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.

Theory Women aren't intelligent

  • Thread starter DepravedAndDeprived
  • Start date
DepravedAndDeprived

DepravedAndDeprived

And then one day, for no reason at all...
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Posts
6,676
I have never met a single woman that I would consider intelligent.

Don't get my wrong. Having worked in academia (STEM), I've seen many female students that were considered 'excellent'. In fact, women, in general, have better grades than men. But that does not imply intelligence. This is because university education is effectively an exercise in slavish reproduction. If you listen to your teacher, and you do as you're told, you're basically guaranteed to do well.

Men and women behave strikingly different in the classroom. Women ask for help significantly more often, and when they do, it is without exception about how to solve the designated exercises. Men, on the other hand, usually ask to get the concepts clarified, and they will often propose new ideas, alternative approaches, different viewpoints, and so on.

I have met women who claim to have a high IQ, and I'm inclined to believe them, but here's the thing. IQ rates your ability to analyse *within the constraints given by the exercise*; but this is merely a measure of raw logical thinking rather than true creativity. Sure, women are capable of performing tasks when they're presented to them --- but so are computers. True intelligence requires initiative, it means creating something out of nothing, it means trying something new, thinking outside the box.

What about social intelligence? Women are often said to excel in social intelligence, but I disagree for the same reasons: While women excel at social conformity, and at adhering to the rules as they are imposed upon them, they lack insights into *why* the conventions are a they are, they won't challenge them, they won't break with the rules. They merely emulate.

Such is the difference between male and female intelligence. This is why, even though women can have the same raw intellect as men, changes and inventions are always the work of men.
 
That's why I want to delusionmaxx in the future for an all-knowing angel.:feelsaww:
Humanity is too low IQ for my understanding, I hope you can agree on this premise @ThoughtfulCel.
Images
 
Feminists will forever and ever resent history. The greatest artists, scientists, philosophers, poets, engineers, generals, diplomats, scholars, all of them men. Not even chad tier men, just regular men. Fighting against the patriarchy is fighting against the impetus of human intelligence. The so called "matriarchy" is nothing but an intermediate period between civilization and barbarism. Just ask yourself, what have women accomplished with their "liberation"? Nothing, they use it to regurgitate more feminist propaganda, to demand more rights, the more privileged they are the more they complain.

There's only one thing women do better than men: lying.
 
Last edited:
Feminists will forever and ever resent history. The greatest artists, scientists, philosophers, poets, engineers, generals, diplomats, scholars, all of them men. Not even chad tier men, just regular men. Fighting against the patriarchy is fighting against the impetus of human intelligence. The so called "matriarchy" is nothing but an intermediate period between civilization and barbarism. Just ask yourself, what have women accomplished with their "liberation"? Nothing, they use it to regurgitate more feminist propaganda, to demand more rights, the more privileged they are the more they complain.

There's only one thing women do better than men: lying.
Feminists seethe at the male dominance in history, and they actively want to alter history in their favour. Unfortunately for us, they have the Jewish globohomo on their side in this respect, making them remarkably successful so far.

Surely the effects are profound in STEM. Muh Ada Lovelace! Muh Katherine Johnson! Muh Marie Curie! Muh Emmy Noether!

But history cannot truly be altered. A good look at their works and history will tell you the truth: Curie and Noether were reasonable, but Curie was the wife of the more accomplished Pierre Curie, and Noether was the daughter of the more accomplished Max Noether. Lovelace and Johnson are worse: they are complete memes.
 
Women live on easy mode.
 
Would be sort of depressing being a foid who wanted to be a mathematician or something intellectual based or artistic.

Its like no matter how much effort they put in, compared to the men who specialize in that field and put the years of focus and energy into it, the woman will never be in the top half of men, let alone the gifted men at it.

Of course they aren't introspective enough to understand that so they just go into reality denying mode and emotion, aka anger.. which it is infuriating but its not men's fault.

Its like they make a character in this game we call reality. And their character can just have babies and then take care of them.

Many women are essentially LDAR'ing too, they just watch tv, drink and eat. The women who couldn't marry a Chad, and didn't want to become single moms.
 
Status IS your intelligence

Iq IS your Money , because lets face It , that Paper is all that matters
 
Of course they aren't introspective enough to understand that so they just go into reality denying mode and emotion, aka anger.. which it is infuriating but its not men's fault.
Even worse, most are deluded to think they're geniuses. And it's hard to blame them: thanks to the world's obsession with diversity they've been showered with compliments about their talents since day 1.

that Paper is all that matters
It's true, yes. The real world isn't so much about talent. It's about selling yourself and pretending you know stuff that you really don't.
 
In all of my life I've only met one foid I'd actually call smart. Not like she needed it though.
 
some of them are smart but they are not competitive
 
There's only one thing women do better than men: lying.
oh I remember that old fantasy kikebook about da First Sin... looks like the so-called Devil was a Chad 4 Eve:blackpill:
 
Last edited:
I am also from a STEM field and I agree with a lot of your points. You very seldom see female geniuses. Mostly they ask a lot, do things in groups, etc. STEM never used to be their hobby and they never spend hours on it in their teens as opposed to so many guys. They will never spend a whole night programming to carry a group project that was otherwise doomed. They get into uni and then "catch up" because it is their profession, and they will have higher grades, but they will never have put in the same effort and they will never have the raw talent. There are girls that are innovative and put in the hard work, and are still humble, but it's very rare. Most girls will use connections and nepotism to probably get a better paying job as well. Meanwhile they ride the cc and then settle down with someone who is well accomplished. While their male counterparts who did twice the work they did, are incels and receive less praise and recognition. This is definitely not the case for all guys, but in general, guys will be treated unfairly as opposed to girls when it comes to academia.
 
oh I remember that old fantasy kikebook about da First Sin... looks like the so-called Devil was a Chad 4 Eve:blackpill:
It's really telling how you immediately associate the idea of foids lying with the bible
 
I have never met a single woman that I would consider intelligent.

Don't get my wrong. Having worked in academia (STEM), I've seen many female students that were considered 'excellent'. In fact, women, in general, have better grades than men. But that does not imply intelligence. This is because university education is effectively an exercise in slavish reproduction. If you listen to your teacher, and you do as you're told, you're basically guaranteed to do well.

Men and women behave strikingly different in the classroom. Women ask for help significantly more often, and when they do, it is without exception about how to solve the designated exercises. Men, on the other hand, usually ask to get the concepts clarified, and they will often propose new ideas, alternative approaches, different viewpoints, and so on.

I have met women who claim to have a high IQ, and I'm inclined to believe them, but here's the thing. IQ rates your ability to analyse *within the constraints given by the exercise*; but this is merely a measure of raw logical thinking rather than true creativity. Sure, women are capable of performing tasks when they're presented to them --- but so are computers. True intelligence requires initiative, it means creating something out of nothing, it means trying something new, thinking outside the box.

What about social intelligence? Women are often said to excel in social intelligence, but I disagree for the same reasons: While women excel at social conformity, and at adhering to the rules as they are imposed upon them, they lack insights into *why* the conventions are a they are, they won't challenge them, they won't break with the rules. They merely emulate.

Such is the difference between male and female intelligence. This is why, even though women can have the same raw intellect as men, changes and inventions are always the work of men.
Yes, gearing higher grades just explains you are better sheep, and no shit
 
some of them are smart but they are not competitive
Competitiveness is driven by testosteron which of course men have more than women. Also the majority of men have to be competitive (in the workforce) to compensate for their reproductive flaws, namely resorting to the betabuxx strategy.
 
They are not intelligent, they´re just street-smart
 
True intelligence requires initiative, it means creating something out of nothing, it means trying something new, thinking outside the box.
Knowledge in-itself is more akin to a clarity of perception than the accumulation of facts or arguments. Buddha makes the distinction between ordinary knowledge and absolute knowledge, with the absolute having the quality of emptiness.

I think that you are absolutely right. Bluepillers will say it is baseless but real-world observations should not be easily dismissed without data directly denying it.
 

Similar threads

N
Replies
12
Views
453
failednormie_
failednormie_
Buried Alive 2.0
Replies
5
Views
211
Buried Alive 2.0
Buried Alive 2.0
Mortis
Replies
53
Views
1K
DarkStarDown
DarkStarDown
GurneyBoy
Replies
9
Views
348
Den66kj
Den66kj
T
Replies
14
Views
558
Incedel
Incedel

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top