Over at Anakin's blog a reader who goes by Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, left a comment that contained the following statement:
"There are very few good women out there. Good women are only two steps from being unicorns (as in completely mythical). It doesn't matter if I find one or not. Even if I do that means somewhere between 99.98% - 99.996% of good men will NEVER find a good woman."
I responded, 'So .004-.02% of women or 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 5000 women meet your definition of a "good woman"? That kind of begs the question...what is your definition of a good woman?'
This certainly is not the first time I have heard this sentiment regarding the rarity of the "good woman". I usually wonder what exactly a "good woman" is when I read it. So, I thought I would ask you all.
P.S. You don't have to believe good women are almost as rare as unicorns to answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
242 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 242 of 242Wow, 200 comments! Congrats to you all! I think the reason it is difficult to find a good Christian mate is because we have let a decidedly hostile world infect us.
I have been meaning to start reading some from the Puritans, I bet I can get some from the Guttenberg project for free. I have been reading the Founding Fathers, it is time I start clearing out my heart with some old time Spirituality and Godliness.
Anyone want to join me?
Trey
Feral,
Thanks for the comment!
"I've prayed that I find such a woman some day, and I hope she's attractive. That's all I want, really. Well, that, a little cabin in the mountains, a good rifle, and a nice garden. And some children, God willing."
Praying that for you as well bro.
"And that makes comment #200. Shazaam!"
W00T! Thanks Triton :)
I think what men and women define as "moderately attractive" and "hot" are not the same. I think many that women who men define as "moderately attractive" may well be defined as "hot" by many other women.
But, the Librarian's point remains. It does seem that when men say they can't find a good woman many of them seem to mean they can't find a good woman who they find sufficiently attractive. That becomes confusing for otherwise good women who don't meet the attractiveness standard. I am sure the same is also true of men in the opposite as Novaseeker said above.
Thanks Trey :) I agree that the influence of the world is likely part of the issue.
I'd take a very average looking woman who is very sweet, and is willing to be very sexual even after the first year of marriage is over.
Height and weight basically proportional.
And is willing to promise that divorce is never an option not matter what.
Sounds reasonable to me SA. I hope you find her.
Putting things into perspective.
"The tortoiseshell cat,
She sits on the mat,
As gay as a sunflower she;
In orange and black you see her wink,
And her waistcoat’s white and her nose is pink,
And her eyes are as green as the sea.
But all is vanity, all the way;
Twilight’s coming and close of day,
And every cat in the twilight’s gray,
Every possible cat.
The tortoiseshell cat,
She is smooth and fat,
And we call her Josephine,
Because she weareth upon her back
This coat of colours, this raven black,
This red of tangerine;
But all is vanity, all the way;
Twilight follows the brightest day,
And every cat in the twilight’s gray,
Every possible cat."
It is what is on the inside that counts!
Oh, vanity, thy name is.. human..
Impressive. This is the first Blogger thread I can remember reading that rolled over into two pages. Quite a feat!
I think "moderately attractive" would suffice in place of "hot".
Agreed, and that's not hard for women I don't think. Any woman who takes basic care of herself--i.e. not a workout fiend but keeps herself in reasonably good health and physical condition, and doesn't dress all the time like a slob who just rolled out of bed--will meet said criteria. So I don't really see that as a stopping point except for those who don't show themselves any respect in the first place.
Sure, there are men who care only for those on the upper end of the hotness scale, but are those men really the types that a good woman would want to be with? That strikes me as a self-correcting problem.
Jesse,
Thanks :) I didn't realize blogger would roll over to a second page of comments at 200 either.
"Agreed, and that's not hard for women I don't think. Any woman who takes basic care of herself--i.e. not a workout fiend but keeps herself in reasonably good health and physical condition, and doesn't dress all the time like a slob who just rolled out of bed--will meet said criteria. So I don't really see that as a stopping point except for those who don't show themselves any respect in the first place. "
While I agree that it is not difficult for a woman (actually I would say both women and men) to take care with her appearance and not look like they have just rolled out of bed I think we need to ber careful with equating appearance with either health or with how much care a person takes of themselves or how much respect they have for themselves.
I guess I would have I ask how you would know a woman was in reasonably good health by looking at her? Does this rule out women with health problems such a type 1 diabetes?
Also the idea that any woman can keep herself in what is deemed "reasonable" physical condition while not being a workout fiend does not take into account the natural range of body types and differing body chemistry. I don't think many people realize that two women can eat exactly the same diet and get the same amount of physical activity and still one may be in what is considered "reasonable" shape and the other is not. As I have said before some women have to work out like crazy to maintain a size 2 and some have to work out like crazy to maintain a size 12 or a size 20. That is not to say that anyone should in any way be obligated to be attracted to anyone else. But, I think it is easy to say that someone who does not meet that definition of "reasonable" physical condition does not respect themselves, but in reality they may care for themselves in exactly the same way (and in some cases may be even more careful with taking care of themselves) some who is in "reasonable" condition does.
I like your poem Kathy :)
"I agree with you that both men and women need to be considered in any discussion of gender politics per se. However, I strongly disagree that the way to accomplish that is to minimize what men are telling you about their experience."
If by your estimation, in the "war between the genders" easily 2/3 of the issues between the genders of the last century are about what feminism and it's lingering ideologies have wrought", anyone who doesn't entirely agree with your two thirds estimation (which seems pretty simplistic to me) is bound to be seen as minimizing. It doesn't leave much room for adding some perspective where there's a lack of balance.
Anyways, here's some rationale behind some of my comments that seem to be, in your opinion, "minimizing":
"If indeed "everyone is talking about this stuff all the time", then it may be that people may be giving it too much weight, as far as something that is truly useful in being able to predict someone's behavior."
In any community, trends can erupt in how people attribute certain kinds of behavior in certain groups. Trends that get reinforced by people "talking about this stuff all the time" aren't always based on the whole truth, part truths more the case.
"From what I've seen, the truth is somewhere in the middle and it usually has to do with the steady erosion of the relationship. And went you look at what went down, on both sides, it's no wonder that divorce occured."
I'm disputing the simplistic assumption that because two thirds of divorces are filed by women, that two thirds of women "cause" divorce. Hey, is this where you get the "easily 2/3 of the issues between the genders of the last century are about...feminism" from?
"It not about a man with nothing "being taken for all he has", but with the idea that he worries about it happening (which doesn't really happen anyways -- assets are divided to one degree or another)"
Alright, what percentage of men get "taken for *all* he has" in divorce court? You won't find any. Assets are ALWAYS divided -- that is the correction of an inaccuracy.
"Just because some women have dealt well in divorce court does not mean that women "have a huge upper hand". Most divorced moms are struggling more financially than when they were married -- not skipping with glee over big windfalls."
Again, another correction of an inaccuracy.
I think you should be thanking me for adding some perspective to the discussion.
There are, of course, exceptions. Mine was a generalization. We can't automatically know a person's lifestyle or self-respect by merely looking at the outward appearance. And age does play a large role too--we don't expect a 50 y/o to look like a 20 y/o for good reason. But in my experience the vast majority of very overweight women (and men) are like that for a reason outside of health or natural form, one having to do with their own choices. Again, there are exceptions, but they prove the rule.
For men and women both, I believe the vast majority of us have a bit of control over our general weight/health. For example, my former housemate can lounge about and eat pizzas and tacos for pretty much every meal and guzzle soft drinks like they're water and still be skinny as a rail, while I could jog 4-5 times per week and never eat junk food but still hover right around the "average" weight regardless. Hey, life ain't fair. He could get away with more than I could. My point being, weight issues can usually be controlled, it's just that some may have to work harder at it than others.
I'm not at all saying any of us ought to be obligated to keep up a certain form or condition, and most definitely not the ones pop culture constantly throws at us. To each his or her own. But if I don't bother to get exercise every now and then, watch what I eat, or even make any effort to look like a respectable adult when I step out the door, should I be surprised if people don't treat me the same as they would if I put in more effort? Same goes for anyone else.
"Last I checked, the main benefits of marriage were the intangibles, not the acquiring of assets."
'You'd never know that, from all the MRA talk on the blogs. It's almost all about "financial rape".'
I don't agree with this at all. Most of the comments on this thread the define a "good woman" are about the intangibles catwoman. I see much discussion of intangibles with regard to women in "MRA talk".
Again the original discussion with NS was about loss of assets in marriage (and subsequent divorce), and how that gets discussed in the blogosphere (not just this thread). If you were to tally up all the posts, do you think you'd find more posts about loss of financial assets or intangibles such as emotional losses and child access?
Don't kid yourself -- when MRA blogs talk about divorce being risker for men than women, they are referring mostly to *financial risk*, more so than intangibles.
As such, you seem to agree with them that marriage and divorce is much costlier to men. I'm saying that is a simplistic one-sided perspective, given the drop in standard of living and burdens of single parenting that most divorced women endure.
Catwoman,
anyone who doesn't entirely agree with your two thirds estimation (which seems pretty simplistic to me) is bound to be seen as minimizing. It doesn't leave much room for adding some perspective where there's a lack of balance.
You completely missed the point. My comment to you was not meant as another opportunity for you to defend yourself and your point of view as you have chosen to do. I do not regard what you see as a lack of balance to actually be a lack of balance Catwoman. The culture at large has a massive imbalance on these issues so for you to think you are providing "balance" or "perspective" here by continually mocking and minimizing what people say is, in my opinion, out of touch with reality. So, no, I will not thank you for refusing to see or aparently refusing to even consider how your penchant for mockery and minimizing does not add to the conversation. Your "corrections" are missing the point and straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
"I know you keep wanting to say it is not feminism that has created the behaviors these guys discuss. But, the precedents you refer to were set by feminists....that means that feminist ideology created the precedents for behavior that the "younger sisters" followed.
**Ther are following feminist ideologies whether they call it that or not (and I am not just referring to sexual mores).**"
You can talk about the precedent and predicating behavior of feminists all you want (and some mention is certainly valid), but if you do, you also must balance that with discussion of percedent and predicating behavior of men, which you don't, really.
And ultimately, it isn't ideology that sustains those behaviors, but the behaviors themselves. Today's young women and men are pretty much without ideology. They get their cues from rock stars, models, athletes, reality tv. People who they have little in common with them, but have everything they want.
"It is my opinion that the first step for women to take is to acknowledge where they are influenced by feminism. You can't "fix" a twisted world view without acknowleging it."
Behavior only changes when it no longer works. Communism wasn't defeated by a change in ideology. It was defeated by the fact that it didn't work. That, and the seduction of the west, with its lure of the pursuit of happiness, as you Americans say. In the words of Camille Paglia, "where rock 'n roll goes, democracy follows".
And, Catwoman replied: A pacifist could say the same thing to someone who is anti-abortion but pro-military."
So Learner replied: "So, it is just as muddled to hold the two beliefs that, 1. mothers should not have the right to purposefully murder their children in the womb, and 2. that the military defends our country and should be supported (ie; promilitary...which is not the same as "pro-war")as it is to hold the two beliefs that, 1.if a woman chooses to murder her child in the womb that is a choice that should be legal, 2. but that people should not use war or violence to solve problems? Really? Isn't abortion by definition the use of violence to solve a problem? How is this disconnect any where near as muddled as the view that mothers should not purposefully murder their own children but that people have a right to defend themselves and protect others?
The idea that the two positions in any way could be compared as models of muddled reasoning is, in effect muddled reasoning itself."
Actually Learner, I wasn't referring to those who are pacifist and pro-abortion. I was referring to those who are both pacifist and anti-abortion, like many anabaptists and quakers. People who really go by the book, as far as "thou shalt not kill" and "turn the other cheek". Lest anyone here should boast.
Jesse,
But in my experience the vast majority of very overweight women (and men) are like that for a reason outside of health or natural form, one having to do with their own choices. Again, there are exceptions, but they prove the rule.
For men and women both, I believe the vast majority of us have a bit of control over our general weight/health.
I understand that is your belief and actually it is the belief of many people. It is just that those beliefs are not actually supported by research. I wrote about this some last summer in a post titled "Bodily Stewardship" (July 6 2008 -maybe one day I will figure out how to do a link correctly in a comment!) If you want to understand my point a bit better you can check out what I wrote there.
But if I don't bother to get exercise every now and then, watch what I eat, or even make any effort to look like a respectable adult when I step out the door, should I be surprised if people don't treat me the same as they would if I put in more effort?
I totally agree that it is good, even great to take care of yourself by eating right and being physically active. The problem is that you can't tell who does that just by looking at them.
"One thing I have noticed about catwoman's "example" is that she seems to be under the belief that either I or men in general (probably the latter) should just date any woman interested in us. Whether it makes sense or if there are any red flags shouldn't enter into the equation at all according to her."
I'm always astounded at the assumptions you make about the attitudes of certain women, PMAFT (could that be part of the problem for you?). I have defended countless times a man's perogative to choose or not choose a woman based on any criteria he wants. What I dispute is the continued insistence (particularly among young Christian men) that there are "no good women" out there.
"One thing I have noticed about catwoman's "example" is that she seems to be under the belief that either I or men in general (probably the latter) should just date any woman interested in us. Whether it makes sense or if there are any red flags shouldn't enter into the equation at all according to her."
I'm always astounded at the assumptions you make about the attitudes of certain women, PMAFT (could that be part of the problem for you?). I have defended countless times a man's perogative to choose or not choose a woman based on any criteria he wants. What I dispute is the continued insistence (particularly among young Christian men) that there are "no good women" out there.
"I do not regard what you see as a lack of balance to actually be a lack of balance Catwoman. The culture at large has a massive imbalance on these issues so for you to think you are providing "balance" or "perspective" here by continually mocking and minimizing what people say is, in my opinion, out of touch with reality."
So basically what you're saying is that you disagree with me, which is odd, since I am in agreement with much of the better ideas discussed here and other MRA blogs, such as reforming divorce laws, increasing availability of paternity testing, among other things -- but probably not always to the extent that you do. I guess mockery and minimizing are OK only when done when agreeing with you.
Catwoman,
Actually Learner, I wasn't referring to those who are pacifist and pro-abortion. I was referring to those who are both pacifist and anti-abortion, like many anabaptists and quakers
Your example woman was a "pro choice pacifist" and it was that example that Nova was replying to when he called it muddled reasoning which you responded to with "A pacifist could say the same thing to someone who is anti-abortion but pro-military." The only pacifist you referred to was one who was pro-choice.
catwoman,
If you were to tally up all the posts, do you think you'd find more posts about loss of financial assets or intangibles such as emotional losses and child access?
Don't kid yourself -- when MRA blogs talk about divorce being risker for men than women, they are referring mostly to *financial risk*, more so than intangibles.
What MRA blogs are you referring to? The ones I read most frequently deal in the intangibles more.
I'm saying that is a simplistic one-sided perspective, given the drop in standard of living and burdens of single parenting that most divorced women endure.
Endure? It is their choice 70-some percent of the time is it not? Women are more than free to have shared custody yet they choose not to in the overwhelming number of cases. If having more sympathy for the party who did not make the choice to get divorced to begin with and is overwhelmingly without choice about how much parenting he gets to do makes my perspective one sided, so be it.
You may want to take a look at the statistics about why divorces occur. The vast majority of these women are not asking for divorces on the basis of infidelity or abuse.
"Your example woman was a "pro choice pacifist" and it was that example that Nova was replying to when he called it muddled reasoning which you responded to with "A pacifist could say the same thing to someone who is anti-abortion but pro-military." The only pacifist you referred to was one who was pro-choice."
A completely separate analogy. A bit quick to assum pacifist = pro-abortion liberal, there Learner.
Catwoman,
Behavior can change for other reasons like self examination (which was my point), the influence of the Holy Spirit, learning from other's mistakes etc.
You can talk about the precedent and predicating behavior of feminists all you want (and some mention is certainly valid), but if you do, you also must balance that with discussion of percedent and predicating behavior of men, which you don't, really.
Why must I balance a discussion of feminism with a discussion of precedent and predicating behavior of men? If you want to discuss that start a blog and write about it. I am interested in dealing with feminism and women being responsible for their own actions, not coming up with reasons why feminism is all men's fault anyway because their behaviors were the precedent for feminism.
Catwoman,
Think about this for a minute. You said" since I am in agreement with much of the better ideas discussed here. Listen to yourself. If you agree they are the better ideas? Can you not see that this is exactly whay I am talking about?
Catwoman,
A completely separate analogy. A bit quick to assum pacifist = pro-abortion liberal, there Learner.
I didn't make that assumption at all Catwoman, you are the one who created that particular combination of beliefs to which Nova objected. What I said did not assume the pacifist who questioned a prolife person who was promilitary was a pacifist who was pro-choice. I was comparing the two situations presented by you. 1. the woman you wanted PMAFT to consider who is pro-choice and a pacifist and whose reasoning Nova called muddled and 2. The person who is anti abortion but pro-military whose reasoning might be called muddled by a pacifist according to you.
"Endure? It is their choice 70-some percent of the time is it not? The vast majority of these women are not asking for divorces on the basis of infidelity or abuse."
It is simplistic to assume that just because a marriage is ending for reasons other than infidelity or abuse that, all other circumstance are frivolous. Or non-mutual. Not every woman who files has a husband crying "can't we work this out?". There's also the more mutual "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" scenarios.
"Women are more than free to have shared custody yet they choose not to in the overwhelming number of cases."
Often that's because the reality is that the physical custody (as per preference of child, or even father) will likely mean more time spend at mother's home.
"If having more sympathy for the party who did not make the choice to get divorced to begin with and is overwhelmingly without choice about how much parenting he gets to do makes my perspective one sided, so be it."
Sure, and that may be the case in many of those situations where women file (some for frivolous reasons, some not) and get sole custody. But you seem to take the MRA stereotype of "Mrs. Frivolous-filing-golddigger-child-stealer" as a given for women who file for divorce. You're making the woman who files out to the bad guy and I just don't think it's always that simple.
Do I think that divorce laws should be reformed, so that there's more presumed rebuttable shared custody? Absolutely. That would reduce the imbalanced ratio quite a bit. As it stands, for the most part, you've got to look at situations on a case by case basis, rather than making blanket judgements about one sex or another.
"The person who is anti abortion but pro-military whose reasoning might be called muddled by a pacifist according to you."
The point is, it depends on how far you want to take "pro-life".
"I am interested in dealing with feminism and women being responsible for their own actions, not coming up with reasons why feminism is all men's fault anyway because their behaviors were the precedent for feminism."
No one here has claimed that feminism is "all men's fault". I just don't think it's possible to find solutions to modern issues between the genders (which probably isn't possible anyways!) without taking a more integrated approach. I'm sorry if you think that's calling feminism "all men's fault".
"Why must I balance a discussion of feminism with a discussion of precedent and predicating behavior of men?"
That's like saying why have a discussion about the evil history of communism in Russia without looking at the tyranny and imperialism that proceeded it. Do you want to discuss history or don't you?
I agree that when dealing with individuals you have to look at it on a case by case basis. I am not talking about individual cases, I am talking about the general climate, the climate that exists because of the current divorce laws. You are also talking about the general when you say "given the drop in standard of living and burdens of single parenting that most divorced women endure" too. What I am saying is the the current climate is one in which women have and/or are exercising the choices, and this is not acknowledged or dealt with in the culture at large. The tough life of single moms is glorified in the culture. The culture at large and the current laws are the "balance" to what I am saying here, and as such I could say much, much more and there still would not be "balance" on the subject.
If it's not balanced, then what bloody good is it?!
Hmm...
No one here has claimed that feminism is "all men's fault". I just don't think it's possible to find solutions to modern issues between the genders (which probably isn't possible anyways!) without taking a more integrated approach.
and then....
That's like saying why have a discussion about the evil history of communism in Russia without looking at the tyranny and imperialism that proceeded it.
First, I'll cop to sarcastically saying "all men's fault" when I should have said I am interested in discussing women's responsibility for their own actions not how men's actions may be in part responsible for feminism.
But, it appears that you are comparing the role of the behavior of men in preceding feminism with the "tyranny and imperialism that proceeded" communism in Russia. So, what exactly is this comparison supposed to convey?
If it's not balanced, then what bloody good is it?!
You don't get it Catwoman. To balance what is going on in the laws and the current culture I would have to go much further toward the men's side. Your "perspective" that is attempting to "balance" is actually causing more imbalance.
"You are also talking about the general when you say "given the drop in standard of living and burdens of single parenting that most divorced women endure" too. What I am saying is the the current climate is one in which women have and/or are exercising the choices, and this is not acknowledged or dealt with in the culture at large. The tough life of single moms is glorified in the culture."
Bollocks! The gleeful, golddigging, opportunistic divorcee on easy street with a handsome settlement is far more the exception to the rule, which is usually the exhausted, divorced mom who has to work, and struggles to balance that with parenting on her own.
"What I am saying is the the current climate is one in which women have and/or are exercising the choices, and this is not acknowledged or dealt with in the culture at large."
You make it sound as if the stigma of divorce is not only extinct, but converted into t.v. show glory. You don't think that people of both sexes feel embarrassed when their marriages fail? That a woman's choice to leave her husband isn't met with some scrutiny from those in her community? How many divorced women and men do you even know?
"The culture at large and the current laws are the "balance" to what I am saying here, and as such I could say much, much more and there still would not be "balance" on the subject."
How? By kid gloves treatment and roundabout questions, enabling a few men whose situations you don't even know to over-generalize their experiences with women to nearly all women, except for a few brainy older church gals like you and your friends? Sorry, but that much sympathy isn't balance. Nevertheless, carry on. But I'm happy to fill in the gaps here and there, as long as you'll let me. You can always remove my posts at your pleasure.
"But, it appears that you are comparing the role of the behavior of men in preceding feminism with the "tyranny and imperialism that proceeded" communism in Russia. So, what exactly is this comparison supposed to convey?"
Compared to what you as a late 20th century woman would expect in a marriage today, early 20th century marriage would be tyranny to you. How can I assume this?
Unless you can truthfully say that you'd really like to go back before the first half of the century, marrying within a brief window meaning someone who has chosen you, but not necessarily someone you'd pick if you had more time and options, submitting fully to that man regardless, then...you are not really serious in any assertion you might make that we would have been better off if feminism hadn't happened at all.
Because if you really believed that yourself, Learner, you would have been married ages ago.
Okay Catwoman, You don't get it and you don't want to get it. I'll accept that and stop trying to explain it to you.
Someone who goes on another person's blog and says "Nevertheless, carry on. But I'm happy to fill in the gaps here and there, as long as you'll let me" is claiming superior understanding of the situation and not just a difference of opinion. I have rarely encountered someone with as much hubris as you, Catwoman. Good night.
Unless you can truthfully say that you'd really like to go back before the first half of the century, marrying within a brief window meaning someone who has chosen you, but not necessarily someone you'd pick if you had more time and options, submitting fully to that man regardless, then...you are not really serious in any assertion you might make that we would have been better off if feminism hadn't happened at all.
I think your view of the late 19th and early 20th century is pretty jaundiced. As though women back then didn't have any options in who they would marry and as though feminsim was the only remedy to situations where submission would have been a bad thing. Straw men. I don't buy it.
And what that has to do with my currently single state I have no idea. It is not like I have turned a bunch or marriage proposals down...none actually.
Now, I really do have to go to bed.
"You don't get it and you don't want to get it....Someone who goes on another person's blog and says "Nevertheless, carry on. But I'm happy to fill in the gaps here and there, as long as you'll let me" is claiming superior understanding of the situation and not just a difference of opinion."
Actually, saying "you don't get it" (no less, to someone who agrees with you to some extent but not entirely) is the classic claim of superior understanding.
More on the precedents of feminism later...
Actually, saying "you don't get it" (no less, to someone who agrees with you to some extent but not entirely) is the classic claim of superior understanding.
Classic claim of superior understanding? I was unaware there were "classic claims of superior understanding". Did you, like, google that or?
But, the question remains. Do you get it (meaning the "balance" issue)? You have not demonstrated in this exchange that you do. You do not appear to recognize that the balance you say you are looking for is already greatly tilted by means of the current laws and culture in the direction that you are trying to push it further.
Perhaps you disagree with that point of view, which is certainly your perrogitive. But isn't it important to understand a position before you disagree with it? Perhaps you think that you do understand it, and maybe you do. But, that is not clear in your responses in any way. What is clear is that you think I should be "thankful" for your attempt at adding balance...except what you are adding isn't correcting the imbalance at all, it is adding to it. These "gaps" you claim to be filling in are not news to anyone catwoman. They are commonly known.
"These "gaps" you claim to be filling in are not news to anyone catwoman. They are commonly known."
Too many elephants in the living room not to talk about, at least once in a while. You're welcome.
The post you referred to and comment thread there are quite interesting, though I haven't had time to read through them yet. But I'll stand corrected on my take that one can tell a bit about self-respect based on physical appearance; seems there's more to the weight/health issue than I usually acknowledge.
I hope to read more and maybe put together a post on it. (My post likely won't happen, been a long two months and I don't see getting the energy to sink into a post anytime soon. But it's a neat thought for now.) Overall, I think those studies mentioned do tell us something, but stuff like that is often very bad about not accounting for enough variables. We see it all the time in other studies that get released, in which the researchers spot a trend and make several logical leaps to arrive at one of many possible conclusions without addressing the rest. There appears to be some of that going on in that the researchers seem to place undue emphasis on genetics that isn't necessarily supported by the data. Not that it's disproven or can't be true, it just isn't substantiated by the data at hand. But more later perhaps.
Hi Jesse,
Seems like a lot of people are having a bit of a rough summer, myself included. Here's hoping you regain your energy soon :)
Overall, I think those studies mentioned do tell us something, but stuff like that is often very bad about not accounting for enough variables. We see it all the time in other studies that get released, in which the researchers spot a trend and make several logical leaps to arrive at one of many possible conclusions without addressing the rest. There appears to be some of that going on in that the researchers seem to place undue emphasis on genetics that isn't necessarily supported by the data. Not that it's disproven or can't be true, it just isn't substantiated by the data at hand.
I am definitely in agreement that many studies often make leaps not justified by the data. It is shameful to me as a researcher how much data gets twisted to make a point, and that usually has to do with spouting the current paradigm or you won't get the grant $$. You really have to examine the data to get the real truth of the findings.
The other difficulty is many of these studies are carried out using an epidemiological paradigm where correlation often is seen as causitive in that conclusions are drawn as though an experimental study was carried out. And often it just is not feasable to carry out an experimental study regarding longterm nutrition and activity patterns.
However, the twin study mentioned is a sort of gold standard in examining the relationship between genetics and environment and as such is probably about as strong of evidence on the subject as it is possible to get given the protection of human subjects. I do agree though that it is hardly conclusive proof, though it does present stronger evidence than what supports current popular beliefs about what factors govern weight.
Post a Comment