The point about humans being sorta monogamous is one I am glad to see someone else make... I was arguing with Tove K over at Wood from Eden about that a month or so back making the same point: if a certain behavior (marriage with some periodic side action maybe, but generally life long pair mating) shows up in every society, it probably isn't because all human societies decided to subvert a human nature that is naturally super promiscuous, but more likely because pairing up is pretty much human nature.
If I were take a swing at "What's the point of calling mainstream media and academia not fit for purpose, captured and woke if its new media replacement has no ethics about plagiarism?" I think the argument would be about "what is it supposed to do?"
The mainstream media is supposed to help understand what is going on, but it lies all the time in favor of its narrative. So does damned near everyone else, so that's a problem, but the MSM pretends that it doesn't. If one is looking to actually find out what is happening one is stuck going through all the sources, sifting out what is incomplete and bad as best one can. I have more trust in a source that says "This is what I think about what I think matters" than one saying "All the news that is fit to print", even if I know both are biased. I am really touchy about lies and overselling, however.
When it comes to academia, their relation to outsiders is one of "We know best, so listen to what we say. You know we know best because we work hard to excise bad ideas so if we are in important positions we must really know our stuff." If it turns out that they are in their position not because they have gone through the crucible of doing lots of good work that was actually really smart, but just because they copy/pasted enough to get by and then parroted back the party lines they were supposed to then you can't trust they know what they are talking about. Although, again, you shouldn't be too credulous anyway because all academia is a cliquey mess since they are usually so divorced from actual results that the game is one of convincing other people your work is good, not one of demonstrating that your work is good because it works. Still, when you find academics are willing to outright lie about their work, and others are willing to back them up in their lies, you can figure the entire edifice isn't worth much.
Then you get to the new media. I think there is a big problem with plagiarism, although why is perhaps a little different. I think many people don't know who first came up with ideas because, like the old media, they are not burying themselves in the literature, because they are not monomaniacally focused on single questions, and anyway there is too much literature to read even if you are. Even in academia we don't call it plagiarism if someone talks about the same ideas without citing someone, only if they are obviously copy and pasting the ideas, because lots of people come up with ideas independently of each other, often not even based on the same reading list. Plus it is often the case that we hear something or read something and don't even remember where after a while, and are just trying to explain ideas we picked up at some point.
However, what we can and should absolutely crack down upon is when writers use bad logic, lie, or lean on emotional "vibes" instead of coherent argument. That last one especially I think is dangerous, as it triggers our confirmation bias excessively. All media and academics are prone to those failings, which seems to be why all sides are prone to falling into demagoguery.
"Under this title I explore a theme that gets very little attention in journalism about romantic and sexual pair bonding – the huge difference between the fortunes of what one might term the More and the Less Desired of each sex. Opinion pieces, sometimes serious and sometimes coy, on the subject of unfair sex are to be found in abundance. What always strikes me when I read this kind of journalism is how it is always framed in terms of a generic species called ‘Women’ and a generic species called ‘Men’; as if the perceived ‘unfair’ asymmetries under discussion are entirely ones between the sexes. ......The huge intra-sexual differences between the experiences of pretty women and ‘plain’ ones; and between confident ‘alpha’ males and ‘betas’ – this never gets considered......"
Edit needed? “They don’t like to acknowledge that it exists, and if they do they attribute it to “patriarchy” - men turning women against one another, divide and concur, etc.”
"Gender" has no application to humans. It's a linguistics term for words only. John Money began applying it to humans to cause confusion--and it has worked.
Sex exists in mammals, and there are two: male (sperm) and female (eggs). Genetic disorders do not change this, and this is not complicated.
When somebody says "gender" they usually mean sex, and this is after decades of "gender and sex are TOTALLY different!" Sometimes one may mean clothes, makeup, hair, personality, hobbies, etc. There's always a more accurate word. Just say that.
Trying to force "gender" to have meaning for humans is the beginning of the problem. Anyone can make it mean anything to suit their agenda, and there is no way to disprove it.
Just don't use it. It has no meaning for humans. That's why nobody can define it. It's everything, anything, nothing, hobbies, feelings, NOT sex, well actually it is sex. Stop it.
There's no such thing as "gender identity" or "transgender" or "gender expression." The word itself and its usage are the problem.
Excellent piece.
The point about humans being sorta monogamous is one I am glad to see someone else make... I was arguing with Tove K over at Wood from Eden about that a month or so back making the same point: if a certain behavior (marriage with some periodic side action maybe, but generally life long pair mating) shows up in every society, it probably isn't because all human societies decided to subvert a human nature that is naturally super promiscuous, but more likely because pairing up is pretty much human nature.
If I were take a swing at "What's the point of calling mainstream media and academia not fit for purpose, captured and woke if its new media replacement has no ethics about plagiarism?" I think the argument would be about "what is it supposed to do?"
The mainstream media is supposed to help understand what is going on, but it lies all the time in favor of its narrative. So does damned near everyone else, so that's a problem, but the MSM pretends that it doesn't. If one is looking to actually find out what is happening one is stuck going through all the sources, sifting out what is incomplete and bad as best one can. I have more trust in a source that says "This is what I think about what I think matters" than one saying "All the news that is fit to print", even if I know both are biased. I am really touchy about lies and overselling, however.
When it comes to academia, their relation to outsiders is one of "We know best, so listen to what we say. You know we know best because we work hard to excise bad ideas so if we are in important positions we must really know our stuff." If it turns out that they are in their position not because they have gone through the crucible of doing lots of good work that was actually really smart, but just because they copy/pasted enough to get by and then parroted back the party lines they were supposed to then you can't trust they know what they are talking about. Although, again, you shouldn't be too credulous anyway because all academia is a cliquey mess since they are usually so divorced from actual results that the game is one of convincing other people your work is good, not one of demonstrating that your work is good because it works. Still, when you find academics are willing to outright lie about their work, and others are willing to back them up in their lies, you can figure the entire edifice isn't worth much.
Then you get to the new media. I think there is a big problem with plagiarism, although why is perhaps a little different. I think many people don't know who first came up with ideas because, like the old media, they are not burying themselves in the literature, because they are not monomaniacally focused on single questions, and anyway there is too much literature to read even if you are. Even in academia we don't call it plagiarism if someone talks about the same ideas without citing someone, only if they are obviously copy and pasting the ideas, because lots of people come up with ideas independently of each other, often not even based on the same reading list. Plus it is often the case that we hear something or read something and don't even remember where after a while, and are just trying to explain ideas we picked up at some point.
However, what we can and should absolutely crack down upon is when writers use bad logic, lie, or lean on emotional "vibes" instead of coherent argument. That last one especially I think is dangerous, as it triggers our confirmation bias excessively. All media and academics are prone to those failings, which seems to be why all sides are prone to falling into demagoguery.
On Intrasexual Competition: Great read. (I came across your 'Stack today via Substack Reads.) On the subject of intrasexual competition, I think you'd find this an interesting read: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired.....intro:
"Under this title I explore a theme that gets very little attention in journalism about romantic and sexual pair bonding – the huge difference between the fortunes of what one might term the More and the Less Desired of each sex. Opinion pieces, sometimes serious and sometimes coy, on the subject of unfair sex are to be found in abundance. What always strikes me when I read this kind of journalism is how it is always framed in terms of a generic species called ‘Women’ and a generic species called ‘Men’; as if the perceived ‘unfair’ asymmetries under discussion are entirely ones between the sexes. ......The huge intra-sexual differences between the experiences of pretty women and ‘plain’ ones; and between confident ‘alpha’ males and ‘betas’ – this never gets considered......"
"Divide and concur"? I read no further.
This is going to be good… I can already tell
Human female mate selection is a compromise between getting access to the best genes, (for values of best), and access to provisioning.
Edit needed? “They don’t like to acknowledge that it exists, and if they do they attribute it to “patriarchy” - men turning women against one another, divide and concur, etc.”
"Gender" has no application to humans. It's a linguistics term for words only. John Money began applying it to humans to cause confusion--and it has worked.
Sex exists in mammals, and there are two: male (sperm) and female (eggs). Genetic disorders do not change this, and this is not complicated.
When somebody says "gender" they usually mean sex, and this is after decades of "gender and sex are TOTALLY different!" Sometimes one may mean clothes, makeup, hair, personality, hobbies, etc. There's always a more accurate word. Just say that.
Trying to force "gender" to have meaning for humans is the beginning of the problem. Anyone can make it mean anything to suit their agenda, and there is no way to disprove it.
Just don't use it. It has no meaning for humans. That's why nobody can define it. It's everything, anything, nothing, hobbies, feelings, NOT sex, well actually it is sex. Stop it.
There's no such thing as "gender identity" or "transgender" or "gender expression." The word itself and its usage are the problem.
https://kathighsmith.substack.com/p/gender-has-no-application-to-humans