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.

Theory "The Importance of Physical Appearance in Human Social Dynamics: A Review of the Role of Attractiveness in Well-being, Social Status, Sexual, and Dati

Puer aeternus

Puer aeternus

Autistic little duckling.
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 4, 2023
Posts
2,400
"The Importance of Physical Appearance in Human Social Dynamics: A Review of the Role of Attractiveness in Well-being, Social Status, Sexual, and Dating Performance."

:yes::yes::yes:
this thread is an info dump, it was supposed to be an assignement turned into my school, however i couldn't tolerate being constantly alone 3 years... , so i drop this essay onto this forum. It's about 20% taken from other sources, and in my opinion 80% originality. The sources vary from youtube comments, .is, and a bunch of scientific studies only shown in the original document. This text is unreviewed as of a couple months back, is unfinished, might not make sense, might even doxx me, enjoy reading it.
:yes::yes::yes:
Shout out “Lookism as Epistemic Injustice” by Thomas Spiegel. extreme blackpil quality essay.

let's begin.

This essay seeks to delve into the importance of physical appearance and its role in human social dynamics, particularly the role of physical attractiveness and the perception of wellbeing, status in society, and probability of sexual advances by both genders, as well as comparing the probability of sexual and mating success by both genders and mention other advantages in economy and working environments.
Where this paper differs from other papers on this topic is that the extensive research provided by these social scientists has scrutinized the impact of looks and appearance on individuals standing in society. While they acknowledge a bias, this paper will contribute to a broader and deeper understanding of the implications that attractiveness has.

The only indicator people have of a person's wellbeing without knowing them is looks and appearance It's been vastly studied by social scientists, and the consensus is that there’s a definite bias towards attractive people that gives them the upper hand in day-to-day situations and life in general, however, the point these researchers achieve are generally never researched deeper due to stigma or lack of motivation

the points these researchers achieve are usually seen as minor issues, or it’s subjects of taboo. The problem of genetics and its implications in looks is never materialized which can manifest as additional issues for the person suffering from this. This highlights the importance that Attractive people do objectively have a higher value than other people deemed ‘less attractive’, however, people fail to realize the importance of attractiveness in day-to-day life and the importance it has when determining a person's personality.

The human tendency to make rapid judgments based on visual cues has been a fundamental aspect of social dynamics throughout history. In the absence of personal knowledge, physical appearance becomes a primary indicator of an individual's well-being and societal standing. It’s most evidently arising in today's society with the internet boom, according to studies, the majority of couples meet through dating apps/websites, dating apps present the face as the first visual queue, and the next one is the person's bio, which indicates the quality of personality, according to research although limited, released by the companies who has these apps, has shown that the looks part matter more than the personality part.


nature of lookism and its ramifications on diverse groups within society

How deep does this bias go?
Is it comparable to other social problems?
Is it a valid injustice?
Is personality more important for mate selection?
Does this knowledge help the victims?

To quote the article “Lookism as Epistemic Injustice” by Thomas Spiegel
“While the effects of being unattractive are arguably not as bad as discrimination based on gender, race, class, or (dis-)ability, it is clear that discrimination based on looks presents an injustice.”

Lookism and attractiveness are directly interlinked to all classes of discrimination, it affects race, gender, class, and most disabilities, and can therefore intensify the already existing discrimination of these people, the lookism problem often hides under these vulnerable people. However there’s a clear distinction between acceptable discrimination and the looks based one, the difference lies in the fact that looks are mostly genetic and can therefore not be changed, which highlights the importance of giving it as much priority as other social issues, and realizing that it directly contributes to large proportions of already existing ones as mentioned. To demonstrate the argument provided,

To quote Thomas Spiegel again.
“Unattractiveness in general (and the discrimination based on it) does not generate the same awareness as gender or race-based discrimination partially for the reason that there is a different kind of discomfort associated with being identified as ugly.”

The disparities of lookism can be most evidently perceived in Asian, autistic, and which class one belongs to, the racial hierarchy even if it’s a sensitive topic isn’t a debate about whether one should rewire their brain to try to fix the hierarchy, it’s rather an observation of truth and how this could help end the racial disparity.


Grooming and personal health stem from the confidence you feel from society constantly reinforcing your looks¹, from the study provided, the consensus that could be reached is that attractive people can enter the sexual/dating market much earlier due to their appearance and standing in society, which helps them gain a major advantage, when it comes to looks, it’s not an issue in it’s own right, it’s a snowball effect that affects all instances of your life. Even when you’re born. ((Fixixixixia)

The same reason ugly people could be perceived as nihilistic, the same way depressed people are more likely to self harm. Logic isn't hard. The environment still is a play in the blackpill ideology, therefore we often use the word "prone". You could still live a bad life whilst being attractive, there's many factors, such as location you're born at, or your height, or maybe the simple fact that you're rotting and not seeking women. Many factors go into play, but the general rule of thumb is that when you're young your looks are the biggest factor for success when it comes to unattainable factors, such as the place you’re born at, your family's wealth or even your family's way of treating people. Your looks is what makes your environment act better towards you, therefore you're more likely to succeed, there's studies showing support towards the notion that parents treat their children better based on genetic qualities.

Social tropes and stereotypes are evidence of the perception of looks and the importance of attractiveness which has manifested through media and subconscious judgment. However even if these tropes are present, better-looking people still achieve the same “Halo effects” such as being perceived as more intelligent, or being seen as mysterious, despite if an ugly person behaved the same it would be perceived as quiet and possibly weird. Another scenario is when an attractive man is straightforward, and that’s most often perceived as something good, but when an ugly person does the same it's creepy.

The Halo effect could be best ascribed as the instance where looks are seen as a ‘halo’ that disguises negative effects, popular instances of halo effects are serial killers who use their looks to lure victims, or modern day scammers creating a persona around wealth and looks to lure people, as featured in the Netflix series “The tinder swindler”. Or common tropes from movies and shows and the Hollywood perspective of the high school jock. There are many different perspectives and instances of the halo effect, however, there are also tactics to form a relationship with common people, such as when corporations form trends around fat beauty, or the usage of models to feature perfumes, it’s a common tactic to sell a good by creating a bridge between the consumer to signal your brain to form a halo effect, as featured in axe spray ads, If you buy our spray, you can attract better looking women.

Well life isn't binary, 2 people living practically the same life will reach a different understanding, the same way red pillers think they are enlightened, and blackpillers. A chad who has been reinforced by society will have an abundance of positivity, this will either result in a general gratefulness for life (Humility: i.e good personality) Or (Confidence: i.e bad personality) and the counterpart of the ugly person (Bluepill: Negativity: Bad personality, Positivity: good personality) And then finally (Blackpill: Nihilism: Everythings over, and then: It's all over therefore i shall live happy) This is all vastly generalized and theorized, but this is the general rule of thumb to debunk the notion that even good looking people can have bad personalities. Even when good looking people do have bad personalities, it could be seen as something positive. IN this case it actually means good looking people cant have bad personalities, it just means that every type of outlook on life fits different people, for example trashy women, good women, then again the same applies to women, no matter which outlook a woman has, there's always hundreds of oofy-doofies, and bluepillers waiting at their doorstep.

Observations and gatherings from instances where the bias of looks is unclear.

Many instances could be found online where individuals could be seen as ugly, but are romantically involved with partners more attractive by societal standards, this could be used as key evidence to disprove of the importance of looks, to explain the interplay of physical attractiveness and the relationship dynamics that are played when these online couples exist need to be simplified and digestible, we need to observe whats shown, therefore it’s necessary to delve into the value, whether they have financial success, or height difference, but for now we’ll ignore it to construct a more coherent debate towards this question. It is crucial to examine the responses that the viewers and commenters provide.

Picture evidence:





Comment sections often reveal a mix of expressions ranging from genuine curiosity to subtle skepticism. Observations include comments like

“How did he do that! i'm so jealous ”
“He does not deserve her ❤️
“Tell me his secrets!”
While these comments may appear light-hearted, they highlight the exact thought process I try to show. an intriguing paradox within the common status quo ideology, which emphasizes the importance of personality over looks.


Therefore, these videos should’ve never become viral because of the difference of the looks to begin with, to amplify my logic, tell me why these videos are popular. Sure I’ll accept the fact that perhaps good-looking couples get as many likes as these non looks-matched couples, which is true, and would mean that there’s no difference between ugly/good looking couples to the bluepillers mindset. But the comments and opinions of the people viewing these are always vastly different, doubt versus lust. Us blackpillers already know the reason, and so does the bluepillers, however the bluepiller will ask

“What if the woman is truly happy with her non-looks matched male, without any extreme qualities!”
This is a perfectly normal response which is partially true. Yes there's thousands of these types of couples which is normal. As I said before, people have different outlooks on their life. And i am happy for the males and females sake, the thing is however, no matter how many of these outlier couples you can find, it still doesn’t remove the fact that the attractive woman has the chance of seeking a higher looking male, which often happens in the case of oofy doofy’s, The possibility is always there no matter the reasons the woman has chosen to stay with the male. Even if she does stay with him to the end, then that's something beautiful! A true personality relationship, these things happen, but they’re not as common. I know for a fact that the parents of the woman will doubt the male's competence in the relationship, but that doesn’t matter. These couples often happen because of ideological reasons which mimic personality reasons such as: Religion, meeting at a young age, being a friend who finally becomes their boyfriend later in life, being through hardships which finally become normal.

As a blackpiller you must always imagine the bluepillers response and dissect it with your own logic/outlook on life, have humility towards statistical outliers, and statistics with logical fallacies, and if bluepillers and red pillers truly seek these outliers then that's fine, Millions of people spend money on trying to become rich, for example consuming videos, and buying books about money, even if they try, most fail. And that's fine, life is about failing and trying. The difference is that us blackpillers remove the pain of failing and trying for unrealistic realities. That’s the gift of being blackpilled.

To further my opinion on the fallacy that life is something other than predetermined values and circumstances "Mental illnesses" are simply non-conformity behaviors relating to social norms. These behaviors arise from negative experiences throughout life, i.e. actions resulting in prejudicial outcomes for the agent or subject of other's actions.

The mental "re-living" of these experiences one goes through by remembering in their minds these instances causes in turn these "problems of living" to the receptacle of such life experiences, leading to a loop of non-conformity.

External factors cause these "non-conforming" behaviors, because only in a social setting can there be such a thing as non-conformity. That's why "mental illness" is simply a social construct. If you were living alone on an island, there would be no such thing, because you’re individually the construct on said island, which in turn makes your island an outer shell of who you are, the same way other people have styles and tastes to get comfortable in their living space.

But when living in a social setting, patterns for acceptable and non-acceptable behavior arise and those who do not fit are treated as to be excluded from the benefits of social living, the most common response to not fitting in is getting bullied, bullied to some could be seen as something to make people become normal, or to be known of their problem. But this is not the correct resolution, to quote the book “The problem of the puer aeternus” written by Marie louise von Franz “This is a problem which comes up in many neuroses, not only in that of the puer aeternus (Incel) It goes very deep, and my attitude toward it is paradoxical: as long as I can, I behave as if the other could make up his or her mind because that is the only chance of salvation. If nevertheless
the case goes wrong, then I turn around and say that it was not possible for things to have gone differently. Otherwise one falls into a wrong psychological superiority; namely, that if a person goes wrong,or dies as the result of a disease or an accident, and one concludes that this occurred because he did not realize his problem—that is his fault that he has this fate—that I consider disgusting”
Do not shame incels for not discovering the truth, they only see the shadows projected in front of them in the cave. (Plato's cave allegory)

Marie Louise makes the argument that most people are prejudiced against “Societal losers” because they judge with their own experiences which may be caused by values that are non changeable, and applying the same experience onto people which do not possess the same assets. To further my argument and clarify what I mean. They are shaming you cause they're comparing your life to theirs, in their eyes it worked for them so why shouldn't it for you? Bullying is a social response to weed out the wrongs in a social setting. Psychological disorders such as anxiety and what not is generally seen as fake by people who aren’t suffering like you, it's just a guilt trip set upon you for not conforming to society's standards, the general narrative of social standards is fake in this situation. Thinking that a "standard" could be changed if you individually remove something is simply impossible. It's just a set of values which the general masses subconsciously think.
-To explain a bit further which will be expanded upon longer down in this text, the human psyche tries to change what is predetermined values such as, looks, where you’re born, and also your intelligence, to something that was earned, for example through working on yourself by gymming, studying, and earning money. The human psyche shelters itself from taking accountability of your own situation, this is also why people use their own experiences to compare to others, cause they’re genuinely convinced that what they had (Normally functioning brain) Was earned somehow, and therefore they mention the same thing to someone who might not be the same.

For instance, if you are ugly, short, bald, deformed, "shy" ("non-NT"), ethnic, you are not fitting the social pattern of acceptability, therefore you are excluded from the benefits of social living, or your participation in these social settings is lessened and not as beneficial as for those who conform, let's say the job market, dating market, familial relationships, friendships, etc.

This rejection causes these problems in living: you are not able to conform, and knowing the dire situation in your values you have a pessimistic outlook on life, you know most of these factors for acceptance are out of your control, so realizing and re-living these past negative experiences makes a consciousness arise, that you are not able to conform either because the factors are outside of your control or because of missed opportunities (let's say you become too old to enter a career, or to have actual functional sex, which should be had by fertile men and women).

That is the whole reason shrinks (psychologists) are scammers. They are the same as poets or philosophers, they simply play a non-scientific game where they make conclusions based upon established social norms (which can and in fact do affect scientific methodology itself). If you remove the scientific veil of this profession, you will understand that shrinks can only "help" you realize things about yourself or about the exterior world. But to give legitimacy to psychologists (in turn myself) Psychologists are set on the task to make what the masses cant see such as my prior statement about anxiety, seen. Only when a problem is seen is when it could be fixed.

If you are able to conform again, you are "cured", if you do not succeed (as most incels won't), you will still be considered "mentally ill".

THIS IS WHY ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN SOMEHOW FIT THE SOCIAL STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY CAN BE "CURED" FROM THEIR "MENTAL ILLNESS". A foid, simply by having a wet stinky hole, can always be cured from her "mental illness" in this gynocentric world, because she will always be accepted to some degree. A good-looking man, even if he has past traumas and has abused drugs, can also be "cured" because he can always be able to conform as long as he realizes what he has to do in order to conform, and his non-changeable features are already conforming to acceptable standards.

Psychiatrists are also scammers. Jewpills can't "cure" your "mental illness' '. They can only stimulate or suppress your biological and innate immune system in some way, just like any other type of medicine will. They can only control the symptoms of your problems in living, they will deactivate your receptors and turn you into a robot devoid of the ability to face your sadness and trauma from bad experiences rationally, thus dumbing you down to your own suffering.

I myself am thinking of getting a prescription for some of these Jew Pills, not because I believe they can "cure" me from my "mental issues", but because I know they can be able to "anesthetize" my mind from re-experiencing these past disappointments with such force and frequency, just like weed did for me (it lost effect over time though and I'm currently unable to get more from a dealer), or alcohol can do for some. It will warp my mind to a parallel world where I can live with myself only and not care about the social structure that denies my conformity in the first place. Why do I want to do this? Because I don't want to and am probably unable to conform.

If I wanted to be "cured", I'd have to go to a psychologist to brainwash me into thinking I can somehow conform by doing "x" or "y", but I know for a fact that's not the case. Every time I tried to adopt a bluepilled/NPC belief, it gave me some false hope and sense of belonging, a sense that I could try again some other way and finally achieve conformity. But in the long run this will inevitably lead to more sorrow, because by exposing yourself again to these social experiences you will be again rejected and fail to conform if you do not have the features that fit the standard of conformity.

This is why the Redpill can actually be damaging to many many men, like it was to me. You set yourself for bigger disappointments by "working on yourself" and spending time, money and effort trying to reach things you were never able to achieve. The higher the mountain, the bigger the fall. Their copout for this reality? "Don't do it for women/others/status, do it for yourself".
segment for hikikomori change
"Mental illness" treatment can "work" for some people (as said, foids and good looking men, for instance) because by "adopting a positive mindset" they can expose themselves again to social settings and get their dopamine hits, validation and positive reinforcement, thus opening ground for them to conform again and live "healthy" and NPC lives.

I've been close to people (male and female) that supposedly suffered from "depression", "schizophrenia", "bipolar disorder" and other "mental illnesses", and I can say that based on my analysis, backed by mountains of proof, that they simply (for some reason or another) were going through bad times and were not achieving what they wanted to achieve, or simply had too high standards in their minds they needed to achieve (either socially enforced standards or standards they set to themselves based on false concepts of reality and what's achievable based on the hand you're dealt - genetics, where you're born, in which family you're born, etc). As soon as some external factor gets better and they again can conform and live up to social standards, they get "better" from their "illnesses” and can live pleasant and healthy lives as most NPCs do in their own ignorance.

Like every commodity there is, there is a market for it. "Mental illness" is not only a good market for medicine professionals and Jewpill companies, especially because the solutions can cause dependence in individuals consuming these "goods", but it is also a great weapon for the government, elites, etc (i.e. the ruling class, the winners of societal standards), it can be used for control, for them to feel better in comparison to you for not conforming, and most important: to shove all kinds of dangerous ideas that can go against their established order, the order of things that benefits them and exclude you.

You are not mentally ill, I am not mentally ill, we are simply outside of the conformity overton window.

The puer aeternus or the modern day incel runs the risk of being used by malicious people


“innocence can only be cured of these illusions by passing through
disappointment and bad experiences. Warnings are no good—such
men must learn by experience, without which they will never wake up
from their innocence”

But who’s to say that said innocence is bad? The removal of the innocence could make the puer give up.

“It is very important to know that, because naturally, in the strong
type one can risk a kind of reckless therapy and, for instance, just
confront the person with the problem and risk a terrific crisis, a healing
crisis, and then they come through. With the asthenic type you can
never do that. There one must adopt a nursing attitude, making
constant blood transfusions, so to speak, never forcing the problem or
pushing the person up against the wall because that would break
them”

There are different ways incels react to being given information that tries to show their issues. They either break down completely, choosing a life of sloth and hatred, or they accept their own issues, work to break away, and get cured. It's important to know that being “cured” in this instance just means they give up their innocence and come out through the ashes. A simple quote made by me could summarize my logic mentioned briefly in this text “Either it's over, or it’s over therefore it began” Giving up in this instance means that the person is willing to never try again for several years.

This issue is becoming huge in japan, with the new phenomenon of hikikomoris which is a term to describe people most often men who the one who shuts themselves in. The term hikikomori was coined in the 1990s by a Japanese psychiatrist to describe young people who isolate themselves in their parents home for at least six months and have no social life. They do not study or work and are unable to break their pattern of life. Their financial support is secured through the help of their immediate family. These are evidently people, often young, who have never been met with any real resistance for their lifestyle.
Most 17 year olds (including me i am 18) suffer from never being challenged, school is literally the only challenge, I would have to say the social aspect of school is way harder than studying and what not.
To quote Marie Louise again
“innocence can only be cured of these illusions by passing through
disappointment and bad experiences. Warnings are no good—such
men must learn by experience, without which they will never wake up
from their innocence”

Most of us youngsters barely have anything challenging, we're all drifting until it all piles up on us beyond fixing, where you either split and decide to give up or take drastic changes. The road of the rotter, or the red piller, even the guy in the video-

Even when most of us young people do have the right mindset, whether it be through black pill or red pill (vast generalization) the following problem occurs:

"all that he (incel) praises, he does not stand by, for he assimilates
the whole thing intellectually and takes it back to his imaginary world.
the realization that they should adapt to reality is an intellectual idea to them which they fulfill in fantasy but not in reality. The idea is executed only in reflection and on a philosophical level, (consuming self help garbage which will never be put to use) but not on the level of action. The modern day incel tends to grasp at everything which would be the right thing to do and then to draw it back into his fantasy-theory world.”

This would mean for example that the hikikomori stops getting their lifestyle funded either from resistance of parents or some big problem arising. In Swedish society the wake up call would probably be through bad academic performance. This issue could result in drastic changes whether for the bad or for the good. Let’s say suicide or success. This is the dire reality of the modern day loser. Which could only be solved through one simple word: Work. The problem with work is the paradox mentioned by the quote from Marie, and even in the situation where work is made it could become a paradoxical cycle of falling back to your roots through ego, or being at the split of life whether for bad or for good.














The ability to choose emotions over facts is proof of the human ego.

The inability to be self-aware is an aspect of the human psyche to shut off what would be hurtful to the individual. For example When a woman says she wants a funny, honest, intelligent man, she isn't lying to you, because she truly believes her own gaslighting. When she says honest, she thinks honest AND attractive,, when she says smart, she thinks smart and attractive, when she says intelligent, she thinks intelligent AND good looking. The reason they don't mention you have to be good looking, is because that is such a deep and primary PREREQUISITE, that even they aren't consciously aware of it, hence they truly think just "honest, funny, intelligent..." (but in their mind, they imagine the face of an attractive person).
Women look at handsomeness like a canvas for a painting. If I ask you what you like about a painting, you won't say "I like the canvas", you would say "I like the colors, the symmetry...", yet those things are only able to exist because of the canvas.
But the canvas is so foundational, so primary, that you aren't even aware of it when you are looking at a painting (the same way as attractiveness is to women).
Being handsome is like a base for a house, it doesn't matter that you have a million bricks (intelligence, humor, kindness...), because those bricks cannot stand on anything without a base.



(1) Women's self-gaslighting
If you put an attractive person in front of a woman, something amazing happens.
She notices how hot he is, and for a very short period of time, she is AWARE that is the only reason she likes him (because she will point it out to all her friends). But, very quickly, in just a few moments, you will see that she starts to notice his humor, kindness, passion... (which are non-existent in reality). And, tomorrow, if you ask her why she likes him, she will say (and truly believe) it is because of his humor, kindness, and passion… It will take only a day for a woman to successfully lie to herself that she isn't superficial, surface-level and instinctual.
Example: Women truly believe they like a man with a sense of humor. The reason they think this is because they are always smiling and laughing with said attractive male, hence they believe it is his humor that they like, because attractiveness is such a primary characteristic, it isn't even worth mentioning or even being aware of.
"Women are attracted to funny men, it is often said. This is not true. It only appears this way because women laugh at everything a very handsome man says. So this gives the very handsome men the idea that they are funny." -Norm Macdonald
Norm was a very handsome man in his youth, and he was very self-aware, so he definitely noticed this.

(2) Never argue with women, blue-pill or red-pilled men.
That is the reason you should never argue with a woman, it doesn't matter if she is your gf, wife, sister, mother, grandma, doctor, lawyer, PhD Nobel Lauriet...
Their psyche is the same as bluepilled men, and the truth is destructive to their paradigm and mind.
If a woman jumps around the house and knocks a vase over, she is not the guilty one, the guilty one is the one that put the vase there, and if she was the one that put it there, then it is the fault of the one that made her buy it, or the one that sold it to her.
Admitting that she broke the vase means she did something wrong, but if she FEELS she isn't in the wrong, well, it must be someone else, therefore her psyche is calm and without resistance.
This is the same (but in reverse) thinking that Bluepilled and Redpilled guys have.
When they get rejected, they think it is ALWAYS their fault, because if it is, then they also have the power to fix it, make it right.

Taking the position of not being the one at fault protects the psyche from accountability, and allows the individual to think there’s a way to build from the scenario, which may not always be the case.

Admitting something bad that happened isn't your fault, means you let go of the possibility that it must be fixable by you, which is detrimental to the psyche and paradigm of Bluepilled and Redpilled guys.
Imagine if all the women, bluepilled and redpilled men realized the truth for a day and were self aware, women - that they are only surface leveled and shallow, bluepilled men - that romance is not real and redpilled men - that most of the things aren't in your hands or power to change, if they all realized that, even for a second, their paradigm, mind and psyche will shatter, leaving them in a state of panic, chaos, uncertainty and fear.
This is the reason you should not argue with them, even if your arguments are true and justified (logically valid and sound), the same way the reader should disassociate from their emotions and allow my opinion to be conveyed, even if it doesn’t align with their life, for my experiences are also real and to be taken into consideration.

(3) Paradigm Presuppositions
Every person in existence (including me, you and ITV), have some basic presuppositions of reality (which are metaphysical, metaethical and epistemic in nature), which aren't even axiomatic, they are so fundamental that they make axioms even possible, and shattering those presuppositions of someone's worldview is the same as taking their eyes and making them blind.
That is why women, bluepilled and redpilled men lie to themselves, it is a survival mechanism that makes your mind stay sane. They truly aren't gaslighting you on purpose, they first lie to themselves on the most fundamental level, so they can exist, then they spread that deep-rooted, subconscious lie to you. You probably heard Richard Feynman say "I am just an average man, with an average IQ, all I did was study hard". This was always funny to me because Richard scored the highest on the Putnam Competition math exam, which indicates mathematical ability of around 5–7 standard deviations above the average, the IQ equivalent of 175–205.
If you "studied just as hard as Feynman", you would probably be taking Calculus 1 for the 15th time in a row. The reason for his lie is that even he could not accept that all his glory, fame and knowledge weren't due something he has done (worked hard), but just because he was born with a brain that has many more neurons than you.

It is convenient for the human psyche to blame controllable factors and changeable values of their base for their success. It validates their success kind of like a medal for their life.

Feynman was to intelligence what Chad is to handsomeness (Chad says "just be yourself, bro", and Feynman says "just study hard, teehee").
I think I am the only one who found him more annoying and obnoxious than any other physicist, because others full of pride and ego would say "I am smarter than you", while Feynman would always, in a very smuggish, sleight of hand way imply "I am just like you normie, but better, teehee".
So even someone with an IQ 200 will be a victim of self-gaslighting and self-delusion, no matter how "objective" or "scientific" they are.
That is why blackpill isn't just about IQ, it is about self-awareness and truth (even the people with the highest IQ that I know personally are in a deep delusion of the true nature of mankind and the world).

(4) Positive note
I always like to leave my comments on a positive note.
I know many people here are hurt, not because of the lack of "seggs", but the lack of a meaningful loving relationship with a woman.
Every man, no matter his size, toughness, or strength wants to put his head on a woman's lap and rest his mind and body, while she sings, cuddles, and relaxes him.
Men truly are the romantic gender, and no matter how much it is propagandized that we are the "superficial" gender, that isn't the case.
Always remember that you are never alone in this, a lot of men throughout history, today and in the future are going through this, so don't give up on yourself, you aren't worthless.
One thing that the BP community does wrong, in my opinion, is that because it is an "isolated" community, it likes to look at the highlights and pretty parts of a relationship between Chad and Stacy, or anyone else for that matter.
But, I don't know a single person or relationship that didn't have MASSIVE problems, Chads included.
So don't be blinded by your imagination and highlights of other people you envy or want to be.
Anyone and everyone will be disappointed, some more than others (a lot more), but never trust the illusion that others are living the perfect life.
Sooner or later, everyone in life will be hit like a truck, no one is excluded.
I will give you an example of a guy I know. He was a true Chad (9.5 out of 10), literally Chico level, at 14 he mogged most 20 year old Chads.
Every woman wanted him, like EVERY. He dated Stacy for 3 years and everything seemed fine. One day he got injured, turned to alcohol, drugs and tried to rope maxx. He even dumped his Stacy gf.
He is now very fat, works some low wage job and hates life.
Everyone gets hit by life, I don't know a single person that didn't struggle A LOT or won't struggle at some point of their life, so don't look at others with full envy (almost everyone I know personally, who the BP community would envy how they have a perfect life, when they opened up to me every single one of them contemplated rope maxing at some point, and it always stayed with them).

I know you feel pain and are struggling, I know it is hard, especially because you can't say your problems out loud in real life, but you will never be alone in the things that you feel, it is always better to struggle with everyone around you, than to give up on yourself, never forget that <3

Taking the position of not being the one at fault protects the psyche from accountability, and allows the individual to think there’s a way to build from the scenario, which may not always be the case.


Now that we have proven that couples nowadays are most likely to meet through online dating apps, and social medias, we can then apply logic and studies to what the implications are, Online dating is a more frivolous climate where looks are non changeable, but the text that lies in your bio and which you write with is, what does this mean? Well your personality may not be that special, and whilst it’s probably subjective to the archetypes we have, for example, Rich people might be more prone to date rich people, and punk rockers most likely find other punk rockers attractive, that means that the baseline of personality, can be met by literally anyone, but the looks part can’t.

Now that we have gotten the consequences of the dating market shifting towards online apps, we can now see the net negatives, that we’re in a climate that holds non-changeable values, money, looks, to a higher regard to something that anyone can attain, looks, to a certain degree, money which is acquired through non inheritance, and personality which anyone can change due to feedback. ((fix))


The fallacy of most studies that disprove the idea that looks are less important than personality, first of all, there’s obvious ques of reality, that looks is held to a higher regard in society, then therefore affects the perception of looks, but i'm going to ignore that for now, as listed above, most people answer study questions out of a moral perspective, not from a cognitive one.

for each scientific study proving my theory, there are 10 other studies disapproving it, your mothers voice is one of them..


—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this essay is to not reach the point most already know, genetics is unobtainable, therefore attractiveness is more valuable, and everyone knows that already. The real problem is where the issue is glaringly overlooked compared to other social issues, one study that highlights the compounding issues the average man faces is by Magnusson,

Researchers in Sweden surveyed government data including 79% of all men born in Sweden in 1950–1981 (1,299,177) to identify health outcomes for these men. They found that every extra 5 cm of height reduced suicide rates by 9%, such that the tallest men had half the suicide rate of shorter men, it may be hard to imagine the correlation here but to widen the perspective i introduce another study.

92 short pupils and 117 controls who are of average stature matched for age and sex with a mean age range of 14.7 (13.4–15.7) years were given a questionnaire and so were parents and teachers to know how many pupils get bullied or perpetrate bullying.
The study found that short boys were more likely to be bullied than boys of average stature, were significantly more likely to be upset when bullied, and were less likely to perpetrate bullying.

An instance where something close to discrimination of looks is the Anti-fatphobia movement it has been brewing recently due to the discrimination, bias, and stigmatization that people of larger body sizes and weight face, this movement aims at challenging societal norms that contribute to the attitude that fat people are unhealthy and so forth,


The study i will do is to analyze the top comments of social media videos that feature traditionally ugly people compared to attractive people, i will analyze and discuss most arguments against lookism, and the discrimination non attractive people sustain.

I will also perform tests and examine the performance of dating profiles on the popular dating site Tinder, and compare different social and genetic values to prove that non obtainable factors have an overbearing importance over obtainable ones such as personality. And that due to scientific studies personality could mostly be attributed to our genetics, and that success to a certain degree is thanks to genetics as well.


The snowball effect of looks is vastly overlooked, i want to show that it affects all groups of people, and all hierarchies, and how the lack of understanding can lead to pain for people who are oblivious of said fact.
 
Will read, when I'm not getting brutally fucked by college.
 
Will read, when I'm not getting brutally fucked by college.
stemcel? im starting to get lifefuel again, im finally at peace after skipping school for 4 months, the first 2 months were absolutely brutal, but im very lucky to have good parents.

i will enroll in the anti neet institute from where i live. Maybe, just maybe, ill meet likeminded people there, or be bullied JFL. i'll punch them (cope) anyways, better than doing nothing, and maybe ill work too.
 
, to quote the book “The problem of the puer aeternus” written by Marie louise von Franz “This is a problem which comes up in many neuroses, not only in that of the puer aeternus (Incel) It goes very deep, and my attitude toward it is paradoxical: as long as I can, I behave as if the other could make up his or her mind because that is the only chance of salvation. If nevertheless
the case goes wrong, then I turn around and say that it was not possible for things to have gone differently. Otherwise one falls into a wrong psychological superiority; namely, that if a person goes wrong,or dies as the result of a disease or an accident, and one concludes that this occurred because he did not realize his problem—that is his fault that he has this fate—that I consider disgusting”
Do not shame incels for not discovering the truth, they only see the shadows projected in front of them in the cave. (Plato's cave allegory)

i.e me rotting in my bedroom for 4 years could'nt have went any different, unless you have a time machine, so please, don't hate yourself for stuff that is changeable in the present.

“innocence can only be cured of these illusions by passing through
disappointment and bad experiences. Warnings are no good—such
men must learn by experience, without which they will never wake up
from their innocence”

But who’s to say that said innocence is bad? The removal of the innocence could make the puer give up.

“It is very important to know that, because naturally, in the strong
type one can risk a kind of reckless therapy and, for instance, just
confront the person with the problem and risk a terrific crisis, a healing
crisis, and then they come through. With the asthenic type you can
never do that. There one must adopt a nursing attitude, making
constant blood transfusions, so to speak, never forcing the problem or
pushing the person up against the wall because that would break
them”.

incels must learn by experience, however some get it easier then others, for some ascension might take less than a couple of months, some find out when theyre 35.

i strongly reccomend watching the puer aeternus video on youtube, or reading marie von franzs interpretation of the jungian archetype " puer aeternus" :feelsjuice:
@K1ng N0th1ng sorry for wall of text
 
That's a mighty good cope you got there.
 
stemcel? im starting to get lifefuel again, im finally at peace after skipping school for 4 months, the first 2 months were absolutely brutal, but im very lucky to have good parents.

i will enroll in the anti neet institute from where i live. Maybe, just maybe, ill meet likeminded people there, or be bullied JFL. i'll punch them (cope) anyways, better than doing nothing, and maybe ill work too.
Are you shit skin?
 
Brutal I would tell you to join a shit skin group and harass white foids and cry racism
SAar my ancestoes migrated 60k years ago im indian
 
Life is about if you're handsome or if you're ugly
 
While the effects of being unattractive are arguably not as bad as discrimination based on gender, race, class, or (dis-)ability, it is clear that discrimination based on looks presents an injustice.”
@WorthlessSlavicShit
look at this retardation.
How do people determine your race, gender etc? By asking for a DNA test? Dude who wrote this has brain damage
 
There's no way this was something you seriously considered turning in for a composition assignment.
Will read, when I'm not getting brutally fucked by college.
Is college worth the degree?
 
i strongly reccomend watching the puer aeternus video on youtube, or reading marie von franzs interpretation of the jungian archetype " puer aeternus
I will, I really need to get back into the habit of reading regularly. I think it is interesting that Marie arrives at the compromise of allocating the puer aeternus responsibility for his circumstance up until his condition worsens to an incurable point.
 
There's no way this was something you seriously considered turning in for a composition assignment.

Is college worth the degree?
No. It was maybe 20% done, i cringed turning in an incel assignement. And then i discovered this german guy wrote my subject with perfecr writing. I ended up just dumping it here
 
@WorthlessSlavicShit
look at this retardation.
How do people determine your race, gender etc? By asking for a DNA test? Dude who wrote this has brain damage
Are you fucking retarded, having bad looks further your suffering.

Being an ugly indian is lightyears harder than being an attractive indian.
 
No. It was maybe 20% done, i cringed turning in an incel assignement. And then i discovered this german guy wrote my subject with perfecr writing. I ended up just dumping it here
Do you live in the States?
 
@WorthlessSlavicShit
look at this retardation.
How do people determine your race, gender etc? By asking for a DNA test? Dude who wrote this has brain damage
If you cant understand that i can't write, yeah dud nwords are actually just creating their suffering jfl! Indians actually have it much worse bro! Just swallow the blackpill mr.teacher!

I am fully aware this text is shit, and its unfinished as stated in the thread
 
@WorthlessSlavicShit
look at this retardation.
How do people determine your race, gender etc? By asking for a DNA test? Dude who wrote this has brain damage
To be fair to Spiegel, he obviously needed to put a "clarifier" like that in there, otherwise that paper would've risked not being published in Social Epistemology.



I'd say the dude definitely knows just how potent lookism is, but also knows what would be the reaction if he claimed that its as bad as the "accepted" forms of discrimination, like racism or sexism. Which, quite comically, is an example of exactly the kind of injustice that entire essay is about:feelskek:.

You can look for example at the study @NorthernWind recently found, where right after finding that attractiveness, not race or sex, dictated whether an employee's suggestions were listened to by their superiors, the people behind it immediately started discrediting their own study by saying that looks definitely aren't more important than those, and that the managers are just pretending because they know they are supposed to hide their racism and sexism, which are totally just as if not more important than looks alone:feelsclown::feelsclown:.

Surprisingly, female voices were listened to more than male voices, and there was no difference between white and non-white employees.
It was only when the introduction of an attractive variable was introduced that Timming and his team noticed a difference...

Interestingly, the gender of the managers played no part in their decision ; female and male managers were equally as likely to ignore less attractive employees."
You might be scratching your head at this stage. This result goes against everything we’ve ever read about marginalised voices in our communities. But Timming has a hypothesis for such a result.
“One possible explanation of this finding is what’s called the Social Desirability effect…. It’s possible that managers thought they realised what this study was about, thinking about the best socially desirable response – which is that they don’t discriminate based on gender or race – but they were unable to detect that there were different levels of attractiveness,” says Timming.
“The finding that non-white and female employees do not suffer from a “voice deficit” in the workplace may be artifact of the respondents’ attempts to conceal their biases.”

 
To be fair to Spiegel, he obviously needed to put a "clarifier" like that in there, otherwise that paper would've risked not being published in Social Epistemology.



I'd say the dude definitely knows just how potent lookism is, but also knows what would be the reaction if he claimed that its as bad as the "accepted" forms of discrimination, like racism or sexism. Which, quite comically, is an example of exactly the kind of injustice that entire essay is about:feelskek:.

You can look for example at the study @NorthernWind recently found, where right after finding that attractiveness, not race or sex, dictated whether an employee's suggestions were listened to by their superiors, the people behind it immediately started discrediting their own study by saying that looks definitely aren't more important than those, and that the managers are just pretending because they know they are supposed to hide their racism and sexism, which are totally just as if not more important than looks alone:feelsclown::feelsclown:.






giga iq :bigbrain::bigbrain::bigbrain:

You are absolutely right on that, they just couldn't admit that race and sex = looks. It would open the floodgate.

I am a prime example. I look so ethnic people regularly assume I am an immigrant. They tell me to my face. Yet, I am 100% white. I even did a DNA test this year and I am 90% german and 10% eastern european.

And yet I get treated with hostility and contempt by white people around me and ethnics treat me much better on average. BUT I AM WHITE, I AM FUCKING WHITE!

So logically speaking, racism and sex should just be integrated into the the looks spectrum from ugly------good looking. And we know that racial biases exist in dating against ethnics and such, which means that 50% of society has a "racial" bias towards ethnic males.

Also good thread by @NorthernWind - of course it got no attention, I will bump it.
 
To be fair to Spiegel, he obviously needed to put a "clarifier" like that in there, otherwise that paper would've risked not being published in Social Epistemology.



I'd say the dude definitely knows just how potent lookism is, but also knows what would be the reaction if he claimed that its as bad as the "accepted" forms of discrimination, like racism or sexism. Which, quite comically, is an example of exactly the kind of injustice that entire essay is about:feelskek:.

You can look for example at the study @NorthernWind recently found, where right after finding that attractiveness, not race or sex, dictated whether an employee's suggestions were listened to by their superiors, the people behind it immediately started discrediting their own study by saying that looks definitely aren't more important than those, and that the managers are just pretending because they know they are supposed to hide their racism and sexism, which are totally just as if not more important than looks alone:feelsclown::feelsclown:.






Exactly put, infact this thread is just the same as spiegels, but he had more iq.

I dont think theres a race problem. Theres a looks problem added with race.
 

Similar threads

sultryloser
Replies
24
Views
480
late20scel
late20scel
Pinpoint
Replies
1
Views
92
Pinpoint
Pinpoint
SupremeSaint
Replies
28
Views
354
PolskiKartofel
PolskiKartofel

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top