These people unironically thought, they can shame incels into... submission? Chadness? I don't even know what they expected to be honest 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10503307.2025.2600546#abstract
Ok, here's the real shit. The mothodology is beyond retarded.
>>> We collected 100 psychotherapy discussion threads from incels.is, the largest incel forum. Inductive thematic analysis identified community attitudes toward psychotherapy. We also coded the experiences of 89 users who reported attending therapy, quantitatively assessing therapist gender, motivation, and satisfaction. <<<
If I said, that I went to a 100 drunk people and asked them if they have positice experience with AA, what do you think I would get?
They are literally hunting in the "remained" group looking for people that left the forum.
What can I say... Psychologists are retarded, and think this is science.
We asked 100 lottery winners, and all of them said, that gambling changed their life for better.
Absolute idiots
We are scientists, and for our scientific experiment we read some internet forums
@vic
Sorry, but that part I have no issue with. Especially, since 99% of young people are online by now.
If they wanted to do "Real Science" they would have gathered participants for a long-term study, where some get therapy under controlled circumstances (i.e. same therapist, same methodology, etc.) and some don't.
This thing about reading forum posts by a bunch of anons and calling it science is yet another reason nobody takes academic types seriously anymore.
