Muh "foids care about genes" is cope

[Deleted member 14262]

What if good genes theory is a cope

I'm not sold on the theory that women select for good genes. First thing, universally good genes don't exist, good genes are good as the environment lets them be. Let's say that having dark skin is good to survive under hot climate, the same characteristic is bad in a very cold and rainy place...

looksmax.org

I just wanted to add onto this thread.

I'm not fully certain about this, but I'm starting to think this way too.

Let's say a foid found out chad had anemia, fibrosis, polydatctyl, diabetes and asthma, they wouldn't be any less attracted to him. Chad is still chad at the end of the day because of bones and t. But if a trucel ogre was a multiple olympic medalist, could bench 1000 pounds and had 200 iq. They wouldn't be anymore attracted to his features, just what they could do for him. Sure, an athletic guy might look better, but only to an extent. It has nothing to do with genes.

If you think I'm wrong feel free to call me out.

 

[Deleted member 14262]

@Theodore Bagwell

 

[WontStopNorwooding]

What if good genes theory is a cope

I'm not sold on the theory that women select for good genes. First thing, universally good genes don't exist, good genes are good as the environment lets them be. Let's say that having dark skin is good to survive under hot climate, the same characteristic is bad in a very cold and rainy place...

looksmax.org

I just wanted to add onto this thread.

I'm not fully certain about this, but I'm starting to think this way too.

Let's say a foid found out chad had anemia, fibrosis, polydatctyl, diabetes and asthma, they wouldn't be any less attracted to him. Chad is still chad at the end of the day because of. But if a trucel ogre was a multiple olympic medalist, could bench 1000 pounds and had 200 iq. They wouldn't be anymore attracted to his features, just what they could do for him. Sure, an athletic guy might look better, but only to an extent. It has nothing to do with genes.

If you think I'm wrong feel free to call me out.

Just look good theory

 

[Deleted member 14262]

Just look good theory

bruh

 

[Deleted member 10615]

i said this as well


one of my best friends has adhd. asthma, mental health issues run in his family and he is low iq yet girl don't give a fuck


then you got guys like me and mexicel who could run the 100 meters in 13 seconds at 13 years old getting the ugly bitches and fat ones

 

[stuckneworleans]

1. the conditions you listed are caused by environment
2. bones and t are genetics you dumb fuck

greycel iq

 

[Deleted member 14781]

For women this

Is genetically superior to this

Their choices don't make sense.
But muh face.
If face was linked with physical superiority and health almost all athletes would be good looking.

 

[subhuman incel]

2. bones and t are genetics you dumb fuck

 

[Deleted member 14262]

1. the conditions you listed are caused by environment
2. bones and t are genetics you dumb fuck

greycel iq

1) 3/5 features listed can only be caused by genetics, the other 2 are majorly impacted by genetics but aren't completely environmental.
2) No shit retard, but there's more to genes then just bones and T. Thats why I said "ogre" specifically. Ogremaxxed people have high t and average bones at least.

Rotter tier IQ. You should have spent those 200 days online on smth else if you were gonna end up like this.

 

[stuckneworleans]

1) 3/5 features listed can only be caused by genetics, the other 2 are majorly impacted by genetics but aren't completely environmental.
2) No shit retard, but there's more to genes then just bones and T.

Rotter tier IQ.

anaemia, fibrosis, diabetes and asthma are all caused by environmental factors.
show me where i implied otherwise
imagine calling me rotter while i dont even use this forum populated by retards and am out living life lol

 

[Deleted member 14262]

anaemia, fibrosis, diabetes and asthma are all caused by environmental factors.
show me where i implied otherwise
imagine calling me rotter while i dont even use this forum populated by retards and am out living life lol

All of these things are effected by genes, not one of them is completely environmental. Especially certain forms like sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.

I can imagine calling you a rotter when your time online is 203d 1h 4m.

 

[stuckneworleans]

All of these things are effected by genes, not one of them is completely environmental. Especially certain forms like sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.

extremely rare forms compared to the ones caused by environment.
i rotted through lockdown and now haven't actively used this forum in a year. no quality left, independant research is smarter.

 

[germanlooks]

Only facial genetics and height counts. The rest is cope

 

[Deleted member 14262]

extremely rare forms compared to the ones caused by environment.
i rotted through lockdown and now haven't actively used this forum in a year. no quality left, independant research is smarter.

Yeah your starting to convince me, but there are other genetic diseases that foids won't care about.
You are right about this forum though. I'm curious to know where you do your research from.

 

[Deleted member 14781]

extremely rare forms compared to the ones caused by environment.
i rotted through lockdown and now haven't actively used this forum in a year. no quality left, independant research is smarter.

It was an example, he could've said any type of genetic illness like Lupus or whatever, still women would choose a sick Chad vs an healthy normie as long as the illness doesn't impact his looks too much. My point is not even there tbh, my point is that women would breed with a good looking guy with mediocre genes than with a normie guy with amazing genes, take for example Brad Pitt vs Mike Tyson, women would choose the first because they could give them a good looking child, however the second could give them a super soldier. Where is the genetic evolution here?

 

[kalefartbomb]

Women select for the appearance of genentics. They obviously don't have genetic-sequencers built into their brains. It's a bit of a cope to believe that appearance and medical genetics are separate, they aren't. The whole reason women are evolved to select for appearance in the first place is because it is such a powerful indicator of genetics. Men with those conditions overwhelmingly are not attractive. Chads with debilitating health problems are extremely rare and pointing to these unicorns as debunking looks theory is as inane as pointing to the 1 in a million woman who is attracted to short men as debunking looks theory.

 

[Deleted member 14203]

Nah, both threads are pathetic truecel cope.

Good looking, attractive people are generally superior in every way. There is a correlation between attractiveness and intelligence. Yes there are ouliers, but remember that ATTRACTION ITSELF IS A FEATURE OF NATURAL SELECTION.

Women who selected for certain characteristics were more likely to survive and raise healthy offspring. Women in nature who selected for 6' strong jawline Chad were more likely to survive, reproduce and raise healthy offspring.


There can be exceptions and mistakes, and things can get out of hand, but generally attractive characteristics are attractive for a reason.


Men do the same as well. Men are attracted to women with birthing hips because these women are likely to survive and help you raise the child.


Men who were more attracted to noodles ended up becoming single fathers after their women died during childbirth. Therefore their children were less likely to survive and reproduce, and they were more likely to have fewer children. That's why in the modern day, men are almost universally attracted to wider hips

 

[Deleted member 14781]

Nah, both threads are pathetic truecel cope.

Good looking, attractive people are generally superior in every way. There is a correlation between attractiveness and intelligence. Yes there are ouliers, but remember that ATTRACTION ITSELF IS A FEATURE OF NATURAL SELECTION.

Women who selected for certain characteristics were more likely to survive and raise healthy offspring. Women in nature who selected for 6' strong jawline Chad were more likely to survive, reproduce and raise healthy offspring.


There can be exceptions and mistakes, and things can get out of hand, but generally attractive characteristics are attractive for a reason.


Men do the same as well. Men are attracted to women with birthing hips because these women are likely to survive and help you raise the child.


Men who were more attracted to noodles ended up becoming single father's after their women died during childbirth.

Your whole premise is totally wrong. Women never selected anything, they were forced to mate with the winners of infraspecies competition. This happens amongst all primates, chimps don't dance to impress foids, they kill the leaders and impregnate the females. Same happened with humans, do you think a man who fought for the right of reproduction decided to not fuck a girl because she decided she didn't like him? Jfl.
The birthing hips thing is debunked, having big hips doesn't equate to more survivability of the kid or the woman, it's just a dimorphic feature. I would like to see the paper that shows that good looking people are more intelligent, that would mean that intelligence is linear and the better you look the more intelligent you are, which I highly doubt. More probably they either used 1/10 retarded people with genetic defects and 10/10 models (and the results would be the same using the retarded people and average people) or they user other parameters that could've been subject to the halo effect, so the results are biased. Link me the paper.

 

[Deleted member 14262]

Women select for the appearance of genentics. They obviously don't have genetic-sequencers built into their brains. It's a bit of a cope to believe that appearance and medical genetics are separate, they aren't. The whole reason women are evolved to select for appearance in the first place is because it is such a powerful indicator of genetics. Men with those conditions overwhelmingly are not attractive. Chads with debilitating health problems are extremely rare and pointing to these unicorns as debunking looks theory is as inane as pointing to the 1 in a million woman who is attracted to short men as debunking looks theory.

Very good. You do have a point.

 

[Deleted member 14203]

The birthing hips thing is debunked, having big hips doesn't equate to more survivability of the kid or the woman, it's just a dimorphic feature.

This one is mostly correct, and I what I stated was technically incorrect. If you want to read this paper though, there is some evidence supporting other theories besides just sexual dimorphism.

Evolutionary Theories and Men's Preferences for Women's Waist-to-Hip Ratio: Which Hypotheses Remain? A Systematic Review

Your whole premise is totally wrong. Women never selected anything, they were forced to mate with the winners of infraspecies competition. This happens amongst all primates, chimps don't dance to impress foids, they kill the leaders and impregnate the females. Same happened with humans

This one is a mixed bag man. I have to sleep, maybe I can provide more evidence later if you want, But sexual competition between males isn't the only thing that comes into play here. Female sexual selection was also a factor historically. This is why light eyes became a thing even though they have nothing to do with your ability to beat the shit out of other males. Through genetic analysis we know that societies have been actually slightly monogamous throughout history. This idea that 1 alpha beats all the betas into submission and then runs a Haram of 17 women has been debunked. Also humans have an intense pair bonding ability. Applies to both males and females. You have never been in love if you doubt this. Most primates, especially the ones that run harams don't have this pair bonding ability. Men wouldn't have evolved an ability to pair bond if their ideal mating strategy was plundering a village and raping all the women. I'm not denying that sexual competition between males does come into play, but overall humans are a very very mixed bag, and there is even evidence that even our distant genetic ancestors were much more complex than modern primates. Some societies are ruled by psychopaths, some by overly empathetic leaders. For some intelligence overrides all emotions and instinct. We aren't just raw, pleasure seeking, and purely guided by instinct. This is exactly why humans are so successful. Apes don't build skyscrapers or create air conditioners. Also, notice that historically the societies that have valued cooperation and intelligence over instincts have always won out. The Jews in Israel crushed the violent primitive "based" Muslims in three days. The only reason the two groups are still fighting today is because the Israelies are getting a little TOO empathic and need to start valuing violence a little more lol.


Anyway regarding good looks being correlated with intelligence, I learned about this from this video. Not the greatest source, again I can dig deeper and look for more sources if you wanna argue more later today.

 

[Deleted member 14262]

This one is mostly correct, and I what I stated was technically incorrect. If you want to read this paper though, there is some evidence supporting other theories besides just sexual dimorphism.

Evolutionary Theories and Men's Preferences for Women's Waist-to-Hip Ratio: Which Hypotheses Remain? A Systematic Review

This one is a mixed bag man. I have to sleep, maybe I can provide more evidence later if you want, But sexual competition between males isn't the only thing that comes into play here. Female sexual selection was also a factor historically. This is why light eyes became a thing even though they have nothing to do with your ability to beat the shit out of other males. Through genetic analysis we know that societies have been actually slightly monogamous throughout history. This idea that 1 alpha beats all the betas into submission and then runs a Haram of 17 women has been debunked. Also humans have an intense pair bonding ability. Applies to both males and females. You have never been in love if you doubt this. Most primates, especially the ones that run harams don't have this pair bonding ability. Men wouldn't have evolved an ability to pair bond if their ideal mating strategy was plundering a village and raping all the women. I'm not denying that sexual competition between males does come into play, but overall humans are a very very mixed bag, and there is even evidence that even our distant genetic ancestors were much more complex than modern primates. Some societies are ruled by psychopaths, some by overly empathetic leaders. For some intelligence overrides all emotions and instinct. We aren't just raw, pleasure seeking, and purely guided by instinct. This is exactly why humans are so successful. Apes don't build skyscrapers or create air conditioners. Also, notice that historically the societies that have valued cooperation and intelligence over instincts have always won out. The Jews in Israel crushed the violent primitive "based" Muslims in three days. The only reason the two groups are still fighting today is because the Israelies are getting a little TOO empathic and need to start valuing violence a little more lol.


Anyway regarding good looks being correlated with intelligence, I learned about this from this video. Not the greatest source, again I can dig deeper and look for more sources if you wanna argue more later today.

Attractiveness and Intelligence can be a bit of a chicken and egg situation. They may be smarter because they were treated better in education. Or their intelligence earned them money, causing them to spend that money on things providing good looks, (good diet, surgeries etc.)

 

[JosephGarrot123]

Only facial genetics and height counts. The rest is cope

frame too

 

[Deleted member 14781]

This one is mostly correct, and I what I stated was technically incorrect. If you want to read this paper though, there is some evidence supporting other theories besides just sexual dimorphism.

Evolutionary Theories and Men's Preferences for Women's Waist-to-Hip Ratio: Which Hypotheses Remain? A Systematic Review

This one is a mixed bag man. I have to sleep, maybe I can provide more evidence later if you want, But sexual competition between males isn't the only thing that comes into play here. Female sexual selection was also a factor historically. This is why light eyes became a thing even though they have nothing to do with your ability to beat the shit out of other males. Through genetic analysis we know that societies have been actually slightly monogamous throughout history. This idea that 1 alpha beats all the betas into submission and then runs a Haram of 17 women has been debunked. Also humans have an intense pair bonding ability. Applies to both males and females. You have never been in love if you doubt this. Most primates, especially the ones that run harams don't have this pair bonding ability. Men wouldn't have evolved an ability to pair bond if their ideal mating strategy was plundering a village and raping all the women. I'm not denying that sexual competition between males does come into play, but overall humans are a very very mixed bag, and there is even evidence that even our distant genetic ancestors were much more complex than modern primates. Some societies are ruled by psychopaths, some by overly empathetic leaders. For some intelligence overrides all emotions and instinct. We aren't just raw, pleasure seeking, and purely guided by instinct. This is exactly why humans are so successful. Apes don't build skyscrapers or create air conditioners. Also, notice that historically the societies that have valued cooperation and intelligence over instincts have always won out. The Jews in Israel crushed the violent primitive "based" Muslims in three days. The only reason the two groups are still fighting today is because the Israelies are getting a little TOO empathic and need to start valuing violence a little more lol.


Anyway regarding good looks being correlated with intelligence, I learned about this from this video. Not the greatest source, again I can dig deeper and look for more sources if you wanna argue more later today.

With the eye color example you debunked yourself. Eye color doesn't provide any significant advantage in intraspecies competition but women prefer blue eyes. Those tastes are probably due to random mutations. If they chase genetic superiority they would choose either the fittest for a certain environment (so attraction would be situational) or the winner of infraspecies competition. They don't do neither.

 

[germanlooks]

frame too

Yes but frame is the easiest to fraud because most people are lazy fucks you always stand out with an good physique even if your frame isn’t the best

 

[Deleted member 14203]

With the eye color example you debunked yourself. Eye color doesn't provide any significant advantage in intraspecies competition but women prefer blue eyes. Those tastes are probably due to random mutations. If they chase genetic superiority they would choose either the fittest for a certain environment (so attraction would be situational) or the winner of infraspecies competition. They don't do neither.

Yes, some aspects of female sexual selection are retarded. Like eye color lol. But most sexual selection is not completely random. Women also sexually select for men with hair, because that indicates youth, nutrition and health. You wouldn't call that retarded and a "random mutation." Sexual tastes aren't perfect, and they certainly aren't able to adapt to the environment for one individual. It probably takes 1000 generations for sexual tastes to adapt to a new environment. That doesn't mean that in general, females sexually select for certain traits for GOOD reason.


The reason I brought up the eye color example is to prove that sexual selection did come into play for our ancestors. Light eyes are recessive, yet they still spread like wildfire because they got sexually selected for. It wasn't all about competition between males. You said women basically got raped by whoever won the brawl. That certainly happened, but majority of historic tribes had relative monogamy. Males competing with others came into play, but it wasn't the only factor. Female choice also came into play. Which is why light eyes are a thing.


I hate to say it dude, but I used to have severe acne and I was treated as subhuman by both males and females. I think this idea that incels would have had an easier time historically is wrong. Incels of today would have been outcasts of society 4000 years ago. Certainly would have been easier for LTNs and Normies though.

 

[Deleted member 14781]

Yes, some aspects of female sexual selection are retarded. Like eye color lol. But most sexual selection is not completely random. Women also sexually select for men with hair, because that indicates youth, nutrition and health. You wouldn't call that retarded and a "random mutation." Sexual tastes aren't perfect, and they certainly aren't able to adapt to the environment for one individual. It probably takes 1000 generations for sexual tastes to adapt to a new environment. That doesn't mean that in general, females sexually select for certain traits for GOOD reason.


The reason I brought up the eye color example is to prove that sexual selection did come into play for our ancestors. Light eyes are recessive, yet they still spread like wildfire because they got sexually selected for. It wasn't all about competition between males. You said women basically got raped by whoever won the brawl. That certainly happened, but majority of historic tribes had relative monogamy. Males competing with others came into play, but it wasn't the only factor. Female choice also came into play. Which is why light eyes are a thing.


I hate to say it dude, but I used to have severe acne and I was treated as subhuman by both males and females. I think this idea that incels would have had an easier time historically is wrong. Incels of today would have been outcasts of society 4000 years ago. Certainly would have been easier for LTNs and Normies though.

I think that with this kind of reasoning we can explain everything, the problem is that we as humans have the tendency of make sense of everything. Yeah, not everything is random, there is a base, however other things are completely random. Things like nose shape or philtrum lenght for example are completely random. Blue eyes didn't spread that much if you take in account that most ethnicities don't have people with blue eyes like Asians, Africans, Indiana ecc...do you want me to tell me that those mutations never happened once there too? Relative monogamy doesn't mean the woman choose neither, women could be bought from families, taken as slaves, kidnapped and so on. Just because they did it with one who then developed Stocholm syndrome doesn't mean that women selected anything. Coming back to the blue eyes thing, someone can only have blue eyes if they get a mutation or if both parents have blue eyes or at least the recessive genes for them. Nothing says that it was a man that had blue eyes, as much as we know it could've been a woman. Other than that, the fact that they like blue eyes doesn't mean that it is a genetically superior trait. So it's either women choose to make the species evolve or not, if they choose a trait that could be disadvantageous then this reasoning doesn't make sense. Take height for example, why they want 6ft3 tall dudes? In nature it's almost impossible to survive being that height. Don't come with the peacock example please.