Clarica

Karma: 53

Clarica 13 Oct 2011 4:48 UTC
5 points
in reply to: sam0345’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance

Come to think of it, it is also dangerous to black in any location where whites are outnumbered by blacks, but it is even more dangerous to be white.

What dangers are you referring to, specifically? Can you point me to a specific source that measures these harms? I have never heard your concluding suggestion before, though I think I have heard the opposite claim.

Clarica 13 Oct 2011 4:39 UTC
7 points
in reply to: sam0345’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance

Only leftists consciously try to remake language. Conservatives do not,

I’ve never heard this before. Can you point me to some evidence?

The rest of your comment seems intentionally offensive. Am I correct in this assessment?

If so, feel free to pm me with your intended message without the offensive content, if you are trying to make a point with the offensive content. I don’t know if anybody else is getting your intended message, but I know I am not, and I am curious, if you can reframe your content more constructively.

Clarica 13 Oct 2011 4:17 UTC
2 points
in reply to: lessdazed’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
I don’t want to get involved in the personal business between any two or three+ people, but I also do not mean to suggest that every arrangement that both parties agree to has a matching balance of stress and benefit to both parties. (Love your dream scenario! for me, that would totally be a nightmare.)

And I don’t think any specific gender causes the harm for a pattern of gender differences, like a bias to favor male employees because people report more satisfaction with male employees.

But with a gender-based pay inequity, which couples benefit most? gay men, straight people, or lesbians?

And should we care more about couples than we do about individuals, eg: single women? I don’t think anybody is suggesting this. But this is, in my mind, the primary problem with gender-based pay inequities, and ‘innocuous’ causes are no longer ‘innocuous’ if the harm to individuals is measurable and significant.

Clarica 13 Oct 2011 0:22 UTC
0 points
in reply to: dlthomas’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
Well, I totally agree that ‘such work’ (some paid and some unpaid work in the home) is absolutely undervalued, but I’m not sure what that has to do with any particular perspective.

I don’t know how other people think about the unpaid housework that other people are doing. I personally am grateful for it, but I have never supported anyone who I shared housework with, nor the reverse, and I really do have trouble doing the part I actually recognize as my share. And I have never cared as much about how clean things ‘ought’ to be as any of these roommates and ex-boyfriends did.

In myself, I kind of deplore this tendency to do what I’m inclined to and let the chips fall where they may. I do, of course, always manage to get things clean enough for my own standards. And I do far more housework when I live alone, because nobody else gets ‘fed up’ and takes over.

I had to respond somewhat anecdotally here, and I wish I could keep the more analytical, academic tone of your comment. My main problem with that is I’m not sure if I’m being descriptive or prescriptive, so I don’t know how to respond without figuring that out—but I need a nap first and I wanted to reply right away. If I’ve made it clear which I was doing with this response, that was totally my intention!

I can’t tell if your comment is mostly explanatory, or requests confirmation or introduces a new topic! Taking that nap now.

Clarica 13 Oct 2011 0:06 UTC
2 points
in reply to: dlthomas’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
OK. I consider negotiable tokens to be the only definition of financially recompensed. An optional reduction of financial expense, on an individual level is simply personal budgeting.

In the case of any particular couple, how the work, paid or unpaid, is divided, I don’t really care. Unless the arrangement is a source of stress for that relationship.

I think that a gender-biased pay disparity can aggravate financial stress in heterosexual relationships. And I think that a high disparity in income level can cause a similar stress in any couple, no matter the actual gender or sexual orientation.

The questions of ‘how best can i contribute’ and ‘am I acting responsibly by choosing to contribute, unpaid, in the home while being supported (fully or partially) on someone else’s “dime” (long may it last)’ are difficult and sometimes conflicting questions, whether gender pay inequities are biased. Or irrelevant, because the couple are of the same gender.

Questions I wonder about but do not know the answers to: How common are one-income households in either situation? How stable are one-income households compared to two income households? I’m pretty sure there’s quite a lot of data on heterosexuals.

Since gender bias probably exists, I wish we could compare it to data on homosexual couples, but they do not get the same social support or suffer the same social pressures… so I’m not sure how meaningful a comparison would be. But I’m still curious.

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 16:07 UTC
2 points
in reply to: lessdazed’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance

To say that a situation is not wholly caused by enumerated factors is generally trivially true, so the question becomes how much connotation is intended, which means the question should probably be rephrased.

Very true, and I must pedantically point out that I did not ask a question about how much connotation was intended. I suggested that the connotation of ‘harmless’ seemed careless to me. Literally and seriously careless, especially given my trivial research into the subject revealed that there is bias for male employees that employers, rationally, respond to.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to ask if states of the world are justified when people disagree about the causes of those states of the world unless great care is taken to not be confusing. Those things can be addressed separately by just talking about causation and also asking what would be justified under a hypothetical set of facts.

I agree. I was trying to avoid this, because I mostly agree. I did not bring up the state of the world, and I seriously did avoid discussion of it in this thread, which apparently was also offensive? I am somewhat concerned about the state of the world, but I already take great care not to be confusing, and fail.

I do have some doubts about drawing conclusions from a hypothetical set of facts, unless those conclusions are testable and, in fact, tested. But I am philosophically inclined to talk hypotheticals long into the night...

I don’t know how to think of those things, particularly self respect, particularly since the frame is not just causation but justice.

Well, I probably care more about justice than I do just word choice. But I do far more for the cause of just word choice than any other. I will apologize for being elusive on more serious issues. I probably could have caused less confusion if I had not specifically tried to avoided answering questions about states of the world. Do you agree?

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 15:40 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
I absolutely agree that there are many statistical differences between men and women, and trying to deny this is actually ludicrous, whether or not it is harmful!

However, I object to the word ludicrous, because while I agree that there are statistical (as well as biological and almost certainly evolutionarily-based cultural) differences between men and women, the assumption of harmlessness, based on that claim you’ve often heard, suggests that there is no bias involved other than personal choice. And personal choice is biased by so many other factors!

And, though I did not make this clear, I was not trying to suggest that the harm was one-sided.

The thing about bias was difficult for me to argue specifically until I explored the matter of pay inequity and the current state of research. Over the years I have heard a lot on the subject, which I do not remember that well.

Because though it is no trivial matter to me personally, personally, If I can’t identify a personal or cultural bias as actually causing me harm, I don’t get that excited about it. And frankly, if I haven’t identified what I should do about it, I try not to get exited about it if it is causing me harm. There are plenty of people in the world much more inclined than I to actually address the problems of gender-based pay inequities, which I think is a good thing.

It pretty much seems clear to me that a lot of men care more than women about getting a big pile of negotiable tokens. Statistical. Why women do less about getting a pile of negotiable tokens, I already understand. Some of this understanding of women may be visceral, or biological. I’m pretty sure most of it is pretty self-aware, or rational as well.

Why men care more I don’t understand as viscerally, but I am actually trying to understand better because I would like a bigger pile of negotiable tokens to play with. :)

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 4:18 UTC
1 point
in reply to: lessdazed’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
I feel like this is an accurate, thoughtful, and generous explanation of the confusion I have and the confusion I cause. If I could spend my few measly karma points upvoting this, I might!

After I read it, because it’s late, and I can not take it all in right now. And I’m grateful for the effort, and the clarity of the parts I already understand!

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 4:08 UTC
0 points
in reply to: lessdazed’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
Ah. I am abnormally careful about the question of ‘who would’ do something. People often take my serious suggestions as playful, and vice versa. I no longer recommend a new hairstyle to anyone because I have given this advice three times, it was always taken, and I only liked the results without qualification once.

I may be paranoid, but I do not like to worry about this. <-- also intentionally funny. I am trying to not to worry about whether it is true. <-- Also funny.

I am taking medication for insomnia. Seriously.

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 4:00 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Jack’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
Mostly I was not sure what pedanterrific was arguing, but I asked him to clarify, and he did. I am often unintentionally funny to other people. Lately I am getting better at understanding what the ‘subversion of expectations’ I am committing.

I absolutely agree with your point, but I was not conscious of why the word innocuous bothered me when I made my comment, and I don’t actually know if I read your comments before this moment. I don’t always read every comment before I respond, and I don’t ‘notice’ consciously everything I do read. Confusions galore!

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 3:52 UTC
1 point
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
Your ‘horrible social skills’ are almost as funny as mine! no apologies necessary! And your edits are a vast relief to me personally.

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 3:46 UTC
0 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
No, I am sure that they are normal, and partly because my mental problem which I have mentioned elsewhere, includes depression. In person, it is very hard to tell if a depressed person is sincere or sarcastic, I just wasn’t aware until now that this problem (I think call it ‘affect’?) is something I also ought to consider in a pure text situation.

In person I usually fake enthusiasm, but I am fortunately not that good at it. <--serious and funny, yet again. at least it was intentional.

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 3:27 UTC
0 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
let me just say that ‘like, really?’ comes across as dismissive of all my efforts to explain what I care about, in the context of my original remark, and why I care about the word ‘innocuous’ in the hypothetical statement.

I am generous to assume that are not trying to crush my will to respond with irony, and are seriously confused.

But it is more difficult for me to maintain this generosity of spirit after you have already dismissed something relevant to the hypothetical argument and my objection to the word ‘innocuous’ as ‘trivialy true and not in dispute’.

And I am totally willing to maintain at least a pretense of generosity of spirit, because I have plenty of experience with losing my generosity of spirit, and I know that it keeps growing back.

But I wasn’t faking any enthusiasm or bewilderment before I read your comment with those two apparently dismissive word choices. “trivial” and “like”.

Do you believe me?

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 3:12 UTC
1 point
in reply to: lessdazed’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
Apparently so. Can you explain why it is interesting?

Edited to add: I assume you may be trying to explain what is interesting about my comments in the more serious and complicated response you may still be working on, but of which I have only seen the placeholder. I’d say that I can’t wait, but I have already had to...

In the self-referentially intentionally funny comment I make above, I was absolutely serious about having a mental problem. And about being easily confused. And about being painfully aware that I am not a mind reader. Absolutely intentionally serious, and, for a change, intentionally funny at the same time. Irony is LOST on me. or everybody else, and I have no way of telling which!

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 2:13 UTC
3 points
in reply to: lessdazed’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
Actually, ‘this comment’ was self-referential. The comment you reviewed was intentionally serious, and unintentionally ridiculous. I get that a lot.

But ridiculous is funny, and I totally agree with your last judgement of funny, and wish I had noticed that it was funny, BEFORE I posted. I am trying to get comfortable with being accidentally funny.

I should really just stick with a pretense that everything funny I say is intentionally hilarious, instead of just occasionally patently ridiculous. Apparently.

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 1:56 UTC
0 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
Than you for making clear that you do not agree that my point is valid or valuable criticism.

My objection to the word choice of harmless is based on my feelings, which I have not fully examined, that there may be harm.

Point the second—Hypothetically, if this:

the difference in average pay between women and men is mostly attributable to differences in ambition and time voluntarily spent at home with children.

is true, then gender pay inequities do have an innocuous explanation- namely, the above. Kaj_Sotala made no claims beyond that, certainly not to the extent of claiming the above statement is true in the real world.

Hypothetically, I agree with you.

I think I am having the most objection, in the statement you quote, with the phrase ‘mostly attributable’. I can think of several other reasons that can and do account for a gender-based inequity, all possibly innocuous. The one that springs to mind is something to do with women and negotiation of payscale, but as I look for resource that can explain what I mean by that more clearly than I have managed to, I came across another interesting theory on wikipedia, that I had never heard of before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_women#Different_Studies_and_Economic_Theories

“They interpret their findings to suggest that employers are willing to pay more for white male employees because employers are customer driven and customers are happier with white male employees. They also suggest that what is required to solve the problem of wage inequality isn’t necessarily paying women more but changing customer biases.”

This difference does not seem so harmless. Do you agree?

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 1:45 UTC
2 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
And you call yourself pedantic? There were a number of referents in my comment which could have applied, and while I usually feel at no disadvantage in a battle of wits, I have a mental problem that either renders me easily confused, or fully aware that I am not a mind reader.

This comment is supposed to be serious and funny. Can you guess which parts I think are funny, and why?

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 1:40 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: dlthomas’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
I am really enjoying this discussion. And I respect the fact that you are reserving judgment, as you haven’t thought it out very thoroughly.

I didn’t think my objection to the use of the word innocuous through before I voiced it, and I absolutely don’t regret it.

But I am literally having trouble figuring out what else I am supposed to object to. I am willing to try to explain. And I think I can better understand my position, if I understand IF or HOW people disagree with my original objection about word choice. I have not stated this confusion often or clearly enough, so, to set a ‘good’ example, I will state it as a question:

Do you approve of the word innocuous, meaning harmless, in the statement above? Why or why not?

Having said all that, I’ll give it a stab a reply to your more recent comments anyway. The use of a question mark in your words makes it much easier for me to identify your question, and answer it.

Personal note: I am not usually trying to be ironic, but I am aware that I often come across that way. I make special effort on LW to be more precise and direct, and careful in my statements. Taking out the word ‘totally’, which I usually sling about in order to increase positive feedback in my day-to-day life, in order to suggest that I have a sense of humor about my unfortunate ‘know it all’ attitude may have been an error. Feel free to assume I am just trying to make a humorous point instead of a serious one, if you find me offensive on a rational level!

But enough about me...

‘such work’ is not defined, but I assume you are referring to home work, whether paid in negotiable tokens or ‘financially unrecompensed’.

I did not notice stating this:

You stated that house work was financially unrecompensed.

And what the state of CA thinks about the negotiable and non-negotiable arrangements you make with each other, or with employers, I do not really care about, as long as CA does not force you to live there, and there are a wide variety of other options available to you both. Do you have a wide variety of other options?

As either of us does tasks that save us money, we have more tokens. Describing the latter as not involving “financial recompense” I view as inaccurate.

I disagree with your conclusion, but on a somewhat pedantic level. Financial recompense and Optional reduction of financial expense are not equivalent. One is simply a pile of tokens. The other is a choice and a judgment about what to do with a pile of tokens. Do you disagree?

Clarica 12 Oct 2011 0:36 UTC
2 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
I am trying to be clear about the fact that the ONLY part of this thread I care about was the use of the word ‘innocuous’. All these other questions are good questions that people are asking, and answering, for themselves, and for other people, every day. Which I have no quarrel with.

I do not want to answer these questions for other people. This question:

Who would compensate them? Whose benefit is it for?

is an excellent question that I actually do not want to answer, because noone has acknowledged that my point about the word innocuous is valid or valuable criticism. All the feedback I have seen so far dodges this small point to ask me much tougher questions about how individuals should be making these choices.

Why me? I make no assertions other than that the word ‘innocuous’ in that specific argument suggests that the reasons their is gender pay inequity is harmless. Because I am not sure that it is harmless.

I do not want to quantify the harm, but if you want me to take a stab at it, how about this:

Do some pay inequities cause stress? Does stress aggravate some mental disorders? (for the record, I am not trying to suggest that this harm is greater to either gender!)

Clarica 11 Oct 2011 20:23 UTC
−6 points
in reply to: dlthomas’s comment on: Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
My only point is this: gender differences and choice difference probably do not wholly justify the pay inequity between genders. The choice of the word ‘innocuous’ in this case is careless. Do you agree, or disagree?

In answer to your explicit question: I am speaking of negotiable payment, in tokens that can be exchanged in any market. And I am also calculating payment of intangible compensation, like the respect of others and self-respect. I find your actual questions, with quoted words to denote careful usage, confusing.

Payment in ‘increased money for the household’ is fine, and is part of the calculations individuals use to evaluate and justify their choices. And joys.

“wholly joyous” is, in my mind, an unattainable ideal, but the joy, payment, and respect individuals get for the work that they/we do is measurable, if not always negotiable. And the harm is not always considered at all.