site banner

Friday Fun Thread for January 30, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Here's everything I read in January 2026, ordered from most to least interesting. I posted this on /r/slatestarcodex earlier, but figured the overlap between here and there is small enough that it would be of some value to post here as well.

CHH argues that we gotta stop upping the ante on gift-giving, else the reasonable people among us will be either forced in or unable to say no because it will make them look like assholes. I agree! What happened to simple gift giving? Why must everything be extravagant? If anything, we should be going the opposite way to save money!

I've been slowly adjusting my family to the expectation that I'm good for one really good gift across the whole family per year, and that the rest are going to be phoned in books or something. One year I'm just like, oh I found a tuxedo for dad, mom you got a book about the guy who inspired Charlie Chan. Next year it's, oh mom you got a Barbour coat, dad you got Andrew Ross Sorkin's new book.

"You're single because... [insert a bunch of reasons in a bulleted list format]".

Steve Stewart-Williams: As shown in the graph below, the sweet spot was two to four past partners; fewer or more reduced attractiveness. In effect, people wanted someone with a bit of a past, but not too much (which was the title of our paper describing the research).

Is there a link to the study he's talking about anywhere? It seems like there's a lot of confounders here, like age. An 18 year old with 10 sexual partners is different from a 32 year old with 10 sexual partners. That said I found it hilarious how angry Zvi was that the study supposedly found:

Intriguingly, we found no evidence for a sexual double standard: none, zilch, nada. Contrary to what’s often claimed, women weren’t judged any more harshly than men for having a high body count. That’s not to say they weren’t judged for it, but only that men were judged too.

Also, I flat out defy the data on there being no double standard? No way. Even if on some abstract 1-9 scale it looks similar, the practical impact is very obviously totally different. Yes, a male body count of 60+ is functionally a negative, but not at the same level.

Man, people just fucking hate their revealed preferences when it comes to dating. I'm not going to argue for the virtue of sluts, {I'll leave that to the Jaime} but I've literally never met a woman who was single because of her bodycount. I don't even really think it happened historically.