Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:43 AM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,384
Joe Jackson songs must make these incels rage.
  #602  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:33 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Except there completely fucking isn't.

Ok.
  #603  
Old 08-14-2019, 07:59 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Ok.
You want to say different, motherfucker?

Last edited by MrDibble; 08-14-2019 at 08:00 AM.
  #604  
Old 08-14-2019, 08:07 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
I read the paper and it was a crap paper. The authors themselves admitted that they didn't get enough subjects for statistical significance. They are also really reaching for the causation they claim exists, even though larger studies say different things.
It's such a crap paper. Aside from the appalling sample and aside from the fact that the theoretical basis for the study relies on small-sample results that failed replication in bigger studies, they are clearly chasing the result they want.

For those who haven't read it, the paper reports on two studies. In the first (which is as far as I got), women currently in a relationship are shown videos of two men, and told that these are dating site intro videos. One man is attractive, one is average. The women are asked to imagine what a date with each of these men might be like, based on the video. These imaginings are then coded for levels of sexual attraction. These results are then analysed according to a) whether the women were on the pill when they started their current relationship and b)whether they are now, or if not are on either the high- or low-fertility point of their menstrual cycle.

There's a lot of dodginess here, not least the utter madness of applying their statistical analysis to a subjective non-interval scale of attraction, but it's worse than that. The short intro speech the men give in the videos is utterly skewed to the point of parody and reveals *quite a lot* about the authors' hang-ups:

Quote:
The attractive confederate presented himself as a "bad boy", as follows:
"Hi, my name is Haim. I see myself as a curious, dominant, and ambitious person. I'm a nightlife man; I love to hang out until the wee hours. I enjoy action and
changes, because I get easily bored of anything and therefore I'm always on the go, moving. I have a tremendous affection for extremes of any kind; the sense of danger, excitement, and adventure. I always do new things, and look for someone who is willing to contain me and my craziness."
Hello ladies! I am a slave to my id, massively unreliable, highly likely to be unfaithful and in no way any kind of prospect for a relationship, although I am kind of thinking it would be cool to have a substitute mum so I don't have to grow up.

But that's OK, you're thinking. Surely they gave the "average" looking guy the same speech, so that the only variable was physical attraction? Oh you sweet summer children:

Quote:
The average-looking confederate presented himself as an "ordinary guy", as follows:
"Hi, my name is Erik, and I'm a generally happy guy. I love to travel around the world alone, with friends, or with people I meet wherever I go. I'm open to new experiences while I'm hanging out with friends or new acquaintances. I study business management and meanwhile work as a waiter at a coffee shop. I work out frequently in the gym. I think I'm a curious guy who likes to live in the moment and enjoy life."
Some of the same footloose and fancy-free attitude, but couched in different language with more emphasis on existing relationships and also a) plus more mature attitude to career and b) minus the whole "it's your job to manage my craziness" nonsense.

Would it be a surprise if women who imagined dates with Haim imagined snogging/making out/shagging? There is literally no other reason to date Haim. He's a good looking man-child who'll either leave you for the next woman who makes even brief eye contact with him, or cheat on you for the danger and excitement of it. Given that the study didn't ask: "Would you date this man?" (kind of an omission there, you might think) but "What would it be like to be on a date with this man?" then it would hardly be a surprise if women responded by saying they'd focus on the physical. That's all Haim offers. He is clearly designed to provoke a particular response so that the authors can then turn around and make claims about attractiveness. Which they do.

(The utter guff about how women might desire Haim "because of" his unreliability is weirdly reminiscent of some of the worst incel prejudices about what women look for in a man but I'm sure that's just a co-incidence. It does, however, show that they knew they were loading the dice.)

But in actual fact, most women didn't find Haim desirable. On the 1-5 scale, his highest rating among any sub-group was just under 2. Which means women were more likely than not to give him a swerve. They don't report the difference in overall "desirability" between Haim and Eric, but eyeballing the data it appears to about the same.

I wouldn't put too much into that though. For the sub-sample of people who had been on the pill, and were now at high-fertility (i.e. the group most relevant to the authors' hypothesis) the mean score for Eric's desirability was 1.00, with a standard deviation of 0.00. That is to say, by an astonishing co-incidence, all 16 (heh, "all") women rated Eric as 1 on the scale. If that seems amazing, it gets better. Because the women didn't actually rate Eric or Haim on a scale. They described a date in plain language. The scale was created by "independent judges" coding that description into a 1-5 scale. So we're asked to believe that it just so happens that the group of most interest to the researchers (women who had suppressed their hormones when forming a relationship and were now in the full grip of hormone-flooded lust) were independently coded as having the absolute minimum of desire for the average guy, which conveniently means that the difference between their score for Eric and their score for Haim just creeps over the line into statistical significance. Women on the pill now and then could imagine at least snogging Eric (1.45 desirability); women who hadn't been on the pill and were at high-fertility could imagine at least snogging Eric (1.73) but somehow women who had come off the pill and whose uterus was jonesing for a zygote couldn't imagine anything even a little bit physical.

Come the fuck on. This is junk. They loaded the study design with confounding variables and when that wasn't enough, they put their thumb on the scales and they still only just scraped into statistical significance.
  #605  
Old 08-14-2019, 08:16 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
...
You need to post more often.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #606  
Old 08-14-2019, 09:29 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
It's such a crap paper. Aside from the appalling sample and aside from the fact that the theoretical basis for the study relies on small-sample results that failed replication in bigger studies, they are clearly chasing the result they want.

For those who haven't read it, the paper reports on two studies. In the first (which is as far as I got), women currently in a relationship are shown videos of two men, and told that these are dating site intro videos. One man is attractive, one is average. The women are asked to imagine what a date with each of these men might be like, based on the video. These imaginings are then coded for levels of sexual attraction. These results are then analysed according to a) whether the women were on the pill when they started their current relationship and b)whether they are now, or if not are on either the high- or low-fertility point of their menstrual cycle.

There's a lot of dodginess here, not least the utter madness of applying their statistical analysis to a subjective non-interval scale of attraction, but it's worse than that. The short intro speech the men give in the videos is utterly skewed to the point of parody and reveals *quite a lot* about the authors' hang-ups:



Hello ladies! I am a slave to my id, massively unreliable, highly likely to be unfaithful and in no way any kind of prospect for a relationship, although I am kind of thinking it would be cool to have a substitute mum so I don't have to grow up.

But that's OK, you're thinking. Surely they gave the "average" looking guy the same speech, so that the only variable was physical attraction? Oh you sweet summer children:


Some of the same footloose and fancy-free attitude, but couched in different language with more emphasis on existing relationships and also a) plus more mature attitude to career and b) minus the whole "it's your job to manage my craziness" nonsense.

Would it be a surprise if women who imagined dates with Haim imagined snogging/making out/shagging? There is literally no other reason to date Haim. He's a good looking man-child who'll either leave you for the next woman who makes even brief eye contact with him, or cheat on you for the danger and excitement of it. Given that the study didn't ask: "Would you date this man?" (kind of an omission there, you might think) but "What would it be like to be on a date with this man?" then it would hardly be a surprise if women responded by saying they'd focus on the physical. That's all Haim offers. He is clearly designed to provoke a particular response so that the authors can then turn around and make claims about attractiveness. Which they do.

(The utter guff about how women might desire Haim "because of" his unreliability is weirdly reminiscent of some of the worst incel prejudices about what women look for in a man but I'm sure that's just a co-incidence. It does, however, show that they knew they were loading the dice.)

But in actual fact, most women didn't find Haim desirable. On the 1-5 scale, his highest rating among any sub-group was just under 2. Which means women were more likely than not to give him a swerve. They don't report the difference in overall "desirability" between Haim and Eric, but eyeballing the data it appears to about the same.

I wouldn't put too much into that though. For the sub-sample of people who had been on the pill, and were now at high-fertility (i.e. the group most relevant to the authors' hypothesis) the mean score for Eric's desirability was 1.00, with a standard deviation of 0.00. That is to say, by an astonishing co-incidence, all 16 (heh, "all") women rated Eric as 1 on the scale. If that seems amazing, it gets better. Because the women didn't actually rate Eric or Haim on a scale. They described a date in plain language. The scale was created by "independent judges" coding that description into a 1-5 scale. So we're asked to believe that it just so happens that the group of most interest to the researchers (women who had suppressed their hormones when forming a relationship and were now in the full grip of hormone-flooded lust) were independently coded as having the absolute minimum of desire for the average guy, which conveniently means that the difference between their score for Eric and their score for Haim just creeps over the line into statistical significance. Women on the pill now and then could imagine at least snogging Eric (1.45 desirability); women who hadn't been on the pill and were at high-fertility could imagine at least snogging Eric (1.73) but somehow women who had come off the pill and whose uterus was jonesing for a zygote couldn't imagine anything even a little bit physical.

Come the fuck on. This is junk. They loaded the study design with confounding variables and when that wasn't enough, they put their thumb on the scales and they still only just scraped into statistical significance.
David Gorski of Respectful Insolence and Science-Based Medicine, is that you?

(Translator's note: this is BPC trying to give someone high fucking praise for their dissection of bad science.)
  #607  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:33 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Hello ladies! I am a slave to my id, massively unreliable, highly likely to be unfaithful and in no way any kind of prospect for a relationship, although I am kind of thinking it would be cool to have a substitute mum so I don't have to grow up.
I know a guy like that -- spoiled mama's boy whose mama died so he's always looking for a substitute mama. Totally unreliable and so spoiled that he tends to get abusive when he can't have his way.

AFAIK, the only serious relationship he's been in ended with him in jail for beating his GF.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 08-14-2019 at 05:34 PM.
  #608  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:00 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Stanislaus:

(1) Nitpicking of one study’s methodology aside, do you really argue there is no basis to believe there are competing ESSes that make both being a Haim or being an Eric viable approaches to replicating one’s “selfish” Y chromosome?

(2) Do you acknowledge that under equally withering, skeptical analysis, most social psychology research (on the “nurture” rather than “nature” side of the ledger) would crumble?

(3) What say you about the UCLA T-shirt-sniffing metastudy?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You want to say different, motherfucker?

We’ve been over this ad nauseam. So, not really.
  #609  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,976
Thanks Stanislaus. Wow what a junk science study.
  #610  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:15 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Stanislaus:

(1) Nitpicking of one study’s methodology aside, do you really argue there is no basis to believe there are competing ESSes that make both being a Haim or being an Eric viable approaches to replicating one’s “selfish” Y chromosome?
Translation: I can't argue that this study I love isn't shit, because it's shit and I know it, so I think I'll just try to shakily pretend your annihilation of it was just "nitpicking" and then then ask you to agree with it anyway!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
(2) Do you acknowledge that under equally withering, skeptical analysis, most social psychology research (on the “nurture” rather than “nature” side of the ledger) would crumble?
Translation: Hey, maybe if I pretend that ALL studies are shit, I can pretend that the fact that this study I love isn't shit like I know it is!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
(3) What say you about the UCLA T-shirt-sniffing metastudy?
Translation: So this study I love is shit...Look over there! A squirrel!
  #611  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:28 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
We’ve been over this ad nauseam. So, not really.
Translation: I've had my ass handed to me enough for one day. Please, no more.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #612  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:32 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Start another thread on that topic and link me—I won’t shrink from it, even if it’s getting a bit boring by this point. It’s off topic here.
  #613  
Old 08-14-2019, 07:03 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Start another thread on that topic and link me—I won’t shrink from it, even if it’s getting a bit boring by this point. It’s off topic here.
You can't be fucking serious. Like we don't hear more than enough bullshit out of you as it is.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #614  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:10 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Start another thread on that topic and link me—I won’t shrink from it, even if it’s getting a bit boring by this point. It’s off topic here.
Didn't you introduce it to this thread in the first place?
  #615  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:19 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,611
Slacker, this being your thread, nothing involving you is off-topic here.
  #616  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:27 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
You’re confused. I am not the OP, I am not named in the title, and I don’t believe I started posting on the first day.

ETA: I also think evolutionary psychology is much more interesting than rehashing old arguments.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-15-2019 at 12:28 AM.
  #617  
Old 08-15-2019, 03:02 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
We’ve been over this ad nauseam.
By which I take it you mean, actual science has repeatedly kicked the racists' asses up and down the boulevard.
Quote:
So, not really.
Coward.
  #618  
Old 08-15-2019, 03:10 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Okay, Dibble, you are absolutely right. No doubt a real life Shuri will be coming along at any moment. Now can we get back to talking about evolutionary psychology?
  #619  
Old 08-15-2019, 03:17 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,607
Why would we, when we're talking about what a snivelling snotty scaredy-cat skulker you are instead? Hell, right now you're being cowardly in two Pit threads at the same time. What a trooper!

Hey, do tell your son how the "inferior" brown man made you cry "Uncle!". He seems like he might appreciate it.

Last edited by MrDibble; 08-15-2019 at 03:19 AM.
  #620  
Old 08-15-2019, 03:32 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Ha, that’s rich. I tore you apart in that post you are claiming is cowardly. It was a thing of beauty actually.

And I have never said, and do not believe, that black or brown people are “inferior”. I do believe it’s pretty fucking obvious that there are different strengths and weaknesses that are not equally represented in all populations.
  #621  
Old 08-15-2019, 04:38 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Ha, that’s rich. I tore you apart in that post you are claiming is cowardly.
*checks self* Nope, still in one piece *dusts off shoulder*

And it was cowardly - since the point of my original post was how badly you failed in your pedantry, and you didn't address that (still haven't, coward).

Quote:
It was a thing of beauty actually.
We've already established your self-awareness is as seriously lacking as your intelligence. "Thing of beauty", my ass. I've heard better rants from drunken Malaysian sailors lying in puddles of their own piss on the Foreshore.
Quote:
And I have never said, and do not believe, that black or brown people are “inferior”.
Oh, you're "paternalistic" towards you complete equals or superiors?

Dude, you don't have to literally say "I think blacks are inferior" for that to be the exact implication of what you do say, like admitting to being a "paternalistic racist"

Have the courage to own your bigotry, rather than snivel away from your own words like the coward we can all see you are.
Quote:
I do believe it’s pretty fucking obvious that there are different strengths and weaknesses that are not equally represented in all populations.
"Populations" are not races, but thanks for playing.
  #622  
Old 08-15-2019, 05:29 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Stanislaus:

(1) Nitpicking of one study’s methodology aside
"Nitpicking"? These weren't quibbles about the niceties of research methodologies. That study is junk from start to finish and anyone with half a brain should be able to work that out on first read (see, for example, Sunny Daze's posts on it). I am genuinely surprised that you thought it worth bringing to the table.

Quote:
do you really argue there is no basis to believe there are competing ESSes that make both being a Haim or being an Eric viable approaches to replicating one’s “selfish” Y chromosome?
What are you talking about? You cited this study as evidence of women's hormonal driven attraction to symmetrical men. That is indeed what the study purports to show. If you want to spin on a dime and claim that it's actually about male reproductive strategies, feel free but you're going to need to show your working (and, if I'm being picky, acknowledge that you're abandoning your original claims for it). I wouldn't strive too hard though - it's still a junk study with dodgy data, so it can't provide much support for whatever new claims you want to rest on it.

Quote:
(2) Do you acknowledge that under equally withering, skeptical analysis, most social psychology research (on the “nurture” rather than “nature” side of the ledger) would crumble?
I have no idea. But that's not how this works. If you want to argue that it would crumble under withering skeptical analysis, you have to actually do the analysis. Simply positing that it might turn out to be bad if you ever got round to checking is a) lazy and b) stupid.

Quote:
(3) What say you about the UCLA T-shirt-sniffing metastudy?
Haven't read it. You could send a link, but really, I only dug into that paper because I was on a long train journey and it helped pass the time. I don't have any more long journeys due, so I probably won't have time to look at this metastudy.

But tell you what. I can see you're not confident about your ability to critically appraise research papers. That's fair enough, and it reflects well on you that you're asking for help. If you want to outsource your critical thinking to me, I can take it on but I'll have to charge. Normally my rates would work out at $500 an hour, but as you're a fellow doper and this is really pro bono work, let's call it $495.

Last edited by Stanislaus; 08-15-2019 at 05:34 AM.
  #623  
Old 08-15-2019, 07:36 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
I have no idea.

The point being, we have to judge these studies, if we are fair, by the same standards that other research purporting to explain human behavior is judged. So compared to research in social psychology and the social sciences. And very little of that research would stand up to extremely rigorous tests of the kind you are imposing on this one.

There’s tons of peer-reviewed research out there linking ovulation with a change in women’s mate selection behavior.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_l...6&pages=50-73&

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9633114/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubme...633114/related

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubme...016293/related

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubme...016293/related

If you think it’s all bunk, and that humans are so uniquely different from other mammals, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, not me.
  #624  
Old 08-15-2019, 07:40 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If you think it’s all bunk, and that humans are so uniquely different from other mammals, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, not me.
I regret to inform you that Bloodhound Gang songs do not constitute peer-reviewed research.

Last edited by Gyrate; 08-15-2019 at 07:41 AM.
  #625  
Old 08-15-2019, 08:11 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The point being, we have to judge these studies, if we are fair, by the same standards that other research purporting to explain human behavior is judged. So compared to research in social psychology and the social sciences. And very little of that research would stand up to extremely rigorous tests of the kind you are imposing on this one.

There’s tons of peer-reviewed research out there linking ovulation with a change in women’s mate selection behavior.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_l...6&pages=50-73&

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9633114/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubme...633114/related

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubme...016293/related

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubme...016293/related

If you think it’s all bunk, and that humans are so uniquely different from other mammals, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, not me.
Excellent execution of the famed Gish Gallop with a Triple-Axle Goalpost Shift! I give it a 9.6.
  #626  
Old 08-15-2019, 08:32 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The point being, we have to judge these studies, if we are fair, by the same standards that other research purporting to explain human behavior is judged.
What's this "we" business? If you mean that, generally, standards of rigour in academic research should be both high and universal, I agree. If you meant that it's down to you and me (and, given your admitted inability to critically evaluate papers, that really just leaves me), then, while conscious of the honour your doing me, I'm going to politely resile from any position where I'm the final arbiter of rigour.

Quote:
And very little of that research would stand up to extremely rigorous tests of the kind you are imposing on this one.
Oh, really? How do you know? We've established that you lack the critical thinking skills to impose these extremely rigorous tests, so what's your basis for this claim? (In fact, I wouldn't say that my critique was extremely rigorous. Noting that n=11, or spotting that the authors admit their experiment design introduces a confounding variable, or seeing a standard deviation in a sub-sample of fucking zero is not massively rigorous. It's elemental.)


Quote:
There’s tons of peer-reviewed research out there linking ovulation with a change in women’s mate selection behavior.
Is there? I haven't read the links, but are you completely certain that those studies show a link between ovulation and actual mate selection behaviour in the wild (as it were) rather than between ovulation and indicated or derived preferences in a lab setting?
Quote:
If you think it’s all bunk, and that humans are so uniquely different from other mammals, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, not me.
Humans override their instincts every day in a way that mammals don't. So I'm pretty confident that we are uniquely different in that respect. Do you want to argue that we're indistinguishable?

The weak and dodgy study you thought was interesting was trying to show that coming off the pill was a threat to stable relationships and a net negative to human happiness. That coming off the pill affects mate selection to the exent that it is a primary or main or significant factor in women's decisions to either end relationships or have affairs in real life is a much bigger claim and the burden of proof for that is not on me.
  #627  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:05 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
"Nitpicking"? These weren't quibbles about the niceties of research methodologies. That study is junk from start to finish and anyone with half a brain should be able to work that out on first read (see, for example, Sunny Daze's posts on it). I am genuinely surprised that you thought it worth bringing to the table.
Another fundamental problem with that study that I don't think was mentioned in Stanislaus's excellent analysis of its shortcomings is the fact that women who stop taking hormonal birth control are consciously aware that they've done so and have generally done so for consciously chosen reasons. So the idea that a difference in women's responses to men pre- and post-cessation of hormonal birth control represents some kind of direct unmediated measurement of the physiological effects of hormones on women's spontaneous attraction levels is utter bullshit.

When women consciously know whether and why they're on the Pill, that necessarily brings in a whole lot of confounding cognitive and social influences on the sexual responses that the study is attempting to analyze as a purely biological phenomenon.
  #628  
Old 08-15-2019, 01:08 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Ha, that’s rich. I tore you apart in that post you are claiming is cowardly. It was a thing of beauty actually.
Most people quickly learn that we are all very poor judges of the quality of our own takedowns of others. It's just a fact of human nature that we are heavily biased toward our own arguments and are incapable of objectively evaluating how devastating we really were. So the true measure of whether a post was "a thing of beauty" can be made best by third parties, to a lesser extent by the person attacked, and to zero extent by the person making the attack. And when someone needs to call attention to their own post to crow over its devastation, it diminishes both them and the post even more.

This is still really something you should have figured out by now, assuming you're as smart as you think you are.
  #629  
Old 08-15-2019, 01:15 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
Most people quickly learn that we are all very poor judges of the quality of our own takedowns of others. It's just a fact of human nature that we are heavily biased toward our own arguments and are incapable of objectively evaluating how devastating we really were. So the true measure of whether a post was "a thing of beauty" can be made best by third parties, to a lesser extent by the person attacked, and to zero extent by the person making the attack. And when someone needs to call attention to their own post to crow over its devastation, it diminishes both them and the post even more.

This is still really something you should have figured out by now, assuming you're as smart as you think you are.
It's been obvious for quite some time that the pain of not being noticed and heard far outweighs any embarrassment or ridicule MomzerInc brings on himself.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #630  
Old 08-16-2019, 12:04 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
I honestly am not super interested in whether going off the Pill has the precise hypothesized effect. I just think it’s fascinating how these behaviors and preferences change based on the reproductive cycle (or the way we crudely monkey with it using the blunt instrument of artificial hormones) without women consciously realizing it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Is there? I haven't read the links, but are you completely certain that those studies show a link between ovulation and actual mate selection behaviour in the wild (as it were) rather than between ovulation and indicated or derived preferences in a lab setting?

I never said they did, so I am definitely not certain of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Humans override their instincts every day in a way that mammals don't. So I'm pretty confident that we are uniquely different in that respect. Do you want to argue that we're indistinguishable?

Not at all. That’s precisely what I find so interesting about ev-psych: the way we navigate the often-conflicting strictures of civilization vs. instinct, and how we so often fail.
  #631  
Old 08-16-2019, 06:07 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I honestly am not super interested in whether going off the Pill has the precise hypothesized effect. I just think it’s fascinating how these behaviors and preferences change based on the reproductive cycle (or the way we crudely monkey with it using the blunt instrument of artificial hormones) without women consciously realizing it.
Wait, hadn't we just confirmed that you'd have to be an idiot to think that this study showed that that was happening?

You think it's fascinating how something something something not proven made up bullshit?
  #632  
Old 08-16-2019, 06:48 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I honestly am not super interested in whether going off the Pill has the precise hypothesized effect. I just think it’s fascinating how these behaviors and preferences change based on the reproductive cycle (or the way we crudely monkey with it using the blunt instrument of artificial hormones) without women consciously realizing it.
But the point you seem to be resolutely failing to grasp is that

a) the studies you cited don't show in any statistically significant way that "these behaviors and preferences change based on the reproductive cycle", and

b) the studies didn't manage to isolate purely homonal/physiological effects of the "reproductive cycle" from the effects of "women consciously realizing" how their actions were impacting it.

You're not wrong that it's fascinating to study the effects of our evolved physiology on our "behaviors and preferences". But you're dead wrong when you assume that the findings of poorly designed studies tell us anything scientifically reliable about these phenomena.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
That’s precisely what I find so interesting about ev-psych: the way we navigate the often-conflicting strictures of civilization vs. instinct, and how we so often fail.
Again, though, the insights gained from evolutionary psychology are only as good as the studies they're based on. If you can't tell a good scientific study from a bad one, you're at a disadvantage for understanding what we really know or don't know about the subject.
  #633  
Old 08-17-2019, 01:50 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Incels are lying sacks of shit with a permanent mental bias against all women and all decent men. I don't believe for one instant that the cites say what they think they do.
I looked a few up. They kind of do, but kind of not.

The problem isn't any one cite, it's that they're misunderstood and then tied together in a way that makes no sense.

Fuck's sake, look around you. The idea that only very attractive men get laid is demonstrably false. It is obviously, ridiculously false.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #634  
Old 08-24-2019, 07:58 PM
Deltree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
There are actually women name Stacy, and there actually used to be at least a couple of men named Chad.
  • There are 272,261 people in the U.S. with the first name Chad.
  • Statistically the 259th most popular first name.
  • More than 99.9 percent of people with the first name Chad are male.
  • There are 227,709 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacy.
  • Statistically the 305th most popular first name.
  • 87.68 percent of people with the first name Stacy are female.

From this website: http://howmanyofme.com/

Last edited by Deltree; 08-24-2019 at 08:00 PM.
  #635  
Old 08-25-2019, 09:24 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,451
My God, science does say they're right!
  #636  
Old 08-25-2019, 09:32 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltree View Post
  • There are 227,709 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacy.
  • Statistically the 305th most popular first name.
  • 87.68 percent of people with the first name Stacy are female.

From this website: http://howmanyofme.com/
Also: There are 184,811 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacey.

So when you add up the numbers, a helluva lot of Chads are out in the cold if they want to make it with Stacy/Stacey.
  #637  
Old 08-25-2019, 09:32 AM
StarvingButStrong's Avatar
StarvingButStrong is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltree View Post
  • There are 272,261 people in the U.S. with the first name Chad.

{snip}
  • There are 227,709 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacy.

There you go, absolute proof the Incels are wrong! Clearly 44.552 Chads will have to settle for non-Stacy's.
  #638  
Old 08-25-2019, 09:38 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarvingButStrong View Post
There you go, absolute proof the Incels are wrong! Clearly 44.552 Chads will have to settle for non-Stacy's.
44,552 Beckys finally got the lucky break they were hoping for.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #639  
Old 08-25-2019, 12:31 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarvingButStrong View Post
There you go, absolute proof the Incels are wrong! Clearly 44.552 Chads will have to settle for non-Stacy's.
I'm unfamiliar with the Incel canon. Are Stacys not reusable?
  #640  
Old 08-25-2019, 12:39 PM
John DiFool's Avatar
John DiFool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 18,325
WI they are Hanging Chads?
  #641  
Old 08-25-2019, 02:13 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
I'm unfamiliar with the Incel canon. Are Stacys not reusable?
Thinking about this makes my head hurt. Are the Stacys desirable because they are unattainable? If they are attained, does that mean they aren't Stacys?
  #642  
Old 08-25-2019, 02:49 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by John DiFool View Post
WI they are Hanging Chads?
Don't give the incels ideas.
  #643  
Old 08-25-2019, 05:06 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
Thinking about this makes my head hurt. Are the Stacys desirable because they are unattainable? If they are attained, does that mean they aren't Stacys?
The answer is yes. In a world of rational actors that is the end of the thread.
  #644  
Old 08-26-2019, 06:08 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
The answer is yes. In a world of rational actors that is the end of the thread.
Please, in a world of rational actors this thread wouldn't have been started.
  #645  
Old 09-26-2019, 02:39 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,611
I read this NY Post article and it reminded me of this thread:

US Army warns about possible mass shootings by incels at ‘Joker’ screenings
Just super.
  #646  
Old 09-26-2019, 06:19 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,344
In any other context, the U.S. Army advising service members to run if they can, hide if they can't and fight only as a last resort would sound rather odd.
  #647  
Old 09-27-2019, 11:16 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,040
Newsflash: Women are attracted to attractive men! Also ... Being a woman-hater is a turn-off. In other news, Francisco Franco is still dead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
heterosexual women put average penis as No. 3, followed by large hands and, interestingly, a short head of hair
Hmmm. Good to know. I always thought my #3 penis was below average. As for "short head of hair":
In 7th grade a lovely 7th-grader massaged my scalp and told me I would never go bald. She turned out to be correct.
(a) Is that why female admirers didn't swarm around my under-confident full-haired self?
(b) Was the 13-year-old honey flirting with me? Did I miss an opportunity?

Free advice: I have discovered one way to get attractive women in their 20's and 30's to flirt with you: Wait until you're in your 60's! They're happy to practice their arts on you when they know you're completely harmless (and your weapon probably isn't even loaded).
  #648  
Old 09-27-2019, 12:02 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,560
Yes. You missed an opportunity. Blockhead.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #649  
Old 10-06-2019, 07:24 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Transplanted!
Posts: 19,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
There are actually women name Stacy, and there actually used to be at least a couple of men named Chad.
And, now that you mention it, there's even at least one man named Stacy.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
__________________
Change your latitude, change your attitude.
  #650  
Old 10-06-2019, 07:28 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Transplanted!
Posts: 19,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltree View Post
[list][*]There are 272,261 people in the U.S. with the first name Chad.[*]Statistically the 259th most popular first
Does this include the Charleses? If your name is Charles but you don't use yhe nickname Chad, are you still a Chad?



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
__________________
Change your latitude, change your attitude.

Last edited by Spectre of Pithecanthropus; 10-06-2019 at 07:28 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.

 
Copyright © 2017