those studies are the best we have as a substantial proof when we discuss the issue. Scientists and Evolutionary Psychologists(people who LITERALLY devote their lives to that shit rather than posting on incel forums) already offer extrinsic and intrinsic reason why this significant correlation between looks and higher IQ exists.
Sure. So why should I take their interpretation by another poster on an incel forum as being definitive?
I'm no statistician and I can't tease apart their analyses for missteps. What I can do is to identify basic errors in sample collection that prevent the conclusions of the study being extensible to the broader world.
Think of it this way: I'm trying to learn about attraction to men who have female friends. I go on a college campus, look for males and females in groups with 2+ females, and ask the female in each group to estimate her male friend's attractiveness to other women. For a control, I ask the same women to rate the attractiveness of men sitting alone. Hell, I'll even go to several campuses. Obvious problems in the design right? So should the results be accepted due to being the "best (only) we have"? Why not just reserve judgment for better ones?
There also exists a meta-analysis contradicting the findings of the oft-cited UK child study. I can't see the case as being "open-and-shut" and don't think stacking unread studies up behind a point is a better way to make it than to draw from your own observations (as though "anecdotal" were an absolutely valid pejorative).
Cope however you want. There IS a significant correlation between looks and IQ. proven time and time again. Both by small size and national size longitudinal studies. You can't oversimply it by saying "basic child studies".
This isnt to say every ugly incel is dumb. They have 20k+ sample size, very high regression coefficient, very high level of confidence. and that is with controlling for shit ton of factors.
None of that matters if they're testing a population entirely unrelated to our own, or if the basic design of the investigation is permeable to bias. Evaluating pre/pubescent kids (using the reports of their own teachers) and extending the findings to adults is a laughable overreach.
Post the very best, most well-designed, largest
N study you've come across demonstrating that attractive men are more intelligent. I assume (hope) it won't be the child study.
Those studies dont say every uggo is dumb. Every incel reading this post could be a genius and it still wouldnt change a damn thing.
Yeah of course not, which is why it's ridiculous to call countering this opinion "coping". I have seen absolutely no evidence in my life that Chads are, on average, very intelligent at all - rather the opposite. I haven't noticed the severely ugly tending in either direction: I grew up around a lot of nearly-retarded 3/10s, but I've also seen plenty of remarkably keen ones.
If one, or even a few, studies is supposed to be the final statement on the matter, it seems odd that the conclusions they have reached should so thoroughly contradict everything I have seen with my own eyes. If I am an unreliable observer, so too is the system set up by a band of specialists to apprehend and model the same phenomenological world that we both are attempting to describe. Is rational "method" more reliable than intuitive perception? The hastily constructed versus the generationally forged?
If I were to try myself to place the intelligences of the very ugly against the very attractive, they'd both probably come out slightly lower than the merely average.
Also learn what chad worshipping is. Calling it as it is, is NOT chad worshipping. Blackpill is about embracing the TRUTH, no matter how uncomfortable it is.
Every time I see someone advocate the "Chad has an infallibly, globally good set of genes" position, they seem set to it so obstinately that they set out
wanting to believe it. Confirmation bias, as it were.
