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

Post Reply New Topic

That was not directed at you.

Didn't think I was defending myself in saying it?

Unless I completely misunderstood that and you didn't mean a word of that - in that case that's my aspieness kicking in.

Yeah, nobody on this thread is calling men they disagree with incels.

That’s the harsh truth.

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

Simple, superficial people will seek to explain their failures in simple, superficial ways.

Or perhaps because the simplest explanation is usually the correct one?

Even if looks aren't the be-all end-all, I don't think rejecting a guy because he's socially awkward (which he can only help to a certain extent) is any less superficial than rejecting him for his looks (which he can also only help to a certain extent).

Talking about superficiality, can we at least admit - this is a piece of natural selection and natural selection will gladly overlook the diabetic or the person with sickle cell but nail the autist or m***et to the wall?

It's kinda clear that the perceptions are only so deep, if it weren't the case we'd be getting healthier and more robust with every passing generation! Evidence of that seems rather thin.

I don't believe a lot of incels are willing to consider there's an issue with their personalities, temperaments or mannerisms otherwise they'd maybe attempt to improve those things instead of whining that they're ugly. The sad thing is, not all of them are physically repulsive, further reinforcing that their appearance isn't their biggest issue.

I disagree. If you are attracted to someone, but the conversation is like drawing teeth, it's not enjoyable to be around them. The relationship isn't sustainable.

I've been rejected for my lack of conversational skills. "You just don't talk enough", he said. That was 20 years ago, I've improved since then. The last date I went on I was the one doing all the talking and he hardly spoke.

Do you really want to be with someone who's personality doesn't interest you?

That's not superficial. It's a question of compatibility. This is a person that you're going to be spending A LOT of time with. You want to be with someone that is nice to be around, not someone who makes you feel awkward, uncomfortable and embarassed for them.

I totally agree.

This should be stickied!

I get told I’m ugly a lot. Y women, I should just one that? They’ve never even seen me in person just pictures of my face.

World runs off looks people judge others by thefar r looks we aren’t books. And people judge most books by their covers that’s why they spend so much on cover art.

For what it's worth I can neither speak to your experiences or say whether or not you'd self-identify as an incel.

I'm making a generalized observation about a group of people based on what they say and post about themselves.

Sly is not an Incel with a capital I.

I'm going to add, sort of talking to outer space as I often do (people are welcome to scratch their heads, shrug, and forget they read it), part of why the incel topic is so emotionally heated from every side is this is an area where society obsessively lies to itself. It's sort of like the dating and marriage equivalent of the economic idea that we live in a meritocracy. The problem isn't so much that people get treated disparately when it comes to natural processes or even get treated disparately at the level of everything else because they get treated badly by natural processes, there might be nothing that can be done about that, it's that on top of it all we need to sell ourselves on the idea that we're better than the people below us and had they just tried what we had, done what we had, or just been as awesome as we are things would have at least worked out better for them. This sort of petty narcissism seems to be part of the 'survival of the fittest' game we're in and it's part of what we do to assure people who might want to say anything about it that they'll meet well-organized violence of one type or another for suggesting the emperor has no clothes.

This sort of takes me back to some of the things said early on in Michael Shermer's interview with Donald Hoffman recently on his Science Salon podcast - ie. the point was raised by Hoffman that natural selection selects for fitness not truth, that in genetic competition truth-seeking organisms are destroyed by fitness bonus maximizers. This seems to be the background in which we've supposedly been trying to build something like a working society and weed out problems, just that any such endeavor is hobbled by all these evolutionary no-go zones.