PTW # 91 - Macken Murphy - Data Driven Dating Advice.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ส.ค. 2023
- Background: I came across some clips Macken had on social media where he had some criticisms of manoswamp takes, and he reached out when I followed him on Twitter asking for a discussion on the topic.
About: Macken Murphy is a GRS-funded scientist at the University of Melbourne. His public works on evolution have been praised by the BBC, the CBC, Booklist, Apple, the Press Association, and The New York Times, among others. Macken spoke for his class at BU's 2020 commencement, where he graduated magna cum laude as a Trustee Scholar from Kilachand Honors College, and completed an MSc at Oxford with the highest possible mark. He received an RI Civic Leadership Award for his volunteer work and a Segal Award for his service in the Americorps. Before academia, Macken was an amateur boxer, winning a New England championship by first-round KO and competing in the Golden Gloves twice. - บันเทิง
GET ON MY EMAIL LIST TO RECIEVE A FREE CHAPTER FROM MY BOOK: entrepreneursincars.com/red-flags/
MY COURSES - the-school-of-entrepreneurship3.teachable.com/courses
GET MY BOOK - "The Unplugged Alpha, The No Bullshit Guide To Winning With Women & Life:" amzn.to/3fIVW3J
SUPPLEMENTS FOR MEN: theunpluggedalpha.com/collections/all-products
MY WEBSITE: www.richcooper.ca/
TACTICAL SOAP: Use code "COOPER" at checkout and Get 10% off Tactical Soap mentioned here: bit.ly/2jQEZbz
REQUEST A VIDEO TOPIC: entrepreneursincars.com/request
SUB MY CLIPS CHANNEL: th-cam.com/users/RichCooperClips
Two guys having a discussion and remaining civil despite disagreements - props to you both
Thanks!
Super refreshing to see and hear
@@murphymacken: "Word salad babble" - Kevin Samuels, RIP.
Mack comes off great here: intellectually honest, intellectually charitable, good-faith, averse to drama, kind, rational, and more interested in the truth than any ideological agenda.
Thanks bud :)
Mack stop having your Mother post!
@@deepthought708 lol ok that’s legit funny.
you are kidding? 95% of his subscribers are women. He's just another pretty boy who says what women want to hear.
This comment caught my eye, because I know Macken personally (I'm making all of this up), so I understand that all of these objectively good qualities that you've spotted within him are, in reality, the complete fabrication of a dangerously malignant narcissist. My forearms & legs are scarred from years of diving in front of the sweetest, cutest puppies you've ever seen, as Macken loves one thing almost as much as he loves himself...kicking puppies. Is any of that stuff true? No. Am I oddly irritated that he's as complete a young man as I've seen? Yes. Eff you Macken...I take it all back, you're great. No, ya know what, you don't need more affirmations Capt. Perfect Pants , go eff yourself. You really do seem like a sweet guy.
This is easily one of the best discussions Ive heard in the last few years following your channels.
Thank you
Thanks mate
@murphymacken New follow on your channel thanks.
@@djjames6576 completely agree. I subscribed as well. I’d love to see a round table of Rich, Mack, Sadia Khan, and Shawn T Smith. I’d pay to make that happen.
@@EntrepreneursInCarsyeah, excelent debate, maybe get other people who don't necessarily agree with the red pill
Respect for having this guy on your show
The only guy in the redpill who will
@@murphymackengo on michael sartains show. He will 1000% have you on
that says a lot! @@murphymacken
Macken's face at 40:54 when Rich explains what he teaches his daughter, fuckin' catastrophic
Very telling moment, could have been a lot more awkward lmaoo
Having a degree doesn’t = punk clothes and tattoos and purple hair though, many educated women just look normal. Many dads who try to keep daughters pure and submissive, quite often drive them to run the other way, and they do go off the rails because of the over protective straight edge dad.
@@KwertyKeys yep instead parents should promote the healthy aspects of their kids individuality instead of controlling them
LOL rich thinks women fall in just two categories: trad wife or blue hair feminist.
Educated men value a woman's education, distinct from women seeking partners with higher education and income. Educated men are drawn to educated women for mutual understanding and collaborative child-rearing. Intelligence often aligns with advanced education, alongside influences like background, resources, and determination. These factors facilitate connections between educated women and men, driven by the universal need for recognition and understanding.
Extremely interesting conversation because the "red pill" stuff focuses on the black and white to support their arguments (selling points) but the vast majority of life (and dating) is in lived in the gray and Macken Illustrates that very well. Props to Rich for elevating the debate.
Like saying a degree means man hating purple haired rad fem, that’s extreme and untrue. Most educated women don’t look like that, or just as a small example, hospitals and courts would be full of lawyers and doctors with that appearance. Encouraging your daughters to be uneducated and reliant on a man is frightening. Everyone needs to have a back up/plan b, and a good education and employability is a good plan for all.
Best discussion I’ve seen yet. Need more of these kinds of respectful discussions to prevent the echo chamber that is so prevalent in most other conversations. 👏
Great conversation. I love that you both were able to have a calm, constructive conversation about this topic. Macken seems to be very knowledgeable while still taking personal experience in to account and rich is open to other opinions and is a great host. Would love to see a part 2!
Always interesting to hear a different view and constructive discussion. Thank you both!
Thanks bud:)
Part 2 please. Your best conversation so far
I wish Cooper would let Murphy explain his points instead of cutting him off and misinterpreting what is being said. That being said, this is a very important discussion which needs to expand into the areas that no one in the "gynocentric social order" wants to explore such as the long-term effects of hyper-hypergamy (that's my own term for women being overly selective and ending up over 40 and surrounded by cats) and the long-term negative effects on male attractiveness of the demasculinization and toxicity-shaming of men.
Statistically more men end up alone and childless than women.
It's all a cope from men, realizing what is waiting for them. All projection.
Women always have options, the age bracket just gets older. That's reality.
Why not to give Macken a chance to finish his points without interruption making wrong conclusions.
I was rich, and my wife "loved" me. I broke my back, couldn't work anymore, and now she doesn't. Hypergamy is pretty obvious.
Was she attracted to you regardless of money ?
Who knows, women lie like flatfish, Personally, I've given up on them as just not worth the effort. God gave me two hands and lube is cheap. If I really want to touch one of them I can pay by the hour and be rid of them afterward. To be perfectly honest, at my age, the women are pretty repulsive@@hablabamosa
My mom injured her spine and my dad had an affair, while she was in extreme pain, being bedridden for a few days.
Men are 6 times more likely to ABANDON their partners after a diagnosis of cancer and other debilitating illnesses.
There's a study, buddy. But data and facts don't matter only your personal story because you're the main character .
Many men only love their wife when they only look good etc. When women and men are taught to objectify each other for looks and money that's what the relationship is going to be about. Men can be just as shallow.
Rich looked very bad trying to explain his reasoning to his Twitter post… “speaking about 90 percent of women have nothing to to offer men if remove sex… rich look bad tryna explain this point . MACKEN really shine bright in this interview
I like that Macken draws conclusions based on data instead of ideology. Ideologies ignore reality and serve to comfort people into believing that they are not responsible for their own actions. No matter what Macken says some people will believe what they want because it simplifies the world for them in a way that they can understand - even if that interpretation is incorrect. The more intelligent a person is the more nuanced and complex the world is.
You're one of Macken's fans or did you find this conversation through Rich?
Exactly. I wonder when will they realize Macken is going from behavioral data and "expirience" means shit in this because even if in your expirience you met minority of some behavior doesnt mean study is wrong.
@sara, data can be easily manipulated to get the result one wants, researches really on grants $$$, so they are easily bought.
With that logic we should assume that all progress in science is "bought". I guess you are not going to hospital if you have a heart attack? Since every study is falsified? One of my first jobs was as a research assistant in Orthopaedic surgery at a university hospital and I can tell you first hand that a lot of work is put into published studies.@@makenocommento-kj4gq
Although this was a civil conversation and reasonably fair, I was frustrated how many times Mack was being interrupted while trying to make a point. Cheers to you for keeping your cool, mate!
Its unfortunate that Rich tries to go off on a tangent or change topic everytime Macken is making a valid point. That really stifles the discussion.
It would be great for you to bring this guy during your Ladies Night show as he can be the Destiny of the show. If Moff is around it’s even better as I would love to hear what Moff thinks about this guy.
mack isn’t anywhere near as bad faith as Destiny
No idea what Destiny says or does on shows, never watched him. I did catch the last 30 mins of this though, and thought it was a good discussion for what it's worth
“Your little sister shouldn’t be following me on Twitter”…😂
I'll be teaching my daughters to work on their education and career before/during/after college. Teaching them to care about their health/fitness is an ongoing life-long lesson. I'll teach them to care about their looks, but not as their most important aspect because I don't want their self esteem to hinge on looks. I'll teach them to value family and be family oriented, but not at the expense of their dignity.
Men who are more concerned with her body count and are so shallow they don't care about her character will not be compatible with my daughters. I'll teach them to select against those types of men and instead choose a man like their father, my brothers, and Macken. If by the time my daughters become teens and their future dating pool is looking rancid, I'll even consider teaching them to be happily single mothers, through IVF so he doesn't get legal rights to the child. Most of the negative stats against single mothers are due to the child being male, poor, and not surrounded with enough fathers. Hence, hubby and I have set up our daughters to inherit 7 properties, in a nice neighborhood, and surrounded by the "village" that is my family, including my male relatives.
Your daughters will end up alone and on antidepressants, mark my words
Murphy is wrong about the height thing. Women are not just signaling their "virtue" by claiming that they will only date someone 6' or taller. They are literally screening shorter men out on dating apps.
He is wrong in many things
I just meant that's part of it, you're obviously right that height prefs are real and have an effect.
Macken, as a scientist, would tell you that dating apps are not a good representative sample for the study.
I think it's important to note "trends" does not mean everyone and everything. It means there is a pattern. And likewise, both men and women have preferences. I don't have much dating experience but my three partners were under 6 feet tall. It just doesn't make sense as a short person to be with someone astronomically tall. My tallest partner was 5'11 and our relationship was terrible! My current partner is 5'6 and he's been the best partner I ever had. Ironically every guy I dated told me they filtered out tall women so it goes both ways. Despite me being incredibly short, my maternal side are quite tall for a Chinese person. My aunt's best relationship she ever had was with someone who was roughly 5'1... 5'2. She was at the time 5'7! My mom married a man who was shorter than her (hence why I'm short). I know those are exceptions though. Just trying to put out there that there are all sorts of people when it comes to height.
Reminds me when I was younger when my Dad tried to give me advice and thought I knew better. And then I got to know the world and only then I knew my dad was right about everything. Mack was me when I was young.
Interesting given how Mack has substantially more knowledge and insights into this topic
@@AlexHendershotThere’s no point trying to reason with people who have confirmation bias. The data does not matter unless it affirms their world view.
@@ammiielsame thing can be said to you, so what
@@AymanPlayer Based on what assumption? Oh that’s right…
@@ammiiel base on what assumptions he has confirmation bias? Because he said thing that you don't like?
It seems to me that Rich is speaking about modern dating while Macken is trying to discuss it like it’s some type of science. One thing Rich should have pressed him on was the effects of social media on women when it comes to modern dating. It has completely changed the game, completely changed the way woman think. You can’t measure it with a science experiment, that’s what these guys don’t get. It’s the biggest problem in modern dating. And to sit there like Macken and just downplay women's hypergamy isn’t honest at all. I don’t know what world he’s living in but women are insanely hypergamous.
I don’t think I did downplay it, and anything that can be measured is partially under the purview of science. Appreciate your opinion, though.
women are only hypergamous if you dont satisfy their emotional needs. If you dont, it doesnt matter what u got or what u do, theyll trade u in for a better model.
@@drewsmith5961 Even self-reported studies would show hypergamy in women. That's how ingrained it is within women. The swap that happens around 28 is well known within the RP community as well, the colloquial "wall." What we have of EvoPysch shows how and why this occurs even if we don't have a lot of hard numbers to back up eg what percentage of mate selection is based on hypergamy depending on age group.
Hypergamous for sex, not dating. Most women end up dating men around their looks level and socioeconomic class
@whoknow, you are correct
Rich, really appreciate you having Macken Murphy on and having the debate. I believe he had some great points about your approach to things. I am a big fan of yours but sometimes you do go too far and I believe you do that to create views on your channel. He had a great comparison of female and male hypergamy and I agree with him entirely. Both sexes do hypergamy. You were splitting hairs in your counter-arguments and you interrupted him quite a bit in order to prove your point with statements that really did not back up your position. This is a debate, not a fist fight.
@murphymacken 1:54:10 - the fact that a (SMV peak) 24 year old lady isn’t generally looking beyond age 30 doesn’t disprove that a man’s SMV peak is still likely mid to late 30s. It isn’t about his ability get the most desirable or sought after women: it’s about the stage of his life where his options are the broadest that he’ll ever experience.
“The best is yet to come” doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily get the hot 24 year old turning you down now: it means YOU can experience YOUR best later on in life if your self improvement outpaces your physical decay.
Depends what you’re trying to maximize, partner mate value or mate quantity 🤷🏼♂️
@@murphymackenI still disagree even with that framing because even if Joe Average’s chance with the hottest 24 year old dips from 3% to 0% as he ages from 28 to 38, the overall SMV of whoever it is who is available to him could very well be higher at 38 than it was at 28.
Another way to phrase what I’m saying is that “What ages of men are sought by the highest SMV women?” isn’t exactly the same question as “At what age is a particular man likely to achieve his personal highest SMV?”
I have to agree with Macken here, if men had their highest SMV there, they would get chosen the most by women.
It’s not over by 30 and I would argue there are maybe 1%-5% of guys who peak at 38 through a combination of looks, fitness, status, life setup, game, etc.
However, that’s not the norm. If you put the average 25 yr old vs the average 38 year old competing, the 25 year old will likely win through looks, social circle (more likely to get invited to places with young women when you are a young peer).
35 min, I believe Macken is trying to say hypergamy needs to be delineated between focus on looks vs status/wealth. Both are hypergamous but not qualifying what kind is too vague.
Correct, although I don’t think “hypergamy” applies well conceptually to women’s prizing of looks for short-term / uncommitted mating.
@@murphymacken I agree. Traditionally, hypergamy was marrying off a virgin daughter to a more successful family so that she could raise her kids with more wealth / safer / higher class.
Hooking up with a hot guy is classified as something else. Rich uses the term "Alpha seed, beta need", etc
@@murphymacken You've agreed that women date men across or up, which we'd normally consider part of the hypergamic instinct. Looks are definitely part of the package that women look for. It might be better to think of it as something like "standards forgiveness." As said, women are willing to overlook looks more than men for long-term partners while men are more open for short-term. How much forgiveness for unattractive qualities do women have compared to men when it comes to different variables such as height, general attractiveness, age, wealth, socioeconomic status, etc. and by what kind of partnership (long-term, short-term, affair)?
Generally the Alpha/Beta dichotomy is well recognized. While you may not like the term hypergamy being broadly used, is this general rule of thumb accurate or not? Is there a way to test when attractiveness starts to lose to socioeconomic status?
What he’s saying about the best looking 20’s pairing up is true if we’re focusing on the top .01%…
Top .01% men usually have the earning capacity to match. They’re either celebrities or sports starts.
Top 10% men in their 30’s destroy men in their 20’s financially.
He claims he’s not the kinda guy that brings up the exceptions and use it to prove the rule, but then goes ahead and does that.
Source?
@@the_kekromancer9779 common sense
@murphymacken are you familiar with Shawn T. Smith? What do you think of his Tactical Guide to Women book?
I think the best way to sum this up for the average viewer is that Macken Murphy is a person who loves to overcomplicate everything with studies and research. Pointing out a bunch of extraneous or wierd outlying factors is the weakest way to try to dismantle a movement designed to be simplified like red pill
He’s taking the route of making things so indiscernible that nothing makes sense to the general public.
I’m not saying he’s wrong on everything. I’m just saying that he’s not going to get anywhere with developing a new audience and by that, I mean he’s not going to change the hearts and minds of an overwhelming majority. While winning a few people over might be important to some folks, it’s just not what matters in the big picture if you’re trying to be influential to everyone. He’s more for people who already share his views and need some sort of way to validate them in their head.
LOL that's what people with PhDs do. They study and research because they are professional and that is how they want to present themselves. All this outliers compound and still really impact the status quo. He's not here to change hearts and minds and be very influential. He wants to be an academic and appeal to people who have an academic mindset.
@@lemondrop7305 so you’re saying that him finding outliers, pointing them out, and trying to prove them isn’t him trying to change hearts and minds? It’s one thing to find data… but presenting it and trying to prove it to the other side is what an attempt to change hearts and minds literally is. His PHD doesn’t mean he’s not trying to do that. Do you see how your argument is contradictory? Also, if these outliers compound so much, then why hasn’t red pill been completely dismantled?
“LOL”(terrible way to start a discussion. Makes you sound emotional which is wierd)
Mack was definitely prepared
A Part 2 would be great.
Please don't, he is so blue pill
I agree with what you say after the comma. But I enjoy watching and hearing Rich offer counterpoints.
Yeeaaah
Easily one of your best lives bro 💪🏿
Search SCHAHRZAD MORGAN. She claims in her own words "women, generally speaking, have nothing to offer men."
About the SMV…it takes a shit load of time to be that high quality guy when starting as an average guy.
It takes a lot of time to be good looking n have your shit together in life n even if u were able to get hot girls in your 20s u still have to put a great deal of time making money otherwise u have to worry about that in your 30s
Valid point. If you're a 10 in attractiveness, then your mid-20s may be your peak SMV if you do nothing with life. For the rest of men they start off undesirable and work up from there. Men in their 30s are still attractive, even if they're not as attractive as they were in their 20s. But then comes all of the resources and character growth that women find attractive but take years to build up.
MOST men don't select marriage, they get conned into it
The kid reminds me of me when I was a PhD student. There's still a lot of growing up left, but you feel like you're on top of the world. Missed opportunity to ask his opinion on the bipocs running his department, the bizarre priorities of the research ethics department overseeing his work and whether PhD's are worth anything today.
When Murphy gains more experience with women his fixation with word choice will "hit the wall".
Yep Yep Yep!
Great discussion, you guys held it well . What I have noticed about the “Mano swamp” is when they try to help men with women; what they really mean is to help guys with HOT WOMEN. They are a different game. High risk high reward if looks are your thing. Red pill should really say what the goal is.
Yes. Hot women who show off they are hot and leverage their looks. When they have some women on the show, it`s instagram models. And the irony is that their audience is men and young guys who have no luck with ANY women, but are dreaming of fucking the instagram model. Yes, it sells to tell them that women are delusional and have no value except sex. That`s what these guys think anyways, otherwise they would try to get to know the average women in their everyday lives who they have something in common with.
of course men ideally want hot women
nothing new here
the whole point of grinding, improving and socializing is to get a woman you're satisfied with, and for men the trait they covet above all the rest is physical attractiveness
if any woman would do, noone would have any problems dating obviously
Scholars live in the realm of ideas while the rest interact with reality and that gap is where each one of them should face, cause life will present such pattern until you get it or die trying. Very needed such kind of dialog on the youtube and in life. Thank you Rich and Macken.
Agreed
Can you imagine him trying to have a debate, discussion...argument with his mate. My God...his head is going to explode.
It would be interesting to hear what Murphy has to say about how preselection affects mating in males and females, if he comes back.
"As much as men have dreams and goals, women have them as well". Rich Cooper, I wish you would've shared your opinion on this. What if your daughter has the ambition to be a doctor or a lawyer or maybe the ambition to start an organization to solve some of the world's problems?
Would you still encourage her to work at a yacht or car shop in the hopes that she will meet and lockdown a high-value man and start a family young?
It's not just that women are beauty and sex objects to men. It seems that they are just breeding objects devoid of any desire for self-actualization.
That comes down to what his daughter wants. Does she want a family young or does she want to focus on contributing to society? A lot of women were sold on self-actualization through work achievements while finding out (often much later in life) that what they really wanted was family. His daughter is already getting the message to focus on work from all of society; I don't think having him offering a different opinion is a problem.
If she does want a family young, then Rich's advice is excellent. If she doesn't then she can become a doctor. She has the agency to choose, even if Rich provides an alternative option.
@@TheInsomniaddict
Looking at it from that perspective, I agree with you.
Ultimately it does come down to choice.
But this space also pushes the narrative that women will find satisfaction and self -actualization through motherhood just because women are biologically-inclined towards child-rearing, and men will find self-actualization through work because men evolved to be hunters and providers.
Women were providers as well.
We were hunter-gatherers. Women provided by gathering fruit and roots.
So it's not automatically correct to assume that women won't find fulfilment through work.
I also have a problem with saying that men should do this and women should do that because of our biology when we've evolved to fit into a civilized world where our ability to think and aspire often overrides natural instincts.
You're right. The sex object tweet is pretty deplorable and I hope he doesn't raise his daughter in a way that reflects that type of rhetoric
@@erinjaftha5731 We're seeing even in mainstream media women stating they wish they either started a family earlier or started one at all when they could. If we're trying to determine what choice would make the majority of women happier, the mainstream advice of going into debt in order to get a higher-paying job isn't better for women.
Women can and likely will have to work in the majority of marriages; that's a reality of our current world. The question is if they want to spend 60-80 hours per week working or if they'd be willing to take a lower paying but less stressful position in order to spend more time with their children.
I work with a lot of women, and one thing I've noticed is that about 80% who have children never come back to their position, even a year and a half later. They may eventually be forced into the workforce again due to lack of money, but that's a far cry from wanting to be there.
@@TheInsomniaddictAnd as many women that are in the media saying that they wished they started a family earlier or a family instead, there are women saying that they got married and had kids too young and regret it. There are even those who have regretted having children in general and we're starting to see more and more of that now that society is removing that taboo.
It's tricky to determine a choice that will make the majority of women happy when that is an incredibly personal choice and prescribing marriage and child-rearing to all women because we assume that it will make them happy is fascist.
Also, I don't know why the extreme has to be used as an argument against mine. I know that I said "doctor" and *lawyer" as examples but I really mean jobs that individuals are passionate about.
When we're talking about jobs, we don't have to talk about corporate 60-80 hour jobs that most people (men and women) don't actually want to do.
Top 3 of Rich podcast for sure.
let's go
I regards to "defining the variables" of hypergamy, to Rollo's credit, he has exclaimed many many times "Hypergamy is NOT a straightjacket."
I happen to agree with everything you say Rich. Our experiences in life shape the way we view the world. I firmly believe that women have a clandestine nature about them. Everything they do is designed to pivot things in their favor. I don't agree with happy life happy wife. I can't imagine wasting my life spinning my wheels trying to make or keep a woman happy. They need to find that from within.
Why can't we just simply define hypergamy, as a woman's immediate right now decision, for what she perceives as the very best situation, that will meet her specific needs, at that specific time?
Because men also do that. Which makes the distinction meaningless.
@murphymacken I think men have honor and ego...and those 2 things keep a man on course...even when he knows it's not the best for him. On the other hand...women can alter course at the drop of a dime...I am speaking in generalities recognizing what I describe does not apply to all.
It was interesting to hear Macken say he thought older men were trying to put off the younger men from dating to give them selves more options.
It's not the feeling i have when i am advising men younger than me , iam only trying to save them from making mistakes and if they do which is certain they will they can then at least have some understanding why it failed.
I really enjoyed this conversation.
29:15 - Difference is attributed to stage in life and therefore preferential short or long term mating. I.E early 29's vs 30's.
Hey, 25 Years old boy renting an apartment with a 2nd hand car, would the 23 year old grilfriend ignore the 35 year old man across the street in his own house with his own luxuary car parking on the drveway? Be real man, work on yourself.
Yes. Looks matter.
I love these conversations, significant differences but still not shouting over each other.
Min 1:30 "your are not making a statement on women's psychology
Its more on a statement in regards to a male one"
This is where the host is 💯! This is also why memes can be dangerous. A funny meme can distort reality & blame the victims
Can’t lie Macken kicked butt on this video interview. He really did.
Rich Cooper = King Arthur (vs) Macken Murphy = Mordred
Mack did so well in this. Good job basically destroying the cherry-picked Red-pill talking points by bringing the whole perspective. I'm really looking forward to seeing more of Mack and seeing him grow by taking on more members of the Manosphere.
Good on Rich for platforming him.
He doesn't understand why men actually go to the red pill community
@@miamitrancemissions6425The reason why men go to the Red-pill doesn't matter. Red-pill influencers use evolutionary psychology theories, as well as behavioral studies, and completely misrepresent them to suit their narrative.
Mack is a scientist and he is here to clear up the misconceptions
@@miamitrancemissions6425 because they want to be delusional?
If what he did was mostly bringing the whole perspective, then he didn't really destroy them. He mostly added to them
For example, redpill says the higher the body count, the worse a woman will be as a partner, and Mack would say that is true, but for men too
And for hypergamy, he didn't even disagree with the red pill saying women partner up socioeconomically.
Those are basically the two main things that all redpill agree on, and he doesn't destroy them.
@@MA-gu2up He destroyed them because redpill men do not consider the behavior of women as a whole along with the compounding outliers. They over simplify things when human behavior is not as black and white as they paint it. They just use hypergamy as a catchall which is ridiculous. Are women hypergamous? Yes but they still care more about looks too, like height. Also men are hypergamous too, especially men from wealthy families. That's something redpillers never mention.
Mack threw a few little jabs he must really like Taylor swift
Lol
For reference here is the tweet. It's comedy. twitter.com/Rich_Cooper/status/1693280148190085215?s=20
Honestly, thinking back at times during different income levels, I don’t remember caring what any woman I pursued made & I’m over 50.
Im 62 im getting more decent totty in their 40s now than i ever have 🤜🏼💪🏼
Wow. Looks like Rich has met his match to debate with. Makes me wonder how he can conduct the interviews he has with the women on his channel.
Your just rooting for your pretty boy, dear karen!
Mack has some good points about making hypotheses falsifiable, eg with hypergamy being used as a catchall explanation for mate selection by women. That said, I think there's a lot of obvious questions that are informed by the current state of society. For example, there's a lot of women out there complaining that can't find decent men while being in a high-powered job (decent men being at their level or higher). Mack says that data shows that couples generally end up with both men and women at around the same level of achievement and IQ level. If this is the case, what's the explanation for why so many women are finding it hard to find partners now? The RP community would say that's because men will date younger, which supposedly is contrary to data? Hypergamy is used as a short-hand to state that women date across and up, something Mack seems to agree with. As a variable in stats or a study hypergamy may not be useful even though it more or less ends up being true. The problem may not be with the concept of hypergamy but that we need narrow definitions to test out and compare against other variables (such as a woman's social status, age, religious background, etc.) This would be part of what I'd consider to be a useful study.
I'd also like to know what studies Mack has looked at that show men and women end up in relationships with relatively similar mates. My experience has largely been different, albeit anecdotal.
I think macken makes some great points. For casual dating, both sexes seem to prioritize physical attractiveness, with the men being way more willing to drop their standards if it takes little to no effort on their part in order to get easy sex. For longterm dating physical attractiveness is still the number one most coveted trait for both men and women. The difference is that women also rank status/money/success in the top 5, while men don't rank those things high, probably not even in the top 10. Which means men can to some degree compensate in the long term dating market for less than ideal physical attractiveness with status and money, with the caveat being that their status and money has to be very high for it to have a significant effect. Same thing doesn't apply to women, their status and money barely makes a difference. Peterson had quoted a study where for a man's overall attractiveness his socioeconomic status had a quite high positive correlation(like 0.6 or something), but less than physical attractiveness(0.8 or something). For a woman's overall attractiveness, her socioeconomic status had neutral or even negative correlation.
Most people date within the league looks-wise and within their tax bracket for obvious reasons. Most people aren't good looking or rich, they are average, and average people make up ~70% of the population according to normal distribution. An average guy who makes 50k will have to care about a woman's income out of necessity because you can't sustain a whole family on 50k income in most areas. And a woman with average looks can't really lock down a hot guy or a rich guy, she simply lacks the beauty required to be able to do it. Only very few people have the beauty or the status/money to leverage in order to date up in either looks or socioeconomic status. Few women are hot. And few men are high status with a lot of money.
Psyhacks had mention a study titled "what attractive women want" or a title along those lines, the conclusion was that attractive women ideally want everything. The number one trait was "sexy"(meaning physically attractive) and the number two trait was "successful"(basically money and status). The bottom two traits were "kind" and "intelligent", which is kinda hilarious, especially when they usually vocally state those are the traits they want most.
@@mrdouche9172 There's a lot of guys making $100k+ doing shit like software engineering where looks aren't what earned them the position. Such guys might have less access to women due to temperament (introverts) while still being socially valuable if not physically. They probably would date down (socially) if they have access to those women. Online dating could do this, but we know it doesn't since that's all short-term and based on looks. The next would be women in the service industry who cater to wealthier parts of society.
When it comes to $40k and lower society, things get a little more casual. At least that's my experience while working there myself. It seems a lot less selective and women kind of just sleep around. Actually sub-$50k is likely very much Tinder IRL. My own experiences still don't map to Mack's data.
For your last paragraph, I'll just add that we've learnt not to listen to what women say they want because they're high in social signaling and low in accuracy. They are very precise falsehoods.
Min 1:00.34 We need hard core solutions like genetic testing for all babies & fertility test for all mem (who want to be fathers).
This would be devastating for the current generation but would curtail the " cuckholding" by women & stop women from marrying infertile men (who refuse to adopt or raise another mans child that he believes is his). Very compex situation with many solutions with unintended negative consequences.
But way better than the current one.
Maybe we should only focus on long term solutions
48:10 "Fortunately I'm not one of your students and I don't care what you think". This was a based response from Rich.
A bald old man acting sassy towards a young, attractive with a head full of hair scientist. Ahhhh the jealousy
Don't overdose on copium buddy
The heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of.
All these studies qualifications etc etc it just sounds too hard. Just follow Rich rules and you will be fine. She needs burning desire otherwise you will become a stat for the scientist. Good composure Rich.
"Scientist"
Hard to break it. You are idolizing a marketer it’s really cringe.
@@Candlelight787 Right.Psychologists acting like they're scientists will never not be funny.
@@hablabamosathen what are psychologists my guy? Please enlighten my ignorant ass
I can see where he is too focused in on the data and missing the bigger picture. Like yeah men and women both are competing but the point is men are competing in a sense they had to build themselves whereas women are competing in a much different way.
Female competition quite often comes down to being seen and being available. It's one of the reasons for the "Mean Girl" attitude and the attempt to pull each other down in competition.
ok so the REAL interview begins at 42:40 thank you! :0
Never have I seen a discussion where the phrase “What color is your bugatti(or mclaren)” would suffice. Some people are so blue pilled that they’d rather fight n shame you rather than question their beliefs.
Being bluepilled is better then paying thousands for consultations with a dating coach and "tactical soap". I would rather just live in bliss...
The number of bots in this chatroom is ridiculous. There’s no way people watched this guy and thought this was the man. After listening to this guy, I want the west to fall that much faster.
Rich, I love how you put your beliefs to the test and discussed calmly without being triggered. This guy is arguing based on feelings and tries shaming Rich. “I feel…”. Stfu dude. Calls himself data driven and can’t find data to defend his beliefs. Please cite all these behavioral studies for your master thesis when you disagreed with Rich. is he afraid that woman will cancel him?
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Especially when he said he has an audience of 95% women. If he would agree with Rich, or even; not “fight” him on RP nuggets that “damages” his audience, he would loose on his so-called “business model”.
Good call Adam.
Any guy that has a 95% female following is either a male feminist or hard core blue pill male 💊 🤷
Sorry bro, if you genuinely think that this dude is arguing based on feelings you are coping
He 100% cites sources for each topic on his tiktok where he clips this conversation. He provides study name and year or multiple study names/year.
Exactly
I would love to see this continued
Used to go pretty good toge the
Alpha vs Beta
The boy is a romantic : )
I love how one mentions that men care about education with absolutely no mention of social pressure from friends and family. I’m from the northeast and come from a family and town that prizes college. If you were entering into a serious relationship everyone would want to know where she went to school. I know it’s anecdotal but I’m pretty sure it’s the norm across this part of the country. It wasn’t till I was much older that I stopped even looking at a college education. And that’s because all of my relationships with college educated women fell to hell. I began to look for compatibility and sexual attraction. Here I am, eleven year relationship and it’s scary how well it’s going. And I think my lady is very smart;she just doesn’t have the paper on the wall. This dude is soft as baby 💩.
Well tell us exactly what it is that they +do+ offer besides sex? They are almost completely empty-headed today.
Rich, if you could hold the mic closer to your mouth when you talk we could hear you better.
Macken Murphy reminds me of the Rocket Scientist geek from the Simpsons. These dudes are so indoctrinated to the point they can’t hear their simple unplugged Alpha instincts.
Very interesting podcast 👍
glad you liked it
“I believe whatever the latest science tells me”. This guy trusts the science a little too much. Probably on his 11th booster 😂🤦🏻♂️
You can have a lot of women in your life romantically and platonically and still be a misogynist. That is what cognitive dissonance is.
Excellent interview. From my experience there is the scientific data and there is the empirical/behavioral data. Macken alluded to it, but I don’t think it gets enough recognition. The difference I see on the dating apps between today and a few years ago is beyond vast. Specifically, I’m talking about women’s preferences. I don’t know how even above average men match these days. Just don’t understand what women are looking for. That is obviously the effect of IG and other social media making even below average looking women believe that only top 5-10% of men are good enough for them.
Women see men a success objects and men see women as sex objects.
For me this is true but there is more than that between a partnership. This belief (maybe fact) is the core foundation or like a principle upon human relationships. Its like a tree where this belief is the root of the tree and every other thing comes after that like deep conversations, love (connection), trust...........
His problem is that he gets so offended about it. He needs to see it as it is.
I might need to transition from male to female so I can follow Mack tbh....
Mackan is getting his PhD - and he's thinking like Doctoral students think. Relating to the discussion about hypergamy, picking a variable, and looking at the data. That works in research and science, but in plain living, I think it is more fluid. It depends on what a woman values personally. Some prefer money, some prefer physical beauty, some like status, and some intellectual skills. In general, whatever the preference, I would suggest, as a female, that a woman will choose a man who is superior in some aspect that she values. We need to look up to our man.
Moreover, when Mackan gets out of grad school, he will start learning that what happens in real life is not always what you learn in the academic environment. Exceptions are probably the physical sciences, where the laws of physics apply.
Rich is being exceedingly patient with this young man. Reading the comments in the live chat is fun.
Other than your arrogance and patronizement, explain how anything that you said is in contradiction with what he said...
@@AymanPlayerexperience matters. Let's see where he is in a few years on a personal level. Another matter is brand. This guy has to position himself as slightly different to create a personal brand to attract followers. Especially women who want a champion to justify their behaviour.
But if hypergamy means everything, it means nothing...
This guy agrees with pretty much everything, just does not want to offend the women so has issues with the tone/words. He described Hypergamy himself halfway through and yet disagrees with it.
His audience is 90% women, dude has to continue eating. Him being attractive is likely why he hasn't been called sexist by his audience yet either.
Cope
Didn't he say that he agrees that hypergamy is women wanting men with more money / social status but he doesn't agree with hyperglycemia being used as everythin... like women wanting an attractive man is hypergamy wanting a man with social status is also hypergmy. Hypergamy is everything approach is not a scientifically correct term in his words
@@batelmitiku5910 Yeah, his main complaint is that hypergamy is used too broadly. But he does fully agree that women date across or up in some measure (he never states in what measure), and that women value attractiveness over wealth in short-term encounters but wealth over attractiveness in long-term.
Alpha seed/Beta need + hypergamy + the carousel/wall = exactly what he's talking about but it's not scientifically rigorous. That's generally why science creates new more narrow terms when it's working with data. That doesn't disprove that the rule of thumb is more or less correct.
he disagrees with it as being a catchall LOL your lack of comprehension is astounding
His following is 95% female. It would be interesting to get him back in 15 years and see if he holds all the same opinions.
And his addiction to female praise is his ‘unclouded science’.
All you’re doing is emotions and ad hominem playing nasty. You didn’t disprove the research and studies he referenced. You’re offended that research doesn’t baby you
@@XanaxMilf Thanks 👍
LOL these aren't mostly opinions. This is research in academia in accordance with evolution. The gender of his audience is irrelevant. It just makes you a sexist if you only judge him by his audience.
@@XanaxMilf you are not a milf, old woman
I wish they more into the male thirst trap issue towards women and how this itself is the reason for how easy it is for women to overkick their coverage, because that is the reason why women have so many options
Yeah, Matt has a lot to learn. It's ok he might get there.
Where they disagree, I side with Rich - Experience over theory
What I want to know is what guy chooses to study this from undergad to doctoral?
Honestly it's a pretty important area of expertise. The Red Pill communities essentially started due to these questions and few people trying to find answers.
So Mr. Murphy objects to "the Wall"?
Perhaps Robert Herrick can help him out:
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old Time is still a-flying;
And this same flower that smiles today
Tomorrow will be dying.
The glorious lamp of heaven, the sun,
The higher he’s a-getting,
The sooner will his race be run,
And nearer he’s to setting.
That age is best which is the first,
When youth and blood are warmer;
But being spent, the worse, and worst
Times still succeed the former.
Then be not coy, but use your time,
And while ye may, go marry;
For having lost but once your prime,
You may forever tarry.
I get it that you need to court controversy in order to increase views…but it still seems wrong to do it at the expense of someone else.
The next big coorperate move will be this that men should accept more eldery women to have children with. If enough women recognize that there is not enough time to ""climb the cooperate ladder" and have children soon enough in their life women will wake up and decide to step down the gas of labouring and this will force labor supply backwards on a big scale so cooperate and media and or whatever there is behind the courtan will try its best that the supply of labor will not go down because if so cooperations would need to pay workers more because tighter option on labor.
So this guy derails the conversation on the grounds of him being "uncomfortable " & "feelings". You positioned your self as the facts & data guy & you tuck tail & shrink when you're challenged w/ a valid argument. I wouldn't allow him back on, if not to highlight fearful, luke warm behavior. All talk.
He argues like a chick from FnF who just goes off on he’s feelings.
When someone is saying something you disagree with use the tactic"You are just talking from your feelings"...as if the red pill is not based on disappointment and bitterness.
@@AymanPlayer i'll bite. Ok,why do you think that the redpill is based on disappointment and bitterness? What research have you done? Read Rich's book yet? Or did you miscontrue THAT as guys learning about the true nature of modern women, took steps on how to overcome it and then filter out those women who do not add value to their lives? Let's not argue with feelings.
You’re talking emotions. You’re offended that research shows you don’t peak at 50 huh?
@@AymanPlayer I didn't "disagree" with any of the data. Re read what I typed.
Faith = Belief
Science = Data
Have you seen science lately?
Kapag hiniwalayan sya ng syota nya dahil indi sapat yung kita nya dun pa lang nya ma realize yung hypergamy na parati nyang kinokontra, Saka kapag nakakilala sya ng tsikas na mas magandat malandi sa syota nya dun pa lang nya ma realize na Kelangan pang mag evolve yung pagkalalaki nya
What what has been his longest relationship...with a woman.
It's so weird to see Homelander remain calm despite the fact that someone doesn't agree with him. That's character growth right there.
lol
I love both guys but 20 min to 35 minute mark is simply Cooper not understanding what Murphy is saying… I would say though, that women are not being hypergamous when they are going for the good looking guy with a felony and nothing going for him. I’ve noticed they are being quite delusional at that point. I would say hypergamy is finding dating traits (more than 1 or 2 for that matter). Because, by definition, the guy with the felony with nothing going for him is NOT a better option for women to begin with. Even by data, they don’t last long term or even short term for that matter (Rolo refers to this guy as the “hot guy at the foam cannon party”). Also, hypergamy should not and cannot be defined by women whenever discussing the idea of how women date simply because they don’t even know half the time what is best for them (ie, cannot think logically, more going off of FEELINGS). Hope this makes sense.
I say this because Cooper is actually correct. The mating strategies/choices that women make change depending on too many factors to pinpoint it down to a science. For example: a woman who has security and money in a beta partner often will go cheat with a man that looks better. Looks are only 1 trait. So I believe in that moment the woman is not being hypergamous unless the better looking guy actually provides more mating strategy traits (ie, money, security etc). In that moment, women are more living in the moment and not actually logically analyzing their “best” option. Instead, they are going for the option that makes them FEEL something. Again, we are trying to view hypergamy from a logical perspective which women can’t even do half the time.