Why does no one link stats or supporting evidence for their positions?

Academic-Map3827 · 2024-02-02T11:02:40+00:00

Because we are giving our opinions, mainly based on our life experience and anecdotal evidence. Most of us haven't read studies or if we have, can't recall them to cite them.

abaxeron · 2024-02-02T09:56:16+00:00

Because a) I respond to a person who stated their position without evidence and carry even less burden of proof than they do; b) I know that bad-faith actors will ignore my effort to support myself with evidence and thus waste my time; c) I regularly backlog evidence as profile posts or sub posts, and it is browsable by anyone interested.

xxx ,xxx ,xxx,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,xxx ,Not captioned: Pearsons showing that the states with higher rates of abortion also have higher rates of single motherhood

bottleblank · 2024-02-02T11:36:06+00:00

For the things I talk about:

Because a lot of the negative experiences and their causes are poorly researched, and tend to be encountered by underappreciated and frequently dismissed minorities, so are unusual/personal and undocumented...

...and because even when I do provide stats I'm talked over, ignored, insulted, invalidated, and blamed anyway, so people clearly don't want to acknowledge or understand those people and experiences.

Because it's an uncomfortable, unpleasant, troubling existence to have to comprehend and it shatters the convenient, trivial belief that "everything is fine" to realise that there are people living the emotional equivalent of homelessness their whole lives. Especially when it makes the majority contemplate how they and others must be acting towards the disadvantaged minorties in order for that to be true.

Well, that and there's a subset of evil morons who take pride in making sure those disadvantaged men "know their place" and will willingly make the problem worse for them, out of some kind of sick perverted pleasure.

howdoiw0rkthisthing · 2024-02-02T12:47:24+00:00

Often it’s just feels. Occasionally someone will put a lot of work into citing reputable sources in their post which is nice to see. But my favorite is when someone very confidently links to some ad-riddle ai-generated article that doesn’t even say what they think it says.

toasterchild · 2024-02-02T15:50:32+00:00

1- when people do post so called evidence it usually isn't saying what they are claiming anyway

2- nobody is here writing research papers, if you want to question their claims for yourself google exists

3-if you take time to look up stats its still not going to change the person's mind anyway, if they actually found what you said interesting they would look into it themselves.

4- most people who ask for "proofs" just do it to shut down the conversation when it goes a direction they don't like. If you post something to back up your argument all you will get back is why that good enough. People play games.

Salt-Echo-7867 · 2024-02-02T12:16:36+00:00

I think a very telling sign of an unintelligent person is the necessity to have things expressed in the form of a study in order to conclude blatantly true things.

For example if I said “women prefer tall men” and someone rebutted with “source? where’s your evidence?” I would think this is an unintelligent individual. Because it requires very minimal observational ability to realize that the majority of women prefer a taller man. This can be inferred not only by examining relationship heights, but simply by listening to women describe their ideal partner’s physical appearance. If you need a study to confirm that women have a preference for tall guys, then I would have to assume your ability to assess reality is inadequate.

thedarkracer · 2024-02-02T10:11:43+00:00

Some userd here were ignore the proofs that you share citing discrepancies on them which don't mean anything. This leads to shift of discussion. They fail to prove their point by linking their own sources and accuse you as being selective. Got this experience when I said pre selection bias was a thing. It's easy to just type and look it up if it's real or not. Someone asked for a peer reviewed paper, I gave one. Then asked why only one, give another. Why tf am I dealing with this shit? If you don't think it is real, give proof for fuck sake.

KorinTowerFreeloader · 2024-02-02T10:41:55+00:00

Said the OP, without quoting any evidence himself. You answered your own question, OP. People don't want to waste time researching the same shit over and over again just because some stranger on the internet doesn't believe them. People will believe what they want to believe.

Safinated · 2024-02-02T15:02:46+00:00

People do all the time. Guess you just don’t like what they link

spanglesandbambi · 2024-02-02T10:38:42+00:00

The issue often lies with if you have a set of views and they form part of your identity it is very hard to accept evidance otherwise. This includes providing research, if you know your view doesn't have anything.

It's particularly interesting that often, this type of person asks a poster for evidance however doesn't provide evidence for their own. They are looking for a gotcha moment in asking for evidence and don't want to provide what doesn't even exist for their own views.

This is what I have observed for this subreddit however obviously confirmation bias is a thing, here is one of the more compact studies on it to give a scientific explanation of what it is https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias.

Dertross · 2024-02-02T12:54:10+00:00

Because anyone whose been on the internet long enough knows that even when you post a source, they'll often attack the source then act as if their sourceless counter-argument wins the debate.

I'm honestly at the point I don't even care about the source of data anymore. More data > Any data at all > No data. It just so happens bluepillers are usually in the "no data at all" and "attacks your source" camp. See: "Online Dating isn't real life".

TRTGymBro · 2024-02-02T15:17:47+00:00

Because everyone has cognitive biases. Nobody is open to being proven wrong. They will twist all evidence to make it seem like it actually supports their preconceived notions.

For example, men will quote a 15 year old non-scientific study posted on a blog as evidence that women find 80% of men unattractive. Yet, if you told those same men to go out and go to a popular night club or a concert or just their local park and spend a couple of hours observing different couples, and that they would see men of all levels of attractiveness and height with actual partners, they would violently reject that. They would spin clear evidence and twist to mean "well yeah, this girl is wjth an average looking and average height guy, but that's ONLY because she settled" as if they can actually read someone's mind and figure out their motivations.

You can spin and twist most factual evidence to make it mean what you want to make it mean.

purplish_possum · 2024-02-02T16:01:15+00:00

Some things aren't amenable to scientific research. Saying this as someone trained in natural science (I was a geology major).

Relationships are best examined as arts and humanities issues.

The lyrics to a good song can say more about reality than 100 social science "studies."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKN3dSEo8_I

Steakman1 · 2024-02-02T17:51:01+00:00

Even though this is a debate sub, it isn’t for formal debates where two people do research for a week and then have a formal discussion here with a dedicated moderator. Though that would be kind of nice if stuff like that did happen. Even though there’s people here who have read studies on whatever their views are, they probably didn’t save them in anticipation of needing to cite them months or years later. And most people aren’t invested enough mid argument to go and find them again.

Creation_Soul · 2024-02-02T13:16:37+00:00

sometimes people ignore stats that don't subscribe to their world view. For example, age gap marriage and divorce rate. With a reference point of married people of the same age, a marriage with a gap of 10 years is 40% more likely to end in divorce than the reference point. Source

I always hate the hypocrisy here. Men complain that promiscous women make bad long term partners, but so do people much older/younger that you, but people ignore this statistic because it contradicts their world view.

Objective_Ad_6265 · 2024-02-02T15:56:00+00:00

Because most people are her just for fun to kill time, share their personal opinions and experiences and what comes to their mind regarding the topic. Statistic is boring.

apresonly · 2024-02-02T16:58:02+00:00

I've read a lot of books to form my opinions. I will cite my source to linking to a book when a guy asks for it but they generally hate that because people hate reading books.

I'm also here to debate, not create lesson plans for men to learn about feminism.

If someone doesn't have enough knowledge to debate with me, then it would be a waste of time to debate with them.

SeveralAcorns · 2024-02-02T16:53:04+00:00

A majority of posts and comments on this subreddit are people stating their opinions, with no references to stats or data of any kind.

Because the pill ideologies do not have stats to back them up.

njayinthehouse · 2024-02-02T10:20:09+00:00

[permanently deleted]

boom-wham-slam · 2024-02-03T04:06:28+00:00

I mean I can say "you know how women like to have sex with hot men in the club?" And literally people will say "I need stats for that, most women never even have a ons" it's honestly ridiculous

AutoModerator · 2024-02-02T09:38:29+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" 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.

Gitsumrestmf · 2024-02-02T11:17:17+00:00

1) Most things discussed here are opinions. What "stats" do you want for that? E.g.:

"I think women should dress more modestly!"

"Where are the SOURCES?!!1"

2) Confirmation bias. We can all pull sources supporting our views. What then? Do our sources cancel each other out and we are back to square one?

3) It doesn't benefit discussion. What, if my opinion doesn't have linked studies to support it, it's invalid? I really hate it when people treat "Source?" as a supposedly valid counter.

Granted, if you are going to make statistical claims, do provide statistics. Other than that, no links needed.

lolthankstinder · 2024-02-02T12:17:07+00:00

Umm do you have any stats or supporting evidence to support the claim you’re making right now?

Fabulous_HonestTea · 2024-02-02T13:06:34+00:00

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

Independent-Mail-227 · 2024-02-02T13:13:11+00:00

Because women will push the unfalsifiable claim button or ignore context from the numbers they present.

So when they just shove some "I know a ugly guy that sleep with supermodels" the discussion is dead because you can't disprove it nor she can prove it making a massive disservice to any discussion.

When you point out that the reason for men to not fight for custody is because it's a life ruining decision they'll continue saying the same shit over and over.

I wish there were rules prohibiting these low-quality posts and comments.

I don't, the modteam is pretty biased and have show signs of being unable to debate while going in tangents how comments are or aren't rule breaking.

Agile-Explanation263 · 2024-02-02T13:19:17+00:00

Anyone good at debate knows you can minimize and manipulate staistics for almost any argument.

Statistics do not claify reasons or intentions behind a certain behavior which is very important in terms of dating and sometimes prove nothing but the opposite of what someone is trying to argue.

They don't clarify reasons or intentions because many statistics are word of mouth and not actions. LIke men who report having tons of sex. Yet many women hold the opinion men are trash/pigs/sexist idiots. So that begs the questions are these men actually getting sex. If personality mattered so much why?

An example. Many women/blue pill men will tell men to work on thier personality whilst ignoring that most of the men they slept with or had relationships with we're more physically attractive than said person they're giving advice to and no mention of said need will ever pop up.

Brazil_doesnt_exist · 2024-02-02T13:22:03+00:00

Hey I posted a study the other day and people still found ways to turn it against itself 🤷‍♂️

blarginfajiblenochib · 2024-02-02T14:08:56+00:00

I very often do, but even when presented with about as concrete evidence as possible people will just say “it’s not good enough” and move the goalposts because they can’t admit they’re wrong.

SillyMushroomTip · 2024-02-02T14:23:11+00:00

Most of the stats dropped are just surveys which isn't entirely concrete

The only truth I know now from the last 12 years of dating. It's a shit show and if your not attractive then you ain't going to cut it

SamanthaNicola · 2024-02-02T14:27:10+00:00

I think alot of what we talk about is a very subjective thing and I've seen many studies that don't really pass for credited studies and dont counter bias in them but I also think alot of people come on here with the mentality to prove others wrong, rather than to discuss and hear other view points

PurplePillDebate-ModTeam · 2024-02-02T15:33:27+00:00

[permanently deleted]

campskills21 · 2024-02-02T15:59:52+00:00

Googling dating related studies is boring we all have done that, anybody can google any argument about literally anything to support their side of the claim.

My favorite was the famous OkCupid releasing of dating app stats that was always shared on incel subreddit years ago. That top 5% of male users get 90% of the female matches and 80% of the dates. The bottom 70% of male straight users who try OkCupid will not get a single date. They released this data back when OkCupid was still a player in the dating apps.

That was the most shared statistics about dating I’ve ever seen. Even though it’s straight user data and message analysis, it’s still misleading like every other dating study you’re going to find. They may not be looking at guys who may not be single just looking around, does it account for bots, how did you know they got the date, the message alone. There’s so many questions to be asked about the OkCupid data and different ways to look at data if you had it to analyze.

You’re not going to get girls to admit how many guys she slept with or how many times she cheated, they all lie to themselves about it. So just pointing to some study doesn’t mean anything to me. Or girls are less horny than men, anybody who knows girls know most can be very horny, how do we measure this, it’s subjective and if you work in reporting you know you can make numbers lie.

We don’t come here to see googled dating statistics, we come here to hear other perspectives and opinions.

SlowEffective8146 · 2024-02-02T17:02:34+00:00

You can't give data on the nuance of emotional behavior

Tobor_Xes240 · 2024-02-02T17:16:08+00:00

Check out r/blackpillscience

EmbarrassedClient283 · 2024-02-02T18:37:37+00:00

If anyone would have to rely on data there would be almost no debate because there are only specific domains which get funded for studies. With that said I do believe the general data shows a decline in male happiness, a decline in the amount of sex young men have and a huge asymmetry in the supply/demand in dating apps between men and women

CryptoThroway8205 · 2024-02-02T18:41:40+00:00

Easier not to link stats usually. I spent at least 10 minutes trying to find a study then reading through it to disprove claims that height isn't as important as muscularity and reading through a study about it. I didn't even disprove it, just that the study never made that claim. Whereas people can link a tiktok they found cuz they were scrolling anyways.

TheGreatBeefSupreme · 2024-02-02T18:47:04+00:00

I always give citations when asked for them. I don’t tend to offer them unsolicited because most people aren’t pursing the truth to being with.

CringeButCorrect · 2024-02-02T19:59:04+00:00

A lot of researchers in the social sciences are feminists. You won't find very many studies that go against feminist ideas.

Toxic_LigmaMale · 2024-02-02T20:14:57+00:00

Because why? There’s a study to back up every position. If you post solid points with good data, you’ll get drowned out by sheer volume of junk studies. As the OP, you’ll then end up reading 90% bullshit along with responding to the standard ignorant commenters. Your mental energy if you want to debate is gone almost immediately.

That’s why “debates” are 1 on 1 or a small team vs a small team. Not 1 vs 200. This forum (Reddit as a whole) will never be worth more than throwing an idea out there. Because even if you have the best point in the world, if it’s unpopular or offensive, you’ll be drowned in ignorance.

GlamSunCrybabyMoon · 2024-02-02T20:29:17+00:00

People are bad at interpreting data and studies.

darkwindhowls · 2024-02-02T21:04:11+00:00

Hopelessly naive OP.

You obviously have never had the joy of arguing with a creationist. You could cite 100 studies backing you up and the creationist will launch a series of fallacious "arguments" designed to "pick apart" each study. They have no concept of the weight of the evidence. They will just systematically launch a kindergarten level 'attack' on each study that would require everyone to essentially believe all these researchers are idiots and don't know how to research their own field. Or require one to make leaps like the study that mirrors exact real life conditions simply cannot be analogized to real life.

The fact is that, at least for the topics I discuss, there is an overwhelming consensus (gloabl warming level agreement) regarding the superficiality of initial dating decisions. These people argue against it, because they are unaware of it, because they aren't interested in anything empirical.

Once you understand this, you will understand why it's a waste of time to cite much. If the other party were so interested, they could google and find a mountain of evidence. They don't. Because they're not interested.

No-Rough-7390 · 2024-02-02T22:09:30+00:00

Usually when I source a claim someone is pissed off about, they disappear. Weird how that happens.

WowYouMustBeJoking · 2024-02-02T22:20:24+00:00

There were stats and studies posted here multiple times. But it's pointless when people can't acknowledge reality. This sub is more than 10 years old all those things were posted a lot back in the beginning. But what's the point? You still see people denying that there's no wage gap, you still see people denying that men and women are different sexes and therefore have different standards, you still see people saying crap like that sexual past doesn't matter because they know some 304 who got married and didn't lie about her past and didn't give her husband less.

It's just pointless to keep all those links saved, to go through them to find the appropriate one to post - and then the same people who you know were in that thread will post in other threads as if no studies were shown.

Like seriously, why do this? Sometimes you can post something if you really just happened to have it open already, but actually doing it consistently seems pointless.

SmilesRHere · 2024-02-03T02:46:09+00:00

Because 99% of people don’t understand the limitations of pretty much all the research out there, and just as many don’t understand how statistics can be manipulated to give almost any result the researchers want.

Source: my wife taught stats, research and psychology at multiple universities for around 20 years, has done the analysis for hundreds of published (in medical journals) research, and she is currently a researcher.

A good example is the whole 80/20 bullshit often sited by RP folks based on a very flawed online dating analysis.

Good research methodologies require a lot more than just taking just any available data and analyzing it.

You will get a much better and more relevant statistical analysis and research with 100 carefully selected people than data based on even millions of people.

Almost all “evidence” shared in these and similar forums are complete junk, and very very often either misrepresented, or misunderstood to the point of the researchers concluding with exactly the opposite of what the one who is sharing it thinks it means.

The majority of people who share the junk “evidence” lack the intellect to understand it, so never even read the whole thing (and even if they do, don’t have the capacity to understand what it says).

Trying to explain why a “research” is flawed, or what it actually says, to people who are as thick as flat earthers, and just as convinced that their “understanding/truth” is what the “research” says, is annoying, frustrating, hopeless.

mrbesito · 2024-02-04T02:15:45+00:00

I just want to point out that you didn't reference any stats or data in this post. I'm guessing you didn't for the same reason others don't, it's a fair bit of work and effort.

Critical_Corner_1859 · 2024-02-04T14:04:20+00:00

Some things are obvious, or theres plenty of research over it that's one click away. People are free to document themselves. There's no need to spoon feed links to anyone

Cherish_Lifee · 2024-02-04T22:40:08+00:00

i mean anything that has the potential to make women or their sexuality look bad will not be studied for the most part.

So the evidence for certain things often times doenst exist or you can just make a sementics game out of it.

Also most people dont have the time or knowledge on how to read a study and interprete findings.

I think it would just end up being a shitshow.

Title	Why does no one link stats or supporting evidence for their positions?
Author	njayinthehouse
Upvotes	1
Comments	178
Date	February 2, 2024 9:38 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1agzyc3/why_does_no_one_link_stats_or_supporting_evidence/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-does-no-one-link-stats-or-supporting-evidence.1244409 https://theredarchive.com/post/1244409

Comments