Explaining Sex Rate Changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#461

Post by stared » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #421

stared wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[In Tinder,] the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men" - from https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g... (2015). I dive a bit it that topic in "Dating for nerds (part 2): gender differences" https://p.migdal.pl/2017/09/30/dating-for-nerds-gender-diffe... .

In the article, you write: >If you firmly believe we are blank slates, and the only innate difference between the sexes is body shape, take a look at this thread: But very few people believe this; it's better to characterise the argument as saying that many of the differences we see relating to the dynamics between the sexes are a product of society and culture, and the Reddit thread you linked underneath doesn't rea…

Maybe it is true that few.

Though, I used to interact (online and offline) with quite a few such people. In this case, even bringing a possibility that there may be any biological differences was crossing a taboo.

If you believe that were are both products of innate biology and culture, we are in agreement.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#462

Post by gnicholas » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #411

734129837261 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed, and apparently the statistics as well, that this trend turns around the age of 32 to 34 for men. Men usually go for women 3 to 4 years younger than themselves. Which is around the age that women need to choose whether to procreate or not. If you're a 28 year old woman without a partner you only have a few more years of being physically optimal to give birth to a healthy child. So the average-looking men…

>I am in my 30s and when I was on dating apps I'd suddenly get a ton of matches. Which is another problem men in their 20s face. They're competing with men in their 30s for the same women. There's simply a larger number of men trying to date a smaller number of women. The numbers mean someone gets left out.

This is an excellent point, and I wish it weren't buried so deep in replies. If dating apps make it easier for "desirable" individuals of both sexes to have lots of partners, then the effect you describe is amplified. That is, being "desirable" is partly about having money to pay for a nice date, a car to pick up your date with, etc. A 21-year-old is less likely to have these things than a 32-year-old (who is still young enough to be desirable to many women in their 20s).

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#463

Post by michaelmrose » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

abledon wrote: post #235

michaelmrose wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody wants to erect a massive social infrastructure that diminishes their enjoyment of their time to improve YOUR enjoyment of society. In fact nobody on planet earth wants to be subjected to what YOU or any other person believes they ought to do with their money/time without pay. Can you imagine how your friends would feel if you stole from their wallet to plan a party and told them you would steal some more if th…

Dude chill out lol , no one is talking about massive social infrastructure — get a dozen people together in front of some old abandoned land and build something cool. Maybe even just a landscape project with recycled materials from around the worksite. I’m just riffing here on ways to improve society — people may not like doing something but if it’s good for them maybe we should incentivize it . If it’s a party that…

Once again nobody wants you to take money out of their pockets to fund parties and give them a little of it back if they attend. People not doing what you expect them to isn't a gaping problem in modern society.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#464

Post by michaelmrose » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

agent008t wrote: post #336

michaelmrose wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A government incentive is paid for out of tax payers pockets. It would literally mean taking money out of my pocket, spending most of it on social events, and then giving me the minority of it back. Opting out would mean I was paying for other peoples parties when I can barely at this point cover medical expenses. This remains a terrible idea.

But doing some public works in the community in lieu of a portion of local/council tax? That could work.

Alternatively you could just not charge that tax then.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#465

Post by whateveracct » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #409

Why is nobody mentioning the potential biological basis for this? Men's sperm counts are going down 3% a year and have been consistently for over 30 years. Nobody knows exactly why, but environmental contamination through "xenoestrogens" (e.g. BPA in receipt paper) is a major theory. This is no freak trend and has been researched by over a thousand papers with no good answer (so don't reply with a pet hypothesis like…

Soy boy theory!

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#466

Post by bubblewrap » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #458

bubblewrap wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the data discussed in this threat directly contradict your statement of "there are more than enough women for everyone"? And so does historical data, isn't it the case that many men didn't reproduce historically, which can be seen through genetic analysis? Edit: cursory googling turns up this, for example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success (8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Eve…

A survey about how much sex respondents are having doesn't tell you WHY they are having less sex. Historical reproduction ALSO isn't useful when contraception is now a prevalent thing the numbers would in no way match. Regarding the last I couldn't find the claim that 4 to 5 women reproduced for every man so I'm just going to assume you misread. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be so unless you meant within a…

The sentence reads "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man." - in my browser it is directly above one of the charts.

I think by recent history, the mean thousands of years, not the last ten years. So most of the time before contraception was available.

Men being able to reproduce for most of their lives doesn't help much if they have nobody to reproduce with. I guess it helps if you can afford young wives even as you get older.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#467

Post by bubblewrap » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

Fjolsvith wrote: post #406

sridca wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baumeister indicated this in his book that I read a long time ago, but it is more like 2:1, > throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm As someone who favours individualism and was brought up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm I found this most shocking and interesting at the same time.

The MGTOW movement is really throwing a wrench into this. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-...

I don't understand what you mean? Surely the MGTOW movement is not increasing the proportion of men who successfully reproduce, given that they seem to be about not reproducing?

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#468

Post by michaelmrose » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

tomhoward wrote: post #285

michaelmrose wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that millions buy ANYTHING isn't much of an indication of quality in any area of human endeavor.

Obviously, quality is a matter of personal taste. Kanye's material, particularly his recent stuff, isn't much to my taste. But I don't care who or what it is, when anyone sells millions of units of anything, it indicates something significant that can't just be hand-waved away with an empty dismissal.

It's trivial to dismiss millions or billions of units of anything. McDonald's burgers are crap for example. Absolutely insane cults have millions of members. You haven't actually yet produced an argument as to why West is worth anything as an artist. Having produced zero useful arguments its pretty easy to dismiss nothing.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#469

Post by ralusek » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #437

ralusek wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct that most sensible people understand that environmental and inherent biological differences both contribute to behaviors. But the pathological mode of thinking that people are becoming increasingly sensitive to is the willingness to assert environmental causes in the absence of biological or nonsociological evidence. It's precisely this having a default position that makes it an ideological way of thin…

What?! The gap diminishes if you rule out all the results of the patriarchy (fields open to women; lack of seniority due to bias in promotions; negotiation that's not available to women because there's always a man who can fill the position)??? Its amazing to me that someone can claim "its not due to sexism" and then, in the very same sentence, make a long list of how its due to sexism. But its somehow ok.

You're doing precisely what I described. If women are not in a field, it must therefore be that the field is not open to women. If there is a lack of seniority, it must therefore be due to a bias in promotions.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#470

Post by toasterlovin » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #306

simonh wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stabilising effect of monogamy isn't to prevent wars between nations and societies, it's to manage violence and conflict within a society. It works too and is not just a small effect. Of the 20 most unstable countries in the world, all 20 are very to somewhat polygamous[0]. [0] https://medium.economist.com/big-love-and-big-war-exploring-...

You might consider that formal polygamy is directly linked to (a) religious authoritarianism, (b) gender inequality, (c) reduced education for women, (d) lowered economic productivity, (e) low standard of living. When all those things travel together, it's not clear that polygamy should be viewed as the primary cause.

A, B, and C have existed in most societies below a certain threshold of per capita wealth, regardless of whether or not polygamy was practiced, so you may as well throw those out. And essentially every single highly developed country with an economy that is not primarily dependent on resource extraction has a long cultural history of enforced monogamy. Correlation != causation and all that, but I sure as hell wouldn't bet on polygamy being a societal arrangement conducive to human flourishing.