[Zhang Jie]

哲学家 was implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items

Here, this reminds me another Chinese young man who said that he should protect China against me because I told him I dislike the current president. For him "You said you don't like 1 Chinese man." = "You're against all China."  Here the logic flaw is similar -- I gave an EXAMPLE (double example) with a type/types of IQ questions and school subjects. (And it was:

To know if someone answers well about "Which object comes next?" (like in this one: ) or to know how well a person learned the subject "Logic" (the logic marks) in school? Or to know that someone found where is the triangle out of the squares compared to know his/her "Geometry" marks?

) but the logic flaw brought us to the point where I am "implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items". Liam, a quick question for you: if I say that "Rabbits are smaller than cars." are you making the conclusion that I am "implying" all the fauna has got only rabbits?
 No, it's okay, I am not a specialist about the IQ tests. I majored in Philosophy (Bachelor's) and Philosophical Anthropology (Master's). I learn about the human intelligence, behavior, brain, relationship with the animals, emotions and so on, but we didn't go into details about the IQ tests so I do admit you know the matter much better. I only underline again that the point wasn't what you got -- the point was that when I want to understand better the intellect and the nature of a person, I choose to see his/her marks than his/her IQ test. The marks (if they're objective) can show me more than the IQ test. And you know why? Exactly because for the good grades you need: more knowledge, more hard work, more EQ, more motivation... and as you noticed "because he/she does not try"...
 More, it's maybe true for some that "People tend to have a static IQ along the life after their intelligences finish developing", but I disagree that this is a rule for everybody. People who're active learners and do efforts may improve their intelligence more and more; it's "never finish". (Thinking of the IQ as static is very "a la black-pill": "no chance to improve", "it's over", "never begins" and other metaphysical, non-dialectical statements.)
 Here some more articles about it:

• The Fallacy Of A Fixed IQ -- "... the way that we classify, categorize, taxonomize, and access knowledge can be improved as we age, and thus our IQ scores can definitely increase (and decrease, if we don’t keep our brains actively improving!)."
• William Klemm, Ph.D., is a senior professor of Neuroscience at Texas A&M University: No, Your IQ Is Not Constant

They correlate with each other of course but not strongly, at least not as strongly as many people think that if you have high grades your IQ is high, or only if your IQ is high you can have high grades.

This you got right. Nobody is saying that "IQ test = grades", we're talking about the correlations, the overlapping. Higher IQ --> better chance for higher grades --> reinforcing the IQ (see Pygmalion effect) It's like the money, height and face: being rich doesn't provide you 100% high success rate but being poor (like carless, homeless, etc.) decreases your chances of having a love partner nearly 100%, hence the money is a necessity nowadays because in the capitalistic world (or neofeudal in some parts, but the money also matters there) the females are materialistic and clever enough to avoid getting trapped in poverty. A money-maxxed Melvin has more chances to get a partner than a beggar Chad. And from the other perspective -- being tall and handsome provides you more initial opportunities to find some better income, to be more welcomed for better jobs, etc. Here we have also got this reinforcement, correlation and so on.

IQcels have more excuses to be suffering from inferior complexities.

If they're high IQcel, then they can use all this insecurities (inferiority complexes) as a motivation to self-improve themselves. For example, I was afraid I am too slim (some honest girls told me) and I started to gain weight. Later when I was too fat, there were new honest girls who said that I have to lose weight and to build muscle mass and there I am: gym-maxxed myself, sport-maxxing non-stop... or when I felt I don't know enough 汉字（Chinese characters）, I just started to learn more (every day 1-2 new characters) and now my Chinese already is already around "HSK 4" level. The moroncels and other low IQ males who were in bad shape and who didn't know Chinese well, now are the same ugly-bodied men (dad-bod types) and their Chinese level is only "HSK 1"... So, as you can see, if you try harder and never stop, the results are showing up, gradually.

Ah, sorry I think I shoulda read what you had written completely. I was kinda suffering from ADHD so I could not toil through a sesquipedalian oration.
But, those articles you introduced me to do not refute what I said. The change of child's brain structure and IQ derive from the more reliance on his/her genes, and cognitive training can increase your cognitive abilities but not your general intelligence('g').

Here is an analogy to help you understand what I am saying:
Let's coin a concept 'Sport Intelligence' to stand for the common variance in your performances of all of sports, and I ask you to run, jump and lift-up to produce a quotient score that correlates with Sport Intelligence to some degree, and ok you've done badly on all of them and get a 70, which indicates your sport intelligence is low, and signifies you are innately very disadvantageous in the common variance in the performances of all of sports. And you go on a training to improve your performances in running, jumping and lifting up. This DOES NOT salvage your disadvantage in the COMMON VARIANCE, but just your SPECIFIC VARIANCES in the specific sport tasks(running jumping and lifting up), namely increasing the specific variances does not equate increasing the common variance, and the former is just correlated to the later.

It's analogous to 'increasing' your intelligence. You can train your memory, your matrix reasoning, your information, you name it, but still you can't increase your general intelligence, which is the common variance in all of the cognitive tasks.

To summarize, there are two major epistemological flaws contained by the articles you gave me:
1. They confused common variance with specific variances
2. They contributed the change in the brain structure to the increasing of intelligence instead of more reliance on genes.

I am kinda surprised a reputed professor in Neuroscience could commit such tremendous felonies, huh maybe that's another example why IQ does matter(he said his IQ was modest) lol? jk

Anyway I am not blackpilling. We gotta concede this world is totally unfair and the revelation of unfairness is not blackpilling, but the skewness of reality is.   

[Zhang Jie]

for new generations, the weighs of height and face are way heavier than money.

I think for all generations good-looking is better for falling in love than just money. The problem is that new or old, no female will stay with you if you're homeless, you don't pay her bills at least A-A and you're not providing her. Some Chinese women even want you to give money to their parents. Try having a girl-friend in China only with height and face and see how long she's with you (if she start to at all).

No, seriously, find a handsome dude and make him to invite a girl saying that he's jobless, not going to pay dinners and no car, only pure love, walking in the parks, sitting and talking at home and drinking home-made tea... See how many girls will say "No problem, 帅哥就够了啊！"

 And let Liam read how many Chinese females (from different generations) honestly are saying "I don't like poor males." ("我不喜欢穷的男人。"): https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634

I never said being poor was not a big disadvantage in the dating market. I was saying that being poor was not as detrimental to the success of dating as being short/ugly was, and even though the magnitude of poorness is higher than the one of being short/ugly, the tall and handsome(or even just tall) but poor man still triumph over another rich but short and ugly(or even just short) man in dating.
This is not blackpilling, at least this aligns with the reality of dating in China.

[Zhang Jie]

for new generations, the weighs of height and face are way heavier than money.

I think for all generations good-looking is better for falling in love than just money. The problem is that new or old, no female will stay with you if you're homeless, you don't pay her bills at least A-A and you're not providing her. Some Chinese women even want you to give money to their parents. Try having a girl-friend in China only with height and face and see how long she's with you (if she start to at all).

No, seriously, find a handsome dude and make him to invite a girl saying that he's jobless, not going to pay dinners and no car, only pure love, walking in the parks, sitting and talking at home and drinking home-made tea... See how many girls will say "No problem, 帅哥就够了啊！"

 And let Liam read how many Chinese females (from different generations) honestly are saying "I don't like poor males." ("我不喜欢穷的男人。"): https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634

I never said being poor was not a big disadvantage in the dating market. I was saying that being poor was not as detrimental to the success of dating as being short/ugly was, and even though the magnitude of poorness is higher than the one of being short/ugly, the tall and handsome(or even just tall) but poor man still triumph over another rich but short and ugly(or even just short) man in dating.
This is not blackpilling, at least this aligns with the reality of dating in China.

Oh I forgot to say, 'dating' does not equate 'marriage'. In the marriage market, the weigh of richness is way higher than the one in the dating market, but in the dating market, the weigh of richness is nearly zero, and dating is just a game which you win if you have good face and height and you lose if you have bad face and height, even if you are rich.

[Zhang Jie]

哲学家 was implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items

Here, this reminds me another Chinese young man who said that he should protect China against me because I told him I dislike the current president. For him "You said you don't like 1 Chinese man." = "You're against all China."  Here the logic flaw is similar -- I gave an EXAMPLE (double example) with a type/types of IQ questions and school subjects. (And it was:

To know if someone answers well about "Which object comes next?" (like in this one: ) or to know how well a person learned the subject "Logic" (the logic marks) in school? Or to know that someone found where is the triangle out of the squares compared to know his/her "Geometry" marks?

) but the logic flaw brought us to the point where I am "implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items". Liam, a quick question for you: if I say that "Rabbits are smaller than cars." are you making the conclusion that I am "implying" all the fauna has got only rabbits?
 No, it's okay, I am not a specialist about the IQ tests. I majored in Philosophy (Bachelor's) and Philosophical Anthropology (Master's). I learn about the human intelligence, behavior, brain, relationship with the animals, emotions and so on, but we didn't go into details about the IQ tests so I do admit you know the matter much better. I only underline again that the point wasn't what you got -- the point was that when I want to understand better the intellect and the nature of a person, I choose to see his/her marks than his/her IQ test. The marks (if they're objective) can show me more than the IQ test. And you know why? Exactly because for the good grades you need: more knowledge, more hard work, more EQ, more motivation... and as you noticed "because he/she does not try"...
 More, it's maybe true for some that "People tend to have a static IQ along the life after their intelligences finish developing", but I disagree that this is a rule for everybody. People who're active learners and do efforts may improve their intelligence more and more; it's "never finish". (Thinking of the IQ as static is very "a la black-pill": "no chance to improve", "it's over", "never begins" and other metaphysical, non-dialectical statements.)
 Here some more articles about it:

• The Fallacy Of A Fixed IQ -- "... the way that we classify, categorize, taxonomize, and access knowledge can be improved as we age, and thus our IQ scores can definitely increase (and decrease, if we don’t keep our brains actively improving!)."
• William Klemm, Ph.D., is a senior professor of Neuroscience at Texas A&M University: No, Your IQ Is Not Constant

They correlate with each other of course but not strongly, at least not as strongly as many people think that if you have high grades your IQ is high, or only if your IQ is high you can have high grades.

This you got right. Nobody is saying that "IQ test = grades", we're talking about the correlations, the overlapping. Higher IQ --> better chance for higher grades --> reinforcing the IQ (see Pygmalion effect) It's like the money, height and face: being rich doesn't provide you 100% high success rate but being poor (like carless, homeless, etc.) decreases your chances of having a love partner nearly 100%, hence the money is a necessity nowadays because in the capitalistic world (or neofeudal in some parts, but the money also matters there) the females are materialistic and clever enough to avoid getting trapped in poverty. A money-maxxed Melvin has more chances to get a partner than a beggar Chad. And from the other perspective -- being tall and handsome provides you more initial opportunities to find some better income, to be more welcomed for better jobs, etc. Here we have also got this reinforcement, correlation and so on.

IQcels have more excuses to be suffering from inferior complexities.

If they're high IQcel, then they can use all this insecurities (inferiority complexes) as a motivation to self-improve themselves. For example, I was afraid I am too slim (some honest girls told me) and I started to gain weight. Later when I was too fat, there were new honest girls who said that I have to lose weight and to build muscle mass and there I am: gym-maxxed myself, sport-maxxing non-stop... or when I felt I don't know enough 汉字（Chinese characters）, I just started to learn more (every day 1-2 new characters) and now my Chinese already is already around "HSK 4" level. The moroncels and other low IQ males who were in bad shape and who didn't know Chinese well, now are the same ugly-bodied men (dad-bod types) and their Chinese level is only "HSK 1"... So, as you can see, if you try harder and never stop, the results are showing up, gradually.

Ah, sorry I think I shoulda read what you had written completely. I was kinda suffering from ADHD so I could not toil through a sesquipedalian oration.
But, those articles you introduced me to do not refute what I said. The change of child's brain structure and IQ derive from the more reliance on his/her genes, and cognitive training can increase your cognitive abilities but not your general intelligence('g').

Here is an analogy to help you understand what I am saying:
Let's coin a concept 'Sport Intelligence' to stand for the common variance in your performances of all of sports, and I ask you to run, jump and lift-up to produce a quotient score that correlates with Sport Intelligence to some degree, and ok you've done badly on all of them and get a 70, which indicates your sport intelligence is low, and signifies you are innately very disadvantageous in the common variance in the performances of all of sports. And you go on a training to improve your performances in running, jumping and lifting up. This DOES NOT salvage your disadvantage in the COMMON VARIANCE, but just your SPECIFIC VARIANCES in the specific sport tasks(running jumping and lifting up), namely increasing the specific variances does not equate increasing the common variance, and the former is just correlated to the later.

It's analogous to 'increasing' your intelligence. You can train your memory, your matrix reasoning, your information, you name it, but still you can't increase your general intelligence, which is the common variance in all of the cognitive tasks.

To summarize, there are two major epistemological flaws contained by the articles you gave me:
1. They confused common variance with specific variances
2. They contributed the change in the brain structure to the increasing of intelligence instead of more reliance on genes.

I am kinda surprised a reputed professor in Neuroscience could commit such tremendous felonies, huh maybe that's another example why IQ does matter(he said his IQ was modest) lol? jk

Anyway I am not blackpilling. We gotta concede this world is totally unfair and the revelation of unfairness is not blackpilling, but the skewness of reality is.

The 'correlation' means, that two things are correlated with each other, but that does not necessarily mean if you increase one side the other side will increase in tandem. IQ tests measure your cognitive abilities as the indicators of your g, and they are correlated with g, but increasing the indicators does not increase the construct that is indicated. Training the indicators is thus distinct from training the general intelligence. 

[Zhang Jie]

哲学家 was implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items

Here, this reminds me another Chinese young man who said that he should protect China against me because I told him I dislike the current president. For him "You said you don't like 1 Chinese man." = "You're against all China."  Here the logic flaw is similar -- I gave an EXAMPLE (double example) with a type/types of IQ questions and school subjects. (And it was:

To know if someone answers well about "Which object comes next?" (like in this one: ) or to know how well a person learned the subject "Logic" (the logic marks) in school? Or to know that someone found where is the triangle out of the squares compared to know his/her "Geometry" marks?

) but the logic flaw brought us to the point where I am "implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items". Liam, a quick question for you: if I say that "Rabbits are smaller than cars." are you making the conclusion that I am "implying" all the fauna has got only rabbits?
 No, it's okay, I am not a specialist about the IQ tests. I majored in Philosophy (Bachelor's) and Philosophical Anthropology (Master's). I learn about the human intelligence, behavior, brain, relationship with the animals, emotions and so on, but we didn't go into details about the IQ tests so I do admit you know the matter much better. I only underline again that the point wasn't what you got -- the point was that when I want to understand better the intellect and the nature of a person, I choose to see his/her marks than his/her IQ test. The marks (if they're objective) can show me more than the IQ test. And you know why? Exactly because for the good grades you need: more knowledge, more hard work, more EQ, more motivation... and as you noticed "because he/she does not try"...
 More, it's maybe true for some that "People tend to have a static IQ along the life after their intelligences finish developing", but I disagree that this is a rule for everybody. People who're active learners and do efforts may improve their intelligence more and more; it's "never finish". (Thinking of the IQ as static is very "a la black-pill": "no chance to improve", "it's over", "never begins" and other metaphysical, non-dialectical statements.)
 Here some more articles about it:

• The Fallacy Of A Fixed IQ -- "... the way that we classify, categorize, taxonomize, and access knowledge can be improved as we age, and thus our IQ scores can definitely increase (and decrease, if we don’t keep our brains actively improving!)."
• William Klemm, Ph.D., is a senior professor of Neuroscience at Texas A&M University: No, Your IQ Is Not Constant

They correlate with each other of course but not strongly, at least not as strongly as many people think that if you have high grades your IQ is high, or only if your IQ is high you can have high grades.

This you got right. Nobody is saying that "IQ test = grades", we're talking about the correlations, the overlapping. Higher IQ --> better chance for higher grades --> reinforcing the IQ (see Pygmalion effect) It's like the money, height and face: being rich doesn't provide you 100% high success rate but being poor (like carless, homeless, etc.) decreases your chances of having a love partner nearly 100%, hence the money is a necessity nowadays because in the capitalistic world (or neofeudal in some parts, but the money also matters there) the females are materialistic and clever enough to avoid getting trapped in poverty. A money-maxxed Melvin has more chances to get a partner than a beggar Chad. And from the other perspective -- being tall and handsome provides you more initial opportunities to find some better income, to be more welcomed for better jobs, etc. Here we have also got this reinforcement, correlation and so on.

IQcels have more excuses to be suffering from inferior complexities.

If they're high IQcel, then they can use all this insecurities (inferiority complexes) as a motivation to self-improve themselves. For example, I was afraid I am too slim (some honest girls told me) and I started to gain weight. Later when I was too fat, there were new honest girls who said that I have to lose weight and to build muscle mass and there I am: gym-maxxed myself, sport-maxxing non-stop... or when I felt I don't know enough 汉字（Chinese characters）, I just started to learn more (every day 1-2 new characters) and now my Chinese already is already around "HSK 4" level. The moroncels and other low IQ males who were in bad shape and who didn't know Chinese well, now are the same ugly-bodied men (dad-bod types) and their Chinese level is only "HSK 1"... So, as you can see, if you try harder and never stop, the results are showing up, gradually.

Ah, sorry I think I shoulda read what you had written completely. I was kinda suffering from ADHD so I could not toil through a sesquipedalian oration.
But, those articles you introduced me to do not refute what I said. The change of child's brain structure and IQ derive from the more reliance on his/her genes, and cognitive training can increase your cognitive abilities but not your general intelligence('g').

Here is an analogy to help you understand what I am saying:
Let's coin a concept 'Sport Intelligence' to stand for the common variance in your performances of all of sports, and I ask you to run, jump and lift-up to produce a quotient score that correlates with Sport Intelligence to some degree, and ok you've done badly on all of them and get a 70, which indicates your sport intelligence is low, and signifies you are innately very disadvantageous in the common variance in the performances of all of sports. And you go on a training to improve your performances in running, jumping and lifting up. This DOES NOT salvage your disadvantage in the COMMON VARIANCE, but just your SPECIFIC VARIANCES in the specific sport tasks(running jumping and lifting up), namely increasing the specific variances does not equate increasing the common variance, and the former is just correlated to the later.

It's analogous to 'increasing' your intelligence. You can train your memory, your matrix reasoning, your information, you name it, but still you can't increase your general intelligence, which is the common variance in all of the cognitive tasks.

To summarize, there are two major epistemological flaws contained by the articles you gave me:
1. They confused common variance with specific variances
2. They contributed the change in the brain structure to the increasing of intelligence instead of more reliance on genes.

I am kinda surprised a reputed professor in Neuroscience could commit such tremendous felonies, huh maybe that's another example why IQ does matter(he said his IQ was modest) lol? jk

Anyway I am not blackpilling. We gotta concede this world is totally unfair and the revelation of unfairness is not blackpilling, but the skewness of reality is.

The 'correlation' means, that two things are correlated with each other, but that does not necessarily mean if you increase one side the other side will increase in tandem. IQ tests measure your cognitive abilities as the indicators of your g, and they are correlated with g, but increasing the indicators does not increase the construct that is indicated. Training the indicators is thus distinct from training the general intelligence.

One empirical evidence is that, no matter how rigorously you get trained on the matrix reasoning, the training will not boost your performance on the visual puzzle at all. If the common variance is really increased, then your performance on the visual puzzle will also be increased in tandem with the one on matrix reasoning but the truth is not like this. This means you just increase the specific variance.

[MSL]

 If there was some average incel or just another normie I guess they'll start with: "LOL, you think you know better than the professors? Just shut up.", but I am ready to accept that you maybe know better or you even can discover something new or invent something new. Therefor I will be glad to discuss it more (and to learn new things because you're deeply learning this matter and you're sort of professional.)
 Here, some questions for thinking:
 

• The change of child's brain structure and IQ derive from the more reliance on his/her genes, and cognitive training can increase your cognitive abilities but not your general intelligence('g').

  If you increase your cognitive abilities, your knowledge, culture and so on, at one moment, isn't this summing up to a higher level of the general intelligence? Like in economy -- only improvement of one sector and one town doesn't lead to general improvement of the economy, but when you improve more sectors + more towns + receive investments, in one point, the general economical situation (GDP and GDP per capita, let's say) will also get improved.

• They confused common variance with specific variances

  Even so, isn't it enough once you are able to improve all the specific variances you need? The overall intelligence should also be impacted. How this common variance can stay out of the dialectical law that after certain point the quantitative change turn into qualitative change, like water and cold -- more cold, colder and colder and in one moment the water is already ice. Or add heat, hotter and hotter, the ice is back to water and if you continue this the water is converted into vapor.
   How to accept that even if you improve 20 or 30 specific variances your common variance is still the same. At the end of the day, that common variance is "common" because it's made of (or consists) the sum of the specific ones.
• According to your current understanding of the IQ, answer me this interesting question: if there are 2 men (let's say twins or brothers) who have identical (or very similar) general IQ and the first one just start to live isolated in the jungle (like a Tarzan or a Mowgli) and reading nothing, watching nothing online, talking with nobody, and the second one is learning hard in Oxford, reading books, watching philosophy and science online, talking to educated people... after 5 years when you test them, is there going to be a different result?
  
  I think the result will be very different because the men who grow up in the jungle will even can't know what's the difference between a square and a rectangle, so he can't understand even the question about how many squares are there in a picture full of squares and rectangles. But the Oxford brother will answer many of the questions immediately just because he already dealt with them before or because he is the author of some of them.

• We gotta concede this world is totally unfair and the revelation of unfairness is not blackpilling

  
  No, no. Look, the blackpilling aspect is if someone is a fatalistic and pessimistic, i. e. when thinks that everything is given and static and nothing is in motion, there is no development, there is only regress and there are no opportunities. It's just a very strong determinism in the best case, in the worst it's a kind of fatalism.
  
  The meta view (taking into account) all of the pills (points of view) and selecting/seeing the right, the semi-right or semi-wrong, and the wrong is what the scientific philosophy do. When it comes to the concrete IQ it's the same -- if there are people who're telling you that everything is genetics and there is no way to change or improve at least a little, obviously it's blackpillism, fatalism, fatalistic biologization, etc. Also, if there is someone who'll say that we're all equal, the genes doesn't matter and it's only up to our efforts, it's another radical uneducated view, which is bluepilled, radically indeterministic, etc. because it's obvious that some people from the early childhood are more gifted than others.

• this world is totally unfair

  
  Even so, we can't conclude that everything is strongly deterministic, fatalistic and there is no room for improvement. In some cases, yes, there are these 100% genetically given things like color of the eyes, form of the ears and so on. But there are also not that genetically influenced things like are you going to be fat or not; yes, some people may burn calories slower than others or something like this, but if you keep low-calorie diet and if you do the right sports no matter how easy you get fat, you're not going to be a fat person. The muscles -- well, there are people who're luckier, because of the better frame, they just genetically have got the bigger bones, bigger muscles and some of them do build muscles easier but there is no person who try to gym-maxx and take the right food and drinks and stays the same all the time. At least 1 cm gain you will have at some point.

[MSL]

for new generations, the weighs of height and face are way heavier than money.

I think for all generations good-looking is better for falling in love than just money. The problem is that new or old, no female will stay with you if you're homeless, you don't pay her bills at least A-A and you're not providing her. Some Chinese women even want you to give money to their parents. Try having a girl-friend in China only with height and face and see how long she's with you (if she start to at all).

No, seriously, find a handsome dude and make him to invite a girl saying that he's jobless, not going to pay dinners and no car, only pure love, walking in the parks, sitting and talking at home and drinking home-made tea... See how many girls will say "No problem, 帅哥就够了啊！"

 And let Liam read how many Chinese females (from different generations) honestly are saying "I don't like poor males." ("我不喜欢穷的男人。"): https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634

I never said being poor was not a big disadvantage in the dating market. I was saying that being poor was not as detrimental to the success of dating as being short/ugly was, and even though the magnitude of poorness is higher than the one of being short/ugly, the tall and handsome(or even just tall) but poor man still triumph over another rich but short and ugly(or even just short) man in dating.
This is not blackpilling, at least this aligns with the reality of dating in China.

How you can say so especially about China, when everybody knows that the majority of the Chinese females are very money-oriented, travel-oriented, they need a lot of money for everything; some of them even spend 500 for a hairdresser...
 Of course, you can keep your opinion and I am not trying to change it, but I want to say to all others who're reading it, that the Chinese females (and most of the others) can't stand a poor man and dislike to live in poverty; if there are two man: one handsome and tall but poor and one average but rich, at the end of the day, they'll choose the rich one. Oh, you can call it beta-buxxing or whatever, but this is it.
 I strongly suggest everyone to pretend being very poor and to see if there will be a female who'll agree to date a man who can't take her to a cafe, don't drive a bike or another vehicle, don't pay for movies, don't pay for anything and they just have love relationship talking about games, poems, history, art during their long walks beside the river, around the lake, etc.
 In a word: if you take 100 poor Chads and 100 really rich men, there will be almost 90% of the Chads without girlfriends (maybe some, around 10%, may get some short-term, like one-night-stand but not more if they're not hell lucky to find some unicorn girl who will be enough rich to say "I will pay all, you just be a Chad!") and there will be almost 90% of the rich men who will have a wife or at least some lover (called "小三") for beta-buxxing. It's a common knowledge that "rich = there are women" except for those who're living around the same rich women (which means they're relatively not rich), i. e. geo-minned males or those who're really something like 0.5/10 to 2/10... A 3/10 rich man (not a midgetcel, not a disabledcel, etc.) is already blessed because almost everywhere he can get at least one Becky. Can't say the same about the poor Chads who even can't geomaxx and have to stay forever in their villages where most of the people are males too.
 In a ideal world, where the females aren't materialistic and don't care about the money and somehow don't care even being poor, homeless and starving - yes, only the looks and the height is enough to attract some or many; but in this capitalistic and/or neo-feudal society being rich enough is a good base but just being handsome and tall, isn't. Can you see some single billionaire? Show me at least one.

[MSL]

'dating' does not equate 'marriage'.

 True. But if you're poor (don't pay her bills and can't support her travels or something, depends on how greedy is she. There was one who said he was happy to find a girl who charge him only to pay for her books, but there are girls who'll say you should pay 100%, including her feet massage or her new expensive dress) you're not seen as a dating material at all.
 I know you're relatively rich, from the high class districts in the high class city (Shanghai) and you never experienced things like being so poor that you have to eat only 1 egg a day and the best gift you can make to a girl is a pencil drawn picture on a small notebook paper.
 Do you know that there are girls that after the first date they're leaving because you pay only for bus transportation, not for taxi? I bet you (or the males around you) can't imagine it because they have own cars and even don't need to think about taxis. But if one day you get poorer you'll realize what is the biggest problem (and why the world has Marx and Engels -- because the poverty, the exploitation is/are the biggest issue).
 So, if she is leaving you because you have no car, of course, she is not going to marry you too. Ohhhhhhhhhh, especially if she is from those places where you should pay her family too (something like "monthly tax" that you're having their daughter).
 No good face or good height can save you if you're not fulfilling her expectations of being a donor (spending money non-stop, because "You are a man and you have to.") I saw people from the West also said that in some places there are poor Chads who're becoming poorcels because they're carless, jobless, etc. and the females prefer to date a rich Norman than a poor Chad.
 In a word, you think "uglycel < poorcel" but I think "poorcel < uglycel" and "poorcel < almost all of the rest".
 For all those who never dated, I want to make a simple math here:

 Imagine that you're meeting only 10 times a month. Every date costs around RMB 200 at least (like a simple dinner for RMB 90 + a movie ticket for RMB 100 and something like RMB 10 for the transportation.) It's RMB 2000 per month in the better cases! What if your salary is just RMB 3000? How you'll pay your food, your bills, your rent?... What if she insist you to be more "大方" (generous) and to pay her some money for clothes, nails, more expensive restaurants? I will tell you, it's already RMB 6000 per month (many Chinese people have no this income).
 So, if you're poor, don't think at all about starting dating because you'll be insulted for being not a "true man" or just politely left and ghosted for being incapable to pay according her expectations (and previous experience). 

[MSL]

The 'correlation' means, that two things are correlated with each other, but that does not necessarily mean if you increase one side the other side will increase in tandem. IQ tests measure your cognitive abilities as the indicators of your g, and they are correlated with g, but increasing the indicators does not increase the construct that is indicated. Training the indicators is thus distinct from training the general intelligence.

 The question remains that if you increase more and more, there should be one point where there will become some increase, this is  the law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.
 Concretely, if Ana and Mary are twin sisters and Marry never goes to school but Ana goes and reads 400 good books in her life after 10 years is Ana's IQ higher than Mary's or they remain the same?
 Well, I want to also to know "how do you train the general intelligence?" and how is it different than training the "indicators"? (Just to learn something new.)

[MSL]

One empirical evidence is that, no matter how rigorously you get trained on the matrix reasoning, the training will not boost your performance on the visual puzzle at all. If the common variance is really increased, then your performance on the visual puzzle will also be increased in tandem with the one on matrix reasoning but the truth is not like this. This means you just increase the specific variance.

 I don't know is that an empirical evidence and if there is a research about it but let's assume you're well informed and it's true. Okay, then here comes the last question for today (I am pretty sure many incels and others will be interested to know your answer:) If the common IQ is static, does it mean that your learning, reading, studying and so on, don't increase it at all? And if so, why usually people who read, study and learn are more intelligent than those who don't read, don't study and don't learn?

[Zhang Jie]

The 'correlation' means, that two things are correlated with each other, but that does not necessarily mean if you increase one side the other side will increase in tandem. IQ tests measure your cognitive abilities as the indicators of your g, and they are correlated with g, but increasing the indicators does not increase the construct that is indicated. Training the indicators is thus distinct from training the general intelligence.

 The question remains that if you increase more and more, there should be one point where there will become some increase, this is  the law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.
 Concretely, if Ana and Mary are twin sisters and Marry never goes to school but Ana goes and reads 400 good books in her life after 10 years is Ana's IQ higher than Mary's or they remain the same?
 Well, I want to also to know "how do you train the general intelligence?" and how is it different than training the "indicators"? (Just to learn something new.)

I think I have already elucidated everything about 'how is it differnt from training the indicators' above.
As for how to train the general intelligence, currently the professionals have yet to figure out any method. The only way is to keep yourself healthy to suffer from less discline of IQ thus your IQ will 'increase'.
And, whether I am saying is correct or not is not dependent of whether what I am saying is demonstrated by a professional or not, not to mention what I am saying is just the viewpoint of the psychometric professonals.
The factors you are entailing are part of the reason why the g-loading of IQ test can never be 1.0, and one of the factors that determine the magnitude of the diminishing returns of g-loading(Search 'Spearman's Law of the Diminishing Returns), because knowledge is delimited from intelligence, and the reason why IQ test measures your IQ by knowledge-loaded items is that although knowledge is not intelligence, but they are correlated because how well you can apply the obtained knowledges and retain them needs intelligence.(This is just Crystallized Intelligence) The reason why crystallized items suffer from more SLODR as the abilities increase than fluid items is because knowledge is not intelligence. When there are other unexpected variables adulterating the variances, the loading on the expected factor will for sure be lower, compared to the same context without the unexpected variables in question.
Of course troglodyte has significantly lower average IQ than aristocrat whatsoever, but education, reading, you name it, never really boost your intelligence very much, because general intelligence is 91% genetic and only 9% environmental.
Increasing all of the specific variances to increase general intelligence still remains to become pragmatic by scientific methods. I only heard of a lab that embarked on the development of the technology that could increase general intelligence and the outcome was that the increase was unsignificant and it was just temporary.
But don't get upset. IQ does not correlate with life outcomes as highly as some high IQ megalomaniacs are blackpilling. The correlation analysises never implicated that as long as your IQ is not 125, you can't be a physics student. The dynamics is not singularly factored, but admittedly we can't negate the effect of IQ. I think as long as your IQ is not really low like 90 for physics, you will surely be eligible to be an academic in it.

[Incel]

I want to confirm that even when it happens to pass the looks treshold, the nationality treshold, the age treshold, the height treshold, then still if the female realizes you're not rich, she is very "No!"

There was one who liked me (all those nationality, looks, etc.) but when she got that I can't take her to restaurants every day, she said that I am "What a joke!" or something and never talk to me again.

DON'T miss my FREE E-BOOK and read about the Rejection#1, it's VERY RELATED: Free E-book "500 Rejections"

[Xsokii]

I want to confirm that even when it happens to pass the looks treshold, the nationality treshold, the age treshold, the height treshold, then still if the female realizes you're not rich, she is very "No!"

There was one who liked me (all those nationality, looks, etc.) but when she got that I can't take her to restaurants every day, she said that I am "What a joke!" or something and never talk to me again.

DON'T miss my FREE E-BOOK and read about the Rejection#1, it's VERY RELATED: Free E-book "500 Rejections"

Since you're male. Being short is considered bad but since I'm female. Being short is apparently considered "godly".

[Incel]

Yes. In most of the countries around the world the short females are considered very cute and/or sexy or at least normal people. Not an issue for a girl/woman at all if you haven't some severe problem to bother you.

And still, tell the guy above that if he get rich and he's with good personality there will be a woman for him. He's so depressed that he's 1.64 and not enough good looking. Tell him that all rich and good-hearted man surely can find at least one girl to accept them without worry that they're short or not 10/10 handsome.

(I mean our Liam brocel. He's a cool brocel, isn't he?)

[Xsokii]

Money really isn't a thing some people worry about. Just wait and you'll find a girl who will love you no matter what <3