[Blackpill] Brainlets to Framecels; How the contrasting imperatives between natural selection and sexual selection may have helped create incels.

ColdLightOfDay

ColdLightOfDay

Serge’s alt.
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Posts
5,851
Online
25d 13h 48m
There are two main processes by which evolution can take place;

Natural Selection; which is defined as differential potential for survival based upon genetic traits and the practical advantages they provide the subject over other animals and members of their own species within their natural habitat.

Sexual Selection; which is defined as the process by which certain genetic traits become exemplified over time because of the their influence on mate selection due to their appeal to the opposite sex.
- example; it is theorised that the reason that humans have larger penises than the great-apes is because human females understood the relationship between a larger penis and increased pleasure during sex, and so selected males with larger penises, slowly breeding out lesser endowed males to the point where the average penis size of a human male increased over time. (I will likely be making another thread on this in the near future).

Because the great apes are our closest living relatives, it is useful to use them as a reference point when mapping out the evolution of various human traits since some point around 6-8 million years ago, when chimpanzees and humans shared their last known common ancestor, known as CHLCA. It is theorised that CHLCA was equipped with much greater physical strength and bone density than a modern homo-sapien because not only are the great apes on average 2-3 times stronger than a man, but also early man, from homo-erectus to homo-neanderthalensis exhibited greater physical strength and bone density than modern man, so weaker frame and muscle mass are a trait specific to modern humans within the greater hominid family tree.

The only way to explain this natural recession in a uniformly advantageous evolutionary trait such as physical strength is the rise of another trait with even higher evolutionary value, which would demand a larger share of energy metabolised by the body and a change in the emphasis of its allocation away from the muscles involved with physical strength. Incase you haven't guessed it, this trait is intelligence, and it is what sets human beings apart from the other great apes as evolutionary compensation for the weakening of our physical stature. A human brain (despite only making up 2% of our body mass) consumes roughly 25% of our energy consumption, double the percentage required by a chimpanzee brain.

This trade-off between physical prowess and mental acuity can be effectively summarised in incel terminology as a transition from brainlet to framecel, as all great apes are effectively brainlets in comparison to humans despite the fact they framemog us into oblivion.

interestingly, for those of you who buy into the bell curve displaying variation in IQ scores between the races (generally accepted as Asian > White > Black) the trade-off between intelligence and physical strength/athletic ability is also evident along this continuum, as where one race may supersede others with regard to mental acuity, this advantage comes at the price of a decrease in their physical prowess, with the exception of South Asians who are outliers in this respect (sorry curries, I do not know why nature can be so cruel).

The reason this trade-off is interesting is because it is clear to me, as it should be to all of those who are blackpilled, that perceived physical prowess is a far, far more advantageous evolutionary trait when it comes to sexual selection than intelligence. Yes, it is theorised that the reason women are more attracted to funny men than unfunny ones is because the ability to make people laugh is often indicative of high-intelligence, but we blackpilled all know that having a naturally powerful body increases your likelihood for sexual selection by females to a much greater degree than being funny or smart does.

So why has evolution sacrificed our physical strength for intelligence when being strong would actually be more advantageous in helping us find a mate and spread our genes? My new theory states that it is because; millennia ago in a more brutal and harsher world, settlements of smarter men outbred those of stronger men due to their heightened ability to control their environment and extend their lives, this process is evident in the quick extinction of Neanderthals from Europe in the proceeding millennia after the arrival of Homo sapiens in the area. This shows us that natural selection, particularly back then, favoured intelligence over strength - however - sexual selection on the part of women has always favoured strength over intelligence, and thus after the base level of higher intelligence in the successful Homo sapien settlements was established, a process of sexual selection began, breeding out the physically weaker males thus slowly increasing the average strength of all males in the same way the smaller penis males were selectively bred into recession to be replaced by generations with on average larger penises. Due to the rapid spread of intelligent human activity across the world, both these processes have not yet been carried out to completion, which is why we see such dichotomy in male body types across and within human populations, and why framecels and dickcels who are the end of their evolutionary line are still being born today.
 
Last edited:
fukmylyf

fukmylyf

.
-
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Posts
17,132
Online
2d 16h 8m
Shame, because you might actually agree with this one.
yeah legit, but this is common sense IMO. Intelligence fucked us over in many ways, modern medicine being another great example. I'm supposed to already be dead
 
SilentSoup

SilentSoup

Officer
★★
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Posts
663
Online
1h 14m
A treatise on framecels lol.

High IQ post! Please @ me when you write one about dick size.
 
T

texascurrycel

Banned
-
Joined
Dec 9, 2018
Posts
290
Online
0
Yeah, the evolution of intelligence is an endlessly fascinating topic as it doesn't seem obvious why it should evolve if it wasn't being sexually selected for. The only explanation is that it needed a very strong natural selection. And to a certain degree it needed both male and females of intelligence to come together (the "nerds" of the ancient world) who then formed extended settlements which had heightened creative ability, which were thereby able to survive both nature and the attacks of barbarian tribes who were strong physically but not intelligent. The persistence of this dynamic over thousands of years leads to the observation, valid to this very day, that intelligent people are often less capable physically, and physical people are often less intelligent. With some exception being made for people who are well rounded in all aspects, but even in these personalities, intelligence and physicality tends toward the median, rather than either quality being an outlier.

This process seems to have been selected for in Europe and Asia, and much lesser in the other races. With Jews, intelligence in trade and linguistics, particularly with the men, seems to have been selected for continuously without end, so that we might eventually be able to speak of Jews who lose all physicality whatsoever. With blacks being the prime example of both natural and sexual selection favoring physicality only, even to the present day. And with curries being an example of neither natural nor sexual selection producing much of anything.

But the die is cast. In a modern world without natural evolutionary pressure, and with female sexual selection on overdrive, everything is now favoring physicality. However, we can guess that this process, along with the depletion of all resources, will eventually put us back to square one, as the modern world collapses in the 21st century.

All resources simply have to be gone, and the population reduced by orders of magnitude (down to 1 billion, 500 million?) before intelligence can be selected for again. Contrary to what you people think, the resource surplus of the modern world actually selects against nerds, exceptions like Bill Gates aside. The very same nerds who invented this modern world in the first place. As you can see this is all very complex.
 
Warmest Black

Warmest Black

-
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
5,950
Online
6d 9h 55m
Historically, did women have much of say in choice of mate?
 
ColdLightOfDay

ColdLightOfDay

Serge’s alt.
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Posts
5,851
Online
25d 13h 48m
This process seems to have been selected for in Europe and Asia, and much lesser in the other races. With Jews, intelligence in trade and linguistics, particularly with the men, seems to have been selected for continuously without end, so that we might eventually be able to speak of Jews who lose all physicality whatsoever. With blacks being the prime example of both natural and sexual selection favoring physicality only, even to the present day. And with curries being an example of neither natural nor sexual selection producing much of anything.

But the die is cast. In a modern world without natural evolutionary pressure, and with female sexual selection on overdrive, everything is now favoring physicality. However, we can guess that this process, along with the depletion of all resources, will eventually put us back to square one, as the modern world collapses in the 21st century.
High IQ. I know you are a medical professional, do you have any studies on this at your disposal? - I’d be very interested in seeing them.
Historically, did women have much of say in choice of mate?
Less so, but their selective tendencies would still have been a factor. Evolutionary outcomes usually come as a result of millions of variables rather than just a binary case of cause and effect.
yeah legit, but this is common sense IMO. Intelligence fucked us over in many ways, modern medicine being another great example. I'm supposed to already be dead
In what sense are you supposed to already be dead? Are you a survivor of some horrific disease that would have been incurable in times gone past?
 
Last edited:
T

texascurrycel

Banned
-
Joined
Dec 9, 2018
Posts
290
Online
0
If you guys are interested consider the following:
Look into journals with following topics:
"evolutionary psychology"
"human biodiversity" "human evolution"
anthropology, etc.

But honestly this is something I actually don't want too much of. It's a massive blackpill, perhaps too massive for people to cope with. So they don't study it further and instead rely on platitudes like "we're all equal" which is one of the big bluepills of our time.
 
DeformAspergerCel

DeformAspergerCel

radical times demand radical solutions
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 11, 2018
Posts
8,389
Online
10d 20h 20m
Interesting read, although I fail to see how the extinction of Neanderthals in favor of homosapiens is somehow evidence of intelligence's conquest over physical strength in the domain of sexual selection. I do not think the entirety of survival can be encapsulated by only the trade off between physical strength and intelligence (although, these are certainly essential traits). To my knowledge, the Neanderthals were actually more intelligent than the arriving homosapiens, despite, as you rightly point out, having a more dense bone structure hence being more compactly built. This fact would go against the premise of your thread, so I ask you, how do you adress it?
 
ColdLightOfDay

ColdLightOfDay

Serge’s alt.
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Posts
5,851
Online
25d 13h 48m
Interesting read, although I fail to see how the extinction of Neanderthals in favor of homosapiens is somehow evidence of intelligence's conquest over physical strength in the domain of sexual selection.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, I do not believe there was an intelligenctual conquest over strength in the domain of sexual selection, only for standard natural selection. As you implied; sexual selection has always favoured strength, which is one of the arguments I made in the conclusion of the post.
 
DeformAspergerCel

DeformAspergerCel

radical times demand radical solutions
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 11, 2018
Posts
8,389
Online
10d 20h 20m
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, I do not believe there was an intelligenctual conquest over strength in the domain of sexual selection, only for standard natural selection. As you implied; sexual selection has always favoured strength, which is one of the arguments I made in the conclusion of the post.
So why has evolution sacrificed our physical strength for intelligence when being strong would actually be more advantageous in helping us find a mate and spread our genes? My new theory states that it is because; millennia ago in a more brutal and harsher world, settlements of smarter men outbred those of stronger men due to their heightened ability to control their environment and extend their lives, this process is evident in the quick extinction of Neanderthals from Europe in the proceeding millennia after the arrival of Homo sapiens in the area. This shows us that natural selection, particularly back then, favoured intelligence over strength
This is what I was referring to. Your conclusion isn't adding up with the fact that neanderthals weren't less intelligent than the arriving homosapiens, in fact evidence suggests the contrary. It may seem like a trivial distinction, but I would argue it pokes a massive hole in your theory
 
ColdLightOfDay

ColdLightOfDay

Serge’s alt.
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Posts
5,851
Online
25d 13h 48m
This is what I was referring to. Your conclusion isn't adding up with the fact that neanderthals weren't less intelligent than the arriving homosapiens, in fact evidence suggests the contrary. It may seem like a trivial distinction, but I would argue it pokes a massive hole in your theory
Okay, two things -

Of course, evolution is in no way a binary process of cause and effect, all evolutionary outcomes materialise as the result of myriad variables and it is very rare that we can point to the exact point of causality for any of them. You can only map out one variable at a time when it comes to predicting causes for evolutionary outcomes and that’s what I’ve tried to do in this thread, I would not have time to research and document every variable that was conducive to this outcome, but it is still interesting to discuss them one at a time.

You’re right, the Neanderthal example is not perfect because they were a distinct subset of hominid with a different neural network to our own, but they were certainly not ‘smarter’ in the conventional sense than modern humans, evidenced by the fact that archeology has shown Neanderthal tools began to resemble the more advanced Sapien designs with the onset of their arrival, which would indicate they had been behind them initially.

- There was a belief amongst some scientists in the late 19th century that Neanderthal man may have been smarter because their skulls indicate they had larger brains than us, (as do many animals that are larger than us) but this idea is massively discredited today because it is clear that their cerebellum chamber (the part of the brain most involved with information processing and congnition - i.e. intelligence) was much actually smaller than our own.
 
DeformAspergerCel

DeformAspergerCel

radical times demand radical solutions
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 11, 2018
Posts
8,389
Online
10d 20h 20m
Okay, two things -

- There was a belief amongst some scientists in the late 19th century that Neanderthal man may have been smarter because their skulls indicate they had larger brains than us, (as do many animals that are larger than us) but this idea is massively discredited today because it is clear that their cerebellum chamber (the part of the brain most involved with information processing and congnition - i.e. intelligence) was much actually smaller than our own.
I would have to ask for a source on that.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096424
 
RopeMaXXer

RopeMaXXer

getting dabbed on by waging
★★
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Posts
2,608
Online
40d 17h 56m
Blacks aren't stronger than whites
There's no such a thing as trade off, just traits that are no longer selected for. You can have both strong and smart
 
Insomniac

Insomniac

ϟϟ A U T I S M ϟϟ
-
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Posts
36,174
Online
47m
2 high IQ 4 me
 
Inceptorr

Inceptorr

Banned
-
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Posts
209
Online
2d 22h 11m
Good thread.
 
ColdLightOfDay

ColdLightOfDay

Serge’s alt.
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Posts
5,851
Online
25d 13h 48m
Blacks aren't stronger than whites
There's no such a thing as trade off, just traits that are no longer selected for. You can have both strong and smart
I’m torn on the believability of the bell-curve myself, I am kind of nervous about what I might find reading into it. I just put that in because I know many here do and it was interesting within the context of the thread.
 
OwlGod

OwlGod

★★★★
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Posts
1,358
Online
20d 1h 42m
@SergeantIncel I think this thread should be moved to must-read content (I already knew but still very interesting)

yeah legit, but this is common sense IMO. Intelligence fucked us over in many ways, modern medicine being another great example. I'm supposed to already be dead
Exactly

Blacks aren't stronger than whites
There's no such a thing as trade off, just traits that are no longer selected for. You can have both strong and smart
yeah, Dolph Lundgren Pill being a great example and is pure suifuel
 
AlexanderTheGreat11

AlexanderTheGreat11

youngcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Posts
30,269
Online
157d 16h 34m
Top