Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
(→Proposal for section: obsolete) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
: I suspect both are bad, but co-ed slightly worse (evidence below). [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 21:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) | : I suspect both are bad, but co-ed slightly worse (evidence below). [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 21:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
::Then please cite a window-in-time study referencing a group of men who suffer from co-ed classes if any exist. Otherwise this just becomes an essay contest that never resolves. The thrust of your paragraph seems to push in the direction of co-ed classes being harmful to incels, but as it defies common sense (as not having co-ed classes, there are not women to mate with), it would need a lot more than conjecture, anecdotes and citing women as hypergamous[[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 13:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC) | ::Then please cite a window-in-time study referencing a group of men who suffer from co-ed classes if any exist. Otherwise this just becomes an essay contest that never resolves. The thrust of your paragraph seems to push in the direction of co-ed classes being harmful to incels, but as it defies common sense (as not having co-ed classes, there are not women to mate with), it would need a lot more than conjecture, anecdotes and citing women as hypergamous[[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 13:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
I think this section is kinda boring as it does not yield solid data. We do not know whether number of opposite sex friends trickles down to low status males. IIRC [[Scott Aaronson]] mentioned somewhere on his blog that many of his colleagues are/were incels. Still it is entirely anecdotal and indirect evidence. Suggest to remove it to shorten the article. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 13:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC) |