UTexas Study: Incels have much lower standards than other men

[IncelGolem]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2023.2248096

Some commentators have suggested that one reason why incels fail in the dating world is because they judge women too highly, and are unrealistic about the caliber of potential partner they will attract. However, the first official study into incel mating psychology has suggested this is not the case. Researchers at the University of Texas found that self-confessed incels actually make fewer demands of potential female suitors than men who are not in the group. On average, the incels were willing to settle for below average ratings on 12 out of 15 characteristics - from facial attractiveness, to sexual skill, to intelligence. In the study, published in The Journal of Sex Research last month, participants had to choose a minimum score between one and ten which a person would have to meet across 15 traits for them to consider the person as a 'potential long-term romantic partner.'

Another interesting finding was that incels were more likely to be of shorter height. Studies show that women are more likely to be attracted to taller-than-average men, which could contribute to the feeling of rejection that incels are known to harbor.

Study reveals twisted way incels view dating

The first major study of incel mating behavior suggests the depraved group of men have LOWER standards than others when it comes to dating.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I know this is "water is wet" to us, but it legitimizes how wrong ITcels and feminists are about incels "just wanting Stacy". Of course that is simply projection on their part.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Even when they're in our favor, it's probably not the thing to do to just latch onto any study. We claim to have low standards, but if a woman says "I just want a man who respects me I don't care how he looks or how old he is" we would call that into question. It's only fair to call this into question.

Where'd they get the incels, for that matter?

 

[weaselbomber]

Blackpill DEBOONKED, just go for an ugly woman with a good personality inkwell

 

[Lv99_BixNood]

Another interesting finding was that incels were more likely to be of shorter height

No shit

 

[Rabbi Schneerson]

All whitecels as 6’0 Stacy only

 

[IncelKing]

This forum is evidence of those findings

Many incels hERe have vERy low standards, they call avERage looking Beckies “Stacies” on many occasions. And they call below avERage women “average”

 

[med-cel]

My standards have gotten to the point where I'd be ok just having a girl best friend

 

[Pixycel]

View: https://youtu.be/ltXzAWItTxI?si=X6xdllxlYBL0Pbuc

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

A lot of people here seem to be the opposite, so I guess now we know who the fakecels are.

They are coping. Women don't want me? No, it is me who doesn't want these women! If they were given a chance almost all of them would crawl on all fours and bark like a dog if that's all it took to earn some real love and desire.

 

[ilieknothing]

Yep, I get rejected by landwhales despite me cardiomaxxing every day and eating clean

 

[Incel Philosopher]

Blackpill DEBOONKED, just go for an ugly woman with a good personality inkwell

I wish that was possible.

The problem is their personality depends on how attracted they are to you.
They will treat Chad like a king, but they will be a bitch to men they see as beneath them.

Only a small percentage of foids have genuinely good personalities, i.e. are respectful to everyone.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

Even when they're in our favor, it's probably not the thing to do to just latch onto any study. We claim to have low standards, but if a woman says "I just want a man who respects me I don't care how he looks or how old he is" we would call that into question. It's only fair to call this into question.

Where'd they get the incels, for that matter?

Don't be fair with your opposition. They do not reciprocate in kind. "The most desperate men have the lowest standarts" should be the baseline assumption you start from. And as dating experiements show, men as a whole have absurdly low standarts.

 

[lifefuel]

A lot of people here seem to be the opposite, so I guess now we know who the fakecels are.

It's cap and cope man. Niggas on the internet regularly rate prime Stacies as 0/10.

 

[IncelGolem]

It's cap and cope man. Niggas on the internet regularly rate prime Stacies as 0/10.

Exactly. In reality those same men don't even bother trying to DM a woman that high and flood 3/10 ogre-beasts with simp messages.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

This forum is evidence of those findings

Many incels hERe have vERy low standards, they call avERage looking Beckies “Stacies” on many occasions. And they call below avERage women “average”

They are coping. Women don't want me? No, it is me who doesn't want these women! If they were given a chance almost all of them would crawl on all fours and bark like a dog if that's all it took to earn some real love and desire.

It's cap and cope man. Niggas on the internet regularly rate prime Stacies as 0/10.

This is all true, but I've noticed that people here either heavily overrate or underrate. It's very rare to find someone that can accurately rate.

 

[gummybearcel]

Blackpill DEBOONKED, just go for an ugly woman with a good personality inkwell

And are these women in the room with us right now?

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2023.2248096

Study reveals twisted way incels view dating

The first major study of incel mating behavior suggests the depraved group of men have LOWER standards than others when it comes to dating.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I know this is "water is wet" to us, but it legitimizes how wrong ITcels and feminists are about incels "just wanting Stacy". Of course that is simply projection on their part.

Can we make it common practice to search for the full pdf on researchgate and lib.gen and post that instead of the paywalled og study link

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369755191_The_Mating_Psychology_of_Incels_Involuntary_Celibates_Misfortunes_Misconceptions_and_Misrepresentations

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

Rememeber seeing the faces of some of these authors on twitter threats, think they were decend dudes all in all. Don't take everything at face value, even people with some amount of sympathy for us will have to stay within certain bounds with how openly they express such sympathy.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Don't be fair with your opposition. They do not reciprocate in kind. "The most desperate men have the lowest standarts" should be the baseline assumption you start from. And as dating experiements show, men as a whole have absurdly low standarts.

"Absurdly low" is a matter of opinion. Especially as we all have different ideas on what "merit" is. Some people hold sexual purity as the metric, but I don't. I hold tiddy and booty as the metric.

 

[RicaGames]

Another interesting finding was that incels were more likely to be of shorter height.

Ban tallfags/tallstraights

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

"Absurdly low" is a matter of opinion. Especially as we all have different ideas on what "merit" is. Some people hold sexual purity as the metric, but I don't. I hold tiddy and booty as the metric.

I'm refering to things like old grannies and cross-eyed girls with down syndrome swimming in tinder requests. Not to forget this old classic:

 

[FrothySolutions]

I'm refering to things like old grannies and cross-eyed girls with down syndrome swimming in tinder requests. Not to forget this old classic:
View attachment 916965

You might be, but my point is "standards" is such a nebulous concept that there's no way to actually study anything meaningful about it.

 

[Alone75]

Interesting that the replies to the article aren't all labeling incels as eventual serial killers as usual. Some actually have empathy and are upvoted.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

You might be, but my point is "standards" is such a nebulous concept that there's no way to actually study anything meaningful about it.

So you think we can infer things about the original state of the universe 13 billion years ago when all matter was compressed into a single point but we can't figure out the distribution of human preferances because that is simply to ill-defined? We can easily. Subjectivity is a huge cop-out.

 

[ClinicallyDeformed]

Browsing this forum for 5 mins and you'll understand how low are incel's standards.

 

[KeepCoping]

Its a ridiculous assumption to say we have high standards. Its not like "femcels" are coming here and begging us for sex. No woman wants a subhuman looking guy.

 

[Balding Subhuman]

I hope they make a study about "femceld" and show that they are just entitled cunts.

 

[war_with_myself]

I'd be ok just having a girl best friend

this pretty much. being friendzoned sounds pretty good right now jfl. i just want a friend that's not a guy

 

[PillarofReality]

0x0 is 0 tho

 

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Studies show that women are more likely to be attracted to taller-than-average men, which could contribute to the feeling of rejection that incels are known to harbor.

"Plenty of short girls out there who want to date you" debunked.

 

[sultryloser]

"Sexual skill"
"intelligence"

Joke researchers. Maybe they should research how to get a personality that will make their wife's not cheat on them.

 

[FrothySolutions]

So you think we can infer things about the original state of the universe 13 billion years ago when all matter was compressed into a single point but we can't figure out the distribution of human preferances because that is simply to ill-defined? We can easily. Subjectivity is a huge cop-out.

Subjectivity makes all the difference. Someone's opinion might be anything. But carbon will always act like carbon. Starlight will always act like starlight.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

Subjectivity makes all the difference. Someone's opinion might be anything. But carbon will always act like carbon. Starlight will always act like starlight.

Someone's opinion is no less predetermined and reliable in the way it behaves than any other part of physical reality. Where do you think subjectivity comes from? What do you think 'you' are?

Feel like I say this every week on here but there can be no free will in a universe running on deterministic physics with some randomness at the lowest levels. You can't build a mechanism for free will by combining deterministic parts with truly random ones.

Are you really bluepilled enough that you would claim female preferances for example can not meaningfully be narrowed down because "they could just be anything"? There is variance, and there are some extreme outliers, but both those combined are not enough to turn the thing in question into some indecipherable mistery.

Someone is holding a gun to your head. He tells you that he asked 10 random women on the street which of these two men they found more attractive. He asks you to guess their answers. You get no information about these women at all. Their subjective opinion "might be anything". But if you answer wrong, you die. In fact, scratch that, everyone dies. Humanity gets wiped out on the spot unless you can somehow, magically, make some accurate guess about something as subjective as a bunch of female's dating preferances. Do try your best. The fate of humanity rests on your shoulders. I can't see how you could possibly know what these completly random women prefer in their man, but if you have any way to make an educated guess, I besiege you, give it your all!

 

[greggymex7]

Water is wet

 

[FrothySolutions]

Someone's opinion is no less predetermined and reliable in the way it behaves than any other part of physical reality. Where do you think subjectivity comes from? What do you think 'you' are?

Feel like I say this every week on here but there can be no free will in a universe running on deterministic physics with some randomness at the lowest levels. You can't build a mechanism for free will by combining deterministic parts with truly random ones.

Are you really bluepilled enough that you would claim female preferances for example can not meaningfully be narrowed down because "they could just be anything"? There is variance, and there are some extreme outliers, but both those combined are not enough to turn the thing in question into some indecipherable mistery.

Someone is holding a gun to your head. He tells you that he asked 10 random women on the street which of these two men they found more attractive. He asks you to guess their answers. You get no information about these women at all. Their subjective opinion "might be anything". But if you answer wrong, you die. In fact, scratch that, everyone dies. Humanity gets wiped out on the spot unless you can somehow, magically, make some accurate guess about something as subjective as a bunch of female's dating preferances. Do try your best. The fate of humanity rests on your shoulders. I can't see how you could possibly know what these completly random women prefer in their man, but if you have any way to make an educated guess, I besiege you, give it your all!
View attachment 918187

I have my guesses, but I don't know a random woman's standards any more matter-of-factly than I can tell you what a man means when he says he has "low standards."

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

I have my guesses, but I don't know a random woman's standards any more matter-of-factly than I can tell you what a man means when he says he has "low standards."

You can make a guess. Looking at some data, we can find that your guess will be exceptionally likely to be true. You don't know almost anything for certain. Maybe this is all a simulation and you will wake up after death and find out that you are in a futuristic gaming arcade and your life was just a callback to the life before the big tech singularity and you got a shit score for being such a boring loser and now your friends are all laughing at your dumb ass for being a virgin for life. Are you gonna play your life around that possibility because the likelyhood is > 0%?

Everyday, when you plan for the future, be it just for the next day or for the next years, you are making bets far less certain than these questions around "subjectivity", and yet you feel capable of deciding what you think is most likely to happen. You do not feel the need to go "I don't know, I can't know, I can't be certain, anything could happen!". Because it's obvious that you can't be certain, we never can, but that does not mean we don't know anything. We can collect information and find out what the most likely option seems to be.

Nothing from the OP is suprising in a way that would lead us to strongly doubt it's validity. It might be wrong, partially or completly, and we should keep those options in mind, but given that it conforms with what we already believe to know and are able to observe daily, our starting position should be on the site of "probably true, or at least mostly true".

 

[Rotter]

View attachment 916940

View: https://youtu.be/ltXzAWItTxI?si=X6xdllxlYBL0Pbuc

 

[FrothySolutions]

You can make a guess. Looking at some data, we can find that your guess will be exceptionally likely to be true. You don't know almost anything for certain. Maybe this is all a simulation and you will wake up after death and find out that you are in a futuristic gaming arcade and your life was just a callback to the life before the big tech singularity and you got a shit score for being such a boring loser and now your friends are all laughing at your dumb ass for being a virgin for life. Are you gonna play your life around that possibility because the likelyhood is > 0%?

Everyday, when you plan for the future, be it just for the next day or for the next years, you are making bets far less certain than these questions around "subjectivity", and yet you feel capable of deciding what you think is most likely to happen. You do not feel the need to go "I don't know, I can't know, I can't be certain, anything could happen!". Because it's obvious that you can't be certain, we never can, but that does not mean we don't know anything. We can collect information and find out what the most likely option seems to be.

Nothing from the OP is suprising in a way that would lead us to strongly doubt it's validity. It might be wrong, partially or completly, and we should keep those options in mind, but given that it conforms with what we already believe to know and are able to observe daily, our starting position should be on the site of "probably true, or at least mostly true".

I can't even say "probably true" because I would first have to assume what the study means by "low standards." I've spent too much time on this forum to be fooled into thinking there's some universal benchmark for "low standards for a dude." All of us here, all of us, have different standards..

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Researchers at the University of Texas found that self-confessed incels actually make fewer demands of potential female suitors than men who are not in the group.

Another interesting finding was that incels were more likely to be of shorter height. Studies show that women are more likely to be attracted to taller-than-average men, which could contribute to the feeling of rejection that incels are known to harbor.

 

[Namtriz912]

Having low standards doesn't mean you'll score unfortunately so there's no use in having lower standards.

 

[Indari]

dailycucks

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

I can't even say "probably true" because I would first have to assume what the study means by "low standards." I've spent too much time on this forum to be fooled into thinking there's some universal benchmark for "low standards for a dude." All of us here, all of us, have different standards..

but what "low standards" is defined as in this context is already stated in the op

self-confessed incels actually make fewer demands of potential female suitors than men who are not in the group. On average, the incels were willing to settle for below average ratings on 12 out of 15 characteristics

Their standards were low(er) by comparison with the people in the survey who did not identify as incels. That is what the study means by low.

I posted the link to the full PDF already, so to find out where they got their "incels" you just have to download it and scroll to the methodology section.

Participants were recruited using social media snowball-sampling for a study advertised as “Exploring attitudes and behaviours around sexuality, well-being and identity.” No compensation was offered for participation. In total, 783 people responded to the survey, with several degrees of completion. Because the incel community is almost exclusively male and single, and our study focused on incel vs non-incel group differences in mating psychology, only biological males who also reported being single and completed the incel identification item were kept for analyses.​

 

[IncelGolem]

this pretty much. being friendzoned sounds pretty good right now jfl. i just want a friend that's not a guy

same. a female best friend would be nice (as long as she doesn't tell me about her experiences fucking chad).

 

[FrothySolutions]

but what "low standards" is defined as in this context is already stated in the op

Their standards were low(er) by comparison with the people in the survey who did not identify as incels. That is what the study means by low.

I posted the link to the full PDF already, so to find out where they got their "incels" you just have to download it and scroll to the methodology section.

And yet, when women say they'd make similar concessions we say "Virtue signaling, fuck the guy if you mean it." We make all kinds of claims here about what we would and wouldn't settle for, how do we know people here aren't virtue signaling? How do we know people in the study weren't virtue signaling?

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

And yet, when women say they'd make similar concessions we say "Virtue signaling, fuck the guy if you mean it." We make all kinds of claims here about what we would and wouldn't settle for, how do we know people here aren't virtue signaling? How do we know people in the study weren't virtue signaling?

I think I'm gonna stop investing the effort. Feels like I'm talking to someone who just found this whole topic 5 days ago. Or to a woman / IT infiltrator / redditor. You are unwilling to apply reasonable and equal standards and instead seem hell-bend on trying to find any way why incels must be lying and worse than the evidence suggests. It's not about about "How do we know?" it's about "what seems most likely given all the evidence available?".

If women would say "we don't have high standards, we accept below average men in terms of looks" we would look at data for what predicts mate selection and about revealed female preferance and that data would disprove the claim. You have some data doing the same for men / incels? If not, what the fuck are you talking about? Not to mention the basic and obvious differences in evolutionary incentives.

With your logic you are basically suggesting everyone here is a fakecel, lying about their preferances and unwilling to fuck an average looking woman. And the basis for that is... "Why not?". "What if?". "Ok, there is evidence pointing in the opposite direction, but what if that evidence is wrong?". That's not how you do basic reasoning. That is called biased / motivated reasoning. Get the fuck away from me with your mindless and substanceless "I'm just asking a question" bullshit. I don't give a fuck about your join date, you obviously feel the need to coutner-signal incels as a group to make yourself seem superior...the the eyes of whom exactly? How about you leave and go hang around with your real ingroup?

 

[FrothySolutions]

I think I'm gonna stop investing the effort. Feels like I'm talking to someone who just found this whole topic 5 days ago. Or to a woman / IT infiltrator / redditor. You are unwilling to apply reasonable and equal standards and instead seem hell-bend on trying to find any way why incels must be lying and worse than the evidence suggests. It's not about about "How do we know?" it's about "what seems most likely given all the evidence available?".

If women would say "we don't have high standards, we accept below average men in terms of looks" we would look at data for what predicts mate selection and about revealed female preferance and that data would disprove the claim. You have some data doing the same for men / incels? If not, what the fuck are you talking about? Not to mention the basic and obvious differences in evolutionary incentives.

With your logic you are basically suggesting everyone here is a fakecel, lying about their preferances and unwilling to fuck an average looking woman. And the basis for that is... "Why not?". "What if?". "Ok, there is evidence pointing in the opposite direction, but what if that evidence is wrong?". That's not how you do basic reasoning. That is called biased / motivated reasoning. Get the fuck away from me with your mindless and substanceless "I'm just asking a question" bullshit. I don't give a fuck about your join date, you obviously feel the need to coutner-signal incels as a group to make yourself seem superior...the the eyes of whom exactly? How about you leave and go hang around with your real ingroup?

What mate selection data? Disregarding the fact that you'd need a meaningful study sample, you would have to ask people "Who did you have sex with and tell us objectively how attractive they are."

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Another interesting finding was that incels were more likely to be of shorter height. Studies show that women are more likely to be attracted to taller-than-average men, which could contribute to the feeling of rejection that incels are known to harbor.

I still can't get this part out of my head. I wonder, I truly wonder if whoever wrote this had the slightest idea of how many times we've been lied to our faces and told that height doesn't matter and that women do not prefer tall guys, only for them to state this so casually and be like, "Yeah, this might be why they inkwells."