Saturday, May 9, 2015

Let's say NO to nutritional facts! (No, not really.)

I was trawling Tumblr the other day for further evidence of human stupidity. Suffice it to say that a lot of people are really fucking stupid. Sadly I lost the link, but there was one blog where a young woman claimed she no longer wanted to suffer from an eating disorder anymore --- and then went on to fatten up. I wish she would have posted some 'before' pictures, or just any pictures of herself. Instead, she wrote a few posts against "nutritional facts" because they gave her a bad conscience when she was eating crappy food and, apparently unbeknownst to her, saddling society with a future medical bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars once she needs treatment for her type II Diabetes and various other obesity-related illnesses. But, you go girl!

Here's the picture of how she dealt with the oppression through nutritional facts:

Why bother with facts when you can have feelings instead?

What I found amusing on the one hand, but quite startling on the other, even though we should all by now have gotten used to all facets of female entitlement, is that she seems to have no clear understanding that the problem with obesity is hardly just something the 'patriarchy' made up. Slim women are attractive because being slim is an indicator of health. Being fat is the opposite. Now, if women would own it, get fat and be proud of it, I'd (almost) have no problem with it. There's still the public health issue, after all. Instead, though, you have women argue that even though they are fat they still deserve the attention of all men. Assanova once posted a humorous graphic caricaturing that virtually all women only want guys in the 8 - 10 range, even if they are only 2's themselves. Likewise, you have old, ugly bitches demand that men should get horny for them instead of women who are actually good looking.

Some of you may have heard of the Protein World "Beach Body" campaign that made some women feel at uneasy over their shitty looks. Here is the woman who enraged a mob of ugly feminists, followed by a picture of her competition:

How dare they put a young, beautiful woman on a poster!

Who would want to fuck that?

We live in such a cruel world when women like the former are admired and women like the latter aren't. Think of the absurdity: yes, nature is 'cruel' (no, nature doesn't really care about your particular set of genes) because your genetics determine your looks to a very large part. That being said, your genes are not your fate, and there is still a lot one can do. Of course there are limits, even if you throw copious amounts of surgery into the mix.

But why is it that unattractive women have seemingly the entire mainstream media at their disposal to whine about this alleged injustice? If short or poor men would band together to campaign against the media who always present tall, muscular men as unreachable ideals, or reduces men to their earning power --- what do you think would happen? Well, nothing, really. I could only ever imagine this as satire anyway, because men are normally aware that they are not showered in attention because they've got a pair of young, perky tits. No, instead men are severely aware that if they want to get anywhere in life, they have to make an effort to get there. Not wanting to make an effort and still expecting attention and admiration, though, is yet another example of what has been termed the solipsism of the female mind.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

(Also, if you’ve got a comment that is off-topic or only tangentially related to this article, then please post in the most recent Open Thread. Thank you.)


  1. Looks matter, and life is not fair. We can whine about it or do protests, but the reality is advertisers use people that look like that women because that is the beauty ideal for the majority of the audience, fat people included.

  2. I get your point and I agree with you, but the redhead on the right is still cute.

    1. yep the red head, i like her face preety much, and only because of face i get turned
      on, on the other hand her body is plain.

      however it seems enough to want to bang her.

    2. @LazyLife: Maybe this is why some men develop a CFNM fetish :D


    3. Yes.

      Ugly face + ugly body = HELL NO
      Ugly face + average body = HELL NO
      Ugly face + pretty body = HELL NO

      Average face + ugly body = HELL NO
      Average face + average body = HELL NO
      Average face + pretty body = why not ?

      Pretty face + ugly body = why not ?
      Pretty face + average body = yes
      Pretty face + pretty body = HELL YES

    4. to be fair if she has hot body and ugly face you can still bang her
      if you can bang her if she has a preety face and ugly body its possible,
      or you can just drop those 2 options.
      but it seems that hot body is bangable too. she can put a bag on her head.

      i would say body is more important then face, because body has more units in it then face alone, so it sums more , but as single unit i would rate face as the most
      arousing for me. i mean its best if you want to kiss them as well.

    5. I guess I'm a "face-man". If she has a pretty face, I don't care about the rest. On the other hand, I never found arousing a girl with a hot body but an ugly face. When I fuck, I look at her face and I like kissing a lot. When the girl has an ugly face, I don't kiss her LOL.

    6. we can just say you pay a large attention to face, try to look at different parts and see
      how your responses changes based on what part you look.
      you just tend to look at face more.
      but you dont get erection from faces. asses you do however.
      or just looking at her wholly, non fixed on one specific part(i got erection like this too but chick was very close to me and was all red and smiling ).

  3. "Not wanting to make an effort and still expecting attention and admiration, though, is yet another example of what has been termed the solipsism of the female mind." Well put!

    Social media plattforms like twitter, tumbler etc. haven been hijacked a long ime ago by feminazis, PC-SJW crybabies and like minded cunts, that will rather do away with free speech than have people speak out in a way they don't approve of. What is the paid in blood for right of free speech compared to their need to feel good about themselves no matter what anyway?

    I would love to insult these cunts on twitter etc. -not because I think I could text reason into them, but to simply puke my contempt and anoyance in their faces- but I think I would get banned within minuetes.

    The thing is: mainstream media, the leagal system, the educational adminsitration; they all are overflowed by this sort of "characters". The lunatics have taken over the asylum!
    I could rant on and on about this fat shaming nonsens etc., but I leave it at this.

    By the way: Fat acceptance goes pop?


    1. There's no song I've hated more this past year. Here's a story (most likely fake) on 4chan's /fit about Meghan Trainor:

    2. Thank you very much, Topher! This story made my day! FUCKING hysterical!!! :D

      Still, poor guy! My tip for him: next time you want to bang a 9, just see a hooker. Way more economic! Investing time and energy in this type of airhead teenage girl is not a good idea.


    3. as the good old sage of wisdom Snoop Dogg used to say

      "Cant turn a ho into a house wife"

      You cant turn someone from where they are to something that they you want them to be. As they are the product of their habits, and habits takes time to change and easy to fall back on.

      I quote aristotle on this

      "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

      Always best to go after those who have what you want.

      Think of going to ice cream shop and asking for pizza. Only idiots do this. Go to the fucking pizza restautant instead!

      A bigger issue are girls who are hot and fit!!! But are born like this. And after they marry they fall in to bad habits (As no need to look good for a guy) and grow big!!! Then one needs to look at her character before committing. Her habits (does she play sports or go gym cause she loves it, regardless of her relationship status). Her views on health and her actions (how she eats).


    4. I'd say that's a cool "fat people" song: "I Could Be The One" (Nicktim)

      And there's even an alarm clock going off in that clip, haha… *LOL*

  4. however i will be a bit curios as to why aaron was searching for evidence
    for human stupidity? or atleast female stupidity,?
    it seems female apply their entitlement to nature and then expect nature to bend
    over their will,
    she likes this food, she is entitlent to still not be fat, she is entitlent that this food wont fat her up,

    and if it will fat her up she is still entitled then men will still get horny(even though you look like regular people look in heavy winter but without clothes., you put some bags under the skin, where is your female shape ?)

    so chicks get fat, wrinkles, or just lose their shape too soon.
    this why they stick to those young ones.
    i get turned on more by middle school girls more then 30 years old women
    on average .
    i was a bit weirded out by this when i found this out, but it makes sense those girls
    have shapes that those 30's already lost, plus wrinkles and fat.

    1. Maybe the opening sentence of this post could have been phrased better. It's not as if I would need further evidence that the average human is a moron. However, it amuses me quite a bit when I find posts like the one on ignoring nutritional facts I mentioned.

  5. Comparing yourself with others who are better off is depressing. I just recently saw research about how happiness level in some 3rd world nations sharpy fell off after TV got introduced because people started getting exposed to unrealistic standard of living.

    In all fairness most of fat women probably just want to live life without getting constantly getting reminded they are fat.

    1. i stopped watching tv and news, my mind has cleared up,
      the thing is it brain washes you with bullshit down to your core,
      you might know its bull shit , but if you look at it enough those
      thoughts creep on you on their own, i just quit doing this crap.
      helps much.

  6. This is interesting to me as I have a real passion for health for fitness. People need to stop this "I'm just being me" trend with food. As unattractive as it is physically, it's so BAD for your health as well. I read before a guy saying, "Don't judge her because of her eating habits. She feels more comfortable at that weight." She may feel more comfortable at that weight, but her internal organs sure as hell don't. This a dangerous movement. People that are letting themselves go will be a real burden on tax payers down the road.

    1. This is already having an effect in UK. NHS just cant afford to look after people how have health issues relating to obesity (ie diabetes, heart issues, cancer etc etc). Government is thinking of cutting back health services to those who dont look after themselves. Or even charging them for medication and other services.


    2. Damn straight, Mitchel! And by pointing this out you are already on the edge to being a hate monger nowdays. Really fucked up!

      Just think of this actress Melica McCarthy, of Lena Dunham or the above mentioned Meghan Trainor: fat chicks are pushed as new female role modles to pamper the ego of the average young chick, that is far from Playmate-shape herself. And getting farer away each year.

      Lean women are shamed and attact vicoiously for their "anorexia" etc., the unhealty obese abnormity is beeing established as the new norm. SICK!
      I could not belive how shocked my aunt reacted, when I told her about my weight loss plans eralier this day. "WHAT? You have 19% body fat and still want to loose weight?!? Your BMI is 26.5, which means your almost underweight!! Don't play with your health ydyayada."

      She herself has to take pills to help her reduce her blood presure, but I'm the one "playing" with my health. Come on, aunty! Don't bullshit me! And she is a biologist working in the pharma industry!!!! WTF!!

      The dangers of obeseity are constantly denied and ignored although it affects a large percentage of the population. Still everyone is obsesed with annorexia, which only affects like what? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

      Funny enough most prople suffering from annorxia don't even have a sick standard of beauty, i.e. they don't think looking like a concentration camp inmate is beautiful etc. the simply DON'T recognize that they are looking like a concentration camp inmate!
      And most of them are not annorexic because of Mister Karl Lagerfeld etc., but because they suffered childhood traumata, like sexual abuse etc.

      Let me finish my rant with this link:

      "Discrimination" of fat activist and self proclaimed "elite athlete" Ragen Chastain, who finished the Seattle martahon in 12 hours and 20 minutes.

      "At mile 11 they closed the aid stations and opened the roads and from then on we were told that there would be no more mile markers, no more water and gatorade stations, no more port-a-potties, and since there weren’t sidewalks in a lot of places we had to walk on trails and lawns (which meant that, according to our GPS, we walked about a mile extra.) At mile 14 she sent a member of the medical personnel out, telling her that I was limping (I wasn’t) and that she should convince us to drop out. The young woman said that we looked great but told us that they were closing all of the medical stations. She gave us a bunch of supplies and wished us luck."

      More like dances-with-crack :D

      This body-"positivity"-propaganda in alliance with the crab and herd mentality might make normal sized people (especially normal sized chicks) a tiny minority throughout the west in 10-15 years.

      Time to turn gay, gents ;)


  7. Woman sues university over weight-loss suggestion

    Look at this CNN report... Watch the video, watch how she talks about how she's OWED her dream of being an admired cheerleader despite being obese. Look at the entitlement with which she speaks.

    "Hey I tried losing weight for a period, didn't lose too much, but, I still want my dream, give it to me or get sued..."

    1. "I still want my dream, give it to me or get sued"
      Female mindset in a nutshell :D

      I bet my testicals: if she makes it into the team and then gets herself injured because of beeing such a hippo tying to jump like a gazelle, she will sue the university, too! ;)


    2. Awesome find, it's hilarious. Thanx A. N.!

  8. Last month was the same topic discussed on The Rational Male:
    In addition, the article above mentions the male ad by the same manufacturer, too.

  9. My take on this is that, no, nobody isn't "beach body ready", just go out there and have FUN. It's summer! BUT, and this should be as obvious as night and day, don't think that anyone is going to find you more attractive than a girl who's been working at that goal most of her young, beautiful life.

    Why is being pressured to look less like a troglodyte such an issue these days? Why would hating and fighting our most human instincts of sexual attraction to the same or opposite sex make people feel so superior? They think they've accomplished something, but they're just celebrating their lack of accomplishment, and then jilling each other off about how much less they could accomplish.

  10. Heavy women have higher libidos. Fat cells are constantly secreting sex hormones, instead of just once a month like ovarian cells. Some "big" women are hideous, others can be somewhat hot (depending on how big)--whatever floats your boat. I don't think it's right for feminazis to skinny-shame fit women, though.

    1. My first thought: Jabba the Hut was also constantly horny ;)

    2. I'm not sure if that makes sense. You don't gain fat cells as you get bigger, they just gain in size. Fatter people don't necessarily have more fat cells. Are you saying that larger fat cells secrete more sex hormones? Because I don't think that's the case, either.

    3. My uninformed guess: Bigger chix may feel hornier inside, because it is harder for them to get a decent fuck.

    4. but even if thats true there are probably limits to how much the body can take it, without regulating it down or something,
      however fat cells can make other crap things that are bad to your long term
      health, this what they dont tell you about obesity.

    5. I'm not sure this is true, or otherwise skinny nerds living at home would be far less inclined to jerk off than those of their brethren carrying excess weight. Mostly, fat chicks just find it harder to get dick, especially quality dick. Easy peasy.

    6. "You don't gain fat cells as you get bigger, they just gain in size."

      Fat cells can multiply (hyperplasia) in addition to growing (hypertrophy).

      "Fatter people don't necessarily have more fat cells."

      They usually do.

      "Are you saying that larger fat cells secrete more sex hormones?"

      Fat has the enzyme aromatase, which converts testosterone into estrogen. Very low body fat = very low aromatase, and consequently amenorrhea (e.g. female athletes). High body fat = higher aromatase, and (sometimes) gynecomastia, moobs.

  11. Have a look at famous rapper Nicki Minaj before she got famous and becoming a Kim K. clone: She actually looks really good in this picture on the left! I keep browsing the "bikini brigade" tumblr... :)

  12. It's funny how women feel entitled to be loved and accepted -no matter their appearance or body weight, but they keep totally unrealistic standards for males -they must be extremely handsome, physically fit, tall, and rich. If a guy shares pics of models or beautiful scantly cad women in his Facebook wall, he's deemed a creep. But if a girl shares pics of ripped, shirtless men, it's totally fine. Hell, in my country there was a famous sex scandal about an soap opera actor, he had a video of him masturbating to the camera. And the reactions were unbelievable: women were totally ecstatic about this. Of course it was because he was attractive -if he wasn't, he would be deemed a "pig" for recording himself while rubbing off his little friend.

  13. Well, look at this "attractive supermodel" and see what kind of message she sends to the world (don't watch this before lunch, unless fat chicks turn you on, which is highly unlikely :D):

    Quote: "Your health is not always determined by your size"... LOL, it's not, right up to the point when you have a heart attack or a brain stroke. It's kinda funny and sad at the same time to see the level of stupidity people today are "blessed" with.

    1. the higher your size the higher the tax on your heart, furthermore there
      are other reactions in the body. which start to be over the top, that is just too much
      like inflammation ,stress, gut problems, because all of the stuff you put in, is too much for your system to handle, humans were designed with scarcity in mind,
      of course we are no longer there, but our body still cant handle such an amount without consequences. maybe in 10k years our evolved bodies will be able to handle
      the stresses of our current modern world, but, by that time there will be new
      things to adapt to, which will require another 10k years.
      and people will become dysfunctional in the wild with time. if in 100k years
      technology crushes, people will die. lol.

    2. I'd say, living a frugal life, which still keeps you on the edge in a positive way, deliberately balancing contemplation with action is probably the best way of life for our body and mind

  14. Have a look at this: Fat Shaming by Roosh V on the Dr. Oz show (

    1. Awesome, this is now downloadable for further reference! ;)

  15. In regards to that internet model Courtney whats-her-name, while yes there are some "big" women who are hot, she is not one of them; she's simply a blob of fat.

  16. This Swiss article should offer consummate to any morbidly obese women, at least to some extent.
    The claim is that a new trend called "Sapiosexuality" proves, that intelligence in partners overall trumps physical attractiveness. A pic of douchebag Mark Zuckerberg decorates the article, but that's not the only absurdity contained in it:

    (No, this is not satire, the author apparently really means it.)

    1. This is incredible. Your intelligence only increases your level of attractiveness if it translates into money that you are willing to share, and even then you're still only in the "comfortable option" category, because she still does not get horny for you. Female sexuality just does not work that way.

      If we lived in less prude times, we could settle this nonsense by conducing some scientific experiments. Just pick 100 dudes at random, put them one by one in a room, sit them down on a sofa, next to a hot woman who is told to sit next to them and put one of her hands very close to their crotch --- then have someone enter this room to abort it due to some bullshit reason, and then measure the level of arousal of the dudes. Then do the same but put some fuglo in there. Of course, dudes would have to be randomly assigned to make it more scientific. An experiment for the 'fair sex' would be quite similar: hot dude vs boring dude who is claimed to have a IQ that is off the charts.

    2. Just another pretentious way for people to try and feel superior to others. "My body works differently, better, I'm only attracted to people who are intelligent." It's a backdoor way of trying to complement their own intelligence (except of course when they're single or dating a guy who isn't that smart). The smugness of this is so unbearable, and no different than the retards obsessed with gender studies that want to feel unique by saying they're only attracted to transmasculine heteroflexible cisgender nonconformists. All I can reply with is: "boy, you must be real fun at parties".

    3. Intelligence in men may have some minor attractive quality to women.

      Intelligence in women has next to no attractive quality to men.

      A hot chick with big boobs, slender legs and a beautiful face isn't going to get hit on by men any more or less if she has an IQ of 127 or 193. As long as she is not fully retarded, she'll be just fine.

      By comparison, a skinny geek with an IQ of 193 is definitely going to get some benefit from that in terms of attention from women than a skinny geek with an IQ of 127. Minor upgrade, to be sure, but at least it's something.

    4. "Intelligence" in a way is overrated anyway. It's not the "intelligent, obedient guy" who gets to achieve something, but the intelligent asshole, who acts and fucks the system. At the end of the day, it's always the rascal, the psychopath, tge bad boy, who wins. Mere "intelligence is worth shit.

    5. wait, intellegence isnt underrated, if you have it off the charts,
      in the 100-120 rang is probably nonsense, but once you have 140 and over,
      its quite the benefit. (NOT IN TERMS OF GETTING WOMEN)
      but in terms that life is easier to adapt to.
      i am preety sure you heard of all those 8 years old kids who tackle college math.
      and start to do things extremely early like its some sort of anomaly.
      so its only the resources women want, HIGHER INTELLEGENCE is inside your brain, it isnt visible to females, females cant distinguish it , and seriouly it doesnt play a role, and it isnt a universally male qualities as women have it too.
      so even if women could magically see it they wont react to it, like to height or dick . but since they cant see it , their biological reaction was never tied to it.

    6. Germaine,
      IQs are generally determined on a scale that ends at 160.

      even a difference of just a few points normally makes an enormous difference. The problem with very high IQs is that you will find it difficult to function in society, because even tasks the average person views at rather complex are about as interesting as stuffing envelopes would be for them.

    7. "even a difference of just a few points normally makes an enormous difference."

      Are you basing this on some specific study or experienc? I've heard that as a rule of thumb two people need to differ at least one standard deviation (15 IQ points) in order for difference to become noticeable.

    8. How familiar are you with statistics? We can of course debate what "noticeable differences" are, but it's quite obvious when people don't grasp certain abstractions. Someone with 120+ is already the smartest or among the smartest kids in class. 100 is pretty dense. At 130+ you're so far ahead of the average it's not even funny, i.e. you pick up certain concepts more or less intuitively, which they may never understand at all.

    9. but it also depends how you go about acquiring the concept, i had a university text
      book chapter that i couldnt understand, then i hit the concept in a flash game and grasped it
      in like 30 min, compared to my dead 20 hours+ attempts spread over a few days,
      nothing seemed to help, but then surprise i got it fast in a different way.

      if 160 is a limit, then how ocme there are people with 200?

    10. There are concepts you cannot visualize.

      Most 'serious' IQ tests nowadays have a cap of 160, and they are graded on an absolute scale. However, there are older tests that were graded on a relative scale. Those tests are nowadays seen as completely unreliable. The IQ of the 'smartest woman on Earth' was only so high because she apparently scored very well for an 8-year old, or something like that. The absurdity is palpable: if an 8-year old scores the same as an average 18-year old, the former is lauded as having a genius intellect, but of course that outstanding score for an 8-year old will only be a middling score for an older kid. So, that 8-year old's IQ of 220 or whatever it was could very well regress to around 100 with age, because the IQ of 220 was simply an artefact of the relative scale.

    11. How can you think about something if you cannot visualize it? Maybe you cannot visualize abstract concepts directly but you figure them out by creating analogies.

      For example, people are bad at solving logic puzzle called Wason task. It seems that only about 10% solve it correctly. You could infer that average person is quite bad at logic. But if you reframe the logical problem in terms of social relations rather than abstract concepts then almost everyone is able to solve the puzzle despite reasoning leading to correct answer remaining the same in both cases.

    12. That's a rather pedestrian example.

      I take it you never studied advanced mathematics. How do you visualize cardinalities of infinity or, heck, even just a set of an infinite size, or matrices with 10,000 dimensions?

    13. Don't physicists make a really strong case for using analogies to understand abstract concepts: Schroedinger's cat, Einsteins Twin Paradox, EPR Paradox etc?

      Regarding infinity:
      You can still apply the core idea from my 'pedestrian example' and that is to express the abstract problem in more familiar terms. Lets say you want to visualize division or multiplication by infinity.

      Infinity has a property of being larger than any number you can imagine. This dynamic can be visualized by adding movement to the visualization.

      Number can be visualized as something static, say geometrical shape encompassing points on a grid.

      Infinity is a shape which is constantly expanding.

      If you divide infinity by non-infinite number then visualization of resulting number will be smaller than size of infinite shape at the moment of division but it will retain the property of growing and can thus be considered to be infinity.

      If you divide non-infinite number by infinity then visualization of resulting number will be extremely small geometrical shape which will continue to shrink and can be thus approximated to 0.

      But you can hardly test validity of my visualization because you merely challenged me to visualize an infinite set rather to solve some problem pertaining infinite sets using visualization.

    14. Don't be silly. Humans can't visualize more than three spatial dimensions. You conveniently ignored the case of a matrix with 10,000 dimensions. Lastly, you should look up what "cardinality of infinity" means, before composing your reply. Your example falls apart, i.e. you clearly demonstrated that you did not grasp the concept, because if you divide infinity by a finite number, you don't get a smaller infinity but infinity. By the way, you cannot divide by infinity. Go back to your calculus textbooks, because you clearly have not grasped the concept of limits.

    15. lol , the concept in my case was recursion,i formed mental structure of its pattern. it was a self study. i also exprienced something similar in pointers,
      i just draw a picture, what refers to what and it cleared all the confusion. i dont have that much exprience with those stuff through.

      and as far as infinity, i just assume there is always a next case.
      and, as far as 21354363546 dimensions, maybe you can break them up,
      or something.
      maybe there are concepts you cant have mental image of , but i am preety
      sure those concepts probablly relay, on previous concepts that could be?
      and yeah i cant argue about advanced math .
      i am just saying that i already exprienced a different way that was much better for
      me from the classical formal way. much much more fluid and effecient.
      so my point remains: there are better ways to understand something then the instruction/lecture/book way. surely they might be some exceptions.
      but even for them they might be a better way. because assuming you know all the possible ways is wrong because you will find yourself surprised in the most unpredictable ways, since humans exhausted the formal classical aproach, and ignored others, with computers its possible to explore more aproaches through discovering them by accident.
      and you cant really accuse him of not grasping the concept, maybe he never even studied it in the first place.

    16. While you can (trivially) visualize simple recursive programs, but you will quickly find yourself struggling with, possibly convergent, mutually recursive functions, or recursive data types that take higher-order functions as inputs.

      Computers don't discover facts by accident.

      Lastly, you can of course attest that someone does not understand a certain concept even in the case when they have not studied it before.

    17. I question that intelligence makes no difference in attractiveness for either men or women.

      I know that I prefer women whose appearance and tastes clearly indicate above average intelligence, even if only up to a point. I like the refined, artistic, hipster chic, I like girls with glasses. I have only a passing sexual attraction to the hot blonde bimbo types that are the fantasies of the average male. Even for a one night stands, I prefer a female physical type that you only find in big cities among educated women, refined, petite, a style that suggests an interest in reading, art, etc. Pamela Anderson does nothing to me.

      And I notice that hipster chics go to bars and clubs where hipster guys are found - in other words, guys who also have an interest and style that suggests intellectual pursuits. These girls don't seem interested in the macho guys or even the mainstream masculine guys.

      Obviously, above a certain point intelligence doesn't matter - and nerdliness is always unattractive in both sexes if it is TOO pronounced - but the idea that intelligence matters not at all in sexual attraction is completely bogus. Intelligent people prefer refinement and class and are repelled by vulgarity.

    18. Also, in the psychometric literature, it is recognized that a few IQ points are not at all significant on the individual level, but only on the population level, because that indicates a greater number of people at the extreme right side of the bell curve.

    19. Dude, have you ever taken a highly competitive standardized test? On those, a few more IQ points matter --- those tests highly correlate with IQ tests.

      Your other comment was really amusing. If I find the time, I'll reply to you in a separate article on my blog.

    20. Yeah, I've taken the SAT, which correlates extremely well with IQ. It may interest you to know that your SAT score is considered to fall within a range - if you score a 700 on math, you are placed in a "range" of like 670-730.

      Don't hate on me, hate on the psychometricians who have collected the relevant data.

      Please do write on my other post. I'd like to hear your opinion.

    21. is it me or is he confuses personal tastes and interests with intelligence?

    22. Anon,

      well, if you do an IQ test, they tell you about the 95% confidence interval is within a certain range. That's hardly a revolutionary insight, but simply standard for statistical tests. Besides, I don't quite see how this statement is supposed to refute my point, if that's indeed what you intended, since SAT scores are very important for college admissions --- yes, yes, some universities don't consider them, but you surely know that saying about exceptions and rules, don't you? There are other standardized tests where your score has extremely high weight. The LSAT comes to mind, if you want to go to a top law school, and, depending on the subject, the GRE as well. All of those are examples were a small difference in IQ translates to a small difference on the test, which arguably translates to a huge difference for you if you want to get into certain schools.

    23. LazyLife, and personal tastes and interests have no relation to IQ?

      Aaron 1) Minute differences at the fiercely competitive top end can help a school's ranking even if it doesn't really matter in the real world. How else do they distinguish themselves? 2) Top law firms, if they can, might as well play it safe and choose the top scorers even if the differences are minute. Why not?

      The selectivity of firms and schools isn't a good indication of anything because other considerations play a role - an attempt to distinguish oneself from the pack even if not based on anything substantive, a desire to hedge ones bets, etc, rankings for reasons of status not substance.

      If an IQ test has only 95% confidence, then that would mean that a few points on the LSAT does NOT have statistical significance, yet as you note schools still act as if they do, showing clearly that their decisions are not based on an accurate assessment of the meaning of test scores, but other considerations.

      Statistically, a small IQ difference can only be relevant when dealing with large sample sizes - surely you know the smaller the sample size, the larger the difference has to be before it becomes statistically significant? Your sample size is 2 people - I would say at least 5 IQ points of difference, maybe more, has to be there for anyone to notice even slightly.

    24. Well, if you are applying to a top law school, then getting into Harvard or Yale as opposed to a much more lowly ranked one, then this is the real world for you, and it will have extreme consequences for your success in, again, the real world, since many top law schools will not even consider you if you come from outside a top 14 law school. Thus, this is an example of a small variance in IQ that dramatically affects your real-world success.

    25. typo: "...many top law firms will not even consider you."

    26. My point was that a few points difference between individuals does not necessarily indicate a real world difference in intellectual ability.

      But sure, your performance on assessment tests can have an impact on your life through institutions and organizations not properly interpreting the significance of those tests. Life is full of stupidity, and unfairness.

    27. well you can only distinguish higher intelligence beings in situations
      where such a trait matters, and make a difference,
      but you meet women in the daily life where every one, even the dumber
      ones function quite well.

      so you cant say based on daily interactions with women, predict their intelligence. because they will look the same.

      glasses,books, "hipster" all this nonsense matters if you are like this yourself.
      i have seen dumb people with those features. including petite girls.
      but please dont say you can look at people in the street and say you can predict their intelligence. its like women say they have 2314 sense.
      and its also states that your tastes dictates what is intelligence.
      people feel more comfortable with people they have stuff in common with, this isnt a prediction of their intelligence.

      if on the other hand complexity increases, the intelligent ones will prevail.
      and if you increase it more, then you will have a repeat and get the more rare ones.
      and if u keep doing this you will be able to select the top intellegent person on the planet. but you cant do this. its kinda hard to implement. lol.
      so you would basically only be able to predict if its situation requires a big ability to handle, and you see a woman handles this. you can assume she is INT.
      but if you meet her on the club, or bookstore, doubt it.

    28. Anon,
      standardized test are designed so that the bulk of the questions can be answered by most people, and only very few are able to answer the most difficult ones. You can of course try to argue that there is no correlation between the ability to solve difficult test questions and, say, mathematical ability, but this would not be a position I think anybody could seriously defend.

    29. Hey Aaron

      where are my comments?

    30. I don't recognize your user name. In general, though, I don't approve comments that are highly ungrammatical and/or seem to add nothing to the discussion.

  17. OMG, has anyone seen this:

  18. Intelligence matters in a woman!

    It's better to interact with an intelligent woman if you utilize hypnosis to seduce them because an the more intelligent she is, the more suggestible she is.

    1. So the more intelligent she is, the dumber you expect her to be?

    2. "So the more intelligent she is, the dumber you expect her to be?"

      I think the only dumb people are the one who don't understand how the mind works and how you can use that to your advantage.

      The more intelligent she is, the more imaginative she is.

    3. Yeah, but the point is: female sexuality doesn't work like that. Our male doesn't either. Unless you intend to turn yourself into a total fool…

    4. is female hornines a product of her imagination ? or engagement with you?
      or its the other way around?

  19. "Assanova once posted a humorous graphic caricaturing that virtually all women only want guys in the 8 - 10 range, even if they are only 2's themselves. Likewise, you have old, ugly bitches demand that men should get horny for them instead of women who are actually good looking."
    The amusing thing is when you look into the mainstream media, and notice how they try to force in our eyes the idea that "fat women are beautiful, hot and special". There was some article talking about how Amy Schumer was " as horny as many men", and that many dudes chase her. Yeah. (Fact: She's fat)

    But then I realized something. As the idea of the "sexy fat girl" is forced in the media, isn't quite the same in the opposite case: fat/short/ugly men seen as sex symbols. We see how movies like '50 shades of Gray' and 'Magic Mike' are beloved by women. But nobody chimes about those movies setting "imposible standards of male attractiveness". It's totally ok if women demand men with chiseled faces, blond hair, very high height and ripped-as-fuck-bodies. But men are deemed " disgusting sexist pigs"if they rather prefer slim, beautiful women.

    Women are bitches indeed.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.