Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 16:32:30 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Inside the dark world of incels
Paramount
Member
Fri May 18 07:08:37
Toronto van attack: Inside the dark world of 'incels'

The suspect accused of a deadly van attack in Toronto wrote about an "Incel Rebellion" on Facebook, prompting huge attention on a little-known internet subculture. Who are the young men who frequent incel - short for "involuntarily celibate" - message boards?

"Obviously I don't have much hope of attracting a woman in the first place."

Jack Peterson is a 19-year-old from Chicago. He's one of the thousands of young men who visit forums on Reddit and other incel websites.

"I've had a couple of negative experiences in relationships and so that has made me feel, like you know... it's hard to move on from my past and start a new relationship," he says. "I've had women who have done pretty bad things to me."

These overall themes of failure and frustration - along with anger and hate - are common on incel forums. I spoke to several young men who call themselves incel. They're in their teens or early 20s and many have experienced rejection or negative encounters with women.

They go to message boards out of loneliness. What they find is a group of angry men pushing the idea that they have lost the genetic lottery, and there's almost nothing they can do about it.

Jack has a YouTube channel and a podcast. He is one of very few incels prepared to speak to the media after the Toronto attacks.

Others agreed to speak if I changed their names. They're embarrassed because they're unsuccessful at relationships - but many are also hiding extreme views.

One 19-year-old incel from the UK - I'll call him Liam - has been active on forums from a young age. He's unemployed, and lives at home with his family.

He admits: "I've got this sort of misogynistic view which is not helping me in life, generally."

I ask him directly: does he hate women?

"In some ways, yes," he stutters. "I try not to, but I find myself like - I'll just be talking and I'll say things that I shouldn't really say, just because I've been looking at forums."

Our conversation is stilted, thoughts trail off and silences punctuate our interaction. I ask Liam what kind of things he says in real life that he thinks he shouldn't. He reels off several unprintable insults that he mutters at women. So is this behaviour a result of his time in incel communities?

"I guess I can't actually say if it's related, because when you're younger, you probably wouldn't end up saying those things anyway. But I guess I wouldn't have before.

"It's what these communities are," he adds. "It sucks you in so you get into this echo chamber of people who experience similar problems.

"You think one small [thing]... then you get other people thinking far more radical things. So you then think the small things are acceptable."

The radical things Liam talks about are in plain sight on incel message boards.
Sex and genetics

The idea that all women are money-grabbing, promiscuous and manipulative comes across strongly on incel threads, where attractive women in particular are referred to as "Stacys".

"Stacys" are objects of both desire and ridicule. In their world, incels believe "Stacys" will always choose so-called "Chads" over them.

A "Chad" is a caricature of a sexually successful man. And comparisons are not just about personality or confidence. Many incels believe they are genetically inferior to "Chads".

Chad is often depicted as a successful guy with swathes of blonde hair and pulsating muscles (which he shows off in neon green trousers). He has a sports car, but more than that, he also possesses a physical attribute incels envy - a chiselled jaw line.

These crude caricatures seem laughable - but they are important because they create an "us v them" mentality. Incels believe that sex, love and happiness are out of their reach, available only to others.

They're particularly drawn to the nihilistic "black pill" theory - the idea that they are the only ones who realise that the game of sex and attraction is rigged from birth.

Self-help or positivity is frowned upon on incel forums. Anyone who successfully interacts with women is instantly branded a "fakecel" - meaning "fake incel".

ncel communities have developed on Reddit, Facebook, 4chan and on sites run by incels themselves. There are also counter-incel groups which ridicule their views. It's in one of these opposition groups that I meet an "ex-incel".

Matthew - again not his real name - found out about incels on 4chan, a freewheeling, often extreme message board. He is frank about what drew him in, aged just 15.

"I was quite overweight. I was very socially inept and my friendship circle was quite restricted," he reflects. "As a result, I was very insecure.

"Having someone who was a girl, who had broken my heart, just further strengthened that insecurity."

Over the course of a year, Matthew's attitudes towards women turned extreme.

"I had resentment towards a particular person," he says. "But after speaking to people on the internet, they tended to convince me that [cruelty] was a common attribute among women. Which is quite terrible, now that I think about it.

"It was this idea that all women were inherently manipulative. All women had an intent to exploit men."
Mass murder

A hero within inceldom - possibly a somewhat ironic one - is Elliot Rodger. In 2014, he killed six people and turned the gun on himself. In a rambling manifesto filled with racist and misogynistic slurs, Rodger complained that women did not want to have sex with him.

Although the manifesto did not specifically mention incels, his actions are discussed constantly in incel forums. Sometimes the comments look like dark humour but at other times they appear more serious.

I saw one forum thread where someone was saying they wanted to take their own life, and various commenters suggested violence.

One said: "DON'T be selfish. Go to an elementary school and kill some children before you commit suicide. Please!?!"

Messages like that aren't unusual in the incel community. When someone mentions that they have suicidal thoughts, they're often egged on by other posters.

As we speak, Liam, the 19-year-old UK incel, tries to joke about Rodger's murder spree.

"I don't think it was even that wrong," he says, laughing nervously. When I push, he does say: "It's common sense, it's wrong to kill people."

Incel forums, he admits, are not places to go to for support, if you're angry or having thoughts of suicide.

"People don't try and sugar-coat things in a way that conventionally people do," he says.

Keeping an eye on incels

Moderation of many incel groups is fairly lax. Reddit banned the largest incel group in November, but others remain online.

There are also individuals who keep tabs on incel forums.

I speak to Emily, a Canadian woman who has been observing the Toronto incel community for years. She even posed as a male on a Reddit account to try to engage with them. (Again, Emily is not her real name - she says she's received rape threats from incels).

Emily is particularly disturbed by conversations she's seen since the Toronto attack. While some incels are desperately trying to distance themselves from the attacker, others are undermining that message.

"The day after the attack I saw a British student who was an incel. He wasn't let into medical school because - he said - a woman interviewed him and thought he was too ugly to be a doctor," she explains.

"He was planning to kill himself that night and in the comments section were people encouraging him to take revenge and 'not go down alone'," she says.

"They're posting violent memes. They're encouraging each other to attack people and no-one is doing anything about it. If Isis was doing something like this, it would be shut down immediately and people would be arrested."

Emily says there is a particularly active incel community in Toronto - possibly because of the political climate in Canada, where the prime minister calls himself a feminist.

"I think people feel oppressed when equality is closer," she says. "So if you were once the king of the hill and now everyone's almost on your level, you feel threatened."

There also appears to be an overlap between incel culture and the hyper-nationalist, anti-feminist movement of the alt-right. Both movements view the world through the lens of group genetics, with racial stereotypes, and think of themselves as unfairly maligned minority groups under attack by political correctness. And they share the same sense of humour, which has practically no filter.

Matthew, the ex-incel from Australia, turned away from the movement partly because it morphed into something political.

"Back then it wasn't nearly as hostile as it is today," he recalls. "There's instigators - people on these forums who ignite feelings of anger. They push people into often reactionary movements, most commonly the alt-right."

"I stopped calling myself an incel at the end of 2016. That's when political discourse began to become quite heated in Australia," he recalls. "They tended to just blame everything on women."

Matthew is at university now, and says meeting new people has made it easier to socialise and talk to women. But he worries that other incels who are more reclusive may find it difficult to change.

Moving away

Amid all of the hatred online, the recent attention in the wake of the Toronto attack appears to have prompted some incels to have a change of heart.

A few days after I interviewed him, Jack Peterson uploaded a video titled: "Why I'm Leaving Incels". I rang him again, to ask why.

"Just being productive, and busy, and going downtown, and travelling, and meeting a bunch of different people," he says. "Talking to CNN, BBC and the Sun has made me realise that my regular daily life is very boring and monotonous.

"And it kind of made me realise that I can't really go back to sitting on a forum all day, talking about how miserable I am, and making podcasts about it. I have to make a change.

"Even if you're just some random guy who lives with his mom, and makes videos about how you're a loser, you can still have some small impact on the world. So it just gave me confidence."

After all the media attention, Jack noticed that he was getting good feedback from unexpected sources.

"I was getting positive comments from random feminists and leftists. And the incel community itself was telling me to kill myself. I was like... maybe this is not healthy for me."

And Emily, the Canadian woman, shows a surprising amount of empathy for a community that expresses such extreme views. I ask her what she would say to incels reading this story.

"If you project love into the world, you'll receive love back," she advises. "If you're negative towards women they will never, ever want to have a relationship with you.

"So you need to a lot of soul searching. The world isn't a hateful place. People are friendly. You're not ugly. You matter."

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-44053828


The "Chads and Stacys", "fakecel", "Counter-incel groups". Didn't know all this existed.
Seb
Member
Fri May 18 07:33:51
Sex isn't a primary need. People can go without sex forever, and they will not suffer any physiological damage.

But contact is a primary need - people isolated for long periods of time start to suffer neurological and psychological damage, and even physiological damage. There are medical studies that show loneliness is predictive of death.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-leeat-granek/loneliness-can-kill-liter_b_7031340.html

A great deal of the problem of incels is a toxic version of masculinity that can only talk about the need for human contact in the context of sex, and sex as a commodity.

It's love and companionship these people want, but they can only ask in the language of sex. So sad.
The Children
Member
Fri May 18 07:47:52
lol grown men dunt talk about incel. like wtf kind of name is that.

grown men talk about mgtow, bitches.

men going there own ways!

one doesnt need women. if one wants sex, one just hires a hooker. what do u need women 4. so they take half ur possessions when they divorce u which 80-90% of them will anyway.

some of the biggest movie stars r mgtows. they dunt say it outloud, but they never stay committed 2 a single woman and they constantly look 4 lingeree models and shit. thats pure mgtow right there.

incels is 4 frustrated little boys. real men are not incel little emo weaboo cunts.

real men r mgtows.
real men already figured out how 80% of women r money hungry women with no loyalty. real men dunt need women. real men stay single and enjoy the shit out of life with no one whinin about how they wanna go shoppin or how the room is littered with stuff. becoz g damn, a room has stuff in it. like how fuckin shockin is that. why does stuff need 2 be always at one certain spot, why cant it just be layin on the ground for a while when i dunt need it.

becoz fuck that shit.
fuck incels, fuck unfaithfull sluts, fuck whore behavior. mgtow.
Paramount
Member
Fri May 18 08:06:58
Which level are you at? A level 3 mgtow?


Levels

According to Vice writer Mack Lamoureux, there are five levels to MGTOW:[10]

Level 0 - Situational awareness: This is the lowest level of MGTOW. At this level, a man is viewed as having swallowed the "red pill" and thereby, MGTOW advocates claim men at this level "embrac[e] the idea that gender equality is a lie and propaganda."

Level 1 - Rejection of long-term relationships: At this stage, a man "...rejects long-term relationships but will still partake in short-term relationships and sexual encounters."

Level 2 - Rejection of short-term relationships: In level 2, a man does not meet women for "...hook-ups or any form of short-term or sexual relationships."

Level 3 - Economic disengagement: a member at this stage "...refuses to earn more money than is necessary for sustaining life. He views the government as tyrannical and is trying to actively drain money from the bureaucrats."

Level 4 - Societal disengagement: "Here the man refuses to interact with society any more than ever", such as by living "off the grid" (e.g. in a cabin)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way
The Children
Member
Fri May 18 08:18:21
fake media and there fake levels.

mgtow has no levels. mgtows dunt marry. coz they know it only brings drama and u end up losin half ur shit.

mgtows have as many sex they want with hookers and whores and other friends with benefits. we just do not partake in relationships.

there r mgtows that have children, he just aint married. why shuld he.

there r mgtows that have girlfriends. he just doesnt share her idea of marriage and children and family. why shuld he.

mgtows enjoy life. do what they want, wake up when they want, eat what they want, and fuckin clean up whenever they fuck they want it.

no fuckin leeches and unfaithfull sluts bringin u down. thats mgtow.

wiki is turnin into fake media.
hood
Member
Fri May 18 08:47:34
"Sex isn't a primary need. People can go without sex forever, and they will not suffer any physiological damage."

Biological needs do not fully describe a healthy person. People may not need sex, but it's definitely not something many people just choose not to do.


"A great deal of the problem of incels is a toxic version of masculinity that can only talk about the need for human contact in the context of sex, and sex as a commodity."

This is a very one sided analysis. It isn't just men who commoditize sex. Women also play these games, partly because they recognize that most men will go for it just about any time. Sex becomes a "reward" that men have to "earn." Indeed, anyone with a penis should recognize the "well, fuck, I'm in the mood and there's no amount of baseball I can think of to stop this" feeling. While being in that mood certainly doesn't mean you should be entitled to anything, it absolutely makes it more frustrating when women drag you through those games.

Quite frankly, any discussion about gender relations that solely focuses on how terrible people men are should be taken out to pasture and shot dead, Napoleon Dynamite style just as quickly as any entitlement men might feel towards a female body.
Seb
Member
Fri May 18 09:02:46
Hood:

Point is, talking about absence of sex in the same way as say, absence of food, isn't reasonable.

Not sure why you think pointing out sex is a common preference is important here.

"This is a very one sided analysis."
No it's not. Partly because this isn't a "women versus men" thing, so there's no "sides" to discuss. I'm analysing the discourse of Incels and the mismatch between their arguments, stated goals and the paradox. I'm not interested in analysing commoditization of sex broadly here, it's not needed. But you might consider the fact that incels can actually buy sex. Prostitutes exist. Consider their arguments against prostitution. It's not really sex they want / need is it?
They can't talk about what it is they actually want without packaging it in this absurd framework of commodified sex. Why?

Dig into it and what the rationalisation boils down to is about status. Status with respect to other men. Incels problems are not with women, but their hangups on what they think men should be, and how they think other men judge them, underpinned by a deep isolation they can't even acknowledge properly.

Incels are the perfect example of the crisis in masculinity, and what is meant by a "toxic" versions of masculinity.

It's not about people being terrible. It's about people getting some fucking terrible ideas and ordering their lives to them.


Seb
Member
Fri May 18 09:04:26
*how they think other men judge them, and thus how they judge themselves.
Jebbebiah Wilkins
Member
Fri May 18 09:07:26
How can I change my nick to Chad?
hood
Member
Fri May 18 09:19:51
"But you might consider the fact that incels can actually buy sex. Prostitutes exist."

You suggest they commit a crime?


"Point is, talking about absence of sex in the same way as say, absence of food, isn't reasonable."

I don't think anyone has done this. Are you making up arguments to bash, again?


"Not sure why you think pointing out sex is a common preference is important here."

Because extreme wants can feel like needs, even if we recognize they aren't. It's completely retarded to dismiss the feelings these people have because they aren't a biological need. Yes, they're completely fucking retarded. Yes, they're misdirecting their angst. But also, yes they feel completely abandoned by the opposite sex and there likely aren't many, if any women in their lives that have ever committed actions to convince these guys otherwise. One learns from experience and these days, gaining that experience can be an extreme chore, to the point of seeming futility.


"I'm not interested in analysing commoditization of sex broadly here, it's not needed."

So you're going to put out a half assed, incomplete argument and then say that it doesn't matter anyway when challenged in it? Fair enough. If you're just arguing dishonestly, we can be done here.
Seb
Member
Fri May 18 09:58:07
hood:

"You suggest they commit a crime?"

State mandated someone be someone else's girlfriend would also be a crime...

"I don't think anyone has done this. Are you making up arguments to bash, again?"
I suggest you do a bit more research on the arguments deployed by incels. Are you making up facts again?

This is about to turn into one of those tiresome posts when you start a slanging match.

The point is Sex is not a need, the kind of policy prescriptions and the discourse of Incels is wildly out of proportion. Until you recognise what it is they are really getting at - which very much is a need, but which is a thing they themselves cannot articulate.

"o you're going to put out a half assed"
No, I'm just not making the argument you believe and want me to be making.

Searching for some false equivalence from an imagined other party isn't necessary here for a complete argument. The only "incompleteness" arises from your desire to frame this as "men vs women".

My point is not "Incels are bad because they want to commoditise sex" and therefore does not need "completing" with a discussion all other people who want to commoditise sex.

You are completely missing the point, and having now tried to correct your understanding, only to be rebuffed as "making up arguments" and "incomplete arguments", it's clear you are only interested in fomenting an slagging match.

If you are sincere, you might want to re-read from scratch having set that preconception to one side.









Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri May 18 10:18:48
The ”need” for sex while not like food, is not like other non essential need. We didn’t end up 7 billion strong, because sex drive was so easy to ignore. I don’t know about you, but cuming is not always about pleasure, it is an urge, a release, deep rooted instinct.
murder
Member
Fri May 18 10:19:59

"They're in their teens or early 20s and many have experienced rejection or negative encounters with women."

Well aren't they special? :o)

murder
Member
Fri May 18 10:31:20

If you're swallowing any sort of "pills", you're a certifiable moron, and you're being manipulated.

McKobb
Member
Fri May 18 10:53:17
Why does this generation always need to play the victim?
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri May 18 10:56:21
"Why does this generation always need to play the victim?"

cause there ain't no more good righteous wars like the good ole days.
Dukhat
Member
Fri May 18 11:01:15
Incels have always been around and they either fester for the rest of their life alone or change for the better.

It's just in the internet age, a guy after his first rejection can go online and find a community of co-enablers with a whole anti-feminist world-view and made-up terminology like "Chad" and "Stacy" and other bullshit.

Incels are very similar to other alt-right communities like red pillers and the_donald posters; there is a shit ton of overlap.

And it's all so fucking sad and pointless. Suck it up, get a gym membership, and work on yourself. It's not fucking hard.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri May 18 11:51:00
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdLZSLyUwAAKXXS.jpg
patom
Member
Fri May 18 13:33:31
Jesus Mary and Joseph. Where in the hell do you people come up with all these special categories for people. Until a few minutes ago I had never ever heard of an incel. Just go find a porn book or video and masturbate to your hearts content.
hood
Member
Fri May 18 13:37:08
"Just go find a porn book or video and masturbate to your hearts content."

You're at least 15 years out of date.
Aeros
Member
Fri May 18 14:08:36
Yeah we used to have wars to help weed out the unattached young men. No worries though. A war is bound to find us eventually if the population of unmarried males continues to increase.
Seb
Member
Fri May 18 14:13:20
Patom:

They self define and radicalise on the internet.
patom
Member
Fri May 18 14:18:25
hood, the way they keep putting out new alphabet labels on every human condition. Who the hell can keep up?
Just like the LGBalphabet soup bunch. I mean really. They keep coming up with capital letters to add onto an already overly long description.
Is it any wonder I'm out of date?
murder
Member
Fri May 18 14:21:31

"You're at least 15 years out of date. "

We're creeping up on 25 years since Al Gore invented the internet. In that time span some women have gone from "barely legal" to "MILFs" to "GILFs". :o)

hood
Member
Fri May 18 16:31:29
While the internet and porn on the internet have indeed been around for longer, it wasn't until the early 2000s when it really became mainstream and useable for streaming (low quality) video. Which is ~ 15 years ago.
patom
Member
Fri May 18 18:25:10
It's been 16 years since I got my first computer at 58. Was forced to learn to type when I went to work at the jail. Don't do to awful bad at it. But I honestly never heard of incels until today on this site.
hood
Member
Fri May 18 18:38:10
I was more referencing "porn book or video" being completely irrelevant in the days of internet porn, which has been ongoing for more than 15 years.
McKobb
Member
Fri May 18 19:30:48
AMD processors started melting from over use in the 2000's.
smart dude
Member
Sat May 19 04:37:11
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/

comedy gold. a bunch of greasy losers offering life advice to other losers who can't get laid.
murder
Member
Sat May 19 11:03:21

"But I honestly never heard of incels until today on this site."

I'd never heard of them until the other day when that idiot used a truck as a weapon in Toronto.

murder
Member
Sat May 19 11:04:03

"AMD processors started melting from over use in the 2000's."

That's when the porn got too hot to handle.

murder
Member
Sat May 19 11:05:10
"a bunch of greasy losers offering life advice to other losers who can't get laid."

Too bad their moms didn't take the pill. ;o)

Seb
Member
Sat May 19 11:10:14
Murder:

Me neither, but a better exemplar of what is meant by toxic masculinity could scarcely exist.

They are driven by an incredibly warped idea of what is needed to be "a proper man".
Seb
Member
Sat May 19 11:12:19
(n.b. having created this bizarre platonic ideal, they then argue they fall short of it, never had a chance and thus justify their misogyny)

So many layers of fucked up.
murder
Member
Sat May 19 11:19:44

Personally I just think they are insecure little jerkoffs that are manipulated by people whose purpose in life is to undermine society and create chaos.

Some paid, and others who do it for fun.

This same shit happens on other sites (like right wing sites). There are people who take charge and set an agenda, and others (possibly multis) who police and smash dissenters. The weak get sucked in and fall in line just to feel part of a group.

All those sites should get shut down.

Y2A
Member
Sat May 19 16:53:19
Treat them like Islamic Extremists and shut down their websites and have a drone lob some bombs at them. Same with the alt white. Oh wait, that's never going to happen because they have white skin so get a kind of special status when it comes to extremist behavior.
obaminated
Member
Sat May 19 18:06:22
When did y2a become a radical?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun May 20 06:32:16
Aeros
There is an old Africa proverb I have cited here before.

”If you don’t initiate your young men into the tribe, they will burn down the village.”

Jergul told me that computer games and fiber optics would make my fears a non issue.
jergul
large member
Sun May 20 07:13:52
Or rather, jergul told you there are many ways to initiate young men into the tribe.

Alternatively. Reduce the volume of production.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun May 20 07:20:16
No jergul said what I said he said. He is free to dig up this thread where he mentions alternative initiations.
jergul
large member
Sun May 20 09:46:47
Indeed. Computer games and fiber optic render your fears a non-issue as they literally reconnect young men and thus make it a non-issue.

Young men are profoundly non-violent compared to any norm historical you could care to shake a stick at.

Engagement at many levels. Except for in marriage. Because women are not stupid.
CrownRoyal
Member
Sun May 20 14:29:29
We can probably create some sort of affirmative action policy for the piece of shit losers, who can't get women and want to murder people because of it. Of course we'd call them something other than piece of shit losers, it is not nice. I am not totally against the idea
CrownRoyal
Member
Sun May 20 14:31:31
Maybe a govt-run pool of some kind, where these losers can submit their names, I'm pretty sure women can be found that can take pity on them.
murder
Member
Mon May 21 11:37:34

^ or simply accept money for doing the job. Prostitutes are the bedrock upon which civilization is built.

We give food and housing aid to the poor, so why not sex aid for sad and potentially violent losers?


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon May 21 13:36:03
Jergul
You are correct. Internet has been intrumental in radicalizing young people and recruiting them for things like Islamic State. Islamic state would have never been as succesful without the internet. It is the same mistake you made about Iranian (young) demograhic and that you do now as well. Young people are stupid and impressionable, they are not ”liberal”. There is no impending conservative/religious demographic doom in sight.
Seb
Member
Mon May 21 13:49:44
murder:

Incels hate prostitution.

The mindset is something along the lines of:

The height of manhood is to have lots of chicks and sex. This determines your status in society.

Women control access to sex, so women control status.

Women prefer only certain genetically superior men. Some men are born without a chance in life due to their inferior genes.

It's all womens fault for not having sex with them.

Women who use makeup are cheating: they go from being 5's to 7's, improving their status and gaining access to more genetically superior men, rather than giving up and settling for more genetically inferior men.

It's all women's fault for not having sex with them. They are exploiting their control of social status.

And prostitution is the worst! Those women have found a way to financially exploit men through their control of social status.

It's all the women's fault for not having sex with them.

When you did through it all, what you find at the end is this is really all about Incel's warped idea of what they think a good* (as in successful) example of a man is, how they can't live up to this rather warped idea of what a good man is (which is largely their own weird sub-cultures invention).

Hence they are for enforced monogamy, banning prostitution, punishing profligate men and women.

Perfect definition of what is meant by toxic masculinity. They are railing against a set of values that nobody really has, but which they project onto society.

And what it really is about is loneliness. They don't want sex, they want a partner. But as it's so bound up in a personal sense of self worth, and draped in a deeply materialist, narcissistic view which paradoxically paints themselves as the victims in all of this... well who would go near such a bag of issues.

It's *very* like Islamic terrorism and how radicalisation channels work there.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon May 21 14:31:40
"The height of manhood is to have lots of chicks and sex. This determines your status in society."

The reverse actually, now I don't know if it's your version, the incels or your version of the incels. Your status in society determines how much sex you get as a man. You can't start with the chicks and sex and then get status! Well a select few dick slingers have, the legendary Casanovas. Everyone else has to gain status first.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon May 21 14:44:43
"It's *very* like Islamic terrorism and how radicalisation channels work there."

And the access to mates is at the heart. One of the first real shocks with Islamic State was the sex slaves. We have know for some time that men who are married have greatly reduced risk of joining these groups, with children even less.

http://www...-link-between-polygamy-and-war

^The article links this to polygamy, but broadly it is the denied access to mates, the same behavior can be seen in chimps. You find yourself at the bottom of the hierarchy with no real options to climb it. Violence can and has historically (evolutionary time frame) been an effective way of disrupting the status quo. Although not a reliable one, but if you have nothing to lose?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hive-mind/201710/mass-killings-evolutionary-perspective

^Evolutionary perspective of mass shooters.
murder
Member
Mon May 21 15:16:54

"It's *very* like Islamic terrorism and how radicalisation channels work there."

OK so a bullet to the melon then.

Seb
Member
Mon May 21 15:28:36
Nim:

It's a summary of the incels.

Of course it's bollocks. The whole thing is bollocks.

Oh god, here you go again with evolutionary theory.

Lord save us from those who have discovered evolution and adopted the law of the instrument.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 22 10:25:21
I am sorry you do not understand evolutionary theory and they way it and how it fits in. It explains your atrocious understanding of human behavior. Anyone who attempts to understand or explain human behavior without evolutionary theory is doomed to fail.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 22 10:54:57
abstract
In this paper, we use a combination of evolutionary theory, ethnographic data, written sources, and archaeolog- ical evidence to develop a new explanation for the origins of Viking raiding. Our argument focuses on the oper- ational sex ratio, which is the ratio of males to females in a society who are ready to mate at a given time. We propose that a combination of two practices – polygyny and concubinage – and the increase in social inequality that occurred in Scandinavia during the Late Iron Age resulted in a male-biased operational sex ratio. This would have created a pool of unmarried men motivated to engage in risky behaviours that had the potential to increase their wealth and status, and therefore their probability of entering the marriage market. With high-status men looking to instigate expeditions to acquire plunder and develop their reputations as war leaders, raiding repre- sented a mutually beneficial means of achieving social advancement and success.

^incels of the Viking Age.

Abstract
Existing literature connects military service to regional characteristics and family traditions, creating real distinctions between those who serve and those who do not. We engage this discussion by examining military service as a function of personality. In the second portion, we examine military service as predisposed by genetics. Our findings indicate there is a significant heritability component of serving in the military. We find a significant genetic correlation between personality traits associated with progressive political ambition and military service, suggesting that military service represents a different form of political participation to which individuals are genetically predisposed. We discuss the long-term implications of our findings for policy makers and recruiters.

^leaders of the modern age


jergul
large member
Tue May 22 10:58:54
Nimi
All kinds of theories explain why disenfranchised play poorly with others.

The problem with using evolutionary theory is that you get all kinds of sledge-hammer type solutions.

For example that violence is somehow caused by feminism and all would be well if women could behave.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 22 11:02:10
”A summary of incels”

If it is your summary, then it most certainly got so much wrong that it isn’t useful. I can’t tell since I have not read anything about incels besides the things I have read here.
Seb
Member
Tue May 22 11:05:12
Nim:

Do you know what the law of the instrument is Nim?
jergul
large member
Tue May 22 11:06:38
Summed up by: To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Seb
Member
Tue May 22 11:06:47
Nim:

"If it is your summary, then it most certainly got so much wrong that it isn’t useful. I can’t tell..."

Could you lead with the reason we should ignore your statements next time? Saves time.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 22 11:10:47
Your argument, if one could even call it that, is very poir. It is untrue first of all, there are no inherent ”sledgehammer solutions” in evolutionary explanations, this is only a fear within a certain subset of the political spectrum based on historical events. And even if, it has no bearing on the validity of said explanation. So while I may share some of the worries, we should work to provide better explanations rather than fear. Make no mistake the data is raining down, the explanations will be made, and they will effect policy sooner or later based on the seeds planted today.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 22 11:13:05
Ban incels from owning guns and driving vehicles?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 22 11:15:59
Do you know what evolutionary theory is? Specifically what components shape a specie? Your hammer law is meaningless. Evolutionary theory is comprehensive. It is my duty (in life) to give the evolutionary _perspective_ in a world full of blank slate stupidity. If you do not understand how it fits and where, I suggest going back to school.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 22 11:19:00
I said right off the bat I did not know and explained why it was wrong. If it is your summary on some group of men I feel confident in saying it is most likely wrong, based on your previous summaries.
Seb
Member
Tue May 22 11:20:00
Nim:

You are doing the same as postmodernists who think they can apply postmodernist approaches to empirical science.

If you try to understand everything through evolution all you are doing is limiting yourself quite severely.

Evolution is a good scientific theory, not a universal framework for comprehending all of reality.
jergul
large member
Tue May 22 11:23:57
Nimi
Incels of the viking era were thralls.

Evolutionary theory is hardly comprehensive. How does it explain "It is my duty (in life) to give the evolutionary _perspective_ in a world full of blank slate stupidity."?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 22 11:24:05
Giving purely genetic explanations is as hollow and wrong as purely cultural or environmental, to describe the totality of any specie. Evolutionary theory encompasses all, but a closer tie between sociology and biology is needed to provide a better theory for it all. As I have said on many occasions before. But sure wack that hammer at those imaginary nails.
jergul
large member
Tue May 22 11:24:41
Sebs point is quite simple: Choose a theory appropriate to the task at hand.
jergul
large member
Tue May 22 11:26:49
In the case of incels. Any theory that concludes in anything other than counciling and therapy for the afflicted men would be inappropriate to the task at hand.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 22 13:59:43
The basic premise is this: Some of our behavior is to some degree the result of evolution. I think that is interesting, if you disagree, you can fuck off ;-)
TJ
Member
Tue May 22 15:35:01
The principle of least resistance is broadly evolutionary and comprehensive.

7.9 million mental perspectives often appear as contradictory. Agency/structure determines behavior.

It is easy to put evolution into a box. Least resistance..., unrealized connections.

Is structure determined and who or what is the agency?

Comfort zones the mind determines or demands, pick either. The spark of Mental gymnastics.



jergul
large member
Tue May 22 15:56:20
Nimi
Why would I disagree with that?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed May 23 04:54:39
"Evolutionary theory is hardly comprehensive."

In the sense that genes and environment factor in to shape the explanations, unlike blank slate arguments. Of course there are not explanations for everything. Personally I think everything about our behavior has a genetic component, there is good evidence for my belief. But sure it may be wrong, it would surprise me, if we found an aspect of our behavior that was in no way shaped by our genes. Surprises in store for everyone I assume. I like biology and I think too little biology is applied to things like education, criminal justice or hey even social justice. So I wear those goggles.

"Why would I disagree with that?"

That was for seb. I don't think you jergul in principle disagree with evolutionary explanations, you are (likely seb as well) fearful of the types of "solutions" people may suggest. By all means if you or anyone else can only think of the type of "sledgehammer" solutions that make me cringe as well, keep them to yourself, my imagination stretches further. It is simple, based on these studies and future studies, we can devise social programs and policy to combat things like violence (sexual as well), crime, substance abuse and many more things. I am (and the relevant people in the field) convinced we can not understand those things without evolutionary theory. So it's very easy, we will do that and then see what the outcomes are.

Until then, you and everyone else should do well to not confuse these descriptions (evolutionary explanations) as if they are normative. Though I agree that some minority of people (laymen laymen) do that. I don't, I am only interested in better explanations. I have posted this before,

Tinberg's four questions to understand evolved behavior.

1. Mechanism: How does it work?
2. Function: What is it for?
3. Ontogeny: How does it develop
4. Phylogeny: How did it evolve

Evolutionary psychology is about no. 2.
Seb
Member
Wed May 23 05:01:50
Nim:

Over-reliance on evolutionary theory - particularly when a hypothesis relying on evolutionary theory cannot be reliably be falsified (as is often the case in the field of evolutionary psychology) is unscientific.

It is similar to the same kind of error invoked by those who seek to disprove evolution by pointing out a watch could never have evolved.

It's unsafe to invoke a theory as a catch all explanation for any and all phenomenology that comes along.

On a very facile level, you can say that everything humans do is a product of evolution; but in evolutionary theory not all traits that appear need to be the consequence of selective pressure.

So seeking to explain, for example, Incels behaviour as a result of specific adaptations is very ropey indeed.

I'd start off by saying, if that is your hypothesis, what is the evidence or test that you would falsify that hypothesis (e.g. your version of the fossilised bunny rabbits in pre-cambrian strata)

If you cannot think of one, there's a fairly a good case that your hypothesis is unscientific.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed May 23 05:15:58
"catch all explanation"

I stopped reading there. You will have to figure out for yourself why.
jergul
large member
Wed May 23 05:55:18
Nimi
I think I and Seb are in accord with the fundamental: Use the theory appropriate to the task at hand.

I think your approach is admirable from a thesis question perspective (one of many questions that should be raised to provide context to your thesis and provide a roadmap of how you were thinking as you worked towards formulating your thesis).

But seldom, if ever, does evolutionary theory stand on its own (its use is almost invariably answered by m'kay, but would not theory x, y, or z have given a more robust framework for your study?).

Evolutionary theory is also by its nature multi-disciplinary, so is hard for a single scholar (or group of scholars from the same field) to pull off successfully.

See my nitpicking on viking society incels (I would argue that sex was widely available to free men, so evolutionary explanations would fall short as social drivers beyond procreation would have better explanatory power).
jergul
large member
Wed May 23 05:58:50
Checking out 0-theory (null-teori) is a good idea incidentally. Start with the negation of your theory and establish if it can exist.

"Rabbits exist" (theory)
"Rabbits do not exist" (null-teori)

A rabbit! Null-teori disproven!
Seb
Member
Wed May 23 10:20:15
Nim:

Ok, to spell it out for you:

Before arguing that the violence of Incels is predicted by evolutionary theory driven by adaptations that improve odds of procreation, here are some tests I'd perform:

1. Are Incels reports of being unable to find mates accurate? I'd take a sample of Incels, categorise them by various attributes then compare them to a control group or groups with the same traits to see if they actually are able or not to find mates.

2. I'd then look at people generally who are not able to find mates and look to see if they were more violent, and whether their violence was inflicted specifically on women or if they at least stated intent as violence towards women.

If also include social isolation as a separate variable (so we'd look at those that report not having sex/sexually frustrated , those feeling socially isolated/lonely, and those both, amongst populations describing themselves as incel, those who believe they are unable or are prohibitted by norms from having a partner but do not describe themselves as incels, and those that believe they are able to but just through circumstances haven't had sex.

I think when you decompose this you will find isolation as the greater driver rather than lack of sex itself; and I think even bigger will be how the individuals in question perceive and attribute the cause for their lack of partner.

My hypothesis in evolutionary terms might be that this is a non useful consequence of a thwarted drive to form strong social bonds, not linked to simple urge to procreate.

You might further test this by looking at violent tendencies of those who have sex but report strong sense of social isolation.
TJ
Member
Wed May 23 10:22:00
Evolution is the process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced mature or mutated stage).

Biology is the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species. It isn't a stretch to dissect a group or individual.

There is no need to insert semantics that add to the complexity of the development of these individual subjects. There is a pattern that develops the maturity/immaturity levels and different variables of the section being discussed.

I view this thread as doctors prescribing a masking medicine to delay a progressive disease rather than working toward a medical cure. The solution is difficult to prevent.

Individual psychology can possibly repair the damage but it can also prevent a need for the history to linger and perpetuate the section being examined.

Nothing ventured nothing gained.
TJ
Member
Wed May 23 10:29:18
Seb:
I wish you'd made that post before me. It puts the subject back on track. Thanks
TJ
Member
Wed May 23 10:36:47
Correction:
I wish I'd read your post before I initiated my summit.
Seb
Member
Wed May 23 11:52:20
And just to add, I think the link to psychology can be made and tested much more strongly and usefully than an evolutionary "creation myth" for the psychological response.

I.e. it's much easier to isolate and test what combinations circumstances and mindset are more likely predisposed to producing terrorist like responses to get a predictive framework for radicalisation; than it is to say, start from evolution and attempt to reason what combination of circumstances and mindset would have been shaped by selective pressures to provoke violence.

The former is scientific. The latter approach can often lead to handwavey nonsense: as a hypothetical example, it might lead someone to argue "sex leads to procreation, which is strongly selected for, so it stands to reason that those without sex would be unhappy" fine, but why would that unhappiness lead to behaviour likely to further reduce chances of procreation? Wouldn't the selective pressure push towards rape rather than murder?

This is inductive reasoning and can only get you so far (not very far at all) before you need empirical tests.

Recognising this is not, as you often claim, a failure to understand evolution but a proper appreciation of the scientific method and the philosophy of science.

Even if you had, say, been able to in some way show Incels violence was attributable to a strongly selected preference for sex rather than social bonds through inductive reasoning, you wouldn't necessarily be able to infer a risk model from that.

Seb
Member
Wed May 23 11:57:37
Tl;dr: just because one can hypothesise a selective pressure that would drive a specific adaptation under evolutionary theory, it does not follow that the hypothesised pressure did in fact drive that adaptation.

This needs to be testably differentiable from other hypothesised pressures to be considered a well structured scientific theory and must also *be* tested before considered likely.
TJ
Member
Wed May 23 12:50:36
An isolated individual compounds their problem when they isolate into a group identity. Encouraged peer support.

Examples of odd couples are plentiful around the world who adjust very adequately.

Seems obvious that these particular individuals have confidence issues created by psychological battering as well as physical. The seed is created and nourished in the home and reinforced by individuals who have less interest in their mental stability.

Sex won't eliminate the underlying damage that has been done.

Any reasonable enacted solution is most likely an impossibility in preventing the damage done by parental and sibling mental abusers.
TJ
Member
Wed May 23 12:55:40
I received an error of site unavailability so I resubmitted creating a double post. Maybe Edward will kindly eliminate one. Powerless...
Seb
Member
Wed May 23 13:51:32
TJ:

Sounds about right.
jergul
large member
Wed May 23 17:19:10
I corrected it far before you requested it Tj. Its the main service I provide :)
jergul
large member
Wed May 23 17:20:00
Correction. Its the only service.
TJ
Member
Wed May 23 17:24:55
Edward:
I had noticed and appreciated, thanks.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu May 24 05:26:26
Jergul
I am not a scientist in this field, I am a student. At my finest I am lobbying for the inclusions of relevant research fields and spaces for better explanations, because they are lacking and met with resistance rooted in fear. I can do this better than the scientist for many reasons, one being that I am not working in this field.

I expect concrete solutions/experiments, to be designed and tested, what are the outcomes? We will see. That and only that will provide meaningful answers.

As for the methodology in cognitive science and research, there is work to be done but this is useful:

Abstract
There is a growing interest among marketing scholars to examine the evolutionary bases of a wide range of consumer phenomena. While specific evolutionary hypotheses are typically tested using tools familiar to marketing researchers (e.g., experiments, surveys), the method of evolutionary psychology is rooted in its unique epistemology (the manner in which knowledge is generated and organized), which comprises three elements: (1) the distinction between proximate and ultimate explanations, (2) the building of nomolological networks of cumulative evidence (triangulation of convergent lines of evidence), and (3) an organizing tree of knowledge. The purpose of this article is to describe this process using marketing-relevant examples as a means of providing a framework of best practices to marketing scholars aiming to incorporate the evolutionary lens within their research programs.

Ideas that are mentioned here as well:
http://qui...rds-cognitive-theory-politics/
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu May 24 05:57:07
”behaviour likely to further reduce chances of procreation?”

Because this assertion is wrong. In specific context violence increases chance of procreation (or finding a mate), historically and presently. Are you familiar with the strand of women who find their pen pal and soul mate in a murderer/rapist in prison? Who adore gang members and badboys? Read about all the women standing execution in Iraq for marrying Islamic state members. Or how some ungodly percentage of people in Asia are descendent pf Gengis Khan and his raping murderous band. Interestingly a lot of jihadis come from central Asia, and are Turkmens.

So whether they go in for the purely selfish reasons of a man with status (violence capital can give status) or to make him better, it is what it is at the end of the day. Men prepared to use violence to get respect/status attract women. Violence has historically been used to turn systems upside down and install new polity of men in power, who sired many children.

If there are genetic components to these things, they were very very succesful spreading in the past. We may have subdued them through cultural and social (varying degrees of success across the world) means by shifting incentives, but they are still around, ”waiting” for the right conditions.

This is part of any answer, I believe. There will be clusters of people in clustered behavior. Certain types go down certain paths more readily than others provided the ”right” genes and environmental conditions. Interventions will work on some and not others based on the same criteria.

There are no absolutes, there is no catch all, everything I am saying is the opposite the truth is much more nuanced than the current blank slate approach that permiayes (in this country) everything from education policy to crime and abuse intervention. The catch all is the current method of assuming everyone can be or change anything about themselves provided the programs and policy we have, just pour more money on the problems.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu May 24 06:18:12
Now whether my approach, that everything about our behavior has a genetic component, is "facile" or not is not for me or you to decide seb. What I know is that we are biological organisms that came to be through biological evolution. We are constrained within that scope, despite being the most cognitively malleable creature on this planet. So if it is something as facile as "he had eyes and therefor he raped" or it could be as facile as saying it is a sense of entitlement (which doesn't explain where that comes from), only time will tell. In the meanwhile I will be championing the inclusion of evolutionary biology into the social discourse. It is my tiny tiny way of making the world better.
Seb
Member
Thu May 24 07:32:44
Nim:

"Because this assertion is wrong. In specific context violence increases chance of procreation (or finding a mate), historically and presently."

Not generalised violence and homicide *of the women they want to mate with* they don't.

You list a string of anecdotal examples of a minority of women being so attracted. Why such a niche phenomenon if it's a selective adaptation?

"Or how some ungodly percentage of people in Asia are descendent pf Gengis Khan and his raping murderous band."

Because of the rape, rather than murder, of the women.

See what I mean: you are starting from a hypothesis and then going out seeking anecdotal support.

What you should properly do is construct a properly balanced test to see if violence does in fact increase the propensity to mate (and which types of violence), and then you'd need to explain why the bulk of women don't look for a violent partner.

"What I know is that we are biological organisms that came to be through biological evolution."

Indeed, but your whole approach to reasoning is inductive and without appropriate tests. It does not follow that because we are biological organisms, every behaviour must and can be explained as an adaptive response to our evolutionary environment.

"sense of entitlement (which doesn't explain where that comes from),"
Um, we don't need to explain why that comes from to document it exists. The entire premise of Incels is that they should have access to sex, and that it is wrong they don't have free access to it: i.e. they are entitled to sex.


The problem is not that you are championing evolutionary biology into social discourse, it is that what you are pushing cannot be described as "evolutionary biology" because you are starting from premises and assumptions that are often not proven to any degree of rigor and then stacking further assumptions on top.

It is what Feynmann described as Cargo Cult Science.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu May 24 09:38:01
You said violence does not increase chance of _procreating_. It does, as explained by the string of so called anecdotes and studies in the present day. You are wrong. Shifting the goal posts ”this has nothing to do with women” is just that. You did not read what I wrote, you are still stuck in the same old thought pattern, judging from the rest of your post.

Violence can in specific context increase the chance of procreation. And I listed them, the subset of women (whome you have no idea what portion of women they constitute) who like badboys, violence as context specific way of attaining status or rape. Think of it like this, a woman only has to make the mistake once, for the genes to spread.

>>Um, we don't need to explain why that comes from to document it exists.<<

lol :) I am interested in where things come from, because I am interested in more than asserting the existence of the obvious. I am interested in understanding (personally and collectivly) why we sre the way we are. Part of those answers reaides in our evolutionary past.

>>cargo cult<<

Bla bla bla... yes yes. Carry on.

Seb
Member
Thu May 24 10:18:19
Nim:

I think you will find what I said, and what you quoted in your response was:

"behaviour likely to further reduce chances of procreation"

So yes, in some contexts, some kinds of violence may increase chances of procreation.

But the specific behaviour of incels- further isolating themselves, demonising women, and on the odd occasion killing themselves and others, doesn't seem to do that.

It looks very unlikely to be an evolved strategy for procreation triggered by a specific environmental conditions to me.

And it seems you are the one moving the goalposts here given you were responding to a very specific point and now attempting to generalise it.

"I am interested in where things come from"
If you want to do that you first need to establish a "thing" exists before you examine where it comes from.

I would say there is a lot more compelling evidence to show the proximate causes of incel and other violence is about thwarted entitlement and expression/assertion of power than as some kind of natural consequence of sex drive. Further, while one can engage in creation myths as to why human psychology might have such traits - I'm not sure that helps you from a policy perspective. If you can identify the proximate causes you can:
Identify risk factors, Develop interventions
Etc.

What is dodgy is starting from evolution and attempting to guess likely proximate causes based on assumptions on what might be selected for in our evolutionary hidtory, without rigorous testing.

Traits that have no great cost or benefit will perpetuate under evolution. It's a filter not direction. So even assuming a pattern of human behaviour *must* have an evolutionary explanation is deeply flawed.
jergul
large member
Thu May 24 11:01:03
"Traits that have no great cost or benefit will perpetuate under evolution."

Also, traits that are detrimental can perpetuate under evolution.

And traits that are advantagous can be lost under evolution.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share