How come there is no relationship between iq or g and mating success?
There is clearly, because you're fucking stupid and never had sex.
>>16922738>there is no relationship between iq and mating success?There's clearly a trend of higher IQ translating to less mating success. 'Smart' people are too high-IQ to persue trivial things like being a parent, let alone being a good parent.For example, my dad claimed to have an IQ of 150 (I doubt it, he's a shady autistic moron), he has 3 children, and 0 grandchildren. And he will never have any grandchildren for the foreseeable future. His lineage ended already.
>>16922755BrutalSounds like my dad
so what's the secret to finding a gf if you're >tfw to intelligent to relate to normies and meaningfully interact with them?
>>16922738life rewards action over thought100% action > 100% thought80% action + 20% thought > 100% action or 100% thought60% action + 40% thought prob > 80% action + 20% thought
>>16922813where's the max value of this function?
For women, at least for white women, there is a correlation but it pairs with religious beliefs. Highly intelligent white women who are religious have the most children, highly intelligent white women who are non-religious have the least. As intelligence decreases, the impact of religion on reproductive success as decreases.
My unsubstantiated theory that i pulled straight out of my ass is that, while you need high g to be academically successful, not everyone with high g is going to act out on it. Only a special subset of girlfriendless real Gs are going to do it.
>Male>Never had sex>But I also feel like a midwitExplain this.
Intelligence is only useful insofar as it leads a man to the knowledge and love of God, for the intellect, being the summit of the rational soul and the faculty whereby man most nearly participates in the Divine Nature, finds its ultimate and proper terminus in none other than God alone. Any other end to which it is directed is vanity, and indeed a corruption of its very nature. To appropriate so sacred a gift for the pursuit of vainglory, human praise, or worldly gain is to commit a kind of sacrilege against the Giver, returning to Him His own talent buried and unprofited. And the ruin that follows is proportionate to the gift that was squandered, for corruptio optimi pessima, and a gifted soul that has received much and returned nothing shall render a more fearful account before the Judgement Seat of Christ.
mating is a function of culture, which changes over time and location, it has nothing to do with intelligence, when will you incels ever understand this, always arguing and obsessing over iq
>>16922738It's mostly educated (but not college-educated) women.
Being intelligence is about floor not ceiling after a certain point capitalisation is more important
>>16922787Get a sixpack and pretend to be a simpleton.
>>16924265>Get a sixpackWomen don't actually care about that (Source: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2025/04/women-dont-like-bodybuilder-physique/).>picrelFertility can be increased with infant simulators.
>>16922738>>16922755daily reminder that IQ measures nothing real except the comparative ability to sit down for 30 minutes and select some shapes/words
>>16925026>daily reminder that IQ measures nothing real except the comparative ability to sit down for 30 minutes and select some shapes/wordsOk. But why does this correlate with being competent/not being brown?
>>16925026>IQ measures nothingRight...
>>16925030>negatively correlated>conservatism>racial prejudice/pol/tard bros... it's not looking good for us...
>>16925032Oh noes... Do you know who else is stupider?By the way, it's referring to social conservatism, not fiscal conservatism, which is positively correlated to IQ (sorry commies). Since social-liberalism and fiscal-conservatism are negatively correlated but both positively correlate with IQ (no interaction effects), Libertarians are actually the smartest and quite rare.Also, Republicans score 0.8 points lower than Democrats on the GSS' Wordsum, which is a verbal test, anyway (Social liberals have a verbal-tilt)
>>16925034>tfw when your own stats make you look bad so you have to make up new stats based on your headcanon
>>16925037Can't you read? Tell me what I made up. Go ahead.
>>16922738There's a "relationship" but it's inverse.This isn't pulled from any specific study but the fact that sub-Saharan Africa has about 7 kids on average.This thread is extremely low quality and a statistics shitpost but hopefully some kind of interesting discussion happens because of it.
>>16925034iqfags btfo
>>16924999We fact checked this post, and our verdict is: misleading. While women don't need The Rock, they want a fit man over a non fit man. So, yes, working out is a factor that women want in a man. >inb4 your article says thisDon't care, your post is radiating cab bucket energy.
>>16927218*r
>>16927218>We fact checked this postCringe.>We checked THE FACTS™, and by checking THE FACTS™, we've definitively deboonked your entire argument and life. heh, take that.This website could do with less AIslop.>While women don't need The Rock, they want a fit man over a non fit man.The article linked in the post that you responded to literally says exactly that. Did you even bother to actually read it before frantically keyboard-mashing your prompt into ChatGPT?
>>16927240get baited
>>16922738There is a positive correlation between male intelligence and fertility according to swedish dataBut modern women are the big driver, they're highly negatively dissincentivised so the overall trend is down.
>>16927401*unless the women are religious
>>16922821what's the source of this?
>>16927422nta but I've seen it on kirkegaard's site if that's any help to you.
>>16927401>dissincentivisedI don't think this is a word.
>>16927458disincestivised?
>>16927401>negatively disincentivized
>>16927438sorry, who? I only find a dead philosopher
>>16928098Pretty sure he meant https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/
>>16925032If that is the case, it's no wonder that the trend of iq increase has started to reverse: in group preference and fear of the 'other' are high fitness behaviours.
because penis and iq correlate negative at -.38 so higher iq people dont want to hookup they're insecure lmao
>>16928583>because penis and iq correlate negative at -.38did you plot blacks and east asians on the same graph?
>>16925032>anti-iq tranny pivots immediately to crying about muh polkek
>>16928583Source?
I have any IQ of 370 and can telepathically force women to suck my dick.
