On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness • Hacker News Board

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#211

Post by La1n » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

ratww wrote: post #157

Nursie wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah man I don't think I would classify a committed relationship where partners end up missing their partner when they're gone as "codependent". > I spent every day without her more or less miserable This is a bit more than "missing" them.

This phrase is kinda ambiguous. I still don't understand if by that sentence the article author means he was miserable before, or if this means he misses her after just one day of her being away. "Spent" is in the past, so I assumed it's the former. I have the impression that people are talking about different things in some replies.

But;

>It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy.

Is less ambiguous. I would not want to be in a relationship with someone who is that dependent on me to be happy.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#212

Post by Robotbeat » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

alexvoda wrote: post #135

whatshisface wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to try and explain this from a sterile alien-studying-humans perspective, but since that's the HN theme I'll do my best. Marriage and having dependents carries with it a lot of economic cost. By revealed choice theory, that implies it has significant benefits, or else nobody would ever do it.

I think it would be more accurate to say it had significant benefits, but they decreased. And there is a lot of inertia keeping it popular. This results in a lot of "failed" marriages.

Or perhaps the benefits haven’t decreased but the costs have increased. Especially up-front.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#213

Post by scarmig » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

cushychicken wrote: post #174

landryraccoon wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man this thread sure must be depressing if you're single. Single? That's your problem, that your single. Go get a relationship and be happy! Way to dogpile on people when they're down. I say enjoy being single. If a relationship happens, good for you, but don't listen to people that say you're damaged / worse off / going down the drain because you're single. They're just jealous you can travel and play video games wh…

Another way to phrase the original top comment (which, btw, is very deservedly the top comment): "If you can't be happy on your own, there's no way you'll be happy with a partner." Happiness comes from within. Pegging your happiness on something external to yourself - material wealth, social standing, another human being - is giving away all agency you have over your own happiness.

Happiness comes from the interaction of a person with lived events.

See, for example:

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/36/6/1244/819019

A death of a parent is identified as one of the most significant causes of unhappiness. If your happiness is negatively impacted by the death of your parents, is the issue that your parents died, or that you've given away your agency to choose your own happiness?

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#214

Post by birdyrooster » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

NationalPark wrote: post #145

birdyrooster wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feminism is a front for white supremacy

How do you reconcile that with the fact that one of the defining features of the last few decades of feminist writing has been intersectionality? And that some of the most prominent feminists are Black?

Kimberle Crenshaw's theory of intersectionality has been debunked using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that was released just before she released her work into the world back in 1989. If you want to see the debunking head here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6g6D3Cc-Wc (Antonio Moore)

Intersectionality, as described by its creator, is simplistic and misleading. It completely ignores black male incarceration because all of the labor statistics preclude them. Black men's suffering has been erased and its causing a generation (or more) of people to treat them like they are the white patriarchy and that they have privilege they really don't when you look at the data.

Intersectionality has taken demographic disparities in isolation, say white mens rights versus white womens rights, and applied them to black people without nuance to the difference between how white men and black men are treated by institutions in the US.

It's given cover for Feminists to look past racial inequity that is the basis for much of black women's suffering. Go watch the video and look at the data, tell me what you think they got wrong.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#215

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

benlivengood wrote: post #4

> I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. I imagine some of these men are similar to me in the loneliness and not as lucky in finding someone, and it’s impossible for me to not feel something. This is basically a red flag for any relationship. If the only thing making or allowing a person to be happy…

> having a romantic and sexual relationship is not a requirement for a happy life.

A romantic and sexual relationship is very much like having money. Money is not a requirement for a happy life. However, having enough money sure does make it much easier to have a happy life.

It is the same with romantic and sexual relationships. You can be happy without them, but having them is such a happiness multiplier that most people want them for very good reason.

Also it has important societal features. If people are poor and they see all the happy, rich people, and they don't think they have any way of getting money, all the psychology self-help telling them that they should be happy being poor, is not going to work. Eventually, a certain proportion will get resentful.

I think it is similar with singles, especially singles who want to be in a relationship but can't. Telling them that they don't need sexual relationships to be happy is not going to work, and will eventually lead to a lot of resentment.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#216

Post by keerk43 » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #57

treesrule wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having a romantic and sexual relationship is not a requirement for a happy life. I don't have the all data off hand (see some citations below) but I believe they say married men live longer, commit less crimes and are happier. So yes in some sense, can you be happy if you are not married however, is it almost certainly harder. I assume you would find similar data for not having a romantic parter. You, a human, are…

The correlations are clear but causality less so. What if it’s not marriage that makes men happier, less prone to crime, and longer-lived - rather it is that women select for partners who are happier, less prone to crime, and healthier?

I think it goes both ways. Women obviously do prefer partners who are successful, higher in socioeconomic hierarchy. Yet not being able to find a partner may lower one's self-esteem, which in turn may reduce the likelihood of doing things that increase chances of socioeconomic success.

I mean, advancing in life generally requires leaving your comfort-zone, but that may be hard if you lack confidence.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#217

Post by chainwax » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #148

> if 51% of young men are single and only 31% of women in the same age bracket are, that implies something is up So that statistic really confuses me, how could that be the case? The data seems to imply a significant number of women are dating men far older than themselves, which just doesn't seem true to me. I'm wondering if that is a sampling error or different genders are interpreting the question differently. It…

While I'm not sure about the sexual partners statistic, I certainly believe the age-range one. This is obviously anecdotal, but as someone with a large-ish social group in their late twenties it is extremely common to see women with partners in a bracket above them. This was true when I was in my early twenties and remains the same now.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#218

Post by Loughla » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

cabraca wrote: post #165

Loughla wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're being down-voted, you're right. I haven't met anyone, even in the insanely left and progressive university circles that I run in, who advocate for equality in outcome. It's equality in opportunity that's important. It's about letting 'your freedom as an individual to choose your own destiny' actually be 'free' from the start and not constrained by social mores, ingrained biases or discriminati…

Isn't the idea of underrepresentation of certain minority groups or genders basically that? we hear that there are only xy % of women in tech or PoC in tech and that the goal is to get for example 50/50% women/men. Isn't this basically a discussion about equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. 50%/50% is basically equality of outcome. We can see for example in scandinavia that you get unequal outcomes if you…

I mean, if you just take it at face value, then it could be interpreted that way. I think the problem is that there isn't an easy soundbite that companies can put out to identify how they will impact equality of opportunity, so they take the easy way to seem 'woke' or whatever other adjective you want to put on it, and attack with equality of outcome. I'm not trying to have a 'no true scotsman' sort of thing, but profit-driven companies are not a great measuring tool for most social issues.

I guess, what I'm saying is, that the outcome being 'only xy% women in tech with a goal of 50/50' is an easily digestible way of saying, women do not have the same opportunity as men to get into tech. But it's harder for companies to outline the steps to ensure those opportunities than it is for them to proclaim that goal.

>We can see for example in scandinavia that you get unequal outcomes if you amplify the equality of opportunities.

Absolutely. (I actually had to look through my post history because I wondered if you were another person who brought up that statement!) What I said to them was, "And that's fair. My argument isn't that it needs to be split and completely equal. It's that the freedom to choose needs to be equal, and the playing field needs to be level, so that who is and who isn't in 'field a' is, in fact based on merit and not arbitrary classification at birth such as gender and ethnicity."

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#219

Post by CaveTech » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

chdaniel wrote: post #153

torben-friis wrote: post #2

>I can choose to pity or hate him, but having chosen I can’t pretend the choice didn’t exist; it’s something I had to do. I've had to face similar situations in my family life, and this part really resonated with me. It's an extremely eloquent way of capturing something I've never been able to put into words. Thank you for that.

I didn't really understand that part. Mind re-wording it in an easier manner for me?

He has abrasive behaviour due to his circumstances. The author has the choice of overlooking the negatives and empathizing with him (pity), or rejecting his behaviour regardless of why (hate).

Both reactions can be rationalized and he has the ability to choose which way he leans.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#220

Post by at_a_remove » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

volkk wrote: post #201

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just as most of the new income generated by later periods of economic liberalization go to the top 20%, so it is with the sexual market. I don't even know what this means. What is "the new income" in "the sexual market"? What is "the top 20%" ? How does "income" "go to" any particular percentile in "the sexual market" ?

OP means that the top 20% of men are getting all of the attention in the dating market. it's a well known fact at this point. i think the numbers largely come from dating apps but they reflect real life pretty well (from my anecdotal experience)

OKCupid used to have a post of sort of barebones statistical analysis of what men considered "average" versus women's outlook. It was ... enlightening.