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

Page 9 of 32 [ 474 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 32  Next

The Grand Inquisitor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2015
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,741
Location: Australia

07 Aug 2019, 9:17 pm

Fnord wrote:
magz wrote:
Fnord wrote:
magz wrote:
... I still don't get how you link Origen's misogyny (or what appears misogynic to today's reader) to current day frustrations about not having sex.
It's more like the Incels were looking for excuses for their involuntary celibacy, stumbled upon Origen, and found in it their reasons for cause. It's a cart-before-the-horse thing.
Do you mean it's just looking for a scapegoat to blame?
Yes, that seems to be a common behavior among Incels -- fail first and find something to blame later (anything but themselves, that is), when they should work on improving themselves first before attempting to find a date.
magz wrote:
Then I guess Origen is not better or worse than anything or anyone. You can't get laid because of Jengis Khan and Captain Picard. And that annoying miniature pintscher your neighbor owns.
Maybe that's why the current Administration blames the previous Administration for so many things...

:wink: :lol:

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.



Rainbow_Belle
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 60
Location: Sydney

07 Aug 2019, 9:36 pm

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.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,546
Location: New York City (Queens)

07 Aug 2019, 11:54 pm

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


_________________
- Finally diagnosed with ASD in May 2019, after having suspected it for over ten years, and after having deeply explored the autism community for over one year while waiting for and obtaining diagnosis.
- In longterm relationship with boyfriend who was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome in 2001.
- Long history of participation in various oddball subcultures.
- My "Getting to know each other" thread: Hello from NYC.


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,263
Location: Poland

08 Aug 2019, 1:21 am

The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
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.

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.


_________________
Keep calm and choose your battles carefully.


The Grand Inquisitor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2015
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,741
Location: Australia

08 Aug 2019, 3:01 am

magz wrote:
The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
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.

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.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,736
Location: Sweden

08 Aug 2019, 3:39 am

Mona Pereth wrote:
I've identified with various subcultures to an extent, but far from completely. I tend to be drawn to newly-forming fringe groups within a given subculture. In my experience, newly-forming fringe groups tended to be dominated by people who I now think were probably autistic or otherwise neurodivergent, whereas, once the group got more established, it tended to be taken over by people who I now think were probably NTs. Sometimes the founders then moved on the create new fringe groups.


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.

Mona Pereth wrote:
Yes, but it takes time to get to know a potential love interest, and the easiest way to get to know a potential love interest is through mutual friends, or at least mutual acquaintances. And, if you don't fit well into mainstream society, then the easiest way to find a network of mutual friends, or at least mutual acquaintances, is via oddball subcultures.


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.

Mona Pereth wrote:
Well, your daughter is genetically similar enough to you that you can read her natural body language, and she also talked at home, so you knew her very well.


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.



Aspie1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,534
Location: United States

08 Aug 2019, 10:58 pm

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.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,546
Location: New York City (Queens)

09 Aug 2019, 1:06 am

rdos wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
Well, your daughter is genetically similar enough to you that you can read her natural body language, and she also talked at home, so you knew her very well.


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.

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.

rdos wrote:
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),

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.

rdos wrote:
while I would check them out with the eye contact game and observe them from a distance.

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"?


_________________
- Finally diagnosed with ASD in May 2019, after having suspected it for over ten years, and after having deeply explored the autism community for over one year while waiting for and obtaining diagnosis.
- In longterm relationship with boyfriend who was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome in 2001.
- Long history of participation in various oddball subcultures.
- My "Getting to know each other" thread: Hello from NYC.


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,736
Location: Sweden

09 Aug 2019, 3:04 am

Mona Pereth wrote:
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.


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

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.

Mona Pereth wrote:
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"?


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.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,546
Location: New York City (Queens)

09 Aug 2019, 4:19 pm

Aspie1 wrote:
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.

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?


_________________
- Finally diagnosed with ASD in May 2019, after having suspected it for over ten years, and after having deeply explored the autism community for over one year while waiting for and obtaining diagnosis.
- In longterm relationship with boyfriend who was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome in 2001.
- Long history of participation in various oddball subcultures.
- My "Getting to know each other" thread: Hello from NYC.


DanielW
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 486
Location: PNW USA

09 Aug 2019, 4:29 pm

eternal suffering wrote:
If you've ever spent any time observing or engaging with the incel community it becomes clear that many or even perhaps most of them are on the autism spectrum. Most of them aren't just losers in that they can't get laid but they're also unemployed, lack friends, have severe social anxiety and depression, barely ever leave their house etc. which are all common issues for those of an autistic persuasion and shouldn't be the case if their only issue was that they simply weren't that attractive.
Moreover it was confirmed that both Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian, the two mass killers known to have been influenced by the incel subculture and to have had an incel motive, were diagnosed with autism. I'm not sure about Alek, but Elliot never even approached a girl. Neither of them were ugly, in fact Elliot was rather good looking like many self-described incels that I've seen. Despite this they seemed to have believed that the issue was that they simply weren't physically attractive enough to find a girl willing to date or engage in coitus with them.
Incels generally believe that only an elite minority of 'chads' blessed with chiseled jaws and the like ever get any action and that the vast majority of men are miserable lonely rejects like them as apparently women have massively inflated standards, but obviously this is delusional and the vast majority of NTs don't share their struggle even though few of them would qualify as 'chads'.
So what gives? Are they aware of their social difficulties yet for some reason ashamed of them and would rather believe their problem lies in their supposedly subpar looks instead, or are they really just lacking in self-awareness and their autism gives them a flawed understanding of social interactions and leads them to think that sex and social relationships are things that just automatically occur after one passes a certain threshold in physical attractiveness?


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



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,546
Location: New York City (Queens)

09 Aug 2019, 9:12 pm

rdos wrote:
Nice to talk to somebody that has taken courses about electromagnetic field theory too. :wink:

I don't think you need antennas or amplifiers to transmit electromagnetic signals.

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.

rdos wrote:
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.

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.

rdos wrote:
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).

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

rdos wrote:
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.

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?

rdos wrote:
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.

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.

rdos wrote:
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

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.)

rdos wrote:
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).

Yep.

rdos wrote:
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,

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.

rdos wrote:
the receiver very sensitive, which will work on large distances.

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

rdos wrote:
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.

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.

rdos wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
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"?


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.

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


_________________
- Finally diagnosed with ASD in May 2019, after having suspected it for over ten years, and after having deeply explored the autism community for over one year while waiting for and obtaining diagnosis.
- In longterm relationship with boyfriend who was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome in 2001.
- Long history of participation in various oddball subcultures.
- My "Getting to know each other" thread: Hello from NYC.


Rainbow_Belle
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 60
Location: Sydney

09 Aug 2019, 9:44 pm

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.



Aspie1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,534
Location: United States

10 Aug 2019, 12:45 am

Mona Pereth wrote:
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?
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.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,736
Location: Sweden

12 Aug 2019, 3:58 am

Mona Pereth wrote:
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.


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.

Mona Pereth wrote:
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.


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.

Mona Pereth wrote:
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 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.

Mona Pereth wrote:
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.


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.

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


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.

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


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.

Mona Pereth wrote:
rdos wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
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"?


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.

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


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.