#iq

Midwits prefer liberalism. First it may be useful to define midwit. A midwit is somebody who falls within the 68% of people who fall between the IQ of 85 and 115

Those who fall inside of that range tend to be liberal. If you struggle to communicate  with liberals on this site it is likely because you are at least one but maybe 2 standard deviations above them on the IQ scale. 

We can also deduce that Those in the higher IQ ranges are going to be attracted to online debate. So for conservatives the average IQ on this site might be closer to 120-145 range and the average liberal on the site is probably in the 100-120 range. 

# How Midwits learn

The midwit learning strategy differs from how the high IQ individual learns. Their strategy is important for getting good grades in school but not conducive to real understanding. 

It's worth dipping into what is and is not conducive to evolution, which tells you why the midwit chooses his strategy for learning. As far as evolution is concerned the only important thing is what aids in survival. 

For the high IQ individual there better we know reality, the better we can survive. We are typically individualistic and more self reliant than midwits. The lower end of the bell curve it will be pointed out is also mostly conservative and though they are not in the debate realm it's worth briefly commenting on. Their system for thinking is also more conducive to reality. They just don't have the mental bandwidth to deal with competing goals such as fitting in with society's expectations. 

So that's the 2 different reasons both high Iaq and low IQ people end with the same conclusion. Low IQ people do not have the bandwidth to have competing goals such as meeting social expectations and high IQ people are so smart that fitting in doesn't matter. 

The midwit IQ strategy as you can probably already imagine is to comply with societal expectations. In school they will look to authority to tell them what to think and will have an easier time answering a question like "who won the civil war". The text book taught them it was the North so that's all that matters. The teacher told them the answer. 

The higher IQ individual will have a more complex answer. They'll say well the foreign powers that supported the North seemed to do better than the North who lost a lot of men. They may even answer that on the test and get a failing grade because teachers also tend to be midwits and the book is the authority figure they look up to. 

The lower iQ kid does not have the same filter on reality as the midwit. So his answer to who won the civil war might be "the people who didn't die" which again is closer to the truth than saying the expected answer. The high IQ kid will respond to the idiot "you know you are right" while the midwit will shake his head and think the low IQ kid is an idiot. Which is correct but he is unaware he also would benefit from being an idiot.

# the effects of midwits

So the midwit now that you know his strategy is just to parrot what he is told to believe by authorities. The dominate authorities in current society is the CNN anchor or the carefully curated experts who agree with their world view whose presence are more dominant than those with a dissenting opinion. 

This is why when you state a fact that is just common sense or a well established thing, the liberal will start crying "citation". They haven't been told by an authority what to think so they need you to present them with an authority that tells them how to think. Of course when you do present them with a citation they immediately start moving the goal posts if they know the fact leads to a different conclusion than what CNN or whatever authority they chose told them to believe. 

Elon Musk funny enough just retweeted a post of somebody other than me who has also noticed this fact about midwits. Here it is

"when it is said that progressives live in a carefully curated alternate reality, it's not hyperbole; it's actually what's happening. it's why there are like 10 or so subreddits that dominate the site. and it's not just reddit, reddit is part of the scheme that includes academia, mainstream news, "lifestyle" publications like The New Yorker or The Atlantic. once they're locked into that system, they are controlled, but if you ask or point it out, they'll swear, and truly believe, that you're the one who is detached from reality. how else could they get them to believe that mass immigration is a net positive while also denying the reality of housing shortages and wage stagnation? it's insidious."

# conclusion

Ultimately midwits are ruining society because corrupt people have taken over the reigns of institution. George Soros just bought over 200 radio stations, the media according to several studies has a pro establishment bias which is another name for liberal at the moment and every single media outlet outside of the news also seems to be created or curated by liberals. Liberalism is the main political ideology and so yes the midwits will lean that direction. The solution is institutional capture.  

The midwit will just parrot the dominant worldview so it's essential for conservatism to become that dominant world view. It's why most people 500 years ago were socially conservative. Conservatives ran the institutions whether that institution was church or academia. 

For more information on midwits go here https://youtu.be/byb3ffrBYgU?si=MM8wvkpryr2IKxgV

As an attempt to gain a false sense of self worth, I'd like to figure out my IQ. Are there any reliable free tests out there, or will I need to spend some money. Any recommendations?

Also, it can't give me a below average IQ, because then it would be faulty.

There are many medium IQ women, you may go 'oh duh there's also many medium IQ men'... Actually, not quite as many at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A high value male is able to push to be apex more often than the equivalent in female because the way he carries himself, the cockiness, steadfastness, self-assuredness etc. if combined with high enough responsibility and empathy such that he isn't a total jackass but just half a jackass who can tone it down for those he's close to enough of the time, is a masculine beast that the women with chemistry could indeed feel fulfilled by. On the other hand, women that push to be high value and succeed end up carrying themselves in a very masculine way as just described and that instantly values them back towards the mean/median (often enough for it to result in a medium-value majority more severe than in men, not all the time but often enough).