So the better a woman does, the less you believe she can actually do it.
It occurs to me that from Vaniver’s explanation one could also derive the sentence “So the better a man does, the less you believe he can actually do it.” As far as I can tell, the processes of drawing either of the two conclusions are isomorphic. For that matter, the same reasoning would also lead to the derivation “So the worse a woman does, the more you believe she is actually better.” (With an analogous statement for men. This is explicitly pointed out in the explanation.)
The difference between the men and the women is point where we switch from “better/less” to “worse/more”, and the magnitude of the effect as we get further away from that point. (That is, the mean and the standard deviation.)
I can’t figure out a way of saying this without making me sound bad even to myself, but it seems… I don’t know, annoying at least, that you picked a logical conclusion that aplies exactly the same to both genders, but apply that to women, don’t mention at all what appears to be the only factual assertion of an actual difference between the abilities of women and men (and which I haven’t seen actually contested in neither this nor the earlier discussion on the subject), did not in fact criticise Vaniver’s explanation—which, by the way, as far as I can tell from his post, is just an explanation for beo’s benefit, I can’t deduce from its text that he’s actually endorsing using the procedure—and at the same time you manage to make both him and me, even before I participate, seem that we should be ashamed of ourselves, by sort of implying that he’ll also do something else not mentioned by him, and not logically implied by the explanation, and that would have a bad consequence if done very badly. (Well, it feels that way to me, I can’t tell if Vaniver took umbrage nor if I’m actually reading correctly the society around me with respect to which the shame relates.)
I’m not sure if I have a point, exactly, I’m sort of just sharing my feelings in case it generates some insight. I don’t think you did this as an intentional dishonesty. It’s weird, it looks like there’s a blind spot exactly in the direction you’re looking at (after all, this is exactly the topic of the discussion).
But then again I also feel like I have such a blind spot, like it’s impolite that I should have noticed this, or even that I’m a bad person for not agreeing with your conotation and I can’t tell why. (And I’m some sort of misoginistic pig because I can’t see it.)
I seem to have that reaction quite often around this kind of discussion. I usually get sort of angry, go away, and dismiss the particular person that caused the reaction, but (I like to think) that’s only because I have low priors on people in general, which doesn’t apply here, and it seems worse somehow.
As far as I can tell I actually like men much less than women (in the “being around them” sense), it feels as if I’m very inclined to equality, but somehow this kind of feminism seem very annoying. (I’m not exactly sure what I mean when I say “this kind of feminism”. The kind that argues for better women rights in some islamic countries isn’t annoying, except in the sense that it gets me angry at humanity, but that again that’s kind of expected in my society, so it doesn’t say much.)
It occurs to me that from Vaniver’s explanation one could also derive the sentence “So the better a man does, the less you believe he can actually do it.” As far as I can tell, the processes of drawing either of the two conclusions are isomorphic. For that matter, the same reasoning would also lead to the derivation “So the worse a woman does, the more you believe she is actually better.” (With an analogous statement for men. This is explicitly pointed out in the explanation.)
The difference between the men and the women is point where we switch from “better/less” to “worse/more”, and the magnitude of the effect as we get further away from that point. (That is, the mean and the standard deviation.)
I can’t figure out a way of saying this without making me sound bad even to myself, but it seems… I don’t know, annoying at least, that you picked a logical conclusion that aplies exactly the same to both genders, but apply that to women, don’t mention at all what appears to be the only factual assertion of an actual difference between the abilities of women and men (and which I haven’t seen actually contested in neither this nor the earlier discussion on the subject), did not in fact criticise Vaniver’s explanation—which, by the way, as far as I can tell from his post, is just an explanation for beo’s benefit, I can’t deduce from its text that he’s actually endorsing using the procedure—and at the same time you manage to make both him and me, even before I participate, seem that we should be ashamed of ourselves, by sort of implying that he’ll also do something else not mentioned by him, and not logically implied by the explanation, and that would have a bad consequence if done very badly. (Well, it feels that way to me, I can’t tell if Vaniver took umbrage nor if I’m actually reading correctly the society around me with respect to which the shame relates.)
I’m not sure if I have a point, exactly, I’m sort of just sharing my feelings in case it generates some insight. I don’t think you did this as an intentional dishonesty. It’s weird, it looks like there’s a blind spot exactly in the direction you’re looking at (after all, this is exactly the topic of the discussion).
But then again I also feel like I have such a blind spot, like it’s impolite that I should have noticed this, or even that I’m a bad person for not agreeing with your conotation and I can’t tell why. (And I’m some sort of misoginistic pig because I can’t see it.)
I seem to have that reaction quite often around this kind of discussion. I usually get sort of angry, go away, and dismiss the particular person that caused the reaction, but (I like to think) that’s only because I have low priors on people in general, which doesn’t apply here, and it seems worse somehow.
As far as I can tell I actually like men much less than women (in the “being around them” sense), it feels as if I’m very inclined to equality, but somehow this kind of feminism seem very annoying. (I’m not exactly sure what I mean when I say “this kind of feminism”. The kind that argues for better women rights in some islamic countries isn’t annoying, except in the sense that it gets me angry at humanity, but that again that’s kind of expected in my society, so it doesn’t say much.)