good genes do not come in package

[LefortCandidate]

most scientist today are ugly as fuck but has high iq

most scientists that advanced humanity in the past range from subhuman and mtn

this cope about looks and high iq and good genes come in package is so fucking dumb

ive seen somebody unironically said men shouldn't try to limit hypergamy because women will select for high iq jfl

some people are jus naive enough to think that women will chose Einstein over jeremy meeks who has like 60 iq

 

[stonecold trucel]

true

 

[lnceIs]

Cope

 

[Hess]

Good genes and good looks arent rly the same thing imo, there is a correlation to a degree but not merely enough to make it a law with a few exceptions

 

[LefortCandidate]

Good genes and good looks arent rly the same thing imo, there is a correlation to a degree but not merely enough to make it a law with a few exceptions

both looks and iq are genetics mayne

people thinking letting hypergamy go unchecked is a good eugenic program but that's not true

 

[thedarkerone]

most scientist today are ugly as fuck but has high iq

most scientists that advanced humanity in the past range from subhuman and mtn

this cope about looks and high iq and good genes come in package is so fucking dumb

ive seen somebody unironically said men shouldn't try to limit hypergamy because women will select for high iq jfl

some people are jus naive enough to think that women will chose Einstein over jeremy meeks who has like 60 iq

Cope

Good genes and good looks arent rly the same thing imo, there is a correlation to a degree but not merely enough to make it a law with a few exceptions

letting women pick their partners is the opposite of eugenic, their choices are way more often brutally dysgenic than they are eugenic but the kids on this site arent ready to hear that

 

[Latinolooksmaxxer]

Good genes and good looks arent rly the same thing imo, there is a correlation to a degree but not merely enough to make it a law with a few exceptions

genetic recomb is law

 

[LefortCandidate]

genetic recomb is law

that's cope as well

 

[Hess]

both looks and iq are genetics mayne

people thinking letting hypergamy go unchecked is a good eugenic program but that's not true

True eugenics is only possible with manual intervention imo i agree with you

 

[Hess]

letting women pick their partners is the opposite of eugenic, their choices are way more often brutally dysgenic than they are eugenic but the kids on this site arent ready to hear that

I agree with that though

 

[Divineincel]

most scientist today are ugly as fuck but has high iq

most scientists that advanced humanity in the past range from subhuman and mtn

this cope about looks and high iq and good genes come in package is so fucking dumb

ive seen somebody unironically said men shouldn't try to limit hypergamy because women will select for high iq jfl

some people are jus naive enough to think that women will chose Einstein over jeremy meeks who has like 60 iq

Watch your mouth boy, Jeremy Meeks shall inherit the world one day, it was even prophesied in the Bible

 

[shandingo]

most scientist today are ugly as fuck but has high iq

most scientists that advanced humanity in the past range from subhuman and mtn

this cope about looks and high iq and good genes come in package is so fucking dumb

ive seen somebody unironically said men shouldn't try to limit hypergamy because women will select for high iq jfl

some people are jus naive enough to think that women will chose Einstein over jeremy meeks who has like 60 iq

What you said is true to an extent. However , I think there still is a weak positive correlation. Good looks are health markers , likely to be raised by wealthy parents ( positive IQ correlation with wealth ) with good nutrition. There is a reason your parents income and education is directly correlated with yours , so is there IQ (not always the case). There are plenty of low IQ chads and high IQ sub-5s hence why it is a weak correlation I am suggesting.

 

[trvechud]

most scientist today are ugly as fuck but has high iq

most scientists that advanced humanity in the past range from subhuman and mtn

this cope about looks and high iq and good genes come in package is so fucking dumb

ive seen somebody unironically said men shouldn't try to limit hypergamy because women will select for high iq jfl

some people are jus naive enough to think that women will chose Einstein over jeremy meeks who has like 60 iq

Scientists are ugly because attractive people of similar iq got better jobs with less effort/more pay than stem

 

[Whatever]

They don’t even come in packages as far as looks. A lot of the prettiest eye areas I’ve ever seen was on girls with recessed lower thirds. Also a lot of the girls with the best bodies have chopped faces, even my mom has said stuff like that.

A lot of guys with great faces are short. Or maybe he has a great face and is tall but his voice is really annoying and foids get the ick from it. Genetic recomb is like rolling a million dice at once, some of which are from centuries ago. So full package Chads are very rare, most guys are missing something and foids compromise in their selection somehow.

 

[Jorad]

Dolph Lundgren​

 

[LefortCandidate]

What you said is true to an extent. However , I think there still is a weak positive correlation. Good looks are health markers , likely to be raised by wealthy parents ( positive IQ correlation with wealth ) with good nutrition. There is a reason your parents income and education is directly correlated with yours , so is there IQ (not always the case). There are plenty of low IQ chads and high IQ sub-5s hence why it is a weak correlation I am suggesting.

i would argue high iq individuals comes from low income famillies

i am talking about real high iq people that contribute to societies not just smart enough to keep family wealth going

there's a reason why the come up stories are popular

 

[Whatever]

Dolph Lundgren​

This isn’t about one in a billion celebrity giga Chads, this is about normal people you know IRL.

 

[LefortCandidate]

Dolph Lundgren​

He's the exception that started this idea on bp spaces

 

[shandingo]

i would argue high iq individuals comes from low income famillies

i am talking about real high iq people that contribute to societies not just smart enough to keep family wealth going

there's a reason why the come up stories are popular

Interesting point but I can only speak with the data. Data shows the vast majority of candidates from top universities Harvard , MIT , Oxford etc... are extremely elitist. Your parents income is the best predictor of your income. You are correct the guys who make it from nothing are the most impressive , but this is like 0.0001% of the population. Most people stay in their social class.

The smartest people on Earth are the researchers and scientists at top universities and institutions operating on the cutting edge of their interested subject physics , math , computer science etc... Almost all of these type of people come from wealthy families. There are probably high IQ individuals born into 3rd world poverty but you will never see their data point unfortunately.

 

[Deleted member 2382]

most scientist today are ugly as fuck but has high iq

From what I've witnessed in life good genes do come in packages
I've seen it countless times playing against 100+ sports teams growing up where the best player on a team out of 15-20 players is the biggest mogger on the team

Even just from watching youtube where a group of guys do challenges where they compete at a new game for the first time in which they have no experience, whether it be go-kart, shooting accuracy, archery, it's almost always the best looking guy in the group who wins

Better looking people just seem to have a base level of competence across fields in things they never practiced at that normies don't have, then when they focus on a given field (eg a team sport) they end up being the best player on a local team eg. top 5%

You say most scientists today are ugly but have high IQ
That says nothing about the attractiveness of high IQ people it the general population
Why would a goodlooking high IQ person become a scientist when they could find better ways to use their IQ that gave them greater life rewards.
The less attractive people who happened to be high IQ likely went into the science route because that was an avenue where looks/socializing wasn't a limiting factor for achieving success, whereas a goodlooking high IQ guy opts to go into business / networking.

most scientists that advanced humanity in the past range from subhuman and mtn

Most people in general that lived in past eras ranged from subhuman to normie by today's standards
I've seen how much looks standards have inflated on PSL forums in the space of just 10 years.
Can you find images of influential people from the past who achieved anything of note who pass the mtn level? and what percentage are they in terms of influential people from the past.
Pretty much everyone in the general population who isn't in their looks prime of 18-25 would be considered in the subhuman to mtn range.
Yet you're expecting some genius from the 17th century who's paintings of him were done when he was 45 to be a HTN?

The idea behind genes come in packages theory is good looks, intelligence and competence across fields in general are correlated, not that some guy with 1 in a million outlier mathematical ability has to automatically have an equivalent looks level or at minimum be HTN (top 1% according to today's standards)

It's pretty obvious that shorter, uglier people are generally lower IQ, more prone to antisocial behaviour, lack forward planning.
All you have to do is look at places full of low class mongs and you'll see this, yet people deny it works in the opposite direction because they want to hang onto the cope that better looking people aren't inherently better that them in any other way, they want to cope that the looks of goodlooking people are the only advantage they have over them and that they just magically got good looks at random but got nothing else to go along with it.

The chances of being a giga outlier across multiple fields is so low that 1 in a million level intellect is likely going to belong to an ordinary looking person.

Yet black and white thinking goons on here think "The most talented person in the world in a given field isn't a Chad, good genes come in packages theory debunked"

The idea behind it was always that: the tallest, best looking guy in a classroom or lecture hall is probably naturally the best across a multitude of fields if it was tested and averaged out to see who performed the best overall

 

[infini]

From what I've witnessed in life good genes do come in packages
I've seen it countless times playing against 100+ sports teams growing up where the best player on a team out of 15-20 players is the biggest mogger on the team

Even just from watching youtube where a group of guys do challenges where they compete at a new game for the first time in which they have no experience, whether it be go-kart, shooting accuracy, archery, it's almost always the best looking guy in the group who wins

Better looking people just seem to have a base level of competence across fields in things they never practiced at that normies don't have, then when they focus on a given field (eg a team sport) they end up being the best player on a local team eg. top 5%

You say most scientists today are ugly but have high IQ
That says nothing about the attractiveness of high IQ people it the general population
Why would a goodlooking high IQ person become a scientist when they could find better ways to use their IQ that gave them greater life rewards.
The less attractive people who happened to be high IQ likely went into the science route because that was an avenue where looks/socializing wasn't a limiting factor for achieving success, whereas a goodlooking high IQ guy opts to go into business / networking.




Most people in general that lived in past eras ranged from subhuman to normie by today's standards
I've seen how much looks standards have inflated on PSL forums in the space of just 10 years.
Can you find images of influential people from the past who achieved anything of note who pass the mtn level? and what percentage are they in terms of influential people from the past.
Pretty much everyone in the general population who isn't in their looks prime of 18-25 would be considered in the subhuman to mtn range.
Yet you're expecting some genius from the 17th century who's paintings of him were done when he was 45 to be a HTN?

The idea behind genes come in packages theory is good looks, intelligence and competence across fields in general are correlated, not that some guy with 1 in a million outlier mathematical ability has to automatically have an equivalent looks level or at minimum be HTN (top 1% according to today's standards)

It's pretty obvious that shorter, uglier people are generally lower IQ, more prone to antisocial behaviour, lack forward planning.
All you have to do is look at places full of low class mongs and you'll see this, yet people deny it works in the opposite direction because they want to hang onto the cope that better looking people aren't inherently better that them in any other way, they want to cope that the looks of goodlooking people are the only advantage they have over them and that they just magically got good looks at random but got nothing else to go along with it.

The chances of being a giga outlier across multiple fields is so low that 1 in a million level intellect is likely going to belong to an ordinary looking person.

Yet black and white thinking goons on here think "The most talented person in the world in a given field isn't a Chad, good genes come in packages theory debunked"

The idea behind it was always that: the tallest, best looking guy in a classroom or lecture hall is probably naturally the best across a multitude of fields if it was tested and averaged out to see who performed the best overall

Reinhard Heydrich came to mind besides after Dolph was mentioned. He had it all. I believe he looks and full-packaged mogged.

Jocks or the European equivalent are the most well rounded and are both popular at education, they’re also decently academic acceptable at the least. Ironically when nerds are good-looking it’s as if they’re no longer portrayed as a nerd despite the intellectual quality.

 

[WilhelmThyWizard]

most scientist today are ugly as fuck but has high iq

most scientists that advanced humanity in the past range from subhuman and mtn

this cope about looks and high iq and good genes come in package is so fucking dumb

ive seen somebody unironically said men shouldn't try to limit hypergamy because women will select for high iq jfl

some people are jus naive enough to think that women will chose Einstein over jeremy meeks who has like 60 iq

Cope those guys r retarded, plato was 6'5 broad shoulders wrestler