26 Jul 2016, 9:14 pm
26 Jul 2016, 9:20 pm
26 Jul 2016, 10:20 pm
26 Jul 2016, 10:27 pm
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
26 Jul 2016, 11:21 pm
Mikah wrote:
Racism is discussed in the article. Many alt-right philosophers believe that not all human groups are interchangeable, so discrimination between them might be sensible. The dear progressive author won't go that far, but he is happy to admit the current progressive theories are seriously flawed, if not totally wrong.
Beside culture there isn't much meaningful differences.
Mikah wrote:
This whole article is a gem actually, some more highlights:
Surveys of women show that they were on average happier fifty years ago than they are today. In fact, in the 1950s, women generally self-reported higher happiness than men; today, men report significantly higher happiness than women. So the history of the past fifty years – a history of more and more progressive attitudes toward gender – have been a history of women gradually becoming worse and worse off relative to their husbands and male friends.
This doesn’t necessarily condemn progressivism, but as the ancient proverb goes, it sure waggles its eyebrows suggestively and gestures furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’.
To confirm, we would want to look within a single moment in time: that is, are feminist women with progressive gender roles today less happy than their traditionalist peers? The answer appears to be yes.
Amusingly, because we do still live in a society where these things couldn’t be published unless someone took a progressivist tack, the New York Times article quoted above ends by saying the real problem is that men are jerks who don’t do their share of the housework.
But when we actually study this, we find that progressive marriages in which men and women split housework equally are 50% more likely to end in divorce than traditional marriages where the women mostly take care of it. The same is true of working outside the home: progressive marriages where both partners work are more likely to end in divorce than traditional marriages where the man works and the woman stays home.
Surveys of women show that they were on average happier fifty years ago than they are today. In fact, in the 1950s, women generally self-reported higher happiness than men; today, men report significantly higher happiness than women. So the history of the past fifty years – a history of more and more progressive attitudes toward gender – have been a history of women gradually becoming worse and worse off relative to their husbands and male friends.
This doesn’t necessarily condemn progressivism, but as the ancient proverb goes, it sure waggles its eyebrows suggestively and gestures furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’.
To confirm, we would want to look within a single moment in time: that is, are feminist women with progressive gender roles today less happy than their traditionalist peers? The answer appears to be yes.
Amusingly, because we do still live in a society where these things couldn’t be published unless someone took a progressivist tack, the New York Times article quoted above ends by saying the real problem is that men are jerks who don’t do their share of the housework.
But when we actually study this, we find that progressive marriages in which men and women split housework equally are 50% more likely to end in divorce than traditional marriages where the women mostly take care of it. The same is true of working outside the home: progressive marriages where both partners work are more likely to end in divorce than traditional marriages where the man works and the woman stays home.
In Québec women are more happy now that they were in the very conservative and rigid society that was the Québec in the 50s. Having more opportunity do that. As for why traditional marriage stand more; religious conservatives are obviously less prone to divorce if they are unsatisfied of their marriage.
Mikah wrote:
More:
Let’s take safety. This is one of Mencius Moldbug’s pet issues, and he likes to quote the following from an 1876 century text on criminology:
Moldbug then usually contrasts this with whatever recent news article has struck his fancy about entire inner-city neighborhoods where the police are terrified to go, teenagers being mowed down in crossfire among gangs, random daylight murders, and the all the other joys of life in a 21st century British ghetto.
Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data, but the British crime statistics seem to bear him out:
If this is true, it is true despite technology. If crime rates have in fact multiplied by a factor of…well, it looks like at least 100x…this is true even though the country as a whole has gotten vastly richer, even though there are now CCTVs, DNA testing, police databases, heck, even fingerprinting hadn’t been figured out yet in 1876.
This suggests that there was something inherent about Victorian society, politics, or government that made their Britain a safer place to live than modern progressive Britain.
Let’s take safety. This is one of Mencius Moldbug’s pet issues, and he likes to quote the following from an 1876 century text on criminology:
Quote:
Meanwhile, it may with little fear of contradiction be asserted that there never was, in any nation of which we have a history, a time in which life and property were so secure as they are at present in England. The sense of security is almost everywhere diffused, in town and country alike, and it is in marked contrast to the sense of insecurity which prevailed even at the beginning of the present century. There are, of course, in most great cities, some quarters of evil repute in which assault and robbery are now and again committed. There is perhaps to be found a lingering and flickering tradition of the old sanctuaries and similar resorts. But any man of average stature and strength may wander about on foot and alone, at any hour of the day or the night, through the greatest of all cities and its suburbs, along the high roads, and through unfrequented country lanes, and never have so much as the thought of danger thrust upon him, unless he goes out of his way to court it.
Moldbug then usually contrasts this with whatever recent news article has struck his fancy about entire inner-city neighborhoods where the police are terrified to go, teenagers being mowed down in crossfire among gangs, random daylight murders, and the all the other joys of life in a 21st century British ghetto.
Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data, but the British crime statistics seem to bear him out:
If this is true, it is true despite technology. If crime rates have in fact multiplied by a factor of…well, it looks like at least 100x…this is true even though the country as a whole has gotten vastly richer, even though there are now CCTVs, DNA testing, police databases, heck, even fingerprinting hadn’t been figured out yet in 1876.
This suggests that there was something inherent about Victorian society, politics, or government that made their Britain a safer place to live than modern progressive Britain.
The definition of crime change with time; better to look at the homicide rate.
Don't seem there is much change...
In true it seem it's getting lower...
Mikah wrote:
Education is another example of something we’re pretty sure we do better in. Now take a look at the 1899 entrance exam for Harvard. Remember, no calculators – they haven’t been invented yet.
I got an SAT score well above that of the average Harvard student today (I still didn’t get into Harvard, because I was a slacker in high school). But I couldn’t even begin to take much of that test.
Okay, fine. Argue “Well, of course we don’t value Latin and Greek and arithmetic and geometry and geography today, we value different things.” So fine. Tell me what the heck you think our high school students are learning that’s just as difficult and impressive as the stuff on that test that you don’t expect the 19th century Harvard students who aced that exam knew two hundred times better (and don’t say “the history of post-World War II Europe”).
Do you honestly think the student body for whom that exam was a fair ability test would be befuddled by the reading comprehension questions that pass for entrance exams today? Or would it be more like “Excuse me, teacher, I’m afraid there’s been a mistake. My exam paper is in English.”
I got an SAT score well above that of the average Harvard student today (I still didn’t get into Harvard, because I was a slacker in high school). But I couldn’t even begin to take much of that test.
Okay, fine. Argue “Well, of course we don’t value Latin and Greek and arithmetic and geometry and geography today, we value different things.” So fine. Tell me what the heck you think our high school students are learning that’s just as difficult and impressive as the stuff on that test that you don’t expect the 19th century Harvard students who aced that exam knew two hundred times better (and don’t say “the history of post-World War II Europe”).
Do you honestly think the student body for whom that exam was a fair ability test would be befuddled by the reading comprehension questions that pass for entrance exams today? Or would it be more like “Excuse me, teacher, I’m afraid there’s been a mistake. My exam paper is in English.”
The education system was different back then and peoples were much less expected to go to university or even having a high school diploma. Only a small minority of dedicated, talented and wealthy students could hope to go in university. Nowadays university has pretty much become "high school" as much as job qualification go. Don't tell me that conservatives value education either, I've seen a lot of them show contempt at those studying things like literature, history or philosophy as these subjects are considered "useless" in getting a job. More so the arithmetic questions mean that a lot of peoples that could have been great mathematicians may not have been able to pass the examination.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/
27 Jul 2016, 8:56 am
Quote:
Origins are always important, besides it includes the modern definition at the end-- a careful reading would illuminate that.
edit: also, nice try at a tangent.
edit: also, nice try at a tangent.
No tangent, my point stands, though is perhaps moot, if you accept the way I was using the word.
Quote:
In Québec women are more happy now that they were in the very conservative and rigid society that was the Québec in the 50s. Having more opportunity do that. As for why traditional marriage stand more; religious conservatives are obviously less prone to divorce if they are unsatisfied of their marriage.
Maybe Québec has cracked the code and can enlighten the rest of the first world.
Quote:
The definition of crime change with time; better to look at the homicide rate.
In true it seem it's getting lower...
In true it seem it's getting lower...
This is a mistaken impression, something even the author admits here: http://slatestarcodex.com/mistakes/
The homicide rate is the same or dropping because of our vastly improved medical care and emergency services. You can see it in the graph, our societies seem to be much more violent than they were. A lot of attempted murders, GBH, assaults with a deadly weapon etc today would have been actual murders not too long ago.
Quote:
The education system was different back then and peoples were much less expected to go to university or even having a high school diploma. Only a small minority of dedicated, talented and wealthy students could hope to go in university. Nowadays university has pretty much become "high school" as much as job qualification go. Don't tell me that conservatives value education either, I've seen a lot of them show contempt at those studying things like literature, history or philosophy as these subjects are considered "useless" in getting a job. More so the arithmetic questions mean that a lot of peoples that could have been great mathematicians may not have been able to pass the examination.
I don't think you disagree really, standards have dropped and we are the worse for it at both ends of society. You are right about mainstream conservatives not caring about education, I've said before that they've all jumped on to the economic liberalism train, they are no more my allies than the radical Left.
27 Jul 2016, 9:25 am
27 Jul 2016, 9:49 am
28 Jul 2016, 8:40 am
