TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

rand_redditor2 Archive

View 0 posts and 298 comments by rand_redditor2 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Part 2 Not twin studies, I don't think, but there's a lot of data here - primarily dredged up by Rushton and Jensen to respond to Nisbett's criticisms. https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOPSYJ/TOPSYJ-3-9.pdf#page=18 Yeah there's the Minnesota transracial adoption study. I have read some criticism of it recently by another Reddit user in one of the many r/changemyview threads on race and IQ here His arguments: (a) the children with two black parents were adopted substantially later than the ot…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/17 09:23 PM
1

Part 1 While that argument isn't bad, I don't really see why intelligence is special in that way, or why the characteristic that we call "intelligence" as expressed by a species' genes, can't or won't evolve as fast as physical characteristics that we are comfortable with "fast" evolution of. Bit beyond my level of expertise but I did find the reasoning in that slatestarcodex comment I linked above quite convincing For one thing, if you look at evolutionary history, the rate of intelligence incr…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/17 09:23 PM
3

I still look down on those CEOs that will teach them I would argue that our society does in general punish behaviour regarded as immoral but when you're clever and not too obvious it can still gain you an advantage
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/17 05:01 PM
3

apparently they do not care about them in any sense that would make them want to preserve their lives are we going the individualist route here where the only valid argument against anything is that it doesn't benefit yourself? This idea itself can be criticised. And it can be argued that adhering to morality is in some sense beneficial to society as a whole and thus to the individual as well
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/17 02:21 PM
4

because most humans extend their sympathy to more people than just themselves and this is seen as commendable in society thus we do look down on people who are willing to hurt others to achieve their own goals it's like saying why should terrorists care when they kill people if it helps them achieve something. They have decided not to care but I can dislike them for that
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/17 02:08 PM
3

How does that work as an argument? This isn't about whether people do care but whether they should. If chess theory was immoral perhaps chess players should care Of course for many the end justifies the means but that mindset can be criticised
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/17 02:04 PM
1

But they've tried "culture-loaded" tests via Raven's Progressive Matrices, which are our best attempt yet to produce a "bias free" test. The Raven's matrices is the opposite of a culture-loaded test and it's worth noting that it's almost certainly overestimated as a measure of fluid intelligence. Although of course this doesn't mean gaps in matrices scores are entirely meaningless even if they must not necessarily represent gaps in measures of g https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282711615…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/17 11:25 PM
2

Reply got too long because of all my book quoting. Had to split it in two That is usually the argument, yes, which is deliciously ironic, since it puts leftists on the defensive of an argument they usually find themselves chastising those dumb Christians for. Evolution for the human species obviously started long before leaving Africa. To suggest that no major changes would have occured in the last 50.000 to 100.000 years is certainly not akin to denying evolution alltogether Agriculture allowed…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/17 11:25 PM
2

That's not really a definitive rebuttal nor does it intend to be. I'm not exactly a proponent of HBD but to be fair to them HBDers look at traits and behaviours that on the individual level are known to be heritable to some degree (through twin studies, adoption studies, GWAS), then look for disparities along racial lines. From that they start making predictions on whether specific outcomes have anything to do with group averages on a variety of measures. Or IQ. Mainly IQ actually Should be poin…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/17 09:46 PM
1

Not because I want to, but because I don't see how you can have an understanding of how evolution works, and deny it. I'm mostly an agnostic on HBD myself but isn't the usual argument here that the comparatively short period of time since humans first left Africa and our seperation into races began shouldn't be enough for large disparities in IQ and many other traits to evolve? I have seen HBDers speculate that evolution must have "sped up" in the last 10.000 years but I still found the followin…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/17 09:19 PM
1

"white people made everything terrible for everyone except white people and now their descendants must pay" narrative is considerably weaker than the people screaming it from the rooftops realize I agree and even if it was true (that white people are responsible for everything terrible) "their descendants must pay the price for it" does not logically follow. I have to ask which reality you are firmly convinced by though and whether we are talking about the same rabbit hole i.e. HBD/race and inte…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/17 08:14 PM
1

The claim is that there is no natural "gender binary." You can't biologically categorize people neatly as either "male" or "female." The "gender binary" has been "long debunked" by "mountains of evidence" and a huge "body of literature" in the humanities and social sciences and even the biological sciences for decades. The only claim that could be made here is that for most measures there is more variance within than between genders. Apparently you cannot accurately categorize a brain as either …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/17 09:28 AM
3

Also, do you have any similar gems regarding race? I find that issue just as hard to disentangle. lol. This is going down a rabbit hole
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/17 08:59 AM
1

It obscures the class war thus prolonging the dictatorship of the filthy bourgeoisie you know also though I'm not an MRA there are certainly problems with how feminists have dealt with legitimate men's rights issues
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/17 02:10 PM
2

People dislike being grouped Well we are all individuals in the end. Differences between genders tend to not be absolutes for the most part. If men ever claim to know what a woman is like, they cry out. If women claim to know what men are like, it's the same. Many can no agree that the opposite sex may know more about them than they like Not sure if that's a trend I've ever noticed. Male judgements of women and female judgements of men aren't usually that superior on purple pill debate at least.…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 10:01 PM
2

The acceptance of differences allows us to define them. Of course but the notion "men are better at being men and women better at being women" only asserts that there are differences. That's a fact most people here will not dispute but it's also pretty meaningless without defining what those differences actually are. And it's only once you have defined them that debates occur cause while everybody here believes men and women are different somehow most seem to disagree just how they are different…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 09:42 PM
2

To assert it is also meaningless unless you more properly define what "being a man" or "being a woman" means and what strengths and weaknesses are associated with each. Once you have done that we can debate
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 08:14 PM
2

Christopher Hitchens was quite funny for sure
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 12:34 PM
2

Men are inferior at being women, women inferior at being men I mean unless we believe that men and women are 100% the same for literally every trait that follows kind of by definition
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/17 09:21 AM
2

Maybe if the cybernetic augmentation can give women the ability to have deep analytical logic what makes you think they don't have this ability? Men and women use different pathways but still can arrive at the same solution this is true but for most cognitive abilities there is little difference in performance for some reason
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 12:18 AM
2

You got research to back that up? Imngenuinely curious, as this hasn't been my experience. Well it's always difficult to find out what is "hardwired" and what is the result of social conditioning. Sex differences in interest are pretty well established though. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140 There is one quite famous study suggesting even for infants females are more interested in people/males in things https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Differences_in_Human_Neon…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 12:16 AM
3

is there affirmative action for women in American medical schools? Genuine question
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/17 09:30 PM
4

Unless you have a stronger correlation for the IQ gap, that argument falls flat on its face. First of all I'm not an expert on this topic, just interested. Still one recent finding I wanted to share here. Perhaps you can provide an explanation or if not it's an interesting point to add to this discussion. One of the arguments used by Jensen, Rushton and other racialist scientists has always been, that the higher a certain test correlates with general intelligence (underlying factor for IQ) the b…
/r/PussyPass08/03/17 12:49 AM
1

figured something like that. Usually it reads terp though so I assumed "twerp" was somehow thought to be more insulting
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/17 08:00 AM
1

Thanks that was a very interesting lecture. Absolutely agree that differences in personality traits play a huge role here. I was mainly focusing on intelligence in my post because some people - Milo Yiannopoulos for instance - jump to hasty conclusions such as different IQ distributions explain why more men are in chess but also why there are more in prison. That's just debunked rather easily because the numbers do not add up well (if the difference even exists cross culturally that is) Some min…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/17 09:11 PM
2

Feminists love to minimize or even sometimes outright ignore biological differences between the sexes Alright they do. Though with a few exceptions most everyone will admit women are physically weaker than men, even feminists BIOLOGY doesn't care about your extremist nurture over nature bullshit marxist ideology critical theory isn't even real Marxism bru Its almost as if the human female body is HIGHLY SPECIALIZED towards pregnancy and men's Bodies are highly specialized towards ... hunting? Ob…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/17 09:26 AM
3

I like to argue using memes
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/17 08:46 PM
1

Unless your definition of importance is literally about being integral to the survival of the species we cannot say that. Had Einstein died bevor his contributions to science humanity would likely still be here. By your definition he was not important
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/17 06:01 PM
1

I agree with all of that. When I said criminals I was really talking about the prison population. If you've not watched Layer Cake I haven't actually. Might do so now that you've recommended it to me
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/17 03:40 PM
1

I mean there is a difference between retards who steal from retail and actual retarded people. But point taken. Still criminal mean IQ isn't far below the national average
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/17 02:05 PM
1

As we already know, men are much more likely to have both genius and retard level IQs, while women are more likely to stick nearer to the average. So it goes both ways. Hope noone gets tired of me always arguing this but I feel the explanatory power of this phenomenon (which isn't consistent either) gets overstated A variance ratio of 1.05-1.20 will have consequences at the highest and lowest end of intellect but surely not to the point that we have witnessed in history. If we define genius as 4…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/17 09:39 AM
2

Which is nothing more than, women should be able to do what they please without consequences. That's no structure. That's no solution. It doesn't define anything in a concrete usable way. Clearly this is achieved in large part. Current feminism seems mostly concerned with getting women into positions of power wherever they are underrepresented relative to men. That's a clear goal they are working towards even when its execution must not necessarily be considered fair or just. Gender makes femini…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/17 09:18 AM
3

Certainly. It's the lazy attempt to give everything one doesn't like a label that has been deemed unacceptable in society which is annoying. Discussions aren't about the merits and issues of civic nationalism because we are arguing that these nationalists are all fascists instead
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 11:55 PM
0

Feminism doesn't have a different one. Certainly it does. Feminism has an idea entirely different from yours of how society should be structured - either in regards to gender or as a whole - and how men and women would behave in this desired society. Else we wouldn't be having discussions like these The entire idea that men and women are mostly the same stems from an anti-intellectual position to begin with. Anti-intellectual position in the sense that it denies science? The idea that difference…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 11:51 PM
3

Nobody bothers to do actual criticism anymore unfortunately. Everyone resorts to name calling
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 11:09 PM
1

Alas this is your idea of which characteristics men and women should exhibit and how they should live. Unless you can prove it is superior can't blame feminism for having a different one.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 11:08 PM
2

it's fine Your posts always confuse me at first because I take the BP to mean blue pill for some reason
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 06:21 PM
2

will give you that. Though not for all women and even if it was not something I personally hate women for
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 05:59 PM
5

Not so if you don't have standards yourself
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 05:48 PM
1

although looking at Internet gatherings of misogynists such as many parts of the manosphere likely distorts the ratio of actual misogynists found in the general population
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 03:41 PM
5

I disagree, misogyny is actually irrational unless you hate women for some thing that is in fact inherent to all women. Usually not the case
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 03:36 PM
6

Well I would say what is bad about it is that hating anyone is bad...it's based on prejudice and ignorance. even hating someone based on their individual actions and or beliefs? I think that should be okay actually
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/17 03:22 PM
2

maleness will probably need to be mitigated somehow. This will probably be through virtual competition or torturing virtual bodies somehow. If that's not enough, it'll have to be chemical. You should write a dystopian novel
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/17 09:15 AM
1

I'm not sure if this really is the telos of all leftist ideologies. Else you might as well say an ethnostate is the ultimate goal for everyone on the right. Both are an extreme position within their respective political wings Will technology make it somehow easier for this dream to exist I would think so. At least parts of it ...
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/17 09:13 AM
1

Only the jewish half
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 05:18 PM
2

Ok perhaps some people find even this suggestion to be politically incorrect, wouldn't put it past them. The real issue and scientific controversy is about the cause of IQ differences between ethnicities though
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/17 11:06 PM
4

However, after a few centuries we will have serous issues unless we figure something out. in a few centuries humanity will either have ceased to exist or something like genome editing/embryo selection or AI will be widespread enough that we won't have to worry about smart people not reproducing
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/17 10:21 PM
2

Ya know most people don't take issue with the fact that average IQ is lower in most third world countries. The controversial idea is that their lower IQ is a result of inferior genetics for intelligence which is a theory espoused by some fucking racists like Lynn and Rushton but also some probably well-meaning scientists like Jensen and Gottfriedson Also: IQ researchers have found out that in modern societies, IQ has constantly risen over the last decades - i.e. someone who would have achieved a…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/17 09:41 PM
1

You are right, there is no evidence that I'm Aware of that the highest SAT scores actually are indicative of a very high IQ . It should be noted though there is some evidence they have predictive validity There is little evidence that those scoring in the very top of the range in standardized tests are likely to have more successful careers in science education.… And We are concerned by the suggestion that the status quo for women in science may be natural, inevitable, and unrelated to social fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/17 09:23 PM
1

I'm not talking about comparative to GPA. I'm talking about as an IQ test. At the top-end of the bell curve, a general test isn't going to be sensitive enough. SAT scores of both high and low ability subjects had equivalent correlation with g. g is short for general intelligence which is the underlying ability in IQ tests and for cognitive tasks in general. You can imagine it like this with g influencing all those other abilities to a degree That basically means that high SAT scores predicted hi…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/17 04:07 PM
1

What you say about the SAT is correct, they do correlate decently. But they only do so accurately for average scores. This piece seems to suggest otherwise i.e. equivalent g loading for high and low ability subjects whereas GPA prediction actually works better for high ability. I mean, the test that Mensa administers can't accurately detect anything above 160 -- how the fuck is the SAT supposed to do this? While this is true no one claims the SAT can do that either. Most people who do attempt to…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/17 02:49 PM
1

That data is from the 1930s-1940s. It is no longer accurate (women have closed the gap significantly). Was recreated in more modern samples http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000709905X50906/abstract;jsessionid=311BF15DC364DD35F7113BD1239A6668.f02t03 it's not just Romania yup there are others showing a different pattern However, the M:F ratio was only 0.91 for Asian-Americans, that is, more girls than boys scored above the 99th percentile. The Asian sample consisted of 219 people only ht…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/17 09:48 AM
1

Until you get to 160 plus, which is a tiiinyyy portion of the population, it's fairly even. 145 is where people start to be considered 'geniuses'. That's not really true. Differences at the high end aren't as profound as people like to claim but they do appear before that. See p525 here. I agree that this does not explain STEM disparity though For example, for d = 0.01 and variance ratio = 1.05(values similar to those shown in Table2), the ratio of males to females above the 95 percentile should…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/17 03:15 AM
1

It's because IQ correlates a lot with various social outcomes. Simple as that. Don't wanna dig up references here so I will just leave the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/17 01:16 AM
1

Likely true although there is solid contradicting evidence as well. Expected ratio 4 SD from the mean (IQ of 160) would be 3.5 : 1 according to Earl Hunt. This estimate corresponds rather well to ratios of males to females found in searches for extremely high math talent such as SMPY (and also with my own calculations when I did them for fun) so is likely not far off. Just pointing this out because group differences in IQ tend to be exaggerated. A lot of the confusion seems to stem from an old d…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/17 01:11 AM
1

I don't know but their all time top posts sure are different Useful seduction Facts "Women and men are not as dissimilar from one another as the media, pop culture and common knowledge pursuade us to believe." not redpilled
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 08:33 PM
1

Or not. Doesn't make sense to replace an overly optimistic outlook on women with an overly pessimistic one
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 11:21 AM
1

It's a bit more difficult than that. You would expect males overrepresented at the top of all SAT distributions but that is not really the case http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/PercentileRanksCriticalReading.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302069
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 09:55 AM
1

Eh. Actually that was a line I picked up on some blog and that blog got apparently got it from Charles Murray or something. There is a lot of Research for SAT Iq correlation though http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00687.x http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906000869
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 03:13 AM
1

Game Blogs Weren't These more focused on PUA? Obviously the red pill incorporates PUA as well but has morphed into a lot more I think masculine reaction portion if the DE DE is dark enlightenment right? Are those still active and popular? It seems like they have made way for the alt right now which is slightly less sophisticated
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 02:42 AM
1

well retaking the SAT obviously improves your score a lot and studying does too that's true. The old SAT (pre 1995) apparently correlated with IQ tests as well as different IQ tests correlate with each other. And the new SAT correlates with the old SAT very well so one would expect it's still a pretty good proxy
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 02:36 AM
3

none of your other links show that you need a genius iq or even an above average iq to do stem I never claimed that either. Male-female differences in Iq also don't account for differences in enrollment in STEM if that's what you are after lol wtf is this? nigga i need the methodology behind this Yeah these scores aren't accurate but probably not completely wrong either. I don't know what their methodology was but the easiest thing to do would be to look at how rare top scores are among all SAT …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 02:11 AM
1

I see. I mostly associate HBD with race differences and that doesn't seem to come up that often on the subreddit - from what I have read at least. I did know that Heartiste takes part in that though
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 01:37 AM
5

Only data on average IQ extrapolated from SAT scores http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ Here are Composite SAT scores with male-female comparison for maths + reading And this one when the writing test is considered as well male advantage on the SAT Comes from the math test, sexes perform similar in reading and women do better in writing
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 01:20 AM
1

via HBD Never noticed that had any importance for the red pill
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/17 01:04 AM
3

Moderate enough then. I understand the need to not put women on a pedestal but apparently it's easy to go too far the other direction
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 11:03 PM
3

It started as the "radical notion that women are people" That sounds nice enough but I know a blog titled "the radical notion that women are adults" and it seems to be run by a crazy Nazi woman from Canada At least most red pillers here seem reasonable
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 10:55 PM
4

So folks over there becoming actual assholes now? I barely visit
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 10:40 PM
4

Na the hypothesis mentioned by rreliable has come up quite a lot in relevant scientific communities although there is no evidence for it yet. Didn't get anyone fired so far, it only becomes a problem when you mention in public how it might explain more males in high level STEM positions like Harvard math profs. See the Larry Summers controversy There is a lot of research being done that would get you lynched by some people. Just a year ago or so there was a study linking differences in national …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 08:32 PM
2

It's not really about intelligence. Greater phenotype variability in males has been observed for many other traits as well (though there are exceptions with reversed pattern). Therefore the conclusion "Across all traits, there were no sex differences in trait variability" is relevant to the idea that greater variability in males is the result of having just one x chromosome That said I'm not really an expert on this, you could ask the guy I linked he seems to be very knowledgeable on subjects li…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 08:27 PM
2

Women have t wo X chromosomes. An X chromosome carries a lot more genetic information than a Y chromosome. This explanation is probably false although that doesn't mean the variance issue has nothing to do with genes. At least if I can trust my Twitter informants. If it had to do with the X chromosome the same pattern of variability should be observed in any other species where the male is heterozygous https://twitter.com/SilverVVulpes/status/760291317083697153 Although slightly overstated. An I…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 03:35 PM
9

Science has been simplified, or as this female phycist puts it, "feminised." This was a way to help women handle STEM. This is about the Australian physics curriculum, you have no idea how girls perform in physics in Australia ... also it's the dailymail The 2014 math SAT test results confirm a pattern that has persisted for 40+ years — boys are better at math than girls I got a whole book chapter on this but I will leave a Tl;dr cause nobody is gonna read it anyway. Three main points to be made…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 03:21 PM
1

Yep. And since when are we supposed to be rewarding people for their ability to ''take tests well'' as opposed to their ability to produce good work, consistently? Oh I wasn't really saying that it's unfair to boys. It was more about providing an explanation. It could be unfair. If boys "outperform" their GCSE scores at university then the test is unfair towards boys but I have no idea if they do. I don't think being ''undisciplined'' is inherent to being a man. I have worked with and encountere…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 09:09 PM
1

I actually think this makes sense. White Brits are less likely than minorities to view education as absolutely ''essential'' -- because a significant number of the minorities are going to be immigrants and immigrants almost always place a premium on education. That's a good explanation Also. This is fucked up. I score higher on standardised tests than on coursework & that is because I am lazy and don't apply myself, generally speaking. I would totally benefit from something like this, but it see…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 08:06 PM
1

yeah but when comparing Student loans it's not hard to be better than US
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 06:59 PM
1

That's interesting. I graduated in computer science and don't think any of us ever had some fear of men's places being stolen or anything like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 06:58 PM
1

i can imagine though I don't even know any country where people aren't at least mildly annoyed with the education system
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 04:44 PM
1

Imo, it's a large part of why they want to recruit women Now that you mention it I did read something like that a while ago in some paper on women in science But there seems to be a lot of resistance from within those fields to this diversification. The way that the issues are talked about, you'd think places were scarce and spots were being ''stolen'' by women as a result of scholarship incentives etc. Is the resistance really coming from within those fields i.e. professors/students? Or whom ex…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 04:42 PM
1

I mean that's pretty much what I was getting at. I wasn't necessarily saying that this is an issue with the test but it helps explain the discrepancy between GCSEs and for example the American college admission tests where male-female differences are mostly negligible. Obviously the test should be constructed in such a way that it predicts achievement for all groups equally well. If the GCSE does that it's fine
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 04:39 PM
1

As a result of the lack of demand, universities have started accepting students with not-amazing maths marks into engineering degrees (who then drop out, because they don't have the kind of brain required for the degree). Ah that's interesting to hear. I didn't even know there was a shortage of students in general (not just women) in engineering
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 01:07 PM
1

True. I believe they have removed course work now and replaced it with some kind of controlled assessment so if my theory is true (GCSEs are at fault) we should see boys catching up to some degree.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 01:05 PM
1

Ime, maths is marketed in terms of the social application it could have. You get told about what you could use your problem-solving skills to do (which policy and research organisations you could work for, how you could solve real world problems), not just about the numbers. This makes sense although I'm not sure how to verify it. Do you think this "marketing practice" could be extended to engineering and IT to get more women into the field? I've never seen this! I've seen people talk about it, …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 12:05 PM
1

This may be in part an issue with the test. GCSEs tend to favor girls at all levels because they reward diligence a lot. Include course work which American college admission tests usually don't What's kinda strange is whites doing worse than all other students, don't know how to explain that
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 11:38 AM
1

I think this is b/c of the way engineering is marketed. There's no focus on the social application it could have (which appeals to women) -- everything is abt numbers. Yup though I'm not sure why this should apply less to math? Anyway it's pretty hard to discern where these differences come from. Although people-things dimension has some infant studies backing it up if I remember correctly
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 11:34 AM
1

The barriers are not ''concrete'' they are sociocultural. Yes but there is also promotion of women into science although you may be better informed about that. Women are very well represented in undergraduate mathematics and have been for quite some time (IIRC women have made up over 40% of math majors from about the eighties). It's a bit of an unfounded stereotype that women are not inclined to or interested in maths. It's mostly based on difference in reported interests. The difference for rep…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 11:13 AM
1

To certain areas of college which remain gendered? Yes. I agree with most of your other points in this thread but do women really face barriers to getting into STEM? Which I assume is the area of college you are talking about It's possible that women are "pushed" into nursing to some degree and men into math but it's very likely that this reflects a difference of interest between the sexes as well
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/17 10:47 AM
1

can happen. You probably confused it with feminism cause he mentioned living in the patriarchy
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 03:59 PM
1

I know several men who could be geniuses but instead of focusing on their academic pursuits, spend as much time chasing girls and drinking beer as they do preparing for tests. Just to be clear here if there is anything that gives women an advantage in education it's higher levels of conscientiousness. What you're describing here is exactly a lack of conscientiousness. I agree with ThorLives below though
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 01:59 PM
2

OP said gender equality in the title actually. Did he state something different elsewhere?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 01:50 PM
1

If somebody disagrees with me then it's whatever. They can have their opinion and I can have mine. No. Smash those who disagree
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/17 03:34 PM
1

Fair enough but claiming that the winners are winning due to innate superiority has worked just as well throughout history
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/17 01:51 PM
2

a leader that calls himself gaylubeoil does not inspire confidence
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/17 11:12 AM
2

Well it is
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 04:40 PM
1

I don't actually know that much about him but David Buss is well respected. Steven Pinker also takes part in evopsych to a degree It's very hard to theorise about how evolution impacts our behaviour when there have been very few universals across cultures (not to mention just how hard it is to establish exactly what went on thousands of years ago). Well they should come up with a testable hypothesis and then see if the data fits that thesis. Even if it does, they aren't necessarily correct but i…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 02:19 PM
1

He's just a bit of a bad egg in evolutionary psychology. The kind of person people think about when they claim it's "just so stories". He's politically incorrect of course but often simply wrong as well
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 01:18 PM
1

If the majority of judges have a bias, than by definition, the law has a bias. Yeah obviously never claimed otherwise you specified the written law before though. I'm just talking about how this bias mustn't be the result of society treating women like children. That's just what you make of it. The fact that white men get a lower sentence than minority is also thrown in white men's faces, often referred to as "one of the many privileges of the white male" by feminists, and just in case you were …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 01:07 PM
1

Yet as I said, the law is supposed to punish people for what they have done, not for statistics that say that they are more aggressive or anything else. Those statistics are completely irrelevant in the written law. They are irrelevant to written law. Women getting lighter sentences is presumably the result of judge/jury bias towards them. These people are still human and though group averages shouldn't matter to them either they apparently do. Best argument for my thesis here is probably that m…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 02:21 AM
3

In this case not at all. Theory has nothing to do with PC it's just shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 01:10 AM
2

Kanazawa writes some lovely stuff What can evolutionary psychology tell us about what we as a society can do so as not to repeat the Swedish mistake and make our citizens happy? The best thing to do is to kill all the feminists and hippies and liberals. kinda funny but well We have always hated our enemies purely and intensely. They were “Japs,” they were “Krauts,” they were “Gooks.” And we didn’t think twice about dropping bombs on them, to kill them and their wives and children. (As many comme…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 12:47 AM
2

He got some criticism for that theory. Kanazawa is always to be taken with a grain of salt http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001177
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 12:36 AM
4

I am an "intelligent" person in the sense that psychology refers too (above average IQ, well educated/high income) and I don't agree with that Flair says otherwise, you have got me confused now
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 12:32 AM
1

that is understandable
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 12:05 AM
1

Therefore, if a man and a woman kill, both should get the same sentence, but in reality, women get less of a sentence because women are seen as less capable of understanding their own actions. That's one possible inference but certainly not the only one. I would think it has more to do with the fact that men are simply seen as more aggressive (on average they are) and violent while women are innocent and can do no wrong. This doesn't yet imply that women are seen as incapable of understanding co…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 12:02 AM
1

Otherwise, interesting links, thanks. you're welcome. I'm not that familiar with current research in this field so perhaps there is more interesting stuff that I am not aware of. I really think that when we are doing a good job of measuring intelligence and personality bias and discrimination shouldn't be impossible either
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 11:27 PM
1

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))? 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. It seems …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 10:18 PM
2

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 reason. We are talking about how to measure discrimination though not arguing whether employers should be allowed to discriminate or not. Preferring one candidate over another based on some notion of what the average member of their race or sex is most suited for is most definitely di…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 08:49 PM
2

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 is unjustified, right? 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. Admittedly the kids thing is somewhat more diff…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 08:05 PM
2

But are we measuring a "natural" difference or privilege? probably both to some extent, right? How do I measure which to which extent? I mean if looking at differential representation in certain fields that obviously tells us nothing about the cause and likely both "natural difference" and "privilege" are involved to some degree. Don't know how you would get around this problem. Even when controlling for every single variable that potentially makes say men more likely to choose STEM we still hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:36 PM
3

For me the big question is: What do you take as the expected result, if there is no privilege? 50/50? Why? I'm not sure this is the right question. There are lots of reasons not to expect equal representation in all fields even when two groups are equally represented in the general population. 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
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:14 PM
4

Not really an infallible measurement but there are all those social science Experiments where you put a man's or a woman's name on the same CV and see who gets accepted. Doesn't work for black people as well because it's hard to find a stereotypically black name whilst controlling for the possibility that it simply sounded uncommon/funny and was therefore rejected Also implicit bias tests and the like in an attempt to measure racism
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/17 07:02 PM
1

Relative to the rest of Earth's Population humans are far too intelligent to not be able to build an maintain a society and that goes for men as well as women. Whether it would be just as advanced in all the same ways though is a different question.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 11:12 AM
1

Some people just need some sort of strategy when approaching girls or even talking to other people in general. Once you are more comfortable you can start with that whole be yourself just let your barriers fall stuff I don't really have any problem at all with people using PUA advice, good for them if it works out. Ideas like "dread game" are stupid as hell though
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 07:55 PM
1

Except that isn't true. I mean, a person sent to prison for murder isn't going to prison in order to "learn a lesson" or to "get it". They are going to prison because they need to be separated from the community since they are harmful to the community. So it's dehumanizing to men because they need to be seperated from the community for longer. Else they might go on a killing spree. Women are so much more reasonable adults, much less of a chance they will kill again. If that is how they want to b…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 10:54 AM
1

nawalt apparently
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 03:33 AM
2

What was it, "for exact same crime, women get less time in prison than men". How is that not dehumanizing to women? How is that not implying that women are less capable of understanding the consequences of their actions than men. Well I could turn that around. It's dehumanizing to men because it's implied they need harsher punishment or else they don't get it. I agree that the red pill is a good place to vent. Fortunately haven't needed anything like that (yet). But I'm not sure it's good to sta…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/17 03:33 AM
3

Sure enough but some people aren't socially competent, take risks or have much fun. So they need to be taught
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/17 09:33 PM
3

I have a one million dollar question for RP detractors. Why not make your own subreddit or community that achieves the same results minus the negativity? What is stopping this? Never spent much time there but what about r/seduction for instance? From taking a quick look at their top results seems a lot more focused on just seduction and somewhat less on ranting
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/17 08:53 PM
1

lol
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/17 01:47 PM
1

Perhaps they want it but it's not healthy
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 08:58 PM
1

Fair enough. I think you are saying that many boys drop out and only those who remain manage to perform as well as past generations of boys, right? Not sure if that's true but could be
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 08:55 PM
4

Funnily enough the founder of alt-right blog "The right stuff" is actually married to a jew. Caused some trouble when they found out
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 08:44 PM
1

Yes, "overpredicts". Biased against white people then. ASAIK, the GMAT and LSAT are international standards for law and MBA programs. The GRE is for arts (and science?). For sciences as well far as I know. Supposedly GMAT and GRE are very similar though.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 08:38 PM
1

I agree with Cronin on several issues, mostly her whole "fairness, not sameness" doctrine. But she definitely exaggerates some differences or claims facts which are insufficiently proven. There is a talk of hers on YouTube where she explains greater male variance found on several cognitive abilities. And as example of that she mentions mechanical knowledge or something having a ratio of 234:1 in the top 0,01%. Which most likely doesn't at all reflect innate sex differences because the male mean …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 01:28 PM
1

SAT is administered to 11th graders, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Google SMPY. It's a talent search which administers the SAT to 7th graders. It's common practice to have students solve math problems which they aren't comfortable with or well prepared for to check mathematical ability The study was performed on 7th graders. 7th graders are not exposed to high level math (i.e. the type of math that relies heavily on verbal spatial reasoning). The ratios of males and females fou…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 12:49 PM
2

That's a good talk but minor nitpick at the end when Helena Cronin is referencing Hyde's hypothesis. You can't just say it's "pointless to make a list of things in which we are alike" and then go on that women aren't innately as good at Math. Because that's exactly what that list by Hyde attempts to disprove. Can't be pointless if even Helena Cronin believes in a difference that may not exist/be innate
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 12:38 PM
1

Boys can continue to perform as they did before the educational system was rigged, but due to the educational system, their abilities are forced to develop at the same rate as girls. If the ability of boys are forced to develop at the same rate as girls then surely boys will also perform worse than they used to do in times when they could develop their abilities more freely
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 12:05 PM
2

Girls aren't as good at high level math, on average Mostly true but unlikely to entirely account for differential participation rates in engineering. Then why is there still a huge gender gap in engineering? Career choice is not just down to ability. Else we have to argue that Indian girls must be better mathematicians than their Western counterparts because more of them choose STEM. Although if we are arguing ability I would throw in that there is evidence of precocious female mathematicians (f…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/17 11:40 AM
2

The confusing thing is that you are using the word "mean" when mean would usually refer to average scores. In any case variance might play a part, pointed that out in my original reply to this thread. In math there are more male top performers than female ones. For instance among the top 0,01% it's something between 2-1 to 4-1 depending on the test used but that's already a very high level. I don't think that alone explains the differential participation rate though, especially in computer scien…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 07:24 PM
3

Google "LSAT discriminates against minorities" and there are heaps of citations. Yes, did a quick google search and found some papers on the issue. To be fair a test like the LSAT can actually "discriminate" against certain groups and the best way to find out if it does is checking whether it accurately predicts college performance equally for everyone. Got to answer the question why the LSAT underpredicts minorities now. Either they are indeed favoured due to political correctness in class or t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 07:19 PM
3

Yeah, it is surprising because it goes against common understanding of how boys and girls learn and interact with the world. Boys generally do like to experiment and be more hands-on, but they also need context and a clear goal to work toward. With girls, you can give them something to work on and say "This doesn't make sense right now, but next Friday you'll understand why we did this today" and they're satisfied with that. Boys don't like this because it's too nebulous, they want to know why t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 05:15 PM
3

the higher the mean becomes? Did you mean the variance ratios cause otherwise that doesn't make much sense. Unless the male mean rises faster than the female mean which isn't true. Anyways. Male and female 7th graders perform very similarly on the SAT and ACT (relative to each other I mean) to male and female college-bound students.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 05:12 PM
2

Girls basically excel when there are fewer or no objective criteria. You also get the same effect among certain minority groups. Standardized testing favours white males. Need a citation for this effect on minorities, it doesn't happen for the writing SAT at least so I'm not so sure. It is also a bit more complicated than "standardized testing favours white males". The most obvious reason being that it actually favours Asian males and females. But when focusing on sex differences we mostly have …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 05:09 PM
2

But yeah, I'm not really seeing this "boys crisis" in education, at least not the way it's usually portrayed. There is an achievement gap, but as you say, it's always been there. Well that's what the APA is saying at least. It's weird because some articles claim that girls advantage in education is a recent phenomenon when that doesn't seem to be the case. First, most teachers are women, and while (usually) not intentional I do think female teachers can tend to favor female students and grade th…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 04:14 PM
6

It leaves us with more males than females excelling at math. But seriously that's not what people mean when they say boys are better at math.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 04:01 PM
4

We are talking about the ability of adolescents which is also a good proxy for potential to succeed in math related fields. Obviously if you take a bunch of people who learn a lot of high level maths i.e. STEM Majors they are going to be better at it than others who don't. The stereotype however is that girls are on average less suited to math so also have less potential
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 03:30 PM
5

Then why are we attempting to generalize this to the population as a whole? Cause most of the population goes to school at some point? At least those people who are now studying STEM did. Also whose math aptitude do you want to compare? Will be rather difficult with people who never actually learned Maths It's not, but it is a pre-requisite. Regardless of the reason why more men are in STEM than women, if there are more in the field, they will be more capable on average. But the number of men an…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 03:11 PM
11

We are mostly comparing data for high school students though, not for people who actually work in a field that revolves around doing maths And ability is not the only factor determining career choice
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 02:50 PM
5

May be true I'm not American. The analysis I linked actually claims that there has always been a slight advantage for girls when it comes to school grades (that didn't increase in time) which kind of goes against anything else you read in the media on education gender gaps. So either the news has no idea of shit or I'm reading something wrong here. In any case the female advantage in education definitely comes from course work, not standardized testing. A female advantage in school marks is a co…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 02:09 PM
15

You would expect boys to perform worse now if the education system was tilted in favor of girls. Which they don't. For course work girls always outperformed boys going back as far as 1915 or something. Homework and stuff has simply become more important in today's school system whereas we used to focus mostly on standardized testing
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 01:44 PM
16

On the other hand don't get that kind of criticism. There simply is no evidence that boys perform worse in Maths than they used to. If anything there is evidence of the opposite. Declining differences is girls catching up rather than boys doing worse
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 01:20 PM
19

I don't disagree for the most part. Some things worth mentioning however. A more up-to-date meta-analysis, covering over 7 million boys and girls, found differences that were similarly minute: in this sample, ds ranged from 0.02 to 0.06 depending on the participants ages (Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, & Williams, 2008). The non-existence of a sex difference is seen in adults too, and in high-level mathematics (Lindberg, Hyde, Peterson & Linn, 2010). In short, on the basis of studies of literally …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/17 01:15 PM
3

I heard that if you cherry pick enough it becomes a social construct https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/17 11:52 PM
2

You're welcome. Not entirely sure on conscientiousness cause some studies seemingly find little difference. But this appears to be the most complete one and I got that link from someone who knows his stuff when it comes to psychometrics. Also multiple studies on how the SAT underpredicts female college achievement cause it doesn't control for conscientiousness. Don't know (or care much) whether there are more men or women able to do well in high prestige roles but I don't think it's a clear cut …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/17 07:52 PM
2

Regardless of whether genetic race differences in IQ actually exist much of the data we have for Africa is cherry-picked and probably false. As for women in CEO positions it's a difficult question to answer. For fortune 500 CEOs an estimated 40% of them are in the top 1% of cognitive ability where based on this research which is the most complete data currently available we would expect a gender divide of about 1.5 : 1. There is of course contradicting data as well i.e. not showing higher varian…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/17 07:03 PM
3

Australia? There is a bunch of Western countries with legal prostitution including where I live. I don't think it changes all too much, you are still seen as a loser if you need a prostitute to lose your virginity. Most people still have one night stands and don't visit brothels much
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/17 04:19 PM
1

Yup that's true. Though in that case we probably shouldn't focus on closing gender gaps in education either. Or rather attempt to improve education for da children in any way possible regardless of the statistical performance of either gender
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/17 03:30 PM
1

Girls get better grades than boys. Girls are less likely to have learning disabilities than boys are. Girls are less likely to have behavioral/discipline problems than boys are. Girls are less likely to be forced to take powerful drugs to dull their overactive minds for the drudgery that is public education. Girls are less likely to drop out of school. Girls are more likely to go on to college after graduating high school. Young women are more likely to graduate college within four or five years…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/17 02:58 AM
1

There was a study on phenotypic variability in humans a while ago by one of the proponents of the variability hypothesis (i.e. your hypothesis) which found men more variable in for instance baby weight, 60m dash running times, some blood hormone levels. On the other hand women were more variable for baby BMI and other blood hormone levels. Dunno why any of that would matter but it does show inconsistency. For cognitive abilities women are in general better at verbal abilities and also overrepres…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/17 09:06 PM
1

Males generally have a higher spread on a number of attributes Not all attributes though
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/17 08:43 PM
1

She's already benefited from systemic sexism in education. I don't really get that complaint. You talking about affirmative action?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/17 08:03 PM
1

This is useless in the case of video game (besides making me smarter Not by much sorry I see what you're saying and think I agree. Our passion for certain activities may be a result of evolution. The activities themselves are still pretty useless and a goal in and of itself though. I am software engineer, I may eventually work in the field, but right now it's just as a hobby. I'm also currently studying computer science. Lots of STEM majors on Reddit
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/17 01:34 PM
2

Most people here also probably enjoyed watching The Matrix. Actually I have yet to watch it
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/17 07:16 PM
1

Yeah I know it's part of the "discussion" though. The child's right to live is what the pro-lifers like to bring up
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/17 06:50 PM
1

I thought that's what the pro life movement is discussing
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/17 04:16 PM
1

Jungle has no law. But yeah if you make enemies there's usually good reason to be afraid of them
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 09:59 PM
3

Women don't care bout men, confirmed red pill :(
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 09:43 PM
2

Irrelevant because they talk so much about women they could all get a degree in women's studies. You should open up your own blog to talk about men. Call yourself the rational female or Heartista or something
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 09:25 PM
9

It is so annoying how some people think putting specific words in their title in ALL CAPS somehow makes their argument stronger. Can anyone show me where this premise is wrong? Are there any societies that have started out feminist and became very strong? Cause technology has advanced a lot and upper body strength is not a prerequisite anymore for today's labor. Most jobs value various cognitive skills and conscientiousness much more so harnessing the power of female labor is a pretty good idea …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 09:19 PM
4

Red pillers talk about how women think all the time so obviously they should know. But you don't talk about at great length how men think so I'm questioning your expertise
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 09:13 PM
1

Yes but that's not something men are afraid of, in a dating scenario they are more afraid of their date calling the cops on them rather than physically assaulting them as OP suggested. In theory the woman at the bar could also pull her gun and shoot you so maybe we can extend OP's point and say men are not scared of women, men are scared of the state, sometimes men should be scared of women
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 09:10 PM
2

You think people would doubt the things you've written on a debate sub? Preposterous, we hold these truths to be self-evident. Yeah the difficulty lies in convincing the people here how my truths actually are self-evident but theirs are not. Some of them won't accept that
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 07:05 PM
4

I was talking about your Reddit friends of course, especially our mutual friends here on PPD. I actually made the mistake of mentioning Reddit in public once and have since been carefully avoiding it
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 06:56 PM
3

Thanks, just don't tell your friends. I wouldn't want people to start doubting the many truths I tell them on Reddit now
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 06:45 PM
7

Well do you have a sub dedicated to assuming how men think? No you don't so how can you know
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 06:19 PM
5

Ah good question, let me answer it truthfully. Whatever truths I tell you will usually be objective facts but when there is a truth out there that I don't want you to know I will say something like "will have to wait for the facts on this one" or so. Hope that's ok edit: also when I want to believe something very little evidence will count as sufficient and when I don't I will wait for a truckload of evidence before I reconsider
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 06:14 PM
5

I know the truth you can ask me
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 05:49 PM
1

What we use essentially for machine learning are artificial neural networks. An artificial neuron is a mathematical function that computes an output number from its inputs. We put several neurons together to form a neural network, and we organise these neurons in layers. Each layer reads all outputs of the previous layer, and produce the input of the next layer.... I see. That's interesting. Do you work in this field or just interested in it/passionate about it? Why am I so god damn fascinated b…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 05:45 PM
8

If it were just the two of you on an otherwise uninhabited island, he would have nothing to fear from you. Yeah most men aren't afraid of their date beating them up. Dunno what else she could do to you on an uninhabitated island. When people talk about men being afraid of independent women it's mostly the fear of losing value as a provider. But that has already happened so whatever.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 05:31 PM
1

I'm interested, thanks. Have read longer Reddit posts about less interesting topics. Is that picture spotting technology similar to deep learning techniques used to optimize AI for performance in chess/go and so on or something else entirely? I don't know too much about AI so could be confusing things here that have nothing to do with each other. But I simply view the human being as a living form following these two rules: surviving and reproducing. I believe that anything we do, is to further o…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 11:50 AM
1

IQ can be nice but it should be taken with the grain of salt it deserves. Obviously. Though some people will dismiss IQ tests out of hand which given their predictive validity is not a sensible thing to do. Though I understand the emotional appeal of not giving a crap about this measurement. In the end we are just talking about averages here. Top scientists on average have higher IQ than the general populace so IQ correlates with being a top scientist. Gonna say though that there is definitely a…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/17 10:53 AM
4

Listen, like it or not many MGTOWs have created this image of the whiney manlet that can't handle chicks so he just sits and moans about how bad chicks are Somehow everything is an internet hugbox nowadays. Even the strong independent women men going their own way need to regularly meet up online and tell themselves how strong and independent they are and how they are not missing out on anything. Women are stupid anyways.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/17 06:35 PM
2

I dunno about Islam in general but in Germany at least there is a bunch of Muslims - converts themselves - who are pretty hell bent on advocating their religion. To the point of telling journalists they better accept Islam or else they will wish they had when dead. This guy for instance.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/17 06:29 PM
1

Because high IQ and manipulation skills are NOT dependant traits. Have been arguing exactly that in this thread anyway. There is likely no correlation at all between high IQ and well tricking women into sex. It's just super useless as a measure and is far from being a hint of intelligence. Intelligence is subjective but IQ does correlate pretty well with various measures of success in life and explains part of the variance in job performance, academic achievement and all that stuff. So regardles…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/17 06:06 PM
3

r/theredpill has an IQ threshold you see. If you're retarded you won't be able to read it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 10:27 PM
5

I honestly think you are putting far too much stock into manipulation correlating with intelligence just so you can then make a fuss about how man's mating strategy is selfless and benefits society. These men didn't need to devise some kind of elaborate masterplan to trick a woman into sleeping with them. They weren't Barney from HIMYM. Manipulation probably correlates far more with certain personality traits than with any kind of cognitive measurement. And there are far more plausible explanati…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 10:25 PM
5

Especially when OP is talking about selection for IQ. Tricking someone into having sex with you is not very cognitively tasking thinking about it. Perhaps we selected for something else like lots of arseholes which is why so many of them are around now
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 08:03 PM
2

They be trickin the IQ tests now too apparently. Maybe it's part of their ruse so nobody finds out how much game they have
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 07:51 PM
2

In many intelligence tests what scores below 60 scored at 60 so us PPD subscribers should be fine
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 07:50 PM
2

Current high IQ guys seem to be failing at that wolf in sheep's clothes thing though
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 07:45 PM
2

The average people do best. Leaves us with you being either too smart or too dumb for a date. Best take part in their next study and find out
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 07:28 PM
2

I was exaggerating. But I will repost this graph which shows average IQ teens are the ones getting most of the sex. Obviously that's the present and not some hundred thousand years ago but still
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 07:17 PM
9

And not every man that successfully tricks a woman is a genius. In fact most aren't. This idea is stupid
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 07:00 PM
7

I'm sorry but this premise is flawed. I feel compelled to point out that there is evidence the Flynn effect has stopped and actually reversed in Western countries. And in Iceland "education genes" (whatever that is) are getting rarer And the reason is supposedly that high IQ people are less likely to reproduce "Using data from Iceland that include a substantial fraction of the population we show that individuals with high scores tend to have fewer children, mainly because they have children late…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/17 06:50 PM
3

Aha. That's not a very insightful comment and doesn't bode well for your understanding of things either.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/17 12:24 AM
3

We aren't measuring the IQs of Nobel prize winners so all we can do is guess and estimate. I'm not sure which link in that collection of posts you are referring to though. Also in general more skeptical of claims that would inflate IQ because it's just that tempting to admire what a rare one of a kind genius that one person is. For instance countless websites listing "high IQ people" put chess legend Garry Kasparov at 190, which is a value extrapolated from his ELO score. His actual score when g…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 10:25 PM
3

This is an estimate based on the amount of Ashkenazi jews among Nobel laureates because those appear to be for some reason more intelligent than the rest of us. See for instance here and here. To be fair there is no way of verifying whether or not these estimates are close to the truth but we do know that there have been Nobel laureates with lower IQs. One study that would show otherwise is the assessment of some eminent scientists by Ann Roe in the 1950s or something. She estimated their IQ to …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 08:59 PM
4

What this means is that on average, women are actually smarter then men It doesn't. For this specific study the average woman turned out to be dumber than the average man. It's just one study though there are others showing the opposite. he fact that male's intelligence has greater variance is already a known fact in the manosphere. RP's claim of AWALT from a statistical point of view is really heuristics. It is reasonably impossible that all women are dumb, however the odds are pretty low to fi…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 08:41 PM
2

Hmm in general I'm against arguing for equality of outcome but still have to disagree here. The most successful people are among the most successful typically in part because they are smart and have the right personality traits and in part probably due to chance, luck, whatever went right in their lives. It's a bit hard to estimate this for other variables but for IQ at least the average level of Nobel laureates intelligence is thought to be around 145 (for STEM) which is about the 1 in a 1000 l…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 08:19 PM
2

there may be more smarter guys, but there are also more dumber guys That effect if true is also quite overstated though.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 07:57 PM
2

men have evolved to do things like building pyramids, inventing alternating currents, and doing brain surgery. women evolved to do things like make sandwiches, give blowjobs, and somethingsomething nurturing. An interesting point. I noticed that when talking to some alt-righters here on Reddit as well. They refuse to be called supremacists but insist that the races are most definitely different. Different in the sense that whites are smarter and morally superior as well as better at anything els…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 07:56 PM
3

Sure I know. Still got to point out when I see inaccurate science posted in a field which I know stuff about
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 07:30 PM
4

It's beside the point of this post but inaccurate IQ data always triggers me. This graph is from a 1983 study conducted by Jensen and Rushton (I think). Jensen certainly didn't believe it was very meaningful or else he would have taken a different stance in his 1998 book: The two main conclusions supported by the analyses in Table 13.1: The sex difference in psychometric g is either totally nonexistent or is of uncertain direction and of inconsequential magnitude. The generally observed sex diff…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 07:19 PM
6

In general insults are only offensive if they come from someone you give a shit about
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 03:49 PM
1

That's true
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 02:59 PM
2

Well you can try though he might be wary now if he has read this
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 01:38 AM
2

Yes. Which is why BLM specifically points out that black lives or black humanity if you will matters as well. The cops already respect all those other lives so they must focus on learning to respect black lives now
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 12:58 AM
1

Its like running different software on top of your hardware. Masculine women run male software, feminine men run female software. But all women have female processors and all men have male processors regardless of the software they run. Your processor is determined by your biology and while your software can change how it responds to the processes your processor has and wants to use, it can't get rid of any process. That's a nice metaphor. However it's all assumptions. Perhaps you notice that fe…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/17 11:05 PM
1

The variance within genders has no bearing on the variance between men and women really. Obviously men and women are different. What I am saying is that there will be women who are more masculine than some men and men that are more feminine than some women. And you seemed to disagree with that notion with your "base brain is still female" metaphor. I wasn't able to see the first link, but basically, normalizing people like this makes you miss so much. There's no real accounting for upbringing, h…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/17 09:54 PM
1

I suppose we are talking solely about behaviour here rather than neuroscience i.e. the actual differences between male and female brains. It has been pretty much proven that "the variance within groups outweighs the variance between" and so on which seems to be true for sex as well. If you actually measure the effect size of personality traits using Cohen's d the differences between the sexes aren't that huge at all as expressed in the gender similarity hypothesis. A competing theory holds that …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/17 08:49 PM
2

AllLivesMatter# has been brought up too often already. The idea is that while of course it's human lives that matter it's currently blacks being mistreated - by police. Thus they feel it necessary to specifically point out how black lives matter too since it currently seems like they don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/17 07:30 PM
4

They will have their base brain very similar to their gender, and then a variation sitting on top of it This seems untrue and very much so. Do you have sources supporting that idea?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/17 06:13 PM
1

doesn't use it (atleast against you) there's the non-subjective difference
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 07:22 PM
2

I was mainly asking whether you were taking these specific posts of mine seriously. Because although I like to joke about it I don't actually want anyone thinkin that I'm a moron who believes in jewish conspiracies. I try to make it obvious when I am joking but sarcasm can be hard to get across online. The increasing number of people who openly glorify fascism is one of those issues that I therefore have a harder time staying serious about. I think the people actually glorifying fascism or white…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 07:03 PM
3

An ode to the good old days I see. However some stuff here just strikes me as odd. For instance: There was no time to be depressed or have a personality disorder. If you had those things, you got up, put on your pants and did your fucking job. There was no time or money for therapy or worksheets or hugboxes or safe spaces. There was no time or money to even think about sexual market value and frame and how hawt he was and alpha/beta/omega/Greek alphabet or HB anythings. No time for the small pro…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 05:29 PM
3

Of course. The important thing is to keep fighting back with our memes of Pepe the frog though
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 04:52 PM
1

Yeah but that's just George Soros and I included him when I mentioned the jews.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 04:46 PM
1

Well it's quite possible that there is a deeper conspiracy that only makes me believe in the jewish conspiracy so as to shield itself from my investigations. I'm slightly confused now as to whether or not you are taking my posts seriously or I should be taking yours seriously
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 04:44 PM
1

In difference to other alt-fascists I'm well aware that my view of reality may be slightly tainted by jewish manipulation.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 04:32 PM
1

I think there were always people who thought like this. You have succeeded in making them less common though, thanks for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 04:26 PM
2

Don't forget how this all ties into the bigger picture though man. If we don't stop the female hypergamy the dysgenics will be allowed to continue. Crimes up nowadays, murder down, but divorce is up. Clever women aren't marrying and are voting for the wrong party. Trump's virtue signaling too now and if we don't stop the jews fast there will be no west left to fight for. That's just my opinion though.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/17 04:16 PM
1

There is such a thing but I'm the only one who can define it
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 08:59 PM
1

It isn't directly related to evopsych at all but to the idea that biological/genetic differences are always a cause of concern. And I think people not acknowledgingthese natural differences out of worry is also the reason evopsych gets such a bad reputation. Also I just recently read that blog entry so I just wanted to share
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 08:58 PM
1

Well the OP implied the red pill was just "common sense evolutionary psychology", so I had to ask. People usually don't like evopsych because they prefer to believe that problems and inequalities arising are down to nurture rather than nature and can therefore be changed. Sometimes biology is more mutable than society though so it's not necessarily a bad thing. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biology-is-mutable/
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 08:32 PM
1

Well I got to ask here as well now. If "things aren't simply" and it's a complex interplay between environment and genetic material is it then correct to throw that complexity out the window when it comes to applying evopsych to red pill theory? Cause that is exactly what the OP does. See animals behave a certain way so it makes sense that we do too.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 07:26 PM
2

A lot of people resort to flaky reasoning grounded in evolutionary psychological concepts that they clearly don't understand. Evolution isn't nearly as simple as most people ignorantly assume when they first grasp the fundamentals of it. It requires quite a nuanced understanding that can only really be obtained by reading real scientific literature (i.e. textbooks written by people with PhD's, research articles, scientific novels, etc.). I've taken university level classes in evolution and psych…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 07:18 PM
1

Evopsyche is primariy about identifying drives rather than predicting behaviour, especially with regards to humans who are imbued with consciousness. But the red pill is about predicting behaviour. No?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 06:57 PM
3

I would point to the is-ought problem here. Just because certain behaviours are the result of evolution and may have been beneficial to the survival of our species in the past, doesn't mean we have to keep them that way. Quoting from a paraphrased interview with Steven pinker - certainly not a human nature denier - in the Guardian: "Nor, he maintains, is evolutionary psychology deterministic. Among the things evolution has given us, Pinker points out, is the frontal lobe of the brain, which allo…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 05:50 PM
3

I enjoy debating in YouTube comments most of all. Makes me feel much smarter than I am
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 02:31 PM
3

I can almost guarantee that red pillers and blue pillers were both girly nerds at school.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 01:32 PM
2

You Austrian?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 01:28 PM
2

This isn't a topic I have studied very thoroughly but an older thread in Purple Pill debate came to mind that touches upon a similar subject. Though not quite the same subject. But whatever I will leave it here anyway https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5eubho/q4rp_are_barlow_et_al_wrong_about_adrenaline/
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 01:26 PM
1

ceterum censeo carthaginem esse delendam?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 02:23 AM
2

Yes don't need to convince me of anything there. Feminism/the women's rights movement was badly needed. Not only for women but also for society actually because you can't keep wasting the abilities of half your workforce whilst still expecting to keep up with other nations. Anyways I wasn't really arguing that men were just as oppressed as women in the past or anything. Just that men - lower class men to be specific - faced their own struggles and probably had it just as bad as most women albeit…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/17 12:22 AM
2

Men made all the decisions. Women just had to accept those decisions. You know that is a fair point. My opinion is simply that these decisions weren't always to the detriment of women. People had the idea of women as the weak and fragile sex so they were both suppressing their potential (believing them incapable) while also protecting them. Of course there is an issue with making these decisions for women rather than with them. Perhaps women would have fought if one had just let them. Some most …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/17 10:04 PM
2

I really agree with you there. Starting to think it's unhealthy reading too much on these subs. Actually it's unhealthy reading too much on Reddit. Keep coming back though
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/17 08:09 PM
3

Women undoubtedly lacked many rights that men had in the past. What can be argued is that men had some not so great responsibilities - dying for their stupid country and such - that women didn't necessarily have to bear. Personally I think it's fair to say that women in the past didn't necessarily have worse lives than men but they were certainly more confined to their societal role and not taken seriously in any pursuits that deviated from the norm. As for "those wars were all started by men" -…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/17 08:02 PM
0

But why would you criticise the noble MRM?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/17 10:15 PM
3

Everybody loves women. This is false Men love to fuck, own and protect them. This is true.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/17 08:59 PM
2

I mean is this a criticism leveled at MRAs? If so it's a pretty bad one because one might just as well blame the evil mainstream that doesn't take men's issues seriously.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/17 08:55 PM
1

Pretty much everything male related is uneven at the extremes such as wealth and IQ Some evidence for and some against that. It pretty much depends on the way IQ is measured (i.e. which test they use). The most widely held belief seems to be that there are no differences in general intelligence but some doubt because people disagree on how g is best to be measured
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 11:54 PM
2

Well UA_Hammer seems to be posting in r/altright so I assume that he is altright. He also displays all the signs of being altright really.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 01:03 AM
1

Well that's pretty bad. I only read a few posts here and there on femradebates and send some angry PMs with my alt account when they are wrong about stuff. The feminists seemed okay for the most part although one has an irrational hatred for Milo Yiannopoulos but I don't like Milo either so it's okay
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 12:41 AM
1

No not those chads. Chad is kind of like a deity worshipped around these parts although many hate him. We also don't know who or what a Chad actually is to be honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 12:37 AM
1

Except they seem pretty reasonable. I only lurk there at times mind you. Perhaps you know much more about this sub and had some really bad experiences there.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 03:26 PM
3

Well there is one piece of research that he may be and most likely is referring to and it's a study of "The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender" in New Zealand. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375926 Reported on by some right wing blogs as "only men pay net tax". I have no idea how exactly they got their figures because I didn't read the study. An obvious argument that comes to mind is women performing work of societal importance by raising children…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 11:36 PM
2

That's pretty much what you said before except now you added some motivation as to why women as a collective might be more inclined to vote Democrat. In US presidential elections about 55% of women seem to vote Democrat and 45% Republican. It's completely unreasonable to hate women on the basis of that or repeal their right to vote. If you want to win the elections just make sure that men realize it's in their interest to vote Republican. Obviously it's not in every man's interest but you seem t…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 06:10 PM
1

Much more reasonable to strive for power over everyone rather than just women imo.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:37 PM
4

Bad reasoning. Clearly you don't hate women, you hate liberals for making the wrong choice in elections. Not all women are liberals. Also you are deluding yourself if you think this is the actual reason some men hate women.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:28 PM
6

It makes me angry how people here always bang on about the Chad privilege when Chad has fought hard for his right to fuck a lot of women
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 03:04 PM
5

r/femradebates is a decent subreddit in this vein that already exists. Much luck anyways.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 03:01 PM
1

Some quotes from Wikipedia indicate sexual orientation was controlled for: "Likewise, studies such as Rametti's have found that trans men have male-like white matter patterns (even before using hormones), regardless of sexual orientation." "A first-of-its-kind study by Zhou et al. (1995) found that in a region of the brain called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a region which is known for sex and anxiety responses (and which is affected by prenatal androgens),[7] male-to-female t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/17 03:26 PM
2

Ah well is it exactly the same patterns in gay brains though? That's the question really. I'm not an expert on this topic either but it seems unlikely that differences in gray and white matter volumes would influence nothing but your sexual orientation.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/17 02:52 PM
2

This is something I want to read more about, but it's a plausible justification for the concept. There appears to be a lot of evidence for gender identity being influenced by brain structure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/17 01:28 PM
1

Well where there actually is a large gender difference in ability, it definitely makes sense to differentiate between men and women, as is the case in most sports I actually did hear about that study, I think it caused some outrage on Reddit. Was just about to tell you that male physicians also treated a lot more patients and thus should be expected to perform slightly worse but apparently the study did control for that. Obviously the difference isn't near big enough to actually differentiate be…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/17 02:45 AM
1

Agree with you there. However it's still necessary to establish that in some regards treating men and women just as "people" and not taking note of their gender is the appropriate thing to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/17 01:58 AM
7

You do know that there is currently an MTF competing in the women's UFC, right? Not sure if you aren't aware of that or it's the very reason you brought up this example. I do agree she shouldn't be allowed there though.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/17 01:48 AM
1

Lol, they're becoming more like men! Drunk and depressed to cope with life. Which ironically goes against the notion that there is a large difference between men and women when it comes to performing as corporate wage slave.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/17 02:11 PM
1

Laws limit people in their individualism to protect the collective which is society. Obviously if we allow any individual's freedom to extend to the point where it restricts another individual's freedom (by for instance taking away their freedom to live) society is being hurt. Although a society can be built on individualist principles i.e. allowing people as much freedom as possible without causing collapse society is still a collective that can be hurt. True individualism seems to me is only p…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/17 01:15 AM
1

Got me to read that one now at least. It finally made me realize why so many other people have false notions about reality
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/17 01:03 AM
1

Often laws simply exist to enforce what is morally good and beneficial to society. Killing is immoral, hurts society and is outlawed. The example at hand is a scenario where nothing is perfect, but I assume the law will still be based on the moral view of the legislator.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/17 12:50 AM
1

But morality is part of what the law is based on, no? I do agree that in this case both sides can be correct or have valid reasoning at least. In the end the law has to take a side though which is unfortunate
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/17 12:38 AM
1

That's an elaborate response, thanks for putting in the effort. Like our speaking styles, men have overt power, women have covert power. Why take the risk and danger when someone else will on your behalf? You will find behind nearly every powerful man there is a woman whispering into his ears guiding and influencing him greatly. The idea that women exert power through manipulation is certainly not a new one and that is because there is obviously some truth to it. Men in general desire women more…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/17 12:18 AM
2

Women have nearly always wielded the most power within society, and it is still true today. I really don't know where that idea comes from nor have I ever seen any reasonable arguments supporting it. The most power within society has usually been wielded by the respective ruling class. "Gynocentrism" also doesn't describe a society run by women but is instead the notion that society cares most about women. Not because women are in charge but because men care more about women than about other men…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/17 09:50 PM
1

With the sexes I guess you could look at that grey area rape situations that always rise up. Legally, a guy might not have broken the law. However, in the end the guy might have gotten what he wanted, but the girl did not. The man was successful in his endeavor, so he was correct in doing what he did for his goals. The woman was not, but would try and blame the man for being the predatory one. They are both correct in a way. One can disagree with the other. With moral dilemmas like that you defi…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/17 05:39 PM
5

I dunno about feminists. They definitely acknowledge sex differences when those are absolutely proven, but the blank slate notion that differences must always be the result of socialization apparently still has some power and even hampers neuroscience at times. A relevant article was posted at edge.org recently although I disagree with some of its claims. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27191 We definitely shouldn't jump to premature conclusions about sex and gender. Those have in the past …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/17 05:14 PM
2

BP is everything not RP. RP is the ideological basis behind successful men who believe in sex differences. A lot of RP ideas are general espoused by black comedians. I'm just going to say that pretty much everyone believes in sex differences because those are evident fact. What is commonly disagreed on is in which exact ways we differ from the opposite sex. In the past the mainstream view was one of rather absolute differences and that has changed in the last decades largely due to the fact that…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/17 01:56 AM
1

Wouldn't expect anything else from the Reddit admins.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/17 12:54 AM
2

One individual doing something to another based on a collective that other individual belongs too. And individuals, unless they are self-sustaining, can't ever be completely independent of their society. There will be some rules as in any society and these rules either enable an individual to pursue an individualist lifestyle or they don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/17 12:53 AM
2

They aren't beliefs that get "proven" usually. I don't think BP is mainstream either. They are not usually proven, because the evidence necessary to prove them, doesn't exist as of today. And whether blue pill is mainstream or not depends on your definition of the blue pill. Some red pill MGTOW types tend to label anyone not agreeing with them blue pill and in that case the mainstream is most definitely BP. Some of the very liberal beliefs espoused by posters on r/thebluepill are probably not ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/17 12:50 AM
2

Yes facts, if they actually are proven facts, cannot be argued with. The red pill can be argued with because they have beliefs that are not proven. And those beliefs are at odds with blue pill/mainstream beliefs which is why blue pillers are arguing with red pillers on this forum. In the end it doesn't matter whether you label red pill theory as belief, factual claims, assertion or anything else. What matters is that I disagree with a premise of your OP: If BP types adopted a less narrow ideolog…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 11:48 PM
2

An individualist lifestyle is only possible in certain societies, namely those which don't impose limits on the individual for the supposed good of the collective. Ayn Rand believed that laissez faire capitalism was the economic counterpart of individualism
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 11:41 PM
1

I didn't intend to pass any judgement on the blue pill in my post or the red pill for that matter. I don't read there regularly but it's usually only red pillers i.e. not men, but men of a certain ideology they sometimes call rapists. Not the nice way to go about things but no need to exaggerate. Obviously doxxing is unacceptable, the SRS crowd (which certainly overlaps with blue pill) can be very militant.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 11:39 PM
1

Genuine discussion, wrapped in polite discourse, talking around in circles. Yes. It seems to me that most people on here and in general are emotionally invested in their beliefs being correct and thus it takes a ton of irrefutable evidence to actually change someone's mind. And for most issues discussed on here such evidence doesn't exist. If you can be botheres, my submission history has a post on the closure of athol kays website, and the death of a masculinity forum with women involvement. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 11:34 PM
2

Not a statement of what usually happens, but what necessarily must happen Essentially, if you're balls deep in RP, then you're looking at generalized things, and applying it to your specific situation, applying what applies, discarding when it's an outlier. Now, the reason you can't really take any BP 'discussion' seriously, is that it's instantly personalized. AWALT becomes MeALT, which means the listener cannot or will not believe it any further. Well even the "positivist scientific method" do…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 10:28 PM
2

Well the merriam webster dictionary defines belief as "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence". The red pill believes that their claims about the SMP are fact. And that belief is at odds with beliefs held by blue pillers and therefore the red pill and blue pill disagree. If any of these beliefs at some point become facts = are proven, they won't be argued about any longer. Hopefully.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 09:48 PM
2

I don't think it has to do with competency, if you have a degree you have a degree. I would say that a worker's competency at doing his job determines whether or not he is a good worker. Competency is what's most important to the costumer and it usually can not be inferred from gender. However it isn't a collectivist sentiment, it's an individualist sentiment to be able to choose to discriminate against the group in question for your personal benefit. In general individualism defends the right o…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 09:42 PM
2

But the red pill actually makes claims about how men and women are different. Claims such as "women love men for what they do. Men love women for who they are". That's a very specific concept and something that can be disagreed with. Which is why we have subs like this one to argue about our disagreements.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 08:48 PM
1

That hardly affects a woman's competency at actually doing her job. It doesn't change that when looking for a lawyer to defend you in court or a doctor to treat your illness you shouldn't care about that doctor's or lawyer's gender. Some companies will probably take gender into account when hiring for the reason you mentioned I agree. Not terribly fair to the individual women of course but nothing is. That said you have at best demonstrated that in some cases it might make sense to take a woman'…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 08:35 PM
3

A shit load, that's why their whole "treat women like people" mantra comes from. Instead of women being female people (which is what they are) which is different from male people. Thought about this a while ago and I'm not actually sure I agree with you here. Obviously women are female people, but the difference between male people and female people is for the most part statistical. Thus it makes sense to treat men and women differently in some aspects, but to view them as individual rather than…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 07:22 PM
1

As others have pointed out that's true for a bunch of subreddits on here. And even if their only purpose was hate (rather than making fun of something they dislike and reaffirming their opinions) why should I care if it's R/trp they are hating on? There are most definitely reasonable red pillers in purple pill debate and I assume some on the main sub as well. That sub still upvotes a lot of strange bullshit though
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/17 01:05 PM
1

Useful to whom?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/17 04:12 PM
3

You should be careful with the 88 casino. Three eights are fine.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/17 02:13 PM
1

Criticism is always preferable to hate. Yet still hate can be a justified reaction if you can explain why the group you dislike actually deserves the hate they get. Thus accusing someone of hate is not sufficient criticism as the right is quick to point out with their "calling us racist is why Trump won!"
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/17 12:47 PM
1

But if asian women aren't sluts then women in general can't all be sluts either, no? Asian women are women after all ...
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/17 02:24 AM
3

Read an interesting argument on here a while ago about how many people do "the wrong kind of self improvement". They go lifting and meditate because that is fun to them. They do not go out partying and they don't meet other people because that's no fun even though it's exactly what you need to do if you lack social skills and are unsuccessful with girls. Self-improvement is all about doing stuff that you don't actually enjoy to improve yourself although of course lifting and the rest has its ben…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/16 04:20 PM
1

Yeah I wasn't sure on 5. 2 was pretty obviously directed at blue pillers though.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/16 03:19 PM
2

I thought argument 2 and 5 was him making fun of bloopers. I'm not sure anymore though, it's rather ambiguous.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/16 02:25 PM
1

That doesn't mean there aren't elements of it still not lingering as well as cultural elements of when it was a communist state as well. As its history even before communism shaped the country and that the culture of the country. Its like with China with its one child policy that devalued women and increased and arguably overvalued men. But due to huge gender imbalance and much improved economy the reverse has happened I agree that the results of the Romanian study may not be generalizable thoug…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/16 01:52 PM
1

I have actually heard multiple times now that women tend to do better on tasks of numeracy than men, don't have a source right now though. However men in general outperform women when it comes to mathematical problem solving. At least those seem to be the most common findings. A large meta-analysis on math performance in the US was conducted by Hyde in 2010. It supports the conclusion that boys and girls perform relatively similar in math. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038941 In general …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/16 01:29 AM
1

The reason I chose Russia as example is because it's not exactly a third world country but still rather traditionalist compared to the west at least. Wikipedia has a list of countries by suicide rates here which is what I'm looking at. I can't really find any obvious pattern there. Least suicides in Saudi Arabia and Syria, most in Guyana and South Korea, western nations somewhere in the middle. If there is any correlation with either decline of gender identity or economic variables, it isn't obv…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/16 08:45 PM
1

Money and unemployment are most definitely the cause of suicide for some, of course there will be other factors as well and of course that doesn't mean poor people can never be happy or will off themselves at some point. That said I see nothing to suggest that the decline of so-called natural masculinity and femininity are of any importance for suicide rates. Otherwise why are suicide rates in countries like Russia, where traditional gender norms are more common, higher than those in most Wester…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/16 06:52 PM
1

I would think a different base line would cause the results to be different no? Setting the male score at 100 just served to give a better a better understanding of female performance relative to males. When Flynn sets the male score at 100 and the female one at 101, it just means that females outperformed males by 1% on the RPM. Obviously males didn't actually achieve an IQ of 100 exactly, that's just for better comparison. How much is that tho is due to social factors by that I mean girls are …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/16 01:56 PM
1

Agree with you there
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/16 02:11 AM
1

I don't know why setting the female score at 100 and seeing how men compare would change the results. You would have males scoring slightly higher than 100 in Australia and slightly lower in the other countries. The differences aren't statistically relevant anyways. You can examine the actual study on researchgate and you will see that Flynn examined differences in raw scores on the RPM as well. Flynn is also one of the world's leading IQ researchers so it's rather unlikely that he would commit …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/16 02:05 AM
1

Women, especially poor women, have been part of the workforce for a very long time. You also can't expect a capitalist nation to make no use of 50% of its workforce without falling behind economically. This is a development that would have happened with or without feminism. As for suicide rates Finland is a bit of an outlier. Other Nordic countries like Sweden or Norway are behind the US. Interestingly female suicide rates are about equal but male suicide rates are far lower in Sweden/Norway tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/16 11:36 PM
1

I tend to blame economic variables rather. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer which is now especially pronounced with globalism on the rise and manufacture taking place elsewhere. Obviously you could use rising suicide rates to pretty much justify any cause. They just tell us that something is going wrong, at least if you think people shouldn't have to kill themselves in a well functioning society. A quick look on suicide rates by country didn't reveal much though to be honest. …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/16 09:36 PM
2

Thats the real litmus for if modern society is "beneficial", not technology as we've been led to believe. I would agree but depression or suicide rates tell us little about what is causing them. I suppose you blame the suppression of people's natural tendencies but I don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/16 08:41 PM
1

You do realize its the only study that shows women are smart than men right and that as I already mention used different methods of testing That is incorrect. They used the Raven's progressive Matrices which has been used for ages and is widely known for being the best measure of general intelligence = g. The article heavily misinterprets those studies though. Females had an advantage of barely 1 IQ, which is insignificant as fuck. Also in the past females did NOT perform worse on Iq tests than …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/16 02:38 PM
1

That's true. Though the results are to my knowledge not as consistent as you suggest. From a paper summarizing sex differences in cognitive abilities: "More dramatically, four studies have found male advantages in mental rotation tasks among infants as young as 3 months of age [29,30]. However, many other infant studies did not detect these differences when alternate mental rotation tasks were used [31–35], including tasks [34,35] that closely matched those used in prior studies [29]. Similar ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/16 02:32 PM
2

But if anything it was men who were in power back then not the manosphere nor any other collectivist movement. Individual usually male rulers. And there were both advantages and disadvantages associated with being a woman back then. The benevolent sexism you describe was certainly a positive. On the other hand women were also confined to feminine roles, not trusted in positions of power and taken less seriously in their intellectual pursuits. See for instance the wiki entry on french mathematici…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/16 10:02 PM
1

The link you provided is about differences on the Raven's progressive matrices though. It's a measure of general intelligence and spatial or verbal abilities i.e. all areas in which differences between males and females have been found don't play into it. I am also not sure the results actually did change. It was widely believed that girls and boys scored the same on the RPM until Richard Lynn came along and conducted a meta-analysis claiming that male IQ was 5 points higher. That went against a…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/16 09:22 PM
1

Neither sex is smarter than the other- and any study that 'shows' that one sex is, can be shown false by another study that 'shows' the opposite. If there are average differences between groups in IQ they are usually found quite reliably. Differences between the sexes in general intelligence are found in very few studies and thus likely don't exist or are tiny. Differences in spatial and verbal ability on the other hand are consistently observed and thus exist. Might be nurture though
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/16 08:55 PM
-1

It seems a silly point to argue but I contend that were the manosphere to gain power they too would try to pass laws to disadvantage women.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/16 07:50 PM
2

The problem with that stuff is that your experiences are pretty worthless to me. Could be confirmation bias or could be that you know a certain kind of women. If I believe you I might as well believe that feminist girl who tells me that she and the other girls constantly show up the guys in Computer science.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/16 04:39 PM
1

Studies show otherwise. In general men and women excel at different mental tasks, though the overlap ist huge. Differences are most offen found among the highly gifted, where men outnumber women in math and women outnumber men in verbal abilities. It is obviously not known whether these differences are due to nature or nurture. You can in general trust me on this, as I have done a lot of research. I can produce the studies if you would like to see them though.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/16 04:19 PM
3

I agree. Though as they say two wrongs don't make a right. Which again goes for both sides. Sometimes get the feeling radfems and the manosphere are feeding off each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/16 03:56 PM
1

I am not sure I read all comments relevant to this one, so I am sorry if this was answered already. Regardless, I think this begs the question for whom the cash is actually generated. If a female president being in power and thus feminists gaining total control generates cash, who benefits from that cash? Is it the left, feminists or women in general?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/16 03:05 PM
1

This is because women as a group are not net tax payers, they pay and always have paid less than they benefit from the govt Rest of your argument aside I would like to know if that is actually true. I am aware of a study in New Zealand which shows women there constitute a fiscal net negative. But I'm not sure if their situation is comparable to the American one. Got any other research on that?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/16 02:52 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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