BlkPillPres
Self-banned
-
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2018
- Posts
- 19,737
Browsing IncelTears isn't so bad, sometimes it leads to gems like these, I've never even thought of this yet, and its so true when you think about it
There is no evidence that Chad is actually genetically superior in terms of natural selection. There is no evidence that he is healthier or sires healthier offspring, nor has better adaptive genes. One scientist that did a lot of work of spreading the meme suggesting that Chad was genetically superior was outed a fraud.
Chad is in no way objectively "better" than an incel, except in terms of being the object of female sexual desire. This was created by a "Fisherian runaway" fluke in natural selection.
A "Fisherian runaway" is a situation where a species has males with exaggerated masculine traits that are deemed highly desirable by females, but are actually seemingly maladaptive, for example with Peacocks. A male peacock's plumage does not actually provide any adaptive advantage to its survival except for finding a female mate. This is the result of a positive feedback loop in evolution:
We can only speculate as to how this Fisherian runaway "Chad" started, but that positive feedback loop is creating a situation where female preference becomes more absurd as time goes on, with many more incels created.
I even found more examples of this phenomenon pointed out by incels:
As a commenter pointed out:
Women select primarly based on FORM and not FUNCTION, they are inherently the more shallow sex, at some point selecting only "chad genetics" in terms of looks is going to start to express itself negatively in the gene pool, may ironically lead to our extinction. On another note who cares about that part, we don't get to take part in civilization so we shouldn't give a fuck about its downfall, I just wanted to point out the irony of it all.
I'm surprised I never thought about this until now, really think about the most obvious example of this, the Peacock, literally used for the term "peacocking" to define men imitating what is usually female behaviour, trying to "look more attractive", draw attention to yourself using colours, clothing, etc. The plumage of a male peacock does not aid in its survival AND ACTUALLY IMPEDES IT.
There is no evidence that Chad is actually genetically superior in terms of natural selection. There is no evidence that he is healthier or sires healthier offspring, nor has better adaptive genes. One scientist that did a lot of work of spreading the meme suggesting that Chad was genetically superior was outed a fraud.
Chad is in no way objectively "better" than an incel, except in terms of being the object of female sexual desire. This was created by a "Fisherian runaway" fluke in natural selection.
A "Fisherian runaway" is a situation where a species has males with exaggerated masculine traits that are deemed highly desirable by females, but are actually seemingly maladaptive, for example with Peacocks. A male peacock's plumage does not actually provide any adaptive advantage to its survival except for finding a female mate. This is the result of a positive feedback loop in evolution:
Over time a positive feedback mechanism will see more exaggerated sons and choosier daughters being produced with each successive generation; resulting in the runaway selection for the further exaggeration of both the ornament and the preference (until the costs for producing the ornament outweigh the reproductive benefit of possessing it).
The two characteristics affected by such a process, namely [ornamental] development in the male, and sexual preference for such development in the female, must thus advance together, and … will advance with ever increasing speed. t is easy to see that the speed of development will be proportional to the development already attained, which will therefore increase with time exponentially, or in a geometric progression.
Fisher, R.A. (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. ISBN 0-19-850440-3[6]
Such a process must soon run against some check. Two such are obvious. If carried far enough … counterselection in favour of less ornamented males will be encountered to balance the advantage of sexual preference; … elaboration and … female preference will be brought to a standstill, and a condition of relative stability will be attained. It will be more effective still if the disadvantage to the males of their sexual ornaments so diminishes their numbers surviving, relative to the females, as to cut at the root of the process, by demising the reproductive advantage to be conferred by female preference.
Fisher, R.A. (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. ISBN 0-19-850440-3[6]
We can only speculate as to how this Fisherian runaway "Chad" started, but that positive feedback loop is creating a situation where female preference becomes more absurd as time goes on, with many more incels created.
I even found more examples of this phenomenon pointed out by incels:
As a commenter pointed out:
This happened to a LOT of bird species where the females only mated with the most colorful and big feathered males, but then it turns out those are a lot more visible to predators.
Women select primarly based on FORM and not FUNCTION, they are inherently the more shallow sex, at some point selecting only "chad genetics" in terms of looks is going to start to express itself negatively in the gene pool, may ironically lead to our extinction. On another note who cares about that part, we don't get to take part in civilization so we shouldn't give a fuck about its downfall, I just wanted to point out the irony of it all.
I'm surprised I never thought about this until now, really think about the most obvious example of this, the Peacock, literally used for the term "peacocking" to define men imitating what is usually female behaviour, trying to "look more attractive", draw attention to yourself using colours, clothing, etc. The plumage of a male peacock does not aid in its survival AND ACTUALLY IMPEDES IT.
Last edited: