• Home
  • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
  • Shit Cuckservatives Say
  • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Alpha Assessment Submissions
  • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
  • Dating Market Value Test For Men
  • Dating Market Value Test For Women
  • About

Chateau Heartiste

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Flirty Quips To Female Small Talk
A Testament To The Power Of Game »

Bad News For Smart Nerds

April 10, 2012 by CH

You aren’t going to win over the hot babes with your profound pontifications.

Studies show the most attractive women have the highest standards for men in most every category surveyed — except intelligence.

Via Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes?: Bodies, Behavior, and Brains–The Science Behind Sex, Love, & Attraction:

The evolutonary psychologists recruited a rotating team of male and female interviewers who paired up and evaluated more than two hundred married participants in the Midwest. Each subject was judged for physical attractiveness and assessed in three separate sessions for the factors they valued and insisted on in choosing a mate. The prettiest women had the highest standards — they wanted and expected their partners to be masculine, fit, physically attractive, loving, educated, a few years older than themselves, and desirous of home and children, with a high income potential. Surprising to the researchers there was only one quality beautiful women did not insist on more than plainer women did: intelligence.

No surprise here that the hottest women have the highest overall standards. Hot chicks and high status men have the sexual market options available to them to plausibly hold very high standards for themselves. What is perhaps interesting to the game neophyte and the nerd proud of his electric ham’s horsepower is the finding that beautiful women don’t place much stock in a man’s intelligence. If you can score that CEO gig with a 90 IQ and a psychopathic personality, women will still love you just as hard.

This study comports with the Chateau Dating Market Value Test for men at the top of the blog front page, which has a section on male intelligence that only added a point for smarts that were somewhat above average, and deducted a point for smarts that were in the stratosphere (where personality defects start to manifest.) Women may say they want a smart guy, but in my observation of couples in which the girl was hot, the guy was more usually kind of a douchey middle of the road mental mediocrity. But he had the right attitude, and alpha attitude trumps smarts any day of the week.

This is not to say smarts won’t help a man with women. A very smart man uses his gift to seduce, but also to conceal or ameliorate the most obvious vestiges of his mental prowess. In other words, since most chicks are average intelligence, it is paramount for the master seducer to calm women’s fears of being mentally outclassed by a wide enough margin that discomfort arises. All else equal, women like smart men, but they’ll choose cocky mediocrities over cloying geniuses every time. Nerds who hope to bank shot their encyclopedic knowledge of male-centric hobbies into hot babe pussy are shit out of luck.

<nasally whine>

“But why does she go for IDIOTS? I’m a Mensa member!”

</nasally whine>

Back to the masturbatorium with you, nerdling!

The usual caveats apply to self-assessment studies like this one: what women say they want in a man and what they actually go for are often enough not the same thing. I tend to frown upon self-reported sex surveys because of this psychological anomaly; however, I do think the conclusions can hint at, and reveal the shady contours of, women’s innermost desires. But your best teacher is still real world, direct experience.

As for why women, and particularly hot women, don’t much emphasize men’s intelligence as an attractiveness trait… well, it’s hard to say for certain, but I’d stick with the fundamental premise that our sexual desire is fully ensconced in the same hindbrain we had way back in the ancestral environment, where aloof, socially savvy and dominant men pounded pussy “Quest for Fire”-style in front of teary-eyed slabworms who looked upon the proceedings with visions of missile technology to take out the alphas dancing in their heads. And then, of course, the alphas stole credit for the new tech invented by the beta nerds, and still got the women.

There’s a lesson there.

Share this:

  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Girls, Tool Time | 289 Comments

289 Responses

  1. on April 10, 2012 at 6:21 pm Sid

    I’d expect Asian women to favor intelligence more than white women. I don’t have enough direct experience with black women to make a judgment there.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 7:04 pm P Ray

      That’s true. They look for complementary traits in a mate 🙂
      But that only works if the mate they’re after … wants them.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 1:07 am Days of Broken Arrows

        Yes, and Jewish women — the intellectual ones, not the JAPs — who I’ve found from experience sometimes actively despise brawn in favor of brains.

        LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 9:59 am The Vain Yogi

      Only because possession of intelligence in a man is still revered culturally. It becomes a status symbol.

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 7:44 pm John McNeal

      That nasty cunt Betty Freidan was said to have intelligence at the top of her list of requirements in a man.So if you want to slime up the smelly fetid swamp between an ugly man-hating dominat nasty Jewish feminists flabby sclerotic legs…well,Its good to display your knowledge of the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein.

      LikeLike


  2. on April 10, 2012 at 6:25 pm Rick Derris

    Sadly, experience does confirm this observation. I generally try to act dumber than I really am when talking to broads. They really don’t give a flying f*ck about quantum mechanics or anything like that. Once in a while, if some chick brings up such a topic, it might be sufficient to discuss it at their level or at a slightly higher level, but it certainly doesn’t pay to come across as an expert.

    I also laugh at how women consider themselves “smart” because they have some kind of job but then spend their time on the treadmill reading garbage like “Us” or “People.” If I saw one of them reading Hayek or even Keynes I would probably keel over from a heart attack.

    Call me a male chauvanist pig (please) but I’ve found that even girls who had good GPAs in school had them more as a result of studying and hard work instead of innate ability.

    [heartiste: yes, women are more conscientious. men are more brilliant (and retarded).]

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 6:39 pm Anon

      Female nature is horrific.
      I wonder why we did not evolve to procreate through golden showers.

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 8:32 pm Anonymous

        Or money shot facials.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 7:46 pm John McNeal

        If white/asian guys didnt evolve natural flirting skeeyulls,why did their women evolve the panty-flooding capacity in response to sexy flirting?

        [heartiste: a valid point.]

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 8:22 pm Thor

        This is part of the larger situation, which has changed greatly over the last 50 or 100 years. Until recently (with those definitions) women were trained to largely ignore the wandering minstrels etc alphaboys, as the penalty was unwed motherhood, very severely frowned upon and causing great economic hardship.

        These days, several somewhat related things have happened which have upended the traditional values, without nature having had much time to modify the genome. Mainly

        1) The shaming of adultery (read, for the most part, unwed motherhood) has gone by the wayside.

        2) Unwed mothers have access to all sorts of welfare (i.e. mainly men are
        unwillingly recruited to pay for their get)

        3) Single women with or without children can earn a decent living, if they are
        willing to work for it.

        4) Unfair divorce laws

        5) Access to birth control and abortion.

        Thus, female hypergamy has been given free reign. And the genome lags.

        None of this is orginal, this is standard CH fare, and is all over the anti-misandry blogs.

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on May 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm jironghrad

        Wouldn’t this be an indication of failed evolution?

        LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 7:05 pm P Ray

      And yet they have not the internal mustery to outperform men through numbers and results in the STEM fields.
      So does the hard work and studying stop in high school?

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 8:57 pm Paul Murray

        No, the problem is that hard work and study is not enough for STEM. You also have to understand the material.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 12:15 am P Ray

        If the qualifications they get are ones that do not need understanding …
        it’s rather horrifying that they make up the majority of school-level teachers.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm L

        Women lead men in all categories of education except for STEM PhD’s. High school graduates, college enrollment, college graduates, Master’s degrees, and a slight majority of all PhD’s.

        My personal opinion is because they are much more likely to take on student loans than men are, and because they are much more likely to pick worthless degrees, requiring further “education” to recieve prestige.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 3:08 pm P Ray

        Pick worthless degrees, or degrees easily gained?
        Some of those degrees easily gained lend them a huge economic advantage, in terms of specialised licenses e.g. the right to teach languages, the right to deliver medical care (as a nurse), the right to educate (early childcare education), the right to babysit.
        There is a huge cartel in place that offers lifetime employment for the “worthless degrees”.
        And as long as they don’t massively screw up, they can keep turning up to work and getting paid.
        Not so worthless after all.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 10:34 pm Paul Murray

        Degrees that essentially involve repeating a lecturer’s opinions back to them, cunningly reworded. Flattery, in other words, at which women (with the exception of a few outstanding males) are supreme.

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 2:12 am P Ray

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129023/Britains-worst-midwife-She-drops-baby-head-nearly-electrocutes-mother-birthing-pool-plugging-monitor-mains.html

        Now that’s what I’m talking about.
        And as long as they don’t massively screw up, they can keep turning up to work and getting paid.

        She screwed up. 30 times.

        Cartel life sure seems fun!

        LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:22 pm corvinus

      Only men are interested in rocket science or Aristotelian philosophy. Save the super smart stuff for your homies who are into that kinda thing.

      LikeLiked by 1 person


      • on April 10, 2012 at 8:30 pm Harcourt Mudd

        I think it depends on if you’ve had sex with them already. I’ve found women to be fairly compliant on discussing fairly controversial matters and even if they disagree with me on practically everything, you can tell that they are excited by someone who does not present a boring, down-the-line package of ideas. You can also leverage your intelligence and accumulated wisdom to deliver mega-doses of emotional content under intellectual/rational cover, depending on the context. Also, for those of us with a fairly decent recall can excel at long game and plant the seed, not care about outcome, then get the payoff far down the line (provided you’re not waiting for it.)

        LikeLiked by 1 person


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:25 pm Harcourt Mudd

      There are exceptions. I still remember getting a girl who would be my ex on the first night. I had already laid her two or three times during the night and during the morning I was on top of her talking about 19th century politics and ideology. She found it highly sexual and things ratcheted up again in intensity.

      Do not totally discount intelligent conversation with women. I’ve often held forth on the very issues presented on this blog and while you’ll get the occasional declarations of shock and faux outrage, I also knew they were getting wet at someone who did not attempt to play by their rules or curry favor.

      But more recently, I was told not to talk about politics while laying in bed and I had not even ventured really into it but made a comment. So, YMMV as they say.

      LikeLiked by 1 person


      • on April 11, 2012 at 4:12 am Caelaeno

        Thank you! I recognize that a lot of women aren’t selecting for hyperintelligence, but…well, let’s just say that intelligently talking science to me will keep me in a state of tropical humidity as would grow orchids in my drawers in January, given that he’s got reasonably decent game.

        Seriously, if you’re aiming for the peak of the bell curve, +/-1 standard deviation, then yes, you’ll want to match them. It sucks when you have nothing to talk about because you haven’t seen /Jersey Shore/ and they couldn’t care less about wave/particle duality. But that only covers 68% of the female population, assuming that female intelligence follows a Gaussian distribution. Especially if you’re looking for a LTR (which you may or may not, whatever), you don’t have to appeal to the general populace, just the girl whose panties drop when you bring up preindustrial literature or nineteenth century politics. If you’re really smart and passionate about your field, just work the theory of the long tail.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:54 am P Ray

        Quantum mechanics, mathematics, marketing.
        Varied bunch of interests there.
        Hope that the guy gets to keep some insights or secrets to himself; knowledge is valuable because of its scarcity.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm Caelaeno

        Eh, I just spend too much time on the internet; jack of some trades, master of none. Also, my training’s all in math and science, so if he wants deep, philosophical pillow talk, he’ll have to explain along the way.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm P Ray

        Philosophy isn’t particularly deep, unless you’re going for metaphysics, questioning the nature of reality.
        It is hugely useful for building a base of ethics to work from, which helps the drive of serious scientific pursuit.
        As long as your training gives you the ability to be an independent contractor, it’s probably a good field to be in.
        Anyone relying on a company for a job is very likely to end up bereft … not everybody can play politics, and not everybody gets a payoff when the employment dance is over.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm Thor

        My wife and I courted by rattling off alternate verses of Jabberwocky. And I am a STEM type of guy. But Jabberwocky worked fine for both of us.

        Thor

        LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:59 pm Paul Murray

      The ones that do like “quantum mechanics” tend to be fans of the Deepak Chopra version of it.

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 11:35 am drunicusrex

      Noticed this also in actuarial. The women are there because it pays a good salary, and they succeed more so through extreme effort and managing up, rather than through any particular talent or love for programming, math, and finance.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:55 am P Ray

        Until a younger, hotter version displaces them through adroit politics.
        One discovers their survival mechanisms in a time of crisis. 🙂

        LikeLike


    • on April 12, 2012 at 1:39 pm Joe Eoj

      Any tips on how to dumb yourself down in conversation?

      I’ve found that just talking slowly helps. But I keep forgetting to do it.

      There’s also alcohol, of course, but for me the window of drunkenness between “not drunk enough” and “too drunk” is disturbingly small, and can only be located in retrospect.

      LikeLike


    • on May 22, 2012 at 1:36 am Ed

      So true, every ,major IQ study has shown that men are 5 points higher on avaerage than women but are more evenly distributed across the spectrum leading to more male dummies but exponentially more brilliant men the further iup the IQ scale one goes. The evolutionary reason for this is obvious, the bigger the differences between men, the more easily the women can identify fit mates but more importantly the best selected from a spread out group will be much smarter than the best selected from an average group thus male genetics have evolved to provide more variety of capability. It’s hard to find women that can keep up intellectually for us smart guys but the ones that can usually want dumb pretty boys. Especially galling for me being athletic, much stronger and faster than the average guy, 6 feet tall and creatively talented, so all the superiority checkboxes except looks, goddamn baldness gene landed in my face. I’m seeing many women go for guys who’re dumber and weaker. Grrr, women lol!

      LikeLike


  3. on April 10, 2012 at 6:45 pm In The Frigid North

    Makes sense. Intelligence is a means to the real evolutionarily desirable end, resources and power. Intellectual horsepower that stays bottled up in one’s head is useless. It’s not until someone leverages that ability into some other, tangible success that it becomes material.

    Further, with how we’ve defined intelligence down so much as to be meaningless (for fear of anyone ever feeling dumb) and given the current ridiculousness of our academics, real-world validation of that intellect (through its follow-on attributes) is needed to refine the signal.

    LikeLike


  4. on April 10, 2012 at 6:46 pm A.B. Dada

    This would be an excellent research topic with a hidden camera and mic and a few bars over the summer.

    Spend 4 weeks playing the dumb rock star, spend 4 weeks playing the brilliant Ph.D candidate, don’t change anything else about your confidence or cockiness, and see how you score.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:34 pm Anonymous

      Dumb rock star is just as arousing but doesn’t make ’em feel stupid.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 12:16 am P Ray

        Would the Owen-Wilson-in-Zoolander vibe be something close to the “dumb rock star” persona?

        LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 pm Multe

      Not that its related to anything, but I really like your blog Dada. Cool stuff in there. Bookmarked.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 7:52 pm John McNeal

        You want to date him?

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:09 pm Multe

        Nah, not my type. Seems kinda smart.

        LikeLike


  5. on April 10, 2012 at 6:46 pm IHTG

    You’d think that in the ancestral environment, an alpha that got too cocky would get speared in the back by the slabworm.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:15 pm Glengarry

      Good point. A memorable passage in one of Franz de Waal’s books tells of the chimp keepers coming back to the zoo in the morning and finding the former alpha with his nuts chewed off. Though of course it was the second and third in line who did it, not the omegas.

      LikeLike


  6. on April 10, 2012 at 6:55 pm deti

    Rick:

    So how is Cohee Lundin, anyway?

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 10:18 pm Rick Derris

      We’re still hanging out and working the skanks, but in Austin instead of Jersey 🙂

      This town is a serious mental wasteland compared to the east coast. Not only that, it’s the most over-rated dump I’ve ever lived in.

      LikeLike


  7. on April 10, 2012 at 6:59 pm Trimegistus

    I can confirm this, through hard experience. It took me a long time to learn to shut up.

    LikeLike


  8. on April 10, 2012 at 6:59 pm FFY

    Acting overly-intelligent at the beginning dries pussy for 99.99% of women, plain and simple. Dumb yourself down a little bit and stop using 10 dollar words and -isms to show how intellectual you are. Most girls out there are pretty dumb and won’t appreciate your intelligence anyway, if they can even comprehend what you’re talking about at all.

    However, if you continue to see her, you can slowly start letting your intelligence creep in and she’ll like you more for it. Contrast game. Icing on the cake.

    I’ve had a couple girls be like “Me and my friends just thought you were this asshole douchebag in the beginning, but I think it’s really hot you are smart too. They don’t even believe me when I tell them that you are.”

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 9:01 pm Harcourt Mudd

      Reminds me of this time, chillin’ in post-coital glow just rappin’ to this girl. Normal talk to me, I’m aware that she is deficient in comparison (in the brain space) but I must have used some word with which she was unfamiliar. Her immediate reaction: “It’s OK, you can relax around me.”

      That was just how I talk, it’s one thing I won’t compromise on, though I will mix in some hood behavior because I enjoy it and it tends to properly contextualize the intellect. Don’t need to say that this fling did not last long beyond that night.

      LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 10:29 pm Dan Fletcher

      Agreed. I think slowly revealing intelligence may be the best strategy here.

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 3:30 am P Ray

      Dries the pussy of a woman not needing a favour from a guy she has otherwise no need for.
      That’s why smart men can ante-up by delivering half the favour and asking for reciprocation before completion.
      Of course, be careful with this: From what I’ve seen in a university setting, when a girl asks for a favour with assignments and you deliver half, then ask for reciprocation … she WILL run to the university authorities and either claim harassment or that YOU tried to copy from HER.
      In other cases she can try for law enforcement. So think carefully before you hold a favour over a woman.
      Which is why while at university only offer general advice to them: your education is not worth a (probably) slut.

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 3:41 am P Ray

      “dries pussy for 99.99% of women” that normally pay no interest to the guys that they have no use for at the moment.
      You can bet getting a smart guy to do a favour for them (without reciprocation – they plan for this later), gets them moist too (the same way getting a marriage without bringing chastity into the picture).

      Which is why smart guys can ante-up by only delivering half the favour and asking for reciprocation before the task is complete.

      Of course, be careful where you do this though. At university I observed that some guys running this (helping women in their university assignments but angling for reciprocation) had the woman go to the authorities saying either harassment … or that HE was copying from HER.
      Same goes with daily life or workplace situations.

      Which is why a good diary helps … along with properly made notes charting the progress of your assignments.

      Be careful out there: women hate owing men they do not feel attracted to (but will ask him for favours in social situations where turning them down makes him lose social value).
      It’s certainly a complicated dance, and one I hope Heartiste addresses here soon.

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 9:53 am Deep Dish

      Somewhere in the archive there is a post which explains it shows alpha dominance to use 10 dollar words in conversation… but only lightly sprinkled, so as to not geek yourself out.

      LikeLiked by 1 person


  9. on April 10, 2012 at 7:01 pm thrasymachus33308

    I believe that optimum IQ for most men is about 120, possibly a little higher. Intelligent, but not too intelligent. People at this level can still understand average people, and communicate with them without alienating them. People of higher intelligence- in the 140 range and up- don’t like or understand average people and can’t communicate with them. Their purpose is to do high-cognitive jobs and report to the socially skilled and dominant people with 120 IQs, who are smart enough to make use of this information. In general successful, powerful people seem to be about this smart. Higher IQ people should not try to get too involved with leadership, management, communication, politics, or marketing, because they will usually frustrate themselves. They need to stick with egghead stuff and learning how to work effectively with 120 IQ alphas.

    120 IQ alphas don’t really care for nerds any more than anyone else, but if they learn how to deal with them they can use them effectively.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:39 pm Anonymous

      Yup. High intelligence = bitch boy usefulness.

      Unless you’re smart, grew up in the ghetto and don’t take that shit. Be someone or be someone’s bitch, homie.

      LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 10:31 pm Dan Fletcher

      Good post. This theory is worthy of further examination….

      LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 11:43 pm Thor

      I think this is largely correct. Additionally, I know a man with an IQ somewhere in the 160s, and one job he had was to translate the thoughts of a genius (180+???) to the surrounding 130s. I think the hard thinking work (which is typically NOT management) has a structure like a pyramid, where you need the intermediate layers to make genius useful.

      Thor

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 5:56 pm colombian guy

      143 here, you are totally right. one of my biggest advances in game, was the day that i decided i would hardly mention my education and i started giving cocky but average opinions when asked. playing it dumb, no translations, no help offers in my area of expertise , no explanations, just arrogant funny aloofness. when you get into a LTR , she will discover much more about it and it will help, it would be nice to her finding out about your other talents as a surprise.

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 8:37 pm John McNeal

      Like Stve Jobs and The Woz?

      LikeLike


  10. on April 10, 2012 at 7:02 pm Jamison

    They don’t actually directly care for intelligence, but they do indirectly. You have to be close to smart to get a job with high income. You have to be smart to get educated. So if intelligent=high paying job and smart girl=man with high paying job, therefore smart girl=intelligent guy.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:40 pm Anonymous

      Applied intelligence, yup. “Look how smart I am” intelligence, no.

      I.e., ability versus potential.

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 10:07 am Apollo

      As mentioned above by thyrasymachus3308 it’s generally people of a little over average IQ, say 120, who get the high paying management jobs. The jobs that higher IQ guys usually gravitate towards (science and technology style egghead jobs) only pay around double the average wage. Nothing to sneeze at, but definitely not what you would consider chick bait. As already mentioned, the guys managing the eggheads aren’t usually as smart as them, but they are being paid more. As an egghead myself, I speak from personal experience here.

      So to qualify your position a little, I’d say that women might indirectly care about “higher than average” intelligence, rather than “high” intelligence.

      LikeLike


  11. on April 10, 2012 at 7:05 pm hanz

    Time for me to quit my NASA job and become an ass. Hopefully it’s not too late for me.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:08 pm P Ray

      How about becoming a consultant, who is an ass, which formerly worked for NASA?
      Build your own business and:
      – you can’t be fired on a crazy woman’s say-so,
      – you are your own boss
      – you can undercut the politically-connected, contract-value-inflating-fat cats
      – know that your imputed income only happens if YOU work.
      – can tell difficult clients to take a hike.

      LikeLike


  12. on April 10, 2012 at 7:07 pm whorefinder

    Intelligence has not been selected for rigorously in human evolution. Dominance has been—because dominance can control the intelligent and make them do their bidding, even to the point that the intelligent are barred from breeding and yet still serve their dominant masters faithfully.

    The celibacy of priests/holy men in many cultures—not just the Catholic Church, mind you, but Tibetan monks, philosophers, and witch doctors of many cultures were celibate and off in the desert having “mystical viisions” while the slave boys were getting it on with slave girls—is evidence of this, especially since their celibacy/lack of reproduction occurred in societies where religion and the state were intermingled—and thus they served the king/state while having no offspring. Yet, somehow, there have been a group of intelligent genes in human evolution that prevent breeding and yet also seek to sacrifice all to the state. Modern SWPLs seem to have got this gene in spades.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:30 pm P Ray

      Rasputin is a cautionary tale for so-called “dominance” losing out to good old fashioned chicanery.
      As more people realise that a lot of ethical restrictions exist to handicap the ethical alone … more men who are socially dominated, get in touch with their inner Rasputin.

      You can’t cheat a person who knows his own worth, and consider that being a monk in the old days (and even in some places today) meant being a tester of fermented spirits.

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 11:31 pm Harland

        I wouldn’t call Rasputin a cautionary example. He got to live on the top of the heap for years. Sure, the last ten minutes sucked, but you can’t have everything.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:00 am whorefinder

        Dominance involves chicanery—-as many a king, crime lord, bully, and mafia don has found out, merely the illusion of having more power than you do is enough to keep people in line/make them follow you. Lucky Luciano hated the rituals that the Italian mafia had, and wanted to modernize—-until he figured out that such rituals kept the gangsters from rebelling against them. Then he went all in on them. Likewise, any good stage magician knows that their really are only a few simple techniques in magic acts—it’s the presentation that matters.

        The human mind, if subjugated, becomes a power paranoia machine. Women subservient to their man have their happy hamsters on overdrive. Men shut out of promotions or organizations often imagine vast networks of people working in concert against them. Peasants never fail to be the most superstitious in any society. Think of any ostracized school nerd, and how they fantasize both about the wild times popular kids have at their parties, and also how such popular kids plot to keep them down. Or how men, unexposed to game, can believe women’s choices are rational and complicated.

        The conspiracy mindset is one born of the losers of society—those who have not acheived, are out of power, are weak, and, failing to suspect theirs and other humans own short-comings and the randomness of chance and the “best laid plans of mice and men”, invent increasingly hyper-complicated plots to explain machinations better understood as simple failures, singular causes, and an largely uncaring universe.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm L

        Exactly. They are failures because they have chosen to fail. They have chosen not to acheive.

        LikeLike


  13. on April 10, 2012 at 7:09 pm Mexican Pete

    I don’t think it’s so much an issue of women preferring average intelligence as that the smart guys often acquire a set of betafying neuroses as they go through life. Also, Rick Derris is right – most women have a staggering lack of intellectual ambition. Indeed, most of the female high-fliers marry an epic lack of general knowledge, common sense and wit with a frantic determination to study.

    By the way Chateau – John Derbyshire screwed up, not National Review. He’s usually a brilliant writer, but “The Talk” is jaw-droppingly crass and (I hate using this word) racist. He gave the lefties a mighty weapon to use against himself and the NR (which was the real target – notice how they’re still sniping at editor Rich Lowry, just for employing Derb in the first place).

    I don’t like lefty hypocrisy, or their race-mongering, but Derb drove a T-72 over the line between satire and Willis Carto-esque ranting.

    [heartiste: sorry don’t agree. the word racism means nothing to me at all anymore because it’s been so debased by nancyboys shrieking and pulling their skirts over their heads every time someone mentions a hate fact or reveals how people really conduct their lives.]

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:24 pm Mexican Pete

      “… How people really conduct their lives….”

      With the Left riding high, and widespread indoctrination, conservatives need all the allies we can get. A lot of African Americans should be a natural segment of the conservative movement: They’re religious, socially conservative, contemptuous of SWPL liberals and their condescending ways. They’ve seen up close the damage caused by single mothers and welfare queens, thug alphas and uncontrolled immigration. Yet 90% of them support the Democrats who have undermined their most loyal constituents for over 40 years.

      A major factor in preventing a union of these folks and the right is the small residue of racialist views among certain conservatives, which the NYT, Slate and all the other pinkos
      will highlight gleefully given the slightest chance. Derb was aware of this, yet chose to send his demented article to Taki anyway, destroying his impressive career and damaging the conservative movement in the process.

      Heartiste always stresses, in pick-up, that all bow before the God of Biomechanics. Likewise, all bow before the God of public relations. Derb didn’t

      [heartiste: if derb was interested in public relations and sucking ass of cowards and liars, i would agree he went about it all wrong. but clearly he didn’t give a shit about offending the nomenklatura. he is a rare gift in an age of lies: a bold truthteller, a stone cold shibboleth smasher. slate and the rest would have clawed at his underbelly whether he apologized for telling the truth, or not. thankfully, he hasn’t apologized. much respect. much alpha is the derb.]

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 8:42 pm Mexican Pete

        “much alpha is the derb.”

        Taki was strong in the force too. Both of them are perceptive about women in their writings (even though it was the Weekly Standard/Charlotte Allen article on pick-up which served as the Red Pill for most of my conservative friends). Derb nearly won a National Book Award Arnold point. And it is sickening to see Hugo Schwyzer gloating at his downfall.

        [heartiste: hugo schyster is a useless nobody. a feckless cipher. to have him as an enemey is a mark of great distinction.]

        But for all his rationality, Derb misses one key point. America’s demographics aren’t going to change,

        [and cons should be called out for sitting idly by and letting demographic convulsion happen without protest. worse, helping it happen. for if the people don’t know who the enemies are, they will never be able to mount an effective counterattack to prevent the same disaster in the future.]

        and if we want to stage the counter-revolution against our SWPL and liberal extremist establishment, then we’re going to need a lot of help in the ballot-box from the folks who Derb just angered.

        [i’ve got news for ya. political proclivity is partly genetic, and partly a result of other inborn traits that consign groups to certain statuses within society, which then influences their voting preferences. latinos vote 2/3rd democrat and that ain’t ever going to change. opening the floodgates to mexico and the third world was a fucking calamity for america as it has been constituted for most of her history. what will result now is an america-brazil-socialist hybrid. and that’s nothing to cheer about.
        as far as SWPLs are concerned, they were never going to vote differently just because guys like derb prostrate themselves and toe the PC line whenever a bit too much truth sees sunlight. swpls will begin to vote differently only when their backs are against the wall and they have no more gated communities to retreat to.]

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 1:18 pm drunicusrex

        But many SWPLs are highly, highly dependent on that six figure gig at Booz Allen, or that huge municipal band float at Goldman’s.
        SWPLs are extremely skilled at navigating our highly regulated,borderline socialist economy – and lots if them work at law firms, universities, agencies, or tech firms that derive vast sums of money from government contracts and leftist, drunken sailor spending sprees.
        As long as the left is owned and operated by Ivy Leaguers, feminaziis, and SWPLs, and as long as our government keeps the desperate,weak, or stupid equally dependent, the policies that turn the plantation into a trillion dollar soup kitchen and therefore marginalize the majority of blacks won’t change.
        In fact, if Obama wins this election, they’ll most likely grow worse.

        LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 8:53 pm Laconophile

        Public relations is a rigged game. You can never slake the God of public relation’s thirst for white male blood, no matter how many of them you sacrifice on the altar of PCness.

        LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 9:28 pm whiskeysplace

        Black people don’t like White people much, Blacks will always vote Dem 98% because that is the party of AA, welfare transfers, and legalized beatings of random White people. Racism is found among Black people, overwhelmingly, like setting 15 year old White boys on fire. White elites participate in the anti-White jihad because it allows them to “spot the Alpha” (the rich guy on the Upper East Side) and laugh at the “wrong sort of White person” who got it coming.

        Black guys in the underclass have become addicted to hyper-violence (because it gets them laid regularly), which is why Shawn Tyson murdered two random British White tourists because they had no money when he robbed them.

        THAT ultimately is where female selection for dominance gets you — the Black hyper-violent underclass. Changing the attitude of upper/middle class White women who favor basically allowing the hyper-violence to continue (it targets “the little people” so they think) will never happen without being forthright. Rich Lowry only got contempt from everyone as a beta-boy loser who lacks courage and loyalty and honor.

        LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm Student

        ” Blacks will always vote Dem 98%”

        if the kicking donkey (bc of its red neck) were still the official logo, u would vote dem too

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Democratslogo.svg

        [heartiste: repubs should change their elephant logo to have the beast lifting its massive leg, readying to crush the enemy underfoot. of course, some twat would accuse it of being raciss. and some bigger twat in the “republican establishment” would take that twat’s concerns seriously.]

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 10:12 pm Student

        PS:

        always =/= 98%

        #Whiskdom

        LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:28 pm Laconophile

      In other words, Derb crossed the line from impotent ambiguity to potent truthtelling. And we can’t tolerate truthtelling.

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 8:50 pm Mexican Pete

        No one tells the truth the whole time. To girls in bars we lie; to our bosses in meetings; to the cops with the breathalyser. Most of us lie to advance our goals.

        [heartiste: agreed. i will hide my views when hiding them is personally advantageous. but part of derb’s schtick is that he is an iconoclast writer and pundit. it wouldn’t make sense to him to lie in his articles all the time just to spare feelings and win friends.]

        Derb has every right to say whatever the hell he wants, and damn the consequences, but the NR people who wish to advance the conservative agenda have good reasons to disassociate themselves from his outbursts.

        [the reason the NR crew felt the need to disassociate themselves from derb is because NR is no longer, nor has it been in a long while, conservative in any important, relevant sense that matters to people. it is neutered by the zeitgeist in which it operates. and therein lies the crux of the brouhaha.]

        LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 9:30 pm Laconophile

        The modern conservative stands athwart history, yelling “Retreat!”

        [heartiste: the modern conservative sits aside history, shitting his pants.]

        LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 10:18 pm Laconophile

        lol I guess Derb’s trousers were too clean for them.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 7:01 am Anonymous

        And too many of them think it’s “conservative” to try to stop alphas from having sex with younger, hotter, tighter.

        LikeLike


      • on May 22, 2012 at 2:01 am gunslingergregi

        lol nice

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:38 am Tinderbox

        <>

        Agreed. NR has been an egghead, academic Beltway navel-gazing outlet for some time now (especially since Lowry took over). Terrified of controversy or danger.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 1:23 pm King A (Matthew King)

        Heartiste wrote:

        the reason the NR crew felt the need to disassociate themselves from derb is because NR is no longer, nor has it been in a long while, conservative in any important, relevant sense that matters to people. it is neutered by the zeitgeist in which it operates. and therein lies the crux of the brouhaha.

        Poppydash baldercock.

        You and that Vox Dei tweet you linked to are misapprehending the dynamic. NRO is conservative mainstream, and having a foot in the mainstream makes simple strategic sense. You can’t continue alienating yourselves down here in the pseudonymous ghetto and expect to get things done. You will get shriller and shriller, more and more isolated, until you spin off the planet in frustration, leaving nary a trace of your existence.

        Part of maintaining connection to the mainstream means appeasing the moderates (Mon Dieu!), until common ears mature past a half-century of PC propaganda and the time is ripe to speak directly. In this echo chamber of a website consortium you forget that you are only reaching 0.1%, and preaching safely to the choir. If you are truly interested in Getting The Word Out, you will have to eventually play footsie with those who are not as zealous as you, as distasteful and impure as that duty may seem. You will have to leverage your 0.1% to NRO’s 1.0% so that they are not deterred in their leveraging of the 50.1%.

        “Maintain your frame” throughout it all, of course. Keep your principles jealously and do not waver. But don’t shit all over yourselves in the process and think you’re courageous.

        You and the “manosphere” are adept at relieving each other’s frustrations, like a mutually masturbatory circle jerk. You howl at the moon and strut shirtless around the bonfire (and enjoy the groupie-chicks who are primally attracted to the arcana of charismatic cultists). It makes me think you don’t want to actually apply your wisdom so much as piss & moan on each other’s shoulders about how no one respects your wisdom.

        Matt

        [heartiste: serious question: what has playing footsie with the leftstream — and that’s an accurate descriptor of the mainstream — gotten conservatives? NR and most of the rest have been doing the one toe in the water, two giant leaps backward thing with the dominant zeitgeist for as long as i can remember, and the result has been deterioration, degeneration and degradation of america on an epically fast-tracked scale. i mean, it’s well-nigh TREASONOUS that our elites on the right and left allowed a neighboring country to veritably invade ours with 50+ million of its dirt poor peasants in a 30 year timespan.

        conclusion: this footsie thing has done NOTHING except embolden the jackals to claw harder into the entrails of the writhing prey that is the modern incarnation of the right.

        it’s time for some new thinking. maybe footsie and triangulation would have worked in a bygone day, but today, it is useless. worse than useless. it gives aid and energy to the enemy. if a separation is required, then so be it. beats dropping to bended knee to kiss the shoe of your cackling overlords.]

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 9:38 am Greg Eliot

        Way to tell it, heartiste!

        Playing nice has only emboldened the skraelings.

        The time has come to huddle up with the few who have the will to both stand alone and cover your back.

        And if it means oblivion, then let it be that of a Leonidas, which is oblivion merely of the body, but eternal life of the spirit and the name.

        The straw death is no way for a man to leave this mortal coil.

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 3:10 pm King A (Matthew King)

        No one advocates making “footsie” a policy. But neither should we reject any tool at our disposal against the enemy, especially when the enemy is at an overwhelming present advantage. To think otherwise is to be a fantasist deluding himself about the current strategic position.

        If you are a ragtag guerrilla force, you don’t pick fights in an open field against fixed artillery. Diplomacy is a tool of delay. If you didn’t practice this common-sensical prudence, you wouldn’t be so fastidious about your anonymity.

        Yours is a suicide-bomber strategy: ultimately an indication of impotence and the tactics of last resort. You get the thrill of speaking the blunt truth without any regard for how the truth might actually take root. And when you are sticking out like a lonely nail, you get hammered down. The consolation prize is the psychic satisfaction of martyrdom. Useless martyrdom.

        We don’t need bluster. We need leadership. Let’s huddle again after you read some Sun Tzu.

        Matt

        LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm King A (Matthew King)

      Since there’s no separate post devoted to this (very important) topic, I guess this subthread will have to do.

      “The Derb” was sloppy and amateurish, his timing was awful, and this episode has been a net-minus for the truth. And Lowry, despite his nebbishy cowardice, accidentally did the right thing.

      The truthful content of Derbyshire’s article is irrelevant: is anyone here going to seriously challenge the truth of what he said? Let the lefties ponder the reality of something we’ve known at least since the Civil Rights Era. The truth is not in question, nor is the necessity of courage/loyalty in question. The contentious element of this episode is about how to apply our courage prudently. If we could just speak truth and be done with it, we would all know, for instance, the real name of our webhost.

      Four cardinal virtues: Wisdom (or prudence), Justice, Temperance (or moderation), and Courage (or fortitude). You need all of them to be effective.

      Derb has wisdom and courage but not temperance. Lowry lacks courage but has a better handle on justice and moderation. When the virtues don’t hang together, we all hang separately. When they’re unified they change the world. Buckley had all of them, which is why his flagship lasted fifty years “athwart history,” getting it to “stop” (in places). His heirs have divided the inheritance and made a mess of his legacy.

      Matt

      [heartiste: the end result of temperance and moderation: delaying the forward momentum of the equalist and managerialist utopia.

      great JORB, mainstream conservatives!]

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 6:36 pm Stingray

        Derb has wisdom and courage but not temperance.

        If you have been reading Vox Day and if you read the comments you realize that Derb is 70 and he has cancer. He might not have time for temperance.

        You and I have had good conversations on here but I have to respectfully say, Fuck temperance. We’ve tried it and we failed. The more temperate we are the further we slip. Each time we give a little, more is taken. It’s time to try something new and Bravo to Derb for putting it out there.

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 11:30 am Tinderbox

        This is correct. One of his own articles recently described how the treatments have been changing his spirit, energy, and personality. I personally think that this is what let him pull the trigger on a racial topic that, before, he might not have let himself write so candidly about. I think his cancer treatments are affecting him more than he previously let on.

        Not that Lowry, et al, at NR give a shit; it’s more important to them that they look good to the mainstream media in hopes of getting TV gigs as onscreen pundits, etc.

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 2:56 pm King A (Matthew King)

        The cardinal virtue temperantia is not “moderation” as we think of it. It means striking the virtuous balance between two equally foolhardy vices. Also known as the “golden mean.”

        Courage is not the opposite of cowardice. It is the midpoint between cowardice and rashness. Neither cowardice or rashness is true courage, and both are ineffective. Derb was rash.

        [heartiste: rash my ass. he was as temperate as one could be given the nature of the subject. the rashness is all coming from the other side.]

        “Fuck temperance” means you don’t understand its purpose. It doesn’t matter what “he … ha[s] time for.” It means finding the sweet spot, and urgency has nothing to do with the search. You imagine that losing your patience helps you find the needle in the haystack faster.

        Read Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, II.8.

        I understand your impatience. But in war we don’t need rashness, we need courage. Rashness gets you dead.

        Patience and the long view are indeed components of the conservative temperament. Impatience, bluster, and impotent flailing is the mark of the leftist, strutting and fretting its hour upon the stage and then heard no more: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it” (Marx). In other words, do a lot of impotent dancing around the subject, make temporary, feel-good progress, and let it all go to shit the minute you let your guard down.

        You are temperamentally socialist. “What do we want? BLAH BLAH. When do we want it? NOW.” Impatience ends in sputtering, with frustration relieved for feeling that you “made a difference,” haven spoken “truth to power,” but ultimately gaining nothing but rape and Zuccotti Lung. Let’s start an Occupy NR movement. I’ll bring my bongo bucket.

        Matt

        [this is all self-stroking we’re exchanging between ourselves. the truth is that demographically, the nation is fucked. and no amount of political maneuvering or gingerly worded pontification will change that. trayvonmania is soon going to be a weekly spectacular rather than a dispiriting one-off in these former united states of america.]

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 4:07 pm King A (Matthew King)

        I’m not as much of a depressed fatalist as you. And one reason for optimism is the existence of online communities like these. The samizdat is being passed around. Thrilling as the progress has been, that doesn’t mean the time is propitious to take our half-dozen sledgehammers to the Berlin Wall.

        Even the Trayvon affair is a reason for celebration: I hardly know anything about it because I get zero info/news from the moribund publications that traffic in sensationalist, race-baiting bullshit. Five years ago I wouldn’t have been able to avoid it without completely isolating myself from the news. They are dying loudly, but they are dying. Twenty years ago there would have been riots: Tawana Brawley, Rodney King, O.J. Simpson.

        Have there been riots? I wouldn’t even know. I pay no attention to the geriatric alarmist media establishment. I am too busy plotting. These alarums are not the “cannon’s opening roar.” They are death rattles of the soon-to-be extinct.

        And as far as the demographic spiral, speak for your own kind. Our cohort hasn’t contracepted ourselves out of a place in the future, as you so gleefully advocate. No, like Derbyshire, you have no recourse but the despair of nihilism, occasionally mitigated by bravado. “Poolside” is decadent, harrowing, beneath you. It’s better to be in the fight.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 6:24 pm Laconophile

        Is it really “Temperance” when it is enforced via threat of unemployment? One would think temperance comes from with, not from the iron hand of the thought-police. Perhaps the word you’re looking for is submission?

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 6:28 pm Laconophile

        *from within

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 11:04 am King A (Matthew King)

        Laconophile wrote:

        Is it really “Temperance” when it is enforced via threat of unemployment?

        From the perspective of the mission per se, yes it really is temperance. If an outlier runs ahead of the front like a crazed berserker he has separated himself from the united effort. It is some rash Tourette-like impulse to prematurely claim victory, with martydom the “proof” of your courage rather than what it truly is, i.e., the evidence of impatience and stupidity.

        Being the advocate for prudence is no fun. Antsy foot-soldiers mistake the counsel of patience as advising cowardice or collusion with the enemy. You need a bigger perspective of the battlefield, bayonet boys. Especially when we are sitting on the nuclear option: our possession of the truth. You would have us deploy our decisive weapons haphazardly, for the sake of dying gloriously. That is loser-talk. You go out in a blaze of glory only after you’ve accepted that the cause is lost.

        The lost cause is Heartiste’s confessed perspective, supra.

        the truth is that demographically, the nation is fucked. and no amount of political maneuvering or gingerly worded pontification will change that.

        I don’t share it. Preemptive capitulation is for Muslims still whining about the Reconquista after a half-millennium (“Al Andalus”) or Southern Americans who still regard Lincoln as a curseword. It is a mentality that has already succumbed to its enemies.

        Matt

        P.S. Thanks for the global italic tag. WTF is up with you, WordPress?

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm Laconophile

        Yeah, I’m not sure how I managed to pollute italics downstream. I guess I overemphasized.

        I don’t deny the need for tactically withholding information about certain things, or even the need for “respectable conservatives” to engage in mainstream opposition. After all, people can only take baby steps towards the truth, and that requires some mainstream kosher konservatives to bridge the gap.

        You can think of the way towards truth as like a ladder. The ground is ignorance and the the top is the complete Truth. You get to the top one rung at a time.

        The left’s Ladder of Lies exists in harmony, more or less. Centrist leftists seldom criticize the hardline marxists, and vice-versa. This allows leftists to scale their LOL with minimal obstacles.

        The right’s ladder of truth, on the other hand, is in a state of disharmony, if not civil war. The lower rungs are always attacking and knocking out the higher rungs, as in the case of NR firing Derb. If you knock out the rung above you, you’re stuck and you can’t go any further. If you knock out the lower rungs, you keep people from getting off the ground. We need to learn from the leftists and stop the friendly fire. The mainstream right needs to stop doing the left’s dirty work by demonizing white racialists, their superiors.

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 2:41 pm Thor

        The problem here is pedestalization of the left by the right. I.e. giving the left the moral high groud and confining yourself to arguing about details and implementation.

        The old saw “Il n’y a pas d’ennemie a gauche” applies here in full force.
        This whole approach must be fundamentally and utterly rejected if any progress is to be made.

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm Laconophile

        Paul Gottfried gives a good speech on this very subject: http://vimeo.com/24613056

        The “right” has been reduced to promoting feminism and progressivism in the last traditionalist countries in the world. They merely disagree with the left over the method of enforcing leftism. It would be funny if it wasn’t so insane.

        LikeLike


      • on April 14, 2012 at 10:03 am King A (Matthew King)

        Thor wrote:

        giving the left the moral high groud and confining yourself to arguing about details and implementation.

        Not at all. The truth is beset upon from all sides. That’s one of the disadvantages of allegiance to the truth: not all “details and implementation” are congruent to the mission. We don’t beat the left by adopting its megalomaniacal strategy wholesale — it is that very strategy that dooms them to extinction in the long run. No, we keep the faith while they burn themselves out. To sell out our principles is to become Stalinist, a constant temptation of purists.

        Now, adopting the left’s tactics on the other hand … Absolutely! For far too long we have rolled over onto our back, paws in the air, begging for mercy. For success in this mission we pray for the intercessions of St. Andrew of Breitbart. Bring a gun to a knife fight. All’s fair. “KILL KILL KILL” is the byword for the hand-to-hand street fighting required to carry the day, which will carry the battle, which will carry the war.

        But in terms of understanding the casus belli? We require a consistency of principle that is more than just winning for winning’s sake. We have to be fighting for something, and the same thing, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on April 15, 2012 at 2:32 am Thor

        We seem to agree much more than we disagree. The left
        should be confronted, all the time.

        One of the stunning internal inconsistencies of the left in
        general is the strange combination of on one hand
        professing a hatred for authority, but in the next breath
        argue for all sorts of social schemes that by their nature
        requires a very strong government. This should be
        easy to exploit, as it is inconsistent even by their
        own standards.

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 8:32 pm Stingray

        I disagree that Derb was rash. People have been sticking their toes in the water trying to ease the discussion toward the truth of it for years. These people were forced to resign, outright fired, ostracized, etc. (You know of whom I speak. I am horrible with details and am too tired to look them up now. Someone mentioned the most well known examples above). It is time to push that “sweet spot” further toward the truth. More and more people are primed to hear it because we have been pushed so far away from the truth that the absurdity that passes for it these days can no longer be ignored. It cannot be spun further away. People are obviously not ready for the whole truth yet, but many are priming themselves for it. The more people who have the courage to come out like Derb, especially those who are so well respected, the more people will wake up.

        As I said at Rollo’s, I temper myself as well, when it is necessary. It is very often needed to get one’s foot in the door. The door is more open now than ever before thanks to Obama’s and the Left’s continued absurdities. I think Derb may have struck at precisely the right time. We shall see.

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 6:15 pm Laconophile

        How nice of King A to give us The Talk: Conservative Columnist Edition.

        http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/04/the-talk-conservative-columnist-edition/

        Yes, nothing says Temperate more than duplicity and cowardice.

        LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 3:42 pm Evan

      Are you fucking stupid? Do you think it fucking matters if you’re crass or as polite as an Emily Post wet dream?

      Your manners will not save you. Your politics will not save you.

      Wake up whitey.

      LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 9:43 am Greg Eliot

        Have to agree.

        I’m actually puzzled by the reaction to Derb’s article… it seemed rather tame to me… almost matter-of-fact in it’s relation of what I thought was common knowledge, even for the panty-waisted Right.

        LikeLike


  14. on April 10, 2012 at 7:09 pm Firepower

    Beautiful women don’t need intelligent men – or their math skills, engineering/economics career income potential to thrive.

    Beautiful women have the luxury to serially fuck large numbers of equally beautiful men for pure enjoyment. Often, handsome men have also GREAT careers disconnected from Alpha sexuality and have built-in Beta Tendencies for the beautiful woman to exploit.

    Whenever the bankroll runs down – quick dinners with nerds until she hooks a bankroll.

    When the expiration date hits – marriage to a stable cubicle drone. Touchdown.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 7:58 pm P Ray

      Only works as long as the stable cubicle drone thinks he is only entitled to a woman who is near the end/past her (medical-intervention-free) reproductive years.
      And there’s always the chance he’ll use her as social proof to trade up before the marriage comes through: it’s called a correction.
      Which is why such women are desperate to be wined and dined as it is less likely in those circumstances that there are young, unattached women around … since those same women are unlikely to be able to alone afford the entrance fees to the “wine and dine” establishments.

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 8:54 pm Firepower

        Not sure what you mean; I wrote with extra clarity.

        Your scenario applies if you’re “Don Draper,” sure. But, IRL, nobody is Don Draper. Not even Jon Hamm; he’s kissed-ass his entire career for that one gig and been married to the same broad for over 10 years. Even Clinton and Spielberg aren’t Don Draper – know why? DD is scripted, with a pre-planned conclusion. Fantasy. Most cubicle drones marry fat or fugly: look at the family pics on their desk.

        Beautiful women don’t need intelligent men – or their STEM fueled career income potential – to thrive. Quite the contrary: Beautiful women fuck beautiful men because…they want to. You can’t teach “Jon Hamm’s Looks” at MM-clone seminar 8.0. Game doesn’t matter much, because for a quick fuck or fling, brains don’t figure much into both sexes’ situation – especially with a hot bitch. Ever talk to one – they’re stupid. And, they’ll make more money than 90% of the entire population – without ever working hard.

        [heartiste: from what i’ve read of him, jon hamm is kind of a beta kiss-ass in real life. and he’s sickeningly PC. it’d be a good test of game’s effectiveness to pit don draper against jon hamm. both look the same, but one has the ‘tood while the other does not. i’d bet handsome sums that a real life don would trounce the real life jon in a pickup and stalker-acquisition contest.]

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 11:22 am King A (Matthew King)

        Don Draper has mush in his soul. For all the outward posturing, he is a crybaby conflicted by his past.

        Granted, this secret, weak inner-life is the only way a lisping leftist queen like Matthew Weiner can justify the creation of such a manly archetype. But to consider Draper in full requires an assessment of “Dick Whitman,” the persona he left behind. There is no real extrication from the main driver of his new personality, particularly because Draper’s expressions of manliness are meant to be seen as neuroses derived from one epically fucked-up childhood, rather than the emblems of perfected manhood, as we regard them here.

        A Don Draper-Dick Whitman contrast is better than Hamm-Draper within the boundaries of the fiction. Since the fiction is the figment of a child of divorce revenging himself on his parents for his childhood (showrunner Weiner), it strains the example to compare it to a real person. Hamm, like any actor, is good at fakery and play-pretend, the pantomime of other people’s dreams, anti-alpha by profession.

        We regard Draper’s personality as the sign of health. The show, the writers, the actors, and the rest of the world regard it as the psychoanalytic symptoms of disease.

        Matt

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 7:03 am Anonymous

        The best sex with younger, hotter, tighter came, for me, after taking her to McDonalds.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:22 am P Ray

        Love on the cheap is great; if you are paying top dollar it’s probably a good idea to go pro.Which is why I say that a woman requiring a high-class meal to even speak to you is a waste of time to be around.

        LikeLike


  15. on April 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm The Real Vince

    Spending free time playing Dungeons & Dragons, or writing open source code doesn’t get the babes? Use the big brain in high finance, or writing music.

    Conspicuously absent from that suite of traits is “sense of humor.” I’d guess most stand-up comics possess moderate intelligence (high intelligence is probably alienating). Still, brilliance used in service of humor can make you a pussy slayer. Richard Feynman, Woody Allen, Christopher Hitchens and Steve Martin did fine in their heyday.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 9:10 pm Paul Murray

      “Sense of Humor” is a proxy for intelligence. In particular, “sense of humour” sifts out the genuinely intelligent – quick, nimble minds – from those that have acquired facts by conscientious study. It also specifically does not include memorising other people’s funny material and being able to recite it. By SOH, a woman means someone able to make their own original humour.

      It’s actually a rather better criterion than simply “intelligence”. The picture here, of women who get degrees by sheer studiousness, you just know that they will be dull. Maybe the women are on to something, here.

      Your experiences with genuinely funny, witty women?

      [heartiste: good point. a lot of attractive male traits are ultimately proxies for intelligence. humor, wit, charm, savvy, situational awareness, ability to learn from mistakes, even looks are correlated with IQ. however, the correlations with IQ are stronger for some traits and weaker for others. for instance, musical talent is supposedly uncorrelated with general g, and we all know how much chicks dig a man who can shred. i’ve also known some very funny guys who were’t particularly smart in other dimensions. and as far as i know, extroversion — possibly the most important personality trait for pickup — is totally uncorrelated with IQ.]

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 10:11 pm Student

        its a great point. i always looked at intelligence as multidimensional, involving at least 3 separate faculties: intellectual, emotional, and social. most people emphasize the intellectual, which is probably the least important of the three.

        LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 10:44 pm Ulf Elfvin

        Yeah, especially alone on a desert island.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 12:35 am bryan

        I like this blog and find most of the arguments compelling, but you guys do swim in a sea of potential circularity and confirmation bias. I think you over interpret the above study, and risk betting on a null hypothesis. Also, some of the commenters here make wild claims re intelligence that demand citation.

        Here’s one study showing a link between muscial talent and IQ

        http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/dmr/c8ccde/expert%20in%20musical%20domain.pdf

        Here’s one study showing a link between being funny / witty and IQ

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000523

        My problem with the OP is that intelligence correlates with nearly all measures of life success (can you find me a 90 who is a CEO)?

        If you could improve your ability to scrutinize research (e.g., being skeptical about pubs that confirm your world view), you’d update the blog from excellent to elite, intellectually.

        CH– what kind of data would it take for you to change your world views?

        All jmo.

        B

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:23 am P Ray

        A 90 can be a CEO … if his father put him as that in his company.
        Or he can be a manager without a degree but with an MBA …

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 2:59 am Paul Murray

        “My problem with the OP is that intelligence correlates with nearly all measures of life success”

        Fair point. Arguably, intelligence is this *by definition*. It’s done of those slippery words.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:45 am Tinderbox

        This is also why female “comedians” are never funny off the stage. Watch them during extemporaneous interviews and you wouldn’t even know they do comedy for a living.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 10:38 pm Paul Murray

        “extroversion — possibly the most important personality trait for pickup — is totally uncorrelated with IQ.”

        So, intelligence for LTRs, rather than pickup? A woman wants a sweet, funny, nice guy for a husband while screwing around with quite a different set of traits?

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 2:11 pm P Ray

        “You’re not the kind of guy I’d date, You’re the kind of guy I would marry” has now become a huge insult.

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 2:56 am Paul Murray

        Took me many years to work that out. I usually got a double insult – “Paul, you’d make a great husband for somebody”. Triple, because often it would come from some chick who was newly married. “Somebody”, right, but not you or anyone you know.

        LikeLike


  16. on April 10, 2012 at 7:31 pm The Man of Mystery

    On the comment about “cocky mediocrities vs. cloying geniuses,” what about those such as myself (with my 146 IQ) that fall into the “cocky genius” category? I’ve always wondered if my natural success with women has on some level come at least partially with overwhelming intelligence. Thoughts?

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm P Ray

      Your natural success has come from not idealising them.
      Which makes you a difficult guy to pin down.
      Always ask yourself whether the girl you are with is worthwhile forsaking the chance to meet other women.
      In other words … apply the same rules of behaviour that in-demand women do towards others.
      Remember that a bad dating relationship turns into a worse marriage.

      LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:24 pm AnonH

      As one of those Mensa types, I’ve come to realize that there is right brain smart (verbal) and left brain smart (math).

      To score with women, you need to shut down your left brain side and let your right brain side shine.

      Once you realize this, your social life becomes much, much easier.

      Almost everything right brain helps out with women: art, music, foreign languages, and vocabulary (as long as you use uncommon words like spices, rather than as the main course).

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 10:46 pm Ulf Elfvin

        Well put. Exactly what I’ve learned, too.

        LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 5:59 pm colombian guy

      143 here, please, teach me!!! ive done well, but i just can´t settle it into my mind

      LikeLike


  17. on April 10, 2012 at 7:35 pm David Collard

    This is what Richard Dawkins married:

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 7:46 pm P Ray

      A bit of humour from God, I see.

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 8:07 pm David Collard

        I don’t like the bloke, but he married a major-league-babe, as they say.

        LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:07 pm itsme

      it’s just a weird angle.

      LikeLike


  18. on April 10, 2012 at 7:37 pm Anonymous

    Harvard women are screwed because intelligence becomes a hypergamy issue. They have to marry a fellow ivy grad, so if you are on the right end of the iq curve(and are credentialed as such), focus your firepower on the right 1% of the female bell curve because they will be deeply impressed if you have the full package (literally).

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 7:51 pm P Ray

      Nothing stops those Harvard women from being intelligent enough to reject peer pressure.
      Speaking about Harvard degrees, do they offer them in Social Sciences as well? ‘Cause that would totally negate the hypergamy angle. Such degrees are literally a dime a dozen and not indicative of much rigour beyond turning up and rudimentary sentence structure.

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 9:13 pm Paul Murray

        Oooh, they cost a bit more than a dime. But yes, they can be purchased, especially if you use one of the thesis-writing services.

        LikeLike


  19. on April 10, 2012 at 7:40 pm Eric

    The biggest difference between the CEO who rakes in premium pussy and the lab geek who jerks of to hentai porn seems to be summed up in one word.

    Cunning.

    It also seems to be the trait that the CEO (or lawyer, PR/marketing expert, politician, etc) also shares with the successful street hustler who scores poorly on spatial or verbal intelligence tests, but manages to continue overseeing his empire from the SHU even after the odds finally catch up with him. Perhaps a feral upbringing prevented an accurate measure of his true verbal IQ.

    Since women tend to score better on verbal tests, and are naturally more cunning than the average guy, it would figure that cunning closely relates to verbal intelligence.

    It would also figure that when we consider the jobs that high intelligence geeks who can’t get laid go into (physics, engineering) relies more on spatial intelligence; perhaps it is specifically spatial intelligence that women couldn’t care less about in a mate.

    Thoughts?

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 7:54 pm P Ray

      Which is why the lab geek needs to document his every day and carefully track blame and credit in the office.
      He may discover it is better to move on than to contribute to an Alpha parasite’s upkeep.
      That is fairly easy to detect, through broken promises, vague benchmarks, unreasonable deadlines and an unqualified manager.

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 2:30 pm L

      Ambition.

      The successful man recognizes his own greatness, and always sees himself as becoming better than he is today. Even if he never ascends the peak, he is always trying to climb the mountain.

      The unsuccessful man always sees himself as becoming better than he is today, if only everyone else would recognize his greatness. He is waiting in the hinterlands for someone, something, to stir him.

      LikeLike


  20. on April 10, 2012 at 7:42 pm Sam the Clam

    Is the writer of this article part of any semi racist private torrent sites? Just wondering

    LikeLike


  21. on April 10, 2012 at 7:45 pm P Ray

    The biggest reason the beautiful women don’t want men who are more intelligent (I take it as “female behaviour savvy” … not conventional book learning) … is that once intelligent men have taken off their blinders and shed their one-itis, they become monstrously difficult for entitled princesses to handle, and are fully aware that every interaction with an attractive woman … does not happen by chance on her part.
    An extremely smart researcher can allow himself to be wilfulliy blinded by sex from a slut so that she gets pregnant and he has to support her while slowly becoming exposed to the reality that he was ever her fallback plan and will be disrespectful, uncompanionate along with sexually frigid (excused with the misleading statement: Not now, the baby’s not finished growing).
    Knowing one such guy, I advised him against that but he was too blinded by the easy sex to heed what I said … along with the statement “Guys like you will never understand women”.
    Looking at his life now, I prefer not to have his “understanding” 🙂

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 pm blert

      This is worth amplification:

      Hot Babes realize that excessively smart men may well slip out of their control.

      I’ve had more than one babe tell me that in so many words.

      There is a genuine paranoia that their target will see right through their gambits.

      And, yes, many, many babes are that manipulative.

      [heartiste: you’re on to something. the typical woman prides herself — indeed much of her survival depends upon — her ability to manipulate men to her satisfaction. alphas for love, betas for resources, and all that. very smart men who know the score can throw a monkey wrench in her best laid plans. maybe evolution selected for women to overlook a man’s smarts in favor of other attraction triggers.]

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 12:50 am pantyfx

        Yay, a piece of truth. ;D

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 10:32 am Harkat

        Conjecture.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 12:03 pm DiamondEyes

        Every little girly secretly wants to play Master to your Blaster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgq4w4dqKsU

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 11:41 am King A (Matthew King)

        blert wrote:

        Hot Babes realize that excessively smart men may well slip out of their control.

        Ultimately women do not want control. So, while you may be right as a matter of their conscious plotting, their unconscious grasp of reality will respond to/seek out/crave assertiveness and superiority of mind, body, soul, and strength.

        Of course “babes are that manipulative,” or try to be. Which is why the intelligent men who recognize their manipulation play it against their targets, which is why intelligence is not “bad news” or a liability (other than in the overestimation of its utility).

        Fortunately, female manipulation is child’s play once you get a peek behind the curtain (the mission of this site) — AND you have the mental resources to give the game right back to them. You begin to regard their attempted manipulations as cute, which puts the “amused” into “amused mastery.” The “mastery” portion does require brainpower at the upper levels, the relative gains of thuggishness notwithstanding. Because of the hard limits of particular intellects, thug life is the most one can aspire for, and godspeed to them. But it still remains an inferior incarnation compared to the total domination of woman.

        Even further good news: giving the game right back to a woman is her final, unspeakable desire. All her life she sends out “stinky beta bait” shit tests, throwing the minnows back in disgust, all the while seeking out the Great White who will swim right past her worms on hooks, rise up, and devour her on the deck.

        Matt

        [heartiste: you are correct that ultimately women do not want control, but that doesn’t mean they don’t strain mightily to disprove the notion. or: ya gotta break em in like they’re bucking broncos.]

        LikeLike


      • on May 22, 2012 at 2:19 am gunslingergregi

        yea

        LikeLike


      • on May 22, 2012 at 2:31 am gunslingergregi

        thats the way i am i want the woman i am with to give me her soul

        LikeLike


  22. on April 10, 2012 at 7:52 pm ros@ros.com

    Nerds often score high on the “loving, educated, a few years older than themselves, and desirous of home and children, with a high income potential” and low on the “masculine, fit, physically attractive” and also the frequent lack of social skills, although not always the case, so these are the areas that need improvement.

    There is some sub-group of nerds in programming which are conscious of this fact and are fighting against this stereotype by trying to have a more cool personality without stoping being a programmer, they even have a term for this kind of behavior, they call themselves “brogrammers”.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:14 pm P Ray

      Having a STEM qualification doesn’t make you blind to social reality, unless you think by supplicating to women you get one.
      Of course … nobody is there to listen if you get cheated or don’t get one.
      Hence, have the STEM qualification, and understand social reality along with the women who tell the pretty lies.
      “Brogrammers” are just a variation on a theme that slackers can be programmers.
      Newsflash: They can’t, not if they plan on building sustainable programmes which can be enhanced. It’s a skill which requires refinement to be maintained.

      LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 10:25 pm Dan Fletcher

      Interesting. I have independently come up with the word “brogrammer”.

      Despite my love for software engineering, I have managed to avoid a great many of the stereotypes which befall the typical programmer-nerd.

      Hate to say it, but after many years of being around compsci kids, I can say with certainty a lot of them are headed for a life of celibacy or divorce rape. 90% are white-knight sycophants.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 10:51 am P Ray

        Just like the (proper) graduation rate, the 10% that know what’s going on get through 🙂
        Of course, that would never happen if they did not resist “being put in the friend zone” or asking “hey lady, if he’s such a pain to be around, why are you with him? Unless you’re lying to me?”
        “Why you nerd, you will never get a woman with that attitude!”
        “Well, he treats you bad and you like it. So I think I’ll figure out what I can from his ways, and find someone better than you to be around”
        “I’ll tell all my girlfriends you’re a creep!”
        “That’s fine, I only plan on dating your daughters. Keep talking about me, it gives me street cred, honey! 🙂 “

        LikeLike


  23. on April 10, 2012 at 8:00 pm Anonymous

    THe study is worthless because they’re asking what women want, instead of actually observing their behavior. I am surprised you, Heartiste, would post it as evidence of anything considering how often you tell readers to “watch what women do, not what they say”.

    That being said, research that actually tests men for IQ shows that the higher someone’s tested IQ, the more likely they are to be married.

    Sorry guys, it turns out all those blue-collar proles actually aren’t going to be getting hot and educated women. Of course, real life observance would tell you this just as much.

    [heartiste: i did mention that in the caveat, if you had read the post fully. as for blue collar proles, they might not be marrying at the same rates as upper class men, but the alphas of them are banging more, and probably younger/hotter, chicks than their smarter competitors.]

    LikeLike


  24. on April 10, 2012 at 8:01 pm Johnycomelately

    Satre, Jung and Picasso were notorious womanizers while Sir Isaac Newton and Tesla died as virgins.

    The moral of the story? Spinning bullshit (psych and philosophy) will get you more punani than abstract sciences.

    My friend is an insurance lawyer that often deals will claims made against psychologists, I can tell you that field is a gamers paradise, anyone that can convince a woman that masturbating in front of them will relieve sexual anxiety in her marriage is a gamer par excellence.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:19 pm Strauss

      Although i agree partially with your affirmation, it is worth knowing that Tesla was celibate by choice, if you look into his wikipedia biography : ” Tesla never married. He was celibate and claimed that his chastity was very helpful to his scientific abilities.[27] Nonetheless there have been numerous accounts of women vying for Tesla’s affection, even some madly in love with him. Tesla, though polite, behaved rather ambivalently to these women in the romantic sense.” Maybe there is a point where intellectual pleasure derived from intellectual discoveries beats the pleasure of sex/women.

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 8:41 pm old guy

        Tesla and Newton were space aliens who couldn’t fake it naked.

        LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 9:20 pm Paul Murray

        Back in the day, being gay was a crime that would get you burned at the stake. Hence the word “faggot” meaning both “a bundle of wood tossed on the fire” and “homosexual”. Isaac Newton would never, never have admitted it, and absolutely no-one would have mentioned it.

        Similarly, that quote “behaved rather ambivalently to these women” about Tesla is 19th/20th century code for “he was gay, dude”.

        For more “he was gay” code, listen to “Piano Man” by Billy Joel. “Never had time for a wife”. Uh huh. “Probably will be in the Navy for life”. Riiight.

        LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 9:26 pm Harcourt Mudd

        That thing about faggot being tossed onto the fire is simply not true. Louis CK has that guy repeat it on his show but the reality is faggot has a long history that has nothing to do with homosexuality until very recently (late 19th century or early 20th.)

        LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:29 pm corvinus

      Tesla had something else going on. According to a PBS documentary I saw years ago, he talked about how some really hot French woman came onto him hard-core but he turned her down. He must have been an asexual. Maurice Ravel was another asexual genius that comes to mind.

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 10:51 pm LBK

        Some of Maurice Ravel’s biographers think he was secretly gay. He lived in an era when being gay was not acceptable, so he would have hidden it.

        LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 10:27 pm LBK

      Newton and Tesla were probably gay. They lived in eras when being gay was not acceptable, so they wouid have kept it hidden.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 12:12 pm DiamondEyes

        Much like the prissy, high IQ musical favorite son, Morrissey.

        LikeLike


      • on May 22, 2012 at 2:30 am gunslingergregi

        they always want to say some dude secretly gay but really pretty sure there really are guys who just don’t want to fuck and hear there own inner voice to do other shit

        LikeLike


  25. on April 10, 2012 at 8:04 pm YaReally

    “The usual caveats apply to self-assessment studies like this one: what women say they want in a man and what they actually go for are often enough not the same thing. I tend to frown upon self-reported sex surveys because of this psychological anomaly”

    sigh…these studies are so annoying because they completely ignore this fact and then they just result in another round of “see?? Women said that looks and your CEO job matter!!!11”

    My buddies and I are routinely fucking girls who don’t know what we do for a living, who we don’t spend money on, who we don’t take to our own apartments, who we don’t take out for dinners, who we don’t drive around (I don’t even have a car)…ok looks-wise he’s actually tall and has a 6-pack lol but I’m average height and I’ve got the hairy beer belly (and back lol). And on top of that we take girls off of guys who are obviously flaunting their looks, money, cars, suits, watches, pulling out literal wads of $100 bills to pay for girls drinks etc.

    None of this shit matters unless you’re trying to marry and provide for the girl and even then she’ll overlook a shitload of it and make excuses for you (she’ll think you have “So much potential” etc. because her hamster is trying to keep her from admitting she made a bad choice). That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t strive to achieve some of these things for your own satisfaction with life, but they’re not relevant at all with attraction.

    Anyway, just throwing that in there before the inevitable xsplat types chime in with more bullshit about “(nerdling voice) see this scientific study proves these things are attraction triggerssss!! women said so!!!!”

    Scientific studies still don’t think the g-spot exists, don’t trust these things when their “study” is asking people for opinions lol

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 10:52 am P Ray

      The longer a woman spends with a guy who she later says is “a mistake” …
      the less seriously other guys will take her. And the harder it is for her to admit she made a mistake, or leave.
      She makes the choices, she pays the consequences.

      LikeLike


  26. on April 10, 2012 at 8:06 pm Anonymous

    Anyway, all that’s been proven is that, when asked, women will say they don’t want intelligent men, probably because they they think intelligent = intellectualized dork.

    It does not disprove IQ as a crucial factor in intelligence. Remember, high IQ does not automatically make you Asperger’s. Since IQ roughly equates to physical looks, that means most Hollywood actors have IQ well above average, i.e. they are *intelligent*. IQ also equals songwriting ability – so Mick Jaggar is smarter than 90% of people out there, probably.

    Also, there is no such thing as a 90 IQ CEO. If you ever met someone who has been proven to test 90 on an IQ test – as I have – you’d see that they aren’t capable of running a Walmart, let alone an entire corporation.

    [heartiste: i know. it was a joke, son.]

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 8:26 pm Student

      Mick Jagger is a LSE dropout. and runs a billion dollar company. iow, bad EG for the point you’re trying to make.

      LikeLike


  27. on April 10, 2012 at 8:13 pm Rex

    High IQ = Ability to understand and tone game better. Seems like a plus to me.

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 2:37 pm L

      You don’t need a high IQ to learn game or get women. You need a modicum of hygiene and fitness levels, and you need to stop being a pussy. Go out and talk to every girl you can until you score. Its that simple.

      Keeping one around or marrying one is a different story, but unless you specifically want to raise 1-3 kids for some traditional reason, there is no reason for either of those, especially when you can just bang younger women until you die.

      LikeLike


  28. on April 10, 2012 at 8:21 pm Anonymous

    “[heartiste: i did mention that in the caveat, if you had read the post fully. as for blue collar proles, they might not be marrying at the same rates as upper class men, but the alphas of them are banging more, and probably younger/hotter, chicks than their smarter competitors.]”

    Yeah, but that’s an awfully big caveat. You regularly denounce studies about women’s reported number of sexual partners because women often lie, or simply don’t know themselves.

    [heartiste: first, i don’t denounce those studies. i eye them with suspicion. second, the compulsion of women to lie about # of sex partners is likely an order of magnitude more intense than their urge to lie about what traits they find attractive in men.]

    Seems that if you discount one such study, you need to discount them all.

    [self-reported sex surveys have their issues, however they are not useless. they often do hint at something, if you know how to read between the lines.]

    The only thing this study proved is that women have negative connotations of the word “intelligent”. Which is worth its own discussion.

    [if reproductive trends are any indication, then women are not selecting for smarts in men. at least not in this day and age.]

    Furthermore, and this is anecdotal, but I’ve had the misfortune to work several genuinely blue-collar jobs. Those guys get dogs, and they’re desperate to boot, obsessing over any 6 or 7 who walks into the store. Meanwhile, Joe the mid-level banker is sleeping with 4-5 lower-income women at any time.

    [i’ve also worked some blue collar jobs. a lot of those guys are married to dogs, buts that’s because the lower classes are filled with obese women. if they lost weight, many of them would gain a few points in looks. but the working class players were pulling some fine working girl ass. much better than would be expected if IQ really mattered much to girls.]

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 11:41 pm Johnycomelately

      My 40 year old farm hand friend with an iq of <90 was banging a 21 year old farm girl (9), until he found out she was batshit crazy (kept her messages to ward of a false rape allegation, which she used previously). She still calls him even though she's with another bloke.

      Situational alpha rules, yeh!

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:27 am P Ray

        Always keep the messages “cause I think it’s romantic” and “I’ll look back and remember the one person I could never forget”.
        Heh.

        LikeLike


  29. on April 10, 2012 at 8:33 pm Bigfoot

    An observation a lot of people have had is that they’ve had to dumb themselves down in some aspects to succeed with women.

    While this doesn’t mean I necessarily lowered my intelligence, all it means is that i stick to conversation topics that are illogical and non-intellectual usually. My general IQ stays the same but my Emotional IQ is steadily rising.

    Nerds get angry because they can’t girls wet with their intellectual talk about computers and scientific advances but its just something they have to deal with.

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 10:14 pm Dan Fletcher

      This right here.

      Nothing dries up a vag faster than cold, sterile talk relating to STEM or any sort of “guy subject”, regardless of how exciting it is to us men.

      I use to try to impress women by bringing out big talk of programming and astronomy. Now I go to great lengths to avoid such subjects and keep things light, fun and vapid.

      Save the serious discussions about math, science and philosophy for your guy friends and colleagues. Women are mere play-things and should be treated as such.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 10:55 am P Ray

        Being around a woman you can’t discuss anything serious with, means you’re probably with the wrong woman.
        A woman who appreciates the man she’s with will take the time to learn about what he does.
        Good red flag detector, this (whether you can speak about what you do, and she gets interested, wants to know more or is helpful).
        Because a woman you have to be someone else around … may also pretend to be someone else to you.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm SR

        Yes. As a phd candidate, I can’t help but be asked by girls what my dissertation is on. I wait as long as possible to tell them, but you have to eventually.

        The key is to be able to talk abut your intellectual subjects as a story. If you’re doing it right, the girl stops listening to /what/ you’re saying and just melts right in front of you. You exude competance and confidence by explaining something so interesting and complicated, and you spike tingles from her believing that you think she’s worthy of understanding your brilliance.

        LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 7:22 am Anonymous

      And reading this blog too much might leave a guy with less conversational currency unless the topics on any given week are something he can openly discuss with her.

      LikeLike


  30. on April 10, 2012 at 8:35 pm dave

    This is a major premise in the sitcom The Big Bang Theory. The sky-high IQ nerds can’t crack it with the babes no matter how hard they try. Where their premise is flawed is…the nerds never *really* try to mimic the babes they hit on. They try to come off as intellectually superior…when in reality, they should be using their superior intelligence to accurately mimic the types of language, behavior, and culture relevant to the ladies.

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 7:25 am Anonymous

      Which is why I read and saw the Twilight series.

      A super bright nerd should be smart enough to be informed like that.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 6:10 pm colombian guy

        gee, do i have to do that??? i wish i wasnt that smart.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 8:15 pm itsme

        nah, just ram your head hard against a wall repeatedly. it will dumb you down the same amount as watching twilight, but will hurt less.

        LikeLike


  31. on April 10, 2012 at 8:41 pm Thor

    I saw this play out the hard way as a young and not-so-young teenager.
    Our home-room teacher,was a woman 30 y.o. at the start, reasonably smart but no genius, and quite good-looking but not a head-turner. She married her ski instructor, the good-looking nitwit. It did not work, she became increasiongly unhappy – and took it out on us kids, for five years,
    junior high and high scholl (equivalent), same home room teacher.
    She was especially hard on the smart kids who didn’t quite dance to her
    tune – yes including yours truly.

    Then, after we graduated, she divorced and remarried, – to a physician –
    and apparently things calmed down….

    Moral: The hot chicks might dig the cool dumbfuck, but if she goes
    into LTR/marriage and she is smarter than he is, major unhappiness
    is likely to follow.

    Of course, if the cool nitwit pumps and dumps, then this particular
    problem does not occur.

    Thor

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 3:25 pm L

      She married the physician for his money, not for his intellect.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 5:18 pm Thor

        Possibly. But in the country we all lived, physicians’ take home salaries were not astromically higher than those of teachers. My money, based on years of observations, was on that she was just sick of the first hubby, possibly for a number of reasons. She was at some point dating other teachers, and
        fucked one of her former students within days of our graduation. There was no law against that, but it was both predictable and pathetic. Not that she was a bad lay at age 36 or so.

        Thor

        LikeLike


    • on April 12, 2012 at 2:21 pm Joe Eoj

      Women don’t want men who are actually dumber than them. In my experience they want men who are comfortably smarter, but not too much smarter, than them.

      It’s like height. No woman wants a man shorter than herself. Six to eight inches taller is just about perfect. A whole foot taller is starting to get a bit iffy. No woman wants a man that’s *two* feet taller, though, that’s just a freak show.

      What you want to be is the mental equivalent of six inches taller than your woman.

      LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 2:52 pm Thor

        This makes perfect sense. As I wrote elsewhere in this blog, a woman
        smarter than the man is a disaster for LTR/marriage. It is also, actually,
        fairly rare.

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 4:34 pm geishakate

        Agreed. Personally, I enjoy someone who I sometimes can’t understand. More fun that way 🙂

        LikeLike


  32. on April 10, 2012 at 8:42 pm cleon from mypostingcareer.com

    your a faggot , a liar, a hypocrite and a bigot

    LikeLike


  33. on April 10, 2012 at 8:51 pm xsplat

    they wanted and expected their partners to be masculine, fit, physically attractive, loving, educated, a few years older than themselves, and desirous of home and children, with a high income potential.

    isn’t saying quite the same thing as “aloof, socially savvy and dominant men pounded puss”

    [heartiste: you gotta get off this looksnmoney uber alles kick you’re on. it’s unseemly. the only reason it doesn’t say “aloof, dominant and socially savvy” is because 1. the study authors didn’t ask that and 2. women rarely reply to sex surveys in those terms, even when that’s exactly what they fall for. it’s kinda like how women will say a man is “cute” as a catch-all term to verbalize all the strange and wonderful feelings they feel when they listen to him speak or watch the way he comports himself.]

    This blog has as it’s main theme that game is primary, and that the prime component of game is confidence, and that all other characteristics are attractive only in as much as they lead to confidence. Every time there is evidence to the contrary it is glossed over.

    Confidence is ALSO attractive. It is one attractive trait among many.

    As Rollo says; looks, game, money. Choose two.

    [i don’t agree with this equation. looks alone, if in the upper 5-10%, can get a man laid. game alone, if tight, can get a man laid. money alone, if vast enough, can get a man laid.]

    LikeLike


    • on April 10, 2012 at 9:27 pm Laconophile

      How do you choose looks or riches?

      [heartiste: you can’t choose looks, although you can work out and maximize what you’ve got. you can work for riches, although your ability to do so hinges greatly on your inherited inborn ambition and smarts. most men are neither good-looking enough to rely on that to pick up girls, nor rich enough to attract golddiggers. that is why this blog emphasizes game. it is a major attractiveness characteristic that, unlike some others, really can be radically improved and is useful for pickup.]

      For the majority of men who aren’t hiding great looks under mountains of blubber or wasting away a natural talent at making fortunes on video games, those two have already been chosen for them.

      [“a man’s gotta know his limitations” — dirty harry. this is not a pessimistic prescription. rather, it’s a clarion call to find your strengths and stop ineffectually toiling at those things over which you have little control or which you think you excel but you don’t.]

      LikeLike


      • on April 10, 2012 at 9:41 pm xsplat

        A man can develop a portion of his looks. He can develop his physique. And a man can develop his income. Those are life choices that affect attraction.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 2:28 pm YaReally

        And a guy with game will blow him out every time.

        If you have no game whatsoever, looks or money is great. It puts you above the poor ugly guys with no game whatsoever. But you are all still bottom of the barrel of a girl’s choice if there are guys with game around.

        It’s like choosing “which girl is the least ugly” when theres no hot ones around.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 2:53 pm P Ray

        That’s a problem, when you base self-worth on the “approval of a girl”.
        There are more where she came from, and probably younger too 🙂

        LikeLike


  34. on April 10, 2012 at 9:00 pm Mexican Pete

    Think Peter Falk as Columbo. Use brainpower to guide your interactions with girls, but act dumber than you normally are.

    The best way of showcasing your smarts are at unexpected intervals. E.g. If you speak French, don’t raise it in early conversation, but wait until you can talk to a hot French girl in front of her.

    LikeLike


  35. on April 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm xsplat

    If H wasn’t tall and handsome, I bet he’d not feel that game was quite so sufficient. He already has looks, and doesn’t need much other than game to show great fitness. He probably even also has some money. He already stands out. This colors his experience and teachings. He can safely attribute success only to game, ignoring his other qualities as a component of his success.

    Remember, these attributes are additive. You can take a handsome man with no money and no game and he won’t do well. Add game and he will. So some would therefore say that game was responsible. But you can also take an ugly man with no money and add game and he won’t have access to as many of the hot girls that the handsome man will. So it’s not just down to game. Attractive attributes are additive.

    And some women are well known to screen for income. Additive.

    There is a guy in the community: Cameron Teone . He used to be a part of the community and I think he was even mentioned in the book: ‘the game’

    He wrote an article about other teachers and their edge, I’ll copy and paste some of it here:

    Quote:…I am questioning the validity of the concepts. SOME of the concepts are good to learn.
    What 90% of them fail to tell you is the advantages that they give themselves in this arena. What are those advantages?

    I’d like to call it an “Edge.” Everyone presents some sort of an edge which separates him from the rest of the pack of eligible men. There is nothing wrong with this. This is not to vilify anyone. It’s only bringing attention to it so that YOU can start working on your edge….

    If you’re obsessed with having really physically attractive women at any cost, then you have to increase your edge. You want to date lots of models? You’d better increase your edge by quite a bit…

    So what gives one guy an edge over the other? The edge has to be something that separates from the rest of the pack on some level. It gives you some sort of ability to be distinguished. This could be something you’re born with or something you develop, cultivate, or financially acquire.

    •Let’s start with the obvious first: Being very physically good looking, having a very athletic and appealing physique, being 6’5″ tall (195cm), and so forth… These can all serve as advantages.

    •It could be personality or individual traits: Being a great conversationalist or storyteller, great sense of humor, being charming, being charismatic, high social intelligence,

    •It could be things you worked for: Be it making lots of money, prestigious job, being a doctor/surgeon, or working jobs that are conducive to being around women, (club promoters, DJs, bouncers, even a yoga teacher).

    Guys who are good at drawing women into their life have an edge that they intrinsically and inherently understand. It may be subconscious and they may not realize it. They may even be super good-looking guys who genuinely think they’re pulling some game out of their ass, but in reality, they’re living off of their physical looks. Then, after the fact, their conscious mind is rationalizing as to the reasons why. I am fairly convinced that there are men who get laid despite their antics. That meaning that what they consider “Game” is something annoying women are willing to overlook because they’re interested in them for other reasons.

    Let’s look at the Seduction Community and gurus you may know, or have heard of……Let’s cut through the chase. I am going to give you real life examples of dating-teachers. I’ll explain what their edge is…

    • Mystery: Erik is 6’5 inches tall, (Yes, height is an edge.) That, in and of by itself is an edge. Yes, there are plenty of tall dorks who repel women but if you have the basics down, the height quickly becomes an edge. He is also a magician, a self proclaimed “Super-Star daredevil illusionist!” He plays the status game. A very tall individual who has always played the pseudo-celeb game.

    • Neil Strauss: Neil does not have physical good looks or height to his advantage. So what’s his edge? He is a w riter for Rolling Stone magazine, a Rock reporter for the NY Times, best selling a thr. (There is nothing wrong with being a reporter for a major magazine. If you have an edge, use it. Nothing wrong with that.) Lastly, he is highly skilled in manipulation tactics, uses his social status as leverage to make people feel below him.. (This will be explained later).

    • Zan – Looks like a male model, charming, interesting person, has great stories of romance and fantasy. Zan is able to draw people into his reality and the way he see things. Fun and very pleasant to spend time with. If you’ve seen Zan speak, you can clearly see how he can draw people into his world and how he sees things in a very pleasant non-threatening way. Edge: Male-model looks, and charm as well as the ability to suck people into his fantasy world.

    • Brent – Obvious edge: He looks like a professional male model. All he has to do is show up, chat with girls, be aloof. He is that good looking where he has to do almost nothing. He is not a relationship type of guy and he is not looking for a relationship type of woman. His edge and person match his perspective archetype. His obvious edge: Dude looks like a soap opera star and doesn’t give a shit about anything. Granted, this works well with a certain archetype of woman and that’s the kind Brent wants anyway.

    • Johnny SoPorno: Interesting character and also different than the guys on the list as he self-admittedly likes women in the “Skin-Trade” or sex business, (Porn, Escorts, prostitutes, etc.) What’s his edge? Social dominances over his target demographic. He talks nonstop, no one can get a word in edgewise when he is around, and more importantly, he is involved with the porn industry. Being in the porn business, he can dangle a career upgrade to women in the selling-sex business, (Porn, prostitution, escorts, etc.) These are the type of women he desires and he can leverage his position in the industry to draw them in. (Remember, it’s important to know what archetype of woman you WANT!)……

    What does this mean to you? How can YOU achieve consistent results? It’s to encourage you to do 2 things:

    1. Handle the Foundational Skills….

    2. Work on cultivating your niche edge….

    [heartiste: i don’t know much about these guys, but neil strauss claims he got rejected by women way too much for his liking, and this was while he was a journo for rolling stone. his love life turned around when he learned game. (and his fortunes did too).]

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 12:58 am Anonymous

      Neil has actually argued, though, that he thinks you need both professional success and Game to get the real beauties.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 10:58 am P Ray

        Real beauties that the papers recognise …
        or the real beauties that other women get jealous of?
        i.e. the kind of girl that women read about to get jealous?
        Because if you’re dating a hot unknown girl … the chances are good you won’t have old biddies throwing salt into your game.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 2:53 pm YaReally

        You need it to get access to them just because of how their world works. Like you could see Megan Fox at a club but you would never get NEAR her because she’d have bodyguards and shit keeping you away, and even if you caught her solo she’d have to do the “friendly but no way sex is happening” thing because you’re just a random dude.

        But if you were a successful producer or actor or something, you’d be in her social circle and could be introduced and then you’ve got the social proof and everything for her to relax and allow you into her “world” where there’s a chance to game her.

        Sometimes you can talk your way into those social circles. Like one of my fav places here is a super swank high-end club where everyone is rich as shit. I worked my way into their scene by befriending guys and they socially proof me so I have access to some high-end chicks even tho I have no money or anything lol when the girls ask what I do I just tell them they’re asking boring questions and to come up with something I haven’t heard before etc.

        But if I had a solid rich career I’d be in these social circles by default and have access to the girls. BUT, it would come down to game from there. I know plenty of rich good looking dudes surrounded by available hotties who can’t score a touchdown even when the chick is handing them the ball and it’s just an open field in front of them. It’s hilarious and painful to watch but I see it over and over and over.

        LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 1:59 am Days of Broken Arrows

      I see what you’re saying here, but I spent a lot of college fending off the complaints of envious, celebate (and better looking) taller guys, telling me “You’re just successful with girls because they want to *mother* you” (an actual line used many times).

      The fact is, if you’re tall and good looking it gets you in the door. But behave in a nerdy way — or come off as transparently arrogant — and you’re instantly “creepy” and friend-zoned. I’ve seen this happen far too many times to discount it.

      I wish this all had “registered” back when I was younger. I felt like a failure — in retrospect I was pretty successful without knowing it. I think I felt like I was fronting and only the tall, dark and handsome should rightfully get the girl. Now I realize the front is the point. Women buy a package, not a label. So do men.

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 2:42 pm YaReally

      lol

      What’s Tyler Durden’s edge? Because he’s a skinny (used to be fatty) balding ginger. Yet girls will tell him he’s “amazing” or “gorgeous”

      go out in the field. WATCH ugly guys taking girls home. Like, seriously, get out of your bubble. This is just embarrassing…you are the definition of keyboard jockey or armchair quarterback.

      It’s not like this is some mystical shit that only happens behind secret closed doors. It’s literally any given night you can go out and watch guys with game getting girls. Befriend some ugly naturals and watch them in action. Befriend some poor naturals and watch them in action. Befriend some ugly poor naturals and watch them in action.

      Or do you know how to make friends? Have you been out banging new girls in the past week? Month? Since new years? In the last year? More?

      The only thing not having a pro lifestyle does is make it harder to get into social circles where the turbo hotties are but 1) you can talk your way in and 2) they’ll fuck you but not want to date/marry you because you’re not long term provider material.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 6:04 pm LionSoul

        Tyler Durden had multiple illegitamate children from ‘gaming’ chicks. He’s totally a winner alright, having to work to pay his owners–the pussy.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 7:10 pm YaReally

        That’s such a weird thing to say that I don’t even have a response for it lol

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 1:22 pm Anon

        Google comes up with only one son he had with a 6.5 latina.

        If one is relatively rich (probably the case of tyler d), having multiple baby mamas is a better alternative than marriage under the current legal paradigm.

        Sure as hell I’d do that if I was making more money. I want kids, but I don’t want a damocles sword hanging on my neck.
        Paying 3000$ per kid sounds more appealing than losing half your shit.

        LikeLike


  36. on April 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm Domingo

    In my experience at Grad School an intellectually domineering Eng. Lit. grad student can leverage that dominance into pulling high class girls, whether from humanities or the sciences, but the same does not go for guys in STEM fields.
    Wit, ability to flirt, ability to quote large slabs of poetry, and a Byronic manner are a good part of it.

    LikeLike


  37. on April 10, 2012 at 9:37 pm xsplat

    “you gotta get off this looksnmoney uber alles kick you’re on.”

    You haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve been carefully saying if you are reading it as anything close to “looksnmoney uber alles”.

    LikeLike


  38. on April 10, 2012 at 9:48 pm sally

    I’m not sure why this is surprising. Most women want a guy who is more intelligent than themselves, but not substantially so. Overall, hot women do not value intelligence in a mate, but the subset of hot AND intelligent women probably do.

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 7:44 am Anonymous

      True. I’m a professor type and the most intelligent university students hone in on me like homing pigeons while I’m out trying to cold approach 10’s with indirect game (innocent questions for directions). A 9 with genius IQ may have finally got her hooks into me. She did most of the approaching and asked me out twice before I took her seriously. I woke up when she invited me to swim at a pool and then got out of the pool to show me how she could do splits right above me – I did not miss the message she was getting across nor the fact that she’s a solid 9 especially where it counts.

      I guess we men shouldn’t try too hard to date women more than 20 points lower on the IQ scale. But that means guys above 120 can’t generally date average IQ women.

      A problem in the US and UK is that women between 100-120 IQ are often just smart enough to understand feminism but dumb enough to accept it as their religion (or 100-120 IQ girls will accept religion as their religion and lose great guys by being too obnoxiously chaste – not even hand jobs – until they’re no longer attractive).

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 6:40 pm sally

        I’m a relatively intelligent female, and men who are less intelligent than me are very unappealing. I was always attracted to my professors in college…but that isn’t unique to intelligent girls.

        And it is not that I am adjusting my taste preference to nerds because I can’t get anything else. I know that I’m objectively attractive (this is based on the fact that I’ve modeled and my part-time jobs during college were at clothing stores that hire based on attractiveness, not based on anything that men have told me…I don’t trust anyone to tell me the truth about my attractiveness level).

        Intelligent women want intelligent men, but even they don’t want nerds. Most of my friends lust after professors, brooding mysterious writer types, etc. Example: my friend used to be obsessed with Girl Talk and became more obsessed when she found out that he started out as a biomedical engineer. Speak intelligently, act mysterious and have some sort of artistic/musical skill and every girl will want to fuck you

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm King A (Matthew King)

        Awesome. And thank you, sally. The problem with echo chambers like these is the inside-baseball arguments about obscure topics that tend to send fastidious white men far off-topic.

        And then you come along to remind us what the goal is. Without periodic commentary from women, we forget how you truly think, and we fill in the blanks with fantasy or wish-fulfillment. It is important for us to remember what you are consciously seeking out (“Speak intelligently, act mysterious and have some sort of artistic/musical skill”) in order to create a truly effective misdirection ploy: mimic what she thinks she wants (brooding, intelligence, mystery) to get her attention while demonstrating what we know she wants (dominance, social proof, mastery) to close the sale. It’s a fun game for both of us.

        Higstery, hogstery, women seek mystery.
        Hostery, higstery, women want mastery.

        LikeLike


      • on April 14, 2012 at 1:21 am sally

        well, many intelligent women seek out men more intelligent than themselves precisely because that’s the type of male dominance that gets them off. we don’t just THINK we want intelligence- we really do. people on this blog often reference smart women who fall in love with thuggish felons with sub-90 IQs. i’m sure it happens, but i’ve never personally seen it. I HAVE seen tons of hot intelligent girls who lust after supersmart guys who dabble in illegal activities, i.e. smart rich kid drug dealers. and I promise you, we also don’t just THINK we want mystery….familiarity breeds contempt.

        LikeLike


  39. on April 10, 2012 at 9:58 pm Anonymous

    Dumbing down probably works better for a quick vagina fix. In the medium and long term relationships it’ll end up wearing itself off. I know I couldn’t play dumb for a short period because the cost-effectiveness is too high (my time and patience are too valuable to be wasted on pretending on being someone else).

    I’d rather see real dumb men have dumb spawn with dumb women, and watch the show of natural selection do its work.

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 8:08 am itsme

      don’t think of it as pretending to be someone else, think of it as not revealing your entire self all at once to a girl, until (if) she’s earned it. aura of mystery, remember?

      it’s not playing dumb, it’s just avoiding analyzing and discussing shit at a level of detail that bores women and dries up their vaginas. unless you don’t want to fuck her, in which case, why would you be talking to her? you’ll have a more meaningful and productive discussion with a male peer.

      if she’s worthy of a longer term relationship, you can reveal yourself more, and it won’t turn her off, because she’s already attracted to you.

      building up attraction should always come first, regardless of whether it’s a one night stand or a long term relationship. and intellectual intelligence will almost always work against you vis a vis building attraction unless the girl is really intelligent. if you’re socially intelligent, you’d pick up on this right away and calibrate accordingly.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:01 am P Ray

        The faster buildup to attraction is whether other women are interested.
        Which is why women handle their affections like a cartel: They are trying to (to borrow David Collard’s words), “police the hierarchy”.
        Of course, that only lasts as long as the guys they want to police against, are in their midst and known to them.
        Many years later those women have too much of their own drama to deal with, making the resolute man more able to get success from their younger versions.

        LikeLike


  40. on April 10, 2012 at 10:08 pm Alert Reader

    This is easily explained by the basic principle that women want a man who’s roughly equal to them or better on most dimensions. This d a fairly small sample of married women in the Midwest – probably no hot Rhodes Scholars there. For women who aren’t very smart, most men meet the greater to or equal criteria for intellect, so they don’t prioritize it.

    In my experience dating and or nailing intelligent women, they like a man to e at least as smart as them and tend to get turned on by a smarter man. Dumber chicks like to think they’re smart but get turned off if I let them know how big of a gap there really is.

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 7:46 am Anonymous

      +1

      LikeLike


  41. on April 10, 2012 at 10:24 pm Southern Man

    I have major smart-geek cred: multiple graduate degrees in STEM, professor of same, measured IQ well above average. And, yes, I was a nerd and a beta but never lacked for a girlfriend or SO. I look back and wonder why. In retrospect, high intelligence was a plus, at least some of the time. The combination of intelligence, education, and perserverance has certainly provided me with a comfortable living.

    So what does a fifty-something uber-geek STEM professor do now that he’s swallowed the red pill? (1) Deal with women (ALL women, including your relatives, your peers, your bosses, and most especially your students) with an attitude of amused mastery. (2) Get your flabby ass to the gym on a regular basis. (3) Remember that contrast is king. If you wear a jacket and tie during the week, make sure you’re in leathers and on your bike on the weekends (or whatever floats your particular contrast boat). And (4) be passionate about your mission, whatever that may be. Mine is ten acres of unimproved land that I’m slowly improving.

    In doing these things I’m happier than I’ve ever been. The last two years is also the longest stretch since high school that I’ve not been in a LTR. I’m beginning to wonder if those two facts are related.

    [heartiste: solid comment]

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 10:07 am Lara

      You are probably giving off non-needy vibes to women, which we find attractive.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:14 am Southern Man

        As I’ve said here many times, the concepts I’ve learned from the Three Wise Men of Game have improved my live and my relationships (particularly with my daughters) in every measurable way and I’m as happy today, six years after my life was shattered by divorce, as I’ve ever been. Indeed, the ONLY source of stress in my life right now is financial and I’m well on my way to recovering from that. But, having gained at least some understanding of how females think and how they respond to particular words and actions, I’ve lost much interest in dating. I get IOIs (even from students!) but don’t care. I used to think that I needed to be in a relationship to be happy. Now I wonder if NOT being in one is one key to happiness. It’s a little perverse that my “non-needy vibes” are hooking them now.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:39 am itsme

        I get IOIs (even from students!)

        young ass ripe for professorial tapping, what could possibly go wrong?

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 4:04 pm Southern Man

        Right now I need the job (a community-college side gig) more than I want the pussy. In a few years that will change.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 11:52 am Firepower

        I used to think that I needed to be in a relationship to be happy. Now I wonder if NOT being in one is one key to happiness.

        That applies to unions made from the 70’s onward. I presume you were a child in that era who witnessed many marriages that were indeed happy and so, fell victim as one of the last generations tricked by the Western Fidelity Model.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 4:02 pm Southern Man

        My parents married in the late fifties and stuck it out through thick and thin. They figured out how to make it work in spite of their problems and they’re still married today. I always felt like a failure (and still do, to some extent) because my own marriage didn’t last.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 4:13 pm YaReally

        “We’re a generation of men raised by women. I’m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.”

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 5:47 pm Thor

        Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your kids. But sometimes it skips a generation and you get it from your grandkids.

        My six y.o. granddaughter is an unending supply of shit tests. I would say
        CH has been helpful here. At the same time, she is a great boot camp for detecting and dealing with shit tests. I keep telling her I am her loving grandfather, but NOT her butler. I think she has a rough idea what “butler” means by now, from context.

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 11:43 am Southern Man

        My twelve-year-old daughter (lives with her mother six hours away) has been my main game-learning foil over these last few years. I deftly deflect her (instinctive) shit tests, react to her drama with amusement, keep her laughing with negs and teasing, always maintain strong boundaries. Result: endless love and adoration. Similar results with nineteen-year-old daughter who lives with me. Game is the great saver of relationships.

        LikeLike


      • on April 13, 2012 at 12:30 pm King A (Matthew King)

        Southern Man wrote:

        My twelve-year-old daughter (lives with her mother six hours away) has been my main game-learning foil over these last few years. I deftly deflect her (instinctive) shit tests, react to her drama with amusement, keep her laughing with negs and teasing, always maintain strong boundaries. Result: endless love and adoration. Similar results with nineteen-year-old daughter who lives with me.

        Hell yes! The daddy-daughter dynamic is an underdeveloped aspect of game. I suspect it is because of the fear of confusing sexual and paternal categories, which we instinctively cringe from.

        Women are constantly moving back to their father. He is the male archetype of their life, their entire personality depends on what kind of paternity she was exposed to. The father defines manliness in his (both male and female) children. Once women become sexual and independent they seek not just a man who can satisfy their erotic adventurism/complementarity/completion but also just as much the man who can replace the protectiveness of their father. This is exceedingly difficult to combine in a single person, which is why their hypergamy leads them to stray. Women are caught in the tension between adventurism and protection, which leads to the stereotyping and subsequent social division between alpha (romance/fear) and beta (stability/contentment). As usual, women want their cake and to eat it too.

        None of this is news, of course. It just hasn’t been explicitly developed into a strategic approach to relationship creation. And so in our confusion it bubbles to the surface in random ways: spanking, S&M, teacher-schoolgirl fantasy, a preference for older men, pimp-paternal substitutes, “Who’s your daddy?”, “tell me to take it like a BIG GIRL.” Once you understand this essential conflict at the heart of a woman’s sexuality, you can manipulate it into results.

        In a wide-open meat market, most men will be satisfied with the advantages of alpha or beta, adventurer or protector, rather than attempting to square the circle and give them both. After all, pimpin’ ain’t easy.

        Or: “I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.”

        Matt

        LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 10:34 pm Student

      there’s an interesting dichotomy on this blog. wise men who speak when they have something to say, and fools who speak because they have to say something. you sir, are definitely in the former. its too bad there’s so many here in the latter category, and its ironic because they would gain so much by *listening* to posts by guys like you and our host.

      LikeLike


  42. on April 10, 2012 at 10:30 pm OverTheTop

    I’m on the fence about this one.

    If you approach a woman from a place of being agressively rude and trying to show you’re better because your ego is hurt, then yes, the “smart nerd” will turn her off.

    However, I can say a billion times over, that I’ve gotten laid from discussing evolutionary biology and human sexuality. A lot of women, mostly high status career types, find this shit exciting as fuck, and think it’s super sexy that you know so much about it. Again though, I think it’s all in how you present it, and to some degree the type of woman you’re gaming.

    One of my ex’s for example, didn’t give a fuck about my studies, and would always just kind of dodge the subject. She was also kind of a bum and fairly uneducated, but was sexy and sweet as fuck. High status women however, ones who are educated, have big goals, are indepednant, sexy, etc. etc. eat this shit up like candy. I think it’s partly to do with giving them insight, and them feeling like you’re more well rounded then they are.

    I present it in a horoscopes type way, almost like my knowledge in conversation is giving them deeper insight into themselves.

    “… I do not understand how my friend just slept with him the first night!”
    “Maybe she was ovulating?”
    “What do you mean?”
    “I read this interesting study about how female strippers made ten times more during their ovulation stages than strippers who weren’t ovulating.”
    “Whaaat? that’s crazy!”
    “Yes, it’s assumed because they were ovulating that they were more promiscous and persistant”
    “Wow! come to think of it I feel really horny when I’m ovulating, I can see it”
    *bridge this shit into MORE human sexuality studies coupled with her feeling horny, and it’s dynamite nigga*

    This is a mediocre example, but, I’m fairly natural when talking about it and it’s always lead to women second guessing who I am and inadvertantly talking more openly about sex with me, which then has them wanting sex with me. Dope.

    LikeLike


  43. on April 10, 2012 at 11:01 pm Matt Strictland

    Speaking as one of the brainy nerds, nothing could be truer. I got a lot more female attention, even major league model attention when I learned to shut up and seem “smart mysterious” rather than smart

    Very few women give a crap about any but the most banal
    topics. There are a few exceptions and female nerds do exist but they are in hugh demand as they are outnumbered by male nerds. Even disgusting 3’s can usually find a guy

    Still nerd women are still women and as such just as or even more suceptable to the hamster and the usual female follies. So , if you bag one she won’t have the same interest level in whatever it is for as long. She’ll talk and have actual interest and a working brain but you still need game with her.

    As a last point, we had better get the Omega nerds either hookers, sex bots or game pretty soon otherwise one day one of these guys is going to snap and instead of shooting up the place, he’ll just go all Herbert’s White Plague on the human race

    Angry Harry http://www.angryharry.com/esAHisgoingtobuildavirus.htm?main

    sums it up witjh a Hawking quote

    “In the long term, I am more worried about biology. … Genetic engineering can be done in a small lab. You can’t regulate every lab in the world. The danger is that either by accident or design, we create a virus that destroys us.” Stephen Hawking

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 11:03 am P Ray

      It’s not going to kill everyone.
      And it’s going to prove survival of the fittest too.
      Can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

      LikeLike


  44. on April 10, 2012 at 11:03 pm Anton

    This subject was covered succinctly in the movie “Hombre”, when the professor’s wife explained her attraction to the bad guy Cicero Grimes.

    http://blogs.amctv.com/photo-galleries/the-top-ten-western-villains/hombre.php

    LikeLike


  45. on April 10, 2012 at 11:16 pm St

    You all fail to make the comparison between the groups of highly intelligent and less than highly intelligent women in valuing the trait of intelligence.

    It appears to me that smart chicks will tend to be more attracted to very smart guys than dumb chicks.

    LikeLike


  46. on April 10, 2012 at 11:34 pm dicipres

    Maybe the most beautiful women are dumb (or atleast consider themselve dumb) compared with less physically attractive women?
    These correlations never give the full answer and some speculations are needed to make conclusions based on the correlations. In any case being intelligent can be utilized to get other attractive traits and dominance through intelligence demonstration is attractive. Never play dumb men.

    LikeLike


  47. on April 11, 2012 at 12:30 am pantyfx

    I think it just goes back to expectation and less about intelligence being a secondary quality. I was a bitch boy for a while when I was first adjusting to societies meta, and girls would (funny story I typed goods instead of girls, thats a slip)do well to screen for people who demonstrate intelligence as a value (guys try to step with).

    I’d disagree that it’s something they don’t find attractive. I have smarted my way into plenty of girls panties, but I do it in a way that makes it us vs the world and they get off on that.

    I’d also agree with xplats comments on people having an edge. That’s really all people are profiling you on. The rest of the stuff is just minus for not having, not plus for having so to speak. I have a thing I do because it’s a natural talent that naturally draws women to me, so I don’t really ever have to worry.

    The only thing I’d have to add is that styles of being, stories you tell, and lives that you lead all appeal to a specific type of girl, whether or not that girl is a 10 to other people isn’t really that important provided she has the basics.

    Once again, people just getting caught up outcome based performance. If your time is that scarce that you have to worry about each detail being a complete value-increasing win, that’s the primordial turn-off for girls in my current meta. Nice post overall though, I chuckled at your nerd impression.

    LikeLike


  48. on April 11, 2012 at 12:55 am Anonymous

    There’s no hard correlation between “g” and how good you are at school. I’d expect that the dominant men in any environment typically have high natural intelligence. I once met a drug dealer in a rehab who claimed he scored over 1500 on his SAT. He also had sex with half the girls in the rehab during his one stay…

    I’ve seen that a lot in my life: sexually successful bartenders, musicians, “bad boys”, who – though they know nothing about academic subjects – are actually very smart, once you get to know them.

    [heartiste: social savvy can compensate for low g by making you seem smarter than you are. socially savvy people are either born that way or learn their craft in people-person fields like bartending.]

    LikeLike


  49. on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 am RUM

    The Beatles; remember them? Once upon a time they were the foremost take-no-prizoners rock&roll band in the universe and only J. Lennon was a natural alpha and that was mainly due to his having-being raised on the semi-street; given the non-appearance of his skank-oid mom. All the rest were Talented, determined beta-nice-guys, just like their fathers who were led to die in the trenches of the great war.
    Going In to the future; some girls are going to have to face a choice.

    LikeLike


    • on April 12, 2012 at 9:56 am Greg Eliot

      But it was the “keeny, college pudding” nice guy McCartney whose name was first upon the lips of the ladies.

      LikeLike


    • on April 12, 2012 at 12:22 pm itsme

      i can’t imagine any alpha marrying yoko ono.

      LikeLike


  50. on April 11, 2012 at 2:20 am Denialist

    Very interesting and true and good observation on the sense of humor.. but. What a circlejerk again, CEOs, street smarts… Roosh said it years ago, if you dont approach 10 women a week, you dont live up to your potential. If you want to approach it, start with that, wtf. And if you are a regular reader here so you know the ropes, in a few weeks you’ll have more girls in play than you can handle. Then start becoming more “cunning”. Learn how to deal with flaking, amogs, particular types of game and whatnot. To improve the approach/lay ratio or in normal speak become smoother.
    Who cares what they want, be your own man.

    LikeLike


  51. on April 11, 2012 at 2:48 am Aleph

    The study confirms what everybody else noticed out in the field. Girls don’t give a shit about intellect because they don’t know what intellect is. I’d say that the only use intelligence has in pickup is that it lends you the ability to fire off witticisms that keep a girl off balance and increases the chance that you remember her name five minutes into the conversation.

    LikeLike


  52. on April 11, 2012 at 2:52 am Ben Willard

    Yes, can definitely confirm that one. Even some fairly smart women who I know as friends always go for morons. Years ago, when my friends and I used to hang out in this telephone bar pick-up joint in London, the best results were always obtained when claiming to work as manual workers than as what we actually did.

    LikeLike


  53. on April 11, 2012 at 3:45 am alrighty then

    It’s no surprise women aren’t turned on by intelligence- they want to be able to emtionally manipulate their partner (subconsciously, of course.)
    Having a genuinely intelligent partner wouldn’t allow this.
    It’s also no suprise they dislike talking about politics- they’re idiots.

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 11:06 am P Ray

      Not to mention they love hierarchies as it tells them which guy they need to butter up to get favours, without fear of building up an “unworthy” man.
      Heh.
      In the course of doing so, many they waste their years and gain some intelligence from the school of hard knockers.

      LikeLike


  54. on April 11, 2012 at 5:05 am Stark

    I’d expect women not to favor intelligence because… how can you actually measure intelligence? And most of all, how can you measure intelligence if you’re not smart yourself?
    In the old days, Intelligence correlated with having a high paying job, social savviness (If someone was an “alpha douche”, he was probably executed or severely beaten), and so on, which also correlated with having better access to medicine, you were living longer and so did your children.

    When you look at a society which screened directly for intelligence – Ashkenazi Jews (daughters of rich merchants were matched with the top Yeshiva students) you can see a major gap between the average jew and the average white guy.

    LikeLike


  55. on April 11, 2012 at 7:07 am Gramps

    Girls are not impressed by intelligence. Not news. Try having an intellectual conversation with a woman. All they talk about is their children or cats.

    But, I wonder if this goes for Asians and Jews? My son, who is quite smart and highly educated in the hard sciences (engineering), wanted to get married, but he wouldn’t marry a white girl because he told me that white girls didn’t respect intelligence. Just observe their interracial dating patterns. I couldn’t think of any convincing argument to the contrary. He is likely right. So, now I have Jewish grandkids.

    To be fair, it is a lot easier to find a smart Asian girl or Jewish girl than a smart white girl, and they do tend to have smart kids. He wanted smart kids. Men respect intelligence. They know its power. Also, smart white girls, who go to the indoctrination centers called American universities, are very often unfit for marriage. It is about attitude.

    Fact is, most people are dumb (IQ less than 100), and dumb people just don’t understand how advantageous high IQ is in every area of life. They just see the social awkwardness. Another problem for smart people is that they tend to have higher social responsibility and higher ethical standards, and that is seen as a weakness.

    Like admonition not to pump and dump an ugly girl, because of the guilt factor, pumping and dumping a girl dumber than yourself would also induce guilt.

    The evolutionary drive to high intelligence in humans despite the human female lack of attraction to IQ itself is very strong evidence that high IQ is very useful in the world. The smart betas not only survived, but they reproduced.

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 11:09 am P Ray

      Whether a person earns money depends on both capability and reputation.
      You get capability by being smart.
      You get reputation by OTHERS recognising you as being smart.

      HR is made up of idiots, which is why high-earning doesn’t mean sustainable.
      And a bad reference from a disgruntled employer has scuppered many a man.

      So rising up the ranks of a cesspool just means you’re the biggest shit.
      of course, as the saying goes … “I and others know, what every schoolboy learns, those to whom evil is done, do evil in return”.

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 4:08 pm Days of Broken Arrows

      Your son is correct, Gramps. I found the same thing about Jewish women. See my comment above. If you can’t deal with playing dumb, you need to go either Jewish or Asian.

      I’d also say that you should prefer smart Jewish kids over the lowlife mini-thugs the average white woman would have given you as grandkids. White people are going the way of black people, making Jews and Asians the new whites.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 9:50 pm SFG

        And what’s happening to whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa?

        Heck, overachieving will get you in trouble anywhere, and it doesn’t just happen to Jews, either.

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm Thor

        Yup. Until the socialists run out of other peoples’ money (Thatcher) or,
        phrased more bluntly, the looters run out of victims (Rand).

        Thor

        LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 6:02 pm Fearless

      My thoughts were drawn to this topic as I read this. Of course we want an attractive, feminine, and moderately intelligent women if we chose to get married. Chances are every man will not get that though. I too want smart children and would probably take a small hit on my wifes looks if she was intelligent. Of course it’s not that simple but if you could pick what would you go for, 1) smart kid avg/below avg looks or 2) extremely handsome/pretty with avg intelligence?

      LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 10:06 pm Student

      ” Try having an intellectual conversation with a woman.”

      i suppose this is why grad schools are now 55-70% women in north america, europe, and even in parts of the ME. law, MBA, med masters etc. it can’t be that they are better able to execute their intellectual potential; it must be a nefarious gender conspiracy to affirmative-action them everywhere to fulfill the islamo-maoist-cultural-marxist manifesto.

      “To be fair, it is a lot easier to find a smart Asian girl or Jewish girl than a smart white girl,”

      i didnt know that jews weren’t usually white (ashkenazi). ps, last i checked it was a religion, not an ethnicity, which is why youll see the odd ethiopian jew living in some palestinian’s stolen house in tel aviv.

      LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 12:35 pm Thor

        The raw statistics about college attendance are misleading. The women are heavily concentrated in useless degrees (except degree-as-credential, with no actual meaning beyond that).

        A major in dwarf transexual studies does not confer any useful skill, nor does it sharpen your mind (as a degree in Western Civ might, if done right).

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on April 12, 2012 at 8:05 pm Student

        which is why i said *grad schools*. (see next sentence for EGs) i look at business and political leaders, and rarely do they come from math, IT and engineering backgrounds, which are pretty much the only male dominated fields now.

        LikeLike


    • on April 13, 2012 at 6:45 pm sam pam

      You call White girls dumb for dating black guys. They are not. It’s just biology women love Alpha regardless of what shade it comes in. For example, I started going to the local Martini bar 3 weeks ago. Alone, dressed up (Blazer, pants, V-neck, pocket square) and I met a pretty white girl (age 28). Showstopper! She got married at 22. Been married for 6 years. Husband does not pay attention to her anymore. Can’t blame him. I get bored after a month. All he cares about is his job and how much he makes. On paper she has it all, but she’s bored out of her mind. We talked, same night she’s at my place. You know what happened next.

      I’m smart enough to:
      Dress up to go to an all white place. The other stiffs are dressed in suits and ties. I wear blazers. I can easily take them off and show off my physique in the tees. Women are very visual too. I also have nice leather shoes, and a pocket square in my blazer.

      Hold conversation. If she’s talking about England/France/movies/magazines/Entrepreneurship, etc I know enough to hold my own. The other idiots are talking about Finance, how much they make, being a doctor, Bla bla bla….That only impresses gold diggers.
      I’m making flirty light jokes and I never talk about my job.

      Escalate: With really hot white girls I never ask for numbers. I go for same night lay. There’s no “is he going to fit in”, “what will my parents say”. It’s just lust then everything comes after.

      Be brave: Guys are intimidated by hot chicks. Which works for me because in a martini bar, there’s not really much competition for the 9’s. Everybody is scared of them. That’s how I got the girl above, She’s a housewife, takes care of the dogs, cooks, does yoga etc. Has no career of her own/fulfillment. on top of that no one is paying attention to her in the bar. They pay attention to her less attractive friend. All I have to do is flirt confidently without apology , sell the dream “You can do what ever you want to do, I believe in you”. She rewards me with great illegal no condom sex and affection ( I made sure she got tested before I started raw dogging)

      Make her feel safe/secure: This is it. No coercion, no blackmail. Total safety. No jealousy. No falling in love. No mess

      If you ever see us together, you would say “Oh he’s just a black guy”. You don’t know who I am or where I’ve been. Just like her husband will.

      I will rinse/repeat at all the rich neighborhoods all summer long. I’m going to avoid Married women Although they never tell you until after sex.

      How many of the so called Smart “White/Jewish” guys can do the above. They are smart at building software, becoming Surgeons, but put a plumber in their living room and they can’t even make small talk. But supposedly they are smart! I call BULLSHIT

      LikeLike


  56. on April 11, 2012 at 8:25 am LD

    As long as your native intelligence is molded into something functional, chicks will get wet for it. If they see you using your mind to trap bitchbrain in a web of its own inconsistency, then bitchbrain reads ‘dominance’ for ‘intelligence’ and by and large you’re on your way to fishbreath and sticky fingers.

    Are there any exceptions to the intelligence rule? For me the most attractive qualities in humans are a strong feel for music appreciation, a dedication to quality reading, an actual genuine interest in just the random cool stuff that you talk about with your guy friends….almost never do women actually have any interest in anything that actually matters, and even when they’re college-smart, one on one they still eh lack any sort of vitality,originality, ability to map out the big picture, any genuine,positive, giving relation to human creativity.

    Even super educated girls with medical degrees and Phds and multiple masters etc still can’t drive or have a fun conversation or appreciate cultural goods……fucken wimmin: can’t find any purpose to them/need them as fuckmeat.

    LikeLike


  57. on April 11, 2012 at 8:49 am Anonymous

    “Their parents must be proud.”

    Forgive me if I sound naive… but was that picture doctored? Or are the girls trying to embarrass the player publicly?

    If not to either of above… this is confirmation we are moving into new territory as a society. Which I’d call, a new era of unabashed female pursuit of Alphas/blatant female hypergamy.

    Has always existed. But the difference compared to now from “Mad Men” time was there was a “public cloak” you put over it, where females at least tried to keep up appearances and put up a demure public face

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 11:10 am P Ray

      Sluts out in the open means normal men spend less time, money and resources on them.
      Sometimes the life you save is your own.

      LikeLike


    • on April 12, 2012 at 10:01 am Greg Eliot

      That had to have been photoshopped.

      The night is dark enough already, no need to make it darker.

      LikeLike


  58. on April 11, 2012 at 9:17 am chronnox

    As long as you are not socially retarded, women will like you. Game teaches in a very specific manner how to do this. If you come accross as cocky-funny, and at the very end of the interaction you flash your smart credentials (e.g., i have a phd in theoretical physics) women will wet, but only if you proved first that you know how to interact with them. Finally, I believe that Roosh is a very intelligent guy (he has a scientific background), and is a pussy slayer legend.

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 11:31 am P Ray

      Relational aggression will keep the “not socially retarded but naive towards the nature of most women” men, behind.
      Recognising the environment you’re in and how to succeed or whether it’s better to leave … like Kenny Rogers in the Gambler,
      is a better use of your time.
      If the current batch of eggs are bad, the next one may be different.

      LikeLike


  59. on April 11, 2012 at 11:16 am chi-town

    Its just not the right meter for it, aka “intelligence”. The actual measure they use is sense of humor which requires intelligence; humor requires a social adept in particular. They are looking for the finished product like wit, not to be in the attendance of a vivisection. If you have cited 10 facts in 5 minutes , you have probably cleared quite a perimeter.

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 6:15 pm Fearless

      “The actual measure they use is sense of humor which requires intelligence; humor requires a social adept in particular. They are looking for the finished product like wit, not to be in the attendance of a vivisection.”

      This. Every self-professed aspie needs to read this statement and internalize it. They understand wimminz respond to cocky & funny or agree and amplify for example, but they are clueless as to why.

      LikeLike


  60. on April 11, 2012 at 11:42 am Samuel

    Girls have always valued my smarts.

    I think the difference is how a guy makes her FEEL (as always)

    If he uses his smarts to go on long diatribes about e=mc2 and academic shit, she won’t feel a thing.

    If he uses it to get her to laugh, or tug heartstrings, or set off tingles, he is in business.

    I think most females would prefer a guy who makes them ‘feel things’ over a guy who doesn’t… and I think just using the smarts to get/keep a job doesn’t get that much mileage, in comparison. Doesn’t lend much status.

    Also, ultra nerds are clearly NOT smart in the sense that they are out of balance and have not tended to their social life, often times due to fear. Not much attractive about that.

    When a woman wants a beta herb provider, she is necessarily going to have to choose someone with low awareness / high ignorance

    But beyond that, I think women like being outsmarted, even when they hate it.

    I think that it may also be that here in a society where convictions and principles and purpose goes by the wayside, and happiness is comprised of whatever thrills we can come across, happiness based in physical ‘feeling’, and not rooted in high-minded things like personal ethics, self-discipline, and accomplishment-

    and its all booze and sex and highs and thrills…

    if they are interviewing girls that function that way (almost certainly) of course they are not going to value academic excellence the way they will value guys with washboard abs, big dicks, cute butts, or big arms…

    Girls who do that are too fucking stupid to know how stupid they are, so they default to their base instincts like a rutting pig.

    They also know, subconsciously, that an actual SMART man will not accommodate their feral, self-destructive behavior, and nobody likes being told that the party is over and that there is work to do, especially self-improvement or self-denial.

    Those things just aren’t sparkly enough.

    LikeLike


  61. on April 11, 2012 at 12:03 pm James

    Off Topic: Greater Beta Ace of Spades has a funny post on Ashely Judd’s puffy face:

    http://minx.cc/?post=328289

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 12:50 pm chi-town

      What is fundamentally flawed about the accusation is the demise of a desired resource is not cause for celebration. Members of the Patriarchy ,upon noticing a once celebrated beauty hitting the wall, are mournful of it. When it happens to entitled, political enemies they become fair game of course, especially if they hypocritically seek the same shallow rewards of their sex. However by in large hot women are in demand and the Patriarchy is far happier to observe lingering beauty.
      The snide and cruel gossip must come from a competitor…

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 3:15 pm P Ray

        Hard to be mournful of someone hitting the wall if you understand one-itis, and how if people don’t appreciate a good thing there will be others who will.
        No sympathy or cruelty necessary, there are consequences for every choice.

        LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm chi-town

        Its not one-itis. Its busloaditis. There are times a whole bus does not have a decent inspiration. One less decent babe to look is not interesting conversation to me.

        Yet not on topic. The patriarchy is not behind the gossip, that’s all.

        LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 5:18 pm itsme

      didn’t anyone tell her that semen reduces puffiness?

      LikeLike


  62. on April 11, 2012 at 12:13 pm King A (Matthew King)

    Intelligence in isolation isn’t any different from any other asset (or liability) in isolation. Which is why one of the tenets of the creed in these parts is: even if you’re ______ (rich/handsome/powerful/etc.), you are still at a severe disadvantage, if not completely hopeless, without game.

    If you’re wearing your intelligence on your sleeve, then yeah, that’s the mark of a nerd. It’s a sign of the typical cluelessness that attends “book smarts.” It’s an indication that you are wholly ignorant of the sexual dynamic. It’s not the smarts per se, it’s the overestimation of the value of those smarts. If you’re opening with them, then that’s proof you’re “dumb” in the area that counts, i.e., sexual relations.

    On the other hand, if you’re closing with your smarts, it’s the Final Finishing Move. All I can say is, if you haven’t seen the look of awe in a woman’s eyes when, in a moment of intimacy, you give her a hint of what hidden, mystical power you have purposefully withheld from her all this time — then you have no frame of reference for that kind of swoon, and there’s no use attempting to convey the experience to a mongoloid.

    You can satisfy yourselves capturing their bodies — momentarily. I am a fisher of women, and my aim is to not simply capture but enslave and consume; not just their bodies, but their minds and souls. Each to his own.

    Further, who asks a woman what attracts them? Still further, who attempts to engage the cerebral cortex whose main biological function is to support the health of her babyhole?

    “What’s the useless flesh around a vagina called?” “A woman.”

    Matt

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm James

      Knew a kinda nerdy black guy in high school. Met some girl online, went out for a date. He said she laughed at him when she saw him, told him she wants a thug, not a nerd, and ditched him.

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 2:51 pm P Ray

        As long as he didn’t pay for the date,
        he came out ahead.
        Her rejection of today … builds the players of tomorrow.

        LikeLike


  63. on April 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm thegreatprocess@yahoo.com

    I think this study is misleading because it fails to consider how narrowly high-value women define “intelligence”. Other than physical looks, all the other positive traits the hot women listed are directly linked to high intelligence by and large. And even with physical looks, I think the self-discipline of maintaining a workout regime and diet is also highly correlated with high intelligence. Certainly good social skills, professional success, style, interest in interesting things (music, books, movies) are all strongly linked with overall intelligence.

    The “intelligence” that is likely noted as unappealing in this study is the useless kind of intelligence. It’s probably even annoying to a woman when a man demonstrates useless intelligeence while failing to succeed in his professional life, in his social skills, or in his personal appearance.

    LikeLike


  64. on April 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm gringochileno

    Not surprised in the slightest by this. The conclusion you draw is correct of course. Intelligence is still a helpful trait for getting laid, but in an indirect way–consciously using game techniques requires a lot of mental agility and good judgment. Smart men may not be as likely to be naturals as other guys, but I think their potential is greater in the long run if they use their intelligence to become skilled in game.

    LikeLike


  65. on April 11, 2012 at 1:15 pm Evan

    I rant like Jonathan Bowden. Tell me I’m still cool.

    LikeLike


  66. on April 11, 2012 at 2:42 pm xsplat

    Three times you’ve not let my comment that replied to your addressing me through.

    No rebuttal allowed on your blog now?

    [heartiste: since you totally misunderstood my editorial addition to your comment, i’m not going to spend weeks explaining what i meant. rehashing this same, useless old crap over and over again is bringing down the quality of the comments section and doing no one any good.
    as for strauss, he started getting laid based on the game he picked up and the stuff he invented. before that, WHILE he was a RS journo, he was not. and his gig as a rolling stone reporter was not the secret ingredient that opened the pussy floodgates for him, as he himself has said. nor was his money, which he didn’t start accruing until well after his book sales about his time in the pickup community took off.]

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 3:02 pm Evan

      Right. But am I cool or not?

      LikeLike


  67. on April 11, 2012 at 2:46 pm V

    “But why does she go for IDIOTS? I’m a Mensa member!”

    Reminds me a bit of the other side of this coin…

    “But why isn’t he attracted to me? I have I high status job and career!”

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 3:17 pm P Ray

      Actually, it’s closer to this:
      “But why isn’t he attracted to me? I am mature, older and experienced!”

      LikeLike


  68. on April 11, 2012 at 3:21 pm YaReally

    A lot of girls are only as smart as they have to be.

    A super hot chick doesn’t have to value intelligence cause the world is handed to her on a silver platter. Some of them strive for it anyway and that’s cool but a lot of the dumbass girls you meet are dumb because they CAN be. In fact their life might get harder if they became smarter because a lot of guys would be intimidated or resent them etc.

    So don’t hold it against them lol

    LikeLike


    • on April 11, 2012 at 3:25 pm P Ray

      Seems weird.
      Girls more afraid of guys’ judgement, than other girls’ judgement?
      I’m shocked, shocked I tell you 🙂

      LikeLike


      • on April 11, 2012 at 7:25 pm YaReally

        Not so much scared of it. But just if you’re a chick trying to land a cock it makes it a lot harder to do when the cocks are all scared to approach you or angry with you for being smarter than them and making them feel inadequate lol

        LikeLike


  69. on April 11, 2012 at 4:41 pm xsplat

    So now you’ve joined Aunt Suzan of Be a Better nerd in demanding an echo chamber.

    Good work.

    [heartiste: you’ve done nothing but troll the last ten comments you left here. move on already. there’s little left to glean from any more discussion of your well-worn hobbyhorse. you’ve had your say, it’s been hashed out, be satisfied with that.

    who’s aunt suzan?]

    LikeLike


    • on April 12, 2012 at 12:28 am P Ray

      Aunt Suzan of Be a Better nerd = Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart (oxymoron?).

      LikeLike


  70. on April 11, 2012 at 5:28 pm (R)Evoluzione

    I’m a nerd-to-game convert, having outscored my entire high school on all the standardized tests-SAT, almost on ACT (my cousin beat my by 1 point), verbal/linguistic IQ, etc. As an introvert with a huge vocabulary, I found that the smarts thing by itself was just a turnoff for most women. A small subset found it sexy, but nearly so many as I would have liked.

    In my experience, overt displays of intelligence did, in retrospect, seem to turn women off. I was too puffed up on my own intellect to really see it until I dosed hard on the red pill and began to observe social interactions from a more biologically based perspective. That was eye-opening indeed.

    Now, for smart guys, here’s what I have found to work: a totally playfuy, slightly cocky, mischevious attitude, unbreakable self confidence. Intellect shown sparingly, and in the form of clever wordplay, or the occasionally awesome turn of phrase, interspersed with more terse verbal sparring. A little intellect injected into a conversation goes a loooong way. Don’t overdo it though. Expounding on most scientific subjects at length does tend to turn people off, unless they’re into that sort of thing.

    The one exception I have found, as noted by OverTheTop, above, a certain subset of attractive, fit and smart women find evolutionary psychobiology to be totally fascinating and it often gets them in the mood sexually. It seems that knowing a lot about the science of sex & reproduction may be a sign of reproductive fitness.

    Usually the women who are into the evopsych are fitness trainers, nutritionists, PTs, or other smart, science-literate people who are politically independent and/or agnostics, and the rare unicorn, the libertarian chick.

    The hardcore yoga crowd, the hyper-SWPL urban liberals, the new-age sluts, ARE NOT into this stuff. This loose (ahem) demographic tends to be ardent feminists, and I think we’ve all seen that feminism is retreating back into its hard tortoiselike shell whenever evolutionary topics are breeched. They fight science as hard as the creationists do, it’s quite fascinating actually. Actually, if I’m in the mood to troll a party, after it’s clear there are no viable prospects, I’ll pull out the evopsych, and start cagely dispensing red-pill wisdom. It never fails to rile some tailfeathers, an entertaining pursuit I’d have never engaged as a blue-pill greater beta.

    LikeLike


  71. on April 11, 2012 at 7:55 pm Phidrus

    Long-time reader, first-time poster. “Lila”, by Robert Pirsig is a must-read book for you, I’m getting frustrated that you haven’t read it!
    The pdf is out there if you search a bit.

    Excerpt:

    That’s the way it always is. The intelligence of the mind can’t think of any reason to live, but it goes on anyway because the intelligence of the cells can’t think of any reason to die. That explained what had happened tonight. The first intelligence out there in the cabin disliked him and still did. It was this second intelligence that had come in and made love. The first Lila had nothing to do with it. These cellular patterns have been lovers for millions of years and they aren’t about to be put off by these recent little intellectual patterns that know almost nothing about what is going on. The cells want immortality. They know their days are numbered. That is why they make such a commotion.
    The language of mental intelligence has nothing to say to the cells directly. They don’t understand it. The language of the cells has nothing to say to the mind directly. It doesn’t speak that language either. They are completely separate patterns.

    A bacterium gets no choice in what its progeny are going to be, but a queen bee gets to select from thousands of drones. That selection is Dynamic. In all sexual selection, Lila chooses, Dynamically, the individual she wants to project into the future. If he excites her sense of Quality she joins him to perpetuate him into another generation, and he lives on. But if he’s unable to convince her of his Quality – if he’s sick or deformed or unable to satisfy her in some way – she refuses to join him and his deformity is not carried on.

    Lila is a judge. That’s who lay here beside him tonight: a judge of hundreds of millions of years’ standing, and in the eyes of this judge he was nobody very important. Almost anyone would do, and most would do better than he. After a while he thought, maybe that’s why the famous ‘Gioconda Smile’ in the Louvre, like Lila’s smile in the streetcar, has troubled viewers for so many years. It’s the secret smile of a judge who has been overthrown and suppressed for the good of social progress, but who, silently and privately, still judges.

    ‘Sad Sack.’ That was the term she used. It had no intellectual meaning, but it had plenty of meaning nevertheless. It meant that in the eyes of this biological judge all his intelligence was some kind of deformity. She rejected it. It wasn’t what she wanted. Just as the patterns of intelligence have a sense of disgust about the body functions, the patterns of biology, so do Lila’s patterns of biology have a disgust about the patterns of intelligence. They don’t like it. It turns them off. Phaedrus thought about William James Sidis, the prodigy who could read five languages when he was five years old. After discovering what Sidis had said about Indians, Phaedrus had read a full biography of him and found that when Sidis was a teenager he announced he would refuse to have anything to do with sex for the rest of his life. It seemed as though in order to sustain a satisfactory intellectual life he felt he had to cut himself off from social and biological domination except where they were absolutely necessary. This vow of ancient priests and ascetics was once considered a high form of morality, but in the ‘Roaring Twenties’ of the twentieth century a new standard of morals had arrived, and when journalists
    found out about this vow they ridiculed Sidis mercilessly. That coincided with the beginning of a pattern of seclusion that lasted the rest of his life.’Is it better to have wisdom or is it better to be attractive to the ladies?’ That was a question debated by Provengal poets way back in the thirteenth century. Sidis opted for wisdom, but it seemed to Phaedrus there ought to be some way you could have both.

    LikeLike


  72. on April 11, 2012 at 9:54 pm hypnoshado

    Great story!

    LikeLike


  73. on April 12, 2012 at 4:00 am LD

    “Girls have always valued my smarts.

    I think the difference is how a guy makes her FEEL (as always)

    If he uses his smarts to go on long diatribes about e=mc2 and academic shit, she won’t feel a thing.

    If he uses it to get her to laugh, or tug heartstrings, or set off tingles, he is in business.

    I think most females would prefer a guy who makes them ‘feel things’ over a guy who doesn’t… and I think just using the smarts to get/keep a job doesn’t get that much mileage, in comparison. Doesn’t lend much status.

    Also, ultra nerds are clearly NOT smart in the sense that they are out of balance and have not tended to their social life, often times due to fear. Not much attractive about that.

    When a woman wants a beta herb provider, she is necessarily going to have to choose someone with low awareness / high ignorance

    But beyond that, I think women like being outsmarted, even when they hate it.

    I think that it may also be that here in a society where convictions and principles and purpose goes by the wayside, and happiness is comprised of whatever thrills we can come across, happiness based in physical ‘feeling’, and not rooted in high-minded things like personal ethics, self-discipline, and accomplishment-

    and its all booze and sex and highs and thrills…

    if they are interviewing girls that function that way (almost certainly) of course they are not going to value academic excellence the way they will value guys with washboard abs, big dicks, cute butts, or big arms…

    Girls who do that are too fucking stupid to know how stupid they are, so they default to their base instincts like a rutting pig.

    They also know, subconsciously, that an actual SMART man will not accommodate their feral, self-destructive behavior, and nobody likes being told that the party is over and that there is work to do, especially self-improvement or self-denial.

    Those things just aren’t sparkly enough.”

    This, a thousand times this……. always remember women are half psychopath, half retarded brat. They have no ethics, no nobility, and are basically autistically obsessed with their ’emotions’…..or their cunt-jolts, vag-tingle, beef-jerking id….as in id, not I.D.

    LikeLike


  74. on April 12, 2012 at 6:46 am xsplat

    Days of Broken Arrows

    I see what you’re saying here, but I spent a lot of college fending off the complaints of envious, celebate (and better looking) taller guys, telling me “You’re just successful with girls because they want to *mother* you” (an actual line used many times).

    The fact is, if you’re tall and good looking it gets you in the door. But behave in a nerdy way — or come off as transparently arrogant — and you’re instantly “creepy” and friend-zoned. I’ve seen this happen far too many times to discount it.

    I wish this all had “registered” back when I was younger. I felt like a failure — in retrospect I was pretty successful without knowing it. I think I felt like I was fronting and only the tall, dark and handsome should rightfully get the girl. Now I realize the front is the point. Women buy a package, not a label. So do men.

    Yes, we completely agree.

    I find it odd that some people want to twist around what I’m saying as anti game. They reply to me showing me examples of how game works.

    Yes, game does work. Can’t we just agree that we agree on that?

    I’ve never said otherwise.

    Game is a great addition to other attractive traits,

    [heartiste: game is a great addition even when you have no other attractive traits. something is better than nothing, eh compadre?]

    and other attractive traits are a great addition to game. Take two men of equal game and money and alter the looks. Those men will, of course, as we all very well know, have a different size pool of women available to them.

    But apparently pointing that out is looksnmoney ubber alles anti-game trollery. Better come up with examples how I’m wrong because actually game really does work.

    LikeLike


  75. on April 12, 2012 at 11:44 am Southern Man

    Glad you two finally kissed and made up.

    LikeLike


  76. on April 12, 2012 at 12:28 pm Marlin

    The thing about having an IQ in the stratosphere is that it makes it possible to do and be things other men can’t. Chicks love geniuses and brilliant men, but they only love those who shine, not the ones who fail to apply themselves in real life.

    LikeLike


  77. on April 12, 2012 at 3:01 pm Finnishguy

    This study is not useless, but it merely tells us what feelings girls associate with the world intelligence. They have all been on a date with a guy they know is intelligent, but talks about stuff they dont understand and makes them feel bored. They dont associate the world intelligence with the alpha dude with game, who makes them feel all kinds of tingling feelings. Him they call cute or charming, although the rest of us know, that this guy is indeed smart as well. Alpha dudes just get how to benefit from their smarts in seduction, and it is completely different from how it is applied in science.

    LikeLike


  78. on April 12, 2012 at 5:57 pm Anonymous

    Flexing your brain can be a massive turn on to hot, intelligent women. But it’s better to do it with subjects women are more interested in, like art, literature and music, rather than star trek trivial or the thermodynamic properties of an ideal gas. I’m sure everyone had a college professor who was brilliant and wetted bitches panties during lectures. Try to imitate him rather some generic nerd.

    Talking about HBD/game/anthropology/sociology is pure gold with women if you do it right. You can always lead the conversation towards sex and your own awesomeness. Best when mixed with examples from the gossip rags to illustrate your points. Adopt a vague, cynical posture when you discuss controversial things. Never come off as a zealot.

    When I started learning game and going to clubs to hit on the kinds of hot babes I had always intimidated by, I was surprised than many of the young women I assumed were airhead bimbos were actually quite intelligent and craving intellectual stimulation. They just want it to come from a good looking, masculine, confident man and not the comic book guy from the Simpsons.

    LikeLike


  79. on April 12, 2012 at 7:02 pm xsplat

    I see you again commented on my comment, insinuated I was saying something that I’m not

    [heartiste: please, enough of the martyr act. you’ve posted like 100, 1,000?, comments on this very same subject — nearly identical in form and function! — that everyone has had the luxury of reading and replying to. it’s old now. time to move on. i don’t want the comment threads to get bogged down in the same rambling issue over and over. i believe with a fair degree of surety that such threads drive away would-be new commenters and fresh voices. christ on a cracker it’s challenging enough to keep the posts fresh on this blog, let alone the comment threads.]

    LikeLike


  80. on April 15, 2012 at 5:00 pm Fails

    Looking at this, and the post you followed it with…

    In our modern xenoestrogen-saturated world, men who would have ‘naturally’ had game are having to use their higher executive functions and long-term planning ability instead of raw hormones to execute high-level game. This bodes well for the human race, provided gamers are having kids, because it means that intelligence and discipline, both required for a ‘beta nerd’ (such as my former self) to learn and execute game, are being selected for by proxy.

    This is especially true if good ‘learned game’ is superior to ‘natural game’; I believe that most of us view this to be the case.

    LikeLike


  81. on May 10, 2012 at 7:29 am Lele

    This study is bogus. So, attractive women do not insist on a man’s intelligence? Well, maybe such women themselves are not that intelligent in the first place. If we were told attractive intelligent women didn’t care, then it would have been a different matter.

    LikeLike


    • on May 10, 2012 at 8:14 am Thor

      Ay, there is the rub. So, the personality you should project depends at least to some extent on exactly which types you want to attract. Whoda thunk it?

      Another aspect is that it is very difficult to get a handle on somebody’s intelligence (by whatever definition, including smarts in specific areas) when the person you try to evaluate is MUCH smarter than you are. I would guesstimate that you can estimate with some validity people who are from the bottom up to e.g. 10 IQ points above you. After that, you cannot judge for yourself, but you can in some cases go by reputation. A rocket scientist can be presumed to be at least 140, but the sky is the limit. And you can figure that
      out even if you yourself are average.

      So these women who don’t value intelligence, it is partly because most of them cannot. The typical hot babe is probably not much above average, whereas nerdland is mainly populated by people at least 120+, often lots more. So the babes simply cannot judge, unless you are Carl Sagan and have a reputation – and then it is impossible to disentangle the effect of intelligence from that of fame itself, which is a major attractant.

      Thor

      LikeLike



Comments are closed.

  • Copyright © 2018. Chateau Heartiste. All rights reserved. Comments are a lunchroom food fight and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chateau Heartiste proprietors or contributors.
  • Visit the Goodbye, America photojournal website.

    Then cleanse your visual palate with a visit to the Welcome Back, America photojournal website.

  • Pages

    • About
    • Alpha Assessment Submissions
    • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
    • Dating Market Value Test For Men
    • Dating Market Value Test For Women
    • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
    • Shit Cuckservatives Say
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Twitter Updates

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Recent Comments

    Amon Ra on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Ron on Ugly, Misshapen, Tatted, Fat C…
    Gershom on The Confound Of Silence
    Mabui on The Confound Of Silence
    Carlos Danger on The Confound Of Silence
    cortesar on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Carlos Danger on The Confound Of Silence
    Carlos Danger on The Confound Of Silence
    Captain Obvious on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Captain Obvious on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
  • Top Posts

    • Ugly, Misshapen, Tatted, Fat Catladies Hate Trump
    • Mocking The Globohomo Corporatocracy
    • The Confound Of Silence
    • Slutty Women Are Unhappier Than Caddish Men
    • "Conspiracy Theory" Conspiracy
    • The Great Men On Holding Marital Frame
    • Beta O'Rourke
    • Manifest Depravity
    • Betrayal Is A Woman's Heart
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Categories

  • Game

    • 60 Years of Challenge
    • Alpha Game
    • Cajun
    • Krauser PUA
    • Rational Male
    • Roosh V
    • Tenmagnet
    • Treatise of Love
  • MAGA MEN

    • Alternative Right
    • AmRen
    • Anonymous Conservative
    • Audacious Epigone
    • Dusk in Autumn
    • Education Realist
    • Evo and Proud
    • Gene Expression
    • Hail To You
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • Lion of the Blogosphere
    • My Posting Career
    • OneSTDV
    • PA World and Times
    • Page For Men
    • Parapundit
    • Rogue Health and Fitness
    • Steve Sailer
    • The Anti-Gnostic
    • The Kakistocracy
    • The Red Pill Review
    • The Spearhead
    • Unqualified Reservations
    • Vox Popoli
    • West Hunter
    • Whiskey's Place
  • Syllogism and Synthesis

    • Alias Clio
    • Arts & Letters Daily
    • Deconstructing Leftism
    • Elysium Revisited
    • Feminine Beauty
    • hbd chick
    • Human Biological Diversity
    • Library of Hate
    • Overcoming Bias
    • Stuff White People Like

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: