5 ms·

It depends. There's a practical and mechanical difference between one group being more liked than average, and one group being more disliked than average. Even

by Bakary 4y ago

It depends. There's a practical and mechanical difference between one group being more liked than average, and one group being more disliked than average. Even though the situations can be equivalent in a purely logical sense, the nature of the difference changes

xani_ 4y ago
Only if there are more than 2 groups. If there are two groups (and in addition they are roughly equal size) those are entirely interchangeable as there is no logical "standard" to compare to except eachother
- sokoloff 4y ago
  (Speaking only to the "liked more than average" and "disliked more than average", not the general opposition of preferred vs dis-preferred.) Imagine if there are 200 people, 100 of category A and 100 of category B. It's possible for members of category A to be simultaneously "liked more than average" and "disliked more than average". If 20 A's are liked and 20 A's are disliked, while only 10 B's are liked and 10 B's are disliked, then A's are liked 33% more than average and disliked 33% more than average.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
    Yes, but that will either cancel out to the average in group B matching the total average, or it won't, meaning the average of B is significantly different from the total average.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      The question is "what does liked more than average mean?" I think it's more naturally interpreted as a frequency question ('given a random A, how likely is it that I would say "I like this person"?') rather than an average/sum question ('what is the total likability of all members of A minus the total dislikability of all members of A?')
- Bakary 4y ago
  Consider the following thought experiment: a world with similar sexual dynamics as ours, but where women and men have equal physical strength and capacity for violence. In this case, although the traits would be defined as relative between the each of the two groups, the lack of a specific asymmetry in this case changes the dynamic completely. Whereas in our world, the difference of capacity introduces an asymmetric dimension that influences the relative mix of reactions each gender has towards the other. The fact that men are specifically feared for some imbalance, whereas women are specifically valued for others, makes it not exactly interchangeable even if the standards only exist in a relative sense. In the hypothetical world, men (and perhaps women) would place extra value on women due to the way sexual desire and attraction works, but men would be seen more neutrally (or with disinterest rather than fear) than in our situation.
  - belorn 4y ago
    In our world women and men has equal capacity for violence. Time and time again we see researchers come to this conclusion. How we view violence is colored by our culture and views about gender roles, and thus gender and violence get mixed up. The same problem occurs with race. White and black people obviously have equal capacity for violence, but black men (and women) are more feared by white people. In the past people would use genetics and race theory to explain this, but today we know to avoid those traps in our thinking.
    - Bakary 4y ago
      I understand the argument you are going for, and agree that we must obviously consider the role of culture, but it's not plausible to claim that the capacity for violence is equal. The comparison with ethnicity is flawed because in the case of gender you have clear physical differences, the most notable of which being that the majority of women would have much difficulty physically overcoming the majority of men in life or death situations, barring superior tactics or weaponry. If, say, the propensity of each gender towards violence was identical, this mere fact would already provide a culturally significant imbalance. I'm not sure what research you are pointing towards, but I sincerely doubt that the propensity for violence is identical, either. Consider the following scenario: a person points a gun to your head and tells you to pick a person at random either amongst all of the women or amongst all of the men (let's sidestep the question of gender neutrality for the sake of the argument) If the person you pick has an aggressive and violent psychological profile, you are shot. Which gender would you pick in this situation to maximize your survival? Would you sincerely rely on your intuition about equal capacity for violence in this case?
- DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
  So you mean, like, if non-binary people were a thing it'd be different? /lu EDIT: Note the sarcasm. We are, in fact, a thing.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Non binary people are a thing. There's no need to use the "if".
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - wurzell 4y ago
    - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
      I think you missed the sarcasm in my comment. I know non-binary people exist. I happen to be one of them myself.

by Bakary 4y ago

xani_ 4y ago

Only if there are more than 2 groups. If there are two groups (and in addition they are roughly equal size) those are entirely interchangeable as there is no logical "standard" to compare to except eachother

sokoloff 4y ago
(Speaking only to the "liked more than average" and "disliked more than average", not the general opposition of preferred vs dis-preferred.) Imagine if there are 200 people, 100 of category A and 100 of category B. It's possible for members of category A to be simultaneously "liked more than average" and "disliked more than average". If 20 A's are liked and 20 A's are disliked, while only 10 B's are liked and 10 B's are disliked, then A's are liked 33% more than average and disliked 33% more than average.
- DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
  Yes, but that will either cancel out to the average in group B matching the total average, or it won't, meaning the average of B is significantly different from the total average.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    The question is "what does liked more than average mean?" I think it's more naturally interpreted as a frequency question ('given a random A, how likely is it that I would say "I like this person"?') rather than an average/sum question ('what is the total likability of all members of A minus the total dislikability of all members of A?')
Bakary 4y ago
Consider the following thought experiment: a world with similar sexual dynamics as ours, but where women and men have equal physical strength and capacity for violence. In this case, although the traits would be defined as relative between the each of the two groups, the lack of a specific asymmetry in this case changes the dynamic completely. Whereas in our world, the difference of capacity introduces an asymmetric dimension that influences the relative mix of reactions each gender has towards the other. The fact that men are specifically feared for some imbalance, whereas women are specifically valued for others, makes it not exactly interchangeable even if the standards only exist in a relative sense. In the hypothetical world, men (and perhaps women) would place extra value on women due to the way sexual desire and attraction works, but men would be seen more neutrally (or with disinterest rather than fear) than in our situation.
- belorn 4y ago
  In our world women and men has equal capacity for violence. Time and time again we see researchers come to this conclusion. How we view violence is colored by our culture and views about gender roles, and thus gender and violence get mixed up. The same problem occurs with race. White and black people obviously have equal capacity for violence, but black men (and women) are more feared by white people. In the past people would use genetics and race theory to explain this, but today we know to avoid those traps in our thinking.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    I understand the argument you are going for, and agree that we must obviously consider the role of culture, but it's not plausible to claim that the capacity for violence is equal. The comparison with ethnicity is flawed because in the case of gender you have clear physical differences, the most notable of which being that the majority of women would have much difficulty physically overcoming the majority of men in life or death situations, barring superior tactics or weaponry. If, say, the propensity of each gender towards violence was identical, this mere fact would already provide a culturally significant imbalance. I'm not sure what research you are pointing towards, but I sincerely doubt that the propensity for violence is identical, either. Consider the following scenario: a person points a gun to your head and tells you to pick a person at random either amongst all of the women or amongst all of the men (let's sidestep the question of gender neutrality for the sake of the argument) If the person you pick has an aggressive and violent psychological profile, you are shot. Which gender would you pick in this situation to maximize your survival? Would you sincerely rely on your intuition about equal capacity for violence in this case?
DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
So you mean, like, if non-binary people were a thing it'd be different? /lu EDIT: Note the sarcasm. We are, in fact, a thing.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Non binary people are a thing. There's no need to use the "if".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - wurzell 4y ago
  - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
    I think you missed the sarcasm in my comment. I know non-binary people exist. I happen to be one of them myself.