RageFuel Female researchers are 3–15 times more likely to be elected as members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) than are male counterparts

[Black Soul]

Source (Nature journal): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00501-7

---

Female scholars more likely than male counterparts to be elected to prestigious US scientific societies, finds study​

Superior accomplishments and considerations of gender equity in academy membership might be contributing to the difference.

Since 2019, 40% of new members of two US academies have been women.Credit: Getty

Female researchers in mathematics, psychology and economics are 3–15 times more likely to be elected as members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or the American Academy of Arts and Sciences than are male counterparts who have similar publication and citation records, a study finds.

The paper finds that since 2019, female researchers have comprised around 40% of new members in both prestigious academies1. Historically, across disciplines in each academy, there have been substantially fewer female researchers than male ones. Before the 1980s, female members comprised less than 10% of total academy membership across all scientific fields.

The NAS advises the nation on science and technology matters, whereas the American Academy honours research excellence. Election to the academies is considered one of the highest honours a researcher can receive.

Lead author David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, says that the boost does not seem to be due to an analogous increase in the number of potentially qualified female candidates for membership.

In a statement to Nature, NAS president Marcia McNutt says that the NAS does not reserve a set number of places in each year’s election for female scientists or other under-represented researchers. Instead, she says that reforms to the NAS-membership nomination process have encouraged inclusion of a more-diverse group of scientists.

David Oxtoby, president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, told Nature that female academy membership has risen from 44% to as much as 55% of all members in certain disciplines since 2018. He did not give a reason for the increase.

Julia Lane, an economist at New York University who studies female representation in science, points out that the study assumes that male and female academy members face the same hurdles in getting published and cited. However, Lane says, research — including her own2 — shows that women face greater barriers in scientific enterprise than do their male counterparts and are less likely to receive credit for their work. This finding suggests that the boost in female academy members could be a result of survivorship bias — women who make it to the top of their field and into the pool of academy candidates are probably more accomplished than male candidates.

Card acknowledges that the study does not examine accomplishments beyond publications and citations, such as mentoring experience or journal editorships, that could help to set female scholars apart. It’s possible, he says, that consideration for academy membership might now account for these roles, resulting in the increase in female membership. “If you control for publications and citations, women are a little bit more likely to be brought in in all three fields” of maths, economics and psychology, says Card. However, he adds, it’s clear that the academies are pushing for more gender equality in nominations.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00501-7

References​

1. Card, D., DellaVigna, S., Funk, P. & Iriberri, N. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e221242110 (2023).
   Article Google Scholar
2. Ross, M. B. et al. Nature 608, 135–145 (2022).
   Article PubMed Google Scholar

 

[PLA1092]

We have to give foids free positions in basically every workplace and industry to exist because of patriarchy, inkwell, are you some type of misogynist? Hard-working men should be shafted in favor of random shallow whores with a party degree for equality, it'll certainly improve our society and nation as a whole and certainly isn't part of a wider agenda to lessen the power of the average man for wider control over them!

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

no matter the gender, its cucks only

 

[PersonalityChimp]

It's obviously because women are smarter and more hard working, totally no female privilege involved here.

 

[blackpillednigga]

"patriarchy"

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Oh so that's why people are complaining about certain studies being completely bs.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

This is why getting a low paying job like a scientist where you beg for grant money like a cuck is low iq.

 

[erenyeager]

Oh so that's why people are complaining about certain studies being completely bs.

If it's made by man .... The study is completely bullshit

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

I'm pretty sure they'll still find a way to claim that they are somehow oppressed because of this .

 

[Black Soul]

We have to give foids free positions in basically every workplace and industry to exist because of patriarchy, inkwell, are you some type of misogynist? Hard-working men should be shafted in favor of random shallow whores with a party degree for equality, it'll certainly improve our society and nation as a whole and certainly isn't part of a wider agenda to lessen the power of the average man for wider control over them!

That's insane

 

[AsiaCel]

I'll play the devil advocate here and say..GOOD.

This is pure accelerationism, reducing the efficiency of the globohomo. The faster globohomo dies, the better.

 

[nohope.]

I don’t care because i’m not a researcher. male researchers are probably okay with this for whatever reason. if anything bad comes of it then that’s there problem

 

[Black Soul]

I'll play the devil advocate here and say..GOOD.

This is pure accelerationism, reducing the efficiency of the globohomo. The faster globohomo dies, the better.

noooooo
science should keep advancing.

 

[Black Soul]

over

 

[Black Soul]

.

 

[cvh1991]

Source (Nature journal): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00501-7

---

Female scholars more likely than male counterparts to be elected to prestigious US scientific societies, finds study​

Superior accomplishments and considerations of gender equity in academy membership might be contributing to the difference.

Since 2019, 40% of new members of two US academies have been women.Credit: Getty

Female researchers in mathematics, psychology and economics are 3–15 times more likely to be elected as members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or the American Academy of Arts and Sciences than are male counterparts who have similar publication and citation records, a study finds.

The paper finds that since 2019, female researchers have comprised around 40% of new members in both prestigious academies1. Historically, across disciplines in each academy, there have been substantially fewer female researchers than male ones. Before the 1980s, female members comprised less than 10% of total academy membership across all scientific fields.

The NAS advises the nation on science and technology matters, whereas the American Academy honours research excellence. Election to the academies is considered one of the highest honours a researcher can receive.

Lead author David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, says that the boost does not seem to be due to an analogous increase in the number of potentially qualified female candidates for membership.

In a statement to Nature, NAS president Marcia McNutt says that the NAS does not reserve a set number of places in each year’s election for female scientists or other under-represented researchers. Instead, she says that reforms to the NAS-membership nomination process have encouraged inclusion of a more-diverse group of scientists.

David Oxtoby, president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, told Nature that female academy membership has risen from 44% to as much as 55% of all members in certain disciplines since 2018. He did not give a reason for the increase.

Julia Lane, an economist at New York University who studies female representation in science, points out that the study assumes that male and female academy members face the same hurdles in getting published and cited. However, Lane says, research — including her own2 — shows that women face greater barriers in scientific enterprise than do their male counterparts and are less likely to receive credit for their work. This finding suggests that the boost in female academy members could be a result of survivorship bias — women who make it to the top of their field and into the pool of academy candidates are probably more accomplished than male candidates.

Card acknowledges that the study does not examine accomplishments beyond publications and citations, such as mentoring experience or journal editorships, that could help to set female scholars apart. It’s possible, he says, that consideration for academy membership might now account for these roles, resulting in the increase in female membership. “If you control for publications and citations, women are a little bit more likely to be brought in in all three fields” of maths, economics and psychology, says Card. However, he adds, it’s clear that the academies are pushing for more gender equality in nominations.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00501-7

References​

1. Card, D., DellaVigna, S., Funk, P. & Iriberri, N. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e221242110 (2023).
   Article Google Scholar
2. Ross, M. B. et al. Nature 608, 135–145 (2022).
   Article PubMed Google Scholar

Why does our own society hate us so much? The people making these decisions are horrible. I don’t know what can be done, but men must build a case, get on the same page, and stand up for themselves god damn it. How long and how much worse does this shit have to get before guys wake up to the brainwashing? Most guys I know my age can’t even get a decent job since they get passed up by quota hires. Seriously a minority woman who is genuinely a fucking idiot with rocks for brains and with basically no experience just became a department head where I work because California bought us out and is trying to creat a more “””””””diverse””””””” work force

The people with real power in America are retards and what makes it worse is that they’re man hating retards. I mean stop and think about this for a moment — people with years of experience who are good at their jobs and have the right qualifications are passed up by nepo hired and ESG hires and then you have these libtard woke Karen’s running the fucking company into the ground and collecting a fat fucking paycheck often for doing basically nothing, we’ve turned into a warped version of the Soviet Union in the sense that everyone just hires their friends or hires to look good politically. Yuck

As usual these days young low status men are the ones who lose and boy do we lose harshly. Yet men are so deeply programmed by the matrix they don’t even see what’s before their eyes.

 

[Buried Alive 2.0]

We have to give foids free positions in basically every workplace and industry to exist because of patriarchy, inkwell, are you some type of misogynist? Hard-working men should be shafted in favor of random shallow whores with a party degree for equality, it'll certainly improve our society and nation as a whole and certainly isn't part of a wider agenda to lessen the power of the average man for wider control over them!

This only applies to cushy, high paying or leadership roles. You'lle never see foids demanding plumbing jobs.

 

[Buried Alive 2.0]

Why does our own society hate us so much? The people making these decisions are horrible. I don’t know what can be done, but men must build a case, get on the same page, and stand up for themselves god damn it. How long and how much worse does this shit have to get before guys wake up to the brainwashing? Most guys I know my age can’t even get a decent job since they get passed up by quota hires. Seriously a minority woman who is genuinely a fucking idiot with rocks for brains and with basically no experience just became a department head where I work because California bought us out and is trying to creat a more “””””””diverse””””””” work force

The people with real power in America are retards and what makes it worse is that they’re man hating retards. I mean stop and think about this for a moment — people with years of experience who are good at their jobs and have the right qualifications are passed up by nepo hired and ESG hires and then you have these libtard woke Karen’s running the fucking company into the ground and collecting a fat fucking paycheck often for doing basically nothing, we’ve turned into a warped version of the Soviet Union in the sense that everyone just hires their friends or hires to look good politically. Yuck

As usual these days young low status men are the ones who lose and boy do we lose harshly. Yet men are so deeply programmed by the matrix they don’t even see what’s before their eyes.

Spot on. Sadly, the men who this and complain will get false data thrown at him and then cancelled. Companies are disgustingly woke because if they are not it's a scandal. All places where I worked have a diversity department. Take a guess at what they do.

 

[SmhChan]

Has anyone ever come across this 'meme' pic where a whore is shouting something along the lines of "we gave birth to you, we are entitled to your labour." Yeah, that's not a joke anymore.

 

[GeckoBus]

@GeckoBus was so right about normies projecting their interpretation of an incel onto the whole notion of the blackpill, normies are incapable of digesting the blackpill because they make the same mistakes as what Francis Bacon explained in his Idols of the Mind.

It's a philosophical issue that goes very deep. They don't think in paradigms but in particulars. They take their own worldview as a given fact and so if something contradicts something within their network of beliefs, they categorically reject it.
They basically think that every person is somehow on the same page on a bunch of core points, like "murder=bad," "children=innocent," "women=nice."

And that we can somehow meet in the middle and then have a discussion, while sharing a common core set of beliefs.
This is not true. Philosophers have known this for ages. Words, meaning, interpretation can differ vastly between people. People can even use the same words, think they have come to the same understanding but mean completely different things.

Person A: "I like Aristotle!
Person B: "Oh me too, he rocks, I really like his greek accent, so funny!"
Person A: "Oh yeah, hes hilarious, anyway, see you later."

Person A is talking about Aristotle, the local kebab merchant.
Person B is talking about Aristotle Onassis, the millionaire.

Word-Concept fallacy is very big with normies and a lot of arguments come down to semantics. "Incel" is not synonymous with the blackpill obviously. There are incels that are just men in a coma.
But normies have a very specific concept of what an incel is, and it's not the 45 year old father of four whos in a coma with a perma boner.

When you ask them to justify their beliefs they usually make fallacious arguments, mostly

- is/ought fallacy (can't empirically arrive at value judgements, not possible. Can't get an "ought" from an "is")
- appeal to authority
- appeal to consensus ("everyone beliefs that" - tell that to the Aztecs)

However, many incels actually are exactly what normies describe them as.
They don't even understand the blackpill. Even if you were gigachad, the blackpill would be devastating as fuck.

The realization alone that people don't like you for who you are, but for how you look...
That's so painful.
Realizing that you did not succeed based on merit, but by chance.
Realizing that someone you shat on is not a bad person, but just ugly.

Or vice versa:
Realizing that it's not your fault. You did not fail because you did not tryhard enough.
You are just ugly, so people don't want to see you win.
That can be a huge relief (for me it was).

There are many disturbing revelations that come with the blackpill, Revelations that go way beyond "i cant get sex."
But as I wrote in my thread, most users here give us a bad rep for doing exactly that. They reduce everything to self-benefit and complain all day about not getting sex, yet many here have jobs, make good money etc... and they think they are merited in that.
That they got that success somehow by merit.

If the blackpill is true and we have no control over our lives, because everything, from looks to IQ, is pre-determined, why would I pride myself in anything? There is no basis for pride anymore. I did not do anything to arrive where I am.

Yet you see people here worshiping themselves, worshiping academia - they act as if the blackpill is constraint to women and sex.
It's not.
If you are really really consistent, it destroys your entire worldview.
Example: "But I studied so hard to get this degree!" - Did you give yourself the ability to do that?

Did you birth yourself?
Did you feed your mom the right nutrients while she was pregant?
Did you choose to be born in a country where you have access to education?
Did you give yourself the ability to concentrate and study enough to get that degree?

Tell me, what exactly did YOU do, to deserve that allocade?
Precisely, you didn't do shit.

This is the crux of the issue for me with a lot of people on here, they are pushing an extremely reductoinist view of the blackpill and Normies prey on that.

But if we are consistant with the blackpill, it destroys any reason to feel good about yourself -> and to feel bad about yourself too.
It actually should make you much more compassionate person, since it removes the entire concept of competition from your worldview.
There is no competition.

Competition does not even logically make sense.
Think about this: If you beat someone, this logically implies they were
a) weaker than you
b) they had some sort of disadvantage
c) you had an advantage

So, you did not win by merit. You won because the other person was less fortunate.
There is no reason to celebrate something like this. You did not win, you lucked out.

This is another horrific pattern with humans in general, we worship people that luck out. Outliers.
Almost everyone you see giving advice, they always got lucky.
We turn to people like Jordan Peterson for life advice.
Nigga, he literally makes millions a year, has never suffered and says shit like "there is no shame in earning money."
While making teenage boys pay 500$ to pay for a fucking pop quiz.

We take advice from successful businessmen when 4/5 business fail within the first 5 years.
Were all of these people that failed just "bad at business?" - statistically this is incredibly unlikely.
So if someone succeeds, they just lucked out.
Yet we listen to them.

Remember, just world fallacy. "Winners in a rigged game think the game is fair."

Try to find a person giving advice that is not an outlier. It's impossible.
When was the last time you saw some mumbai street curry on joe rogan?
Yet, the average mumbai dog probably has more knowledge of the human condition than any top tier western psychologist.

We should turn to people that FAIL for advice.
Would you rather listen to a gambler telling you his "strategy" of how he won the lottery, or would you rather
listen to the dude who got hurt gambling and he lays out how its rigged for you.

Another example that research has uncovered for us:
You know how boomers always shit on young people?
This trend, of older people shitting on the youth has been recorded for 1000s of years.
They even found some clay tablets from ancient babylon or something where it said "oh the youth is so degenerate oh no."

Turns out that the reason is just-world-fallacy.
They found that older people are usually stable in life, own property, have money.
So they retroactively whitewash their youth, claim they were better than they were etc...
and from that perspective they shit on young people.

HOWEVER, and this is interesting: The researchers found that if an old person has a SHIT life, despite being old, they openly
acknowledge that nothing has changed and that young people are the same now as back then. They are more honest.

I've written too much already but I want to stress this one more time: Most incels do not apply the blackpill globally.
They only apply it to the parts of their life they DONT LIKE.
In psychology, they call this "fundamental attribution error."

- when bad things happen to us, we rationalize it as coincidence, "we didnt deserve it"
- when good things happen to us, we rationalize it as "we deserved it, it was merit, I worked hard"

(notice how the outliers I mentioned earlier always have a sob story, of how they started from nothing etc... - I have never seen one who admitted like "oh yeah, my family was middle class, I had an easy uprbrining, got lucky hmm")

- when bad things happen to others, it turns around: Suddenly they deserve it
- when good things happen to others, they suddenly dont deserve it, it was coincidence

Incels do this too.
That's why most incels here only apply the blackpill to sex and relationships.
They use it as an to say "look I dont like this bad thing that happened to me, but it was not my fault."

But for the rest of their life, where things go well for them (money, academia etc...)
they do the opposite.
Suddenly its "normies are just low IQ."
Or "the education system isnt THAT rigged."

A good example is incelTV. I am sure you are familar.
IncelTV makes all these videos on the blackpill and yet he shits on people in his videos, saying most people dont succeed in business
because of their personality. I am not joking, he actually says that.

Like I said, this is a classic example
We say merit exists and the world is just - if it benefits us.
And if something does not benefit us or we dont like it - oh bro thats the blackpill bro, its all determinism.

You see this on here constantly.
Like I said, most incels use the blackpill only for self-benefit and that's exactly what normies accuse us of.

If you are really really really consistent with it, you would have to acknowledge that merit does not exist.
You did not deserve anything, you did not do anything to get anywhere.
All your failures and successes, both were random. You are neither guilty nor distinguished in anyhting.

I hope I could get my point across.
Have a good one.

 

[NorthernWind]

It's a philosophical issue that goes very deep. They don't think in paradigms but in particulars. They take their own worldview as a given fact and so if something contradicts something within their network of beliefs, they categorically reject it.
They basically think that every person is somehow on the same page on a bunch of core points, like "murder=bad," "children=innocent," "women=nice."

And that we can somehow meet in the middle and then have a discussion, while sharing a common core set of beliefs.
This is not true. Philosophers have known this for ages. Words, meaning, interpretation can differ vastly between people. People can even use the same words, think they have come to the same understanding but mean completely different things.

Person A: "I like Aristotle!
Person B: "Oh me too, he rocks, I really like his greek accent, so funny!"
Person A: "Oh yeah, hes hilarious, anyway, see you later."

Person A is talking about Aristotle, the local kebab merchant.
Person B is talking about Aristotle Onassis, the millionaire.

Word-Concept fallacy is very big with normies and a lot of arguments come down to semantics. "Incel" is not synonymous with the blackpill obviously. There are incels that are just men in a coma.
But normies have a very specific concept of what an incel is, and it's not the 45 year old father of four whos in a coma with a perma boner.

When you ask them to justify their beliefs they usually make fallacious arguments, mostly

- is/ought fallacy (can't empirically arrive at value judgements, not possible. Can't get an "ought" from an "is")
- appeal to authority
- appeal to consensus ("everyone beliefs that" - tell that to the Aztecs)

However, many incels actually are exactly what normies describe them as.
They don't even understand the blackpill. Even if you were gigachad, the blackpill would be devastating as fuck.

The realization alone that people don't like you for who you are, but for how you look...
That's so painful.
Realizing that you did not succeed based on merit, but by chance.
Realizing that someone you shat on is not a bad person, but just ugly.

Or vice versa:
Realizing that it's not your fault. You did not fail because you did not tryhard enough.
You are just ugly, so people don't want to see you win.
That can be a huge relief (for me it was).

There are many disturbing revelations that come with the blackpill, Revelations that go way beyond "i cant get sex."
But as I wrote in my thread, most users here give us a bad rep for doing exactly that. They reduce everything to self-benefit and complain all day about not getting sex, yet many here have jobs, make good money etc... and they think they are merited in that.
That they got that success somehow by merit.

If the blackpill is true and we have no control over our lives, because everything, from looks to IQ, is pre-determined, why would I pride myself in anything? There is no basis for pride anymore. I did not do anything to arrive where I am.

Yet you see people here worshiping themselves, worshiping academia - they act as if the blackpill is constraint to women and sex.
It's not.
If you are really really consistent, it destroys your entire worldview.
Example: "But I studied so hard to get this degree!" - Did you give yourself the ability to do that?

Did you birth yourself?
Did you feed your mom the right nutrients while she was pregant?
Did you choose to be born in a country where you have access to education?
Did you give yourself the ability to concentrate and study enough to get that degree?

Tell me, what exactly did YOU do, to deserve that allocade?
Precisely, you didn't do shit.

This is the crux of the issue for me with a lot of people on here, they are pushing an extremely reductoinist view of the blackpill and Normies prey on that.

But if we are consistant with the blackpill, it destroys any reason to feel good about yourself -> and to feel bad about yourself too.
It actually should make you much more compassionate person, since it removes the entire concept of competition from your worldview.
There is no competition.

Competition does not even logically make sense.
Think about this: If you beat someone, this logically implies they were
a) weaker than you
b) they had some sort of disadvantage
c) you had an advantage

So, you did not win by merit. You won because the other person was less fortunate.
There is no reason to celebrate something like this. You did not win, you lucked out.

This is another horrific pattern with humans in general, we worship people that luck out. Outliers.
Almost everyone you see giving advice, they always got lucky.
We turn to people like Jordan Peterson for life advice.
Nigga, he literally makes millions a year, has never suffered and says shit like "there is no shame in earning money."
While making teenage boys pay 500$ to pay for a fucking pop quiz.

We take advice from successful businessmen when 4/5 business fail within the first 5 years.
Were all of these people that failed just "bad at business?" - statistically this is incredibly unlikely.
So if someone succeeds, they just lucked out.
Yet we listen to them.

Remember, just world fallacy. "Winners in a rigged game think the game is fair."

Try to find a person giving advice that is not an outlier. It's impossible.
When was the last time you saw some mumbai street curry on joe rogan?
Yet, the average mumbai dog probably has more knowledge of the human condition than any top tier western psychologist.

We should turn to people that FAIL for advice.
Would you rather listen to a gambler telling you his "strategy" of how he won the lottery, or would you rather
listen to the dude who got hurt gambling and he lays out how its rigged for you.

Another example that research has uncovered for us:
You know how boomers always shit on young people?
This trend, of older people shitting on the youth has been recorded for 1000s of years.
They even found some clay tablets from ancient babylon or something where it said "oh the youth is so degenerate oh no."

Turns out that the reason is just-world-fallacy.
They found that older people are usually stable in life, own property, have money.
So they retroactively whitewash their youth, claim they were better than they were etc...
and from that perspective they shit on young people.

HOWEVER, and this is interesting: The researchers found that if an old person has a SHIT life, despite being old, they openly
acknowledge that nothing has changed and that young people are the same now as back then. They are more honest.

I've written too much already but I want to stress this one more time: Most incels do not apply the blackpill globally.
They only apply it to the parts of their life they DONT LIKE.
In psychology, they call this "fundamental attribution error."

- when bad things happen to us, we rationalize it as coincidence, "we didnt deserve it"
- when good things happen to us, we rationalize it as "we deserved it, it was merit, I worked hard"

Russian saying - 'the well-fed cannot understand the hungry'.
Those blessed with bright intellect will never understand the dull ones, beautiful will never understand the ugly, rich - poor, courageous - the fearful ones etc.
So discussion amongst people is often pointless.

 

[GeckoBus]

In an earlier post you said the blackpill is not fatalism and that it is nothing.

Is the blackpill indicative of determinism or not?

AAAAH YOU GOT ME!

You are right and I want to respond.

Let's start with word definitions because a lot of arguments come down to misunderstandings:

Fatalism:
Definitions of this term vary, I assume you equate it to determinism based on your second sentence.

No, I do not believe in total determinism because that is self refuting. I would not be able to make claims if I had no free will.
There would be no person making a claim, so there would be nobody making an argument.

Either/Or Fallacy:
Reducing the possible answers to a question to two.
For instance, you say "Is the blackpill indicative of determinism or not?"

This is based on your interpretation of my other thread, where I said the blackpill is nothing. It makes no value judgements, since it is not a person. And we can not derive value judgements from observation, see:

Is/Ought Fallacy:
From Wikipedia:

The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive or positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently transition from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones.

So, since the blackpill is just a set of observations about human nature, it can not give you any value judgements.
This includes fatalistic beliefs about how we OUGHT to behave in light of the blackpill.
Note that I am using the word fatalistic here in the moral sense, not in the logical deterministic sense.

Now, you also use the word

Indicative:
As can be seen by the word itself, this refers to "induction" or "inductive reasoning" rather.
Here also we run into a problem:

What you infer from the blackpill is arbitrary. You could also look at the blackpill and infer that it actually EMPOWERS you and enables you to act more freely than before, since you are now more capable of judging the true extend of control you have over your life.
For instance, now you know that going to the gym is less effective at gaining human affection than lets say, getting jaw surgery.

Maybe you got hung up on me saying there is no reason to feel pride or a sense of accomplishment if the blackpill is true.
Again, this is about word definitions. I already explained that I do not believe in total determinism as that is self-defeating.

However, the antithesis, total control, is equally impossible since it would lead to solipsism, the belief that all that exists is the self.
From this perspective, I am all that exists and everything is caused by me, from me etc.
This would include events like the current Gaza conflict.

When I say there is no reason to be proud or feel a sense of accomplishment, I just mean that there is no logical reason to take credit for events that were never in your control in the first place. Why pat myself on the shoulder for winning in a rigged system?
Would you congratulate yourself for beating the casino?

So the ultimate question becomes this: Since free will is a logical necessity, proven by the impossibility of the contrary,
and since there are clearly forces that we have no control over, we have to ask ourselves how much control we actually have.
Can we even determine how much control we have?

Immediately it becomes obvious that this question is impossible to answer from a limited human viewpoint.
There are too many factors involved.
Maybe I killed someone today, indirectly, by taking a small action that triggered some chain of events, butterfly effect style.
Maybe we are in control of everything, but just not consciously.

As this is impossible to answer, but we know that free will has to be true, there are only a few options we can take:

1. Give up.
Yeehaa. Throw in the towel, stop pondering over a paradox. We will never know how much control we actually have or not have.

2. Probe further into the limits of what can be known from a human perspective.
This will lead to the realization that knowledge itself is an impossibility from a human viewpoint. This sounds cray cray at first, but it is true and commonly acknowledged by philosophers today. This is the skeptic project and its ultimate conclusion.

Nicholas Everitt in his book “Modern Epistemology” says of the current state of analysis that, “… this
search for foundations has been unsuccessful.” It has failed in mathematics and it has failed in science. All
particular proposals have failed, and it fails in principle.[5] Everitt concludes with the question, “Given this
inevitable failure, what if anything is left for the epistemologist to do?”[6

https://www.patristicfaith.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The_Contingency_of_Knowledge_and_Revelatory_Theism.pdf

Of course this also presents a problem since to claim knowledge is impossible you have to have access to knowledge and a system of justifying claims. But in order to explain why claims are true, you already have to appeal to a system that does exactly that. We call this "the jumpstart problem of epistemology."

So, to bring it back around:

- I don't believe the blackpill is indicative of determinism
- I believe determinism as position is self-refuting
- I believe the blackpill just highlights that we have less control over our lives than we think.

The reason why we think we have so much control over our lives nowadays, is a by product of modern attitudes towards life. In past centuries, our concept of upward mobility in the social hierachy would have been laughed at. The concept that you can impose your will on reality and thus "shape your destinity" is also a leftover of philosophical ideas that arose in the post-enlightenment era. Ideas like blank-slate theory for instance, that a human being is born without innate sensibilities and only after birth "programmed" by the experiences it makes.

This strictly empiricist view of knowledge, that all knowledge is imprinted upon the mind by the senses through impressions we receive form the external world, is a philosophical belief that has has been contested over and over again, though the battle about this topic largely happens high in the clouds of academia, outside he purview of the larger populace.

This is also were we get ideas about gender-egalitarianism from. In this view, both genders are born "carte-blanche" - as white sheets of paper, ready to be written upon. Gender identity is just a construct that is acquired through experience.

Before these modern ideas, pepole were much more "blackpilled" in the sense that they acknowledged a healthy amount of "divine determinism" in their lifes. Though this may not be easy to grasp or accept for us as human beings, everything that happenes, happenes for a reason. This is what they believed.

One of the once most popular examples of this is, is this tale:
"The Hermit and the Angel"

Summary:
A man pondering why evil things happen gets visited by an angel.
They go on a journey whereon the angel commits all kinds of evil.
For instance he murders a child. Shocked, the hermit begs the angel to tell him the meaning of this.
Later the angel reveals to the hermit that the child would have grown up to murder his parents.

The lesson in this tale is clear. Things may happen, gruesome things even, but since there is order in the universe, there is a reason for everything. To dwell on the question beyond this has no point. There is no answer.

http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/03/95.pdf

So, whether you are a christian or you consider yourself a non-believer, the question of how much control we have over our lives can not be answered. Any worldview will struggle with this, hence it does not present a valid criteria to dismiss a worldview because of it.

I hope I could explain my points better and clarify what I actually belief. I want to end the reply on a constructive note so I will quote this from a book:

To end our discussion of Nihilism on such a note as this is, surely, to lay ourselves open to the charge that we possess a Nihilism of our own; our analysis, it may be argued, is "pessimistic" in the extreme. Categorically rejecting almost everything held valuable and true by modern man, we seem to be as thorough in denial as the most extreme of Nihilists.

And indeed the Christian is, in a certain sense--in an ultimate sense--a "Nihilist"; for to him, in the end, the world is nothing, and God is all. This is, of course, the precise opposite of the Nihilism we have examined here, where God is nothing and the world is all; that is a Nihilism that proceeds from the Abyss, and the Christian's is a "Nihilism" that proceeds from abundance.

The true Nihilist places his faith in things that pass away and end in nothing; all "optimism" on this foundation is clearly futile. The
Christian, renouncing such vanity places his faith in the one thing that will not pass away, the Kingdom of God.

To him who lives in Christ, of course, many of the goods of this world may be given back, and he may enjoy them even while realizing their evanescence; but they are not needful, they are truly nothing to him. He who does not live in Christ, on the other hand, already lives in the Abyss, and not all the treasures of this world can ever fill his emptiness.

Nihilism seraphim rose.pdf

NIHILISM The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age by Eugene (Fr. Seraphim) Rose. [mark-up mostly done--- notes need work]. CONTENTS Editor's Preface I. Introduction: The Question of Truth II. The Stages of the Nihilist Dialectic 1. Liberalism 2. Realism 3. Vitalism 4. The Nihilism of...

www.docdroid.net

In this we see what I believe to be the best of both worlds. On one hand, the "fatalism" of this world is acknowledged, on the other it does not end there. There is a way out. Meaning is not found in this world, but in the next. Whatever things fall into our lap (or not), are not the result of our doings but are given from high above.

As you can see, this view unites both determinism in the form of God and also acknowledges free will in that we interact with him in some capacity as free agents. The specifics of this are a mystery and to call it that is merely being honest, not superstitious.

Phew a lot text, I hope I don't come off as too pretentious kek.

 

[GeckoBus]

One final question, is there a necessity of faith in philosophy?

yes, circular reasoning is impossible to avoid at the highest level.
No worldview can justify itself, they all eventually have to appeal to something external without being able to justify that.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTcFCYLZfEY

 

[cvh1991]

Spot on. Sadly, the men who this and complain will get false data thrown at him and then cancelled. Companies are disgustingly woke because if they are not it's a scandal. All places where I worked have a diversity department. Take a guess at what they do.

Fucking nailed it dude. I know exactly what you mean. It’s honestly insane how bad this shit has become. It’s no wonder men are doing so bad in school and I had my professor buddy tell me their Uni is now 70%+ women. Men are dropping out and NEETing wherever possible because there are so few decent opportunities left and it’s only getting worse.

What happens when most of your young men can’t get a decent job, make a decent wage, get a girlfriend much less a wife, no prospect for a family, no ability to own a home, etc? What happens when young men notice that they’re the boogeyman for mainstream groups and the powers that be and they feel their own society has abandoned them and treats them as disposable serfs? Well in the old days if people were starving revolts would happen. Today we’re not to that point and also I think men are exposed to more propaganda and very effective propaganda and indoctrination in ways that probably have never been so powerful historically. We also basically live in a pseudo fascistic world now where merely speaking out against the “wrong” group or staring your real views about these kinds of topics will genuinely get you fired and you’ll have your reputation obliterated immediately.

It’s just crazy to me how we’re seeing this before our eyes and we’re living it but so many people aren’t. Probably because boomer men got theirs and don’t care being removed from it/out of touch and women obviously don’t care because they just want to maximize their own advantage men be damned.

 

[Buried Alive 2.0]

Fucking nailed it dude. I know exactly what you mean. It’s honestly insane how bad this shit has become. It’s no wonder men are doing so bad in school and I had my professor buddy tell me their Uni is now 70%+ women. Men are dropping out and NEETing wherever possible because there are so few decent opportunities left and it’s only getting worse.

While this is bad it's not too worrisome. Universities are a joke and temples of ignorance and mindlessness. Maybe this is women's doing - for them to be able to handle university course had to become garbage and useless.

What happens when most of your young men can’t get a decent job, make a decent wage, get a girlfriend much less a wife, no prospect for a family, no ability to own a home, etc? What happens when young men notice that they’re the boogeyman for mainstream groups and the powers that be and they feel their own society has abandoned them and treats them as disposable serfs? Well in the old days if people were starving revolts would happen. Today we’re not to that point and also I think men are exposed to more propaganda and very effective propaganda and indoctrination in ways that probably have never been so powerful historically. We also basically live in a pseudo fascistic world now where merely speaking out against the “wrong” group or staring your real views about these kinds of topics will genuinely get you fired and you’ll have your reputation obliterated immediately.

It’s just crazy to me how we’re seeing this before our eyes and we’re living it but so many people aren’t. Probably because boomer men got theirs and don’t care being removed from it/out of touch and women obviously don’t care because they just want to maximize their own advantage men be damned.

Very true. Men are, at the same time, the great evil in society and completely unable to achieve normal lives. I don't get how most people are not able to see that men are oppressed as fuck.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

Russian saying - 'the well-fed cannot understand the hungry'.
Those blessed with bright intellect will never understand the dull ones, beautiful will never understand the ugly, rich - poor, courageous - the fearful ones etc.
So discussion amongst people is often pointless.

They can be made to, under the right circumstances. It's primarily a problem with incentives / motivation.

 

[Black Soul]

@GeckoBus, what you wrote in this post and the next is truly the smartest and most sincere thing that I have read on this site, perhaps ever. I am amazed by this divine flow of ideas and arguments you have made! I was shocked that someone finally said something I thought was only orerry mind. I always have complex thoughts but I'm never able to express them as efficiently as you do, beside my poor language doesn't help.

Incels do this too.
That's why most incels here only apply the blackpill to sex and relationships.
They use it as an to say "look I dont like this bad thing that happened to me, but it was not my fault."

But for the rest of their life, where things go well for them (money, academia etc...)
they do the opposite.
Suddenly its "normies are just low IQ."
Or "the education system isnt THAT rigged."

This.
This is why, about a year and a half ago, I stopped feeling any affiliation, support, or interest in incels. Many of them live better than me and my suffering is irrelavant to their lives so why I fucking care about them or anybody don't feel me?! This forum is a based social media to me.

Btw, do you mind if I talk to you via PM later?

 

[GeckoBus]

@GeckoBus, what you wrote in this post and the next is truly the smartest and most sincere thing that I have read on this site, perhaps ever. I am amazed by this divine flow of ideas and arguments you have made! I was shocked that someone finally said something I thought was only orerry mind. I always have complex thoughts but I'm never able to express them as efficiently as you do, beside my poor language doesn't help.

This.
This is why, about a year and a half ago, I stopped feeling any affiliation, support, or interest in incels. Many of them live better than me and my suffering is irrelavant to their lives so why I fucking care about them or anybody don't feel me?! This forum is a based social media to me.

Btw, do you mind if I talk to you via PM later?

you can PM me whenever you like babe

 

[Black Soul]

you can PM me whenever you like babe

Thank you! I will do when I relax

 

[Gokubro]

Foids control the world. Nothing you can do about this.

 

[IncelGolem]

David Card is the same economics professor who claimed Harvard doesn't benefit African-Americans in it's admissions. Something anyone with two eyeballs and an IQ about 80 could see is false does by a cursory comparison of SAT scores and GPA.