Form: Quote Commentary

–“Replicating past research, the study showed that higher levels of gender equality were associated with larger differences in personality between the sexes.”—

[T]his is again, politically manipulative. The correct answer is that wealth and freedom to pursue instincts produces investigation of, development of expertise in, and specializtion in those instincts.

That pursuit of instincts produces competing factions in the short term, OR produces speciation in the long term, OR both: competing factions, AND speciation (This is my understanding.).

This evidence leads to the opposite possible interpretation: (a) that following of instincts is somehow ‘good’, when most of civilizaation consists of institutions both normative and informal and institutional and formal for domesticating instincts, and (b) that we are failing integration into civilization in favor of instincts that evolved prior to civilization and lead to de-civilization.

In ther words, are we are funding selfishness. My present understanding is that compromises are necessary where they are necessary. And again,that homogenous ethonicentric people can tolerate instinctual specialization, but as diversity increases we cannot.

—“Countries with very high levels of gender equality, such as Sweden and Norway, showed differences in personality between the sexes that were around twice as large as countries with substantially lower levels of gender equality, such as China and Malaysia.

Furthermore, women generally rated themselves as more worried (neuroticism), social (extraversion), inquisitive (openness), caring (agreeableness) and responsible (conscientiousness) than men, and these relative differences were larger in gender equal countries.

“Insofar as these traits can be classified as stereotypically feminine, our interpretation of the data is that as countries become more progressive men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender norms. But, we really don’t know why it is like this, and sadly our data does not let us tease out the causal explanations,” says Erik Mac Giolla, Ph.D. in Psychology”—

–“Replicating past research, the study showed that higher levels of gender equality were associated with larger differences in personality between the sexes.”—

[T]his is again, politically manipulative. The correct answer is that wealth and freedom to pursue instincts produces investigation of, development of expertise in, and specializtion in those instincts.

That pursuit of instincts produces competing factions in the short term, OR produces speciation in the long term, OR both: competing factions, AND speciation (This is my understanding.).

This evidence leads to the opposite possible interpretation: (a) that following of instincts is somehow ‘good’, when most of civilizaation consists of institutions both normative and informal and institutional and formal for domesticating instincts, and (b) that we are failing integration into civilization in favor of instincts that evolved prior to civilization and lead to de-civilization.

In ther words, are we are funding selfishness. My present understanding is that compromises are necessary where they are necessary. And again,that homogenous ethonicentric people can tolerate instinctual specialization, but as diversity increases we cannot.

—“Countries with very high levels of gender equality, such as Sweden and Norway, showed differences in personality between the sexes that were around twice as large as countries with substantially lower levels of gender equality, such as China and Malaysia.

Furthermore, women generally rated themselves as more worried (neuroticism), social (extraversion), inquisitive (openness), caring (agreeableness) and responsible (conscientiousness) than men, and these relative differences were larger in gender equal countries.

“Insofar as these traits can be classified as stereotypically feminine, our interpretation of the data is that as countries become more progressive men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender norms. But, we really don’t know why it is like this, and sadly our data does not let us tease out the causal explanations,” says Erik Mac Giolla, Ph.D. in Psychology”—