How the incels warped my research - The Boston Globe
Evolutionary psychology has developed an uncomfortable relationship with provocateurs and incel ideology.
www.bostonglobe.com
www.bostonglobe.com
Can't take it back now
Foids prefer kindness, that is why they constantly say being nice is bad
Cringe loser scientist thinking humans are above evo psyche.
World is ruled by petty egos.
Can anybody find the specific paper he's talking about? I'm too lazy but I do wanna see what he wrote. Bitches do prefer dominance.
Scientific Blackpill
The Scientific Blackpill is about understanding the nature of human social and sexual behavior with a particular focus on evolutionary psychological perspectives...
thanks will give some of the studies a read laterScientific Blackpill
The Scientific Blackpill is about understanding the nature of human social and sexual behavior with a particular focus on evolutionary psychological perspectives...incels.wiki
He's not bad at shifting the goalposts when it suits him, any researcher should be honored when their work is cited
You don't studies to know bitches will settle with abusive partners when you have crime statistics, specifically domestic abuse ones.
At this rate, they'll force the authors of studies confirming the obvious fact shorter and uglier looking people have it harder in life than more attractive people to recant their findings, because it aligns with 'incel ideology' when it's just observing basic reality.
Crazy that scientists think humans are above nature. As if we're magical demigods or something
Also "soyentist" is my new favorite word
Also "soyentist" is my new favorite word
Crazy that scientists think humans are above nature. As if we're magical demigods or something
Also "soyentist" is my new favorite word
“Evolution is not destiny”
Lol. Your genes are absolutely your destiny. Psychologists are quacks. Just people too stupid to become Psychiatrists.
Lol. Your genes are absolutely your destiny. Psychologists are quacks. Just people too stupid to become Psychiatrists.
Maybe you all will realize one day the whole shitshow that is “modern soyience” is just about protecting modernist faggot worldview and not about investigating reality or truth.
Darwinism is bs and it was only used as a way to de-spiritualize humans. That’s why they forget about it when it goes against the libshit narrativeCrazy that scientists think humans are above nature. As if we're magical demigods or something
Also "soyentist" is my new favorite word
Darwinism isn't modern it's just common sense.
Science now starts with a view to give credibility for, and works it's way backwards to try prove it
I agree. The promotion of evolution through natural selection has always been ideological. Its most fervent promoters are often its most fervent deniers. The author of the article above is a perfect example, he’s pretty much debunking his original research.
The mainstream will soon abandon natural selection and evopsych as they are becoming popular amongst right-wing men to describe women
Exactly. It always felt so weird that “science!!111” with its obsession with rationality never ever questioned the blatant stupidity and bs and inversion of reality of feminism. It turned out slowly and slowly that they never even cared about objective reality, they only wanted to enstablish a foundation for liberalism.
You can easily predict ANYTHING that doesn’t lead to spiritual materialism and political liberalism will be labeled as “pseudoscience” by soyentists NO MATTER the amount of evidence you can pile up to show them the truth.
Darwinism is bs. You can not create new species just through natural selection. And yes the idea of actual speciation out of mere natural selection is a modernist idea based mainly on ideology and need to naturalize malthusianism in 19th century england
Last edited:
Spot on. If one cares to read and get enough infos he will be amazed to see how many things we deem to be basic and unrefutable scientific facts were crafted, shared and imposed gradually out of pure ideology
His opinion doesn't matter. The opinions of those who conduct studies is less important than the results themselves. He's too egotistical.
They're progressives so they have to blindly believe that to sustain their ridiculous world view. It's ironic that it's no different from a religious zealout.Crazy that scientists think humans are above nature. As if we're magical demigods or something
Also "soyentist" is my new favorite word
Kindness is only valued after a man meets a minimum threshold of physical attractiveness. “Kindness” is not an entry ticket… it’s a bonus trait once that threshold is crossed. Countless men have tried to lead with kindness and been rejected. While studies may ask, “What do you want in a partner?” in an abstract sense, actual mating behavior—such as swipe data and partner selection—shows that physical appearance is a much stronger predictor of success.
too funny jfl
“Women like kindness incel. It’s true. I just ran a survey and asked them if they preferred kindness or aggression. Women would never lie about that. Trust the science”
1."the incel wiki quotes a paper citing a study of mine as demonstrating that women prefer dominant men — which they further twist into the incel notion that women actually prefer violent men as romantic partners."
Daniel you're are implying that the incel wiki is only using your source to make the case that women prefer violent men, this notion is completely false, the wiki uses other sources to make that claim. You as a source is only in a small "quotes" section "Cross-culturally, women prefer men who are dominant as partners" that's your source's contribution to the wiki you are lying through omission.
2. “That’s odd, I don’t remember ever publishing on dominance preferences — do the incels know my work better than I do?” No. I double-checked: That study didn’t even mention dominance preferences.
Unforunately because your paper is behind a paywall I am unable to verify whether or not your quote was never said, But what is odd to me is that you never talk about what you were quoted on. Wouldn't you want to i don't know show your readers how your quote was misquoted?
3. "Curiously overlooked in this whole wiki section on women’s preferences is the fact that kindness is repeatedly found to be among the most desired qualities in large-scale, cross-cultural studies of mate preferences."
Again unfortunately your paper is paywalled so I cannot verify what methods you used to obtain women's preferences but if it's just asking them about what they want that is easily debunkable as people not just women are prone to lying about this.
4."So I’m sticking my neck out. And I’d encourage my level-headed colleagues to do the same. The manosphere and our peers who cater to it don’t represent our field"
This is not how science works, you don't just get to label someone else's study as bunk because you believe it has bad intentions. You must evaluate all the data to come to a conclusion even from sources you don't like. You don't just get to hand wave that stuff away because it doesn't fit your worldview you must analyze all the data. If you believe we are wrong about the world, then use your efforts to disprove it.
Daniel you're are implying that the incel wiki is only using your source to make the case that women prefer violent men, this notion is completely false, the wiki uses other sources to make that claim. You as a source is only in a small "quotes" section "Cross-culturally, women prefer men who are dominant as partners" that's your source's contribution to the wiki you are lying through omission.
2. “That’s odd, I don’t remember ever publishing on dominance preferences — do the incels know my work better than I do?” No. I double-checked: That study didn’t even mention dominance preferences.
Unforunately because your paper is behind a paywall I am unable to verify whether or not your quote was never said, But what is odd to me is that you never talk about what you were quoted on. Wouldn't you want to i don't know show your readers how your quote was misquoted?
3. "Curiously overlooked in this whole wiki section on women’s preferences is the fact that kindness is repeatedly found to be among the most desired qualities in large-scale, cross-cultural studies of mate preferences."
Again unfortunately your paper is paywalled so I cannot verify what methods you used to obtain women's preferences but if it's just asking them about what they want that is easily debunkable as people not just women are prone to lying about this.
4."So I’m sticking my neck out. And I’d encourage my level-headed colleagues to do the same. The manosphere and our peers who cater to it don’t represent our field"
This is not how science works, you don't just get to label someone else's study as bunk because you believe it has bad intentions. You must evaluate all the data to come to a conclusion even from sources you don't like. You don't just get to hand wave that stuff away because it doesn't fit your worldview you must analyze all the data. If you believe we are wrong about the world, then use your efforts to disprove it.
Average soyintists. Just a reminder these retards are PAID. It’s so funny they claim to believe in evolution until it doesnt fit their narrative anymore. How could a species evolve fast enough to no longer desire superior bone structure when the modern world is no more than 700 years old?
Funny this is a professor at the same place ER was a student at.
Dumb fag probably thinks the earth is round too!
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
