Blackpill: Difference between revisions

</li>

</ul>

<ul><li>

'''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>