Hey… my Pepe folder has been collected and curated carefully for decades
Metacognition, hot
Cognition, not
Thinking about thinking is just brain masturbation, which is the pinnacle of homosexuality.
Being a homosexual, I know that thinking about thinking/brain masturbation is unfortunately universal, thus simply the pinnacle of being a cunt.
Incelligence is a heck of a term.
Should be word of the decade.
!brandnewsentence or however to link a community
So success in life means actual intelligence? I disagree with that.
Success ≠ actual intelligence.
Plenty of very successful people who are complete morons.
Women are attracted to success, regardless of actual intelligence.
It’s more that intelligence implies success rather than success implies intelligence.
Actual intelligence boosts chances for success, but it is not required for success.
The way the world is going, intelligence is playing less and less of a factor. You’re either born into it, or you’re a wage slave struggling for life.
Intelligence is working out that you don’t have to struggle. UK example, don’t move to London “for the jobs” if you are only finding minimum wage work.
Guess that depends on where you are. Many places in the world have very high social mobility along with solid welfare and pension systems.
Maybe somewhat less that 40 years ago, but certainly much better than the last thousand years overall.
Intelligence is actually slightly negatively correlated with success by a lot of metrics (earnings, years of life, health) and the best predictors are general big 5 attributes like openness to experience, low neuroticism, high conscientiousness (hard working), and extraversion. Those characteristics are way better predictors of life success.
Do you have any references for this? As far as I know the literature, the debate about “what matters more” is still ongoing with some research arguing in favor of personality and other research in favor of cognitive ability. This research seems to agree that the relationship between cognitive ability and life outcomes is generally positive, and I am not aware of any convincing evidence to the contrary.
I guess I was referencing the original 2016 study by Borghans, Golsteyn, Heckman & Humphries that’s since been replicated and refuted. You’re right that it’s not settled academically right now so we don’t know for sure.
“…conscientiousness (hard working)…” Yeah, surely, if you define working hard as just receiving your father’s or grandfather’s wealth (or at least, part of it) as your inheritance.
When you actually look down at this rabbit hole, you find that the entire premise where these supposedly “predictors” rely, the meritocracy, is actually just a scam, maybe the biggest one. Because social movility is totally broken because prices, rents and taxes are going crazily up while salaries are dropping dramatically, and meanwhile some fucking bank takes your money as a monetary rescue for a fucking son of a bitch billionaire which movement caused an economic catastrophe.
What is success? Being surrounded by people you love and trust? Living life without regret? Sitting on hoards and hoards of money? Planting an endangered tree?
It’s just correct enough for the tiny quipy descriptor to get to the real takedown after.
Also this is 4chan, grade on a curve.
Yeah, I’d say humor is the better indicator. It boils down to the ability to connect ideas in creative ways, as well as keeping a longer context window in conversations
It’s not a direct 1:1, but what is intelligence really? There’s many types, and they’re all a combination of domains
That’s not what I was referring to. Intelligence is basically a combination of working memory, recall, cognition, and metacognition
The combination of these domains together produce the foundation for the “types” of intelligence, which might be more accurately described as abilities
Humor demonstrates these qualities socially. It’s not a direct relationship, more like a demonstration. Like how dancing demonstrates physical ability, humor demonstrates the factors underlying intelligence
(But you could also just be a good or bad dancer)
Also, this is just plain wrong.
Some women are attracted to intellectual minds.
Some women are attracted to physical strength, some women are attracted to maternal instincts, so on and so forth.
The problem is this question is usually being asked by someone who thinks that responding to every factual statement with an inflammatory counterpoint qualifies as intelligence.
The weird definition of intelligence they are using (how to succeed in life) does kind of cover that. The definition of what success is, and the millions of ways of achieving it covers just about all variations.
From what I’ve observed, intelligence doesn’t count for much when it comes to “success in life”, whatever that might be.
True, in today’s times much higher chance of success is having wealthy parents and not having problem exploiting other people, but it wasn’t always like that.
Though given that it is 4chan, I agree with responder that OP mixes incelligence with intelligence. I’m not convinced that sitting on a forum full of memes and Nazi ideology is something that an intelligent person would be interested in.
Also, this is just plain wrong.
A greentext that’s wrong? Highly unlikely.
Allow me to make an inflammatory counterpoint to demonstrate my intelligence: this text isn’t green YOU BUFFOON!
Got em
😰
Chance in a million!
Now I don’t know if that means it has to happen (if it’s exactly 1000000:1, according to Pratchett) or if the front fell off.
It would be like claiming it contained misleading statements and was not heteronormative.
wrong and homosexual, as per usual
Not on this Internet!
We need a new internet
Is it still under warranty?
Ah, damn, we might have to ask the US military…
LMBO Some say he’s still in the burn unit to this day
Right in the ouchies.
Ah yes, how to succeed in life in a fundamentally broken society that values exploitation over everything else. Couldn’t think of a better metric for choosing a partner.
Ffs, you were so quick with the snarky remark that you dont even understand that suceeding in life means a lot of different things to a lot of diferent People.
The definition you gave is your own and for me it reveals a skweded perspective of what means sucess, adaptation or intelligence.
Fair point :D but succeeding in life without succeeding in society is pretty difficult since as you said it means a lot of different things for different people but is still one of the biggest influence on their situation
And for the protocol, i don’t give a shit about that incel bullshit, I just hate people that try to make complex problems look simple because of their particular privileged situation
If you love your wife and you are broke, you won’t make her your wife.
They are just avoiding selfish people who will drag them down.
User name checks out
Ah yes avoid being dragged down by choosing somebody who just drags other people down but not you. So they have a shitty character in general but behave differently toward you. Never heard that this went wrong.
I was reffering to myself, I am a man. I will not be cursing anyone else with myself.
I’m really sorry for this view on yourself. I don’t know how to change this since the default variants that I have been told didn’t work out for me either but I am really sure that prioritizing somebody else over yourself or as you said protecting somebody from getting cursed with one self is one of the most harmful ways to see things. It makes it a lot harder to come close to somebody since you are framing the avoidance as something helpful for them
Yes, it is. Someone who can do well in society and their lives while being generally good to those around them is often considered a good catch.
Thinking that anyone who succeeds in life in our society must be one of the like, less than 10% who are ghouls is odd.
Beeing generally happy and doing well while simultaneously profiting from a society that is build on genocide, exploitation of natural resources and imperialism is such a twisted concept. Even if not part of the 10%.
Gotcha. So would you rank yourself as mostly unhappy, destitute and unwell?
Can you think of anyone in our society who’s doing alright within the confines of a broken system, or do you think that everyone’s existence is inseperable from the context of that existence, even if the means of changing it or it’s impact are outside of their reach? Somewhere in the middle?
I met a guy who helps manage a homeless shelter and food bank. Stand-up guy. Makes ends meet, is doing what he can where he can. Generally happy guy with a family. Pretty twisted right? Or my former coworker who let his gardening hobby get out of hand and ended up running a community garden that retrofitted two houses to donate to families in need.
People exist in their circumstances, but they’re not defined by them. How you react to those circumstances speaks to your character, not that you exist in them.
How you react to those circumstances speaks for your character
Being able to ignore the bigger picture because you can change your own privileged surroundings IS the problematic reaction that speaks for your character
Gotcha, so doing good where you can makes you evil unless you’re mired in torment over things beyond your control? By that metric everyone in the world is evil.
I can’t fathom an ethical system that requires you to be unhappy about things beyond your control once you’ve done the good that you can.
What constitutes “good character” to you? What constitutes “success”?
Yes it is called empathy, it’s nothing you can buy yourself out of by doing good things. If you are somehow interested in the well being of the people it just doesn’t magically disappear after helping some of them. It doesn’t make you evil but it’s certainly not a good sign to weigh these things against each other. The ability to feel good while seeing the world suffer seems to me problematic.
Gotcha. So when was the last time you were happy? I take it you simply do not do things you enjoy?
And when did I say anything even remotely like not feeling empathy for suffering, or that caring for people disappears after doing a good deed? Empathy isn’t an ethical system.
I’m actually curious what behavior you think would be non-problematic, and if any human actually does that.
Or my former coworker who let his gardening hobby get out of hand… to donate to families in need.
The implicit level of privilege here should not go unacknowledged. It’s a hint at the full story. That’s a fundamental part of the problem regardless of how the individual feels about it or reacts.
Perhaps more importantly these are extremely niche/cherry-picked versions of succeeding. In USA it almost always means the same evil bullshit.
You’re not wrong, the guy did have a lot of privilege in his life. He’s well educated, has a demeanor people trust and enough money to have a backyard garden in a house in a not ideal part of town. He opted to use that privilege to get his neighbors to join their backyards together to have a community garden, and then used a city/state program to use their pooled money to buy an empty lot and an unoccupied house to finish the block. Instead of selling the house for profit, they opted to give it to someone in need.
I’m not sure what full story you’re looking for. Dudes a community college astronomy professor who spent some time maintaining billing software.
My point isn’t "oh my God, everyone in the US is a saint!” it’s that the notion that “because the US has fundamental structural problems, anyone who isn’t a miserable failure is inherently evil” is just profoundly misguided.
Either your definition of success is setup such that it says more about you than other people, or you just fundamentally haven’t encountered many people.
What’s your definition of “success”? How many Americans do you think are engaged in “evil bullshit”?
Speaking of juicy mammoths, who’s the lady in the picture?
Some thirst trap which is ironic since she’s holding a drink
iidazsofia
Asking the important questions.
Probably what he considers his bottom in terms of women he’d date.
At least OP said women and not “females”.
At least OP said women and not “females”
Weaponised schizophrenia
Rrrreallly setting the bar high, are we?
I mean, that’s a fun take but realistically there are plenty of women who put a lot more stock in looks (just as men do) an immediate financial ability.
That jock who got a job that’s physically demanding might be making more out of high school, but the IT nerd who went for they education and got a good tech job was likely on a slower burn path to self-improvement with better pay, possibly improving looks over time (or at least less of a beer belly). At least before AI started killing the tech sector again, so maybe the jocks will be coming out ahead for awhile.
Also, there’s also nothing wrong with being a good dude with average intelligence who works hard. Just don’t pick an red-hatred idiot. And intelligent nerds who don’t learn social skills can absolutely still become nasty incels.
I wouldn’t put too much stock into the jock versus nerd stereotypes.
Life isn’t an RPG with stats that come at the cost of other stats. Being bad at sports doesn’t make someone more likely to be good at school (if anything, the correlation might run the other way). And charisma, ambition, intelligence, physical appearance, athleticism, work ethic, are all distinct factors that sometimes feedback on each other, and feed into things like wealth, happiness, attractiveness, etc.
Life isn’t an RPG, but there has definitely been a push by certain groups to value looks and strength or martial prowess over intelligence and education, particularly in North American culture. Yeah, somebody can be an athlete without being dumb, and as another person pointed out there actually a lot of high-speed decision-making that requires intelligence to pro-sports.
At the same time, there are people who very much lean towards looking buff, tough, but not too bright as they categorize intellectuals as losers or socially unwanted. Similarly, there are girls or women who will emphasize their looks and actively hide their intelligence. Il This over time leads to a willful ignorance that IMO is worse than simply being of lower IQ or lacking education.
I’m not aware of any culture in which hiding one’s strengths is a common response to one’s own surroundings. Placing value on a particular characteristic does not imply that a completely unrelated characteristic is undesirable. Plenty of beautiful smart people out there, and even in a society where beauty is prized above all else, why would someone beautiful hide their intelligence?
For whatever it’s worth, in my circles (urban white collar millennial professionals in dense cities), most people are both athletic and intelligent. There are plenty of finance bros and tech bros who have Ivy League degrees (sometimes Ph.D.s, M.D.s, J.D.s) that represent real academic achievement and can also turn around and dominate on a basketball court or in a fighting gym. Lots of smart people like gyms, whether we’re talking resistance training, Olympic lifting, CrossFit/Hyrox, endurance cardio sports like marathon running or biking, winter sports like skiing, etc.
That’s also consistent with what I saw in my high school. Most of the top students headed towards Ivy League or similar caliber schools were also athletes who were very good at a competitive sport for the school. The “nerd”/“jock” dichotomy we expected from John Hughes movies never really materialized, and the popular kids tended to be people who were both good at school and good at sports.
And yet where do you think the demographic that voted for the guy that shits his pants and falls asleep comes from exactly, and moreover continues to double-down on supporting him even to their own detriment? How about the people who modify their trucks to spread black smoke just to “own those pissy hybrid drivers and cyclists”?
The continued attempts to enumerate activities that would have fit on Jackass (and likely watched the same on repeat).
Never knew a pretty girl in school who got good grades but hid then and played dumb?
There’s plenty of people who embrace an absurdist mentality and openly reject anything that requires actively using one’s brain.
“Just don’t pick an red-hatred idiot” took me a sec to parse.
It’s a typo but the intended group still fits! Love it.
Yeah I meant to your red-hatted but hatred seems to come with that package too so…
Women like beer bellies, and big forearms.
Everything men hate, women like.
The thing there is that when people say “people are attracted to intelligence” the intelligence people think of is different than the type people are generally attracted to.
Highly analytical intelligence is a type of intelligence. So is the ability to make correct choices in a variety of situations.
Almost every athletic endeavor entails being able to assess situations quickly and accurately, and know how to respond. Team sports require group coordination, training and predicting teammates behavior.
That’s intelligence, but it’s often considered a lesser sort than the analytical sort.It’s why people see the people doing work that requires the type of less prestigious intelligence as less intelligent, and see people being drawn to them as proof that people aren’t really drawn to intelligence.
To be blunt: it doesn’t matter how strong you are if can’t read or get confused by the garage door opener every day.
It’s the same as saying that people aren’t attracted to appearance because plenty of people are drawn to normal attractiveness people.
That’s actually a good point about sports intelligence. Pro athletes likely have a certain almost instinctual grasp of certain physics even if they aren’t running the actual numbers in their heads.
You can take away the qualifiers. :) and it’s not instinctual, just practiced.
The notion that athletics doesn’t require intelligence draws away from the understanding of exactly how much practice it takes to hone the skills to that level.And, for a fun reference, the typical NFL player has significantly more traditional education than the average person.
And how do you succeed in life? Step 1 is to have rich parents. The term commonly used for those seeking out people from rich families is gold digger.
If your only measure of success is wealth, that’s kind of sad.
It’s not, but anyone that tells you wealth doesn’t matter, is either lying or trying to sell you something also.
You have already failed. Success is not measured in wealth.
If you are having a good time with friends/family around a fire pit with a total cost of £0. You are succeeding more than the richest man on earth who can’t get anyone to genuinely like him.
But enough about Elon Musk.
It’s possible both scenarios included Elon Musk.
I don’t think he has friends
I was more thinking he could be in the fire.
For those three hours, then they have to pay rent, buy food, pay bills. And try to survive, which wealth makes immensely easier.
Sure I guess, but its not like it has to be difficult to pay for all that stuff.
Living I’m south east UK and even at minimum wage its pretty easy to cover essentials. If you think spending more on things you don’t need will make you happier, that might be where you are going wrong.
The first time I felt like life was alright was after leaving school and moving out. Despite on paper being vastly below the poverty line. It didn’t feel like it, I could afford rent and food, didn’t really know what else to spend my money on. GTX1060 isn’t something you need to buy many of.
Main thing to reduce living costs is just share a house with other people. Our rooms still had their own locks so its not like anyone could go through my stuff.
That is existing NOT living. your wife going to live in that “room”? Kids? Anything resembling a vacation? Ever being able to go out?
Damn you’re brain washed.
And that’s in a country with free health care and decent minimum wage and social support. That shit don’t work outside UK/EU countries.
Minimum wage is much lower for apprenticeships, plus I was only working 11-5. Once I completed the apprenticeship I started earning regular minimum wage. Saved most of the difference for a house deposit.
I didn’t say I did nothing, just that I didn’t spend much money after essentials are covered. Tbh, still don’t.
After work go to the beach, drink a can of cider, cook up some hotdogs for dinner and have a swim - it costs me under £1.
Been going out fruit picking lately, mostly plums, apples and blackberries. That costs £0 to do and you end up with delicious food out of it. Or lately, been making wines from some of them which was a small one time cost for some bottles.
Gardening and allotment, £50 a YEAR rent for the allotment and get a pretty big space from it. Still a WIP as I am new to that but I get to chat with people there along with grow my own fruit/veg. Before that I just had my small garden which I use to grow herbs.
If this is just “existing”, I feel like I would question who is the one that’s brainwashed.
That’s great!, when your done patting yourself on the back and thinking only about your own situation. You might want to consider 80-90% of the rest of the world’s population where those safety nets DON’T exist…
So using the same logic I can dismiss the problems of Americans because of Sudan?
If your only measure of success is wealth, that’s kind of sad.
Wealth for wealth’s sake, possibly, but i’m not gonna start throwing shade at someone else’s life goals.
Wealth is , however, a good baseline to build upon to achieve other metrics, up to a point at least.
I’ve heard that people try to marry their parents… or people like them rather.
I see some truth in that sometimes
I feel attacked
If “succeed in life” means significant intergenerational wealth to achieve a strong head start, great genetics for height and facial symmetry, and strong black triad traits, then sure. Let’s convert the word “luck” to “intelligence”, regardless of how bad that fit may be.
I mean, there are exceptions among women. But the correct term is called “outliers” for a damn good reason.
Sounds like you might be buying into the black pill Incel propaganda they were talking about. Pretty much all my smart friends who ended up being fairly successful (at least middle class) ended up being snatched out of the dating pool fairly quickly, before they ended up making anything of themselves.
I think ambitious and emotionally intelligent people often end up pairing in long term relationships and removing themselves from the dating scene fairly early in life. So people who are less emotionally developed/available are left thinking the other sex is to blame.
Plus, I think if we are going to be judging the sexes for being shallow, I would say a lot more women are okay with being with men less attractive to themselves than vice versa.
