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

Post Reply New Topic

You realise that not everyone who fails is entirely to blame for their own faliure, right? They're mostly if not wholly responsible for ensuring they succeed, but other people and factors can sabotage your success.

It would be unfair to blame someone who is autistic for having underdeveloped social skills, for instance. Sure, it's up to them to improve, but that doesn't mean it's their fault that their social skills aren't as good as everyone else's. This is especially true if they've already taken measures to improve their social skills that haven't worked out.

It just seems like you're trying to put all of the blame on people who chronically struggle with love and dating for the position that they're in, which isn't fair. While most bear at least some responsibility, there's a myriad of factors that could affect their success in love and dating that were/are beyond their control. Yes, they're responsible for rectifying the problem but that doesn't mean they're entirely to blame for the problem existing in the first place.

More to do with social class, education level, being disabled and lack of social network that are hard to change or improve.
The comments of advice from keyboard warriors are usually condescending, arrogance, insults that only rile people up and add no value. It is best to ignore advice that is negative and is hostile. Only constructive comments should be encouraged, and insults, negativity should be censored.

To RDOS: Please see my reply to you here (as well as my reply to you here in this thread).

I don't know about Fnord but I was refering to blaming Origen and purity culture for development on incel problems.

I'm totally aware that guys who can't get date are often unable to change their situation themselves. I'm sympathetic to the struggle, even if I can't really do much about it. I just can't understand how some ancient Bible commenter would be linked to the problem. If you can explain it, I'm all ears.

My reply was meant for just Fnord. I probably should have removed some if the quotes.

That's my impression too. It can go the other way too. When some subculture falls out of popularity the people that stay (or enroll despite it being unpopular) will often be NDs. One such is folk music and dancing, which is not very popular among NTs and have a lot of odd people.



I don't think we disagree on how to best meet potential partners. It's more about how we go about to identify them and build a connection. You seem to prefer talking and making friends (which I consider NT ways), while I would check them out with the eye contact game and observe them from a distance. I think both methods have merits for different people. If you don't form intimate connections with friends then using the friend path might not work. If you cannot handle the natural (in my opinion) ND communication then the "distance" method might not work.

I think regardless of the method used, the biggest problem is how to make things advance to a more ordinary romantic relationship.



That's long been my opinion too, but given that I have been unable to identify ND specific body language quirks, I nowadays tend to find it unlikely. For instance, there are no variants of facial expressions that NDs use, rather all of the facial expressions seem to be learnt by NDs. While stims have some communicative function, it's very limited and many stims are non-specific. And none of the potential body language mechanisms can handle more complex things that can only be expressed with talking.

So, either we take the position that spoken language is some super-ability we acquired in a very short timeframe (less than a few million years), which seems to be a highly unlikely position given the complexity of it, or talking is just one of many possible ways to get complex thoughts through. We already know that talking can be substituted for sign language and writing, and so why can't it also work with electromagnetic fields? Actually, it does work with electromagnetic fields since we can type to each other here, so the issue more becomes if animals & humans have some electromagnetic device that can be used for communication.

The idea that a man must look sexy in order to attract women is a relatively recent development. PUA (which is a predecessor to the Red Pill, MGTOW, and Incels) used to say that looks are mostly irrelevant in a man. As long as you know the right communication methods, you'll meet women easily. And the PUA books taught those methods. Even so, I went in for a plastic surgery consultation, after a waitress told her colleague that my eyes were creepy. So that idea isn't entirely true.

Later on, after the Red Pill came about, that changed. Newer materials started saying that looks are what matters the most in attracting women. The Incels must have read the more recent materials. Hence, they blame everything on their bad looks.

Speaking as a person who took college courses in electromagnetic field theory and worked as an electronic engineer in my twenties and early thirties:

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the human brain is capable of transmitting an electromagnetic signal strong enough to be detected by another human brain, nor am I aware of any evidence that the human brain (or any other part of the human nervous system) contains anything like an antenna that could be used to transmit or receive such a signal between brains. Of course there's lots of electrical activity within our brains. But sending a signal between two people's brains would require an antenna and some means of amplifying the signal before sending it. Without this, even if you and I were standing right next to each other, any electromagnetic signal emitted by your brain would be completely drowned out, within my brain, by all the electrical signaling going on within my brain. All the more so would it be drowned out if you and I were any further apart than right next to each other.

Given the large amount of studies that have been done of the electrical activity in the human brain and nervous system, including autistic brains, I think it would have been noticed by now if the human brain or nervous system contained anything like an antenna and an amplifier.

Assuming you're telling the truth about your experiences as you understand them, my guess would be that both you and the women you've managed to establish a "mind-to-mind communication link" with are just people with excellent intuition about people (or at least people of your own kind) whom you have gotten to know very well.

I see no reason to believe that all or most autistic people, or all or most neurodivergent people, have a similar talent, although it might be possible that people of your particular kind are a significant minority subtype of autistic people.


I wouldn't think of it as "NT ways," given that the kind of talking I do is very different from the kind of talking NTs usually do.


How does your version of the eye contact game differ from the NT version described in How to Flirt With Eye Contact (WikiHow), or in various other pages that come up when you Google "flirt eye contact"?

Nice to talk to somebody that has taken courses about electromagnetic field theory too.

I don't think you need antennas or amplifiers to transmit electromagnetic signals. These actually appear as soon as a charged particles move. They also appear as side-effects of high frequency electronics, which is why we have EMC directives.

It's also been discovered that some birds can detect changes in the earth electromagnetic field, which means at least these have the required detector for static fields (and it's not an antenna).

Additionally, it's a bit hard to explain why some people cannot live in houses with a lot of electromagnetic fields, and we also have the issues of old computer screens that some people (myself included) had problems with.

So, I think you need to rethink the position that antennas, amplifiers, oscillators, and wires are required for creating electromagnetic fields. It's only how we create them with the means we invented.

Also, if we can detect a signal or not depends more on how sensitive the receiver is than how strong the sender is. I also expect some advanced coding being used because if we sent some general signal anybody could pick up and understand, we would be flooded with messages (not to mention the integrity aspect of it). So, I actually think evolution has worked quite a bit on this to create private systems as well as within-species only systems. Given the complexity of this, as well as the complexity of human verbal communication, I think evolution has used many 100s of millions of years on this, and so we can expect some advanced methods being used. If a signal has a really smart coding, it can be picked up even in the presence of lots of noise, which means the sender can be weaker, the receiver very sensitive, which will work on large distances. A smart coding requires some learning period, which I think is the reason why two people need some time to "sync" before they can communicate this way. I also think they must be unable to use normal verbal communication since the brain is lazy. And the reason typical humans cannot handle this very well is because they rely too much on verbal communication.

One might also speculate that the reason Temple Gradin and some other autistic people can communicate with animals is because they can tap into some of these systems in animals, and not because of "intuition" or other senses.



Some of the scenarios are a bit unspecific, but generally speaking it is this:

1. I don't do it with somebody I talk to or as part of typical social interaction. It should be at a distance (at least five meters or so) with no other contact.

2. I will look away as soon as the girl looks my way, and then, at a later time, repeat and look again. The purpose is not to have extended eye contact.

3. I never smile, use my tongue, fiddle with hair or other NT-typical flirting signals.

Yes, it used to be just women who had to be beautiful or else. Do you think the "Red Pill" ideology (I'm not sure what that is, exactly, beyond the reference to "The Matrix") is a response to today's dating apps?

They have to blame something...and it certainly can't be their sparkling, charismatic personaliies.

Indeed, you don't, if you're talking about very simple signals. But the question is whether our brains can transit an information-rich signal that another brain would be able to detect above its own internal electrical noise. That would be hard to do without an antenna and amplifier, it seems to me. And the signals you've hypothesized are ones complex enough to carry a lot of information.


The side-effects are noise, not the signal itself, and they interfere with other signals if the EMC directives are not followed.

Speaking of EMC: Your hypothesis would require the biological equivalent of EMC directives, so that the signals between any two people don't interfere with the signals between any two other people.


As you said, static fields, a very simple signal, not the complex information-rich kind of signal you're hypothesizing.


Being harmed by something doesn't necessarily imply that your body has an as-yet-undiscovered use for some other variant of the same thing, although it does suggest that as one possibility.

However, if you think this is an important clue that may be relevant to your hypothesis, have you looked into the electromagnetic specifics of what made the offending "old computer screens" different from other computer screens in ways that could conceivably be relevant?


I didn't say "wires." And, if our brains did contain anything like an antenna and an amplifier, I wouldn't expect them to have any obvious physical resemblance to the ones that humans have created via technology. Nevertheless I would expect them to have been detected by now via at least one of the many investigations that have been done into the brain's electrical activity.


I agree, your hypothesis implies very advanced coding. That's part of the problem, and part of the reason why it does require something like an antenna and an amplifier to transmit it so it isn't drowned out by noise.

Another requirement: You need to be able to receive the signal at a distance. What is the maximum distance, if any, in your experience?

Also, in your experience, does the signal go through walls? (In that case it can't be anywhere near the visible light frequency range.)


Yep.


No. On the contrary, it's easier to detect a simpler signal than a more complex one. It's true that some kinds of coding are more noise-resistant than others, e.g. digital is better than analog in this regard, but even the more noise-resistant signals can get drowned out if they aren't strong enough to begin with.


Large distances require that the signal be sufficiently strong when transmitted, no matter how sensitive the receiver.


Intuition or other senses are still the more likely explanation, it seems to me. And, yes, nonverbal people would need to develop them more keenly than others.


So, what aspects of the girl's response let you know whether you've been successful or not?

Solely based on looks applies only to online dating. Online dating is full of fakes, flakes, cat fish and scammers that can easily steal photos and make accounts. Solely relying upon online dating and getting upset by no success only reenforces negative self esteem and lowers confidence. Movie star, sports stars and rich celebrities are never going to be on free dating sites aimed at the masses.

The Red Pill is, allegedly, a school of thought and philosophy that teaches men how women's sexual attraction actually works, as opposed to how the mainstream media says it works. There are disagreements on that, no doubt, but it's how they self-identify

It goes without saying that dating apps influenced the development of the Red Pill. It was founded in 2012, when Tinder grew far and wide. But I don't know much else about its growth. When I discovered it, it was already pretty developed, so I missed its nascent years.

Talking doesn't require high bandwidths. We were able to send things similar to talking with morse code using a very low bandwidth of only a few Hz. Compare that to how much you can code onto a transmitter in the MHz or GHz area. Thus, while the coding probably is complex, a high bandwidth is not required. The signal could be sent with lots of redundant information and with ineffective coding compared to what we can achieve with things like TV broadcasts.

According to my experience, everything we exchange could easily be sent using a 1Hz channel. It's not images, not brain-waves and the exchange typically takes seconds.



I think this is "solved" by having lots of redundant information in the messages that the brain use as an "address". Could also be that everything is encrypted with a private key. That's why there is a "setup" phase before you can communicate.



I find it pretty much out of the question that it is the brain's electrical activity that is transmitted. That kind of signal has much too high bandwidth requirements.



Advanced coding doesn't need to mean high bandwidth. If you send the same thing 1000 times then noise can drown 999 of the messages and still detect the last one.



It varies a bit based on what can be transferred. Basic things like the direction sense work up to 300km, while more complex exchanges seem to require distances less than 10-20km (although it's gradual). I'd say the closer the more complex exchanges can be made (maybe down to 1km, when distance doesn't seem to be a factor anymore). I also think the direction sense sometimes gets messed up somewhat at close distances, and hot & dry weather seem to make the connection more error-prone.



Certainly. At least normal ones. I think the signals are in the MHz area, but it's possible, but less likely, that they could be in the kHz or GHz area too.

Another thing to consider is the click sounds that dolphins and whales emit. Scientists are unable to decode these, and they could actually be as complex as mind-to-mind communication. You cannot use electromagnetic fields in water, and so this could be an adaptation to sea living with similar complexity. It's also conceivable that bird song could be another example.



Definitely the repeat aspect & things happening outside of social interaction & conversation. A girl can look my way for no reason once, but if it happens repeatedly, then there is likely something more to it than chance.

Essentially what these birds have is a compass. See We Finally Know How Birds Can See Earth's Magnetic Field. And, as we both noted earlier, what they are detecting is a static field, not a signal.

I would further point out that the Earth is big, at least compared to any animal living on the Earth. Any change to the Earth's magnetic field would result from electromagnetically very powerful goings-on inside the Earth's core. The change (and the field itself) might be locally very small, but very big and powerful overall, relative to any electromagnetic goings-on within any animal's own body.