I, uh, oh boy.

Go down

I, uh, oh boy.

Post by Guest on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:08 am


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by reboot on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:34 am


Weird that both you and the headline focused on the 40% not dating virgins (which leaves a majority-60%- OK with dating virgins) when that is only a minor point of the article, like three sentences
avatar
reboot
Moderator of "Other Relationships" and "Gender, Identity and Society"

Posts : 2514
Reputation : 1005
Join date : 2014-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by Guest on Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:14 pm

reboot wrote:
Weird that both you and the headline focused on the 40% not dating virgins (which leaves a majority-60%- OK with dating virgins) when that is only a minor point of the article, like three sentences

Right, but it came as a shock for me though in a "Should I be worried?"-kind of way.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by reboot on Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:43 pm

The Mikey wrote:
reboot wrote:
Weird that both you and the headline focused on the 40% not dating virgins (which leaves a majority-60%- OK with dating virgins) when that is only a minor point of the article, like three sentences

Right, but it came as a shock for me though in a "Should I be worried?"-kind of way.

There are 10 women in a room. 6 are OK with having sex with a virgin. Should you be worried? You tell me Grin
avatar
reboot
Moderator of "Other Relationships" and "Gender, Identity and Society"

Posts : 2514
Reputation : 1005
Join date : 2014-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by BasedBuzzed on Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:57 pm

>We talked to leading love researcher Dr. Helen Fisher about how humans are returning to >our hunter-gatherer days, millennials' fear of divorce, and why men fall in lover faster than >women.
Stop reading here and just Google some research papers on the topic, this way too broad to cover in an accurate manner in the length of an article.
>I found biological anthropologist Dr. Helen Fisher at just the right time in my life: I was 23 >years old and had just been dumped. And not just dumped, but blindsided and broken by >"my first love." That kind of heartbreak that can only happen when you're young, >inexperienced, and grossly stubborn. If classic novels, rock music, and the best scenes in >High Fidelity taught me anything, it's that the first break-up is the big one. In trying to avoid >cutting off my ear and overdosing on Hank Williams songs, I found Dr. Fisher and her >extensive scientific research on "the brain in love." I was looking for some logic to >desensitize my emotions; I was sick of drinking myself stupid every night and thought that >reading might be a better idea. Fisher spun me back into reality.
She starts believing in something at a low point in life, believes that she's now wiser and more mature(hint: no-one ever is) and actually reads a single expert instead of multitude of them.
>Dr. Fisher is a research professor in the anthropology department at Rutgers University, the >chief scientific advisor and consultant for Match.com (since 2005), and America's leading >researcher on the human brain and cross-cultural patterns of romantic love, mate choice, >marriage, divorce, adultery, and brain differences.
Leading researcher often translates to "in vogue in pop psychology circles". Moreover, she has a vested interest in portraying the nature of relationships in a certain manner, since she works for a dating business. This does not mean all her knowledge is automatically tainted, it just means she will emphasize and simplify for the newcomers in certain ways that align with her interests/preconceived notions.
>On top of all that, she has published five best-selling books on her research (with a sixth >coming in February 2016) and maintains that romantic love is a universal phenomenon with >mechanisms that have been established over evolution. Now in her late 60s, the New York >native continues to study the thing she claims is the thing we all want most in this world: >love.
Evolution? Likelihood of post-hoc explanations increases more and more
>Fisher first gained international fame when she and her colleagues put 49 people into a >brain scanner (fMRI) to study the brain circuitry involved in romantic love.
49? Ahahaha(note: Buzz is not an expert in neuropsychology, so he might be dumb for mocking a test in which sample size perhaps doesn't matter).
>Fisher and her neurological experts concluded that romantic love is basic drive, like hunger >or thirst, that operates below all cognitive thinking and feeling; she equated the concept >with cocaine. You get addicted to a person, defying logic and risking a lot to get more of >them.
There are people in the world with this compulsion towards eating toilet paper, to put it into context. Moreover, what is romantic love? Don't read this as an argument legitimizing all the pop romance trappings.
>This made her a big hit in America, getting the one thing we all uncomfortably feel down to >a literal science. Lately, she has turned her research to how we find love in the modern >world. Through her annual Singles in America studies with Match.com—as well as through >her own research—she has conducted studies of thousands of single and coupled Americans >trying to figure out how our biology, evolution, and neurological systems play a part in how >we date and find love in the context of today's changing gender and economic roles. Right >now, she is working on her latest hypothesis which she calls "fast sex/slow love."
"How we all feel"? Muh aromantics. Also, this is such an overly broad field as to be absolutely meaningless. Thousands of possible cultural and biological confounders. We need details.
>"I am extremely optimistic for some very large reasons," she tells me over the phone from >her friend's home in New York. (Her house is be remodeled.) "We are shedding the last >10,000 years of our agrarian background and moving forward to a lifestyle that was actually >much more similar to our hunting-and-gathering past."
Sex At Dawn alarm bells ringing.
>What she means by this is that economic equality between women and men has changed >the way we now look at relationships. In our once hunting-and-gathering society, women >came home with 60-80% of what would be eaten, and they were considered just as >economically and sexually powerful as men. They left bad relationships when they wanted >to, because unlike in the agrarian culture and in the industrial revolution (which found >women in the home and out of the work force, stuck at the mercy of their husbands), no >one was stuck.
It's a model based on observing two tribes(and it has all sorts of qualifiers attached to it): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796
This is simplification at its finest.
>"The belief that a woman's only place is in the home is pretty much gone, and I'm all for it," >says Fisher. "I think this is a great hope for humanity." If you don't have regular >intercourse, then most people see this as a barrier to intimacy. "These days people are >terrified of divorce," she continues. "A recent study cited that 67% of people who live >together are afraid to get married because of the possibility of divorce and its economic, >social, psychological implications and personal consequences. I think now we are marrying >later for a reason. I think what we are doing now—with hookup culture, friends with >benefits, and living together before marriage—is [wanting] to know everything about >another human being before we tie the knot."
Possible explanation does not link up to the study in question. It could just as well be the economy or changing societal expectations.
>Fisher believes that even though this culture of promiscuity is viewed as reckless, it is in >fact cautious. "We've got a long period of early adulthood to experiment, or what I call >'commitment lite', to see what works for us by hanging out, sleeping together, and getting >to know someone before committing to them entirely. By the time we marry, we should >have picked quite correctly."
Go look into divorce statistics to see that serial monogamy is actually rising now that divorce proceedings are getting less and less stigmatized.
>Fisher also says that we have abolished a general value in virginity. "Over 30 percent of >people told me they would not date a virgin," she says, and it makes sense in her theory of >fast sex and slow love. (The actual statistic, from her 2013 Match.com study, is much >higher: around 42 percent. And women are much less likely to date a virgin than men.)
People cannot smell you are a virgin. Your anxiety about your virginity would be the same as your anxiety after a long dry spell, and sex does not make it go away. Insecurity is its own beast that does not magically get cured by boning.
>"If you don't have regular intercourse, then most people see this as a barrier to intimacy. >They need time and experience to get to know that person through sex and perfect their sex >life together before committing long term."
Subtle implication that those who fuck around a lot without sticking around might get a rep for not being interested in intimacy or plain shit in bed because there's no chemistry.
>Though she has spent much research dismantling myths about women in love (especially in >her 1999 book The First Sex: The Natural Talents of Women and How They Are Changing >The World), she firmly believes that men have yet to undergo the same analysis when it >comes to the ways they interact in love.
You can find plenty of columns inches and research papers on this stuff, often because a gender analysis is takes both sexes into the equation. What this means is that men of the general public do not have achieved the satisfactory level of self-consciousness and checking of privilege.
>The last 50 years have been devoted to understanding how women actually behave in >relationships, yet when it comes to men, we stick to same stereotypical notions that men >are commitment-phobic, adulterers, hyper-sexual, and insensitive.
Who is "we"? How classical is this notion of manhood? Has there ever been a universal concept of manhood(think back to how Werter was a role model)?
>"I have data to show [that] is not true," Fisher laughs. "In my studies, questioning 25,000 >American people, I have found that men fall in love more often. They fall in love sooner; >when they meet someone they are in love with, they want to introduce her to friends and >family sooner; they want to move in sooner." She says this goes for both gay and straight >men in love.
Is it so hard to link a study in this article? Holy crap. I'd say search it out and see if the blurb is just as straightforward.
>Furthermore, when I ask her about how sexual orientation or things like gender fluidity >affect the brain in love or dating patterns, she is quick to answer. "Scientists have put LGBT >people into the brain scanner and found that their brain circuitry is exactly the same. I >study romantic love, and those parts of the brain are not connected with who you love but >how you love, and they won't change," she says. Fisher also notes that she has started >studying trans people taking hormones to understand how testosterone and estrogen doses >affect the brain and the way these things play out in common gender traits. Men >transitioning to women and taking estrogen may experience more vivid colors or emotional >sensitivity, while biological women taking testosterone "see better in the light or feel more >skeptical and assertive" in their daily lives.
No discussion on what effect pre-existing gender stereotypes have on this reporting.
>But despite her optimism about the ways we now find love, she has one fear: drugs. >Namely, FDA-approved anti-depressants (SSRIs). "Over 100 million people in America are >taking anti-depressants," she says. "As you boost the serotonin system, you are dampening >the dopamine system, which of course is connected to romantic love. I get emails from >people around the world saying stuff like, 'My sister has been on Prozac for 20 years and >has never had a date.' It doesn't shock me. We know these drugs harm the sex drive.
Sounds like a Chinese Robber Fallacy. Those drugs don't have the same effect on every person.
>"I can really see, down the road, that on dating services people will have to disclose the >kinds of medication they take," Fisher continues. "'Hi, my name is Nancy. I take drugs that >drive up my serotonin and affect my natural dopamine.'"
This will be spun as ableist in the comments section.
>This Friday, a documentary by Oscar-nominated filmmaker Christian Frei called Sleepless in >New York will be available to the general public. At its core is Fisher and her theories about >rejection in romantic love; the documentary follows three New Yorkers who have recently >been dumped. "I have never seen a film capture that amount of pain and rethink how to >show true rejection and loss," says Fisher. "That's much more interesting to me. The >happiness is no big deal—it's great. But when you have been rejected, that is when people >stalk, get clinical depression, kill somebody else, or kill themselves...they just lose it."
Dump a study on this shit, VICE. How long does it take to footnote in 5 or so links?

A lot of what I put here is skepticism without any actual counterargument other than "articles like these simplify and fuck up all the time" and muh replicability. But if it affects you so much, why do you not train yourself to be more skeptical?

_________________
Pompeii, VIII.2 (in the basilica); 1904: "O walls, you have held up so much tedious graffiti that I am amazed that you have not already collapsed in ruin."
avatar
BasedBuzzed

Posts : 811
Reputation : 267
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by Guest on Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:46 pm

reboot wrote:

There are 10 women in a room. 6 are OK with having sex with a virgin. Should you be worried? You tell me Grin

Well when you put it that way...



I can dig it.


BasedBuzzed wrote:
A lot of what I put here is skepticism without any actual counterargument other than "articles like these simplify and fuck up all the time" and muh replicability. But if it affects you so much, why do you not train yourself to be more skeptical?

Because I don't know any better? I'm not deeply entrenched in psychology stuff as I am in say politics.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by BasedBuzzed on Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:01 pm

The Mikey wrote:
BasedBuzzed wrote:
A lot of what I put here is skepticism without any actual counterargument other than "articles like these simplify and fuck up all the time" and muh replicability. But if it affects you so much, why do you not train yourself to be more skeptical?

Because I don't know any better? I'm not deeply entrenched in psychology stuff as I am in say politics.

Neither am I, but it seems to me the same skillset needed to dissect reporting/articles on politics can be used to dissect articles on psychology, even when it comes to mistakes in studies themselves, weasel-wording, etcetera.

_________________
Pompeii, VIII.2 (in the basilica); 1904: "O walls, you have held up so much tedious graffiti that I am amazed that you have not already collapsed in ruin."
avatar
BasedBuzzed

Posts : 811
Reputation : 267
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by Bumble on Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:13 pm

According to the study, 5 out of 10 women indicated they would not date a virgin (3 out of 10 men said the same) but yeah, you'll survive.

Bumble

Posts : 44
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-11-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by Wondering on Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:59 pm

I might have said I wouldn't date a virgin before I met my husband -- who was a virgin when we met -- too. Things said in surveys don't always transfer to real life, even if the study is reliable.

_________________
-Nevertheless, she persisted

Wondering

Posts : 1117
Reputation : 436
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by Jayce on Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:24 am

The title is so click baity, the article wasn't mostly even about that

Jayce

Posts : 211
Reputation : 66
Join date : 2014-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by reboot on Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:14 am

Jayce wrote:The title is so click baity, the article wasn't mostly even about that

I know! I hate bad titling.
avatar
reboot
Moderator of "Other Relationships" and "Gender, Identity and Society"

Posts : 2514
Reputation : 1005
Join date : 2014-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by JP McBride on Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:12 pm

Bumble wrote:According to the study, 5 out of 10 women indicated they would not date a virgin (3 out of 10 men said the same) but yeah, you'll survive.


And it found that 54% of people wouldn't date someone with $5,000 of credit card debt, just to put things in perspective.

JP McBride

Posts : 105
Reputation : 18
Join date : 2014-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I, uh, oh boy.

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum