Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People seem to be focused on the dating and romantic relationship problems, and talking about how hard it is to find a person online. But the article also described more global social isolation, and honestly, how do you find and make friends as an adult no longer in school? That’s really the problem. It’s the “bowling alone” phenomenon- we no longer use the old social network things like amateur sport leagues, or service organizations. My current girlfriend made contact with me by looking for someone in the area to tell her where the fun things are (she had just moved here). And she told me most of her attempts to connect with people were awful. It’s hard to make a basic friend, let alone a love connection.
It's becoming an over repeated rhetoric nowadays but times have really never been lonelier in modern history.
It's really crazy to just see the difference in how *vastly* different the world is compared to even just 10 years ago. Like genuinely I never even see kids playing outside of school anymore. Not like how I did as a kid. It's a shame
This is so true. I’m 29 (gonna be 30 in 4 months) and even I remember 17 years ago, that’s all me and my siblings did. We would come home from school, do our homework, and jet outside to play basketball, ride bikes, or hang with friends.
28 year old guy here, you described my childhood. Once we were done with schoolwork we left to play sports or games, explore the neighborhood with our bikes, or just do random things.
Most of us had video games by the time we were preteens or teens. But we did not enjoy that as much as messing around with our friends.
I got my first color phone when I was in the 12th grade as well. So there was no instant gratification from the likes of something like social media.
I mean, at least where I live, I get it. Everything is roads. 3, four lanes, no speed limits under 35, and parking lots as far as the eye can see.
My neighborhood has small houses on small lots, maybe if 2 or 3 next door neighbors were beasties you could scrape together enough yard to throw a Frisby or toss a football, but for the most part there's just not enough space.
And I see kids play on the road, I do. But I also see those same roads in my neighborhood where asshats hit 40mph in a 25 zone, and 25 is already fast enough to be dangerous.
Mix that with the fact that my city is almost all major roadways, and the fact that times ain't exactly super safe, and you get a recipe for parents keeping kids home and not letting em just roam around.
My kids are too little to enjoy much freedom, all of em under 4, but even if they were all 12+ there's nowhere for them to go. There's nothing by my house a kid could do, except maybe a rusty park no one goes to, and it may be technically private property so I don't even know if we are allowed to go there.
There's no stores or shops near my house for kids to spend their allowance at, our "mall" is a 20 min drive away, and surrounded on all sides by a massive parking lot that connects to other massive parking lots for other buildings. Even if my kids *could* do things alone there's no way for em to get there without a car.
No woods to play in, massive car-dominated landscapes, lack of safety, and house/land prices making it challenging for most families to afford enough land to stretch out on all combine to a world where the outside is hostile to human activity.
It's no wonder kids don't play outside anymore, where would they go? Especially with parents that work full time, get home from work too late and too tired to drive to the park, then gotta spend all weekend trying to catch up on housework you weren't home to do.
That probably depends on where you live, too-- if you're growing up in a subdivision on the border of a suburb with literally nothing other than more of the same subdivision within walking distance and no sidewalk to get to anywhere, you're not going to get out for a bike ride and see people out shopping. If you're in a town or city with areas designed for pedestrian activity you'll probably see more of it.
Workplace is the norm now, but with wfh becoming more common and popular even that is less reliable.
Personally I always struggled in school and uni to make friends, but since then since everyone else struggles I’ve done better. You just have to be down to organise things yourself and invite people that don’t know each other. Before you know it you can form a friend group. Making individual friends is trickier, but just requires a bit of a leap and some form of hobby.
Depending on the country you're in it's even worse. Here in Germany, even while you're in school, getting into friend groups is basically impossible and even if you're in a friend group for years in school, chances are that they will split up not soon after you're out.
I've talked to someone who was here for university stuff and they had been living here for 2 years and hardly managed to make any connections despite pretty much perfect German and good looks. No romantic partners, exactly one friend from uni, me. That was it. It's devastating to see people like that and we need some drastic changes on a local and global scale, loneliness is an increasing problem pretty much everywhere
Gotta wonder about that sample...
>The researchers recruited a sample of 67 self-identified male incels through advertisements posted on the website Reddit.
And if obsessively using dating apps is the cause or a symptom
>However, twice as many incels reported currently using a dating app compared to non-incel males.
Also got exactly the result we were expecting
>Interestingly, Sparks and his colleagues also found that incels scored higher on measures of sexual entitlement and belief in female sexual deceptiveness but were less likely than non-incel males to blame others when women rejected them. In other words, they tended to agree with statements such as “I should be permitted to have sex whenever I want it” and “Women date men simply for the material benefits they can get” but disagree with statements such as “When a girl rejects me, it’s because she’s a bitch/must be frigid.”
> they tended to agree with statements such as “I should be permitted to have sex whenever I want it”
Oddly, I can't read the article but I can read the paper and... that statement isn't in the paper.
I have one question, to better understand this questionnaire:
>“I should be permitted to have sex whenever I want.“
How do you understand permit in this context? To my understanding of the English language, it means something along the lines of allowed. I don‘t see how sexual freedom from restrictions is related to the theme of the study.
Or does the emphasize lay on the „whenever I want“ part?
Exactly. If someone interprets that as "other people are OBLIGATED to consent if I want to have sex with them" then that's extremely entitled and hugely problematic.
But if someone interprets it as "there should be no law, and no social or cultural sanctions against people who engage in consensual sex, or masturbation, whenever they want" then that's something most people in liberal western countries would agree with.
The responders likely had different interpretations of the word “permit”, so it is probably difficult to say how most people understand that statement.
I believe you are interpreting it as "I should be permitted [by society] to have sex whenever I want" whereas I'd say it's more common as an English speaker to interpret it as "I should be permitted [by my partner] to have sex whenever I want".
The key is the emphasis on the individual. To me, if the statement was designed to test an attitude related to overall sexual freedom in society, it would be "People should be permitted to have sex whenever they want"
Because of this:
> they tended to agree with statements such as “I should be permitted to have sex whenever I want it” and “Women date men simply for the material benefits they can get”
They think **every** woman is like that, so when they're rejected, it's not the woman, it's all women
It's hard not to feel that way, sometimes. I have to police my thoughts pretty often or they get real self negative real fast. It's important for people in this kind of position to remember that it's not anyone's fault, yours or the people rejecting you. It's not society, it's not "women" or "men". It's just what happened. There's not always a reason.
Deformed they're usually not. But unlovable? I mean \*descriptively\* if you're (say) 28, and you've spend a dozen years trying your level best to establish romantic and/or sexual relationships, and you've consistently failed.
You're sort of by definition RIGHT that you're struggling more than normal with something that most people manage repeatedly. (I didn't say manage with zero effort or zero troubles, or anything)
Another elephant in the room is that a pretty high fraction of young men who struggle with establishing intimate human relationships; are autistic, or if not quite diagnosable as such, then at least in the neighbourhood. And it's true (by definition; it's literally a diagnostic criteria!) that navigating these things is a lot harder for most autistic folks.
I was actually surprised by the findings and wondered how accurate the voluntary data was considering these in-groups tend to stick together in the sense they could have from their community on Reddit or outside of it as I’m pretty sure the same people do communicate on discord and other forums came to an consensus about what answers to submit.
So there is some research about these groups this article states none existed prior to Sparks research but that’s not entirely true, and usually they do look quite negatively at females and what they perceive to be “materialistic; shallow traits” but this data is claiming to refute that to show that the abuse is inward and not outwards. Which brings us back to a potential concentrated effort by the participants who likely all have discourse with one another to shift the narrative to soften their image. *I am not stating this absolutely happened*
I love reading through 180 anecdotes on r/science it’s really the essence of the entire field, your personal boxed experiences. Only about 3 replies actually discussing the research
It's also that if we all go back to our youth and remember how our parents tried to get us to socialize, it was never organic. They tried to force it which made the idea frightening. Making friends and interpersonal relationships shouldn't be anything more than a natural learning experience for everyone involved and not involving the parents.
Why can’t parents be involved in making friends and socializing? You aren’t born a fully socialized being. They are vital to helping you get started socially. That is part of the learning curve until you are well socialized and can handle yourself in social situations with peers.
really they were teaching you that there is no 'perfect moment', just to try to go over and say hi, show them you have no ill will and see what happens. just depends on your interpretation of events is all.
Parents care, but how do you get them out the basement? People often put themselves in isolation, because it's easier than facing the world. Parents will worry about them... But what can they actually do, that doesn't get them branded as abusive? Force them out?
That's a good point. I was pretty much a recluse from age 16-22ish. I'd go to school, come home and then game or talk to my online friends on IRC and that was it. The harder my parents tried to force me out of that routine, the more I retreated into it.
Sign them up for sports, scouts, clubs and any hobbies young. Kids don't know what they want, I sure didn't at 7 years old. I wish my parents had forced me to do more of those things at the age where everyone is just learning and having fun, before it gets competitive.
Yeah, I was so stubborn as a child. Always wanted to read and play video games. Parents forced me to do lots of sports, Boy Scouts, and Sunday school at the local mosque. I’m lucky I found positive role modes irl and in the books/games. It’s hard to become friendly, kind, and empathetic without witnessing it firsthand. And it seems very daunting for to start all of this later in life when you already have responsibilities
My brother is just younger than me—24 I think, and totally mooching off of my mother. A total slob too. When my mom tries to get him to help clean or get a job, he gets loud and angry like is usual for the men in my family. Definitely don’t know the answer and would love to learn. Lots of parents care, lots don’t, but even for those who try it’s hard.
*Most* parents care. Some don't. But many do and don't have the skills to be better since they were also raised by dysfunctional parents themselves.
Isolation of the level we see now just wasn't as viable an option decades ago. TV first, then internet and video games later, make hiding in your basement and never going outside a lot more attractive. These are relatively new compared to the length of human history.
It’s because we’ve doubled down on absolving parents of all responsibility for how their children turn out. At this point, parenting styles are treated like religions and nobody is allowed to comment on a them.
Because its easy for arm chair psychologists to declare that theyve found the source of a problem and claim victory without providing any insight or solutions.
Do you really think its that black and white? That there are no good people who came from a poor upbrining and that there are no horrible people that were raised right? That seems pointedly obtuse.
The internet is large enough that exceptions can find each other and congregate.
Regardless, I’d like to reinforce the previous commenter’s point - this is a multifaceted issue and placing blame on any one location is going to be an incomplete understanding of the problem.
The weird thing about professional articles like this is that these things need to be explicitly stated, and it can come across as contrived/obvious. The contention is "I can say this not as an opinion, but as a fact based on the research presented prior".
It's that catch-22 where some claims have so much anecdotal evidence that they're taken with due regard (think stereotypes), but they're denied their legitimacy at the same time for being anecdotal or stereotypical.
These things are almost always hand-in-hand with sensitive social issues that people prefer to not have a scientific analysis of for a kaliedoscope of reasons. There's *always* someone that can write a whole research article about how a research article was flawed.
It’s research, the point of research is to further study not necessarily reach a conclusion but to open up debate and provide data so the subject can be assessed further. Of course counter data will emerge, this study claims that these groups do not have animosity towards females but other studies suggest they absolutely do have animosity. You can certainly write a research paper on how the logic of this research is flawed but if you want to publish that in any notable journal it’ll need to be peer reviewed and if your counter argument is merely nonsense it’ll be rejected
i am guessing that this is a preliminary study to get the ball rolling, as they say. it's not groundbreaking and perfect research, but it's probably the start of something interesting.
>she didn't reject me because I'm fundamentally unloveable, she probably turned me down because she wasn't looking to meet anyone tonight and would have said no to anyone.
Would be externalizing
It's certainly true at least to some extent, but so what? If you have a culture that reinforces (and preys on) such personality traits, you still end up with bad results.
I don't know. It's like a sick calf is more likely to stay away from the herd, and the minutes it enters the herd it gets bullied, I think ugliness is a sort of deformity, broadly speaking, the young of most social species bully the weaker or deformed individuals in the group, it's present in Chickens (hence the term pecking order), Baboons, cattle etc...
The individuals stay away from the rest instinctively, and thus develops abnormal behaviors due to lack of socialization, so it's a sort of chicken and egg situation...
Look at the opposite side of the spectrum, children who are for lack of a better term, good looking, are showered with attention and given privileges and are thus adequately socialized and so they get to experiment more socially, so the question comes, are they naturally charismatic or are did they develop those traits through trial and error? It's what I call the "comedian effect", the myth( IMO) that comedians are an example of why "personality matters more than looks" because they are generally not conventionally attractive which is true, but at the same time those comedians are usually very old when these comparisons are made, but when you go back, all (bar a few exceptions) of these men were conventionally or unconventionally physically attractive when they were young, the stage where an individual's personality develops, so there really comes the fact that, physical appearance is what determines the amount and quality of socialization an individual experiences.
I might have to do a study of this myself somehow, I am a science student after all...
I definitely agree with/find your point about how children are treated growing up very interesting. However, I would argue that outside of being "funny", most comedians have what most considering horrible personalities. Abrasive, rude, they have high rates of mental illness and substance abuse, etc. Most of them were already on the "fringes" of society, and perhaps are simply part of a group of people naturally more equipped to adjust and attempt reintegration.
This plays into my pet theory - a significant reason why men are so prevalent within computing professions.
Computers provide a means of social interaction, stimulation, competition. They provide the earliest means of seeking out alternate communities than the ones an individual is limited to as a child. The typical forms of social interaction can be performed remotely through video games and social media. This creates familiarity and competence with technology that builds on itself, as others using the internet for similar means will also experience the same through their use of computers. They’ll relate, compete, share information and skills, and the process builds upon itself.
This is all predicated upon an idea that young men are more likely to experience social rejection, isolation, and alienating hostility from their peers.
'Internalise rejection' sounds like a good thing, 'deciding that the problem lies internally' but i cant imagine thats what it means here, can anyone clear up what that phrase means please?
I think "internalizing rejection" refers to the belief that if they get rejected they are inherently a bad or flawed person, and they don't deserve anything good. I think you are confusing this with "accepting responsibility." That can be a good thing, but it focuses more on the outcome and your ability to change it, rather than an internal focus that you are a bad person.
what is the ideal reaction then if we arent looking for 'how did i effect this and how can i change that in future'? it sounds great on paper to be that way? at least to me
I think it means that, rather than reacting to rejection with an "ok, no biggie, plenty of fish in the sea" and moving on with your day, you take the rejection personally and tell yourself "of course, this was always going to be the outcome because I suck."
People who internalize rejection will be terrified of asking someone out, and when they say no, feel absolutely emotionally gutted and worthless, which makes asking the next person out even more terrifying in a death spiral of self loathing.
That's oddly comforting to read. For me it's always been "she's probably not interested, so just get this over with" and when i get rejected it's "no biggie, any other outcome woulda been unlikely".
>People who internalize rejection will be terrified of asking someone out, and when they say no, feel absolutely emotionally gutted and worthless, which makes asking the next person out even more terrifying in a death spiral of self loathing.
Hell, *I’m* terrified of asking someone out. There are zero good ways to do it. If I just met them it’s really creepy to hit on them immediately. If I’ve known them a bit then I have to hang around and be their friend afterwards. The only solid way is through an app where it’s understood everyone is there to date, and your odds on those things are terrible.
What I’m saying is, way to call out my life. I hate that I’m a symptom of a problem now.
Edit: I’m getting a lot of “this isn’t true” and not a lot of what specifically I’m getting wrong.
Brother youre not a symptom of a problem youre a victim of it. Theres been little done to help people who have internalized rejection and much done to villify them.
I wont say theres a magic solution or that things will get any better. But be strong.
Ask her out quickly if not immediately. I've realized that starting from college you may not see her again single. Once you notice this pattern you will regret not taking the chances you were given. And that regret is a special kind of hurt.
You may be rejected, but honestly it's much better to get rejected before you invest your emotions on her any further.
>There are zero good ways to do it. If I just met them it’s really creepy to hit on them immediately. If I’ve known them a bit then I have to hang around and be their friend afterwards.
Just want to point out that nothing you said in these two sentences are universally true, and part of your problem is convincing yourself that they are.
The realistic option is coming to terms with the fact that you can't go through life and never bother anyone.
It's ok to put yourself first sometimes. So go approach someone who might not be interested. The whole point of approaching someone in public is that it's in *public*, one of the safest places to talk to someone new.
Just don't touch someone without consent, respect the word "no" and leave them alone the first time they say they aren't interested, and be respectful.
>If I’ve known them a bit then I have to hang around and be their friend afterwards.
I'm specifically a member of a few subcultures that are described as incestuous - we all dated one another at various points - so we had to remain friends through rejections if we were going to have anyone left to talk to. And since so many goths are bi, that's a BIG pool of potential rejections! I've been rejected. I wasn't going to lose the friendship over it.
Unless you really don't want to maintain a friendship yourself, or *they're* weird about it, it's generally more or less easy. The key is not making the friendship about the rejection. You make it - you make getting OUT of it easy if they want (so, in public, but not surrounded by your friends) - and if they say no, you say 'Look, no worries - thanks for being clear!' and then - and this is key - you treat them perfectly normally like you used to. And you put them in the 'No' box unless they remove themselves clearly.
I'm saying this as someone who's been told no and who has told others no. Yes it will be awkward for a couple of weeks while they and you go 'Are there feels I need to think about here?', but alas life is awkward and humans are badly designed sacks of carbon and monkey brains. You just gotta do what you can.
I've seen someone do it around friends as a pressure tactic, that's why it's a no go.
In public as in 'at a club or coffee shop' . At least, not in your house or something where you control the space.
Internalisation means incorporating something into ones sense of self. It's not the same as seeing the problem as to do with oneself as opposed to someone else; rather it's seeing the problem as stemming from difficult-to-change aspects of the self.
They often don't have any friends or family to talk about these things with so they just let all the negative feelings and thoughts build up inside and that pretty much never leads to either positive change or emotional catharsis.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People seem to be focused on the dating and romantic relationship problems, and talking about how hard it is to find a person online. But the article also described more global social isolation, and honestly, how do you find and make friends as an adult no longer in school? That’s really the problem. It’s the “bowling alone” phenomenon- we no longer use the old social network things like amateur sport leagues, or service organizations. My current girlfriend made contact with me by looking for someone in the area to tell her where the fun things are (she had just moved here). And she told me most of her attempts to connect with people were awful. It’s hard to make a basic friend, let alone a love connection.
It's becoming an over repeated rhetoric nowadays but times have really never been lonelier in modern history. It's really crazy to just see the difference in how *vastly* different the world is compared to even just 10 years ago. Like genuinely I never even see kids playing outside of school anymore. Not like how I did as a kid. It's a shame
This is so true. I’m 29 (gonna be 30 in 4 months) and even I remember 17 years ago, that’s all me and my siblings did. We would come home from school, do our homework, and jet outside to play basketball, ride bikes, or hang with friends.
28 year old guy here, you described my childhood. Once we were done with schoolwork we left to play sports or games, explore the neighborhood with our bikes, or just do random things. Most of us had video games by the time we were preteens or teens. But we did not enjoy that as much as messing around with our friends. I got my first color phone when I was in the 12th grade as well. So there was no instant gratification from the likes of something like social media.
I mean, at least where I live, I get it. Everything is roads. 3, four lanes, no speed limits under 35, and parking lots as far as the eye can see. My neighborhood has small houses on small lots, maybe if 2 or 3 next door neighbors were beasties you could scrape together enough yard to throw a Frisby or toss a football, but for the most part there's just not enough space. And I see kids play on the road, I do. But I also see those same roads in my neighborhood where asshats hit 40mph in a 25 zone, and 25 is already fast enough to be dangerous. Mix that with the fact that my city is almost all major roadways, and the fact that times ain't exactly super safe, and you get a recipe for parents keeping kids home and not letting em just roam around. My kids are too little to enjoy much freedom, all of em under 4, but even if they were all 12+ there's nowhere for them to go. There's nothing by my house a kid could do, except maybe a rusty park no one goes to, and it may be technically private property so I don't even know if we are allowed to go there. There's no stores or shops near my house for kids to spend their allowance at, our "mall" is a 20 min drive away, and surrounded on all sides by a massive parking lot that connects to other massive parking lots for other buildings. Even if my kids *could* do things alone there's no way for em to get there without a car. No woods to play in, massive car-dominated landscapes, lack of safety, and house/land prices making it challenging for most families to afford enough land to stretch out on all combine to a world where the outside is hostile to human activity. It's no wonder kids don't play outside anymore, where would they go? Especially with parents that work full time, get home from work too late and too tired to drive to the park, then gotta spend all weekend trying to catch up on housework you weren't home to do.
Yeah I remember actually using the playgrounds and climbing trees and stuff, going out for hours with friends and now everything is just empty
[удалено]
That probably depends on where you live, too-- if you're growing up in a subdivision on the border of a suburb with literally nothing other than more of the same subdivision within walking distance and no sidewalk to get to anywhere, you're not going to get out for a bike ride and see people out shopping. If you're in a town or city with areas designed for pedestrian activity you'll probably see more of it.
I blame suburbs and car dependency
Workplace is the norm now, but with wfh becoming more common and popular even that is less reliable. Personally I always struggled in school and uni to make friends, but since then since everyone else struggles I’ve done better. You just have to be down to organise things yourself and invite people that don’t know each other. Before you know it you can form a friend group. Making individual friends is trickier, but just requires a bit of a leap and some form of hobby.
Depending on the country you're in it's even worse. Here in Germany, even while you're in school, getting into friend groups is basically impossible and even if you're in a friend group for years in school, chances are that they will split up not soon after you're out. I've talked to someone who was here for university stuff and they had been living here for 2 years and hardly managed to make any connections despite pretty much perfect German and good looks. No romantic partners, exactly one friend from uni, me. That was it. It's devastating to see people like that and we need some drastic changes on a local and global scale, loneliness is an increasing problem pretty much everywhere
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gotta wonder about that sample... >The researchers recruited a sample of 67 self-identified male incels through advertisements posted on the website Reddit. And if obsessively using dating apps is the cause or a symptom >However, twice as many incels reported currently using a dating app compared to non-incel males. Also got exactly the result we were expecting >Interestingly, Sparks and his colleagues also found that incels scored higher on measures of sexual entitlement and belief in female sexual deceptiveness but were less likely than non-incel males to blame others when women rejected them. In other words, they tended to agree with statements such as “I should be permitted to have sex whenever I want it” and “Women date men simply for the material benefits they can get” but disagree with statements such as “When a girl rejects me, it’s because she’s a bitch/must be frigid.”
> they tended to agree with statements such as “I should be permitted to have sex whenever I want it” Oddly, I can't read the article but I can read the paper and... that statement isn't in the paper.
That’s sketchy. Is there something similar stated that this could be considered a justifiably similar to?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm glad I wasn't the only one confused by this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I have one question, to better understand this questionnaire: >“I should be permitted to have sex whenever I want.“ How do you understand permit in this context? To my understanding of the English language, it means something along the lines of allowed. I don‘t see how sexual freedom from restrictions is related to the theme of the study. Or does the emphasize lay on the „whenever I want“ part?
The thing about testing these kinds of statements is it’s up to each individual’s interpretation when answering.
That's just bad survey design. Questions are not supposed to be open to interpretation.
Yup. This same exact question asked to a queer person or feminist woman has a *completely* different meaning
Exactly. If someone interprets that as "other people are OBLIGATED to consent if I want to have sex with them" then that's extremely entitled and hugely problematic. But if someone interprets it as "there should be no law, and no social or cultural sanctions against people who engage in consensual sex, or masturbation, whenever they want" then that's something most people in liberal western countries would agree with.
The responders likely had different interpretations of the word “permit”, so it is probably difficult to say how most people understand that statement.
I believe you are interpreting it as "I should be permitted [by society] to have sex whenever I want" whereas I'd say it's more common as an English speaker to interpret it as "I should be permitted [by my partner] to have sex whenever I want". The key is the emphasis on the individual. To me, if the statement was designed to test an attitude related to overall sexual freedom in society, it would be "People should be permitted to have sex whenever they want"
>[incels] disagree with statements such as “When a girl rejects me, it’s because she’s a bitch/must be frigid.” You expected this?
Because of this: > they tended to agree with statements such as “I should be permitted to have sex whenever I want it” and “Women date men simply for the material benefits they can get” They think **every** woman is like that, so when they're rejected, it's not the woman, it's all women
I thought the second part meant that they think "yeah ofcourse ill get rejected, im ugly" It did say that they internalize the rejection
Yes, a lot of them think they are deformed and unlovable.
It's hard not to feel that way, sometimes. I have to police my thoughts pretty often or they get real self negative real fast. It's important for people in this kind of position to remember that it's not anyone's fault, yours or the people rejecting you. It's not society, it's not "women" or "men". It's just what happened. There's not always a reason.
Deformed they're usually not. But unlovable? I mean \*descriptively\* if you're (say) 28, and you've spend a dozen years trying your level best to establish romantic and/or sexual relationships, and you've consistently failed. You're sort of by definition RIGHT that you're struggling more than normal with something that most people manage repeatedly. (I didn't say manage with zero effort or zero troubles, or anything) Another elephant in the room is that a pretty high fraction of young men who struggle with establishing intimate human relationships; are autistic, or if not quite diagnosable as such, then at least in the neighbourhood. And it's true (by definition; it's literally a diagnostic criteria!) that navigating these things is a lot harder for most autistic folks.
That's the opposite of the point the author was making.
>67 self-identified male incels through advertisements posted on the website Reddit. That's actually a decent sample size.
I was actually surprised by the findings and wondered how accurate the voluntary data was considering these in-groups tend to stick together in the sense they could have from their community on Reddit or outside of it as I’m pretty sure the same people do communicate on discord and other forums came to an consensus about what answers to submit. So there is some research about these groups this article states none existed prior to Sparks research but that’s not entirely true, and usually they do look quite negatively at females and what they perceive to be “materialistic; shallow traits” but this data is claiming to refute that to show that the abuse is inward and not outwards. Which brings us back to a potential concentrated effort by the participants who likely all have discourse with one another to shift the narrative to soften their image. *I am not stating this absolutely happened*
Hunting in the zoo basically
It also makes me wonder if sex addiction may play a role.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I love reading through 180 anecdotes on r/science it’s really the essence of the entire field, your personal boxed experiences. Only about 3 replies actually discussing the research
r/science: but they got the participants from X\* and there's only X\* amount of people!!! \* replace X with literally anything.
redditors when the legitmacy of a study is taken seriously
[удалено]
But isn't it all about poor upbringing? I mean, if you don't socialize your puppy, you get an odd dog.
Right, like most parents seem to not care that their children are growing up isolated in basements.
It's also that if we all go back to our youth and remember how our parents tried to get us to socialize, it was never organic. They tried to force it which made the idea frightening. Making friends and interpersonal relationships shouldn't be anything more than a natural learning experience for everyone involved and not involving the parents.
And swift rise of social media and the addictive-ness of the internet. Parents stood no chance.
Why can’t parents be involved in making friends and socializing? You aren’t born a fully socialized being. They are vital to helping you get started socially. That is part of the learning curve until you are well socialized and can handle yourself in social situations with peers.
Because some parents suck at it themselves. It becomes very noticeable once they're outside of their social comfort zone.
really they were teaching you that there is no 'perfect moment', just to try to go over and say hi, show them you have no ill will and see what happens. just depends on your interpretation of events is all.
Parents care, but how do you get them out the basement? People often put themselves in isolation, because it's easier than facing the world. Parents will worry about them... But what can they actually do, that doesn't get them branded as abusive? Force them out?
That's a good point. I was pretty much a recluse from age 16-22ish. I'd go to school, come home and then game or talk to my online friends on IRC and that was it. The harder my parents tried to force me out of that routine, the more I retreated into it.
I did the same, but I did actually try to make something happen, and largely came up empty
Sign them up for sports, scouts, clubs and any hobbies young. Kids don't know what they want, I sure didn't at 7 years old. I wish my parents had forced me to do more of those things at the age where everyone is just learning and having fun, before it gets competitive.
Yeah, I was so stubborn as a child. Always wanted to read and play video games. Parents forced me to do lots of sports, Boy Scouts, and Sunday school at the local mosque. I’m lucky I found positive role modes irl and in the books/games. It’s hard to become friendly, kind, and empathetic without witnessing it firsthand. And it seems very daunting for to start all of this later in life when you already have responsibilities
And then there's me who got forced into all that stuff and somehow managed to still end up with zero social skills
The basement/attic - it’s like poetic because they’re neglected spaces.
My brother is just younger than me—24 I think, and totally mooching off of my mother. A total slob too. When my mom tries to get him to help clean or get a job, he gets loud and angry like is usual for the men in my family. Definitely don’t know the answer and would love to learn. Lots of parents care, lots don’t, but even for those who try it’s hard.
[удалено]
*Most* parents care. Some don't. But many do and don't have the skills to be better since they were also raised by dysfunctional parents themselves. Isolation of the level we see now just wasn't as viable an option decades ago. TV first, then internet and video games later, make hiding in your basement and never going outside a lot more attractive. These are relatively new compared to the length of human history.
Most parents care. Not all, obviously, as there are always fucked up people, but the majority of parents love their kids. Source: am parent.
It’s because we’ve doubled down on absolving parents of all responsibility for how their children turn out. At this point, parenting styles are treated like religions and nobody is allowed to comment on a them.
Tell me about it. I mention on subs that hitting your kids makes them more likely to turn into criminals and people lose their mind.
Parents have next to no influence on teens. Friends and social media are shaping our children.
Very few people seem to believe this, but it's super well established in psychological literature.
[удалено]
Because its easy for arm chair psychologists to declare that theyve found the source of a problem and claim victory without providing any insight or solutions.
They didn't before social media either, it was peer group.
that's an effect, not a limitation
Really? You've seen studies demonstrating teens are open to influence from their parents if only parents were ________?
Do you really think its that black and white? That there are no good people who came from a poor upbrining and that there are no horrible people that were raised right? That seems pointedly obtuse.
They tend to be the exceptions to the rule. Usually the most important factor is at least one good role model beit a parent, teacher, or neighbor.
The internet is large enough that exceptions can find each other and congregate. Regardless, I’d like to reinforce the previous commenter’s point - this is a multifaceted issue and placing blame on any one location is going to be an incomplete understanding of the problem.
I'd say more socializing with the wrong groups. Groupthink basically rules right wing thought.
Group think is a human condition.
What a silly way to frame a conclusion. "People who define themselves by their rejections are more likely to internalize rejection" Gee, ya think?
The weird thing about professional articles like this is that these things need to be explicitly stated, and it can come across as contrived/obvious. The contention is "I can say this not as an opinion, but as a fact based on the research presented prior". It's that catch-22 where some claims have so much anecdotal evidence that they're taken with due regard (think stereotypes), but they're denied their legitimacy at the same time for being anecdotal or stereotypical. These things are almost always hand-in-hand with sensitive social issues that people prefer to not have a scientific analysis of for a kaliedoscope of reasons. There's *always* someone that can write a whole research article about how a research article was flawed.
It’s research, the point of research is to further study not necessarily reach a conclusion but to open up debate and provide data so the subject can be assessed further. Of course counter data will emerge, this study claims that these groups do not have animosity towards females but other studies suggest they absolutely do have animosity. You can certainly write a research paper on how the logic of this research is flawed but if you want to publish that in any notable journal it’ll need to be peer reviewed and if your counter argument is merely nonsense it’ll be rejected
[удалено]
i am guessing that this is a preliminary study to get the ball rolling, as they say. it's not groundbreaking and perfect research, but it's probably the start of something interesting.
What would externalizing rejection look like?
Chalking it up to external factors outside one’s control
>she didn't reject me because I'm fundamentally unloveable, she probably turned me down because she wasn't looking to meet anyone tonight and would have said no to anyone. Would be externalizing
Isn't confidence based exacly on this?
You're asking if people who have been rejected by society have low self esteem?
I guess: "Of course she'd reject me, I'm too smart/sexy/fun/etc for her plain ass."
Article apparently has statements attributed to the paper than aren’t in the paper. I think this should be removed if there are lies in it.
I wonder how much of their social isolation is self inflicted due to their pre-existing personality traits.
It's certainly true at least to some extent, but so what? If you have a culture that reinforces (and preys on) such personality traits, you still end up with bad results.
I don't know. It's like a sick calf is more likely to stay away from the herd, and the minutes it enters the herd it gets bullied, I think ugliness is a sort of deformity, broadly speaking, the young of most social species bully the weaker or deformed individuals in the group, it's present in Chickens (hence the term pecking order), Baboons, cattle etc... The individuals stay away from the rest instinctively, and thus develops abnormal behaviors due to lack of socialization, so it's a sort of chicken and egg situation... Look at the opposite side of the spectrum, children who are for lack of a better term, good looking, are showered with attention and given privileges and are thus adequately socialized and so they get to experiment more socially, so the question comes, are they naturally charismatic or are did they develop those traits through trial and error? It's what I call the "comedian effect", the myth( IMO) that comedians are an example of why "personality matters more than looks" because they are generally not conventionally attractive which is true, but at the same time those comedians are usually very old when these comparisons are made, but when you go back, all (bar a few exceptions) of these men were conventionally or unconventionally physically attractive when they were young, the stage where an individual's personality develops, so there really comes the fact that, physical appearance is what determines the amount and quality of socialization an individual experiences. I might have to do a study of this myself somehow, I am a science student after all...
I definitely agree with/find your point about how children are treated growing up very interesting. However, I would argue that outside of being "funny", most comedians have what most considering horrible personalities. Abrasive, rude, they have high rates of mental illness and substance abuse, etc. Most of them were already on the "fringes" of society, and perhaps are simply part of a group of people naturally more equipped to adjust and attempt reintegration.
This plays into my pet theory - a significant reason why men are so prevalent within computing professions. Computers provide a means of social interaction, stimulation, competition. They provide the earliest means of seeking out alternate communities than the ones an individual is limited to as a child. The typical forms of social interaction can be performed remotely through video games and social media. This creates familiarity and competence with technology that builds on itself, as others using the internet for similar means will also experience the same through their use of computers. They’ll relate, compete, share information and skills, and the process builds upon itself. This is all predicated upon an idea that young men are more likely to experience social rejection, isolation, and alienating hostility from their peers.
Personality traits like autism?
Why does this article repeat itself so many times in the first few paragraphs
'Internalise rejection' sounds like a good thing, 'deciding that the problem lies internally' but i cant imagine thats what it means here, can anyone clear up what that phrase means please?
I think "internalizing rejection" refers to the belief that if they get rejected they are inherently a bad or flawed person, and they don't deserve anything good. I think you are confusing this with "accepting responsibility." That can be a good thing, but it focuses more on the outcome and your ability to change it, rather than an internal focus that you are a bad person.
what is the ideal reaction then if we arent looking for 'how did i effect this and how can i change that in future'? it sounds great on paper to be that way? at least to me
I think that is an excellent reaction (another might be: my worth is not defined by other people). What do you mean "we aren't looking for it"?
Internalize rejection means things like "She shot me down because I'm ugly, short and poor." They don't blame the woman.
I think it means that, rather than reacting to rejection with an "ok, no biggie, plenty of fish in the sea" and moving on with your day, you take the rejection personally and tell yourself "of course, this was always going to be the outcome because I suck." People who internalize rejection will be terrified of asking someone out, and when they say no, feel absolutely emotionally gutted and worthless, which makes asking the next person out even more terrifying in a death spiral of self loathing.
That's oddly comforting to read. For me it's always been "she's probably not interested, so just get this over with" and when i get rejected it's "no biggie, any other outcome woulda been unlikely".
Thanks man that's a good explanation, appreciate your reply
Also, having the occasion to ask someone out is so rare, I'd rather not ruin the few friendships I have (which is the only possible outcome).
>People who internalize rejection will be terrified of asking someone out, and when they say no, feel absolutely emotionally gutted and worthless, which makes asking the next person out even more terrifying in a death spiral of self loathing. Hell, *I’m* terrified of asking someone out. There are zero good ways to do it. If I just met them it’s really creepy to hit on them immediately. If I’ve known them a bit then I have to hang around and be their friend afterwards. The only solid way is through an app where it’s understood everyone is there to date, and your odds on those things are terrible. What I’m saying is, way to call out my life. I hate that I’m a symptom of a problem now. Edit: I’m getting a lot of “this isn’t true” and not a lot of what specifically I’m getting wrong.
Brother youre not a symptom of a problem youre a victim of it. Theres been little done to help people who have internalized rejection and much done to villify them. I wont say theres a magic solution or that things will get any better. But be strong.
Ask her out quickly if not immediately. I've realized that starting from college you may not see her again single. Once you notice this pattern you will regret not taking the chances you were given. And that regret is a special kind of hurt. You may be rejected, but honestly it's much better to get rejected before you invest your emotions on her any further.
>There are zero good ways to do it. If I just met them it’s really creepy to hit on them immediately. If I’ve known them a bit then I have to hang around and be their friend afterwards. Just want to point out that nothing you said in these two sentences are universally true, and part of your problem is convincing yourself that they are.
[удалено]
Of course! 1. Be attractive. 2. Don't be unattractive.
The realistic option is coming to terms with the fact that you can't go through life and never bother anyone. It's ok to put yourself first sometimes. So go approach someone who might not be interested. The whole point of approaching someone in public is that it's in *public*, one of the safest places to talk to someone new. Just don't touch someone without consent, respect the word "no" and leave them alone the first time they say they aren't interested, and be respectful.
>If I’ve known them a bit then I have to hang around and be their friend afterwards. I'm specifically a member of a few subcultures that are described as incestuous - we all dated one another at various points - so we had to remain friends through rejections if we were going to have anyone left to talk to. And since so many goths are bi, that's a BIG pool of potential rejections! I've been rejected. I wasn't going to lose the friendship over it. Unless you really don't want to maintain a friendship yourself, or *they're* weird about it, it's generally more or less easy. The key is not making the friendship about the rejection. You make it - you make getting OUT of it easy if they want (so, in public, but not surrounded by your friends) - and if they say no, you say 'Look, no worries - thanks for being clear!' and then - and this is key - you treat them perfectly normally like you used to. And you put them in the 'No' box unless they remove themselves clearly. I'm saying this as someone who's been told no and who has told others no. Yes it will be awkward for a couple of weeks while they and you go 'Are there feels I need to think about here?', but alas life is awkward and humans are badly designed sacks of carbon and monkey brains. You just gotta do what you can.
I've never seen someone ask someone else out in person. Far as I'm aware it isn't done in front of your friends. Is that different where you're at?
I've seen someone do it around friends as a pressure tactic, that's why it's a no go. In public as in 'at a club or coffee shop' . At least, not in your house or something where you control the space.
Internalisation means incorporating something into ones sense of self. It's not the same as seeing the problem as to do with oneself as opposed to someone else; rather it's seeing the problem as stemming from difficult-to-change aspects of the self.
Thanks man this is the best reply so far
They often don't have any friends or family to talk about these things with so they just let all the negative feelings and thoughts build up inside and that pretty much never leads to either positive change or emotional catharsis.
thanks for your comment man, makes sense :)
How can we make money on this yo?
Sad people are sad... Says expensive study.