Woke is white arrogance

[lpetrich]

Something that seems universal in our species is that the two sexes like to sort themselves out into two social castes. This tends to make it difficult to get a good fix on what innate psychological differences between the sexes there might be.

There are some, but they are relatively small relative to the overall variation. This is contrary to the common stereotype of what the sexes are like: a sizable gap between the sexes with little or no overlap.

I'll now construct psychological profiles using the Big Five and the stereotype of strong differences:

Women: +E, +C, +A, +N -- women are outgoing, strongly experiencing both positive and negative emotions, and very much wanting to please others. They are diligent, duty-bound, and neat nuts.

Men: -E, -C, -A, -N -- men are withdrawn, emotionally flat, and indifferent to other people, making them aloof. They are lackadaisical and disorganized.

(Trausti's video link snipped for brevity)

What a content-free response.

I have a suspicion that my analysis gave results other than whatever it is that Trausti expected.

 

[lpetrich]

○ Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes.
Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the
training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the
factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

His memo.

Are you under the impression that that's a quotation of Damore saying "Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?"?

It likely isn't, even if it's the thrust of much of what he was saying, that he is a victim of ideological persecution.

Trausti, why don't you look through the animal kingdom some time? You'll be VERY surprised.

Like among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the male sex and not the female sex. A big violation of human stereotypes.

The "flashy male" element is somewhat less common among mammals than among birds. ...

But it does exist in some species, like male lions having manes and male deer having antlers.

On this subject, there is remarkably little variation in mammalian hair color when compared to birds' feathers. There is plenty of variation in brightness and saturation, but remarkably little in hue: orange to yellow. Bird feathers can have the full range of hues, however, sometimes different hues on the same bird or even the same feather.

Hang on a sec. Are you telling us that among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the one with a double dose of the same sex chromosome, rather than the one who has one of each type and whose gamete therefore determines the sex of the offspring?

It actually has a lot more to do with how much competition (and how aggressive the competition) there is for mating. Given that in many species males are significantly more aggressive toward each other, there ends up being more reproductive competition among males. In humans, given our social developments, the competitive angles aren't analogous. There's still competition - men still peacock... but women still try to be attractive to a "high quality" mate. The meaning of "quality", however, is influenced by social pressures, so it changes over time.

How the sexes behave depends on the species' sociality and also on the sexes' reproductive investments.

Among solitary species, females can grow larger than males, because they have bigger gametes, gametes that they try to make well-supplied. Mantises and spiders are arthropods that prey on other arthropods, and since female ones are often larger than male ones, that makes female ones dangerous to their mates.

Charles Darwin got it right about sexual selection, but for a long time, his successors found it much easier to appreciate male competitiveness than female choosiness. The plain and choosy sex is the sex with the greater investment, and the flashy and competitive sex is the sex with the lesser investment. This rule holds true when it's the male that invests more than the female, even if that is rare. Like female bush crickets competing with each other for males because of the males' sperm capsules - the females eat them. Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bushcrickets | Nature Or  Phalarope birds - the males sit on the eggs while the females compete for them.

A consequence of male competition is males becoming larger than females and looking flashier than females. In phalarope birds, it's the females that are larger and more flashy-looking, as one would expect from resource investment.

Looking at our species, some male features fit in well with male-male competition, such as being larger and having bigger chests and lower voices. But emphasis on female appearance more than male appearance -- that is just plain weird. That's not to say that many men have not been concerned with their appearance -- many men have been. But women often do more of that.

Something that seems universal in our species is that the two sexes like to sort themselves out into two social castes.

We "like" to? I'm not all that convinced that this caste-sorting is something that all of us are enamored of. I tend to think that one sex is a bit more enamored of that sort of caste-sorting than the other.

That sort of thing depends on what's involved in the social castes.

 

[Trausti]

Something that seems universal in our species is that the two sexes like to sort themselves out into two social castes. This tends to make it difficult to get a good fix on what innate psychological differences between the sexes there might be.

There are some, but they are relatively small relative to the overall variation. This is contrary to the common stereotype of what the sexes are like: a sizable gap between the sexes with little or no overlap.

I'll now construct psychological profiles using the Big Five and the stereotype of strong differences:

Women: +E, +C, +A, +N -- women are outgoing, strongly experiencing both positive and negative emotions, and very much wanting to please others. They are diligent, duty-bound, and neat nuts.

Men: -E, -C, -A, -N -- men are withdrawn, emotionally flat, and indifferent to other people, making them aloof. They are lackadaisical and disorganized.

(Trausti's video link snipped for brevity)

What a content-free response.

I have a suspicion that my analysis gave results other than whatever it is that Trausti expected.

People were given the choice to sit quietly with their thoughts for 15 minutes or else self-administer painful electric shocks to themselves

67 percent of men and 25 percent of women choose to electrocute themselves.

The mind is its own place: The difficulties and benefits of thinking for pleasure

 

[Jarhyn]

What a content-free response.

I have a suspicion that my analysis gave results other than whatever it is that Trausti expected.

People were given the choice to sit quietly with their thoughts for 15 minutes or else self-administer painful electric shocks to themselves

67 percent of men and 25 percent of women choose to electrocute themselves.

The mind is its own place: The difficulties and benefits of thinking for pleasure

Oh for fuck sakes that says nothing other than the fact that sometimes zapping yourself can be a lot of fun. It says nothing about the desire to not think and everything about the desire to experience electric shocks in a safe environment, the opportunity for which may pass.

I mean shit, I paid good money for a machine that delivers "painful electric shocks"...

As predicted, I don't think Trausti considered these results...

 

[Bomb#20]

... Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the
training suggests ...

His memo.

Are you under the impression that that's a quotation of Damore saying "Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?"?

It likely isn't, even if it's the thrust of much of what he was saying, that he is a victim of ideological persecution.

You appear to have lost track of the claim in dispute. What JH wrote was:

His response to a call for more hiring diversity was 'Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?'

When Damore said much that had the thrust of he being a victim of ideological persecution, that was his response to Google firing him. It was not his response to a call for more hiring diversity. Making a false claim about when a person said something so as to misrepresent the context counts as putting words in his mouth.

 

[Bomb#20]

... that says nothing other than the fact that sometimes zapping yourself can be a lot of fun. It says nothing about the desire to not think and everything about the desire to experience electric shocks in a safe environment, the opportunity for which may pass.
...I paid good money for a machine that delivers "painful electric shocks"...

As predicted, I don't think Trausti considered these results...

Are you suggesting that girls just don't want to have fun?!?

 

[Emily Lake]

Oh for fuck sakes that says nothing other than the fact that sometimes zapping yourself can be a lot of fun. It says nothing about the desire to not think and everything about the desire to experience electric shocks in a safe environment, the opportunity for which may pass.

I mean shit, I paid good money for a machine that delivers "painful electric shocks"...

As predicted, I don't think Trausti considered these results...

Regardless of the underlying motivation, do you have a hypothesis for the large disparity between males and females?

 

[WAB]

I know I would zap myself at least once, out of maddening curiosity. If it really hurt like hell, I wouldn't do it again.

I guess that means I'm not really a woman trapped in a man's body like I thought I might be? Rats!

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh for fuck sakes that says nothing other than the fact that sometimes zapping yourself can be a lot of fun. It says nothing about the desire to not think and everything about the desire to experience electric shocks in a safe environment, the opportunity for which may pass.

I mean shit, I paid good money for a machine that delivers "painful electric shocks"...

As predicted, I don't think Trausti considered these results...

Regardless of the underlying motivation, do you have a hypothesis for the large disparity between males and females?

I know the reason I would is specifically because I personally relish and seek new experiences and do not generally fear pain I know the source and safety of.

I expect part of this is because I was encouraged heavily to do so all through my life by society and my peers, but I expect some of this is also driven by intrinsic desire to understand and experience the universe.

If you would claim that there is a disparity between males and females biologically in terms of drive to understand and experience the full gamut of things to experience in the universe, that would be up to you.

Personally I will be charitable and assume it's due to the encouragement as to our difference in outlooks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hang on a sec. Are you telling us that among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the one with a double dose of the same sex chromosome, rather than the one who has one of each type and whose gamete therefore determines the sex of the offspring?

It actually has a lot more to do with how much competition (and how aggressive the competition) there is for mating. Given that in many species males are significantly more aggressive toward each other, there ends up being more reproductive competition among males. In humans, given our social developments, the competitive angles aren't analogous. There's still competition - men still peacock... but women still try to be attractive to a "high quality" mate. The meaning of "quality", however, is influenced by social pressures, so it changes over time.

Most human male peacocking is via wealth and power rather than looks per se.

 

[Trausti]

Hang on a sec. Are you telling us that among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the one with a double dose of the same sex chromosome, rather than the one who has one of each type and whose gamete therefore determines the sex of the offspring?

It actually has a lot more to do with how much competition (and how aggressive the competition) there is for mating. Given that in many species males are significantly more aggressive toward each other, there ends up being more reproductive competition among males. In humans, given our social developments, the competitive angles aren't analogous. There's still competition - men still peacock... but women still try to be attractive to a "high quality" mate. The meaning of "quality", however, is influenced by social pressures, so it changes over time.

Most human male peacocking is via wealth and power rather than looks per se.

I think the take away is that sexual dimorphism has evolved differently in the various species. Which the theory of evolution and natural selection would totally predict.

 

[laughing dog]

His memo.

Are you under the impression that that's a quotation of Damore saying "Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?"?

It likely isn't, even if it's the thrust of much of what he was saying, that he is a victim of ideological persecution.

You appear to have lost track of the claim in dispute. What JH wrote was:

His response to a call for more hiring diversity was 'Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?'

When Damore said much that had the thrust of he being a victim of ideological persecution, that was his response to Google firing him. It was not his response to a call for more hiring diversity.

I don't think that is entirely true. He did some whining about how conservatives are made to feel uncomfortable about diversity training, etc.... So it is reasonable to think or conclude he felt he was a bit of victim.

 

[Elixir]

... it is reasonable to think or conclude he felt he was a bit of victim.

Justified or not in this case, that has become a common scoundrel's refuge for "conservatives".
It is a simple "monkey see monkey do" outgrowth of one of the most glaring character flaws of Agent Orange, who ALWAYS paints himself as the victim.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In today's Swedish woke narrative this guy is now Sweden's primary transphobe. He's a leading member of a political Conservative party with classic Conservative ideals. Medborglig Samling. Their party leader is gay. They think that it should be easier for well educated people to immigrate to Sweden than uneducated people, and so on. Just classic conservatism. Like Republicans in USA. They get slammed with being called racists and Nazis. They were banned from participating in the Pride festival.

This is happening in a country where the third biggest party are actual racists. Its all weird in Sweden. Woke 100%

I just think that it's funny that Sweden's queen of queer is now accused of being transphobic.

https://youtu.be/QqKS7vir5Rw

 

[Trausti]

What is wokefishing and how do I know if it’s happened to me?

Picture the scene: You’re on a date. He hears you order vegan food, he sees your nose ring, he’s seen your Insta bio so he knows you’re a feminist. He speaks about politics and Black Lives Matter; you’ve finally found a boy in the pile of actual trash who shares your beliefs. You mentally plan the wedding, your children’s names and when you’ll get your first labrador together. Fast-forward a few months, you’ve been dating and sleeping with each other, when the cracks start to form. It turns out he’s not an anti-racist feminist – he starts making offensive jokes and it turns out he’s actually anything but open-minded. Oh no. You’ve been wokefished.

 

[Arctish]

What is wokefishing and how do I know if it’s happened to me?

Picture the scene: You’re on a date. He hears you order vegan food, he sees your nose ring, he’s seen your Insta bio so he knows you’re a feminist. He speaks about politics and Black Lives Matter; you’ve finally found a boy in the pile of actual trash who shares your beliefs. You mentally plan the wedding, your children’s names and when you’ll get your first labrador together. Fast-forward a few months, you’ve been dating and sleeping with each other, when the cracks start to form. It turns out he’s not an anti-racist feminist – he starts making offensive jokes and it turns out he’s actually anything but open-minded. Oh no. You’ve been wokefished.

Are you talking about the deliberate targeting of vegan feminists for nefarious purposes, or regular dating? Because if it's the latter, we used to call that getting to know the real person behind the facade.

I guess that notion is too old fashioned for modern social media.

 

[Jarhyn]

What is wokefishing and how do I know if it’s happened to me?

Picture the scene: You’re on a date. He hears you order vegan food, he sees your nose ring, he’s seen your Insta bio so he knows you’re a feminist. He speaks about politics and Black Lives Matter; you’ve finally found a boy in the pile of actual trash who shares your beliefs. You mentally plan the wedding, your children’s names and when you’ll get your first labrador together. Fast-forward a few months, you’ve been dating and sleeping with each other, when the cracks start to form. It turns out he’s not an anti-racist feminist – he starts making offensive jokes and it turns out he’s actually anything but open-minded. Oh no. You’ve been wokefished.

Are you talking about the deliberate targeting of vegan feminists for nefarious purposes, or regular dating? Because if it's the latter, we used to call that getting to know the real person behind the facade.

I guess that notion is too old fashioned for modern social media.

So there is this funny community on Reddit called "r/SelfAwareWolves"

Anyway, it appears Trausti has correctly identified a phenomena that happens in the universe: some people lie fluently to get what they want, and don't care about the consequences of their utterances outside of that context of "getting what they want".

See: the "Stolen Election" bullshit that some people here fanned the flames of

 

[Trausti]

Are you talking about the deliberate targeting of vegan feminists for nefarious purposes, or regular dating? Because if it's the latter, we used to call that getting to know the real person behind the facade.

I guess that notion is too old fashioned for modern social media.

So there is this funny community on Reddit called "r/SelfAwareWolves"

Anyway, it appears Trausti has correctly identified a phenomena that happens in the universe: some people lie fluently to get what they want, and don't care about the consequences of their utterances outside of that context of "getting what they want".

See: the "Stolen Election" bullshit that some people here fanned the flames of

You’ve confirmed that the Woke have no sense of humor.

 

[Arctish]

Are you talking about the deliberate targeting of vegan feminists for nefarious purposes, or regular dating? Because if it's the latter, we used to call that getting to know the real person behind the facade.

I guess that notion is too old fashioned for modern social media.

So there is this funny community on Reddit called "r/SelfAwareWolves"

Anyway, it appears Trausti has correctly identified a phenomena that happens in the universe: some people lie fluently to get what they want, and don't care about the consequences of their utterances outside of that context of "getting what they want".

See: the "Stolen Election" bullshit that some people here fanned the flames of

You’ve confirmed that the Woke have no sense of humor.

Are you wokefishing, Trausti? Or are you deploying the "It was a joke, I was just kidding" asshattery defense?

 

[Elixir]

You’ve confirmed that the Woke have no sense of humor.

Are you wokefishing, Trausti? Or are you deploying the "It was a joke, I was just kidding" asshattery defense?

"Wokefishing"?
I'm dyin'