That's not how it's worked out in any society where family formation has been limited for large numbers of young men. The research on the calming effect of family formation on young men is very straightforward: when a population of young men doesn't have the opportunity to form families, _they_ become the powder keg. It's true at multiple scales, from individual criminality to societal unrest.

There is a difference though: Western societies don't strongly couple "allowing" young men to have a family to them having a job. Lots of unemployed, bored, frustrated single young men is different from having employed, frustrated young men.

I have no idea how class plays into this dynamic, but I assume it's not the poorest that aren't having sex, unlike in the societies where this dynamic works as a powder keg.

The theory has not borne out in reality. Japan and China are the countries with the most young incels/sexless men/male virgins per capita are among the most peaceful in the world. It's a good theory, sexual frustration => violence, but it's just not happening.

That's not really how theory works; the claim isn't that this is the single and sole determinant of civil unrest. This Atlantic article[1] looks more broadly at the effect of the young male subpopulation's size on unrest, this[2] paper references the mitigating effect of family formation on individual crime rate, this[3] one both covers unrest due to low family formation (generally through the mechanism of uneven sex ratios, given how out of favor polygamy currently is), as well as effects on individual crime.

That being said, this little excursion into Google turned up some nascent evidence that this historical dynamic is shifting. The modern world is very odd in lots of different ways: wealth, recreational opportunities, the incredibly wide social circles one's exposed to. It's entirely possible that this dynamic has changed, but the research hasn't caught up yet.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/an...

[2] https://d101vc9winf8ln.cloudfront.net/documents/33306/origin...

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5983495/

But you presented the theory as a causative link between family formation being unavailable for young men and civil unrest.

It's a classic case of correlation is not causation. Yes, there have been societies where men couldn't form families that were violent (like the Wild west in the US) but that doesn't mean that that was the cause of it.

Similarly, many on the left have long thought that porn viewing causes sexual violent crime against women. And there is ample evidence showing that men who view porn are more likely to be sexual offenders than non-viewers. But then came the internet and the amount of porn and porn viewers skyrocketed - but the amount of sexual violence against women didn't - therefore busting the theory.

In the same way, evidence from Japan, China, South Korea and even India means that there can't be a causative link between family formation being unavailable for young men and civil unrest.

Are the plethora of cases where cigarettes did not cause cancer compelling proof that they don't?

Perhaps these counterexamples are evidence of additional factors, in cancer or in unrest, but they do not prove that a causal relationship doesn't exist.

If you had a very large group of heavy smokers and if you could demonstrate that the lung cancer prevalence among this group was not higher than among the general population then yes, that would be compelling evidence against the theory that smoking causes lung cancer.

Say you went to a city with no air pollution, a high rate of exercise, great diets with antioxidants and omega-3s, no asbestos or radon, and no genetic predisposition to lung cancer. And you find that, in this city, heavy smokers have a lower rate of lung cancer than the general population of the world.

Do you conclude that the overwhelming abundance of data that shows that smoking causes lung cancer is wrong? That there cannot be a causative link between smoking and cancer because there is a counterexample where it didn't appear? I would say that these other factors are also having an effect of comparable scale.

Yup, I would conclude that if the heavy smokers in this city have a lower rate of lung cancer than the rest of the inhabitants in that city that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

So you have a comparison between unrest in Chinese people who are starting families and those that are not? You keep trying to push this analogy into a territory where the evidence is a lot stronger than what you've given. You compared the country to other countries, and it's analogous to comparing a city with a higher cancer rate to a city with a higher smoking rate and saying that smoking cannot cause cancer.

Data suggests that social unrest in China has increased in correlation with incel count. I would count that as supporting evidence for the theory above. But you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that, because the initial rate of unrest was so low, and the increase didn't push that rate above that of other countries, incels cannot be a causal factor in unrest?

Help me understand where we disagree here. What part of ´inability to start a family->unhappiness->social unrest' do you think is questionable?

You don't seem to realize is that you have a theory X -> Y and I can find some X for which X -> Y is false, then the theory is false.

Regardless of the theory.

I have found such X. In principle you agree, but you want to save your theory so you say "Well, if X and not Z then Y!" and that explains my counter example because my group probably had Z.

Here Z being the racist idea that Asian people are less violent than others and that that's why social unrest hasn't erupted in their countries.

You might be right. But then your theory is "inability to start a family and non-asian -> social unrest." Clearly, not the same as "inability to start a family -> social unrest."

The theory is that an increase in X causes an increase in Y. You've pointed out cases that have a high X and low Y as counterpoints. But in order to make the point you're making you need to provide evidence that increases in X have not lead to increases in Y, so we can control for initial X.

Back to cancer, heavy smokers who did not develop cancer are an example of some X for which X->Y is false. Like you said, you would need to take a random sample of cases and see whether Y correlates with X against a control group.

You introduced the concept of Asian countries having lower rates of social unrest, and I have never said this is related to race at all. Perhaps you are reading into the genetic confound in the cancer example, but it was just intended as an example of a confound within the analogy. There are plenty of differences between life in these countries and elsewhere that can act as confounds.

A causal link might be still there, but the theory might only explain a few percent of the variance, due to many other (confounding) factors.

Not sure what variance has to do with it? Thing is, you can always "patch" an X leads to Y theory when faced with opposing evidence by blaming confounding factors. But that is not very scientific. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Sure, you're right (also https://www.gwern.net/Causality#overview-the-current-situati... )

I'm just trying to say that very few things are actually that causal in big complex systems. I'm trying to say that such issues are very likely have many-many factors, and we see an aggregate effect.

And so in case of such aggregates arguing for-against them with very simple first-order reasoning is kind of useless. Because each piece of data (supporting or counter evidence) just explains a part of the big picture. So, without accounting for all data we can't really make general statements about what causes the aggregate effect that we see.

Yes, we can use "very simple first-order reasoning" even when we argue about very complex problems. If you say that "swans are white" it is enough for me to find a single black swan to prove your hypothesis wrong.

That is exactly what is being done here.

> when a population of young men doesn't have the opportunity to form families, _they_ become the powder keg. It's true at multiple scales, from individual criminality to societal unrest.

Well, perhaps videogames and internet porn (both inaccessible in the past) could workaround that now ...

So, "give us families, or we'll do crime and destabilize society"?

Sounds like mental health problems are even more rampant than we guessed. We should probably handle that.

Remember that "mental health" is inseparable from "society", in that the categories of "mental illness" are constructed based on some idea of "normal within society" (to those who doubt this: how else could we go so quickly from "homosexuality is a disease" to "homosexuality is perfectly normal"? The values of society changed and the DSM changed to reflect that. This is simply the nature of "mental illness", there is no recourse to a more [although not completely] universal notion of biological health like with physical illness. Plenty of philosophers and psychologists like Thomas Szasz and Michel Foucault, himself a gay man, have written about this at length).

If society's "normal" (which tends to include a "healthy sex life" or at least a supportive social community) becomes impossible for many to achieve, the question for many is no longer "maybe something is wrong with me?" and becomes "maybe society is the problem?"

No, it's more like "this society doesn't really work for me, to hell with it!" Basically, the most dangerous people are those with nothing to gain by remaining lawful and nothing to lose by becoming criminals.

> Sounds like mental health problems are even more rampant than we guessed. We should probably handle that.

Other than generalized chemical castration I don't see how you could eliminate the "problem" of most of the male population unfulfilled sex drive. For all its problems and unfairness, patriarchal society provides an answer to that problem, if an ugly one.

> Other than generalized chemical castration I don't see how you could eliminate the "problem" of most of the male population unfulfilled sex drive.

Traditional solution of the past was to lure them in the army and let them die in some foreign country.

At the risk of sounding cold... anything that causes the mortality rate of men in this high risk category to rise significantly would likely reduce the overall problem. For example, making the choice of suicide readily available for young men that face poo life prospects, and the choice of ending your own life for the better of society a virtue, perhaps even heroic.

Whether enough people would see such a thing as acceptable for it to become policy is an entirely different issue.

Why would anyone want to raise a son in a society like that?

I don't imagine that it would be drastically different then raising a son today and here; the odds would still be excellent for a son to grow up an be successful.

Mind if I ask what you had in mind to make you think that such a situation would dissuade someone from raising a son?

Same reason there's a social financial safety net, no? Just boiled down to the most crude phrasing.

A bit different than using some of America's extremely, extremely extravagant wealth for the poorest in the nation compared to forcing people to hitch up and support a kid for ~18 years just in case a man gets angry.

No, this is literally why European nations have vast social safety nets with giant wealth transfers: social peace.

Oh got it, you're one of those people who's unable to reason about the way things work without becoming overcome with emotion and desperately cramming the conversation into a simple-minded framework of "who's to blame so we can get mad at them".

I'm not really interested in that kind of conversation, thanks though!

It's because I don't believe you have any actual evidence, and even if you did, you'd end up arguing that a lack of relationships could explain someone becoming a danger to society. That alone is difficult to argue since they could have issues parallel that could have caused it.

No one's making a threat. But any sociologist will tell you that if you put people in an awful situation, you'll sometimes drive awful behavior.

Value judgements of males who are unable to find sexual partners and ultimately life partners not-withstanding...

1) Civil society is much improved by encouraging as many stable partnerships between pairs of humans as possible.

2) Child rearing within intact families leads to significantly better outcomes on average than single parent households.

3) Societies with lower birth rates suffer financial/economic difficult in properly supporting their elderly populations.

It seems possible to me that creatures that are denied their biological imperative can develop some very aggressive behaviours. If 80+% of men in society are angry, I'd be a bit scared.

From the view of the gene, no compromise should be made when facing the prospect of extinction.

I must have some screwed up genes, myself. Healthy, relatively well-off, and dare I say occasionally charming, I am seriously considering never having offspring.

I would be scared to date them. Dating partner that angry when denied what he wants means you will get abused, either verbally or physically and likely both.

And given strength difference between women and men, it is safer to be alone then with someone who is into outrage at 24 for not having partner yet.

I think people become more human the more you treat them as humans that can grow. If you see others through the lens of risk assessment, you'll surely see lots of risk.

Yeah, but I can treat people as human without putting myself in danger. I can treat a guy as human without entering romantic relationship.

Romantic relationships don't cure anger nor violence. But, women who believe so are the typical domestic abuse victim. They date guys thinking they will change them and blaming themselves for abuse.

I mean, abuse is a real thing (and both genders do abuse). But someone who can get so angry and is physically stronger is double bad news.

> Romantic relationships don't cure anger nor violence.

I can honestly pinpoint you the day my life changed forever for the better. It's the day I lost my virginity. That one moment where I felt myself being accepted made me realize I was good enough.

Ever since then, I'd become less angry, more confident, more loving of myself, more charitable towards other people's insecurities instead of positioning myself higher in some imaginary pecking order.

I am far from being truly non-judgmental. I am also still very competitive with others, not un-occasionally in some mean, vicious way. But I no longer feel completely rejected by women, which, for some reason, mattered so much before that very moment.

Obviously, I am just one person and my anecdote may mean nothing to the breadth of your experiences. But I can't agree with this one sentence.

Had you had "very aggressive behavior" before then and turned into non aggressive person by single sex act?

That would be a.) unusual and not confirmed by any study b.) honestly still too much risk for an individual to get into relationship.

I would definitely say I had a much more toxic attitude towards others before. I recall back then fantasizing about violence, either self-inflicted or unto others.

While I'm sure there may be many studies that illustrate the continued abusive behaviour of men who have romantic relationships, I ask myself whether it's possible to show how many men would've been otherwise angry and aggressive had they not experienced acceptance earlier in their lives.

And perhaps I have not specifically addressed your point that it is risky to date known angry people. And I am sure you are right about that.

The point I was making however is more about being a very young man, the insecurities felt as a teenager, the moments that can change the trajectories of their lives, before they become truly angry men. I only hope that other insecure young men could experience that kind of relief from anxiety as I did.

Yes, there is continuity of abusive behavior in relationship. In general, close family members and dependent people gets to experience that most. Note that this is not exclusive to male abuse, female abuse exists too and is more likely to happen to dependents and family.

If you see sex as only proof of being accepted (as opposed to friendships and other social contacts), then I can see how it eases anxiety. It does not sound as if woman in question was important here.

If it is about physical aspect, prostitution sounds like fair way to solve it. If it is about philosophical or social aspect, making self worth less dependent on sex would help there.

The worth given by woman when having sex is however only illusion. Women deciding on having sex with you or not is not actually deciding on your worth. The range of reasons for sex varry quite a lot, from positive to negative, from emotional to practical or to physical or just routine. But actual decision making is not scoring of worth.

I can't help but detect some cynicism in your response.

Who it was with mattered. Being desired mattered. Buying it would have felt empty for me.

> The worth given by woman when having sex is however only illusion.

This isn't the first time I've encountered this idea. I'm sure everyone is exposed to the idea from a very young age. As a teenager, I would've accepted it rationally but rejected it emotionally. Being told something like that would be as effective as telling a hormonal teenager to stop being so emotional.

You're saying even if the sex was objectively bad in comparison with what you had later you still felt this way?

I am sorry, I don't really understand your question. Perhaps you could rephrase it.

Why isn't the first time you had good sex more memorable to you than the time you lost your virginity? (It is rare they are the same time)

Ah I see. Luckily for me, it was good the first time so I can't speak to your question from experience.

Your view is extremely narrow and inconsiderate of the feelings of the men who've been excluded. Indeed, @wutbrodo's comment when a population of young men doesn't have the opportunity to form families, _they_ become the powder keg is correct. Having a powder keg in society definitely causes suffering.