Incels are invested in complaining because their problems are unfixable, so there's not much else left to do.
Incels are, by and large, correct about many inconvenient facts: Female attraction comes down mostly to immutable traits. Female hypergamy is real. Females are biologically driven to deception and dishonesty when they are physical…
Incels are invested in complaining because their problems are unfixable, so there's not much else left to do.
Incels are, by and large, correct about many inconvenient facts: Female attraction comes down mostly to immutable traits. Female hypergamy is real. Females are biologically driven to deception and dishonesty when they are physically weaker.
The biological imperative of the female is to *select the best male*. In every sexual market place, there is a set of males for which no female will develop attraction. These males would naturally be discarded from the gene pool, improving the survival rate of the species.
Human societies have recognized this as an issue in regards to social cohesion. This is why many cultures - including our own - forced marriage upon its females. In modern times, as the females get "liberated" from these pressures, that selection pressure comes out in full force. As a result, a bigger share of males end up in the "discard" pile, and they're understandably resentful about it.
Given that marriage is a near-universal in contemporary human societies, one might speculate that it is necessary for long-term survival of a population.
In other words, societies that spontaneously abolished marriage may have existed well before "modern enlightenment", but have disappeared with no one left to tell the tale.
I always fail to see what exactly marriage brings to the table besides legal ramifications. My view is that marriage is a constraint which is a net loss for the majority of couples where the relationship is usually either one of them or both just settling for the other. And if you are in the other corner where couples honestly bond which each because it feels right in almost any situation, then this silly procedure doesn't really matter.
Consider the survival aspect of it: When rejecting a male, it is unwise to tell the truth, because broken hearts can lead to broken skulls. Many females who exhibited such "honesty" would have been removed from the gene pool early on.
A quick Google Scholar search shows *actual* scientific evidence to the contrary [1, 2] or even supporting the reverse hypothesis of men lying more [3, 4].
Your empirical evidence is a 2000 person poll done by an insurance company. That is not the scientific rigor one would expect for such a definitive conclusion.
Your hypothesis is also...just a hypothesis that sounds true to you I guess...?
You make all these absurd absolute statements about how women behave as if they are a monolithic group. I know plenty of married men and they aren't all "the best male".
Almost all of what you are saying is only trueish at best, and really has a lot more to do with casual hookups than real relationships.
If you don't want to accept the hypothesis, ask for data. If it's data you don't agree with, attack the method. If the method is rigorous, point to outliers. If you don't *want* to believe something, you don't have to.
I don't need you to believe that the hypothesis is true. I can't prove it to be true. However, I'd like you to consider that all the things you believe by default, the things you *want* to believe - do they all have double-blind placebo controlled randomized trial to support them?
Of course I'm making a generalization. Any statement about anything is, at some level, a generalization. True-ish is often as good as it gets.
Your observations don't necessarily contradict what I'm saying. The "best male you can get" isn't necessarily "the best male". Getting married also isn't necessarily about mutual attraction.
Your data was terrible. I don't even think you could ever adequately prove such a vague thesis as "women are more deceptive than men". It honestly sounds more like a religious belief than some kind of scientific fact. "Deception" itself is such a vague concept. What does "more deceptive" even really mean? Are polite "white lies" even truly deception to begin with? Do they rank the same as more important lies? This idea is just nonsense and is so vague that it is in the eye of the beholder.
Saying such a nebulous and negative thing about women is just thinly veiled misogyny.
I'm not trying to convey that females are somehow the "morally inferior" sex. That isn't meaningful in my framework, because nature is amoral. Moral and survival aspects are often at odds.
Is it *moral* for a female to lie when rejecting a male, to protect herself? Arguably so, nevertheless it is an act of deception.
Furthermore, is it *moral* for a female to lie about her mating preferences, to protect her social standing? Arguably so, nevertheless this leads to a collective delusion about what females *actually* prefer.
The takeaway is that females perhaps aren't such noble and pristine beings as males would want to imagine them. That is not misogynistic, it's realist. Pointing out that the emperor has no clothes doesn't mean you *hate* the emperor.
Most lies that people tell are not related to rejecting suitors. Men are more likely to cheat. Your entire definition of deception is vague, and you are pretending pop sci armchair bullshit theorizing is real because you want it to be so you can draw conclusions that you like.
If you read carefully, I'm not actually concerned about which sex is *more* deceptive. The source that I picked out randomly happens to claim "women lie more than men", but that's really irrelevant to my point.
What's relevant in this context is that females are deceptive about mating, in particular. That's the topic Incels are concerned with. Stereotypically, it's the virtue-signaling female that claims to care about personality above anything else, when in reality immutable facts such as looks, height and race are the most important factors.
I won't bother to supply you with data, because that too can easily be dismissed as "below your standards". Exceptions to the common case can easily be found. You can choose what to believe and I'm not interested in "converting" you.
I'd rather you question your bias as to what you *want* to believe, and whether you apply the same standards to those beliefs.
For instance, you claim that "men are more likely to cheat". If I wanted to debate like you, I would ask you for data to back that up, then dismiss that data as low-quality, then question that cheating could be measured altogether, accuse you of misandry and then divert to some tangent, such "younger women are more likely to cheat than younger men".
However, I don't actually care *which* gender cheats more. It's not a contest. I'm interested in explanations for actual behavior versus idealizations based on cognitive bias.
"in reality immutable facts such as looks, height and race are the most important factors."
This is true, and there actually is strong data to prove it. It is consistent across many studies.
"men are more likely to cheat" - There is also strong data to back this up. Look it up.
These are both very specific claims that aren't nebulous and impossible to validate.
"What's relevant in this context is that females are deceptive about mating, in particular."
This is super vague and doesn't mean anything. It is an armchair theory about how you think evolution works, and it is hard to even qualify what this means.
You agree that there is "strong data" to prove that immutable factors are the most important factors in mate choice.
So, for the sake of simplicity, let's just say that this is what I mean by "women are deceptive". They lie about these things.
If we accept this as true, let us ask: Why do women lie when rejecting men? Why do women lie about their dating preferences?
I think I gave you a plausible, evolutionary hypothesis as to why females are biologically *driven* to deception. Without a time machine, we'll never be able to settle such matters conclusively. If you have a better hypothesis, bring it forth. Otherwise, what are you adding?
Your "strong data" is presumably referring to the GSS data. The data comes from the same type of survey that reports that men have, on average, about twice as many opposite sex partners as women. A number that has to be exactly the same.
The reality is that the error bars on our estimate of cheating is large. Large enough that men could be cheating lots more than women or women could be cheating a bit more than men.
I believe that women cheat far more than men. Not because they are more prone to cheating but because they have much more opportunities to cheat. Let's face it, if women want to cheat they can do it in 1 hour but if a man wants to cheat it will take much more time and effort.
It's not about proving a point. Our only observation on an issue is the data. The hypothesis came from the data. If you have a problem with the same size make that claim. Attacking the data should be your play, not this emotional response to something that challenges your worldview. Check your bias next time.
There is no meaningful data here. A 2000 person poll by an insurance company is pop science, not real science. Even the definition is deception is vague garbage.
Interesting. This tracks with my experience. I can only think of one time when I received a straightforward "I am not interested" rejection from a woman, and that was from an online match. I eventually came to expect this dishonest behavior, but I never attributed it to survival. It is logical, though.
Also, thank you for explaining hypergamy for everyone. Online dating demonstrates this very well (and it's why I no longer participate), like the famous OkCupid study that showed that women rated 80% of men as unattractive.
There is much that a guy can do to improve himself, but like you said, women are most attracted to immutable traits. For exampe: I'm 5'7"; I can't just go to the gym regularly and grow five inches so that I'm in the highly-prized 6' class.
Whether or not it's biological this is historically accurate. Throughout time and different cultures deception is a tool typically assigned to the arsenal of women. Women fought mostly with deception and manipulation. Most of the anthropomorphic animals in stories that are depicted as cunning or deceptive are usually female. Most of the trickster deities are usually female etc. However I don't believe that applies to dishonesty. This is a trait equally portrayed by members of both genders.
Of course you have to account for modernization and historical accuracy. However what would you call makeup, high heels, plastic operations etc. if not deception.
Incels are invested in complaining because their problems are unfixable, so there's not much else left to do.
Incels are, by and large, correct about many inconvenient facts: Female attraction comes down mostly to immutable traits. Female hypergamy is real. Females are biologically driven to deception and dishonesty when they are physically weaker.
The biological imperative of the female is to *select the best male*. In every sexual market place, there is a set of males for which no female will develop attraction. These males would naturally be discarded from the gene pool, improving the survival rate of the species.
Human societies have recognized this as an issue in regards to social cohesion. This is why many cultures - including our own - forced marriage upon its females. In modern times, as the females get "liberated" from these pressures, that selection pressure comes out in full force. As a result, a bigger share of males end up in the "discard" pile, and they're understandably resentful about it.
I think we have a cultural myth that marriage is something women do to men. So if women don't want marriage any more, great, now everyone's happy.
But marriage is valuable social technology to achieve sexual equity, and neither sex benefits from its decline.
Given that marriage is a near-universal in contemporary human societies, one might speculate that it is necessary for long-term survival of a population.
In other words, societies that spontaneously abolished marriage may have existed well before "modern enlightenment", but have disappeared with no one left to tell the tale.
I always fail to see what exactly marriage brings to the table besides legal ramifications. My view is that marriage is a constraint which is a net loss for the majority of couples where the relationship is usually either one of them or both just settling for the other. And if you are in the other corner where couples honestly bond which each because it feels right in almost any situation, then this silly procedure doesn't really matter.
Constraints can allow for trust. And settling is what much of the populace will probably need to do on some level.
"Females are biologically driven to deception and dishonesty when they are physically weaker."
This is when you lost all credibility for me.
Perhaps that's because you don't *want* to believe something that's a logical and obvious hypothesis, but goes against your preferred world view?
There is, of course, empirical evidence:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/05/women-lie-untruths-human
Consider the survival aspect of it: When rejecting a male, it is unwise to tell the truth, because broken hearts can lead to broken skulls. Many females who exhibited such "honesty" would have been removed from the gene pool early on.
A quick Google Scholar search shows *actual* scientific evidence to the contrary [1, 2] or even supporting the reverse hypothesis of men lying more [3, 4].
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176511003843
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176513000463
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176507002534
[4] https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/145758/1/VfS_2016_pid_6781.pdf
Your empirical evidence is a 2000 person poll done by an insurance company. That is not the scientific rigor one would expect for such a definitive conclusion.
Your hypothesis is also...just a hypothesis that sounds true to you I guess...?
You make all these absurd absolute statements about how women behave as if they are a monolithic group. I know plenty of married men and they aren't all "the best male".
Almost all of what you are saying is only trueish at best, and really has a lot more to do with casual hookups than real relationships.
If you don't want to accept the hypothesis, ask for data. If it's data you don't agree with, attack the method. If the method is rigorous, point to outliers. If you don't *want* to believe something, you don't have to.
I don't need you to believe that the hypothesis is true. I can't prove it to be true. However, I'd like you to consider that all the things you believe by default, the things you *want* to believe - do they all have double-blind placebo controlled randomized trial to support them?
Of course I'm making a generalization. Any statement about anything is, at some level, a generalization. True-ish is often as good as it gets.
Your observations don't necessarily contradict what I'm saying. The "best male you can get" isn't necessarily "the best male". Getting married also isn't necessarily about mutual attraction.
Your data was terrible. I don't even think you could ever adequately prove such a vague thesis as "women are more deceptive than men". It honestly sounds more like a religious belief than some kind of scientific fact. "Deception" itself is such a vague concept. What does "more deceptive" even really mean? Are polite "white lies" even truly deception to begin with? Do they rank the same as more important lies? This idea is just nonsense and is so vague that it is in the eye of the beholder.
Saying such a nebulous and negative thing about women is just thinly veiled misogyny.
I'm not trying to convey that females are somehow the "morally inferior" sex. That isn't meaningful in my framework, because nature is amoral. Moral and survival aspects are often at odds.
Is it *moral* for a female to lie when rejecting a male, to protect herself? Arguably so, nevertheless it is an act of deception.
Furthermore, is it *moral* for a female to lie about her mating preferences, to protect her social standing? Arguably so, nevertheless this leads to a collective delusion about what females *actually* prefer.
The takeaway is that females perhaps aren't such noble and pristine beings as males would want to imagine them. That is not misogynistic, it's realist. Pointing out that the emperor has no clothes doesn't mean you *hate* the emperor.
More speculation, not data.
Most lies that people tell are not related to rejecting suitors. Men are more likely to cheat. Your entire definition of deception is vague, and you are pretending pop sci armchair bullshit theorizing is real because you want it to be so you can draw conclusions that you like.
If you read carefully, I'm not actually concerned about which sex is *more* deceptive. The source that I picked out randomly happens to claim "women lie more than men", but that's really irrelevant to my point.
What's relevant in this context is that females are deceptive about mating, in particular. That's the topic Incels are concerned with. Stereotypically, it's the virtue-signaling female that claims to care about personality above anything else, when in reality immutable facts such as looks, height and race are the most important factors.
I won't bother to supply you with data, because that too can easily be dismissed as "below your standards". Exceptions to the common case can easily be found. You can choose what to believe and I'm not interested in "converting" you.
I'd rather you question your bias as to what you *want* to believe, and whether you apply the same standards to those beliefs.
For instance, you claim that "men are more likely to cheat". If I wanted to debate like you, I would ask you for data to back that up, then dismiss that data as low-quality, then question that cheating could be measured altogether, accuse you of misandry and then divert to some tangent, such "younger women are more likely to cheat than younger men".
However, I don't actually care *which* gender cheats more. It's not a contest. I'm interested in explanations for actual behavior versus idealizations based on cognitive bias.
"in reality immutable facts such as looks, height and race are the most important factors."
This is true, and there actually is strong data to prove it. It is consistent across many studies.
"men are more likely to cheat" - There is also strong data to back this up. Look it up.
These are both very specific claims that aren't nebulous and impossible to validate.
"What's relevant in this context is that females are deceptive about mating, in particular."
This is super vague and doesn't mean anything. It is an armchair theory about how you think evolution works, and it is hard to even qualify what this means.
You agree that there is "strong data" to prove that immutable factors are the most important factors in mate choice.
So, for the sake of simplicity, let's just say that this is what I mean by "women are deceptive". They lie about these things.
If we accept this as true, let us ask: Why do women lie when rejecting men? Why do women lie about their dating preferences?
I think I gave you a plausible, evolutionary hypothesis as to why females are biologically *driven* to deception. Without a time machine, we'll never be able to settle such matters conclusively. If you have a better hypothesis, bring it forth. Otherwise, what are you adding?
Your "strong data" is presumably referring to the GSS data. The data comes from the same type of survey that reports that men have, on average, about twice as many opposite sex partners as women. A number that has to be exactly the same.
The reality is that the error bars on our estimate of cheating is large. Large enough that men could be cheating lots more than women or women could be cheating a bit more than men.
I believe that women cheat far more than men. Not because they are more prone to cheating but because they have much more opportunities to cheat. Let's face it, if women want to cheat they can do it in 1 hour but if a man wants to cheat it will take much more time and effort.
Rejecting a suitor is a single lie. Ongoing infidelity is hundreds and thousands of lies.
We can all play the armchair pop sci game to come up with silly conclusions.
It's not about proving a point. Our only observation on an issue is the data. The hypothesis came from the data. If you have a problem with the same size make that claim. Attacking the data should be your play, not this emotional response to something that challenges your worldview. Check your bias next time.
There is no meaningful data here. A 2000 person poll by an insurance company is pop science, not real science. Even the definition is deception is vague garbage.
Seems like a defensive take rather than one addressing the position^
Interesting. This tracks with my experience. I can only think of one time when I received a straightforward "I am not interested" rejection from a woman, and that was from an online match. I eventually came to expect this dishonest behavior, but I never attributed it to survival. It is logical, though.
Also, thank you for explaining hypergamy for everyone. Online dating demonstrates this very well (and it's why I no longer participate), like the famous OkCupid study that showed that women rated 80% of men as unattractive.
There is much that a guy can do to improve himself, but like you said, women are most attracted to immutable traits. For exampe: I'm 5'7"; I can't just go to the gym regularly and grow five inches so that I'm in the highly-prized 6' class.
Whether or not it's biological this is historically accurate. Throughout time and different cultures deception is a tool typically assigned to the arsenal of women. Women fought mostly with deception and manipulation. Most of the anthropomorphic animals in stories that are depicted as cunning or deceptive are usually female. Most of the trickster deities are usually female etc. However I don't believe that applies to dishonesty. This is a trait equally portrayed by members of both genders.
Of course you have to account for modernization and historical accuracy. However what would you call makeup, high heels, plastic operations etc. if not deception.