What's new

Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.
Log in Register

Follow Us On Social Media

Serious Why many people here believe foids choose ''genetically superior'' men?

trying to ascend said:
YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THAT GOES AGAINST MY COMMENT
Click to expand...
Because what women like is objective, thus those are superior genes objectively. Thus they get passed on and are "superior genes", IQ is meaningless. If those were superior genes there would be a lot of ugly dudes with high IQ roaming the streets, what we have is chad kingdom instead.

TigerFestival said:
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.
Click to expand...
We're above animals in a sense, but a lot of our behavior is reflected on the animal kingdom as well. Thus we can get a lot of information from the animal kingdom. Sexual selection is very much similar towards animals in our case, the genes that get passed on are the "attractive genes" that females determine, regardless if they are usefull in surviving or add something to the table. What's more they often times end up being a detriment
 
lemon21 said:
Because what women like is objective, thus those are superior genes objectively. Thus they get passed on and are "superior genes", IQ is meaningless. If those were superior genes there would be a lot of ugly dudes with high IQ roaming the streets, what we have is chad kingdom instead.
Click to expand...
YES, IT'S OBJECTIVE, BUT USING IT AS YOUR CRITERIA FOR ''SUPERIOR GENES'' DOESN'T MEAN THE LATTER IS OBJECTIVE.

IT'S THE SAME AS USING ANY OTHER TRAIT OR FACT AS YOUR CRITERIA, HENCE WHY THE GOAL OF THE POST IS TO DISCUSS WHY WOMEN CHOOSING THEM IS A BETTER CRITERIA FOR THE DEFINITION THAN ANYTHING ELSE
 
Arabcel011 said:
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 subhumans in my country are reproducing because they lead an androcentric lifestyle, by your definition these people are generically 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.
Click to expand...
That's what OP was talking about in the OP, being chosen by women. My point is that there's really no criteria to judge genetic superiority other than successful reproduction. If for some reason genes aren't a factor in successful reproduction (getting a desperate whore pregnant), then there's no genetic superiority or inferiority to speak of.
 
trying to ascend said:
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''?
Click to expand...

He's wrong. There is objective criteria for looks. This is one of the tenets of blackpill.
 
stoicincel said:
yea... this fact is actually particularly infuriating to me, ngl.. that even smart foids choose dumb chads.
Click to expand...
They are stupid and uncapable of logic, no matter what, at the end of the day.
 
Arabcel011 said:
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.
Click to expand...
High IQ
 
trying to ascend said:
YES, IT'S OBJECTIVE, BUT USING IT AS YOUR CRITERIA FOR ''SUPERIOR GENES'' DOESN'T MEAN THE LATTER IS OBJECTIVE.

IT'S THE SAME AS USING ANY OTHER TRAIT OR FACT AS YOUR CRITERIA, HENCE WHY THE GOAL OF THE POST IS TO DISCUSS WHY WOMEN CHOOSING THEM IS A BETTER CRITERIA FOR THE DEFINITION THAN ANYTHING ELSE
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you're getting at, we're all here because we understand the fact that looks are objective. Good looks are determined by women, thus we can say that women are what define "objective good looks" if the goal of life is reproduction, then we can say that they're the "superior genes"
 
Man turn capslock off :feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:

Fr tho, average or even slightly below average intelligence male who is physically superior in height, strength and health is automatically more valuable than any kind of IQ genius who's a weakling. Not only does it make evolutionary sense, but geniuses can be born to random families but you don't just birth out a 6' strongman from a family of manlets and framelets.
 
lemon21 said:
I don't understand what you're getting at, we're all here because we understand the fact that looks are objective. Good looks are determined by women, thus we can say that women are what define "objective good looks" if the goal of life is reproduction, then we can say that they're the "superior genes"
Click to expand...
I'M NOT DENYING THAT LOOKS STANDARDS ARE OBJECTIVE, I'M ASKING WHY SOME THINK WHATEVER WOMEN CHOSE QUALIFY AS SUPERIOR GENETICS
 
WatchfulObserver said:
Man turn capslock off :feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:

Fr tho, average or even slightly below average intelligence male who is physically superior in height, strength and health is automatically more valuable than any kind of IQ genius who's a weakling. Not only does it make evolutionary sense, but geniuses can be born to random families but you don't just birth out a 6' strongman from a family of manlets and framelets.
Click to expand...

What is the point of breeding strongmen in an increasingly technologically dependent society?
 
trying to ascend said:
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?
Click to expand...
They dont think so much, since most of the society is given a binary choices, which are both cucks. (Leftists and modern conservatives).

On top of that, most of the society including this forum is criminally underinformed when it comes to historic "female selection".

For most of human history after agricultural revolution women were seen as either property, or second class citizens with laws controlling their sexuality.

And human behaivour in hunter gatherer times is mostly speculation from jews, with little to no evidence.
 
lemon21 said:
Because what women like is objective, thus those are superior genes objectively. Thus they get passed on and are "superior genes", IQ is meaningless. If those were superior genes there would be a lot of ugly dudes with high IQ roaming the streets, what we have is chad kingdom instead.
Click to expand...
IQ is not meaningless if we live in a society where men do the choosing, such as patriarchal.
Angry_runt said:
What are you basing this on?
Click to expand...
History? Patriarchy? Ever hear of it?
 
IncelWithHate said:
What is the point of breeding strongmen in an increasingly technologically dependent society?
Click to expand...
Simply because we're still animals and as long as we are, we will be attracted to genetic superiority. Humans like pretty things; simple as that. I'm not exempt from that. I find weak men off-putting (which doesn't help considering I'm usually the weak man I look at).
 
@trying to ascend

Iq is correlated with looks, according to most studies taller people tend to be smarter than shorter people on average, it's also the same case with facially attractive people.
 
WatchfulObserver said:
Simply because we're still animals and as long as we are, we will be attracted to genetic superiority. Humans like pretty things; simple as that. I'm not exempt from that. I find weak men off-putting (which doesn't help considering I'm usually the weak man I look at).
Click to expand...

You're answering this from the wrong perspective. I'm aware of why foids are attracted to certain men.

I'm asking from a pragmatic standpoint, why we (read: society) would want to do that. Not why foids want to do it (they don't even realize 'why' - they do it subconsciously).

Also genetic superiority in this context is circular and we are debating that right now. It also wouldn't explain why pretty boys so frequently get laid.
 
Arabcel011 said:
@trying to ascend

Iq is correlated with looks, according to most studies taller people tend to be smarter than shorter people on average, it's also the same case with facially attractive people.
Click to expand...
WHAT I'VE SEEN IS THAT PERCEIVED INTELLIGENCE IS CORRELATED WITH LOOKS, NOT ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE. NEVER SAW ANYTHING ABOUT HEIGHT AND IQ THOUGH
 
Angry_runt said:
I meant show some data.
Click to expand...
No no no, I'm not playing your stupid games.

History shows that in Patriarchal society, fathers chose their daughter's partners, just because they don't collect data as much as they do today, doesn't mean men were not the selectors.
 
IncelWithHate said:
You're answering this from the wrong perspective. I'm aware of why foids are attracted to certain men.

I'm asking from a pragmatic standpoint, why we (read: society) would want to do that. Not why foids want to do it (they don't even realize 'why' - they do it subconsciously).

Also genetic superiority in this context is circular and we are debating that right now. It also wouldn't explain why pretty boys so frequently get laid.
Click to expand...
Oh well my apologies then, of course as a society it would be beneficial to select for different traits than we do now, since we passed the stage of needing strong, fit men long ago. It's just an unfortunate reality that we're still stuck in caveman times regarding selection.
 
Last edited:
TigerFestival said:
History shows that in Patriarchal society, fathers chose their daughter's partners, just because they don't collect data as much as they do today, doesn't mean men were not the selectors.
Click to expand...
Human history is a lot longer than 3-4 thousand years.
Even in arranged marriages fathers aren't choosing their daughters' partners based on genetic fitness.
 
TigerFestival said:
No no no, I'm not playing your stupid games.

History shows that in Patriarchal society, fathers chose their daughter's partners, just because they don't collect data as much as they do today, doesn't mean men were not the selectors.
Click to expand...

What history? I've read many a study indicating that women choose mates (or otherwise have heavy influence) for their daughters.

There's also the fact wives tend to have strong soft power in the domestic/sexual sphere, ie. the husband may make the public decisions but the wife is subtly coercing him into doing it. Its why women having the vote isn't all that important because wives can get their husbands to contribute to their interests regardless. In other words, women can always get men to do what they want to varying extents.
 
Angry_runt said:
Human history is a lot longer than 3-4 thousand years.
Even in arranged marriages fathers aren't choosing their daughters' partners based on genetic fitness.
Click to expand...
We are looking at best genes. I am saying the best genes has to be best in regards to something. Because if its just reproduction, then that means foids automatically have some sense of what is best that "just is".
 
Arabcel011 said:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Genetic Correlation between Height and IQ: Shared Genes or Assortative Mating?

Traits that are attractive to the opposite sex are often positively correlated when scaled such that scores increase with attractiveness, and this correlation typically has a genetic component. Such traits can be genetically correlated due to genes that ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS IN A LARGE, GENETICALLY INFORMATIVE SAMPLE - PubMed

Theories in both evolutionary and social psychology suggest that a positive correlation should exist between facial attractiveness and general intelligence, and several empirical observations appear to corroborate this expectation. Using highly reliable measures of facial attractiveness and IQ...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What's the sample size of the study in the 11th source? I didn't find anything about that there.

1649631590601
 
this thread and the argument going on in here makes my head hurt :feelsseriously: who fucking cares what foids think is superior, foids are broken and outdated :feelsseriously:
 
TigerFestival said:
We are looking at best genes. I am saying the best genes has to be best in regards to something. Because if its just reproduction, then that means foids automatically have some sense of what is best that "just is".
Click to expand...
The only thing genes can be best at is reproduction/propagation. That's the only category they compete in.

Like think about which cockroach has superior genes. Or which sparrow or impala or whatever.

Unless you want to claim that we are fundamentally different from other animals.
 
Angry_runt said:
The only thing genes can be best at is reproduction/propagation. That's the only category they compete in.

Like think about which cockroach has superior genes. Or which sparr0w or impala or whatever.

Unless you want to claim that we are fundamentally different from other animals.
Click to expand...
We are fundamentally different than other animals. That should be obvious.
 
TigerFestival said:
Humans rule the earth because of patriarchal systems, which went against female sexual selection, that way.
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer the question. 50k years ago humans didn't rule shit but they were still humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
It's Over Balkan foids are stronger than many men
Replies
8
Views
417
wereq
wereq
Grodd
Serious Foids aren't empathetic at all
Replies
12
Views
939
Lucid1700
Lucid1700
beyondschizo
RageFuel I hate short foids
Replies
11
Views
913
SickWeakCoward
SickWeakCoward
nogymforyourface
Based Dear ethnic foids: White men will NEVER commit
Replies
6
Views
698
m3nt4Lbl0ck3d
m3nt4Lbl0ck3d
fullofchagrin
White supremacy and blackpill are contradictory (WPcels gtfih)
Replies
29
Views
708
pizzamaxxer
pizzamaxxer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (Incels: 0, Bluepillers: 2)

Follow Us On Social Media

680,502Threads
16,201,865Posts
31,031Members
ozqrcNew Lost Soul

About Us

Incels.is is a community for men that struggle with or are unable to get into romantic relationships with women despite trying. We welcome men from all walks of life, and from all cultural and racial backgrounds, as long as you are an incel.

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
1,857
Total visitors
2,006
Totals may include hidden visitors.
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top