Info Is Inceldom Really Determined by a Few Millimeters of Bone? A Brief Summarization of Nuancepills Research Article.

[apatheia]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

Is Inceldom Really Determined by a Few Millimeters of Bone? A Brief Summarization.​

---

This post will summarize the contents of this research article from "The Nuancepill" 's substack. I highly recommend reading Nuancepills work if you are interested in learning the scientific truth of the "blackpill". All credit goes to Nuancepill.

Spoiler: NOTICE

If you are worried about the article linked here being a IP grabber, I will be more than willing to copy and paste these articles as separate posts on looksmaxxing.com if allowed.

Spoiler: Source

https://nuancepill.substack.com/p/is-inceldom-really-determined-by

Overall, 21 studies have been cited in the stated research article.

---

~—• Contents •—~

• A 16 bullet point summary of stated research article.
• Notable Quotes
• Personal Thoughts

---

~—• Introduction •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill has come to call those who support the view of the lookism blackpill as "morphological reductionists" or MR's for short. MR's view the blackpill as the truth, and that most men are being peddled "personality is key" lies.

- Critics who say they see plenty of ugly men in a relationship with women are often disregarded by MR's. MR's see the couple as an exception and say that the critic has spotted a "$ beta-buxx $".

- Nuancepill uses empirical scientific evidence to see if your looks are the cause of inceldom.

~—• Do looks predict sexual experience? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill curated 10 studies (Dates ranging from 1987 - 2022) and examined them to answer the question "do looks predict sexual experience"

- Studies correlations ranged from r = .03 to r = .35 (Very small to medium correlation)

- Weighted average effect size of r = 0.18, which is a small effect size.

~—• Timing of sexual initiation: Do more attractive men lose their virginity earlier on? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill conducted a meta-analysis of studies between physical attractiveness and age which men lost their virginity.

- Weighted average correlation result of r = -.06 (Marginal).

- Meaning men who lost their virginity earlier on were only very slightly considered more attractive.

~—• Conclusion •—~

Spoiler

This analysis suggests that it’s probably blue-pilled normies who are closer to the truth after all. While looks seem to have a noticeable effect, it’s not large, let alone all-encompassing. The overlap between the looks distributions of sexually experienced and inexperienced men is significantly greater than the separation.

- Correlation of attractiveness and age of loss of virginity only had a very, very small correlation.

- Nuancepill also references "datepsychology"'s research article on male attractiveness and sexual partner count, where the author found a weak correlation between the two variables. 44 studies were used in the article.

- Nuancepill states that there are a few limitations such as reliability of ratings and volcels who chose not to have sex until marriage due to religious reasons.

~—• Why is there so much hype around looks as a determinant of these outcomes when the association appears to be relatively modest at best? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill comes up with the guess that blackpillers believe that looks matter more than the general public says, and also the "allure" of controversy and feeling prideful in knowing forbidden knowledge.

"To black pillers, their belief in the all-encompassing primacy of looks is arguably central to their identity as enlightened outsiders. Ironically, for many in these communities, it may be the only thing keeping their self-esteem from hitting rock bottom. This drive often precedes rational thought, however, leading to conclusions significantly more detached from reality than any that come from the ‘blue pilled normies’ they mock."

"Of course, the idea that ‘looks matter’ isn’t pure fantasy—people being attracted to attractive people is practically a tautology. However, looks seem to influence the ‘league’ one dates within more than whether one dates at all, as assortative mating shows a stronger correlation than other outcomes like those looked at here. Celibacy is not something that can be accurately measured by facial proportions."

---

~—• My Input •—~

Spoiler

Considering the fact that Nuancepill used empirical scientific evidence in this article, I will trust his word that is backed by studies more than a "brutal" blackpill theory that may post only one or two mediocre studies (Or none at all, as I have been seeing recently) to back their claim(s). Sometimes, at best, they will cherry-pick a "brutal" video/photo from social media as proof or use a personal anecdote, or a story from reddit.

In my opinion, you would most likely have to be in the bottom 5% of physical genetics and "SMV" to even be considered out of the dating game or "over" and therefore experience inceldom. As Nuancepill said, it is much more of a nihilistic coping mechanism, much more than reality.

And the lookism blackpill sphere is something I believe is now turning into just another grift space to mill courses and overpriced products to profit off from the easily influential youth, (just like the redpill sphere) where "looksmax" gurus come into play. (K. Shami, Clavicular, Salludon, Faceiq, Oscar Patel, Androgenic, Wheatwaffles, Qoves, Nero Angelo, etc.)

If anyone starts to sell a course, or any product for that matter, just understand that 99% of the time, they are no longer interested in telling you the truth anymore, they are there to make their product look desirable by whatever means possible to make as much $ money $ as possible. That is simply $ marketing 101 $. (Faceiq has already been exposed for just making up things on one of his YouTube videos.)

And so, they will parrot the blackpill as the one and only "truth" so you invest in their course, even though life is truly nuanced, not black and white.

However that is a topic for another post. I will make a future post about the blackpill/looksmax gurus.

The ones that hold the blackpill perspective mainly either become narcissistic and egotistical due to fitting or believing they fit into the "PSL" standards of being a "HTN+ / HTB+" and therefore being a "mogger/fogger," ("blackgymmax", "clavicular", "faceiq" for example) or the ones who do not fit the "PSL" standards may become extremely depressed and may eventually become shut-in and choose to live in the black fog of delusion until the day of their double jaw surgery appointment.

Does this mean to disregard looksmaxxing completely? In my opinion, probably not, more likely it is just another thing to add to your self-improvement routine. Studies have shown that dating is assortative, so if it is true, looksmaxxing would be for the purpose of influencing around a "looks/smv league" you previously were "not in", but then again, that is entirely nuanced territory and there is many other variables at play than just looks. However, more research would have to be done on my end to completely verify this. Thankfully, people such as Nuancepill and Datepsychology already do the paramount task of gathering studies and synthesizing them into accurate research articles.

Be wary of how much time you spend on these forums, "looksmaxxing", and on other related media as sunk cost fallacy will come into play.

I do not expect you to agree with everything I said in my input after all, some of it is just purely my opinion and maybe my words are too comforting and "bluepilled" for you, reader, but if you were to take away anything from my input, just remember: Real life is nuanced, not black and white, and that it only takes one.

Thank you for reading.

What are your thoughts, reader?

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

"...I have seen the beauty of good and the ugliness of evil..."
​

 

[boxeur]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

Is Inceldom Really Determined by a Few Millimeters of Bone? A Brief Summarization.​

---

This post will summarize the contents of this research article from "The Nuancepill" 's substack. I highly recommend reading Nuancepills work if you are interested in learning the scientific truth of the "blackpill". All credit goes to Nuancepill.

Spoiler: NOTICE

If you are worried about the article linked here being a IP grabber, I will be more than willing to copy and paste these articles as separate posts on looksmaxxing.com if allowed.

Spoiler: Source

https://nuancepill.substack.com/p/is-inceldom-really-determined-by

Overall, 21 studies have been cited in the stated research article.

---

~—• Contents •—~

---

~—• Introduction •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill has come to call those who support the view of the lookism blackpill as "morphological reductionists" or MR's for short. MR's view the blackpill as the truth, and that most men are being peddled "personality is key" lies.

- Critics who say they see plenty of ugly men in a relationship with women are often disregarded by MR's. MR's see the couple as an exception and say that the critic has spotted a "$ beta-buxx $".

- Nuancepill uses empirical scientific evidence to see if your looks are the cause of inceldom.

~—• Do looks predict sexual experience? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill curated 10 studies (Dates ranging from 1987 - 2022) and examined them to answer the question "do looks predict sexual experience"

- Studies correlations ranged from r = .03 to r = .35 (Very small to medium correlation)

- Weighted average effect size of r = 0.18, which is a small effect size.

~—• Timing of sexual initiation: Do more attractive men lose their virginity earlier on? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill conducted a meta-analysis of studies between physical attractiveness and age which men lost their virginity.

- Weighted average correlation result of r = -.06 (Marginal).

- Meaning men who lost their virginity earlier on were only very slightly considered more attractive.

~—• Conclusion •—~

Spoiler

- Correlation of attractiveness and age of loss of virginity only had a very, very small correlation.

- Nuancepill also references "datepsychology"'s research article on male attractiveness and sexual partner count, where the author found a weak correlation between the two variables. 44 studies were used in the article.

- Nuancepill states that there are a few limitations such as reliability of ratings and volcels who chose not to have sex until marriage due to religious reasons.

~—• Why is there so much hype around looks as a determinant of these outcomes when the association appears to be relatively modest at best? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill comes up with the guess that blackpillers believe that looks matter more than the general public says, and also the "allure" of controversy and feeling prideful in knowing forbidden knowledge.

---

~—• My Input •—~

Spoiler

Considering the fact that Nuancepill used empirical scientific evidence in this article, I will trust his word that is backed by studies more than a "brutal" blackpill theory that may post only one or two mediocre studies (Or none at all, as I have been seeing recently) to back their claim(s). Sometimes, at best, they will cherry-pick a "brutal" video/photo from social media as proof or use a personal anecdote, or a story from reddit.

In my opinion, you would most likely have to be in the bottom 5% of physical genetics and "SMV" to even be considered out of the dating game or "over" and therefore experience inceldom. As Nuancepill said, it is much more of a nihilistic coping mechanism, much more than reality.

And the lookism blackpill sphere is something I believe is now turning into just another grift space to mill courses and overpriced products to profit off from the easily influential youth, (just like the redpill sphere) where "looksmax" gurus come into play. (K. Shami, Clavicular, Salludon, Faceiq, Oscar Patel, Androgenic, Wheatwaffles, Qoves, Nero Angelo, etc.)

If anyone starts to sell a course, or any product for that matter, just understand that 99% of the time, they are no longer interested in telling you the truth anymore, they are there to make their product look desirable by whatever means possible to make as much $ money $ as possible. That is simply $ marketing 101 $. (Faceiq has already been exposed for just making up things on one of his YouTube videos.)

And so, they will parrot the blackpill as the one and only "truth" so you invest in their course, even though life is truly nuanced, not black and white.

However that is a topic for another post. I will make a future post about the blackpill/looksmax gurus.

The ones that hold the blackpill perspective mainly either become narcissistic and egotistical due to fitting or believing they fit into the "PSL" standards of being a "HTN+ / HTB+" and therefore being a "mogger/fogger," ("blackgymmax", "clavicular", "faceiq" for example) or the ones who do not fit the "PSL" standards may become extremely depressed and may eventually become shut-in and choose to live in the black fog of delusion until the day of their double jaw surgery appointment.

Does this mean to disregard looksmaxxing completely? In my opinion, probably not, more likely it is just another thing to add to your self-improvement routine. Studies have shown that dating is assortative, so if it is true, looksmaxxing would be for the purpose of influencing around a "looks/smv league" you previously were "not in", but then again, that is entirely nuanced territory and there is many other variables at play than just looks. However, more research would have to be done on my end to completely verify this. Thankfully, people such as Nuancepill and Datepsychology already do the paramount task of gathering studies and synthesizing them into accurate research articles.

Be wary of how much time you spend on these forums, "looksmaxxing", and on other related media as sunk cost fallacy will come into play.

I do not expect you to agree with everything I said in my input after all, some of it is just purely my opinion and maybe my words are too comforting and "bluepilled" for you, reader, but if you were to take away anything from my input, just remember: Real life is nuanced, not black and white, and that it only takes one.

Thank you for reading.

What are your thoughts, reader?

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

"...I have seen the beauty of good and the ugliness of evil..."
​

damn mirin formatting

 

[roveaa]

Ts is your first post bhai chill

 

[ProperPleb2]

I don't think you know what brief means

 

[apatheia]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

I understand your perspective. However, my summarization has about 80% less words than the original article. (Not including the "My Input" section) I would consider it brief in that sense.

However, if you would like the TLDR:

The author researched and synthesized 22 studies in this specific article to see if there was any correlation between looks and sexual success: No meaningful effect size.

Also checked to see if more attractive men lost their virginity earlier: No meaningful effect size.

 

[dipenhydramine]

who cares its not that deep

 

[apatheia]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

who cares its not that deep

I understand that this comment is most likely rage bait, however I would like to clarify that people become majorly depressed or end up taking their lives due to the peddling of the lookism blackpill ideology. Considering that the lookism blackpill ideology is growing, mainly due to looksmaxxing, and you add in the factor that humans spend more time online than ever, there brings a worrisome future where more people take their lives because their favorite looksmax scam guru told them to rope.

In my experience, the blackpill was a joke/for fun until I realized the depravity of the blackpill, became a hardcore believer of it, then did my own research and found the truth: The lookism blackpill is not what it is chalked up to be. I am not saying that "lookism blackpill" is totally nonexistent, it is just very underwhelming.

 

[tuberculosisinmybal]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

Is Inceldom Really Determined by a Few Millimeters of Bone? A Brief Summarization.​

---

This post will summarize the contents of this research article from "The Nuancepill" 's substack. I highly recommend reading Nuancepills work if you are interested in learning the scientific truth of the "blackpill". All credit goes to Nuancepill.

Spoiler: NOTICE

If you are worried about the article linked here being a IP grabber, I will be more than willing to copy and paste these articles as separate posts on looksmaxxing.com if allowed.

Spoiler: Source

https://nuancepill.substack.com/p/is-inceldom-really-determined-by

Overall, 21 studies have been cited in the stated research article.

---

~—• Contents •—~

---

~—• Introduction •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill has come to call those who support the view of the lookism blackpill as "morphological reductionists" or MR's for short. MR's view the blackpill as the truth, and that most men are being peddled "personality is key" lies.

- Critics who say they see plenty of ugly men in a relationship with women are often disregarded by MR's. MR's see the couple as an exception and say that the critic has spotted a "$ beta-buxx $".

- Nuancepill uses empirical scientific evidence to see if your looks are the cause of inceldom.

~—• Do looks predict sexual experience? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill curated 10 studies (Dates ranging from 1987 - 2022) and examined them to answer the question "do looks predict sexual experience"

- Studies correlations ranged from r = .03 to r = .35 (Very small to medium correlation)

- Weighted average effect size of r = 0.18, which is a small effect size.

~—• Timing of sexual initiation: Do more attractive men lose their virginity earlier on? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill conducted a meta-analysis of studies between physical attractiveness and age which men lost their virginity.

- Weighted average correlation result of r = -.06 (Marginal).

- Meaning men who lost their virginity earlier on were only very slightly considered more attractive.

View attachment 145636

~—• Conclusion •—~

Spoiler

View attachment 145638


- Correlation of attractiveness and age of loss of virginity only had a very, very small correlation.

- Nuancepill also references "datepsychology"'s research article on male attractiveness and sexual partner count, where the author found a weak correlation between the two variables. 44 studies were used in the article.

- Nuancepill states that there are a few limitations such as reliability of ratings and volcels who chose not to have sex until marriage due to religious reasons.

~—• Why is there so much hype around looks as a determinant of these outcomes when the association appears to be relatively modest at best? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill comes up with the guess that blackpillers believe that looks matter more than the general public says, and also the "allure" of controversy and feeling prideful in knowing forbidden knowledge.

---

~—• My Input •—~

Spoiler

Considering the fact that Nuancepill used empirical scientific evidence in this article, I will trust his word that is backed by studies more than a "brutal" blackpill theory that may post only one or two mediocre studies (Or none at all, as I have been seeing recently) to back their claim(s). Sometimes, at best, they will cherry-pick a "brutal" video/photo from social media as proof or use a personal anecdote, or a story from reddit.

In my opinion, you would most likely have to be in the bottom 5% of physical genetics and "SMV" to even be considered out of the dating game or "over" and therefore experience inceldom. As Nuancepill said, it is much more of a nihilistic coping mechanism, much more than reality.

And the lookism blackpill sphere is something I believe is now turning into just another grift space to mill courses and overpriced products to profit off from the easily influential youth, (just like the redpill sphere) where "looksmax" gurus come into play. (K. Shami, Clavicular, Salludon, Faceiq, Oscar Patel, Androgenic, Wheatwaffles, Qoves, Nero Angelo, etc.)

If anyone starts to sell a course, or any product for that matter, just understand that 99% of the time, they are no longer interested in telling you the truth anymore, they are there to make their product look desirable by whatever means possible to make as much $ money $ as possible. That is simply $ marketing 101 $. (Faceiq has already been exposed for just making up things on one of his YouTube videos.)

And so, they will parrot the blackpill as the one and only "truth" so you invest in their course, even though life is truly nuanced, not black and white.

However that is a topic for another post. I will make a future post about the blackpill/looksmax gurus.

The ones that hold the blackpill perspective mainly either become narcissistic and egotistical due to fitting or believing they fit into the "PSL" standards of being a "HTN+ / HTB+" and therefore being a "mogger/fogger," ("blackgymmax", "clavicular", "faceiq" for example) or the ones who do not fit the "PSL" standards may become extremely depressed and may eventually become shut-in and choose to live in the black fog of delusion until the day of their double jaw surgery appointment.

Does this mean to disregard looksmaxxing completely? In my opinion, probably not, more likely it is just another thing to add to your self-improvement routine. Studies have shown that dating is assortative, so if it is true, looksmaxxing would be for the purpose of influencing around a "looks/smv league" you previously were "not in", but then again, that is entirely nuanced territory and there is many other variables at play than just looks. However, more research would have to be done on my end to completely verify this. Thankfully, people such as Nuancepill and Datepsychology already do the paramount task of gathering studies and synthesizing them into accurate research articles.

Be wary of how much time you spend on these forums, "looksmaxxing", and on other related media as sunk cost fallacy will come into play.

I do not expect you to agree with everything I said in my input after all, some of it is just purely my opinion and maybe my words are too comforting and "bluepilled" for you, reader, but if you were to take away anything from my input, just remember: Real life is nuanced, not black and white, and that it only takes one.

Thank you for reading.

What are your thoughts, reader?

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

"...I have seen the beauty of good and the ugliness of evil..."
​

I'm too lazy to read all of this, how do I get pussy

 

[dipenhydramine]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

I understand that this comment is most likely rage bait, however I would like to clarify that people become majorly depressed or end up taking their lives due to the peddling of the lookism blackpill ideology. Considering that the lookism blackpill ideology is growing, mainly due to looksmaxxing, and you add in the factor that humans spend more time online than ever, there brings a worrisome future where more people take their lives because their favorite looksmax scam guru told them to rope.

In my experience, the blackpill was a joke/for fun until I realized the depravity of the blackpill, became a hardcore believer of it, then did my own research and found the truth: The lookism blackpill is not what it is chalked up to be. I am not saying that "lookism blackpill" is totally nonexistent, it is just very underwhelming.

another blackpill pseudo intellectual

blackpill is nothing special to any other depressing mindset such as nihilism

you are your beliefs and if your beliefs are depressing then you will be depressed

for 99% of the world the issue is not your face or your frame, its about your personality and how ND/NT you are

most truecels are creepy as fuck and really weird which when paired with bad looks, makes a truecel

If you give a fuck about lookism you are low iq and doomed from the start anyway due to stressing about things you cant fix

 

[Nenestar]

Sexual initiation is just one downstream effect of looks. There're countless other positive results that directly correlate with it. I'm taking height in to account.

Also many of these studies are old, they do not take in to account how social media and tech have amplified hypergamy, and eroded organic male-to-female friendships. The playing field is much different than 10-20 years ago.

Yes, people who say looks only matter are retarded, ofc there're other stuff, like social fluency, location/proximity and timing.

But saying bluepillers are closer to truth is kinda retarded. I don't know what is your definition of blackpill is here. Looks are still the primary filter in modern dating, it's quite observable.

 

[apatheia]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

another blackpill pseudo intellectual

blackpill is nothing special to any other depressing mindset such as nihilism

you are your beliefs and if your beliefs are depressing then you will be depressed

for 99% of the world the issue is not your face or your frame, its about your personality and how ND/NT you are

most truecels are creepy as fuck and really weird which when paired with bad looks, makes a truecel

If you give a fuck about lookism you are low iq and doomed from the start anyway due to stressing about things you cant fix

I agree with 95% of your response, I think my response could have been clearer because I am on the same page as you dipenhydramine.

for 99% of the world the issue is not your face or your frame, its about your personality and how ND/NT you are

Yes, I fully agree, the whole point of this article and post was to be in favor of saying,"It is extremely likely it isn't your face (or height) that is the problem." That is why I said the lookism blackpill is not totally nonexistent, it is just very underwhelming, and I should clarify that further, it is extremely underwhelming. As I stated in the article, under "My Input" my opinion was that you would have to probably be in the bottom 5% of genetics/smv to even be considering it to be truly "over" for dating. However, even then at that point, you never know until you have fully tried yourself.

If you give a fuck about lookism you are low iq and doomed from the start anyway due to stressing about things you cant fix

I agree that people should not worry about things they can not fix. That is a healthy mindset to have, however, you are going to have to tell that to the majority of users on .org, .com, .is, and other spaces where the majority is blackpilled, as well as the seemingly growing blackpilled movement on other social media platforms.

 

[dipenhydramine]

I agree with 95% of your response, I think my response could have been clearer because I am on the same page as you dipenhydramine.



Yes, I fully agree, the whole point of this article and post was to be in favor of saying,"It is extremely likely it isn't your face (or height) that is the problem." That is why I said the lookism blackpill is not totally nonexistent, it is just very underwhelming, and I should clarify that further, it is extremely underwhelming. As I stated in the article, under "My Input" my opinion was that you would have to probably be in the bottom 5% of genetics/smv to even be considering it to be truly "over" for dating. However, even then at that point, you never know until you have fully tried yourself.



I agree that people should not worry about things they can not fix. That is a healthy mindset to have, however, you are going to have to tell that to the majority of users on .org, .com, .is, and other spaces where the majority is blackpilled, as well as the seemingly growing blackpilled movement on other social media platforms.

 

[Alurmo]

I don't think you know what brief means

out of all the shits in the thread this is what u pointed out

 

[swanneo]

the signature is cool

 

[apatheia]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

Sexual initiation is just one downstream effect of looks. There're countless other positive results that directly correlate with it. I'm taking height in to account.

Also many of these studies are old, they do not take in to account how social media and tech have amplified hypergamy, and eroded organic male-to-female friendships. The playing field is much different than 10-20 years ago.

Yes, people who say looks only matter are retarded, ofc there're other stuff, like social fluency, location/proximity and timing.

But saying bluepillers are closer to truth is kinda retarded. I don't know what is your definition of blackpill is here. Looks are still the primary filter in modern dating, it's quite observable.

Yes, people who say looks only matter are retarded, ofc there're other stuff, like social fluency, location/proximity and timing.

I agree with this part.

I have a few research articles that I will summarize in later posts that cover/refute most of your other claims. If you do not mind reading they will be listed here, some of the research articles here are quite extensive and use numerous studies:

Do Looks Really Buy Happiness and Confidence?

'Pretty privilege' doesn't seem to translate to meaningful psychological benefits.

Has the Male Virginity Rate Really Tripled?

There doesn’t appear to be very strong evidence for a skyrocketing virginity epidemic among young men, or even a male-driven trend whatsoever. Why then is this such a hot topic?

Are Most Couples Really Meeting Online?

‘Dating apps are real life’ has become a common rejoinder to people who advise trying to meet people in the ‘real world’ instead of relying on dating apps. While they’re certainly a relevant part of the landscape, it’s clear that plenty of people are still managing to socialize and meet people without them. Just because you’re permanently online doesn’t mean everyone else is.

Have Dating Apps Really Ruined The Dating Landscape?

With all this in mind, it seems unlikely that dating apps have radically altered the dating landscape or are the proximate cause of many men’s dating woes.

Facial Attractiveness: Less Important For Male Dateability

Failure to dissociate ratings of facial attractiveness from dateability may also lead to the erroneous conclusion that most people are not desirable.

However, I understand it is quite lazy to just hyperlink research articles/studies/sources and call it a day like most "blackpilled science" forum users do. However, if you would like, I can give a TLDR brief on each article and how they are relevant.

 

[apatheia]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

You have been in these spaces for probably longer than me dipenhydramine. How long do you presume the growing blackpill ideology will rise before the majority moves on to a different ideology or realizes what you have stated in your response? The blackpill does not seem to have an influential and "clip"-able scam guru character like Andrew Tate, at least for now, that can sustain a popular ideology like the redpill. All that the blackpill movement really has as of now is the same tik tok edit format displaying lookism charts and measurements and telling the viewers that it is "over" if you are not "chad".

 

[dipenhydramine]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

You have been in these spaces for probably longer than me dipenhydramine. How long do you presume the growing blackpill ideology will rise before the majority moves on to a different ideology or realizes what you have stated in your response? The blackpill does not seem to have an influential and "clip"-able scam guru character like Andrew Tate, at least for now, that can sustain a popular ideology like the redpill. All that the blackpill movement really has as of now is the same tik tok edit format displaying lookism charts and measurements and telling the viewers that it is "over" if you are not "chad".

i feel like its gonna go the same way as andrew tate did tbh, get fucking huge at its peak and be on the news etc as dangerous, and then fall off rapidly with most people forgetting about it

Most likely "andrew tate" of this space is clav or zeta tbh

ive been on these spaces since 2024

 

[Nenestar]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

I agree with this part.

I have a few research articles that I will summarize in later posts that cover/refute most of your other claims. If you do not mind reading they will be listed here, some of the research articles here are quite extensive and use numerous studies:

Do Looks Really Buy Happiness and Confidence?


Has the Male Virginity Rate Really Tripled?


Are Most Couples Really Meeting Online?


Have Dating Apps Really Ruined The Dating Landscape?


Facial Attractiveness: Less Important For Male Dateability


However, I understand it is quite lazy to just hyperlink research articles/studies/sources and call it a day like most "blackpilled science" forum users do. However, if you would like, I can give a TLDR brief on each article and how they are relevant.

I myself, connect blackpill with genetic determinism. This includes personality traits, NT/ND levels, and how they shape your success on dating markets. I think most people understand it this way.

I did read the first article, which really doesn't mean much. The Halo effect is still real, it doesn't matter if some people are depressed due to genetic limitations, or see themselves in a worse way. The effects still stays.

Also virgin studies misses the point, most people will eventually lose it. What matters is how easy and difficult it is in different looks-brackets.

Anecdotally, most of my male cousins are single and have a lot issues, while the females can date whenever they want(water). Same with people I know, those above certain threshold can date freely. Those below? Often stuck online, not due to being offline but because they can't break in.

I really don't understand what is the point of this bluepill argument here. You're linking an article claiming how personality traits are largely genetic. When the the main premise of bluepill is, act cool and they'll like you! Personality only matters!(obviously you don't claim this)

 

[apatheia]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

I myself, connect blackpill with genetic determinism. This includes personality traits, NT/ND levels, and how they shape your success on dating markets. I think most people understand it this way.

I did read the first article, which really doesn't mean much. The Halo effect is still real, it doesn't matter if some people are depressed due to genetic limitations, or see themselves in a worse way. The effects still stays.

Also virgin studies misses the point, most people will eventually lose it. What matters is how easy and difficult it is in different looks-brackets.

Anecdotally, most of my male cousins are single and have a lot issues, while the females can date whenever they want(water). Same with people I know, those above certain threshold can date freely. Those below? Often stuck online, not due to being offline but because they can't break in.

I really don't understand what is the point of this bluepill argument here. You're linking an article claiming how personality traits are largely genetic. When the the main premise of bluepill is, act cool and they'll like you! Personality only matters!(obviously you don't claim this)

I myself, connect blackpill with genetic determinism. This includes personality traits, NT/ND levels, and how they shape your success on dating markets. I think most people understand it this way.

In the majority of the original post and most replies I specifically stated the "Lookism Blackpill" as in referring to physical traits, as that is what nuancepill was referring to in this article, however sometimes I would just say blackpill and that may have caused some confusion. I understand that the overall definition of the blackpill is overall the same as genetic determinism.

Also virgin studies misses the point, most people will eventually lose it. What matters is how easy and difficult it is in different looks-brackets.

In the original post and article, data shows that looks only had a very marginal effect size (r = -0.06) on if looks correlated with men losing their virginity quicker. (Which if converted for probability, is 51.7%) Meaning there is a 51.7% chance that a more attractive man lost his virginity earlier than a less attractive man. (51.7% / 48.3%)

Spoiler: Equation

P=Φ(0.06 / (Square root of 2) ) ≈ Φ(0.0424) ≈ 0.5169 = 51.7%

Spoiler: Relevant Chart

Compilation of data also shows that it is only a small effect size when it comes to the correlation between physical attractiveness and sexual experience. (r = 0.18) which, when converted to probability, is only 55%. Meaning if you picked two people out on the street, there is a 55% chance the more attractive man has had more sexual experiences than the less attractive man.

Spoiler: Equation

P=Φ(0.18 / (square root of 2) )≈ Φ(0.127) ≈ 0.55 = 55%

I know this data does not precisely or directly answer your claim, but it suggests that the increased difficulty for less attractive men to lose their virginity is only modest at best. (And therefore not something to really worry about, again unless you are in a very low percentile.)

Anecdotally, most of my male cousins are single and have a lot issues, while the females can date whenever they want(water). Same with people I know, those above certain threshold can date freely. Those below? Often stuck online, not due to being offline but because they can't break in.

I'm sorry that your cousins are struggling, and yes, data shows that women have it easier in dating. However, I am very wary of using and trusting anecdotes to prove a point as anyone could easily lie or have selection bias/cherry-picking/etc. Not saying you are, but you have no idea who I am, and I have no idea who you are and how trustworthy each person is. That is why I prefer to use data and studies, I'm not trying to be some "blackpill pseudointellectual" but these are the most accurate and trustworthy sources of information we have available regarding topics like lookism, especially online. (If online anecdotes and cherry picked social media posts in these spaces represented real life, then I guarantee you there would be a much bigger outcry from the majority of men and it would show in the legitimate graphs: Plummeting birthrates, skyrocketing virginity in young males, and the "oofy-doofys" who do get lucky and get into a relationship will always get "cucked" by "chad". Not saying you believe this, just a fun thought.)

However, if we are using anecdotes:

Spoiler: Anecdote

I know plenty of people that most users on here (more so .org) would immediately say that it is "over" for them, (Either in looks or stature, no one I am referencing is over 5'11" and two of them are below average on male height standards where I live, and one of them is autistic.) but have had their fair share of short-term relationships and "slays". Now, they are all in long-term relationships and have distanced themselves from the hook-up game, the autistic one is dating a woman taller than him. Actually, it is quite weird because I know someone I would consider extremely good looking, probably a 5.5 - 6 on the "psl" looks scale but has had only 2 girlfriends, and the previous one he did not even engage in sexual activity with yet before they broke up, and he is of average height for a male in my area. Life is nuanced.

I really don't understand what is the point of this bluepill argument here. You're linking an article claiming how personality traits are largely genetic. When the main premise of bluepill is, act cool and they'll like you! Personality only matters!(obviously you don't claim this)

I did read the first article, which really doesn't mean much. The Halo effect is still real, it doesn't matter if some people are depressed due to genetic limitations, or see themselves in a worse way. The effects still stays.

I will respond to these tomorrow, I have things to tend to.

 

[Schizotypalcel]

Real life is way more nuanced than blackpill cope or guru grift.

Whitepill mogs

Good thread

 

[Johhny smith]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

Is Inceldom Really Determined by a Few Millimeters of Bone? A Brief Summarization.​

---

This post will summarize the contents of this research article from "The Nuancepill" 's substack. I highly recommend reading Nuancepills work if you are interested in learning the scientific truth of the "blackpill". All credit goes to Nuancepill.

Spoiler: NOTICE

If you are worried about the article linked here being a IP grabber, I will be more than willing to copy and paste these articles as separate posts on looksmaxxing.com if allowed.

Spoiler: Source

https://nuancepill.substack.com/p/is-inceldom-really-determined-by

Overall, 21 studies have been cited in the stated research article.

---

~—• Contents •—~

---

~—• Introduction •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill has come to call those who support the view of the lookism blackpill as "morphological reductionists" or MR's for short. MR's view the blackpill as the truth, and that most men are being peddled "personality is key" lies.

- Critics who say they see plenty of ugly men in a relationship with women are often disregarded by MR's. MR's see the couple as an exception and say that the critic has spotted a "$ beta-buxx $".

- Nuancepill uses empirical scientific evidence to see if your looks are the cause of inceldom.

~—• Do looks predict sexual experience? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill curated 10 studies (Dates ranging from 1987 - 2022) and examined them to answer the question "do looks predict sexual experience"

- Studies correlations ranged from r = .03 to r = .35 (Very small to medium correlation)

- Weighted average effect size of r = 0.18, which is a small effect size.

~—• Timing of sexual initiation: Do more attractive men lose their virginity earlier on? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill conducted a meta-analysis of studies between physical attractiveness and age which men lost their virginity.

- Weighted average correlation result of r = -.06 (Marginal).

- Meaning men who lost their virginity earlier on were only very slightly considered more attractive.

View attachment 145636

~—• Conclusion •—~

Spoiler

View attachment 145638


- Correlation of attractiveness and age of loss of virginity only had a very, very small correlation.

- Nuancepill also references "datepsychology"'s research article on male attractiveness and sexual partner count, where the author found a weak correlation between the two variables. 44 studies were used in the article.

- Nuancepill states that there are a few limitations such as reliability of ratings and volcels who chose not to have sex until marriage due to religious reasons.

~—• Why is there so much hype around looks as a determinant of these outcomes when the association appears to be relatively modest at best? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill comes up with the guess that blackpillers believe that looks matter more than the general public says, and also the "allure" of controversy and feeling prideful in knowing forbidden knowledge.

---

~—• My Input •—~

Spoiler

Considering the fact that Nuancepill used empirical scientific evidence in this article, I will trust his word that is backed by studies more than a "brutal" blackpill theory that may post only one or two mediocre studies (Or none at all, as I have been seeing recently) to back their claim(s). Sometimes, at best, they will cherry-pick a "brutal" video/photo from social media as proof or use a personal anecdote, or a story from reddit.

In my opinion, you would most likely have to be in the bottom 5% of physical genetics and "SMV" to even be considered out of the dating game or "over" and therefore experience inceldom. As Nuancepill said, it is much more of a nihilistic coping mechanism, much more than reality.

And the lookism blackpill sphere is something I believe is now turning into just another grift space to mill courses and overpriced products to profit off from the easily influential youth, (just like the redpill sphere) where "looksmax" gurus come into play. (K. Shami, Clavicular, Salludon, Faceiq, Oscar Patel, Androgenic, Wheatwaffles, Qoves, Nero Angelo, etc.)

If anyone starts to sell a course, or any product for that matter, just understand that 99% of the time, they are no longer interested in telling you the truth anymore, they are there to make their product look desirable by whatever means possible to make as much $ money $ as possible. That is simply $ marketing 101 $. (Faceiq has already been exposed for just making up things on one of his YouTube videos.)

And so, they will parrot the blackpill as the one and only "truth" so you invest in their course, even though life is truly nuanced, not black and white.

However that is a topic for another post. I will make a future post about the blackpill/looksmax gurus.

The ones that hold the blackpill perspective mainly either become narcissistic and egotistical due to fitting or believing they fit into the "PSL" standards of being a "HTN+ / HTB+" and therefore being a "mogger/fogger," ("blackgymmax", "clavicular", "faceiq" for example) or the ones who do not fit the "PSL" standards may become extremely depressed and may eventually become shut-in and choose to live in the black fog of delusion until the day of their double jaw surgery appointment.

Does this mean to disregard looksmaxxing completely? In my opinion, probably not, more likely it is just another thing to add to your self-improvement routine. Studies have shown that dating is assortative, so if it is true, looksmaxxing would be for the purpose of influencing around a "looks/smv league" you previously were "not in", but then again, that is entirely nuanced territory and there is many other variables at play than just looks. However, more research would have to be done on my end to completely verify this. Thankfully, people such as Nuancepill and Datepsychology already do the paramount task of gathering studies and synthesizing them into accurate research articles.

Be wary of how much time you spend on these forums, "looksmaxxing", and on other related media as sunk cost fallacy will come into play.

I do not expect you to agree with everything I said in my input after all, some of it is just purely my opinion and maybe my words are too comforting and "bluepilled" for you, reader, but if you were to take away anything from my input, just remember: Real life is nuanced, not black and white, and that it only takes one.

Thank you for reading.

What are your thoughts, reader?

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

"...I have seen the beauty of good and the ugliness of evil..."
​

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

Is Inceldom Really Determined by a Few Millimeters of Bone? A Brief Summarization.​

---

This post will summarize the contents of this research article from "The Nuancepill" 's substack. I highly recommend reading Nuancepills work if you are interested in learning the scientific truth of the "blackpill". All credit goes to Nuancepill.

Spoiler: NOTICE

If you are worried about the article linked here being a IP grabber, I will be more than willing to copy and paste these articles as separate posts on looksmaxxing.com if allowed.

Spoiler: Source

https://nuancepill.substack.com/p/is-inceldom-really-determined-by

Overall, 21 studies have been cited in the stated research article.

---

~—• Contents •—~

---

~—• Introduction •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill has come to call those who support the view of the lookism blackpill as "morphological reductionists" or MR's for short. MR's view the blackpill as the truth, and that most men are being peddled "personality is key" lies.

- Critics who say they see plenty of ugly men in a relationship with women are often disregarded by MR's. MR's see the couple as an exception and say that the critic has spotted a "$ beta-buxx $".

- Nuancepill uses empirical scientific evidence to see if your looks are the cause of inceldom.

~—• Do looks predict sexual experience? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill curated 10 studies (Dates ranging from 1987 - 2022) and examined them to answer the question "do looks predict sexual experience"

- Studies correlations ranged from r = .03 to r = .35 (Very small to medium correlation)

- Weighted average effect size of r = 0.18, which is a small effect size.

~—• Timing of sexual initiation: Do more attractive men lose their virginity earlier on? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill conducted a meta-analysis of studies between physical attractiveness and age which men lost their virginity.

- Weighted average correlation result of r = -.06 (Marginal).

- Meaning men who lost their virginity earlier on were only very slightly considered more attractive.

View attachment 145636

~—• Conclusion •—~

Spoiler

View attachment 145638


- Correlation of attractiveness and age of loss of virginity only had a very, very small correlation.

- Nuancepill also references "datepsychology"'s research article on male attractiveness and sexual partner count, where the author found a weak correlation between the two variables. 44 studies were used in the article.

- Nuancepill states that there are a few limitations such as reliability of ratings and volcels who chose not to have sex until marriage due to religious reasons.

~—• Why is there so much hype around looks as a determinant of these outcomes when the association appears to be relatively modest at best? •—~

Spoiler

- Nuancepill comes up with the guess that blackpillers believe that looks matter more than the general public says, and also the "allure" of controversy and feeling prideful in knowing forbidden knowledge.

---

~—• My Input •—~

Spoiler

Considering the fact that Nuancepill used empirical scientific evidence in this article, I will trust his word that is backed by studies more than a "brutal" blackpill theory that may post only one or two mediocre studies (Or none at all, as I have been seeing recently) to back their claim(s). Sometimes, at best, they will cherry-pick a "brutal" video/photo from social media as proof or use a personal anecdote, or a story from reddit.

In my opinion, you would most likely have to be in the bottom 5% of physical genetics and "SMV" to even be considered out of the dating game or "over" and therefore experience inceldom. As Nuancepill said, it is much more of a nihilistic coping mechanism, much more than reality.

And the lookism blackpill sphere is something I believe is now turning into just another grift space to mill courses and overpriced products to profit off from the easily influential youth, (just like the redpill sphere) where "looksmax" gurus come into play. (K. Shami, Clavicular, Salludon, Faceiq, Oscar Patel, Androgenic, Wheatwaffles, Qoves, Nero Angelo, etc.)

If anyone starts to sell a course, or any product for that matter, just understand that 99% of the time, they are no longer interested in telling you the truth anymore, they are there to make their product look desirable by whatever means possible to make as much $ money $ as possible. That is simply $ marketing 101 $. (Faceiq has already been exposed for just making up things on one of his YouTube videos.)

And so, they will parrot the blackpill as the one and only "truth" so you invest in their course, even though life is truly nuanced, not black and white.

However that is a topic for another post. I will make a future post about the blackpill/looksmax gurus.

The ones that hold the blackpill perspective mainly either become narcissistic and egotistical due to fitting or believing they fit into the "PSL" standards of being a "HTN+ / HTB+" and therefore being a "mogger/fogger," ("blackgymmax", "clavicular", "faceiq" for example) or the ones who do not fit the "PSL" standards may become extremely depressed and may eventually become shut-in and choose to live in the black fog of delusion until the day of their double jaw surgery appointment.

Does this mean to disregard looksmaxxing completely? In my opinion, probably not, more likely it is just another thing to add to your self-improvement routine. Studies have shown that dating is assortative, so if it is true, looksmaxxing would be for the purpose of influencing around a "looks/smv league" you previously were "not in", but then again, that is entirely nuanced territory and there is many other variables at play than just looks. However, more research would have to be done on my end to completely verify this. Thankfully, people such as Nuancepill and Datepsychology already do the paramount task of gathering studies and synthesizing them into accurate research articles.

Be wary of how much time you spend on these forums, "looksmaxxing", and on other related media as sunk cost fallacy will come into play.

I do not expect you to agree with everything I said in my input after all, some of it is just purely my opinion and maybe my words are too comforting and "bluepilled" for you, reader, but if you were to take away anything from my input, just remember: Real life is nuanced, not black and white, and that it only takes one.

Thank you for reading.

What are your thoughts, reader?

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

"...I have seen the beauty of good and the ugliness of evil..."
​

You are yelling at a dilapidated brick wall thats also infested with cockroaches

 

[apatheia]

---

~—• APATHEIA •—~​

---

You are yelling at a dilapidated brick wall thats also infested with cockroaches

I agree with you. This thread was originally meant for looksmax.org but I have not been accepted. (Last time I checked)