Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The BBQ Pit (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Science says Incels are right about everything. What happens next? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879396)

TheFuture 07-26-2019 01:11 PM

Science says Incels are right about everything. What happens next?
 
https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill

Where do we go from here?

Unreconstructed Man 07-26-2019 01:14 PM

Cool! A new wiki to “improve” ;)

Jonathan Chance 07-26-2019 01:16 PM

The Moderator Speaks
 
I’m not seeing a debate but I bet we can get to the Pit pretty quickly.

Good luck.

Velocity 07-26-2019 01:17 PM

........Wow. They really put a lot of research/effort into it.


But, like the other thread, these incels/MRAs aren't scientifically wrong. It's just a matter of whether they can win society over, and so far they have a tough uphill slog.

Great Antibob 07-26-2019 01:26 PM

The Dude has some appropriate words for this situation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDude
You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole.

Of course, these clowns aren't right, either, but whatevs.

Czarcasm 07-26-2019 01:30 PM

On a related note: 2+2 now equals 5. Where do we go from here?

Chimera 07-26-2019 01:46 PM

You made me feel dirty clicking that link, but that's largely my fault for not looking at it first.

The chances of them being right about everything is roughly equal to the chance that I'll suddenly sprout wings and be able to fly.

Excuse me while I run every virus scanner I own.

DrCube 07-26-2019 01:47 PM

Science says nothing of the sort. Incel-ism is not a scientific system of thought, and the scientific claims it makes are mostly false.

QuickSilver 07-26-2019 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21771871)

We? There's no "we". "I" am going to laugh my ass off. "You" should get some professional mental help.

Kobal2 07-26-2019 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21771871)
Where do we go from here?


Hold on, lemme check the register... Hmmm... says here you now get to eat a whole bag of dicks. Hey, don't look at me pal, I don't make the rules. Shall I fetch you a bag, then ; or did you bring your own ?

Jonathan Chance 07-26-2019 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrCube (Post 21771964)
Science says nothing of the sort. Incel-ism is not a scientific system of thought, and the scientific claims it makes are mostly false.

Now, be reasonable. They’re right about a few things.

Men exist
Women exist
Sometimes women and men have sex
Just not with THEM

GreysonCarlisle 07-26-2019 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21771968)
We? There's no "we". "I" am going to laugh my ass off. "You" should get some professional mental help.

[/thread]

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21771871)

We all go to the optometrist to get all of our eyes de-rolled.

Chimera 07-26-2019 02:22 PM

I was unfamiliar with the whole Black Pill thing, so I went to wikipedia;


The "black pill" is a set of beliefs that are commonly held amongst members of incel communities, such as biological determinism, fatalism, and defeatism for unattractive people. Someone who believes in the black pill is referred to as "blackpilled". The black pill has been described by Vox correspondent Zack Beauchamp as "a profoundly sexist ideology that ... amounts to a fundamental rejection of women’s sexual emancipation, labeling women shallow, cruel creatures who will choose only the most attractive men if given the choice."


Sounds like an extremely unhealthy attitude to have about life and other humans. Besides being laughably incorrect.

Czarcasm 07-26-2019 02:22 PM

TheFuture is looking rather dim.

Maserschmidt 07-26-2019 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance (Post 21771980)
Now, be reasonable. They’re right about a few things.

Men exist
Women exist
Sometimes women and men have sex
Just not with THEM

There are actually women name Stacy, and there actually used to be at least a couple of men named Chad.

DCnDC 07-26-2019 02:32 PM

Well, at the very least, we know they're not procreating.

Velocity 07-26-2019 02:44 PM

The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

Chimera 07-26-2019 02:47 PM

It's often amazing how some men will insist that they're not getting laid because they're not physically attractive, yet at the same time, make zero attempt to get laid with women who are not physically attractive, because somehow, those women aren't good enough.

If you take the attitude of "I can't get model/playmate quality women to sleep with me, then the problem lies in those women, not me, and no woman wants me" is pretty goddamned stupid.

Mr. Miskatonic 07-26-2019 02:47 PM

So the incels made a wiki to justify their 'need' for 12 year old virgins to fuck and discard.

Thinking...no.

Atamasama 07-26-2019 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maserschmidt (Post 21772053)
There are actually women name Stacy, and there actually used to be at least a couple of men named Chad.

Hell, there’s a whole country named Chad on the western border of Sudan.

D_Odds 07-26-2019 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCnDC (Post 21772056)
Well, at the very least, we know they're not procreating.

So how come they still seem to be multiplying? :confused:

That said, I'd be afraid to click that link with a sandbox in a sandbox in a sandbox through a VPN filtered through another VPN. But I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the scientific evidence contained within is on par with the evidence which proves aliens are kept at Area 51, we did not land on the moon, vaccines don't work, and the earth is flat.

Helmut Doork 07-26-2019 02:52 PM

Yes, a warning about the dodgy website in the link, for those who don't want to spend the evening reinstalling their browser, would have been nice.

Chimera 07-26-2019 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University

Well, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of that site, but are, by any chance, those citations actually claiming exactly what the incel site is claiming? Or are they distorting the findings to claim they support their position?

Because NO, all of these places are NOT presenting studies that say "Yup, Incels are exactly, 100% right in all of their suppositions." Most likely, they're only saying "Yes, Incels believe this and feel this way" which is not the same thing.

Sage Rat 07-26-2019 02:53 PM

There are lots of ugly and poor dudes with partners.

The difference is social skills, not suffering from depression, and being reasonable about who you can interest and moving on if you can't.

One might also note that even if you're unable to develop the social skills and etc. you have the choice to spend your time bitching about women or learning to use your hand and moving on with life. We don't all always get everything we want.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

We don't need or care about scientific studies proving they are unfuckable. We know that already from just their attitude. Should they be given sex slaves because of that? No fucking way.

Chronos 07-26-2019 02:59 PM

There are even ugly, poor dudes with beautiful partners. What do these women see in these men? The way to find out would be to ask them. Unfortunately, that whole business of "talking to people" is beyond the typical incel's level of social skills.

iiandyiiii 07-26-2019 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

"Incels are dumb" -- cite, Harvard University research.

That's barely less rigorous than a sampling of the cite in the OP.

Chimera 07-26-2019 03:05 PM

https://nypost.com/2019/07/24/this-i...-lover-survey/

The survey polled more than 64,000 people in 180 countries, asking them about their ideal match — from religious or political preferences to the importance of height. Most women asked identified as heterosexual, but queer and bisexual women also responded. The survey skews young: Nearly 40,600 of the women are ages 18 to 24, with the 25-to-29 age group the second biggest demo. Just under 3,800 were 40 years or older.

Almost 90% of the women rank kindness highest among desirable qualities, followed closely by supportiveness at 86.5%. Intelligence received about 72% of the vote; level of education had 64.5%; and rounding out the Top 5 is confidence, with a little over 60%.

Notice “attractiveness” did not top the list. That might explain why the “average” body type (looking at you, dad bods!) was vastly preferred over “very muscular” types, with 44.8% versus a marginal 2.5%, respectively.


and...

heterosexual women put average penis as No. 3, followed by large hands and, interestingly, a short head of hair

Velocity 07-26-2019 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21772102)
Well, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of that site, but are, by any chance, those citations actually claiming exactly what the incel site is claiming? Or are they distorting the findings to claim they support their position?

By and large, yes. For instance, one part claims that white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive. The cited source says as much. https://www.livescience.com/5860-att...kin-color.html

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772130)
By and large, yes. For instance, one part claims that white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive. The cited source says as much. https://www.livescience.com/5860-att...kin-color.html

Ok, so what? They should get sex slaves?

Great Antibob 07-26-2019 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought.

Seriously? You're going to pull that card? :dubious:

Major claims require major evidence.

If the topic was blue whale mating rituals, sure, I'll accept a cited claim without extensively questioning or checking the sources. But there's not a toxic internet subculture known for distorting facts and research about blue whales (unless I just created it right now?).

But since there is a toxic internet subculture of incels who are known for distorting facts and research about human sexuality, how about we stop equivocating, playing Devil's advocate, drawing false equivalences, and whatever other logical fallacies and rhetorical chicanery typically get pulled by these jerkwads JAQ'ing off all over the place, eh?

QuickSilver 07-26-2019 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21772126)
https://nypost.com/2019/07/24/this-i...-lover-survey/

The survey polled more than 64,000 people in 180 countries, asking them about their ideal match — from religious or political preferences to the importance of height. Most women asked identified as heterosexual, but queer and bisexual women also responded. The survey skews young: Nearly 40,600 of the women are ages 18 to 24, with the 25-to-29 age group the second biggest demo. Just under 3,800 were 40 years or older.

Almost 90% of the women rank kindness highest among desirable qualities, followed closely by supportiveness at 86.5%. Intelligence received about 72% of the vote; level of education had 64.5%; and rounding out the Top 5 is confidence, with a little over 60%.

Notice “attractiveness” did not top the list. That might explain why the “average” body type (looking at you, dad bods!) was vastly preferred over “very muscular” types, with 44.8% versus a marginal 2.5%, respectively.


and...

heterosexual women put average penis as No. 3, followed by large hands and, interestingly, a short head of hair

So, "insecure, creepy as fuck, whiny misogynistic sociopath", was just edged out from a top 5 spot? Bummer.

bump 07-26-2019 03:17 PM

So what if science somehow proves them right about what women want in men?

It isn't going to make them or their attitudes suck any less.

Chingon 07-26-2019 03:18 PM

I certainly wouldn't trust Velocity's claims.

QuickSilver 07-26-2019 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21772147)
So what if science somehow proves them right about what women want in men?

It isn't going to make them or their attitudes suck any less.

And to add insult to injury, women will still refuse to fuck them.

Grim Render 07-26-2019 03:26 PM

Without clicking on the link, I generally have the impression that many of the Incels assumptions seem correct, but incomplete. And that they draw some very strange and twisted conclusions from them.

I can absolutely believe that women prefer sex with the most attractive-looking males, all other things being equal. But I don't believe all other things are equal, or that its the only thing that matters. And I can believe that males with poor looks, depression and poor social skills won't see much casual sex. I just don't believe thats womens fault.

Jimmy Chitwood 07-26-2019 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21772102)
Well, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of that site, but are, by any chance, those citations actually claiming exactly what the incel site is claiming? Or are they distorting the findings to claim they support their position?

They are distorting the findings to claim they support their position.

From what I can see, the actual quotes they claim appear in the citations do appear in the citations. But they are absolutely cherrypicking and building preposterous houses of cards upon those foundations, and peppering their analysis with just outright bullshit as necessary. They would not pass, say, freshman research paper standards with a C+ or higher.

Just on the presumption that someone will want an example:

Quote:

Any sex a woman has after drinking alcohol can be defined as rape by a man under US law
The US Justice department defines rape as:

Rape: The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

This definition very specifically requires a person's body to be penetrated in order for it to constitute rape. In the normal activities of heterosexual sex, then, according to the US Justice System, only a man can rape a woman, and a woman cannot rape a man. A woman would only be capable of raping a man if she were to penetrate his mouth or anus with an object, and this is not usually part of heterosexual activities.

Furthermore, US law states that if a person is to any extent intoxicated with alcohol (drunk), they are unable to give consent.

In previous generations it was considered normal that two people might meet at a bar or party while drunk and then have sex. However, the combination of these two legal conditions creates a situation where in every case where this now occurs, the man is automatically guilty of rape, and the woman has the right to press charges. Even if the man was passed out completely, if he had an erection, and the women sat on his erection, the man, not the woman, would be guilty of the crime.

This is an example of what happens when the creation of laws is guided by emotional reasons rather than rational scientific thought. Laws like this open up men to grave legal risk for participating in common mutual social sexual liaisons.

References:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/...12-ag-018.html
https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/...n/?page_id=305
The italicized statements are true. The underlined statements are unmitigated dogshit.

That is not the only such example. It's an embarrassing and terrifying scene, and anybody holding that up as an example of "accuracy" should be proportionally ashamed.

begbert2 07-26-2019 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

Incels are lying sacks of shit with a permanent mental bias against all women and all decent men. I don't believe for one instant that the cites say what they think they do.

Ruken 07-26-2019 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.

Only the ones who are shit at science. The quality of a citation, assuming it even backs up the point it's being used to support, is not based on where it is published.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 03:57 PM

It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided. I am not an incel myself, but yet I can look at the science and review the articles and from what I've evaluated it has been perfectly sound. If you have any interest in how human sexuality works, you will find the information interesting at the minimum.

Almost every entry comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Almost all are freely available journal articles on the web if you search on Google "journal article title pdf". You check easily if there is any distortion. At least of all the ones I've clicked through I have found no significant distortions. Each section includes quotes directly from the articles, for example.

I am not sure what being an incel has to do with sex slaves or any other nonsense. The word incel solely means "involuntarily celibate". There are crazy people among every group or demographic.

I find this information interesting because everyone is always saying "incels are wrong about everything", yet clearly there's an overwhelming amount of science that actually backs them on most of what they say. My impression is now that people just don't like incels so they don't care if they're right or wrong, which is being validated by many of the responses here so far.

Vinyl Turnip 07-26-2019 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chingon (Post 21772152)
I certainly wouldn't trust Velocity's claims.

I don't see why not; he's the board's foremost scholar of inceldom. Author of a long-running apologia for the resentful fuckless fucks and their neverending pity party. One hopes that he is merely a dispassionate observer, but one wouldn't bet one's life on it.

snfaulkner 07-26-2019 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772218)
It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided. I am not an incel myself, but yet I can look at the science and review the articles and find they are perfectly sound. If you have any interest in how human sexuality works, you will find the information interesting at the minimum.

Almost every entry comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Almost all are freely available journal articles on the web if you search on Google "journal article title pdf". You can see easily there is no distortion. At least of all the ones I've clicked through I have found no significant distortions. Each section includes quotes directly from the articles, for example.

I am not sure what being an incel has to do with sex slaves or any other nonsense. The word incel solely means "involuntarily celibate".

What's the end goal of accumulating all these studies?

Czarcasm 07-26-2019 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772218)
I am not an incel myself...

Absolute bullshit.

TheFuture 07-26-2019 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfaulkner (Post 21772225)
What's the end goal of accumulating all these studies?

I have absolutely no idea. Knowledge? Understanding? Discussion? What's the purpose of any field of scientific study? Why did the researchers perform those studies in the first place?

They've been rattling around in my brain ever since someone linked me to that page off Reddit. I can't stop thinking about them. I'm not sure what to do with the information or how to feel about it.

Read them for yourself and tell me if you don't find them interesting.

Jackmannii 07-26-2019 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21772083)
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University

Well, I am heavily impressed.

Or would be if I wasn't familiar with the tactic of 1) citing an article and then claiming that the journal/academic institution/agency under whose auspices it appears endorses its conclusions, and 2) pointing to a cherry-picked list of articles/statistics as proof of one's assertions while misinterpreting what those sources say, and/or ignoring a vastly greater body of research/statistics that contradict those assertions.
A good example of #2 is "Miller's Critical Vaccine Studies", a book fawned over by the antivax crowd as impeccable Scientific Proof of their beliefs (the book's author also claims he has communicated with extraterrestrials, but one should not doubt his bona fides on that account :dubious:).

Some links to relevant articles from Velocity's list would be nice, as I also do not wish to click on the original link.

Miller 07-26-2019 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21771871)

I don't know about you, but my tubby, middle-aged, chronically-broke ass is going to go have frequent and vigorous sex with my incredibly hot partner.

Vinyl Turnip 07-26-2019 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772238)
Read them for yourself and tell me if you don't find them interesting.

I haven't read them and I can already tell you that.

elucidator 07-26-2019 04:08 PM

I also am blessed with a partner who is brilliant, insightful, and scorching hot. Her intelligence and good taste is evidenced in many, many ways, not least of which is she occasionally peruses the Dope. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Jimmy Chitwood 07-26-2019 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21772218)
It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided.

Bias because of the killings, you mean? The crazy people and the shootings? Nah.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.