Just to clarify: am I being downvoted for being factually wrong, or for being uncomfortable?
ialdabaoth
Karma: 4,810
I understand the impulse to go “really, you can’t be serious”, especially given the tendency of LWers to nitpick, but I think one should be cautious about invoking it as long as there are charitable alternative interpretations.
That’s not sustainable. There really are a certain subset of articles that have been suffering ‘death by papercuts’. Yes, they get upvotes; yes, they get good comments—but the entire tone of their debates has been pretty thoroughly shredded by whataboutisms.
That actually *needs* a strong pushback. It creates a kind of emotional fatigue on the authors that legitimately drags down the quality of future articles.
A potentially useful background article:
Likewise, just because an accusation of abuse is true, doesn’t mean we will gain anything by believing it / defending it. Sometimes it’s actually to our advantage to let someone be abused, if the abuser can more consistently reward us than the abused.
I mean that when I try to present the idea that you should do this for everyone, I get a LOT of pushback. I put in “you shouldn’t do this for everyone” specifically so people wouldn’t think that anyone should do it for ME, and therefore fight me on the premise.
Yeah, that’s gonna be a hard sell.
I’m curious why this is downvoted—if someone can legitimately dominate you, and you can’t rally other resources to protect you from domination, how is learning to submit NOT the correct response?
I’d agree with this. In which case, you calibrate against actual, real-world measurements of trust and value, and see if the heuristic outputs the same results as an uncached, laborous computation.
In my experience, “people” are a force in aggregate, far more than individuals. So even if YOU, in particular, “haven’t had time for social-web stuff to kick in”, they’re carrying with them all their aliefs and assumptions from other people, which you yourself pick up on and mirror because preselection is totally a thing.
I think so, yeah.
Answer me this: in a rational, unbiased world, what is status *FOR*?
Generally, by asking yourself how you’d feel if you heard about some generic third party that had accomplished something similar, and noticing the difference in valence. This can be a hard skill to cultivate; the urge to narrativize is strong.
I think that fidelity of control and double-binds are BOTH underlying gears of this model. At this stage I’m just trying to capture the phenomenon.
A Self-Respect Feedback Loop
I’d really like to see that done with MULTIPLE men and women, and unprimed audiences. My intuition says that which PARTICULAR man and woman are used matters, a lot.
Affordance Widths
Who would benefit from addressing this divide, rather than accelerating it? What power do those people have, compared to the people who benefit from accelerating the divide?
Unless they’ve already demonstrated a sufficient power differential that it’s common knowledge that they get to do what they want and you can’t object.
In which case, learn to submit.
More plausibly, any topic that talks about “getting girls” in a nerdy way painfully reminds guys that they don’t know how to get girls, so they downvote you; OR awkwardly demonstrates that you are less attractive/cool/etc. than the reader, so they downvote you, OR provides the capacity for the reader to believe that you only see girls as a prize to be one, so they downvote you. There’s really no winning this game.
Shouldn’t this:
A good friend of mine ran into this exact problem with the same requirement, couldn’t get the waiver, has no other remaining requirements, and will probably never graduate.
count as strong, direct counterevidence for this:
The final test is real, so if you built up real human capital, and learned how to learn things and remembered your lessons and persevere when the going gets tough, and all that, you win out. If you didn’t do that stuff, you fail at the end when you can’t hide it any longer. Or, for ability bias, only at the end do we learn who had the right stuff all along; same principle. If the final test is sufficiently ‘more real’ than the others, that bonus at the end makes perfect sense.
Unless you’re suggesting that part of the ability being measured, is entangled with the ability to get a waiver?
I don’t see how we can fight entropic systems without understanding them.