@Pigeon's banner p

Pigeon

coo coo

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:48:43 UTC

				

User ID: 237

Pigeon

coo coo

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:48:43 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 237

I don't think I've seen LGBT activists fabricate incidents

I mean, I’m not sure, man

I assume the meeting happened first and the lawyering happened later?

I admit to having never played Atelier Totori and have only played about 10 minutes of Atelier Sophie, but I'd be very surprised if any Atelier game had "high impact sexual violence"...

If we can fry ice cream…

If you mean that Koreans have nutters who claim Chinese things — and other things too, for that matter — are actually Korean, no, that's real. The Chinese do grossly exaggerate the extent of belief, of course.

The festivals thing I was thinking of was related to Lunar New Year. I'm going off this by memory, so couldn't find a source in time.

The Chinese character thing was something found originally here, where some Korean novelist and former(?)-professor expounds on the idea that actually proto-Koreans created Chinese civilisation before migrating to Korea (by equating proto-Koreans simultaneously with the Shang and the Dongyi). (Apparently the same person was also featured in a video here earlier this year where he more explicitly claims that Chinese characters are Korean. That video has been private'd, but some vengeful Chinese netizen has re-uploaded it)

(I also somehow found this looney tunes Korean guy claiming that English is descended from Korean?)

Again, these things aren't taken seriously by the (vast?) majority of Koreans, but they do exist (as do more mainstream but still silly nationalistic punchups). This is also not to elide that you see loony shit from the Chinese (and Japanese, and every ethnicity really) as well -- sometimes even from the state organs!

My conjecture is that some part of this historical revisionism has to do not only with modern nationalism and geopolitcal rivalry, but also a longer-rooted hostility that has fomented since the Qing conquest.

And wait a few short generations, and we start getting shit like this. It's still relegated to the sketcher and trashier side of fiction for now, but generational memory is pretty short.

I'll stress that that part is my own conjecture, and doubtless modern nationalism and fear/mistrust of the PRC plays into this phenomenon as well. But it seems unlikely to me that the historical background didn't contribute to this. And that the Chinese usually overhype whatever minor Korean nutter has to say for their own purposes as well, to the extent that the average Chinese is probably more misinformed about the actual state of understanding in Korea (where Koreans rightfully mostly relegate such hyper-nationalism as mostly batshit insane).

Then there are things that are just kinda...dumb, like the Chinese getting irate at the Korean dragon boat festival getting recognised internationally (honestly who gives a shit? It's like Italians getting upset about modern British celebrating a derivative of a Roman festival). That stupid thing about kimchi and paocai thing still confuses me to this day (not the background facts, but the sheer idiocy of it, as well as the initial irresponsibility of the Chinese press).

I can't name sources in a hurry, and this might be a faulty explanation, but I think a partial reason of this is due to Korea turning super-neo-Confucian during the Joseon dynasty/period. This is most evident after the Qing conquest of the Ming, which the Koreans responded to by considering Qing China as not having political legitimacy*, and doubling down on their interpretations of neo-Confucianism; but strands of this are evident even earlier, when Korean scholars rejected Ming-dynasty innovations (e.g. the Lu-Wang school) in favour of elaborating on older models, most prominently from Zhu Xi. Even today you can see a much, much more obviously hierarchical system regarding personal relations present in Korea than in Japan or China, even counting pre-PRC China (edit: at least contemporaneously).

China, on the other hand, did have such reevaluations, and the Manchu conquest prompted significant soul-searching, resulting in things like the kaozheng school of thought. Japan's kangaku, likewise, did not hunker down in the same way Korea did.

I could easily see how a more hyper-Confucian society that's had a crash course in modern liberal democracy and capitalist markets would create sex-based resentment, especially if you introduce a dose of feminism into it.

*For further reading you could go look at how many Koreans at the time considered themselves to be sojonghwa and the real inheritors of Chinese political culture and civilisation, now that actual China was overrun by "barbarians". This was to the extent that, IIRC, Joseon Korea refused to use Qing dynasty regnal years as part of its calendar, and continued counting as if the last Ming emperor (?) was still in power. Also note that this was not entirely unique to Korea; there were politicians and thinkers in Japan and Vietnam who shared this opinion.

Some element of this after the "loss of China" in the 17th century likely contributes to Korean culture today. I've been told by native Koreans about how the older generations still sometimes say outright that "since the fall of the Ming there has been no worthy Chinese (persons)"; and there's always some loony Korean nationalist scholar, never taken very seriously, insisting on how this or that aspect of Sinosphere civilisation (from festivals to Chinese characters, so on and so forth) actually originates from Korea.

Hong Kong is lower by a little, but the others are higher. Macau actually has a TFR of above 1...!

Especially with the male oversupply (see: one-child policy and preference for sons), at least up till quite recently, owning a residence is considered the minimum requirement for getting a decent match in China, at least in the urban areas. It gets to the point where multiple generations might be investing in a property for a son so he can get ahead (admittedly not just in romance; also stuff like residency status and rights, but I am very far from an expert on this)

More anecdotally, I know of Chinese women who openly discuss/brag about what sort of make of car/house/whatever accessory they require before giving a man the light of day.

Not sure how the owning a house thing is doing with the property market still in freefall.

I'm pretty sure this is referencing moral foundations theory.

I'm sure you could find more, but even just a brief perusal gives me examples of this from the Atlantic in an otherwise unsympathetic piece. I feel like it's pretty well known even with only a relatively passing interest in Korea.

Two examples inside that article are that of an engagement getting broken off because a downturn in a business owned to-be-groom's parents spooked the to-be-bride and her family, and a late-50s university lecturer finding out that he wouldn't meet the salary demands outlined by Korean women now.

The preference for sons in China goes deeper, as in older tradition the sons of a family perform the sacrificial rites due for ancestor worship. But it is true that the pragmatic aspect of this was of significant concern as well, enough for (no longer extant) jokes to exist about families being "robbed" by having many daughters but no sons.

Then again, go back that far and often enough the newlyweds would just live in the (husband's) family compound...

"We will bury you", indeed...

I thought it was 3/4? Or was it somewhere else that has 5 executioners but only 1 live round?

I'm assuming that tabletop community would be a 'legitimate ethnic community.' But even that is fraught - if it's recognized as a 'legitimate white ethnic community' and a black person wants to join, what happens? If you just happen to have a board game group that happens to be all white I think progressives would ding you on not being inclusive enough but not call you a white nationalist, if you happen to have a white ethnic board game group that would actively exclude others based on race, then I think you deserve the label of either racist or white nationalist, no?

What if it was an exclusively black or Indian or Chinese, etc, etc. club? Which would be acceptable and why? What about subcategories of white, like Irish or British or French?

To lay my own cards on the table, I am not white, and I think forming exclusive clubs of this sort are in poor taste at best and would rather they not exist. But we do not live in that world.

We silly materialists also “believe in” things like quantum theory which, to quote Feynman:

[…] it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct.

And for diabetes!

Also "status" is absolutely a thing in masculine spaces, which is one reason why "I'm sorry, I was wrong" is never seen here.

I did get something quite close! It does happen!

I recall recently listening to an interview with a philosopher lamenting the terrible influence that critical theory has had on the philosophy profession, and how it has all but taken over without seeming to have won any arguments.

Do you still have links to the interview?

The male:female skew of autism is 4:1, which is the simplest explanation why STEM careers have been filled with men at around that ratio until recently:

Is your contention that STEM careers have been filled almost entirely by autists until very recently, or do you also think that “logical intuition” is similarly biased towards men vis a vis women?

In that case I certainly did not get that impression from the blogpost, and I don't think this has anything to do with "autocorrelation" as much as it has to do with the data being bounded, which I think is another argument entirely. Incidentally I think the bounded-data explanation, which seems the most obvious one to me (along with other ones like the better-than-average effect and simple regression to the mean), are much more convincing than wrangling about autocorrelation. It's also using "autocorrelation" in a weird way.

I remain of the opinion that DKE is probably artefactual or minor at best, but the blog is still either poorly written or wrong.

This is not the "public consciousness" understanding of the DKE. That is the claim that "people who say they are real good and talk about how good they are are actually no better or even worse than the people who say they are bad".

In that case I stand corrected. That seems silly.

This is not how poor correlation is usually defined either in real life, that's normally given by r, and you can have very high r while the statement "poor performers overrate their performance and good performers underate theirs" (say r = 0.99, an out of the world level correlation for anything in the social sciences) is still true.

Well, of course "can have very high r and still have [that statement] be true" is true with r<1, especially since the data is bounded and poor performers are naturally going to be more room to overestimate and good performers underestimate. I thought the point of DKE was that r was low,

Pending a detailed read of Nufher et al. and Gignac & Zajenkowski, this appears as one of three -- either the blogpost is simply wrong; or I have a misundertanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect; or the author has done a really shit job at explaining himself. Either way, I'm not convinced so far.

It means that we can throw random numbers into x and y — numbers which could not possibly contain the Dunning-Kruger effect — and yet out the other end, the effect will still emerge.

My understanding of the DKE is that self-assessment is poorly correlated with objective ability in such a way that poor performers overrate their performance and good performers underate theirs. In this case, the lack of correlation in Fig. 7 from y being a variable with a uniform distribution uncorrelated with x already shows the effect! I'm not sure how the author is so sure that plotting uncorrelated variables and "showing" the DKE disproves it, as the entire point is that they're poorly-to-uncorrelated!

If my understanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect is right, I suspect the author may be right to some degree (just based on personal experience, I think DKE is extremely oversold, and even if true is unlikely to be very important), but his working is definitely wrong.

Granted.

What makes this different from rule consequentialism, then? Or are they the same in your definition?