“At bottom every man knows well enough that he is a
unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will
such a marvelously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever
be put together a second time.”--Nietzsche
Walked in to dinner last night at Lucca. Amazing.
It took me about ninety minutes to confirm my flights last night. It took me 20 minutes to sign on this morning.
Watched the impeachment shoy yesterday. Another long labor; another mouse delivered.
The working age population, those 18 to 64, is only going to grow 17%. Seniors will grow 102% during that time. Right now, there are 4.8 workers supporting each retiree. By 2030, that number will be 2.9 and by 2050 it will be 2.4.
But what is this "support" thing? Didn't these seniors all put in their own money--by law--to be withdrawn later? Why do they need "supported?" Or are there separate, non-contributing, groups that need 'supported?" And if the latter is true, whose fault is that?
There is an article by a guy who makes a living evaluating the price of sex. It is a lot superficial but these are two interesting observations. The latest generation of dating apps produce data that reveals the extent of difference between male and female courtship behaviors. A study on Tinder, for example, found that men have to swipe right about 15 times more than women to get a similar level of response. These are not marginal differences, and they shine a light on an old reality: that female sex is vastly more valuable than male.
It is no coincidence that marijuana farmers destroy male plants, and retain the females for their big, resin-heavy flowers.
Females are more valuable, almost everywhere.
Western Civ
In 2010, psychologists Joe Henrich, Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia pointed out that virtually all research psychology studies were performed only in the countries they dubbed WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic. Their point was that these are not people who are necessarily representative of mankind.
(This, of course, is dangerous territory. We insist now that, despite our faith in the value of diversity, we are all alike. The balance between equality and diversity makes for interesting calculus.)
Henrich (now at Harvard University), in a paper published in the journal "Science," tried to explain the bases for the difference he saw in the west: Western Christianity. He offers a number of unprovable, fun theories--particularly how incest taboos influences social and political outlook--but it got me thinking.
I recently saw a local discussion at the university about the direction of education in the Classics. There is a big problem fitting Classics into the current social fads. Particularly, Classics departments are notoriously "non-diverse." Which is to say, "white." And the departments have been historically narrowly selective; they have demanded a strong understanding of classical language. This has narrowed research papers and the like further: One can not hold an academic position, can not make a living as a classicist, without translating skills.
What has happened, apparently, is a gradual thinning of the traditional classicist herd. Not only is it whiter, it is smaller and smaller. Students no longer take classics courses, survey course attendance is down and the departments are lucky to get an occasional guest lecture in a literature course. And the lack of diversity in these departments was felt by many to raise at least a social--if not moral--question.
The solution? Dilute and expand. The proposition was to eliminate the language requirements of the Classics Departments and develop a more casual, sociological approach to research, papers, and scholarship.
There was some disruption in the response. Several older teachers, committed to a classical education, politely lost their minds. One middle-aged woman with long gray hair and trembling voice pleaded for standards that most of the room thought were dead and buried, practically if not officially. In a last, desperate act she cried, "We are talking about the basis of Western Civilization."
It was time for the diversity champion to lose her mind, less politely. She implied that the gray-haired woman was a racist and then pronounced angrily, "Western Civilization is a construct!"
"A construct?!"
All narratives are "constructs." Few social observations are perfect and writ in stone. That is just a fact. But it is a poor criticism. States and language are constructs, does that diminish them? What about religion?
Or by "construct" does she just mean "artificially divisive?" Does "Western Civ" threaten her vision of a homogeneous world community?
The problem of equality and diversity again.
Walked in to dinner last night at Lucca. Amazing.
It took me about ninety minutes to confirm my flights last night. It took me 20 minutes to sign on this morning.
Watched the impeachment shoy yesterday. Another long labor; another mouse delivered.
The working age population, those 18 to 64, is only going to grow 17%. Seniors will grow 102% during that time. Right now, there are 4.8 workers supporting each retiree. By 2030, that number will be 2.9 and by 2050 it will be 2.4.
But what is this "support" thing? Didn't these seniors all put in their own money--by law--to be withdrawn later? Why do they need "supported?" Or are there separate, non-contributing, groups that need 'supported?" And if the latter is true, whose fault is that?
There is an article by a guy who makes a living evaluating the price of sex. It is a lot superficial but these are two interesting observations. The latest generation of dating apps produce data that reveals the extent of difference between male and female courtship behaviors. A study on Tinder, for example, found that men have to swipe right about 15 times more than women to get a similar level of response. These are not marginal differences, and they shine a light on an old reality: that female sex is vastly more valuable than male.
It is no coincidence that marijuana farmers destroy male plants, and retain the females for their big, resin-heavy flowers.
Females are more valuable, almost everywhere.
Western Civ
In 2010, psychologists Joe Henrich, Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia pointed out that virtually all research psychology studies were performed only in the countries they dubbed WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic. Their point was that these are not people who are necessarily representative of mankind.
(This, of course, is dangerous territory. We insist now that, despite our faith in the value of diversity, we are all alike. The balance between equality and diversity makes for interesting calculus.)
Henrich (now at Harvard University), in a paper published in the journal "Science," tried to explain the bases for the difference he saw in the west: Western Christianity. He offers a number of unprovable, fun theories--particularly how incest taboos influences social and political outlook--but it got me thinking.
I recently saw a local discussion at the university about the direction of education in the Classics. There is a big problem fitting Classics into the current social fads. Particularly, Classics departments are notoriously "non-diverse." Which is to say, "white." And the departments have been historically narrowly selective; they have demanded a strong understanding of classical language. This has narrowed research papers and the like further: One can not hold an academic position, can not make a living as a classicist, without translating skills.
What has happened, apparently, is a gradual thinning of the traditional classicist herd. Not only is it whiter, it is smaller and smaller. Students no longer take classics courses, survey course attendance is down and the departments are lucky to get an occasional guest lecture in a literature course. And the lack of diversity in these departments was felt by many to raise at least a social--if not moral--question.
The solution? Dilute and expand. The proposition was to eliminate the language requirements of the Classics Departments and develop a more casual, sociological approach to research, papers, and scholarship.
There was some disruption in the response. Several older teachers, committed to a classical education, politely lost their minds. One middle-aged woman with long gray hair and trembling voice pleaded for standards that most of the room thought were dead and buried, practically if not officially. In a last, desperate act she cried, "We are talking about the basis of Western Civilization."
It was time for the diversity champion to lose her mind, less politely. She implied that the gray-haired woman was a racist and then pronounced angrily, "Western Civilization is a construct!"
"A construct?!"
All narratives are "constructs." Few social observations are perfect and writ in stone. That is just a fact. But it is a poor criticism. States and language are constructs, does that diminish them? What about religion?
Or by "construct" does she just mean "artificially divisive?" Does "Western Civ" threaten her vision of a homogeneous world community?
The problem of equality and diversity again.
No comments:
Post a Comment