4 ms·

There is evidence from OKCupid etc (and, y'know, the real world) that the two assertions you quoted are true, broadly speaking. What has this got to do with "p

by J-dawg 9y ago

There is evidence from OKCupid etc (and, y'know, the real world) that the two assertions you quoted are true, broadly speaking. What has this got to do with "putting on his MRA hat"? Does this invalidate the assertions somehow?

CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
[delete]
- aceofspad4s 9y ago
  >Or could it be because the traits one needs to cultivate in order to achieve high status have an overlap with the traits that are desirable in romantic partners (e.g. empathy, integrity, being an active listener, knowing when and how to compromise)? You do not need those traits to be high status.
  - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
    [delete]
    - aceofspad4s 9y ago
      The same it means to everybody else: to be rich or in the media spotlight. You can also have a high esteem in a community by being a manipulative fuck.
  - guskel 9y ago
    Likewise, you can have those traits and not be high status.
  - osullivj 9y ago
    IMHO those traits may well be a handicap to becoming high status. Especially in an organisation like an investment bank that selects for promotion by perceived characteristics like driven, goal oriented, focused...
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  >If that is true, why is it true? I think that's a far more interesting question. Almost any scientific finding should be ended 'but more research is needed to be certain'. Perhaps the question to ask is why isn't this getting more research, given just how important the topic is to the lives of so many people. All of the questions you raise can be tested with further research, so why aren't they? Why is some of the best data (best is not to be confused with good, as best is relative) from dating web sites?
0xcde4c3db 9y ago
> What has this got to do with "putting on his MRA hat"? I'd say it's more a mark of red pill than MRA (although to most people outside the related subcultures, that's probably a distinction without a difference). Basically, the red pill narrative centers on people exploiting their own "sexual market value", with male SMV being determined by wealth and social status and female SMV being determined by youth and sexual inexperience. In this narrative, the most desirable women spend their peak-SMV years "riding the alpha cock carousel" and are "used up" by multiple high-SMV ("alpha") men, then cynically seek out lower-SMV ("beta") men for financial support after they've squandered their SMV, especially if they have children. This is summarized with the catchphrase "alpha fux, beta bux". Things like individual preferences and romantic compatibility don't exist in this model. This is also behind the modern use of "cuck" as an insult in some subcultures: it's shorthand for describing the beta male in this scenario who is exploited to raise another man's children, and by extension anyone who is perceived as not being appropriately selfish.
- wonderbear 9y ago
  That was a depressing, yet succinct and solid summary.
  - J-dawg 9y ago
    Depressing in the sense of "it's depressing that it's true" or in the sense of "it's depressing that some people think that way?" Personally I think it's a mixture of both. And also that it doesn't necessarily need to be depressing.
- J-dawg 9y ago
  I agree with the distinction between mens rights activism and the red pill. These and other male subcultures (MGTOW etc) always seem to get lumped together by people who want to discredit them. A documentary about men's rights being called "The Red Pill" certainly didn't help in this regard. But my question to the grandparent comment was meant to be more like, why should making some fairly uncontroversial (and evidence-backed) assertions require putting on any sort of 'hat' at all? I'm not saying I agree with all of the red pill philosophy, but it's amazing how some people automatically go on the defensive when this stuff comes up.

by J-dawg 9y ago

CiPHPerCoder 9y ago

[delete]

aceofspad4s 9y ago
>Or could it be because the traits one needs to cultivate in order to achieve high status have an overlap with the traits that are desirable in romantic partners (e.g. empathy, integrity, being an active listener, knowing when and how to compromise)? You do not need those traits to be high status.
- CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
  [delete]
  - aceofspad4s 9y ago
    The same it means to everybody else: to be rich or in the media spotlight. You can also have a high esteem in a community by being a manipulative fuck.
- guskel 9y ago
  Likewise, you can have those traits and not be high status.
- osullivj 9y ago
  IMHO those traits may well be a handicap to becoming high status. Especially in an organisation like an investment bank that selects for promotion by perceived characteristics like driven, goal oriented, focused...
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>If that is true, why is it true? I think that's a far more interesting question. Almost any scientific finding should be ended 'but more research is needed to be certain'. Perhaps the question to ask is why isn't this getting more research, given just how important the topic is to the lives of so many people. All of the questions you raise can be tested with further research, so why aren't they? Why is some of the best data (best is not to be confused with good, as best is relative) from dating web sites?

0xcde4c3db 9y ago

> What has this got to do with "putting on his MRA hat"? I'd say it's more a mark of red pill than MRA (although to most people outside the related subcultures, that's probably a distinction without a difference). Basically, the red pill narrative centers on people exploiting their own "sexual market value", with male SMV being determined by wealth and social status and female SMV being determined by youth and sexual inexperience. In this narrative, the most desirable women spend their peak-SMV years "riding the alpha cock carousel" and are "used up" by multiple high-SMV ("alpha") men, then cynically seek out lower-SMV ("beta") men for financial support after they've squandered their SMV, especially if they have children. This is summarized with the catchphrase "alpha fux, beta bux". Things like individual preferences and romantic compatibility don't exist in this model. This is also behind the modern use of "cuck" as an insult in some subcultures: it's shorthand for describing the beta male in this scenario who is exploited to raise another man's children, and by extension anyone who is perceived as not being appropriately selfish.

wonderbear 9y ago
That was a depressing, yet succinct and solid summary.
- J-dawg 9y ago
  Depressing in the sense of "it's depressing that it's true" or in the sense of "it's depressing that some people think that way?" Personally I think it's a mixture of both. And also that it doesn't necessarily need to be depressing.
J-dawg 9y ago
I agree with the distinction between mens rights activism and the red pill. These and other male subcultures (MGTOW etc) always seem to get lumped together by people who want to discredit them. A documentary about men's rights being called "The Red Pill" certainly didn't help in this regard. But my question to the grandparent comment was meant to be more like, why should making some fairly uncontroversial (and evidence-backed) assertions require putting on any sort of 'hat' at all? I'm not saying I agree with all of the red pill philosophy, but it's amazing how some people automatically go on the defensive when this stuff comes up.