>80% of females reproduce but only 40% of males
So if there's a greater selective pressure on males, isn't it only natural for men to be superior to women.
Consider the Following
Samuel Price
Other urls found in this thread:
tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com
en.wikipedia.org
nzherald.co.nz
twitter.com
James Carter
No. The smarter one is, the less likely they are to reproduce, specially of they are men. So, of anything, the number of superior men should be dropping.
I hope I don't have to explain to you why intelligence = superiority
Michael Cox
This happened for a period about 8000 years ago. No one knows why.
Mason Walker
>The smarter one is, the less likely they are to reproduce
>intelligence = superiority
One's intelligence doesn't mean shit if they lack the social acuity to successfully pass on their own genes. In the world of biology, the one who produces the most amount of successfully viable offspring (that can then reproduce themselves) reins supreme.
Adam Bell
>I hope I don't have to explain to you why intelligence = superiority
It's impossible to explain this to a brainlet. They'll never understand.
Jacob Gutierrez
>muh dick
We evolved to be more than monkeys. At least some of (you excluded) have higher ambitions than simply putting their benis in stinking hole.
Jaxon Bell
I'm not talking about evolutionary superiority, but about actual superiority. Humans wouldn't be able to do the shit they done if they were all only social.
If you don't consider people like Tesla or Lovecraft superior to the average joe and use their lack of children as an argument you are utterly retarded.
Also, being intelligent doesn't mean being a sperglord. Most intelligeny people that don't reproduce choose to do so rather than are unable to find a partner.
Luke Wright
>tesla meme
Brody Ross
>the smarter one is the less likely they are to reproduce
(Citation needed)
Lincoln Flores
You can do both you know. High ambitions =/= no sex. I'm sorry your ambitions don't include women and you're resentful of that.