JFL Just lie by omission and torture the data to get the results you want so you can prove the inkwells wrong bro!

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

So, a couple of days ago I've learned of the existence of yet another hereditarian, genes-explain-all-group-differences rightwinger, who for some completely incomprehensible reason has decided that genetic determinism applies to everything except sex, romance and relationships (not lookism in general though, none of those guys are ever stupid enough to touch on this wider issue.)

NUANCE ENJOYER I.E. THE TWITTER USER WHO POSTS ANTI-BLACKPILL FINDINGS

Who is he and is he legit? View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1816983536701964376

incels.is

Most of his takes I've quoted there are so retarded they barely deserve a reaction, but there's one tweet that was actually mildly interesting.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1805553213371990053


Yes, of course, it's once again the bullshit nobody would ever even think of bringing up to ugly women, because all of those retarded rightoids know for a fact what makes their cocks hard and what they like in women, as I've said, there's probably a thousand times as many flat earthers as people who believe that looks don't matter for male attraction to women, but when it comes to what makes women attracted to men, retards love saying dumb bullshit about it. It's the exact same type of cargo cult-level thinking as looking at children who are doing well in school being confident, and then telling dumb children to just be confident and then they'll do well in school, completely reversing the actual relationship and misunderstanding that smart children become confident because they do well in school.

So, first off, as could be expected, people were pointing out that this means nothing, because extroversion is probably related to and correlates with attractiveness, strength and so on, so ultimately it says nothing. Some tables were posted there supporting this to various extents, you guys can look at that in the thread I linked.

So, I decided to look at the actual study he was referencing. Curiously, he didn't link it anywhere. I wondered why, until I found it.

https://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/von_Borell_et_al_2019_-_Personality_recalibration_replication.pdf

The theory of facultative calibration, which explains personality differences as responses to variation in other phenotypic traits of individuals, received mixed results throughout the last years.

Who could've thought? The mofo said nothing about and completely avoided the topic of extroversion's link to the other traits, because that was the point of the entire study, the entire study was about personality traits being downstream from phenotype and other bodily traits.

But wait boyos, we might've just gotten too cocky, reading this abstract I can see dark clouds on the horizon for le blackpill.

We could replicate positive correlations with self-perceived attractiveness across outcomes, though these were not corroborated by more objective assessments of attractiveness: an effect of other-rated attractiveness was clearly notsupported in our results for either sex, regardless of the personality outcome

Brutal bluepill victory. Is it over then? Is it time to ban everyone and write "Just Be Confident Bro" as the site's banner? Has this deboonker of the blackpill won?

Wait, boyos, what is that shining ray of light in the darkness, and who is the hero weilding it?

Anthropometric measures and physical strength were also largely unrelated to personality, with the exception of Extraversion, Utility of Personal Aggression, and Sociosexual Orientation. While the two samples differed in their results for domain level Extraversion, at least the Extraversion facets Activity and Assertiveness were related to strength and masculinity in men. For Sociosexual Orientation the results of our two samples varied more substantially, a positive association was only present in Study 2.

Imagine trying to convince incels that all they need is just being confident and extroverted to get laid while using a study that explicitly says that extroversion and assertiveness (confidence) are linked to masculinity and physical strength. Yeah, I'm sure those guys are getting laid because of how talkative they are, and not because of how masculine and strong they are.

Future studies need to clarify whether formidability, potentially an indicator of genetic quality for males, enhances their orientation and success in short-term mating.

"Potentially".

Even despite that abstract/intro, the tables here are quite blackpilled, such as this one from study 1.

Hmmm, so the two things significantly correlated with both self-perceived attractiveness and self-perceived mating success are other-rated attractiveness and height. Who would've thought.

Also, as for tables, that's another thing, the one the wanna-be deboonker posted isn't from the study itself, he probably downloaded the dataset and it's from his, I'm sure completely objective, analysis.

No wonder he did that though, because the other tables there are also very interesting.

Wow, look at those correlations between self-perceived mating success and success in conflicts and history of fighting (SC and FH). That obviously means that if we'll just be confident extroverts, then we'll not only be getting laid but also become strong and dominant alphas who happily get into fights because they know that they'll win and who dominate interpersonal relationships/conflicts. I mean, what's the alternative, that guys are first born with the genes to be strong and dominant and everything else, being extroverted, getting laid, getting into fights, winning conflicts, comes from that instead? Surely not.



Also, while those measures weren't significantly correlated with objective/other-rated attractiveness in men, success in conflict was correlated like this in women, as the researchers themselves acknowledge.

Brb, Imma go tell fem"cels" that it's not that the Stacy cheerleaders who bully them are better-looking than them and that's why they have the social power advantage needed to bully them, but that they became better-looking by constantly bullying them and winning over them and that they need to turn the tables on those Stacies to become better looking.

Wonder what that retard would think about that, considering that it's completely in-line advice with the "Just Be Extrovert bro," he's telling us.

Spoiler

@biomarxist @GeckoBus @DarkStar @Stupid Clown @based_meme @Sloth22 @ArcticAngel @sultryloser @Limitcel @kay' @comradespiderman29 @Pancakecel @Regenerator @wereq @Arabcel99 @reveries @SupremeSaint @Cybersex is our hope @To koniec @Kamanbert

 

[To koniec]

fastest click known to man

reading right now

 

[Sloth.Belgrade]

This is the classic data omission gaslighters do when gaslighting. You can never fake actual confidence. You'll always be sniffed out as a phony and a fraud

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

fastest click known to man

reading right now

Also, while those measures weren't significantly correlated with objective/other-rated attractiveness in men, success in conflict was correlated like this in women, as the researchers themselves acknowledge.

View attachment 1212137

Brb, Imma go tell fem"cels" that it's not that the Stacy cheerleaders who bully them are better-looking than them and that's why they have the social power advantage needed to bully them, but that they became better-looking by constantly bullying them and winning over them and that they need to turn the tables on those Stacies to become better looking.

Jfl at those correlations though. A 0.38 correlation with mating success, 0.21 correlation with other-rated attractiveness, Just Be A Stacy cheerleader bullying fem"cels" daily seems to be LAW.

This is the classic data omission gaslighters do when gaslighting. You can never fake actual confidence. You'll always be sniffed out as a phony and a fraud

Exactly.

 

[Regenerator]

PUAtards 2.0

 

[KING NOTHING]

Let's entertain OOP and assume personality does play a role.
Personality is genetic, because looks, height and strength are genetic and how you're treated based on those molds your personality.
It all circles back to genetics. You can never escape blackpill.

 

[DarkStar]

Will give a read, alongside those two other threads you did.

I know they’re good already, but i need actual time to sit down & read them.

 

[To koniec]

Brutal bluepill victory. Is it over then? Is it time to ban everyone and write "Just Be Confident Bro" as the site's banner? Has this deboonker of the blackpill won?

 

[KeepCoping]

High IQ thread. Should be stickied.

 

[Kamanbert]

Normie being dumb and lying n°185847755645545746554 great debooooonking of this rightoid. They often hate the blackpill because it messes up with their faux meritocratic worldview. And knowing that most of guys like these are born into wealth, it makes it even more grotesque.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

It seems that the whole society is based on the blue pill, otherwise I don't understand why it should be so actively defended. Why not honestly admit Darwinism and hypergamy for what they are, about 35% of men have sex available only for a direct monetary transaction.

 

[kay']

This is bluepilled advice disguised as blackpill speak.

Author name is nuance_enjoyer. Even his name shows that he enjoys useless miniscule details that proves nothing.

A subhuman male is born to suffer.
nothing else, unless he has money, and alot of it, no amount of personality morphing, hygiene practicing, confidence acting, funny playing will grant him any decent looking and mentally stable woman.

No, i dont wana meet your 5'2 balding tanzanian friend who slays in the club because hes confident.

 

[cleftpalatecel]

Personality is genetic, because looks, height and strength are genetic and how you're treated based on those molds your personality.

Bingo

 

[Limitcel]

This is where I separate myself from the right, the right still needs to believe in meritocracy and things like that

I'm always surprised by the number of people in this world who simply want to believe
I just can't live without contact with the truth

 

[Chudpreet]

This guy is the right wing Doogycel lmao

 

[Kamanbert]

It's the type of shit he posts. Then you just look at IRL, see other stats and know it's bullshit. A profound examination like op did would make his bullshit crumble

 

[sultryloser]

Correlation does not equal causation. They never learn.

I've been reading a book from the middle 19th century about Latin grammar, and the author himself explains tropes and figures of speech with the masculine and feminine, but I was incredibly surprised to read bluepill expressions! The author was writing about how a man has to be skilled with language to "fair well with maidens", and I had to pause, because I realized that these bluepill memes are way fucking older than I thought they were. I thought they originated with boomers and at the start of the twentieth century, nope. I was sorryly wrong.
Keep in mind, this was a time where authors would casually write "nigger" and "negro" like you would refer to your brother.

I will someday know the true age of these bluepill memes that are so harmful and malevolent. "Just be confident, bro" is a new expression on an idea that is at least 180 years old. Maybe calling them bluepill memes could be a misnomer, because the ideas never change between generations. Bluepill dogma might be better.

Imagine this battle between based men and soys has been alive for centuries. I guess life is so damn easy in the first world that the number and loudness of soys is too great and drowns out sensible advise and real observations in exchange for delusions of a Just World and manifestations of cognitive dissonance.

 

[SubhumanGamer]

High IQ posts need a nomination to their own section. Good read

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Let's entertain OOP and assume personality does play a role.
Personality is genetic, because looks, height and strength are genetic and how you're treated based on those molds your personality.
It all circles back to genetics. You can never escape blackpill.

Yup, that was the entire point of that study and this guy is trying to pretend that it proved the opposite, when even Twitter users were pointing this out.

This is bluepilled advice disguised as blackpill speak.

Even stupider than that, it's a blackpill study being presented as a bluepill one.

 

[Paperman]

Let's entertain OOP and assume personality does play a role.
Personality is genetic, because looks, height and strength are genetic and how you're treated based on those molds your personality.
It all circles back to genetics. You can never escape blackpill.

True. Also, normies can take a little confidence by bashing us, so being extroverted as a subhuman doesn't help.

 

[DarkStar]

High IQ posts need a nomination to their own section. Good read

It's called "must-read" section.....

 

[SubhumanGamer]

It's called "must-read" section.....

Nah too cramped with dogshit.

 

[Stupid Clown]

It's always funny seeing illiterate redpillers trying to push their agenda via a study they scimmed through good job actually looking into the study

 

[Emba]

Correlation does not equal causation. They never learn.

I've been reading a book from the middle 19th century about Latin grammar, and the author himself explains tropes and figures of speech with the masculine and feminine, but I was incredibly surprised to read bluepill expressions! The author was writing about how a man has to be skilled with language to "fair well with maidens", and I had to pause, because I realized that these bluepill memes are way fucking older than I thought they were. I thought they originated with boomers and at the start of the twentieth century, nope. I was sorryly wrong.
Keep in mind, this was a time where authors would casually write "nigger" and "negro" like you would refer to your brother.

I will someday know the true age of these bluepill memes that are so harmful and malevolent. "Just be confident, bro" is a new expression on an idea that is at least 180 years old. Maybe calling them bluepill memes could be a misnomer, because the ideas never change between generations. Bluepill dogma might be better.

Imagine this battle between based men and soys has been alive for centuries. I guess life is so damn easy in the first world that the number and loudness of soys is too great and drowns out sensible advise and real observations in exchange for delusions of a Just World and manifestations of cognitive dissonance.

Acta non verba - said Chad

 

[Cybersex is our hope]

So, a couple of days ago I've learned of the existence of yet another hereditarian, genes-explain-all-group-differences rightwinger, who for some completely incomprehensible reason has decided that genetic determinism applies to everything except sex, romance and relationships (not lookism in general though, none of those guys are ever stupid enough to touch on this wider issue.)

NUANCE ENJOYER I.E. THE TWITTER USER WHO POSTS ANTI-BLACKPILL FINDINGS

Who is he and is he legit? View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1816983536701964376

incels.is

Most of his takes I've quoted there are so retarded they barely deserve a reaction, but there's one tweet that was actually mildly interesting.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1805553213371990053


Yes, of course, it's once again the bullshit nobody would ever even think of bringing up to ugly women, because all of those retarded rightoids know for a fact what makes their cocks hard and what they like in women, as I've said, there's probably a thousand times as many flat earthers as people who believe that looks don't matter for male attraction to women, but when it comes to what makes women attracted to men, retards love saying dumb bullshit about it. It's the exact same type of cargo cult-level thinking as looking at children who are doing well in school being confident, and then telling dumb children to just be confident and then they'll do well in school, completely reversing the actual relationship and misunderstanding that smart children become confident because they do well in school.

So, first off, as could be expected, people were pointing out that this means nothing, because extroversion is probably related to and correlates with attractiveness, strength and so on, so ultimately it says nothing. Some tables were posted there supporting this to various extents, you guys can look at that in the thread I linked.

So, I decided to look at the actual study he was referencing. Curiously, he didn't link it anywhere. I wondered why, until I found it.

https://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/von_Borell_et_al_2019_-_Personality_recalibration_replication.pdf

Who could've thought? The mofo said nothing about and completely avoided the topic of extroversion's link to the other traits, because that was the point of the entire study, the entire study was about personality traits being downstream from phenotype and other bodily traits.

But wait boyos, we might've just gotten too cocky, reading this abstract I can see dark clouds on the horizon for le blackpill.


Brutal bluepill victory. Is it over then? Is it time to ban everyone and write "Just Be Confident Bro" as the site's banner? Has this deboonker of the blackpill won?

Wait, boyos, what is that shining ray of light in the darkness, and who is the hero weilding it?


Imagine trying to convince incels that all they need is just being confident and extroverted to get laid while using a study that explicitly says that extroversion and assertiveness (confidence) are linked to masculinity and physical strength. Yeah, I'm sure those guys are getting laid because of how talkative they are, and not because of how masculine and strong they are.


"Potentially".

Even despite that abstract/intro, the tables here are quite blackpilled, such as this one from study 1.

View attachment 1212122

Hmmm, so the two things significantly correlated with both self-perceived attractiveness and self-perceived mating success are other-rated attractiveness and height. Who would've thought.

Also, as for tables, that's another thing, the one the wanna-be deboonker posted isn't from the study itself, he probably downloaded the dataset and it's from his, I'm sure completely objective, analysis.

No wonder he did that though, because the other tables there are also very interesting.

View attachment 1212126

Wow, look at those correlations between self-perceived mating success and success in conflicts and history of fighting (SC and FH). That obviously means that if we'll just be confident extroverts, then we'll not only be getting laid but also become strong and dominant alphas who happily get into fights because they know that they'll win and who dominate interpersonal relationships/conflicts. I mean, what's the alternative, that guys are first born with the genes to be strong and dominant and everything else, being extroverted, getting laid, getting into fights, winning conflicts, comes from that instead? Surely not.



Also, while those measures weren't significantly correlated with objective/other-rated attractiveness in men, success in conflict was correlated like this in women, as the researchers themselves acknowledge.

View attachment 1212137

Brb, Imma go tell fem"cels" that it's not that the Stacy cheerleaders who bully them are better-looking than them and that's why they have the social power advantage needed to bully them, but that they became better-looking by constantly bullying them and winning over them and that they need to turn the tables on those Stacies to become better looking.

Wonder what that retard would think about that, considering that it's completely in-line advice with the "Just Be Extrovert bro," he's telling us.

Spoiler

@biomarxist @GeckoBus @DarkStar @Stupid Clown @based_meme @Sloth22 @ArcticAngel @sultryloser @Limitcel @kay' @comradespiderman29 @Pancakecel @Regenerator @wereq @Arabcel99 @reveries @SupremeSaint @Cybersex is our hope @To koniec @Kamanbert

It's funny and enraging at the same time. Primarily since i awalys was stronger than average plus stronger than my size but even after i spent many years running, lifting weights (trained today) and constantly training different martial arts, this didn't make me a fucking one iota more extrovert than i was. If anything i became more INTROVERT because of increased awareness because of my non NT mind plus meditating daily last year and a half.
Second, I love how these tunnel visioned apes fail to conceive any potential non material approach to life. Basically you are extrovert because you know you are a winner. PERIOD. No, tradcuck ape. Usually you are extrovert because of lack of self awareness. Having always had higher awareness i became more and more introvert by the year no matter how strong i become phisically

 

[Cybersex is our hope]

many flat earthers

based on illuminati cards and after seeing Dubay's videos i admit flat earthers are up to something i don't blame them at all. I know this world has been proved to be a stage several times (our crazy fucked up situation being one clear example) so i expect any kind of lies coming from the same enstablishment that tried to sell us the idea of "male privilege"

 

[SandNiggerKANG]

very ironic for someone literally called “nuance enjoyer” he does not deserve that name I swear to god

 

[GeckoBus]

Correlation does not equal causation. They never learn.

I've been reading a book from the middle 19th century about Latin grammar, and the author himself explains tropes and figures of speech with the masculine and feminine, but I was incredibly surprised to read bluepill expressions! The author was writing about how a man has to be skilled with language to "fair well with maidens", and I had to pause, because I realized that these bluepill memes are way fucking older than I thought they were. I thought they originated with boomers and at the start of the twentieth century, nope. I was sorryly wrong.
Keep in mind, this was a time where authors would casually write "nigger" and "negro" like you would refer to your brother.

I will someday know the true age of these bluepill memes that are so harmful and malevolent. "Just be confident, bro" is a new expression on an idea that is at least 180 years old. Maybe calling them bluepill memes could be a misnomer, because the ideas never change between generations. Bluepill dogma might be better.

Imagine this battle between based men and soys has been alive for centuries. I guess life is so damn easy in the first world that the number and loudness of soys is too great and drowns out sensible advise and real observations in exchange for delusions of a Just World and manifestations of cognitive dissonance.

It has always been the same fucking tropes they use to lie to young men and shame them into serving society.
Look at this from 1700 years ago:

Actually, when fathers convince their children to study sciences, you can hear in the course of their conversation none other than the following words: So-and-so, they say, is a low-born man of meager means, who perfected himself in eloquent speech and received a very high position, acquired a large property, took a rich wife, built a marvelous house, and has become fearsome and famous to all. Another says: So-and-so learned Latin, shines in the royal court and wields great influence there. Yet another points to someone else, and they all speak only of those who are glorified on earth.

Furthermore, wishing to acquaint our children with sciences we not only remove any conflicting teachings, but give them everything that will support it: we thrust mentors and teachers upon them, give them financial support, free them from all other occupations; and even more than trainers at Olympic games, we scream at them about poverty that results from not studying and wealth from studying.

Admonitions for Parents: Lessons by Our Holy Father John Chrysostomos on Raising Children

Its the same memes as today "you gotta tryhard your life, because once there was a guy and his life sucked but then he tryharded and boom bitch, he became jeff bezos."

Look at grifters like Hamza, they literally use this exact formula. Hamzas version is that "jeffrey vs adonis" meme he uses in every video.


View: https://youtu.be/uZZqsBpOs68


I remember a few years ago we all thought that the redpill would fucking die, that the scales were tipping in favor of the blackpill. Instead the blackpill was relegated to the anals of history yet again (as it always has after a period in the sun). Then the redpiller came back with ferocity, intoxicated by the blood of a new wave of young impressionable men. Like a feeding frenzy of white grifter sharks, the internet was yet again boiling with the red foam of bloody cope and seethe.

As you can see from that 1700 year old quote, the redpill never dies. It is one of the oldest grifts. Every year a new generation of young men comes of age, ready for the slaughter. Most of the internet is 14-22 year old directionless men. Every 5 years or so, there is a new online generation. I am 26, most users I talk to are 16-22ish.
It will never end.

So, a couple of days ago I've learned of the existence of yet another hereditarian, genes-explain-all-group-differences rightwinger, who for some completely incomprehensible reason has decided that genetic determinism applies to everything except sex, romance and relationships (not lookism in general though, none of those guys are ever stupid enough to touch on this wider issue.)

NUANCE ENJOYER I.E. THE TWITTER USER WHO POSTS ANTI-BLACKPILL FINDINGS

Who is he and is he legit? View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1816983536701964376

incels.is

Most of his takes I've quoted there are so retarded they barely deserve a reaction, but there's one tweet that was actually mildly interesting.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1805553213371990053


Yes, of course, it's once again the bullshit nobody would ever even think of bringing up to ugly women, because all of those retarded rightoids know for a fact what makes their cocks hard and what they like in women, as I've said, there's probably a thousand times as many flat earthers as people who believe that looks don't matter for male attraction to women, but when it comes to what makes women attracted to men, retards love saying dumb bullshit about it. It's the exact same type of cargo cult-level thinking as looking at children who are doing well in school being confident, and then telling dumb children to just be confident and then they'll do well in school, completely reversing the actual relationship and misunderstanding that smart children become confident because they do well in school.

So, first off, as could be expected, people were pointing out that this means nothing, because extroversion is probably related to and correlates with attractiveness, strength and so on, so ultimately it says nothing. Some tables were posted there supporting this to various extents, you guys can look at that in the thread I linked.

So, I decided to look at the actual study he was referencing. Curiously, he didn't link it anywhere. I wondered why, until I found it.

https://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/von_Borell_et_al_2019_-_Personality_recalibration_replication.pdf

Who could've thought? The mofo said nothing about and completely avoided the topic of extroversion's link to the other traits, because that was the point of the entire study, the entire study was about personality traits being downstream from phenotype and other bodily traits.

But wait boyos, we might've just gotten too cocky, reading this abstract I can see dark clouds on the horizon for le blackpill.


Brutal bluepill victory. Is it over then? Is it time to ban everyone and write "Just Be Confident Bro" as the site's banner? Has this deboonker of the blackpill won?

Wait, boyos, what is that shining ray of light in the darkness, and who is the hero weilding it?


Imagine trying to convince incels that all they need is just being confident and extroverted to get laid while using a study that explicitly says that extroversion and assertiveness (confidence) are linked to masculinity and physical strength. Yeah, I'm sure those guys are getting laid because of how talkative they are, and not because of how masculine and strong they are.


"Potentially".

Even despite that abstract/intro, the tables here are quite blackpilled, such as this one from study 1.

View attachment 1212122

Hmmm, so the two things significantly correlated with both self-perceived attractiveness and self-perceived mating success are other-rated attractiveness and height. Who would've thought.

Also, as for tables, that's another thing, the one the wanna-be deboonker posted isn't from the study itself, he probably downloaded the dataset and it's from his, I'm sure completely objective, analysis.

No wonder he did that though, because the other tables there are also very interesting.

View attachment 1212126

Wow, look at those correlations between self-perceived mating success and success in conflicts and history of fighting (SC and FH). That obviously means that if we'll just be confident extroverts, then we'll not only be getting laid but also become strong and dominant alphas who happily get into fights because they know that they'll win and who dominate interpersonal relationships/conflicts. I mean, what's the alternative, that guys are first born with the genes to be strong and dominant and everything else, being extroverted, getting laid, getting into fights, winning conflicts, comes from that instead? Surely not.



Also, while those measures weren't significantly correlated with objective/other-rated attractiveness in men, success in conflict was correlated like this in women, as the researchers themselves acknowledge.

View attachment 1212137

Brb, Imma go tell fem"cels" that it's not that the Stacy cheerleaders who bully them are better-looking than them and that's why they have the social power advantage needed to bully them, but that they became better-looking by constantly bullying them and winning over them and that they need to turn the tables on those Stacies to become better looking.

Wonder what that retard would think about that, considering that it's completely in-line advice with the "Just Be Extrovert bro," he's telling us.

Spoiler

@biomarxist @GeckoBus @DarkStar @Stupid Clown @based_meme @Sloth22 @ArcticAngel @sultryloser @Limitcel @kay' @comradespiderman29 @Pancakecel @Regenerator @wereq @Arabcel99 @reveries @SupremeSaint @Cybersex is our hope @To koniec @Kamanbert

Holy shit that is funny. Just become chad by bullying people.
Suck up peoples life energy.
This is the way of ascension.
You may be merely boy in stature, but now... even you can attain that... throbbing,... veiny 12 Inch Black Mamba ... GIVE ME UR POWAAA


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9SFSpdR47U

 

[DarkStar]

So, a couple of days ago I've learned of the existence of yet another hereditarian, genes-explain-all-group-differences rightwinger, who for some completely incomprehensible reason has decided that genetic determinism applies to everything except sex, romance and relationships (not lookism in general though, none of those guys are ever stupid enough to touch on this wider issue.)

NUANCE ENJOYER I.E. THE TWITTER USER WHO POSTS ANTI-BLACKPILL FINDINGS

Who is he and is he legit? View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1816983536701964376

incels.is

Most of his takes I've quoted there are so retarded they barely deserve a reaction, but there's one tweet that was actually mildly interesting.

This is why I choose to(usually)separate myself from the mainstream "Right-Wing" considering this factor: It baffles me immensely how these guys are so knowledgeable about the factors of the heredity of IQ, racial realism, etc. yet always for some reason omit how this may factor into SMV & other related factors.

Partly why I've made it a mission(side-project, in reality)to try & discern the blackpill & its findings/beliefs there.

View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1805553213371990053


Yes, of course, it's once again the bullshit nobody would ever even think of bringing up to ugly women, because all of those retarded rightoids know for a fact what makes their cocks hard and what they like in women, as I've said, there's probably a thousand times as many flat earthers as people who believe that looks don't matter for male attraction to women, but when it comes to what makes women attracted to men, retards love saying dumb bullshit about it. It's the exact same type of cargo cult-level thinking as looking at children who are doing well in school being confident, and then telling dumb children to just be confident and then they'll do well in school, completely reversing the actual relationship and misunderstanding that smart children become confident because they do well in school.

So, first off, as could be expected, people were pointing out that this means nothing, because extroversion is probably related to and correlates with attractiveness, strength and so on, so ultimately it says nothing. Some tables were posted there supporting this to various extents, you guys can look at that in the thread I linked.

So, I decided to look at the actual study he was referencing. Curiously, he didn't link it anywhere. I wondered why, until I found it.

https://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/von_Borell_et_al_2019_-_Personality_recalibration_replication.pdf

Who could've thought? The mofo said nothing about and completely avoided the topic of extroversion's link to the other traits, because that was the point of the entire study, the entire study was about personality traits being downstream from phenotype and other bodily traits.

Ah ofc, it further is just the classic "read between the lines" I always talk about; which more or less is just stating that studies confirm what we do actually believe.

And ofc, they always tend to simply cherrypick one thing in order to sell their agenda. However, it at least provides "clues" so to speak to guys such as ourselves in order to actually "notice the patterns" & put things together.

But wait boyos, we might've just gotten too cocky, reading this abstract I can see dark clouds on the horizon for le blackpill.


Brutal bluepill victory. Is it over then? Is it time to ban everyone and write "Just Be Confident Bro" as the site's banner? Has this deboonker of the blackpill won?

Wait, boyos, what is that shining ray of light in the darkness, and who is the hero weilding it?


Imagine trying to convince incels that all they need is just being confident and extroverted to get laid while using a study that explicitly says that extroversion and assertiveness (confidence) are linked to masculinity and physical strength. Yeah, I'm sure those guys are getting laid because of how talkative they are, and not because of how masculine and strong they are.

Ah, now who could have guessed that guys who simply are taller, have better builds/frames, and also have more dimorphic faces will do better.

About extraversion, I do also believe a lot of it is linked in with the heritability of personality, but ofc that likely ties in with these traits.

"Potentially".

They always have to leave some kind of wording such as that in, it's just them beating around the bush for virtue signaling reasons.

One of the many issues I have with the modern day "scientific" community.

Even despite that abstract/intro, the tables here are quite blackpilled, such as this one from study 1.

View attachment 1212122

Hmmm, so the two things significantly correlated with both self-perceived attractiveness and self-perceived mating success are other-rated attractiveness and height. Who would've thought.

Also somewhat of a subtle "prettyboy" pill due to the fact facial masculinity is somewhat low for SP mating success for males.

Another thing I noticed also, which somewhat ties into my dysgenics theory(we're becoming more dysgenic as a society & species) due to lung functions from foids being somewhat detrimental, whilst for males it was a positive. Thus, meaning that reproduction could possibly involve passing on these more dysgenic traits due to hypergamy & the correct traits being selected against.

Also, as for tables, that's another thing, the one the wanna-be deboonker posted isn't from the study itself, he probably downloaded the dataset and it's from his, I'm sure completely objective, analysis.

Redpill grifters lying, shifting the narrative, etc. to see their scheme, what's new?

No wonder he did that though, because the other tables there are also very interesting.

View attachment 1212126

Wow, look at those correlations between self-perceived mating success and success in conflicts and history of fighting (SC and FH). That obviously means that if we'll just be confident extroverts, then we'll not only be getting laid but also become strong and dominant alphas who happily get into fights because they know that they'll win and who dominate interpersonal relationships/conflicts. I mean, what's the alternative, that guys are first born with the genes to be strong and dominant and everything else, being extroverted, getting laid, getting into fights, winning conflicts, comes from that instead? Surely not.

This redpill faggot is trying to convince us that simply by being "extroverted" we will instantly see our gains increase tenfold, we will also become more "alpha" & "dominant" on the streets & randomly get into fist-fights in which will make us more attractive.

I mean, that's more or less re-wording what he's saying to be more literal, so you get the idea.

Also, while those measures weren't significantly correlated with objective/other-rated attractiveness in men, success in conflict was correlated like this in women, as the researchers themselves acknowledge.

View attachment 1212137

Brb, Imma go tell fem"cels" that it's not that the Stacy cheerleaders who bully them are better-looking than them and that's why they have the social power advantage needed to bully them, but that they became better-looking by constantly bullying them and winning over them and that they need to turn the tables on those Stacies to become better looking.

Wonder what that retard would think about that, considering that it's completely in-line advice with the "Just Be Extrovert bro," he's telling us.

No idea, but it probably would lack what his name suggests.

Thanks for the tag, great read as always.

 

[DarkStar]

Nah too cramped with dogshit.

Meh, myself, OP, and @GeckoBus have some stuff worth reading in there.

 

[sultryloser]

Look at grifters like Hamza, they literally use this exact formula. Hamzas version is that "jeffrey vs adonis" meme he uses in every video.

What makes it so horrifying is that Hamza didn't use a formula or inherit these ideas from elsewhere mainly, they are innate within men. And Hamza, though a grifter to us, I think he believes in what he's saying. Blackpill is reason whereas redpill is tribe superstition that isn't actually based on facts.

I think ultimately it comes down to this very simple reality: feelings matter way more than facts to the overwhelming majority of people. Always has been, always will be, even back in Galielo's time. With the advent of mass communication like Twitter, those irrational people of present day form a hivemind which is actually terrifying. Never ever underestimate the power of stupid people in mass.

Every year a new generation of young men comes of age, ready for the slaughter.

Yeah, sadly. Before I became blackpilled, I used to see women with the feminine mystique, now their behavior I think is so predicable and animalistic, no different to men only that the behavior is enabled by their immense societal privledge/power. After I became blackpilled, I see humans as a very flawed species. Very few will be able to supersede human nature and achieve something greater. The greater proportion of young men will be the disposable fodder they've always been; the lesser proportion of good looking, highly intellegent, or born rich young men are always the standouts and illy-appointed idols of the greater proportion.

I never used to know the true meaning of, "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." (I think Voltaire quips it better, "History never repeats itself. Man always does") I came to know slowly what it truly meant was that history has the richest stores and provides the greatest insight on human nature, and that knowledge about human nature provides one with the greatest wisdom.

Acta non verba - said Chad

 

[based_meme]

This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about when we I say that we need to start fighting back against. This POS is actively trying to blue pill young men, and keep the older, blue pilled ones safe in their delusions.

 

[SandNiggerKANG]

Sticky tier @Fat Link

 

[Tacomonkey]

This is the classic data omission gaslighters do when gaslighting. You can never fake actual confidence. You'll always be sniffed out as a phony and a fraud

Confidence is informed by previous successes.

If you’ve been treated well by and approached by foids your whole life (Chad) you’ll naturally be confident, it would be paranoia to act otherwise.

If you’ve been treated like shit and abused by foids your whole life (incel) you’ll lack confidence, it would be delusion to act otherwise.

 

[PrototypeCel]

You can never fake actual confidence. You'll always be sniffed out as a phony and a fraud

true
anytime i was having a good time someone/something always put me back in my place like a woman rejecting me or calling me ugly or a chad showing up and making you more invisible
all you can do is just sit and be quiet and not draw any attention to yourself because youll just appear more weird to people
confidence as a sub5 male is always seen as a negative
and standing up for yourself 'manning up" will always make you look like the crazy one
youll just get mocked or worse
ER got thrown off a balcony
what could he of possibly done that would of made someone do that to him?


when i used to hang out with a group of people not really my friends but people i met through bmx
the normie guys were always quiet drinking with each other in some isolated part of the room with zero women and the chads were always loud and obnoxious and talking to all the women of course
i would just sit in some corner drinking alone and none of them would say shit to me i would get up from time to time and try to start convos with everyone but they were all disinterested so i would just go back to drinking alone in the corner again
parties with women around truly let you know who your true friends are and where you stand in life
i ended up walking home around 4am since no one offered me a ride and it took 2 hours


as a sub5 the winning move is simply LDARing or just staying out of sight
your looks will always fail you

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

Reminds me of when healthycopergg tried to sift through an abundance of research to try to find one study that could be construed as proof bald men weren't completely undesirable to suit his confirmation bias. These grifters are either too brainless and low IQ to interpret the data in a way that makes sense OR even worse, they deliberately choose to misinterpret information in statistically fallacious ways that distort the findings of what was actually observed in order to fit their narratives. Either way, they never ever argue in good faith, so it's a waste of time trying to argue with them.

 

[GeckoBus]

The greater proportion of young men will be the disposable fodder they've always been; the lesser proportion of good looking, highly intellegent, or born rich young men are always the standouts and illy-appointed idols of the greater proportion.

its a weird pattern that its always privileged people that start giving advice. It lines up with just world fallacy. Winners in a rigged system think the system is fair. Then they start baselessly assuming they know why they succeeded. They retcon their own history, then sell it to other people as the new gospel of prosperity.

But statistically speaking, why would I listen to an outlier for advice? Like ever? If most people fail at something, why would I listen to the people that succeed? That's like taking advice from a lottery winner on how to win the lottery. Every lottery winner has some retarded crackhead "system" for how they win. I remember in germany this guy won by throwing darts at a board, and he gambled the numbers the darts landed on.

That's basically what most peoples advice is. They just tell you about their version of the darts method but they pretend its objectively true and you should follow it and buy their course or something.

Also notice it's never fucked up people that tell you to seek out risk and stress. It is only people that come from privileged, suburban, sheltered backgrounds that do that. These types of belief systems, were people worship stress and things like "minimalism" or "stoicism," do not exist with people that are naturally forced to live a "minimalist" or "stoic" life, aka poverty where you just have to cope with what you have.

Nobody would go to some coping beggar in a mumbai slum and be like, look at this dude, he is so stoic, just rotting on the side walk, not complaining.

 

[FakeFakecel]

The Blackpill reigns supreme.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

This is why I choose to(usually)separate myself from the mainstream "Right-Wing" considering this factor: It baffles me immensely how these guys are so knowledgeable about the factors of the heredity of IQ, racial realism, etc. yet always for some reason omit how this may factor into SMV & other related factors.

Partly why I've made it a mission(side-project, in reality)to try & discern the blackpill & its findings/beliefs there.

Ah ofc, it further is just the classic "read between the lines" I always talk about; which more or less is just stating that studies confirm what we do actually believe.

And ofc, they always tend to simply cherrypick one thing in order to sell their agenda. However, it at least provides "clues" so to speak to guys such as ourselves in order to actually "notice the patterns" & put things together.

Ah, now who could have guessed that guys who simply are taller, have better builds/frames, and also have more dimorphic faces will do better.

About extraversion, I do also believe a lot of it is linked in with the heritability of personality, but ofc that likely ties in with these traits.

They always have to leave some kind of wording such as that in, it's just them beating around the bush for virtue signaling reasons.

One of the many issues I have with the modern day "scientific" community.

Also somewhat of a subtle "prettyboy" pill due to the fact facial masculinity is somewhat low for SP mating success for males.

Another thing I noticed also, which somewhat ties into my dysgenics theory(we're becoming more dysgenic as a society & species) due to lung functions from foids being somewhat detrimental, whilst for males it was a positive. Thus, meaning that reproduction could possibly involve passing on these more dysgenic traits due to hypergamy & the correct traits being selected against.

Redpill grifters lying, shifting the narrative, etc. to see their scheme, what's new?

This redpill faggot is trying to convince us that simply by being "extroverted" we will instantly see our gains increase tenfold, we will also become more "alpha" & "dominant" on the streets & randomly get into fist-fights in which will make us more attractive.

I mean, that's more or less re-wording what he's saying to be more literal, so you get the idea.

No idea, but it probably would lack what his name suggests.

Thanks for the tag, great read as always.

The reason the blackpill is ignored by many of these groups is for two main reasons imo.

1) It undermines any kind of politics, traditionalism, religion, cultural narrative etc. The fact that it’s all just your genetics and that the blackpill fundamentally groups everyone into genetic classes that are more deep than any social ties or kin ties we have destroys pretty much every other kind of ideology and takes center stage.

2) It’s such a brutal reality that they don’t want to face, thus just lie to themselves and others hoping it will go away.

What makes it so horrifying is that Hamza didn't use a formula or inherit these ideas from elsewhere mainly, they are innate within men. And Hamza, though a grifter to us, I think he believes in what he's saying. Blackpill is reason whereas redpill is tribe superstition that isn't actually based on facts.

I think ultimately it comes down to this very simple reality: feelings matter way more than facts to the overwhelming majority of people. Always has been, always will be, even back in Galielo's time. With the advent of mass communication like Twitter, those irrational people of present day form a hivemind which is actually terrifying. Never ever underestimate the power of stupid people in mass.


Yeah, sadly. Before I became blackpilled, I used to see women with the feminine mystique, now their behavior I think is so predicable and animalistic, no different to men only that the behavior is enabled by their immense societal privledge/power. After I became blackpilled, I see humans as a very flawed species. Very few will be able to supersede human nature and achieve something greater. The greater proportion of young men will be the disposable fodder they've always been; the lesser proportion of good looking, highly intellegent, or born rich young men are always the standouts and illy-appointed idols of the greater proportion.

I never used to know the true meaning of, "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." (I think Voltaire quips it better, "History never repeats itself. Man always does") I came to know slowly what it truly meant was that history has the richest stores and provides the greatest insight on human nature, and that knowledge about human nature provides one with the greatest wisdom.

Jeffrey vs Adonis = Chad vs Incel
He always used a subhuman soyjack to represent the guy he doesn’t like, while using gigachad to portray good qualities to associate it with his good looks.

It has always been the same fucking tropes they use to lie to young men and shame them into serving society.
Look at this from 1700 years ago:

Admonitions for Parents: Lessons by Our Holy Father John Chrysostomos on Raising Children

Its the same memes as today "you gotta tryhard your life, because once there was a guy and his life sucked but then he tryharded and boom bitch, he became jeff bezos."

Look at grifters like Hamza, they literally use this exact formula. Hamzas version is that "jeffrey vs adonis" meme he uses in every video.


View: https://youtu.be/uZZqsBpOs68


I remember a few years ago we all thought that the redpill would fucking die, that the scales were tipping in favor of the blackpill. Instead the blackpill was relegated to the anals of history yet again (as it always has after a period in the sun). Then the redpiller came back with ferocity, intoxicated by the blood of a new wave of young impressionable men. Like a feeding frenzy of white grifter sharks, the internet was yet again boiling with the red foam of bloody cope and seethe.

As you can see from that 1700 year old quote, the redpill never dies. It is one of the oldest grifts. Every year a new generation of young men comes of age, ready for the slaughter. Most of the internet is 14-22 year old directionless men. Every 5 years or so, there is a new online generation. I am 26, most users I talk to are 16-22ish.
It will never end.


Holy shit that is funny. Just become chad by bullying people.
Suck up peoples life energy.
This is the way of ascension.
You may be merely boy in stature, but now... even you can attain that... throbbing,... veiny 12 Inch Black Mamba... GIVE ME UR POWAAA


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9SFSpdR47U

That historical analysis was brutal. Redpill coping truly never ends.

 

[Thaway]

This is the classic data omission gaslighters do when gaslighting. You can never fake actual confidence. You'll always be sniffed out as a phony and a fraud

You can actually 100 percent be as genuinely confident as possible, but it won't matter because people purely judge based on LOOKS.

 

[Da_Yunez]

So, a couple of days ago I've learned of the existence of yet another hereditarian, genes-explain-all-group-differences rightwinger, who for some completely incomprehensible reason has decided that genetic determinism applies to everything except sex, romance and relationships (not lookism in general though, none of those guys are ever stupid enough to touch on this wider issue.)

NUANCE ENJOYER I.E. THE TWITTER USER WHO POSTS ANTI-BLACKPILL FINDINGS

Who is he and is he legit? View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1816983536701964376

incels.is

Most of his takes I've quoted there are so retarded they barely deserve a reaction, but there's one tweet that was actually mildly interesting.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1805553213371990053


Yes, of course, it's once again the bullshit nobody would ever even think of bringing up to ugly women, because all of those retarded rightoids know for a fact what makes their cocks hard and what they like in women, as I've said, there's probably a thousand times as many flat earthers as people who believe that looks don't matter for male attraction to women, but when it comes to what makes women attracted to men, retards love saying dumb bullshit about it. It's the exact same type of cargo cult-level thinking as looking at children who are doing well in school being confident, and then telling dumb children to just be confident and then they'll do well in school, completely reversing the actual relationship and misunderstanding that smart children become confident because they do well in school.

So, first off, as could be expected, people were pointing out that this means nothing, because extroversion is probably related to and correlates with attractiveness, strength and so on, so ultimately it says nothing. Some tables were posted there supporting this to various extents, you guys can look at that in the thread I linked.

So, I decided to look at the actual study he was referencing. Curiously, he didn't link it anywhere. I wondered why, until I found it.

https://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/von_Borell_et_al_2019_-_Personality_recalibration_replication.pdf

Who could've thought? The mofo said nothing about and completely avoided the topic of extroversion's link to the other traits, because that was the point of the entire study, the entire study was about personality traits being downstream from phenotype and other bodily traits.

But wait boyos, we might've just gotten too cocky, reading this abstract I can see dark clouds on the horizon for le blackpill.


Brutal bluepill victory. Is it over then? Is it time to ban everyone and write "Just Be Confident Bro" as the site's banner? Has this deboonker of the blackpill won?

Wait, boyos, what is that shining ray of light in the darkness, and who is the hero weilding it?


Imagine trying to convince incels that all they need is just being confident and extroverted to get laid while using a study that explicitly says that extroversion and assertiveness (confidence) are linked to masculinity and physical strength. Yeah, I'm sure those guys are getting laid because of how talkative they are, and not because of how masculine and strong they are.


"Potentially".

Even despite that abstract/intro, the tables here are quite blackpilled, such as this one from study 1.

View attachment 1212122

Hmmm, so the two things significantly correlated with both self-perceived attractiveness and self-perceived mating success are other-rated attractiveness and height. Who would've thought.

Also, as for tables, that's another thing, the one the wanna-be deboonker posted isn't from the study itself, he probably downloaded the dataset and it's from his, I'm sure completely objective, analysis.

No wonder he did that though, because the other tables there are also very interesting.

View attachment 1212126

Wow, look at those correlations between self-perceived mating success and success in conflicts and history of fighting (SC and FH). That obviously means that if we'll just be confident extroverts, then we'll not only be getting laid but also become strong and dominant alphas who happily get into fights because they know that they'll win and who dominate interpersonal relationships/conflicts. I mean, what's the alternative, that guys are first born with the genes to be strong and dominant and everything else, being extroverted, getting laid, getting into fights, winning conflicts, comes from that instead? Surely not.



Also, while those measures weren't significantly correlated with objective/other-rated attractiveness in men, success in conflict was correlated like this in women, as the researchers themselves acknowledge.

View attachment 1212137

Brb, Imma go tell fem"cels" that it's not that the Stacy cheerleaders who bully them are better-looking than them and that's why they have the social power advantage needed to bully them, but that they became better-looking by constantly bullying them and winning over them and that they need to turn the tables on those Stacies to become better looking.

Wonder what that retard would think about that, considering that it's completely in-line advice with the "Just Be Extrovert bro," he's telling us.

Spoiler

@biomarxist @GeckoBus @DarkStar @Stupid Clown @based_meme @Sloth22 @ArcticAngel @sultryloser @Limitcel @kay' @comradespiderman29 @Pancakecel @Regenerator @wereq @Arabcel99 @reveries @SupremeSaint @Cybersex is our hope @To koniec @Kamanbert

Extraversion = NT and low Inhib, once again genetic!

 

[Da_Yunez]

This is the classic data omission gaslighters do when gaslighting. You can never fake actual confidence. You'll always be sniffed out as a phony and a fraud

 

[Gamingking2222]

The right is full of frauds like this and people who believe them.

 

[illumizoldyck]

This is where I separate myself from the right, the right still needs to believe in meritocracy and things like that

I'm always surprised by the number of people in this world who simply want to believe
I just can't live without contact with the truth

cuckservatives are nothing but hypocrites
all the boomers are usually 5-6 in looks and yet had toilets for wives that were way out of their league.
if the boomer was to enter the dating market today they would insta rope.

Correlation does not equal causation. They never learn.

I've been reading a book from the middle 19th century about Latin grammar, and the author himself explains tropes and figures of speech with the masculine and feminine, but I was incredibly surprised to read bluepill expressions! The author was writing about how a man has to be skilled with language to "fair well with maidens", and I had to pause, because I realized that these bluepill memes are way fucking older than I thought they were. I thought they originated with boomers and at the start of the twentieth century, nope. I was sorryly wrong.
Keep in mind, this was a time where authors would casually write "nigger" and "negro" like you would refer to your brother.

I will someday know the true age of these bluepill memes that are so harmful and malevolent. "Just be confident, bro" is a new expression on an idea that is at least 180 years old. Maybe calling them bluepill memes could be a misnomer, because the ideas never change between generations. Bluepill dogma might be better.

Imagine this battle between based men and soys has been alive for centuries. I guess life is so damn easy in the first world that the number and loudness of soys is too great and drowns out sensible advise and real observations in exchange for delusions of a Just World and manifestations of cognitive dissonance.

bluepill believe it or not worked back then since they had no social media or dating apps. the competition for a toilet was much lower, plus constant wars meant that a lot of males died.
so you could go full bluepilled giga retard and do ok.

 

[ResidentHell]

This is known as the casual fallacy – Mistaking a cause as the effect and mistaking an effect as the cause. Usually, previous success leads to future confidence. Previous confidence doesn’t lead to future success. Confidence is more often built on prior successful experiences than wishful thinking; success is less often built upon previous confidence. It is difficult for one to be confident when one has no reason to believe they have the knowledge or means to succeed

If one does not believe they have the knowledge or means to succeed, there are various possibilities as to why this could be. At least one of those possibilities is due to having a string of past attempts that resulted in failure It is hard for someone to maintain confidence when they already have a low to zero rate of success after many previous attempts, unless they enjoy being tortured or punished to some degree