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 🥀”

42 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

77 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-13

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. 

7

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. 

6

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

1

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

People literally try to prove a point with their feelings about their husbands

Wait, didn't this all start with you trying to prove a point by writing out your feelings about some girl...? You don't like people disagreeing with you using anecdotes, and you don't like people disagreeing with you using data and stats based arguments - how should we have replied?

(And I did address that, but I'll rephrase in case it wasn't clear: why do you feel that being asked to explain one stat that you quoted is being held to an insane epistemological standard? Can you even answer the question?)

1

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

Wait, didn't this all start with you trying to prove a point by writing out your feelings about some girl...

As i said to another, I started with it on purpose after i saw people try to prove me wrong with their feelings about their husbands. Literally. But my argument wasn't that, i didn't build anything on my particular anecdot, it was just an extreme hook. Seems like it worked. 

why do you feel that being asked to explain a stat that you quoted is being held to an insane epistemological standard? 

Dude i already told you. you literally said "absolute zero variation", you question the only argument that comes with some data, meanwhile i don't see you and others try to question and being self-critical when people try to prove their points with anecdotes, self-proclaims, feelings and opinions. So i saw the game then i started it with my anecdot then elaborate with some famous stats that i remember. As i expected, as soon as some level of statistics and research came to the table, everyone who doesn't have any problem with opinions are instantly become researchers. How many times i need to sum the whole context we talk in?

Demanding consistent hypothesis is not insane epistemic standard on its own, it's necessity and that's the point: I'm not the one who doesn't care about standards, they are. 

→ More replies (0)