The other day I saw this graph so I started typing in this shit.

>>723050338
>Thoughts?
You don't really expect me to read your opinion on anything, right?

You do realize this isn't your blog, right?

Sage because fuck this type of self-important pseudo-intellectual faggot who comes here every single day expecting someone to jack him off for whatever bullshit he vomits whenever he feels bored.

>>723050338
This graph only means women are bad at statistics. 80% of men are below average looking...

Yeah, and I bet 70 percent of women are above average drivers, and 90% of Americans are above average height for Americans.

>>723050743
If you think it's incoherent rambling, just say so.

So what I'm trying to say is that liberalism as an economic model is the same as sexual liberalism.
Everything goes to the top men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIA6CYBbaAg

>>723051204
I'm not reading all that dunning-kruger just to hear some random college faggot rationalizing why he thinks women are bitches.

Always be concise if you really expect anyone to ever take you seriously.

Shoving these three paragraphs of poorly written bullshit, you rephrased from someone else, on on a single post over the internet, isn't nearly as impressive of a feat as you might think.

>>723050338
I agree, though I think this is pretty clear from theory of evolution (I know it's more of a law, but still). The one with higher reproductive costs needs to be more picky than one with lower costs. It's the same as when you want to buy something, if it costs 5$ you will give it probably much less thought than if it costs 50$ (assuming your budget is unchanged)

>>723051063
Rationally I get that. I took human evolution in college; the male investment in reproductive success is 5 minutes, the female investment is 9 months plus 12 additional years.

It still makes them look like they are terrible at basic math.

>>723052099
I'm not saying they're bitches. It's supposed to be descriptive, not normative.

>>723052461
Because it's not a Gaussian distribution as it should be?

>>723051063
this

but its sort of evolutionary repsonse

>>723052461
Math has nothing to do with this.

If you know math better it doesnt mean you need to alter your ratings to fit gauss distribution.

Graph shows that not all natural phenomena follows gauss distribution pattern.

>>723053165
Well, I would argue that male attractiveness complies with Gaussian distribution, but the female perception of it is skewed.

File: Normal_distribution_pdf.png (25KB, 1300x975px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1300x975px

>>723053379
Yeah but that is not because men are better at math than woman. When you rate attractiveness of opposite sex you dont think about statistics, you act based on your sexaul urges.

Also technically both graphs are still guass distribution its just that womens one is shifted far let and mens one is slightly shifted to the right.

>>723053165
Except the female ratings of male attraction aren't, at all, a natural phenomena.

>>723050338
This actually makes perfect sense to me, I mean if you think about the different human reproduction strategies of the genders. Males could be said “go” for quantity, potentially capable of fostering hundreds of children almost without time or energy. Meanwhile women can only have a few children in their life time and each child is to the mother a huge investment of resources and time. Thus females being picky about their mates make a lot of sense from a genetic purpose and is probably encoded in their minds naturally making them view most males as less attractive to have a greater chance of successful reproduction.

>>723053583
Not who you responded too.
>Also technically both graphs are still guass distribution its just that womens one is shifted far let and mens one is slightly shifted to the right.
>male attractiveness complies with Gaussian distribution, but the female perception of it is skewed.

>>723053723
This is pretty much what I was thinking when I wrote this stuff.

File: 325px-PDF_invGauss.svg.png (16KB, 325x244px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 325x244px

>>723053645
I checked wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_Gaussian_distribution

Women graph looks like "inverse gauss distribution". But note that word "inverse" in this term doesnt mean literally inverse, sort of just skewed.

And why its not natural? It formed during evolution. Its same as with birds. Females are boring colors, while males need to be all colorful and beautiful. And males have to sing she sweetest serenades to be considered as partner for reproduction. Females chose very selectively while males inseminate every possible female.
I am sure that if you would make similar grpah for birs you would get similar results.

I feel like their must have been an easier choice for a chart? Did they just pick the most confusing one? Id rather just read the numbers than fucking overlapping colors and shit.

>>723053583
>>723053165
>>723052729
Ugh, it does mean they are bad at math. Gaussian distribution has almost nothing to do with it dude.

You cannot have 10 people who are below average looking for the set and five people who are above average looking for the set in a 15 person sample unless the level of attractiveness is not normally distributed, i.e., the uggos are just below average for the set and the hottie's are far above average for the set. When that is the case, the mean will always be 5!

So even though the distribution of individuals does not have to be Gaussian, the average always will be, or it is not an average!!

>>723054670
Well, consider how the data was taken. Most likely one of those swipe left or right dating apps. So there is no rating, there is just yes or no.

>>723050338
>>723051063
My take on it is that women where asked to rate men on sheer preliminary qualities of fitness.

As we all know, if you sew up the most untrustworthy loser downtown degenerate in a decent suit, women will give him a significant higher rating.

In other words, the male mind conjured up this highly flawed assessment and then, incorrectly, assumes it is useful for any type of analysis, because it would be pretty much sufficient data to conclude certain things about male preferences.

Females choose their mates on PERCEIVED fitness, which is an altogether less precise, less measurable touchy feely value attributed to the male on a whole bunch of variables such as :
social standing
ability to provide (in modern context less dependent on physical fitness)
self reliance
self confidence
etc.

>>723054872
Yeah, that's the assumption. You can bluff your way to be seen as having a higher social standing etc.

>>723053723
I don't think many female primates would be thinking about the prettiest partner when saber-toothed-tigers were prowling around just waiting for an opportunity to jump on their throat. Also, you're leaving out how rape is extremely common in nature, especially among primates, which would probably greatly demean the value of attractiveness, and favor raw strength, when it comes to reproduction.

The picky behavior is something only the comfort and protection of a modern society would allows a creature to present.

You're also not taking into account how early human groups were not monogamous in the slightest, which not only made tracing lines of male paternity hard, it also allowed for the notion of "children of the group" to be the norm. Orgies were probably a more likely scenario for the primitive human than this monogamous model that only one partner is chosen at a determined period in time.

In terms of survival there's a lot more at stake than just choosing the most handsome partner when it comes to primates, and this "sexual selection" bullshit you're referencing is probably just a very odd exception among other species, especially if you consider how physical attractiveness __among primates primates__, pay attention how I clearly stated AMONG PRIMATES, has very little to do with increasing their chances of survival in the wild.

>>723050338
Well, yeah. It makes sense in evolutionary terms, and scientists understand that. The problem is that it does not fit with modern societal views of equality and so forth. Modern women bitch about men having any standards for women, while they have objectively higher standards. Evolution explains this, but that does not mean it is not a problem.

>>723055330
Well, he actually said attractive.

>>723055330
This, was meant to this >>723054015 post.

>>723055392
Exactly, this is where I will probably continue and introduce a second evolutionary line. Cultural evolution, probably need to find a better word. Memetic maybe?
Here comes the idea that for a child's success an attentive father would be good, basically passing on his habits and values onto the kid.

Which of course leads to a trade off between monogamy and polyamory.

>>723053723
>>723055330
I don't think what you two have said is in conflict with one another. I minored in anthro in college (did not graduate though) and these both are pretty much what we were taught.

Women invest MUCH more and are more picky about who contributes genetically. Men DGAF and want to spread their seed. Children are raised in groups, and male primates rape to spread even more seed.
Females ARE picky when they can be, even though rape is going to happen now and again and throw off their strategy, because it does not throw off the male strategy.

Anyone here knows Plato's Republic?

>>723055973
What females do or think, in regards to reproduction, is virtually irrelevant outside of modern society. The only reason they show this type of picky behavior depends entirely on the security provided by laws against rape.

Thinking any differently is just silly.

>>723056181
Elites should run the world because they have eyes to see and ears to hear while the plebs do not ?

>>723056181
Required reading at my high school.

>>723056541
Children are only bread by people with merit and they may never know their children.

>>723050338
women are more attractive by men, only a faggit like you could need a fucking study to get it

>>723050338
women are more attractive than men, only a faggit like you could need a fucking study to get it

>>723056826
To men?
The reason I bring up this study is a foundation for the evolutionary reasoning to it.

>>723056826
What's it like living in your simple world?

>>723050751
>90%
>above average
Kek
Probably something the FAKE NEWS would report.

;: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTNsHgsUstw

File: ekRt7zP.jpg (50KB, 634x960px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 634x960px

>>723055330
I didnt think attractive as only pretty, according to current cultural standards of beauty.

Bird prefer males with nice colored feathers. Women do prefer "alpha males" (feminists and non binary crowd will disagree strongly here). Alpha males are yes strong, symmetrical, successful in society, caring, and have a big black schlong.

This is what wone consider attractive or pretty. It can be called phisical attractiveness, chemistry, love on firs sight. Its all same bullshit. Love is just another inventions of evolution to trick us in having babies.

File: 52fba613df0d08eda72624a0ff479c23.jpg (86KB, 550x485px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 550x485px

>>723054670
>You cannot have 10 people who are below average looking for the set and five people who are above average looking

It depends on how poll was taken. It can be only yes/no it could be rate out of 10, it could be would marry or would fuck...

For me personally as white cis male. If you give me hungred pictures and ask me woluld fuck/would marry one graph would be shifted to the left and one to the right.
And even if you ask me x/10 i would probably put more bitches bellow 5 than above. Just because average fat chick doesnt push my buttons very well.

>>723056247
I dont think any women in dark alley feels any more secure regarding being raped because we have laws that prohibits rape.

I am not very fluent with unbiased statistics about rape, but I think that majority of rape happens between regular sexual partners (violent husband and angry wife, violent boyfriend and angry girlfriend, or pushy male friend raping girl who is not sure if she consented) and is not reported.

>>723058347
I may be wrong here, but I don't think females have a saying on who gets to reproduce with them if they are not under protection of modern society.

They're literally baby machines that serve to little purpose other than pumping out babies and keep themselves alive. This idea of them "choosing their own partners" is absolutely nonsensical, especially in tribal societies. It might make you feel good to romanticize women as these independent, strong, and expensive luxury item that only the best of the best can claim the chance of being picked as her sexual partner, but that's nothing more than pure fiction and fantasy. In reality, female humans, especially the most primitive ones, are nothing but slaves of the males within their societies.

So much that you can still see, today, examples of male dominated societies where females are little more than just an accessory or a possession of their husbands, and I'm talking "MODERN" societies.

If you really believe women play any role in a jungle scenario, without any written laws, other than getting raped and having babies, you're delusional. Oh, yeah, don't think many cave men will be waiting until they're 18 years old to start with the rapes, btw.

When will fucking retards learn that studies and shit like it are bullshit. There is absolutely no real information in them nor can you draw anything from them.

>you can do the same studies over and over while getting totally different results.

>>723059766
Except, we do live in modern society.
And even in ancient society, raping was seen as pretty offensive. That is, the raping of your own women. It was okay to rape a different tribes women.

>>723052099
This

>>723060001
Why of course. The parameters change over time.

File: durg.png (58KB, 500x147px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x147px

>>723060001
>they want something to get angry at
>they're all complete fucking losers
>they will still argue at something as miniscule as this

File: 88e854a0-c09e-11e3-b00a-0d4f07a64adf_Perfect-Male-Body-.jpg (49KB, 630x455px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 630x455px

>>723050338
TLDR:
For women to want to fuck you, you need good looks or money.

For women to love you you need good looks. The end.

>>723060000
who got it

>>723059766
I get your point. But I dont necessarily think that in tribal or caveman communities we were very raw and violent towards women.
Sure after we attacked tribe on the other side of the hill we raped their bitches. We still do this in almost every war.

But in tribal communities I think that white knights emerged very soon to counter tyrants. And some women who didnt want to submit to tyrants preferred white knights. But I am no anthropologists so I dont really now how it went down.
Also you have to consider that men were out hunting and fighting while women had to stay closer to caves/home. They could run away when their man was out, before we invented ropes to tie them down.

I know for similar evolutionary behavior at sand lizards. They heave two types of males. Sneaky smaller and faster ones and bigger stronger ones. Dominance of one each type changes each generation. When majority of males are strong and slow. They fight among each others whis makes opportunity to smaller and faster ones to impregnate females. Next generation when majority is small and fast, minority of stronger ones defends females and impregnates more females.

>>723059607
>I think that majority of rape happens between regular sexual partners
Yes, and I assume that's the case because we have laws in place that punish very harshly any cases where there's an actual conviction of rape. The only reason why you don't see many cases of dark-alley-rape going on, is probably because people aren't many people eager to face the consequences of their acts.

Now, if you, somehow, remove this protection, I don't think many females would feel safe to just walk around the same way they do now, and I'd go as far as to say that all this bullshit about only dating attractive men would disappear in a heartbeat, if that was actually the case.

>Am I >implying all men are rapists?
Yes. Especially the strongest ones.
>Is this the same bullshit claim used by feminists to explain "le rape culture meme"?
Probably.
>Does this mean feminists are right?
Only if the protection females receive from society gets lifted, somehow. Which is something that will probably never happen in the foreseeable future, making their claim an obvious overstatement.

My point is: Without consequences, rapes would become a reality, changing the way females choose to behave when picking their partners very dramatically, since, not only their own survival, but also their physical integrity would rely on it.

>>723060230
Even then they don't stop looking for a better version of you.

>>723058347
I fucked SO many feminists in college. I was the president of a student group for three years and just being visible on campus put me in a dozen beds a year.

>>723050338
Just as a side note...

I find it somewhat amusing to consider that for whatever reason evolution currently seems to select for religion.

>>723060039
>raping was seen as pretty offensive
Sure, raping could be seen as something objectionable, but that's only the case because those females were nothing more than property, it had absolutely nothing to do with their own wishes about not to being raped.

As I said, they were little more than slaves, in the most primitive societies, and even today you can still find millions of them living under very similar conditions.

>>723061440
Care to elaborate?

>>723059004
Yes, but your second method is flawed. If your average fat chick is not attractive to you, that does NOT change what average means, average is STILL a 5'4" yellow toothed 155 pound 37 year old woman. You only liking 7s and above doesn't make 7 average!

And women who are saying 80% of men are 3/10 are idiots who don't know how to rank averages. They are ranking fuckability, which is a COMPLETELY different metric, and is not what the questionnaire asked.

>>723061559
Well, sort of. Property in the sense that you had to protect them from incursions to your land and from being stolen or spirited away.

>>723050338
Well written and descriptive of your opinion.

However, being concise is a far more effective way to get people to listen.

I think your primary contention is correct, though based off an intermediate knowledge of reproduction, not a full one.

File: 1487525568803.jpg (162KB, 935x638px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 935x638px

>>723050338
Stop putting pussy on a pedestal. Go MGTOW.

>>723060380
Hmm interesting comparison. I think there a times when this is true, however, humanity sets a precedent for reproductive selection. Intelligence about the norm for mammals has greatly warped the standard rotating generation schema (also seen in sea lions fun fact).

A wide variety of other factors conducive to survival, such as wealth, has totally altered the selection of mates. Additionally a massively increased population decreases the demand for a mate.

>>723062245
Yeah, that's why I'm asking for pointers.

I would like to be more concise but I should be assuming prior knowledge so I covered some basic stuff as well.

>>723062657
>not be assuming

>>723060380
>I don't necessarily think that in tribal or caveman communities we were very raw and violent towards women.
That's very hard to pin point, but if you use modern examples as your base, I'm pretty sure you can draw a reasonably fair parallel. Assuming men had absolute control over the females of their tribes comes almost as a certainty.

>white knights emerged very soon to counter tyrants
I don't think this sort of social interaction would be very common, nor effective, in the most primitive societies. Although the ability to orchestrate coups is something present among primate, the reasons probably have little to do with protecting females from a strong male, and a lot to do with them gaining access to those females.

I'm talking absolutely primitive societies here, of course, but if you want to talk about a period where agriculture was more prevalent, then I think the treatment of females as sub-humans might have been even worse, especially to the poorest ones.

>>723061820
That was my point. we dont know what questionnaire asked.

But I said that for myself it would be similar. If show me 100 women randomly selected from population, because many of them are too fat for my opinion I would rate 80% of them 3/10.
So average score would be 3 not 5.
Average is not necessary in the middle of the scale. Also average can be related to your preference only or related to average in population.

If I show you 100 ugly girls you would not spread scores according to gauss from 1-10. You would score all of them low.


>>723060834
Do you really think that without laws we would lose all moral standards and just start massively raping women violently. I am pretty sure that those who do commit back alley rapes dont really care about laws. They just cant hep themselves and stop their urges. I think that none of my friends, if we abolish all laws would start raping unknown women.
Sure it laws have some effect, that grows through generations but I dont think it has so big influence than you do.

>>723062657
Ok, well, I would structure the piece to ellicit a response while getting the basic point across. After the audience asks you can elaborate on the basics.

This depends on your audience. Some require different tibits included in the base supposition in order to draw them in.

>>723061929
Which in no way means they weren't used as bargain, just like any other type of property.

The notion that they were considered property does not assure a better treatment, nor protection against any harm caused the owner himself, or under the owner's permission.

I still don't see how this implied "protection" would reflect in any way their wishes in regards to reproduction.

File: funny_picdump_424_640_10.jpg (74KB, 640x559px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x559px

>>723063039
By white knights I meant sneaky behavior. You have to consider that mean also compete between themselves. Stronger and more violent ones protected their females from weaker individuals. So weaker ones developed other tricks to get pussy.
Imo pandering and acting less violent, trying to convince them that your sex with you will be gentler might convince some females to cheat and not tell. Raping a bitch when her owner is not home is not fun if bitch complains to him and he finds you and beats the shit out of you. If you use some pretty flowers to get her pussy wet before you "rape" her, she wont complaint to her owner, you can come back and "rape" her again and there is even chance that your sperm will impregnate her and her owner will take care for your kids. Win win.

>>723052099
Fucking college normies think that their big over elaborated paragraphs belong here.

>>/r9k/ Faggots.

>>723050751
You're assuming that a 2.5 would be average. You get the average from the data. According to this data the average for men on a 1 to 5 scale is a 1.

>>723063118
>Do you really think that without laws we would lose all moral standards and just start massively raping women violently.
Yes. Absolutely.

>I am pretty sure that those who do commit back alley rapes dont really care about laws
I think you're probably right, but without those laws in place you would probably see a very steep surge in the number of those cases, simply because they're inconsequential.

>I think that none of my friends, if we abolish all laws would start raping unknown women.
I see morality as something extremely volatile, which requires stability in order to be held up to a proper standard. A scenario where laws against rape are lifted, probably isn't the most stable example you would find, for people to be upheld to a greater expectation. In other words, I think the chaos of the situation would be far more of a threat to morality than accountability.

>I dont think [laws] have such big influence as you do.
Humans are animals. The chaos that takes place without order is probably inevitable, at least the way I see it. Although this is probably far more of a philosophical discussion than a speculative one.

>>723064504
Not over night though. Also consider that most women have male family members who will come after you. Maybe.
Overall it's not a very efficient way of keeping the peace.