Hello everyone,
After finding this sub from a thread on the front page I've been reading stuff from the side bar and past threads. I find some of the ideas interesting but I am hung up by statistics and research that doesn't really align with the conclusions made here. I'm wondering how RedPill addresses them. Namely:
-
It seems like a lot of the discussion revolves around "hypergamy" and a women's propensity to cheat. What about statistics that show that most women (and men) don't cheat in marriage (and in most of their relationships), and that men are estimated to cheat more often? Stats can be found here and here and even on the Wikipedia page on infidelity. I've also heard stats that estimate that women are much more likely than men to commit EMOTIONAL rather than PHYSICAL infidelity, although I can't find them at the moment. This wouldn't make sense in the context of hypergamy.
- Somebody in another thread criticizing RedPill brought up John Gottman's research, and I found that very interesting. He's managed to predict divorce at a very high rate using his model, and some of the factors that lead to divorce seem contradictory to the strategies that RedPiller's stand by. Info on his research can be found here and here and, of course, on his Wikipedia page.
A finding from the first link that seems to fly in the face of RedPill ideas:
The happiest, most stable marriages are those in which the husband treats his wife with respect and does not resist power sharing and decision making with her. When the couple disagrees, these husbands actively search for common ground rather than insisting on getting their way. It’s just as important for wives to treat their husbands with honor and respect. But our data indicate that the vast majority of wives—even in unstable marriages—already do that. Too often men do not return the favor.
So why should I follow RedPill advice versus well-respected empirical research? Why should I care about the concept of "hypergamy" if the stats indicate that it's not really a thing? So far I've found RedPill calling on evolutionary psychology and anecdotes to support conclusions. Is there anything else?
[deleted] 12y ago
Hello trglpur,
Just found this thread. My first immediate thought is that hypergamy and women's propensity to cheat should not be too closely linked. TRP is much more about the first than the second, the first is much better evidenced than the second, and cheating can be much easier suppressed by cultural factors, laws, and whole lot of other things than hypergamy.
It is perfectly easy to imagine hypergamy without cheating - it's simply dumping a guy every time a better one comes around. It is even perfectly possible to imagine low number of partners with hypergamy: that is basically staying single until a really alpha guy comes around, "waiting for the real love" kind of stuff.
All I want to say that hypergamy is something much more profound than cheating or promiscuity. The forever virgin who waits for the prince on the white horse is still hypergamous.
So if you find some studies that question the cheating part that is great, but that has nothing to do with the hypergamy part and that is much more important.
Having looked at Gottman's wiki site, I think you may be mistaking the most radical voices inside the TRP community for the whole of the concept. Nobody says you can confident-asshole your way through a marriage: that is simply meant for one night stands with insecure 20 year old girls in clubs.
TRP applied to a lasting marriage is much more moderate than TRP for party-fucks. The best resource is probably http://marriedmansexlife.com/
To give a quick summary of Athol Kay's position: a good husband maxes out both on alpha and beta, and treats his wife like a Captain Kirk treats a first mate: there is no question that he is in charge and making the decisions, but on the other hand he genuinely cares for the comfort and happiness of the wife and makes decisions accordingly, that also includes listening to her etc. So basically he learns to differentiate shit tests from genuine complains or requests and so on.
Does this sound really imcompatible with Gottman's work?
trglpur 12y ago
Yeah, I would say it does.
"husband treats his wife with respect and does not resist power sharing"
Does not mesh with:
Also,
Fair enough, but as I browsed the comments and content before I posted, it seemed like most people used ramptant cheating as evidence of hypergamy. This is what I was addressing.
Anyway, as I mentioned in other comments, nobody in this entire thread, (after dozens of comments) was able to give me concrete research supporting TRP ideals that wasn't resting on a foundation of evolutionary psychology.
Still haven't seen it. And yes, I browsed the front page extensively before I first posted this.
telnet_reddit_80 12y ago
What research? The quote you pulled
is from an article summarising a feel-good, self-help book. That's like a quaternary source. You cannot reasonably expect anyone to chase it down for you.
The actual, hard data you cite is in line with the general thinking here, for example
Most women will cheat. And that's the lower bound because they're only counting those who fess up. How many don't? Even to themselves? "I didn't cheat, he didn't care about me." And we know that women will lie more often on sex surveys [PDF]. So how many have actually cheated? How many would, given a tempting opportunity?
Please, peruse our archive of scientific evidence and primary sources and try a little harder than first results in google or wikipedia.
redpillschooled 12y ago
That source still claims that men cheat more often than women. In particular, the rate among married men is nearly twice that of married women. Moreover, you've chosen to compare "cheated at least once," which seems very misleading--for example, studies might find that everyone has "lied at least once" but that doesn't tell me if men or women are likelier to be habitual liars. Perhaps women lie many orders of magnitude more than men despite 100% of men having lied once.
Right. Your statistics showed us that. They also showed that most men will cheat... and that this number is higher among men than women.
This made no claims about whether women lie about cheating more often--that was not studied. It concludes there may be sex difference "in self-reported sexual behavior ... responses influenced by normative expectations for men and women" such as masturbation and pornography (indeed "The results were clearest for autonomous sexual behav- iors"). Cheating does not fall into that category.
And you may want to read it again: it also suggests that men lie more than women in some categories. So "men and women use gender-specific self-presentation strategies when report- ing their sexual behavior."
So where is the evidence that women are cheating more than men?
telnet_reddit_80 12y ago
So? I don't date men, what do I care.
You came to a subreddit where people openly advocate maintaining multiple concurrent relationships to shock us with statistics showing that men cheat?
It's not misleading. It's the best empirical indicator of whether a woman would cheat.
But it was a survey. And, as I've pointed out, in those surveys women tend to embellish more:
Cheating doesn't fall into "self-reported sexual behavior"? You're getting desperate here. It's like those "virgins" who only gave blowjobs and did anal.
You brought a survey (self-reported data) and a self-help book to the thread. Not only it doesn't contradict any popular belief here, it lacks insight and weight. What do you expect from this discussion?
SpawnQuixote 12y ago
Wikipedia is a bastion of feminist "science" and opinion.
telnet_reddit_80 12y ago
How dare you question Wikipedia [NSFW].
trglpur 12y ago
I know it's quality research and is well respected, so I don't need you to chase it down for me (you'd probably have to get through the pay walls or check your book store). I'm asking you to provide a counterpoint with some hard data that you also deem of high quality.
Yes, most women and most men will cheat at some point, with men cheating more frequently than women. (I'd imagine that most of those instances of cheating are with younger and less mature couples.) Anyway, big whoop, both genders often have trouble with monogamy at some point. What conclusions related to RedPill can you make with just that?
[deleted] 12y ago
[deleted]
trglpur 12y ago
Ok, fair enough. Thank you for the response.
The fact is, it's clear to me that there are lines of research (like Gottman's), in addition to numerous statistics, that together provide compelling evidence against much of the RedPill ideology. If there really isn't any research out there supporting RedPill thought (and at this point, with all of the research that's been done, there really should be something) that can compete with that, then it appears there's much more of a compelling reason to not take any sort of pill.
[deleted] 12y ago
[deleted]
trglpur 12y ago
Outside of the general (no shit) advice of "women are attracted to confidence, assertiveness, and self-respect" my personal experience does not really support RedPill theory (unless I really want to stretch things to fit).
RedSunBlue 12y ago
Not exactly. It revolves around a woman's propensity to seek a higher quality male. Note that while the percentage of women who cheat is not much lower than the percentage of men who cheat (14% vs 22%), nearly three quarters of divorces in the US are filed by women.
With the current state of divorce law, why would a woman bother to cheat when she could just no-fault divorce her husband and take half his shit?
[deleted] 12y ago
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
gprime312 12y ago
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1cumnv/how_does_redpill_address_these_statistics_and/c9k5jk7
redpillschooled 12y ago
What is this supposed to prove? All it suggests to me is that women spearhead paperwork.
This statistic does not tell us how many women left to upgrade to a better husband (in the economic/SMV terms you apply with evo psych and hypergamy models). For example, if all of those women filed for divorce after their husbands cheated on them, it clearly would not support anything you're claiming here. If all of these women are divorcing because their alpha husband's unequal treatment/attitude is driving them toward beta males, it wouldn't support your claims either.
This cherry picked stat doesn't seem to support the claims here.
2StandardDeviations 12y ago
_
Really? That's all it suggests to you? Really? That's all?
redpillschooled 12y ago
I see this was hard for you: it is a tongue-in-cheek comment that illustrates the data does not provide or suggest motive/causes and there are countless possible explanations. That's why I even provided a few examples.
RedditBlueit 12y ago
In the US, the single most predictive factor for who initiates divorce is who gets the children, and how much child support is involved. The "Husband Dumps Older Wife for Younger Model" is much, much more rare.
Data.
redpillschooled 12y ago
Still haven't supported the claims made here.
Clearly the fact that someone ends up better off after a divorce is not the same as hypergamy. Where is the study of those actual statistics, the people leaving a marriage so that they can marry up?
No one has provided a single shred of evidence about that, or anything that says anything about (supposedly hypergamous) relationships post-divorce.
Where is the evidence suggesting this is a cause and not a coincidence? Women file most divorces; women also are far likelier to file for child custody; women are likelier to end up with child custody. Your observation here is like saying that tampon purchase history is the biggest predictor of who will file.
RedditBlueit 12y ago
Good point. I concede the paper does not support that claim.
I'd suggest you read the Brinig paper. It's a pretty sophisticated regression analysis that controls for many variables.
Conclusion:
trglpur 12y ago
Thanks for your response.
Anyway, it looks like it's closer to 2/3rds.
That's definitely an imbalance though, you're right. However, that same page estimates 40-50% of all marriages end in divorce. Let's just average that out and say 45%. So out of all marriages, the chances of a divorce happening and a woman initiating the divorce are about 30%.
That's definitely not a trivial number, but is it really a big enough to validate the idea of hypergamy? Especially when it's mentioned with the higher cheating numbers with men (I'd imagine a number of those divorces are because the men were caught cheating).
30303030303030 12y ago
it's 2013, a lot has changed in marriage since then
I've read about ~80% of divorces filed by women. I'll look for it.
CafeOblivion 12y ago
Why are you cherrypicking the data you look at? A lot has changed in 25 years regarding those statistics, some estimates put it as close to 90% of divorces being filed by women, with two-thirds being a low estimate.
trglpur 12y ago
You and a few others keep mentioning the 90% number. I'd be happy to consider it if somebody, anybody, could actually cite it.
Anyway your pull-quote was from a different section - thanks pointing it out.
I found the source for that paragraph here and couldn't find mention of the 90% for college-educated couples. Let me know if you have any luck. Even if it were true, the base rate of divorce for college-educated couples is much lower, at 20%-35% depending on age of marriage, so that kind of undermines the whole argument that women are compulsively looking to switch out for something better. I also noticed the table on page 159, which is more indicative of how one-sided divorces are. While it's still unbalanced, it looks like the "woman wanted it more" cases are less than 50%.
Edit: I also want to mention that the argument put forth in the paper is pretty compelling.
RedditBlueit 12y ago
I'm skeptical of the 90% number as well.
This Book claims 91%, but I don't know the source.
Most data I've seen show ~65-75% of US and Canadian divorces are initiated by women.
Here's another look at the phenomena. Dalrock often backs his arguments with survey or census data.
trglpur 12y ago
Are you serious with that Dalrock post? I'm sorry but that was ridiculous. He uses the fact that divorce rates are highest in the beginning of a marriage as evidence that women are committing divorce based on the incentive to commit divorce theft? Talk about a leap of logic. What about the fact that, I don't know, people are going to find that they're not a good match well before they've been together for 25 years?
The "boots" paper I covered in a reply to somebody else. It's an interesting read, but it's more damning of RedPill theory than anything else.
Edit: Oh, duh, I covered the "boots" paper in the reply that you replied to. The perils of replying to people using your inbox.
[deleted] 12y ago
Cheating numbers don't really have anything to do with hypergamy. Hypergamy is "upgrading your partner", regardless of whether cheating occurs. The stats ive seen re:divorce says between 70-90% of divorces are initiated by the woman.
trglpur 12y ago
Most of the content I've seen seems to use cheating frequency as evidence of "hypergamy" in the sense that it urges men to stay on their toes because women (more than men) are always on the lookout to trade the second a more "alpha" male comes along. My first point addresses that common refrain.
Aside from that I don't see how the idea of women looking for the best man is that big of a deal. Aren't guys the same with women? Women are often attracted to confidence, assertiveness, and self-respect, which I suppose you could qualify as "alpha" characteristics. If you exhibit these characteristics you're more likely to attract women. News at 11? I don't get it.
Edit: grammar
NrwhlBcnSmrt-ttck 12y ago
Cheating is not the only signal of hypergamy. Not all terminations of relationships count as cheating. Back in the day, divorce rates were effectively zero. If a girl will marry you in the first place, you either couldn't have been the worst, or she is ugly etc.
Why don't the hot girls get with the nerds in highschool? Hypergamy.
Your last paragraph shows where you are confused.
No. Men have penises, girls have vaginas.
But really, women are not generally attracted to feminine women. They are attracted to masculine men. Men are attracted to physical sexual fitness. Women are most attracted to social fitness, which is sexual in a different way. The ability to provide, status, power, social proofing.
What attracts men and women to each other is not the same. Women happen to be the gatekeepers.
Men are not attracted to assertiveness the same as women are. Men are attracted to a fine ass much more. We aren't looking for a strong, confident, respected man.
The idea is that we are all acting rationally, and most men don't understand how it works, and that we are lied to in a way that enables the feminine imperative at the detriment of the masculine.
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
trglpur 12y ago
Excuse me, you misquoted me. I said "aren't guys the same with women" in that both genders look for the "best" mate possible.
Of course not. It's probably true that men are more often swayed by looks and that men and women might weigh certain personality factors at different weights. How is this a revelation?
Once again, women are attracted to confidence, assertiveness, and self respect (among many other things). Isn't this old news?
itsmehobnob 12y ago
Women look for the best, men look for the most
dropit_sphere 12y ago
Relating to hypergamy, two points:
---The reason it's a big deal is because (you're right, it seems obvious, women are looking for the best man) men are NOT necessarily looking for the best woman. Of course, if they had the choice they'd take her, but if not, they'll take what's left. To use the crude parlance, a 7(dude) will have sex with a 4(girl), but a 7(girl) will not have sex with a 4(dude).
Even more extreme, a 7(woman) might prefer a covert (and thus weakly invested) relationship with a 10(married man), to an open, fully invested relationship with a 7(single man).
From an intuitive point of view (here be internet dragons), the theory is that for a man, each sexual encounter requires very little investment but has the colossal reward of possibly producing offspring, so the incentives are (often) to have sex with as many women as possible, following an r-strategy of reproduction.
For women, however, multiple dicks won't make more babies, so better babies is the goal. The idea is that there are two strategies for this---better genes, from an "alpha," or mediocre genes, but with greater investment in the offspring by the father (a "beta"). The Holy Grail is cuckoldry: sleep with the hot (read: "fit", determined either through direct cues, like height, youth, health, and strength, or by indirect cues, like social status, wealth, power) "alpha" for good genes, while tricking the benighted "beta" into providing investment.
One would hope no woman would pull this trick consciously; indeed, I don't think any subscribers think there's a (conscious) conspiracy going on. Rather, the contention of many is that the state serves as "beta"/surrogate husband, providing resources (often through simply confiscating them from the original beta, the husband, through child support and alimony) to support her offspring, without forcing her to be around the icky beta (i.e., her husband).
---It is true that women are often attracted to confidence, assertiveness, and self-respect; the difference is that men are much less often attracted to those same things. Those traits in particular seem to correspond to social status (which if I understand correctly, is why you chose them). The thing about status is that it's a zero-sum game: when everyone's special, no one is. The plight of Joe Average in the modern age is that, for better or for worse, some of his status now belongs to women, who now write articles for the Atlantic about how lame he is and how they don't want to marry guys like him.
ss_camaro 12y ago
Not red-pillers.
[deleted] 12y ago
Every girl I've been with has been better looking than me by far, so no not really.
dropit_sphere 12y ago
Yes, me too.
Better looking than me, sure, but possessing better sexual market value?* As trglpur notes, men are more often swayed by looks, women by...other factors. 7(dude) may be butt ugly, but he may be funny, confident, kind, smart, and that will take him far. The sad truth is that this is not the case for women.
"You're a shallow asshole!" Yes, exactly. But name-calling does not get him to call.
*I realize this concept is widely questioned, but it really shouldn't be. Prostitutes have their different prices, and they are no more immune to economics than any of us. The mistake people make is assigning normative value to it, and the (well-intentioned, laudable) reaction is "You can't summarize me with a number!" Answer: Of course not. You are a complex person with a rich inner world. But in a bar at night, or after five minutes of conversation, people make choices with imperfect information. Your SMV is not your worth as a person, but how the world sees you. And these judgments, it turns out, do tend to cluster. But don't take it personally. You are more than the people that want to have sex with you. But don't think that makes them want to have sex with you.
trglpur 12y ago
Say's who? You? Do you have any research to back up this claim? Even as far as unsubstantiated claims go it doesn't sound right. And this is ignoring the fact that you're saying that there's a magical scale that everyone falls onto equally for all people, which also sounds pretty wonky (and unsubstantiated).
Everything else you said is speculation about general mating strategies based on evolutionary psychology. As I mentioned I'm looking for something a little more solid than that.
Where is the evidence that women are looking to find the best mate more than men are? Where is the evidence that, in relation to having "alpha male" characteristics, being confident and assertive and having self-respect aren't basically the main points? Where is the evidence that this "alphaness" always trumps all other factors? Why in the world should I try to exert total control over my girlfriend or wife when I don't see any solid evidence to support that behavior and there are many compelling reasons not to?
dropit_sphere 12y ago
The (probably PUA-named) phenomenon of preselection (and its gendered nature) is a good place to start. A good definition would be:
The communication of a man’s SMV based on his ability to provide evidence of already having women in his life, thereby being “pre-selected” by females.
A 2000 study aimed to test for "mate copying" in undergraduates, and found a much stronger affect for the attitudes of female students than males. I can't find the actual paper (I know, a theme today), but here are several articles written about it (I have emailed the professor for some help finding the actual study, and will post if/when I receive a response).
1 2
This actually seems totally reasonable to me. Sure, no one has a magic number floating above their head, but can't you just measure the reactions of others and aggregate them? Are there common traits that generate attraction? This does not seem like a hard question to answer. See my response to airbrush above.
Now, maybe you take issue with the idea that we fall evenly on the scale; while women's online dating profiles apparently do have a normal distribution(see "Male Appraisals of Female Attractiveness"), men's are strongly skewed to the right (see "Female Messaging and Male Attractiveness").
What I find interesting is that in that last graph, the womens' messaging habits are much more similar to their ratings of male attractiveness, while the mens' messaging habits are out of step with their ratings of female attractiveness. Thus, the males, while messaging optimistically, may know they're "playing out of their league," while the females, who are also messaging optimistically, may not know they're swinging for the fences, because the skew came in their judgments of the men ("There are no good men"), rather than in their choice.
Don't take my comments at face value. I encourage you to look at the data yourself and draw your own conclusions.
EDIT:I realize I have not addressed the concepts of dominance and submission, which are not identical (though connected) to hypergamy. More coming.
trglpur 12y ago
Thank you. I'm happy to see some more hard data.
That said, I'm not sure how the Dugatkin study demonstrates that only woman and not men are on the lookout for a) the most desirable woman to have sex with or b) the most desirable woman to date and/or marry. To me it just indicates that men put less stock in the opinions of other guys and are more prone to evaluate women based on their own criteria.
Regarding the ranking of people on a scale. I agree that you can take gross averages and put people on a scale of desirability based on all of their traits, but the important thing to remember is that those are averages. You can average most anything. On an individual level, however, with each factor (physical attractiveness, personality factors, etc) there's going to be quite a bit of variation in personal preferences that are going to make this "ranking" less realistic. An "8" to you is a "6" to me, etc. On a more anecdotal level, half of my friends are dating girls I'd never want to date, but they think these girls are amazing. I'm sure this is common.
redpillschool Admin 12y ago
I wouldn't say that's the prime example of hypergamy, just the loudest example on our sub. Unfortunately, people upvote the most scandalous examples because they're entertaining.
Hypergamy can just as much present itself in a loveless marriage without divorce, in a long term relationship that ends without cheating, in emotional cheating (with no phyiscal contact), and in relationships that are working perfectly (the man has sufficient value to counter-balance her hypergamy).
The question we're asking here is about the mechanism that encourages a woman's behavior. Statistics are an important aspect of psychology on any level, but only when testing a particular mechanism. The divorce and cheating statistics would be more valuable if we knew the story behind it and the values of the male and female involved.
That's why we keep collecting so many stories. It may not be a scientific study, but it's enough data to at least posit a hypothesis.
trglpur 12y ago
Where is there evidence for the existence of hypergamy outside of conclusions made using evolutionary psychology and anecdotes? Where is the evidence that suggests that the bulk (or all?) of loveless marriages, relationship failures, or infidelity are caused by the male not being "alpha" enough or being in control?
It seemed like cheating was one of the big points of evidence that people on this sub use, so that's the one I addressed in my effort to find something more substantial. If it's not the prime example, what is? Why should I care about being "alpha" more than the general good guidelines of being confident, assertive, and having self respect? Why should I try to control my wife or girlfriend as opposed to treating them the way that Gottman recommends? Once again, I'm looking for something more than conclusions made based on evolutionary psychology.
redpillschool Admin 12y ago
If a woman has two options, good looking garbage man who makes $20k, and good looking doctor who makes $150k, which one will she pick?
[deleted] 12y ago
[deleted]
SpawnQuixote 12y ago
Discussion isn't about relationships with men though.
Kepaso 12y ago
why do you say '' to control my wife''. We are not controlling them.
trglpur 12y ago
"but give her the choice between a father figure, an asshole, and a sniveling boy and the father figure will win, every time. part of that is giving validation, creating boundaries, being clearly in control"
Kepaso 12y ago
being in control, not controling her. it's just when i saw ''control', i thought you had in mind a control freak guy or a extreme muslim dictating his wife, it s not like that. I would say that the correct term would be to lead. while they like their freedom and they can do what they want, women like a confident, leading man in a couple.
trglpur 12y ago
Ok, semantics, whatever. The main point I'm trying to get at is having an attitude that is different from the Gottman pull quote I used. Call it being in "control" or being a "confident, leading man," or whatever you want.
[deleted] 12y ago
Moving the goal posts is fun.
dropit_sphere 12y ago
If you come in here wanting to win, then fuck you. We're here searching for truth. True, for a highly selfish purpose---but that's why we care so much about avoiding bullshit. We welcome the kind of questioning trglpur is doing, but passive-aggressive one-liners like this do not help anyone get laid.
[deleted] 12y ago
There's more to life and even relationships than just getting laid. That's probably the problem with this subreddit, nobody here has grown up yet.
[deleted] 12y ago
[deleted]
[deleted]
dropit_sphere 12y ago
Gosh, this is such self-righteous bullshit.
Turns out, sexual satisfaction of husbands is highly correlated to likelihood of divorce. Divorce wreaks havoc on kids. Unironically, this stuff matters for the sake of the children.
[deleted] 12y ago
You're not talking about 'getting laid' in the context of a loving relationship.
This entire subreddit is geared towards trying to have as much sex with as many women ( or 'spinning plates' as you call them ) as possible. Which is fine if you're into that but don't pretend it's some sort of noble crusade and don't pretend it's all that matters.
dropit_sphere 12y ago
True, not everyone here is aiming for Leave-It-to-Beaver style monogamy. But many are---look at the sidebar. Rollo Tomassi (penname of the man behind rationalmale.wordpress.com) is happily married. Dalrock (penname of the man behind, err, dalrock.wordpress.com) is a conservative Christian father. Vox Day, penname of the man behind alphagameplan.blogspot.com, is a married Christian. I'm Mormon(and not the polygamous kind). If you look in my comment history, I just linked a new subscriber to marriedmansexlife.com, which is about...surprise...sex within marriage!
So no, the entire subreddit is not geared towards trying to have as much sex with as many women as possible.
[deleted] 12y ago
A guy being married doesn't change that he's just giving advice on how to have sex with as many women as possible.
dropit_sphere 12y ago
A guy being a firearms trainer for the military doesn't change the fact that he's just giving advice on how to kill people. What's your point? This stuff isn't moral, it isn't immoral, it's amoral. Women do not have magic powers that test the moral character of the men they sleep with. The morality of any of this is in how you use it, not the knowledge itself. I prefer knowing to not knowing.
2StandardDeviations 12y ago
[deleted] 12y ago
If all you care about is getting laid then yes knowing how to manipulate women into sex would be great knowledge to have.
Keep telling me it's amoral if that's what makes you feel better.
[deleted] 12y ago
[deleted]
trglpur 12y ago
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I'm not really sure how your first point addresses the stats in my first point. Can you clarify?
Regarding the Gottman research, it does sound like the therapy is crap, but if you read more closely the basic gist is the therapy wasn't able to alter the way the participants behaved and communicated. That just says something about the effectiveness of the therapy regimen, not of the validity of predicting divorce based on the factors he's identified.
NrwhlBcnSmrt-ttck 12y ago
Your statistics are not reflective of hypergamy. Hypergamy is not simply the propensity to cheat. His first point is addressing this misinterpretation. Definition of terms. Inatead of being "the propensity to cheat", it is 'the propensity to maximize favorable outcomes'.
It's not simply that they cheat on the nerd, it's that they don't initially consider them.. And that if they somehow did, they are always looking for better. Even if he is not a nerd. She may not leave him, but she is ALWAYS looking for better.
[deleted] 12y ago
Then please, for the sake of OP, point us in the direction of some statistics that are. Because like him, I'm not seeing the evidence.
Prove it. And no, the plural of anecdote is not data.
redpillschool Admin 12y ago
The singular of data is anecdote. You seem to fail to understand just how data is collected.
Imagine how angry you'd be at Copernicus for lacking the peer reviewed studies for a politically incorrect theory.
dropit_sphere 12y ago
First, thank you for coming in like a baller with numbers and questions rather than accusations.
Re: cheating, others here are correct to point to divorce rather than cheating during the marriage interval. I would disagree that women being more tilted toward emotional OR physical infidelity has any bearing on the concept of hypergamy---the real question is, when infidelity (or heck, a legitimate relationship/marriage) happens, how does the male compare to the female?
As for John Gottman, I basically ignored the first link because it seemed to lack data (it gave conclusions reached from data, but no actual data), read the second one and found some interesting but ultimately inconclusive stuff (again, no numbers, though the section on women calming more quickly is food for thought).
I thought wikipedia would be the real meat for me, but unfortunately all his papers (thankfully, cited) are behind paywalls. As such, I'm left kind of hanging.
I realize the hypocrisy of demanding harder data while blithely throwing around made-up terms like "feminine imperative" and "rationalization hamster." I'd ask that you bear with us, stick around, and keep asking questions.
[deleted] 12y ago
solid reply, hopefully he sees this and continues on the adventure, instead of throwing his hands up and walking away. Internet makes it damn hard to effectively communicate to those who are on the edge of their own decision to pursue TRP
trglpur 12y ago
Ok, then I'm looking for some hard info on that. Do you have any? The only reason I specifically brought up the cheating rates is because many people in other threads seemed to use that as evidence for hypergamy.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm asking for you to provide me with counterpoints. I am personally familiar enough with Gottman's research to feel that it is credible.
[deleted] 12y ago
[deleted]
itsmehobnob 12y ago
I'd change this slightly. They all act on their hypergamous nature (to varying degrees), but some have already found the best possible partner. Acting on hypergamy, for these women, is to remain faithful to their partner.
delta_hedge 12y ago
regarding cheating: you cant compare women cheating to men cheating. just compare the behaviour of male/female toward their original partner after cheating, and you will see there is a huge difference. or the testorone levels (which are directly correlated with cheating).
it sounds like double standards, but you are comparing apple with oranges.
regarding the gottman stuff: i dont believe those conclusions for one second. vast majority of wives respect their husband and men dont? bullcrap. maybe in 1992, but that was more than 20 years ago. things have changed.
[deleted] 12y ago
[deleted]
redpillschooled 12y ago
You have lumped together either husband or wife cheating, either physically or emotionally, and use that stat to challenge the idea that "women don't cheat." That's a bit misleading, unless you're saying you cannot control whether you cheat in a marriage you enter into.
If you control your end of the bargain, then you only need to know the percentage of marriages where women cheat (about 14%, compared to about 22% for husbands).
Seafor_c4 12y ago
I'd like to address the "respect" that you're talking about. You seem to think that we red pillers don't respect women, which is wrong. I respect women the same way I respect men. I just understand that women respond and act differently than men do. Therefore I can cater my behavior to them in a more optimal way. This could be for the goal of just having rampant sex and gaming them for that purpose, or I could cater my behavior to that of a monogamous long term relationship. Swallowing the red pill doesn't turn you into a woman hating asshole. I admit that some of the people in this sub tend to be a little bitter after waking up to the lies we've been fed about man to woman relationships our whole lives, but that isn't the actual goal of the red pill. It's to wake up men to how our relationships with the opposite sex actually work. How one handles this info is entirely up to them.
redpillschool Admin 12y ago
This is a great thread, sorry I'm late, looks like everybody already got to it. Good stuff.
mrpoopistan 12y ago
Divorce and marriage are largely not the domain of Game. Yes, I realize there are bloggers who go that direction. But, on balance we're mostly talking about the lives of single men here.
Game is concerned with dating, sex and relationships in the context of modern life in the age of widespread birth control. Attaining a girlfriend is a different proposition in the mating market than retaining a wife.
One presumes that if a woman has opted to wife herself up, she has arrived at some state in her life where that is the optimal outcome. Either she has found a quality male or she has been in the market so long she decided to settle down with the best option available at the time. Again, that is a wildly different proposition than trying to bed a sexually active 20 year old who has many dating options.
trglpur 12y ago
Got it, and I do see that a lot of the content is geared toward helping put single guys in the mindset to help them get the sex lives they want.
In that context my question is related to ideas in the sub that relate to longer term (marriage or not) relationships with women.
mrpoopistan 12y ago
From personal experience in one of my circles of friends, there is a chick I know who is now about 40 years old.
Her first marriage was to a martial arts instructor. Now, he was killed in a motorcycle accident. So, essentially, martial arts + motorcycle = alpha with room to spare. Long marriage, multiple kids.
After that she married a short, fat construction company contractor who bought her everything she wanted. Wanna venture a guess how long that marriage lasted? It lasted less than a year.
NrwhlBcnSmrt-ttck 12y ago
Just because she got married doesn't mean she gave up. It just switches to married game. Hypergamy doesn't care if you are married. You better be an alpha husband or she will be thinking about leaving you.
mrpoopistan 12y ago
I think this is a fair version of the answers you would see from the marriage game bloggers. The idea is essentially to remember to keep her on her toes.
All I can think of when people talk about marriage game are the episodes of Dr. Phil I've seen where the wife has a husband who is cheating on her with six different women and the wife is sitting there crying that she wants to save the marriage. Then I think about the episodes where the husband is sitting looking kicked in the ass and he's the one crying he wants to save the marriage.
[deleted] 12y ago
At some level yes its true. My Father at face value is a very beta guy, and my mom is a very beautiful, and rare kind of women. But under the hood things take a different view with the red pill. My father, wasnt a virgin when he met my mother. He had been in several long term relationships, was his own man and still is. My mother on the other hand never dated before she met him. She still had an extremely long screening process but he passed all of them. They have been married for 20+ years and as far as I know, there has never been any cheating. I dont believe my mother is capable of it, as her love for her kids takes priority over absolutely everything in her life, including herself. Both parents sacrifice constantly to provide for their children and think very little of themselves.
At the end of the day, red pill is a way of looking at the world. Everyone is different, this is very true. But as a base way of looking at things. TRP is honest and effective. It prepares you for the very real possibilities of this nasty world.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]