RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Cekoviu]

news flash: there are almost 4 billion women
a small number of women doing that implies nothing about the entire female gender and definitely cannot be fucking used as a basis for a "theory" about "society"

Eh, like 95% of hetero women are married to men taller than they are (This is big in power dynamics), and ~76% of hetero women are married to men of a higher class or high income then them.

But that's because there's a market for it, and if a similar market for guys existed or the roles were reversed then I'm 100% sure you'd see a similar trend because a lot of humans have a tendency to be greedy assholes that are looking for something better without actually doing it themselves.

are those women all the mistresses of the men to whom they're married?

news flash: there are almost 4 billion women
a small number of women doing that implies nothing about the entire female gender and definitely cannot be fucking used as a basis for a "theory" about "society"

It takes slightly less than a million women to have a "representative sample" with 95% +/- .5% confidence, using only elementary statistics, for four billion women. For a country of three hundred million, only thirty-eight thousand. Perfect? No. Actionable? Nineteen times of twenty you'd come out right.

If only someone would study this....

oh my god, this is so fucking stupid that i can't even believe you unironically posted this. a sample which you have selected based on the trait you're testing for is NOT representative of the population REGARDLESS of the sample size. the fact that you think >38,000 women act this way means absolutely nothing about whether women in general act this way
plus, you don't actually have statistics or surveys

[Diopolis]

You have to rather dimwitted to think "preference" or "revealed" are big words. Is English not your first language?

iirc he's actually mentioned that he's a native speaker of japanese, so maybe

Men are just as likely to go around gold digging and whoring when there's a market for it.
TDLR- people are awful.

holy shit, i actually agree with you

Every once in a while, horseshoe theory.
But anyways, the boot of conformity to strongly communal societies civilizes our fallen natures. Absent that, we're horrible individuals. With that, we're better.

[Taihei Tengoku]

It takes slightly less than a million women to have a "representative sample" with 95% +/- .5% confidence, using only elementary statistics, for four billion women. For a country of three hundred million, only thirty-eight thousand. Perfect? No. Actionable? Nineteen times of twenty you'd come out right.

If only someone would study this....

I would bet that the sample of gold diggers is substantially less than random.
It's also, using the strictest definition of gold digger, probably not thirty-eight thousand.

This is not how statistics works. You predict the behavior of the population with the sample. The confidence level and interval gives you the (wait for it) confidence you can put in this inference.

[Novus America]

TFW you let a third party set you up with your ex's older sister.

You see this? This is a bad take.

Polygyny creates severe social dysfunctions without necessarily defining the social hierarchy any better than formalized titles, privileges, social deference, superior education, or access to valuable assets/property do. It creates genetic bottlenecks as well, which is bad for the genetic diversity and adaptability of a population in the long-term. Also, an*me of the sort you're referencing is wholly degenerate and more a patchwork of disparate and obscene fetishes than a genuine story-telling format or genre. Please report to the Based Department for immediate physical removal from the premises.

Can't you let me hold an auto-da-fe for modernists and suchlike instead of removing them? Just once?

The auto de de is modernist. It was a product of the early modern period.
And the modern concepts of monogamy are more recent (from late medieval to early modern it was very common for at least the wealthy to have a wife AND a mistress, the French Kings did it openly).

Post modernist =/= modernist. The modernists largely died out sometime from 70s through 90s.

[Diopolis]

Eh, like 95% of hetero women are married to men taller than they are (This is big in power dynamics), and ~76% of hetero women are married to men of a higher class or high income then them.

But that's because there's a market for it, and if a similar market for guys existed or the roles were reversed then I'm 100% sure you'd see a similar trend because a lot of humans have a tendency to be greedy assholes that are looking for something better without actually doing it themselves.

are those women all the mistresses of the men to whom they're married?

I mean, that also leaves out the degree of difference.
You can also have a world where women prefer a man slightly older and richer than them to a man much older and richer and be consistent with that data. This doesn't really feed into polygyny very well. You can also have a world where the height and class difference is about what you'd expect from matching up at random- because the average man is taller and richer than the average woman, so if we assume that the majority of people are married, then of course the average woman is married to someone taller and richer than she.
The better way to measure power differential between spouses is age gap.

[Cekoviu]

I would bet that the sample of gold diggers is substantially less than random.
It's also, using the strictest definition of gold digger, probably not thirty-eight thousand.

This is not how statistics works. You predict the behavior of the population with the sample. The confidence level and interval gives you the (wait for it) confidence you can put in this inference.

yes, you predict the behavior of the population by acquiring a set of subjects who represent the population at large, which you do by randomly selecting subjects
instead of, you know, selecting subjects with the behavioral trait whose frequency you're trying to ascertain

[Diopolis]

TFW you let a third party set you up with your ex's older sister.

Can't you let me hold an auto-da-fe for modernists and suchlike instead of removing them? Just once?

The auto de de is modernist. It was a product of the early modern period.
And the modern concepts of monogamy are more recent (from late medieval to early modern it was very common for at least the wealthy to have a wife AND a mistress, the French Kings did it openly).

Post modernist =/= modernist. The modernists largely died out sometime from 70s through 90s.

More than half of auto da fe's ocurred in the late medieval period. They happened to continue(at a much lower frequency) through the early modern period, though.

[Cekoviu]

are those women all the mistresses of the men to whom they're married?

I mean, that also leaves out the degree of difference.
You can also have a world where women prefer a man slightly older and richer than them to a man much older and richer and be consistent with that data. This doesn't really feed into polygyny very well. You can also have a world where the height and class difference is about what you'd expect from matching up at random- because the average man is taller and richer than the average woman, so if we assume that the majority of people are married, then of course the average woman is married to someone taller and richer than she.
The better way to measure power differential between spouses is age gap.

you are on a roll today jeez

[Novus America]

This is not how statistics works. You predict the behavior of the population with the sample. The confidence level and interval gives you the (wait for it) confidence you can put in this inference.

yes, you predict the behavior of the population by acquiring a set of subjects who represent the population at large, which you do by randomly selecting subjects
instead of, you know, selecting subjects with the behavioral trait whose frequency you're trying to ascertain

Yes, selection bias in a sample makes it no longer representative of the whole population.

[Novus America]

The auto de de is modernist. It was a product of the early modern period.
And the modern concepts of monogamy are more recent (from late medieval to early modern it was very common for at least the wealthy to have a wife AND a mistress, the French Kings did it openly).

Post modernist =/= modernist. The modernists largely died out sometime from 70s through 90s.

More than half of auto da fe's ocurred in the late medieval period. They happened to continue(at a much lower frequency) through the early modern period, though.

Well interestingly at the same time polygamy was most publicly embraced in the west.

Still point is modernism is really only up to sometime between the 60s and 80s, really the new attitudes you have problems with are more post modernist. The 50s to early 60s were the height of modernism really.

[Taihei Tengoku]

This is not how statistics works. You predict the behavior of the population with the sample. The confidence level and interval gives you the (wait for it) confidence you can put in this inference.

yes, you predict the behavior of the population by acquiring a set of subjects who represent the population at large, which you do by randomly selecting subjects
instead of, you know, selecting subjects with the behavioral trait whose frequency you're trying to ascertain

You read a bias in that I never stated. Good job, I guess, that is some perception

[Diopolis]

More than half of auto da fe's ocurred in the late medieval period. They happened to continue(at a much lower frequency) through the early modern period, though.

Well interestingly at the same time polygamy was most publicly embraced in the west.

Still point is modernism is really only up to sometime between the 60s and 80s, really the new attitudes you have problems with are more post modernist. The 50s to early 60s were the height of modernism really.

Whatever it is, can't I just burn one person at the stake instead of filing the paperwork with Milosevic to have them removed?

[Cekoviu]

yes, you predict the behavior of the population by acquiring a set of subjects who represent the population at large, which you do by randomly selecting subjects
instead of, you know, selecting subjects with the behavioral trait whose frequency you're trying to ascertain

You read a bias in that I never stated. Good job, I guess, that is some perception

you literally have to have selection bias if you want your argument to be anything but incoherent speculation, so...

[Novus America]

Well interestingly at the same time polygamy was most publicly embraced in the west.

Still point is modernism is really only up to sometime between the 60s and 80s, really the new attitudes you have problems with are more post modernist. The 50s to early 60s were the height of modernism really.

Whatever it is, can't I just burn one person at the stake instead of filing the paperwork with Milosevic to have them removed?

Well admittedly the electric chair and gas chamber (plus long drop hanging) are the more modernist methods. That I lean towards.

Although the inquisition actually required a lot of paperwork contrary to the perception.

[Taihei Tengoku]

You read a bias in that I never stated. Good job, I guess, that is some perception

you literally have to have selection bias if you want your argument to be anything but incoherent speculation, so...

38,000 samples is quite trivial in the age of "large information"

[Diopolis]

Whatever it is, can't I just burn one person at the stake instead of filing the paperwork with Milosevic to have them removed?

Well admittedly the electric chair and gas chamber (plus long drop having) are the more modernist methods. That I lean towards.

Although the inquisition actually required a lot of paperwork contrary to the perception.

I have an objection to milosevic, not to detailed paperwork.

[Novus America]

Well admittedly the electric chair and gas chamber (plus long drop having) are the more modernist methods. That I lean towards.

Although the inquisition actually required a lot of paperwork contrary to the perception.

I have an objection to milosevic, not to detailed paperwork.

Fair point. As long as the job gets done I guess that is the important thing.

[Diopolis]

you literally have to have selection bias if you want your argument to be anything but incoherent speculation, so...

38,000 samples is quite trivial in the age of "large information"

Again, you have no evidence your samples are random.

[Novus America]

you literally have to have selection bias if you want your argument to be anything but incoherent speculation, so...

38,000 samples is quite trivial in the age of "large information"

Unless you can prove they are perfectly random and representative so what? A sample size of 1,000 that is random and representative is much better than a sample size of 100,000 that is plagued by selection bias.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

What is stable may not be what you approve--women have already revealed their preference to be the second mate of top men rather than the first mate of a male of equal rank.

news flash: there are almost 4 billion women
a small number of women doing that implies nothing about the entire female gender and definitely cannot be fucking used as a basis for a "theory" about "society"

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

akshually, from observing the commonality of one trait in a group of people we can legitimately infer the presence of that trait in the rest of the people of that same category even if the amount of them who actually have it is relatively low

this is a "heuristic", a method of judging risk:probability, as opposed to a "statistic", which is a work of fiction

[Salus Maior]

Whatever it is, can't I just burn one person at the stake instead of filing the paperwork with Milosevic to have them removed?

Well admittedly the electric chair and gas chamber (plus long drop hanging) are the more modernist methods. That I lean towards.

Although the inquisition actually required a lot of paperwork contrary to the perception.

And they also gave 30 days notice to people they were investigating in order for them to build their case.

So literally everyone expected the Spanish Inquisition.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

concerning women:

the current arrangement for women is very new, so it's only natural that the previous arrangement(s) bleed over into the current one. whether the current one is a. functional and b. stable, we shouldn't really say yet. but more importantly, it's not known for certain if the previous arrangement(s) came from state of nature and we are living in defiance of it, whether that's a good thing for humans or not, and whether humans can adapt well to new arrangement without big problems.

so far the answer to the last one seems to be no, and getting worse, but we'll see — like everything this is not just a matter of "i want women to have x trait" so click fingers and it happens. sex equality might turn out to be a disaster (things both less and more weird and unusual have turned out that way too)

im hedging my bets because i don't want to be cancelled in 20 years and forced to go through sex equality training seminars in a progressivist gulag, but equally my suspicion is that feminists are, basically, wrong on most premises

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

there's also possibility in the future, we'll all be some mix of trans, asexual, and androgynous. we will look back to 21st-century patterns and think how wrong we were, if in the future humans are capable of both thinking and knowing what the 21st-century was (not guaranteed)

[Taihei Tengoku]

38,000 samples is quite trivial in the age of "large information"

Again, you have no evidence your samples are random.

I would follow a thousand bad leads before I ever consider any RWDTer correct

e: and so should you