Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

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.

Blackpill [It's Over]Foid Sexual Choices by Default are Dysgenic.

DarkStarDown

DarkStarDown

卐ϟϟLuminaryϟϟ卐
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 20, 2022
Posts
19,230

For quite some time, I have been considering the broader impacts of behavioral sink & the general decline in civilization: What other factors are at play? Who else could be a driving force behind it? And many, many other such thoughts.

However, one thing that should definitely be considered within this, is whom the primary harbingers of inheriting traits which contribute to this(and thus, Inceldom) lies within that of the primary selectors of sexual decisions; foids.

Modern day foids globally, but particuallrty within the West, control the dating market; water for all of us but some lurkers need to be reminded.

Now of course, the broader Socio-Cultural consequences of this will extend beyond just "male loneliness" & the broader Inceldom phenomena: Ultimately, it will correlate heavily with that of behavioral sink & various other phenomenas, which in turn will contribute to inceldom. The two are mutually exclusive; one phenomena cannot exist without the presence of another.

So how exactly do foid sexual choices have anything to do with this? Well, let's thoroughly examine the findings of the article linked:

Natural selection has been documented in contemporary humans, but little is known about the mechanisms behind it. We test for natural selection through the association between 33 polygenic scores and fertility, across two generations, using data from UK Biobank (N = 409,629 British subjects with European ancestry). Consistently over time, polygenic scores that predict higher earnings, education and health also predict lower fertility. Selection effects are concentrated among lower SES groups, younger parents, people with more lifetime sexual partners, and people not living with a partner. The direction of natural selection is reversed among older parents, or after controlling for age at first live birth. These patterns are in line with the economic theory of fertility, in which earnings-increasing human capital may either increase or decrease fertility via income and substitution effects in the labour market. Studying natural selection can help us understand the genetic architecture of health outcomes: we find evidence in modern day Great Britain for multiple natural selection pressures that vary between subgroups in the direction and strength of their effects, that are strongly related to the socio-economic system, and that may contribute to health inequalities across income groups.

The statement about higher earnings, education, health, etc. predicting lower-levels of fertility does correlate heavily with that of theories concerning k-selection & r-selection.

It was also done over two generations, which indicates that it would serve as a good reflection of modern foids.

Recent work confirms that natural selection is taking place in modern human populations, using genome-wide analysis (Barban et al. 2016; Beauchamp 2016; Conley et al. 2016; Kong et al. 2017; Sanjak et al. 2018; Fieder and Huber 2022). In particular, genetic variants associated with higher educational attainment are being selected against, although effect sizes appear small.

Clearly, modern day "natural selection" does not follow the traditional paths of nature, which would dictate for males to be the primary sexual-selectors: Think as to how virtually every civilization we had was clearly a patriarchal one, and dictated that the senior males should decide whom marries whom.

Foids being granted the right to determine whom they can sleep around with & eventually establish a relationship, in which reproduction occurs, has served only to broaden the wider selection of undesirable traits.

The correlations here frankly are astronomical to make a note of: The clear selection-bias which foids have when it comes to sexual reproduction exclusively is weeding out traits which are cognitively beneficial, and instead serving to promote ones which will create offspring more likely to bear these heavily undesirable traits. It is also a commonly accepted fact that various dysgenic traits are on the rise, as well as the overall increase in mental health, which is at the very least partially determined by genetic history.

And before any lurker here wants to think ":soy:: Correlation doesn't equal causation!" Well, here's what I would like to say in regards to that.

Yes, it doesn't imply directly "x causes y" that's not what anyone here is trying to state: Instead, we simply have noticed that these two things tend to "associate well together" if you will, and are trying to understand what kind of undercurrent perhaps raises the tides on each phenomena. :feelzez:

Natural selection has been documented in contemporary humans, but little is known about the mechanisms behind it
I almost caged when reading this: So they state multiple scientists, geneticists, researchers, etc. all ended up analyzing the contemporary history of humans & mating within it, yet can't identify any reasons leading to it?

To simply put it, it seems to me as if they failed to even address the mechanisms utilized throughout various civilizations, societies, etc. for mating, and then wish to just address it in this manner: ":soy:: We have known about & extensively documented upon this specific process & phenomena which has determined offspring for generations, yet are failing to even identify a single factor throughout history that has impacted it!"
. This is interesting because consistent natural selection over multiple generations could lead to substantive effects in the long run.

I think this is them saying the quiet part out loud again: Clearly, the majority of us here -and Incels in general- are a byproduct of this state of foid-controlled sexual selection, and more is yet to come. Again, correlating with increases in hypergamy, degeneracy, behavioral sink, etc.

Truly, it is worrying to think what the substantive effects of this dysgenic behavior will manifest to in the future.

The economic theory of fertility (Becker 1960) offers a potential explanation. Higher potential earnings have two opposite effects on fertility: a fertility-increasing income effect (higher income makes children more affordable), and a fertility-lowering substitution effect (time spent on childrearing has a higher cost in foregone earnings).

This theory of fertility seems to have been manifested back when things were quite different for our society: Hypergamy was quite low, most jobs paid a living wage which was sustainable, and fertility-rates were very different.

However, I find it quite interesting that this theory offers two opposite effects: One which increases, and then one which decreases.

Thus, an individual’s human capital – skills and personality traits which are valuable in labour markets – can increase or decrease their fertility.

Ah yes, good old personality. :feelsjuice:

However, what will be interesting to examine, is that the traits they designated under personality tend to be considered the personality traits bluepillers & even redpill shills tend to claim will lead to us attaining more attraction: Highly educated, cognitive abilities, etc. all actually correlate with lower desirability, whereas traits which are objectively undesirable are quite sought after, according to the graphs detailed.

So in a way, they did seem to prove that personality does matter, just not in the way they think it does.

Genetic variants which are linked to human capital will then be selected for or against. Also, the economic theory predicts that the relative strength of income and substitution effects will vary systematically across different social groups.

This study uses data from UK Biobank (Bycroft et al. 2018) to learn more about contemporary natural selection. We test for natural selection on 33 different polygenic scores by estimating their correlation with fertility. We extend the analysis over two generations, using data on respondents’ number of siblings as well as their number of children. This is interesting because consistent natural selection over multiple generations could lead to substantive effects in the long run. Next, we examine correlations with fertility in different subgroups. Across the board, selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners. Outside these groups, effects are weaker and often statistically insignificant. In some subgroups, the direction of selection is even reversed.

The theory predicts that polygenic scores’ correlation with fertility is associated with their correlation with education and earnings, and we confirm this. We then run a mediation analysis, which shows that part of the correlation with fertility is indeed mediated by educational attainment. Thus, contemporary natural selection on polygenic scores can be explained by scores’ correlation with earnings-increasing human capital.
I find this quite interesting, and it

Lastly, we discuss the effects of natural selection. While our estimated effects on measured polygenic scores are small, natural selection substantially increases the correlation between polygenic scores and income, increasing genetic differences between different social groups, and thus making the “genetic lottery” (Harden 2021) more unfair.

When I look through articles such as these, I often find tons of subtle blackpills: Right here, they are basically admitting what Incels, Blackpillers, MGTOW, etc. have been stating for years.

Here, they more or less state that a massive genetic gape is widening, which will leave many disadvantaged, whilst some will benefit from this: I wish that they had elaborated upon which groups will be impacted more harsher by this, It would have been interesting to see to say the very least.

Here is how they worked out all the math for it:

We created polygenic scores for 33 traits in 409,629 individuals of European descent, corrected for ancestry using 100 genetic principal components (see Materials and Methods). Figure 1 plots mean polygenic scores in the sample by 5-year birth intervals. Several scores show consistent increases or declines over this 30-year period, of the order of 5% of a standard deviation. These changes could reflect natural selection within the UK population, but also emigration, or ascertainment bias in the sample (Fry et al. 2017).
Clearly, quite a large sample: Thus, indicating that this is quite comprehensive & exhibits many traits now expressed within the population.
To test for natural selection more directly, we regress respondents’ relative lifetime reproductive success (RLRS) on each polygenic score (PGS):


(1)
RLRS is defined as respondent i’s number of children, divided by the mean number of children of people born in the same year. The “selection effect”, , reflects the strength of natural selection within the sample. In fact, since polygenic scores are normalized, is the expected polygenic score among children of the sample (Beauchamp 2016).Footnote 1 Note that equation (1) does not control for many environmental and genetic factors that could affect fertility, and as a result, is not an estimate of the causal effect of a polygenic score on fertility. However, natural selection is a matter of correlation not causation: polygenic scores which correlate with high fertility are being selected for, whatever the underlying causal mechanism.
Figure 2 plots selection effects in the whole sample.Footnote 2 To correct for ascertainment bias, we use participant weights from Alten et al. (2022), which match the UK Biobank eligible population on sex, birth year, location, education, employment, health, household size and tenure, number of cars and age at death. Weighting makes a large difference: effect sizes go up by a mean of 48%.Footnote 3 23 out of 33 weighted selection effects are significant at p < 0.05/33.
Figure 2 plots selection effects in the whole sample.Footnote 2 To correct for ascertainment bias, we use participant weights from Alten et al. (2022), which match the UK Biobank eligible population on sex, birth year, location, education, employment, health, household size and tenure, number of cars and age at death. Weighting makes a large difference: effect sizes go up by a mean of 48%.Footnote 3 23 out of 33 weighted selection effects are significant at p < 0.05/33.
Figure 2:

10519_2022_10107_Fig2_HTML.png
This graph is where the brutality of it all begins; emphasizing the evidence that foids simply make choices which are dysgenic.

As you can see here, traits which would be deemed as "good": Consciousness, smoking cessation, cognitive ability, and educational attainment all seem to be selected against.

In contrast, certain traits which will be classified as "bad" seemingly are selected for: Physical traits such as coronary artery disease(runs in my family sadly) seems to be somehow quite valuable to foids, and extraversion seems to hold quite a strong affinity.

Furthermore, this highlights how over things are for us Autismcels: Clearly, it is a trait selected against, and this correlates with the fact that extraversion is being heavily selected for.

However, what seemingly interests me is that height seems to be selected against. :feelsmega:

Whilst I firmly believe face>height matters more, it does seem quite odd this is the case: Clearly, it could very likely be them selecting against shorter, males, but the possibility of them also selecting against it may be possible.

We now show the empirical puzzles which motivate our economic model. Each concerns differences in the strength of natural selection across different subgroups in the sample. We re-estimate (1) splitting the sample by demographic and social variables, including income and education, and family structure variables including age at first live birth, presence of a partner, and lifetime number of sexual partners.

Figure 3 plots selection effects for each polygenic score, grouping respondents by age of completing full-time education, and by household income. Effects are larger and more significant for the lowest education category, and for the lowest income category. The median percentage difference between the lowest and highest education categories, among scores which are significant for the lowest category and have the same sign across categories, is 249%. Between the lowest and highest income categories, it is 595%. These results are robust to controlling for respondents’ age (Appendix sect. 8.4). Turning to family structure, we split respondents by lifetime number of sexual partners, at the median value of 3 (Fig. 4a). Now, selection effects are larger and more significant among those with more than 3 lifetime partners, with a median percentage difference of 191%. Next we split respondents by whether they were living with a spouse or partner at the time of interview (Figure 4b). Effects are larger among those not living with a spouse or partner. The median percentage difference is 281%.Footnote 4
I found the one discerning the average age to be quite fascinating; highlighting how foids tend to seemingly look for the actual "desirable" traits which we get fed to by bluepillers & redpillers simply when they wish to finally settle down.

Again, this serves to prove the whole theory of foids chasing after the dumb Jock, thug, etc. only looking for the actual "good men" when it comes time for them to settle down.

Here's what we can take away from these two graphs:
-Foids whom are more promiscuous tend to seemingly associate more with spreading undesirable traits.
-However, even those whom have had less sexual relations & associate with having a partner tend to still favor these dysgenic traits.

In other words, this proves that AWALT.

Lastly, we split female respondents by age at first live birth (AFLB).Footnote 5 There is evidence for genetic effects on AFLB (Barban et al. 2016), and there is a close link between this variable and number of children born. Figure 5 shows effect sizes estimated separately for each tercile of AFLB. Effects are strikingly different across terciles. Educational attainment, ADHD and MDD are selected for amongst the youngest third of mothers, but selected against among the oldest two-thirds. Similarly, several polygenic scores for body measurements are selected against only among older mothers. The correlation between effect sizes for the youngest and oldest terciles is –0.83. To investigate this further, we estimate equation (1) among females, controlling for AFLB. In 18 out of 33 cases, effects change sign when controls are added. The correlation between effect sizes controlling for AFLB, and raw effect sizes, is –0.58. Thus, selection effects seem to come through two opposing channels: a correlation with AFLB, and an opposite-signed correlation with number of children after AFLB is controlled for.
To simply summarize it, foids will only consider any reasonable traits for reproduction when they are older.

How is this problematic? Well, for many reasons, it is quite obvious that when foids have children later, it simply will just contribute to inheriting more dysgenic traits. Many on here state that their parents had them quite late, which is another thing I relate to many on here with.


Older maternal age is associated with relatively higher risks of perinatal mortality/morbidity


The consequences of advancing maternal and paternal age are not only relevant for the risk of natural and assisted conception, but also for the outcome of pregnancy. Although the absolute rate of poor pregnancy outcomes may be low from an individual standpoint, the impact of delaying childbearing from a public health perspective cannot be overestimated and should be in the agenda of public health policies for the years to come.

One of the demographic con- sequences of postponed parenthood is a lower fertility rate. In many European countries, the majority of women now have their first children when they are over the age of 30. For example, the proportion of women who had a first child over 30 increased from 24 percent in 1980 to 49 percent in 2008. In the Czech Republic, this number changed dramatically from 14 percent in 1990 to 46 percent in 2009 (Schmidt et al. 2012). Couples who delayed
4 DELAYED CHILDBEARING
parenthood tended to have fewer children, which leads to a decreasing fertility rate. Statistics from the World Bank (2015b) reveal that the fertility rate in France decreased from 2.9 in 1960 to 2.0 in 2010. In the Czech Republic, it dropped from 2.5 in 1974 to 1.4 in 2011. This is called the tempo effect. If all couples were to delay childbearing by three months in one calendar year, fertility rates and the number of births in that year would be reduced by a fourth (Schmidt et al. 2012).
One of the medical consequences of delayed childbearing is the increased risk of congenital defects in the baby. Women over the age of 35 are at greater risk of having a baby with Down syndrome, which is a common birth defect, than those who have children in their twenties. Autism is also a common congenital disease associated with advanced parental age. As an example, a study of autism cases from the Califor- nia Department of Developmental Services shows that advanced parental age contributed to an approximately 4.6 percent increase in diagnoses in California (Shelton, Tancredi, and Hertz-Picciotto 2010). Moreover, people who tend to delay childbearing are more likely to engage in permanent childlessness. A woman’s fertility peaks in the early to mid-twenties, then it declines as she gets older. People often have poor information about later pregnancies. Some women plan to have children at an older age but often underestimate the decline of female fertility. Advanced maternal age also leads to a higher risk of spontaneous abortion. For example, a study conducted in Denmark showed that the miscarriage rate after natural conception increases with increasing female age (Nybo Andersen et al. 2004).
....notice the correlations here?

To simply put it, we are fucked either way: Foids whom have kids younger will almost always select dysgenic traits, whilst those whom will select more beneficial traits tend to almost always be late birthers, as was my case.

The consensus which we can arrive to here, is that to be born nowadays falls under one of two camps:
-Your mother had you much later, which increases the chance of various mental & physical birth issues.
-Your mother chased some dumbass Jock or thug around, which of course correlates to not only having more children, but also with inheriting more dysgenic traits due to foids sexual preferences.

In other words, the sexual choices of foids are dysgenic: They are unable to succinctly seek out desirable traits & correlate it with an adequate time to become pregnant & birth children.

This will further contribute towards not only Inceldom & hypergamy, but also the broader aspect of behavioral sink which will further plunge civilization into the dark age which it already is in. This is done by design, as (((they))) wish for a dumbed-down, mentally ill, physically weaker, and overall more dysgenic population, as it will be far easier to control to advance their narrative. :blackpill:

Furthermore, it highlights that men -ideally those educated in genetics, eugenics, the blackpill, etc.- should have control over mating & reproduction.

This is already getting quite long, so I want to wrap things up: Feel free to check-out the rest of the article, as a lot of it relates to human capital, whereas I primarily wanted to touch upon the dysgenic consequences of this. Perhaps I will touch more on the capital side, or someone else can.

>inb4 "dnr" what else would I expect from .is at this point?


@based_meme @wereq @Chudpreet @WorthlessSlavicShit @Mortis @GeckoBus @Ron.Belgrade @KillNiggers @Adolf Hitler @Biowaste Removal @TBIcel @Ci Jey @LeFrenchCel @Uggo Mongo @cvh1991 @IronsideCel @Stupid Clown @CopingForBrutality @ElTruecel @RealSchizo @Bianor @Grim_Reaper @Azaylias @Jud Pottah @AsiaCel @Arnocel @hierophant @Hexagon77 @lifefuel @nice_try @Lurkercel0 @lazy_gamer_423 @Puppeter @Squatting Slavcel @xkcdCleftcel
 
Femininity at it´s core, is founded in Evil.
This is why jews and women are one and the same!
They get along just fine all to spite and genocide against jites on their path to supER sayan.
 
IT cucks seething. they will not post or screenshot this.
 
While we were just throwing around the graph there, you gave that article the deep dive analysis it deserved:bigbrain::feelzez:. Top tier post brocel:feelsYall::feelsokman:.

mods pin this @LeFrenchCel
 
must read tier thread tbh
 
Clearly, modern day "natural selection" does not follow the traditional paths of nature, which would dictate for males to be the primary sexual-selectors
Many on here state that their parents had them quite late
Prime factors for autism factories as well as other health defects, they're saying 1 in 36 US children have autism!
Autism Statistics & Facts: How Many People Have Autism?
 
Last edited:
Prime factors for autism factories, they're saying 1 in 36 for the US!
Autism Statistics & Facts: How Many People Have Autism?
Femininity at it´s core, is founded in Evil.
This is why jews and women are one and the same!
They get along just fine all to spite and genocide against jites on their path to supER sayan.
 
Prime factors for autism factories, they're saying 1 in 36 for the US!
Autism Statistics & Facts: How Many People Have Autism?
the steady increase matches up with the availability of the internet and technology
 
However, what seemingly interests me is that height seems to be selected against. :feelsmega:
I simply refuse to believe this. Tallfags always win. There has to be other factors at play here. Maybe they don't reproduce more because they don't want to?


To simply put it, we are fucked either way: Foids whom have kids younger will almost always select dysgenic traits, whilst those whom will select more beneficial traits tend to almost always be late birthers, as was my case.

The consensus which we can arrive to here, is that to be born nowadays falls under one of two camps:
-Your mother had you much later, which increases the chance of various mental & physical birth issues.
-Your mother chased some dumbass Jock or thug around, which of course correlates to not only having more children, but also with inheriting more dysgenic traits due to foids sexual preferences.
I hate my mom for having me later in her life. She should've never reproduced when she was a roastie. Ignorance from foids brings only misery. A third party should step in and mandate breeding.
 
Interesting findings and a great analysis.
 
Odd how height is selected against.
Lastly, we discuss the effects of natural selection. While our estimated effects on measured polygenic scores are small, natural selection substantially increases the correlation between polygenic scores and income, increasing genetic differences between different social groups, and thus making the “genetic lottery” (Harden 2021) more unfair
JFL.
 
Foids literally prefer sub 90 IQ men, you're right
 
Height being selected against rather than for only goes to prove that their mating choices really are dysgenic.
 
Amazing post bro
 
Dnr but I'm sure it's high iq
 
Good analysis
 
I will read this at a later time, bookmarked.
 
This is true. I've been saying that incels are not "weak" or something. Low IQ is chosen for!

But a look into the current beauty standards of foids will reveal something - they choose contradictory men with both feminine and masculine traits (so called pretty boys) - a freak of nature. The top lifters in Olympics are not the most attractive, destroying the myth that foids choose for health/strength and hence the existence of "ogrecels".

A similar effect is peacocks. Natural selection doesn't always choose the best traits. Brightly colored peacocks are a easy picking in nature and doesn't serve much purposes besides attracting a mate, but things are just like that.
 
Height being selected against rather than for only goes to prove that their mating choices really are dysgenic.
i think its probably whole are willing to let go few inches in males height if hes better in other ways aka moneymaxx, better face, etc

doesn't change the fact most foids still get pounded by tall fags
 
Good read. I've always been saying that foids are dysgenicists because sexual selection is only forced on men. They're even selfish hypocrites in their core.
 
I feel like i didnt understand anything from this shit.

Some water claims and some random articles that seem made up

Because how the fuck are they against height? This is some BS

You can literally talk to any guy under 5'5 and he thinks of suicide everyday because of this shit.
 
Its true, w0men don't create a eugentic situation.

If w0men were eugentic, then many tall strong healthy ogres will slay here, but nope.

w0men are brainwashed by the j00s, who know how to use them for their plans, utalizing their bad qualities.

When based man ruled, w0men behaved proporly since they knew if they miss behaved there would be negative consequnces. Now the j00s created a sitation where w0men are promonted for those behaviors, creating a positive incetive for them to behave like degenrate demons.

Another example of w0men being dysgentic is polygamy. If Polygamy was eugenic, then most of the arab and african society would far outpace the west in terms of advancments and IQ, Since supposedly best man reproduces, but again it didn't happen and those socities are the most unstable in the world. Besides african/arab societys that accept some form of christinity who are a little bit more stable but still very unstable.
 
Last edited:
bookmarked, will read later today brocel
 
I’ve actually been meaning to make a post just like this because of the declining state of the modern world, good findings.

I will edit my post and make a proper, lengthy reply after I’m home.
 
I feel like i didnt understand anything from this shit.

Some water claims and some random articles that seem made up

Because how the fuck are they against height? This is some BS

You can literally talk to any guy under 5'5 and he thinks of suicide everyday because of this shit.
Probably switched up to manipulate the readers of the study
 
w0men are brainwashed by the j00s, who know how to use them for their plans, utalizing their bad qualities.
exactly
(((they))) are using women to create low IQ subhumans
these low IQ subhumans will be used to generate shekels for the jew. if more people don't realize what's really going on then the world is fucked
 
exactly
(((they))) are using women to create low IQ subhumans
these low IQ subhumans will be used to generate shekels for the jew. if more people don't realize what's really going on then the world is fucked
Man aren't supposed to be 100% judged by their looks

Espcially height, Height is corrlated with disease and earlier mortality.

The ideal height is more between 5'8-6'2ish
 
I can't understand anything from this post ,but i know a thing that will nevER began for 95% male population
 
I made this thread a while back.
 
Well, mine touched upon this article & primarily upon these certain traits which are contributing to it.

Simply, I was highlighting how the current offspring likely are the result of a foid screwing around too much when she's young with some jock or thug type, whilst the few foids whom do seek out these more desirable traits are waiting till a much older age.

We reached a similar consensus, albeit through differing analysis: That in itself, is a blackpilled moment. We were able to notice heavy correlations.
 
While we were just throwing around the graph there, you gave that article the deep dive analysis it deserved:bigbrain::feelzez:. Top tier post brocel:feelsYall::feelsokman:.
Seth Meyers Reaction GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers


Appreciate the response: If you wouldn't mind, would you care to maybe point out some parts you found interesting(my writing, or the articles) and/or what you think I could have done better? I'm trying to improve the quality of my threads.

As @Jud Pottah says, aspiERe. :feelzez:
 
Prime factors for autism factories as well as other health defects, they're saying 1 in 36 US children have autism!
Autism Statistics & Facts: How Many People Have Autism?
Well, I was quite aware of the fact it has increased various birth defects, but the Autism part interests me: I wonder why this is the case?

What genetic factors could contribute to the rise in this?
Foids literally prefer sub 90 IQ men, you're right
There's a thread in must read which more or less outright states this: That thread correlates heavily with the findings in the article here, and I might go through to examine some specific correlations I noticed.

It also explains why foids are interested in shit such as rap music, thug culture, jocks, etc.
they skim over the hundreds of high iq threads to screenshot the bait threads by GrAYs
I think you just cracked the code here....

Most GrAYs who make IT bait threads probably are from IT themselves.

Think about it: They want to advance their specific narrative, which is how Incels behave. Thus, they will infiltrate & make these bait threads, then have someone without an acc here SS it & repost in order to prove "le heckin Inkwells man!"
 
I think you just cracked the code here....

Most GrAYs who make IT bait threads probably are from IT themselves.

Think about it: They want to advance their specific narrative, which is how Incels behave. Thus, they will infiltrate & make these bait threads, then have someone without an acc here SS it & repost in order to prove "le heckin Inkwells man!"
I dont think anyone would put that much effort into trying to prove were bad. its just that our forum attracts edgy teenagers that think being incel is cool so they say edgy stuff that ruffles redditors feathers the most. alot of people here got banned for being underaged
 
Interesting findings and a great analysis.
Thanks man: Did you yourself notice anything particularly interesting? Anything you would like to add, comment on?

Come on brocels, we need to aspiERe to make this site High-IQ. :feelsthink:
 
Seth Meyers Reaction GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers


Appreciate the response: If you wouldn't mind, would you care to maybe point out some parts you found interesting(my writing, or the articles) and/or what you think I could have done better? I'm trying to improve the quality of my threads.

As @Jud Pottah says, aspiERe. :feelzez:
:feelsLSD:true jiTe effort
you certainly extended upon the other thread about "social status inheritance".
It just adds to the pile. :blackpill:

~Epiphany WORTHY!
 
Seth Meyers Reaction GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers


Appreciate the response: If you wouldn't mind, would you care to maybe point out some parts you found interesting(my writing, or the articles) and/or what you think I could have done better? I'm trying to improve the quality of my threads.

As @Jud Pottah says, aspiERe. :feelzez:
Liked both the writing and the articles and nothing really comes to my mind that you could've done better, I'm not really much of a critic like this, even when we have uni assignments where we are supposed to grade each other's work, I can never find anything to dislike apart from obvious stuff like entire sections missing and such:feelshaha:.

This part is just weird. For example, what are the reasons behind coronary artery disease selected? And height is selected against? Even if face > height, there's usually a minimum requirement for height (such as 5'9, 5'7, 5'10, etc.). The only possible explanation is that there are numerous men around average height with a good looking face and status?
If I had to guess explanations for this... The coronary artery disease one is probably simply because there's never a single gene responsible for a trait, and genes can also simultaneously affect multiple traits. It's simply heightened by genes which simultaneously heighten some attractive traits, and so it simply gets taken along for the ride.

As for height, obviously that's a wanted trait, but that doesn't necessarily translate into actual reproductive success. For example, as was posted about here a lot, good looks are correlated with income, height is a very important part of that, and it just so happens that poor people tend to have more children:feelsjuice:.

Or, for another example, I made a thread some time ago about how all non-white man/white woman couples have higher fertility than their genderswapped counterparts, despite white men usually being taller than non-white ones.

 
Sexual selection you mean. Natural selection is a different process.
 

Similar threads

AsiaCel
Replies
7
Views
384
1nsomniak
1nsomniak
L
Replies
5
Views
261
Fatass3000
Fatass3000
Efiliste
Replies
28
Views
3K
shitholeamerica
S
TheJoker
Replies
5
Views
137
TheJoker
TheJoker

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top