Trusted, Automoderated users
25,837
edits
Talk:High-EQ personality: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:From the incel's point of view, the main relevance is that these high-EQ girls may seem like BPDs at first because of their charisma and consequent popularity, but it's going to be basically impossible to fuck them, in contrast to BPD girls. The other thing is, high-EQ girls are going to be less likely to be bunny-boilers because they don't have that same impulsiveness overriding their conscientiousness. [[Special:Contributions/2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:DD87:D7DF:595F:1BD7|2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:DD87:D7DF:595F:1BD7]] 23:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC) | :From the incel's point of view, the main relevance is that these high-EQ girls may seem like BPDs at first because of their charisma and consequent popularity, but it's going to be basically impossible to fuck them, in contrast to BPD girls. The other thing is, high-EQ girls are going to be less likely to be bunny-boilers because they don't have that same impulsiveness overriding their conscientiousness. [[Special:Contributions/2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:DD87:D7DF:595F:1BD7|2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:DD87:D7DF:595F:1BD7]] 23:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC) | ||
:Almost all the psychiatric labels probably aren't grounded in much science beyond maybe already obvious bits about depression, anxiety, and introversion/extroversion. Nonetheless they are fun to talk about, read about, or guess about. Much like we're not opposed to other armchair psychology on the wiki. Statements about lack of scientific validity/recognition/whatever within existing articles are fine too, if this talk page is intended to lead to anything. | :Almost all the psychiatric labels probably aren't grounded in much science beyond maybe already obvious bits about depression, anxiety, and introversion/extroversion. Nonetheless they are fun to talk about, read about, or guess about. Much like we're not opposed to other armchair psychology on the wiki. Statements about lack of scientific validity/recognition/whatever within existing articles are fine too, if this talk page is intended to lead to anything. Lack of scientific recognition also doesn't mean not valuable, as so much of science starts off with these sort of observations. [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 12:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC) | ||
Lack of scientific recognition also doesn't mean not valuable, as so much of science starts off with these sort of observations. [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 12:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC) | |||