Isn’t that just incel thinking in a nutshell though? Person can’t get a first date, let alone a relationship–sensible person would conclude there’s something about themselves that’s making relatonships difficult to attain and would do some research and possibly therapy to become a person more likely to attract a mate. Incels, though, presented with this scenario, find it more sensible to conclude there’s a huge conspiracy that operates seamlessly across multiple societies to deny some percentage of men any access to the sexual arena for reasons unknown to anyone, including incels. Occam’s Razor is as foreign a concept to incels as female genital structure and the psychology of attraction.
It seems like a complication and gross simplification at the same time. Or maybe dismissal. Like, “Men don’t like being raped in prison because there is no chance of offspring.”
Incel thinking is one of the strangest delusions I’ve ever come across. There seems to be an utter lack of understanding of normal human interactions and relationships.
Even the most superficial understanding of the real world shows that nobody ‘owes’ anyone friendship, let alone sex. Physical attractiveness is only one factor in relationships, and often not a very important one. Just look around at actual couples - plenty of whom are not physically attractive. It seems to be easier for incels to blame their lack of relationships on physical factors they have no control over, rather than take to responsibility for acting like decent human beings.
My theory is that it’s a result of trying to understand relationships on the basis of obsessive watching of porn. They don’t seem to realise just how far from reality porn is.
She saves those moves for Chad, boyo
Yup. Evolutionary psychology just-so-stories comprise their grand unifying theory. Woman bristles at being gawked at or groped by a strange man? Couldn’t be that these actions are just inherently invasive and threatening. Nope, it’s gotta be that her hypergamous amygdala demands she reject his advances because his genes aren’t Chad enough.
By imbibing these ideas, they have no reason to change their own behavior.
If by “Chad” you mean “showing unambiguous phenotypic signals of likely superior genes”, you have a coherent *model *of what happens. Chad may be taller, have less belly fat, make more income, and/or be more confident. He may have a face with more symmetry. It’s quite possible he has all of these advantages.
Like any model, it can be disproven, and I am not in any way saying it’s the absolute truth, but saying that “women are choosey, and given a choice they usually go for <these specific characteristics>” is a fairly accurate model that agrees with the evidence. In the future we will have better data and will be able to create more refined and accurate models, of course, there’s a lot of slop in this one.
Being “outraged” to even discuss why people actually do what they do is, well, not productive.
Let’s switch topics : why don’t parents murder their own children?
Following your model :
a. Because murder is wrong, man! It’s just obvious! Especially if it’s of your own children, how could you even *think *of such a thing?! This thread is getting even more despicable!
Evolutionary psych model :
b. Because those children have 50% of the genetic material for certain of the female parent, and somewhere between 0 and 50% for the male parent, depending on situation. You would expect for cousins to be worth somewhat less, and for nonfamily individuals who appear to share common genes to be worth more (higher worth = less probability of murder) than ones who appear to be very different.
Evolutionary psych model a specific numerical weighting and it makes a prediction if you look at the numbers : that fathers are more likely to murder their own children than mothers. Go check the data on whether that’s true or not.
If you start thinking of women as people, you don’t need to build a bullshit model for why they don’t want to be raped and molested. You really don’t. If a person relies on the “science” of evolutionary psychology to tell them why women don’t want to be raped and molested, I begin to see an issue with why that person almost certainly struggles to form relationships.
Empathy. The more you know. rainbow
And its equally possible that a Chad is just an imaginary construct invented by Incels and it serves no purpose except to reduce romantic success to uncontrollable, genetic factors rather than factors that can be changed with effort, introspection, pragmatism, and maybe professional help. Most men are not Chads and yet they find a way to have relationships. No one is destined to be celibate just because they lack some requisite number of advantages.
If Incels re-invested half the time they spend on coming up splitting humanity into these bizarre taxonomic categories into other things, they could be happier people.
I’m starting to feel as if I’ve been reduced to an NPC in a video game. If a player with x attributes approaches me, I’ll respond A. If a player with y attributes approaches me, I’ll respond B.
Amusingly, if you actually analyze these 2 player games, consistently responding with A or B lets the other player take advantage of you. Optimal strategy is usually a mixed one, such as “given input X, 90% A 10% B, given input Y, 10% A 90% B”.
This unfortunately makes it harder to study, we need more and better data. However, the dominant model of, well, physics of matter says that this is the actual truth. Whether or no you agree with it, it doesn’t matter, your disagreement in itself is just your brain’s individual components each obeying physical laws and producing a response.
Nope, following my own “model”, I’d say the question has a flawed premise. Parents murder their own children fairly frequently, as confirmed by actual real-world data.
All too often, evolutionary psych reasoning causes people to ignore empirical evidence that is literally right in front of their faces in favor of speculation that sounds “smart” but amounts to drivel.
But lets suppose its true that people don’t murder their own kids, at least as often as they do other people’s children. Why does this have to do anything with genes? I’ve invested a lot of time, energy, and emotional effort in taking care of my daughter. This work (other than the stuff that comes from pregnancy and breastfeeding) would have been invested just the same if she were my adopted child. A lot of this work has been thankless and grueling, but it has resulted in a vibrant, happy, little girl. Why in the hell would I throw all that hard work away by killing my child? I mean, forget about love and parental instinct and all that squishy stuff. In the most clinical, dispassionate sense, murdering my daughter at this point would be as stupid and crazy as demolishing a sportscar that I paid $60,000 for. If I’m crazy and stupid enough to do that with a car, it’s going to be someone else’s car, not the one I’ve dreamed of having since I was a kid.
Double post
The phrase I learned recently is “a few millimeters of bone” —Millimeters of Bone | Know Your Meme
[/quote]
Like any model, it can be disproven
[/quote]
The incels’ Chad meme is not a model that needs to be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis.
And, and others have pointed out, theories of evolutionary psychology are very tentative at this point, and not at all relevant to dealing with modern social interactions.
Plenty of people who aren’t the world’s finest physical specimens find themselves in relationships. But there are a lot of women that are beneath the incels’ superficial standards.
Absolutely. It’s an ideological or religious-like construct. It has nothing to do with science.
Models of what? Evidence of what? Better data, how?
All the data in the world doesn’t mean a damned thing. If you can’t see a woman as an individual rather than an “evolutionary psych model”, well, you’ll never succeed. This is exactly why incels have the problems t hey do.
Tell me, do you really NOT believe there’s any other reason a woman wouldn’t want to be a sex slave than the possibility than her children would end up being in slavery as well? None whatsoever?
So you believe that there’s no way the incel’s problems could have anything to do with simple math, such as 5 available men for every reasonably attractive woman. No sir, couldn’t be that. Must be that these incels are just sad losers. They need a better attitude, that’ll fix it.
A person’s preferences are ultimately mostly determined by evolutionary pressures acting on their ancestors. There are a lot of things we humans put up with that are actually quite horrific and wrong, but they don’t bother us as much as they should. Such as murdering animals for food, knowing the elderly are dying in vast numbers, wars, that sort of thing.
how many women are there for every attractive man? How many of those available women turn to the Incel mindset?
Reducing it to a math problem instead of acknowledging that people are individuals, with individual experiences, desires, and dislikes is not solving the problem for any individual.
Guin, I don’t think he’s going to answer you.
Well, the ratio is at least 2:1 if you assume that 50% of women are either severely overweight or obese. The actual numbers are probably much worse, because basically every man from the ages of 14 to 65 wants the same 18-25 year old skinny women.
Demand hugely outstrips supply. So either we invent sex robots or the incels somehow learn to stick their dicks in women their brains don’t find attractive. Or they just learn to accept being alone.
We don’t expect gay men to stick their dicks in partners they don’t find attractive anymore, do we? If gay men can’t get over their preference for other men, why should we expect incels to get over their preference for skinny young women?
Men are also obese. So women should just let dicks attached to unattractive men be stuck into us, I guess.
Of course, I find the Incel mindset to be profoundly unattractive, far more than a lack of symmetry in facial structure or a few pounds of extra weight.
But I have an inordinate objection to sexual slavery, regardless of fertility, so clearly I am unusual.