JFL The Intellectual Stagnation of the Academia in It's Thinking About Incels

[BenBerger]

I found this guy on youtube. He tries to discuss inceldom but makes a lot of mistakes.



As most normies, he starts to make mistakes right as he opens his mouth. Here are some of the wrong arguments he makes.

1. He refers to incels as a “community”. I totally disagree. There is nothing communal about us - we don't live together and the only place we meet is on the net. The only thing shared among us is misery and, to some extent, a belief or acceptance of the blacplill philosophy. I don't think it is enough to call us a “community” since we have no shared goals, organization nor leadership.
2. He says that incel ideology is “a form of male supremacy”. By incel ideology, he probably refers to the Blacplill but he is not using this term. He mistakenly attributes two characteristics to our ideology that, to my understanding, are not present there:
   • The right of incel to have sex - this is false and please correct me if I am wrong. There is no such statement in the Blackpill ideology and generally the Blackpill ideology has no normative statement - it doesn't claim who is entitled to what and why. Terms like “rights” and “duties” Are not found in the Blackpill ideology. Rather the Blackpill ideology is a positivist worldview that explains how things are working based on empirics.
   • Women who withhold sex and reject incels are violating our rights - First, as previously states we don’t talk about “rights”. Second, Inceldom is not only about being rejected by women but also about rejection by male friends, work, education and sometimes even family members. It is about being REJECTED. It is about being unable to form social bonds, build a career, get education and all the things that prevent incels from doing so. And again going back to the notions of “right” and “entitlement” - there is no such thing in the Blackpill ideology. Inceldom is a story of what we have been deprived of and not what we are entitled to. It is a logical fallacy to conclude from the will of a person to possess something that this person is feeling entitled to it.
3. He demonizes Incels by saying that we seek vengeance against women. This is FALSE. From what I can see Incel’s anger (and also my anger) is toward narrow-minded normies who cannot make 1+1=2 like this guy. While the thing that an incel despises the most is himself: his face, his body, and even his belief in the blackpill but NOT Chads nor Stacies. Moreover, It is hard not to despise something that has mocked you from the beginning of your life and will not stop mocking you till you die. But this is not the problem. The problem is that the whole Western civilization is built around the cucked Christian notion of loving your enemy. The result is that society is expecting inches to recognize their defeat and inferiority and to celebrate the victory of Chads and Stacies. Obviously economics is also at play. Society would expect Incels to still participate in the process of production but to accept your inferiority and agree to even more brutal exploitation.
4. The guy says “The incles believe that a small number of attractive men have sex with a small number of attractive female”. Yes, but it is not a matter of belief - it is a fact in REALITY. I would expect a psychologist to know something about the real social and psychological dynamics in the real world or at least present empirics that could contradict the blackpill! but there are no such empirics so he is just bluepilling people with his gut feelings.
5. Incels are violent toward women. This is utter BS. The BS of this assertion can be proven by simple statistics. Most of the violence against women is from their husbands - guys who are NOT incels. The violence that incels commit is negligible.
6. It would be even plausible to say and not too hard to prove that Eliot Roger and other alleged incels who committed horrible crimes were psychopaths first and just happen to be incels. Claiming that Eliot Roger and other criminals (whom I condemn) were incels is incitement, demonization, and dehumanization of incels. Our gravest problem is the public image of incels was created mainly by people like Eliot Roger who identified as incels but it doesn't mean that all incels are violent (Thank you @ShadowTheEdgehog).
7. The behavior of some incels might be indeed disturbing. But it is not exclusively their own failure. It represents much deeper social problems that are totally neglected by academia, the government and education. Society refuses to take responsibility and instead of blaming and demonizing incels.
8. He claims that Incels are narcissists - what a joke. Incel treats and calls themselves sub-humans, genetic dead-ends, etc. The self is the main object of hate of the incel.
9. He says that mental factors and not looks are the reason incels are unable to find relationships. Thus, he disregards the possibility of society to impact the mental health of a person. Namely, a vicious-cycle can be opened for bad looking people thus driving them into inceldom and a virtuous-cycle can be open for good looking people thus creating high mental resilience and confidence. He is literally unable to understand dynamic processes and allows only a static analysis. He concludes by basically saying “man up incels!”.

There are many more inaccuracies and implicit false assumptions made by this guy but I cover only the important.

The Five Factor Model
An inherent quality of contemporary academic discourse is to explain the reality in an overly simplistic way while neglecting (in the case of incels) cultural aspects, education, social references and other thing that

He uses The Five Factor Model to “model” a “typical” incels and claims (based on nothing!) that incels are:

1. Openness to experience - low openness to experience
2. Consciencessness - low consciencessness
3. Extraversion - low extraversion
4. Agreeableness - generally low agreeableness
5. Neuroticism - mid to high

This is not a typical incel. This description is HIS perception of a typical incel based on gut feelings. He did not use any empirics nor research to say why and how he came to these conclusions. Pseudo-science at its best.

If he was a real scientist and would research the issue he would discover that incels are a heterogeneous group, inceldom is caused by a variety and combination of factors, and most importantly no personality is static but develops and changes with time.

In my opinion he failed miserably both as a science who stopped to seek after truth and as a human being that is supposed to have at least some compassion, empathy, and respect for other human beings.

The scientific validity of the Blackpill - the easiest thing to prove/disprove
As far as I understand how science work It would be quite easy to perform experiments and gather empirics that could support the validity of the blackpill. As you know a lot of research has already been done. But much more is ought to be done.
Unfortunately because of “scientists” like this that have betrayed their duty and chose to seek likes on youtube instead of doing research we are stuck and the issue is disregarded by society.

Thank you,
Benny.

P.S.
I am truly astonished by the success of the Blackpill to be both more scientifically accurate and philosophically deeper than the narrow-minded and corrupted mainstream academia.

 

[deathsh+rt]

God like IQ bro and very accurate in your presentation good job.

 

[BenBerger]

God like IQ bro and very accurate in your presentation good job.

Thank you bro
But is this all you have to say?
Did you really read this?

 

[Copemaxx]

well written bro. i agree that his points are quite biased but just look at him and tell me he's going to drop any blackpills.
for point number 4 i actually disagree that a small no. of attractive men have sex with a small no. of attractive females-it's that attractive men sweep up all the females in their range.
he's wrong with point 9 as well, there's a difference between incels and mentalcels. not all incels have mental/social disorders. Many do, but if its clear that their mentality is directly impeding them from having sex and looks/bodywise they're fine, they're deemed as a mentalcel afaik

 

[BenBerger]

well written bro. i agree that his points are quite biased but just look at him and tell me he's going to drop any blackpills.

Yeah. He is the quintessential normie. No amount of degrees will help him.
Maybe I was too optimistc while thinking that normies can be blackpilled.

https://incels.is/threads/weapons-of-mass-blackpilling.182206/

for point number 4 i actually disagree that a small no. of attractive men have sex with a small no. of attractive females-it's that attractive men sweep up all the females in their range.

True and based. I will fix it. Hypergamy is valid and the guy is in utter ignorance of it.

he's wrong with point 9 as well, there's a difference between incels and mentalcels. not all incels have mental/social disorders. Many do, but if its clear that their mentality is directly impeding them from having sex and looks/bodywise they're fine, they're deemed as a mentalcel afaik

Excuse me I did not understand your point.

 

[Copemaxx]

Excuse me I did not understand your point.

ill try and explain it better:

He says that mental factors and not looks are the reason incels are unable to find relationships. Thus, he disregards the possibility of society to impact the mental health of a person. Namely, a vicious-cycle can be opened for bad looking people thus driving them into inceldom and a virtuous-cycle can be open for good looking people thus creating high mental resilience and confidence. He is literally unable to understand dynamic processes and allows only a static analysis. He concludes by basically saying “man up incels!”.

i am not disagreeing with you, im disagreeing with him. he is wrong here by generalising that all incels are incels due to mental problems inhibiting them (from ascending). as i stated before, not all incels have mental problems. some might just be ugly, disfigured etc. it is important to differentiate between an incel and a mentalcel. consider that ugliness is the primary reason one would be rejected for sex-there are plenty of chads with mental issues as well who have no problem getting laid.

 

[Personalityinkwell]

Did you really read this?

Spoiler

No one did

 

[ReallyRice]

He big dumb dumb

 

[Personalityinkwell]

The incles believe that a small number of attractive men have sex with a small number of attractive female”

you made a typo here, its a large number of females

 

[BenBerger]

i am not disagreeing with you, im disagreeing with him. he is wrong here by generalising that all incels are incels due to mental problems inhibiting them (from ascending). as i stated before, not all incels have mental problems. some might just be ugly, disfigured etc. it is important to differentiate between an incel and a mentalcel. consider that ugliness is the primary reason one would be rejected for sex-there are plenty of chads with mental issues as well who have no problem getting laid.

Yes, this is what I tried to say with my poor English.
Thanks for high IQ and high verbal skills clarification.

 

[Copemaxx]

Yes, this is what I tried to say with my poor English.

whats your original language?

 

[BenBerger]

whats your original language?

Hebrew

 

[Copemaxx]

Hebrew

you're being serious?

 

[BenBerger]

you're being serious?

כן אחי, למה לא?

 

[Gymcelled]

Lol at calling us narcissist. This is the only place on the internet that I know of where any form of bragging gets you banned and selfies are prohibited.

Have you ever seen a place on the internet where people talk shit about themselves so much? How the fuck is this narcissism? Dumb normie

 

[BenBerger]

Lol at calling us narcissist. This is the only place on the internet that I know of where any form of bragging gets you banned and selfies are prohibited.

Have you ever seen a place on the internet where people talk shit about themselves so much? How the fuck is this narcissism? Dumb normie

Supreme truth. jfl on normies.

 

[Deleted member 22907]

Brutal breakdown.

 

[AlexanderTheGreat11]

Very interesting tbh

 

[Lookscel]

This should be on inceldom discussion not here lmao

 

[BenBerger]

This should be on inceldom discussion not here lmao

true tbh

 

[ShadowTheEdgehog]

I found this guy on youtube. He tries to discuss inceldom but makes a lot of mistakes.



As most normies, he starts to make mistakes right as he opens his mouth. Here are some of the wrong arguments he makes.

1. He refers to incels as a “community”. I totally disagree. There is nothing communal about us - we don't live together and the only place we meet is on the net. The only thing shared among us is misery and, to some extent, a belief or acceptance of the blacplill philosophy. I don't think it is enough to call us a “community” since we have no shared goals, organization nor leadership.
2. He says that incel ideology is “a form of male supremacy”. By incel ideology, he probably refers to the Blacplill but he is not using this term. He mistakenly attributes two characteristics to our ideology that, to my understanding, are not present there:
   • The right of incel to have sex - this is false and please correct me if I am wrong. There is no such statement in the Blackpill ideology and generally the Blackpill ideology has no normative statement - it doesn't claim who is entitled to what and why. Terms like “rights” and “duties” Are not found in the Blackpill ideology. Rather the Blackpill ideology is a positivist worldview that explains how things are working based on empirics.
   • Women who withhold sex and reject incels are violating our rights - First, as previously states we don’t talk about “rights”. Second, Inceldom is not only about being rejected by women but also about rejection by male friends, work, education and sometimes even family members. It is about being REJECTED. It is about being unable to form social bonds, build a career, get education and all the things that prevent incels from doing so. And again going back to the notions of “right” and “entitlement” - there is no such thing in the Blackpill ideology. Inceldom is a story of what we have been deprived of and not what we are entitled to. It is a logical fallacy to conclude from the will of a person to possess something that this person is feeling entitled to it.
3. He demonizes Incels by saying that we seek vengeance against women. This is FALSE. From what I can see Incel’s anger (and also my anger) is toward narrow-minded normies who cannot make 1+1=2 like this guy. While the thing that an incel despises the most is himself: his face, his body, and even his belief in the blackpill but NOT Chads nor Stacies. Moreover, It is hard not to despise something that has mocked you from the beginning of your life and will not stop mocking you till you die. But this is not the problem. The problem is that the whole Western civilization is built around the cucked Christian notion of loving your enemy. The result is that society is expecting inches to recognize their defeat and inferiority and to celebrate the victory of Chads and Stacies. Obviously economics is also at play. Society would expect Incels to still participate in the process of production but to accept your inferiority and agree to even more brutal exploitation.
4. The guy says “The incles believe that a small number of attractive men have sex with a small number of attractive female”. Yes, but it is not a matter of belief - it is a fact in REALITY. I would expect a psychologist to know something about the real social and psychological dynamics in the real world or at least present empirics that could contradict the blackpill! but there are no such empirics so he is just bluepilling people with his gut feelings.
5. Incels are violent toward women. This is utter BS. The BS of this assertion can be proven by simple statistics. Most of the violence against women is from their husbands - guys who are NOT incels. The violence that incels commit is negligible.
6. It would be even plausible to say and not too hard to prove that Eliot Roger and other alleged incels who committed horrible crimes were psychopaths first and just happen to be incels. Claiming that Eliot Roger and other criminals (whom I condemn) were incels is incitement, demonization, and dehumanization of incels. Our gravest problem is the public image of incels was created mainly by people like Eliot Roger who identified as incels but it doesn't mean that all incels are violent (Thank you @ShadowTheEdgehog).
7. The behavior of some incels might be indeed disturbing. But it is not exclusively their own failure. It represents much deeper social problems that are totally neglected by academia, the government and education. Society refuses to take responsibility and instead of blaming and demonizing incels.
8. He claims that Incels are narcissists - what a joke. Incel treats and calls themselves sub-humans, genetic dead-ends, etc. The self is the main object of hate of the incel.
9. He says that mental factors and not looks are the reason incels are unable to find relationships. Thus, he disregards the possibility of society to impact the mental health of a person. Namely, a vicious-cycle can be opened for bad looking people thus driving them into inceldom and a virtuous-cycle can be open for good looking people thus creating high mental resilience and confidence. He is literally unable to understand dynamic processes and allows only a static analysis. He concludes by basically saying “man up incels!”.

There are many more inaccuracies and implicit false assumptions made by this guy but I cover only the important.

The Five Factor Model
An inherent quality of contemporary academic discourse is to explain the reality in an overly simplistic way while neglecting (in the case of incels) cultural aspects, education, social references and other thing that

He uses The Five Factor Model to “model” a “typical” incels and claims (based on nothing!) that incels are:

1. Openness to experience - low openness to experience
2. Consciencessness - low consciencessness
3. Extraversion - low extraversion
4. Agreeableness - generally low agreeableness
5. Neuroticism - mid to high

This is not a typical incel. This description is HIS perception of a typical incel based on gut feelings. He did not use any empirics nor research to say why and how he came to these conclusions. Pseudo-science at its best.

If he was a real scientist and would research the issue he would discover that incels are a heterogeneous group, inceldom is caused by a variety and combination of factors, and most importantly no personality is static but develops and changes with time.

In my opinion he failed miserably both as a science who stopped to seek after truth and as a human being that is supposed to have at least some compassion, empathy, and respect for other human beings.

The scientific validity of the Blackpill - the easiest thing to prove/disprove
As far as I understand how science work It would be quite easy to perform experiments and gather empirics that could support the validity of the blackpill. As you know a lot of research has already been done. But much more is ought to be done.
Unfortunately because of “scientists” like this that have betrayed their duty and chose to seek likes on youtube instead of doing research we are stuck and the issue is disregarded by society.

Thank you,
Benny.

P.S.
I am truly astonished by the success of the Blackpill to be both more scientifically accurate and philosophically deeper than the narrow-minded and corrupted mainstream academia.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on all of the points you made.
As it is, this is a very well written piece and I only have a few supporting comments to add.

An inherent quality of contemporary academic discourse is to explain the reality in an overly simplistic way while neglecting (in the case of incels) cultural aspects, education, social references and other thing that

This is yet another common modern day fallacy:

Fundamental attribution error - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the article:

In social psychology, fundamental attribution error (FAE), also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the tendency for people to under-emphasize situational explanations for an individual's observed behavior while over-emphasizing dispositional and personality-based explanations for their behavior. This effect has been described as "the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are".[1]

You can see this exact thing happening when the failure of incels is blamed on things like bad personality while other external factors such as looks are downplayed or outright denied.

He uses The Five Factor Model to “model” a “typical” incels and claims (based on nothing!) that incels are:

The 5 factor model is utter shite. I first came in contact with it over Kermit Peterson and have despised it ever since. Again, psychology is NOT hard science. It seems that they come up with another personality assessment scheme every few years.
It's just another tool for people too waste 1000s of dollars on. Anyone remember then Jordan Peterson tried to sell that "maps of meaning" rug for a shitton of money? Fuck him.
The first time I saw a Jordan Peterson video, I immediately went to his website and took a look at the recommended reading section. 70% of it was Carl Jung.
Before I even get into Carl Jung I have to say this: Anyone who bases the majority of his Opinions/output on one single source, automatically discredits himself in my eyes.
Watching Jordan Peterson analyze the Bible is like watching someone come to conclusions about aerodynamics by sniffing tree bark.

Now let's get into Carl Jung real quick: He was a scam artist. That's literally it. His friend Sigmund Freud was a known scam artist during his lifetime already.
Both of these gentlemen made it a business to exploit gullible people for tremendous amounts of money.
For more information I can recommend this book by E. Michael Jones:
Amazon product ASIN 0929891252

If he was a real scientist and would research the issue he would discover that incels are a heterogeneous group, inceldom is caused by a variety and combination of factors, and most importantly no personality is static but develops and changes with time.

True again. This is the fundamental attribution error I linked to above. They look at us like our misery is the result of our own mistakes and not of outside influences. Having to admit that external factors can have such a tremendous effect on a persons life would destroy their entire worldview. They would have to review their own lifes and admit that they didn't get where they are on the basis of effort and skill.

I am truly astonished by the success of the Blackpill to be both more scientifically accurate and philosophically deeper than the narrow-minded and corrupted mainstream academia.

The reason for your astonishment is your disillusionment with something called "scientism" which is the modern day worship of science as a be-all end-all of everything.
Since you are still in academia, I don't know if you have heard of this but a big part of the studies that are being conducted CAN NOT BE REPLICATED:

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As a final note, I want to say that I have a pet-peeve with faggots such as the one in this video. I wasted years of my youth following guys like this until I realized that a title/allocades mean absolutely nothing. Normies are very prone to the fallacy of authority.
Hell, as far as I am concerned, you could probably buy yourself a title and normies would still give you more credibility than someone without a title.

People like this also have a tendency to revert back to status shaming during arguments. They will invoke the authoritative power of their degrees and ask you to do the same.

Your degrees/titles/crowns mean absolutely nothing in the end.
I've talked to people that mog me to the moon and back in that regard and a lot of them were plain retarded. It's not called specialization for nothing.

Like it says in the bible "by their fruits you shall judge them" and the fruits of this man have been nothing but shameless self-aggrandisement on youtube.
Smug fuck, I hope someone steals his bicycle.
I'm out.

 

[TINMAN]

we have no shared goals

I mean, every incel wants to ascend, but I guess that's more wishful thinking than a goal

 

[Yerberito]

I see his videos a couple times about this and red pills, yeah he dont know, i appreciate the effort

 

[BenBerger]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on all of the points you made.
As it is, this is a very well written piece and I only have a few supporting comments to add.



This is yet another common modern day fallacy:

Fundamental attribution error - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the article:



You can see this exact thing happening when the failure of incels is blamed on thing like bad personality while other external factors such as looks are downplayed or outright denied.

Glorious, Thank, and congrats on leaving greyceldom

I mean, every incel wants to ascend, but I guess that's more wishful thinking than a goal

I think many of us want to LDAR or rope. Some already did it.
I cannot think about any meaningful things that we share so that we could be called a "community" or a "group".

 

[ShadowTheEdgehog]

Glorious, Thank, and congrats on leaving greyceldom

I think many of us want to LDAR or rope. Some already did it.
I cannot think about any meaningful things that we share so that we could be called a "community" or a "group".

Thanks but I wasn't done writing. I just accidentaly clicked on "post reply" .