The “children never lie” belief many people have drives me nuts. The “Satanic Panic” cases of the 1980s led to dozens of people being imprisoned, some for decades, over children lying about being sexually assaulted by caretakers. Sometimes kids won’t even know that they’re lying, as their minds are very impressionable.
Why is it that only right-leaning publications discuss things like McGilchrist's right/left brain work? This seems to be so consistent that I've ended up almost entirely reading right-coded titles, just because that's where wider intellectual life seems to shelter.
If the left is where educated people coalesce, why are left content sources so uninterested in bigger frame ideas?
"Maybe peculiar (self-centered, autistic spectrum) men are more likely to create societies that go on to reflect their preferences of individualism, impartiality, political equality, and so on."
I have always said that if the female tendency for collective cooperation worked as the better model to harness greater efficiency and productivity, we would have some notable historical record of its existence, and certainly modern corporate models would have adopted it as a competitive advantage.
The fact that we see really no historical record, and very little evidence that corporations benefit from that model, we can derive that the male model tends to work better and that explains male socioeconomic and sociopolitical dominance... and not male oppression of females which is the claim of the feminists and left.
But the bit missing from this an assessment of the cost and the consequences. Men die younger. They have more career stress. They have been required to swim in the shark tank. But they are designed to swim in the shark tank. Take that away and all hell breaks lose. Put too many women in the shark tank and sharks begin to go extinct. This is where we are today.
That men and women express more sex difference in egalitarian societies may be a result of division of labor. In poorer societies, everyone has to do a bit of everything and be prepared to take on almost any task. Wealthier societies allow people to let some aspects of themselves slide so that they can focus on others - and the Other Aspects are likely to be those that have a biological underpinning, whether recognised or not.
Always thought of it as conscious and subconscious thought, but yes. People are rationalizing their way into absurdity without a single right brained, subconscious thought. Blink is a great book on this subject.
You struck a cord with entertaining the reverse arrow of causality regarding expression of masculinity in egalitarian societies. In my writing and analysis, I prefer to think of causality in human affairs (and other complex systems) as a web and not a linear phenomenon. When you pick out one aspect of a complex system and attempt to draw arrows of causation to another aspect, you should think of a sticky relation among the aspects rather than the collision of billard balls. You are considering the same "thing" and tugging it it different directions to see the result of a vector of intervention.
The “children never lie” belief many people have drives me nuts. The “Satanic Panic” cases of the 1980s led to dozens of people being imprisoned, some for decades, over children lying about being sexually assaulted by caretakers. Sometimes kids won’t even know that they’re lying, as their minds are very impressionable.
Why is it that only right-leaning publications discuss things like McGilchrist's right/left brain work? This seems to be so consistent that I've ended up almost entirely reading right-coded titles, just because that's where wider intellectual life seems to shelter.
If the left is where educated people coalesce, why are left content sources so uninterested in bigger frame ideas?
"Maybe peculiar (self-centered, autistic spectrum) men are more likely to create societies that go on to reflect their preferences of individualism, impartiality, political equality, and so on."
I have always said that if the female tendency for collective cooperation worked as the better model to harness greater efficiency and productivity, we would have some notable historical record of its existence, and certainly modern corporate models would have adopted it as a competitive advantage.
The fact that we see really no historical record, and very little evidence that corporations benefit from that model, we can derive that the male model tends to work better and that explains male socioeconomic and sociopolitical dominance... and not male oppression of females which is the claim of the feminists and left.
But the bit missing from this an assessment of the cost and the consequences. Men die younger. They have more career stress. They have been required to swim in the shark tank. But they are designed to swim in the shark tank. Take that away and all hell breaks lose. Put too many women in the shark tank and sharks begin to go extinct. This is where we are today.
That men and women express more sex difference in egalitarian societies may be a result of division of labor. In poorer societies, everyone has to do a bit of everything and be prepared to take on almost any task. Wealthier societies allow people to let some aspects of themselves slide so that they can focus on others - and the Other Aspects are likely to be those that have a biological underpinning, whether recognised or not.
Always thought of it as conscious and subconscious thought, but yes. People are rationalizing their way into absurdity without a single right brained, subconscious thought. Blink is a great book on this subject.
You struck a cord with entertaining the reverse arrow of causality regarding expression of masculinity in egalitarian societies. In my writing and analysis, I prefer to think of causality in human affairs (and other complex systems) as a web and not a linear phenomenon. When you pick out one aspect of a complex system and attempt to draw arrows of causation to another aspect, you should think of a sticky relation among the aspects rather than the collision of billard balls. You are considering the same "thing" and tugging it it different directions to see the result of a vector of intervention.