Good genes hypothesis

From, the incel encyclopedia

The Good genes hypothesis is the belief that the choosy sex in a species sexually selects those with genes beneficial to long term survival of the species. Blackpillers promote this view for humans, usually by calling incels, "subhuman", or, "genetically inferior", because of being rejected by women. And then rejecting arguments to the contrary as cope. This belief leads some to promote suicide, eugenics, or social Darwinism for incels.


The theory is debated in academia.[1][2][3] Usually between “good geners” vs “fisherians”. Fisherian selection states that, (at least in certain contexts) females sexually select for 'sexiness' ('ornamental' hereditary traits that solely act to improve the male's, and thus his female mate's offspring's, reproductive success), which may diverge from breeding value for 'direct' genetic benefits (traits that act to enhance the offspring's phenotypic quality, in regards to its viability), and therefore potentially create issues.

Other modern promoters[edit]

The good genes hypothesis is also promoted by modern (but not traditional) American eugenicists and racialists such as Edward Dutton. The prominent public intellectual and psychologist Jordan Peterson also promotes this idea. They claim, for example, that female sexual preference for symmetrical faces is an honest signal of genetic fitness, simply because it is a female preference today. They contradict themselves though by also implying that incels are overlooked irrationally by women, suggesting they may think some of their “solutions” to their racial demographic concerns such as “enforced monogamy” might be dysgenic if applied universally instead of selectively.

"Darwinian feminists", also promote the good genes hypothesis by insinuating that sexual selection outside of patriarchy is a moral and rational sorter of good and bad genes. The most dominant feminists take issue with Darwin in general though,[4] so, "Darwinist feminist" discourse is infrequent and often passively expressed in arguments, if at all.

A minority of journalists, such as Brian Clarey, signal explicit belief in the good genes hypothesis.

Alternative beliefs[edit]

As mentioned earlier, an alternative belief to the good genes hypothesis, for example, is that humans adapt over evolutionary time primarily through environmental and group selection rather than sexual selection. Fisherian selection claims that sexual selection is not necessarily about adapting. Fisherian selection theory instead claims that sexual selection can lead to the downfall of species, and when this progress begins it is called a fisherian runaway. One could also alternatively believe that sexual selection in general is relaxing, which also would lead to a decline in fitness, if one believes sexual selection is adaptive.


Various forum users have different stances on the good genes hypothesis. Members of generally promote the theory, knowingly or unknowingly. Fschmidt’s incel forums define themselves as against the hypothesis (eg r/nonmorons) and instead lean more toward strong Fisherian hypotheses (but based on what they view as women selecting for behavior that is ultimately maladaptive for society in general). They claim that (certain) incels are instead “genetically superior” because they think society is in a fisherian runaway where women are actively selecting for 'genetically inferior men', such as unintelligent and or/'evil' men. People from Fschmidt and Caamibs circle generally dislike other forums for falsely giving off the impression that incels are “low-IQ”. was also strongly opposed to this theory and leaned toward Fisherian hypotheses. Older forums such as IncelSupport generally considered observable effort the most consistent predictor of mating success instead of sexiness or “good genes”, a view wiki admin Altmark22 also holds.


See also[edit]