= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GLaDOS comments on [Link] More ominous than a [Marriage] strike - 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 (90)
I want to emphasis that because men have significantly more outliers when it comes to achievement and social outcomes (both positive and negative ) , we should expect such a change in culture to ceteris paribus result in a net decrease in very exceptional achievements. Young men are also responsible for the vast majority of violent crime. We should expect delayed marriage and drop in marriage to push in the direction of more violence as well.
It seems to me that rewards to outliers are increasing overall. In addition, high achieving men also tend to be high-earning people and marriage rates are persistently higher and divorce rates are persistently lower for high-income people.
I haven't been able to find any raw statistics on this, so I can't confirm my suspicions, but it seems to me that the incentives are very different for the rich than the merely well off. Most income variability in the US lies within the top tax bracket rather than between brackets, so studies which lump together everyone in, say, a $250,000+ annual income bracket may disguise variability above this level.
Agreed.
No. At least not by the arguments brought forth in the post. Young men go for violence because - in the absence of showing off their ability as provider - fight for an alpha male position via force (I will look up references if needed). In the absence of pressure to show ability the violence should reduce by the same amount.
Could I have the reference, please ? Very curious about the experimental set-up.
The best I could find quickly online. Not really experimental setups though.
Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: the young male syndrome: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230958590041X
hunter gatherer fighting: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3317472?uid=3737864&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103219067527
TESTOSTERONE AND DOMINANCE IN MEN: http://cogprints.org/663/1/bbs_mazur.html
Thanks.
C'mon, how many of the Field medallists were doing maths in order to earn as much money as possible in order to get a bride? (I agree that that's probably what's going to happen in the medium-long term, but for different reasons.)
You are being suspiciously simplistic here. Needing to work hard to get a bride is one of the things that most vitally supports a culture of work ethic among men. Very few other things seem to have as big an impact. Most Fields medalists probably didn't work hard primarily because they wanted to attract a wife, though I bet many of them actually did. But the culture of work ethic being normative for men certainly seems vital to supporting their efforts!
To summarize:
Men can attract women with hard work (note not about money per se, it can be status)
The above is one of the strongest factors that contributes to a cultural expectation of hard work being normative for men
This has strong impact on the output of high performers
If it wasn't for the ruthless class segregation in the modern West, where people with high genetic potential are quickly identified and sorted by the academic system into subcultures where men attracting mates with hard work still happens things would probably be pretty bad. If you don't think this happens I would direct you to Charles Murray's book Drifting Appart. And even the upper classes are drifting away from this model, this looks to me like a social disaster in the making. Things will overall still get better due to other factors in the medium run, but the opportunity costs are terrible. (<_<)
I dunno about that; after all they were mathematicians, not investors. Historically mainstream society hasn't exactly swooned at “nerds”.
-- Scott Aaronson
-- MGTOW.com
That presumes economic growth is positive, which is not obvious.
I remember one ha-ha-only-serious from my mathematical days: Sex is just a sublimation of the urge to mathematics. (And it's long been observed that even among young mathematicians, their output falls off dramatically if and when they marry).