Talk:Hypergamy: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Hypergamy (edit)

Revision as of 13:11, 12 July 2021

2,994 bytes removed ,  12 July 2021
m
Reverted edits by Altmark22 (talk) to last revision by 2001:67C:2628:647:12:0:0:65
No edit summary
m (Reverted edits by Altmark22 (talk) to last revision by 2001:67C:2628:647:12:0:0:65)
Tag: Rollback
Line 1: Line 1:
Someone put more citations in the first few sentences of this lede and chop it down a bit.  Its poorly sourced, hard to read, and intimidating [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 14:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
==80/20==
IRL relationships, while increasingly unequal, do not follow a pareto distribution and there's nothing you source that suggests so.  80/20 refers to online dating and even then it's not consistently 80/20.  Peterson lectures do not count as reliable sources for this sort of tihng. [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]])
==Academic section==
Bibipi, you put [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513808001177 two] [https://d-nb.info/997448148/34 main] sources in there and I feel your writing did not accurately use those sources. You insinuated they both said men's natural desire to provide for women creates hypergamy.  Which neither of them say, and the second one had hardly anything to say about natural sexuality at all. Regardless of how much it is true (which of course there is truth to that) one source spoke of men's desire to provide as primarily a market dynamic.  The dynamic of women being sexual selectors, '''withholding sex, and demanding favors of men''' ('''rather than men being too naturally sexually greedy and pushing favors onto women in some original sin bullshit religious line-of-thinking''').  Men also have a natural desire to have sex without "working-the-land" or otherwise bribing women as well, don't see much reason to missread sources to overemphasis how much men naturally want to work for women.  Also as an anecdote, most self-identified incels appear to not want to work for women, see this [https://incels.co/threads/most-of-you-healthy-and-confident-enough-will-pair-up-in-your-thirties.155010/ thread] [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 22:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
==Locked==
Until people learn how to use talk pages before completely rewriting a backbone of the entire wiki in tradcon-littered nonsense without consulting a talk page.
The 80/20 section will be rewritten back to what it was before. The new version offers nothing but unsourced Peterson and "matthew effect" pseudo-religious nonsense. [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 22:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
== Too many memes? ==
The page seems very cluttered with all sorts of memes that are only vaguely related (e.g. spongebob, cockcarusel, wojak, tlc). I was thinking about getting feedback on the forum. Thoughts? [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 18:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
:We didn't give everyone on the forum an account automatically for a reason.  It is not associated with incels.co besides an admin and some backend stuff.  We would like to keep as many good/funny fair use pics/videos on as many pages as possible, for entertainment reasons.[[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 20:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
== Center tags on Youtube breaks mobile unfortunately ==
I don't know why and probably only something fixeable server side.  I assume this applies to any formatting around youtube tags. Youtube is generally wonky on mobile, but at least without any formatting tags, it sort of displays.[[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 20:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
== The Critique against the strict 80-20 Rule and Further clarification ==
== The Critique against the strict 80-20 Rule and Further clarification ==


Line 12: Line 34:


How does one address Hypergamy in relation to age and LH?
How does one address Hypergamy in relation to age and LH?
:
>"The 80-20 Rule is worth clarifying, as it suggest that women does not want to date down."<br>
We (the editors of the wiki) have been discussing this ourselves, but one could argue that the power law/Pareto distribution of sex is not wholly driven by female preference. Other factors likely play a role, access to desirable women, male intrasexual competition, male motivation and social dominance orientation varying by status, and so forth.
>"If Hypergamy is a constant, then Dual Mating Strategy cannot exist"<br>
The dual mating strategy, in the strict Evo-Psych sense of the term, likely doesn't exist to any appreciable degree, yes: https://incels.wiki/w/Body_attractiveness#Ovulatory_shift https://incels.wiki/w/Facial_masculinity#Ovulatory_shift_hypothesis_and_dual_mating
If there is a dual mating strategy it's likely most pronounced as a life course strategy. Woman rides the cock carousel with handsome, "charming" men when she is younger (particularly in a society where this is de facto encouraged among youth), then suddenly has the epiphany that Sammy Soyboy or Billy Beta possess desirable traits when she is older and looking to settle down and have children. That kind of thing. Provider traits vs. seducer traits. Of course, Omegas are always not seen as a viable prospect. The conventional "redpill" portrayal of these phenomena seems to mainly fail when it comes to their overemphasis on cuckoldry.
Also this theory is conceptualizing dual mating as generally representing a "good genes"/resources tradeoffs. Women are said to want both but generally they can't as the men with "good genes" have a lot of options for casual sex. So they'd be actually expected to mainly exert economic hypergamy when they are selecting the hapless "beta", not when they are choosing their illicit liason partners.
>"https://www.nel.edu/userfiles/articlesnew/NEL350714A16.pdf"<br>
This is very interesting. The authors conflict reduction of this increased reproductive success may be sufficient, but I can see multiple pathways where women preferring more submissive men can be adaptive in some cases. There is the "helper in the nest" hypothesis that essentially states that, in contexts where women are financially/resource independent from men (as in some strongly abundant ecologies and modern welfare states) that they may accrue RS benefits for selecting for empathetic, submissive, and socially minded men. Basically "soyboys" or highly effeminate men.
There is some evidence that women rate facially effeminate men as more attractive, at least in certain contexts (detailed in the facial masculinity article I linked above) and there is evidence that effeminacy in men is linked to greater sociosexuality (so more promiscuous), whilst masculinity in women is linked to the same:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886919305070
This either suggests a female preference for effeminate men, androgyny being linked to a faster life history speed for w/e reason, or that, despite the predictions of life history theory, a masculine gender identity in men may be actually linked to a slower/more pairbonding sexual strategy.
So one can see how this could be a (niche?) sexual strategy.
The benefits in terms of RS that could accrue from females marrying up are obvious, greater access to resources, protection, the man perhaps having more sway over the woman's reproduction (as many births are solely decided by the female).
In terms of economic hypergamy in general, it does seem that the effects of this are the strongest at extremes. Poor men seem to be undesirable to women in many cases (they have lower reproductive success and this seems linked to them being more likely to not cohabitate or marry, which may be primarily driven by female preferences). It's the opposite for wealthier men. Preference and some pair-formation data seems to educate women are generally quite averse to dating down but not across. The idea of a billionaire stealing a working-class man's girl or whatever seems to be a bit of a caricature in most caes.
>"How does one address Hypergamy in relation to age and LH?"<br>
I would guess women would actually be expected to become more hypergamous as they age, despite their declining SMV. Preference for partner education scales with age: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-6811.00018 (though some of this is simply down to people completing their education). Women's ideal preference for male income moderately correlates with their own, and at least in countries like the US, women's income seems to peak in their middle age: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/18/heres-how-much-men-and-women-earn-at-every-age.html
There is somewhat contrary evidence that suggests younger women may care more about resource holding potential (https://brill.com/view/journals/beh/151/14/article-p2059_6.xml?crawler=true&lang=zh&language=de&mimetype=application%2Fpdf), but this is sort of confounded by mixing together actual access to resources and traits that indicate the potential to climb to social ladder and acquire said resources, and since most young men haven't established themselves and women seem to be fairly homogamous in terms of age, it would be easy to see why younger women would care more about this than older ones.
In regards to LH, well there seems to be evidence that a faster life history is associated with greater polygyny (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ssqu.12030).
This would likely hold true to societies without formalized polygyny and would be reflected in serial monogamy, mating skew, etc. LHS would predict that fast LH women would care more about rapid access to resources and perhaps greater genetic diversity and physical attractiveness in their potential mates. There is evidence for assortative mating in LHS (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470490800600206) also, so they also tend to select those with short-term strategies that mirror their own, which would be generally expected to be associated with lower resource holding potential (due to impulsivity, short-time preference, lower conscientiousness etc, perhaps being fast life history traits or negatively linked to the proposed subfactors of ''k'', in particular one would thing super-k and the GFP would be positively associated with income.
Retrieved from "https://incels.wiki/w/Special:MobileDiff/61797"

Navigation menu