TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

216

[–]_worst_friend_ever43 points44 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

How old are 10th graders?

Being involuntarily single in adulthood is almost certainly correlated with depression.

[–]SophisticatedBean16 points17 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How old are 10th graders?

15-16 years old, probably mostly 15? Probably 30% or so have dated, so it is not the norm by sheer numbers, but perhaps the authors have some evidence that students at this age often feel pressured in this regard and associate not dating with maladaptiveness and failure?

[–]Phantom0993 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm in 12th as a 17 y/o thus you are right 15-16

[–]SophisticatedBean9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Only around 50% of 12th graders date. It was 58% in 2014:

https://i.imgur.com/nZ2F4pM.png

[–]jahcaroni7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

“As for older teens or those in the 12th grade, the number of youth getting their driver’s license, working, drinking and dating was down nearly 20 percent, compared to those from 40 years ago.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/world/the-new-today-teens-drink-and-date-less-than-the-70s-study-says/7ejoxcAC8uMU0FoRH1DVYO/amp.html

[–]LordEppley55 points56 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just hypergamy sweety :)

[–]BakedNietzsche[S] 36 points37 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just shower 6 times a day and women will notice.

[–]Afrodiziak45 points46 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Just because you have sex doesn’t mean you’re smarter, more talented, or driven than someone who doesn’t. Inbred trailertrash pump out kids from the time they’re 16, and I bet they are faaar more “maladjusted” then an incel in college.

[–]stedi-akk11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure. But we are driven by our instincts. And they are saying that the one who don't have sex, are defect units. Natural selection at work.

[–]avoidantcel4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But they're not necessarily "maladjusted" to their own communities. They have friends, regular social interactions, etc.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Trailer trash has better instincts that become more repressed in men with education. In women its less evident as they control the dating market.

[–]red_matrix14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good looks > ugly

[–]OberOst34 points35 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We're not maladjusted; we're just ugly.

[–]perlman_sonata_18 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You saw "In Mice", now prepare for the new winter blockbuster:

"In 15 year olds"

Coming to cinemas near you.

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

Meanwhile IT

You don't get dates because you're socially inept.

You don't get dates because women can smell your misogyny.

You don't get dates since you don't shower.

[–]empatheticapathetic27 points28 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Keep this IT shit off blackpill science. Let’s stick to the data instead of focusing on what those clear liars try to spout.

[–]machone-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

What's IT?

[–]alexander_trusov12 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

IT is IncelTears. r/inceltears

Incel-shaming group. Nevermind.

[–]machone1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks.

[–]pizzae2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How does this make sense at all? Is there something wrong with this study? I thought being incel = depression

[–]avoidantcel2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

depression = incel

[–]VowOfPoverty1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

‘Beliefs are hypotheses to be tested, not treasures to be protected’

[–]lm7071 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Suicide pill disguised as lifefuel

[–]VictoriaSobocki0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why?

[–]lm7071 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because it sounds like anyone can be in that situation and that is completely normal to be loveless until you realise the problem is down to looks.

[–]OberOst0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Let's assume that one isn't in a relationship because one lacks social skills. What particular social skill is a person lacking?

[–]th3Soldier0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Can't convince others to like him/her, for some reason.

[–]OberOst0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But isn't common wisdom that you can't make someone feel attracted to you?

[–]th3Soldier0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

In my opinion you can, to some degree. You can make people see your bad or good side and it may greatly influence your social success. It's a real skill, like acting. There are many people who should be hated because they are assholes but they are universally liked (barring their victims, for example) because they are good at hiding this fact when need be. Conversely, there are some good people who somehow fail to communicate that they are worth giving the time of day so they end up being hated, feared, ostracized and labeled as creeps.

Let's say your looks are pretty average. If you have many interesting skills, are a good person and exhibit intelligence, many people will feel attracted to you. If you look the same but are lazy, arrogant, and don't contribute to anything, you'll be rather repulsive to the majority of people. I believe it's way more controllable than it would seem.

[–]ScarredCerebrum0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Reposting my reply to this from another sub:

TL;DR: this study's data aren't adding up with its conclusion at all, and there are signs that the authors may actually have been fudging things.

..

Even though the conclusion claims that "these results refute the notion that non‐daters are maladjusted" and that "health promotion interventions in schools should include non‐dating as one option of healthy development", even the overview shows several things that just don't add up.

The sample consisted of 594 10th graders. That's the 15-16 age range, which is hardly representative for the entire spectrum from the onset of puberty to adulthood.

So the fact that the authors insist that this is representative for adolescents in general is just fishy. But there is such a thing as shoddy research, and this really wouldn't be the first time that authors fudge the data in order to get the conclusions they want.

And are there signs that the data here may have been fudged?

Well, just look at this - they are talking about four dating pattern categories: Low, Increasing, High, and Frequent. Exactly what these terms mean is not explained in the abstract (and I don't have access to the full version of the article). But what the abstract does show is that it focuses on the Low dating category, and that it equates it with non-dating teens.

...except, low-dating and non-dating aren't exactly the same, are they? Exactly what the criteria of low-dating are isn't explained, but I really wouldn't be surprised if this is a category that includes both non-daters and people who do date but have a very low number of partners (or who don't have a long-term partner, or who do have a partner but who don't have sex, etcetera).

Depending on what the exact defenitions are, the low-dating category may well include chadlites who have been dating their highschool sweetheart for two years and no-one else.

But the best part by far is this:

Self‐reported depression was significantly lower in the Low dating group, but suicidal ideations did not differ.

Translation: the 10th graders who did date were more likely to say that they were depressed - but the ones who did not date were still every bit as likely to kill themselves.

That's a little odd, don't you think?

If anything, this suggests that the non-daters are every bit as likely to be depressed, but that they are also much more reluctant to seek help for that.

And there's plenty of other factors that may be playing a role here, and this article doesn't seem to be interested in discussing them. For example, there's still plenty of parents who flat-out forbid their 15/16-year old kids to date. It does vary, but in some communities, the "you can date when you're in college"-mentality is alive and well.

And that could be very relevant here, because if this study was conducted at schools where it's quite common for teens not to be allowed to date, then that could skew the results. In environments like that, the teens who do date are a lot more likely to be rebellious types. And if the high-dating categories really do consist mainly of teens who often get themselves into trouble, then the fact that they do worse may well have little to do with their dating habits.

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

I posted this 3 hours before OP

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/d01114/personality_traits_confidence_leadership_social

My post was censored and OP's let through. Time for a rule change.

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/czy825/students_who_do_not_datecannot_get_a_date_are_not/

I had originally posted this 22 hours ago and the mod asked me to use the doi link and repost.

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

I like my title better

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

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