Things Scientific Blackpillers get Wrong[edit | edit source]
With academic citations, like they do.
- That particularly masculine faces are attractive to women, which is wrong
- That all women are having tons of promiscuous sex all the time (when its more likely a growing minority of women, while sexlessness is also increasing among women)
- That there weren't tons of incels before the sexual revolution (there were) (up to 75% of men in their 20s in the 19th century in the West eg)
- That mildly or moderately short men don't get partners, which is wrong
- That personality doesn't matter, when it actually matters quite a bit in relationships
- That cucks are not confident (usually portrayed as emotionally defeated), which is wrong
Methods[edit | edit source]
There are quite a few methods "scientific" blackpillers use to do "blackpill science"
- Plugging data into corporate black-box algorithms on Photofeeler™ or Tinder™, with non-controlled test subjects, using 1-2 non-transparent trials. Exaggerating how much women care about looks (which they do care a lot about, as well as men, it's just not everything)
- Appealing to third rate commentators on evolutionary psychology, a murky and unfalsifiable soft-science. People such as Jordan Peterson.
- Repackaging clickbaity articles disparaging human nature from liberal news outlets by referencing the studies in them. And then acting like they were the ones to discover the studies
- Ignoring studies that portray nice-guy behavior in a positive manner, or that show that women and men care about more than just looks.
Blackpill science vs real science[edit | edit source]
Less ideological commentators on mating than blackpillers, such as those in reputable academic journals, PsychologyToday or StackExchange, tend to look at the entire academic and colloquial debate more, and engage with both sites, whereas 'scientific blackpillers' are only interested in evangelizing, propagandizing, and trying to get men to kill themselves.
References[edit | edit source]
- "In general, we found that both male and female faces which were closer to the average and more feminine in shape were regarded as more attractive, while fluctuating asymmetry had no effect" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0225549