699,178 posts

The intelligence of a woman is inversely proportional to her looks

Reddit View
July 19, 2013
0 upvotes

I keep hearing this trope repeated over and over, "I prefer an intelligent woman," or "I can't stand to listen to unintelligent women when they talk.."

Putting aside the very obvious point that I've never met a woman I find to be as intelligent as men, and putting aside the fact that you can't have sex with a girl's personality and the boner cares not what she says...

I posit hypothesis redpillschool #53:

#53 The intelligence of a woman is inversely proportional to her looks.

This hypothesis rests on my lesser known postulate of economic forces:

An economic agent will earn the bare minimum required to accomplish its goals.

Now, men are taught from an early age that times always be chagin', so we are to become well versed in a variety of things. Well rounded in every category. And that's good- because if you wanna snag a lady, you're going to have to be well rounded in a variety of places- except your belly.

Even with this in mind, the job market is tough, and the dating market is tougher. You can spend your life becoming the most interesting man in the world, or the strongest guy in the room, but dating and money are still a struggle and takes much effort.

Thus, the improvement of men.

Women, on the other hand, have a looks-based value in this economy. When a woman is attractive, the word "no" is rarely uttered towards her. If she decides not to take up the many men on their offer to throw resources at her for life, she can use her looks for a variety of jobs, many of which will reward her specifically for being attractive. If she complains, the entire office will change everything to appease her.

She will get free drinks at the bar. People will laugh at her jokes, no matter how unfunny. People will want to be near her and associate with her, even if she has nothing interesting to say.

She will only develop traits that she deems are necessary for her progression.

She will be skilled at applying makeup, and will be a master at being coy.

But she will have seen little value in learning how engines work, wondering what happens beyond the moon, or trying an experiment just to see what would happen.

She does not concern herself with these things, for they are the realm of boys and men.

Except one caveat: ugly women do not reap the benefits that attractive women do. They find life to be hard... a struggle.

Ugly women learn quickly they will not be valued on looks, and instead learn to achieve much in the way a man does.

Which is why there are many smart, but ugly, women.

Now, I hear this over and over, "I found the unicorn! I found a smart attractive woman! You're wrong!"

But I think it should be noted that by virtue of these ideas surrounding the women-intelligence hypothesis, we actually judge women on a completely different scale.

When was the last time you thought to yourself, "wow, that girl is really smart?" Think about it for a second. Was it because she said something incredibly brilliant? Or was it because they said something you wouldn't expect a woman to say? Would you have congratulated those words had they been uttered by the mouth of a man?

I find that what amounts to "very smart" in women is nothing more than common sense for men. "Oh," I think, "that's a very apt observation that woman just made, how smart of her- for it is an observation any one of my friends would usually make!"

A woman's relative sexual market value dictates her behavior in the environments she exists in, her attitude, and her choices. This is strictly related. I will likely post in the coming weeks a few ways the effects that environment and relative sexual market value have in varying red pill theories.

Of course, I regularly hear "not all women are like that," and I think a mistake a lot of people make is not taking into consideration relative sexual market value. Yes, women can be dumb, funny, smart, or personable. Yes, women can be friendly or bitchy. These are all things that exist only within the context of her sexual market value and her surroundings. Her past, and her present.

Which is why a lot of women disagree with our theories... because they are solipsistic and think because they don't act that way, others must not- but they don't know to adjust for relative SMV.

Edit: I can hear the hamsters spinning as I type, let me clarify I'm really using the term intelligence here in a broader sense than "can do math" or "memorizes medical procedures." I'm talking about conversational skills, natural inquisitiveness, sense of humor (the ability to land jokes), ingenuity, curiosity, the ability to think logically, solve logical puzzles, see cause and effect. Things that take practice to get good at. More or less, men and ugly women make good engineers.

Edit 2: Again, to clarify I'm talking about actual application of the brainpower you have, not actual intelligence (or potential).


Post Information
Title The intelligence of a woman is inversely proportional to her looks
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 0
Comments 52
Date 19 July 2013 03:12 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/5644
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1imv86/the_intelligence_of_a_woman_is_inversely/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
NAWALTsexual market valueunicornthe red pill
Comments

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (1 child) | Copy

I have a different opinion. I actually find the inverse to be true. Better looking people (both men and women) tend to be more intelligent than ugly people. I think there were actual scientific studies done that showed this correlation too. It is not obvious when you only look at the most intelligent people (that is flawed methodology as there are very few extremely intelligent people), but very obvious when you look at the bottom half.

First of all, there is a health/genetic component. Healthy people look good. Sick people look bad and they are less able to study and learn. There are a lot of kids who have genetic defects or have other problems that doesn't allow them to focus at school, so they are far less intelligent than average. They typically look bad because of their illness.

The second factor is society's willingness to invest. Society invests far more into good looking kids than ugly looking kids. People just have a bias against ugly people and don't think they can succeed (ex: all the fat people get paid less research). For example, dark skin is generally considered less attractive in our society. Not surprisingly, the schools that are filled with darker minorities receive the least funding and have the lowest academic performance.

And finally, good looks is correlated with socio-economic class. There are a lot of studies that show that intelligence is strongly correlated with socio-economic class. But in order to look good, you have to have money to invest in your looks, so good looks is also correlated with socio-economic class. People who didn't grow up in poor neighborhoods don't realize this. I grew up in a poor neighborhood and it was easy to identify the poorest people. You have kids that didn't get orthodonics cause their parents can't afford it and kids that have to wear hand-me-downs from siblings and other relatives. Until this kid starts working, he will never get this teeth fixed and he will always have shit looking clothes, and chances are he/she go to college because the family can't afford it so he/she will never get the teeth fixed or learn some basic fashion sense. So even if the person has a potential to be good looking, they might not be because their parents couldn't afford dental care and now their teeth is all fucked up.

I think at the very high end, intelligent people do look more ugly because they are so focused on training their mind rather than grooming their appearance. But if you invert the question and look for who is un-intelligent, then it is typically the ugly people.

You have to keep in mind that you have to adjust for biases. Girls at the club tend to look hot, but don't forget that you are at a club. Ugly girls tend to avoid clubs because they will just lose self esteem. There is the distorting effect of alcohol, dim lights, make up, and slutty clothes. And bars and clubs tend to attract a certain type of person, you are unlikely to find professionals that have work and big responsibilities the next morning at a bar. That "hot girl" might not be hotter than the okay looking girl at work under normal conditions. And you have to adjust for age biases. Older people tend to be smarter due to experience and age. Hot girls tend to be very young. You can argue that hot girls are dumb compared to the average person, but then that is only true because 40 year olds have 2x more experience in life than a 20 year old. The smartest woman I know is 50 years old, and she clearly isn't "hot" today, but she might have been 30 years ago.

[–]rj7512 points13 points  (8 children) | Copy

Dude, I like some of your posts, but I disagree here.

First, I got a PhD from a top tier university in EECS, and I met a few very smart (in the sense of quick on their feet, creative, with really good memories, draw interesting connections, etc), very attractive women. They are out there, although I also agree that there are a lot of beautiful women that skate by on looks, both in and out of accademia.

Second, I have a pre-adolescent daughter who is very attractive (by other people's measure), and has an enormous amount of scientific creativity and curiousity (such as her currently insatiable curiosity and fascination with the structure of atoms and how that affects chemical properties of different elements), much more so than my son, who is more interested in building things and sports. Of course her SMV is essentially 0, but I'm quite confident her curiosity and creativity will not diminish.

You don't need to be so absolute. I think the main point is probably true: a ton of girls get by on looks, and are unchallenged from a young age, and end up not being terribly smart. You're a long way from a good, fundamental biological argument though.

As an aside, this is a problem I have with a lot of TRP: an un-nuanced classification of the world into hard categories. The world seldom works that way in my experience, and I don't think genders are any exception. That's why we have homosexuals, BDSM, hermaphrodites and other atypical sexualities. People are different and various. Talk all you want about trends, or many women or even most women, but you get on really shaky ground as soon as you talk about all women.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -2 points-1 points  (7 children) | Copy

If you've been here a while, then you've already noticed that we use generalizations. You must've missed the memo that NAWALT.

http://xsplat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/you-dont-have-to-preface-every-generalization-with-mostly-when-talking-to-men/

[–]rj755 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy

In these comments:

But I think it should be noted that by virtue of these ideas surrounding the women-intelligence hypothesis, we actually judge women on a completely different scale.

and

Of course, I regularly hear "not all women are like that," and I think a mistake a lot of people make is not taking into consideration relative sexual market value. Yes, women can be dumb, funny, smart, or personable. Yes, women can be friendly or bitchy. These are all things that exist only within the context of her sexual market value and her surroundings. Her past, and her present.

You're implying that it is not a generalization, but a hard fact, once you account for SMV.

Anyways, I get that generalizations are just easier when talking about this topic, but once you start talking in mathematical or scientific terms, like "Theory", "correlation," etc., you really should hold yourself to a higher standard. Especially when addressing intelligence.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy

Because you can't see the forest for the trees, I'll help you. On every single thread that has ever been posted on the red pill from the beginning and forever more, imagine the words "in general" beside every generalization. I won't do it for you, this was your freebie.

[–]rj754 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy

Thanks for the freebie dude. I guess I thought that when you said "theory," you meant "theory," not "something I've noticed in my limited experience."

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -5 points-4 points  (3 children) | Copy

The word I used was hypothesis. Thanks for the troll son.

Furthermore social theories are always probabilistic not deterministic, fucking asshat.

[–]rj753 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Lol, my bad.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Indeed. Obviously it's not tested beyond my own experience. That's why others chime in with their experiences.

[–]W-Z-R2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

There is obviously no association. Generally in terms of mating a woman's looks are her most important asset but there is no reason why the two would be related, obviously a pretty girl will get attention without actually being good at anything, so maybe less pretty girls work on themselves more, but natural intelligence no.

I agree that most men who say "I am attracted to intelligence and get turned off by stupidity" are engaging in cognitive dissonance, "That (hot) slut over there is banging that muscular dude, she must be stupid and I'm only attracted to clever women so I'm definitely not jealous" equally men who say that crap think that any girl who goes for them is clever despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

P.S. I do believe clever women exist., in spite of what some people hear think.

[–]sickan_0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

"That (hot) slut over there is banging that muscular dude, she must be stupid and I'm only attracted to clever women so I'm definitely not jealous"

Jealous men are weak men. Strong men admire other men who accomplish things, and see their positive facets. Then they work to incorporate those upsides into themselves.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

You didn't read the whole thing.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

You should try searching for studies instead of just postulating things. Aristotle isn't the model of empiricism.

Here are two studies based on large surveys from the same source that say that more attractive people from either sex are smarter:

Americans

British

Here's the paper from the British study

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is not my experience. The more beautiful a girl is, the smarter she is.

The exception, by and large, is whether her parents let her fend for herself or not. Most pretty girls are paid for by daddy which may lend to your conclusion.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy

The "NAWALTS" will come out and say "there are lots of smart women!"

Sure, I know some absolutely beautiful women that can memorize all kinds of shit. I remember them from school, they got all straight A's because they could memorize the textbooks.

When it actually came to applying that knowledge, though, many failed.

Of course, there are always edge cases (marissa mayer! YOW) but you miss the big point.

Women to not HAVE to be intelligent to survive if they are beautiful. They will get swept up and cared for by some guy, and if that's what they want, then good for them.

Are women CAPABLE of being as intelligent as men? I think absolutely. They just don't HAVE to.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy

Are women CAPABLE of being as intelligent as men? I think absolutely. They just don't HAVE to.

Exactly. With a caveat-- ugly women have to be, because nobody else are giving them free stuff.

[–]veggie_girl10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy

The variability of male scores is greater than that of females, however, resulting in substantially more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.

Women generally have a collectively stable IQ which is closer to the average. Meaning, all women have relatively the same level of intelligence potential. Men have much more variety, which means many men are smarter than women, but it also means many men are dumber than women.

Also found this interesting:

Performance in mental rotation and similar spatial tasks is affected by gender expectations. For example, studies show that being told before the test that men typically perform better, or that the task is linked with jobs like aviation engineering typically associated with men versus jobs like fashion design typically associated with women, will negatively affect female performance on spatial rotation and positively influence it when subjects are told the opposite. Experiences such as playing video games also increase a person's mental rotation ability.A study from the University of Toronto showed that differences in ability get reduced after playing video games requiring complex mental rotation. The experiment showed that playing such games creates larger gains in spatial cognition in females than males.

Good thing I love me some Tetris! But all jokes aside:

Like you said, social expectations play a large role in how women perform on an intellectual level (or you could say the application of their intelligence). If women aren't expected to be intelligent then they won't act intelligent. It's really a strange phenomenon. You can literally change women's intellectual performance by telling them that they are smart/dumb. Some women may be immune to this through training/experience though. Men on the other hand appear be unaffected by this for the most part.

[–]veggie_girl2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Want to add to this to be clear with the last part:

Telling a pretty girl that "pretty girls don't need to be smart" won't make her dumb, but it will lower her application of her potential intellect. She could have a average-high IQ but she just won't use it because she is told she doesn't have to.

Likewise, when you take an ugly girl and tell her she's going to have to study hard because she "won't get by in life on her looks" it doesn't make her any smarter, it just makes her maximize her intellectual potential. She is using 100% of her potential vs the pretty girl that might only be using 20% of it.

Our culture promotes this line of thinking. Feminists promote this line of thinking when they attack beautiful successful and/or skinny women. When they promote unhealthy obesity and say "it's just curvy" they are showing how much they really believe that looks DO matter. How often do they take a fat female intellect and promote her? All the damn time. You never see an attractive, skinny, intellectual feminist at the head of the campaign.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

she is told she doesn't have to.

No, she recognizes she doesn't need to so doesn't use it. No one is stopping her. She observes that she only has to bat an eyelash to get material thrown at her. It is very easy to take the path of least resistance.

Fat girls recognize they are going to have to work because no guy ever provides them with anything. Again, it is she who recognizes what the world will or won't give her, then acts on her personal observation.

This idea that encouragement/discouragement plays a big role in outcomes is nonsense.

[–]RPstudent1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

In response to edit 2, attractive or manipulative women can eschew actual application of intelligence because orbiters. That's laziness, straight up. Breeds entitlement, too.

Additionally, the greater their SMV, the more likely their orbiters form an echo chamber that prevents the penetration of objective thought. Actual intelligence erodes from this scenario. And then she doesn't even see that wall into which she's about to run headlong.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I have been with a few women who are a) intelligent b) hot and c) not enthralled by feminism.

One in particular I'm thinking of: Stanford B-school, consultant at one of the big firms making crazy money. Very hot Russian immigrant. I had lunch with her last year and she commented that she's worried about hitting the wall.

It's rare to meet attractive women who are that self-aware while near their peak, but they do exist.

[–]neXianXavia1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Being stupid is not genetic.

It just isn't. Alpha women do actively seek improvement. Ugly or attractive.

[–]RedSunBlue3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

I keep hearing this trope repeated over and over, "I prefer an intelligent woman," or "I can't stand to listen to unintelligent women when they talk."

I'm convinced that men who say this are:

a) Tired of women spouting bullshit that they are too afraid to rebut

b) Have a fundamental misunderstanding of what women bring to a relationship.

[–]ubercoolhipsterguy0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

A) doesn't have to be because they're afraid to rebut it, it could be because it's not worth it to get into argument after argument because the other person is too stupid to do, say, basic arithmetic. Bad trait in a LTR.

[–]sickan_1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

A) Men who don't want to bother to argument with a woman, because the woman will resort to emotional argumentation and shaming when she's out of logical and quasi-logical arguments.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy

The whole premise of your argument is that ugly women have to work their brains harder in order to succeed and thus "get smarter". This is nonsense: the overwhelming majority of a person's active intelligence is genetic, not environmental. Exercising your brain doesn't make it bigger; it's not a muscle.

There are a lot more very smart men than very smart women. There are also a lot more very stupid men than very stupid women. Average intelligence is actually about the same for both genders; it's just that the standard deviation is very different.

If we consider the hypothesis that intelligence genes reside in large part on the X chromosome, this makes sense: Men's intelligence would distribute linearly since their intelligence has a single component, while women's intelligence distribution would follow a bell curve as the average of two components. If we consider a genius gene on the X chromosome with a 1% incidence in the population, then 1% of men would be geniuses but only 0.01% of women. The predicted outcomes from the X-chromosome intelligence hypothesis actually conform very closely to observable reality.

Now consider reproductive outcomes: Is it more likely that a highly intelligent man or a stupid one will successfully breed an extremely beautiful woman? Since most markers of SMV- wealth, status, leadership qualities, etc correlate positively with intelligence, let's go with option A. Which means their offspring is likely to inherit both intelligence and good looks. Over time, good breeding will reinforce, and the most successful genetic lines will tend to have both high intelligence and high physical attractiveness. For the same reason, intelligence correlates with height among men. (See also here.)

And the same point applies retrospectively: stupid women and ugly women were both probably less likely to survive a Viking raid or a tribal war, while the smart and pretty ones survived to be enslaved and bred.

[–]rj759 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is nonsense: the overwhelming majority of a person's active intelligence is genetic, not environmental. Exercising your brain doesn't make it bigger; it's not a muscle.

This is nonsense: a ton of recent research demonstrates that exercising your brain indeed effects your intelligence, and across domains. Here's one of tons of examples: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/4398.full

There is little consensus on the Nature vs. Nurture debate with regards to itelligence, but a lot of research finds about equal contribution: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/20/4/241/

Men's intelligence would distribute linearly since their intelligence has a single component, while women's intelligence distribution would follow a bell curve as the average of two components.

You should probably revisit your intro to stats book.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]TRP VanguardVZPurp1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Exercising your brain doesn't make it bigger; it's not a muscle.

You might want to look into neuroplasticity and neurogenesis.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

This is nonsense: the overwhelming majority of a person's active intelligence is genetic, not environmental. Exercising your brain doesn't make it bigger; it's not a muscle.

Well first of all, nobody suggested the size of the brain. But if learning and working on skills had no effect, then school would be pointless- wouldn't you say?

I'm not indicating that the potential to become learned doesn't exist in both men and women, only that economic forces do not exist that demand it of pretty women.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

How much knowledge you have memorized is not how "smart" you are. Intelligence is your ability to analyze and correlate data, not the volume of data you have available. School gives you more data to work with, and is valuable because of that, but does very little by way of teaching a person how to think more clearly or quickly.

And even if we're just looking at learning rather than intelligence: if you look at the attractiveness of women on a college campus compared to the overall population it should be obvious there's a problem with your theory.

[–]SageInTheSuburbs2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Neuroscience shows that keeping your brain active and learning skills forms new and varied neural connections. Now i don't think anyone is going to boost their IQ 50 points or anything, but effort can be put forth to increase intelligence. Most people who are good at anything got there by practicing that skill—the 10,000 hours theory—even geniuses practice like hell, they just seem to get more out of that practice.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I don't think logical thinking and problem solving skills are something you just have or don't have. They take work to hone.

[–]throwawaygonnathrow1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yea but there's definitely a manor innate component. There's a reason some people can get perfect scores on challenging logic tests and other people have to work really hard just to get in the top 75% of test takers.

[–]TRP VanguardVZPurp0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Look up research involving neuroplasticity and neurogenesis. The most stunning beauty of the brain, to me, is that it is a device that can train (reprogram) itself.

That is, through conscious direction, I direct my own brain to retool its connections to tackle the tasks I encounter.

It's nothing short of amazing. People stuck with the notion of a brain that doesn't change are really missing the utility of having one.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9142560

[–]icallmyselfmonster1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The intelligence of a woman is proportional to the amount of testosterone she has.

[–]DaddyMonster0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

To me, smartness has more to do with actual application of the brainpower you have, than actual intelligence. A person may be quite average in actual intelligence, but high in creativity, out of the box thinking, initiative and independent thought.

I work in R&D and I've got a few female colleagues who are both very pretty and intelligent (as in above average IQ), but I wouldn't call any of them smart... I'd rather describe them as naive and conformist thinkers with few original ideas. If they're given clearly defined expectations and non-open ended tasks, they work very diligently and perform well, but leaps of creativity and independent initiative? It's damn rare. They also tend to stick with flawed methods and not improve them. When they do, they're ultra careful and the "improvements" they come up with generate so much red tape it's not even funny. (Addendum: I theorize that the red tape bit has mainly to do with their need for security. They're totally unwilling to take risks.)

The male worker grunts at work who trail these women by 20 IQ points are by and large far smarter than the high IQ women.

A side note: These women are all around 30, single, heading for the wall, and married to their jobs. A few have started talking about trying internet dating, a few are getting cats... It's pathetic.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

smartness has more to do with actual application of the brainpower you have, than actual intelligence.

Yes, this is what I mean.

[–]DaddyMonster1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I understood that, and I should have stated that more clearly. I'm just developing the thought a bit.

Good post.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I think there will be a lot of hamstering here to try to misinterpret what I've said, so I copied what you wrote into my original post. Thanks!

[–]DaddyMonster1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

My pleasure!

[–]16 MGaiusScaevolus2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

This something that's obvious to anyone who pays attention.

It's about incentive. A man's value (particularly his SMV)comes from his utility, what he can do.

So he develops skills, intelligence, humor, charisma. He learns to speak Spanish, program, play guitar, and hunt. He reads many books, he studies, he goes on adventures to develop stories, experiences which add to his value. Only then will he see the rewards he desires.

A woman on the other hand, gets her societal and SMV passively. Her societal role is to produce and nurture the next generation, something that doesn't require the lifelong development of skills, humor, or intense study.

In terms of the Sexual Market, her value is defined 98% by her attractiveness. Therefore, using the rule;

An economic agent will earn the bare minimum required to accomplish its goals.

She has no incentive to gain additional skills, or develop anything but her physical attractiveness.

[–]troubadour1492-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

He learns to speak Spanish, program, play guitar, and hunt. He reads many books, he studies, he goes on adventures to develop stories, experiences which add to his value.

Indeed. Did all that.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

First of all, it was maybe misleading wording, but I consider intelligence to encompass how much one has applied themselves, not how much potential one might have. Furthermore, I don't give a fuck how the theory looks.

[–]Viliam12340 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I agree with the general idea of what you said, except that "intelligence" is not the proper word for the concept you describe.

Intelligence, as defined and measured by psychometrics, is a raw ability of the brain; probably consisting of capacity of the short-term memory and processing speed. People are born with higher or lower intelligence. If someone has the bad luck to be born retarded, they can work hard all their life and still remain retarded. If someone was lucky to be born gifted, they can be lazy or even insane, but they will still remain gifted (e.g. an intelligent insane person will be able to process their insane thoughts faster than a less intelligent insane person). -- On the other hand, what we get through hard work, is skills and habits. (Humor and charisma probably belong to social skills.)

So, using these words properly, higher beauty correlates positively with higher intelligence (because both correlate with good genes, health, and nutrition), but higher beauty can mean lower incentive to develop skills and good habits.

Now if these assumptions are true, we should expect to find the highest level of skills in those women who were born intelligent (and most likely beautiful), but they somehow lost their beauty (injury?) before they learned to use their beauty to achieve their goals. Or somehow grew up in an environment which didn't care about their beauty, only about their results.

[–]1favours_of_the_moon-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Nourish yin and blood.

Resolve phlegm.

[–]AlwaysLateToThreads-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

What's hypothesis redpillschool #52?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

52 Given any thread that is not yet old, alwayslatetothreads won't be that late.

[–]AlwaysLateToThreads0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

):

[–]troubadour1492-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm not sure if there are any women who are smart in the common sense way, but I know plenty of ugly ones who are no different from their prettier counterparts.

My wife, an ugly woman, and I have about the same IQ on tests, but totally different views of the world. She presses the pedal and the car goes zoom zoom. I press the pedal and it pivots on its hinge depressing a spring and actuating a rheostat that communicates a throttle value to the ECM etc. etc. etc.

She has utterly no capacity for future time orientation. She can't plan beyond tomorrow at noon. She has no idea of long-term consequences. She truly is the most mature teenager in the house.

I've met a few women who were smart more in a male/mechanical/engineering sense, but they've always been board straight flat chested masculine women. I conclude therefore that big tits and curves make you dumb, even if you're an ugly person with curves and big tits. It's probably a hormonal expression thing somehow or other.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter