When our allegedly unenlightened ancestors shamed sluts, shunned bastard kids and married their daughters off as young virgins, it turns out that they knew their business after all.
BTW, I find it curious that at least some of us consider paleonutrition a guide towards a modern healthy diet, but then turn around and call paleocognition bad names like “cognitive biases.”
No, we have only some correlations where obvious third factors (e.g. IQ) are involved. If you want to take this approach, just being black strongly “damages … ability to form stable marriages”.
It seems that “correlation != causation” hasn’t been repeated enough X-/
P.S. Not to mention that “stable marriages” doesn’t look like a terminal goal to me. If that’s all you want, just forbid divorce.
No, we have only some correlations where obvious third factors (e.g. IQ) are involved. If you want to take this approach, just being black strongly “damages … ability to form stable marriages”.
There’s evidence for that as well, but notice that ~60 years ago blacks were much better at forming stable marriages than today.
If that’s all you want, just forbid divorce.
And it used to be forbidden, or at least much harder. Once widespread premarital sex started undermining marriage, pressure was exerted that made divorce no longer forbidden.
I’m a very big fan of freedom defined as “ability to make meaningful choices”.
Specifically with respect to divorce, I think that its absence makes for stable marriages where two people hate each other. Sometimes loudly and violently, sometimes subtly and poisonously.
I am also a big fan of NOT black-and-white worlds.
“Ultimately lead to less freedom”—how do you know that? Can you show me some probability distribution of outcomes? How certain are you of it? What is the probability that you are making a sign error?
What do you consider “normal”-IQ and “reasonably” financially successful? Yes, high IQ and wealth can mitigate the problems of growing up in a broken home. However, putting most below-average IQ people on welfare is no something that is compatible with maintaining a high-freedom state.
This slo-mo poking isn’t terribly exciting. Do you have a position you want to take, maybe quote some facts in its support? It’s not like this discussion will affect real-life policies, so can we at least make it a bit more interesting?
Actually we have empirical evidence that women’s premarital sexual adventures damage their ability to form stable marriages:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut.html
When our allegedly unenlightened ancestors shamed sluts, shunned bastard kids and married their daughters off as young virgins, it turns out that they knew their business after all.
BTW, I find it curious that at least some of us consider paleonutrition a guide towards a modern healthy diet, but then turn around and call paleocognition bad names like “cognitive biases.”
No, we have only some correlations where obvious third factors (e.g. IQ) are involved. If you want to take this approach, just being black strongly “damages … ability to form stable marriages”.
It seems that “correlation != causation” hasn’t been repeated enough X-/
P.S. Not to mention that “stable marriages” doesn’t look like a terminal goal to me. If that’s all you want, just forbid divorce.
There’s evidence for that as well, but notice that ~60 years ago blacks were much better at forming stable marriages than today.
And it used to be forbidden, or at least much harder. Once widespread premarital sex started undermining marriage, pressure was exerted that made divorce no longer forbidden.
Yep. I have no wish to go back to those times.
Any particular reason? General belief that all change is progress and hence good? A dislike of stable marriages?
I’m a very big fan of freedom defined as “ability to make meaningful choices”.
Specifically with respect to divorce, I think that its absence makes for stable marriages where two people hate each other. Sometimes loudly and violently, sometimes subtly and poisonously.
Even if those choices ultimately lead to less freedom as society is forced to deal with the resulting mess?
I am also a big fan of NOT black-and-white worlds.
“Ultimately lead to less freedom”—how do you know that? Can you show me some probability distribution of outcomes? How certain are you of it? What is the probability that you are making a sign error?
At the moment all I see is mood affiliation.
Broken homes means the government winds up having to resolve issues that should have been dealt with in-family, e.g., now the government must decide a lot more child custody disputes. Not to mention that children growing up in broken homes are likely to wind up on welfare and other government assistance.
I am entirely unconvinced.
Is that true for normal-IQ reasonably financially successful (former) families? I don’t think so.
What do you consider “normal”-IQ and “reasonably” financially successful? Yes, high IQ and wealth can mitigate the problems of growing up in a broken home. However, putting most below-average IQ people on welfare is no something that is compatible with maintaining a high-freedom state.
This slo-mo poking isn’t terribly exciting. Do you have a position you want to take, maybe quote some facts in its support? It’s not like this discussion will affect real-life policies, so can we at least make it a bit more interesting?
“were doing something that, according to some evidence, has one positive consequence” is not the same as “knew their business”.