5 ms·

Let me just be the one to say your choice of topic for exploration is incredibly cringeworthy in 2020. Also inaccurate for some parts of the adult male populati

Let me just be the one to say your choice of topic for exploration is incredibly cringeworthy in 2020. Also inaccurate for some parts of the adult male population. Use a better example next time.

kcolford 6y ago
Maybe you find it cringeworthy, but I find it on topic and very relatable. The role of a speaker is to make their material easy to digest for their audience. For this audience in particular, I would argue that this example is statistically likely to resonate with most of them. So your parent commenter is strongly incentivized to use this example and conduct themselves this way, so of course they did so. I don't think your comment contributes much to the conversation. If anything I feel it stifles the conversation. If you had shared that the parent's comment made you uncomfortable then that is a contribution that we could explore. Instead you decide to decree from the top of your high horse that his speech wasn't acceptable. I don't like what you did one bit, and I think you did it just to make other people uncomfortable and put yourself in a position of power over them.
- watwut 6y ago
  I think that point was that relevant portion of adult male population spends a lot of time play games on screen, not finding it boring at all. They do find it more then they do porn. In 2020, claiming that "a game on a screen is just not new enough" for adults is highly inaccurate.
  - fxtentacle 6y ago
    While I fully agree with you that there are fantastic games on screens (I'm playing HL Alyx at the moment), I was trying to present an alternative explanation for the study. So we are taking about a game that is easy enough for kids to understand and play reliably. That might make the game used in the study too boring for adults, because they have played similar games in the past, while it is a new experience for the kids.
ggggtez 6y ago
I think the bigger problem is that the experiment wouldn't be well formed (the "value" of each image would vary between study participants). I don't think we should throw out wholesale that sexuality is a big driver of human behavior though, even if the example isn't inclusive. Changing "woman" to "person" addresses part of your concern, but still doesn't actually fix the experiment as proposed. The bigger problem is the experiment wouldn't work, rather than that it was cringeworthy. Which, sure. If it was cringeworthy, but worked, I guess it could have some excusability in terms of science. As is, you're right. It's juvenile.
- mkr-hn 6y ago
  Compromise solution: change the example to a buffet comprised of foods from all over the world.
SamPatt 6y ago
Let me just be the one to say that anyone who denies most men are sexual creatures who enjoy looking at naked women and tries to shame someone for stating that truth is incredibly cringeworthy, no matter the year. Use some common sense next time and realize no one got hurt by speaking an obvious truth.
asdf333 6y ago
might be true but the OP didn't intend any harm and was just trying to illustrate a point. I think we should strive to be more tolerant. we should encourage more discourse and take well intentioned remarks in context or else how different are we from the morality police in other countries?
fxtentacle 6y ago
Why I chose sex as the example? It is scientific concensus that our genes survive through sex and that by optimizing for their own survival our genes have made sex the strongest possible behavioral motivator. It is also agreed upon that the desire for sexual exploration is higher for males, because their genes can spread more widely through additional partners, while a typical female can only get pregnant by one partner at a time. You'll find that non-traditional pairings will have very little effect on genetic evolution, because they tend to not produce genetically related offspring. So the study says "adults are less interested in exploration" and to that I reply "we have literally optimized our genes for adult male exploration over hundreds of thousands of years". Isn't that a rather large omission in the study, that they didn't mention the single most powerful motivator for exploration?
- cyberlurker 6y ago
  I think what you are calling exploration through multiple sex partners is more of an urge to procreate, which would be different from what the study found in children, a systematic learning attempt to see if they missed anything. The sex example isn’t cognitive. But I take no issue with your choice of sex as an example or debating this and considering this argument for a potential flaw in the study. My reason for calling it cringeworthy was your choice of words of adult males undressing females. It seems cringeworthy to talk about females as an object in this way and ignore sexual orientation when you could have phrased it (if it had to be about sex) as exploring sex partners or any other hundreds of ways.
  - fxtentacle 6y ago
    That is a very valid point, I should have phrased it in a more generical / biological way from the start. My hope with the original formulation was that it'd be easy to understand and relate to, but I agree that I should have put in more time to find a better way of saying it. As for the argument itself, I believe that novelty seeking in general might be an unintended side effect of that urge to procreate. That would also explain why people use words like "love" for new technical gadgets and develop a highly emotional and irrational attachment to their newest toy. Plus, there is evidence that the raw attraction fades more quickly for couples that spend more time together, which would suggest that one aspect of sexual attraction is in fact exactly the novelty of the partner. And since genetic compatibility is difficult to determine in advance, there would be benefits to a systematic exploration strategy.
acituan 6y ago
FWIW, I find "in year XXXX" arguments equally frustrating. It is an entitled, condescending perspective that automatically dismisses the counter-point as a "thing of the past" and "regressive" without adding any substance. Which also happens to be factually misleading. Views on sexuality normativity does not have a linear progression over time, nor through societies [1]. Name dropping the current year not only doesn't add anything to the argument, it is also fallacious for any domain that doesn't progress strictly monotonically. [1] For example in contrast to attitudes towards homosexuality in certain Middle Eastern countries today, little would consider that heteronormativity might have increased as more of a result of 19th century colonial European influence on those cultures. See this r/AskHistorians post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4r17fc/what_lead_to_the_ottoman_empire_decriminalizing/d4xwz1l/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4r17fc/what_...

Let me just be the one to say your choice of topic for exploration is incredibly cringeworthy in 2020. Also inaccurate for some parts of the adult male population. Use a better example next time.

kcolford 6y ago

Maybe you find it cringeworthy, but I find it on topic and very relatable. The role of a speaker is to make their material easy to digest for their audience. For this audience in particular, I would argue that this example is statistically likely to resonate with most of them. So your parent commenter is strongly incentivized to use this example and conduct themselves this way, so of course they did so. I don't think your comment contributes much to the conversation. If anything I feel it stifles the conversation. If you had shared that the parent's comment made you uncomfortable then that is a contribution that we could explore. Instead you decide to decree from the top of your high horse that his speech wasn't acceptable. I don't like what you did one bit, and I think you did it just to make other people uncomfortable and put yourself in a position of power over them.

watwut 6y ago
I think that point was that relevant portion of adult male population spends a lot of time play games on screen, not finding it boring at all. They do find it more then they do porn. In 2020, claiming that "a game on a screen is just not new enough" for adults is highly inaccurate.
- fxtentacle 6y ago
  While I fully agree with you that there are fantastic games on screens (I'm playing HL Alyx at the moment), I was trying to present an alternative explanation for the study. So we are taking about a game that is easy enough for kids to understand and play reliably. That might make the game used in the study too boring for adults, because they have played similar games in the past, while it is a new experience for the kids.

ggggtez 6y ago

I think the bigger problem is that the experiment wouldn't be well formed (the "value" of each image would vary between study participants). I don't think we should throw out wholesale that sexuality is a big driver of human behavior though, even if the example isn't inclusive. Changing "woman" to "person" addresses part of your concern, but still doesn't actually fix the experiment as proposed. The bigger problem is the experiment wouldn't work, rather than that it was cringeworthy. Which, sure. If it was cringeworthy, but worked, I guess it could have some excusability in terms of science. As is, you're right. It's juvenile.

mkr-hn 6y ago
Compromise solution: change the example to a buffet comprised of foods from all over the world.

SamPatt 6y ago

Let me just be the one to say that anyone who denies most men are sexual creatures who enjoy looking at naked women and tries to shame someone for stating that truth is incredibly cringeworthy, no matter the year. Use some common sense next time and realize no one got hurt by speaking an obvious truth.

asdf333 6y ago

might be true but the OP didn't intend any harm and was just trying to illustrate a point. I think we should strive to be more tolerant. we should encourage more discourse and take well intentioned remarks in context or else how different are we from the morality police in other countries?

fxtentacle 6y ago

Why I chose sex as the example? It is scientific concensus that our genes survive through sex and that by optimizing for their own survival our genes have made sex the strongest possible behavioral motivator. It is also agreed upon that the desire for sexual exploration is higher for males, because their genes can spread more widely through additional partners, while a typical female can only get pregnant by one partner at a time. You'll find that non-traditional pairings will have very little effect on genetic evolution, because they tend to not produce genetically related offspring. So the study says "adults are less interested in exploration" and to that I reply "we have literally optimized our genes for adult male exploration over hundreds of thousands of years". Isn't that a rather large omission in the study, that they didn't mention the single most powerful motivator for exploration?

cyberlurker 6y ago
I think what you are calling exploration through multiple sex partners is more of an urge to procreate, which would be different from what the study found in children, a systematic learning attempt to see if they missed anything. The sex example isn’t cognitive. But I take no issue with your choice of sex as an example or debating this and considering this argument for a potential flaw in the study. My reason for calling it cringeworthy was your choice of words of adult males undressing females. It seems cringeworthy to talk about females as an object in this way and ignore sexual orientation when you could have phrased it (if it had to be about sex) as exploring sex partners or any other hundreds of ways.
- fxtentacle 6y ago
  That is a very valid point, I should have phrased it in a more generical / biological way from the start. My hope with the original formulation was that it'd be easy to understand and relate to, but I agree that I should have put in more time to find a better way of saying it. As for the argument itself, I believe that novelty seeking in general might be an unintended side effect of that urge to procreate. That would also explain why people use words like "love" for new technical gadgets and develop a highly emotional and irrational attachment to their newest toy. Plus, there is evidence that the raw attraction fades more quickly for couples that spend more time together, which would suggest that one aspect of sexual attraction is in fact exactly the novelty of the partner. And since genetic compatibility is difficult to determine in advance, there would be benefits to a systematic exploration strategy.

acituan 6y ago

FWIW, I find "in year XXXX" arguments equally frustrating. It is an entitled, condescending perspective that automatically dismisses the counter-point as a "thing of the past" and "regressive" without adding any substance. Which also happens to be factually misleading. Views on sexuality normativity does not have a linear progression over time, nor through societies [1]. Name dropping the current year not only doesn't add anything to the argument, it is also fallacious for any domain that doesn't progress strictly monotonically. [1] For example in contrast to attitudes towards homosexuality in certain Middle Eastern countries today, little would consider that heteronormativity might have increased as more of a result of 19th century colonial European influence on those cultures. See this r/AskHistorians post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4r17fc/what_lead_to_the_ottoman_empire_decriminalizing/d4xwz1l/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4r17fc/what_...