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.

Why do the fields of psychiatry and psychology refuse to link high inhibition to looks?

Fontaine

Fontaine

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Posts
5,417
Precisely the (rightful) fear of being mocked, ignored or rejected because of looks.

I would be interested in hearing theories about the matter. This is a rare case where "the Jews did it" may actually apply, because Freud set back the field by decades with his wacko theories on mental development.
 
I don't know. Allah knows how many times I tried getting them to be honest about looks.
 
it would ruin their facade of its in your control / self help... / JUST MEDITATE! / Its all external bad "energy" / Power of positivity law of attraction...
 
I think there is research in this regard but I doubt many people know about it or want to know it
 
Key to having no mental illnesses: make sure everyone has a loving family, rich childhoood and adolescence, develops well physically and socially and eventually have a family of his own. To do this, one must be NT and have good or at least average looks. To be NT, you must have a good childhood and not be ugly, etc. Every wrong moment in our lives led to where we are now
 
Key to having no mental illnesses: make sure everyone has a loving family, rich childhoood and adolescence, develops well physically and socially and eventually have a family of his own. To do this, one must be NT and have good or at least average looks. To be NT, you must have a good childhood and not be ugly, etc. Every wrong moment in our lives led to where we are now
 
it would ruin their facade of its in your control / self help... / JUST MEDITATE! / Its all external bad "energy" / Power of positivity law of attraction...
This. It would be an admission that their field is a scam.
 
I think there is research in this regard but I doubt many people know about it or want to know it

What a guy on FA said about this:
"This stuff is a sore spot in academica. My Evo Psych professor said he was treated poorly by the rest of the Psych faculty at my university. A lot of Psych academics strictly stick to social psych theory which tries to assert that pretty much everything is socialization and learned behavior.

"The Blank Slate" view of the mind was destroyed ages ago and there's a wealth of hard evidence that our brains are tuned by evolution and biology. The problem is, too many Psychs are deep into social theory and feminism, refusing to acknowledge the role of biology and evolution. One of the most damning pieces of evidence for pure socialization theory is the existence of cross-culture universals, essentially traits/behaviors that occur in the majority of cultures in the world."
 
Key to having no mental illnesses: make sure everyone has a loving family, rich childhoood and adolescence, develops well physically and socially and eventually have a family of his own. To do this, one must be NT and have good or at least average looks. To be NT, you must have a good childhood and not be ugly, etc. Every wrong moment in our lives led to where we are now
Yes, that's pretty much it. You have summarized the laws of human happiness, that anyone can instinctively perceive. But precisely because it is too simple (any uneducated moron can come to the same conclusion), and because it devalues the role psychologists and psychiatrists can play, they prefer to entertain superficially clever theories about "anal stage".

Ego is thus a factor.

Another one is World War Two. It was the death warrant for any intellectual discourse insisting too much on genes and heredity, the Nazis made the whole field stink. But don't blame Jews: the one who did the most to rehabilitate heredity since WWII is Steven Pinker, a Jew. This is something that white nationalists forget too often.

A third factor, that I have understood only recently, is that all the pioneers of psychology and psychoanalysis had their formative years in a time when sexual mixity did not exist in school, when amogging based on looks was far less brutal (economics were still the main factor in social dominance), generally speaking in a time when neurosis based on looks was far less likely to occur.
 
Because they would lose money
 
Looks theory has yet to be rigorously defined in the academic sense. If and when it is, I imagine the SJW portion of academia will praise its findings for females and relentlessly attack its implications for males.
 
because women and nu males go in to those degrees
 
Because they would lose money
I am not convinced economics is the real reason. Do you really believe that shrinks are that evil? Lying to desperate people to get money? A few are sociopaths, no doubt, but I don't think they make up the whole field. Just like the clergy in the Middle Ages: sure, money and comfort were a factor in desiring to join the ranks of the Church, but you couldn't realistically get ordained as a priest or monk with only materialism to motivate you; some level of ideological belief was necessary to go past years of intense, nerve-wracking study and training.

And when you read attentively the biographies of psychoanalysis pioneers, Freud, Klein, etc; they strike you as sincere and empathetic. Completely wacko, but sincere. Freud suffered himself from depression and took cocaine to self-medicate at some point. I doubt he was this evil mastermind maniacally laughing at the shekels he was going to make himself on the back of depressed goyim.
 
because women and nu males go in to those degrees
All women, even beautiful ones, are completely neurotic about their looks; I think every woman would be fundamentally sympathetic to a theory that explains human happiness in terms of looks.

No, what I think happened with psychology and psychiatry is an "inadequate equilibrium" (in the Eliezer Yudkowsky sense): the current situation is evil and kills people, everybody knows it, but no one can do anything about it for a variety of reasons.

Looks are a taboo subject (just think about the guts it would take to drive to a college and enroll students for an experiment on the relationship between looks and happiness: "hey I need more ugly people to participate, ugly people please come here"), hypotheses in psychology are very hard to confirm scientifically (leading to this weird perpetual circlejerk on the works of the pioneers, Freud and Erickson basically, which have been enshrined because seniority is the only thing that can be enshrined), psych departments don't want to fund studies that undermine their prestige and utility, we are still dealing with the fallout of Nazism, etc.

It's a giant can of worms, and it's gonna last for a long time.

Elements of hope:

- Big Data: data acquired through the internet and AI will allow infinite testing of lookist hypotheses in a scientific manner, while bypassing IRL taboos on looks and sex. The OkCupid studies on the relationship between pictures and dating success are just a start.

- Asians: the Chinese, Korean, Japanese have never been afraid to call an ugly man ugly. They don't deal with our historical and ideological baggage. They are the most likely to talk openly about the relationship between looks and happiness and develop welfare programs based on looks optimization.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. Allah knows how many times I tried getting them to be honest about looks.
What did they answer usually? I am morbidly curious.

Out of ~12 shrinks I met in my life, at least half admitted that looks are indeed important, one admitted that looks were very important, another tried to help me looksmax, the rest were delusional and gaslighted me.
 
They're bluepilled cucks. And it's good for their bank accounts. "Take my shitty pills that turn you into a zombie and stay quiet"
 
Because the link is weak.

Your average low inhib clown is not a male model. Not even close in my experience.

It would seem you were home schooled.
 
Because the link is weak.
Nope, I would say it's at least a >0.6 correlation (and one day Big Data will prove it)

Your average low inhib clown is not a male model. Not even close in my experience.

True, clowns, acrobats and theatre actors are often ugly. I acknowledge the existence of ugly low-inhibs. I think they have an exceptional neurotransmitter makeup: high baseline serotonin, extremely low levels of pride and shame. I doubt in any event that it can be helped.

It would seem you were home schooled.
Nope, not even close. Went to regular school, went to school trips, played music in front of dozens of people, had parents that took me to trips every year including to foreign countries. When you get made fun of because of the way you look, you tend to become insecure nevertheless.
 
I acknowledge the existence of ugly low-inhibs.
Which there are many, many, of. They are not exception in my experience. I would hesitate to draw conclusions.

Biggest predictor of low inhib is race I think. I notice blacks tend to be low inhib as fuck and I wouldn't say their looks are something they are known for.
 
Biggest predictor of low inhib is race I think. I notice blacks tend to be low inhib as fuck and I wouldn't say their looks are something they are known for.

I have noticed it and I agree, race plays a role in inhib, though I've met shy ugly blacks (never shy handsome blacks).

Four things that determine baseline inhib:

- Race
- Neurotransmitter makeup
- Looks
- Positive/negative reinforcement during growing up

None of which are in your countrol, or in the control of your parents. So psychotherapy still lies.
 
I am not convinced economics is the real reason. Do you really believe that shrinks are that evil? Lying to desperate people to get money?

Lets say you were a therapist working at a practice, and you started spreading the blackpill. Do you really think you'd still be employed?
 
Lets say you were a therapist working at a practice, and you started spreading the blackpill. Do you really think you'd still be employed?
Yes.

You can still practice therapy to mend the broken ego, do general coaching, stuff like that. I would pay for a good blackpilled therapist.

In fact, the most popular psychiatrists and therapists in my country tend to be the blackpilled ones. I saw a very popular psychiatrist in the capital who actually tried to help me looksmax.

Traditional Freudian psychoanalysts are on their way to extinction, they hardly make money anymore and have been attacked from every side these past decades.
 
I have noticed it and I agree, race plays a role in inhib, though I've met shy ugly blacks (never shy handsome blacks).

Four things that determine baseline inhib:

- Race
- Neurotransmitter makeup
- Looks
- Positive/negative reinforcement during growing up

None of which are in your countrol, or in the control of your parents. So psychotherapy still lies.
Race/neurotransmitter makeup explain +90% of it.

Rednecks too are generally low inhib.
d29937295e71383c52b43adab2dc6a1c.png


Curries in curryland seem to not give a fuck as well.
1051481198.jpg


None of these groups are too pretty.
 
Race/neurotransmitter makeup explain +90% of it.

Rednecks too are generally low inhib.
d29937295e71383c52b43adab2dc6a1c.png


Curries in curryland seem to not give a fuck as well.
1051481198.jpg


None of these groups are too pretty.
High IQ
 
Make it 60% and we have a deal. I remain convinced that high inhib Chads have near zero probability of spawning.
 
Make it 60% and we have a deal. I remain convinced that high inhib Chads have near zero probability of spawning.

This is an anecdote, but the guy who dated the hottest girl in my senior class was a quiet reserved dude. Not super low inhib, but definitely not a low inhib chad caricature.

I'd say looks explain 10-30% of social inhibition. 60 is too high.

There is such a thing as a quiet/reserved Chad. Common enough to make a meme out of it.

ugly-vs-hot-guy-double-standards-2.jpg
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top