SCIENTIST DEBATES REDPILL ON HYPERGAMY
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ค. 2024
- An excerpt from my conversation with Richard Cooper (@EntrepreneursInCars). I am an Oxford graduate GRS-funded researcher at the University of Melbourne, studying human mating behavior; Rich Cooper is an entrepreneur, author, and redpilled influencer. In this segment, I debate Rich on the concept of "female hypergamy," or women's purported tendency to date upwards. #science #dating #debate @RichCooperClips
Dude just hates women....she must have ripped his heart out... 😂
all the redpill bros have been hurt by a woman in their life that's why they hate women
The redpill dude has the ego and listening comprehension of a toddler(maybe even worse). It’s very annoying. Respect to this dude for actually being patient
Red pill community people have always (mostly) the attitude of preaching and dogmatic stance and I always find it annoying.
I tried to watch the linked video to be supportive of you ( I am a follower on TIkTok) but I couldn't stomach it. The comments of his followers were also a bit too much. I appreciate that you are speaking to everyone and trying to help men break free from their limiting beliefs but like any addict- they have to be open to change. The amount of times I saw redirections, playing with semantics, and mental gymnastics to make already firmly held ideologies true was exhausting. Also didn't appreciate the description of women with any standards as being fat with short dyed hair.
Were they short with dyed hair?
Macken, g-d bless your patience on this one! RP doesn't like research or facts or talking to people with a high IQ.
Richard Cooper is neither a representative nor significant influencer within the RP community. Macken has a habit of picking no-name nobody’s that no one has ever heard of in the RP community to debate as if anybody actually follows these guys. Rich Cooper has 500k followers. Last week Macken did a 4 hour podcast with a red pill creator who only has 148k followers 😂😂😂
There are multiple RP content creators that have MILLIONS of followers. Why isn’t he debating these guys? I don’t know maybe they won’t collab with him. That’s certainly possible. But say that and don’t pretend these no-name nobody’s that very few people follow actually represent the RP community
@@modernmasculinity6560 Cooper might not have the following of others in the RP community, but his narrative is quite similar. Moreover, the most popular RPers don't have the intellectual capacity to have any form of real exchange of ideas. I'd imagine Murphy thinks debating them is a waste of time.
@@lynnferry291 The founding father of the Red Pill movement, Rollo Tomassi, has written numerous NYT best selling books, has been a featured guest on Dr. Phil and numerous other nationally televised platforms, and has tens of millions of followers. The same can be said for Andrew Tate who’s appeared on Piers Morgan multiple times. It’s far more likely the truly influential RP leaders won’t give Macken the time of day than the reverse. And that’s fine. But if you’re going to talk to the foot soldiers and not the Generals you can’t claim they speak for the Army.
@@modernmasculinity6560 Yet Cooper says pretty much the same thing as Tomassi and Tate is simply a scumbag awaiting what will hopefully be a very long sentence in a Romanian prison. Another thing the red pill guys have in common is that they try to sell some book or course to those stupid enough to follow them. It's the same BS spit out in different ways. None of it holds up to science. It's men with mommy issues or psychological problems who prefer to blame women for their failures.
@@modernmasculinity6560 By the way, I think you need to check your facts. None of Tomassi's books have ever been on the NYT bestsellers list and he does not have "tens of millions" of followers. His TH-cam channel doesn't even have a quarter million subscribers.
Omg. That guy is 5 times smarter than Rich 😱
its not hard to be smarter than him
@@naviifra2374😂
Great job with this Macken.
Your argument makes no sense. Dating up in looks is not hypergamous. Hypergamy only relates to socio-economic status. And women - in general - mate up in regards to socio-economic standards. Therefore, women in general mate hypergamously. You said you don’t argue for exceptions. Well, men usually don’t use their looks to date a woman who looks less attractive but has more money. Therefore, men are not hypergamous.
Hobosexuals? Boytoys? Men with good looks even date other men for status and money.
And i give you two examples:
Renato Seabra: aspiring 21 year old male model convicted of murdering his 'boyfriend' 40 years older .
Daniel Sancho: Spanish handsome chef who killed his much older colombian lover, a surgeon who sponsored his high life.
Now for women:
Giovanni Padovani, a 26 year old broke 2nd league soccer player who killed his 56 year old girlfriend after she broke up with him and stopped sponsoring him.
Check those names and see how those youn men looked like and their richer but not so good looking partners.
What macken is stating is that a variable needs to be chosen. If that's income and status than looks shouldne be considered and chads shouldn't be mentioned.
Well, as you said - you gave me 3 examples. I’m not denying that there are SOME men, who date hypergamously. But you cannot be a serious person and genuinely argue that men in GENERAL use their looks to secure a high status female. Not anywhere close to the degree that women do it. And that was the point of that conversation. Get me right, the other dude (and most of these red pill dorks) are full of shit, too. I just have an issue with people arguing in bad faith and care more about being right than digging for truth. And that’s what both parties have done here. And that’s also what you do if you wanna make a case for both genders mating hypergamously on the basis of a tiny contingent of exceptions.
@@redleeks6253 Outliers and exceptions. In longterm dating, while women can date up in looks and date down in socioeconomic status and obviously noone is stopping them, they rarely do so. Part of it is the shorter fertility window. A 45 year old man can impregnate a 25 year old woman, reverse the genders and it's a genetic deadend. Family and kids is the biggest reason people marry and engage in very longterm dating. The rest of the reasons are probably purely psychological. Women on average prefer to have the submissive role in the relationship and also want to get the princess treatment. A woman simply isn't as willing to take the dominant role, lead and financially support a broke hot dude, or parading around a man who has less status and is less respected than her by her peers. Men on the other hand are on average more willing to do all that if they get a better deal in the looks department. That's my hypothesis at least.
I edited only for clarity; not trying to misrepresent the convo, but we went off on a couple of unrelated tangents in covering this topic. Full convo on Rich's channel, here: th-cam.com/video/Puydi_dMuyc/w-d-xo.html
Doctor. Please, read Rollo Tomassi’s book or even better talk to him.
I like Rick but he did a Poot job defining the topic. Even I could do a better job debating your point but I don’t feel like getting into that online when Rollo’s book make a much better case. Try to get in contact with the guy.
It sounds like you were making an argument for a non argument. We all know there's a difference between finding a hook up at a bar and finding a long term partner.
You aren't re-inventing the wheel with this one....kind of a non sequitur to be honest.
Awesome to see someone communicating the science so well. We’ve never had such a need for clear communication to the masses on this. Well done!
why not have the full video on your channel? I dont want to give the other guy views.
The number of times you had to explain the same point in different ways. Macken you are patient.
@user-ww1pm4kc9t Thats actually a smart response from Richard. No one should really look at exceptions..
But he was not talking about the exception. XDXDXDXD
Dude is yrying to oversimply to a single varable, but its a multi-varable situation where each factor in a womans mate choice is weighted. He should be talking in terms of factor and sensitivity analysis. His one dimensional characterization of hypergamy and insistence one gradeschool explanation of the scientific method if frustrating in a way that makes you want to say shut up and listen.
Define hypergamy for these bozos please
This is how a lot of these people think. They want simple explanations simple solution it’s not that friggin simple damn!
Relevant sources:
Brooks et al. | Ev Hum Behav | 2022
Walter et al. | Psych Sci | 2020
Greiling & Buss | Pers Indiv Differen | 2000
Buss & Schmitt | Ann Rev Psych | 2022
Also, check out my convo with Alexander from datepsychology.com and his writings, which have been very influential on my thinking regarding this topic.
@@user-ww1pm4kc9twhat I’ve understood is the full package. As in women date across and up ( higher status then them ) as it was a barter tool to get the best bang for your buck and secure the best man available. Maybe because many things ? ( women are selfish. Women have high ego. Inflated self worth with makeup. Women just aim really high? )
As for men as I’ve understood is they date across and down.
Why men do not try and date up I guess that would be explained because it’s hard enough to even date across. So the law of diminishing returns happens if men date up. They’d had to bring in more : status. Looks. Money. Prestige. Social acceptance. And have to work harder and keep it up for a woman a little bit more attractive ? Also men in general are more willing to “settle” where a woman is hyper focused on the best man she can get or trade up to where a man is quite content is she’s decent and he’s getting sex. We have a lot lower standards to hit then women as a whole as evidence by most men do not initiate divorce. So the men walking away means the women are unbearable or such prolonged no sex that he decides to cut ties where women are far easier to walk when “bored” or the man has no done upkeep to retain her
It’s why it’s been seen in all of history that generally “high status men” can secure multiple women. Only about 15 years ago did we see men actually accepting that role as well as feminism has taken a drastic turn to undermine men and achieve that women can no be looked at as “high as men” to garner a women having multiple men in a relationship and the guys being ok with jt.
Your thinking is probably just too simplistic. The world is complex
@@snorttroll4379keep on coping
Macken: Stop confusing hypergamy with optimization. Rollo has a more useful/reality-based definition with hypergamy defining a FLOOR to her attraction - rather than her seeking 'better', she ignores/can't-respond-to anything below standard 'xyz', where 'xyz' is always ratcheting upwards and each new partner potentially creating a new floor to what she can accept.
Doesn’t this simply describe the normal processes of aging? As you get older you tend to gain resources. So women on their second relationship will tend to date men who are that much older than who she previously dated and therefore will tend to have more resources. Wealth and age are highly correlated, so of course it could appear as though women have an increasing “floor” but I’m sure you could find data showing an increasing “floor” for male dating as well. I’m not sure how this is relevant to dating strategy. Maybe if you’re broke try dating younger or find a sugar mama? 😂😂😂
I don’t care even if hypergamy is a thing. I’m more concerned with pair bonding and resentment “settling” with someone she isn’t fully into but has to “accept”
I’d like to see more studies on these things as in my experience it’s absolutely try they don’t forget chads and hold it against you no matter how small. It’s always there that she couldn’t lock down the Chad she wanted. And is just dealing with me for my time. Energy. Resources. Stability. Fixing things. Emotional tampon. . .
it is exactly one of my greatest fears as a man
Don't men try to get with the prettiest girl?
@@caps900 yeah but men wont hold it against the girl they are currently with if she is not the prettiest he's ever been with, where as women will hold it against their current guy. It sounds like a moral judgement to say this but it all comes back to how women are just less emotionally stable compared to men and can't help but hold on to their past where as men can very easily let their past go
@@bobpickle769 Yes they do. That's why men cheat on their wives with younger, prettier women. It's mostly married men who are sponsoring sugar babies, spending money on OF and visiting sleazy massage parlors & strip clubs. There are many men who openly admit that they have settled for their wife/gf because she has a nicer personality that makes up for her lack of looks.
There have been so many instances that came to light of married men wasting away their families' money on OF models. Ask any escort - their biggest clientele is married men.
There are men who complain about their wives gaining weight & stretch marks during pregnancy and finding them unattractive after child birth. So quit playing the victim.
@@bobpickle769 My own dad cheated on my mom with his friend from college years. She's older (in her late 40s) than my mom, unmarried and child-free (the typical woman redpillers make fun of), YET my dad left my mom for her. All while my mom was undergoing an operation for her spine. (Mind u my mom married my dad as a 22 year old virgin, yet got cheated on with an older 'post-wall: 'ran-through' woman).
Similarly my friend's dad got remarried to another woman within a few months of her mom falling into a coma due to a freak accident. He divorced her while she was still in a wheelchair, recovering. So please spare the 'only women do it, men don't ' rhetoric.
Look at how red Rich's neck is... 😂
For me hypergamy is about dating men with more money status and more height. There are enough studies about this.
Let me simplify:
Macken : we need to establish a definition for the word hypergamy so that we can have a common ground for debating.
Redpill Guy: You see that will not work for me because i need to be able to use the term hypergamy freely to describe any behaviour i don't agree with.
This is the information being exchanged back and forth for seven minutes and a half.
This guy possibly shut Rich down...
Man, that was embarrassing for the guest
This was really interesting. Hypergamy isn't well defined and there seems to be varying definitions on the internet. Wikipedia's definition seems to broadly encompass the different ways that I've seen the word hypergamy used - "Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "dating up" or "marrying up"[1]) is a term used in social science for the act or practice of a person dating or marrying a spouse of higher social status or sexual capital than themselves.". So just thinking off the top of my head, hypergamy can probably be broken down into the following elements: socioeconomic status (level of education, income, occupation), attractiveness (looks, height, body fat percentage) and charisma. I think that all these elements can be tested fairly easily, with the exception of charisma which can be tested through a self report questionnaire. Both men and women are probably hypergamous by this definition, but the key thing to understand is whether one gender is significantly more hypergamous than the other. If the likelihood of women dating/marrying men with a higher score than them for all elements of hypergamy is greater than the other way around then you would have to conclude that women are more hypergamous than men. If it's a mixed bag, then perhaps we would need to throw away this idea of "hypergamy", but at least we could then understand which element of hypergamy is more important to each gender and define a "female hypergamy" and a "male hypergamy".
Since humans are low on the sexual dimorphism scale I’d say it is probably the case that we equally look to choose the best mate. If we worked like Walruses then most all women would date up to match the only mating male on the beach and that one male would date down to every female Walruse available. Since there is some sexual dimorphism, it probably is true that there is some level of women being a bit more choosy than men but I don’t think it is significant enough to base your dating strategy on.
The scenario with the criminal is called ”alpha seed”. That man respresents very good physical attributes which is seen as a good indication for sex to lead to strong and healthy offspring.
It’s hypergamy no matter what women do because “hypergamy bad” and “women bad”
They definitely like it when a man can be a protector. What it is is that women have to be more selective than men.
So let's say you are right that men are hypergamous in the looks department, but aren't women demanding more than just money from their male partners. Like making certain amount of money, max age, min height and educational background and stuff?
Adding up all those variables, doesn't that make women clearly hypergamous?
Don't men only care for looks and age in general?
"women are picker than men" (I agree) vs. "women are hypergamous" (Depends on variable. Money? Yes. Status? Probably, yes. Education? Maybe. Physical fitness? Not really. Looks? No. Age? No.)
@@murphymacken Why not add up all the variables and compare it to men's result. If the total score is higher overall doesn't that mean women are hypergamous in general.
@@dumdum7099 how would you add, say, looks and status together?
@@murphymacken - You don't have to "add" them to create a generlized score. Albeit the elements of subjectively make it tricky.
@@ThermicLightlet’s say you get the score and women are slightly more “hypergamous” than men. I think it’s self evident that women are a bit choosier than men, but let’s say there is solid evidence. How does that change one’s dating strategy? I don’t think it does. Both sexes have to put their best foot forward. Try to be as educated, successful, fun and attractive as possible.
hypergamy not necessary leaving the current guy she can easily sleep around with other guys while keeping the current guy
Factor in age to short and long term dating and you're in line with Rich's ideology regarding looks. Women are more open to short term dating when they are younger and will have higher standards. Her standards and looks decline with age. The better looking guy will no longer be an option. The less attractive guy can' t bounce from woman to woman so he's more likely to opt for long term with the suddenly less attractive woman.
Women aren’t hypergamous women are selective.
They can be hypergamous because they have higher mate value.
Hypergamy is like Yeti..
Clear definitions are a must in every subject. To use the same word for when women go after men with money and when they go for men with looks is just stupid. I think you summed the mating strategies pretty well in just the fists sentence.
Come on Macken, you can say it.. this channel signature feature is ... "gross oversimplification".
Which is a SMART thing to do. One can't look at the 'nuances' when it comes to these topics.
I do my best to communicate science honestly and accurately in a short-form content, and I have never heard this criticism from someone else in my field.
@@murphymacken , sorry, my bad, I did not explain myself clearly...
I should have said "that channel".... with the "gross oversimplification" ( used to produce "comforting ideas" to the incels and rednecks that history and culture is leaving behind and alone..in order to suck money out of them) I was referring to the channel of the guy you were talking to, and his "ideas", not yours.
You are clearly a brilliant, well educated, rational researcher.. it s nice also to see your endless patience and "desire for conciliation" with these "bitter sexist gurus"... I personally cannot stand them as I think most of them are just pretending and saying whatever helps them and their wallet..(even horrible sexist propaganda like the "90% of women has only sex to offer") to sustain there exploitative business.
The point is again "look at what they do, not what they say"... I strongly doubt that this dude will grow his daughter to be an obedient ignorant housewife, I would bet he will actually spend the money he got from his exploitative propaganda to make sure she has the chance to go to an elite college and has a interesting and rewarding career...
@@murphymackenI think it’s important you clarify what you do is social science, not hard science. Not only is there a distinct difference, but in recent years social science professors have started adopting and teaching concepts that directly conflict with, and are incompatible with, hard science.
Calling yourself a scientist and the work you do as science without the qualifiers of it being social science would seem to suggest you describing how male-female attraction works carries the same authority as an oncologist describing how breast cancer metastasizes or a structural engineer describing the mathematical formula used to properly calculate the load bearing strength of a bridge truss.
Ask 100 math professors what is the correct formula for calculating a right angle and 100 out of 100 will give you the same answer.
But ask 100 social science professors something as simple as “What determines a person’s biological sex?” or “Can anyone be racist?” and you’ll get 100 different answers with zero clear answers or ultimate consensus.
Hard science and social science is vastly different.
Imagine if a woman worked as hard on her her husbands career as her own… I think we call those housewife’s 🤷🏻♂️😂
Too much interrupting.
Who told you that hypergamy is about appearance? Hypergamy has to do with money and status (fame, profession, etc.), not looks.
😂 still power is the ultimate aphrodisiac
Look up Webster definition of hypergamy.. it’s not looks.. it’s never about looks. Find another word for dating up look wise Mr scientist
That was his point. He’s saying hypergamy is too broad in its definition. Really it could be cleared up by using a different word
… kind of my point mate
@@Odieodius it’s not broad at all.. looks is not and never part of any hypergamy definition.. unless you’re talking to the less educated and spin words
@@murphymacken looks is or was never part of hypergamy definition.. unless it’s a slang nowadays and you’re talking to emotional people and the less educated trying to spin words around
I know a lot of people that talk fast and sound smart. Macken is not that smart. When you have to parse your way down into the weeds to make some point…red flag-> smells like a bullshitter. I’ll stick with Cooper.
I suppose a masters degree has some value …as long as it is in something worthwhile. Some people confuse education with wisdom.
Yeah my masters from Oxford made me dumb too. I should have started a youtube channel about cars and switched to entertaining simps for the grift.
Mackem Murphy is the best example of academic hubris. He doesn't have better arguments, he's just more forceful
I dont understand what Macken is arguing here. Its pretty clear that "women choose it all" according to the fundamental paper by D. Buss. Thus, the hypergamy is a well established fact for women.
Macken still has to prove that there is hypergamy for men. We, men, do choose partners that have less than us, both in looks and status/money.
We men have lower standards because we have a higher libido.
My boyfriend of 5 years had everything lower than me (female).
I was younger (5 years).
I had superior education while he had high-school diploma.
I had superior looks.
I had a technically superior looking 'race'. Im European white and he was from southern China.
We were earning about the same but i worked in a multimedia company (office) and he was working as a table waiter at a restaurant.
My parents owned property his parents didn't.
I valued his morals and him being hardworking and that's why I dated him. But he was definitely not dating beneath, he was the son of migrants and trying to use me not only as trophy (having white girlfriend) but as a way to climb social status.
Edit. He was only 6cm taller than me.
I'm 160cm and he was 166cm. He was way shorter than the local male average height.
Obviously low class males try to date superior class females. In societies where women can have education, property, careers, bank accounts that shouldn't be a surprise.
Factually incorrect. Men don't choose partners less than them in both looks and status/money. If a man is dating significantly down in status/money, in most cases he is dating up in looks.
Most couples you see outside are of similar attractiveness and make more or less the same money, which kinda defeats your statement. For a relationship to start both people have to get what they prioritize. If a man is above the woman in everything, he doesn't need to commit, he most likely can easily get casual sex from her, thus no relationship will happen.