TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Cedow Archive

View 1 posts and 65 comments by Cedow on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

20yo women are on average more desirable than 30yo women... for sex. That's about it. If you're a 30yo man you have far more in common with a 30yo woman. Similar levels of life experience, most likely more similar goals and desires from life, probably more shared interests. You're looking at relationships as sex only, when realistically sex is just a small part of it. All the other stuff is far more important.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/22 09:00 PM
-1

Finally, what's wrong is a lot. The underpowered numbers. The (probably unavoidable) bias in picking people, with so many exclusion criteria. The fact that over half the data couldn't be used, because it was self-reports and those suck (and that it was self-reports in the first place, not that that is fixable either). The fact that no good adjustment for different people placing things on a 0-100 scale differently (nonlinearity being the issue) can really be made These kinds of things are common…
/r/BlackPillScience28/08/21 09:58 AM
0

I can't see anything immediately wrong with the methods they used, but I haven't been over it in detail. Would you mind sharing what poor methods you are referring to? With most scientific papers, the issue is not that the science itself is bad: there are plenty of checks and balances along the way to ensure this doesn't happen (working in multi-person teams, requiring ethical review, peer review before publication). The issue is almost always with how people choose to interpret the data. I beli…
/r/BlackPillScience28/08/21 08:58 AM
1

They concluded exactly what is rational to conclude given the scope of the study. What they didn't do, and what you are doing, is make wild claims like "this shows that bigger penises mean more pleasure." There is no basis for making such claims from this study. Here is their full conclusion: In conclusion, based on experimentally reducing depth of penetration, our results are consistent with the experience that size may matter for sexual pleasure in some women in a healthy relationship when the…
/r/BlackPillScience28/08/21 05:06 AM
5

No, the paper itself points to an avenue for further research. It would be ridiculous to claim "we put rings on a guys dick and their partner's sexual satisfaction went down, therefore smaller penises lead to lower sexual satisfaction". It would be sensible to claim "this study suggests there might be some merit to the idea that smaller penises lead to lower sexual satisfaction, but we need to study it more before coming to any conclusions".
/r/BlackPillScience27/08/21 08:11 PM
5

Absolute nonsense. Stating conclusions is a part of every research paper. In this case, the conclusion the authors came to was "these are interesting results, but they don't automatically mean that bigger penises lead to greater sexual satisfaction." If you were able to be unbiased in your reading, you would see that this is a sensible interpretation with a level of caution that should be applied to all research. One paper does not make a definite conclusion, especially one that does not directl…
/r/BlackPillScience27/08/21 08:07 PM
7

It wouldn't get accepted by reviewers if the authors claimed as such because to do so would be incredibly bad science. Peer review exists for a reason, part of which is to note when paper authors oversell the results of their studies and stop them from doing so.
/r/BlackPillScience27/08/21 04:27 PM
9

There are two obvious reasons: Forcing a couple to change their "tried and tested" method of having sex for a different one is likely to result in poorer satisfaction. Having sex with rings on your dick is likely to feel uncomfortable and also reduce intimacy. I'm sure there are others. It's always ridiculous to claim that results from one study can be easily generalised to normal behaviour, and the onus is not on me to prove as such.
/r/BlackPillScience27/08/21 04:25 PM
8

The interpretation is simply that artificially decreasing penis length via this particular method led to a decrease in pleasure for couples with an established relationship/sex life. They asked couples to alter the way they choose to have sex by putting rings on the guys dick. There are all kinds of reasons why you can't conclude from this that, in natural settings, a smaller penis means less sexual satisfaction or vice-versa.
/r/BlackPillScience27/08/21 03:37 PM
7

"Our results should not be misinterpreted as meaning that increasing penile length will increase sexual pleasure in women."
/r/BlackPillScience27/08/21 02:36 PM
1

Sure, depression is likely to cause poor self-image. But this is just a correlative study, no directionality can be inferred.
/r/BlackPillScience20/08/21 07:15 AM
1

"Objective physical attractiveness" in this case just means the averaged ratings given by other people. People still differ individually in what they find attractive. There is no true "objective" measure of attractiveness.
/r/BlackPillScience20/08/21 07:14 AM
6

Why did you single out women in your comment? The same can be said of men, too: "These findings support the notion that, at baseline, men are motivated to secure a mate with short-term reproductive benefits (Schmitt et al., 2001). To the contrary, in high-stress situations, men may prioritize their needs for safety and comfort."
/r/BlackPillScience31/07/21 08:32 PM
15

Yeah I think it's a really tricky one to tease apart. There are lots of stories just like yours: people who feel much better/more confident after getting in shape. And you're definitely right about it being multifaceted: there are multiple avenues through which working out at the gym can be positive for mental health (physical activity, overall fitness/health, goal setting & progression, social contact/getting out of the home, etc). I think the important question with regards to this study is ho…
/r/BlackPillScience30/06/21 04:25 PM
5

...? Come on dude, I gave you the name of the measure including the reference. It's not that hard to look it up. How do they separate ability from willingness? By asking separate questions about ability and willingness.
/r/BlackPillScience30/06/21 11:09 AM
5

They used a specific measure: The sociosexuality (revised) (SOI-R) scale (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). They also found that this was not predicted by facial masculinity: Morphological masculinity was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of perceived sociosexuality in the combined data (t(77.86) = 0.72, p = .474) or in male faces (t(39.67) = 1.42, p = .163). Nor rated attractiveness: Rated attractiveness was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of perceived sociosex…
/r/BlackPillScience30/06/21 03:54 AM
28

Nothing to do with sexual history. It's about willingness to engage in casual sex.
/r/BlackPillScience29/06/21 04:41 PM
19

Sociosexuality = willingness to engage in casual sex. Observers could (roughly) tell which men are more likely to report willingness to engage in casual sex based on their face shape. They couldn't tell based on the face shape of women.
/r/BlackPillScience29/06/21 04:40 PM
2

Interesting to add that they ran this same experiment previously in the opposite direction (males evaluating females) and found much larger effects in that direction (males were more biased by attractiveness than females). From the discussion: Since the current experiment and the previous opposite-sex UG were identical in methodology, we would infer that there might be cognitive differences across genders in processing facial stimulus. When guys look at girls, they might possess an emphasized se…
/r/BlackPillScience27/06/21 07:27 AM
1

One week doesn't sound like a very long time. Makes sense that people who are not at all used to socialising often would struggle (feel more tired, less authentic, higher NA). Just like you would expect someone who is not very aerobically fit to struggle after one week of intense daily exercise. Interesting though that a week was enough to stimulate increases in PA across the entire sample. Seems like forcing yourself to be more extraverted can be a good way to improve mood for pretty much every…
/r/BlackPillScience05/06/21 08:05 AM
12

No, it doesn't "prove" anything of the sort. There was no measure of aggression or dominance in this study. You can't just assume that women with tattoos are considered to be more aggressive and dominant because men are.
/r/BlackPillScience05/06/21 07:51 AM
12

You can't just make leaps of logic like that. There is no evidence that women with tattoos were perceived as more aggressive and dominant in this study. They only asked about the three characteristics noted above.
/r/BlackPillScience05/06/21 07:50 AM
3

Fair points, on a reread of OPs title I admittedly misinterpreted what it said. However, I think you'll find that my own interpretation above was correct. Also note that the guy I replied to has since edited his post. I don't remember what it said before. Edit: All this study states is that the behavioral effects of testosterone increase mating success. It makes no claims on the importance of attractiveness Actually it does. Since they had all the data, it wouldn't make any sense not to do this …
/r/BlackPillScience23/04/21 10:30 AM
3

The question was not about sexual arousal but sexual attraction. Roughly 1% of the total sample reported never feeling sexual attraction towards anyone else, which accounted for roughly half of those who never had a sexual experience in adulthood. The authors refer to this as asexuality, or being related to asexuality, in the discussion.
/r/BlackPillScience15/04/21 10:40 AM
2

The reasons for manipulating facial characteristics are clear and well justified. This is not a good criticism of the paper: However, skin tone is not the only factor that predicts race classification; other facial characteristics (e.g., width of the nose, fullness of the lips) are important and could contribute to perceptions of attractiveness as well. The independent effects of facial features have not been addressed much in the literature. Notable exceptions are Wade, Irvine, and Cooper (2004…
/r/BlackPillScience13/04/21 09:31 PM
2

So you started off by saying that the sample size was too small, and that the results were at odds with other research. Now you've shifted the goalposts again and you're saying none of the research is comparable. The only thing you've been consistent in saying throughout, without any evidence or reason to believe it's the case, is that the study authors deliberately constructed a study to give them the results they wanted in order to push some kind of agenda. Where exactly have you got this idea…
/r/BlackPillScience13/04/21 09:16 PM
3

The quote I gave you was from the literature review. Interesting how you only pulled quotes for the studies that support your view and not the other ones. For example, from the Rhodes et al. (2005) study: Interestingly, it made little difference whether averageness was manipulated by using own-race or other-race averaged composites and there was no preference for own-race averaged composites over other-race or mixed-race composites And from the Lewis (2011) study: Attractiveness specifically was…
/r/BlackPillScience13/04/21 07:19 PM
7

"Findings from cognitive and social psychology on judgments of facial attractiveness for mixed-race versus singe-race faces are largely inconclusive (e.g., Burke, Nolan, Hayward, Russell, & Sulikowski, 2013; Lewis, 2011; Rhodes et al., 2001; Rhodes et al., 2005)." You can disagree with the authors if you want, but you should provide evidence (ideally a review paper or meta analysis)
/r/BlackPillScience13/04/21 05:59 PM
13

Desperately trying to prove what they want to be true Accusing people of bias without evidence is not a good look. based on 80 personal ratings of digitally created faces Digitally created faces, yes. 80 ratings, no (there were two studies, the second one was over 300 ppts - so 400ppts total) How else would you like subjective attractiveness to be measured other than by giving personal ratings? Even when they say how this is largely at odds with the meta research. No. The "meta research" is larg…
/r/BlackPillScience13/04/21 03:50 PM
1

Where's the joke?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/21 03:45 PM
2

That's a pretty poor sample size for a single question quant analysis.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/21 03:33 PM
2

You can have real friends who are not equipped, or not expected, to give fulfilling emotional support. OPs post is badly worded and has overblown conclusions, but the meat of it is relatively solid.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/21 02:45 PM
2

"Trashed" is not the same as "trash". You can perform good quality research on an important area of study, have it fail to replicate, and the research was still worth doing. Even your own link suggests failure of replication is not limited to psychology: One example of non-replication has emerged in the study of genetics and diseases: when replications were attempted to determine whether certain gene-disease findings held up, only about 4% of the findings consistently did so.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/21 02:43 PM
1

Dude, you're just giving evidence in favour of OPs argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/21 02:31 PM
5

The replication crisis doesn't mean psych research is trash. It means it's research. The smart move is to use aggregated data & theory to inform opinion, not individual studies. This is why meta-analyses are the gold standard of evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/21 02:30 PM
3

I agree. That doesn't necessarily mean it has happened yet across the board. It still appears that men prefer to socialise in groups, (compared to women who socialise more often in pairs), which lends itself less well to emotional expression and support: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118329 "Bromances" may have gained more popular acceptance but that doesn't mean they necessarily are the reality for the majority of men. As with help-seeking in general (both p…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/21 02:13 PM
8

I agree. If you want to find a bunch of guys who have active "bromances", I can't think of any better place to look than a sports-degree programme. This is even acknowledged by the authors, who linked this source: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781137379641 From the discussion: It is important, however, to recognize that bromances may not be a possibility for all men. The context of shared interest, such as sport, appeared to be an important underlying factor preceding the formation of …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/21 09:37 AM
3

As part of the Wave IV in-home adolescent interview, one interviewer rated each participant’s physical attractiveness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “very unattractive” to “very attractive” (referent = about average). All participants were rated by the same researcher. So, these were relative ratings rather than objective ones. It's perhaps a limitation of the study but not enough to throw out the results entirely. Results from this study suggest that, on average, men and women both more…
/r/BlackPillScience13/04/21 07:37 AM
1

Yeah, it's self-fulfilling, for sure. But that doesn't make it any less true. If you're a woman looking to pick a man with those qualities, going for a taller man is going to give you the best chance to get them. That's not to say only tall men have them, just on average they are more likely to.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/21 05:51 PM
1

Eh, height can say things about character. It's correlated with personality characteristics like being more dominant, more suspicious, and more independent: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699290179S Then there's all the data on taller people having higher income, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/21 04:17 PM
1

Typically those things are controlled for in these types of studies.
/r/BlackPillScience12/04/21 12:40 PM
6

I think most people are aware that uglier people have a harder time dating. It's why people are more likely to assume an ugly person is single or a virgin. To be honest, if anything this study suggests that ugly people don't really have it that much worse than average people.
/r/BlackPillScience10/04/21 06:14 PM
4

People who get married at around that age (late 20s) are actually less likely to divorce, not more. Though the likelihood increases again after the early 30s: https://ifstudies.org/blog/want-to-avoid-divorce-wait-to-get-married-but-not-too-long
/r/BlackPillScience10/04/21 06:11 PM
3

They weren't necessarily 28 when they had sex. The two comparison points were age 18 and age 28-34. So, they could have had sex at any age in this range. Maybe they lost their virginity at age 19, we just don't know.
/r/BlackPillScience10/04/21 06:09 PM
9

Actually no, according to this study you're more likely to be average or above average attractiveness. All the "very unattractive" guys got laid.
/r/BlackPillScience10/04/21 04:01 PM
7

Good additions, thanks.
/r/BlackPillScience09/04/21 10:40 AM
33

Other interesting findings: Around half of those who reported not having sexual experiences said it was because they had not felt sexual attraction (both men and women). (So at least half were volcels rather than incels) 15% of males and 13% of females who were sexually inexperienced at age 18 remained that way at ages 28-34. Use of alcohol in the past year predicted the likelihood of having sexual activity for both men and women. Attendance at religious events once or more per week predicted lo…
/r/BlackPillScience09/04/21 09:43 AM
0

You have no idea what you're talking about. Throwing out a few stats terms you heard doesn't make you a scientist, nor does it make for a good argument. I think I'm safe to side with the published academics rather than a few keyboard warriors.
/r/BlackPillScience08/04/21 06:24 AM
2

That would mean that 'MI' is something that directly compels people to mate with the person exhibiting it, which is simply ridiculous No, what I'm saying is the study wasn't directly measuring behaviour and how it is interpreted. Otherwise what you're saying is that the only reason why people have sex is down to behavioural factors, which is exactly the opposite of what the blackpill argues. At no point in the study was the reaction to behaviour measured. This wasn't a lab study. And there you g…
/r/BlackPillScience02/04/21 05:21 PM
0

This isn't 'every variable' - this is a factor that is widely known to have a very strong effect on the dependent variable being explored here. There are other such variables. Strength, vocal pitch, etc etc. Do you want to study them all in one go? That's not how the scientific process works. I'm sure they would, but that's still beside the point. Baseless assertion without evidence. The dependent variable being studied here is not attractiveness, nor is it 'MI' No, physical attractiveness is no…
/r/BlackPillScience02/04/21 05:06 PM
0

driven by a desire to prove a political talking point true. That's your claim, not backed up with evidence, and why I said you were engaging in ad hominem. What I was agreeing with was the fact that most new theories start out of one lab under a small team of researchers. Replication studies happen later one once the theory has gained some traction. And I'm not American, but I don't see what that has to do with it? More ad hominem? Please try to stick to the science.
/r/BlackPillScience02/04/21 04:58 PM
3

The entire theoretical basis for "mating intelligence" is two papers by the same authors. No other researcher contributed to or tested the theory who wasn't working under Geher. Yes, that is generally the case for new theories. That is not what u/carkudo was asserting though, which is that the research team were deliberately leaving out key variables because they knew they would invalidate their theory. This amounts to nothing more than as hominem, and has no place in credible discourse on this …
/r/BlackPillScience02/04/21 04:27 PM
-1

It might blow your mind, but journals may even have no formal review process at all. Yes, they may. I don't know of any off the top of my head though, certainly not in psychology. I would imagine most journals run by practicing academics would be subject to a peer review process. I don't see any reason to believe this would not be the case here. Do you? Yes, because it's a factor that is known to be extremely important for mating success and thus cannot be ignored. You don't have to include ever…
/r/BlackPillScience02/04/21 03:18 PM
0

The really surprising part is that this passed review at all, although the journal might not have a review process in place at all for all we know. Why don't you look it up rather than engaging in baseless speculation? Why would a journal, run by a collection of academics, not have a review process? It's obvious that if appearance were controlled for there'd be covariance issues precluding the kind of interpretation that the author and OP are making. Given the plentiful literature on that, it's …
/r/BlackPillScience02/04/21 02:28 PM
1

Please provide evidence that long-term relationships do not include "passionate genuine attraction". Also how are these not reproductive pairings? It's literally a survey of couples with children.
/r/BlackPillScience01/04/21 09:13 PM
1

Then surely the correct interpretation would be 30% of men who take paternity tests are not the biological father? Saying that 30% of all men are not the father is a gross misrepresentation of the data.
/r/BlackPillScience01/04/21 09:02 PM
4

Wtf is this sub. No one in the comments has any idea what they are talking about. You were correct in your interpretation
/r/BlackPillScience01/04/21 06:08 PM
6

Edit: on a reread OPs title is actually not quite correct. Here's the correct interpretation: From the abstract: This study indicates that, although current levels of testosterone covary with male mating success... Higher testosterone = higher mating success this effect may not be mediated by women's preferences for visual cues to testosterone levels conveyed in static face or body features... The effect of higher testosterone is not due to testosterone's expression as physical attributes. If th…
/r/BlackPillScience01/04/21 06:06 PM
3

It is correct. Pearson's r is one of the stats that is used as a measure of effect size. http://www.psychology.emory.edu/clinical/bliwise/Tutorials/SCATTER/scatterplots/effect.htm
/r/BlackPillScience01/04/21 05:45 PM
13

I have no idea why you have so many upvotes. You are totally wrong. Effect sizes in the study were < 0.1. This is a small effect size: http://www.psychology.emory.edu/clinical/bliwise/Tutorials/SCATTER/scatterplots/effect.htm
/r/BlackPillScience01/04/21 05:44 PM
16

Most of the women subreddits I read give me mental health issues and insecurity about being a man, I feel like they constantly want to make me feel guilty about being a man and accepting that I am a piece of shit human. Which subreddits are you reading, and what are they saying to make you feel guilty?
/r/ExRedPill30/03/21 01:35 PM
24

Neither person should be a "buyer" or "seller". You're presumably both on the market for the same thing (romantic companionship) and are offering something of similar value (romantic companionship). If anything it's a mutually beneficial trade. Sales is about convincing someone to buy something they weren't intending to. You don't want to be the guy who is having to "convince" women to sleep with you when they don't actually want to. You want them to want you organically. Which is why it's impor…
/r/seduction12/03/21 08:32 AM
2

You are prepared to blame the girlfriend though, despite not knowing what happened. What's the difference?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/03/21 12:50 PM
5

How can we know? The guy isn't also confronting her. My first reaction would be "wtf, who is this? You have a boyfriend?" He tries to cover his tracks by saying "Nah, we're just friends," then leaves. Sure, give people the benefit of the doubt. But all signs point to him being a piece of work.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/03/21 11:19 AM
2

I agree with the person above this post. You're letting your personal bias cloud your judgement and add in "facts" where they don't exist. You've created a narrative based on your prior beliefs, not based on any tangible evidence. I can't find any evidence that he was ever married, either. Where are you getting that idea from? Also, he's not even that unattractive! I'm sure there are plenty of groupies more than willing to hook up with him.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/20 11:16 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter