No, People Are Not Finding It Hard To Find Partners

One of the myths in my online echo chamber is that dating has become horrible and men and women in their 20's and 30's cannot find suitable partners. Marriage and partnerships are supposed to be on the decline. We are all doomed to atomised lives as single people. The claim is that this has been getting worse since the introduction of social media and online dating apps, which give women an inflated sense of their own worth, and that ol' devil online pornography, which gives men an unrealistic sense of what real women look like and will do in the sack. The Narratives pile up so fast...

The 2021 Census has some figures about living arrangements since 2002. This table is an extract from that report and looks at the 16-29, 30-34 and 35-39 year old cohorts of men by living arrangement in 2002 and 2021. Because the population grew in that time, we have to adjust the 2002 numbers by that growth to get the numbers on green, which can then be directly compared with the 2021 figures in blue.

The next table is a summary of the living arrangements for men and women.

The high proportion of Never-marrried 16-29's is due to the fact that almost no-one gets married before about 22 now. The average ago of marriage has been increasing steadily since the early 1970's - see this report.  (The 2019 version doesn't seem to have these useful time series. If you do take a look, notice that after all the social changes in the last sixty years, most women still want a man who is 2-3 years older.) Increasing age of marriage does not mean increasing age of finding a partner. That, to judge from the table, has remained about the same since 2002.

Cohort by cohort, almost the same proportion of men are in relationships in 2021 as in 2002. By math, it follows that almost the same proportion of men are not living in a couple in 2021 as in 2002. If we wanted to make a headline out of a one-percentage point(*) difference (and generally, we should not), slightly more men in 2021 were living in couples, and six percentage points more women were living in couples in 2021 than 2002.

There is only one genuinely significant change, in the proportion of divorced men and women living on their own: that has halved over the period. A greater proportion of people divorcing in 2020 had the next partner lined up than the divorcees in 2001.

So it's as easy - or as hard - for men and women to find a domestic partner in 2021 as it was in 2002. Despite social media, dating apps, more women having more education than men and earning more, job-for-job, than men, and all the other reasons it has supposed to be getting more difficult.

My take is that what we see in the figures is what happens when much of the social and institutional compulsion to "find a partner" is lifted. Most people still do. (Then four in ten split up within twenty years of swearing never to leave the other person.) Some people stay single by choice. The men who would have made reluctant husbands will not be disappointing their wives, and the women who would have made reluctant wives are spared the effort of trying.

What’s not to like?

Why the complaints about the lack of eligible men and women? I suspect this is an artefact of how the media works. Dog bites man is not news, man bites dog is. Attractive, ambitious, well-paid, well-educated woman in her early-thirties who can't find a suitable partner is news, because these are supposed to be the women who should have long queues of suitors. The Schadenfreude, for readers (and columnists) who lack one or other of the career girl's supposed advantages, is delicious.

(*) A percentage point is an additive difference of 1%, thus 35% to 36% is a one-point difference. A basis point is 100-th of a percentage point, this 4% to 4.5% is 50 basis points. Only people in finance use basis points.

Why Corporates "Support" The Trans Cause (Bud Lite / Anheuser-Busch)

ESG (environmental, social and governance) and CEI (corporate equality index) are smokescreens for corporations who do not give a damn about their customers, products, suppliers, employees, neighbours, regulations, regulators and anyone else with a legitimate interest in the company's activities.

They don't give a flying toss about Trans rights, Gay rights, Taiwanese rights, Aboriginal rights or anyone else's rights. They aren't supposed to. They are supposed to make products that don't come back to customers who do, treat their employees well, pay their suppliers a fair price and on time, and pay a decent dividend to investors while following evermore complex laws and regulations. In reality they do the exact opposite of that, and they need a whole lot of smoke to blow at the public and their own staff. We can't be a**h****s, look, we have an Inclusivity Director and a sticker from a CEI agency saying we have 5-stars for Equality.

Nobody has any idea who the certifying agencies are, how they are financed, who runs them, what qualifications they have, and so on. All anybody needs to know is that the hedge funds will accept a particular agency's certifications. We-the-public assume these agencies must be okay. I mean, look at their client list. Would all those big companies sign up if the whole thing was one huge con-job and grift?

Hell yeah.

These companies pay their fees to the grifters, tick some boxes, and get to put the claim that they are some kind of virtuous something on their corporate literature, and so stay on the good side of Black Rock and all those other ESG-pushing hedge funds.

Those hedge funds are only doing it because they can wave the ESG / CEI certifications to prove that they are not really investing in Bad Companies who make firearms, kill endangered species, or hire contractors who hire contractors who use children in Lahore to make masks for Western nurses. Even better, they use these ESG / CEI certifications to create special funds of "Good Companies" for which they then charge a premium fee.

Follow the money.

This is why the companies whose donations to BLM were used to buy multi-million dollar properties don't care about that. They paid BLM so they could say they support BLM. The corporate donors don't care what BLM did with the money: they were buying the publicity.

There's also this: a company dips its toe into Woke Marketing. If it works, they do more, but most importantly, if it doesn't, they can stop any further attempts dead in their tracks. We tried that and it didn't give us the results we needed. Thank you for coming in and sharing your ideas with us. Gillette is still solvent, last time I looked, despite alienating every man in the Western World with its toxic masculinity ad in 2019. They don't do it now. Anheuser-Busch will survive what may very well be the episode that finally makes senior management understand that social media and influencers are as important as TV and poster ads. Right now the older guys don't really get it. In the meantime, their CEI certification for this year is a shoo-in.

There's no doubt that some corporations do not choose their ESG / CEI grifters well. Some are extremists with ultra-minority causes, a talent for guilt trips and moralising invective, and useful connections in social media, journalism and the big-name management consultancies. As a result, an unsuspecting corporate finds itself co-branding with an organisation that offers their children puberty-blockers at school. Not a good look, but fortunately most of the public will never know that level of detail.

The final point is this. Managers, Head Teachers, sports teams, record labels, publishers and other such are always on the look-out for reasons to get rid of people, preferably at a really low cost, whom they don't want for whatever random reason. MeToo dispatched many an unprofitable artist or under-performing executive: it was hi-jacked for exactly that purpose. Trans rights are just another such excuse.

We take inclusion seriously at ABC Corp, unless you're a fifty-something white man who can be replaced at half the cost by a Gen Z diversity hire, when we will sack you for not using someone's pronouns (which you are going to do at least once by accident in the next three months). That's what we at ABC Corp mean when we say we take pronouns seriously. We don't give a s**t about anyone's rights, but we love a BS reason for cutting costs.

Follow the money.

7 Philosophy Books For Beginners (4)

In the previous post, I suggested that Western Philosophy is an attitude. It does not accept authority, and reserves the right to examine anything at any time for any reason. It also commends that attitude to all of us.

How realistic is this, how does it differ from scepticism and outright cynicism?

The law says that at eighteen we become adults, and are deemed to be competent moral decision-makers, except in certain cases of reduced capacity. An allowance is made for the ignorance and recklessness of youth, but only for minor offences. Most children know when they are doing something their parents might not approve of, which is why they are very quiet when doing so. People know what is right and wrong for most of the eventualities of ordinary life. It's at the edges that the judgements can become ambiguous.

Making moral decisions is something human beings (mostly) seem to be wired for. Making judgements about matters of non-everyday facts, or about the plausibility and verisimilitude of theories, seems to require technical knowledge and skill that only a few people might have. At some point, don't we ordinary people need to defer to the "experts"?

How does someone who left school at eighteen judge if String Theory or Quantum Gravity are plausible theories? Surely this is something only suitably-informed physicists can do? Not at all. Anyone who understands that the test of a scientific theory is that it makes new predictions that are confirmed, can ask one question to determine the value of String Theory. What has it predicted that has been confirmed? When? Where? What was the experiment? What was the prediction and what was the result? If an ordinary person is faced with evasions and odd-sounding claims that physical theories should be judged by different criteria, they will and should conclude that someone, somewhere, is hiding something.

One tactic is to reduce what looks like a highly technical issue to something within one's understanding. Some lawyers are very good at doing this, as they know they will need to explain the core issues to a jury. In the case, perhaps, of pollution by a chemical company, nobody needs a detailed understanding of organic chemistry. They need to know that a) many people suffered symptoms A, B and C; b) those symptoms are consequences of poisoning by substance X; c) substance X was found leaking into the groundwater from the abandoned drums which had the defendant's logo on them, and which the records in Exhibit A show were dumped by the company’s drivers. Nobody needs to know how substance X causes those symptoms, only that it does, and reliably and frequently so. Experts and specialists are not allowed to hide behind gobbledy-gook, and indeed, sustained use of gobbledy-gook and protests that, for instance, the law of financial fraud is too complicated for ordinary folk, are usually and mostly rightly taken as a sign that something is being hidden.

Another tactic is to examine the credentials of the "experts". In some cases, such as ballistics, these can be demonstrable and convincing. In others, such as virus-based pandemics on a supposedly "novel" virus, by definition there can be no experts, since it is "novel" and experience from previous viruses cannot be transferred. In these kinds of cases, expect "expert" status to be justified via the Fallacy of Misleading Credentials: a recital of impressive-sounding official positions, academic awards, research papers and previous appearances as an "expert', which on closer examination have nothing to do with whatever is happening now.

This sort of thing requires an understanding of how the world works. Philosophers in earlier centuries had plenty of this, as they were often advisors and private secretaries to members of the ruling class, and sometimes appointed to public office in their own right.

Nobody can question everything all the time. I can't, and neither could Descartes and Hume. Both recognised that ordinary life has to be supported by a web of beliefs held without question for the time being. However, one should always be prepared to question any of those beliefs if a cause arises.

One does not need to be sceptical or cynical to embrace the spirit of Western Philosophy, but one does need a healthy caution towards the claims of the established, the powerful, the dogmatic, the over-confident, those who claim to have Just and Right Causes, anyone trying to sell anything, and above all, never to have any dealings with anyone or any institution which makes money as long as they don't solve the problem. Anyone who brands an argument or idea with a word ending in '-ism' is not arguing but throwing mud. Mud may be dirty, but it is not an argument. One should always remember that propaganda is what they want you to believe, news is what they don't want you to know.

Happy Easter

Notice how the Woke troublemakers go after Christmas, but not Easter?

Is that because Christmas costs money and has a pile of obligations around presents and visiting family, but Easter has chocolate eggs?

7 Philosophy Books For Beginners (3)

My 7 philosophy books for beginners, along with the back-up reading, is pretty hardcore. It's also definitely Dead White European Male, and none of it is post 1960's except the books on logic and argument.

Why?

The central tenet of Western Philosophy is that human beings have free will, agency, and rationality, and hence that we are responsible for our actions and decisions, and in particular for our decisions about the plausibility and verisimilitude of a theory or the practicality and desirability of a social, political or economic policy.

We cannot lay off those responsibilities to any temporal, spiritual, legal or transcendental authority. Such an authority can impose a decision by legal, physical, social, or economic force, but while that is an excuse for our compliance, it is not a reason. And we may have to behave in accordance with the authority, but whether we choose to accept their propaganda is our decision. Neither does “expert opinion” remove the responsibility: we have to use our experience to decide for ourselves whether the “experts” are credible.

Western Philosophy goes against the natural human tendency to want to form and join in-groups, to work within a cosy consensus, and to lay off as much responsibility as possible on (possibly self-appointed) "authorities". The majority of people prefer to live in that way, and that includes the majority of people working in the philosophy departments of universities. (Academics did not cover themselves with glorious dissent in 2020-2022.) This shows in the way much modern philosophy is written. In Anglo-Saxon (UK, US, Australia and New Zealand) academic philosophy, one does not discuss a problem directly, but indirectly through a rehearsal and criticism of previous philosophers' views. The modest philosopher typically presents their views as a modification or updating of the views of one of a handful of Big Names, or better still, someone quite obscure. It's all a bit... cloistered.

Whereas the foundational works were written by men of the world who often had some expertise in the science and mathematics of the time, as well as sometimes occupying positions of political influence. I have said that "mathematics was created by clever people busy doing something else", and the same was true of philosophy. So I wanted to suggest books of that calibre, not tidy textbooks with a bunch of cute arguments about the existence of God, Free Will, Right and Wrong, the existence and nature of the soul and / or mind, and whether Damien Hirst is really an artist. Philosophers have discussed those questions, and still do. (The only thing more embarrassing than philosophers discussing those questions, is non-philosophers discussing those questions.)

Books with dogmatic intent, that push a single line and vilify all who dare disagree, were never going to get a look in. Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is an argument for consensus and groupthink - even though Kuhn says he never meant it to be - so it would never be on the list. Neither were books full of clever arguments from dubious principles to even more dubious conclusions (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics), since that sort of sophistry gives philosophy a bad name.