Has anyone with any intellectual credentials ever addressed RP/BP thinking?

AshleyYakeley · 2014-02-20T06:12:21+00:00

Not RP per se, but you may be interested in Elana Clift's honors thesis on PUA.

lbspredh · 2014-02-20T10:22:07+00:00

intellectual credentials shouldnt matter, a well reasoned argument is the only way to counter reasoning you consider wrong, not some celebrity disendorsement of it.

nicethingyoucanthave · 2014-02-20T15:31:14+00:00

Is there any actual source of gender information that isn't an unedited rant off the top of some random's head?

You might find this interesting

Baumeister is a Princeton-educated professor of Psychology at FSU. In the linked lecture, he dismantles the popular explanation for observed gender-differences in outcome (that is, he refutes the notion that the only possible reason for a gender-difference is discrimination). He also goes into the underlying reason for those differences - namely, evolution.

throwred01 · 2014-02-20T07:13:43+00:00

In a recent thread, I produced eleven peer reviewed studies which I think adequately prove The Red Pill's starting position. Women are attracted to social dominance and "dark triad" personality types, and engage in long term relationships with men for whom they feel less sexual attraction. Beyond that, there's the growing list of studies which prove that gender is not a social construct.

Unfortunately, in our current political climate, that's the extent of the research that has been done, and The Red Pill is forced to piece together the rest of its case from things like divorce and suicide statistics.

I think this fact sheet is pretty eye opening. http://i.imgur.com/tK2cCIJ.png

deepthrill · 2014-02-20T12:23:01+00:00

I agree with what others said about peer reviewed studies and also about credentials not being as important as a rational argument.

But also don't assume anything. You may be quite surprised at the academic credentials some have on both sides of the aisle here in ppd.

Moxiecodone · 2014-02-20T14:10:06+00:00

Common sense, that's all you should use. Red Pill does not favor fundamental equality, it follows the impulse of gender roles, weak ones that structure fixed male authority. I don't need to hear much of TRP theory to disagree with it, for me it starts off immediately mistaken.

My thought on 'gender roles' is that the relationship formed between two people has amazing potential when the ground is good. A good foundation is based in what's best (for all) - and that means you include equal considerations, equal rights, equal duties, you give and receive fair shares. And it isn't fair to make someone so different from you in your mind as to separate them from the definition of yourself. Any limitation imposed is deliberately hindering potential. If physical programming can be changed, then mental programming has no justification for being flimsy. The dynamics of TRP are narrow. They don't match against the many aspects of reality, only self-interested, selected aspects.

suscitare · 2014-02-20T12:07:15+00:00

Maybe you could consult the gender studies department of your local university. </sarcasm>

Alternatively you could read the Red Queen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evolution_of_Human_Nature

Vault91 · 2014-02-20T11:55:06+00:00

so...dumb it down?

l_lecrup · 2014-02-23T23:26:04+00:00

I know people who have done research into Men's Rights, PUA, Incel, and a bunch of related things (from a performance theory point of view, and from a sociological point of view). But the research has mostly focused on the rise of the "manosphere" and the reasons people identify with these things, rather than if they are based in any sort of fact.

Seems like half of that area of thinking is just (imo misapplied) basic psychology/common sense, and half is just completely unsubstantiated (not to say false), other than by anecdote. There is a distinct lack of referencing, for example, in any article that I've read on e.g. Return of Kings.

MarieFranklin · 2014-02-25T03:25:12+00:00

The answer is no there is no "proof" for or against RP or BP, because there is no way to measure all of the reasons we have sex and fall in love using the scientific method. Too many reasons...too many variations on human sexuality...too much variation by culture, history, neuroplasticity, etc.

But one day science will declare the bonobos to be our closest cousins...the little monkies that have wonderful, happy purple societies! That will help a lot, because when we can see and study another species so close to ours, living out a society model that it not a patriarchal hetero male-female pairing only type of model, then our minds can crack open and everything will make sense. :0)

kick6 · 2014-02-27T02:10:11+00:00

credentialism is a disease of a heavily liberalized education system wherein degrees saying you know shit is accepted as a stand-in for actual proof that you know shit. I find it hard to believe you'd be capable of finding someone with a masters/Phd in anything you'd deem credible that was capable of an even-handed discourse on RP/BP matters.

sh1v · 2014-02-21T07:43:16+00:00

Given that gender relations is an extremely nuanced topic you're unlikely to find any quality sources that are also 'condensed'. You seem to want two different things at the same time

Title	Has anyone with any intellectual credentials ever addressed RP/BP thinking?
Author	AdmiralVonJackass
Upvotes	11
Comments	58
Date	February 20, 2014 5:06 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1yeyyr/has_anyone_with_any_intellectual_credentials_ever/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/has-anyone-with-any-intellectual-credentials-ever.286183 https://theredarchive.com/post/286183

Comments