Yeah, but tbf, I didn't fully read the studies -- and the studies I did include were primarily showing benefits for women, not men, something I left out
I had this thought when watching Ubersoy's video touching on some of these topics, but while past marriages were more "traditional" under the apparent definition of these studies, the marriages of contemporary more religious people seem to be more egalitarian and social than those of less religious people in a certain sense. Surely having higher agreeableness and accommodating/developing productive norms between the couple could be "egalitarian." There seems to be quite a big language issue here due to different moral foundations. It also seems that the highly conformist people of the past who are the highly conformist people of the present who just follow their culture like a cargo cult have the more tumultuous marriages while people who were more adaptive center of the road religious conservative types are generally more loving.
But I think the question of causation is how can we use our resources to shift the milieu toward our own natural expression? It may not always be so straightforward. Sometimes getting the culture you are striving for may select against certain traits. You seem to fall more on the liberal side though ie if the negatives supposedly caused by porn aren't really, then we should allow it. But this goes against certain people's wants, and it may nevertheless be in their genetic interest to follow those beliefs.
People can do whatever they want, don't care what they want to do unless it harms someone else in such a way where it causes physical or emotional distress
This article's much the same as the one about casual sex: you evaluate right-wing beliefs through answering the question of whether or not the behaviors or attitudes do individual "harm". But what's collectively happening to the societies which prioritize such thinking? Is such thinking going to sustain itself?
Do you have any data relating how how it will affect society? Individuals make up populations, and if an effect is not present at the individual level, that means that an effect most likely will also not be present at the national level since populations make up collectives. And yes, I go by "harm" because, that's what I am focused on? It's not hard to read and understand a sentence that says "I'll be analyzing how it affects ___ and ___", for example.
If you can provide anything showing that this effect persists at the national level instead of the individual level -- even though individuals are used to study populations, and populations make up the national level, depending on the sample used -- to me, I'll update the article and see if you're correct. Until then, individuals make up collectives, and if an effect is not present at the individual level, that means the effect at the collective level is unrelated. The burden of proof is on you to show it affects the national level in such a causal way, not me.
Also shows a lack of understanding *how* sampling works. Samples are used so we can make inferences about populations, not the individual.
I'm not disagreeing with your claims (casual sex/non-traditionalism is not incompatible with marital stability in the current Western context), but am contesting the worthiness of optimizing for individual harm under the assumption that it will lead to societal good.
No group of peoples today who are sufficiently enabled by, say, reproductive tech and effective, paternalistic governments is able to propagate itself enough to avoid extinction within the next century or so. Unless you only care to conceive people existing atomically, or think that people from different groups are interchangeable with one another, I think a group's longer-term existence is more important than two or three generations of decadence.
And I understand statistical inference, lol. I'm saying you're capturing the wrong statistics, or rather more specifically, are making the wrong induction.
Never said you're disagreeing with me, however, to say "But what's collectively happening to the societies which prioritize such thinking" implies that these effects might be on the national level rather than the individual one, even though it's not really on the individual level but the population level which makes up the collective, or whatever. It's still not "individual harm", especially since these aren't case studies, for example, their studies done to be representative of the general population -- hence their use of datasets on nationally representative samples to be generalized onto the collective. Also never said anything that implied it "will lead to societal good", I simply said that these different variables are either not positive, negative, or associated with __, to begin with, not that doing the opposite would lead to societal benefits or harms.
Second paragraph doesn't matter, not really sure how it relates to the point at all.
If you understand statistical inference, you'd stop saying "individual harm" since these are studies done on nationally representative samples and so their findings fit the overall nation. Hence, nationally representative. I'm not capturing the wrong statistics, and I'm not making any induction on how this affects society. All I am saying is that these variables aren't associated with positive/ negative outcomes or are positive/ negative. That's it. Never said anything about if society should adopt x or y or whatever
"People can do whatever they want, don't care what they want to do unless it harms someone else in such a way where it causes physical or emotional distress" and your use of data to seemingly support this way of thinking in opposition to traditionalism?
Anyway, sampling to model the rules dictating the success of an *individual phenomenon*, like marital failure, is still... understanding what creates or does not create this individual harm, across the population in general. I don't think I misunderstand inference, but maybe I'm not clear enough in stating my point. So let me be more explicit:
1. A sample has been collected to understand what or does not influence marital success.
2. You use it to suggest that in the current Western context, some variables x don't matter.
3. I don't disagree, but raise the point that societies which allow 2. to be true are all witnessing the same changes - demographic collapse. The implicit assumption I'm making here, which makes this observation relevant, is the assumption that fertility is incompatible with anything but something closer to "tradition"/patriarchy.
4. (This was also implicit) I'm assuming the way this demographic collapse will be managed - through replacement - will ultimately harm those societies.
So, I say in response to:
"People can do whatever they want, don't care what they want to do unless it harms someone else in such a way where it causes physical or emotional distress"
is that optimizing for individual harm in this way is short-sighted, unsustainable.
Although i may disagree with your views, i can say that your article is neat and good, i have a couple of doubts tho, i have read that egalitarian marriages have sex less often, that they have less satisfactory sex and that they face a lot of problems, how would you explain it?.
Other problem that i often see, is that when women have legal equality they do destroy the marriage, for example the majority of divorces are initiated by women (and this ratio is even more skewed when women earn more than their husbands), other thing that i notice is that women are hypergamic (this has been proven many times) so women seek men that are A LOT richer than them and that have a much higher status than them so i wonder if this may be something that disprove the idea that egalitarian marriages work.
So even if egalitarian marriages "seem" to work in the short term, there are many issues that render this form of marriage as weak and harmful at the long term.
Only to discuss a bit, have luck and may God bless you.
I'm assuming the first study you're referring to is "Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage" by Kornrich, Brines, and Leupp. If so, the study did find that relationships in which there was a divide in the chores did have more sex, but the effects of gender ideology on this were very weak, at -0.003, .001, -0.008, and .000. So, these effect sizes show that gender ideology had almost no effect on sexual frequency. Focusing on share of non-core housework, the effects were small, but ofc were higher and positive when compared to core housework. However, gender ideology was still not statistically significantly -- so there was no association between gender ideology and sexual frequency. This is like the Forste and Fox study, where gender ideology did not seem to at all relate to happiness.
As for your second paragraph. Sure, however, most of this does not relate to gender ideology and how relationships are affected, and you're just drawing a possible link between women wanting someone with higher earnings than than and egalitarian marriages based on the argument that women are hypergamic and initiate divorces more often. Interesting argument ig, but no clear pathway in how you're attempting to connect the two.
No evidence that traditional marriages outlast egalitarian ones.
Cool stuff.
The findings remind me of this music video "Gives You Hell" by the All American Rejects.
Didn’t you have an instagram post on this where your stance was different?
Yeah, but tbf, I didn't fully read the studies -- and the studies I did include were primarily showing benefits for women, not men, something I left out
Oh ok, also I saw you had a post about child abuse on your Instagram. Do you still have that? It looks like ur instagram got nuked..
I had this thought when watching Ubersoy's video touching on some of these topics, but while past marriages were more "traditional" under the apparent definition of these studies, the marriages of contemporary more religious people seem to be more egalitarian and social than those of less religious people in a certain sense. Surely having higher agreeableness and accommodating/developing productive norms between the couple could be "egalitarian." There seems to be quite a big language issue here due to different moral foundations. It also seems that the highly conformist people of the past who are the highly conformist people of the present who just follow their culture like a cargo cult have the more tumultuous marriages while people who were more adaptive center of the road religious conservative types are generally more loving.
But I think the question of causation is how can we use our resources to shift the milieu toward our own natural expression? It may not always be so straightforward. Sometimes getting the culture you are striving for may select against certain traits. You seem to fall more on the liberal side though ie if the negatives supposedly caused by porn aren't really, then we should allow it. But this goes against certain people's wants, and it may nevertheless be in their genetic interest to follow those beliefs.
People can do whatever they want, don't care what they want to do unless it harms someone else in such a way where it causes physical or emotional distress
This article's much the same as the one about casual sex: you evaluate right-wing beliefs through answering the question of whether or not the behaviors or attitudes do individual "harm". But what's collectively happening to the societies which prioritize such thinking? Is such thinking going to sustain itself?
Do you have any data relating how how it will affect society? Individuals make up populations, and if an effect is not present at the individual level, that means that an effect most likely will also not be present at the national level since populations make up collectives. And yes, I go by "harm" because, that's what I am focused on? It's not hard to read and understand a sentence that says "I'll be analyzing how it affects ___ and ___", for example.
If you can provide anything showing that this effect persists at the national level instead of the individual level -- even though individuals are used to study populations, and populations make up the national level, depending on the sample used -- to me, I'll update the article and see if you're correct. Until then, individuals make up collectives, and if an effect is not present at the individual level, that means the effect at the collective level is unrelated. The burden of proof is on you to show it affects the national level in such a causal way, not me.
Also shows a lack of understanding *how* sampling works. Samples are used so we can make inferences about populations, not the individual.
I'm not disagreeing with your claims (casual sex/non-traditionalism is not incompatible with marital stability in the current Western context), but am contesting the worthiness of optimizing for individual harm under the assumption that it will lead to societal good.
No group of peoples today who are sufficiently enabled by, say, reproductive tech and effective, paternalistic governments is able to propagate itself enough to avoid extinction within the next century or so. Unless you only care to conceive people existing atomically, or think that people from different groups are interchangeable with one another, I think a group's longer-term existence is more important than two or three generations of decadence.
And I understand statistical inference, lol. I'm saying you're capturing the wrong statistics, or rather more specifically, are making the wrong induction.
Never said you're disagreeing with me, however, to say "But what's collectively happening to the societies which prioritize such thinking" implies that these effects might be on the national level rather than the individual one, even though it's not really on the individual level but the population level which makes up the collective, or whatever. It's still not "individual harm", especially since these aren't case studies, for example, their studies done to be representative of the general population -- hence their use of datasets on nationally representative samples to be generalized onto the collective. Also never said anything that implied it "will lead to societal good", I simply said that these different variables are either not positive, negative, or associated with __, to begin with, not that doing the opposite would lead to societal benefits or harms.
Second paragraph doesn't matter, not really sure how it relates to the point at all.
If you understand statistical inference, you'd stop saying "individual harm" since these are studies done on nationally representative samples and so their findings fit the overall nation. Hence, nationally representative. I'm not capturing the wrong statistics, and I'm not making any induction on how this affects society. All I am saying is that these variables aren't associated with positive/ negative outcomes or are positive/ negative. That's it. Never said anything about if society should adopt x or y or whatever
Do you realize I'm still responding to:
"People can do whatever they want, don't care what they want to do unless it harms someone else in such a way where it causes physical or emotional distress" and your use of data to seemingly support this way of thinking in opposition to traditionalism?
Anyway, sampling to model the rules dictating the success of an *individual phenomenon*, like marital failure, is still... understanding what creates or does not create this individual harm, across the population in general. I don't think I misunderstand inference, but maybe I'm not clear enough in stating my point. So let me be more explicit:
1. A sample has been collected to understand what or does not influence marital success.
2. You use it to suggest that in the current Western context, some variables x don't matter.
3. I don't disagree, but raise the point that societies which allow 2. to be true are all witnessing the same changes - demographic collapse. The implicit assumption I'm making here, which makes this observation relevant, is the assumption that fertility is incompatible with anything but something closer to "tradition"/patriarchy.
4. (This was also implicit) I'm assuming the way this demographic collapse will be managed - through replacement - will ultimately harm those societies.
So, I say in response to:
"People can do whatever they want, don't care what they want to do unless it harms someone else in such a way where it causes physical or emotional distress"
is that optimizing for individual harm in this way is short-sighted, unsustainable.
Although i may disagree with your views, i can say that your article is neat and good, i have a couple of doubts tho, i have read that egalitarian marriages have sex less often, that they have less satisfactory sex and that they face a lot of problems, how would you explain it?.
Other problem that i often see, is that when women have legal equality they do destroy the marriage, for example the majority of divorces are initiated by women (and this ratio is even more skewed when women earn more than their husbands), other thing that i notice is that women are hypergamic (this has been proven many times) so women seek men that are A LOT richer than them and that have a much higher status than them so i wonder if this may be something that disprove the idea that egalitarian marriages work.
So even if egalitarian marriages "seem" to work in the short term, there are many issues that render this form of marriage as weak and harmful at the long term.
Only to discuss a bit, have luck and may God bless you.
I'm assuming the first study you're referring to is "Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage" by Kornrich, Brines, and Leupp. If so, the study did find that relationships in which there was a divide in the chores did have more sex, but the effects of gender ideology on this were very weak, at -0.003, .001, -0.008, and .000. So, these effect sizes show that gender ideology had almost no effect on sexual frequency. Focusing on share of non-core housework, the effects were small, but ofc were higher and positive when compared to core housework. However, gender ideology was still not statistically significantly -- so there was no association between gender ideology and sexual frequency. This is like the Forste and Fox study, where gender ideology did not seem to at all relate to happiness.
As for your second paragraph. Sure, however, most of this does not relate to gender ideology and how relationships are affected, and you're just drawing a possible link between women wanting someone with higher earnings than than and egalitarian marriages based on the argument that women are hypergamic and initiate divorces more often. Interesting argument ig, but no clear pathway in how you're attempting to connect the two.
No evidence that traditional marriages outlast egalitarian ones.