The incel genocide is upon us.

God, I hope so. Maybe that's the only way to get you braindead morons to stop complaining.

They must know that incels are using their data and are trying to erase any links.

You know data like this is very well known. There is a link between perceived attractiveness and perceived personality. This link however, is not the only factor involved in perceiving personality. Even more, OKCupid likely isn’t a representative sample of the general population, and even if you assume that it is, this shows no indication that looks is the sole or even strongest determining factor in the decision for a long term relationship.

Exactly, OkCupid doesn’t represent for example 50+ year old women, women living in countries with no internet connection, and women who don’t want relationships.

If you want a gf, just go for the other groups. Checkmate incels.

Those aren’t the only groups that aren’t accurately represented. Even people of the mid twenties age group on OKCupid likely differ from the population average

And you base this on...

The lack of any comparative analyses between people who use okcupid, people who fill out those optional surveys, and the general population... you are pretending like these data were taken with all possible intervening variables accounted for (controlled for or even measures) but that isn’t shown in the figure here or supported by anything. There is no indication that this is an ecologically valid study and generalizable to any population other than that specific sample of OKCupid users

You act like the sole deciding factor in every interaction is physical attractiveness and that’s not accurate. You could make the argument that it is a factor, and I’ll agree with that. But there is no data suggesting it is the sole factor or even a major deciding factor. The lovely thing about correlations shown from a single study like the image above is they often don’t replicate and aren’t usually indicative of anything other than the sample group they’ve tested

It’s true, this wasn’t a controlled experiment. But tell me, why would the preferences of people who use online dating be any different from the general population between 18-30 years?

People who are on dating websites are likely more open and generally less cautious about individuals they do not know. You can also argue that opinions on personality online are based solely on looks because that’s one of the major things online dating is first based off of.

You could argue individuals are more likely to be superficial online because other factors that play into first impressions (posture, social ability, inflection of voice) aren’t made available.

Also, the lovely thing about confounds, is you don’t know if a variable you haven’t thought of is influencing the data. This can be explained with an example from diabetes research. When individuals try to induce diabetes in rats (using drug induced pancreatic beta cell death or ungulate insulin inoculation) you face the issue of “does this translate well to diet induced diabetes (or congenital diabetes if you are killing the beta cells)”. When looking at studies like that it is understood that there is the possibility that unknown variables are influencing the data. Even if the data matches our hypothesis, we cannot assume the data will translate until there is data present that actually shows that it translates (and even then, you run into the same issues, it’s just the replicability of it makes it more viable)

Okay, I accept that, let’s say only people on dating sites are like that. But can we assume that people on average are attracted to personality, if we have no studies backing that up, and all the data about internet dating backs up the hypothesis that personality doesn’t matter?

Except you are assuming there are no studies that back it up. Go on google scholar and look up correlates with attractiveness. There are studies that implicate immune system composition with attractiveness. Also, most of the data doesn’t back up the idea that personality doesn’t matter. There are studies that show physical attractiveness is important in first impressions, but I personally haven’t seen any continuations of the studies past any first impressions. And again, single studies, in and of themselves don’t show much.

Could you link me an examle?

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-12468-001

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=immune+system+and+romantic+attraction&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&p=&u=%23p%3DD23kNSNnNv0J

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260100800076

There are entire subfields of both psychology and neurobiology that deals with this kind of research

Thanks, I will look into these.

And thanks for the talk.

If you start looking into the genuine research, I think you’ll realize why this idea of a “black pill” isn’t actually accurate

Might not be fully accurate, but is more accurate than common knowledge. I still haven’t read it though, so I don’t know.

I mean, these studies show common knowledge is the more accurate model

Many social scientists believe that attractiveness lies in the eye of the beholder. However, consensus, which refers to the extent to which ratings of an individual's attractiveness provided by different judges converge, is typically assessed by examining whether different people rank order the attractiveness of a particular set of targets similarly

This abstract doesn’t seem to. I don’t know tho, I haven’t read them.

It mentions criticisms of the actual research methods which indicate the potential issues in the research. Every field of research has this. An example from cell biology is the western blot. Western blotting comes with its own set of potential issues that can alter how the protein expression on the blots appear. That why methodology in science is transparent. So people can point out potential issues. That doesn’t make the results wrong, it just opens avenues for further research. I included The criticisms of the sociocultural theory so you can see where the issues lie. It in no way invalidates the current state of attractiveness research

I could only read the abstracts, but from what I read these don't exactly seem to prove that personality matters in any way. Feingold merely states that men value attractiveness more than women, and as I previously said, Berry only points out the flaws of consensus in attractiveness ranking.

Again, these data show that the importance of physical attractiveness in mate selection and relationship continuance is significantly less than the incel community believes and perpetuates. That’s the point

How do they show that?

They literally detail factors that are shown to contribute to sexual selection. The incel idea is that they have been cursed with bad looks, and those bad looks are responsible for the dating misfortune. Data does not support that.

The idea is mostly that there is a looks treshold, and below that women don’t consider men dateable however good their personality is. Does any research contradict that?

There isn’t data to support that idea and there is data showing significant interactions between dozens for variables. There is no evidence to suggest a cutoff besides anecdotes from people who are incels, much of which can be explained by confounding variables.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886917300673

and the article written about it

https://www.livescience.com/58607-mens-looks-may-matter-more-than-personality.html

I can't download the full study of course, but what do you think about this?

The live science article doesn’t correlate at all to what the actual study says. On top of that, the study you linked, shows over 10 different factors that ranked more important than physical attractiveness. The procedure that the article reported doesn’t even match what the study did.

how do you have access to the study?

My university login

"The live science article doesn’t correlate at all to what the actual study says"

Which study link?

Also are you saying this

Blackpill is still the most accurate pill out there. It’s not like you get to choose what your immune system is like outside of living a healthy lifestyle. Nature’s signs of a healthy immune system are an attractivene and symmetrical face. The signs of a compatible immune system are pheromones. So basically if you have good immune system genetics she likes the way you look and smell. Blackpill disproved?

It’s not about having a good immune system, it’s about having one different than the other persons. Which doesn’t imply the system is good or bad. The way you look and smell (not in terms of unconsciously processed odorants, but in terms of personal hygiene) can be manipulated by the individual. Did you look at the actual studies? Or did you read the title and just make an uninformed opinion?

Dude you should post studies on this on why the blackpill isn't true.We need normies who want to argue with studies instead of personal anecdotes.

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-12468-001

I literally did

A study doesn’t need to explicitly state that if the information in the studies make the point pretty well

No I mean posts not comments

Because most people’s responses to information that doesn’t conform to them is complete rejection of the idea

This sub has 2,000 users right now which means its getting brigaded. The normies will upvote your posts.If this sub is too big then I suggest you go to /r/BlackPillScience where on of the top posts there had the most upvotes and argued against face>personality.

It’s really not my problem.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/

High on the publication bias

uh huh. Why don't you try going in there for a scrap one of these days, you're free to try and disprove us any time.

I mean, the currently accepted, and well supported, paradigms in psychology do that fairly well

muh authority. you disappointed me, dude. seriously, post any studies you'd consider to be "blue-pill" proof, and you'll get some discussion going.

“Authority” A well documented and supported web of dozens of studies and meta reviews that further expand on the complex cognitive process of sexual selection. I guess science is now just authority

Alluding to a vague authority without substantiating yourself is fallacious. Please go on to substantiate yourself within the blackpillscience subreddit.

I’ve literally posted some articles on this thread

ik, but for posterity's sake I'd like you to make a post with your conclusions and studies to support on blackpillscience.

Lmao, that’s literally not my problem.

Again, very disappointing. You seemed so confident about disproving blackpill a while ago and I thought I might have found someone fun, guess not.

What entire subfields of psychology and neurobiology deal with that kind of research?

Why not look at the articles that I posted on it. Evolutionary psychology, evolutionary neurobiology, sexual psychology.

This one:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260100800076says " Many social scientists believe that attractiveness lies in the eye of the beholder. However, consensus, which refers to the extent to which ratings of an individual's attractiveness provided by different judges converge, is typically assessed by examining whether different people rank order the attractiveness of a particular set of targets similarly.

That’s a comment on methodology, not results. That abstract doesn’t really go into results

There entire idea is based on the idea that women always and only select for attractiveness.

Which is not the case once you actually start to look at relationships.

It’s because it’s a self-reinforcing loop that perpetuates the idea that they will never be desirable to women. Because they think they won’t be desirable, it first hinders their interactions with women,’making themselves seem less desirable unintentionally. Then as they move further down this path, they begin to blame women for them not finding the individual sexually attractive. This accusatory coping mechanism makes them even less desirable because they start treating women like shit.

It is odd to see this group react to normal shit that happens as part of dating.

Some guy was talking about how he got stood up. Which sucks. I've been there. But he created this entire construct for what this woman was doing and how this was something all women did.

I'm like, dude, if you are going to date people you will get stood up sometimes. And I saw a lot of things this guy did wrong in setting up the date. He cleans that up and his next dates will be better.

But nope, he is out.

There is a huge amount of data showing personality is hugely important. Talk to some happily married old people about it. There has been a lot of research on what makes relationships succeed, I don't recall looks being important. Of course looks matter a lot in initial attraction.

Talking to happily married couples does not constitute as research on looks vs personality because of their own biases.

And dating is based on looks. No way around it.

Looks are important in initial selection for dating, especially as a low-end cutoff, so trying to jump into dating is going to be hard going.

Every time I think I understand what dating is something contradicts it. I don't think I've done much dating with most of my partners. Certainly I've never dated a stranger.

Research on the attractiveness of couples showed that those who started dating as strangers are much more closely matched in attractiveness. Those who got to know each other in a non-dating context and later developed an attraction had much more of a spread in attractiveness as rated by others.

The problem is, whatever you're good at, there will be better-looking men who are good at it too. Wherever you are, there will be better-looking men. And women will choose better looking men over you no matter how good your personality is.

Ranking by appearance happens at all levels, yet stable relationships are very common. When couples under 40 split it is usually because they did not get on. If one of them found someone else, their appearance is not usually the important thing which made the difference.

The importance of appearance depends on the size of the pool, for one thing. In a smaller town there is more variation in hotness in couples because after all the other relevant factors are considered appearance matching is often not feasible.

Another thing about small towns is that people have known each other all their lives so there is a lot less emphasis on appearance. Their fashions are not out of date because they are dumb hicks with fewer local choices so much as because what you look like is less important than who you are.

The effect is seen in the gay community. Being only 3% or so of the population, choice is restricted so people are more flexible about what they consider a match. Teens in homophobic environments like schools and churches are liable to link up with very much older people because they have few or no other options. Appearance "requirements" turn out to be quite flexible.

So basically if you’re an ugly guy in a large city with good education and a well-paying job, you’re fucked.

I don’t want a 60 year old FA who’s living in a shithole country and doesn’t want a relationship.

Misogynist

just made your comments into a post:https://www.reddit.com/r/Braincels/comments/8k0bsi/the_truth_about_the_ok_cupid_graph_on_looks_and/

Your getting destroyed in the comments boyo

The time we need sexbots is now, this is what they persue. THE GOVERNMENT OWES ME VAGINE

Female sexuality is our culture's religion. The value of female sexuality is arguably one of the most important aspects of our society. Evidence that reduces this value is essentially heresy. This is the modern day equivalent to the book burnings of the past.

The truth will not be stopped.

Explain

Religion: Tells people there's hope even though it's false (for coping religioncels, 99.96% of them are false, which still makes the point).

Female sexuality: Tells men women find them attractive even in the face of tinder failure, essentially buying into the "faith" of personality's power to sexually arouse.

Religion: Burned texts that contradict it i.e. Scopes trial, Galileo, other religious texts.

Female sexuality: Bans incel communities, destroys blackpill evidence.

Oh, I get it, you're insane, cool

That's what they said to the heretics. The only difference is he's yet to be burned at the stake for it.

You’ve basically summarized the transcript of the scopes trial and Galileo’s imprisonment.

Nope that’s just society correcting abhorrent behaviour.

OkCupid deleted data, not a community. How is deleting numbers correcting abhorrent behavior?

I've heard Tinder is a failure for the majority of men. Why would an incel even know how to spell Tinder? It is not for you.

And female sexuality needs to be halted at all costs.

Heresy is a very scientifically researched fact.

Keep up the good fight, warrior.

Identity politics wins again. They take down an honorable and honest display of the stark dating discrepancies out of fear of any kind of association with the "incel" tag.

If the black pill is to have any future, it needs to lose any sort of associated tag and become amorphous.

Nope, most people just hate pro-rape communities.

You don’t need a chart to know that a shit personality is highly unattractive

Watch this video.

There is a dating show called “Dating in the dark” in which, as the name implies, people go blind dates in total darkness. The women in the show really like the guys’ personalities and even kiss them during their dates, but reject the men after the face reveal.

There’s also something called halo effect. Look it up. So it’s more likely that women think that good looking guys have better personalities than that women perceive people with good personalities as good looking.

This is a TV show, not reality. You shouldn't base your opinions about women on a TV show meant to be controversial. Of course it's controversial.

Cope.

OP's article, "We Experiment On Human Beings!"

Another removed one, "Your Looks and Your Inbox"

Race and Attraction, 2009–2014

There's more, way more, I believe, but I haven't caught them all.

Shut it down.

I see your point. However,have you considered that a show is a superficial social context. It’s not likely that any of the 19k+ folks subscribed to this subreddit will end up on a dating show. The people that do are going to be the superficial type.

In my experience, personality can make a woman I find unattractive at first, to be really quite attractive after getting to know her. The same is true for the reverse. Met some sexy ladies that had shit personalities and disgusted me after showing em. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder

Attractiveness is necessary. In the animal world it is the same, the neverending quest for an attractive mate so the children will be attractive, so they can attract mates and have more children.

Without that people degrade into genetic impurity and the species dies off.

OY VEY! DA GOYIM KNOW!

I mean... it's not good business to be associated with you guys. No offense. Be mad at capitalism.

It's called the Halo Effect you freshman.

did they actually delete the data? any links?

When was the data collected and over how long

Wait so i dont get this graph. By it being almost perfectly linear it proves personality definitely is in correlation with looks right? Am i wrong?

You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole.

It looks like a low-effort fake.

Real human psychological experiments do not produce data that looks like this.

A real high correlation for humans still shows a lot more variation than this.

Real data with this number of samples has a far wider spread of outliers.

Real scores of both measures would be very obviously clustered on round numbers - 4.0 would get far more than 4.1 even if you forced people to write in a decimal. The only possible clustering I see is on looks at 2.7. No way is that plausible.

Also, the scores are more continuous than even scoring in tenths of a point could achieve.

Real data for this subject would be split into male and female graphs.

If you start looking into the genuine research, I think you’ll realize why this idea of a “black pill” isn’t actually accurate

That’s a comment on methodology, not results. That abstract doesn’t really go into results