6 ms·

No, you misunderstand. They are optimizing for what they think will get them success, not what will actually get them success. > And yet it's this agency that

No, you misunderstand. They are optimizing for what they think will get them success, not what will actually get them success. > And yet it's this agency that created such a thing as incels. No, incels were not created created because women have agency in who they date. What toxic nonsense. And also, you still haven't put forward any changes you'd like to see to remedy the situation as you see it. Bring solutions to the table if you think there is a problem.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> not what will actually get them success Which is? > incels were not created created because women have agency in who they date Did you not look at the evidence? Online dating is already the primary means of forming relationships. There's data showing women reject over 80% of men they see on dating apps. They actively choose to compete over the other 20%. They'd rather share a top 20% man than settle with a bottom 80% man. How is this supposed to not create a class of universally rejected men? > Bring solutions to the table if you think there is a problem. Why bother? I doubt you'd consider any real solution since they would naturally result in disadvantages for women in favor of men and would therefore be "toxic nonsense".
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  > Which is? Let me use an analogy. As a manager I help my folks get promoted all the time. The folks who struggle the most are the ones who think about promotion as a set of checkbox items they have to cross off. The ones who are easily promoted are the ones who are looking less at the criteria and more at how they can be introspective and develop themselves. Framing finding a relationship in a "I'll just check these checkboxes and then I will immediately get a relationship" fundamentally misunderstands that we aren't generally selecting partners for one trait. No one is working from a checklist when they select their partners, so why set yourself up to fail by imagining they are. Develop a growth mindset, focus on building your skills, build rich and fulfilling friendships. Ask for feedback and accept it. Build others up. People will want to be around you. > Did you not look at the evidence? I did a cursory Google search, which suggested online dating results in roughly the same outcomes as in person dating. > How is this supposed to not create a class of universally rejected men? If you are suggesting that 80% of men will face universal rejection, I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. It's quite frankly trivially falsifiable. > Why bother? Because you've made vague gestures that somehow society is to blame, but won't say how you'd fix it. Either that means you aren't sure, which undermines the idea that society is actually to blame, or your ideas are so repugnant that you are afraid to show them the light of day. You do not get to claim a moral victory by claiming to be a victim and then failing to engage with even the lightest questioning of your narrative.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > No one is working from a checklist when they select their partners, so why set yourself up to fail by imagining they are. They're not doing this consciously. Research supports the notion that people widely agree on what features make a person attractive: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.126.3.390 https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.1... It follows that if you fail to meet these criteria you are considered unattractive. > Develop a growth mindset, focus on building your skills, build rich and fulfilling friendships. Ask for feedback and accept it. Build others up. People will want to be around you. This assumes attractiveness is caused by factors that are within our control. This doesn't seem to be the case. Height is a very simple and uncontroversial example. How is a "growth mindset" supposed to help the incel who gets rejected by women on dating apps because he's shorter than them? This isn't some insane idea either. Women I've dated have complained about short men on dating apps to my face. They want those men to reject themselves so as to spare them from even acknowledging their existence. > If you are suggesting that 80% of men will face universal rejection, I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. It's quite frankly trivially falsifiable. I said the data shows women reject about 80% of men they see on dating apps. The set of rejected men is different for every woman. Universally rejected men (incels) are the insersection of these sets, naturally it is a smaller set than 80% of men. The fact is there's massive inequality in dating. Like all inequalities, it'll probably get worse over time. > Because you've made vague gestures that somehow society is to blame, but won't say how you'd fix it. Not providing a fix doesn't invalidate my point. > Either that means you aren't sure, which undermines the idea that society is actually to blame, or your ideas are so repugnant that you are afraid to show them the light of day. Yeah, I just encountered this subject. The most obvious solution is to go back to enforced monogamy. Nothing repugnant about that but obviously female agency will be impacted. You don't seem to be open to any ideas that don't maximize female agency. > You do not get to claim a moral victory by claiming to be a victim and then failing to engage with even the lightest questioning of your narrative. No, you don't get to dismiss people's arguments as "toxic" and then demand they "engage" with your questioning.
    - kaba0 5y ago
      How about actually having a likable personality, which easily tops all other qualities? Dating apps do prioritize looks, and especially during COVID I believe it makes finding a partner harder. But in-person the initial “not-as-good-looks” can very easily be overcome if one is kind, honest, funny, etc.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> not what will actually get them success Which is? > incels were not created created because women have agency in who they date Did you not look at the evidence? Online dating is already the primary means of forming relationships. There's data showing women reject over 80% of men they see on dating apps. They actively choose to compete over the other 20%. They'd rather share a top 20% man than settle with a bottom 80% man. How is this supposed to not create a class of universally rejected men? > Bring solutions to the table if you think there is a problem. Why bother? I doubt you'd consider any real solution since they would naturally result in disadvantages for women in favor of men and would therefore be "toxic nonsense".

Pfhreak 5y ago
> Which is? Let me use an analogy. As a manager I help my folks get promoted all the time. The folks who struggle the most are the ones who think about promotion as a set of checkbox items they have to cross off. The ones who are easily promoted are the ones who are looking less at the criteria and more at how they can be introspective and develop themselves. Framing finding a relationship in a "I'll just check these checkboxes and then I will immediately get a relationship" fundamentally misunderstands that we aren't generally selecting partners for one trait. No one is working from a checklist when they select their partners, so why set yourself up to fail by imagining they are. Develop a growth mindset, focus on building your skills, build rich and fulfilling friendships. Ask for feedback and accept it. Build others up. People will want to be around you. > Did you not look at the evidence? I did a cursory Google search, which suggested online dating results in roughly the same outcomes as in person dating. > How is this supposed to not create a class of universally rejected men? If you are suggesting that 80% of men will face universal rejection, I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. It's quite frankly trivially falsifiable. > Why bother? Because you've made vague gestures that somehow society is to blame, but won't say how you'd fix it. Either that means you aren't sure, which undermines the idea that society is actually to blame, or your ideas are so repugnant that you are afraid to show them the light of day. You do not get to claim a moral victory by claiming to be a victim and then failing to engage with even the lightest questioning of your narrative.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > No one is working from a checklist when they select their partners, so why set yourself up to fail by imagining they are. They're not doing this consciously. Research supports the notion that people widely agree on what features make a person attractive: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.126.3.390 https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.1... It follows that if you fail to meet these criteria you are considered unattractive. > Develop a growth mindset, focus on building your skills, build rich and fulfilling friendships. Ask for feedback and accept it. Build others up. People will want to be around you. This assumes attractiveness is caused by factors that are within our control. This doesn't seem to be the case. Height is a very simple and uncontroversial example. How is a "growth mindset" supposed to help the incel who gets rejected by women on dating apps because he's shorter than them? This isn't some insane idea either. Women I've dated have complained about short men on dating apps to my face. They want those men to reject themselves so as to spare them from even acknowledging their existence. > If you are suggesting that 80% of men will face universal rejection, I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. It's quite frankly trivially falsifiable. I said the data shows women reject about 80% of men they see on dating apps. The set of rejected men is different for every woman. Universally rejected men (incels) are the insersection of these sets, naturally it is a smaller set than 80% of men. The fact is there's massive inequality in dating. Like all inequalities, it'll probably get worse over time. > Because you've made vague gestures that somehow society is to blame, but won't say how you'd fix it. Not providing a fix doesn't invalidate my point. > Either that means you aren't sure, which undermines the idea that society is actually to blame, or your ideas are so repugnant that you are afraid to show them the light of day. Yeah, I just encountered this subject. The most obvious solution is to go back to enforced monogamy. Nothing repugnant about that but obviously female agency will be impacted. You don't seem to be open to any ideas that don't maximize female agency. > You do not get to claim a moral victory by claiming to be a victim and then failing to engage with even the lightest questioning of your narrative. No, you don't get to dismiss people's arguments as "toxic" and then demand they "engage" with your questioning.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    How about actually having a likable personality, which easily tops all other qualities? Dating apps do prioritize looks, and especially during COVID I believe it makes finding a partner harder. But in-person the initial “not-as-good-looks” can very easily be overcome if one is kind, honest, funny, etc.