Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Blackpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Criticism
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
'''Too much focus on looks''': Superficial traits like looks, height, income, masculinity are at best weak predictors of sexual success as measured by e.g. partner count,<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-006-9075-x</ref><ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474704915604563</ref><ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2011.587758</ref><ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Across_91_studies.2C_bodily_masculinity_was_predictive_of_men.27s_mating_and_reproductive_success</ref> with muscularity being the only consistent (but also weak) predictor of lifetime sexual success among a variety of superficial variables,<ref>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.06.980896v3</ref> so looks are unlikely to explain most inceldom except for extremely physically unattractive individuals perhaps. Men are also seemingly bad at accurately judging their own looks.<ref>[https://doi.org/10.2307/3033724 http://doi.org/10.2307/3033724]</ref><ref>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631</ref> However, looks ''do'' matter somewhat in terms of {{W|assortative mating}} as attractiveness ratings within couples (both short and long-term) are moderately correlated (r = .4), meaning very attractive people rarely mate with very unattractive ones.<ref>https://dor.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.2.226</ref> | '''Too much focus on looks''': Superficial traits like looks, height, income, masculinity are at best weak predictors of sexual success as measured by e.g. partner count,<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-006-9075-x</ref><ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474704915604563</ref><ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2011.587758</ref><ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Across_91_studies.2C_bodily_masculinity_was_predictive_of_men.27s_mating_and_reproductive_success</ref> with muscularity being the only consistent (but also weak) predictor of lifetime sexual success among a variety of superficial variables,<ref>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.06.980896v3</ref> so looks are unlikely to explain most inceldom except for extremely physically unattractive individuals perhaps. Men are also seemingly bad at accurately judging their own looks.<ref>[https://doi.org/10.2307/3033724 http://doi.org/10.2307/3033724]</ref><ref>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631</ref> However, looks ''do'' matter somewhat in terms of {{W|assortative mating}} as attractiveness ratings within couples (both short and long-term) are moderately correlated (r = .4), meaning very attractive people rarely mate with very unattractive ones.<ref>https://dor.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.2.226</ref> | ||
</li><li> | </li><li> | ||
'''Cultural factors overlooked''': [[Demographics of inceldom]] suggest that there is a trend toward less sex for both men and women, which is accompanied by a decline in risky behavior as well as a trend towards later marriage, i.e. less strictly enforced monogamy. Historical evidence suggests that marriage is a human universal,<ref>http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/2890/brownlisthumanuniversals.pdf</ref> with most societies primarily practicing [[arranged marriage]], so the complete absence of marriage may pose an [[evolutionary mismatch]], resulting in inceldom, in addition to casual sex becoming less common as well. Further, [[environmentalism|environmentalist]] fears about overconsumption and overpopulation are discouraging procreation in Western nations.<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11111-021-00379-5</ref> | '''Cultural factors overlooked''': [[Demographics of inceldom]] suggest that there is a trend toward less sex for both men [[femcel|and women]], which is accompanied by a decline in risky behavior as well as a trend towards later marriage, i.e. less strictly enforced monogamy. Historical evidence suggests that marriage is a human universal,<ref>http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/2890/brownlisthumanuniversals.pdf</ref> with most societies primarily practicing [[arranged marriage]], so the complete absence of marriage may pose an [[evolutionary mismatch]], resulting in inceldom, in addition to casual sex becoming less common as well. Further, [[environmentalism|environmentalist]] fears about overconsumption and overpopulation are discouraging procreation in Western nations.<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11111-021-00379-5</ref> | ||
</li><li> | </li><li> | ||
'''Too little focus on economics''': Economic causes of inceldom like wealth inequality and economic stagnation come up short. Costs of living increasing discourage family formation.<ref>https://ablogaboutincels.com/2019/12/21/expectations/</ref> Millennials have only a fraction of the worth babyboomers had at the same age.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ZQ2CUAWWCJD3XHI4B6PDJIURN4.png&w=767 [[https://archive.fo/wip/z8CaW Archive.is]]</ref> Many blackpillers only focus on hypergamy as an economic issue, but the effect sizes of women dating up are typically pretty small (see [[hypergamy]]). | '''Too little focus on economics''': Economic causes of inceldom like wealth inequality and economic stagnation come up short. Costs of living increasing discourage family formation.<ref>https://ablogaboutincels.com/2019/12/21/expectations/</ref> Millennials have only a fraction of the worth babyboomers had at the same age.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ZQ2CUAWWCJD3XHI4B6PDJIURN4.png&w=767 [[https://archive.fo/wip/z8CaW Archive.is]]</ref> Many blackpillers only focus on hypergamy as an economic issue, but the effect sizes of women dating up are typically pretty small (see [[hypergamy]]). | ||