~ archived since 2018 ~

Game has been operationalized as "mating intelligence" and exerts a significant effect on male mating success (.41)

Ohyarlysmiles

April 1, 2021

37 upvotes

/r/BlackPillScience

https://doi.org/10.1556/2050.2016.0001

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Game has been operationalized as "mating intelligence" and exerts a significant effect on male mating success (.41)
Author	Ohyarlysmiles
Upvotes	37
Comments	21
Date	April 1, 2021 5:56 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/BlackPillScience
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/mi0ywm/game_has_been_operationalized_as_mating/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/BlackPillScience/game-has-been-operationalized-as-mating.765818 https://theredarchive.com/post/765818

Comments

[–]Ohyarlysmiles[S] 19 points20 points21 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbighero99 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaythemoid 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Existantialcrisis66 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Carkudo 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]HOLLYWOOD_EQ_PEDOS 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Carkudo 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HOLLYWOOD_EQ_PEDOS 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cedow 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Carkudo 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cedow -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cedow -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

The really surprising part is that this passed review at all, although the journal might not have a review process in place at all for all we know.

Why don't you look it up rather than engaging in baseless speculation?

Why would a journal, run by a collection of academics, not have a review process?

It's obvious that if appearance were controlled for there'd be covariance issues precluding the kind of interpretation that the author and OP are making. Given the plentiful literature on that, it's also likely that the author opted to exclude appearance intentionally, because the goal of the "research" was to promote a viewpoint.

Talking of "promoting a viewpoint", is it necessary for you to shoehorn physical attractiveness into every conversation about mating success?

Do you have some reason to assume that physical attractiveness and the proposed construct of MI (mating intelligence) are related? Do you think that all the variance in MI between participants could be explained by physical attractiveness? Why?

[–]Carkudo 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

Why would a journal, run by a collection of academics, not have a review process?

Because they want publications. Every academic field has a small number of top journals with a very severe and involved review process, and a bunch of others where the review if more of a formality. It might blow your mind, but journals may even have no formal review process at all.

is it necessary for you to shoehorn physical attractiveness into every conversation about mating success?

Yes, because it's a factor that is known to be extremely important for mating success and thus cannot be ignored.

Do you have some reason to assume that physical attractiveness and the proposed construct of MI (mating intelligence) are related?

Of course I do. All four "MI" aspects are behavioral, and since one's behavior cannot directly compel another person to do anything, the effect can only work by encouraging a certain evaluation of that behavior by the potential mate. Since it's common knowledge that behavior is evaluated differently depending on the actor's appearance, it stands to reason that that would be the case here as well. I'm sure the author was aware of that and chose to overlook the appearance variable exactly for that reason.

Do you think that all the variance in MI between participants could be explained by physical attractiveness?

I'm pretty sure you didn't say what you really wanted to say, but as a matter of fact yes, I do think that different 'MI' values in subjects are themselves conditioned by their attractiveness. That's beside the point though. The point I'm making here is that all previous evidence suggests that if appearance were taken into account, there would be a statistically significant interaction between it and 'MI'

[–]Cedow -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

It might blow your mind, but journals may even have no formal review process at all.

Yes, they may. I don't know of any off the top of my head though, certainly not in psychology.

I would imagine most journals run by practicing academics would be subject to a peer review process.

I don't see any reason to believe this would not be the case here. Do you?

Yes, because it's a factor that is known to be extremely important for mating success and thus cannot be ignored.

You don't have to include every variable in every study. If this were necessary every study would be gigantic and very cost ineffective.

The idea is that, across a sample with large enough statistical power, variables that you are not measuring (roughly) average out across participants.

Do you study psychology? This is basic stuff.

Of course I do.

No, you're relating not MI and physical attractiveness, but sexual outcomes and physical attractiveness. You're saying that "if they look hotter they will get more partners", not "if they look hotter they will have better MI".

I'm pretty sure you didn't say what you really wanted to say, but as a matter of fact yes, I do think that different 'MI' values in subjects are themselves conditioned by their attractiveness

I'm pretty sure I did say what I wanted to say. If you struggled to interpret it, then I will try and rephrase it in a more basic way.

Are MI and physical attractiveness directly linked in a 1:1 fashion? Would someone with the highest level of MI also have the highest level of physical attractiveness? I don't think there is any way that you could claim that.

The point I'm making here is that all previous evidence suggests that if appearance were taken into account, there would be a statistically significant interaction between it and 'MI'

Quite possibly, yes, but you are speculating, not relying on evidence.

It probably is likely that more physically attractive people, on average, develop better MI due to greater levels of socialisation. But that doesn't mean studying MI independently of physical attractiveness is worthless. As I said, it's very unlikely that MI and physical attractiveness are 1:1 related, and the evidence wouldn't suggest that they are (emotional intelligence is not 1:1 with physical attractiveness, for example).

That means there is value in developing MI independently of physical attractiveness.

[–]Carkudo 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

You don't have to include every variable in every study.

This isn't 'every variable' - this is a factor that is widely known to have a very strong effect on the dependent variable being explored here.

The idea is that, across a sample with large enough statistical power, variables that you are not measuring (roughly) average out across participants.

So? Even if we assume that the attractiveness of the subjects matches a normal distribution, that does not justify leaving it out of the analysis when it is known to strongly affect the dependent variable and interact with the predictor.

Would someone with the highest level of MI also have the highest level of physical attractiveness?

I'm sure they would, but that's still beside the point. The dependent variable being studied here is not attractiveness, nor is it 'MI'

you are speculating, not relying on evidence

There is ample evidence that appearance highly affects how a person's actions are evaluated. It's exactly why ignoring this effect is such a glaring defect of this study. If the effect were still controversial or unconfirmed, I'd certainly be annoyed that appearance is not included, but couldn't fairly fault the researcher for it, because, as you mentioned, it's not necessary to include every possible independent variable.

That means there is value in developing MI independently of physical attractiveness.

That's the claim the study makes, and that's exactly the claim it can't make without controlling for attractiveness. That claim would only be correct if there were no interaction between attractiveness and 'MI' or in the extremely implausible scenario where 'MI' predicts sexual success more reliably for less attractive subjects.

[–]Cedow -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

This isn't 'every variable' - this is a factor that is widely known to have a very strong effect on the dependent variable being explored here.

There are other such variables. Strength, vocal pitch, etc etc. Do you want to study them all in one go? That's not how the scientific process works.

I'm sure they would, but that's still beside the point.

Baseless assertion without evidence.

The dependent variable being studied here is not attractiveness, nor is it 'MI'

No, physical attractiveness is not even part of the study so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

There is ample evidence that appearance highly affects how a person's actions are evaluated. It's exactly why ignoring this effect is such a glaring defect of this study.

It's not, because the study was not looking at how a person's actions are evaluated, no matter what you might claim.

That's the claim the study makes, and that's exactly the claim it can't make without controlling for attractiveness

You are getting ahead of yourself. This is a separate study.

If you think the variance is explained by physical attractiveness, then you do a study to assess that. Probably some of it is.

To assert that physical attractiveness explains all the variance, without doing that study, is not scientific nor based in theory. I can't think of a single topic in psychology in which one attribute accounts for all the variance in another: it just doesn't happen. Determinants of behaviour are far more complex than that.

[–]Carkudo 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

the study was not looking at how a person's actions are evaluated

That would mean that 'MI' is something that directly compels people to mate with the person exhibiting it, which is simply ridiculous. Or... do you seriously believe that?

No, physical attractiveness is not even part of the study so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

You do know - I already explained that to you. Your refusal to acknowledge or adress that explanation shows that you are arguing in bad faith. I knew that was coming, because it always goes like that with people defending bluepill views, but I have to say it's still a bit of a letdown.

To assert that physical attractiveness explains all the variance

And there you go again - ignoring what I actually said and replacing it with an extreme and easily dismissed 'assertion'

So let's see:

1) You don't seem to know what covariance and interaction between predictors are

2) You feel the need ignore my arguments and restate your point of view without adressing them

3) You feel the need replace my point of view with a strawman

I rest my case.

[–]Cedow 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

That would mean that 'MI' is something that directly compels people to mate with the person exhibiting it, which is simply ridiculous

No, what I'm saying is the study wasn't directly measuring behaviour and how it is interpreted.

Otherwise what you're saying is that the only reason why people have sex is down to behavioural factors, which is exactly the opposite of what the blackpill argues.

At no point in the study was the reaction to behaviour measured. This wasn't a lab study.

And there you go again - ignoring what I actually said and replacing it with an extreme and easily dismissed 'assertion'

I'm not replacing anything. You literally said as much here:

Me: Would someone with the highest level of MI also have the highest level of physical attractiveness?

You: "I'm sure they would,"

You're asserting a 1:1 correlation between physical attractiveness and MI with nothing to base that on. Don't claim I am strawmanning you. It's exactly what you've said all the way through.

Rest your case if you want, but it wouldn't hold up in any kind of court.

[–]azevedro 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cedow -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link