Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Let's talk about self reported sex baby

Without fear or apology, as is his wont, Roissy/Heartiste has really stuck his neck out there as of late. If he is able to parlay his vast reach into the spread and absorption of HBD realism, then it is with hesitation and angst that I risk appearing as an adversary here. The man is fighting hard and gaining ground in Cisalpine Gaul, not piffling away in the swamps of Ravenna.

That paean sung, a couple of points of contention. Heartiste quotes one of his commenters at length, the remarkable portion being excerpted below. The commenter is referring to male-to-male competition in the field:
Sometimes if he’s frustrated enough he’ll try to tool me on my looks or money etc, something he puts value on so he thinks I’ll put value on, but 1) he’s just reacting to me at that point so he sabotages himself further in the girls’ eyes because the higher value person is the one who reacts less to the other person, and 2) I don’t build my self-worth around those external things so I’m not phased by it and will join in making fun of myself and be self-depreciating because I know my worth internally and know it has nothing to do with whatever he’s making fun of [emphasis mine]…the end result is if he does this, he takes himself from Check with the girls and puts himself in Check-mate and it’s over.
It is this sort of mentality that so frequently irks me in Game discussions. A lot of it is great--eat better, lift heavy things, be bold (even audacious!), have confidence, don't put up with tripe, celebrate your virility, know that there is no question that women love, love, love high status so get off your X-Box and go attain it--but the hoodwinking and deception undermines all of that (as well as the notion of female sexual selection being calibrated in any serious way that can't be fooled with a bit of scripting, and thus too the notion that female detection mechanisms are biologically serious). Put value on that stuff that he's tooling you on, too, because it's good for you, for women, and for society as a whole.

A cad isn't a flattering thing to be (high notch count, yes, but not necessarily high quality, and also disproportionately childless, leftist, black, unmarried, irreligious, and uneducated). Dominate them just like you dominate everything else in life. That's the alpha worth aspiring to.

Switching gears, Heartiste has ribbed quant bloggers like myself in the past on multiple occasions, specifically about our reliance on the questionable reliability of self-reported data on sexual behavior (although in fairness to Heartiste, he is more concerned about female misrepresentation than his is about male fabrication).

When the results are on his side, though, he's quick to toss that caution to the wind, as he did the other day in reporting on and analyzing a study showing that perceived male dominance trumps perceived male physical attractiveness when it comes to predicting the number of bangs a guy has. Dominance was measured by male raters assessing a man's perceived "fighting ability" while attractiveness was measured by female raters assessing a man's perceived "short-term attractiveness". These results were then cross-referenced with each evaluated man's self-reported number of lifetime sexual partners.

A cynic might wonder if there's a tendency for aggressive, high-testosterone types who missed humanity's gracility boat to inflate their numbers more than stencil-necked pretty boys who get mistaken for Justin Bieber do.

Parenthetically, while a little skepticism is always healthy, I put a fair amount of confidence responses. They don't often get us to the unadulterated truth, but they're something, and unless there are systematic rather than across-the-board skews, they are almost always useful for, if not obtaining absolute delineations, then at least for comparative purposes.

With regards to the study in question, I suspect that the researchers' (and Heartiste's) readings into the results get us part of the way there, and that the tendency for aggressive, pugilistic guys to engage in both more puffery and more intense and frequent sex seeking than slimmer, more laid back men do gets us down the rest of the road.

In any case, more researched is surely required!

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

"showing that perceived male dominance trumps perceived male physical attractiveness when it comes to predicting the number of bangs a guy has"

"Dominance was measured by male raters assessing a man's perceived "fighting ability"

Isn't that just a way of saying they've defined male physical attractiveness wrong i.e. they're assuming it's an aesthetic thing first and then there's a *separate* functional form of attractiveness based on perceived fighting ability whereas in fact perceived fighting ability is simply a part of male attractiveness i.e. aesthetics follows function and part of the male function for millenia was punching dangerous stuff in the face.


.

I have a lot of difficulty with game personally mainly because i've always been the serial monogamous type and don't understand the point of it but the gamers do throw up some insights even if i think in their focus on one end of the female spectrum they miss the correct mark a little - as i think this study shows.

I think a lot of what they think of as dominance behavior is signalling *the ability to protect*. In the past there would have been a lot more ways to display that in a non "jerk/alpha" way but in the modern world that is less true and a lot of male one-upmanship and jerkness is a result.

Also although there are two ways to signal ability to protect, physical or financial, they both hit the same psychological spot imo.

So for serial monogamous types who don't like being a jerk i think the lesson to learn is at root it's about ability to protect and that can be signaled in non jerky ways.

One example i've always been the gentlemanly type and i've had women tell me that women i.e. themselves, don't go for gentlemanly types (i.e. not usually) but they were saying this while being carried upstairs over my shoulder - so it didn't matter.

Same thing - different signal.

Anonymous said...

If the above is correct - that in essence it boils down to physical ability to protect and financial ability to protect and assuming the physical abilty was dominant for most of history - say since agriculture - but since then financial ability became dominant (with lust for physical ability men remaining under the surface) then i think that fits the known facts when combined with modern contraception.

That is, with contraception physical ability men should get the majority of non-reproductive sex while financial ability men should get the majority of reproductive sex.

But what about within marriage? Of the men getting the most reproductive sex which are getting the most non-reproductive sex as well?

If the above is correct they'll be men who tick the financial ability box (for their class) *and* the physical ability box.

So on the one hand there's quantity of long-term couple sex by male occupation and as accidents happen possibly also fertilty by male occupation also. Which occupations have the most kids and does it correlate with signals of physical ability to protect?

Military and police are obvious first contenders but shifts, tours of duty and divorce may counter the effect so i'm wondering more about uniformed or in some other way macho occupations which involve some hint at least of physical bravery but which at the same time stay close to home and don't involve disproportionate amounts of divorce.

I'm thinking
- coastguards
- firemen
- ?

I also wonder if TFR is higher in towns with military bases.

Audacious Epigone said...

Interesting thoughts.

The GSS should facilitate the comparison of occupational class and fertility among men.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

OT. I wondered over at West Hunter whether the higher black crime rate is an unremarkable result of lower IQ. That is, is a white with 75 IQ about as likely as a black with 75 IQ to be a criminal?

Mt nose tells me that it's somewhere around half the explanation, but that's not even an educated guess. Any ideas of your own on this?

Anonymous said...

"That is, is a white with 75 IQ about as likely as a black with 75 IQ to be a criminal?"

Alcohol doesn't make people more violent, impulsive or sexually predatory. They have those traits already. Alcohol stops them *controlling* it.

IQ works the same way imo.

White people drunk are like black people sober (much more so than most asians btw).

Anonymous said...

A white with a 75 IQ is so far from the mean that his low IQ is more likely the result of an actual organic problem. That is, something pathological is causing his IQ to be that low. A healthy white person with an IQ that low is pretty uncommon. An IQ that low is may be due to injury like hypoxia at birth or congenital defect, metabolic disorder that is causing it. On the other hand, a significant fraction of Africans and Aboriginal Australians have an IQ of 75 yet are healthy individuals.

See La Griffe du Lion on this point.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retard.htm

ironrailsironweights said...

A central tenet of the PUA scene is to nail as many women as possible in order to increase your status among other men, yet in my real-life experience whenever a man brags about his notch count other men (a) don't believe him and (b) don't care.

Peter

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Anon 1: No, alcohol is not simply disinhibiting. That is true for many but not all drunks. (I work in acute emergency psych at a state hospital, so I'm talking about people I see across the table.)

The evidence of history would suggest that we all have some tendency to "violence, impulsivity, and sexual predation." It's also not far from the doctrine of Original Sin, a fairly standard Christian belief. HBD would suggest that a few groups have reduced their disposition to such acts over time.

Anon 2. Yes, I knew that. I have a fair familiarity of working with folks of low IQ. Etiology is mixed, actually. And yet still I ask, wondering if someone has numbers.

Anonymous said...

"HBD would suggest that a few groups have reduced their disposition to such acts over time."

Yes i think that's true. My point was simply there's two components to expressed criminality - inclination and self-control so in theory you could have two groups with equal inclination but different average IQs and the lower average group would succumb to temptation much more often.

A marshmallow test for adults.

MC said...

A white man with a 75 IQ (or 80 or 85 or whatever comparison you want to use) is going to have more contact with people of higher intelligence and habits than a black man with an equivalent IQ. He's more likely to have a job working with people of 10-15 points higher IQs, or to go to church with them, or to be related to them. You would think some good habits would rub off.

So I doubt that the results will be exactly the same for blacks and whites at the same IQ.

Anthony said...

As I recall, Murray reports in "The Bell Curve" that American blacks actually have slightly higher outcomes than would be expected purely based on their IQ results. I'm pretty sure that was true for income; I don't remember if it was also true for crime.

Anonymous said...

A white with a 75 IQ is so far from the mean that his low IQ is more likely the result of an actual organic problem. That is, something pathological is causing his IQ to be that low. A healthy white person with an IQ that low is pretty uncommon. An IQ that low is may be due to injury like hypoxia at birth or congenital defect, metabolic disorder that is causing it.

Yes indeed.

Irish / English travellers in the UK have pretty much the same overall genome as Whites, a similar overall gap and SD as Black Americans and have crime rates which are comparable to the Black-American to White-American difference (Blacks Brits aren't quite so bad as these travellers, who are usually called "gypos" in common parlance).

But then there's still the issue of whether some other covarying factor is in there.

It's exceedingly difficult to test the IQ explanation.