Comments by "American Dissident" (@americandissident9062) on "Big Think"
channel.
-
7
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KingDeadMan 1. If you're still calling "science" a subject, then you're a kid. 2. You're talking about bias, but you've presented absolutely nothing here. No demonstrated knowledge of anything. I literally just finished writing a meta-analysis of over a dozen RCTs on the use of medications to treat Covid. I understand bias and how studies can be flawed to various degrees. What would you suggest we rely on, if not science, which is essentially just the scientific method of making observations, formulating questions, running studies and experiments, and developing theories? Are you suggesting we ignore that for your randomly concocted anecdotal experiences?
What we are discussing here is measurable now since more than half of new relationships in the Western world begin with an initial online interaction. With the advent of massive dating apps and websites, these things can now be intricately studied and tracked, and patterns have emerged that demonstrate the points I made. It's been made very clear that in the Western world, polyamory is much easier for females to achieve than males. It's also been demonstrated that around 70% of women are only targeting the "top" 20% of men. This leaves a large percentage of men who are in the "bottom" half of the hierarchy receiving little to no female interaction at all. This phenomenon, whether you like it or not, has been observed and recorded using scaled metrics, surveys, etc. The explosion of online dating apps and websites has allowed us to study and measure what was once unmeasurable and difficult to study. What it definitively shows is that dating is a nightmare for men outside of the top 10-20 percent, and that the majority of women who are not obese and disgusting will have a much easier time.
1
-
1