Consider the possibility of discrimination against the left-handed. Such discrimination might make efficiency sense in contexts where expensive-to-change complementary equipment is designed for the right-handed. Such as pilots. In other contexts, one might justify mild discrimination based on weak
Left-hander here. I can't play anyone else's drums; I can't use their golf clubs. I learned to use conventional scissors and pencil sharpeners in grade school. Life doesn't need to be this bleeping complicated. If you're the oddball, you need to adapt -- if this means you're 4 feet tall, left-handed, or confused about the function and purpose of your genitalia.
Dude. How much time do you expect others to surrender to you to parse through your failed attempt at writing English?
You:
" I'm puzzled how you could come to that conclusion about Hanson after all the crap he endures say what's true rather than what sends the right signals about being a feminist ally."
What are you trying to say? Your run-on sentence is nearly devoid of meaning.
Like most who are hyper-indoctrinated Hanson sees the bogey man of discrimination lurking around every corner.
Also, Hanson believes in a false concept of gender. Languages have gender: el, le, la, die, der, etc. Mankind has sex, male or female.
In reality, there are only individuals as expressions of breeds. Breeds particular traits. Some breeds are built for speed, others strength, others still smarts. Always too, for every breed, the female of the breed tends to be weaker, slower, and the like, on average, while falling within a narrow band of intellect.
If you believe that Hanson is smart, you are not a good judge of intellect.
Do you read this blog? I'm puzzled how you could come to that conclusion about Hanson after all the crap he endures say what's true rather than what sends the right signals about being a feminist ally.
Of course, he's not doing it out of any kind of selflessness. Like me he likes the status and social cred that sending signals which say "I'm too smart/powerful/entrenched to have to worry about anything but speaking truth"
Hanson (stupidly): "Consider the possibility of discrimination against the left-handed. Such discrimination might make efficiency sense in contexts where expensive-to-change complementary equipment is designed for the right-handed."
By Hanson's stupidity, creating anything to a standard because most fall near to that standard is discrimination against those who are far from the standard. Countertop height tables typically are 36 inches. Is this "discrimination" against midgets, dwarfs and those standing 6'5" or higher, all of which are rarities?
If more things are designed for right-handedness, it is strictly by a numbers game. Opportunity exists for others to pander to left-handedness (see: https://www.leftyslefthande...)
Hanson then blathers about "genders." Mankind has sex, male or female. Languages have genders, el, le, la, die, der, and so on.
Dopey feminists in the 1960s began saying "gender" as a replacement for sex to suggest a false phenomenon of "socially-constructed gender roles" in their political effort to get women higher paying jobs by reducing standards.
Later, the phrase "gender bender" became popular when David Bowie took on the persona of Ziggy Stardust in the early 1970s.
Because Hanson is clueless, Hanson devolves into a bizarre systematic delusion about gender having a "package of features" that define a gender.
Dopey people like Hanson sees anyone of mankind as interchangeable with anyone else while ignoring key traits like height, strength, speed, mental agility and so on. Hanson fails to realize that as one approaches 130 IQ, there are two males for every female.
Thus is stands to reason that in occupations that require high IQs, such as surgeons or electrical engineers, there will be twice as many males as females. This does not result from a conspiracy by a "patriarchy" that is trying to impose "socially-constructed gender roles." This results from biology, evolutionary biology.
For the same reason, at the upper end of jobs that require higher IQs, there are far fewer of mankind with those IQs that can fill those jobs. As stated already, there are more males than females. There are more whites of Northwest European ancestry to fill those roles than coloreds of any race, be them of the black races, yellow races, brown races, red races.
Hanson concludes with this silliness, "We can and should talk about what we want those gender roles to be, but we can’t do that until we admit that such roles will exist."
There is no we. There are only individuals. Saying we is lame, weak rhetoric spewed by those who lack truth in argument.
Further, every day, by the unseen hand of emergence, the smarter gravitate toward the harder jobs that pay more. The stronger and braver gravitate to the tougher, more dangerous jobs that pay more. Because in both cases, there are fewer applicants in the face many bidders. As well, in both cases, the applicant pools are males, mostly white ones of Northwest European ancestry.
Robin claims he desires "to move our beliefs closer to reality in the face of our natural biases such as ... wishful thinking" and yet that is all Robin does. Robin wishes there were no differences among individuals and yet in reality that is all there is.
Inequality is the hallmark of the so-called natural world. Evolutionary forces seem to give one species advantage in one way, e.g., speed, to seek out prey and those of the prey to gain advantage, cunning, to overcome the advantage of predator.
And in the natural world, it is the weaker that fall prey, the deformed ones. The analog weaker ones for mankind are the ones confused about sex and about race. Only through punishing force can reality be held at abeyance and then only for a short while.
Weirdly, that isn't my sense about what happens. You are right that it wouldn't protect him but they would just brush away those explanations as unconvincing not as evidence of the bad intentions themselves.
> Should it be socially acceptable to make assumptions [..]
Yes, of course it should, because otherwise you cannot interact at all? When I meet you I will treat you in a certain way, which I can only base on my first impression. I’m not first going to ask you to fill out a 5 page questionnaire to dispel all possible wrong assumptions. That would be very inefficient. Making assumptions, including based on gender, *is* the efficient thing to do.
What needs to change is that people should learn to allow others to disconfirm their assumptions and resulting expectations. The problem is not that I address someone as ‘Sir’. The problem is when I do not address them as “Ma’am” after they’ve corrected me.
The problem is not that I expect someone to be less suited for a job. The problem is when I don’t hire them based on that expectation, instead of based on the actual interview.
Trying to get people to stop making assumptions is like trying to stop evolution. Trying to make people feel bad about it doesn’t help one bit. What you can do (or so I hope) is make people aware that they are making assumptions and make them question their assumptions and resulting expectations.
How is that evidence of discrimination (the implied meaning here is *unjustified* discrimination: we’re not talking about just any kind of discrimination here)? Not creating left-handed versions of everything is just capitalism doing its thing?
Robin, I think this post reveals your 'failure mode': you tend to take people's claims at face value.
Consider: equality between genders is only invoked in areas where move towards equality would benefit women, never when it would benefit men. For example, 100 years ago men tended to dominate university enrollment, so there was a push for more equality. For a couple of decades now, women dominate. There is no serious discussion that maybe 'somethings needs to be done'. How come?
Thanks for the clarification. You might want to tweak that paragraph. As written it sounds like you'd think it unjustified to e.g.disrupt insider-favoring for which there's ironclad evidence beyond correlation.
(I guess you thought the qualifier "...that suppress gender role correlations..." filtered out such scenarios, but it doesn't; pretty much any disruption of an old-boys-network will suppress gender-role correlations as a side effect).
The phrase "objectively observable patterns of behavior" opens a giant can of worms. My daughter and I look at the same crayon, and she'll call it pink while I'll call it purple. Electromagnetic wavelength -- ie. color -- is about as objective as a thing in the physical world can get, and yet it still leads to subjective observation.
And that's color. Now consider behavior, where I can hold a door open for one person who will be grateful, while the next will be offended, and the third annoyed. Which of the three are right about me and my door-opening? It's subjective.
Add in things like mood, and it gets even more complicated. Add in things like culture and it's a minefield. In short, I am not sure that there has ever been such a thing as an "objectively observable pattern of behavior." Such observations are always subjective.
I didn't say an insider-favoring equilibrium couldn't happen, I said that gender-success correlations aren't by themselves much evidence of it, because gender is big. With something small, a big correlation with success is much stronger evidence.
My main priority is to allow non-normative individuals the freedom to deviate from the expectation. Whether that happens by changing expectations, or lowering the confidence in them, or by preventing people from acting on expectations is secondary.
I'll count you as in denial if your main priority is to change expectations without changing behavior. There will be expectations, and they will differ by gender. We can talk about what we want that to be, or we can pretend it doesn't or won't exist.
Left-hander here. I can't play anyone else's drums; I can't use their golf clubs. I learned to use conventional scissors and pencil sharpeners in grade school. Life doesn't need to be this bleeping complicated. If you're the oddball, you need to adapt -- if this means you're 4 feet tall, left-handed, or confused about the function and purpose of your genitalia.
Dude. How much time do you expect others to surrender to you to parse through your failed attempt at writing English?
You:
" I'm puzzled how you could come to that conclusion about Hanson after all the crap he endures say what's true rather than what sends the right signals about being a feminist ally."
What are you trying to say? Your run-on sentence is nearly devoid of meaning.
Like most who are hyper-indoctrinated Hanson sees the bogey man of discrimination lurking around every corner.
Also, Hanson believes in a false concept of gender. Languages have gender: el, le, la, die, der, etc. Mankind has sex, male or female.
In reality, there are only individuals as expressions of breeds. Breeds particular traits. Some breeds are built for speed, others strength, others still smarts. Always too, for every breed, the female of the breed tends to be weaker, slower, and the like, on average, while falling within a narrow band of intellect.
If you believe that Hanson is smart, you are not a good judge of intellect.
Good luck!
Do you read this blog? I'm puzzled how you could come to that conclusion about Hanson after all the crap he endures say what's true rather than what sends the right signals about being a feminist ally.
Of course, he's not doing it out of any kind of selflessness. Like me he likes the status and social cred that sending signals which say "I'm too smart/powerful/entrenched to have to worry about anything but speaking truth"
Hanson (stupidly): "Consider the possibility of discrimination against the left-handed. Such discrimination might make efficiency sense in contexts where expensive-to-change complementary equipment is designed for the right-handed."
By Hanson's stupidity, creating anything to a standard because most fall near to that standard is discrimination against those who are far from the standard. Countertop height tables typically are 36 inches. Is this "discrimination" against midgets, dwarfs and those standing 6'5" or higher, all of which are rarities?
If more things are designed for right-handedness, it is strictly by a numbers game. Opportunity exists for others to pander to left-handedness (see: https://www.leftyslefthande...)
Hanson then blathers about "genders." Mankind has sex, male or female. Languages have genders, el, le, la, die, der, and so on.
Dopey feminists in the 1960s began saying "gender" as a replacement for sex to suggest a false phenomenon of "socially-constructed gender roles" in their political effort to get women higher paying jobs by reducing standards.
Later, the phrase "gender bender" became popular when David Bowie took on the persona of Ziggy Stardust in the early 1970s.
Because Hanson is clueless, Hanson devolves into a bizarre systematic delusion about gender having a "package of features" that define a gender.
Dopey people like Hanson sees anyone of mankind as interchangeable with anyone else while ignoring key traits like height, strength, speed, mental agility and so on. Hanson fails to realize that as one approaches 130 IQ, there are two males for every female.
Thus is stands to reason that in occupations that require high IQs, such as surgeons or electrical engineers, there will be twice as many males as females. This does not result from a conspiracy by a "patriarchy" that is trying to impose "socially-constructed gender roles." This results from biology, evolutionary biology.
For the same reason, at the upper end of jobs that require higher IQs, there are far fewer of mankind with those IQs that can fill those jobs. As stated already, there are more males than females. There are more whites of Northwest European ancestry to fill those roles than coloreds of any race, be them of the black races, yellow races, brown races, red races.
Hanson concludes with this silliness, "We can and should talk about what we want those gender roles to be, but we can’t do that until we admit that such roles will exist."
There is no we. There are only individuals. Saying we is lame, weak rhetoric spewed by those who lack truth in argument.
Further, every day, by the unseen hand of emergence, the smarter gravitate toward the harder jobs that pay more. The stronger and braver gravitate to the tougher, more dangerous jobs that pay more. Because in both cases, there are fewer applicants in the face many bidders. As well, in both cases, the applicant pools are males, mostly white ones of Northwest European ancestry.
Robin claims he desires "to move our beliefs closer to reality in the face of our natural biases such as ... wishful thinking" and yet that is all Robin does. Robin wishes there were no differences among individuals and yet in reality that is all there is.
Inequality is the hallmark of the so-called natural world. Evolutionary forces seem to give one species advantage in one way, e.g., speed, to seek out prey and those of the prey to gain advantage, cunning, to overcome the advantage of predator.
And in the natural world, it is the weaker that fall prey, the deformed ones. The analog weaker ones for mankind are the ones confused about sex and about race. Only through punishing force can reality be held at abeyance and then only for a short while.
I don't have sex with people of the opposite gender.I have sex with people of the opposite sex.
Your fantasies about genders and roles notwithstanding.And 99+ % of the planet does the same.
So why are you rattling on about what's in your head, instead of paying attention to reality?
Weirdly, that isn't my sense about what happens. You are right that it wouldn't protect him but they would just brush away those explanations as unconvincing not as evidence of the bad intentions themselves.
Failing to publicly challenge a claim is not the same as accepting it.
> Should it be socially acceptable to make assumptions [..]
Yes, of course it should, because otherwise you cannot interact at all? When I meet you I will treat you in a certain way, which I can only base on my first impression. I’m not first going to ask you to fill out a 5 page questionnaire to dispel all possible wrong assumptions. That would be very inefficient. Making assumptions, including based on gender, *is* the efficient thing to do.
What needs to change is that people should learn to allow others to disconfirm their assumptions and resulting expectations. The problem is not that I address someone as ‘Sir’. The problem is when I do not address them as “Ma’am” after they’ve corrected me.
The problem is not that I expect someone to be less suited for a job. The problem is when I don’t hire them based on that expectation, instead of based on the actual interview.
Trying to get people to stop making assumptions is like trying to stop evolution. Trying to make people feel bad about it doesn’t help one bit. What you can do (or so I hope) is make people aware that they are making assumptions and make them question their assumptions and resulting expectations.
How is that evidence of discrimination (the implied meaning here is *unjustified* discrimination: we’re not talking about just any kind of discrimination here)? Not creating left-handed versions of everything is just capitalism doing its thing?
Robin, I think this post reveals your 'failure mode': you tend to take people's claims at face value.
Consider: equality between genders is only invoked in areas where move towards equality would benefit women, never when it would benefit men. For example, 100 years ago men tended to dominate university enrollment, so there was a push for more equality. For a couple of decades now, women dominate. There is no serious discussion that maybe 'somethings needs to be done'. How come?
Okay, I reworded that sentence.
Thanks for the clarification. You might want to tweak that paragraph. As written it sounds like you'd think it unjustified to e.g.disrupt insider-favoring for which there's ironclad evidence beyond correlation.
(I guess you thought the qualifier "...that suppress gender role correlations..." filtered out such scenarios, but it doesn't; pretty much any disruption of an old-boys-network will suppress gender-role correlations as a side effect).
The phrase "objectively observable patterns of behavior" opens a giant can of worms. My daughter and I look at the same crayon, and she'll call it pink while I'll call it purple. Electromagnetic wavelength -- ie. color -- is about as objective as a thing in the physical world can get, and yet it still leads to subjective observation.
And that's color. Now consider behavior, where I can hold a door open for one person who will be grateful, while the next will be offended, and the third annoyed. Which of the three are right about me and my door-opening? It's subjective.
Add in things like mood, and it gets even more complicated. Add in things like culture and it's a minefield. In short, I am not sure that there has ever been such a thing as an "objectively observable pattern of behavior." Such observations are always subjective.
I didn't say an insider-favoring equilibrium couldn't happen, I said that gender-success correlations aren't by themselves much evidence of it, because gender is big. With something small, a big correlation with success is much stronger evidence.
My main priority is to allow non-normative individuals the freedom to deviate from the expectation. Whether that happens by changing expectations, or lowering the confidence in them, or by preventing people from acting on expectations is secondary.
I'll count you as in denial if your main priority is to change expectations without changing behavior. There will be expectations, and they will differ by gender. We can talk about what we want that to be, or we can pretend it doesn't or won't exist.