Y
Context & about me:
I'm a 24 year old ricecel with a stereotypical Asian obsession with math. I've subscribed to the blackpill for a long time but I only recently came across this site, and after lurking for a while I realized that there hasn't been much detailed theory behind the inevitability of the blackpill. Here I present to you guys what I believe is a reasonable calculated justification for the blackpill.
I'm a greycel and this is my first post. I emphasized reasonable above because I believe that inceldom and the blackpill has the potential to become far better understood if the community focuses on what is provably, incontrovertibly true, instead of controversial / edgy shit like "rape all foids" or "purpose of gf is to be beaten" (just a few examples I've seen while lurking). I hope this post can contribute slightly to the discussion of the blackpill from a purely objective lens.
Now let's look at the math.
A common argument from people who aren't in the incel community is that "inceldom is a choice" and that "you are an incel because of your personality, you just need to work on yourself" etc etc. I'm sure you all have heard arguments for how retarded this is ad nauseam. I'll present below a mathematical argument for why this argument is objectively and demonstrably false.
First, let's make the assumption that the male and female populations can be measured along an axis of attractiveness / desirability, which in mathfag-speak means that there exists f: M, F → R. In a future post (briefly outlined in point 3 of "Critique of Methodology") I will explain why this is not a trivial assumption and what happens in the real world, where this is arguably not fully true.
Secondly, let's assume that the distribution of attractiveness follows a normal distribution. This is quite easily seen from real life; most people are 5-6s, some are chads and chadlites, and some are deformed from birth. Most things in nature follow a normal distribution. To preemptively clear up a misconception, this does not mean that women perceive mens' attractiveness on a normal distribution, which we know from the famous okcupid graph is not true.
Now, we will make the following few assumptions for a baseline calculation that I will relax later on:
- You will meet a total of around 10000 foids over the course of your life, and all of them are willing to give you a chance ex ante, i.e. before knowing how you look.
- You will ascend if you meet someone who is your looksmatch or worse, i.e. if her attractiveness is lower than yours.
- There are around 8 billion people in the world, half of which are men.
There are around 127k men in this world who are 4 standard deviations of attractiveness below average, and all of them have roughly a 73% chance of NEVER, within their entire lifetimes, of meeting a foid who is their looksmatch.
At the time of me writing this, incels.is has 32802 members.
Brutal isn't it?
Keep in mind, this is with some absolutely ridiculous starting assumptions, such as "foid will be interested in you if you are looksmatched" (we know this is not true), "you will meet 10000 eligible women in your lifetime" (also untrue, ignoring dating apps), and it also assumes complete homogeneity in foids' "lookism threshold" across the world. Let's relax those assumptions one by one and see what we get.
We will first get rid of the looksmatching assumption because that is the most ridiculous. We will be charitable to the foids and assume that they will only date at least 1 standard deviation above their own attractiveness level. This looks like a 5 going for a 6, 6 going for a 7, etc. (Remember: 5 to 6 is one stdev, and so is 9 to 10 or 1 to 2, because nature is normally distributed). If you have desmos, you can just copy what I posted in the pic above, replace x by x-1, and see the results for yourself: the purple line will shift to the right by one unit (one standard deviation), and now there are 5.4 MILLION people who will have a 73% chance of never meeting a single foid who is interested in them, EVER.
In modern Western societies at least, we know that foids are going for at least 3 standard deviations above their looksmatch. Just for the sake of curiosity, we can relax our homogeneity assumption, so let's set p = 340 million (US population), t = 10000, and change x to x-3. What do we get? If you are one standard deviation below average, which is a 4, you have a 73% chance of never meeting a foid that's into you; this represents 27 million people out of 170 million males in the US (assuming equal males and females). If you are a 3, then good luck, you have a WHOPPING 99.7% chance of NEVER meeting a single foid who is even willing to look at you.
THINK ABOUT IT. 3.9 MILLION MALES IN THE USA, WHO HAVE A 99.7% CHANCE OF NOT MEETING A SINGLE. ELIGIBLE. FOID. IN THEIR ENTIRE FUCKING LIVES.
And the best part? We aren't even done, because we still operate under the assumption that you will meet 10000 eligible females in your life.If we assume that you don't go on the cesspool that is the dating app scene, then in your daily life, assuming you are a typical middle class individual who has been to / will go to university, then you will meet around 500 females in your entire life AT BEST who you can reasonably have a relationship with.
If we go back to the previous calculation where foids go for their looksmatch+1 standard deviation in attractiveness, then congratulations: whereas previously a person who is 3 standard deviations below average in attractiveness had a 27% chance of meeting at least one foid who will look at them, now this same person has only a 1.6% chance.
Next, let's focus again on the Western world, where hoeflation has made foids go for 3 standard deviations above their looksmatch. If the AVERAGE male meets 500 foids in his life, and is completely average in looks and attractiveness, what's his likelihood of ever meeting a foid who actually wants to give him a chance instead of just making him betabuxx?
49.2%.
You have a better chance of winning an all in on a fucking coin flip than EVER meeting a foid in the West if you are an average 5-6 male.
And if you are 1 standard deviation below the average? (suifuel incoming)
1.57%. Ever. In your entire fucking life.
Brutal isn't it?
Critique of Methodology
I want to include a critique of my own methodology before I conclude to explain why these results are likely underestimating the extent of the blackpill. Consider the following:
- We assume that you ascend instantly if you meet someone whose threshold for attractiveness is low enough to let you pass. In reality, there are so many more hoops you have to jump through just to even ascend that are basically impossible to model. Realistically, I would have to introduce another function in the calculation to model the probability of you also passing through all the other hoops which gets easier the more attractive you are; for those who are interested, this represents a function convolution between your attractiveness and your probability of passing the other stuff.
- This model assumes that the foids who meet you will give you a chance regardless of whether they are taken or not, and once they choose you they stay with you forever. Obviously this is false, and I don't have a good way of accounting for this, because obviously you need to have a function accounting for their probability to cheat, which depends on your attractiveness, and the conditional distribution of their boyfriends' attractiveness given that they are in a relationship.
- This model assumes that there is an objective attractiveness function at all. If anything, this is a huge cope. There is no completely unbiased and infinitesimally granular sorting mechanism in this world, not even AI which is informed by human preferences. If anything, humans' preference mechanisms sort others into several large buckets, like a histogram (which is why we have the 1-10 scale, you would hear someone saying that a person is a 4.5 maybe, but definitely not a 4 1/3. So it seems that our natural limit is around 20 tiers). If there ever is a part 2 to this, I will explore how this can be modeled using partially ordered sets and what that means specifically for ethnicels.
The real world is complicated. Mathfags like me can only invent toy models to jerk off to, in the hopes that it represents 1% of reality. There are certainly a lot of other very big assumptions being made in my methodology. You guys are welcome to point out some that I have missed out and how they can be improved upon.
Conclusion: the blackpill is a mathematical inevitability.
We can be as charitable to non-blackpilled people as we want and say that you can looksmax and personalitymaxx. But at the end of the day, you are being compared to every other possible person in the attractiveness distribution. There will always be someone who becomes more attractive and someone who becomes less attractive, in the same way that for others it is decided and fixed at birth. You can even say that attractiveness is a composite measure of looks, personality, wealth, and a whole bunch of other shit. But at the end of the day, if we can model the natural world with a distribution at all, there will always be a bunch of losers at the leftmost tail end of the distribution who are mathematically destined to be incels.
In other words, inceldom is not a personality or a choice. It is a mathematical probability, and you are thrown by the birth lottery into it.
As an ending note for the other mathfags here (if there are any), the fact that women are generally the choosers in deciding which man to take, whereas men are the seekers (for example, see Tinder's data on swipes vs likes vs matches for men and women), means that the final state of relationships tends towards a stable matching that limits towards the WORST for men and the BEST for women on the lattice of stable distributions. For further information see the Gale-Shapley algorithm.
