No way bro, regular chad is back FRESH from his most recent deployment, he's on edge with a slight case of PTSD. It's gonna be a close fight.

I doubt autistic chad would care enough to kill regular chad for any reason other then kicking over his 10 stacked juice boxes.

Hell yeah!

Legion is an autistic X-Man and now has his own Netflix series.

cuz they cant control them

hint: most men are not as intelligent as they think they are
hint: most women are not as dumb as they look

this is why so many retards on the misc were "blindsided" by the "dumb bimbo" who was playing them like a fiddle

Truly intelligent people know how life works and don’t spend their time solving math derivatives or being a physics nerd. They use their intelligence to have a high paying job and have a great quality of life. They also know how to be charismatic and get people to like them.

Confusing booksmart savant autism with intelligence ITT.

Women envy men.

Women are control freaks.

So, they want to be the "man" in the relationship and control a guy's life and call the shots in the family. However, women also hate weakness and will eventually reject the idiot they decided to mate with.

That's why there's so many single moms and f@cked up families.

I have had MANY women directly explain this to me.

I believe people knew this in the past and it's why males used to force their daughters to marry guys. Women do not and cannot be trusted with choices about family.

This is true.

However, many women have no interests and feel "stupid" so if you're a guy that loves life and wants to live, you will turn many women off.

Strong sig to post content ratio

So many nice guys on the misc

Women do like intelligent and educated men. Stop dating retards.

Most women prefer men who are more intelligent than they are. That said, it takes intelligence to recognize intelligence. Most people are fairly stupid.

I've known many very intelligent men in my life, and the majority of them got into good relationships. They may not have been slayers, but none of them had problems with women over the long term. On the other hand, practically every guy I know who is involuntarily single, whether on here on in real life, is either a dumbfuk loser or is someone of unexceptional intelligence who has an inflated opinion of himself.

this and repped
forget to add the gif

lets be real. not like women are hanging outside of computer rooms, or math competitions, or physics classes, quantum mechanic conventions, etc.

there is something to that

Das it mayne

Nothing can dry a vagina faster than a dude that's intelligent but has autism.

There's zero sympathy for autism with women unless dude is loaded with cash.

That's cope. Also, a lot of math and physics nerds also end up with very highly paying jobs and prestigious positions. But, as stated, in the other thread, wealth is not directly determined by intelligence. The smartest people on the planet ARE math researchers dude...that's just the way it is. Seriously. You call it savant autism, and there are some autists, but you're forgetting all of the ultra successful, well adjusted people. For example, John Von Neumann, was arguably one of the smartest men who ever lived, and he was definitely not autistic. He was an extremely sociable, charismatic dude who threw a lot of parties and enjoyed tremendous influence in the government along with academia during his life. Everyone respected what he said because the dude was undeniably smarter than just about everybody else around at the time, even Einstein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann

That's not just book smarts...that's just fukin smart dude.

Or you can look at dudes like Evariste Galois, who was a Chad who basically invented group theory in a few days before he died in a duel. Dead srs. Dude revolutionized mankind and solved problems of antiquity in fuking letters he wrote. He was 20 years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89variste_Galois

People like that are just smarter. Nobody can really deny that.

How comes you're a no-avi ******* now?

THis parody thread realty reached multiple pages? Wow

His point was to move the goalposts on what is meant by intelligence. It is a standard cope that everyone does. "Oh well physics and math aren't the only things that test intelligence..." Well, no chit, but they are some of the best indicators because some of the hardest problems mankind has ever had to solve come from there. Other places can include economics, computer science, engineering,... Sure, business can present its own problems, as can diplomacy and statecraft, but at some point, you have to realize those problems are usually not nearly as difficult to solve as the previous ones mentioned, and the difficult aspects that arise in these fields can actually be reduced to areas of math, such as game theory and operations research. Otherwise, they turn into simple contests of force and influence. If intelligence really boils down to solving problems, then the people that solve the hardest problems are the most intelligent people. Obviously, they can change the definition of intelligence to mean wealth, fame, power, or reproductive success. But none of those things helps you solve hard problems directly. No amount of wealth is going to help YOU personally make a fusion reactor or develop a grand unified theory. (And let's not forget the extreme role of random chance and circumstance in aspects of securing wealth, power, mates, etc) But the dude clever enough to figure those things out could probably secure a decent amount of wealth, fame, and power for his or her (lol) self. Remember that Tesla would have been one of the richest dudes in the world if he hadn't chosen to give up his royalties from Westinghouse. Remember that our country's entire status in the world was contingent upon the work of a handful of very intelligent physicists and engineers who developed a nuclear weapon. A lot of intelligent mathematicians, statisticians, and economists are the only people keeping our economy from crumbling right now, and the advice they give the government is what keeps us afloat. Look at Venezuela for an example of what can happen when economic and government planning falls in the hands of idiots. Most problems, when scrutinized, can actually be reduced to mathematical or scientific ones. There are few exceptions to this. The problem of making the "right" decision is, itself, fundamentally mathematical in nature. There really is no escaping this.

Most people posting in this thread are running about 85 IQ because they see intelligence as single dimensional rather than multi dimensional. There are social intelligence, Logical intelligence, Creative intelligence etc.

Logical intelligence gets you the six figure STEM major job
Creative intelligence gets you the liberal arts degree. You can combine that with logical intelligence and you can be a top entrepreneur
Social intelligence scales the best and gets you the most amount of bishes. Also lets you become president, brb Trump

There are a lot more dimensions.

That's true that intelligence is useless to the individual if it doesn't help him or her attain "success" (of which, biologically, there is only one kind: reproductive). It's a trait like any other trait, same as height, facial symmetry, bone structure, etc. Those can turn out to be useless too if you are in a bad situation or something. My point is that math is all about using logical reasoning to solve problems. The alternative to math is stupidity. Any problem that can be solved by humans can actually fit neatly into some area of math, believe it or not. Even problems you wouldn't think of as mathematical like what the best clothes to wear are for x event, turn out to be mathematical in nature. You have some abstract functional that represents positive social perception you are trying to extremize. You use your memory along with forecasts about how others will react to you to make your decision. We do all of this without thinking about it or appreciating it, but it is actually a form of mathematics happening under the hood. Math is literally everywhere. Now that AI research is booming, people are starting to see how to describe the basic problems we deal with daily, mathematically and how to build models to solve these problems. Your brain is literally a biological computer. When you do anything, you are carrying out an algorithm to do something. You really can't escape that. Somewhere under the hood of music, there is a mathematical theory at work. Somewhere underpinning art, there is a mathematical theory at work. It's all there. We just don't see it because we haven't built the right models to describe it, we don't perceive the details accurately enough to build it, and/or we use other methods (which are still mathematical in nature) to solve these problems approximately using our sophisticated brains. Balancing on your feet actually requires some complex calculations, which are done by your cerebellum. It happens under the hood, and you don't see it, but we still haven't built proper models of walking and running to mimic it effectively with robots. We will get there eventually. Even walking is, at its core, a mathematical problem. There are only problems and solutions. If there is a way to solve a problem, it can eventually be fit into some sort of mathematical framework.The other stuff you mentioned is less tied to intelligence, and more tied to other traits, such as being born wealthy, attractive, tall, and/or having the random chance of things working out for you. The distribution of wealth/reproductive success shows that it isn't tied to some sort of ability in the same way that other traits are. By what process does Bill Gates' genetic combination result in him being thousands of times better at the supposed skill of "being an entrepreneur" than other people? The answer is there is no such process. It would have been a normal distribution, and the spread is not that ridiculous. Bill Gates might be an outlier. He might be highly skilled, but the chance of us obtaining someone so godly at business is quite ridiculous. Also, consider Bill Gates' many business blunders as well with Microsoft. He is a monopolist, and that is why he is wealthy. It really boils down to that. He was fortunate enough to be the head of the first dominant firm in a sector which had mass appeal. We don't see an equal number of "entrepreneurial geniuses" and failures, rather we see like 8 guys with more than the bottom 50% combined. Bill Gates is actually probably just a slightly above average entrepreneur who had a whole lot of stuff work out just right for him. There were probably many more people with similar ability who only attained a fraction of his success. You can look at phenomena like Levy's arcsin law and similar things for examples of how runs do happen and some people stay ahead for a long time even if there is no fundamental advantage to their strategy. Some people do get lucky. For example, some people bet on the stock market and consistently win and enjoy long runs of success. It is not a testament to the validity of their models, contrary to what you might think. A significant portion of the population randomly betting will remain in the green for a long time. People who work in quantitative finance know all about this stuff, and they know that just because someone had a run of success and accumulated a fortune, it doesn't mean his models are sound. It is a mistake to assume that they are fundamentally superior to their competitors. You might erroneously think these people have some "investment skill". You would be wrong. I first learned about this in an article I read a long time ago:

https://www.gotohaggstrom.com/What%2...n%20common.pdf

It was very surprising to me, but it is worth thinking about.

You can read more about this here:
http://www.math.harvard.edu/library/...es/1180908.pdf

It is hard to find nontechnical explanations for this, unfortunately.

Anyway, I'd suspect that much of the success of individuals, such as President Trump, Bill Gates, etc have a lot more to do with monopolistic control, a string of good investment runs, and some business and financial acumen combining together fortuitously. It doesn't necessarily make them more competent at solving business and finance problems (at least not to the degree you would expect given their incredible success). (Bill Gates is by all accounts, a pretty smart dude, (just not smart enough to make his wealth purely a function of his ability alone) and he did actually develop an algorithm for a faster pancake sorting as an undergraduate. So, he is certainly a smart man. Not sure about Trump...) You may think that Kim Kardashian has a lot of social intelligence because she was able to brand herself and maintain huge amounts of wealth. Truth is that she was born into wealth, with a reasonably attractive face, got some fake tits and a fake ass, and slooted around for money and fame. That's not intelligence. Anyone in her situation could have done that, and it didn't require solving any profoundly difficult problems to do. It just required the fortunate circumstances and the courage to take that risk and have it pay off. You might think she has high "social intelligence" but really she just had a decent face, huge fake tits, and paraded herself naked in exchange for fame and money. Let's not debase the meaning of the word intelligence by associating it with such crap please.

"Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings." - Proverbs 31:3

LOL wincel is serious

i dont wanna

Yes, luck is a big factor in success. I never questioned that and there are people who are more skilled than trump/gates/Kim K just didn't get the right opportunity. That's not the point..

I guess what I meant to say in that long winded tangent was just that solving problems logically IS math in a sense. So, it really does come down to that. Like obviously there are a lot of smart people who don't study math. They go on to do other things. Maybe they start a company or perform as actors or work as musicians or something. My point is that under the hood, their intelligence really is their ability to reason and solve problems, which is a kind of mathematical skill. And even though there are a lot of smart people out there who don't study math/physics etc...the SMARTEST people on the planet have always been those few pushing our understanding of those areas ahead. But paradoxically, many of those people are also the LEAST likely to get laid. Some of that may be by making poor decisions (which is arguably an UNINTELLIGENT decision when it comes to their own personal lives) but a lot of it may also just have to do with the misfortune of being ugly/manlet. I think i said earlier in this thread or another that basically if you spend a lot of time fuking and having relationships and fun, you necessarily spend less time focusing on studies. So, there is a tradeoff, and people who focus on studies TEND to be (tho not always) ugly as fuk. Many of them stayed in and read BECAUSE they couldn't get any poon. If you need proof of this, pull up your local university webpage and look at the pics of doctoral candidates for math or physics...and the best ones are generally even worse looking because they dedicate almost all their time to their studies in an effort to be the best.

i believe in the past that they used to believe that iq in mathematics and "verbal" iq were different.

but i believe recently it was proven they are one and the same.

in any case, i kind of agree with aristotle dude over wincel.

wincel is good at math. thus he got a degree in math.

there's no way someone would put themselves through an arduous process that they're not good at; getting a degree in something they're not good at. people [generally] choose the path of least resistance. and though i believe you can challenge yourself, you're still probably doing things you like.

how many people build their lives around things they hate? sounds quite a way to be unhappy

so, i would say that wincel probably sucks at things that are not math, and thus a degree in "not math" prob would have been harder

I'm not even that good at math dude. lol Not good enough at anything tbh. I'm a jack of all trades, master of none. I'm better than most on this forum at math/science probably simply due to their being more nonSTEM than STEM people here, but that doesn't make me good at it. It's like how most people on here are better lifters than the general public, but few would say they are actually good. I wouldn't be surprised if AristoFUKFACE is actually better at math than me. If he aced algebraic topology and went to a good school, he probably is. I got through it, and that class was balls hard. AristoFUKFACE is wrong tho. He is changing the definition of intelligence just to be argumentative. He doesn't want to give those people their props. I can look at almost everything we have today in terms of our technological progress and our global status as a superpower and trace it all back to the actions of a bunch of genius physicists and mathematicians. I don't see how we can all be so ungrateful as to not give credit where credit is due and to pretend other people were "just as smart". It's just not true.

lol i agree.. if you read my posts (they're somewhere in there.. maybe a while back. ive stated exactly that)

a lot of advancements can be solely attributed to newton, descartes, einstein, da vinci, etc.

but people still use their advancements and improve upon them.

im gonna guess you'd suk dic* at public speaking? most people do anyways. i agree math can solve a lot of chit, because they're kind of all the same skills. but i think there's something in there that you prob would have sucked at

maybe english/ philosophy