Hello. Welcome to the first last Weekend Gene Pool of the Old Year, in which we will ask you to examine the subject of head-in-the clouds stupidity, an endeavor for which we believe we will win the coveted Bruno Klopfer Award, recognizing mankind’s highest achievement in the psychology of personality.
The orange button didn't work, so I will tell my stupidity tax story here. I sometimes buy something (usually clothing or accessories) then decide I don't really like it and should return it. Then I dilly-dally for so long that it's too late to return it, so I wind up donating it. I also have a large supply of specialty cleaning products that I've never used (or used once and forgot about). Then there are the projects that required supplies, tools, and accessories, purchased with enthusiasm and often at great expense, that I lost interest in. I sometimes think about how much money I'd have if I hadn't bought so many things I don't use.
I have been driving around with a new pair of snowpants in my car since before Thanksgiving, which I keep meaning to return to Old Navy. I give myself one more week before I stop at the clothes donation bin in my grocery store parking lot to get rid of them.
Let's start at the beginning with sex-related differences, shall we ? There is a good body of evidence that tells us there are real differences in how men's and women's brains are "wired" and thus how they work. One not better or more advantageous in general than the other, mind you, just different. What is a work in progress from a scientific standpoint, however, is exactly how that translates into differences of behavior and other aspects of the human existence. For example, there is fairly strong evidence of the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences and on several measures of verbal ability (score one for the female side there). And men appear to excel in visual and spatial skills. But the jury is still out on where to place a great many other differences on the nature/nurture or biology/culture continuum. To all, wishes for a better 2024 but, to misquote "Margo Channing" (Bette Davis) in "All About Eve" --- "Fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy ride." And lest I forget, "... a cup o' Kindness..." to Gene and Pat (and part-timers Lexi, Rachel and Valerie) for yeoman's (and woman's) work in helping to keep the Barbarians from the gate or at least, distracting us a few moments each week from the fact that they exist in far too large a number. Cheers!
Ah, the "Stupid Tax." Fits nicely into the generic category the Germans with their knack for le mot juste --- more usually the right phrase in one word --- call the oxymoronic, "Verschlimmbesserung" --- or something done originally for improvement or betterment which winds up actually making things worse. In my case, that was convincing my parents (with the connivance of a shady stable owner) that I ---a hardcore city kid --- could somehow become a skilled equestrian. But that's an offering for "Weingarten's Examined Lives" aka "Q&A," lest I have my license here revoked.
Is Free For All missing from the print edition of the Post today as well as the online version? It’s the only thing that I look forward to in the Post anymore. If it isn’t just taking a week off, then I’m definitely going to let my subscription lapse.
My answer to the poll question is: given all the caveats, probably -- I'm not an expert in any of the relevant fields of research -- but I'd like to start by hoping we can agree on this: whatever characteristic you choose to talk about -- upper body strength, emotional intelligence, Tetris skills, what have you -- you can always find a woman who is above the average for men and a man who is above the average for women. Whatever you learn about aggregates, you can never draw a certain conclusion about an individual. If we can agree on that premise, please read on.
Given that premise: in what circumstance is the world made a better place by choosing this as a topic of conversation? Please (whoever's back is already up) look at the question I'm asking. I'm not asking "Why should you have a right to talk about this?" Everyone has a right to talk about anything, fine. But we all have a choice in what we talk about and give our attention and energy to.
I only know of two reasons people like to talk about this. The first is because someone (like me or even more strident) tells them they shouldn't, and they hate that. This is a natural reaction, and if there was no unrelated consequence to thumbing ones nose at the shushers, fine, thumb away. But the other reason people talk about sex differences is because they want to take opportunities or rights away from groups of people -- usually women -- justifying either informal or formal discrimination against a particular group for a particular role.
Can anyone think of a third reason? And if not, isn't the consequence that people of good will should of their own accord -- not because someone shushed them -- want to avoid the topic?
OK, I thought of a third reason myself -- easy source of cheap humor, but that applies to only a very small fraction of humanity. I wouldn't be here if I didn't admire Gene for how thoughtful (or else just naturally human) he manages to be in addressing sex and gender as a humorist and how well he walks this line -- and ditto the Invite crew. Pat and Gene are both good influences and set the tone. But there are plenty of humorists out there who still lean on stereotypes for lazy jokes.
Talking about individuals and not as members of groups does tend to answer those who lean on stereotypes. And we can see that individuals are important.
The orange button didn't work, so I will tell my stupidity tax story here. I sometimes buy something (usually clothing or accessories) then decide I don't really like it and should return it. Then I dilly-dally for so long that it's too late to return it, so I wind up donating it. I also have a large supply of specialty cleaning products that I've never used (or used once and forgot about). Then there are the projects that required supplies, tools, and accessories, purchased with enthusiasm and often at great expense, that I lost interest in. I sometimes think about how much money I'd have if I hadn't bought so many things I don't use.
I have been driving around with a new pair of snowpants in my car since before Thanksgiving, which I keep meaning to return to Old Navy. I give myself one more week before I stop at the clothes donation bin in my grocery store parking lot to get rid of them.
Let's start at the beginning with sex-related differences, shall we ? There is a good body of evidence that tells us there are real differences in how men's and women's brains are "wired" and thus how they work. One not better or more advantageous in general than the other, mind you, just different. What is a work in progress from a scientific standpoint, however, is exactly how that translates into differences of behavior and other aspects of the human existence. For example, there is fairly strong evidence of the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences and on several measures of verbal ability (score one for the female side there). And men appear to excel in visual and spatial skills. But the jury is still out on where to place a great many other differences on the nature/nurture or biology/culture continuum. To all, wishes for a better 2024 but, to misquote "Margo Channing" (Bette Davis) in "All About Eve" --- "Fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy ride." And lest I forget, "... a cup o' Kindness..." to Gene and Pat (and part-timers Lexi, Rachel and Valerie) for yeoman's (and woman's) work in helping to keep the Barbarians from the gate or at least, distracting us a few moments each week from the fact that they exist in far too large a number. Cheers!
Ah, the "Stupid Tax." Fits nicely into the generic category the Germans with their knack for le mot juste --- more usually the right phrase in one word --- call the oxymoronic, "Verschlimmbesserung" --- or something done originally for improvement or betterment which winds up actually making things worse. In my case, that was convincing my parents (with the connivance of a shady stable owner) that I ---a hardcore city kid --- could somehow become a skilled equestrian. But that's an offering for "Weingarten's Examined Lives" aka "Q&A," lest I have my license here revoked.
Is Free For All missing from the print edition of the Post today as well as the online version? It’s the only thing that I look forward to in the Post anymore. If it isn’t just taking a week off, then I’m definitely going to let my subscription lapse.
If anyone hasn't read The Great Zucchini story, do it. Remarkable.
Are there more men like that than women? My guess is yes. Is it a social learning thing, a hormone thing? I dunno.
My answer to the poll question is: given all the caveats, probably -- I'm not an expert in any of the relevant fields of research -- but I'd like to start by hoping we can agree on this: whatever characteristic you choose to talk about -- upper body strength, emotional intelligence, Tetris skills, what have you -- you can always find a woman who is above the average for men and a man who is above the average for women. Whatever you learn about aggregates, you can never draw a certain conclusion about an individual. If we can agree on that premise, please read on.
Given that premise: in what circumstance is the world made a better place by choosing this as a topic of conversation? Please (whoever's back is already up) look at the question I'm asking. I'm not asking "Why should you have a right to talk about this?" Everyone has a right to talk about anything, fine. But we all have a choice in what we talk about and give our attention and energy to.
I only know of two reasons people like to talk about this. The first is because someone (like me or even more strident) tells them they shouldn't, and they hate that. This is a natural reaction, and if there was no unrelated consequence to thumbing ones nose at the shushers, fine, thumb away. But the other reason people talk about sex differences is because they want to take opportunities or rights away from groups of people -- usually women -- justifying either informal or formal discrimination against a particular group for a particular role.
Can anyone think of a third reason? And if not, isn't the consequence that people of good will should of their own accord -- not because someone shushed them -- want to avoid the topic?
OK, I thought of a third reason myself -- easy source of cheap humor, but that applies to only a very small fraction of humanity. I wouldn't be here if I didn't admire Gene for how thoughtful (or else just naturally human) he manages to be in addressing sex and gender as a humorist and how well he walks this line -- and ditto the Invite crew. Pat and Gene are both good influences and set the tone. But there are plenty of humorists out there who still lean on stereotypes for lazy jokes.
Talking about individuals and not as members of groups does tend to answer those who lean on stereotypes. And we can see that individuals are important.
Stereotypes have descriptive but not predictive value. That is, they're based on something about a group, but can't say anything about an individual.