[Alexa]

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

No, you got it a bit wrong. See how it is, the cutie Liam thinks he's too short (164 cm) and he's not handsome (I think he is handsome but it's another story ) and then, the other men telling him that he's rich and it's more important. Because you know it, if he is a homeless there will not be girl to live with him homelessly... and because he is rich and has good personality there will be a girl who will love him. But of course there aren't so many "no matter what" ones.

[PageRank]

Hehe, yeah, of course a guy from rich qu (区) in Shanghai and a girl from rich country in Scandinavia will underestimate the money (because they have it) and for them the things like height, looks, personality, education, gaming skills and others will be more important. But the true pictute is that as long as most of the people like us aren't rich, most of us have to think first about money. I am a male and I want a Beauty, a Stacy, okay? But if there is a richer Becky who will make me better, safer, cooler and happier, let it the Becky. This is how it works.

[MSL]

As for how to train the general intelligence, currently the professionals have yet to figure out any method.

So, reading and learning, communicating with intelligent people, watching scientific videos and so on, aren't consider a method by the professionals? Still, how to explain it that people who read and learn more, are usually, more intelligent than those who're just playing games and eating?

 

The only way is to keep yourself healthy to suffer from less decline of IQ thus your IQ will 'increase'.

 It's a way but I don't think it's the only way. Even a challenged kid (let's say above the imbecile level) is able to increase its intelligence via the oligophrenopedagogy, which is coming to show that the average IQ people via education may have real chances to improve their intelligence.
 How a person raised by wolves or monkeys is the same intelligent as a person who is attending university classes just because their DNA is the same?! Impossible. The practice shows that the education and the training improves a lot. Even an animal -- a kid (goat's baby) or a puppy will become more intelligent if it's around teaching and caring animals, people and others. For example, a monkey can learn how to use a soap if you teach it but if you didn't it will not use it.
 The more primitive organisms like snakes rely mostly on their DNA but the more evolved like the monkeys, the apes, the humans, they need socialization, practice, learning and in this way they increase their fuller potentials of IQ, EQ and others.

"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 professionals." You just prove it well enough and we'll believe it. Of course we, as scientists, want more verifications, studies, etc., but if you're a person who just have his own good proves, it's okay. I mean, we don't need to be formalistic.

 The law of diminishing returns is a good mention. Let me add a simple image of it for the people who never learned it: . If the concrete (Spearman's) is something different, let's know.
 This law shows that the efforts (quantity) leads to results (quality).

 

because knowledge is delimited from intelligence

 Look, it's a philosophical problem -- how you will define the knowledge and the intelligence. There are and can be different definitions of them. And according to the definitions they will overlaping or be equal, or be different.
 For example, to answer an IQ test question correctly you have to know how to, you have to have some kind of knowledge. Another example, if you know some fact, like "Tibetan language (藏语) is related to Chinese language (汉语) because they're from the same, Sino-Tibetan language family (汉藏语系)." can be considered as intelligence because most of the people around the world don't even know what's Tibetan, where is Tiber, what languages are Tibetans able to speak and understand, what is their native language and so on.

although knowledge is not intelligence, but they are correlated because how well you can apply the obtained knowledges and retain them needs intelligence

So, according to this, the intelligence is an ability and the knowledges are the tools of that ability? Something like the situation with the emperor-like person who is using the main party in his country as a tool? Am a correct?

This is just Crystallized Intelligence.

Here we have to explain this definition: this theory (fluid intelligence versus crystallized intelligence) was first proposed by psychologist Raymond Cattell who further developed it along with his student John Horn. The theory suggests that intelligence is composed of different abilities that interact and work together to produce overall individual 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! "unexpected < expected" but what's the point here?

but education, reading, you name it, never really boost your intelligence very much, because general intelligence is 91% genetic and only 9% environmental.

And here, exactly here, you need to provide studies which measured it. Everybody can say that it's 91:9 or 1:99, why not 50:50? Who proves that the genetics vs. environmental is only 91/9? Huh? Yes, we may guess the genetics is the base and maybe it's at least 50% or more. (That's why I strongly disagree when the parents or school owners blame only the teachers for the results -- they postulate that the students are all equally gifted and with the same IQ, the same genetics. It's really wrong! And that's one of the reason, empirically to say that I do agree that the genetics is 50% or more! But 91% looks too much and, yes, it looks still possible, but give me the sources of such a serious claim.)

IQ does not correlate with life outcomes as highly as some high IQ megalomaniacs are blackpilling.

Here comes the EQ and other types of "Q" that are sometimes or often neglected and, also, other factors (like the capital, the relationships, the background, the popularity and many others). There are so many low IQ-ed and average IQ-ed successful man and women, of course the life outcomes are not very correlated with the IQ and even with the marks in school (which are a better mirror of your IQ and EQ) and your overall knowledge.

[MSL]

 On purpose （故意的, in Chinese）I am adding this one here to make it more clear: is the autism-maxx (autismmaxx) really a maxxing thing?
 Okay, let's say as a joke or a humorous element of the inceldom and incels' communities it may be sort of valuable stuff but... is it a maxxing or a minning?
 Every incelologist and almost every incel, I believe, will say that a -maxx thing is something that at least can slightly increase your chances to ascend (or at least to be considered as a more attractive person or a dating material). Are there many females who like autists? I doubt it. If a female is an autist herself she is not going to say/think/feel "Hey! I want to date only autist guys!". In the better cases she can be like "Yes, they're humans too, we can't ignore them for being autistic, I am an autist myself!" but still... it's like the case with the short women when they may be okay with a short guys but also they may be not okay ("Hey, I am short so I don't need another short here! I want at least my kid to be tall so I am longing for a tall man!")
 So, Liam, what's that autism-maxx thing?
 According to some study (not sure how representative it is):

- only 7.7% of this high functioning autistic cohort reported having had a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, and 1.5% with someone of the same sex.
- only 1.5% of the group had sex.

So, if the percentage is something around it (or even double like -- 3% of the autists are ascending and 15%+ of the autists are in relationships), then what's that autism-maxx kind of maxxing?! It's like saying "short-maxx" or "poor-maxx", isn't it? When the majority of the females do avoid autists, short man and poor man, how you can use this disadvantages to self-maxx yourself with them?!

[Zhang Jie]

As for how to train the general intelligence, currently the professionals have yet to figure out any method.

So, reading and learning, communicating with intelligent people, watching scientific videos and so on, aren't consider a method by the professionals? Still, how to explain it that people who read and learn more, are usually, more intelligent than those who're just playing games and eating?

 

The only way is to keep yourself healthy to suffer from less decline of IQ thus your IQ will 'increase'.

 It's a way but I don't think it's the only way. Even a challenged kid (let's say above the imbecile level) is able to increase its intelligence via the oligophrenopedagogy, which is coming to show that the average IQ people via education may have real chances to improve their intelligence.
 How a person raised by wolves or monkeys is the same intelligent as a person who is attending university classes just because their DNA is the same?! Impossible. The practice shows that the education and the training improves a lot. Even an animal -- a kid (goat's baby) or a puppy will become more intelligent if it's around teaching and caring animals, people and others. For example, a monkey can learn how to use a soap if you teach it but if you didn't it will not use it.
 The more primitive organisms like snakes rely mostly on their DNA but the more evolved like the monkeys, the apes, the humans, they need socialization, practice, learning and in this way they increase their fuller potentials of IQ, EQ and others.

"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 professionals." You just prove it well enough and we'll believe it. Of course we, as scientists, want more verifications, studies, etc., but if you're a person who just have his own good proves, it's okay. I mean, we don't need to be formalistic.

 The law of diminishing returns is a good mention. Let me add a simple image of it for the people who never learned it: . If the concrete (Spearman's) is something different, let's know.
 This law shows that the efforts (quantity) leads to results (quality).

 

because knowledge is delimited from intelligence

 Look, it's a philosophical problem -- how you will define the knowledge and the intelligence. There are and can be different definitions of them. And according to the definitions they will overlaping or be equal, or be different.
 For example, to answer an IQ test question correctly you have to know how to, you have to have some kind of knowledge. Another example, if you know some fact, like "Tibetan language (藏语) is related to Chinese language (汉语) because they're from the same, Sino-Tibetan language family (汉藏语系)." can be considered as intelligence because most of the people around the world don't even know what's Tibetan, where is Tiber, what languages are Tibetans able to speak and understand, what is their native language and so on.

although knowledge is not intelligence, but they are correlated because how well you can apply the obtained knowledges and retain them needs intelligence

So, according to this, the intelligence is an ability and the knowledges are the tools of that ability? Something like the situation with the emperor-like person who is using the main party in his country as a tool? Am a correct?

This is just Crystallized Intelligence.

Here we have to explain this definition: this theory (fluid intelligence versus crystallized intelligence) was first proposed by psychologist Raymond Cattell who further developed it along with his student John Horn. The theory suggests that intelligence is composed of different abilities that interact and work together to produce overall individual 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! "unexpected < expected" but what's the point here?

but education, reading, you name it, never really boost your intelligence very much, because general intelligence is 91% genetic and only 9% environmental.

And here, exactly here, you need to provide studies which measured it. Everybody can say that it's 91:9 or 1:99, why not 50:50? Who proves that the genetics vs. environmental is only 91/9? Huh? Yes, we may guess the genetics is the base and maybe it's at least 50% or more. (That's why I strongly disagree when the parents or school owners blame only the teachers for the results -- they postulate that the students are all equally gifted and with the same IQ, the same genetics. It's really wrong! And that's one of the reason, empirically to say that I do agree that the genetics is 50% or more! But 91% looks too much and, yes, it looks still possible, but give me the sources of such a serious claim.)

IQ does not correlate with life outcomes as highly as some high IQ megalomaniacs are blackpilling.

Here comes the EQ and other types of "Q" that are sometimes or often neglected and, also, other factors (like the capital, the relationships, the background, the popularity and many others). There are so many low IQ-ed and average IQ-ed successful man and women, of course the life outcomes are not very correlated with the IQ and even with the marks in school (which are a better mirror of your IQ and EQ) and your overall knowledge.

I think you are just tautologically throwing this question 'Why do people with decent education have higher average IQ than those with awful education' since I have already unravelled it by answering 'IQ test does not have a 1.0 g-loading partly because there is an unexpected variable Knowledge as one of the unexpected interplays on the score of test', and just because Knowledge is unexpected, and since crystallized items are more knowledge-loaded, they suffer from Spearman's Law of Diminishing Returns, partly contributed by the interplay of Knowledge.

Psychometrically speaking, intelligence(general intelligence) is a latent factor underlying all of cognitive tasks.
Neurologically speaking, intelligence is the efficacy of the function of the neurological pathway of all of cognitive tasks.
I can't use too professsional termonologies here since I myself do not know very much about this topic.
But one thing that I can tell you is, knowledge is obviously delimited from intelligence. Knowledge is just your storage of informations, but of course knowledge is correlated with intelligence.

And, the statement that g is 91% genetic and 9% environmental can be easily googled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Genetic_and_environmental_determinants
(PS: I found out I overestimated the reliance of g factor on genetics)

Crystallized intelligence does not equate knowledge btw. It is your ability of the application of knowledge.. That is why by the factor analysis, you can see verbal subtests for ex are loaded on Gc(crystallized intelligence)

[Zhang Jie]

As for how to train the general intelligence, currently the professionals have yet to figure out any method.

So, reading and learning, communicating with intelligent people, watching scientific videos and so on, aren't consider a method by the professionals? Still, how to explain it that people who read and learn more, are usually, more intelligent than those who're just playing games and eating?

 

The only way is to keep yourself healthy to suffer from less decline of IQ thus your IQ will 'increase'.

 It's a way but I don't think it's the only way. Even a challenged kid (let's say above the imbecile level) is able to increase its intelligence via the oligophrenopedagogy, which is coming to show that the average IQ people via education may have real chances to improve their intelligence.
 How a person raised by wolves or monkeys is the same intelligent as a person who is attending university classes just because their DNA is the same?! Impossible. The practice shows that the education and the training improves a lot. Even an animal -- a kid (goat's baby) or a puppy will become more intelligent if it's around teaching and caring animals, people and others. For example, a monkey can learn how to use a soap if you teach it but if you didn't it will not use it.
 The more primitive organisms like snakes rely mostly on their DNA but the more evolved like the monkeys, the apes, the humans, they need socialization, practice, learning and in this way they increase their fuller potentials of IQ, EQ and others.

"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 professionals." You just prove it well enough and we'll believe it. Of course we, as scientists, want more verifications, studies, etc., but if you're a person who just have his own good proves, it's okay. I mean, we don't need to be formalistic.

 The law of diminishing returns is a good mention. Let me add a simple image of it for the people who never learned it: . If the concrete (Spearman's) is something different, let's know.
 This law shows that the efforts (quantity) leads to results (quality).

 

because knowledge is delimited from intelligence

 Look, it's a philosophical problem -- how you will define the knowledge and the intelligence. There are and can be different definitions of them. And according to the definitions they will overlaping or be equal, or be different.
 For example, to answer an IQ test question correctly you have to know how to, you have to have some kind of knowledge. Another example, if you know some fact, like "Tibetan language (藏语) is related to Chinese language (汉语) because they're from the same, Sino-Tibetan language family (汉藏语系)." can be considered as intelligence because most of the people around the world don't even know what's Tibetan, where is Tiber, what languages are Tibetans able to speak and understand, what is their native language and so on.

although knowledge is not intelligence, but they are correlated because how well you can apply the obtained knowledges and retain them needs intelligence

So, according to this, the intelligence is an ability and the knowledges are the tools of that ability? Something like the situation with the emperor-like person who is using the main party in his country as a tool? Am a correct?

This is just Crystallized Intelligence.

Here we have to explain this definition: this theory (fluid intelligence versus crystallized intelligence) was first proposed by psychologist Raymond Cattell who further developed it along with his student John Horn. The theory suggests that intelligence is composed of different abilities that interact and work together to produce overall individual 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! "unexpected < expected" but what's the point here?

but education, reading, you name it, never really boost your intelligence very much, because general intelligence is 91% genetic and only 9% environmental.

And here, exactly here, you need to provide studies which measured it. Everybody can say that it's 91:9 or 1:99, why not 50:50? Who proves that the genetics vs. environmental is only 91/9? Huh? Yes, we may guess the genetics is the base and maybe it's at least 50% or more. (That's why I strongly disagree when the parents or school owners blame only the teachers for the results -- they postulate that the students are all equally gifted and with the same IQ, the same genetics. It's really wrong! And that's one of the reason, empirically to say that I do agree that the genetics is 50% or more! But 91% looks too much and, yes, it looks still possible, but give me the sources of such a serious claim.)

IQ does not correlate with life outcomes as highly as some high IQ megalomaniacs are blackpilling.

Here comes the EQ and other types of "Q" that are sometimes or often neglected and, also, other factors (like the capital, the relationships, the background, the popularity and many others). There are so many low IQ-ed and average IQ-ed successful man and women, of course the life outcomes are not very correlated with the IQ and even with the marks in school (which are a better mirror of your IQ and EQ) and your overall knowledge.

And how can 'oligophrenopedagogy' refute my point that you can't increase your general intelligence? Of course, you can increase your IQ score by education or whatnot, but again, the increase of IQ score does not equate the one of your g. They are totally different. Because if you are dedicated into increasing your cognitive abilities, you are just increasing Specific Variances.

I also found out I was wrong at the point that increasing the specific variances of all of cognitive tasks equates increasing the common variance, because by the current training, you can only increase the variance of cognitive tasks that the training purports to increase but it can't increase other cognitive tasks like you can't increase your performance on Visual Puzzle by getting trained on Matrix Reasoning, so after all you are still just increasing the specific variances instead of the common variance which is 'g' even though you have increased all of cognitive tasks by the training.

And, grade correlates with IQ with an r=0.5, and IQ correlates with g with an r = 0.9+('IQ' here stands for 'FSIQ' on wais-iv). So you can see grade does not correlate with g(viz, it does not have high g-loading) highly.

[MSL]

just tautologically throwing this question 'Why do people with decent education have higher average IQ than those with awful education'

 It can be tautological if we take it as a statement that, you see, the clever people have good marks; good education. I'm telling something more that non-clever people via education get smarter, cleverer + that even the mentally challenged (and even animals which are obviously lower IQed "creatures") are capable of improving their intelligence if you teach them long time with patience and right pedagogy. That's why a gorilla that grows up with human educators may become capable to past tests that even some human teenagers can't but the similar gorillas growing in the jungles can't pass tests which are the human kids' level.
 

the increase of IQ score does not equate the one of your g

 And then how you know the the g is the same or not the same, if the IQ tests' scores are different but don't show anything?! Does it mean that the IQ tests are useless to show the real g? (There is an opinion like this, I met it before.) And how you know, at all, the g if we accept that the IQ tests, the marks in school, the life results (achievements) don't show anything about it? Is it really unmeasurable and if it is, how we know that there is something like that and something about his quantity?

 

so after all you are still just increasing the specific variances instead of the common variance which is 'g'

 Is g the sum of all its variances? Like, let's make a fast analogy, an army: only to enlarge the number of the soldiers isn't the whole army improvement, but if you add more naval forces, better AI, new capable generals and so on, the overall army is getting better, i. e. the army is the sum of all these: the AI, the generals, the navy, the soldiers of the ground forces, the drones, and so on and so forth. Is g the sum of its variances? Or something more than it? If so, what's the amount of the variances in the whole g? After all, what's g?
 
 

grade correlates with IQ with an r=0.5, and IQ correlates with g with an r = 0.9+('IQ' here stands for 'FSIQ' on wais-iv). So you can see grade does not correlate with g(viz, it does not have high g-loading) highly

Maybe this is the extend of the correlation if they measured it right. Can you give me the link (the source) of this study to see more how they got these concrete results?

[PageRank]

I am not very familiar with all of the terminology and it's hard to get some of the points. For example "r=0.5" is 0.5 out of 1.0 or out of 10? Is it 0.5/1 or 0.5/10 or even maybe 0.5/100? help me to understand.

And if you can, please in very simple words tell me is that the reality: the g (IQ) is not very important about your success in school, university, work or business, life (including being an incel or being in a love relationship)? Is that something that doesn't matter more than 1-5% to our lives? And if it is the situation, is it overvalued?

[MSL]

 I had some chats to deal with so I will add more answers and thoughts here now.

 

Knowledge is just your storage of informations

This definition of the knowledge isn't very full and very philosophic. From a simple philosophy (and gnoseology) point, we may at least add that there is knowledge "I know" and also there is knowledge "I know how to", i. e. some knowledge is the kind you mentioned, but other is practical knowledge. For example, I'll share with you a sweet memories story . In 2004 I had to live with a pretty Harbin girl (哈尔滨美女) in her 1 room flat where was living her mother too. It was a small place but I worked for her as a part-time English and Russian teacher and shared the incomes 50/50, so she was generous enough to let me live there for free. It was a pity that I couldn't pass her high standard thresholds  but it was fun to be around because she often wears shorts and T-shirts and the "view" was amazing  . In a word, she was a hot lady, this is what I can give as an honest opinion but she wasn't very clever EQ wise and knowledge wise (but still she got English Master's degree or around)... Why I am sharing this? Because there was an unforgettable conversation with her: once I told her that "Mushrooms aren't plants. They're also not animals. They have own "kingdom" (kingdom "Fungi", which includes the yeasts, rusts, smuts, mildews, molds, and mushrooms. ) And then she undervalued this knowledge of mine and said: "We, the Chinese, don't think this is "knowledge". For us more important is can you solve some practical problem like, here is a long stick in the room and the door is small, how to move the stick away through this door."  This sounds a bit funny (because she was one of those who think they can represent all of the Chinese people "I think so = All Chinese think so") and the example was too childish (a long stick and a door, wow ) but the point was interesting -- yes, there are different type of knowledge and to know what are the mushrooms isn't the same as to know how to rotate a long stick moving it through a small door.

And, the statement that g is 91% genetic and 9% environmental can be easily googled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Genetic_and_environmental_determinants

A friendly reminder to all people who think that in China you can "google it" or reading Wikipedia, Yahoo... or watching YouTube, reading Facebook, Twitter... and so on, this is what you got trying to do so:

• google.com? Sure! 

  This site can’t be reached
  
  gogle.com took too long to respond.
  Check your internet connection.
  
  Check any cables and reboot any routers, modems, or other network devices you may be using.
  If it is already listed as a program allowed to access the network, try removing it from the list and adding it again.
  If you use a proxy server...
  
  Check your proxy settings or contact your network administrator to make sure the proxy server is working. If you don't believe you should be using a proxy server:
• Wikipedia.org? Of course!

  This site can’t be reached
  
  wikipedia.org took too long to respond.
  Check your internet connection.
  
  Check any cables and reboot any routers, modems, or other network devices you may be using.
  If it is already listed as a program allowed to access the network, try removing it from the list and adding it again.
  If you use a proxy server...
  
  Check your proxy settings or contact your network administrator to make sure the proxy server is working. If you don't believe you should be using a proxy server:

 You need to pay for a VPN (not a good idea if you're with low income or jobless) and still you never know when some policeman will say that it's illegal. You're living in permanent uneasy status if you do so, that's why I am avoiding to use VPNs in China most of the time. (I'm just telling this because I usually only "Bing it" and "Baidu it", but can't "Google it" or "Yahoo it").

 So, because I am sort of limited to reach the sources and we tend to agree that there is some correlation between IQ, knowledge, education, marks and even the success in life, I will leave the details for those who're really more deep into the matter.
 
 Let's see more about the so-called IQcels -- what problems we may see there which will help us to know more about the inceldom itself.

[PageRank]

And it was said that the school and uni grades are more important than the IQ results, right?

[MSL]

And it was said that the school and uni grades are more important than the IQ results, right?

 Depends on "important for who?" and "important for what?" As we learned from Liam, the importance is different for the Americans and for the Chinese. For me, I can confirm, it will be more important and more representative if someone had better grades than better IQ test scores because I really met some people with high IQ scores and expected much more but they were making a lot of mistakes that they wouldn't if they really were better schoolgirls and schoolboys.
 Examples: He can answer at once the IQ test question "If Larry's son is my son's father, what relationship am I to Larry?" but he doesn't know anything about the objective idealism and the subjective idealism, never heard about the solipsism (i. e. his philosophy knowledge is not more than 3/10). Or she can solve all those "What number comes next in this series? 9, 16, 25, 36..." but she makes ridiculous economics mistakes like "If a country is bigger then its economy surely is better than the economy of all of the small countries!"  and "The main problem of our country is that we were under foreign control in the past!" (Like "if there is no Israel/Turkey/Japan/you name it, our nation will be the best ever!") 

[MSL]

And just adding a last one, to make my point clearer. You see, if an incel meets two girls and he can ascend, which one is better for him? The one who learned psychology and knows how to make him feel better, more secured and so on, learned some culinary classes and knows how to cook healthy and tasty to keep him healthier, learned well biology and knows how to keep the hygiene to keep him away from the hospitals and learned some other useful for the life subjects than the other one who solves all kind of IQ tests but when it comes to understand his needs, to cook something, to keep clean and tidy and so on, she just can't and she'll expect him to take care for all this (like that case with the Harbin beauty. When we lived together I told her: let me wash the clothes and other stuff that you don't like to do. And the answer was that she doesn't like to do anything and, in short, I have to do all the housework and to share with her 50% of my incomes and in return, well, she will just let me live in her home for free + some free food... Well, the deal wasn't very fair but I had no choice and I accepted. But I think for an incel or another man, the best is when they share the housework around 50%, when they help each other, when there are equal duties and responsibilities, and rights)...

[Alexa]

I can't use too professsional termonologies here

  Honey, trust me you're using too professional terminologies to the degree when we can't follow you. Do you think we know what are all these wais-iv, FSIQ, Matrix Reasoning and so on?

[Xsokii]

Hehe, yeah, of course a guy from rich qu (区) in Shanghai and a girl from rich country in Scandinavia will underestimate the money (because they have it) and for them the things like height, looks, personality, education, gaming skills and others will be more important. But the true pictute is that as long as most of the people like us aren't rich, most of us have to think first about money. I am a male and I want a Beauty, a Stacy, okay? But if there is a richer Becky who will make me better, safer, cooler and happier, let it the Becky. This is how it works.

Money is no object to me lol.

[MSL]

 For the people who have it (the money), it's not important. You see, for some girls in Africa, the Philippines, some regions of China, etc. even to buy a car or a house is a dream. (I heard also about a grandfather from a poor country who dreamed to buy a teapot, but it's another story.) And then, most (or at least many) of these girls will choose a boy/man who can give them the dreamed cars, houses, travels around the globe, etc. But if you can have it all without a male to provide it to you, of course you'll focus on other things like what kind is his face, what kind is his character, is his body is good, if he's understanding you and treating with respect, if he is able to protect you, etc.