TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

103

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011

  • The prevalence, age of onset, and symptomatology of many neuropsychiatric conditions differ between males and females. Gaussian-process regression coordinate-based meta-analysis was used to examine sex differences in voxel-based regional volume and density. On average, males have larger total brain volumes than females. Examination of the breakdown of studies providing total volumes by age categories indicated a bias towards the 18–59 year-old category. Regional sex differences in volume and tissue density include the amygdala, hippocampus and insula, areas known to be implicated in sex-biased neuropsychiatric conditions. Together, these results suggest candidate regions for investigating the asymmetric effect that sex has on the developing brain, and for understanding sex-biased neurological and psychiatric conditions.

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/etd/umi-okstate-2649.pdf

  • Mate poaching is a robust phenomenon, and it is here to stay. When single women see a moderately attractive male, they are more interested in him if they believe he is already in a relationship! In fact, one sizable study found 90 percent of single women were interested in a man who they believed was taken, while a mere 59 percent wanted him when told he was single.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24845881

  • Following recall of a conflict involving direct aggression and role-playing a reaction to it, compared with men, women reported their anger would dissipate less quickly and they would take longer to reconcile. Women also exhibited increased heart rate, but little change in cortisol, whereas men exhibited little change in heart rate but increased cortisol production. We interpret the results as indicating that women are less prepared than men to resolve a conflict with a same-sex peer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26098378

  • Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that wives' total narcissism and entitlement/exploitativeness scores predicted the slope of marital quality over time, including steeper declines in marital satisfaction and steeper increases in marital problems. Husbands' narcissism scores generally had few effects on their own marital quality or that of their wives.

http://pillse.bol.ucla.edu/Publications/Pillsworth&Haselton_ARSR.pdf

  • There is abundant evidence that women, as well as men, desire long-term committed relationships; but there is also an emerging literature revealing a hidden side of women's desires suggesting that women have also evolved to pursue short-term or illicit affairs. The purpose of this article is to review these lines of evidence and other recent findings pertaining to the evolution of women's sexual strategies

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617143/

  • Here, we show that women in the fertile phase of their cycle prefer body odor of males who score high on a questionnaire-based dominance scale (international personality items pool). In accordance with the theory of mixed mating strategies, this preference varies with relationship status, being much stronger in fertile women in stable relationships than in fertile single women.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/367/1589/657.full.pdf

  • Here, we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favored by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects—promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/the-evolution-of-bitchiness/281657/?utm_source=SFFB

  • Women engage in indirect aggression and slut-shaming, even in clinical research studies. In his book, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, Buss argues that women do this because, evolutionarily, women who are willing to have casual sex undermine the goals of women who want long-term relationships. "Slutty" women hint to men that it’s okay not to commit because there will always be someone available to give away the milk for free, as it were. Their peers' “derogation” is thus intended to damage the reputation of these free-wheeling females.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11324580_Sexual_motivation_and_duration_of_partnership

  • Study shows that once a women 'bonds' or knows she has fully secured her mates commitment she will lose interest in sex. But women, he said, have evolved to have a high sex drive when they are initially in a relationship in order to form a "pair bond" with their partner. But, once this bond is sealed a woman's sexual appetite declines, he added.

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~pbressan/papers/BressanStranieri2008.pdf

  • In this study, 208 women rated the attractiveness of men described as single or attached. As predicted, partnered women favored attached men at the low-fertility phases of the menstrual cycle, but preferred single men (if masculine, i.e., advertising good genetic quality) when conception risk was high. Because men of higher genetic quality tend to be poorer partners and parents than men of lower genetic quality, women may profit from securing a stable investment from the latter, while obtaining good genes via extrapair mating with the former.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract

  • Using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships (premarital sex and premarital cohabitation) and subsequent marital dissolution. I extend previous research by considering relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation. I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution.

http://faculty.washington.edu/hechter/KanazawaPaper.pdf

  • The evolutionary psychological perspective on wars suggests that the ultimate cause of all intergroup conflict is the relative availability of reproductive women. Polygyny, which allows some men to monopolize all reproductive opportunities and exclude others, should increase the prevalence of civil wars, but not interstate wars, which did not exist in the ancestral environment. The analysis of the Correlates of War data supports both hypotheses derived from the evolutionary psychological perspective; polygyny increases civil wars but not interstate wars. The evolutionary psychological perspective implies that women should be far less resistant to alien rule than men, because they have the option of marrying into the conquering group; however, this sex difference should disappear when women are no longer reproductive. The analysis of the Eurobarometer data from 15 European Union nations strongly confirms this prediction.

http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf

  • Men and women have more sex when they follow gender norms in the household. This study investigates the links between men’s participation in core (traditionally female) and non-core (traditionally male) household tasks and sexual frequency. Results show that both husbands and wives in couples with more traditional housework arrangements report higher sexual frequency, suggesting the importance of gender display rather than marital exchange for sex between heterosexual married partners.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-009-9665-x

  • Benevolent sexism makes men more attractive to women. German female students (total N = 326) rated the likability and typicality of male targets: a nonsexist, a benevolent sexist, a hostile sexist, and (in Studies 2 and 3) an ambivalent sexist. When targets were presented as response profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick and Fiske 1996) (Studies 2 and 3), the benevolent sexist was rated to be most likable but least typical, whereas the ambivalent sexist was rated to be highly typical. Thus, women were aware of a link between benevolent and hostile sexism and approved of men’s benevolent sexism.

http://www.livescience.com/8779-fertile-women-manly-men.html

  • Ovulating women prefer alpha fucks, non-ovulating women prefer beta bucks. A new study reveals that heterosexual women whose partners have less-masculine faces report more attraction to other men during ovulation. Women with masculine-looking partners said their eyes wander less, perhaps because the traits women tend to find sexy when they're fertile are already present in their partners.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf

  • Since the women's liberation movement of the 1970s, female happiness has on average declined. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective wellbeing, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging − one with higher subjective well-being for men.

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~cashdan/publications/ec_evolanth.pdf

  • Women value the ability to provide economically in a long-term mate. Females in a wide variety of species (insects, birds, mammals) prefer males with resources, and the same is true for humans. Buss’s cross-cultural questionnaire study of 37 societies showed that women in all of them placed a higher value on the financial prospects of a prospective mate than men did. Closer questioning of an American sample showed that women prefer immediate access to resources when seeking short-term matings but place greater value on cues to future resource acquisition when evaluating long-term mates. If women act on these stated preferences we would expect wealthy men to have more mates, and there is ample cross cultural evidence that they do. The importance of resources to women is apparent even in egalitarian societies such as the Ache and the Sharanahua, where the best hunters are able to attract the most sexual partners.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf

Men and women have more sex when they follow gender norms in the household. This study investigates the links between men’s participation in core (traditionally female) and non-core (traditionally male) household tasks and sexual frequency. Results show that both husbands and wives in couples with more traditional housework arrangements report higher sexual frequency, suggesting the importance of gender display rather than marital exchange for sex between heterosexual married partners.

This will come off as cherry picking but it's worth bringing up that this trend supposedly is changing.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12313/abstract

I might go through these more closely tomorrow but doesn't mean I necessarily doubt them. The female happiness paradox is well known (though doesn't seem to apply to other measures i.e. well being) and since you are citing him David Buss is very well respected. The opposite is true for Kanazawa though

[–]dumb_intj[S] 7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Interesting. Please post more stuff like this. I like when my ideas are challenged.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

http://time.com/money/2791658/couples-marriage-money-survey-female-breadwinners/

Husbands are happiest and report better sex lives in relationships where the woman earns as much or more.

[–]MrB0gus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea some husbands definitely are, and some are definitely not. All of you people generalize WAY too much. (ha get it?) All men and women aren't the same. And correlation doesn't = causation.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Two separate issues with overlap.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, I like to engage in these kinds of debates usually but it's a lot easier when I already know the relevant research in the field. Haven't really dealt that much with evolutionary psychology

Will get back to you though if I find something worth posting

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

I have covered some of the other studies now. Reposting this here so people will read it.

...

Looking at the research a bit more closely now. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist though so take the following for what it's worth

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011

The prevalence, age of onset, and symptomatology of many neuropsychiatric conditions differ between males and females. Gaussian-process regression coordinate-based meta-analysis was used to examine sex differences in voxel-based regional volume and density. On average, males have larger total brain volumes than females. Examination of the breakdown of studies providing total volumes by age categories indicated a bias towards the 18–59 year-old category. Regional sex differences in volume and tissue density include the amygdala, hippocampus and insula, areas known to be implicated in sex-biased neuropsychiatric conditions. Together, these results suggest candidate regions for investigating the asymmetric effect that sex has on the developing brain, and for understanding sex-biased neurological and psychiatric conditions.

I will mostly recount what I said in another comment on this thread but it is worth pointing out that this is a somewhat muddled topic. Reserachers in the past have failed to adjust for brain volume and thus come to conclusions like the hippocampus being larger in female brains or the amygdala in male brains. Turns out this has more to do with brain size itself. Smaller brains tend to haver a larger hippocampus and women's brains are smaller.

Recent article on that in sciencedaily.

Also one really stupid comment on that article I don't want to keep to myself

It's just that it beggars my imagination to think that core biological processes unrelated to reproduction would have vast differences between genders. Evolution, it should be remembered, predates gender by a long time

It is true though that sex differences in the brain definitely exist and far as I know the "not adjusting for brain size" mistake is well known and no longer made. I'm not calling the meta analysis in the OP into question.

Still simply observing differences in the brain tells us very little about their impact. There is evidence of males and females using different areas of the brain for the same task and with the same performance. It appears that structural difference (in the brain) must not always lead to different functioning same as structural sameness will not always result in similar functioning. This possibility is further explored here

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/etd/umi-okstate-2649.pdf

Mate poaching is a robust phenomenon, and it is here to stay. When single women see a moderately attractive male, they are more interested in him if they believe he is already in a relationship! In fact, one sizable study found 90 percent of single women were interested in a man who they believed was taken, while a mere 59 percent wanted him when told he was single.

Mate poaching definitely exists and is also here to stay. Skimming through this I'm not sure where you got those values from (90% vs 59%) but single women preferring already committed men is definitely observed. Looking at citations of this study on researchgate it is worth noting that a more recent paper did not replicate the effect of sex on mate poaching although the authors suggest it might have to do with using a smaller sample.

I don't really think that men come of as morally superior where mate poaching is concerned if that's what this is about. In the cited paper committed men were more likely to "pursue a target" than committed women and in general men seem more likely to "poach mates" as well as succumb to mate poaching (higher sex drive and all I suppose)

http://ww.evolutionhumaine.fr/pdf_articles/schmitt_2004_j_personal_soc_psychol.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24845881

Following recall of a conflict involving direct aggression and role-playing a reaction to it, compared with men, women reported their anger would dissipate less quickly and they would take longer to reconcile. Women also exhibited increased heart rate, but little change in cortisol, whereas men exhibited little change in heart rate but increased cortisol production. We interpret the results as indicating that women are less prepared than men to resolve a conflict with a same-sex peer.

Nothing to add here. Found another study confirming this, good enough for me

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26098378

Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that wives' total narcissism and entitlement/exploitativeness scores predicted the slope of marital quality over time, including steeper declines in marital satisfaction and steeper increases in marital problems. Husbands' narcissism scores generally had few effects on their own marital quality or that of their wives.

This is not really typical red pill for me. Narcissism in women appears to be negatively associated with quality of a relationship. In the present study the same effect wasn't found for narcissism in men. There is another study confirming that

women with higher levels of narcissism demonstrated significantly higher levels of hostility, as did their male partners. Men also displayed more anger if their female partner had higher levels of narcissism.

Also worth mentioning some reserach in Hong Kong. There narcissists at least ended up with each other which is nice for them in my opinion

Furthermore, self-reported narcissism of males and females were also significantly correlated (r = .26), suggesting that two individuals in the same couple tended to have similar levels of narcissism.

for this study self reported narcissism was negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction in both males and females it seems

As presented in Figure 1a, self-reported narcissism has significant negative associations with both self- and partner-reported relationship satisfaction, even when partners’ narcissism was controlled. The model explained 21.9% and 22.1% of the variance in relationship satisfaction among males and females, respectively

http://pillse.bol.ucla.edu/Publications/Pillsworth&Haselton_ARSR.pdf

...

There is abundant evidence that women, as well as men, desire long-term committed relationships; but there is also an emerging literature revealing a hidden side of women's desires suggesting that women have also evolved to pursue short-term or illicit affairs. The purpose of this article is to review these lines of evidence and other recent findings pertaining to the evolution of women's sexual strategies

Dual mating strategy. David Buss seems to disagree

These findings raise a potential challenge to a strict version of the trade-off model proposed by Gangestad and Simpson (2000). In a world without constraints, a woman would certainly obtain the best genes, the best investment, the best parent for her children, and the best partner. And as Gangestad and colleagues correctly argue, most women cannot get all these qualities from the same man (although the degree to which these qualities are intercorrelated, and were intercorrelated in ancestral environments, remains an open
question). It does not necessarily follow, though, that the trade-off that women do make will be obtaining the best possible investment from one man, while cuckolding him with a man with superior genes. Based on the extant studies of genetic cuckoldry, only a small minority of women actually sire children with men other than their regular mates—perhaps 10 - 12% (see Baker and Bellis, 1995; Cerda-Flores, Barton, Marty-Gonzalez, Rivas, and Chakraborty, 1999). Assuming that these figures approximate those of ancestral
environments, this means that the majority of women, perhaps 88 - 90%, in fact obtain
genes, investment, parenting, and partnership from the same man.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470490800600116

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617143/

Here, we show that women in the fertile phase of their cycle prefer body odor of males who score high on a questionnaire-based dominance scale (international personality items pool). In accordance with the theory of mixed mating strategies, this preference varies with relationship status, being much stronger in fertile women in stable relationships than in fertile single women.

Doesn't have much to do with body odor but evopsychologist Scott Barry Kaufman has written an article on what he calls "the myth of the alpha male". Won't copy paste because I'm nearing the caracter limit. Basically he suggests that while assertiveness and confidence are attractive to women, aggressive dominance is not, so that's something to consider. Less dominant attributes such as "easy going" and "sensitive" also fared well with female undergraduates. Refers to a few studies to better illustrate his point

Will touch upon the other studies later but this is getting too long. Perhaps it sparks some discussion

[–]rreliable41 points42 points  (43 children) | Copy Link

Good work compiling all that.

The problem with TRP isn't so much the science (which suffers from cherry-picking as much as feminism does) as the outright hostility to half the human race that's encouraged and tolerated there.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

the outright hostility to half the human race that's encouraged and tolerated there.

You mean like every subreddit that is woman majority /feminist majority?

[–]shoup88Report me bitch11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I believe he already made that same connection when he said "suffers from cherry-picking as much as feminism does".

[–]rreliable5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not their problem. TRP can't make the feminists change, but they can change themselves.

Hitler was a turd, his enemy was Stalin. That doesn't make Stalin not a turd. 2 wrongs etc.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 35 points36 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

Damn. If I had never met a human before, and learned these things about women, I would be pretty hostile to half the human race. Women, not men, insist on long-term commitment (buying a house together, marriage, or whatever), and the same women are more attracted to pair-bonded men than available men. They are hornier when they first form a relationship, then become frigid when they have a man locked down. Women are more attracted to men with money, until they are ovulating, when they are turned on by dominant-smelling men with masculine features. Women slut-shame other women, and then blame men for slut-shaming.

How can you not hate the typical woman? Women who fail to rise above their base instincts are the worst people ever. They are hardwired to marry a beta provider, and cheat on him with an alpha stud (but only while ovulating). Never get married. You may think you found a unicorn, but you probably didn't.

[–]monkeysinmypocket8 points9 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

What about men who cheat on their wives?

[–]dumb_intj[S] 11 points12 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

As shown here, 85% of human societies are polygamous. Even though this is essentially the natural order, Red Pill theory states that you should not engage in extramarital affairs partially due to a belief in honoring one's vows but mostly due to the threat of divorce rape.

I guess because Red Pill theory does not advocate cheating, blue pillers must be all about that! Sad.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Thats silly. We have quite a few who get strange, for whatever reason.

If you can own the concequences, do what you like

[–]dumb_intj[S] 10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

With girlfriends. The Red Pill is pretty clear that you shouldn't cheat on someone you invest enough resources in to marry. Now open-relationships are another story. Cheating implies that one partner is unaware of the actions of the other.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Wives son... wives.

I'm a mod at both subs. Also, open relationships are largely frowned upon, theres only 1 as far as I can recall. The problem with them, it's a license for women getting free dick (it is always easier for them) while the guy has to go back to hunting like he's single, yet still paying for companionship at full price. It's a largely bad deal for men.

Do me a favour, stop keyboard warrioring... These things are very easy to find out if you do your due diligence

[–]dumb_intj[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Spinning plates is for all intents and purposes an open relationship.

Seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. I don't get it. Can't you direct your energy towards blue pillers?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm worried that I am. I don't care about the 'normies' and their bullshit, it's just noise.

But I have my own brothers in here, talking about things that are just wrong. Have I failed in showing them? In not making a sidebar with the requisite information? At what point here is there a disconnect between what's being said, and whats actually going on?

If you're 'sprinkling a little alpha on it' then it's ego investment, and theres nothing I can do but lump with the 'shit post' crowd. If it's an honest lack of knowledge about something, then this is something I can affect.

These back and forths are how I tell them apart.

And I guarantee it's only open in one direction. I won't start spreading usernames for the ladies here, but when the guy has had his trust breeched, builds himself back up to a high SMV man, sometimes, you find their legal advice shows a divorce that estranges them from the money, but more importantly, their children.

Some have such low quality wives, that they'd rather put up with her until they turn 18, than go be single, while she poisons them.

The strategy they have taken is by getting some strange on the side. They are prepared on the divorce if it happens, but aren't pushing for it.

It gets all manner of people up in a huff. I don't judge. They have two goals, be happy, raise some adjusted kids. If they meet those two, and aren't breaking the law, then the rest is for them to judge.

[–]darla104 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Miserable existence you've just described. And not sure it makes for 'well adjusted kids' in the end.

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

Where does it say that men at rp are "against" cheating?

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thats a fair comparison. One of the things i dislike about trp members is the tendency to point to womens nature as the reason they do bad things (hypergamy, branch swinging, af/bb) and then when shown a pattern of male cheating they act like "well, were supposed to spread ourselves genetically" They are the same driving instincts. I know thats not a core trp belief that its okay for men to cheat, but gosh some of these guys defend it.

Anyway, cheating is shitty regardless of who is doing it. Understanding the reason why men or women cheat is the first step in protecting yourself from it.

[–]BPremiumMeh5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

they are the highly masculine chad types. Dont go for good looking assholes and the risk of cheating diminishes greatly

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

What makes you say that? Are there any studies that show genetically gifted men are more prone to cheating? I keep asking this but why is a highly masculine chad ttpe automatically an asshole?

[–]BPremiumMeh6 points7 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I know daily mail is frowned upon, but this came out like 4 days ago, so its new at least. https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4330082/amp/Being-good-looking-make-likely-cheat.html

and this study as well, but its from a while ago. Though, it was posted on ABC, so at least a big network name. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1469078

And Chad types are assholes, thats almost common knowledge

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Id like to know if any thought went into causation vs correlation as attractive people may have more opportunities to cheat, but i asked for a source and you provided a source.

Still though, assuming that because someone is attractive that they are an asshole is a bit uncalled for. I guess we all have our own experiences to draw from though.

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

More options to cheat + higher propensity for variety + values a/the relationship less because he can get another easily = cheater. Not exactly calculus.

And it isnt uncalled for. good looking people are shitty to everyone that isnt in that upper echelon. Men just so happen to show that poor treatment of others more overtly

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Come on man, dont be like that.

Are good looking people really that bad to you on a daily basis? I try pretty hard to be nice to everyone, but i realize that one personal anecdote doesnt make a trend.

[–]crush-it-snort-itPurple Pill5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well heres the thing, ugly people automatically assume attractive people are assholes from societal conditioning, so they self fulfil the prophecy by acting disrespectful to the attractive person, and get a harsh response in reaction...

[–]breakfasttopiatesrestore the Kyriarchy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, good looking or successful men are usually more than happy to help out another guy but weak guys take offense to most suggestions, weak men are like women essentially

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

for the average person, it doesn't matter.

We don't care about the cause of things, but if we get a marker to detect them, it's sufficient to act upon

[–]breakfasttopiatesrestore the Kyriarchy4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Its less of an issue because women still reward them and worship them

[–]RichieFinnRed Pill Man9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

TRP does not advocate for men cheating on wives or gfs. I have seen numerous threads advising dont be in a relationship if you want to cheat simple as.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It only advocates marriage being a bad deal for men.

Other than that, its just tools, not an advocacy group

[–]LSTW12342 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Or kill their wives...

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What about them? They made a promise they couldn't keep. They are probably assholes, but not my problem.

[–]satanic_hamsterRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Who chose the guy?

[–]MrB0gus2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yea but men can be really shitty too.

All people are pretty shitty and selfish.

If you expect women to be perfect angels you're gunna have a bad time.

If you understand that people are animals with clothes and don't hold them to unrealistic expectations your life will be much better.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, we can be shitty, but I don't care if my guy wants to go out and bang a bunch of women. I'm sure not going to put out. I may spoon if I get drunk enough, but no sex.

[–]PostNationalismex-PUA0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

why would knowing the truth about human nature make you hate women??

[–]haikubot-19110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why would knowing the

Truth about human nature

Make you hate women??

 

                  - PostNationalism


I'm a bot made by /u/Eight1911. I detect haiku.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 11 points12 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

The TRP subreddit has drifted pretty far from it's original intent. It's now basically /r/angryPUA. Most red pill guys irl are way more normal than that.

[–]vezokpiraka7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It changed about 1 year and a bit ago. There used to be quality stuff before. Now it's a shitty place.

I commented on a stupid post saying that it was against TRP ideologies and an endorsed contributer told me I have balls to go against his opinion. It was a place to talk about the world not to worship people with a tag.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It changed about 1 year and a bit ago. There used to be quality stuff before. Now it's a shitty place.

Have you seen the articles about the FBI investigating Breitbart and Alex Jones for using bots to influence the election? I guess they saw TRP as a good way to radicalize angry young men and shifted it to /r/The_Donald junior

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Got a link or a name?

[–]IIHotelYorbatreats objects like women14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not PUA. PUAs go out.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

To the club that is.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Its because mods are overrun, and the userbase almost never reports them.

[–]HugMuffinfrom the ground up17 points18 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Aw yeah. Sources. Evidence. This is what I've been waiting for!

Just give me about six months to go through it all.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I do think that you should read through them, I am actually going to take the time to do it. When you are reading "studies" also recogzise that at times do make false equivalences.

What you need to understand about The Red Pill, is that is an interpretation and description of collected anecdotes, studies and other pieces of material that is put into a unified theory. Because The Red Pill seems to be more concerned with practical reality than anything, it may appear to be very black and white.

[–]NoircirAlright7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What you need to understand about The Red Pill, is that is an interpretation and description of collected anecdotes, studies and other pieces of material that is put into a unified theory.

This is one of the best interpretations of The Red Pill that I've seen. Very eloquent.

[–]IFuckedZoeQuinn7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It cracks me up how few blue pillers commented on this.

Then tomorrow we'll see them spouting the same shit as usual because they ignore all evidence that doesn't fit the gynocentric narrative they've cooked up.

[–]LSTW12349 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It cracks me up how many red pillers commented on this before they could possibly have had the time to actually read through these studies.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It cracks me up how few blue pillers commented on this.

There are a lot of links there wit a lot of reading to do. To actually make a substantive response (as opposed to shallow replies-to-replies like I'm doing) requires actually reading some or all of those links and understanding and digesting the data. The original post went up yesterday afternoon in my time zone, but didn't show up in my front page until this morning.

How much time do you think most people actually have to spend reading academic papers unrelated to their jobs, especially over night on a weekday?

It requires a lot less reading and analysis before commenting when you can assume you already agree with the whole post (or when you already know you don't have time to read and understand all of it and are just reading the comments and occasionally throwing out an opinion like I'm doing).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I plan to link to this post every time a TBPer comments about, well, pretty much anything on PPD, from now on.

[–]dj10showhell in a handbasket2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel like this should send TBP the same way as Circuit City

[–]allweknowisD26 points27 points  (92 children) | Copy Link

You do realise there will be a study which supports pretty much any theory, right?

There's plenty of studies which also go against RP theory. This doesn't "prove" anything; it supports a theory.

But I'm assuming if I provided a study which went against RP there would be some sort of "hamstering" to claim it wrong.

[–]trail2225 points26 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

That's what a lot of people said about global warming. I'm not saying you are wrong. Just that it's not a good argument.

[–]allweknowisD2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

In terms of human behaviour; it's impossible to prove anything. Everything is a theory with evidence to support or contest it.

Global warming is entirely different.

[–]dopaff points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Which elements exactly makes humans unpredictable? That's just narcissistic.

[–]allweknowisD1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I didn't realise that "you can't tie down human behaviour with one theory" turned into unpredictable.

Also, what's narcissistic about saying human behaviour is complex?

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

Then why are the bloops so insistent on requiring studies?

[–]allweknowisD2 points3 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

There's a lot of claims that need backed up tbh. If you can give sources it makes the claim a lot more reliable.

Especially considering anecdotal evidence is different from every individual so it makes debating a little easier.

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

But if, when presented with studies, you simply dismiss them by saying "meh you can find a study to prove anything", what's the point?

[–]allweknowisD5 points6 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

It's not a dismissal. It's a pet peeve of mine to claim proof of a claim when one study backs it up.

Nothing in human behaviour is proof or concrete, it's supporting a theory. I'm aware there will be studies that back up RP theory but it's ridiculous to claim those as fact whilst dismissing studies which refute it.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

it's ridiculous to claim those as fact whilst dismissing studies which refute it.

But... you just straight up dismissed a whole thread of studies which refute your own views.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

lol exactly

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, he's making a good point. Many of your studies are attempting to read the dual mating hypothesis into everything. If single women are less likely to go for dominant males, DUAL MATING HYPOTHESIS CONFIRMED!!!!!!1Q11

Which is nonsensical.

I'd like you to read this and share your thoughts.

[–]allweknowisD6 points7 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I didn't dismiss.

I clearly stated that they aren't fact, and that other studies will go against it. Which is completely what I'm still saying.

I have the biggest pet peeve with people claiming that a study proves anything.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

But again we've come full circle: you say a study proves nothing, it isn't fact, other studies will say the opposite.

So... seriously, why bother? Might as well just use anecdotes at this rate.

[–]allweknowisD3 points4 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Why must I repeat myself again?

Because it's a pet peeve. People read one study and think that that's it, that's fact and that's how humans behave. It's ridiculous and frankly makes you look stupid to then claim it off as factual.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

So then yeah might as well just throw anecdotes at each other all day, gotcha.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Still waiting on all those links to studies that support blue pill beliefs :)

[–]allweknowisD4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Search up Gottman and his study on language and divorce.

He predicted which couples would end in divorce just due to how they communicated; criticism, stone-walling, defensiveness and contempt were all seen to be the highest prediction rates.

All of which are prevalent in how you should treat women in a relationship, particularly stone-walling. I guess it doesn't make for a happy marriage then.

There's also studies on claims about women leaving men more often when sick which found the complete opposite (I'll link later; on mobile and don't have to time to search through paywalls to get you the study).

[–]dumb_intj[S] 7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not sure how the Gottman study is relevant to what we're talking about here.

The men leaving women more often thing is legitimate though. Well done.

[–]allweknowisD4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How isn't it relevant?

A very big part of RP is holding frame, stfu etc which is stone-walling; a high predictor of divorce. It obviously doesn't work as well as RP proposes according to that study. There's also a lot of contempt in RP theory towards women.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You can't reasonably be expected to understand the nuances of something you despise, but stone-walling is absolutely not the same thing as holding frame.

Stone-walling: a refusal to communicate or cooperate.

Holding frame: keeping your mindset regardless of attempts to elicit an emotional or bargaining response.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Why are terps applauding this so hard when any study that goes against their beliefs is met with "lulz studies don't prove anything, I have my life experiences"

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Both sides are guilty of this I wrote a big thing here but it got cut under the continue line thingy :(

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

Feminists make LITERALLY the same arguments.

[–]Mattcwu points points [recovered] | Copy Link

You assume that. But you shouldn't assume things in a thread that's about providing ample evidence for claims.

[–]allweknowisD0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I can assume if any study which goes against RP theory is quickly dismissed. Happens often enough.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you have dismissed these claims, you have done no better. They have evidence backing their claims. What more do you need?

Find counters then if it is a problem.

[–]allweknowisD1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Holy fucking shit do you people not read?

I've said it a million times that it's a pet peeve to claim a study proves fact. Humans are too diverse to put them down to one study; what works for one sample size can just as easily not work for the other.

I'm not claiming the studies aren't evidence to support a theory; I'm simply stating that it does not make fact.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We can read but your premise is weak. If studies cannot help should we abandon them altogether?

I'm not claiming the studies aren't evidence to support a theory; I'm simply stating that it does not make fact.

You are holding onto two almost (almost) contradictory views here because the conclusion of them is either don't bother with studies or do them but don't rely on them. The problem is always that when one side makes a claim, the other asks for evidence. When they give evidence, the attitude you have doesn't help. What more must people do?

We have been studying humans since we can remember, in one way or another. This is to the point that corporations are willing to pay for your private info to market a product to you. Their marketing and the success of different industries, especially consumer related ones, tell us that there are patterns of human behaviour. These behaviours can have triggers. To ignore them is foolhardy. Companies profit from our behaviour and choices because they did the studies. They know what gets us to buy their stuff. If they can figure out what makes us tick and exploit our insecurities or our drives and urges, they cash in.

So if indeed there is some truth to the studies and they are able to use their findings across the board to get us to part with our cash, we cannot write the studies off completely, especially when their strategies of how to get us to comply and spend works. This means that studies about humans, for better or worse, help us get to the bottom of what drives us and how we can adapt. If, ad you say, it is difficult to draw conclusions, should we ditch them altogether or make baseless claims? What standards do you suggest we meet in order for it to be less of a pet peeve and more substantial? Should we therefore ignore things that point to inherent discrimination, bias, poor decision making, immaturity and irresponsible behaviour?

And while you are at it, could you provide a source for your view that studies don't make facts? I.e. That there is somehow no link between providing evidence for claims that somehow doesn't turn those claims into facts? My understanding was that having claims backed by studies made them more credible, made them more factual and reliable. Otherwise we may as well declare the sky purple and get it over with.

[–]Mattcwujust sticking up for the oppressed and voiceless women0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[–]puntifex2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

(Edit - to the extent that your issue is specifically with the word "prove", and that you agree that this is evidence supporting some of the theory - I do agree with you there)

think there is a significant "some vs. all" issue here.

I am not red pill. My own experience with women (tldr - amazing15 year marriage) has shown me pretty clearly that NOT all women are like that. My friends are generally in very happy relationships.

But I agree with some of the CONCERNS that TRP brings up. I think both men and women do things that people of the other gender should be wary of, and I think TRP points out these issues for women (albeit mixed with much more misogyny than is appropriate)

So when I see research like OP has linked, I don't think "HAH see all women are monsters and men should stay the fuck away and GTOW". I think "Ok, so there is evidence that SOME WOMEN tend to do things that people notice anecdotally, that guys should watch out for". Presumably these papers do not show that EVERY SINGLE WOMAN wants to stop fucking her husband. But are there trends, tendencies among some women to do this? Yes!

Look, i think guys do shit too. It's like, if there was a study that found that some guys lie about how interested in commitment they are, and I responded "you can find studies that support anything!", one would probably find my objection rather weak, too.

[–]allweknowisD2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not an objection to the studies, it's an objection to saying these prove fact. Which is exactly what's being done.

[–]writingtochucow0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

think there is a significant "some vs. all" issue here

Yes. This is extremely significant. I sometimes wonder if a lot of us here aren't just arguing details. Like, I hear the 'women can't love' stuff from RP and that shit (and shit like it) is pretty absolute. But if we narrow that down to something specific, something that can be studied - say, women sometimes cheat on their partners during ovulation, of course I don't disagree with that.

Is anyone on this sub arguing that "100% of women do/are like this"? (some RPs seem to be, as i see it) Or are we differing on 'how many' and is the assumed 'how many' playing into our sloppily stated opinions? 20% of women cheat makes a statement like "a significant percentage of women cheat" and a statement like "most women don't cheat" both true.

[–]puntifex1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fucking YES. Exactly!

My 5 second summary of a lot of the debates here:

Red pill: "all women do this shit. Literally (or almost literally) no woman is to be trusted"

Blue pill: "(basically) no woman does this shit. If you think anyone does, you are an asshole misogynist".

It seems like the most obvious thing in the world that SOME women do this, but for the most part both sides just like to pretend that the middle could not possibly exist.

Like you could argue whether 15% or 50% or 85% of women have a dualistic mating strategy, but the answer seems like it DEFINITELY isn't 0.000001% or 99.999999%

[–]_TheRP0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

It's all based on percentages. Other than the need for oxygen and water it's pretty hard to find anything that is universally true for a reasonably large subset of humanity.

All these studies are showing tendencies in women, not defining the entire gender.

[–]puntifex0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't disagree with that - of course it's based on percentages. I never said anything to the contrary.

My point is you don't at all have a good idea of what those percentages actually are. You're not going to convince me that you KNOW that it's 25, or 69, or 90.

So again, I think being aware that "hey some women do this, be careful of it" is a perfectly valid message. I don't think "you can assume the vast majority of women are like this" is a useful or accurate message.

[–]_TheRP0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it actually matters what the percentages are, just that it's true for a reasonably large population. When you're dealing with 3.5 billion people, even 20% is a large enough percentage to base an entire sexual strategy on.

[–]puntifex0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Ok but again, if your argument is "many women act this way" then fine. I completely agree that women tend to do certain shitty things more than men, which is why i like aging against the rabid bluepillers as well. And yes, this would imply some kind of rough strategy for some sunset of women.

But the rhetoric is completely different from that. It's like radfems who talk about "all men are privileged, guilty rapists! Don't trust any men!", and then when pressed they say "oh what we really mean is that there are still a few areas where the genders aren't completely equal" - but then go right back to equating all men with pigs.

If you don't believe all women are like that, why don't you say that? You can say "Well AWALT isn't intended to be interpreted liberally", but the rhetoric heavily implies that most red pillers believe it's BASICALLY true, which makes no sense of you think that only 20 or even 50 percent of women do this.

Why not acknowledge that many women make fantastic partners, not because you have to use your tactics, but because they're just good at being a partner, rather than "warning" men that no, they're wrong, and their partner will inevitably cheat unless you use red pill tactics on her?

[–]_TheRP0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You're missing the point entirely.

It's not even about women, it's about the mindset the guy needs to have when dealing with women.

Keep it simple and stick to your strategy - assume all women function the same way from a romantic perspective, don't try to tailor your approach to each individual.

You're getting wrapped around the axle on a detail of a sexual strategy and conflating it with a world view. You're making it something it is not.

[–]puntifex0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I feel you are moving the goalposts, but perhaps I misunderstood you earlier.

So let me start again - I think being aware of some things some women tend to do is good, but you should not overweight it, not should you be worried a partner will do that if she is a good, trustworthy partner. Do you agree with this?

If you think 20% or even 50% of women behave this way, then it's a shitty thing to treat women in a way that implies that they all do that. Do you agree with this?

If so, I disagree that this NEEDS to be the mindset when dealing with women, rather than merely being aware of it and knowing what to look for. If by "guys need this mindset", you mean "guys need to be aware of this, then I agree". But my sense is that you're aging that his should basically always just assume that women will act like this, which is a much stronger and unjustified position.

[–]_TheRP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't feel I owe anyone I don't know any level of respect or deference at all, and that goes for both men and women. So no, I don't agree with much of what you're saying.

I also don't agree that people are 100% one way or the other in any sense. So the idea that some women are just inherently good and wouldn't fuck you over in a relationship is also not something I buy.

[–]ktmriki0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

AWALT doesn't literally mean that all women are like that. It means that all women are capable to be like that.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 7 points8 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

Not at all. By all means, provide a study that supports BP theory.

[–]allweknowisD9 points10 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

Impossible; BP isn't a theory.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

True. It's just a anti-"whatever-RP-happens-to-be-saying"

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not even that coherent.

To a BPer it's anti-"some-of-what-RP-is-saying", or anti-"the-parts-of-RP-I-personally-disagree-with".

If an RPer is saying it, it usually means either "every idea, philosophy, strategy, or system other than RP" or "radical feminism".

There is no single clear definition of BP because it only exists as a term to contrast RP, not as an idea itself.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Incorrect, "Blue Pill" is never seeing it in the first place. This does not equate to being bad with women, it just means the men do not understand women the way that The Red Pill describes. A "Chad" I would surmise would have a very Blue Pill mindset towards women, but would act in a very Red Pill way.

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A "Chad" I would surmise would have a very Blue Pill mindset towards women, but would act in a very Red Pill way.

Happens all the time. Musicians, artists, theatre types. Slay pussy and act red pill, but pay lip service to blue.

[–]Temperfuelmma2 points3 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

BP is the default set of beliefs. Women are wow, be a nice guy, get on her good side and be her friend etc, TRP was made as a counter to BP, so while there isn't any official BP theory anything other than RP can be considered as part of the BP.

[–]allweknowisD6 points7 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

I don't think anyone believe women are wow in the BP. We just believe in treating people like people.

It's not hard

[–]dumb_intj[S] 6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

A core tenet of RP is that women and men don't want to be treated the same. People are generally happier living in gender roles, as evidenced by:

http://ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-009-9665-x

http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf

[–]allweknowisD7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

What's that got to do with treating people like people?

There's also evidence to suggest more egalitarian relationship produce happier couples; see that beauty of human behaviour? It can go either way

[–]dumb_intj[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

What's that got to do with treating people like people?

That went right over your head, huh? Treating people like people implies that you must treat everyone exactly the same. This is not a useful pattern of behavior because men and women prefer to be treated differently as the studies I just linked to demonstrate.

This happens because men and women have pronounced neurological differences. Here's a recent literature review of a very taboo subject: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011

I'd like to see this evidence that more egalitarian relationships produce happier couples. Bonus points if it's a journal without a feminist agenda!

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This happens because men and women have pronounced neurological differences. Here's a recent literature review of a very taboo subject: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011

This is a huge assumption and not necessarily true. There are pronounced differences between male and female brains but they do not necessarily lead to differences in either cognition or behaviour. Structural differences in the brain can lead to similar functioning although the opposite (structural samesness -> different functioning) is also possible

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23953/full

just as example for various cognitive tasks men and women rely on different areas of the brain yet do not differ in performance. See example on fluid reasoning as measured by progressive matrices

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3965537/

You will have to admit that directly studying psychological variables will yield better results of predicting human behaviour than looking at some differences in the brain and concluding that those must account for any differences ever observed between males and females

Hyde is a bit of an ideologue admittedly but her research summed up nicely that for most psychological variables there is little difference in Cohen's d between males and females.

One possibility is that males and females differ not much for every single variable but might differ along several variables (correlated with each other) as indicated by measuring sex difs with Mahalanobis D

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265

Though when large differences do exist they seem to have quite real effects on society, think different occupations

[–]allweknowisD4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No, you implied that. It implies treating them like more than a hole for you to fuck.

Youre making an assumption that different neurological patterns equate to wanting to be treated differently.

There's also no disputing that different hormonal influences create neurological differences in the brain. No one is disputing that men and women are biological different (well at least I'm not), it just doesn't give way to treat people any lesser than you because of it.

You realise I could just say produce me data that doesn't have a sexist agenda, right? Science is very in touch with society; just like when women were trying to get a right to education, there was tons upon tons of studies that tried to "prove" that they weren't capable.

Everything has an agenda.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It implies treating them like more than a hole for you to fuck.

But most women like to be objectified...by men they find attractive. In any case, "treat others the way you want to be treated" right? I love when women only contact me for sex. It makes me feel more confident and attractive. If we should treat everyone the same, then I guess I should continue solely regarding women as fucktoys.

The problem actually arises when I start holding women to the same standard that I hold men. Yes there are ALWAYS a few exceptions but a statistically significant majority of the women I've met have difficulty holding a conversation, helping me complete tasks, or arguing for their personal beliefs. When I hold them to a lower standard, suddenly all the pressure is off them and they're happier. I don't have a study to back up this claim, sorry.

Fair point about everything having a slight agenda.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Treating people like people implies that you must treat everyone exactly the same.

No it doesn't. That's one of the biggest RP strawmen out there.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then why are you so opposed to treating women like women and men like men?

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, a lot of trp advocates treating women as they deserve to be treated. Namely, dont be a schmuck and spend all your cash trying to grace a woman to look in your direction, or be taken for a ride when she bats her eyes and needs rent money. Its supposed to snap guys out of that kind of behavior so they treat people like....people.

Unfortunately some carry it too far and think because they got rejected or duped they need to treat all women like garbage. Thats not healthy thinking.

[–]allweknowisD3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree with the first part; you shouldn't spend all your cash and go crazy in order to impress. If you're able to then great.

And I completely agree with the second too; I'd have a lot less issue with RP if they put more focus on themselves instead of trying to "prove" women have some evil nature to them

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, women do have an underlying nature to them. I wouldnt call it evil, id say selfish. Anyway, its no worse than mens underlying nature to be selfish.

Rp says "here are the ways women can be selfish. Any woman can be like this. Dont be fooled". It doesnt mean men cant be selfish or that women are systematically worse, it just means that people are selfish and men and women are selfish for different reasons.

I think it seems like a lot of people see it as bashing women is because women are generally given a free pass on poor behavior. Frankly though the free passes are usually being given out by white kighting men, not other women.

[–]allweknowisD6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But it's not, because any time a generalisation is made about a man it's bashed.

I understand the logic of treating any gun like it's loaded (don't think it's healthy but I understand it) but when women do this, we're thrown with NOT ALL MEN.

It's the fact that traits that women display are always considered bad; but when men display the same it's considered good.

There's too many inconsistencies and hypocrisies in RP to really take it anymore seriously than trying to prove women are bad and men are good.

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

In theory, generalizations about men arent bashed. "Married older men get fat, youre probably one of them, get your ass in the gym" and "men act needy and clingy with women early on, dont do that".

In reality though, i agree with you. A lot of them cant take criticism. If theres a generalization about men thats true, i dont see a need to bash it, but thats just me. I agree its a trend.

Regarding the 'not all men', i think youre right that it does get used when people dont want to be painted with a broad brush and then they turn around and paint women with a broad brush. Totally with you on that. My one caveat is that men are talking in context of how they themselves should interact with women, where often women are discussing how society at large should treat men. Not always, but heres an example -

Women divorce rape men. Dont get married, or protect yourself if you do get married. Of course, not all women do this, but some do. The solution doesnt force anything on women. If we said "women shouldnt be allowed to get married" or "women should be banned from collecting alimony after a divorce" then i would say that unfairly punishes women that havent done anything wrong.

Now on the flip side - men rape women. So all men should be taught not to rape. Men should have to take classes in school reminding them they are natural rapists and that they need to control themselves. If a woman is raped its automatically the mans fault, and if innocent men get caught in the dragnet, its worth it. The solution forces punishment on the innocent to impact the guilty. The last part is the part i have a huge problem with - i dont like to see all men punished for the actions of a few.

[–]Temperfuelmma0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think anyone believe women are wow in the BP.

I'm not talking about the BP subreddit which is simply a stupid parody of TRP with terrible "jokes" that I'm sure can actually kill people given enough exposure. I'm talking about the default set of beliefs men are indoctrinated with in a gynocentric society, which is BP beliefs. Normally, little boys needn't know the world is so dark in their younger days because little boys need a little love love from mom but their dad's would give them the "talk" when they are of age, not anymore, so they grow up as full grown adults still stuck in their childish beliefs.

We just believe in treating people like people.

TRP highly discourages anyone to treat people like people. The correct way is to treat people like ripe mangoes. Hope that clears everything up.

[–]allweknowisD2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're hilarious

[–]breakfasttopiatesrestore the Kyriarchy0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

A few years ago you did. I see BP getting more purple the last two years or so. The left and center are softening positions across the board lately.

[–]allweknowisD1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm not someone that's been aware of RP and BP for years; couldn't tell you what they were like years ago.

From your perspective sure, people change politics ideologies often with the change of societal issues. Not exactly surprising

[–]breakfasttopiatesrestore the Kyriarchy0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

It has more to do with the fact that RP was a lot more obscure and it was easier to dogpile them and downvoat to oblivion. That in effect made it easier to not concede anything at all that might agree with an RP worldview.

Now with the rise of the new rightwing online and the younger more conservative generation Z BP'ers have to concede to the point of saying "RP is true but the problem is the language" or some other surrender

[–]allweknowisD1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

RP isn't true though. It's supported, doesn't make it true.

You do you, man but stop trying to push your views and "truths" on everyone like it's the natural way of life.

[–]breakfasttopiatesrestore the Kyriarchy0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well I didn't say RP is true I'm purple, but many BP'ers here have said "RP is mostly true but the problem is the language"

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

BP isn't a theory.

That's where you're wrong kiddo. BP 'theory' is 'Just be yourself!' and similar.

[–]allweknowisD4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

BP theory is "we don't agree with RP", with a variety of different beliefs and ideologies intertwined. We just have one common belief we can share

[–]butiwasdrunk0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

in an ideal scenario, all studies for and against would be compared so that the truth can be extracted.

[–]_TheRP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So link those studies.

[–]VermiciousKnidzzBlue Pill Man6 points7 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

1) no direct links between brain structure and functionality. that study seems to be more concerned with bigger brain = more prone to mental disorders (schizophrenia, antisocial-ness, etc...)

2) so 30% of women have tried to take someone's dude and "Individuals who are more committed to both their relationship and partner should be less likely to respond to other sexual offers, and should be less likely to pursue attractive alternatives." i dont see your 90/59% figure anywhere. also keep in mind that in one study, 60% of men reported trying to sleep with someone in a committed relationship while only 38% of women did.

as with most of these points, i also think a pretty dang good argument could be made that these are instances of individual personality and environment, not how many chromosomes you have.

3) as with i said above, i believe this to be a clear example of gender roles (i can feel everyone rolling their eyes as i type that)

think of it this way. women are raised to feel more vulnerable. people learn from their parents how to act in conflicts. as long as society says "women arent as equipped to deal with conflicts as men!" that's probably how people will act.

4) how exactly is that Red Pill? doesnt quite say that women are more narcissistic than men but that narcissistic women are worse relationship material than narcissistic men. super interesting tho; i wonder if this difference is due to women being valued more for how they look while men are valued more for what they have in society

5)

In the U.S., for example, 15%-20% of women report that they have had extramarital sex at some point in their lives (Laumann & Mahay, 2002). Although systematic underreporting of infidelity is likely, female adultery is listed as a primary cause of marital dissolution cross-culturally, suggesting that it is not a rare occurrence (Betzig, 1989)

hardly "all women want to cheat for precious resources!

ill give that and the rest a harder look at some point, gotta get back to work ahaha

[–]dumb_intj[S] 2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

no direct links between brain structure and functionality. that study seems to be more concerned with bigger brain = more prone to mental disorders (schizophrenia, antisocial-ness, etc...)

You literally just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Brain structure = size, more prone to mental disorders = functionality. Funny how all skepticism goes out the window when science reports something negative about men...

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Structure isn't the same thing as size.

the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex

Do you want to try again?

[–]dumb_intj[S] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Nice try, but when it comes to neurology size is a fundamental component of structure. Besides, if you bothered to so much as glance at the abstract you'd know that there are "regional sex differences in volume and tissue density [in] the amygdala, hippocampus and insula". Plugging your ears and screaming "LALALALALA" does not remove the world's implicit Red Pill bias.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes, there are. It's how we know that transgender identities aren't just cis people who want attention.

How this leads us where you want to go, is another matter entirely.

Plugging your ears and screaming "LALALALALA" does not remove the world's implicit Red Pill bias.

Neither does furiously masturbating whenever you see something vaguely redpill-ish, and declaring victory confirm that you've taken a real redpill.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Wait, did you just agree with me? Time to masturbate :^)

I implore you to produce a post citing a bunch of studies that support Blue Pill theory.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Like this one?

[–]dumb_intj[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I was thinking more than 1 or 2 studies. Sort of a response post to my post.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There were 4. Edit: I've linked you to 5 in total, so far.

I didn't expect you to start making excuses already.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Also, your post doesn't even support itself. You read what you wanted to into the studies given, and then failed to defend your POV when called out on it.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry I can't respond adequately to every comment. I love internet fighting as much as the next guy, but it's Friday night and I want to screw around in other ways. Maybe later bro.

[–]IFuckedZoeQuinn2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists and facts/statistics are fundamentally incompatible with each other. Just look at what happens when any feminist group attempts to perform a study.

[–]DashneDK2King of LBFM4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I saw this interesting link on trp a while back. A treatise from 1999 translated from Russian. It has everything from Female Gatekeepers, Male Disposability, Females Being Attracted to Alphas, Captain / First Mate, Alphas Being Able to Get Away with shit Betas cant, etc. etc.

Treatise of Love

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Looking at the research a bit more closely now. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist though so take the following for what it's worth

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011

The prevalence, age of onset, and symptomatology of many neuropsychiatric conditions differ between males and females. Gaussian-process regression coordinate-based meta-analysis was used to examine sex differences in voxel-based regional volume and density. On average, males have larger total brain volumes than females. Examination of the breakdown of studies providing total volumes by age categories indicated a bias towards the 18–59 year-old category. Regional sex differences in volume and tissue density include the amygdala, hippocampus and insula, areas known to be implicated in sex-biased neuropsychiatric conditions. Together, these results suggest candidate regions for investigating the asymmetric effect that sex has on the developing brain, and for understanding sex-biased neurological and psychiatric conditions.

I will mostly recount what I said in another comment on this thread but it is worth pointing out that this is a somewhat muddled topic. Reserachers in the past have failed to adjust for brain volume and thus come to conclusions like the hippocampus being larger in female brains or the amygdala in male brains. Turns out this has more to do with brain size itself. Smaller brains tend to haver a larger hippocampus and women's brains are smaller.

Recent article on that in sciencedaily.

Also one really stupid comment on that article I don't want to keep to myself

It's just that it beggars my imagination to think that core biological processes unrelated to reproduction would have vast differences between genders. Evolution, it should be remembered, predates gender by a long time

It is true though that sex differences in the brain definitely exist and far as I know the "not adjusting for brain size" mistake is well known and no longer made. I'm not calling the meta analysis in the OP into question.

Still simply observing differences in the brain tells us very little about their impact. There is evidence of males and females using different areas of the brain for the same task and with the same performance. It appears that structural difference (in the brain) must not always lead to different functioning same as structural sameness will not always result in similar functioning. This possibility is further explored here

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/etd/umi-okstate-2649.pdf

Mate poaching is a robust phenomenon, and it is here to stay. When single women see a moderately attractive male, they are more interested in him if they believe he is already in a relationship! In fact, one sizable study found 90 percent of single women were interested in a man who they believed was taken, while a mere 59 percent wanted him when told he was single.

Mate poaching definitely exists and is also here to stay. Skimming through this I'm not sure where you got those values from (90% vs 59%) but single women preferring already committed men is definitely observed. Looking at citations of this study on researchgate it is worth noting that a more recent paper did not replicate the effect of sex on mate poaching although the authors suggest it might have to do with using a smaller sample.

I don't really think that men come of as morally superior where mate poaching is concerned if that's what this is about. In the cited paper committed men were more likely to "pursue a target" than committed women and in general men seem more likely to "poach mates" as well as succumb to mate poaching (higher sex drive and all I suppose)

http://ww.evolutionhumaine.fr/pdf_articles/schmitt_2004_j_personal_soc_psychol.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24845881

Following recall of a conflict involving direct aggression and role-playing a reaction to it, compared with men, women reported their anger would dissipate less quickly and they would take longer to reconcile. Women also exhibited increased heart rate, but little change in cortisol, whereas men exhibited little change in heart rate but increased cortisol production. We interpret the results as indicating that women are less prepared than men to resolve a conflict with a same-sex peer.

Nothing to add here. Found another study confirming this, good enough for me

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26098378

Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that wives' total narcissism and entitlement/exploitativeness scores predicted the slope of marital quality over time, including steeper declines in marital satisfaction and steeper increases in marital problems. Husbands' narcissism scores generally had few effects on their own marital quality or that of their wives.

This is not really typical red pill for me. Narcissism in women appears to be negatively associated with quality of a relationship. In the present study the same effect wasn't found for narcissism in men. There is another study confirming that

women with higher levels of narcissism demonstrated significantly higher levels of hostility, as did their male partners. Men also displayed more anger if their female partner had higher levels of narcissism.

Also worth mentioning some reserach in Hong Kong. There narcissists at least ended up with each other which is nice for them in my opinion

Furthermore, self-reported narcissism of males and females were also significantly correlated (r = .26), suggesting that two individuals in the same couple tended to have similar levels of narcissism.

for this study self reported narcissism was negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction in both males and females it seems

As presented in Figure 1a, self-reported narcissism has significant negative associations with both self- and partner-reported relationship satisfaction, even when partners’ narcissism was controlled. The model explained 21.9% and 22.1% of the variance in relationship satisfaction among males and females, respectively

http://pillse.bol.ucla.edu/Publications/Pillsworth&Haselton_ARSR.pdf

...

There is abundant evidence that women, as well as men, desire long-term committed relationships; but there is also an emerging literature revealing a hidden side of women's desires suggesting that women have also evolved to pursue short-term or illicit affairs. The purpose of this article is to review these lines of evidence and other recent findings pertaining to the evolution of women's sexual strategies

Dual mating strategy. David Buss seems to disagree

These findings raise a potential challenge to a strict version of the trade-off model proposed by Gangestad and Simpson (2000). In a world without constraints, a woman would certainly obtain the best genes, the best investment, the best parent for her children, and the best partner. And as Gangestad and colleagues correctly argue, most women cannot get all these qualities from the same man (although the degree to which these qualities are intercorrelated, and were intercorrelated in ancestral environments, remains an open
question). It does not necessarily follow, though, that the trade-off that women do make will be obtaining the best possible investment from one man, while cuckolding him with a man with superior genes. Based on the extant studies of genetic cuckoldry, only a small minority of women actually sire children with men other than their regular mates—perhaps 10 - 12% (see Baker and Bellis, 1995; Cerda-Flores, Barton, Marty-Gonzalez, Rivas, and Chakraborty, 1999). Assuming that these figures approximate those of ancestral
environments, this means that the majority of women, perhaps 88 - 90%, in fact obtain
genes, investment, parenting, and partnership from the same man.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470490800600116

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617143/

Here, we show that women in the fertile phase of their cycle prefer body odor of males who score high on a questionnaire-based dominance scale (international personality items pool). In accordance with the theory of mixed mating strategies, this preference varies with relationship status, being much stronger in fertile women in stable relationships than in fertile single women.

Doesn't have much to do with body odor but evopsychologist Scott Barry Kaufman has written an article on what he calls "the myth of the alpha male". Won't copy paste because I'm nearing the caracter limit. Basically he suggests that while assertiveness and confidence are attractive to women, aggressive dominance is not, so that's something to consider. Less dominant attributes such as "easy going" and "sensitive" also fared well with female undergraduates. Refers to a few studies to better illustrate his point

Will touch upon the other studies later but this is getting too long. Perhaps it sparks some discussion

[–]writingtochucow2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks for doing this, I was thinking of doing the same but then decided I basically don't trust the majority of posters here to engage with this kind of high-effort response in a good faithy way and decided it probably wasn't worth bothering with.

But, this is good stuff. I have a real problem with the way OP presented these studies as some kind of fait accompli in a 'Red Pill confirmed' kind of way without bothering to go into the details/hows of how these studies each confirm RP. dumb_intj I hope that you respond to this poster's comments in this thread - they're good.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have a real problem with the way OP presented these studies as some kind of fait accompli in a 'Red Pill confirmed' kind of way without bothering to go into the details/hows of how these studies each confirm RP.

Main problem is that presumably no one here has any in depth knowledge of evopsych. Takes a lot of effort to respond to OP if you have to look up every single study and find contradicting evidence so no one bothers. I figured this thread might get reposted a couple times though and therefore it's probably worth challenging some of his points.

Also I'm not sure how each one of those studies really relates to the red pill. The narcissist one for instance - perhaps it shows women ought to be submissive for a relationship to work but it's not really clear to me

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok following up on this now. Might not be as extensive because this thread is getting old and I doubt many people will read it

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/367/1589/657.full.pdf

Here, we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favored by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects—promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses.

Mostly skimming through this but I don't see how this paper makes any points relevant to the red pill. It compares the merits of monogamous and polygynous marriage and argues that monogamy has prevailed due to its group beneficial effects. The authors clearly aren't traditionalists and suggest that monogamous marriage has also decreased gender inequality

The competition also motivates men to use whatever connections, advantages or alliances they have in order to obtain wives, including striking financial and recipro- cal bargains with the fathers and brothers of unmarried females (see electronic supplementary material for North American examples). Once adolescent girls and young women become wives, older husbands strive to ‘protect’ their young wives from other males (guarding the paternity of any offspring) and dominate household decision-making. More competition also motivates men to seek to control their female relatives (e.g. sisters), as demand for wives increases. This results in suppressing women’s freedoms, increasing gender inequality and stimulating domestic violence. Women’s loss of influ- ence on household decision-making and their lower age of marriage results in higher fertility. By contrast, normative monogamy diffuses the pressure to bring younger brides into the marriage market, and thereby reduces the spousal age gap, male efforts to control (‘protect’) women, gender inequality and total fertility. We address below whether the effects on gender equality or the spousal age gap create—in themselves—any group-level benefits.

...

Women engage in indirect aggression and slut-shaming, even in clinical research studies. In his book, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, Buss argues that women do this because, evolutionarily, women who are willing to have casual sex undermine the goals of women who want long-term relationships. "Slutty" women hint to men that it’s okay not to commit because there will always be someone available to give away the milk for free, as it were. Their peers' “derogation” is thus intended to damage the reputation of these free-wheeling females.

Will just note two things on that one 1) Buss argues males also engage in "indirect aggression" but "bitch" about other things

In fact, Buss has found that men “bitch” about their rivals, too—they just tend to insult their lack of money or status, the things women traditionally have valued in mates, rather than their physical appearance. They don’t slut-shame as much, Buss argues, because women will still date male “sluts.”

and 2) a recent meta analysis found apparently higher female indirect aggression only in childhood and adolescense. So doesn't seem to be much of a difference between genders here

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45637197_Sex_Differences_in_Aggression_in_Real-World_Settings_A_Meta-Analytic_Review

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11324580_Sexual_motivation_and_duration_of_partnership

Study shows that once a women 'bonds' or knows she has fully secured her mates commitment she will lose interest in sex. But women, he said, have evolved to have a high sex drive when they are initially in a relationship in order to form a "pair bond" with their partner. But, once this bond is sealed a woman's sexual appetite declines, he added.

These findings seem decently solid, large sample but a longitudinal study ought to be done as the authors point out. Authors don't really put their results the way you quoted here but anyway.

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~pbressan/papers/BressanStranieri2008.pdf

In this study, 208 women rated the attractiveness of men described as single or attached. As predicted, partnered women favored attached men at the low-fertility phases of the menstrual cycle, but preferred single men (if masculine, i.e., advertising good genetic quality) when conception risk was high. Because men of higher genetic quality tend to be poorer partners and parents than men of lower genetic quality, women may profit from securing a stable investment from the latter, while obtaining good genes via extrapair mating with the former.

this also seems to come down to dual mating strategy which I already discussed in my first post. While this may be of advantage to women it doesn't appear to happen much at all

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract

Using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships (premarital sex and premarital cohabitation) and subsequent marital dissolution. I extend previous research by considering relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation. I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution.

This doesn't appear to be entirely correct, see an analysis of the data here

This tells a different story from that in Chart 1. In my opinion, Chart 3 is more helpful than the Heritage Foundation chart as it permits one to come closer to drawing a causal connection between partner counts marital outcomes. The most interesting element in Chart 3 is the U‐shaped relationship between pre‐marital partner count and divorce rates. This surprised me so much that I had to chart the 2002 NSFG data alongside to be certain that the 2006/08 data wasn’t just a fluke, a sampling artifact. This chart most clearly shows that divorce rates are the lowest for those with zero pre‐marital partners. That part is unambiguous. Virgin brides are the least likely to divorce, all else equal. But why do divorce rates rise with one or two premarital partners only to reverse and drop after two or more sexual partners? And next, why do divorce rates reverse and climb back up after the pre‐marital partner count goes into the double digits?

This is a very interesting finding that neither the Heritage Foundation Study nor Jay Teachman’s hazard model analysis examine. I’m not even sure they’re aware the relationship exists. I’m anxious to hear reader opinions on the drivers here. My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5‐9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience. Older women, and women with more dating experience, are more likely to have learned which personal qualities will work best for them in a marriage partner. As a result, such women choose more wisely and tend to experience lower divorce rates. Now, it also happens to be the case that older women have had more time and occasion for pre‐marital sex! Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5‐9 pre‐marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men.

http://faculty.washington.edu/hechter/KanazawaPaper.pdf

Also go here and read point 5.1.

The evolutionary psychological perspective on wars suggests that the ultimate cause of all intergroup conflict is the relative availability of reproductive women. Polygyny, which allows some men to monopolize all reproductive opportunities and exclude others, should increase the prevalence of civil wars, but not interstate wars, which did not exist in the ancestral environment. The analysis of the Correlates of War data supports both hypotheses derived from the evolutionary psychological perspective; polygyny increases civil wars but not interstate wars. The evolutionary psychological perspective implies that women should be far less resistant to alien rule than men, because they have the option of marrying into the conquering group; however, this sex difference should disappear when women are no longer reproductive. The analysis of the Eurobarometer data from 15 European Union nations strongly confirms this prediction.

With Kanazawa I'm almost willing to shoot the messeger. Ok skimming through this "strongly confirms" is really weak. Maybe I missed something but he just seems to find that women were on average less xenophobic than men on a questionnaire. That can be interpreted as being more welcoming to foreign rule but seems a strange case to make. Kanazawa strengthens his argument by pointing out that women over 50 are just as xenophobic as men but that's really strange because there is no real increase as one would expect in female xenophobia. They like foreigners till 50 and then suddenly they hate them. Seems like a generational confound most like

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

http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf

Men and women have more sex when they follow gender norms in the household. This study investigates the links between men’s participation in core (traditionally female) and non-core (traditionally male) household tasks and sexual frequency. Results show that both husbands and wives in couples with more traditional housework arrangements report higher sexual frequency, suggesting the importance of gender display rather than marital exchange for sex between heterosexual married partners.

Already responded to this. Trend's changing

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-009-9665-x

Benevolent sexism makes men more attractive to women. German female students (total N = 326) rated the likability and typicality of male targets: a nonsexist, a benevolent sexist, a hostile sexist, and (in Studies 2 and 3) an ambivalent sexist. When targets were presented as response profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick and Fiske 1996) (Studies 2 and 3), the benevolent sexist was rated to be most likable but least typical, whereas the ambivalent sexist was rated to be highly typical. Thus, women were aware of a link between benevolent and hostile sexism and approved of men’s benevolent sexism.

There seems to be more research and I can well imagine it's true

http://www.livescience.com/8779-fertile-women-manly-men.html

Ovulating women prefer alpha fucks, non-ovulating women prefer beta bucks. A new study reveals that heterosexual women whose partners have less-masculine faces report more attraction to other men during ovulation. Women with masculine-looking partners said their eyes wander less, perhaps because the traits women tend to find sexy when they're fertile are already present in their partners.

This appears to be quite simply false. Meta analysis > single study

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1754073914523073

http://ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf

Since the women's liberation movement of the 1970s, female happiness has on average declined. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective wellbeing, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging − one with higher subjective well-being for men.

The paradox of declining female happiness is pretty well known, definitely true. Not necessarily a paradox in my opinion because I would also like to have less responsibilities. This OECD report seems to go into detail but haven't read it yet

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/equal_economic_independence/160129_happiness_report_en.pdf

Also far as I know this trend doesn't hold across all subjective measures but will have to check

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~cashdan/publications/ec_evolanth.pdf

Women value the ability to provide economically in a long-term mate. Females in a wide variety of species (insects, birds, mammals) prefer males with resources, and the same is true for humans. Buss’s cross-cultural questionnaire study of 37 societies showed that women in all of them placed a higher value on the financial prospects of a prospective mate than men did. Closer questioning of an American sample showed that women prefer immediate access to resources when seeking short-term matings but place greater value on cues to future resource acquisition when evaluating long-term mates. If women act on these stated preferences we would expect wealthy men to have more mates, and there is ample cross cultural evidence that they do. The importance of resources to women is apparent even in egalitarian societies such as the Ache and the Sharanahua, where the best hunters are able to attract the most sexual partners.

it should be remembered that in most modern societies reproductive success doesn't vary as much as used to be. The "rich males attract many females" thing was far more present in the past than is it now. This is also discussed in the study on the benefits of monogamy provided in the OP

[–]dumb_intj[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Evolution, it should be remembered, predates gender by a long time

lmao that's good stuff. Nice catch.

It appears that structural difference (in the brain) must not always lead to different functioning same as structural sameness will not always result in similar functioning.

True, but there is ample evidence that men and women perform consistently at a differential with regards to a variety of tasks: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151207081824.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xix/3.2.95/news/rhyming.html

single women preferring already committed men is definitely observed.

This is unfortunately one of the first things Red Pill theory opened my eyes to.

This is not really typical red pill for me. Narcissism in women appears to be negatively associated with quality of a relationship. In the present study the same effect wasn't found for narcissism in men.

Fair enough. It's not really Red Pill to me either, although it's a very interesting finding nonetheless.

while assertiveness and confidence are attractive to women, aggressive dominance is not

Red Pill theory never advocates being needlessly aggressive. In fact, RP theory asserts that nothing telegraphs beta-ness faster. "Short Man Syndrome" is often brought up in this context.

Glad to see there were essentially no refutations of Red Pill theory in your thorough analysis of my compilation. Good work!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

True, but there is ample evidence that men and women perform consistently at a differential with regards to a variety of tasks: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151207081824.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xix/3.2.95/news/rhyming.html

Well sex differences in cognition and behaviour definitely exist, I think very few people would deny that. They are however for most variables relatively small

Decently summed up by Hyde here. Effect size in Cohen's d. 0.2 is considered small, 0.5 moderate whereas 0.8 indicates a large difference. With some exceptions (e.g. mental rotation, spelling, physical aggression) effect sizes are relatively close to 0.

There is one way to "increase" sex difference in personality and that is by basically looking at all variables at once since those are correlated with each other. Measuring sex differences this way (using Mahalanobis D) will result in less overlap between male and female distributions although it is to me at least unclear how much practical effect this has on society

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265

This is unfortunately one of the first things Red Pill theory opened my eyes to.

Eh. Fair enough

Red Pill theory never advocates being needlessly aggressive. In fact, RP theory asserts that nothing telegraphs beta-ness faster. "Short Man Syndrome" is often brought up in this context.

Ok don't focus on aggression too much. Women like neither aggression nor dominance. At least when asked what they find attractive in a man dominance is not among those things, but confidence and assertiveness as well as sensitivity etc. are according to Kaufman. Sure you could argue that the red pill teaches being confident assertive but that's pretty common sense advice for dating. Ideas about men always being the dominant one in the relationship/wife submissive etc. are probably less supported by this research.

Kaufman also describes this study to further illustrate his point. Worth posting imo

Across four studies, the researchers found that the dominance scenarios were considered more sexually attractive, although dominant John was regarded as less likeable and not desired as a spouse. Taken at face value, this study seems to support the sexual attractiveness of the dominant alpha male over the submissive beta male.

But not so fast.

In a follow up study, the researchers isolated various adjectives to pinpoint which descriptors were actually considered sexually attractive. While they found that “dominance” was considered sexually attractive, “aggressive” and “domineering” tendencies did not increase the sexual attractiveness of either males or females. There seemed to be more to the story than just mere dominance vs. submissiveness.

Enter a study by Jerry Burger and Mica Cosby. The researchers had 118 female undergraduates read the same descriptions of John the tennis player (dominant vs. submissive), but they added a crucial control condition in which some participants only read the first three sentences of the description (see italics above). Consistent with the prior study, women found dominant John more sexually appealing than submissive John. However, the John depicted in the control condition had the highest ratings of sexiness of them all!

What’s going on? Well, this most certainly doesn’t mean that the extremely brief three-sentence description of the John depicted in the control condition was sexually appealing. Rather, it’s more probable that hearing about either dominant or nondominant behavior, in isolation of other information about him, made him less sexually attractive. The researchers conclude: “In short, a simple dominant-nondominant dimension may be of limited value when predicting mate preferences for women.”

Next, the researchers fiddled with the descriptors of John. In the “dominant” condition, participants read a short description of John and were told that a recent personality test found that his five most prominent traits were aggressive, assertive, confident, demanding, and dominant. Those in the “nondominant” condition read the same paragraph but were told that John’s five most prominent personality characteristics were easygoing, quiet, sensitive, shy, and submissive. Those in the control condition only read the short paragraph but were not told anything about John’s personality.

The researchers then asked women to indicate which of the adjectives used to describe John were ideal for a date as well as for a long-term romantic partner. They found that only 1 woman out of the 50 undergraduates in their sample actually identified “dominant” as one of the traits she sought in either an ideal date or a romantic partner. For the rest of the dominant adjectives, the two big winners were confident (72% sought this trait for an ideal date; 74% sought this trait for an ideal romantic partner) and assertive (48% sought this trait for an ideal date; 36% sought this trait for an ideal romantic partner). Not one woman wanted a demanding male, and only 12% wanted an aggressive person for a date and romantic partner.

...

Glad to see there were essentially no refutations of Red Pill theory in your thorough analysis of my compilation. Good work!

Most direct refutation was certainly to your research on women's dual mating strategies but you didn't really acknowledge that one. Anyways I can see how my research doesn't refute the red pill but it's certainly also not incompatible with a "blue pill worldview". Probably gonna lead to an argument on definitions of red pill and blue pill though

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

Have commented on the other studies as well now and it's fair I should let you. Not as extensive as my original post though

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪6 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Which RP claims do the second and third support?

Good job though! Good post

[–]dumb_intj[S] 11 points12 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

2nd) Women have difficulty getting along/working together/resolving conflicts

3rd) The more narcissistic a woman is, the worse her marriage is, whereas men's narcissism has little effect on marital quality

In a nutshell, AWALT.

[–]OfSpock14 points15 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

2) Women remember that time you were an arsehole/incompetant. They don't brush it under the rug like men want you to and forget about it.

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That's the point. Men will forgive and move on. Women will bring it up months and even years later and always keep bitching about it.

[–]OfSpock10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You seem to think that's a preferable option. Personally I've found that people who do the dirty on you once will do it again. And expect that time to be forgotten too.

[–]the_calibre_cat3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, while I'm purple and thus have sympathies to some of T.R.P, you make a fair point. It was hard for me to kick a friend of mine to the curb after he'd burned me twice, I wanted to forgive him again. My woman was like, "Fuck. No." When I really got down to it... she was right, you can't just give people infinite chances.

I desperately want to make a political point here, but I shan't.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Women remember absolutely every time their men fuck up, and they never ever forgive or forget it.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

they never ever forgive or forget it.

These things do not have to go together. Just because you forgive someone doesn't mean you have to (or even should) forget the incident happened (I do, but I have a shitty memory).

People often repeat behaviors. Forgiving is healthy, forgetting is a good way to get burned repeatedly.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And as I said elsewhere. Why should they? Especially if you don't apologise and keep doing the same thing?

[–]VermiciousKnidzzBlue Pill Man5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

im confused, the second is about mate poaching/women wanting men who are already in relationships. what does that have to do with conflicts?

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

Sorry, I added a new one at the top. I guess it's the third one down now.

[–]darla104 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Um, narcissistic men men tend to cheat. Last time I checked that isn't good for a marriage.

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

Not according to research. Have you conducted a 4 year longitudinal study on 146 couples recently?

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

2nd) Women have difficulty getting along/working together/resolving conflicts

In general men tend to express emotions covert and women overt. For team conflicts covert is better and faster.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Covert is more efficient in the short-term, but results in problems compounding over the long run.

In a long-term relationship, overt communication is better.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

K sounds good

[–]RedLeg13 points points [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dumb_intj[S] 2 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedLeg13 points points [recovered] | Copy Link

These three studies have zero to do with love, differences of how women and men love, or emotion and all to do with sex and mating strategies. Call me crazy, but that is different, que no?

[–]dumb_intj[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The person in the link you posted doesn't explicitly define how "he wants to be loved" but as a red piller myself, I have a better idea than you. His/our definition of love is: not cheating, not slacking off once the relationship becomes secure, and not caring how many resources you provide. Women generally not exhibiting this behavior is clearly demonstrated in the three links I provided.

Love is an action, not a feeling, particularly the way that red piller used it (ie "a woman will never love you...").

[–]speltspelt3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

if you structured it as a prisoner's dilemma, TRPers mean someone who cooperates even if they defect.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women who rated their sexual desire as being lower than their partners´ gavelower ratings on sexual satisfaction and on satisfaction with the relationship comparedwith women who rated their sexual desire as being higher than their partners´.

Did you actually read any of your links?

[–]puntifex2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

As a person who likes your post here, how the hell do you go from "there is significant evidence that some women behave in these ways" to "it is axiomatic that all women are like this"?

Because saying "no woman will ever love you" is much closer to the latter than the former".

[–]dumb_intj[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

AWALT is simply shorthand for ASSPOWALT. It's a useful heuristic, not a fundamental law of the universe.

[–]puntifex1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Except most rpers treat it like the latter, and a casual viewer to that subreddit could be forgiven for thinking that was the default belief - because that's exactly how it's presented.

When people say "yea, some women do this, but how can you say women aren't humans with the ability to reason and choose?", the responses strongly indicate that most of TRP DOES believe in literal awalt.

What do you believe? Of course it's a gradient, but what percentage of women do you think are generally incapable of being good romantic partners due to the issues you mention here?

[–]dumb_intj[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

What you just attempted is known as a Straw Man Fallacy.

Did you know there are some people who are immune to electrocution? They really exist! Does that mean it's a good idea for you to go biting down on live power lines? No, of course not! "All people die when electrocuted" (APDWE) is a useful generalization. It's not technically true, but for all intents and purposes it might as well be. Same with AWALT. If you really hate the mere concept of AWALT so much, just think of it as ASSPOWALT (A Statistically Significant Percentage Of Women Are Like That).

[–]puntifex2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No, what I did was not a straw man fallacy, but I'm not going to get into that, as there are more pressing issues with your other arguments. It's disappointing, because I really did like the links you posted.

If you are trying to convince me that the percentage of women who act like TRP describes is similar to the percentage of humans who cannot be electrocuted, I will call bullshit. Every time.

So the analogy is garbage. You're effectively saying "99.999% is close enough to 1, for practical matters, therefore this other number, which is much harder to estimate, is also close enough to 1 for practical purposes!".

Do you even know what "statistically significant" means? Are you aware that if you flip a coin 10000 times and get heads 52% of the time, that is extremely statistically significant?

If even 10% of women acted like this, and you did rigorous tests for this kind of behavior, with tons of data, you would find that a "statistically significant" percentage of women acted in that way.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Semantic arguments are the last refuge of those who have already lost the debate.

The phrase "statistically significant" was chosen because it's something literal and discrete that can be measured. If I gave an arbitrary percentage like "75%", you'd accuse me of pulling numbers out of my ass. If I said "overwhelming majority", you'd just focus on the definition of overwhelming. This ain't my first rodeo. I know how this goes. "ASSPOWALT" is sort of a joke that was made up to appease the tired arguments you try to use whenever someone types out AWALT.

[–]puntifex1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Semantic arguments are the last refuge of those who have already lost the debate.

Or the first thing pointed out by people who believe that common words and phrases should be used like they are intended to. The word you are looking for is just "significant". People who use "statistically significant" in this context do not understand what that phrase means.

What exactly do you think I am arguing against? If your point is just "a significant number of girls behave in this way", I'd actually agree with you. However, from here you go the pure nonsense route. You're loathe to give a guess as to how many women fit this description, yet you're happy to compare to compare it to the number of people who don't survive electrocution.

If the number were 30%, 50%, 75%, in what way does it make sense to say "ALL women are like that" is a reasonable shortcut? Well under 10% of the general population are viable dating candidates for you (right gender, age, relationship status, etc.) - do you think it makes sense to say "ALL people are not available for relationships?"

This isn't your first rodeo, yet this whole time you haven't considered where your numbers (or lack thereof) are coming from? You think it is reasonable and logical to reach the conclusion "ALL women are like that" from the starting point of "there is evidence that SOME women are like that?" This is going to be called out by anyone who realizes that x > 0% does not automatically imply x ~ 100%. For an "ideology" that bills itself as "rational" and "logical", this is a pretty sad showing.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget this beauty:

This survey (N = 224) found that characteristics collectively known as the Dark Triad (i.e. narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism) were correlated with various dimensions of short-term mating but not long-term mating. The link between the Dark Triad and short-term mating was stronger for men than for women. The Dark Triad partially mediated the sex difference in short-term mating behaviour. Findings are consistent with a view that the Dark Triad facilitates an exploitative, short-term mating strategy in men.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.698/abstract

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Would you like to hear my anecdote that disproves this sciencey science stuff you dug up?

[–]vorverkRed Pill Man2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

One of the best posts of all time here, no doubt.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, it's not. Lots of links, which looks impressive, but then you actually read a few and find out he's reducing complicated results into something TRP could agree with.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

To start with the first one: those differences existing on average does not mean that significant numbers of women don't have ADHD or that lots of men don't suffer from depression. Also, it isn't inconsistent with BP ideas since they are mostly arguing that those differences are a result of socialization as much if not more so than they are of biology alone, and that study does not disprove that at all.

[–]Ercole-- points points [recovered] | Copy Link

This is the best debate post I've ever seen. Not even kidding.

I fully expect zero TRP detractors to read it and every single point you've made to be baselessly contradicted by them before the end of next week.

And I'm an hour late to call this one, but I'm in no way surprised that a blue user deflected your argument with a personal attack based on your desire to be proven correct.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

You must be new.

you'll get two reactions. edgy comments mocking this whole thing, usually about 'suck it up' or downright comparison on how bad women have it as a counter argument

or nothing. won't show up

This isn't a debate sub, never was. It's a virtue signalling safe space to mock RP guys, without the TBP circlejerk. And for RP guys to rant

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

or nothing. won't show up

Seems to be what is happening. We dare not criticise women, but when there is evidence saying women have a set way they behave under certain conditions, they fall silent.

You do get a few here and there who try. But the stuff men have mentioned and noticed seems to be dismissed pretty quickly as sexist no matter how many men share the same experiences or come to the same conclusions. Men are trying to figure this shit out because they hate losing out every time.

Compromise is one thing but when they get shouted down for expressing unhappiness, don't be surprised if they find another way. BP thinking doesn't work for everyone.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Dont be bitter. Youre seeing why ppd exists.

I laugh when people say they are here to debate, amd i almost never not shitpost. Its thenvirtue signalling, soapbox having way to be comfortable shitting on anything trp, wothout the vile vitriol of tbp.

Plus, trp shows up to bicker, usually the new guys which provide a wonderful straw man to beat up on, to feel good that "that guy is the bad guy" and stroke ones ego.

Once you acceot that, tgis place can be fun. See women in their natural habitat. They forget youre a man for a bit, and sometimes speak like they are talking to women only.

Like trp, a lot of fluff, and a few nuggets

[–]Ercole-- points points [recovered] | Copy Link

You must be new.

Well, it's nice to see you again too.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

We know each other?

[–]Ercole-- points points [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not exactly new. This is hitting me where it hurts.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Why, I'm random dude #4 on the internet

[–]Ercole-- points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Not really. I recognize your name. Granted, you do contribute a lot, so I'll stop acting like a girl about it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol, thats one way to look at it.

This is my RP notepad, and I doodle dicks through it all day

[–]OfSpock4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Well those nasty facts do get in the way. You can provide studies which show that women have dual mating strategies all you want, but when 1% of children are fathered by men other than the one thought to be the father, all they provide is evidence of wishful thinking.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

The fact that 1% of women do this things of course leads to AWALT. Then the reminder then when men cheat it is okay.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

No no no. I'll hear NO complaints from you, now that the "science" you all claim to want has been provided to you, in living color.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

This BS paternal act you pull around here borders on hilarious. I can't be honest in how I want to reply to you, well I can be honest but I would end up in ban land, so I will just think it. Thanks for checking in though.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not paternalism; it's just telling you that your complaints about this stuff is BS, particularly when the science you and your ilk demand so often is now sitting in your lap.

I'll bet a steak dinner you haven't read even one of those links.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't have a problem with a study that challenges my thinking and assumptions, I don't like the way you respond to me in threads at times and it is paternalistic and condescending which might be semi fine if you were some super genius person, I understand this is not directed personally at me, because you act that way with other people.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

aka 'no I have not'

[–][deleted] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't dogpile and try to escalate an argument into something uncivil.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

1% of children are definitely found to have been fathered by men other than the one thought to be the father, or definitely 1% of children yadda yadda? There is a difference. If 1% of children are proven to be bastards, how many do we not know about?

[–]OfSpock3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They tested a sample of families who went in for other reasons eg, medical testing. It's referenced in one of the links above.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What, you aren't here to poke fun at the stupids

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, of course, I dont do these things, so trp is totally wrong.

/s

[–]DarkLord0chinChin4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nominate All-Time Best Post of PPD

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

The resource thing is what MGTOWs me hard

[–]dumb_intj[S] 4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Fuck yeah! I only discovered MGTOW a year ago but I'm already seeing an explosion in popularity.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Don't bother. They cry too much, and would rather sulk then thrive

[–]dumb_intj[S] 2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Eh, women aren't the end-all and be-all. You don't need a vagina to thrive. I can always buy a prostitute if I get really horny.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking about the MGTOW guys. Short of the Terrance Pop types who have seriously been fucked over, it's mostly guys who take their toys and go home.

Was a good idea, but then again, so was communism

[–]dumb_intj[S] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I am a MGTOW guy. Why must I participate in dating again? I despise flirting/game and I enjoy porn/prostitutes. I've had a couple long-term, live-in gfs in the past and I consistently become a worse person. I don't plan on having kids and I don't like spinning plates.

When the game is rigged, the only winning move is not to play.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Do what you like, a man is his own judge.

I simply take an alternate view. This is the 100% best time to be a man. Only issue is that once you have a solid famine free society, with no outside invaders, and enough tasks to make domestic work easy, what used to be masculine a hundred years ago doesn't work today.

The 1950s alpha would be eaten alive today. I choose to take this newfound opportunity for freedom and run with it.

If you're happy, and not bullshitting yourself, who am I to judge?

[–]dumb_intj[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

This is the 100% best time to be a man.
The 1950s alpha would be eaten alive today.

I actually completely agree with both these statements. Do you mind elaborating on your position regarding Men Going Their Own Way?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Mission focus. Why would you ever not be on your own MAP?

[–]dumb_intj[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

My mission is to get rich. Seems like chasing tail is severely detrimental to that goal.

What do you mean by "on my own MAP"?

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

Most MGTOW I've observed fall into the

  • Sexually retired investor category.

  • The burned and building resources to only have casual relationships category.

or

  • The currently doing casual relationships only category.

Then there's the not-really-MGTOWs. The guys that you can tell would declare the first girl they click with as a NAWALT and blow their time and money.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is one of those "do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?" views.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?

That's the RP/BP dichotomy in a nutshell.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I must note, these studies are certainly valuable.

But the idea that we need them for things that have been obvious facts of life before modern, western society is rather funny.

Especially considering the "primitive" people around the world today don't need these studies to be aware of it.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I completely agree. Regardless, every theory should be held to the standard where we conduct experiments to provide evidence for it.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes yes.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 1 point2 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman12 points13 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Essentially TRP comes down to this: when women behave badly it is for some magic unicorn reason "worse" than when men behave badly, or the "bad" things women do are somehow "badder" because Disney movies when I was a kid and men are just using amoral strategies.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

not 'worse' or 'better' thats how children think.

When we fuck other men, we will worry about their relationship hangups. It's not about being better than women (though in many cases we can be) it's that your POV is not on scope

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I understand, your POV is that you only want to entertain your POV.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Rule 0.

Thats the only reason TRP/MRP exist. You're there to help, or you're a distraction. Women have many avenues to get help, or they can make their own

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Right but this is not TRP/MRP.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

But we are discussing TRP. Remember?

Essentially TRP comes down to this: when women behave badly [mischaracterization, cheap shots and hamstering omitted]

  • U/goatismycopilot, 17 hours ago

If you tell us all what you think TRP is, should the replies not be about TRP? How else can we tell you what you have wrong about TRP?

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think I have anything wrong on TRP.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No shit. I think Dunning and Kruger might have some insight as to why you would think that.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

You have it backwards. If you find a woman who doesn't behave badly, there's your unicorn. Red pill doesn't say women who cheat are worse than men who cheat. Moral judgements fall outside the scope of the red pill. Blue pill, feminist, society says men are dogs who cannot be trusted, but women are wonderful and pure. Red pill says women can be awful people, too. You just don't see red pill talking about how awful men can be, because it doesn't apply. I don't care how likely it is that a man will cheat on me; I don't date men. Male infidelity is only relevant if I want to have a monogamous sexual relationship with a dude, and I don't.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Female infidelity is only relevant to me if I want a monogamous relationship with a woman and I don't.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's quite obviously relevant to you if you want a monogamous relationship with a woman. Wouldn't you care about which situations may lead you to be unfaithful? And what the consequences of that might be? Understanding your own nature is always beneficial.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's quite obviously relevant to you if you want a monogamous relationship with a woman.

I don't, so it's not. If I was to get married, rule one would be "No intimacy for a month and being turned down 3 times, and I will start looking for someone who won't turn me down". I've always believed that if you aren't having sex with me, you don't get to tell me I can't have sex with someone else. I wouldn't even lie; I'd tell her outright I was going out to get laid, and why. I don't expect to meet a woman who would accept my conditions.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not talking about marriage I'm talking about dating, like you were in your previous comment.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A monogamous dating relationship wouldn't last a month without sex. She would be nexted. It's moot anyway; I don't want a monogamous relationship.

[–]honeypuppy4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe in the straw Blue Pill. I don't think that women all just want polite nice guys. Yes, sometimes, some women will cheat on their "beta" husband with an "alpha" guy! However, where many RPers go off the reservation is when they interpret these occasional instances to believe that virtually all women are CC-riding, dead-bedrooming immature whores.

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Inb4 <50 replies

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's like a shit ton to read so it needs like a week to offer an adequate reply

Plus usually it's us BPers that offer studies to dispel some common TRP myths, but they never care about that at all and are always like "so what if the average alimony is only 3000 dollars per year? DIVORCE RAPE! MEN ARE BEING EXTORTED" or "so what if most women don't ever cheat? HYPERGAMOUS WHORES" or "lol feminists probably made the study and it's impossible that most women don't have BPD because all three that I've slept with were like that"

I would have probably offered like a ton more studies if TeRPers weren't the world champions of hamstering and denial

We actually tried to convince TRPers with studies all the time but they rather rely on stereotypes than facts

For example

Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey http://michaelwiederman.com/reprints/EMS.pdf Shows infidelity rates: men 22.7% and women 11.6%

Doesn't ever matter if most don't ever cheat. It's simply their female nature to do it even though most wouldn't even do it if given the chance. He got cheated on therefore every woman will cheat should the man ever show any vulnerability or become sick/lose his job. And even though men cheat more it's still women that are the cheaters according to them

Or

• study on which gender walks out when their partners are diagnosed with serious illness: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110105401.htm

Doesn't matter as well. When presented with conflicting facts TeRPers just shove their head into the sand and look for other reasons to present women as heartless monsters that can't love men simply because they themselves are unloveable

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It seems like the strategy here was to throw a bunch of information at once without going into depth into any of it. I mostly Reddit on my phone so it's hard to know where to start.

I like how when BPers shows studies that contradict TRP we are met with "lolz studies"....

Either way, ARS was way off there's a bunch of replies.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Post saved for future reference.

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

oh fugg :DD :DD

[–]OmLiLi points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, you win. On behalf of r/TheBluePill and all other BPers in the world, I award you with validation. We might as well just shut down PPD now.

I don't buy into this BP/RP bullshit, you can keep calling lifting weights, learning how to talk to people and being attractive to women RP.

I don't know how this proves RP, I don't even know why you're so worried about proving RP, like if it's true and you know 100% who gives a shit what some dumb ass like me thinks.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 6 points7 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

I want to live in a world where everyone makes decisions based in reality. Having over half the population living in a different reality does not lead to a harmonious society. I humbly believe that harmony is a good thing, but you're free to disagree.

Also perhaps more importantly, I don't want to face social reprisal for merely speaking the truth.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

I want to live in a world where everyone makes decisions based in reality

I want to live in a world where everyone gets a long and there's no fighting, it's all puppies and unicorns. Then I gotta wake up and face shit the way it is.

This is reality man, and everyone makes decisions based on it.

Also perhaps more importantly, I don't want to face social reprisal for merely speaking the truth.

Then keep hiding on the Internet and doing that. I thought BPers where the ones who are supposed to virtue signal.

[–]dumb_intj[S] 4 points5 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

If you really believe blue pill stuff, you're making decisions based on the narrative you're "supposed" to follow. My reason for thinking this is that there are essentially no psychology studies that provide evidence for your beliefs. Please prove me wrong.

I am not virtue signalling. You are mistaken. I was merely answering your question as to "why I give a shit [what you think]". As made clear from this thread having to live "in the closet" as a red piller is a prevalent issue. If your question was meant to be rhetorical, well, sorry I misunderstood but that's the nature of the net. Btw, I do red pill people irl. I hope your assertion that I'm "hiding on the internet" isn't projection.

[–]Justapasserby55711 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Or, you know, we people who discount TRP just recognize that just because you have instincts doesn't mean you can't overcome them. Like sure, maybe I do have an instinctive drive to go fuck some stranger while I'm ovulating and my fiance isn't looking, but the fact that I haven't nor have I made any attempt to shows that I still have a choice in the matter.

If it makes me BP to think that humans can overcome their base instincts, so be it.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Having to overcome your instinct proves the existence of said instinct, rp doesn't say we can't overcome our nature at all.

[–]Justapasserby5577 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Well BP doesn't really argue that we have no instincts lol just that women aren't terrible human beings that will destroy you 99.9999% of the time. Also, it's really not all that hard to "overcome" your instincts if you're happy and content lol.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Well BP doesn't really argue that we have no instincts lol just that women aren't terrible human beings that will destroy you 99.9999% of the time.

Which isn't an rp position of course.

Also, it's really not all that hard to "overcome" your instincts if you're happy and content lol.

Absurd statement.

[–]Justapasserby5577 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Absurd statement.

How so? Dogs who aren't starving won't kill and eat children. Wild animals who are treated well by humans and well fed have been known to overcome their instinct to run away from them.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Being happy and content has no bearing on if someone is overcoming their instincts really. I'd actually say if they're happy and content it's probably because they're giving into their instincts lol.

Otherwise they'd be at war with themselves unless they're already very well trained/conditioned.

The wild animals are still following their instincts for being rewarded with resources/food/protection too.

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Great example. And to that id say "its still a wild animal. Its still very capable of hurting you. If it gets hungry, it will hurt you. If it gets scared, it will hurt you. Wild animals are like that. Its their instinct."

AWALT.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This gave me a laugh.

ow so? Dogs who aren't starving won't kill and eat children.

Domesticated dogs don't have an instinct to kill and eat children, we bred it out of them.

Wild animals who are treated well by humans and well fed have been known to overcome their instinct to run away from them.

They're just choosing the easiest available method of obtaining food. If every time you learn that a threat isn't a threat is overcoming instinct, your standards are very low.

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I see what youre saying, and yes, sometimes we are better off if we can rise above our instincts.

But the instinct is still there. Trp says "these are the natural instincts women have, so adjust your strategy accordingly"

Then people come along and say "those arent womens instincts! Trp is all wrong!"

When presented with evidence that its right, now its that people can overcome their instincts? Is that any way to base strategy?

What if i said "trust men that say they will stick around after sex. Sure, their instinct is to not, but people can overcome their instincts! So just trust them!" Youd tell me im an idiot for thinking that.

[–]Justapasserby5576 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Personally, I've only ever argued that people in general have the instinct to look out for themselves and theirs first and foremost, but that doesn't mean you should automatically dislike or distrust other people.

What if i said "trust men that say they will stick around after sex. Sure, their instinct is to not, but people can overcome their instincts! So just trust them!" Youd tell me im an idiot for thinking that.

I wouldn't, actually. I would just not assume that just because that is a supposed instinct of men doesn't mean that I should view men I date with so much suspicion or disdain. I never would have ended up with my fiance if I thought that he only wanted me for sex and couldn't be persuaded otherwise.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

to provide evidence for your beliefs

What beliefs?

[–]dumb_intj[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh sorry, I missed the part where you said you didn't buy into either BP or RP. I assumed you were a blue piller because you claimed to be speaking on behalf of all blue pillers.

In that case, what are you beliefs on relationships (ie how to acquire and maintain them)? Do you not believe in the hypergamous nature of women? Do you earnestly believe there are no patterns in human behavior and that every person is completely unique?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

what are you beliefs on relationships (ie how to acquire and maintain them)?

Well getting into a relationship, that's a little long, so I won't go into it. I think maintaining the relationship, you just gotta keep it moving forward and make sure you don't become sloppy and change for the worst.

Do you not believe in the hypergamous nature of women?

Don't really know what that means, hypergamous nature, like if you mean people want better things and the best things, then yeah.

Do you earnestly believe there are no patterns in human behavior and that every person is completely unique?

No, I believe everyone is unique, but there are going to be patterns in the way humans act.

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

'People are just people dude what are you on about'

How do you make an ENFP turn T or J or S or I.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Happy Cake-day SetConsumes!

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you know how you prove anything?

How do you figure out if something is true or false?

How do you know if you're being misled or lied to?

[–]voteGOPkBlack Pill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

i suppose this is aimed at appeasing the "evidence !?" folks who don't really even want to have a debate.

honestly, any well adjusted person over 25 knows red pill ideas.

most blue pillers just want to tone police or be contrarian.

[–]MrB0gus1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow. Eye-opening stuff.

[–]writingtochucow0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

OP, this would be a LOT easier to discuss if you would a) explain what part of RP each study confirms and b)explain how, specifically, they confirm that part of RP.

The brain volume study, for example. Can you explain how that confirms RP - and when you do so please take the studies posted by /u/rand_redditor2 (re: brain volumes not always correlating with differing behaviour/skills irl)?

But this post would have been much better if it had been a series of posts, each one focusing on a single study and specifically outlining in what ways it confirms RP.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just a comment on women's happiness that I've always wanted to make. Measuring happiness is so iffy, it can boil down to how that person feels is the general standard of happiness, among other things. Don't have the study on me right now but there is this middle line of happiness that we mostly all on. There's something about lottery winners and recently amputated people both returning to this middle line of happiness after a few years. Blaming womens apperant decline in happiness on feminism is silly.

Also I have no idea what women being attracted to benevolent sexism is supposed to prove. A man is acting nice around a woman, of course she's attracted. But at this point said woman has no idea that he's only doing it with sexist intentions.

Same thing with the brain mass one. We get the idea that across species brain size is related to intelligence but there isn't enough proof to say it matters within the same species.

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

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