Controversial Political Opinions

[JasonBlack]

(03-16-2022, 04:30 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't understand your point of view on that very well. To me, the virtue of equality between the sexes is a given. Of course, men and women are different, but I disagree that biology defines who you are, at least not much it doesn't. Women have so much to contribute, and their views on things are generally much saner, especially in politics. I like it that women are now expected to be as much in control of a relationship as men. Women are better at human relationships. They are less confident and emotionally stable though, so the male qualities are still valuable too.

I probably should have elaborated a bit more. In a sense, I also favor "gender equality", but I think of it differently. To me, gender equality means you have a balance of benefits and privileges with responsibilities and risks. In general, being higher on neuroticism and agreeableness, and lower on industriousness, women are generally willing to give up a bit more authority for the sake of greater security. Men, again, in general, are the reverse: lower on neuroticism and agreeableness, and higher on industriousness, so they're typically willing to take on both more risk and more responsibility for the sake of greater freedom and authority. These trends are stable across virtually all historical periods and cultures.

When you keep that in mind, most people aren't actually interested in "equality" in the sense of "having exactly the same expectations of both men and women". It just doesn't make biological sense. Even among the most egalitarian societies, the idea that men and women generally have different roles they need to fill was kind of a given. One of the reasons why gender roles diverge in a 4T is because the loss of greater affluence brings people down to earth and reminds us of common sense, instinctual truths we could previously afford to ignore.

Quote:Of course, votes should be equal. That's basic democracy. And there's no reason to think that any group in society is inherently less able to make good decisions than any other; although the poorly-educated these days have been lied to and taken advantage of by the conservatives who stir up their fears and prejudices (of whom Trump is top of the list). I would say military service and entreprenuership would make you less likely to vote for what's in the best interest of the people than others, if anything; unless they are also well-educated, informed and cultured. There's no reason they can't be, except that they often are not. It sounds like your priority is shaped by your conservative views than by what is really important, but then my priorities are certainly liberal ones. A just society that looks after its people, seeks peace, supports the arts and science, makes sure opportunities are open to all, invests in what serves prosperity and fulfillment, taxes fairly, puts people, law and ethics before profit, and treats all as equal citizens, is much better than the patriarchal society whose values are military, dominated by money, shaped by prejudice or which otherwise favors certain groups.

Keep in mind that such a system would likely favor people with beliefs more similar to yours. Better educated people tend to be more socially liberal, care more about environmentalism and favor things like socialized healthcare. The main difference is that there would also be a shift toward policies which favor meritocracy and incentives that reward people based on various forms of contribution.

To play devil's advocate though, I think the major risk is that more intellectual people tend to lack and appreciation for structure or the ease which comes with simple, straightforward rules. We can sometimes forget that, in any era, the types of people who analyze situations individually, research political theory/history and make decisions based on what makes sense to them...are not the majority. Most people want clear paths, clear norms and clear roles which simplify life, so we run the risk of designing a society by and for the disproportionately intelligent. To an extent, we're already seeing this now, as most of the innovations that shape society in the long run were invented by highly intelligent, technical minds, and have contributed to an increasingly user-unfriendly world, were normal people have to run on treadmills to keep up technologically and the less intelligent are left behind completely.

This goes back to why I think IQ is an important metric: a difference of even 15 points can lead to serious issues with communication. A difference of 30 points and you may feel as if you're talking to a different species.

Quote:You mean "in case of emergency?" Indeed, probably; although these days it seems all that's necessary to ignore the constitution is to put a narcissist bully or a war monger in power, especially if they have a R by their name. The "crisis" can then just be manufactured. It's not good for the nation.

eh, Obama, Biden, HRC, LBJ and many other democrats have extremely hawkish track records. Let's not forget it was Biden who actually wrote most of The Patriot Act, and that Obama had twice as many SWAT raids for drug-related offenses in one of his terms than Bush had in both of his (source: Rise of the Warrior Cop). Overall though, I can sympathize with your contempt for the more hawkish side of neo conservatives. I have never been a fan of them.

Quote:Equal opportunity for all, but not necessarily equal outcomes for all. But kindness, justice and mercy toward all.

exactly

Quote:IQ is a very limited measurement standard. Human abilities are far more wide ranging than that. I probably would do well if IQ's the standard, or at least I would have when I was younger. But I was lacking in other ways.

At the very least, the kind of people who can actually grasp generational theory and have nuanced debates about it aren't going to be low IQ. We're talking at least 120 if I had to guess, most will be higher.