In response to comment by [deleted] on Cultural norms in choice of mate
Comment author: [deleted] 11 July 2012 12:31:07AM 4 points [-]

I think you will find that the vast majority of young women my age, myself included, are not attracted to "older" men.

That sounds like generalizing from one example to me. The fact that only in a small minority (my guesstimate would be at around 15%) of heterosexual long-term relationships is the woman older than the man (at least where I am) suggests otherwise.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Cultural norms in choice of mate
Comment author: OphilaDros 11 July 2012 03:42:59AM 2 points [-]

I think all of us commenting have different age ranges in our heads for 'older men' and 'younger women'. Anyhow the OP as far as I understand talks about very young women - 'girls who have recently exited puberty', and the discussion in the comments talking about 'power' and 'stature' seems to suggest men who are already fairly well established in their careers - at least the early thirties?

That's anywhere from a 15-20 year age gap. Not a whole lot more common than older woman-younger men pairings.

Comment author: dlthomas 10 July 2012 09:00:42AM 4 points [-]

What are the costs associated with flowers?

Comment author: OphilaDros 10 July 2012 01:53:36PM 2 points [-]

Possibly the the time spent in figuring out which ones are classy as opposed to 'wannabe' or 'cheesy' or 'trying too hard' or 'lower class'. Probably difficult to figure out for any given group to which you are signalling you belong, unless you actually do belong to that group.

Comment author: MileyCyrus 10 July 2012 12:30:14PM 22 points [-]

These kinds of posts are better when the OP has brought some research to the table.

Comment author: OphilaDros 10 July 2012 01:05:01PM 2 points [-]

Upvoted for saying what I was trying to say with far fewer words. :)

Comment author: OphilaDros 10 July 2012 12:51:22PM *  11 points [-]

The best solution I’ve heard started by looking at who benefits from this norm [older women] and wondering whether they could have contributed to it.

While this is generally a good question to ask, at this point you would also need to think of a plausible mechanism by which older women could have contributed to the change. What new powers have older women (Would this be women over 30? those over 40?) gained compared to younger women, younger men and older men in this period that they could have used to change the norms so drastically? How would they have cooperated between themselves to thwart the other groups' desires?

A few centuries ago, we did not have the laws against child labour that we do today, and it was common for young children to work and support their families. This norm has changed, and I don't think we need to ask the question of who benefited and posit that there has been an increase in this-or-the-other group's power to explain the shift.

Nowadays in many parts of the world sixteen-year-old girls themselves have a say in who they hook up with, which is something a lot of societies in ancient times (and very many even now) did not grant them. This should definitely be a factor in your analysis!

While not exactly an answer to your question, this Economist article talks about certain situations where social norms and options available in the workplace etc might push younger women away from matrimony altogether, not just matrimony with much older men.

Comment author: OphilaDros 05 July 2012 11:53:58AM 10 points [-]

Attempted 2 online courses on Coursera. Grossly overestimated my own free time and conscientiousness, failed to make it even mid-way through both.

I'm not giving up though. Have signed up for one course this month - the introduction to Quantum Mechanics taught by Umesh Vazirani. Must do better and complete the course this time because if not, I just might start to self-identify as someone who plans, but does not execute!

Comment author: Khoth 04 July 2012 03:10:33PM 7 points [-]

Why pick out those events?

It's easy to see it as a coincidence when you take into account all the events that you might have counted as significant if they'd happened at the right time. How about the discovery of general relativity, the cosmic microwave background, neutrinos, the Sputnik launch, various supernovae, the Tunguska impact, etc etc?

Comment author: OphilaDros 04 July 2012 04:20:57PM 2 points [-]

Also all those dramatic technological developments of 6000 years ago, which seem minor now due to the passage of time and further advances in knowledge and technology. As no doubt the discovery of the Higgs Boson or the Voyager leaving the boundary of the solar system would seem in 8012. AD. If anybody even remembers these events then.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 04 July 2012 12:06:27AM *  41 points [-]

Irrationality Game

If we are in a simulation, a game, a "planetarium", or some other form of environment controlled by transhuman powers, then 2012 may be the planned end of the game, or end of this stage of the game, foreshadowed within the game by the Mayan calendar, and having something to do with the Voyager space probe reaching the limits of the planetarium-enclosure, the galactic center lighting up as a gas cloud falls in 30,000 years ago, or the discovery of the higgs boson.

Since we have to give probabilities, I'll say 10%, but note well, I'm not saying there is a 10% probability that the world ends this year, I'm saying 10% conditional on us being in a transhumanly controlled environment; e.g., that if we are in a simulation, then 2012 has a good chance of being a preprogrammed date with destiny.

Comment author: OphilaDros 04 July 2012 05:15:35AM 3 points [-]

Upvoted because 10% as an estimate seems too high.

I especially can't imagine why transhuman powers would have used the end of the calendar of a long-dead civilization (one of many comparable civilizations) to foreshadow the end of their game plan.

Comment author: OphilaDros 21 June 2012 04:49:06AM 0 points [-]

You can get the 'author's version' of the paper 'for personal use, not redistribution' by going to this website, and providing your email ID:

http://web.ku.edu/~gillab/pubs.html

Comment author: OphilaDros 21 June 2012 04:54:57AM 0 points [-]

Hmm.. Not sure about the etiquette of posting the link in a public forum since it's not meant for redistribution, but will keep it for now.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 21 June 2012 12:11:33AM *  -1 points [-]

Unfortunately, the article in question (by Gillath et al) is expensively paywalled.

From this lack of Openness (ha ha) I predict that the article won't begin with the opening line of R.E.M.'s "Good Advices".

Comment author: OphilaDros 21 June 2012 04:49:06AM 0 points [-]

You can get the 'author's version' of the paper 'for personal use, not redistribution' by going to this website, and providing your email ID:

http://web.ku.edu/~gillab/pubs.html

Comment author: Jack 18 June 2012 05:30:02PM *  25 points [-]

Catholicism of all things

Of the branches of Christianity, and perhaps of all religions, Catholicism has the most developed theology, the most rigorous set of justifications for belief, the longest intellectual tradition and tries the hardest to be convivial with reason. Other branches and other religions would be a lot more surprising (unless you're counting Quakers and Unitarians, for which religion has very little to do with "belief" as we understand it here.) Especially for a self-described virtue ethicist.

Comment author: OphilaDros 20 June 2012 10:19:56AM -1 points [-]

Is your background Catholic? Asking because although I haven't delved in depth into 'justifications for belief' of various religions recently (I stopped shopping around for a religion 16-17 years ago), I don't remember Catholic justifications as being particularly stronger than that of the others I was reading up about (Islam/Buddhism/Hinduism).

View more: Prev | Next