@Bozza That won’t happen. Women won’t know and hamster anyways, it’s what they do.

Also, how many men can we actually reach with the learning? Sure, we can spread the basic premise of TRP through some channels that have large reach (like F&F) but how many men are actually willing to go beyond the complaining and READ, train, learn, try out and become better? Few and far in between. Think of your high school class and how many of those losers would have the ambition and intelligence to dig through it all. I guess not one.

The upside case therefore is that the basic message gets spread making a large swath of men critical of women and not accepting their female mating strategy centered paradigm anymore but they don’t become good enough at their own strategy to pose a threat to TRPers. Most that do become better with women will end like Rollos “children with dynamite”, they’ll try to use their RP knowledge to fulfill their BP fantasy.

@deeplydisturbed @bozza @vermillion-rx

There’s some good research out there. Every few months or so a paper that finds evidence contrary to the current leftism gets into a good journal. The problem is it then gets whitewashed in the media. This phenomenon can be seen with the paper I mentioned above. You should be able to read it, it’s open access:

www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693

It shows that there is basically no way to distinguish the genome of someone who’s gay from someone who’s straight, ergo homosexuality is overwhelmingly environmentally determined (could be hormones, could be social surroundings, upbringing or all of that).

The media in 2019 went on to describe this study with the following articles:

www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/science/gay-gene-sex.html

www.reuters.com/article/us-science-sex-iduskcn1vj2c3

It does not matter what science finds, it gets twisted until it’s what they wanted to hear anyways.

If you read the paper, at the end you find that the authors had to talk to “experts from the LGB… community” and they had to put a disclaimer INTO THE DISCUSSION of the paper that this should not be used to support one or the other political opinion. It’s absolute madness.

All in all, there are good scientists out there who actually let the data lead their science where it may, but especially in the social sciences these are few and far in between.

The biggest problem are in my opinion the editors of the journals. Science and Nature are biased hardcore to the left. They publish science and then in the editorial pages they write all the bullshit that they love without any evidence whatsoever.

Here’s an example from today, directly from the science website. You first find a new cool finding in biology, then a bunch of rather ascientific news and then this written so large that it is the first thing you see (see image). Is this science? It has nothing to do with science.

The question is why we need journals at all. One could think they will soon be a thing from the past but the problem is that the journals are a method of ranking findings and therefore decide how money is distributed in research. Currently there’s no other way of knowing which paper should be highly regarded before many years went by and the paper has been cited a lot or discredited. The journals essentially do this before it is published. That’s why they don’t go out of style even though they should. Researchers are super competitive, making them like the journals and the ranking of science that they contribute. The researchers pay these journals loads of money for that and this money is then used to support their real agenda.

As a people we should make a law against science being robbed of money this way, after all nearly all science is tax payer funded. This process makes at least half the population distrust anything science finds that they can’t acutely corroborate, which makes the whole thing a Scharade.

@Bozza I think science shouldn't be gatekept either but it is

And you're right, the science itself isn't necessarily the problem (although in these studies on men they generally start from the premise of men bad, instead of neutral, which is bad science)

A lot of brilliant researchers are not even allowed to study some of the WHY's of human behavior precisely because of gatekeeping.

That's why I'm extremely skeptical of this study without knowing anything about it except for the pejoratives used for the sample the research wants.

If did a study on "spinsters" and recruited in twoxchromoses or askwomen. I doubt anyone would view my study in good faith versus studying "never-married women in their 40s and up". Nor would it get published. But "incels" is totally fine

I'm sure it will still get published anyway even if the assumptions and science and "reasons" for "incels" is shit because some high-horse feminist, anti-patriarchal science journal staff will get off on the premise alone. Even if the research actually sucks someone will shoehorn it into the journal just because it's on "incels"

The pejorative is the point