Whats it like having a smart gf?

having a legitimately dumb (though not hazardously stupid) gf that listens to what she's told is my current goal.

t. fucked over by women too many times

Yes they are.
look at what you affirmed yourself:
>Intelligence is mainly thought-processing power and how well your rationalisation skills are.
You were right with this definition but then you followed it up with an illogical deduction, why?
If you have thought processing power and good rationalisation skills that means you can understand the world around you easily and clearly which allows you to be able to tell apart what's false from what is true therefore making it easier for you to not fall for bizarre beliefs because you can't be easily deceived like non intelligent people.
Also yes I know knowledge and intelligence aren't the same thing it should be clear from my first reply

>If you have thought processing power and good rationalisation skills that means you can understand the world around you easily and clearly
Not at all. It just means you can process information more efficiently and convince yourself what's right or wrong. Which doesn't necessarily mean that what you believe actually is right or wrong (there's also no universal standard for that), but rather you believe it as such. Intelligence often means being more prone to bias.

>which allows you to be able to tell apart what's false from what is true
What they THINK is true or false; not necessarily if it *is* true or false. Being intelligent means being able to make the best arguments, and rationalisations out of even the wrongest information and convince yourself (and others if you're lucky) they're true.

>therefore making it easier for you to not fall for bizarre beliefs
Not only is this completely untrue, but studies have found the opposite. Intelligent people are more likely to have bizarre beliefs because they're better at rationalism and coming up with justifications for them. It's usually lesser intelligent people who lack that skill, making them easier to turn away from those beliefs. There's also no absolute standard for bizarre beliefs. What's bizarre to one individual/group/culture is normal to others.

>because you can't be easily deceived like non intelligent people
It's often non-intelligent people who are easily able to change their minds and not read too much into anything; making them less likely to have unusual beliefs and ideas. With intelligents, however, they're more capable of defending their beliefs and doubling down on them, and finding ways to defend and justified them. Which is why a lot of intellectuals have oddities (ex.: the amount of university professors who believe in various conspiracy theories).

I think it's a lot more complicated to be female and intellectually capable above that of the average person.

Intelligence can turn simple tasks and propositions, and presuppositions, into a cascade down the rabbit hole of life into a snake pit of confusion. Adding the difficulting of the impulse to comprehend reality onto the intuitive and subconscious method of cognition which is idiosyncratic to women will result in the quick and easy path to madness and emotional fragmentation.

All men need the wisdom of women, but smart women are lost without a man who can guide her through the meandering and terrifying labarynth of intelligence.

.
>There is no universal standard for what's right and wrong
excuse me what?
>Intelligence often means being more prone to bias
excuse me what?
>what they THINK is true or false
so you're telling me intelligent people are more prone to rationalising false information but not correct ones? that sounds like the opposite of intelligence my man

About the last 2 paragraphs:
Non intelligent people's lack of ability to read too much into anything makes them the ones prone to believing idiotic ''bizarre'' (as you described) ideas because they manage to believe shit without even needing full argumentation of it.
Intelligent people don't care about if an idea sounds bizarre or not, they only care about it's factual truth and gaining enough knowledge about the matter to be able to figure out if it's true or not.
A professor that believes in a false conspiracy theory is probably lacking sufficient knowledge about the matter at hand to figure it out, in this case if he is intelligent he will probably figure it out soon as he gains more knowledge and if not then he probably is not intelligent

Couple things, not him btw.

1. There is, in a technical sense, no observable relationship between moral virtuousness and intelligence. And it has to be that way, otherwise there would be no utility in idiocy and evil; and, evolutionarily, there clearly is.

2. Humans can't, in a technical capacity once again, actually perceive reality in such a way that the objective and actuarial qualitative properties of existence can be 100% agreed upon because there is discontinuity between conscious experience. About all we can agree on, and even then only with enormous concessions, is that there is something instead of nothing.

3. Intelligence and the objective perception of reality are not related. At all. A blind man with an IQ of 300 and a mentally handicapped man with 20/20 vision, picture this in your mind as a thought experiment; who is technically capable of holding a more detailed mode of reality inside their heads?

> 1. There is, in a technical sense, no observable relationship between moral virtuousness and intelligence. And it has to be that way, otherwise there would be no utility in idiocy and evil; and, evolutionarily, there clearly is.

Well back to what I said in my first reply, intelligent people are more prone to have the will to gain knowledge and therefore wisdom which leads to higher chances of becoming a morally virtuous person.

>2. Humans can't, in a technical capacity once again, actually perceive reality in such a way that the objective and actuarial qualitative properties of existence can be 100% agreed upon because there is discontinuity between conscious experience. About all we can agree on, and even then only with enormous concessions, is that there is something instead of nothing.

Dogmatism is just cowardice and running away from the the quest to the truth, there IS absolute objective truth, math is the proof.

> 3. Intelligence and the objective perception of reality are not related. At all. A blind man with an IQ of 300 and a mentally handicapped man with 20/20 vision, picture this in your mind as a thought experiment; who is technically capable of holding a more detailed mode of reality inside their heads?

Reality is not limited to visual concepts at all

It's nice because I don't have to act like her dad. She won't treat me like some holy prophet but it's fine since I can trust her intelligence.

>Math is the proof.
There isn't even empirical parity in the fundamental principles of the differentiating manifestations of branches of mathematics. Set theory and number theory, as illustrated by chaos theory, don't even run parallel to each other at their foundational schema.

But, if your intellect has informed you that you don't need anything other than your intellect to justify, fully, and articulately, every one of your ideas and beliefs as wholly representative of objective reality then nothing I can say to you will convince you otherwise.

In my experience they get fed up with my behavior break up really quick, and then never speak to me again. So I guess what it's like dating them is going through a break up.

On top of this, you have to consider the manipulative nature of women. She will run rings around your brainlet self and will forget what happiness is

>so you're telling me intelligent people are more prone to rationalising false information but not correct ones?
They're more prone to rationalising and processing information in general. Which makes "false" and "correct" information as fair game as each other.

>that sounds like the opposite of intelligence my man
Sounds like your definition is based on compatibility with you and your echo chamber. Rather absolutist.

>Non intelligent people's lack of ability to read too much into anything makes them the ones prone to believing idiotic ''bizarre'' (as you described) ideas because they manage to believe shit without even needing full argumentation of it.
It also makes them less likely to hold them for very long because they can be easily convinced by other information. Intelligents tend to stick to their beliefs as they're better capable of rationalising them (especially to themselves).

>Intelligent people don't care about if an idea sounds bizarre or not, they only care about it's factual truth and gaining enough knowledge about the matter to be able to figure out if it's true or not.
What they *think* is factual/true knowledge. Which isn't always a reflection of reality (if at all). Intelligents are just better at articulating information and data in general; not the right or wrong.

>A professor that believes in a false conspiracy theory is probably lacking sufficient knowledge about the matter at hand to figure it out
They usually have an overabundance of knowledge into the field. That's how they usually buy into dubious theories.

>in this case if he is intelligent he will probably figure it out soon as he gains more knowledge
Or he'll just gain more knowledge that only further convinces him of his beliefs.

>and if not then he probably is not intelligent
A false and absolutist standard for the topic.

not 100% true. some girls enjoy having a gf they mog the fuck out of and feel like they're better than. a dynamic i'd not mind being involved in.

having a bf** i mean...

What the fuck kind of drugs is this user on
Sounds like a high school kid ran his one-paragraph essay through a thesaurus 5 times over

>intelligent people are more prone to have the will to gain knowledge
Which leads them to believe what they want; whether or not it's right/wrong, true/false, etc.

>therefore wisdom which leads to higher chances of becoming a morally virtuous person
Wisdom is a different thing. Plus, morality is a highly relative concept.

>Dogmatism is just cowardice and running away from the the quest to the truth
Truth is not a very straightforward thing to achieve.

>there IS absolute objective truth
Little-to-none.

>math is the proof
Math is in a category of its own, with its own language and field of logic (there's tons of fields of logic out there). Not too much to do with people and reality.

>Reality is not limited to visual concepts at all
Reality is limited to the experiences of the person in question.

> There isn't even empirical parity in the fundamental principles of the differentiating manifestations of branches of mathematics. Set theory and number theory, as illustrated by chaos theory, don't even run parallel to each other at their foundational schema.

Could you elaborate more please? how does the chaos theory prove that set and number theories are contradictory at a core level?

>But, if your intellect has informed you that you don't need anything other than your intellect to justify, fully, and articulately, every one of your ideas and beliefs as wholly representative of objective reality then nothing I can say to you will convince you otherwise.

You don't have any other tool but your intellect to justify any idea, it is nothing but intellect that led you to believe the correctness of the affirmation you typed
I really can't wrap my head around dogmatism and why it's somehow taken in consideration by people, if you would, enlighten me about this as well

I didn't have any trouble reading it.

Attached: old-man-shrug2.jpg (313x313, 16K)

two digit iq spotted

Legible and sensible are two different things

>"I'm literally so terrified by the fact I cannot comprehend anything you've just said, despite my personal insistence on my own intellectual superiority over everyone alive, that I am going to write a post seruptitiously accusing you of some sort of delusional inferiority to which I myself am secretly frightened I may be suffering from"

Good post, son.

>askin ppl on r9k about what it's like to have a gf
retarded faggot

Arguing that mathematics is useless because it depends on axioms is like arguing that the number pi is useless because no one can write its full form out; it has to be approximated

I didn't claim it was useless. I syllogistically insinuated that all mathematics is, is in fact, useful.

Before you spit idiocy at others, ask if you understand something said by trying to articulate it yourself; otherwise you'll reveal to yourself the extent of your ignorance, and this may be psychologically upsetting.

>Which leads them to believe what they want; whether or not it's right/wrong, true/false, etc.
If you prove to him that his idea is false and provide arguments he won't be able to deny it, it sounds like you're assuming an intelligent person has to be a stubborn ego obsessed freak
>Wisdom is a different thing. Plus, morality is a highly relative concept.
Again, I'm not saying they're the same things I don't know where you get that from.
morality is relative but virtues and vices are set and agreed upon from a societal point of view so when I say ''morally virtuous'' you can assume that's the type I'm talking about
>Truth is not a very straightforward thing to achieve.
And yet it is possible so why not try?
>Little-to-none.
>Math is in a category of its own, with its own language and field of logic (there's tons of fields of logic out there). Not too much to do with people and reality.
No, math is abstract but it is fully deriving from and applicable on reality.
>Reality is limited to the experiences of the person in question.
Doesn't really contradict what I said so uh..... yeah, I guess?

Smart guy here, smart people are some of the biggest retards on the planet. Being smart does not make you a better person, in fact it gives you more opportunity to be a bad person. Smart people who are also good people are pretty rare.

Gives you equal and more convenient opportunity to be a good person and as in intelligent person you'd surely make the right choice. The only case where you wouldn't is if you're limited by material factors

>Gives you equal and more convenient opportunity to be a good person
Yeah except there are far more benefits to being a prick, so most smart people do that.
>The only case where you wouldn't is if you're limited by material factors
You mean like everyone who went through public school brainwashing? Right.

It's a lot of banter. If you are too tired for that stay away from smart girls.

>My intelligence cuasatively equates to moral superiority.
>Anyone who disagrees is a subhuman untermensch who needs to fully comprehend the degree to which I am superior.

Convincing stuff, fellas.

Wow user, you're really smart. I'm so impressed. Look, you know big words like "syllogism" and "articulate"!!!
What other genius opinions do you have?

>If you prove to him that his idea is false and provide arguments he won't be able to deny it
Or they'll just figure out counterarguments and justifications to his views. Plus, like anyone who has their beliefs challenge, they'll just double-down on it.

>it sounds like you're assuming an intelligent person has to be a stubborn ego obsessed freak
Intelligence usually includes egotism and stubborn habits. A lot of history's genius were stubborn egotists. Feynman, Einstein, Darwin, Tesla, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, etc.

>Again, I'm not saying they're the same things
Certainly inferring it.

>but virtues and vices are set and agreed upon from a societal point of view
That's relativity.

>when I say ''morally virtuous'' you can assume that's the type I'm talking about
Moral virtuousness typically implies moral absolutism.

>And yet it is possible so why not try?
Try if you want. But it's because it isn't straight that even intelligents don't have the best grasp on it, and go with what they assume to be true.

>>My intelligence cuasatively equates to moral superiority.
It's almost as if I didn't use the words ''probably'' and ''higher chance'' a thousand times haha right?
>Anyone who disagrees is a subhuman untermensch who needs to fully comprehend the degree to which I am superior.
Never said or implied that, I'm open to being proved wrong anytime

>gets caught using weasel words to try to slip out of inconvenient counter-arguments
>still tries to use them
Hmm, seems like you're not as smart as you think.

I suppose I hold the rare super power of not believing my intellect guarantees some slight advantage over moral issues.

Look at it this way: there is no scientific evidence that intelligence is correlated with higher relative (or absolute) moral virtue.

Claims, like the one you definitely made, that are presented without evidence can be dismissed without counterargument.

Just so you know I'm also not retarded. So, you have a not retarded user in the thread who supports and advocates for your position of not being retarded.

Every scientific truth was a hypothesis before being proven.
You shouldn't dismiss every idea you obtain from deduction because it doesn't have scientific evidence yet

what user are you talking about? I think you got me mixed up with one of the short replies from a few replies back

>Every scientific truth was a hypothesis before being proven.
Hypotheses require testing to be acknowledged as (probable) fact.

>You shouldn't dismiss every idea you obtain from deduction
No one obtained this idea from deduction. There's no formal logic in this thread at all.

>It's almost as if I didn't use the words ''probably'' and ''higher chance''

>Every scientific truth was a hypothesis before being proven.
Most hypothesis' don't make it very far. And a lot of theories and "scientific truths" have had a habit of going out of date or needing update.
>You shouldn't dismiss every idea you obtain from deduction because it doesn't have scientific evidence yet
If you're going for objectivity, you should.

Pretty nice. My gf is a psychologist which pays very nicely and means she can pay all the bills while I whack off to pictures of her sister's feet.

I've accepted that no matter how smart she may be, there's always the change that her hormones or inner bitch come out and logic gets thrown out the window. It's like they turn into an entirely different person.

If ya wanna the sauce the IG profile is @shiftymine (she is Italian, not a verified profile)

Why would you need formal logic to debate whether or not intelligence is correlated with moral virtue.

You need formal logic to do a deductive or inductive proof

It's nice, she's studying to be a biochemical engineer so we'll have a combined income of approx. one shitload.

She is relatable, vastly interesting and makes sound decisions. She is capable of calling me on my bullshit and her memory is impeccable. I would sooner become a volcel than date a woman I thought was stupid.

As others have stated, she's still a woman at the end of the day. Vastly more emotional and forgiving than I am - a necessary balance. When she's on her period it's very easy to make her upset.

Attached: 1550809963092.png (1166x740, 31K)