-more liberal
-homosexual (if and when they are homosexual)
-monogamous (but prone to cheating; intelligent females are less monogamous)
-late sleepers (night owls)
-atheists
-classical music listeners
-prone to drinking and smoking
-losers
to which I want to ask /his/
are most scientists/mathematicians/philosophers/musicians throughout history like this?
>>447245
Fugg I forgot to add "according to this, intelligent people are more:" book at the beginning and thanks to Emperor Hirohito I can't delete this thread.
>>447245
No I would say that half are early rising, slightly ascetic, most maintain their sceptical impulse that drew them to heavy thinking and only a few believers of worth.
I guess they have to be "losers" because to shake off all the political influences of the time in order to see the value in the "western canon" is a task that can only be done in isolation with any type of pleasure, since it is so difficult to get on with people who oppose us.
>>447245
no
newton was a hardcore christian
he was also a loser tho so this might have truth to it
desu this is feel-good bullshit
>>447280
It's actually backed up by a lot of studies. And you only provided one example. I'm asking if it averages out to intelligent men in history having 1 or more characteristics outlined here.
>>447245
Lets look at homosexual, as it is the most extreme example. The others follow in the same logic.
For a person to be homosexual, he must make that decision/realization. Now, you can be genetically predisposed to making it, but you still have to make it, its a choice. You can be urged to be gay all your life, and never admit it to act on it, and you can be gay purely based on culture and choice, without genetic predisposition.
Being gay isnt the norm, its an other thing, different, and not accepted. So in order for you to consider yourself such, you must be either convinced by a fad (which means that this thing is popular, and in this context it isnt) or you must deduce that its the best way for you. If you are the kind of person to rationalize something that will inconvenience you and your loved ones for the sake of "happiness" and "feeling right", you are probably of above average intelligence. Most average or bellow average intelligence people simply dont bother to think if they are gay, and thus dont come to the realization that they may be.
As homosexuality/atheism/etc become more popular, this distinction moves away, as more people become gay or atheist not because they took the time to reason that they are, but because its popular, and they saw people they like and respect make the realization.
So it was true historically, for periods when these things werent popular or accepted, but its less true now, since gayness has a lower bar of entry and is thus more evenly distributed. You no longer need to be at least an amateur philosopher to justify being gay.
>>447319
Being a homo =/= having buttsex.
>>447332
I never implied that.
Define being a homosexual. You will find it very difficult. Its a decision you make, based on observation of your feelings throughout life. Its very subjective and before it was acceptable and popular, it was a decision that mostly intelligent people came to, since you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to justify it.
>>447345
>define being a homosexual
Being attracted to same sex.
>>447351
Define being attracted.
I am attracted to good looking, fit men. I want to be like them. They look right and proper. There is beauty to be found in the male form.
>>447319
>its a choice
lol
Orientation != Behaviour.
Are monks asexual?
>>447356
They chose to be, despite genetic predisposition to the opposite.
>>447354
Faggot
(i'm the same tbqh, it's not like i'd fuck them, rather I want to look like them)
>>447357
>yes, monks are asexual
Super. And the stereotypical right-wing family-values tubthumper who wants nothing more that to hole up in a motel room with some crystal meth and a very personable young man - provided he never actually *does* that, he's straight? Yes?
>>447367
If he knows that he wants it, and isnt allowed to do it by circumstance, he isnt straight.
If he isnt aware that he "wants it", he is straight.
Being aware of your homosexuality means you are realizing it, and thus you are homosexual. Many people who are genetically predisposed to homosexuality dont realize it, and thus arent homosexuals.
In the same way, monks dont realize their sexual attraction. To them staying celibate isnt a struggle, its the right and proper way to live, it feels good and correct.
>>447379
There is nothing genetic about homosexuality whatsoever, it's a result of hormonal intake in the prenatal period.
>>447386
You are scientifically wrong. People are predisposed to homosexuality, or not, so there is a genetic component to it. Its not a final thing, and you can choose to act on it or against it, but it exists. Do some research.
>>447379
>In the same way, monks dont realize their sexual attraction. To them staying celibate isnt a struggle
Of course it is, don't be thick.
>If he knows that he wants it, and isnt allowed to do it by circumstance, he isnt straight.
So, not a choice, then. Cool beans, good chat.
>>447386
>There is nothing genetic about homosexuality whatsoever
We dunno that yet, could be though.
>>447391
>You are scientifically wrong. People are predisposed to homosexuality, or not, so there is a genetic component to it.
You seem deeply, deeply uninformed about numerous things.
>>447392
Your argument seems to be "ur rong lol". I accept your surrender.
>>447391
>predisposed means genetic
You utter fucking imbecile.
>>447394
>Your argument seems to be "ur rong lol".
I'm rapidly losing faith in the value of how things seem to you.
>>447245
go back to reddit, faggot
>>447399
You are right, predisposed doesnt imply genetic. Many studies do, however, including the most reputable, favorably reviews and often cited ones.
Its been a couple of years since I cared about it, back then I was looking for the opposite answer, certain that its entirely by choice, and remember being disappointed with the science and having to change by mind.
Maybe new studies have surfaced, with new data and have been favorably peer reviewed? Do link them. If I am wrong, I'd love to be aware of it.
>>447415
>sending people to reddit for disagreeing with you
Go back to reddit, my man.
>>447423
Stop with this "genetic vs choice" false dichotomy. It's neither, it's fucking hormones.
>>447427
It's not hormones you dumbass it's the Will.
>>447427
Post more information about the study you conducted to come to this conclusion. I want to know about your methodology and sample size.
>>447431
Not him, but just google 'homosexuality and epigenetics' if you want more info. When he says it's 'hormones' he means it's exposure to hormones in the uterine environment.
Was hoping to learn something here. Nope just 4 chan talking about what it means to be gay
Does the book take the Zappfean view that intelligence lets you see how bad things really are, thereby causing suicide?
>smart people tend to overthink somehing
>smart people have no one to talk about their new thought discovery
>smart people tend to be dreamers who thinks away from their problem
>smart people thoughts isnt back by majority of people around them and thus feels more isolated
>smart people try to reason everything and rhats why they tend to do something that is not acceprable by society,but make sense to do it.e.g atheism
>smart people who have this problems are usually " Existantial Intelligence" people
>smart people have higher depression rate because overthinking simple solution with multiple possibilities is unnessasry
>>447442
The research in question also suggests heritability of homosexuality, as well as basically stating only men can be properly homosexual, and women just act homosexual.
Out of curiosity, do you support all of these conclusions? I've heard the latter one from a philosopher, but he didnt quote this research at all.
>>447319
>Choosing to be gay
I think this is a poor example to explain whatever point you were trying to drive home.
>>447486
>Out of curiosity, do you support all of these conclusions?
Define 'support'. I don't have a concrete position on a lot of this stuff, largely because a) Nobody actually knows, we don't even really have a proper handle on the mechanics of being straight, seems a bit previous to announce having 'solved' why people are gay and b) I really don't care all that much. I don't work in any fields, eg medicine etc, that might be affected in some small way by this or that wrinkle of the facts of the matter. It's not important to me why some people are gay.
>>447245
>are most scientists/mathematicians/philosophers/musicians throughout history like this?
Only in more recent history.
Extend this back into the middle ages, antiquity, or ancient times, and you get a very different answer.
>>447507
I think the question was more like
>why are intellectual types more likely to be gay/atheist/etc
Rather than
>why are most intellectual types gay/atheist/etc
And I feel that this was more true before being gay/atheist/etc became normalized.
>>447479
Yes.
>>447532
I read his question correctly, and did not imply your second green text. I think that was your own interpretation.
The normalization of sexual freedom isn't exactly unique to the modern period either.
booooump
>>447345
>>447356
>>447366
>>447495
>>447391
>>447423
>people can't overcome their sexualities
>numerous people have done it
>implying people don't choose how much of a faggot they are
There is zero genetic evidence for homosexuality, actually twin studies prove it isnt genetic.
That doesn't mean it isnt pre-disposed or that you can't overcome predispositions.
It's unfortunate that faggots and trannies have none but one option in the public market for curing their mental illnesses. I can't remeber the companies name but they offer full remediation, not some Psudo-pray the gay away shit.
>>447245
Just say that the guys that discover new stuff are usually the guys that are more willing to experiment new things.
>>447870
>actually twin studies prove it isnt genetic.
No.
>>447908
I'm sorry?
That's exactly what twin studies show, if you want to try and refute the something like 15 cases go ahead.
Blaming your predispositions on genetics is horrible, it induces you into the biggest delusion that you cannot change.
It's a cop out, there is no genetic evidence to support that sexuality is genetic.
>>447922
>That's exactly what twin studies show
No.
>>447933
Yes
>>447937
You do not understand genetics. Even a little bit. You are roughly as informed on the subject as you would have been had you lived two hundred years ago. But then, you'd have had the saving grace of never having heard of it, and wouldn't form such hysterically wrong-headed opinions on the matter.
What twin studies can do:
>suggest that sexuality is syncretic
>disprove hypotheses built around candidate alleles for sexual orientation
>provide support for epigenetic accounts of orientation
What twin studies cannot do:
>find a hole in the human genome that would contain a gay gene if a gay gene existed, but since there's only a hole there, there is no gay gene
The above is what you're asking the twin studies to do. They just can't help you m8.
>>447965
Are twins not nearly genetically identical? If not in totality.
>>447981
>riddled with inconsistencies
Well, go on then.
>>447974
Yes.
Everything in this thread could be fixed if they just showed proofs
>>447965
>gay gene
homosexuality isn't due to genetics you dumb american
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
>>447983
>>447974
>we must find a "gay gene" to prove or disprove that sexuality is not genetic
>implying there is any evidence for this and twin studies don't refute even the basic notion
They both refute that it is a combination of genes, and or a singular gene.
Would you like to use myself as an example?
When I was in highschool, before going through puberty, I had a homosexual relationship with another boy.
Ten years later I hold no such sexual attractions of any kind to males.
What changed friend?
I didn't even have to seek remediation.
I have a hard time believing homosexuality is genetic.
I mean, look at the Graeco-Romans, and how many of them were gay, or fucked dudes at least. Then look at them 500 years later. What happened for everyone to stop being gay? Did the Christians genocide nearly everyone with the homo gene? I don't think so.
And if it is genetic the gene must be present in like 50% of the population.
Not to mention in medieval Persia, Turkey, China, and Japan were also about as gay as the Greeks and Romans were.
>>447987
Well then you can start to piece togeather why twin studies show that sexuality isn't genetic.
You're a fucking moron.
>>447245
I can't believe how many people took this bait
>intelligent, nihilistic and with a wicked sense of humor
How did you faggots take this seriously?
>>447994
>homosexuality isn't due to genetics
It may or may not be. All I've done is correct people who wrongly regard the question as closed.
>>448000
>implying there is any evidence for this and twin studies don't refute even the basic notion
Yes, now you're getting it - that's what I'm saying: They don't. They are evidence to the contrary, but not proof.
>What changed friend?
Presumably nothing; you're as gay now as you were then, however gay that is or isn't.
>>448003
>Well then you can start to piece togeather why twin studies show that sexuality isn't genetic.
Oh, I know why you think they do. Hence my inference that you are utterly clueless about genetics.
>>448017
Nice. You changed your position
>nothing changed
I literally had a 17 year olds cock in my mouth three times a week, swallowing cum.
I have no desire to do so, and quite frankly am disgusted by the notion.
You don't think hormone are the chief influence?
>>448022
Sigh.
There is no genetic evidence for homosexuality, and there is evidence to the contrary.
>>447245
There really isn't proof of any of this is there?
It's just cherry picking and a manipulation of history innit?
>>448030
>You changed your position
Nah, but you've evidently run out of plausible-sounding bullshit.
>I have no desire to do so, and quite frankly am disgusted by the notion.
So you were molested. What does that have to do with anything?
>>448044
A 16 year old was molested by a 17 year old?
That's unfortunate.
I was pretty willing, I drove us to his house after school.
You do understand there are thousands of people just like me?
And hundreds you have gone through private remediation?
>>448030
>evidence to the contrary.
There are findings consistent with eg epigenetic origins. These findings do not 'refute' the possibility of genetic contributing factors. Even twin studies don't. Establishing that something has NO genetic basis is much, much more difficult than the converse.
>>448051
>A 16 year old was molested by a 17 year old?
You didn't enter puberty until after you were 16?
>You do understand there are thousands of people just like me?
Oh yeah, sexuality as a spectrum is quite evident when you look at the data.
>>448017
>>448022
>>448044
>y-you just d-don't understand g-genetics!
>t. Faggot NEET
Kek.
This is a great b8 thread.
>>447245
Theres two kinds of smart people, the ones that use their intelligence to justify lacking will or to indulge in hedonism, or the ones who use their intelligence to look past their own ambitions towards those of society, becoming deeply ascetic and often sociopathic towards individuals. Then theres the third that are rarer than the last two which are capable of looking past the meaning or value of society and themselves, which usually results in becoming a hermit. Theres levels to intelligence most people considered intelligent just fall into the slightly above average range which tends to lead to hedonism.
>>448061
Well, they don't. What am I supposed to do - pretend they do?
>>447245
>more liberal
yes
>homosexual (if and when they are homosexual)
sometimes, yes
>monogamous (but prone to cheating; intelligent females are less monogamous)
yes, but cheating females seems a bit iffy
>late sleepers (night owls)
yes
>atheists
yes
>classical music listeners
doubt musical preference has much to do with it
>prone to drinking and smoking
no
>losers
no
>>448059
>b-but Muh epigenetics!
Literally the newest field in genetics, with little study; much less study regarding faggots.
Explain to me how twin studies, identical twins, one being homosexual, one being not does not discount homosexuality as genetic and that it is evidence to the contrary that it is?
>>448069
>more liberal
>yes
>>448075
Because universities are such hotbeds of conservatism
>>448075
It's still true.
>>448010
Not everything is bait you dumb nigger. Look for an excerpt or read the actual book.
>>448083
>Universities
>Intelligent
Ah yes, academia. Full of people SO intelligent they couldn't hack it in the real world so stayed in their academia bubble.
Be sure you tell professor Goldsteinbergowitz about this post for extra credit!
>>448083
Hillsdale.edu
>>448084
Pic related.
>>448071
>Literally the newest field in genetics, with little study; much less study regarding faggots.
Oh my god, it doesn't know what epigenetics is.
>Explain to me how twin studies, identical twins, one being homosexual, one being not does not discount homosexuality as genetic
Both possess the hypothetical gay gene. Environmental factors in one's very early life led to the activation of another gene tending to counteract the effect. This gene was not activated in the other, or was activated at a different time, by which point another genetic factor tending to counteract the counteraction was present etc.
And since I can tell that you are, frankly, as thick as pigshit, I'll spell it out for you: I am not saying that the above is the case. I am saying that it is a possible state of affairs that would retain a genetic component, which identical twin studies would not capture.
>>448077
Oh, I'm by no means an expert and I'm not claiming to be one. But I don't need to be one to explain to these cretins how badly mistaken they are.
>>448075
>posts jaybus
you're not convincing anyone otherwise
It's as simple as this.
The people that score well on intelligence tests tend to have a higher degree of education. Those with higher degrees of education tend to absorb the propaganda aimed at the educated class, this includes: liberalism, atheism, classical music, "polyamory", etc.
>>448122
>classical music
But I actually enjoy it :<
I've written two pieces of it too.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U-I7wbMY-A4
>>448122
In other words, if our education systems were ruled by Jesuits (Catholics) we'd find a correlation between intelligence and religion, theism, Gregorian chant, etc.
But, instead, Western education systems are dominated by secularists and atheists, which is why you get the result in the OP.
>>448117
>I am saying there is evidence to the contrary that homosexuality is genetic, and no evidence for.
Yeah, cool. I started out telling cretins bleating about DEFINITELY PROVEN LOOK AT THESE COOL TWIN STUDIES FUCKING CONFIRMED to hush their fool mouths, that's all. Since you appear to agree with me [spoiler]and are like, suuuuuper well-informed and all that jazz[/spoiler] I'm not sure why you're even in my face.
>>448129
listen to Palestrina, Charpentier, Monteverdi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuV1JL8EgP0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuxKTJ0tvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RajAq0Yd-s4
>>448094
>monarcuck
>>448140
>implying
>>447245
>homosexual (if and when they are homosexual)
So they're gay if they're gay? Brilliant observation.
>>448153
No, that when they're homosexuals they're usually more intelligent than their heterosexual counterpart than not but I didn't word it correctly.
>>448159
>baseless assertions
>>448001
It seems as though the majority of society can engage in homosexual acts or not depending on cultural forces, suggesting that virtually all of us are at least incidentally homosexual.
A much smaller number are "truly" homosexual, and will engage in homosexual behaviors regardless of prevailing cultural forces.
>>448163
Read the book :^)
>>448147
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fuohJDyYnlE
>>448167
>a Jared Diamond level book
Yeah no. Cherry picking to fit your narrative isn't a good idea.
>>448142
>Because you're being a slightly left of center pretentious faggot that nobody likes
Oh, I'm well left-of-centre, man. If 'pretentious' is how you describe 'not stupidly saying stupidly wrong things in a stupid way because you're stupid and wrong' then yeah, I'm pretentious as get right the fuck out. Always have been.
>>448171
It's whatever anyways. My thread devolved into a discussion of what causes homosexuality rather than what I hoped to be a confirmation of the book's statements or not. Either way, I enjoy reading these kind of works because they confirm my cynical views on mankind.
>>448184
Pretty much sums up modernism.
If you want true representations of history you have to digest deep and difficult books like The wealth of nations or why nations fail
>>448093
>literally denying common sense
/pol/ in a shellnut, everyone
>>448189
Well, just to make things clear, the book does quote studies, but I'm familiar with other studies that contradict the points held within the same book (because I'm used to reading these kind of works). What I would confirm however, is that intelligent liberals seem to be a lot more vocal than intelligent conservatives.
>>448197
Well first you have to define liberalism and conservatism.
Modern liberalism is louder because they hold the grips on public information and education.
Modern conservatives, arnt really conservatives. The smart people you would accuse of being conservatives, don't fit onto the modern political spectrum.
I'm a fascist myself, of sorts, and I have to be quite or I get socially and economically terrorized.
>>448205
Yeah but you aren't intelligent. Either way, it's true, it doesn't really define what is conservative in the study, just that they have "more conservative views". Conservative intelligent types also get laid a lot less, but they also seem to lead quieter and peaceful lives compared to their liberal counterparts. It's kind of interesting really.
>>448205
>I'm a fascist myself, of sorts
>>448183
>intelligence test
It's not as though there's alot more one can tell from the results of an IQ test that can't be extrapolated from knowledge of their achievements while they were alive
>>448197
It's because in the modern sense conservative and liberal are more cultural traits then they are actual political stances. Most intellectuals are culturally liberal.
>>448213
>but you arnt intelligent
Memes. But I know I'll get spammed with some retarded responses if I say I'm an Australian Geologist working for a nuclear non-poliferation company.
>>448214
>>>/leftypol/
>>448219
Trying to apply a modern scientific method of intelligence to someone's historical position is not valid. Level of intelligence at that point becomes nothing more than opinion.
>>448238
>>448246
Please.
Continue posting
>>448258
Whoah, careful with that edge there, Eugene. Mom would FREAK!
>>448278
Seriously, continue.
I'm not even a le ebin nazi.
You're just some lazy NEET
>>448219
A lot of intelligent people don't do shit with their lives. Some people just turn into cynical assholes with knowledge.
>>448288
I know, you're just pushing the boundaries in ways that make less courageous, less independent-minded people uncomfortable. They can't handle you!
>>448214
>>448246
>>448278
Simply ebin.
>>448299
I know you're trying to fit me into your straw man, but I'm sorry you get this triggered by people with different opinions.
Are we throwing tags around ITT to try and satisfy our vanity as Unique Ones in an effort to increase our sense of ego?
in that case i'll say that I'm a synarchist.
>>448307
Yes, I'm triggered as hell. Just cannot handle your unabashed flouting of all decent conventions. My monocle is well and truly popped, the smelling-salts have been reached for... but to no avail.
I'm definitely, and this has to be made crystal clear, I'm definitely not smiling in amusement at a child playing political dress-up. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>447280
>>447282
Intelligent people can become atheists, but genius tiered people are quite often spiritual.
The man with the highest IQ in the world (one of them) is totally theist.
Intelligent people often become atheists due to groupthink, and also due to lack of accomplishment.
Consider Dawkins, he is the most Bland type of person, who would never have become a celebrity without having to hop on the shoulders of God.
He is not famous for being a scientist, he is most famous for being a diametrical mirror image of a theist.
>>448325
You're triggered enough to post three of the same gifs and write a lengthy response.
If you don't agree, don't respond unless you want to discuss it. Then start a "history of fascism" thread if you want or something.
Don't be a shitposter.
>>448327
>He is not famous for being a scientist
This is completely false.
I'd rather not get too deep into the bullshit of the implied "atheists can't be spiritual" but yeah, that's bollocks too.
>>448325
>some smug retarded response
>LE SIBLGEE EBINNN XDDDDD TROLOGOLOL9 KID RWKT
Fuck off back to /pol/
>>448345
If you're going to make life this easy
>>448334
So he would have become a household name due to his phd on Bees?
>>448350
Ehrmagerd, pictures of Nazis! I'm going to run and hide, you boys play too rough.
>>448355
I have pictures of many things.
I just don't understand how someone can be such a massive faggot.
>>448354
He became famous for his books well before The God Delusion. He was always outspoken in his atheism, but it didn't used to be his only apparent hobby.
>>448364
>rude names now
Stop it, please. I'm curled up in a ball, weeping hysterically.
>>448372
Here are some instructions friend
>>448365
He only entered pop culture because of his atheism, I know his clique, they are a bunch of pederasts and paedophiles.
>>448372
>mfw there are people this obnoxious
I'm out.
>>448387
>He only entered pop culture because of his atheism
I don't know how you're defining "pop culture". If you mean you wouldn't have heard of him otherwise, so what. I had.
>>447249
>losers
This is highly debatable, though.
>>448327
I hate the fedora pope and can't stand his holier than thou bullshit, but he has done quite a bit of actual scientific work. He also invented the word meme and made the concept mainstream.
>>448104
Geneticist here and I want you to know that epigenetics are basically pseudomeme science that everyone has jumped on before theres been a wide range of testing needed especially in genetics because of the thousands of uncontrollable variables that can effect outcomes. For those who don't know epigenetics is stating that certain genes can be turned on and off, but it goes on to state that the turning on and off is caused by psychological, hormonal, or a environmental factors or a combination of the three. It is known that some genes can be turned on and off but there isn't alot of descive evidence on whether the aforementioned factors are the main causes or even contributing. This makes me wonder why people dick ride epigenetics so hard for a couple reasons, First off it doesn't support the born this way idea its used to so often support because you were born with both genes meaning the opposition could just as well claim you were born straight and due to the fact that epigenetics are turned on after birth it would not only support the latter but support with some better wording than I am capable of the position that it is an unnatural state in opposition to the way you were born. And finally it would support the existence of a gay gene which would reopen the classification of homosexuality as a disorder. Homosexuality was removed from list of mental disorders under threats and pressure and with the main argument of the gay rights side being that the origin of homosexuality couldn't be determined and therefore couldn't be treated so since it didn't harm anyone it shouldn't be on the same level as schizophrenia, or multiple personality disorder which often resulted in violence or uncontrollable behavior, but with a known source of genetics homosexuality could land itself on the list of genetic disorders since just because something is genetic doesn't mean its natural.
>>447245
>-more liberal
>-late sleepers (night owls)
>-atheists
>-classical music listeners
>-prone to drinking and smoking
>-losers
If you're a weak beta faggot, then you're obviously not so "intelligent". Weak beta faggots are just pseudo-intellectuals who think that everyone in the world is stupid except for them. The latter part of that list describes your typical autist beta, not an intellectual.
True intellectuals would realize the need to be physically fit and confident in this world. True intellectuals would use music as a medicine, reserving certain genres for certain times. True intellectuals value their health, so they would strive to get enough sleep and abstain from drinking and smoking. True intellectuals would work to better themselves in all areas of their lives, not parade themselves for being good at a dull science.
It is a shame at how society has blurred our vision. Once, being fit AND intelligent was expected of anyone claiming to be superior. Now, society has made normies believe that there are either stupid, attractive jocks or smart, beta nerds. We've definitely gotten better in the recent years, but not at the rate we should be.
>>450872
Agreed, all the pseudo-intellectual shit is revolting. If you want to be smart, at least start off by realizing you're all MAYBE slightly above average, or just of average intelligence with a lofty opinion of yourself, and a dump stat of WIS
>>447245
Wut
A great many intelligent people in history where incredibly religious, look at the renaissance figures...
>>447245
So where did you pull this list of attributes from? Did you just make it up?
>>451813
I've never understood this stance on intelligence and atheism, myself. Statistically speaking, throughout the history of the world more greatly intelligent people than not have been theists, a lot even believing in sillier things than what our "standard" religions are today
>>450872
>True intellectuals would realize the need to be physically fit and confident in this world. True intellectuals would use music as a medicine, reserving certain genres for certain times. True intellectuals value their health, so they would strive to get enough sleep and abstain from drinking and smoking. True intellectuals would work to better themselves in all areas of their lives, not parade themselves for being good at a dull science.
intellectualism is a nihilism
No.
This is a product of the `enlightenment´ period and the rise of evolutionism and heliocentrism.
These all gave way to liberalism, socialism and godless nihilism.
>>450778
there are four commas in your message.
>>451854
`Science´ is literally a religion.
It stems back to ancient Greece.
It was created by the naturalists, materialists.
Pythagoras, Masons, occult, etc.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. -Romans 1 25
>>447495
Actually it's been proven that homosexuality comes from triggers early on in life or sex addicts getting tired of fapping to girls in porn and look for something more taboo. Everyone feels pleasure in the rectum so it obviously doesn't happen in the womb which is why a lot of child rape victims become homosexual and why a lot of people come out of prison gay.
Thinking you are born gay has never once been proven ever but it's a career ender to question it so no scientist ever has.
>>451921
The Bible says God gives people who reject Him over to demonic and unnatural thoughts.
Gays are lost.
>>451862
>`Science´ is literally a religion.
>>451936
no argument
just le reaction image maymay
>>448327
>Intelligent people can become atheists, but genius tiered people are quite often spiritual.
A reasonable person is not going to be "spiritual".
Also, an IQ is not a solid metric. There is no such thing as a guy with a "highest IQ in the world". IQ is foremost a statistical device, and something to give a psychologist an idea whether a person might be retarded or exceptionally intelligent, but it's not something like bodily height.
>>447245
>prone to cheating; intelligent females are less monogamous
So intelligent men aren't prone to cheating?
>>451942
>>451942
You don't need an argument to counter something as stupid as that
>>451942
Not that guy but this is obviously utter nonsense.
A religion is characterised by unsubstantiated belief and religious service and rules. This does not apply to science.
>>451957
I should've added a 'while' before that second bit. Intelligent men are monogamous but prone to cheating, while intelligent women are prone to being FWB and fucking around/open relationships rather than sticking with a man.
>>451952
>IQ is not a solid metric
go to bed
>>452411
It isn't and he explained why quite well.
Supposing truth is a woman-what then? Are there not grounds for
the suspicion that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists,
have been very inexpert about women? That the gruesome
seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually
approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper
methods for winning a woman's heart?
>>452508
so Nietz, I want to ask, if truth were a woman, and that the way you describe "dogmatic" philosophers was the improper way of approaching a woman... why did you never score?
>>452511
ROASTED
Have you every actually studied historical thinkers?
None of these things can be applied to even a sizable fraction of the great thinkers throughout history.
>>448083
private superior school are quite right centered.
>>451965
we could argue that the belief that science can explain everything, even what it can't explain yet, is a religion of sort.
>Being gay isn't the norm, it is another thing, different and unaccepted.
Yeah this is blatantly false. Being gay (for men at least) was accepted and even preferred in Greco-Roman society and has a mixed but usually neutral acceptance in most eastern modes of thought. It's only in Abrahamic traditions that it is so strongly condemned, which is why it seems so widespread. Stop equating your feels to everyone's reals
>>453909
They didn't put their dicks in each others' assholes and whoever was on the bottom was looked down upon. It was used for the purposes of sexual release and the penis was placed between the thighs of the other man to achieve this.
>>447245
Intelligence neither implies Wisdom nor does it imply practical usage of it. Some of the smartest people I know are pretty much absolutely worthless.
>>454009
surprisingly that's a statement the dude who wrote the book pretty much agrees with, hence the addition of "loser" in that list (and I don't mean being an introvert, I mean literally being a debt ridden sad cunt who's doomed to die alone for his stupid shit).
I can't cite anything, but this is an informal discussion, so grant me some leniency. I remember reading that intelligent people are more likely to hold illogical beliefs, because they're very good at defending bad ideas. They're also apparently more prone to substance abuse, since they tend to be more curious and prone to seeking novelty.
>>448190
To be fair, since universities started having degrees for 'women's studies', and other fake shit just so they can make more money, the intelligence level has dropped.
Being able to just shovel lots of information into your brain is not intelligence, you know.
bemp
>>447391
There is zero genetic component to homosexuality. Zero. However it may not be a choice.
