Scientific Blackpill (Summary)
This page attempts to boil down insights from the Scientific Blackpill into a short, but comprehensive overview.
Looks matter[edit | edit source]
Humans universally prefer good looking people as partners and agree fairly consistently about who is attractive. They agree more about the looks of very unattractive individuals, hence the physical assessments of ugly people tend to be even more uniform. Even babies prefer attractive faces over non-attractive ones long before culture could have affected their preferences, and even blind men have the same preferences about women's hourglass shape as sighted men. Also, among widely different cultures, universal standards for beauty exist, one of which is an inborn preference for tall men among women. Physical appearance plays a significant role in occupational prestige and its impact is constant over a person's employment history. What is more, people automatically associate physical attractiveness with various positive traits to an unreasonable degree, e.g. a good personality, humor, morality, intelligence and health (halo effect), especially initially. This bias may even affect how parents treat their offspring. In contrast to most peoples' intuitive expectations, looks are only weakly related to health and even less with morality or cognitive ability, which suggests beauty and symmetry evolved only because they look good, not because they indicate any other positive traits. Taken together, these research findings suggest that human preferences for physical appearance are largely innate, cross-cultural, and probably result from aesthetic sexual selection and runaway selection, rather than from cultural evolution or even social construction.
Women care about looks[edit | edit source]
Ratings of physical attractiveness predict romantic interest to the same extent in women and men as a large meta study (N = 29,414) concluded. What is more, women appear to place a minimum threshold of physical attractiveness on potential mates before they are willing to consider anything else about them. Moreover, women lie about the importance of physical attractiveness. Women also rate looks more harshly than men. They rate 80% of men as below 5/10 with a skewed distribution both in online dating and non-online settings, whereas men rate women normally. The common objection to women being shallow about looks in online dating is that in real life women would care about personality and that one could easily make up for bad looks with a good personality. Sadly, various studies showed looks are the only factor to predict initial romantic interest, and they are only slightly less important in long-term dating. Looks are highly heritable as well, so even though lifestyle choices like bodybuilding can improve looks, much of it is predetermined, with more than half of an individual's lean mass being hereditary, and an individual's response to resistance training is significantly determined by genetics. The effects of plastic surgery on physical attractiveness are also small. Furthermore, men's attractiveness and masculinity predict a woman's chance of orgasm. While not as drastic as women's harsh ratings of men's looks suggest, there is indeed evidence of women dating up in looks, e.g. unattractive men were less likely married in a Spanish study (15% less likely married than attractive men). Conversely, very unattractive women were more likely being married than other women, providing some evidence for Juggernaut law. The more attractive the male partner, the sooner women allow for sex to occur and the less likely they would prefer a condom, providing evidence for the sexy son hypothesis.
Why women are seen as less shallow[edit | edit source]
The misconception that women would not care about looks may stem from political correctness as the Norwegian sexologist Kristin Spitznogle suggested. It may also stem from the women-are-wonderful effect in that people are less likely to ascribe negative attributes, such as shallowness, to women. Or it may result from the fact that men prefer young and fertile women much more than vice-versa, and youth is associated with beauty. In fact, maintaining a youthful appearance as long as possible into adulthood is more important for reproductive success for women than it is for men. One study suggested women's mate choices do not matter much at all, rather they are mostly chosen by male competition. But if given the choice, as in online dating, women appear to express superficial aesthetical preference to the same degree as men. Some attractive women also date down in looks when settling for a proficient provider male or a physically unattractive and old sugar daddy, which occurs rarely in case of males as men tend to not be less interested in women's resources and status than vice-versa, and women are much less interested in young men. Further, it requires a much higher level of looks for women to copulate with a complete stranger only because of his looks than vice-versa, so this simply happens rarely. The notion that women (should) care less about looks, may also be a remnant of monogamy norms, forcing women to marry men regardless of their looks, or of individualistic norms, encouraging people to value inner values over superficiality, which women may virtue signal more about, being more agreeable but also more subject to behavioral norms all around due to their fiercer intrasexual competition and a cross-culturally observable interest to controlling women's behavior, presumably largely for paternity assurance. Another reason may be that women compete much more in terms of looks and gossiping about one another's looks, which may explain why men seem to be much worse at accurately judging their own looks. Feminists may construe women's excessive intrasexual competition in looks as imposed by the patriarchy as a result of men strongly caring about looks, when in truth both men and women care about looks, but women have an extra incentive to conspicuously advertise themselves in order to attract high status men, having a more passive sexuality all around. This may also explain women's harsher ratings resulting from an intuition to avoid initiating romance and giving men complements. Initiation would make it more difficult to reject a male as the initiator bears more responsibility.
Looks are not everything[edit | edit source]
That being said about the importance of looks, there exists some anecdotal evidence that many incels are not particularly ugly, with some even being physically attractive. There may be a selection bias here insofar as only the better looking incels are expected to expose themself to public scrutiny by posting images of themselves on the internet.
Correlations between looks, height, income, masculinity and sex partner count are, however, only weak, meaning looks are unlikely to explain most inceldom except, perhaps, for extremely unattractive individuals. Still, looks likely make life easier and open doors. Correlations regarding looks and copulation opportunities are much higher than for partner counts. E.g. on OkCupid, rated attractiveness and incoming messages were correlated at around r = .5 (see graph). The same effect can be found with regards to men's social status, where the correlations with copulation opportunities are strong, but weak for partner counts. The same may apply to e.g. height.
It should also be noted that men are seemingly bad at accurately judging the own looks. Demographics of inceldom suggest that there is a trend toward less sex for both men and women have less sex, which is accompanied by a trend towards later marriage, i.e. less strictly enforced monogamy.
In a study of Reddit users answering why they are single (not necessarily incels) on AskReddit, most answered they were physically unattractive, with about half as many mentioning obesity (see causes of inceldom). Looks were also after shyness (i.e. low status), mentioned as the second common barrier in the Donnelly study with 47% of virgins and 56% of singles mentioning this factor, compared to only 9% of partnered people, however with a small sample size.
Matching hypothesis[edit | edit source]
The matching hypothesis states that people naturally prefer potential partners who are about as attractive as themselves. However, a number of studies suggest otherwise, namely that only the looks of the potential partner predicts romantic interest, not how similar they are in looks. Data from online dating suggests that men and women alike aim a bit higher than their own desirability, with few aiming excessively high. This may imply that without enforced monogamy, both men and women will lack pressure to settle for the "art of the possible," thus people remain single. This may be evidence of exaggerated preferences for ornament adversely affecting fitness.
Women are choosy[edit | edit source]
Choosiness and passivity[edit | edit source]
By virtue of a having a womb, women have more parental investment, so they evolved to be more choosy maters. A result of this is that men's demand for sex is insatiable and men are doomed to be horny. Even in stable relationships men masturbate four times as often as women. Men much more readily agree to unsolicited invitations to sex, they less likely regret casual sex and more often regret missing out on sex. Additionally, there are large sex differences in sexual disgust. Women are more coy (reluctant to have sex) across the globe and flirting universally consists of the man impressing the woman. Women overwhelmingly prefer being asked out on dates vs doing the asking, possibly to avoid responsibility as mentioned above. Women's coyness and reluctance to initiate anything can also be seen on Tinder where women have on average 20 times as many matches as men. The top 10% of men get 58% of women's likes in online dating, and even in online dating platforms with an even sex ratio, like OkCupid one finds women receive around 8 times as many messages.
Having greater parental investment, women also evolved to be heavily dependent on men's resources. This makes women extra choosy as the man not only needs to be attractive, but also a good provider.
Principle of least interest[edit | edit source]
As a result of being more choosy, women having much more options to choose from as there are overall more men desiring women than vice-versa. Men and women aim up to the same extent and few aim unrealistically high, but since men have fewer alternative mating options available to them, they more readily make compromises and eventually date down, particularly if they experience frequent rejection. In economics, this is called the principle of least interest as the party that has the least interest (women in this case) get to decide on the conditions of the contract as the other party more readily compromises having fewer alternative options of as high value to them. Making compromises means dating down, so women get to date up (hypergamy).
Bodyguard hypothesis and polygamy[edit | edit source]
Being physically weaker, women are believed to choose the most dominant male available to be protected from contenders (bodyguard hypothesis) and to get access to high quality foods. Much of what distinguishes the male phenotype points to an evolutionary history of contest competition between men for mating opportunities. Especially when the most dominant males monopolize most of the mating opportunities (polygyny), it implies women tend to date up overall and there is a surplus of men at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy without any sex. In fact, female hypergamy agrees with evidence that humans are a moderately polygamous species. In the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, and only 186 were fully monogamous. Women may have reproduced twice as often as men throughout history as a result. Women prefer partnered men over single men which may be related to women's preference for high status, but may also be an adaption of women living in harems. Men do not show such preferences.
Women love high status men[edit | edit source]
Women's preference for high status men ties into the hierarchical organization in humans. Cross-culturally, men do not care about women's socioeconomic status and achievements, but women care a lot about men's. Women with higher income tend to have a preference for men with even higher income, while men have no such preferences. Women are 1,000 times choosier about a potential partner's wealth, and they like online dating profiles with a higher education status than their own twice as often, and men with lower status half as often as men with equal status. Women are twice as likely to marry up in income when they marry down in education and women are prone to instability when they are more attractive than their male partner. In the Swedish top 1% income bracket, 70% of men, but only 30% of women, are partnered with someone in the bottom 90% bracket. What is more, there is evidence of women refusing to date down in educational status or marry men with lower income than their own, and preferring to remain single when they cannot date up or across the social hierarchy. These findings suggest, as women are surpassing men in socioeconomic status, more men are becoming sexually unattractive. They also suggest, welfare and affirmative action for women, as well as decreasing economic growth and increasing economic inequality, tend to reduce the sexual market value of lots of men because provision of resources are men's main goods to sell in the sex market. Women's sexual market value is, on the other hand, rather determined by their looks and their reputation of faithfulness (things that men desire).
A rise of female hypergamy[edit | edit source]
There is evidence that hypergamy has intensified in the recent years. The top 5-20% of men (i.e. "Chads") are now having more sex than before the sexual revolution. In addition, women's infidelity rate has increased, and for people aged 20 to 30, it is now close to men's infidelity rate, and overall also only a bit lower than men's, which is curious in light that women are much more likely to tolerate it (presumably because men can't have babies and maybe also an adaptation of harem wives). The more men date down, and the more partners are available e.g. through online dating and social networks, the choosier women become as they can choose from more options leading them to wait for the perceived opportunity for a partner of very high mate value. This results in men dating down even more out of frustration, possibly aggravating the situation and forming a positive feedback loop in male sexual frustration and female choosiness.
Female fickleness[edit | edit source]
Women get bored with relationships and sex much sooner than men which may be a result of women being more choosy and more readily finding flaws in their partners and of a greater anxiety not having made the best partner choice possible. Some evidence suggest women do not lose their interest as quickly when living separately. As a result, women are more likely to initiate divorce across a wide variety of cultures (e.g. 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women in the U.S.) and have been in the U.S. at least since year 1862.
In summary, women's hypergamous love style is more opportunistic and transactional than men's, driven by a hardwired expectation to be provided for. Women are loved nearly unconditionally, men are not. Men display a lot more grief when widowed, whereas women more likely simply move on. Social expectations for men are overall higher, hence femcels are rarer than male incels and more likely volcels. Since women have more dating options available to them, they tend to have much more power over relationships than they like to admit (Briffault's law). There exists a strong women-are-wonderful bias in that women are perceived more favorably than men in all kinds of regards which additionally suggests men are overall held to higher standards.
Women prefer strong men[edit | edit source]
Contrary to mainstream dating advice that women would like nice men, many women, if not most women, are actually attracted to dominant and strong men, both physically dominant (a bulky appearance) and in character (confidence, stoicism). In one study, not a single woman out of 160 significantly preferred the physically weaker man when given the choice between a strong and a weak one. Women tend to prefer callous and psychopathic men, possibly because these act as costly signals of high status. Women's desire to be overpowered may also be related to the female testing the the man. Further, most women have rape fantasies and much of women's erotic literature, which accounts for 40% of mass paperback sales in the United States, revolves around taming a dominant, ruthless male. Aggressive men with low inhibition levels (e.g. ADHD, criminals, bullies) have substantially more sex partners and offspring. In naturalistic settings (i.e. rating a video interaction between a male and a female), it has been shown that women generally rate the men with higher levels of psychopathy as more attractive, controlling for physical attractiveness. A meta-analysis consisting of 53 studies found consistent evidence for a link between deliquency, drug use and greater sexual success in males. Social status predicts 62% of the variance in men's mating opportunities. These preferences are highly related to hypergamy and are also thought to be explained by the bodyguard hypothesis.
Women are much more passive maters than men, e.g. the vast majority of them prefers being asked out on a date vs doing the asking, i.e. they prefer men taking on the dominant/active role. For men, a relationship is a project, for women it is a choice. Women tend to dislike exclusively nice men and they dislike vegetarians, finding them less masculine. Health is a stronger predictor of marriage satisfaction for males than for females, suggesting that it is more important for males to be confident and dependable (stoic). Men might have been selected to hide/deny their illnesses and limitations (stoicism), possibly contributing to their earlier mortality. For example, men with a mental condition frequently have less romantic success than women with the same condition. Mental conditions that are especially detrimental are schizophrenia and autism. There is evidence that these mental disorders can also be accurately detected even in photographic first impressions, somewhat independent of the effect of physical attractiveness on positive judgement, suggesting it is difficult to conceal these disorders from observers.
Among blackpillers there is disagreement about whether dominance and aggression are actually conductive to dating success (science does suggest so, though likely only past some minimal standard of looks), some claiming that only looks truly matter. Better looks may allow one to act in a dominant manner to some extent, e.g. looks are correlated with extroversion (r = .2) and attractive men are more readily forgiven for deviant behavior, in particular women much more readily call an unattractive man's intrusive or inappropriate behavior creepy.
Women are teenagers[edit | edit source]
Women have been described as childish and "incomplete" throughout human history. Women do not only look a lot more childlike than men (neoteny), but they also behave in a more childlike manner. For example, women's average emotional and crying behavior does not mature beyond the behavior of mid teen girls. Adult women cry 4 times as often as men on average, and when they cry they also cry more intensely. 65% of women say they would likely cry when receiving criticism, but only 25% of men say the same. Notably, this has not changed with the sexual revolution. Conversely, men have evolved for combat, hunting and dominance competition and as a result, nearly all men are stronger than nearly all women. Women were historically predominantly involved in cooking and they never dominated men. Women's gossiping has been a concern throughout history being twice as talkative as men in small groups, and women gossip much more about close friends and acquaintances than men, particularly about looks, are very mean to one another, are significantly less cooperative towards each other than men are towards other men, and they are are more often described as difficult or demanding (even though one would expect the reverse due to the overall prevalent women-are-wonderful stereotype, implying women must be even worse than people like to admit). Women also take significantly longer to resolve same-sex conflicts. Female gossip is thought to be based in women's intrasexual competition in attracting high status males by their looks and reputation of faithfulness (since men and their mothers want certainty the offspring they invest in is their's which is thought to have motivated restrictions on women's sexual behavior throughout history). Men are also believed to be less gossipy and more cooperative because they can achieve more effective resource extraction by cooperating, something women do not need to worry much about.
Like children, women lie a lot, often presumably to avoid conflict (likely related women's higher agreeableness which is a childish/submissive trait in itself), but also to avoid negative gossip from other women, and because they are rarely held accountable (see female hypoagency). For example, women underreport their number of past sex partners and lie more about the extent they care about looks. Like children, women stick to themselves, e.g. women place 4.5 times greater importance on themselves as a group than men do (related to women-are-wonderful effect). Women make up the majority of victims of workplace mass hysteria which indicates they are more prone to hysterical group think and conformance. Just like children, women want to be treated special, e.g. even feminist women prefer men who take care for them. And adding to the childish and solipsistic contradictions, even feminist women have as much rape fantasies as other women. 23–33% of women have admitted to having gone on dates merely to get free food. Women interrupt each other more than men interrupt women. Women more often initiate intimate partner violence than men. Women's self-sexualization, high beauty standards (sometimes leading to eating disorders) and historically restricted female sexuality seem stem from female intrasexual competition more than from the patriarchy. The fact that seemingly the majority of women fails to recognize, let alone oppose the immense gynocentric contradictions and falsehoods in media narratives (e.g. about harassment, rape, the gender pay gap, the patriarchy and suppression of female sexuality), is indicative of a childish solipsism and lack of self-awareness, qualities that have been observed in women cross-culturally throughout history (see timeless quotes on women). The entire idea of "sexism" appears to be fueled by a childish sense of retaliation, an urge to be taken care of and seemingly to provoke a reaction.
Women may have been selected to be childish and submissive as men and also their parents prefer women who's reproductive behavior is easy to control in order to minimize the risk of cuckoldry and ruining the family's and man's reputation. Further, for the purpose of paternity assurance, it makes sense for men to monopolize a woman at young age; something that women do not need to worry about. Taken together, this may explain men's highly common sexual attraction to fertile underage girls.
Inceldom is harmful[edit | edit source]
Sexlessness, singledom and loneliness are on the rise and likely have a number of adverse effects, though for now most results are only correlational. Sex is regarded as the most pleasurable activity of all (see the figure on the right). The literature clearly documents that marriage has a protective effect, especially for men's health. In one report, loneliness was estimated to be as lethal as smoking 15 cigarettes per day. Both excessive smokers and lonely people are 50% more likely to die prematurely than those with healthy social relationships and non-smokers respectively. Sexlessness negatively affects both men and women. What is more, the overall happiness of a country may positively affect productivity and the economy. In fact, a Chinese company employed women to cheer up their male workers to great effect. Populations with more unmarried men due to polygamy have greater violent conflict potential. Being in a relationship may increase men's social status, in particular among women who prefer partnered men over singles. Sexual activity was related to greater well-being the next day, and warm partner contact lowers cardiovascular stress.
Dual mating strategy[edit | edit source]
Dual-mating refers to a hypothesis that women have an innate mating strategy that involves two mates: A primary partner as long-term support (a beta cuckold), and secondary sex partner of higher mate quality in order to get "good genes" for the offspring (an alpha male) by cheating on or cuckolding their primary partner. In recent times, this hypothesis was used to explain the rise of female infidelity, as well as seemingly higher rates of cuckoldry and also seemingly increasing rates of beta men providing for single mothers in their 30s or 40s after they had obtained a child from a more desirable male, which was dubbed alpha fucks, beta bucks (AF/BB), in the manosphere. More recently, however, the dual-mating strategy fell in disfavor in the scientific community for a number of reasons. One reason is that non-paternity rates are globally very low, even though contraceptives and relaxed marital norms should make AF/BB occur much more often if it was natural. E.g. only 3% of all children in the U.S. live with a step father. Also in recent European history, non-paternity rates were not high. Non-paternity rates are sometimes high in hunter-gatherers though and the men in such societies also often do not invest much in their offspring beyond childhood. One can also regard beta tax payers as "virtual provider mates", paying for single mothers who, presumably, often copulated with men way above their league and thus ended up being pumped and dumped, so there is some truth to dual mating.
References[edit | edit source]
- Di Dio C, Macaluso E, Rizzolatti G (2007) The Golden Beauty: Brain Response to Classical and Renaissance Sculptures. PLoS ONE2(11): e1201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201
- Psychological Bulletin 2000, Vol. 126, No. 3, 390-423 DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.126.3.390
- Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. 2017. Pair Formation, Courtship, Sexual Love. In: Human Ethology. Rougtledge. [Excerpt]
- Gareth Tyson, Vasile C. Perta, Hamed Haddadi, Michael C. Seto, Queen Mary University of London, Sapienza University of Rome, Royal Ottawa Health Care Group A First Look at User Activity on Tinder
- Baumeister, R.F. and Tice, D.M., 2001. The social dimension of sex. Allyn & Bacon.
- Harper CR, Dittus PJ, Leichliter JS, Aral, SO. Changes in the Distribution of Sex Partners in the United States: 2002 to 2011–2013. Sexually Transmitted Diseases: February 2017 - Volume 44 - Issue 2 - p 96–100. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000554
- https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2013/02/The-Mate-Switching-Hypothesis-FINAL-PUBLISHED-2017.pdf (see Section 6)