/sci/ - Science & Math

i feel like responding with 'have sex' is just too obvious.
also, your shitpost is better suited to other boards.

>>11335863
1. That graphs sucks, like, 3E pyramids with arrows? One of the block don't even has percentage.
2. /r9k/

>>11335863
Hypergamy is measurably declining.

>>11335863
People are insecure about their place in the hypergamic hierarchy. Some can’t or won’t do the work to better themselves, so it’s IRL cope and seethe until each individual can trace their life back far enough to find out what’s frustrating their personal system.
Being that this entire concept is egoic, I guess it’s only fair to say that very many people haven’t found their own limits for what they actually do have control over. Buddha’s story of enlightenment was essentially his own discovery of this, with the proper main frustration being “illusion” or the transitory properties of our physical natures. The roastie will cope until they realize that beauty in the hypergamic game is highly relevant to age as an evolutionary factor. They’ll always think about how they were “younger, more beautiful, and worth more points” (t. Kinkenschema) until they stop stressing themselves out long enough to realize that the damage associated with the worry is directly proportional to the beauty they’re after. The more they worry, the less available energy their body has to maintain its youth. It’s like how a computer runs the best when it’s brand new. When the processor has had 100% resource usage for 20 years (like a woman between 21 and 41), you can probably assume it has stressed its’ other relevant or local parts from the heat damage.

>>11335936
>It’s like how a computer runs the best when it’s brand new. When the processor has had 100% resource usage for 20 years (like a woman between 21 and 41), you can probably assume it has stressed its’ other relevant or local parts from the heat damage
That's not how computers work. It runs better when brand new because you're a retard.

>>11335944
tard
https://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/processors/transistor-aging

>>11335863
becuz we must protecc the wahmens to uphold our delusions about their feminine mystique.

Just because you make your dumb chart 3D, it doesn't make it any less dumb.

Solution = become a tranny if you're cute since there's a surplus of average men to pick from

Personally I am glad that every discussion board on 4chan is inundated with incel threads. There is not much else worth talking about and as hypergamy steams on closer to its logical conclusion the incel discussion will be so deafeningly loud that there will be no way to talk about anything else.

>>11335990
The incel problem is more real than the virus which doesn't even kill anybody

>>11335863
>if more women considered fighting the impulses
These particular impulses are hard baked in and go a looong way back into prehistory. They've had plenty of opportunity to try throughout thousands of years of history and it has happened exactly zero times. The only way to combat hypergamy is to make those desires practically impossible to pursue, like all the patriarchal societies of old.
>>11335936
>Some can’t or won’t do the work to better themselves
Hypergamy is not about meeting an objective standard but how desirable you are relative to the other humans around you. It is a zero sum game, either you're in the top tier relative to your peers or you are not. It may be possible for an individual to wrench their way in, but by necessity this means another man is booted out of the top tier. In other words: in a hypergamic hierarchy incels are a hard inevitability.
>>11335986
Transitioning will certainly solve the love and sex problem of the average beta male, though for my money it's not worth the trouble.

>>11336004
>Hypergamy is not about meeting an objective standard but how desirable you are relative to the other humans around you. It is a zero sum game, either you're in the top tier relative to your peers or you are not. It may be possible for an individual to wrench their way in, but by necessity this means another man is booted out of the top tier. In other words: in a hypergamic hierarchy incels are a hard inevitability.
this also lends some explanation to why narcissism evolved. it wasn't good enough for a man to be able to provide for a woman, he had to be at the very apex of the social hierarchy. unsurprisingly narcissism is arousing to women.

The game is set up that way.

Since it's bottom 30% who don't get any - if you go around talking about hypergamy you're instantly deemed bottom 30% loser and discarded. So the only option is to keep poker face and vent on anonymous forums.
Still i think deep inside every one knows whats going on.

>>11336046
> if you go around talking about hypergamy you're instantly deemed bottom 30%
i've seen slayers discuss it.

>>11335863
Have sex and gtfo of /sci/

>>11335955
If you're a retard with severely inadequate cooling to the point where transistors are damaged by it, then yes, of course it becomes unstable at some point. But in any normal scenario, thermal cycling from simply turning the computer on and off causes more wear than a heavy, constant workload would

>>11336055
>goal shifting

>>11336058
where?

>>11336004
> The only way to combat hypergamy is to make those desires practically impossible to pursue, like all the patriarchal societies of old.
You’re right, but it’s already improbable to the point of near impossibility. This in itself SHOULD be enough, but everyone still has that desire to enter the lottery after seeing the last big winner.
>by necessity this means another man is booted out of the top tier
There will always naturally be a number one or winner. The problem lies in making it your goal, because when you achieve it, you always have to watch your back for the next guy whose goal is to be the best. This causes that same inevitable ugly stress.
The only person who can appreciate being number one is the person who doesn’t know that they’re it.
>Transitioning will certainly solve the love and sex problem of the average beta male
There’s no way this will solve the problem that made someone desire to transition in the first place. They’ll just realize that what they thought they wanted wasn’t all that they expected because they’ve still got other problems. I guess it’s like bandaging an amputated arm and calling it the cure to arm pains.

>>11335863
>It appears that nowadays there’s a big denial of hypergamyamongst women, often labeling it as misogynistic or/and as an argument used by beta males to justify their failures.
>feminists are concerned in silencing hypergamy
I believe this is the case, but I am not sure if I fully agree with your reasons to why this is. There certainly is a discrimination against men and masculine values of various kinds, some of which are prosocial or at best neutral, others which definitely are not. And the bar for what a man must do or be to win a woman over in the game of reproduction is raised. Both before and after conception of the child. At the same time, more is expected from women. Not only are they given more responsibility and power over reproduction (it was more cooperative before), partially by the introduction of contraceptives, they are also expected to work more, be more financially independent and/or be powerful and disproportionally prosperous in the same way that men have been expected to. Feminism both expects and helps women to adopt the responsibilities of men while not reducing many of the existing responsibilities of women, and it confuses and exhausts them. Most men on the other hand are loosing even more than before in terms of reproduction (increasing sexual dimorphism). And it is made even harder for the male to rise to the few and decreasing prosperous positions (increased disparity of outcome) partially because women are now also "competing" for them (they get some help, that is, men are discriminated against). It is not clear to me how I can compute which of the gender is loosing more in terms of quality of life, but clearly men are loosing even more than before terms of sheer reproduction (stats are clear on this). Thus a minority of the response from feminists might not be denial of this effect (majority is denial, ignorance or willful deception), but rather a cry that women are suffering more as well.

And this is why I don't like this men vs. women way of looking at it, at least not when it is the only perspective that is presented. Because I believe some parts (not all) of the modern feminist project has been hurting us all.

>>11335986
If you're a twink you should definitely become a tranny, because lots of men would fuck you. But most incels are fat ugly blobs and would be even more hideous as women. Not even a 1/10 beta would fuck them.

>>11335990
>as hypergamy steams on closer to its logical conclusion

Which is?

Women are dumb as bricks, that's why. They don't even assess the content of the claim, they just sense it's coming from a vaguely critical direction and immediately react hyperdefensively with social shaming.

Friendly reminder to direct asspained roasties to holes.jpg. Do not reply to any roastie who fails the holes.jpg test by relying on her holes to rebuke her opponents.

>>11336004
Broke: Improving yourself to meet women's standards
Woke: Improving yourself to subject women to your standards

>>11337666
Nice. That is what's going to happen one way or the other, anyway. This brief period will be remembered as a cautionary tale: don't give women freedom, they don't know what to do with it, they just act like spoiled brats.

>>11335894
How are you measuring it though? When I look around my social circle, I see that hypergamy based on money is weak. But hypergamy based on social status is strong.

>Incel general

Nothing more pathetic than adult virgins.

>In my humble opinion, if more women considered fighting the impulses of hypergamy

That would require them settling for less which to a degree is unreasonable believe it or not. Without even getting into the inherent selfishness of the women in question a woman who wants to bring a child into the world at least desires highly fit genes or abundant resources to care for it if they can't achieve both. That's a desire that applies to females across multiple species.

The main issue with hypergamy in human society is that the average man loses out because they are mediocre in all categories. They are neither highly fit physical/health wise nor have abundant resources. So they are immediately put in forth category to...

1.)men who are both fit and wealthy, 2.)men who are wealthy but unfit
3.)men who are fit but not wealthy

A man mediocre in both wealth and fitness should not expect to be a highly desired mate. Even in the most traditional cultures where the parents decide for their daughters they will not choose a person in deficient in either category as a sound mate unless left no choice.

>In my humble opinion, if more women considered fighting the impulses of hypergamy

That would require them settling for less which to a degree is unreasonable believe it or not. Without even getting into the inherent selfishness of the women in question a woman who wants to bring a child into the world at least desires highly fit genes or abundant resources to care for it if they can't achieve both. That's a desire that applies to females across multiple species.

The main issue with hypergamy in human society is that the average man loses out because they are mediocre in all categories. They are neither highly fit physical/health wise nor have abundant resources. So they are immediately put in forth category to...

>1.)men who are both fit and wealthy
>2.)men who are wealthy but unfit
>3.)men who are fit but not wealthy

A man mediocre in both wealth and fitness should not expect to be a highly desired mate. Even in the most traditional cultures where the parents decide for their daughters they will not choose a person in deficient in either category as a sound mate unless left no choice.

>>11335863
if you are shit at everything in your life you won't get much sex, 80/20. Nobody is denying it.

if you are shit at everything in your life you won't get much sex, 80/20. Nobody is denying it. Talking about it left and right is a tell-sign that you are an incel though.

>>11337774
Only sufficient wealth is needed, more than that doesn't afford much in terms of fitness to hold a family together. Previous societies aimed for that level, as opposed to outrageous wealth or bust. Of course, as usual, they'd choose the best out of eligible mates, but they didn't choose between no marriage whatsoever and 11/10 adonis with pockets deeper than the ocean. They also strongly weighed the potential mate's personality (honest? criminal? vices?) which clearly don't affect women whatsoever.
Women don't seem to go after wealthy men anyway (except gold diggers) so your hypothesis can't be true. They also don't care in the slightness about fitness (healthwise), only about appearance thereof (e.g. >>11337664 it's all about "being handsome" which, for example, has nothing to do with how much you lift, your heart rate at rest, your rate of illness, previous injuries, ability to defend the woman in real life, or anything like that, purely facial genetics and height).
It's very common for women to go after broke criminals living in ghettos, so clearly wealth's not on their mind. The criminals they go with are also rarely particularly fit nor attractive (they tend to be outrageously unhealthy, and above average looks). This is completely inconsistent with your model.

It's not like we're talking about marrying a princess descended from heaven to the town idiot who's been living in the streets all his life because he was born with down's syndrome.

>>11337774
>The main issue with hypergamy in human society is that the average man loses out because they are mediocre in all categories.
and women aren't? in fact what do women bring to the table other than their wombs? little to nothing. yet they have the privilege of being the selector because the evolutionary crap shoot worked out this way.

>>11337664
>something in common with
uhuh lol

>>11337813

>Only sufficient wealth is needed, more than that doesn't afford much in terms of fitness to hold a family together.

Your definition of sufficient wealth and a women's is different. Yes, making $40-50k a year is adequate for a family. But a woman will desire more than that.

>Women don't seem to go after wealthy men anyway (except gold diggers) so your hypothesis can't be true.

Wealthy doesn't mean obscenely rich. I'm not talking about millionaires/billionaires, I'm talking about +$100k salaries that Engineers, Lawyers and Doctors make. Any of those three occupations are wealthy compared to various positions in janitorial, retail, education or trade work.

>They also don't care in the slightness about fitness (healthwise), only about appearance thereof

Even if that was the case (which it isn't, women don't usually want sickly babies) physical appearance is still associated with health. An obese man is not physically fit, attractive or healthy. So the average woman is not going to prefer a man in such a state.

>The criminals they go with are also rarely particularly fit nor attractive

Have you actually seen how fit the average criminal/ convicted felon who's been to jail is compared to the average person on the street? And yes, the average criminal isn't attractive (face wise).

>>11337817

>and women aren't? in fact what do women bring to the table other than their wombs? little to nothing

The problem is that the womb has literally been the gate keeper to our species survival for thousands of years. Maybe when we perfect artificial wombs they will have to step up more but until then that's all they need right now. Women know this so outside looks (to hook you) they aren't really interested in bringing much else for you.

>>11337874
>+$100k salaries that Engineers, Lawyers and Doctors make.
So you're only talking about "sufficient wealth". That level of wealth never enters anyone's equation.
> An obese man is not physically fit, attractive or healthy.
Women don't care much about fatness, moot point.
>Have you actually seen how fit the average criminal/ convicted felon who's been to jail is compared to the average person on the street?
Have you? No, you trust your hollywood movies.

>>11337880

>So you're only talking about "sufficient wealth". That level of wealth never enters anyone's equation

Is this a joke? Or are we going to pretend that Engineers, Doctors and Lawyers aren't the most highly sought after occupations in both money and mate interest. Incel Doctors, Lawyers or Engineers are not common occurence.

>Women don't care much about fatness, moot point.

You're telling me that the average woman doesn't care about if their prospective mates are obese with possible complications including diabetes? Are you trying to trick me. The only way fatness is not a factor is if they are wealthy. But if they aren't wealthy you bet your ass they give a damn.

>Have you? No, you trust your hollywood movies

Prisons restricts food consumption and leisure pursuits. This leaves convicted men with only basic level of calorie sustainment and basic physical excercises. The BMI of prisoners is on average lower than that of civilians.

>>11337913
You must be 18 or older to post here.

all these nerds philosophizing about women and they've never held eye contact with one lmao

>>11337919

And you must be a non-virgin with a job to actually provide sound arguments.

>>11337945
Good thing I am both of these things. Now off you go, little zoom zoom.

>>11337355
Just lose weight. Most fat blobs have so much potential

>>11338743
>be just a little chubby
>completely isolated
>lose weight to become low BMI but still in the healthy range
>nothing changes whatsoever
>get depression because it seems like nothing you do has any effect

>>11337913
>Incel Doctors, Lawyers or Engineers are not common occurence.
Joking?

I mean the only area where you can argue that hypergamy actually exists is on dating apps, and even then it's a stretch. The second you actually try to argue that hypergamy actually happens on the regular outside of said apps, the argument falls apart.

Men don't marry and impregnate a harem of women, unless you're in a cult. Spend any amount of time in a major city and you're going to see men on the lower end of the beauty spectrum dating attractive women - and not all of them are rich and/or influential. Modern society gives women the opportunity to have vastly varying preferences the same way men do.

>>11340222
Wasted trips. Almost everything you have claimed is observably false.

Denying hypergamy is on the same tier as denying evolution or racial differences imo. People refuse to see it due to unchallengable axioms they've been conditioned to believe

>>11340180
This, incel engineers are literally the most common kind of incel bar none, and incel doctors and lawyers are much more common among the incel population, profession-wise, than in the wild.

>>11340281
You're legitimizing him because it's normal to deny race.

>>11340318
>it's normal to deny race.
Even the average person doesn't deny race deep down. That being said "hypergamy" doesn't really exist or it's at best vastly exagerated by mgtow/incel types.

>>11340222
Why are you even conflating marriage and hypergamy? How high are you? Don't you know being that high while you haven't even gone through puberty yet will prevent your brain from developing normally? Read your own post and realize it's already showing its effects!

>>11340937
So this grand hypergamy only exists in the one night stand scene? Even then its not true. It's like you people have never spent one actual day outside your own bedroom.

>>11340222
>Spend any amount of time in a major city and you're going to see men on the lower end of the beauty spectrum dating attractive women
I have literally never seen that happen even a single time in my entire life while I see the exact opposite every single day many times a day.

>>11340969
You must be 18 or older to browse this site.

>>11340281
race doesnt exist because its an abstract category.
genetic subgroups exist, but they do not correlate to race, rather people subjectively place numerous distinct groups within the same 'race' based on nothing but their own feelings about what goes where.

While grouping things togeather for analytical purposes is not neccisarily bad, when you use these groupings as the justification for action you have fallen into idpol.

>>11340222
>I mean the only area where you can argue that hypergamy actually exists is on dating apps, and even then it's a stretch.
dating apps are by far the most common way people meet nowadays.

>Spend any amount of time in a major city and you're going to see men on the lower end of the beauty spectrum dating attractive women - and not all of them are rich and/or influential.
bull fucking shit.

>>11341022
>genetic subgroups exist, but they do not correlate to race,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
>Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.

>>11341064
that just means people are aware of what their subgroup is and which race their subgroup is assigned to

>>11341098
iow correlation