/sci/ - Science & Math

Stop posting this.

Because they're not.
When they find someone physically attractive they will _think_ they're intelligent and funny regardless of whether they really are.
It all depends on looks

>>4712864
it goes the other way. if they meet someone charming and funny, they will begin to look better too.

>>4712866
>>4712864
But alas, /sci/ is not capable of either.

>>4712868
exactly. by intelligence, OP means wit and deft thinking, not aspie math skills

but there's a maximum,
sometimes you went full retard if you are too intelligent

Gather around you self-proclaimed intelligent gargoyles and I shall tell you all a secret about women :

You will never have one.

Jk, they want someone who is in charge, has self-confidence and money (in descending order of relevance to the opposite sex; yes the last element in the set it strangly accurate) Not some fucking 'loser' who keeps talking about vidya games,math or whatever the fuck you're doing when you aren't fapping on /b/.

Got it, you ugly fucks?

>nature is amoral
>kill nature
nuke the earth
nuke the earth
this thread is now about nuking the earth
do we start with the rainforest?

>>4712887
fuck you sociopath i will slit your throat and not feel a thing in charge my ass fuck that sociopath attraction thinking bbullshit fuck women thing morals are for righteous people who cut and destroy sociopaths like you and women fucking non genuine people

It's because, as so many of the ice vs lava sun threads prove, there aren't very many intelligent people on /sci/
I mean, even a repost of a repost of that sun thread gets 102 posts and 13 image replies.

>>4712892

He doesn't know sociopaths have a lot more succes with women than you aspie losers

Why would an intelligent man couple with a woman? What do you benefit from that?
>Nothing
/thread

>>4712861
Since I don't need a woman, why should I give a fuck what they want, OP?
Why are you assuming everyone here wants a woman?

>>4712861
That is not the main thing that women are attracted to. It is more important to be a nice person, but if they are intelligent as well then that is a nice bonus.

>>4712899
go back into your zoo you fucking unrighteous sociopath ape
primitive baboon, sexual beast of primitive urge

>>4712905
And the guy also has to be "attractive" also, not just smart and nice. Not like Korean guy hot, but ordinary nerd guy hot.

nature is the great beast and is to be fought and conquered

>>4712905
>nice person
>mfw being nice with women just results in you getting friend-zoned and/or taken advantaged of, with literally no success with any of them
>mfw I dropped the nice person bollocks and went with being an outgoing and rude asshole who's willing to distance himself and cut off a girl at literally any time over just about any kind of squabble
>mfw my success with women and dating has increased dramatically ever since

Another funny thing is that women, the ones I've at least noticed, who also go on about how being a nice guy is key to relationship are the ones who always end up with some quasi-abusive boyfriends... AND complaining about not "being able to find a nice boyfriend," yet losing interesting one the second they meet him.

Girls are twats.

>>4712918
pretty much this. of course I'm finally in a loving relationship with a woman now, but still had to keep the nice guy part of me turned off the first seven months of it (it's lasted three years now). you kind of have to make the girl earn the right to see that side of you, and also make her the only girl that knows, has known, and/or has seen that side of you; makes her feel above every other female in my life, perhaps everybody else entirely

oh, and you also have to keep that side of you where it only comes out between you two, and no other times, and fall back onto your assholish behavior now-and-then. good relationships have conflict, and something to conflict about (just don't over do it)

>>4712918

You're getting more successful with a certain type of woman, to be fair. I'm well done with those.

>>4712918
Guys getting 'friendzoned' are not our fault.

>>4712931
>never hints at feelings
i honestly hate when women claim to not know that the guy likes her. most of us actually making it fucking obvious, even come right out and confess our feelings, and still the pull the friends bullshit. and most girls will also say they'd prefer if they can't tell if the guy likes them or not, instead of hinting at it or not

>>4712938
>most of us actually making it fucking obvious, even come right out and confess our feelings

I have never ever seen that happen, I would prefer it if they actually did that.

>>4712943
i highly doubt that, and you would panic the second they dropped such a bomb on you

>>4712931
It's the fault of both parties. Just because you're a girl doesn't mean you can get out of facing consequences.

>If women are attracted to intelligence, why are most of us here still single?
>few posts later
>mentions of friendzoning

Like fucking clockwork.

>>4712931
Bitch detected.

>>4712945
Well yes it would be quite awkward if I did not like them back, but it is still probably better than them not saying anything and complaining about being 'friendzoned' several months later.

>>4712947
How is it my fault that men never tell you what they are really thinking? It is completely their fault.

>>4712956
By that logic women are supposed to tell men what they're thinking at all times. Guy comes onto you, you reject him, that is your fault. Is it a bad thing? Subjective. Did it still happen? Yes. Should you do something about it? If you want. Should you regret it? Why would you need to for not being interested in them?

Because I'm technically asexual

>>4712960
How does that make any sense? And do I not have the right to reject anyone I want to? It is my choice to make.

Guy here.

Protip: Being nice to a woman is not the same as asking her out. If you're not going to ask her out directly, you deserve to be friendzoned.

>>4712963
>And do I not have the right to reject anyone I want to? It is my choice to make.
You have the right, but it's still your fault since you still made that action. It's as much your as his fault, doesn't mean you have to regret it for making a choice you most likely felt you had to.

The whole 'where are the nice guys' thing by women is bullshit. There are nice guys, they're just all taken. I happen to be incredibly infatuated with a guy that has a math PhD, who is also the nicest person I have ever met. He also happens to have a girlfriend. Feels bad man.

(Also: generally speaking, when women talk about 'nice guys' they're generally talking about guys that are nice all over and are just generally good people, not guys that are just nice to women that they see as potential partners. There are still women that are into douches, though.)

>>4712969
That is not really a fault. If I were a boss and I am looking to recruit an employee. If twenty people apply and I only need one for the job, then rejecting those 19 people does not make me a bad person, it is just necessary.

>>4712971
This is true.
I think almost all guys probably see themselves as being 'nice guys', but a lot of them are just deluded and are not really nice at all.

>>4712978
Still makes it your fault for firing them, but it was a necessity and had to be done, but still a fault as much as theirs for applying for the job.

>>4712985
If they were never employed then they were never fired.
This is like the difference between having to dump a guy, and never having gone out with him in the first place.

>>4712987
Whatever, you still made the action, so it's still your fault for taking it. Same applies to the guy.

>>4712989
But saying something is 'your fault' only makes sense if it is a bad thing, or a mistake, or an accident.
If I crash my car into the back of another car, then that is my fault.
Doing something that is not bad, means that it is not a fault.

>>4712987
You're arguing semantics... the original point still stands.

>>4712996
>But saying something is 'your fault' only makes sense if it is a bad thing, or a mistake, or an accident.
That's a social delusion. Faults do not imply a bad thing, just consequences of an action, no matter how insignificant and noticeable. You still made the action, there's a consequence for it somewhere no matter how well its intentions were, it's still your fault, regardless of necessity. This applies to everyone, this is how life is supposed to be, you're supposed to reflect on your actions as such, otherwise you're literally throwing out an essential piece of your humanity out the window. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing, doesn't make it any less your fault, this applies to everyone. It's your fault for rejecting or not being interested in him, it's his fault for pursuing or being interested in what is not interested in him.

>>4712997
and likely arguing against some dumbfuck slav who's retarded enough to think that misery and suffering are important aspects of your daily living

>>4713002
Then you are just misusing words if you are not using 'fault' in a negative context.

Is it 'my fault' if I donate to charity, or go to the shops, or just do any normal thing that isnt bad, and you still call it a 'fault'?

>>4713007
>Is it 'my fault' if I donate to charity, or go to the shops, or just do any normal thing that isnt bad, and you still call it a 'fault'?
Well, duh, yeah you made the action, so they are your fault for doing so. Not a bad thing though, just how human actions are in their nature.

>>4713012
You are still misusing words.
'Fault' does not mean 'action'

>>4713012
>fault
You keep using that word. Have you considered that it doesn't mean what you think it means?
>fault: responsibility of wrongdoing or failure

>>4713016
No, if you reread the post above, faults are the results of actions. Good or bad actions are subjective and not entirely relevant here.

>>4713020
From:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fault

>>4713020
Einstein felt that are forces are pushing forces, and pulling forces do not exist. Definitions of "belief" are more concerned with existence than meaning. They're just underswayed by societal delusions than merit.

>>4713026
wat

>>4713024
you're trying to argue against some guy misusing a word, and bring in merriam-webster?

>>4713024
>www.merriam-webster.com
You instantly lose credibility.

>>4713030
The easiest way to prove to him that the word does not mean what he thinks it means, is to provide the correct definition.

>>4713033
then use a better source than merriam-shitser

>>4713030
>Responsibility for a mistake or an offense; culpability. See Synonyms at blame.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fault
>responsibility for failure or a wrongful act
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fault?s=t

>>4713035
They have the correct definition, you can use another one if you like, but they will define the words to be the same.

>>4713036
>responsibility for an accident or misfortune
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fault?q=fault

Do I need to keep going?

>>4713037
merriam-webster is a biased and overly american hack excuse of a dictionary. being used as toilet is still too good for it

>>4713039
How can a dictionary be biased? Biased towards what? Towards you being wrong?

>>4713038
The point is well made, but we are off topic.

>>4713039
How can a dictionary be biased? They must give correct definition.

>>4713038
>>4713036
Again these are just swayed under social expectations than actual merit. Fascism used to mean "strength through unity" and nothing more until Hitler and Mussolini shoved the word more towards totalitarianism. These are just biased definitions that are more aligned to what one expects of the word to mean out of miscontext than actual meaning or logic.

>>4713044
Are you a troll?

In this case, the result of the action is that at least one person is left unhappy; thus, from at least one perspective this was a negative action and its results can credibly be called "faults."

>>4713044
>hurr durr languages shouldn't change
Good luck with that.
Besides, etmylogically, fault has a negative connotation. The word that you were looking for is cause.

>>4713042
for one thing, it's definition of "fifty cent word" takes a side with "an obscure word used to describe a simple idea thus making the user self-important," rather than being neutral like a "legitimate" source of information should be

>>4713048
I (dictionary guy) don't disagree with that observation. But later you (or someone else) denied that fault must have a negative connotation.

>>4713047
No, this is legitimate logic, it just doesn't subscribe to social expectations, which makes it appear iffy. We're not a tabloid magazine after all.

>>4713050
>The word that you were looking for is cause.
You must mean "effect" not "cause."

>>4713048
Not if a negative consequence is unavoidable. Taking the lesser of 2 evils, or a neutral choice, is never a 'fault'

Like in my example before, there was no choice but to reject the 19 people applying.
They might not like the outcome, but their rejection was not a 'fault'

I just had sex yesterday for the first time in months. And my lady friend wishes to see me again.

I am very happy.

>>4713056
No, cause.
>A caused B
is the neutral version of
>B is A's fault.

>>4713053
>But later you (or someone else) denied that fault must have a negative connotation.
that would honestly make them rather idiotic or childish. you have to take in consideration whatever you choice you make or decide effects in the long run, regardless of how minute it is. and if somebody claims something you did is your fault, despite your intentions, it's more likely is. to do otherwise is straight up embracing madness.

but I grew up in a russian household, whenever you try to go against this, it's literally on the same level as spitting in your mom's face

>>4713057
So in saying "fault" Anonymous was implying that this was an incorrect decision. Ok. But that doesn't mean the word was misused.

>>4713069
How can it be an 'incorrect decision', when there is no right or wrong answer?
It is just personal preference.

>>4713057
>Not if a negative consequence is unavoidable.
That's no excuse, not all of them are avoidable, but you still had to do something, and you're in a situation that has no positive outcome, so you have to go with it regardless. Doesn't make it any less your fault, just one you had no choice to do.

>>4713051
wtf are you on about
If someone accuses you of using fifty-cent words, that person means that in a bad way. The dictionary should reflect that subtlety.
The dictionary does NOT say "whenever you use big words, you are trying to make yourself feel superiour". It rather says, "If someone uses the phrase 'fifty cent words', they mean that you use big words to make you feel like a big man".
If a word has a negative connotation, it is not biased when you reflect the negative connotation in the definition.

>>4713073
So you are saying I 'cause' the decision, and yes, this is obvious.

It is still not a 'fault'

>>4713072
people still use "irregardless," even though it's not a word, and means the same thing as "regardless." that would be an example of incorrect definitions. some foreign languages out there call these "imperfectives."

>>4713078
Yes it is, you still made it, regardless of your position. And you still have to take count of it, no matter how subtle. It's unavoidable, but it doesn't make it less anyone's fault. It's how life works, it's how it's supposed to work.

>>4713081
There are no incorrect definitions as long as a word is commonly used.
Words evolve.
If you just make up a word, and nobody else uses it, then it is just stupid because people can not understand you.
If people do commonly understand it, then it is a word, or is at least slang.
If you say 'irregardless' then people will understand what you mean, although some neurotic people may try to correct you and tell you to use 'regardless'

>>4713072
>How can it be an 'incorrect decision', when there is no right or wrong answer?
That's the point! In this case they're saying there *is* a wrong answer (the one that was chosen)! It's a personal preference, sure; but just because it's subjective doesn't mean it can't be right or wrong. Almost all cases of right or wrong are subjective.

>>4713084
Fine, whatever.

>>4713081
So?
I also wind myself up over people saying stuff like "irregardless", or "I could care less". For now, dictionaries still mention that these are incorrect ways of saying "regardless" and "I couldn't care less". But it's their job to change that when the former becomes the standard. (However butthurt it makes you and me.)

Also, do you know why the chemical warning label says "flammable"?

>>4713087
>Almost all cases of right or wrong are subjective.
>Almost all
Which ones are not?

I honestly hate kids who always try to get out of taking responsibility by claiming they "had to make it," or "it's not my fault it's there" because of example A, or trying subsidize as much as possible because of unavoidability, and so much of the logic that keeps getting pelted back-and-forth in this thread. Unavoidable or "not having a choice" doesn't make the issue or "choice of action" any less valid, nor whatever may come from it.

Christ, I get enough of this with my kids at home.

While I had been agreeing with the anti-faulters.

I realized that not hiring someone could make them sad. And they would likely blame the interviewer for not giving them the job. So it would be your fault.

>>4713089
Inflammable means flammable?

>>4713091
>Which ones are not?
Ok fine, make my point for me! All cases of right or wrong are subjective, including this one, so subjectively the wrong decision was made and thus "fault" was the correct word to use.

>>4713091
Ask your philosophy department.

>>4713092
That is not what I am saying, I was saying that it is a choice, but either decision does not count as a 'fault'

>>4713094
Exactly. To many non-native English speakers figured that "inflammable" must mean "cannot cause flames". By using the word "flammable", that problem will be resolved, and obviously, native English speakers can still tell what is meant by it.

>>4713093
Then you will be blamed by everyone who does not get the job, some people will blame you no matter what you do
So why care?

>>4713101
Because it was a choice that could subjectively be called right or wrong, making the subjectively wrong choice is subjectively a fault. Thus, the use of the word "fault" was subjective but not incorrect.

>>4713101
No, no, they still do as much as the next person. But, putting his side his idiocy for a moment, like the other guy said, it's not one you have to regret or bother yourself with. Necessity is necessity, doesn't excuse anything, but there wasn't anything you can do.

>>4713104
Well obviously if a guy asks you out and you do not want to, then he will say that your choice was the 'wrong decision' just as the person who does not get hired for a job will say it is the 'wrong decision'

But this is just their opinion.

>>4712908

>yfw you realize, at this very instant, I'm a good-looking math major.

>>4713110
'Good-looking' is subjective as well.

>>4713109
Sure, it's an opinion. The girl's thinking it was the correct choice or some weird neither-correct-nor-incorrect choice is just an opinion too. Neither one is more valid than the other.

>>4713111

What's your point?

>>4713114
That it is meaningless.

Some people will think you are good looking, some people will disagree.
It depends what they like.

Speaking of friendzone!

Also, dear lord what happened to this thread?

>>4713116

Deeming something meaningless or meaning, to that extent, is also subjective, Ha.. rriet.

>>4713118
I do not see what you think is so bad about the 'friendzone' anyway
Your girlfriend is your girl'friend'
So she should be your friend.

If you do not care about friendship, then you are obviously just using her for sex.

>>4713123

*meaningful

>>4713126
>If you do not care about friendship, then you are obviously just using her for sex.
False dichotomy much? There's a huge gulf between being friends and having sex... Even purely emotionally, a romantic relationship is much different than a friendly one.

>>4713129
It should be both.
A relationship based only on sex would be very hollow.

>>4713130
Alright, then you can see why being friendzoned is a bad thing. You lose the emotional romantic aspect of the relationship (not that losing the sex helps any).

>>4713126
Many humans are monogamous.

The friendzone means you are friends but do not have sex.

Being in the friendzone implies you want to have sex.

Knowing that someone else is having sex with your perceived ideal partner can be infuriating

>>4713126
>I do not see what you think is so bad about the 'friendzone' anyway
You don't get to date them, they're not interested in you like you are to them, you end up feeling demoted as a human being just being in there presence, you're basically like a hungry orphan staring outside the window of a bakery.

It's assassination on your own self-esteem dude. Pretty much any rejection is like that, but ones where they cut you off then and there are much more preferential than having to be stuck with them, and letting this drag out to an unseen end. And it hurts a lot more if she's one of those special kind of girls that you put above all others, ones that you apply the "The One" kind of status too. Pretty shitty feeling man, even my older brother hung himself three years ago because of something like this. Messed the girl up too, she moved out of town a year later and has been too afraid to come back, even for holidays with the family.

>>4713132
You do not lose it if it was never there to begin with.

>>4713137
You lose the potential that you thought was there.

>>4713134
>even my older brother hung himself three years ago because of something like this.

How do you know why he did it? He left a suicide note?

If he named the girl, and blamed her in the note, then that is a horrible thing to do to her.

>>4713140
>that you thought was there.
Then that is their fault for presuming too much and getting their own hopes up.
If they actually talked to her and were honest, they could have saved themselves from being upset by their own delusion.

>>4713144
Look, I'm not arguing about fault again! I'm just explaining why being friendzoned is a bad thing!

>"Controlling for age, physical maturity, and mother’s education, a significant curvilinear relationship between intelligence and coital status was demonstrated; adolescents at the upper and lower ends of the intelligence distribution were less likely to have sex. Higher intelligence was also associated with postponement of the initiation of the full range of partnered sexual activities."

>"Higher intelligence operates as a protective factor against early sexual activity during adolescence, and lower intelligence, to a point, is a risk factor."

shawneehistory.tripod.com/16.pdf

>>4713144
There's nothing to talk about if you don't get your hopes up. If you have your hopes up, it's to late to talk honestly and not be rejected.
The "talking honest" option is the worst there is. Women delude theirselves into believing that they want guys to be honest about their feelings. In reality, they don't, they want the feelings that guys DO tell about to be honest.
That is: they want the douches who say "I love you" to be honest when they say that. They do not want the douche to honestly say "I want to fuck you, that's it". Similarly, they want their beta-fag harem to be honest when they say "I would love to hang out with you", rather then say the truth: "I only hang out with you because I hope you'll notice me as a potential boyfriend".

Man, I'm happy I got rid of those hormones and became a normalfag.

>>4713142
He met the girl he was very convinced to be "The One," but it didn't go so well, so he stood around as friends hoping for the better, but it just got worse for him. I mean, I've never seen anyone become so depressed, and this was like a total of a four year period, in my life. He just got worse and worse, started distancing himself from friends and family, whenever you would ask he would always mention something in regards to her. He just came out in such worse states that it was hard to look at, he stopped going to work, eventually never left the house, and rarely communicated to us, eventually distancing himself from her. But when he did that, she got concerned, and he felt insulted by it, just got angry and even more sad. And whatever attempts we tried to convince to get over it or move on just wouldn't register. And this was also the first time he's ever got depressed about a girl, even his biggest failures with women (and he was successful and well liked by them) never had this affect on him. Then there was something like five months of literally no contact with him, and he would never answer his door, so we just gave up. Then one day we get a call from the police that someone found his body hanging from a tree at a park, he was 32. He was also found with a will in his pockets, and a letter to everyone. And literally everyone was mentioned in it, even people we've haven't heard from in years, all except her. It was pretty obvious, especially to her. Girl moved out the day of his funeral. Was a very dramatic and sad story for all of us.

>>4713149
Yes I understand that, but I do not think it is as bad as you seem to think.
Have you seen the movie 'American Pie 2'?
The part where Kevin says "Vicki, I would much rather have you as a friend than not have you in my life at all"
Because they used to date, ad it gets awkward when they meet each other again.

So he gets what you might call 'friendzoned', but it is a good ending.
He ends up being happily married to someone else, and is still good friends with Vicki.

>>4713153
That is so sad.
:(

Women are attracted to social status. Intelligence grants you more social status than being ripped, unless you are an autistic walking calculator with poor hygiene. Nothing can help you then.

>>4713153
Thanks for sharing man, I feel sorry for you. Life is hard.

>>He just got worse and worse, started distancing himself from friends and family, [...]
I assume that is a distinctive symptom for entering the critical stage (given the circumstance that the observer knows the situation) ?