This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Assuming your definitions are accurate for the moment, Have you done the same in reverse? How many men in your pool meet the 9 basic criteria women would put on them?
For example if we assume women also have non obese in their preferences that filters out close to 30% of those men in one fell swoop, just like it did for women.
The pool for 9/9 women is 9/9 men. A man who only meets 2/9 criteria is going to be paired with similar women. The pool of 9/9 women is irrelevant to him and vice versa (in general).
On your modal outcome where 10 men are pursuing every 9/9 woman, well if 9 of them are not 9/9 men then most of your problem goes away. Their reach exceeds their grasp. They really do need to lower their standards to meet their own achievements. If all 10 are 9/9 men then yes you have a problem.
This is a pairwise function, not an independent one. You can't evaluate only one half of it.
You need to build the same estimate for number of single young men who meet the 9 basic criteria women have, then compare those two estimates. Of course for women their criteria may be different. For example if women prefer a man with some experience then their bodycount criteria may be 5-10 not less than 5.
Or to put it another way its irrelevant logically how many men in total are pursuing marriageable women. It matters how many marriageable men are pursuing marriageable women in this context. Non-marriageables have to be filtered out on both sides for the comparison you want to do. They are in their own pool together.
Assuming that is incorrect though. Women don't have the same average revealed preferences regarding obesity / excess body fat in general as men do, and this applies to pretty much every other preference as well.
Indeed which is why I said assumed here, and then later pointed out that their prefences may be entirely different as well.
Still you have to do both sides of the equation if you hope to make proper comparisons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be charitable to @faceh 's point, I think it could probably be described as 9-10 men string along 6-7-8 women (otherwise good marriageble women) without pairing with them. 6-7-8 women believe, both because they get some attention from 9-10 men and because society keeps repeating it to them, that they are worth 9-10 men and should not settle for less. 6-7-8 men find themselves unable to find a 6-7-8 woman to pair with, so they end up single or pairing with 4-5 women. 4-5 men face a similar dillemma and at the bottom you find men without even the option of settling for less because there is nothing left.
Sure there are other dynamics, but you have to measure both sides the same in the first placebefore you can the measure the dynamic differences.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link