5 ms·

A while back I noticed the "redpill" community on Reddit. Of course... ugh... some of those people have issues. Nonetheless, the fact is that there are people

A while back I noticed the "redpill" community on Reddit. Of course... ugh... some of those people have issues. Nonetheless, the fact is that there are people out there with issues. There are people desperate to find love, desperate to get out of their miserable lonely lives. Many in their thirties or even forties. If you strip away the superficial surface misogyny, at least some of the community has a valid point to make, and often scientifically backed: the way we live, how we're set up as a society, and how we find partners is not how the human species evolved. Modern lifestyles are ridiculously distorted compared to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors... no wait... that gives the wrong impression. Our lifestyles are ridiculously distorted compared to how the species did things for millions of years right up until a mere hundred years ago. A handful of generations! Just go read a Jane Austen book, for crying out loud! People used to get married in their teens, and being single in your early twenties was considered shameful. What's especially bizarre to me is that the science that the redpill community managed to scrape together is not a lot and of low quality. There just isn't much research on "how to find a good partner" or "how to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex". I can go to arXiv right now and find a stack of papers on how to optimise a neural net, but I doubt I would find even one paper on how to optimise one's chances of finding a spouse and starting a family. More importantly, it's not only not researched, it's also not taught, not talked about, and even outright taboo. I studied algebra, but not marriage. That's just not a "subject" that exists in the education system. If you can ignore the minority of crazies, the redpill people have some good, actionable advice. It's the singular source of information on the topic that the mainstream scientific and educational systems have refused to even acknowledge as worthy of discourse, let alone study. It's still hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that we teach people to multiply matrices with pencil and paper[1], but not how to find a life partner and start a family. We just assume that they magically know how to do that well. You know, based on their experience... from their past lives... or something? Meanwhile we've turned on "hard mode", but you'll be fine son! [1] What percentage of the human race has ever needed to multiply together two matrices? What percentage needed to find a partner? Yeah...

hef19898 3y ago
Finding a partner isn't actually that hard: 1. Don't be an ass, be kind and respect people 2. Be polite, accept a no as an answer 3. Accept the universe is not owing you anything, let alone an initimate relationship 4. Be open minded 5. Accept yourself as you are and others as they are It really comes down to number one, don't be an ass.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  The irony is that you've just said more-or-less the opposite of what is actually the case. This is the equivalent of not teaching chemistry, and then someone who's dabbled in alchemy piping up and saying: "Why bother with all that, it's not that hard, just combine earth and water!" The reality is that the "assholes" get the hottest women. I put that in quotes because that's the superficial impression, not a nuanced statement. It's valid though. There are women who get married to murderers on death row. These are sexy, beautiful women. Meanwhile "nice guys" are single into their thirties and complaining about it on Reddit. Even a casual perusal of either anthropology or evolutionary biology should dissuade you from any such silly Disney(tm) approved notions. Women maximise their reproductive success by partnering with killers. Hunters that are capable of bringing home the bacon, but just short of being psychopaths and killing her and her children. A little bit of violence is acceptable. Being "nice" and "polite" doesn't work. As a random set of examples, people here on HN will generally acknowledge either Trump and/or Elon as being unmitigated asses, right? They've both had multiple wives and a bunch of kids. What does that tell you? Are you going to do chemistry, or alchemy? Magic, or science? Are you getting dating advice from Women's Weekly, or Nature?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Just take it to Reddit. Man, this discussion turn into a cess pit of frustrated, insecure males venting... No wonder those persons have trouble finding partners...
  - fsociety 3y ago
    Being a “nice guy” does not work. Having confidence, while valuing and respecting women (as they would you) absolutely does.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Something did happen about 100 years ago. The rise of eugenics. Society (especially the progressive part of it) collectively decided that there was this large fraction of the population we definitely didn't want having a family. Sure, if they paired up and just fornicated, that might be ok. Certainly if it helps keep them tame. But once involuntary sterilization wasn't an option any longer, another mechanism had to be developed. This is a theory, but test it against reality. If you could (without judgement) sort people into "the eugenicists" and the "people who eugenicists didn't want procreating"... which of those groups has the higher fertility rates? The ruling class, the billionaires and millionaires, and so forth, don't they tend to have a few kids and that their kids have prospects of having kids of their own? Meanwhile, those clinging onto the very lowest level of the middle class, or below it but wanting to be there... those are the ones who have no children. Those are the ones who are told that adoption is important to lower their carbon footprint, and that it's in every way a perfect substitution for biological children. Supposing they can ever afford the $100,000 price tag to buy a child.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>It's still hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that we teach people to multiply matrices with pencil and paper[1], but not how to find a life partner and start a family. Algebra 100 years ago was nearly the exact same. Maybe we teach it differently but the concepts are the same. As you mention, what people want and find okay in a relationship varies quickly and is individualistic as well as societal. 100 years ago most of the world didn't care if you married your first cousin, how well would that advice age in the 2000's? You may even find that advice that your parents used that got them married is completely useless for you, advice as recent as a generational gap. There isn't a good way for a school system to teach these things. Just the basic health aspects such as sex as a mechanic and healthy living (food, hygiene, exercise, disease, etc). Everything else is up to you.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  > what people want and find okay in a relationship varies quickly and is individualistic All evidence says the opposite of this. You’re just making unscientific guesses. Human biology, sexuality, instincts and desires have not changed. We’re the same hairless apes we were a hundred years ago or even ten thousand years ago. In fact, very little has changed for a hundred thousand or more years! > Everything else is up to you. This is the problem! We just assume young adults will figure it out without any education or experience to guide them. Worse still, society has changed so radically that pair bonding difficulty has been dialed up to “ultra hardcore mode” and as a species we’ve collectively shrugged our shoulders and told people that it’s their own fault for not compensating. It’s not what people want in a spouse that has changed. It’s the society around them that has diverged from millions of years of established norms.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >You’re just making unscientific guesses. you're using macro biology to predict micro behaviors. the latter can't be predicted with science. "Science" also says that homosexuality makes no sense, but we know how that ends. You're not going to meet 3.5 billion women in your life to play the scientific odds with, round robin style. You need to understand your own country and customs and work in that system, or move to an environment whose dating scene agrees with you. No one can do that legwork for you as an anonymous handle on the internet. >We just assume young adults will figure it out without any education or experience to guide them. Yes, just like how we don't have specific lessons on how not to insult people or about curse words. Part of your learning will be environmental, and it shouldn't be something a government mandates. You'll get micro guidances from teachers but there's no textbook out there on these ettiquite. >society has changed so radically that pair bonding difficulty has been dialed up to “ultra hardcore mode” and as a species we’ve collectively shrugged our shoulders and told people that it’s their own fault for not compensating. Probably because most people are fine. There's no epidemic where no one can get dates to the prom, nor where child birth rates have fallen off a cliff (They have decreased, but not becasue people aren't dating). Similar to how unemployment rates are never 0%, there are always some people who fall through the cracks socially. It may have different causes, but the result isn't a new phenomenon. There is no one magical scientific trick to solve this problem. But if you want to play the odds - Be attractive. If you're not, work on it. This is not limited to looks, but that is the easiest aspect to play to. - Be financially stable - Make an effort to find people interested in dating. This gets harder after school ends, but there are still avenues.

hef19898 3y ago

Finding a partner isn't actually that hard: 1. Don't be an ass, be kind and respect people 2. Be polite, accept a no as an answer 3. Accept the universe is not owing you anything, let alone an initimate relationship 4. Be open minded 5. Accept yourself as you are and others as they are It really comes down to number one, don't be an ass.

jiggawatts 3y ago
The irony is that you've just said more-or-less the opposite of what is actually the case. This is the equivalent of not teaching chemistry, and then someone who's dabbled in alchemy piping up and saying: "Why bother with all that, it's not that hard, just combine earth and water!" The reality is that the "assholes" get the hottest women. I put that in quotes because that's the superficial impression, not a nuanced statement. It's valid though. There are women who get married to murderers on death row. These are sexy, beautiful women. Meanwhile "nice guys" are single into their thirties and complaining about it on Reddit. Even a casual perusal of either anthropology or evolutionary biology should dissuade you from any such silly Disney(tm) approved notions. Women maximise their reproductive success by partnering with killers. Hunters that are capable of bringing home the bacon, but just short of being psychopaths and killing her and her children. A little bit of violence is acceptable. Being "nice" and "polite" doesn't work. As a random set of examples, people here on HN will generally acknowledge either Trump and/or Elon as being unmitigated asses, right? They've both had multiple wives and a bunch of kids. What does that tell you? Are you going to do chemistry, or alchemy? Magic, or science? Are you getting dating advice from Women's Weekly, or Nature?
- hef19898 3y ago
  Just take it to Reddit. Man, this discussion turn into a cess pit of frustrated, insecure males venting... No wonder those persons have trouble finding partners...
- fsociety 3y ago
  Being a “nice guy” does not work. Having confidence, while valuing and respecting women (as they would you) absolutely does.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Something did happen about 100 years ago. The rise of eugenics. Society (especially the progressive part of it) collectively decided that there was this large fraction of the population we definitely didn't want having a family. Sure, if they paired up and just fornicated, that might be ok. Certainly if it helps keep them tame. But once involuntary sterilization wasn't an option any longer, another mechanism had to be developed. This is a theory, but test it against reality. If you could (without judgement) sort people into "the eugenicists" and the "people who eugenicists didn't want procreating"... which of those groups has the higher fertility rates? The ruling class, the billionaires and millionaires, and so forth, don't they tend to have a few kids and that their kids have prospects of having kids of their own? Meanwhile, those clinging onto the very lowest level of the middle class, or below it but wanting to be there... those are the ones who have no children. Those are the ones who are told that adoption is important to lower their carbon footprint, and that it's in every way a perfect substitution for biological children. Supposing they can ever afford the $100,000 price tag to buy a child.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>It's still hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that we teach people to multiply matrices with pencil and paper[1], but not how to find a life partner and start a family. Algebra 100 years ago was nearly the exact same. Maybe we teach it differently but the concepts are the same. As you mention, what people want and find okay in a relationship varies quickly and is individualistic as well as societal. 100 years ago most of the world didn't care if you married your first cousin, how well would that advice age in the 2000's? You may even find that advice that your parents used that got them married is completely useless for you, advice as recent as a generational gap. There isn't a good way for a school system to teach these things. Just the basic health aspects such as sex as a mechanic and healthy living (food, hygiene, exercise, disease, etc). Everything else is up to you.

jiggawatts 3y ago
> what people want and find okay in a relationship varies quickly and is individualistic All evidence says the opposite of this. You’re just making unscientific guesses. Human biology, sexuality, instincts and desires have not changed. We’re the same hairless apes we were a hundred years ago or even ten thousand years ago. In fact, very little has changed for a hundred thousand or more years! > Everything else is up to you. This is the problem! We just assume young adults will figure it out without any education or experience to guide them. Worse still, society has changed so radically that pair bonding difficulty has been dialed up to “ultra hardcore mode” and as a species we’ve collectively shrugged our shoulders and told people that it’s their own fault for not compensating. It’s not what people want in a spouse that has changed. It’s the society around them that has diverged from millions of years of established norms.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >You’re just making unscientific guesses. you're using macro biology to predict micro behaviors. the latter can't be predicted with science. "Science" also says that homosexuality makes no sense, but we know how that ends. You're not going to meet 3.5 billion women in your life to play the scientific odds with, round robin style. You need to understand your own country and customs and work in that system, or move to an environment whose dating scene agrees with you. No one can do that legwork for you as an anonymous handle on the internet. >We just assume young adults will figure it out without any education or experience to guide them. Yes, just like how we don't have specific lessons on how not to insult people or about curse words. Part of your learning will be environmental, and it shouldn't be something a government mandates. You'll get micro guidances from teachers but there's no textbook out there on these ettiquite. >society has changed so radically that pair bonding difficulty has been dialed up to “ultra hardcore mode” and as a species we’ve collectively shrugged our shoulders and told people that it’s their own fault for not compensating. Probably because most people are fine. There's no epidemic where no one can get dates to the prom, nor where child birth rates have fallen off a cliff (They have decreased, but not becasue people aren't dating). Similar to how unemployment rates are never 0%, there are always some people who fall through the cracks socially. It may have different causes, but the result isn't a new phenomenon. There is no one magical scientific trick to solve this problem. But if you want to play the odds - Be attractive. If you're not, work on it. This is not limited to looks, but that is the easiest aspect to play to. - Be financially stable - Make an effort to find people interested in dating. This gets harder after school ends, but there are still avenues.