Nobody can give a convincing counter argument against hypergamy. Humans became bigger faster stronger smarter better because of sexual selection. And the thing is it's always been like this, there's a reason why we have 2x more female ancestors than male ones.
The societies on the right will inevitably outcompete the ones on the left on a long enough timeline.
Throughout history, the societies on the left always defeated the societies on the right in the end.
You're mistakenly think of tribal tier groups of people, numbering not more than hundreds. Tribes on the right defeat the left. Once you reach the point of society, it flips.
Humans became bigger faster stronger smarter better because of sexual selection.
Humans did all that at exponentially faster rates during the "patriarchy". Enjoy your nigger world, I most certainly will enjoy seeing you having to live in it.
Humans became bigger faster stronger smarter better because of sexual selection.
Jfl no they aren't. If anything more incels and subhumans are getting created because women can be subhumans and still breed.(women contribute the most to the genetic quality of the child). Not to mention low IQ men fuck more. Everything is going to shit because of hypergamy.
The societies on the right will inevitably outcompete the ones on the left on a long enough timeline.
but that never does happen does it because soicities on the right inevitably end with chimpouts from within or literal invasions from the outside.
This. It fails because women can always breed, and that means that shit genetics women breed. Chad fucks 10 women, the bottom 5 with awful genetics who never should have reproduced, corrupt Chad's genes and shit out 5 awful genetic mutts. AND the equivalent shit genes men didn't get to breed, so they have animosity and either won't defend the system or fight against it from within.
Meanwhile you have the other society where everyone looks/score match reproduces. You still get the same amount of shit genetics people being born, however the shit genetics men did get to reproduce so they will contribute and fight for the system.
Shit genetics will propagate either way, but one society has all men working and fighting for it, the other society has most or at least half of men not working or fighting for it, or against it.
you need as many people as you can to have a vested interest in the survival of your system.
Right society literally excludes majority of men from that. By denying them the opportunity to ensure their genetic survival, you deny them the opportunity to cheat death itself. Why the fuck would I fight for a soiciety that denies me any future ? i won't and that means I'll either defect to another society that can promise a future(a gurantee of sorts that my genes will survive) or actively chimp out and take as many foids as chads with me to the grave or the crematorium
Nobody can give a convincing counter argument against hypergamy.
Reproduction. One Chad aren't going support 5 women as good as 5 different men.
Even more current hypergamy is looks based and it's dysgenic for society.
Meanwhile you have the other society where everyone looks/score match reproduces. You still get the same amount of shit genetics people being born,
Shitter genetics (low IQ) ar associated with lower income and therefore to ability to sustain more kids. So better genetics get ahead even in society where most people breed. But today personal succes of the men becomes greatly decoupled from amount of kids they can sustain. Society straight up funds dysgenics taxing successful to feed dregs of society and their reproduction.
smarter
lmao are you seeing the tards that are succeeding on tinder
If anything more incels and subhumans are getting created because women can be subhumans and still breed
This. if anything men should be the selectors in civilization
Even if what youre saying were true (its not, women chose violent low iq males over disciplined smart men), that still wouldnt make the world better.
We're already the apex predators, there is no need to become even stronger faster smarter better. Instead, you could reduce the total suffering in the human world ENORMOUSLY and increase production by giving every working man a wife. No more NEETS being a drain on society, no more low iq criminals reproducing, only men who contribute spread their genes, making humans more disciplined and less criminal each generation.
Bro.. you are misunderstanding the whole "genes" thing. They are not yours. They do not represent (you) or give "your" genes eternal life through children. It is the opposite: you are THEIRS. YOU are the tool the genes use to spread themselves, you are a disposable tool so THEY can live eternal. Normies struggle with this concept, I've made this post a ton of times over the years and it is usually met with outright denial and "nu-uh, t-they are mine". You are a VESSEL to "your" genes which they use to propogate themselves through the ages. It's like being with a slut - it was just your turn.
I won't contribute to society unless I know I will be happier doing that than being a degenerate NEET
If I KNEW that I would get a nice girl to marry and have children with, I would cut out the porn, anime, gooning. Go get a decent job.
As it stands, I could put every effort to being a respectable human being, and my only reward for doing so would be to grind away in a job I hate, whilst still being called a pathetic incel
so my two options are
A) slave away, hate life, and be lonely
B) Be a NEET, enjoy my degenerate interests, be lonely
why should I choose option A?
Humans became bigger faster stronger smarter better because of sexual selection
It goes both ways though. Short ugly guys get filtered by evolution but so do flat-chested ugly women.
There's also no research or statistics to indicate we have twice as many female ancestors than male ones; that's just blatant misinformation.
Cutting the bottom 90% of men out of ever having sex is utter shit.
The problem was decolonisation, which let the turd-worlders breed like rabbits.
They are me, and I am them. This precise combo is irreplicable. No more am I theirs than they are mine. The part about being a vehicle or vessel to their spread is not inaccurate but come now, no need to paint it as some alien, extraneous thing when they're just another dimension to look at in the prism of blood, family, inheritance.
Nobody can give a convincing counter argument against hypergamy. Humans became bigger faster stronger smarter better because of sexual selection.
I can give one very easily: genetic bottleneck
Civilization is a perversion of nature, inherently unstable like an inverted pendulum.
It doesn't take much to be top 20% of men.
Yes. Because today's generation of children being born are the BEST OF THE BEST.
There will always be incels, and the more evolution accelerates, the more incels there will be as the gap widens.
Before as a foid you'd have like 10 men to pick from, now you have a whole city's worth. Hypergamy is now at its absolute extreme and we can starting to see the consequences of it
In natural hypergamy, the beta will get sex to secure him as a beta provider, while the woman secures better seed in secret.
In modern times the beta provider has no reason to be a provider, the women secure the better seed in the open, without any benefit to the betas.
That's why I fully believe in wiping out all imperfections
Literally not true. Survival of the fittest DOES NOT mean survival of the strongest fastest most beautiful etc. Read Lothrop Stoddard on this point. Survival of the fittest simply means the ones that can best utilize and function in their environment. You could have a perfect Aryan ubermench group of 1 million breeding bigger faster stronger smarter better people that breed hypergamously and a far inferior untermench people that breed like the left side of the chart and number 50 million and they are going to STOMP OUT the ubermench because they are, in fact, the fittest to the environment. Hypergamy is the breeding strategy of small scale tribes and pre historical man. Monogamy, one man for one woman, near total male enfranchisement in sex and reproduction, and general looksmatching in breeding, is the breeding strategy of historical, civilizational man. You are literally advocating for the breaking down of civilization and a return to barbarity with this post.
Says the dumb nigger on a computer, one of the top tier inventions of civilization
increase production by giving every working man a wife. No more NEETS being a drain on society, no more low iq criminals reproducing, only men who contribute spread their genes, making humans more disciplined and less criminal each generation
Add executing at an early age (less likely to have bred) any anti social reprobate criminal ASAP, and you have exactly what European people did from like 1100 to 1890 and it had the most extreme eugenic effect ever seen on earth. It is why the white race became so powerful and literally colonized or ruled the whole world by 1900. Sexual and reproductive total enfranchisement of men and executing the fucks ups and dead wood as need be is the most OP strategy for playing our IRL Sid Meier's Civilization game. OP basically wants to take us back to turn 1 in 4000 BC and thinks this will somehow be better.
i don't think the image of the right is entirely accurate. im pretty sure those society function on the sharing women principle while the society on the left doesn't share their women. also, re:the chart on the left, the only society that actually gives a woman for every man is arranged marriage India.
If you mean
A man's looks don't mean much to women
sure, hypergamy is obviously true.
Good genetics man + bad genetics woman = ok genetics child
Generally speaking, males of a species compete with each other for pussy for the individual selection benefits while women all get to reproduce for the group selection benefit of a larger population.
Humans became bigger faster stronger smarter better because of sexual selection.
[citation needed]
Humans were mostly naturally selected for IQ and brains.
For example, white people are far smarter than niggers, because niggers live in easy climate. White people need brain capacity to prepare for an oncoming winter or die.
Oh, look! Another retard that thinks the 80/20 rule is real!
POINT AND LAUGH AT THE RETARD, EVERYONE!
women chose violent low iq males over disciplined smart men)
Imagine being as stupid as this anon.
You shouldn't.
You are obviously too low value to procreate.
Indeed, I suggest you rope ASAP
one study with N=5 proves I am right
You are retarded. Stop posting this everywhere, you are so fucking stupid it's embarrassing.
It's been long demonstrated women on a large population choose low IQ highly imuplsive high BMI men. That's it.
I do love the
I can't date 3/10s because Chad fucks, them, too!
cope
This has never been demonstrated.
You gonna stomp your feet and cry now?
Low IQ men have much LESS sexual success than average men, you idiot, and the most promiscuous men are notable higher in IQ than average.
No, you aren't an incel because of your 107 IQ
Sexual selection doesn't choose for smartest, best, most strong. It selects for arbitrary, often anti-evolutionary traits. In humans that is:
bone being 1mm one way or another
length of femur bone
high impulsivity and psychopathy
You sure you want this?
None of that is true, at all.
All the research on male personality where the men are evaluated by professionals, not surveys, show that women prefer men with more self-control and less concern for peer pressure
thus above average on the dark triad).
The most sought-after traits are body symmetry and markers of intelligence and good genes, not 'femurs' or 'millimeters of bone'.
Low IQ men have much LESS sexual success than average men
Studies disagree. It also depends on which statistical quadrant you take into account.
I am WAIS-IV STD 2+
Your foid brain is so stupid you don't even realize what your image shows. It shows difference in promiscuity in women vs men at given IQ levels. You'd know this if you weren't cite, 107IQ.
It shows that higher IQ women are more promiscious, and difference in men is negligible.
High IQ women are so rare we might as well discard them as existing, since at 130IQ + there's 7-8 times less of them than men. We already know women are whores. Studies that aren't shit (familystudies is really bad) show clear association: higher IQ people are less promiscous on bigger samples.
All the research on male personality where the men are evaluated by professionals, not surveys, show that women prefer men with more self-control and less concern for peer pressure
[citation needed]
No such study exists, you're making shit up. Link the study.
Meanwhile studies that exist show clear preference for dark triad traits and impulsivity.
I have at least over 10 studies proving just that. Some of those studies are not surveys either
researchgate.net
sciencedirect.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
academia.edu
academia.edu
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
link.springer.com
web.simmons.edu
Your opinion doesn't mean anything.
Studies disagree.
The image you posted calls you a fucking liar.
You can't even read the fucking chart you posted yourself.
Let me explain this to you
The chart YOU POSTED says the people most likely to hve sex are men with average IQ, but very low and very high IQ men are lest likely to.
I am WAIS-IV STD 2+
Translation
"I am not even gifted and i don't qualify for MENSA"
And you DEMONSTRABLY can't read graphs.
Is being as stupid as you are painful?
MUH DARK TRIAD!
You didn't even read the image of the post you are replying to, obviously, or you wouldn't be embarrassing your retarded ass so badly.
And
higher impulsivity
is NOT
ZOMFG! HE HAS NO SELF CONTROL!
it means a man willing to take reasonable risks.
your understanding of psychology would fit in a fortune cookie.
You are retarded beyond comprehension.
Your IQ is at least 20 points than mine.
My chart shows that 60IQ (mentally disabled) man is more likely to reproduce than a 130+IQ one.
Yes, most likely is average, but that's something to be expected; again you are fucking retarded and don't understand even basic statistics. Free us from your overblown ego and lack of intelligence, get a rope and hang yourself.
you didn't even read this Anon Babble screenshot therefore your studies are wrong
There's no word in any human tongue that can describe the absolute idiocy of your arguments.
Denying higher IQ = less promiscious/less likely to reproduce can only be said by a midwit.
You'd know this and understand it instinctively if you were actually intelligent and interacted with other intelligent people.
>"I am not even gifted and i don't qualify for MENSA"
WAIS IV STD2+ means 130 IQ+
That does qualify for MENSA.
You cannot even get something this simple right, and you want to teach other statistics by posting Anon Babble screenshots?
My chart shows that 60IQ (mentally disabled) man is more likely to reproduce than a 130+IQ one
It doesn't show that.
At all.
More importantly, your chart ODES show
Low IQ men have much LESS sexual success than average men
as ABSOLUTELY TRUE
which you said wasn't true here
You can't keep track of a written conversation
And you are conflating the odds of HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS aged 15-18 ever having had sex, not ever procreating, you 65 IQ drooling moron. The fact that high IQ men *AND WOMEN* avoid pre-marital ex out of caution is well-documented and not associated with lower rates of procreation.
You are posting images you can't read from studies you never read and pretending to be smart
Nobody can give a convincing counter argument against hypergamy.
Our goal as humans shouldn't be to compete in some weird natural selection game (especially not since we're already on top, and we're relying mostly on technological advances and not genetic ones)
Our goal should be happiness.
So you have no idea what the Dark Triad means?
Gotcha
WAIS IV STD2+ means 130 IQ+
That does qualify for MENSA.
No
it doesn't
MENSA requires a 135.
And
did these teenagers have sex?
!=
Did they ever have kids?
But that chart shows that average IQ people do have more sex than dumb people.
So your graph proves him correct.
Iq in western countries is decreasing rapidly, literacy rates in the us even, if you imply the influence of hypergamy on education and intellect
Then post a study showing that it is wrong
No
Once upon a time IQ tests were given to people suspected of being gifted or to people in university when university was elite.
now it is given to everyone, including the hordes of illegals.
as ABSOLUTELY TRUE
Yes, but lower IQ men still have higher reproductive success than higher IQ men.
100IQ men are essentially retards to a higher IQ person.
Women would rather fuck 70IQ retards than an actually intelligent man. Let that sink in.
You are posting images you can't read from studies you never read and pretending to be smart
I did read abstract of all those and seen statistical correlation on all of them. Wrong. Again.
The fact that high IQ men *AND WOMEN* avoid pre-marital ex out of caution is well-documented and not associated with lower rates of procreation.
So you admit now that people with higher IQs have less sex, unlike what you claimed previously? Look at that. Sounds like a contradiction. Again.
btw. Posting image with "DUMB" written on it doesn't make you seem intelligent, just braindead retarded instead.
Now take a rope.
You are so fucking retarded you can't get a simple online fact that takes 5 seconds to google right, and then try to argue it lol
you are 100% a foid, only an angered foid with vagina rage does this
There used to be no illegals when monogamy was enforced, correct?
Men with higher IQs start having children later in life BUT have *more* kids
earth.com
so...
You're wrong again!
You are an actual retard.
>as ABSOLUTELY TRUE
Yes, but lower IQ men still have higher reproductive success than higher IQ men.
see
No
they don't
So you admit now that people with higher IQs have less sex, unlike what you claimed previously?
I NEVER SAID MEN WITH HIGH IQs HAVE MORE SEXUAL PARTNERS!
Fuck, you can't even read.
I pointed out that among the top 1% of promiscuous men they had an above average IQ.
That is NOT 'all smart men'.
And you claim to be smart?
You can't even admit that when you said
low IQ men have more sexual success than average IQ men
you were wrong AND posted the chart that proved you wrong!
You never applied for MENSA or you'd know it is 135.
Moron
You have to be the pseud.
No, moron, that wasn't implied.
issue was always the birth control pill. Most top/wanted guys got forced out of the dating market early by knocking up the first girls they fucked, that would radically re-shift the hypergamy market to where the guys that would be mid on your chart would be on or near the top and by the time everyone was in their mid 20s you have single digits left of unmatched men and women. With birth control pills it allows those girls to never get knocked up so those top guys never get forced out.
Yes, you are totally correct in all regards and that makes me cry
FTFY
Only the male part is relevant and clearly shows 80-90 IQ men being higher than average men and high IQ men being very low.
NTA
go here
mensa.org
Try to read it
find out that the minimum score is above 130
Cry
moron
You are so fucking retarded lmao, fitting "argument" for somebody of your iq level.
You mistake the forest for the trees. Youd run from a shade in the forest that weird'd you and call it a pseud
Where? Take a screenshot come on.
LMAO FOID RAGE COME ON CRY MORE
How's your period by the way?
me no read good
FTFY
Read "At Our Wits End" by Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley. We have tons of tests that act as proxies for intelligence and all show it's in decline. We can also just observe that IQ negatively correlates with fertility.
reading is hard
so hard
read it for me
edited for clarity
show your mensa card, BTW
i must resort to pathetic sophisms
FTFY
Don't bother. Pic related
As a foid she can't take not being perceived as intelligent as due to her obesity she has nothing else left even if her IQ is 107.
women contribute the most to the genetic quality of the child
literally impossible due to how genetics work.
If you would have just said "quality" I could have brushed it aside due to womb environment, and being a huge impact on the first formative years of life, but genetics, lol no.
I am wrong so I am gonna make shit up even though people posted at least 2 times before of how wrong I am
It's funny how easy it is to see you're a female. Disgusting obese cunt ,fuck off to reddit with your purple hair.
We're already the apex predators, there is no need to become even stronger faster smarter better.
Strong disagree. More intelligence is always better, as is delayed gratification acquirement. Simply saying "we da best, no need for improves" is equally true for niggers in africa comparable to the other wild life found there.
hypergamy is not real, stupid incels
makes FB group called Are We Dating the Same Man
I don't want to just dance on foids, it really seems like finding some common ground might be sensible at this point
No, you are retarded. That graph clearly shows that men in the 80-90 range being higher than 100.
Your IQ is at least 20 points than mine.
Listen I agree with you but you made a typo here so you lose on technicality DESU.
proxies for intelligence
u done goofed
virtually zero IQ proxies are worth spit
I NEVER SAID MEN WITH HIGH IQs HAVE MORE SEXUAL PARTNERS!
You have literally implied this almost explicitly in your argument, even if you didn't type it. Any reasonable person would agree. You've been proven wrong so you're now backpedaling like every low IQ foid would thinking I won't notice.
I pointed out that among the top 1% of promiscuous men they had an above average IQ.
Irrelevant to female mate choice.
That is NOT 'all smart men'.
Smart men on avearge have less sex and aren't select against on a global level.
you were wrong AND posted the chart that proved you wrong!
Wrong. I posted a chart that literally shows that average and low IQ men have more reproductive success than high IQ men. Again you're contradicting yourself and gaslighting/lying to "win" as a low iq female would. Bad faith arguing, post images with "stupid" on it (LMAO ARE YOU SERIOUS?)
You never applied for MENSA or you'd know it is 135.
Proven wrong. by an explicit screenshot that you denied
Verdict:
low IQ (no higfher than 105)
highly emotional
highly unstable
denies reality when presented with facts
gaslights, uses manipulation tactics as a "form of proof"
You're a woman, a foid at that. Leave.
see
and cry harder
Imma pretend that a number of studies proving me wrong have been posted but rather accuse the person proving me wrong of confirmation bias
Does pretending you went to uni ever wear you out?
I disagree, SAT and GRE scores is r=0.8 correlated.
That's extremely high, even if not overtly accurate.
I have no mensa card because i do not qualify.
If I were to rad the MENSA site I'd be forced to admit they don't use SD but only top 2%
Then I would need someone to tell me what the top 2% of IQ actually is
Then I would be forced to admit it is above 130
Not really given that I have a literal BSC in EE and MSC Physics. It means nothing, I met too many retards during my studies and realize average IQ of uni graduates is just average now.
Seeing however how you are not aware of it... makes me think you've never went. Nobody intelligent isn't aware of it.
You realize standard deviation and "top 2%" is directly translatable, right? That's basic statistics they teach in high school, bleeding foid. Jesus christ every time you post you prove to me more and more of how retarded you are. Amazing.
Just let them talk.
The important thing is matter what your IQ is, you're both equally insufferable faggots. Get a room, ick
Incorrect, read the book, it's not long.
You have literally implied this almost explicitly in your argument,
proving you don't know the meanings of the words 'literal', 'implied', or 'explicit'.
Irrelevant to female mate choice.
Obviously not since so many women choose to mate with them.
I mean, seriously? How can you claim high IQ doesn't matter when the men with a body count in the stratosphere are above average IQ?
How fucking dumb are you?
Smart men on avearge have less sex
Wrong and fucking stupid.
Higher IQ men have fewer *lifetime sexual partners*. that has no bearing on actual amount of sex. A 20 year old man marrying an 18 year old girl and never cheating on her for 80 years has more actual sex than a guy that fucks 10 different women for 6 months at a time with 4 year gaps in between.
more reproductive success than high IQ men
Not the case, as a study posted here shows.
You keep ignoring actual evidence to whine.
So far you're wrong about everything you type
And REALLy emotional about it, too
civilization is here forever and we're never going back to tribal society
proving you don't know the meanings of the words 'literal', 'implied', or 'explicit'.
And you not knowing their dictionary definition going off your feeling. This was a test you've failed spectacularly. Lack of logic meaning, again, you're a woman.
Obviously not since so many women choose to mate with them.
They don't. Those men choose them, since high promiscuity by definition implies high amount of choice you fucking retard.
Wrong and fucking stupid.
Based on what? Your foid pussy tingles? I base my claim on studies.
Not the case, as a study posted here shows.
That's not a study, that was a retarded article.
I am emotional? You sure? Classic case of projection.
Middle of the day on a weekday
Claims to have an MSC
Ah.
'Another Yuropoor with delusions of adequacy trying to blame women for why he's afraid of them.
Your purpose is to serve men. Never forget.
So you misusing simple words proes that other people failed a test?
Really?
Is this like how your poor reading comprehension proves you are in MENSA?
AND you have no idea how promiscuity works?
Your inceldom is confirmed
Keep ignoring the actual studies, BTW
I didn't miss anything. I used the words with their full dictionary definitions. Somehow you think they aren't, because again, you aren't capable of logic, which was the test.
You don't even know who I am yet created some kind of an incel strawman in your head like a neon haired whale.
Again, verdict
woman
Remember, your purpose is to serve men.
Never forget.
Not the case, as a study posted here shows.
You keep ignoring actual evidence to whine.
At least link the study you're talking about because that article doesn't link it. If it's real then it's counter to every other study I've ever seen on the subject.
Biological evolution happens over the course of thousands of years, whereas social and technical evolution and development can occur far more rapidly. Appeals to Darwinian biological evolution that hamper technical and social evolution are backwards and detrimental to actual human development in the immediate term. I don't care about the state of mankind in 10,000 years, I care about my life now, and in the immediate future, maybe the next 100 years at most.