Maybe they took data of Guatemala
Tallfag hands wrote that. They’re always trying to justify their inceldom
Uh huh. Another retard that only believes stats when it fits in with what you want to believe, yup got itLow iq post
T
it's true though
ofc foids prefer tall guys (how tall, depends on the foid), but if you're average or about average, it's not your height. If you're turbomanlet that's when you're fucked
ofc foids prefer tall guys (how tall, depends on the foid), but if you're average or about average, it's not your height. If you're turbomanlet that's when you're fucked
It wasn't "I know a guy" retardJust be short bro, i know a short guy who slays a new girl every day
Yeh that's what you're doing fool
Show proof of short guys slaying more then tall guys because that's absolutely not the case where I live.
Same tbh. I don’t even see manlets with gfs
Do Short Men Actually Have More Sex?
A scientific study says short men have more sex than tall ones, and Tom Holland can confirm
www.insidehook.com
You're correct. Heightpill is just a cope. Truth is, it's only about being NT and having a good personality. IT was right the whole time
Tom holland can confirmDo Short Men Actually Have More Sex?
A scientific study says short men have more sex than tall ones, and Tom Holland can confirm
Just be a hollywood actor bro
Do Short Men Actually Have More Sex?
A scientific study says short men have more sex than tall ones, and Tom Holland can confirm
just be millonaire statusmaxxed across the globe and good looking broTom holland can confirm
Just be a hollywood actor bro
Tom holland can confirm
Just be a hollywood actor bro
"The (admittedly small) study of 531 straight men..."
So many coping retards on this forum...
Why so many why, it's 2022 God WHY
2
Being in 180-190cm range alone can't do shit for you.
you should make a lenghty thread about your bluepilled views (you probably think you aren't being bluepilled right now lol) and what inklers should do in your view do to '''quit inceldom'' since it seems you believe that's possible. it's really confusing that you are stating manlets get more laid than tallfags in a fucking blackpill forum out of all places, in top of calling others ''coping'' when in essense your post is coping and akin of someone saying a guy with arms amputated can beat mike tyson muhammad ali floyd mayweather all in a 1v3 fight.
he's a retard that cherrypicks studies.
lmao legit true i remember he insulted me for using that word couple weeks ago.
well im still curious about his thoughts on everything besides manletism although i also want him to elaborate more on manletism in context of blackpill, this forum, and manlet incels.
*sigh
Bluepill huh? Take my bluepill shit and go huh? Cherry picking is it?
Faggot I REMEMBER when the BLACKPILL was all about taking studies and stats and blowing away the bluepill normies into oblivion. And I was sure it would continue this way, I was confident. Imagine my shock and disappointment when a few of my "blackpilled brethren" suddenly seemed to show signs of weakness when the stats did not go in the direction they thought.
No my friend YOU are the bluepilled faggot one my friend and it is ME who is blackpilling you GET IT? Understand that faggot you wanna ban the bluepill faggot or whatever you wanna BAN YOURSELF mothafucka
Bluepill huh? Take my bluepill shit and go huh? Cherry picking is it?
Faggot I REMEMBER when the BLACKPILL was all about taking studies and stats and blowing away the bluepill normies into oblivion. And I was sure it would continue this way, I was confident. Imagine my shock and disappointment when a few of my "blackpilled brethren" suddenly seemed to show signs of weakness when the stats did not go in the direction they thought.
No my friend YOU are the bluepilled faggot one my friend and it is ME who is blackpilling you GET IT? Understand that faggot you wanna ban the bluepill faggot or whatever you wanna BAN YOURSELF mothafucka
quoteletcels
well i don't recall blackpill being about manlets ''slaying'' and tallfags being incels. hope you make a thread about everything you think to prove the delusional inklers wrong bro
If every thing was debatable height isnt, even the most virtue signaling whores list height first as desirable trait. And how did they come up with the 151cm height more like 175cm.
more like 175cm.
Do Short Men Actually Have More Sex?
A scientific study says short men have more sex than tall ones, and Tom Holland can confirm
You're cherrypicking. Your best luck when you're a turbomanlet is to moneymaxx and betabuxx a foid.
OP is asking about the height article and that "1% of the shortest" stuff.
I've never edited that article so I have no idea why you're blaming me for it.
Easy enough to check the history to see who added it:
incels.wiki/index.php?title=Special:diff/46076
so bitch at Bibipi not me
Retard
Joined Sep 15, 2021
Generally if you're above 5'7 you are not really disadvantaged from what I saw. I really think autism is a big part. And that is the real Blackpill, because you can't change your brain ever. At least physically you can cope with the Idea of surgeries
I have moved the offending section away from the lede down into https://incels.wiki/w/Heightpill#Brooke_Jenkins
it sounds like bullshit but I'm reading the study PDF now to see wtf Bibipi was reacting to
one problem is you should never talk about studies like absolute truth or word of god, especially when they're authored by a foid (Brooke Jenkins)
- -
one thing that stands out to me is this study doesn't take into account looks, the Brooke Jenkin paper lists this data in the intro for example:
Firstly if you ignore the pointless 'median' there is obviously a height pattern in partners:
9.4>11.0>11.7>12.0>12.1>12.3
It's not as extreme as I would expect, and that bears looking closer at. But this doesn't seem like a reason to say "this only affects 1% of the shortest men"
This is a 14-pg PDF so could require indepth analysis.
Should we just do that here on this thread, or if this is about generic wiki bitching should we make a separate thread to take apart the Brooke Jenkins study?
it sounds like bullshit but I'm reading the study PDF now to see wtf Bibipi was reacting to
one problem is you should never talk about studies like absolute truth or word of god, especially when they're authored by a foid (Brooke Jenkins)
- -
one thing that stands out to me is this study doesn't take into account looks, the Brooke Jenkin paper lists this data in the intro for example:
Firstly if you ignore the pointless 'median' there is obviously a height pattern in partners:
9.4>11.0>11.7>12.0>12.1>12.3
It's not as extreme as I would expect, and that bears looking closer at. But this doesn't seem like a reason to say "this only affects 1% of the shortest men"
This is a 14-pg PDF so could require indepth analysis.
Should we just do that here on this thread, or if this is about generic wiki bitching should we make a separate thread to take apart the Brooke Jenkins study?
Last edited:
Someone should edit the page. If not you, I can do it. In anycase, we already possess accurate data on heightmogging here (which contradicts that article):
Scientific Blackpill
The Scientific Blackpill is about understanding the nature of human social and sexual behavior with a particular focus on evolutionary psychological perspectives...
We also know that FuRed has no idea what he is talking about. Height may not be everything that women consider in regards to lookism but it is extremely important and one of the most notorious blackpills. Many women do indeed flat out reject men on height alone. Even sperm banks require a minimum standard of height.
This seems like an improvement to me, would value your feedback on any further improvements we can make.
https://incels.wiki/index.php?title=special:diff/69637
my approach would be "let's display as many studies as possible, but then offer rebuttals to ones we think have misleading conclusions"
I wouldn't agree with censoring the Brooke Jenkins study for example, because it's easy enough to dispute.
Basically I think we should invite debate and wreck the opposition, otherwise we risk excess echo-chamber habits.
I agree with that. Though its obvious the data overwhelmingly points to the Brooke Jenkins study having methodological flaws (like sample size) at best. Biased and mendacious at worst. Which you of course pointed out in the edit.
Such examples are good for future debate where contrasting studies are referenced, and helps to discern which are more legitimate (and why).
I agree that this requires indepth analysis before we draw conclusions. There have been plenty of other studies that we've seen such as the one from Animal Studies cited on the heightpill page (https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_in_suboptimal_pair_formation_for_both_sexes) that shows that when given a choice and all else being equal, shorter men are perceived as multiple times less attractive (anywhere from 3-10x which even at the lowest is quite large).
Having one study that contradicts everything we already know about the heightpill and all the data we've already collected isn't enough to diminish the heightpill theory as it stands. Instead we should first look to see how the study was conducted and see if there are any ways to reconcile this study with what we already know.
As mentioned, the study doesn't take looks into account (which is already a major downside) and takes merely "coital activity" into account. It's very much possible that the shorter men in the study could be inflating their numbers, which is already a commonly known male behavior. Potentially could be more acute as a phenomenon among short men because they constantly have to reaffirm their masculinity. I have a few more ideas as to how to reconcile these (for example taller men may be more likely to be single because they don't want to give up access to multiple females until much later in their lives -- this means they get sex with a much greater variety of women but not necessarily as stably as a married short man could get sex). The mean weekly coital frequency is 2.55 ± 1.08 while for men 175cm and under specifically is 2.69 ± 1.24, so the difference is actually quite small so there could be many things going on here that explains this. Also one thing interesting to note about how they grouped this is that 175cm is actually average height, not short, so they grouped a significant percentage of average height men and short men all together and are just referring to them as short men. It's possible that whatever group of men average height men are grouped in with is going to record the highest amount of sexual activity, because 60+% of men are around average height (as height is standardly distributed), so as a group they're going to be attempting to obtain sex the most simply because they're the largest group, and a fair amount is bound to achieve some success, even if its with landwhales. Combine this with some inflating their sex counts, the fact that there are likely to be more men with 8+/10 faces at average height because there are much more average height men in general, and it's totally possible that their weekly average lands at just .14 higher than the average.
Will have to look into it more but in any case a single study like this can't singlehandedly debunk all the data and studies we've already gathered. We would need multiple studies from multiple sources showing the same/similar results for such a claim to seriously challenge the heightpill at this point
Last edited:
What's hilarious and almost blackpilling here is even when you fuck up your sampling like Brooke Jenkins (ie undersample short men, you're obviously only polling the short 10/10 face casanovas who are wealthy/ripped/etc) it still isn't enough to disrupt height=partners progression, only diminish the slope
Brooke's pathetic listing of "median" partners is also clearly pointless BS meant to distract from clear pattern in the averages.
As I said, mendacious.
this is Brooke N. Jenkins from University of California who authored that btw
a 2017 paper 2 yrs after this study mentions her husband is Nick Jenkins, going to see if I can find out what his height is...
pretty sure this is them, married in 2014, her maiden name was Brooke Gentle
still having trouble finding pics of Nick tho, middle name might help, dunno
feeling burned out, anyone want to keep on digging?
It’s true for cumskins who are shorter than currys. I am not that short (5’10) and cumskins who are shorter than me have mogged me
Ethnic tax.
Actually WTF I just looked at the actual study, and not only does it list the actual number of sexual partners (which the results and conclusions section of the paper I read here and elsewhere completely failed to mention: https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/sorry-tall-guys-turns-out-short-men-get-more-play) but her own numbers shows a clear trend where the taller you are the more sexual partners you get. JFL at this manipulation JFL. This is straight up lying by omission, how can this even be academically credible. Now I'm having a hard time trusting anything else the paper says, who knows how else she and her colleagues played around with the numbers and what they refrained from including. The blackpill wins again
Last edited:
Its the wage gap study all over again.
All of them are that predictable. Not once do they deviate from this gameplan.
Gynocentric society doesn't care though. It serves the dogma and that's all everyone cares about.
Exactly. It's actually borderline comical. At first I only read the abstract, results and conclusions section and decided to give the authors the benefit of the doubt and assume their numbers were honest but looking into the actual study, they clearly hid numbers that not only show their own conclusions to be wrong, but also expose that they purposefully manipulated the studies numbers to produce averages that are (as wizard said), ultimately meaningless, but allow them to push a narrative, probably knowing most people won't ever read the actual study. That's not even going into all the other dishonesty they engage in that's already visible (such as the sampling issue, also mentioned by wizard). At this point I can never doubt the blackpill, any study brought up against it always falls flat on it's face like this jfl
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
