I
incelhunter
Iron
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2025
- Posts
- 21
- Reputation
- 36
IN THIS THREAD I WILL EXPLAIN WHY THE REDPILL/TATECEL/ROGANCEL ADVICE OF "LIFTING AND MAKING MONEY" IS MORE SOUND THAN "BIMAX" 
AND "STACKS" FOR >80% OF MEN, AND WHY THIS FORUM SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD
AS WE ALL KNOW WOMEN FIND ONLY 5% OF MEN PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE
THIS IS CONFIRMED BY MULTIPLE STUDIES:
1. AN ITALIAN STUDY ABOUT ATTRACTIVENESS: THIS STUDY USED FRONTAL PICS WITH A NEUTRAL BACKGROUND AND EXPRESSION - NO HATS, GLASSES OR MAKEUP. WOMEN RATE THE AVERAGE MAN A 3/10 AND THE MODE A 2.5/10, MEANWHILE THE AVERAGE MAN RATES HIMSELF A 7.5/10
looksmax.org
2. THE FAMOUS OKCUPID STUDY, AND A SIMILAR TINDER STUDY ON HOW MANY MEN WOMEN LIKE (ONLY ~5%)
AS BLACKPILLERS WELL KNOW, THIS IS BECAUSE THE TOP 5% OF MEN HAVE SUPERIOR GENETICS (NO GYM FOR YOUR FACE, ETC ETC)
YET SOMEHOW BLACKPILLERS TRICKED THEMSELVES INTO THINKING THEY COULD "MEW" AND "THUMBPULL" THEIR WAY OUT OF SUBHUMANITY
THIS BROWNCEL SUBHUMAN THINKS HE CAN SHOWER TWICE A DAY, WEAR THICK SHOES, DRINK WATER AND CHEW GUM TO TRANSFORM HIMSELF INTO A CHAD
BUT I THINK THERE IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL REASON FOR THE LOOKSMAXXER DELUSION
YOU SEE, BECOMING BIG REQUIRES MASSIVE PHYSICAL EFFORT BY PUSHING YOUR BODY TO THE LIMIT IN THE GYM MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK, SOMETHING LOOKSMAXXERS CAN'T DO DUE TO THEIR PUNY PHYSIQUES
SIMILARLY, MAKING MONEY REQUIRES MASSIVE INTELLECTUAL EFFORT, WHICH AGAIN LOOKSMAXXERS CAN'T DO DUE TO THEIR LOW IQs
NOW, ONTO THE REDPILL TATECEL STUFF
THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THE "DUAL STRATEGIES THEORY"
en.wikipedia.org
dual strategies theory states humans increase their status in social hierarchies using two major strategies known as dominance and prestige.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF STATUS FOR MODERN MEN: LOOKING LIKE YOU CAN BEAT OTHER MEN INTO A PULP (IE BEING BIG AND MALEGAZEMAXXED), AND BEING CAREERMAXXED (INCOME, JOB, EDUCATION, MATERIAL GOODS -> NO POINT IN HAVING AN IVY LEAGUE DEGREE WORKING AS AN INVESTMENT BANKER IF YOU LIVE IN A HOOD AND DRIVE AN ESCOOTER).
THE FORMER HELPS WITH STRs, THE LATER WITH LTRs. THERE IS NO REASON TO NOT DO BOTH AS REDPILLERS KNOW
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING THE 2 FOLLOWING STUDIES SLOWLY, AS THEY CONTAIN A LOT OF MATERIAL ON THIS MATTER
THE FIRST ONE DEALS WITH WHAT IS CALLED "PHYSICAL DOMINANCE". WHICH INCLUDES BODY SIZE AND MASCULINITY
elifesciences.org
"strength/muscularity was the strongest and only consistent predictor of both mating and reproduction"
"Our findings support arguments that strength/muscularity may be sexually selected in humans"
"under the male-male competition hypothesis, authors have argued that formidable (i.e. physically strong and imposing) men are better equipped to compete with other men for resources, status, and partners (Hill et al., 2016; Puts, 2016), through e.g. direct physical contests or by deterring rivals indirectly (Hill et al., 2016; Sell et al., 2012). For instance, increased musculature may intimidate competitors by signaling fighting prowess (Sell et al., 2009) and strength (Durkee et al., 2018)"
"while male-male competition is often framed as an alternative to female choice, women may preferentially mate with both well-resourced men, and with competitive men, facilitating intersexual selection for masculinity (i.e. a ‘sexy sons’ effect, see Weatherhead and Robertson, 1979) where male status is due to, or competitiveness is cued by, formidability (Scott et al., 2013). Some authors have suggested that formidability increases men’s mating success through dominance over other men (which may create the circumstances that women select them as mates) rather than women’s direct preferences for formidable traits per se (Hill et al., 2013; Kordsmeyer et al., 2018; Slatcher et al., 2011)"
"Body masculinity is therefore the trait where we have the most compelling evidence that selection is currently happening within naturally fertile populations - and from that, can infer that selection likely took place in prior eras as well. As such, our results are consistent with the argument that dimorphisms in strength and muscle mass are sexually selected. Overall, since traits such as body size, strength, and muscularity are associated with formidability, our findings are consistent with the male-male competition hypothesis. In species with male intrasexual competition, males tend to evolve to become larger, stronger, and more formidable than females, as they are in humans."
BEING A MASCMAXXED OGRE MAKES WHORES WET EVEN IF THEY FIND YOU REPULSIVE BECAUSE THEY KNOW OTHER MEN ARE SCARED OF YOU BEATING THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF THEM AND THAT TURNS THEM ON LIKE THE GOOD SLUTS THEY ARE
THE SECOND ONE DEALS WITH WHAT IS CALLED "PRESTIGE". WHICH IN MODERN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY WOULD BE YOUR SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
"Status hierarchies have changed dramatically throughout human history, yet we find that the association between status and reproductive success does not depend on subsistence category (foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, agriculture) or how status is measured" -> VERY IMPORTANT, WHILE THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED IN PRE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES, THEY FOUND THAT STATUS ALWAYS MATTERED AS LONG AS THE MEASUREMENT OF STATUS WAS ADJUSTED TO THE SOCIETY STUDIED, IN THE MORE EGALITARIAN SOCIETIES INCOME AND JOB PRESTIGE FAILED AS A MEASUREMENT OF STATUS, WHILE LAND OWNED SUCCESSFULLY PREDICTED MATING SUCCESS (IE BODY COUNT)
"We test the “egalitarianism hypothesis” that status has a significantly smaller effect on reproductive success (RS) in foragers compared with nonforagers"
"the effects of status on RS did not differ significantly by status measure or subsistence type: foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, and agriculture. These results suggest that traits that facilitate status acquisition were not subject to substantially greater selection with domestication of plants and animals"
STATUS MATTERED EVEN IN EGALITARIAN SOCIETIES WITH NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
AND IF YOU CHECK THE RESULTS YOU'LL NOTICE THAT BOTH PYSHICAL DOMINANCE AND PRESTIGE HAVE SIMILAR RESULTS ON SLAY COUNT WITH NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
THE NORMIES KNEW THIS ALL ALONG WHILE YOU RETARDS WERE MEWING AND GETTING INDEBTED FOR BIMAXES
NORMIES WANT TO SLAY IN A CLUB -> NORMIES GOES TO THE GYM
NORMIES WANT TO DO WELL IN DATING -> NORMIES MAKE MONEY
LOOKSMAXXERS WANT TO DO WELL IN A CLUB -> LOOKSMAXXERS CHEW GUM FOR 1HR A DAY
LOOKSMAXXERS WANT TO DO WELL IN DATING -> LOOKSMAXXERS TAKE COLD SHOWERS
"YEAH BRO ONCE I LEANMAXX AND EAT 12 RAW EGGS A DAY I WILL LOOK JUST LIKE CHICO, WOMEN WILL BE ALL OVER ME EVEN THO I'M A NEET WHO CANT EVEN DO A PUSHUP, THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT LOOKS ANYWAY"
OF COURSE, THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO THE TOP 5% GENETICALLY SUPERIOR MEN, WHICH YOU ARE NOT PART TO, SO YOU BETTER START LIFTING HEAVY MAN MADE METALS AND WAGESLAVING IN TECH OR LAW OR WHATEVER
THERE IS NO LEFORT FOR THIS
AND "STACKS" FOR >80% OF MEN, AND WHY THIS FORUM SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN FOR GOODAS WE ALL KNOW WOMEN FIND ONLY 5% OF MEN PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE
THIS IS CONFIRMED BY MULTIPLE STUDIES:
1. AN ITALIAN STUDY ABOUT ATTRACTIVENESS: THIS STUDY USED FRONTAL PICS WITH A NEUTRAL BACKGROUND AND EXPRESSION - NO HATS, GLASSES OR MAKEUP. WOMEN RATE THE AVERAGE MAN A 3/10 AND THE MODE A 2.5/10, MEANWHILE THE AVERAGE MAN RATES HIMSELF A 7.5/10
New Italian study about attractiveness
https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/personality/2023-costa.pdf Water but still it's a 2023 study 1. Men and women both rate themselves higher than others rate them. 2. Men and women both rate male faces lower. 3. Women rate male faces lower than men do. 4. More attractive individuals viewed...
looksmax.org
2. THE FAMOUS OKCUPID STUDY, AND A SIMILAR TINDER STUDY ON HOW MANY MEN WOMEN LIKE (ONLY ~5%)
AS BLACKPILLERS WELL KNOW, THIS IS BECAUSE THE TOP 5% OF MEN HAVE SUPERIOR GENETICS (NO GYM FOR YOUR FACE, ETC ETC)
YET SOMEHOW BLACKPILLERS TRICKED THEMSELVES INTO THINKING THEY COULD "MEW" AND "THUMBPULL" THEIR WAY OUT OF SUBHUMANITY
THIS BROWNCEL SUBHUMAN THINKS HE CAN SHOWER TWICE A DAY, WEAR THICK SHOES, DRINK WATER AND CHEW GUM TO TRANSFORM HIMSELF INTO A CHAD
BUT I THINK THERE IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL REASON FOR THE LOOKSMAXXER DELUSION
YOU SEE, BECOMING BIG REQUIRES MASSIVE PHYSICAL EFFORT BY PUSHING YOUR BODY TO THE LIMIT IN THE GYM MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK, SOMETHING LOOKSMAXXERS CAN'T DO DUE TO THEIR PUNY PHYSIQUES
SIMILARLY, MAKING MONEY REQUIRES MASSIVE INTELLECTUAL EFFORT, WHICH AGAIN LOOKSMAXXERS CAN'T DO DUE TO THEIR LOW IQs
NOW, ONTO THE REDPILL TATECEL STUFF
THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THE "DUAL STRATEGIES THEORY"
Dual strategies theory - Wikipedia
dual strategies theory states humans increase their status in social hierarchies using two major strategies known as dominance and prestige.
- The first and oldest of the two strategies, dominance, is exemplified by the use of force, implied force or other forms of coercion to take social power.
- The second of the two strategies, prestige, is defined as an approach in which an individual gains social rank through demonstrating traits valued by other group members such as high levels of skill, generosity or the ability to teach their skills to others.
- In modern Westernized societies that embrace monogamy, high-status men take advantage of their increased sexual access to women in the form of cheating, multiple short-term sex partners, or serial marriages.[16] In various studies, married men who score higher on social dominance admit to having more extramarital affairs.[16] The link between a man's social status and his sexual access to women has remained highly consistent throughout human history despite changes in culture and civilization
- There is a distinction between women's preferences for men who have gained their high status through dominance, and men who have gained their high status through prestige. Women prefer dominant men for short-term sexual affairs , and prestigious men for long-term romantic relationships
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF STATUS FOR MODERN MEN: LOOKING LIKE YOU CAN BEAT OTHER MEN INTO A PULP (IE BEING BIG AND MALEGAZEMAXXED), AND BEING CAREERMAXXED (INCOME, JOB, EDUCATION, MATERIAL GOODS -> NO POINT IN HAVING AN IVY LEAGUE DEGREE WORKING AS AN INVESTMENT BANKER IF YOU LIVE IN A HOOD AND DRIVE AN ESCOOTER).
THE FORMER HELPS WITH STRs, THE LATER WITH LTRs. THERE IS NO REASON TO NOT DO BOTH AS REDPILLERS KNOW
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING THE 2 FOLLOWING STUDIES SLOWLY, AS THEY CONTAIN A LOT OF MATERIAL ON THIS MATTER
THE FIRST ONE DEALS WITH WHAT IS CALLED "PHYSICAL DOMINANCE". WHICH INCLUDES BODY SIZE AND MASCULINITY
A meta-analysis of the association between male dimorphism and fitness outcomes in humans
While men’s mating success is predicted both by their strength/muscularity, voice pitch, height, and testosterone levels, their reproductive output is only predicted by strength/muscularity.
elifesciences.org
"Our findings support arguments that strength/muscularity may be sexually selected in humans"
"under the male-male competition hypothesis, authors have argued that formidable (i.e. physically strong and imposing) men are better equipped to compete with other men for resources, status, and partners (Hill et al., 2016; Puts, 2016), through e.g. direct physical contests or by deterring rivals indirectly (Hill et al., 2016; Sell et al., 2012). For instance, increased musculature may intimidate competitors by signaling fighting prowess (Sell et al., 2009) and strength (Durkee et al., 2018)"
"while male-male competition is often framed as an alternative to female choice, women may preferentially mate with both well-resourced men, and with competitive men, facilitating intersexual selection for masculinity (i.e. a ‘sexy sons’ effect, see Weatherhead and Robertson, 1979) where male status is due to, or competitiveness is cued by, formidability (Scott et al., 2013). Some authors have suggested that formidability increases men’s mating success through dominance over other men (which may create the circumstances that women select them as mates) rather than women’s direct preferences for formidable traits per se (Hill et al., 2013; Kordsmeyer et al., 2018; Slatcher et al., 2011)"
"Body masculinity is therefore the trait where we have the most compelling evidence that selection is currently happening within naturally fertile populations - and from that, can infer that selection likely took place in prior eras as well. As such, our results are consistent with the argument that dimorphisms in strength and muscle mass are sexually selected. Overall, since traits such as body size, strength, and muscularity are associated with formidability, our findings are consistent with the male-male competition hypothesis. In species with male intrasexual competition, males tend to evolve to become larger, stronger, and more formidable than females, as they are in humans."
BEING A MASCMAXXED OGRE MAKES WHORES WET EVEN IF THEY FIND YOU REPULSIVE BECAUSE THEY KNOW OTHER MEN ARE SCARED OF YOU BEATING THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF THEM AND THAT TURNS THEM ON LIKE THE GOOD SLUTS THEY ARE
THE SECOND ONE DEALS WITH WHAT IS CALLED "PRESTIGE". WHICH IN MODERN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY WOULD BE YOUR SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
"Status hierarchies have changed dramatically throughout human history, yet we find that the association between status and reproductive success does not depend on subsistence category (foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, agriculture) or how status is measured" -> VERY IMPORTANT, WHILE THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED IN PRE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES, THEY FOUND THAT STATUS ALWAYS MATTERED AS LONG AS THE MEASUREMENT OF STATUS WAS ADJUSTED TO THE SOCIETY STUDIED, IN THE MORE EGALITARIAN SOCIETIES INCOME AND JOB PRESTIGE FAILED AS A MEASUREMENT OF STATUS, WHILE LAND OWNED SUCCESSFULLY PREDICTED MATING SUCCESS (IE BODY COUNT)
"We test the “egalitarianism hypothesis” that status has a significantly smaller effect on reproductive success (RS) in foragers compared with nonforagers"
"the effects of status on RS did not differ significantly by status measure or subsistence type: foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, and agriculture. These results suggest that traits that facilitate status acquisition were not subject to substantially greater selection with domestication of plants and animals"
STATUS MATTERED EVEN IN EGALITARIAN SOCIETIES WITH NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
AND IF YOU CHECK THE RESULTS YOU'LL NOTICE THAT BOTH PYSHICAL DOMINANCE AND PRESTIGE HAVE SIMILAR RESULTS ON SLAY COUNT WITH NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
THE NORMIES KNEW THIS ALL ALONG WHILE YOU RETARDS WERE MEWING AND GETTING INDEBTED FOR BIMAXES
NORMIES WANT TO SLAY IN A CLUB -> NORMIES GOES TO THE GYM
NORMIES WANT TO DO WELL IN DATING -> NORMIES MAKE MONEY
LOOKSMAXXERS WANT TO DO WELL IN A CLUB -> LOOKSMAXXERS CHEW GUM FOR 1HR A DAY
LOOKSMAXXERS WANT TO DO WELL IN DATING -> LOOKSMAXXERS TAKE COLD SHOWERS
"YEAH BRO ONCE I LEANMAXX AND EAT 12 RAW EGGS A DAY I WILL LOOK JUST LIKE CHICO, WOMEN WILL BE ALL OVER ME EVEN THO I'M A NEET WHO CANT EVEN DO A PUSHUP, THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT LOOKS ANYWAY"
OF COURSE, THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO THE TOP 5% GENETICALLY SUPERIOR MEN, WHICH YOU ARE NOT PART TO, SO YOU BETTER START LIFTING HEAVY MAN MADE METALS AND WAGESLAVING IN TECH OR LAW OR WHATEVER
THERE IS NO LEFORT FOR THIS
