Jordan Peterson interview on C4

DEFTLEFTHAND

Often times the 'alpha' type though Pluto is not the man a woman will breed with.

They're fine for messing around with in ones youth but many women eventually settle down with the 'beta' provider type. The one who'll be loyal and a good father.

xckjoo

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Anyone with a decent social life probably knows a few men who just seem to have a knack with women. Casual sex comes easy to them, they don't even have to chase it, women often chase them.

These so called scientists in their ivory towers completely miss the nuance of social interactions. Heaven forbid they actually test their hypotheses and approach women themselves.

It's a statistical report. They're not proposing any hypotheses.

pumpkin4life

xckjoo wrote: »

Methodology is in the source link he posted. It would have been faster to read it than type the question.

The rest of your post is pure anecdote. "I know some lad knobbing all round him" isn't statistically relevant. Nor is "I'd be ashamed if I was a virgin and lie about it".

This is laughably wrong. Read it again. The first case was mzungu talking about the crazy stories, and I know someone like this, so I don't agree with him. As do other people. Most people know that one guy and he usually has one of those attributes.

As for the statistical part, it's called the social desirability bias and its a major part of statistics in the social sciences, so you're wrong here again. People lie on surveys when the information is illegal, or controversial, or could get them in trouble at work. There have been books, platforms, written to get around this. So my male virgins lying part is completely valid to bring up.

The abortion polls are a good example of this. If I say I oppose abortion in the wrong context, I could be labelled as a misogynist/woman hater/Iona institute member. So to save my ass, I lie about "don't know" or "Yes" and then vote No in the polling booth.

Professor Moriarty

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Anyone with a decent social life probably knows a few men who just seem to have a knack with women. Casual sex comes easy to them, they don't even have to chase it, women often chase them.

These so called scientists in their ivory towers completely miss the nuance of social interactions. Heaven forbid they actually test their hypotheses and approach women themselves.

Said without a hint of envy.

xckjoo

pumpkin4life wrote: »

This is laughably wrong. Read it again.

What's "laughably wrong"??? I'm confused about what you're referring to here. You asked how the numbers were reached, I pointed out that it's in the link. They even give some info on it in the Abstract so don't even have to scroll down.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The first case was mzungu talking about the crazy stories, and I know someone like this, so I don't agree with him. As do other people. Most people know that one guy and he usually has one of those attributes.

That's called an outlier. It doesn't shift the general trend. It's like that one old person that most people know that smoked, drank and ate like crap their whole lives but are still healthier than most of their piers. Their existence does not negate the overall trend of smoking causing an increased chance of lung cancer, etc.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

As for the statistical part, it's called the social desirability bias and its a major part of statistics in the social sciences, so you're wrong here again. People lie on surveys when the information is illegal, or controversial, or could get them in trouble. There have been books, platforms, written to get around this. So my male virgins lying part is completely valid to bring up.

It's valid to bring up but this phenomenon doesn't negate all survey data. It just increases the margin of error. Do they account for this bias in the source paper? You haven't read it* so it's a bit early

pumpkin4life wrote:

to call bullshìt.

*Neither have I so I don't know either

Pluto Planet

It's not an outlier, it's a common trend globally. There are a minority of men who are very successful with women.

I get the impression some people really don't want to believe that a minority of men do most of the shagging

Brian?

Pluto Planet wrote: »

It's not an outlier, it's a common trend globally. There are a minority of men who are very successful with women.

I get the impression some people really don't want to believe that a minority of men do most of the shagging

I find it interesting that your measure of success is having sexual relations. The biological measure of success isn't, it's having offspring.

A man who's had sex with one woman but sires 10 kids, is more successful that a man who's had sex with 200 women and never fathered a child.

In other words, these measures of success you claim are evolutionary are actually subjective measures that haven been invented by people who want to have a lot of casual sex. Because it's fun. Nothing wrong with riding all around you mind.

xckjoo

Pluto Planet wrote: »

It's not an outlier, it's a common trend globally. There are a minority of men who are very successful with women.

I get the impression some people really don't want to believe that a minority of men do most of the shagging

That's exactly what an outlier is. A small minority bucking the trend. For all the lads you know shagging anything that looks at them, there's all the others that aren't/can't. You've a confirmation bias because that's what you want for yourself (I'm assuming, maybe not, don't really care either way)

Pluto Planet

xckjoo wrote: »

That's exactly what an outlier is. A small minority bucking the trend. For all the lads you know shagging anything that looks at them, there's all the others that aren't/can't. You've a confirmation bias because that's what you want for yourself (I'm assuming, maybe not, don't really care either way)

Yes you are assuming. I'm only interested in observing truth.

The men who have sex with many women aren't bucking the trend. That dynamic is the trend. A small minority of men shag most of the women.

mzungu

pumpkin4life wrote: »

1: Because I've revealed too much of my identity here, I'm just going to reveal the fact that I am friends with someone who is very famous and very successful within the sports and fitness industry in this country. I've been out with this guy and I remember him being approached by a ride of a wan, with her, right there, begging him to take him home. Like a fùcking 10, Slovak model looking wan. This guy has told us stories that were absolutely crazy; threesomes, banging wans in the jacks 10 minutes after meeting them, all of that. When Donald Trump's pussy tape came out, it came of no surprise to me. There is a small percentage of men (very rich, very successful in sports, very very very Derek Zoolander goodlooking men) who get a wan and sleep with wans in a way thats foreign, alien to the rest of us. So I disagree with that part.

You are comparing celebs/POTUS with the average man on the street which was not what I was talking about.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

2: Out of interest, how do they calculate those numbers? If it's surveyed I'm going to call bullshìt.

Male virgins are associated with being losers. So they won't admit to it on a survey.

Wans who sleep with a lot of men are associated with being sluts. So they won't admit to it on a survey.

So those male virgin numbers are artificially low and those female virgin numbers are artificially high.

Great thread though, good stuff from Wibbs, a lot to think about.

It was interviews.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

This is laughably wrong. Read it again. The first case was mzungu talking about the crazy stories, and I know someone like this, so I don't agree with him. As do other people. Most people know that one guy and he usually has one of those attributes.

As above, I never denied that famous rich and powerful men have options, ditto with even mini celebs like your friend (although not to the same extent). What I was disagreeing with was basing ones opinion off outliers and stories of what certain lads get up to.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

As for the statistical part, it's called the social desirability bias and its a major part of statistics in the social sciences, so you're wrong here again. People lie on surveys when the information is illegal, or controversial, or could get them in trouble at work. There have been books, platforms, written to get around this. So my male virgins lying part is completely valid to bring up.

There is usually a workaround for things like the social desirability bias factored in. Eg. by using neutral questions etc. Margins for error in general have been accounted for in the study. I'm not saying it's 100% correct, but it offers a counterpoint to Pluto's suggestion that there was a lot more male virgins out there.

Brian?

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Yes you are assuming. I'm only interested in observing truth.

The men who have sex with many women aren't bucking the trend. That dynamic is the trend. A small minority of men shag most of the women.

Truth? You haven’t presented any evidence, all you’ve done is state opinions.

mzungu

Pluto Planet wrote: »

I don't think I was provided counter claims to the male lineage point, merely that it's multi faceted which I have always agreed with.

You stated it was down to evolution. That was countered and you provided no response to back up what you said.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

There are men who can have casual sex with with women with relative ease, these men are in the minority. Do you disagree with this point?

There is casual sex happening all the time, and it is quite common from small towns to big cities.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Casual sex is a much better indicator of sexual attractiveness in men than being in a relationship. Just because a man is in a relationship does not mean his partner finds him sexually attractive. It is more likely that a woman finds a man sexually attractive if she has casual sex with him compared to a relationship.

This has nothing to do with what I asked.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

It's not an outlier, it's a common trend globally. There are a minority of men who are very successful with women.

I get the impression some people really don't want to believe that a minority of men do most of the shagging

Care to back up that claim? Thought not! Sorry, but a few cherry picked celebs and outliers does not make this the case.:p

Pluto Planet wrote: »

I'm only interested in observing truth.

If that's the case then provide the evidence that you were talking about a few pages ago. I refer to....

Pluto Planet wrote: »

The evidence is there that a minority of men are sexually attractive to women. Women on average rate around 80% of men as below average in terms if attractiveness. This is because the majority are not even on their radar.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

It makes sense from an evolutionary perepective that women would only be aroused by the minority of men who are most attractive. And the evidence bears this out.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Genetic evidence supports the fact that many more male lines dies out conpared to female lines.

Pluto Planet

mzungu wrote: »

You stated it was down to evolution. That was countered and you provided no response to back up what you said.


There is casual sex happening all the time, and it is quite common from small towns to big cities.

This has nothing to do with what I asked.

Care to back up that claim? Thought not! Sorry, but a few cherry picked celebs and outliers does not make this the case.:p

If that's the case then provide the evidence that you were talking about a few pages ago. I refer to....

https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

I find it interesting that your measure of success is having sexual relations. The biological measure of success isn't, it's having offspring.

A man who's had sex with one woman but sires 10 kids, is more successful that a man who's had sex with 200 women and never fathered a child.

To be fair B, before reliable contraception the guy who had sex with 200 women would have had a shedload of kids. That has really changed things.

Pluto Planet

mzungu wrote: »

Care to back up that claim? Thought not! Sorry, but a few cherry picked celebs and outliers does not make this the case.:p

Now you are making the claim that only a few outliers have sex with large numbers of women, can you provide evidence for your claim?

The point I am making is a minority of men do most of the shagging, having sex with 80+ or 100+ women by the time they are 35. This comes from life experience and witnessing the same men who every weekend are having sex with new women, often multiple per week. As an estimate I would say about 5% of men have sex with 80+ women by 35. I saw it again and again in different social groups. The one or two men who absolutely clean up. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer :pac:

Now I sense that you do not want this to be the truth, it threatens your value system and beliefs which you are invested in. Would it bother you if this could conclusively be proved as true?


It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, that women would be primarily sexually attracted to the top men, whatever exact percentage that may be. Average and below average women are still sexually attractive to many men, hence they can easily have sex if they want it. The only problem is they don't want sex with other average or below average men, they want sex with the top men. Why do you think most men struggle badly to get a one night stand? For the minority of men it's not a struggle at all, it's relatively easy.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair B, before reliable contraception the guy who had sex with 200 women would have had a shedload of kids. That has really changed things.

Oh absolutely. I was using it as an example of picking a subjective measure for success.

Brian?

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Now you are making the claim that only a few outliers have sex with large numbers of women, can you provide evidence for your claim?

The point I am making is a minority of men do most of the shagging, having sex with 80+ or 100+ women by the time they are 35. This comes from life experience and witnessing the same men who every weekend are having sex with new women, often multiple per week. As an estimate I would say about 5% of men have sex with 80+ women by 35. I saw it again and again in different social groups. The one or two men who absolutely clean up. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer :pac:

Now I sense that you do not want this to be the truth, it threatens your value system and beliefs which you are invested in. Would it bother you if this could conclusively be proved as true?


It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, that women would be primarily sexually attracted to the top men, whatever exact percentage that may be. Average and below average women are still sexually attractive to many men, hence they can easily have sex if they want it. The only problem is they don't want sex with other average or below average men, they want sex with the top men. Why do you think most men struggle badly to get a one night stand? For the minority of men it's not a struggle at all, it's relatively easy.

You’re saying the same thing over and over again, without providing a single piece of evidence.

Pluto Planet

Brian? wrote: »

You’re saying the same thing over and over again, without providing a single piece of evidence.

I've asked you for evidence to support your assertion which you haven't provided.

From wiki "A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found 20% of heterosexual men had only one partner, 55% had two to 20 partners, and 25% had more than 20 partners.[19] More recent studies have reported similar numbers.[20]"

The top 25% had sex with more than 20. My estimate was and is that the top 5% have have sex with 80+ women. One in five men only have sex with one woman. It's quite clearly a skewed distribution as I have asserted.

From wiki "American experiments in 1978 and 1982 found the great majority of men were willing to have sex with women they did not know, of average attractiveness, who propositioned them. No woman, by contrast, agreed to such propositions from men of average attractiveness." Doesn't exactly tell me anything I didn't already know but apparently you find it difficult to observe this in the real world, I would have thought it was blindingly obvious to most.

pumpkin4life

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair B, before reliable contraception the guy who had sex with 200 women would have had a shedload of kids. That has really changed things.

Spot on.

The other thing that has changed is the fact that the societal pressures and structures aren't there to get married anymore. The original function of marriage doesn't work or apply as much. So, rather than everyone getting matched off, what we have now is closer to a free market system where people go for what they can get rather than what they are matched with.

That could explain Wibbs and Plutos point of view together like, that certain traits were chosen for in history because society created the foundation for that. Now, that foundation seems to be coming apart a bit.

mzungu

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Now you are making the claim that only a few outliers have sex with large numbers of women, can you provide evidence for your claim?

I'm not. I'm saying you need to do a lot more to make your case.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

The point I am making is a minority of men do most of the shagging, having sex with 80+ or 100+ women by the time they are 35. This comes from life experience and witnessing the same men who every weekend are having sex with new women, often multiple per week. As an estimate I would say about 5% of men have sex with 80+ women by 35. I saw it again and again in different social groups. The one or two men who absolutely clean up. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer :pac:

Ah look, life experience is grand and all that, but we are still a long way from any kind of objective truth here.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Now I sense that you do not want this to be the truth, it threatens your value system and beliefs which you are invested in. Would it bother you if this could conclusively be proved as true?

Over the years when this crops up time and time again it never stands up to much scrutiny. If a cast iron case was made, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it turned out to be true. I would continue on as normal.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, that women would be primarily sexually attracted to the top men, whatever exact percentage that may be. Average and below average women are still sexually attractive to many men, hence they can easily have sex if they want it. The only problem is they don't want sex with other average or below average men, they want sex with the top men. Why do you think most men struggle badly to get a one night stand? For the minority of men it's not a struggle at all, it's relatively easy.

You appear to be saying here that basically attractiveness is desirable? If so, well I doubt you would find anybody that would disagree. Of course we are attracted to people. Regarding the one night stand part, are you assuming most men going out looking for an ONS? How is success / failure judged etc and how does this feature into it etc?

mzungu

Pluto Planet wrote: »

From wiki "A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found 20% of heterosexual men had only one partner, 55% had two to 20 partners, and 25% had more than 20 partners.[19] More recent studies have reported similar numbers.[20]"

The top 25% had sex with more than 20. My estimate was and is that the top 5% have have sex with 80+ women. One in five men only have sex with one woman. It's quite clearly a skewed distribution as I have asserted.

I had a read through that study. It doesn't mention hetero figures, but does mention that it overlaps with studies of homosexual ONS. Figures that high of over 80-100 in the gay community were very much in the outlier region (0.13%). I believe you have gone a wee bit OTT with your figures of what lay beyond your studies 20+ figure. Nevertheless, you admitted picking the 5% based only on your own observations. I disagree with that so there is probably not much more to be said there. You have your view, I have mine etc.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

From wiki "American experiments in 1978 and 1982 found the great majority of men were willing to have sex with women they did not know, of average attractiveness, who propositioned them. No woman, by contrast, agreed to such propositions from men of average attractiveness." Doesn't exactly tell me anything I didn't already know but apparently you find it difficult to observe this in the real world, I would have thought it was blindingly obvious to most.

You are mistaken there, I don't believe anybody has commented on any of the above so that has nothing to do with anything.

Brian?

Pluto Planet wrote: »

I've asked you for evidence to support your assertion which you haven't provided.

What assertion is that?

From wiki "A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found 20% of heterosexual men had only one partner, 55% had two to 20 partners, and 25% had more than 20 partners.[19] More recent studies have reported similar numbers.[20]"

The top 25% had sex with more than 20. My estimate was and is that the top 5% have have sex with 80+ women. One in five men only have sex with one woman. It's quite clearly a skewed distribution as I have asserted.

From wiki "American experiments in 1978 and 1982 found the great majority of men were willing to have sex with women they did not know, of average attractiveness, who propositioned them. No woman, by contrast, agreed to such propositions from men of average attractiveness." Doesn't exactly tell me anything I didn't already know but apparently you find it difficult to observe this in the real world, I would have thought it was blindingly obvious to most.

None of this proves that alpha males exist. Or even supports the assertion they do.

Pluto Planet

Brian? wrote: »

What assertion is that?



None of this proves that alpha males exist. Of even supports the assertion they do.

You're getting your knickers in a twist about the term alpha males. It's just a term to describe the top level men who are most attractive to women.

There are some men who are significantly better than most at attracting women. It's a skewed distribution in contrast to women's attractiveness which is roughly a normal distribution. This is why on average women tend to view 80% of men as below average. Men view about 50% of women as below average.

Brian?

Pluto Planet wrote: »

You're getting your knickers in a twist about the term alpha males. It's just a term to describe the top level men who are most attractive to women.

That’s exactly what I’m taking issue with. The alpha/beta paradigm, as you’re using it. That is exactly what I am objecting to.

FYI, my knickers aren’t easily twisted. I only wear lace thongs for comfort.

There are some men who are significantly better than most at attracting women. It's a skewed distribution in contrast to women's attractiveness which is roughly a normal distribution. This is why on average women tend to view 80% of men as below average. Men view about 50% of women as below average.

Of course some men are more attractive. No one is disputing that.

Pluto Planet

Brian? wrote: »

That’s exactly what I’m taking issue with. The alpha/beta paradigm, as you’re using it. That is exactly what I am objecting to.

FYI, my knickers aren’t easily twisted. I only wear lace thongs for comfort.



Of course some men are more attractive. No one is disputing that.

The point I'm making isn't that some men are more attractive, it's about the skewed dustribution of male attractiveness as perceived by women. The average man is sexually unappealing to most women, the average woman is sexually appealing to most men, ie they would have sex with her.

Brian?

Pluto Planet wrote: »

The point I'm making isn't that some men are more attractive, it's about the skewed dustribution of male attractiveness as perceived by women. The average man is sexually unappealing to most women, the average woman is sexually appealing to most men, ie they would have sex with her.

So in other words: some men are more attractive to women than others. So what? This doesn't make the "alpha males" and everyone else "beta" males. It's a gross over simplification.

backspin.

I don't really buy the alpha male thing. I'm thinking back to the guys i knew who were very successful with women. They were good looking fellas with a good way with women but they weren't particularly influential or leaders with their peers. Which i think would be necessary to be considered alpha. The guys who were natural leaders and very influential among their peers weren't the same guys pulling all the women. That's just my experience.

professore

backspin. wrote: »

I don't really buy the alpha male thing. I'm thinking back to the guys i knew who were very successful with women. They were good looking fellas with a good way with women but they weren't particularly influential or leaders with their peers. Which i think would be necessary to be considered alpha. The guys who were natural leaders and very influential among their peers weren't the same guys pulling all the women. That's just my experience.

Good point. I'm not sure what they selected for. A lot of them didn't seem to have anything to offer at all. So whatever they based their selection process on there was no obvious logic or consistency to it. Being a dick seemed to help a lot.

Pluto Planet

professore wrote: »

Good point. I'm not sure what they selected for. A lot of them didn't seem to have anything to offer at all. So whatever they based their selection process on there was no obvious logic or consistency to it. Being a dick seemed to help a lot.

There are a number of factors which make men successful with women imo, the alpha mindset being very imoortant in my opinion. For example when you approach an attractive women, she will often try to make you jump through hoops, a beta gleefully jumps through those hoops. For example if she asks the beta to buy ger a drink he goes ahead and does it. The alpha says "buy me one first and I'll think about it" with a slight smirk on his face. When you respond like that to beautiful women it raises their interest in you and attraction begins growing. Doing what she says quneches any attraction their was. At least early on in the interaction.

The alpha does things his way and will not jump through people's hoops like a beta will.

Professor Moriarty

Pluto Planet wrote: »

There are a number of factors which make men successful with women imo, the alpha mindset being very imoortant in my opinion. For example when you approach an attractive women, she will often try to make you jump through hoops, a beta gleefully jumps through those hoops. For example if she asks the beta to buy ger a drink he goes ahead and does it. The alpha says "buy me one first and I'll think about it" with a slight smirk on his face. When you respond like that to beautiful women it raises their interest in you and attraction begins growing. Doing what she says quneches any attraction their was. At least early on in the interaction.

The alpha does things his way and will not jump through people's hoops like a beta will.

I'd say the alpha in your research is still a virgin.