It asks:. The other one in ten is usually just a crowd of people. Polyamory - multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships - means, in practice, a few high value dudes hording all the pussy. Multitudinously and concurrently. Polyamory cheerleaders, like Christopher Ryan, note the shape of our penis heads and go on to weave a happy utopia of free love where all the men and all the women get their rocks off whenever and however they wish, like the bonobos who, by the way, are territorially squeezed compared to their more prodigiously successful chimp cousins. But he has to ignore female hypergamous mate choice and male jealousy to concoct this vision of a peaceful hedonist paradise. The reality would be considerably darker; women would still want to bang the alpha, leaving the beta male out in the cold, clawing and scratching for rode-worn scraps, but now shackled with the obligation to help provide for kids that are likely not his own.
That seems rather presumptuous. Medicine has a firm basis in basic science while neuroscience is more like a particularly soft and unrigorous branch of psychology. Interested to hear your justification. You take a drug, poke a receptor with it. This was going to be more or less my response as well. Neuroscience literature is characterized by low statistical power that is not even remotely commensurate with the prevalence of significant effects reported.
The same problem haunts psychology, too, of course, but the difference is that whereas this had led to many efforts at reform in psychology, neuroscientists seem to be completely unfazed by the cargo cult nature of so much of what they do.
I only know one neuroscience researcher personally, and he seems plenty concerned about the lack of statistical power of the research in his field. But a lot of neuroscience research is expensive, and the fix for low statistical power is bigger experiments, which multiplies the cost. There are alternatives, such as multi-lab collaborations. A number of people suggested that if neuroimaging studies were expected to have larger samples and to also include replication samples, then only very large labs would be able to afford to carry them out.
What would the small labs do? How would they keep their graduate students busy and train them? I have to say I have absolutely no sympathy for that argument at all, especially when it comes to allocating funding. If a particular experiment requires a certain sample size to detect an effect size in the expected and reasonable range, then it should not be carried out without such a sample. And if it is an exploratory study, then it should have a replication sample built in from the start - it should not be left to the field to determine whether the finding is real or not.
Such studies just pollute the literature with false positives - obscuring any real signal amongst a mass of surrounding flotsam that future researchers will have to wade through. Sure, they keep people busy, they allow graduate students to be trained badlyand they generate papers, which often get cited compounding the pollution.
In Italy, where I live, most people roll their eyes when you bring up that stuff. Interestingly though, in your whole list of workshops, there is no reference to class, capitalism, poverty or the poor. There is one reference to inequality, but it is ambiguous and might be talking about inequalities of racial status. Not to be moralistic about it, but given the relationship between poverty and, say, schizophrenia, this seems like a pretty galling lacunae.
Even if it was true, while I think it is an oversimplifcation because those big structures do not map to personal misfortune and suffering, why confuse the job of the doctor and the political activist?
Suppose you live in a dictatorship where the dictators goons beat up random people. What is the better use of a doctor, to heal the victims or to become the th political activist trying to topple the system? Probably some balance betwixt the options? I certainly take the thoughts of doctors I know socially more seriously than I do of any clipboard-carrying street activist. Yeah, but part of this respect is based on the idea that they will help you based on proven medicine.
I trust crystal healers a lot less than doctors, because I expect the latter to actually help me. Activism typically involves believing that certain things are true or false far more strongly than would result from an impartial scientific approach, because it fits an agenda.
In general, activists seem very prone to hypes that fit their ideological prejudices. To be fair to the left, groups like DSA often do discuss class in addition to all the woke stuff. They believe it. We also have some ethical duty, not clearly specified, to provide pro bono services and to advocate out in the wider world for the concerns of our patients which would include economic concerns that are impeding their access to care.
In my practice, that means finding community resources for patients, coordinating with other service providers to increase access to care, educating legislators about access to care issues, taking continuing ed classes that address healthcare access and ethical issues, leaning on various government agencies to shake loose services, and arguing with health insurance companies where they are reluctant to cover necessary services.
Blogger Paleo Retiree says the American genius manifests itself most distinctly in covering every possible surface with advertising. I recall a press release for a startup that was going to cover the inside of the cup on every golf hole with ads. If so, that seems like maximally efficient targeting of your real audience. Your section about the woke panels reminded me. After the election she became alternately anxious and depressed over everything to do with politics and climate change.
And now has started divorce proceedings. High school sweethearts, married over 20 years, 2 kids. I really hope some of those programs were about talking to people who are too worked up over politics and calming them down, and not about terrifying them further. Anywhere good I could read more about it? Although, right wing news sites like the Daily Mail have been doing this for years too, just over different subject matter.
Fear was traditionally a tool of control on the right, interesting to see its emergence on the left too.
I see this with my grandma. My grandmother died a decade ago and never used electronics more complex than the non-smart home telephone.
Towards the end of her life she gradually became terrified for my cousin because she was convinced that the streets of the local cities were basically constantly awash with blood and violence. Most of the time ignorance is bliss and people are, by default, mostly ignorant of the low key violence going on around them. I freaked out one of my work colleagues by showing her the online london crime heatmap: you can view a map of all crimes in an area over any particular month, suddenly she learned about all the fights within a few miles of her house all at once.
They were abnormal from the very start, and when we found that we were not getting the laughs we were accustomed to, that threw us. Then some of the audience started laughing at things no one had ever previously laughed at. Once they roared at the set-up of a joke and then received the punchline in complete silence.
We were bewildered, but struggled on desperately towards the final curtain, and when it came down we went into collective shock, trying to understand what had gone wrong. Michael was soon there with the explanation. Every ticket for that performance had been bought for the attendees of a conference that was being held in London. A conference of psychiatrists. There had been a shrink in every seat. OK, maybe Dr.
Anglin got a little carried away. But going to war with the United States twice in a quarter-century does seem kinda nuts. My understanding is that US involvement was something the president wanted and had to convince his countrymen to go along with it. So calling someone crazy for going to war with an enemy they did not actually choose seems a bit disingenuous. One could make a case that the Schlieffen plan sp? I do always wonder whether holding the French at the franco-german border and going after Russia would have been better if it kept Britain out of the war for a few months, but going through Belgium and northern france captured a fair portion of French industry so IDK.
US Manpower was not the deciding factor in the European theatre in either of the world wars, it was the war material they supplied which I imagine was easier to destroy if you were at war with the state that was supplying it. The war was already lost by the summer of 44 anyway.
The whole naval arms race was basically Germany challenging the British on something negotiable to Germany and nonnegotiable to the UK. This, unfortunately, was probably not feasible. Remember that the German high command mostly served in the Franco-Prussian War, which they effectively won in 6 weeks. If you expect that kind of performance, then the Shleiffen Plan makes a lot of sense.
Not really. All this did was delay victory 25 years. When the Germans kicked off unrestricted submarine warfare again, Wilson changed his mind and brought the US in. Pretty much. Wilson screwed up the postwar situation so thoroughly that a second round was inevitable from the time the ink on the Treaty of Versailles dried.
For a brief period the western front would be narrower for Germany and Germany would face fewer troops, both of which are advantages to the defender. Germany would have also had a few months to fight without being blockaded. The Eastern front allowed for the kind of mobility the Germans were accustomed to whereas on the western front circumstances would have favored the defense. Germany was ultimately able to force Russia to sue for peace [historically] 3.
Russia is never going to go down quickly. Only revolution did that, and those take a while to ferment. On the other hand, they came pretty close to winning in France in And pretty close to losing in the east, except for Tannenberg. Uhm km was about the range that the armies in the USAmerican Civil War could advance before their rail heads.
The problem would rather be, that destroying transport infrastructure in a way that need more than a few weeks to repair is really really hard. How do you slowly march troops against concentrated German WW I artillery fire when the Germans can quickly move their artillery in place using rail roads?
The first paragraph of my answer was directed at Watchman. Fighting a sunstained combat with machine guns and modern artillery probably not. Yeah, what Germany needed in WWI was better diplomacy, starting well before the war, including more sensible behavior in a lot of respects most dramatically not pissing off the British, but they made plenty of other mistakes as well.
OK, fair enough; if they absolutely needed a war for domestic political reasons, I still think they underestimated the cost and would have been better off finding other ways to pursue their political ends.
It failed by a surprisingly narrow margin; give the French an extra front in Italy and, more importantly, remove the BEF, and that might be enough to get rid of that margin. And so conceivably better diplomacy could have gotten them the quick war they wanted. And then Germany likely forces France to surrender a few colonies whose value is overrated, and Austria-Hungary gets a little more territory full of resentful troublemakers to add to the resentful troublemakers it is already struggling with.
And so in short order people start questioning whether it was worth it, and the conservatives face challenges from the liberals all over again. So I still vote for no war even apart from my lack of sympathy with the conservatives.
The idea of going to war to cement national unity is, at the very least, extremely dangerous. The last time someone pulled it off at least in Europe, results may not apply in the 3rd worl it was Bismarck inand nobody running Germany 40 years later was nearly up to his caliber. This meant that Germany was in a two front war position. Their solution was attack France as hard and fast as possible, and then fend off the Russians. Attacking Russia first would a as bean said, take a long time, b be not be worthwhile since there is not much to gain, c eventually cost enormous casualties because Russia has so many people.
Russia had weak infrastructure and essentially could not attack, because logistics were bad. These reasons meant that France, who had one of best armies at the time, a large international force of experienced soldiers and officers was the greatest threat.
Interestingly Hitler, and many Germans beside, were upset that the allies blamed Germany for the war. He called it Western Propaganda. I think even today, many people forget that Germany did not start WWI. So in a way, the guy was right. Anglin certainly ate the propaganda. John, I have to disagree with you on this. Germany was absolutely responsible for the shape of the war as it turned out. Then, when this provoked Russian mobilization, they decided to go to war not only against Russia, but also against France because their war plans essentially rested on being able to mobilize faster than either of those two powers.
The Russians did attack East Prussia, but Hindenberg and Ludendorff defeated them very comprehensively. France was the priority threat that needed a quick defeat - Russia could be held off until the war in the West was won. They were wrong about that, and were fortunate that Hindenberg and Ludendorff were around to step in and save them. As for what was threatened by a Russian invasion, check the map again. The most obvious target for the Russians was East Prussia.
But it was the spiritual and often physical home of the Junkers, and so had to be defended. This explains a lot about the German aristocracy in the runup to the war, now that I think about it. I presume that Hitler declared war so they could sink lend-lease ships. The US effectively had already entered the war by supplying the allies.
In a lot of ways, the US was the aggressor in the Atlantic until we provoked Hitler into declaring war. There were issues with Lend-Lease before war broke out, because it looked like we were shipping military equipment overseas when we desperately needed it ourselves. Given the huge amounts of US aid flowing to the UK and USSR being able to take submarines which had been preying on relatively well defended Atlantic convoys and send them to massacre undefended US coastal shipping worked out really well for Germany in the short run.
This cut down on US production and the US entry and military buildup cut the fraction of production going to Europe where it could do good in the short run. Given that Germany was already fighting one continental empire it would basically have to win quickly if it was going to win at all. So the short term benefit at the expense of long term danger involved in the declaration was arguably the right move. I could easily imagine Soviet troops in Berlin a year ahead of schedule if Germany had acted differently.
Yes, the Drumbeat campaign was a big problem for the US, but whatever dip it may have caused in deliveries of supplies to Europe was more than compensated for by the removal of all political constraints on Lend-Lease. And that happened pretty fast. If we imagine the Third Reich is absolutely scrupulous about never shooting at anything that might be flying a US flag, then they eventually lose for about the reasons Andrew notes.
It may take a few years longer than he suggests, but in the end we can always find non-American bodies to actually shoot the guns we produce for Nazi-shooting. When I saw his name, I wondered if he had a distant descendant who was even more xenophobic and entirely too Germanophilic. One mentions that a key demographic for them was California psychiatrists. This documentary cited that something like ten percent of the group in the s were Californian psychiatrists and their families.
I wonder if Scott has ever heard about this, or met any of these people. Any insights or theories? Bending spoons with your mind in the early s was big among California aerospace engineers, as was the amazing Pyramid Power pyramid scam in May Just for comparison, PAX has been getting progressively more woke over the years, but the woke panels usually have single-digit attendance.
My impression is that many of these panels are just fig leaves, designed to deflect at least some of the inevitable social media outrage. PAX is a series of convention s centered around video and tabletop games, having arisen from the community around the webcomic PennyArcade - hence the acronym X for eXpositionthough PAX might not officially stand for anything anymore.
I stopped going to PAX 5 or so years ago, partly because the panels gave me the distinct impression that, as a straight white male, I was not welcome.
I wanted to go there to celebrate gaming; I did NOT want woke politics shoved in my face. And they have the power to imprison you. I will extend some charity to the Wokepersons who hosted this panel. How well they adhere to that distinction, who knows. But for anybody elsea guy can move up 3 points with some effort. Get a job so you can support yourself and buy some clothes that fit. Find a homosexual to cut your hair.
My experience with feminist responses to men with dating problems is that they tend to assume that the men lack success due to excessive misogyny, aggression, being too controlling, etc. If all you have is a hammereverything looks like a nail. They typically seem to name themselves after that trait.
Heightcels believe that their short stature results in no women wanting them. Baldcels well you get it. This strikes me as very important. Assuming that feedback mechanisms on panel performance are working, this means the event organizers ought to be selecting against them. Maybe they already are? But even fandom conventions have mixed reception around panels. For another, there are basically only two kinds of fandom panels that get a good crowd: a reliably comedic one, and one featuring a famous enough guest.
Scott not going to any of the talks seems the norm in fandom conventions as well. Or in this case, have medical vendors shill at you so you might buy things in the future, and hang out with other attendees. As panels are presumably offered by volunteering members rather than some sort of compulsory requirement all must provide in turn although that latter model seems likely to get better panels then this tells us little about APA as an organisation other than:.
Believers in any quasi-religiius theory and by this I mean the woke ideals are seen by many as a panacea to loads of problems, and some followers believe they are combating evil; no judgement on their scientific merits is intended here tend to be more prone to seek to and convert others to their ideas. APA has a schedule to fill and is probably happy to fill it with anything in and around the Overton Window offered by their members. Regardless, I find it interesting that an offering of voluntary to attend panels that he does not like is so offensive to Scott.
I wonder if what is going on here is more disillusionment, the assumption that these large organizations are supposed to be uniformly oracular fonts if knowledge, rather than composed of people. And the realization that not all of those people are marching in lockstep towards the priorities that Scott finds important.
Perhaps he is right. Maybe it is dangerous that many people are making these arguments. But,assuming he is correct, then maybe he should reassess other stances.
Being in favour of freedom of expression also does not require you to applaud any expression of any kind, anywhere. There are worlds between taking active steps to silence someone and disagreeing with their ideas. Or judging those ideas to be of poor quality.
Well, no, at least one of the arguments is wrong. His comments are not being perceived in a neutral manner. I have never in my life heard tell of a patient who was upset because their mental healthcare provider was imposing lefty positions on them. It might be that those topics are not really tangential see counter-arguments in the comment section to that effect! I would be very surprised if American psychologists were not left-leaning as a group.
The educational attainment required to become a psychologist pretty much assures this, based on the pew research data I have seen. Still I think he makes an argument, and that argument is open to counterargument. Even if it is a bit lazy. It probably says something about how isolated the blue tribe-based media culture that I get exposed to is from red tribe culture. Quite macho indeed. I think that professional conferences are reflective of the culture and concerns of the profession and the organization running the event.
This includes what they consider acceptable at the conference, including: - how much they let money dictate the experience vs quality or other concerns - how much they accommodate specific activists - what kind of entertainment they consider appropriate - how much room they give to established best practices vs speculative new stuff.
The high level of wokeness at this conference probably reflects the extent to which psychiatry is an outlier in medicine with regard to political leaning, suggesting that the profession has a high number of far-left practitioners. Scientific studies have found that far-left and far-right social psychologists are much more prone to discriminatory behavior based on their politics.
Furthermore, large parts of society dislike the social norms of the far left. There is a lot of evidence that people on the right wing feel oppressed by how people on the left react to them and a decent amount of evidence that this is not only oversensitivity, but due to hostile behavior by those on the left.
Studies also show that conservatives tend to be different from progressives on how much openness to experience they have and how conscientious they are.
Apr 06, A relationship ago I spent the summer dating a woman I met online. Everything seemed to be going great. At the end of the summer I learned she was with another man and had three kids. She lied about this on her profile and for our whole relationship, as well as to the man. May 22, The fourth thing you notice at the American Psychiatric Association meeting is the Scientologists protesting outside. They don't tell you they're Scientologists. But their truck has a link to mcauctionservicellc.com on it, and Wikipedia confirms them as a Scientology front mcauctionservicellc.comology has a long-standing feud with psychiatry, with the psychiatrists alleging that Scientology is a malicious cult. May 17, Dating at work is a big no-no, and online dating is even more of a meat market than pubs and clubs. Historically, people married young, and religious communities served, among other things, as places to find potential mates. Now in many social circles religion is outdated, and many structured communities have "code of conducts" that can get.
It seems quite plausible that progressives tend to have a harder time understanding conservative needs, in the same way that extroverts have a harder time understanding the needs of introverts. Furthermore, they may consider conservative desires to be immoral.
For example: they might consider a man who only wants a stay-at-home partner to be controlling and abusive, but not a wo man who only wants a working partner. They may be eager to attribute unhappiness in a woman who is a stay-at-home mother to her not working, but may be far less eager to attribute unhappiness in working mothers to them working.
And that people in position of authority or power, especially those who come from a majority culture on those positions with sometimes discriminatory views of the minority culture, have a special duty to avoid furthering that climate of discrimination? So does prejudicial treatment, which partially overlaps with unjust treatment.
Most prejudice is at least partially correct on the group level as scientific studies have shown and acting on prejudice often has upsides as well as downsides. In fact, it is quite common for people to court the prejudice that they want and create prejudices that benefit themfor example, by how they dress, act, etc.
A gay man who plays to a gay stereotype can get themselves be approached more by gay men who prejudicially assume that the person is open to a sexual overture by a gay man. This can then be a major advantage, reducing the chance that people end up alone and unloved and reducing the chance of gay bashing by a heterosexual man who is approached mistakenlythanks to helpful prejudice.
So I believe that prejudicial treatment can be an overall good for society if the benefits outweigh the costs or it can be an overall bad if the costs outweigh the benefits. A true prejudice-free society would almost certainly be a horrible dystopia that no normal person would want to live in. Note that in practice, people typically categorize based on moral judgments, rather than by objective definitions. But this just results in begging the question.
I also favor recognition that the very same prejudice can benefit one group and harm another. These are probably completely different kinds of awareness than the kind that you were thinking of. This is correlated to power dynamics, but only imperfectly. I think that the dominant culture has a greater duty to ensure that non-dominant cultures have the freedom make a case for and against prejudices that they favor and oppose.
Note that dominant and weak are contextual. The very same group can be dominant in one context and weak in another. Nor do we have any particular evidence that this conference had no sessions that related to the needs of rural, exurban or conservative patients. I believe the full listing is here. You know what you are getting. Basic Income is now part of psychiatry.
I took a look. One thing about the death penalty. One about reporting to law enforcement. Not too bad. The woke typically seem to favor one or more specific groups and then demand that prejudices are used when in their favor, but not in their disfavor.
Such an approach, where the benefits of applying prejudice are maximized for a favored group, no matter how much harm that does to a disfavored group, is oppression, not fairness.
Fairness is balancing the harms and benefits somewhat equally. The devil is in the details here. You can search the program yourselfwhere it seems to be best to do it by presentation title, not the default search option: keyword. Some of these are part of the same session. So the number of sessions is less than At first glance, they seem friendly to rural folk.
Needlepoint is more of a mathematics thing. Psychology has always been political. The correct answer is a. But there are three times as many panels on immigration.
Even if ADHD treatment has been fairly quiet for the past year, the ratio of attention seems very strange. How quickly does it change for ADHD medication? Though it still depends on the size and fluidity of the field.
Heterosteus: Yeah, I largely agree with your comments. Listing every poster presented at a scientific conference, as if they are all equally as relevant as the main session for the day, seems like a weighting error.
I personally have taught sessions about primary key - foreign key relationships at DRBMS conferences, and have attended many more sessions on the topic. And have been part of BOF sessions and Open Spaces sessions were we talked key types and relationships, and literally advanced the state of the art while doing so.
Like most foundational topics, it has no limits to the depths one can usefully plumb and then teach.
Apr 10, Dating a guy I've only interacted with on dates feels both odd and vaguely unsafe to me. It's way easier to be conned that way. (FWIW I have run into guys lying about holding traditional values, so I may be more cautious than average on this. But a guy sounding, specifically from self-description, too much like "what women want" is a. Tinder dating link, sep 13, which bills itself. Slatestarcodex mcauctionservicellc.com, , as blockchain-optimized dating site gets better: its designer is a specific incident. Index mopan maya, this linked paper considers all the modern nerd. Feminists, dating for a date to women, by hiring aella, sep 10, some mild. Feb 26, r/slatestarcodex: Slate Star Codex is a blog by Scott Alexander about human cognition, politics, and medicine. Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to .
So I would hope that there is still debate among psychiatrists about better diagnosis and treatment. I would expect new research, or ongoing harmful conduct, in a very large area like ADD research to receive star treatment, and be well attended. Ten pennies are not worth more than one dollar. Nor do pennies preclude the existence of some number of nickels.
HeelBearCub, I think you are being uncharitable to Scott. Universal associations of healthcare professionals ie. Anyone know whether the association finds itself needing to fill slots or needing to choose who gets to speak? And hey, they could always ask the Nigerian delegation to give a talk about the problems seen by psychologists in Nigeria.
That seems like it would be both genuinely relevant, useful, and promote diversity. But somehow I feel quite certain that they were not.
Congratulate, slatestarcodex dating would not
I think we can see how this narrowness of thought will lead to trouble treating half of patients. Psychiatry is strongly coded left-wing, people who voluntary search psychiatric care are going to be overwhelmingly left-wing. Hence you get the people who get panic attacks because of Trump, climate change, etc.
Right-wing people either go to their priest, if they are religious, or on4chan, etc. I suspect a fair number probably go to the psychiatrist and roll their eyes at any leftism that gets dispensed with the drugs. I could be wrong, but I doubt your average farmer in Nebraska expects 4chan to do anything about his depression. When my mother was demented and dying, my shrink was very helpful, both through the talk and through the meds, but it was a constant battle to keep him on topic.
My understanding is that medical conferences are mostly a way for pharma companies to legally bribe doctors by buying them a holiday with paid travel, accommodation, food including ice creamand so on, and aggressively advertise to them in the process. The talks are just fig leaves to pretend that there is a scientific purpose to the event. Nobody listens to them, so usually nobody really wants to give them, except woke activists who are always eager to push their ideology wherever they can.
Think, slatestarcodex dating can recommend visit
And then see most of the people around them nod and agree as this is said. There are many things I like about Seattle, and a few things I despise, and this sort of thing is an illuminating example of the sort of thing I despise about this place. I was at PAX East two months ago. What I wanted was an insightful overview of Asian tropes as they appear in Western media, advice on common mistakes outsiders make when trying to introduce Asian elements, maybe a few ideas for a wuxia-style tabletop campaign.
What I got instead was a below-average-quality sensitivity training class that almost focused more on gender and sexuality than on race, even. It was awful, and I gave some very negative feedback. And the next panel I went to hit capacity 80 minutes before start time. My regular-con-going life lasted like 2 years because panel talk quality is so consistently BAD. People giving talks are bad at it, and audience questions are worse.
A convention is one of the worst settings for holding a good discussion on anything. With the exception of workshop-type panels, because of selection effects, but until I get into cosplay, those still have limited appeal. Music-centered panels are usually good, but rare. And no weapons workshops this year, either.
I agree with you above; I used to go to an awful lot of cons, and never spent much time at the panels. Sorry if this is a stupid question - but to what extent is the American Psychiatric Association representative of psychiatry as a field? Is it an authority that represents the current state of the art in industry and research, sort of like IEEE or ACM; or is it primarily a sales and marketing organization?
Ok, in that case wow. Perhaps I should see a psychiatrist oh wait. I agree that this is fascinatingly weird. But professional conferences are notoriously bizarre. People who are sad about their relationship with their parents might do better to find a talk therapist. Psychiatrists are medical doctors who are specialists like an orthopedic surgeon is a specialist in the U. A tiny percentage of them do talk therapy anymore. In itself such a claim is not absurd. There are people who are so racist, misogynist, etc that this causes problems for themselves and there are people whose problems are due to racism, misogyny, etc by others.
So a misdiagnosis is then not going to result in an automatic sanction for misbehavior, if someone complains, because it all depends on context. The medical board is surely going to give the therapist the benefit of the doubt, to such an extent that the misdiagnosis has to be truly absurd for them to get a sanction.
Aapje, walk me through what a misdiagnosis of the kind you describe would look like? You can misdiagnose someone with depression when they have bipolar disorder. If a feminist therapist tells their patient that the patient is depressed because of their sexism, the patient will have received an unhelpful assessment.
The therapist will have violated their ethical codes. A fairly common and IMO legitimate criticism of psychiatry is that they have a tendency to threat symptoms, not the cause.
For example, if someone is in a depression-inducing situation, they tend to treat the depression, but not the cause.
The only way to do this is to numb people, so they can endure the pain better. The end result is that they harm men: men who listen to feminists start acting more feminine, in a way that works for women, but not for men. Men who let it get to them when they are turned down again and again by women, often end up not approaching women in the way that they want to be approached, resulting in romantic failure, which often results in loneliness and such.
So their lives simply become worse. I, like you, enjoy coming up with general theories to explain the world. Those feminists think that emotional intelligence should be for everyone. Imagine a patient who is a fundamentalist Christian. He gets referred to a psychiatrist who is an atheist. The psychiatrist is not permitted to turn the patient down on account of his religion.
Aapje, what happened to Scott Aaronson is symptomatic of a much larger problem than feminist bias. You seem to be supporting my point. Men do better with women if they are able to use emotions to get things from other people, aka emotional intelligence, which is not the same as just dumping your real emotions on people. Very neurotic men typically have to fake stoicism for a decent shot at a relationship.
The idea that women are highly diverse in their needs and that men who do very poorly can succeed by not changing beyond the most superficial like dressing niceis fairly typical feminist advice, but very damaging. Even without different expectations due to gender roles, men at the tails are going to face a severe gender disparity in women who are equal on that measure. Furthermore, if people are not optimizing along a single variable and if traits are hard to see, the chance of a match at the tail end is quite bad.
It pays off a lot to move to the center, especially if other men already do so anyway, because it appeals to women. We agree on some things, and disagree on others. This is one thing we partially agree on. Rigid gender roles have been a way for societies to successfully get neurotic people together. Neurotic men who rigidly follow gender roles and neurotic women who rigidly follow gender roles may or may not enjoy the partners they end up with, but they end up with them either way.
Traditionally those have been churches, small communities, and, to a lesser extent, bars. More interesting - and, unlike small communities, potentially reversible - is the decline in churches. Or, given the relationship between religiosity and fertilityperhaps more people will end up in church as a simple side effect of being raised there.
To put it another way: Perhaps both atheists and feminists are responsible for the decline in neurotic people getting it on, that result being mediated by their impact on church attendance and religiosity. You can blame Steinem and Friedan, but you also have to blame Hitchens and Dawkins.
Ditto with wealth: A man who has 90th percentile wealth among men is likely to end up with a woman who has around 90th percentile wealth among women, though in absolute terms the man will be much wealthier.
The author suggests that the same is true for kindness. What do you think of that? People who are catastrophizing never think they are. As always, I could be wrong. Are you saying that scrupulosity and self-hatred are the same in this instance, or alternatives which lead to the same end result? I would suggest that the two are orthogonal. Another important realization is the bit about matching that I mentioned above. Andrew, I think that you and Aapje are using different definitions of the word scrupulosity.
You seem to be reading more into my comment than what I actually wrote. I think I get it. They are also going to care less about male behavior that harms women than the average woman. As a grievance movement for women, feminism would be fine, if unhealthy for people who stick with it too long. Scott Aaronson is a good example of the latter, with him being attacked by various prominent feminists for making a claim about his own experiences that goes against feminist theory in the comment section of his own blog.
No prominent feminist came to his aid, not necessarily to agree with what he said, but even just to defend him from slander. So what does this make them?
Seriously though. Your feminists friends complain about men not measuring up to one part of the female gender role, which they had to work hard to achieve. They are themselves are probably also not measuring up to the male gender role in some ways that many men really would like to see different.
Many neurotic? This is good advice for some, who see women as too similar, but bad advice for others, who expect more variety than there actually is. It can even be both, because women are much more varied in some ways than other ways. If we would have a society where men and non-feminist women could actually honestly share their perspectives, rather than get their balls or labia cut off, we might get actual progress, instead of things getting worse in important ways with mainstream society being utterly flabbergasted at why.
What the mainstream media and feminists consider reasonable is typically anything but. Thanks for pointing me to the Scott Aaronson kerffufle. Lots of interesting commentary by him, feminists responding to him, and in the comments here and elsewhere.
People who almost toe the orthodoxy line but get some crucial detail wrong are the most strongly condemned. Many of these groups do have at least some interesting and true things to say.
Some of it was like encountering cognitive-behavioural therapy and noticing negative self-talk for the first time: Things that had always been there but somehow always escaped my attention.
I mentioned economists. I learn, I shape my own conceptions, I compare what they say about the world to what I observe myself.
I also expect that if I say that a personal experience of mine disproves or invalidates some orthodox tenent of some economic school, I will provided anybody notices get flamed and pilloried for it.
Speaking of feminist ideas, this comment had some of the most interesting that I encountered in the whole Scott Aaronson discussion. That might be my bias as a parent for parenting experience and analogies showing through, though. This one had a really interesting idea, too. He seems to have learned them even better than I did, and started from a much more socially crippled place. Thanks again for pointing me in the direction of that discussion! But also, Amy says that when in doubt, she asked a cop.
For me, learning to deal even with a comparatively minor variation of this took years of dead ends, depression, and flailing around. She did a great if unintentional? In all situations? My experience is that feminists have a very high amount of bias though, even if you go to their most valued papers and books.
So you have to be extremely critical of the many fallacies that are common, like god of the gaps reasoning, applying certain reasoning to merely one gender, the exaggeration of gender differences ironically enough very commonusing extremely poor evidence even mind-reading and novelsetc, etc. Just to expand on what MichaelF said: normal human beings try to calibrate their behavior to the norms of other people to quite a large extent. However, an issue is that the messages that other people send can be hard to interpret, for many reasons, for example: - messages often have implicit assumptions - messages are often targeted at problematic people, not non-problematic people - messages are often direction pushing be more Xinstead of telling people how to behave - how hard people shout is often not well-correlated to how serious the message should be taken - people are often selfish in their messaging - some messages are at least partially designed to increase the status of the sender and may involve a purity spiral.
Is autistic Jack to blame for not understanding how subtle Mary communicates or is Mary to blame for being very subtle? Should Jack recognize that Mary is a person who communicates subtly or should Mary recognize that Jack is autistic? There is no clear answer here.
So it seems perfectly fair and a good thing for people like Aaronson to warn those who send messages that these messages can be misinterpreted and how they can be. Anyway, what happened here, is that the message by Aaronson was misinterpreted as an attack on the feminist demand for better behavior by men, rather than on the way the message was presented. Of course, ultimately we live in a very immature society where the understanding of human communication and coordination by most people is very poor.
My experience is that bias always colours studies of human behaviour, even when the researchers assure you that they have no bias at all and are just looking for the facts.
Not all feminist critiques of science will be useful, but a careful picking apart of sex difference science like Brain Storm is worth spending some time on. Most interesting part of Brain Storm for me: How is it that some measures of masculinity and femininity were reversed over time in studies of gender, but the studies kept finding that men were more masculine and women were more feminine on those measures?
The reasons are the usual ones for human behaviour research: Data mining, p-hacking, selective publication, failure to consider alternate explanations. Feminists have also had a useful impact on broadening the scope of the questions asked by science. A lot of early scientific research on sexual evolution was guided by Victorian assumptions: Aggressive males and passive females; fighting fathers and loving mothers.
As a result, there were some things that scientists failed to notice about motherly love and sisterly kindness until feminist scientists insisted on testing those unexamined assumptions. This is true even in the hard sciences. It rewards the first guy, even if his data analysis is controversial. It rewards the guy who came up with General Relativity before there was any evidence for it even more.
As much as science is supposed to be about data and in the end it usually isa lot of exploratory science is about hunches. As I understand it, you were never diagnosed with scrupulosity and never heard of it until a few days ago. Nor have you spent years studying it. And yet you and Amy seek to lecture people who actually do have it on what will work. TL:DR- you know nothing about scrupulosity. You liked a harmful comment because it flattered your ideology.
MichaelF - Thanks for explaining more of this to me. I would not prescribe any easy fixes. After the years of struggle and work and help that it takes to make progress and be comfortable with normal-ish romance, what moral and emotional and social lessons does one have for oneself? It hurts! You need to heal! Highly improbable. Apologies for the serial replies, but your comment has prompted lots of self-reflection.
I did not get better at least the first part of getting better by trying to be less selfish; in many ways, it was the opposite of that. I learned that in some cases it was okay to impose on people a bit; in some cases it was okay to express what I wanted; in some cases it was okay to not be afraid of offending; and in all cases it was okay to think my thoughts and not feel guilty for them. Apologies again - and glad for a correction - if my meager knowledge of scrupulosity is again incorrect.
There was a second stage, though. It took years to get over fears of hurting people or offending them or crossing ambiguous lines that would bring disaster.
What do you do when you have to end a relationship but are consumed by guilt at the thought? I very much thought that I was concerned with their pain, but I was often more concerned with a caricature of their pain that was a reflection of mine.
First I had to get more selfish in one way, then I had to get less selfish in a different way. Conferences in my field financial tradingat least here in the Midwest, tend to be two-day long cocktail parties and golf outings with a market outlook speech or two.
Pretty much exactly what anyone would expect. Andrew Klaassen- Thanks. It gets frustrating to have to explain this over and over again. Feminists actually are not the ones typically questioning the aggressiveness of men, resulting in one frustrated scientist writing this. The question of evidence is a really interesting one.
I was re-watching some clips from the movie Office Space a few days ago. It does not depict real events. It is fake. You could even say that it is full of lies, as early reactions to novels in some communities had it.
And yet it captures some truths that would be extremely difficult to express quantitatively or measure in a scientific study. You would probably get chuckles of recognition from a low-level temple functionary in ancient Sumeria with a decent translation of the movie. Two situations, two useful perspectives. In particular, we do not dispute that more than empirical studies using the research instrument called the Conflict Tactics Scale CTS consistently support the conclusions that women use as much violence as do men.
Andrew Klaasen When you build your social analysis, on fiction by an author who wanted to make the same point that you do, do you realy find useful facts about real people, or are you part of a semi-academic mutual admiration society? When you build your social analysis, on fiction by an author who wanted to make the same point that you do, do you realy find useful facts about real people, or are you part of a semi-academic mutual admiration society?
It just occurred to me which means that the idea is probably not original to me that your point about greater male variability could contribute to the finding of Straus and others that mild violence is roughly equal between the sexes while extreme violence especially extreme post-relationship violence interesting is dominated by men.
This also gets me thinking about statistical tails and who they matter to. If something raises your chance of getting into a serious accident from. DavidFriedman, I see you raised the same example I was thinking of above - about religious differences between therapist and patient. We are required to competently treat a wide range of people for the mental distress they present with.
My Catholicism or lack thereof is not relevant to your Catholicism. If you are worried about the current state of psychiatry, ask your doctor about Forgetitall, available under most insurance plans. Side effects include sudden onset of cost disease, institutional collapse, failure to replicate, and a sudden desire to worship Moloch in a small portion of patients. See our ad in everywhere for more details.
I feel like that would be a good auxiliary to the Woke Capital thing.
That is a subject understood by the average layperson within about two minutes, and is therefore apparently too complicated for psychiatrists. Every psychiatrist I know in my practice is pretty trans-friendly, feel free to email me if you want more specific recommendations.
It is unclear to me what relationship this has to kidney donation. So my ability to seek new psychological care is somewhat limited. This is actually a pretty common English construction- for example, if a person is describing what someone else might think about you.
The above phrase is more stepping into the mind of Steve. Aapje, this way of talking that moonfirestorm describes is common in clinical training programs, so your first possibility is exactly right. It comes across as odd when a person first starts one of these programs and by the end, it comes as second nature. Is there any scientific evidence that this speech pattern works for the intended purpose or is this just supposition?
Also, there are other contexts in medicine where you might be referred to in the third person, such as referral letters. I know at least two trans people who have been given referral letters for other doctors or copies thereof which misgendered them. My second comment noted that this seems like an odd thing to say, but I immediately accepted the possibility that psychiatrists have peculiar speech patterns.
My third comment asked whether this apparent habit has a scientifically validated therapeutic purpose. From my perspective, I was being inquisitive and critical, asking for clarifications, which is not the same as taking a stance and defending it. Repeated engagement can come off as having a strong opinion in online communications, even if it is just curiosity. We do have pretty solid research showing that building a strong working relationship with a patient in which they feel that we understand their point of view really well is strongly correlated with better outcomes.
Some therapists build whole careers on trademarking their particular approach, and because words are what we have to work with, it can be very focused on which words, when, and how. Do I look tired? Do I seem tired right now?
Thank you. It seems like a fringe concern when you speak a language in which almost every sentence is gendered, but I understand why it would become a big deal in English. I could tell similar stories, by the way. Gender detection is mostly a system 1unconscious process: if you look and sound like a woman, people will intuitively think of you as a woman. If they are concerned about their ability to provide this service they are welcome to, for example, stop taking referrals for transgender clients.
And I imagine it would be a pretty solid ground for termination from whatever employment one has, unless one is self-employed. Ozy definitely gets to expect healthcare providers to use correct pronouns with their patients. In the U. We have a duty to treat and to be competent to treat people from a wide range of backgrounds. I understand why that would make sense for something like an emergency medicine doctor, for which there are few other options, but I would much rather a psychiatrist who has a problem with treating trans people refer me to someone else.
Yeah, I hear you about that. My daughter actually did some original research for her undergrad involving the availability of psychiatric care that addressed the needs of people who are trans. IIRC the upshot was that generally trans patients felt that there specific needs were not being met by the profession. Basically just a set of survey questions that was directed to those who self-identify as trans.
Admittedly the paper had a W. But, the underlying research drew upon and extended work that had already been done. That means even if someone is trying not to do it, it can still happen. It could happen to anybody, even the most woke person in the world. My point trying again is that Ozy is right to EXPECT a mental healthcare provider to use correct pronouns - indeed, intake forms should ask what pronouns are desired so they can be used correctly. I am not saying licensed professionals are infallible.
I have no problem with an organization, public or private, making its stamp of approval conditional on meeting its standards. But the situation described is one where it is illegal to provide psychological services unless you are willing to pretend to attitudes that you may not actually hold.
Our duty is to treat the conditions people come in with and to treat people respectfully in that process. Same goes for infidelity. If a trans person comes in and wants to be treated for anxiety or depression or whatever, what I think about their choice of preferred pronouns is not relevant. My job is to help you suffer less in your life and to meet the goals you set for yourself to do that.
This is mind-boggling. Obviously, pharma companies are unpopular. Maybe the public just puts all the blame on the drug companies and little to none on the APA. Out of the tens of thousands of attendees the few who organize these events are going to be of that manner of conviction. Maybe they could at least have a few sessions encouraging doctors to look into cheaper alternatives before prescribing the expensive new drugs? All of the ads are super-targeted - about half of them are for various mutual funds advertising historical rates of return, nifty investment strategies, etc.
It never made me mad at all. Obviously companies that make these products want me to know about the advantages of those products. Women are not all perfectly optimized.
Some subset of women will be overly attracted to courage or underly repulsed by recklessness. Otherwise prisoners, daredevils, etc. I think recklessness is by far the coolest trait a person can have. Bad taste and imposing it on others not so much, but if we had a society of reckless people we would have almost zero catcallers because catcalling would be dangerous. Only if she is with her unstable ex-special-forces boyfriend does can it become reckless. I mean, yes.
Nothing you said is wrong as such. Almost no one cat-calls a woman while their heavyweight boxer boyfriend is standing right there. They fuck up, they commit crimes, they get fired for doing a bad job at work, and so on. To be mated to a reckless man is to be at chronic risk of being harmed by his fuckups, or having to support him after he is harmed by his fuckups.
Moreover, his fuckups will predictably affect his parenting, and your future children. So women VERY much have incentives to test their prospective mates for a lack of recklessness. Or crippling himself and making himself unable to work by dropping a heavy tool on his foot. Because courage is risk taking in reasonable hope of a reward.
Catcalling is as unlikely to be successful in attracting a woman as standing on the corner in your boxers with a grapefruit on your head. Doing something pointless that damages your overall status and annoys someone is signalling. A man who really wants to attract women like that, using that strategy, well, they may be pursuing a rational strategy.
That is rather persuasive that the signalling is not intended to impress the target of the catcalling. Clearly the catcalling must be signalling to people whom exist in the social circle of the catcaller.
A very good point. Notably, catcalling often not always comes from men who are standing in groups. It may be optimally adapted as a way for men to signal their daring to other men see my above comment about moose fights. Or a way for men to bond by doing something that violates broader social mores, thus signaling that you value your immediate in-group enough to violate social mores to impress them.
Other men may react to the increased solidarity and back-slapping of the catcalling group by associating catcalling directly with feeling better, as a Pavlovian response. And so they start catcalling even where no man from their peer group can see. I was over thinking it. The relevant trait is much simpler: ability to ask girls out.
Working out the relationship between that trait and reproductive success is left as an exercise to the reader. But I think this is too pessimistic! Reciprocity can and has improved on the social system that lacked Reciprocity. You can construct additional and more powerful tools to allow people to get their needs met.
I think there are two factors at play here: Firstly, a large part of the dating dynamic is that the more attractive of the pair usually women among young people, but not always seeks to get the other person to make signs of commitment.
The less investment there is in doing something, the less it will bring in the attractive crowd. Though even then, we see that women are less likely to show up such that competitors sometimes bank solely on being more woman-friendly. How much time does it take to really get to know someone? Enough to go steady? So twelve hours.
Everything else, from the restaurants to the flowers, is just people making signs of mutual investment. Paying for dates, gifts, etc. Meaning pure time investment is only about a third of the costs. Why do these expensive preconditions exist? Because it shows commitment and investment. Which is fine. But any attempt to reduce that is going to be resisted. Secondly, despite what some more radical feminists and the redpill crowd says, attraction is not static or predetermined.
Alice knows Bob. Bob asks Alice out and Alice decides why not. So she goes out on a relationship and it turns out Bob is really funny and tells interesting stories. The recognition that people are not static bundles that will rationally seek each other out. This strikes me as dramatically - alarmingly - low. However, there are much greater opportunity costs and more to be gained by reducing search. Perhaps my experience is unusual. Is that how it works? My experience is most men will give up after a certain number of dates.
Or do you only get into relationships with men you already know? Carvenvisage is correct - as is your last guess. I only get into relationships with men I know.
I will start doing this well before I will be interested in formal dating, and I note other people doing this as a weak signal that they may be interested in dating me.
Note that cost for these activities is usually completely or almost completely time gas money to get there and back, I guess? FWIW I have run into guys lying about holding traditional values, so I may be more cautious than average on this.
I have had this not from self-description, mind you. Which is a sad state of affairs for everyone, I think. And how does this transition to dating? Random hookups with complete strangers are, ime, rarer than a group of people who sort of know each other and have a lot of casual sex.
Sure, people fake things like that.
For slatestarcodex dating agree, very useful
The term tradthot is used to insult any mildly attractive conservative woman these days but this is what the term originally meant. The stereotypical advice the men get is to look for people making hard to fake signs. My experience is that strongly held common values tend to act as a form of prequalification.
Further, highly traditional people still end up in situations where they meet a lot of new people. They often meet their spouse that way and the relationship tends to proceed relatively quickly due to that prequalification.
What I can say is that highly traditional people tend to take pride in the belief they take it slow. And in some sense, they absolutely do: no sex before marriage definitely gets to sex more slowly thank hookup culture.
But in terms of relationships? Brigham Young is famous for freshmen getting married, for example. So I hear the secret ingredient of Coffee Meets bagel is picking friends of mutual friends via facebook. This is just getting rid of the extra degree and requires sign-up on the actual website? Seems to severely narrow the scope of possible matches - has anyone actually found long term success or is the website too new through this approach?
Also, if you are a man, being dominant and able to take risks is a central component of your attractiveness. The whole premise of that site, that it reduces the risk of rejection, selects for unattractive men.
I think the difference here is that Reciprocity and other dating sites assume dating is about identifying a good match.
And it imagines a static system. What Scott experienced is a dynamic experience, where preferences change based on situations, and the process of meeting, asking out, flirting, and dating changes preferences in ways that cannot be predicted in advance by either party. I wonder how this interacts with the social norm that men ask women out, rather than the reverse.
Reciprocity would seem to go against that norm by making the process entirely symmetric. Thus this might shift the sex-equilibrium in dating in some way. While it might seem silly, it might be interesting to occasionally write posts of this sort with the description of the situation in advance, followed by a reminder to predict the consequences, before the consequences are described.
Did I miss something obvious? Consequently, if a woman would like to date a man but she worries that he lacks courage her strategy should be to not check him but accept a date request from him.
This theory has a practical implication for men. That seems to me counterproductive as well as predatory. If your only hope of snagging that date is to use manipulation tactics like these, consider how long any relationship established would last. After all, this person never liked you enough in the first place to accept your offer on neutral grounds, how much do they really like you? Better to focus on people that actually truly like you. Hm, going back over the original subject being discussed, the manipulative act being discussed is the act of a man asking a woman out under circumstances where if she refuses, she would expect him to feel humiliated.
The zoomed-out scenario looks similar in both cases but OP did not announce the former intention. In practice, most individual humans give enough of a shit that women are at least aware that if they reject a man in front of fifty friends and acquaintances, he will be humiliated.
And they do in fact tend to feel pressured, and this is a not uncommon thing for women to complain about. And because courage and willingness to stick neck out might be something she values in a potential partner, honestly demonstrating those things might make you more attractive to her.
Yep, I misread that. The framing makes all the difference. And done it in a way that a non-ruthless woman will feel at least some obligation not to abandon you to the danger. But while it may be effective at securing promises, it is not a healthy dating strategy, because it is super coercive. If you can muster the sociopathic disregard required to win a game of chicken with someone who jumps in front of the wheels of your car by deliberately not slamming on the breaks, sure. Again, a majority of humans cannot do this.
Holding yourself hostage in exchange for concessions gives other people an incentive to ignore your suffering, and disproportionately imposes burdens on the most empathic people who are least able to ignore your suffering. Or defrauding a welfare service. Discourse such that people who read the discourse without self-identifying as incels will rapidly and for very understandable reasons lose all sympathy for the participants.
By doing this, the people who call themselves incels make utter asses of themselves. Very conspicuously. There are people who would be missed if they blew their brains out over their inability to find a stable sexual relationship. If causing a death is considered a failure of empathy, why is causing greater harm than death not a failure of empathy? Perhaps the incel community would be nicer if they got real sympathy and empathy.
But that woman has to deal with the reality of a diminished pool of suitors, because she has a higher cost of courtship. Depending on her status, she might well price herself out of the market. I would counsel against this. One time in high school a low ish status boy interrupted our english class with a banner and a couple of friends to make a grand gesture invitation to a medium-status girl to go to the dance with him.
At the moment I was a bit confused. You meet a cute guy on tinder and you are comfortable with casual sex, how can it be unexpected?
THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH DATING.
But now, maybe this little bit of friction is somehow important. I still feel like a given explanation is ad-hoc-y, though. This is painfully obvious for any man who is experienced.
Though of course, casual sex is where women want to filter most intensively against low-status men. A further complication is that men and women consciously or unconsciously fake behavior in response to this.
For example, women who want a relationship offer sex and more exciting sex oral to make the man think that she is attracted to him as a lover, rather than a provider. Men who want sex pretend to be aiming for a long term relationship, even when they merely want sex.
This neatly plays into the previously mentioned strategy for women. In modern society, it seems that the threat of separation is used to put pressure on the partner, through easy divorce or not getting married in the first place. Men who enter an interaction with the expectation of perception that they are owed sex are really, really bad dates. The issue I think has more to do with the type of male who would have sex based on the tiniest amount of information without regard for any other characteristics are bad dates.
By all reports, these men are an abysmal sexual experience, worse than a third rate vibrator.
They have no interest in making sex experience enjoyable for her. Ah well. I have a different explanation.
Someone asking you on a date is flattering. Beyond that there is something sexy about someone showing sexual interest in you. Desire is kind of contagious. Not always of course, there must be a real match and all. But still. Why do people give oral sex to each other? Not just as a gift. But more like people get turned on by their partner being turned on.
So I think that site simply needs to ask the right question. Not whether you want to date X. But whether if X invited to a date, you would accept or reject it. That puts people into a different mindset.
Slatestarcodex Dating Women Men Nerds, open data speed dating youtube, what is the law about dating a minor in texas, rencontres historiques de l ecole militaire. Commencez votre propre histoire! 1m 47 ans. 72 ans. ans. Jacquie et Michel Vienne. Lire le temoignage. 1m/ Aug 31, Dating is a skill - finding your type, noticing glances, initiating contact, knowing when to kiss, not coming off as 'clingy' - all things that require (possibly years of) practice. It has nothing to do with some general sense of 'appreciation' that is associated with feminism or . It's been two and a half months since I deleted the blog, so I owe all of you an ate on recent events. I haven't heard anything from the New York Times one way or the other. Since nothing has been published, I'd assume they dropped the article, except that they approached an acquaintance for another interview last month.
But perhaps that would overdo it. Suppose gets a few matches. Now what. Just because you said you would accept it if X would ask you out, does not mean you are going to ask X out. That is, X alone does not turn you on, but rather X showing clear interest in you would turn you on.
So there could be that weird deadlock. Faced with common knowledge that they would not be rejected, neither person chose to make an advance. This is fairly easy to explain. If you have otherwise identical twins, one of whom you find out is interested in you and the other one not then you should clearly have stronger feelings towards the one who does, and that includes negative feelings.
Maybe Reciprocity is serving this purpose by discreetly informing people that they are in fact attractive to people they find attractive, and then leaving the ball in their court for what they want to do about that. You or your friends submitted names of people they thought you should date. Of course many people dropped hints for weeks beforehand. Some people used the system to prank their friends with bad matches, but most of the time people acted in earnest.
If two names came up matched on enough tickets, you got an invite to a dance. You could choose to find them, or fail to show up. I suppose back then this was the clearest way to find out if someone in your social circle was interested in you without asking directly or asking friends which somehow seemed more juvenile. There was clearly some sort of halo effect from the combination of excitement at getting an invite with the semi-anonymous selection method, because an outsized number of fairly serious relationships seemed to start at that event.
A related problem to this is that Tinder which works on a similar problem lead men to match with almost every woman and thus leaves women with the problem of screening the men and, effectively, iniating real contact and interest.
This tends to make the whole thing rather dysfunctional because it leaves women as sorters which they tend not want. In a swipe or like system, the dominant strategy for men is to swipe or like everyone and only bother filtering within the subset of women who swipe or like you back. At that point you have more information about your own attractiveness and what your options are.
Among other things, because when it comes to relationships, P it all goes horribly horribly wrong is higher for heterosexual females than for males, or seems to be as far as a lot of women are concerned. Is that a complex way of saying that you think single heterosexual guys have a different distribution of social goals than other people?
And homosexual guys, uh, gonna be honest I do NOT have a good sense of what their social dynamics would look like in a society with no closets. Are the incentive structures different for people in different demographics who have the same goals, or are the incentive structures different for people in the same demographic who have different goals?
People with different goals obviously have different incentive structures; what constitutes an incentive depends on your goals. But people from different demographics may have comparable goals and still not pursue the same strategies.
When we compare heterosexual single males and females in the dating pool, both the demographics AND the goals are different. In some ways the demographics cause the different goals, even! Our culture places different assumptions and expectations on male and female sexuality, and differences in male and female biology further complicate the picture. So all in all, we should only expect female and male dating strategies to parallel each other when there is a specific reason to do so.
For instance, if we find an isolated subset of men and women where everyone in both groups uses contraception very reliably, and where for whatever reason no one in either group is afraid of being abused, we might expect to see more symmetrical dating strategies.
In the general population, where contraception is used less reliably and where avoiding abusers is an important thing on the minds of many many women but only some men, asymmetry would be expected. This works on Tinder but not in person because your network will have lots of overlapping nodes. Stacy might have given you a chance but if she finds out that you asked 4 people before her yesterday then that can easily be turned into a no, and there are good reasons for this.
This is why Tinder is a hookup site, it is implicit that everyone is looking for the best they can get right now with an easy shot at moving on to a better choice if they come along. This would apply if I was saying that the dominant strategy was to PM ever single woman on your friends list and ask her out.
The women who rejected you would see your interest and be able to quickly infer through gossip that you were casting a wide net. But because reciprocity. If you are attractive enough that multiple women in the same friend group all checked you, they could share information and figure out your strategy.
Think, slatestarcodex dating have
You could be a convicted child molester and still hook up with a few of them. I agree with your point about tinder etc as I said, but I think you misunderstand the issues with the local network. In this case there is little difference between simply asking the girls out in your preferred order and casting the broad net.
If you are on the low end and would be lucky to find 1 yes then asking every girl and turning that one yes into a no is a disaster.
One time two women I was pursuing ran into each other at a party with me right there. They realized what was happening, then silently turned and walked away from me in opposite directions. You automatically have your foot in the door, AND possible dating prospects will telegraph their interest in you. This gives you a lot of breathing room and a lot of options. I certainly take advantage of them starting conversations with women who I notice checking me out.
Just like a regular guy, if I move too quickly, women will get creeped out. There ends up being a pretty narrow window of opportunity. The average guy is more or less invisible and has to climb mountains to be noticed, or pick a winning lottery ticket. Not moving fast enough to a girl after she has telegraphed interest is like Warren Buffet complaining about how hard it is to find good help for his mansion. But you have rapport with 2 girls at the same time. And apparently this is a frequent problem for you.
To most guys, you have rolled 2 Nat 20s, and you seem to do this on a semi-regular basis. That was a bit of a joke. However, I do think radical honesty works more often than guys realize. There might be a correlation between referencing Mark Manson and having some difficulties with women, even despite being attractive. The app uses several such mechanisms punishments to guide users toward desired patterns of behavior.
Knowing someone is interested in you makes them more interesting. What is it men in women do require? The lineaments of Gratified Desire. What is it women do in men require? The critical difference is that in reciprocity. Maybe the fact that reciprocity.
Disclaimer: I have never used FB. Maybe the concept of having hundreds of friends that you have talked to once, if at all, is FB reality and seems incomprehensibly alien only to me. If I understand correctly, Tinder is also connected to your Facebook account but contrary to Reciprocity, it specifically removes your Facebook friends from your pool of possible dates.
Tinder shows me facebook friends all the time. In case you just remembered that you are on that service and want to disable reciprocity you may do so by visiting facebook app settings and clicking remove.
That is according to one of the devs. Maybe some people kind of feel like me about that, so they only mark people they really like? But I can see why one would want an unambiguous signal of interest before engaging romantically with Berkeley women who might be mcauctionservicellc.comista types. Just pragmatic risk mitigation-like wearing a seatbelt. And the criteria for harassment seems to be expanding rapidly nowadays to include many guys who mean no harm.
So either there is a HUGE difference between Israeli and American social costumes, or that there is something else going on. Would you want to date a woman like that, especially if she act like that even though you are already acquaintances?
The Sex Recession. This shift seems to be accelerating amid the national reckoning with sexual assault and harassment, and a concomitant shifting of boundaries. Among older groups, much smaller percentages believe this. I have no mental model of why this would be considered sexual harassment. Frankly it seems absurd to me.
I see my own strategy as analogous to a woman who avoids dating ex-convicts. By not dating ex-convicts, she mitigates her risk up front. In the same way, I figure there are some social clusters which have a much higher density of women who make what I regard as spurious harassment accusations, and I avoid making advances on women in those clusters unless I see copious green flags. Wait, are we talking about the same thing?
I was compering my example to using reciprocity as a primary mean of avoiding harassing women, not to using common sense and not asking out women who view sexual harassment in a really different way then you. With white at 2 and 3 percent, black at 7 and 10, Hispanic at 3 and 8 and other at 10 and 12! I do wonder what is going on here, and wish we had a bit more data. Including, not to be mean, but not using a service that obviates the need to be asked out if they they consider it a vital signal of maturity and interest.
Remembering that people have different assumptions and might not use the site in a similar way to him can help make sense of the situation. Plus harassment accusations are for work, not dating.
Men are hurt by these lies too. First, there is no such thing as a romantically or sexually successful person who has never ever creeped anyone out. Give yourself permission to be creepy miscommunications, awkwardness, and misunderstandings happen.
Sometimes people make mistakes. A: Anything that caused you harm, including fairly minor harm, is okay to report. Women in Berkeley have strong negative reactions to things that women outside Berkeley think are fine. Personally I choose to specialize in non-feminist women. Asking someone out is really awkward and hard! I did a few really awkward things myself! I truly have sympathy for men in that regard, and I think everyone would be better off if women did more of the asking themselves.
I still think that being able to ask someone out with your words is an important skill, and a good filter for emotional maturity. And even if my stance is near sighted and only works if you are on the filtering side, most women are on the filtering side. If a lot of women have an irrational belief, you should at the very least be aware of that. I also think you are over estimating the abilities of most women.
Sure, maybe women are better than men on average with reading social ques. But how much better? And distinguish between a man that truly likes her and want to date her, and a man that just want to have sex? And not over estimate his interest and either get hurt or be perceived as presumptuous? And account for the natural difference in body language between people? And not spend an enormous amount of time analyzing all the information she gets from men? I think the biggest mistake in your model is assuming that interest is always pre-existing.
Knowing someone else is interested can create interest, so there can easily be cases where one person is just going to have to go first. And moreover, the more likely something is to actually happen, the more interested people get. This is a bit like the rational version of 4. With a different prior, more data gathering suddenly makes sense.
To clarify what I had in mind: - You are allergic to cats, she has three. You have a great time whenever you are together doing non-X. Obviously less extreme examples eventual run into cases where one could legitimately argue you are just making up problems in your head, and even in the cases above, there may be solutions available. But because of priorities and ressource allocation you might rationally decide not to ask for a date in those cases.
Also, because ignoring the obvious problem makes you look like a moron. But I have a harder time coming up with clear examples on the fly. Mating with mediocrity is not how the human race got to where it is today. What we love in others is their love for us. And the same is true for everybody else. This sounds like it could be true from a male perspective, but sounds utterly implausible, both a priori and given anecdotal data, for the female perspective.
It seems to me the actual word is something conventional and also completely unsurprising, like the combination of empathy, sensitivity, and emotional investment.
Some women are really, really looking for empathy, sensitivity, and emotional investment. Others are really, really looking for dominance, agency, and risk taking. And, hell, the same can be said of men. I think you have a broken model of the relationship between attractiveness and attraction. Women with uncommon standards of attractiveness in kind rather than degree are not that rare. Sorry for the snark, but I find this kind of arguments a red herring: yes, among 3.
Your relationship, assuming that you get one, will have an extremely lopsided balance of bargaining power. In fact, depending on what you want out of a relationship, it may not be a great strategy at all. Looks I can accept here. Kind of. Personality and monogamous commitment not so much. My experience with both has been the opposite. Say what you want about that community, but that particular claim has quite a lot of evidence towards it.
For instance:. I just went through my entire FB friends list, and of the people that are coupled, they are almost all coupled to their attractive equals. There are a few exceptions: 1. I fully admit that I do not understand the dynamics of gay men. Genuinely a super nice guy, one of the nicest I know. But he was born with a horseshoe up his ass. He bought a house right as the market hit bottom, made all the right career moves, won the lotteryI am perfectly willing to accept that he is the benefit of supernatural intervention.
Even the legitimate eccentrics that got tattoos instead of wedding bands and flogged themselves at the wedding ceremony because I have no idea are still marrying girls that would be considered their physical equals if you peeled away all the jewelry.
Your alternative strategies, based on my limited experience, are arranged marriage or just being part of a closed ethnic group, or being lucky enough that winning the lottery is just another Tuesday for you. Okay, what this article purports to prove is that ovulation causes women to be prefer the scent of the T-shirts of men with symmetrical bodies. TWO: Very few women actually fit this pattern in any one generation.
The biological impulse is there, but not strong enough to override things like pair bonding, in normal women.
This is particularly relevant in light of the obvious point that if males want to pass on their genes, they have an obvious interest in creating cultural norms that enforce female fidelity. Having impulsive flings with the hunkiest man in the village sounds like a great strategy for one woman in isolation. But if a very large fraction of women are actually doing this, then in the conditions of a Stone Age village with a small population, the less-hunky men will swiftly catch on.
They will then predictably dispose of the Paleolithic Don Juan in question, and possibly deprive the unfaithful women in question of the benefits of their support.