The cognitive differences between men and women

Post by VMG » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:12 PM UTC

kareldonk wrote: post #49

belorn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity based on grouping people together has several drawbacks, among others that "us and them" is strongly connected to hostility and dehumanization. Discrimination is only possible when people are sorted into distinct groups rather than embracing that all humans have some uniformable traits that define everyone as human . A "us and them" thinking is directly linked to our emotional reaction to security. Many (ma…

The "us" vs "them" conflict between men and women goes back thousands of years and was introduced with specific purposes. My personal research on this can be found at https://blog.kareldonk.com/sexual-suppression-and-repression... We'll start perceiving everyone as "us" as soon as most people realize what I discuss there.

Post by mmirate » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:17 PM UTC

kareldonk wrote: post #49

belorn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity based on grouping people together has several drawbacks, among others that "us and them" is strongly connected to hostility and dehumanization. Discrimination is only possible when people are sorted into distinct groups rather than embracing that all humans have some uniformable traits that define everyone as human . A "us and them" thinking is directly linked to our emotional reaction to security. Many (ma…

The "us" vs "them" conflict between men and women goes back thousands of years and was introduced with specific purposes. My personal research on this can be found at https://blog.kareldonk.com/sexual-suppression-and-repression... We'll start perceiving everyone as "us" as soon as most people realize what I discuss there.

Post by mmirate » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:22 PM UTC

danharaj wrote: post #30

VMG wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's just a contingent of people who say that such social parity has already been achieved (or maybe we've gone too far), and another contingent who say that parity has not been achieved. There also is a contingent of people who say that equal treatment will not lead to social parity.

I used social parity as a synonym for equal treatment, as indicated by the word 'such', to make it clear what sort of parity I was talking about.

Post by danharaj » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:29 PM UTC

mmirate wrote: post #65

danharaj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used social parity as a synonym for equal treatment, as indicated by the word 'such', to make it clear what sort of parity I was talking about.

Ah, but this synonymy obscures the all-important difference between equality-of-opportunity and equality-of-outcome. The former is a noble goal; the latter will likely lead to tyranny if implemented fully - or require tyranny for full implementation. (cf. Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron )

Post by mmirate » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

danharaj wrote: post #67

mmirate wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but this synonymy obscures the all-important difference between equality-of-opportunity and equality-of-outcome. The former is a noble goal; the latter will likely lead to tyranny if implemented fully - or require tyranny for full implementation. (cf. Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron )

That's why I tried to identify precisely which equality I meant to avoid that issue. By the way, Harrison Bergeron was a critical satire of the position you're describing.