domain:parrhesia.co
The broader points I'm making are:
- Modern sciency people tend to have axioms they don't quite realize.
- Biology is stuck in a mechanistic model of genetics and life, which holds it back.
I would resent being called a fuckboy (under the definition we're discussing here), as I don't like the implication that the only way I can get women into bed is by lying to them or deceiving them.
So... even though the twin studies can't really be proven, despite two decades of intensive, worldwide research focus and ungodly amounts of funding, he still argues they are "mostly right."
Twin studies are robust and reproducible. What can't be "proven" is the particular genes behind the heritability.
One could argue that, if anything, men perform more emotional labor than women, since putting up and dealing with women’s shit-tests and coffee moments is a price men pay for being in heterosexual relationships.
There could be epic_handshake.jpg potential here between boomers and zoomers—boomers with “does this dress make me look fat?” and zoomers with “would you still love me if I were a worm?”
That said, a comment on the article from Scott:
I know of two secret results I'm not supposed to talk about, by people claiming they've found very large amounts of "missing heritability". Not yet peer-reviewed or confirmed by anything except rumor. I expect one to be out within six months, and the other maybe eventually.
I've seen it used to refer to both a hot Chad whose romantic interest in women extends no further than the tip of his dick and to a pretty boy that a woman keeps hooked on simping for her by using him for her sexual gratification (the female equivalent of a slampig - I haven't watched it but I think the toyboy fantasy film Babygirl with Nicole Kidman probably depicts something like this model), and also to any unappealing men who are more motivated to pursue sex than sitting at home watching porn and complaining online about Stacies.
Is he a boy and is fucking any significant part of the motivation for his actions? He's a fuckboy.
Reading that article though it reads like an attempt to build a stick for hitting men... but I don't see many men who would be particularly offended by the label. Low stakes defensive maybe, but not sincerely offended. What I can see being offensive is calling another woman's boyfriend a fuckboy. In that sense perhaps the fuckboy label is a tool for women to reassert the sort of social policing they're so adept at and that some here in this forum say could alleviate the ills of current day dating culture. Can you imagine if someone told a woman that the new guy she's excited to be dating is a fuckboy? It's a hit at her value - she's giving him her value and not getting compensated (she does it free!). Call a man a fuckboy and internally he'll probably shrug and think DM;HS. It's labelling him as someone who got what he wanted. Beats being an incel or a simp. Tell a woman her bf is a fuckboy and in short order he'll be put on notice that it's time to man up or he won't be getting what he wants any more. You don't need to tell her directly, posting it to the audience of young women reading a fashion blog will probably suffice to start the thought process.
Perhaps history's most infamous materialists were also dogmatically blank slatists.
In my Lived Experience from years of performing the Emotional Labor of mostly-consensually consuming content such as online discussions and mainstream media publications, my Emotional Intelligence has led me to conclude that replacing the adjective in female- and left-coded “adjective + noun” buzzphrases with “imaginary” usually makes the phrases make more sense in the contexts in which they’re found. For example, substituting in “imaginary” for the first word in the following phrases:
- emotional labor
- emotional intelligence
- emotional truth
- emotional abuse
- financial abuse
- lived experience
- socioeconomic factors
- systemic racism
- institutional racism
- internalized misogyny
- implicit bias
- stereotype threat
- social contract
- food deserts
- food insecurity
Are you suggesting that the gap between inheritability and discovered genes is some kind of psychic connection between twins that other siblings do not have? Or are you making a broader point that genes are not actually connected to our personality and other traits and something else determines our personality (which weirdly chooses to give people similar traits based on degrees of consanguinity?)
Probably the wrong place to ask this, as this is an Internet forum, but have any of you implemented any kind of Cal Newport style Digital Minimalism? I just reread his book and am finding it frustratingly vague.
I'm hoping I have the same change in attitude as you. I know that there's a correlation between time and effort put in and performance. If I run more (and recover) I perform better. If I read more my focus improves and I grow in knowledge. If I regularly show up to the same social events I'll make friends. If I do more experiments, I will get more data. If I spend more time on my blog I will get more readers. Yet the actions that I take somehow don't reflect this. I'm always looking for the hack supplement that will improve my athletic performance, the one blog post that will turn my opinion of the world on its head, the one connection on social media that will become my best friend or romantic partner, the one big experiment that I can do that will get me my PhD. I know this is al la bunch of bullshit. The way to improve is to consistently show up and do what the best in the world did to get where they are, which is on paper pretty straightforward for the things I care about.
The concept was originally applied to job, if I remember correctly. Ex: the flight attendant whose father passed away yesterday but still serves snacks and drinks on the flight with a smile and pleasantries is performing emotional labor.
Remember the name of this forum. That's the motte. The common meaning is the bailey.
Apologies, friend - I switched out the pronoun for a noun. Does that read better?
Thanks for the reminder to not let these posts get too stream-of-consciousness.
Basically the whole point of the article is that they have been searching for these genes for 20 years and have only found more and more complexities.
I mean IQ itself is a fuzzy concept. We can only really measure it by proxy, which by itself would create some added complexity here. The more precise way to say this would be “twins are 60% likely to score the same IQ on an IQ test.” The test doesn’t directly measure IQ, and depending on which test you take, when you take it, and under what conditions, you might get some different scores just from those things even if the same person is being tested. Then you have environment, one kid is encouraged to read a lot and do math puzzles. The other plays lots of sports. One eats nothing but junk food, the other eats clean. Those differences can affect brain development.
It’s both and, to my mind.
This has always fascinated me when I read accounts by trans men. Their description of what testosterone does to their mental processes sounds completely alien to me. I cannot relate to it whatsoever.
I've found at least some of their accounts to be startlingly accurate, and quite revealing.
I was once reading a book -- can't at all remember the name now -- written by an FTM transsexual describing her experience with testosterone. She was older and she would have been going through this before the internet (and before free 24/7 porn, keep that in mind).
One of the effects she described was how her visual perception seemed to become "more 3D" (lines up with how men tend to do better on spatial rotation tasks), especially whenever she looked at women or images of women. A billboard showing a sexy woman suddenly "popped" for her in a way that it never had before which consequently made it much more attention-grabbing, despite the fact that she had always been a lesbian even prior to starting testosterone. She was still subjectively viewing women in a new way, which is exactly the sort of effect I would expect testosterone to induce.
She described an episode where she went with some female friends (all of them lesbian or bisexual) to watch a series of film screenings at an indie theater. One of them was a short reel that showed various women in bikinis and underwear doing things like dancing, striking sexy poses, maybe a bit of a striptease, things like that. And all of her friends were laughing at it: like, oh look at these girls being so silly, haha. But she couldn't help but be struck by how serious the images seemed to her. She looked at her friends laughing and thought, "why are you laughing? This isn't a joke. Stop laughing." And I just thought... yes, this is it! This is the difference between male and female sexuality! You couldn't ask for a more perfect illustration, it's amazing.
Kind of frightening to think that one little chemical can unlock such complex emotional states. But, there you have it.
What do these have to do with one another? Belief in genetic determinism seems entirely compatible with belief in non physical things like god or qualia. There is no reason that god could not have created a world in which genetic determinism is true.
Typically the standard materialist/scientific worldview sees most things as genetically determined, as far as I'm aware! That may be changing.
I agree that you can believe in genetics without necessarily adopting a materialist frame.
Have you considered that ‘there’s a woman just like me, but a girl’ is a very common male fantasy? See tomboys as well.
The people who treat romantic relationships as jobs are just generally insane.
Can you elaborate on someone who resents men embracing sex work? I don’t know any sex workers and assume the vast majority of them are simply unfortunates, whoring because they don’t have other options.
I agree with your solution, but I’m going to push back a little- sex creates the expectation of romantic exclusivity, so these ladies are entitled to Chad’s undivided attention. And statistically, most average women are in a relationship with average men.
Now, it does seem true that the floor beneath which most pick ‘pass’ is lower for women(or should I say higher, considering how much of it is driven by BMI). But 80% of women competing for 60% of men isn’t what you’re describing.
I'd be somewhat interested in other men's experiences of this.
Totally agree with your description of puberty. It was a nothingburger, way overhyped.
Apologies lol, I just miss grappling. You have a very good gym if people focus on front headlocks. I always hated that position the most.
I don’t know who that is, I don’t recall modding him, and I can’t find your quote.
But that is beside the point. Whether or not a comment is inflammatory, when you reply, you have to follow the rules by explaining what you mean. A single word “what?” is insufficient. It strictly drags the conversation down further.
A hack some academics—such as a recently departed female Harvard professor—have stumbled upon is just making up the data, because p-… hacking… is too much work.
Broke: Carefully planning, preregistering, and performing meticulously designed experiments
Woke: p-hacking and garden-of-forking-pathsing
Bespoke: Just making up the data
More options
Context Copy link