= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
novalis comments on What is moral foundation theory good for? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (296)
There is no shortage of available wealth either! I don't know why those Africans go on starving when we clearly have enough food for everyone on the planet. I mean all they have to do is arrange to get hired by someone and then buying some food!
There is in fact no shortage of people employing desirable employees.
The argument that there is a shortage of available women (as though women were a commodity) relies on assumptions that just aren't true. In a mostly-monogamous (including serial monogamy), mostly-straight society, for every man who does not have a partner, there is a woman who does not have a partner.
CharlieSheen is making a bad case for what he's making a case for.
Simply because the distribution of men and women without partners is equivalent between the genders doesn't mean the history of men and women is equivalent. Every child must have a male and a female parent, generally speaking; it doesn't follow that parentage is equally distributed among men and women. Every woman could have one child and 80% of men could have none, simply if the 20% of men have on average five children. Similarly, it doesn't follow from "Men and women lack partners in equal number" that "Men and women have equal relationship opportunity." The median man could have 1 relationship in his entire life, and the median woman could have 5, at the same time; the means/averages must be the same, but the distribution doesn't.
Ah, I see. You and CharlieSheen think that the unit is one relationship, while I think the unit is one relationship-hour.
That doesn't resolve the issue; relationship hours can be unevenly distributed as well. Take five men and five women; one man can have ten relationship-hours, four can have zero, and all five women can have two.
The idea of hypergamy can be loosely summed up thus: Women have higher expectations than men.
Which implies, in a more connotation heavy manner, that the average man is less attractive to the average woman than the average woman is to the average man.
I'm not sure that hypergamy is strictly necessary, even presuming the phenomenon (uneven romantic/sexual opportunity distribution) it attempts to explain. Men having higher variability of attractiveness would produce the same phenomenon.
Yes, relationship hours are of course unevenly distributed -- but in this case, there would still be forty available female relationship-hours, to the forty available male relationship-hours.
This sounds like saying that wealth is of course unevenly distributed, but the set of people whose height in inches is an even number has the same amount of wealth as the set of people whose height in inches is an odd number. Which is probably true, but also completely irrelevant for any discussion about inequality of wealth. You can always define two groups using some criteria that makes them come out the same, but the point isn't to compare arbitrarily defined groups, it's to compare indviduals.
His claim, since you seem to have missed it, is precisely that they are unevenly distributed; that the distribution is closer to the "One man with 10 hours, four with 0, five with 2" than to "Five men and women each with two hours."
You are missing the point.
There is no shortage of available employers either!
A man being desired by other women is intrinsically sexy to women. Consider what this means if you take a laissez-faire approach to the sexual marketplace.