The best 15 words

apophenia

People want to tell everything instead of telling the best 15 words. They want to learn everything instead of the best 15 words. In this thread, instead post the best 15-words from a book you've read recently (or anything else). It has to stand on its own. It's not a summary, the whole value needs to be contained in those words.

It doesn't need to cover everything in the book, it's just the best 15 words.
It doesn't need to be a quote, it's just the best 15 words.
It doesn't have to be 15 words long, it's just the best "15" words.
It doesn't have to be precisely true, it's just the best 15 words.
It doesn't have to be the main 15 words, it just has to be the best 15 words.
It doesn't have to be the author's 15 words, it just has to be the best 15 words.
Edit: It shouldn't just be a neat quote--the point of the exercise is to struggle to move from a book down to 15 words.

I'll start in the comments below.

(Voted by the Schelling study group as the best exercise of the meeting.)

It doesn't need to cover everything in the book, it's just the best 15 words.
It doesn't need to be a quote, it's just the best 15 words.
It doesn't have to be 15 words long, it's just the best "15" words.
It doesn't have to be precisely true, it's just the best 15 words.
It doesn't have to be the main 15 words, it just has to be the best 15 words.
It doesn't have to be the author's 15 words, it just has to be the best 15 words.
Edit: It shouldn't just be a neat quote--the point of the exercise is to struggle to move from a book down to 15 words.

I'll start in the comments below.

(Voted by the Schelling study group as the best exercise of the meeting.)

By “equitable” I'd mean that we each start out with half of the pie; it doesn't stop being equitable if I like crust and dislike filling and you like filling and dislike crust so we mutually agree to trade my share of filling for your share of crust (i.e. this or a quick-and-dirty informal approximation thereof).

Dividing work in a family not about what people like, or about what's equal, it's about what works. You can't build a society on the basis of atomized individuals constantly negotiating out every interaction on an ad-hoc basis; that's just not a stable or realistic foundation. It leads to a culture of divorce and single-parents, generations of unsocialized children and ultimately societal collapse; we've seen the same pattern play out in the black community already.

Start with a strong tradition which works well in the aggregate, make that the standard, then we can talk about shifting the details around in any given family.

What do you mean by “exceptional”, 20% or 0.1%?

Closer to 20% would be my guess; women only lag men by about 5 points overall and a lot of that is the aforementioned spatial reasoning. I'd say something akin to the Asian-White proportions would be a good baseline expectation given that the magnitude of difference is similar, with more women at the top levels due to their wide variance.

Of course, the actual representation in the work force might still come in under our expectations; pregnancy and even menstruation are serious problems for women trying to compete with men, even with modern hormonal birth control which mediates the effects of both, and as studies have shown women tend to be happier as homemakers than breadwinners

Fun fact: 59.4% of the people who graduated at my university in 2012 were female.

On the other hand, the university I went to was a top-tier engineering school with about 20% women and more Asians than Whites by a long shot (and most of us 'whites' were at least a quarter if not fully Jewish). Was my school suffering from unfair "boy's club" discrimination against women or was yours caving to the constant push for "better representation" of women in academia?

That's why I prefer to look at scientific measures like IQ scores and market-based indicators like wages earned than university admissions. Uni is supposed to prepare us for the job market and separate the wheat from the chaff anyhow; the numbers ought to all roughly match up if it's working properly.

Dividing work in a family not about what people like, or about what's equal, it's about what works. You can't build a society on the basis of atomized individuals constantly negotiating out every interaction on an ad-hoc basis; that's just not a stable or realistic foundation. It leads to a culture of divorce and single-parents, generations of unsocialized children and ultimately societal collapse; we've seen the same pattern play out in the black community already.

And yet Northern European societies, which have very low gender inequality, haven't colla... (read more)

10Desrtopa13y

Wages earned are a rather poor proxy for cognitive ability, or for that matter for productivity, since people in different careers can capture markedly different amounts of the value they create. For instance, a person working in the financial sector may have the opportunity to capture a very high proportion, whereas a person working as a public school teacher who performs way above the norm and produces tremendous long term value in increased productivity of their students will not capture any of that value. Using wages-earned as a proxy to compare output between groups is only useful if we can assume that both groups are on average working in positions where they capture an equal proportion of the value they produce, something which is very much an unsafe assumption in this case. (This is of course setting aside the issue of whether there are existing biases in our population which affect wages earned between groups given equal quality workers.)

8A1987dM13y

But what works for someone needn't be what works for someone else! (Non-sexuality-related cognitive differences among each gender are comparable to or smaller than those between the two genders; sure, physical differences are larger, but in how many of today's jobs are they relevant?) And what works in a society needn't be what works in a different society. (Another example besides those I already mentioned is that stuff like the washing machine have reduced the time and effort it takes to do housework.) [...] That needn't be explicit negotiation the way the author of that post and her husband do; just acknowledge that if I'm better at A and you're better at B then I should do A and you should do B regardless of who has a chromosome Y. (Maybe the pie was too abstract a metaphor.) [...] If you put it that way, I may agree denotationally, but the amount of shifting that there should be is probably at least an order of magnitude larger than there was in early-20th-century Europe, and the amount of social (and institutional) pressure against it a couple orders of magnitude less. I don't think a world where people hindered Emmy Noether solely because of her gender is an ideal world. [...] First, “tend to be” != “always or almost always are”, and second, probably plenty of men would too if they had a chance. [...] Well... You can see a breakdown by faculties (in the European sense, i.e. what would be called colleges or schools in North America) in the link. Most engineers are male here too. Now, I'll concede that the faculties with the largest fraction of female graduates are largely influenced by Cthulhu, but the mine isn't (if anything, it's influenced by anti-Cthulhu) and still 42.7% of the graduates there are female.

16

The best 15 words

16

16

16

The best 15 words

16

16