tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post2291233321313024563..comments2024-03-22T15:55:34.030-04:00Comments on Evo and Proud: Who saw it coming?Peter Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04303172060029254340noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-69264112987023914122009-12-07T13:58:05.598-05:002009-12-07T13:58:05.598-05:00Dr. Frost, do you still check these older blogs? I...Dr. Frost, do you still check these older blogs? I wanted to post a relevant comment, but I'm not sure if it will be read, so I wanted to ask first.Eugene B.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-25312864703252877172009-09-05T14:34:22.367-04:002009-09-05T14:34:22.367-04:00My comparison was between the East and West of Ger...My comparison was between the East and West of Germany, using the same country holds all other things rather equal. The East has an shortage of eligible women compared to the West and it also has has a detectable trend to the far right and a higher rate of male (but not female) perpetrated homocides.<br /><br />"Crime" isn't higher but homocide statistics were what you - correctly - staked your generalisations on when this discussion started, not crime.Todnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-35014258041964361692009-09-05T01:09:02.910-04:002009-09-05T01:09:02.910-04:00[Continued due to word limit]
So while we both a...[Continued due to word limit]<br /><br /><br />So while we both agree that women have become more accepting of uncommitted sex over time, your theory that male-biased sex ratios are the cause of this contradicts standard sociobiological logic.<br /><br />The data agrees with my perspective and contradicts yours. Both within and between countries level of economic development and female education correlate with higher degrees of female permissiveness to sex outside of committed relationships (As measured by, e.g., sociosexual inventories), and both within and between countries male-biased sex ratios lead to <i>lower</i> levels of female permissiveness to sex outside of committed relationships. See Richard Lippa’s <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/x754q0433g18hg81/" rel="nofollow">2007 study</a> of 53 nations or David Schmitt’s <a href="http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/commentary_schmitt.pdf" rel="nofollow">2005 study</a> of 48 nations, which both explicitly test this and confirm what I've been saying here for 2+ weeks.<br /><br /><br /><br />TOD:<br /><br /><br /><i>"The operational sex ratio does have the effect Dr. Frost claims all other things being equal."</i><br /><br />And what "other things" are those? Funny how you've never described this neglected factor x that's distorted all the published data I've linked to over the past two weeks. <br /><br />Can you even ad hoc something, or should I just take it on faith that you've thought of something good that scientists have all overlooked up until this point?<br /><br /><br /><i>"Comparing East to West Germany the effect is there I think."</i><br /><br /><br />"All other things being equal" between East and West Germany, of course! Dude, <b>your own source</b> stated there was no link found between male-biased sex ratios and crime within East Germany. So unless there is no overlap in sex ratios for the regions within East and West Germany, this can't easily be the explanation for the crime differences between the two sides. <br /><br />I can't believe you keep being so vocal and adamant on this position you have no ability to defend.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-53823715299561616762009-09-05T00:56:52.638-04:002009-09-05T00:56:52.638-04:00DR. FROST:
ME: "He did repeatedly state tha...DR. FROST:<br /><br /><br />ME: <i>"He did repeatedly state that females no longer have more monogamous sexual preferences than men in the modern environment"</i><br /><br />YOU: <i>"No, I did not. You're misrepresenting my argument. Grotesquely."</i><br /><br /><br />ME: <i>""Your claim that “being in a parenting relationship” is a precondition for the sex difference in desire for pair-bonded sex is ..."</i><br /><br />YOU: <i>"I never made such a claim."</i><br /><br /><br /><br />Dr. Frost, we've been talking about this for over two weeks now. Either your position is inchoate and therefore drifting in random, opportunistic directions, or you are deliberately being evasive about your ideas, because you don't want your position to be falsifiable. <br /><br />Several times now you have repeated this quote:<br /><br /><br /><i>"These negative outcomes could have been predicted. Why weren’t they? The main reason seems to be an assumption that women are naturally monogamous and will remain so even when legal and cultural restraints are removed. It was a naïve assumption. To the extent that women are predisposed to monogamy, this predisposition is likely conditional on certain cues in the social environment, notably being in a parenting relationship. <b>This cue is absent</b> in a population that practices contraception and is voluntarily childless. <b>Willingly or unwillingly, we have leveled the behavioral playing field between men and women.</b>"</i><br /><br />And:<br /><br /><i>"I agree that women are innately predisposed to monogamy. But... It's not an absolute constraint and it is probably <b>conditional on certain social cues</b> (e.g., parenting) <b>that no longer exist for most people of reproductive age.</b>"</i><br /><br /><br />This was intended to communicate the following set of premises:<br /><br /><br /> Premise 1: Women and men have different biological preferences for sexual commitment<br />Premise 2: But this biologically mediated difference in preferences is only triggered by social signals that sexual relationships are procreative in nature. <br />Premise 3: Social signals no longer indicate sex is for a procreative purpose<br />Premise 4: Therefore women and men no longer have different preferences for sexual commitment. <br /><br /><br />I’ve demonstrated that Premise 2 is empirically incorrect, and now you are back peddling, trying to suggest you instead intended to communicate the following set of premises:<br /><br /><br />Premise 1: women and men have different biological preferences for sexual commitment<br />Premise 2: This biologically mediated difference is triggered, in some important part, by social signals that sexual relationships are procreative in nature.<br />Premise 3: These social signals no longer are as strong as they used to be<br />Premise 4: Therefore the difference in preferences for uncommitted sex between men and women is no longer as large as it used to be.<br /><br />There are no false premises here, but this revisionism <b>completely negates the <a href="http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-are-women.html?showComment=1251307398473#c433157882980849358" rel="nofollow">original context and purpose</a> of your statement,</b> which was to argue that, now that "cultural and legal restrictions" aren't holding them back, women should become more promiscuous when there are more members of the opposite sex around just like men do (i.e. that females are now like men).<br /><br />But women <a href="http://paa2009.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=90086" rel="nofollow"><i>don’t</i> become more promiscuous</a> when there are more men around --even where sex has entirely non-reproductive purposes -- precisely because men, as a group, are always more promiscuous than women. The “behavioral playing field” is <i>not</i> leveled because men are always the sex who will push for less commitment in sexual transactions. It’s an innate difference. Think of it as a game of chicken that men will always win. In an environment where women are ok with one night stands, men will push for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_hole_%28sexual_slang%29" rel="nofollow">glory hole</a>.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-69548837962523550232009-09-04T18:47:40.610-04:002009-09-04T18:47:40.610-04:00"Further, if one has “extreme right-wing” pol..."Further, if one has “extreme right-wing” political views on issues like immigration, permissive sexuality, and birth rates – as it would seem Dr. Frost and many in the HBD-sphere do"<br /><br />Jason,<br /><br />For the record, I don't consider myself either right-wing or left-wing. I frankly feel little sympathy for the political right. With regard to Canada's upcoming election, I'm still undecided.Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-36227607488765437402009-09-04T14:51:32.672-04:002009-09-04T14:51:32.672-04:00"He did repeatedly state that females no long..."He did repeatedly state that females no longer have more monogamous sexual preferences than men in the modern environment"<br /><br />No, I did not. You're misrepresenting my argument. Grotesquely.<br /><br />To the extent that we release female sexual behavior from legal and cultural restraints we will see a corresponding increase in shorter-term, less stable relationships, 'playing the market', promiscuity, etc.<br /><br />In saying this, I'm not saying that unrestrained female sexual behavior is identical to unrestrained male sexual behavior. Women are more predisposed to longer-term, more monogamous relationships than men are.<br /><br />But cultural and legal norms do matter. They do influence real-life behavior. To say otherwise is to say that culture and law don't matter --- that people merely act according to their inner feelings and that's that.<br /><br />"Your claim that “being in a parenting relationship” is a precondition for the sex difference in desire for pair-bonded sex is ..."<br /><br />I never made such a claim. I suggested that pair-bonding is influenced by cues in the social environment, such a being in a parenting relationship. There are people (like Helen Fischer) who make this kind of argument, but I have no firm opinion.Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-51960329949403135802009-09-04T11:50:06.225-04:002009-09-04T11:50:06.225-04:00"A lame argument. Germany has the highest ope...<b>"A lame argument. Germany has the highest operational sex ratio of all the European countries I looked at, but one of the lowest homicide rates in Europe".</b><br /><br /><br />The operational sex ratio does have the effect Dr. Frost claims all other things being equal. Comparing East to West Germany the effect is there I think. <br />As I already <a href="http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-are-women.html?showComment=1250941595973#c952032807915866610" rel="nofollow">made clear</a> I would expect the effect to be a weak one because the proprortion of the German population who are young men in is very low. Homocide rates and revolutionary activity are very much influenced by the population median age .Todnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-28201988403516083752009-09-04T10:24:37.562-04:002009-09-04T10:24:37.562-04:00TOD:
"You think PF is arguing for a "re...TOD:<br /><br /><i>"You think PF is arguing for a "reversal" but that would entail women engaging in exclusively male behavior such as rape; casual sex has never been a male preserve. A increase in the proportion of females engaging in a sexual behavior pattern which was already followed by some women is what the post is arguing for."</i><br /><br />I never said Dr. Frost argued that women are now <i>more</i> promiscuous than men. He did repeatedly state that females no longer have more monogamous sexual preferences than men in the modern environment -- an empirically false claim. <br /><br />Both males and females are more promiscuous now than in the past -- <a href="http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-are-women.html?showComment=1250983309053#c5198735266274343726" rel="nofollow">I'm the one here who provided the data showing this</a>. This was never under debate in this forum. What is under debate is how this should affect sex ratio-based social dynamics. There is no theoretical basis for saying an increase in female promiscuity should reverse standard sex ratio dynamics. But there <i>is</i> a theoretical basis for saying that an <i>equalization</i> of sexual preferences between men and women should end standard sex ratio dynamics. And that is <i>why</i> Dr. Frost is trying to suggest there is no longer a sex difference in preferences for uncommitted sex.<br /><br /><i> "According to Dr. Frost’s theory" the area with the greatest shortage of women is where an increase in violence is found.</i><br /><br />A lame argument. Germany has the highest operational sex ratio of all the European countries I looked at, but one of the <a href="http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/36236979?limit_modifier=all&graph%5Blimit%5D=39&commit=%3E" rel="nofollow">lowest</a> homicide rates in Europe.<br /><br />If you were serious, you’d do a longitudinal analysis with European countries; Dr. Frost’s theory would predict a relationship between the degree of change in violence and the degree of change in sex ratios across nations. Of course I’m the only one here who provided an analysis <a href="http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/4/373" rel="nofollow">like this</a>. It does not support you.<br /><br />Your <a href="http://www.goethe.de/ges/soz/thm/sra/en2544715.htm" rel="nofollow">own link</a> on “right-wing extremism” and sex ratio notes that male-biased sex ratios were not associated with violent crime in Germany. Further, if one has “extreme right-wing” political views on issues like immigration, permissive sexuality, and birth rates – as it would seem Dr. Frost and many in the HBD-sphere do -- then that’s one more argument that male-biased sex ratios are socially beneficial. Men apparently vote more like men when there are a bunch of other men around.<br /><br /><br /><br />ANONYMOUS:<br /><br /><i>” Mr Malloy lives in the land of unicorns where women are wholesome, detest sex and uphold motherhood.”</i><br /><br />No, Mr. Malloy lives in reality where women, on average, <a href="http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71520.pdf" rel="nofollow">do not have</a> equal sex drives to men, and <a href="http://www2.hawaii.edu/~elaineh/79.pdf" rel="nofollow">do not have</a> the same preferences for uncommitted sex as men.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-37461592191770708002009-09-04T03:47:34.873-04:002009-09-04T03:47:34.873-04:00This is an empirically false assertion: 1) There i...This is an empirically false assertion: 1) There is no evidence that young men and women now have an equal desire for casual sex.<br /><br />I can imagine the 'empirical' observation. <br /><br />Are you:<br />a) A slut<br />b) Monogamous<br />c) A virgin<br /><br />Mr Malloy lives in the land of unicorns where women are wholesome, detest sex and uphold motherhood.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-22574343396159969762009-09-03T10:24:28.523-04:002009-09-03T10:24:28.523-04:00JM says
But you have offered no logical reason to...JM says <br /><b>But you have offered no logical reason to believe that dynamic should reverse when the same essential ingredient – greater female desire for sex within pair-bonds -- never reversed or disappeared.</b><br /> <br />You think PF is arguing for a "reversal" but that would entail women engaging in <i>exclusively</i> male behavior such as rape; casual sex has never been a male preserve. A increase in the proportion of females engaging in a sexual behavior pattern which was already followed by some women is what the post is arguing for.<br /><br /><br /><b>An new analysis of almost 700 zip codes in the 10 largest American cities</b> would be complicated by the the minority communities who live there would it not?<br /><br /><br /><br />"According to Dr. Frost’s theory" the area with the greatest shortage of women is where an increase in violence is found. <a href="http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1366040" rel="nofollow">Violence and fear of violence in East and West Germany</a><br />"The number of homicides among East German males increased between 1989 and 1991, and the homicide rate remains high when compared with West German males (although lower than that of American males). Homicide among German females is less common, presently about equally likely in East and West". The same area ought to show a shift towards disruptive political views such as <a href="http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/08/who-saw-it-coming.html?showComment=1251542677736#c3657187900475562525" rel="nofollow">voting for far right parties</a>.Todnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-1420515009707809932009-09-02T23:27:50.317-04:002009-09-02T23:27:50.317-04:00”Look at the last 30 years. Has the shift to a mal...<i>”Look at the last 30 years. Has the shift to a male-biased sex ratio produced less divorce, less illegitimacy, less marital instability, higher birth rates, and more male investment in education? Those were the predictions made by Pedersen almost 30 years ago. How have they turned out?”</i><br /><br />The popularity of pomegranates has also risen over the last 30 years. Perhaps pomegranates are the cause of illegitimacy. This is why scientific paradigms are helpful. As I already said, these shifts have a theoretical and empirical connection to female economic integration, but have neither a theoretical or empirical connection to sex ratio.<br /><br />A single inference works like an anecdote. Why not make a prediction? Should more single men to single women in American cities now predict less male marriage or more male marriage? According to Dr. Frost’s theory it should predict <i>less</i> marriage for men, since women will have more options and “shop around;” foregoing childbirth for wild-oat-sowing on into spinsterhood. According to standard sex ratio theory, it should predict <i>more</i> male marriage, since men will have less opportunity for promiscuity, and work harder to hold down one woman.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.jsecjournal.com/krugerproof.pdf" rel="nofollow">An new analysis</a> of almost 700 zip codes in the 10 largest American cities in the 2000 census shows that standard sex ratio theory is still correct: more men = more marriage.<br /><br /><br />Let’s try another one: Should more men than women predict greater amounts of social violence cross-nationally or less amounts of social violence? According to Dr. Frost’s theory it should predict <i>more</i> violence cross-nationally, since men in countries with less women should have less opportunity for marriage and will therefore engage in more risky physical contest to attract women, or simply because they have nothing to lose. According to standard sex ratio theory, it should predict less violence, since men have less opportunity for promiscuity and need to behave in a more pro-social manner to attract and hold on to a long-term partner.<br /><br />Dr. Frost challenges the Nigel Barber paper on international homicide and sex ratio as an artifact of Sub-Saharan African sex ratios, so I took <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate" rel="nofollow">homicide data</a> from Wikipedia, and <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html" rel="nofollow">sex ratio</a> data from the CIA factbook and compared 38 <b>European</b> countries (<a href="http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1018990" rel="nofollow">Uploaded here</a>).<br /><br />There is no association between current sex ratio at birth and current homicide rates. On the other hand, current adult sex ratio has a strong inverse correlation with current homicide rates: -.78. That means European nations with more men have significantly less homicide (The homicide rate itself is not the cause of the sex ratio imbalances: It represents a very small % of the population). Excluding the 7 Baltic and Eastern European countries with unusually high homicide rates barely affects the correlation: -.74.<br /><br />No one is going to stand behind elaborate government programs for increasing the number of female births when the numbers routinely suggest doing so is not only not helpful, but actively harmful to society.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-24130438195530502502009-09-02T23:23:44.289-04:002009-09-02T23:23:44.289-04:00Dr. Frost:
”I never claimed that men and women ar...Dr. Frost:<br /><br /><i>”I never claimed that men and women are equally predisposed to monogamy. That claim is irrelevant to my argument.”</i><br /><br /><br />To the extent you are saying biology plays a minor conditional role in producing male-female differences in desire for sex within pair-bonds, you are saying <i>that the environmental precondition for that biological difference is <b>gone</b></i>, and that now there is no longer a difference in male and female preferences for sex to occur within a pair-bond. <br /><br />I empirically refuted your claims. Your claim that “being in a parenting relationship” is a precondition for the sex difference in desire for pair-bonded sex is <a href="http://paa2009.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=90086" rel="nofollow">empirically false</a>. Women with and without immediate reproductive plans have a differential preference for sex within relationships. In fact, I am not aware of a sub-group of women <i>found anywhere</i> who prefer uncommitted sex as much as men. Your claim that men and women no longer have a differential preference for pair-bonded sex is <a href="http://www2.hawaii.edu/~elaineh/79.pdf" rel="nofollow">empirically</a> <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/200557qu080hr117/" rel="nofollow">false</a>. <br /><br /><br /><i>” Only when there are legal and cultural constraints on female sexual behavior. If you remove those constraints, you get a different picture.”</i><br /><br /><br />Except for the fact that <a href="http://paa2009.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=90086" rel="nofollow">you don’t get a different picture</a> when you remove those constraints, because females have a greater innate desire for pair-bonded sex than men – an <i>internal</i> constraint that acts in the exact same way as the social and legal constraints. Therefore when women are in short supply, women have more sexual market power, and can extract more emotional and financial resources from men as per their greater innately driven preference.<br /><br />You need to explain why this logic is wrong. To the extent that past “legal and cultural constraints” always help produce female desire/need for sex within pair-bonds, those constraints contributed to that sexual market dynamic. But you have offered no logical reason to believe that dynamic should <i>reverse</i> when the same essential ingredient – <b>greater female desire for sex within pair-bonds</b> -- never reversed or disappeared. <br /><br />At most, the premium on male commitment was reduced significantly as the female requirement for a financial provider dipped considerably. But a significant reduction is not a disappearance, much less a reversal.<br /><br />You seem to want to square this circle by simply claiming the sex difference no longer exists, but this is empirically false.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-20455430055180266942009-09-02T12:41:55.835-04:002009-09-02T12:41:55.835-04:00Jason,
I'm trying to engage your arguments. T...Jason,<br /><br />I'm trying to engage your arguments. The problem is that you're not engaging mine.<br /><br />I never claimed that men and women are equally predisposed to monogamy. That claim is irrelevant to my argument.<br /><br />I am simply saying that female sexual behavior takes place within an envelope of possible outcomes and that the outcomes are influenced by (a) legal and cultural constraints and (b) the operational sex ratio. Undoubtedly this envelope is narrower than that of male sexual behavior. Who said otherwise?<br /><br /><br />"I’ve repeatedly explained why “legal and cultural constraints” are not the only reason for sex ratio dynamics."<br /><br />Who said they were? Again, you're throwing up a straw man. I am simply saying that legal and cultural constraints influence female sexual behavior. Nothing more. Nothing less. <br /><br />"Male-biased sex ratios, on the other hand, are associated with the opposite kinds of effects."<br /><br />Only when there are legal and cultural constraints on female sexual behavior. If you remove those constraints, you get a different picture. Look at the last 30 years. Has the shift to a male-biased sex ratio produced less divorce, less illegitimacy, less marital instability, higher birth rates, and more male investment in education? Those were the predictions made by Pedersen almost 30 years ago. How have they turned out?Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-22621095343181147692009-09-02T10:20:50.755-04:002009-09-02T10:20:50.755-04:00Then why are women on college campuses with more m...<b>Then why are women on college campuses with more men less likely to “play the market”? If your theory doesn’t even pan out in the relationship market with the most female sexual freedom (and extreme sex ratios), what does that say about the wider relationship market, which is much more traditional?<br /></b><br /><br />How typical are the population on campuses?; they're a concentration of <a href="http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-are-women.html?showComment=1251139154933#c1301897233988166596" rel="nofollow">highly educated women</a>. Those are the most likely to end up childless at 40+. Moreover the reputation of a campus for hedonism and the emphasis on certain subjects affect the ratio of the sexes <i>and</i> the sort of students.Todnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-11252968481302280692009-09-01T00:40:06.041-04:002009-09-01T00:40:06.041-04:00A lot of this discussion seems to assume that male...A lot of this discussion seems to assume that males are uniformly alike in abilities and that they will all experience the same sex ratio.<br /><br />However, that is simply not the case.<br /><br />Given the greater variance in male attributes, and female hypergamy, it is entirely possible that some males within a cohort will experience very low sex ratios while others will experience very high to impossible sex ratios.<br /><br />That makes for a highly exploitable resource for the males that experience very low sex ratios.Null-Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-57729340280369624612009-08-31T23:14:56.429-04:002009-08-31T23:14:56.429-04:00Dr. Frost,
"Sigh. You're referring to G...Dr. Frost,<br /><br /><br /><i>"Sigh. You're referring to Guttentag and Secord while ignoring their word of caution. Their conclusions were based on cultures where female reproductive behavior is limited by legal and cultural constraints. We have created a new environment of sexual behavior where these constraints no longer exist."</i><br /><br /><br />I’ve <i>repeatedly</i> explained why “legal and cultural constraints” are not the only reason for sex ratio dynamics. You can refuse to engage me on those points, but please don’t tell me I’ve “ignored” your assertions because that’s not true. Guttentag and Secord are not holy prophets, I’m free to praise them or disagree with them on any points I wish.<br /><br /><br /><i>”. It's not an absolute constraint and it is probably conditional on certain social cues (e.g., parenting) that no longer exist for most people of reproductive age.</i>”<br /><br />Again, I’ve already engaged you on this point and you’ve just ignored it, and responded like I haven’t said anything. <br /><br />This is an empirically false assertion: 1) There is no evidence that young men and women now have an equal desire for casual sex. The evidence shows <a href="http://www2.hawaii.edu/~elaineh/79.pdf" rel="nofollow">a large difference</a>. 2) There is no evidence that young men and women now have the same affective responses to casual sex. The evidence shows <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/200557qu080hr117/" rel="nofollow">a large difference</a>. 3) There is no evidence that traditional sex ratio dynamics have stopped or reversed. The evidence shows <a href="http://paa2009.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=90086" rel="nofollow">these dynamics continue</a>.<br /><br /><br /><i>”When young women are faced with a 2:1 sex ratio in their favor, a lot of them will hesitate before committing and many will play the market until the sex ratio becomes less interesting.”</i><br /><br />Then why are women on college campuses with more men <i>less</i> likely to “play the market”? If your theory doesn’t even pan out in the relationship market with the most female sexual freedom (and extreme sex ratios), what does that say about the wider relationship market, which is much more traditional?<br /><br /><br /><i>”I'm not going to badger you on this point. Reality is probably the best teacher. All I can do is warn people.”</i><br /><br /><br />If 'badgering' me means engaging my arguments, then I wish you would. The danger you are warning about is not supported by the evidence. It’s like warning people to stay away from swimming pools that have lifeguards.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-23997833266254459342009-08-31T11:35:24.293-04:002009-08-31T11:35:24.293-04:00Jason,
Divorce rates are still rising within each...Jason,<br /><br />Divorce rates are still rising within each age group. The levelling off for all age groups is an artefact of the rising age of first marriage.<br /><br />In Canada, for instance, the divorce rate peaked in 1987, declined slightly, and then levelled off. Within each age group, however, it has continued to rise:<br /><br />Divorce rates per 100,000 legally married women, by age and time period<br /><br />Age - 1970-72 / 1980-83 / 1990-92<br /><br />20-24 - 708.4 / 1,606 / 2,201.6<br />25-29 - 961.8 / 2,124.6 / 2,212.9<br />30-34 - 854.3 / 1,761.3 / 1,957.4<br />35-39 - 717.1 / 1,455.5 / 1,713.5<br />40-44 - 630.9 / 1,123.2 / 1,434 <br /><br />The overall divorce rate is levelling off because fewer and fewer people are getting married in their twenties - the age group where divorce rates are the highest. This is also the age group where the operational sex ratio is most favorable for women. At these ages, a woman can divorce and easily find a new high-quality partner.<br /><br />"Male-biased sex ratios, on the other hand, are associated with the opposite kinds of effects."<br /><br />Sigh. You're referring to Guttentag and Secord while ignoring their word of caution. Their conclusions were based on cultures where female reproductive behavior is limited by legal and cultural constraints. We have created a new environment of sexual behavior where these constraints no longer exist.<br /><br />I agree that women are innately predisposed to monogamy. But this predisposition varies from one woman to the next (just as it varies from one population to the next). And a predisposition is just that. It's not an absolute constraint and it is probably conditional on certain social cues (e.g., parenting) that no longer exist for most people of reproductive age. When young women are faced with a 2:1 sex ratio in their favor, a lot of them will hesitate before committing and many will play the market until the sex ratio becomes less interesting. <br /><br />Increasingly, that means the mid-40s. Once the average age of first marriage has risen to the mid-30s, it will be game over. Marriage will cease to be a 'pact for procreation.' It will just be a 'celebration of togetherness.' Or whatever.<br /><br />I'm not going to badger you on this point. Reality is probably the best teacher. All I can do is warn people.Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-66338100564204601262009-08-30T14:55:16.137-04:002009-08-30T14:55:16.137-04:00You may find these Eurostat sex ratio data by euro...You may find these Eurostat sex ratio data by european country very interesting:<br /><br />http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00011&plugin=1<br /><br />Resume: women outnumber men in Baltic countries, while men slightly outnumber women in Iceland and Southeastern Europe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-35152053176258583802009-08-29T23:47:32.326-04:002009-08-29T23:47:32.326-04:00Tod, says, quoting Jason:
Female promiscuity is...Tod, says, quoting Jason:<br /><br /><i><br /><b><br />Female promiscuity is constrained, by innate biology, in a relative sense when compared with males.<br /></b><br /><br />Female reproductive success is constrained by by innate biology. Female promiscuity is not.<br /></i><br /><br />I think you are both missing the point. Humans are, after all, highly flexible.<br /><br />Female promiscuity is constrained normally by biology because the cost of promiscuity is high, both in disease terms and pregnancy terms. An unwanted pregnancy for a promiscuous woman was traditionally very bad and had a highly negative effect on reproductive success.<br /><br />However, in modern western societies, both costs have been highly ameliorated.<br /><br />In addition, the highly productive economies we have been enjoying have led to surpluses that have enabled many women to be supported by the state.<br /><br />Under those conditions, given that women have traditionally used sex to control men, appease men, seduce men, is it any wonder that they have shifted to using sex to evaluate potential partners. When they have a fallback (the government) why not?Null-Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-36571879004755625252009-08-29T06:44:37.736-04:002009-08-29T06:44:37.736-04:00Female promiscuity is constrained, by innate biolo...<b>Female promiscuity is constrained, by innate biology, in a relative sense when compared with males.</b><br /><br />Female <i>reproductive success</i> is constrained by by innate biology. Female promiscuity is not.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.goethe.de/ges/soz/thm/sra/en2544715.htm" rel="nofollow">A Lack of Manpower - Women Migrate Away from East Germany</a><br />"According to the authors of the study, this lack of women is without parallel anywhere in Europe. Even regions in the Arctic Circle of northern Sweden and Finland, which have long suffered from urban migration, particularly among young women, do not come close to the East German levels.[...]regions with a high surplus of men are particularly prone to right-wing extremist ideologies – and are where right-wing parties achieve their best election results. This correlation is stronger than the link with other socio-economic indicators such as the rate of unemployment."<br /><br />===================================<br /><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/105/7/2598.full" rel="nofollow">Arterial calcifications and increased expression of vitamin D receptor targets in mice lacking TIF1α</a><br />"Interestingly, the fact that these metabolic disturbances correlate with a calcifying arteriopathy and other features of premature aging in TIF1α−/− mice provides support for the hypothesis that aging is promoted by an increased activity of the vitamin D signaling pathway" <br /> -------------------<br /><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17695-newly-evolved-fur-coat-a-quick-hit-in-nebraska.html" rel="nofollow">Newly evolved fur coat a quick hit in Nebraska</a><br />" mutations can occur while an animal is in the womb. If this occurs early enough, the mutation may be present in many of its sperm or egg cells. Then the animal could have several offspring with the mutation, making it easier for the mutation to spread."Todnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-51927629827236345202009-08-28T22:36:48.296-04:002009-08-28T22:36:48.296-04:00"Guttentag & Secord stated that high sex ...<i>"Guttentag & Secord stated that high sex ratios would lead to earlier and more stable marriages only if female promiscuity were constrained. They didn't deny that women might be more predisposed to monogamy."</i><br /><br />Female promiscuity <i>is</i> constrained, by innate biology, in a relative sense when compared with males. <br /><br />They certainly didn't "deny" this, in an explicit way, they simply <i>mooted</i> it, since it couldn't be "proved" to their satisfaction like sex differences in size and strength (not that I see how the innateness of these differences have any firmer basis in fact). See the quotes from the book I provided above.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-55166901639501744732009-08-28T22:18:45.215-04:002009-08-28T22:18:45.215-04:00"If we remove legal and cultural constraints,...<i>"If we remove legal and cultural constraints, will higher sex ratios among single individuals still lead to socially beneficial effects?... Why, then, has the opposite happened over the past 30 years? You don't really answer this question."</i><br /><br />Dr. Frost,<br /><br />You've now written two posts on your theory that male-biased sex ratios should lead to violence, single motherhood, and relationship instability. I don't exactly have a Grand Unified Theory of all the various cultural changes that have occurred over the last 30+ years, but your own theory about sex ratios is contradicted by theoretical and empirical evidence on how sex ratios actually influence social dynamics.<br /><br /><i>”You point to the increase in female education and female participation in the labor force. Yet these factors have been increasing at a slower rate over the past thirty rates. And surely any negative effects they had would have been offset, at least partially, by the presumed positive effects of a high sex ratio.”</i><br /><br />Female economic independence is associated with those kinds of effects in the social science literature, so there is at least that advantage. Male-biased sex ratios, on the other hand, are associated with the <i>opposite</i> kinds of effects. Which puts that theory at a major disadvantage if we must choose between the two classes of explanation.<br /><br />I don’t think it is unwarranted to think the trends you cite would be even more pronounced without the helpful aid of the secular sex ratio shift.<br /><br />Furthermore, your theory that cultural and legal changes which increase female sexual freedom should reverse the standard effects of male-biased sex ratio, is also wrong on a theoretical and empirical level. The one fundamental condition is that females innately prefer relationships as the context for sex more than men prefer relationships as the context for sex. As long as that condition holds, the scarce gender is empowered and the standard effects of sex ratio should hold. The evidence in no way indicates this salient gender difference has gone away or that men have stopped becoming more DAD-like where women are more scarce.<br /><br /><i>"On a final note, you argue that divorce rates peaked in 1981 and have since been declining. This is true only if you don't control for the rising age of first marriage."</i><br /><br /><br />Agreed. But it is false to claim a rise in the divorce rate. Rather, there has been a decline in relationship stability.Jason Malloyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855482153162314172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-61754366744492983962009-08-28T12:03:07.613-04:002009-08-28T12:03:07.613-04:00For so long I thought I was the only one who ever ...For so long I thought I was the only one who ever read the Guttentag and Secord book (back in 1987 at the University of Connecticut library), so I'll observe that you are missing one of the most salient points of the book:<br /><br />Sex ratios are most critical among cohorts of marriageable age, and the typical American marriage involves a man 2-3 years older than his wife. <br /><br />From that perspective, there is indeed a scarcity of women among the latter boomers and early baby bust age groups (right now ages 30-45), but the number of births climbed each year from the late 70's through the early 90's, so younger cohorts are actually returning to the "man shortage" conditions that prevailed in the late 70's and 80's. <br /><br />You also ask what an optimal sex ratio might be. Among those groups something like 90-95 would word best. A ratio of that order would insure that even the George Sodinis of the world have a reasonable chance of finding someone, while at the same time is sufficient to keep women from flexing their political muscles, grabbing too much power and screwing up the country any more than they already have done.sestamibinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-27973037383420104702009-08-28T11:38:45.104-04:002009-08-28T11:38:45.104-04:00Divorce are just too expensive for middle class me...Divorce are just too expensive for middle class men. They have to repay everything twice, they loose their kids, they have to pay pensions, plus the stress, the move, the job unemployement etc.<br />Only the riches and/or the careless who just fly away, can do this. Therefore divorce rate is down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-33905244521230368702009-08-28T11:11:26.840-04:002009-08-28T11:11:26.840-04:00"Yet these factors have been increasing at a ..."Yet these factors have been increasing at a slower rate over the past thirty rates."<br /><br />- should be "over the past thirty years"Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.com