Red Pill Thread 2.0: Neckbeard Revenge

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Dumar how many degrees do you have in neurobiology to back all these claims about instinct and decision making across a broad range of species?
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
khalid_sl said:
What really doesn't matter in a discussion about human sexuality is someone that has never had sex and one month ago was talking about how he couldn't get women to even talk to him.
Click to expand...
Now you are shoving words in my mouth. You desperate scum.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,728
9,119
Himeo_sl said:
Then google the information yourself. It's been provided for you. If you're too lazy to put in effort you contribute nothing to this thread.
Click to expand...
I'm having a conversation with your neckbeard brethren. Surely he can speak for himself.

If you think I'm going to wade through pages of redpillwankery, you've got another thing coming. Now kindly fuck off
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Himeo_sl said:
Fixed.

There's no reason to rehash the basics on every page of this thread. All of that stuff is in the original post.
Click to expand...
The only shit in the original post is abunch of links to RedPillblogs. That isn't science or evidence at all. It is echo chamber bullshit.
 
Himeo

Himeo

Vyemm Raider
3,263
2,802
Jive Turkey_sl said:
If you think I'm going to wade through pages of redpillwankery, you've got another thing coming.
Click to expand...
What's the point? You've already admitted you don't care about this stuff. You're not going to read what he writes. You're just wasting everyone's time.

Explain how you're anything other than a troll and I'll answer the question.

khalid_sl said:
The only shit in the original post is abunch of links to RedPillblogs. That isn't science or evidence at all. It is echo chamber bullshit.
Click to expand...
You're mixing things up. He wants someone to hold his hand through hypergamy 101. There's no point.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,728
9,119
Himeo_sl said:
What's the point? You've already admitted you don't care about this stuff. You're not going to read what he writes. You're just wasting everyone's time.

Explain how you're anything other than a troll and I'll answer the question.



You're mixing things up. He wants someone to hold his hand through hypergamy 101. There's no point.
Click to expand...
I am going to read what he writes and then tear it apart. You guys would love to think your little group is based on evolution and evidence, but it isn't. You've got all these insecurities that you'd like to chalk up to "the way it is" only it's not the way it is. Your cuckolding bullshit is the pinnacle of your stupidity, so I figure it's a good reference point. So why don't you step up for him since he buggered off? Cuckolding theory with evolutionary support. Go ahead
 
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,777
31,943
Maybe, and you have a good shot at nabbing a few bills from Antarius.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
Jive Turkey_sl said:
"humans choose a mate based on innate, evolutionarily based instincts" says fucking NOTHING. [...] I want this clown to explain it to me himself from an evolutionary standpoint
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it says everything. What it means for those of us here in reality is that women don't choose a mate based on their reasoned thought, but onlimbic instinctas I said, which leads us to an explanation of the instinct:

First and foremost it's important to understand the part that women's biologies play in influencing Hypergamy and how women's biology is more or less the point of origin for how they conduct their sexual strategy. To review, I'll ask that readers refer to my post Your Friend Menstruation, but the basis of women's sexual pluralism is found in the natural attraction predispositions that women experience as a result of (healthy) ovulation.

In her up cycle (proliferative) phase of ovulation, women are psychologically and behaviorally motivated to prioritize physical arousal above all other breeding considerations. In her down cycle (post-ovulation, luteal phase) women a similarly motivated to prioritize comfort, rapport, and long term security to ensure parental investment and benefit survival.

What I've described here, in as brief a fashion, is the foundation of Ovulatory Shift. There exists over a decade's worth of experimental psychological and biological evidence supporting this theory. Due to biological and psychological influence, women become subliminally predisposed to behaviors which maximize fertility odds with the best available breeding opportunity, and maximize the best potential for long term provisioning and parental investment.

Whether this behavior is manifested in a preference for more masculinized male faces and body type, greater ornamentation and lower vocal intonation for women during ovulation, or a predisposition for more comforting, nurturing and supportive male characteristics during her luteal phase, the end result is optimizing Hypergamy, and ultimately reproduction.
Click to expand...
Sampleof research, and this information is mostly all ubiquitous.

How does this inform us? It informs our thoughts above: that women make decisions based on instinct, and what decisions do these instincts make to maximize reproductive success? Cuckoldry, or:

alpha fux, beta bux.
 
Himeo

Himeo

Vyemm Raider
3,263
2,802
Jive Turkey_sl said:
TL;DR
Click to expand...
Sure thing troll, I'll get right on that.

edit: fucking Dumar...
frown.png
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,728
9,119
Dumar_sl said:
On the contrary, it says everything. What it means for those of us here in reality is that women don't choose a mate based on their reasoned thought, but onlimbic instinctas I said, which leads us to an explanation of the instinct:



Sampleof research, and this information is mostly all ubiquitous.

How does this inform us? It informs our thoughts above: that women make decisions based on instinct, and what decisions do these instincts make to maximize reproductive success? Cuckoldry, or:

alpha fux, beta bux.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the redpill references, I guess.... jesus fuck
 
Himeo

Himeo

Vyemm Raider
3,263
2,802
Science.

Changes in Women's Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle

Women most attracted to arrogance, confrontative behavior, and musculature for short term relationships

Everybody's been talking about the ovulatory cycle, even mass media articles. So here it is redpill style.

The science is pretty clear. Women go for good genes when they're ovulating and beta resources the rest of the month. Same with short term versus long term relationships. What's interesting is the specific traits and behaviors they're attracted to, and how these traits interact.

This quote for example:

Relative to women low in conception risk, those high in conception risk particularly preferred as >short-term mates men who appeared more confrontative, arrogant, muscular, socially >respected, and physically attractive. When high in conception risk, women were also more >attracted to men who were viewed as lower on faithfulness as short-term mates.
Click to expand...
You heard that right. Women are more attracted to men who they think are unfaithful.

We also tested these effects while statistically controlling for two behavioral display > indicators examined by Gangestad et al. (2004), Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual > Competitiveness. In most instances, interactions remained significant or neared significance, > indicating that the effects reported here are not redundant with the effects reported > previously. For confrontativeness, arrogance, faithfulness, and muscularity, ts = 3.13 >(df = 7986), 2.64 (df = 8081), -2.27 (df = 8057), and 1.85 (df = 7957), > respectively, all ps < .041. For social respect, t(7927) = 1.51 (p = .081). For physical > attractiveness, the effect dropped to nonsiginifance.t(7925) = 1.09, ns. Women rely > on behavioral information when evaluating the attractiveness of men. The results suggest > that fertile women are particularly attracted to these components of physical attractiveness.
Click to expand...
What this quote is saying is that even while controlling for two big traits that were found attractive in a previous study (Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness), the traits in this study were still significance and the one that was most significant was social respect (p = 0.81).

confrontativeness: 3.13 arrogance: 2.64 muscularity: 1.85 faithfulness: -2.27

Basically, women love shit starting cunts.

The most interesting part was this chart:

rrr_img_74395.jpg


Womens standards of attractiveness do not change across the cycle in general for all mate > traits. Standards associated with particular traits perceived systemically change. This > pattern is consistent with the good genes hypothesis. This hypothesis however makes an > even more specific prediction. about which male traits should be most attractive to fertile > women. Fertile women should be especially drawn to men who possess traits typically values > in short term mates.

Figure 1 shows the results of these tests. As can be seen, the extent to which male traits > were preferred in short-term mating contexts strongly predicted the extent to which this > was particularly true of fertile versus infertile women. indeed the correlation is close to > perfect .93.
Click to expand...
And thus the arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl while the warm faithful beta stays home and faps into his sock
Click to expand...
Here's our resident evolutionary psychology expert's take on that link from a previous thread.

Dabamf_sl said:
OK so you read 1 article after I asked you how many. Meaning you have no education in evo psych. And you are still arguing that you have enough expertise in evolutionary psych to confidently say everyone else has it all wrong?

I skimmed that article. It was a dense read even for me, who is in the field. It's an incredibly complicated study design. I'm talking top 5% complicated, so I'm kinda shaking my head at redpill dudes cherry picking quotes out of it. Especially that graph.

JPSP is a very good journal, so you can be pretty safe in taking the author's conclusions mostly at face value without pouring over the methods (which is a nightmare due to study design + surprisingly poor writing). However, the effect sizes are quire small, and the authors' statements that "these effects mostly remain when controlling for the 2 factors [past lit has said we must control for]" are not entirely true because in several cases p is barely under and sometimes even over .05. With the sheer number of analyses they're doing, they have no justification in calling a p over .05 "almost significant." In fact, they should be doing adjustments to their alpha due to the number of analyses (basically, more analyses means that false positive rate skyrockets, so good practice is to do some kind of adjustment). This isn't a knock on them; that's just how things are done right now. But it does mean that the take-home of the results is "interesting, but not all that compeling."

The graph with r=.93 is weird and their writing is so bad it makes it hard to follow. It looks like its a correlation between the 2-way interaction and the 3-way interaction, presumably suggesting the same thing (evolution-based contextually-dependent mate preference) drives both? That's potentially true but very speculative based on these data. It also seems tautological, and an r=.93 is preposterously high for a psychology study, suggesting it is tuatelogical. Even the absolute best predictor in psychology is lucky to get an r of .7

Anyway, it's an interesting study, and my understanding is that this finding is now well accepted in the evo psych lit.However, and most importantly, like everything in psychology, the effect sizes appear quite small. They didn't report them and I'm in no mood to do the math in a multilevel modeling study, but with degrees of freedom in the 8000s and pS of anything greater than .001, they're bound to be small to miniscule.

In other words, there is a real difference in preference of mates when talking of short term vs long term and whether or not the woman is ovulating, but it doesn't explain even a fraction of female attraction.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.