6 ms·

Linking Breitbart and the Dailymail is... well, exactly the sort of thing I expected you would do.

bitL 10y ago
Not sure if that is relevant. Source should not be important if the facts match reality. Some social scientists observed that women tend to choose lower-risk decisions compared to men that are pressured to take higher risks with immense payouts (rare) or complete disasters (frequent). So these two strategies yield different results - women have a smaller variance, i.e. there are less women at the top and less at the bottom of the society. For men, there are many more men at the top but almost the whole bottom tier consists of men. There is also the theoretical notion of hypergamy, i.e. women never marrying anyone below them on social ladder and shooting for the top 10-20% of men, so the higher status they achieve, the lower dating pool is available to them. Complementarily, the higher status a man achieves, the bigger his dating pool becomes due to aforementioned hypergamy effect. Frankly, I am not sure how true this is but perhaps can be used as a heuristics while looking at current state of gender relations. So the question is how to motivate women to take immense risks in order to achieve what traditionally men do and how to persuade them to date down. Any ideas?
- krauthammer2 10y ago
  I'm going to call that inaccurate. Of the top 100,000 smart people in America, more than 80,000 of them are males. A lot of these men have supernatural mental abilities. They can envision things working in their minds in all 4 dimensions. This is called the visual-spatial intelligence type, and it is most common among genius men. These are the men, ones who excel in super-natural visual-spatial reasoning, which results or is the result of super-natural quantitative reasoning ability, but don't excel so much in linguistics or verbal reasoning as much, that are being "talked out" or shouldered out of some executive positions and Ivy League schools, especially at younger ages (verbal reasoning maxes out around age 50-60). These men are much more suited for positions such as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and other high administrative positions. During the Obama presidency, a woman was appointed as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and she was propped up through San Francisco liberal networks. I don't doubt that she is a very smart person, even a genius, but I do have very serious doubts that she should be leading women to that end of society. The men that she is shouldering out are very civilized, very unlikely to speak up for themselves, and they have been carried by the rest of the patriarch for centuries, even since the beginning of time. In times of trouble, these visual-spatial geniuses, such as Alan Greenspan, Richard Feynmann or Albert Einstein, are who we all lean on for making great decisions in driving our civilization. American civilization is currently in a steady decline, and we should be leaning on them rather than making them into the enemy and shouldering them out of the positions they should inherit.
- lgieron 10y ago
  From what I've seen, women tend to pick "fun" (literature, art etc.) careers more often than men. My understanding is that they're aware of availability of the backup strategy of marrying some guy who makes more money than them (and thus avoiding near-poverty life associated with those degrees), which makes them less risk-averse.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > Not sure if that is relevant. Source should not be important if the facts match reality. People in the US are familiar with "fact checkers", and may not be familiar with just how blatantly UK newspapers will lie. http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/yesterday-the-daily-mail-ran-this-front-page-today-they-admitted-it-was-completely-wrong--ZJPjZacIEW http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/yesterday-the-daily...

bitL 10y ago

Not sure if that is relevant. Source should not be important if the facts match reality. Some social scientists observed that women tend to choose lower-risk decisions compared to men that are pressured to take higher risks with immense payouts (rare) or complete disasters (frequent). So these two strategies yield different results - women have a smaller variance, i.e. there are less women at the top and less at the bottom of the society. For men, there are many more men at the top but almost the whole bottom tier consists of men. There is also the theoretical notion of hypergamy, i.e. women never marrying anyone below them on social ladder and shooting for the top 10-20% of men, so the higher status they achieve, the lower dating pool is available to them. Complementarily, the higher status a man achieves, the bigger his dating pool becomes due to aforementioned hypergamy effect. Frankly, I am not sure how true this is but perhaps can be used as a heuristics while looking at current state of gender relations. So the question is how to motivate women to take immense risks in order to achieve what traditionally men do and how to persuade them to date down. Any ideas?

krauthammer2 10y ago
I'm going to call that inaccurate. Of the top 100,000 smart people in America, more than 80,000 of them are males. A lot of these men have supernatural mental abilities. They can envision things working in their minds in all 4 dimensions. This is called the visual-spatial intelligence type, and it is most common among genius men. These are the men, ones who excel in super-natural visual-spatial reasoning, which results or is the result of super-natural quantitative reasoning ability, but don't excel so much in linguistics or verbal reasoning as much, that are being "talked out" or shouldered out of some executive positions and Ivy League schools, especially at younger ages (verbal reasoning maxes out around age 50-60). These men are much more suited for positions such as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and other high administrative positions. During the Obama presidency, a woman was appointed as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and she was propped up through San Francisco liberal networks. I don't doubt that she is a very smart person, even a genius, but I do have very serious doubts that she should be leading women to that end of society. The men that she is shouldering out are very civilized, very unlikely to speak up for themselves, and they have been carried by the rest of the patriarch for centuries, even since the beginning of time. In times of trouble, these visual-spatial geniuses, such as Alan Greenspan, Richard Feynmann or Albert Einstein, are who we all lean on for making great decisions in driving our civilization. American civilization is currently in a steady decline, and we should be leaning on them rather than making them into the enemy and shouldering them out of the positions they should inherit.
lgieron 10y ago
From what I've seen, women tend to pick "fun" (literature, art etc.) careers more often than men. My understanding is that they're aware of availability of the backup strategy of marrying some guy who makes more money than them (and thus avoiding near-poverty life associated with those degrees), which makes them less risk-averse.
DanBC 10y ago
> Not sure if that is relevant. Source should not be important if the facts match reality. People in the US are familiar with "fact checkers", and may not be familiar with just how blatantly UK newspapers will lie. http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/yesterday-the-daily-mail-ran-this-front-page-today-they-admitted-it-was-completely-wrong--ZJPjZacIEW http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/yesterday-the-daily...