Discussion Berkson's Fallacy

[DenHaag]

What do you think about Berkson's Fallacy?

As applied by Jordan Ellenberg (via Wikipedia):

Suppose Alex will only date a man if his niceness plus his handsomeness exceeds some threshold. Then nicer men do not have to be as handsome to qualify for Alex's dating pool. So, among the men that Alex dates, Alex may observe that the nicer ones are less handsome on average (and vice versa), even if these traits are uncorrelated in the general population. Note that this does not mean that men in the dating pool compare unfavorably with men in the population. On the contrary, Alex's selection criterion means that Alex has high standards. The average nice man that Alex dates is actually more handsome than the average man in the population (since even among nice men, the ugliest portion of the population is skipped). Berkson's negative correlation is an effect that arises within the dating pool: the rude men that Alex dates must have been even more handsome to qualify.

I don't think this changes the fundamental data-driven findings of Blackpillers -- in fact, it may strengthen them.

Looks, Money, and Status go together. LMS.

You don't need all three.

You just can't be bottom-of-the-barrel on any one of them.

And you have to have something meaningful on more than one of them to get in the door.

Chads have LM or LS--sometimes LMS. A former football player who now works at a plant may have L8 M4 S3. That's enough to chad around, settle down and get cucked by an L8 M4 S7, etc.

SEAmaxxer cels are using their S since they're viable on M. They've gotten through the door. They consistently beat out Indian doctors who try going there armed with nothing but an M.

 

[PLA1092]

In the real world, niceness doesn't have that much weight, but I get what he's saying.

 

[unanimouslyethnic]

What do you think about Berkson's Fallacy?

As applied by Jordan Ellenberg (via Wikipedia):



I don't think this changes the fundamental data-driven findings of Blackpillers -- in fact, it may strengthen them.

Looks, Money, and Status go together. LMS.

You don't need all three.

You just can't be bottom-of-the-barrel on any one of them.

And you have to have something meaningful on more than one of them to get in the door.

Chads have LM or LS--sometimes LMS. A former football player who now works at a plant may have L8 M4 S3. That's enough to chad around, settle down and get cucked by an L8 M4 S7, etc.

SEAmaxxer cels are using their S since they're viable on M. They've gotten through the door. They consistently beat out Indian doctors who try going there armed with nothing but an M.

reading rn

 

[Angry_runt]

If a foid is not physically attracted to you, then her having sex with you is prostitution. Whether that's a good or bad experience is debatable, but you're just a mark to her either way.

 

[DenHaag]

In the real world, niceness doesn't have that much weight, but I get what he's saying.

Agreed--I'd replace that word with "status" or something and it would make more sense. To be fair he was not trying to explain any social phenomenon, but simply making up an illustration to teach a point of logic. The illustration is interesting though!

 

[Nikalas]

I don't really get it but sure

 

[UnwantedVirgin]

Someone tl;dr this for dumbcels.

 

[DenHaag]

Someone tl;dr this for dumbcels.

I can't say that I am a smartcel or that I understand it completely (I think I understand it better already after some of this discussion), but maybe it's this:

• You can't just have L, M, or S.
• You need 2 of the 3.
• Maybe this explains why some incels ascend through seamaxxing etc. -- they figure out how to get MS.

 

[Mayocel]

Someone tl;dr this for dumbcels.

To simplify:
Foid dates more hot guys than normies/uglies. When she dates uglies, she dates only nice guys(to betabuxx them). Foid dates more chads than ugly nice guys.

Because of that, she starts correlate niceness with attractiveness, because chads must be nicer ,because she dates more chads. Dates more Chads -> Chads nicer than uglies.

The reality is that if you are not chad, being ugly means you don't even meet the standards to betabuxx the foid if you are an asshole. Chads not actually nicer than uglies, therefore the fallacy.

 

[DenHaag]

To simplify:
Foid dates more hot guys than normies/uglies. When she dates uglies, she dates only nice guys(to betabuxx them). Foid dates more chads than ugly nice guys.

Because of that, she starts correlate niceness with attractiveness, because chads must be nicer ,because she dates more chads. Dates more Chads -> Chads nicer than uglies.

The reality is that if you are not chad, being ugly means you don't even meet the standards to betabuxx the foid if you are an asshole. Chads not actually nicer than uglies, therefore the fallacy.

Brilliantly put.

 

[UnwantedVirgin]

To simplify:
Foid dates more hot guys than normies/uglies. When she dates uglies, she dates only nice guys(to betabuxx them). Foid dates more chads than ugly nice guys.

Because of that, she starts correlate niceness with attractiveness, because chads must be nicer ,because she dates more chads. Dates more Chads -> Chads nicer than uglies.

The reality is that if you are not chad, being ugly means you don't even meet the standards to betabuxx the foid if you are an asshole. Chads not actually nicer than uglies, therefore the fallacy.

Brutally over.

 

[DenHaag]

The reality is that if you are not chad, being ugly means you don't even meet the standards to betabuxx the foid if you are an asshole.

And by the age (~35+) that some might otherwise be in the running to betabuxx, they won't be--because even if they weren't embittered assholes before years of rejection and exclusion--they are now.