TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

jonah___ Archive

View 4 posts and 256 comments by jonah___ on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Even though time would be flowing without us humans existing it is a social construct because the way we decide what time it is has been decided by us humans. You might call the human system to measure time socially constructed. But time itself does not come into being through a social construction. And that is what "construction" means, is it not? John Searle's lectures on language and the philosophy of society are interesting in this respect and freely available. Or do I misunderstand construc…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/17 03:19 PM
–

No, that is the correct term for exactly that. And I think more studies report a small difference such that there are indeed more male outliers at either end, but there's doubts afaik. Far from "much" of a difference, though, and that's an important distinction.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/17 09:31 PM
–

But I hate his style because he rambles and uses inflated verbiage. I don't see how he does that at all. But academics still like to inflate their verbiage for careerist reasons. This is just a personal belief you have. If Peterson expressed the content in simple terms then he would not have a big 564-page book to sell...he'd have a pamphlet. Just, no. Here's a review of the book: Did you actually look at the link you gave? You literally picked the only negative review and it doesn't even make a…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/17 07:00 PM
-1

he's really bad at getting to the point Not in my experience. Most of the positions he espouses also seem to boil down to traditionalism I don't think it's that easy and I don't know what you mean by traditionalism exactly. But maybe one could characterize it as traditionalism without the traditions that we learned are dumb or some such thing. he can really only hold superficial appeal to the anti-SJW crowd I think that's true. He also made some pretty harsh comments about the MGTOW crowd.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/17 06:45 PM
–

He answers just about any question this sub asks. And I think correctly so. Standard deviation in IQ is also much higher for men than women. This is wrong, though, and I don't recall him ever saying that. Unless by "much" you mean "a little".
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/17 06:33 PM
1

Can we sticky this?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/17 04:08 PM
–

From a theoretical perspective, yeah, it diminishes your dating pool. By how much? Very hard to tell. From a practical perspective, it's a bad sign if you're thinking too much about it. You don't start a boxing fight by thinking "Oh my god, he's so much stronger than me". Or if you do, you'll lose.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/17 10:51 AM
–

That's the thing about self-fulfilling prophecies.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/17 10:51 PM
–

Keep telling yourself that.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/17 03:18 PM
4

Maybe by your crazy ideal of what it means to be a woman. If you're idealising the past, you should read history.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/17 11:30 AM
–

So TRP only applies to flawed women? I'd think RP disagrees, but who knows. Also, your belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/17 08:31 PM
–

Maybe there is such a threshold. But I'm very sure that you estimate it higher than it is, but it's hard to debate that. From a practical perspective, it doesn't matter at all, however.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/17 11:00 AM
2

This sounds like body dismorphic disorder once again. Sure, it's hard to get past that, but acknowledging intellectually that all those beliefs are wrong is the first step.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/17 10:58 AM
1

Maybe you should be, it seems to help a lot of people. "sense of humor" and "being funny" are often listed as attractive qualities If you fail the basics, this won't matter in the slightest.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/17 10:55 AM
–

Under the presupposition that looks are the thing that women find attractive, sure. But that presupposition is wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 11:13 PM
–

I'm not particularly familiar with RP's conception of "game", but who the hell cares if you're funny?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 11:11 PM
–

And a person with standards can be held back primarily because of looks. How would you support that assumption ("primarily")?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 11:06 PM
–

RP calls this "hamstering", right? Even with 20 instead of "hundreds" this holds true. What are you afraid of, that you don't want to accept this? You make so many assumptions just to be able to conclude that you're ugly? You know, voluntary approach makes fears go away. You just need to find what it is that you're afraid of. Is it maybe that it's more comfortable to not have to do anything?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 11:01 PM
–

There are quite a few words in my post that indicate that it is of course not black and white. The way most incels talk, however, seems very black and white to me. Further, it's already in the name "incel", this isn't about people that would like to have a little more dating success.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 10:55 PM
–

If you've matched with hundreds of girls, you look fine. I don't know how that even offers any other conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 10:51 PM
–

You indicated in another comment that you have spoken to hundreds of girls on tinder. That means you passed the looks threshold for all of those girls, plain and simple. I don't think the pass/fail concept holds much merit, but whatever.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 10:42 PM
–

Looks are far less of a concern for men than for women. At least if we're excluding one night stands, which aren't the goal of incels anyway, right? All of the people obsessively mentioning their looks or how others get by "just by winning the genetic lottery" very much sound like they have body dismoprhic disorder. Surely there will be extreme cases where this has a legitimate, unfortunate reason, but this will be a tiny tiny minority. So CMV: Incel's problem is almost exclusively "game".
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 09:02 PM
–

Sure, knowledge is power, but that is true in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 04:55 PM
–

True, and as long as you propose that the individual adapts I'm all for it. But everything has two sides, there will be disadvantages to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 04:29 PM
–

It's incredibly lazy to try to explain things purely by "huge social pressure". We're not blank slates. What you're describing is mostly covered by a big 5 trait, agreeableness. It has a strong genetic component. Women are on average more agreeable than men. "Social intelligence" is mostly being agreeable in nature. But risk-taking is mostly disagreeableness. You can't be both at once. So yeah, as Atlas says, women are on average not as good as men at climbing male dominance hierarchies. The cla…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 04:14 PM
1

Correct, also not contrary to my post. I clarified the issue to SetConsumes already, wouldn't have been hard to read that.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 08:51 AM
1

while other Chads like him. hmmmmmm... And I care what he does, cause he gets to live a better life than I do. All because he got lucky in the womb and was socialized to use it, while I was thrown on the trash heap cause I wasnt brag-worthy I'll tell you one last time: Comparing yourself to people who have it better than you is useless. This a purely psychological problem and you can fix it. There is no objective world you see, there's only the world as your brain processes it and right now your…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 05:17 PM
1

Whatever fantasy gets you hard.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 05:00 PM
1

dumpster fire of a person That's only your judgment. Also, get rid of your just world fallacy and think about your life instead of fapping to your brother's. Who cares what your brother does.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 04:59 PM
–

That you or RP in general even have this ideal in mind is the weird part.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 04:57 PM
–

Yeah, so what does that have to do with your conception of chad?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 04:44 PM
–

A nice guy rant, edgy.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 04:40 PM
–

Chad to me is like 28-35, you can't tell cause of his flawless skin. That comment is so weird to me. Never in my life have I heard a man (or a woman for that matter) talk about a male beauty ideal. Flawless skin is a female ideal.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 04:38 PM
–

You can always compare yourself to someone who has it better. Always. The mistake is comparing yourself to others unfairly, which just shows your view of yourself. A therapist can help here. Naaah, its all about who has abs/is hot and the most popular nowadays. You can be a complete dumpster fire of a person, but as long as you're hot, women will sleep with you. All this shows is that you formed your worldview on the internet. Go out.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 04:05 PM
–

That's not what I wanted to imply. Risk-taking is essential to success. But the 16 year old quarterback of the high school football team shouldn't be an inspiration for some 26 year old incel (an extreme case to illustrate my point).
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 03:58 PM
–

There's a huge difference between "would I like to be a different person?" (useless question) and "do I want to work to make my life better?" (people do that all the time). that act like boys but atill get laid One has to see it relative to age, so being on the proper way to becoming a man is enough. Most of this is not being a coward in my estimation.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 03:38 PM
–

What would you rather do, struggle for everything or have everything easy and handed to you? That's a hypothetical question. There is absolutely no use in even posing it. Most of the problems men face in the SMP are looks based I disagree, but I guess we won't get far in this discussion. Most men's problems today is that they're actually boys.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 03:24 PM
4

That's because those people have bigger dicks than you.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 01:17 PM
–

Why are you using a red flair, when you're not realising any RP philosophy? Nobody wants to work hard and dedicate themselves to improve. Wrong, quite obviously so. It also doesnt have instant results, which is what more and more people demand. If you haven't tried it, how would you know? Unless youre born a winner, why even enter the race? Yeah, why be a winner, if you can just as well wallow in self-pity?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 01:14 PM
–

Isn't Chad the one that has early success due to his looks and risk-taking nature? You can't really see that as an ideal to strive towards. I'd say it's an excuse, a bad one at that.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/17 01:09 PM
–

focusing my efforts on business ventures I get that somewhat, but it still seems pretty boring after some time, unless one is incredibly successful. my genes are terrible That seems like a cop out, I'm sure they could be a lot worse. I'd be a terrible parent You're pretty young still, right? There's no way to tell for you what kind of parent you'd be, plus one can work on that, plus it's not that hard. being tied down to that level of commitment makes it far far more difficult to take the necess…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/17 12:14 AM
1

From a woman's perspective, someone she finds attractive (duh). From a man's perspective, probably the best measure is: someone he respects.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/17 08:35 PM
–

Yeah, but everyone fears suffering. And you won't commit suicide if you're not already suffering madly. So if you're intending to avoid suffering, dying at 50 is really unlikely and then what?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/17 08:33 PM
–

20s or college age But I am too. And anyone forming such strong opinions as a lot of RP and MGTOW about marriage surely has thought a little farther than "women bad no get married", right? I just think there's much more to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/17 08:30 PM
–

Judging by your flair you're deeply opposed to the concept and I unfortunately don't have the time for a longer discussion right now, but for a start: Better sex life, health benefits (see above), increased (shared) income, stability, improved situation for kids, a support structure in bad situations, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/17 01:45 PM
2

Yeah, that is what I was getting at and I'm probably expressing an UMC view. Still, I think marriage has benefits at every class level.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/17 01:27 PM
–

the ugly truth is most people would not make good mates. Well, to whom? To everyone? Then I'd surely say it's not most people. If we want to be precise, then it's getting very complex. And then one can choose to view it either positively or negatively, where I choose to view it positively. financial stress brings out the worst in people. That's a fair point and also why I pointed to class differences. I still wonder though if the pros of marriage don't still outweigh the cons.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/17 12:58 PM
–

Personally, I can't fathom how one doesn't see marriage as the goal of this game. I mean, how do these people envision their lifes when they're 40, 50 or 60? And then there's information like this everywhere. The RP view is overly negative and absolves men of the responsibility to find a good mate. But there's probably class differences to discuss here.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/17 09:24 AM
2

Right, this is a man who has to deal with the biggest dickheads in academia as his job. I'm sure he's quite tired of explaining basic ideas to people who deny that the sky is blue. I understand it in those circumstances, but he's also doing it in deep philosophical discussions, where I really wish he'd be clearer in his speech. there's mounting evidence that simple avoidance by itself GIVES anxiety to normal people, people who previously had zero history of it. Seriously? That is so funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 11:54 PM
1

people who just plain don't look hot or aren't socially apt and as a result, suck with friendships and relationships, fail at life, and downward spiral into a pit of becoming even more weird and unlikable. I wasn't under the impression that that are that many people. A lot of people suck with relationships and don't go down that route. Now for those that also struggle with friendships, I don't know, but it would really surprise me that constituted a much larger group than the former group you de…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 11:13 PM
1

It's obvious from the way you talk about it and I don't even get how it's relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 09:48 PM
0

That photo wasn't an intended byproduct of this, but I find it quite fun nonetheless. And I think one could reformulate "self-repair" to "learning to cope".
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 07:24 PM
2

Necessity for self-repair != bad person. I'm not sure a serial killer can even repair himself. But one probably shouldn't take it literally and say "strong indicator" instead.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 07:22 PM
1

Synopsis sounds very much like something I should read, thank you!
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 05:35 PM
–

What's the point in even comparing the two?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 05:16 PM
1

This statistic covers the relevant years, the trajectory doesn't seem to change, marriage rates are rather stable.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 05:14 PM
–

That name rings a bell and I'd be very interested, however, I'm not going to sign up somewhere for an article. But I'll look into his research when I get the time, thanks!
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 05:12 PM
–

Then we would expect that marriages go down with the rise of the internet, right? Wikipedia has this statistic, but that doesn't seem to corroborate your claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 04:49 PM
1

Actually, u/fuxdpus explained it well, I think, although I'd have chosen different words.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 04:39 PM
–

Yeah, that always annoys me.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 04:35 PM
–

We can't that easily compare societies that have different economic standings and different cultural heritages. Your hypothesis (jobs) should easily find data to back it up, but as far as I know there is no data to back up that claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 04:08 PM
–

restricted I think that was poor word choice, they are not actively being stopped from getting married. They just don't get married, presumably because it does not seem worthwhile to them. The exact process is complicated to analyse. As I did somewhere else in this thread already, I'd recommend Colttaine, because I think he explains quite a bit of the situation quite well. To understand Dr.Peterson's argument precisely, have you watched the entire discussion?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 04:06 PM
–

So no relation to capitalism itself. Are you saying because there's less jobs, there's also less marriages? I don't think that's right. If you can ignore the (stupid) MGTOW bent, this video goes over the data of marriage rates following the introduction of the pill. The job situation didn't change all that much, but divorce rates skyrocketed.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 03:58 PM
–

Watch more of him, I think he's got a pretty good grip on the situation. For this specific video, I don't know what's not to understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 03:51 PM
–

problem is more related to capitalism What is that supposed to mean exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 03:49 PM
1

But why? Why are you so sure? You even go on to detail the highly specialized environment you exist in. And as I mentioned there are people in this thread who are disagreeing in good faith. I'd like to know myself. Mostly the others talk about slightly different demographics I think, but not sure. Except for arthurmcarthur, who is in the humanities, though, I believe, so that is interesting, although again anecdotal. Do we know this? Do we know that there are structural differences in the brains…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 12:14 AM
–

We could talk about this for days and days (I'm up for it!). :) Me too, if I find the time! hah. smart = high IQ, generally High IQ unfortunately needs to be specified further. Because one could argue from extremes, which is not a very good argument, but I think it's something that one ought to deal with in this discussion. And it's the nature of not knowing people that it's much easier to group them neatly into...groups. Very true. I don't believe I know enough people to be able to have a solid…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/17 10:07 PM
–

I'd like to OP to clarify. Like, a conscious rejection? Is that what he means? I've asked that, too. An unconscious rejection would intrigue me just as well. Can you go into this a little more - what do you mean? You answered my question, I just worded it weirdly there, I think. In my own life I'd say the evidence doesn't go one way or the other, not clearly at least. I've known female smart people who were feminine, some who were more androgynous, some who were more masculine. Same with the dud…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/17 09:00 PM
–

Refreshing to see someone point out complexities, it's a hard fight. So while I completely agree with most of your post, there's one thing that might warrant a discussion. Anyway. I don't necessarily believe that there is some inherent link between intelligence and the rejection of femininity/masculinity. What does rejection in this context mean? Can anyone even reject femininity/masulinity? I'd like to hear your take on this. Further, formulating it without "rejection", we have an inherent link…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/17 08:40 PM
6

I guess I'm pretty dumb Funnily enough, this is usually a sign of intelligence.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/17 08:15 PM
5

More intelligent women tend to end up wanting to utilize their intelligence, see it as a waste to not do so, find being valued for their beauty and mothering ability to almost be condescending, as often they do not respect beauty and the effort required, finding it to be shallow and beneath someone with such intelligence. I don't think that's right. More intelligent women will on average land in very competitive fields. In these fields they want to be valued for their skills, just as anyone else…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/17 07:06 PM
1

No, that would be beyond stupid.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 08:24 PM
1

Obviously, where did I state otherwise?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 07:00 PM
4

Yeah, so fucking annoying, just as the intimately related "I'm RP but I'm not a bad person!! Pls believe me!".
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 05:49 PM
1

It's not that different than judging people's masculinity and femininity based on their behavior and energy. Exactly, what do you need testosterone for? If I see a guy with significant muscular development, tatted up, walking with an attitude, you think I can't make some judgement about his testosterone levels and believe I'm somewhat accurate? If I see a guy who seems uncomfortable, scared, has almost no muscular development, has no attitude, has a rather soft face, I can't make any accurate ju…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 05:34 PM
1

I'm not exactly well read on the subject, but I think you could maybe somewhat compare a biological female going trans to a boy entering puberty. But that tells us nothing about what it means to have x-amount of testosterone in your blood after puberty.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 02:35 PM
1

What I think is the fundamental error is that you attribute testosterone levels to people by observing them, which is just ridiculous from a scientific perspective. If you don't care about the scientific perspective, fine, but be at least honest about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 02:14 PM
1

Yeah, like this. Thank you! Although this would not suffice to conclude that higher average testosterone levels imply more aggressive behaviour, but I need to read it more carefully when I get the time. Still, this is not the place to discuss the specifics and you gave me some science in the right direction, so thanks!
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 02:11 PM
1

There's a difference between the following two things: (1) Introducing testosterone into the system of an organism that had little of it before and then observing the changes. (2) Reasoning about testosterone levels from observed behaviour of an organism with no hormonal changes.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 02:07 PM
1

It doesnt really make a big difference as an adult Yeah, that's most of my point here.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 02:03 PM
2

No that your use of "testosterone" has little to do with the hormone, i.e. it's not at all backed by science further than the basics one learns in biology class.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 12:44 AM
2

I'm not denying anything. You seem unable to see a subtlety that is important in a scientific sense, but I'm probably arguing it badly.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 12:39 AM
–

I realise now, that I had RP threads in mind and that this is a decent answer to my question here. So, thanks, but it doesn't really address things like "higher testosterone implies more agression", which I'd be more interested in.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 12:37 AM
2

How can you say testosterone has nothing to do with it when it's what makes men men above all else? You could just as well substitute the Y chromosome here. And that's exactly my issue with this. You're using a term with a scientific meaning for "thing that is essential to manliness". Yeah, it's probably good to have a term for it and I don't like alpha/beta either, but using testosterone is just wrong in a scientific sense. But I guess you don't care and I understand that, I just don't like it …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 12:28 AM
2

Look, I'm not even challenging your world model, I'm just saying that testosterone has little to do with it. Replace "high test" by "alpha" and "low test" by "beta" and nothing's changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 12:13 AM
2

Your solution is to say, idk. My solution is to not say things that I'm ignorant about. I'm not trying to prove it for you, and you can't refute my position either(all you have is doubt). There's actually invisible goblins behind everyone's ears! Prove me wrong!! My perspective gives me accurate predictions and useful results, I need nothing more. Just cause your world model works decently for daily life has no bearing if this specific part is factual or not. While you're at it, may as well figu…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/17 11:53 PM
2

Observations are all we have for trying to prove things that require significant time and expensive studies, like the affect of raising a man's testosterone levels. Especially in our 'men are useless all we need are manly women' culture, who's gonna care to fund such a thing? No one, and so you see science hardly trying. You actually stick with that, wow. I just gave you a list of stuff to research so you can figure it out yourself. I've already gone through all of those and they contributed to …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/17 11:31 PM
–

Mostly cause our science sucks. But your observation is better? The behavior of high testosterone men The behavior of low testosterone men How would you know that? You mean, the behaviour of people you put in those categories, because they looked and acted "manlier". The behavior of men changing when they take steroids The behavior of women changing when they take steroids These are massive increases and don't allow for conclusions about the average man and woman. The behavior of women with high…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/17 11:09 PM
–

To be frank, I'm pretty sure the following claims are all wrong or meaningless/too unspecific: yes it will affect all of that. Increasing it later on would have effects too, but part of the difference is changing thinking and mentality Testosterone levels affect beliefs indirectly. Yeah, there surely is some connection between testosterone and all of the mentioned traits, but most of the specific claims RPers often make are just not backed up scientifically. Playing around with hormone levels is…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/17 10:25 PM
–

Dude, this is not how this works. I didn't find anything to the effect what you're saying in the literature. Granted, I didn't look very hard. But if this is so mainstream, it shouldn't be a problem for you to back up any of your claims. But you don't, there is no reason here for me to believe anything you're saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/17 10:06 PM
–

Sure, testosterone is part of the biological machinery that makes boys to men. More concretely, the question here is: If someone's testosterone levels in adulthoof are increased either artificially or maybe via lifting (source that is does this?), then what effect has this on aggression, dominance, voice, body hair, muscle mass and sex drive? A linear one? Because I see it commonly used that way. For anything of that sort I'd like to see sources. Your link makes weaker claims and also doesn't ci…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/17 09:44 PM
–

Is there any science backing this up? If so, can you or anyone else link me to it?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/17 09:22 PM
–

I hate the term, because it seems only loosely associated to the actual effects of testosterone and more about what people think is "manly". Very good thread idea, nonetheless. For the fun of it, if i were to characterise a high testosterone man (not knowing the science), then I'd say: alpha or beta (or omega) alpha, in a biological sense. social vs antisocial unrelated intro vs extro unrelated blue collar vs white collar unrelated nerdy vs basic basic leadership abilities high follower-ship / c…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/17 09:21 PM
1

So you want to show thing X is stupid and argued badly. And you want to do this by arguing a different thing Y, that is also stupid and opposed to X, in the exact same bad argumentation style. How would that ever convince anyone? Also, why?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/17 07:04 PM
–

This sounds exactly like a "science" post in trp. Like, exchange "right wingers" for "women". If you are serious, however, could you cite some sources? Because I think I somewhat know the data and I wouldn't ever formulate it that way. But judging from the first sentence in your OP and this thread, either you are trolling or you genuinely are so deeply entrenched in your worldview, that you've become what you pretend to hate.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/17 05:40 PM
2

I'm not the right person to defend AWALT, I've always been opposed to the concept. But your assertion was: "BP fears they're wrong", but that doesn't follow. All you're saying is: "AWALT (taken literally) is wrong". So you believe in what you think is right, i.e. not wrong, just like any other person - there is no fear of being wrong. I think this is necessary. I'm using their own argumentative style to highlight how wrong those statements are if you are on the receiving end and thus realize how…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/17 02:17 PM
–

I think you're spot on regarding RP. But that's just a typically male perspective. So I think RP exists for mostly unrelated reasons and is almost all male. Males are more likely to systematize and therefore, RP is written in a systematizing style. Maybe RP even attracts the more systematizing end of the distribution (assuming that trait is normally distributed), but I'm not sure. For the other side I don't agree at all. Fear of being wrong leads one to have no opinion at all, because any opinio…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/17 01:51 PM
–

Last time I checked, yeah.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 04:05 PM
–

In daily life? Very rarely. If I see a (for my tastes) beautiful woman, that's like seeing a beatiful painting, but it's not sexually arousing.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 02:26 PM
–

9 6 5 8 1 8 6 4 Being a bit too open with their sexuality makes them unattractive to me, but I don't think I'm the norm.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/17 02:41 PM
3

Evolutionarily speaking, confidence is a measure of the position in a dominance hierarchy, but not a perfect one. confident guy who has nothing going for him Here, it fails and his actual standing in the dominance hierarchy makes him unattractive. Women can't immediately know how much he has going for him, so they look at his confidence as a proxy. So just confidence might be enough for STRs, but for LTRs you need to be able to back it up. Note that no confidence strongly implies he has nothing …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 08:05 PM
5

If you define a "bad boy" by "guy I'm not attracted to", then of course you would have that opinion. But rather what I think is meant by the whole bad boy thing is this: One of the most important things for a man is to not be a coward and bad boys are a polar opposite. Further, bad boys rarely show "jerk behaviour" or behaviour that causes negative reactions towards the woman they're interested in, which for a lot of women is all that matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 04:53 PM
1

Someone who's either not trying or not succeeding despite trying.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 04:42 PM
0

So you've figured it all out, huh?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 12:38 PM
1

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by socialism. The first approach to the problem mostly seems to be an unconditional basic income. I have my doubts that it's a particularly good solution, but maybe there's nothing better. And while this maybe fits your definition of "socialist-like", just this change would be far from socialism proper.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 02:12 PM
–

Yeah, no, that is not at all a direct consequence.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 02:04 PM
–

That is not yet socialism. That just means that there will be changes necessary to the current system.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 02:01 PM
–

I absolutely agree that feminism is mainly a consequence of technological advances (the pill, mostly). But I'm not so sure about the ties to socialism, even though there are a lot of shared values, socialism so far has failed time and time again. Probably because of a mismatch with the basic human psychological structure or rather how humans get motivated. It seems unlikely to me that it would succeed in the end. But of course it's always a tempting idea, so it will always be around. What that m…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 01:58 PM
0

For men the most important factor (imo) is confidence/self-esteem/standing in the social dominance hierarchies/serotonin-level/how he acts/etc., whatever you want to call it. PUA tries to imitate that while not having the basis for it. RP teaches to build one version of a basis for all that. Note that "just being themselves" generally has all of the above implied. Looks are secondary and women show great variability in their tastes. That's why women generally need context more than men to determ…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 11:07 AM
1

Surely, one can be optimistic about the science, but I'm rather pessimistic about the ideological side of things.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 11:40 PM
1

You can't measure it but you can see it's there without any need for scientific analysis. That is precisely wrong. There is no way you can "see" an effect on a societal scale. If you know what to look for and you open your eyes you can see it. Beware of confirmation bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 11:20 PM
1

My point was simply that privilege can't be about perception.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 11:03 PM
3

Be careful what you wish for.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 11:01 PM
1

u/future_space_boobs: privilege is all about perception. my response: But perception is subjective, and then it can't be measured. And things that can't be measured might as well not exist from a scientific perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 10:57 PM
1

Considering the amount of research that is being done I would hope they come up with some decently reliable methods. I do consider gender blinding a viable way of measuring prejudice. Would be good for the field if they weren't so strongly associated with political correctness though. Maybe I should be more optimistic. Otherwise, interesting links, thanks.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 10:52 PM
1

We are talking about how to measure discrimination though not arguing whether employers should be allowed to discriminate or not. Yeah, I got sidetracked, sry. Discrimination isn't ok and now we are looking to get rid of it. Well, now I have to ask. Do you think we can figure out what is fair discrimination (based on individual ability) and what is unfair discrimination (based on some average member of the associated group))? Question is how. It seems questionable to me that you can get rid of m…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 09:11 PM
1

Well, ok, then we agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 08:16 PM
–

I would argue that minor (or even large) sex differences should be irrelevant here cause they are just average differences and tell us nothing about the individual. If a woman and a man have the same qualifications they should be about as competent as each other at doing the job. True, but the issue isn't really what their abilities are, but what the potential employer is allowed to do. He might have a model of the world, where either a woman or a man is more suited for the job for whatever reas…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 08:14 PM
1

"From a scientific perspective". That is the crucial point. And there all of what I said holds true. Also, I did not say it should be ignored. I said IF it can't measured, then we have a problem. I didn't say it can't be measured.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 08:07 PM
2

Ok, maybe I'm too spergy here, but that puts the whole field in question for me and I'm not the only one with that view. See "grit" as an example: Wikipedia. Iirc, actual educational methods have been employed based on this concept. From the same article: In 2016, the largest study of grit, conducted in over 4,500 16-year old twins in the United Kingdom found that grit (measured by the Grit-S) accounted for only one half of one percent (0.5%) of highest-stakes outcomes (school grades) after IQ a…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:59 PM
1

Well, exactly, it's extremly hard to measure. That's the whole point.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:54 PM
2

Yeah, then it's just a matter of what you're looking at. But after we eliminate all of the privileges we can eliminate (it's of course debatable how far we are in this process), there will only be genetic/fixed ones left.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:53 PM
1

not because it doesn't have a measurable effect Well, then show me someone measuring it properly.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:50 PM
–

Don't know how you would get around this problem. Yeah, that's my point, basically. I think the mentioned CV Experiment would in comparison be of more value which is why I brought it up. You are pretty much recording actual "acts of discrimination" after all. It's better than most other things, yeah. But any rejection is an "act of discrimination". Even if we account for everything, because of the whole kids thing and maybe other minor sex differences, it's hard to prove that the discrimination …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:48 PM
1

Well, one should come up with a scale and rigorously test this scale. Otherwise, there's no proper science, just philosophy or whatever you want to call it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:43 PM
–

Again, I mostly agree, but there is a crucial point. Just because "privilege" decreased doesn't going forward in the same way will make it go away completely. I'd even argue some privileges are completely genetic. And a society has to deal with that fact. Let's take IQ as an example. It strongly predicts your ability to do certain jobs, professor for theoretical physics for example. It is a privilege to be able to do such a job. But we you can't get rid of this privilege, because quite simply no…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:41 PM
–

Still we can't just go with "disparate outcomes are to be expected and therefore no discrimination exists". Thus a somewhat objective way of measuring "privilege" would be very helpful I agree completely. But are we measuring a "natural" difference or privilege? Probably both to some extent, right? How do I measure which to which extent? I know you have more knowledge than me in this area, so maybe you have some answers. But to clarify any misunderstanding, I just want to point out the problems …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:20 PM
–

look at IQ, it's an attempt to quantify an abstract concept based on test performance IQ just is the performance in specific tests. It is a good psychometric concept, because it correlates strongly with other measures. we don't have a way to measure attractiveness either, yet we acknowledge it exists and makes a huge difference in people's lives There's a difference between the scientific concept, which scientists do try to study all the time and the practical everyday life concept. The second o…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:14 PM
–

Just because you can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't affect the world Technically it does, because you measure the way in which it is influencing the world. Maybe give me an example? Right now this seems obviously wrong to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:10 PM
–

Yeah, I'm aware, those are all at least a little shaky, though, if I'm not mistaken. For me the big question is: What do you take as the expected result, if there is no privilege? 50/50? Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:08 PM
–

Ok, we're in full agreement. But then we can't really base any kind of social or economic policy on any such thing, right? Or at least it's questionable.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:05 PM
–

That depends on what you mean by "exist". And I didn't say it shouldn't be considered. I said what can't be measured is not part of a scientific view. And that is obviously right or else anything would be part of the scientific view, including green goblins on the back side of the moon.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 06:42 PM
1

I believe that is the OP's point. Measurement is a scientific method. And I think that it's an important point. Without a scientific method to establish certain claims - why should I believe them?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 06:38 PM
–

Most of the time you give a valid BP argument, so I'm interested to hear your thoughts. But you didn't address the OP's question at all. How is privilege measured psychometrically?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 06:32 PM
–

But perception is subjective, and then it can't be measured. And things that can't be measured might as well not exist from a scientific perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 06:28 PM
–

Ah, I see. I don't get why so many people seem to like him, he never actually discusses anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:46 PM
–

Well, I agree in principle, but being a "real man" means you've worked for those benefits, if anything. Also, you just want to troll.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:05 PM
2

Confirmation bias in action.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 02:11 PM
2

This is ridiculous. The heart of all this was two people saying "sexual selection is not evolutionary". Go ask a scientist. All I ever said was that this is trivially false. I recognized what you were talking about, it was wrong. The actual sad thing is that I'm still answering you.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 09:32 PM
2

No, I'm using the standard definition of evolution (as I linked and you can look up anywhere), he and you never said natural selection and I didn't start by talking about natural selection. Get your stuff right before correcting someone, why are you even still debating this.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 09:21 PM
–

not for species to survive. That's not the definition of evolution. Evolutionary purpose is if traits were needed for individuals to survive No, and if you would have read the other exchange to the end I wouldn't have to repeat myself here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution](Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.) Also, why? Because you're rude to a guy who wasn't rude to you and had a point as well. Yeah, I'm annoyed by…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 08:41 PM
–

But it's not evolutionary in the sense that there's no evolutionary reason for those traits to be selected to begin with. Of course there is, because sexual selection is part of the selection pressures that guide the whole evolutionary process. This is trivial. It seems you just argue semantics here, but why?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 08:29 PM
–

Dude, wtf. I said sexual selection is an evolutionary process, nothing more, not a bit more. And that is trivially true. See the other conversation. I'm fully of everything you point out. You shouldn't throw phrases like that and call people stupid, when you have a lot to learn yourself. Maybe read what I wrote first.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 08:13 PM
2

4 4 4 2 5 9 2 3 2 9 weird sample from my point of view.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 03:18 PM
1

Nope. Something is valuable for you because you need it, not necessarily the other way around. How do you define need? Dying without it? "Not dying" then is the primary value. Sexual selection currently selects for traits that are not needed and are in fact a waste of resources, therefore the traits being selected for are not valuable, unless you personally choose to value them. This is far too complex to say that it selects for specific things. Also completely besides the point. You just learne…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/17 01:36 PM
–

No, this is based on objective need. You have to have a goal, i.e. a value, before you can define need and even then "objectivity" is ridiculous in a system that complex, rather it's "guesses". Of course, evolution might actually be a real living entity with precog abilities that knows humanity will eventually need to bench press the planet out of the path of an asteroid... but I'm kinda doubtful. What stupid stuff is this. No one is making that argument, it's also a stupid proposition. More ser…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/17 01:18 PM
–

Sexual selection is a behavior that evolved to, well, select for certain traits that at the time were answering to evolutionary pressure. So, the definition of an evolutionary process. Nowadays, there are no evolutionary pressures on homo sapiens that require us to have bigger muscles, squarer jaws and "dominant" personalities that hinge on the others supplicating to that individual. In fact, nowadays, such traits are if anything harmful, because humanity spends way too much resources on lavishi…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/17 11:48 AM
1

Yeah, sry, I misread you, I think. I agree, of course, all of this is immensely complex. Still, my point stands.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/17 11:34 PM
6

My guess would be: Bullying => social recluse with the help of the internet => extreme resentment => etc. All of that being a vicious circle that's only possible with specific personality traits and maybe a specific cultural environment.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/17 11:28 PM
1

Very true, the_donald is just as full of it as the huffington post.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/17 11:06 PM
–

No, I do not at all think that. "Sexual selection is not evolutionary." is trivially false. Furthermore, you seem to have a fixed value structure in mind (i.e. you know what's "good" for humanity). And then you say that sexual selection isn't furthering your definition of good and therefore, it isn't evolutionary. I don't even see how one would come up with such an argument. All I said was that if you take evolutionary processes as the fundamental values, then trivially reproducing is valuable.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/17 10:57 PM
–

if it's appropriate Does this have any personal relevance to you? Because that would explain the reaction. I never stated that it is appropriate, I said when you do it, the OP's question is trivially true. And then I said: Otherwise it depends on your definition of value. Ok, you have a definition of value that is not grounded in a simple version of evolutionary theory. Now what do you want to debate? Shall I state my views? I didn't so far, but it seems like you think I did.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/17 08:00 PM
–

True, but the question was not about if that is the only value people have, but if it reflects on it and I'd say that's trivially true, at least in the sense that it's valuable, if you reproduce. Also, we're not ants.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/17 06:04 PM
–

That has to be one of the stupidest things I've read in a while, you seem to have no understanding of biology at all. Googling "Sexual selection is not evolutionary" gives this article, btw. There's great lectures by Robert Sapolsky on Youtube, educate yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/17 11:09 AM
–

Evolutionarily speaking, obviously yes. Otherwise it depends on your definition of value. The deep philosophical debate here is, if there is value that is not grounded in biology. For me this is an obvious no, but it's controversial.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/17 01:50 PM
1

Generally: Wikipedia But I would expand that by saying: Hypergamy is the tendency of women to be attracted to men that rank highly in a dominance hierarchy or across dominance hierarchies. Nothing wrong with it, that's just how it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/17 05:17 PM
1

This is basically CBT, tbh. It benefits a lot of people. ''Acknowledge the feeling and move beyond it.'' Not all of your feelings are helpful feelings. I've done this re: things I feel bad about many, many times. It's pretty healthy to be able to do this -- to contextualise your feelings, at least somewhat, in the grander scheme of things. Sure this probably helps to some extent, but it's quite obviously not like you can just fix all of the problems RP speaks about that way. As for getting fired…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/17 04:50 PM
–

There are no objective feelings associated with getting laid. Did I say that anywhere? What? Plenty people conscientious people know they did nothing wrong and still get fired. They might have a hard time but not for the reasons you imply. "generally speaking", also just an example to illustrate my point, which you seem to agree with. I can call them out on their actions, which are unacceptable. Sure, have fun. You won't change anything with your attitude though.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/17 11:30 AM
–

They don't think about how it might (maybe! just possibly!) be more of a deal to have your career progression impeded, to be hired/fired for your sexuality, to be poor etc. There are no objective feelings associated to these things. Conscientious people have a really hard time when they get fired (because they blame themselves), unconscientious people not so much (because they blame the system or something else), generally speaking. And of course there's always worse things, that doesn't invalid…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/17 11:08 AM
–

No you just made the same mistake again. People don't feel the same in the same situation. They have a lot of emotions on this topic, you don't even know how they act.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/17 11:02 AM
–

I say that as a career driven, divorced woman, "blue pill", or however would you call me. So you don't have the sex drive they have, you can't relate. "I know how I feel and I wouldn't act that way, therefore they make mistakes in how they structure their life." You will disagree with my paraphrasing, but I think this is essentially what RPers hear when they read this. What you're inferring from RP is that they act badly, because the feeling isn't bad. What I would infer is that they act in acco…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/17 10:32 AM
1

ok.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/17 11:49 PM
5

This is a different issue altogether and I'm not disagreeing. We don't go around teaching kids about how important it is to not kill people. Just to be pedantic, though: Parents do socialize their kids and that includes teaching not to kill.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/17 07:50 PM
–

The Stanford prison experiment is a good indicator of what people can potentially do, including this case I think. Disagreeing seems naive.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/17 07:34 PM
1

Again, this goes without saying. You say that as if it's all so obvious, but then you continue making claims completely ignoring the complexity. gender gap has been achieved in other STEM fields You know that you did things from which you expect that the gender gap in all stem fields would shrink. In the following years it did shrink for some of those fields. What have you proven? parity has been achieved in societies that don't ''gender'' the roles as heavily (Soviet Russia, China, Arab countri…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 11:51 AM
1

If a gap is created by nurture, it is likely to be corrected by social change. That is the exact point where I disagree, for large effects this seems like a very questionable claim. It's not imperative that laypeople understand everything and have access to all information, imo. To some extent I agree, but then again you basically demand that laypeople trust the scientists without question, which seems very problematic. Scientists are not inherently good, just like any other person. Okay. Look, …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 02:40 AM
2

I guess one could say finding an audience is part of being the hero.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 02:23 AM
1

So you argue from capitalism, I can understand that. There is just so much science that suggests otherwise If all of it is behind paywalls, how would anyone thats interested even know? The OP talks about ability not the actual gender gaps. What you're advocating is so bizarrely detached from reality -- 0 pragmatism. Where did I ever advocate for anything? What strawman are you construing here? I want to get closer to a good explanation of the society I live in. Never have I advocated any measure…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 02:21 AM
–

Well, conscientiousness has a strong genetic component iirc. But in general, to be attractive is to be the hero of the story. The hero is defined by what he does, not really his genetics. So by being the hero of your story you alter your SMV to a significant degree.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 02:12 AM
1

I already did. In a corporate context, you have more profit and greater innovation. I know, who cares. I've also mentioned several times, that this question is irrelevant to me. It can't be, you're strongly advocating for your conclusion. You're working with the ideological presuppositions of feminism. Read the OP. It's a meta-analysis of several that have managed to measure this on various axes and have reached this conclusion, lol. What I'm saying is there's no universal nature/nurture scale, …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 02:01 AM
1

The culture changes rapidly != the culture can be rapidly changed in a specific direction But let's get to the, in my opinion, crucial issue: Why is gender disparity bad? Can you give me an objective non-ideological reason why a culture where there is exact equality in all professions (why do you keep focussing on engineering and IT?) is "better" than our current situation? more rooted in nurture than nature How would you even measure that? This is a stupid argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 01:42 AM
1

Your hypothesis seems to be rooted in natural ability/difference in inclination between the sexes, though -- on a gender role that is natural. That's where I disagree and that's where I think looking at cross-cultural differences can help illuminate that these inclinations are not ''natural'' but cultured into us, to a great extent. No, I am saying you can't make that distinction. There's way too many interactions between "nature" and "nurture". What I mostly disagree with is the notion that cul…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 01:31 AM
1

Your hypothesis doesn't explain significant cross-cultural differences: Again, it's a complex issue, those cultures differ in so many more areas, it's stupid to compare them on a single variable. analyses of why Arab countries and India have a higher % of women participating in IT and engineering I'd be interested, but "behind a paywall" can't really convince me. not ability based I did not say a single thing about ability. Not once in this whole argument. It's not ''STEM'' as a whole, as I said…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 01:13 AM
1

Okay. I just think ''affirmative action'' isn't a great example because it happens so rarely. I was trying to make deeper point about the complexity of the issue, but maybe that's too much besides the point. It's mostly in engineering and tech that you see those huge gaps and imo, that's because those fields are poorly marketed to women. Given my limited knowledge of the relevant fields, I think this is much more due to a general biological tendency for men to favor working with things and for w…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 12:41 AM
1

Yes. Did you see the part where I said I'd link you to something more academic (read: serious, reliable), but you would be unable to see it because (like much serious research!) it'd be behind a pay wall. Yeah, I saw that part, you still linked it as a study instead of saying it's all behind a paywall. I'm not talking about affirmative action, I'm talking about shifts in culture. Affirmative action tends to have a marginal impact at best -- this has also been researched (see South Africa as a ca…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 12:26 AM
1

See, you answered one of those six questions with "for corporations, yes". I'd be more concerned about the people. Btw, did you read your source? It's hard to call that a study. It's marketing. The essential part offers no more information than "we analysed super much and we concluded diversity is key!" If you have a subscription to group of journals Sadly, no. or maybe try and find a source that shows that the consequences will bad ''bad'' My point is that you dont know the exact consequences, …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 11:37 PM
1

I did it in the first instance to illustrate how the findings of the study might play out in a real world scenario. In the second instance, there was no point. I was speculating abt why boys are worse at verbal reasoning and mentioned that I had not read very much in the area, but here are my suspicions based on my experiences. Again, there was no point. No argument was being made. You asked what I thought, I answered. I would disagree, but whatever, it's not important. men and women in those ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 10:46 PM
1

You don't think this could be a gender role? Of course it's a gender role. What we're debating is why gender roles exist and if one can change them. Btw the "we should change them" seems always implied, but I can rarely see how one knows that it's better if we change them. Do you think teachers (or more generally society) discourage young girls from metal work and welding (and similar occupations) so much such that almost none of them do it? Dude, they're not data points. I'm explaining why I th…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 10:28 PM
1

Agreed on all fronts. There is a talk of hers on YouTube where she explains greater male variance found on several cognitive abilities. Thanks, I'll watch that.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 01:42 PM
–

Very valid. Cronin seems to be on the exact opposite side of things anyway, Baron-Cohen is more reserved. In general, however, it seems to me that nativism is established, and then it would be weird if there were absolutely no sex differences, what and where those are is up to debate, of course.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 01:16 PM
–

Yep, to some extent, at least. Well, to what extent? Is it a major factor or a minor factor? There's 0% women for metal workers and welders. I remember this being a thing when I was young and having spoken to my brother about it, he feels like he was always pushed toward the sciences & computing, even though he had 0 interest in either (dude loves maths, though). Again, your anecdotes don't tell us anything. Is it because you took everything with a grain of salt? I don't think social psychology …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 01:12 PM
–

That was intended as an anecdote to back up the study, not as a data point. If it is intended to back up the study, it has to be a data point, otherwise it is useless. There's a lot more research in this area, I suggest you take a look if you're curious. The amount of published papers in social psychology is huge. I already took a look some time ago, but the only conclusion I was rather sure about was that everything the field produces should be taken with a grain of salt. I didn't find anything…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 12:06 PM
–

Ok, I'm open to having my mind changed here, but that's one study and I can't check the methodology, because I'm not going to pay for it. Furthermore, you believing that you studied law partially because of a belief of yours doesn't even give a data point. From a scientific point of view you don't know why you studied law, not at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 11:27 AM
–

Your flair seems quite fitting.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 11:12 PM
–

people who claim large psychological sex differences exist He doesn't claim that as far as I can see. One can accept the analysis in the OP and still claim that gender differences in STEM are due to differences in interest, which again can have partly biological reasons. The usual feminist stance is that women are told they are bad at STEM and therefore don't do it, but I see no evidence for this.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 05:28 PM
–

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUyXI6XwEsE](Helena Cronin & Simon Baron-Cohen talking about exactly these issues, even referencing Hyde) Just for anyone interested.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 04:35 PM
3

Men are held to a more rigid definition of masculinity and what being a man is Women's mate choices define this. Men being domestically abused, suffering from depression and holding back feelings because they feel like they are not doing to be "real men" Same as above. Basically evolutionary reasons. There is less help for homeless men who are struggling, women have a priority over them Evolutionary reasons. Female to male sexual assault is seen as trivial and sometimes joked about, this goes fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/17 07:14 PM
1

It's the same thing as with crazy feminists. "Everything bad that happens is the fault of our evil culture!" They look for an explanation for why things went wrong in their lives and take the next best thing. It's stupid and ungrateful. (Of course there's RP men that don't do this.)
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/17 04:27 PM
–

I'm not saying generalizations make no sense or have no value, but one has to be careful. What definitely doesn't make sense is RPers changing genders in stories or analogies.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/17 08:55 PM
4

Exactly. Maybe I should have added that to the OP, but I'd like people to discuss the underlying point, if they disagree with it. If they don't, however, how can they disagree with Atlas' analogy?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/17 08:44 PM
3

relevant thread This is mostly a generalization of the issues you'll read in that thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/17 08:36 PM
–

Wow, there's actually RP men arguing against this. Like, isn't that exactly the behaviour they ascribe to women, only being able to see the world from their perspective and rationalizing away any objectivity? Can some RP man explain all of this to me?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/17 06:16 PM
4

So you believe in a simple theory of a very complex phenomenon without having evidence. Good luck.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 06:36 PM
2

Saying determinism implies no control over your life just shows poor understanding of determinism.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/17 03:46 PM
–

Then, it becomes "people aren't as good as you think they are", which is just a general life lesson, isn't it? Maybe this is the point of AWALT for you, a sort of cautionary tale for naive people, but I've certainly had other impressions of what AWALT means to RP.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/17 03:07 PM
–

...and yet another definition of AWALT. Again, I see no evidence at all, that this a good heuristic to apply to women or that men do it any less.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/17 11:05 AM
–

Make that 9 nights out of 10 if that meets your personal statistical threshold. That doesn't make your example any better. The corresponding "crime rate" for divorce and divorce rape is 50%. Divorce is a complicated thing, you can't just say the man is never at fault and the only solution is to not get married.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/17 11:03 AM
1

I didn't say any of that........... All of my comments in this thread should make my point pretty clear. I'm done trying to explain it to someone who seems to be willfully misrepresenting me.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/17 11:01 AM
–

My point is that from a pragmatic viewpoint, i.e. looking for a good heuristic, those minor differences have little explanatory power. I'm very well aware what the statistics say, if they are accurate is another question and rand_redditor2 put the IQ graph in the OP in question.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 09:55 PM
–

Are you saying that everyone's actually pretty average? Basically, yeah, but also that the only differences there are from a pragmatic viewpoint are individual, not gender. And then it makes no sense to speak of AWALT, at least from a personality perspective, because the differences between two random women is about the same as the difference between a random woman and a random man. Yep, but the chances for the highest intelligence being male would be greater then 50%. I'd refer to rand_redditor…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 09:29 PM
2

Thank you very much, very informative!
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 09:08 PM
–

No, I wasn't talking about skewness or kurtosis. My examples should give a decent indication of what the OP is about. if you randomly pick ten men and ten women and have to pick the smartest person in the group of 20, chances are he'll be male. If you just take 20 people, I don't think the chances are deviating much from 50%.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 08:33 PM
–

the average level of Nobel laureates intelligence is thought to be around 145 Really? I would have guessed that to be much higher, like 160+, precisely because there should be quite a lot of people with around IQ 145.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 08:30 PM
3

Ok, that is at least reasoning from personal experience, I can respect that. You're not stupid, we blind ourselves, we interpret things differently to conform to what makes sense. Sure, no one is exempt. I try to eliminate any ideology from my thinking, but the only way to do this is via objective evidence. With feminist/bp beliefs, I'd often be confused about why women act or said in various ways. Reading up on objective psychology (i.e. psychometrics) helped tremendously here for me. With TRP …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 08:22 PM
–

First off, I'm not some omega that has never seen a woman. What you're telling me is that I'm too stupid to see "their true side". Why do you have all the wisdom? How do you do it? Secondly, you never give any evidence. None at all. You yourself said that you like and value intellectual discussion. But intellectual discussion is based on objective facts, it's not just dreaming around. To describe anything you write as "intellectual" seems ridiculous in this light. What you're basically doing her…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 07:36 PM
–

Very fair point, but I already mentioned in the OP that I'm not at all sure about the graph from a scientific perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 07:28 PM
–

AWALT is insurance. Like not going into a rough neighborhood at night. I think I could maybe get behind this, but your example has problems. You could go there 6 nights out of 7 and not get mugged, but one unlucky night, you could end up mugged or worse. If a statistic shows that the probability to get mugged is 14%, then I'm not going there. So statistics wouldn't say that it's ok to move there at all. Same with women. Only an idiot would trust a graduate of modern feminism with the power to ru…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 06:00 PM
2

Well, you can argue both ways. Either "yeah sure, it's just fair and they have no logical way to disprove it" or "well, no, because then you're just as bad as the one you're arguing against". I prefer the second one.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 05:42 PM
–

If it's a general heuristic, then we're just going to keep going in circles. I'm all for good heuristics - they generally have a at least some truth in their core. However, for measurable personality traits I don't see a proper basis for such a strong heuristic. That doesn't mean that things like Briffault's law for example aren't useful to keep in mind. But yeah, one cannot really discuss these things on vague definitions.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 05:04 PM
–

Yeah, sorry, I'm not perfectly informed what AWALT is exactly. But every RPer seems to have his own definition. I don't want to argue that they're all absolutely false. As an example, I had the discussion before in which it was claimed that all women are solipsistic, men are not. This would be one I see no evidence for.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 04:22 PM
–

Yeah that's why the whole TRP rhetoric is misogynistic in nature. Well, I think you'd have to show malevolence, too, right? Otherwise those are just (probably) wrong beliefs. Everyone has those. Also, you are overgeneralizing RP the same way you complain that they overgeneralize women right now.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 04:18 PM
–

Without a peer reviewed official Science! (tm) study to tell them what to think they can't think. Are you actually insinuating that just by thinking you can come up with a proper theory of all 7 billion people on this earth? And everyone who doubts this is an autist?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 04:14 PM
1

so are you saying that 63% of men who are agreeable are doing it for self serving purposes? I don't even know what you're asking. I didn't say anything about anyone doing something. study suggestion.. have mixed sexes take a machiavellian test.. then ask whose read machiavelli. Horrible study.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 11:35 AM
2

Tests like what 16personalities.com has are quite useful. Not perfect, but, reliable enough to be meaningful and useful. No, I meant you can't measure the "masculinity/femininity" of a MBTI type. About solipsism: Thanks for the explanantion. My problem with it is this: Differences in personality lead to different ways of perceiving the world and that is also what is described here, a different way of perceiving the world. But generally individual differences in personality are much greater than …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 01:37 AM
2

Are you familiar with MBTI? It is based on what mental processes people like to use to function. These are all processes both men and women have, but some personality types are more masculine or feminine than others. Sure, I agree, although there's no simple scale to measure this. Solipsism, Hypergamy, Machiavellianism, Immaturity. Now, here TRP gets completely ridiculous imo. I fail to see how solipsism is gendered (unless I'm misunderstanding this, there's a philosophical stance with that name…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 12:25 AM
2

Do you believe masculinity and femininity are real? If so, how do you define them? Yeah, sure, as a collection of traits. I think mythology is a good place to search for their nature. The interesting point is if there are "mental" traits that are exclusive to females or males and what extent do they have. Are you male or female? male. I wouldn't necessarily say anything is exclusive, but for example, a woman genuinely enjoying violence and destruction is rare. Why? If you disagree, where do you …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/17 11:08 PM
–

No, you are just making up a whole theory without any evidence. the drive for achievement can be developed and learned How do you know that?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/17 08:51 PM
–

I would have thought you might be largely in agreement with Camille Paglia. But considering the extremity of your position I'm not quite sure. You are overgeneralizing way too much. Just because there are maybe gender differences in the mean (for some of the traits you list I'm not even sure), doesn't mean that there are no women at all that have a supposedly "masculine" trait. The overlap is generally huge, just at the extremes the differences increase. Statistics, the Bell curve, etc. this sho…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/17 08:22 PM
–

there are no intellectual women That is so wrong, how can you seriously believe this? There's even intellectual women arguing for "your" (more general) case.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/17 07:13 PM
2

Personally, I think most of it is pseudoscience due to irreplicable nature of the study. I never criticized the utility of the endeavor itself. Those seem to be contradicting sentences to me, but maybe that's just me. I do, however, believe that vast majority of social sciences (economics, political science, etc) are far better developed and utilize much more concrete bits of evidence as opposed to Evo-psych. Yeah, you claimed that already. But so far you have not given argument or evidence for …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/17 05:25 PM
1

Well that worked fine for me, my whole life and also a looooooot of people I know. Better than some naive people who claim that they have be lied to their whole life. Congratulations. Some people here keep refering to evolution while at the same time they keep complaining about the way women behave. If evolution is overshadowing everything we do, then we should accept that women behave the way they do because of evolution. End of the story. Absolutely, I'm not one of those people. Where is this …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 11:37 AM
1

But unfortunately, some TRPers use a very reductivist, simplistic, prescriptivist version of evopsych that treats variation as nonexisted Agreed, but some TRPers at least here understand that I think. conformity with norms as morally ordained by biology, and evolutionary imperatives as overriding free will Now here it gets complicated. Of course the theory doesn't do anything normative, but one can surely ask how norms form and that will involve the psychology of the people that create them. Fur…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 09:13 AM
2

I gave a wide range of behaviors which evopsych fails to explain and could not predict, and argued that it is remarkably inconsistent. Do you have any understanding of scientific theories? Evopsych doesn't predict the things you think it predicts. You can't just say a theory is wrong because it doesn't account for everything. Not even physical theories manage that. And as I argued you only think it is "remarkably inconsistent" because you don't understand what it says.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 08:03 PM
1

Ok, you're not actually debating anything here. You have not presented any argument against stances where TRP and evolutionary psychology agree. You just said that evolutionary psychology can't explain everything, which no one claimed in the first place. And you seem to say that TRP forgets other cultures. But you'd have to also criticise evolutionary psychology as a scientific field for that to matter, because we are talking about things evopsych and TRP agree upon. Maybe you just want to say t…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 07:38 PM
2

I presented a variety of behaviors that cannot be explained by evopsych. No one, absolutely no one disagrees that there are behaviours that are not (or not directly) accounted for. This comment chain was about something else at the beginning. evopsych as it is most commonly discussed in places like reddit and TRP is eurocentric. Well, maybe. I don't think anyone would claim that unscientific places make good scientific claims. Also most users are from the USA and europe, so in total that would b…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 07:18 PM
–

where we behave in evolutionally aberrant ways What would that even be? You seem to think that evolutionary theory prescribes a certain way to act/live and humans don't adhere to it. But that is nonsense, scientific theories are not normative. The just try to explain what we see. So if we act some way, then this can't be evolutionarily aberrant. And then I don't know what "unevenly applying" means, either.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 06:53 PM
–

animals do x, therefor we do as well This is obviously wrong and neither what OP is saying nor what evopsych is saying. What are you even arguing against?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 06:32 PM
–

The motivational system that makes you eat is interacting with a lot of other systems in your brain. Maybe most animals can't intentionally deprive themselves, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural for us given specific circumstances. And that doesn't mean that evopsych is wrong, because the system you have that makes you hungry evolved from the system that animals have for it. So there probably are similarities, but no one is questioning that humans are more complex. Also one should probably d…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 06:08 PM
–

You state a lot of things that people do and you imply that it can't be just biological/genetic. But you offer no explanations to anything. Evopsych doesn't say it's just genes. There's always a complex interplay between the environment and genetic material. And evopsych tries to explain human phenomena, which is does quite well (to some extent). That doesn't mean those things are always simple. if we ate the way our genes dictate in our current food climate we'd all be 500 lbs This for example …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 05:48 PM
1

What I wanted to get at is that it's complicated, far more complicated than someone who thinks of a solution can comprehend. There's philosophical problems of what constitutes "good" and "well-being". Then you have to put your solution in action and measure markers of "well-being". How do you know your measure is good enough? How big is the measurement error? Did you forget something? Are all good things correlated with each other? (Probably not) How do you decide what is more important? etc. et…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 05:30 PM
–

How do you know when you've got a better solution?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 05:12 PM
2

Very few people make the effort to read up on this stuff (and it is hard and good textbooks are expensive). Further, even though I absolutely don't know enough about the specifics, I am pretty sure that RP gets a lot of them quite wrong. And I think a lot of people here are here to discuss the specifics, where there's no clear interpretation of evopsych (or other) data. Other than that, I agree, the basics (roughly) seem undeniable. But then again, we could also discuss Foucault.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 04:57 PM
8

Found no better way to try to shame? What you're describing is exactly what hypergamy (although not exactly with SMV) predicts, therefore making it real, not the opposite.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/17 03:02 AM
–

Ok, so I agree with all of this up to a point. Social and cultural aspects aside, this is too simple of an account of evolutionary psychology. Humans are peculiar, because offspring is born incredibly immature (most mammals can walk right off the bat, for example). Consequently, males are very maternal. So it's too simple to say men want to impregnate as many women as possible and women want the best genes as possible. Women absolutely have to have interest in "a good father" to some extent. Wha…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/17 01:15 AM
–

Women being hypergamous is more documented I think. Sources for men being naturally polygynous would be interesting. I'm sadly by far not as well read as I'd like to be on this topic. The two concepts surely aren't two sides of the same coin, though. I don't understand the intent of your second sentence.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/17 12:11 AM
2

I thought that's something one does, not something to believe in. Still, that doesn't help me identify your point. Biological differences - true, RP - mostly true, RP talking about biological differences - false?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/17 11:04 PM
–

Well, your flair is red, so this is confusing. You actually disagree with RP and social constructionists? And you say that biology is important, but it doesn't lead to the conclusions that RP is making? How do you want to make that argument about basic RP claims? I mean, I could get behind that, but right now I'm mostly just confused what you're trying to say.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/17 10:59 PM
–

That runs counter to everything in RP and probably most of biology as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/17 10:48 PM
–

Hypergamy applies to women. If you mean "polygyny" (is there a word that is not about marriage?), then I don't think there is conclusive evidence that human males are naturally like that. So if RP believes that, then that particular believe doesn't seem to be grounded in biology.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/17 10:44 PM
1

Yeah, that would have been a better way to make my point, thanks for clarifying!
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 04:12 PM
–

Fair enough!
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 03:57 PM
–

As long as he hits her minimum requirement of attractiveness, being hot has diminishing returns on the actual sexual satisfaction she's getting. That I fully believe and would really be interested if someone can give a good argument why that would not be the case. However, this doesn't yet imply that "skill" is the important remaining factor. Maybe we use different definitions here, but it surely sounds "mechanical" and "procedural". Sex is a very complex emotional process on a neurological leve…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 03:49 PM
9

Yeah, if a man wants a woman with a womb, he should have one himself!
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 01:41 PM
2

--most men never get to fuck a Stacy, and have no chance of EVER fucking a Stacy. Most women get to fuck a Chad. Even if she doesn't fuck a Chad by choice, she has had a chance to, and knows that she could if she wanted to. This seems to pop up a lot. Even if that would be true, that is a horrible comparison: If women and men differ fundamentally in the sexual realm, then "getting to fuck chad" and "getting to fuck stacy" mean completely different things to those women and men. Also why would a …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 09:21 PM
–

I don't know about enjoy the decline, haven't read that much RP. In the above analogy RP would be counteracting the inequality and therefore work against the decline, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 11:36 AM
–

Pretty much everything male related is uneven at the extremes such as wealth and IQ. These distributions are quite different, though. Wealth is Pareto-distributed. The mean of the (Gaussian) IQ distribution shows no gender differences, but many people believe the male IQ curve to be slightly flatter. Agreeableness, however, has an actual difference in the mean between the genders.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 06:10 PM
–

I think Peterson's point is that inequality increases and therefore, the possibilities to adjust become less and less, and the amount of men that perceive no way of improving their situation (and might actually have none) grow in numbers. In a way the forest gets drier and drier and at some point there's a wildfire, which is a worrying analogy. I'm not too sure how one would locate RP in that whole thing, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 05:58 PM
–

Only some men. Some men get more aggressive. (Ironically, this results in more sexual success.) Most men withdraw and give up. Do they though? At least from an evolutionary perspective this would be weird behaviour, but of course humans are complicated and all that.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 05:48 PM
5

There is no global environment in which those two types of men are compared. In their local environment, however, druggies presumably have high enough status to attract the women they attract, but I'm not too sure what status exactly is in which environment. Also, having money due to STEM doesn't necessarily equal having high status.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 04:50 PM
1

I am not doubting such an experience at all, but not everyone is just like you. Also "being social" is different from extraversion. I think, what you're saying is: working on your social skills has generally beneficial effects and should be recommended. And I don't think anyone disagrees with you there. How easy this is for people and how beneficial the effects, you just can't know from personal experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 04:23 PM
1

I don't know how you can be so sure that this is how it works. But even if it's true, people just don't have the time and energy to do something that they don't want to do, especially not 10000 hours. So I don't think your proposed solution is any help to introverted people.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 04:07 PM
–

This is not at all about myself, I'm just fine. I was objecting to the notion that makeup is attractive in any meaningful general way. Also "extroverts are just introverts wearing a mask" is just blatanly false.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 01:31 PM
–

I agree, but you still have to have connections and extraversion. Also if the scene is arbitrary, then this has nothing to do with makeup.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 01:20 PM
–

This is not generalizable, maybe something like this applies to some people somewhere, but guys cannot just enter a scene unless they like the scene, have connections and are sufficiently extroverted. Also, I would suspect that the attractiveness boost from makeup in that case mostly stems from breaking the norms of the more general culture, which is a very masculine thing to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 12:35 PM
1

These are indeed great lectures, especially towards the end imo. But you are just making stuff up here. Humans as a species are neither purely pair-bonding or purely tournament, but rather somewhere in between, as they show traits associated with both classifications. That does not mean that individuals fall into different places on a spectrum between the two concepts. Especially, it doesn't imply the existence of "tournament women", whatever that is supposed to be. You can make these hypotheses…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/17 03:00 AM
1

I guess it’s time for me to start posting here. This question is central to most disagreements here, I believe. First, what are gender roles? Wikipedia tells me: "A gender role is a set of societal norms dictating the types of behaviors which are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people based on their actual or perceived sex or sexuality." So, the way people act in their societal environment based on their sex. How do we know a specific action was solely based on the…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/17 03:27 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter