I doubt his iq is that high anyway
Probably somewhat above average but nothing Impressive
Theory [4cuck r9k] Self proclaimed 160 IQ super genius' thoughts on inceldom and the blackpill
Probably somewhat above average but nothing Impressive
@GeckoBus You counted 1, 2, 2 in one of your breakdowns. It's OK, I forgive you brocel.
Thank you for the thorough explanation, I was up late and I low key started believing what he had posted on the sole basis of his high IQ claim.
I see now he was just a run of the mill charlatan.
ah fuck it, just leave the numbers in who cares. I saw some spelling errors earlier and was like whatever. It's almost gross to correct yourself after the fact cuz its like you are tryna come off as more erudite than you are. I feel better leaving mistakes in tbh fuck it. Also, even if his IQ was quadruple digits, he still wouldnt be able to do shit, as the basic issues of scientific method and philosophy literally escape rationalization anyway, like problem of induction, problem of criterion, epistemic bootstrapping issue bla bla bla, there is no solution for these. I recently discovered the decline effect too. Basically, few would feel confident in saying that a study will still be valid in a 1000 years right? But somehow people believe studies are valid rn. The decline effect describes this phenomenon where data becomes more invalid as time passes:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect
Thankfully this wont apply to lookism unless humans collectively loose eyesight jfl. Like I said, since we dont rely much on abstractions, modeling and statistical ritual to make strong claims, we are generally speaking safe from being deboonked. We just stick to the basic observations. Denying lookism is like denying that black people are black, that oranges are orange, that we know a child form an adult by their looks and so forth. It is the most basic and primary way we make judgements. I couldnt write you, neither could you understand me, if society did not instruct us to encode and decode little visual symbols. Everything is looks. Most judgements are based on looks + sensory experience of pain and pleasure. If it feels bad, it is bad and if it feels good it is good. Thats how people operate. Why does the guy you talked to even care about IQ? Where did he get the idea from that IQ is a real thing and that it matters?
You know, there are billions of people that dont even care about IQ, so why did he start caring? Ultimately it just comes down to values, values derived from experiences. Every value we hold traces back to some personal experience we have. In his case, he is probably just some lonely old ugly guy who tries to protect his self-esteem by thinking he is smart. He is coping. I don't think he would be posting on 4chan if he was driving around in a maybach with anime-girl tier whores bouncing on his willie. Emotions come first, then people look for information that helps them rationalize that emotion, i.e. politics, psychology etc. If they are physically big, they may cope with strength and gym. Whatever attributes they have or think they have become the means through which they try to deal with their insecurities.
I grew up in a left leaning culture that hated my ass and tortured me every day. So naturally, I felt terrible emotionally and when I came across right wing stuff, it adopted that as my means of coping with the emotions. If my culture was right wing, or maybe some religious theocracy like in the middle east, I may have felt compelled towards atheism or left wing politics. Ultimately my choice was not based on right or left wing being right or wrong, but just personal bias based on my already existing emotions. If we got sex and female validation, we would not have ended up here. That does not mean the blackpill is wrong btw, or that claims by right or left wingers are wrong by default because they chose them for emotional reasons. If every claim was wrong because people make choices on emotions, then no claim could be right. Thats absurd.
It just means that people put their energy where their heart is, irrespective of objective right or wrong. That's why so many people make gynocentric arguments without realizing. In their heart, they worship women, and this colors their judgements without them realizing. @Stupid Clown made a video about that recently:
View: https://youtu.be/rde37-JhDzU
They want to blame anything under the sun except for women. That why I always stress to look for implicit value judgements in peoples arguments. They prove us right while trying to prove us wrong, because in every single argument they make against us, they assume a gynocentric lense. The guy you debated for example just assumed that women favor stability, which implicitly is connected to women are wonderful effect, that women are non-violent, that women are non-threatening etc. The data actually shows that women are equally as violent as men and do not value stability whatsoever, especially in domestic settings. I even have seen research that said women are MORE physically violent in relationships but since they are physically weaker, they do less damage than men.
Basically, whoever you talk to, just imagine you are talking to a religious extremist. Technically speaking, we are all zealots for our cause, ruthlessly advancing our own values, often without realizing. For instance, I expect you to read my reply, you expect me to read your reply. You expect a certain way of talking from me, so do I from you. If I posted a gayporn gif instead of addressing your points, I would get a permaban because the values of this forum are defined and enforced by the executive branch of our in-group, the mods. Society, cults, religions and forums like this - they are functionally identical. They all have initiation phases, love bombing phases etc. They indoctrinate their members with new values, give them new identies etc.
I've risen to prominence on this forum, so now I get to dictate shit to other forum users. People tag me and ask me for advice or commentary, as if I am some sort of elder in the community. How did this happen? Did I subconsciously want this? I mean, I actively participate here and act out my role you know? I must have wanted this authority or I wouldnt have bothered making threads and putting in effort. This forum is basically a replacement society for me where I get to play a role in order to achieve rank. I am then rewarded with social approval by the other members.
Every greycel has to go through a punishment phase in order to be accepted. They get more priviliges the more they invest i.e. they get bunker access, they can post images, make PMs. You get a new name, like with a baptism. You choose your name when signing up, just like how christians pick a name when getting baptized. Doctors receive titles, incels receive labels - "currcel" "manletcel" "slavcel" etc. You know how many cults have this? Like a sort of symbolic "death" ceremony where the person is reborn? Not just cults, societies in general do that.
You are lovebombed as a child and later the lovebombing is slowly withdrawn and demands are introduced. If you want the initial unconditional affection of childhood back, you need to work for it. Gradually you are induced deeper into the cult, they reward you with responsibilities and power. At some point you get to inititate others, set rules for them, heck, you get to lovebomb them (parents, teachers, boss, professor, women lovebombing men).
For instane, as a senior poster on this forum, I have been granted the power to reward other users with my attention. My praise matters. This is kinda wild honestly. I recently wrote about how high ranking people in groups can give and remove labels to other people, but low-status people can not create labels. A greycel on here could not label himself a victim of the mods, he would just be called a greycel. If I did the same, people would listen. The higher you go in a cult, the more it becomes invite-only. I am already at the almost highest level you can achieve on this forum. I am basically a 31st degree freemason. Above me are only the mods and serge. There is no way to join the elect, the apostles of .is, without serge initiating me into the holy mysteries himself.
As a high status person, I am also politically immune from criticism to an extend. Accusations against me have to come from other members of rank. Accusations made by low status people or people from the out-group i.e. inceltears, will be auto-dismissed by the in-group.
All of this to say that nothing changes. Every group is the same, they all operate on the same principles. Every in-group has pariahs, elders, leaders, strict hiearchies, controversies. Every in-group characterizes out-groups the same way, by simplfying them or strawmanning them. Nothing changes. Society is just the cult that won out. For all anacho-capitalists reading this: You are living in anarcho capitalism, the anarcho group that hogged the most power is just called the government. People submit to power, they actually love it. I could go on but I will end it on this thought:
I mentioned earlier that since values can not be determined rationally, they are just learned through punishment-rewards from social interaction or interaction with environment (burning your hand on stove, eating sweets etc). One crazy ass conclusion from this is that people actively seek out oppertunities to be punished and rewarded, because it gives them a feeling of security. People seek out authority for guidance. They love violence and force, it makes them feel safe that there is a bully whos ready to create stability through violence at all times, just like people here cry for mods to maintain order. Remember all values are personal. When people cry for mods or police, they are actually saying "authority! mom, dad! defend me! protect me! make me feel safe again!"
Most people do not feel safe trusting their own judgments. Only psychopaths or highly delusional people do. We all seek out opportunities to be rewarded and punished for our actions, it makes us feel cozy, like a replacement family. Children test boundaries for this reason, it makes them feel that they can trust their parents. There is no difference between a child and an adult in how they approach values. Children just grow up and begin diversifying authority from mom and dad to mom, dad, teacher, boss, doctor, politican etc. Thus mom and dad loose value, relative to other authority figures competing with them for rank. Additionally, the adult now has the privilige of being an authority figure themselves, who gets his cues from authority figures higher than him, so he can enforce them on his own kids or people below him, thus completing the cult indoctrination cycle.
The final stage of indoctrination is when the person becomes an apostle of their faith, a living icon of their belief system in word and action. Everyone is indoctrinated like that, you, me, everyone. We are all dogmatists, we are all preachers, we all try to convert people to our faith.
This is why you will never convince someone with arguments. You are not debating points on neutral ground. There is no neutral ground. You are fighting a fucking jihad against other tribal people. We still live in the bronze age and this will never change. Your chariots may be metal, your tablets are no longer wax and stone but glas displays powered by chemical reactions, but at the end of the day your ability to make choices is as good as your ancestors, that illiterate shepherd eating some cheese while looking at the sun somewhere in the fertile crescent 6000 years ago.
Excellent analysis, just like I like it long ass autistic posts from youIf 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?
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
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).
I even fell asleep and took a 15 minute nap between reading it jfl I didn't fully understand the philosophy of science bits since I'm very loosely familiar with all the concepts and scientific problems you've mentioned, but the calling him out for all the biases and hypocrisy breakdowns were excellent, completely destroyed this condescending arrogant midwit nigger
I
He's trying so hard to sound smart lol, probably above average iq thoughOriginal thread (will stop working a week from thread archival)
I will post the relevant screenshots of what he said relating to incels and the blackpill. The claim of him having an IQ of 160 is not considered relevant, but I have read through the thread and have reasonable evidence to believe the person replying to me is the one claiming to have such a high IQ.
View attachment 1449058
View attachment 1449059
This one is me:
View attachment 1449060
This is him again:
View attachment 1449061
View attachment 1449062
I think he's too verbose to have a supergenius IQ, a supergenius IQ person would dumb it down enough that the layman could understand it.
NTpillers WW@? This guy is vindicating us.
First screenshot alread contains two retardelards:
>"they have one core central idea, which is the blackpill"
THE WHAT IDEA!?
Nigga claims blackpill is "central idea" but doesn't explain what this idea is. I'd really like to know, I've been lurking places like this forum for about 7 years and I have no clue what this "idea" is supposed to be, I wish he would illuminate us
"Women don't like you if you're ugly" - is that what he think the "central idea" is? Gee, quite reductionist for a nigga with 160 IQ
I can imagine alternative universe where I was born as a good looking man in some richfag jew family, and I got into prestigious college marketing course, and I got deeply interested in the material we are studying - human decision making etc. - trying to get to the bottom of it - I would get in the same rabbit holes and reach the same conclusions without the few milimetres of bone making me a pariah.
It's a way of thinking, interpreting data without your feelings getting in the way, not an "idea".
>"Anonimity makes people feel safe. It makes building a profile of them pretty straight foward"
NO IT DOESN'T LMAO, anonymous spaces are a larp central, people lie and play character that they aren't all the time (funnily enough his pseudointelectual thread where he claims to be 160IQ is good example of that) especially when populated by normies:
excellent reply, I agree with every single point made. The guy is fucking naive in his views on people and the internet. Btw my grandpa was a US marine who personally shot 15 japs at iwo jima. He said it was fuckign brutal, there was no water, the US navy refused to supply them until the island was safe, which ended up taking 3 weeks. He showed me his old service rifle which had notches in the wood for every kill he made. Miss you pops, SEMPER FI! -.-7
Join us next week, when I regale you with the tale of how my ancestor Christopher Wistopher personally shook hands with Ronald Reagan after discovering america.
It's a midwit redditard
Holy! Giga-brootal IncelPill.
Perfectly encapsulates the "science" of gynocentrism.
On another note, I wonder if it's simply our ability (of varied levels) to open Pandora's box and withstand its content. Explanations are usually that simple. Of course, the long-winded explanations serve to whittle down the "abstract" differences down to rather solid variables for most people to understand. But it usually achieves one outcome. When normies cannot cope with your explanations, they just insult you. That is their ultimate escape hatch, all thanks to the perceived societal status for aligning with a certain view.
A glaring example is how men, in particular, have such an attitude of cruel indifference towards male disposability. They approach topics of war and casualties like some armchair experts. That is, until it starts to affect them directly. Then they become staunch MRAs, citing studies on there being more male victims of violent crimes than foid victims. Why? Isn't that male disposability at play, just at a smaller scale? Why not approach it with the same pretentious attitude of an academic who likes smelling their fart? Normie men might be open to the idea of blackpill at some capacity, but they certainly fail to gauge the long-term ramifications of the blackpill ideas. It's this loop of acceptance and rejection of blackpill out of convenience that ironically continues to make it thrive AGAINST MEN.
And that, in particular, is why I don't engage in blackpill discussions, or rather conversations around society's treatment of men and foids, with normies, especially with foids. One "out of the line" statement from me would set off a chain of blackpill retorts, which would only work against me since MY blackpill ideas aren't socially validated.
A large body of rambling text does not equal a high IQ response, you 80 IQ useless faggot.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?
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
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).
Stick to what you are actually capable of which is responding to dumb and worthless memes.
having 160 iq=typing long walls of meaningless text
No matter how high IQ you (think you) are, you will never be able to generalize the blackpill and incels as a newbie, bluepiller, or redpiller.
Only passionate people from this community in good faith can communicate about us accurately. And even then, sometimes they may get things wrong.
All these high IQ individuals throughout history, and most if not all of them dying not understanding even basic redpills. Let alone blackpills, JFL.
Not understanding blackpill tenets comes down to a lack of awareness.
Only passionate people from this community in good faith can communicate about us accurately. And even then, sometimes they may get things wrong.
All these high IQ individuals throughout history, and most if not all of them dying not understanding even basic redpills. Let alone blackpills, JFL.
Not understanding blackpill tenets comes down to a lack of awareness.
Last edited:
The things some men do to convince themselves that girls who look like this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ExCt-zfBXnA
Don't feel the same way about them as they do about women who look like this:
Are a true wonder to behold. Centuries later, historians will still marvel at the copes we are seeing right now.
. I especially loved the bits about celebrities, it was one of those "Makes total sense when pointed out, but you are so used to it you don't notice it," moments for me.
And yeah, props to Tulas for standing his ground and asking the "160 IQ genius" solving world's problems on r9k what alternative there is to lookism.
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ExCt-zfBXnA
Don't feel the same way about them as they do about women who look like this:
Are a true wonder to behold
. Centuries later, historians will still marvel at the copes we are seeing right now.Another beautiful Gecko-splosionIf 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?
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
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).
. I especially loved the bits about celebrities, it was one of those "Makes total sense when pointed out, but you are so used to it you don't notice it," moments for me.And yeah, props to Tulas for standing his ground and asking the "160 IQ genius" solving world's problems on r9k what alternative there is to lookism
.
Just write a load of pseudo-intellectual nonsense, dress it up with fancy words and phrases, and label yourself as a genius theory
You know someone is high IQ if they acknowledge that overwhelming most things in life are out of our personal control.
He knows what he believes in is bullshit because he already said from the beginning we’d dismiss it. And lo and behold. All he had were platitudes & personality copium. JFL, the retards think that’s the biggest problem.
Might even be a foid just for that. On top of wanting to dismantle everything on the incel wiki.
Dark triad men aren’t manipulating you dumb fucking foid. They are making your pussy wet through sheer brute anti-social darwinian competitive brutality. Thugmaxxing is real.
In that last image, you can tell they’re unaware of the halo effect.
He knows what he believes in is bullshit because he already said from the beginning we’d dismiss it. And lo and behold. All he had were platitudes & personality copium. JFL, the retards think that’s the biggest problem.
Might even be a foid just for that. On top of wanting to dismantle everything on the incel wiki.
Dark triad men aren’t manipulating you dumb fucking foid. They are making your pussy wet through sheer brute anti-social darwinian competitive brutality. Thugmaxxing is real.
In that last image, you can tell they’re unaware of the halo effect.
Last edited:
"My IQ is 300 but I'm bluepilled and have 0 critical thinking."
Amazing.
Amazing.
Then you'll need to be appealing to women & move somewhere that has lower standards expected on average of it's male population.
S
When discussing blackpill vs other theories, I think we must remember that no one model is absolute. A lot of people in here tend to be pretty rigid and inflexible in terms of how they view the blackpill.
The reality is that I consider myself blackpilled because I think that the basic tenets of the blackpill are *MOSTLY* true and that is the model which *BEST EXPLAINS* things. More than any other model/theory. But we must understand that this is still a complicated area where many things come into play. I think too many blackpillers here oversimplify things and also make things more binary than they really are(in reality even the truths of the blackpill are along a spectrum). A few ways in which I think rigid/inflexible blackpillers oversimplify things:
1) writes off all somewhat unattractive to even very unnatractive people out there who did form romantic bonds with people like them, fall in love, have kids, etc.......anyone who lives in the real world or ever goes into a walmart can see that these pairings are out there. Rigid blackpillers take the "oh, it's not true/real love because she really just pines for Chad" mindset. I don't buy this.....I've known too many unattractive couples that are definately in love with each other and happy and have families, lives together, etc.....
2) the rigid blackpillers don't recognize that looks are only considered in the first place amongst most women(especially those of a certain status and background) *if* you already fall within their guidelines of what an acceptable guy is in other ways. So for most women you have to be the right type of match in the first place to have a chance, then once that group is identified the woman will of course pick based on looks. So really the way the blackpill works in the real world is you have different lanes of people trying to form connections. Women are picking which guy they want based on attractiveness yes.....but mostly only in the lane that works for them. So you don't have a 9/10 looks guy in the "working class thug" lane beat out a 7/10 guy in the lane the girl actually sticks to. It just doesn't work that way.
there are many many more things I think are sometimes oversimplified and applied erroneously by some blackpillers; the above just 2 concepts of such.
That said....the core features of the blackpill are truer than any other model. And thats why I follow the blackpill.
The reality is that I consider myself blackpilled because I think that the basic tenets of the blackpill are *MOSTLY* true and that is the model which *BEST EXPLAINS* things. More than any other model/theory. But we must understand that this is still a complicated area where many things come into play. I think too many blackpillers here oversimplify things and also make things more binary than they really are(in reality even the truths of the blackpill are along a spectrum). A few ways in which I think rigid/inflexible blackpillers oversimplify things:
1) writes off all somewhat unattractive to even very unnatractive people out there who did form romantic bonds with people like them, fall in love, have kids, etc.......anyone who lives in the real world or ever goes into a walmart can see that these pairings are out there. Rigid blackpillers take the "oh, it's not true/real love because she really just pines for Chad" mindset. I don't buy this.....I've known too many unattractive couples that are definately in love with each other and happy and have families, lives together, etc.....
2) the rigid blackpillers don't recognize that looks are only considered in the first place amongst most women(especially those of a certain status and background) *if* you already fall within their guidelines of what an acceptable guy is in other ways. So for most women you have to be the right type of match in the first place to have a chance, then once that group is identified the woman will of course pick based on looks. So really the way the blackpill works in the real world is you have different lanes of people trying to form connections. Women are picking which guy they want based on attractiveness yes.....but mostly only in the lane that works for them. So you don't have a 9/10 looks guy in the "working class thug" lane beat out a 7/10 guy in the lane the girl actually sticks to. It just doesn't work that way.
there are many many more things I think are sometimes oversimplified and applied erroneously by some blackpillers; the above just 2 concepts of such.
That said....the core features of the blackpill are truer than any other model. And thats why I follow the blackpill.
Yes, but the one constant I've found in these ugly people staying together is one side is using the other, and the other/both are putting up with it to avoid being alone. Usually dead bedroom scenarios, but not always. Some of them do seem to understand settling for an uggo like themselves is the best decision and try to make it work. But, this is mostly with older couples... I don't know how true this is with holes from Gen Z and beyond. Statistics cannot be ignored on this, either.
S
I mean.....do ugly people who are with each other(and lets be honest this is tens of millions of couples in the US alone) wish on some level that they were both more attractive? Yeah, I'm sure they do. Who wouldn't?
But I think where we disagree is for a lot of them this doesnt prevent them from still loving the other person, still enjoying this love, having a rewarding family existence, etc......
Anyone who disagrees that there aren't millions of couples out there like this is just.....not really out there connecting with actual people in the world themselves. The idea that most of the tens of millions of couples like this are just "putting up with it to avoid being alone" and don't have a true romantic love is simply not believable. That fies in the face of what we see out in the real world every single day.
That said, there are people who *avoid* these type of pairs because they just don't want to do it. Men and women. They recognize that they can't be happen in a situation where they find their partner physically unattractive. And that's okay and I respect that. But the existence of these people who choose not to enter these pairings doesn't mean that the tens of millions of ugly people who are in marriages claimed to be happy are really faking it.
He brought up a lot of good points and gave valid criticism of this 4chaner's bullshit. Give it a proper read.
He clearly has some sort of axe to grind with Geckobus, he wouldn't have posted that screenshot otherwise.
Fair enough, but I'd point out that just because ugly couples exist doesn't mean that ugly people without a partner are just "avoiding" other ugly people. Even mainstream media admits that women mostly don't have sex and relationships because they don't want to, while it is men who don't have them despite wanting them.
How Celibate Women Became a Threat
"Increasingly, women are both sexual and celibate at once, and perhaps that makes them doubly threatening," writes Maria Yagoda.
Women simply in general have much higher requirements for a partner, and ugly guys by and large don't meet those.
You are wasting your time, it's a load of psuedo intellectual crap.
That doesn't discount what I said, stop worshipping him.
No, I actually gained a shit ton of value from his posts because it opened my eyes to certain social things and I was able to lift some heavy load off my shoulders and better manage my life, like I actually fixed things and made progress. I don't care what's pseudo or not, I'm not an academic, I mostly care for practical information and maybe some very light philosophy just to have some perspective on things.
I have spent a lot of time reading his posts and it's mostly assertions without significant evidence and tenous connections which he uses to make grand sweeping claims. For instance look at his post on women are psychopaths., Also, how did his posts help improve your life or make progress, most of it is just people are shitty, which is a large aspect of the Blackpill. His writing may seem creative but there is very little actual substance there and I never found it useful.
It helped because I used to be a terminal people pleaser with hyper-agency ingrained in me, coupled with a very poor upbringing, and essentially I was under constant mental torture. I simply spent and lot of time reflecting back on my past through his perspective of social dynamics and it made sense, made me realize why certain things happened or kept happening, and that a lot of this shit was not my fault (or was, but in a different way from what I previously thought). So as a consequence of that, I feel better now and make better choices socially/career wise.
True pro-male rhetorics is very rare, as I'm sure you know, at best we have redpillers who are still foid worshippers/tradcucks, so his threads were very valuable to me. I haven't stumbled upon anything like his stuff before, so he was my introduction to that worldview.
And again, the amount/validity of links and citations he provided is not what matters here (though he has plenty of those, just ask him for his sources, he'll send you a shit ton of the data he's saved throughout the years, you can DM him he's pretty friendly and chill), what matters is how he explained things and that it ringed true with what I've experienced in life as a male/incel.
I am too low IQ to follow and understand this conversation.Original thread (will stop working a week from thread archival)
I will post the relevant screenshots of what he said relating to incels and the blackpill. The claim of him having an IQ of 160 is not considered relevant, but I have read through the thread and have reasonable evidence to believe the person replying to me is the one claiming to have such a high IQ.
View attachment 1449058
View attachment 1449059
This one is me:
View attachment 1449060
This is him again:
View attachment 1449061
View attachment 1449062
I think he's too verbose to have a supergenius IQ, a supergenius IQ person would dumb it down enough that the layman could understand it.
NTpillers WW@? This guy is vindicating us.
I feel the Blackpill should have freed you from that, there is nothing special about his posts IMO, yes he writes a lot and makes interesting points but that doesn't mean they are correct.
I know him far better than you do and have spent hours vcing him before. He's lies about everything and is a larping fakecel, he even said he could easily get ethnic girls. So wtf is he complaining about? He's a narcissist obsessed with playing victim and gives himself the most tragic backstory and on top of that he hates unattractive men.
Last edited:
Idk man, that's just some he said she said drama shit. We all already suffer a lot here and it would be wiser to settle beefs in private instead.
I am merely exposing him for being fakecel, if you don't agree with it since you know him so well, then you don't have to respond. But this place is full of normies and I guarantee a large portion of them have girlfriends and are attractive. We all do not suffer a lot, many people here are not suffering at all and simply larping for attention.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I know there are fakecels out there and I don't know anything about his personality, I just appreciate his works. I just think that unnecessary public drama is foid behaviour and we should be better than this. If you spotted a fakecel faggot just PM the mods.
If it were that easy, I would have already done it. But the problem is I only have anecdotal evidence, he's clever enough to cover his tracks.
Sometimes, it's necessary to expose the truth, when it's not apparent to people. It's not really public drama.
You should learn socratic method, you can expose him through questioning.
He's ignoring me, so won't respond to any questions.
That anon is not high IQ.
Saying "erm, reality is more complex than the generalization" does not require particular intelligence.
High IQ is acknowledging the efficiencies that generalizations bring and it's only a question of if the benefits of when the generalization helps is more often to offset the damage of when it's wrong. Example is treating all snakes as dangerous even though they aren't all dangerous, having a 0% chance of being bitten is better than the % chance you were wrong and stuck around a harmless snake.
Saying "erm, reality is more complex than the generalization" does not require particular intelligence.
High IQ is acknowledging the efficiencies that generalizations bring and it's only a question of if the benefits of when the generalization helps is more often to offset the damage of when it's wrong. Example is treating all snakes as dangerous even though they aren't all dangerous, having a 0% chance of being bitten is better than the % chance you were wrong and stuck around a harmless snake.
Similar threads
Blackpill
The normie line of thinking is still a cucked, pathetic, self-manhating mentally incapable mess.
- AntisocialNihilist
- Inceldom Discussion
Shaktiman
Users who are viewing this thread
