RenOS
Dadder than dad
No bio...
User ID: 2051
I agree that actually meeting the other gender is a critical part of dating success. But I disagree that most men aren't trying this.
The extreme examples obviously wouldn't work for the men the same way as for women, because women are much more sensible to possible stalking, for good reason - male stalkers are much more common and far more dangerous. Any men attempting the kind of things you're listing here would risk being branded as an ultra-creep. Even typing out "strategically pursuing a certain type of women" I feel like I'm writing something about a male serial killer.
But the "light" variant of this is done all the time. "Has lots of women" is a top positive criteria for choosing what to study, together with "pays well". I know several men who have told me explicitly that they chose their field because it has lots of women. Same for hobbies. Hell, I would count that as negative attribute of men; They constantly try to find novel ways to pretend to be into something that women like to get laid under false pretences. "I totally care about the environment babe, please tell me more about it while we make love"
My wife studied psychology and both she herself as her female fellow students complained a lot about suspecting that the men in the course only studied it for dating (based on the few male humanities students I know, I concur with her entirely). One in particular had tried to hit on a few too many girls and now struggled to be accepted at all. As you see, even the light version you risk being branded a creep as a man. So unless you already have a decently above-average baseline of social capability, it is a wiser choice to not attempt it as a man and stick to "safe" options like clubs or dating apps where, if you screw up, you don't risk ruining your entire social circle and several years of your life (one of the prime reasons why men flock there despite the abysmal stats). And what you definitely do not do is admit it to any women (and if you want to be really safe, ideally not even to yourself).
I would even go as far as saying that the light version is done much less by women. No women ever studied a field because it has lots of men - no, that is usually one of the top negative criteria, a reason not to go into a field. I have never heard about a women going into a hobby because it has lots of men, either. And women also do lots of gatekeeping of their fields and hobbies, while men often actively try to recruit women into their hobbies. Back when I took advanced dancing lessons as a teen (in my region, basic dancing lessons are a social requirement), the girls would often complain about how many of the boys dropped out after the basics and just a moment later about how many of the boys who didn't are only doing it for dating and how creepy that is. I dropped out since I already was insecure about myself and that didn't help. None of the girls even cared to my knowledge, so it was probably a correct choice.
Looking back, the broad social dynamic is obvious; The already successful (in the broad sense) men do the minimum social requirement and get out, a minority stay in since they like it or as a courtesy for their girlfriends, some of the unsuccessful but socially above-average stay in to increase their chances to get lucky, and finally the great bulk of average and below men get out before they are branded creeps. The women wanted more of the successful men to stay in, and less of the unsuccessful. Being a bit but not terribly socially awkward I stayed in a bit longer than what was considered appropriate for me, but I got the hint after a short while and also got out before it was too late.
On the other hand when doing traditionally nerdy hobbies like LAN parties or pen & paper, even just a single women being part of such a group was treated as a coveted grand prize. Even as I got out of the nerdy circles into more normie ones, the basic dynamic has never changed in my experience. In college our lab (which itself is ~ 50-50 gender split) played football and people were always complaining about the lack of women, and nobody ever complained about the wrong women joining for the wrong reasons. Most of my time at university there have been more women than men at almost everything, and the few times anybody mentioned that at all it is either seen as a positive accomplishment or followed by crickets chirping.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
Inappropriately high standards from women is a thing I like complaining about myself, but that was not my point here. The point is that the look-based nature of online dating cuts both ways: Women can advertise themselves better, yes, but they can't themselves effectively select for the things they care more about, while it is trivial and obvious for men. So in practice women are naturally disadvantaged in online dating - being able to better advertise yourself while not getting what you want is a net negative - and this disadvantage translates into them not going on the platform in the first place.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
That referred to the "Do you walk around nude in public?". No, and I do not consider my behaviour around strangers to have much bearing on how I behave around family.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
I would say it is considered the ideal here in Europe, yes. But it mostly works for the guys who don't struggle with women anyway. If you're an average guy with average social skills you will be able to meet women at bars and clubs and might get lucky. But if you try to weasel your way into a friend group with plenty of women, they will be nice and considerate but simply not invite you to most events except the biggest, which will functionally be the same as the bars and clubs you've already been frequenting. If you try to invite them to something, they will not show up. If you get pushy, they will start actively avoiding you.
I think many women really struggle to process the male perspective. As a woman, as long as you are nice and social and put in just a minimal effort to get along with any guy, he will generally don't mind your presence or even want to actively invite you to every social event he knows. More women is ALWAYS better. As a woman, your main problem is the opposite; You're bombarded by male attention and need to make sure to avoid the lazy fuckers, the losers, the stalkers, the cheaters and so on. Otherwise you'll end up being one of those wifes who does all the house work while also working full time and also caring for the kids, or you will end up having to bankroll your husbands stupid ideas that go nowhere or you will be replaced by a younger model once you're older etc.
As a guy however even woman you're friendly with will by default see no reason to invite you to any social event. All else being equal, a social event gets worse with more average men present. Men will want to come less since they want to meet women, women will want to come less since they want to meet the good men.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
You may not like it (and me neither), but Yud IS the rat circle equivalent of a 6'+ gigachad.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
Getting a tag isn't inherently negative. A bluecheck is technically also a tag that some people think negatively about, but on average it's still mainly a positive. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain kind of person would actually trust publications with a "government owned" tag more than one without, and the position that argues for this is mostly rather consistent and plausible, even if I may disagree with it (or more precisely, I think the funding matters for the direction, but not the degree of the bias).
On the other hand, I does seem to be rather petty from Musk, and I would actually prefer if everything gets a tag for its funding, not just public institutions. But I'm also in general someone who likes having lots of categories for everything.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
I agree that this is twitter's intention. Nevertheless, unlike "hate speech" or similar tags that also may be technically correct according to some strenuously interpreted definition, most of the media currently up in arms are a) rather unambiguously government funded according to any sensible definition and b) "government funded" itself is not really a negative word in most context, even if the tag-givers in this specific context think it is, so it's easy to simply use it as a more informative tag anyway.
I would understand it if twitter chose "government propaganda" or similar labels that are much more contentious and clearly negative. To me this is just a really bad look; Twitter may think this is something negative on-net, but still deliberately uses a rather neutral & unambiguous word and people try to wriggle out of the label anyway with what looks like the platonic ideal of "lying with stats and figures". I'm not a fan that Twitter applies this labeling in a somewhat one-sided way, but it's still miles better than how other media has started using scary words for everything they don't like.
That’s a difference in values between us; you consider sex to be an important characteristic that carries with it a certain weight and thus should be truthfully communicated, while I think it’s an unfortunate holdover from our evolutionary history that has trapped people in roles they didn’t want, both biologically and socially. I recognise the usefulness of having police officers and military service members be correctly identified, but I think the sooner we make biological sex irrelevant, the better
I actually think that argument is much better for gender than it is for sex. Gender roles are in many, many ways entirely irrelevant in the modern world. Child rearing and housekeeping has gotten so efficient that it simply makes no sense to keep women in the kitchen, as the saying goes. Physical fighting and hunting is even worse, both have been effectively completely replaced and the obvious male optimisations towards it are pointless now. Instead, almost everyone is doing office or light physical work that can be done by both sexes, and that both sexes are clearly broadly unoptimised for.
A pet theory of mine is that a lot of the modern confusion around gender and sex stems from the fact that in the ancestral environment sex differences were just so obvious that there was no chance to become confused, so we didn't evolve to recognize our sex outside of them. If you go fight to protect your family because you're obviously much more physically capable than your sister, while your sister got pregnant at 14 from her husband, it really makes no sense whatsoever to ask "maybe I'm a woman?". I know the alleged trans identities of some older traditions, but they're almost exclusively weak submissive males that probably would have been killed or left to die being allowed to instead serve as prostitutes for the capable men, and they're deliberately kept apart and considered distinct from the women.
On the other hand sex: As another transhumanist, I don't mind eventually abolishing it! But the reality is, we can't. For the foreseeable future, you'll need a women to create a new human being. Insemination is not quite as far off, but still for the time being AFAIK only possible from male to female. Likewise, there are massive hormonal differences and otherwise between the sexes that make them very distinct across a wider range of attributes. Most notably the massive physical differences. If I want to date you, I want to know your sex, not your gender; If I'm working with you, I want to know neither. HRT can make you more similar to the other sex, but is still very crude and only includes a portion of the hormonal differences between the sexes.
And to go further, most trans people I've met or indirectly heard about quite frankly still make more sense to be grouped in with their sex than with their alleged gender. I don't know you and so don't take this personally, just talking from my own average experience. I'm usually respecting everyone's wishes in regard to pronouns and such and have no desire to insult anyone in person, but I'm being a bit candid since I want to be clear on my impressions.
Most MtFs have stereotypically male hobbies and jobs, male mannerisms and blatantly obviously male bodies. Joking about G.I.R.L.s in video games is only half a joke; MtFs are so ridiculously overrepresented in techie spaces that you will frequently run into places with more MtFs than cis women. They're much more similar to the typical shy male nerd than any women. MtFs are also very commonly hyper-sexual compared to women; physically speaking they look like someone wanted to turn a scarecrow into a blow-up sex doll. All the online "passing" MtFs I've seen do not pass anymore once you see their movements in a video or hear their voice. If you look up these " first female to do X" news where X is a super-stereotypical male job or hobby, it's extremely disproportionally an MtF.
FtMs on the other hand I've almost exclusively ran into thanks to my wife, since they are quite common in, you guessed, female-dominated fields like psychology. The two I've personally met and talked with could easily star as the main character of any female librarian anime (and in fact had similar jobs). They were less superficially female, but overall had a clearly quite sensitive feminine personalities. Physically speaking, they're tiny dorky guys with a silly sounding voice (and frankly Buck Angel is as well, not to mention Elliot Page!). They're not or minimally interested in any stereotypically male hobby. I don't know it personally for these two, but FtMs AFAIK have the typical lesbian dead bedroom issues as well.
These differences become most obvious once you see their behaviour around babies and small children that aren't theirs; MtFs are often entirely uninterested just like cis men, while FtMs are often actively thrilled like cis women.
It's clear to me that gender is the unfortunate evolutionary holdover that has become unnecessary, while sex is a basic biological category that we will not get rid off for the time being.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
I'm no expert on cryptocurrency, but I did study math. I'd say I see no reason why the collatz conjecture should be connected to a feedback problem; Even if they for some weird reason decided to implement the reputation system similar to the collatz algorithm, the entire point of the conjecture is that all numbers degenerate into 1, no matter where you start. If it was the problem that the reputation always unintentionally decreases down it might make sense, but the other way around it sounds like technobabble to me, sorry.
I have to agree with "what is passing?". I personally differentiate between "picture passing", "video passing without voice" "video passing with voice (impossible)" and "real life passing". And it obviously depends on the person how much you notice. For some people, I even get the distinct impression that they don't want to notice. Especially with women you often hear them mentioning "that girl is weirding me out/making me feel uncomfortable" but are surprised when you point out it's an MtF. But they could also try to avoid accusations of bigotry, which is probably smart I guess.
Picture passing is relatively easy. You have to put in a little work to choose a specific angle and a grainy theme/style and try around, but it isn't even a large time investment. This is the great majority of allegedly passing MtFs.
Video passing is considerably harder. Gait and mannerisms are quite strongly biologically primed and often need to be deliberately re-learned. It's harder to rely on specific angles. But for a dedicated person it is doable. This is most FtMs and a few MtF celebrities that are specifically known for how passing they are.
I already half-jokingly added (impossible) to passing with voice. It may not be literally impossible, but in general MtFs voices are just to hoarse for a cis woman and FtMs are too squeaky. Very specific and recognisable once you've heard it a few times.
With real life passing I mean that you directly talk and interact with a person; If you only see them from a distance and don't talk with them, passing is kinda equivalent to video passing. Seeing a person up close and talking with them just exacerbates all queues. Even if you don't consciously notice it, MtFs tend to really weird you out and make you feel uncomfortable IRL. They tend to stand a little too close, their bigger and broader build is more noticeable in person, etc. . FtMs on the other hand are much better at passing IRL. I think it's because our threat assessment doesn't kick in with them, they're just kind of tiny and squeaky. But in general even they are implausibly small, implausibly delicate, etc. for a cis man and become much more noticeable once you're aware of these differences.
Also, Buck Angel: He totally isn't all that passing. Super small, very squeaky voice, actually quite feminine personality. Blair White I haven't heard or seen yet so don't know, but none of the "passing" trans MtFs celebrity are really all that convincing once you've seen more than pictures or short videos.
And as a last aside, extremely early HRT a la Jazz Jennings might change things, but it is still quite rare.
Yes, this is also really important. I use "this person is weirding me out" as an important cue, but on it's own that would probably be a 10% false-positive rate. A lot of left/progressives seem to take a super strict line where a person is only counted as not-passing if they're so obvious that you would be like 99% confident that they're trans, while for me there are several gradients.
This is also related to how non-sex-conforming people are kind of the biggest losers of the current trans wave. There is a decent number of both men and women that already lost the genetic lottery with their looks, and in the past might have been insulted with "you look like a dude/girl". Nowadays, people will not say anything, but might think that you're actually the other sex.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
This, so much. This is how it works everywhere. In academia, everyone is broadly leftish but mostly apolitical. A small minority of far-left is not only tolerated & rarely challenged, but is allowed & financed to actively proselytise. Anything remotely right is ostracised or at best tolerated as long as its just talk among colleagues. If you try to point this out, you will be reminded "well, the last inequality retreat was very badly attended, so clearly we need to Do Better". The fact that this inequality retreat was actively financed by the university, mostly peddles extremely shoddy science that wouldn't be tolerated otherwise and that there is absolutely nothing remotely comparable that the average person would consider right does not even occur to them.
It's the same on reddit; I'm fairly confident that a) the great majority of the other mods, if not all of them, are still broadly left-leaning b) critically, the non-political mods almost never challenge the political mods, and almost all political mod actions are broadly the left cracking down on the right, never the other way around.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
Sure, but now we're talking about something else. If the CBC wasn't trying to fool us this witlessly and simply tweeted something along the lines "yes, we're government funded, no, that's not a bad thing" and/or followed up with another "due to recent events, we do not have the impression that staying on twitter is beneficial for us, so we are leaving", our discussion would look quite different.
I think a moderate amount of hostility between different platforms/institutions/powerful actors is very good for society in a similar way to the idea of the separation of power in the government. Hence, I think that Twitter being run by a controversial person like Musk is positive for the world, and I think it's a pity if everyone starts migrating to services that are again a little to friendly with the hegemonic media/academia/political consensus position. But it's not really something I'd fault anyone in particular for. It's only natural that you move to where you feel most comfortable & welcome.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
Thanks. No, this is one of those foreigner-guessing-the-written-from-the-sound things that always seems to go wrong in english.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
I'm not interested in resegregation in any way, but I think people are really bad at understanding the historical perspective. For the great majority of history and places, the average person would see almost nobody except a very small set of fixed local ethnicities, often only a single one. The few situations where they would, it was either very strongly controlled like large-distance-trading (and even that was still often changing hands exactly at the lines where ethnicities changed) or in a very negative context like an invasion, vagabonds or large scale population movements (where the moving people might not necessarily be ill-intended, but the difficulties involving the movement still meant that it rarely worked out well).
It absolutely makes sense that historically, people would by default simply distrust anyone who wasn't of an ethnicity they knew; But in fact it was worse than this: People were xenophobic in a much more general sense in that they simply distrusted anyone, full stop, that wasn't already well-known in their local environment. And this made a lot of sense! Moving around into unknown communities back then was expensive and dangerous, something that was only done if you had no other option. And when would someone have no other option? Usually because they did something sufficiently bad somewhere that they had to flee. Not to mention that someone who has nothing to lose is inherently dangerous in an environment where everyone is still fighting for their survival. On average, even a single stranger arriving - not to mention a group of them - was a very net-negative thing for a community for most of history.
But even back then, there absolutely were ways around these problems; Letters of recommendation, bringing resources with you and immediately sharing them as a proof of goodwill, being part of a generally accepted institution like a monastery or long-distance-trading, let's call this whole category credentials. So the capacity to trust strangers has always been there. But credentials were entirely inaccessible for something like 99% of the population. Guilds were possibly the first larger scale credential that made the concept accessible for something like an extra 10% of the population I guess? I admittedly don't know the exact numbers here. There is some argument that christianity and religions in general can fulfil a similar role as a low level credential.
Now comes pre-modernity, or the colonialism period or however you want to call it. As rapidly improving technology allows people to move much further than they could before, suddenly the equations changed; The baseline for "my situation is bad enough that it's worth trying my luck elsewhere" increased and increased, and hence the average quality of the stranger (again, stranger meaning not just personally unknown but someone without credentials) increased from "probably literally a multiple murderer" to just "regular poor person" . Furthermore, our general situation improved enough that (violent) criminality in general was worth less, and violent mental illness also has diminished. But as it always goes, social technology tends to lag behind regular technology, and hence both people's instincts were slow to change and modern-style credentialism hasn't established itself yet (or just partially through the aforementioned guilds).
I think people underestimate how much of pre-modernity style racism is mostly just the combination of this instinctive, historically rational distrust of strangers and the poor experiences that predictably happen when groups with very different norms clash. And unlike a teutonic moving into a roman village, who might cause some issues but who can show his goodwill, adopt local norms and become increasingly indistinguishable, the obvious differences between very different ethnicities makes fitting in much more difficult and hence slows everything down. Racism is not in any way this special kind of evil that is entirely irrational, it's just our instinctive distrust of strangers that used to be very adaptive.
As we near modernity, people increasingly start to trust strangers more in a fully general sense, and modern-style credentialism gets established so that almost anybody can travel from one place to another where they literally know nobody and still show proof of who they are, what they are capable of, that they're not a threat to anyone, etc. And this process happened almost simultaneously as racism toned down, and I don't think that is an accident. It's fundamentally the same process in my opinion. In medieval times, a black guy turning up somewhere complaining that nobody trusts him falls on deaf ears; they're trusting no strangers, and they are struggling to survive already. Today, if anybody turns up somewhere and is treated with distance and distrust, you need a specific reason and "racism" as a concept starts to even make sense at all. Early this century was just the weird inter-period when our society hadn't fully caught up with the changes. Or more precisely, societies, since I think other ethnicities actively westernising has been a large part of the process as well.
Btw, none of this is incompatible with the sort of "light" HBD that expects some average differences between groups (but which is unfortunately still taboo in the modern western consensus position). I guess this post also ended up slightly off-target in that it is not describing how the switch actually happened in detail, and more on the why it was the way it used to be and why it has changed. but I hope it's still interesting enough for some people.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
Dunno, I feel like they are talked about to exactly the appropriate degree. I'm a german and they are occasionally mentioned both by acquaintances & media, always in a sneering, disdainful way a la "who is even still joining them, must be a loser" or "guess he must be a fraternity member" after seeing a guy misbehave.
Frankly, I can't help but agree with them. At least at my university, nobody in power I know of has any affiliations with them, and their reputation as places of toxic masculinity means that their at odds with the current social norms, so being a member is if anything a hindrance to gaining power. I'm not even sure we have them locally here, they are just the kind of negative stereotype that people love talking about - especially those who claim to not be prejudiced. I guess they used to be relevant and so some of the old guards had some affiliations, but nowadays everyone is scrambling to make sure that everyone else knows how much you hate them.
I don't entirely understand what you want say but speaking from some experience on D), the quote reads to me like the very idealised advice that is always floating around everywhere. It's not entirely wrong and so it gets shared, but it's over-consistent and fits a bit to conveniently in the currently popular framework of "always be nice about everything". Not taking the outbursts too personally is correct, not holding them against her mostly also. But you absolutely should point out the moods to her. When the hormones are talking, it can be surprisingly difficult for oneself to notice that you're being unreasonable. There's plenty of broken relationships because people just refused to stop indulging the wife. You should obviously pick your fights and time it right though. Also, there are certainly also plenty of broken relationships because the guy was a loser and/or a slacker, but there are no articles floating around how you totally should support your husbands "streamer career" even if it looks like he is just playing video games with like four people who aren't paying him.
Edit: Though I guess I'm falling into your "criticism is easy" trap, ha. So I'll be more specific about what I'm advocating: Be nice and considerate, but also confident and stand your ground. Hug her, but don't just agree with her because it's the easy way. Make her some tea, do some housework that normally she would have done, let her sit down and relax, but also let her know it's out of special consideration for her state, not because you crumbled under her accusations. And so on, you get the drift. This is obviously much harder than the former advice, because here there is tension between two values, "be nice to her" and "don't let her steamroll you", instead of the simple one-dimensional optimization.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
I honestly almost get the impression that political disagreement in relationships is more the norm than then exception, though I'm also from a country with a lot more viable parties so it's much more likely to vote for different parties here. My mom is a family-focused conservative, my dad a strongly pro-union moderate socialist. But they get along very well. Likewise I'm libertarianish, while my wife used to be a card-carrying communist. Though we have moved a lot closer politically over time and over our shared disdain for current wokeness. Her sister is in a similar boat, with almost identical political (dis-)agreements. I know plenty of relationships where it's obvious that the girl is broadly in favor of wokeness but the guy broadly against it.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
1yr ago
I didn't even understand this post at first, thinking a "marker" was something like a honorary statue. It's just a small plaque describing her life. From reading it, it's mostly rather neutral in tone except for the single mention of the Smith Act being "notorious". You could argue though that it is deceptive since it leaves out many of her worst associations though.
I'm hardly a fan of communism and looking at her life also not a particular fan of her, but she is certainly a notable person. Having a sign "this notable person was born here and is notable for X" seems totally appropriate. Given what other posters here write about her, the text should certainly be more critical, but I don't think having such a sign up is at all an insult to anyone, not even patriots. Ironically you could argue that communists should be offended, since the sign clearly tries to minimize all her communist affiliations, only mentioning that she joined the party at one point.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
11mo ago
It's still nonsense though. The male advantage is very well replicated. You can't just assume as a baseline that our current choice of treatment for dysphoria, HRT, perfectly eradicates all differences. You have to prove it. Saying "transwomen are women, therefore they should be assumed to be the same in everything unless proven otherwise" is pure word games.
I'm not even completely against transwomen in women sports, as @rae correctly points out XY people born with androgen resistance become largely indistinguishable from regular women. Though I'm admittedly incredulous about the obvious physical advantages accrued in male puberty and also the neurological advantages during early development (better developed spatial reasoning and reaction times), which seem unlikely to be changed through HRT after the fact.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
11mo ago
I'm recommending people to read the first book, but nothing else. It presents a really interesting and unique setting and through focusing on and exploring that setting it manages to be good. By his second book, the novelty wears off and you begin to see more and more how silly his character writing is, the story writing is mediocre but salvageable, as is the prose.
On respect
Recently, my wife attended an online lecture organised by her professor and held by an acclaimed researcher, on the topic of augmented and virtual reality. She is part of the (social) psychology department. The lecture was late in the day - 18:00 - so we all listened to it at home while at the dinner table (though we eventually turned on the TV for our daughter so she doesn't get bored).
Fellow academics might already guess were this is leading - we thought the topic was something interesting about how AR/VR can be used, unexpected challenges, etc.. It featured a small part of this, but a large part was about gender norms and how totally inexplicably people continue to behave the same way in VR as they do in RL, down to minute details such as the way they move, despite now finally having the freedom to shed their skin!
Clearly, this is evidence of the insidiousness of their oppression: They have internalised it so much that they can't even process the possibilities. It ended on a hopeful note however, that when we educate people better, all differences may eventually stop existing and people can be free in the VR.
But this is also just background for what I want to talk about: What struck me was the experience. In my field, genomics, genetic disease risk factors, etc., if I make a talk only about possible biological explanations, you can be sure that someone in the audience will ask "did you control for [social/environmental risk factor]?" If I'm advising a PhD student on a study design with a big data set like UKBB, I'll tell them to control for a long list of social/environmental risk factors. If the database has sparse information on this account, I mention it as a limitation. Even internally, I think this is important, this isn't something I only do because I'm challenged.
In other words, I genuinely respect social explanations.
Contrast this talk: The possibility of biological differences between sexes/genders isn't even mentioned. Nobody in the audience challenges that glaring oversight. My wife agreed that this is how it works in the department in general; If her colleagues talk about their social research, and my wife mentions the possibility of biological explanations, people look at her as if she just pissed on the ground. At most a hushed agreement, sure, maybe, it's a possibility, to get it over with. Needless to say, since she worked in the neurology department beforehand, she has to hold her breath quite often. She wanted to make a comment on it during the talk, but there are smarter ways to make enemies. She asked something anodyne instead, to show interest, make a good impression.
There is this idea that social sciences are not well respected among other scientists. I claim it is the other way around: The social scientists actively try to ignore other fields, insulate themselves and include non-social explanations only if pressed (which they are rarely), and grudgingly.
They do not respect any science except their own.
Also, assume I wrote some boring hedging about "not all social scientists" etc. I guess you could claim that this is just "boo outgroup", and I admit part of the reason this was written is me venting, but I think it might be an important observation: What does respect for a field mean? People may talk shit about social scientists, but in general they agree that the field is important to study. They're just unhappy with the way it is done.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
11mo ago
Admittedly I stopped somewhere towards the end of the second book (I don't even remember whether I finished it, just that I put it aside with the thought "these characters are worse than most YA fiction"). Maybe I should pick up the third book after all?
What does success mean? It is getting what you want. Women have high standards in a number of different, often vague and socially informed attributes like status. Dating Apps are absolutely terrible at helping you to find this out. Even worse, they are by their nature most conducive to casual hookups, which most women aren't particularly interested in. I think it is not surprising that they broadly speaking steer clear of them as a result. Yes they can leverage this mismatch then to make the men on apps jump through ridiculous hoops if they so wish, but it doesn't really mean that women have more "success" in a meaningful sense or that the experience really is more pleasant for them unless they have a specific kind of personality.
More options
Context Copy link