First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?
Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later? If so, do you do this out of choice or because you're being coerced?
Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?
I'd wager the cause and effect are backwards, same as how those studies go "Oh, men who are married end up earning way more than their unmarried peers". It's not that marriage improves your ability to earn money, it's that men with higher incomes get women(or in some cases they get nagged to earn more). Similarly it may be the case that happy men end up in marriages rather than men end up in marriages and become happy as a result.
Statistics is just propaganda via math. Observe the world rather than numbers if the truth is of interest to you.
Similarly it may be the case that happy men end up in marriages rather than men end up in marriages and become happy as a result.
You're still stuck in the trap. It isn't either of those. It's that the fail state is defined out of the equation: Survivorship bias is built into the question.
"We polled 200 living survivors of gun violence, and found that none of them died. Therefore, we can assume it's likely that gun violence doesn't cause deaths."
That words it a bit more hyperbolically, but also a bit more clearly for you. The men who are ruined are hidden away in the divorce, separated, widower, or suicide statistics, not the happily married in a functional marriage statistic, so it doesn't matter how many happily married in a functional marriage men you poll, you're not going to find data on the ones who hit that fail state. [EDIT: And when 50% of marriages end in divorce, letting that 50% of the pollable data in question get allocated to "single" men instead, and then summarizing that these divorced, broke, broken, abused "single" men are clearly miserable, is the worst lying with statistics.]
While I disagree with your view on science, I agree that you make an excellent point. Unless they've controlled for other variables, there's no evidence that there's any causal link. They admit this when they say 'more likely'. Fair enough, and good job pointing that out.
First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?
That study dishonestly lumps divorced men in with with never married men to artificially lower the numbers for the "single" group so they can shill their marriage scam. That's before you get into the reverse causality and ignorance is bliss issues that other responses bring up. If "the experts" say something it's a dead giveaway that they're fraudulently trying to push people they hate into doing something that's against their best interest.
Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later?
There's a huge difference between suffering for a later benefit and suffering for the sake of suffering. The former should be done if the cost/benefit analysis works out in your favor and the latter is just retarded. Marriage falls under the latter unless a man absolutely wants children, and even then he'd have to want them pretty bad for the the cost/benefit analysis works out in his favor. He'd be better off geomaxxing in that case to minimize his risk.
Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?
I should probably use a less loaded term considering the connotations "beta" has, but I'm defining betas as the bottom 95% who have to offer prostitution style relationshits to get women instead being chosen for their looks. I also consider love to be unconditional, which is why I don't think they love bottom 95% men. A woman who throws a guy in the garbage the minute the gravy train slows down or ends never loved him to begin with. I'm not sold on the idea that women are capable of loving top 5 percenters either, but that's more complicated than their obvious exploitation of men that aren't the top of the top of the top.
Not the person you are responding to, but I appreciate the genuine and good faith response that doesn't resort to shit flinging.
First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?
I personally have no difficulty believing that statistic to be true. However "married men" artificially selects for men who have yet to be divorced raped, or cheated on, or have their kids taken from them. Statistically speaking, a good chunk of them are unknowingly hurtling towards that fate.
Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later? If so, do you do this out of choice or because you're being coerced?
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not a hedonist that only seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. I despise hedonism actually. But I think it is disingenuous to compare going outside and exercising to dealing with modern women.
The probability of something very bad happening to you from going outside is astronomically low. I don't think I need to explain how the probability of ending up divorce raped and only able to see your kids a couple times a month is orders of magnitude higher.
And exercise can be boiled down to a science. You input a predictable amount of strain and discomfort for a whole host of health benefits that have next to zero downside so long as you utilize proper form to avoid injury.
Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?
This answer will vary by person. In my case, I have slightly above average looks, make well above average money for my age with good career prospects, and have good social skills. I am of average height though, so that alone makes me invisible to a huge chunk of women.
I dont consider myself a beta male, but I think when people complain about things like this, they are pointing at phenomena like the one I explained above. One superficial negative trait that shouldn't be a huge issue being blown out of proportion.
Personally, my issue is more on the opposite end though. Similar to what onetruephilosoraptor detailed above, you can meet thousands of women and find a handful that are true marriage material. And no, this isn't me being hypocritical and disqualifying huge swathes of the female population for superficial grievances. I'm talking huge personality flaws or similar things that might as well be the human equivalent of poison dart frogs loudly advertising their toxicity with bright colors.
I have a few questions:
First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?
Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later? If so, do you do this out of choice or because you're being coerced?
Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?
Thanks for the answers.
I'd wager the cause and effect are backwards, same as how those studies go "Oh, men who are married end up earning way more than their unmarried peers". It's not that marriage improves your ability to earn money, it's that men with higher incomes get women(or in some cases they get nagged to earn more). Similarly it may be the case that happy men end up in marriages rather than men end up in marriages and become happy as a result.
Statistics is just propaganda via math. Observe the world rather than numbers if the truth is of interest to you.
You're still stuck in the trap. It isn't either of those. It's that the fail state is defined out of the equation: Survivorship bias is built into the question.
"We polled 200 living survivors of gun violence, and found that none of them died. Therefore, we can assume it's likely that gun violence doesn't cause deaths."
That words it a bit more hyperbolically, but also a bit more clearly for you. The men who are ruined are hidden away in the divorce, separated, widower, or suicide statistics, not the happily married in a functional marriage statistic, so it doesn't matter how many happily married in a functional marriage men you poll, you're not going to find data on the ones who hit that fail state. [EDIT: And when 50% of marriages end in divorce, letting that 50% of the pollable data in question get allocated to "single" men instead, and then summarizing that these divorced, broke, broken, abused "single" men are clearly miserable, is the worst lying with statistics.]
While I disagree with your view on science, I agree that you make an excellent point. Unless they've controlled for other variables, there's no evidence that there's any causal link. They admit this when they say 'more likely'. Fair enough, and good job pointing that out.
That study dishonestly lumps divorced men in with with never married men to artificially lower the numbers for the "single" group so they can shill their marriage scam. That's before you get into the reverse causality and ignorance is bliss issues that other responses bring up. If "the experts" say something it's a dead giveaway that they're fraudulently trying to push people they hate into doing something that's against their best interest.
There's a huge difference between suffering for a later benefit and suffering for the sake of suffering. The former should be done if the cost/benefit analysis works out in your favor and the latter is just retarded. Marriage falls under the latter unless a man absolutely wants children, and even then he'd have to want them pretty bad for the the cost/benefit analysis works out in his favor. He'd be better off geomaxxing in that case to minimize his risk.
I should probably use a less loaded term considering the connotations "beta" has, but I'm defining betas as the bottom 95% who have to offer prostitution style relationshits to get women instead being chosen for their looks. I also consider love to be unconditional, which is why I don't think they love bottom 95% men. A woman who throws a guy in the garbage the minute the gravy train slows down or ends never loved him to begin with. I'm not sold on the idea that women are capable of loving top 5 percenters either, but that's more complicated than their obvious exploitation of men that aren't the top of the top of the top.
Odds are that it hasn't been reproduced.
Not the person you are responding to, but I appreciate the genuine and good faith response that doesn't resort to shit flinging.
I personally have no difficulty believing that statistic to be true. However "married men" artificially selects for men who have yet to be divorced raped, or cheated on, or have their kids taken from them. Statistically speaking, a good chunk of them are unknowingly hurtling towards that fate.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not a hedonist that only seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. I despise hedonism actually. But I think it is disingenuous to compare going outside and exercising to dealing with modern women.
The probability of something very bad happening to you from going outside is astronomically low. I don't think I need to explain how the probability of ending up divorce raped and only able to see your kids a couple times a month is orders of magnitude higher.
And exercise can be boiled down to a science. You input a predictable amount of strain and discomfort for a whole host of health benefits that have next to zero downside so long as you utilize proper form to avoid injury.
This answer will vary by person. In my case, I have slightly above average looks, make well above average money for my age with good career prospects, and have good social skills. I am of average height though, so that alone makes me invisible to a huge chunk of women.
I dont consider myself a beta male, but I think when people complain about things like this, they are pointing at phenomena like the one I explained above. One superficial negative trait that shouldn't be a huge issue being blown out of proportion.
Personally, my issue is more on the opposite end though. Similar to what onetruephilosoraptor detailed above, you can meet thousands of women and find a handful that are true marriage material. And no, this isn't me being hypocritical and disqualifying huge swathes of the female population for superficial grievances. I'm talking huge personality flaws or similar things that might as well be the human equivalent of poison dart frogs loudly advertising their toxicity with bright colors.