RenOS
something is wrong
No bio...
User ID: 2051
RenOS
something is wrong
3d ago
Afaik this is a major reason why people were not very worried about the cratering birth rates for decades - the ultra high birth rates of the recent past were a result of this massively reduced infant mortality and clearly unsustainable, there already was a scare about overpopulation shortly beforehand and so it seemed like a needed corrective. A short-lived undershoot stemming from an overcorrection is also quite normal, and due to the nature of the issue "short-lived" is measured in generation time.
RenOS
something is wrong
3d ago
Our views might not be in as much tension as you think.
First, satisfaction is a positive feeling in my framework, so having many things you didn't build doesn't feel bad. I also don't suffer due buying almost everything per se. What matters is that you have enough things to feel satisfied about, ideally regularly in your direct environment. And also, there are many ways how you can feel satisfaction. For me, it's definitely my kids. And it's also my wife, or more specifically, the relationship with her; We've had our up and downs (still do) and it was hard work to keep it together at times. But we've adapted to each other so much that the entire idea of ever breaking up seems utterly silly, and we've found a way of being that makes us both happy. I also have academic degrees, especially my doctoral thesis, but honestly it all didn't quite turn out the way I wanted, and I'm not sure how satisfied I am with it. Some of the papers I was involved in or even main author are nice, though, and I certainly feel satisfaction when reading them again - but I have to make a conscious decision to do it, it's not automatically present daily the way my kids are.
On the second, I explicitly mentioned that satisfaction can even be felt for people close to you, not just only yourself (which is part of the reason why I call it satisfaction as opposed to pride). I used to be the kind of disagreeable materialist atheist who made fun of the idea of feeling pride for the accomplishments of one's ancestor or vice-versa one's kids. After having children myself however I get it at least partially: Not quite pride, but I do feel a deep satisfaction every time my kids accomplish something. And I can then at least imagine how someone in the past might feel the same about his, say, close-knit warband. It's not implausible to me that with all the hard challenges one might have gone through with them, such feelings might include a large part of the fellow tribesmen, maybe even the tribe as a whole. Of course, even if you're very self-focused and the, say, bow-maker of your tribe, you can still feel a lot of satisfaction every time you see someone else with your own handiwork, which you do constantly, every day.
RenOS
something is wrong
4d ago
Pregnancy and early baby time is also really high-variance. My wife didn't mind the first one that much, until at around month 7 she suddenly couldn't lie down anymore without a massive heartburn. It got a bit better once she found an elevated positioning that was just the right mix of less heartburn while still being somewhat comfortable. The last three months were still kind of awful, and the birth was the crowning achievement, 24 hours of pain and screaming without any sleep, and at the end she was so tired that the nurses almost started a cesarian. Then the first few days the nurses tortured us by waking us up every 2 hours sharp (independent of the babies actual sleeping pattern, of course) to make absolutely sure the baby drinks enough, despite even the doctor visiting us saying that it's fine if the baby drinks irregularly early on, as long as they start drinking more, get enough overall and she looked healthy anyway. Chadette nurses don't give a fuck about virgin doctor advice, though, and carried on. After the third day we were let go, and finally got some okayish sleep for the first time.
Some others friends even apparently mostly enjoy pregnancy, while others were suffering from day one, with pain and throwing up. Birth is universally awful, though. But after the first it's at least usually relatively quickly over.
Sleep is also really variable; Our first was mostly sleeping through the night except for a single milk (which we didn't mind at all) from around 1 until 3, and then completely slept through. Among other friends, we know babies that sleep through the night with like 4 months (really jealous), and toddlers that still wake up every two hours with 3. Our second also certainly sleeps worse than the first. The pregnancy and even the birth were much better, though.
Then there are kids like me. Early birth, low weight. Barely drank anything. According to my parents, I loudly screamed through large parts of the night, and regularly during the day, up until one. My parents don't say it, but I suspect that might be one reason I'm an only child. And we still don't know why, I have no lasting condition and there was no family history. Just random.
Of course, this makes it no less scary for first time parents; You really don't know which way the dice will roll.
RenOS
something is wrong
4d ago
All the pronatal propaganda is making it clear that being a father is extra hard if you're not in your early twenties, so I'm already at only the second best age to become one
Na, especially as the dad, you just shouldn't be very old, i.e. in retirement when they are in high school. Especially since, despite all the talk, many women really want to be the primary carers for the kids anyway. For that reason and simply due to fertility issues the situation for women is different, but even for them plenty of pronatalists actually consider late twenties the best time.
RenOS
something is wrong
4d ago
Amtrak will not let you buy train tickets for kids unless you have one adult per kid.
Wow, that's crazy to me.
RenOS
something is wrong
4d ago
No. This isn't coding or even math proofs where you could plausibly be a prodigy working on it by yourself since you're ten. You're fresh out of an okay college. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that you have any idea what you're talking about in respect to hiring compared to companies who have been doing and optimizing this for literal decades. You are the equivalent of a kid watching his first starcraft video and, never having played it, announcing that you're probably better than the best players in the entire world because you have identified something that you think was a mistake. Hell, no, you haven't even watched the video, you've only been told about it second-hand.
I've had these points on my mind for a while now, but I guess now is a good time to write about it.
Imo there are two broad issues in modern culture closely related to this. Actually more, but these two are quite fundamental and thus especially hard to fix.
First the issue of what happiness even is. Modern culture is very fuzzy on it, and as such, has a tendency to default to the easiest-to-achieve, lowest common denominator: Fun and the avoidance of pain. Fun is being on a roller coaster. Fun is sitting on the couch watching Netflix. Fun is anything that doesn't challenge and doesn't create anything but keeps your mind occupied, even excited. I don't think I need to explain what the avoidance of pain is; But intrinsically it's a negative, and you can't built up a functioning society from a negative. Neither of these are wrong per se, they're just not sufficient for "the good life", they feel empty on their own. There are probably even more that I'm not aware of, but two major kinds of happiness are imo necessary to really feel good about yourself: Flow and Satisfaction.
Flow is about being challenged, and rising to the challenge. It's the state of mind when you have sufficiently trained something, say, Tennis, and play against a roughly equally skilled opponent. You may eventually lose, or you may win, the game itself might be mostly pointless (or might not), but the important part is this fundamental knowledge: You really feel deep in your bones you are good at this. The thing itself absolutely needs to a have some appropriate level of difficulty, or else you can't feel the flow.
Satisfaction is when you (either alone or in a group; sometimes even not you yourself but someone very closely related to you) have created something lasting, look back on it and, to quote a well known book: And He saw that it was good. It's having build a house, or planted a tree.
Sexuality gives a nice example of all three: Masturbation is fun; Seduction and sex is flow; Being in a relationship and having kids is satisfaction.
The good life, in my opinion, consists of waking up and immediately being satisfied about everything you see around; Then you do your job and naturally, automatically feel the flow, until you're finished and feel satisfaction again about a job well done. Tired, you indulge yourself with a little bit of fun in the afternoon and do some chores, and then fall asleep, satisfied about a good day and, again, everything you see around you. You can see what the relative priorities in my view are based on how much time is spent on each.
It's easy to see how hunter-gatherer societies effortlessly do this without even being aware: You wake up in a hut/tent which you necessarily must have crafted yourself or someone close to you, and the same goes for literally every piece of furniture and equipment present in it. You go hunting and feel the flow. Ideally, you successfully bring back game satisfied, cook it, enjoy it, and finally fall asleep. Very simplified, I know, but you get the gist. I'm also not claiming that life was necessarily great back then, since fear, despair and death were constant companions. But these positives were downright unavoidable if you did survive.
In modern life, we have successfully conquered those negatives. But on the positive side, everything tends to be the wrong way around: Nothing I have around me I have built myself; It's all just bought. Some work at least involves flow, but since flow requires difficulty it also implies things can go wrong with some regularity. More efficient is when nothing can really go wrong. Having successfully optimized everything, a lot of modern work is largely flow-less, rubber-stamping documents, endless meetings with decisions by committee, or supervising a machine that makes every product exactly the same in a way no human ever could.
But fun, oh fun! Fun is overflowing. Many people who nominally work full-time actually mostly indulge their fun for most of it. Plenty of people just flat-out do not work and you can guess what they do for most of the day. You absolutely can go through an entire modern life without ever really creating anything at all nor being meaningfully challenged.
The second is on the nature of close, especially romantic, relationships. The primary modern narrative is one of matching: You find people who share your views, preferences and inclinations, so any time spent together is automatically fun. People who don't match with you should be avoided. Reddit liberalism is the purest form; Any conflict results in a recommendation of "just break up and find a better match". Worst, in a certain sense, are not only the endless options, but the appeal to identify with those options. You don't enjoy gaming among other things, you're a gamer. You don't just like meat-less cuisine, you're a vegan. Remember the toaster-fucker problem.
The reality, in my view, certainly includes matching, but also involves skill and work, and most of all, adaption and the change of self, letting go of yourself. A lot, in fact. Again, harkening back to hunter-gatherers makes this painfully obvious: The choices in your tribe, maybe also a few other friendly tribes around you, are very limited. Childhood friendships will likely last for life, and should be invested in and adapted to appropriately. You may actually get the girl that suits you the most, but there will still be some points of conflict. Fortunately, options for views and preferences are rather limited to begin with as well, reducing some tensions. But you will have to change the person you are for her, and she for you. And when it comes to kids, you probably already get forced to look after those of other people anyway (and yes, also do the bad parts), so having your own adds not too much extra work.
As an only-child, I've grown up with literally nobody helping me how to manage a close relationship, let alone get a girl in the first place. Or at least putting me in my place, telling me to get better and put in the work. I've spent a large part of my teenage years resenting the fact that I'm supposed to be the active suitor, as opposed to be pursued. Aren't we in a feminist society? If a girl wants me, she can hit on me the same way I can hit on her! Certainly, at least, she should put in the same amount of work during dating! And anyway, no girls have the same interests as me, so why should I even attempt dating them? A few same-age boys and girls correctly told me I'm stupid, but the culture overall indulged me instead. Mostly through indifference, but I even got some approving nods from some older woman who said my attitude was mature and society will move that way eventually, you just have to find the perfect person for yourself!
And for friendships and relationships it even kind of works for enough people. We do meet so many people that it's true we can get much better matches than in the past. And already as kids we regularly get told friendships don't matter, we can always find new ones. So a lot of the social skills for close relationships (which are different from the social skills for early/superficial friendships - I was always good at those!) either never get developed, or atrophy. Few feel the need to ever put in work, and rather just get a whole new friend instead. If you train a skill, it's the one to cycle through people and find good matches.
Kids now are the perfect storm of everything that you did learn being useless, needing all the skills that you didn't learn and were told are useless, being challenged and requiring work in a way you probably never have been before, and the only reward is something that you might not even be aware you want or like. You don't get to choose your kids, you roll the dice with your partner and that's that (though at least they have some predisposition towards being similar to you; adoption is accordingly actually worse in that sense). All the skills you developed to find new friends and explore how well you match are pointless. Instead you have to do a lot of stuff you would never like and you don't even get paid for it. Months of sleep deprivation, changing diapers and reading toddler books.
I'm also increasingly convinced - courtesy of my wife hammering it all the time - that one of the most important parts of parenthood is teaching your children relationship management techniques from a young age on so that as older siblings they naturally have a good relationship in the first place and effortlessly keep it that way. Stuff like, when one gets a cookie, you always break up some part and give it to the other. Or you just sit there when they fight over a toy, and force them to repeatedly give it to the other back and forth until they have internalised that you don't need to fear that the other will keep it for themselves, so you can give away a toy freely, you'll get it again. And, the only part modern life somewhat teaches you, identifying when the other really needs some space and giving it, and to just play on your own without needing constant feedback. Maybe I'm naive and probably we will run into problems again as they get older, but generally they just do this stuff automatically now, simply get along for the most part and when not they also can just play by themselves for an hour or more, despite still being quite small.
And it's obvious to me that plenty of parents lack a certain introspection that allows them to see how deficient their skills in this respect are, and just try to press their square peg modern adult life intuitions into the round hole of relationship management for kids. They may do some things admirably competently, getting their kids into bed at seven sharp, managing screen time perfectly, juggling a million play-dates, working full-time and regularly getting date-nights with the wife through a babysitter. But it's obvious that they mostly resent the intrusion into the individuality they are used to, they don't really teach their kids (if they even have more than one) how to manage the sibling relationship or any other close one, they maximize their childless time on every occasion and worst of all, the kids feel that and correctly identify it as rejection. At the other end parents go crazy indulging every whim because, again, they have never learned how to manage a close relationship in a reasonable way and are so deathly afraid that their kid might not end up liking them that they rather give up absolutely everything. Sometimes parents manage to combine those two, somehow.
So, what is one to do? The first, and most important is the constant satisfaction you can feel every time you have your kids around you. Especially if you're not used to that you may need to concentrate a bit on it. But it's always present, indescribable, and at least for me far beyond what I feel for anything I have ever created otherwise. The next, often near-unimaginable part is that you can actually enjoy things you don't through empathy. I certainly don't enjoy reading toddler books on my own. But I do enjoy watching my toddler, feeling what he feels, (trying to) think what he thinks, and through that even toddler books become great. For this, you need to let go of your individuality a bit however, which not everyone is willing to do. From there, advanced techniques are possible: Changing diapers can be enjoyable, by concentrating on how the baby feels better afterwards, and on the fact that it is a necessary for your children. Even the sleep can be, as you cuddle with your child and concentrate on how happy it is to be with you, on how happy you are that it exists, and waking up a few times in the night is a small price to pay for that. But again, if you do that you are literally re-modelling your entire mental structure and let go of the person you used to be to the degree that "dead" becomes an apt description for that person. As you see, even happiness itself can be a skill issue.
On the other side, the same way you need to teach your kids how to get and give space from and to each other, you need to set boundaries to not go crazy and lose your individuality entirely. Changing diapers is necessary; Making the third dinner because they suddenly say they don't want the first two dinner options you made is not. If they're hungry, they'll eat. You probably screwed up earlier by letting them snack too much and indulging them too often before, otherwise they wouldn't even get the idea that making a third dinner is a possibility. That behaviour is not even good for them, let alone for you.
Again, since you haven't been taught how to properly give up a part of your individuality in the first place, that means you also haven't been taught how stop at some point. I'd echo some other posters here that now with kids, I look back on my pre-parenthood self with cringe; I only really have become an adult after becoming a parent.
Also, not to mention, kids are also lots of fun as well. They just do so much random shit you don't expect, you can't help but feel good. But the fun really isn't the reason why you should have them.
This got quite long, and probably a bit meandering. The TL;DR is, I guess: Children are everything modern life isn't, and hence, it anti-prepares you for it. This is what I mean with "it's cultural"; Even if we gave everyone huge stacks of money for having kids, I'm unsure how much it will change for the better. Ultimately, those that really want them will get them anyway, and for those that don't, I'm not sure it's an improvement if they do. And in our world, the future belongs to those who show up, so evolution will sort it out longterm anyway. We'll just have to muddle through, and maybe try to teach our kids those skills so that they have an easier time.
RenOS
something is wrong
5d ago
Of course, since the answer to "is x perfect" is almost always "no", for any important irl task. The actually relevant question is "are their hiring practices EV+, especially compared to whatever deepneuralnetwork wants them to do?" to which the answer is also "of course".
You don't seem to grasp how much money is on the line and/or how important even a small statistical edge can be in ultra-competitive fields.
Sorry if my post was overly abrasive, in any case. There's lots of discussion to be had about how many sub-messages are in each piece of media and their respective share of importance. There are always multiple messages being sent simultaneously, some of them even unintentionally. I just find the hard denial of political messaging quite frustrating at this point.
But even with that in mind, I can't help but think that turning the halftime show of the super bowl - to my knowledge one of the biggest public events in the US - into something where the majority of the US population is literally not the target audience is itself a message, and not a very nice one.
RenOS
something is wrong
5d ago
One of my closest friends is a CEO of a medium sized tech company, and after years on the job he is convinced that correct hiring is by far the most important part of a well-functioning company. Good people make everything easier, and even just a few troublemakers can drag everything down. According to him, most experienced managers he's talked with agree.
You may claim they are wrong, but I'd be surprised if managers in prestigious, ultra competitive fields think differently.
A lot of DINK-couple (Double Income, No Kids) are no longer as eager to become DICKs (Double Income, Couple o' Kids) as they used to be. This fact is concerning because I have a suspicion it has a strong potential to rapidly initiate a self-replicating demographic spiral. DINKs have more resources compared to DICKs, and if more people choose to stay DINKs then life for DICKs will probably become even harder, which in turn will lead to even fewer DICKs. I think the carrot for DICKs probably won't be enough here: society probably also needs to put a dent in the wallet of the DINKs, maybe throught some tax scheme, to encourage more childrearing.
Yep, this is a major problem imo. As a DICK myself, you frequently directly compete with the DINKs. DINKs can easily work 10-12 hours and still have a decent amount of free time, especially since sleeping through for 6 hours is OK. With (small) kids, you struggle to get your 6-8 hours of work, and your sleep is fucked up for a looong time, so you might feel tired even with technically 8-9 hours. DINKs can and do buy the same houses in the same locations, just with a different layout, and they have waaaay more excess money to spare to drive up the prices. Etc.
There's a lot of other issues, too, but this makes everything a lot harder.
I don't claim that you, personally, hold those views. I'm noting that the left overall does, and that this is a frequent tension where some part, especially media people, openly admit to doing messaging that way and considering it and unalloyed good, while another part pretends this is beyond the pale, nobody would do this. Just yesterday I read multiple articles from big media corps which considered it obvious that a message was send, and that the show was important precisely because it does so.
When exactly the people who make these kinds of decisions consider it obvious, how much sense does make to deny it? Yet, it's a common refrain, especially among the moderate left. The same goes, for example, for kids movies, where some of the writers can be found on bluesky publicly talking about how stories can be used to educate kids, and explain very well what they mean with educating, but when you critisize this there will always be some people jumping in, claiming that the entire idea is stupid, nobody would ever do this.
RenOS
something is wrong
6d ago
I find the simultaneous "wow, this brave show sends a really necessary message to the evil Trump administration!" and "message? what message? You're imaging things" on the left fascinating, but it gets pretty tiring at this point. Marketing is extremely woke overall, PMCs overall are disproportionally as well, and the small number of people who made the decision are either likely so rich and/or far removed from any potential consequences that they can easily afford to send any message they like under the thinnest of veneers. This idea that anyone working in a corporation is automatically a dispassionate stock-maxxing robot really needs to die. They are humans, and humans are tribal and emotional. Plenty have paid much more for much less.
RenOS
something is wrong
9d ago
If you're a young (gamer) guy, I strongly endorse getting good at shooters at least once. I was the kind of nerd looking down on it until I got really into one (BFBC2) due to friends, and it really is very different, intense and fun. It really gets your adrenaline up. I still have a lot memories burned into my mind.
RenOS
something is wrong
9d ago
If I think that knifes should not be illegal, does that make it funny if I get stabbed? If I think cars should not be illegal, is it funny if I get run over? I really don't get this logic, it's rare that I use the word but this seems genuinely hateful. If Kirk was exclusively a crazy gun nut who can't talk about anything else and was shot by a fellow gun-nut with a military-style assault gun I could maybe see some ironic karma, but he was just a general purpose conservative who got shot by a hunting rifle that usually not even gun control people want to ban.
RenOS
something is wrong
10d ago
Yes/No. I believe that many believe that they want fairness/meritocracy. But if you measure a process purely by getting the outcome you want, claiming that this somehow makes you process-oriented is, in my view, sophistry. And progressives have shown a noticeable incuriosity, often even marked hostility, towards a detailed investigation of the processes itself and how/why some groups tend to disproportionately fail; it always boils down only to getting the correct outcomes. See Ivy student acceptance rates; Merely just investigating the acceptance process is allegedly racist, since it gets the correct outcome, and that's what matters. Unless the outcome isn't correct, in which case you also don't investigate the why, you just change the process until you get the correct outcome.
Secondly, a decent number of progressives have in fact even fully moved on from claiming to want meritocracy, and outright use entirely different justifications, such as representativeness of a community, racial/social justice or equity over equality of chance. In many circles, meritocracy has become negatively connotated.
RenOS
something is wrong
10d ago
As I understand it, it seemed to solve a gender bias, but it certainly failed to solve a racial bias. The latter was the reason it fell out of favor for progressives.
RenOS
something is wrong
10d ago
Yeah, I see it commonly used, but it has a bit of a different connotation imo. On the one hand, you can be an agitator without doing any obstructing or interference, just purely based on your rhetoric, and in that sense it's actually still a lesser word. On the other hand, it usually implies agitating for violence, and as much as I dislike the obstructors, they generally stop short of that.
RenOS
something is wrong
10d ago
If protesters had also murdered three ICE agents in MN in the same time span, that would justify ICE having a high prior that someone wants to murder them, making their snap judgments more understandable.
It's somewhat callous, but I can't help but think similarly overall. The Renee Good shooting was imo somewhat understandable, since she was spinning on the ice with her wheels pointed forward. That would have scared the shit out of me as well and shooting her before she gets grip is objectively a plausible way to stop being run over. But it still also was a bad shot, in the sense that, as you say, with the benefit of hindsight we know he wouldn't have gotten run over. Pretti was arguably the kind of guy who gets shot, and the left usually has no problem with this if they don't agree with their politics. But again, it was a bad shot in the sense that no ICE agent was factually under threat.
And while there has been a lot of questionable behaviour by obstructors, ICE agents generally rarely get injured and it is claimed that literally not a single agent has been killed in the line of duty in the past few years. Unless we assume superhuman competence for the ICE agents, that does point in the direction that the obstructors do not intend to seriously hurt or kill ICE agents, no matter how little one may like their other goals and/or their rhetoric.
And this simply matters a lot for PR. If you want to convince a normie that ICE agents are in sufficient danger to allow these shootings, you need to be able to provide examples of at least some of them actually being killed. Yes, this sucks, I don't really like it, but I also see little way around it.
RenOS
something is wrong
10d ago
Interestingly I had just asked chatgpt and it proposed "obstructionist" as the top option, and a lot of lesser options including "interferer", "disruptor" and "agitator". "Obstructor" is probably a good choice.
RenOS
something is wrong
10d ago
For a similar example to the body cam discussion, see blind auditions. It's a nice view into the mind of the left - the way blind auditions were pushed, they most likely genuinely thought they would be good. And it's hard to argue that blind auditions aren't the most fair and meritocratic approach, which was a common primary justification. But when (racial) inequality stubbornly refused to budge, it revealed that the latter was merely instrumental, and they are actually perfectly willing to sacrifice fairness and meritocracy for equality.
On the 10 demands, without the democrats giving clear, legally binding proclamations of cooperation on being willing to enforce immigration law and to crackdown on the anti-ICE "protestors" (btw, what's a good word here? "terrorist" is too harsh a word, but "protestor" too weak, since they actively block and interfere with basic government work. Very few would call a pro-lifer trying to physically interfere with abortions merely a "protestor", not even the right), I really don't see how this can possibly work out in a way that doesn't kill any and all immigration enforcement in blue strongholds.
RenOS
something is wrong
11d ago
There's a few caveats that make it better. First, my prof doesn't control my working hours at all and my de-facto hours are honestly substantially below full-time. I have a few friends who are paid substantially better, and most of them have de-facto working hours so much higher that it's a wash in terms of pay per hour. I could have gotten better paid work in past, but the employers have been clear that they'll be much more strict, so I decided against it due to the kids. Second - though it's partially a result of the first - my wife also works, and her income is identical to mine when full-time, though it's more volatile and sometimes she has to go part-time (which pays more than half due to tax reasons) due to the more insecure financing in her group. So our family income varies between roughly 65k and 84k.
RenOS
something is wrong
12d ago
Small anecdote, there is a somewhat well-known public incident where a guy got into trouble due to being recorded while referring to a person as "it", but then later it turns out that this particular person literally identified as "it". When I told this to an acquaintance who is involved in mental health counselling at university, she told me that this has happened to her as well, it just didn't go public - she had a counselling session with a person who wanted to be referred to as "it", and then afterwards had a private discussion with a colleague about it. The colleague was incensed and slandered her behind her back afterwards, unwilling to believe that anyone would like to be referred to as such. Fortunately, her general reputation was good enough that it didn't get her into trouble, and after a while she managed to mostly explain it.
It's true that there are also some people who use "it" in a derogatory sense, but it does at least exist as self-identification as well.
RenOS
something is wrong
12d ago
That seems like a general problem though that applies to plenty of academics as well, especially once politics gets involved. For an example, I've read more than enough articles by such claiming that hunter-gatherers were often gender egalitarian, citing tribe after tribe where, say, women are involved in hunting, or men are involved in cooking, or men are involved in child-rearing, drowning you in citations that superficially seem like their case is ironclad.
Then you read the opposite position - sometimes another academic historian, sometimes not - and they point out how even in the cited tribes, women actually only "hunt" in the sense of laying traps for small game, men still do just the most physically demanding parts of preparing food and leave the majority to the women, and the men also only teach older children useful skills, while again leaving the younger children to the women. And more importantly, they actually go quantitative and show how cherry-picked these few tribes even are, and that the great majority of those we know is even less gender-egalitarian.
Claude Pro, or does it need to be Max?
I've been using AI for asking questions, researching basic infos and summarizing them, for boilerplate texts, that kind of stuff. The free version so far has been good enough for the most part. We also want to save money, so I'm a bit reluctant to have a new expense on my list.
More options
Context Copy link