Hacker News Reader

Comment by aortega | Hacker News Reader

I am sure there are some women for which that's true, but do you really think it's that strong of a universal?

IDK, whenever men write stuff like that I always think to myself "you need to hang around better people". Like you can absolutely 100% find women that cold and calculating and dishonest. But acting like all women are that impulsive is really strange to me. That's like saying all men will beat you up and rob you because it makes sense in evolutionary terms.

We are talking about attractiveness here, you can't choose who you are attracted to. So in one case you have a wife who fucks the pool boy, in the other you have a wife that wants to fuck the pool boy but doesn't since she is a great person. But in both cases you have a wife who is more sexually attracted to others than to you, you can live with that but it is sad for those people. Just like how old men tend to be more attracted to young women than their old wives, and that makes those wives sad even if those men never leave their wife or cheats, reality has a lot of sad facts like that.

You'll never be the most attractive person in the world though. Even if your SO think you're attractive, there's a huge amount of people they'd be more attracted to, if they had the chance to meet them.

I think the stats you are referencing about humans getting taller are from improvements in childhood nutrition. I don't think genetically we've been selecting for taller people, as that is harder to conclude (plus, even if woman select for taller men, men do not necessarily select for taller woman, and woman are part of this too let's not forget).

> Women usually marry the millionaire, but have sex with the pool boy. This dual-mating strategy is instinctive.

Yea and the man has concubines, and the prenup? Pretty sure the woman usually doesn't have the pool boy's children in these stories.

EDIT: See here for a study showing after 1980 people have actually been getting shorter (at least in Japan, which can be considered almost a post-modern society when compared to the US) [1].

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/12/national/scienc...

Height, weight, shape, pilosity, generic looks, intelligence, education, success, wealth, virility, etc. are all criteria that are used by people to judge other people and discriminate, whether they're purely esthetic or have functional impact. Society also prizes different things in men and women. These are all forms of discrimination but I think it should be clear that they're nothing like the discrimination of black people. Scale, intention, means, effect, all matter. A puddle isn't an ocean although both will get you wet if you step in them.

If your point is that we should eliminate any and all discrimination... sure. Although it's a far too lofty goal to happen as long as we're biological beings. But saying that "there's really no difference" between color and height discrimination is something you could and should really walk back from rather than attempt repeatedly to defend.

Every single decision you make is based on some criteria that you may not even be able to clearly define. But just because you can't verbalize why you like this person and not the next doesn't make it less of a discrimination process. Do you think that makes you the KKK?

I concede it's arguable which discrimination is of a bigger magnitude, but it doesn't matter. MLK's whole point was that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That specifically means that no matter how small the injustice is, as long as it's the same class of injustice (prejudice), it's a threat to justice elsewhere.

> I concede it's arguable which discrimination is of a bigger magnitude

Unfortunately you conceded nothing and chose to maintain a position which you not only failed to support no matter how many times you tried, it's also either insulting, dismissive, or absurdly ignorant. If you have to wonder which discrimination is of higher magnitude, against black people or short people you clearly don't grasp the full extent of what discrimination can be. You fail to understand how magnitude makes these 2 cases far more different than the fact that they are "discrimination" makes them similar.

Quoting MLK after wondering which discrimination is bigger (against black people or against people who are 5'9") just adds insult to injury.

You seem convinced that having a hairy mole on your face is exactly like being black or jew as far as discrimination goes. That being rejected by a woman for the mole is the same as being rejected and punished by society for your skin color. Who's to know who suffered more? It's "arguable" because they are "the same class" after all, right? So I concede that you're far more willing to dig yourself in the deepest hole trying to defend an indefensible argument than to actually concede anything.

I'll tell you one thing, no matter how you look like, if people hate your character they might use whatever insult cuts you deeper rather than something they have a personal issue with. So if you do go around telling people being short is like being black and they pick on your height it could be that they have a problem with what you chose to be rather than what you are by nature.

>Pretty sure the woman usually doesn't have the pool boy's children

You'd be surprised.

Pool boys barely even exist in real life.

In this context it's: Any attractive available man she spends enough time alone with.

Really it's a made up story from "data" that hasn't been shared from someone who is apparently happily married and learned about online dating at least second hand but seemingly just from tropes they've heard in online forums, so I'm not too worked up about the situation.

> plus, even if woman select for taller men, men do not necessarily select for taller woman, and woman are part of this too let's not forget

Men's preferences only matter in a monogamous society, where less attractive women are expected to settle down with less attractive men who will financially support their kids.

But in modern welfare states, less attractive women can still sleep with very attractive men (whom they could never marry), have their children, and rely on the state to financially support their kids.

Which means the rich but unattractive men are, through taxes, paying for the children of the attractive men.

>Which means the rich but unattractive men are, through taxes, paying for the children of the attractive men

I con't understand how so few people realize this. The modern 'incel crisis' is fueled by online dating and government subsidies. It's the perfect combination to ensure reproduction of only the top few percent of men.

> The modern 'incel crisis' is fueled by online dating and government subsidies.

It’s really not. It’s fueled by echo chambers and it’s self-reinforcing.

i would claim that incels have existed in the past, but there wasn't a convenient way to gather and confide. With the advent of the internet and anonymity, it's easy to gather and confide.

I dont know if you would consider this self-reinforcing though. Saying that this group is self-reinforcing would imply that homosexuals gathering online to talk and confide are similarly self-reinforcing.

> Saying that this group is self-reinforcing would imply that homosexuals gathering online to talk and confide are similarly self-reinforcing.

It doesn’t imply that at all. Sexual attraction isn’t reinforced by being around a given orientation.

Go hang out with gay people exclusively for a few weeks and let me know if you find yourself attracted to the same sex.

> Sexual attraction isn’t reinforced by being around a given orientation.

exactly - and i'm saying that incels aren't self-reinforcing either.

I absolutely disagree. How do you support that conclusion?

What I’ve heard from incels makes it easy to understand why women would be uninterested. That worldview and subsequent outcome would seem to be reinforced by spending lots of time with people who reinforce the negativity.

>men do not necessarily select for taller woman

Men don't select, because we don't get pregnant, our instinct is to mate with whoever we can. Women are nature's selector, not men.

He's not disagreeing with that. . After pregnancy there are about 18 years of raising a kid too-- so ability to provide is a part of selection. In the past women would have to take it into account, but now it's much less necessary because they will be provided for either way

Is that really why humans are getting taller? Most increase in height has happened in the last 70 years and linked to increases in nutrition. Selective pressure seems implausible as an explanation for any measurable increases in height in historical time.

Yep, and studies show after 1980 people have actually been getting shorter (at least in Japan, which can be considered almost a post-modern society when compared to the US) [1].

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/12/national/scienc...

The selective pressure is actually for shorter people as all the taller people were killed in WW1.

It's the opposite [1]:

"taller soldiers are more likely to survive battle and that taller parents are more likely to have sons". This was based on his research of British Army records from the First World War, which showed that "surviving soldiers were on average more than one inch (3.33 cm) taller than fallen soldiers"

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Returning_soldier_effect

I was thinking that the taller men were recruited to the army first, while the rest didn't leave home at all. But eventually everyone would've joined I suppose.

What if better nutrition has allowed for better selection of taller genes? Back when everyone was more nutrient deficient and had stunted growth, I imagine it would be much harder to select for a suppressed trait.

There was never really a time when everyone was nutrient deficient, unless you specify by region and economic class.

I think you’ve nailed the central point here: men get stuck in the friend zone where they can’t have sex with a woman. However, women have the opposite problem where they get stuck in the fuck zone where the man only wants casual sex and doesn’t care about a romantic, emotional, or cohabitative relationship.

Just because you’re getting Tinder matches doesn’t mean you’re finding the type of relationship you want. I see a lot of men on /pol/ unable to see that things can be equally difficult in different ways on the female side.

I'm not convinced the friend zone is real, I think some women are just fine being friends with people they don't want to have sex with. I've gotten out of the "friend zone" with multiple women I know.

Are you basing your understanding of human sexuality and genetics off a bad movie trope? Or do you think all women are Anna Nicole Smith?

> the data is quite clear.

Please, share it with us then

You’re implying chronic cheating is biologically ingrained in women?

Jesus christ this place gets weird sometimes...

Yes, this thread has brought out quite a few "I read an evo psych article once" experts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com