Is It Harder For A Guy To Get A Girlfriend Then A Girl To Get A Boyfriend?

[LUH 3417]

"Arthur Schopenhauer saw health as the most important factor of happiness and believed that it should never be traded for honors."
Ekaitz Saies on Twitter

So did nazis. What’s your point?

Nazi Fitness Book 1938 Hans Suren

 

[Badger]

I guess what I said was too too subtle or ironic. Let me spell it out: are you a Nazi because you are interested in health, is me a Nazi for same reason, plus Dr. Peat, because Nazis were interested in health? I don't think so. So Schoep isn't one either for same reasons. Just reinforcing my prior point with added evidence. Just because ones values something some bad people value does not make one a bad person by association. I knew once a hard-core Marxist with a Ph.d who rejected serious focus on health as a consequence of making this basic logical error.

So did nazis. What’s your point?

Nazi Fitness Book 1938 Hans Suren

 

[LUH 3417]

I guess what I said was too too subtle or ironic. Let me spell it out: are you a Nazi because you are interested in health, is me a Nazi for same reason, plus Dr. Peat, because Nazis were interested in health? I don't think so. So Schoep isn't one either for same reasons. Just reinforcing my prior point with added evidence. Just because ones values something some bad people value does not make one a bad person by association. I knew once a hard-core Marxist with a Ph.d who rejected serious focus on health as a consequence of making this basic logical error.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

 

[Badger]

Trouble is that there are too many stupid people. If intelligent were the majority, their doubt would cause little or less harm to society as a whole.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

 

[LUH 3417]

Trouble is that there are too many stupid people. If intelligent were the majority, their doubt would cause little or less harm to society as a whole.

Well thankfully we have you to spell it all out!

 

[Badger]

Well thankfully we have you to spell it all out!

Can't tell you are saying something nice or sarcastic.

 

[SOMO]

Yes, obviously.

Girls can get a boyfriend whenever they want.

Such is nature.

 

[Badger]

Yes & no.

Yes if it's a LCD or low quality man. A penny a hundred. No if it's a high-quality or highest-quality and sought-for man, as demand among women for such men greatly exceeds supply. Especially because high-quality men most often go for the most pretty and beautiful women, who are also in short supply. Such is nature.

Yes, obviously.

Girls can get a boyfriend whenever they want.

Such is nature.

 

[Badger]

Talking about Nazis, and given you are an anthropological major, I think, I wonder what you think of this excerpt below from listed link, which I found while researching Schoep.

Since I am not well-versed in anthropology, I'm quite interested to know if you find it is accurate or baloney. Because if what is stated especially in 2nd paragraph is true, my guess is that your field of Anthropology has a Kong Kong-sized gorilla in the room that most of the anthropology hotshots have ignored for a long time, implying at least part of the field - a big part - is about ideology, not science or scholarship, as is the whole of Women's/Gender Studies:

"Before the rise of Boasian anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s, virtually all Western anthropologists and intellectuals posited a direct correlation between external racial traits and internal psychological traits. Skin color was regarded as not just a physical attribute, but an external racial marker tied to a correlated set of intellectual, political, and cultural capabilities. Schopenhauer was, of course, writing in an age when the reality of racial differences was taken for granted, and this is reflected at various points in his work. For instance, in positing that higher intellectual powers are often accompanied by a relatively lesser tendency toward sociability, he asserts that “the most sociable of all human beings are said to be the Negroes who intellectually are decidedly inferior.”[ii]

This approach was largely abandoned after World War II with the rise of Boasian anthropology which was instrumental in totally suppressing evolutionary theory in the social sciences. The Jewish historian Norman Cantor noted that “since 1945 and more intensively since the 1960s all forms of racialist thinking are excluded from rational and enlightened discourse, especially in the United States, where the liberal civil libertarians have made racial doctrine intrinsically wrong, evil, and undiscussable.” The reason for this exclusion is that “modern anthropology, as defined the German-Jewish expatriate Franz Boas, for three decades head of the anthropology department at Columbia University, declared nineteenth-century race theory without foundation.” Cantor admitted that “this behavioral egalitarianism and universality was itself an ideology,” and that the Boasians never actually disproved social-Darwinian race theory, but rather insisted that it be “excluded from civil discourse as a result of what the Nazis and other such hate-mongering groups did with it.”[iii]"

Schopenhauer on Race Differences in Intelligence and on Judaism

So did nazis. What’s your point?

Nazi Fitness Book 1938 Hans Suren

 

[LUH 3417]

Talking about Nazis, and given you are an anthropological major, I think, I wonder what you think of this excerpt below from listed link, which I found while researching Schoep.

Since I am not well-read in anthropology, I'm quite interested if you find it is accurate or baloney. If what is stated in especially in 2nd paragraph is true, my guess is that your field of Anthropology has a Kong Kong-sized gorilla in the room that most of the anthropology hotshots have ignored for a long time, implying at least part of the field - a big part - is about ideology, not science or scholarship, as is the whole of Women's/Gender Studies:

"Before the rise of Boasian anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s, virtually all Western anthropologists and intellectuals posited a direct correlation between external racial traits and internal psychological traits. Skin color was regarded as not just a physical attribute, but an external racial marker tied to a correlated set of intellectual, political, and cultural capabilities. Schopenhauer was, of course, writing in an age when the reality of racial differences was taken for granted, and this is reflected at various points in his work. For instance, in positing that higher intellectual powers are often accompanied by a relatively lesser tendency toward sociability, he asserts that “the most sociable of all human beings are said to be the Negroes who intellectually are decidedly inferior.”[ii]

This approach was largely abandoned after World War II with the rise of Boasian anthropology which was instrumental in totally suppressing evolutionary theory in the social sciences. The Jewish historian Norman Cantor noted that “since 1945 and more intensively since the 1960s all forms of racialist thinking are excluded from rational and enlightened discourse, especially in the United States, where the liberal civil libertarians have made racial doctrine intrinsically wrong, evil, and undiscussable.” The reason for this exclusion is that “modern anthropology, as defined the German-Jewish expatriate Franz Boas, for three decades head of the anthropology department at Columbia University, declared nineteenth-century race theory without foundation.” Cantor admitted that “this behavioral egalitarianism and universality was itself an ideology,” and that the Boasians never actually disproved social-Darwinian race theory, but rather insisted that it be “excluded from civil discourse as a result of what the Nazis and other such hate-mongering groups did with it.”[iii]"

Schopenhauer on Race Differences in Intelligence and on Judaism

Of course it’s ideological. What discipline isn’t? Haven’t you read the Cold War in Biology?

 

[LUH 3417]

Talking about Nazis, and given you are an anthropological major, I think, I wonder what you think of this excerpt below from listed link, which I found while researching Schoep.

Since I am not well-read in anthropology, I'm quite interested to know if you find it is accurate or baloney. If what is stated especially in 2nd paragraph is true, my guess is that your field of Anthropology has a Kong Kong-sized gorilla in the room that most of the anthropology hotshots have ignored for a long time, implying at least part of the field - a big part - is about ideology, not science or scholarship, as is the whole of Women's/Gender Studies:

"Before the rise of Boasian anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s, virtually all Western anthropologists and intellectuals posited a direct correlation between external racial traits and internal psychological traits. Skin color was regarded as not just a physical attribute, but an external racial marker tied to a correlated set of intellectual, political, and cultural capabilities. Schopenhauer was, of course, writing in an age when the reality of racial differences was taken for granted, and this is reflected at various points in his work. For instance, in positing that higher intellectual powers are often accompanied by a relatively lesser tendency toward sociability, he asserts that “the most sociable of all human beings are said to be the Negroes who intellectually are decidedly inferior.”[ii]

This approach was largely abandoned after World War II with the rise of Boasian anthropology which was instrumental in totally suppressing evolutionary theory in the social sciences. The Jewish historian Norman Cantor noted that “since 1945 and more intensively since the 1960s all forms of racialist thinking are excluded from rational and enlightened discourse, especially in the United States, where the liberal civil libertarians have made racial doctrine intrinsically wrong, evil, and undiscussable.” The reason for this exclusion is that “modern anthropology, as defined the German-Jewish expatriate Franz Boas, for three decades head of the anthropology department at Columbia University, declared nineteenth-century race theory without foundation.” Cantor admitted that “this behavioral egalitarianism and universality was itself an ideology,” and that the Boasians never actually disproved social-Darwinian race theory, but rather insisted that it be “excluded from civil discourse as a result of what the Nazis and other such hate-mongering groups did with it.”[iii]"

Schopenhauer on Race Differences in Intelligence and on Judaism

Are you asking if there is any pure objectivity in anthropology? I don’t think there is and that’s something anthropologists are well aware of.

Talking about Nazis, and given you are an anthropological major, I think, I wonder what you think of this excerpt below from listed link, which I found while researching Schoep.

Since I am not well-versed in anthropology, I'm quite interested to know if you find it is accurate or baloney. Because if what is stated especially in 2nd paragraph is true, my guess is that your field of Anthropology has a Kong Kong-sized gorilla in the room that most of the anthropology hotshots have ignored for a long time, implying at least part of the field - a big part - is about ideology, not science or scholarship, as is the whole of Women's/Gender Studies:

"Before the rise of Boasian anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s, virtually all Western anthropologists and intellectuals posited a direct correlation between external racial traits and internal psychological traits. Skin color was regarded as not just a physical attribute, but an external racial marker tied to a correlated set of intellectual, political, and cultural capabilities. Schopenhauer was, of course, writing in an age when the reality of racial differences was taken for granted, and this is reflected at various points in his work. For instance, in positing that higher intellectual powers are often accompanied by a relatively lesser tendency toward sociability, he asserts that “the most sociable of all human beings are said to be the Negroes who intellectually are decidedly inferior.”[ii]

This approach was largely abandoned after World War II with the rise of Boasian anthropology which was instrumental in totally suppressing evolutionary theory in the social sciences. The Jewish historian Norman Cantor noted that “since 1945 and more intensively since the 1960s all forms of racialist thinking are excluded from rational and enlightened discourse, especially in the United States, where the liberal civil libertarians have made racial doctrine intrinsically wrong, evil, and undiscussable.” The reason for this exclusion is that “modern anthropology, as defined the German-Jewish expatriate Franz Boas, for three decades head of the anthropology department at Columbia University, declared nineteenth-century race theory without foundation.” Cantor admitted that “this behavioral egalitarianism and universality was itself an ideology,” and that the Boasians never actually disproved social-Darwinian race theory, but rather insisted that it be “excluded from civil discourse as a result of what the Nazis and other such hate-mongering groups did with it.”[iii]"

Schopenhauer on Race Differences in Intelligence and on Judaism

it is also definitely not denied, at least not now. Maybe it was a secret when Boas around, which was a long time ago. Are you trying to discredit my education by comparing it to a women’s studies degree? Also when are you going to get over that people can get degrees in women’s studies? I’m sure there are plenty of people who feel the same about library science in 2018, which I believe is your speciality.

 

[Badger]

Some are more - way, way much more - than others. Hard sciences and engineering, much less so. Not much room for ideology when you are trying to keep a bridge from falling down or a TV from electrocuting you, for example.

Of course it’s ideological. What discipline isn’t? Haven’t you read the Cold War in Biology?

 

[LUH 3417]

Some are more - way, way much more - than others. Hard sciences and engineering, much less so. Not much room for ideology when you are trying to keep a bridge from falling down or a TV from electrocuting you, for example.

That’s an ideology in and of itself - the existence of “hard” sciences and their superiority to theoretical or philosophical discussions about reality because one lends itself to the construction of a bridge and the other to a conversation about a bridge.

 

[Badger]

"re you trying to discredit my education by comparing it to a women’s studies degree?"
Oh no, not at all. You certainly seem quick to get defensive. Lots of programs, maybe most, have sub-areas that are nonsense. Some more, others less. Women's studies is near 100%. Anthropology - who knows how much more is nonsense? I don't know. That's why I ask for clarification from you on a specific topic, though you have very little to say about it and you chose to say more on irrelevant things. (BTW, I'm pro-anthropology given the wealth of information it has gathered on religious subjects world-wide, but also because in my undergrad years in Comparative Literature, I had a fantastic professor who had two Ph.ds: one in CL and the other in Anthropology. So I am far from having any animus to your field or trying to discredit your education.)

"I’m sure there are plenty of people who feel the same about library science in 2018, which I believe is your speciality."
Library science - hard to identify anything in LS that is morally problematic - at least these days - as avoiding race issues. I always thought cataloging classes were nonsense, but those who taught it were always so dreadfully boring, so it's probably unfair to say that. Most of it, alas, has become another variety of computer sciences now, and I would never deny a good bit of that in a library context is nonsense. Some years ago, I wrote and spoke at conferences about the very subject of CS overly supplanting real LS.

Getting back to the real topic of my interest, if you don't mind: if it is not denied, why don't anthropologists address and study it in a big, sustained way? Refusing to doesn't make it look good and implies it has a political agenda.

Are you asking if there is any pure objectivity in anthropology? I don’t think there is and that’s something anthropologists are well aware of.

it is also definitely not denied, at least not now. Maybe it was a secret when Boas around, which was a long time ago. Are you trying to discredit my education by comparing it to a women’s studies degree? Also when are you going to get over that people can get degrees in women’s studies? I’m sure there are plenty of people who feel the same about library science in 2018, which I believe is your speciality.

Are you asking if there is any pure objectivity in anthropology? I don’t think there is and that’s something anthropologists are well aware of.

 

[Badger]

Oh, I think your distinction greatly oversimplifies the issues pertinent to it, but it's a big topic to be discussed elsewhere apart from what I'm interested in.

That’s an ideology in and of itself - the existence of “hard” sciences and their superiority to theoretical or philosophical discussions about reality because one lends itself to the construction of a bridge and the other to a conversation about a bridge.

 

[Pulstar]

Yes if it's a LCD or low quality man. A penny a hundred. No if it's a high-quality or highest-quality and sought-for man, as demand among women for such men greatly exceeds supply. Especially because high-quality men most often go for the most pretty and beautiful women, who are also in short supply. Such is nature.

I agree. If a man or a woman want to spend time with a person worth spending time with, usually some work and patience is required from BOTH sides.

 

[LUH 3417]

"re you trying to discredit my education by comparing it to a women’s studies degree?"
Oh no, not at all. You certainly seem quick to get defensive. Lots of programs, maybe most, have sub-areas that are nonsense. Some more, others less. Women's studies is near 100%. Anthropology - who knows how much more is nonsense? I don't know. That's why I ask for clarification from you on a specific topic, though you have very little to say about it and you chose to say more on irrelevant things. (BTW, I'm pro-anthropology given the wealth of information it has gathered on religious subjects world-wide, but also because in my undergrad years in Comparative Literature, I had a fantastic professor who had two Ph.ds: one in CL and the other in Anthropology. So I am far from having any animus to your field or trying to discredit your education.)

"I’m sure there are plenty of people who feel the same about library science in 2018, which I believe is your speciality."
Library science - hard to identify anything in LS that is morally problematic - at least these days - as avoiding race issues. I always thought cataloging classes were nonsense, but those who taught it were always so dreadfully boring, so it's probably unfair to say that. Most of it, alas, has become another variety of computer sciences now, and I would never deny a good bit of that in a library context is nonsense. Some years ago, I wrote and spoke at conferences about the very subject of CS overly supplanting real LS.

Getting back to the real topic of my interest, if you don't mind: if it is not denied, why don't anthropologists address and study it in a big, sustained way? Refusing to doesn't make it look good and implies it has a political agenda.

It’s a bit difficult to not be on the defense with someone who keeps posting about how modern women are ugly and feminism is to blame. But anyway, back to the topic at hand, since I am master of the non-sequitor, oh wait, there I am being irrelevant again, what exactly is the “it” that anthropology should study? If you asked a straight forward question, I may be able to answer.

 

[LUH 3417]

Oh, I think your distinction greatly oversimplifies the issues pertinent to it, but it's a big topic to be discussed elsewhere apart from what I'm interested in.

Your tactic for posters you disagree with is to claim they are oversimplifying or simply not worth dealing with (you’ve done this to me multiple times on other threads and I’ve noticed it with other posters you exchange with too).

I’m just wondering: are you at all interested in ray peat’s work? He never calls himself a feminist but at the end of nutrition for women, he makes some claims about sexuality and gender and how men and women may be able to work together and get along that I don’t think would fit in with the worldview you’ve espoused on multiple threads here the past year. And I’m not saying you can’t disagree with him or bring some new and refreshing perspective, but your qualms with women studies and liberal education just feel like you’re beating a dead horse. Maybe you could look into organizations or academic institutions more in line with your ideology and use your time advocating your views there. It may be more fulfilling.

 

[Deleted member 5487]

is it harder for a guy to get a girlfriend then a girl to get a boyfriend? My friend really struggling with this. Do you disagree?

Absolutely.

Humans like many other primates are hyper gamoues. Females Quite literally being only attracted to top genetics.

New Statistics say the top 20% of men are seen as above average.Or 1/5 men are found to be "acceptable".

Female homo sapiens are willing to be part of a harem of an alpha male. Similar to chimpanzee and gorilla society's where dating things are VERY polar in one direction.

Do not let society, culture, or religion scew reality. Society is but a concrete jungle.

 

[Deleted member 5487]

Essentially you are either a Provider(Beta) or a paramour(Alpha).

Women's concealed ovulation is the key give away.

"Women, on the other hand, may surreptitiously engage in extra-pair copulations and deceive their long-term partners about offspring paternity. In this way, they are able to extract material resources from their long-term partners while extracting good genes from their paramours. As with heart rate and respiration, these behaviors are enacted by individuals without any conscious awareness of their evolutionary purpose"
-


Gregory Gorelik PhD.Gregory Gorelik - Google Scholar Citations
"
Thus, women may choose to initiate long-term mating relationships with highly resourceful, yet reproductively less fit men, while having short-term sexual relationships with re productively more fit men. Because of concealed ovulation, men who are less fit, yet resourceful, may be unable to identify when conception may have occurred and so may be manipulated by women into investing in offspring to whom they are not genetically related. Thus, women may be able to rear genetically-fit children who are cared for and protected by resourceful men. "


Equality is found nowhere in nature.

Esentially you must accept your genetic limitations. And opt for a sexual strategy