The rise of the 'Alt-Right' culture - thoughts?

[zlemflolia]

i smell redpill

 

No you don't, that largely misogynistic community is not something I am in any way affiliated with. But continue to smash labels onto people even if they don't quite fit to associate the other connotations of that label with them

[caze]

 

There's a wide range in meaning of the word manager and professional. Stop trusting job titles. Managers of McDonald's are not jobs women lust after and are prevented from getting

 

Men prioritize their career

Women prioritize their work life balance

 

That is all there is to it

 

 

While eugene is definitely wrong, I don't think it's correct to say that is all there is to it. Social structures do definitely influence people's choices, social structures that came about in part because of innate biological differences, but they are not entirely determined by them, and once they develop they do have a life of their own to some degree, and as I mentioned before develop in line with feedback mechanisms which may exaggerate certain innate factors. Choice definitely has a big part to play in these workplace differences, but it's certainly not the whole picture, and we're a long way from figuring out what that picture is (which is made more complicated by the fact that as we're studying these structures they're constantly changing).

[zlemflolia]

 

ive only ever had my hair cut by my dad while living at home because why not

 

one of my greatest fears of moving out of my parents home soon is that i wont know how or where to get my hair cut anymore without flying home to have my dad do it. can i just show them a picture of how my hair is now and say "make it like this"? or do they have some sort of preset haircuts you can choose from

 

please help me im terrified of my hair being different after all these years

pls

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Ub55qx2wQ

 

 

That post is literally sarcastic, I mean yeah it's 1% true like "Oh shit what will I do lol" but I literally don't give half a fuck. Oh my god it was a joke lol

[zlemflolia]

 

 

There's a wide range in meaning of the word manager and professional. Stop trusting job titles. Managers of McDonald's are not jobs women lust after and are prevented from getting

 

Men prioritize their career

Women prioritize their work life balance

 

That is all there is to it

 

 

While eugene is definitely wrong, I don't think it's correct to say that is all there is to it. Social structures do definitely influence people's choices, social structures that came about in part because of innate biological differences, but they are not entirely determined by them, and once they develop they do have a life of their own to some degree, and as I mentioned before develop in line with feedback mechanisms which may exaggerate certain innate factors. Choice definitely has a big part to play in these workplace differences, but it's certainly not the whole picture, and we're a long way from figuring out what that picture is (which is made more complicated by the fact that as we're studying these structures they're constantly changing).

 

 

Yeah I mean there is definitely a bit of pull by that influence clearly. It's just not the silver bullet for explaining the issue everyone seems to be insisting that it is, that is all I'm trying to say. They act as if "here, this is the answer, stop discussing it now there's nothing more" and disagreeing with that results in ridicule as is obvious from this thread

[eugene]

 

there's no clear evidence for any biological drives of human behavior.

 

what about hunger? libido? sexual orientation? (or do you believe that sexual orientation is a choice?)

 

there is very clear evidence of the behavioural effects of many genes, here's a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB

 

genes don't explain anywhere near the whole picture though, also really important is pre-natal neural development and how it relates to the endocrine system (this has a big impact on all kinds of things like sexuality, personality and intelligence). neural plasticity is fascinating, it's most active from the womb to pre-teen years, then starts slowing down over the next decade and becomes relatively fixed after that (ignoring things like brain trauma, strokes, sensory debilitation which can trigger further spikes in plasticity) - this is why it's far easier for a child to learn a new language for example, and a far more likely explanation (or at least a factor with far more weight) as to why there are sex differences in engineering type fields than the hypothesis that it's entirely down to socialisation (the research doesn't rule out socialisation as an important factor though).

 

 

consciousness gets constructed via interaction of people with the world and other people.

 

constructed out of what though? the answer should be obvious, innate bio-physical capabilities (unless you have a mystical view of the source of human consciousness). our brains don't possess infinite capabilities either obviously, so it must follow that the limitations of those capabilities act as constraints on possible behaviour, and any differences in those innate capabilities between different individuals will lead to different social behaviours among different groups (feedback between those behaviours and the biological elements may well then exaggerate those differences).

 

 

 

some similarity in gender roles doesn't prove your point at all, there are very similar physical and biological conditions (it's women who give birth and breastfeed children after all) that act as a starting point to human society development.

 

you've just described biological constraints on human social development, so you do actually agree with me after all?

 

so what about hunger? when you feel hungry do you immediately grab the first food around or do you engage in some mental process about how, when and whether to eat a particular food? and some people don't eat for days in a conscious manner.

sexual orientation is not a choice of course, there's really no such thing as choice in those matters, but it's definitely socially constructed.

 

the problem with studies that allege to show some biologically determined whatever is that they're always easy to criticize - none of them control for all the possibly relevant social factors that might determine the behaviors that they allege to explain biologically. a proper experiment would require completely identical social environment for two or more subjects, which is obviously nearly impossible to achieve. but somehow those pseudo-scientific notions of evolutionary psychs and sociobiologists still survive in their communes and seep into the press and pop science, but they are far from actual science.

 

conscioness is not constructed OUT OF capabilities, that phrase doesn't make logical sense. the capabilities that are similar for all humans, having a hand doesn't cause me to behave with that hand in a certain way. the extent of variance or even effects of those biological brain properties/capabilities is not known so your idea about them affecting human behavior is unsupported. constraint does not mean a determined behaviors, there's an infinity of possibilities for behaviors within those constraints. i don't agree with you on anything.

[zlemflolia]

 

 

there's no clear evidence for any biological drives of human behavior.

 

what about hunger? libido? sexual orientation? (or do you believe that sexual orientation is a choice?)

 

there is very clear evidence of the behavioural effects of many genes, here's a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB

 

genes don't explain anywhere near the whole picture though, also really important is pre-natal neural development and how it relates to the endocrine system (this has a big impact on all kinds of things like sexuality, personality and intelligence). neural plasticity is fascinating, it's most active from the womb to pre-teen years, then starts slowing down over the next decade and becomes relatively fixed after that (ignoring things like brain trauma, strokes, sensory debilitation which can trigger further spikes in plasticity) - this is why it's far easier for a child to learn a new language for example, and a far more likely explanation (or at least a factor with far more weight) as to why there are sex differences in engineering type fields than the hypothesis that it's entirely down to socialisation (the research doesn't rule out socialisation as an important factor though).

 

 

consciousness gets constructed via interaction of people with the world and other people.

 

constructed out of what though? the answer should be obvious, innate bio-physical capabilities (unless you have a mystical view of the source of human consciousness). our brains don't possess infinite capabilities either obviously, so it must follow that the limitations of those capabilities act as constraints on possible behaviour, and any differences in those innate capabilities between different individuals will lead to different social behaviours among different groups (feedback between those behaviours and the biological elements may well then exaggerate those differences).

 

 

 

some similarity in gender roles doesn't prove your point at all, there are very similar physical and biological conditions (it's women who give birth and breastfeed children after all) that act as a starting point to human society development.

 

you've just described biological constraints on human social development, so you do actually agree with me after all?

 

so what about hunger? when you feel hungry do you immediately grab the first food around or do you engage in some mental process about how, when and whether to eat a particular food? and some people don't eat for days in a conscious manner.

sexual orientation is not a choice of course, there's really no such thing as choice in those matters, but it's definitely socially constructed.

 

the problem with studies that allege to show some biologically determined whatever is that they're always easy to criticize - none of them control for all the possibly relevant social factors that might determine the behaviors that they allege to explain biologically. a proper experiment would require completely identical social environment for two or more subjects, which is obviously nearly impossible to achieve. but somehow those pseudo-scientific notions of evolutionary psychs and sociobiologists still survive in their communes and seep into the press and pop science, but they are far from actual science.

 

conscioness is not constructed OUT OF capabilities, that phrase doesn't make logical sense. the capabilities that are similar for all humans, having a hand doesn't cause me to behave with that hand in a certain way. the extent of variance or even effects of those biological brain properties/capabilities is not known so your idea about them affecting human behavior is unsupported. constraint does not mean a determined behaviors, there's an infinity of possibilities for behaviors within those constraints. i don't agree with you on anything.

 

 

So critical of controlling for outside factors and ensuring statistical relevance except when it comes to the statistics you present

 

I have no comment on the specific matter you're discussing in this post though. It's most likely a mix of both nature and nurture but the biological aspect is clearly underplayed.

[eugene]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

power is the ability to make you do something even if it's against your will. looks at percentages of women in any highly valued professions, sciences, government positions, army, and so on. the decisions that affect's most peoples lives are predominantly made by men.

 

Yeah, and 99% of men will never be in those positions of power, and guess what - the only gender related issues being addressed right now are women's issues, regardless of the gender of the people in power. Surely the ACTUAL RESULTS of x group being in power is more important than their gender.

 

let's not talk stupid shit. professionals, scientists, managers, business owners and so on make way more than 1%. i don't understand what are you talking about in the rest of your post.

 

 

You think women can't become professionals, scientists, managers, and business owners? You think they are all men?

 

So fucking out of touch with reality

 

The fact that women tend to choose not to do things is more indicative of their personal choices than a society which forces them to avoid these roles. How many fucking "Let's get more women into STEM!" campaigns and female only scholarships are there? They don't want to

 

Any person, and including any woman, who says "I want to be a business owner and manager but I can't because society is just holding me down, it's not my fault!" is not fit to be one anyway

 

they can but it's more difficult for them than for men. enough with this personal choice crap already, the conditions are different for different genders, why can't you get it through your head? going against the expectations and wills of the society and even own gendered consciousness that still draws a lot from patriarchy is not easy.

 

 

It's more difficult for shy people too, and people without confidence, and people without above average intelligence. Does that mean they are oppressed, because they overall lack the same skills others have to overcome the obstacles presented to them?

 

Are shy people oppressed? Are people without confidence oppressed?

 

Women who want to become politicians and scientists do so

 

it's very possible that they are oppressed in some way, people don't willingly choose to have low confidence and average intelligence. and the thing is that those are exactly the properties that disproportionally affect women.

 

the more interesting thing is that many women are still socially prohibited, so to say, from wanting to become politicians and scientists. this is the idea that you should get your head around, then it will make sense to you.

 

 

Yeah, men are socially prohibited from getting there too, these are elite echelons where the vast majority of humanity will never make it. It just so happens that men tend to focus on their careers more than women do so at the top is mainly men. Women tend to prefer jobs that offer a better work life balance because they have the privilege of making that a priority, as opposed to being forced into looking for the highest paying jobs since they have to provide for their family financially.

 

there's nothing elite about those, just managers and professionals make 10% of the workforce (this is from german soep survey):

 

there's no such thing as "just so happens", there are reasons for why it happens this way and the reason is cultural/societal constructions, institutions, norms and so on.

 

 

 

There's a wide range in meaning of the word manager and professional. Stop trusting job titles. Managers of McDonald's are not jobs women lust after and are prevented from getting

let's not get even deeper into the realm of stupid here, on average the managers earn 4500euro in that sample and professionals 4200, technicians average 3200 and it goes lower from then.

 

 

Men prioritize their career

Women prioritize their work life balance

 

That is all there is to it

 

but the fucking question is WHY?

[ambermonk]

Warning: The following is a non-intelligent post. Discretion is advised for serious readers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oot

 

[hello spiral]

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/78490-a-civilized-discussion-on-gender-issues/

 

 

 

[ambermonk]

[eugene]

 

 

 

there's no clear evidence for any biological drives of human behavior.

 

what about hunger? libido? sexual orientation? (or do you believe that sexual orientation is a choice?)

 

there is very clear evidence of the behavioural effects of many genes, here's a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB

 

genes don't explain anywhere near the whole picture though, also really important is pre-natal neural development and how it relates to the endocrine system (this has a big impact on all kinds of things like sexuality, personality and intelligence). neural plasticity is fascinating, it's most active from the womb to pre-teen years, then starts slowing down over the next decade and becomes relatively fixed after that (ignoring things like brain trauma, strokes, sensory debilitation which can trigger further spikes in plasticity) - this is why it's far easier for a child to learn a new language for example, and a far more likely explanation (or at least a factor with far more weight) as to why there are sex differences in engineering type fields than the hypothesis that it's entirely down to socialisation (the research doesn't rule out socialisation as an important factor though).

 

 

consciousness gets constructed via interaction of people with the world and other people.

 

constructed out of what though? the answer should be obvious, innate bio-physical capabilities (unless you have a mystical view of the source of human consciousness). our brains don't possess infinite capabilities either obviously, so it must follow that the limitations of those capabilities act as constraints on possible behaviour, and any differences in those innate capabilities between different individuals will lead to different social behaviours among different groups (feedback between those behaviours and the biological elements may well then exaggerate those differences).

 

 

 

some similarity in gender roles doesn't prove your point at all, there are very similar physical and biological conditions (it's women who give birth and breastfeed children after all) that act as a starting point to human society development.

 

you've just described biological constraints on human social development, so you do actually agree with me after all?

 

so what about hunger? when you feel hungry do you immediately grab the first food around or do you engage in some mental process about how, when and whether to eat a particular food? and some people don't eat for days in a conscious manner.

sexual orientation is not a choice of course, there's really no such thing as choice in those matters, but it's definitely socially constructed.

 

the problem with studies that allege to show some biologically determined whatever is that they're always easy to criticize - none of them control for all the possibly relevant social factors that might determine the behaviors that they allege to explain biologically. a proper experiment would require completely identical social environment for two or more subjects, which is obviously nearly impossible to achieve. but somehow those pseudo-scientific notions of evolutionary psychs and sociobiologists still survive in their communes and seep into the press and pop science, but they are far from actual science.

 

conscioness is not constructed OUT OF capabilities, that phrase doesn't make logical sense. the capabilities that are similar for all humans, having a hand doesn't cause me to behave with that hand in a certain way. the extent of variance or even effects of those biological brain properties/capabilities is not known so your idea about them affecting human behavior is unsupported. constraint does not mean a determined behaviors, there's an infinity of possibilities for behaviors within those constraints. i don't agree with you on anything.

 

 

So critical of controlling for outside factors and ensuring statistical relevance except when it comes to the statistics you present

 

I have no comment on the specific matter you're discussing in this post though. It's most likely a mix of both nature and nurture but the biological aspect is clearly underplayed.

 

yea, let's pretend as if this wasn't posted: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

[drillkicker]

Can someone get me caught up on what's going on in this thread? I left for a day and now it's eight nine pages longer than it was last night.

[delet...]

you people are beyond the pale, all you can do is belittle, shun, and or shout down. You have no counter argument because there is none and you probably realise this deep in your heart, you know that zeff is right, but still you carry on like rank pork chops. I hope the cognitive dissonance gives you all terrible a case of constipation.

[ambermonk]

Can someone get me caught up on what's going on in this thread? I left for a day and now it's eight nine pages longer than it was last night.

I'm not exactly sure, but it's starting to feel like April-May 2013 WATMM again. Goes to show that political discussions are like petrol cans. All it takes is one or two flames and WHOOF.

[drillkicker]

 

Can someone get me caught up on what's going on in this thread? I left for a day and now it's eight nine pages longer than it was last night.

I'm not exactly sure, but it's starting to feel like April-May 2013 WATMM again. Goes to show that political discussions are like petrol cans. All it takes is one or two flames and WHOOF.

It's like that part in the beginning of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. This is really embarrassing.

[autopilot]

political discussions are like petrol cans...

 

 

...they stink and only old people have them.

[zlemflolia]

 

yea, let's pretend as if this wasn't posted: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

 

I'm not pretending that wasn't posted, in fact it's exactly what I'm talking about. Aggregate averages don't take into account any factors except gender, race, etc. And you show this is evidence of a lack of opportunity in those high level positions for women? It's not evidence of that, it's only evidence that they don't end up in them as often as men, and this can be caused by a large variety of factors including but not limited to personal preference and priorities

[ambermonk]

 

political discussions are like petrol cans...

 

 

...they stink and only old people have them.

 

The same can be said of corns

[goDel]

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/78490-a-civilized-discussion-on-gender-issues/

 

 

 

 

Wow, I really should have stayed out of that one. Painful. :(

[caze]

so what about hunger? when you feel hungry do you immediately grab the first food around or do you engage in some mental process about how, when and whether to eat a particular food? and some people don't eat for days in a conscious manner.

 

so what? none of that goes against anything I've said, at no point have I said biological factors entirely determine behaviour. you have said that there is 'no clear evidence for any biological drives of human behavior', which as I've shown with many examples is complete nonsense. the fact that we get hungry or thirsty (thirst is largely regulated by this hormone, there are more complex factors involved in hunger), and at some point in the future eat some food or drink something is a clear example of a biologically influenced behaviour. even if you found an example of a person who never voluntarily ate or drank anything in their entire lives, it wouldn't disprove anything I've said, it would be enough that it influences most of the people most of the time.

 

sexual orientation is not a choice of course, there's really no such thing as choice in those matters, but it's definitely socially constructed.

 

what about homosexuality in animals? (which is near universal). you said we're not animals, because of our consciousness and how it creates social structures. if this is something that other animals lack, and you think sexual orientation is socially constructed in humans, how come you think it can be biologically constructed in animals (unless you deny it exists there)? of course the real picture is that neither is true, there is a strong biological basis for sexual preference in all animals (including humans), and in humans the forms that preference may take, in terms of social conventions and so on, evolve in the social sphere, but even other animals have social structures and have differing behaviours based on them.

 

 

 

the problem with studies that allege to show some biologically determined whatever is that they're always easy to criticize - none of them control for all the possibly relevant social factors that might determine the behaviors that they allege to explain biologically. a proper experiment would require completely identical social environment for two or more subjects, which is obviously nearly impossible to achieve. but somehow those pseudo-scientific notions of evolutionary psychs and sociobiologists still survive in their communes and seep into the press and pop science, but they are far from actual science.

 

it's difficult to design completely controlled experiments it's true, but it's a far better approach to attempt to do so than rely on the non-empirical notions pulled entirely out of the asses of 'critical theorists'. twin studies do succeed in controlling for a lot of those factors though. evo-psych and sociobiology are definitely in the realm of soft sciences, but they're not outright pseudo-science like most of sociology and political and economic theory, they are strongly empirical and falsifiable.

 

 

 

conscioness is not constructed OUT OF capabilities, that phrase doesn't make logical sense. the capabilities that are similar for all humans, having a hand doesn't cause me to behave with that hand in a certain way. the extent of variance or even effects of those biological brain properties/capabilities is not known so your idea about them affecting human behavior is unsupported. constraint does not mean a determined behaviors, there's an infinity of possibilities for behaviors within those constraints. i don't agree with you on anything.

 

of course it makes logical sense, there is nothing illogical about the notion of consciousness emerging out of the functional capabilities of the brain (how it happens is another question entirely). the exact nature of all of these capabilities is of course not known, and in terms of genetics we now know that gene-protein coding can only account for a certain percentage of all heritable traits for example, but this is an active area of research, not a dead end (epigenetics and gene regulation from 'junk' dna are two examples, but who knows what others we may find). but we don't need to know everything about it to discern real knowledge, that delta FosB example I gave before is a perfect example of this. and I never said that constraint leads to wholly determined behaviours, not the first time you've misrepresented me, it's just that constraints can certainly lead to certain behaviours becoming more likely in the aggregate.

[eugene]

 

 

yea, let's pretend as if this wasn't posted: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

 

I'm not pretending that wasn't posted, in fact it's exactly what I'm talking about. Aggregate averages don't take into account any factors except gender, race, etc. And you show this is evidence of a lack of opportunity in those high level positions for women? It's not evidence of that, it's only evidence that they don't end up in them as often as men, and this can be caused by a large variety of factors including but not limited to personal preference and priorities

 

you were going about what "manager" or "professionals" really mean, this table has a much finer resolution than mine, so you cannot push that cheesy claim about men possibly occupying lowly managerial jobs anymore. this is an evidence of reality, if you're not completely fucked in your head then the logical question that should follow this data is why the hell women would choose (if you believe that free choice bullshit to begin with) clearly less prestigious and less paying jobs, and the only reasonable answer is that they didn't really get to choose that.

[zlemflolia]

 

but they're not outright pseudo-science like most of sociology and political and economic theory

 

Agreed with most you said but I do have to disagree here. Economic theory can't really be categorized with those guys, it's very quantitative and draws lots of influence from game theory which is essentially a branch of applied mathematics.

[eugene]

 

so what about hunger? when you feel hungry do you immediately grab the first food around or do you engage in some mental process about how, when and whether to eat a particular food? and some people don't eat for days in a conscious manner.

 

so what? none of that goes against anything I've said, at no point have I said biological factors entirely determine behaviour. you have said that there is 'no clear evidence for any biological drives of human behavior', which as I've shown with many examples is complete nonsense. the fact that we get hungry or thirsty (thirst is largely regulated by this hormone, there are more complex factors involved in hunger), and at some point in the future eat some food or dr

[caze]

Agreed with most you said but I do have to disagree here. Economic theory can't really be categorized with those guys, it's very quantitative and draws lots of influence from game theory which is essentially a branch of applied mathematics.

 

 

I did say 'most', though I am sceptical about the stuff that makes use of game theory and how it makes too many invalid assumptions about human behaviour (there are far too many examples of people making economic choices for completely irrational/emotional reasons to discount).

[zlemflolia]

 

Agreed with most you said but I do have to disagree here. Economic theory can't really be categorized with those guys, it's very quantitative and draws lots of influence from game theory which is essentially a branch of applied mathematics.

 

 

I did say 'most', though I am sceptical about the stuff that makes use of game theory and how it makes too many invalid assumptions about human behaviour (there are far too many examples of people making economic choices for completely irrational/emotional reasons to discount).

 

 

Yeah it's hard to apply these things perfectly but in those cases it's misapplication of the math not flawed math itself. Those people who act irrational can be explained by different value functions so to speak