:shrug: What point are you trying to make?
Sorry, I’m often clueless. Is this thread about rescuing the term “incel” from being a pitiable state?
Well, it couldn’t be your sooper sekrit user name.
To be clear, this was directed at Rayks.
Did you read the study and data tables from that entry I linked? What didn’t make sense there?
Here is the height one on suicide rates if you can’t find it:
No, I am not going to go back through 10 pages to find your cite. Put your cites in your statement. Explain their relevance.
In fact, you linking back to a study on suicide and height has fuck all to do with the statement you just said you wanted to debate, which was race.
Try again.
I don’t understand you at all. It’s like talking to a crazy person who just wants to yell at me all the time without cause.
Both my posts on this exact page link the studies I was referring to. Scroll up 3 posts and you will see them. My reply to you referenced both race issues and height. I linked the race article in that post. Then I linked the height article in the follow up.
It is clear you have no interest in debate but rather just in arguing, which is not the same thing at all.
You need to read for comprehension, what I noted was it was deceptive to claim as scientific research what are actually magazine or newspaper articles (not peer reviewed indeed), who are among the actual research that that wiki you cited first. The deception is to not acknowledge that.
More reading failure.
Again, it is like what I saw among moon hoaxers, they can cite the proper research about the Van Allen radiation around the earth and claim that astronauts would had died with all that radiation, deceptively not mentioning that other research (Actually I do remember that many times the counter argument was in the very same research moon hoaxers pointed at) points to how the Van Allen radiation is less intense closer to the poles and a lot of the path the astronauts had to travel trough was closer to the poles.
So it is even with the first piece in that incel wiki, that is about how women are significantly more attractive to guys that are into narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy. Where the wiki does the deception is in the part that they do not tell you how significant that is; while it is not noise, it is anyhow not an overwhelming issue among normal people, nor the research showed it to be related to incels. The research is about how a few women can dig bad personalities, but that is a far cry from the issues you or other incels are talking about, most of what I have seen is about physical or mental issues preventing incels from getting girls, when this research I refer to is about personality. IOW, just about one way to get out of being an incel oneself, not much of a societal intervention needed.
Well, just go ahead and continue talking Governor. It is not me the one that looks silly. The silliness here is that as me and others showed the science you point at is not dealing with the incel issue.
Well, I did told him to continue… 
But it was misrepresented, again just on the first item the Incel Wiki claims that:
“Women were presented with male characters of varying degrees of Dark Triad personality. Physicality was held constant. Men with Dark Triad traits were dramatically more attractive to women compared to control characters who lacked these traits (with 99.9% statistical certainty). Furthermore, the attractiveness of these Dark Traits was not explained by other characteristics like extroversion.”
That 99.9% statistical certainty was not in the research cited.
And again, that was just the first item in that deceptive wiki entry.
I read that one already. It’s free (pirated?) at ResearchGate. I’ve read most of the freely available ones by now.
Quote from the PDF:
“A t-test showed the high DT character was rated as significantly more attractive than the control character (t126 = 5.40, p < .001, d = 0.94) supporting our hypotheses (see Table 2)”
Do you know what a p value is? P<0.001 is essentially the same as 99.9% statistical certainty.
eg. “The “p” value. So 0.5 means a 50 per cent chance and 0.05 means a 5 per cent chance.”
“In most sciences, results yielding a p-value of .05 are considered on the borderline of statistical significance. If the p-value is under .01, results are considered statistically significant and if it’s below .005 they are considered highly statistically significant.”
I can’t find anything wrong with the published ones I’ve read and so far neither can anyone else… I don’t see how that’s supposed to be my fault.
Only that that was not the only item I referred to, just to show where the problem is here: Do you really think that almost all women will fall for that? Clearly what the research shows is not what is insinuated in the wiki.
I honestly try not to assume I know anything unless I see some scientific data for it because exactly of things like this. I would never have presumed to guess that women would find a man with Dark Triad traits more attractive “with statistical 99.9% certainty”.
I also wouldn’t have guessed that 62% of women have rape fantasies:
Or that women are the biggest consumers of porn where women are raped:
NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS would I have thought that. That’s pretty fucked up to me. I don’t watch rape porn and don’t fantasize about raping women. Is this honestly not shocking to you at all?
Or that women seek out narcissistic men for husbands:
I wonder if this is a manifestation of what women mean by “be confident”? There is no one more confident than a narcissist.
Or why didn’t this study find that “niceness” was attractive to women? While it was clearly attractive to men?
I don’t know how big an effect it makes but how many studies do we need to say it is obviously there? The only way I could guess the size of the effect is to say it is probably less than the importance of looks, since most of those studies seem to same looks are more important than personality for both genders.
I am not going to that page. I’m not going to any incel page. I’m not going to give them the clicks.
You’re looking at links directly to the study? Then post one of those links. And not one that starts with incels.wiki; I don’t trust it to link to the actual study and not to some sort of amended version. You say these studies have been done by – where’s that list? Ah, yes, Post #18.
Post a link to the specific study on one of those sites. If the link from your incels wiki does go to the actual study, that ought to be easy enough to do; just copy and paste the url from the study itself.
Now you actually did post such a link in one case, the study about Asian men that’s been briefly discussed already.
But you need to ALSO POST what specific incel claim you think the specific study is backing. “Everything” is not a valid comparison point.
I said very clearly that you should start with one. I very much doubt we’d get through 130; somebody would either be convinced or give up long before then. If we did, but did so at the rate of, say, one a week with honest discussion of each, I doubt that would get you banned. You could ask a mod.
-
Again, I’m not going to that page. You’re the one who’s here making the claim; you spell it out.
-
130 studies can’t possibly each and every one of them back each and every one of what presumably are multiple claims. State specifically what claim(s) you think the individual study backs. If you can’t do that, then obviously you have no idea whether the study backs any of them or not.
What specific claims do you think the study “Relationship Involvement Among Young Adults: Are Asian American Men an Exceptional Case?” backs?
If you’ll do that, I’ll find time to look at the study.
Dude I posted an archive.org link already in the second or third page of the thread so you don’t have to “give them clicks”. Generally speaking any site you want to visit without visiting you can usually find in archive.org.
If you don’t actually want to read the material why would you bother replying?
What you wrote is basically just a lengthy version of “tl;dr”. I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to ignore something if it’s not interesting to them.
I’ve just been back for a few hours and this is getting ridiculous again. Ad hominem, strawman, misinterpretation, angry reply, repeat.
I’m not gonna waste another dozens of hours like last weekend here replying to people who have zero interest in the subject material. I’m almost done reading all the journal articles I can freely get that were linked there. I’m just gonna go back to reading those. Better way to spend the time.
[sniped examples that actually show my point]
Again you miss the point spectacularly (and it has to be duly noted that you did not acknowledged that there is indeed also cites in that wiky that are not peer reviewed research)
What the research you point at is good in the sense that it shows what it can take place** in a fantasy world.**
The real world is not conductive to give that incel wiki the real life things that they claim others are fantasizing for.
As one researcher put it: “There are several limitations of the study that should be men-tioned. We did not assess narcissism in our participants, determine whether they were currently in relationships or investigate their ovu-latory phase.”
You are linking to incel.wiki pages. Are you able to link to the actual data or studies, or just to the pages that are on that site? If all you can link to are these pages, then the odds of having a real debate on the merits of your claims are very low.
:dubious: Not to keep digging over this hijack, but STEADY ON, OLD CHAP. When the other animals say “we know her ‘these and those’ are like Marilyn Monroe’s” (or “like Brigitte Bardot’s” in the original version of the song), they are NOT referring to “elocution studies”:
You think Monroe or Bardot is being referenced here for her elegant elocution? Believe me, that’s not the reason those actresses (talented though they were in very many respects) became household words. 
No, the animals are acknowledging that the warthog’s appearance is at least somewhat conventionally attractive, including a bangin’ figure like a movie star’s, but she “somehow” isn’t putting it over because she’s a warthog underneath it all.
It took my accustomed (slow) pace to see it. But this thread is all about people’s varying levels of reading comprehension. Not even fun to read.
So you don’t know what specific claims that specific study backs?
I’m entirely willing to read that study, for which you did provide a proper link. But I can’t address the question of whether it backs any specific claims when you won’t say what claims those are.
Link to the studies, NOT to incels wiki.
Just one more bit about this reply that shows that you do miss the point.
You are missing what the research is concentrating on, I can picture a survey were people would like to have a more beautiful pony “with statistical 99.9% certainty”, but that does not mean that the person has a pony already nor that the nice pony they were thinking about would be seen almost universally as less desirable than another that is pointed out to be more attractive.
What the incel site misses is that women that like a Dark Triad guy “more” does not mean “It is certain that I will go for that”. that 99.9% item just shows a certainty that is observed for an opinion that is subjective. But the numbers are clearly less imposing when one looks at real life.