Incels 30 times more likely to be autistic, study finds

Post Reply New Topic

Editor's Note :
I started this thread out of concern that publicity around the study will further stigmatize Autistics, especially single ones. When replying to a post it occurred to me that even though the thread is in the Autism Politics section, I was really replying to a Love and Dating topic, that this is now a Love and Dating thread something I have intentionally avoided until now. I considered asking the mods to move it, but the high response to it is suggestive it is not in the wrong section, so I will leave it be.
End Note:

Maybe it is me but compared to a few years ago when there were a few well-publicized terror attacks by Autistic incels there seems to be a lot less publicity around the incel phenomenon. Is it because the phenomenon has peaked and is waning, or the media (and yours truly) have moved on to other topics?

Kudos to ChiefEspatier for your honestly, intellectualism, frankness, and (most importantly) your objectivity.

I think the phenomenon in general is becoming more mainstream, so maybe there’s less of a focus on autistic incels.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/masculinity- ... -attitudes

My brain hurts after reading this thread.

What a waste of my time.

The only saving grace was FXE's hilarious mention of the term "Chad thundercock".

The OP seems to be so defensive of incels and yet claims to have a wife, claims to not be an incel and claims to have incel friends.

I struggle to believe anyone has such enthusiasm for incels unless they were an incel themselves.

If people find you attractive and want to have sex with you - then you can have sex if you want.
If people don't find you attractive and don't want to have sex with you - then there will be no sex for you whether you want it or not. That's as simple as that. People like what they like. And you can't change their preferences. No need to overcomplicate it or complain about people being picky.

Well I don't know about that but the thread is still here so I have returned.

I find it interesting to think about the terminology that incel spaces use and the overlap between dating coaches and influencers.

I have to wonder how many of these influencial figures actually believe in their words. Especially with how popular algorithm-based social media is in the world. Unfortunately I suspect that many simply know how to game the system and make quick money out of lonely vulnerable people. They know how to appeal to their audience and gain a following.

A lot of engagement in algorithm heavy platforms is passive. Even when people don't actively seek it out, if it's popular in their demographic then they'll see it and the more someone engages in that content, the more slop will be delivered in return.

Yet if you try to remove such content, then that'll only feed into the worldview that the truth is being silenced. So it's tricky.

There's a lot of pseudoscientific nonsense out there. For instance, in the true crime community there's a fair amount of YouTube channels out there that read into body language to a ridiculous degree. This hand movement clearly shows that this person is the murderer! My sources? Yes.

Unfortunately, some people are quite good at putting on fake confidence and convincing others that they know the secrets of human nature that others don't want you to know. Something which people who struggle socially are going to be vulnerable to in general. I highly suspect that's a big reason why autistic men are significantly likely to end up in such groups.

I mean, I can see why it would be tempting. Something you've always struggled to understand, when suddenly someone (who you think is well intentioned) offers you an explanation that seems to make sense.

It's worrying how radicalising online spaces have the power to be. Influencers scare me quite frankly.

The OP didn't say any of that. In fact, I think the OP only posted twice in this thread. It think you're confusing posters.

What the OP did share in his second post was a concern that this incel-autism connection may lead to more stigmatism towards Apies in general. And, if you're correct about why should anyone in the majority care about any minority group, then I guess: why should anyone give a damn about Autistics?; the only people who care that much about Autism are either on the spectrum themselves or they have an immediate loved-one who is.

I think a lot of incel jargon overlaps pretty heavily with the so-called manosphere.



I've noticed YouTube is pretty aggressive about trying to make whatever I just searched for my new special interest, as well as occasionally randomly shoving literal Nazi s**t in my face (Arghoslent, Zoomer Historian, etc). I'm not sure how other platforms are, but I can imagine they're probably not that different.

All and all though I do think you're on to something with how some people learn how to engage well with the algorithm and how that helps certain creators, and then things that parts of that audience like get recommended to more of the viewers. If a creator attracts an echo chamber, the algorithm helps reinforce it.



I feel like pop-psi encourages that. People fixate on a few elements and offer really reductive takes with far more confidence than they deserve.



I think a lot of it has to do with the ego too. Everyone wants to be part of an inner circle with knowledge others don't have, they want to feel special. People who appear confident and who offer them the chance to be special and improve their weaknesses can be very appealing, especially when you feel like they're your friend.

Influences are scary because of the parasocial aspect. I don't think demagogues of old connected in such an intimate way as online influences do.

Whether they offer hope, or just get you to join in wallowing in misery, I think they trigger the friend neurons pretty heavily.

Last bumped by ASPartOfMe on 28 Feb 2024, 8:19 am.