doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[doubtingthomas]

did you read the article you linked to above? Did you notice it was an opinion piece, and it was a commentary on some very serious issues they had with the very nonscientific and extremely inaccurate piece you call a "study", and that the conclusion "Below Average" is in quotation marks? You know, like people do when they are questioning something, or have an issue with that conclusion. Go read your link. It does not support your point at all.

I like your response. I did not read the article, I admit.

I did read this one, it talks about a 2023 unpublished study.

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/women ... t-research

[doubtingthomas]

Responsibility and control are so easy for our brains to screw up. And it’s really hard to see in yourself. I’ve found one rubric that I think is helpful: If you are using your own conduct to try and make a deal so that someone will change their conduct, you should stop and make sure that you aren’t trying to shift the responsibility for your behavior on to someone else. A very bland example was Atlantic Mike‘s “I’ll stop being a dick if you’ll talk to me in private and extend the hand of friendship. That’s AM trying to make others responsible for his own conduct. AM’s choice to act like a Dick was his and his alone. His choice — no one else’s.

DT, you’ll note that throughout this extended conversation we’ve been having, never once have I conditioned my attention to help on anything from you. I’m offering you advice because I choose to. And although I certainly appreciate that you appreciate what I’m trying to do, I don’t expect it. When you say, as you did to Doc, I’ll change my behavior if you do X, you are trying to put responsibility for your own behavior onto Doc. Instead of you taking the responsibility for deciding whether or not to post, you are trying to make it Doc’s decision. That’s an unhealthy mistake we make all the time, and it takes time and effort to learn how to put responsibility where it belongs and then to do it.

As Yoda never said: “Do. Or Do Not. Leave me out of it.”

Yes, I honestly appreciate it.

I understand.

[doubtingthomas]

I didn't see the study to back up that claim by the way: Are chads dangerous? Are they really more dangerous than self-hating basement dwellers?

I have no idea. I have not seen any evidence that nice guys who have boring jobs are more successful with women than violent guys (rich or poor).

You don't think we could cherry pick crimes against women committed by ugly dudes?

True.

So ironically, if you would have spent your childhood years pursuing friendships and/or relationships with less attractive girls, you would being doing better now, because you'd know the ins-and-outs of interacting with a girl.

Good point.

Have you seen the ten-minute CNN video, what do you think about it?

[doubtingthomas]

did you read the article you linked to above? Did you notice it was an opinion piece, and it was a commentary on some very serious issues they had with the very nonscientific and extremely inaccurate piece you call a "study", and that the conclusion "Below Average" is in quotation marks? You know, like people do when they are questioning something, or have an issue with that conclusion. Go read your link. It does not support your point at all.

I like your response. I did not read the article, I admit.

I did read this one, it talks about a 2023 unpublished study.

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/women ... t-research

This is the last post. I am really done now.

[Marcus]

...And what do you make of "Women Say 80% of Men Are “Below Average”

https://medium.com/hello-love/women-say ... b0b8af2606

I don't blame women for my unhappiness, but my life would be a bit easier if schools teach young people to have realistic expectations. If 80% of men are below average, that would be wrong on so many levels, I hope that study is incorrect....

did you read the article you linked to above? Did you notice it was an opinion piece, and it was a commentary on some very serious issues they had with the very nonscientific and extremely inaccurate piece you call a "study", and that the conclusion "Below Average" is in quotation marks? You know, like people do when they are questioning something, or have an issue with that conclusion. Go read your link. It does not support your point at all.

I like your response. I did not read the article, I admit.

I did read this one, it talks about a 2023 unpublished study.

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/women ... t-research

no, it does no such thing. in fact, all it does is rehash and misuse the very same flawed and nonscientific result that the previous article you DID NOT READ does.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[Chap]

This is the last post. I am really done now.

QFT.

[Gadianton]

Have you seen the ten-minute CNN video, what do you think about it?

okay, I just watched it. I agree with a lot of it. The real loser here is Ajax, interestingly, because Dr. Galloway mainly focused on the increasing wealth transfer from young people to old people as the driving issue. Ajax thinks I like high taxes because I voted for Biden, but the reality is he likes high taxes because he doesn't understand that wealth is relative. If he gets a tax cut, but the classes above him get a disproportionately greater tax cut, then he just got a tax increase because he's so god-damned stupid as to vote his way into financial slavery. I even tried to point out to him during Romney's run; I did the math; that the amount the lower 47% make total is peanuts, and taxing them more will just give him his sadistic psych fix because it won't materially help his situation.

Here were some points I scribbled down from Dr. Galloway:

- manufacturing offshoring
- more suits in colleges
- investment in vocational training
- permits for housing (build more houses)
- recognize our economic policies
- wealth under 40 12% to 6%
- no child tax credit
- seniors got their largest cost of living adjustment in history
- we have made it more expensive for people to find each other, mate, have children

I agree with all of it.

Nowhere did he say that women are getting too picky. He said they are getting more picky. You have a horrific tendency to commit the naturalistic fallacy -- turning an "is" into an "ought". Getting more picky is a statement of fact; getting too picky is a value judgment.

And for your stupid "Chad" theory, according to Galloway:

-1/4 of men say economics; major criteria is attraction. 3/4 of women economics. He even said 1% of attractive men get swiped on Tinder.

And so if we're turning is's into oughts, then it's men who at the greatest fault for focusing on looks only, not women. On the looks front, it's the men looking for Stacy who are the problem, not women looking for a Chad.

But I agree with Galloway, that it's mostly an economic problem. There's no incentive to hook up and have kids anymore. That's not because of liberals giving to the poor, but because people like Ajax give to the rich.

(That's the external environment problem, the biggest internal problem is computers, apps, phones, GAMES, online porn (as Galloway mentioned))

[doubtingthomas]

But I agree with Galloway, that it's mostly an economic problem.

What explains the increase in young, single men? If you compare the pew 2019 data with the 2022 data, you'll see a big increase in single men.

One study (controlling for unemployment, living with parents, and other variables) says that young men born after the year 2000 are having less sex, so a bad economy today can't possibly explain the decline in sexual activity. The economy didn't collapse in 2017 and the study controlled for economic circumstances anyway. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34836481/

As for the CNN report, didn't it say that the top 20% of men get 60% of all the attention?

A new study finds that 80% of men are unattractive. One researcher thinks that women are rejecting men who are a lot older (or a lot younger), but dating apps give you the option to select your age preferences. Also, most men and women on popular apps like Tinder are under 30. To see the unpublished study, you would have to see the screenshots. https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/women ... t-research

[doubtingthomas]

I like your response. I did not read the article, I admit.

I did read this one, it talks about a 2023 unpublished study.

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/women ... t-research

no, it does no such thing. in fact, all it does is rehash and misuse the very same flawed and nonscientific result that the previous article you DID NOT READ does.

We don't know that, the new study seems to be unpublished. You'll have to see the screenshots.

The researcher that provided the screenshots on his Twitter is a statistician.