Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Talk:Scientific Blackpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→To do list
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
* https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6004239/High-flying-career-women-refusing-marry-despite-struggling-Mr-Right.html | * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6004239/High-flying-career-women-refusing-marry-despite-struggling-Mr-Right.html | ||
* Cohen and Shotland, 1996 | * Cohen and Shotland, 1996 | ||
* Rendall 2011, the protective effect of marriage, especially for men. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-011-0032-5 | |||
==Hatfield 1989, Tappé 2013, and potentially Maticka 2010 inaccurately sourced== | ==Hatfield 1989, Tappé 2013, and potentially Maticka 2010 inaccurately sourced== | ||
[https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Men_like_61.9.25_of_female_profiles.2C_women_like_only_4.5.25_of_male_profiles "Overall, men liked or superliked 61.9% of their female profiles. On the other hand, women only liked 4.5% of the male profiles, a sex ratio that is fairly close to the sex ratio in agreement to unsolicited invitations to sex in non-online naturalistic settings (e.g. Clark & Hatfield 1989, Tappé 2013, Maticka-Tyndale 2010)."] Tappé was not a naturalistic setting, and it had many different results. Also where in Maticka does it show that? I can't find the full text, but no summary mentions findings like Hatfield and Clark. Hatfield and Clark was 75% men-agreed,0% women-agreed for sex-only (you used apartment-asking stats, not sex-only stats), also Tappé was nowhere near the Hatfield study and also nowhere near 61%-male agreement in any of the three studies in Tappé. [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 12:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC) | [https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Men_like_61.9.25_of_female_profiles.2C_women_like_only_4.5.25_of_male_profiles "Overall, men liked or superliked 61.9% of their female profiles. On the other hand, women only liked 4.5% of the male profiles, a sex ratio that is fairly close to the sex ratio in agreement to unsolicited invitations to sex in non-online naturalistic settings (e.g. Clark & Hatfield 1989, Tappé 2013, Maticka-Tyndale 2010)."] Tappé was not a naturalistic setting, and it had many different results. Also where in Maticka does it show that? I can't find the full text, but no summary mentions findings like Hatfield and Clark. Hatfield and Clark was 75% men-agreed,0% women-agreed for sex-only (you used apartment-asking stats, not sex-only stats), also Tappé was nowhere near the Hatfield study and also nowhere near 61%-male agreement in any of the three studies in Tappé. [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 12:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC) | ||
tld;dr Tappé results are 25% men agreed, hatfield and clarke are 75% men agreed, cannot find maticka results yet[[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 13:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC) | tld;dr Tappé results are 25% men agreed, hatfield and clarke are 75% men agreed, cannot find maticka results yet[[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 13:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC) | ||