TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

6

Muh culture strikes again:

Men tend to be less selective than women when evaluating and pursuing potential romantic partners. The present experiment employed speed-dating procedures to test a novel explanation for this sex difference: The mere act of physically approaching a potential romantic partner (vs. being approached), a behavior that is more characteristic of men than of women, increases one's attraction to that partner. This hypothesis was supported in a sample of speed daters (N = 350) who attended a heterosexual event where either men (eight events) or women (seven events) rotated from one partner to the next while members of the other sex remained seated. Rotators were significantly less selective than were sitters, which meant that the tendency for men to be less selective than women at events where men rotated disappeared at events where women rotated. These effects were mediated by increased self-confidence among rotators relative to sitters."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19754525


[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Biology

[–]TrannyPornO2 points3 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

p's of 0,058, 0,051, and 0,063 were interpreted as being significant. When they included self-confidence, many more of their values went insignificant or bordering on it. Odd that the normal condition, with the same n, was so much better powered, if culture was really the locus here. The authors do consider that people could be conditioned by their past interactions, but I think it's well known how that explanation turns out. (This is not the only way choosiness is established.)

It's intellectually lazy and unscientific to post as you do.

[–]CommonHistorian9[S] 0 points1 point  (20 children) | Copy Link

The self-confidence likely came from being in the position of sitter...

[I don't like people that challenge my worldview] as you do

FTFY

[–]TrannyPornO2 points3 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

How did it "likely" come from that position? There's no reason to believe that sitting should make you more confident. Controlling for confidence, many values went insignificant for the girls. Why didn't that happen for the other group if what you've said is the case?

[–]CommonHistorian9[S] 0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

There's no reason to believe that sitting should make you more confident

"The mere act of physically approaching a potential romantic partner (vs. being approached), a behavior that is more characteristic of men than of women, increases one's attraction to that partner."

If you are in the sitting position, people are treating you as though you are more attractive than normal (esp in the men's case), thus increasing self-confidence.

Also, if you have more self-confidence to start with, you're likely going to behave differently on the approach.

Here, I don't have access to the full paper. Link it for me and I'll be glad to explain why you're likely wrong

[–]azevedro0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Dude. The fact you don’t know how to use scihub or the DOI to unlock the paper online shows you don’t know your stuff at all.

[–]CommonHistorian9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol, no it doesn't. what an idiotic thing to say.

[–]TrannyPornO0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

don't have access to the paper

That could explain why you're so confident about the conclusions you're drawing from it: You literally don't know what it said (and you've made that more than clear even before you admitted it). The massive difference in significance in the comparisons and the lack of ability to determine what happened are clear and, the latter, discussed.

Your comment here is good proof that you don't know what you're talking about (a fact which you have now admitted), so replies are off.

[–]CommonHistorian9[S] 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Your comment here is good proof that you don't know what you're talking about

Like most of your comments?

You have any answer for the several statements of consensus that you flat out ignore? How about your basic misunderstanding of the breeder's equation?

You don't have to respond or link the paper. You commented on MY OP, after all.

[–]TrannyPornO3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

How about your basic misunderstanding of the breeder's equation?

Which is? You still haven't actually said it.

You have any answer for the several statements of consensus that you flat out ignore?

You mean when you quote from a philosophy encyclopaedia and treat is as consensus, or when you quote from a single person, long ago, about an idea which turned out to be wrong? This is documented here.

[–]CommonHistorian9[S] -2 points-1 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Which is? You still haven't actually said it.

Oh so now you're lying.

I didn't quote a academic statement detailing that the Breeder's equation is not meant to model evolutionary timescales, which is why you believe that there's no significant loss in genetic variance over time?

a philosophy encyclopaedia

With primary sources.

I also quoted from an Intro to Pop Genetics textbook.

This is documented

What I quoted had nothing to do with epistasis, so no, you never responded to anything.

[–]TrannyPornO1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Oh so now you're lying.

No.

I didn't quote a academic statement detailing that the Breeder's equation is not meant to model evolutionary timescales, which is why you believe that there's no significant loss in genetic variance over time?

You probably did not. Please post it if you believe this is the case. If you did, then you'll have to explain why that's true, when it doesn't appear true empirically, for much of any trait, such as intelligence, height, or any of the polygenic targets of domestication in a huge number of animals. The use of the term "evolutionary timescales" is totally arbitrary. Huge change can be induced recently. The length of time is not really important in a strict sense.

With primary sources.

You quoted from an encylopaedia without empirical sources or with survey data.

I also quoted from an Intro to Pop Genetics textbook.

Where did you do this and why should it come before the empirics which I've linked?

What I quoted had nothing to do with epistasis, so no, you never responded to anything.

Incorrect. You clearly did not read what I quoted then. I showed that selection, while people 50 years ago thought it would exhaust variance, often does not, when it's observed. It would be amazing if it did, because it would mean we've been seeing something truly miraculous in our breeding experiments. I wonder how four ears of corn bred successively for yield doesn't exhaust all of its variance over a century of selection if that idea is right (hint: it's not right and there is no data to substantiate it)!

[–]CommonHistorian9[S] -2 points-1 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

So, it exhausts variance for traits with a low beneficial mutation rate. Pleiotropy is well known to have a negative impact on the beneficial mutation rate, and the traits we're talking about are just that.

Thee mutation selection balance doesn't speak to the beneficial mutation rate, which is why your response to the above is insufficient and why simple traits in corn are also irrelevant.

I'm not your research assistant. I've already quoted all of those sources to you multiple times. Go find them.

Your attempt to discredit the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a source is as hilarious as your attempt to discredit the blog post put out by the evo bio department at a prestrigious university.

[–]xxxrivenmainxxx2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

https://osf.io/5nuk2/ https://jezebel.com/5047179/greater-gender-equality-may-lead-to-bigger-personality-differences-between-men-women

the more egalitarian a country is, the stronger the gender differenses are pronounced. If it was social structure that caused female choosiness than why would women in 2018 in western countries be picky? Why would we see the 80/20 rules in tinder,ocupid etc?

[–]takeyourfill0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Because of workplace and economic opportunities women can leverage themselves to go after more attractive men, so the paradox is that women in third world countries have less options and must be less picky about who they mate with as they have little other means of survival, also they have a lower i.q on average so they don't really realize how much power they actually have which lowers their self-perceived confidence.

[–]xxxrivenmainxxx0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but this allready implies that there is a strong gender difference between men and women.

If women who live in a very egalitarian country end up being super choosy and picky, then it is proof that biology is the cause for female choosiness

Because of workplace and economic opportunities women can leverage themselves to go after more attractive men

And why do women go for attractive men? Why dont men in western countries go for very attractive women? Social strucutre isnt the answer, it is biology

[–]takeyourfill0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

That is what the article is arguing though- the ironic consequence of post-modernity is a return to the hunter-gatherer dynamic, the last several thousand years of sexual relations were a blip supposedly.

[–]xxxrivenmainxxx0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Several thousand years is a very small number for evolution. And i dont see how it is "ironic"- when people are no longer restricted by society they do what they want to do.. duh

[–]takeyourfill0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

well it is 'iron'ic because the conditions which lead us to abandon that status quo have come full circle to implement it again.

[–]xxxrivenmainxxx-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

and once implemented it will inevitably create a society that restricts female sexuality again.

[–]takeyourfill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

i don't see that happening tbh.

[–]Deoxysxx2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's biology. Sperm is cheap and plentiful while eggs are precious and pregnancy is taxing on the body and carries the fear of death.

[–]Jamesony10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter