wrong again, bucko

I mentioned an un-named project/waaman and you instantly jumped to the conclusion you reached, how could that be if no woman was involved?
We all know the game your playing. Better luck next time Prog

The Florida International University bridge project was so obviously wrong, that nobody involved with the project should be walking around free today. There was no way it could possibly have succeeded. The construction company warned the engineers and the inspector that it was unstable and would most likely collapse.

And that engineering firm was celebrated as being 100% female. That’s why they got the contract. The inspector was also a woman, of course.

You were just given researched, cited evidence, retard, but of course you’re too brain-dead to comprehend it.

It should be obvious – yes, speaking of brain-dead, you still fit the bill immeasurably.

Wow, you just mentioned the fact that women are less likely to produce more money. Due to factors like maternity, etc. Congratulations. Everyone knows that, very astute of you.

And wow! You also showed that people in predominantly math, memorization and calculation oriented fields are better at the math-memorization-and-calculation oriented IQ test. I’ll alert the Nobel commitee

And like I said, the water gap has been known and explained time and time again. Issues like maternity etc.

That still doesnt give you the right to choose for them to only be housewives.

Really? Then why did Hauser et al, in his research paper that surveys ONLY MEN in professional fields, find that men in computer science, engineering, and math fields also had IQs about 10-15 points higher than men in social work, psychology, etc? And that’s without women possibly skewing the data.

On top of that, it’s just common sense. Have you ever taken an IQ test? It’s about 80% pattern recognition, numbers, and calculation.

Keep seething, pal

This is a fantastic argument from someone who thinks women should be housewives. Yes, if women stay at home instead of working and paying taxes (as they to a certain degree already do, but you think EVERY woman should do), of course they are on paper going to have a “negative net fiscal impact”! But that is exactly how you WANT to organize society!

Being a wife an mother has been the primary duty for 99.44% of all women, for all of history.
Anything else is a rare exception.

Women are designed to want to be taken care of, and to care for their children. Childless women working steady jobs outside the home is why so many of them are miserable today.

One more woman than you’ll ever speak with, k ike.

Don’t need to; she’s too busy getting plowed by Tyrone anyway.

“Plenty of other women” is still not even a fraction of a percent of all women.

And you are viewing their lives through the prism of your beliefs; just because they are an unmarried cat woman does not necessarily mean they are unhappy; it just means you THINK they are unhappy compared to how you think they should be living.

You can’t see through irony. I don’t believe you.

You failed to see irony and didn’t get my joke. You’re officially a woman, at least mentally.

Please don’t, I’ve suffered enough.

They were all correct dumbass

Thanks for your long reply. Disqus comments tend to get pretty echo-chamber. While I enjoy lots of dissident voices here expressing commonly censored opinions, they often disappoint me at holding up an argument. Usually those attacking the Disqus consensus are no better, so it is refreshing to see someone going against the grain in a thoughtful manner.

I agree that women shouldn’t be forced into domestic roles. There’s a possible bit of gray zone here; what if by evolution women tend to respond positively to some forms of oppression? What if something deep down in their brains is optimized around that condition? (Why are domination fetishes so common?) Nevertheless, even if so, I’d rather live in a society where people are free to choose their path in life. Freedom is not only good for personal agency, but for economic and societal outcomes if the people are given correct and relevant information.

In principle, social engineering attempts to push things out of their equilibrium state. If girls receive relevant information about common life outcomes, they will tend to choose paths that best suit their individual particulars. If they (and their parents) are given a skewed perspective via social engineering, they will tend towards different choices on false or incomplete premises. Optimizing your outcome on the basis of false or incomplete information is probably not going to work as well for you, but you’ll be more likely to do things a third party would like.

Does that third party have your best interests at heart? What if they think they do, but in reality have mistaken their interest for the common interest? What if they aren’t as clever as they fancy themselves? One example of a social engineering failure was the self-esteem movement. Researchers in the 70’s noticed that kids with higher self-esteem got better life outcomes, and concluded that high self-esteem protects you from bad outcomes (teen pregnancy, drug use, suicide, etc). They apparently failed to recognize that it’s getting bad life outcomes that lowers your self-esteem. A decade later the idea caught on and self-esteem programming made it into schools all over America. We got participation trophies and narcissistic brats instead of the desired improvements.

When you say that you like social engineering when it broadens personal choice, I naturally imagine various equal rights movements; for women, for blacks, for people with atypical sexuality. Nominally these people were all legally equal to begin with, but in practice social attitudes would need to change to help them actualize themselves in various ways. If you want people to live in freedom and have good opportunities, these all seem like good policies to socially engineer towards, right? Well, social engineering is a powerful tool and it’s not always easy to anticipate the fallout.

Part of the equal rights social engineering involved traumatizing school children. Like the medieval tales to children about bad kids getting eaten by monsters, they were told there’s these evil people called the “racists”. They’re consumed by “hate”, they were brainwashed as children themselves, they firebomb innocent people’s homes, they’re basically unconvicted murdering terrorists, and if you say the “N-word” you’re one of them! It gets impressed on them that if people ever think you’re racist, you’re going to get fired, shunned by your friends and harassed by doxing strangers. People find themselves in adulthood simultaneously scared of racists as these violent irrational hate monsters, and scared of being accused of racism themselves if they repeat an off-color joke or say anything that contradicts a point of the conditioning: Race is purely cosmetic, race is just a social construct, there’s no biological basis for race, etc. Well, what if these conditioned beliefs are wrong, and now we’re making bad choices based on them?

You would expect it to be academic suicide to publish a research paper that contradicted the orthodoxy. You would expect some institutions to begrudgingly accept the rights of free inquiry, but others to expel students and staff for merely proposing to put a tenet of faith to the test. In such an environment, contradictory evidence may be widely dismissed out of hand as “pseudo science”, and the heretics not allowed to spread their hate facts on campus.

Other equal rights conditioning bandwagon on the enemy figure “hate”. The demon “hate” that could possess anyone of us, also dislikes women for no reason, and doesn’t even want cross-dressing 11 year-old boys to get dollars put in their thongs at gay strip clubs. Thus, when James Demor tries to argue a non-discriminatory reason for the wage gap to a small group of coworkers, he’s fired despite giving a well-supported and logical case, and it makes national news for over a week.

So, social engineering gave us beliefs that are well protected from criticism by the armor of institutions and social customs.Those beliefs could be incorrect, but what’s the problem if it helps women become CEOs, black people become doctors, and transbians adopt children?

Being in denial of differences between men and women results in a wage gap that will never go away, and yet will be fought with increasing intensity until we start doing insane self-destructive things to fix it.

Being in denial of racial differences means that while racial achievement gaps are not going away, we will keep taking stronger and stronger measures to close them. There will always be just enough “systemic racism” to explain the gaps. Teachers will have to look the otherway when races more likely to misbehave do so. Black medical students already get accepted with dramatically worse grades, but there’s perennial calls to lower the bar further until they’re a representative portion of our surgeons. People are going to die over the unproven premise that there’s no such thing as race, and I stand to retire in a country that comes to resemble southern California.

Being in denial about the healthiness of being LGBTQ+ and promoting it to our children as a heroic victim group is going to result in some kids who otherwise wouldn’t have embraced that lifestyle going for it. If being trans is seen as a way to get out of white guilt or get social justice accolades, you’ll see edge-cases going for it and getting their hormones, finances, bodies, and mental state mangled. A social taboo against homosexuality goes a long way towards discouraging people from even trying it, and we’re ripping that taboo away even though 70% of new HIV cases occur in this single-digit percentage of the population.

What if we didn’t try this social engineering? What if instead of childhood traumatization, we just continued to argue to developed adults that people deserve to be judged by their individual abilities instead of their group averages? What if we just decided to let organically occurring LGBTQ+ people be themselves in private, as a group we lightly pity instead of idolizing? I suspect we could have achieved similar levels of personal liberty, and come there from a position of rational consideration. It’s relatively easy to argue for procedural fairness to mature adults, no multi-generational manipulation that sets up unachievable expectations required.

One ingredient that you’ve already mentioned is allowing people to disregard social engineering. If people are allowed to buck the trend in their beliefs without undue legal or social harassment, they will have greater freedom. That could possibly be achieved by phasing out our current social engineering, or having a social engineering counter-thrust where it is strongly emphasized that people are allowed to have beliefs you hate and go unmolested.

So, how do you present good information to the kids in a non-partial way? Assume your information is bound to be skewed in some way that’s not apparent to you. I say just don’t be heavy handed about it, gently put information before them. They are bound to seek supplemental evidence themselves, and whatever you show them will at least be a starting point on their journey of figuring out what’s real. Present both sides of an issue, emphasize that they should make up their own minds on these matters. Even if it’s an absurd subject like “flat earth”, just let them know that people argue this, why people argue this (getting it from them instead of being an amateur mind reader), and why most people think they’re wrong. Even if it’s a contentious topic that’s illegal to contradict in some countries like “what happened during the holocaust”, you just give them both sides, give them the rebuttal from each side, and give them some facts that you found compelling on the matter, but remind them to think for themselves.

Going down to a community of 150 or so may not support the libertarian dream in practice. I’m lead to believe that in small agrarian towns where everyone knows everyone else, “honor” culture tends to develop, and then everyone in the town is strongly pressured to conform. It could be different if it were explicitly a libertarian town, but the same social forces are bound to act on the situation. It could be different if tried in modern society; what if everyone had online tech jobs, the town got Amazon and UPS shipments, and nobody actually depended on their neighbors for anything?

Sometimes there’s something to be said for limiting choice. When Ren and Stimpy had to get around censors, it forced the creators to be way more innovative than a later release without those restrictions. Some pop-psychology papers suggest that we’re happiest with our choices when we pick from a smaller list of options than a larger one. Nevertheless, as a default position, I want maximum options too. Your best 1/1000 choice is bound to be better than the best of 10 of those choices pulled at random.

I heard that decades ago Hippies tried to make off-grid communes based on communist principles (hypothetical post-goverment final stage communism). None of these lasted more than 3 years. One thing that broke down was their egalitarian vision, some members ended up more powerful, some were naturally more assertive. I know you’re not into communism, but just food for thought regarding small alternative communities.

The state along with media and banks certainly makes me nervous too, and spurs me to occasionally consider what I’d need to begin sustenance farming. The system has a nice shiny exterior of law, merit and egalitarianism, but who really has influence? Because it’s secretive by nature, you’re only going to see bits and pieces accidentally revealed, or see revealing patterns that only emerge over the course of decades. I think I’m seeing loxism at play as a reoccurring theme, but now I’m looking for it, and viewing a complicated and opaque thing full of parts with a lens risks false positives.

Bellicose tribalism is another thing. Doesn’t seem like an immediate threat, but ethnic cleansings are a thing that happens when there’s a group with strong identity and more power than another group in close proximity.

If the anarchist dream came true, then whatever allowed for the overthrow of the government might allow for the overthrow of would-be warlords. What is a gang but a tiny government? People who would risk their lives to get rid of a state that has evidence-based courts, procedural rules and spends most of it’s budget on programs for the direct benefit of the population would probably also risk their lives to get rid of an emerging feudal lord.

While I’d like to see more push-back on the current social climate, we are but two disqus posters. History probably doesn’t care if you keep your mouth shut or not, so you might as well do what comes naturally to you 😉

Humans working better within limits certainly isn’t an original idea on my part. I think I’ve noticed that effect personally when making art in the context of restrictions. For that matter, creativity within limits is the entire premise of Haiku poetry. It’s hard to imagine a choice I’d like to have restricted for my benefit though. They can take unhealthy food off the market, but they can’t stop me from drinking gasoline.