Author puts on his MRA hat to make a few assertions, runs a simulation, and uses that assumption to conclude that women will get more dates with high-status men with technology.
I flagged this source and it should probably be on HN's autokill list. This guy is a bad dude and he isn't even an interesting bad dude.
What has this got to do with "putting on his MRA hat"? Does this invalidate the assertions somehow?
I'd say it's more a mark of red pill than MRA (although to most people outside the related subcultures, that's probably a distinction without a difference). Basically, the red pill narrative centers on people exploiting their own "sexual market value", with male SMV being determined by wealth and social status and female SMV being determined by youth and sexual inexperience. In this narrative, the most desirable women spend their peak-SMV years "riding the alpha cock carousel" and are "used up" by multiple high-SMV ("alpha") men, then cynically seek out lower-SMV ("beta") men for financial support after they've squandered their SMV, especially if they have children. This is summarized with the catchphrase "alpha fux, beta bux". Things like individual preferences and romantic compatibility don't exist in this model.
This is also behind the modern use of "cuck" as an insult in some subcultures: it's shorthand for describing the beta male in this scenario who is exploited to raise another man's children, and by extension anyone who is perceived as not being appropriately selfish.
Personally I think it's a mixture of both. And also that it doesn't necessarily need to be depressing.
But my question to the grandparent comment was meant to be more like, why should making some fairly uncontroversial (and evidence-backed) assertions require putting on any sort of 'hat' at all?
I'm not saying I agree with all of the red pill philosophy, but it's amazing how some people automatically go on the defensive when this stuff comes up.
But yeah, lets blame MRA
b) one should have an intellectual capacity of appreciating that Kerr did not get together with Evan for his stunning personality.
If you're trying to prove something, its better to say nothing at all than to post a shitty source. And please don't ask someone else to do research that should be done by you.
Clicking a few random links:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19302732
http://akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1556/JEP.12.2014.1.1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22947829
It's fairly obvious to see why notyourday may be frustrated with you saying its a 'a shitty source' and asking them to provide you with research when they just have.
We Experiment On Human Beings | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8097415
> A 2010 study from the University of Wales Institute found that men pictured with a Silver Bentley Continental GT were perceived as way more attractive than those pictures with a Red Ford Fiesta ST.
What is your issue with The Independent and/or The University of Wales?
[edit]: noting the moderation on this fairly objective comment, I'll add that I'm not stating this is good or bad, but just that this is what I've observed after being here 10 years.
Are you planning on starting to wear red and eat a lot of garlic in order to attract more women?
[Edit:]
Downvoting this is not going to change that your unwillingness to dress well, socialize with not tech geeks and project your desirability is what significantly limits your opportunities in attracting partners that you think you deserve.
Yes, I do wear subtly eye catching clothing and it does affect the amount of sexual attention I recieve from both men and women. You genuinely haven't heard of this before?
> It's a left wing source (which are regarded as more reputable on HN)
Yes, most major outlets are left-leaning but that does not necessarily imply that most left-leaning outlets are more reliable or are considered more reliable by HN.
Edit: to add even more to this silliness, the linked article isn’t even written by an Independent employee