TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

220

[–]SophisticatedBean[S] 52 points53 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I've posted this study before here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/b9hat3/cues_of_upper_body_strength_account_for_70_of_the/

But I missed this extremely crucial insight which completely refutes the feminist claim that a sizable fraction of women would be into weak men. Based on this calculator, 0/160 means that less than 2.3% of women prefer a weaker male with 97.5% confidence.


By the way, good papers are also being collected here: https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill

[–]Altmark224 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Further evidence of the "bodyguard hypothesis" you think? BTW I'm the one who did that edit on the wiki, I'd be interested if you could link any good studies on the possible connection between male voice depth and mating success?

[–]SophisticatedBean[S] 16 points17 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah bodyguard hypothesis, or from a more blackpilled view it's another manifestation of the overall parasitic dependence of human females, which, as matriarchal mammals demonstrate, is not strictly necessary. Giving birth is not that costly. Human females seem choosier than necessary. It is a local minimum that sexual species are generally attracted to a.k.a. Bateman's principle and probably frequently involves tricking males into providing for them e.g. by making females neotenous and manipulative/agreeable and males horny.

It seems any kind of dimorphism gets reinforced by sexual selection (sensory bias), including voice pitch and physical dominance ornaments, so it's likely not only about bodyguarding. Below are some studies that link voice pitch and reproductive success:

[–]IIIIlllIIll0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

This bodyguard hypothesis is interesting, I wonder what the evolutionary purpose for this preference within females is?

[–]SophisticatedBean[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are a lot weaker (around 40% less muscle mass), so they need protection. They are weaker because of higher parental investment or a parasitic adaptation (I think both with the former initiating the latter).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Lmao, not that costly ? Wtf are you on ?

[–]SophisticatedBean[S] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think not costly enough to justify a sex difference to the extent it exists. Matriarchal mammals prove that females can be physically dominating despite higher parental investment. Consider how strongly body mass varies between humans; that variation is larger than the amount of additional organic matter that grows & needs to be maintained during pregnancy.

[–]soberasfuck2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, women “can” be physically dominating, but studies show that almost every single woman is weaker that almost every single man. Even women who weightlift are only stronger than a small portion of all men, even those who are elderly or don’t work out.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/almost_all_men_are_stronger_than_almost_all_women/

[–]I_FUCKED_YOUR_HOE 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

Reminder that this only determines bodily attractiveness. These females would respond very differently if shown the faces of the subjects. You should still do your pullups though.

[–]AubdubonBenis31 points32 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yea I agree when feminists claim to prefer weaker guys the guy is usually skinny with a 10/10 face, aka pretty boys with good facial aesthetics and hair. Usually Ive noticed younger women (ages 18-25) prefer these types of guys. Older more experienced women tend to prefer more bulky muscular guys, at least in my observation

[–]Altmark2210 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The study showed no "significant amount of women" preferred weaker men. Therefore, if these "pretty boys" were more physically formidable, they would presumably be even more attractive. The female raters in the study were mostly young women too. It's important to note "perceived strength" and rated bodily attractiveness in this study encompassed height and (most likely, shoulder width) frame as well as musculature.

Raters were student volunteers from Griffith University in Australia and Oklahoma State University students from the United States. Raters were given a link to an online survey (run in Qualtrics) which contained some simple demographic questions followed by static displays of the photographs of subjects.

[–]comptejete12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, moderate muscle exposed by low body fat gets you more attention that higher muscle concealed by high body fat.

[–]sh0t5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

snake diet for the win

went from 25% to 9% bodyfat percentage

huge difference

[–]bigbellywhale4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

some of that is also settling when you can't get 10/10 face you'll seek out more common high quality traits, like muscles. 18-25 women usually shoot for the stars.

[–]TruthGetsBanned12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

SO happy I found this sub!

[–]BoskOfPortKar8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's funny that Science is needed to know that.

I knew it at 14. 32 years ago when PUA was not even a word.

It worked great for me and still does.

[–]SilverCloud730 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You've been doing PUA for 32 years? What are your best tips?

[–]BoskOfPortKar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No i found my wife at 20. Still Mode One from ARC was my style.

[–]innocent_butungu1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'd say exposing the subject to one of two sets of photos but both with blurred faces was a methodological mistake

[–]SophisticatedBean[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

In which way, do you think, would that influence the outcome and in which direction?

[–]innocent_butungu1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Because irl women rarely see a man's body without seeing also his face

They instead often see a man's face without being able to also look clearly at his body

And they would rarely judge a man's aspect without being able to look at his face anyway

The face of man could possibly subvert the result you'd get from an already very rare premise (looking at the body without looking at the face)

So, the study is still good, in my opinion, but I would have also added a second part where those women were looking at the same photos without the face blurred

[–]SophisticatedBean[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In this study they found

that rated face and body attractiveness contribute independently and substantially, with no interaction, to overall female and male attractiveness.

https://www.mta.ca/~raiken/Courses/3401/Labs/Lab%20Papers/sym6.pdf

So a good face can make up for weakness, but the effect likely remains that practically no women prefer a physically weaker man for any given face because they judge overall attractiveness simply as a weighted mean of face and body attractiveness.

[–][deleted] 1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry nohobard, your submission has been removed from BlackPillScience because your account is new.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Stumphead1010 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Duh If you don't physically take care of yourself, don't expect anyone to be interested

I see so many people on these subs who, when the post pics, obviously never even try physically working towards being better looking. It's not fucking handed to anyone.

It's a lot easier for some, but doing nothing still leads to, guess what, nothing

[–]undilin-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Is this what really passes for "black pill" nowadays? This should be good news for incels because it means that working out actually works. It's only black pill for people who are too lazy to put in the work.

[–]SophisticatedBean[S] 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Physical endurance and ability to gain muscle mass are mostly external locus of control. Other features of physical dominance like body height are immutable without surgery. At higher age it becomes increasingly difficult to make meaningful progress. Some people may have never invested in muscle mass because they were falsely told that it would not matter much. Perceived strength only correlates with actual strength with r = .25 to .4, or so, so most of perceived strength is also only ornament, so not attained by training.

[–]undilin0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Physical endurance and ability to gain muscle mass are mostly external locus of control.

Sounds like a fancy way of saying "it's hard" which is just an excuse for laziness. Everyone can build muscle if they put in enough time and effort.

Other features of physical dominance like body height are immutable without surgery.

According to the link you posted, height is not well correlated with perceived strength.

At higher age it becomes increasingly difficult to make meaningful progress.

Again you're just saying "it's hard so i'd rather sit around and complain".

Perceived strength only correlates with actual strength with r = .25 to .4, or so, so most of perceived strength is also only ornament, so not attained by training.

The fact that perceived strength and actual strength are separate doesn't automatically mean that perceived strength can't be attained through training. There are plenty of bodybuilders who train for aesthetics and lack functional strength. Some would say it's easier to get ornamental muscles because you can stick to machines and focus on only a few key muscles (shoulders, pecs, biceps).

[–]SophisticatedBean[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like a fancy way of saying "it's hard" which is just an excuse for laziness.

For some it is for other's it isn't. The point of the blackpill is merely to find explanations with external loci of control as a counterweight to the prevalent presumption that poor social life is mostly people's own fault (horn effect?).

Everyone can build muscle if they put in enough time and effort.

The heritability of aerobic endurance is estimated to be 50%, 30-85% for muscle strength and 50-80% for lean mass and so on.

According to the link you posted, height is not well correlated with perceived strength.

I bet that would be different if the ratings were based on direct physical experience instead of just photographs.

Again you're just saying "it's hard so i'd rather sit around and complain".

Based on the heritability estimates above, some men are bound to lack the predisposition for significant gains in perceived dominance by exercise. That's blackpill enough.

doesn't automatically mean that perceived strength can't be attained through training.

I forgot to add "to some extent".


Btw., in this study, the correlation between exercise frequency and perceived athletic ability was only r = .30, p < .01 and similar for rated attractiveness, so the effectiveness of exercise is probably weak which also implies that for a decent sized fraction of men it won't improve SMV to meaningful extent. Low inhibition training (PUA and so on) and good attire may be even more effective.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nikolaos_Digelidis/publication/237498484

Edit: That's self-rated attractiveness, my bad. Surprisingly hard to find results on this.

[–]Altmark225 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Heritability 50-80% for lean mass and so on.

Wow, can you please link a source for that figure, at the upper bounds of that range, that's nearly as heritable as height.

Does that figure take interventions (i.e strength training) into account, or is it only in regards to your 'baseline' lean mass? There is plenty of evidence of genetics playing a huge role in how you respond to exercise also, with some even regressing in muscle size from strength training see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7794282_Variability_in_muscle_size_and_strength_gain_after_unilateral_resistance_training

Based on the heritability estimates above, some men are bound to lack the predisposition for significant gains in perceived dominance by exercise. That's blackpill enough.

Also it's important to note that anabolic steroids would alter that calculus significantly for many men, if they can deal with the legal and health consequences of their use (the risk of hair loss being particularly salient in regards to the blackpill,) but how your body reacts to their use is also heavily altered/determined by your genetic make-up.

[–]SophisticatedBean[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow, can you please link a source for that figure, at the upper bounds of that range, that's nearly as heritable as height.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27127623

some even regressing in muscle size

Amazing.

Physical fitness is also only weakly correlated with mating success (r = .22).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513806000754

Physical fitness is correlated with body attractiveness r = .43*** (agrees with numbers I've seen elsewhere), but not with facial attractiveness (once more, the general fitness factor is weak). Attractiveness, in turn, is correlated with partner count regarding face r = .30**, and body r = .39*** (*** = p < .001, ** = p < .01), providing a sense of the strength of lookism in the dating market (or rather was in a particular region in 2007 ...). It's all compatible with the notion that looks in terms of physical dominance ornaments and dominant behavior matter more than actual strength or health; maybe the third strongest driver of dysgenics, after modern medicine (deleterious mutation accumulation due to relaxation of purifying selection in Western populations e.g. due to vastly reduced infant mortality) and pollution (xenoestrogens etc.)?

Though this study possibly undersampled very unattractive and physically unfit individuals by self selection, depending on how it was advertised (for those participating a study about mating might be embarrassing), which should reduce the effect sizes here as I'd expect the importance of looks to diminish after some level.

[–]levelboss0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/almost\_all\_men\_are\_stronger\_than\_almost\_all\_women/

but being physically fit and very lean makes your face way more attractive for most people. When I'm lean my jawline and cheekbones are very visible and attractive as opposed to when I was fat and had a swollen face

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter