James Thompson had a piece about similar — in short, female entryism tends to ruin male institutions, such as science, art, etc., since female worry and equalitarianism, while felicitous in the domestic sphere, is anathema to greatness, or even, in the end, mere competence.
Try reading James Thompson. You might be pleasantly surprised. He is neither weird nor nasty and argues logically and carefully, and is courteous to his critics.
No. We should evaluate everyone based on their abilities for filling jobs instead of playing favorites with some groups. If few women want to pursue high-paying professions like software engineering, we should just make sure that the few ones that decide to pursue such careers are evaluated by the same metric as the men, which in the real world, has been the case for a very long time, notwithstanding the protests of groups that want to have unfair advantages.
You're not addressing the point while doing a giant hyperbolic straw man. Why not just take a breath and address the clearly visible fact that institutes like Scientific American, universities, etc. seem to have gone down a rabbit hole since women became a significant part of management?
Men learnt to control their predilection towards aggressiveness and abuse of physical strength with laws, customs, and enforcement and we can see this reflected in our cathedrals and the travel to the moon. Women never had to contend with femininity going toxic because it was not applied at scale. Men are very sensitive to the judgement of women, nor do they know how to disagree with them, which means that in an institute you need only 10-20% women in top positions to feminize the organization. Exemplary is how feminist professors at Harvard destroyed Summers in 2005 because they could, damaging Harvard, using exactly the techniques described in Benenson's book. Look how Scientific American is a shadow of what it used to be. And if there were examples of institutes founded by females that were like Tesla, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. the feminine approach might have benefits, even Theranos was a disaster despite the immense effort of the establishment to get a female Jobs.
Bad times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make 'strong' women, 'strong' women make bad times. Unless women can reflect on their toxic femininity like men did with their toxic masculinity, we're in for some pretty bad times.
But I'd love to hear your rational arguments why I am wrong.
> Men learnt to control their predilection towards aggressiveness and abuse of physical strength with laws, customs, and enforcement and we can see this reflected in our cathedrals and the travel to the moon. Women never had to contend with femininity going toxic because it was not applied at scale.
One can't even state this fact today without being smeared as a bigot. I took me a long time to realize, but it is basically an emergency to apply some sort of social pressure to women(and men, really, since this is not some completely black or white issue where all women are bad/a certain way, and all men are good/a certain way) and hold them accountable for behaviors like reputation destruction, entitlement, ostracism, harassment, and passive aggressive behavior. It's much more subtle and nuanced than something like male aggression, so it's particularly toxic.
Some relevant discussion of how bad the feeling of exclusion can be compared to other bad experiences:
"what I saw on playgrounds and in classrooms was nice, normal, popular children hurting vulnerable children by making them feel ugly, inferior, shut out of the world of goodness and normalcy, and doing it routinely for years. At the same time I was learning about the far worse cruelty of groups in the adult world, race-hate and anti-semitism (also deployed to shut people out of “goodness”), lynch mobs made up of “normal” people who seemed to me larger versions of those nice, normal kids, normally looking to discharge their normal aggression on someone.
What the rapist had done was an acknowledged wrong; it would’ve been different if he’d been a normal member of my community—whatever that might’ve been for a runaway teen—but he wasn’t, he was an obviously mentally sick criminal destined for a world of shit. He was bad officially and as such he could terrify me and hurt me physically. But he could never make me feel as worthless and humiliated as my officially nice peers—along with some nice teachers, more or less decent close relatives and child psychiatrists—had made me feel, in many different contexts previous to my unfortunate run-in with him. Nor for that matter could he make me feel as bad as some officially nice men I voluntarily dated long after.
It bears repeating: A physical attack on what I called female life force is a serious thing but so are psychic attacks on an unformed child by essentially the child’s entire community; so are many forms of cruelty. By the time I was raped at age 17 I knew something about it, personally and generally—enough that I was not shocked by the fact of this violent assault. Given what I knew, I could not understand why I had been brought up to see rape as the ultimate evil. And I was sick of hearing that women are destroyed by rape, sick of it. The idea was profoundly offensive to my pride. Yes the experience was terrible, yes it caused me to carry fear in my body that could unexpectedly surface. But it did not come close to destroying me. It hurt me. But not as much as other things. "
I'm younger than him, but that sort of thing still happened to a lesser degree in the 70s. 'Smear the Queer' was a gang-up game of chase and tackle against unpopular kids. Of course, now we do it online.
Mary did not exclude Chanel Miler. She initially said she was going to write a negative review, but then had second thoughts and didn't do so. She included her thoughts on Miller's book in that post precisely to illustrate how reactions can vary.
For a blog titled 'overcoming bias', I would have expected a bit less of the 'availability heuristics' and 'appeal to authority'.
"excellent 2014 book on how men differ from women" - or one confirming a prejudice, I like and written by a woman, so OK to cite?
"Social exclusion is primarily a female strategy" - I don't think this actually describes the evidence as presented. Should we trust the hugely replication-scarce social psych research, it still only focuses on a very narrow sliver of 'gendered lives'. I'd certainly want some more investigation here than 'it rings true'. Also, could we not find any alternative explanations?
Because of the threat of sexual assault women are much more in need of emotionally and physically safe spaces in same-gender environments - thus the fear of exclusion. And once you have a close relationship in a tight-knit group - all the stress and drama ensues. Look at monasteries, prisons, sports teams, families, etc. Nothing to do with gender - just social organisation.
"This all suggests to me that “cancel culture” can be seen as a straightforward extension of a common relatively-female strategy" - really? was the cancel culture that was the red scare a bunch of men just being women, the apartheid that was South Africa and Southern US a female invention, was the word 'ostracism' (look up the etymology) invented based on female proclivities? Read Kundera's Joke, or anything about the Cultural Revolution - was all of that their version of feminisation of culture?
Let me propose an alternative theory: "every culture is cancel culture". That is almost the definition of culture. Men and women are socialised differently both because of tradition and explicable 'logistics of life' reasons with a bit of biology thrown in.
You don't have to be a feminist (I am) or a conformist to the current moment (I am not) to find this offensive to the very notion of unbiased reason. Surely you can do better.
Your level of skepticism is not founded in reality. The default assumption is not "It must be the environment unless proven otherwise." Decades of behavioral genetics studies have conclusively demonstrated substantial heritabilities (50%) for most psychological traits. The idea that gender differences contain a large biological component is a credible theory by default.
Culture, when applied consistently across evolutionary timescales become biology. If women are more in need of tight-knit groups, then over time they will develop gender-specific instincts more adaptive to living in tight-knit groups.
People have been 'cancelling' each other for millions of years, the difference today is scale and the reasons for exclusion.
Women are witches, to put it nicely, and they are born that way. Too bad you cannot face the fact that they are.
I've heard my co-workers talk about how difficult it is to manage simple sleepovers with young girls. I've been ostracized both in school and at work. Just like the experiments above describe.
The feminization of our culture has very bad consequences.
I heard a story (from someone who claimed to know) about when Barbara Walters went down to Plains, GA to interview Jimmy Carter's mother.
At the end of the interview the following dialog took place:
Barbara Walters: "Does Jimmy always tell the truth"
Mrs. Carter: "Well, yes, except for the occasional white lie."|
Barbara Walters: "What's an example of a white lie?"
Mrs. Carter: "Well, remember when I told you how happy I was to see you and how good you look?"
I think we are seeing Mrs. Carter moving from Strategy 1 to Strategy 2, even though there aren't any other women around. She goes from from palsy-walsy-yes-dearie to aggressive rejection in one line.
The review you posted also reminds me of one of H. L. Mencken's pithy sayings: "When I see women kissing, I am always reminded of prize fighters touching gloves."
I just started reading this substack, I respect Robin Hanson as a very smart, slightly edge-lordy but generally responsible public intellectual. It's depressing that the comments veer immediately into this ugly territory. I mean, promoting unz.com?
I actually don't think Robin Hanson thinks much different. You may remember how he thought about redistributing sex a few years ago to help incels. And he said in Twitter how he thinks women are "eugenics" for having only sex with attractive men.
Exactly what I was thinking. Compare to commenters on Astral Codex Ten. Even when Scott writes about controversial ideas, he mostly gets sensible, thoughtful comments. This blog has way too high a ratio of crazies.
Women apparently do this, more women are in the workforce now, and cancel culture has recently seemed to go wild ~ 2020 on. But why the sudden increase in cancel culture then? Did female participation dramatically increase suddenly at that time (don’t think so), or did they simply cross some critical threshold influence at that time?
Certainly seems plausible that some critical threshold might be needed for an embargo of an individual to work.
Is cancel culture more prevalent in fields with more women in them?
"though it must also have other causes. (What?)"--> certain individuals not being able to come to terms with their own awfulness and inadequacy,going to great lengths to play a blame game of "why its not their fault and in fact everyone else is wrong" and "its so unfair that they excluded me for being an insufferable shitbird"😆which is very typical narcissistic behaviour but we cant talk about that now can we?
It doesn't make sense to me to one the one hand say, women form cooperative groups less, while on the other hand saying, look how they form cooperating groups to exclude others! How are we meant to reconcile this?
Alas, this rings true. When trolls on the internet shout "Repeal the 19th amendment!" they're of course not addressing the root problem, but they're not wrong either.
Leo, do you think that introducing the idea (even in a light-hearted way) of taking away half the population's voting rights is productive for the conversation? It seems to me that when commentators say crazy or extreme things, it contributes toward discrediting the post, the poster, and the whole line of inquiry.
The question of men's and women's evolutionary psychology is legitimate and interesting, and even people who disagree about it violently should be able to talk about it. But when people start talking about repealing the 19th amendment... I mean come on.
Yes, I do. There are inherent contradictions in the modern conception of democracy, and it is always useful to point them out regardless of offense. If we wish to understand society, it is not at all useful to mark off big portions of the conceptual option space as barred to entry behind signs that read 'crazy' or 'extreme'.
In your own case, for instance, note the deep ideological assumptions behind using a phrase like "take away". Repealing an amendment wouldn't be taking away a right unless we had already agreed that something other than the amendment itself granted that right. Without the second amendment would we have the right to own firearms? Is there such a thing as a God-given right to own guns or own land or own slaves that can be unfairly taken away? Repealing an amendment would be saying "oops that wasn't a right, it was a mistake".
OK, if you define “rights” as god-given, then laws neither grant nor take away rights. But they do grant or take away legal capacities, and taking away a person’s capacity to vote is a big deal. I think a position is “extreme” if it’s significantly outside the Overton window. I don’t think it should be taboo to entertain extreme ideas. But introducing them into a public conversation may derail that conversation. Introducing them in support of one side in a debate will, pragmatically speaking, tend to discredit that side by associating it with extreme ideas, especially when they are shocking, distasteful, or deeply threatening to other participants in the conversation. If most other proponents of that side do not themselves accept the “extreme” idea that you are introducing in support of that side, introducing it seems irresponsible: it undermines the whole conversation.
In this context, what I see is Hanson initiating a conversation about current research into the evolutionary psychology of women and men, which many people reject and (rightly or wrongly) don’t want to talk about at all. You are introducing the idea that this research implies that women should lose their capacity to vote in elections – not endorsing that idea, but suggesting we should consider that idea. But when other people in other contexts claim that Hanson’s ideas imply taking the vote away from women (which I really doubt he supports, but if true would be a pretty conclusive argument against him for most of us), you have contributed to making that claim more persuasive. From your own perspective, don’t the costs of your comment outweigh the benefits?
Maybe you don’t accept the premise that this is a “debate” about the value of evolutionary psychology; maybe we should treat comments sections as more of a free-wheeling conversation, just spit-balling ideas, see what sticks. Even so, talking about repealing the 19th amendment has the effect of pushing people out of the conversation. In terms of its interpersonal effect, it’s a little like shouting swears. You have every right to do that, obviously! But it’s irresponsible.
I'm flattered that you're writing long answers to my statements instead of saying merely that they're ugly, weird, manospherish, or the rest. By this sole metric my comments are showing their benefits already.
As for what you've been saying in the comments here overall, it's obvious you're in the worriers-who-exclude camp. You seem concerned that terrible people in Robin's comment section will somehow cause him harm. If so, be the change you wish to see in the world -- don't let simple discussion be alarming to you.
As for voting, what even is the point of voting? Is it to make people feel good for having been allowed to vote (whilst their kleptocratic oligarchs continue to rule them in ways that are helpful only for the elite)? Or is it to create good outcomes? If the latter, and if one has even the smallest shred of conservatism, it is impossible to conclude that any expansion of the US voting franchise from its original has been helpful. Find a republican and ask him if he knows that no policies he opposes would have been possible if the electorate were restricted to white, land-owning males. He'll look very uncomfortable, because he doesn't want to appear -even to himself- as racist or misogynistic. Ask him if he'd like to repeal the amendments responsible for the complete destruction of what he considers good governance, and he'll prevaricate until he can change the subject.
Here, at least, in the comment section of one particularly insightful and fearless public intellectual, perhaps someone will tell you the truth.
The point of voting is so that people can collectively change the government without having to use violence to do it. If you care about specific political outcomes, well, dictatorships are great when you're the dictator, but not so much for everyone else...
Why do you think the US has declined so much in the last 40 years, coinciding with women's rise in power? They are at the forefront of all the deterioration in cities, the destruction of the US with invader immigrants, the destruction of freedom of speech, destruction of our western culture, etc. Women cannot maintain a culture, they are too weak minded. Men have to maintain the culture, but women in the US/West have completely emasculated the men.
Well, other countries have men that are not emasculated by the women, such as China, Russia, countries in South America, Muslim dominated countries, etc. don't buy this feminization, and they will succeed in overrunning the US. China and Muslim cultures already have a strong toe-hold with their infiltration efforts. It's just a matter of time before they take over; our tranny military will be useless.
I don't want women to lose the vote (I would lose my right to vote), but women just aren't any good for defending nations or peoples.
Russia? Really? Russia is a basket case. So are many of the other countries you've mentioned.
Liberal democracy always appears weak, until it has to prove that it isn't. Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden all found that out the hard way. (It's true we didn't "win" in Afghanistan, but bin Laden didn't live to see the US army leave.)
"Without the second amendment would we have the right to own firearms? Is there such a thing as a God-given right to own guns ... that can be unfairly taken away?"
I'm not sure if you were using an example or asking a question, but if the latter, the answer is yes, there is. Not just as stated in the Declaration of Independence, but reaffirmed several times by the Supreme Court, most notably in US v. Cruikshank (92 US 542; (1875)), where it ruled that both freedom of assembly and the right to keep and bear arms "existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution... Neither is it in any manner dependant upon that instrument for its existence."
With all possible respect and charity, this is like asking someone for evidence of the existence of God and watching them pull out a Bible and start reading from it.
I fully take your point. However, when you vaguely ask "is there such a thing," you need to specify a context. Can I prove to a scientist or a philosopher that God gave me this right? No. Can I prove it to a court of law? Several times over, because precedent, precedent, precedent. And that's more important to me, because scientists won't come to my house with guns and throw me in prison for owning a musket. They'll only do that for my not wearing a mask.
The seeming similarity to cancel culture could be explained if there was a parallel to whatever *reasons* women are supposedly [evolutionarily or not] motivated to this set of strategies. I don't see the explanation above but there are hints that "competition" there means (to both men and women) fighting for parts of a fixed pie. Maybe part of it is that women need to avoid seeming hurtful, or need to avoid risks of retaliation more. The fixed pie could mean a non-expanding economy? Retaliation-avoidance because modern communication has fewer filters for unfair accusations, or fewer ways to make money by being fair?
Seems to match my own experience observing various friendship dynamics, I wonder what would happen if people became more self aware of stuff such as this, would they abandon their own evolutionary predispositions, maybe even double down, seems interesting.
Sounds like you finally watched Mean Girls (from 2004) & thought "Surely I can find a way to link this plot to something I don't like & blame women for it. AHA...Me Too & cancel culture...perfect!"
James Thompson had a piece about similar — in short, female entryism tends to ruin male institutions, such as science, art, etc., since female worry and equalitarianism, while felicitous in the domestic sphere, is anathema to greatness, or even, in the end, mere competence.
Oh come on. That's weird, nasty, manosphere stuff. You shouldn't be bringing that here.
Try reading James Thompson. You might be pleasantly surprised. He is neither weird nor nasty and argues logically and carefully, and is courteous to his critics.
I'm married with kids but thanks for demonstrating my point.
Hey man, got a link for that. Tried googling it, but google censorship is getting stronger and stronger as time pass
Here's the James Thompson archive. It's probably there somewhere:
https://www.unz.com/author/james-thompson/
Try Duck Duck Go.
The same, it gets its results from bing. It is the same shit as google.
The only one which worked was yandex, from russia.
I tried to find it but it is on unz and they are blocking my vpn; sorry!
Female entryism?? What does that mean
Women entering the labour markets or various institutions ?
No. We should evaluate everyone based on their abilities for filling jobs instead of playing favorites with some groups. If few women want to pursue high-paying professions like software engineering, we should just make sure that the few ones that decide to pursue such careers are evaluated by the same metric as the men, which in the real world, has been the case for a very long time, notwithstanding the protests of groups that want to have unfair advantages.
"notwithstanding the protests of groups that want to have unfair advantages" unbeknownst to you, you are in fact part of said group😆
You're not addressing the point while doing a giant hyperbolic straw man. Why not just take a breath and address the clearly visible fact that institutes like Scientific American, universities, etc. seem to have gone down a rabbit hole since women became a significant part of management?
Men learnt to control their predilection towards aggressiveness and abuse of physical strength with laws, customs, and enforcement and we can see this reflected in our cathedrals and the travel to the moon. Women never had to contend with femininity going toxic because it was not applied at scale. Men are very sensitive to the judgement of women, nor do they know how to disagree with them, which means that in an institute you need only 10-20% women in top positions to feminize the organization. Exemplary is how feminist professors at Harvard destroyed Summers in 2005 because they could, damaging Harvard, using exactly the techniques described in Benenson's book. Look how Scientific American is a shadow of what it used to be. And if there were examples of institutes founded by females that were like Tesla, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. the feminine approach might have benefits, even Theranos was a disaster despite the immense effort of the establishment to get a female Jobs.
Bad times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make 'strong' women, 'strong' women make bad times. Unless women can reflect on their toxic femininity like men did with their toxic masculinity, we're in for some pretty bad times.
But I'd love to hear your rational arguments why I am wrong.
> Men learnt to control their predilection towards aggressiveness and abuse of physical strength with laws, customs, and enforcement and we can see this reflected in our cathedrals and the travel to the moon. Women never had to contend with femininity going toxic because it was not applied at scale.
One can't even state this fact today without being smeared as a bigot. I took me a long time to realize, but it is basically an emergency to apply some sort of social pressure to women(and men, really, since this is not some completely black or white issue where all women are bad/a certain way, and all men are good/a certain way) and hold them accountable for behaviors like reputation destruction, entitlement, ostracism, harassment, and passive aggressive behavior. It's much more subtle and nuanced than something like male aggression, so it's particularly toxic.
Cept Marcuse and the Frankfurt School were all homosocial, misogynist men?
By coincidence, Slate recently published an interview with Mary Gaitskill, which led me to this:
https://marygaitskill.substack.com/p/writing-about-rape
Some relevant discussion of how bad the feeling of exclusion can be compared to other bad experiences:
"what I saw on playgrounds and in classrooms was nice, normal, popular children hurting vulnerable children by making them feel ugly, inferior, shut out of the world of goodness and normalcy, and doing it routinely for years. At the same time I was learning about the far worse cruelty of groups in the adult world, race-hate and anti-semitism (also deployed to shut people out of “goodness”), lynch mobs made up of “normal” people who seemed to me larger versions of those nice, normal kids, normally looking to discharge their normal aggression on someone.
What the rapist had done was an acknowledged wrong; it would’ve been different if he’d been a normal member of my community—whatever that might’ve been for a runaway teen—but he wasn’t, he was an obviously mentally sick criminal destined for a world of shit. He was bad officially and as such he could terrify me and hurt me physically. But he could never make me feel as worthless and humiliated as my officially nice peers—along with some nice teachers, more or less decent close relatives and child psychiatrists—had made me feel, in many different contexts previous to my unfortunate run-in with him. Nor for that matter could he make me feel as bad as some officially nice men I voluntarily dated long after.
It bears repeating: A physical attack on what I called female life force is a serious thing but so are psychic attacks on an unformed child by essentially the child’s entire community; so are many forms of cruelty. By the time I was raped at age 17 I knew something about it, personally and generally—enough that I was not shocked by the fact of this violent assault. Given what I knew, I could not understand why I had been brought up to see rape as the ultimate evil. And I was sick of hearing that women are destroyed by rape, sick of it. The idea was profoundly offensive to my pride. Yes the experience was terrible, yes it caused me to carry fear in my body that could unexpectedly surface. But it did not come close to destroying me. It hurt me. But not as much as other things. "
Thanks for sharing this post. The comments on Robin Hanson's substack are mostly pretty disturbing.
Yeah, seems to be a Safe Space for incels...Sad.
Gaitskill's substack post got put behind a subscribers-only wall, but she wrote along the same lines here:
https://genedseminars.umb.edu/engl273-2/spg09/documents/HarpersMagazine-1994-03-0001592.pdf
Gerry Anderson describes how his schoolmates would dance around him, shouting, "Jew boy, Jew boy!" https://www.gerryanderson.com/documentary/
I'm younger than him, but that sort of thing still happened to a lesser degree in the 70s. 'Smear the Queer' was a gang-up game of chase and tackle against unpopular kids. Of course, now we do it online.
A great quote from one of the most intelligent writers in the English-speaking world!
Mary did not exclude Chanel Miler. She initially said she was going to write a negative review, but then had second thoughts and didn't do so. She included her thoughts on Miller's book in that post precisely to illustrate how reactions can vary.
For a blog titled 'overcoming bias', I would have expected a bit less of the 'availability heuristics' and 'appeal to authority'.
"excellent 2014 book on how men differ from women" - or one confirming a prejudice, I like and written by a woman, so OK to cite?
"Social exclusion is primarily a female strategy" - I don't think this actually describes the evidence as presented. Should we trust the hugely replication-scarce social psych research, it still only focuses on a very narrow sliver of 'gendered lives'. I'd certainly want some more investigation here than 'it rings true'. Also, could we not find any alternative explanations?
Because of the threat of sexual assault women are much more in need of emotionally and physically safe spaces in same-gender environments - thus the fear of exclusion. And once you have a close relationship in a tight-knit group - all the stress and drama ensues. Look at monasteries, prisons, sports teams, families, etc. Nothing to do with gender - just social organisation.
"This all suggests to me that “cancel culture” can be seen as a straightforward extension of a common relatively-female strategy" - really? was the cancel culture that was the red scare a bunch of men just being women, the apartheid that was South Africa and Southern US a female invention, was the word 'ostracism' (look up the etymology) invented based on female proclivities? Read Kundera's Joke, or anything about the Cultural Revolution - was all of that their version of feminisation of culture?
Let me propose an alternative theory: "every culture is cancel culture". That is almost the definition of culture. Men and women are socialised differently both because of tradition and explicable 'logistics of life' reasons with a bit of biology thrown in.
You don't have to be a feminist (I am) or a conformist to the current moment (I am not) to find this offensive to the very notion of unbiased reason. Surely you can do better.
Your level of skepticism is not founded in reality. The default assumption is not "It must be the environment unless proven otherwise." Decades of behavioral genetics studies have conclusively demonstrated substantial heritabilities (50%) for most psychological traits. The idea that gender differences contain a large biological component is a credible theory by default.
Culture, when applied consistently across evolutionary timescales become biology. If women are more in need of tight-knit groups, then over time they will develop gender-specific instincts more adaptive to living in tight-knit groups.
People have been 'cancelling' each other for millions of years, the difference today is scale and the reasons for exclusion.
Women are witches, to put it nicely, and they are born that way. Too bad you cannot face the fact that they are.
I've heard my co-workers talk about how difficult it is to manage simple sleepovers with young girls. I've been ostracized both in school and at work. Just like the experiments above describe.
The feminization of our culture has very bad consequences.
I heard a story (from someone who claimed to know) about when Barbara Walters went down to Plains, GA to interview Jimmy Carter's mother.
At the end of the interview the following dialog took place:
Barbara Walters: "Does Jimmy always tell the truth"
Mrs. Carter: "Well, yes, except for the occasional white lie."|
Barbara Walters: "What's an example of a white lie?"
Mrs. Carter: "Well, remember when I told you how happy I was to see you and how good you look?"
I think we are seeing Mrs. Carter moving from Strategy 1 to Strategy 2, even though there aren't any other women around. She goes from from palsy-walsy-yes-dearie to aggressive rejection in one line.
The review you posted also reminds me of one of H. L. Mencken's pithy sayings: "When I see women kissing, I am always reminded of prize fighters touching gloves."
I just started reading this substack, I respect Robin Hanson as a very smart, slightly edge-lordy but generally responsible public intellectual. It's depressing that the comments veer immediately into this ugly territory. I mean, promoting unz.com?
I actually don't think Robin Hanson thinks much different. You may remember how he thought about redistributing sex a few years ago to help incels. And he said in Twitter how he thinks women are "eugenics" for having only sex with attractive men.
Exactly what I was thinking. Compare to commenters on Astral Codex Ten. Even when Scott writes about controversial ideas, he mostly gets sensible, thoughtful comments. This blog has way too high a ratio of crazies.
Women apparently do this, more women are in the workforce now, and cancel culture has recently seemed to go wild ~ 2020 on. But why the sudden increase in cancel culture then? Did female participation dramatically increase suddenly at that time (don’t think so), or did they simply cross some critical threshold influence at that time?
Certainly seems plausible that some critical threshold might be needed for an embargo of an individual to work.
Is cancel culture more prevalent in fields with more women in them?
The comments here are great examples of the dynamics described.
"though it must also have other causes. (What?)"--> certain individuals not being able to come to terms with their own awfulness and inadequacy,going to great lengths to play a blame game of "why its not their fault and in fact everyone else is wrong" and "its so unfair that they excluded me for being an insufferable shitbird"😆which is very typical narcissistic behaviour but we cant talk about that now can we?
It doesn't make sense to me to one the one hand say, women form cooperative groups less, while on the other hand saying, look how they form cooperating groups to exclude others! How are we meant to reconcile this?
Social inclusion is inherently built on exclusion. To include a certain group, you must exclude others.
As noted in the article, it says women form groups and typically abuse an outsider.
Alas, this rings true. When trolls on the internet shout "Repeal the 19th amendment!" they're of course not addressing the root problem, but they're not wrong either.
Leo, do you think that introducing the idea (even in a light-hearted way) of taking away half the population's voting rights is productive for the conversation? It seems to me that when commentators say crazy or extreme things, it contributes toward discrediting the post, the poster, and the whole line of inquiry.
The question of men's and women's evolutionary psychology is legitimate and interesting, and even people who disagree about it violently should be able to talk about it. But when people start talking about repealing the 19th amendment... I mean come on.
Yes, I do. There are inherent contradictions in the modern conception of democracy, and it is always useful to point them out regardless of offense. If we wish to understand society, it is not at all useful to mark off big portions of the conceptual option space as barred to entry behind signs that read 'crazy' or 'extreme'.
In your own case, for instance, note the deep ideological assumptions behind using a phrase like "take away". Repealing an amendment wouldn't be taking away a right unless we had already agreed that something other than the amendment itself granted that right. Without the second amendment would we have the right to own firearms? Is there such a thing as a God-given right to own guns or own land or own slaves that can be unfairly taken away? Repealing an amendment would be saying "oops that wasn't a right, it was a mistake".
OK, if you define “rights” as god-given, then laws neither grant nor take away rights. But they do grant or take away legal capacities, and taking away a person’s capacity to vote is a big deal. I think a position is “extreme” if it’s significantly outside the Overton window. I don’t think it should be taboo to entertain extreme ideas. But introducing them into a public conversation may derail that conversation. Introducing them in support of one side in a debate will, pragmatically speaking, tend to discredit that side by associating it with extreme ideas, especially when they are shocking, distasteful, or deeply threatening to other participants in the conversation. If most other proponents of that side do not themselves accept the “extreme” idea that you are introducing in support of that side, introducing it seems irresponsible: it undermines the whole conversation.
In this context, what I see is Hanson initiating a conversation about current research into the evolutionary psychology of women and men, which many people reject and (rightly or wrongly) don’t want to talk about at all. You are introducing the idea that this research implies that women should lose their capacity to vote in elections – not endorsing that idea, but suggesting we should consider that idea. But when other people in other contexts claim that Hanson’s ideas imply taking the vote away from women (which I really doubt he supports, but if true would be a pretty conclusive argument against him for most of us), you have contributed to making that claim more persuasive. From your own perspective, don’t the costs of your comment outweigh the benefits?
Maybe you don’t accept the premise that this is a “debate” about the value of evolutionary psychology; maybe we should treat comments sections as more of a free-wheeling conversation, just spit-balling ideas, see what sticks. Even so, talking about repealing the 19th amendment has the effect of pushing people out of the conversation. In terms of its interpersonal effect, it’s a little like shouting swears. You have every right to do that, obviously! But it’s irresponsible.
I'm flattered that you're writing long answers to my statements instead of saying merely that they're ugly, weird, manospherish, or the rest. By this sole metric my comments are showing their benefits already.
As for what you've been saying in the comments here overall, it's obvious you're in the worriers-who-exclude camp. You seem concerned that terrible people in Robin's comment section will somehow cause him harm. If so, be the change you wish to see in the world -- don't let simple discussion be alarming to you.
As for voting, what even is the point of voting? Is it to make people feel good for having been allowed to vote (whilst their kleptocratic oligarchs continue to rule them in ways that are helpful only for the elite)? Or is it to create good outcomes? If the latter, and if one has even the smallest shred of conservatism, it is impossible to conclude that any expansion of the US voting franchise from its original has been helpful. Find a republican and ask him if he knows that no policies he opposes would have been possible if the electorate were restricted to white, land-owning males. He'll look very uncomfortable, because he doesn't want to appear -even to himself- as racist or misogynistic. Ask him if he'd like to repeal the amendments responsible for the complete destruction of what he considers good governance, and he'll prevaricate until he can change the subject.
Here, at least, in the comment section of one particularly insightful and fearless public intellectual, perhaps someone will tell you the truth.
The point of voting is so that people can collectively change the government without having to use violence to do it. If you care about specific political outcomes, well, dictatorships are great when you're the dictator, but not so much for everyone else...
Why do you think the US has declined so much in the last 40 years, coinciding with women's rise in power? They are at the forefront of all the deterioration in cities, the destruction of the US with invader immigrants, the destruction of freedom of speech, destruction of our western culture, etc. Women cannot maintain a culture, they are too weak minded. Men have to maintain the culture, but women in the US/West have completely emasculated the men.
Well, other countries have men that are not emasculated by the women, such as China, Russia, countries in South America, Muslim dominated countries, etc. don't buy this feminization, and they will succeed in overrunning the US. China and Muslim cultures already have a strong toe-hold with their infiltration efforts. It's just a matter of time before they take over; our tranny military will be useless.
I don't want women to lose the vote (I would lose my right to vote), but women just aren't any good for defending nations or peoples.
Russia? Really? Russia is a basket case. So are many of the other countries you've mentioned.
Liberal democracy always appears weak, until it has to prove that it isn't. Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden all found that out the hard way. (It's true we didn't "win" in Afghanistan, but bin Laden didn't live to see the US army leave.)
"Without the second amendment would we have the right to own firearms? Is there such a thing as a God-given right to own guns ... that can be unfairly taken away?"
I'm not sure if you were using an example or asking a question, but if the latter, the answer is yes, there is. Not just as stated in the Declaration of Independence, but reaffirmed several times by the Supreme Court, most notably in US v. Cruikshank (92 US 542; (1875)), where it ruled that both freedom of assembly and the right to keep and bear arms "existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution... Neither is it in any manner dependant upon that instrument for its existence."
With all possible respect and charity, this is like asking someone for evidence of the existence of God and watching them pull out a Bible and start reading from it.
I fully take your point. However, when you vaguely ask "is there such a thing," you need to specify a context. Can I prove to a scientist or a philosopher that God gave me this right? No. Can I prove it to a court of law? Several times over, because precedent, precedent, precedent. And that's more important to me, because scientists won't come to my house with guns and throw me in prison for owning a musket. They'll only do that for my not wearing a mask.
OKIncel lol. Watch out for those female KOODIES. Eve is responsible for ALL your and the world's problems, we get it.
The seeming similarity to cancel culture could be explained if there was a parallel to whatever *reasons* women are supposedly [evolutionarily or not] motivated to this set of strategies. I don't see the explanation above but there are hints that "competition" there means (to both men and women) fighting for parts of a fixed pie. Maybe part of it is that women need to avoid seeming hurtful, or need to avoid risks of retaliation more. The fixed pie could mean a non-expanding economy? Retaliation-avoidance because modern communication has fewer filters for unfair accusations, or fewer ways to make money by being fair?
There really wouldn’t be too much argument with this view if you asked middle school girls where “mean girls” reign supreme. Puberty?
Seems to match my own experience observing various friendship dynamics, I wonder what would happen if people became more self aware of stuff such as this, would they abandon their own evolutionary predispositions, maybe even double down, seems interesting.
I would guess that in the case of a person discovering or learning about an evolutionary thing, that:
A person high in the personality trait opennes would be more likely to reject the evolutionary tendency and experiment
A person low in opennes would double down and emphasize that we have done fine so far and that we would be better off returning to our roots
Thats the tendency ive noticed when it comes to sexual evolution, psychology and such most of the time
Wow, I just discovered this, a year later. Excellent! It confirms everything I always knew instinctively.
Sounds like you finally watched Mean Girls (from 2004) & thought "Surely I can find a way to link this plot to something I don't like & blame women for it. AHA...Me Too & cancel culture...perfect!"