WorthlessSlavicShit
Luminary
★★★★★
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2022
- Posts
- 12,625
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.)
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.
But wait boyos, we might've just gotten too cocky, reading this abstract I can see dark clouds on the horizon for le blackpill.
Wait, boyos, what is that shining ray of light in the darkness, and who is the hero weilding it?
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.
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.
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.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.
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?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
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.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.
"Potentially".Future studies need to clarify whether formidability, potentially an indicator of genetic quality for males, enhances their orientation and success in short-term mating.
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.
@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