site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   4327 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 23, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It might be a basic human need...but is it better to be alone, or to marry and have children...only to find that your wife tried to kill one of them? Or to be with an abusive alcoholic? All of these things suck: are relationships truly the least bad option here?

Obviously most people don't go into it and get that binary choice between a potential relationship and a baby killer. You might as well ask if it's worth driving if a semi might crumple your vehicle.

And, yes, our psychology is tilted such that we are broadly driven to downplaying those risks (some of which, like matricide, are relatively small here) and driven to be less satisfied with a parlous social network. Precisely because the benefits are manifold.'

I mean. The case of someone that is very unattractive attempting a relationship is like someone who is in the bottom few percent of driving performance considering driving. It may not make sense for them to do so - the risk of accidents is simply too great. With driving...we don't let blind people drive, we don't let people with more than a certain level of visual impairment drive, we don't let people with seizure disorders drive, we make people pass basic tests of roadworthiness before getting their license. "Don't suck donkey balls, or have a condition that means you're going to suck donkey balls, and you can and probably should drive a car."

You're assuming there's a correlation between how good looking someone is and how they are in a relationship. I could just as easily make the argument that attractive people are horrible partners because they never have to work for it and just assume the companionship of other people. Hence, attractive people are all self-centered jerks. Unattractive people, meanwhile, have to have great personalities to compensate for physical defects, so unless all you're interested in is sex you're better off with someone from the bottom of the looks distribution. It's not for nothing that Jimmy Soul sang back in 1963:

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life

Never make a pretty woman your wife

So for my personal point of view

Get an ugly girl to marry you

In all honesty I doubt there's any real difference

I mean it is more than just looks. Are you better off being a nurse and caretaker for your partner? What if they're unattractive because they're homeless and addicted to meth or some shit like that? If they're living on the street because they've got florid, untreated schizophrenia? It's not just unfortunate people that are still capable of working jobs and living independently. It's the 500 pound person in the mobility scooter. The paralyzed man with cerebral palsy that says he's going to kill himself because of despair at his homelessness, and winds up in the local psych ward five times a year. The really unattractive people? They're either at home or in institutions of one type or another. They're Fussell's bottom-out-of-sight people.

It's not just looks - many people would be very happy with someone who had a facial deformity but could work a job, any job, and live independently. It's about the goddamn ambulances and other institutions. It's about watching someone die, possibly to avoidable things like addiction, and being powerless to prevent that.

Getting beat up by the ugly stick is a very different kettle of fish to needing a nurse and caretaker. For the gentlemen: they are indeed looking down the barrel of a life of nursing and caretaking if they want partners. And that is the best many will do. For the ladies, it's even worse.

Surely the number of ugly-but-not-violent/requiring-a-nurse males and females is roughly equal? Can't the ugly dudes just find a nice homely girl and settle down?

Surely the number of ugly-but-not-violent/requiring-a-nurse males and females is roughly equal?

No - women have more central tendency. Guys have more champs and way more chumps. Unattractiveness ain't just looks. It can be 'being a criminal shitbag', 'being a drug addict', 'being autistic', or any number of things that are more common for dudes.

It can be 'being a criminal shitbag', 'being a drug addict',

There two have near zero effect on male attractiveness to women, even if it is extremely unattractive to some women.

So guys that are unattractive but not criminal shitbags should really clean up then, with all of the criminal shitbags out of the dating pool due to being in jail or whatnot?

This is almost certainly not true actually. Females have a roughly standard distribution in most traits, where most are about average. Males have a bimodalish, flattened distribution, where most males are either above or below average. Because of this, there are more men at either extreme. The peaks of humanity, and the dregs of it, are something like 10:1 male:female.

I don't suppose you have a reference? This does not seem to match my experience, in terms of physical beauty at least.

Anyways wouldn't this distribution result in a surplus of '5' women having to settle for '1' men? (due to the '10' Chads scooping up all the 6+ ladies, leaving no studs for the median woman. not great for the ladies, but the ugly dudes should make out like bandits)

Honestly it's one of those things I read somewhere, but I don't have the source on me or the time to find it. I will note that it was for general quality on numerous metrics which extends beyond physical attraction.

As to your point, it would only be true in a case where:

  1. Everyone must have a long-term partner

  2. No two people can have the same partner.

Both of which are distinctly untrue. Just means more women will share the non-1s or end up alone. People, especially women, have standards, and won't just end up with trash because everyone else was taken. There's always the option of getting knocked up from a man a couple notches up and being a single mother.

A man who is actually a 1 in attractiveness is actually horrible, given that even a total uggo would still score above a 1 with nearly any redeemable qualities. Single motherhood is almost certainly preferable to even being in the same room as such a man, let alone interacting with him.

A man who is actually a 1 in attractiveness is actually horrible, given that even a total uggo would still score above a 1 with nearly any redeemable qualities. Single motherhood is almost certainly preferable to even being in the same room as such a man, let alone interacting with him.

Can't really comment on the rest of your theory, but I don't think I've met even one person matching this description in my life, so it doesn't seem like a super-significant phenomenon. (I have met guys who one might think this would apply to, but they've always turned out to have some sort of girlfriend, sometimes multiples. Case in point)

Doesn't that leave 5 women with their pick of 5,6,7,8, and 9 men? I thought that was the entire Incel's Lament.

He's saying there are mostly only ones and tens though, while the chicks are more normally distributed.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats