This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Seems real to me. If he was at a VC that did crypto they could have been ejaculating money over the pandemic.
Also his story seems not implausible given my own experience.
I filled out an OKC profile once and was my honest funny cute self. I also included my income, $250-500k and mentioned quant finance. I was getting about 3-4 dates a month. The women weren't amazing but not bad either. I kept this up for a year or so.
Then I came across some OKC blog post about how income is the biggest predictor of dating success for men. I felt crushed, in a lot of the ways the quoted guy did. Surely this didn't really apply to me?
So I removed my income from my OKC profile.
After that I landed two whole dates total over the course of an entire year.
Jokes on me, I'm cute and funny but not enough to cut through the noise the way possibly making $500k does.
Having sizeable income shows much more than just pure money numbers. It shows social skills, certain level of IQ (yes, there are exceptions, but there are always exceptions), likely a reasonably stable job, to some measure your social circles, your available budgets, etc. Having no information at all about any of that creates a risk, and the risk would not likely be justified given how many alternatives there are around.
I mean, it makes sense. If I have friends who don't earn high income I can often point to obvious character flaws, limits to intellect or mental illnesses. I can further imagine I'd probably not enjoy being in an intimate relationship with them.
Which isn't to say you are broken if you don't pull high income, but it's a not bad heuristic.
I find a rhetorical move that makes somebody saying "if you are a chess grandmaster, it's more likely than not that you are smart" into "so, you're saying if I'm not chess grandmaster, I am a moron, and if I don't play chess at all, I probably need to be institutionalized as hopeless drooling imbecile?!" to be very disingenuous and off-putting. I'd appreciate a little less of aggressive bad faith misunderstanding.
I wasn't being that extreme.
But also, chess is pretty superfluous to living a good life? Whereas money often directly affects the quality of your life?
Sure some people achieve enlightenment working as humble ferrymen deep in the woods but that's not the norm by far.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think there's a question of what the data actually shows, though. For example, some percentage of women are mercenary gold diggers, in that they very much want the richest man they can find who isn't a complete piece of shit or horrifically unattractive to them (and even there there are people who will waive those requirements). I had no idea there were dating apps where you can literally filter for income, but given escorting / 'sugar babying' is a thing, that some women would seek a more permanent similar arrangement is obvious.
But the same relatively modest proportion of serious 'gold diggers' in a city who meticulously screen for wealthy men might then circulate among them, leading those men to perceive themselves as much more attractive to women in general once the latter knows their income even if that isn't the case. By the way, women dating for money is obviously completely a thing, but ime for many PMC type women it's less important because they know they'll have 'enough' either way and so being stuck in an unhappy marriage to a rich man for 40 years is less worth it than it would be to someone from grinding poverty or 150 years ago when her choice in husband usually determined a woman's economic class for life.
I know one attractive, accomplished, PMC woman from a decent family who married a much older (early fifties) uglyish (not hideous, still tall, not particularly overweight) rich guy in her very late twenties. But he's worth many hundreds of millions, is extremely nice and kind (and has a wide reputation as such), treats her like a queen, and she was never the kind of woman who went for looks in men anyway.
You can extend this logic to more famous cases. Larry Page has a beautiful blonde wife whose sister is a model and who has a PhD in biomedical informatics from Stanford, masters from Oxford, both parents have PhDs, essentially perfect hotness + intelligence pedigree. But at the same time, they met when she was 27 and he was 34, he's hardly ugly and is 5'11, and he married her within a year of dating. Even billionaires struggle to hit jackpot, many settle for pure looks on their second or third wives.
A bit bad to say, but she's rough to look at, which accentuates your point.
She has a goofy smile, but I think she's pretty (and would be at least to most men).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It was an interesting experience in a few ways. None of the women I went on dates with struck me as gold diggers really. That was the biggest part of the head fuck I guess. Maybe they know to play it cool, but my pop culture impression of gold digging is that women drop hints constantly about wanting expensive gifts and going to exclusive places. Man always pays. Etc
I think they just generally found men less attractive if they didn't earn high income.
I feel like gold digger is the wrong angle to come into. I've been in a similar position dating, managed to date a bunch of professional high-flyers I met through various apps, and it's more of a 'I want a partner who's a financial equal' thing than a 'I expect my lifestyle to be subsidized' thing in a lot of cases
From my experience 'equal' is a lower bound. Just as a woman wants a man at least her height (but ideally taller) she wants a man earning at least her salary (but more is better).
Still I think the suggestion of gold-digger comes with an implication that the girl is contributing next-to-nothing financially
Yeah I don't use the term myself for the reason that basically every woman cares about how much a man earns. If we define that as gold digging, then every woman is a gold digger.
Similarly, if we define gold digging as women pretending to be attracted to a man because he's rich, then I would say there are very few women who meet that definition. My experience is that a man having wealth, fame, power etc makes him genuinely more attractive to women, in a way that is pretty alien to male sexuality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Money is an imperfect representation of social status, but it is somewhat correlated. And honestly status is probably the main thing women go for, far above looks or money(tell me, how many successful scrap metal entrepreneurs pulling million dollar incomes and able to provide a vacation condo in the Caribbean, a mansion and a lake house in the US, etc, etc have wives who are beautiful and intelligent and good breeding etc? Probably few of them, they have bimbo model or eastern euro wives, or else marry smart women with serious family baggage).
Did you list how you got such a high income in your profile? I’m guessing that ‘surgeon, makes $350k’ is far more attractive to non-explicitly golddigging women than ‘owner of a plumbing business, nets $400k’.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link