I recently saw an article in which something caught my eye. Let’s see if you can see it too (hint: I highlighted it in bold).
Supporters of [puberty blocker and cross-sex hormone] treatments have argued that they are safe and effective at relieving mental health struggles among youth who suffer from gender-related distress. Skeptics and opponents, on the other hand, have pointed to systematic reviews of the evidence backing these treatments that have found the science wanting and inconclusive. These groups have also highlighted potential harms of the treatment, including infertility and the possibility that youth will later regret undergoing treatment with certain irreversible impacts on the body.
The author of this article is saying that one side says while the other side shows. These are critically different approaches.
On Monday I posted this:
i still think my favorite thing that’s ever happened to me on the internet is the time a guy said…
…and I said…
…and linked TWO sources and he said…
One side says while the other side shows.
In the on-going discussion of hypergamy, I’ve tried to show that hypergamy is a myth through various pieces of corroborating evidence (and supporting argument). I’ve sought the same in return, but have received precious little reciprocation. Time and again what has been offered instead are personal anecdotes, what the leftists call lived experiences. These are little better than inherently biased personal opinions.
I don’t want or need personal opinions. Epistemologically, they are not worth anything. They bring nothing of value to the discussion.[1]
No one is offering meaningful evidence for the alternatives. No one has been able to refute any of the arguments I’ve made or the evidence that I’ve presented. The best I can hope for is the mild critique that my own evidence has flaws, something I already knew and accounted for.
Last Tuesday, I posted this challenge:
The response was a vacuous set of empty assertions and fallacious arguments that were trivially refuted (again) with documented evidence. There was (again) no follow-up response to my substantive response. In that comment, I concluded:
Show me where I am wrong. Don’t just say I am wrong because you don’t like it. Show it. Address my points. Show that you didn’t actually say the things I quoted you saying.
One side says while the other side shows.
These are not equivalent and they should not be treated as equals.
In most cases they won’t show because they can’t show. They can’t show because their belief is faulty. But, as studies shows, even when people are shown the facts that prove they are wrong, they will still cling to their faulty beliefs. To wit:
Almost as if they did not pay attention to a single thing during the oral arguments, these Justices even repeat the thoroughly debunked WPATH talking point that puberty blockers merely “pause puberty.”
I guess they missed the part about puberty blockers causing infertility.
The Justices then claim it is a matter of “life and death.”
Thus, it appears they also missed the part when Chase Strangio, the lead ACLU attorney, conceded to Justice Alito that “gender affirming care” actually has no impact on rates of completed suicide.
This is like a Judge endorsing a guilty verdict in a murder case after finding out the victim is still alive.
One side says while the other side shows.
People imagine that this is a legitimate disagreement among equals. It is not.
This is why I’ve recently been talking about trust. Do not trust anyone who refuses to—or cannot—show, including Supreme Court justices or the Christian Manosphere. Nobody gets a free pass.
This topic also ties neatly into what I’ve been writing about intelligence and blankslatism:
As Justice Sotomayor correctly notes, the rate of suicide attempts by transgender people is tragically high. But the best-quality studies indicate that transgender medical treatments do not reduce it. And some, particularly genital surgery, probably increase it.
Just as there is a general factor of intelligence g (scores on all cognitive tests positively correlate) there is a general factor of psychopathology p (scores on all mental illness tests positively correlate). Transgender identity loads onto p. So transgender people have rather poor mental health outcomes on average. Just as with people low in g, much ink is spilled trying to blame this on systemic factors when the most likely explanation is that similar basic traits produce both transgender identity and mental illness.
Footnotes
[1] Consider the absurdity of saying:
This is obviously self-refuting. But this is implicit in every appeal to the superiority of personal anecdotes that rejects the evidence I have presented. Moreover, those personal anecdotes are as equally valid as these personal “evidence-based” perceptions:
That is what happens when you emphasize personal experience.
Derek,
How about this study?
This article provides a review of evolutionary theory and empirical research on mate choices in non-human species and used as a frame for understanding the how and why of human mate choices. The basic principle is that the preferred mate choices and attendant social cognitions and behaviors of both women and men, and those of other species, have evolved to focus on and exploit the reproductive potential and reproductive investment of members of the opposite sex. Reproductive potential is defined as the genetic, material, and (or) social resources an individual can invest in offspring, and reproductive investment is the actual use of these resources to enhance the physical and social well being of offspring. Similarities and differences in the mate preferences and choices of women and men are reviewed, and can be understood in terms of similarities and differences in the form reproductive potential that women and men have to offer and their tendency to use this potential for the well- being of children.
i found it here
Hi Everyone,
I am getting pretty sick and tired of “Evo-Psych”/”Science” threads that post some article only barely (if at all) related to female hypergamy (or other subjects) and which the OP claims “Completely Disproves” female hypergamy (or other subjects).
It’s really fuxing irritating. u/HugMuffin I am looking at you as the latest offender.
So I am going to post a thread that includes a link to an article, a meta-analysis of the field no less, that actually does have relevant information within it that actually honest to god really does pertain to the subject matter it says it pertains to and is not some bullshit attempt to make some study on something else support OP’s point.
Full article..
http://web.simmons.edu/~turnerg/MCC/Matechoice2PDF.pdf
Evolution of Human Mate Choice
It’s actually a great summary of the field, I’d recommend reading the whole thing to anyone who posts here on any subject… but particularly for anyone who argues for/against evo-psych or RP’s view of the dimorphic human mating strategies.
Really, honestly, worth reading the whole thing. At least, should you do so, you’d be able to land punches on our chin and not wafting away in the air yards from our face… But I digress…
Hypergamy.
Some select quotes (if you don’t like my selection, go read it yourself and use others)….
[…]
In all cultures so studied, the children of culturally successful men have lower mortality rates than the children of other men (see Geary, 2000). Even in cultures in which mortality rates are low, children of culturally successful men benefit in terms of psychological and physical health and in terms of longevity in adulthood (Adler et al., 1994). These are exactly the conditions that would result in the evolution of women’s preference for socially dominant and culturally successful marriage partners.
[…]
Preferred choices. A woman’s preferred marriage partner and her actual marriage partner are not always the same, due to competition from other women and men’s mate choice preferences. Social psychological studies of explicit preferences for marriage partners are thus an important adjunct to research on actual marriage choices. These preferences appear to more clearly capture the processes associated with evolved social and psychological mechanisms that guide reproductive behaviors (Buss, 1996; Geary, 1998; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990).
Research conducted throughout the world strongly supports the position that women prefer marriage partners who are culturally successful or have the potential to become culturally successful. The most extensive of these studies included 10,000 people in 37 cultures across six continents and five islands (Buss, 1989). On the mate choice survey, women rated “good financial prospect” higher than did men in all cultures. In 29 samples, the “ambition and industriousness” of a prospective mate were more important for women than for men, presumably because these traits are indicators of his reproductive potential—that is, his ability to eventually achieve cultural success. Hatfield and Sprecher (1995) found the same pattern for college students in the United States, Japan, and Russia. In each culture, women valued a prospective mates’ potential for success, earnings, status, and social position more highly than did men
meta-analysis of research published from 1965 to 1986 revealed the same sex difference (Feingold, 1992). Across studies, 3 out of 4 women rated socioeconomic status as more important in a prospective marriage partner than did the average man. Studies conducted prior to 1965 showed the same pattern (e.g., R. Hill, 1945) as did a more recent survey of a nationally representative sample of unmarried adults in the United States (Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994). Across age, ethnic status, and socioeconomic status, women preferred husbands who were better educated than they were and who earned more money than they did. Buunk and colleagues found the same pattern for women ranging in age from their 20s to their 60s (Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002). This preference is highlighted when women make cost-benefit trade-offs between a marriage partner’s cultural success and other important traits, such as his physical attractiveness (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Waynforth, 2001). When women are forced to make such trade-offs, a prospective marriage partner’s cultural success is rated as a necessity and other characteristics as a luxury.
[…]
With the exception of age and physical attractiveness, women are more selective in their choice of marriage partners than are men (Feingold, 1992; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1995; Hill & Hurtado, 1996; Kenrick et al., 1990). In addition to ambition, industriousness, and social dominance, women tend to rate the emotional stability and the family orientation of prospective marriage partners more highly than do men (e.g., Oda, 2001; Waynforth, 2001).
and (finally) from the Summary and Conclusions part
There is plenty more in there. Including male mating strategies, how strategies differ between long/short term mating, all sorts of stuff that will not come as any sort of surprise to our RP members or anyone that reads my long-ass comments but which BP might be surprised to find in a scientific article (as, ya know, it reads like an RP manual on sexual strategies).
Feel free to discuss anything you want to discuss. But I’m here to talk about evo-psych and female hypergamy in particular.
Final note, and for the record…
NO! …. Women are no more evil for pursuing their natural strategies than men are for pursuing theirs.
This isn’t a “hating on women” post… This is a “Can we all discuss a science article that actually pertains to the subject matter at hand” post. Because I’m sick of articles shoe-horned in that don’t say what OP thinks they say.
Have at it.
Thanks