What are some good books to bring on a first date?

>tattoos

The Bible

that disgusting whore would probably drop you if she found out you read Nietzsche or anything explicitly Christian

In general do not bring books to a date but if for some reason you want to show her that you can read come early with a book and put it away when she arrives. Since she might ask what you've been reading don't bring something weird. A safe bet woul be some bestselling midbrow author who is considered highbrow among the reading public. Ishiguro or someone like that.

Women read trash so the best thing you can do is not reading any books that actually intellectually challenge the reader.

Bestsellers are by pretty much by definition not intellectually challenging. There are not enough high IQ people on this planet to create a bestseller. But you want some nobel prize cred or whatever in case she's a reader. So it's not a strong personal statement + so she doesn't think you're retarded which could occur if you go low. You put it away before she arrives in case she isn't a reader or because she might find it pretentious. But it can't hurt if she sees you reading and it's good manners to put it away.

holes biologically lack interest in intellectual pursuits just for experience and the sake of it, they only care about leeching on anything they can for their own profit

People that read challenging books and do so in public are seen by women in pretty much every
instance as pretentious. Also despite all claims women absolutely do not care about the intelligence of their potential partner. All they care about is physical fitness and the potential mate's social behavior because that's exactly what they're genetically conditioned to look out for. There are reasons why women hardly if not never engage in intellectual endeavours like men do and their missing representation in such fields like mathematics, sciences and philosophy is not the result of some mysterious "patriarchy".

That's nonsense, women also evolved to appreciate intelligence, it's a weaker variable than health and strength but it is a very relevant variable. Female achievement in the sciences is unequal because of biological factors relating to reproduction, psychology and intelligence but it is wrong to say they hardly/never engage in intellectual pursuits. There are entire fields with stong female representation. Psychology and biology for example, or law, they specifically excell verbally whereas men are stronger in spatial reasoning.

By definition there are millions of 130+ IQ people, probably around 1-3 millions in the US alone not to mention Europe and Asia. Largely enough for a decent bestseller.

It's not a relevant variable once it passes the threshold that renders a person functional. I also doubt that women select for intelligence rather than other factors that simply correlate with intelligence like material wealth. The latter is more likely. Your example below strengthens my point because the selection of topics proves the immense attraction that social interaction has on women. You named psychology, biology and law but simultaneously failed to note that all the "hard" domains of these fields are completely dominated by males whereas such domains that deal with the social aspect of them or the practical application of them with people are dominated by women.

A gentleman of true sophistication right here

i brought mark fisher's capitalist realism to my first date to read on the train ride there but once i arrived at our destination she managed to elude me the entire time i spent trying to find her until five minutes before she had to "get going" and i realized it wasn't a date at all.

in short, go with fanged noumena.

Yes, women are more interested in people than things and for men it's the reverse, and that's obviously a result of maternality. If women didn't appreciate intelligence then there would be no intelligent people. We wouldn't even have evolved as humans. You can see that in animals as well, it's a highly sought after trait and we have many social conventions which allow us to demonstrate that we possess it. You are correct to associate it with material wealth and it's difficult to differentiate the genetic here because women use it as an indication of the raw intelligence as well as provider capacity. But it's also difficult to differentiate from health and strength. In dancing for example we show off not just agility but also coordination which is associated with intelligence, as is general social competence for that matter. Women like good talkers, they like humour, they like musical ability, few would dispute this. It's not like the strongman contest winner is the most sought after male in the hierarchy. There are multiple variables and intelligence is one. I'd say you could observe it within the student population but again, it's difficult to isolate this trait. Another thing is that people pair by IQ. I don't know too much about this and I doubt that science does as this is a very taboo field. So all very complicated to determine but us existing is already proof that intelligence is selected for. It would seem highly ideological to say that all this is just connected to the provider role. Why shouldn't women have evolved to want their kids to be competent in providing for themselves and their partner?

I already see that your definition of intelligence is much broader than mine. I agree with the given points although coordination is in many ways simply motorics and does not require abstract intelligence. The IQ of pairs seems to correlate with a p-value of somewhere around 0.4. There definitely has been strong selection for intelligence in humans during their history although I still proclaim that we've reached a plateau and any additional increase of intelligence does not increase the sexual success of a person.

Meh, people don't read, not even the intelligent ones and when they do they largely read crap or niche. A NYT bestseller is only nine thousand copies sold in the first week. High IQ people do not determine bestsellers other than being in charge of the production end. Just look at any bestseller list. What you see are celebrities (say 85-115 IQ) including literary prize winners and comfy books for the bourgeois household (that should be 105-120). There's no high IQ element there.

High IQ is also associated with low fertility so it's not just a plus and we have plateaued some time ago in the sense that the share of the high IQ population is decreasing. But that's more a result of social rather than biological factors. In general I'd be willing to agree that there's a plateau for interest in raw intelligence, if only because an individual of lesser intelligence would be unable to even perceive the differential or its usefulness assuming there even is one.

god i wish that was me

also a pornstar:
reddit.com/r/GabbieCarter/

GIVE
ME
GIRL
HOLE

It's not fair... It's not fuck fair

GTIVE ME GIRL HOLE
I DEMAND GIRL HOLE

>Also despite all claims women absolutely do not care about the intelligence of their potential partner.
Wrong. Many women care desperately about being able to feel intellectually superior to their boyfriends and hate having an intelligent partner (but would never admit it).

>not keeping your kindle in your handbag
you even read, sis?

Attached: 1545142049695.jpg (800x1059, 70K)

Crime and Punishment.

Do none of you faggots understand the concept behind the subjunctive case?

oxford mathimatical dictonary

Attached: 55104387-aggressive-engineer-and-violence-concept-with-furious-young-male-fighting-with-blueprints-a (1300x863, 66K)

dead case