/lit/ - Literature

http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

>Alice Eagly’s research has compiled mountains of data on the stereotypes people have about men and women, which the researchers summarized as “The WAW effect.” WAW stands for “Women Are Wonderful.” Both men and women hold much more favorable views of women than of men. Almost everybody likes women better than men. I certainly do.

>The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?

>It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.

>Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

>I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

>Right now our field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained by evolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explains things related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of natural selection. Basically, the traits that were most effective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology. It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences.

>For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

>>21701213
>The reason you don’t have a girlfriend is NOT and almost NEVER a result of genetics or physical appearance, but of how you make girls FEEL.
This is like saying the reason you didn't get hired at CERN is NOT because you are a high school dropout with no credentials and no CV, but because you didn't make them FEEL you fully understand bosons

Thanks to dating apps, 90% of relationships among young people today begin with a woman swiping right on someone. At that phase, she has no idea who you are and doesn't care. Her primary sorting criterion at that point is basic attractiveness. See pic related for how that goes. Women rate 80% of men as below average. This is old data, it's even worse now (more in next post).

>>20526998
In a "free market" of sex, women rate 80% of men as "below average" because their mind is interpreting "average" in terms of minimum threshold for a worthwhile tradeoff for their own innate value. It's revealing that they view 80% of men as beneath that threshold, and probably another 10% as barely good enough, settlement material.

The lads on /r9k/ had it right over a decade ago, they really mainstreamed the talk of hypergamy becoming a runaway process and "Chads" being systematically preferred, even by average and ugly women. The result is a massive class of virtually sexless men, nearing 50% now, but probably much larger than that once you cut out men who use prostitution or who settle into a semi-sexless marriage after 30. If you are talking about people who actually enjoy the lifestyle of casual sex in their twenties, it's probably 20-30% maximum, and heavily selects for upper class people who can afford luxury lifestyles and who spend half or more of their twenties killing time at college.

Meaning, the effective underclass of incels or quasi-incels is probably much larger than the statistics indicate. Especially since few people are interested in accurate stats for this, and even those who are interested are part of the same "fuck incels" culture and they have some other motive for collecting and presenting the data.

Historically the existence of such an underclass has been one of the most decisive factors for political revolutions.

>>20135914
Unironically true, to some extent. Not even like 20% of men are considered physically attractive to women. Women just date men and pretend to love because it's a way to get resources, but you can bet that one night with Chad gives her more orgasms then she will ever get with her average-looking boyfriend.

>>19764195
"be yourself" platitudes have a place but that place shouldn't be obscuring reality

>>18743246
What do you mean?
>>18743251
Attractiveness is subjective.

>>16754551
Cope

There are no books that can help you in your predicament, if you're average or bellow average in the looks department (bottom 80% of male population in 2020) it's OVER