Theory: The average IQ of an incels.is regular poster is far above 100

[anon]

Because genes are only responsible for one's appearance, right?

No, you reddit fuck. I never said that. Bad genetics are all about balance. If you're low IQ, but 8/10+ on the attractiveness scale and tall, you're genetically superior because women want to fuck you. They want your dick and they want to reproduce with you.

If you're a manlet with a recessed chin, alien skull and tiny frame, but you have an IQ of 130, you're genetically inferior. Women don't want to fuck you and they definitely don't want to have children with you. It means you're genetic filth.

Your argument is that incel-looking 130+ IQ people don't have bad genetics. JFL. You have to look at all this in the context of sexual attractiveness. 130+ IQ won't make you sexually attractive and sexual attractiveness determines genetic superiority. If women find you sexually attractive, you're genetically superior. That's all there is to it. It just so happens that if you're unattractive you're also more likely to be lower IQ. Shocking, right?

You can have genetics that make you look bad but still be superior to Chad in every other way.

Chad will always be superior to you, sexually speaking, of course which at the end of the day is all that matters. Your 145 IQ means nothing once Chad mogs you.

Would this mean that Chad is genetically superior to the incel?

Without a doubt.

Tall and attractive men tend to be more intelligent. That was my initial argument. It's a fact.

We're arguing different things. Don't ascribe your lacking reading comprehension to my supposedly low IQ

Read my initial reply first. My argument is that tall and attractive men have higher IQ on average which is why I believe that the average IQ on this site is probably below the overall average. Since this is an incel site and you'd expect most of the people here to be unattractive, it's not a stretch to assume that the average IQ on this forum is below the overall average.
Then you went on to reply with nonsense. I quote: Bad looks =/= "genetically inferior".

Your argument is that being unattractive doesn't mean you have bad genetics. Are you actually retarded?
Just read your own replies. "Would this mean that Chad is genetically superior to the incel?" How can anyone who claims to be an incel or blackpilled ask this question? Yes, Chads are genetically superior to incels. That's blackpill 101. Are you sure you're not from cuckqueers?

 

[Deleted member 12355]

No, you reddit fuck. I never said that. Bad genetics are all about balance. If you're low IQ, but 8/10+ on the attractiveness scale and tall, you're genetically superior because women want to fuck you. They want your dick and they want to reproduce with you.

If you're a manlet with a recessed chin, alien skull and tiny frame, but you have an IQ of 130, you're genetically inferior. Women don't want to fuck you and they definitely don't want to have children with you. It means you're genetic filth.

Your argument is that incel-looking 130+ IQ people don't have bad genetics. JFL. You have to look at all this in the context of sexual attractiveness. 130+ IQ won't make you sexually attractive and sexual attractiveness determines genetic superiority. If women find you sexually attractive, you're genetically superior. That's all there is to it. It just so happens that if you're unattractive you're also more likely to be lower IQ. Shocking, right?


Chad will always be superior to you, sexually speaking, of course which at the end of the day is all that matters. Your 145 IQ means nothing once Chad mogs you.

Without a doubt.

Tall and attractive men tend to be more intelligent.

Weak argumentation. You can do better than that, surely. If you wish to define genetic superiority strictly in terms of sexual attraction, then there's no question that Chad would be "genetically superior" in today's context 10 times out of times. Out in the wild, however, where the selection criteria is radically different from those of the times we're living in today, a lot of foids wouldn't be afforded the luxury to reject the incel to be with Chad lest they want their offspring killed. This proves that the concept of genetic superiority is relative and can be altered through environmental stimulus. You, and a lot of other incels, suffer from this idea that the only thing that's guided human evolution is the selection criteria of looks. This is certainly the case in today's society, but there is no reason to believe that the current world order will be able to sustain itself, and once it comes tumbling down, again, foids wont be afforded the luxury to always mate with whomever is the most sexually attractive. Also, if we lived in a strictly patriarchal society where men got to decide who the women mated with, the incel with an IQ of 140 would be considered "genetically superior" to the average Chad. You're a defeatist determinist who can't see past the current paradigm we're living in, and you call those whose minds are flexible enough to do so low IQ.

Personally, my definition of genetic superiority are those genes that lead to advances in the sciences, to name just one example.

 

[anon]

Weak argumentation. You can do better than that, surely.

Condescending reddit tone. You sound like a woman.

If you wish to define genetic superiority strictly in terms of sexual attraction, then there's no question that Chad would be "genetically superior" in today's context 10 times out of times.

Why are we still even arguing this?

Out in the wild, however

"Out in the wild"

where the selection criteria is radically different from those of the times we're living in today

Which is why my arguments are based on modern times aka "today." We live today, not 4000 years ago.

a lot of foids wouldn't be afforded the luxury to reject the incel to be with Chad lest they want their offspring killed.

We live in 2018.

This proves that the concept of genetic superiority is relative and can be altered through environmental stimulus.

Biology > feels. Chad from the year 650 was genetically superior to an incel monk.

You, and a lot of other incels, suffer from this idea that the only thing that's guided human evolution is the selection criteria of looks.

If you give women complete freedom, they will select almost entirely based on looks. It's biology. Sure, men can control women and force women to "select" differently and we should be doing this. It's just that genetically superior "men" aka incels don't have much of a say in anything. We are hated, at best ignored by everyone. You still can't change female biology. They are wired to lust after Chad.

This is certainly the case in today's society, but there is no reason to believe that the current world order will be able to sustain itself, and once it comes tumbling down, again, foids wont be afforded the luxury to always mate with whomever is the most sexually attractive.

I hope this happens. We all do.

Also, if we lived in a strictly patriarchal society where men got to decide who the women mated with, the incel with an IQ of 140 would be considered "genetically superior" to the average Chad.

I understand that, but again. Biology > feels. Chad will always make women wet which makes him genetically superior.

You're a defeatist determinist who can't see past the current paradigm we're living in, and you call those whose minds are flexible enough to do so low IQ.

You're not doing anything, though. You think you're doing something by acknowledging that women shouldn't have as many freedoms as they have today? 90% of incels believe this, including me. Read my sig. What are you actually doing about it besides arguing with me about it on an incel forum? You think I don't know all this?
It will eventually come crashing down and women will lose. The western civilization is dying. Is it because of me? I don't think so. I'm all for patriarchal society. I'm just stating facts about the world we live in. Chad is genetically superior to incels. Chad is more intelligent on average than incels.

Personally, my definition of genetic superiority are those genes that lead to advances in the sciences, to name just one example.

Jokes aside, I understand what you mean, but you sound like a redditor from one of the atheist subreddits. Sounds like cope to me.

 

[Halknut Marchana]

I think I have an High IQ but i never took a test however I am pretty intelligent and self aware.

 

[Deleted member 12355]

Condescending reddit tone. You sound like a woman.


Why are we still even arguing this?

"Out in the wild"

Which is why my arguments are based on modern times aka "today." We live today, not 4000 years ago.

We live in 2018.

Biology > feels. Chad from the year 650 was genetically superior to an incel monk.

If you give women complete freedom, they will select almost entirely based on looks. It's biology. Sure, men can control women and force women to "select" differently and we should be doing this. You still can't change female biology. They are wired to lust after Chad.

I hope this happens. We all do.

I understand that, but again. Biology > feels. Chad will always make women wet which makes him genetically superior.

You're not doing anything, though. You think you're doing something by acknowledging that women shouldn't have as many freedoms as they have today? 90% of incels believe this, including me. Read my sig. What are you actually doing about it besides arguing about it with other incels?
It will eventually come crashing down and women will lose. The western civilization is dying. Is it because of me? I don't think so. I'm all for patriarchal society. I'm just stating facts about the world we live in. Chad is genetically superior to incels. Chad is more intelligent on average than incels.


Jokes aside, I understand what you mean, but you sound like a redditor from one of the atheist subreddits. Sounds like cope to me.

Then go die in a fire. Nothing of what I said is factually incorrect. The only thing you have is personal insults and condescensions. You wanna know what the best part about this "argument" is? It's the fact that one of the participants is too dense to realize what we're actually arguing. I never once claimed that good looking men aren't more intelligent on average than ugly men. Simply stating that you can't extrapolate an absolute from an average isn't low IQ. It's understanding statistics. For the statement 'good looks = genetic superiority' to be true, every man of good looks would have to be superior to every man of bad looks. That's what this statement entails. Averages mean fuck all, and I don't disagree with the assertion that attractive men are on average more intelligent than unattractive men are. Now, what do you think that assertion means?

 

[AsiaCel]

Got 119 on the test 30/35 because of time limit.

According to the test I should be good with studies and stuff yet my brain doesn't work in school at all.

 

[GeneticFilth]

Lol most of us here suffer from depression which is known to destroy IQ and coginitive abilities.

4 years ago prior to swallowing the Blackpill, i was topping my maths and physics classes with ease. Now i can barley do simple math problems and struggle alot with abstract logical thinking.

Yeah I've heard about how depression shrinks the brain. It's so fucked. Bad genes not only come in bad packages, but having bad genes means you will be depressed so you won't even be able to function at your full potential.

 

[Deleted member 14490]

kek test is fake and gay. I scored 134. There's no way I'm that smart

IQ mogs me

 

[Deleted member 12355]

IQ mogs me

Nah. My math ability is in the 90th percentile and my verbal ability in the 92nd according to my country's equivalence of the SAT. Overall in the 95th percentile. I trust that far more than I do some online test. I'm an average MIT nigger

 

[anon]

Then go die in a fire.

Nothing of what I said is factually incorrect.

Bad looks =/= "genetically inferior" is factually incorrect.

The only thing you have is personal insults and condescensions

Your first reply to me in this thread was:

It's the fact that one of the participants is too dense to realize what we're actually arguing.

You replied to me first trying to dispute my original statement. You disagree with the statement that "incels are genetically inferior." Ok and I think you're delusional and bluepilled for thinking that. I disagree with all of your arguments. No need to sperg out.

I never once claimed that good looking men aren't more intelligent on average than ugly men.

True, you never said that, but you argued against it and with a ridiculous argument at that. MIT students and noble prize winners. JFL. I also just read your latest comment in this thread. I get it now. You're supposedly high IQ and you're coping.

every man of good looks would have to be superior to every man of bad looks

Generally, yes. Good looking men are genetically superior to bad looking men. This is my argument. Your argument is that intelligence > physical attractiveness which is reddit tier shit.

 

[Deleted member 14490]

Nah. My math ability is in the 90th percentile and my verbal ability in the 92nd according to my country's equivalence of the SAT. Overall in the 95th percentile. I trust that far more than I do some online test. I'm an average MIT nigger

It's ok boyo.

Nah. My math ability is in the 90th percentile and my verbal ability in the 92nd according to my country's equivalence of the SAT. Overall in the 95th percentile. I trust that far more than I do some online test. I'm an average MIT nigger

Affirmative action is killing this society.

 

[Deleted member 12355]

Bad looks =/= "genetically inferior" is factually incorrect.

Your first reply to me in this thread was:


You replied to me first trying to dispute my original statement. You disagree with the statement that "incels are genetically inferior." Ok and I think you're delusional and bluepilled for thinking that. I disagree with all of your arguments. No need to sperg out.

True, you never said that, but you argued against it and with a ridiculous argument at that. MIT students and noble prize winners. JFL.

Generally, yes. Good looking men are genetically superior to bad looking men. This is my argument. Your argument is that intelligence > physical attractiveness.

General =/= absolute

Back to the cuckshed to mentally prepare yourself for your oneitis getting bred by "genetically superior" men so you can enthusiastically raise the superior off spring afterwards and contribute to making humanity a better species.

It's ok boyo.


Affirmative action is killing this society.

not an americuck

 

[anon]

Back to the cuckshed to mentally prepare yourself for your oneitis getting bred by "genetically superior" men so you can enthusiastically raise the superior off spring afterwards and contribute to making humanity a better species.

wew lad
So much for your high IQ.
"I'm genetically superior to Chad because I have a high SAT score "
I'm laughing.
Nice projection too.

 

[Deleted member 12355]

wew lad
So much for your high IQ.
"I'm genetically superior to Chad because I have a high SAT score "
I'm laughing.
Nice projection too.

wha? I don't consider myself intelligent, nor do I think I'm genetically superior to much of anyone. This argument isn't about me

 

[Deleted member 14490]

General =/= absolute

Back to the cuckshed to mentally prepare yourself for your oneitis getting bred by "genetically superior" men so you can enthusiastically raise the superior off spring afterwards and contribute to making humanity a better species.

not an americuck

Cuckmerica is a degeneracy overridden hell.

 

[anon]

wha? I don't consider myself intelligent

We can do this all day. You're humble bragging about being 95th percentile in your country. A user replied to your 134 online IQ test comment with "IQ mogs me", clearly joking because online tests are a joke.
You went on to claim that your country's equivalent of SAT scores are in the 95th percentile for your country implying that it's not that great of a score by using "nah" and sad pepe emote.

Clear humble bragging. It's ok, though. We all have our copes and insecurities. No need to project about getting cucked by Chad, though. You may be intelligent, but you're delusional and bluepilled.

 

[ValiantThor2]

If I was to guess my IQ is in the 150 - 160 range. my reason for this is that I shit in my toilet for three days without flushing and then kept a batch of it in a jar under my bed ever since. I also happen to be what you guys here would call a "chad".

 

[Mainländer]

I've been called high IQ and a retard, I don't know anymore.

 

[Timecel]

Mine was 73 when I last got tested, so this is wrong

 

[Deleted member 12355]

If I was to guess my IQ is in the 150 - 160 range. my reason for this is that I shit in my toilet for three days without flushing and then kept a batch of it in a jar under my bed ever since. I also happen to be what you guys here would call a "chad".

high IQ

 

[_incelinside]

No

 

[Guest2]

If I was to guess my IQ is in the 150 - 160 range. my reason for this is that I shit in my toilet for three days without flushing and then kept a batch of it in a jar under my bed ever since. I also happen to be what you guys here would call a "chad".

Just shitmaxx bro.

I like how you use the word 'batch'

 

[Deleted member 14490]

If I was to guess my IQ is in the 150 - 160 range. my reason for this is that I shit in my toilet for three days without flushing and then kept a batch of it in a jar under my bed ever since. I also happen to be what you guys here would call a "chad".

I have around 20 piss bottles laying around my room right now. Too lazy to get up and go to the bathroom

 

[EthnicelNL]

It doesnt matter.

IQ doesn't get pussy.