If what
@Koomersarj said about him, that he is old, is true, then this would be a classic example of a middle-aged lonely coper making himself believe he is intelligent to cope with his situation. Seen it a 1000 times, biggest example was that coach redpill nigga who died after traveling to Ukraine to virtue signal about human meme war #343243243 like it matters at all in the grand scheme of things. At least people on our little forum here openly admit to being human garbage, which is pretty much the only place on the entire internet where I have ever seen that.
I want to reply to the screenshots
@tulasdanslos shared in details, this is gonna be long probably. I also will address some replies in this thread.
@reveries already mentioned that certain "scientific" fields are not strictly speaking scientific at all, which is the entrance to the rabbit hole that rapes the entire idea of science being this monolithic entity we can trust like its fucking uncle sam and the gold standard 1776 TM.
Screenshot 1
View attachment 1449289
Presuppositions in this text:
1. "Generalizations are wrong."
First off this claim itself is a generalization of all claims. Are all generalizations wrong? Worse even, the scientific method is literally built on generalization, aka inferential reasoning by means of making inductive claims. Inductive reasoning is literally defined as generalization, as you can
see here from the oxford dictionary definition:
"Argument that seeks to reach generalizations by reasoning from an assembly of particular observations."
All scientific reasoning is based on generalizations, value judgements etc, since these are inherent to pretty much all claims a person can make. Even deductive, analytical statements often rely on inferences. Deductive reasoning is supposed to be the case when an argument is inherently valid without having to make generalizations, such as when talking about mathematical arguments. A classic deductive argument example is the following:
1. all men are mortal
2. socrates dies
3. socrates is a man
If the first premise is deductively true, meaning all men are in fact mortal and this is universally true forever and ever, no generalizations, no middle ground etc, then yes, this would be a deductive argument. The problem is that in reality, deductive and inductive reasoning overlap often, unless we talk about extremely basic things, like I mentioned with mathematics. Just to illustrate how it gets messy: The first premise in the deductive syllogism is actually inductive.
How would we know that all men are mortal? If you are a christian then it would not be true for example, since Christ was fully man and resurrected from the dead. But even without that, the claim remains inductive because we dont know whether all men in the past actually died (maybe there are immortals) or if all men in the future will be mortal (lets say transhumanism makes ppl immortal somehow).
Without getting into the autism, this touches on the problem of induction and deduction in philosophy, which has never been solved. So to conclude: Generalizations are often unavoidable and in fact necessary for the scientific method. The author of the quote in the 4chan screenshot is just parroting some platitude he picked up like a bird, cawk cawk generalization bad, cawk cawk.
We could get super duper into philosophy of science autism at this point, but its just too much honestly and I dont want to come off as a self righetous faggot by spamming 900 paragraphs about my opinions on shit that not even academic philosophers can settle on. Suffice to say, science is not this fucking magic authoritative institution that has privileged access to the truth, quite the opposite actually. It's more like a social movement, a big club, or cult, or a corporation.
2. "The blackpill is one central idea:"
If we said this about shit like IQ, evolution or something else, he would probably disagree. People characterize out-groups in simplified, reductionist terms. If you spend even a tiny amount of time here, you will quickly realize that there is no unified blackpill as such. It's a bunch of ideas, observations, anecdotes, some scientific data, some historical observations pulled from the 6000 year canon of recorded human knowledge and so forth. We don't have a central book like the bible or quran, and every other week there is a civil war on this forum.
3. "Blackpillers re-interpret everything to fit the blackpill:"
He is accusing us of confirmation bias. The irony here is that this implies he has privileged access to some sort of "neutral" un-biased position, which is utterly impossible. He basically subconsciously thinks hes the pope, the instrument of some god of truth that proclaims untouchable tenets through him. He does not understand that confirmation bias is hard-baked into human reasoning. Every observation, every claim comes theory-laden. Him interpreting what
@tulasdanslos said in a specific way to fit his own presuppositions is literally what he is accusing blackpillers of. He interprets the blackpill in a way that fits his own biases, so he is actually operating on confirmation bias as well.
4. "Building a psychological profile of people:"
Yes because psychology is scientific and there is no controversy in psychology, and you can just magically profile people by their internet shitposts, and this is possible without any amount of interpretation. His profiling ability is akin to the divine, he can take into account a persons entire existence, every experience they had, heck, their very essence is captured in his profiling of us. Insane levels of delusion.
Screenshot 2
View attachment 1449311
1. "People reject people that dont fit the mold."
Oh yeah, people HATE celebrities, fuck, how could I forget
Hilarious also because he accuses us of being reductionist while reducing us to strawman argument. Even his "mold" claim is a reduction, as I pointed out with the celebrity thing. There are tons of people that "dont fit the mold" that are beloved by society. In fact, almost everyone who is famous is so because they dont fit the mold, so this argument does not even make sense. If anything we should ask ourselves why some people that dont fit the mold are hated and some are worshipped. What could the criterion by which people choose to hate or love you hmmmm i wonder?
2. "Responsibility."
We are not a religion making ought claims, fuck off. Again a strawman, we are not an ideology, never have been, our group is extremely ideologically diverse. We have black supremacists, white supremacists, leftists, marxists, nihilists, genetic determinists, muslims, christians, even hindus. We all operate on different moral standards, there is no unified front. We also dont claim like he said that "everything is genetics." This is a complete mischaracterization. This sentence of his is also hilarious:
"This kind of absolutism does not reflect deep insight, it's shallow and reflects cognitive laziness. Which is an indication of dunning kruger effect."
He basically just chained a bunch of memes he picked up together in this manner:
1. "absolutism bad"
2. "muh deep insight good" (how is deep insight defined? no idea, just is I guess, dont ask for standards for ethical claims like that goy)
3. "shallow" (claims I dont like are shallow and bad meeeh)
4. "dunning kruger effect" - another meme term he picked up
This guys entire identity is thinking hes some kinda genius but all he turned himself into is a fucking neural network trained on retarded reddit lingo that produces chains of verbiage resembling actual cognition if you are not familiar with what he is doing. He is not even thinking at this point, he is just assembling pre-fabricated lego blocks to impress mommy and daddy.
2. "Critical thinking, emotional immaturity, etc"
Again just a bunch of meaningless terms and value judgements without any justification. Idk if he realizes that value judgements are unavoidable and that they completely escape any form of rationalization. Everyone and every group self-determines what they deem significant, including whether something is immature, whether some evidence is significant enough to make certain claims or not etc. Standards of evidence are based on value judgements. For instance when he makes an accusation of emotional immaturity, he assumes an objective standard for emotional maturity.
Based on what? If you pressed him on this, he would rattle down a bunch of arbitrary if-then statements like a robot, which he would pretend are the standard for emotional maturity. If we asked him why any of these statements constitute the standard for emotional maturity, he would not be able to answer without appealing to the classic three apocalyptic riders of epistemological death: Faith, infinite regress and circular reasoning.
He also prides himself on being a "critical thinker" who does not just believe things to feel "emotionally secure" yet he clearly just dismisses the blackpill on emotional reasons. He literally think he has no emotions, that his claims are free from values, which is again hilarious as fuck. If he does not care about emotional stability, why is he alive dude? Why not just kill himself if he is fully satisfied and without needs, like some buddhist monk who has achieved ego death and no longer desires anything?
Why did he bother to reply to
@tulasdanslos if he didnt feel the need to take action, in order to regain his inner feeling of emotional stability? Isnt that what every action is? You feel the need to act, in order to regain inner emotional homeostasis, inner peace. Hunger drives you to eat, so you no longer feel hunger. Any action you take is based on you feeling some kinda state of internal deprivation, some sort of lack, and the problem usually implies the solution right?
Hunger implies eating as solution.
Freezing implies getting warmer as solution.
And the guy replying to
@tulasdanslos implies he felt compelled to reply because
@tulasdanslos caused him some internal discomfort that had to be fixed by asserting himself, aka, our man here is deeply insecure, which is why he copes by seeking out ways to feel smart.
Feeling dumb implies trying to feel smarter.
3. "Incels do not want to face their own failures and shortcomings"
Bro, I cant. All we talk about is how we are human garbage, how we suck, how we are ugly, how we cant get shit done, how we are low IQ and shit. What is he talking about.
Screenshot 3
View attachment 1449327
This was one was just hot air and he avoided saying anything. He was just pretending to be this wise ass nigga "oh i cant reply to you, I am too wise to engage in such foul discourse my child mua ha ha ha" stfu nigga. Also dismisses the scientific blackpill by saying its misrepresented. Nigga, I have read the scientific blackpill page, it does not interpret anything kek. It just represents the the actual data in summary + it literally says at the top to take a statistics course to read the data correctly and even links a course if I remember. Does he realize that we have actual university students here? Like
@WorthlessSlavicShit are actual academics, not just a bunch of nincompoops skimming papers.
"Actually look for the information which disproves your model of the world, rather than looking for proof of its existence."
Ah, shmarmy pants thinks he can pull this old trick. For those who dont know, he is revering to "falsification" which is an idea advanced by philosopher Karl Popper in the 1950s. Of course "falsification" has been critiqued to death by people since then, but oh-so-smart people like our nigga here think its some kinda macguffin you can invoke to disprove your shit. The problem is that the blackpill is not a scientific model, which is what falsification is based on. In philosophy of science it has been known for ages that for every observation we make, we can generate an infinite amount of explanations, or "explanatory models," all of which will work, have predictive power etc.
So disproving a model does actually nothing whatsoever, at best you will just arbitrary dismiss one model to affirm your own flawed model, which someone else will then deboonk, and this will go on forever and ever. Every successive model will be based on the next generation of scientists pointing out flaws in the prior model and then asserting their own new model as superior, until the next generation does the same thing to that model etc.
What is key to understand here is that models, explanatory models etc are basically separate from the observations they are based on. In case of the blackpill, we mostly stick to really basic observations of human actions, in a utilitarian fashion. We observe certain patterns, but we don't jump to explanations usually. So he is plain wrong, we do not even have a model. We dont know why people respond to certain looks differently. For example some threads on here have pointed out that female mate choice could be interpreted as dysgenic, which would contradict an evolutionary model of lookism, where people pick sexual partners based on "fitness." So even if we falsified our explantory model i.e. "genetic determinism" or whatever, the blackpill would still stand, since all we are saying is that we can observe people making choices based on looks, rather than on traits that are not even visible to the naked eye (duh).
Someone could argue that lookism, the idea that people make choice and value judgements based on visuals, itself is a model, but that would be hilarious because the alternative to people operating on visual cues is some kind of magic mind-reading idea, where people can just see character stats in objects, like trees, people etc. Further, in order to make the claim that people do not judge on looks, we would have to make the claim itself without refering to looks or visual information, which is funny too. How are you gonna judge human behavior without observing it first? The scientific method literally starts with a generalized assumption of lookism -> that observations exist, can be made and are reliable generally speaking. Thats literally what the word "evidence" means in the original greek, observation, apperance etc.
So the scientific method is actually based on lookism, the idea that we can make accurate judgements about reality based on sense data perceived through our eyes. Really, the blackpill only appeals to the most basic standards of observation imaginable, it is actually quite free of interpretation and any sort of "modeling."
Screenshot 4
View attachment 1449335
This is a really good one, props to
@tulasdanslos for actually asking him to provide an alternative to lookism. Usually in debates, people are very good at critiquing the opposite team but when you ask them to provide a better alternative, they completely falter. This guy literally affirms lookism while denying it by saying people that are alike will flock together. How do they determine they are alike? DNA testing?
All
@tulasdanslos asked was "so how do people judge each other if not looks?" And the guy literally indirectly said "by looks." Unbelievable, 160IQ, I bow
View attachment 1449338
The 2nd half of the screenshot is again him being verbose and invoking a bunch of meaningless psychological jargon. I am sure some toothless crackhead will get bitches by being "dark triad." Protip: I have met people like this that were homeless and hit on literally 14 year olds in front of me, it does not work. Another thing, remember how he claimed you should test your model against reality and try to "deboonk" it to check its validity? Every single claim he makes in the 2nd half of that screenshot is unfalsifiable. How do you scientifically measure "dark triad" traits? They are not observable, it's a completely arbitrary thing.
He then makes a bunch of claims about the nature of people and women, which are also not informed by data. For example he claims dark triad men manipulate women into relationships by being well dressed, which is the complete opposite of what the data shows: Most rape and violence against women comes from violent men that don't manipulate and hide their behavior at all, or
to quote @ShiiOfTheSPLC
The whole notion that 80 iq criminals are all collectively using advanced deception and psychological maneuvers to hide their real personality and manipulate women into loving them is funny as fuck
Also, I love how he just quotes the other retarded nigga who says in so many words "i bet if you checked, looks wouldnt matter he he
"
and then he replies "daz rite he he, i bet it wouldnt matter he he
" with zero evidence. Yes, looks dont matter for social status, thats why every celebrity is an average looking person with warts on their face and a receding hairline. Also racism does not exist apparently and neither do we treat people differently based on their gender, age, height and any other traits that we determine visually. Unbelievable retarded posts.
Now I wanna reply to some ppl from this thread:
Good point, he thinks we just arrived at blackpill without some kinda process going into it first i.e. experience etc. This is highly dismissive. Most us actually tryharded and jestermaxxed, went to gym etc. Its also funny he assumes that we want the blackpill to be true, as you point out. It's like going to a hobo and saying you are just lazy. Classic just world fallacy + male hyper agency. On your point about people not using thinking when making choices - the fundamental issue is that all choices are value judgements, and values can not be determined rationally at all. No amount of data will ever automatically produce a value judgement.
This has been known since David Hume in the 1700s when he first raised the is/ought distinction problem. No observation contains an inherent moral law. You can never jump from descriptions of reality to moral prescriptions. What this implies is kinda brutal: Not a single choice we make is based on IQ or rational process. Any goal we set for ourselves is already a value judgement. Why does the goal matter? Why is it significant? What is the best way to reach it, what is the worst way?
All of these are value based assumptions that we usually just absorb from social cues and societal conditioning. Choice making is by definition irrational. The only thing that hold society together is ultimately force and threat of violence. The biggest authority arbitrarily defines some values, i.e. the law of the nation, the constitution, and then asserts their own values on the people by means of force, basically through skinner-level operant conditioning. Pain-pleasure, reward-punishment.
Unless you become a budhist monk who tries to free himself from all desire and judgements by achieving ego death, aka professional nihilism and quasi-suicide, you wont escape this. IQ does not matter, data does not matter etc. None of these things will improve the quality of anyones choices. Even invoking a word like "quality" already implies an ethical standard for determining what decisions are good and which bad.
Scientists and other people try to get around this by sneaking moral frameworks in through the backdoor. For instance they may appeal to things like "biological imperatives" which dont exist. In fact the very term "biological imperative" is a category error straight from Hume, as "biology" is an observation, a description and "imperative" is a moral "ought" claim. A way they tried to sneakily insert morality back into science is through statistics. The arbitrarily claim some statistical result has "significance" when it achieves some magical threshold, i.e. "the 5% rule" of scientific modeling. Of course this has been critiqued to death, see the replication crisis issue and "p-value hacking." Basically scientists tried to fudge their data to magically cross the 5% line of value significance, so their papers would be published.
You can read more about this here, in this paper about the issue:
Absent an objective ethical standards to determine whether experimental results even matter, how much they matter if they are significant, and if they are significant at all, the scientific community was only left with one thing: Force. They had to assert through collective, consensus based authority (peer review for instance) that certain thresholds were now the "gold standard" for value-signficance in research. If they didnt do this, they would have been left with no system to establish scientific valdity at all.
Note that this does not just apply to the scientific community but any community or individual at all. Everyone and every group, churches, governments, schools, families, video game developers etc - they all self-determine from within their own worldview when and how something is significant, aka whether it has value at all or not, how that value is determined, by which (arbitrary) criteria etc. They set their own standards and then first interally enforce them top-down through force and later enforce them on people outside themselves. Again, this is not something that can be changed, it is inherent to value judgements that they cant be determined without being arbitrary. The only way to convince people of aribtrary standards is by forcing them to adhere to them through punishment and reward.
Yes exactly, he just said the usual shit without providing any actual evidence.
@tulasdanslos directed him to an actual body of evidence, which he just dismissed as not being true because according to him, incels can not interpret scientific data correctly (credentials fallacy - if you dont have credentials, you can not be right).
