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 Social status is genetic, lifelong, heritable and can be guessed from both photos of your face and your brain scans

  • Thread starter WorthlessSlavicShit
  • Start date
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

reminded me of this.
People guess your social status based on looks, and then give you jobs befitting of your complexion...

 
Yeah another thing about that I've been thinking about - discipline.
Ok so, correct me if I am wrong with my logic, but this does not make sense to me.

1. They tell you to get discipline.
2. What is discipline?

Applying yourself to something consistently for a long time, even if you don't like it.

And how do you get discipline in the first place?

3. By applying yourself to something consistently for a long time, even if you don't like it.

Obama Reaction GIF


So you need discipline to develop discipline?
What? :lul: :lul: :lul:

Honestly, I don't think anyone ever achieves shit. People just end up wherever they are and retroactively come up with narratives to explain what happened.
It will only work for chads and people born earlier for example the fat ugly boomers or people in power most of them are either chads or old fucks
 
reminded me of this.
People guess your social status based on looks, and then give you jobs befitting of your complexion...

But the central premise of soycietal ideology is that entitlement is bad and no one is entitled to anything.
But suddenly attractive people are entitled.
It seems that entitlement is bad only when it comes to ugly people.
Mission impossible: soyciety and normies not being hypocritical retards.
 
But the central premise of soycietal ideology is that entitlement is bad and no one is entitled to anything.
But suddenly attractive people are entitled.
It seems that entitlement is bad only when it comes to ugly people.
Mission impossible: soyciety and normies not being hypocritical retards.
everything in this world is completely inverted from what they tell you, more often than not
the people that talk about equality and social justice the loudest are probably the biggest pieces of shit
its just projection on their part
 
Huffing that sweet copium to get through life
 
Someone give this man a PhD in Blackpill-ology

Because he doesn't miss
 
I always said that "NT" is bullshit and that you are a product of your genes. Genetic determinism and fatalism are a reality. Even if a guy is smart enough and strong enough to make money and ascend to higher social castes, it's probably in his genes as well. Hence why I take eugenics so seriously. It's essentialism vs constructivism.

With a margin of error of, say, 5-10%:
  • Rich people are gonna produce rich people.
  • Attractive people are gonna produce attractive people.
  • Socially validated people are gonna produce socially validated people (jfl @ the parents who have no friends and shame their kids for having none, a classic).
From there: with a similar margin of error:
  • Lower caste is gonna produce lower caste.
  • Middle caste is gonna produce middle caste.
  • Higher caste is gonna produce higher caste.
Water.

I'm in the 5-10% margin of error, like I assume many incels here. Don't ruin your potential (IQ) because of shit genetics (parents). Take medications/drugs/cope and keep moving. Play the few cards you were dealt with. Escortcel once a month.
 
Last edited:
Yeah another thing about that I've been thinking about - discipline.
Ok so, correct me if I am wrong with my logic, but this does not make sense to me.

1. They tell you to get discipline.
2. What is discipline?

Applying yourself to something consistently for a long time, even if you don't like it.

And how do you get discipline in the first place?

3. By applying yourself to something consistently for a long time, even if you don't like it.

Obama Reaction GIF


So you need discipline to develop discipline?
What? :lul: :lul: :lul:

Honestly, I don't think anyone ever achieves shit. People just end up wherever they are and retroactively come up with narratives to explain what happened.

A lot of medications/drugs can help. Benzos, Tramadol, Cannabis to name a few. And keep a routine, the same routine. After you have been focused for a long day, reward yourself (Skinnerian conditioning, it works on animals, and we are animals -- only difference is the fact a chunk of our Maslow Pyramid was stolen).
 
everything in this world is completely inverted from what they tell you, more often than not
the people that talk about equality and social justice the loudest are probably the biggest pieces of shit
its just projection on their part
My experience as well.
 
I always said that "NT" is bullshit and that you are a product of your genes. Genetic determinism and fatalism are a reality.
Yup. I forgot to include the specific citation from the strangers' status guessing study in the white matter one, but they pretty succintly sum it up. It honestly might not even matter whether it's your looks or personality that decide this stuff, because all of it is ultimately decided by your genes:

These findings expand on past work demonstrating that various social network position characteristics are heritable individual difference variables that are stable across contexts12,27. The genetic basis of social network position characteristics may operate in part via individuals’passive characteristics, which influence how others behave toward them (e.g., their appearance). Consistent with this possibility, physical attractiveness has been shown to be predictive of social status, popularity, and social acceptance28–31, and people can somewhat accurately infer aspects of strangers’social network position characteristics (i.e., in-degree centrality and constraint) based on their physical appearance32. On the other hand, the genetic basis of social network position characteristics may also manifest through active characteristics–e.g., sociobehavioral tendencies that facilitate the occupation of certain kinds of social network positions13. For example, such active characteristics might include an individual’s sociability, their tendency to introduce their friends to one another, the extent to which they express empathy toward others, their propensity to engage in behavioral mimicry in social interactions, or some combination of these factors. Individual differences in such sociobehavioral tendencies are likely driven by individual differences in brain structure, but little is known about the relationship between neuroanatomy and social network position characteristics.

Even if a guy is smart enough and strong enough to make money and ascend to higher social castes, it's probably in his genes as well. Hence why I take eugenics so seriously. It's essentialism vs constructivism.
Yup. We unironically live in a world where scientific studies are necessary for such watery observations such as a certain level of intelligence being needed to succeed at highly cognitively taxing and complex tasks, such as working in a complex job or studying a hard course, and that no amount of drive or luck can allow someone to compete with people whose brains are just better.


View: https://twitter.com/hsu_steve/status/1772963770702111144#m


The literature on how well cognitive ability predicts job performance, e.g., has become so extensive that the relevant chapter in the most recent edition of The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection “is not a meta-analysis of existing studies; it is a review of many meta-analyses.” (Does that make it a meta-meta-analysis?)

At least four results emerge consistently:
  • Measures of cognitive ability and job performance are always positively correlated.
  • The size of the correlation goes up as the job becomes more cognitively complex.
  • Even for low-skill occupations, job experience does not lead to convergence in performance among persons with different cognitive ability.
  • For intellectually demanding jobs, there is no point at which more cognitive ability doesn’t make a difference.


With a margin of error of, say, 5-10%:

  • Rich people are gonna produce rich people.
  • Attractive people are gonna produce attractive people.
  • Socially validated people are gonna produce socially validated people (jfl @ the parents who have no friends and shame their kids for having none, a classic).
Of course.

This enables us to compare the predictive influence of parental wealthwhen there is and is not a genetic link between children and the parents raisingthem. We find that the intergenerational association in wealth is about twice aslarge for parents and own birth children as compared to parents and adoptees


From there: with a similar margin of error:

  • Lower caste is gonna produce lower caste.
  • Middle caste is gonna produce middle caste.
  • Higher caste is gonna produce higher caste.
Water.

I'm in the 5-10% margin of error, like I assume many incels here. Don't ruin your potential (IQ) because of shit genetics (parents). Take medications/drugs/cope and keep moving. Play the few cards you were dealt with. Escortcel once a month.
Exactly. Even if we include environment there, that environment is also shaped by the genetics of its participants. A few months ago, I've discovered that the concept of "genetic nurture" is gaining ground in behavioral genetics, and I'm quite happy about that.

Research into genetic nurture has gained traction in the last two years, starting with the publication of three landmark studies with novel designs to identify genetic nurturing effects on offspring educational attainment. These studies have highlighted that parental genes can have an indirect (environmentally mediated) effect on offspring educational attainment through parental traits that are genetically influenced.


When you're a kid, who creates your home environment? Your parents, based on how their personalities and personal capabilities (income, intelligence, self-control, empathy, and so on) are moderated by their genetic makeup, and how they interact with you and your behaviour, which is also shaped by your genes. Your school environment? Determined by the genes of your classmates and how they and your teachers react to your genes, whether it is the passive effect of your genes (your looks) or their active effect (your behaviour) and so on.

Great Finds OP
Thanks:feelsautistic::feelsokman:;).
 
autistic = suffering
 
the scientific name of the blackpill is "genetic determinism" - just in case anyone wants to search for more studies. Good Thread OP.
 
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:waitwhat:?



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:feelskek:. 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:feelskek::lul::feelsjuice:.

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:foidSoy::foidSoy:."

:feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:

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:foidSoy::foidSoy:." 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:feelskek:. 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:feelshaha::worryfeels:), 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:lul::lul:. Mofos don't even realize how blackpilling telling low status losers to "make some friends" actually is:feelskek:. 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:lasereyes::feelsree::feelscry::feelsrope:.

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:feelsokman::feelsthink:).
Status does make a man attractice. Take it all away and boom no foid would want him.
 
Makes absolute sense.

A majority of us aren't socially well adjusted and mostly or rather all likely autistic.

However, I just wonder if not being given the opportunity to socialize had castrated or neutered us? Because women usually do indeed have better social skills than us (and likely because they've been given infinite opportunities to socialize). Also, generally being that women are the gatekeeper of social circles (and I'd say they usually have more control over social circles than Chads).
 
Or perhaps Chads have more control their over social circles than women, but either way it's redundant. I see them both as gatekeepers.
 
Epigenetics can certainly be short-changing.
 
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.
That’s what I always say. Your appearance matters, it’s not just about attractiveness. For example, if you have angry thick eyebrows, you’re gonna be perceived as unfriendly. Your face is your personality
 
Makes absolute sense.

A majority of us aren't socially well adjusted and mostly or rather all likely autistic.

However, I just wonder if not being given the opportunity to socialize had castrated or neutered us? Because women usually do indeed have better social skills than us (and likely because they've been given infinite opportunities to socialize). Also, generally being that women are the gatekeeper of social circles (and I'd say they usually have more control over social circles than Chads).
Tbh, most social circles seem to be led by women
 
We were conceived and it was over
 
prince-valiant-1954-robert-wagner-pval-004cp-bkgwtd.jpg


if this abomination thought I was beneath him, and if as you point out in this amazing thread, people can OBJECTIVELY guess your social status from your looks... holy fuck, holy fucking shit it is so fucking over for me like holy fuck, i have nothing
I know him from somewhere....
LordFarquaad%28ShrekCharacter%29.png
 

Similar threads

comradespiderman29
Replies
35
Views
576
Izayacel
Izayacel
IncelCrocker
Replies
17
Views
869
IncelCrocker
IncelCrocker
Friezacel
Replies
38
Views
836
outerdarkness
outerdarkness
AsiaCel
Replies
2
Views
158
Nagger
Nagger

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top