Serious They think the articles we cite aren't peer-reviewed

[KingOfRome]

If you trace a random sample of articles cited on the wiki's Scientific Blackpill page back to their original sources, you'll find most if not all of them are from peer-reviewed journals and cover studies conducted by experts in their related fields.

The OP of that thread also seems not to have read enough criticism of the blackpill leveled by septum-pierced harpies and doughy nu-males to realize they nitpick the methodologies used in these studies all the time despite their lack of qualifications. "Oh, they looked at speed dating! Stupid inkel, of course looks matter more in speed dating, they don't spend several years in the same space to learn about each others' personalities." "Well, duh, of course a study that used pictures and lists of personality traits would conclude that looks are more important. Personality is magical and can't be quantified or described in words. You'd know that if you stepped out of your basement for once in your life." "You're taking that survey out of context! Don't you know there are a billion reasons why a particular survey would come up with results that don't reflect the whole cohort? Wait, there's a meta-analysis that looked at dozens of other surveys that came up with the same results? No, you made that up."

Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single one of them cite any articles of their own, peer-reviewed or otherwise. "I know a guy" is about as far as they'll go. Arguing with them is pointless.

 

[TheSecondComing]

Arguing with them is pointless.

 

[Deleted member 19756]

Once again another fine illustration how facts can't determine values. These cucks are pandering to the system that enslaves them. They are too soy to fight back. It's easier for them to remain cucks.

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

The Scientific Blackpill was put together with integrity to represent the best evidence on the subjects. Almost all entries are peer-reviewed study based. Only a few were not published and they were for example University of Chicago and MIT research which is still high grade. Or they came direct from sources like Christian Rudder of OK Cupid. Can you link the thread where they're talking about it? I'd love to hear what they say. Sounds like they're just spinning their wheels because they feel they need to say something.

We're at about 20K views on it since Aug 11 so roughly 20K views per month if this continues which is pretty damn good for such heavy intellectual material. Most of those journal articles would have only been read by a few hundred or thousand people at most. Hardcore science is rarely "buzzworthy" or highly read. I wouldn't expect most people to want to sit and read 170+ esoteric entries like that.

Despite it being up in its more or less finished version for a month now I've seen pretty much no discussion of it or valid criticism. No discussion of the racepill. No discussion of the age issues. I know other people are reading it besides incels but it seems they have nothing to say. If there is any valid criticism or real errors or problems the offending sections will be fixed accordingly. It's honestly not meant to be misleading and the researchers were quoted as much as possible to avoid anyone claiming it is misleading.

The blackpill is immensely depressing. I started shitposting again here for the past month because it depressed me so much. But it is not a matter of what is depressing or not. It is a matter of what is true. And those studies are entirely valid, whether any of us like it or not. Personally I'd rather it all be fake and wrong. But it's not.

If people don't like it, they should question why people behave these ways, and whether and how we can possible change what we don't like.

 

[Emba]

I just go ahead and believe blackpill stuff. It's very logical and sensible.

"Peer reviewed?" Requires peers.
And I'm peerless.

 

[Deleted member 16455]

I guarantee those studies have far better replication than anything those retards believe.

 

[Deleted member 1252]

JFL, when did they ever provide any “peer reviewed” evidence that women are attracted to a man’s “good personality”?

 

[Yungguy]

JFL, when did they ever provide any “peer reviewed” evidence that women are attracted to a man’s “good personality”?

They're so moronic they believe their own personal experiences are facts. These are people who think anecdotal evidence is important for arguments.

 

[Incel Duchamp]

If they think we're lying, they can always conduct their own chadfish and fat-ugly-single-mother-fish experiments. Sure, a given trial is anecdotal, but it's endlessly repeatable, and you can see for yourself with minimal effort and expense. Yet I haven't seen a single bluepiller post their own Tinderfish results to dispute ours. Go figure.

 

[Bangkok or bust]

They can keep clutching to bluepill straws. Oneday they will have to face reality.

 

[OMGFML]

meh

 

[Mystic]

These cucks are pandering to the system that enslaves them. They are too soy to fight back.

 

[SchrodingersDick]

Scientific blackpill needs to be a permabanner on top of every page of this site.. will turn a lot of bluepillers and spectators over to our side.. that shit is irrefutable

 

[needsolution]

I guarantee those studies have far better replication than anything those retards believe.