I have finished the age gap relationship analysis. How do the Dark Triad, social dominance orientation, and hostile world beliefs predict support for age gaps?
Here are some charts and statistics from this I have posted.
Age gap preferences, the ideal age gaps for men and women, and the largest lifetime age gaps:
Here are sex differences in support for age gaps and hierarchial relationships: men show higher approval.
The ideal age of a partner and the age of participants, for men and women:
Here is support for age gaps grouped by age. Older men are more supportive of age gaps.
But for women - no difference by age!
And the same pattern for approval of hierarchial relationships: oldest men are the most supportive, while no difference emerged for women.
I looked at politics. This is the distribution of responses and the percentage of men and women who have had an age gap relationship of 10+ years.
It looks like a trend, but in my analysis it wasn't statistically significant.
I did find differences by politics that were significant for the desired ideal age gap, however.
For men, the more conservative, the larger the desired age gap.
But for women, no difference by politics.
Conservative women wanted small age gaps.
Here are descriptive statistics for the personality variables: SDO, DT, and HWBS.
DT is the only significant difference for men and women (pretty consistent in the literature that men score higher).
The Dark Triad and SDO both predicted support for age gaps and hierarchial relationships, HWBS didn't. The relationships were not very large, which of course is pretty typical for a single variable in psychology.
Of the three facets of the Dark Triad - psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism, it was psychopathy that seemed to predict support:
Here I built a couple of regression models that did a pretty good job of explaining a chunk of support for hierarchical and age gap relationships.
Age (being older), being male, higher DT psychopathy and SDO, lower HWBS.
However, although these predicted approval scores, they didn't actually predict participant desire for a larger age gap in a relationship:
I also looked to see if these variables would predict having had an actual large age gap - but they didn't.
Nor did they predict having dated a boss or a professor.
What about the people who actually had large age gap relationships?
People who have had them at some point were more supportive of them:
However, some sex differences emerged even when there was higher support in the group that had past age gap relationships.
Men were highly supportive. Women were more varied in their support.
Here is support for age gap and hierarchial relationships by sex and those who previously had a 10+ year age gap.
Same pattern: men and women who had past age gap relationships were more supportive.
Here is a chart on age gap approval by the magnitude or size of the gap:
The larger the age gap, the lower the approval.
And here is support for age gaps by the age of the woman in the vignette. The younger the woman, the lower the approval:
Final chart. Support scores for the hierarchial relationships described in the survey.
Movie star with a model received the lowest approval: even lower than student/prof and boss/employee.
What can we take away from this? I am sure that there are tidbits in here that can support both sides of the age gap debate.
First, although most women report wanting a very low age gap, a lot of women also seem to have had at least one at some point.
The dark personality traits associated with approval for age gaps could support the belief that at least some people like large age gaps because of the power imbalance or something like that.
At the same time, these did not predict who actually had age gap relationships. So, it's probably not the case that it's a bunch of psychopaths forming these relationships or anything like that.
Support for age gap relationships was pretty high also, until you got to about a 15-year age gap.
And age of the woman is probably more important in driving the age gap taboo than the actual size of the gap itself.
That female age did not predict support for age gaps was an interesting finding. This has some implications for a lot of discourse on age gaps.
For example, that older women are less supportive because they know better.
Or less supportive because they are jealous or competing.
That the oldest men were most supportive of age gaps is also an interesting finding. That could also be interpreted through an intrasexual competition lens. Or just that older men have more to gain from them than younger men do.
That the movie star/model with an age gap got lower support than boss/employee and student/professor also calls into question the "power dynamic" belief surrounding hierarchial relationships. This was something I have already been skeptical about.
Age, rather than power, seems to do more heavy lifting as far as predicting approval or the taboo is concerned.
It's a funny thing about taboos, as well as psychology in general, that our feelings about something often proceed the beliefs that we form about them.
Basically, we form beliefs that explain our feelings.
I think that the age gap taboo is something that is very visceral. There are some people that find it very gross and inappropriate. And that precedes discourse on things like brain development, power dynamics, exploitation, or whatever else.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. The Red Pill seems to get little unique recognition and is synonymous with incels.
2. Incels represent a critical entry-point into other manosphere communities (consistent with low romantic success driving men into the manosphere).
3. PUAs (pick up artists) have low centrality and node weight. They are kind of their own thing and not closely related to participation in other manosphere communities.
4. High overlap between communities, such that some can’t be easily categorized (blue in the network chart)
As I have written in the past, the manosphere has drifted away from male self-improvement, how to be more “alpha,” and the PUA or dating-focused communities of yesteryear.
Now the manosphere is mostly male social justice grievances.
Keywords across communities: PUAs are still talking about seduction and dating, incels are talking about the redpill.
MRAs are defined more by what they are against than what they have to offer - it’s predominantly ranting about feminism.
There is something sinister about expressed resentment and dislike of “normies.” Real antisocial vibes. Even more so than the “anti-Karen” discourse. With Karens, the debate is over if an enforcement boundary is overstepped. Maybe a real debate can be had in some of those cases.
With resentment toward normies, it’s simply a dislike of actual normal people. Yet normal people are the backbone of society. A lot of the time it looks like the useless fringe complaining about the people who actually make things function.
Hating the normal has always been a trait of losers and outcasts. It’s an immediate red flag. It’s general negative emotionality and also specific hostility toward both the mundane and the wholesome.
It’s the mindset of the unpopular kids in high school who couldn’t play sports or make it into clique groups and so, resenting their peers, experiment with every bizarre ideology and identity that the less popular adolescents do.
Delinquents think this way, they also hate the normal and society around them, but delinquents aren’t even at the bottom of this youth hierarchy. The ones at the very bottom don’t get into gangs or really edgy youth subcultures. They get into sneaky and covert ways of lashing out. Maybe they adopt a victim mentality and embrace some kind of social justice ideology where the normies (see: normal society) are oppressive. They fantasize about social collapse or revolution as their anti-normie revenge. Maybe they just become online trolls. The Internet gives them a way to lash out without any possibility of repercussions (and indeed the modern use of “normie” arose from these kinds of communities).
There is a sort of narcissism in the “anti-normie.” They feel superior, but it’s the very fragile superiority of the narcissist who isn’t recognized as superior by anyone else. They don’t get their narcissistic supply from the world around them very often. They feel very smart - their beliefs and hobbies are so much better than the normies, too! Of course anime is better than Friends. Why yes, your fringe political beliefs would totally make society better than that thing everyone else voted for. The normies don’t see the secret truths in all of the conspiracy theories that they believe; normies are very dumb but the anti-normie is very wise.
They have never had their IQ tested, but they are very certain they could not possibly be “midwits,” even if every life milestone they have experienced is associated with lower or average intelligence. If a psychologist looked at them and said “mental illness” the psychologist would just be dismissed as a normie psychologist.
They are misfits and will relate to the aesthetics of cultures and times not their own, because they don’t thrive in the here and now. This is the “men looked better in the 1920s, I should buy a fedora” effect. But it also manifests in social desires: “we should live like we did in the 1920s because I would thrive more in that environment and culture than I do now.”
They will relate to past misfits, too, and make them their heroes. This is also a narcissistic fantasy. “Actually Napoleon wasn’t a normie, see how smart the non-normies are, just like me.” In reality the normies, however, aren’t even exclusively average people. They are also the typical overachievers. When I looked at the lives of the recent Nobel Prize winners, they were every bit as normie as you might imagine. Wife, kids, house, and dogs.
And that’s the general rule for the normie: the normie is the functional and productive member of society. The further one drifts from the normie, the less likely they are to thrive. This is what fuels resentment of the normie. They see the wife, kids, dog, career, and lifestyle of the normie and think, “I want that, but I don’t have that.”
Who is the normie? To this person, “heteronormative male college kids.”
Teenager posting about his parents on the nihilism subreddit, of course, hates normies:
Just in time for National Orgasm Day, Caitlin and myself have new research up on the orgasm gap and short-term partner traits. Results in this thread. 🧵
First, the orgasm gap:
Men experience more orgasms in casual sex, especially during a first encounter.
Women who have an orgasm with a short-term partner are more likely to go on to have sex with them again in the future.
So - that first encounter matters!
Why is this? Overlapping hypotheses for the evolution of the female orgasm is its role in mate selection and mate retention.