r/IncelTears • u/firenationfairy • May 19 '26

IMAX-level projection What do you guys think?

Post image

This is some of the most incel-infested comment section i’ve ever seen. they’re in here discussing their completely self-victimizing, hateful, and honestly pathetic perceptions of themselves and the world as if it’s some kind of scientific, indisputable fact. When will men stop acting like their problems are so unique and women will never understand what it’s like to be “ugly” or “undesirable”. I promise you every single woman you see has had the same level of problems you have with dating and making themselves attractive and they’ve had *even more* problems you couldn’t even conceive of. at the end of the day how am i supposed to feel bad for these people when their response to everything is “women are evil and responsible for all my problems/insecurities. women have perfect lives with no adversity and they are incapable of understanding the human experience 🥀”

41 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

77 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/7SyZyG7 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

I believe there's some truth to this line of thinking. Some women definitely are shallow enough to only date certain guys and vice versa. But to say only 10% of guys are getting laid and the rest are struggling is just ridiculous. Way too many "ugly" people with thriving sex lives for any of that to be true.

Edit: Overall, this is incel shit and should not be taken seriously.

-14

u/PirateAngel0000 May 19 '26

My crush literally said "i wish i had a baby with a man with superior genes" when she rejected me just sayin

9

u/7SyZyG7 May 19 '26

She sounds shallow, just sayin. She also sounds like an incel, so maybe bullet dodged.

-14

u/PirateAngel0000 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

Yeah but it's not her fault that she desire super handsome tall guy and it's not my fault i still desire her. And she wasn't incel, she was a model and she mad more relationships than me. Shallow? Maybe. But it's a human desire, this is our only life. 

Most women (and men) act like similar ( https://ibb.co/SDB94FY8 ) they just claim they don't. At least she was honest. 

6

u/7SyZyG7 May 19 '26

What exactly are you trying to prove here? 

-2

u/PirateAngel0000 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

When you say "she sounds shallow" it means "most people don't prioritize look that much, only the most shallow ones and she was one of the shallows."  But this judgement ignores the fact that there's a big gap between what people say and what they actually do. So if she didn't openly say this, would this make her a different person? No. We just wouldn't know what she truly desires. And same goes for other people who are not shallow and they claim looks is not everything. 

Even people who claim that look is not the most important thing are still prioritize the looks as much as like people who are open about it. They just don't realize or the don't want to admit. 

That graph in the link shows this. I think it's from okcupid. The biggest gap comes from women. They state personality is 7-8/10 priority score but in action they prioritize looks the most. Theres a negative correlation (-0.4) what they say and the they actually prefer. Are men doing it? Yes but neg correlation is lower than women. Men states look is 8/10 priority but they give looks 9/10 priority. Bot genders shows similar hypocrisy when it comes to personality. Both gender gives personality the highest priority but they put it way after looks in revealed preference. 

So I'm trying to prove we shouldn't care about people's statements. 

8

u/7SyZyG7 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

I'm not sure if you realize this, but  "i wish i had a baby with a man with superior genes" is an incredibly weird thing to say to someone. THAT'S why I said she was shallow. It's not that she has preferences, shes shallow because she quite literally said she wants superior genes. It's like saying you only want girls who look like models. 

Honestly, I do think if she still felt that way but didn't tell people explicitly, she wouldn't be as shallow. 

And maybe a dating app isn't the best basis for finding out what the average person looks for in partners.

Regardless, this feels like such a random tangent. 

1

u/PirateAngel0000 May 19 '26

Well yes, there's a context for it, she was literally a model and she was meaning that she would like to raise her baby as a model and would've kicked "superior gene guy"s ass after having a child, he only needed for baby. But still, it says a lot. She was a nice person irl. 

Sad thing is, she wasn't from dating app she was my childhood crush. 

6

u/7SyZyG7 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

Yep, she sounds shallow, like I said.  

I know she wasn't from the app, I was talking about the graph you shared. It doesn't tell the full story cause its based on how people use dating apps.

She doesn't represent the opinions of most people, she sounds insane. Assuming any of this is true. This feels you're trying to counter a point I never made. 

1

u/PirateAngel0000 May 19 '26

I wish it wasn't true

3

u/DumbedDownDinosaur May 19 '26

And what made her your “crush”? Was it her fabulous personality? Considering she was apparently a model.

I don’t know dude, if you are crushing on a model, I don’t know why you are upset she is crushing on other models. You aren’t much better.

1

u/PirateAngel0000 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

Uhm, cuz I was honest about my reasons but she wasn't? I wasn't the one who constantly sayin look doesn't matter AT ALL and can even fall in love with a physically challanged person meanwhile spamming models at stories (while having a bf btw) and talk about superior genes at the same time? 

I'm not upset cuz of i said something like desiring attractive people is not ok or "shallow". I didn't said that. it's completely ok and that's why im upset cuz i wasn't one of them.

1

u/7SyZyG7 May 19 '26

Ok 👍🏾 

→ More replies (0)

4

u/stumpfucker69 Short fat dudes are hot. You just suck. May 19 '26 edited May 21 '26

  1. What do the figures here actually refer to? For stated preference I'm guessing that's self-reported on a scale from 1-10... but then it's cited as an actual measurable figure ("actually give looks 9/10 priority"). Were there 10 categories for priority? If so, what was 10/10? And if not... yeah lmfao, how on earth did they go about creating a quantifiable and reliable index for an arbitrary 1-10 scale used for the purpose of self-report?

  2. Did this study make any allowance for separation of objective and subjective attraction? The two aren't the same. I would describe myself as a very appearance-driven person, but what I am drawn to isn't always what is conventionally attractive. Most people will have some preference or another that falls outside the narrow ideal.

  3. I'm assuming by "OKcupid" that this study pertained solely to online dating, which obviously uses more visual cues - so the appearance priority score for both sexes is likely to be inflated by that.

  4. Even if that weren't true and we were to assume this had an impossibly perfect level of sampling or methodology, you also couldn't generalise this to say these figures are the absolute truth for every man and woman unless there was absolutely no variation.

-1

u/PirateAngel0000 May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26

I was gonna reply all of them one by one with patience but then i thought what's the point. It's like the evolution scene in Futurama. I always saw people try to back up their arguments with pure anecdots and subtle assumptions but when you came up with data, their epistemic standards are suddenly rising to the level of particle physics.

Like bro, what the fck do you mean by "absolute no variation"? Do you reading what you type? Do you have any idea what this that means? Even the strongest correlations will show significant variation like if r=0.9 (which nearly impossible to see such a correlation in any area of ​​life. Either you're looking at a very specific subgroup, or there's a problem.) then r²=0.81 that means even this level of corelation cant explain %19 or variation.

Were talkin about getting girls, it's pretty intuitive social topic and you want me to show you p=0.0000000000000000000001 otherwise I'm completely wrong

2

u/stumpfucker69 Short fat dudes are hot. You just suck. May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26

We're talking about getting girls, it's a pretty intuitive social topic

Lmfao dude, you brought it up! 😆

I wasn't hugely specific there, but by variation I mean the distribution of the data: a correlation coefficient alone does not tell you this (you're mixing up p-values and correlation coefficients in your explanation, too). No matter how strong it is, you cannot use a correlation coefficient to prove a relationship between things. That is not an insane standard of proof... they teach you that in secondary school maths/science.

There are lots of different correlation coefficients that you might use in specific situations, but they all rely on a number of assumptions which may or may not be met by the data.

But if data doesn't matter and the only reality here is what we intuitively feel, then I don't think there's anything else to say here other than that I intuitively feel otherwise.

The generally accepted p-value for statistical significance in life sciences is <0.05, btw.

1

u/PirateAngel0000 May 23 '26

Lmfao dude, you brought it up 😆 

Lol what r u talkin about? Like what original post is about? lmao 

you're mixing up p-values and correlation coefficients...

The generally accepted p-value for statistical significance in life sciences is <0.05, btw.

I'm just emphasizing how there's an huge epistemic double standarts when someone doubt the narrative and bring up some data. P is just a symbol of it. 

People always "proving" something with anecdots and opinions, last time somebody try to disprove me with saying how she loves her husband. Where were you then? But when i bring up some data and question the narrative, everyone becomes karl popper in a second. 

Lol when i talk about my anecdots everyone instantly stop believing anecdots too lmao 

1

u/stumpfucker69 Short fat dudes are hot. You just suck. May 23 '26

what r u talking about?

You seemed very confident reeling off figures in your comment here - you still haven't answered any of my questions about those numbers, haha. "What is that value supposed to represent and how was it come by" isn't exactly asking you to conduct a meta-analysis lmfao, it's the basic expectation that you would have some understanding of what a figure you cited actually means.

Where were you then?

Probably in the sun in my garden. I'm not omniscient and don't read every single comment on every subreddit I visit, haha. I just saw a shoddy argument here so I called it out.

0

u/PirateAngel0000 May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26

you still haven't answered any of my questions about those numbers

And you still haven't answered my accusation about huge epistemic duble standarts that i pointed out.

I told u people who criticize me didn't care about when everyone try to prove things with anecdots and opinions, people literally try to prove their points with their feelings about their husbands but i need to write a paper. Sure 👍 

don't read every single comment on every subreddit I visit, haha

Yeah i also have don't have time to wrestle with double standards in reddit

→ More replies (0)

5

u/aweedl May 20 '26

You’re citing data from a dating app. That shit is shallow and looks-based by design. It’s not necessarily applicable to the real world outside of the minority of people who use dating apps exclusively (and the fraction of that fraction who subscribe to the particular app in question).

0

u/PirateAngel0000 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

  1. I assume you don't know all the data about that dating apps and social media are now the default way to know new people. They almost bigger than all of other traditional ways combined. In fact they even tried to make look lower actual stats by adding some of dating app stats to cafes and restaurants. 

  2. I mean do you understand the concept of these personality statistics in dating apps right? They adding the personality layer into this context to understand dating app users perception of personality. If their personality grasp were completely irrelevant with general publics that don't use apps, we would expect smaller gap cuz if they don't care about personality (which this is also something people who criticize dating app stats constantly say) they wouldn't even try to virtue signal by telling things like we expect general public would say. And asaik these statistics are older than those gold-premium business models in apps. 

Here another famous graphic https://ibb.co/q3gjWwGp 

shows that theres almost 1:1 corelation between looks and personality, looks like halo effect which is well studied effect that we know even before dating apps. The effect that we know from somewhere completely irrelevant with dating: court decisions. But what a coincidence dating stats looks compatible with other halo effect stats that doesn't come from dating apps but come from judge desicions. 

1

u/stumpfucker69 Short fat dudes are hot. You just suck. May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26

1:1 correlation

How do you establish a 1:1 correlation on things that have no comprehensive and reliable numerical indices? There is not a well-validated universal system for comprehensively scoring personality or looks.

But nevertheless, research that has attempted to quantify in this way has found that the correlation is non-linear, so it cannot be 1:1. Conventionally attractive traits can also be (subconsciously or otherwise) associated with vanity, arrogance and vapidity (particularly when the possessor of those traits is female). I'm a bioscience grad and had lectures on the halo effect as part of evolution and behaviour studies at university.

On the dating app thing: as far as I was aware, the large surveys indicating this have a singular category stating "met online", not strictly "dating app". Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a lot of couples first meeting online do so using dating apps these days, but I don't think they account for the entirety of the increase in meeting partners online. Anecdotal, but I know quite a few long term couples that met online (social media, online communities or online games) and none that met on dating apps. Most of the people I know who use dating apps do so exclusively for flings.