They are genetically superior, but I doubt foids would choose them over a 5/10 6'0 white normie
Serious Why many people here believe foids choose ''genetically superior'' men?
They are genetically superior, but I doubt foids would choose them over a 5/10 6'0 white normie
I
based, they choose superior males in look, but not in other things
Whiter skin = better genetics
and tf is topping
EXACTLY, THAT'S COMMON SENSE, SO WHY PEOPLE CALL THEMSELVES GENETIC TRASH OR SAY THAT EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T PLEASE FOIDS VISUALLY FOIDS SHOULD BE STERILIZED?
THEY GOT TOP 1 IN THE HARDEST ENTRANCE EXAM IN THE WORLD
I
indeed, there are so many qualities more important that look and look only, foids are too stupid to consider them, that's all
Genetically superior doesn't mean what's sexually selected for.
Intelligence isn't sexually selected for but it is objectively the highest human good. The highest good of a thing is good performance of its distinguishing characteristic or function. What distinguishes humans from other animals is our intellect. So the highest good for humans is being intelligent. However, each IQ point above average increases your risk of being a virgin by 3%
Intelligence isn't sexually selected for but it is objectively the highest human good. The highest good of a thing is good performance of its distinguishing characteristic or function. What distinguishes humans from other animals is our intellect. So the highest good for humans is being intelligent. However, each IQ point above average increases your risk of being a virgin by 3%
so?
By genetically superior we mean physically superior tall handsome etc
How are entrance exams a genetic advantage? Sure you need some high IQ but its mostly an artificial wageslave test
SO? THAT THEY HAVE BETTER GENETICS THAN SOME GUY WHO SIMPLY HAPPENS TO BE 6'3.
THE THING IS THAT YOU ARE PUTTING FOIDS EVALUATION AS AN ACCURATE ONE, DESPITE IT BEING DYSGENIC IF ANYTHING
Future beta buxxers the lot of them
BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXTREMELY HIGH IQs, ABOVE 140 FOR SURE.
YOU WOULDN'T BE COMMENTING THAT IF IT WASN'T FOR THOSE (PEOPLE WITH 140 + IQ) PEOPLE, THEY ARE THE SUPERIOR ONES
Last edited:
TOO BAD, THEY DESERVE A BETTER LIFE THAN CHAD
Genetically superior means most likely to successfully reproduce. That's it, that's the only thing natural selection selects for and what makes genes superior or inferior at any given time.
Some of them are gonna make upside of 200k a year. Others will go on to run successful multi billion dollar startups. I wouldn't worry about them. But yeah prime pussy is forever out of reach for most
@Transcended Trucel
agree with @Caesercel , they won't get pussy. But as far as money, prestige, bragging rights and friends. They won't be lacking in any of that.
INDEED, BUT IF YOU COULD CHOOSE TO LIVE AS AN 8/10 CHAD OR AN IIT JEE TOPPER, WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE? I GUESS MOST PEOPLE WOULD CHOOSE THE FORMER.
I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE BAD PER SE, JUST THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE A BETTER LIFE THAN CHAD
I will still comment after the high IQ genocide
i agree with you. "genetically superior" in this context is just natural selection and adaptability.
i was labeled gifted as a child, but as an adult i amount to nothing because of inceldom and crippling mental issues. i often mourn my own loss of potential.. daydreaming about how my life would be if life circumstances were different and if modern culture was different is extremelly painful...
i was labeled gifted as a child, but as an adult i amount to nothing because of inceldom and crippling mental issues. i often mourn my own loss of potential.. daydreaming about how my life would be if life circumstances were different and if modern culture was different is extremelly painful...
BUT THEM BEING PASSED DOESN'T IMPLY THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN PASSED
D
Who's most likely to reproduce? Good looking men.
So basically best genes just means best looking, even if they are lower iq. But by this logic, it's just a circular argument, because your looks determine your genetic value, but your genetic value is your looks. In reality it's supposed to be your looks signal your survivability traits, looks are supposed to be an indicator of something beyond looks, not just a sign in and of itself.
Superior in looks, nobody gives a shit about IQ.
There's no should've in nature. There is no one to decide.
Fisherian runaway - Wikipedia
There's no supposed in nature. There's no one to decide. If it doesn't work any more it'll die off, if it works it will carry on.
OK, BUT WHY CALL YOURSELF GENETIC TRASH IF YOU ARE REFERRING JUST TO LOOKS?
MY COMMENT STATES EXACTLY THAT, IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY PASSED, THAT IT SHOULD'VE HAPPENED.There's no should've in nature. There is no one to decide.
Fisherian runaway - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There's no supposed in nature. There's no one to decide. If it doesn't work any more it'll die off, if it works it will carry on.
HENCE WHY THERE IS NO REASON TO SAY THAT THEM PASSING (NATURE/FACT) IS A REASON TO JUSTIFY WHY IT'S CORRECT FOR THIS TO HAPPEN THAT WAY
D
But it doesn't mean it's genetically superior.Fisherian runaway - Wikipedia
There's no supposed in nature. There's no one to decide. If it doesn't work any more it'll die off, if it works it will carry on.
If we are saying foids choose genetically superior men, the implication is they chose the genetically superior men over the genetically inferior, but in reality if they chose new men, those men would be the genetically superior. This is foid worship because no matter who they pick, they picked the "best" genes. (best in regard to what? Value judgments do not make sense without a goal as reference)
140 is very high, but it's not that impressive. almost 1 in 100 people have a 140 IQ.
their IQs are way higher than that, given the difficuty of the exam and that they ranked top 1.
Again you're trying to apply your own value judgments to the mindless process of natural selection. The only things that could be said to be correct in nature is those that facilitate survival and reproduction. If a pretty face works better than high IQ, then a pretty face is a genetically superior trait.
Ok, superior according to which criteria? And why those criteria?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but females are the arbiters of male fitness (in a biological/evolutionary sense) just as males are the arbiters of female fitness. It applies to pretty much every species. It hurts to see those dumb whores presiding over the extinction of our genes, but that's how evolution works.
??? IT'S RARER THAN 1/100, IT'S ALMOST 3 SD, THUS ALMOST TOP 0.1%
Last edited:
YES, YOU HAVE TO APPLY YOUR VALUES, SINCE NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T HAVE ANY NORMATIVENESS BY ITSELF AND YOU ARE CHOOSING TO VALIDATE THE WAY SEXUAL SELECTION HAPPENS SAYING THAT'S THE CORRECT WAY FOR THINGS TO HAPPEN
depends on the standard deviation. top 0,1% would be 150 IQ, with 16 SD
IT'S SD 15, BUT EVEN IF THE SD WAS 16, IT WOULD STILL BE RARER THAN 1/100, SUPPOSING WE ARE USING THE 68-95-99.7 RULE.
I'm saying there's no correct way for things to happen, only what works and what doesn't.
AND WHY THE WAY IT WORKS NOW SHOULD BE THE WAY IT SHOULD WORK?
FACTS DON'T HAVE ANY NORMATIVE VALUE, THAT'S WHY IT'S USELESS TO SAY ''THAT'S HOW IT WORKS''
Last edited:
TOP 0.74%.
1/135
WEIRD, IT USUALLY INDICATES 0.1% FOR 3 SD, IN THE GRAPHICS, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT
Foids are too dumb to care about intelectual people
There is no should in nature.
that's not the issue. even foids who are smart, on paper, are mainly attracted by looks (height, face, masculinity, etc)
INDEED, HENCE WHY I SAID THAT FACTS HAVE NO NORMATIVE VALUE.
I'M JUST ASKING WHY NATURE CHOOSING THEM IS THE REASON THEY ARE SUPERIOR, GIVEN THAT WHAT HAPPENS ISN'T WHAT SHOULD (NO, THAT'S NOT OBJECTIVE AND THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE DEFINITION OF SUPERIOR LOOKS, THE INTENT OF THE POST IS TO ASK WHY FOIDS SELECTION IS THE CRITERIA FOR DECIDING WHAT IS SUPERIOR OR NOT AND YOU CAME UP USING NATURE AS YOUR CRITERIA) HAPPEN
Last edited:
Yes exactly. But putting it in another way, even smart foids are too dumb to care about intellect. They would choose the thug dumb chad instead of the smart incel. This is a behavior I do not understand.
yea... this fact is actually particularly infuriating to me, ngl.. that even smart foids choose dumb chads.
There is no objective criteria for superior looks but there's a sort of objective criteria for superior genes - those that survive and carry on. Since passing of genes is done through sexual reproduction, then superior genes are the ones that help sexual reproduction - genes that attract women.
D
Before the sexual revolution, men were the arbitrers of male fitness, and over time men who were intelligent breeded more. Now with foids choosing, the IQs are dropping. Therefore we can say that's not evolution, or eugenics, but de-evolution, or dysgenics. Foids in fact are bad at picking genes.
SO YOU CHOOSE YOUR OWN CRITERIA (GENES THAT GET PASSED ON), HOW IS THAT ANY LESS SUBJECTIVE THAN ''GENES THAT ARE MORE LIKELY TO HELP HUMANITY IN CERTAIN FIELDS''?
Dude, we're animals at the end of the day. lot of animals died off by passing on useless genes that were deemed attractive by their females. We're no different than them.
D
You're sort of someone who doesn't think of other factors and doesn't consider foids are not always the selectors, by your logic, genes are better just because a society is catered to those genes reproducing, even if the data shows those genes weakening the average survivability traits of humans.
How do you know we are animals for sure? Why are we not above animals? This is just your belief, which you haven't proven.
So that means every man in India and the middle east is genetically superior? Since most if not all of them reproduce with arranged marriage and have 5 children, I'm pretty sure natural selection cannot be easily cheated like that with a simple tradition like arranged marriage. Almost all the inbred sub-80 iq dicklet turbomanlet subhumans in my country are reproducing because they lead an androcentric lifestyle, by your definition these people are genetically superior because they were able to reproduce, also by that definition all the sub-5 cumskin seamaxxers who are bottom of the barrel of their race are genetically superior because they have high reproduction success in South East Asia. Genetic superiority is defined by many things other than simply reproduction success, reproduction success depends on the environment and not genetics, like for example all the currycels who are struggling in the dating scene in the west wouldn't be struggling if they were curryland.
Last edited:
YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THAT GOES AGAINST MY COMMENT
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
