Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
I'm no expert and don't know the details as it relates to one taking an interest in history, but he's probably right. There's a variety of differences between male and female brains, a major one being that women tend to have more evenly balanced activity/interaction between the hemispheres, and men are more left-brain dominant. Since these differences exist, they're going to play a role in the kinds of things individuals take interest in.
Then you, like him, are more than free to document exactly what biological phenomena causes interest in ancient empires. It was stated that this was well documented and reproducible.
If not, all you are doing is presenting opinions, ideas, hunches and perhaps even ideology about the brain and extrapolating these to conclude what you believed to begin with. That's on par with phrenology, astrology and reading palms, which isn't very impressive.
If you want to make hard scientific claims about biology, you need to present hard scientific biological evidence, not arbitrary observations and speculation. It's biology: Cells, tissue and neural networks. It's not a podcast.
Then you, like him, are more than free to document exactly what biological phenomena causes interest in ancient empires. It was stated that this was well documented and reproducible.
If not, all you are doing is presenting opinions, ideas, hunches and perhaps even ideology about the brain and extrapolating these to conclude what you believed to begin with. That's on par with phrenology, astrology and reading palms, which isn't very impressi
This is the most accurate metaresearch on the topic i stumbled across (there might be others ofc)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication....
How big are gender differences in personality and interests, and how stable are these differences across cultures and over time? To answer these questions, I summarize data from two meta-analyses and three cross-cultural studies on gender differences in personality and interests. Results show that gender differences in Big Five personality traits are ‘small’ to ‘moderate,’ with the largest differences occurring for agreeableness and neuroticism (respective ds = 0.40 and 0.34; women higher than men). In contrast, gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d = 1.18), with women more people-oriented and less thing-oriented than men. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences
Dunyan cited the first bold, i cited the second (the fact that you don't need to know how exactly the biological difference express itself physiologically and internally, it's enough to see there is structural and meaningful difference in interest across cultures time and geography).
Not sure if your objection is about the above, or about the logical step of using proven biological differences in interests over the people-things axis to justify a difference in interest over ancient history.
I understand that mapping "ancient history" or "ancient empires" over the people-things axis isn't obvious nor automatic, but here , anecdotically, we see that the women who are interested in ancient history at least a bit (and a meaningful number of them are) appear more interested about actual individual human dynamics (say the complex interactions between individual roman leaders and cleopatra, or a specific dynastical series of event with named participants) rather than in what men tend to care about, say how the organization of roman legions allowed for their military prowess or how they came up with aqueducts and what not.
And the latter is what makes up conversations about roman times (then there is roman law and so on, against impersonal things you can't relate to directly unlike a specific assassination attempt or love story or moral vicissitude of a politician or philosopher that he describes in first person and so on)
Men might just have more interest in war because their bodies are more suited to war and men tend to be the ones that get sent to war. Also, it’s easier to see yourself in war heroes as a man, I mean probably for good reason too.
.
I don't think this holds very well even at a superficial level before checking for data on that, because women are those who are going to be raped and enslaved if war is lost historically (togheter with their children), and they care anyway about their men a lot so i don't think interest in the topic is linked to actual front line participation risk vs overall effects of war on personal lives.
As for the heroes, women like stories of heroes even if they are men
This is the most accurate metaresearch on the topic i stumbled across (there might be others ofc)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication....
How big are gender differences in personality and interests, and how stable are these differences across cultures and over time? To answer these questions, I s
The claim is that there is a difference in the brain that is "well documented and reproducible". Show me this well documented difference in the brains of men and women in a reproducible study and how it relates to interest in ancient empires. It can't be that hard to dig up if it is well-documented?
If you want to make biological or neuroscientific claims, show me biological and neuroscientific evidence, not meta studies from social science that "suggests possibilities" that hinge on OCEAN and personality studies.
The claim is that there is a difference in the brain that is "well documented and reproducible". Show me this well documented difference in the brains of men and women in a reproducible study and how it relates to interest in ancient empires. It can't be that hard to dig up if it is well-documented?
If you want to make biological or neuroscientific claims, show me biological and neuroscientific evidence, not meta studies from social science
There are differences in the brain between men and women that are well documented and reproducible, and there are difference in interests that are as well (see above).
I am not aware of studies demonstrating which brain differences cause the specific differences in interests other than the left side brain domination already mentioned.
But I don't have to defend other people claims.
You seem to deny though that given :
1) differences in the brain uncontroversially exist
2) differences in interests uncontroversially exist and the differences hold across time and culture
It's reasonable, solid and plausible to suggest that differences in the brain are among the main causes of differences in interests
I don't think this holds very well even at a superficial level before checking for data on that, because women are those who are going to be raped and enslaved if war is lost historically (togheter with their children), and they care anyway about their men a lot so i don't think interest in the topic is linked to actual front line participation risk vs overall effects of war on personal lives.
As for the heroes, women like stories of heroes
I know I am playing with fire a little bit on this one, but I am just paraphrasing scientifically minded people much smarter than me by presenting these ideas. And I am not making any moral or value judgment.
Anyways, DNA studies from prehistoric times indicate that what normally happened in war was the men of one tribe would completely genocide men from the other tribe and then mate with the women (with varying levels of coercion). Which is why most people alive today have a very limited y-lineage, and a much more expansive x-lineage.
So evolutionary theory would dictate that war is a much bigger deal to males than females, because the evolutionary costs are much higher.
Also, FWIW there are plenty of other mammalian species with similar dynamics, most notably lions.
There are differences in the brain between men and women that are well documented and reproducible, and there are difference in interests that are as well (see above).
I am not aware of studies demonstrating which brain differences cause the specific differences in interests other than the left side brain domination already mentioned.
But I don't have to defend other people claims.
You seem to deny though that given :
1) differences in the
On average, there are differences in the brains of men and women, but they are by and large misunderstood and exaggerated by laymen, misrepresented in media and all too often cherry-picked quotes are exploited in politics and ideology.
I'm well aware that my question can't be answered, because the claim that was originally made is unfounded, because the questions pertains to my field. If there is such a difference, perhaps you will see it documented in 10-20 years when the technology is there and the understanding of the brain has matured.
As for the claim that "differences in the brain are among the main causes of differences in interests", you can feel free to think that. It is, however, just a belief.
And what Dunyain did went far beyond that statement. He made the claim that there was a difference between the brains of men and women, then he pointed to a specific individual and made statements about their brain. Which means he not only thinks the claim is true, he thinks it is generalisable and without exception.
On average, there are differences in the brains of men and women, but they are by and large misunderstood and exaggerated by laymen, misrepresented in media and all too often cherry-picked quotes are exploited in politics and ideology.
I'm well aware that my question can't be answered, because the claim that was originally made is unfounded, because the questions pertains to my field. If there is such a difference, perhaps you will s
Difference doesn't need to be huge to have huge societal impact.
There is strong path dependence in life choices. If a group is on average slightly more interested in something at 3-6 years old that can have massive impacts on interests at 20, because you become better (and find more and more enjoyment in) at what you are more interested in and the price of switching increases with your past involvement
And what Dunyain did went far beyond that statement. He made the claim that there was a difference between the brains of men and women, then he pointed to a specific individual and made statements about their brain. Which means he not only thinks the claim is true, he thinks it is generalisable and without exception.
The poster I was responding to has a very long history of making sex/gender based generalizations, almost exclusively pointing out what they perceive as male antisocial behavior. And the post I was responding to was consistent with this history, although in fairness the post in question was more playful than judgmental.
Although (and they are free to correct this if this is wrong) I assume they prescribe more to blank slate theories of psychological development, and believe "patriarchal" culture is the reason for what they consider to be general antisocial male behavior; whereas I would agree with their general observations but would postulate sex hormones are a very important contributing factor to male antisocial behavior.
My response was definitely context dependent. If you had made the same statement I doubt I would have responded the same way. Obviously I am an acolyte of evolutionary psychology, and would cosign most of what Lucium is arguing; but there was some sarcasm and historical context in my post, and I dont literally believe you could or should use simple evolutionary based generalizations to explain every individual human interaction and observation.
The poster I was responding to has a very long history of making sex/gender based generalizations, almost exclusively pointing out what they perceive as male antisocial behavior. And the post I was responding to was consistent with this history, although in fairness the post in question was more playful than judgmental.[...]
Ok, I don't follow back and forths too closely these days, so if there is context I missed then I apologize.
And I do think there is an issue with male antisocial behavior in general lol
*gestures around*
Lol, he’s just referring to me calling him an incel like 10 years ago or some such back when he posted as kelhus
Why would you calling me an incel bother me, given it isn't true?
Now if you accused me of being addicted to posting on internet message boards that I have been banned from multiple times, that one might sting a little.
Hey guys, I took a nap and just checked back in, this thread must have been repurposed as that new shitposting thread that Trolly was suggesting?
On the "right wing" X inter webs, there is actually this whole sub community that discusses group and individual psychology, mainly focusing on the history of western civlization, in the context of Nietzsche. I haven't read any Nietzsche myself, but some of the discussion is very interesting.
Generally, Nietzsche argued that the Roman Empire (and the Muslims during their conquests FWIW) had a master morality; as opposed to Christianity whic
I haven't read these discussions on X, but I have read a fair bit of Nietzsche. His work is notoriously easy to misinterpret, and if you look at his entire body of work, it doesn't always seem internally consistent, and therefore it isn't always easy to pin down exactly what he thought. He also wrote in a provocative style that lends itself to distortion when stripped of context. For example, he was highly critical of Judaism, and even more critical of Christianity. If you want to find individual sentences about Judaism that sound Nazi-ish, that's relatively easy to do. But he also was wildly critical of antisemites.
I haven't read these discussions on X, but I have read a fair bit of Nietzsche. His work is notoriously easy to misinterpret, and if you look at his entire body of work, it doesn't always seem internally consistent, and therefore it isn't always easy to pin down exactly what he thought. He also wrote in a provocative style that lends itself to distortion when stripped of context. For example, he was highly critical of Judaism, and even m
And you have to be careful not to read his sister versions of his books/writings which are actually nazi
I haven't read these discussions on X, but I have read a fair bit of Nietzsche. His work is notoriously easy to misinterpret, and if you look at his entire body of work, it doesn't always seem internally consistent, and therefore it isn't always easy to pin down exactly what he thought. He also wrote in a provocative style that lends itself to distortion when stripped of context.
Can confirm lots of this going on. Not so much discussion of Nietzsche's criticism of anti-semitism.
-Here is a sample post of the type of discussions going on. Like I said, there is actually an entire "right wing" X niche dedicated to the discussion of Nietzsche, and the Roman Empire comes up a lot (which is why I started this tangent based on the Roman Empire talk).
Can confirm lots of this going on. Not so much discussion of Nietzsche's criticism of anti-semitism.
-Here is a sample post of the type of discussions going on. Like I said, there is actually an entire "right wing" X niche dedicated to the discussion of Nietzsche, and the Roman Empire comes up a lot (which is why I started this tangent based on the Roman Empire talk).
Kelhus, what you just posted is garbage anti-semitism that has very little to do with anything that Nietzsche actually wrote. (I understand that you were not purporting to endorse what was posted.)
Kelhus, what you just posted is garbage anti-semitism that has very little to do with anything that Nietzsche actually wrote. (I understand that you were not purporting to endorse what was posted.)
Disregarding the rest, I have seen it posted enough that I assume it is true that Nietzsche did predict Jews would be assimilated into western liberal elite culture (or whatever term he used), and if it wasn't for the creation of Israel I think this is more or less what would have happened, and what has more or less happened outside of Israel.
One problem I have always had with the whole "Jews control the world" narrative, is that it presupposes liberal Jews are distinct from the rest of liberal society, which I just dont see any indication of this being the case. Take away the issue of Israel, and liberal Jews as a group seem to be generally indistinguishable in manner and beliefs from the rest of liberal elite western society to the point if they all disappeared I dont think anything would change at all.
This is a good article for anyone who is interested in the complex question of Nietzsche's relationship to antisemitism.
