= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Ah, OK. If you are proposing 50/50 as a political compromise rather than actually asserting that it's the correct target, then my questions are beside the point. Never mind, then.
I made a list of problems in a comment on a website. That's not a good way to make politicial decisions. We need a proper study of the question. I think a priori the 50/50 split between genders is a good balance. You can call that a political compromise, I call it "don't make quick decisions without proper scientific research".
I don't quite see the connection between the information you cite, and the 50/50 split policy recommendation.
From my perspective, if we can spend resources in such a way that we collectively get the most bang for the buck and reduce the spread of the curve, that's a win. (In real life those goals are often in conflict, but that's beside my point right now.)
If it so happens that the way to do that is to equally support men and women in a particular community, then a 50/50 split of resources makes sense in that community.
If that's not the case, then a different resource split makes more sense.
Whether that split is weighted towards men or women will depend on the facts of the situation. Maybe I conclude based on the information you cite that I should support Finnish men more than Finnish women, for example.
But I don't see how that data justifies a 50/50 split.
My data justifies slightly more resources for men, but until we have proper scientific research on the question, I'm okay with a 50/50 split. The split is currently about 97/3 in favor of women, so going to 50/50 would help significantly.
Can you clarify what you mean by "evenly distributed"?
For example, by "evenly" do you mean 50/50 between these two causes?
Do you mean distributed proportionally based on the number of men and the number of women in the community?
Do you mean distributed proportionally to reflect the gender distribution in the community (which is noticeably more complex than "number of men" and "number of women")?
Do you mean distributed proportionally based on the degree to which different genders experience differential harm under the current arrangement?
Do you mean something else?
"For example, by "evenly" do you mean 50/50 between these two causes?"
Yes.
More information here: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/4vj/a_rationalists_account_of_objectification/3r3j
In response to
A Rationalist's Account of Objectification?
"I'm a tall white American male, so sometimes it takes a bit of work for me to understand what it's like to be a member of a suppressed group."
Females are suppressed, and so are males. Gender roles suppress both genders. They also offer advantages to both genders.
List of male privileges: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
List of female privileges: http://masculistadvice.blogspot.com/2008/06/female-privilege-list.html
It is true that popular discourse paints females as the suppressed group and males as the non-suppressed group.
"So I've always thought of myself as a feminist."
Feminism goes beyond technical gender equality of having the same rights and privileges. I'm a feminist too, because I think politics should solve problems facing women. And I'm also a masculist (or a men's rights activist), since men's problems should be solved too.
"Of course, some activists (the word has positive connotations to me, BTW) pushed too far, as is the case in all large movements."
The main problem with feminism today is that all the political gender equality resources are directed to feminism. It should be evenly distributed between masculism and feminism.
In response to
Procedural Knowledge Gaps
I stutter, and I've done it for as long as I can remember. Anyone know how to beat it? I feel this has pretty significant (negative) effects on my life, because I'm often afraid of speaking up in a group, as stuttering is extremely embarrassing.
nawitus, my post was too long as it is. If I had included multiple discussions of multiple definitions of consciousness and qualia, you would either still be reading it or would have stopped because it was too long.
And that's why we need an article somewhere which would define some common terms, so you don't have to define them all over again in every article about consciousness.
If there is a (physical) cause for qualia, such that qualia occur if and only if that cause is present, and we work out what that cause is, then we have an empirical test for subjective conciousness.
I wouldn't call that, "extremely unlikely".
Yet qualia cannot be measured empirically (atleast that's the consensus), which makes such tests extremely unlikely. And this discussion seems to turn into a regular qualia debate. I'm not sure if that's desirable.
In response to
Minimum computation and data requirements for consciousness.
The first dubious statement in the post seems to be this:
Because the experience of consciousness is subjective, we can never “know for sure” that an entity is actually experiencing consciousness.
How can you make such a statement about the entire future of science? A couple quotes:
"We may determine their forms, their distances, their bulk and their motions, but we can never know anything about their chemical and mineralogical structure" - Auguste Comte talking about stars in 1835
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible" - Lord Kelvin, 1895
The second dubious statement comes right after the first:
However there must be certain computational functions that must be accomplished for consciousness to be experienced.
The same question applies: how on Earth do you know that? Where's your evidence? Sharing opinions only gets us so far!
And it just goes downhill from there.
He is probably talking about the hard problem of consciousness, e.g. whether qualia exists. While it's possible conceptually to have empirical tests for subjective consciousness, it's seems extremely unlikely.
We can already imagine a computational simulation of the brain, and empirical test for qualia seems impossible pretty much by definition. Sure, it's possible to test whether the simulation has self-awareness from a computational point (and it will have that since it's a human brain simulation).
In response to
Minimum computation and data requirements for consciousness.
Good first approximation: don't write posts about consciousness, if you don't want to be downvoted.
There should be some kind of "read this first before talking about consciousness" post which would atleast provide some definitions so articles about consciousness would be comprehensive.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
As I understand it, in the USA waiting staff get paid below minimum wage and are expected to live off tips.
If tipping stopped, waiting staff wages would increase and so would food prices (to pay for the wage increases).