So, you're an incel, who's to blame? Let's paraphrase: what do you have? As per cartesian dualism, you have a mind and a body. Your mind is all your mental qualities: thoughts, feelings, attitudes, values, basically all what they call a personality. Your body is all your physical qualities which need not be explained. The bluepill ideology would have you to believe that you being an incel has a lot to do with your mind, not your body, and that your mind can be fixed with therapy. You reading this here already implies that you know that this is false. But let's just sum up the arguments here.
The Tinderpill or massive amount of dating app data and experiments. I will not link specifics here but a good place to start if you are completely unfamiliar with this are channels such as Wheat Waffles because they're YouTube friendly and easy to consume. But many of the users here already know all of this. The Tinderpill shows you that:
a) Men's profiles are judged solely on looks. A profile with a good looking man with no info or extremely negative info (a man being a convicted child molester) will get plenty of attention from women. A profile with bad looking man with positive info (a man being interested in charity work) will get no attention.
b) A tiny minority of men (about 5%) get all the attention while the rest get virtually nothing. This is supplemented by a data point stating that about 50% of men are single but only about 30% women are single. Together this heavily implies a "chad harem" - attractive men dating many women at the same time while less attractive men get nothing. This is done with women knowing - as Rose in Titanic said: "I'd rather be his whore than your wife!"
c) Dating app data is massive and cumulative, it is by definition not anecdotal, thus it cannot be dismissed as such. Dating app experiments can be reiterated ad infinitum, each time they will yield the same result, i.e. the attractive man with terrible personality is desired.
d) Dating app data cannot be dismissed as "not real life" because for people ages 30 and below it is statistically the number one way how to meet a potential romantic partner. And while it's possible to communicate with people in "real life", the mere possibility of using an app is still a factor and it very much changes "real life" outcomes. For example, a woman might go to a social event and not see a man she deems attractive enough. In the past she might be incentivized to "settle" for one the available options, but now she can just sit in the corner and open Tinder. The men in the social event will be unsuccessful despite socializing in "real life" because of dating apps.
The Tinderpill is enough to establish looks as the prominent factor in men's dating success objectively and scientifically. It can be supplemented with each man's individual, personal experience, deemed "anecdotal". We all have seen women flocking to attractive men despite them not displaying positive mental attributes and more often than not displaying negative mental attributes. So the corrosive side of therapy comes in with the therapist's inability to take all of this into account. The problem here, I would argue, is threefold:
a) Therapists are predominantly women. They can experience a scarcity of desirable mates but not scarcity of mates as such. Thus, were they to use an app, their results would be vastly different, even if the therapist is conventionally unattractive herself. Thus, they cannot relate. I have no knowledge of a therapist willingly making a man's profile as a social experiment to counter her bias. Male therapists exist, but they might be unavailable because in some countries the state sponsors therapy and virtually only female therapists enter the state sponsored program, so, in effect, male therapists are quite often locked behind a paywall.
b) Therapists are predominantly older. It's likely that the therapist is aged above 40, thus she met her partner before the prominence of dating apps.
c) Therapists are likely using outdated sociological data. The dating app data is about 10 years old. It's not yet properly incorporated in psychology studies in university. Thus, it is not a stretch to say that some incel men simply have superior knowledge about dating dynamics compared to university trained professionals.
Then, if therapists refuse to acknowledge the importance of looks, what do they do? They look for "trauma" and "insight". Trauma is just a set of negative experiences coupled with explanation of said negative experiences. We need not think of trauma as one huge, impactful event, it can be smaller things, spread across time. And one also need to interpret the traumatic event in a certain way for it to be truly traumatic. Insight is an "aha" moment for the patient, to who he supposedly came on his own, but in reality the therapist nudged him heavily in this direction.
So a man, we will call him Bob, goes to therapy. He's 5'4. Some dating apps allow the users to set height preference, so many women set their preference to 6 feet or above and Bob is left out solely because of this reason. But the therapist rejects this simple explanation because of reasons discussed above. She is looking for many, many ways how Bob's mother supposedly mistreated him and how Bob now has a "trauma", a "negative attitude" which supposedly blocks Bob from forming a romantic relationship without Bob realizing it. If Bob could just come to an "insight" stating that all women are not evil like his mother, all will be well for Bob. But in this case it is not only useless but also malign.
Because in this process the therapist is also subtly guilt tripping Bob. His height is out of his control but his character is under his control. He needs to change. It's not the real problem, but he still needs to change. So now he has to overthink each time he does not open the door for a woman or does not smile wide enough. "Yeah, yeah, I'm not nice enough, that's why I'm lonely, and I'm not nice because mommy spanked me when I was 4."
It's fucking awful, don't you see?
The Tinderpill or massive amount of dating app data and experiments. I will not link specifics here but a good place to start if you are completely unfamiliar with this are channels such as Wheat Waffles because they're YouTube friendly and easy to consume. But many of the users here already know all of this. The Tinderpill shows you that:
a) Men's profiles are judged solely on looks. A profile with a good looking man with no info or extremely negative info (a man being a convicted child molester) will get plenty of attention from women. A profile with bad looking man with positive info (a man being interested in charity work) will get no attention.
b) A tiny minority of men (about 5%) get all the attention while the rest get virtually nothing. This is supplemented by a data point stating that about 50% of men are single but only about 30% women are single. Together this heavily implies a "chad harem" - attractive men dating many women at the same time while less attractive men get nothing. This is done with women knowing - as Rose in Titanic said: "I'd rather be his whore than your wife!"
c) Dating app data is massive and cumulative, it is by definition not anecdotal, thus it cannot be dismissed as such. Dating app experiments can be reiterated ad infinitum, each time they will yield the same result, i.e. the attractive man with terrible personality is desired.
d) Dating app data cannot be dismissed as "not real life" because for people ages 30 and below it is statistically the number one way how to meet a potential romantic partner. And while it's possible to communicate with people in "real life", the mere possibility of using an app is still a factor and it very much changes "real life" outcomes. For example, a woman might go to a social event and not see a man she deems attractive enough. In the past she might be incentivized to "settle" for one the available options, but now she can just sit in the corner and open Tinder. The men in the social event will be unsuccessful despite socializing in "real life" because of dating apps.
The Tinderpill is enough to establish looks as the prominent factor in men's dating success objectively and scientifically. It can be supplemented with each man's individual, personal experience, deemed "anecdotal". We all have seen women flocking to attractive men despite them not displaying positive mental attributes and more often than not displaying negative mental attributes. So the corrosive side of therapy comes in with the therapist's inability to take all of this into account. The problem here, I would argue, is threefold:
a) Therapists are predominantly women. They can experience a scarcity of desirable mates but not scarcity of mates as such. Thus, were they to use an app, their results would be vastly different, even if the therapist is conventionally unattractive herself. Thus, they cannot relate. I have no knowledge of a therapist willingly making a man's profile as a social experiment to counter her bias. Male therapists exist, but they might be unavailable because in some countries the state sponsors therapy and virtually only female therapists enter the state sponsored program, so, in effect, male therapists are quite often locked behind a paywall.
b) Therapists are predominantly older. It's likely that the therapist is aged above 40, thus she met her partner before the prominence of dating apps.
c) Therapists are likely using outdated sociological data. The dating app data is about 10 years old. It's not yet properly incorporated in psychology studies in university. Thus, it is not a stretch to say that some incel men simply have superior knowledge about dating dynamics compared to university trained professionals.
Then, if therapists refuse to acknowledge the importance of looks, what do they do? They look for "trauma" and "insight". Trauma is just a set of negative experiences coupled with explanation of said negative experiences. We need not think of trauma as one huge, impactful event, it can be smaller things, spread across time. And one also need to interpret the traumatic event in a certain way for it to be truly traumatic. Insight is an "aha" moment for the patient, to who he supposedly came on his own, but in reality the therapist nudged him heavily in this direction.
So a man, we will call him Bob, goes to therapy. He's 5'4. Some dating apps allow the users to set height preference, so many women set their preference to 6 feet or above and Bob is left out solely because of this reason. But the therapist rejects this simple explanation because of reasons discussed above. She is looking for many, many ways how Bob's mother supposedly mistreated him and how Bob now has a "trauma", a "negative attitude" which supposedly blocks Bob from forming a romantic relationship without Bob realizing it. If Bob could just come to an "insight" stating that all women are not evil like his mother, all will be well for Bob. But in this case it is not only useless but also malign.
Because in this process the therapist is also subtly guilt tripping Bob. His height is out of his control but his character is under his control. He needs to change. It's not the real problem, but he still needs to change. So now he has to overthink each time he does not open the door for a woman or does not smile wide enough. "Yeah, yeah, I'm not nice enough, that's why I'm lonely, and I'm not nice because mommy spanked me when I was 4."
It's fucking awful, don't you see?
