The concept of IQ diversity applies even more so to the concept of value in males vs females.

Author: RationalMadman

Posts

Total: 21
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,354
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
There are many medium IQ women, you may go 'oh duh there's also many medium IQ men'... Actually, not quite as many at all.

IQ has a fairly large genetic component, and some of the genes involved are x-linked. What that means is that men (at least, men with XY chromosomes) have only one copy of them, whereas women (those with XX) have two. The genetic aspects of intelligence are an interplay of all those genes and they tend to “average out” in the sense that extreme highs and lows of intelligence depend on getting the “best” or “worst” versions of each gene across all the genes and copies.
Women, with two X chromosomes, get more copies of some genes, which means they are less likely to get an extreme in either direction. Men only have one copy of some genes, so the chance of an extreme combination is higher. As a result, while the mean IQ for men and women is generally similar, men have a higher standard deviation and so a wider spread of values with more men in the extreme high and extreme low scores, on average.

Men are more diverse than women are in most things other than fashion.

If you even include fashion and focus on fashion that's natural (as in natural hair on face, natural way of toning one's body, natural posture variation) men again have more variation than women. There is something both genetic and social that leads to males growing up more stratified than women and it makes a lot of sense if you think of the role they played while we evolved but why it's maintained in spite of feminism is that women don't have a reason to want to fight it, if anything men might.

So, over time, the need for women to bet the social gel and 'supporters' hasn't reduced, they don't tend to want hyper-specialised roles in anything (I said tend to, not any hard and fast rule here at all). They support 'jack of all trades' type work in a professional setting and the best at any specialty is typically a male, across the board outside of the arts and perhaps live interpretation/translation as these accentuate female lateral thinking intelligence which is able to dip in and out of various subjects at once and such.

I am going to now shift into what the title of this thread is.

The title of this thread is about high value women and high value men. I believe firmly there are more very high value men than very high value women out there and more very low value men that are completely undesirable to all straight women and even gay men than the inverse (low value women).

The reason I believe this is just as true there as with IQ is that men who are unappealing tend to embrace it in ways even the most ardent 'I'm an independent woman, fuck the patriarchy' women don't really branch away from. All women want to feel beautiful, all women want to feel desired (not sexually necessarily but I mean their presence desired). There exist men that have 0 intention at all of feeling desired, they don't lash out in response to it, they just totally lack the care for socialisation altogether.

If you think I'm being unfairly sexist, why is it you can find me plenty of male hermits totally satisfied with their completely solitary life but you probably can find me precisely zero female equivalents?

The reason is that women all actively want to be wanted, so this firstly explains why the extreme 'low value' end tends to 'correct themselves' to some degree with adapting their accent, makeup etc. I am not saying 0% are low value and happy being it, I am saying the percent is severely low and those that are find other ways to be wanted. Since I do believe only males exist that have no desire to be wanted and desired, I think that this means that women who are severely low value even if dedicated to die single and totally satisfied with their sex toys or totally asexual, tend to unintentionally 'correct' their behaviour and looks as their life progresses simply out of an involuntary urge to feel wanted and seen as beautiful.

This, however, does not explain the other end of this sexist idea. Why are there more extremely high value males than the equivalent in females? This is a much harsher truth and if you deny it that's totally fine. I am here to be proven wrong even.

When men are high value, they tend to develop an ego relating to it. Women do the same thing but the problem is this leads to them involuntarily acting less feminine and less high value in a womanly way. If you, for instance, imagine a woman that's super fit, super good looking, has high empathy and despite said empathy is not some humble pushover in the slightest and knows her worth in the dating market, is she going to operate in a feminine or masculine way? Of course, she will operate like a male player does and the problem is even she doesn't mean to do that. She wants to feel in over her head with a man that is too good to be true that grounds her and makes her feel fulfilled being his feminine, supportive nurturer. She wants to have fun with him, let him take the lead and entertain her, guide her and be the light in her life as she tries her best to fuel said flame and enjoy its burn. This is what she wants but to be that and realise she is one of the most desired flame-fuellers around is a major problem.

This problem in human beings stems from the fact that we are one of the only animals, not just mammals but all animal species in the entire animal kingdom other than insects and invertibrae to have more typically expected beauty and desirability from our females than our males. If you think I'm bullshitting, imagine for a moment the typical female of any ethnicity. Now, imagine the typical male of that same ethnicity. You don't need to be very bisexual to realise that the women is almost definitely appealing while the man you imagined was not only harder to imagine but also hard to pinpoint because a lot of things about a guy that is preferred makes him atypical. In contrast, I want you to imagine a female dog (not a pun) of whatever breed you like the most, now imagine a male dog of that same breed. Almost everything in the male will be more defined and easier to pinpoint as striking, majestic, alluring, whereas the female has probably got the more 'background character' look. In humans the typical male is very varied to begin with and the average almost barely exists. Typical females exist within every ethnicity and excluding the variation in skin tone specifically and hair colouring variance, you can generally imagine 'her' with ease because enough females actually try to fit that or end up fitting that.

If I am confusing you on what the fuck I am saying, I want you to stick to very easy species like lions, peacocks or gorillas. In lions and gorillas the males are very defined, the females are very undefined. You can easily imagine a very 'male' gorilla and what that entails, same with lion and in other species it's still true (other than humans) but the females of those species are more close to each other very extremely even. The reason this is important to understand is that while that's true in humans under my theory, what's different is that females try so much more to be beautiful and high value in the first place.

Female donkeys are not fighting hard to impress the males, it's always the other way around. Humans have the competition work both ways around and actually end up with males going after the females that impress them most often enough that the term 'simp' for all other species (except insects and invertibrae) would refer to the females but for humans was aimed at males. In summary, most, not all, women can only be so high value among our species before they push over into being the masculine lion/silverback-gorilla type in their aura rather than the feminine being seeking to fuel the flame that I referred to before. Peacocks, lions and gorillas make it much clearer what exactly I am saying here.

The problem then becomes if you have a very high value woman, only she can bear the child so in polyamory that has 1 apex female and many males, it doesn't work like insects or rats can work, the reason is that our women have 1 child and it's a very demanding process even after the pregnancy. That means only for the sake of 'love' can that operate and if so she's going to have to share the men anyway unless they want to truly swap gender roles or hire babysitters and not really do the parenting. I am not saying relationships revolve around family and children as such but on the basic level of how we make high value mean things for each gender, it does.

A high value male is able to push to be apex more often than the equivalent in female because the way he carries himself, the cockiness, steadfastness, self-assuredness etc. if combined with high enough responsibility and empathy such that he isn't a total jackass but just half a jackass who can tone it down for those he's close to enough of the time, is a masculine beast that the women with chemistry could indeed feel fulfilled by. On the other hand, women that push to be high value and succeed end up carrying themselves in a very masculine way as just described and that instantly values them back towards the mean/median (often enough for it to result in a medium-value majority more severe than in men, not all the time but often enough).
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
If my IQ is 128, am I compared against every other teen, every other 16-year-old, or what set of people?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,354
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
That depends what the purpose of the statistical analysis is.

Are we analysing the correlation between age and IQ or what?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,354
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
Oh, you are compared to every single human, but the tests for kids are done simpler. Once you are 14ish, the tests stay similar to adult ones.
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
So the average is still ~100 for both, but men have a larger standard deviation, and presumably no tail in either direction?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,354
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@K_Michael
Much shallower middle, it is barely a bell curve. It applies to more than IQ imo.
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Such as? I understand the X Y encoding regions part, the Y chromosome has only 55 genes on it, compared to 900 on the X, so it's plausible that IQ is partially affected, but what other things do you think it controls?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,354
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@K_Michael
Literally in my OP and way beyond just a transphobic chromosome analysis.
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@RationalMadman
The hell is "high value" supposed to mean though?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,354
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@K_Michael
For men:
  • Leaderlike or if a follower, a strong hardworking one.
  • Creative, intelligent or both.
  • Sexy, as in eye-pleasing, ear-pleasing, nose-pleasing and the way he carries himself at times has you wanting him to aggressively do things to you.
  • Cocky but not egomanic arrogant.
  • Busy but can make you feel so important for at least an average of 40 mins a day.
  • Fixes problems instinctively and proactively, combats his laziness regularly, jumping to attend to the infant during the night but letting you handle the infant during the day, after you got a good rest. Ninja warrior vibes, makes you know he will work hard so you can choose to but does not have to.
For women:
  • Able to tune down her impulse to multitask and focus entirely on you much longer than the 40 mins a day of the high value male. However, she makes you work for it.
  • Popular or at least sociable if naturally introverted.
  • Sexy in the same ways as a high value male.
  • Listens well, communicates well.
  • Allows you to ground her when shit hits the fan, does not hide her emotional shit from you, makes it easy for you to decipher her cryptic web of emotions.
  • Cooks well.
  • Cleans herself and the house well.
I get it, it is sexist and not an entirely complete list either.

Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
The hatred for women on this site never ceases to amaze me and it really at this point should not surprise me. The negativity in posts regarding women sinks lower and lower and lower honestly don't know how any of you fuck heads  have women around you. Cannot imagine what your mother's did to you to make you like this. And the idea you might have daughters just scares the shit out of me.
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@RationalMadman
If you're holding them to different standards, then it makes sense to expect different frequencies. There is not a "high value gene" that controls both of these lists of characteristics, and they may correlate very little if at all. I would expect most of these to largely be controlled by rearing and personality rather than genetics anyways.
Busy but can make you feel so important for at least and average of 40 mins a day.

Cleans herself and the house well.
These are conscious decisions that one must actively cultivate. If you were raised well, they will come naturally as you learned to keep healthy relationships and value cleanliness in yourself and your environment, but they are also skills that can be learned later in life. I know plenty of people in their early twenties, both men and women who still don't know how to keep their living space clean, but some of them do/will eventually learn and find themselves happier for it.

The stigma against dating in/before high school in my parents' culture has been a huge detriment on me developing good dating skills, and is something that I'm still working on to overcome. Based on your criterion for high value, I would probably put myself at average or below average. But I'm not forever doomed to stay that way, and neither are women, though if the standards are higher to start with, then it makes sense that fewer would meet them.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,354
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Do you wish to reply to specifics? I am willing to reply to counterarguments made, polytheist.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,354
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@K_Michael
Men, all men no matter what, start at trash value and need to crawl their way into high value status. Money is not the main factor whatsoever.

Women typically start just below average because of the fact they are drawn to feel included and desired by even their female peers and parents and develop traits that make them de facto near medium value already once they hit 18. I said typically, the super feisty bite your head off type does exist of course.

The standard they are all held to, though, is how desirable a partner they are relative to their gender.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,838
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
SIMP?
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@sadolite
I'm sure you are, woman hating pig.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,838
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Na, been married for over 20 years, kids and everything to. Women hate men more by the way. They are modern independent and strong, They don't need no man. If all the men died today, it wouldn't even be noticed by women.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@sadolite
You've had free maid service, cook and baby sitter for 20 years. Good for you.  I've been married over 20 years too what does that mean? Doesn't change the fact that all the post here by men are fucking ignorant as shit. Women should hate men. Centuries of bullshit, and nothing's changed. They still views women the same way they did when they were fucking cavemen. Congratulations you can't evolve.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,354
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Out of curiosity, what would someone who loves women as opposed to ignores femininity have to say about women?
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,984
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
"I am confusing you on what the fuck I am saying"
This.

11 days later

IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,211
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I would like to know what part of the op bothers you. It's just an acceptable hypothesis since men and women are different, it's not sexist at all, unless you're a radical feminist that hate men.

Dr. Jordan Peterson can shed some light on it if you don't understand.