Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Mist_sl said:

A large part of that mortality rate is because men take those risks upon themselves.Anecdote:Almost all of the people that have died from my graduating HS class in the past 15 years, were men who died from motorcycle accidents in their 20s.

The reason people don't freak out when they get into a car is because they feel that have some level of control over the situation, and that everyone else on the road is also facing a more-or-less equal risk of death or serious injury, so everyone on the road has equal incentive to drive as well as anyone else.

Sexual intimacy always feels like a completely lopsided risk assessment for a young woman, and one in which she feels completely vulnerable. It's the risk-taking drive that teenagers/young adults of both sexes feel that allows girls to overcome this vulnerability, and over a series of conditioned responses afterwards, this vulnerability gets all mixed in with the stimulus/response pattern of enjoying sex, which is what creates the whole neurotic cognitive dissonance pattern commonly found in female sexuality, an impossible balance of 'need to feel vulnerable' vs 'need to feel safe.' If you want bitches to be less crazy (and when I say crazy, I mean crazy either as normal female range neuroticism or full on sexual dysfunction and/or major mood disorders) when it comes to sex, and approach sex more casually like men do, you have to level this off somehow.

Click to expand...

Ok.

I feel like this is a strange response because you are just restating my point. You can boil the reason for higher mortality in men down to the relatively simple concept of "Status Seeking Behavior." For example, combing through the stats a shines a strong spotlight on work-related accidents, that is there are far more men in physically dangerous jobs than there are women.

Men, in general, are much less risk averse than women. This means that in any given situation of equal risk a woman will 'feel' more unsafe than a man would. My point was that we should train ourselves to "feel" risks more accurately using our relatively new-found ability to mathematically reason instead of relying on our unreliable lizard brain too much because it is less suited for our modern world than the logical part.

As a brief example the fear (not phobia) of heights is extremely common and relatively pervasive. This makes logical sense because falling can kill or maim you and we've evolved a safeguard against that risk. Driving a car is the equivalent to running along the edge of a very tall cliff as the g forces that hurt or kill you in an accident approximate those that would in a fall. Yet, as a species, we don't have nearly the same fear of driving because driving is extremely recent in our evolutionary history.

Mist_sl said:

So by your logic, men shouldn't feel afraid of being falsely accused of rape at all. It shouldn't even register.

Click to expand...

I'll happily have a discussion with you if you want to talk about this stuff, I find it fascinating and have been devouring texts on the subject. But if you are going to continue on this path of adversarial communication like I am some sort of hostile witness in a trial you are trying to win then we can just stop here.

It isn't fun, isn't interesting, and no matter how carefully and clearly I try to phrase my ideas you are finding some way to attack them unfairly rather than engaging collaboratively. This isn't how you learn from other people.

Mist_sl said:

It's adversarial to bring up the unavoidable conclusion of your own argument?

Click to expand...

There is no way to genuinely misconstrue the phrase "less risk averse" to mean "completely and totally without fear"

That is willful misrepresentation.

Mist_sl said:

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying (over and over again because it won't sink in) is that you think women should train cognitively condition themselves to be less afraid of rape, yet false rape accusations are far less common than actual rapes, and therefore should be considered even less of a risk.

Click to expand...

Allpeople should do that.

And yes, women should be more afraid of being raped than men should be afraid of false accusations of rape.

But what both men and women should both be more afraid of than either of those things is living in a society with a justice system that doesn't abide by the principle of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Mist_sl said:

People get found guilty of things beyond a reasonable without physical evidence all the time. Therefore you can't automatically dismiss a rape case just because of a lack of physical evidence.

Click to expand...

Luckily we don't automatically.

Mist_sl said:

But the most newsworthy of all is false rape accusations, because those are even more rare.

Click to expand...

Except, as has been pointed out, all of the false rape accusations that received press, also received plenty of press before they were known to be false. The Duke rape case, the Virginia tech thing, both were huge stories before they were discovered to be false. Now I grant you that later on they became somewhat bigger, but only because the press (and the schools) had so doubled down on the alleged rapists being guilty with dodgy evidence.

Mist_sl said:

Yeah, well, I'm a psychologist. Technically, we are in the business of not only studying human behavior but also reducing the amount of mental illness in the world, so I'm really curious if there's any angle of attack on this problem. And even the IDEA of getting to postulate anything to do with a Nash equilibrium in a paper about human sexuality excites every part of my prefrontal cortex.

So, just to get a general feel: How much increased share of the risk involved in a sexual encounter do you think college attending men would tolerate if it meant a higher expected return? (aka more sex)

Answer in the form of: (None, a little, a lot.)

Click to expand...

It depends, what's the risk? Like your explanation with cars, risk is a very personal assessment that isn't always rational. Just like consumers, we calculate risk in all kinds of fucked up ways, depending on context. (Obviously you know that). So it really depends on finding an acceptable risk? But young men, I believe, with imminent rewards? Will damn near chop their dicks off for it (Hence why they die so often!) So risk can become incredibly high for men, and they tolerate it very well. (One reason why I don't think it's really risk driving the changes. That's just the cherry on top.)

As far as developing a proper model of relationship equilibrium? Like as in everyone in society having a proper strategy and deviating from it is not rationally beneficial? Well, a few things. Codifying an overall strategy that allows everyone to find "the best" strategy is a huge challenge because relationships are not just quantitatively different in reward, ie it's not just the amount of sex. Other benefits in relationships are also rewards, and there is also a qualitative assessment. While you can model for these things in game theory, it becomes extremely complex very quickly. In addition, reaching a stage of equilibrium doesn't remove actors who violate it. It just makes it so most rational people settle into it. We have to accept that a state of equilibrium could very well mean no one having sex, too; if the rewards are not conducive to the game (Which is kind of what I lean towards, the reduction of sex in the Western World is simply us reaching one of possibly a few equilibrium--because in a Nash Matrix, you can have multiple equilibrium).

Tanoomba_sl said:

"Most humans have dealt with crazy". That's a powerfully vague statement. How much is "most"? What's your criteria to qualify as "crazy"?

All I'm saying is I now know why you have difficulty being objective when you talk about gender issues. You got fucked over by a crazy chick (edit: observed someone get fucked over by a crazy chick), and you think she represents some kind of standard every guy has had to deal with. You're the one making generalizations based on what you already admit is a small number of people, not me.

Also, it's "whether", not "weather". And don't put an apostrophe in "it's" unless you actually mean "it is" (you do that all the time). Honestly, when people make a conscious decision to completely ignore basic rules of communication, especially in a forum where one's very identity is formed exclusively by how well one communicates, well, they might as well be a creationist as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

I never said every guy has to deal with it in a blank, broad statement. I saidmostguyson some level, and it's very frightening. Now, in English, Tan, those two conventions denote "not all" and "different levels of involvement" (In this case observation, and the fall out from said observation, to direct.). Hence we believe it's rational that some rape claims are from crazy women, and that the feminist mantra of women can't lie is bullshit. It's sad that even half assing it my English is still superior to yours, and your job is literally to teach it. Learn to read.

Is that what you have now? Grammar trolling? hah, Tan, its so sad to see you reduced to this. Btw, I caught the weather in an edit (Which I reverted because you replied before it went up); I'm posting quickly between tax forms, I tend to not give you very detailed responses, sorry Tan, your just not worth it. (See what I did there?) Again though, given your disturbing lack of comprehension? I believe you are the last one that should be giving communication advice.

Tell everyone again howI bet most men on this board have had to deal with this on some level=You got fucked over by a crazy chick (edit: observed someone get fucked over by a crazy chick), and you think she represents some kind of standard every guy has had to deal with.(That's some fantastic reading comprehension buddy).

lol, but really this is par for the course. Like drunk consent, moon landings and talking about Hitman. Get back on your troll game, Tan; you are slipping.

Mist_sl said:

You suck at answering survey questions.

PS: The reduction in sex in the western world came because of the HIV crisis, and has gone back up since then. It would be hard to say there's a reduction in sex in the western world unless you were using a very odd time axis.

Click to expand...

I actually do suck at surveys because I've gotten so used to having to account for many variables =-/.

Really on the PS?I thought it was still dropping.On the magnitude of 10-20% or so.

Tanoomba_sl said:

Excuse me? Do you know how long it took language to evolve to its current form? Do you know where mankind would be right now if it weren't for language? Do you know how much of our culture is actually shaped by the words we use to discuss it? Can you even begin to grasp how powerful words are and how essential they have become in every aspect of our lives? They allow us to plan, to share ideas, to record events, tothink and be aware of our thoughts, and here you are waving 'em off as some afterthought. I happen to have some respect for how language works and how significant its impact is. I think the fact that you don't says a lot about your character. How can I take anything you have to say seriously when I know you're totally flippant about language and the proper usage of words? It's not like you haven't been exposed to the proper spelling of "whether" before, and you had to have learned the "its" vs "it's" rule in elementary school... I guess you just don't give a shit. That's your prerogative. Some of us have a little more respect for the greatest achievements of mankind, however. "Grammar trolling", indeed.

Click to expand...

Christ, you're an insufferable faggot.

In your list of "greatest achievements of mankind", where does the moon landing come in?

Tanoomba_sl said:

Excuse me? Do you know how long it took language to evolve to its current form? Do you know where mankind would be right now if it weren't for language? Do you know how much of our culture is actually shaped by the words we use to discuss it? Can you even begin to grasp how powerful words are and how essential they have become in every aspect of our lives? They allow us to plan, to share ideas, to record events, tothink and be aware of our thoughts, and here you are waving 'em off as some afterthought. I happen to have some respect for how language works and how significant its impact is. I think the fact that you don't says a lot about your character. How can I take anything you have to say seriously when I know you're totally flippant about language and the proper usage of words? It's not like you haven't been exposed to the proper spelling of "whether" before, and you had to have learned the "its" vs "it's" rule in elementary school... I guess you just don't give a shit. That's your prerogative. Some of us have a little more respect for the greatest achievements of mankind, however. "Grammar trolling", indeed.

Click to expand...

I'm waving off you as an afterthought, Tan. Language is a beautiful and complex thing, and crafting it "well" for you is beneath me. Your comprehension is still lacking to not pick up on that, it wasn't exactly subtle. You did get the "don't give a shit" part right, just not the thing I don't give a shit about (Just because your comprehension is so bad, once more, it's you). You're a bad troll Tan, and if you've been reduced to grammar trolling me? I've been successful .