I agree with you that STEM don't hold a monopoly on intelligence.

> engineers that can't get laid in Singapore are the same "brilliant" engineers that can't get laid in their home town

Maybe so, but not for the same reasons. Back in their home town, they cannot vibe with anyone because the few who might be compatible have long since left. In a STEM hotspot, they go to an event and meet compatible people, but it's 11 guys for every 3 girls, so unless they are top dog in that room, they aren't going to score.

And yet, the population of Singapore isn't 79% male.

IDK the dating scene in Singapore. I frankly didn't even know that Singapore was considered a tech hub. I was using it as a synonym for a tech hub because that is what I assumed the author was doing.

…not to mention they are completely ignoring the existence of smart girls as well

Higher education is strongly associated to lower fertility rates. Especially for women, but for men too. So no the argument doesn't ignore the existence of smart women. Smart women (and men) just far less likely to reproduce, statistically speaking.

> […] overflowing with smart guys. […] smart guys build […] he's the smartest guy […] local rich guy would start a business […]

It’s pretty clear this entire crude theory is based on a thinking system that has little place for women in active positions.

And if your immediate reaction to that is annoyance because it seems like an insignificant detail, maybe reflect on that for a moment.

Are you upset about biology or the logic that follows the reality of human biology?

What now, human biology dictates men lead and women bear children? I'm upset some people carry that pathetic incel narrative over to HN.

I’m going to ignore the stupidity and point out the problem of time.

If you spend your time educating yourself and working, you don’t have time to reproduce and raise children. Thus declining birth rates

Reality isn’t an incentive narrative. Go research declining birth rates and female education attainment and you will find charts that make it clear

If your answer to that problem is less women should attain higher education and take care of raising children instead, we just fundamentally disagree. Women have an equal right to education and working as men do.

The charts you refer to show an environment where the responsibility for care work is heavily skewed to the detriment of women. If men took up a bigger part of raising children, it would be easier for couples to do that. But the vast majority of men don't.

We can blame the individual for the cost we've outsourced into him. When he collapses under that load, we can attribute it to personal shortcomings. Some people survive, even thrive, in the current environment, after all. We've coalesced a plurality of games into a single one, and in a sense, it works great. We have our smartphones, AI, online shopping, and targeted advertising.

Notepad now has Copilot built right into it, after all. That wasn't going to happen by now if we took the human psyche as a given and built around that.

>>It's incel and eugenic reasoning wrapped up all together.

More like French post-structuralism.

> can't get laid

huh, I thought it was talking about how expensive extra bedrooms are in big cities so people choose not to have (as many) kids there

It’s the same nonsense as people going “Idiocracy is a documentary.“ Of course none of them think they’re the idiots.

I was going to comment the same. Complaining about how there are too many dumb people is a trollish red flag I've learned to disengage from.

Also, stop blaming your damn users.