You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
i was on Serenity and I had stollen a whole bunch of gold tablewear and we managed to escape the alliance and i was then on my way to my dad's place where i was planning to pawn the gold tablewear so i could buy christmas presents and then i woke up and i'm still exhausted even though I got 8 hours of sleep
I like how this critique was written by, you know, actual evolutionary psychs and not the r/MRA types who use evo-psych as an excuse.
The part at the very end is the most telling. He states "I hear that Watson and her followers character assassinate people who disagree with her instead of engaging in a discussion" because he already knows what he's in for.
I like how this critique was written by, you know, actual evolutionary psychs and not the r/MRA types who use evo-psych as an excuse.
The part at the very end is the most telling. He states "I hear that Watson and her followers character assassinate people who disagree with her instead of engaging in a discussion" because he already knows what he's in for.
I think not so much deliberate character assassination as trigger-happiness, honestly.
News media and political propaganda don't usually distinguish between studies conducted by disinterested academics and ones conducted by "think tanks" with a vested interest in confirming a particular hypothesis. There is also a certain class of pseudointellectual, and I'm sure you know the type - thinks Fight Club was super-profound, believes "9 out of 10 people prefer gang rape" to be a compelling argument against democracy - who is very quick to use studies, like that one which found men to be more willing to have anonymous sex than women, to draw broad conclusions about essential, inherent differences between men and women, and furthermore treats these as sufficient grounds to write off all of feminism as irrational whining.
As the criticism you linked notes, the study itself was much more conservative in terms of conclusions drawn, mindful of the fact that it's very difficult to distinguish between genetic influences on behaviour and environmental ones. This is precisely what you'd expect and nothing less; actual science, academic, rigorous, disinterested and subject to peer review, tends to be very cautious about drawing conclusions from its findings. The popular media is not, and neither are people with a political axe to grind.
Social constructivists tend to have backgrounds in the humanities or the softer end of the social sciences, fields where language is often the primary focus. Language is slippery, and as a consequence social constructivists are perhaps sometimes hypersensitive to the danger of misinterpretation, a danger which scientific studies are (usually) very good at recognizing and taking steps to avoid. Nevertheless, scientific findings are not immune to abuse. The criticism of Watson that you linked is pretty damning and it's clear that she didn't do sufficient research before making her talk, but feminists do have every reason, given the long history of essentializing claims being made for politically-motivated reasons, to be suspicious of such claims.
Comments
also i'm home
I'm here.
Also this is really good, y'all should watch it.
there's lots of things
probably the reason you found ee cummings insufferable is because you had to study him in school. (educated guess)
nothing makes literature insufferable like secondary school-level study.
things that like triscuits:
[x] rabbits
[x] heapers
[x] mice
....I also no longer have a mouse running loose in the house
what are triscuits
they sound like extradimensional biscuits
I had the shittiest education (gross exaggeration)
I think not so much deliberate character assassination as trigger-happiness, honestly.
News media and political propaganda don't usually distinguish between studies conducted by disinterested academics and ones conducted by "think tanks" with a vested interest in confirming a particular hypothesis. There is also a certain class of pseudointellectual, and I'm sure you know the type - thinks Fight Club was super-profound, believes "9 out of 10 people prefer gang rape" to be a compelling argument against democracy - who is very quick to use studies, like that one which found men to be more willing to have anonymous sex than women, to draw broad conclusions about essential, inherent differences between men and women, and furthermore treats these as sufficient grounds to write off all of feminism as irrational whining.
As the criticism you linked notes, the study itself was much more conservative in terms of conclusions drawn, mindful of the fact that it's very difficult to distinguish between genetic influences on behaviour and environmental ones. This is precisely what you'd expect and nothing less; actual science, academic, rigorous, disinterested and subject to peer review, tends to be very cautious about drawing conclusions from its findings. The popular media is not, and neither are people with a political axe to grind.
Social constructivists tend to have backgrounds in the humanities or the softer end of the social sciences, fields where language is often the primary focus. Language is slippery, and as a consequence social constructivists are perhaps sometimes hypersensitive to the danger of misinterpretation, a danger which scientific studies are (usually) very good at recognizing and taking steps to avoid. Nevertheless, scientific findings are not immune to abuse. The criticism of Watson that you linked is pretty damning and it's clear that she didn't do sufficient research before making her talk, but feminists do have every reason, given the long history of essentializing claims being made for politically-motivated reasons, to be suspicious of such claims.
actually just win the lottery or something and avoid jobs in general.
they suck.
i didnt but naney implied that he did
the only poetry we looked at that much was simon armitage + carol ann duffy + some anthology. like everyone else who did gcse
it made me hate carol ann duffy quite a lot for a few years. but now i recognise that she has some good stuff ((some))
I studied e.e. cummings in school.
Weird dude.
We studied Seamus Heaney and Gillian Clarke from that.
(Duffy > Clarke, but Heaney > all the other three)