4 ms·

If you read carefully, I never made any claims like the ones you listed. I never said men and women have different mental capabilities or emotional preferences.

by Tichy 14y ago

If you read carefully, I never made any claims like the ones you listed. I never said men and women have different mental capabilities or emotional preferences. To assume such things is unnecessary for understanding the difference. I claim there is one relevant difference between men and women: women can get children, men can't. That is sufficient to explain everything because it gives women more options. Therefore they can be more laid back in life, because they can have children even if they are not economically successful (women just have to get pregnant, men have to convince women to carry their babies, usually by offering economic stability). (The "laid back" part is of course very simplified, of course women work and try hard, but with focus on other things than earning a lot of money). If you bother to read that book I linked to, you may be shocked to find that unmarried women actually earn more than unmarried men. So of course women can choose whatever they want to, including to earn more than men. It's just that very often they chose not to. Honestly, this conversation makes me a bit desperate, because it is always the same in politics: people only see what they want to see, jump to conclusions and never question anything, and arrive at completely detrimental policies. I bet you will not read that book, not even the short kindle sample, because your opinion is already fixed. I was just thinking that the only hope might again be more education, education, education, teaching people to think critical in school (and especially maths, which is about finding truth and being a skeptic). But my hopes are not high.

TheZenPsycho 14y ago
>Nurses and nannies don't earn as much money as IT specialists, but women don't need so much money. They tend to be the supplemental earners in a family, not the main breadwinners. Simple as that. Really, honestly. Think about what you are saying here.
- Tichy 14y ago
  Explain it? You take offense by the "don't need so much money" or the "supplemental earners" thing? The latter is presumably simply a current statistical fact? Don't need so much money - well I explained it. And as I said, any women who feels she needs more money is free to earn it, even today, and even in IT. Earning more money usually comes at a price. I don't understand why you find it offensive to assume that some people have different priorities? Women in IT: why do you think the recent "geekettes Hackathon" in Berlin felt it necessary to offer Yoga classes alongside the Hackathon? Is it a bad thing?
  - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
    It's problematic that you are using dubious uncited statistics to make broad statements about the status and desires of over 50% of the human population. You may as well say "Jews make plenty of money" or "Negros are happy to work for free", for how intelligent it makes you sound.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      Contrary to you I actually provided a citation, you just refused to look at it. Or have you? So I am curious about your definition of "dubious uncited statistics". Do you believe my statistics are wrong, and what makes you think so (citations?)?. The only thing that's dumb is arguing with a psycho. I guess we are done, unless you can provide any substantial arguments at all.
      - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
        You provided a link to a shitty looking book on amazon. That doesn't make you credible.
        Tichy 14y ago
        Most research papers look pretty shitty. So you dismiss the argument because it isn't a fancy infographic? What exactly do you want, or what would be a credible source for you? The book provides more citations, in case you don't want to take the author for his word. In any case I take it you didn't read it (the free Kindle intro). I found another link today that could be relevant to you: http://lesswrong.com/lw/72d/strategic_ignorance_and_plausible_deniability/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/72d/strategic_ignorance_and_plausibl... (Less Wrong on Strategic Ignorance). I guess it's easier to just cling to feminist ideology than to check facts...

by Tichy 14y ago

TheZenPsycho 14y ago

>Nurses and nannies don't earn as much money as IT specialists, but women don't need so much money. They tend to be the supplemental earners in a family, not the main breadwinners. Simple as that. Really, honestly. Think about what you are saying here.

Tichy 14y ago
Explain it? You take offense by the "don't need so much money" or the "supplemental earners" thing? The latter is presumably simply a current statistical fact? Don't need so much money - well I explained it. And as I said, any women who feels she needs more money is free to earn it, even today, and even in IT. Earning more money usually comes at a price. I don't understand why you find it offensive to assume that some people have different priorities? Women in IT: why do you think the recent "geekettes Hackathon" in Berlin felt it necessary to offer Yoga classes alongside the Hackathon? Is it a bad thing?
- TheZenPsycho 14y ago
  It's problematic that you are using dubious uncited statistics to make broad statements about the status and desires of over 50% of the human population. You may as well say "Jews make plenty of money" or "Negros are happy to work for free", for how intelligent it makes you sound.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    Contrary to you I actually provided a citation, you just refused to look at it. Or have you? So I am curious about your definition of "dubious uncited statistics". Do you believe my statistics are wrong, and what makes you think so (citations?)?. The only thing that's dumb is arguing with a psycho. I guess we are done, unless you can provide any substantial arguments at all.
    - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
      You provided a link to a shitty looking book on amazon. That doesn't make you credible.
      - Tichy 14y ago
        Most research papers look pretty shitty. So you dismiss the argument because it isn't a fancy infographic? What exactly do you want, or what would be a credible source for you? The book provides more citations, in case you don't want to take the author for his word. In any case I take it you didn't read it (the free Kindle intro). I found another link today that could be relevant to you: http://lesswrong.com/lw/72d/strategic_ignorance_and_plausible_deniability/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/72d/strategic_ignorance_and_plausibl... (Less Wrong on Strategic Ignorance). I guess it's easier to just cling to feminist ideology than to check facts...