“I’m Better Than This”: A Qualitative Analysis of the Turning Points Leading to Exiting Inceldom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars are at the beginning stages of understanding the trajectory of incels’ deradicalization process. This study aimed to gain insight into the trajectories of individuals who have left or expressed a desire to leave inceldom, by focussing on the turning points that propel incels to deradicalize from the misogynistic ideology associated with inceldom. To achieve this, 28 threads related to the process of exiting inceldom were extracted from r/IncelExit, a subreddit which caters to incels seeking support and guidance in said process. A reflexive thematic analysis allowed for the identification of three distinct stages in the process of exiting inceldom: 1) pursuing dating, 2) attempting to change ideology, and 3) struggling to leave the incel ideology. Our findings show that, initially, the prospect of entering a romantic relationship was perceived as the primary means of leaving inceldom. However, after experiencing a few attempts at dating, a turning point was reached when individuals recognized the importance of changing their ideology. This stemmed from the realization that the incels’ ideology had a detrimental impact on their overall well-being. Consequently, they turned to their peers on the subreddit for strategies for ideological transformation. Various courses of action were proposed, with particular emphasis on the importance of addressing fundamental needs through self-care practices. Simultaneously, participants reported a range of challenges encountered during the process of leaving inceldom. These findings underscore the requirement for interventions adapted to this clientele’s needs to accompany them through their deradicalization journey. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".