Are we simply gonna ignore that the data is from 1890 to 1973? Like the oldest people in the study are all dead and the youngest are 50 years old? Some of the

Are we simply gonna ignore that the data is from 1890 to 1973? Like the oldest people in the study are all dead and the youngest are 50 years old? Some of the discussion parts are also quite "silly" > we further assume that men with higher incomes in particular may remarry more frequently, leaving fewer mating opportunities for men with lower incomes This only works if rich men marry multiple women, else the women are still free to marry men? Does a 5 year marriage between a rich man and a woman, then divorce and then another marriage by the man count as only 1 marriage for men and 2 for women? The study also consistently references Hopcroft, but that study was based on 1989 survey on self reported income and how much sex you have. "Rich" men having "the most" sex might be a reality, or it might be a flaw on self reported data. Those willing to lie about their income are also willing to lie about the amount of sex they have. All in all seems incredibly poor science, based on data that is 50 years old with "supporting" references that do not correspond to the same time period and have in their own papers acknowledgements to the problems in their methodology.... This is like a game of telephone trying to make some point about evolutionary pressure on men and the fact that half this thread is eating it up without reading it is sad. Hacker news used to have scientific literacy, now it looks like the youtube section of a joe rogan podcast...