nand
1yr ago
Out of context my first instinct would have been to assume this is a smear campaign designed to make feminism look daft. But I doubt such a smear campaign would have been authored by @UNWomen, unless there is some serious levels of internal fuckery going on.
nand
1yr ago
The libertarians and fiscal hawks were saying we only had 30 years in the 90s, 20 years in the 2000s, 10 years in the 2010s... and now its next year or the year after.
Do you have a citation on this? (Especially the implied consensus)
nand
1yr ago
It only works because those websites censor everything that offends American puritan sensibilities. This is sort of why fansly exists, it has much laxer content policies than OnlyFans.
Know what Fansly also doesn't support? My credit card provider. (German national bank, via MasterCard)
nand
1yr ago
Even "softcore" urination is banned there, for example. Also public nudity is a very gray area and, from my understanding, de-facto prohibited.
nand
1yr ago
Presumably the rest is coming from rare variants (the cutoff in this study is a minor allele frequency (MAF) of < 1% which is quite high), structural variants, or some genetic dark matter implying that our heritability estimates are too high or not being driven by DNA (?).
Or environmental factors (e.g. prevalent nutritional deficiencies)?
Incidentally, how do heritability estimates discriminate between genes that "causally" influence height (e.g. a gene that, when expressed, somehow biostructurally increases bone growth), and genes that dictate "unrelated" behavioral patterns which, in turn, affect the desired trait (e.g. craving/distaste for junk food)? Am I right in thinking that this is another major weakness of GWAS - even if you identify candidate genes, those genes might completely fail to transfer to, say, another population in which junk food doesn't exist?
So if you run a GWAS identifying N promising genes for affecting height on US citizens, you couldn't use that to reliably increase the height of European babies?
nand
1yr ago
(b) encourages you to double or nothing (including, as in the hypothetical, with other people's stuff) until you bust.
If you ignore the caveat he gave up-front which is that this reasoning only applies if the universes are non-interacting?
nand
1yr ago
Why not use the Bible as the obvious example? It seems to me to be, essentially, the most widely and universally disseminated body of work in existence - not only in translation and availability, but also in preaching, outreach, education, ...
Whatever Christian missionaries were doing, it worked.
nand
1yr ago
I would actually double down and assert that 2+2=4 is a fact deeper than arithmetic. If 2+2=4 are elements in a modular ring, it holds true. If they are vectors, it still holds true. If they are abstract discrete topological spaces, it holds true. I have not encountered a situation in (non-joke) mathematics where the symbols '2', '+' and '4' are overloaded so as to not make this equation true.
There is an underlying concept of "twoness", "addition" and "fourness" that holds this property even as you generalize it to systems beyond integer arithmetic, almost like a fundamental structure of mathematics. This is not even about notational trickery. Even if you decide to use different symbols, it does not change the underlying mathematical relationships. You would just be expressing the same undeniable fact differently.
Despite being generally very pro biodeterminism, I actually feel like this is a product of western culture moreso than innate biology. Have you ever talked to women from a non-western nation? They often have a completely different mindset. I'm currently dating a Russian woman and I can talk quite freely with her about political matters, even sensitive topics like HBD or feminism. It's not just her, many Russian women I've found are far more open to criticisms of the values that Western women hold sacred.
Of course, you can make the argument that Russian culture is still designed to suppress the opinions women would otherwise naturally tend to have, and that it takes a liberal nation to reveal their true colors. But for once, I think the blank slatists actually have a point. What you believe is largely a product of the society you were born in, and the west has simply gone off the deep end with feminist/SJW/woke theory. If anything, you can argue that women are merely more naturally susceptible to whatever the prevailing dogma is in the nation they grew up in.
To be clear, I'm specifically addressing the claim that women are somehow naturally more interested in "immigration, equality or similar topics", but also the concept of cancel culture, witch hunting and woke ideology surrounding it. (i.e. the idea that dissidents must be quickly rooted out and chewed to shreds)
I have empathy for people in west Africa dying of malaria. But I also have empathy for the children that will be spared a life of misery as a result of not being sired due to malaria, or for the more environmentally adapted people that could be inhabiting their lands were they not already occupied.
It's not that I want Africans to suffer, it's just that I think saving the lives of somebody not capable of sustaining themselves actively decreases net utility due to second- and third-order effects.
Or, to put it into more industrial terms - there's no such thing as insurance without paying your insurance fees. What insurance fees has sub-saharan africa been paying to us, exactly? Their gracious donation of workers from the social caste currently responsible for the highest crime rates?
If I felt a non zero unit of empathy for every dying child in this world I'd be emotionally crippled by the weight of the world's suffering.
Not necessarily. This just requires the distance-related empathy function scaling sufficiently slowly so as to sum up to a manageable amount of suffering.
Although admittedly, even one cent is too much for this argument, because one cent multiplied by a population of ten billion is still orders of magnitude more than I would even be capable of feeling compelled to provide. As a counter-perspective, if I would be happy donating, say, a grand sum of $10,000 (after factoring out uncertainty) to raise the quality of life of the world as a whole in a utilitarian way, this maths out to a millionth of a dollar per person even if we assume a completely even distribution. Or, you know, a tiny fraction of a cent. (Of course, in reality, I would prioritize those $10,000 differently, so the proportion of it allocated to remote africans would probably be less than a millionth of a cent)
So not valuing an african at even a cent seems quite realistic. It's actually an absurdly high price to put on an anonymous life.
In dating, if you're ghosted, do you a) always move on stoically, b) always give it one more shot, or c) go with a mix of the two depending on circumstances?
Always a) without second thought. If she ghosts you, she's not worth your time. Either because she's the type of immature bitch who gets a kick out of emotional manipulation, or because she's just plain not interested.
Overwhelmingly likely, the latter. You have to remember that women feel attraction in a way fundamentally different from men. They are fickle, extremely selective, exponentially more hypergamous, and basically all-or-nothing. A woman can't be half-interested in somebody, she is either head over heels or wholly uninterested. If you get ghosted you are already in category two, and trying to flip her back into the other state at that point is fighting a losing uphill battle.
So what do you do? Do you have a system for deciding if and when to follow up after not hearing back?
Play the numbers game. If landing a relationship is one in thousand, you have to churn through a thousand mediocre semi-interested women before one will work out.
If you're even at a position where you have the free time and mental capacity to spare thought for somebody that ghosted you, I'd say you're not yet seeking out enough opportunities. I sometimes have days where I chat with 5-10 new people in a single day, something that takes a lot of time and effort. Effort I no longer have left over to worry about some girl who hasn't responded in 3 days.
But on the other hand, I've often wished that girls I ghosted would reach out to me. Often I stopped replying for a petty or momentary reason, and a week or a month later I'm feeling silly about it and I want to see her again but I'm too embarrassed to reach out because I have no good explanation for the initial ghosting.
This sounds like a trivial problem to fix and absolutely not at all a reason to project such (IMO neurotic) expectations onto other people.
nand
1yr ago
We have way more access to safe, 'consequence free' (not counting the emotional component) and pleasure-oriented sex than ever before
Do we really? Then why is every generation having less of it, and people taking longer to lose their virginities? Why are the most developed countries the most sexless?
nand
1yr ago
If you're saying that because i was being a shitheel that data should be rejected...
My argument is that it is not a valid reason because the premise invalidates the conclusion. If you have to resort to assuming somebody is either incredibly immature or incredibly manipulative in order to justify why you should write to them, then I don't see a compelling basis for a relationship either way, thus sort of invalidating the conclusion.
On a tangent, I think applying this line of thinking to women would amount to dangerous wishful thinking more often than not. So merely entertaining it as a possibility is a sort of memetic hazard on its own.
Why do you ghost people, when you have ghosted them?
Because they are wholly uninteresting to talk to, unattractive, or I just otherwise don't think they're worth my time. It's the most clear "I'm not interested, but I'm also too busy to reject you" message you can send.
nand
1yr ago
But if there is no reprisal, then Poland, at least, has to be asking, what's the point of belonging to NATO? NATO, the alliance that was specifically created to deter Russian military incursions?
But... Russia has not taken hostile military action against Poland. The missile, if it even was theirs, was clearly aimed at the Ukraine. Two farmers died. Nobody gives a shit.
nand
1yr ago
This is true, but rest assured, if I simply stop responding to somebody it's more likely than not that I've already forgotten about them.
nand
1yr ago
Am I the only one genuinely baffled by why it matters whether the missile was Russian or Ukrainian?
Cause and effect. If the Ukrainian missile was fired as a defense mechanism against a Russian attack, then I think it's fair to attribute collateral damage to the initial attack. (Indeed, the whole invasion)
if he lied, or even was misinformed, Ukrainian credibility will take a hit.
The one thing I have found consistently weird about the entire Western perception of this conflict is the universal mass-amnesia of the fact that Ukranian and Russian are birds of a feather. I personally tune out everything that comes from the mouth of a slavic leader as an obvious fabrication, and wait for the independent corroboration of events.
nand
1yr ago
I suspect (and nodding to the other post downthread) there's probably a gender angle to this; under the lens of rational self-interest it makes more sense for women to be progressive-conservative (PC for short), because reinforcing power structures is their evolutionary specialization (being the supply-side gender, they want their prices as high as possible), and more sense for men to be liberal, since they prosper when power structures flatten (more available and accessible ways to pay said price). Which is probably why that's what we see borne out in opinion polls, voting splits, and chosen professions.
This is an intriguing framing and something I'd like to learn more about. Do you have any references to recommended reading?
It should come as little surprise that the methods are different when the outcomes are, too - consistently, capitalism rewards IQ, while IQ is a trait selected against by natural selection - in every generation.
Edit: Incidentally, the first time I've heard it verbalized that way was by a woman. I literally quote her: "A girl cannot be only half interested, in her head it is always either yes or no."
It's not altruism if I'm getting something in return (or have already gotten something in return and am therefore indebted).
More options
Context Copy link