> Women have almost no intellectual curiosity. It is just how they are wired. If you want to have great conversations about anything meaningful, you must find a man.
It makes me burn with shame to see such horseshit on Hacker News.
This account is banned as a troll. Do not post anything like this again, and kindly keep the douchey Maxim-magazine pastiche off this site as well.
>Women have almost no intellectual curiosity. It is just how they are wired. If you want to have great conversations about anything meaningful, you must find a man.
This sounds like selection bias. From what you wrote, it sounds like two things are true of the women you meet.
1. You're selecting them based on looks
2. Your intention is, in most cases, to sleep with them
I'm not saying that no attractive women are intelligent, of course. What I am saying is that if you are selecting based on looks (and interest in clubs) then you're less likely to find intelligence. You're more likely to select your friends based on intelligence than looks, so it makes sense that the men you meet seem smarter. You're looking for different things.
Likewise, you're not trying to sleep with your friends. That dynamic isn't there. But if you're meeting women to at the very least explore the potential of sleeping with them, then you're probably consciously or unconsciously steering the discussion towards fun, sexual things.
I've accidentally torpedoed several first dates by having intellectual discussions with the women I was talking to. We had great discussions! But in most cases an in depth intellectual discussion is antithetical to creating sexual chemistry, at first.
You might consider finding some platonic female friends. You may discover they have qualities you don't notice when you're dealing with women mostly on the basis of trying to date them.
I'm not saying that no attractive women are intelligent, of course. What I am saying is that if you are selecting based on looks (and interest in clubs) then you're less likely to find intelligence.
I know you mean well, but somehow your second sentence contradicts your first statement.
I wasn't clear. I couldn't figure out how to express my full point concisely, so I left it short and potentially misleading. I had hoped the meaning was implied, but I see now it wasn't. Thanks for pointing that out – I definitely didn't mean to say attractive women are less intelligent!
When I said "less likely" I meant "less likely than if you were looking for intelligence specifically".
So maybe, odds of intelligence when looking for it = 25%
Odds of intelligence in general population = 10%
Odds of intelligence when searching by attractiveness = 10%
I didn't mean attractive women are less intelligent. I meant that by searching for attraction he's less likely to find intelligence than if he were searching specifically for intelligence.
Strictly speaking, "If you are selecting based on looks (as opposed to picking randomly)" simply implies that you believe fewer attractive women are intelligent, proportionally. This actually could be reasonable without thinking less of attractive women, if you assume that attractive and intelligent women are likely to already be taken, but it's still certainly an assumption.
It gets even less damning if we say "If you are selecting based on looks (as opposed to picking based on intelligence)". It should be uncontroversial that a group of women selected for intelligence is going to be smarter than one selected based on an uncorrelated (or even weakly correlated) feature.
Thank you, that's what I meant. I just wrote a paragraph in another comment, but you expressed it much more concisely.
Searching based on looks rather than (traits likely to signify) intelligence is likely to lead to less intelligence found, even if the subset (attractive women) is equally likely to be intelligent.
Women who could actually challenge you intellectually are keeping a wide berth around you. To them it's too clear what you want in life and they apparently have no interest.
I'm not jealous. I'm a multimillionaire and have no real need for additional money. Nothing crazy but more than enough to not need to do anything for money. I could do what you do, if I wanted, although it holds no interest to me.
But I build companies and in doing so I hire a wide variety of people, including women who are every bit as intellectually capable as men. Why are you not meeting them in your personal life? I don't know. Maybe because you care more about how they look and not how they think. The smart ones are written off as "warpigs".
Maybe in 10-20 years you'll find that you were never able to find an actual connection with a woman and begin wondering why, instead of purely blaming it on them. Or you'll tire of the debauchery. Or maybe you'll just be happy with debauchery and inability to connect with nearly everyone you know (except one guy) for the rest of your life, and be happy with the "nod" from the bouncer and swarms of penniless locals infatuated with your status.
The blue pill runs deep in HN. It's just the personality of nerds to be white knights. There are always a minority that have taken http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill
Or ya know. The rest of the people here have very different lives and more often surround themselves with intelligent people of both sexes. You've made it very clear that your selection process for females is incredibly unlikely to attract someone with whom you'd have a deep, meaningful conversation. It would be exactly the same if you were gay and chasing after their male analogues.
Oh... my... god, you actually mention the red pill thing here? Red Pill is the absolute direct opposite of Hacker News, of intellectual maturity, of intellectual curiosity. Red Pill is like being a slave owner. iretired needs to go back to Reddit. I'd tell him to go back to 4chan, but even 4channers don't buy into that Red Pill bullshit.
>Women have almost no intellectual curiosity. It is just how they are wired. If you want to have great conversations about anything meaningful, you must find a man.
You are hanging around the wrong women if that is what you are really interested in (I suspect not). I would be careful generalizing your experience with certain women to the remaining 50% of the human race!
I think you posted under a throwaway, and then replied with your actual account.
> Women have almost no intellectual curiosity. It is just how they are wired. If you want to have great conversations about anything meaningful, you must find a man.
I hope you someday learn to see women in a little better light.
I doubt he will, he spends his time buying young attractive women's time and clubbing with other douchey status chasers. It's very important that the bouncer at a club recognizes him.
He seems completely unaware that calling anyone out on their lack of intellectual curiosity and "conversations about anything meaningful" is hilariously ironic.
He's just got a big case of bias that he can't see in himself. He is the one who picks young, attractive girls who can by virtue of their looks get along quite nicely in life without having to learn how the rest of the world works. How many men would choose to not be particularly interested in intellectual pursuits if they could live comfortably being taken care of by rich women?
I have found that it's harder to meet intellectually curious women than men. I don't know if that's because there are fewer of them than men on a percentage basis, or because they are more willing or effective hiding their intellectual curiosity than men.
Disclaimer: I am well outside of SF. I spent "adult" years in Florida and Texas. This is my observation of the demographics I have experienced.
I think there might be some selection bias there: if you are iretired from above, it sounds like you are choosing women based on appearance alone. While a fine pursuit, it won't necessarily lead to intellectual conversations.
