(High IQ) The Brutal Future that awaits you: The Patroclus Theory

[patrikos.psl]

I've been thinking of a concept for weeks now, and I've decided to finally write it down. This is a formal theoretical model with citations that reaches a conclusion nobody in mainstream academia wants to say out loud.

I'm calling it the Patroclus Theory and by the end of this post you will understand why the chad and the stacy are already dead.

WHAT IS THE PATROCLUS THEORY?
Named after the Greek hero consumed by the very conditions that produced him. The central claim is that the intensification of beauty standards under population hyperdensity produces a new homogeneous population. Both tails of the attractiveness distribution get erased. The top AND the bottom. What survives is the mean. The streets fill up and the faces become mediocre to our eyes now.

BRANCH 1: BEAUTY IS A POSITIONAL GOOD​

This is the foundation and if you don't understand this part the rest of what I'm saying won't make any sense. There are two types of goods in economics. Absolute goods: their value doesn't depend on how many others have them. Positional goods: their value depends entirely on others NOT having them. Beauty is a positional good. This was formalized by economist Fred Hirsch (1977) and the implications were never properly applied to lookism until now.

Here is the brutal lemma:

Your rank within the active comparison pool determines your social value as a mate. As population density increases and the comparison pool expands through urbanization, dating apps, the collapse of geographic constraints. The absolute phenotype required to maintain a given rank rises continuously.

Solnick and Hemenway (1998) confirmed empirically that attractiveness is one of the goods where relative standing matters MORE than absolute standing to individuals. You are actively competing against everyone currently visible to your potential partner. Bruch and Newman (2018) studied messaging behavior across four major U.S. cities on a large dating platform. Finding: both men and women systematically pursue partners approximately 25% more desirable than themselves by measured rank. The hierarchy is consistent across cities and It is driven by the logic of a market where expanded choice continuously raises the threshold of acceptable alternatives.
Translation for the curries:
The guy who was a 8/10 in your village of 500 is a 6.5 in a city of 2 million.

BRANCH 2: THE DEMAND GAP
(Yes, I know it may seam obvious. But let me further explain)​

Let r = proportion of population seeking high-attractiveness partners. Let p = biologically fixed probability of any individual expressing high-attractiveness traits.

Demand D(t) = r · P(t) Supply S(t) = p · P(t) Gap(t) = (r - p) · P(t)

The gap grows linearly with population.

This is why the cosmetic surgery industry, the skincare industry, and the entire looksmaxxing ecosystem exist and expand continuously. They are filling a demand gap that grows every year because population grows every year.

BRANCH 3: SELECTION PRESSURE SCALES WITH POPULATION
​

Define selection pressure coefficient s(t): how strictly reproductive success is allocated by attractiveness rank. 0 = random mating. 1 = strict rank-ordered assortative selection.

The relationship between s(t) and the comparison pool C(t):

s(t) = 1 - e^(-λ · C(t))
As C(t) grows toward infinity, s(t) approaches 1. Under maximal comparison pool expansion, mating approaches strict rank-ordered assortative selection.
This is the direction digitally mediated hyperdense urban populations are already moving.

Bruch and Newman (2019) confirmed that the dating market divides into distinct desirability tiers, with approximately 75% of reciprocal interactions occurring within rather than across tiers. The market is already tiering. Density makes the tiers harder.

Luo (2017), reviewing assortative mating research since the 1980s, identifies mating market operation as the primary mechanism of couple similarity, with the structure of the available market directly determining the strength of assortative pairing.

Translation: the bigger the city, the more people only breed within their tier. The floor (meaning highest attractive and lowest) of each tier rises with each generation.

BRANCH 4: THE VARIANCE COLLAPSE EQUATION​

Let the phenotypic distribution of attractiveness be normally distributed with mean μ(t) and variance σ²(t). The rate of variance reduction under selection:

d(σ²)/dt = -s(t) · h² · σ²(t)
where h² = heritability of the attractiveness trait.
Established heritability range from twin studies: 0.50 to 0.70 (Zietsch et al. 2014; McGovern et al. 1996).
Since s(t) increases with C(t) = γ · P(t), and population grows exponentially:
σ²(t) → 0 as t → ∞
Phenotypic variance in attractiveness collapses. The distribution concentrates. Both extremes converge upon the mean.

Lynch and Walsh (1998), the foundational text in quantitative genetics, establish that positive assortative mating increases additive genetic variance short term but, under truncation selection simultaneously removing the lower tail, the net effect on total phenotypic variance is reduction. The Patroclus model extends this to the specific case of continuously increasing selection pressure driven by density.

BRANCH 5: HOW BOTH TAILS GET ERASED
(TW: ROPEFUEL) ​

The upper tail which is contextual dissolution:

The exceptionally attractive individual in a hyperdense city is contextually dissolved. Their phenotype stays the same. The comparison field expands past the phenotype's capacity to stand above it.

In a village of 500 the most attractive person generates a social category: beautiful. In a megacity of 20 million every percentile is represented and visible simultaneously. The threshold for what registers as remarkable rises continuously because the comparison pool never stops expanding.

The social category of beauty requires a contrast field small enough for it to be distinguished.

This is the formal analog of Hirsch's (1977) positional congestion: when access to a positional good becomes widespread, the good loses its positional character.

The lower tail which is demographic attrition:

In hyperdense environments with economic alternatives to reproduction, individuals in the lower attractiveness percentiles increasingly do not reproduce at all. Because each individual agent, operating with an expanded choice pool, simply selects from better available options. (This is only saying that we remove the option for rape, which for western civilization might change in the near future)

Bruch and Newman (2018): highly attractive women respond even less to incoming messages than less attractive women, consistent with expanded choice increasing selectivity among high mate-value individuals.

The reproductive floor rises generation by generation. Each cohort faces a comparison pool whose lower threshold was already trimmed by the preceding generation's selectivity. This is the aggregate arithmetic of individual preference operating at scale.

The upper tail which is regression to the mean:

Attractiveness is a highly polygenic trait. Heritability of 0.50-0.70 means substantial non-genetic variance persists and offspring of highly attractive parents regress substantially toward the population mean.

Zietsch et al. (2014) additionally found evidence for intralocus sexual conflict: the genes that increase attractiveness in one sex exert similar effects in the other, creating a brake on directional selection. Truncation selection on highly polygenic traits produces diminishing returns across generations.

The top tail cannot sustain itself. Regression pulls it back. The bottom tail is attenuated by selectivity. What remains is the mean.

WHAT THE PATROCLUS ENDPOINT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE
(TW: ROPEFUEL, AGAIN)
​

It is not an "subhuman" population. This is critical and most of you will misread the theory on this point.

Lee et al. (2016), twin study of 1,823 individuals, found that greater facial averageness is positively associated with attractiveness ratings. r = .16 for females, r = .09 for males. The average face is not 'unattractive'. It is the absence of deviation that reads as clean.

The Patroclus endpoint produces a population converged on facial averageness. The streets are full. The faces are not remarkable. They are not aberrant. The social categories of beautiful and ugly no longer correspond to any visible phenotypic class because the phenotypic variance that made those categories legible has been compressed away.

The chad and stacy are bred out by the expansion of the very comparison field that was supposed to honor them. The deformed are demographically attenuated by the aggregate preference of a population with more choices than any prior generation.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
​

Spoiler: "heritability is too low for selection to work"

Lower heritability slows the variance collapse. s(t) continues to increase without bound as P(t) grows. At the end of the day the direction is unchanged. Hu et al. (2019), GWAS of facial attractiveness, N = 4,383, found heritability varying from 10.9% to 27.7% depending on rater sex. Lower than the twin study estimates.​

Spoiler: "Well, beauty standards shift, so the convergence point shifts"

True. The theory describes a tendency, not a fixed endpoint. If the standard shifts as the population converges, the convergence prediction must be qualified: a shifted standard may produce a new directional phase before the next convergence cycle begins. The positional mechanics are invariant to the content of the standard. Whatever beauty is defined as in a given era, the positional dynamics of a hyperdense comparison pool operate on it identically. The specific endpoint shifts. The convergence mechanism does not.​

Spoiler: "technology decouples genotype from phenotype"

Cosmetic surgery, fruads, genetic intervention (yes their doing that look into CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing). If individuals can present phenotypes they don't genetically express, the relationship between genetic distribution and social legibility of attractiveness becomes non-existnat (Or atleast for the semi-rich). The Patroclus Theory describes genetic convergence. Technological mediation may sustain social variance beyond what the genetic distribution supports.​

TL;DR​

The more we grow as a society and slowly reach a dystopia with millions of people, the more rare "attractive" people will become.

The intensification of beauty standards under hyperdensity (at the end of the day) homogenizes it. In producing homogeneity it destroys the social category it was organized around.

Don't take what I say seriously, form your own opinions by your own research.

​

References:
Hirsch (1977), Bruch & Newman (2018, 2019), Darwin (1874), Andersson & Simmons (2006), Zietsch et al. (2011, 2014), Lee et al. (2016), Luo (2017), Lynch & Walsh (1998), Solnick & Hemenway (1998), Feingold (1988), Hu et al. (2019), McGovern et al. (1996), Lee et al. (2016), Penke et al. (2009)

Tagging IQmaxxed Autists:
@alurmo @ArimaWillAscend @Centurion_Hunter @nigger123_! @Chance @Gengar’s Ghost @ZenithZXV @shedontluv-U @BlackFag

This took me a while, give it a bump (or don't)
I just thought it was interesting, and wanted to share my ideas. As I know alot of you share some with me.
This is the first thread I've put real work into for months, so enjoy it while it lasts (as it'll be a while until my ultra mega thread and literary story drops)

I hope you guys have a absolutely blessed day, and remember that it's not over (for now..)
But Hey! that's just our grandkids problems right?

 

[Chance]

 

[slaviccartfiend]

Dnr

 

[patrikos.psl]

Hi chance

 

[patrikos.psl]

Dnr

thank you for the bump

 

[Roara]

what the giga high IQ

mirin post effort, even if the overestimation of certain variables makes it less believable

 

[patrikos.psl]

what the giga high IQ

mirin post effort, even if the overestimation of certain variables makes it less believable

Thank you bro, I appreciate the reply too

 

[Chance]

Hi chance

Hey I missed u

 

[patrikos.psl]

Hey I missed u

I missed you too, dw
I've been doing nothing as of recent so it's not like I'm missing anything

 

[Chance]

I missed you too, dw
I've been doing nothing as of recent so it's not like I'm missing anything

I like this thread

 

[patrikos.psl]

I like this thread

I'm glad that you enjoy it

 

[patrikos.psl]

b

 

[patrikos.psl]

b2

 

[mohito]

This is an interesting topic. Let's give ita bump

 

[leckerman]

bingo

 

[patrikos.psl]

This is an interesting topic. Let's give ita bump

I haven't seen any people agree so far. But it's pretty interesting imo.
To think there's a future with no chads just people who are mid

 

[patrikos.psl]

b

 

[patrikos.psl]

b

 

[Selenium]

ong i dont think you wrote this also grass is green

 

[patrikos.psl]

ong i dont think you wrote this also grass is green

I've made threads somewhat similar to this in the past but wtv.
The whole thread is just explaining a idea that I had

 

[Centurion_Hunter]

WHAT IS THE PATROCLUS THEORY?
Named after the Greek hero consumed by the very conditions that produced him. The central claim is that the intensification of beauty standards under population hyperdensity produces a new homogeneous population. Both tails of the attractiveness distribution get erased. The top AND the bottom. What survives is the mean. The streets fill up and the faces become mediocre to our eyes now.

View attachment 4986887

BRANCH 1: BEAUTY IS A POSITIONAL GOOD​

This is the foundation and if you don't understand this part the rest of what I'm saying won't make any sense. There are two types of goods in economics. Absolute goods: their value doesn't depend on how many others have them. Positional goods: their value depends entirely on others NOT having them. Beauty is a positional good. This was formalized by economist Fred Hirsch (1977) and the implications were never properly applied to lookism until now.

Here is the brutal lemma:

Your rank within the active comparison pool determines your social value as a mate. As population density increases and the comparison pool expands through urbanization, dating apps, the collapse of geographic constraints. The absolute phenotype required to maintain a given rank rises continuously.

Solnick and Hemenway (1998) confirmed empirically that attractiveness is one of the goods where relative standing matters MORE than absolute standing to individuals. You are actively competing against everyone currently visible to your potential partner. Bruch and Newman (2018) studied messaging behavior across four major U.S. cities on a large dating platform. Finding: both men and women systematically pursue partners approximately 25% more desirable than themselves by measured rank. The hierarchy is consistent across cities and It is driven by the logic of a market where expanded choice continuously raises the threshold of acceptable alternatives.
Translation for the curries:
The guy who was a 8/10 in your village of 500 is a 6.5 in a city of 2 million.

BRANCH 2: THE DEMAND GAP
(Yes, I know it may seam obvious. But let me further explain)​

Let r = proportion of population seeking high-attractiveness partners. Let p = biologically fixed probability of any individual expressing high-attractiveness traits.

Demand D(t) = r · P(t) Supply S(t) = p · P(t) Gap(t) = (r - p) · P(t)

The gap grows linearly with population.

This is why the cosmetic surgery industry, the skincare industry, and the entire looksmaxxing ecosystem exist and expand continuously. They are filling a demand gap that grows every year because population grows every year.

BRANCH 3: SELECTION PRESSURE SCALES WITH POPULATION
​

Define selection pressure coefficient s(t): how strictly reproductive success is allocated by attractiveness rank. 0 = random mating. 1 = strict rank-ordered assortative selection.

The relationship between s(t) and the comparison pool C(t):

s(t) = 1 - e^(-λ · C(t))
As C(t) grows toward infinity, s(t) approaches 1. Under maximal comparison pool expansion, mating approaches strict rank-ordered assortative selection.
This is the direction digitally mediated hyperdense urban populations are already moving.

Bruch and Newman (2019) confirmed that the dating market divides into distinct desirability tiers, with approximately 75% of reciprocal interactions occurring within rather than across tiers. The market is already tiering. Density makes the tiers harder.

Luo (2017), reviewing assortative mating research since the 1980s, identifies mating market operation as the primary mechanism of couple similarity, with the structure of the available market directly determining the strength of assortative pairing.

Translation: the bigger the city, the more people only breed within their tier. The floor (meaning highest attractive and lowest) of each tier rises with each generation.

BRANCH 4: THE VARIANCE COLLAPSE EQUATION​

Let the phenotypic distribution of attractiveness be normally distributed with mean μ(t) and variance σ²(t). The rate of variance reduction under selection:

d(σ²)/dt = -s(t) · h² · σ²(t)
where h² = heritability of the attractiveness trait.
Established heritability range from twin studies: 0.50 to 0.70 (Zietsch et al. 2014; McGovern et al. 1996).
Since s(t) increases with C(t) = γ · P(t), and population grows exponentially:
σ²(t) → 0 as t → ∞
Phenotypic variance in attractiveness collapses. The distribution concentrates. Both extremes converge upon the mean.

Lynch and Walsh (1998), the foundational text in quantitative genetics, establish that positive assortative mating increases additive genetic variance short term but, under truncation selection simultaneously removing the lower tail, the net effect on total phenotypic variance is reduction. The Patroclus model extends this to the specific case of continuously increasing selection pressure driven by density.

BRANCH 5: HOW BOTH TAILS GET ERASED
(TW: ROPEFUEL) ​

The upper tail which is contextual dissolution:

The exceptionally attractive individual in a hyperdense city is contextually dissolved. Their phenotype stays the same. The comparison field expands past the phenotype's capacity to stand above it.

In a village of 500 the most attractive person generates a social category: beautiful. In a megacity of 20 million every percentile is represented and visible simultaneously. The threshold for what registers as remarkable rises continuously because the comparison pool never stops expanding.

The social category of beauty requires a contrast field small enough for it to be distinguished.

This is the formal analog of Hirsch's (1977) positional congestion: when access to a positional good becomes widespread, the good loses its positional character.

The lower tail which is demographic attrition:

In hyperdense environments with economic alternatives to reproduction, individuals in the lower attractiveness percentiles increasingly do not reproduce at all. Because each individual agent, operating with an expanded choice pool, simply selects from better available options. (This is only saying that we remove the option for rape, which for western civilization might change in the near future)

Bruch and Newman (2018): highly attractive women respond even less to incoming messages than less attractive women, consistent with expanded choice increasing selectivity among high mate-value individuals.

The reproductive floor rises generation by generation. Each cohort faces a comparison pool whose lower threshold was already trimmed by the preceding generation's selectivity. This is the aggregate arithmetic of individual preference operating at scale.

The upper tail which is regression to the mean:

Attractiveness is a highly polygenic trait. Heritability of 0.50-0.70 means substantial non-genetic variance persists and offspring of highly attractive parents regress substantially toward the population mean.

Zietsch et al. (2014) additionally found evidence for intralocus sexual conflict: the genes that increase attractiveness in one sex exert similar effects in the other, creating a brake on directional selection. Truncation selection on highly polygenic traits produces diminishing returns across generations.

The top tail cannot sustain itself. Regression pulls it back. The bottom tail is attenuated by selectivity. What remains is the mean.

WHAT THE PATROCLUS ENDPOINT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE
(TW: ROPEFUEL, AGAIN)
​

It is not an "subhuman" population. This is critical and most of you will misread the theory on this point.

Lee et al. (2016), twin study of 1,823 individuals, found that greater facial averageness is positively associated with attractiveness ratings. r = .16 for females, r = .09 for males. The average face is not 'unattractive'. It is the absence of deviation that reads as clean.

The Patroclus endpoint produces a population converged on facial averageness. The streets are full. The faces are not remarkable. They are not aberrant. The social categories of beautiful and ugly no longer correspond to any visible phenotypic class because the phenotypic variance that made those categories legible has been compressed away.

The chad and stacy are bred out by the expansion of the very comparison field that was supposed to honor them. The deformed are demographically attenuated by the aggregate preference of a population with more choices than any prior generation.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
​

Spoiler: "heritability is too low for selection to work"

Lower heritability slows the variance collapse. s(t) continues to increase without bound as P(t) grows. At the end of the day the direction is unchanged. Hu et al. (2019), GWAS of facial attractiveness, N = 4,383, found heritability varying from 10.9% to 27.7% depending on rater sex. Lower than the twin study estimates.​

Spoiler: "Well, beauty standards shift, so the convergence point shifts"

True. The theory describes a tendency, not a fixed endpoint. If the standard shifts as the population converges, the convergence prediction must be qualified: a shifted standard may produce a new directional phase before the next convergence cycle begins. The positional mechanics are invariant to the content of the standard. Whatever beauty is defined as in a given era, the positional dynamics of a hyperdense comparison pool operate on it identically. The specific endpoint shifts. The convergence mechanism does not.​

Spoiler: "technology decouples genotype from phenotype"

Cosmetic surgery, fruads, genetic intervention (yes their doing that look into CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing). If individuals can present phenotypes they don't genetically express, the relationship between genetic distribution and social legibility of attractiveness becomes non-existnat (Or atleast for the semi-rich). The Patroclus Theory describes genetic convergence. Technological mediation may sustain social variance beyond what the genetic distribution supports.​

TL;DR​

The more we grow as a society and slowly reach a dystopia with millions of people, the more rare "attractive" people will become.

The intensification of beauty standards under hyperdensity (at the end of the day) homogenizes it. In producing homogeneity it destroys the social category it was organized around.

Don't take what I say seriously, form your own opinions by your own research.

​

References:
Hirsch (1977), Bruch & Newman (2018, 2019), Darwin (1874), Andersson & Simmons (2006), Zietsch et al. (2011, 2014), Lee et al. (2016), Luo (2017), Lynch & Walsh (1998), Solnick & Hemenway (1998), Feingold (1988), Hu et al. (2019), McGovern et al. (1996), Lee et al. (2016), Penke et al. (2009)

Tagging IQmaxxed Autists:
@alurmo @ArimaWillAscend @Centurion_Hunter @nigger123_! @Chance @Gengar’s Ghost @ZenithZXV @shedontluv-U @BlackFag

This took me a while, give it a bump (or don't)
I just thought it was interesting, and wanted to share my ideas. As I know alot of you share some with me.
This is the first thread I've put real work into for months, so enjoy it while it lasts (as it'll be a while until my ultra mega thread and literary story drops)

I hope you guys have a absolutely blessed day, and remember that it's not over (for now..)
But Hey! that's just our grandkids problems right?

High iq threae
Honestly I think there will be bigger problems than the averageneess of atractiveness
Even then with unchecked hypergamy I see less Chads existing because they mixed with beckies but the avg person will prob be slightly more attractive

That said diet will prob ensure they arent

 

[irrumator praetor]

P(t)

wtf is this, population over time? Also, separate them with ;

 

[Lonely]

Tldr?