Would Someone Like to Explain the Rationality Behind this Scientific Decision?

[bernie14]

There's no scientific decision quoted or paraphrased in your post and the link goes on forever.

Of course science should pursue unencumbered but to what degree? We don't want Nazi science in the Name of Science, and it's reasonable to have unscientific shared myths guiding our society. (I might prefer our placebos to be labeled as such, as announced placebos still work all the same, but that seems to be asking too much of too many).

the thread article is just some guy complaining.....if anyone is interested in biological differential investment theory read up...

 

[Narz]

Perhaps, but narcissism is a helluva drug. And women didn't invent male narcissism.

I don't know much about Incel culture but it's doubtful they are all narcissists, they're just losers who in pre-internet times wouldn't be emboldened but now losers can form coalitions.

Men are probably more narcissistic because women put up with that crap, just like women are more likely to be Borderline because men put up with it (if she's hot)... of course all these DSM labels are crude tools to understand humans but it's the best we can do right now

 

[Narz]

the thread article is just some guy complaining.....if anyone is interested in biological differential investment theory read up...

"In a seminal article" academic puns

 

[Senethro]

I wonder if anyone has done a comparison of variability in sexes between XX/XY species and ZZ/ZW species...

 

[Hygro]

The Team, the vast majority of Americans and Europeans and perhaps more: a coalition of individuals, our media, corporations, bureaucracies (from school through military), who follow the rules and values and conventions of our societal mainstream. Progressives and everyone working with em.

Scientists are part of The Team but so are people who are uncomfortable with science that doesn't advance the social prescription of The Team. Most leftwingers are on The Team, perhaps one of the personally invested here was Cheezy, but so are most of the big corporations. The Team is very diverse and forgiving in its scope, but not so much outside of its scope. The Team's #1 enemy is Nazi Germany, and #2 enemy is a rotating, generally domestic cast of actual heinous people and orgs, and occasional insiders and supporters of The Team who told the Emperor of his lack of attire.

 

[bernie14]

.......The idea that women are carrying are clutching rare and precious jewels but men are just self-propelled jizz-cannons might be biologically true, but it doesn't really describe how human beings actually function when you put them in a society with people and institutions and stuff.

of course not, the well known geneticist /biologist karl marx sez it aint so

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Don't tell me you're also trying to argue against women being more selective...

I'm arguing that the statement made in support of the "women are more selective" position was frankly stupid, and gave a reason that it was.

Whether women are or are not more selective is going to require a whole lot of data to even start towards proving. There are certainly individual women who are more selective than individual men, and the reverse is also true. I suspect a comparison of the extremes would find them to be basically the same; that is, there are going to be men and women who have basically zero selectivity, and there are going to be men and women who are totally selective to the point of having a single mate. Calculating a 'mean selectivity' for each gender and comparing them seems like the only way to answer the question, and that is most likely beyond the reach of any forumite...no matter how certain they are that their sexual prowess has put them in a unique position to "just know" the answer.

 

[Narz]

The Team, the vast majority of Americans and Europeans and perhaps more: a coalition of individuals, our media, corporations, bureaucracies (from school through military), who follow the rules and values and conventions of our societal mainstream. Progressives and everyone working with em.

Scientists are part of The Team but so are people who are uncomfortable with science that doesn't advance the social prescription of The Team. Most leftwingers are on The Team, perhaps one of the personally invested here was Cheezy, but so are most of the big corporations. The Team is very diverse and forgiving in its scope, but not so much outside of its scope. The Team's #1 enemy is Nazi Germany, and #2 enemy is a rotating, generally domestic cast of actual heinous people and orgs, and occasional insiders and supporters of The Team who told the Emperor of his lack of attire.

Wow Cheezy, that guy was ****oo for cocopuffs, I remember him trying to argue that men being attracted to youthfulness & fertility was all cultural. IIRC he was a radical libertarian turned radical wannabe commie.

Anyway, "the team" as you describe it is all PR and phony covering of asses to appear socially conscious. This phonyness is what lead to Trump, all this repression and trying to appear nicey-nice all the time brought out America's repressed Id big time.

I'm arguing that the statement made in support of the "women are more selective" position was frankly stupid, and gave a reason that it was.

Whether women are or are not more selective is going to require a whole lot of data to even start towards proving. There are certainly individual women who are more selective than individual men, and the reverse is also true. I suspect a comparison of the extremes would find them to be basically the same; that is, there are going to be men and women who have basically zero selectivity, and there are going to be men and women who are totally selective to the point of having a single mate. Calculating a 'mean selectivity' for each gender and comparing them seems like the only way to answer the question, and that is most likely beyond the reach of any forumite...no matter how certain they are that their sexual prowess has put them in a unique position to "just know" the answer.

It's been researched to death, not that it needs to be anymore than "Do kids like ice cream?" needs to be researched more.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...lege-students-respond-being-propositioned-sex

Obviously there are outliers, doesn't alter the trend.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's been researched to death, not that it needs to be anymore than "Do kids like ice cream?" needs to be researched more.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...lege-students-respond-being-propositioned-sex

Obviously there are outliers, doesn't alter the trend.

While perhaps a small step up from "occupants of a bar at closing time," offering a study of college students to someone who has already used the words "representative sample" is a pretty weak effort, don't you think?

 

[Naskra]

I'm arguing that the statement made in support of the "women are more selective" position was frankly stupid, and gave a reason that it was

Who pays whom in the prostitution business should tell you everything you were afraid to ask about sexual selectivity. Do some research.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Who pays whom in the prostitution business should tell you everything you were afraid to ask about sexual selectivity. Do some research.

LOL...Narz at least pretended that he was going for a more representative sample than "people in bars at closing time." You are opting for "prostitutes and their customers"?

 

[Narz]

While perhaps a small step up from "occupants of a bar at closing time," offering a study of college students to someone who has already used the words "representative sample" is a pretty weak effort, don't you think?

No. Given that college students are pretty libidinous it's pretty logical. Not to mention most psychological research is done on college students.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No. Given that college students are pretty libidinous it's pretty logical. Not to mention most psychological research is done on college students.

"Pretty libidinous" as compared to what? Hey, I know, they are pretty libidinous as compared to an actual representative sample. Good work my friend. Better count your toes, because that was a clear shot at your own foot.

 

[Narz]

LOL...Narz at least pretended that he was going for a more representative sample than "people in bars at closing time." You are opting for "prostitutes and their customers"?

I'm not taking this seriously at all. I cannot believe you aren't devil's advocating here and actually believe your argument. Unless you're some sort of Adonis who women are lining up around the block to be with.

 

[Narz]

"Pretty libidinous" as compared to what? Hey, I know, they are pretty libidinous as compared to an actual representative sample. Good work my friend. Better count your toes, because that was a clear shot at your own foot.

Lol, you are acting as if I have something to prove. I would have a hard time proving drinking saltwater is bad for you given that it's so self-evident as to generally not to be worth studying.

And again, most psychological research is done on college students. I'll grant you if it were a bunch of cougars that were approached instead of students maybe 2 or 3 would say yes so maybe the ratio would be 75% to 2 or 3% instead of 0%.

 

[Hygro]

I don't know much about Incel culture but it's doubtful they are all narcissists, they're just losers who in pre-internet times wouldn't be emboldened but now losers can form coalitions.

They are all narcissists.

You can be involuntarily celibate and not narcissistic, but you cannot be #Incel™ without being a narcissist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Lol, you are acting as if I have something to prove. I would have a hard time proving drinking saltwater is bad for you given that it's so self-evident as to generally not to be worth studying.

And again, most psychological research is done on college students. I'll grant you if it were a bunch of cougars that were approached instead of students maybe 2 or 3 would say yes so maybe the ratio would be 75% to 2 or 3% instead of 0%.

I'm not taking this seriously at all. I cannot believe you aren't devil's advocating here and actually believe your argument. Unless you're some sort of Adonis who women are lining up around the block to be with.

If you accepted what my argument actually IS you would have no doubt that I believe it. I have not in any way argued for the idea that women are less selective than men, as a comparison between gender groups numbering in the 3.5 billion per range. I've argued that the totally absurd sampling that has been suggested provides absolutely nothing in the way of data to support an argument either way. "People in bars at closing time," "libidinous college students," "prostitutes and customers," "my own sexual partners;" do you think that anyone, anywhere, would acknowledge those as representative samples of any merit at all?

Which brings us to the next piece of malarkey, which is this idea that things being "self evident" has any correlation whatever with them being right. Rather than dismember that I'll hope to just let it die an unmourned death, which would be hastened if you just retract the whole idea.

Now, on to this "Adonis and women lining up around the block..." nope, that ain't me, but it does illustrate a whole arena of anecdotal evidence that men actually might be the ones who are more selective. I'm no Adonis, just an old fat guy. And yet I have never lacked for a partner. So that can be taken as evidence that women are not nearly as selective as your Adonis hypothetical would presume.

A large measure of why I haven't lacked for partners is that very early in life I read, in a book by someone who many dismissed as more of a comedian than a legitimate commentator on society, what he called the "hundred in the face is worth one in the sack" theory. He proposed that if you go to the mall, or the park, or the beach...wherever...committed to approach the first hundred women you see who are not obviously attached to a mate, and just come right out with "I'm looking for sex and looking for a woman who is also looking for it" that you will get outrage, some of it massive. You will get scorned, laughed at, threatened. And if you stick to it for up to a hundred, but almost always less and frequently a lot less you will in fact get laid. Now, I am not the kind of person to take anyone at their word, so before dismissing this odd theory I did some experiments and found it to be supportable. So how does this apply to the question at hand? Other than the obvious that if that works for a guy who is clearly no Adonis women in genera can't be all that selective, of course.

Here's how it really applies to the question at hand. Men won't do it. In some cases they can't handle the negatives, ie, for them the one in the sack isn't actually worth the hundred in the face (for the record, I never got actually slapped so I think that's a metaphor). What most guys I have shared this with have said is "I wouldn't want a woman I could get that way." In short, they are self professed too selective.

So, here we are. My own experience, which I am in no way claiming is definitive, leads me to at the very least doubt the conclusion that you find "self evident." The various presentations of proof have been totally inadequate, all for the same pretty simple reason. Now what?

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: OT is not now and never will be the place to discuss casual sex. Furthermore, the opening post has failed to provide a suitable topic for discussion. Thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889