Blackpill Blackpill: Everything is linked to everything (either you have it all, or nothing)

[highschoolcel]

Let me ask you a question

Do you think this man could be stupid ? Of course not. And you'll say "it's because of the halo effect".

Here's the thing: the halo effect is a cope.

The truth is that higher IQ, empathy, physical attractiveness, health and many other factors are all related.

Excellent genes = You have a it all

Shit genes = You have nothing

Not all chads are geniuses, but take 100 chads, I guarantee their average IQ is higher than the general population's average.

Take 100 deformed goblins, I guarantee their average IQ is lower than the general population's average.

The whole idea that what's outside has nothing to do with what's inside is massive myth and gigantic cope.

If an apple looks rotten, stinky and disgusting, it probably is.

If it looks sweet, brightly red, and delicious, it probably is (unless genetic engineering).

See a tall, handsome guy in the street ? Chances are he's smart, hard working, articulate, empathetic, trustworthy.

See a small shitskin creeping in a corner ? Chances are he's actually dumb, subject to all sorts of diseases, and would betray you at the first opportunity.

Of course there will be exceptions.

But in general ? Everything is linked.

 

[tulasdanslos]

Yeah.
Leaving a meme instead of posting "water" or whatever.

 

[highschoolcel]

Yeah.
Leaving a meme instead of posting "water" or whatever.
View attachment 1144613

Based meme, never saw it before

 

[InMemoriam]

No i refuse to believe this

 

[LeFrenchCel]

Our bad looks have an impact on everything else

 

[Bianor]

Yeah.
Leaving a meme instead of posting "water" or whatever.
View attachment 1144613

 

[Blackpill Monk]

Our bad looks have an impact on everything else

 

[Thaway]

the halo effect is a cope.

No, it isn't.

 

[highschoolcel]

View attachment 1144615

fucking based

 

[Nate Dogg]

Lots of genius scientists are ugly

 

[highschoolcel]

Lots of genius scientists are ugly

The statement that a lot of ugly people are smart is not in contradiction with the statement that good looking people are smarter on average.

It could be explained in different ways, including the following :
Beautiful and smart people become CEOs, Entrepreneurs, Actors, while ugly and smart people go for the nerdy stuff.
Ugly and dumb people dont get to do either.

 

[highschoolcel]

Our bad looks have an impact on everything else

Here's my opinion: Bad looks and everything else have the same source.

 

[CopingForBrutality]

Sure bro, that 140 IQ ricecel in the Coding competition doesn't have high IQ because he looks ugly.

Most of the Fortune 500 CEO's are sub5, many have height to compensate because height gives advantages for leadership positions but their faces aren't close to Chad. Walk into an STEM class at a top university, most of the class will be sub5 males.

Chad dominated professions are Middle Management, Acting and Modelling (Entertainment industry). Many Chads don't get past Middle management because you actually need to be technically competent rather than simply look good, Halo effect does help immensely but its returns plateaus when work actually gets complicated and the High IQ is needed.

 

[highschoolcel]

Sure bro, that 140 IQ ricecel in the Coding competition doesn't have high IQ because he looks ugly.

Most of the Fortune 500 CEO's are sub5, many have height to compensate because height gives advantages for leadership positions but their faces aren't close to Chad. Walk into an STEM class at a top university, most of the class will be sub5 males.

Chad dominated professions are Middle Management, Acting and Modelling (Entertainment industry). Many Chads don't get past Middle management because you actually need to be technically competent rather than simply look good, Halo effect does help immensely but its returns plateaus when work actually gets complicated and the High IQ is needed.

Many confusions in that post, such that assuming "a lot of ugly people are smart" contradicts "good looking people are smarter on average."

Walking into a STEM class is literally walking into a class where dumb people are excluded by default, and where usually good looking people dont want to be. IE: it's a filter.

You also make a distinction between height and attractive, while they are the same thing.

Fortune 500 CEOs are on average 57.7 years old, so yeah, they wont look like chico. This doesnt mean they were not attractive in their youth.

You also wrote

Many Chads don't get past Middle management because you actually need to be technically competent

Which is actually the opposite : As you ascend the hierarchy, technical skills become less essential while soft skills grow in significance.

 

[foidrapist69]

Take 100 deformed goblins, I guarantee their average IQ is lower than the general population's average.

I'm the one who significantly lowers it for all B)

 

[CopingForBrutality]

Many confusions in that post, such that assuming "a lot of ugly people are smart" contradicts

I know this is going to sound like muh anecdote, but most of the Chads I knew were dumber than normies. Normies appear as the smartest group simply because of sheer numbers because there's a lot more of them than sub5s and chads, comparing the averages between sub5, chad and normie is a difficult task because of sample size, so I guess take my anecdote with a grain of salt

"good looking people are smarter on average."

I might agree that there is a slight correlation, but not as overblown as you made it out to be on this post, I never came across someone and assumed just by looking at them "most likely they are higher IQ because they look good"

You also make a distinction between height and attractive, while they are the same thing.

True, but their faces are still sub5 so I'm not sure how much height is compensating, they are high iq normies overall with specific traits geared towards soft skills (good combo for CEO)

Which is actually the opposite : As you ascend the hierarchy, technical skills become less essential while soft skills grow in significance.

Generally yes, but not at the very top of the hierarchy close to the CEO or being the CEO. Soft skills work the most effective in the middle of the company, the very top and bottom are the most technical

 

[Antifem Lord]

Looks is life basically the better you look the better you will become at everything

 

[_meh]

Yes, if it rains it pours.

Everything comes in a package.

There's usually a misconception of attractive people not being "smart," but however as you demonstrated that... it's far from the truth.

Many good looking people go to top universities/colleges.

 

[R(p)apist1488]

I noticed this a while back. Everything in nature and reality is fundamnetally connected. Nothing exists in a vaccum.

 

[Mistake]

Yes, if it rains it pours.

Everything comes in a package.

There's usually a misconception of attractive people not being "smart," but however as you demonstrated that... it's far from the truth.

Many good looking people go to top universities/colleges.

I think that the misconception of attractive people not being smart comes from how some of them act retarded and put less effort into social situations. However, they get away with that because of their looks. Most of their intellectual effort goes into their college work.

 

[Mistake]

The attractive people in my school were smarter, more creative, funnier, better at sports, rarely/never got sick, and had richer parents.

 

[highschoolcel]

Yes, if it rains it pours.

Love it. Didn’t kknow that quote. Powerful one.

 

[highschoolcel]

The attractive people in my school were smarter, more creative, funnier, better at sports, rarely/never got sick, and had richer parents.

Exactly

 

[highschoolcel]

I noticed this a while back. Everything in nature and reality is fundamnetally connected. Nothing exists in a vaccum.

Spot on

 

[Jud Pottah]

You know...
All we need is a Nuke powerful to make everyone equal under the mush of radiation.

The great equalizer.

 

[Zerosum]

The problem is that if what you say is true, then the logical conclusion becomes feminism. If you say women select based on "good genes," then why not enable their selectivity? (aka whoring to Chad), would that not be better for the species? No. I believe there is a difference between natural selection and mate selection. An example would be this species of Babirusa boar:

The females in this species specifically selected mates based on which males had the largest tusks; eventually, the male's tusks would become elongated and abnormal-looking, puncturing their own skull and killing them. Is this trait beneficial for their species? Another example is the peacock:

The males develop these beautiful feathers in order to impress a female, but funnily enough, the massive feathers weigh them down, making it harder to flee from predators. This is another example of mate selection being arbitrary and eventually developing traits that are not beneficial for a species.

So let me ask you: if only 3% of men are Chad (tinder statistics), how can this be sustainable? We can instantly see that any society that has feminism instantly drops in birth rates far below the replacement level, Why? because only a very small portion of men are selected to breed (among other reasons like economy and culture). So the only way it becomes sustainable long-term is either:

A: 3 guys share 33 women and impregnate each of them with more more than 2 kids (probably for beta's and simps to raise) (this is our current situation and we can already see it's collapsing)
B: Women lower their unrealistic expectations on men

Forget genetics; when we enable women to be extremely selective, it destroys every aspect of society. We get numerous kids that are completely fatherless, making them more likely to become criminals, impoverished, or failures because logically no chad will have the resources or time to raise all of those kids in option A, even if he wanted to (probably not the case)

There is an increase in degeneracy in society, with wives cheating on their husbands to get Chad's seed and multiple women becoming hooked on welfare because they let Chad pump and dump and then have his kids. Destroying the economy because of such a heavy burden on taxpayers. Or they choose to abort their kids, furthering the decline in population and further incentivizing them to whore themselves with no consequences. If you let women choose, there is no winning.

In a homogenized society genetics will not necessarily be worse

The only way to improve a society's longevity is to choose option B and restrict women's mate selection in order to solve all the aforementioned problems: economic collapse, children's development, increasing crime rates, divorce, abortion, degeneracy, oversexualization of society, population collapse, extinction, etc. The problem is that foids are this way by nature. So there is no possible negotiation; they can't choose not to want chad. They will always want chad by nature. So the only solution is to completely remove their rights, as many religions and ancient wisdom tried to show us. One man and one woman. Yet it was all in vein because of the Jews, and history is doomed to repeat itself, Society will have to collapse before anything improves, and that will be well outside our lifespan..

 

[highschoolcel]

The problem is that if what you say is true, then the logical conclusion becomes feminism. If you say women select based on "good genes," then why not enable their selectivity? (aka whoring to Chad), would that not be better for the species? No. I believe there is a difference between natural selection and mate selection. An example would be this species of Babirusa boar:

The females in this species specifically selected mates based on which males had the largest tusks; eventually, the male's tusks would become elongated and abnormal-looking, puncturing their own skull and killing them. Is this trait beneficial for their species? Another example is the peacock:

The males develop these beautiful feathers in order to impress a female, but funnily enough, the massive feathers weigh them down, making it harder to flee from predators. This is another example of mate selection being arbitrary and eventually developing traits that are not beneficial for a species.

So let me ask you: if only 3% of men are Chad (tinder statistics), how can this be sustainable? We can instantly see that any society that has feminism instantly drops in birth rates far below the replacement level, Why? because only a very small portion of men are selected to breed (among other reasons like economy and culture). So the only way it becomes sustainable long-term is either:

A: 3 guys share 33 women and impregnate each of them with more more than 2 kids (probably for beta's and simps to raise) (this is our current situation and we can already see it's collapsing)
B: Women lower their unrealistic expectations on men

Forget genetics; when we enable women to be extremely selective, it destroys every aspect of society. We get numerous kids that are completely fatherless, making them more likely to become criminals, impoverished, or failures because logically no chad will have the resources or time to raise all of those kids in option A, even if he wanted to (probably not the case)

There is an increase in degeneracy in society, with wives cheating on their husbands to get Chad's seed and multiple women becoming hooked on welfare because they let Chad pump and dump and then have his kids. Destroying the economy because of such a heavy burden on taxpayers. Or they choose to abort their kids, furthering the decline in population and further incentivizing them to whore themselves with no consequences. If you let women choose, there is no winning.

In a homogenized society genetics will not necessarily be worse

The only way to improve a society's longevity is to choose option B and restrict women's mate selection in order to solve all the aforementioned problems: economic collapse, children's development, increasing crime rates, divorce, abortion, degeneracy, oversexualization of society, population collapse, extinction, etc. The problem is that foids are this way by nature. So there is no possible negotiation; they can't choose not to want chad. They will always want chad by nature. So the only solution is to completely remove their rights, as many religions and ancient wisdom tried to show us. One man and one woman. Yet it was all in vein because of the Jews, and history is doomed to repeat itself, Society will have to collapse before anything improves, and that will be well outside our lifespan..

Bro I gotta be honest I’m too tired to read all this but I agree and monogamy is key

 

[Zerosum]

Bro I gotta be honest I’m too tired to read all this but I agree and monogamy is key

it's a good read, guaranteed. When you have some time, check it out brocel

 

[highschoolcel]

it's a good read, guaranteed. When you have some time, check it out brocel

Will do

 

[Lonelyus]

Let me ask you a question

View attachment 1144612

Do you think this man could be stupid ? Of course not. And you'll say "it's because of the halo effect".

Here's the thing: the halo effect is a cope.

The truth is that higher IQ, empathy, physical attractiveness, health and many other factors are all related.

Excellent genes = You have a it all

Shit genes = You have nothing

Not all chads are geniuses, but take 100 chads, I guarantee their average IQ is higher than the general population's average.

Take 100 deformed goblins, I guarantee their average IQ is lower than the general population's average.

The whole idea that what's outside has nothing to do with what's inside is massive myth and gigantic cope.

If an apple looks rotten, stinky and disgusting, it probably is.

If it looks sweet, brightly red, and delicious, it probably is (unless genetic engineering).

See a tall, handsome guy in the street ? Chances are he's smart, hard working, articulate, empathetic, trustworthy.

See a small shitskin creeping in a corner ? Chances are he's actually dumb, subject to all sorts of diseases, and would betray you at the first opportunity.

Of course there will be exceptions.

But in general ? Everything is linked.

Dean Mogs him!