Told you thousands of times. Face comes first.
This is precisely why I'm in a tough spot regarding this forum. One hand, I'm a strong advocate for freedom of speech. Unequivocally.
On the other hand, I am extremely annoyed by users that outright deny blackpill (JBW being a notorious one) in the face of overwhelming evidence. Its the same script that normies, women and bluepillers use to gaslight us while maintaining their worldview. And I can't help wanting users like that banned. Its the same shit we have to stomach in real life and on soy factories like reddit (which used to be a bastion of free speech until it was taken over).
I want to abide by my principles but I just can't. This level of dishonesty infuriates me.
Scientific blackpill should be required reading for every new member followed by mandatory exam on the material before being permitted to make an account. Yes, I support gatekeeping.
I don't see any mention of Brooke here, this cites the 2014 study "Sexual activity of young men is not related to their anthropometric parameters" whereas Brooke's was the 2015 study "Height and Body Mass on the Mating Market"
The issue here is that she summarizes it "The results formen suggested limited variation in reported sex partner number across most of the height continuum"
The problem here is that "limited variation" is a subjective declaration. How does one fairly assess, mathematically, what is a "limited" variation in sexual partner averages?
9.4 for the shortest group vs 12.3 for the tallest group is certainly limited compared to what I expect to see (and I gave my reasons for probably selection bias issues that would explain that underwhelming difference) but how do we objectively assess this.
Should it be a %-based variation? If so how high a % does it need to be.
Even by the standards of Brooke's horrible designed study, the 2.9 variance is >30% more sexual partners that the men taller than 6'5" reported compared to the partners that the men between 5'2" and 5'4" reported.
My guess is if she designed the study properly it'd be closer to a >300% increase, but ignoring that, 30% still seems significant enough not to be dismissive of it as "limited".
Yeah I'm not sure what data you're talking about being omitted, what you linked seemed to be a response to a different study not "HaBMotMM"
"now"
you shouldn't be trusting of anything from the outset
I expect for some stuff they're less likely to fake it.
Like for example in the reported heights, they may well actually measure them in person, which would be more reliable than self-reported heights.
Stuff like that they'll usually be accurate about to give an aura of truthiness while they game you on the subtler aspects like selection bias.
On a 2nd glance for example I finally found "participant recruitment" on page 4.
"an online survey of heterosexual participants (N ¼ 60,058) with a mean age of 37"
Yeah so axe my earlier speculation that they were actually measuring heights: it was an online survey where guys could've lied about their height.
Also worth pointing out: if you're an ugly short man you're likely to have roped by then and not be taking this survey.
Only the better-looking short men are still around at that age to take survey.
IE meaning those with sexual success will be over-represented.
Conversely: the better-looking tall men are so busy enjoying unlimited pussy they're not going to be wasting their time taking some stupid survey about it.
IE meaning those with sexual success will be under-represented.
- -
"diverse" meaning soy lefties because nobody right-wing visits those shit MSM sites
Basically they purely sample bluepilled people who don't experience the divergent outcomes: it's a sampling of good-looking short men and bad-looking tall men.
Bad-looking short men and good-looking tall men IMO are more drawn to right-wing sites because they understand divergent reality better.
One problem I have with this objection is I'm not sure we have concretely defined parameters of what blackpill is and isn't.
Like we all have a general sense of what it means.
If I had to summarize, something like an overwhelmingly prevalent importance on physical factors in determining sexual/romantic success as compared to personality.
That's pretty vague because I think I'm being inclusive of a lot of concepts here.
Others can have more specific ideas and maybe disagreements factor over just how specific to get in certain regards?
not sure what you mean by this: are you angry at JBW-deniers or angry at "JBW only" ?
I'm basically against the trope of "X is everyting" threads because however they might end up ranking in % the sum of the other factors is the larger %, no one factor IMO outweighs all other sum factors, not even the most prevalent one, whichever that is
Can you give example? I'm assuming you mean FuRed's post but I'm pretty sure he's trolling.
Notice he didn't even bother to cite a name of the alleged study that "shorter men actually have more sex on average"
If we react too much to shit like that we're taking the bait.
That said: it is basically spam if it is a lie, so I would be for a policy like "mods will issue a warning to people who post anti-blackpill claims without citing their source".
Then basically they have a chance to cite the source and get the warning removed. If they don't cite the source, it stays on their record.
I take no issue if FuRed wants to actually cite a study so I can look at it and take it apart.
The problem is if he makes claims w/o providing a base of reference to us to check his conclusions.
Last edited:
Woops, I just realized I mixed up two different studies I was looking for/at. Thanks for pointing this out, I have like 20 different tabs open since I always get obsessed with the heightpill, ended up confusing between articles. The one I accidentally linked isn't the one that was cited in the incelwiki, it's another one that's been going around recently since Tom Holland liked this instagram post which cites it: linked below) . It brings up the 175cm figure which I was talking about in one of my earlier comments. That's the one for which I read the abstract/results/conclusion section. Haven't been able to find the full paper yet which I must since I have to figure out whats going on with those numbers. Regardless, excellent comment on your part with finding more flaws with that study.I don't see any mention of Brooke here, this cites the 2014 study "Sexual activity of young men is not related to their anthropometric parameters" whereas Brooke's was the 2015 study "Height and Body Mass on the Mating Market"
The issue here is that she summarizes it "The results formen suggested limited variation in reported sex partner number across most of the height continuum"
The problem here is that "limited variation" is a subjective declaration. How does one fairly assess, mathematically, what is a "limited" variation in sexual partner averages?
9.4 for the shortest group vs 12.3 for the tallest group is certainly limited compared to what I expect to see (and I gave my reasons for probably selection bias issues that would explain that underwhelming difference) but how do we objectively assess this.
Should it be a %-based variation? If so how high a % does it need to be.
Even by the standards of Brooke's horrible designed study, the 2.9 variance is >30% more sexual partners that the men taller than 6'5" reported compared to the partners that the men between 5'2" and 5'4" reported.
My guess is if she designed the study properly it'd be closer to a >300% increase, but ignoring that, 30% still seems significant enough not to be dismissive of it as "limited".
Yeah I'm not sure what data you're talking about being omitted, what you linked seemed to be a response to a different study not "HaBMotMM"
"now"
you shouldn't be trusting of anything from the outset
I expect for some stuff they're less likely to fake it.
Like for example in the reported heights, they may well actually measure them in person, which would be more reliable than self-reported heights.
Stuff like that they'll usually be accurate about to give an aura of truthiness while they game you on the subtler aspects like selection bias.
On a 2nd glance for example I finally found "participant recruitment" on page 4.
"an online survey of heterosexual participants (N ¼ 60,058) with a mean age of 37"
Yeah so axe my earlier speculation that they were actually measuring heights: it was an online survey where guys could've lied about their height.
Also worth pointing out: if you're an ugly short man you're likely to have roped by then and not be taking this survey.
Only the better-looking short men are still around at that age to take survey.
IE meaning those with sexual success will be over-represented.
Conversely: the better-looking tall men are so busy enjoying unlimited pussy they're not going to be wasting their time taking some stupid survey about it.
IE meaning those with sexual success will be under-represented.
- -
"diverse" meaning soy lefties because nobody right-wing visits those shit MSM sites
Basically they purely sample bluepilled people who don't experience the divergent outcomes: it's a sampling of good-looking short men and bad-looking tall men.
Bad-looking short men and good-looking tall men IMO are more drawn to right-wing sites because they understand divergent reality better.
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CX0pmZXoHbC/
FuRed in the future could you not cite some shitty tabloid?
Do Short Men Actually Have More Sex?
A scientific study says short men have more sex than tall ones, and Tom Holland can confirmwww.insidehook.com
Instead find the source they link to and cite that directly instead.
The horrible thing about this presentation is when Kayle Kibbe of Inside Hook wrote "According to the study published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine"
Kayla does not actually link to a science website at all, she links to a site called "LadBible"
Scientific Study Shows Short Men Are Better Partners And Have More Sex
A study has shown that not only do men under 5'9'' have more sex, they're also better partners.
This in the very least is the first step of backtracing you should have engaged in before citing to us.
Hannah Blackiston engages in the same bullshit as Kayla Kibba too: "Good news for the height-challenged out there: a new study from The Journal of Sexual Medicine has found short men are more sexually active. "
Hannah does not link to TJOSM either, she links to this trash
Short men have more sex, according to science
In honour of National Short Person Day, we thought we'd give some attention to the short kings out there who are sometimes overlooked.
www.joe.co.uk
These are all trashy sources because they only mention the journal and not a single one of them actually mentions the name of the study or it's author.
I find this tends to be done because they don't want people to actually find these studies and check up on them. Instead they just cite the nice-looking journal name, and since an article made it in, it's "according to science".
So I'm left trying to find the study based on very sparse details. This is all that Kieran Galpin of Joe.co.uk writes:
I'm inclined to believe this is a FAKE study until I actually can take a look at the source myself.
Unfortunately I'm having a lot of trouble googling it because searching this excerpt just gives all these shit foid tabloid articles written by foids (Kayla, Hannah, Kieran) parroting this same cherry-picked excerpt, none of whom can be bothered to actually do basic background research like "here is the name of the study" or "here is the name of the first author on the paper".
It angers me to think foids actually get paid salaries to just copy+paste articles like this, they aren't reporters they're cocksuckers.
i wouldn't imagine seeing this shit on incel wiki
You shold, we gotta be vigilant or people sneak it in.
I'll admit I don't really monitor it much, I'll fix shit if people point it out but don't actively look for trash
oh okay, and actually this is really helpful re my above criticism of FuRed
"Sexual activity of young men is not related to their anthropometric parameters" is a 2014 study (I guess it took until Dec 2021 for propagandists to take notice of it)
This appears to by what these foids were quoting:
Kieran Galpin of Joe.co.uk
Hannah Blackison of LadBible
Kayle Kibbe of InsideHook
Kayla is the one that FuRed linked to as a source.
Kayla Kibbe said:
Sexual activity of young men is not related to their anthropometric parameters - PubMed
In this study's age range, none of the examined anthropometric parameters was perfectly correlated with sexual activity. Obesity and metabolic diseases can cause all types of sexual function to deteriorate in older age, whereas their effects may not yet be prominent at younger ages (below 45...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Abstract said:
Sounds like it's the same study to me. So yeah, FuRed turns out you got lucky and the source you cited was real, but you were 4 tiers removed from the primary source you should have actually cited.
Stop browsing shitty foid sites and look up the actual raw data fgt.
- -
anyway that's just the abstract. We I'm going to see if I can find the full paper, not going to trust the conclusions of
Imre Rurik 1 , Attila Varga, Ferenc Fekete, Timea Ungvári, János Sándor until I see it
Last edited:
I assert that we can reach a consensus with the data we have available for various aspects of blackpill. Sure, there's room for quibbling. For instance, there can be disagreement on how to interpret certain types of data where there's ambiguity. But I don't think there's much leg room for many of these topics.
JBW deniers. The evidence is pretty conclusive on it at this point. On a personal level, sure - I resent being a deathnic. It hurts being disadvantaged by something you had no control over nor can change. But I was referring to the former.
I'm not saying to be dogmatic, that outliers don't exist and that there can't be different interpretations in some cases. But I do think the data supports generalizations, ie. more women are likely to exhibit so-and-so behavior than not for example.
He's not trolling. He makes these asshat assertions and when called on it he makes ad hominems. His post history makes that clear.
I discussed JBW some time ago with another user and they claimed the studies I linked were simply in favor of my 'narrative', while providing none of their own. Just cherry picked pictures of some tyrones with chicks off of a google search.
Seeing as I'm a deathnic, me being in support of JBW doesn't even make sense as it clearly disadvantages me. If anything I would want the opposite to be true. But of course that isn't the case.
You shold, we gotta be vigilant or people sneak it in.
I'll admit I don't really monitor it much, I'll fix shit if people point it out but don't actively look for trash
oh okay, and actually this is really helpful re my above criticism of FuRed
"Sexual activity of young men is not related to their anthropometric parameters" is a 2014 study (I guess it took until Dec 2021 for propagandists to take notice of it)
This appears to by what these foids were quoting:
Kieran Galpin of Joe.co.uk
Hannah Blackison of LadBible
Kayle Kibbe of InsideHook
Kayla is the one that FuRed linked to as a source.
Sexual activity of young men is not related to their anthropometric parameters - PubMed
In this study's age range, none of the examined anthropometric parameters was perfectly correlated with sexual activity. Obesity and metabolic diseases can cause all types of sexual function to deteriorate in older age, whereas their effects may not yet be prominent at younger ages (below 45...
Sounds like it's the same study to me. So yeah, FuRed turns out you got lucky and the source you cited was real, but you were 4 tiers removed from the primary source you should have actually cited.
Stop browsing shitty foid sites and look up the actual raw data fgt.
- -
anyway that's just the abstract. We I'm going to see if I can find the full paper, not going to trust the conclusions of
Imre Rurik 1 , Attila Varga, Ferenc Fekete, Timea Ungvári, János Sándor until I see it
ALERT ALERT BLACKPILL WINS AGAIN JFL
I was looking around for studies by these cucks and I found one largely by the same author (I Rurik). It doesn't seem to be the exact same one (this one was done in Hungary) but they used the same methods of analysis, data collection, etc. Looks like the one cited by Tom Hollands instagram post was one they did in America and JFL at this shit, there's no way you can seriously use this data against the blackpill.
Here's the study:
Relations between anthropometric parameters and sexual activity of Hungarian men - International Journal of Impotence Research
In the last decades, there were visible achievements in the evaluation of sexuality-related problems and issues regarding sexual life. However, there are limited reliable and comparable data on the average values of sexual activity and its relation to anthropometric parameters in different...
www.nature.com
Now, I haven't even read the full thing, I just skimmed over it, looking at the tables, and then I see this JFL
Basically, to be part of these studies you have to already be sexually active with a girlfriend or wife/spouse in the first place. This basically means, even among the short people studied, only people who have high enough value to be having frequent sex in the first place were studied, whether it be because of their looks, money, status, or otherwise. All the incels and sub8 males were filtered out. Using studies like this to determine how height and body in general impact general sexual success is totally pointless JFL, it only measures sexual activity with a single partner after an individual has already satisfied that partners SMV requirements. Not even going to bother deeply reading the rest of the study at this point, I've seen enough to know these guys fail against the blackpill. Someone else can pick apart the study further and toss them into the grave if they want
They mention a US study here so it's definitely the I Rurik guy running this shit. Also JFL at how men who graduated high school or more have significantly lower sexual activity, foids really love their low IQ thugs huh
Last edited:
That's a word I've grown to detest seeing the way it gets abused on places like Wikipedia tbh.
There's a tendency to act like "yeah we all agree" while ignoring a LOT of protests.
That's why I tend to be very hesitant to allow too much specificity and allower broader and more inclusive definitions of a term.
I'm not sure what you mean. The definition of what the concept of blackpill is shouldn't be related in how to interpret data.
Blackpill is a set of outlooks resulting from certain interpretations, so I guess what you speak of is related though, like "the approaches which lead to blackpill".
If I had to say what you're getting at, it's a propensity to "look behind the curtain", question narratives, look for the studies they don't do, variables you can't control for, etc.
My biggest issue with JBW is "just" makes it sound like some 100% determinant when I don't think any factor would qualify as a >50% determinant.
Let's say to be generous that a single factor might get as high as 40% influence and we argue about whether that is height or white... debates like that are fine IMO.
I don't think what stance people take in such a debate has anything to do with being a blackpill denier.
I think on some level everyone realizes "height and white are big factors" but also "not something which outweighs the sum of other factors"
Except for the "x is everything" guys who talk like foids and embellish because they're drama queens.
I'm struggling to figure out where you think we disagree because this sounds on-pointe.
Generalizations are great if they're believable/factual although I try to keep it realistic.
IE if data and realistic estimates show between 97% and 99% of women are sloots then if someone says "all women are sloots" I'll say "no sir, only an average of 98% are"
This is of course a hypothetical example because slang like sloots is pointless and arbitary as hell given people's difference standards on what that covers. Much easier to talk about number-shit like partner count estimate.
Asshat assertions to draw ire and then attacking those who confront the assertions is pretty standard troll behavior.
That said: I like to give the benefit of doubt (I have a loooong history of having my posts dismissed as trolling, I know how shitty that feels if you're honestly tryin to get some points across) and engage in a polite way.
For example when I responded to FuRed above, I cited my problem with his method of selecting a source, and ultimately admitted in a subsequent post that it turns out the study was real (still skeptical if abstract conclusions were RELIABLE though) so this gives a construction means for @FuRed to engage with me if he's so inclined.
I can't really take a side here without looking at whatever study you cited
I tend to go a step beyond "I'm generally skeptical, especially since this doesn't fit my world view" towards "here is problem X which might exist with Y study" though.
It's not that simple. Being ethnic could bias someone in either direction of overvaluing or undervaluing whiteness in success.
It basically depends on someone's world view.
You're taking the approach that someone only ought to think "I'm black so I want to find studies that tell me being black won't harm my prospects, so that I have hope for my future"
That could certainly be someone's thought process, but there's alternatives too.
For example "I lack romantic success, I have tried and failed to improve myself to get that success, I subconsciously do not want it to be variables I have control over like gymcelling, so I want a study to tell me it's my blackness that guarantees my romantic failure so that I don't need to bother gymcelling anymore".
This of course sounds like the IT means of dismantling any concern we have whatsoever: but it does touch upon a real possible motivation (mostly subconscious) where we could try to inflate the impact of uncontrollable factors over controllable ones.
This doesn't in any way mean that uncontrollable factors aren't most important though: they very well could be.
It might just be a case of "race is 90% but I view it as 95% due to my subconscious bias because I hate gymcelling" for example, though it could also (via the thought process you talked about) be "race is 90% but I view it as 80% due to optimism so I can gymcel"
How do you know September 2014 study "Sexual activity of young men is not related to their anthropometric parameters" uses the same methods as January 2012 "Relations between anthropometric parameters and sexual activity of Hungarian men" when I've only been able to locate the ABSTRACT of SAOYMINRTTAP which doesn't mention the methods for us to compare it to those listed by RBAPASAOHM which you linked?
Last edited:
I didn't state we necessarily had a consensus. I said we should be able to reach one provided the data we have. Again, I don't want dogma or blind echo chambers.
I agree it shouldn't be, though apparently some see it that way. What I meant though is how there are some outliers, perhaps inconsistencies in data and people could interpret them through their anecdotes or whatnot.
What is your definition of blackpill? Do you agree with the article on the wiki?
Blackpill
The blackpill is a philosophy that argues that physical attractiveness is the most critical factor in determining men's dating success, especially in modern Western...
For me, I see blackpill as synonym for observable reality.
I wasn't, but I agree with that nonetheless. We should be as exhaustive as possible.
The acronym is a bit problematic - many people interpret it literally. As I noted in another thread, JBW isn't (usually) intended as such.
I didn't think we disagreed, so much as you requested me to elaborate on certain things.
That's not the implication I got from those exchanges, but maybe you're familiar with the user more than I.
I can't really take a side here without looking at whatever study you cited
It wasn't a specific study, but a culmination from numerous - all point to white being the preferred option by far in attraction/dating. I don't see any room for debate on that. Yes, there's outliers but that's not what these individuals were arguing (even if they were, so what?)
I'm not.
I'm simply saying, "here is the data. That data points to whites being favored. Ethnics are not. Blacks in particular rank very low". If anything I'm arguing we should attempt to leave our anecdotes and biases out of the discussion as much as possible. The bluepill and to a lesser extent redpill are views that thrive on subjectivity (more accurately falsehoods) and we should strive to do the opposite.
Has my ethnic status resulted in bitterness? Sure, but that's ultimately irrelevant.
The realization of harsher realities than even the red pill (red is "blue" compared to black, but is necessary prep because a straight blue>black jump is too extreme for most people to tolerate)
Red is like "foids are hypocrites, they want muscles and confidence, not kindness"
Black is "but biological factors leading to superior young like whiteness / mesomorphia / height /etc" will have a greater impact on your success than factors you can actually change, like personality or gym-maxing.
I'd say there's a sate of "Ultrablack" where people go a bit overboard like "confidence and gym-maxing do nothing whatsoever" which I disagree with, but I would say the red>black shift is where you realize "genetic factors trump lifestyle choices as the higher contributor to success".
Redpill guys can still acknowledge stuff like height has influence, but prob cope by thinking stuff you can control has larger impact.
Blackpill guys can still acknwoledge stuff like gym-maxing and assertive personality (or wealth) has influence, but view them as less preominent (lower-ranked) compared to stuff carried in the DNA germ.
The idea that blackpill refers to the outlook that "problems require systemic rather than personal solutions" isn't the general sense of blackpill that I've gotten from participating in the forums, no.
I'm not sure why that's put in place so prominently there on the wiki, that's worth a 2nd look.
When I look at the 'blackpill' tag for posts on the forum, it's used like an umbrella term for any "-pill" which gives a dour sobre view on reality that "yes, women care THAT much about pure-DNA factors" for race/wrist/shoulder/height/etc pill.
The definition I see on the wiki IMO is more like "a world view that blackpill inevitably draws people toward".
IE there is no "personal solution" to factors one cannot change (height/race) so the only adaptation would be systemic. Where I can see two approaches:
1) influence women en-masse to place higher value on other characteristics
2) place less value on what women value and instead prioritize male values and pressure women to conform to those
Or you could take aspects of that concurrently. As to which is more readily achieved... maybe realizing (2) is more tenable than (1) is another kind of blackpill?
eh... I see it as more of of the shift-in-focus of "I am finally correctly interpreting the observable reality I had earlier been misinterpreting", but it's pretty close
IE "I was blackpilled" isn't "observable reality exists" it's "I finally interpreted it".
Experiencing the blackpill is basically passing your "comprehension roll" in GURPS terms, not merely your "sense roll"
it could actually be a 3rd step beyond that, perceiving long-term strategy as opposed to short-term tactics, as a comparison
IE "I see lips touching" is perception, "that is a kiss, a romantic gesture" is comprehension, while some 3rd step is "she's actually enjoying the kiss with chad and disliking kissing her beta husband" which needs a name
I think for non-absolute intent stuff should be rephrased non-absolutely so we can speak with clear intent.
Like "WhitenessMattersMost" or WMM would be a very clear expression: one is positing that whiteness is a more prevalent determinant of success than any other variable.
Or "HMM" or "DMM" or whatev else.
I'm not, I'm not familiar with ANYBODY here, I constantly forget who everyone is and need to be reminded of past interactions.
I'm a pretty good read I just have a very shit memory in many applications, I think I overcompensate for that by obsessively learning and writing too much text to try and compensate for my inadequacy.
Like IWH your name seems vagely familiar but I couldn't tell you off-hand if I ever PMd you or you PMd me.
I always search my PMs for stuff like that as a reminder,
I feel like I have Alzheimers or something sometimes, and it makes me feel like a horrible friend to everyone I interact with.
People take is as an insult even if we've had positive interactions.
I bet it's the constant caffeine, apparently helps w/ recalling stuff you already know while inhibiting new memory formation.
I can tell you the stars of LOGH were Yang Wenli and Roenheim or some shit but that's because 100+ eps (same w/ naruto OP bleach IY ranma Conan etc monsters), anything 12 or even 24 the names exit my brain a week later.
Like I can picture them, that someone did something, but not the name.
Sometimes I can recognize the name used in a context, othertimes not.
My stance is "room for debate on everything" and if someone wanted to dispute you, I would assess the quality of their argument.
Obviously shit/spam arguments which don't even try to be technical need to GTFO tho.
IE "you picked studies that suit your view" isn't enough, as you said, the guy needs to provide competing studies.
That or: another fine approach which doesn't require competing studies is just to dissect the ones your opposition uses to poke holes.
The question is whether there are adequate objections raised to the collective of studies you cited so as to dismiss their conclusions.
The burden of finding those holes is on the skeptic though. I'm not inclined to waste my time trying to find flaws in studies which have realistic common-sense conclusions.
Basically if someone else wantsto, I'll hear them out, but they need to put their best foot forward and provide a starting point for an argument with me.
Yeah again this is just too vague to respond to. Sounds like you put in a disproportionate amount of effort for someone who sounds like a lazy bad-faith contributor, wouldn't pay too much mind.
People like that are forgettable and sometimes throwaway accounts so you have to deal with then by name immediately.
Maybe you could make a "hit list" of forum trolls like that on the wiki and compile a list of their low-IQ arguments for later reference?
I don't like equating subjectivity to falsehood, so I'm glad you made that parenthesized clarification.
So yes, strive to combat falsehood but not subjectivity.
Maybe what you mean is not to be entrapped excessively with the hypotheticals of subjecitivity as to be blinded to observable reality and pattern and our capacity to describe it?
IMO the blue>red>black shift is just a progression of realization of impact.
I won't characterize blue pill as some kind of absolute "I think race matters 0% to women" outlook, for example.
It seems more like "blue thinks race is 5%, red thinks race is 20%, black thinks race is 40%" or something along those lines (kinda picking randomly)
There's really not any clear line of dilineation as one evolves from one into the other (even though it sometimes feels like it w/ jarring realizations that upend one's attitude and emotions) so we have approximatiosn on what the tiers represent conceptually and numerically.
tbh
To provide an example, you are familiar with IncelTV and his videos? What is your opinion of them? Do you largely agree with him on blackpill topics?
0% - Verbal Hurting Wizard32’s feelings in the new year
Why would you ask a "Canadian" his "opinion"?
think I heard but hadn't gotten around to watching, any transcripts?
I was thinking back to Brooke Gentle's study, and I realized if I translated her %s to a population of 100, that's 10 "short" guys she polled to every 57 "tall".
So you could also represent it like "tall men polled as confirmed sex-havers at more than 5x the rate of short men"
So you could also represent it like "tall men polled as confirmed sex-havers at more than 5x the rate of short men"
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
SuicideFuel
My dark past when I was bluepilled ricecel
- shrewed
- Inceldom Discussion
MentalistKebab
Users who are viewing this thread
