So, I just used the Scientific Blackpill page on Incels.wiki to reply to another thread on here, and as I did so, I discovered the study below the one I used as a reply and decided to give it a read:
A man's looks are significantly correlated with his popularity and peer status - Incels.wiki
Now, it's a brutal read, but unfortunately, the studies themselves aren't linked there, so I tried searching for them. I didn't find the Anderson et al. studies this mostly talks about, but I did find this study that is referenced near the end:
Here is that study, and its abstract:
The Face of Social Networks: Naive Observers’ Accurate Assessment of Others’ Social Network Positions From Faces
Now, this alone is pretty brutal. Even people who have no idea of who you are, just by looking at a photo of you once or twice, are able to accurately predict your social status, because both your actual and perceived social status are based on your facial attractiveness, warmth, and other facial traits you have no control over. Which, btw, is another blackpill that there are other facial traits apart from just attractiveness that influence this. People love to claim that just because you aren't attractive doesn't mean that you can't be a "cool guy", giving off "chill, friendly vibes", and how they all know a socially successful guy who's not facially attractive to try to bluepill us.
Meanwhile, this study simply flatly admits that facial warmth is different from attractiveness, however, it is nevertheless an actual facial trait you can't just choose, and it decides your social status similarly strongly as attractiveness does.
Now, that alone is brutal enough, but most people here who have been reading blackpill threads and Incels.wiki would've already known this.
So, I decided to look at the studies this study is cited by, and I found this absolutely brutal and quite recent one:
White matter connectivity in brain networks supporting social and affective processing predicts real-world social network characteristics
Right from the beginning this is pretty brutal:
Right from the beginning, you get the confirmation that your (shitty) social status will be with you for your entire life, simply because of how you are wired.
Are those large enough numbers of participants for the science-loving types that suspiciously dismiss all blackpill studies as having too small cohorts to be convincing to take this seriously
?
It's not just your face, as the previous study showed. It's also your brain. Better yet, it's your genes, the genes that predetermined you into a permanent low social status life by giving you a brain wired for it and a face to match so that everyone looking at you could immediately tell your place in the social hierarchy.
I love when people say that, even if they switched places with us, they would definitely be able to find friends and lovers, because they would still have their "kind,friendly personalities,", while we would struggle even with their faces and bodies
. Cool, how about we switch not only faces but also brain circuitry as well? Let's see how you try to be popular with brain architecture of a permanent social outcast
.
Those are the social networks they were studying, each dot is another person with red ones being those who had their brains scanned:
View attachment 1088219
"Silly inkwell, there's no such thing as a social outcast, everyone feels lonely sometimes, not just you
."
You just gotta love that type of cope, or the crazy numbers of teenagers (mostly teen girls) who claim that they are "like, totally lonely and depressed
." Meanwhile, stuff like this shows a simple truth. Social networks truly are masses of NPC normies, with a smattering of outcasts, the people who are
actually lonely but who are the most likely to be attacked by normies when pointing out the fact that they have it worse than them, who are barely holding onto the few, if any, links they have with those large NPC masses.
Jfl
. I've already said this once I think when talking with
@Copexodius Maximus, but it's a bit crazy how much ahead of us actual scientists studying this stuff are in understanding blackpill topics like this. There's barely even any talk about social status on incel forums currently, normies think it all just comes to making some friends or whatever which they've bullshitted themselves into thinking that they can do so whenever they want (despite evidence that people mostly stop making new friends at 25 or so) and don't think much more about that. Meanwhile, those scientists looked at how many people you say are your friends, how many people say you are their friend (btw, the social bonds in the above image were solely those where both parties claimed the other as a friend
), how close to the social centre you are by looking at how well-connected you are with people who themselves are well-connected, and even split brokerage (the stuff that the face study above was talking about, how much of a social butterfly linking multiple different social groups you are) into two distinct things to get a better look at each,and to seperate the real brokers from their friends who are merely benefiting from their brokerage.
So, what did they find?
Well, they already spoiled it in the abstract, but basically, the actually serious markers of social status, that is, centrality in the social network and brokerage across it, as in, how closely you are to the center of it and how easily you can move across it and link various different groups (all of which welcome you, of course) were also the ones most significantly affected by the wiring of your brain, and by multiple different regions even.
It's actually pretty hilarious and blackpilling when you think about this and remember the social advice we usually receive
. Mofos don't even realize how blackpilling telling low status losers to "make some friends" actually is
. Just about everyone can make at least one or two friends, as this study shows. Just "make friends bro" and don't think too hard about what you are missing out on and could never have, because while for you it is an achievement to do what absolutely anyone can do, unless you were born for it, you will never know the sweet feeling of having your social network revolving around you with all its doors opened for you to visit at any moment
.
And now for the last part...
It never began for low status losers.
YES, YOU WERE BORN INTO THIS.
NO, YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT.
Even on this website, a lot of people think that believing that money and status matter is "not blackpilled" because "you can just gain them."
No. No you absolutely can't. There's a crapload of research showing just how much income, wealth and socioeconomic position are hereditary and genes-based, and thankfully, there's research like this into status coming out as well. No, just like a truecel can't simply become a Chad overnight, so can't a poorfag dude just gain money, or an outcast loser just become a social butterfly. It simply doesn't work that way.
This links to another study which cited the first one:
Neural Encoding of Novel Social Networks: Evidence that Perceivers Prioritize Others’ Centrality
Basically, it says that deducing and analyzing social status of others is a deep-rooted function of the brain, and even when shown photos of complete strangers, your brain will quickly try analyzing the positions of each of them in their social circle, how popular they probably are, their centrality, brokerage and so on, all of which, as the first study showed, can be guessed from the face alone.
First off, shout out to and tagging
@Balding Subhuman for also recently making
a thread on how brain structure predicts social status (in mice, not in humans, but whatever.) Tagging some boyos who might be interested
@GeckoBus @OutcompetedByRoomba @Mortis @lifefuel @Lv99_BixNood @prajeet88 @Puppeter @Stupid Clown @wereq @Epedaphic @NorthernWind @BlackCel_from_ZA (we've once had a discussion on how heritable money and status are, hopefully, this thread will be an informative and interesting read
).
www.cnbc.com
www.amren.com
www.nature.com
