Blackpill The blackpill is incomplete. It needs improvements (like any other theory)

[K9Otaku]

Some, on this forum have adopted a quasi-religious attitude towards the Blackpill, arguing that it is perfect as is and that any "improvement" actually debases it (this is the way Muslims see Islam and trad Christians the Bible).

I beg to differ.

To me, the Blackpill is a useful and mostly correct theory of human sexual behavior (it is, in effect, what should be called "honest gender studies"). Which means it is not perfect and never will. It is always possible to improve a theory. Thinking otherwise transforms the Blackpill into religious dogma and divorces it from reality.

What are the areas in which I think the blackpill should be improved?

1. It should better take into account human instincts, which are, in fact, mammalian instincts when it comes to sexual selection. This means that human females are not attracted to male handsomeness per se. They are attracted to whatever signs indicate that an individual is an alpha male. Among wolves, females are attracted to raised ears and tails, but this is not because they "like" raised ears and tails as such. It is because these are signs that the individual displaying them is the current alpha of the pack. In modern times, because of TV and film, male handsomeness has been associated to "being a winner". Male handsomeness has become the new "raised ears and tails" for human females. But is was not always so and it does not need to be so.
2. It should better take into account cultural factors. Humans are not 100% driven by their genes, as worms are. Humans are driven by genes that allow them to develop a culture. As a result, in practice, humans are driven by genes + culture. Depending on the culture, the results will be very different.
3. Among cultural factors, the Blackpill should pay special attention to religion. Religion has always been about sex, either for (Dionysos, Ishtar) or against it (Christianity, Islam). This is the single most important factor determining human sexual behavior. Our modern culture is centered around a revived Ishtar cult (although a stealthy one). This is why we observe all the slutiness we see today. Ishtar was always the slut goddess, ever since she was invented 6000 years ago.

Discuss.

@Ahnfeltia, @based_meme, @Intellau_Celistic, @Transcended Trucel, @Intellectual, @Moroccancel2- @The_Hierophant

 

[The_Hierophant]

Some, on this forum have adopted a quasi-religious attitude towards the Blackpill, arguing that it is perfect as is and that any "improvement" actually debases it (this is the way Muslims see Islam and trad Christians the Bible).

I beg to differ.

To me, the Blackpill is a useful and mostly correct theory of human sexual behavior (it is, in effect, what should be called "honest gender studies"). Which means it is not perfect and never will. It is always possible to improve a theory. Thinking otherwise transforms the Blackpill into religious dogma and divorces it from reality.

What are the areas in which I think the blackpill should be improved?

1. It should better take into account human instincts, which are, in fact, mammalian instincts when it comes to sexual selection. This means that human females are not attracted to male handsomeness per se. They are attracted to whatever signs indicate that an individual is an alpha male. Among wolves, females are attracted to raised ears and tails, but this is not because they "like" raised ears and tails as such. It is because these are signs that the individual displaying them is the current alpha of the pack. In modern times, because of TV and film, male handsomeness has been associated to "being a winner". Male handsomeness has become the new "raised ears and tails" for human females. But is was not always so and it does not need to be so.
2. It should better take into account cultural factors. Humans are not 100% driven by their genes, as worms are. Humans are driven by genes that allow them to develop a culture. As a result, in practice, humans are driven by genes + culture. Depending on the culture, the results will be very different.
3. Among cultural factors, the Blackpill should pay special attention to religion. Religion has always been about sex, either for (Dionysos, Ishtar) or against it (Christianity, Islam). This is the single most important factor determining human sexual behavior. Our modern culture is centered around a revived Ishtar cult (although a stealthy one). This is why we observe all the slutiness we see today. Ishtar was always the slut goddess, ever since she was invented 6000 years ago.

Discuss.

@Ahnfeltia, @based_meme, @Intellau_Celistic, @Transcended Trucel, @Intellectual, @Moroccancel2- @The_Hierophant

Dear friend, words cannot achieve or explain the feeling that I have towards you at this moment, no well read or well done is enough.

 

[based_meme]

The black pill isn't a theory. It's a collection of observations (conclusions) about sexuality and behavior that have been backed by evidence. There are theories that have developed as a result of these observations, but it's not fundamentally theoretical.

The black pill has also evolved, I think, into a philosophy - a way of seeing the world. The impetus behind seeking the underlying truths (or reasons, if you don't like the word truth) of the failures in dating and sex, as well as the cultural and societal forces behind it, is the same impetus that drives truth-seeking in various other domains of life and the world.

The phrase "black pilled on x" illustrates this and shows that the black pill has become more than just about dating, looks, and the sexual evolutionary understanding that underpins it all.

 

[K9Otaku]

@Fat Link, maybe you want to pin this?

 

[AnilBashir]

Everything you've mentioned there has been discussed to death at one point or another

 

[based_meme]

Everything you've mentioned there has been discussed to death at one point or another

No, it hasn't. Not until now.

 

[K9Otaku]

The black pill isn't a theory.

It is because it makes assumptions about why women behave the way they do.

It's a collection of observations (conclusions) about sexuality and behavior that have been backed by evidence.

Observation = evidence, ok. However, this is not only what the Blackpill is. It also includes interpretations of these observations. It is therefore a theory.

The black pill has also evolved, I think, into a philosophy - a way of seeing the world.

A "philosophy" is either a theory or a religion. Which is it, according to you ?

The impetus behind seeking the underlying truths (or reasons, of you don't like the word truth) of the failures in dating and sex, as well as the cultural and societal forces behind it, is the same impetus that drives truth-seeking in various other domains of life and the world.

Absolutely. All those efforts result in theories. So the blackpill is one too.

The phrase "black pilled on x" illustrates this and shows that the black pill has become more than just about dating, looks, and the sexual evolutionary understanding that underpins it.

Like any theoretical field, it has many sub-domains. No problem with that.

 

[AnilBashir]

No, it hasn't.

Which part hasn't? I actually agree with your earlier comment in this thread, about "the blackpill" being a series of observations backed by evidence, not a theory. This runs entirely counter to OP's idea that "the blackpill" is incomplete. It doesn't make sense to say a collection of observations is incomplete. There is no central repository or holy book for blackpill truths (like the Bible), unless it is the incels.is wiki?

Without that holy book or central repository or final authority on the blackpill, all we have are our discussions around the topic.

So which of those in the original post have not already been discussed on this site? Religion? Cultural differences?

 

[based_meme]

It is because it makes assumptions on why women behave the way they do.

If the assumptions aren't backed up, it's not black pill.

Observation = evidence, ok. However, this is not only what the Blackpill is. It also includes interpretations of these observations. It is therefore a theory.

The interpretations lead to the theories, but the observations themselves are simply the deduced facts from the evidence, which is almost always statistical. In rare cases, like Briffault's law, it's a principle that is applied to the observations.

A "philosophy" is either a theory or a religion. Which is it, according to you ?

Neither philosophies nor religions are theories.

Philosophies are a collection of valid, sound, and cogent arguments that cohesively form a worldview or a way of thinking. They sometimes utilize original or borrowed concepts, which sometimes employ their own neologisms.

Religions are systems of beliefs and behaviors intended to guide and instruct followers towards some particular behaviors or lifestyle. Naturally, this involves a prescription of morals and a moral system through which the lifestyle of the adherents are dictated. And the source of these morals are the deity or deities of the religion (the source of the religion's moral code being a mortal human would cause many problems).

Absolutely. All those efforts result in theories. So the blackpill is one too.

No, those efforts result in conclusions (understanding) about things. Specific theories may or may not develop as a result of these conclusions. Sometimes an observer may see a pattern in the conclusions and devise a theory. Other times there are no discernable patterns in the conclusions, so it becomes difficult to construct or formulate a theory that can successfully and accurately relate the conclusions to each other in a holistic manner.

Like any theoretical field, it has many sub-domains. No problem with that.

The black pill is not a theory or a field. Please try to understand this.

So which of those in the original post have not already been discussed on this site? Religion? Cultural differences?

This topic is a meta-analysis of the black pill. It's not about any specific black pills.

 

[AnilBashir]

If the assumptions aren't backed up, it's not black pill.


The interpretations lead to the theories, but the observations themselves are simply the deduced facts from the evidence, which is almost always statistical. In rare cases, like Briffault's law, it's a principle that is applied to the observations.


Neither philosophies nor religions are theories.

Philosophies are a collection of valid, sound, and cogent arguments that cohesively form a worldview or a way of thinking. They sometimes utilize original or borrowed concepts, which sometimes employ their own neologisms.

Religions are systems of beliefs and behaviors intended to guide and instruct followers towards some particular behaviors or lifestyle. Naturally, this involves a prescription of morals and a moral system through which the lifestyle of the adherents are dictated. And the source of these morals are the deity or deities of the religion (the source of the religion's moral code being a mortal human would cause many problems).


No, those efforts result in conclusions (understanding) about things. Specific theories may or may not develop as a result of these conclusions. Sometimes an observer may see a pattern in the conclusions and devise a theory. Other times there are no discernable patterns in the conclusions, so it becomes difficult to construct or formulate a theory that can successfully and accurately relate the conclusions to each other in a holistic manner.


The black pill is not a theory or a field. Please try to understand this.


This topic is a meta-analysis of the black pill. It's not about any specific black pills.

I get that. I’m referring to the “What are the areas in which I think the blackpill should be improved?” part of OPs post. All of those have been discussed to death. I think we’re just talking past each other

 

[based_meme]

I get that. I’m referring to the “What are the areas in which I think the blackpill should be improved?” part of OPs post. All of those have been discussed to death. I think we’re just talking past each other

Well, if you were to ask me personally, I'd say the application of the black pill is one area that is almost completely absent in discussions of the black pill. I already have a thread on that.

Another area that could use some attention is how we can pivot discussions of the black pill away from just venting and complaining and steer it towards something more productive and useful.

 

[AnilBashir]

Another area that could use some attention is how we can pivot discussions of the black pill away from just venting and complaining and steer it towards something more productive and useful.

Yeah I agree this would be good

 

[Ahnfeltia]

I've never been under the illusion that the blackpill is just one entity. The blackpill refers to several related concepts (as evidenced by the many ways the word can be used). And I've certainly never been of the opinion that the blackpill (as a worldview or theory) is primarily about sexual behavior. Don't get me wrong -- sexual behavior is certainly an important part of the blackpill, but not its core IMHO.

To me, the crux of the blackpill is determinism (be it genetic, environmental, astrology, etc.). Basically, the idea that so much of life just boils down to the luck of the draw. E.g., lookism is just one dimension of genetic determinism. Sexual behavior is one of the fronts where this fact is most readily visible, altho it's always been hidden in plain sight to the observant one. Not to mention that being denied affection takes its toll, making it a natural focal point for the rejects to hammer on.

Lastly, I dunno if it's just me, but I've never been all that interested in the causes behind blackpilled phenomena. In a sense, they don't matter. One doesn't need to know why the sun rises every morn to conclude that it'll rise again come morrow. Similarly, we don't need to know why things are the way they are to be able to extrapolate. Who cares if women indeed behave the way they do because of evolutionary remnants from millennia ago? It wouldn't change a thing.

 

[K9Otaku]

The interpretations lead to the theories, but the observations themselves are simply the deduced facts from the evidence, which is almost always statistical. In rare cases, like Briffault's law, it's a principle that is applied to the observations.

In order to deduce something from something else, you need to have inference rules and these rules form part of a theory. For example, in order to deduce the presence of a mass in space from the observation of gravitational lensing you need general relativity. You always need a "principle that is applied to observations" to give meaning to the latter. Otherwise, observations are meaningless. One of the problems that the Blackpill has right now is that it often presents observations are self-explanatory. This is not honest. In order to draw conclusions in an honest manner, you need to explicitly state what you interpretive framework is, i.e. your theory. Otherwise, you are just talking shit like a journalist.

Neither philosophies nor religions are theories.

What are theories then?

Philosophies are a collection of valid, sound, and cogent arguments that cohesively form a worldview or a way of thinking.

To me that sounds exactly like the definition of a theory in the Kuhnian sense.

No, those efforts result in conclusions (understanding) about things.

"Conclusions" outside of a specific theoretical framework are always unclear and misleading. In order to be honest, once again, you have to state your theoretical assumptions and especially the specific semantics you attach to words.

The black pill is not a theory or a field. Please try to understand this.

Either it is not a theory, and it is therefore dishonest and vague, or, hopefully, it is a theory.

 

[Cybersex is our hope]

she was invented 6000 years ago.

She is a demon probably. She wasn't invented

 

[K9Otaku]

One doesn't need to know why the sun rises every morn to conclude that it'll rise again come morrow. Similarly, we don't need to know why things are the way they are to be able to extrapolate. Who cares if women indeed behave the way they do because of evolutionary remnants from millennia ago? It wouldn't change a thing.

It is not really the why that we seek, but you do need your predictive theory to be as detailed as possible because otherwise, you will not be able to interpret unusual events. For example, what happens if the sun rises normally but, suddenly, it becomes obscured and an eclipse occurs. Does it mean that the world will end or that the gods are angry? In order to answer in the negative and avoid falling into superstition, you need to have enough of a theory of the solar system to be able to predict the eclipse and say: "I told you so, it was just the moon obscuring the sun for a while"

With foids, it is the same. They do have predictable behavior, but not always in a simple manner. In order to have as detailed an understanding of what motivates them or otherwise the nasty surprises will never end (which is the case for nearly all incels today).

I noticed that in your reply, you did not mention culture. Why always this reticence to accept that culture is the biggest factor in human behavior?

 

[K9Otaku]

She is a demon probably. She wasn't invented

Well, no, she is most probably just the personalization of something people had observed about human sexual behavior.

 

[Cybersex is our hope]

Well, no, she is most probably just the personalization of something people had observed about human sexual behavior.

She was a demon like many other gods

 

[based_meme]

In order to deduce something from something else, you need to have inference rules and these rules form part of a theory.

Inference rules are rules of logic. There is no "theory of inferences." Whatever your inferences are, you are able to break them down into symbolic logic and apply the rules of inference.

For example, in order to deduce the presence of a mass in space from the observation of gravitational lensing you need general relativity.

The theory of relativity explains what you're seeing and why you're seeing it that way, not that you're seeing it at all.

Suppose the theory of relativity was not developed by the time this phenomenon was observed. You would still be able to observe the other bodies and come to the same conclusion: there is a planet there and a black hole over there. Your missing piece would be not knowing why light is behaving strangely that way.

You always need a "principle that is applied to observations" to give meaning to the latter. Otherwise, observations are meaningless.

Exactly how do you think scientific theories are developed?

Experiments are done, observations are made, and then explanations of the observed phenomena are postulated.

The theories don't emerge out of the aether.

One of the problems that the Blackpill has right now is that it often presents observations are self-explanatory. This is not honest. In order to draw conclusions in an honest manner, you need to explicitly state what you interpretive framework is, i.e. your theory. Otherwise, you are just talking shit like a journalist.

Could you please give some examples of this and demonstrate what you're saying?

What are theories then?

Scientifically, theories are concepts and models that describe observed phenomena, and have the predictive power to observe the phenomena in question in the future.

Colloquially, theories are ideas, hunches, and educated guesses.

To me that sounds exactly like the definition of a theory in the Kuhnian sense.

Arguments and theories are different things.

"Conclusions" outside of a specific theoretical framework are always unclear and misleading.

404 argument not found.

In order to be honest, once again, you have to state your theoretical assumptions and especially the specific semantics you attach to words.

This is a non sequitur.

Either it is not a theory, and it is therefore dishonest and vague, or, hopefully, it is a theory.

This is very, very bad reasoning.

"If the black pill is not a theory, then it is dishonest and vague. If the black pill is a theory, then it is honest and clear i.e., ~(dishonest and vague)."

This implies that all theories, by virtue of being a theory, are honest and clear, and anything that isn't a theory is dishonest and vague.

Do I even need to give the trivial case to illustrate how the reasoning is bad?

 

[K9Otaku]

Suppose the theory of relativity was not developed by the time this phenomenon was observed. You would still be able to observe the other bodies and come to the same conclusion: there is a planet there and a black hole over there. Your missing piece would be not knowing why light is behaving strangely that way.

That is not what I meant. Gravitational lensing is often used to deduce the presence of a mass that is not otherwise observable. This kind of inference is often used for example in reports about hypothetical dark matter. The inference "gravitational lensing" --> "there is a mass there even though I can't see it" requires General Relativity to be made.

Inference rules are rules of logic.

No. Look above. The inference rule quoted is specific to General Relativity.

In your initial post, you said

the observations themselves are simply the deduced facts from the evidence

That is not so. In the above example, I have deduced the presence of a massive object from the gravitational lensing, in the context of General relativity. Deduction requires a theory. If you don't have predicates (like man --> mortal, or here lensing --> mass), you cannot deduce. These predicates always exist in the context of an extra-logic theory.

Exactly how do you think scientific theories are developed?

Experiments are done, observations are made, and then explanations of the observed phenomena are postulated.

The theories don't emerge out of the aether.

Did I say that?

Could you please give some examples of this and demonstrate what you're saying?

A very common example: We observe that foids are attracted to Chads (plenty of stats), therefore foids are genetically predisposed to be sexually attracted to handsome men.

That does not follow. Whether the cause of the attraction is genetic or cultural cannot be determined with certainty. The only observations that are statistically relevant are in our own cultural context exclusively. Today, there are no cultures that have not been contaminated by Western culture. As a result, it is impossible to measure how another culture would make foids behave. All evidence we have from different times are anecdotal and therefore not statistically meaningful. In most blackpill discourse, the cultural factor is not even mentioned or just dismissed out of hand. This is not methodologically acceptable.

More generally, the blackpill is said, in the main incelwiki article about it, to rely on "biological essentialism". Is that the case? If it is, this needs to be clearly spelled out.

Scientifically, theories are concepts and models that describe observed phenomena, and have the predictive power to observe the phenomena in question in the future.

Colloquially, theories are ideas, hunches, and educated guesses.

Which is exactly what you called a "philosophy" previously.

Arguments and theories are different things.

Arguments are only meaningful inside the context of a theory, otherwise, you do not know what you are talking about.

"If the black pill is not a theory, then it is dishonest and vague. If the black pill is a theory, then it is honest and clear i.e., ~(dishonest and vague)."

This implies that all theories, by virtue of being a theory, are honest and clear, and anything that isn't a theory is dishonest and vague.

Yes, all theories are honest, if they are actually theories, i.e. bodies of discourse which clearly state their assumptions and the semantics of the words they use.

A theory can be wrong and yet be an honest theory ("phlogiston", "luminiferous aether", etc)

A "theory" can have the appearance of a theory and yet be dishonest and vague, which means it is not a theory but a fake theory (there are many of those).

If the Blackpill refuses to be a theory (i.e. to state its hypothesis and semantic baggage) then it is dishonest and vague. For example, the "biological essentialism" hypothesis which is often implicit in Blackpill discourse should be made clear and explicit. If it is not (it almost never is) then the discourse is ambiguous and therefore vague and potentially dishonest. If, on the contrary, this hypothesis is made clear, then it makes the blackpill a theory with clearly defined postulates. Which is fine.

 

[Moroccancel]

Esteemed brocels;

Some, on this forum have adopted a quasi-religious attitude towards the Blackpill, arguing that it is perfect as is and that any "improvement" actually debases it (this is the way Muslims see Islam and trad Christians the Bible).

Truly, the blackpill cannot be understood except as the set of eminently biological characteristics in pursuit of either reproduction or to understand how lookist dynamics determine the behavior of society with respect to its members. The scientific blackpill seeks to explain this relationship with respect to sexual and social behavior. Thus, the blackpill also correlates aspects such as mental illnesses, the different degrees of intelligence and seeks to show a statistical range based on probability in a hard and conclusive way.

The blackpill as far as we are concerned can only be understood as a wish list of what foids want and how most men do not have these ideal reproduction standards, and how, us, incels, we don't have any exploitation value for foids. Our ugliness is such that not even betabuxxing works because the woman can opt for wageslaving while she finds a better sexual alternative.

It should better take into account human instincts, which are, in fact, mammalian instincts when it comes to sexual selection

In the end this revolves around the debate of the objectivity of beauty and lookism (formally demonstrated as something intersubjective) through neural coding. Everything revolves around sexual attraction, sexual attraction is favorable reproduction patterns through our encoding. There is no greater mystery in this regard.

It should better take into account cultural factors

With "the death of God" and the postmodernity in which we live, it is really difficult to talk about culture. All solidity in social relations have died at the very moment in which absolute cultural relativism has been declared, where people are nothing more than atoms cloistered in themselves who consume à la carte with an infinity of options. Thus, it is not surprising that human behavior continues to represent a mnemonic of market behavior, since the choice of a partner (Tinder, for example) to the enjoyment of audiovisual content. Postmodernity has killed culture and has given rise to urban tribes and a growing fear of freedom that is expressed by the fierce desire for security.

To this end, I recommend reading the following works:

- The art of loving, by E. Fromm.
- Liquid Life and Liquid Love by Z. Bauman.
- The age of emptiness, by G. Lipovetsky.

It also highlights the fact that with the liberation of women both on the sexual level (de facto, and benefited by the development of contraceptive methods) and in the economic, the woman can exploit the man with a certain value of exploitation in a brutal dual mating strategy dynamic. I recommend the works:

- The polygamous man and The manipulated man by E. Vilar.

Among cultural factors, the Blackpill should pay special attention to religion

Truly the blackpill should have a much more thorough analysis regarding the influence of religion. And although it has many brushstrokes regarding the behavior of the foids without sexual experience and eminently controlled and subjugated to nullity as autonomous subjects for the benefit of man, The redpill has a more detailed analysis on this and is correct in understanding that the death of religion is the death of patriarchy and this, in turn, represents the death of reproductive possibilities of many men who once could have risen perfectly with the fruit of their labor as RESPECTED betabuxxers and where foid infidelity was harshly punished by SOCIETY.

Religion for practical purposes is a cope, but it is a cope that in a kind of transcendent divinity regulates sexual behavior. Virginity, marriage, capital punishment for adultery... they socialize sexual access and give a very favorable frame of reference for the stability of these relationships, especially the virginity of foids. So, as much as this annoys a lot of brocels, The truth is that religion has represented the best social regulator against sexual anarchy and whose consequences we see today.

Without a doubt, my pin recommendation.

 

[Govid_Dorious]

The blackpill is incomplete.​

 

[Moroccancel]

This implies that all theories, by virtue of being a theory, are honest and clear, and anything that isn't a theory is dishonest and vague

It would be dishonest to say that the blackpill goes beyond a probabilistic model that has a great degree of prediction, but that does not determine, under a superior mathematical model, the probabilities of a man to mate since it takes as a reference point what is ideal for foids, but it does not take the threshold of men who manage to reproduce or not.

 

[Drakul]

You don't want to make the blackpill become even more advanced, you want to revert it to aspects of the redpill

 

[based_meme]

That is not what I meant. Gravitational lensing is often used to deduce the presence of a mass that is not otherwise observable. This kind of inference is often used for example in reports about hypothetical dark matter. The inference "gravitational lensing" --> "there is a mass there even though I can't see it" requires General Relativity to be made.


No. Look above. The inference rule quoted is specific to General Relativity.

The inference rule is general and universally applies. The above is an example of where and how it applies.

Inferencing is the steps of reasoning (either deductively or inductively) and it is a rule of logic, not a rule of relativity.

In your initial post, you said

That is not so. In the above example, I have deduced the presence of a massive object from the gravitational lensing, in the context of General relativity. Deduction requires a theory. If you don't have predicates (like man --> mortal, or here lensing --> mass), you cannot deduce. These predicates always exist in the context of an extra-logic theory.

IF there is no theory to apply, then what you inference is derived strictly from your observations.

"Phenomenon A occurs when K is measured at X value."

...is different than...

"Phenomenon A occurs, because of theory S."

Both are inferences. One has a theory, while the other does not.

Did I say that?

Yes. You said:

"You always need a "principle that is applied to observations" to give meaning to the latter. Otherwise, observations are meaningless."

A principle is a scientific law - a fundamental and basic truth - that has been proven. The laws of physics, for example, are principles. Theories are derived from principles (and are thus weaker).

Those scientific laws are learned and obtained from observations. Thus, in order to learn a new principle you must first make observations. Therefore, a first principle can be established ab initio without a necessary and contingent preceding principle.

Therefore, it is false that you "always need a principle applied to the observations to give meaning to the observations."

Therefore, I am losing my mind explaining this in baby steps and why these discussions never get anywhere useful.

More generally, the blackpill is said, in the main incelwiki article about it, to rely on "biological essentialism". Is that the case? If it is, this needs to be clearly spelled out.

I don't know.

Which is exactly what you called a "philosophy" previously.

No, philosophical arguments don't rely on observations and data. They rely on good logic.

Having to explain these basic things when I should be expecting you to fully understand them when in discussion is causing me physical and psychological pain.

Please stop.

Arguments are only meaningful inside the context of a theory,

There is no THEORY behind the structure of a valid and sound argument and its truth value. It's simply propositional logic.

Please stop.

you do not know what you are talking about.

For once, you've spoken the words that my soul has been wanting to scream.

Yes, all theories are honest, if they are actually theories, i.e. bodies of discourse which clearly state their assumptions and the semantics of the words they use.

A theory can be wrong and yet be an honest theory ("phlogiston", "luminiferous aether", etc)

A "theory" can have the appearance of a theory and yet be dishonest and vague, which means it is not a theory but a fake theory (there are many of those).

If the Blackpill refuses to be a theory (i.e. to state its hypothesis and semantic baggage) then it is dishonest and vague. For example, the "biological essentialism" hypothesis which is often implicit in Blackpill discourse should be made clear and explicit. If it is not (it almost never is) then the discourse is ambiguous and therefore vague and potentially dishonest. If, on the contrary, this hypothesis is made clear, then it makes the blackpill a theory with clearly defined postulates. Which is fine.

Yeah, of course. Absolutely, 100%. Have at it, buddy boyo. Enjoy.

 

[based_meme]

You don't want to make the blackpill become even more advanced, you want to revert it to aspects of the redpill

 

[LifeMaxxer]

All of this is already discussed and why are you making it more complicated than it has to be? Pseudo-intellectualism has no limit and is pointless.

 

[Pajeetsingh]

This means that human females are not attracted to male handsomeness per se.

Redpill nonsense, looks are paramount.

Halo effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/8csgjw/looks_ratings_101_nearly_all_studies_show_a/

 

[BlackCel_from_ZA]

Some, on this forum have adopted a quasi-religious attitude towards the Blackpill, arguing that it is perfect as is and that any "improvement" actually debases it (this is the way Muslims see Islam and trad Christians the Bible).

I beg to differ.

To me, the Blackpill is a useful and mostly correct theory of human sexual behavior (it is, in effect, what should be called "honest gender studies"). Which means it is not perfect and never will. It is always possible to improve a theory. Thinking otherwise transforms the Blackpill into religious dogma and divorces it from reality.

What are the areas in which I think the blackpill should be improved?

1. It should better take into account human instincts, which are, in fact, mammalian instincts when it comes to sexual selection. This means that human females are not attracted to male handsomeness per se. They are attracted to whatever signs indicate that an individual is an alpha male. Among wolves, females are attracted to raised ears and tails, but this is not because they "like" raised ears and tails as such. It is because these are signs that the individual displaying them is the current alpha of the pack. In modern times, because of TV and film, male handsomeness has been associated to "being a winner". Male handsomeness has become the new "raised ears and tails" for human females. But is was not always so and it does not need to be so.
2. It should better take into account cultural factors. Humans are not 100% driven by their genes, as worms are. Humans are driven by genes that allow them to develop a culture. As a result, in practice, humans are driven by genes + culture. Depending on the culture, the results will be very different.
3. Among cultural factors, the Blackpill should pay special attention to religion. Religion has always been about sex, either for (Dionysos, Ishtar) or against it (Christianity, Islam). This is the single most important factor determining human sexual behavior. Our modern culture is centered around a revived Ishtar cult (although a stealthy one). This is why we observe all the slutiness we see today. Ishtar was always the slut goddess, ever since she was invented 6000 years ago.

Discuss.

@Ahnfeltia, @based_meme, @Intellau_Celistic, @Transcended Trucel, @Intellectual, @Moroccancel2- @The_Hierophant

Brocel the blackpilled has in fact been completed. It can be summed up by these 7 words:

Female nature transcends religion, culture and borders.

And even if it wasn't, the topic you mentioned above have been discussed numerous amounts of times. There will be day when some High IQ individual that all the knowledge about the blackpill and it will spread across the world, he'll be like the Albert Einstein of Incels.

 

[K9Otaku]

I really think you are hazy on definitions.

[1] "Phenomenon A occurs when K is measured at X value."

...is different than...

[2] "Phenomenon A occurs, because of theory S."

Both are inferences. One has a theory, while the other does not.

Both statements are incomplete, if you want them to be inferences. Both of them are meaningless as a result. You have to combine them to make them meaningful:

[3] "Phenomenon A occurs when K is measured at X value, according to theory S."

And of course, you can also have

[4] "Phenomenon B occurs when K is measured at X value, according to theory T."

Which would be from a competing theory. Those 2 statements could provide the opportunity for an experiment that could turn out in favor of Theories S or T.

Statement [1] could be construed as an observational report: "We have observed that, when K is measured at X value, phenomenon A occurs". However, this is not an inference. It is merely the observation of a correlation. Correlation is not causation. Causation can only be expressed within the context of a theoretical framework.

The inference rule is general and universally applies. The above is an example of where and how it applies.

Inferencing is the steps of reasoning (either deductively or inductively) and it is a rule of logic, not a rule of relativity.

Logic tells you that you can make inferences and how to formally present them, but it does not provide you with inference rules (plural)

Those depend on predicates and are therefore extra-logical (they are how you apply logic to a specific domain). They are provided by whatever theoretical context you are using logic in.

A principle is a scientific law - a fundamental and basic truth - that has been proven.

No scientific "law" is ever proven. This is Kuhn 101. No paradigm is ever "proven", because they can always shift and be replaced. Theories within the paradigm also pass when the old paradigm is replaced.

The laws of physics, for example, are principles.

No! The "laws" of physics depend on the current consensus among scientists. If a better paradigm appears, they will be replaced by newer theories. The day a credible theory of quantum gravity emerges, both quantum mechanics and relativity will be replaced.

Since Kuhn, nobody disputes that.

Theories are derived from principles (and are thus weaker).

Nobody believes in that anymore. That was current epistemology at the time of Plato. No one today thinks like that anymore.

I strongly feel that now is the moment you are going to leave the discussion in a huff. It would be a shame because those are substantive differences. Kuhnian epistemology forever changed the way we view science. The kind of ideas you present are just obsolete.

 

[Michael W. Ford]

You can get pussy using magick.

New pill: you can get pussy using magick

.club mod UncleSpertz a.k.a SpacersChoice has successfully contacted a goetic demon. Any incel can lose their virginity by using magick. I came to this conclusion about a month after learning about magick. Nearly every post I've made since has been magick related. Plastic surgery is for rich...

incels.is

 

[based_meme]

I strongly feel that now is the moment you are going to leave the discussion in a huff.

There is no huff. There is only dejection. I'm still here. It's increasingly frustrating when discussing a topic where there is an obstinate deadlock due to a one-sided deficit in apprehension. This is not intending to be an insult, but there are some things here that you are not getting and this leads you to ideas that are unable to stand under analytic scrutiny.

That's honestly fine if you don't see that, but there's no value for me to keep arguing this. It's very easy to just say you're wrong and leave it at that, but that's not productive and doesn't help you see why you're wrong. Did you not notice that my style with you has changed? I was intentionally being prosaic, blunt, and limiting my affect response as much as I could constrain myself.

If you believe that your view is correct, then there is nothing to do but let your argument and position in your OP stand on its own merit. If others accept what you're arguing, then you can conclude with a higher degree of certainty that your argument is good. If not, then it isn't.

Kuhnian epistemology forever changed the way we view science. The kind of ideas you present are just obsolete.

It did not, and it isn't, but you are welcome to hold that view, if it gives you comfort.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

It is not really the why that we seek, but you do need your predictive theory to be as detailed as possible because otherwise, you will not be able to interpret unusual events. For example, what happens if the sun rises normally but, suddenly, it becomes obscured and an eclipse occurs. Does it mean that the world will end or that the gods are angry? In order to answer in the negative and avoid falling into superstition, you need to have enough of a theory of the solar system to be able to predict the eclipse and say: "I told you so, it was just the moon obscuring the sun for a while"

With foids, it is the same. They do have predictable behavior, but not always in a simple manner. In order to have as detailed an understanding of what motivates them or otherwise the nasty surprises will never end (which is the case for nearly all incels today).

99% of the time theories need to be modified to incorporate theretofore unprecented revelations. Famously Paul Dirac was able to mathematically conjecture antiparticles before they were experimentally confirmed, but even in physics, arguably our most accurate collection of theories, this continues to be considered an exceptional feat.

I noticed that in your reply, you did not mention culture. Why always this reticence to accept that culture is the biggest factor in human behavior?

I considered culture to be part of environment. I meant "environmental" in pretty well the broadest sense. I acknowledge culture influences our behaviors strongly. I don't think it's the biggest factor, but it's certainly big.

 

[ethniccel1]

Some, on this forum have adopted a quasi-religious attitude towards the Blackpill, arguing that it is perfect as is and that any "improvement" actually debases it (this is the way Muslims see Islam and trad Christians the Bible).

I beg to differ.

To me, the Blackpill is a useful and mostly correct theory of human sexual behavior (it is, in effect, what should be called "honest gender studies"). Which means it is not perfect and never will. It is always possible to improve a theory. Thinking otherwise transforms the Blackpill into religious dogma and divorces it from reality.

What are the areas in which I think the blackpill should be improved?

1. It should better take into account human instincts, which are, in fact, mammalian instincts when it comes to sexual selection. This means that human females are not attracted to male handsomeness per se. They are attracted to whatever signs indicate that an individual is an alpha male. Among wolves, females are attracted to raised ears and tails, but this is not because they "like" raised ears and tails as such. It is because these are signs that the individual displaying them is the current alpha of the pack. In modern times, because of TV and film, male handsomeness has been associated to "being a winner". Male handsomeness has become the new "raised ears and tails" for human females. But is was not always so and it does not need to be so.
2. It should better take into account cultural factors. Humans are not 100% driven by their genes, as worms are. Humans are driven by genes that allow them to develop a culture. As a result, in practice, humans are driven by genes + culture. Depending on the culture, the results will be very different.
3. Among cultural factors, the Blackpill should pay special attention to religion. Religion has always been about sex, either for (Dionysos, Ishtar) or against it (Christianity, Islam). This is the single most important factor determining human sexual behavior. Our modern culture is centered around a revived Ishtar cult (although a stealthy one). This is why we observe all the slutiness we see today. Ishtar was always the slut goddess, ever since she was invented 6000 years ago.

Discuss.

@Ahnfeltia, @based_meme, @Intellau_Celistic, @Transcended Trucel, @Intellectual, @Moroccancel2- @The_Hierophant

I agree with the context of your post tbh. However, I do think that the Blackpill is perfect as is. The blackpill is an excellent body of observations that explain the "raw animalistic nature of women" nothing more nothing less.

Let me explain.

Humans by nature are lazy creatures and we want an easy one stop quick fix solution to everything. In mathematical terms we want a linear function with only "one" variable with which to view the world. The thing is that most if not everything in this world is multi variable. Example a seed is not genetics. In order to express its genetics it needs light, water, soil, nutrients, certain climate.
In order to understand a seed and its growth we need to study Biology, Chemistry, Farming and even Business management to get inputs, logistics etc.
In essence one subject can not possibly cover all these topics and actually do them justice, it would just be a whole mess trying to all these topics into just one subject.

The world is not linear but extremely "multi variable", mechanical engineering, chemistry, physics and medicine cels can attest to this.

So what you are talking about in essence is RED PILL. The red pill takes into account religion for example. Watch videos or read books on red pill and they explain and how muslim women marry their own men of muslim culture. How middle class marry middle class, upper class marry upper class etc etc etc.
Even social studies, political studies and especially military science specifically goes deep into this area.

Anyway society is structured on Education, religion, finances, law, media, health.

Anyway to much to explain in deatil without writing a PHD thesis so I will stop here, but you get the point.

 

[K9Otaku]

Anyway to much to explain in deatil without writing a PHD thesis so I will stop here, but you get the point.

So, in essence, you are saying that the Blackpill is better than the Redpill because it is dumber? Because we are lazy and therefore like dumb explanations that don't require us to think for more than 2 minutes?

 

[ethniccel1]

So, in essence, you are saying that the Blackpill is better than the Redpill because it is dumber? Because we are lazy and therefore like dumb explanations that don't require us to think for more than 2 minutes?

Thats not what I am saying. I meant the black pill has its rightful place and is perfect for the purpose it serves, which is explaining the animilsitic aspects of female nature and mens raw animalistic heirachy.

Why would you want to reinvent the wheel? The red pill fully explains things like culture , class, educational background i.e foids with masters want men with PHD's, mens heirachy based on income etc etc.

Even if you go to university to study any degree that degree is made of numerous subjects. Example CS has maths, programming, business management fundamentals, technical english etc etc etc.

Everything has its place and time.

 

[K9Otaku]

What do you exactly mean by incomplete?

I mean it can be improved, and should be.

Also christianity has changed alot overtime but not islam.

Actually, Islam was initially a variant of Christianity and then changed into a separate religion. That is a lot of Change.

Also the blackpill is a concept that almost every man goes through in life wether hes a chad or not but they dont know the term blackpill so they dont research it themselves they just live theit lives based on the cards they are dealt.

A tall chad easily knows that he can fuck half the women in his town ofc in his mind he already has an idea of the blackpill that him being this attractive is having life on easy mode the same power a woman has also she knows if everything fails she has alot of options to succeed in life but they dont talk about it too much they both just larp and lie to sound kind on the net but reality is something else.

I think the only thing we or anyone should do is spread the blackpill kinda like religion else nobody will talk about it ever eventho they do live it.

I agree that we need to treat it like a religion. But in so doing, we need to be careful. If we start spreading it before it is sophisticated enough to resist "rebuttals", we will lose. As it stands, it is still to weak because it does not take into account cultural factors. Wokesters and bluepillers can run circles around us if we do not have a deep familiarity with history and religion.

But also even if you spread what are u gona achieve? The amount of simps and generally weak men is too high to control.

You don't need to control that because the universe is self-cleaning. If you follow a sound doctrine and wait for the shit to hit the fan, then all the weak people will be eliminated automatically. That is how Christianity won at the end of the Roman Empire. Christians were the only ones to survive.

 

[K9Otaku]

Thats not what I am saying. I meant the black pill has its rightful place and is perfect for the purpose it serves, which is explaining the animilsitic aspects of female nature and mens raw animalistic heirachy.

Why would you want to reinvent the wheel? The red pill fully explains things like culture , class, educational background i.e foids with masters want men with PHD's, mens heirachy based on income etc etc.

I think that the Redpill suffers from a fatal flaw: self improvement. Any explanation of culture from that angle is just wrong. As a result, the redpill does not "serve its purpose" and it is rightly rejected by incels.

The blackpill is much more right than the redpill because it does not sugarcoat things. As a result, it must stand on its own and is not just a complement to the redpill. Eventually, the blackpill must be right or disappear (like every ideology/religion). As a result, it must continue to grow and improve.

 

[ethniccel1]

I think that the Redpill suffers from a fatal flaw: self improvement. Any explanation of culture from that angle is just wrong. As a result, the redpill does not "serve its purpose" and it is rightly rejected by incels.

The blackpill is much more right than the redpill because it does not sugarcoat things. As a result, it must stand on its own and is not just a complement to the redpill. Eventually, the blackpill must be right or disappear (like every ideology/religion). As a result, it must continue to grow and improve.

yeah well good luck looking for a perfect system. Nothing is perfect my nigga. We are not perfect, science is not perfect when even aeroplanes crash out of the sky for no reason yet they were perfectly serviced and maintaned.

No system anywhere is perfect.

Red pillers live in hope and include self improvement in their philosophy in hopes of ascending. They do them and good luck but I could care less for that. But fact remains the aspects of culture, society that they point out are 100% spot on in most cases and I will not be low iq and say because red pillers gymmaxx that because of that the entire proven knoweledge is bull shit.
Live and let my nigga.

Infact I would say I am white pilled now. Even probably beyond the white pill already.

 

[based_meme]

It would be dishonest to say that the blackpill goes beyond a probabilistic model that has a great degree of prediction, but that does not determine, under a superior mathematical model, the probabilities of a man to mate since it takes as a reference point what is ideal for foids, but it does not take the threshold of men who manage to reproduce or not.

The black pill is not the probabilistic model itself. It would be more accurate to say that the black pill encompasses and leads to the building of the model. @Ahnfeltia briefly touched upon this when he said it "refers to several related concepts." The black pill doesn't add a new way of doing things, but it does add deeper knowledge from inquiries that lead to facts and truths we would have otherwise dismissed or not been made aware of.

This isn't a great analogy, but if the blue pill is religion, then the black pill is science. The red pill would be somewhere in-between (it appeals to science, but still has "faith" in some things, like "game" when there's no hard evidence which shows that it works for the people who would really need it, like ugly people).

 

[Moroccancel]

The black pill is not the probabilistic model itself.

How can female behavior be understood if not through the creation of a statistical range? Of course the blackpill drinks a lot from evolutionary psychology, however, the quantification of a phenomenon such as height, or facial structure, obey mathematical and correlation models.

 

[Thaway]

The Black pill isn't a theory it's fundamentally a collection of biological observations. There are theories based on these observations, but the black pill itself is not a theory.

 

[based_meme]

How can female behavior be understood if not through the creation of a statistical range? Of course the blackpill drinks a lot from evolutionary psychology, however, the quantification of a phenomenon such as height, or facial structure, obey mathematical and correlation models.

Maybe it's because English isn't your first language, but you've misunderstood what I've said.

I'm saying that any particular model isn't "the black pill," but rather that the black pill includes such models under it's umbrella.

 

[spasticbuddy]

why are you posting this? Are you curry

 

[based_meme]

The Black pill isn't a theory it's fundamentally a collection of biological observations. There are theories based on these observations, but the black pill itself is not a theory.

Bro, you literally just parroted what I said.

 

[Moroccancel]

Maybe it's because English isn't your first language, but you've misunderstood what I've said.

I'm saying that any particular model isn't "the black pill," but rather that the black pill includes such models under it's umbrella.

Thanks for explaining me your point better, brocel. We agree.

 

[based_meme]

Thanks for explaining me your point better, brocel. We agree.

 

[Thaway]

Bro, you literally just parroted what I said.

No, i simply stated my opinion. Not everything is about you my sweet summer child.

 

[based_meme]

No, i simply stated my opinion. Not everything is about you my sweet summer child.

Nice try, but try again. And I didn't say everything is about me, just your "opinion."

2023 GrAYs are getting bold.

 

[Thaway]

Nice try, but try again. And I didn't say everything is about me, just your "opinion."

2023 GrAYs are getting bold.

What are you even talking about? You forgot to take your meds today, boy?