I laughed at this bit xD
Not the most intellectual argument, but fucking hilarious.

Whilst I find myself agreeing with pretty much the entirety of this post, there's a conflict in my brain with the information on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

The Townsend survey on here seems to conflict a little… but I've googled and I can't seem to find any mention of his sample size, and the results will likely be affected by the fact that they were all medical students.

There's a few thoughts that cross my mind though….
>I can definitely see an argument from PUAs that being funny is an alpha attribute, especially with the fact that humour relates to intelligence (intelligence=survival=alpha)
>Men did the majority of the hunting and dangerous work throughout history when it needed to be done, you can see it in our sexual dimorphism, it's so obvious
>I think being a good coordinator/the guy with the plan, is also pretty alpha and I don't think this would get you a death sentence in the egalitarian societies you described… "he knows his shit and he's warning people and giving advice and shit! kill him!"

So… a funny guy that's able to attain resources and know's what to do when others don't… this sounds like a guy women might find attractive.

Despite this, is still find myself agreeing with you more than those PUA narratives, I don't think that we've had chimp-like alphas anywhere in our recent history.

More pointless mental masturbation from Mat or his clone… more mind-numbing tedium. The only thing that isn’t boring about your participation in this conversation is the condescension. The only thing worse than being boring is being a boring asshole.

Don’t confuse me being out of any particular depth with lack of troll engagement due to irrepressible yawns and plenty of better things to do.

You are completely out of your depth.

Let’s focus on the possibility of misinterpretation (since, indeed, it is not possible to ‘mischaracterize’ your ideas or provide an inaccurate ‘assessment of the post’ via quoting your own ideas as you wrote them and in full.)

Mat claims, for example, that when you discussed Dawkins’s book you happened to write the logical equivalent of ‘Cherries are red. rain contains water.’ His argument as I see it is about whether meaning CAN be discovered AT ALL within the construction in question, assuming that the second sentence was meant to support the first. You then bring up the matter of INTERPRETATION, something that could only be relevant once there exists a logical construct containing some component values to interpret. In other words your objection is completely out of touch with what is actually being criticized!

That brings us to the assumption above. The ONLY room for misinterpretation here is about the purpose of the sentences. Specifically, whether you meant for ‘Rain contains water’ to support ‘Cherries are red’. Perhaps not. Feel free to clarify.

I suppose it’s also possible that you are criticizing Mat for failing to fill the gaps in order to make your sentences logical constructs that support an argument. Perhaps you hoped that smart readers would see that ‘Cherries are red. rain contains water’ is really short form for something like ‘Cherries can grow and become red in part because they are exposed to rain, which contains water, which is needed for plant growth’). Again, feel free to clarify.

We could go through the rest, but better to focus on the simplest case first.

I’ll let you ponder whether it’s possible to quote someone while also misinterpreting them.

WTF? He quoted you directly.

”
 It is sometimes substituted when someone means “not statistically significant.” ”

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

Who fucking cares if you’re right or wrong about this hunch? Right or wrong, it’s still irrelevant. It’s even worse if you’re stalking people on the internet just to prove how pedantic you can be.

You continue to be tedious and uninteresting.

For someone who likes to infer so much about the mind of others (somehow you know how many clues my assessment was based on; elsewhere you knew how much my ego was overselling my critique to myself), you’re not very good at inference.

There were so many clues!

1. She’s female
2. She commented on a post about PUAs
3. She responded specifically to a comment I — the jerky, pink polo-wearing, patronizing jerk — made
4. She has a picture next to her name (most internet commenters don’t, especially not female commenters).
5. The white rose can be a symbol for submissives.
6. She wrote her full name as her handle (rare for either gender).

At this point, I’m around 70% confident in my hunch.

7. Then a quick Google search of her full name clinches it.

Step up your game, brah 😉