A study at Swansea University found incels - or involuntary celibates - overestimated physical attractiveness and finances, while underestimating kindness, humour and loyalty. The study's co-author Andrew Thomas said "thinking errors" could "lead us down some quite troubling paths".
Don't believe your lying eyes, bigot. You're an incel because your "thinking errors" are allowing you to see what's right in front of your face, not because women are shallow whores who engage in precisely the mate selection behavior that you're seeing. Let's just ignore all the non-incels who say the exact same thing because that's inconvenient for the narrative. And don't you dare undermine women's AF/BB scam by living for yourself instead of simping. Someone needs to foot the bill for Tyrone Jr. and pint-sized Pookie, and it certainly won't be whore who birthed them or the deadbeats she let raw dog her.
"People are saying that the reason that incels struggle to find relationships and sex is because their standards are too high, and what we were able to demonstrate here is, compared to our group of men that weren't incel, actually their minimum mate preferences were a lot lower.
This is an "experts say grass is green" tier finding, but since "experts" are more likely to say that grass is purple these days I'll give them credit for not suppressing this finding. Still, it was obvious to everyone involved that the "incels are only going after supermodels" narrative is just women projecting their Chad chasing onto romantically unsuccessful men.
Reeeeing about Andrew Tate
This just shows that the "experts" have no fucking clue. Andrew Tate isn't an incel and actual incels hate him. They see him as a Chad, and they hate Chads just as much as they hate women. But sure, keep banging on about the fake rape and human trafficking charges against him because you're too retarded to realize that charging him for the scams he actually perpetrated would have done far more to discredit him than transparently using the exact same tactics that the regime uses to get rid of everyone it dislikes.
Well said.
I get that conservatives want to encourage men to be better, but women need to do a lot better too. The amount of shallow cash grabbing bimbos and cat lady lunatics among women is insane.
You want mr beefed millionaire? Really? Do you even know how to fry an egg? Just insane.
Tradcuck != conservative. The former expect men to "man up" for ran through whores with 3 baby daddies. The latter realize the scope of the woman problem and know that the whole system needs to be gutted and replaced for Western civilization to survive.
I disagree. As a trad guy, and as many will espouse, pair bonding likelihood decreases with the greater number of sexual partners. They’d be more likely to do what I did, which was meet a younger woman (my wife is just about 7 years younger than me) and date/wife her up rather than gambling on a “born-again virgin”. The con inc types are what you describe
I alone can't do much, other than perhaps raise my kids to be better.
One guy looking for a girl right now also can't do much, other than looking in foreign countries or in more traditional corners for women who have been raised with better values.
As a society we can do a lot, however:
women are group beings, they adapt to their surrounding. If they are surrounded by lunatic lefties, they will be lunatic lefties. So first step: remove them from bad influence.
offer desirable alternatives and blast that idea out like crazy: if they see every housewife being miserable, guess what- they'll not want that. If they constantly see happy moms and wives, they will want that and do what they must to get it. Girls don't put makeup because they think it's fun to sit hours to cake their faces, they put it because society says it's how you do it. So let them see what you want them to be.
make the character sexy: young women look for what they got taught to look for, and they get reinforced whenever some simp agrees with it. So what they need to see is tons of examples of women who brag about their virtues and show how those were useful, and how super awesome their men are because of the men's virtues and character. And at the same time they need to see tons of negative outcomes for whoever lives like... well, like they live right now.
When Peterson says "expect more of young men" he's not wrong. Achieving something gives people self esteem.
But that applies to women too. We absolutely need to expect more of young women.
If you had every girl publicly brag about the killer dish she made for her date, and get tons and tons of positive attention for it, that would soon become contagious.
We can't change women just on a dime, but we can seed the ideas all over the place and reinforce them. And that will change the women.
I'd be more ok with that if "men getting better" meant "men forcing women to assume their role as the woman and putting an end to this female empowerment nonsense once and for all." Instead it just means to accept abuse and pretend things haven't gone catastrophically wrong.
I met my wife on Tinder specifically because of a model-level headshot I posted that was professionally edited with photoshop (Friend of mine wanted some practice editing and did it for free). Every single match I had reached out because they said the headshot looked good, and no other reason. Not saying I'm a super attractive guy or anything but it was clearly looks that got my foot in the door.
I know lots of other guys who never got a single Tinder match and it's because their photos were unattractive. They ended up saying Tinder was a "scam" and that "no one meets anyone there."
Granted, most men aren't exactly going to swallow the advice of 'Just get a professional photographer to take your photos so you have a chance of getting a date on tinder' very easily, even if you're right.
Getting metaphorically punched in the balls yet again with the reminder that men have to jump through hoops while women just show up doesn't exactly encourage a healthy mindset.
Plus, there's the added mythology that women don't really pay attention to attractiveness(which is bullshit), so they're getting hit from both sides.
Once everyone has a professionally done photo to stand out, no one has a photo to stand out. Same with every guy trying to get jacked.
You're right that there are simply some winners and some losers in the game of life, and it's about navigating the waters to the best of your ability without purposely losing yourself in an unfair and lopsided mating game.
I'm not sure why you would think women 'just show up,' they put extreme effort into their photos.
Really, improving your headshot is one of the easiest and cheapest things men can do to improve their odds. Cleaning yourself up and looking presentable is hardly a harsh imposition.
I assumed most people on Tinder these days wanted quick hookups. If that sort of impression is felt by others, and adding the negative results of your acquaintances, it might make sense to make that claim.
Obviously you found someone there, so maybe my assumption isn't accurate?
It depends on when he found her as well. My understanding is that the algorithm sucked a lot less prior to 2017 or so. It's definitely a hookup app, but the gap between standards for hookup and LTR are shrinking. Women are getting more and more willing to take their cats and wine if they can't have a billionaire Gigachad.
I think you're responding to the wrong person? I completely agree that dating apps are a scam, but as much as they exacerbate the problem they're not the cause. The fact is that as long as women have unreasonable expectations building a functional dating app is impossible. It doesn't excuse all the sleazy shit the apps pull, but women's entitlement is going to create a shitty experience no matter what the apps do.
And arguably, it's worse than that - women are more than willing to be misrable, but even worse are the ones basically allowing for defacto harems where one Chad basically runs through a horde of women, and the women let him.
That... yeah, that's not going to end up anywhere good.
It was in the very early days of Tinder. Nowadays I hear the meat market is actually instagram. Having a couple good photos really improves your chances.
I don't know why men are so resistant to the idea of putting effort into their appearance. I always say that women need to stop complaining and accept reality, but that goes for men too.
'overestimate' and 'underestimate' are also the ultimate weasel words, especially when it comes to statistical distribution.
If you think looks matter and personality is worthless(and, heh, newsflash, in alot of situation, that's spot fucking on!) and some social science soiboi comes up and goes 'well, um, ACKSHUALLY' and proceeds to spin out some bullshit of how 51% compared to 49% or some such nonsense is technically correct - but it's still a blatant lie, because we're talking social trends, not statistical.
And people wonder why we don't trust the 'experts' anymore.
'overestimate' and 'underestimate' are also the ultimate weasel words, especially when it comes to statistical distribution.
Yeah, I was going to point that out.
...incels...overestimated physical attractiveness and finances, while underestimating kindness, humour and loyalty...
That is almost certainly a factual statement...yet also misleading. Incels do overestimate and underestimate those things, absolutely. The important question is, who is closer to the truth, incels or Experts? If it's not the Experts, their statements are meaningless lies. If incels (or any other group) are more correct than the Experts (usually the case nowadays), the Experts don't get to whine about the other group not being one hundred percent on the money.
Wanna know how they determined that incels overestimate the importance of LMS and underestimate the "good boy" personality traits?
They directly ASKED WOMEN how important the "good boy" traits were in a long-term relationship and then compared those numbers with how much incels think women really care about those traits. Yes, seriously.
"I asked 150 strangers in central park whether they were a liar. 75 said they were not a liar, the other 75 told me to fuck off. Conclusion: nobody in NYC lies."
"wihich qualities do you / would you appreciate in a male you already decided you want to fuck
with
"which qualities made you interested in the first place".
Height, symetry, health markers, both physical and mental ( compusure, skin, hair, grooming, speech ), visible muscle definition, ect, all rank higher in priority than everything the "study" claims is under-estimated by incels.
Strenght training for muscle definition + grooming will do a major difference. Alot more women will start doing those small physical contacts during conversations.
"But muh receeding hairline". It's not comming back. The treatments's hormonal side-effects are not worth the modest improvement. Shave your head on a regular basis and you'll tick the "groomed" box. Not as high as if you had nice hair, but way above unkept male pattern baldness.
Yes women's height standarts are retarded ( they want the top 5%, many the top 0.2% ), but they will lower that significantly if you stop overeating and build some arm muscle definition to make their fee-feels tingle.
Short women will claim the same height standarts as their female peers and they all want a mate taller than their friend's mates, but when she's with you, if you're 2+inches taller, her instinctual "male taller than me" vetting will be ticked.
Income standarts are to bypass their physical fitness and social adjustment standarts ( grooming and adjusted speech ). They will fuck a low-middle class Chad ( and some, usually black females, also fuck an unemployed, ill-mannered ghetto Tyrone ). If Chad demonstrate he's not just a wh0re-chasing gym enthousiast, she'll lower her income standarts for a potential hot dad-material.
It seems they deliberately conflate "wihich qualities do you / would you appreciate in a male you already decided you want to fuck with "which qualities made you interested in the first place".
Right. "Kindness, humour and loyalty" are qualities they might wish Chad had, but they'll still choose the good looking guy who lacks those qualities over an average looking guy who has them. Which means the incels (and the rest of the Manosphere) are correct that physical features trump everything. They're not overestimating or underestimating anything: They're accurately describing women's mate choices.
Also because "kindness, humor and loyalty" are the most socially acceptable and agreeable answers, no woman is going to say looks else she will look vapid or money because she'll look like a gold digger
Disclaimer, joke advice: Just lie. Women are short and can't do math. Unless you're a manlet or she's a giant, you're still going to tower over her. You're 6'3", and she can't prove otherwise.
"wihich qualities do you / would you appreciate in a male you already decided you want to fuck" with "which qualities made you interested in the first place".
This is a really good point. I also want to add that self-reporting is not the same as reality. A lot of self-reporting is aspirational, i.e., "I want to be attracted to men who are kind, funny, and loyal... so this interviewer will validate me."
I'd believe this study's recommendations if they managed to "fix" a cohort of incels by readjusting them to "kindness, humor, and loyalty." But we all know that would mean fixing women as well, so that'll never happen.
Hoe_math is a great youtube channel if you want to both understand and hate women in equal measure.
The only complaint I have about his videos is that while he goes into the 'how' portion of looks/personality/social maxing, he doesn't go into the why.
As in, 'All these examples of women are utterly horrible and why the hell should we even consider dealing with them?'
He kind of went over it in soft gesture toward 'we want functioning couples because I like society' in his earlier videos, but it's become a glaring problem as of late.
'we want functioning couples because I like society'
I don't think anyone is beating this drum as hard as it needs to be. We're staring down the barrel of complete civilizational collapse and no one seems to care in the slightest about correcting the problem.
People either think it isn't an issue, have their head in the sand, or don't have the stomach yet to start implementing any policy that might act as a course correction.
The first step to fixing any problem is first realizing you have a problem...
So... We've come full circle? Did they forget a lot of incels became that way because of things like being called "nice guys"?
Edit: this part tho
The authors also claimed the study showed incels were younger, more ethnically diverse and more politically left-leaning than previously reported.
...
Some incel forums are known for displaying misogyny, hate speech, and violence and have been linked to ideologies about women promoted by influencers like Tate.
Dr Thomas said these people were actually generally derogatory of incels, who they would label "losers" or similar.
But he said many incels could be more vulnerable than non-incels when it came to being influenced by ideologies.
These researchers are most of them leeches living off tax payer money only producing propaganda for those in power, they wont do studies on whether "women with penis" need mental health or not, or why empowered females are not demanding they are allowed to go fight the war in Ukraine and also dig trenches in the mud while drones fly above their head. I wonder why.
Don't believe your lying eyes, bigot. You're an incel because your "thinking errors" are allowing you to see what's right in front of your face, not because women are shallow whores who engage in precisely the mate selection behavior that you're seeing. Let's just ignore all the non-incels who say the exact same thing because that's inconvenient for the narrative. And don't you dare undermine women's AF/BB scam by living for yourself instead of simping. Someone needs to foot the bill for Tyrone Jr. and pint-sized Pookie, and it certainly won't be whore who birthed them or the deadbeats she let raw dog her.
This is an "experts say grass is green" tier finding, but since "experts" are more likely to say that grass is purple these days I'll give them credit for not suppressing this finding. Still, it was obvious to everyone involved that the "incels are only going after supermodels" narrative is just women projecting their Chad chasing onto romantically unsuccessful men.
This just shows that the "experts" have no fucking clue. Andrew Tate isn't an incel and actual incels hate him. They see him as a Chad, and they hate Chads just as much as they hate women. But sure, keep banging on about the fake rape and human trafficking charges against him because you're too retarded to realize that charging him for the scams he actually perpetrated would have done far more to discredit him than transparently using the exact same tactics that the regime uses to get rid of everyone it dislikes.
It always the men fault, never the women. Even the conservative right puts all the burden on men being better
Well said. I get that conservatives want to encourage men to be better, but women need to do a lot better too. The amount of shallow cash grabbing bimbos and cat lady lunatics among women is insane. You want mr beefed millionaire? Really? Do you even know how to fry an egg? Just insane.
Tradcuck != conservative. The former expect men to "man up" for ran through whores with 3 baby daddies. The latter realize the scope of the woman problem and know that the whole system needs to be gutted and replaced for Western civilization to survive.
I disagree. As a trad guy, and as many will espouse, pair bonding likelihood decreases with the greater number of sexual partners. They’d be more likely to do what I did, which was meet a younger woman (my wife is just about 7 years younger than me) and date/wife her up rather than gambling on a “born-again virgin”. The con inc types are what you describe
My wife and I have an even larger gap. It's just a good idea in general.
Okay, but, respectfully, what is your plan to get the women to agree with you and take responsibility?
You can present all the evidence you want to women, but they're just going to rationalize how it was someone else's fault.
I alone can't do much, other than perhaps raise my kids to be better.
One guy looking for a girl right now also can't do much, other than looking in foreign countries or in more traditional corners for women who have been raised with better values.
As a society we can do a lot, however:
women are group beings, they adapt to their surrounding. If they are surrounded by lunatic lefties, they will be lunatic lefties. So first step: remove them from bad influence.
offer desirable alternatives and blast that idea out like crazy: if they see every housewife being miserable, guess what- they'll not want that. If they constantly see happy moms and wives, they will want that and do what they must to get it. Girls don't put makeup because they think it's fun to sit hours to cake their faces, they put it because society says it's how you do it. So let them see what you want them to be.
make the character sexy: young women look for what they got taught to look for, and they get reinforced whenever some simp agrees with it. So what they need to see is tons of examples of women who brag about their virtues and show how those were useful, and how super awesome their men are because of the men's virtues and character. And at the same time they need to see tons of negative outcomes for whoever lives like... well, like they live right now.
When Peterson says "expect more of young men" he's not wrong. Achieving something gives people self esteem. But that applies to women too. We absolutely need to expect more of young women. If you had every girl publicly brag about the killer dish she made for her date, and get tons and tons of positive attention for it, that would soon become contagious.
We can't change women just on a dime, but we can seed the ideas all over the place and reinforce them. And that will change the women.
I'd be more ok with that if "men getting better" meant "men forcing women to assume their role as the woman and putting an end to this female empowerment nonsense once and for all." Instead it just means to accept abuse and pretend things haven't gone catastrophically wrong.
I met my wife on Tinder specifically because of a model-level headshot I posted that was professionally edited with photoshop (Friend of mine wanted some practice editing and did it for free). Every single match I had reached out because they said the headshot looked good, and no other reason. Not saying I'm a super attractive guy or anything but it was clearly looks that got my foot in the door.
I know lots of other guys who never got a single Tinder match and it's because their photos were unattractive. They ended up saying Tinder was a "scam" and that "no one meets anyone there."
Granted, most men aren't exactly going to swallow the advice of 'Just get a professional photographer to take your photos so you have a chance of getting a date on tinder' very easily, even if you're right.
Getting metaphorically punched in the balls yet again with the reminder that men have to jump through hoops while women just show up doesn't exactly encourage a healthy mindset.
Plus, there's the added mythology that women don't really pay attention to attractiveness(which is bullshit), so they're getting hit from both sides.
This.
Once everyone has a professionally done photo to stand out, no one has a photo to stand out. Same with every guy trying to get jacked.
You're right that there are simply some winners and some losers in the game of life, and it's about navigating the waters to the best of your ability without purposely losing yourself in an unfair and lopsided mating game.
I'm not sure why you would think women 'just show up,' they put extreme effort into their photos.
Really, improving your headshot is one of the easiest and cheapest things men can do to improve their odds. Cleaning yourself up and looking presentable is hardly a harsh imposition.
A bit off topic, but
I assumed most people on Tinder these days wanted quick hookups. If that sort of impression is felt by others, and adding the negative results of your acquaintances, it might make sense to make that claim.
Obviously you found someone there, so maybe my assumption isn't accurate?
It depends on when he found her as well. My understanding is that the algorithm sucked a lot less prior to 2017 or so. It's definitely a hookup app, but the gap between standards for hookup and LTR are shrinking. Women are getting more and more willing to take their cats and wine if they can't have a billionaire Gigachad.
I think you're responding to the wrong person? I completely agree that dating apps are a scam, but as much as they exacerbate the problem they're not the cause. The fact is that as long as women have unreasonable expectations building a functional dating app is impossible. It doesn't excuse all the sleazy shit the apps pull, but women's entitlement is going to create a shitty experience no matter what the apps do.
Statistical outliers gonna statistical outlier.
And arguably, it's worse than that - women are more than willing to be misrable, but even worse are the ones basically allowing for defacto harems where one Chad basically runs through a horde of women, and the women let him.
That... yeah, that's not going to end up anywhere good.
It was in the very early days of Tinder. Nowadays I hear the meat market is actually instagram. Having a couple good photos really improves your chances.
I don't know why men are so resistant to the idea of putting effort into their appearance. I always say that women need to stop complaining and accept reality, but that goes for men too.
black guy who imagines all white people are racist - job on MSNBC or CNN
ugly guy who imagines all his tinder rejections are due to his appearance- don’t imagine it - walk it off!
'overestimate' and 'underestimate' are also the ultimate weasel words, especially when it comes to statistical distribution.
If you think looks matter and personality is worthless(and, heh, newsflash, in alot of situation, that's spot fucking on!) and some social science soiboi comes up and goes 'well, um, ACKSHUALLY' and proceeds to spin out some bullshit of how 51% compared to 49% or some such nonsense is technically correct - but it's still a blatant lie, because we're talking social trends, not statistical.
And people wonder why we don't trust the 'experts' anymore.
Yeah, I was going to point that out.
That is almost certainly a factual statement...yet also misleading. Incels do overestimate and underestimate those things, absolutely. The important question is, who is closer to the truth, incels or Experts? If it's not the Experts, their statements are meaningless lies. If incels (or any other group) are more correct than the Experts (usually the case nowadays), the Experts don't get to whine about the other group not being one hundred percent on the money.
Here is the actual study.
Wanna know how they determined that incels overestimate the importance of LMS and underestimate the "good boy" personality traits?
They directly ASKED WOMEN how important the "good boy" traits were in a long-term relationship and then compared those numbers with how much incels think women really care about those traits. Yes, seriously.
"I asked 150 strangers in central park whether they were a liar. 75 said they were not a liar, the other 75 told me to fuck off. Conclusion: nobody in NYC lies."
GENIUS
Psychology is a meme discipline, prove me wrong.
Eh, that was just a matter of memorization. Sadly, memorization doesn't help much with dating.
It seems they deliberately conflate
"wihich qualities do you / would you appreciate in a male you already decided you want to fuck
with
"which qualities made you interested in the first place".
Height, symetry, health markers, both physical and mental ( compusure, skin, hair, grooming, speech ), visible muscle definition, ect, all rank higher in priority than everything the "study" claims is under-estimated by incels.
Strenght training for muscle definition + grooming will do a major difference. Alot more women will start doing those small physical contacts during conversations.
"But muh receeding hairline". It's not comming back. The treatments's hormonal side-effects are not worth the modest improvement. Shave your head on a regular basis and you'll tick the "groomed" box. Not as high as if you had nice hair, but way above unkept male pattern baldness.
Yes women's height standarts are retarded ( they want the top 5%, many the top 0.2% ), but they will lower that significantly if you stop overeating and build some arm muscle definition to make their fee-feels tingle.
Short women will claim the same height standarts as their female peers and they all want a mate taller than their friend's mates, but when she's with you, if you're 2+inches taller, her instinctual "male taller than me" vetting will be ticked.
Income standarts are to bypass their physical fitness and social adjustment standarts ( grooming and adjusted speech ). They will fuck a low-middle class Chad ( and some, usually black females, also fuck an unemployed, ill-mannered ghetto Tyrone ). If Chad demonstrate he's not just a wh0re-chasing gym enthousiast, she'll lower her income standarts for a potential hot dad-material.
Right. "Kindness, humour and loyalty" are qualities they might wish Chad had, but they'll still choose the good looking guy who lacks those qualities over an average looking guy who has them. Which means the incels (and the rest of the Manosphere) are correct that physical features trump everything. They're not overestimating or underestimating anything: They're accurately describing women's mate choices.
Also because "kindness, humor and loyalty" are the most socially acceptable and agreeable answers, no woman is going to say looks else she will look vapid or money because she'll look like a gold digger
Disclaimer, joke advice: Just lie. Women are short and can't do math. Unless you're a manlet or she's a giant, you're still going to tower over her. You're 6'3", and she can't prove otherwise.
This is a really good point. I also want to add that self-reporting is not the same as reality. A lot of self-reporting is aspirational, i.e., "I want to be attracted to men who are kind, funny, and loyal... so this interviewer will validate me."
It’s the “academic” reiteration of the female lie “just be yourself”.
I'd believe this study's recommendations if they managed to "fix" a cohort of incels by readjusting them to "kindness, humor, and loyalty." But we all know that would mean fixing women as well, so that'll never happen.
Hoe_math has pretty much ended these debates.
Hoe_math is a great youtube channel if you want to both understand and hate women in equal measure.
The only complaint I have about his videos is that while he goes into the 'how' portion of looks/personality/social maxing, he doesn't go into the why.
As in, 'All these examples of women are utterly horrible and why the hell should we even consider dealing with them?'
He kind of went over it in soft gesture toward 'we want functioning couples because I like society' in his earlier videos, but it's become a glaring problem as of late.
I don't think anyone is beating this drum as hard as it needs to be. We're staring down the barrel of complete civilizational collapse and no one seems to care in the slightest about correcting the problem.
People either think it isn't an issue, have their head in the sand, or don't have the stomach yet to start implementing any policy that might act as a course correction.
The first step to fixing any problem is first realizing you have a problem...
Hahahahahahahahaha
I am reminded of the guy who put a 7-figure bank account as his profile picture on Tinder, and met with great success.
HAHAH lmao lol rofl topkek
look at the photo of the researcher, does he look like someone you'd take advice from
It depends. He's probably an expert on picking soy products that produce the most testicular shrinkage.
Physiognomy checks reveal so much.
So... We've come full circle? Did they forget a lot of incels became that way because of things like being called "nice guys"?
Edit: this part tho
...
🤔
BBC doesn't link the study and rehashs its findings that I already read elsewhere some time ago.
BBC is perfect outlet to push the regime's narrative on this if you consider that BBC stands for the same thing that women spread their legs for.
here come THE ACADEMICS to tell us reality is wrong
These researchers are most of them leeches living off tax payer money only producing propaganda for those in power, they wont do studies on whether "women with penis" need mental health or not, or why empowered females are not demanding they are allowed to go fight the war in Ukraine and also dig trenches in the mud while drones fly above their head. I wonder why.