I'm glad this is all said somewhere publicly! It is clearly true but many are unaware. We've gotten so away from our nature and instincts and it really shows. Of course, we can't entirely go upon natural instinct as we are more than just animals being human people with souls and greater existence etc.
More unhealthy people are alive and reproducing than ever as modern medicine has allowed them to live longer and well enough to reproduce whereas before that would not have often been the case. We are a softer society with less lethal accidents than before as well, which means more people (men in particular, I imagine) who are able to be in the dating game where in the past they perhaps wouldn't have been and so wouldn't have been alone. As mean as it feels to say, there is something about natural selection that is still true for us as well.
Of course exceptions always exist from those who fight to make their lives better and attain a partner on that level too to those who in theory should be able to partner and be happy but ultimately are unable and end up forever alone... it is all well worth considering, of course, but I find that only a few are currently openly discussing.
Great overview on the sociology of the incel. Mainstream treatments tend to completely disregard structural social factors that have (always, to an extent), structurally guaranteed that some fraction of men will be unable to secure romantic relationships. Too often the dialog gets minimized into this extremely narrow space of ideological radicalization, which, even if you think is important, demands a structural analysis nonetheless. Probably, the unironic solution (that scales) is going to look like artificial AI relationships, whether we like it or not.
You might enjoy my novelistic treatment of the incel as a literary subject:
A rollback of emancipation would weaken the selection of women against intelligence, and would solve the problem of loneliness and the inability to build relationships for many, and would increase the stability of relationships. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but I think women themselves would benefit:
1) In developed rich countries, women prefer to work with small children and animals rather than be engineers, contrary to all possible propaganda
2) In patriarchal countries, women lose attractiveness with age, but they still have social connections, people who value them for who they are (family), and not just for their appearance and youth, when, as a liberated woman, they increasingly stay with cats
3) Patriarchy increases the relative status of men and lowers the relative status of women, and women like men with high social status, therefore the average woman is satisfied in relationships with a large number of men (you can read in old books how girls waited for marriages with ordinary men, and the girls were jealous of married girls who married ordinary men)
I would really like to meet a European girl who could love me, but I believe this less and less. I'm shorter than the average girl in my country, and I'm bad at making social connections, which obviously takes a toll on my self-esteem. That’s why I’m increasingly thinking about moving to a poor patriarchal country to find a bride there. In Pakistan/Afghanistan you can find girls with a European phenotype. With a traditional family upbringing. Who were raised as future mothers and wives. Some of them grew up without a smartphone in their hands! I suspect that the girl's parents will demand more from a foreigner, but it still looks affordable.
I feel a little embarrassed to leave everything here, but I would be more embarrassed if this society did not doom me to a lonely and unhappy life. I'm desperate, so I need an outside perspective. What do you think about this? Is this a good idea?
Great post. With respects to BMI you might find Lassek and Gaulin's work interesting, one of their claims is that BMI in women is really used to estimate age and Fisher's reproductive value.
Women's sexual preferences have literally not evolved since the stone age, and anytime women are the sex with greater sexual bargaining power dysgenic results occur. Either we fix this by inventing artificial wombs or women need to be pressured into dating and reproducing with men who have traits that are valuable to civilization instead of low IQ dark triad types.
Because it's largely the reason society is in the predicament it's in now. We're no longer a traditional liberal society, at least not in the original sense of the word as it was meant to be centuries ago. We've morphed into a bastardized version of liberal society stemming from a post-feminist and racial doctrine in the 1960's that has drastically sped up in recent years. However, being liberal means you're part of the collective nowadays, and thus, women are much more likely to have have similar political views as you and relate to you on that front. So ya, in one area I'd see as a negative, but on the topic of this thread and in the eyes of women, it's very likely a positive. Women don't care about much else outside of social status, and it's nearly impossible to not be ardent liberal in the big cities if you want to fit in at school, work, or in any sort of social group. This was especially true and evident to many during covid-19. Sure there are anomalies and it's somewhat different in rural areas, but with the advent of the internet, not much changes from one place to the next in the US.
As with a lot of these articles, you can see that the author does not have any life experience nor ability to analyse the world without the façade of empiricism in the
'science' of psychology. You have just given an empirical post hoc justification of societally induced dysgenia and you have written down a lot of falsities.
1. Intelligence does do damage if it is too high in men relative to women unless it is backed up by social status.
2. You interpret the actual outcome of things which does not address any counterfactuals that exist in dating. For every man a woman marries there is a list of men she would rather marry. Studies are unable to measure this.
So this is why, any man who has experience in life of being both desirable to women and not on more than one occasion knows way more than any study masquerading as science.
Psychology is not a science. Dressing up ideas in sciency words and adding statistics to data does not qualify as science.
IQ is practically the only variable that can be scientifically measured. Self esteem does not follow a normal distribution. By this logic neither should personality traits as they suffer from social desirability bias.
Read my article about the animal kingdom and you will see that female dating choices are largely governed by society. Female sexual preference is set to a large extent by society and this can push them to excessive dysgenic polygamy as we see today or to select purely for looks which does not imply eugenic.
I haven't read it yet save the first two lines. But, in current times, if you define incel as that then you encompass 50% of married men and about 90% of single men. You include men who went from finding it easy to get women to men who have problems because of random circumstances or something else. Sounds like a left wing ploy to please women by justifying their current socially destructive entitlement towards the modern world and dating. I'll comment again after I read it.
I guess I will deviate from the norm by posting a negative review. Full disclosure: I'm an incel.
You first write an aggressive headline which builds up to the first paragraph of the second section:
"There are simply some people who either have such bad personalities or low value in some other respect that they have a net negative effect on the the well-being of whoever is dating them."
You then spend the rest of article basically undermining that premise by (correctly) noting that fertility is associated with dysgenic traits. What your article lacks completely is any ideas surrounding how to change the social incentive structure that is clearly mis-aligned.
This is typical of the discourse around incels: insults or empty pity, with little actual substance. It's a disappointing to see that you are unable to come up with anything more original.
except that i outline the ways the dating scene in the modern age is subpar?
>little actual substance
no
>You then spend the rest of article basically undermining that premise by (correctly) noting that fertility is associated with dysgenic traits.
no. all i said was that incels should exist as an abstract prescriptive claim, and that the modern dating scene is not in good shape. that's it. these two claims do not contradict each other.
Telling people the deck is stacked is basically empty pity. It leads nowhere.
It would have been more original if you spent some amount of time discussing the social incentive structure that got us as a society to where we are and how to get out (admittedly even harder). I'm not claiming it is easy! I wouldn't be able to do it, since I don't understand these social processes.
But I also now understand that neither does you. And you seem to be annoyed at being called out on that, which is fine. Perhaps some people are very good at looking at data and it's unfair to expect more.
Sad to hear mate. Start taking drugs, listen to rap music and act really stupid and you will find a woman. Also, make typos in your writing. I literally know ex-incels who started dealing drugs to get women.
i have a very high value girlfriend that i love very much :3
grats brother
I'm glad this is all said somewhere publicly! It is clearly true but many are unaware. We've gotten so away from our nature and instincts and it really shows. Of course, we can't entirely go upon natural instinct as we are more than just animals being human people with souls and greater existence etc.
More unhealthy people are alive and reproducing than ever as modern medicine has allowed them to live longer and well enough to reproduce whereas before that would not have often been the case. We are a softer society with less lethal accidents than before as well, which means more people (men in particular, I imagine) who are able to be in the dating game where in the past they perhaps wouldn't have been and so wouldn't have been alone. As mean as it feels to say, there is something about natural selection that is still true for us as well.
Of course exceptions always exist from those who fight to make their lives better and attain a partner on that level too to those who in theory should be able to partner and be happy but ultimately are unable and end up forever alone... it is all well worth considering, of course, but I find that only a few are currently openly discussing.
Thank you for this!
Great overview on the sociology of the incel. Mainstream treatments tend to completely disregard structural social factors that have (always, to an extent), structurally guaranteed that some fraction of men will be unable to secure romantic relationships. Too often the dialog gets minimized into this extremely narrow space of ideological radicalization, which, even if you think is important, demands a structural analysis nonetheless. Probably, the unironic solution (that scales) is going to look like artificial AI relationships, whether we like it or not.
You might enjoy my novelistic treatment of the incel as a literary subject:
https://www.decentralizedfiction.com/p/the-incel-as-a-literary-subject
A rollback of emancipation would weaken the selection of women against intelligence, and would solve the problem of loneliness and the inability to build relationships for many, and would increase the stability of relationships. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but I think women themselves would benefit:
1) In developed rich countries, women prefer to work with small children and animals rather than be engineers, contrary to all possible propaganda
2) In patriarchal countries, women lose attractiveness with age, but they still have social connections, people who value them for who they are (family), and not just for their appearance and youth, when, as a liberated woman, they increasingly stay with cats
3) Patriarchy increases the relative status of men and lowers the relative status of women, and women like men with high social status, therefore the average woman is satisfied in relationships with a large number of men (you can read in old books how girls waited for marriages with ordinary men, and the girls were jealous of married girls who married ordinary men)
I would really like to meet a European girl who could love me, but I believe this less and less. I'm shorter than the average girl in my country, and I'm bad at making social connections, which obviously takes a toll on my self-esteem. That’s why I’m increasingly thinking about moving to a poor patriarchal country to find a bride there. In Pakistan/Afghanistan you can find girls with a European phenotype. With a traditional family upbringing. Who were raised as future mothers and wives. Some of them grew up without a smartphone in their hands! I suspect that the girl's parents will demand more from a foreigner, but it still looks affordable.
I feel a little embarrassed to leave everything here, but I would be more embarrassed if this society did not doom me to a lonely and unhappy life. I'm desperate, so I need an outside perspective. What do you think about this? Is this a good idea?
Great post. With respects to BMI you might find Lassek and Gaulin's work interesting, one of their claims is that BMI in women is really used to estimate age and Fisher's reproductive value.
Women's sexual preferences have literally not evolved since the stone age, and anytime women are the sex with greater sexual bargaining power dysgenic results occur. Either we fix this by inventing artificial wombs or women need to be pressured into dating and reproducing with men who have traits that are valuable to civilization instead of low IQ dark triad types.
Why is being more liberal in your list of negative traits?
Because it's largely the reason society is in the predicament it's in now. We're no longer a traditional liberal society, at least not in the original sense of the word as it was meant to be centuries ago. We've morphed into a bastardized version of liberal society stemming from a post-feminist and racial doctrine in the 1960's that has drastically sped up in recent years. However, being liberal means you're part of the collective nowadays, and thus, women are much more likely to have have similar political views as you and relate to you on that front. So ya, in one area I'd see as a negative, but on the topic of this thread and in the eyes of women, it's very likely a positive. Women don't care about much else outside of social status, and it's nearly impossible to not be ardent liberal in the big cities if you want to fit in at school, work, or in any sort of social group. This was especially true and evident to many during covid-19. Sure there are anomalies and it's somewhat different in rural areas, but with the advent of the internet, not much changes from one place to the next in the US.
As with a lot of these articles, you can see that the author does not have any life experience nor ability to analyse the world without the façade of empiricism in the
'science' of psychology. You have just given an empirical post hoc justification of societally induced dysgenia and you have written down a lot of falsities.
1. Intelligence does do damage if it is too high in men relative to women unless it is backed up by social status.
2. You interpret the actual outcome of things which does not address any counterfactuals that exist in dating. For every man a woman marries there is a list of men she would rather marry. Studies are unable to measure this.
So this is why, any man who has experience in life of being both desirable to women and not on more than one occasion knows way more than any study masquerading as science.
Psychology is not a science. Dressing up ideas in sciency words and adding statistics to data does not qualify as science.
IQ is practically the only variable that can be scientifically measured. Self esteem does not follow a normal distribution. By this logic neither should personality traits as they suffer from social desirability bias.
Read my article about the animal kingdom and you will see that female dating choices are largely governed by society. Female sexual preference is set to a large extent by society and this can push them to excessive dysgenic polygamy as we see today or to select purely for looks which does not imply eugenic.
I haven't read it yet save the first two lines. But, in current times, if you define incel as that then you encompass 50% of married men and about 90% of single men. You include men who went from finding it easy to get women to men who have problems because of random circumstances or something else. Sounds like a left wing ploy to please women by justifying their current socially destructive entitlement towards the modern world and dating. I'll comment again after I read it.
I guess I will deviate from the norm by posting a negative review. Full disclosure: I'm an incel.
You first write an aggressive headline which builds up to the first paragraph of the second section:
"There are simply some people who either have such bad personalities or low value in some other respect that they have a net negative effect on the the well-being of whoever is dating them."
You then spend the rest of article basically undermining that premise by (correctly) noting that fertility is associated with dysgenic traits. What your article lacks completely is any ideas surrounding how to change the social incentive structure that is clearly mis-aligned.
This is typical of the discourse around incels: insults or empty pity, with little actual substance. It's a disappointing to see that you are unable to come up with anything more original.
>empty pity
except that i outline the ways the dating scene in the modern age is subpar?
>little actual substance
no
>You then spend the rest of article basically undermining that premise by (correctly) noting that fertility is associated with dysgenic traits.
no. all i said was that incels should exist as an abstract prescriptive claim, and that the modern dating scene is not in good shape. that's it. these two claims do not contradict each other.
Telling people the deck is stacked is basically empty pity. It leads nowhere.
It would have been more original if you spent some amount of time discussing the social incentive structure that got us as a society to where we are and how to get out (admittedly even harder). I'm not claiming it is easy! I wouldn't be able to do it, since I don't understand these social processes.
But I also now understand that neither does you. And you seem to be annoyed at being called out on that, which is fine. Perhaps some people are very good at looking at data and it's unfair to expect more.
Sad to hear mate. Start taking drugs, listen to rap music and act really stupid and you will find a woman. Also, make typos in your writing. I literally know ex-incels who started dealing drugs to get women.
Can prostitution serve as a mean to reduce sexual market value of women?