/lit/ - Literature

>>19821548
This is a good primer on female sexuality focused on humans / mammals. Has some spurious evo psych hypotheses posing as supported theory, but is mostly good.

No books on "muh black pill hypergamy," exist because it doesn't exist. 96% of men and 98% of women have had sex by aged 30. 80% of men have had at least one marriage by age 40.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db19.htm#:~:text=Key%20findings,-Data%20from%20the&text=The%20probability%20that%20men%20will,of%20the%20same%20age%20range.

Muh hypergamy is marketing. A combo of sex in media and black pill fags trying to push their political shit. Number of partners at the same age is down for both women and men in every generation since the Boomers. Females and males in developed countries are having sex later. The survey showing men having a larger rise in no? It was one data point that made the news because it was unexpected. Women pulled up to get closer to men in the same survey the next time it was given. It was also about frequency, not virginity.

>>19790075
This book is pretty good. A pairing of current findings in the literature with quotes from interviews with women. Also includes information of female mating strategies outside humans, although it isn't in depth if I remember.

It has the flaws of all evolutionary psychology books in that it presents a bunch of studies supporting a hypothesis, and presents it as a solid theory. In fact, this stuff is incredibly hard to test. There is no such thing as a "normal" human outside culture. Existent hunter gatherers all live in extreme climates that might skew their behavior and observation of them has been filled with bias and controversy. Essentially, people have been caught making up a lot of shit to support the Noble Savage ideal, such as magical islands where everybody fucks and no one is jealous. In fact, male relatives seem pretty cohesive and protective around female sex in tribal societies, which makes sense since their behavior affects how genes they share get passed on.

A lot of evo psych is someone deducing why a pattern they think exists would be driven by evolution, doing some experiments to vet their idea, inviting tons of confirmation bias, and then stating there ideas as fact. Also, like with all psychology, they just say "x was significant." They don't tend to use P values. This is an issue because if 10,000 studies are published a year, 1:100 results occuring by chance will happen 100 times a year, and publication is biases for novel results. They also skip over effect size and replication. Lots of findings don't replicate. Effect sizes can also be tiny but significant. Researchers like to spin narratives out of these tiny effect sizes.

For example, for people who reguarly lift, ideal plant-based protein diets vs animal-based result in statistically insignificant differences in muscle mass. There is a significant difference in body fat %, with meat eaters getting leaner. So meat is better right? Well the effect size is about 1/10th of 1% body fat, so you wouldn't see it, although this is with an ideal plant based diet, so meat is still great for lifting, all it really shows is that if you give yourself the same exact amino acids, the source doesn't matter much.

Implicit bias blew up as an idea because it lets you "diagnose" racism. In fact, the interval validity of those tests, how much scores vary each time the same person takes them, is well below benchmarks used in psychology. Your implicit bias varies too much day to day to be very meaningful. Then, tying those scores to any sort of outcome showing racism also has proven almost impossible. I know of one single study (on if grocery clerks with higher scores get more customer complaints) that shows implicit bias actually predicting outcomes. Most find no relation. Same goes for a TON of evopsych.

That said, the descriptive stats on how many women say they have done X or Y are informative and the theory is still interesting.

It is also written well for nob-experts.