Do good genes come in a package?

[Red Shambhala]

I don't have any data on this but my suspicion is that good genes come in a package. Meaning: if you have good genes for looks you are more likely to also have good genes for IQ and good genes for mental stability. Likewise, if you're low IQ you are also likely to be short and mentally unstable.

The idea that men who are goodlooking and stable are stupid in return is just world fallacy from Hollywood. I've read somewhere that the majority of CEOs are far above average when it comes to height. I could imagine that this is similarly true for acclaimed scientists.

I even find it hard to believe in the idea of a Chad with a tiny dick. You sometimes hear people ask how well a dicklet Chad would do with women. And sure, they exist but I believe that's rather the exception. If you have good genes for height and build and face you most probably have good genes for dick.

There are always outliers, of course, but by and large, tall men with good shoulders and chest etc. don't have ugly faces. Hollywood might be misleading, because manlets with perfect faces are super rare. Usually, people with bad genes in regard to height also seem to have bad genes in regard to face.

>For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

 

[kappo0]

height gets you better woman an the cycle begin

 

[Deleted member 2119]

Rather yes

We consider them good genes because they have lots of good traits in the first place. Many users here have at least one good feature but they would not consider their genes good.

However there is probably a gigachad out there who has a terminal illness so it is not an absolute rule

 

[PM_ME_STRIPPERS]

chad will always be chad, incel will alwyas be incel

Rather yes

We consider them good genes because they have lots of good traits in the first place. Many users here have at least one good feature but they would not consider their genes good.

However there is probably a gigachad out there who has a terminal illness so it is not an absolute rule

yea ive known a few chads/ chadlites with terminal illnesses and theyve sadly lost their lives and i thought fuck man if that shit didnt exist, living that chad / chadlites life would have been the best thing ever

 

[idkwattodowithlife]

Rather yes.

There's already multiple studies showcasing that attractive people have above average IQs. And as well, you've noted that CEOs have above average height.

It's also possible to have just one attractive trait. But usually all of the good stuff comes in a package for those that are attractive.

 

[Maeror]

Rather yes.

There's already multiple studies showcasing that attractive people have above average IQs. And as well, you've noted that CEOs have above average height.

It's also possible to have just one attractive trait. But usually all of the good stuff comes in a package for those that are attractive.

 

[kantero]

If we're talking about deformities, then yes, people with them can be worse in genetical value aspect because stress fucked them up and deformities = outside visual sign of this. If we're talking about "ur jaw isn't square enough", then I wouldn't be sure

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Rather no.

Never made any sense to be; seems like baselessly flaying oneself at the feet of one's master. As a possible mechanism, you'd be looking at either pleiotropy (one gene produces several phenotypic signatures - but how likely is it that there's a common molecular regulatory system for, say, penile length and verbal intelligence?) or linkage (two allelic variants found close together on the same chromosome and thereby tending to be inherited together due to everyone's favorite process - recombination; again, are we supposed to infer that there are giant blocs of co-inherited genes independently influencing muscle size, canthal tilt, and voice pitch?)

You can trot out anecdotes to "prove" the Übertschad olympic polymath theory, but they're pretty clearly exceptions. CEOs operate in a fairly unique context; they are selected for concrete managerial acumen (intelligence) as well as people-pleasing and magnetism (height, looks), giving the illusion that these traits have some common origin when this case is considered in isolation.

Focusing on the narrow sliver of high-profile public figures introduces intractable bias into our inquiry; think simply of the chads and slutcunts you've known more or less personally. Most people I've known better looking than me range from those of average intelligence to "can't tie shoe" mental invalids. Conversely, those in the top stratum of intelligence usually aren't much to look at and are certainly shorter than 6' on the whole (disregarding the no famous examples clause, take a look at some Nobel laureates).

Chad worshipping strikes me as deeply abhorrent and counterproductive and this contention is its essential basis. Needs to be stripped away promptly.

 

[Deleted member 4159]

What's up with the "rather" options?

 

[whogivesafucc]

Rather no.

Never made any sense to be; seems like baselessly flaying oneself at the feet of one's master. As a possible mechanism, you'd be looking at either pleiotropy (one gene produces several phenotypic signatures - but how likely is it that there's a common molecular regulatory system for, say, penile length and verbal intelligence?) or linkage (two allelic variants found close together on the same chromosome and thereby tending to be inherited together due to everyone's favorite process - recombination; again, are we supposed to infer that there are giant blocs of co-inherited genes independently influencing muscle size, canthal tilt, and voice pitch?)

You can trot out anecdotes to "prove" the Übertschad olympic polymath theory, but they're pretty clearly exceptions. CEOs operate in a fairly unique context; they are selected for concrete managerial acumen (intelligence) as well as people-pleasing and magnetism (height, looks), giving the illusion that these traits have some common origin when this case is considered in isolation.

Focusing on the narrow sliver of high-profile public figures introduces intractable bias into our inquiry; think simply of the chads and slutcunts you've known more or less personally. Most people I've known better looking than me range from those of average intelligence to "can't tie shoe" mental invalids. Conversely, those in the top stratum of intelligence usually aren't much to look at and are certainly shorter than 6' on the whole (disregarding the no famous examples clause, take a look at some Nobel laureates).

Chad worshipping strikes me as deeply abhorrent and counterproductive and this contention is its essential basis. Needs to be stripped away promptly.

im so low iq at this point and so much brain fog from fapping i barely even understand what you're saying here.

 

[UnfortunatelyINCEL98]

yeah you can buy jeans online and they come in a package

 

[CosmicJoke]

It's actually very simple to explain, it's genetic capitalism. Unless an uggo moneymaxes to retrieve a high quality female he's gonna pick a shit female hence packaging even more his shitty genes, modulo epigenetics and mutations.

Genes come in a package because most men are not betabux.

In dogs we talk about pedigree, it's no different for humans. Races for the most part (on average) can be hierarchized, and among a race ethnicities, and amont an ethnicity a people and then among that group there's still an upper genetic caste and lower caste.

I speak mostly for physical apperance. Intelligence is more fluid apparently, and more subject to mutations, in my experience, this website proves it, trash genetics overall nonetheless smarter by 1,2 standard deviations from the norm.