Hacker News Reader

Comment by reversecs | Hacker News Reader

I am wondering what is the narrative you are preemptively countering and why is it important to disrupt that narrative?

The reason I'm posing this broadly is that there are a broad range of evolutionary psychology, incel, and PUA beliefs that subscribe to the view that a stronger partner is one that is deterministically more attractive to women. This paper doesn't support those views.

I can't think of many other reasons why this article would be upvoted. It focuses on a vanishingly small population of a certain age range in one part of the world. The conclusion I'm coming up with is that men born between 1923 and 1948 in Tromso, Norway who are married are more likely to have a higher grip strength than unmarried men.

> The reason I'm posing this broadly is that there are a broad range of evolutionary psychology, incel, and PUA beliefs that subscribe to the view that a stronger partner is one that is deterministically more attractive to women.

But shouldn't, from the PUA, etc., viewpoint, that lead to lower rates of marriage, since more desirable men should have less need to offer commitment to secure sex?

That only holds if desirable men prefer to not be married.

Also, being married doesn't prevent a man from having sex outside of marriage.

Good point, it makes me think any causal effect could easily be in the reverse direction, that married men are more likely required to exercise. This observation does not explicitly assess pre-marriage fitness. It does not do a before and after marriage on a cohort.

How many generalizations about human behavior whatsoever do you think are "deterministically" true? How many as robust statistical tendencies?

This paper doesn't claim to make generalizations about human behavior in either case. Why do you feel my view on that dichotomy is important in relation to this paper?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com