reversecs

Americans have a political spectrum, like a range of beliefs that the conservatives have to the liberals. Probably most countries have different political spectrums, Europe in general has done away with gun rights debates and so their political spectrum is different than those in the u.s.

It's definitely not a race thing, it's a nationality. It's just a fact that every nation has their own type of polarization, aka spectrum.

The point of diversity of opinion is that you have a challenge against the ideas of yourself and of others. If everybody around you agrees with what you say then you may never be thoughtful about your positions and can get away with being wrong.

In academia a paper is written by a human who desperately wants to be right and publish it (because they are self interested of course) and the peer review process is there to challenge the methodology so that the truth can emerge.

It's like if you had two sets of scientists who had opposing viewpoints but could only use objective measure to justify their own side, when placed in opposition to one another their biases will more likely produce a truth.

It's also important to note that being able to analyze data and have knowledge of statistics is not enough. For a hypothetical example if you are a modern American progressive you might have a set of opinions which you identify with like a raised minimum wage, progressive tax, etc. You really want to be consistent in your beliefs so you seek out data which CAN justify your position. Like that minimum wage does not reduce employment or something. You search for any evidence that justifies it naturally and maybe do some shallow research on the opposition but deep down you know what side you are on. You have used data and statistics to justify your positions, but that is not enough to say whether you are actually right or not.

On the other hand, the anti vaxxer which try to figure out if they MUST reject that vaccines cause autism and maybe they find one thing that says there is a reason to doubt and that is sufficient.

In each case exposure to a formidable argument from the opposite side can really challenge their opinion. (Not that minimum wage is as simple as vaccines)

If you have hard evidence against something like anti vaxers then you can do away with their argument scientifically, but if you characterize all conservatives/liberals in that way, they you are lacking exposure to real, formidable arguments against your own positions. Because there are certain issues where both sides have objective measure which justify their own side.

I know many in Seattle who draw an extreme image of the South and for the most part it feels highly political. In that case I remember that Intolerance of other points of view is the definition of bigotry. It's important to not color an entire state of people with specific moral values.

At first look some questions may seem tricky but with some thought I was able to refresh my memory. I think a few hours of studying would make this no problem for most people who've graduated and haven't touched the content in awhile.

They have reopened the investigation on Clinton as a result of the Weiner investigation.

You're right, I should probably read into his theories a little more.

One other interesting point is the possibility that making oneself vulnerable is a proxy for risk taking which is a more masculine tendency.

https://www.cogneurosociety.org/testosterone_risktaking/

The concept of power in vulnerability fails to distinguish two important things about being vulnerable. If a person is mentally weak they are vulnerable. If a person is strong enough to make him/herself vulnerable they are strong.

These are two different people and its all about where the person is coming from. If a person is putting themselves into a position to fail they are considered strong because they can afford to fail, the thought being that they obviously have a lot of confidence and competence in some other parts of their life.

If a person is weak or obviously trying to appear tougher than they really are, we say they are vulnerable because we know they are compensating for something.

All of this is to say that boldly putting yourself out in the world for criticism is a powerful thing to do because you are obviously secure enough to accept some criticism. The solution proposed from Manson appears to suggest that if you are vulnerable that you are powerful right now, but that isn't true.

This basically means that you need to be powerful to let yourself be vulnerable, otherwise you aren't letting yourself be vulnerable, you are being forced to be vulnerable. So the issue for weak people remains in TRP as well as in Manson's case, how do weak people become powerful?

"Discovers some sort of methodology that is supposed to help them get women, such as pick up artist communities"

The red pill distinguishes itself from "pick up artist communities". A quick look over it sees that they advocate more for strengthening one's self-esteem to be independent from what women think of them.

They also tend to generalize about women in ways that are not very popular, but generalizing what is perceived as negative behavior makes it much easier to deal with, understand, and move on from that behavior. In the end is just a community that supports men, and sometimes at the expense of their idea of women.

I'm not really sure if its a good or bad thing. But does anybody have a duty to think about people a certain way? Surely we need to treat everybody fairly, but once that is achieved what duty does an individual have to think about a people in a certain light at all times? If that person can develop a system that works for them and makes them happy and does not infringe on the rights of others then do we encourage people to do find what works for them? Or do we train them to think about others in a way that agrees with the majority of people.

one could also factor in time. At work your time costs money and if driving allowed you to spend an extra hour working, assuming you were paid hourly, you could work one additional hour. in the case of salaried perhaps you performance would rise.

but I don't really like the idea of sacrificing exercise for additional hours at work.

criticizing a study is fine but in light of how absolutist the mainstream is about the gender pay gap this increased granularity is very much welcome