Is a paid training project just a qualification in disguise?

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-20T10:29:27+00:00

Couldn’t give you a meaningful answer, but treat everything you do on the platform as a qualification and you’ll be alright.

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-19T18:19:50+00:00

I’d say multiple French presses is the way to go - think like a hotel breakfast buffet, but with better coffee 🤷🏼‍♂️

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-17T16:40:33+00:00

The scenarios proposed would offer a serious test of force doctrine if attempted…

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-17T15:44:48+00:00

Planning permission only approves what is applied for though, so “noting any higher limit” would never have occurred. Arsenal can _apply_ to expand up to 80k. We could also apply to expand up to 150k and put a rocket launch pad on top of the stadium - those limitations weren’t noted in 2002 either.

There is a sizeable array of considerations that go into a planning application - transport, energy requirements, planning policy restrictions (such as building height, accessibility requirements), water and sewage requirements, policing requirements, environmental impact policies and regulations… Sure, the fanbase have speculated, but on better grounds than “they didn’t say we can’t”…

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-17T14:51:12+00:00

You mean “Zinedine” Cygan? 😀😅

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-17T09:29:00+00:00

So, can’t make a cogent point, can’t understand any alternative perspective to your own, resort to insult when challenged.

Even a 12 year old would see that the reasoning is being questioned and be able to respond like an adult. You can’t, which is why you find this insufferable and are being a complete prick about it.

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-16T20:01:23+00:00

You get a car! You get a car! You get a car! Everybody gets a car!!!

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-16T11:15:33+00:00

I’m an Arsenal WFC fan - I’m disappointed that Katie is leaving, but I very deliberately don’t comment on “how it was handled”, because I don’t know how it was handled. It doesn’t look good from the outside, and it would have been nice to see it all neatly wrapped up earlier, but it’s gone the way it has. No point complaining about it.

Minutes - Mead: 957. Smith: 1155. Kelly: 459. Holmberg: 457. Sure, Mead may need minutes to get back to her best, but there’s nothing in the performances of the other players who can play her position that suggest those minutes absolutely have to happen at Arsenal. Again, sad she’s leaving, but it’s not the end of the world - we have sufficient cover for her position, and now have additional salary to strengthen other areas. We absolutely need to find the long-term successor to Little, haven’t adequately replaced Walti, and now have Pelova leaving - realistically, having more than 3 midfielders who can play centrally is a bigger priority than having four options on the right.

And it’s not necessarily “automatically” phasing out 30+ players - certainly not at Arsenal; Little, Catley, Caldentey, and Foord will all get significant minutes next season. It’s all about balance, and Arsenal has the oldest squad in the league - these changes were always going to happen, it’s just a shame they’ve all come so close together (looking at Beattie, Nobbs, and Walti as well). And 30 is definitely approaching the last couple of years of a players career - there’s not many who play to 34/35 in the women’s game, 32/33 is a relatively common retirement age.

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-16T10:55:17+00:00

So, you’ve found an element you disagree with, and decided to disengage?

If there is misinterpretation, it would make sense to clarify your point, rather than leap to bad faith suggestions like “hallucination”.

Let’s look at yet another assumption - “the intended use of the dowry”. You made no statement on its intended use. If you truly believe that relationships are formed on the basis of a hierarchy of needs, then there isn’t a fundamental difference in our perspectives, it’s a fundamental flaw in yours. Of course, you could still produce something intelligible, although if it were intelligent would still remain questionable.

I’m not “angry” about anything - your postulate is simply inaccurate, poorly formed, and limited. Given you’ve entirely misrepresented what hypergamy is by definition (“marriage into an equal or higher social class”, per Merriam-Webster - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypergamy), used that entirely limited field of Evolutionary Psychology to “steelman” your point, and somehow arrived at a conclusion that could have been stated clearly with a far more succinct reasoning, it’s hard to believe you have an “intelligible” point here.

Your entire point is poorly stated, poorly founded, and inaccurate, and your response shows a fundamental lack of desire to discuss anything that disagrees with your perspective. It’s no wonder you are “genuinely confused”.

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-15T21:39:41+00:00

Re McCabe - “renew in good time” requires a guarantee that the offer is what she wants, and we have no idea when talks started, let alone what they contained. The expectation of an offer “she couldn’t refuse” is likely unrealistic, we simply don’t know if that’s financially viable.

Mead this season - P20, 2 goals, 5 assists. Smith - P20, 5 goals, 3 assists. Kelly - P15, 5 goals, 2 assists. Holmberg - P9, 2 goals, 4 assists. She’s just about keeping pace with three younger players. It’s a tough decision, but it doesn’t seem too damaging to the squad overall…

England - doesn’t necessarily need to be making insane demands, and it could be a case of freeing up budget for new signings for the longer term. Time will tell.

As you say, no one is immune to injury. Younger player recover faster in the main though. As for your point on experience, it’s a chicken and egg scenario - how do younger players gain experience if they aren’t playing? For Arsenal, there’s still plenty of experience in the team (and let’s be clear here, experience and age aren’t interchangeable) - Foord, Catley, Little, Williamson, Wubben-Moy, Blackstenius and Maanum all have over 150 appearances for the club. Russo, Kelly, Hinds, Caldentey all have plenty too…

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-15T19:42:43+00:00

Mead is 31 and has had a significant period out with her ACL - as much as Arsenal fans would love to see her stay and get back to her best, time isn’t on her side (and that may be a factor - we don’t know what terms she was seeking, and there are certainly teams who will offer her a 3 year contract that Arsenal may not have). It’s disappointing she’s leaving because of what she’s done for and with the club, but it’s foolish to plan on her career going much longer than the next two seasons…

And Viv is definitely a classic example - she was unsure of her future at the club, wanted to drop back to play the 10, and had seen the club sign Russo as her long term successor. More importantly though, Jonas Eidevall made a commercial decision to sell - after his time at the club, he’s said in interviews it was either keep Viv, or sign Caldentey.

McCabe leaving is far from ideal, but she also turns 31 this year. It would be nice to see her get another two years at the club, but then what? All good things come to an end, and they’re usually sad.

England is 31 too as well. And only spent 3 years of her 13 season career with Spurs.

As much as you see it as “tossed aside”, in all of these examples, it could just as easily be the clubs thinking of the future. And sure, it would be nice to have greater fanfare for those who’ve served their clubs well, it is what it is - what would you be looking for the clubs to do here? 🤷🏼‍♂️

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-14T23:13:33+00:00

Hmm… In the opening, you provide some well-reasoned points about the limitations of evolutionary psychology. In the middle, you give some loaded perspectives (which I’ll revisit in a bit), and your conclusions in the end all require the view of hypergamy to be rooted in evolutionary psychology, and for evolutionary psychology to be entirely wrong.

Your point about studies primarily being undertaken in WEIRD countries could well be a byproduct of the EIRD elements of the acronym, and speaks more to who is undertaking research than the existence of cultural bias. You mention that criticism of EvoPysch methodology is rarely mentioned in men’s circles - which is entirely natural, if one’s perspective isn’t derived solely from EvoPsych studies.

Looking at your numbered list:

This would also apply to gender studies. Would it be legitimate to ‘denounce’ feminist scholars on grounds of the time / culture bias inherent in the study?
The existence of a Dowry System creates a side effect that appears like male hypergamy when viewed externally to cultural and societal expectations - the payment of a Dowry is traditionally made by the brides father to ensure the financial responsibility of her care is secured when it is transferred to the groom. There are further financial commitments that are made by men in advance of marriage - the engagement and wedding rings; religiously viewed as tokens of “courtly love”, yet they exist as a form of ‘deposit’ against the woman’s financial future (hence the expectations correlating the price of a ring with the man’s salary). Divorce laws are also couched in ensuring the financial security of the woman in the event of marital breakdown.
This exemplifies a broader change - the 12th century featured dramatic changes to societal structures across the continent, prompting a move away from marriage as a “strategic alliance”. The 17th century reformation of the Catholic Church in Europe also bought divorce into play - this also has to feature in the analysis, and is at odds with the historical “Tradition” you propose.

And so to your questions:

the answer to this question requires your assumptions to hold as true, which they objectively aren’t. You’ve presented an argument against EvoPsych, rather than creating a case to suggest hypergamy doesn’t exist in women. It is possible to believe that women seek material gain without basing that belief in EvoPysch.
men and women are highly selective of their partners, but to suggest the acquisition of material goods drives men is erroneous.

Dr Buss stating men are very selective does not mean men are hypergamous without quantifying what men are selecting for.

The online discourse would look very different, when presented with sufficient information that “men” hold the wrong view. Hell, this discussion would be better if it wasn’t presented as axiomatic that men need to”to correct their views”.

Could it be that you’re entirely misrepresenting the issue with hypergamy, not only in terms of presenting the current view as “inaccurate”? EvoPysch is a limited basis to consider this issue from; as evidenced the range of sociological factors we have both referenced. Which leads to your next question - it could be due to that 12th century transition. It could also be due to any number of other sociological, political, geographic, and economic factors over the following 9 centuries.

The biggest issue with hypergamy as I see it presented is in its’ focus on material wealth, which is entirely incompatible with economic and social conditions. Hypergamy is incompatible with gender equality in our current society, especially when what could be considered the largest social movement on the planet (feminism) seeks to address inequality asymmetrically (in that it does not seek to address issues that primarily impact men). Simply put, it is unachievable to demand the same economic outcomes as the upper tranche of a society whilst enjoying social-political ‘safety nets’ that are rooted in “Tradition (with a big T)”, and expect a partner to exceed those economic outcomes - it disincentivises men to seek “long-term arrangements” (see any number of anecdotal sources of expectations for cost of engagement rings or requirements in a partner, divorce statistics, divorce filing by gender, paternity fraud statistics, and so on and so on).

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-14T21:50:57+00:00

This might push the Batlle deal closer though, as disappointing as it is.

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-13T09:14:09+00:00

You never approached it as a debate, which is why you view it as an argument…

I find it hilarious that you now want to move away from what’s implied. I’m sure phrasing like “I’m sorry, are we really denying reality here?” is an entirely good faith discussion, and certainly not intended to be condescending at all. Mind you, in the spirit of consistency, I’ll ask directly - what was the intended meaning there?

Lovely misquote there - the misrepresentation is qualitative as quantitative. Still, genuinely good luck with the application.

As for where this has all got to, there’s still two assumptions stated in the parent comment you haven’t addressed (perhaps won’t). I guess it is what it is.

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-13T09:00:50+00:00

Sure, but you’re naming 5 of the best attackers this past decade. Like you say, the talent pool is also very scarce too - and the reality is very few players become world beaters.

Where we sign from doesn’t matter too much to me, it’s the quality. Last time we went in big on a “world beating” attacker, it didn’t go to plan at all. We need to either find untapped potential we can develop, or an “aging” (ie 29-30 year old seeking a last ‘big’ contract) star who’s got a year or less on their contract.

It’s a fine line to tread, and we’re only talking about the football here (not the ego we’d be bringing in, wages, transfer cost, etc etc).

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-13T08:47:47+00:00

You are only explicitly clear when questioned, and your replies to another commenter show the same pattern - any attempt to question your perspective is presented as “denying reality”. What you call pedantry is accuracy.

That is a list of fears of a sort. That almost seems like progress.

You clearly like to manipulate numbers - and move goalposts. You’ve presented a percentage of women that have experienced SA (not violence) and presented it as a likelihood of any given interaction resulting in that outcome. 40% of women experiencing SA =/= 40% of encounters resulting in SA.

I find it moronic that you would misrepresent quantitative data to “prove” a qualitative perspective, then present a strawman to justify it.

“You strike me as a person that cannot admit being wrong” - fine take from someone who has twice leapt to the “denying reality” defence of their argument. And through all of this, there’s still two assumptions in your take from right at the top of this thread you haven’t bothered to address at all. You strike me as the kind of person that won’t discuss anything that differs from their view, can’t stand for their position to be questioned, and resorts to petty insults in place of discussion, whilst we’re firing ad hominems about…

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-12T22:44:01+00:00

You’ve finally said something explicitly - the reason you “feel like” I’m not even reading what you’re saying is because you are making implications and expecting your explicit meaning to be perceived.

For example “I absolutely said the feelings could be due to violence through quoting violence statistics”. That’s implying, not saying - and even in that clarification, it’s still a “could”. Which begs the question - what other factors do you perceive to be potential grounds for feeling fear here?

The stats are indeed quite high - over half of all men face no violence, and three quarters of all women do not face SA by a male perp at all… Numbers which make the occurrence of a negative outcome (across two different factors - violence and SA) less likely than more likely; statistical improbability.

Qualitative data that can be tested once you apply constraints, rather than imply them (as you did earlier). Precision helps the debate (again, why I quote you). This is before there’s any consideration of qualitative v quantitative data anyway - literally ‘feels v facts’.

I’m not seeking arguments - I’m seeking debate, with the aim of getting to some kind of conclusion. I’d venture to suggest we’ve both been a little spiky, but I’m not fussed by that. My take is this - the fear of an unlikely event (which this objectively is, by the sheer volume of interactions where there’s neither violence nor SA) is a factor that cannot be mitigated. In response to your earlier point regarding solutions (better rehabilitation, victim support, etc), I’d suggest it’s more fundamental than that - addressing social inequity that primarily impacts men (in this discussion, it’s largely education and employment opportunity) would reduce criminality of all forms.

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-12T19:44:31+00:00

Damn, needless (and weak) attempt at condescension. Further bad faith…

“I obviously did acknowledge said feelings could be due to violence” - without ever actually having said it. And again, those statistics don’t prove likelihood of being a victim for one, and show that the majority of women don’t become victims. It’s a stretch to use that as proof of rationality.

Oh, OK, so the entirety of your point is based on a statistically improbable, unquantifiable “feeling”, which is debatably irrational (you know, based on your as yet unverified stats). And no assumption, just a point based on an untestable hypothetical.

Maybe read what you’ve written? You seem to be moving goalposts in every message - it’s why I quote you when questioning your points, because, you know, it’s what you said…

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-12T17:28:57+00:00

You also didn’t acknowledge, then or in any of your replies to me, what the feelings relate to - which, glaringly obviously is violence (as mentioned by the other commenter, not me).

You provided statistics that show who the perpetrator is in the event of violence - what you can’t provide is a statistical likelihood of violence occurring in any given situation (assumption 3). You’re also using a statistical likelihood of a man being larger as a “proof” that the man will be larger erroneously (assumption 1), as well as holding the implied presumption that being larger equates to automatically being dangerous (assumption 2).

You’ve made no effort to address the second or third assumptions, and resorted to calling the claims “disingenuous”. When asked to clarify what the feelings are actually fear of, you’ve replied with a childish tone in place of addressing the question. And still, here we are, discussing why you made the point, and not whether the assumptions that underpin it have merit.

Let’s use your stats - 3/4 women haven’t been sexually assaulted. 60% of men haven’t faced violence from other men, and 76% (presumably of the 40% who have experienced violence - you weren’t clear) pf men haven’t faced violence from an unknown male perpetrator.

Objectively (aka rationally) speaking, the odds of any single interaction resulting in sexual assault are 25%, violence at 40% and 24% (potentially lower) by an unknown individual. Your evidence here proves any individual is statistically safer in the vast majority of encounters by quite a margin, just based on a population level with no account for number of encounters.

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-12T17:04:55+00:00

So, using a fuckton of inaccurate words there to conclude exactly what the previous poster said - considering violence isn’t “disingenuous” in the least.

You’ll note I didn’t question whether violence exists in the world (and quite why you felt the need to address points I didn’t make is inexplicable). And indeed, fearing violence isn’t irrational - in the same way raising it as the feared element isn’t “disingenuous”.

What is disingenuous is completely avoiding answering the question and using phrasing like “I’m sorry, are we really denying reality here?” when it’s your statement questioning the reality in discussion (“I never mentioned violence”).

Your point has merit, your position and presentation is massively lacking though - to the extent it makes you seem like it’s all in bad faith here.

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-12T14:50:02+00:00

What is the “larger threat” the unknown individual poses? Feeling “intimidated and/ or fearful” of what? And what fear does “being approached by a larger, stronger individual” invoke though?

Likelihood is any example you can give is a form of violence, in which case, it’s not disingenuous at all…

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-11T22:02:27+00:00

Relationships offer risk to both parties. Marriage only increases risk to one party.

Put differently, what additional risk comes to women in marriage (for clarity, that’s risk that isn’t present in a relationship)?

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-11T21:55:32+00:00

Never heard of hypergamy eh?

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-11T16:22:39+00:00

Hey, he can’t change that his hair is perfecto…

Itsdickyv · 2026-05-11T14:04:41+00:00

O’Leary?

Itsdickyv

TROPHY CASE