As someone who is very rapidly approaching (
) his own PhD, I can assure you that most people who hold those pieces of paper know just enough 'lingo' to fool others into thinking that they actually know what they are talking about. Sad but true.
Hey, on the flip side there's at least one person here who'll believe anything you say once you're finished.
I won't lie: I knew that this thread was going to generate the kind of gravity that resulted in some crazy orbiting around it. I figured I'd get a little obsessed-with-romance-and-rages-at-anyone-who-even-dares-joke-about-it type of crazy (and, let's be fair, I did.) A little light mocking of their over-reaction to the idea and perhaps a bit if legit conversation about the nature of romances with others.
Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I'd get this delightful mix of "all marriage is prostitution" and "women's sexuality is inherently a commodity that I can buy and sell and own like property."
Like, wow... out of nowhere there is a level of crazy happening that I thought was reserved for Rupert Murdoch depositions.
I won't lie: I knew that this thread was going to generate the kind of gravity that resulted in some crazy orbiting around it. I figured I'd get a little obsessed-with-romance-and-rages-at-anyone-who-even-dares-joke-about-it type of crazy (and, let's be fair, I did.) A little light mocking of their over-reaction to the idea and perhaps a bit if legit conversation about the nature of romances with others.
Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I'd get this delightful mix of "all marriage is prostitution" and "women's sexuality is inherently a commodity that I can buy and sell and own like property."
Like, wow... out of nowhere there is a level of crazy happening that I thought was reserved for Rupert Murdoch depositions.
Indeed. It had a good run, but now that the tinfoil hats have shown up this thread must be purged with righteous fire.
Where's the vorcha when you need him? Nevermind, I have your back; quarian orbital bombardment it is.
now that the tinfoil hats have shown up this thread must be purged with righteous fire.
Don't you dare...
You'll burn the popcorn.
Okay. That's the cutest popcorn gif ever.
RIP Top Gear.
Well, Top Gear is dead but the concept is not, the trio is supposedly going to reunite for a similar show on netflix.
Well, Top Gear is dead but the concept is not, the trio is supposedly going to reunite for a similar show on netflix.
"Real" scientist? That video was produced by the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture. Are you kidding me? They are totally biased. The handful of people making up the institute (yeah, it's not an university or anything) have a bad reputation in scientific circles because their studies try to invalidate decades of actual scientific research in order to hand right-wing conservatives weaponized arguments. For example, they were involved in a study that declared same sex couples are bad parents and other hokey crap.
Anonymously funded think tanks like that release studies that fit into the narratives of their donors. They are not objective, they manipulate (or make up) data and they regularly publish studies that contradict existing ones. There is no transparency.
Science doesn't work that way. One study is not enough for anything, it is an indicator at best. Once you have a dozen studies of the subject, then you can compare them and develop a theory. This one failed the peer review process btw.
Btw... http://www.slate.com...ture_wants.html
Even without a quick check of the people behind the video I can tell that the "facts" presented in it are wrong. The only time economics apply to sex is when you pay for it. Sex is not a trade and marriage is not the price. I mean, come on. Do you seriously believe this to be true?
Ah I get it, I should only listen to left-wing progressive scientists because the right-wing boogymen are only trying to spread conservative propaganda while the left-wing progressives don't do anything of the sort, right?
Seriously, the Austin Institute isn't the only institute that brings up the fact that women are the doorkeepers to sex and other facts mentioned in the video. They are however the first to directly link sex to economics. And while that direct link might be debatable, the points being raised in that video are definitely not debatable.
Women are the doorkeepers to sex, men are the doorkeepers to marriage. If that wasn't true then we wouldn't have so many young male AFCs (average frustrated chumps) who aren't getting laid and don't understand why.
Just look at the average dating sites like OKCupid. The scale is completely balanced into the women's favor, where even the most average women get dozens of messages per day while above-average men barely get a few messages per month.
Yet if we look at middle-aged men and women, we see the balance shifting. It's not difficult for a middle-aged man to find a good partner to marry to. In fact many men might experience that it becomes a lot easier to find a partner as they grow older and more succesful. Yet more and more middle-aged women complain about not being able to find a man who wants to marry them. The 'cat lady' stereotype exists for a reason.
You'd have to be absolutely blind or willful ignorant to not see the obvious fact that women are the doorkeepers to sex while men are the doorkeepers to marriage.
Women are the doorkeepers to sex, men are the doorkeepers to marriage. If that wasn't true then we wouldn't have so many male AFCs (average frustrated chumps) who aren't getting laid and don't understand why.
I have an inkling.
I have an inkling.
I have an inkling too. It's because they don't understand that women look for different things than men and don't know how "the game" works.
"the game"
You'd have to be absolutely blind or willful ignorant to not see the obvious fact that women are the doorkeepers to sex while men are the doorkeepers to marriage.
I now have a hypothesis. It's because they say stuff like this without irony.
Ah I get it, I should only listen to left-wing progressive scientists because the right-wing boogymen are only trying to spread conservative propaganda while the left-wing progressives don't do anything of the sort, right?
-things-
I have an inkling too. It's because they don't understand that women look for different things than men and don't know how "the game" works.
Tried to read it, but just kept picturing it in this guy's voice. 
I now have a hypothesis. It's because they say stuff like this without irony.
Are you implying that I am an AFC who can't get laid? If so: LOL!
Tried to read it, but just kept picturing it in this guy's voice.
Looks like a cool dude. Not sure about the black nail polish though...
Who is this guy?
Due to the constant game of word association whirling around in my head, I now want Charles Dance to voice a character in ME:A.
I actually already wanted that.
Ah I get it, I should only listen to left-wing progressive scientists because the right-wing boogymen are only trying to spread conservative propaganda while the left-wing progressives don't do anything of the sort, right?
Seriously, the Austin Institute isn't the only institute that brings up the fact that women are the doorkeepers to sex and other facts mentioned in the video. They are however the first to directly link sex to economics. And while that direct link might be debatable, the points being raised in that video are definitely not debatable.
Women are the doorkeepers to sex, men are the doorkeepers to marriage. If that wasn't true then we wouldn't have so many young male AFCs (average frustrated chumps) who aren't getting laid and don't understand why.
Just look at the average dating sites like OKCupid. The scale is completely balanced into the women's favor, where even the most average women get dozens of messages per day while above-average men barely get a few messages per month.
Yet if we look at middle-aged men and women, we see the balance shifting. It's not difficult for a middle-aged man to find a good partner to marry to. In fact many men might experience that it becomes a lot easier to find a partner as they grow older and more succesful. Yet more and more middle-aged women complain about not being able to find a man who wants to marry them. The 'cat lady' stereotype exists for a reason.
You'd have to be absolutely blind or willful ignorant to not see the obvious fact that women are the doorkeepers to sex while men are the doorkeepers to marriage.
First of all, I don't give a **** about your american politics. USA is a clown show anyway. You are busier fighting each other over stupid **** than actually getting things done.
That study is horseshit, it got debunked by actual universities and so have all other studies by AI. I don't give a flying **** about what you think, the entire video is debateable... because it is utterly wrong.
Which card should I play? My studies in Computational Economics? My age and experience? The actual research I read today? Linking sex to economics is nonsense. It doesn't work. But hey, don't take my word for it.
http://www.austinchr...come-to-austin/
http://jezebel.com/s...dise-1524954631
Oh, I dare you to argue about the affiliations of the authors of those articles. Would be the hypocritical bonus to your "arguments".
Looks like a cool dude. Not sure about the black nail polish though...
Who is this guy?
I've an inkling you already know but I'll respond srs incase anyone else doesn't. He's the guy that hosted that woeful Pickup Artist show. Name's Mystery (seems legit) 
Are you implying that I am an AFC who can't get laid? If so: LOL!
No, just that your post reads like it was written by this guy.
I never let a lady touch me until she has taken out the garbage and listened to at least one story about one of my friends. My milk ain't free.
First of all, I don't give a **** about your american politics. USA is a clown show anyway. You are busier fighting each other over stupid **** than actually getting things done.
That study is horseshit, it got debunked by actual universities and so have all other studies by AI. I don't give a flying **** about what you think, the entire video is debateable... because it is utterly wrong.
Which card should I play? My studies in Computational Economics? My age and experience? The actual research I read today? Linking sex to economics is nonsense. It doesn't work. But hey, don't take my word for it.
http://www.austinchr...come-to-austin/
http://jezebel.com/s...dise-1524954631
Oh, I dare you to argue about the affiliations of the authors of those articles. Would be the hypocritical bonus to your "arguments".
First of all: If you don't give a **** about American politics then why bring it up?
And why do you assume I'm American? I'm not. I'm from Europe and still living in Europe.
Yeah, keep linking feminist studies and Jezebel articles, I'm sure that this "actual scientific research" will totally convince me I'm wrong... LOL!
I honestly didn't know who he was (and still don't, the name Mystery sounds familiar but I can't say I know the guy), but I had an inkling that he was a PUA.
First of all: If you don't give a **** about American politics then why bring it up?
And why do you assume I'm American? I'm not. I'm from Europe and still living in Europe.
Yeah, keep linking feminist studies and Jezebel articles, I'm sure that this "actual scientific research" will totally convince me I'm wrong... LOL!
I haven't linked to any research yet. Try to level up your reading comprehension. Did you even read the articles? Also, I knew you'd look down on feminists. 
Ah I get it, I should only listen to left-wing progressive scientists because the right-wing boogymen are only trying to spread conservative propaganda while the left-wing progressives don't do anything of the sort, right?
Seriously, the Austin Institute isn't the only institute that brings up the fact that women are the doorkeepers to sex and other facts mentioned in the video. They are however the first to directly link sex to economics. And while that direct link might be debatable, the points being raised in that video are definitely not debatable.
No, it's more this demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of how the scientific process works. It sounds more like what you did was find a few people who technically have PhD's and jumped on the bandwagon to suit your own confirmation bias. "Hey look, I have a video! This proves it! And it was made by PhD's!"
When in reality, the actual process involved is far more complicated, even amongst PhD Scholars. Some factors to consider: Is there consensus among the scientific community? What's the reputation of the journal in which it was published? What's the general reputation of the scientist (s) who published it in their field? Is there opportunities for confirmation bias which have been accounted for (Ex: Funding Sources)? Have other independent groups performed similar studies and come to the same (or different) conclusions? If different, then we have to account for why this may have occurred. Amongst many others.
As an example: https://www.washingt...arenting-study/
And another: http://www.utexas.ed...ology/news/7572
Now who knows? Maybe you're going to come back and say "liberal propaganda!". And maybe it could be. Unfortunately, I can't access any of the relevant papers at present, so this is all speculation anyway until I get a chance to read them completely. But a quick search doesn't paint a pretty picture of Mark Regnerus, as an example, who contributed to that video you linked. Of course, if there's something I'm missing here, I'm always willing to look deeper.
Retour en haut
