental midget. And projecting hard.

>>15344151
Do you have the data for men?

>>15344230
Hoot Hoot!

I'll just chalk it up to modernity paired with the high need for social conformity in the female species. Individualism for men has lead to diverse lifestyle choices, Individualism for women has started a war over what the optimal female is. This has lead to only a narrow band of males being tolerated by wombmen

>>15344225
>promiscuity is clearly unhealthy and damaging for individuals and society
That's just at this point in time. For most of human history it was deadly. A woman who fucks a lot with many different partners ran the risk of pregnancy and therefore death, at the very least damage.

>>15344245
>except of course society has always had unhealthy and damaged people and in the past there were just a lot more unhappy marriages

You just keep proving yourself to be an absolute retard with no discernment. Yes, there have always been some unhealthy people in every society, but some societies in history have been far healthier and more stable than others. You ignore all the detail of history to justify being a vapid slut today.

>>15344291
I do not. Though I recall it being fairly similar. Promiscuity isn't good for men either.

>I have explained very clearly how the problems I indicated are responsible for this situation

You haven't explained shit. You asserted that the causes of today's problems are the solution and ignored all evidence to the contrary. The only reason you're still even alive is because men protect you from your own stupidity constantly.

>>15344339
Modern women are particularly bad because they've grown up in a society that favors them in every possible way, while teaching them that they are actually victims.

This leads to them being incredibly spoiled and entitled, while also delusional and insane. We have all sorts of evolutionary hold overs from a time when women had to be protected, but now live in a time where women are the greatest threat.

But I'm not even sure if a better culture would really fix women. It could make them a lot more tolerable, I'm sure. But whether some of the underlying problems can be addressed so simply doesn't seem clear.

Owls on the other hand have literally evolved for conversation. They live long lives and hunting mice only takes a small portion of the night. So they literally have evolved to just spend most of the night chatting. Makes them superb conversationalists.

>>15344684
One day i'll find a woman that is against fiat debt slavery and not haremed out by her own smartphone.

perhaps own day you'll find owlchan

>>15344068
No. I mean that outright repulsive creepy people have girlfrieds (who only tolerate their bizarre behavior) and social life. Outright sexual deviancy is expected and tolerated.
Want a stable job and a family? An extremist, and a threat to society. Fell in love with someone? Dangerous pervert, stalker, she needs to be isolated an d explained that she was raped (even when you didn't have sex)

>>15344639
>some societies in history have been far healthier and more stable than others
Yes, and modern society mogs them all. lol @ just repeating the same shit in a new infographic (full of misspellings) and pretending you got something new to say.
>You haven't explained shit.
I have explicitly explained the direct logical connections between societal attitudes and their consequences. All you have is correlations and implications. I already pointed out to you, from your graphs, we can just as well conclude that unhappy people tend not to stay married, rather than that people who stay married are happier, but you can't even admit that possibility because it doesn't gel with your foregone conclusion. You have to pretend your data is unequivocal, when it isn't. So when you accuse me of ignoring things, that's projection.

Purely as an aside, it's interesting how little it takes to be deemed a woman, by the exact sort of people who would usually insist that there is nothing that could ever make me a woman.

>>15344985
You are absolutely delusional, my friend, and I can only assume you're a repulsive creep with zero self-awareness.

>>15345407
>Yes, and modern society mogs them all.

Except female unhappiness and anti-depressant use is at an all time high. Once again, you ignore reality to reinforce your delusions.

>repeating the same shit in a new infographic
Scientifically illiterate. It shows different data about history not present in the first. You once again demonstrate your inability to process data. It was apt to the changing trends in society.


>I have explicitly explained the direct logical connections between societal attitudes and their consequences.

No, you simply asserted a fantasy world where things work in the opposite way to the data.

> All you have is correlations and implications.

And you have no data whatsoever. You simply have bitchy attitude and no substance. You actually mock data and present none yourself. You are demonstrating how females are a detriment to science.

>we can just as well conclude that unhappy people tend not to stay married, rather than that people who stay married are happier, but you can't even admit that possibility because it doesn't gel with your foregone conclusion.

I can admit the possibility, but see no reason to even acknowledge it as you simply, once again, assert it contrary to available evidence. You admit STD's is just an obvious logical consequence. So do you think people with more STD's are happier? Do you think it's possible that STD's impact a person's health and well-being in a way that may make them and their future partners unhappy?

You ignore the obvious, because you're a dumb cunt.

>it's interesting how little it takes to be deemed a woman, by the exact sort of people who would usually insist that there is nothing that could ever make me a woman.

Here a woman doesn't understand memes. It's easy to tell you're a woman by your general lack of sentience.

>>15345411
No.

>>15346204
>Except female unhappiness and anti-depressant use is at an all time high.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
>It shows different data about history not present in the first.
But tells us nothing relevant. The argument comes after "why does this matter" which presents the same argument as before, which means if you were wrong before you're still wrong.
>No, you simply asserted a fantasy world where things work in the opposite way to the data.
Not at all. I presented an entire plausible alternative interpretation of the same data, which you then deny for no reason. For someone who pretends to hold data in the utmost regard you are very careless with it.
>And you have no data whatsoever.
I have yours. You fail to understand that it is not your data I am mocking, but the incredibly transparent way you are pushing a narrative by presenting your data in a selective and leading manner.
>So do you think people with more STD's are happier?
I dunno, are you suggesting that incels are actually the happiest people on Earth? That's what your data suggest right?
>Here a woman doesn't understand memes. It's easy to tell you're a woman by your general lack of sentience.
Ah, I see, strict gender essentialism is just a meme, you really are a social constructivist but just pretending otherwise for the lulz right?

>>15346697
>Do you have a single fact to back that up?

I'm done replying to you.

You don't care about anything but being a slut. This is why you deserve to be beheaded.

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/09/04/Antidepressant-use-rising-in-US-mostly-in-women-CDC-says/7341599224503/

>>15346874
Did you know my neighbour has a magic umbrella? I have the data right here: every single time I see him outside with the umbrella open, it rains. But when he doesn't have it, the weather's good! Wow!

You keep committing this same fallacy. In this case, greater antidepressent use is not necessarily an indicator of greater unhappiness, it could just as easily be an indicator of more people getting help for depression that previously went undiagnosed, meaning people are actually happier now. In fact, if someone told you they started taking antidepressants, it would be ridiculous to conclude that they were happy before and unhappy now.

Same for your main argument: the data simply says there is a correlation between the happiness of the participant and the stability of the marriage. You conclude that this means a stable marriage is the key to happiness, when arguably, it makes more sense to say that happiness is the key to a stable marriage.A happy, healthy marriage can contribute to happiness, sure, but that is a meaningless tautology. Would I be happy in a happy marriage? Yes, by definition. Would I be happy in any random marriage? No. Would I be happy if I were happily unmarried? Yes, by definition. You are missing the forest for the trees. Mistaking the map for the territory. Surely you would not say that if you were married to me, for instance, it would make either of us happy? Or would you rather we divorced and find a happier relationship? In our particular case, then, staying married would be a choice leading to profound unhappiness. But you would instead prefer to look at "the data" and insist there is an at least 55% chance that we're happy and that it will increase the longer we stay married and be satisfied with that. Poor fool.

>I'm done replying to you.
Because, strictly speaking, you have no reply anyway.
>You don't care about anything but being a slut.
I'm flattered, thanks.

>>15346874
>>15347575
Anyway, I'm still curious to know why incels aren't the happiest people on Earth, having the lowest probability of STDs and the fewest non-marital partners one could possibly have. The data don't lie!

Maybe it'd comfort you to know that it was a man who outwitted you though. But I'll be sure to let my trans friends know that all it really takes to be a woman is to go on 4chan and try to talk some sense into a cocksure statisticaster.

>>15340816
All studies literally show the opposite: high intelligence correlates also with high social intellligence and the ability to maintain relationships.

Only "smart, but lazy" tier copers try to imply otherwise.

>>15340816
Superficial / materialistic psychotards and virtue signaling lemmings seem to be doing pretty well with their evolutionary prerogative.
People with ideas and notions that don't quite fall within what is considered the acceptable mainstream discourse ... not so much.
Just my observation

>>15347580
I suppose not in the west where retards rule.

>>15347578
>Anyway, I'm still curious to know why incels aren't the happiest people on Earth
Must be because of their toxic masculinity. These are the most masculine men ever to walk on earth, after all.

>>15348171
See, you simply have no idea what the words you use mean. That was obvious when you thought "toxic femininity" was a clever comeback even though it's utterly meaningless, but you clearly have on idea what people mean by toxic masculinity in the first place. Toxic masculinity refers to the expectations placed upon men which lead to self-destructive and often contradictory behaviour. Toxic masculinity ties manhood to sexual conquests, a domineering attitude, misogyny and disdain for femininity, the shunning of emotional displays other than anger, and virulent homophobia, to name a few things. Of course incels are quite lacking in masculinity in a few key areas, but that is precisely their problem. They feel the pressure to be masculine, and so they overcompensate. They pile on the performative misogyny and fantasise about rape and violent revenge in an effort to attain some measure of masculinity. They are deeply, deeply concerned with convoluted made-up male hierarchies, with testosterone, with pick-up artistry, with putting down "feminine" displays, with a natural patriarchal order etc. All of this stems from their own warped sense of masculinity and their inability to live up to it, and that is why it is toxic.

Meanwhile "toxic femininity" as I gather from this thread just means "women are sluts and whores and they won't fuck me".

>>15348319
All of that word-vomit, and you only manage to come up with "nuh-uh, these standards imposed by women onto men are actually toxic masculinity". That's toxic femininity.

Toxic masculinity, the way you see it, is about you and your ideology having been in power for decades and everything going to shit, but you need some way to strawman the blame away. That's why you engage in this mindbogglingly paradoxical display of retardation, where you pretend that problems brought about by feminism could be solved by MORE feminism.

>>15348706
>these standards imposed by women
I guess it's useless trying to talk to you because even when no one mentions anything remotely to do with women, you have to find some way to make it about women.
>That's toxic femininity.
That's still a meaningless buzzword.
>Toxic masculinity, the way you see it, is about you and your ideology having been in power for decades and everything going to shit
Toxic masculinity has everything to do with anti-feminist attitudes and "traditional" masculinity, so no, the opposite. But I already told you that. You're just averse to reading. Maybe you feel it's unmasculine?

>>15347580
No it doesn't. Intelligence has nothing to do with personality.

>>15348706
All she has is word vomit. It's why women shouldn't be allowed on 4chan.

She's just an utter waste of time, as are most women.

>>15348727
>I guess it's useless trying to talk to you
Do you have any idea how useless it is to talk to you? I can quote any part of the word-vomit you come up with, and I realise that you really didn't say anything. There is nothing to respond to. It all boils down to just "men and masculinity bad, women and femininity good". Throw some smugness and women's studies buzzwords in the mix and all that remains is to click "post".
>That's still a meaningless buzzword.
So is toxic masculinity. The only difference is that you circle jerk in far wider circles drawing legitimacy form systemic power.
>Toxic masculinity has everything to do with anti-feminist attitudes and "traditional" masculinity, so no, the opposite. But I already told you that. You're just averse to reading. Maybe you feel it's unmasculine?
Yet another toxic feminine attack against masculinity. Feminism is rotting the society from the inside, and you're framing anti-feminism as some sort of a crime, and you continue pretending we just need more of it.

>>15341577
>Lynn

>>15348740
>Intelligence has nothing to do with personality.
If does correlate with emotional intelligence though

>>15348794
>Do you have any idea how useless it is to talk to you?
There is a lot you could learn from me, actually, if you weren't a biased brainlet.
>It all boils down to just "men and masculinity bad, women and femininity good"
See, you didn't read shit. I explained specific aspects of masculinity that are bad and why, and I mentioned nothing about femininity, in fact.
>So is toxic masculinity.
Except I can and have explained it, several times over.
>Yet another toxic feminine attack against masculinity
Yet more evidence that you think "toxic femininity" is "women being mean to me".
>Feminism is rotting the society from the inside
Unproven assertion
>and you're framing anti-feminism as some sort of a crime
I've explained exactly how anti-feminism is hurting people.

You are coping poorly with being BTFO by someone you insist on calling a woman. Wouldn't it have been easier on your ego to just not make that assumption in the first place?

>>15348794
>>15351728
>I explained specific aspects of masculinity that are bad and why
Note: I specifically do not mean that men and masculinity are irredeemable and to be unilaterally condemned. Just specific conceptions of masculinity that are demonstrably harmful. You need to learn some nuance instead of getting offended and jumping to conclusions.

>>15351728
>>15351746
Many have already pointed out to you how feminism is causing irreparable damage, but you just keep dismissing it as toxic masculinity. "We need more feminism! Our faith is not pure enough!" It's obviously pointless talking to you. A Zealot cannot be reasoned with. You've spent so much time circle jerking and getting indoctrinated in the sociology department that your ability to absorb real information has been wrecked just like western societies have been. Feminism's ability to destroy all things is truly a wonder to behold.

>>15349582
There's no such thing as emotional intelligence. That's a buzzword that normies like to use to cope with not actually being or needing intelligence.

>>15340816
Like all "evolutions" the IQ variable will get too high at some point. But it's the average of the gene pool that matters. Also note natural systems tend to seek equilibrium. This "lonely genius" problem could be nature realizing it's gone too far and reversing that evolutionary variable. There must be a pressure and process by which the finch population STOPS growing it's average beak size. Eventually a finch with a beak TOO BIG shows up and maybe eats less and doesn't attract a mate. Also note the majestic ocean shark or the killer crocodile. Both largely unchanged or unevolved for millions of years. Perhaps Homo Sapien will continue to evolve it's brain functions to extreme IQ levels and brain powers, who knows. It's also possible that they settle out at a base average IQ in 50,000 years.

>Is high IQ an evolutionary disadvantage?
Time will tell, I vote we end up as psychic space brains with FTL spaceships.

>>15352088
>Many have already pointed out to you how feminism is causing irreparable damage
You haven't pointed out anything. You have ambiguous data that your own faith, ironically, demands you to interpret in a single way. You have also not said anything at all on the topic of toxic masculinity. It was literally like
>The pressure on men to be very promiscuous is causing a crisis of masculinity in men who are romantically unsuccessfuly and they lash out as a result
>Have you considered though... that feminism makes women unhappy because divorce???
>Not that it has anything to do with the topic but have you considered that maybe people who are unhappy in their relationship get divorces?
>OMG YOU ARE A CULTIST WHAT IT THIS WORD SALAD HELP ME NIGGERMAN AAHHHHHH

>>15341503
As a high attractiveness and intelligence male this is 100% my experience, my dude.

Even mediocre men become absolutely resentful of me immediately. I don't even need to talk to them, they just know deep in their bones that their wives or girlfreinds would leave them for me in a heartbeat.

As a result, I have to be very careful about how I select friends.

>>15352160
My guess is that intelligence growth is actually cyclic with a slight average upward trend.

Why?
Perhaps you're right and people just get too smart for their society. That means that what makes them inclined for being smart genetically is selected against.
But as society catches up smart people are briefly selected for again before being selected against once they out pace everyone else, and so on.

>>15354203
Nah
It's just that you want attractive friends and are making exuses that make you feel like you're not a bad person.
Women use the same mental gymnatics.
Btw it's fine to be selective about who you like without feeling guilty.

>>15340816
Is that Naomi Woods?

>>15354271
Why don't you kill yourself?

>>15354271
Not him, BTW.

>>15354265
Your views are distorted by growing up in the jewish hell. Jews built a world where people fight for their life with each other, which means that the best get destroyed, as every sane person wants to ally with someone worse than them, and destroy those who would outcompete them.

>>15354271
Buddy, the difference between the average person and me is bigger than the difference between Koko the gorilla and them.

Normal people see me as some kind of fucking alien. It doesn't help that I'm in a profession with slightly above average intelligence demographics. People absolutely hate me if I don't pretend to be normal.

>>15354352
Patrick?

>>15354352
nigger they hate you because you use racial slurs casually

>>15354522
>>15354465
What is even the point of bumping your own thread like this? Get a job, faggot.

>>15341034
>Humans have collective intelligence, individual intelligence is obsolete.
Have you spent much time on Twitter? How about Instagram or Reddit? Social media, for the first time in history, has given us a glimpse into the collective unconscious. We can read people's thoughts in real-time. Their honest, (mostly) unfiltered thoughts.
Most people are fucking retarded. Even the average people and midwits are fucking retarded and incapable of critical thought, situational analysis, and the ability to parse information from multiple perspectives at the same time. Those just so happen to be the skills a good scientist needs, and guess what - most people don't have them.
The "collective intelligence of humanity" is a complete and utter meme. Scientific, technological, and cultural progress has and always will be driven by a small number of geniuses.

>>15340816
It's relative to the situation.
Most of life's discussion is a rhetorical question. Most of life, the best suited is like a cop - a midwit. Smart enough to follow the rules, too dumb to be creative.
If you have a nurturing environment and good parents, or you live in a hellish environment - either one of these two extremes it is an advantage to be high IQ.
If you live in the middle where most live, it is of little advantage and can be a detriment at times

>>15341054
what if i am all three

>>15347578
This has to be destiny or vaush, I never get as angry reading retarded crap like this. Only vaush could write some retarded shit like this and I know he surfs 4chan too for a fact that disgusting orange beard.

>>15340816
No. Morals and high IQ are though.

Yes.

>>15341006
the fact that women don't select for intelligence as a major consideration is telling. Remember it's only been factored as a .3 correlate for life success.

>>15354792
he actually had tried crashing some threads on pol. Of course the Race Debaters™ sponsored by youtube algos have zero effect on the discourse happening there

>>15354203
... and you're a basement dweller?

>>15343332
It's a japanese board, you mongrel yank

>>15354352
I seriously do not believe you.

>>15354792
You get angry because your kneejerk reaction is to disagree but you can't formulate a refutation, so you experience cognitive dissonance.

>>15347580
any ideas on why IQ is negatively correlated with fertility?

>>15355728
Because men don't want to date women smarter than them

>>15340816
clearly no

>>15355502
he gets angry because you keep repeating the same retarded nonsense no matter how many times you get disproven and it's fucking pointless talking to you

>>15358098
That's projection on your part, but I'm not as short-tempered as you are. I have proven over and over again how your interpretation of statistics is biased and simplistic and all you can do is seethe about it.

Honestly though if you see there's a correlation between happiness and stable relationships and therefore conclude that people who are unhappy in their relationships need to stick it out as long as possible and never separate, you need a lesson in statistics. It's like that meme:
>The headline: positive correlation found between horseback riding and life expectancy
>The implication: regular horseback riding will keep you healthier
>The likely reality: people who can afford a horse can afford healthcare

>>15358123
I'm not the anon you talked to and you haven't proven anything, you're literally just making shit up to avoid admitting that you're wrong

>>15357498
this could play a role. Also women we label as high-IQ are often already autistic/business-driven. We don't tend to randomly label a trad or working class 'Suzy Homemaker' as a high IQ. We give that label to rich kids or daughters of wealthy jews/asians/whites/indians etc...
Preggo and baby is bad if getting a doctorate in university and career.
For highIQ men there seems a less effect, but the same general idea (focus business until at least 30+).

>>15358139
>>The likely reality: people who can afford a horse can afford healthcare
good post

>>15358494
any more info on high-IQ women being business-driven? I knew one like this but didn't made the connection at the time

>>15358224
I'm not making up any more shit than any of you. Which I've pointed out repeatedly. I give an alternative, arguably more plausible explanation for your data and you go
>YOU'RE JUST MAKING SHIT UP!!!!
But so are you when you insist that your half-arsed hypothesis is the only possible explanation of the data. That you don't understand this after being repeatedly told about this means you should all stay far from data.

>>15359665
As I've already said, you have more than clearly demonstrated that talking to you is pointless, so I am not gonna argue with you. I'm just here to let you know that you're a faggot.

>>15347578
incels actually are somewhat happy, there are still a lot of things in life they can focus on and do. If you have looked at the psychological profile of the most unhappiest people the one that tops out is a 40 year old woman unmarried with a 6 figure salary in a professional position like a doctor lawyer or something else. Paul erdos, isaac newton, nikola tesla, etc... were all fulfilled in life even though not having families or children the same cannot be said for women. You see when you put women in mens roles they are wreckt when you put men in womens roles unfulfilled.

>>15343244
sexual liberation solves nothing, women will always be protective of sex biology is not descriptive but prescriptive it says what should be done and how it should be done. You can't undo female nature. Feminism is nothing but girl power on steroids, this is where I have to remind you tranny vaush women don't solve problems men do. Following your prescription would solve absolutely nothing in fact it would worsen things even more. I think we should subjugate women and female nature. We've become too gynocentric its turn to a social ill were too tolerant and handwaivy with everything. I hope AI solves this.

>>15340829
Fame is bad for smart people. We need to go back to giving fame to dumb rock stars

>>15343986
>average people can figure out
The falling birthrate suggests otherwise.

>>15344058
Feminists love using incels as an insult

>>15341006
>gib gubment issued gf

>>15355231
intelligence is a false consideration to begin with
you can be empirically intelligent (tested IQ or academic performance) and socially retarded, the opposite can also be true, for either gender

>>15358632
no, but they allegedly exist. And, when you go to a doctor or lawyer etc... who happen to be female - run! (just kidding), no but what I mean is that society labels these as high-IQ women.

>>15360382
It is pointless for you to engage in any conversation because you are determined to take nothing from it. Were you a better man you would graciously accept defeat and learn.

>>15361235
>biology is not descriptive but prescriptive it says what should be done and how it should be done
If that were the case then no one would be doing anything else than what you think they ought to be doing.

>>15364184
Is this your hilarious suggestion of a possible definition of "toxic femininity" or is this just unrelated bitterness?

>>15347580
>high intelligence correlates also with high social intellligence and the ability to maintain relationships
>maintain
You missed the crux of the problem: getting to the point that there is any relationship at all to maintain. Intelligence is not attractive and is easily nulled out by bad looks. Meanwhile, wife beaters with a sixpack never run out of wives to beat.

>women
>highly intelligent
pick one

>>15365712
Isn't the entire point of this thread to ask why?

>>15343789
>False. Smart people are stronger and healthier. The brain is an organ too after all.
Nah, nigga, you're genuinely a retard.
Correlation between "higher intelligence", strength and health, does not in anyway make it so that "smarter" = "more attractive", that could (and does) mean that people with an IQ 2 to 5 points above the average tended to have good health and strength while being reared. Put in a nother way, people who became ugly due to bad nutrition and health don't tend to become more intelligent than the average.The effect you're describing obviously isn't strong enough to make it so that intelligence is being selected. If people genuinely got more attractive as they got more intelligent than we wouldn't be having this conversation.
What you're menioning is simply a statistical artifact.

>>15366015
*then, sorry

>>15365080
Your snide and spiteful way of communicating is a prime example of toxic femininity. Maybe you talk like that online because your professors' hateful teachings have left you feeling helpless, powerless and bitter? When you use ridicule as a substitute for arguments, it's toxic femininity. Maybe you engage in such behaviour because real arguments would require reason and logic, but if you had any capacity for such things, you wouldn't have picked your nonsense major and met those professors in the first place?

>>15340999
OP's question is in the present tense, which means the "millions of years the species has existed" is a non-sequitur.

>>15366015
>If people genuinely got more attractive as they got more intelligent than we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The reason why we have this conversation is that the ugly and stupid got guns and bombs and ruined civilization, then declared themselves smart.

>>15366047
>Your snide and spiteful way of communicating is a prime example of toxic femininity.
It really isn't. And not just because I'm a man. You fundamentally don't understand the words you're using or the concepts they refer to. You seem to think
>Oh, this is some gender studies thing, clearly my superior rational man brain will intuitively grasp this
and then just completely miss the mark over and over again in your arrogance. So you keep coming back to
>"toxic" = "bad", "femininity" = "women", therefore, "toxic femininity" = "when a woman talks to me in a not so nice way"
I imagine some painful personal experiences with women also colour your perceptions in this regard. Certainly less of a stretch than all the random assumptions you're making about me. The first step on the way to knowledge is admitting you don't know something, but that would require you to relinquish your desperately insecure "smartest person in the thread" affectation.

I think intelligent people are generally more picky with social interactions. Stupid people have lower standards or more shallow ones

>>15367421
>The odds are good but the goods are odd

>>15367423
That's actually a great way of putting it

>>15366047
>When you use ridicule as a substitute for arguments, it's toxic femininity.
Like how the fuck do you unironically write this and then bang on about "reason and logic" lmao

>>15367414
>I'm a man
Come on now. Your testosterone levels are low enough to render you infertile and sick.
>>"toxic" = "bad", "masculinity" = "men", therefore, "toxic masculinity" = "when a man does not behave like spineless slimy homosexual like me"
I imagine some painful experiences with men also colour your perceptions in this regard etc. etc.

>>15367644
If you want to know what toxic masculinity looks like, this post is it.

Who are you calling spineless, coward? Face the truth.

>>15340816
high IQ people have less kids

so yes

There is a profound irony in men denying the existence of toxic masculinity, the idea that men are pressured by society into self-destructive and irrational behaviours and attitudes, because they fear that accepting it will make them seem less masculine. Not as much irony as there is in insisting on your own superior rationality when your only argument consists of calling people women and homosexuals, of course.

There is profound irony in feminism having utterly stamped out 99 % of masculinity from the society, it having caused unprecedented suffering, loneliness, degeneracy, and an extinction-level civilisation-ending fertility catastrophy, and yet thoroughly indoctrinated NPCs still go on about how not only is toxic masculinity a real and a serious problem, but it is also the cause of all these problmes that were in truth obviously caused by feminism, histrionic female nature, and unchecked female privilege, and apparently the only solution is to embrace even more feminism and to oppress and ostracise ever more men.

Of course, pointing out any of this makes you a heretic, an incel, a virgin, a man-child, a misogynist, etc., so any attempt to inject real logic and real reason into the conversation will be easily silenced and squashed with ridicule.

>>15370728
Anon, dearest, you are the biggest histrionic in this thread, and you don't even come close to injecting anything remotely resembling logic into this conversation. You are guilty of "toxic femininity" in at least equal measure as I, if not greater. You attempt to ridicule me and diminish my masculinity even as you attempt to cast these things as uniquely deviously feminine tactics. You are a despicable hypocrite only capable of hyperbole and insult, and your argument is self-defeating because you yourself demonstrate exactly how male insecurity about masculinity (rather than some nebulously defined femininity) is responsible for all the invective and illogic you blame feminism for.

You want to argue that feminists calling men incels is "toxic femininity", as if feminists are known for rigidly adhering to standards of femininity? You might have had a shot at having a point if you didn't also insist on pulling my sexual prowess into question for disagreeing with you. The only reason "incel" is an insult is because of toxic standards of masculinity, you blathering buffoon. But then, you also called for the beheading of women allegedly for the sake of their own happiness, so I don't know how you can even maintain the pretence that you're not arguing from pure emotion. You are precisely the "spineless slimy homosexual" you imagine me to be and the sooner you come to terms with it, the happier you'll be.

As much as you cry "toxic femininity", this is transparently a ploy to put me down and reassert your own masculinity after I trounced you. All of this, your refusal to back down, your inability to accept an argument that's feminist by association, your desperate attempt to pull me down to lift yourself up after losing face, all of it stems from your hurt sense of masculine pride.

A parasite's greatest goal is to make its host shut up. Thus ironically, after a long history of shitposting, the parasite comes out against free speech.

>>15371368
Start making sense any time.

>>15371372
Or what?

>>15371368
>>15371333
>>15370728
post your sources

>>15370728
Peopke are lead deficient. Nothing really to do with "feminity" except as far as the symptoms of the deficiency are associated with the female sex as females are more likely to get deficient.

derek jensen thinks human level intelligence is a lethal mutation in the long run. we are going to wipe ourselves out

>>15341331
This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on 4chan. Even if it were true that a large number of dumb people could generate the ideas "collectively" of one genius, there's still the issue that humans are generally conformist herd animals, so the dumb dumb that came up with the great idea would get ostracized and told that he's wrong and stupid by all the other retards, so then the great idea would be forgotten. This is probably why Africans never invented the wheel desu.

>>15343244
>We need to stop judging people by the amount of sex they have, whether it's a lot or a little, and allow men to be passive or shy or, in a word, feminine, without being condemned for it.
Betacuck detected.

>>15343863
It happens sometimes that an ugly guy gets rejected by a girl and then he gets revenge by getting with his buddies to go beat up the guy she DID pick.

>>15340816
>Here's why [some journo fuckwit's "smart, but lazy" excuse for being a trash human]

Actual intelligent people are all married and have low divorce rates. The only rare unmarried people at top tier conferences have some sort of massive physical defect. These clueless alcoholic journos of course don't even network in these crowds.

>>15372040
"Lead deficiency" is a leftist psy-op to see how many chuds you can give lead poisoning, right?

>>15372238
How well has the alternative been working for the incel NEETs that populate this website? Why are you on the science board of 4chan pretending to be some paragon of manliness?
>>15372267
What buddies lmao

>>15372278
I know you don't view women as people but this is why your children will have bimbo IQs

>>15343244
>without being condemned for it.
It's women doing the condemning, retard. Men merely look around and see what kind of men are popular with women, and then they emulate that. If you want men to be allowed to be more feminine, you need to first make women like feminine men.

>>15372324
>It's women doing the condemning
No, you incels are simply obsessed with the women who reject you so you lose sight of the bigger picture. Yet it is even easily visible here, in this assumed male-dominated space. People are harshly judged for any perceived deviation from the masculine norm. Women already like feminine men more than other men like feminine men.

>>15341092
That's utter nonsense.
>>15372321
???
1) I do.
2) My wife is a 147 IQ MD.

Did you misqoute me or something?

>>15340816
It's because they're so high IQ they see all the visceral disgusting aspects of it to the point where it becomes a horrible horrible thing to them.
Sex is like slaanesh to them.

>>15343720
Really? Made me just get angry at the fact that I live in something becoming the inverse of Sharia.

>>15372340
>ignore reality
>call people incels
Found the woman.

>>15372378
No, it's just that when you say "intelligent people are all married" you are actually talking about intelligent men. Intelligent women are statistically far less likely to get married.

>>15372827
How ironic that you are literally immersed in and actively perpetuating toxic masculinity and yet you call it "ignoring reality" to point that out. Are you seriously going to pretend that all the people calling eachother incel on here are women? Do you feel like your average NEET basement dweller is "emulating the kind of men that's popular with women"? You RRREEEEE that Stacy won't let you stick your dick in her but you ignore all the times Chad called you a loser fag. Look at the fucking Republican party and tell me men aren't policing masculinity. Oh no, it's aaaallll women's fault because they don't want to fuck you!

>>15372311
No, in fact on the contrary. Leftism is the result of the braon damage that is caused by its deficiency.

>>15374825
Gotcha, people who consume more lead tend to be more right-wing, that tracks

>>15372827
>>15373387
I'd like to point out that this entire argument it beside the point, which is not about who is doing the policing, but who is being policed. Society (both men and women) may have its notions of masculinity, but it is specifically men who feel pressure to conform to them.

>>15348319
Anon, is there any way I can contact you, on discord or elsewhere? If you want to ofc, I think I can learn a lot from you

What's the scientific explanation behind a human behaving like this? >>15373387

>>15375556
High IQ

>>15375175
>ut it is specifically men who feel pressure to conform to them.
Men do what they see works.

>>15375562
High IQ people do not fly off the handle like that.

>>15375572
>Men do what they see works.
Not at all. Men do what they believe to be masculine, first and foremost. It very often does not work.
>High IQ people do not fly off the handle like that.
This is projection on your part. In the absence of non-verbal cues you are likely to read your own emotional state of mind into my words. Furthermore, since this thread insists I am a woman, you're also more likely to consider me "hysterical" rather than "assertive".

>>15375572
NTA, and not sure who is replying to whom, but this >>15372324 comment is deranged.

>>15375607
It absolutely does work. Men do it because it works, and it works because it's what women want.

But I really have no interest in talking about this further. You're like the absolute worst reality-denying insufferable feminists that I know, and there just is no good reason to talk to you people. I just don't like listening to insults mixed with general bullshit.

>>15375621
Well, I can say with absolute confidence that your IQ is unusually low.

Here >>15375572 I say men do what they see work and >15372324 here I say men do what they see work, and you consider one message deranged and the other apparently reasonable. The feminist above at least has a slightly above average IQ. Same can't be said about you.

>>15375714
>It absolutely does work.
So you insist, with nothing to show for it. Tell it to the incels who perform masculinity by calling for sluts to be beheaded.
>there just is no good reason to talk to you people
This is like the fourth time someone ITT has insisted on this. I hope it was you every time.
>I just don't like listening to insults mixed with general bullshit.
Yet you appear to be under the impression that I do. I have been called a retarded slut and spineless slimy homossexual, but I call you a hypocrite and that's over the line, apparently. You simply have no idea of how incredibly emotional you get, no introspection, and of course your fragile sense of masculinity wouldn't allow you to admit it even if you realised it.
>>15375714
>you consider one message deranged and the other apparently reasonable
I reckon it's how you said it rather than what you said. Additionally, it doesn't logically follow that Anon considers every one of your posts non-deranged simply because he only commented on one of them.

>>15375798
>This is like the fourth time someone ITT has insisted on this
Maybe take the hint?
>but I call you a hypocrite and that's over the lin
You started by calling me an incel. I called you a woman in response. Then you absolutely flew off the handle with insults, and I don't even want to read that message to list them. And here you continue by calling me an emotional homosexual and my masculinity fragile etc. etc. etc., and somehow you're the victim in all of it. I think you're not only a reality-denying feminist but also a huge narcissist.
>I reckon it's how you said it rather than what you said. Additionally, it doesn't logically follow that Anon considers every one of your posts non-deranged simply because he only commented on one of them.
Either they're both deranged or neither is. Your cheerleader's IQ is unusually low.

I'll hide this thread now.

>>15375461
>>15375798
to follow this, I made a throwaway if you want to contact me on discord

thrw#8654

then I can give my main. I really want to learn from you desu, you btfo'd that anon and I am interested in hearing more of this rhetoric, what I consider to be fresh from my perspective since I am so used to the usual 4chan rhetoric that that anon represents

>>15375714
You're a retard yourself if that is the whole depth of your understanding of people. Plus, no I don't think that women want some kind of a brain dead copy.

>>15341293
You failed to elaborate on the argument and you called the guy a retard, you are not a high IQ victim of love, you are a low IQ sufferer.

>>15340816
>evolutionary disadvantage
Non deducible combination of words (ie gibberish) because naturalistic evolution does not have goals and therefore does not have advantages or disadvantages.
The correct question to ask: "is high IQ a gene propagation disadvantage?".. That question actually makes sense.

What does high intelligence even mean
I've met people who are good at puzzles and math but are complete social autists with no self awareness who make themselves sound like retards when they try to talk or explain anything to anybody. I've also met people who are awful at math and puzzles yet are incredible at socializing and explaining things. I'm sure I'm too retarded to understand any of this but it seems like "intelligence" is just a meme name put onto different people depending on what each person considers "good."

Also the "intelligent people can't find love" seems like a circle jerk for people who can't get pussy

>>15377159
can you guys please stop saying the word 'retard', i have 8 kids with downs and my wife is now preggo again

>>15375900
>Maybe take the hint?
I can see that you're disinclined to learn from my entirely rational arguments for emotional reasons, but that is no reason for me to be silent. Imagine if rational people yielded to emotional responses all the time.
>You started by calling me an incel. I called you a woman in response.
I started by talking about incels, who demonstrably exist. You clearly took it personally.
>Then you absolutely flew off the handle with insults
This is blatant projection and hypocrisy.
>And here you continue by calling me an emotional homosexual and my masculinity fragile etc
What, you mean like exactly what you've already done before for everyone to see? Your masculinity is fragile, and I'm not saying that to insult you, but simply as an observation of fact.
>Either they're both deranged or neither is
You're pretending to be more rational than you are, as if we can't see the streams of invective that accompany your arguments.
>I'll hide this thread now.
Can't help yourself otherwise huh?

>>15375911
Sorry, I didn't think you were actually serious and I don't use discord besides. But if you apply critical thinking to the shit you read on 4chan it'll get you far.

>>15341288
Men are social animals. They have access to organizations of men that have guns and nukes. If the bear was dangerous enough to be nuked, it would get nuked.

>>15343824
>these population problems are also novel, founded in the same age
They aren't. Nothing is novel about low birth rates. Big cities have had fertility issues since before Rome, now the whole world is hyperurbanized.

>>15340816
I've grown too powerful to fall for foids and their moneygrabbing schemes.

>>15373290
>No, it's just that when you say "intelligent people are all married" you are actually talking about intelligent men.
No I am not, I actually have women in mind just as much, if not more, than men. All the high h-index women in my department are married. While all the low h-index, low IQ, eternal postdocs are catladies. For this reason I also strongly prefer working with other married people of all genders, they just have higher emotional intelligence, are more diligent and will actually see the collaboration through.

>Intelligent women are statistically far less likely to get married.
Sounds like a huge cope. How many cats do you own?

>>15381402
I know most people on 4chan are women, sweetie, but I'm actually a man. I'm not relying on personal experience but statistics.

>>15381711
>but statistics.
Not trying to be confrontational, but what statistics? You have not posted anything like this.

Logic would appear to match my observation. Intelligent women are able to find partners. Left-over incel women tend to fail in dating.

>>15340816
If you're obsessed enough with your own intelligence to take an IQ test you're probably ngmi anyway. These articles are for lonely, misanthropic, gullible people who want to take the easy way out and fool themselves into believing the reason they're lonely is because of their 'high IQ' and not because they're just unfriendly or unlikeable.

>>15381769
Rich nations have lower birthrates.

K-selected are more picky. If you are high iq you probably have less viable options. Its simply a numbers game. People with average Iq are have more bell curve volume to choose from, whereas high iq's have to select from picky people.

>>15341006
>high intelligence is more important than love.
No. Unironically study NDEs and realize that there actually is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. And NDErs talk about how the meaning of life is to learn to love and be kind and thrive here despite how hard it is in this world. They do not talk about how the meaning of life is to increase the intelligence level of humanity. In the NDE world where they have infinite intelligence, love is treated as the most important thing.

>b-b-but NDEs are dreams or hallucinations somehow
Already explicitly refuted in the literature you likely have not read on NDEs.

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

>>15382217
t. archon slave

>>15381769
>Intelligent women are able to find partners. Left-over incel women tend to fail in dating.
This is a tautology because you define intelligent women as those women who succeed in dating. This isn't logic.

>>15364727 "Jender"
the only thing real is the sex

>>15340816
obviously the optimal IQ for reproducing is 100 or we would be smarter