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

Post Reply New Topic

Women’s magazine and blogs still do that.
But for men.

I hope you don't think everyone who thinks that looks is the most deterministic factor in dating = Incel.

There are some facts that no one can deny (And oh, this videos proves that Tinder was never more shallow than Okc):



And no, this is not just a 'dating apps' thing:

^^

There seems to not just be an issue of genetic fitness at play for natural selection but really the complexity vs. pure replicators game seems to be in full swing as well. The pure replicators game seems to explain what Monday was mentioning in the video I posted about individual permutations that favor 'get in the door' (relationships, jobs, anything) strategies over 'excellence once you get there' will be selected for because 'get in the door' is the immediate bottleneck and natural selection essentially sprays isht against the wall until it sticks and it's much more common for what sticks to have 'get in the door' skills but poor to mediocre long-term excellence and extremely rare for what sticks to have both 'get in the door' and 'excellence once you get there' combined.

I wish the implications of that could just be left at dating but they can't. The implications of that tell us why just about any government will fail, why liberal democracies are pretty much doomed at their inception until we get a handle on this, why any new field of technology or human development (first cracked by the eggheads) falls apart once Darwinian pressures of 'I need to pay my bills', 'keep up with the Jones's', and social climbing all come to bear on the future development of that technology (....cough....programming...cough...), and in so many ways this tells us why we're almost assured to either go extinct this century or have not just a massive die-off of our population but under such ideologically crippling ways that it may well be that we'll feel it's better to return to the trees and start chewing leaves again - all because any collection of will to solve big problems seems impossible if it's anything but the most rarified percentage of elites or outsiders handling the mess (and even there it only takes a few to burn any project to the ground).

That could be why even the initial reaction to the idea of incel was as immediate and knee-jerk as it was, it's the first inklings, like a projecting finger or toe, of finding the cadaver I mentioned immediately above.

Cinfirmation bias.

If you want to find info on looks being the most important factor you'll find info on it.

I bet you're not even bothering to research alternatives.

I have tried all the other alternatives years before reaching this conclusion.

What factors are you talking about and what goals are you considering?
Googling "factor to successful relationship statistics" gave me these sites on the top:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ip-success
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ationships
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d543/6 ... 50570a.pdf
https://www.divorcesource.com/blog/fact ... -marriage/

None of them mentions looks... but I've always been looking for long term so my goal may differ from Boo's.

I said it's the most deterministic factor, not the only factor. Meaning if looks is not 'passed', nothing further is passed because it's the very first factor that can be easily evaluated.

Why you gals here on WP always assume this? When someone mentions looks in a thread you all assume this someone means that it's only the looks.

Funny lot.

Also the articles you posted are about what makes a relationship to last successfully (as a LT) , but you need a coffee date first, the initial attraction trigger, before one can have a LT relationship - the looks is very deterministic for that first stage way before the relationship stage and the articles you posted aren't about that.

Sure, the looks are noticed first.
I would add, on the same level, voice, smell and the way one moves. I'm non-visual in my way of experiencing the world.

"Looks" are not always "passed" genetically.

I've seen some pretty ugly mothers with very pretty daughters.

Hillary Clinton is not particularly a "looker"---and she never was a "looker." Her daughter Chelsea is very pretty, though.

There is too much emphasis on "genes." Just because somebody has "good genes" does not mean the "good genes" would prove useful in making the person "good."

The whole point is senseless as there is nothing short of plastic surgery that will change your physical appearance. The only things you have the power to affect are grooming, clothing, attitude. The looks you were born with are barring the above mentioned surgery the same looks you will have when you die. Make the best of what you have. All this research into something that is unchangeable is a waste of time. Placing undue emphasis on your looks is narcissistic. C'mon Man!

I agree.

Certainly, basic sensory data stimulates or extinguishes the attraction response. This is part of the mating process. However, if the individual one is attracted to has a lousy or incompatible personality, that could lead to the "Use 'em, Abuse 'em, Lose 'em" type of relationship.

That's 'get in the door' skills or attributes. That essentially makes it the immediate minimum. Where the person who can't get in the door spends a life in solitude, or unemployed/underemployed if its that particular door, the person with a crap personality finds different problems - ie. getting divorced and shelling out alimony (or being with someone who loaths them), being the butt of jokes at work or living precariously in general, etc.

This reinforces that these filters shuts out a couple different groups, groups which sometimes but don't of any sheer necessity overlap.

You can just tell though when someone is a bit off.

I know this really normal looking guy. Looks are not his issue. He's buff too.

But the way he holds himself, the way he talks, the conversation you have with him. He's weird, but not in a quirky fun way. He's hard work.

Looks aren't always the issue.

Actually, most of the single guys I know have this frenetic nervousness about them that makes me anxious.... good thing I'm too old for them anyway and they're not interested in me, but that's them in their natural state, can you imagine what they're like with girls they fancy.

"Frenetic nervousness" is spot-on. When I was with my first girlfriend, freshman year of college, I was perpetually nervous around her, especially while on dates. Back then, I already knew that girls/women will lose interest in a man at any moment for any reason or even for no reason. So I was constantly worried that I might do something to make her stop liking me. Unfortunately, the only knowledge I had to fall back on were TV shows I watched and observing other couples around us during our dates. As well as hoping that our relationship gets serious quickly, so that I can stop worrying about her losing interest, or at least worry less. Needless to say, when I took her to a dance event a few months later, she didn't want to dance close with me. (Which meant she already stopped liking me before that night.) I pretty much ghosted her afterwards, without as much as calling her next morning to tell her I had a nice time at the dance.

What's sad and ironic is that a female friend I have today is more affectionate with me than my first girlfriend was. By "affectionate", I mean little things, like full-body hugs, cuddling, close dancing, hand touches, etc. I don't mean kissing or fondling, which would be inappropriate for friends to begin with. If she weren't 11 years younger than me, I'd sell my soul to have met her the same year in college. She's much more fun than my first girlfriend could ever be, and a lot better-looking too.

On the other hand, I was hideously ugly at age 18, but can pass for handsome today at 36. So I had that limitation to contend with: girls like my friend would want nothing to do with me. Which isn't true today, obviously.