Talk:Scientific Blackpill

From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Instructions[edit source]

The format of each section to this page is intended to be:

  • Summary - simple narrative of how the study was done and what they found and its implications followed by an optional brief mentioning of related studies, concepts or topics.
  • Data/Figures - any important graphs or data to be included.
  • Quotes - a few key quotes from the article itself to prove to people we aren't making this shit up and its exactly what the scientists are saying.
  • References - links to the studies themselves

This format is intended to be very easy for people to follow. By separating these components, we also avoid outsider claims that we are "misinterpreting" or "manipulating" the studies for our purposes. Including a few simple quotes of the key points in its own section should fall within Fair Use, and this allows us to clearly make the point we want in the scientists' own words. No one can say we have "got it wrong".

The format is also intended to be, where possible, one article per header. This is again to avoid making it appear as if we are synthesizing and integrating information. Rather, it should appear that we are simply presenting studies as they are written with minimal interpretation or synthesis on our part. The exception would be if something is very minor or two minor studies prove the same point. Then combination is okay.

There exists a secondary page:

https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill_(Supplemental)

This can hold blackpills that are less critical or important but still perhaps interesting. As the primary page grows, it may be necessary to prune some less significant entries to keep it manageable in size. Those can be moved to the supplemental page.

At the present this is not generally necessary yet. I think we are fine as long as the page prints to 100 pages or less. Currently it's around 50 and will probably be near 70 by the time the current entries are filled out. Again I think that's fine.

If in your work, you come across something that's "interesting" though not earth-shakingly so, perhaps just add it to the supplemental page.

A collated list of Blackpill studies and links was produced here:

https://ethercalc.org/7urblrl7a31r

Which can be reviewed for other blackpills to add to the primary or supplemental page.

How do add a new article[edit source]

A new subsection only requires a level-3 headline, i.e. like this:

===Title goes here===

We generate a table of contents, navigation links and headline styles with a bot. If you want the TOC, links and headlines to be updated, then please ask on the Discord chat. There is no need to manually add or update the navbar DIV because it will also be added and updated automatically.

Each new talk page topic should be separated like this[edit source]

Remember to append comments on talk pages with your sig, which is done by entering four tildas in a row like this: ~~~~ without the nowiki tags at the end of your comment. If talk page markup is confusing see the markup form on talk pages from other sites like here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump Responses to comments are usually done with a colon at the beginning and a sig at the end like usual. William (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

like this. This is an example response William (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This is an example response to a response William (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This is an example response to a response to a response William (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This is another example response to the first response William (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources[edit source]

As a suggestion, sources should absolutely be kept to prestigious and reputable journals, articles, studies, etc. Non-reputable sources, even if it´s just one for a particular item, work as cherrypicking arguments for ignorant people. I suggest if there are any like these they be pushed to the supplemental part. --previously unsigned comment by User:Eth

This is generally a good heuristic, but there are other heuristics to determine the trustworthiness of a source. For example, Rudder's graphs were also published in his book so they were reviewed by himself and others. Which sources do you find particularly questionable? Bibipi (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The OP might be referring to sections such as this:(https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpillaction=edit&veswitched=1&oldid=33723#Incel_forums_are_disproportionately_populated_by_suicidal.2C_disabled.2C_autistic.2C_and_ethnic_men) that rely on internet polls with a dubious methodology and lack of typical statistical sampling techniques etc. I agree this is the typical argument a hostile interlocutor responds with when presented with such a body of evidence, so this is an important point. Altmark22 (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I think readers with such standards will distrust an article that uses "Penis", "Sluts" "ItsOver" as subsection titles anyhow. There is a trade-off between entertainment and signaling high research standards. I think we're striking the balance well currently as the overwhelming majority of sources is reputable. Bibipi (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
"As a suggestion, sources should absolutely be kept to prestigious and reputable journals, articles, studies, etc." Sounds like a good way to let the establishment serve as gatekeepers keeping out any evidence that would go against their dogma. 2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:C877:2538:C82D:5C7F 04:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

To do list[edit source]

  • Add height x partner count stats Bibipi (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Piercings distress: http://rediviva.sav.sk/55i4/143.pdf Bibipi (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • RageagainsttheTDL, the original author, intended to cap the length of this article at some point. Is that something you had in mind? It's a great article of course, but already hard on user RAM and server resources. William (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I am aware of that, but is it really an issue? The page is 4 MB (75% images) which is average for 2019: https://www.seoptimer.com/blog/webpage-size/ I just tested RAM usage, which seems to be less than 100 MB. It scrolls perfectly fine with my 2013 midrange smartphone. Bibipi (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hatfield 1989, Tappé 2013, and potentially Maticka 2010 inaccurately sourced[edit source]

"Overall, men liked or superliked 61.9% of their female profiles. On the other hand, women only liked 4.5% of the male profiles, a sex ratio that is fairly close to the sex ratio in agreement to unsolicited invitations to sex in non-online naturalistic settings (e.g. Clark & Hatfield 1989, Tappé 2013, Maticka-Tyndale 2010)." Tappé was not a naturalistic setting, and it had many different results. Also where in Maticka does it show that? I can't find the full text, but no summary mentions findings like Hatfield and Clark. Hatfield and Clark was 75% men-agreed,0% women-agreed for sex-only (you used apartment-asking stats, not sex-only stats), also Tappé was nowhere near the Hatfield study and also nowhere near 61%-male agreement in any of the three studies in Tappé. William (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC) tld;dr Tappé results are 25% men agreed, hatfield and clarke are 75% men agreed, cannot find maticka results yetWilliam (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

References should always go to the DOI[edit source]

DOI is a permalink, while magazines / journals / other media may shut down. DOI is the professional way to reference, and is updated so it always resolves.

Example:

- 'Very unattractive' women are more likely to be married than other women

Reference goes to: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X17302204?via%3Dihub

DOI is linked in that same page, it's: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2018.03.003

--previously unsigned comment by User:Eth

Excellent idea, but it would require a bit of work. Will hopefully be done eventually. Was originally going to suggest this myself, but forgot. Altmark22 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not straight forward to convert URLs to DOIs: https://www.crossref.org/blog/urls-and-dois-a-complicated-relationship/ But I do not think this is a huge issue as it is unlikely for these URLs to become invalid anytime soon and if they do they can easily be retrieved by authors, year and title. More worried about our sloppy refs elsewhere in the Wiki where we only cite URLs. Bibipi (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Would also be a good idea to start replacing links to key non peer-reviewed news articles and the like with archived links. They are at a much higher risk for link rot than links to sciencedirect and so on. Some of those sections have very valuable info. Altmark22 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 23:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Salon source[edit source]

Does not say men need to be 5 8 to be a sperm donor. https://www.salon.com/2011/09/25/sex_cells_interview/ Says "For example, egg donors must conform to rigorous height and weight ratios, but sperm donors do not"William (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The article clearly states "Many of the screening standards are driven by social concerns. Sperm banks usually require that men be at least 5 feet 8 inches tall. Egg agencies don't set height minimums. Most sperm banks require that men be enrolled in college or have a college degree. Egg agencies do not." So there is generally a clear height and stealthy iq minimum requirement for male sperm donors (in the form of a requirement for a college degree, would be better if they admitted they were practicing soft eugenics and just perform a quick iq test on the applicants, imo, lol), but no such requirement for weight. Altmark22 (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Will look for more robust sources though, as I don't really trust Salon as a very reliable source for this. Might instead cite the author who is being interviewed by them directly. Altmark22 (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't find research[edit source]

I can't find the research being discussed in the source of "70% of women would avoid someone solely based on their looks, compared to 31% of men"

https://thetab.com/uk/2016/11/16/women-shallow-men-comes-judging-people-looks-says-research-25773

The site talks about a survey of 2,000 people, it would be nice to see it directly if anyone can find the data, I couldn't.

I looked myself and couldn't find a primary source, it appears the original source was the outlet quoted in the article or another UK tabloid: (https://www.dailystar.co.uk/love-sex/what-women-look-man-first-17077981).

The articles were all claiming to quote a PR representative of the European skincare brand Remescar. All certainly highly dubious sources indeed, so the article may have to be moved to the supplemental page, or even removed entirely, if a primary source can't be found. Altmark22 (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the most detailed article on this that I could find: https://highstreetgent.com/2017/06/09/the-tables-have-turned-when-it-comes-to-dating/amp/
I vote for leaving it in. It’s not an implausible result and serves as a good anecdote. If we do not leave it in it could be mentioned in the section about attractiveness ratings. Bibipi (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Studies on height[edit source]

Why are several studies that show height has a modest, rather than significant, impact on # sex partners excluded?

Seems dishonest.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704915604563 (finding limited variation)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546926/#:~:text=Although%20all%20known%20preference%20rules,when%20compared%20to%20random%20mating.&text=Men%20and%20women%2C%20for%20instance,differences%20than%20men%20%5B11%5D. (finding modest effect)

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/17/6925 (finding that SWR accounted for 80% of variation in body attractiveness and height only 5%)

--previously unsigned comment by 70.165.14.98

Yes, I am aware of that data. Ultimately, the effects for lifetime partner count seem quite weak for any particular metric you'd like to examine on the level of large samples (apart from an autism diagnoses, which seems to have an extreme effect in terms of lifetime partner count and adult virginity prevalence, though we lack large datasets for this, and there is likely a selection bias for high-functioning autists in particular, where the most socially impaired are far more likely to receive a diagnosis). Lifetime partner count may not be as good a metric to go by as relationship quality, partner quality etc, all things that are more subjective and difficult to measure. There also may be a lag where increasing hypergamy and female choosiness due to dating apps may not show up in the data as of yet. The mean age of the large MSNBC dataset in that second study you linked does seem to skewing a bit older (mean age of 37 (SD = 11). The article mainly has studies measuring desirability, but desirability does not always perfectly translate to mate choices, as the Stulp (2013) article you linked stated. The third study you linked is already in the article. We also mentioned the male-taller norm and the 'male not too taller norm' in the article. Overall, I think the article is quite balanced.Altmark22 (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


Um, the last study is barely mentioned. It's definitely not mentioned in the 'height' section, where is where the conclusion makes the most sense: height AND penis size are RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT compared to SWR.

Further, the first study also shows the rate of extra-pair copulation --- which should be a measure of attractiveness (getting casual sex without commitment outside of a relationship should be an option only available to more attractive people). It pegs it as 20% of the male under 5'5 population and at around 30% for everyone else. Which shows an impact from height but not that much.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01019-2

This is a twin study showing that non-shared unique environmental experience plays more of a role in forming perceptions of attractiveness than 'genetics' or 'biology.'