Good genes hypothesis

From Incel Wiki
(Redirected from Bad genetics)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The good genes hypothesis is a model of sexual selection that claims mate preferences for particular traits, e.g. for beauty, have evolved because these traits are reliable indicators of overall health and other 'good' genetic traits,[1] Thus, the theory claims, mate choice is not evolutionarily maladaptive or neutral, but beneficial and eugenic in terms population viability.

Good geners vs Fisherians[edit | edit source]

An alternative (but not necessarily contradicting[2]) model of sexual selection and mate choice is Fisherian selection. This theory suggests the traits animals select for are mere ornament and that the ornament may even reduce population viability and thus mate choice adaptations may be maladaptive.

Research into these models of sexual selection has given rise to rivalry between Good Geners and Fisherians in academica.[3][4][5] Cronin (1991) called this debate the 'sexy sons' vs 'healthy offspring' debate.[6]

Incelosphere[edit | edit source]

Various forum users have different stances on the good genes hypothesis. Members of generally promote the theory, knowingly or unknowingly. Fschmidt's incel forums define themselves as against the hypothesis (e.g. /r/nonmorons) and instead lean more toward strong Fisherian hypotheses and they think incels are instead 'genetically superior' because they think humanity is in a Fisherian runaway. People from Fschmidt and Caamibs circle generally dislike other forums for falsely giving the impression that incels are 'low-IQ'. also leaned toward Fisherian hypotheses. Older forums such as IncelSupport generally considered dating effort the most consistent predictor of mating success instead of sexiness or 'good genes', a view wiki editor Altmark22 also holds.

Contemporary good geners[edit | edit source]

Many blackpillers promote good genes, whether knowingly or not. They see incels as subhumans or genetically inferior because of being rejected by women, from which some derive social Darwinist conclusions that incels should commit suicide as that's better for the gene pool.

Besides blackpillers, the good genes hypothesis is also promoted by e.g. Canadian professor Jordan Peterson as well as by modern (but not traditional) eugenicists and racialists such as Edward Dutton. However, Peterson is not Good Gener in all regards, e.g. he claimed women's inclination for mating with highly dominant men would be bad for society.[7]

Good geners go looking for reasons why female preferences might indicate 'good genes', for example by saying women prefer symmetrical faces because symmetry is an honest signal of developmental stability, low mutational load and hence overall genetic fitness. Further, developmental stability is thought to be necessary for overall health. Taken together, one would expect that symmetry and health are correlated in the overall population. However, several studies did not find such a link:

Contrary to the hypothesis that symmetry cues health, the largest study of facial asymmetry and health to date found no relationship between these variables. Researchers used data from a British cohort study of 4732 individuals and found that facial symmetry at age 15 was unrelated to longitudinal measures of childhood health, including measures of the proportion of childhood years spent unwell, average number of illness symptoms per year, and total number of infections.[8]

Even though facial attractiveness is correlated with health (see beauty), and even though bad genes may be visible in extreme cases such as disfigurement, certain genetic conditions such as down syndrome, these kinds of links appear to be very weak overall.

Good geners tend to contradict themselves though by also implying that incels are overlooked irrationally by women, unless they are only speaking of specific incels or are ok with what they would think would be dysgenics if incels were not overlooked.

Some, but not all, feminists also promote the good genes hypothesis by insinuating that sexual selection outside of patriarchy is a moral and rational sorter of good and bad genes, including a feminist who held a prominent position in the FBI.[9][10] Feminists more often take issue with Darwin in general though,[11] so these overtures are infrequent and often passively expressed in arguments, if at all.

A minority of journalists, such as Brian Clarey signal explicit belief in the good genes hypothesis.

Homocel hypothesis[edit | edit source]

The prevalence of outright Chad worship among some blackpilled incels appears to have a homoerotic undertone, reminding of the homocel hypothesis. Chad worship may ultimately be driven by a desire to get sodomized by Chad after telling him how great his genes are in order to get some crumbs in return.

References[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]



Biological essentialismEugenicsEnvironmentalismTraditionalist conservatismFatalismJust-world fallacyBlackpillScientific BlackpillScientific Blackpill (Supplemental)Behavioral sinkHypergamyMatthew effectBeautyNeotenyFisherian runawayGood genes hypothesisDominance hierarchyIntrasexual competitionJ. D. UnwinSexual sublimationFemale subordinationSexual modestySexual MarxismOnline datingPhysiognomyPersonalityEvolutionary psychologySub8 theory


SlutMonogamyMarriageArranged marriagePolygynyPolyandry



BlackpillRacepillHeightpillDickpillBaldpillShitpillDogpillBirdpillTeen love pill

It's over

Cope or ropeCopeRopingLay down and rotInbreeding depressionOutbreeding depressionMutationFeminizationSocial epistasis amplification modelAtavismReproductive successDemographics of inceldomTeleiophilic delaySampo generationCauses of celibacyAdverse effects of inceldomBrain rotEvolutionary mismatchBehavioral sinkRegression toward the meanPeaked in high schoolFOMOSexual envyNo x for your yJaw is law