Research into hypergamy doesn’t replicate. Original researcher declares his own theory is probably not true and that the studies based on his theory are now garbage.

Snowiceolated · 2018-10-26T19:02:33+00:00

Analyses showed no compelling evidence that preferences for facial masculinity were related to changes in women's salivary steroid hormone levels. Furthermore, both within-subject and between-subject comparisons showed no evidence that oral contraceptive use decreased masculinity preferences. However, women generally preferred masculinized over feminized versions of men's faces, particularly when assessing men's attractiveness for short-term, rather than long-term, relationships.

from your own article btw - "facial masculinity"

All they're saying is women's mate preferences don't fluctuate throughout their menstrual cycle. They always prefer AF for short-term and BB for long term whether they're ovulating or not. Sounds like even more consistent proof for AF/BB, hypergamy, and AWALT to me.

Mr_Smoogs · 2018-10-26T19:05:16+00:00

The ovulating cycle theory has always been quite weak. I don't think it was ever the basis of AF/BB, hypergamy, nor AWALT. I don't think this changes much with regard to dual mating strategy. Women will still bang hot, fun guys when they are carefree and young and then settle down with more stable men when older. Men do it too. It's called Madonna/whore. The only difference being the difficulty bar is set significantly higher for men to achieve such a strategy.

Ovulation cycle theory is quite irrelevant to the concept of fucking hot, wild dudes when young then trying to settle down into a relationship with a stable decent (read: less attractive and often boring) man when older.

TRP stands on its own without ovulation theory of mate selection. From the NYT today (I'll post an OP on Monday):

Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard who argues that “the mind is a product of the brain, that the brain is organized in part by the genome, and that the genome was shaped by natural selection” contends that there is a persistent political gender gap in the trade-off between guns and butter: men are likelier than women to favor the more hawkish and law-and-order candidate, women the candidate who promises more social spending. The asymmetry is hardly surprising to an evolutionary biologist.

This difference, Pinker wrote in an email, emerges from that fact that males of many mammalian species compete for dominance (which in traditional societies translated into more mating opportunities, hence more offspring), including the dominance of their group relative to other group. They are often willing to take lethal risks to get a shot at the jackpot of being an alpha male or part of an alpha group, especially since their offspring can survive without them, albeit at greater risk.

This is the basis of AF/BB, not ovulation theory.

reluctantly_red · 2018-10-26T19:27:08+00:00

The monthly cycle thing always seemed a bit weird. The long term dual strategy theory (i.e. AF//BB) seems as valid as ever.

MoodyBrizo · 2018-10-26T20:15:18+00:00

Oh look, another blooper that doesn't even understand the studies he's citing. Imagine my shock.

80_20 · 2018-10-27T03:59:25+00:00

The basis of hypergamy is easily proven beyond this study. Let's do an experiment.

Walk up to any woman. Ask her what percentage of men she finds attractive.

repeat till you are convinced you got a statistically valid number.

Walk up to any man. Ask him what percentage of women he finds attractive.

repeat till you are convinced you got a statistically valid number. (the same as women)

Compare.

result=hypergamy

Why it occurs is a much bigger problem and that's what the "dual sexuality" is trying to answer. That doesn't undermine the entire concept.

So you can declare it dead all you want, but until someone can explain our experiments results with a better definition, hypergamy is sadly still with us. You may however decide the "why" of the question as invalid as the study attempts to do.

TheGreasyPole · 2018-10-27T12:53:59+00:00

OK,

This again...

First, I'll make the rather obvious point that shouldn't need to be made, but clearly has to be... This scientific brouhaha has nothing to do with Hypergamy. This is about "Changes in female preferences over the menstrual cycle". What RP calls "Ovulation Game". This is completely distinct and seperate from the scientific study of Hypergamy, the preference for women (at all stages of their menstrual cycle) for men of high status. What science calls "Socially successful men".

So, with that out of the way... What do we want to say about this Slate article on "Menstrual Cycle Shifts" ? Well, primarily what we want to say here is... Slate has picked a series of studies that tell it what it wants to hear.

Thats not to say this isn't a controversial issue. That is only to say that Slate has chosen to present one side of this issue as though it were correcT and has completely failed to present the scientific evidence that it is actually the papers it cites that are wrong.

If could quote the last paragraph of the article that might give you a some idea of what is going on here...

Then came a pair of papers in 2014, each of which would try to pool results from at least 50 prior studies, published and unpublished, on whether ovulation changes women’s desire for short-term relationships with manly men. One found no effect; the other said there was a “robust relationship.” It seems like every controversial field of research gets to have a moment just like this one, where disputes break down into a pair of dueling meta-analyses. The reason for this is that the methods used to carry out these omnibus reviews—which studies to include, how to correct for publication bias, and so forth—are themselves subject to a range of vexing scientific controversies. “Although the number of meta-analyses has exploded, many don’t bring clarity,” wrote Jop de Vrieze in an excellent summary of the issue from September.

So, the article has presented a load of papers debunking this idea, and failed to represent the case from the papers arguing this was right.

THEN it presented 2 meta-anlysis of the field... one supporting their view, and one supporting the oppositte... and just kinda shrugged it's shoulders leaving it there, giving casual readers the impression that this menstrual cycle theory had been debunked.

So much so... that it led SmashTheKyriachy to write the above OP where he/she assumed it had been debunked.

Almost as though that was the impression they'd wanted to push out there.

Now, doesn't this strike anyone as weird ? Science published 2 meta-analysis, which completely disagreed with each other and never went back to wort out what was right ? These were published in 2014 afterall.

Didn't someone go back and work out which was right ? Well, yes. They did. Almost immediately. Both teams took the others meta-analysis and tried to find out why the other side was wrong.

And it turned out that.... the meta-analysis debunking the effect was in fact, wrong.

When they re-analysed the "debunking" meta-analysis they found that the data presented within it did indeed support the "variation in menstrual cycle" theory, but the authors of that meta-analysis had hidden this information. They also showed that the other claims of the debunking meta-analysis had made (that those finding the effect were "cheating" by P-Hacking their data) was ALSO wrong. They could see that there had been no P-Hacking, and that the writers of the "debunking meta-analysis" had essentially smeared their opponents with accusations of falsification based on no evidence.

Meanwhile, the team examining the meta analysis that supported "menstrual cycle changes" did not publish any rebuttal. They literally couldn't find anything wrong with the supporting meta-analysis (!).

So it turns out.... in contrast to the end of this Slate article.... the situation isn't "Loads of negative results were found, and duelling meta-analysis didn't decide the issue, so you should believe this has been debunked" as they presented it to SmashTheKyriachy, and SmashTheKyriarchy presented it here.

It turns out there was a controversy, with good evidence on both sides, and 2 meta-analysis were produced to sort it out.... and one of those supported the theory with sound evidence, and the other "debunked" the theory by ignoring evidence only to be caught with their pants down when other science showed that their "debunking" meta-anlaysis supported the theory TOO!

We got left with 2 meta-analysis trying to decide who was right.... the evidence within BOTH of which turned out to support the hypothesis.

But "Science confirmed" isn't a great story, so Slate has gone with an alternative and more exciting take.

How do I know all this (and why did I sigh and say "Not this again" above) ? Well, I researched this about 3 months ago when BiggerD posted more or less the same thread "Menstrual Cycle Theory Debunked!". Based on, again, reading mass-media that said so. Based on, again, ignoring the science that showed the theory was correct ... and instead insisted on presenting only the negative side of the argument.

Anyway.... for those of you who wish to ascertain I'm not blowing smoke up your ass... Here are the PDFs.

The meta-analysis confirming the effect

The meta-analysis saying it has been debunked

The response to the 2nd meta-analysis showing that the evidence in it actually supported the conclusions of the "confirmed" meta-analysis, once you exposed the data those researchers were deliberately hiding to get the result they wanted

Now there are other back and forths, there are actually about a half dozen articles all piling on the debunking and showing where it's wrong, various teams jumped in and showed the errors that had been made by the debunkers, and I could also link these, but I doubt anyones even going to click on the links above let alone more if I gave them to you.

Suffice to say Slate has deliberately failed to represent where the argument ended up (Menstrual cycle effects confirmed by the evidence presented by both meta-analysis).

I'll just post you the abstract from the response so you can see just how bad the debunking paper was...

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? [GOOD Question - TGP]

We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts.

Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence. [This last bit is them sticking the knife in and basically accusing the authors of the invalid article of very bad faith attempts to smear their opponents - TGP]

What we actually have, at the end of all this is.... A controversy! Dun-Dun-duuuuuun.... Who is right ? Science steps in to find out AND... it turns out that both meta-analysis conducted support the fact that it's a real effect. In this case "Sciences Original Hypothesis Confirmed!"

In complete contrast to the impression the Slate article (and the other mainstream article BiggerD read) left their readers with.

Almost as though the mainstream press articles wanted to write a "science debunked" article, and stopped reading the science once they had their story in the bag, completely failing to realise science hadn't stopped in 2014 and this had been sorted out in "the complete opposite of the way they intimated" in the intervening period.

Thats not to say that this isn't still an ongoing controversy, it is. Papers are still being published on both sides here and the debate continues. But thats kinda the point. That is not what Slate presented, and is not what SmashTheKyriarchy took from their article.

newDerivur · 2018-10-27T14:07:26+00:00

So women will get the memo any day now and start finding me attractive ? XD Hahahaha

weag5l · 2018-10-27T12:23:22+00:00

This has fuck-all to do with hypergamy. Hypergamy is marrying up. It has nothing to do with the menstrual cycle.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2018-10-26T18:53:36+00:00

thats nice. nothing in RP is based on studies, who cares

AlanHalworth · 2018-10-26T20:35:29+00:00

I've always been puzzled by the term "hypergamy." It's supposed to be a property of women's psychology (and not men's.) But both men and women would prefer to "marry up" or "date upward." How is this about women only? Guys, raise your hand if you _don't_ want to date a woman who is way more attractive than you?

TallSwaggOVO · 2018-10-26T18:48:29+00:00

Well, this should be an interesting one.

But, there will always be things that may not be 100% sound, but still somewhat true. I think AF/BB (or at least similar concepts in it) are somewhat true.

LeJacquelope · 2018-10-27T06:48:19+00:00

ROTFLMAO ahhhhh hahahahahah take any incel and make him rich and give him power and he will have more women at his feet than he can hope to count.

The example of Donald Trump completely destroys the idea that hypergamy doesn't exist. Destroys, like Starkiller Base level annihilation.

Hypergamy encompasses a whole multiverse of things beyond just a man's facial features.

SpaceWhiskey · 2018-10-26T19:06:43+00:00

I always knew this was bullshit, as I’ve literally never experienced it. Very fun though to have boys on the internet insist they know how my reproductive system works better than I do, hopefully this will curb it 👍

AutoModerator · 2018-10-26T18:44:20+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.

consios88 · 2018-10-30T07:05:48+00:00

I dont even know what men even carry on these arguements with women. Were you not in school with women. did you not see them all go for the popular guys did you not grow up watching af/bb. Watch what people do been doing, not what they type or say.

BowieBuckley · 2018-10-30T23:49:13+00:00

If this is the same study I read, it attempted to show women’s preferences in masculinity change at different points during her cycle. It actually concludes that the changes are too minuscule to affect mate selection. I see people try and use this study a lot to justify these ideas, claiming that the data does indeed demonstrate that there is some sort of difference. Unfortunately these people always conveniently leave out the study’s conclusion.

EDIT: Also, for anyone arguing with you, there is plenty of evidence that hypergamy is hugely a cultural construct.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421994/

Has no one ever heard of the caste system here?

Here4thebeer3232 · 2018-10-26T19:02:50+00:00

Hypergamy originally was a concept from India. Where class and caste divides are more numerous and clearly defined. So already we have an issue with the translation. Western culture is a little more vague, and movement between classes is more frequent. If you're a dalit in India, you are dalit till you die. Whereas in a lot of the west you dont stay the same class your entire life.

Drippyskippy · 2018-10-26T18:58:02+00:00

I'm curious if birth control was prevelent in the original study as it is on the newer studies. That could be a possible cause of different outcomes.

hammerhaunts · 2018-10-26T19:00:04+00:00

OK, whatever

TheBookOfSeil · 2018-10-26T19:29:09+00:00

So all this says to me is that women are basically a little bit more lesbian when they’re not ovulating compared to when they are ovulating. Nothing difficult to understand about that. “Dual sexuality” = bisexuality, and women definitely seem to be a little bit bi, even if it’s a female face on a feminine male’s body.

Edit: I once read a comment by Atlas where she said that men basically want their best bro in female form. Maybe it’s correct to say that women also want their best bff in male form, but the fact that more masculine/feminine traits will be sought during certain times will never change.

Edit 2: Maybe what’s confusing everyone is the concept of long-term relationships, which aren’t exactly the natural order in animals. LTR’s are more of a societally-constructed thing.

Comments