Switch Theme:

The glass floor.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Again you are not reading propperly what i stated like in the rent situation, so why should i bother.

But again just for you.
The study in the Un Resolution is about 8 states which are all western except Japan which you can consider westernized, all of them are developped.

Contrary to poloniuses study which propperly managed scope.

Infact the study in the Un Resolution i picked out at random regardless if it is good or bad is used to extrapulate, without care. Which is statistically nonsense.
Especially because A eurozentristic and B the population within is only considering " developped "countries.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 20:03:33


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

I don't think you're citing him as an authority, any more than I think he's wrong. He's not wrong, just like a lot of public intellectuals, he's taking a few simple concepts and combining them to try to make a really interesting point.

I agree that due to specialization, nobody can personally test every claim out there. We have to, and most of us do, follow experts.

I don't think that the corruption of experts is an epistemological issue though. Who watches the watchers is an ancient issue. I don't think all of our consensus is tainted by money, and I don't think money is successful all of the time. But when an agent is corrupted, and intentionally makes a wrong call, that's not a problem with truth, that's a problem with process. It's exacerbated by our societies obsession with deregulation, to be sure.

the opioid crisis is a really interesting case study, because those drugs were insanely profitable, for a long time, and there was enormous incentive to keep doctor's prescribing them in huge numbers. But... and this is where it gets interesting... money isn't the only reason. the medical community began to see pain as something they had undervalued or overlooked, and the safer opioids were seen as a great entry. As a medical provider, when you hear people telling you that Percocet let's them function like a person instead of staying in their recliner all day, you see it as a good drug.

My point is, I think everybody had motivated reasoning. Pharma had a profit center, doctors could actually ease pain, and patients got pain relief. I think everybody wanted to keep the drugs flowing until it became obvious how harmful they were. I have friends that are still on chronic opioid doses.

So, traditionally, conspiracies grew in communities that felt powerless, and had little trust of the authorities. It's now grown beyond that, but as Doctorow pointed out, when you have an authority saying "I may have lied then, but I'm telling the truth now" it's easy to understand.

I don't think people decide who to trust, and then believe everything they say, or at least not directly. A lot of political belief can stem from fairly hard wired personality traits, especially a few of the "Big Five." So, a person who is highly conscientious is more likely to lean conservative, while a person who is very open to new experience will lean liberal. I think it's safe to say that this affects a lot of motivated reasoning or expert shopping. Now, once they trust somebody, they're likely to base more and more of their views on that source.

Critical thinking is the key here, and that involves a certain amount of insight. To give a tiny personal example, I had a very positive experience in Greek Life in college. For a long time, I was very prone to defending Greek Life based on that. As time moved on, I became less emotionally attached, and I saw more and more evidence of the harm it does, and now I'm much more neutral.

In much the same way, a person who is very conscientious and hard working may be very judgmental of the poor, since he can very easily connect the dots between his own hard work and success. That's very natural, but it makes it hard for that person to be rational when discussing welfare.


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Glasgow

Not Online!!! wrote:
Again you are not reading propperly what i stated like in the rent situation, so why should i bother.

But again just for you.
The study in the Un Resolution is about 8 states which are all western except Japan which you can consider westernized, all of them are developped.

Contrary to poloniuses study which propperly managed scope.

Infact the study in the Un Resolution i picked out at random regardless if it is good or bad is used to extrapulate, without care. Which is statistically nonsense.
Especially because A eurozentristic and B the population within is only considering " developped "countries.



I'm not talking about the UN report. I'm saying there's a vast corpus of academic literature over at least two decades tackling this in detail across the globe. Why do you not think such work is relevant? The classic text is Second Shift, but the material rethinking it is enormous and required reading before trying dismiss its validity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 20:10:35


 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





nfe wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Again you are not reading propperly what i stated like in the rent situation, so why should i bother.

But again just for you.
The study in the Un Resolution is about 8 states which are all western except Japan which you can consider westernized, all of them are developped.

Contrary to poloniuses study which propperly managed scope.

Infact the study in the Un Resolution i picked out at random regardless if it is good or bad is used to extrapulate, without care. Which is statistically nonsense.
Especially because A eurozentristic and B the population within is only considering " developped "countries.



I'm not talking about the UN report. I'm saying there's a vast corpus of academic literature over at least two decades tackling this in detail across the globe. Why do you not think such work is relevant?


Where have i stated it is irrelevant?

Have i explicitly stated that it is irrelevant?
No i didnt
So again what is your issue?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

I guess a more interesting question is: is there any evidence, anywhere, in any culture, under any definition of "domestic work," in which men do more than women?

If not, we're just arguing about degrees.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Where have i stated it is irrelevant?

Have i explicitly stated that it is irrelevant?
No i didnt
So again what is your issue?


I think some of this might be a language barrier, but it's not always clear what you are saying. Your posts come up as dismissive of the evidence and showing a general antipathy towards the idea that women face structural challenges in their home lives which affect their career. I don't know if I'm the only one, but that's how they read to me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 20:13:31


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Glasgow

Not Online!!! wrote:
nfe wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Again you are not reading propperly what i stated like in the rent situation, so why should i bother.

But again just for you.
The study in the Un Resolution is about 8 states which are all western except Japan which you can consider westernized, all of them are developped.

Contrary to poloniuses study which propperly managed scope.

Infact the study in the Un Resolution i picked out at random regardless if it is good or bad is used to extrapulate, without care. Which is statistically nonsense.
Especially because A eurozentristic and B the population within is only considering " developped "countries.

I'm not talking about the UN report. I'm saying there's a vast corpus of academic literature over at least two decades tackling this in detail across the globe. Why do you not think such work is relevant?

Where have i stated it is irrelevant?

Have i explicitly stated that it is irrelevant?
No i didnt
So again what is your issue?

I have inferred that you think it irrelevant.

What you have done is rejected that any valid generalised observations can be made about the propensity for women to perform the bulk of unpaid and familial labour in society. My question, consistently, if decades of material demonstrates that women do this most of the time in most contexts in most societies, why do you believe that no such generalisations can be made?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:
I guess a more interesting question is: is there any evidence, anywhere, in any culture, under any definition of "domestic work," in which men do more than women?

If not, we're just arguing about degrees.


Legit.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Where have i stated it is irrelevant?
Snip


I think some of this might be a language barrier

I think this is likely the case. A bit of crossed wires via communications issues.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 20:25:40


 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Right. Before continuing, please note that I used "macro" in the sense of "on a societal level" as opposed to "on a per household level" and not in some other way. Substitute "on average" or "in general" if you feel that's a better choice of words.

Here's an OECD report from 2014; the graph on p.2 illustrates the differences in unpaid care work:
http://www.oecd.org/dev/development-gender/unpaid_care_work.pdf

Here's another OECD report that concludes that women work to a greater extent than men in the informal economy while men work more than women in the formal economy, and that this holds across 26 developed and 3 developing economies but to differing degrees:
http://www.oecd.org/dev/development-gender/unpaid_care_work.pdf

Kamp Dush, Yavorsky and Schoppe-Sullivan (2017) demonstrate that in highly educated white US families the time spent at leisure by the man in a couple while the woman works increases after they become parents, whereas the woman's time spent at leisure while the man works remains more or less constant.

Sayer (2005) supports the notion that women did more informal work than men but also noted that the difference had been significantly reduced between 1965 and 2005, largely as a result of the introduction of the microwave and changing societal expectations about housekeeping, but also notes that men's share of the housekeeping work has increased since 1965.

Hochschild (1989) has already been mentioned.

I could keep going, but there's a limit to my patience and the value to the thread.

Hochshild, A. R., and Machung, A. (1989) "The Second Shift" Viking Penguin

Kamp Dush, Yavorsky and Schoppe-Sullivan (2018) "What Are Men Doing while Women Perform Extra Unpaid Labor? Leisure and Specialization at the Transitions to Parenthood" Sex Roles 78: 715

Sayer, L. (2005). "Gender, Time and Inequality: Trends in Women's and Men's Paid Work, Unpaid Work and Free Time." Social Forces, 84(1), 285-303

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 Polonius wrote:
I guess a more interesting question is: is there any evidence, anywhere, in any culture, under any definition of "domestic work," in which men do more than women?

If not, we're just arguing about degrees.




Degrees are still somthing diffrent then general.
Atleast imo.

I think this is likely the case. A bit of crossed wires via communications issues.

Like the rent debatte?

You know inferring someones position is considered impolite here.
Maybee do it less.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 20:40:43


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Irked Necron Immortal






 Polonius wrote:
I don't think you're citing him as an authority, any more than I think he's wrong. He's not wrong, just like a lot of public intellectuals, he's taking a few simple concepts and combining them to try to make a really interesting point.

I agree that due to specialization, nobody can personally test every claim out there. We have to, and most of us do, follow experts.


Well, my apologies, but I thought you were just dismissing it based on his name.

 Polonius wrote:
I don't think that the corruption of experts is an epistemological issue though. Who watches the watchers is an ancient issue. I don't think all of our consensus is tainted by money, and I don't think money is successful all of the time. But when an agent is corrupted, and intentionally makes a wrong call, that's not a problem with truth, that's a problem with process. It's exacerbated by our societies obsession with deregulation, to be sure.

the opioid crisis is a really interesting case study, because those drugs were insanely profitable, for a long time, and there was enormous incentive to keep doctor's prescribing them in huge numbers. But... and this is where it gets interesting... money isn't the only reason. the medical community began to see pain as something they had undervalued or overlooked, and the safer opioids were seen as a great entry. As a medical provider, when you hear people telling you that Percocet let's them function like a person instead of staying in their recliner all day, you see it as a good drug.

My point is, I think everybody had motivated reasoning. Pharma had a profit center, doctors could actually ease pain, and patients got pain relief. I think everybody wanted to keep the drugs flowing until it became obvious how harmful they were. I have friends that are still on chronic opioid doses.


Well, that's what I mean though, in the sense of an epistemological process. That process starts, lets say, at the scientist and runs all the way down to John Q. Public. The thing is, there is "vested interest," as you point out, at every level. And they don't really have to be nefarious vested interests. Doctors wanting to give people the "best care" is a vested interest, that then could be subverted and misused by someone else's vested interest of selling a drug. That's what I mean about a failure of epistemological process. Because the process, should, in my opinion, protect us from "flattering (un)truths" and much as from blatant lies. in fact, in a way, the former is more dangerous, since it becomes harder to "disprove" that which we so want to hear.

 Polonius wrote:
So, traditionally, conspiracies grew in communities that felt powerless, and had little trust of the authorities. It's now grown beyond that, but as Doctorow pointed out, when you have an authority saying "I may have lied then, but I'm telling the truth now" it's easy to understand.

I don't think people decide who to trust, and then believe everything they say, or at least not directly. A lot of political belief can stem from fairly hard wired personality traits, especially a few of the "Big Five." So, a person who is highly conscientious is more likely to lean conservative, while a person who is very open to new experience will lean liberal. I think it's safe to say that this affects a lot of motivated reasoning or expert shopping. Now, once they trust somebody, they're likely to base more and more of their views on that source.

Critical thinking is the key here, and that involves a certain amount of insight. To give a tiny personal example, I had a very positive experience in Greek Life in college. For a long time, I was very prone to defending Greek Life based on that. As time moved on, I became less emotionally attached, and I saw more and more evidence of the harm it does, and now I'm much more neutral.

In much the same way, a person who is very conscientious and hard working may be very judgmental of the poor, since he can very easily connect the dots between his own hard work and success. That's very natural, but it makes it hard for that person to be rational when discussing welfare.


Well, this is why, not that I think it, like anything else, is 100% the Truth, but I do see a very keen utility in a sort of Kantian deontology. Because the moment you do lie, for example, you are well and open to the very real doubt that, well, you might just be lying again. There is a sort of duty to Truth they is beyond the matter at hand, to the very notion of truth.

Now, I have no way to know how generalizable this is, but people have directly told me, with no irony, to "only trust what comes from [this particular] new source, everything else is a lie, they tell the truth though." So, I do believe that some people do, in fact, have a source they consider "infallible." And even when that source is demonstrated to be in the wrong, in order to be self-consistent, they would demand the whole rest of the world be wrong.

Is that everyone? No. But these people do exist, I find. So, there is, seemingly, a lack of "critical thinking." There is use in being skeptical, but it has to be bounded, of course. Unfortunately, there are people out there who only "creatively" use their skepticism, to protect vested interests. Now, it's of course a hard-sell to get people out of that sort of mind-set. But, I think most things are not the sort of binary issues, or zero-sum games we are apt to think they are when we don't think really critically.

"Wir sehen hiermit wieder die Sprache als das Dasein des Geistes." - The Phenomenology of Spirit 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Glasgow

Not Online!!! wrote:


I think this is likely the case. A bit of crossed wires via communications issues.

Like the rent debatte?

You know inferring someones position is considered impolite here.
Maybee do it less.



Firstly, yes, I think you were sometimes quite unclear in that thread, too.

Secondly, for my part, I think that when someone's prose is opaque, and you've sought to ask them to clarify without success, inference is necessary. However, if I've inferred incorrectly, please correct me. Why do you believe the vast data describing the consistent gendered weighting of household tasks across cultures to be insufficient to make generalised observations?

Lastly (I see you've edited your post, but I'll reply to the remark anyway), I'm not arguing from authority, supposed or otherwise, I'm just familiar with the literature because I occasionally mark university essays tackling gender roles in cross-cultural contexts.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 20:48:45


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






I have found that the degree people believe experts are corrupted strongly correlates with how much they agree with them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 20:50:24


"Putting a statement in quotations makes it seem more legitimate."
--Bette R. Withname

Imagine three people with the same set of values but radically different emotional states, each of them believes their position is more valid than the other two, they all post using the same account, and your job is to make it coherent. 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





nfe wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


I think this is likely the case. A bit of crossed wires via communications issues.

Like the rent debatte?

You know inferring someones position is considered impolite here.
Maybee do it less.



Firstly, yes, I think you were sometimes quite unclear in that thread, too.

Secondly, if I've inferred incorrectly, please correct me. Why do you believe the vast data describing the consistent gendered weighting of household tasks across cultures to be insufficient to make generalised observations?

Lastly (I see you've edited your post, but I'll reply to the remark anyway), I'm not arguing from authority, supposed or otherwise, I'm just familiar with the literature because I occasionally mark university essays tackling gender roles in cross-cultural contexts.


A: Yes incorrect. I asked for proof, someone gave me proof, i looked at it and realized with my education that statistically that is not what you should get out of the cited study, which btw came from a clearly agenda pushing source. I never did dismiss any sources or ALL sources outright , so you are again Inferring.
Like that time before.

B: Instead of inferring maybee write a PM then if i am unclear. Or don't and further inferr.

C: Yes you did. And also just a friendly reminder, sociology falls under humanites.
Do you know what is said about humanites? even more so then natural science? Paradigmas, Kuhn?
I personally don't mind the literature infact i find it one of the more interesting fields, i just don't believe in quantitative studies applying to the whole of the world (especially when the countries and studies used to gain that are not considerable as representative) and developping an political demand out of it, even tough you have allready MASSIVE statistical errors and error margines within the expected result due to the massive cultural differences to the countries you apply that. That is my issue with the whole UN schtick. And just personally a issue i have with many studies going far above and beyond in scope in my opinion.

TLDR: You can state all you want that it is perfectly fine to do so, i will have my doubts about that. Just like it was said that democracy is for all societies a good system. Regardless of culture. So yes Methodology is my issue with the field more often then not.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 21:04:14


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Irked Necron Immortal






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have found that the degree people believe experts are corrupted strongly correlates with how much they agree with them.

Of course, confirmation bias is real and pervasive.

In fact, it's even been demonstrated that you can get people to change their minds, by changing their answers and they will actively reason why they believe something they didn't just before.

So, it isn't even just as "simple" as people wanting to "believe" their selected expert. People are also just rationalizing their own behavior to try to appear consistent at times.

"Wir sehen hiermit wieder die Sprache als das Dasein des Geistes." - The Phenomenology of Spirit 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 H wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have found that the degree people believe experts are corrupted strongly correlates with how much they agree with them.

Of course, confirmation bias is real and pervasive.

In fact, it's even been demonstrated that you can get people to change their minds, by changing their answers and they will actively reason why they believe something they didn't just before.

So, it isn't even just as "simple" as people wanting to "believe" their selected expert. People are also just rationalizing their own behavior to try to appear consistent at times.
God dammit humanity.

"Putting a statement in quotations makes it seem more legitimate."
--Bette R. Withname

Imagine three people with the same set of values but radically different emotional states, each of them believes their position is more valid than the other two, they all post using the same account, and your job is to make it coherent. 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Glasgow

Not Online!!! wrote:

A: Yes incorrect. I asked for proof, someone gave me proof, i looked at it and realized with my education that statistically that is not what you should get out of the cited study, which btw came from a clearly agenda pushing source. I never did dismiss any sources or ALL sources, so you are again Inferring.
Like that time before.


Obviously no study is going to be statistically sufficient to extrapolate to massive groups. However, that almost all studies across decades asking the question largely support identical conclusion does.

What new inference am I making here? Have you investigated any of the vast literature to which I am referring?

B: Instead of inferring maybee write a PM then if i am unclear. Or don't and further inferr.


I'm not going to write you PMs to seek clarifications that might be relevant to other readers. That defeats the whole point of a forum! For what it's worth, the second sentence implies that if I don't want to PM you then I SHOULD infer. Is that actually what you mean?

C: Yes you did. And also just a friendly reminder, sociology falls under humanites.
Do you know what is said about humanites? even more so then natural science? Paradigmas, Kuhn?


Yes, sociology (and anthropology and ethnography, and indeed archaeology, which may all be more important if the issue you're keen to use to reject the cross-cultural applicability of gender balance in household work) is a humanities subject. Yes, research paradigms exist. I'm unsure of the point being made here?

I personally don't mind the literature infact i find it one of the more interesting fields, i just don't believe in quantitative studies applying to the whole of the world and developping an political demand out of it, even tough you have allready MASSIVE statistical errors and error margines within the expected result due to the massive cultural differences to the countries you apply that. That is my issue with the whole UN schtick. And just personally a issue i have with many studies going far above and beyond in scope in my opinion.


Uncritical extrapolations across contexts are of course a significant problem. The humanities as a metadiscipline has been heavily involved in internal critique to try and avoid this problem for several decades. As I said, I think addressing this has been social theory's main occupation since post-structuralism. If you familiarise yourself with the material, I think you might be less worried that it is remains a common motif - though in some sub-disciplines it is. Certainly, I don't think it is a problem where we are specifically discussing a phenomenon that does reveal itself consistently across demographics and cultures and, insofar as we can tell, across considerable chronological scales.

TLDR: You can state all you want that it is perfectly fine to do so, i will have my doubts about that. Just like it was said that democracy is for all societies a good system. Regardless of culture.


Again I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 21:26:54


 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





You claiming i have just dismissed all literature is inferring.

B: context matters.

I am not a native speaker of english.
I also stated that i consider it impolite, if you don't understand a point ask instead of inferring.

As for this
main occupation since post-structuralism. If you familiarise yourself with the material, I think you might be less worried that it is remains a common motif - though in some sub-disciplines it is. Certainly, I don't think it is a problem where we are specifically discussing a phenomenon that does reveal itself consistently across demographics and cultures and, insofar as we can tell, across considerable chronological scales.

First you admit that uncritical extrapolation is an issue.
Yeah yet it took me literally 5 Minutes to pick out a study used for such an extrapolation in the Un Resolution from AlmightyWalrus even though the study was only across western societies to be used in a demand for political Action. The issue is or was not the study itself no the issue was the result in the Un Resolution used as proof.

And to this Moment you still infer that i just throw out all evidence and literature. Which I repeatedly stated i do not.

As I see it one can never be enough cautious in regards of the methods and extrapolation used.
Especially if it is used in a political context to change laws etc.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 21:37:55


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Irked Necron Immortal






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
God dammit humanity.

Neuroscience will likely reveal to us that we are not the things we think we are.

Thinking probably helps. But sometimes, it might not. Because rationality isn't, most probably, the thing we think it is either, or experience it as. Maybe it's all just normative claims, all the way down.

Then we have the problem of just what is normative and how do we get to that? Science, is, in part, prying open the can of worms that is consciousness, which seems to me, an epistemological can of worms (in addition to other things) and we probably won't like what we collectively find inside. It's probably not what we would imagine, experientially, there is. Not to mention what dataism and big data is doing as well. We are going to find that things are likely different than we'd like to reason they are.

"Wir sehen hiermit wieder die Sprache als das Dasein des Geistes." - The Phenomenology of Spirit 
   
Made in us
Lit By the Flames of Prospero





Bodt

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_207380
Regarding the wage gap. And that's from huff post, who notoriously lean a certain way..

Heresy World Eaters/Night Lords Genestealer cults.

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Glasgow

Not Online!!! wrote:
You claiming i have just dismissed all literature is inferring.

Oh, ok. I thought you meant I was making a new inference.
B: context matters.

Obviously. Funnily enough, my entire PhD can largely be boiled down to that phrase.
I am not a native speaker of english.
I also stated that i consider impolite, if you don't understand a point ask instead of inferring.

I ask you to clarify quite often. You usually don't.
As for this
main occupation since post-structuralism. If you familiarise yourself with the material, I think you might be less worried that it is remains a common motif - though in some sub-disciplines it is. Certainly, I don't think it is a problem where we are specifically discussing a phenomenon that does reveal itself consistently across demographics and cultures and, insofar as we can tell, across considerable chronological scales.

First you admit that uncritical extrapolation is an issue.

Admit is an odd choice of language. 'Agree' is more appropriate.
Yeah yet it took me literally 5 Minutes to pick out a study used for such an extrapolation in the Un Resolution from AlmightyWalrus even though the study was only across western societies to be used in a demand for political Action. The issue is or was not the study itself no the issue was the result in the Un Resolution used as proof.

And? I didn't write the UN study nor cite it. The fact I say such extrapolation is a problem does not mean it does not exist. Indeed, I state flatly that it does.
And to this Moment you still infer that i just throw out all evidence and literature. Which I repeatedly stated i do not.

Have you familiarised yourself with any of the vast literature to which I have refered repeatedly? The decades of work drawing upon Second Shift, for example? The ethnographic and anthropological work tackling domestic work gender balance? If so, why do you believe that it insufficient evidence of a general tendency towards domestic labour being overwhelmingly weighted towards women?

As I see it one can never be enough cautious in regards of the methods and extrapolation used.


Completely agree. That's why I keep asking the above question. If the overwhelming majority of studies across cultures, demographics, and chronologies bear the same result, why can we not say that that result is the dominant apparent tendency?


Anyway, there's a lot of fluff here so I'm out until that specific question gets answered. It's all I've been trying to ascertain all along, anyway!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 21:53:44


 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Have you familiarised yourself with any of the vast literature to which I have refered repeatedly? The decades of work drawing upon Second Shift, for example? The ethnographic and anthropological work tackling domestic work gender balance? If so, why do you believe that it insufficient evidence of a general tendency towards domestic labour being overwhelmingly weighted towards women?


Ahhhh here the classic academic authority position.


And no i have probably comparatively not as much insight in the Materie then you, however i still have not in any way shape of form said it is not the case.

However: true nie enere Statistik wod ned sälber gefälscht hesch also applies.
Or since you probably don't speak that thing above, i am generally doubtfull about extrapolation. Period. My Metier is normaly Philosophy and history aswell as political systems.
It's my Personal Bias.
And tendencially extrapolation is bad at explaining systems.
Like nationalism. Or democratic development/institutional development.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 22:01:03


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

There is such a thing as drawing doubt well beyond the level of reasonableness. Doubt for the sake of doubt is meaningless. How much proof do you require of something before you consider extrapolation valid?

Further, that women do a greater degree of unpaid domestic labour is not a system.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 22:06:57


For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 H wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
God dammit humanity.

Neuroscience will likely reveal to us that we are not the things we think we are.

Thinking probably helps. But sometimes, it might not. Because rationality isn't, most probably, the thing we think it is either, or experience it as. Maybe it's all just normative claims, all the way down.

Then we have the problem of just what is normative and how do we get to that? Science, is, in part, prying open the can of worms that is consciousness, which seems to me, an epistemological can of worms (in addition to other things) and we probably won't like what we collectively find inside. It's probably not what we would imagine, experientially, there is. Not to mention what dataism and big data is doing as well. We are going to find that things are likely different than we'd like to reason they are.
There are matters of deep philosophical thinking... Then there's researchers taking the opinion people wrote, changing it to the opposite opinion, asking them to confirm that yes, this is indeed the opinion they have always had, then half the people say yes and go on to defend the opposite opinion to what they had coming in.

There are thought puzzles, mysteries of the universe, matters of perception and perspective... then there's just dam stupid. I have low expectations for people. I was not surprised in the slightest to hear of those results in a study. But the amount shocked me.

"Putting a statement in quotations makes it seem more legitimate."
--Bette R. Withname

Imagine three people with the same set of values but radically different emotional states, each of them believes their position is more valid than the other two, they all post using the same account, and your job is to make it coherent. 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There is such a thing as drawing doubt well beyond the level of reasonableness. Doubt for the sake of doubt is meaningless. How much proof do you require of something before you consider extrapolation valid?

Further, that women do a greater degree of unpaid domestic labour is not a system.


So society is not a system? Then what is it?


Secondly i again will reiterate since i am not against the academic consensus.
I am against the extrapolation for political sake f.e.in your exemple.

I further generally am vary about it.
And I never stated you can't extrapulate it, infact mostlikely you can, however that does not mean that you shouldn't be carfeull or atleast more carefull then the UN was in your exemple no?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Which is why we have more than one study showing the same thing. Taken in isolation you may be right, but when all the studies point in the same direction we should probably sit up and take notice, no?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Glasgow

Not Online!!! wrote:
Have you familiarised yourself with any of the vast literature to which I have refered repeatedly? The decades of work drawing upon Second Shift, for example? The ethnographic and anthropological work tackling domestic work gender balance? If so, why do you believe that it insufficient evidence of a general tendency towards domestic labour being overwhelmingly weighted towards women?


Ahhhh here the classic academic authority position.

And no i have probably comparatively not as much insight in the Materie then you, however i still have not in any way shape of form said it is not the case.


It's not an argument from authority. It's a genuine question because I'm trying to ascertain why you believe it to be insufficient. Are you aware of the volumes of data we're talking about? It's not making a generalisation on the back of a few dozen small-sample studies. It's multiple decades of what has become almost a sub-discipline of its own that consistently repeats the same findings. I'm legitimately interested in why you think that is insufficient to make a generalisation?

However: true nie enere Statistik wod ned sälber gefälscht hesch also applies.
Or since you probably don't speak that thing above, i am generally doubtfull about extrapolation. Period. My Metier is normaly Philosophy and history aswell as political systems.
It's my Personal Bias.
And tendencially extrapolation is bad at explaining systems.
Like nationalism. Or democratic development/institutional development.


I agree about extrapolation. I work on emergent meaning in relational experiences. Hyper-individualised contextual stuff. All rooted in Deleuze, Guattari, Delanda, Latour and so on. I have no time for systems or structures and I think assumptions of homogeneity in social praxis are the great enemy of useful interpretative methodologies. However, I struggle to see, even as an anti-structuralist, why it is inappropriate to say 'if almost every single study in a vast number of contexts produces the same result, then we can say that generally women do the bulk of domestic labour'. How that is manifested, experienced, and understood will always be massively variable, but we can largely predict that it will be a phenomenon that is present more often than not in a given modern population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There is such a thing as drawing doubt well beyond the level of reasonableness. Doubt for the sake of doubt is meaningless. How much proof do you require of something before you consider extrapolation valid?

Further, that women do a greater degree of unpaid domestic labour is not a system.


So society is not a system? Then what is it?


A rhizome. A lattice. A network of constantly interacting nodes. I'd suggest arguing that society IS a system, or even comprised of systems, is incompatible with a belief that we cannot confidently extrapolate society-wide phenomena from samples.

But we digress...

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 22:45:32


 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





The last point entirely depends on how many systems we are talking about.

And my opinion is that if you want a solution that works solve it as locally as possible. For that i don't need extrapolation and a catalogue of political actions which may or may not be anathema to local culture and therefore work or not work.


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_207380
Regarding the wage gap. And that's from huff post, who notoriously lean a certain way..


.... i don't... I don't think you included the right url.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





nareik wrote:
Well at least doctors still do visits in the US!


Wait, what?

No they don't. You go to them, period. Then you sit in a waiting room for half an hour past your appointment, get called into the exam room where you wait another half-hour during which a nurse takes your blood pressure, pulse, and temperature, then you get to see the doctor five minutes - ten MAX - and go pay your copay and/or deductible on the way out.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Lit By the Flames of Prospero





Bodt

 Ouze wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_207380
Regarding the wage gap. And that's from huff post, who notoriously lean a certain way..


.... i don't... I don't think you included the right url.


Hmm. No, that's definitely not the page I wanted. Strange

Heresy World Eaters/Night Lords Genestealer cults.

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Not Online!!! wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So the issue isn't government intervention, it's inept government intervention or government intervention hamstrung by political reasons?


In a nutshell.... Yes. The US has somehow strung together the worst possible combination of the private and public sectors into the monstrosity we have now. Personally, my insurance premiums from 2010 to today have gone up 108%. During this time I have never had a hospital visit, gotten the flu vaccine a few times, and had a couple doctor's visits for my kids when they were sick. This is well below average.
Average healthcare premiums were rising rapidly before 2010 as well. There was nothing special about 2010 that increased the rate of average premium raise, so why did you call that year out specifically?


Oh, I think you know perfectly well why



Is obamacare still such a hot iron topic?


Yes. Oh, yes indeed... but explaining why takes us back to the forbidden 'P' word.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:
In much the same way, a person who is very conscientious and hard working may be very judgmental of the poor, since he can very easily connect the dots between his own hard work and success.


On the flip side, someone who is very conscientious and hard working, but saw all the promotions go to the brown-noser who did the bare minimum to get by so he remained fairly poor tends to be very judgmental of the rich, since he can very easily connect the dots between their lack of hard work and subsequent success....

Which I admit is every bit as unfair a judgement, but there it is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 23:58:39


CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: