Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The BBQ Pit (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Science says Incels are right about everything. What happens next? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879396)

GIGObuster 08-04-2019 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21788862)
I did post one link directly to the study when repeatedly requested on the fact that Asian men have half the odds of relationships compared to white men which researchers concluded was due to "women's racial hierarchies". My posting of that did not lead to anything except me being insulted more and more strawmen being thrown at me. No one offered any commentary whatsoever on the article itself. So I can only conclude this is not a genuine request and, as stated (genetic fallacy, ad hominem, etc), it is not rational either.

Here is that study again if you do want to read it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631383/

I will tell you what is not rational, is to use an study about dating issues and telling all that is demonstrates something about incels, it does not do that.

As a serious research paper they also do point at the limitations they had on the way of admitting that their study "suggest" something, point is, this is not so sure, interesting for relationships not much for incels who are not mentioned at all.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631383/
Quote:

The analyses presented in this study are limited in a few respects. First, we do not measure mate availability. While structural frameworks do stress the importance of individual characteristics (i.e., economic resources, physical attractiveness) in forming a relationship, they also focus on the demographic availability of potential mates. Research suggests that black women’s likelihood of being married decreases as black men’s rates of interracial marriage in their metropolitan area increase (Crowder & Tolnay 2000). Indeed, prior research finds that higher sex ratios (i.e., greater numbers of men relative to women) are associated with lower rates of marriage (Angrist 1990; South and Lloyd 1992; Fossett and Kiecolt 1991; Lichter et al 1992; Lichter, LeClere and McLaughlin 1991). However, prior studies concerning mate availability find that sex ratio imbalances explain only a small part of the marriage gap between black and white women (e.g., Lichter et al. 1992; Mare and Winship 1991), and that current relationship involvement among young adults is largely unaffected by partner availability (Warner, Manning, Giordano, and Longmore 2011). In the current study, we are unable to address the influence of sex ratios on racial and ethnic patterns of current involvement because the contextual data corresponds only to the period of interviews. More specifically, the contextual data in the fourth wave include only the number of women and men for the ages 18 to 24, not the full age range that might compose a potential mate pool.

A second limitation concerns our measurement of cultural norms. We do not have measures of parental attitudes toward the formation of romantic partnerships, which might provide us with a more direct measure of family influences on young adult behaviors. Still, it is unlikely that Asian American parents would be more restrictive with their sons than daughters (Dasgupta 1998; Espirtiu 2001; Talbani and Hasanali 2000). However, we did explore the role of several variables measured at Wave I in mediating the gap between Asian and white men in our preliminary models (not shown here). Specifically, we measured parents’ disappointment if their child were not to graduate from college based on the parent questionnaire (and alternatively respondent reports). Alternatively, we considered the effects of respondents’ own educational aspirations and expectations (combining the two items on a scale). We also included measures of verbal aptitude and grade point average. Finally, we measured attitudes among young adults related to union formation during the third wave (e.g., the importance of being married someday and the importance of partner race for a successful relationship). None of the variables we considered reduced the magnitude of the gap substantially or reduced its level of significance. As Add Health does not ask respondents about their willingness to form relationships with partners from specific racial groups, we are not able to empirically test the racial hierarchy explanation and suggest that future population-based surveys incorporate these measures.

Nonetheless, our results do suggest that a racial hierarchy in romantic partner preferences may hinder Asian men from entering into romantic partnerships during young adulthood. Published U.S. Census statistics on marriage suggest that Asian American men eventually marry; among Asian American men ages 40 to 50 years, just 12% are reported as never married compared with 16% of white men. However, these figures include Asian men who dated and married outside of the US – hence, they would not have suffered under the same racial hierarchy as they might have had they dated in the US. We do not know whether this younger cohort of Asian American men will eventually marry at similarly high rates or whether the patterns of exclusion found in the dating market here will continue to the marriage market. Data from the US Census also includes individuals that married outside of the US, so even if Asian American men are marginalized in the US dating market, that would not affect the odds of marriage among Asians outside of the US. It is also possible that Asian American men are disadvantaged in the dating market, but eventually marry due to their higher SES attainment.
So, as it is the frustrating case on many issues about sex relations, more research is needed, it is then that one can say with more confidence: this study suggest something, just not much for incels.

Trafalgar Laura 08-04-2019 02:03 PM

To respond to the request for a citation on those numbers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu (Post 21784648)
For example, if you look at the actual study spun on the incels wiki as "62% of women have rape fantasies", what it says is that among 355 female undergraduates, 62% had ever had a rape fantasy, with the median frequency of such fantasies among that 62% being 4 times per year. So it's fair to say that about two-thirds of women never or almost never fantasize about being raped.

Other research indicates that men and women are about equal in their tendency to fantasize about being forced to have sex: 28.9% of women versus 30.7% of men. Fantasies about forcing someone else to have sex, on the other hand, are reported by 10.8% of women and 22.0% of men.

In short, a tendency to fantasize about raping or being raped is not uncommon (though not a majority characteristic) among men and women alike, and they have little or nothing to do with what people seek in their real-life sexual experiences. But of course that mundane conclusion is not what the people on incels wiki want to hear, since they tend to be heavily invested in misogynistic notions of women being subservient sluts who just want dominant men to abuse them.

I was talking about this post by Kimstu, and specifically, the other research mentioned. I found it interesting, and that it was too bad the conversation hadn't gone further into looking at the implications of men experiencing these fantasies, perhaps as often or more often than women do. Not to mention how Kimstu's post helpfully pointed out the actual details behind the numbers in the first study, instead of citing the most sensationalist (OMG 62% of women!) without context.

There is a very high demand for dominant women within certain... sub-communities, and there's surely a reason if not a number of varied reasons for that.

And I imagine we can come up with a just-so simple story for how this fits with evo psych too, if we stretch our minds enough. But it's not really worth continuing to converse with someone who is so scattershot all over the place instead of focusing on one issue, aside from the vague manifesto that "science" (as a whole, single voice, speaking at once!) has declared "Incels are right about everything." I don't have the energy to keep chasing back and forth between topics. Also, I'm bored, and god help us if this idiocy is "TheFuture."

But you just have a super day, there, buddy. After all, you are right about everything, and who can claim that? Other than a moron or liar, I mean.

Sunny Daze 08-04-2019 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21788862)
Because I don't understand the point of what you're suggesting. The studies are already linked by the wiki. There are like 130 or more of them summarized there. Have you ever read a review article before from a journal article? The whole point of a review article is that it takes 50-100+ articles and collates them to summarize them and allow a quick impression of a broad field of evidence. But each review article still lists its citations so you can see where they come from. Interestingly enough, I have found errors in review article citations where the citations don't match the research, even in good peer-reviewed journals. But it is not common and it is easily checkable. No one suggests the entire concept of Review articles is rubbish though. It's a common part of science in general. I don't see how something like this is any different in general concept.

I did post one link directly to the study when repeatedly requested on the fact that Asian men have half the odds of relationships compared to white men which researchers concluded was due to "women's racial hierarchies". My posting of that did not lead to anything except me being insulted more and more strawmen being thrown at me. No one offered any commentary whatsoever on the article itself. So I can only conclude this is not a genuine request and, as stated (genetic fallacy, ad hominem, etc), it is not rational either.

Here is that study again if you do want to read it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631383/

I think the fact that people can't even view that incel page (even via a third party host) without apparently vomiting or requiring me to extract information from it first and excise it away before they will even talk about it shows how emotional they are being. It demonstrates a lack of capacity for honest unbiased discussion, because if you were unbiased, there would be no reason to be so afraid of what site the information came from or didn't come from. I love my mom, but if someone published a journal article tomorrow targeted at me that said "Your Mother's a Whore" and the references and data was sound, then I would shrug and say "I guess so." You can't really go into science with all these emotions and biases and then expect to be able to consider things fairly.

Other than accusing us of being emotional, can you think of any reason why a person might want to see the original source material rather than a summary from a third party? Any reason at all? I'll help you. Summaries are incomplete, may be inaccurate, and are informed by the bias of their creator. We would like to see the original material because we want to see the entirety of the story, not just what's been cherry-picked by individuals with a very clear agenda. Further, in the cases where people have looked at your studies, material is presented out of context, the summary is incomplete, and/or other errors of fact or omission render the cite as used by the incel wiki meaningless.

Your persistent refusal to acknowledge the errors in the wiki, along with your refusal to make an argument, with cites, on your own, make debating with you about as pointless as spitting into the wind.

In general, folks have been very well behaved, despite the presence of this thread in the Pit. I personally see no reason to continue to try and engage in an intellectual discussion with you.

You are a dishonest, disingenuous twit. Fuck off.

TheFuture 08-04-2019 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 21788902)
Other than accusing us of being emotional, can you think of any reason why a person might want to see the original source material rather than a summary from a third party? Any reason at all? I'll help you. Summaries are incomplete, may be inaccurate, and are informed by the bias of their creator. We would like to see the original material because we want to see the entirety of the story, not just what's been cherry-picked by individuals with a very clear agenda. Further, in the cases where people have looked at your studies, material is presented out of context, the summary is incomplete, and/or other errors of fact or omission render the cite as used by the incel wiki meaningless.

Your persistent refusal to acknowledge the errors in the wiki, along with your refusal to make an argument, with cites, on your own, make debating with you about as pointless as spitting into the wind.

In general, folks have been very well behaved, despite the presence of this thread in the Pit. I personally see no reason to continue to try and engage in an intellectual discussion with you.

You are a dishonest, disingenuous twit. Fuck off.

Wow more insults from Sunny Daze. What a surprise. I don't think you've spent much time reading science if you think that's the case. Abstracts are summaries. Review articles are summaries written by people who didn't write the articles. Textbooks are summaries written by people who didn't write the articles. Encyclopedias and Wikipedia are summaries written by people who didn't write the articles.

The whole point of writing a summary is that you must reference your sources. If the sources are referenced, then I don't see an issue.

For example, for that race one I just posted: Here's the formal abstract summary from the authors and journal that published it:
Asian American men and women have been largely neglected in previous studies of romantic relationship formation and status. Using data from the first and fourth waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), we examine romantic and sexual involvement among young adults, most of who were between the ages of 25 to 32 (N=11,555). Drawing from explanations that focus on structural and cultural elements as well as racial hierarchies, we examine the factors that promote and impede involvement in romantic/sexual relationships. We use logistic regression to model current involvement of men and women separately and find, with the exception of Filipino men, Asian men are significantly less likely than white men to be currently involved with a romantic partner, even after controlling for a wide array of characteristics. Our results suggest that the racial hierarchy framework best explains lower likelihood of involvement among Asian American men.
Here's how that incel page summarized it:
Data from the data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) was evaluated to examine romantic and sexual involvement among young adults, most of who were between the ages of 25 to 32 (n = 11,555).

Overall, white men had the highest odds of being in a relationship, followed in order by Hispanic, black and Asian men. In fact, it was found that Asian men were half as likely as white men to be currently involved with a romantic partner, even after controlling for a wide array of characteristics. Asian women by contrast did not suffer any reduced odds of being in a relationship compared to white women.

Researchers concluded that the dramatically lower odds of an Asian man finding a relationship are due to the racial hierarchies women employ in judging men.

Data:
Man's Race Odds Ratio of Being in a Romantic/Sexual Relationship
White 1.0
Hispanic 0.895-0.967
Black 0.738-0.769
Asian 0.474-0.586

Quotes:

Asian women were half as likely as Asian men to be unpartnered (i.e., 18% versus 35%).
Asian men, but not black or Hispanic men, exhibit significantly lower odds of involvement than white men. Specifically, they have roughly half the odds of current involvement as white men.
We found no evidence that socioeconomic resources or physical characteristics were driving the lower levels of involvement among Asian men. Instead, our findings are consistent with the notion that Asian American men are at the bottom of the racial hierarchy when it comes to the different-sex dating market.
If “Asian cultural values” account for differences in romantic partnership formation, we would have found similar patterns for Asian women as Asian men. In fact, the opposite was true.
Our results suggest that the racial hierarchy framework best explains lower likelihood of involvement among Asian American men.
A racial hierarchy explanation suggests that Asian American men will be less likely than Asian American women to be partnered, as Asian American men face gendered cultural stereotypes barring them from entry into romantic partnerships.

References:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631383/
Why is one of these summaries okay and the other is not?

You are not being logical which is why you are continually resorting to insults.

Atamasama 08-04-2019 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21788889)
Have you ever bought Japanese condoms before? I have and all the ones I got were much smaller than American condoms. I don't know how to explain that. I'm not big at all (average) and they were reaallly tight. Maybe I got the wrong brands. But I've never seen any brand of American ones like that. I think condom data would give the best information on penis size because there's a massive financial and legal obligation to get it right. Whereas, no university is going to dedicate a $1,000,000 grant to measuring the dicks of men all over the world just for the fun of it.

They did measure over 15,000 penises in the peer-reviewed article I previously linked to.

Here is a study measuring 253 men in Tanzania:
https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1...o.2013.02.3200

Here is one from Nigeria measuring 115 men in Nigeria:
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/wajm...oad/28282/5049 (PDF warning)

The average length in those studies was at or slightly below the world average. So much for the myth of larger penis size for men of African heritage.

You are citing personal anecdotes as evidence that condoms are smaller in Japan. How about this article citing a statistic from a manufacturer of “male masturbatory devices” (I’m not sure what those are and didn’t look into details) that claims to have measured sizes for over 50,000 males, and found the Japan average larger than the American average. Now, I don’t claim that this is a rigorous scientific study like my previous cites, but it’s still better than a single person's anecdote.

https://www.tokyoreporter.com/japan-...es-measure-up/

Again, there is no empirical evidence for the myth about racial penis size hierarchy.

SlackerInc 08-04-2019 02:53 PM

So this study is demonstrating that Japanese penises are disproportionately large relative to body size? I would have assumed it was roughly proportional worldwide.

Atamasama 08-04-2019 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 21788953)
So this study is demonstrating that Japanese penises are disproportionately large relative to body size? I would have assumed it was roughly proportional worldwide.

I think it’s just saying they’re not small, contrary to the prevailing “wisdom”. In general the average size seems about the same everywhere, with only minor deviation.

crowmanyclouds 08-04-2019 03:11 PM

Just because one is a big dick does not mean one has a big dick.

CMC fnord!

Sunny Daze 08-04-2019 04:06 PM

Congratulations. You finally did one, sort of. You missed the part where you state your position, but you're learning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21788910)
The whole point of writing a summary is that you must reference your sources. If the sources are referenced, then I don't see an issue.

Yes, clearly you do feel that way. Several us have repeatedly explained to you why someone else's summary is not adequate.

Quote:

For example, for that race one I just posted: Here's the formal abstract summary from the authors and journal that published it:
Asian American men and women have been largely neglected in previous studies of romantic relationship formation and status. Using data from the first and fourth waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), we examine romantic and sexual involvement among young adults, most of who were between the ages of 25 to 32 (N=11,555). Drawing from explanations that focus on structural and cultural elements as well as racial hierarchies, we examine the factors that promote and impede involvement in romantic/sexual relationships. We use logistic regression to model current involvement of men and women separately and find, with the exception of Filipino men, Asian men are significantly less likely than white men to be currently involved with a romantic partner, even after controlling for a wide array of characteristics. Our results suggest that the racial hierarchy framework best explains lower likelihood of involvement among Asian American men.
Here's how that incel page summarized it:
Data from the data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) was evaluated to examine romantic and sexual involvement among young adults, most of who were between the ages of 25 to 32 (n = 11,555).

Overall, white men had the highest odds of being in a relationship, followed in order by Hispanic, black and Asian men. In fact, it was found that Asian men were half as likely as white men to be currently involved with a romantic partner, even after controlling for a wide array of characteristics. Asian women by contrast did not suffer any reduced odds of being in a relationship compared to white women.

Researchers concluded that the dramatically lower odds of an Asian man finding a relationship are due to the racial hierarchies women employ in judging men.

Data:
Man's Race Odds Ratio of Being in a Romantic/Sexual Relationship
White 1.0
Hispanic 0.895-0.967
Black 0.738-0.769
Asian 0.474-0.586

Quotes:

Asian women were half as likely as Asian men to be unpartnered (i.e., 18% versus 35%).
Asian men, but not black or Hispanic men, exhibit significantly lower odds of involvement than white men. Specifically, they have roughly half the odds of current involvement as white men.
We found no evidence that socioeconomic resources or physical characteristics were driving the lower levels of involvement among Asian men. Instead, our findings are consistent with the notion that Asian American men are at the bottom of the racial hierarchy when it comes to the different-sex dating market.
If “Asian cultural values” account for differences in romantic partnership formation, we would have found similar patterns for Asian women as Asian men. In fact, the opposite was true.
Our results suggest that the racial hierarchy framework best explains lower likelihood of involvement among Asian American men.
A racial hierarchy explanation suggests that Asian American men will be less likely than Asian American women to be partnered, as Asian American men face gendered cultural stereotypes barring them from entry into romantic partnerships.

References:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631383/
Why is one of these summaries okay and the other is not?

You are not being logical which is why you are continually resorting to insults.
I'm not the one with logic problems. I also see no need to avoid pejoratives. If you want a thread without bad words, start one out of the Pit.

I did take a look at the cite. I'd like to note that the study looked at men and women, not only men.

The study looked at 3 areas:
  • Structural -
    Quote:

    It may be that those who are not currently involved simply lack both economic and physical resources necessary to form a romantic relationship. In addition, structural explanations highlight the role that imbalances in local sex ratios (e.g., the number of men per 100 women in a metropolitan area) in shaping the availability of potential romantic and sexual partners (Fossett and Kiecolt 1991).
  • Cultural -
    Quote:

    In contrast, cultural explanations suggest that the norms and values of some racial and ethnic groups (e.g., strict parental control over dating, obligation to the family) impede their romantic relationship involvement (Schneider and Lee 1990; Smith 2006; Espiritu 2001).
  • Race Hierarchies -
    Quote:

    we add to the literature by considering a third explanation that emphasizes the role of racial hierarchies in shaping romantic involvement.
    Quote:

    Critical race perspectives explicitly argue that racial hierarchies define desirability in ways (e.g., the equation of female attractiveness with white standards of beauty) that marginalize some groups of men and women in broader mate markets (Burton et al. 2010).

These authors are the first to propose "racial hierarchies" as causative in the forming of relationships.

Key quotes:
Quote:

Studies continue to show that employment and earnings increase the likelihood of marriage, especially among men (e.g., Xie, Raymo, Goyette and Thornton 2007).
People with better economic prospects have a better chance at dating, co-habitation, or marriage.

Quote:

A cultural framework suggests that some racial and ethnic groups, particularly those composed of a high proportion of immigrants, may have distinctive patterns of involvement due to their family values, such an emphasis on educational achievement (Glick, Ruf, Goldscheider and White, 2006; Schneider and Lee 1990), cultural views about dating and premarital sexual behavior (Espiritu 2001) and a heightened sense of obligation to the family (Smith 2006). Research that relies on a cultural framework to explain Asian patterns of union formation stress the influence of family ties that places strong constraint on obedience to parents which may limit premarital sexual behavior and cohabitation (Chan 1994). Research by Espiritu (2001) supports this notion, finding that Filipino first-generation parents retain strict control over their daughters’ dating choices as compared to their sons. Moreover, the control of parents over dating ought to affect women more than men, so to inhibit the relationship formation of Asian American women more than Asian American men.
Social expectations among groups can cause differences in when and how people form relationships.

Quote:

Offering support for the cultural framework, prior research finds that romantic relationship behaviors among adolescents differ markedly by race and ethnicity (O’Sullivan et al. 2007). Given that adolescent romantic relationships are an important precursor of union formation in early adulthood (Raley, Crissey, and Muller 2007; Thornton, Axinn, and Xie 2007), we may expect racial and ethnic patterns of adult romantic partnerships to mirror adolescent patterns.
Again, different social norms cause different behaviors.

Quote:

Studies have suggested that unflattering stereotypical media depictions of nonwhites have contributed to a racial hierarchy in many aspects of society, including mate preferences (Bonilla-Silva 2010; Larson 2006). For example, media studies continue to document the racialized portrayals of Asian men’s masculinity as desexualized or effeminate (Feng 2002; Eng 2001) and black women’s femininity as less than desirable (Larsen 2006; Collins 2004; Wallace 1990). Scholars suggest that a preference for white standards of beauty reduces black women’s opportunities to date or intermarry outside of their race (Collins 2004; Bany, Robnett and Feliciano 2014).
Many of these cites are older, but it seems likely that media plays a role in public perception of desirability.

Quote:

Research on dating preferences provides additional evidence of this racial hierarchy. A recent study of internet daters finds that among those who expressed a racial preference, less than 10% of Asian men would not consider dating Asian women, yet approximately 40% of Asian women would rule out dating Asian men. It also reveals that more than 90% of women of all different racial groups who expressed a racial preference excluded Asian American men. In addition, men of all different racial groups are most likely to exclude black women than any other women (Feliciano, Robnett and Komaie 2009).
Note that they are pulling data from internet daters (methodology would be important to know) who expressed a preference on race. How many did or did not?

Quote:

The analyses presented in this study are limited in a few respects. First, we do not measure mate availability.
They've noted themselves that this is a key metric.

Quote:

A second limitation concerns our measurement of cultural norms. We do not have measures of parental attitudes toward the formation of romantic partnerships, which might provide us with a more direct measure of family influences on young adult behaviors.
The data they used does not provide them a way to measure social group expectations, which they have also noted are important.

Quote:

As Add Health does not ask respondents about their willingness to form relationships with partners from specific racial groups, we are not able to empirically test the racial hierarchy explanation and suggest that future population-based surveys incorporate these measures.
The data they used does not permit empirical measurement of their proposed racial hierarchy. Any conclusions taken from this paper are purely theoretical.

tl;dr the study doesn't say what you think it does. The authors proposed a new metric, social hierarchy, but had no way to test for it. Testing that has occurred actually supports other factors, such as socioeconomic and cultural, as being relevant determiners of romantic prospects.

thorny locust 08-04-2019 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21788862)
I did post one link directly to the study when repeatedly requested on the fact that Asian men have half the odds of relationships compared to white men which researchers concluded was due to "women's racial hierarchies". My posting of that did not lead to anything except me being insulted more and more strawmen being thrown at me.

We are in the pit, aren't we? -- yes, we are.

That's bullshit.

It led to repeated demands, all of which you have ignored, to state what claim(s) you think that specific study proves. Here's two, there have been others:

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 21785398)
in order to respond to your claim that these studies support what incels are saying, I need to compare the study to specific things that incels are saying. Yet again: what specific claim(s) that incels are making do you think that the specific study supports?
[ . . . ]
In case that was too much to read, let me give you part of it in shorter form:

1) If the study you're referring to is not "Relationship Involvement Among Young Adults: Are Asian American Men an Exceptional Case?", then provide a direct link to whatever study you are talking about in the quoted post. (If it is that study, then you've already done so, and I have a page open to it.)

2) For at least the third time: spell out what specific claim(s) incels are making that you think the study supports.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 21784534)
Post a link to the specific study on one of those sites. If the link from your incels wiki does go to the actual study, that ought to be easy enough to do; just copy and paste the url from the study itself.

Now you actually did post such a link in one case, the study about Asian men that's been briefly discussed already.

But you need to ALSO POST what specific incel claim you think the specific study is backing. "Everything" is not a valid comparison point. [ . . . ]

If you'll do that, I'll find time to look at the study.

It is also bullshit to say that nobody's told you why we want direct links to the studies. We don't trust your wiki's links to go to the actual studies, and we don't trust your wiki's summaries to be accurate.

And we are in the Pit. The only possible reasons I can see for you to be so insistent that people click on links on an incel wiki page are

-- 1) that you know those links don't go direct to the studies but to some other incel page(s) that you either want clicks for or hope we'll believe the lies on and/or

-- 2) that as you've been consistently all through the thread posting links that go to a live incel page under the guise that you're claiming they're links to the studies (despite the fact that once early on in an 11 page thread you posted a link to an archive of the page), what you're actually doing is trying very hard to get people to that specific page either because you want clicks for it or because you hope we'll believe the lies on it or that

-- 3) you're too massively ignorant to understand the difference between an actual study and somebody's biased description of it, and are exactly the sort of person the sites hope to be able to delude into destroying themselves.

Either of the first two reasons would mean you're arguing in bad faith.

If it's the third reason, the first thing you ought to do is to get away from those incel sites. They're playing you, and they'll think it's funny when you flame out, whether or not you do damage to others besides yourself on the way.

thorny locust 08-04-2019 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21788862)
I did post one link directly to the study when repeatedly requested on the fact that Asian men have half the odds of relationships compared to white men which researchers concluded was due to "women's racial hierarchies". My posting of that did not lead to anything except me being insulted more and more strawmen being thrown at me.

We are in the pit, aren't we? -- yes, we are.

That's bullshit.

It led to repeated demands, all of which you have ignored, to state what claim(s) you think that specific study proves. Here's two, there have been others:

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 21785398)
in order to respond to your claim that these studies support what incels are saying, I need to compare the study to specific things that incels are saying. Yet again: what specific claim(s) that incels are making do you think that the specific study supports?
[ . . . ]
In case that was too much to read, let me give you part of it in shorter form:

1) If the study you're referring to is not "Relationship Involvement Among Young Adults: Are Asian American Men an Exceptional Case?", then provide a direct link to whatever study you are talking about in the quoted post. (If it is that study, then you've already done so, and I have a page open to it.)

2) For at least the third time: spell out what specific claim(s) incels are making that you think the study supports.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 21784534)
Post a link to the specific study on one of those sites. If the link from your incels wiki does go to the actual study, that ought to be easy enough to do; just copy and paste the url from the study itself.

Now you actually did post such a link in one case, the study about Asian men that's been briefly discussed already.

But you need to ALSO POST what specific incel claim you think the specific study is backing. "Everything" is not a valid comparison point. [ . . . ]

If you'll do that, I'll find time to look at the study.

It is also bullshit to say that nobody's told you why we want direct links to the studies. We don't trust your wiki's links to go to the actual studies, and we don't trust your wiki's summaries to be accurate.

And we are in the Pit. The only possible reasons I can see for you to be so insistent that people click on links on an incel wiki page are

-- 1) that you know those links don't go direct to the studies but to some other incel page(s) that you either want clicks for or hope we'll believe the lies on and/or

-- 2) that as you've been consistently all through the thread posting links that go to a live incel page under the guise that you're claiming they're links to the studies (despite the fact that once early on in an 11 page thread you posted a link to an archive of the page), what you're actually doing is trying very hard to get people to that specific page either because you want clicks for it or because you hope we'll believe the lies on it or that

-- 3) you're too massively ignorant to understand the difference between an actual study and somebody's biased description of it, and are exactly the sort of person the sites hope to be able to delude into destroying themselves.

Either of the first two reasons would mean you're arguing in bad faith.

If it's the third reason, the first thing you ought to do is to get away from those incel sites. They're playing you, and they'll think it's funny when you flame out, whether or not you do damage to others besides yourself on the way.

thorny locust 08-04-2019 05:23 PM

NM, the board was acting weird and I didn't realize this had posted -- and it's now too late to remove one of the extras. Sorry.

Ruken 08-04-2019 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21788699)
What is it with people and strawmen? Are strawmen and ad hominems the only debate tactics around here? :smack: When did I say "women want to be raped"?

Please let me know if you don't understand this.

You have yet to tell us what about incels that studies prices they're right about, or what that study has to do with, well, anything, so you've left us guessing. And "data showing men want to be raped even more than women" is a nonsensical thing to write if you don't think women want to be raped. So by all means clarify what, specifically, you think that study tells us.

Guest-starring: Id! 08-05-2019 06:40 PM

Heh, to find a thread with a title as stupid as this one that also happens to be 11 pages...

thorny locust 08-05-2019 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21788910)
Why is one of these summaries okay and the other is not?

Oh, and while I'm at it:

"Our results suggest" is not the same thing as "researchers concluded".

The lengthly "summary" which you quoted from the incel page commits lies by omission. It leaves out portions both of that abstract and of statistics given in the report itself; and including the parts that it leaves out provides a very different picture.

I believe the study is itself otherwise flawed, though not as flawed as that summary; and will give further detail if you will -- is this the fifth request by me, plus multiple requests by others? -- say what specific incel claim(s) you think the study is backing.

Kimstu 08-05-2019 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 21788369)
Here is the kind of ev-psych research I find fascinating, but which many feminists (somewhat understandably) cannot abide and simply will not accept:


https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/272697.php

You still haven't provided any cite for any of the "many feminists" who allegedly "cannot abide and simply will not accept" a particular research finding about human evolutionary development.

And of course, there needs to be a distinction between "not accepting solidly confirmed findings of scientific research" and "not accepting speculative inferences about what scientific research of unknown quality may 'suggest' as summarized in a fifteen-sentence article for a general lay audience".

SlackerInc 08-05-2019 11:10 PM

It’s a metastudy of 50 studies, carried out at a Pac-10 “Research 1” school. To argue that sociologist feminists would be open to this kind of research is either disingenuous or shows you don’t know feminist sociologists. (I am the son of one and the husband of another.) And we have seen people right on this board who have dismissed the entire field of evolutionary psychology, providing no basis for doing so other than a vague sense that they don’t like its implications.

Skywatcher 08-06-2019 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 21789058)
If you want a thread without bad words, start one out of the Pit.

To be fair, the relatively contentless OP was in GD.

Voyager 08-06-2019 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trafalgar Laura (Post 21788195)
Without sarcasm, I do suspect that the appeal is just that, a wish to not feel 'responsible,' whether it's the responsibility of being the stereotypical proactive male pursuing a woman, or the responsibility of a woman picking a male. Instead, in the fantasy, or sometimes perhaps with a paid professional "dom/domme," control can be handed over and the person can just relax into the fantasy itself without social worries about the consequences of their choices.

But fantasies, much like a rich man hiring a high-priced dominatrix, are fundamentally consensual no matter how weird they get. And I think that the basic lesson learned is still that.... well, sexual fantasies are weird in the way dreams are weird, complex mixtures of a lot of personal and social and biological urges. To pick out, say, "Women have rape fantasies" and to conclude it means anything about their biological innate desires is a stretch at best, particularly since men experience similar fantasies.

I read the link. I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect that the difference is not statistically significant. Also, the numbers in the table aren't broken down by gay men or straight men. I strongly suspect that gay male rape fantasies are far more prevalent than heterosexual male rape fantasies. There are enough gay and bi people in the survey population to influence the results, especially because the percentages are fairly small.

Even so, I agree that fantasies are not a reflection of true desires, and that if a group of men think they are and fail miserably at attracting women based on this, we shouldn't be surprised.

Kimstu 08-06-2019 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 21789636)
It’s a metastudy of 50 studies, carried out at a Pac-10 “Research 1” school.

I'm not questioning the study itself (which I haven't seen); I'm just pointing out that without seeing the study itself we can't know whether the fifteen-sentence non-technical popular article you linked to is an accurate summary of its actual findings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc
To argue that sociologist feminists would be open to this kind of research is either disingenuous or shows you don’t know feminist sociologists.

Those accusations are also not actual cites for any of the alleged "many feminists" who allegedly "cannot abide and simply will not accept" a particular research finding about human evolutionary development. In case you've forgotten, it's actual cites to that effect that you were asked for.

SlackerInc 08-06-2019 06:41 PM

And you’re playing a version of the Gish Gallop. Not gonna bite.

Kimstu 08-06-2019 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 21791573)
And you’re playing a version of the Gish Gallop.

All I've been doing on this issue is to challenge your resolutely unsupported repeated claims that unidentified "feminists" are equally wrong about evolutionary science as incels and redpillers. That discussion, which in no way resembles a Gish Gallop on my part, has gone like this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc in post 193
While incels and the MRA crowd are definitely full of shit, the evidence would tend to lead an objective observer to the conclusion that social scientists, ardent feminists, and the politically correct Twitterati are also just as full of feces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc in post 443
Incels and red pillers are not operating from a reasonable scientific perspective. [...] But their ideological opposites, ardent feminists coming from a “woke” social science perspective, are equally far off from the truth in the other direction [...]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu in post 450
Nobody's claiming that "ardent feminists" (such as who, exactly?) can't be wrong in some of their opinions. But to claim that they are equally "far off from the truth" as the misogynistic absurdities of incels and redpillers is ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu in post 454
And I repeat, it is ridiculous to make even the more limited claim that feminist viewpoints on social science are "equally far off from the truth" as incel/redpill ones. [...]

If you're going to claim that feminist(s) are saying anything about human biology or sociology anywhere near as anti-scientific as this kind of incel/redpill stupidity, you're going to need to bring some cites, not just take refuge in mealymouthed bothsidesism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc in post 455
Whereas the social science oriented feminists I’m talking about flatly refuse to consider any science that cashes out as “gender essentialism” in their eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu in post 457
Again, where are your cites that any so-called "social science oriented feminists" are actually doing what you claim they are?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc in post 477
Here is the kind of ev-psych research I find fascinating, but which many feminists (somewhat understandably) cannot abide and simply will not accept:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu in post 516
You still haven't provided any cite for any of the "many feminists" who allegedly "cannot abide and simply will not accept" a particular research finding about human evolutionary development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc in post 517
To argue that sociologist feminists would be open to this kind of research is either disingenuous or shows you don’t know feminist sociologists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu in post 520
Those accusations are also not actual cites for any of the alleged "many feminists" who allegedly "cannot abide and simply will not accept" a particular research finding about human evolutionary development. In case you've forgotten, it's actual cites to that effect that you were asked for.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Not gonna bite.

That's Slacker-speak for "Don't have a cite and don't want to admit it".

SlackerInc, what seems to be underlying your ill-informed obstinate strawmanning is your naive conflation of solid scientific findings on human evolution with the ubiquitous popular mishmash of speculation and extrapolation about various research results that are claimed to "suggest" certain inferences about human behavior.

A lot of people not unreasonably have a lot of skepticism about the latter. You are trying to spin that into claims that certain vaguely identified groups of people "flatly refuse to consider" or "cannot abide and simply will not accept" the former. And you have provided jack-shit in the way of actual evidence for your stubbornly reiterated claims.

SlackerInc 08-06-2019 09:12 PM

It’s my experience over many years of encounters with such people. So no cite, but it’s also pretty much common fucking sense if you have ever spent any time around that crowd.

Kimstu 08-06-2019 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 21791910)
It’s my experience over many years of encounters with such people.

This might be slightly more persuasive (though not much, owing to its continued total absence of cites) if there were any evidence that you yourself can successfully distinguish between solid scientific findings on human evolution and the ubiquitous popular mishmash of speculation and extrapolation about various research results that are claimed to "suggest" certain inferences about human behavior.

Miller 08-07-2019 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFuture (Post 21788140)
(eg. Asian ladyboys make some of the most convincing trannies)

[Moderating]
The word "trannie" is considered a slur and is not allowed on these boards. Do not use it again.

No warning issued.
[/Moderating]

Skywatcher 08-07-2019 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 21791910)
It’s my experience over many years of encounters with such people. So no cite, but it’s also pretty much common fucking sense if you have ever spent any time around that crowd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu (Post 21791938)
This might be slightly more persuasive (though not much, owing to its continued total absence of cites) if there were any evidence that you yourself can successfully distinguish between solid scientific findings on human evolution and the ubiquitous popular mishmash of speculation and extrapolation about various research results that are claimed to "suggest" certain inferences about human behavior.

And without cites, how do we know he's not simply experiencing confirmation bias?

Acsenray 08-07-2019 07:38 AM

He doesn't actually have any experience interacting with "real feminists." He has no idea what or how they think or what they would or would not "accept." Everything is a mad fantasy in his own mind.

Skywatcher 08-07-2019 07:54 AM

Assuming who is and who is not a "real feminist" would be part of the confirmation bias. :)

SlackerInc 08-07-2019 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acsenray (Post 21792316)
He doesn't actually have any experience interacting with "real feminists." He has no idea what or how they think or what they would or would not "accept." Everything is a mad fantasy in his own mind.


You are the one engaging in mad fantasy.

You can search through my Twitter history and find me arguing with feminists. A few of them, including at least a couple semifamous ones, have me blocked because they can’t handle polite but probing pushback (what they would call “walrusing” :rolleyes:). It reminded me of the women’s studies course I took in college in 1993—I came into the class with no axe to grind, but found myself horrified by some of the content, and my arguments in class were, shall we say, not appreciated by the professor or most of my coursemates.

And as I keep explaining, I have been surrounded by this stuff (albeit a slightly less radical version than in that class) since before I can remember. My mother, the sociology professor, required her students to use “they” in place of “he/she” at least a quarter century ago, way before it was on the mainstream radar screen. She kept her own “maiden name” (not hyphenated) way back in the ‘70s, and gave my sister and me hyphenated names (reversed with each other so neither of us would give either parent precedence). She regularly went to consciousness-raising groups when I was a kid.

I have read extensively in the genre of feminist science fiction, particularly Ursula K LeGuin, whose novels The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness were required texts in my late father‘s anthropology classes. I recently watched a documentary on her career on PBS. My father was also a big fan of the book Walden Two, which fully embraces this idea (the one that Pinker demolished) that it’s all about the nurture. I loved my late father and I love my mother, but that does not erase my intellectual independence. I think they got this stuff very wrong. (And as my own older children seem in their teenage years to have moved back in their grandparents’ direction, maybe my grandchildren will see things more my way, or maybe I will be a blip in the family lineage.)

And again, my wife was in a sociology Ph.D. program when I met her, doing research on street harassment, but I was able to convince her it was a bad idea—so she took a terminal masters and got another masters in education and went into public school teaching. I can see her feminist theory library from where I sit. She too did not change her name when we got married, and our two biological children together have her last name since my older two children already have mine.

She can regularly be found in her favorite “Notorious RBG” T-shirt, and we recently watched the “RBG” documentary together. She knows about my dissenting views, but is loathe to talk to me about them; and out of respect for her, I don’t say much about any of this on Facebook. (On Twitter, she deals with that by reading my main tweets, which generally steer clear of this kind of content, and stays away from my replies, which do not. And she does not read this board at all, although I think she has a vague sense that this is where I am most unfiltered.)

Why is it so psychologically painful for some of you to imagine that someone could be intimately familiar with these philosophies and still be critical of them? Fascinating.

I mean, if that were really true, it would require my not only constantly having to hit Wikipedia to research the history and theory of feminism (which itself would make me at least somewhat conversant with these topics, even if in a different way than I am maintaining), but my story about my own family would have to be some sort of fictional creation which I would have to keep in outline form to refer to regularly, to avoid contradicting myself—kind of like a “series bible” a script supervisor uses on a TV show.

Stop and think about this for a second. You have just completely thrown away Ockham’s razor. Get a grip.

Chingon 08-07-2019 10:53 AM

Like all of the women you've encountered in your life, she's probably too afraid of your giant male brain to honestly discuss these issues with you.

SlackerInc 08-07-2019 11:11 AM

Indeed. :p I’d be happy to mansplain it to her whenever she is ready though. :cool:

QuickSilver 08-07-2019 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 21792625)
Why is it so psychologically painful for some of you to imagine that someone could be intimately familiar with these philosophies and still be critical of them?

Look. It's not our fault you surrounded yourself with evolved and dominant female figures who make you feel inadequate. Posting here is the way you choose to show your rebellion against their authority. It's your only real outlet. You're angry and humiliated. We get it. It's been obvious for quite some time to everyone here. Shhhhh... say no more.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 21792625)
Fascinating... Get a grip.

Indeed.

SlackerInc 08-07-2019 11:16 AM

LOL, very clever. This hypothesis is at least coherent, I’ll give you that.

ETA: Well, except for getting my wife to bail on the sociology doctoral program. I am pretty sure her friends from that cohort have yet to forgive me.

QuickSilver 08-07-2019 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 21792680)
ETA: Well, except for getting my wife to bail on the sociology doctoral program. I am pretty sure her friends from that cohort have yet to forgive me.

Oh, I bet there's a list of reasons and that's not even in the top 5.

SlackerInc 08-07-2019 11:45 AM

LOL, maybe!

I remember when I was getting to know her best friend from the cohort (they had one year together before I came into the picture, and that ultimately ended up being her last year). I mentioned that when I was at these potlucks for the department, I felt a little bit like I was in the lion’s den, because I had a keen interest in evolutionary psychology. She startled me a bit by throwing her head back and erupting in peals of laughter. :D

OTOH I don’t think she totally hated me, at least at that point when my wife had not yet left the program, because as we compared notes we discovered that we had eerily similar tastes in premium TV. She described it as our being “TV twins”, which is quite a compliment, because she has a real life brother who is a twin and currently does a podcast with him about feminism in popular culture. (We give them a buck a month on Patreon, and when I comment on the podcast it’s always her brother who responds and never her. Ah well)

QuickSilver 08-07-2019 12:09 PM

Were there at least 6 centurions commanding 100 soldiers each in this "cohort"?

Who fucking says cohort in this context? JFC. Get over yourself.

I'm about to compile a fucking list of why I hate you.

SlackerInc 08-07-2019 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21792819)
Were there at least 6 centurions commanding 100 soldiers each in this "cohort"?

Who fucking says cohort in this context? JFC. Get over yourself.

I'm about to compile a fucking list of why I hate you.


Have fun with that (there’s a Pit thread for me specifically that might be a more appropriate place for it), but FYI “cohort” is the term they used about their own group of doctoral students who started the same year. Not my coinage.

ETA:
https://www.gradschoolhub.com/faqs/w...school-cohort/
Quote:

Many students considering graduate school have begun to hear about cohort groups, but may find it challenging to find an overview of what such a group actually is. This is because graduate cohorts, their definition and organization, vary from school to school. Each university typically has their own take on how a cohort should be structured and its purpose. Generally speaking, graduate school cohorts are set groups of people who work together for the duration of their program...

Ignorance (hopefully) eradicated. :p

QuickSilver 08-07-2019 12:17 PM

I have no idea what they said. I know what you're saying. And it's fucking stupid.

SlackerInc 08-07-2019 12:19 PM

BTW, I feel confident that there is only one real reason on your list of why you hate me, which is that I put you in your place intellectually and that makes you very frustrated and angry. There, there.

ETA: Wow, doubling down even in the face of my cite? OK then.

QuickSilver 08-07-2019 12:25 PM

Have you ever in your life experienced an original thought? What a momzer.

SlackerInc 08-07-2019 12:28 PM

Sick burn. :rolleyes:

ETA: But at least TIL a new Yiddish word.

Thing Fish 08-07-2019 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21792819)
Were there at least 6 centurions commanding 100 soldiers each in this "cohort"?

Who fucking says cohort in this context? JFC. Get over yourself.

I'm about to compile a fucking list of why I hate you.

Yeah, I think the answer to "Who fucking says cohort in this context?" is "pretty much every graduate student in the country". It's completely standard usage in academic circles.

Acsenray 08-07-2019 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21792819)
Were there at least 6 centurions commanding 100 soldiers each in this "cohort"?

Who fucking says cohort in this context? JFC. Get over yourself.

I'm about to compile a fucking list of why I hate you.

Wiktionary (relevant definitions in boldface) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cohort:

Quote:

cohort (plural cohorts)

1. A group of people supporting the same thing or person.

2. (statistics) A demographic grouping of people, especially those in a defined age group, or having a common characteristic.

The 18-24 cohort shows a sharp increase in automobile fatalities over the proximate age groupings.

3. (historical, Ancient Rome, military) Any division of a Roman legion, normally of about 500 men.

Three cohorts of men were assigned to the region.

4. An accomplice; abettor; associate.

He was able to plea down his sentence by revealing the names of three of his cohorts, as well as the source of the information.


5. Any band or body of warriors.

6. (taxonomy) A natural group of orders of organisms, less comprehensive than a class.

7. A colleague.

8. A set of individuals in a program, especially when compared to previous sets of individuals within the same program.


The students in my cohort for my organic chemistry class this year are not up to snuff. Last year's cohort scored much higher averages on the mid-term.

thorny locust 08-07-2019 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 21792625)
You can search through my Twitter history and find me arguing with feminists. A few of them, including at least a couple semifamous ones, have me blocked because they can’t handle polite but probing pushback (what they would call “walrusing” ). [ . . ]

And as I keep explaining, .

At which point I burst out laughing.

MrDibble 08-07-2019 04:43 PM

He had me just at "walrusing"

SteveG1 08-07-2019 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance (Post 21771980)
Now, be reasonable. They’re right about a few things.

Men exist
Women exist
Sometimes women and men have sex
Just not with THEM

roflmao

SteveG1 08-07-2019 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCnDC (Post 21772056)
Well, at the very least, we know they're not procreating.

Good! :D

SteveG1 08-07-2019 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21772146)
So, "insecure, creepy as fuck, whiny misogynistic sociopath", was just edged out from a top 5 spot? Bummer.

rofl

SlackerInc 08-07-2019 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish (Post 21793269)
Yeah, I think the answer to "Who fucking says cohort in this context?" is "pretty much every graduate student in the country". It's completely standard usage in academic circles.


Thank you.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21793400)
He had me just at "walrusing"


Oops, you got me! :smack: Wrong pinniped.

Trafalgar Laura 08-08-2019 12:02 PM

Is there some pithy term for when people conclude that an online debate stopped abruptly because they were just so right, not because other people got too bored or annoyed to keep engaging with them? There really should be.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.