Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GGWP" data-source="post: 42926" data-attributes="member: 93">Oh really? I suppose you could make the case that many of those admitted to Harvard are endowed with connections rather than talent.My perspective is that those who cluster in blackpill forums tend to be defeated in many aspects of life to the point that they are not concerned with social image; you rarely see incels or looksmaxxers boast about academic achievement. In fact the only notable exception I recall is WorthlessSlavicShit working on his graduate studies. He posts some of the only things worth reading on that blasted forum.I agree with you in some semblance. I witnessed firsthand that the people who do best in university are middle-class individuals who are attractive, liberal and have a status quo mindset. They are the &#039;I heckin love science&#039; types that are neurotypical, above average in attractiveness and decently well off; there is no push for them to diverge from the status quo and by virtue of their attractiveness professors and students alike are more amenable to their vogue struggle which mirrors the &#039;coming of age&#039; of the media they consume. They are accepted into the tribe and have little need to venture into unfamiliar factual or ideological territory because all of the normies pool their coursework together and help each other out, so they all converge to the same opinions. They tend to be &#039;smart&#039; but narrow in intellectual scope because things just &#039;work&#039; for them. I have witnessed firsthand the tendency for fiscal-genetic bourgeoise to distribute social advantage. I would not know the contents of an exam until I took it but these individuals would somehow swindle the professor into spilling everything weeks in advance, organize study sessions together on the topics and distribute the knowledge among their tribe. The attractive always win by acting as a magnet for social benefits like this.I would actually say university selects against intelligence now. ChatGPT can do everything better than an undergraduate can in every degree. Therefore university now selects for people that are scummy enough to use AI to get superior marks in everything and socially savvy or likeable (attractive) enough to avoid getting reprimanded for it.In my opinion, when it comes to university it is more important to be attractive, well-off and have an average or above-average IQ. You do not need to be hyper-intelligent to do well at university unless you pursue advanced Doctoral research. I have no personal experience with Harvard and cannot therefore comment on how hard it is to get into.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GGWP, post: 42926, member: 93"] Oh really? I suppose you could make the case that many of those admitted to Harvard are endowed with connections rather than talent. My perspective is that those who cluster in blackpill forums tend to be defeated in many aspects of life to the point that they are not concerned with social image; you rarely see incels or looksmaxxers boast about academic achievement. In fact the only notable exception I recall is WorthlessSlavicShit working on his graduate studies. He posts some of the only things worth reading on that blasted forum. I agree with you in some semblance. I witnessed firsthand that the people who do best in university are middle-class individuals who are attractive, liberal and have a status quo mindset. They are the 'I heckin love science' types that are neurotypical, above average in attractiveness and decently well off; there is no push for them to diverge from the status quo and by virtue of their attractiveness professors and students alike are more amenable to their vogue struggle which mirrors the 'coming of age' of the media they consume. They are accepted into the tribe and have little need to venture into unfamiliar factual or ideological territory because all of the normies pool their coursework together and help each other out, so they all converge to the same opinions. They tend to be 'smart' but narrow in intellectual scope because things just 'work' for them. I have witnessed firsthand the tendency for fiscal-genetic bourgeoise to distribute social advantage. I would not know the contents of an exam until I took it but these individuals would somehow swindle the professor into spilling everything weeks in advance, organize study sessions together on the topics and distribute the knowledge among their tribe. The attractive always win by acting as a magnet for social benefits like this. I would actually say university selects against intelligence now. ChatGPT can do everything better than an undergraduate can in every degree. Therefore university now selects for people that are scummy enough to use AI to get superior marks in everything and socially savvy or likeable (attractive) enough to avoid getting reprimanded for it. In my opinion, when it comes to university it is more important to be attractive, well-off and have an average or above-average IQ. You do not need to be hyper-intelligent to do well at university unless you pursue advanced Doctoral research. I have no personal experience with Harvard and cannot therefore comment on how hard it is to get into. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread