Hollywood lies to you. You cannot have sex with multiple men before marriage and walk away emotionally and physically unscathed. There will be no handsome millionaire willing to marry you when you’re 33 and ready to settle down. Once you’re married, adultery is no light, breezy thing. You probably won’t live in that huge home with a pool and a maid to do the cleaning. Your “high-powered” career will mostly likely consist of tedious paperwork in a claustrophobic office cubicle as you daily work through messy office politics and cope with a few difficult colleagues, while worrying about all those unfinished tasks at home. All too often, especially if you made poor choices about what to study in college, you will not get your dream career. You might actually end up being the maid or the nanny for another woman, doing the same housework/childcare in a stranger’s home that feminists always told you was sneer-worthy work to do in your own home. Your debt load will scare you. Your loneliness could shatter you. Men will come and go as they use you for their sexual pleasure and you will pretend to feel “empowered” by letting them do so. Those of you who do marry will have to work hard at suppressing some depression-causing discontent in your late 30s when you look at your non-movie-star husband, the average home that’s as nice and as big as it’ll ever get, the kids who are just as special and wonderful as every one of their classmates, the neighbors who have more holidays and nicer vehicles than your family, and the sheer ordinary-ness of your life compared to the lives of the rich and famous.
Some women break. When a single woman breaks, she chiefly damages herself. When a married-with-children woman breaks, she damages many other lives as she runs off in search of the fantasy world of “perfect-happiness-with-a-gorgeous-sensitive-rich-man” that Hollywood fed to her.
As I said, there are many reasons why all too many Western women are unhappy. Hollywood is one of them.
In one experiment, Wiseman asked people to self identify themselves as lucky or unlucky. Then he gave his test subjects a newspaper. “Count the number of photographs inside”, he told them.
There were 43 photographs.
On average, the unlucky people took 2 minutes to count them all. The lucky people? Seconds.
The lucky people noticed the giant message that took up half the second page of the newspaper. It said, “Stop counting – There are 43 photographs in this newspaper.”
The unlucky people missed it. They also missed the equally giant message half way through the newspaper, “Stop counting, tell the experimenter you have seen this and win $250.”
The “lucky” people weren’t lucky. They were just more observant.
– On average, atheist IQ is a little higher than theist IQ. Of course, averages are misleading, because …
– There are more high-IQ theists than high-IQ atheists.
– The majority of atheists have sub-100 IQs.
– “The two most common types of atheists are the High Church atheists with 128+ IQs and Low Church atheists with 65-72 IQs. The Low Church atheists actually outnumber the High Church atheists, 22.9 to 17.2 percent.”
– “There are 11.4x more 128+ IQ theists who either ‘know God exists’ or ‘believe God exists despite having the occasional doubt’ than there are 128+ IQ atheists who ‘don’t believe God exists.'”
See the article for an interesting set of graphs.
Part of me wonders if this accounts for the “I Love Science!” crowd, despite not actually know what science *is*, as well.
FWIW, I was raised a Methodist Christian, so I have a warm place in my heart for religion. In adulthood I became an agnostic, not an atheist, so I have no particular dog in that fight. I have not taken a formal IQ test so I do not know where I fall on that scale. I like science as a methodology, which is why I am perturbed by messages purporting to be “scientific” when they are not.
Novice researchers often enter behavioral psychology convinced of the blank slate thesis. They believe that little boys and girls are born tabula rasa. Parents, teachers, and society then proceed to mold children’s interests, talents, and temperaments towards the dominant gender stereotypes.
Tenured faculty members have a word for blank slate proponents: “childless.”
In other words, men and women (on the whole and in the main) are physically, intellectually, and emotionally different. Thus, you don’t need “the prejudice of sexism” to explain disparities. All you need is differing internal motivations, preferences, and interests. Yes, at the tail ends of the distributions you may find overlap, but if the significant majority show similarities to the rest of their sex, then even a small set of sex-based differences can lead to widely divergent outcomes between sexes.
But that gives Social Justice Commissars a lot less to work with, so of course it must be a result only of sexism. (/me rolls eyes)
If you are a fan of “Alien” you really should watch “It! The Terror From Beyond Space”. The plot elements are remarkably similar.
FP: You make the shrewd observation of how political correctness engenders evil because of “the violence that it does to people’s souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.” Can you talk about this a bit?
Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
Emphasis mine. Via FrontPage Magazine – Our Culture, What’s Left Of It.
I had a patient, let’s call him ‘Henry’, who came to hospital after being picked up for police for beating up his fifth wife.
“And why, exactly, were you beating your wife this time?” I asked.
“She was yelling at me, because I was cheating on her with one of my exes.”
“With your ex-wife? One of the ones you beat up?”
“So you beat up your wife, she left you, you married someone else, and then she came back and had an affair on the side with you?” I asked him.
“Yeah,” said Henry.
* * *
When I was younger – and I mean from teeanger hood all the way until about three years ago – I was a nice guy. In fact, I’m still a nice guy at heart, I just happen to mysteriously have picked up girlfriends. And I said the same thing as every other nice guy, which is “I am a nice guy, how come girls don’t like me?”
There seems to be some confusion about this, so let me explain what it means, to everyone, for all time.
It does not mean “I am nice in some important cosmic sense, therefore I am entitled to sex with whomever I want.”
It means: “I am a nicer guy than Henry.”
I didn’t think I deserved to have the prettiest girl in school prostrate herself at my feet. But I did think I deserved to not be doing worse than Henry.
(Edited for succinctness.)
Bad news, nice guys: what women (especially feminists) *say* they want, is very different from what they *actually* respond to. Don’t listen to their words; instead, observe their actions, then organize your life accordingly.
So let me explain what science actually is. Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That’s the science that gives us airplanes and flu vaccines and the Internet. But what almost everyone means when he or she says "science" is something different.
To most people, capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It is a thing engaged in by people wearing lab coats and/or doing fancy math that nobody else understands. The reason capital-S Science gives us airplanes and flu vaccines is not because it is an incremental engineering process but because scientists are really smart people.
In other words — and this is the key thing — when people say "science", what they really mean is magic or truth.
What we now know as the “scientific revolution” was a repudiation of Aristotle: science, not as knowledge of the ultimate causes of things but as the production of reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation.
If you ask most people what science is, they will give you an answer that looks a lot like Aristotelian “science” — i.e., the exact opposite of what modern science actually is. Capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. And science is something that cannot possibly be understood by mere mortals. It delivers wonders. It has high priests. It has an ideology that must be obeyed.
This leads us astray.
This is how you get the phenomenon of philistines like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne thinking science has made God irrelevant, even though, by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them.
You might think of science advocate, cultural illiterate, mendacious anti-Catholic propagandist, and possible serial fabulist Neil DeGrasse Tyson and anti-vaccine looney-toon Jenny McCarthy as polar opposites on a pro-science/anti-science spectrum, but in reality they are the two sides of the same coin. Both of them think science is like magic, except one of them is part of the religion and the other isn’t.
What you probably mean when you say “I love science” is “I love my tribe.” Via How our botched understanding of 'science' ruins everything – The Week.
A 27-year-old Philadelphia mother who says she mistakenly entered New Jersey with a handgun legally registered in her state, was not accepted into a pre-trial intervention program, unlike the former Baltimore Ravens running back who was caught on an elevator surveillance camera punching his then-fiancée and current wife. The disparate decisions, made by the same prosecutor and approved by the same judge, leave Allen facing more than three years in prison and Rice free, though disgraced.
The evidence that abstinence from alcohol is a cause of heart disease and early death is irrefutable—yet this is almost unmentionable in the United States. Even as health bodies like the CDC and Dietary Guidelines for Americans (prepared by Health and Human Services) now recognize the decisive benefits from moderate drinking, each such announcement is met by an onslaught of opposition and criticism, and is always at risk of being reversed.
Noting that even drinking at non-pathological levels above recommended moderate limits gives you a better chance of a longer life than abstaining draws louder protests still. Yet that’s exactly what the evidence tells us.