A new commenter, Z, left a great comment regarding intelligence and an interest in questioning appearances and learning about the causes of things. You could aptly call the approach of the average person regarding modeling reality black-box thinking, and if you think I’m exaggerating, ask the average woman how she thinks some part of her smartphone, or the software on it, works. You will likely find that she has never asked herself that question and instead treats her phone more like some kind of magical object. This stops being funny when it comes to elections. We really are surrounded by sheep.
Here is Z’s comment:
I find that only those who are “above-average” or higher in intelligence also seem to be the ones who seek out the “truth” about reality. You won’t see the normies engaging in any kind of serious contemplation about life. I think this is also why you see a lot of intelligent men looking for platforms to discuss the “truth” outside of the mainstream society and thankfully blogs like this exist to share ideas and information or else you might not meet others who can actually have this type of discussion.
Furthermore, based off my own observations and experiences, those of lesser intelligence are completely unable to seek out the truth and instead simply just go with whatever they are “told” or whatever their “feelings” are. I find that to be utterly bizarre and I cannot understand how so many just sleepwalk through life like they are some kind of wind up toy.
Honestly, in regards to women and intelligence, I believe that the higher level of intelligence that you have as a man, it will make engaging and dating women much more difficult. I’ve never met a more unintelligent, herd-following, mindless, soulless, and down right dumb group of people than American women. Even though I’ve had sex with a number of these women, it is very unfulfilling and painful to have prolonged interactions with them and I have even grown tired of going through the motions of approaching in real life and I even deleted my tinder account because it is not worth it.
Have you guys ever been able to see right through the bullshit that women throw at you before you even really get into meeting them? I had a scenario where I was interested in a woman and she was giving me the eyes and within myself I said you know what this woman is married or something and it turned out to be true that she was married and I didn’t even know this before I met her. Call it a sixth sense or whatever but this kind of stuff happens to me for some reason where I can pick up on something by intuition without even knowing the person.
Anyways, to help make your point, I scored 137 on IQ test and am enrolled in a STEM-technical 4 yr degree program in the US and am 27 years old.
Did you enjoy this article? Great! Here are further steps to take:
(1) Leave a comment and tell us what you think about this article. If your comment is not related to this article, then post in the most recent Open Thread. Keep the comment policy in mind!
(2) Check out Aaron’s excellent books, the latest of which are Sleazy Stories II, Sleazy Stories III, and Meditation Without Bullshit.
(3) Book Aaron for one-on-one consultation sessions if you want brutally honest advice.
(4) Donate to the upkeep of this site. This blog is free of advertising. This is great for your user experience, but the site costs money regardless. Please contribute!
20 thoughts on “Open Post: Intelligence and Truth Seeking”
“This stops being funny when it comes to elections.”
I talked to a woman at work who doesn’t even know who Bernie Sanders is. I’ve quizzed teenage girls at work about who Lyndon Johnson is and they don’t know. One of these girls was graduating from high school a year early. I’ve heard that Europeans care more about American politics than Americans do. Americans are the most apathetic First Worlders out there. When I go off about our problems I’ve heard, on multiple occasions, “there’s nothing we can do about it.”
But ask these women about the Royal Wedding and they know every detail.
Wow. Thank you for posting my comment. I am grateful to the men who decide to write such as yourself and help to disclose how the world really works, especially in the illusory world of inter gender dynamics. I wish you much luck in your endeavors and also to the other commenters.
Everything is explained by the reproduce at all costs strategy of the X chromosome. That is the why. The how is pheromones. This is the bottom of the rabbit hole and blindingly simple, just as Occam’ s Razor tells us it should be. Reverse engineer that bold statement and learn for yourself the undeniable truth of it. Hint; the key is the logical extrapolation of Dawkins. Cheers.
I’d recommend you spell out your thoughts. Your obscurantism does not make you sound profound. Instead, my instinctive response is that you don’t know what you’re talking about and just throw out a few big words and big names to sound educated. I have met too many people who do that. This is particularly endemic in the humanities where people get trained to impress each other with fake erudition.
If whatever you are talking about is “blindingly simple”, spell it out for us unwashed masses. Many of us have an IQ > 130, by the way, so if we don’t get what you’re talking about, the problem isn’t us.
The X chromosome is genderless
X chromosome gene count is roughly 1,200
Y chromosome gene count is roughly 120
Females have two unequal X chromosomes, one is dominant
Males have one X and one Y chromosome
The X at 3,600 genes outnumbers the Y at 120 genes 30:1
Pheromones are the silent chemical communication method
Question: With the X outnumbering the Y 30:1 which chromosome do you think dominates? Answer: Obviously, the X.
Question: What makes the males of all sexually reproducing species willing to fight, kill, and die in direct violation of their rational best self interest (Ayn Rand) to mate? Answer: The dominant X of the female communicates via pheromones with the X of the male which in turn chemically communicates via hormones with the Y of the male inducing the behavior. But, doesn’t that put survival of the male X at risk? Yes it does but the dominant female X also is dominant over the subservient male X which is expendable in service to the dominant female X.
Question: Why will female mothers of all sexually reproducing species put up a fight for their offspring but not die defending them? Answer: Their dominant X seeks its survival above all else and will not sacrifice itself for any reason. After all, as long as it survives there will be future opportunities to reproduce itself. A mother will stand outside her burning house with her children trapped inside screaming for help, but she will not rush into the burning house to save her own children. But a male fireman will risk his life, and sometimes die in the effort, to save children who are not his. What is the root cause of both behqviors? The dominant X chromosome.
Logical extrapolation of Dawkins’ Selfish Gene Theory in terms of Darwinism: In the primordial ooze, only the X chromosome existed and reproduction was via simple mitosis. Survival in the ooze was difficult. The X evolved a reproduction strategy involving a copy of itself in the same cell, in essence parthenogenetically. Of course, one X was dominant and the other subservient. This was not enough for the dominant X (picture the all female cast of Survivor). The dominant X then chemically evolved the subservient X into a slave willing to fight, kill, and die for it – the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is a mutated X chromosome!
Religious implcations of genetic science: If God, not Darwin is the correct answer, then why would a male God saddle his sons with a life of genetic slavery to females? He wouldn’t but a female God would. As the Red Pill tells us, everything men have been led to believe is a truth is in fact a lie. As are the “natural truths” men instinctively believe.
In the Garden of Eden it was not Eve who rebelled, it was Adam! Eve, the daughter of her mother God, was so lazy she grew tired of picking her own fruit and demanded her mother provide her a servant (remind you of the modern woman?) and she was given one, Adam. Adam grew tired of serving the lazy demanding bitch (sound familiar?), grew a pair, and said “Fuck this shit, I’m out of here” (sound familiar?). Eve then bitched to her mother again and her mother God told her how worthless she was and how ashamed she was of her daughter and banished her from the Garden to follow Adam into the wild.
Survival in the wild was difficult and Eve had no choice but to obey Adam. And civilization grew. And then civilization became wealthy and Eve didn’t need Adam any longer since she was back in the Garden and became the lazy demanding bitch she naturally was.
This version makes a lot more sense to me than the Bible story and also matches with history. Oswald Spengler’s The Death of the West, studied eight high civilizations from the past (as far back as Sumeria) and discovered they all had similar life spans and similar traits, especially towards their death. One trait, among many, was the sexual liberation of women which caused the native men to no longer care about their society. Since their women had become modern Eves which they, like Adam, could not tolerate and the men turned to homosexuality and games. Sound familiar?
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times. The never ending cycle.
This is my theory in a nut shell. The only reason we (men and women) are here is the reproduction of the dominant X chromosome. It is the only game in town and all behavior is rigged so that the game never ends (Dawkins lamented he did not call it the Eternal Gene). Everything else is merely a side show detail.
God or Darwin? It doesn’t matter. Men are screwed ether way.
There are times I wish I did not believe this to be the blindingly simple truth that it is.
I find parental investment theory more convincing than the idea that Y chromosome evolved as a servant to its X counterpart. For one, in almost all species the male doesn’t contribute anything to the female except his genetic code. In case of lions the alpha male, funnily enough, also exploits female labor and doesn’t even have to hunt.
You are saying that animals basically comprise of two subspecies, one serving the other. What I see are independent agents each trying to maximize their reproductive success via sex-specific strategies.
” A mother will stand outside her burning house with her children trapped inside screaming for help, but she will not rush into the burning house to save her own children.”
This is anecdotal at best.
So when I tell you that a Chinese woman took the death penalty for her daughter (who in fact was the one who committed the crime), then that’s another anecdote opposing your anecdote. This story is true btw, I’d have to dig it up, though.
And, as already pointed out in another exchange between me and you, your pheromone theory does not explain porn consumption or any online dating dynamics which totally mirror face-to-face dating. I believe you did not respond to this back then. Maybe you do it now?
This could be a Far East vs. West comparison as I have come across quite a few cases of Western women who abandoned, neglected, or even killed their offspring. In contrast, kids seem to have a much higher status in the Far East.
This is one core aspect of why this ancient Greek bullshit concept of “demokrateia” doesn’t work and never really worked out well anywhere – unless you wanted to fool an overall stupid population into believing themselves to be free and autonomous, while at the same time keeping them ignorant and exploiting them to the maximum level. Human vanity is shockingly fascinating indeed.
You do know that in ancient greek only adult male citizen were allowed to vote? Citizenship was mandatory, having a penis was not enough. And that’s by far the best democratic system ever. Because you had to earn the right to vote. They made sure that only somewhat intelligent and successful people would vote.
A basic intelligence test like being able to obtain your own unexpired ID would go a long way. Having to register before a certain date would also filter out more idiots.
@ Dude: This is not entirely correct. Only those citizens were allowed to vote, who were accepted members of the polis, free men, who were debt-free and didn’t have to pay taxes. All other people were excluded. Then system still didn’t last that long, eventually they were overcome by the Spartans, the Lacedaemons, because those “democratic” Athenians felt the strong urge to spread their beloved political system to other poleis, most of which were not at all interested in this system of amateurs ruling the very limited areas of public life of a small city state. Athenian “democracy” displayed al the basic bult-n malfunctions we can observe today: demagogy, continuous selection of ever more mediocre and unproductive people for public offices, economic short term planing, decayof living standard, median income and morals etc. … it’s not without good reason that the term “democracy” garnered a -at best – rather ambivalent reputation among educated Greek and Roman citizens since 300 B .C. …
Now it’s time for some crazy talk: Imagine what a “democracy” would be like in which the only people allowed to vote are above the age of 50 and debt-free. On top, you could limit the franchise even further and demand that they cannot ever have received welfare benefits, have to be married (and never divorced), and cannot be childless. Sure, it may be an “oppressive” society, but you can be quite certain that such a society would be really stable.
Q: “Why is democracy a tool of legitimatizing decisions?” (intelligent question)
A: “Well, because it’s the will of the majority”. (normie answer)
A: “So is gang rape.” (intelligent counterargument)
I like that one. I also like counterarguments based on simple examples involving money. Imagine you take 5 guys. One of them has $1,000 dollars. The other four have nothing. Now, the task is to make a majority decision of how the wealth in this little community should be spread. (I bet that in real-world experiments you could easily find groups that decide that the four should get $250 each and the supposedly rich guy cannot keep anything.)
“Imagine what a “democracy” would be like in which the only people allowed to vote are above the age of 50 and debt-free…”
I like to imagine what a country would look like today if it had a true aristocracy. I believe what we see in general today is more akin to an oligarchy. So, what if the proven best of the best were given positions of high status. Certainly we would need a criteria to go by, some of which you have spelled out. Maybe that could work pretty well.
The term ‘aristocracy’ has an interesting root as it means “rule of the best”. You could argue that a hereditary aristocracy, i.e. an entrenched nobility that simply bequeaths wealth and status to their children, is not a genuine aristocracy as it is not assured that the children of today’s best will be tomorrow’s best. Perhaps surprisingly, Chinese style meritocracy could be considered a prime example of the rule of the best, given how adept the CPC is at selecting leaders. Look up the biography of Xi Jinping, for instance. That guy began by improving the lives of people in some village and just got more and more responsibility as he moved up the ranks in the party.
There’s no need to set a voting age in your example 🙂
Just let only those vote who have a lifetime cumulative net tax contribution.
Check this out:
I’m laughing hard at the lifetime chart.
Women would never vote and men as a group only after they hit their late 30s.
Not sure why you want to exclude the childless group of people from voting.
Assuming even a flat tax rate they contribute the most.
This is a great blog post I’ve come across a few times. I like your suggestion a lot. In fact, in today’s age of ubiquitous data collection, everybody could get real-time status updates of their eligibility to vote under such a scheme.
The sole reason to exclude the childless is that you can make the plausible assumption that they are less interested in the future viability of society. In particular among high-income gay men you have a lot of hedonists who just want to enjoy life. You can’t really blame them, obviously. Yet, this is exactly why you don’t want to have such men have any say in society’s future. Childless women can safely be assumed to be more resentful than mothers. Just look at today’s childless, crazed feminists. It’s obvious why they should not have any say in politics if your goal is a sustainable nation state.
I understand your rservation with regards to hedonistic childless men.
I believe that even childless women do not have a cumulative net tax contribution over their lifetime (not sure if the article was very clear on the data being adjusted for child-raising-related workplace absence.)
Anyway. It’s a good step in the right direction, i.e. away from “one man, one vote”.
Implementing it would probably have to go step by step, similar to how Alaska went from a “may issue” state to “constitutional carry”. One would have to start restricting the vote on a communal level, and then set thresholds and them move up and tighten it up year by year.
would probably take a while.