
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

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
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
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