Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dating, education, and sex ratios

robkhenderson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 446 posts

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#431

Post by midoridensha »

joaonmatos wrote: post #390
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You make a very wide set of assumptions about some kind of metaphysical complementarity inside a couple that erases homosexuality and presupposes some naturally ordained monogamy. I am sorry, but unless you substantiate it in anthropological terms, it is utterly unfalsifiable and the argument should be thrown out in its entirety. The lived experiences of many queer and polyamorous people, plus the evidence of "devian…

There's nothing natural about monogamy. Humans only practiced it after agriculture became widespread and the idea of land ownership became important. In tribal hunter-gatherer societies, children were raised by the tribe and not just their parents, and who the father was wasn't considered important.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#432

Post by igetspam »

antisthenes wrote: post #307
dahwolf wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it's a play on the meme: "man dead, woman most affected". Popular culture has become structurally anti-male. The ease at which we're described as simplistic, violent, sexual addicts doesn't seem to surprise anyone anymore. This article almost makes a humanitarian problem out of a luxury problem: highly educated women unable to find somebody even richer than them.

Also women with impossible standards (e.g. 6'+, $200k+/yearly, loves dogs, wants (or doesn't) kids, is single, from a good family, won't cheat, owns his own house, blue eyes, etc.) refusing to lower them in search of a partner well into their 30s, then wondering "where all the good men are".

Did you seriously include "won't cheat" or did you plant that there to see if people read this?

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#433

Post by Dalewyn »

politician wrote: post #429
Manuel_D wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Japanese, South Koreans, and Italians are living in the Handmaid's Tale? They're being "literally farmed"? SK has a birth rate of 0.8, less than half the replacement rate. The rate of "defectors" is well above to 20% unsustainable figure you claim. You're making some very wild statements about something plenty of developed countries are already experiencing. Back here in reality, humans have not needed significant…

You’re not reading and are reacting emotionally. I said farming happens when the 99% need the 1% to do all reproduction. If you want me to take your response seriously, I’d appreciate an apology.

Nobody owes you an apology because your argument is fundamentally flawed.

You say the 99% need the 1% to do reproduction, but do they really? The 99%, by opting out of having children, have clocked out on the very premise of the question of population stability. They either don't care insofar as procreation, or won't mind seeing humanity as a species go extinct.

The only ones who "want a stable population" (your words) are the 1% who do have children. The 1% who do have children will maintain humanity onwards while the 99% who didn't will eventually clock out of this plane of existence to no concern of the 1%. It's a self-solving problem, the world will always be inherited by those who outbreed the rest.

I'm going to include a response to your other post[1] since I can't be bothered to reply twice and it's related to this one:

What you're doing is implying people have arbitrary obligations and quotas to society and humanity, and guilt tripping the people who refuse to oblige those arbitrary obligations and quotas.

Nobody owes anyone anything coming into this world. Nobody is obliged to have children or otherwise continue humanity as a species. Nobody is obliged to marry someone.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36329392

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#434

Post by midoridensha »

dahwolf wrote: post #389
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Well written, and agreed. What I find in particularly striking is how dating/marriage in both articles and comments is described in such mechanical terms. As a market. You being the consumer matching specs against supply. The absolute most important thing, actual love for somebody, seems an outdated concept. It's utility now. What can you do FOR ME, the obvious center of the universe? Some seem angry with this "produ…

Actual love for somebody was never an important part of marriages until recent years. In the good ol' days, parents decided who their kids would marry, and money and power were the important things to consider.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#435

Post by expertentipp »

dahwolf wrote: post #256
hkt wrote: post #66

A very longwinded essay whose obvious conclusion - that values will change in response to circumstances - is entirely missed, presumably to make problematising educated women the tacit point instead. People learn and change: increasing numbers of women in education now will mean more relationships where expectations have changed in the future. This is likely to mean that, actually, some men with lower incomes than th…

Not going to happen, women do not want an unemployed man.

Stay at home woman will "take care of children and household". Stay at home man will be first of all "unemployed".

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#436

Post by igetspam »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #393
itishappy wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emotional intelligence and emotional control are different. They're separate concepts, though I'd bet they correlate a bit. It's possible to be emotional and out of touch. It's possible to be stoic and receptive.

My cute toddler mini-me has a high amount of emotional intelligence and intuitively understands other people's emotions, and will reflect other people's emotions. She also has no emotional control and is likely to bite you, or bawl on the floor crying when she doesn't get her way.

She sounds adorable! Mine doesn't bite any more but there are still fits of uncontrollable emotion. They very much grok other people's feelings though and are quick with empathy.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#437

Post by [deleted] »

talldatethrow wrote: post #340
opportune wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am much younger than this guy and have dated way fewer people, and I’ve been involved with two people like that. So it’s almost definitely something they’re doing, given n>50. I’m also not convinced I should date forever and never get married, nor that women are all seeking to simply extract and be entertained by me. This could be related (lol)

I was going to make a distinction in my post about age but decided not to, to avoid making it too long. And it caught me. I will say there was a time this wasn't the case. My highschool gf gave a lot. My college gfs actually gave a bit too. Young women are pretty giving in a way. Eventually that goes away. I don't know if it's from being burned, or learned behavior over time, or just genes/hormones.. but it seems to…

[deleted]

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#438

Post by politician »

Dalewyn wrote: post #433
politician wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not reading and are reacting emotionally. I said farming happens when the 99% need the 1% to do all reproduction. If you want me to take your response seriously, I’d appreciate an apology.

Nobody owes you an apology because your argument is fundamentally flawed. You say the 99% need the 1% to do reproduction, but do they really? The 99%, by opting out of having children, have clocked out on the very premise of the question of population stability. They either don't care insofar as procreation, or won't mind seeing humanity as a species go extinct. The only ones who "want a stable population" (your word…

Sigh.

I was setting up an argument to show how impossible it was for either everyone to have children -- we need to be compassionate for the disabled and tolerant of those who make lifestyle choices -- or for only a fractional part of the population to bear the responsibility for having children in order to motivate the point that there is some value between ~5% and ~95% of people that opt out where their collective decisions have become parasitic even though they each have the individual right do make that decision.

I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. It seems like a simple, straightforward application of statistics of groups. I'd love to learn why you keep choosing to interpret it as an attack on the individual.

EDIT: > They either don't care insofar as procreation, or won't mind seeing humanity as a species go extinct.

The person I was responding to excluded extinction as a possibility that they considered valid. Obviously, if you individually want humanity to die off and want to consume its cultural outputs without contributing until you yourself die off, you're welcome to do so. Seems rather sad though.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#439

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #369
jdietrich wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men experience significantly lower rates of most common mental disorders; that gap is wider in younger people, appears to be widening over time and persists after controlling for confounding variables. Men are more likely to die by suicide, but they're drastically less likely to attempt suicide; the discrepancy is accounted for by men choosing more lethal means. There is simply no evidence to support the idea that wo…

>Men experience significantly lower rates of most common mental disorders; Men are diagnosed significantly lower, not experience.

Well we don't really know, as we have no blind test for this. Science on humans is hard.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#440

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #187
keiferski wrote: post #52

I read a book awhile ago called Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? , which basically argues that cultures which strongly promote traditional values, having children, etc. will evolutionarily outcompete groups that don’t. It made me think that there must be a kind of cycle in human societies, where certain social values (like the ones mentioned in the article) are able to become popular for a short period of time…

I think fundamentalism is too brittle to persist like that over the long term. Yes, the most conservative religions usually have a lot of kids, but over the generations, many of those kids will leave the religion, or at least join a less fundamentalist strain and have fewer kids. Unless the culture is kept strictly separate (increasingly impossible), the quality of life that the surrounding secular culture offers is…

The growth of the ultra Orthodox in Israel is an interesting counter example to your point.
Post reply on HN