It’s so perfect.
It’s a perfect hijack.
It’s so perfect.
It’s a perfect hijack.
The pink shirt speaks to me on a spiritual level.
Why the hell is it that every time I go on holiday, a terrorist attack happens?
Do they know I’m off duty or something?
I love how nobody is surprised anymore and we can all tell who it’ll be. They’ll bitch about white violence at a football riot (since records began) on social media but go conspicuously silent on terrorist attacks.
It’s like how most atheists are actually fervent dogmatic anti-theists but only start on (white, always white) Christians. Or how Tim Minchin did songs about Jesus but won’t dare touch the Mohammed thing. If anything the one song he did about rapists and murderers was complimentary.
This has been requested for a while but I think it’s such a simple case of provable linguistic (written evidence!) fraud I hadn’t bothered. Until I saw what they’re using it for.
Inspired by this new form of child grooming: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3420203/Are-gender-fluid-demi-girl-intersex.html that outright lies about the basic meaning of words and asks intimate questions of minors that would get anyone else arrested.
The form of gender they use applies to grammar (words, objects), not people.
e.g. la baguette, une baguette
Even then, this refers to masculine or feminine pronouns.
It comes from ‘genus’, a biological taxonomic classification, causing some confusion with sex.
To make medical documents more polite, gender slowly replaced sex (noun) in many parts of the West, especially America. It also prevented those idiots who write in things like ‘yes, please’.
Hence in America, you see a new definition added, which is the same as sex.
Considering who English really belongs to (the English people), the American terms do not have definitive supremacy, that would be cultural appropriation, although culturally they are considered relevant (to deconstruct in debate and ignore).
Note how, even in the MW dictionary, this novel form is the secondary meaning.
Compare with the English definition of the English word.
This is the dictionary that recently included emoji. They cave.
Yet we see an interesting pushback by the etymologists.
Grammar is pushed down (as it’s less frequently used in this manner) and it reads “Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.” An acknowledgement that they are not, in fact, synonymous. The use is social, not factual.
It is only considered comparable, by definition, in sum (as a mass or count noun). As in, gender taken as male or female cannot apply to individuals.
We see another guideline for this colloquial usage (casual, informal) in “typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones”, a snide passing reference to its use in psychology (generally true) and sociology (generally bollocks).
Many people are unaware of this but all sciences (and soft sciences) have their own dictionaries. These are not the true or common meanings, they are niche and limited to discussion within the field itself. Hence the importance before any debate or academic discussion of Defining One’s Terms.
Let’s keep this above board, shall we? Gold standard.
“Non-technically, a synonym for sex” – the psychological definition of gender.
What does it means then, technically? As a variable?
Gender is simply the degree to which one is masculine or feminine. That is it, in psychology. That is 100% true and I’ve never seen anyone dispute it.
Bem’s Gender Role Inventory: http://personality-testing.info/tests/OSRI/
The confusion began with the fraud Kinsey, who conflated it with sexuality in his methodology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
Yet sexuality is a behaviour, under sexology, and gender is innate (lack of gender is impossible) mode of cognition with the slightest fluctuations over lifespan.
Under ‘sex’, for clarification:
“Either of the categories of male and female or the sum total of biological attributes” – the psychological definition of sex.
Psychology: sex = male or female. Physiological. Based on anatomy and biology (chromosomes).
Psychology: gender = masculine or feminine. Psychological. Based on cognition (motivation) and behaviour.
I’m more willing to trust the psychologists on matters psychological, aren’t you?
As the APA admits despite the pressure to cave to sociology in ‘gender’, sex is strictly biological.
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. These are the psychological definitions of psychological constructs.
Onto the murky unfalsifiable (unscientific) world of sociology.
Under ‘gender’. When I searched, no less than eight pages came up, most nothing to do with the word. It’s like they’re trying to hide something…
It doesn’t actually have a clean, given definition of gender, which isn’t alarming at all considering how often they use it for rentseeking. This is the closest thing it has.
The definition, if it exists, lives behind a paywall.
Under ‘sex’, this is the closest.
Apparently, in sociology, sex actually means sexuality. Kinsey, it seems, was a sociologist.
Fine, I’ll give them one more chance.
The closest I can find to either, among the fog of gender bias, gender oppression and the like, is this.
An opinion piece.
Often confused or used as if the terms were the same, sex and gender are in actuality different designations of human behavior based on physical capabilities and social expectations.
Fine so far… not (external) expectations, it’s endogenous cognition, but okay…
Unless you wanna argue that monkeys and other non-human primates, that exhibit the same gender differences, have verbal expectations and Patriarchy: http://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/
Sex is related to the biological distinctions between males and females primarily found in relation to the reproductive functions of their bodies.
Implicit admission of non-gonadal sex differences.
Wait for it…
Biological sex is usually stated as if there are two, and only two, distinct bodies: male and female. But, in fact, there are gradations between male and female accounting for at least five sexes.
There it is.
That’s why psychologists laugh at sociologists and get offended (fairly) if you confuse the two. Why not four? Why not six? Opinion. Pure, contrived, subjective bullshit.
It goes on in such an embarrassing way a small child could call their bluff.
Sex is not a clear-cut matter of chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia that produce females and males. All humans have hormones, such as estrogen and testosterone, but they are found in varying and changing levels ( Fausto-Sterling 1999 ; Kimmel 2004 ). Men as well as women have breasts. Some men have bigger breasts than some women and some men get breast cancer….
I think the medical field would dispute. This is an irrational definition.
That’s like saying, chickens have legs, you have legs, you are a chicken.
If you stay on the SJW haven of wikipedia:
Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.
The pedophile who forced two brothers to engage in sex play and kept photographs.
The academic ‘authority’ for the type of ‘campaign’ above.
Gender was seen as a role because behaviour is easier to measure and harder to fake, it isn’t all of what gender entails, but the final product of the motivation and thought process that leads to decision making and external action, and takes after behaviourism, which was popular at the time. Nowadays, we can watch that thought process in real time, synapse to synapse, yet these people cling to their nonsense words like Christians to the Holy Spirit. Gender is their Ghost of Patriarchy.
It is easy to fake what kind of special snowflake one is. Pink? Purple? Blue? Tri/bi/a/fluid? Cultural Marxism wages a battle of acceptance in popular culture for these linguistic falsehoods, contrary to reality but believed in fervently by its worshipers. At least Christians aren’t claiming the Holy Ghost is a science and bleeding the taxpayer.
You can actually blame the feminists themselves for making it up. Their supposed support for their word definitions are… themselves. It’s circular reasoning at its ugliest.
The psychological definition of gender has historical eminence, as noted:
Why would they do this? Why would they lie?
The definition of a nuclear family becomes amenable to distortions.
All this talk of sex and sexuality is bluster, a ruse to prevent discussion and even definition and scientific study of masculinity and femininity. Feminists (sociology’s nu!gender theorists) are deliberately failing to cover masculinity unless preceded by the word ‘toxic’ but it is the word femininity which goes unspoken like Lord Voldemort. Femininity, that they fear to even discuss, that they shroud even in their dictionaries and insular definitions.
Here is something I have done you might want to try if you don’t believe me.
Homework: when confronted with a (3rd wave) feminist, let them finish, let them wind down and look serious and concerned. With a grave expression, say something like “I have a question, since you’re a feminist, you must be an expert… What makes a feminist, feminine?
*mic drop, as they twist themselves into a pretzel of logical fallacies*
When they desperately ask you a question on a tangent or to change the subject, ask the very simple question again, emphasis how simple it is and watch them trigger themselves into an amygdala hijacking rage. They don’t know. They don’t know what femininity is. This is their weakness, publicly exposed. That’s why they chose to call it that, hoping nobody would ever ask. They claimed the ground they feared others would use to strengthen the hearth of the nuclear family.
It’s been a pleasure shitposting with you.
Disclaimer: I came into this topic with an open mind and I was shocked by what I found.
Before we begin: We all know social science is indoctrinated by liberal bias (9/10 hiring decisions come on), so any parenting finding they present as untouchable requires as much doubt as global warming.
Before someone goes there, I hate to say it, but I doubt Stefan Molyneux knows psych data better than a guy who worked at the APA. Having data doesn’t mean shit, it’s the quality of the data. He keeps going on about this topic in a smug self-satisfied way with reference to simplistic philosophy over the scientific method as it applies here (they do differ substantially as we’ll see) and it irritated my amygdala enough to play Devil’s Advocate and see where the data took me.
I mean, if you watch that video I linked he even committed an ad hominem attack to anyone who disagrees and the psychogenetic fallacy, as well as the fallacy of dismissal and others. You’d be triggered too.
“In a meta-analysis of 26 studies, Larzelere and a colleague found that an approach they described as “conditional spanking” led to greater reductions in child defiance or anti-social behavior than 10 of 13 alternative discipline techniques, including reasoning, removal of privileges and time out”
THE FORBIDDEN FINDING. I could just leave it there, tbh. It’s tempting.
They refuse to control the data (confounds) properly because it would prove them wrong, that’s why the methods are dodgy. If you look at plenty of pro-liberal social studies (at least 90% of them presumably, going by hiring for research posts), the statistics are distorted to match public policy recommendations, making the studies themselves post-hoc and invalid. It’s justification for social engineering, not real science.
As in many areas of science, some researchers disagree about the validity of the studies on physical punishment. Robert Larzelere, PhD, an Oklahoma State University professor who studies parental discipline, was a member of the APA task force who issued his own minority report because he disagreed with the scientific basis of the task force recommendations. While he agrees that parents should reduce their use of physical punishment, he says most of the cited studies are correlational and don’t show a causal link between physical punishment and long-term negative effects for children.
Translation: he thinks they’re filthy liars so he showed them up with a real study (hence the meta-analysis method, the gold standard) and they have no genuine reply to this, it’s hilarious. He went on to explain their flaws too, because he’s savage.
Little known fact: You do have to prove causation. Before you start lecturing people. They cannot. What does that say? Well, what does proof involves? Statistical control of confounds, which they refuse to do for some strange reason. The same way behaviourists refuse to control for genetics in their studies, while saying out the other side of their mouths that it wouldn’t change their significant findings if they did….
This is why social science isn’t yet a real science. These people. Who ‘can’t’ do maths.
“The studies do not discriminate well between non-abusive and overly severe types of corporal punishment,” Larzelere says. “You get worse outcomes from corporal punishment than from alternative disciplinary techniques only when it is used more severely or as the primary discipline tactic.”
Such obscurity is always deliberate. Part of p-hacking. Heard of that reproducibility crisis?
Liberals see all forms of physical punishment as ‘too much’. To them, it’s all ‘abusive’, like disagreeing with a black guy is ‘racist’ or a gay man refusing to shag a woman is ‘sexist’. Well technically, theoretically speaking, but really no. Not in the real world. Where the data lives.
This meta-analysis investigates differences between the effect sizes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics for child outcomes in 26 qualifying studies. Analyzing differences in effect sizes reduces systematic biases and emphasizes direct comparisons between the disciplinary tactics that parents have to select among. The results indicated that effect sizes significantly favored conditional spanking over 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child noncompliance or antisocial behavior. Customary physical punishment yielded effect sizes equal to alternative tactics, except for one large study favoring physical punishment. Only overly severe or predominant use of physical punishment compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics. The discussion highlights the need for better discriminations between effective and counterproductive use of disciplinary punishment in general.
But the other researchers don’t want the truth. They can’t handle the truth. It’s black and white thinking from them on this subject. All bad, or all good, unlike literally any other human behaviour known to mankind. Did I mention another reason for its hot-potato status is racial differences?
Our results indicate that adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritative parenting style, regardless of their race, are less likely to engage in health-risk behaviors than adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritarian, permissive, or uninvolved parenting style. Conversely, in this study adolescents of all races who characterize their parents as uninvolved are more vulnerable to engaging in health-risk behaviors. The effects of the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles differ by race. In relation to the other parenting styles, the authoritarian style is more protective for Black adolescents than it is for White adolescents; while, the permissive style is more protective for White adolescents than it is for Black adolescents. The permissive parenting style and the authoritarian parenting style appear to have an equal effect on health-risk behaviors in Hispanic teens. source
TLDR: So being anti-authoritarian is actually racist.
Don’t expect them to crack it anytime soon. Money’s on it being mediated by MAO genes. And if personality is innate after a certain point and we should accept this and tolerate differences, is it reasonable to ask people to change? Weren’t they Born This Way?
This whole debate, all this is a ruse that relates back to Authoritarianism, also called a parenting style but actually a political invention by Adorno, a personality metric to call conservatives mentally ill. It’s basically a medical label of prejudice. Adorno was an avowed Communist who worked as part of the Frankfurt School. Seriously, look it up.
No literally, he tried to make up a hodge-podge theory calling conservatives mentally ill. It’s quite funny how overtly biased he was.
Case studies, e.g. Nazis
They piloted and developed a questionnaire, which they called the F-scale (F for fascism).
Those with an authoritarian personality tended to be:
• Hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status [DS: hierarchical]
• Fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs [DS: aka closed to manipulation attempts]
• Conventional, upholding traditional values
Liberals did political psychology before we did. They started it.
Still, the authors concluded that the authoritative parenting style is protective in regards to adolescent drug use, both concurrently and longitudinally (Adalbjarnardottir & Hafsteinsson, 2001). source
So it works. Literally, it works. The majority of their argument against is futile.
The whole idea of parenting styles is a joke. You know what the data shows? The still-conservative one called authoritative is the best for life outcomes. Do they follow outcomes for types of discipline? No, not really, and especially not the least-popular parenting ‘style’, permissive (lazy). Why wouldn’t liberals want to study that?
Little mentioned is the damage of the permissive (liberal) parenting style. Why? Well, it’s hardly ever researched and commented upon.
Parental permissiveness or indulgence was also associated with increased adolescent alcohol and tobacco use(22,23,27). source
Adolescents who described their mother as using a permissive parenting style were more likely to demonstrate a tendency to anticipate a more violent response to the hypothetical situation. [same source]
Sounds healthy. Mentally.
Parenting style is like learning style, it pathologizes natural differences for political gain around a kernel of truth. Mental illness is not a political pawn, nor should it be used as one. But again, which wing started that?
There is also a big difference between genuinely seeking to end unjust discrimination against those who suffer from severe mental-health issues, and making out that we’re all secretly a little bit mentally ill.
Is it to help people, as best as we can, to live normal lives? Or is it an attempt to medicalise further normal aspects of everyday life?
Casually diagnosing a misbehaving child with mental problems, such as anxiety or depression, is the equivalent of a get-out clause.
We all know overdiagnosis is a problem, mathematically, as the majority (mentally healthy) cannot be the minority (mentally unhealthy) in a Medical Model. What type of person over-diagnoses or self-diagnoses?
Corporal punishment is usually correlated with behavior problems such as antisocial behavior and aggression.24 But correlation does not equal causation. What is open to dispute are the causal influences that explain those correlations. Making valid causal conclusions from correlations involving corrective actions is especially problematic, for correlations are biased against corrective actions, a problem known as the intervention selection bias.25 This selection bias occurs because of the poorer prognosis of those selected for the corrective action compared to the better prognosis of those not needing the corrective action.
aka Stefan is wrong.
And bad kids get disciplined more, they were bad to begin with. I love how nobody asks about psychopaths either. Like evil people pop into existence at age 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger
However, all kinds of nonphysical punishment also predicted higher antisocial behavior with the same controls.
Woops. That’s not to suppose to happen, is it, Stefan?
all predicted significantly higher subsequent hyperactivity, whereas physical punishment did not, β = .03, n.s. Therefore, the strongest causal evidence against customary spanking is not unique to spanking, but applies as much to most corrective actions, including most corrective disciplinary actions by parents and corrective interventions by psychotherapists.
That’s the sound of a hypothesis dying. Like a whale.
I don’t blame him for being a pacifist though. Being Canadian.
If the therapists are harming children, where’s your moral beacon?
In sum, the strongest causally relevant evidence against customary spanking yields small, apparently detrimental effects that can easily be due to a combination of several substantive and methodological factors that bias the results. Consistent with this, the first studies to use the same research methods for alternative disciplinary tactics showed similar results for corrective actions by both parents and professionals. In evaluating corrective actions by clinical psychologists, this type of evidence would not even be considered and would definitely not override the causally conclusive evidence that spanking can be effective for enforcing nonphysical disciplinary tactics, even in the most clinically defiant two- to six-year-olds.154
Spanking must be understood in the broader context of the appropriate exercise of parental authority. Numerous studies have shown the superior effectiveness of authoritative parenting, especially compared with the extremes of authoritarian and permissive parenting.174 We have recently extended that evidence by documenting that ten-year child outcomes vary greatly by these preschool parenting patterns.175
Calling a parent a Nazi is pretty extreme, yes.
The use of normative spanking did not distinguish authoritative parents from other parenting patterns, although it was used more by authoritarian parents than by permissive parents. We think that authoritative parenting can be implemented by some parents without the use of any spanking, but we have no evidence of that from our study, as all authoritative parents used spanking at least occasionally.
As this alludes, hippies still spank their kids, they just lie about it. Getting the child to lie for them could be considered a form of abuse too, if you want to play that game.
There’s a load of duh conservative wisdom too before I move on.
Spanking should never be used in an infant’s first twelve months of life and rarely, if at all, before eighteen months of age. Parents should make sure their children know that any corrective discipline, including spanking, is motivated by love and concern for them. Parents must also be certain not to administer punishment too severely, whether physical or nonphysical. Finally, all punishment should be used in such a way that reduces the need to use it in the future. Every child is different, so not all disciplinary tactics will work as well with every child—or for every situation with the same child.
Parental authority figure. Authoritative role assumption. Duh?
Authoritarian should actually be called Tyrant. If the labelling system were culturally honest and followed, I dunno, the definition of English words?
I was doing some pondering over this topic and the neurobiology that must be involved and came up with a pie-in-the-sky opinion theory. Since I’ve already established the direction the empirical evidence has headed, I wanna freestyle it to finish.
Wall of text incoming.
I was reading about the findings on spanking, and it seems to be r-types self-selecting for narcissism. As in, they don’t develop empathy, which is based on pain (all kinds) and physically structured by mirror neurons. For an example of how this pertains to modern issues, such impaired ‘theory of mind’ (low empathy) is implicated in Borderline Personality. From what I know of the brain, spanking would actively change the child’s personality (an unstudied effect, a remarkable gap in the research despite the known origin of spanking research -parenting style- being based in the personality of the parents) and this change would aim to make the child more socially humble and deferential, respecting of hierarchy, such as parental authority, (like the spanking parents themselves, making spanking a cultural meme and untouchable by liberals on this basis) and such traits are something we know to be actively K-selected. I even thought of a mechanism, most parents who spank only start once the child is of around pre-school age, wandering curious age, at the exact time of great neural pruning. What most people don’t know is that neural pruning can be triggered and directed by experiences of pain, and once those connections are gone, they’re dead forever. Pruning is vital for healthy brain development, and may be a hidden environmental factor (really epigenetic) in childhood development.
By refusing to admit any positive effects from spanking whatsoever (impossible in social science), they admit their bias, because at that exact time biologically in the child’s development, mild physical pain, no different morally than controlled exposure hand-ice studies conducted by psychologists themselves, would cause neural pruning of the decisive connections which led to that antisocial behaviour. It causes a rewiring of the brain for prosociality during the ‘window of opportunity’.
In the ‘social science’, they’ve tried to argue that spanking causes sociopathy but the genetics show there is a predisposition, so what, pray tell geniuses, is a parent supposed to do if they find their kid lighting fires? How are they supposed to discipline the child they found torturing cats or trying to kill their little sister by pushing her down the stairs? They have no answer for this, because their entire anti-scientific premise rests on All Child Are Innocent Angels Incapable of Wrongdoing, something any parent will tell you is BS. The number of abusive children is rising.
What is the social engineer’s answer to this? Does the parent require less protection, when the child is often below the age of criminal responsibility? One of the expert-given causes for such abuse is “lack of consequences for bad behavior”, what do you think that might mean? As for solutions: “There are no agencies or programs that protect parents from abusive children, adolescents or teenagers other than giving up their Parental Rights to the state they live in.” So it seems the case that if the parents refuse to use physical force altogether, the child might take the newly imbalanced power dynamic (game theory) as carte blanche and abuse the parent. Such sunny optimism as you see with the anti-spanking witch hunts fail to recognize this, despite their supposed stance against all abuse and violence. It irritates their amygdala, you see, making them ignore it. Like a child screaming in a supermarket. They’re That Parent.
If a parenting style fails to apply to all children (and you don’t know who’s pathological until they’ve killed the family cat), it fails and one cannot advise parents to undertake it in good conscience. Children are capable of great evil and not just the sociopathic ones (from ignorance, bad peer influence, genetic bequeath or sheer stupidity). If you ask real parents anecdotally, (bear in mind liberals avoid having children making their opinion dubious since they admit to hating kids in general) they’ll draw a connection between late Gen Y/ early Gen Z and NARCISSISM. Aka part of the Dark Triad. Why weren’t those connections pruned, compared to earlier generations? Many parents would say the anti-spanking initiative, and wouldn’t you know it, that generation is coincidentally the most heavily liberal known to mankind. They respect nothing and feel invincible, literally as if nothing could really harm them? ‘Import rapists? Sure! They would never hurt me!’ It would be a like a cultural version of Toxoplasmosis infection, because they speak from ignorance. Their brains are immature, but that isn’t an excuse, they aren’t insane and know logically right from wrong, and arguably that makes it worse. They follow their feelings knowing it’s wrong, the polar opposite of what the advocates of prohibition say should happen!
It’s widely recognized the rise in child narcissism is due to the Self Esteem Movement, but what caused the SEM? What new behaviours from parents, since it’s novel in children? Non-parenting parents. Genetic parents, who fail to take up the social role.
I’ll just paste this off wikipedia because I’m lazy.
A study conducted by Jean Decety and colleagues at the University of Chicago demonstrated that subjects with aggressive conduct disorder elicit atypical empathic responses to viewing others in pain. Subjects with conduct disorder were at least as responsive as controls to the pain of others, but unlike controls, subjects with conduct disorder showed strong and specific activation of the amygdala and ventral striatum (areas that enable a general arousing effect of reward), yet impaired activation of the neural regions involved in self-regulation and metacognition (including moral reasoning), in addition to diminished processing between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.
Absence of punishment rewards bad behaviour. They don’t learn to control themselves and cannot morally reason, the thing the anti-spanking people rely on as the bulk of their proposition.
What appears to be pathological altruism is in fact a weakened threat recognition system, and surely it’s better to teach a child the meaning of pain and suffering in a controlled environment than wait for it to metastasize in a potentially lethal way? None of the studies, though persuasive, account for these factors. Reasoning with a bad child doesn’t work. Some children are bad, where do they think bad adults come from? They pop into existence at age 18? Why even have clinical child psychology if no intervention could ever have changed them? What are good parents of a bad egg supposed to do? Pray? Cos that’s about as reasonable as ‘reasoning’ with them – humans are not logical animals. If it won’t work on adults (Israel/Palestine, anyone?) it certainly won’t work on a toddler. We have to teach classical logic and formal laws of maths when they’re at school, far too late, the superego/conscience is already formed, so expecting them to get it earlier on or as a baby is frankly retarded. So while I hate to say it, I’m forced to conclude that spanking is justifiable in certain conditions of very bad behaviour (especially criminal) and during the window of life phase time (childhood stage) it might be corrected for. A little bad does us good, in the long term? This is the low time preference view, which is, wouldn’t you know it, the preserve of conservatives. I call it the Eustress Hypothesis.
TLDR: Fear is something you learn and liberals haven’t.
Also, I find it funny liberals don’t believe in IQ unless they’re citing spanking studies, then negligible IQ drops are totally a real thing and a huge deal (unlike IQ drops from smoking pot, which are rounding errors apparently). 5 points of difference for example could be caused by anything, it was raining today so when the kid took the IQ test again he was sad? Education boosts IQ far more than spanking supposedly drops it, so what’s the problem? If we’re playing the IQ maths game? Does it take pointing out the obvious by twisting it the other way to make the faulty reasoning clear? Did they control for parental investment (extraneous variable) or what? No, they did not. This includes reading to them and other at-home education (itself a sign of parental IQ – another confound!). The IQ difference within this study doesn’t even remain over time, in the older age group, the difference is a stonking 2.8 IQ points! Wow! At which point they stopped measuring or failed to report on the data, which isn’t odd… To clue you in on how valid this widely cited dataset is, the guy who conducted it is a sociologist. Not even a child psychologist or anything psychologist (they tend to use different methodologies, different assumptions and much weaker statistics).
According to PC dogma, even yelling isn’t allowed now. So no form of discipline is acceptable to them, the r-types. Why yelling? It causes shame and apparently no child should ever feel shame for anything. http://jezebel.com/if-yelling-at-kids-is-as-harmful-as-spanking-what-the-1455310255
Gee, which political wing hates being ‘shamed’?
Different from guilt, which is too generic and makes them neurotic and indecisive as adults. Like Catholics.
I don’t expect liberals to avoid confirmation bias, we wouldn’t want them to be triggered by facts, would we? However, I expect better from the Alt Right. Quit taking tips on aggression from a non-scientist Canadian philosopher. Quit bothering me with assumptions that his proofs are correct when the internet is right there and you should use it. Topic covered? Can we drop it now?
The first five seconds of conversation.
Sit down, son.
Amygdala hijack, exhibit UK. He batted him down at the start, very subtle.
This was planned: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world
In Britain, that is almost certain to happen in London, and in the relatively near future. ‘At the moment ethnic minorities are about 40 per cent in London. The demographics show that white people in London will become a minority by 2010,’ said Jasper. ‘We could have a majority black Britain by the turn of the century.’