Red Pill Thread 2.0: Neckbeard Revenge

Gryphe_sl said:

Ok. Prove it. That is, prove your assertion that "women's carnal desire and how they choose their mates are the same".

This is a serious request.

Click to expand...

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:

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...

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...

Jive Turkey_sl said:

And I know that you're talking about sexual market value, which is why I find it funny that you think you've got any place to talk

Click to expand...

Jive Turkey_sl said:

Look, it's Angelina ignoring Brad! What's going on here??? But the redpill!!!

Click to expand...

Jive Turkey_sl said:

Here's another. Look at that beta following after her like a lost puppy!

Click to expand...

Jive Turkey_sl said:

No, you're 400 pounds and have no right commenting on other people's looks. Get your house and life in order. Prioritize on yourself

Click to expand...

Jive Turkey_sl said:

Did you even read what Dabamf wrote aside from your usual technique of highlighting the stuff you like?

Click to expand...

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:

Antarius and Dumar, I assume you two are fine with rape? I'm sire yu can apply some twisted sick redpill logic to defend it.

Click to expand...

Jive Turkey_sl said:

I love that all three of you, in one way or another, have revealed the true nature of yourhatred for women.Dumar's introverted, autistic awkwardness surely didn't make him popular with the ladies growing up, Dead Eyes' mother is an admitted dysfunctional whore, and Himeo weighed north of 4 hundy, surely being ignored by the girls along the way. You can believe all the basic redpilldogma you like, but make no mistake, the hatred comes from somewhere else.

Click to expand...