[JimboOmega]

If you take this extreme reductionist viewpoint, "biology"is misandrist and misogynist both. It reduces human relationships to an exchange of genetic material and its optimization. The male human may as well be the the male anglerfish and the life of the female is barely more meaningful than that.

And, well, no. We live in an industrialized world where we have all the food we could ever need and yet we have fewer children than ever before in history. People make human decisions that are more than their genetics, even when choosing romantic and sexual partners. Why would we take the most socially complex species we're aware of, and then look at one of the most complex social interactions that species engages in, and say "well, but it's really just about making babies"?

Another way to put it - I accept these things as true 1) Physical attractiveness is important to most people in picking a partner 2) Physical attractiveness is correlated with fertility 2) Physical attractiveness negatively correlates with age

Yet I still argue that a woman's worth, not just to the world but even as a partner, is more than her physical attractiveness. Biologically, a post-menopausal woman is not contributing new humans to the world, but she still can contribute to the world as a whole, contributing happiness and meaning to others, doing all kinds of things that make the world a better place. I would argue that meaning in romantic relationships isn't limited to fertility, either.

I don't think is even that controversial a viewpoint, but as a woman, there is certainly a cultural notion that your value IS your attractiveness. If you justify the viewpoint that a woman in her 40s is of no value simply because her fertility is phbbt, that's misogynist.

It is a biological reality that men can remain fertile much longer than women. Using that fact to justify a worldview that women in general have less value, especially past a certain age, is misogynist.

[jf-]

> “biology” is misandrist and misogynist both.

When we’re anthropomorphising facts and telling them that they’re bad, something has gone wrong. Facts are not social actors, they don’t care if you try to shame them, they’ll still be true.

> The male human may as well be the male anglerfish and the life of the female is barely more meaningful than that.

I’m honestly not sure what meaning you’re looking for here, or what bearing that has on the conversation. There isn’t any meaning to life other than that which we make for ourselves.

> Why would we take the most socially complex species we're aware of, and then look at one of the most complex social interactions that species engages in, and say "well, but it's really just about making babies"?

Because that statement is true? Is your argument that we should reject reality in order to tell ourselves pleasing lies about the world?

> Yet I still argue that a woman's worth, not just to the world but even as a partner, is more than her physical attractiveness.

I agree. There are different kinds of value to be sure. However this is a discussion of sexual attraction and romantic partnership. Someone’s, let’s say, java skills, are not very likely to factor heavily. Nor are they likely to be a replacement for sexual attractiveness if it is absent.

[JimboOmega]

> Facts are not social actors, they don’t care if you try to shame them, they’ll still be true.

And yet science has a history of creating "facts" that exist to promote a certain worldview with a veneer of impartiality. These "facts" are created by and to be social actors. Racist and misogynist ones in particular.

> I’m honestly not sure what meaning you’re looking for here, or what bearing that has on the conversation. There isn’t any meaning to life other than that which we make for ourselves.

This is exactly my point; there is more meaning to our mating choices than merely optimizing for making children. We take meaning from, and find happiness in, things that are much more complex than raw physical attractiveness.

> Because that statement is true? Is your argument that we should reject reality in order to tell ourselves pleasing lies about the world?

It is not; it is absurdly reductionist. We live in a world with as much food as we could ever want, yet we make fewer babies than we ever did before. We live in a world with homosexuality. We make countless choices about our romantic and sexual partners that have nothing to do with their fertility. A lot of our choices have to do with social signaling, for instance; things that genetics alone can't be controlling directly.

>I agree. There are different kinds of value to be sure. However this is a discussion of sexual attraction and romantic partnership. Someone’s, let’s say, java skills, are not very likely to factor heavily. Nor are they likely to be a replacement for sexual attractiveness if it is absent.

It is a discussion of physical attractiveness, romantic/sexual value, and overall human value. I am arguing for decoupling all three.

There is a viewpoint that couples all three, and that viewpoint is not merely wrong; it is toxic and pernicious. It is fundamentally the viewpoint of the incel community. A viewpoint that, at its extreme, motivates people to acts of violence because they believe their lives are worthless as a result of unchangeable physical traits. It is also a view that is clearly held, at least to some degree, by the letter writer in the parent article. It is a drain on humanity.

Is it the case that a more attractive person will have more people interested in them sexually? Of course. Almost by definition.

However, attractiveness (particularly of the youthful variety) is neither necessary nor sufficient to have positive romantic relationships. Furthermore, positive romantic relationships are neither necessary nor sufficient to having a meaningful, happy life.

Ultimately I'm arguing that a 35 year old, 40 year old, whatever-year-old woman's life is not over if she's "still" single. Her dating life isn't over either. Do I expect all men to be attracted to her? Of course not; but some definitely would be, and she still has a lot to offer in that context.

[jf-]

> And yet science has a history of creating "facts" that exist to promote a certain worldview with a veneer of impartiality. These "facts" are created by and to be social actors. Racist and misogynist ones in particular.

Which reads as an excuse to dismiss any inconvenient finding as a lie.

Also, to nitpick, the facts themselves still cannot be social actors, they aren’t people.

> We make countless choices about our romantic and sexual partners that have nothing to do with their fertility.

Fertility? Try perceived reproductive fitness instead. Now remove the conscious element, where someone is actively selecting for reproductive fitness, and replace it with a host of emotions and drives that have been selected by evolution for the perception of reproductive fitness without the benefit of reason.

This is where all of the magic of emotionality and meaning that you are talking about comes from. They’re a bunch of imperfect heuristics designed to ensure survival and reproduction. As they are simple they often go wrong and are easily hijacked, see the term super-stimulus for an example.

> It is a discussion of physical attractiveness, romantic/sexual value, and overall human value. I am arguing for decoupling all three.

You seem to want to pretend that attractiveness does not have the value it does so that people who are low in it don’t feel bad. On top of this, you seem to want to force other people to pretend along with you.

> Ultimately I'm arguing that a 35 year old, 40 year old, whatever-year-old woman's life is not over if she's "still" single. Her dating life isn't over either. Do I expect all men to be attracted to her? Of course not; but some definitely would be, and she still has a lot to offer in that context.

I agree. But is she justified in feeling bad about it, knowing that her opportunities have narrowed? Yes. Indeed you seem to acknowledge this. Her life is by no means ruined, but she’d be lying to herself to pretend that it were a bed of roses. This is also about giving advice to younger people, and telling them that following in her footsteps is fine and dandy would be doing them a disservice.

[JimboOmega]

> Which reads as an excuse to dismiss any inconvenient finding as a lie.

No? I'm not even sure what fields we are talking about any more, but the findings of some fields and some works are so thoroughly polluted by their political motivations that they can indeed be dismissed entirely.

There are no doubt scientific works that are manipulated not merely for commercial reasons (e.g., the classic publication bias with pharmaceutical research) but for ideological ones as well. Some fields attract this sort of thing with such regularity that every work in the field is at least somewhat suspect, if the field itself has any credibility left (e.g. phrenology)

> Also, to nitpick, the facts themselves still cannot be social actors, they aren’t people.

Perhaps the term "actor" is the source of the nitpicking; my belief is that some science is done primarily to be a social force; to push a certain ideology.

> This is where all of the magic of emotionality and meaning that you are talking about comes from. They’re a bunch of imperfect heuristics designed to ensure survival and reproduction. As they are simple they often go wrong and are easily hijacked, see the term super-stimulus for an example.

Perhaps we agree here; I am arguing attraction and partnership and all of that is very complex, that there is a lot of emergent behavior. And that, to use your "super-stimulus" as an example, it is often beneficial to consciously override the simplest impulses in order to live a happier and more fulfilling life.

"I only date the most attractive person I possibly can; it's my genetics after all" is about as good a strategy as "I only eat sugar; it's my genetics after all".

> This is also about giving advice to younger people, and telling them that following in her footsteps is fine and dandy would be doing them a disservice.

I stand by my previous reply in that the destructive forms of an attraction-focused ideology are the far larger disservice. The message that a woman's worth is strongly related to her attractiveness which is strongly related to her age is the far more dangerous (and honestly, pervasive) message.

Far too many people are embracing a message that tells them to "lay down and rot" because they aren't attractive and have no chance at a normal, meaningful human relationship. Far too many people are convinced their attractiveness is extremely low, when it is low-average.

Far too many people believe that they are unattractive and unloveable and let that view trap them in bad relationships and decisions; I know I did it. I've seen this stuff rip through my friends and communities far too often. It doesn't even need to be age; there are countless ways people of both genders can be less than ideally attractive and feel worse for it.

My own lived experience tells me that as a 36 year old woman I'm more successful at dating than I was at any previous point in my life. Would I be even moreso if I was 10 years younger? Probably, but in my case success has come only with age, so I find it hard to accept a narrative that insists otherwise.

[jf-]

> No? I'm not even sure what fields...

It’s an easy strategy to fall back on, you don’t like the implications of a piece of research? Claim the researchers are just propagandists. Make this claim of anyone who finds against your claims, actively attempt to damage their careers due to their obvious bias, and effectively censor any research proposal that doesn’t declare it’s findings as being within acceptable bounds before being carried out. Of course this can be applied to honest and dishonest researchers alike, muddying the waters to the fullest.

> Perhaps the term "actor" is the source of the nitpicking; my belief is that some science is done primarily to be a social force; to push a certain ideology.

Indeed, the most obvious example that comes to mind is this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels...

> I stand by my previous reply...

My take on your position is that you want everyone to lie about the way the world really works in a misguided attempt to make things better for some.

This is damaging in the long term, people can only make the best decisions for themselves if they know the relevant facts. Telling young women to ignore the implications of this letter while also telling them a mixture of “it’s not true” and “society is morally bankrupt because it’s true!” does not help them, in fact it actively makes them worse off.

[JimboOmega]

> It’s an easy strategy to fall back on, you don’t like the implications of a piece of research? Claim the researchers are just propagandists. Make this claim of anyone who finds against your claims, actively attempt to damage their careers due to their obvious bias, and effectively censor any research proposal that doesn’t declare it’s findings as being within acceptable bounds before being carried out. Of course this can be applied to honest and dishonest researchers alike, muddying the waters to the fullest.

What's at the top of HN at this very moment? An article on the severity of the replication crisis in psychology. The very area we're talking about here. (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/psycholo...)

It's an imperfect heuristic, but I can't accept every claim that's given to me as a "fact" as true; some I have so little respect for due to a long history of falsehood that they go straight to the circular file. Climate change, for instance, I have seen very detailed research on and personally witnessed, and I am satisfied that it is real and meaningful. If my mom sends me an email with "facts" showing it to be false, I no longer pay them attention. There was a time when I considered them and researched the conflicting data, but I've consistently found it to be of such poor quality that it would take exceptional circumstances for me to consider it again.

Credibility is real, in other words. It's not a perfect measure, but I can't thoroughly debunk (or validate) every "fact" that comes into my world.

> My take on your position is that you want everyone to lie about the way the world really works in a misguided attempt to make things better for some.

> This is damaging in the long term, people can only make the best decisions for themselves if they know the relevant facts. Telling young women to ignore the implications of this letter while also telling them a mixture of “it’s not true” and “society is morally bankrupt because it’s true!” does not help them, in fact it actively makes them worse off.

Too many people are taking "the world values attractive people more" to such an extreme that it diminishes their existence. I would say that it applies to men as well; as I've mentioned, incels are in service to that same ideology to their own detriment.

Yes, in most areas, attractive people do better. Yes they have more dating options. I'll even accept that people have a bias towards seeing them as more trustworthy and other positively in other traits that have nothing to do with fertility or partner selection. (Though for women, there's a tradeoff; being perceived as more attractive often means being perceived as less competent)

As a person, you cannot let that fact run your life. You cannot look in the mirror and say you'll never find a boyfriend because you're in your 30s now; no girl will want you with this skull shape; since you had a kid nobody is ever going to want you, etc.

You can find happy relationships in your 30s, you can find them with a less than ideal skull shape, if you're a single parent, if you have a "dad bod". It does happen. It is possible.

Society isn't morally bankrupt. In fact what I'm saying is there's hope and love out there for everyone. If you try, if you compromise, if you open your heart. But age, weight, finances... these are not reasons to give up on life.

Yes, people do need to think about what will make them happy, what they want to do with their lives, and the earlier the better. If you are someone who wants to have children and a family and you know that when you are 25, doing nothing to advance that goal for 10 years will not help you. It will be harder for you.

But that is not the end of the story. If you just figured that out at 35, if it took that long to realize who you are, you have options. Some of us are infertile, for instance, but that doesn't mean we can't have children in our lives.

My perspective is colored by the communities I inhabit and the friends I have, but the number of people I see squandering their youth? Basically 0. The number of people allowing something like age or body shape to convince them they have no options, at times to seriously consider suicide? It's not 0.

After I finish this reply I'm going to message a friend who is deeply depressed and feels they can't live authentically because of their body shape. This person is brilliant, young, amazing, one of the most interesting people I know, but can't see it. Because of how they see their body. They think it's impossible to have the life want.

I see people deciding it's impossible to make changes in their life at 20 because of their age that I know I made in my 30s. People who resign themselves to defeat over things I know can be overcome.

There are a lot of things that make a lot of areas of life harder. Privilege comes in all kinds of forms, not just race and gender - being born attractive, having parents that support you financially, being a US Citizen, being young, it just goes on and on. Not having these things makes life hard.

But hard isn't impossible. I'm telling people out there not to give up. It's a message I wish I could have given myself so many times over, to tell her the person I was who she could be. I was in an abusive relationship for years because I thought it was all I deserved, all I was worth. If I could go back in time, for even for 15 seconds, to show me what future awaited me... I could've saved years of the deepest, most soul rending pain.

The surest way for this woman to never find what she wants in life is to resign herself and stop trying. Resigning yourself to your fate only lets the hole gradually get deeper. You can always fight your way out of it.

The fight might be hard, and choices she has made will make that fight harder. But the past is the past. As the proverb says, "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."