Things might be obvious to you and annoying to be asked for sources but Ithink obvious things should still have sources

macone235 · 2023-11-17T20:31:19+00:00

I've posted probably 50-100 sources here, and haven't even scratched the surface, but I don't post sources unless I'm specifically asked as this place is not formal enough for me to spend time making proper arguments to people that don't do the same.

It's not difficult to support your arguments when you're on the side of truth though. I've seen the TBP on the other hand do this an astounding two times total (and only once in a rebuttal to me). Unfortunately, "Women aren't shallow, 90% of them stay married to their husband on their death bed compared to 80% of men when they're old and almost dead too!" doesn't make for the best argument though.

ProfessorNaughty100 · 2023-11-17T16:48:04+00:00

Hard to have sources with most of the posts are unfalsifiable claims.

wtknight · 2023-11-17T16:50:34+00:00

They get cited on here on a somewhat regular basis. There are occasional posts that are basically a list of studies that support TRP views.

I think that the problem is that most people don’t want to put in the effort to keep a huge list of those sources. People debate here as a hobby, not as a job.

JNRoberts42 · 2023-11-17T17:42:21+00:00

It’s impossible because the manosphere was designed and managed by shady social media influencers who make money from recreational outrage. The graphs they link from Twitter? Zero sources. A gorilla could have mocked them up. The JPEGs of chadfishing and women supposedly responding to pedo dating profiles? Fake fake fake. The “field reports” posted by PUAs? Pure fantasy, and most of the major contributors to PUA content have been outed for hiring actresses. TRP is filled with blog posts men call “evidence” and almost none of them vet the sources, which are almost always pseudonyms with zero online footprint. The post statistics with zero understanding of errors and conclusions. Two of their pet subs have sidebars filled with phony sources and false conclusions.

Anti intellectualism is the theme, how in the world can any critical thinker combat that?

AutoModerator · 2023-11-17T06:00:53+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

SeveralLiterature980 · 2023-11-17T22:58:03+00:00

then there should be studies that are easy to find.

There are.

And to be honest, the evidence that physical attractiveness is the single dominant predictor, regarding initial dating decisions by both women and men (but to a greater extent women) , is overwhelming. In every study where actual choices are made by women on who to date, such as speed-dating, there are two main factors, in order of effect size: variance + looks. That's it. With dating apps, it's looks + race leading to a match.

There's research showing that, once you control for physical attractiveness --- the exerted effect of almost everything you hear about, like "confidence" "intelligence," "warmth," etc. --- is reduced to almost nothing.

I don't need to give sources for why the sky is blue its just so obvious". The sky is blue and obvious but we can still find papers explaining it.

Do a google search on speed dating studies and what drives partner selection. That's a good place to start.

It's so bizarre that telling the truth about peer reviewed replicated research invites such vitriol.

toasterchild · 2023-11-18T01:15:47+00:00

Almost every time i see a source posted here it doesn't say what the person is claiming it did. It doesn't matter at all really, people will just bend shit to match what they want it to say.

WilliamWyattD · 2023-11-18T04:08:23+00:00

I totally disagree. This is not the right forum for sources. Social science is a mess, and most people here aren't equipped to begin properly parsing sources. We just end up in Study Wars with people flinging study links at one another. It goes nowhere.

There's a place for more sourced content, but this is not it. Rather, I think it is better to accept the limitations of this medium. We can point out incoherence and contradiction. But at some point, when it comes to disagreements on basic facts, posters need to know when it is time to agree to disagree and move on. It is rare that an argument here is going to move to some definitive conclusion. Rather, what we are essentially doing is introducing different ways of looking at things to one another. Ultimately, we all have Google and those who are in good faith and have an open mind can research opinions they found promising on their own time.

Title	Things might be obvious to you and annoying to be asked for sources but Ithink obvious things should still have sources
Author	Logical_Round_5935
Upvotes	1
Comments	23
Date	November 17, 2023 6:00 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/17x8ggf/things_might_be_obvious_to_you_and_annoying_to_be/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/things-might-be-obvious-to-you-and-annoying-to-be.1238695 https://theredarchive.com/post/1238695

Comments