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 -
Nope. Maximus explains it better than me.
According to the 2022 NSFG data:
So, it’s not that 10% of men are with 50% (60%?) of the women. It’s more like 10% of the men sleep with a bunch of women, but those 10% of men are all sleeping with the same 12% or so of women. It’s not that they are “Chad”; there’s little correlation between attractiveness and promiscuity, it’s that they are promiscuous, and usually have other addiction patterns and attract similarly addicted women.
Indeed, there was a reply to that tweet claiming 60/10 making the same point.
Edit I have read the source paper.
It makes the following claim:
However, Kruger et. al. 2014 makes no such claim. The Kruger paper make the opposite claim that the source paper makes: It says that it’s violent patriarchal societies that cause polygyny (i.e. one man many women), not female choice. The paper does not compare the number of male to female ancestors at all.
The second reference, Wilder et. al. 2004, makes the claim that the time to the last female ancestor is twice as long as the time to the last male ancestor, which is a very different claim than the one that two females historically reproduced for every man. The actual figures are that about 1.3 more women than men historically reproduced.
So, here, we see the paper trying to make the same point some guys make online (that women only want sex with very few men), but it makes one claim based on two papers which make no such claim.
It then goes on, citing Harper 2017 for evidence of increasing polygyny in modern society. The problem with Harper 2017 is that its data has not been replicated in more recent surveys.
Point being, the linked paper either completely misreads other papers or uses dubious research to force a narrative of a few men monopolizing all of the women.
(The paper then talks about dating apps, a popular boogeyman with guys who argue for modern polygyny, but dating apps do not affect the sexual marketplace that much.)
Edit 2
Mads Larsen is well known for believing 80/20; if his name is on a paper, it’s a big red flag that the claims in the paper are very suspect.
More options
Context Copy link