# Science says Incels are right about everything. What happens next? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 26, 2019, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677 "2019-07-26T18:11:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 31
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/604 "2019-08-14T10:33:15Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Except there completely fucking isn’t. Ok. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/605 "2019-08-14T11:59:55Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Ok. You want to say different, motherfucker? ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/606 "2019-08-14T12:07:54Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > I read the paper and it was a crap paper. The authors themselves admitted that they didn’t get enough subjects for statistical significance. They are also really reaching for the causation they claim exists, even though larger studies say different things. It’s such a crap paper. Aside from the appalling sample and aside from the fact that the theoretical basis for the study relies on small-sample results that failed replication in bigger studies, they are clearly chasing the result they want. For those who haven’t read it, the paper reports on two studies. In the first (which is as far as I got), women currently in a relationship are shown videos of two men, and told that these are dating site intro videos. One man is attractive, one is average. The women are asked to imagine what a date with each of these men might be like, based on the video. These imaginings are then coded for levels of sexual attraction. These results are then analysed according to a) whether the women were on the pill when they started their current relationship and b)whether they are now, or if not are on either the high- or low-fertility point of their menstrual cycle. There’s a lot of dodginess here, not least the utter madness of applying their statistical analysis to a subjective non-interval scale of attraction, but it’s worse than that. The short intro speech the men give in the videos is utterly skewed to the point of parody and reveals _quite a lot_ about the authors’ hang-ups: > [@](#): > > The attractive confederate presented himself as a “bad boy”, as follows: > “Hi, my name is Haim. I see myself as a curious, dominant, and ambitious person. I’m a nightlife man; I love to hang out until the wee hours. I enjoy action and > changes, because I get easily bored of anything and therefore I’m always on the go, moving. I have a tremendous affection for extremes of any kind; the sense of danger, excitement, and adventure. I always do new things, and look for someone who is willing to contain me and my craziness.” Hello ladies! I am a slave to my id, massively unreliable, highly likely to be unfaithful and in no way any kind of prospect for a relationship, although I am kind of thinking it would be cool to have a substitute mum so I don’t have to grow up. But that’s OK, you’re thinking. Surely they gave the “average” looking guy the same speech, so that the only variable was physical attraction? Oh you sweet summer children: > [@](#): > > The average-looking confederate presented himself as an “ordinary guy”, as follows: > “Hi, my name is Erik, and I’m a generally happy guy. I love to travel around the world alone, with friends, or with people I meet wherever I go. I’m open to new experiences while I’m hanging out with friends or new acquaintances. I study business management and meanwhile work as a waiter at a coffee shop. I work out frequently in the gym. I think I’m a curious guy who likes to live in the moment and enjoy life.” Some of the same footloose and fancy-free attitude, but couched in different language with more emphasis on existing relationships and also a) plus more mature attitude to career and b) minus the whole “it’s your job to manage my craziness” nonsense. Would it be a surprise if women who imagined dates with Haim imagined snogging/making out/shagging? _There is literally no other reason to date Haim_. He’s a good looking man-child who’ll either leave you for the next woman who makes even brief eye contact with him, or cheat on you for the danger and excitement of it. Given that the study didn’t ask: “Would you date this man?” (kind of an omission there, you might think) but “What would it be like to be on a date with this man?” then it would hardly be a surprise if women responded by saying they’d focus on the physical. That’s all Haim offers. He is clearly designed to provoke a particular response so that the authors can then turn around and make claims about attractiveness. Which they do. (The utter guff about how women might desire Haim “because of” his unreliability is weirdly reminiscent of some of the worst incel prejudices about what women look for in a man but I’m sure that’s just a co-incidence. It does, however, show that they knew they were loading the dice.) But in actual fact, most women didn’t find Haim desirable. On the 1-5 scale, his highest rating among any sub-group was just under 2. Which means women were more likely than not to give him a swerve. They don’t report the difference in overall “desirability” between Haim and Eric, but eyeballing the data it appears to about the same. I wouldn’t put too much into that though. For the sub-sample of people who had been on the pill, and were now at high-fertility (i.e. the group most relevant to the authors’ hypothesis) the mean score for Eric’s desirability was **1.00** , with a standard deviation of **0.00**. That is to say, by an astonishing co-incidence, all 16 (heh, “all”) women rated Eric as 1 on the scale. If that seems amazing, it gets better. Because the women didn’t actually rate Eric or Haim on a scale. They described a date in plain language. The scale was created by “independent judges” coding that description into a 1-5 scale. So we’re asked to believe that it just so happens that the group of most interest to the researchers (women who had suppressed their hormones when forming a relationship and were now in the full grip of hormone-flooded lust) were independently coded as having the absolute minimum of desire for the average guy, which conveniently means that the difference between their score for Eric and their score for Haim just creeps over the line into statistical significance. Women on the pill now and then could imagine at least snogging Eric (1.45 desirability); women who hadn’t been on the pill and were at high-fertility could imagine at least snogging Eric (1.73) but somehow women who had come off the pill and whose uterus was jonesing for a zygote couldn’t imagine anything even a little bit physical. Come the fuck on. This is junk. They loaded the study design with confounding variables and when that wasn’t enough, they put their thumb on the scales and they still only just scraped into statistical significance. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/607 "2019-08-14T12:16:25Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > … You need to post more often. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/608 "2019-08-14T13:29:12Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > It’s such a crap paper. Aside from the appalling sample and aside from the fact that the theoretical basis for the study relies on small-sample results that failed replication in bigger studies, they are clearly chasing the result they want. > > For those who haven’t read it, the paper reports on two studies. In the first (which is as far as I got), women currently in a relationship are shown videos of two men, and told that these are dating site intro videos. One man is attractive, one is average. The women are asked to imagine what a date with each of these men might be like, based on the video. These imaginings are then coded for levels of sexual attraction. These results are then analysed according to a) whether the women were on the pill when they started their current relationship and b)whether they are now, or if not are on either the high- or low-fertility point of their menstrual cycle. > > There’s a lot of dodginess here, not least the utter madness of applying their statistical analysis to a subjective non-interval scale of attraction, but it’s worse than that. The short intro speech the men give in the videos is utterly skewed to the point of parody and reveals _quite a lot_ about the authors’ hang-ups: > > Hello ladies! I am a slave to my id, massively unreliable, highly likely to be unfaithful and in no way any kind of prospect for a relationship, although I am kind of thinking it would be cool to have a substitute mum so I don’t have to grow up. > > But that’s OK, you’re thinking. Surely they gave the “average” looking guy the same speech, so that the only variable was physical attraction? Oh you sweet summer children: > Some of the same footloose and fancy-free attitude, but couched in different language with more emphasis on existing relationships and also a) plus more mature attitude to career and b) minus the whole “it’s your job to manage my craziness” nonsense. > > Would it be a surprise if women who imagined dates with Haim imagined snogging/making out/shagging? _There is literally no other reason to date Haim_. He’s a good looking man-child who’ll either leave you for the next woman who makes even brief eye contact with him, or cheat on you for the danger and excitement of it. Given that the study didn’t ask: “Would you date this man?” (kind of an omission there, you might think) but “What would it be like to be on a date with this man?” then it would hardly be a surprise if women responded by saying they’d focus on the physical. That’s all Haim offers. He is clearly designed to provoke a particular response so that the authors can then turn around and make claims about attractiveness. Which they do. > > (The utter guff about how women might desire Haim “because of” his unreliability is weirdly reminiscent of some of the worst incel prejudices about what women look for in a man but I’m sure that’s just a co-incidence. It does, however, show that they knew they were loading the dice.) > > But in actual fact, most women didn’t find Haim desirable. On the 1-5 scale, his highest rating among any sub-group was just under 2. Which means women were more likely than not to give him a swerve. They don’t report the difference in overall “desirability” between Haim and Eric, but eyeballing the data it appears to about the same. > > I wouldn’t put too much into that though. For the sub-sample of people who had been on the pill, and were now at high-fertility (i.e. the group most relevant to the authors’ hypothesis) the mean score for Eric’s desirability was **1.00** , with a standard deviation of **0.00**. That is to say, by an astonishing co-incidence, all 16 (heh, “all”) women rated Eric as 1 on the scale. If that seems amazing, it gets better. Because the women didn’t actually rate Eric or Haim on a scale. They described a date in plain language. The scale was created by “independent judges” coding that description into a 1-5 scale. So we’re asked to believe that it just so happens that the group of most interest to the researchers (women who had suppressed their hormones when forming a relationship and were now in the full grip of hormone-flooded lust) were independently coded as having the absolute minimum of desire for the average guy, which conveniently means that the difference between their score for Eric and their score for Haim just creeps over the line into statistical significance. Women on the pill now and then could imagine at least snogging Eric (1.45 desirability); women who hadn’t been on the pill and were at high-fertility could imagine at least snogging Eric (1.73) but somehow women who had come off the pill and whose uterus was jonesing for a zygote couldn’t imagine anything even a little bit physical. > > Come the fuck on. This is junk. They loaded the study design with confounding variables and when that wasn’t enough, they put their thumb on the scales and they still only just scraped into statistical significance. David Gorski of Respectful Insolence and Science-Based Medicine, is that you? (Translator’s note: this is **BPC** trying to give someone _high_ fucking praise for their dissection of bad science.) ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/609 "2019-08-14T21:33:13Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > Hello ladies! I am a slave to my id, massively unreliable, highly likely to be unfaithful and in no way any kind of prospect for a relationship, although I am kind of thinking it would be cool to have a substitute mum so I don’t have to grow up. I know a guy like that – spoiled mama’s boy whose mama died so he’s always looking for a substitute mama. Totally unreliable and so spoiled that he tends to get abusive when he can’t have his way. AFAIK, the only serious relationship he’s been in ended with him in jail for beating his GF. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/610 "2019-08-14T22:00:42Z")
Stanislaus: (1) Nitpicking of one study’s methodology aside, do you really argue there is no basis to believe there are competing ESSes that make both being a Haim or being an Eric viable approaches to replicating one’s “selfish” Y chromosome? (2) Do you acknowledge that under equally withering, skeptical analysis, most social psychology research (on the “nurture” rather than “nature” side of the ledger) would crumble? (3) What say you about the UCLA T-shirt-sniffing metastudy? > [@MrDibble](#): > > You want to say different, motherfucker? We’ve been over this ad nauseam. So, not really. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/611 "2019-08-14T22:10:58Z")
Thanks **Stanislaus**. Wow what a junk science study. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/612 "2019-08-14T22:15:26Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Stanislaus: > > (1) Nitpicking of one study’s methodology aside, do you really argue there is no basis to believe there are competing ESSes that make both being a Haim or being an Eric viable approaches to replicating one’s “selfish” Y chromosome? Translation: I can’t argue that this study I love isn’t shit, because it’s shit and I know it, so I think I’ll just try to shakily pretend your annihilation of it was just “nitpicking” and then then ask you to agree with it anyway! > [@SlackerInc](#): > > (2) Do you acknowledge that under equally withering, skeptical analysis, most social psychology research (on the “nurture” rather than “nature” side of the ledger) would crumble? Translation: Hey, maybe if I pretend that ALL studies are shit, I can pretend that the fact that this study I love isn’t shit like I know it is! > [@SlackerInc](#): > > (3) What say you about the UCLA T-shirt-sniffing metastudy? Translation: So this study I love is shit…Look over there! A squirrel! ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/613 "2019-08-14T22:28:26Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > We’ve been over this ad nauseam. So, not really. Translation: I’ve had my ass handed to me enough for one day. Please, no more. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/614 "2019-08-14T22:32:54Z")
Start another thread on that topic and link me—I won’t shrink from it, even if it’s getting a bit boring by this point. It’s off topic here. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/615 "2019-08-14T23:03:16Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Start another thread on that topic and link me—I won’t shrink from it, even if it’s getting a bit boring by this point. It’s off topic here. You can’t be fucking serious. Like we don’t hear more than enough bullshit out of you as it is. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/616 "2019-08-15T04:10:30Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Start another thread on that topic and link me—I won’t shrink from it, even if it’s getting a bit boring by this point. It’s off topic here. Didn’t you introduce it to this thread in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/617 "2019-08-15T04:19:05Z")
Slacker, this being your thread, nothing involving you is off-topic here. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/618 "2019-08-15T04:27:19Z")
You’re confused. I am not the OP, I am not named in the title, and I don’t believe I started posting on the first day. ETA: I also think evolutionary psychology is much more interesting than rehashing old arguments. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/619 "2019-08-15T07:02:55Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > We’ve been over this ad nauseam. By which I take it you mean, actual science has _repeatedly_ kicked the racists’ asses up and down the boulevard. > [@](#): > > So, not really. Coward. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/620 "2019-08-15T07:10:16Z")
Okay, Dibble, you are absolutely right. No doubt a real life Shuri will be coming along at any moment. Now can we get back to talking about evolutionary psychology? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/621 "2019-08-15T07:17:23Z")
Why would we, when we’re talking about what a snivelling snotty scaredy-cat skulker you are instead? Hell, \*right now \*you’re being [cowardly](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21807006&postcount=245)in \*two \*Pit threads at the same time. What a _trooper_! Hey, \*do \*tell your son how the “inferior” brown man made you cry “Uncle!”. He seems like he might appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/622 "2019-08-15T07:32:07Z")
Ha, that’s rich. I tore you apart in that post you are claiming is cowardly. It was a thing of beauty actually. And I have never said, and do not believe, that black or brown people are “inferior”. I do believe it’s pretty fucking obvious that there are different strengths and weaknesses that are not equally represented in all populations. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2019, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677/623 "2019-08-15T08:38:58Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Ha, that’s rich. I tore you apart in that post you are claiming is cowardly. _checks self_ Nope, still in one piece _dusts off shoulder_ And it _was_ cowardly - since the point of my original post was how badly you failed in your pedantry, and you didn’t address that (_still_ haven’t, coward). > [@](#): > > It was a thing of beauty actually. We’ve already established your self-awareness is as seriously lacking as your intelligence. “Thing of beauty”, my ass. I’ve heard better rants from drunken Malaysian sailors lying in puddles of their own piss on the Foreshore. > [@](#): > > And I have never said, and do not believe, that black or brown people are “inferior”. Oh, you’re “paternalistic” towards you complete equals or superiors? Dude, you don’t have to literally say “I think blacks are inferior” for that to be the exact implication of what you _do_ say, like admitting to being a “paternalistic racist” Have the courage to own your bigotry, rather than snivel away from your own words like the coward we can all see you are. > [@](#): > > I do believe it’s pretty fucking obvious that there are different strengths and weaknesses that are not equally represented in all populations. “Populations” are not races, but thanks for playing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-says-incels-are-right-about-everything-what-happens-next/837677.md?page=32)