Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

JFL Beautiful people have more daughters.

B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
16,449
Online
206d 17h 14m
The mere fact that you were born as a man means that it's more likely that your parents are ugly (and thus why you're more likely to be ugly), because according to this article, beautiful people have more daughters. The entire article is quoted below. It's an old article and the graphs aren't displayed, so mind the source.

Physically more attractive parents are more likely to have daughters than physically less attractive parents, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom.

In an earlier post, I explain that the logic of the generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis (gTWH) leads to the prediction that physically more attractive parents are more likely to have daughters than physically less attractive parents.

The gTWH proposes that parents who possess any heritable trait which increases the female reproductive success more than the male reproductive success are more likely to have daughters.

Physical attractiveness, while advantageous for both boys and girls, is even more beneficial for girls than for boys. Men prefer beautiful women for both long-term and short-term mating, whereas women prefer handsome men only for short-term mating (casual affairs and one-night stands), not for long-term mating, for which other traits, such as wealth and status, become more important.

Thus, the gTWH predicts that physically more attractive parents are more likely to have daughters than physically less attractive parents, and, as I explain in the earlier post, the analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) confirms the prediction.

Both the “sexy son” hypothesis and the good-gene sexual selection theory posit that physically attractive men can increase their reproductive success, not by forming long-term pair-bonded relationships (“marriages”) in which to raise and invest in children, but by having a large number of extrapair copulations with otherwise mated women and cuckolding their mates. So should more attractive parents have more sons instead? Can handsome sons achieve higher reproductive success than beautiful daughters?

Given that the probability of conception per coital act is estimated to be about .03, a man must have 33 extrapair copulation partners (with whom he has sex once each) in order to be able to expect to produce one child (number of potential conception = .99). A man can produce roughly the same number of children with one sexual partner with whom he has regular sex (twice a week) (number of potential conception = .96). It would be very difficult for a man to have more than 30 extra-pair copulation partners in a year, especially in the ancestral environment, where our ancestors lived in a small band of about 150 genetically related individuals (men, women, and children). It would, therefore, be nearly impossible for a physically attractive man to match the reproductive success of a physically attractive woman through only short-term mating. Hence physical attractiveness is more beneficial to girls than to boys.

The analysis of the National Child Development Study (NCDS) in the United Kingdom, which has data on the respondents’ completed fertility at age 47 (virtually all men and women complete their lifetime reproduction by age 45), replicates the earlier findings from the Add Health data in the United States and show that physically more attractive parents are indeed more likely to have daughters than physically less attractive parents.

Physical attractiveness of the NCDS respondents is measured at age 7 by their teachers, who choose up to three adjectives from a highly eclectic list of five to describe the children physically: “attractive,” “unattractive,” “looks underfed,” “abnormal feature,” and “scruffy & dirty.” The child is coded as attractive if it is described at all as “attractive,” and it is coded as “unattractive” if it is described at all as “unattractive.” Then, the sex of the respondent’s first child is measured 40 years later, at age 47.
As you can see in the following graph, British children who are described by their teachers as “attractive” at age 7 are less likely to have a son as their first child 40 years later than those who are not so described. The proportion of sons among the “attractive” NCDS respondents is .50491, whereas the same proportion among everyone else is .52029.

The following graph shows that British children who are described by their teachers as “unattractive” at age 7 are more likely to have a son as their first child 40 years later than those who are not so described. The proportion of sons among the “unattractive” NCDS respondents is .52320, whereas the same proportion among everyone else is .50518.

Multiple binary logistic regression analysis shows that being physically attractive statistically significantly increases the odds of having a daughter as the first child, net of sex, age at first child, education, social class, earnings, height, and weight. Being physically attractive at age 7 increases the odds of having a daughter by 23 percent or decreases the odds of having a son by 19 percent. Similarly, net of the same control variables, being physically unattractive at age 7 decreases the odds of having a daughter by 20 percent or increases the odds of having a son by 25 percent.

The hypothetical average attractive NCDS respondent (who has sample mean values on all of the control variables included in the regression equation) has a probability of having a daughter of p = .50127. In contrast, the hypothetical average unattractive NCDS respondent has a probability of having a daughter of p = .56285. It appears that natural selection does help individual genes to spread, by subtly biasing the offspring sex ratio so that beautiful people, who can benefit from having a daughter, do indeed have slightly more daughters than ugly people, who cannot so benefit.

Forget living life on veteran difficulty in this cucked, degenerate society for a moment. Simply being born a man is already being born with a handicap in every aspect that matters. An obvious corollary to this finding is that the results mean there are less chads than stacies in the world.

It never fucking began.

 
T

THE NEW HONKLER

Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2022
Posts
1,075
Online
6d 19h 0m
i have more brothers than sisters jfl
 
PersonalityChad

PersonalityChad

Oscarcel
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Posts
7,292
Online
25d 13h 12m
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
16,449
Online
206d 17h 14m
PLA1092

PLA1092

O.R.A.N.G.U.T.A.N_M.A.X.I.N.G.
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Posts
16,021
Online
67d 1h 48m
Less Chads than Stacies anyways, due to the imbalanced sex ratio in favour of foids, perhaps even more than what the "official" statistics say. :feelsjuice:
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
16,449
Online
206d 17h 14m
Less Chads than Stacies anyways, due to the imbalanced sex ratio in favour of foids, perhaps even more than what the "official" statistics say. :feelsjuice:
The global population is very slightly tilted towards more females, yes, but that difference wouldn't have an effect on the proportion of genetic outliers between the sexes, according to this evolutionary theory. If we sampled the global population, the proportion of 9 and 10 faces would be expected to be higher in females (going by closeness of facial proportions to phi - the golden ratio), even if there were slightly more males in the world.
 
PLA1092

PLA1092

O.R.A.N.G.U.T.A.N_M.A.X.I.N.G.
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Posts
16,021
Online
67d 1h 48m
The global population is very slightly tilted towards more females, yes, but that difference wouldn't have an effect on the proportion of genetic outliers between the sexes, according to this evolutionary theory. If we sampled the global population, the proportion of 9 and 10 faces would be expected to be higher in females (going by closeness of facial proportions to phi - the golden ratio), even if there were slightly more males in the world.
I skimmed through it, what genetically makes the physically attractive parents more likely to produce a daughter? :feelshehe: :society:
 
PersonalityChad

PersonalityChad

Oscarcel
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Posts
7,292
Online
25d 13h 12m
No, not quite. You would think the number would be about the same among the genetic elite, but this implies otherwise.
Yeah, you're right. I've always assumed that the disparity between the number of Chads and Stacies had more to do with looksmaxxing being much easier for women, but apparently this also plays a part.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
16,449
Online
206d 17h 14m
I skimmed through it, what genetically makes the physically attractive parents more likely to produce a daughter? :feelshehe: :society:
I don't know. The hypothesis is the "generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis (gTWH)." I haven't looked into it to see if there is a proposed mechanism for how this would work (I don't know if that's even possible to determine).

Yeah, you're right. I've always assumed that the disparity between the number of Chads and Stacies had more to do with looksmaxxing being much easier for women, but apparently this also plays a part.
Think about how many basic and average looking women there are when you remove the fakeup. :feelsthink:
 
PLA1092

PLA1092

O.R.A.N.G.U.T.A.N_M.A.X.I.N.G.
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Posts
16,021
Online
67d 1h 48m
I don't know. The hypothesis is the "generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis (gTWH)." I haven't looked into it to see if there is a proposed mechanism for how this would work (I don't know if that's even possible to determine).

Did you read it? :feelswhere:

I'm not sure how it confirms that article above, tbh. :feelssus:
 
Jotogo

Jotogo

Veteran
★★★
Joined
Oct 31, 2022
Posts
1,292
Online
18d 18h 9m
Brahs... Are prettyfaggots the cuckold ones here?
I cannot think or comprehend anything more cucked than having a daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are feeding, clothing. raising and rearing a girl for at least 18 years solely so she can go and get ravaged by another man. All the hard work you put into your beautiful little girl - reading her stories at bedtime, making her go to sports practice, making sure she's had a healthy diet, educating her, playing with her. All of it has one simple result: her body is more enjoyable for the men that will eventually fuck her in every hole. As a man who has a daughter, you are LITERALLY dedicating at least 20 years of your life simply to raise a girl for another man to enjoy. It is the ULTIMATE AND FINAL cuck. Honestly think about it logically
 
MiSKiRaT

MiSKiRaT

الله اكبر
★★★
Joined
Aug 21, 2022
Posts
4,229
Online
24d 14h 55m
they're all gonna be ours inshallah fuck all these pigskin cucks protecting muh lady
 
R

righteouscel

She's bad she's wicked
★★★
Joined
Nov 9, 2022
Posts
2,703
Online
20d 18h 53m
I barely know any guys with sisters
 
Tryna Ascend

Tryna Ascend

Fuck life fuck this shit nigger
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 4, 2022
Posts
4,442
Online
25d 11h 27m
All people here with sisters are fake cels
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
16,449
Online
206d 17h 14m

Did you read it? :feelswhere:

I'm not sure how it confirms that article above, tbh. :feelssus:
I just read it. The wiki entry explains the hypothesis. It doesn't "confirm" the article, because the article is written about the hypothesis.

The scientists behind gTWH offer solely the evolutionary argument using natural selection pressures in the first two paragraphs, but there is a possible biomechanical mechanism that's acknowledged in the last paragraph, which might play a role in the sex difference proportion. The original scientists were unaware of this mechanism.

There doesn't appear to be any specific known mechanism in play at the genetic level.

Brahs... Are prettyfaggots the cuckold ones here?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8-cjd5cdIU
 
PLA1092

PLA1092

O.R.A.N.G.U.T.A.N_M.A.X.I.N.G.
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Posts
16,021
Online
67d 1h 48m
I just read it. The wiki entry explains the hypothesis. It doesn't "confirm" the article, because the article is written about the hypothesis.

The scientists behind gTWH offer solely the evolutionary argument using natural selection pressures in the first two paragraphs, but there is a possible biomechanical mechanism that's acknowledged in the last paragraph, which might play a role in the sex difference proportion. The original scientists were unaware of this mechanism.

There doesn't appear to be any specific known mechanism in play at the genetic level.



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8-cjd5cdIU

I'll remain doubtful about the actuality of the theory. :feelsjuice:
 
Broly

Broly

Days Before Rodeo
Joined
Apr 6, 2021
Posts
2,553
Online
242d 5h 35m
suifuel for brothercels:incel:
lifefuel for sister"cels":chad:
 
Man

Man

No Bitches?
★★★★
Joined
Jul 11, 2022
Posts
2,398
Online
33d 16h 58m
Have beautiful parents :yes:
Have sisters :yes:
tfw still incel :(
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
16,449
Online
206d 17h 14m
I'll remain doubtful about the actuality of the theory. :feelsjuice:
What do you mean the "actuality of the theory?" It's an actual thing, if that's what you mean. KEK

If you mean whether or not it's true, the statistics do show that it is. It's technically a hypothesis, not a theory, btw.
 

Similar threads

ADHD_cel
Replies
20
Views
679
sneed (not chuck)
sneed (not chuck)
Man
Replies
11
Views
254
Autistic Uggo
Autistic Uggo
Mainländer
Replies
28
Views
418
NorthernWind
NorthernWind
R
Replies
1
Views
254
1337hikki
1337hikki
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top