Post: #26

(12-20-2014 12:48 PM)Soberane Wrote:  A woman's job has never been to reproduce to pass her IQ, women's IQ is irrelevant to male reproductive purpose, she has only to be young, pretty and physically healthy, a billionaire investor would have not trouble reproducing with a hot pretty 19 years old high school dropout that clean toilets at McDonald.

Actually, The Economist and a few other publications have written about income inequality being exacerbated by assortative mating on intelligence being more and more common.

What you suggest is what was more common in the 60's.

Not as extreme as your example, but the CEO or Doctor would nail and reproduce with the attractive secretary or nurse.

However nowadays you are seeing 'high value men' mate more and more with highly educated women who maybe aren't as attractive as that secretary or nurse from 1960 but combined give their offspring a ridiculous head-start on SES or potential IQ terms.

Post: #27

I think this raises an interesting point - are intelligence and IQ really the same thing?

The one on the right is clearly a non-conformist, and her appearance suggests leftist/SJ leanings (short hair, fat, eccentric clothing, slightly masculine). Even with a marginally higher IQ, her political/social views would indicate a predisposition for emotional, rather than logical, thought processes - the opposite of intelligence.

Post: #28

(12-20-2014 11:27 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  I would easily pick the one on the left without hesitation for the following reasons:

1. The one on the left is tall with great looks. Taller and better looking children will do better in life. Go look at the managers, directors, and executives in your typical corporations and look at their heights.

2. IQ can be increased with environment. It's not all genetic. Teaching them to read past a kindergarten level, teaching second and third languages, play musical instruments, play with LEGOs and build RC controlled robots, BASIC programming language, all in the first 5 years, will increase IQ and possibly require gifted and talented classes when they get older.

3. Prettier daughters are more likely to find a good husband and not have to work much etc. if they marry correctly in a red pill like manner. The woman on the right has poor hair quality, skin quality, and poor weight control. (something that may affect childbirth, like diabetes in the womb making your newborn fat, like 8+ lbs, making C-Section more likely.)

4. Some highly intelligent women might be high functioning Aspergers, and your average person would never know it. If their social intelligence is pretty low, I would be too suspicious to continue with her. That blonde might be a bit bubbly/airheaded or whatever, but her social intelligence may be alot higher than the 135 woman, because she understands how the world works, and how to leverage her assets to acquire resources.

IQ can not only be increased by training through childhood - actually the massive tests done in the UK in the 1930s all to the 1950s showed that IQs of the unwashed masses rose instantly as soon as food quality improved.

All orthomolecular doctors state that women should take huge amounts of supplements - massive doses of vitamins and minerals, omega 3 acids & amino acids. That prevents 98% of birth defects and increases the likelihood of beneficial brain development. IQs are somewhat inheritable, but I am certain that if your wife is 100 in IQ and you are 130, then given excellent orthomolecular supplementation started 3 months before conception up until age 2 - that IQ of a child can even surpass yours.

In any case - I would take the 90 IQ woman. Apart from being taller and prettier, she also looks like a more pleasant person. Besides - my tested IQ should still produce a child of decent intelligence. The child might be even more intelligent than me if the mother adheres to a great diet and breast-feeds the baby.

Even if she does not and gets a McDonald's diet I am still taking the chances with the pretty 90 IQ woman.

Post: #29

Men can judge IQ by appearance also.

No way that thin womans has an IQ of 90 only.

Dumb people have it written on their face. That woman is definately not below median IQ level.

Also low IQ poeple are more likely to be obese. I have no statistics to base this claim on, only observation, but I can bet such statistics exist. And thats the whole point - people have this innate ability to jusdge others by appearance.

I would choose the thin woman knowig that the text is false and her IQ is somewhere around 100-110 at least.

Post: #30

A 90 vs. a 135 IQ is a huge difference. It's three entire standard deviations. It's the difference between a fast food worker and a university professor. If you translated the difference into physical looks, it would be like going from a 4 to a 9. That's a really big deal.

You could have highly intelligent children, average and stupid children with either women, due to the dice rolls of genetics and reproduction. But you'd be much more likely to have highly intelligent children with the 135 IQ mother, especially if you are highly intelligent yourself.

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the 135 IQ chick is not unattractive. She just let herself get a little fat and is wearing ridiculous clothing. She'd clean up rather well if she tried. Her genetics from an appearance perspective, while not as good as the 90 IQ girl, are still above average.

Also, given the context of the question we must assume that this is now standard reproductive protocol, which means that looks will be less important in general, since no actual coupling would take place. A premium will therefore be placed on things like IQ, health and physical ability, rather than on pure sexiness.

Since this question ultimately is not asking me to bang, marry, cohabitate with, hang out with or even know either woman, I would personally gain nothing from choosing the hotter 90 IQ woman. The only plausible benefit for choosing her would be the hope that my children were more attractive. However, as I mentioned, since this hypothetical is based entirely on this new method of procreation, I think looks would become less important, and the other chick is not fugly anyway.

Or look at it like this: rate each girl on the 1 - 10 scale for both looks and intelligence.

90 IQ girl:

9 looks
4 intelligence

Total : 13

135 IQ girl

7 looks (when cleaned up/dieted)
9 intelligence

Total: 16

Post: #31

(12-20-2014 02:19 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Or look at it like this: rate each girl on the 1 - 10 scale for both looks and intelligence.

90 IQ girl:

9 looks
4 intelligence

Total : 13

135 IQ girl

7 looks (when cleaned up/dieted)
9 intelligence

Total: 16

You forgot that you have joint custody with the woman for 20 years. Which one of them will likely turn out to be a pleasant being to be around? Besides - I doubt that you will be able to convince her to diet and clean up much.

And of course it is clear that the pretty woman has a higher IQ than 90 as is seen in her eyes.

Real low IQ woman of the thriving British underclass:



For example in this case I would choose the other one in a heartbeat.

Post: #32

I agree with scorpion. The one one the right has the genetic potential of 7, maybe even higher for all we know. I would reproduce with the IQ 135, no doubt about it.

Post: #33

If the only thing I got to know about either one was her IQ, I'd go with the one on the left.

IQ is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the ability to make intelligent choices and decisions. It's also not an indicator of the ability to actually care for a child.

Post: #34

Damn people stop saying the woman on the left "obviously has an IQ higher than 90." That's not the hypothetical! Yall are avoiding the question. Of course, every person would rather reproduce with the woman on the left if she had the same IQ as the woman on the right, but alas, that is not the question.

Post: #35

It's an interesting question because it makes you consider whether or not you believe your logical brain can produce a better decision than thousands of years of human evolution (your dick).

Post: #36

I think a lot of guys are instinctively going for the more attractive girl and inventing ex post facto rationalizations to justify doing so, i.e. "She looks higher than a 90 IQ, so I assume she must be."

This could obviously be true (and I don't disagree: I think she looks over 90 as well). But we have to go by the facts being presented and assume for sure the results are accurate, otherwise we must question everything else, including whether or not that's even the girl's picture. If she doesn't actually have a 90 IQ, maybe that's not even her in the pic, maybe she's actually a 400 lb. black chick with a bald spot trying to catfish our sperm. We don't know. But we must assume the facts presented are accurate, otherwise we have no basis to make any decision.

Post: #37

(12-20-2014 02:38 PM)scorpion Wrote:  I think a lot of guys are instinctively going for the more attractive girl and inventing ex post facto rationalizations to justify doing so, i.e. "She looks higher than a 90 IQ, so I assume she must be."

This could obviously be true (and I don't disagree: I think she looks over 90 as well). But we have to go by the facts being presented and assume for sure the results are accurate, otherwise we must question everything else, including whether or not that's even the girl's picture. If she doesn't actually have a 90 IQ, maybe that's not even her in the pic, maybe she's actually a 400 lb. black chick with a bald spot trying to catfish our sperm. We don't know. But we must assume the facts presented are accurate, otherwise we have no basis to make any decision.

Roosh - you are wording the question in such a way that I presume that I would already live in a world that has become a complete abject dictatorship that decides on my procreation and does not offer me the opportunity to have any LTR with those women? The only choice I have are to have a child with one of those women and I will only share some custody with her?

Well in that case - a world of a total dictatorship I pick the Brave New World Alpha /Beta+ woman with the 135 IQ. In that Brave New World an IQ of 90 would put her squarely in the Gamma or even Delta category. I am not going to see that broad anyway - she is not ugly, just under-optimized.



Which one would you choose Roosh?

Post: #38

Looks like the same female.

Post: #39

I would choose the one on the left. The one on the right looks like she probably would have some habits that would influence my offspring negatively. I don't want my kid to grow up eating junk food and not exercising regularly.

Post: #40

(12-20-2014 12:53 PM)floor7 Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 12:48 PM)Soberane Wrote:  A woman's job has never been to reproduce to pass her IQ, women's IQ is irrelevant to male reproductive purpose, she has only to be young, pretty and physically healthy, a billionaire investor would have not trouble reproducing with a hot pretty 19 years old high school dropout that clean toilets at McDonald.

Actually, The Economist and a few other publications have written about income inequality being exacerbated by assortative mating on intelligence being more and more common.

What you suggest is what was more common in the 60's.

Not as extreme as your example, but the CEO or Doctor would nail and reproduce with the attractive secretary or nurse.

However nowadays you are seeing 'high value men' mate more and more with highly educated women who maybe aren't as attractive as that secretary or nurse from 1960 but combined give their offspring a ridiculous head-start on SES or potential IQ terms.

It's a false bargain: Those women do NOT need men and often do not stay married. I married an uber-successful professional. She could NOT stay married because she was so competitive. We divorced. She then married another poor schmuck, shitted out a kid with him - and promptly divorced him. When you pull in $300K+ a year why do you need a man around? BUT, the kids DO need a man around - Obama aside, kids raised by single moms do fantastically badly in our society.

So "assertive mating" also can lead to assortive divorce and high IQ but unsocialized children with LOTS of problems. LOTS of problems. Leading to wasted potential and unfulfilled lives. I'll take a high IQ or otherwise successful man mating with a lower IQ but feminine, pretty, devoted wife with strong maternal instincts ANY day of the week for raising well-adjusted, happy, successful kids.

Post: #41

I would pick the attractive thin girl because she looks healthier while the other one looks older.

Post: #42

(12-20-2014 02:59 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 12:53 PM)floor7 Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 12:48 PM)Soberane Wrote:  A woman's job has never been to reproduce to pass her IQ, women's IQ is irrelevant to male reproductive purpose, she has only to be young, pretty and physically healthy, a billionaire investor would have not trouble reproducing with a hot pretty 19 years old high school dropout that clean toilets at McDonald.

Actually, The Economist and a few other publications have written about income inequality being exacerbated by assortative mating on intelligence being more and more common.

What you suggest is what was more common in the 60's.

Not as extreme as your example, but the CEO or Doctor would nail and reproduce with the attractive secretary or nurse.

However nowadays you are seeing 'high value men' mate more and more with highly educated women who maybe aren't as attractive as that secretary or nurse from 1960 but combined give their offspring a ridiculous head-start on SES or potential IQ terms.

It's a false bargain: Those women do NOT need men and often do not stay married. I married an uber-successful professional (don't want to get too personal but think doctor, lawyer, etc). She could NOT stay married because she was so competitive. We divorced. She then married another poor schmuck, shitted out a kid with him - and promptly divorced him. When you pull in $300K+ a year why do you need a man around? BUT, the kids DO need a man around - Obama aside, kids raised by single moms do fantastically badly in our society.

So "assertive mating" also can lead to assortive divorce and high IQ but unsocialized children with LOTS of problems. LOTS of problems. Leading to wasted potential and unfulfilled lives. I'll take a high IQ or otherwise successful man mating with a lower IQ but feminine, pretty, devoted wife with strong maternal instincts ANY day of the week for raising well-adjusted, happy, successful kids.

I agree with your last sentence - I was not making a qualitative judgment in my post but rather a cold observation of current dynamics.

Post: #43

...

Post: #44

Depends a lot on whether the child will be a man or a woman, but I'm leaning toward going with the smart one. IQ is highly heritable and I want smart children. I think its easy to forget how dumb 90 IQ would really seem if you had to interact with it all the time on a deeper level than customer service interactions. Of course if I had a daughter and she turned out all beastly etc, then I would feel bad for having set her up for that.

Post: #45

High IQ has no real reproductive advantage. Look at the people or countries with the highest fertility rates.

Post: #46

Quote:Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the 135 IQ chick is not unattractive. She just let herself get a little fat and is wearing ridiculous clothing. She'd clean up rather well if she tried. Her genetics from an appearance perspective, while not as good as the 90 IQ girl, are still above average.

For the sake of the experiment, she's supposed to be "butt ugly". Her fatness and so on should be presumed to have strong genetic components that cannot be overcome.

Post: #47

(12-20-2014 02:15 PM)Mage Wrote:  Men can judge IQ by appearance also.

No way that thin womans has an IQ of 90 only.

Dumb people have it written on their face. That woman is definately not below median IQ level.

Probably correct, but you'd have to see the motility of her face over a little time span to confirm. Because I worked a lot with criminals, (average IQ about 80) I noticed their facial expressions looked clearly different than average and superior people.

It's hard not to notice, easy to point out.

More intelligent people simply move their eyes more. They look around , examining their environment.

Inferiors have dull glazed stares, with a paranoid suspicious look because they are used to threatening ghetto environments.

Normal and above look MUCH different than the ~80 IQ criminal class, or a REALLY ditzy 85 IQ dumb but cute girl.

I'll have to go with fattie on who to reproduce with. Regression to the mean is a bitch.
I've given about 100 IQ tests, and actually published something about results, and 90 is a lot worse than 95. In any highly educated circle, a person with a 90 IQ is noticed quickly as very dull.
Also, given the right reinforcers, the kids of Fattie might turn out cute, she has a nice facial structure under the lard.

Also in real life you have much more information on personality which is at least as important.With only a snapshot you can't judge that well at all.

Post: #48

(12-20-2014 03:40 PM)The Ligurian Wrote:  The girl on left every time.

IQ means shit.
....
Lower IQ [b]does not mean less cultured or less interesting[/b] or less charming, things that are important in women.

It does, almost by definition.

Low IQ people watch stupid reality shows with the volume up loud, or obsess over football games if male.

They lack curiosity and don't read anything.

Post: #49

The hot bitch.

Looks get you a lot further in life than so-called "smarts." I'm pretty sure I can compensate for her idiocy with some daily brain exercises.

Post: #50

A 45 point difference is seismic, but by employing a very simple heritability model one can see that averaging in your own IQ and factoring in regression to the mean cuts down on this substantially when it comes to expected offspring IQ.

For example, if you think your IQ is 145 and you use a constant for regression to the mean of .8 to a mean of 100, you get expected offspring IQs of 114 and 132 for the pretty and ugly woman, respectively. An 18 point difference is still huge, but certainly less alarming than 45.

However, .8 and 100 are likely not accurate values for each/both women. The pretty woman looks like she has a better genetic package overall (and got relatively "unlucky" on IQ) and thus the realized IQ of her offspring would likely outperform the simple model I outlined above with these values, and the ugly woman underperform. So the difference is likely even smaller than 18--it may even cross zero.

It seems that our boners sense these things on a primal level.