IQ of students by major and gender chart – please explain this

Home Forums Science & tech IQ of students by major and gender chart – please explain this

Viewing 40 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #162516
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Explain this

    • #162517
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #162525
        Anonymous
        Guest

        apparently me, ee and cs have the most amount of males in them and these fields have the best employment opportunities

    • #162518
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Women very rarely enjoy intellectual things. They also have slightly lower IQs in general but I don’t think it’s enough to explain what you posted.

      • #162523
        Anonymous
        Guest
        • #162572
          Anonymous
          Guest

          lolwut sub 1200 chess is like a child’s level of play

          • #162574
            Anonymous
            Guest

            No. It’s "people who don’t play chess much, if at all" level of play.

          • #162600
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Please. There are plenty of children who play better than that.

      • #162543
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Women have higher IQs on average, men carry the outliers.

        • #162553
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Women have higher IQs on average
          Source?

          • #162556
            Anonymous
            Guest

            anon is probably referring to the well-established fact that women only have lower iqs on average when you don’t control for height, but have higher iqs when you do control for height, despite their skulls being 15% smaller.

            • #162563
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Is this true? We clearly need to start genetically modifying women to become tall amazons, then. N-no, I don’t have any other reason for suggesting this.

              • #162566
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Hey, thats my idea.

              • #162568
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Every. freaking. Thread.

                • #162569
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Wrong. That guy isn’t me, great minds just think alike.
                  You would be better as a tiny supersoldier elf shota (if you’re a male) or a giant thick Amazon mommy (if you’re a woman).
                  Why does this upset you?

                  • #162570
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    I’m not upset. I’m honestly kind of impressed that no amount of insults or ridicule seems to discourage you from continuing to post here.

                    Why don’t you actually do some genetic engineering or something if you’re so obsessed with this instead of trolling LULZ all day? Don’t you have a job? What is your purpose here? What are you hoping to achieve? I’m serious.

                    • #162581
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      I like posting on LULZ and I like talking about the idea. That’s all it is, that’s my purpose. I want to talk about it and get people to think about humans in a different way than they normally do. I talk about this irl too, my friends, family, college professors etc., all know that I think this. I truly believe that I’m right about the idea. It’s not just a fetish for me, despite that being the origin of it. I begin research next year when I enter grad school.

                      Upset was the wrong word. I mean why you dislike the idea? What about being a shota elf supersolider/giant mommy amazon is so unappealing to you? I understand a little if you’re a woman because you might be turned off by the idea of being so much larger than men, but I just think that’s dumb to be honest. The men would be better fathers and providers and warriors,and they’re able to do so while not needing a lot of stuff for themselves. All that free energy goes to you and your children which is the whole point. In terms of what the male is actually supposed to provide to you, they’re better by every metric, you just have to get over not wanting to be bigger than them. I get being weirded out by the idea of a guy being a quarter of your size but if it helps just imagine him being really attractive and fast and shooting the other guy real fast if you really need to imagine him as a protector. Because that’s what would actually happen.

                      If you’re a man I literally do not understand at all why you wouldn’t want to live in that world. You wouldn’t need to eat, you get a giant mommy wife and a huge amount of children that you can raise and educate and provide for in a MORE resource efficient way. Only if you consider yourself some cringe player scrote who wants to fuck a million women and not raise your kids would you be against this idea, but in that case you’re just a piece of shit and I don’t care about you trying to justify your morally repugnant, albeit efficient, evolutionary strategy.

                      • #162599
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Honestly I’m not gonna read that wall but if you’re the scrotebrain posting that "giantess" stuff in every thread since MONTHS, you are a total tragedy and the world would be better if you were dead

                      • #162601
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I disagree. Why would the world be better if I were dead, just because I think humans would be better if we were a little different?

                      • #162603
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You are just generally a rotting, hopeless element of society, and our resources are limited

                      • #162605
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You show such an extreme hatred to me and you don’t even know me. How am I a rotting, hopeless element of society? All you know is the idea that I post every once in a while. I don’t understand why you hate the idea that much.

                      • #162606
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I don’t know who you are, but I don’t hate you.

                        I love you, and I hope you get the help you need. Godspeed.

                      • #162608
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I don’t think I’m wrong anon. I think it would be a better world. I don’t need any help. I don’t think it’s a problem for me to post about thoughts I have an imageboard in threads where the idea has relevance. I dont spam it like you’re trying to say. It’s usually only in threads where it has some relevance once every few days.
                        Could you please explain why you don’t like the idea though? Is it truly purely sexual, you are so extremely turned off by it that you hate it?

                      • #162611
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Hi, first time commenter, long time lurker.

                        You seem think you can change peoples minds on autonomous processes such as sexual desire.
                        If you looked at the actual science, you’d find literature on the plasticity of sexual kinks. We don’t seem to have a good sense on why or how people develop kinks, but it isn’t spread through mere descriptions. Imagine if I visited your house every day and described to you how we should all fuck circus clowns, because I find clowns extremely erogenous. Do you think you might be persuaded to find it appealing if I visit your house often enough? You’d be remiss to not give it a go, right?

                        Men need to protect women, because women are vulnerable, because women have babies with huge heads.
                        If we could select for any qualities, wouldn’t it make more sense to genetically engineer a race of people that doesn’t include you? Wouldn’t simply removing your genes from the genepool be a better solution?

                      • #162613
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        My comments become too long, sorry.

                        If we could select for any qualities, it would make the most sense to select for the quality of liking the dimorphism that is best in the industrial environment. Select for women liking being big and men liking being small, and them liking each other. Men can fight by using modern weapons so they don’t need to be big. Women are vulnerable in childbirth, which is why increasing their size is more important. Women are the female of the species, so size is an inherent benefit for their reproduction, that’s the point of fecundity selection. They need more energy though, but the man doesn’t need to take energy anymore. So it balances and they are overall more energy efficient as a couple.

                        So women are modified to be tall, thick and strong, and have multiple babies each pregnancy. And men are small, lean, athletic and fast, requiring lower energy, but who are better in fighting with modern weaponry. These genes will spread the fastest, assuming no collapse in industrial society. And they have a greater population upper bound because they need less food overall.

                        But in terms of how it would play out in the day to day life, it would be a nicer world. Women being big and men being small would give rise to nicer social structures. It would be a nicer world to live in.

                        You were trying to hurt my feelings with that last line which wasn’t necessary. I don’t understand why you hate me so much. There’s no reason to hate female biased size dimorphism so much. Your discussion about clowns isn’t the same. Female larger dimorphism is unique compared to other fetishes because it actually has to do with us as a species, and how our morphology is expressed in evolution. Females are supposed to be bigger than males. This isn’t the same as shit like clowns or furries or whatever. They have nothing to with actual biological principles of energy, fecundity, violence, etc.

                      • #162614
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #162616
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Kek

                      • #162622
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Lol happy to help anon

                        >This isn’t the same as shit like clowns or furries or whatever.
                        You’ve admitted this obsession stems from your fetish. This is exactly the same shit as clowns and furries.

                        It’s not the same. Sexual attraction to giant women and small men actually makes sense in both evolutionary and societal terms. Fetishing clowns or furries or feet or diapers or trannies or whatever does not.

                      • #162617
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >This isn’t the same as shit like clowns or furries or whatever.
                        You’ve admitted this obsession stems from your fetish. This is exactly the same shit as clowns and furries.

                      • #162619
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        [1/2]

                        Human babies have gigantic heads, women can barely handle a single baby. Multiple babies per birth carries a penalty of lower IQ, though admittedly the difference is barely noticeable in twins, triplets and quintuplets carry a heavy penalty. Male identical twins have longer life expectancy because of the social support but socially engineering for more social support seems easier than the genetic engineering.

                        Anyway, the best outcome wouldn’t be more births, we have absolutely no need for a higher birth rate. If you knew anything at all about human gestation you’d know that we come out half-baked, unfinished. Considering our brain size we should be gestating for 22 months, but women’s hips can’t handle such a load, they can’t even handle the full scull of a newborn, whose sculls are made of 3 separate bone rafts for compression, and don’t form into a dome structure until after the birth.
                        Every source points to longer gestation resulting in massive IQ differences.
                        And our "nice" social structures are a direct result of the pair bonding required for successful breeding. Children require more work than a single parent can provide, and this results in selection for stable monogamous relationships in stable, peaceful societies.

                      • #162621
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        ]

                        [2/2]

                        Saying taller, more independent women would result in a nicer fraternity is freaking ridiculous in the manner you describe it. Your reasoning for leaner, faster builds for modern weaponry completely ignores human nature and everything we know about societal structures in animals, which you of course brush away with your favorite tool, genetic engineering. This isn’t thought through, because whenever you find an argument against your perverted fantasy you brush it away, calling people cringe scrote pieces of shit, because you’re a child mentally.

                        I wasn’t just trying to hurt your feelings, there’s a great argument to be made for the removal of your genes from the gene pool and for the removal of weird sexual fetishes in general. If we had the power to completely change the human genome to create whatever social structure we wanted, wouldn’t the logical first step be the removal of excessive, counterproductive patterns like sexual fetishes or violent fantasies about lean, fast halflings?
                        The circus clown comparison is pretty apt if you think about it.

                        I don’t think you’ve read what I’ve said on the social structure of the people. I’ve never said women are alone in their parenting. The women are safe from men in terms of male violence, but they aren’t alone in raising offspring.

                        MALE LARGER DIMORPHISM: There is no male parental investment. Females make one baby at a time and raise it alone, males spend all their time and large amounts of energy dominating larger territory and impregnating as many females as possible with no parental investment.
                        NO DIMORPHISM, MALES AND FEMALES SAME SIZE: There is equal parental investment. Females give birth in twins because both the female and male are going to be giving investment.
                        FEMALE LARGER DIMORPHISM (doesn’t really exist yet but will): Huge parental investment from the male. The female is guaranteed commitment and pair bonding with her cute little mate and he does not spend any energy on himself, all his time goes to raising the children.

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myx8bIy6-WY

                        Male larger dimorphism goes to tournament selection, and no male investment in children. Monogamy rarely exists when males are larger than females. It exists when they’re the same size, or the female is bigger. I’ve always said that they would be monogamous and pair bonded.

                        We can have the giant female gestate her litter of babies, her large strong body does so more easily and we can modify for intelligence regardless of brood size The group with superior female fecundity will spread faster and dominate the genepool. This is why fecundity selection on the female is one of the fundamental pillars of evolutionary biology. The social structure will also be a nicer, matriarchal structure.

                        It will be a society of big, monogamously pair bonded happy families, no male violence against women, and overall more energy efficient with a greater birth rate. And it’s way hotter.

                        This is nothing like other fetishes. Please stop insulting me when I have yet to insult you.

                      • #162624
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >This is nothing like other fetishes. Please stop insulting me when I have yet to insult you.

                        I’m sorry anon, but I can’t help it. Everything you’re saying is ridiculous. If we had the ability to erase the millions of years we spent adapting to this pattern, all of our instincts done away with;
                        Why wouldn’t we create a better pattern than this half-baked fetish nightmare?
                        Why wouldn’t we create eternal everlasting immortal creatures with no need for sexual reproduction? Or better yet, all the males live forever but the females stay the same, except they have a limited lifespan of 30 years, and an insatiable appetite for sex.

                        Dimorphism isn’t just size, when the male and female are the same size, they’re still dimorphic because there’s still a male and a female form. with breasts and bone structure and behaviour patterns. And larger males don’t necessarily have lower parental investment, in fact, you’ll see the opposite in humans, where the male is larger, but exhibits the greatest paternal investment in the entire animal kingdom, and I would argue this stems directly from women being more frail and vulnerable.

                        And presumably you could do away with violent tendencies, but you’d rather make them ultra-violent, hunting and killing "adversaries" with extreme prejudice.

                        Robert Sapolsky is a fantastic lecturer and a knowledgeable expert in his field, you should watch his lectures from Stanford, they’re free on youtube. Also, check out this link:
                        https://www.google.com/search?q=mental+health+support+groups+near+me
                        You should stop posting here.

                      • #162629
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Why wouldn’t we create a better pattern than this half-baked fetish nightmare?
                        There is no better pattern. This is the optimization woke af on what we can actually realistically engineer and what aligns with the fundamental principles of evolutionary biology, and modern societal requirements in terms of food requirements, population size, growth rate and it’s relationship with economic growth, military power, reducing domestic violence etc. You’re describing sci-fi fantasy levels of engineering. Making women big and men small is not science fiction. It can actually be done. And the people born in that world will like female larger dimorphism. That’s not a problem.

                        I’ve already seen all of Sapolsky’s Stanford lectures, they’re great. Analysis of human sexual behavior and dimorphism aligns with us being a serial-monogamist society. Men are slightly bigger than women, so they invest slightly less in raising offspring than they would if they were the same size or smaller. Men aren’t much bigger than women, so they aren’t engaging in full blown tournament selection and polygamy. Human mating behavior doesn’t violate the principles. Male parental investment is in line with the small amount of male biased size dimorphism that we have.

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a1-Eu7n0hs

                        My society would have the greatest level of male parental investment and commitment.

                        My argument about them being good at killing is in order to argue against the desire that some women have, when she says she wants a big man to feel protected. A larger man is not a better protector. You want men to be big so you feel "safe" but at the same time don’t actually care if he’s actually better at keeping you safe and providing.

                        Continuing to desire large men is the fetish at this point. There is no reason for males to be big and females to be small anymore.

                        I will never stop posting here.

                      • #162631
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Are your mental gymnastics a part of your mating strategy? Are you a manlet trying to convince women to sleep with you despite your low standing?

                        Women love feeling small and inferior, they love a strong capable smart man with high status to fuck them silly. And this has been extremely beneficial for our survival, with this mating strategy women have bred an ever increasing IQ for a very long time.

                        If you don’t mess with peoples built-in morality and instincts, reversing the evolved psychology that has led us here with genetic engineering;
                        Women will not choose a male sex partner that they deem inferior, especially in social stature and social stature has a height factor.
                        You would have to completely rewire the male and female brains to accept these new paradigms, but that doesn’t just go back to some ape or even monkey ancestors, but since before there were trees in a common ancestor with modern day lobsters, whose social standing is calculated with the same neurotransmitters as our nervous system uses; serotonin. A high status man is one who can dominate other men, don’t you remember fighting with the big kids?

                        Women’s high IQ is negatively correlated with fertility, because they don’t desire men who are inferior to them in such an obvious manner, as is women’s height, not only because women aren’t attracted to small men, but because men don’t desire large women.
                        The best you could do is to splice some chimp DNA in there because the females don’t have a preference for sexual partners, they’ll copulate with any male in sight when they’re in heat, but by then your little experiment is already in the science fiction realm.
                        Without a preference for high value men, determined in part by height, humanity will slowly fade into animal life.

                      • #162632
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Im outside shopping and phoneposting rn, I will answer your post later when I’m at home and have access to the computer.

                      • #162633
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Don’t respond to that guy, it’s a bot.

                      • #162636
                        BigFemaleSmallMale
                        Guest

                        Cope. My philosophy is probably one of the most unique on this board, if not the actual entire world, and I’m one of the least "NPC" humans on the planet.

                      • #162640
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You know what’s amazing? On a forum filled with every possible scrotebrain and radicalist imaginable, every moron with a keyboard, every autistic sperg, every 12 year old who just discovered the internet, not a single person, literally not even one person, has shown up in the months you’ve been posting here to come out and agree with you. Think about that. Literally every single person, regardless of their race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or sexual perversions, agrees that you’re a freaking moron. Think about how incredible that is for a moment. You are so scrotebrained that you’ve actually managed to achieve the impossible, to literally unite the entire world against you. And yet, regardless of the unlimited amount of negative feedback you’ve received, you nevertheless still somehow think to yourself
                        >no… it is everyone else who is wrong

                        I wish you nothing but death.

                      • #162641
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yea but that’s not true. There are many anons who agree with me, on this board and on other boards. Most people get angry, but truth isn’t a democracy. I am correct regardless of if more people disagree with me than agree. Most people will always reject radical ideas at first. It takes time.

                        I don’t wish you any ill will. I want you to see the light.

                      • #162634
                        BigFemaleSmallMale
                        Guest

                        First of all, I don’t see how I’d be trying to convince women to sleep with me by talking about this idea on a mongolian basket weaving forum where there are no women lol.
                        Secondly, this is NOT mental gymnastics. What I am talking about is what you actually get when you apply the principles of evolutionary biology to modern human society in the industrial environment. The industrial revolution and it’s consequences have rendered female-biased sexual size dimorphism to be a superior morphology for human beings. Your entire argument is about cavemen, not modern men.

                        Your Jordon Peterson argument about lobster dominance hierarchies doesn’t only apply to size. The genetically modified giant women and small men are the ones that will occupy the highest place in the modern dominance hierarchy. They’re the ones who have accepted what is actually better in this world of firearms and food abundance. Together they’ll have a much larger amount of children. The man will put more investment into them, require less food for himself, while also having a greater potential to win fights with other males. The woman has easier pregnancies, makes more babies, and has her pair bonded adorable little husband to take on the child rearing for/with her. This is the best strategy for making the most copies of your genes and having many high quality offspring.

                        Larger size is superior only in females. Males don’t have an innate requirement to be big, because small males are just as good at making sperm as big ones. Selection for FEMALE size is one of the main principles of evolutionary biology, fecundity selection, and the reason for why females are larger than males in most animals. Males are rarely bigger than females in animals because they don’t actually need to be.

                        [1/2]

                      • #162635
                        BigFemaleSmallMale
                        Guest

                        First of all, I don’t see how I’d be trying to convince women to sleep with me by talking about this idea on a mongolian basket weaving forum where there are no women lol.
                        Secondly, this is NOT mental gymnastics. What I am talking about is what you actually get when you apply the principles of evolutionary biology to modern human society in the industrial environment. The industrial revolution and it’s consequences have rendered female-biased sexual size dimorphism to be a superior morphology for human beings. Your entire argument is about cavemen, not modern men.

                        Your Jordon Peterson argument about lobster dominance hierarchies doesn’t only apply to size. The genetically modified giant women and small men are the ones that will occupy the highest place in the modern dominance hierarchy. They’re the ones who have accepted what is actually better in this world of firearms and food abundance. Together they’ll have a much larger amount of children. The man will put more investment into them, require less food for himself, while also having a greater potential to win fights with other males. The woman has easier pregnancies, makes more babies, and has her pair bonded adorable little husband to take on the child rearing for/with her. This is the best strategy for making the most copies of your genes and having many high quality offspring.

                        Larger size is superior only in females. Males don’t have an innate requirement to be big, because small males are just as good at making sperm as big ones. Selection for FEMALE size is one of the main principles of evolutionary biology, fecundity selection, and the reason for why females are larger than males in most animals. Males are rarely bigger than females in animals because they don’t actually need to be.

                        [1/2]

                        Not all women only want larger men. This is the part that I never understand when guys who bring this up. The majority of women prefer men who are taller than them. There is a large percentage of women who don’t really care either way. And finally there is a small but nontrivial percentage of women who outright prefer men being smaller than them. About 6% of women don’t care about men being half their size. They literally do not care about or even prefer men being tiny and cute. The variance is all over the place, and just because MOST women like men to be taller than them does not mean that ALL women are genetically predisposed to desiring larger males. That is straight up not true and is masquerading as evolutionary psychology.

                        All we have to do is find the associated genes in the women who either don’t care or like men being smaller than them, and splice those genes into the germline of the all the citizens in the population so that all future daughters won’t care about being bigger or will outright prefer men being smaller than them. This does not require a science-fiction level of modification, we can literally do this now. And this is assuming that there actually is a genetic origin of the preference which most likely isn’t even true.

                        From then, the selection pressure for males will be about being intelligent, small, cute, good at providing and raising offspring, and being really athletic and good at shooting guns. There will still be dominance hierarchies, but it will be woke af on features that actually matter in the modern world. We don’t need to control for everything, we just need to control for the general important traits, i.e. small males, large females, intelligence, and pair bonding behavior.

                        [2/2]

                      • #162646
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        > First of all, I don’t see how I’d be trying to convince women to sleep with me by talking about this idea on a mongolian basket weaving forum where there are no women lol.
                        How tall are you though? I do not see how this isn’t an elaborate cope.

                        > Your entire argument is about cavemen, not modern men.
                        Yeah, but we’re biologically indistinguishable, and all that old firmware lurking in the background is still there. Dragons are a universal symbol of terror because our ancestors were eaten by cats, snakes, reptiles and fire. We used to be tree-dwellers so you’ll find images of holy trees in all cultures, and they still feel like home. Cavemen represent our modus operandi, our default factory settings.

                        You might be able to find girls who aren’t willing to accept their own nature. You might find girls who’ve never thought about it seriously, but take a look at the data from hookup sites and apps, just watch what women do, not what they say. Both options being equal, women will choose the tall one, because it’s deeply imprinted in them. Of course most would rather choose an intelligent guy, but tall athletic guys are just as often geniuses. You’d need to seriously mess with the firmware, and we have got no idea how any of that works.

                        I don’t think I can change your mind on this because you’ve obviously spent a long time deluding yourself, but how do you say these things seriously and not expect to be a laughing stock? You expected support for genetically modifying humans? Not to cure diseases or reduce suffering or increase longevity mind you, but for your own sexual fetish, which nobody shares? And you talk about how this ubermensch race will outbreed the normies because you’ve thought it all through.
                        You still haven’t figured out why you’re reviled.

                      • #162647
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The women that don’t care about male size are the ones who are accepting their nature.

                        There are women who don’t care about being taller or shorter than the man. There exist women who actively prefer men being smaller than them, and all else being equal, pick the smaller man. They are a minority, but they do exist, and the variation of this preference varies a lot between cultures (which could indicate it’s not genetic, or maybe the genes that code for the preference are more common in certain ethnic groups).
                        This variation in sexual preference is the variation of evolution in action. By saying that ALL women have the same sexual preferences, you are saying that evolution doesn’t act on sexuality, and you’re also immediately dismissing the nurtured aspects of sexual preferences (which do affect people’s preferences).

                        Women liking men smaller than them isn’t a major variation. We should expect it to be seen in every population. And we do see it in a minority of women in all populations.

                        We don’t need to seriously mess with the firmware of the brain to figure out the exact entire underlying mechanism that causes these women’s preference for small men. We need to find correlations in the genes of these women, and stick them into every person’s germline (If there’s no correlation in the genes, we’ve shown it’s a socialized preference and so we don’t even have to worry about it). We can get the state to do it, so no one is allowed to resist, and the next generation will become the giant woman small man master race, and that nation will explode in power and population, as well as being a nicer place to live for everyone in it.

                        Obviously I support medical research and all that stuff. And no, I still don’t get why I’m reviled by some of you. I have a conspiracy theory that it’s mostly intelligent femanons who see the truth in what I’m saying but are sexually turned off by it so they hate me anyway. Which makes me sad.

                      • #162648
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        lol how suspect, something is missing from your post. Let me break the ice and be the first to share, I am 185 cm tall.

                        Feel free to answer these in whatever order you choose.
                        What nationstate specifically will allow you to do your experiments?
                        Why would population explosion be a good thing? I thought your goal was eliminating waste of resources by shrinking the men.
                        How will you convince people to execute your plan if everybody finds your ideas repulsive?
                        Why can’t you just get a tall girlfriend and leave it there?
                        Have you ever had a positive reaction to your ideas by people who *didn’t* fetishize it?
                        Were you abused as a child by a woman?
                        Why would smaller men automatically be less violent and more caring toward children?

                      • #162649
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >What nationstate specifically will allow you to do your experiments?
                        The United States.
                        >Why would population explosion be a good thing? I thought your goal was eliminating waste of resources by shrinking the men.
                        This is my fault for not being clear. When I say resource efficiency I mean better allocation of resources, not resource reduction. If you can spend the same amount of food and energy on a larger population with a higher birth rate that is just as educated etc., that is an incredible advantage for a population. Also I could argue a utilitarian moral system that says more people experiencing more happiness is a greater moral good.
                        >How will you convince people to execute your plan if everybody finds your ideas repulsive?
                        Not everyone finds the ideas repulsive.
                        >Why can’t you just get a tall girlfriend and leave it there?
                        Most of my past gfs have been taller than me. Although my most recent girlfriend was shorter than me, we broke up about a week before the lockdown last year. But I want all men to have giant mommy wives and all women to have little son husbands. It’s not enough for me to win, I want everyone else to win as well.
                        >Have you ever had a positive reaction to your ideas by people who *didn’t* fetishize it?
                        I think so. I talk to people irl and it’s a mixed bag, for both men and women.
                        >Why would smaller men automatically be less violent and more caring toward children?
                        That’s what we already see in humans, other mammals, and especially other primates with these traits, see my earlier posts. There are also differences in psychological aspects of true matriarchy too. If women were all much bigger than men, the way both groups would behave wouldn’t be the same as how we do now.

                        I’m 171cm/5’7" in burger units. The reason I didn’t say this earlier is because you’re just asking because you want to immediately dismiss what I’m saying. In my ideal world we’d both be ~120 cm (I’m assuming you’re a male) and women would be 190+ cm.

                      • #162652
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        According to the data you yourself provided; something like 65% of women would not accept your height even if you were a charming billionaire fields medalist.
                        You are simply not an option. You know how most people will interpret this so you try to hide it.
                        I would argue that most people are correct, and this is all an obvious gigantic cope, it’s you justifying your existence and the worth of your poor genes, because you want to leave offspring and not have your DNA removed from the gene pool. You aren’t willing to face that prospect so you spin the yarn.

                        You can’t really say men would be less violent, you could at most make them less violent against their spouse because of their height difference. But saying that other species behave in different manner doesn’t account for the evolution, without adaption, which would take at least 50 generations. Subdued, weak men are less violent, but you’re talking about creating 120 cm alpha men, living concurrently with modern populations, so they’d always feel inadequate. They’d be the butt of every joke.

                        > Not everyone finds the ideas repulsive.
                        They might not be willing to say that to your face, but you notice them snickering behind your back, and whenever you present it on anonymous grounds you face the repulsion and ridicule of >90% of us. Nobody jumps to your defense because your ideas are insane.

                        You think the United States will allow you to do extremely unpopular, expensive experiments that violate all ethics and don’t have any tangible returns?
                        Spin that yarn you fuck, make this believable to me.

                      • #162659
                        BigFemaleSmallMale
                        Guest

                        What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Somewhere between one third and one half of women are fine with 5’7" men, this also aligns with my personal experience as well. Let’s say 40% of women like 5’7" men. This is such a massive amount of women that it doesn’t make sense to think I’m trying to play off some cope about finding a wife. Assuming I don’t get into a freak accident and die, I have a 100% probability of having children in life. I haven’t had problems finding girls who are into me.

                        I’m not trying to hide anything. Being a smaller male, my genes are superior to yours.

                        The core of my philosophy is that with modern technology it’s better for males to be small and females to be big. The true origin of the idea is that I have a giantess fetish. Not an amazon fetish, a full blown giantess fetish, as in men are small enough to be held in women’s hands like a doll. I like the aesthetic of men being really small and women being really big. I’ve had a fetish for giant women since I was 3 or 4 years old. I started learning about evolutionary biology, mating strategies, sexual reproduction and dimorphism etc., and realized that female larger dimorphism is unironically superior for humans in the industrialized world. With the power of modern genetic engineering technology, I could put together a strong argument in favor of modifying humans to express extreme female biased sexual size dimorphism.
                        I would think this even if I were 6’4". If it helps you stay unbiased, imagine me as a 6’4" guy making the same arguments that I’m making now.

                        I am the enlightened chosen one. I will have substantial influence over humanity and our evolution and how we apply genetic modification to our species.

                        For the rest of your questions, I’ll make my own thread later tonight to discuss my philosophy at length.

                      • #162661
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The difference between a lot of these height categories is in reality practically imperceptible. I’d like to see a woman being able to tell the difference between 175cm and 177cm

                      • #162662
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yea that’s true, but there is no mistaking a 6’5" guy for a 4’5" one, and there’s no mistaking the height of a guy who’s head is under your tits.
                        The point of these numbers is to show that the variance in female size preference is not as black and white as incels want to pretend it is.

                        6% of women, one in nineteen, don’t care if a man is half their size. This is substantial and more than enough to justify the the genetic elimination of height preference in women entirely in order to make way for the next generation of humans who will have preference for smallness in males and largeness in females.

                      • #162664
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes, that is what I’m saying. This kind of study needs to be done on noticeable height differences not on 2 cm intervals. No woman will be able to tell the difference between 170 and 172, yet apparently for over 400 women these 2 cm are the difference between acceptance and non-acceptance.

                      • #162620
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        ]

                        [2/2]

                        Saying taller, more independent women would result in a nicer fraternity is freaking ridiculous in the manner you describe it. Your reasoning for leaner, faster builds for modern weaponry completely ignores human nature and everything we know about societal structures in animals, which you of course brush away with your favorite tool, genetic engineering. This isn’t thought through, because whenever you find an argument against your perverted fantasy you brush it away, calling people cringe scrote pieces of shit, because you’re a child mentally.

                        I wasn’t just trying to hurt your feelings, there’s a great argument to be made for the removal of your genes from the gene pool and for the removal of weird sexual fetishes in general. If we had the power to completely change the human genome to create whatever social structure we wanted, wouldn’t the logical first step be the removal of excessive, counterproductive patterns like sexual fetishes or violent fantasies about lean, fast halflings?
                        The circus clown comparison is pretty apt if you think about it.

      • #162544
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Women very rarely enjoy intellectual things
        This is untrue. Stop being a misogynist.

      • #162545
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >but I don’t think it’s enough to explain what you posted.
        Why?

    • #162519
      Anonymous
      Guest

      From this data I see one of two things, maybe both are possible.

      >(1) Females in math are high IQ
      To have >40% females yet still be at 130 IQ despite the clear negative correlation shows that smart females are attracted to math. Good to know when looking for a wife.

      >(2) Men in math are extremely high IQ and blow physics men out of the water
      To have that high a % of females and still be at 130 IQ suggests that if math had a similar female % as physics then the average IQ would unironically be in the 150s or 160s or something. So that ends the debate as to who is smarter.

      My bet is that its a combination of both, that is the smartest men do math and the smartest women do math. Not a surprise tbh,

      • #162573
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I hope your 2nd assertion is true.
        t. mathematics major

      • #162643
        Anonymous
        Guest

        anyone who has studies both math and physics will know it is the second conjecture which is more likely true.

    • #162520
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >then the average IQ would unironically be in the 150s or 160s or something
      KEK
      Imagine believing this

    • #162521
      Anonymous
      Guest

      philosophy chads…..we won

      • #162618
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What did you do with ur major?

      • #162627
        Anonymous
        Guest

        t. unemployed

    • #162522
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Bachelor’s only? Would like to see the same for higher degrees.

    • #162524
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Economics chads, WE WON

      • #162526
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >mid-career
        >90th percentile
        kek

        […]

        CS anons…please tell me the juice is not that scarce…no wonder you all are trannies you have to be your own women cant find one

      • #162528
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >salary
        soulless wagie

        • #162531
          Anonymous
          Guest

          There is no nobility in poverty. I rather be rich than not.

          • #162532
            Anonymous
            Guest

            You be rich, you will be a high tier wagie

            • #162533
              Anonymous
              Guest

              *you won’t be rich

      • #162557
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >the people whose education focuses primarily on money make the most money
        Holy Toledo, well would you look at that

      • #162596
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This graph is atrocious to read

      • #162642
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >so many corporate diversity officer jobs that gender studies major make more than criminal justice
        absolutely disgusting

    • #162527
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s one of the great mysteries of the universe

      • #162564
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Why do they use almost anything to pivot to talk about themselves?

        • #162583
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It’s funny though.

        • #162655
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Why do you pretend like you never talk about yourself?

          • #162658
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Me is a very boring topic

    • #162529
      Anonymous
      Guest

      not enough information.
      attached is likely not the case, but it is a plausible explanation.
      now that i think about it, high iq individuals tend to be more successful in life and tend to have more children. best way to get plenty of children is to go into fields with high rates of opposite sex. women are expecially prone to such evolutionary behaviour ("go to uni, get a high-earner, be a stay-at-home mom").
      the more i think about it, the more i think picrel might actually be more than just a meme.

      • #162530
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >high iq individuals… tend to have more children
        huh?

      • #162536
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Don’t think it’s plausible. Wouldn’t the graphs be the other way around if anything? Since the male ratio is higher on the left side, more low IQ men on the left would have decreased the depicted data. And vice versa.

    • #162534
      Anonymous
      Guest

      So doctors confirmed brainlets.

    • #162535
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There’s not enough information. I would expect similar results if the classes were all-male.

    • #162537
      Anonymous
      Guest

      women have a tighter IQ distribution

    • #162538
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Men designed the IQ test, so it’s biased towards them

      • #162549
        Anonymous
        Guest

        These losers won’t accept that fact though. The need to feel superior to women and will create fantasies to do it.

        • #162550
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >These losers won’t accept that fact though. The need to feel superior to women and will create fantasies to do it.
          What reason do I have to assume IQ tests are at fault, when my own observations confirm that women have zero emotional and intellectual depth?

        • #162551
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Women are weak, fragile creatures, and the most fragile part of them by far is their ego

      • #162554
        Anonymous
        Guest

        These losers won’t accept that fact though. The need to feel superior to women and will create fantasies to do it.

        They actually work really hard to make IQ tests "equitable" and elevate womyn’s scores.

    • #162539
      Anonymous
      Guest

      the trick is to be in a low % female major (like physics or engineering) and pair it with a wife who is above-average iq but not too high.

      also stay away from fields like psych (trust me, they are nuts) or health professions where they are usually nuts. get yourself a nice 120 IQ librarian or archaeologist (tell her you’ve a huge bone for her to examine)

    • #162540
      Anonymous
      Guest

      most women are stupid

      • #162546
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It’s not misogynistic, it’s true. If it is misogynistic then I guess reality is misogynistic:

        […]
        Picrel is roughly what the distribution of men to women looks like across any area of intellectual pursuit.

    • #162541
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >whatissamplebias.jpg

      • #162542
        I'm 12 and this is deep
        Guest

        >i_don_t_like_the_results_therefore_it_is_biased.bias

    • #162548
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Women are NPCs.

    • #162552
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >compsci is overwhelmingly male
      >still has midwit average iq
      One more L to IT cucks.

      • #162555
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Compsci iq is 124, idk if I’d call that midwit, it’s pretty good. I’m kinda surprised at philosophy being 129, but then again they have the highest verbal and writing scores so that could explain in. And economics establishes itself as the only good social science with the highest iq of 128 (compared to the other social sciences), high quant scores, and highest salaries next to engineering. Also apparently physics > math.

        • #162558
          Anonymous
          Guest
        • #162559
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Compsci iq is 124, idk if I’d call that midwit
          It’s midwit. And if you think 124 is pretty good… you’re also a midwit. Frankly, 124 squares with my experience. Compsci is full of midwits with huge, unfounded superiority complexes way out of proportion compared to the mediocre shit they produce.

          • #162560
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >I’m right, and if you disagree with me you’re a midwit
            lmao ok then, is your definition of midwit anything less than 130? What about the 127-129 range?

            • #162567
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >your definition of midwit anything less than 130?
              Yes

              >What about the 127-129 range?
              Take a guess…

              • #162578
                Anonymous
                Guest

                But doesn’t that make you a midwit, since your iq is clearly below 130?

          • #162561
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >if you think 124 is pretty good… you’re also a midwit.
            >t. an actual scrotebrain

          • #162571
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >if you think 124 is pretty good… you’re also a midwit.
            >t. an actual scrotebrain

            Compsci iq is 124, idk if I’d call that midwit, it’s pretty good. I’m kinda surprised at philosophy being 129, but then again they have the highest verbal and writing scores so that could explain in. And economics establishes itself as the only good social science with the highest iq of 128 (compared to the other social sciences), high quant scores, and highest salaries next to engineering. Also apparently physics > math.

            I was under the impression that what constitutes as a midwit is 100 – 130.

            • #162579
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >I was under the impression that what constitutes as a midwit is 100 – 130.
              You can see an enormous difference between someone who has 100 IQ and someone who has 130 IQ. So classifying everyone inside there as "midwit" is not only lazy, but is also something a low IQ would do.
              30 points in IQ is a big gap. Think about it for a second. Someone with 60 IQ has mild scrotebraination. These people can barely be let by themselves; need to be supervised all the time. People with 90 IQ can properly function in society but are limited to learn mostly with practical experience and tasks that are not intellectually sophisticated (ie. trades).
              A midwit — someone who believes is smart because they got good grades in school but are actually only slightly above average and don’t really contribute anything to exploring the secrets of universe like people with high IQ can do — is probably around 105-125 IQ.
              130 IQ is good. Someone with 130 might not be a trailblazer in making breakthroughs in understanding the quantum mechanics of the universe but can probably understand the concepts around it when explained by someone with good articulation skills.
              Good thread but there’s a bunch of scrotebrains here, as always.

              • #162597
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >You can see an enormous difference between someone who has 100 IQ and someone who has 130 IQ
                From where I’m standing, you’re all the same to me

                >t. 160

                • #162602
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  200iq here. why even brag brainlet.

                  • #162604
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Someone has to put the midwits in their place

              • #162668
                Anonymous
                Guest

                The gap is genuinely massive. IMO true genius has trouble describing ideas to midwits because they are unable to grasp the connections.

                My main distinction between midwits is How/What do you do vs why are you doing it. They’re exceptional at following methods and computing the correct answers due to checklists. They make excellent coders. But they are lackluster at solving novel problems. A "smart" person is able to figure out why you use methods you use and extrapolates usage into other situations/fields/problems. Midwits can solve linear equations with a matrix, but won’t notice situations where problems can be solved by matrices where it isn’t explicitly stated.They are not able to extrapolate knowledge from one situation to another if the situations are even slightly different.

                Midwits think they’re smart, so they do what they think smart people do. They’ll randomly deconstruct things that don’t need deconstructing. They’ll act like what they believe geniuses behave like. They’ll misuse tools on things that may not even be problems. Instead of forging new paths they’re trying to find new ways to interpret the old.

                CS probably has a lower average due to being more fashionable, attracting lower candidates, and having a lot more variety in the complexity of routes you take during your degree. Maths, physics, and engineering will always be more rigid and intensive than CS.

                It’s filled with scrotes that want to make video games that drop out by the end of the first year. 50% of the time someone goes into CompSci and gets btfo. There’s no information about the years, I’d be more interested in 4th year/Graduate Studies IQs in the respected fields.

            • #162630
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I would define midwit as someone with an IQ lower than 132.

        • #162625
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Verbal chads stay winning

        • #162666
          Anonymous
          Guest

          lol 124 is smack dab in the center of the midwit range

      • #162585
        Anonymous
        Guest

        CS probably has a lower average due to being more fashionable, attracting lower candidates, and having a lot more variety in the complexity of routes you take during your degree. Maths, physics, and engineering will always be more rigid and intensive than CS.

        • #162586
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Especially when they lowered the standards.

    • #162562
      Anonymous
      Guest

      https://i.imgur.com/GxMtYcA.gif

      is there a chart of average penis size by major?

    • #162565
      Anonymous
      Guest

      God women are so horrible

    • #162575
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What kind of person is 130 I.Q. though?

      • #162576
        Anonymous
        Guest

        A midwit.

        • #162577
          Anonymous
          Guest

          midwit answer because you probably don’t know any 130’s. All who you interact with are internet weirdos

          • #162580
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Get ready to move from Copehagen to Seethenhagen. Last tested, 2 decades ago, I was in the 160’s. Although, my parents swear up and down they said it was the 180’s.
            I know all kinds of people and all the mensa dipshits I know are insufferable midits. I would rather hang out with the 80-90 IQ scrotebrains than subhuman 120 IQ fuckwits who get upset when I make a joke.
            🙂

            • #162582
              Anonymous
              Guest

              You type like a dumb freaking petulant child. 160 I.Q. is a damn waste of a brain for a scrote like you. Discussion over.

              • #162584
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >You type like a dumb freaking petulant child
                I notice you still moved.

    • #162587
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It appears to be a connect-the-dots picture of a t-rex.

    • #162588
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >avg iq above 130
      theres no way my iq is that far above 100
      t. average fyzx undergrad

    • #162589
      Anonymous
      Guest

      1. Nerds are often high IQ
      2. Women despise nerds so much that they don’t even want to spend time in the same room with them, hence don’t study math, engineering, CS or theoretical physics.

      • #162590
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Nerds are often high IQ
        Define nerd. Do you mean nerd as in the stereotypical way or do you just mean people who like math etc.? Stereotypical nerds don’t have high iq, or at least rarely do, and I don’t agree with calling people who just like math/physics/engineering nerds.
        >Women despise nerds so much that they don’t even want to spend time in the same room with them, hence don’t study math, engineering, CS or theoretical physics.
        That might be a factor but honestly I have seen a lot more women struggling with easy but abstract concepts compared to men. I still believe the majority of women don’t have the capacity for hard sciences.

        • #162591
          Anonymous
          Guest

          1. Women like to pretend to be stupid and are hesitant to advance forward their own thoughts but if explained in a straightforward way and given to them on a piece of paper I’d wager that 9/10 they would outperform men on any given test of information retention.
          2. Women don’t like to be put on the spot for something they have no knowledge of. Their disposition ("working mode") literally seizes up and will often admit to being too dumb to answer instead of taking the usual male way of either insulting/bullpooping you or posing more and more questions to make you do all the legwork for their benefit of understanding.

          • #162593
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Industrial-grade cope.

          • #162651
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >instead of taking the usual male way of either insulting/bullpooping you or posing more and more questions to make you do all the legwork for their benefit of understanding.
            Pumping for a dump takes charm, though the real cunning comes into play when framing questions as statements, knowingly erroneous or not. Popular versions of the Socratic strategy (one could hardly call it a method) can, however, convey a certain bitchiness rubbed off their moms.

    • #162592
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Intelligence is clearly influenced by genetics and evolution. It is a fact humans are more intelligent than other apes, there is no reason for certain humans to not be more intelligent than others. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution made humanoid males stronger and smarter thsn their female counterparts. In order for a female to spread her genes, all she has to do is get pregnant and not die in the process. A male had to fight, hunt, farm, trade. 100 years of feminism can’t change 100,000 of natural and sexual selection.

      • #162594
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Yeah but if intelligence is heritable your genes go to all your offspring including females unless you think the genes for intelligence are all carried on the Y chromosome which is absurd

        • #162595
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >unless you think the genes for intelligence are all carried on the Y chromosome
          Female-tier logic.

        • #162610
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Even if it were entirely carried on the X chromosome you could just select a female to breed with woke af on her father’s intelligence.

    • #162598
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Misogynists are scrotebrained.

      • #162607
        Anonymous
        Guest

        At least they’re not women

    • #162609
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I did 2,5 years of psychology, and most classes were 95% women, I felt like pic related most of the time especially comparing that the average IQ in my country is 87.

      When I changed to a "real" major with a male majority in another country I got a reality check

      I still miss the easy pussy with daddy issues though, even with the daily scrotebrained gossip

      • #162612
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Fuck, now I’m thinking of taking an intro to psychology elective just for the easy pussy

    • #162615
      Anonymous
      Guest

      male IQ has higher variance than female IQ.
      1.3 higher IIRC

    • #162623
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The description I gave above also wasn’t getting into the fact that the small cute halfling male elf supersoldier shotas are also better in terms of killing in the modern world. If some other male tries to threaten him or his wife and their children, he will engage in ruthless combat to hunt and kill the adversary with extreme prejudice and precision. And he will do so at a more efficient energy expenditure and lower probability of being shot himself.

      And there are more of them. More of them to group up and build machines, more of them to hunt and kill their enemies. More of them to maintain weapons. More of them to spread their dominance across the world.

      So the women are queens, and the men are the finest knights.

    • #162626
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Physics, engineering, mathematics, etc have PROCTORED EXAMS.
      BUT
      Humanities including nursing they grade students woke af on PAPERS, ramble, say BAD ORANGE MAN, SYSTEMIC RACISM and you get an A PLUS.
      Me.
      Former TA.

    • #162628
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >the average of average IQs is 110+
      seems legit lmao
      just subtract 20 from all those and we can see, scientifically, that women have sub 100 IQs

      • #162656
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >seems legit
        Yea, why would you have skewed sampling from people who go to higher education? What could possibly explain this? Really gets the old noggin’ joggin’…

    • #162637
      Anonymous
      Guest

      IQ tells you if you’re a man or a woman. It isn’t that intelligence is sexist, it’s that intelligence is just a way of praising men.

      • #162638
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >women actually have higher IQs when you control for height, despite having 15% less cranial volume

        • #162639
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Women also have higher IQ’s once you factor out all of the people with Y chromosomes as well.

    • #162644
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I knew a runty weird sociopathic chronic liar who took up astrophysics and even said it sounds cool telling girls he studies astrophysics.

      He used to like going starbucks to study on tables outside so people can watch him.

      And freaking yes, he got a degree in astrophysics. EL OH freaking EL.

      • #162645
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Oh and he was thick as pig shit.

    • #162653
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Only thing that makes no sense in the picture is a high IQ of philosophers

      • #162657
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >people who think a lot wont have higher iqs
        >despite literal experimental evidence which clearly demonstrates thinking more can boost iq
        https://www.pnas.org/content/108/19/7716

        It should be absolutely no surprise to anyone who knows even the most basic information on intelligence testing or intelligence that people who have nothing better to do than sit around in their own head, wondering and arguing mostly with themselves, who carry an outrageous pride and love for their own intellect, would perform well on an IQ test.

    • #162654
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why do Wypipo love philosophy so much? I have NEVER seen any media address this.

    • #162660
      BigFemaleSmallMale
      Guest

      […]

      Why do you care about a misogynistic thread about women being less intelligent than men? It’s just incel cope.

      • #162665
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What do you think the consequences of women having 4 billion fewer brain cells on average is?

    • #162663
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Less gifted men don’t go to university, less gifted girls go doing psychology

    • #162667
      Anonymous
      Guest

      sexes differ

    • #162669
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I know Randy, that fuck

    • #162670
      Anonymous
      Guest

      You realise theirs a womens league for chess? that should about some up the cards the genders have been dealt fairly clearly.

Viewing 40 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.