Pro tip, troll: prefacing with clearly is a tell. You're welcome.

Internal vs external locus of control
It might be more important how people think about it then how it actually is, although I'm not sure on that. Clearly the answer is "it depends".

I think Vox generally does a fairly good job describing social science research, particularly for general audiences. Their research explainers are often among their best content, IMO.

My qualifications: I have co-authored a paper in a peer-reviewed social science journal, read quite a bit of research (particularly related to subjects relevant to this forum), and spend a lot of time talking to an actual social scientist (my wife :P). I wouldn't consider myself an authority on what constitutes "social science literacy", but perhaps I have some credibility on the topic.

I'm not sure what qualifications Juan might claim, but I'm skeptical of his ability to judge the question. Alternatively, I'd be tempted to say Juan's complaint is not really with Vox, but with the social sciences themselves. If "literacy in social science" means accurately describing what social scientists say, then Vox does alright. I suspect Juan's complaint is really just that he thinks most social science is wrong/misguided. But that's a different argument.

yo, JV, thoughts on the Harriet Tubman $20 bill?

I talked about this some yesterday. "Structure" vs. "Agency" is definitely a false dichotomy.

I can't even tell what the heck he's trying to say. "maternal oppressor vs oppressed narratives leading to a dismissal of any validity to a paternal perspective of responsibility" is straight-up word salad.

Just a fancy way of saying, "It's not my/their fault."

Meh. They don't outright lie, but they aren't outright honest either IMO. They have a narrative they are pushing, and they will cherrypick data, and cherrypick how they portray the data, to feed that narrative.

For example, as I have touched on before in other threads, when they talk about police shootings the way they use fractions and percentages and % increase and % decrease and almost never use actual real numbers is definitely intentional and definitely done to inflate the narrative they are pushing.

I understand exactly what he is saying, so obviously it isn't word salad. You just either aren't educated enough in the relevant background and terminology to understand the argument, or you do understand the broad strokes at least and are being willfully obtuse).

I would guess as in most things, it is a combination of both.

Something like:

a) the liberal motivation to intervene to fix social problems for people is "maternally" motivated (because supposedly it's motivated by empathy)

b) the conservative motivation to tell people to sort their own **** out is "paternally" motivated (because supposedly it's connected to stereotypically masculine attitudes about rugged independence? He didn't really say)

c) People on the left have emphasized the "maternal" orientation so strongly that they can no longer recognize the validity of the "paternal" perspective.

It's basically the structure/agency disagreement re-cast (unnecessarily, IMO) in gendered language, with a veneer of psychology meant to explain why people prefer one or the other view. He did say that both orientations were "equal and valid perspectives" in his previous post, if it helps at all. I'd probably still prefer to avoid gendering the topic, but whatever.

I would probably use "personal responsibility" instead of rugged independence.

The most simple and concise way I could put it is that there is a ton of garbage in the social sciences. That problem gets exaggerated when info is presented by activist journalists who are in no what experts themselves.

TLDR In the example of vox you have people like carlos maza who is clearly a social justice activist advocating for people to be milkshaked. Nobody at vox looks at him like an off the rails clown. Yglesias recently got in to a debate about math being a social construct. Yglesias went to bat for Sarah jeong and her racist and sexist tweets (in the hundreds) and when that didn't go well he decided to delete his entire twitter account. Vox did two 6 minuted videos covering venezuela going in to great detail about all the political unrest, crime starvation etc and in neither video did they mention the word socialism once. Its' not just a left wing activist magazine, it has a social justice culture that is clearly lacking in intellectual standards. The work they produce should be met with skepticism just like anything else. my observation is that it's being posted as if its of the utmost quality and authority when in reality it looks like someone posted a link to hannity on climate change in "well this has been settled, i'll just leave this here" manner

I was going to post this (you're not intelligent enough take) satirically, but here's kel. You could have at least explained (that it's capt. caveman calling libs pussies (ty, wn)) since it's so clear to you.

It's basically just him calling people "sissies" but with some Jordan Peterson psycho-babbling mixed in.

I think he is intelligent enough. He either just doesn't have the background and/or is being willfully obtuse. Conflating intelligence with experience is something people in this forum do way too much of; normally when posting a discriminatory/demeaning personal attack based on their perceived intelligence.

Edit: It appears he was just being willfully obtuse. No surprises here.

All conversations about Vox and personal responsibility vs external forces come full circle in this vox piece on Marianne Williamson Marianne Williamson isn't funny she's scary , which argues that Williamson's takes on depression and mental illness are dangerous.

Conservative idols Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon still making headlines with their conservatism.



https://twitter.com/shaunking/status...23077104640000


Reagan: Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did," Reagan said. "To see those monkeys from those African countries – damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes.
Nixon: LOLOLOL!

Re read my original post itt
On average men and women are different psychologically. Women are higher in empathy. This serves them well and is likely adapted to their role with infants. Babies cry and you don't judge them. They are always right. You empathize. If someone is making a baby cry, they are always wrong. They are the oppressor. As a baby transitions to an adult you empathize less when they cry or anything else, and you judge them. That transition happens more and more as they get older. Our legal system even recognizes this with minors. That is an increase in paternal role.

Someone totally off balance in empathy will coddle their child to it's detriment. Think of the 30 year old in their moms basement. We naturally use the moms basement archetype because we recognize the pattern even if we can't usually articulate it. Empathy and a lack of someone holding the 30 year old accountable is the path to their demise. If you watch the intervention show about drug addicts its the same storyline over and over. The experts hosting the intervention need to counsel and coach the family in how to deal with their addicted family member. Its almost always someones empathy that is enabling them to live the addict lifestyle. The experts actually have to teach and coach the family to set up boundaries and rules so they don't perpetuate and support the addicts lifestyle. How to enforce the rules and not cave. We also see excess empathy in stories 200lb 4 year olds. They cry and cry for food and the mother just can't say no

There's plenty of research showing we vote our temperament. Go find and take a big 5 personality test online. At the end they will ask you political questions. Feminine/maternal/empathy obviously tracks to further left political leanings. If you look at my original post I mention "thinking" and "balance". A good start is self awareness

Empathy actually doesn't solve that many problems. We can apply it to just about every discussion taking place on the forum at the moment. IIRC it was lapidator who asked very straight forward questions about the border a few weeks ago. He was met with hostility and disdain. The left doesn't and won't set a limit or numbers on different forms of immigration. They don't actually propose solutions. They can't really. You are going to have to set a boundary and exclude people eventually. At that point you won't be woke enough. They aren't focused on solutions ect, they empathize with the oppressed showing up at the border and they are enraged when an oppressor oppresses them. You can go to the antifa thread and see the disdain for cops and the "bootlickers" AKA oppressors

Thank you for supporting vox with all of those clicks!

Huh, seems like it isn't actually an "equal an valid perspective" after all!

Huh, the left doesn't seem empathetic or maternal at all!

It's almost as if you're just tossing a few of today's reddit catchphrases du jour over a hot plate of Plen-T-Plaint and garnishing with a generous portion of sexist bull****.


Just proof that the liberal MSM is desperate to stop her iyam.

If you think our basic psychological orientation geared towards family structure, children, and differences rooted in our biological composition in reproducing and providing a fresh cup of milk for infants is best described in terms of gender. Not only is it easier to understand, it's the actual basis of any structure/agency. I don't want to get side tracked in mentioning which field has been debunking anothers blank slate (etc) view on gender. The idea that structure/agency is valid but not downstream from gender would definitely be misguided imo

This is quite the laff coming from someone who supports the war on drugs

I'm going back to my usual position that interacting with you is too much of a painful exercise but I'll just leave you with an obvious observation. Empathy is far better at identifying and recognizing problems than it is solving them

cite?

Also "we need the big strapping men to invade the middle east else something bad might happen!"

We're not the ones with the pussy ass perspective on ****