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

Explaining Sex Rate Changes

overcomingbias.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 588 posts

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#561

Post by bencoder »

raducu wrote: post #513
bencoder wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What bothers me about this conversation is that disastrous, society-shattering consequences are always mentioned if women keep choosing not to have sex with more men, but no one seems willing to suggest that men need to change the way they view sex, relationships and themselves. I may have missed part of this conversation but I don't think there's a suggestion that women are doing something /wrong/ or that they nee…

I fail to see how MGTOW is not an answer to this problem. Isn't it a good thing that men who feel they are not attractive to females quit for good the dating scene? Isn't part of the problem the narative that females have been fed -- that they can just have fun in their 20s and then settle down with a nice guy in their 30s? If females knew they won't have the backup option in their 30s, maybe they'd be more willing t…

In theory, certainly, mgtow seems fine. In practice, like your message right here, it's coming from a place of bitterness and resentment and a desire to "get back" at women. I prefer not to live like that, regardless of whether I'm currently seeking a partner, so the MGTOW label is inappropriate and any other label would likely get overloaded with similar bitter people.

As an aside, why do you refer to men as "men" and "guys", but women as "females"? The asymmetry there felt quite jarring to read.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#562

Post by bencoder »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #416
bencoder wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What bothers me about this conversation is that disastrous, society-shattering consequences are always mentioned if women keep choosing not to have sex with more men, but no one seems willing to suggest that men need to change the way they view sex, relationships and themselves. I may have missed part of this conversation but I don't think there's a suggestion that women are doing something /wrong/ or that they nee…

> discussions around this often get over-run with misogyny and bitterness If the adaptation required is to become part of the 20% of men that 70% of women pursue, bitterness from the 80% of less-desirable men is inevitable since they can't compete, which inhibits their ability to obtain a mate and have a good life. Sure, a mate isn't _technically_ required to live a good life, but in our intensely individualistic soc…

> Sure, a mate isn't _technically_ required to live a good life, but in our intensely individualistic society where the number of friends men have is dropping precipitously, relationships form a core of socialization for many men.

Perhaps this is the part where we need to change and improve? Rather than expecting the world or women to align to us.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#563

Post by belorn »

msamwald wrote: post #503
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... .

It is noteworthy that such statistics are not solely reflecting preferences, they may also reflect effects of the dating app itself! Among the many hidden psychological bugs in Tinder, an especially toxic one is that new users are presented with the most attractive profiles first. So the fact that many men don't get anything while others get a lot might be strongly amplified by a system that simply HIDES AWAY those o…

It is however not the only data point which points in this direction. Population statistics from both Sweden and Norway show that men are about twice as likely to not have children that women.

It would be interesting to see more formal studies on the topic, but as far as I know there is no collaborating data to support the theory that the data we have is an artifact from the dating app.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#564

Post by stared »

etiam wrote: post #535
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... .

Interesting stories both. Did you ever get around to writing part 3?

There are two drafts, ~1.5 year old.

"Social skills (not only) for aspies" and "Nice guys, friend zone and creepiness". Though starting is easy, finishing is hard.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#565

Post by belorn »

claudiawerner wrote: post #455
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…

>But my question is, "why?" Because they view the issue as being conditioned by today's society; while I admit it's not best to jump to such a conclusion without serious critical investigation, I find it tiresome that you call it "ideological" - as if an explanation which specifically seeks to avert any critical view of the development of Western society isn't itself "ideological". Is it the result of the sexism of p…

> an explanation which specifically seeks to avert any critical

This is false. The default of critical rationalists is not to avert critical view. It is directly the opposite. There is nothing to support the claim that criticism of the 77 cent theory is specifically out to avert critical review.

I would claim that it is very likely that those who disagree with the science behind the 77 cent theory are more than willing in participate in a critical view of the development of Western society. A common theory among those is that society forces men to prioritize higher income over other life choices, leaving them with fewer choices compared to women. Relative low income has a disproportional negative effect for men on the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs scale compared to women. Thus men are more likely to take higher risk jobs if it rewards higher pay, have a higher risk profile in negotiations, sacrifice health in order to work more hours etc. It is just as much an critical view of the development of Western society as the theory of "patriarchal socialization". It just not the same view.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#566

Post by chillacy »

maxkwallace wrote: post #552
chillacy wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe assume good faith and talk to them so you can educate us? Don’t leave us hanging.

I tried. I couldn't come up with a charitable interpretation of "harms far more people" that I could respond to in a meaningful way. So I concluded that it was a troll and lashed out. It'd probably be better if I just ignored the comment. But I think the claim "harms far more people" is absurd if you consider the unequal harms done to women through history, and the fact that they're half the population. The commenter…

Thanks. And yea I've experienced that too, people tend to engage on a similar level, and so the most engaging comments tend to be flamebait.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#567

Post by jamescostian »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #538
jamescostian wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they would be fine in an informal, real-world situation, why can't they do the same via an app? All the things you would say in real life can be said via dating apps. You miss body language, but GIFs, emojis, and memes can help clarify.

I can see how it is difficult for women to empathic about the situation. Due to the asymmetry in dating as outlined elsewhere in this thread and proven with loads of data the average guy has little success with online dating compared to the average women, giving you little opportunity to appreciate the challenges many men face with a very basic need. Those curious messages in your inbox are not just as your personal…

I am a (not good looking) man, who dates women, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I too was once a virgin, I too was once someone with a bad tinder profile. There have been 2 times when I have started Tinder conversations with sex immediately. There have been times when I have been awful at making conversations. There have been times I've received a message and thought "Shit, now I have to respond! How do I respond to that? I need to keep the conversation going... What can I say though????? Ughhh"

As someone who has also struggled, I can tell you the biggest thing (once you've both swiped right, and before you've actually gone on a date) is conversation. Because they've swiped right, they already accepted however you looked in your tinder pics. Now you just need them to actually like the conversation you have with them.

I'm pretty good at conversing in real life, but initially found it weird that I'd struggle to write out a message when there was so much more time to respond. There were even times when I thought to myself "man, if I could just meet up with her in real life this would go so much smoother", and I occasionally even tried (and always failed) to speed up the small talk and get to the dating part. But after a good 2 days, I realized I was treating texting differently than real life conversations because I was giving myself too much time to respond. So I stopped doing that, started treating texting more like real, face to face discussion, and did very well (again, all despite my looks). I'm not a woman telling men "It's easy to date us, you just suck." I'm a man who has been in your shoes, and is telling you how to step up your game (without saying outlandish things like "get plastic surgery" or "completely change your personality").

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#568

Post by toasterlovin »

bubblewrap wrote: post #558
toasterlovin wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. And having a mate who is exclusively committed to you can have a much better distribution of outcomes at the bottom end than an allowance from some rich guy who isn't very invested in you. After all, if somebody isn't committed enough to make you their one and only, why should you believe that they'll keep sending money your way.

I'm not arguing women should prefer Clooney over Joe Average. Just what the general disposition of the human race is. Obviously there are all sorts of strategies for life, and all sorts of aspects to consider. It's just a general tendency, not a hard cut rule.

Yeah, what I'm saying is that it is a minority of women who pursue that strategy. The vast majority of women are seeking a monogamous and exclusive relationship.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#569

Post by monetus »

gfiorav wrote: post #537
monetus wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many times have your circles imploded?

Not really imploded, but people change and stuff gets re-arranged. It's ok. Like forgetting peeps. Also ok. No need to keep friends around forever like Facebook and social media imply. I maybe have 5 friends that I've known for more than 15 years... those remain. The rest can flow.

Thanks for the response, sorry if I was being too nosy. The value of permanence, or the lack of it, seems worth consideration in this context.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#570

Post by etiam »

stared wrote: post #564
etiam wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting stories both. Did you ever get around to writing part 3?

There are two drafts, ~1.5 year old. "Social skills (not only) for aspies" and "Nice guys, friend zone and creepiness". Though starting is easy, finishing is hard.

I'd be glad to see them finished. But, I know, plenty of claims on limited time.
Post reply on HN