faceh
7d ago
If the data were based solely on matchmaker reports sure.
But its in the survey data. More women are college educated these days. College educated women are VASTLY more picky.
Its literally women saying it themselves that they can't find partners who meet their expectations.
When the data, the anecdotes, the personal observations and the testimony from 'experts' end up all pointing at the same direction, I am just inclined to Occam's Razor that they're probably pretty accurate.
Been reading some insistent advice on twitter that you can meet women out at dance classes or in book clubs.
I've tried the dance classes, and the gender ratio tends to be skewed towards males... and the women tend to bring their own partners.
So you've got a small pool of available women with a circling school of dudes trying to elbow in. I can see why that'd be daunting for single women, and potentially drive some of them away.
The book club... that's asking for quite a bit of commitment for something that has very small odds of working out, and has some small chance of backfiring.
And even if those were two viable options, its still an indictment that we've so severely narrowed the acceptable arenas to meeting others outside the apps.
faceh
7d ago
Almost as convincing as your old OKCupid survey.
Still waiting on data to contradict it.
Have you seen the extremely comprehensive data from tinder that shows basically the exact same thing?
Here's a youtube video based on that data if that's more appealing.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3pvkgUc9Zbc?si=Tktvaz4PBg-Vsr5K
Your personal disappointment over my lying eyes, obviously we will both trust our respective sources.
You can keep saying this, but I sincerely suspect you don't actually believe it.
I just like to believe true things.
faceh
7d ago
I just do not believe that all of it should be blamed on women wanting an unrealistic fantasy.
Can we blame the social forces/media that women are susceptible to for inculcating those unrealistic fantasies?
Maybe regulate those factors a bit?
faceh
7d ago
It could be a lack of trying on the male end.
Sure.
Incentives have to be sufficient.
If the reward for 'trying' is you get rejected 90% of the time, ghosted another 5-9% of the time, and the 'win' condition is you get a woman who is overweight, in debt, doesn't know how to cook, and is iffy on if she wants kids.
Where's the appeal to putting in the effort?
I think a lot of guys are accurately assessing that their odds of winning a real prize are lacklustre, and so efforts spent on themselves pay off more.
You could meet someone through work, but many might consider the risk of drama to not be worth it.
This became a fairly explicit minefield after #metoo. Even if the woman is welcoming the advances or even advancing herself, HR is going to try to kibosh it to avoid their own liability/publicity issues.
faceh
8d ago
Reduces arterial plaque, and a few other little benefits too.
At the 10,000 FU dose level, which I ran for about three months.
Brief discussion of it here:
https://www.themotte.org/post/2732/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/357853?context=8#context
I started it after @thejdizzler recommended and my cholesterol did indeed see significant reduction.
faceh
8d ago
I don't think any of the older kids have the juice to fill his shoes. Barron is shaping with potential but obviously the age thing.
faceh
8d ago
I think there's a (relatively thin) slice of Blue Collar skilled professional who has made out extremely well due to a relative dearth of competition for a smorgasbord of work in the trades. Lot of dudes getting rich off working in oil fields or, more recently, Data Center construction.
But... we can't ignore the immigration surge exerting pressure on e.g. construction work, trucking, unskilled trades.
So different pressures... but still impact that would fall primarily on males. And still arguably coming from the same source (political favortism for groups other than white males).
Anyhow, they're still struggling on the partnership front.
https://wng.org/roundups/study-shows-working-class-men-arent-getting-married-1749503094
faceh
8d ago
...the other factor is that she's presumably willing to defer to the Father's judgment as to who she should date and marry, which gives dad a large say in selecting a worthy man and scaring away the Lotharios.
After all, he has an EXTREME amount at stake and thus has incentive to help her select the best as possible... and possibly to punish those who do commit abuse.
We still do that whole "Father walks the bride down the aisle and 'gives her away' to the Groom" at weddings. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
faceh
8d ago
Something approaching half of them are projected to be single by 2030
If that's not a result of 'refusing to settle' en masse then what could it be.
And my basic reminder, I am more than happy to look at data you present that contradicts my point, or accept any argumentation pointing out where my analysis is flawed.
Anyway, here's testimony from a matchmaker (also a female) about the standards put forth by a 31-year-old single woman. "There are a decent number of profiles like this."
faceh
8d ago
Fermi estimates are the best we can do for now.
But when you START with the fact that 40% of women are obese, you've already shrunk the pool considerably, and every criteria you add shrinks it further, you start to see the shape of the problem.
(Yes, about the same % of men are also obese. There's research that obese men are fine settling for obese women but the reverse is not true. This is borne out by my personal observations.)
Then you get the spike in mental illnesses, the increasing amounts of debt held by women, the spike in LGBT identification, the increase in sexual partners (I'd wager this is anti-correlated with obesity but who knows), and the decreased prioritization of marriage and you can visualize how each of these is narrowing the non-obese pool significantly.
Even if the error bars are pretty huge, I have little problem believing <10% of single women out there are really 'appealing' as partners.
faceh
8d ago
Very fair summary and counter. I will not relitigate anything but this:
If you get your life together as a young man, you will be fine in the dating market, it will very quickly be tilted in your favor and not hers.
It has of course recently been discussed (at long last) just how hard the deck was stacked against young men over the last 15 years.
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-lost-generation/
So I simply point out that the things guys are supposed to achieve to make THEM seem marriageable are dangled further out of reach of many of them based on nothing but their gender and color of their skin. They are not imposing these restrictions on themselves.
Whereas, as I point out on occasion, literally every change in gender-based policy in the U.S. for the past 50 years has been in favor of women. It has put more of them in education, the workplace, and granted them outsized political power. (this also has NOT made them any happier).
So these men are expected to work harder than ever just to overcome the systemic bias, with the reward of pulling from a pool of women who are less appealing than ever, whilst the entire legal/economic edifice of their country is trying to slow them down.
So I think it is absolutely hard for an individual man to tilt the market in his favor unless he he lucked out in rolling his stats to have high charisma, rich parents, and good genes for height/aesthetics.
"Get your life together" is one hell of a lift for, I'd say, 60% of young men, especially because it'll take like 5+ years of solid work to hit the point where they'd be noticeable as a potential partner, and even then its not a guarantee.
And this shows up in the fact that many men just opt out of dating rather than accept constant psychological damage they're powerless to change.
faceh
9d ago
That's a very cynical point of view,
My cynical point of view has an extremely good track record of predictions, sad to say.
I mean, what, is he supposed to lock his wife up at home so you don't suspect him in "showing off"?
Should he have? She ended up leaving him. His extant strategy clearly didn't work.
I don't think it is fair to demand from everybody who shared one's opinion publicly to become full-time role model.
For better or worse, he adopted that approach, near daily streaming and constant commentary on daily events
You could definitely pick WORSE role models, but I think he was happily putting himself out there in that regard.
faceh
9d ago
I saw the list of countries that had tariffs on us, and it suggests that there's a larger strategy of reducing overall trade barriers by forcing everyone else to reduce their own tariffs in the eventual trade deals.
I've talked about this point at some length.
If you haven't figured out that Trump likes to use door in the face in the opening rounds of a negotiation for an eventually agreed deal, don't know what to tell you. Its in that book he wrote.
faceh
9d ago
Vance and Rubio, if they continue to play cards right, should be able to form a strong ticket by all accounts.
If Trump does manage a 'clean' handoff of power to one or both of those guys (preferably Vance) that may just be the single best legacy he can leave.
faceh
9d ago
Yeah, hence why an institution that can try to build up the next candidate to receive the blessing seems like a necessary component.
Trump himself is popular amongst people who voted for him, I expect that to remain true.
Nominally this would be a job for the Republican Party apparatus but lol.
Yeah. It seems unprecedented in modern history, especially modern American history for a leader to have a sufficiently large cult of personality that when they leave it would be all but impossible for the next candidate to inherit their predecessor's supporters without their explicit blessing.
I guess... North Korea? They solve it by straightforward passing to the next of kin, along with a massive propaganda campaign to deify each successive leader, right?
Actually... I have never questioned it but who is in charge of NK's institution that upholds the Juche ideology and propagandizes the masses? In theory THAT is who is ensuring peaceful transition of power.
Edit: Oh my. Currently its his sister. I guess that tracks.
faceh
9d ago
Is it really 'narcissism' when you are actually that good?
Okay, that's a joke. I mean, he is THAT GOOD, if the talent in question is making everything about himself.
But that also gives him a weak form of Skin in the Game, where he actually DOES want 'good' things to happen since that is precisely what will enable the best legacy for him. It helps that he's seemingly got no real malice as part of his self-aggrandizement (maybe a little, he sure does seem to despise Obama), and generally prefers cooperative outcomes for all involved parties.
If we achieve a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine, and he insists that the Peace agreement be called "Treaty on Russian–Ukrainian Mutual Peace", do I care that much?
No, not really.
My overarching concern has been that his 'movement' is so tied up in his ego it isn't clear if it CAN move on to anyone else once he's out of office, and that will be a major problem if there's no clear successor.
Very related to a tweet I saw that pointed out that the BBC (and Netflix) has created an unintended issue where they portray all the female characters, especially those in relationships, as hypercompetent and strong, while their male partners can be incompetent and silly.
But they ALSO tend to portray interracial couples with the male being black and the female white. So there's now an abundance of bumbling black male characters that gets uncomfortably close to looking like a minstrel show portayal. But they're trapped insofar as its impossible to portray the gender-swapped scenario.
I don't watch enough media to confirm with my own eyes, but this is pretty funny in its own right.
faceh
10d ago
What he was probably not ok with is for his success as a cartoonist defining him for the rest of his life
Hence why I find myself with quite a bit more respect for Bill Watterson.
Go out on top, then do things you want to do without the eye of the public following you everywhere.
faceh
10d ago
I don't think he ever used his marriage as a selling point for his books, did he?
In the way that any dude having a hot girl on his arm is using her as a 'selling point' just by showing her off, I'd argue.
I just recall a period of time where she was showing up in his posts with semi-regularity in a kind of "Look at what I got fuckers" context. Can only find this one piece of evidence left, though. Wait, here's another.
Nobody owes anybody to be anybody's role model.
Slight disagree, only insofar as someone who actively chooses to convey advice and represent themselves as a person worth emulating... you kind of do owe it to your audience to be very open about failures as well as successes.
Or if you don't care to advertise failure, don't seek the audience.
But that much I will 100% say: he never, ever did grift off his audience. No crypto schemes, no scammy seminars or conferences, no shilling for sketchy brands or gambling sites (that I recall).
(I'm not counting his failed entrepreneurship attempts as scams because part of the reason they failed is he plugged them earnestly.)
What Scott's obituary does seem to acknowledge is that Scott WAS living life on his terms, and there's beauty in that, but he argues he kind of let that get swept away when he got a taste of true 'influence.'
I grappled with my self-identification as a 'nerd' for a while before mostly just leaving it behind a while back.
I like nerdy things, and was unapologetic about this. But to identify as a 'nerd' meant making certain things a facet of my identity. Which made me uncomfortable because I was really just into these things because... I found them fun, challenging, and weird in a pleasant way. Tabletop gaming is an amazing social activity, and I don't find most sports to be compelling enough to follow, so not a surprise where I gravitated.
Like, okay, I'm into outer space, rockets and scifi, I am really into computers, I think the 'internet' as a technology is cool, and I like gadgets. I feel an affinity for hacker culture and I play video games as a hobby...
But I also don't feel a need to dump copious amounts of disposable income into proving my credentials and keeping up with 'fads'. Don't really treat it as a lifestyle that requires certain commitments to fit in and buying lots of CONSOOMER goods as a prerequisite.
Hmmm. Maybe that right there is the factor. I dislike the culture the instant it becomes a pure status competition, and the status climbing becomes the point more than the factors that made it an attractive, enjoyable collection of shared interests.
Something something Geeks MOPS Sociopaths.
faceh
10d ago
Right, but "take what you can get" is not the ethos he was trying to embody, I think.
"Follow all this advice and read my books and you too might be able to marry a hot single mother for a couple years" is not a massive selling point on its own.
I'm being a tad uncharitable, but I just find it interesting how Adams was able to maintain an image of his prowess that seemingly exceeded the reality of his capabilities.
I just have a larger amount of respect for Bill Watterson, who ALSO published a beloved, wildly popular comic strip. But he ended it while he was on top, disappeared from public life, does whatever it is he enjoys doing, and has eschewed any and all attempts to merchandise or monetize his characters (this appears wiser and wiser every year).
This gets towards Scott's other aside about various intellectuals who he seems to think have beclowned themselves in moving beyond the areas that they achieved their original insights and following.
Knowing when to exit before you crumble your own legacy is a talent very, very few exceptional people have achieved. Scott would like to be one of them, I'm sure.
The huge irony is that my boss is a woman, and my workplace overall is slanted towards female employees. But since she's an utterly remorseless businesswoman who grinds it out in the trenches alongside her employees, she is EASILY the most meritocratic employer I've ever worked for.
I don't rock the boat politically (thanks to having an outlet here, I suppose), I put in the work and bring in the cash, I keep my personal life separate enough that it rarely bleeds over.
My friends in White Collar corporate jobs seem to be navigating byzantine labyrinths where the goals are ever-shifting, the ability to progress uncertain, and the actual rules for personal conduct are opaque in places. Loyalty doesn't exist, of course. Thankful to have avoided that for most of my life.
More options
Context Copy link