Extreme sex-negativity: An examination of helplessness, hopelessness, and misattribution of blame among “Incel” multiple homicide offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-identified involuntary celibates, or “incels,” have congregated online in recent years as a way to discuss and promote a particular patriarchal and blatantly misogynist ideology that blames women, specifically, and feminist society, broadly, for the unmet sexual desires of men who feel entitled, based on gender, to sexual experiences. Thus, incel ideology is an obvious example of severe sex-negativity. While incel ideology is commonly filled with hate speech and threats of violence, there are very few, fortunately, who go on to commit extreme violence. The present study examines feelings of hopelessness and helplessness among seven incel offenders who committed or clearly attempted to commit multiple murder. Although these offenders invariably felt hopelessness and helplessness across major areas of life functioning, they grossly misattributed blame to women for their overall misery. Findings provide valuable insights into the psychology of an extreme form of sex-negativity that extends a mindset of revenge rape to pseudocommando-style mass murder.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".