Bluepillers in a nutshell | PurplePillDebate

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa23 points24 points25 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sir_manalot5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sid_InsidiousMGTOW VolCel Mall Santa19 points20 points21 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Grand_Duty3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]SherbertBaconBrazen-8 points-7 points-6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rosmaskinenProzac Becky0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HeavenlyOxi2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HeavenlyOxi0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Urbantexasguy4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]mechanical_elvesused-up fuckboy manwhore8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sir_manalot4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sir_manalot0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen-4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtowalternate7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen-2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

"The information I’ll present in this post is not normalized because, as we’ll see, it’s interesting how men and women evaluate looks differently."

(Edit: To wit, it's flagrantly not interesting if you normalize the data).

Not normalizing gives a false impression that women deem men "unattractive" which is a data manipulation. Give "Once More: Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder? Relative Contributions of Private and Shared Taste to Judgments of Facial Attractiveness" to understand why non-normalizing, and using the mean based on judge's positions is a misrepresentation of the results.

Provided Christian Rudder knows actual data science—and I believe he does—he knows choosing to display the data this way fits his narrative rather than what the actual discernible conclusions should be.

[–]parahacker3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

(Edit: To wit, it's flagrantly not interesting if you normalize the data)

Um, no. It's not relevant if you normalize the data.

This is a bit tricky to explain simply.

Normalization is not a panacea. An example would be normalizing temperature over seasons from a 1 year dataset - useful if you want to compare variance, or related questions - i.e., is the beginning of July more different to the last day of July compared to the beginning of February/last day of february? But you would not normalize if you wanted to ask a question like, is July hotter than February.

That's only one type of normalizing, there are others, but all of them present the same basic problem; highlighting one set of differences while obscuring others. It depends on the type of question you are asking of the data as to whether normalization is useful or not.

Furthermore, the paper you cited is not advocating for "normalizing". It is taking an entirely different approach, creating a separate index for "private" versus "shared" taste. Granted, this index can be used to normalize, but frankly questions such as "do black women rate black men's faces higher" (which is the sort of normalization you'd end up with) are not the focus of the OkCupid article the original graph is part of (though OkCupid does have other articles that address questions similar to that.)

Also, section two of that paper you linked to, " Why One Should Know About the Relative Importance of Shared and Private Taste" is horribly unprofessional for a paper regarding experimental results and should be taken out, better suited for an op-ed than a research paper. It actually casts bias on the results and brings the methodology into question, as it asserts an opinion instead of creating a properly structured hypothesis. But the rest of it is decent. It is several degrees separated from being useful as a citation in the context of rebutting the OkCupid results, however.

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

That's only one type of normalizing, there are others, but all of them present the same basic problem; highlighting one set of differences while obscuring others. It depends on the type of question you are asking of the data as to whether normalization is useful or not.

Yes and that’s my point, the reason I brought in the second paper. Women’s idea of “attractive” could start lower numerically than men’s (in fact the OkC even hints at this possibility since women will message first men who rank “lower” on a threshold than women do for that same number). Or maybe women judge attractiveness by more than just looks. Or maybe OkCupid’s samples consisted of mostly suboptimal photos of men (who are notoriously bad at dating photos to begin with, possibly because they DON’T care about advertising looks as much which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy). Bothering to normalize helps show that, more or less, women were judging looks on a fairly normal distribution, just like men. The only “interesting” point to glean is that the average score men give is higher than women. Men, who are notoriously more visual to begin with.

Furthermore, the paper you cited is not advocating for "normalizing".

Of course not. I brought it up to point out “here’s basically raw data of how men judge women’s photos and vice-versa” is a potentially problematic experimental framework to draw bigger conclusions (especially the very nature of men/women).

”do black women rate black men's faces higher" are not the focus of the OkCupid article

They’re not the focus because that conclusion is uninteresting and draws no readership (edit: w.r.t. relevance, those findings are important though, because they show how others are judged is not a mere function of objective score—e.g., my 7 and your 5 might be different not just by taste but what a 7 means to me). If we were interested in sound results, we’d use the raw data (if that’s even feasible given how it was collected) and construct some appreciable analysis from it. Instead we have a clickbait blog article that pushes people towards a book being sold. And frankly, I wouldn’t give a fuck about motive if the experiment is still at least sound and without issues. But that’s not the case here, not even with a pseudo-humble “I’m not trying to being scientific” admission.

[–]parahacker2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Yes and that’s my point, the reason I brought in the second paper. Women’s idea of “attractive” could start lower numerically than men’s (in fact the OkC even hints at this possibility since women will message first men who rank “lower” on a threshold than women do for that same number). Or maybe women judge attractiveness by more than just looks. Or maybe OkCupid’s samples consisted of mostly suboptimal photos of men (who are notoriously bad at dating photos to begin with, possibly because they DON’T care about advertising looks as much which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy). Bothering to normalize helps show that, more or less, women were judging looks on a fairly normal distribution, just like men.

There are several problems with this reasoning within the context. First, normalizing would not in fact "show that women were judging looks on a fairly normal distribution"; it would create a distribution where women's judgements took the appearance of a normal bell curve. This is only useful when measuring degrees of deviation from that curve. For example, it would be useful for a question such as, "Does Susan's rating scale differ from the gestalt?" and not useful for a question such as, "Given a population of X women, how many would find Mike attractive?"

Second, "Or maybe women judge attractiveness by more than just looks." From what I remember the OkCupid study included not only the appearance rating, but correlated message traffic with appearance. So it gives an index of how much variation exists between "men who were judged to look good" and "men who recieved replies," thus answering this exact question. If the deviation were larger, then appearance would have mattered less.

Third, "maybe OkCupid’s samples consisted of mostly suboptimal photos of men (who are notoriously bad at dating photos to begin with, possibly because they DON’T care about advertising looks as much which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy)"

...This...

...

If you are going to try to make a reasoned argument while holding others accountable to higher intellectual standards, then do not presuppose an argument. Really? "Notoriously bad"?

Given my own background, I have debated others on this very topic. This is exactly as bad as a statement such as "women are bad at math," with exactly the same quality of supporting evidence. But you know what? I'm done. You, sir, are a fucking poser, and possessed of intolerable opinions, and I'm done with this.

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

First, normalizing would not in fact "show that women were judging looks on a fairly normal distribution";

I said helps show that, not "shows that." Important distinction. The women's ratings, are already more or less on a normal distribution. You can look at the graph he provides if you don't believe me. The problem (it seems) is that it skews towards 0 more than men rating women. Rudder wants to make the case that this is significant, but his own data results and a fair treatment of the data would show this isn't the case (hence why I provided the supplemental to bolster this point).

For example, it would be useful for a question such as, "Does Susan's rating scale differ from the gestalt?" and not useful for a question such as, "Given a population of X women, how many would find Mike attractive?"

Did you read the source I provided before? You're glossing back over points it directly discusses at length. Variance measurements, and mean scores, even in tandem may not be sufficient in establishing an actual objective comparison for attractiveness.

From what I remember the OkCupid study included not only the appearance rating, but correlated message traffic with appearance.

Yep, and this is stupid because, culturally (maybe even biologically), women are biased not to make the first move. It's stupid (not from Rudder but from the BlackPillers who misread it) furthermore because the data shows women are more prone to message first in spite of attractiveness, unlike men. Which is very anti-black pill. I actually already mentioned this in my previous comment.

If you are going to try to make a reasoned argument while holding others accountable to higher intellectual standards, then do not presuppose an argument.

Dude, nobody has access to the data he used. Nobody. We can't vet it. His claim, was that he took real photos from real profiles to make the judgments. Now take these other two facts: (1) In other studies that control for photo quality, attractiveness across genders is rated on much more equal values (implying there may be a problem with his sample set) and (2) a common complaint abound is that men have terrible photos on apps.

Also do you not understand how controls work in experiment? I'm raising an issue with what he's testing. He doesn't control for photo quality, that adds noise and unreliability to his results. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm casting doubt into the integrity of this data because, as I just said we don't have access to it.

I'm done. You, sir, are a fucking poser, and possessed of intolerable opinions, and I'm done with this.

Toodle-loo

[–]80_20SCIENCE / non-incel incel advocate / NO PILL2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CraptainToad2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]80_202 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]80_201 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except you just did above:

My god the fucking amateur hour over here. I'll ask you a billionth time: do you understand how experiment controls actually work? Because you keep dragging in things as if they're proving something, and they really aren't.

When you say "here's a bunch of photos with scores on it" we want to know that these photos don't have noisy data. In an extreme case, if all the photos were all cartoons, we might suspect the results would not be representative of reality. We don't have access to the OkC photos or the FB photos collected. We don't know if people take "better" photos on FB and we don't know if people take "good" photos. That adds doubt into the integrity of the data, which means the results are inconclusive.

That's why I asked you if longitudinal studies that do control for photo quality and show equal scoring among men and women would change your mind. Because that's evidence that contradicts the benefit of the doubt you're asking me to give one guy's blog post.

[–]80_201 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]arjungmenon0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mechanical_elvesused-up fuckboy manwhore2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Urbantexasguy1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]medlabunicorn4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]80_20SCIENCE / non-incel incel advocate / NO PILL0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]medlabunicorn0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]80_20SCIENCE / non-incel incel advocate / NO PILL0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]medlabunicorn0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]80_20SCIENCE / non-incel incel advocate / NO PILL0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor992686 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen-1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor992682 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor992682 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor992681 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen-1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor992681 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Doctor992681 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parahacker-1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CraptainToad2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kaisha0011 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]noheyokay0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]noheyokay1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]noheyokay1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kaisha001-1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

But feel free to explain to me in your own educated terms how this study proves the black pill.

You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word 'prove'.

I can make a mathematical proof (say of 1+1=2), because I can form a calculus based on axioms and associated transformations, that are sound and complete of course, and hence forth form a definitive proof. But without the above there can be no proof.

On the other hand no study forms a proof, and henceforth cannot 'prove' anything in the mathematical sense. The best they can do is provide evidence for or against a hypothesis. We can form, and test a hypothesis, but we cannot ever prove it.

So you're free to call others 'armchair internet spergs' because they can't 'prove' black pill (or red pill, or whatever), but all it shows is a gross misunderstanding.

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kaisha0011 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

We're talking about empirical proof. That is, the evidence gives us rational justification for our belief over all competing theories.

No, that's not what you said. You're playing semantic games here. Let me re-quote:

feel free to explain to me in your own educated terms how this study proves the black pill.

See, 'to prove' as in the mathematical sense is a verb; but 'proof' in the empirical sense is a noun. You used prove as a verb and now are trying to claim that you meant to use it as a noun.

If you were using the term 'empirical proof' you would not use it in that form in the sentence. Given the context, and the grammatical form provided, one can only correctly read that sentence as mathematical proof, not empirical proof.

I can't say that study X proves Y, I can only say that study X provides proof for Y.

You just armchair sperged over the definition of "proof" because you didn't understand what I was specifically asking for...

Its not my fault you don't understand basic English. Considering we were taught the difference between verbs and nouns in grade 1, I'm not sure what to tell you.

From the looks of it, you call anyone more intelligent than yourself a 'sperg'. Is that why you use that insult so often?

[–]medlabunicorn2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kaisha0010 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]medlabunicorn1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

No, that's not what you said. You're playing semantic games here.

I gave you a wiki entry to explain to you exactly how "proof" works in scientific discourse. If you were informed on the subject this would have been a non-discussion from the start, you'd just engage with the request.

You used prove as a verb and now are trying to claim that you meant to use it as a noun... If you were using the term 'empirical proof' you would not use it in that form in the sentence.

"Prove to me the earth is round or that the speed of light has a limit" is a valid scientific request, and it has been done. If you don't understand that, if you keep falling back on a spergy idea that "proof" must mean "propositional logical proof" then the fault is your own education on this subject matter, and I'm sorry to say that's just more proof (hah) that most people on reddit have no fucking clue how to engage with research material.

I can't say that study X proves Y, I can only say that study X provides proof for Y.

Sure you can, if X is a study that rules out W and Z, the competing theories of Y, where all other evidence has ruled X, W, and Z to be the rationally justified theories.

[–]Kaisha0012 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Prove to me the earth is round or that the speed of light has a limit" is a valid scientific request, and it has been done.

That's because they were not proven by studies. You said prove that a study proved X or Y. The earth is round, or the speed of light, are measurements, and can be definitively proven in the "propositional logical proof" sense (as you call it).

If you keep falling back on a spergy idea that "proof" must mean "propositional logical proof"

No, rather that 'prove' in the context you used it, can only mean propositional logical proof, not in all contexts. Let's keep the goal posts where they are.

I'm sorry to say that's just more proof (hah) that most people on reddit have no fucking clue how to engage with research material

Actually it is not, and you're just grasping at straws here to save face.

Sure you can, if X is a study that rules out W and Z, the competing theories of Y, where all other evidence has ruled X, W, and Z to be the rationally justified theories.

To rationally justify is not the same as to 'prove'. You're moving the goal posts here.

Precision in language is important in reading studies and understanding scientific papers. Tou like to throw around 'sperg' except that sperg-like behavior and attention to detail is essential in these endeavors. Maybe if you were more sperg-like yourself, you might not be having such a hard time here trying to save face?

Or, maybe just not be an pseudo intellectual asshole on the internet?

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's because they were not proven by studies.

Jesus christ do you not know what a study is? It's a form of empirical evidence. It's a structured experiment to test a hypothesis. It's a subset of the kind of evidence used to prove the earth is round. The fact I'm explaining this to you at all is very telling.

The earth is round, or the speed of light, are measurements, and can be definitively proven in the "propositional logical proof" sense (as you call it).

How (or over what criteria) someone chooses a mate is a measurement. Otherwise there'd be no study and no black pill proposition.

No, rather that 'prove' in the context you used it, can only mean propositional logical proof, not in all contexts.

Stop stalling and distracting, I've explained to you three times now what a scientist or researcher means when they say "can you prove X?" If you don't understand the question still, I rest my case that armchair internet incels have no business reading research material. If you do understand it, then stay on topic going forward.

To rationally justify is not the same as to 'prove'.

"Prove:" [T]o establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument".

"Empirical Evidence:" Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim."

Or, maybe just not be an pseudo intellectual asshole on the internet?

I'm seeing a lot of bitching and not a lot of argument on your side.

[–]noheyokay1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]noheyokay2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]noheyokay1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]noheyokay1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]noheyokay1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBacon1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]noheyokay1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]noheyokay0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]parahacker0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I only have the examples within this thread to judge by so far, but it seems hypocritical to make this statement when you've misconstrued both normalization

You mean when I pointed out its importance in making claims about wider outcomes?

and conditional reasoning,

You mean when you stepped in to defend (and apparently missed yourself) someone committing a very common fallacy??

as well as cited an experimental study that does not support your argument as support for your argument.

You mean the study that indicates that using judges of the opposite sex as an experimental framework without proper controls leads to inconclusive results? That, to you, is irrelevant to the OkC blog entry? Ok then.

At best, it could be considered supplemental, or could feasibly be considered supporting if combined with other evidence that fill the missing steps in

What the hell are you talking about? I never introduced it as a rebuttal. I introduced it to specially point out the problems with intentionally electing not to normalize your findings and not explaining the possible effects this could have on the outcome (which the author then uses to form his conclusion).

[–]80_20SCIENCE / non-incel incel advocate / NO PILL0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]80_20SCIENCE / non-incel incel advocate / NO PILL0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It was reviewed in the new York times and a best seller.

Being a best seller doesn't make the information accurate.

The author (who graduated from Harvard with a math degree) gave talks at Google and was interviewed by NPR.

Going to Harvard with a background in mathematics doesn't mean he produced sound experiments.

The data released by OkCupid is the largest amount of data released about dating ever

If I presented a million pictures of cartoons and asked a million people to judge them it would be the largest, most useless data set in the world.

It's also backed up by other, newer dating systems.

Cite your sources, JFC.

You haven't linked any contrary evidence, you've just been flailing about saying people misinterpreted the data.

sci-hub.st/10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.199 — A metacriticism of the general methodologies that attempt to ascertain "objective attractiveness."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.htm—Women have a wider variance in what is deemed as "attractive or not"

sci-hub.do/10.1016/j.rssm.2016.04.002— Grooming (and presentation) plays the largest role in establishing attractiveness in both genders

[–]80_20SCIENCE / non-incel incel advocate / NO PILL1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SherbertBaconBrazen0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The first one is just facial attractiveness.

That’s a weak rebuttal dude.

The 2nd one actually agrees with the pickiness of women, while yes, they have a wider variance in who is attractive or not,

No they also have less consensus on who is attractive. They could be pickier over physical preferences, but they don’t agree on what those preferences are, which is actually a big deal with respect to what we’re talking about.

plus this study is 15 years old at this point.

Can’t wait to pull this justification in a few years for a fucking blog post.

and it used online data...

Right so either you say online data is reliable or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then fuck off with OkC data. If it is, then online data is producing contradictory results around attractiveness ratings... which is basically my whole point.

The 3rd paper actually starts with a bunch of blackpill studies. YOu know the ones where attractive people are seen as smarter and make more money and get more justice than ugly people?

Read to the conclusions dude.

It actually starts with the blackpill that you are trying to argue against...

Hardly. Nobody says looks don’t matter. Black pill says looks mean everything. Don’t shift goal posts

[–]rosmaskinenProzac Becky1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]80_20SCIENCE / non-incel incel advocate / NO PILL1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rosmaskinenProzac Becky0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to MRS_DRgree[M] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redditthrowaway1478💪M/29/Seattle/red/optimistic nihilist0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mrs_DrgreeHas the Properties of Both Rubber and Gum 💧-.-⭐0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Gabo97180 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]screamingIn2_theVoidnoNoodleArms-1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Bluepillers in a nutshell
Author	ProfessorChuckFinley
Upvotes	94
Comments	112
Date	October 19, 2020 12:39 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/jdrurr/bluepillers_in_a_nutshell/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/bluepillers-in-a-nutshell.319132 https://theredarchive.com/post/319132

Comments