Evolutionary Psychologist Diana Fleischman Begins a New Blog at Psychology Today: “How to Train Your Boyfriend”

I've followed Diana Fleischman's work for many months. She's smart and funny, but takes her evolutionary psychology seriously every step of the way. Diana has started writing a column on Psychology Today titled, "How to Train Your Boyfriend." Here an excerpt from her opening post:

You have two grandmothers, four great grandmothers, 512 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers and millions of grandmas further in your past, before the word grandma even existed. These grandmas that scraped by, suffered, and survived long enough to reproduce, are only a fraction of all the women that existed. One important characteristic that set grandmas apart from the millions of non-grandmas was their ability to shape the behavior of others, especially children and grandpas. You probably have grandmas who lived on farms trying to get multiple children to cooperate with (and not kill) one another and in villages where they had to manage their reputations for the good of their families. But you definitely have grandmas who convinced men to take care of them and their children. Without any one of them, and their abilities you wouldn’t exist to read this blog. We evolved to be able to get other people to do what we want.

But, how do people get other people to do what they want?

Continue ReadingEvolutionary Psychologist Diana Fleischman Begins a New Blog at Psychology Today: “How to Train Your Boyfriend”

Bad Math: The Story of 2 + 2 = 4

I have two questions about the many recently vocal people who are questioning that 2 + 2 = 4:

A) Are they insincere? If they are pranksters or math anarchists, why are they spending all of this time and effort digging in? Thus, it seems unlikely that they are consciously being disruptive for the hell of it.

B) If they are sincere, the analysis becomes far more interesting, but also dangerous to society at large.  2 + 2 = 5 is not the sort of math that cures viruses or puts sophisticated robotic probes on the surface of Mars. Consider this overwhelming push back to the claim that "2+2 = 4," where many of these by people pushing back claim to be mathematicians or math teachers:

If they are sincerely concerned that 2 + 2 =  4, they might be A) Consciously motivated to pull down math standards in order that low performing students pass even though these students lack math proficiency. If that is the case, they should confess up that this is their motive and we can then have an open debate about whether this is a good idea. But consider option B) Their motives might be unconscious, which means that they are infected by social conflagration (the power of which was demonstrated in 1956 by Soloman Asch), and their math gymnastics are being driven by what Jonathan Haidt terms social intuitionism:

Haidt distrusts the reasons people give for their moral decisions. See, for example, his article: “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.”

Intuitionism in philosophy refers to the view that there are moral truths, and that when people grasp these truths they do so not by a process of ratiocination and reflection, but rather by a process more akin to perception, in which one just sees without argument that they are and must be true . . . Moral reasoning is usually an ex-post facto process used to influence the intuitions (and hence judgments) of other people . . . [In sum], 1) the reasoning process has been overemphasized; 2) reasoning is often motivated; 3) the reasoning process constructs post-hoc justifications, yet we experience the illusion of objective reasoning.

Does 2 + 2 = 4? It's too bad that we distrust each other so much that we need to meticulously lock down the parameters before proceeding. Apparently we need to argue about whether "2" = 2, and whether "+" means simple addition and then we need to decide whether "=" means equals exactly, more or less or "in some worlds." And the real shame is that these math protesters are clearly hypocritical. When they stand up and walk away from their toxic keyboards, they might walk into a grocery store where they put two apples on the counter, then go back and get two more apples. Then, when they are charged for FIVE apples (by a math-challenged store clerk or, perhaps, a mathematically Woke clerk), they will speak up with moral-mathematical clarity that they should be charged for only FOUR apples, because 2 + 2 = [drum roll . . . ] 4.

If you think this explanation is tedious or self-evident or time-wasting, I highly recommend that you review the already-too-long sad story of this math dispute published recently at New Discourses by Anti-Woke Warrior (and Ph.D mathematician), James Lindsay: "2+2 Never Equals 5." The intensity of this "math" dispute leads to one other possibility that loops back to top of this paragraph. Perhaps the anti 2 + 2 = 4 mob is digging in so deeply because they hate James Lindsay because Lindsay, co-founder of New Discourses, is actively decimating the claims of the Woke. For more on Lindsay, check out his new book (co-authored with Helen Pluckrose), Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody. Also see his recent discussion with Joe Rogan:

Continue ReadingBad Math: The Story of 2 + 2 = 4

ACLU Announcement About Sex

For eons, "sex" has meant something simple and specific, as set out by Wikipedia:

Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex.[1][2] Sexual reproduction involves the combining and mixing of genetic traits: specialized cells known as gametes combine to form offspring that inherit traits from each parent. The gametes produced by an organism define its sex: males produce small gametes (e.g. spermatozoa, or sperm, in animals) while females produce large gametes (ova, or egg cells).

Breaking news by the ACLU!

Let's look more closely at the first of the four graphics:

This is part of a trendy effort to redefine the word "sex" and it is fundamentally and objectively incorrect. The ACLU is as wrong here as if it were proclaiming that "The Earth is flat" or that that oxygen and hydrogen combine to make water.

"Sex" is binary. This is uncontroversial when we are discussing the sex of any animals other than human animals. Every successful farmer knows firsthand about the fact that sex is binary, and it would be a tragedy to meet a farmer who follows the ACLU advice. Any advice that claims to be about scientific facts, where human animals are given special rules, should send up numerous red flags.  The ACLU is now officially in the business of religion, apparently, at least in that part of fundamentalist religion that disparages core findings of science.

I will happily abide by any person's sincere request that I call them a "man" or a "woman." This is their choice as how they want to present themselves as to gender. On the other hand, the "Myth" in the ACLU announcement is a myth.  Trans activists will never be satisfied that they have changed their gender. They want more. Their strategy is to bully the rest of us into saying that hundreds of years of biology is false.  They are insisting that the rest of us chant with them that it inappropriate to call a baby boy (a baby with testicles and a penis) a "boy." It is apparently not enough to say that the baby's sex is male and that there is a 1% chance that this child might someday identify as a girl or a woman, that it's gender might someday be that of a girl or a woman.

We are in the midst of a language war and society will need to decide whether they are going to allow well-established word meanings crumble because a tiny minority of people claim that their are being "damaged" or "erased."  I sometimes think of a friend of mine who has no hands.  In a room filled people, he would never have claimed that he was being "erased" or "damaged" or "injured" or that his "civil rights" were being violated to the extent that people in the room might use the word "hand" when he did not have hands.  If they said, "raise your hand," or even "I've got to hand it to you," my friend would never have assumed that they were disparaging him in any way.  That's because 99% of the people in the room had hands (he once did too).  The 99% should not be expected to change their ways with regard to common language for the benefit of tiny minorities that have worked very hard to make themselves hyper-sensitive to ordinary experiences.

I'm certain that the trans activists would refuse to substitute the word "sex" (above) for gender.  The linguistics war will thus continue . . .

BTW, the ACLU is doubling down on the trans agenda, including the "right" of male athletes who switch to female at the age of 25, after having a lifetime benefit of testosterone including an extra 8 inches in height and 10% more muscle, complete with penis and testicles, to compete against women, meaning those born and raised female.

There is more from the ACLU.  They make it look so simple, when it this is being hotly contested by women athletes. 

These issues present a mismatch.  One side is presenting facts, while the other side is presenting highly distorted facts, combined with accusations and bullying.  In my previous article about 2 +2, I cited to James Lindsay, I will cite to him again, as follows:

[P]ostmodernism, particularly in the hands of the ideology of Critical Social Justice, is not at all interested in truth. It is only interested in power, which it will establish through its attempted revolution, which it in turn knows it can only achieve by turning otherwise intelligent, well-meaning people into “accomplices” by manipulating their good will, charity, fear of being disliked or ostracized, and, especially, unawareness of what is actually going on beneath the rhetorical tricks they’re being served up with intentionally limited context."

Time will tell where this will go.

Continue ReadingACLU Announcement About Sex

The Academy Under Seige

I'll be commenting further on Debra Soh's new book, The End of Gender.

Soh was recently interviewed by Joe Rogan. Right out of the gate:

00:35

Joe Rogan: You're a sex neuroscientist. Is that an accurate description?

Debra Soh: Yeah I'm a former academic sex researcher. My PhD is in sexual neuroscience research and now I work as a science journalist and a columnist

JR: Why former?

DS: Because the climate in academia has changed so much. Like you mentioned how things are topsy-turvy, but that's pretty much how you can describe academia nowadays, even in the hard sciences.

JR: Yeah, it's getting a little weird what do you attribute it to?

DS: I think it's a combination of things. I think it's particular ideologies coming in and taking over, but they've been there for a while. I think it's that that they've reached the mainstream. I see it as political correctness running amok. I see it as legitimate researchers not being able to speak out because they've got enough on their plate with their research. They’re teaching. They've got their students, you know. They're super busy. And then on top of it they don't want to deal with the mobbing that will inevitably happen if they do speak out, so things are kind of in favor right now of the craziness.

Continue ReadingThe Academy Under Seige

Woke Mathematics is a Thing

James Lindsay Tweeted this Tweet from an "ethnomathematics teacher."

Somehow, mathematics became a "white" thing, despite A) it's usefulness and availability to anyone who wants to use these principles and B) its worldwide origins, which extend to Greece, Egypt and the Middle East, among many other places.

From 3000 BC the Mesopotamian states of Sumer, Akkad and Assyria, together with Ancient Egypt and Ebla began using arithmetic, algebra and geometry for purposes of taxation, commerce, trade and also in the field of astronomy and to formulate calendars and record time.The most ancient mathematical texts available are from Mesopotamia and Egypt – Plimpton 322 (Babylonian c. 1900 BC),[2] the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (Egyptian c. 2000–1800 BC)[3] and the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus (Egyptian c. 1890 BC).

Continue ReadingWoke Mathematics is a Thing