= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DeVliegendeHollander comments on A heuristic for predicting minor depression in others and myself, and related things - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (35)
Use the first method rather obviously, or was that unclear?
No idea, but I cannot really make such a quick heuristic so universal, I think that would be difficult.
Women are half of the world, dude. You are just not coming across very well.
Men are half the world, too, yet you don't list all the types of men, demanding that diversity of personality types in men be acknowledged and treated. You're actually coming across worse than him - he's merely (and painfully) ignorant, whereas you should know better.
Yes, OP's treatment of men is little better. But:
(a) I am replying to a subthread that started discussing women specifically. There is no "equal airtime" rule for gender for every thread in which gender comes up. Discussing a specific gender issue does not imply willingness to throw the other gender under the bus, or dismissing the issue as not existing for the other gender. As I am sure you know, because you follow the principle of charity -- right? This is LW, not tumblr.
(b) OP's take on women is "worse" than OP's take on men, to me. Men are described in terms of physics -- "spring in the step." Women are described in terms of sex appeal. Both descriptions have problems because they are not engaging with the complexities of human brains and human self-esteem. But the simplifications in play are different in character, too.
Except your demands in this thread are specifically for equal attention and care to be paid to women. You're right, there's no "equal airtime" rule for gender, at least where you are concerned - there's just an "equal airtime" rule for one gender.
No. I follow a reciprocal principle. Do you think you have been charitable? I don't.
Are you sure your perceptions are unbiased? https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6958/Yeung_Amy.pdf
Which is a perfectly valid criticism to make, and entirely different from the criticisms you actually made, which is why I responded to you in the first place.
Can't argue with telepathy.
The problem is with the women half of the world, it is with the not-broadly western (say, matriarchical or modest) half, I think I covered the western half pretty well, by dividing women into femmes and tomboyish careerists, one or the other tends to fit reasonably well, given the that first is the traditional role and the second is the role created by feminism, so both typical western cases covered. But yeah, I haven no idea how this would work in a modest culture. Never seen one, aside from the Muslim girls in the West who look a lot like they don't want to be modest, it is their parents who want them to be modest. Is that a problem?
Oh my god, just stop.
Well, if you don't want to explain yourself then there was no point in starting this subdiscussion, it is not like anyone learns something from it. But OK, let's stop.
Okay, phrasing? Terrible. You just implied that women fit only one of two personalities.
(Yes, you generalize men as all belonging to -one- personality group. However, you never explicitly -said- men all fit into one personality, whereas you more or less did with women.)