It stands for socioeconomic status. It has a huge impact on relationships and marriage. There's a big correlation between (effect of? I don't know that much about the field but I remember hearing this from a behavioral economist at some point) income and education level and (on?) marriage. Educated women and women who earn a high income are far more likely to be married and less likely to divorce than poorer and less educated ones. Of course, there are probably other factors at play like there is with partner count, e.g. people who get married and have children young miss out on career advancement and creating savings, people in high-income positions may be more intelligent and/or stable and have a greater aptitude for working through the problems that arise in marriage.
The roastie is immunized against all dangers: one may call her a bitch, parasite, slut, gold digger, it all runs off her like water off a raincoat. But call her a used up roastie and you will be astonished at how she recoils, how injured she is, how she suddenly shrinks back: 'I've been found out.'
So roastie is just a dogwhistle for whore, huh? Why is it my business to know how many men a woman has slept with before me? Should I also care what race they were? Or if their political affiliation? Or their names? Or whether they had STDs? Why? Because knowing the people she previously slept with tells me something about her? The past is the past. I'm not entitled to know it. Fuck off.
I'm a gay man. Always have been. Why in the name of God would I ever care about roasties or view my thoughts on women as a detriment? They have vaginas!!! They bleed 5 days str8 and don't die!!!!
You shouldn't feel sad for me. As I have only slept with one female in my life (she looked like a guy) and have slept with approaching 4000 men, I think I'm pretty bloody happy. I even face fucked George Michael so hard his nose bled and he puked on my enormous cock twice.... True story.
Now fuckoff with your garbage and let the rest of us get on with finding a way to have kids with a woman and not be on the hook for life paying for her.
i am a heron. i haev a long neck and i pick fish out of the water w/ my beak. if you dont repost this comment on 10 other pages i will fly into your kitchen tonight and make a mess of your pots and pans
a sociologist at the University of Utah, has found that Americans who have only ever slept with their spouses are most likely to report being in a “very happy” marriage.
Mormon scientists aren't scientists, and sociologists definitely aren't.
It’s surprising how many people got pissed without even reading the article. The article points out a lot of flaws with the survey and also mentions that men are also more likely to report being less happy in a marriage as partner count increases. It hardly makes much of a judgement value, yet twitter is full of people chomping at the bit to be outraged.
I love the Atlantic, but this honestly was a horrible article intended to generate as much attention as possible. They briefly touch upon how correlation =/= causation but essentially proceed as if it is and don't talk about the factors that are likely to influence the result, e.g. that women who only have sex while married are overwhelmingly likely to be devoutly religious and as such much less likely to divorce (and potentially more likely to exaggerate how happy they are because a woman's role in marriage/as a wife is much more important to the devoutly religious and they are expected to be subservient, care-free, and doting), that many women with high partner counts have such a high partner count because of mental health issues that also affect their happiness in marriage and likelihood of divorce. The correlation is basically meaningless unless you correlate for things like mental health and lifestyle factors. This article is pretty irresponsible.
Did you read the article? The article does, in fact mention these various issues in different forms that may be the cause. It mentions these reasons specifically:
People who avoid sex before marriage might simply value marriage more highly, so they feel more satisfied by it
Those who have never had sex with anyone but their spouse may be the kind of people who value commitment highly,”
If we looked at young adults who are just marrying today, the results could be different,
the second theory is one I like to call “Not Knowing What You’re Missing.“having more partners prior to marriage makes you critically evaluate your spouse in light of previous partners, both sexually and otherwise.
you could have a lot of sexual partners not because you’re good at sex, but because you’re bad at relationships
it’s impossible to disentangle the promiscuous chicken and the unhappy egg here. , he said, could simply be capturing people who are in unhappy marriages, so they’re cheating.
Finally, there are all sorts of other, hidden possibilities that might exonerate people who sow their wild oats.
Wolfinger’s numbers might be correct, but it’s hard to draw straightforward conclusions from them.
The article dedicates a good 1/2 to 2/3 of it's length to counterpoints yet you find it "irresponsible" and claim that is proceeds as though the relationship is causal. You seem to have very much let your biases take the wheel like these twitter commenters.
The article dedicates a good 1/2 to 2/3 of it's length to counterpoints yet you find it "irresponsible" and claim that it proceeds as though the relationship is causal. You seem to have very much let your biases take the wheel like these twitter commenters.
They spent the majority of the article treating the blog post as if it were reliable, then gently brushed up against 'well it COULD be...and btw it's a blog' towards the very end. This:
the second theory is one I like to call “Not Knowing What You’re Missing.“having more partners prior to marriage makes you critically evaluate your spouse in light of previous partners, both sexually and otherwise.
in and of itself implies that partner count is the sole cause rather than a factor or a variable that is influenced by the same factor(s) that might influence partner count.
yet you find it "irresponsible"
Even the premise of the article- reporting on scientific findings that weren't subject to peer review- is irresponsible. Reporting on them without immediately going into depth about why the findings are unreliable is even worse. 'Responsible' reporting on peer-reviewed scientific findings is usually bad enough; reporting on a blog post as if it constitutes reliable evidence is a breach of ethics. Particularly if the 'findings' can be used as propaganda or otherwise contain serious social or cultural implications. The average person doesn't understand what a reliable scientific source is or understand what a correlation is (even if they do know how to parrot 'correlation =/= causation'). The comments on this post alone should be enough to show you why this is irresponsible science reporting.
You seem to have very much let your biases take the wheel like these twitter commenters.
My own biases? I just hate shitty science reporting. I wouldn't be surprised if partner count was a factor in marital success.
The blog post IS very reliable. It references a shitload of different studies and attempts to synthesize all of them. It sounds like you literally can't read.
You kinda sound like a gamergator tbh. This article is a nothing special and is in line with 90% of the kind of science and politics articles you see on mainstream news sites.
You're just inflating everything about it because you were upset by the clickbait headline and the fact that the Atlantic wasn't jerking hard enough this time lol.
This article is a nothing special and is in line with 90% of the kind of science and politics articles you see on mainstream news sites.
Most science reporting is shit, but science reporters don't typically report on 'findings' posted on blogs, let alone socially-charged 'findings' posted on blogs because doing so is a breach of ethics and can have actual, serious consequences. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
the fact that the Atlantic wasn't jerking hard enough this time lol.
Idk, i just thought it was awfully strange to sperg out about an article that never purported to be representative of the scientific consensus. It just basically presents a wishy-washy rundown of the topic and then offers a bunch of counterpoints before saying “who knows”.
Yet certain users think it’s highly important to remind everyone they can that this isn’t some peer reviewed scientific journal and it’s really all about ethics in science journalism.
The article never really struck me as some huge assult on women, but maybe I just never realy cared about the dangerous propaganda disrupting the scientific discourse on r/drama.
snally said she likes the atlantic (idk why, theyre trash, but whatever), that probably has something to do with it. an outlet you actually respect running clickbait nonsense is gonna bother you a lot more than some random rag. your gamergate comparison is also really forced, because gg's basic absurdity was thinking anything to do with video games mattered. "ethics in science journalism" (not that they actually exist, but speaking idealistically) actually are important, since the way this stuff is reported has a major impact on public consciousness, and by extension social and political norms. the sort of stuff a major magazine chooses to legitimize influences what happens in the real world, they should absolutely be called out if what theyre publishing is garbage.
I don't really understand the need to call them out over scientific reporting in an article that makes no particular value judgement or statement and is not even in the science section.
​
I guess I'm just missing the real quality control in the section that has such hard hitting scientific journalism as "Superfoods are a marketing ploy", "Neanderthals Suffered a lot of Traumatic Injuries. So how did they live so long?", and "Bad news for people who can't remember names".
​
I think the comparison to Gamergate is apt, or at least it's what I thought of first, because most KIA posters find an article that triggers them, but isn't particularly meaningful or controversial. They then justify their spergout by inflating the importance of the issue by making it about journalistic ethics and the like.
if you think articles need to make explicit "value judgements" to have the sort of effect im describing youre a fucking fool who doesnt understand the first thing about media. that said, yeah, if you recognize the atlantic, as a whole, is already trash it's a bit silly to get worked up over this article in particular. but if, like snally, you havent seen the light yet, i think the response is understandable.
Wouldn’t exactly say peer review is that great of an indicator of scientific prowess given those three professors bullshitting peer reviews recently (particularly about the dog sex in parks one).
Also, it’s a blog post not a fucking news article. Take your panties out of your mouth and the dildo out of your ass and chill. They covered many of the potential flaws.
Last, literally any study can be used as propaganda. That 1 in 4 rape shit is used as propaganda, but it’s sac religious to question the scientific validity of that.
It's bizarre that they're quoting a conservative think tank which is summarizing a U of U sociologist that wrote an article titled "Why I'm A Liberal" for huffpo
This is how nuance gets stripped from research so morons like us can fight about it.
Read the source that the article derives from. It's anything but propaganda. It goes into all of the ways it could be flawed, and all of the multiple variables involved. The people jumping to call this propaganda are dipshits who are offended by the mere possibility that someone would say the life they lead and values they hold don't result in the best outcomes.
It literally is propaganda. The best propaganda has some basis in reality, and the fact that it's propaganda doesn't mean that the findings themselves are incorrect. However,
It talks about all of the ways it could be flawed, and all of the multiple variables involved.
And this is why peer-review is important. It provides reliable sources demonstrating that the correlation exists, then goes off into this:
Ultimately we’re left to speculate about why having exactly two partners produces some of the highest divorce rates
It dives into completely baseless, evidence-free speculation about the cause of the effect. And then people like you eat it up because it's what you want to hear. This is no different than if somebody over at the World Association for Wombyn's Advancement (WAWA) created a website full of blog posts that link to hundreds of reliable peer-reviewed studies from high-IPF journals attesting to higher rates of violence and aggression in men and then suggested that men could be inherently violent and that social conditioning suppresses it or some other evidence-free theory about the effect. Institutions with an agenda do this because it's a convincing form of propaganda, as we can see in the case of you here gobbling it up. It's situations like these that are exactly why peer-review is important and that ALL claims in human research need to be based off of hard, reliable evidence. Including evidence for why an effect exists to begin with. Claims like "over-emphasized comparisons" or "Some people may just have a high level of sexual curiosity" are not valid unless they too are supported by independent peer-reviewed research.
You literally don't know how to read. The blog posts references a dozen peer reviewed studies and discusses their conclusions. It says the jury is still out and that there are no easy conclusions to arrive at.
The blog posts references a dozen peer reviewed studies and discusses their conclusions. It says the jury is still out and that there are no easy conclusions to arrive at.
You just completely disregarded what I wrote again... do you have a learning disability? If so, I can direct you to some resources that might be helpful to you. If you can't extract the key takeaways from a few lines of text then that is very concerning.
an ad hominem argument is where you attack the source of the argument, retard. which is exactly what you've been doing incessantly. it's what cancelled your ability to read/
an ad hominem argument is where you attack the source of the argument, retard. which is exactly what you've been doing incessantly. the source cancelled your ability to read.
I know it sounds complicated now, but if you take the right classes when you're a little bit older, if your education is okay, you'll understand the difference between calling the writer of an article names (i.e. an ad homiem) and critiquing the reliability of an article by virtue of how accurately it conveys the findings of a scientific article or by virtue of how accurately it portrays the reliability of a source.
I'll try and give an example that's easy for laymen to understand:
Imagine that a hobbyist statistician finds a correlation between ice cream consumption and violent crime and decides to make a post about it in their blog. Three science journalists from major news publications hear about it, and here's what they do:
One journalist publishes a report with the headline "ICE CREAM CONSUMPTION LEADS TO VIOLENT CRIME"
One journalist doesn't report on it because it's an unreliable source
One source publishes a report with the headline "ICE CREAM CONSUMPTION AND VIOLENT CRIME RISE AT THE SAME TIME- WHAT'S THE DEAL?"
Which option is the best?
Or:
Imagine that blog article is published that references studies indicating that there is a correlation between video game consumption and aggression. Three science journalists from major news publications hear about it, and here's what they do:
One journalist publishes a report with the headline "PLAYING VIDEO GAMES LEADS TO VIOLENT CRIME"
One journalist doesn't report on it because it's an unreliable source
One source publishes a report with the headline "AGGRESSION RISES BY VIDEO GAME CONSUMPTION- WHAT'S THE DEAL?"
Which option is the best?
I hope this helps. Do you want to be a scientist when you grow up?
You don't make a chart like the one in the article if you aren't trying to push an agenda. 55% of women who have had sex with 21+ people being satisfied with their marriages vs. 65% who have only had one partner is barely worth mentioning
To summarize, fake it until you make it for happiness
Dunno if a lot of them really 'make it', they just feel pressure to be perceived as happy due to cultural pressure, sort of like how housewives in the 50's were supposed to be jolly and doting but there was a huge barbituate abuse problem because that couldn't be naturally maintained by of them.
roasties are a plague of borderline and bipolar disorders.
Probably true plus the rest of Cluster B thrown in
I am glad divorce is legal and especially no fault divorce but I don't know if people are exactly happy by running the first time everything isn't Paradise and bouncing around either.
Also I know correlation isn't causation but isn't it the same result at the end anyway to notice a trademark of a symptom?
I am glad divorce is legal and especially no fault divorce but I don't know if people are exactly happy by running the first time everything isn't Paradise and bouncing around either.
I completely agree; once you're married you should try to make it work the best you can unless your spouse is abusive or unfaithful, or you otherwise just can't make it work despite trying (though you shouldn't try if your partner is abusive or unfaithful because they probably won't change and it's not worth banking on that chance). It should be a serious commitment. I don't remember if it was just a news article or what, but a little while back I read that women from higher income and education levels were more likely to take marriage seriously as a permanent institution. I don't know how true that is, though.
Also I know correlation isn't causation but isn't it the same result at the end anyway to notice a trademark of a symptom? I don't mean in a scientific setting but for practical purposes for a lay person.
It depends on what effects are causing the correlation. If partner count in and of itself is a strong or the leading cause, then it's 100% valid to take the correlation at face value. If the correlation holds across many to all demographic groups, or at least the ones you're most exposed to (i.e. if it is an effect observed in the types of people that you're most likely to date) then it's also a good idea to take it seriously. If neither of those things are true then you're probably fine taking it into account on a case-by-case basis, though it's always okay to have any sort of preference you want when you're looking to have a serious relationship with somebody and can stop the relationship at any time if things show up that seem to make you incompatible with the other person.
If you decided to overlook a symptom of something that makes someone incompatible with you and it turns out that they are really incompatible with you, there's absolutely nothing wrong with leaving the relationship too. In the end, it's fine to avoid dating somebody for any reason you want (some reasons restrict your dating pool more than others, but unless you've dried up your dating pool it probably just helps you find someone you're compatible with), but if you do make concessions and things don't turn out well then it doesn't say anything bad about you and it isn't a bad thing to call it quits. Sorry for the essay and veering way off topic.
even if it somehow managed to annoy a few people apparently.
It's just sad that they're so eager to find a way to 'stick it to the women' (as if most women are even going to become aware of this article) that they're willing to buy into this shoddy think-piece. I'd be more than happy to admit that there's a strong or even exclusive causal relationship between women's partner count and marital success if there was actually evidence supporting that, believing that there's a strong correlation doesn't affect me in any way because I've been in the same relationship for my entire adult life, and I do think that there is at least a slight causal or interactive effect. But there's just no concrete evidence that the amount of partners somebody has directly influences how likely they are to get divorced. And even if there were it wouldn't make any change to the lives of the bitterposters celebrating the article.
correlation =/= causation is really a ridiculous criticism in this case.
the sexual partners before marriage happen -- by definition -- before the marriage begins. so causality can't go in the opposite direction.
and of course the number itself isn't the cause of decreased happiness and marriage success.
but whatever the true cause is, that causes both high partner counts and bad marriages -- the high partner count happens first, so it predicts marriage success, regardless of the true cause.
Even if it’s just a correlation that still means that there’s traits shared by roasties that leads to bad marriages.
Really there’s not much difference between the traits that makes someone promiscuous also tend to make them bad partners and being promiscuous makes them bad partners.
TL;DR: Whether being a roasite is a symptom or a cause doesn’t matter, stay away.
Really there’s not much difference between the traits that makes someone promiscuous also tend to make them bad partners and being promiscuous makes them bad partners.
That's only true if the variables driving most of the effect don't interact with each other. For example, religious devotion is the main cause for people to wait until marriage to have sex; it is next to impossible to find a non-devout who wants to wait until marriage. This cuts across other factors that have a huge influence on marital success, such as SES, education level, mental health, age at marriage, etc.
Devoutly religious people are much less likely than non-devout people to get a divorce because it's a religious taboo, and they may be more likely to exaggerate their happiness in marriage because it is a much larger part of their identity and there tends to be immense social pressure in religious communities for women to play the 'happy subservient wife' role.
However, because there's no decent research about the factors that cause people to sleep with various amounts of other people (aside from studies about promiscuity as a symptom of mental health issues), and there aren't any extremely strong social factors that dictate partner count beyond religion, it could easily be at least one interaction accounting for the effect, e.g. that women who are poor are more likely to sleep around, and SES has a massive effect on marital success. Partner count may interact with SES, or SES may be the underlying variable behind the effect, which means that somebody of a higher social class with a higher partner count may be considerably more likely to achieve marital success. And that's even if the methods behind the correlation were okay, including but not limited to keeping demographic representation equal across groups of women with different partner counts and not asking 'are you happy/satisfied' type questions. A simple correlation isn't as simple as 'there's a correlation so everyone I meet is likely to fit into that correlation'. But I imagine that you don't care about any of this because you just want to stick it to the females for letting your dick stay dry.
my dick wet all day and I know not to wife up the hos
1) You've left 'the pair-bonding hormonal response to sex deteriorates over time and partners' out of all your estimations
2) It really, really, really doesn't matter what the 'causation' is; that the correlation exists is significant enough, provided the correlation is high enough.
It doesn't matter why that person slept with 33 dudes, if knowing that information is enough to help you avoid higher-risk partners in life
You've left 'the pair-bonding hormonal response to sex deteriorates over time and partners' out of all your estimations
Got some links? I'm interested in reading about that. But I was talking about possible factors (of many) for why this effect exists, not the direct effect that partner count has on marital success.
It really, really, really doesn't matter what the 'causation' is; that the correlation exists is significant enough, provided the correlation is high enough.
I can't even imagine the life of somebody who is both an incel and a statscell. You didn't even use "significant" correctly...
Both the technical "statistically significant" definition and layman "significant" definition are correct definitions, for their own uses.
Calling other people statslets while not understanding non-technical definitions exist 🙄
I know I didn't feel obliged to offer any links substantiating the possible non-causative reasons I supplied, but could your cite your possible causative-reason?
You're not foolin' nobody snally. the same people shrieking that this cannot be true because they don't want it to be true are one google search away from shrieking about higher partner counts impacting pair-bond hormones because they don't want it to be true
Both the technical "statistically significant" definition and layman "significant" definition are correct definitions, for their own uses.
Using the layman's definition of "significant" in 'significant correlation' is an amateur mistake. You learn not to do that in like your first semester of any major that uses statistical methods...
You're not foolin' nobody snally. the same people shrieking that this cannot be true because they don't want it to be true are one google search away from shrieking about higher partner counts impacting pair-bond hormones because they don't want it to be true
I know I didn't feel obliged to offer any links substantiating the possible non-causative reasons I supplied
Because I was giving examples of things that could possibly be factors, not things that have been demonstrated to be factors.
but could your cite your possible causative-reason?
Why did you ask me if I forgot/didn't forget about it if it's something that you thought up off the top of your head and I was explicitly listing nuisance variables rather than reasons that partner count would have a direct influence on marital success (which would have been irrelevant to what I was saying)?
higher partner counts impacting pair-bond hormones because they don't want it to be true
So you don't have any articles on hand about "pair-bonding hormones" reducing over time?
tries to lecture them on not using everyday words when they could have been statistical jargon if they rearranged the order they were written in and took some words out
🤔
look this clearly hit a srspost nerve. that's okay, even if it says somethin about snally. you never told me wyd 2night
tries to lecture them on not using everyday words when they could have been statistical jargon if they rearranged the order they were written in and took some words out
I like how you're trying to use the fact that I actually know the language that literally anybody with even a basic stats or human research background would use as evidence that I'm wrong. I'm 90% positive that you had to look up what statistical significance is, lol.
look this clearly hit a srspost nerve.
As I said to Hodor, bad science + smug is irresistible bait.
that's okay, even if it says somethin about snally. you never told me wyd 2night
Can I see that pair bonding stuff that you were talking about? I'm actually interested in reading it.
I kind of get what he's saying and to a certain extent if you're not talking about social justice or legal discrimination, its a decent rule of thumb to have. It doesn't really matter why someone's fucked up, what really matters is that they're fucked up. Not saying people with high partner counts are undesired or messed up of course.
Yeah, I agree tbh. I'd never date somebody with a high partner count because it suggests that they have an incompatible view of relationships and somebody's history is the best predictor of their future behavior. The fact that people ITT are willing to accept bad '''science'''''' in order to BTFO the roasties is embarrassing, though. When did /r/drama start attracting the r9k/incel crowd?
Drama subs can fall quickly due to them directly linking pages and typically most subs get a notification if they're linked to a different sub, so people who get curious about the sub that's referencing them and/or want to argue their point (lol) will back flow to the parent sub. Some end up liking it and stay there. r/Drama would probably be particularly vulnerable due to its recently quit habit of pinging people in the drama threads and the banning of many of the subs it used to mine for drama. All that to say that probably some r/incels and r/braincels users lurk here.
Drama subs can fall quickly due to them directly linking pages and typically most subs get a notification if they're linked to a different sub, so people who get curious about the sub that's referencing them and/or want to argue their point (lol) will back flow to the parent sub.
Yeah, it seems like the incel community got word of /r/drama through some means or other and decided to settle down here. We've been bombarded with wizardchan-tier posters over the past few months. Oh well. They can complain about women all they want here, but it still won't make their lives any less miserable. It is annoying though. I can pretty much guarantee that men as a topic is the one sacred cow here in terms of being made fun of without generating almost universal rage. Well, I guess that there are probably other sacred cows too, but none that would cause the level of raw pain that is generated by insulting an important part of someone's identity.
That's true, men as a general class are probably off limits, specific men are more fair game than women however. I always wonder, what are the female equivalent of male incels? What do they do with their time if they're not shitposting?
The female equivalent to MGTOW is pretty congruent, but female incels are a special sort of bunch. There are some contingents who hate men as much as male incels hate women, but female incels tend to be much more wrapped up in fantasy. They're pretty similar to male turbo-weebs except that they try much harder to find a 'rational' explanation for why they're caught up in fantasy (e.g. 'i was married to a final fantasy character in a past life!') and are much more fixated on fantasy for what it offers as opposed to male turbo-weebs who seem to be much more aware of the reasons why they were driven into fantasy land. From what I've seen, a higher amount of female incels seem to be initially repulsed by sex and male sex organs, while a higher amount of male incels become repulsed over time or are repulsed by female sex organs that don't look like they do in softcore porn.
This is all just observations tho. I've met quite a few female incels in my day, and I think that because women can get laid much more easily, the ones that are left over are either asexual or are extremely shy/socially awkward/wrapped up in fantasy to the point where they don't know how to or just can't attract somebody. They're actually pretty common if you know where to look, but most of them are on communities that males aren't exposed to.
So basically just: Christians who will go to hell for divorcing claim marriage is going well? Nothing like fear of the underworld to keep a couple together.
What's your point? That just demonstrates that religion is a good thing, since we know that marriage is objectively good from a societal point of view and for the success of children.
All these twitter scholars are complaining about how the og material is just a blog post and not peer reviewed, whereas the post has plenty of credible sources lmao.
Imagine thinking that individuals in a field are incapable of coming up with conclusions after reading studies in said field.
I got called an incel for saying that in r/inceltears when explaining to the incels that inhabit that sub that "no, a relationship won't fix you, in fact it could fuck you up more"
182 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-10-23
You probably don't get bussy because you're the type of guy who fucking nails his dick to a board
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Thatlookedlikeithurt 2018-10-23
Atlantic claims. "Statistics claims not to be a whore." Womxn stroke out.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-10-23
Thots on suicide watch
1 Manchu_Fist 2018-10-23
Could this be the end of thautism?
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-10-23
Unless it is also the end of money then no.
1 Imperial_Sardaukar 2018-10-23
Little-known fact: the last stage of communism is getting rid of thots.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-10-23
Now I am become Communist, Destroyer of Thots
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
Comrade, please welcome me to communism immediately.
1 bG9sIG5pY2UgdHJ5Cg 2018-10-23
wtf I love communism now
1 PostmodernHomosexual 2018-10-23
It's true
1 ABigBigThug 2018-10-23
Nah, they'll just keep repeating "correlation is not causation".
"I'm not bad bad marriage material because I sleep around, I sleep around because I'm bad marriage material"
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
That's actually extremely important in this case given that some lifestyle factors can potentially account for most of the effect, e.g. religiosity
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-23
SES?
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
It stands for socioeconomic status. It has a huge impact on relationships and marriage. There's a big correlation between (effect of? I don't know that much about the field but I remember hearing this from a behavioral economist at some point) income and education level and (on?) marriage. Educated women and women who earn a high income are far more likely to be married and less likely to divorce than poorer and less educated ones. Of course, there are probably other factors at play like there is with partner count, e.g. people who get married and have children young miss out on career advancement and creating savings, people in high-income positions may be more intelligent and/or stable and have a greater aptitude for working through the problems that arise in marriage.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-23
Yeah that does make a lot of sense. I just was not familiar with the letters versus just saying income.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Sorry, I went into nerd rage mode and stopped thinking about whether anybody would be able to understand what I'm writing.
1 Sardinops 2018-10-23
The roastie is immunized against all dangers: one may call her a bitch, parasite, slut, gold digger, it all runs off her like water off a raincoat. But call her a used up roastie and you will be astonished at how she recoils, how injured she is, how she suddenly shrinks back: 'I've been found out.'
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
this but unironically
1 Nathan_P_Carter 2018-10-23
So roastie is just a dogwhistle for whore, huh? Why is it my business to know how many men a woman has slept with before me? Should I also care what race they were? Or if their political affiliation? Or their names? Or whether they had STDs? Why? Because knowing the people she previously slept with tells me something about her? The past is the past. I'm not entitled to know it. Fuck off.
1 sharasdal 2018-10-23
Yeah, if they had some kind of crazy STDs that's something you might want to know about I think. I would.
1 Nathan_P_Carter 2018-10-23
Ugh.
1 lua_x_ia 2018-10-23
http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/docs/pdf/PikettyReviewEssay.pdf
1 TheMayorOfHounslow 2018-10-23
Holy fuck this is amazing (though a bit unfair tbh), how come I've never learned about this
1 Megazor 2018-10-23
Don't kinkshame the bugchasers
1 redmugofcoffee 2018-10-23
pos parties are off the hook tbf
1 Abu_Ivanka_alAmriki 2018-10-23
Uhhhh FYI you’re replying to someone who has refashioned a Goebbels quote
1 ABigBigThug 2018-10-23
Is joke.
1 BeastTrinity 2018-10-23
Look at the username you goober
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-23
lol yes
1 the_black_panther_ 2018-10-23
What did you think it was
1 YameteOtosanItai 2018-10-23
well it's a pretty good indicator for long term relationship success rates, I guess. And who wants a whore, like seriously?
1 Sardinops 2018-10-23
I'm a gay man. Always have been. Why in the name of God would I ever care about roasties or view my thoughts on women as a detriment? They have vaginas!!! They bleed 5 days str8 and don't die!!!!
You shouldn't feel sad for me. As I have only slept with one female in my life (she looked like a guy) and have slept with approaching 4000 men, I think I'm pretty bloody happy. I even face fucked George Michael so hard his nose bled and he puked on my enormous cock twice.... True story.
Now fuckoff with your garbage and let the rest of us get on with finding a way to have kids with a woman and not be on the hook for life paying for her.
What a loser
1 gilmore606 2018-10-23
none of my business but that is a mean thing to do to george michael his singing voice was a national treasure and not to be risked in such a way
1 Sardinops 2018-10-23
Some men get their kicks from tight hymens and vajayjays. I get my kicks off tight vocal chords.
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2018-10-23
y i k e s
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-10-23
11 sentences of pure insecurity. Fantastic.
1 TAinting_CHarmer 2018-10-23
i am a heron. i haev a long neck and i pick fish out of the water w/ my beak. if you dont repost this comment on 10 other pages i will fly into your kitchen tonight and make a mess of your pots and pans
1 LSU_Coonass 2018-10-23
Fuck right off to SRD.
1 Detective_Fallacy 2018-10-23
t. an NPC-tier retort to someone literally named Nathan P. Carter.
1 LSU_Coonass 2018-10-23
>calling out srdine speak is NPC
1 Anus_of_Aeneas 2018-10-23
Dude its a joke account meant to bait people like you
1 BeastTrinity 2018-10-23
I love how /r/drama is too retarded to read usernames
1 cmakk1012 2018-10-23
Literally who, though
1 BeastTrinity 2018-10-23
Literally 2 IQ.
1 schoolboystirner 2018-10-23
If you're that in tuned to this meme you deserve the rope.
1 trappysaruh 2018-10-23
➰👈
1 BeastTrinity 2018-10-23
Sorry about your lack of awareness 😂👋👎🏿
1 cmakk1012 2018-10-23
1 BeastTrinity 2018-10-23
> implying you need to care about a meme to recognize it when you're being epically troled by it
1 SuitableHippo999 2018-10-23
Trying to explain your own alts comments so people think they're funny has to be a low even for this shithole.
1 BeastTrinity 2018-10-23
No, you're an alt.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-10-23
This is obviously a pasta anyway so who gives a fuck. Like actually
1 spine99m1 2018-10-23
So many people swallowing this delicious bait
1 Megazor 2018-10-23
New pasta yikes!
Thank you for your service
1 Zone2012 2018-10-23
You got baited yikes
1 BeastTrinity 2018-10-23
Oof.
Ouch.
Yikes.
Cringe.
1 Zone2012 2018-10-23
Ay
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-10-23
“Alright, and what is your previous work experience? Do you have any references?”
“The past is the past. You’re not entitled to know it. Fuck off.”
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-23
I can't tell if this comment is satire or not, considering california decriminalized donating aids blood and purposely infecting people with aids.
1 1029384756-mk2 2018-10-23
No, it's a synonym.
1 BumwineBaudelaire 2018-10-23
hahaha folks meet the zeta male
1 JayBaumanManhole 2018-10-23
Good bait.
1 Raider94 2018-10-23
Mormon scientists aren't scientists, and sociologists definitely aren't.
1 ThePathToOne 2018-10-23
I like this centrist take
1 BigDaddy_Delta 2018-10-23
Good point
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-23
Lol it's not even peer reviewed. This is just some Mormon shitposting about sluts.
1 uglyloser567 2018-10-23
ROASTIE IS TRIGGERED
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-23
Sciencecels btfo
1 OscarGrey 2018-10-23
That's ironic because anti-porn feminists use lazy mormon research and propaganda materials all the fucking time.
1 MtheDowner 2018-10-23
The truly centrist take on the NPC meme is the realisation that both sides aren't just NPCs, they're NPCs with the same fucking script.
1 Penguinproof1 2018-10-23
You forgot how University of Utah is mormons.
1 ABigBigThug 2018-10-23
They don't even bother clicking on the link before spazzing about sexism.
The article and study are about both men and women, it's just that women had the stronger correlation.
1 degorius 2018-10-23
Right, I read 2 paragraphs of that and it was immediately obvious not a single person on Twitter read that.
1 saint2e 2018-10-23
Also people don't generally are if men are happy in a marriage.
1 Pro_Extent 2018-10-23
Also about 300 words in:
Fucking morons with "REEEE correlation doesn't equal causation"
1 [deleted] 2018-10-23
[removed]
1 bG9sIG5pY2UgdHJ5Cg 2018-10-23
DELETE * FROM NPCS
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2018-10-23
Summed up the replies
1 Slimey-Bucket 2018-10-23
It’s surprising how many people got pissed without even reading the article. The article points out a lot of flaws with the survey and also mentions that men are also more likely to report being less happy in a marriage as partner count increases. It hardly makes much of a judgement value, yet twitter is full of people chomping at the bit to be outraged.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
I love the Atlantic, but this honestly was a horrible article intended to generate as much attention as possible. They briefly touch upon how correlation =/= causation but essentially proceed as if it is and don't talk about the factors that are likely to influence the result, e.g. that women who only have sex while married are overwhelmingly likely to be devoutly religious and as such much less likely to divorce (and potentially more likely to exaggerate how happy they are because a woman's role in marriage/as a wife is much more important to the devoutly religious and they are expected to be subservient, care-free, and doting), that many women with high partner counts have such a high partner count because of mental health issues that also affect their happiness in marriage and likelihood of divorce. The correlation is basically meaningless unless you correlate for things like mental health and lifestyle factors. This article is pretty irresponsible.
1 Slimey-Bucket 2018-10-23
Did you read the article? The article does, in fact mention these various issues in different forms that may be the cause. It mentions these reasons specifically:
The article dedicates a good 1/2 to 2/3 of it's length to counterpoints yet you find it "irresponsible" and claim that is proceeds as though the relationship is causal. You seem to have very much let your biases take the wheel like these twitter commenters.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
They spent the majority of the article treating the blog post as if it were reliable, then gently brushed up against 'well it COULD be...and btw it's a blog' towards the very end. This:
in and of itself implies that partner count is the sole cause rather than a factor or a variable that is influenced by the same factor(s) that might influence partner count.
Even the premise of the article- reporting on scientific findings that weren't subject to peer review- is irresponsible. Reporting on them without immediately going into depth about why the findings are unreliable is even worse. 'Responsible' reporting on peer-reviewed scientific findings is usually bad enough; reporting on a blog post as if it constitutes reliable evidence is a breach of ethics. Particularly if the 'findings' can be used as propaganda or otherwise contain serious social or cultural implications. The average person doesn't understand what a reliable scientific source is or understand what a correlation is (even if they do know how to parrot 'correlation =/= causation'). The comments on this post alone should be enough to show you why this is irresponsible science reporting.
My own biases? I just hate shitty science reporting. I wouldn't be surprised if partner count was a factor in marital success.
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
The blog post IS very reliable. It references a shitload of different studies and attempts to synthesize all of them. It sounds like you literally can't read.
1 Slimey-Bucket 2018-10-23
You kinda sound like a gamergator tbh. This article is a nothing special and is in line with 90% of the kind of science and politics articles you see on mainstream news sites.
You're just inflating everything about it because you were upset by the clickbait headline and the fact that the Atlantic wasn't jerking hard enough this time lol.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
wat
Most science reporting is shit, but science reporters don't typically report on 'findings' posted on blogs, let alone socially-charged 'findings' posted on blogs because doing so is a breach of ethics and can have actual, serious consequences. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
wat
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-23
havent read the article, but this implies it's simplistic and actively misleading to the point of uselessness. why exactly are you defending it again?
1 Slimey-Bucket 2018-10-23
Idk, i just thought it was awfully strange to sperg out about an article that never purported to be representative of the scientific consensus. It just basically presents a wishy-washy rundown of the topic and then offers a bunch of counterpoints before saying “who knows”.
Yet certain users think it’s highly important to remind everyone they can that this isn’t some peer reviewed scientific journal and it’s really all about ethics in science journalism.
The article never really struck me as some huge assult on women, but maybe I just never realy cared about the dangerous propaganda disrupting the scientific discourse on r/drama.
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-23
snally said she likes the atlantic (idk why, theyre trash, but whatever), that probably has something to do with it. an outlet you actually respect running clickbait nonsense is gonna bother you a lot more than some random rag. your gamergate comparison is also really forced, because gg's basic absurdity was thinking anything to do with video games mattered. "ethics in science journalism" (not that they actually exist, but speaking idealistically) actually are important, since the way this stuff is reported has a major impact on public consciousness, and by extension social and political norms. the sort of stuff a major magazine chooses to legitimize influences what happens in the real world, they should absolutely be called out if what theyre publishing is garbage.
1 Slimey-Bucket 2018-10-23
I don't really understand the need to call them out over scientific reporting in an article that makes no particular value judgement or statement and is not even in the science section.
​
I guess I'm just missing the real quality control in the section that has such hard hitting scientific journalism as "Superfoods are a marketing ploy", "Neanderthals Suffered a lot of Traumatic Injuries. So how did they live so long?", and "Bad news for people who can't remember names".
​
I think the comparison to Gamergate is apt, or at least it's what I thought of first, because most KIA posters find an article that triggers them, but isn't particularly meaningful or controversial. They then justify their spergout by inflating the importance of the issue by making it about journalistic ethics and the like.
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-23
if you think articles need to make explicit "value judgements" to have the sort of effect im describing youre a fucking fool who doesnt understand the first thing about media. that said, yeah, if you recognize the atlantic, as a whole, is already trash it's a bit silly to get worked up over this article in particular. but if, like snally, you havent seen the light yet, i think the response is understandable.
1 nullcrash 2018-10-23
And the NPC meme. And anything that makes women look bad. And fun.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Memes are the lowest form of communication, so of course I hate them.
Source?
Source?
1 HINDBRAIN 2018-10-23
Would you rate incoherent tard screeching higher?
1 shallowm 2018-10-23
Shut the fuck up, white boy.
1 nullcrash 2018-10-23
Nahhhh.
1 tathrowaway666 2018-10-23
Wouldn’t exactly say peer review is that great of an indicator of scientific prowess given those three professors bullshitting peer reviews recently (particularly about the dog sex in parks one).
Also, it’s a blog post not a fucking news article. Take your panties out of your mouth and the dildo out of your ass and chill. They covered many of the potential flaws.
Last, literally any study can be used as propaganda. That 1 in 4 rape shit is used as propaganda, but it’s sac religious to question the scientific validity of that.
1 trilateral1 2018-10-23
A significant amount of men, even the top 5% of men, are willing to dumpster dive to get their dick wet.
So a 5/10 woman can get casual sex with a 9.5/10 man.
But she can't even get a 7/10 man to marry her, unless he's very naive.
Women tend to be in denial about this. Especially women who have a lot of casual sex.
After getting that 9.5/10 dick, they can't be sexually satisfied by the type of men that are willing to put a ring on it.
1 dogwheiner 2018-10-23
It's bizarre that they're quoting a conservative think tank which is summarizing a U of U sociologist that wrote an article titled "Why I'm A Liberal" for huffpo
This is how nuance gets stripped from research so morons like us can fight about it.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Yeah, I don't really get how this was passed by an editor.
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
Read the source that the article derives from. It's anything but propaganda. It goes into all of the ways it could be flawed, and all of the multiple variables involved. The people jumping to call this propaganda are dipshits who are offended by the mere possibility that someone would say the life they lead and values they hold don't result in the best outcomes.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
I like how you didn't address anything that I wrote.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
It literally is propaganda. The best propaganda has some basis in reality, and the fact that it's propaganda doesn't mean that the findings themselves are incorrect. However,
And this is why peer-review is important. It provides reliable sources demonstrating that the correlation exists, then goes off into this:
It dives into completely baseless, evidence-free speculation about the cause of the effect. And then people like you eat it up because it's what you want to hear. This is no different than if somebody over at the World Association for Wombyn's Advancement (WAWA) created a website full of blog posts that link to hundreds of reliable peer-reviewed studies from high-IPF journals attesting to higher rates of violence and aggression in men and then suggested that men could be inherently violent and that social conditioning suppresses it or some other evidence-free theory about the effect. Institutions with an agenda do this because it's a convincing form of propaganda, as we can see in the case of you here gobbling it up. It's situations like these that are exactly why peer-review is important and that ALL claims in human research need to be based off of hard, reliable evidence. Including evidence for why an effect exists to begin with. Claims like "over-emphasized comparisons" or "Some people may just have a high level of sexual curiosity" are not valid unless they too are supported by independent peer-reviewed research.
The absolute fucking state of science education.
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
This is a stupid ad hominem argument.
No.
You literally don't know how to read. The blog posts references a dozen peer reviewed studies and discusses their conclusions. It says the jury is still out and that there are no easy conclusions to arrive at.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
What is an ad hominem to you?
You just completely disregarded what I wrote again... do you have a learning disability? If so, I can direct you to some resources that might be helpful to you. If you can't extract the key takeaways from a few lines of text then that is very concerning.
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
an ad hominem argument is where you attack the source of the argument, retard. which is exactly what you've been doing incessantly. it's what cancelled your ability to read/
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
I know it sounds complicated now, but if you take the right classes when you're a little bit older, if your education is okay, you'll understand the difference between calling the writer of an article names (i.e. an ad homiem) and critiquing the reliability of an article by virtue of how accurately it conveys the findings of a scientific article or by virtue of how accurately it portrays the reliability of a source.
I'll try and give an example that's easy for laymen to understand:
Imagine that a hobbyist statistician finds a correlation between ice cream consumption and violent crime and decides to make a post about it in their blog. Three science journalists from major news publications hear about it, and here's what they do:
Which option is the best?
Or:
Imagine that blog article is published that references studies indicating that there is a correlation between video game consumption and aggression. Three science journalists from major news publications hear about it, and here's what they do:
Which option is the best?
I hope this helps. Do you want to be a scientist when you grow up?
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
this is an ad hominem in the most basic definition of that fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.
you're actually retarded.
1 shallowm 2018-10-23
Shut the fuck up, white boy.
1 dongas420 2018-10-23
You don't make a chart like the one in the article if you aren't trying to push an agenda. 55% of women who have had sex with 21+ people being satisfied with their marriages vs. 65% who have only had one partner is barely worth mentioning
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-10-23
BOTH OF YOU STOP SERIOUSPOSTING!!!
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Scientific illiteracy + smug is my achilles heel. I can't not reply with a seriouspost
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-10-23
Okay then
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
thanks for respecting my decisions
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-10-23
Hey it's your body. You do with it how you please.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Thanks I hope it doesn't affect my chance at successful marriage
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-10-23
Some guys don't want to date seriousposters
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
That's okay, you can't be liked by everyone.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-23
To summarize, fake it until you make it for happiness and roasties are a plague of borderline and bipolar disorders.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Dunno if a lot of them really 'make it', they just feel pressure to be perceived as happy due to cultural pressure, sort of like how housewives in the 50's were supposed to be jolly and doting but there was a huge barbituate abuse problem because that couldn't be naturally maintained by of them.
Probably true plus the rest of Cluster B thrown in
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-23
I am glad divorce is legal and especially no fault divorce but I don't know if people are exactly happy by running the first time everything isn't Paradise and bouncing around either.
Also I know correlation isn't causation but isn't it the same result at the end anyway to notice a trademark of a symptom?
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
I completely agree; once you're married you should try to make it work the best you can unless your spouse is abusive or unfaithful, or you otherwise just can't make it work despite trying (though you shouldn't try if your partner is abusive or unfaithful because they probably won't change and it's not worth banking on that chance). It should be a serious commitment. I don't remember if it was just a news article or what, but a little while back I read that women from higher income and education levels were more likely to take marriage seriously as a permanent institution. I don't know how true that is, though.
It depends on what effects are causing the correlation. If partner count in and of itself is a strong or the leading cause, then it's 100% valid to take the correlation at face value. If the correlation holds across many to all demographic groups, or at least the ones you're most exposed to (i.e. if it is an effect observed in the types of people that you're most likely to date) then it's also a good idea to take it seriously. If neither of those things are true then you're probably fine taking it into account on a case-by-case basis, though it's always okay to have any sort of preference you want when you're looking to have a serious relationship with somebody and can stop the relationship at any time if things show up that seem to make you incompatible with the other person.
If you decided to overlook a symptom of something that makes someone incompatible with you and it turns out that they are really incompatible with you, there's absolutely nothing wrong with leaving the relationship too. In the end, it's fine to avoid dating somebody for any reason you want (some reasons restrict your dating pool more than others, but unless you've dried up your dating pool it probably just helps you find someone you're compatible with), but if you do make concessions and things don't turn out well then it doesn't say anything bad about you and it isn't a bad thing to call it quits. Sorry for the essay and veering way off topic.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-23
Lol nah you made good points even if it somehow managed to annoy a few people apparently.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
It's just sad that they're so eager to find a way to 'stick it to the women' (as if most women are even going to become aware of this article) that they're willing to buy into this shoddy think-piece. I'd be more than happy to admit that there's a strong or even exclusive causal relationship between women's partner count and marital success if there was actually evidence supporting that, believing that there's a strong correlation doesn't affect me in any way because I've been in the same relationship for my entire adult life, and I do think that there is at least a slight causal or interactive effect. But there's just no concrete evidence that the amount of partners somebody has directly influences how likely they are to get divorced. And even if there were it wouldn't make any change to the lives of the bitterposters celebrating the article.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-10-23
Yeah if someone used it to insult women across the board it would be incredibly retarded.
1 trilateral1 2018-10-23
correlation =/= causation is really a ridiculous criticism in this case.
the sexual partners before marriage happen -- by definition -- before the marriage begins. so causality can't go in the opposite direction.
and of course the number itself isn't the cause of decreased happiness and marriage success.
but whatever the true cause is, that causes both high partner counts and bad marriages -- the high partner count happens first, so it predicts marriage success, regardless of the true cause.
1 Zozbot 2018-10-23
zoz
1 Zozbot 2018-10-23
zle
1 Zozbot 2018-10-23
zozzle
1 Hammer_of_truthiness 2018-10-23
everyone who downvotes needs to make of the self keeping safe
1 Lysis10 2018-10-23
lol best answer. gotta whore it up past 10 and then you're fine
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-10-23
wtf I love The Atlantic now
1 Baconlightning 2018-10-23
Even if it’s just a correlation that still means that there’s traits shared by roasties that leads to bad marriages.
Really there’s not much difference between the traits that makes someone promiscuous also tend to make them bad partners and being promiscuous makes them bad partners.
TL;DR: Whether being a roasite is a symptom or a cause doesn’t matter, stay away.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
That's only true if the variables driving most of the effect don't interact with each other. For example, religious devotion is the main cause for people to wait until marriage to have sex; it is next to impossible to find a non-devout who wants to wait until marriage. This cuts across other factors that have a huge influence on marital success, such as SES, education level, mental health, age at marriage, etc.
Devoutly religious people are much less likely than non-devout people to get a divorce because it's a religious taboo, and they may be more likely to exaggerate their happiness in marriage because it is a much larger part of their identity and there tends to be immense social pressure in religious communities for women to play the 'happy subservient wife' role.
However, because there's no decent research about the factors that cause people to sleep with various amounts of other people (aside from studies about promiscuity as a symptom of mental health issues), and there aren't any extremely strong social factors that dictate partner count beyond religion, it could easily be at least one interaction accounting for the effect, e.g. that women who are poor are more likely to sleep around, and SES has a massive effect on marital success. Partner count may interact with SES, or SES may be the underlying variable behind the effect, which means that somebody of a higher social class with a higher partner count may be considerably more likely to achieve marital success. And that's even if the methods behind the correlation were okay, including but not limited to keeping demographic representation equal across groups of women with different partner counts and not asking 'are you happy/satisfied' type questions. A simple correlation isn't as simple as 'there's a correlation so everyone I meet is likely to fit into that correlation'. But I imagine that you don't care about any of this because you just want to stick it to the females for letting your dick stay dry.
1 nahnotreallytho 2018-10-23
my dick wet all day and I know not to wife up the hos
1) You've left 'the pair-bonding hormonal response to sex deteriorates over time and partners' out of all your estimations
2) It really, really, really doesn't matter what the 'causation' is; that the correlation exists is significant enough, provided the correlation is high enough.
It doesn't matter why that person slept with 33 dudes, if knowing that information is enough to help you avoid higher-risk partners in life
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Got some links? I'm interested in reading about that. But I was talking about possible factors (of many) for why this effect exists, not the direct effect that partner count has on marital success.
I can't even imagine the life of somebody who is both an incel and a statscell. You didn't even use "significant" correctly...
1 nahnotreallytho 2018-10-23
Both the technical "statistically significant" definition and layman "significant" definition are correct definitions, for their own uses.
Calling other people statslets while not understanding non-technical definitions exist 🙄
You're not foolin' nobody snally. the same people shrieking that this cannot be true because they don't want it to be true are one google search away from shrieking about higher partner counts impacting pair-bond hormones because they don't want it to be true
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Using the layman's definition of "significant" in 'significant correlation' is an amateur mistake. You learn not to do that in like your first semester of any major that uses statistical methods...
Because I was giving examples of things that could possibly be factors, not things that have been demonstrated to be factors.
Why did you ask me if I forgot/didn't forget about it if it's something that you thought up off the top of your head and I was explicitly listing nuisance variables rather than reasons that partner count would have a direct influence on marital success (which would have been irrelevant to what I was saying)?
So you don't have any articles on hand about "pair-bonding hormones" reducing over time?
1 nahnotreallytho 2018-10-23
calls other people statlets
tries to lecture them on not using everyday words when they could have been statistical jargon if they rearranged the order they were written in and took some words out
🤔
look this clearly hit a srspost nerve. that's okay, even if it says somethin about snally. you never told me wyd 2night
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
I like how you're trying to use the fact that I actually know the language that literally anybody with even a basic stats or human research background would use as evidence that I'm wrong. I'm 90% positive that you had to look up what statistical significance is, lol.
As I said to Hodor, bad science + smug is irresistible bait.
Can I see that pair bonding stuff that you were talking about? I'm actually interested in reading it.
1 nahnotreallytho 2018-10-23
Read 10:27 PM
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
huh?
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
he left you on read, foid.
1 parduscat 2018-10-23
I kind of get what he's saying and to a certain extent if you're not talking about social justice or legal discrimination, its a decent rule of thumb to have. It doesn't really matter why someone's fucked up, what really matters is that they're fucked up. Not saying people with high partner counts are undesired or messed up of course.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Yeah, I agree tbh. I'd never date somebody with a high partner count because it suggests that they have an incompatible view of relationships and somebody's history is the best predictor of their future behavior. The fact that people ITT are willing to accept bad '''science'''''' in order to BTFO the roasties is embarrassing, though. When did /r/drama start attracting the r9k/incel crowd?
1 parduscat 2018-10-23
Drama subs can fall quickly due to them directly linking pages and typically most subs get a notification if they're linked to a different sub, so people who get curious about the sub that's referencing them and/or want to argue their point (lol) will back flow to the parent sub. Some end up liking it and stay there. r/Drama would probably be particularly vulnerable due to its recently quit habit of pinging people in the drama threads and the banning of many of the subs it used to mine for drama. All that to say that probably some r/incels and r/braincels users lurk here.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Yeah, it seems like the incel community got word of /r/drama through some means or other and decided to settle down here. We've been bombarded with wizardchan-tier posters over the past few months. Oh well. They can complain about women all they want here, but it still won't make their lives any less miserable. It is annoying though. I can pretty much guarantee that men as a topic is the one sacred cow here in terms of being made fun of without generating almost universal rage. Well, I guess that there are probably other sacred cows too, but none that would cause the level of raw pain that is generated by insulting an important part of someone's identity.
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
shut fuck fxmoid. we get it you have sex.
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
Where did this come from??
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
your insistence that everyone is an incel
1 parduscat 2018-10-23
That's true, men as a general class are probably off limits, specific men are more fair game than women however. I always wonder, what are the female equivalent of male incels? What do they do with their time if they're not shitposting?
1 snallygaster 2018-10-23
The female equivalent to MGTOW is pretty congruent, but female incels are a special sort of bunch. There are some contingents who hate men as much as male incels hate women, but female incels tend to be much more wrapped up in fantasy. They're pretty similar to male turbo-weebs except that they try much harder to find a 'rational' explanation for why they're caught up in fantasy (e.g. 'i was married to a final fantasy character in a past life!') and are much more fixated on fantasy for what it offers as opposed to male turbo-weebs who seem to be much more aware of the reasons why they were driven into fantasy land. From what I've seen, a higher amount of female incels seem to be initially repulsed by sex and male sex organs, while a higher amount of male incels become repulsed over time or are repulsed by female sex organs that don't look like they do in softcore porn.
This is all just observations tho. I've met quite a few female incels in my day, and I think that because women can get laid much more easily, the ones that are left over are either asexual or are extremely shy/socially awkward/wrapped up in fantasy to the point where they don't know how to or just can't attract somebody. They're actually pretty common if you know where to look, but most of them are on communities that males aren't exposed to.
1 shallowm 2018-10-23
it's never even began for dramacels 😞
1 aqouta 2018-10-23
So basically just: Christians who will go to hell for divorcing claim marriage is going well? Nothing like fear of the underworld to keep a couple together.
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
this is as retarded of a take as you can possibly get
1 aqouta 2018-10-23
I wasn't even trying, I can do way better but some of the incel ones in here are pretty bad.
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
ok rart
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-10-23
What's your point? That just demonstrates that religion is a good thing, since we know that marriage is objectively good from a societal point of view and for the success of children.
1 aqouta 2018-10-23
What fucking sub am I in right now? Delusionally being tied to one gussy is not a fucking societal good.
1 Therattlesnakemaster 2018-10-23
That comment reeks of fugee
1 spookyguy109 2018-10-23
The roasties are at it again folks
1 Therattlesnakemaster 2018-10-23
THOTS PATROLLED
1 Protista_of_Peace 2018-10-23
Sure, let's have roasties go back to thinking that places like the Insititute for Family Studies have the right idea about sex. Good idea guys. 🙄
1 Sea_Safe 2018-10-23
when you whiteknight on r.drama
1 Protista_of_Peace 2018-10-23
😴
1 Megazor 2018-10-23
Is there a way to tag every angry woman who responded with a scarlet verified tag ✔️?
Kinda like a public health initiative to keep everyone informed on the Thot Status.
1 Roach-Master 2018-10-23
All these twitter scholars are complaining about how the og material is just a blog post and not peer reviewed, whereas the post has plenty of credible sources lmao.
Imagine thinking that individuals in a field are incapable of coming up with conclusions after reading studies in said field.
1 King_Drumpf 2018-10-23
Its almost as if no one wants to associate with thots.
1 wow___justwow 2018-10-23
we all know how meaningful peer review is thanks to our patron saints
1 geeses 2018-10-23
The ones that got mein kampf with a few word replacements published?
1 wow___justwow 2018-10-23
yes! lol
1 MrGoodieMob 2018-10-23
Incels get out
1 Fluffykitty93 2018-10-23
Sluts make terrible wives. More news at 11.
1 westofthetracks 2018-10-23
further evidence getting married is for losers
1 JohnGalt316 2018-10-23
in other news: the sky is blue
1 Kelkymcdouble 2018-10-23
"A taste of honey is worse than none at all"
I got called an incel for saying that in r/inceltears when explaining to the incels that inhabit that sub that "no, a relationship won't fix you, in fact it could fuck you up more"
1 Gtyyler 2018-10-23
How many times did the paper mention the phrase "cock carousel"?
1 Osterbottning 2018-10-23
Wow I was confused and though why would less promiscuous women be worse off, then I realised that 6-10 is supposed to be high. I love sluts now
1 aristotlescumbucket 2018-10-23
Divorse rates by country Notice how the countries with the lowest divorce rates have the least rights for women 🤔
1 aristotlescumbucket 2018-10-23
Why am I green?
1 CptMaovich 2018-10-23
mayo roasties are a special kind of parasites
1 trilateral1 2018-10-23
hamster wheel overdrive
1 Ravensthrowit 2018-10-23
Golly G willikers! I think I cracked the code!