« What if Weiner hadn’t lied? | Main | Sexual conquests don't lead to happiness »

June 09, 2011

Comments

Interesting. I would still rather do the game thing a few more years--but I can imagine settling down in the future.

Certailny agrees with my intuition, but why? Maybe HS can speculate on why proles have higher divorce rates?

Money, lack of future time orientation, prole women get ugly fast, irresponsibility, marry too young, etc.

I'm very sympathetic to the gamers, and post on some of the blogs a lot, but I'm in total agreement. I've said this exact point before (I linked the same article), and everyone just completely ignored my point. They have a narrative, and the facts just get in the way.

Another myth is that all girls in college are sluts. In truth, 70% of girls have 0 or 1 partners within the previous year. The reported distribution of sexual partners is comparable across the sexes, so women are probably not lying much in this case.

Another: attractive women only date alphas. I see plenty of weak guys with attractive women, because they met through friends, work or church.

Charles Murray had some interesting graphs on IQ, SES and divorce in The Bell Curve. He found that after controlling for IQ, divorce rates *rise* with parental SES. Check pages 170-178 on Google Books. So go for the smart girl with smart parents of modest means. Surprisingly, after controlling for SES, IQ, date and age, people from broken homes are only slightly riskier.

Your source is the New York beta times which isn't viewed highly in the game community. Furthermore assuming it's info was true it just means SWPL girls are better long term prospects than proles, which nobody is disputing. None of that changes the misandric legal system. Why live with the Sword of Damocles hanging above your head? Sure it may never fall but that's a dreadful existence. Any day your wife could get bored and decide she wants to be "happy" or to "find herself", (these themes are ubiquitous in women's films and literature) then she goes to go to a divorce lawyer and cuts your nuts off.

Going to a fairly decent law school I can tell you that wanting marriage and family is very popular.

"Certailny agrees with my intuition, but why? Maybe HS can speculate on why proles have higher divorce rates?

Money, lack of future time orientation, prole women get ugly fast, irresponsibility, marry too young, etc."

Lots of reasons. Proles usually tend to marry for the wrong reasons (i.e. getting someone pregnant.) Or they marry before they're ready for it.

Prole men are also more prone to beating their wife compared to SWPL's.

Oh, so now it all comes down to 'money buys happiness' and/or higher education or to be some high status somebody. I have a university degree and make decent money, but since I'm not 'high status' I'm fucked.

Well, I'm not going to cry about how I don't make enough money or am not successful enough, but of course once again here we have the blueprint for 'marrying for all the wrong reasons.'

I've read some articles about this- how higher income couples stay married and that what it basically is, is a sort of mutual contract of unbridaled consumerism - more to do with a crass lifestyle than a happy marriage. Hey, whatever makes you happy.

Only problem is that even if these couples are staying together longer (or death do they part- we don't know yet of course) this still doesn't change the divorce laws, VAWA, and false accusations of rape & child molestation. I'm afraid you still don't GET IT. IT'S THE LAWS- THE LAWS- YOU'RE STILL WALKING UNDER THE HAMMER WITH NO RIGHTS. SHE HAS 100,000% OF THE RIGHT AND GOD-LIKE POWER OVER YOU. The laws suddenly don't stop applying to you if you're in a 6 digit income bracket. What is the deal with guys? Is it like some part of your brain doesn't work or something?

So what all this means is these guys are probably just better at walking on eggshells in a nightmarish hell - in other words, nuetered manginas. Think Dr. Drew.

Reality - the laws are terrible but there are ways to make them irrelevant. The bitch has to know you'll make her life a living hell if she tries to leave, though you never say this outright.

College educated people marry much later?

I think a lot of what you've been writing recently is nonsense (the conspiracy theory stuff), but good on you for debunking this other nonsense with GSS data and other stats.

Although the plural of anecdote is not data, my personal experience causes me to doubt the accuracy of the NYT's article's conclusions.

I was, uh, "intimately" acquainted with a high-IQ (STEM Ph.D.) chick who divorced her high-IQ husband and took half his money. Actually, that's not true ... she got way more than half. (But only because he was a dumbass about (a.) money and (b.) trusting her.)

"Reality" has it exactly right. It's the laws, the laws, the laws. Marriage is a sucker bet. Why would you sign up for a deal that lets your partner fuck you over whenever they feel like it?

Twenty - it's true that it's a sucker's bet, but when I'm 45 I want to be going to my kid's baseball games instead of barhopping on weekends. The fact is most highly educated people stay married. As men, we need to be really vigilant about the women we marry, their backgrounds, and their attitudes. Being single forever just isn't socially accepted yet if you want to have a family.

That's not necessarily true Jack. These days children born out of wedlock are common. Perhaps not in your social milieu but among younger people across the class divide it's staring to become the norm. I wish I had impregnated a girl when I was 16. By the time I was 36 my son/daughter would be a fully grown adult. I could have fulfilled my genetic imperative to procreate plus I could go on having fun at a still relatively young age. The best of both worlds, imo.

Shepard, yea, but you'd be a loser working at Jiffy Lube if you had a kid at 16. GED, maybe. And certainly not a real career. You're not having much fun at 36 with no money and no career. You'd also be a boring fuck with little worldly experience.

HalfSigma fails stats yet again. Elites are marrying less, so the ones who do, may be more happy. But, there are tons who simply don't bother anymore. Look at NYC.

"the blade itself incites to violence" Homer... divorce laws drive divorce because it creates a staggering financial incentive to blow up the marriage. Divorce lawyers will tell your wife that she will get a fortune to induce the divorce. Prenups are essential to save your marriage.

If one were to adjust the statistics against age of marriage, I'd wager the education gap would virtually disappear.

My guess is those who are more educated, because they were in school, end up marrying later in life. As a result, when they would like to divorce, they would have to do so even later in life, when they have fewer options on the dating market. Thus, they simply choose to stay married -- and the game theorists are proven correct.

[HS: You have the cause and effect wrong, I am sure. Age of marriage has nothing to do with causing divorce, but smarter people tend to get married when they are older because they are busy with college an graduate school and because people in their social class just don't get married young. So high IQ and higher social class causes both later marriage and more stable marriage.]

[HS: You have the cause and effect wrong, I am sure. Age of marriage has nothing to do with causing divorce, but smarter people tend to get married when they are older because they are busy with college an graduate school and because people in their social class just don't get married young. So high IQ and higher social class causes both later marriage and more stable marriage.]

Why do you think I have cause and effect wrong? "College education" is nothing but a proxy for "married later in life." Ascribing lower divorce rates to an increase in education, as opposed to marrying off later in life, is foolish unless you can come up with data that adjusts for the age when wed variable while maintaining a correlation between education and lower divorce rates.

A high school drop out who waits until 35 to get married should be as equally unlikely to get divorced as a 35 year old with a graduate degree for the same reason: Dating market dynamics. According to the NYT article, 60% of marriages end in the first 10 years. Going back into the dating pool at 45 is a lot harder than in your early 30s. Therefore, couples stay together, not because of education or social class or smarts, but because it's easier.

You are asserting that "college education" is a proxy for "smarter" which you think means "makes better life descisions." "College education" is a very broad category that doesn't really filter people based on IQ or social class, unless you are going to assert those poeple who get degrees in English and photography are making really sound life decisions and are demonstrating their higher IQ.

It does provide a nice proxy for age of marriage, though.

HS, read Eat, Pray, Fornicate? (Maybe the last word was Love, but that's the meaning). It is sweeping your HIQ collegiattesses like a wild fire. Womynz being high on social fads/proof are taking it as a carte blanche to do as they please, fook the consequences.

Let's compare the stats in 5 years and I bet you a c-note that the DRs will reach nearly the rates in other social groups.

"Shepard, yea, but you'd be a loser working at Jiffy Lube if you had a kid at 16. GED, maybe. And certainly not a real career. You're not having much fun at 36 with no money and no career. You'd also be a boring fuck with little worldly experience." - Wendy L.


Typically the people having kids at 16 (proles) fit your description. What interests me is what if folks from upper middle class backgrounds like myself had kids young? Remember having kids at a young age is the historical norm and knowing that I had a child to provide for would have popped the bubble on my prolonged adolescence which continues into my mid 20's.

The comments to this entry are closed.