Lurker > Metal_DK

Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising is the best GBA game.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

The centralized Internet ruined society. 2007ish. Youtube, twitter, facebook. Smartphone culture taking off around this time (not the first smartphones, that was the 90s, but definitely modern smartphone culture).

Too much Internet is the problem
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Nobody said this before 2006/2007. The load times in Anthology (1999) were bad, but they weren't bad enough so that it goes from unplayable to best final fantasy. FFV is good, it's not even in the top tier though
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

ninkendo posted...

Furious 7

If youre gonna say a fast and furious movie I'd say fast 5 by far.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Fury Road is a good choice
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Jakyl25 posted...

I realize who the actual posters are, and that they share no ideology besides childish nihilism, but the posts about the rally/murder on /b/ tonight are overwhelmingly pro-murder

/b/ is where the alt right began in 2007. The alt right started with Tom Green talk show raids, Habbo Hotel, etc. This is the internet and these kids getting older. This is what happens
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

xp1337 posted...

Metal_DK posted...

xp1337 posted...

Metal_DK posted...

And social media allowed the direction to finally happen

What? No, the direction was probably set back with the Southern Strategy.

If you want to argue social media accelerated it, fine. But that it's the root cause? lol no.

Its the root cause, at least for this current era. Social media is causing everyone to think everyone else is living this great life, because its a bunch of highlight reels. It was only a matter of time before social media caused racist shit since that seems to be the first thing we divide ourselves on

pretty sure the GOP's arc was set before social media existed so this seems unlikely

or did they predict all of this decades ago?

This isnt exactly the gop, they are just being silent about it, and giving half assed "apologies" because they vote gop. This is new. And its awful.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

xp1337 posted...

Metal_DK posted...

And social media allowed the direction to finally happen

What? No, the direction was probably set back with the Southern Strategy.

If you want to argue social media accelerated it, fine. But that it's the root cause? lol no.

Its the root cause, at least for this current era. Social media is causing everyone to think everyone else is living this great life, because its a bunch of highlight reels. It was only a matter of time before social media caused racist shit since that seems to be the first thing we divide ourselves on
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

xp1337 posted...

Blaming it on social media is reductive, I feel. If anything the arc of the GOP was heading this way for a long time.

I'd agree Trump is a symptom but at the same time I also think it's hard to argue his success has energized certain segments of the population that wouldn't have been had, say, Clinton won in a blowout that clearly repudiated Trump's message.

And social media allowed the direction to finally happen
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

xp1337 posted...

The depressing thing is that even after Trump leaves office it's unlikely this just goes away. I'd say the GOP opened Pandora's Box but not only was there no hope at the bottom, it's more that they stopped pretending they weren't opening the box.

Of course it doesnt. This is mostly a product of social media, not fucking Trump. Trump is the symptom. This has been goin on for a while now
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Also to be fair, third term obama is different from putting an election on hold. I'm assuming they mean Obama runs on a 3rd term and wins. Not just they give him a 3rd term w/out an election.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

charmander6000 posted...

You are correct, but that's an issue with polling in general. Polls are never meant to be taken as 100% true. What we can say is that only 20% of Republicans believing that is much more unlikely than 50% of Republicans.

i would agree with that, yes. I would argue that the internet has a bigger problem with self selection bias than other ways we have conducted polling in history (and also how often due to how cheap polling on the net can be), but ya.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

charmander6000 posted...

Metal_DK posted...

charmander6000 posted...

Online polling has been used successfully for a long time and besides how would telephone polling confirm respondents to be Republicans, why would a significant amount of people lie when being polled? Heck why don't you argued that Republicans lied about their answers for this poll or any poll ever done for that matter?

This is a bit unfair. Most online polling is done in a location where people choose to go, which causes sampling issues.

Which is why polls are normalized. I'm assuming this was done by a polling firm and not some GameFAQs like poll of the day.

Normalizing the poll is better than nothing, but it still doesn't really do enough to fix the self selection issue.

Normalized weights consider the survey weights, but not the other aspects of the design like cluster sampling or stratification. It can still underestimate variance results.

The point is. The poll overall might overstate it, but its accurate enough to say that plenty of republicans would support holding the 2020 election. Even if that number is only half the 50% that the poll result says, thats pretty fucking telling.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Corrik posted...

I am asking you if the poll itself in all aspects has significant flaws in it.

The sample size to me is a flaw because we don't know the dynamics of the sample size. We do not know how their ages, sex, incomes, and location.

It has the flaw of being an online poll, which is the majority of polling these days.

Dynamics of the sample size is not a sample size issue. Its a selection bias issue. There could be a selection bias, again every online polling goes through this sadly (and the internet has allowed polling to exponentially increase in how often we do it due to what the internet is). Its another reason why the internet being the main aspect of our lives is a problem. We had better balance in the past imo, but thats another topic because people hate when i bring up you know what of you know when.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

charmander6000 posted...

Online polling has been used successfully for a long time and besides how would telephone polling confirm respondents to be Republicans, why would a significant amount of people lie when being polled? Heck why don't you argued that Republicans lied about their answers for this poll or any poll ever done for that matter?

This is a bit unfair. Most online polling is done in a location where people choose to go, which causes sampling issues.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Corrik posted...

Metal_DK posted...

So out of the 650 who identified as republican, half said they would be fine with postponing the 2020 election? Ya...still not a sample size issue.

As having a Masters in Stat, this question is entirely to you.

Does this poll not have serious flaws in how it was conducted?

On sample size? No not really.

Internet sampling is always a problem though.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

kevwaffles posted...

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing, just clarifying.

i didnt think you were fwiw. Thanks for clarifying.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

So out of the 650 who identified as republican, half said they would be fine with postponing the 2020 election? Ya...still not a sample size issue.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Corrik posted...

Metal_DK posted...

Corrik posted...

Was not a 1325 sample size. As already stated, they threw out over half the survey for being invalid.

They did not poll registered republicans by their own admission by saying they used those who "identified with or leaned republican". Which is a big difference.

And they do not state in any way the metrics of the poll satisfactorily. You polled based on ratios of sex, age etc... based on your initial 1325. Which you threw out more than half of.


The poll is beyond flawed and if you have a masters in stats and can't conclude that then I am baffled.

I didn't read the entire poll so I don't know about any sampling biases like age or something. But if you think 1325 is not large enough of a sample (which i believe you said), then you are being ignorant. Which was what you are originally saying. You are kinda backtracking here because you went from "too small" to "well its this thing".

I was talking specifically about sample size. Yes, 1325 (and even only half or whatever crap you are claiming) is large enough.

The poll literally states they used responses from 650 respondents while claiming a 1325 sample size and corresponding ages to america from aforementioned 1325 which is invalid to the 650.

I never once mentioned 1325. I said the sample size was too small. And, I was referring to 650. The poll has a ton of problems with it.

You can't claim whatever percent of Republicans would do this in this scenario due to this poll when you didn't even confirm registered Republicans nor when your sample size possibly does not even correspond to the metrics when you made the whole size correspond and threw out over half of it.

Judging from the people ITT, i was assuming that (i havent read it just was talking about needed sample sizes - something tons of people get wrong - and not the actual poll) but:

The poll was 1325 republicans, about half said theyd be fine with postponing the 2020 election. I was assuming they didnt "throw out" anything, they just looked at the fucking people who said theyd be fine with Trump/government as a whole postponing the 2020 election.

You then came in saying it was too small (whether the ~1300 or ~650 or whatever), which is false for getting a fairly accurate representation of a population the size of the republican party.

Now if it turns out they only polled say...Texas border Republicans, perhaps its biased. That was not the original argument. I am talking about sample sizes. Which this poll did fine.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Corrik posted...

Was not a 1325 sample size. As already stated, they threw out over half the survey for being invalid.

They did not poll registered republicans by their own admission by saying they used those who "identified with or leaned republican". Which is a big difference.

And they do not state in any way the metrics of the poll satisfactorily. You polled based on ratios of sex, age etc... based on your initial 1325. Which you threw out more than half of.


The poll is beyond flawed and if you have a masters in stats and can't conclude that then I am baffled.

I didn't read the entire poll so I don't know about any sampling biases like age or something. But if you think 1325 is not large enough of a sample (which i believe you said), then you are being ignorant. Which was what you are originally saying. You are kinda backtracking here because you went from "too small" to "well its this thing".

I was talking specifically about sample size. Yes, 1325 (and even only half or whatever crap you are claiming) is large enough.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

http://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

If you have never taken a statistics course you shouldnt talk about sample size requirements. The amount of people who see a study of 200 people, or 2000 people, etc and then say "idk thats pretty small" do not understand how its not.

Assuming the sampling is not all from one region (say everyone in that sample is from one state, then using that as a sample for the nation) of the country, 1325 is very much a large enough sample size

I have a masters in statistics if "whats your qualifications" comes up.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Showing tournaments means its more popular than the collecting aspect?

I mean there are plenty of youtube videos and subreddits for people just showing off their collections under that same logic. Maybe not pokemon company hosted, but its kinda absurd to think they would have conventions where people just set up their collections for people to marvel at. Or do they?
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Its just the summer months down period.

Since 1950, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has had an average return of only 0.3% during the May-October period, compared with an average gain of 7.5% during the November-April period. While the exact reasons for this seasonal trading pattern are not known, lower trading volumes due to the summer vacation months and increased investment flows during the winter months are cited as contributory reasons for the discrepancy in performance between the May-October and the November-April periods, respectively.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sell-in-may-and-go-away.asp#ixzz4pHjBNdth
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

How pokemon has a shit participation rate in the game vs buying the cards? I mean sure people play the card game. If enough people buy the cards, people will play the card game. It still doesnt mean that most people play the game, and that most just buy booster packs and put them in their sleeves.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

ClyTheCool posted...

Wtf is metal DK even talking about


We battled pokemon tcg erryday

more people were about just buying packs and collecting them
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

LapisLazuli posted...

Google stock has been trending down since a slight drop 3 weeks ago that I don't know the reason for. There seems to have been no effect on it from these events as anyone who pulled the timeline back and wasn't trying to paint a narrative could tell, and it's mostly stabalized.

But, uh.....good hustle.

Most stocks see downward movement in the summer months fwiw. Sell in May and go away is a common phrase amongst traders and investors, even though it is overblown
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

WhiteLens posted...

Metal_DK posted...

No, pokemon fans just love the same thing, possibly due to the greatness that was 1998 (when it hit the states), and how pokemon in general is very much aligned to appeal to the OCD gamer. I mean if it doesnt stop making money for you, obviously keep doing it.

Do you follow the TCG scene? How do you even know that it's still the same? I'd say that the vast majority of people who got into it way back when it started stopped following it after a year if that. Yet it's still around even to this day.

So how does it have a TCG following any different than those TCGs that have a following like Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh, Cardfight!! Vanguard, or Weiss Schwarz?

It doesn't. How does that have to do with anything with what i said. Pokemon was barely played as a TCG when it first came out though. It was mostly people just trading their cards and never actually playing the game, treating it more or less just like the gameboy game.

Its still around because Pokemon in general focuses on taking advantage of the OCD in gamers more than just about any other game, including other JRPGs. The game's core mechanic fuels the card game still being around, don't think it doesnt.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

No, pokemon fans just love the same thing, possibly due to the greatness that was 1998 (when it hit the states), and how pokemon in general is very much aligned to appeal to the OCD gamer. I mean if it doesnt stop making money for you, obviously keep doing it.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Missy Elliott deserves to be ranked among the best rappers ever, male or female tbh.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Tom Bombadil posted...

trdl23 posted...

Metal_DK posted...

Ive hated card game video games since pokemon card game on the game boy color. Fucking boring.

Pokémon TCG on the GBC was awesome. You shut your mouth.

people got annoyed by your 2007 thing but this is way worse than all those put together

I am still waiting for a sequel (that comes out over here) (I couldn't get into the PVP of the online one)

Get annoyed by the truth!

And the Pokemon TCG was a cash in, nothing more
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Ive hated card game video games since pokemon card game on the game boy color. Fucking boring.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Iq tests are biased, this is nothing new
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Kenri posted...

The kids are with the mom (or dad maybe when they're older?). If they're infants, they're literally being carried by the mom while she's hunting and gathering. They weren't hunting "alongside" the men I don't think, but women were absolutely hunting.

Nowhere near to the life and death severity that men were. Their life or death happened due to lack of ability to care for her health during childbirth
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

MenuWars posted...

Yeah. I'd agree certainly with the point about home. I think gender roles became far more established when we had more effective ways to exist and thrive safely. Until that point you'd want everyone chipping in where they can, with men being biologically the most expendable, you'd still want all hands ready on deck in case of an attack on the camp/cave/whatever and you'd still have to muster hunting parties in cases where your first choices had, had accidents. And it's pretty fucking obvious when you're hunting with shitty weapons accidents are gonna happen. Mens physiology is undoubtedly more suited to the task, but it doesn't mean women wouldn't have been allowed to do so. People need food.

Home meaning where the kids are. Not a physical structure. Women were pregnant way more often due to infant mortality. They weren't hunting alongside men much at all.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Kenri posted...

Nah, even if we go back to hunter/gatherers, women were still providing (by... hunting and gathering) and protecting (part of being a mother and propagating the species, yes?).

Women weren't hunting. They were at the home with children. The structure was generally men protected women and children, women protected just children. Part of the justification for the "women are better multitaskers than men" truth is due to our hunter gatherer roots. It also exempts the other part, which is men are in general better at focusing very specific tasks for very long periods of time, which is also true.

Kenri posted...

I agree that this sounds like a problem even if I'm not necessarily on board with all the causality you're proposing here. Do you have a solution in mind?

I dont always need to give a solution, and honestly there is none for this. Men have to work. Our gender role, due to not being able to get pregnant, is we pretty much have to work. Women had to be "baby makers" for the longest time (infant mortality was higher), but due to work in most civilized countries no longer being plowing fields, getting black lung in a coal mine, getting stabbed at in a roman legion, shot at at gettysburg, etc, they now get 3 options.

I just dont want men to be lied to about their career importance if they want a family of their own. Thats the number 1 starting point. Its also the underlying reason for why shit has hit the fan in this social media age.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Kenri posted...

That's very very simplified, to a point where I think it's just a human role and not a man's.

Maybe the case now, but throughout the first 190,000 years of human evolution it was the case. Maybe in the last 10,000 or so its been changing, but not really even for most of the ~10,000ish years of civilizations.

Kenri posted...

Well, by your own argument, isn't this partially because they wouldn't be happy staying at home? You can pretty much rule out prison for the same reason.

Well first off, women's happiness has been declining overall fwiw. Also my argument is because men only get 2 options, they are more likely to be aggressive, fearful, etc, all which CAN be harnessed in many ways. I mean haven't studies shown that all these CEOs/inventors/etc all tend to have high neurosis? The become so obsessed with status and power and fame and being correct that it consumes them to 80+ hour weeks. This seems way more common in men, probably because, like i said, men get 2 options. Work or prison.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Kenri posted...

This though, idk about this. It's not like gender roles are static. Do you think it's just the current one that's less flexible for men than women? Because I could get on board with that, maybe, though I'd say maybe that they're inflexible in different ways. But if you think there's only been one across all of history then uh you've lost me.

The male gender role throughout history has pretty much been the same thing. Protect and provide. Primarily for women and children, but also for your fellow man

Women, at least post WW2, now have 3 options. Work, prison, stay at home wife/mother. Men still only get 2. Even the Scandinavian countries (progressive hubs for gender equality!) still see like 15% of stay at home parents be male. And if i recall the government pays stay at home dads

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/part-5-why-sweden-pays-dads-cash-to-stay-home-with-the-kids/article1216303

"Both parents here are given generous time off to care for young children, but men receive a bonus for trading the office for diaper duty - cash, if they take an equal share of the leave, plus two additional "daddy months" that only they can use."
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Kenri posted...

Serious question (and maybe I just missed where you mentioned it earlier, sorry if so) but what are the implications of this? Like say the left accepts it -- what happens then? We don't usually legislate based on people's happiness (whether we should is a different matter) so I'm curious what you see the end game here as being.

Don't legislate anything, but stop lying to men about the whole "once women have the good jobs women who are doctors will marry these low income men!" (i linked the assortative mating article as well which kinda explains this tbh). I see fewer leftists actually saything these type of things now after, oddly enough, Trump winning. Small sample size of only a few months, but still I have noticed it.

Its this lying that has created the false illusion that the male gender role is as flexible as the female one, when the vast amount of evidence points to otherwise. I've said a few times now that childless millennial women outearn childless millennial men in every major city in the USA except Silicon Valley, and the same thing was the case when Gen X was in their 20s/30s back in the 80s/90s/early 00s. Women should be celebrating how they have more options now, yet their happiness has declined and we get articles like this:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3bj5yv/youre-single-because-there-arent-enough-men-253

There are more men of this age range than women according to the census bureau. There "aren't enough" men on the same level as them is what the article is saying. Which means there is an added incentive for men to be more powerful than women, as women tend to want men at least on their level, while men don't have nearly as much of a demand on women.

Finally, I think the gamergate stuff, ghostbusters stuff, Trump winning, etc, are symptoms of this anger/frustration. The people who are advocates for that time of crap are just not able to articulate whats really bothering them.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

MenuWars posted...

There's no listening, there's no discourse, there's that view differs from my own interpretation now you're the enemy... and it benefits noone. Especially when a lot of it boils down to pseudo science and differing opinions, sure the right wing has some of the nastiest people I can think of and I'd happily fire some into the sun with a cannon, but the same can be said of the hateful rhetoric the lefts using.

Pretty much this.

I think that a career is more important to a man's happiness than a woman's. It does not mean defund planned parenthood, harass actresses in ghostbusters movies staring women online, or vote for Trump, or that women shouldnt be allowed to be in stem fields. I get labeled this way by my left friends. Yet i support mostly leftist ideas about economics (trickle down is bullshit) and social topics....

I just think the one thing (or maybe the one thing i observe) the right gets correct more often than the left is they are more likely to acknowledge that a man's career is more important to his happiness.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

MrGreenonion posted...

I'm not sure you can compare education levels between couples today to a time when women had far less educational opportunity. Like, tons of women in 1960 just graduated high school and became housewives, so of course people didn't tend to marry someone with a similar education level. Now I'm not implying that this is something we should go back to but it certainly could affect assortative mating rates.

I dont think that discredits the study at all. It shows that when you double the workforce, expect salaries to be negotiated downward amongst the jobs that everyone is going after, or at the very best flatlined. This will cause the rich to be richer in relative terms, upping the coefficient.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Fun fact, most if not all of the variation of the gini coefficient between the 60s and today can be explained by assortative mating

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

Its not so much republican or democratic economic policies, it seems a lot of it is based on who we are choosing to surround ourselves with, and thus marry.

Dont get me wrong, trickle down economics dont work, but making tax rates at 75% brackets or what not don't do much either it seems.

"Greenwood and his colleagues estimated that the Gini coefficient was .34 in 1960, or about a third of the way to complete inequality. When they randomly matched people by education level and recalculated the coefficient, the answer was basically the same: The Gini coefficient still stood at .34, suggesting that assortative mating by education played little, if any, role in income inequality.

Then they applied the same method to 2005 data. Now the overall Gini coefficient was .43, an increase of about .09 since 1960 and consistent with other research. But when they randomly matched people by education and re-ran their analysis, the Gini index plummeted to .34, showing that today, %u201Cassortative mating is important for income inequality.%u201D"
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

I want to be as anti-PC as possible but also as Anti-Vlado as possible. What is my best course of action for achieving this?

Admit that a career is more important to how people view a man than a woman, but think blaming Muslims, Jewish people, homosexuals, trans, women and men, etc is fucking stupid. And just acknowledge that its primarily biological impulses sexually dimorphic species. And this will not change as long as status is defined as wealth.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Wanglicious posted...

leaving it to just a better chance of a relationship i think is dumbing it down. it's not just getting a girl, it's also the more widespread opinion of success. take wolves, lions, gorillas, etc as examples: the wolf leader isn't just the one who gets the girl, he's the one in control of a pack. the rest of them respect or fear him, he is of a higher status. that's why he gets the girl, that's why they follow him. being a "good man" is a similar thing; it's not just a better chance of a relationship, it's also having that elevated status above peers.

Lonliness is a massive cause of death for male gorillas fwiw. Maybe in wolfpacks its not quite the same, but with the exception of Bonobos most ape species seem to have a few males in charge of the large family unit. But i agree with just about everything youve said in your posts so ya..
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Wanglicious posted...

that's one aspect i think he got wrong, partially because i'm not sure he even bothered to check demographic data much for google, facebook, etc. generally speaking most industries focus on pushing the increase of opportunity, such as promoting themselves in minority colleges or in female heavy areas. when it comes to hiring it comes down to dollars, ability, and purpose. i mean don't get it wrong, women are still significantly more preferred hires than men in tech (glorified quotas to be frank) but a good company won't lower their standards. if both pass and both are good candidates, they'll just take the one that they need the most, even if that need is entirely for optics. they're still fully qualified though so it's not really a major problem. his premise is that we should be doing it based fully on merit but that's already the case for any major position. for smaller ones it may include more factors but it's usually going to be fine.

I agree with this. I dont think it has hurt their business much if at all. It might of helped it as well tbh.

Still doesnt take away from the fact that men go where the money is because it gives them a better chance to get a relationship
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

PUAs are fucking idiots trying to make you buy their "strategies". Its stupid and just preying on mens' insecurities. This is nothing new. It also saw a massive rise around the Casual Revolution of 2007, because social media put everything into a crazy tornado.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=pua
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Metal_DK posted...

its noticed across all sexually dimorphic species, and across every culture throughout our own species' history.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Which does not imply causation. Every kind of animal establishes its own society, same as humanity. This doesn't make their decisions biologically rooted.

Again, fair enough. i will say eventually you have enough evidence that correlation =/= causation kinda becomes a catchphrase and nothing more.

In fact, the original reason why that phrase became so popular is because statisticians could find r^2 correlations between say...ice cream sales in China and the win/loss record of the Denver Nuggets and then say "to win more games we need to get an ice cream sales division in China!". Which is obviously BS.

Something like this the correlation holds WAY more weight though
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Metal_DK posted...

At least you are starting to entertain reality

"women are attracted to men of high status" is reality, i'm not denying that at all.

"women are BIOLOGICALLY attracted to men of high status" is unconfirmed, not sure why you're 100% convinced that this isn't the case. do you have a scientific source that only you are aware of?

its noticed across all sexually dimorphic species, and across every culture throughout our own species' history.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

Mr Lasastryke posted...

yeah, "women are biologically attracted to men with high status" seems to be an educated guess rather than a conclusion based on actual science. it COULD be the case, but we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it IS the case.

At least you are starting to entertain reality
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016

KanzarisKelshen posted...

A) Western social biases say women are subservient, at the moment. It's actually not a fully realized thing, that whole 'equality' idea that people champion.

I wouldnt say that is just western social biases. Hell the west is less believing of this than anywhere else....
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016