Post: #51

Are you kidding? I'm going to assume girl on the left is rather tall, 5'7+, and the hambeast on the right is 5'4 or below.

Try to envision life 18 to 20 years from now. It's very difficult to imagine, but you can safely bet social media, and the way you look, will play an even bigger role then. As has been said on the forum repeatedly, social media and online dating are slowly separating the genetic haves and have-nots, creating more barriers for the genetically unfortunate than before.

If feminism has its way, i.e., removes all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality, females using the 1-to-10 to evaluate guys will become more commonplace. If false-rape culture continues to grow in popularity, you might be setting up your ugly-ass son for failure, since a clumsy sexual advance will be deemed a crime.

Imagine the cutthroat nature of Tinder, seeping into real life today, amplified by 20 years. I don't even know what a phone will look like then, but my prediction is that physical appearance and attributes will be more important than ever before in securing a high quality mate.

Looking at the possibility of having a boy, how anyone would willingly pass up the opportunity to have a 6'2+ white (or mixed race) son versus an average height fatty is unfathomable. Not even a question. Not to mention I believe IQ is extremely overblown in determining "success." Who has more sex, high or low IQ people? Who battles depression more? I couldn't give less of a fuck about IQ. Knowing what I know today, I could set up a complete idiot to make a respectable living in many lines of work with no student loans.

Height and white, mothafuckas. That's all the bitches want, the number one pussy moisturizer. Height and white.

Post: #52

90.

Kids don't need IQ, they need love.

90 IQ woman looks like she takes better care of herself, and therefore will take better care on my children.

130 eats unhealthy and has poor hygiene and will make my children sick and fat.

You list IQ's as a number, but my hinder brain says all sub-communications point to 130 being mentally ill and less reproductively healthy. I'll bet the real women shown in those pictures do not have those IQs.

Phrase the question another way - whose breastmilk do you think will have more nutrients to ensure my children develop properly into their full IQ potential?

Could be 90 girl just had 130 over there as a mom. I'll take healthy and capable of taking care of herself over being able to score high on standardized test any day.

Post: #53

(12-20-2014 04:33 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  Height and white, mothafuckas. That's all the bitches want, the number one pussy moisturizer. Height and white.

This is a really good point, i see it borne out all the time.

However, height is something that in my limited knowledge of genetics is going to be one of the more easily customizable traits once DIY, or minimally doctor approved consumer genetic engineering takes hold.

You'll be able to do something like put your sperm in a Petri dish, add the "Height Treatment" nanobots to it, and turkey baste your bitch.

Voila! Tall kids. Only 1/4 joking, it's not far off, maybe 3o years instead of 20, but not far.

Much more complex but double edged traits like poetic ability (may predispose to depression) will be harder to safely implement.

Post: #54

Some good points here. Also, it definitely changes the calculus if, as Roosh says, the 135 IQ girl is supposed to be butt ugly rather than above average when she's cleaned up and in shape (i.e. her genetic peak looks). Let's call her a 2-3 rather than a potential 7. That makes quite a difference.

If the girl is truly ugly with a 135 IQ versus the 9 with a 90 IQ, I'd have to go with the 90 IQ girl. The reversion to the mean will happen regardless, as has been noted, so the 90 IQ girl is likely hiding some 120+ IQ in her DNA anyway, judging by how well put together she is physically (such symmetry is a marker of genetic quality). A 135 IQ isn't enough compensation for overall ugliness and otherwise poor genetic quality (i.e. obesity, lack of self-control, etc...).

I actually think the hypothetical becomes too obvious with a really ugly but intelligent girl. I think it was much more arguable when choosing between a stupid 9 and a highly intelligent 6-7.

Post: #55

It's been said before. I would pick the 90. Teaching a kid to be smart is not the same as teaching a kid to succeed. The kid can grow up book smart under the 135. Maybe get into IT or some other "defined" career path and be someone else's bitch. With the social skills taught to the kid under the 90, the kid will likely get more attention, care and self-awareness resulting in a more dynamic (e.g sales) career.

I went "smart" and went into a top line Accounting career. Paid well but ended up being a defined career and constricted to its own rules. Reasons for this had a lot to do with my parents' influence regarding a "safe" career and their inability to expose me properly to social situations and even inability to provide emotional support. Today I'm in sales because I want to succeed. I will make more money than I ever could in Accounting. However based on my background, that success has a lot of these inner barriers that I'm continuing to break through.

Post: #56

My sticking point is this one

"you will share custody with both the government and woman "

Who will make it easier to raise a child
- the pretty dumb chick
- the smart fat one

Neither of whom have any sort of romantic interest in me.

So if I have little Dequavious or Ty'Reeshianana every other week, who would I want to coordinate with?

What would a week with Mom look like?

The pretty chick is gonna be getting her pussy pounded in for at least the next 10-15 years, and my child will be exposed to that.

The ugly chick, at best, will have some reluctant oral sex recipients.

WIA

Post: #57

(12-20-2014 04:43 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  However, height is something that in my limited knowledge of genetics is going to be one of the more easily customizable traits once DIY, or minimally doctor approved consumer genetic engineering takes hold.

I wish you were right, but I'm not that optimistic. Progress in biology moves very very slowly. It's about to be 2015 and we still haven't been able to clone hair to 'cure' male pattern baldness.

If we ever do see DIY babies, I'll be too old to have any. Most likely I'll be dead though.

Post: #58

Still I consider the question too set in a dystopian future, where the government forces you to reproduce and choose between those two women.

Sure - if all other things in that crazy scenario are identical to now I do believe that most guys would choose the pretty dumb girl as she will likely have a child in the range of 110-120 IQ anyway with most intelligent men (possibly even 130 if she uses fantastic supplementation and you can influence that). The ugly fat and intelligent one will bear you an ugly short son or even worse an ugly daughter. Your daughter for sure will likely curse your choice.

Another point is that if the pretty girl has such a low IQ despite having a highly symmetrical face & strong body it remains to ask why her IQ is that low? There are quite a few cases which happened due to some toxins during pregnancy - usually some bad medication, environmental toxins, etc. Severe lack of nutrients would leave her usually looking differently and impacting growth and health. Neurological toxins can impact the nervous system and thus brain development. I personally know such a girl, who was likely poisoned during pregnancy in the 7th month by a drug that is banned in the US since the 1970s because it is known to affect the nervous system especially during pregnancy. Her mother has an IQ of 120+, her brother 135+ and her about 100 with some occasional high flashes. Her real genetic IQ is around 130+ probably, but her effective IQ only lower due to an incident not related to her genes - as she is also tall, pretty and healthy.

Post: #59

Scorpion you surprised me brother. That bitch is fat. You cannot change a woman dude. What you see there is what you get. Look at how wide her neck is. I don't want her Thyroid issues affecting my offspring.

If I need a mother to help me teach my kids how to look presentable in front of my business partners and or clients, miss 90 wins by a landslide. A mother should reflect the man as much as a wife should. Even if 90 and I fought all the time, she is most likely to teach the importance of image and social norms unlike that fat nerd. I want socially well adjusted children, not entitled arrogant evil spawn. Is she cannot control her weight she cannot manage my kids weight. Almost all fat children I see here have obese parents. A skinny mother will tell my pretty daughter shit like, "you won't find a good man, stuffing your face like that."

Most should know by now it's not what you know but who you know in this world. Women can jump social class greatly on looks alone.

My wife is already monitoring my daughter's weight and there is no need to do that right now, but as a Chinese person, it's that important in their culture for girls.

Post: #60

I'd rather have my kids to be smart.

There's a life after 25/30. You need brains for that.

Post: #61

Choosing for the fat hipster because you want smart kids is a flawed logic. IQ of your children is not determined by genetics (for the most part). IQ is mostly determined by your environment and the simulation of your environment. Also a lot of people link high IQ with being succesful. I wouldn't say most rich people are very high IQ. I think the two pictures are before and after pictures of the same girl but if they were two seperate girls I would choose for the left one since the right one doesn't do it for me.

Post: #62

The original premise is false because there's no such thing as a retarded pretty woman. Pretty women have average to slightly above average IQs. In this case, the left one would likely have a 100-120 IQ.

The fat one with "counter-culture" leanings is clearly beyond dumb. Imagining for a second that the 135 IQ is real, that would've been the result of affirmative action and grade inflation in her college IQ test.

Stupid people have it written all over them.

Besides, the father's genes determine IQs more than we know, I bet. Whatever research from a couple of decades ago suggesting that it's the mother providing the intelligence gene is a load of crap, going from my personal experience.

Post: #63

Considering how much higher for men than women the variance on the IQ bell curve is, my guess is that most of the genius/tard risk is on the y chromosome, meaning that selecting for intelligence in the woman would be less useful than selecting for physical fitness and attractiveness.

Post: #64

(12-20-2014 02:19 PM)scorpion Wrote:  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

Same here. 135 IQ chick. Intelligence is passed through the mother and a woman with a 90 IQ is too risky to reproduce with....

Post: #65

I think some of you guys underestimate how dumb a girl with an IQ of 90 is, it means she'd have scored at the bottom 25% on an IQ test. A person with an IQ of 90 would've barely graduated high school (the American graduation rate is 80% at the moment). If her income and education match what you'd expect from her IQ the chances of her divorcing are really high (more likely than not by a mile) and she's guaranteed of becoming overweight when she gets older if she's in an Anglo country. Plus she's more likely to have a higher notch count, smoke, do drugs, have tattoos and more likely than not to have children out of wedlock etc. Basically every single slut and un-LTR worthy sign would be highly elevated for this girl except being a feminist. Really this experiment is unrealistic but it's quite rare to find a good looking, thin and tall girl with an IQ that low in the first place.

Post: #66

Both if possible & had the means. It'd be fun to see how each turns out later in life when they grow up. Which one does better? Which one is happier? Which one is more successful? Which one is better looking? Which one is smarter?

It'd be like my own mini science experiment.

Genghis Khan did this with multiple wives and chose his favorite sons and daughters for the best court roles based on their aptitudes.

Post: #67

(12-20-2014 03:57 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

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.

If that's the case, then I choose the IQ90 woman. Physical characteristics like beauty are determinates of genetic health, so the woman of more beauty is the healthier mating partner in totality if the other option is ugly without redemption.

As it stands with the two pictures presented, I would choose IQ135 woman. She's redeemable and higher IQ is the more decisive factor between these two woman. The woman on the left is more physically attractive, but her IQ makes her almost retarded. An IQ of 135 is considered high last time I looked into it.


In all, I may still pick IQ over beauty in most circumstances.

Using the recent Rosetta Comet Science Team as an example;

Look how most of them are traditionally unattractive, or not as conventionally attractive to other media faces, yet they're an assembly of the highest intelligence that society has to offer.

A large determinant of these individuals intelligence, yet unappealing nature has more to say on how post-industrial society is organized(work and lifestyles of the highly intelligent) than of the correlation of beauty and intelligence.

No one here could argue that Kim Kardashian and her mother are of high IQ, rather than normal IQ with Machiavellian tendencies inside an amoral social grooming.

"but they're rich and famous!"

Yes and also freak shows who've endangered their genetic lineage through their encouragement of lax familiar ties and loyalties, unconventional mating practices(or lack of), narcissism, hedonism, non-nucleic family structures, unstable lifestyles.

I can't say beauty has as much staying power as concrete intelligence

Post: #68

IQ90 all the way because the smarter ugly cow does not pass the boner test.

Post: #69

The boner does not lie. The most attractive one obviously. The one on the right needs a complete makeover in terms of attitude, diet, and fashion sense.

Post: #70

(12-20-2014 04:33 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  If feminism has its way, i.e., removes all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality, females using the 1-to-10 to evaluate guys will become more commonplace. If false-rape culture continues to grow in popularity, you might be setting up your ugly-ass son for failure, since a clumsy sexual advance will be deemed a crime.

Looking at the possibility of having a boy, how anyone would willingly pass up the opportunity to have a 6'2+ white (or mixed race) son versus an average height fatty is unfathomable. Not even a question. Not to mention I believe IQ is extremely overblown in determining "success." Who has more sex, high or low IQ people? Who battles depression more? I couldn't give less of a fuck about IQ. Knowing what I know today, I could set up a complete idiot to make a respectable living in many lines of work with no student loans.

The measurements we're using on this hypothetical poll are still largely arbitrary, so it's odd to chastise the female imperatives version of whimsical selection versus our own when we are participating in a very similar practice to theirs.

Post: #71

I trust my dick to make the right evolutionary decision. He says the hot dumb girl.

Post: #72

The hot bitch/ Atleast I could bang her while having custody. Based on that picture alone, I would dread meeting up with the other girl.

Post: #73

(12-20-2014 09:53 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  The measurements we're using on this hypothetical poll are still largely arbitrary, so it's odd to chastise the female imperatives version of whimsical selection versus our own when we are participating in a very similar practice to theirs.

wut?

Not sure what you mean by it being 'odd to chastise female whimsical selection' when we are 'participating in a very similar practice.'

If what you're implying is that it's hypocritical to 'chastise' women for wanting to choose better looking men, I don't completely disagree with you. You could have said it more directly though.

However, I'm not criticizing or chastising them for it, just reiterating what many on this forum have observed as a trend. Laying out the argument that physical attractiveness is becoming more and more important to women thanks to the rise of online/iphone dating.

In light of this, if I have the choice between having an attractive yet 'dumb' kid versus an ugly yet 'smart' kid, I'd whole-heartedly choose attractive. Especially since I'm of the belief that structure, opportunity, and work ethic are much more important factors in determining a person's success than hard-wired IQ.

Post: #74

(12-20-2014 10:40 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 09:53 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  The measurements we're using on this hypothetical poll are still largely arbitrary, so it's odd to chastise the female imperatives version of whimsical selection versus our own when we are participating in a very similar practice to theirs.

wut?

Not sure what you mean by it being 'odd to chastise female whimsical selection' when we are 'participating in a very similar practice.'

If what you're implying is that it's hypocritical to 'chastise' women for wanting to choose better looking men, I don't completely disagree with you. You could have said it more directly though.

However, I'm not criticizing or chastising them for it, just reiterating what many on this forum have observed as a trend. Laying out the argument that physical attractiveness is becoming more and more important to women thanks to the rise of online/iphone dating.

In light of this, if I have the choice between having an attractive yet 'dumb' kid versus an ugly yet 'smart' kid, I'd whole-heartedly choose attractive. Especially since I'm of the belief that structure, opportunity, and work ethic are much more important factors in determining a person's success than hard-wired IQ.

I wasn't clear? My fault.

I was meaning to enlighten everyone to the fact that our desire for reproductive choices/scrutiny directly correlate with women reproductive choices and scrutiny.

Each is a causation of uglier and dumber people having a hard time moving up in genetic "rank" via reproduction.

It also mean that we're kind of hypocrites if we sympathize with any "beta" getting outfoxed at any stage of life due to reproductive fitness, even if it's ourselves.

Looking at this from a logical perspective, tragic loses to otherwise good men and women are necessary for the genetic betterment of tomorrow. The only reasonable way anyone could argue against this is if they believe that deviancy in genetic transmission is somehow important to racial genetic fitness

Post: #75

No rubber for 90, no dick for 135. #endthread #stopfrontin #fuckin90rightnowwhilewritingthishashtag