Average Female Americans want Extroverted selfished idiots.

[Anonymous No.9132634]

TLDR: Average human female animals value "pet like" traits for their offspring. This is important because of the rise of designer babies.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886917304865

142 mothers of 0–12 month old infants were asked to select from each of the Big Five personality traits the facets that they most liked their child to have. Afterwards, mothers rank-ordered the facets they had selected and ‘intelligence’ from most to least important for their child to have. Less than 10% of mothers rated intelligence and the conscientiousness facet as most important. By contrast, 51% rated the extraversion facet as most important, followed by 20% of mothers who favoured the agreeableness facet. Our results suggest that mothers preferred extraversion over intelligence and conscientiousness, despite their strong, empirically demonstrated predictive validity for important life outcomes.

[Anonymous No.9132648]

>>9132634
I think it is just logical.
>Be born intelligent
>Get a couple of medals as a kid
>Get accepted to a good college
>Get 100k/year job
>Die with no one remembering your name

And in contrast

>Be born highly extroverted
>Get many medals as a kid
>Get picked up by Disney Channel
>Use momentum to start a youtube channel
>It's everyday bro
>It's everyday bro
>It's everyday bro
>I SAID IT'S EVERYDAY BRO
>Become an instant millionaire before you are even old enough to understand economics
>You will forever be an important name in the history of entertainment

[Anonymous No.9132660]

and water is wet

[Anonymous No.9132665]

Why would you not want a Chad kid?

[Anonymous No.9132677]

>>9132665
>their strong, empirically demonstrated predictive validity for important life outcomes.

You could always just socialize your kid more, kinda hard to increase their IQ.

[Anonymous No.9132708]

>>9132634
I believe this was a big thing in psychology around 30 years ago.
A notable discovery was that western societies, especially Burgerland, favour extrovert and individualistic traits.
Asian cultures generally favour quiet and modest personality traits that easily fit in society.

TLDR: This research has no new implications and is overall pretty shit, even compared to other studies in psychology.

[Anonymous No.9132781]

extroverts are dirty subhumans

[Anonymous No.9132793]

My only wish for my future child is that the mother is Korean.

[Anonymous No.9132798]

gentile women fail yet again to select for the correct PHENOTYPE, news at 11

[Anonymous No.9132897]

>>9132781
t. virgin INTJ

[Anonymous No.9132901]

>>9132634
that's nice because I'm not average and I don't want to have kids with an average female american

[Anonymous No.9132941]

>>9132793
>plastic surgery ≠ pretty genes
don't buy into lies, anon

[Anonymous No.9132950]

>>9132897
Go be a degenerate somewhere else, kike. You deserve the rope for promoting extroverted garbage ways among the whites.

[Anonymous No.9132951]

>>9132941
Jesus, can you imagine seeing old photos of her, I'd just murder the bitch.

[Anonymous No.9132958]

>>9132951
Could be worse than just seeing old pictures of her

[Anonymous No.9132978]

>>9132958
>How to solve teenage pregnancy and child molestation

[Anonymous No.9133077]

>>9132634
>We succeed in creating a world with designers babies
>Women allowed to chose traits
>Society collapses
It's hopeless.

[Anonymous No.9133085]

>mfw strongly extroverted and sort of agreeable

[Anonymous No.9133097]

So thats why she doesn't like me

[Anonymous No.9133108]

>>9133097

Putin:
~picks up skull~
~pause~
"Why was this nigga's head so small?"
~throws skull on to pile of tiny negro skulls~
~walks away~

[Anonymous No.9133130]

>>9132634
>>9132648
>>9132665
>>9132677

1) Of course extroversion is prized the most.

2) Intelligence might correlate with high income, BUT high income is not a guarantee of reproductive success. There are lots of high earners, autistic types, who never have children. Meanwhile there are people with less wealth, but who are more extroverted, who are reproductively successful.

You see this in African-Americans - they earn less but they're still reproductively successful.

3) "Kinda hard to increase their IQ" - I disagree. While I am sure there are some biological factors in IQ, I am also sure that upbringing is a key part, and mostly I think one of the most important factors in IQ tests is whether the person being tested WANTS to do well.

If you're an extroverted person, a loud-mouthed person, very outgoing, perhaps even physically aggressive or a bully, then what reason do you have to do well on an IQ test? Why put in the mental effort to do well? Those sorts of people can't be arsed to do well on an IQ test. They think "fuck this, I don't need this, I can make my way in life by being outgoing / extroverted / physically dominant / etc."

Hope I managed to educate you here.

[Anonymous No.9133141]

>>9133130
So basically to sum this up, of course extroversion is the most important, because it's arguably the most important trait for reproductive success.

Intelligence might do well on metrics like earnings, but earnings are not necessarily representative of reproductive success. There are lots of criminals, loud-mouthed people, etc., who never earn lots, but they have lots of children. Meanwhile there are many intelligent people who fail to have children.

Reproductive success is the most important thing for every animal, every organism on the planet. So that's why people prize extroversion over everything else.

Fortune favours the brave. Those who dare win. This is why boldness, confidence, extroversion, are so important.

[Anonymous No.9133148]

>>9132958
Jesus

[Anonymous No.9133205]

>>9132634
>Mothers value traits which correlate to reproductive and social success
This is a suprise... how?

Anyone whose shocked or outraged by this needs to touch up on their evolutionary biology. The core motivation of every action we take and every belief or bias we hold is our primal drive to survive. These base motivations you cannot disparage no matter how grande our civilizations become.

[Anonymous No.9133482]

>>9133205
But people don't like admitting this because it's "mean".

[Anonymous No.9133585]

>>9133205
>>9133482
nah the mean part is when the more advanced society gains enough of an upper hand to just genocide other societies

[Anonymous No.9133587]

>>9133130
>>9133141

Humans are just animals after all. Intelligence, success, and earnings to me seem more closely related to individual survival than reproduction. These days with tech advancements individual survival is much easier. A focus on behavioral traits seemingly more suited to reproductive viability (extraversion, agreeability, etc) would be the most logical adaptation. It's quite literally what all of our grandfathers pissed and moaned about in regards to technology making us dumber.

[Anonymous No.9133608]

>caring about women

[Anonymous No.9133611]

>tfw low-key extroverted

[Anonymous No.9133624]

>>9132708

>Asian cultures generally favour quiet and modest personality traits that easily fit in society.

Reminder that this has already changed within the last 30 years and looks/financial success are literally top billing now.

Most employers in China for instance require a photo Id attached to your resume for job applications and dating sites/ women (because of equal employment and male demographic surplus) demand +100k salaries from the male partners.

[Anonymous No.9133635]

>>9133608
>triggered incel
k
e
k

[Anonymous No.9133641]

>>9132634
Any tests for fathers?
I'm pretty sure fathers prefer intellect and rigor over extroverted jerk-wads.

[Anonymous No.9133656]

>>9132648
Hahaha ya

[Anonymous No.9133659]

>>9133585
But even just suggesting to people that extroversion is a better trait for reproductive success than intelligence gets their panties in a twist, as they become desperate to justify their own personal qualities.

>>9133587
>Intelligence, success, and earnings to me seem more closely related to individual survival than reproduction.
In this day and age, being "intelligent" is fucking easy. There's tons of universities, the state even pays you to go (maybe not in the US, but here in Europe we get state-sponsored tuition). It doesn't require guts or bravery or anything particularly special to be "intelligent" in our modern age.

>A focus on behavioral traits seemingly more suited to reproductive viability (extraversion, agreeability, etc) would be the most logical adaptation.
Exactly - although I disagree about agreeability - for a male at least, agreeability will probably *negatively* affect your chances of reproduction. Chicks don't want guys that are too highly agreeable.

This is probably one reason why fewer males are going to university now. They realise that it might not be in their best reproductive interests.

[Anonymous No.9133660]

>>9133641
Jealous, small dicked ones would, yes. Real men know that they want to raise their sons to be bold and confident, not pathetic little faggots.

[Anonymous No.9133676]

>>9132634
This is why embryo selection needs to be regulated.

Health and intelligence should be the priority criteria.

[Anonymous No.9133682]

>ladies want people that want to go outside and not post online all day
this study is sexist

[Anonymous No.9133777]

>>9133682
>society that advances faster and is better to live in
vs
>more talkative population

[Anonymous No.9133805]

>>9133130
>3) "Kinda hard to increase their IQ" - I disagree. While I am sure there are some biological factors in IQ, I am also sure that upbringing is a key part, and mostly I think one of the most important factors in IQ tests is whether the person being tested WANTS to do well.

You have to add "I think" before you make a claim because you know they're bullshit. There's no room for opinion, all that you said is bullshit. IQ becomes increasingly inheritable as you eliminate SES disabilities, this means that unless your kid grows up malnourished and in some shitty ghetto his IQ will be determined mainly by his genetics. Hope to have educated your retarded brainlet low IQ mind here.

[Anonymous No.9133819]

>>9132634
>trying to make sense of women when women can't even make sense of themselves
topkek my friend

[Anonymous No.9133842]

Reminder that there isn't a great society (read: Not a mudpit in Africa or one that coasts by on past works like in modern day) that didn't take sexual choice away from women, made sure they didn't have too much influence over children, and kept them as low in status as doable.

>Athens
>The Islamic Empires at their golden years
>India
>China
>The British Empire

Of course, I expect feminism to fade away with time. The cat ladies and cucks aren't reproducing themselves while the likes of Muslims and White Republicans are (or at least more than the cucks and cat ladies).

>>9132941
>>9132958

Reminder that fags who push the Gook Women Meme are too ignorant to notice that even Gook Men wish their women looked more like White women (see all the "Japanese" women in animu who suspiciously have non-Gook features).

[Anonymous No.9133858]

>>9132648
Should England be the kid's city?

[Anonymous No.9133862]

>>9133777
>0 charisma "Intelligent" NEET thinks he can make the world a better place by actively avoiding to consult with others and probably faps to his unproven theories born from his imagination with no ground in reality
vs
>Extraverted person getting along with people and voicing his opinions causing people to criticize them and as a result comes to solutions that work in the real world

[Anonymous No.9133866]

>>9133862

>He voted for Trump.

[Anonymous No.9133878]

>>9133866
hes partially right
sometimes the world needs loud whiny babies to find problems

[Anonymous No.9133888]

>>9132634
> 142 mothers

that's hardly a big enough sample size to form any reasonable conclusions

[Anonymous No.9133892]

>>9132958
Those are the MOST asian kids i've ever seen.

That's the problem with asian women, if you have kids with them, they will look asian.

[Anonymous No.9133906]

>>9133805
environmental factors are wayyyyy more nuanced than socioeconomic status.

you have no idea that you have no idea.

if you were to respond to this, i can almost guarantee it would be something abrasive and defensive rather that an inquisitive inquiry.

i know ur type o' too well

[Anonymous No.9133917]

Intelligence is needed only for the elite. The masses should be selected for other useful traits. Imo any genes related to violent and otherwise disruptive behavior should be the first to go before we even consider more specific gene editing.

[Anonymous No.9133937]

>>9133906
You know, there are twin studies out there.

[Anonymous No.9133938]

>>9133917

[Anonymous No.9133944]

>>9132958
Fake picture.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34568674

[Anonymous No.9133945]

>>9132634
This is why designer babies and all that genetic modification shit scares the shit out of me, people will apply their biases and we don't know the consequences that it could have if we make those wishes come true

[Anonymous No.9133962]

>>9132648
Women are smart after all.

[Anonymous No.9133966]

>>9133130
>If you're an extroverted person, a loud-mouthed person, very outgoing, perhaps even physically aggressive or a bully, then what reason do you have to do well on an IQ test?

It's a gross mis-extrapolation to say that extroverts can't have a high IQ. Loud-mouthed people can be good speakers, and aggressive people make good lawyers & businessmen. It's like you're only familiar with kids and people who never grew up. Not surprising in today's climate, but still, extroverted people do most definitely have a place among the mensans.

[Anonymous No.9133968]

>>9133938

But he's onto something. If we wish to be as productive as possible then we must pursue gene editing and perhaps interracial marriage. Along with keeping reproduction out of the hands of women.

[Anonymous No.9133978]

>>9133917
Destructive behavior may be inextricably linked with the rule-breaking & assumption-challenging necessary for innovation & scientific advancement, so let's not jump the gun.

[Anonymous No.9134093]

>>9133937
People love to cite twin studies. Firstly, twins being separated at birth is an anomaly. Therefore, the dataset is far too small to come to any reasonable conclusions.

Second, when people are adopted, they tend to get adopted by a similar type of person. 2 family home, dual income, no criminal record etc. etc. They don't just let anybody adopt, so the twins, albeit growing in different environments, grow in similar environments.

Further, as previously stated, environmental factors ARE NOT LIMITED TO SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS! Environmental factors can be incredibly subtle and hard to detect by the layman.

Ex) during infancy if a baby lives in a city, the babies IQ will be lower than its suburban counterpart because of copious amounts of ambient sound in the city babies environment ( cars honking, garbage truck picking up trash, car accidents, people arguing etc. ) all this background noise stifles an infants cognitive development.

[Anonymous No.9134095]

>>9133937
>Second, when people are adopted, they tend to get adopted by a similar type of person. 2 family home

** 2 parent home; excuse the typo

[Anonymous No.9134101]

>>9133945
i know what you mean man, unfortunately its here and it looks like its here to stay.

Google CRISPR

Your jaw will drop

[Anonymous No.9134110]

>>9133917
>Imo any genes related to violent and otherwise disruptive behavior should be the first to go before we even consider more specific gene editing.

what about genetic diseases you reactionary fool, how about we take care of that first?

[Anonymous No.9134241]

>>9133676
you forgot self-control.

[Anonymous No.9134326]

>>9132634
>popsci says that women are fucking retarded: the post

NEW AT 11!!!

[Anonymous No.9134331]

>>9133917
Why even have "the masses" just gas them all and have like a few thousand super smart people in the world instead? Robotics can do everything we need.

[Anonymous No.9134634]

>>9134331
I knew you braincucks would secretly wanted to do this. You'll never achieve it
MAGA

[Anonymous No.9134744]

>>9133862
We start with average current values. Would the world be better off with a shift upward in intelligence and conscientiousness or more talkative? It's completely obvious. You are just fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.9134751]

>>9133917
higher IQ is associated with less crime. There is band of low IQ like 75-85 that is extremely high criminality because of just how dumb they are. You would have to increase the function of many parts of the brain to get lower crime and not just focusing on whatever causes violent impulses

[Anonymous No.9134782]

Again, women not knowing what they really want. Agreeableness IS NOT a Chad characteristic -- if you're too agreeable people will stomp over you in life and you'll do nothing like the little sissy boi you're (know this from personal experience). To be successful as a man in any field you need to be confrontational.

[Anonymous No.9134819]

>>9133108
never thought I'd encounter such a post on sci

[Anonymous No.9134973]

>>9134093

>muh blank slate

[Anonymous No.9135030]

>>9134782

What do you expect? Women lie about what attracts them to make themselves look more appealing to men who can get them more than welfare checks. Combine that with how women only really have close to two decades of reliable fertility (and in turn, desirability among the top men) and you have much lying.