15 ms·

That's not really how theory works; the claim isn't that this is the single and sole determinant of civil unrest. This Atlantic article[1] looks more broadly at

That's not really how theory works; the claim isn't that this is the single and sole determinant of civil unrest. This Atlantic article[1] looks more broadly at the effect of the young male subpopulation's size on unrest, this[2] paper references the mitigating effect of family formation on individual crime rate, this[3] one both covers unrest due to low family formation (generally through the mechanism of uneven sex ratios, given how out of favor polygamy currently is), as well as effects on individual crime. That being said, this little excursion into Google turned up some nascent evidence that this historical dynamic is shifting. The modern world is very odd in lots of different ways: wealth, recreational opportunities, the incredibly wide social circles one's exposed to. It's entirely possible that this dynamic has changed, but the research hasn't caught up yet. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/angry-young-men-are-making-the-world-less-stable/284364/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/an... [2] https://d101vc9winf8ln.cloudfront.net/documents/33306/original/FamilyFormationAndCrime.pdf?1573569980 https://d101vc9winf8ln.cloudfront.net/documents/33306/origin... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5983495/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5983495/

bjourne 6y ago
But you presented the theory as a causative link between family formation being unavailable for young men and civil unrest. It's a classic case of correlation is not causation. Yes, there have been societies where men couldn't form families that were violent (like the Wild west in the US) but that doesn't mean that that was the cause of it. Similarly, many on the left have long thought that porn viewing causes sexual violent crime against women. And there is ample evidence showing that men who view porn are more likely to be sexual offenders than non-viewers. But then came the internet and the amount of porn and porn viewers skyrocketed - but the amount of sexual violence against women didn't - therefore busting the theory. In the same way, evidence from Japan, China, South Korea and even India means that there can't be a causative link between family formation being unavailable for young men and civil unrest.
- Stupulous 6y ago
  Are the plethora of cases where cigarettes did not cause cancer compelling proof that they don't? Perhaps these counterexamples are evidence of additional factors, in cancer or in unrest, but they do not prove that a causal relationship doesn't exist.
  - bjourne 6y ago
    If you had a very large group of heavy smokers and if you could demonstrate that the lung cancer prevalence among this group was not higher than among the general population then yes, that would be compelling evidence against the theory that smoking causes lung cancer.
    - Stupulous 6y ago
      Say you went to a city with no air pollution, a high rate of exercise, great diets with antioxidants and omega-3s, no asbestos or radon, and no genetic predisposition to lung cancer. And you find that, in this city, heavy smokers have a lower rate of lung cancer than the general population of the world. Do you conclude that the overwhelming abundance of data that shows that smoking causes lung cancer is wrong? That there cannot be a causative link between smoking and cancer because there is a counterexample where it didn't appear? I would say that these other factors are also having an effect of comparable scale.
      - bjourne 6y ago
        Yup, I would conclude that if the heavy smokers in this city have a lower rate of lung cancer than the rest of the inhabitants in that city that smoking doesn't cause cancer.
        Stupulous 6y ago
        So you have a comparison between unrest in Chinese people who are starting families and those that are not? You keep trying to push this analogy into a territory where the evidence is a lot stronger than what you've given. You compared the country to other countries, and it's analogous to comparing a city with a higher cancer rate to a city with a higher smoking rate and saying that smoking cannot cause cancer. Data suggests that social unrest in China has increased in correlation with incel count. I would count that as supporting evidence for the theory above. But you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that, because the initial rate of unrest was so low, and the increase didn't push that rate above that of other countries, incels cannot be a causal factor in unrest? Help me understand where we disagree here. What part of ´inability to start a family->unhappiness->social unrest' do you think is questionable?

bjourne 6y ago

But you presented the theory as a causative link between family formation being unavailable for young men and civil unrest. It's a classic case of correlation is not causation. Yes, there have been societies where men couldn't form families that were violent (like the Wild west in the US) but that doesn't mean that that was the cause of it. Similarly, many on the left have long thought that porn viewing causes sexual violent crime against women. And there is ample evidence showing that men who view porn are more likely to be sexual offenders than non-viewers. But then came the internet and the amount of porn and porn viewers skyrocketed - but the amount of sexual violence against women didn't - therefore busting the theory. In the same way, evidence from Japan, China, South Korea and even India means that there can't be a causative link between family formation being unavailable for young men and civil unrest.

Stupulous 6y ago
Are the plethora of cases where cigarettes did not cause cancer compelling proof that they don't? Perhaps these counterexamples are evidence of additional factors, in cancer or in unrest, but they do not prove that a causal relationship doesn't exist.
- bjourne 6y ago
  If you had a very large group of heavy smokers and if you could demonstrate that the lung cancer prevalence among this group was not higher than among the general population then yes, that would be compelling evidence against the theory that smoking causes lung cancer.
  - Stupulous 6y ago
    Say you went to a city with no air pollution, a high rate of exercise, great diets with antioxidants and omega-3s, no asbestos or radon, and no genetic predisposition to lung cancer. And you find that, in this city, heavy smokers have a lower rate of lung cancer than the general population of the world. Do you conclude that the overwhelming abundance of data that shows that smoking causes lung cancer is wrong? That there cannot be a causative link between smoking and cancer because there is a counterexample where it didn't appear? I would say that these other factors are also having an effect of comparable scale.
    - bjourne 6y ago
      Yup, I would conclude that if the heavy smokers in this city have a lower rate of lung cancer than the rest of the inhabitants in that city that smoking doesn't cause cancer.
      - Stupulous 6y ago
        So you have a comparison between unrest in Chinese people who are starting families and those that are not? You keep trying to push this analogy into a territory where the evidence is a lot stronger than what you've given. You compared the country to other countries, and it's analogous to comparing a city with a higher cancer rate to a city with a higher smoking rate and saying that smoking cannot cause cancer. Data suggests that social unrest in China has increased in correlation with incel count. I would count that as supporting evidence for the theory above. But you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that, because the initial rate of unrest was so low, and the increase didn't push that rate above that of other countries, incels cannot be a causal factor in unrest? Help me understand where we disagree here. What part of ´inability to start a family->unhappiness->social unrest' do you think is questionable?