And unequal outcomes do not necessarily show inequality of opportunity, much less systematic oppression or bias. This is well understood by everyone but the SocJus crowd, as the documentary I linked to shows again and again.
sether01
1642
The whole listen and believe thing is utterly stupid. If I know a someone and she talks to me about an experience, of course I’m going to listen to and believe her. I think that applies to a majority of people in civilized society. If it’s some random internet person who I’ve never met, I’m not going to immediately believe and assume they are telling the truth. They could be a compulsive liar. They could be a Messiah. It doesn’t matter, I don’t know the person. Respect and trust is earned, and not something I think should be automatically given to people twittering on what is fundamentally a worldwide bathroom stall used to write short graffiti sentences on.
Not neccessarily but when there is a serious imabalance it is worth investigating. It is NOT worth claiming “science!” and declaring the status quo acceptable without question.
If someone is reporting a crime you give them the benefit of the doubt and conduct an investigation, I think you would agree with that.
sether01
1645
When somebody goes to the police to report a crime of course it should be investigated. If somebody goes to twitter to report a crime, I think a healthy amount of skepticism is warranted.
Please explain this equality of opportunity that you see. Better yet, explain it to the vast majority of people of color that grow up in poverty with a shit educational system.
magnet
1647
The toy study depicted in the video was unblinded. The observer was aware (or could infer) the gender of the child while making his measurements. That’s a serious methodological flaw.
that’s exactly what she’s doing when at 34:26 she says that her theory (which she believes is “scientific” lol) trumps biology.
The biological explanation for gender inequality in employment is not even close to proven, so she is right to be skeptical.
She is much less skeptical of her own pet theory than competing theories, it’s true. That’s flawed reasoning, but I guarantee that every single researcher in the world is likewise less skeptical of their own pet theory than competing theories. It’s the nature of practical science: scientists are humans not robots, and humans like to be right. That’s the whole reason why peer review exists.
Also, are you claiming the women are incapable of achieving positions of power? They certainly are poorly represented based on their numbers in society.
That was towards Malathor BTW
Malathor
1650
Of course not. You are missing the point entirely. Women certainly have the capability, but the fact that there are fewer women in positions of power does not necessarily indicate inequality of opportunity. It may, in whole or in part, reflect factors that might make women less likely to desire to seek out positions of power or to seek out certain professions. Here is a prominent paper on the subject:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Things_Women_and_People_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Sex_Differences_in_Interests
There is also a great deal of evidence that not only for sex based origin of some behavioral traits, but there is a strong genetic, heritable, influence on a host of other behaviors. Examples:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.12393/abstract;jsessionid=BED9B685539D6B9F8929B21507379723.f03t01
That is not to say everything is genetic, or that environment plays no role, but there are a strong strain within the socjus parts of academia that literally wants to suppress dissenting evidence.
magnet
1651
This paper describes gender differences in a variety of interests, including science and engineering.
However, lack of interest in science and engineering is not necessarily a cause of underrepresentation in those fields. It might instead be an effect.
Malathor - None of your sources had anything to do with achieving positions of influence or power. STEM is irrelevant and the genetic origin of antisocial behavior is irrelevant. They are all interesting (and from reputable sources, so kudos on that) but mostly not on topic.
The argument isnt that inequality exists, the argument is that identity politics is superior to egalitarianism as a means to balance inequality. In this example, segregated spaces for black people and demonization of white people are somehow going to help?
It’s not that there may not be a grain of truth to the idea, but feminist theory (like Marxist theory) demands that you accept that everything a person does is determined by their group membership (gender, class), such that anything a person does is like a “signal” reinforcing the bonds the “culture of power” puts everyone under.
The full implication of such a theory is that there is no individual agency. Do you really want to buy into those full implications?
In addition, people within the culture of power have difficulty recognizing that structure because they are not negatively affected and it. It’s just the way things are and anybody who suggests its existence is reactionary or “too sensitive”.
IOW, “whatever happens proves the validity of the theory.” You don’t see anything wrong with that?
He wasn’t proposing any particular all-encompassing theory about childhood development, just putting forward the notion that it’s often the case that if you “raise a child to be x” they may rebel against that and your efforts may be counter-productive. Is that wrong?
In any case, it’s not a major part of his point, it’s just a side-light, isn’t it?
Well, it’s up to you, but I suggest you try and follow his logic.
No, the point is to show how with ideologies, they tend to eat themselves. Tatchell has always been one of the most active, right on Left-wingers in the UK, beloved by many. He’s done tremendous work for gay rights in his lifetime.
But with an ideology, when it starts freewheeling, that’s when you get the “purge” type of situation.
IOW, when things get hellish with ideologies, it’s not something that comes out of the blue - it’s the consistent, logical outcome of ideology that you will eventually get purges and that the situation will turn into hell on earth.
The only thing that stops it happening is that most people mean well, and most people don’t take things to their logical conclusions (they leave it somewhat fuzzy). But when you have an ideology that trades on social signalling, it’s always possible for bastards to take charge by pushing the ideology to its logical extreme - the “moderate” ideologues have no ammunition against that, because they’ve bought into the early stages of virtue-signalling, and it’s extremely hard to find a defensible moderate line to draw WITHIN the ideology.
Same with religions - it’s exactly what’s happening with ISIS and Islamist extremism. The violent, logical outcome is always latent.
You should see some of Stalin’s earliest writings - lovely stuff, banging on about democracy in socialism, it’s even got a bit of an anarcho-socialist tinge to it.
Sweet words, sweet words - but the very nature of ideology is that kind of trippy “drift” where the ideology free-floats, untethered to reality testing, and eventually you have the kafkaesque nightmare where anyone can be accused of anything at any time.
There clearly is individual agency since there are examples of people who had succeeded despite their disadvantages. As I have said before, there is (generally) no explicit movement to keep minorities down. However, the construct of our societies does favor white middle-class males over everyone else and white middle-class males are (generally) blind to those advantages because they are simply ‘how things work’.
Raising your child to be a good person is generally not wrong, further, just letting your children do whatever they want does not lead to good results.
Is it possible he is just saying something that resonates with you personally rather than saying something that is broadly true?
TBH you and he seem to be tilting at windmills.
Malathor
1660
I would say they are directly and rather obviously related. Some recent prominent papers:
Women, on average, tend to be less competitive and more often see high-power positions as less desirable.
