Why do almost all 'incels' blame their situation on looks?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you think sapiosexuals are able to get horny and masterbate by just reading someone's thesis? Hmmm.

Well, maybe if it's a good one. A good thesis might indicate that the male has a promising future, career wise. I think the cancer cure example is actually a bad one, because that would result in extreme amounts of status and possibly a lot of money aswell, and thus clouding whether intelligence in isolation is attractive.

You have a point there but I am not talking about mate selection here but purely about sexual desire, my point that in the "horny moment" I doubt a woman would fantasize about a genius in a laboratory setting.

If that's true, then https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ would be a porn site for the sapiosexuals.

There's actually a problem here on both ends.

Intelligence causes you to behave in ways that less intelligent people can't map and what they can't map generally gets taken as inferiority unless there's a preponderance of evidence that you're super-accomplished (which in such a socially-generated world that can be a catch-22). That actually counts as a hit to your social skills because what you're doing doesn't make sense and hence doesn't/can't catch. There are little things you can do to grind off the harsh edges of that but it still ends up in introversion, perceived 'lack of confidence', etc.

The "dumb" inarticulate guys probably have the correct body language though.

I'm not into guys I can't understand who use slang, but their peers understand them and the women they're with grew up around other people who talk like that. They understand each other. I hear them on the bus and I haven't a clue what they're saying, but the main thing is that they understand each other.

You don't have to have a private school accent and scintillating conversation, you just have to be on the other person's wavelength and know how to talk about what they are interested in.

Most folks want someone familiar. Most of us here are oddballs and not familiar, therefore, not on their list of stable people.

Me, welk, everyday conversation bores me. Buy everyday guys find my conversation boring. We're just different. I'm not going around calling them dumb for liking every day girls. They just like what's familiar to them.

There's a lot of factors involved. Being interesting can help, but it may not. Depends what you're looking for, depends what they are looking for. Most of us here like discussing different topics, so we will list "interesting" as a priority. Most regular people have a different qualifier for "interesting".

It's complicated.

There's no magic one thing that can be fixed.

I think you are making sapiosexuality too simple. The problem with sexual behavior and NDs is that it doesn't fit into any label at all, and so people use various labels to escape, like asexual, sapiosexual and even LGT. It doesn't mean that NDs doesn't experience sexual attraction, or that they actually are attracted to intelligence. It only means they are not that interested in typical sex.

I'm not, it's the "sapiosexuals" who are intellectually dishonest. As most know here, the scientific method relies upon isolating variables to see the isolated effect of each. If someone claims to mainly be attracted to intelligence, that person should be attracted to someone who is unemployed, unattractive, but very intelligent. Anybody with common sense will know that that's very unlikely, and from that it seems obvious that looks, social status, and maybe income are much more important factors, even for the people who claim to be sapiosexual-

Who has suggested that people who are more successful than incels in this regard don't have any personality flaws? That sounds like a stretch. They just don't have the combination of flaws that incels seem to share, or they're better able to mask the ones they have, or they're able to be interesting and form connections in spite of those flaws.

Most incels are mundanely average looking, so insisting looks are the primary cause seems misguided at best.

It is your opinion that it is random. From my perspective it is incredibly predictable.
And it's just a fact that certain variables correlate very strongly with dating success, and it's not personality and intelligence like certain dishonest people like to claim.

Love really is a very random thing at times.

Love really is a very random thing at times.