Reminder that Chad is basically born out of pure luck

fishinthesee

fishinthesee

Iron
Joined
Jun 16, 2025
Posts
180
Reputation
119
Expecting another Chad from chad and stacy is so retarded, sure he will certainly be HTN/HTB maybe CL if raised right but the chance of another chad is pretty much the same as any other MTN/MTB couple, its like you are both playing a lottery but your lottery is "easier" to win, you only have like 4 kids at max usually so the chance of making another chad/stacy is astronomically low.

Its the same with sports, often you see kids with fathers who played pro soccer make it to the top divisions but not even close to any significant portion of total pro soccer players fathers also were pro, but kids are significantly more likely to be pros on average than any other kid, but its still a fucking lottery lmao.
No matter how much the .1% try they are against the other 99.9% of the population, there is no high iq argument to say "oh but actually the .1% is selecting and draining the very BEST talent so the 99.9% has no genetic talent"
It is pure luck

To put this in an equation is something I don't have the IQ or time to comprehend or set up but I think we can use common sense and understand most chads who marry stacys do not in fact have chad or stacy kids, almost ever.

However, IQ is very predictable if you base it from the parents, so let chatgpt explain how if 2 geniuses had kids (IQ Equivalent of Chad / Stacy having kids) and the probability of them making another genius compared to us

"Using IQ 140 as “genius” (~0.4% of people):

Chance of child ≥140 if both parents are 100 IQ ≈ 0.16%.

Chance if both parents are 140 IQ ≈ 12%.

In the US (~330M people), about 1.3 million geniuses total.

But ~93% of them come from parents below 140, only ~7% from families with at least one 140+ parent, and <1% from two 140+ parents."


The way looks work in this equation is honestly immeasurable but its still the same situation. It theoretically could be calculated and still wouldn't really that accurate. Some archetypes just do not combine well with each other even if they are both Stacy and Chad, which makes it visibly obvious, for example someone who is stacy could have a feature which otherwise is a falio but is just "not optimal" and doesn't hurt her psl. however when combined with chad he might have features that combine to make that said feature genuinely unattractive or an actual falio. Either way, your chances of making a chad are probably in the 100s when it comes to stacy x chad couple compared to a Mtn/mtb couple
Keep in mind on .org people pull out ANY percentages but I think its generally agreed the starting entry point for chad
(6 PSL) is like 1/2000
I have seen people say its 1/10,000 and my point still stands, but even most schools do not have CLs, even Unis sometimes only have like 1 chad. They are very rare and imo location dependent ASF
Numbers and assumptions (kept simple)
• “Chad parent” prevalence p = 1/2000 = 0.0005.
• Target child event is top 1/10,000 (the rare outcome you were asking about).
• Heritability / midparent effect = 0.6 (same model we used before).
• Child residual variance chosen so child population SD = 15 (same scale as adult IQ).

Per-family probabilities (both parents of the same type)
• Both parents average (50th percentile) → child chance ≈ 0.00200% (about 1 in 49,900).
• Both parents top 1/2000 → child chance ≈ 2.70% (about 1 in 37).
• One parent top 1/2000 + one average → child chance ≈ 0.1277% (about 1 in 783).

How many rare kids come from each parental group
Couple-type fractions
• Both parents Chad: p^2 = 0.00000025 (0.000025%) → 0.25 couples per million.
• One Chad, one non-Chad: ≈ 2p(1−p) ≈ 0.001 (0.1%) → 1,000 couples per million.
• No Chad parent: ≈ 99.900025% → 999,000 couples per million.

Expected contribution to top-1/10,000 kids (per child)
• Contribution from both-Chad couples is essentially zero (about 0.03% of all such rare kids).
• Contribution from mixed couples (one Chad) is about 6.0% of all rare kids.

• Contribution from no-Chad couples is about 94.0% of all rare kids.

Interpretation, in one line
Even though a child of two Chad parents is hundreds or thousands of times more likely (per birth) to hit the extreme tail, Chad×Stacy couples are so rare that the vast majority (≈94%) of top-1/10,000 kids are born to parents who are not both Chads — and most (≈94%) are from parents with no Chad at all.
Most Chads will not come from two Chads/Stacys. They mostly come from the much larger pool of ordinary or mixed parents. The ultra-elite couples matter for per-child probability but contribute almost nothing to the total count because there are so few of them.

Also this assuming Chad even has a kid with stacy, most Chads settle with an HTB and often an appealmaxxed MTB JFL:lul::lul:

So for the people who say "Looks are deserved because of your ancestors and what they ate and who they mated with" or whatever primal goatis faceiq raw liver raw milk argument they bring up just know it does not apply to chad and never will
 
  • +1
Reactions: aDifferentPerspect, MiserableMan, hotrodduncan and 3 others
Hot dad+hot mom=ugly son
 
  • +1
Reactions: tunisianropemaxxer
It's because of their good karma from past life forms
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: aDifferentPerspect, hotrodduncan and Luca_.
Hot dad+hot mom=ugly son
guaranteed HTN and maybe MTN if they fed him only goyslop and starved him in the middle of the gaza war :lul:
 
  • Hmm...
  • +1
Reactions: Luca_. and cyrux234
Expecting another Chad from chad and stacy is so retarded, sure he will certainly be HTN/HTB maybe CL if raised right but the chance of another chad is pretty much the same as any other MTN/MTB couple, its like you are both playing a lottery but your lottery is "easier" to win, you only have like 4 kids at max usually so the chance of making another chad/stacy is astronomically low.

Its the same with sports, often you see kids with fathers who played pro soccer make it to the top divisions but not even close to any significant portion of total pro soccer players fathers also were pro, but kids are significantly more likely to be pros on average than any other kid, but its still a fucking lottery lmao.
No matter how much the .1% try they are against the other 99.9% of the population, there is no high iq argument to say "oh but actually the .1% is selecting and draining the very BEST talent so the 99.9% has no genetic talent"
It is pure luck

To put this in an equation is something I don't have the IQ or time to comprehend or set up but I think we can use common sense and understand most chads who marry stacys do not in fact have chad or stacy kids, almost ever.

However, IQ is very predictable if you base it from the parents, so let chatgpt explain how if 2 geniuses had kids (IQ Equivalent of Chad / Stacy having kids) and the probability of them making another genius compared to us

"Using IQ 140 as “genius” (~0.4% of people):

Chance of child ≥140 if both parents are 100 IQ ≈ 0.16%.

Chance if both parents are 140 IQ ≈ 12%.

In the US (~330M people), about 1.3 million geniuses total.

But ~93% of them come from parents below 140, only ~7% from families with at least one 140+ parent, and <1% from two 140+ parents."


The way looks work in this equation is honestly immeasurable but its still the same situation. It theoretically could be calculated and still wouldn't really that accurate. Some archetypes just do not combine well with each other even if they are both Stacy and Chad, which makes it visibly obvious, for example someone who is stacy could have a feature which otherwise is a falio but is just "not optimal" and doesn't hurt her psl. however when combined with chad he might have features that combine to make that said feature genuinely unattractive or an actual falio. Either way, your chances of making a chad are probably in the 100s when it comes to stacy x chad couple compared to a Mtn/mtb couple
Keep in mind on .org people pull out ANY percentages but I think its generally agreed the starting entry point for chad
(6 PSL) is like 1/2000
I have seen people say its 1/10,000 and my point still stands, but even most schools do not have CLs, even Unis sometimes only have like 1 chad. They are very rare and imo location dependent ASF
Numbers and assumptions (kept simple)
• “Chad parent” prevalence p = 1/2000 = 0.0005.
• Target child event is top 1/10,000 (the rare outcome you were asking about).
• Heritability / midparent effect = 0.6 (same model we used before).
• Child residual variance chosen so child population SD = 15 (same scale as adult IQ).

Per-family probabilities (both parents of the same type)
• Both parents average (50th percentile) → child chance ≈ 0.00200% (about 1 in 49,900).
• Both parents top 1/2000 → child chance ≈ 2.70% (about 1 in 37).
• One parent top 1/2000 + one average → child chance ≈ 0.1277% (about 1 in 783).

How many rare kids come from each parental group
Couple-type fractions
• Both parents Chad: p^2 = 0.00000025 (0.000025%) → 0.25 couples per million.
• One Chad, one non-Chad: ≈ 2p(1−p) ≈ 0.001 (0.1%) → 1,000 couples per million.
• No Chad parent: ≈ 99.900025% → 999,000 couples per million.

Expected contribution to top-1/10,000 kids (per child)
• Contribution from both-Chad couples is essentially zero (about 0.03% of all such rare kids).
• Contribution from mixed couples (one Chad) is about 6.0% of all rare kids.

• Contribution from no-Chad couples is about 94.0% of all rare kids.

Interpretation, in one line
Even though a child of two Chad parents is hundreds or thousands of times more likely (per birth) to hit the extreme tail, Chad×Stacy couples are so rare that the vast majority (≈94%) of top-1/10,000 kids are born to parents who are not both Chads — and most (≈94%) are from parents with no Chad at all.
Most Chads will not come from two Chads/Stacys. They mostly come from the much larger pool of ordinary or mixed parents. The ultra-elite couples matter for per-child probability but contribute almost nothing to the total count because there are so few of them.

Also this assuming Chad even has a kid with stacy, most Chads settle with an HTB and often an appealmaxxed MTB JFL:lul::lul:

So for the people who say "Looks are deserved because of your ancestors and what they ate and who they mated with" or whatever primal goatis faceiq raw liver raw milk argument they bring up just know it does not apply to chad and never will
money mogs genes in 2025
even lousiest of guys can reach htn-cl smv in 2025
 
Doesn't hurt to be 🤷🏽
I don't talk to enough people to have the time to be meam, every time i have a human interaction im always a decent person

only foids i disrespect and it isnt on purpose aswell
 
  • +1
Reactions: Swarthy Knight and Luca_.
Expecting another Chad from chad and stacy is so retarded, sure he will certainly be HTN/HTB maybe CL if raised right but the chance of another chad is pretty much the same as any other MTN/MTB couple, its like you are both playing a lottery but your lottery is "easier" to win, you only have like 4 kids at max usually so the chance of making another chad/stacy is astronomically low.

Its the same with sports, often you see kids with fathers who played pro soccer make it to the top divisions but not even close to any significant portion of total pro soccer players fathers also were pro, but kids are significantly more likely to be pros on average than any other kid, but its still a fucking lottery lmao.
No matter how much the .1% try they are against the other 99.9% of the population, there is no high iq argument to say "oh but actually the .1% is selecting and draining the very BEST talent so the 99.9% has no genetic talent"
It is pure luck

To put this in an equation is something I don't have the IQ or time to comprehend or set up but I think we can use common sense and understand most chads who marry stacys do not in fact have chad or stacy kids, almost ever.

However, IQ is very predictable if you base it from the parents, so let chatgpt explain how if 2 geniuses had kids (IQ Equivalent of Chad / Stacy having kids) and the probability of them making another genius compared to us

"Using IQ 140 as “genius” (~0.4% of people):

Chance of child ≥140 if both parents are 100 IQ ≈ 0.16%.

Chance if both parents are 140 IQ ≈ 12%.

In the US (~330M people), about 1.3 million geniuses total.

But ~93% of them come from parents below 140, only ~7% from families with at least one 140+ parent, and <1% from two 140+ parents."


The way looks work in this equation is honestly immeasurable but its still the same situation. It theoretically could be calculated and still wouldn't really that accurate. Some archetypes just do not combine well with each other even if they are both Stacy and Chad, which makes it visibly obvious, for example someone who is stacy could have a feature which otherwise is a falio but is just "not optimal" and doesn't hurt her psl. however when combined with chad he might have features that combine to make that said feature genuinely unattractive or an actual falio. Either way, your chances of making a chad are probably in the 100s when it comes to stacy x chad couple compared to a Mtn/mtb couple
Keep in mind on .org people pull out ANY percentages but I think its generally agreed the starting entry point for chad
(6 PSL) is like 1/2000
I have seen people say its 1/10,000 and my point still stands, but even most schools do not have CLs, even Unis sometimes only have like 1 chad. They are very rare and imo location dependent ASF
Numbers and assumptions (kept simple)
• “Chad parent” prevalence p = 1/2000 = 0.0005.
• Target child event is top 1/10,000 (the rare outcome you were asking about).
• Heritability / midparent effect = 0.6 (same model we used before).
• Child residual variance chosen so child population SD = 15 (same scale as adult IQ).

Per-family probabilities (both parents of the same type)
• Both parents average (50th percentile) → child chance ≈ 0.00200% (about 1 in 49,900).
• Both parents top 1/2000 → child chance ≈ 2.70% (about 1 in 37).
• One parent top 1/2000 + one average → child chance ≈ 0.1277% (about 1 in 783).

How many rare kids come from each parental group
Couple-type fractions
• Both parents Chad: p^2 = 0.00000025 (0.000025%) → 0.25 couples per million.
• One Chad, one non-Chad: ≈ 2p(1−p) ≈ 0.001 (0.1%) → 1,000 couples per million.
• No Chad parent: ≈ 99.900025% → 999,000 couples per million.

Expected contribution to top-1/10,000 kids (per child)
• Contribution from both-Chad couples is essentially zero (about 0.03% of all such rare kids).
• Contribution from mixed couples (one Chad) is about 6.0% of all rare kids.

• Contribution from no-Chad couples is about 94.0% of all rare kids.

Interpretation, in one line
Even though a child of two Chad parents is hundreds or thousands of times more likely (per birth) to hit the extreme tail, Chad×Stacy couples are so rare that the vast majority (≈94%) of top-1/10,000 kids are born to parents who are not both Chads — and most (≈94%) are from parents with no Chad at all.
Most Chads will not come from two Chads/Stacys. They mostly come from the much larger pool of ordinary or mixed parents. The ultra-elite couples matter for per-child probability but contribute almost nothing to the total count because there are so few of them.

Also this assuming Chad even has a kid with stacy, most Chads settle with an HTB and often an appealmaxxed MTB JFL:lul::lul:

So for the people who say "Looks are deserved because of your ancestors and what they ate and who they mated with" or whatever primal goatis faceiq raw liver raw milk argument they bring up just know it does not apply to chad and never will
rich peoples kid can get double LL so plus 16cm with rebreak or even more
and he can get rhino trimax maybe even OBO or the other shit.
HTN to chadlite face and plus 16cm.
Chad smv
 
  • +1
Reactions: Luca_.
I don't talk to enough people to have the time to be meam, every time i have a human interaction im always a decent person

only foids i disrespect and it isnt on purpose aswell
Based. I mostly behave in the same way
 
  • +1
Reactions: Luca_.
rich peoples kid can get double LL so plus 16cm with rebreak or even more
and he can get rhino trimax maybe even OBO or the other shit.
HTN to chadlite face and plus 16cm.
Chad smv
unironically true, and realistically once u hit mhtn with decent appeal no girl cares about if a guy looks better than you, its literally pure appeal and personal preference

same genetic chance to have attractive kids too compared to a chad pretty much, so ur not even frauding genes :lul:
 
  • +1
Reactions: CorinthianLOX
htns and cls also generally have masculine mothers
 
It depends. The parents can be ugly and the kid can be gl
Ugly parents usually have kids more attractive than them in the west even if they were raised poorly, I know an HTN who has sub 5 parents and they might've been LTN in their prime but doesnt even matter

most ugly people were unlucky to begin with, their actual genes aren't even that bad so the kid is usually at least hltn
 
  • +1
Reactions: Luca_.
unironically true, and realistically once u hit mhtn with decent appeal no girl cares about if a guy looks better than you, its literally pure appeal and personal preference

same genetic chance to have attractive kids too compared to a chad pretty much, so ur not even frauding genes :lul:
Nah thats cope.
 
htns and cls also generally have masculine mothers
as an HMTN (i 100% will ascend to HTN by 19/20 just need to clear skin my skin quality is so shit :forcedsmile:) I have an HLTB mother and HMTN father (in prime) and I think this is true

My chin is slightly receeded and my moms jaw + chin is also slightly receeded despite my dad having a perfect bimax looking jaw

I'm not for bashing your parents genetics thats just disrespectful and immoral but I think you are right, features on women matter much more than on men, hypothetically if my mom wasn't receeded I probably could've been HTN now even with shitty skin

She has really good feminine features though and I am blessed to have got them, I love my mom
 
how so? i am not "coping", you could even set the bar higher to CL, i am just saying appeal can kinda be maxxed at htn
Clav is htn, i am htn and i can say to you in all honesty that this is pure cope.
APPEAL is probably never maxed or maxed at chad level.
 
lost if you believe in luck in 2025.
 
  • +1
Reactions: tunisianropemaxxer
Expecting another Chad from chad and stacy is so retarded, sure he will certainly be HTN/HTB maybe CL if raised right but the chance of another chad is pretty much the same as any other MTN/MTB couple, its like you are both playing a lottery but your lottery is "easier" to win, you only have like 4 kids at max usually so the chance of making another chad/stacy is astronomically low.

Its the same with sports, often you see kids with fathers who played pro soccer make it to the top divisions but not even close to any significant portion of total pro soccer players fathers also were pro, but kids are significantly more likely to be pros on average than any other kid, but its still a fucking lottery lmao.
No matter how much the .1% try they are against the other 99.9% of the population, there is no high iq argument to say "oh but actually the .1% is selecting and draining the very BEST talent so the 99.9% has no genetic talent"
It is pure luck

To put this in an equation is something I don't have the IQ or time to comprehend or set up but I think we can use common sense and understand most chads who marry stacys do not in fact have chad or stacy kids, almost ever.

However, IQ is very predictable if you base it from the parents, so let chatgpt explain how if 2 geniuses had kids (IQ Equivalent of Chad / Stacy having kids) and the probability of them making another genius compared to us

"Using IQ 140 as “genius” (~0.4% of people):

Chance of child ≥140 if both parents are 100 IQ ≈ 0.16%.

Chance if both parents are 140 IQ ≈ 12%.

In the US (~330M people), about 1.3 million geniuses total.

But ~93% of them come from parents below 140, only ~7% from families with at least one 140+ parent, and <1% from two 140+ parents."


The way looks work in this equation is honestly immeasurable but its still the same situation. It theoretically could be calculated and still wouldn't really that accurate. Some archetypes just do not combine well with each other even if they are both Stacy and Chad, which makes it visibly obvious, for example someone who is stacy could have a feature which otherwise is a falio but is just "not optimal" and doesn't hurt her psl. however when combined with chad he might have features that combine to make that said feature genuinely unattractive or an actual falio. Either way, your chances of making a chad are probably in the 100s when it comes to stacy x chad couple compared to a Mtn/mtb couple
Keep in mind on .org people pull out ANY percentages but I think its generally agreed the starting entry point for chad
(6 PSL) is like 1/2000
I have seen people say its 1/10,000 and my point still stands, but even most schools do not have CLs, even Unis sometimes only have like 1 chad. They are very rare and imo location dependent ASF
Numbers and assumptions (kept simple)
• “Chad parent” prevalence p = 1/2000 = 0.0005.
• Target child event is top 1/10,000 (the rare outcome you were asking about).
• Heritability / midparent effect = 0.6 (same model we used before).
• Child residual variance chosen so child population SD = 15 (same scale as adult IQ).

Per-family probabilities (both parents of the same type)
• Both parents average (50th percentile) → child chance ≈ 0.00200% (about 1 in 49,900).
• Both parents top 1/2000 → child chance ≈ 2.70% (about 1 in 37).
• One parent top 1/2000 + one average → child chance ≈ 0.1277% (about 1 in 783).

How many rare kids come from each parental group
Couple-type fractions
• Both parents Chad: p^2 = 0.00000025 (0.000025%) → 0.25 couples per million.
• One Chad, one non-Chad: ≈ 2p(1−p) ≈ 0.001 (0.1%) → 1,000 couples per million.
• No Chad parent: ≈ 99.900025% → 999,000 couples per million.

Expected contribution to top-1/10,000 kids (per child)
• Contribution from both-Chad couples is essentially zero (about 0.03% of all such rare kids).
• Contribution from mixed couples (one Chad) is about 6.0% of all rare kids.

• Contribution from no-Chad couples is about 94.0% of all rare kids.

Interpretation, in one line
Even though a child of two Chad parents is hundreds or thousands of times more likely (per birth) to hit the extreme tail, Chad×Stacy couples are so rare that the vast majority (≈94%) of top-1/10,000 kids are born to parents who are not both Chads — and most (≈94%) are from parents with no Chad at all.
Most Chads will not come from two Chads/Stacys. They mostly come from the much larger pool of ordinary or mixed parents. The ultra-elite couples matter for per-child probability but contribute almost nothing to the total count because there are so few of them.

Also this assuming Chad even has a kid with stacy, most Chads settle with an HTB and often an appealmaxxed MTB JFL:lul::lul:

So for the people who say "Looks are deserved because of your ancestors and what they ate and who they mated with" or whatever primal goatis faceiq raw liver raw milk argument they bring up just know it does not apply to chad and never will
Water,agua,eau,wasser,penis..
 
  • +1
Reactions: EvilSatanArseRapist
lost if you believe in luck in 2025.
luck is real, obviously everything happened because something caused something but i would LOVE to hear your sophisticated answer to this, how come 1 chad and 1 stacy can't have a chad kid but an mtn and mtb can ? what did they do to deserve it? "oh their ancestors were chads and stacys"
 
  • +1
Reactions: tunisianropemaxxer
luck is real, obviously everything happened because something caused something but i would LOVE to hear your sophisticated answer to this, how come 1 chad and 1 stacy can't have a chad kid but an mtn and mtb can ? what did they do to deserve it? "oh their ancestors were chads and stacys"
idk
it js happens tho
 
idk
it js happens tho
probability (a form of luck and a part of it i guess) is in place when chromosomes from the egg and sperm get SHUFFLED (essentially random) and the genes are picked. but why this happens is unknown, could it be for some divine reason? we dont know but it happens for a reason

So luck in a way is real but in theory since everything happens for a reason it isn't but because everything happens for a reason and we are just observing it from a purely deterministic way then it is in fact luck, science cannot even comprehend why things that have probability happen they can just explain the mechanism of it, not the reasoning as to why certain outcomes were chose :forcedsmile:

In other actual luck based shit, like the lottery which could actually benefit your looks and life if you spent the money on surgery, it is purely calculatable with reason but in the end, why did THAT person win the lottery? even if they bought all the lottery tickets they would deserve to win it but why did no one else buy the lottery tickets? and is it still deserved? science can simply not explain this, so luck is in fact real until we can figure this out
 
what did they do to deserve it?
nothing :lul: thats some subjective judgement.

it's not luck, but they obviously aren't responsible for their state.
it's not just genes. it's nature and nurture. idk how this is luck or a question of chance.
 
  • +1
Reactions: CorinthianLOX and fishinthesee
nothing :lul: thats some subjective judgement.

it's not luck, but they obviously aren't responsible for their state.
it's not just genes. it's nature and nurture. idk how this is luck or a question of chance.
agreed, theres also an argument to be made that genes themselves dont exist but its like saying math doesnt exist
obviously math is much more complex than even the VAST understanding we now have of it in the year 2025, but its not like if the concept of math didnt exist then what math talks about wouldnt exist
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: EvilSatanArseRapist and CorinthianLOX
as an HMTN (i 100% will ascend to HTN by 19/20 just need to clear skin my skin quality is so shit :forcedsmile:) I have an HLTB mother and HMTN father (in prime) and I think this is true

My chin is slightly receeded and my moms jaw + chin is also slightly receeded despite my dad having a perfect bimax looking jaw

I'm not for bashing your parents genetics thats just disrespectful and immoral but I think you are right, features on women matter much more than on men, hypothetically if my mom wasn't receeded I probably could've been HTN now even with shitty skin

She has really good feminine features though and I am blessed to have got them, I love my mom
look at chads like cavill and meeks they have masculine average looking mothers my theory could be wrong
 
  • +1
Reactions: fishinthesee

Similar threads

Terrortheplug
Replies
7
Views
126
gonnabehappy
G
IHATEINDIANS
Replies
9
Views
280
Centurion_Hunter
Centurion_Hunter
FiendFiend
Replies
5
Views
96
roadtochang123
roadtochang123
Acquiescence
Replies
1
Views
33
Bryce
Bryce
kurd
Replies
20
Views
378
gonnabehappy
G

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Back
    Top