Gyroscopic Investing

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/men-are-stronge ... n-average/

To give a concrete example of how far this goes, there are many liberal Left people who won’t even accede to the proposition that men are, on average, stronger in terms of upper body strength than women. A few years ago this came up on social media, where a friend who has a biology background from an elite university, even expressed skepticism at this, when I was trying to get her to be open to behavioral differences between the sexes by starting with something I thought she would at least agree with as reasonable. When I saw the lack of unequivocal acceptance of this point I decided to opt out of the conversation. This was basically face to face with Left Creationism.

This is not to say that people are totally in denial. Rather, the standard educated tack by those with progressive tendencies kicks in. There are “problematic”? terms which need to be “contextualized,”? and “difference”? needs to be considered as an expression of socially preferred categories and measurement. After the critical theory verbiage is hurled usually sane people want to run out of the room.

But on Twitter recently I saw an article which quantifies the difference in concrete ways. To be honest the difference shocked me. The paper is Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes. As you can see in the figure above the sample sizes are large. The N = 60 of top female athletes consisted of those who competed in judo and handball, to select for individuals who were already geared toward upper body activities. The very weakest male in the data set of nearly 1,700 males looks to be about at the 20th percentile for average women.

[...]

To a great extent I feel like an idiot even writing this post. Who doesn’t know the extent of this biological difference? Well, lots of people at a minimum pretend not to. I’ve interacted with people about genetics for 13 years now. I’m someone who leans to the Right, but I want to think the best of everyone, and really empirical data is my summum bonum. It doesn’t make me happy to know that the flight from reality has gone so far in some sectors. I am aware that most reasonable people on the Left half of the political distribution would have no problem assenting to the facts here. The problem is that a vocal minority who will “problematize”? what should be rock solid facts are not marginalized. This group is so loud and fixated on these topics that they begin to shape perceptions. After all, it isn’t every day that a man is going to challenge a woman to an arm wrestling match. And if you watch superhero movies you know that there are plenty of “butt kicking babes”? who more than hold their own. But here’s the thing: superheroes don’t exist, movies are made up!

"To give a concrete example of how far this goes, there are many liberal Left people who won’t even accede to the proposition that men are, on average, stronger in terms of upper body strength than women"

Denying reality.  A defining characteristic.

TennPaGa wrote: While it may be true that "there are many liberal Left people who won’t even accede to the proposition that men are, on average, stronger in terms of upper body strength than women", the fact that the article cites no data supporting this assertion makes it extremely weak, in my opinion.

This is probably selection bias (confirmation bias? One of those pesky biases), but I personally know a lot of people who believe this nonsense and are militant about expressing it whenever the subject comes up.

Having been raised to be an extreme liberal, it's impossible for me to completely leave this social circle, so my finger is still on their collective pulse. It's extremely common. Any physical differences are just because girls aren't encouraged to be physically active and violent the way boys are! I mean, have you seen girls' and boys' toys? For girls it's all pink frilly princess wedding stuff and boy toys are all about doing things and killing people. Boys just need to play with more barbie dolls and kitchen playsets...

How anyone who's ever been a parent can think such nonsense is totally beyond me, but there it is. I find it funny that despite my parents' own total de-emphasis of masculinity, physical activities, traditional boy activities, and reticence to provide me with any violent toys during my upbringing, I still managed to become a guns-and-money-loving conservatish fellow who likes camping and is somehow capable of doing more than 10 pull-ups at will despite absolutely zero deliberate physical training. And my own two year-old son, though we have made no effort whatsoever to push gendered toys or expose him to boy media, is fascinated with construction equipment, trains, and vehicles of all sorts.

And as any parent not wearing the ideological blinders will tell you, duh.

It is of course true that conservatives have their own similar denials of plain reality. But this is my thread dammit, and when liberals do this, it really annoys me!

I really don't have much to add to this thread, but it continues to amaze me.

Everyone knows that testosterone is a hell of a drug.  Tissues heals faster, muscles recover and respond better to adaptive stimulus - and they grow larger and leaner.  There is a reason that this shit is illegal.  And why women don't play men's football.

You can pretend that not having testes doesn't make any difference.  But that is pretty delusional.

TennPA,

PS was a card carrying liberal and he has an accurate view of them (as posted in many threads over long period of time).  What makes you sure your view of them is more accurate than his?  i don't think he is wrong or biased very often.

As I recall, you were surprised that I knew a college assist prof who was given a hard time at the university english dept where she works because she believed in god. 

40+% of dems believe O to be Christian.  Based on his behavior, which is more likely, that he believes in christ or that he is a muslim?  i doubt he is musllim (assume atheist), but given his behavior it ain't insane to believe that. 

The strength issue is extreme but makes the point. 

TennPaGa wrote:

Having been raised to be an extreme liberal, it's impossible for me to completely leave this social circle, so my finger is still on their collective pulse. It's extremely common.
...
How anyone who's ever been a parent can think such nonsense is totally beyond me, but there is is.

Just because I'm curious...

What is the demographic of those in your social circle with these odd belief about the strength of men vs. women?  In particular, their age and whether or not they are parents?  Do you have any sense what fraction of your liberal friends would have similar beliefs?

It's a major baby boomer thing. Among those in my social circle who are liberal boomers, they more or less all believe this irrespective of parental status--although there are some cracks in the armor. Here's an interesting story. When my son was first born, my father and I were talking about parenthood, and eventually he confided in me that over the time of his being a parent to me and my sister, he'd come to doubt the totality of the blank slate idea as it became increasingly obvious that my and my sister's personalities were just there from the start. He took the tone of a sinner confessing to his priest, almost asking me to forgive his straying from the path. And he ended by semi-humorously telling me not to mention this to my mother in the interests of family stability--she will believe in total gender equality to her dying breath. It was an interesting conversation, needless to say.

Among liberal millennials and Gen X-ers, more will privately admit that they think this is bullshit. But in liberal social situations, most of them toe the party line.

TennPaGa wrote: How would your parents (who I assume are extreme liberals themselves) respond if you asked them if "men are, on average, stronger in terms of upper body strength than women"?

This actually came up last week, so I can give you an accurate and up-to-date answer. It goes something like this,

"well yeah, because society encourages men to do physical labor and women to stay in the kitchen! If you look around the world, women to plenty of hard physical labor. In the villages of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, women pump and carry water, and they transport goods on their heads! That takes some strength, let me tell you! Some men couldn't even do that!"

TennPaGa wrote: But have you ever considered the possibility that you are annoyed because your conservative/libertarian/gun-totin'/money-lovin' tendencies are just a facade to over-compensate for your true liberal nature, and thus is really self-loathing in disguise?

Yes, frequently. However, it's simply not the case. My basic problem is that I made peace with most of society's institutions too early. I actually really like money, capitalism, property ownership, monogamy, defensive violence, adult responsibility, and so on. These are all social institutions that are age-old and have been built up through the millennia to the clear benefit of society and those who adopt them. But liberalism denigrates and challenges these things, yet it has no replacements in mind; all it does is criticize and poke holes in them as though something better will naturally arise immediately, totally oblivious to the difficulty and time required to create these things in the first place. Why would I associate myself with a social movement whose aim is to challenge, alter, or destroy things that I like?

Liberalism in its essence is a destructive societal early warning system on the lookout for calcified institutions that don't work anymore and need to be torn down to make societal space and resources available for new institutions to evolve. However, my perception is that today liberalism focuses on institutions that by and large do work for the overwhelming majority of society, and therefore increasingly appeals only to misfits, failures, the aggrieved, people who have made terrible decisions and are looking for an easy way out, and successful people who have fallen hook line and sinker for the ideology and are working against their own interests (increasingly I think Hispanics will fall into this group). Mises writes about this in The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, explaining that liberal feeling originates among those who feel they have been underserved by society.

I like to think of liberalism as akin to a forest fire. Forest fires are necessary in the cycle of growth, destruction, and rebirth, to thin out the old dead trees, releasing their nutrients to the forest floor and the whole host of necessary organisms that feed on decaying matter, re-invigorating the whole forest to make way for new trees. But a forest fire that is too large and powerful will not be regenerative; it will destroy the whole forest, and it will take centuries for the forest to recover. And by contrast, a forest that goes too long without a big fire will accumulate so much dead matter that even a small forest fire will inevitably become enormous.

Desert wrote: Pointedstick, that's a fascinating post and I agree with much of it.  But I think you're being a bit too negative about liberalism.  There are positive examples of institution destruction, with slavery being probably the best example.

I agree. Like I've said, it serves a valuable social function. Let's not forget that the problems in the wake of slavery's abolition have been primarily caused by conservative elements unwilling to accede to the new non-slavery social order. You can blame that on liberals not doing it right, but really, the major problem was conservatives not willing to acknowledge reality and get with the friggin' program.

Desert wrote: Yeah, I think there are times that existing institutions need to be eliminated (seldom) or modified (often), but the really serious liberals don't spend nearly enough energy thinking about the consequences beforehand. 

This is why I don't see neocons as conservative, but rather as liberals or at least radicals.  They were in a rush to go blow up Iraq, with no thoughtful plan to deal with the aftermath. 

I have a bunch of conservative views, and a few liberal views.  I don't see how anyone can get fully camped on one side of the spectrum, however.  It seems that there are too many problems on both "sides."  But I have to admit that liberals seem to arrive at the wrong answers more frequently, especially regarding human nature.  There is too much pie-in-the-sky thinking in that camp.  And the idea that women and men have differing physical strength because of societal pressures is just completely ridiculous and laughable.  What sort of suspension of thought is required to arrive at that conclusion?  That's embarrassing (for them).

I agree 100% with you here. I'm in more or less the same boat: conservative with some liberal tendencies. They don't get it all wrong. But as a "builder" type person, the destructiveness of liberalism is something that just emotionally irks me and inhibits me from agreeing with them more. They just don't understand how hard it is to actually build things. It's always about finding fault with things other people already built because they're not perfect.

Simonjester wrote: conservative and progressive are directional, one might want to conserve (keep the same) a foundational liberty... or in the other direction conserve some big government program that eats away at liberty. progressive wants progress, they may want progress toward some big government liberty thieving idea, or progress toward granting some liberty or freedom that has not yet been secured..
democrats and republican platforms each straddle both possibilities for both directions... but they both seem to lean toward the "away from liberty and toward big government" side of things.

it gets confusing when conservatives are neocons and progressive toward empire building and military adventurism etc.. and when liberals ( a name that formerly meant in favor of liberty) are flat out against it, and pro endless growth and intervention of government...

Desert wrote: Pointedstick, that's a fascinating post and I agree with much of it.  But I think you're being a bit too negative about liberalism.  There are positive examples of institution destruction, with slavery being probably the best example.

Agreed that PS post was really interesting.  And, Desert, funny you mentioned slavery.  The slavery topic came up in our Bible study this past week.  My view was that slavery is a continuum from the "really horid to the not too bad" but that we are all slaves.  In Biblical times, slaves typically seemed to be more servants, some with great responsibility, than what we today think of as slaves, in a large part to media conditioning.  During our US early history, the slaves were given food and shelter in return for their labor (and sexual favors by some); some of the owners were reportedly really cruel as well.  During my working career, my company provided the means for food and shelter and some extra cash - one could argue that I was a slave to my company, free to leave at any time, but if I did choose to exercise my freedom and leave to work at another company, it would just be more of the same type slavery.  And, we are all slaves of our Government ... just try not to pay income tax that you owe and see what happens.  I am a slave to my family, willing, but none the less a slave because of my moral system to do what is right for parents, wife, and children.  Our freedom is somewhat an illusion.  Obviously, I'm not speaking in absolutes for every person on the planet being a slave, but I would say that almost all are in some fashion unless you forgo the benefits of our civilization and live as a hermit off the land in the boondocks.  Society norms just blind us to the fact we are slaves to something, we just choose not to think about it or dwell on it. 

... Mountaineer

I really don't think you can compare wage slavery with chattel slavery!  One is based on denying liberty and gruesome public carnival torture and executions, the other is completely voluntary and benign.  No one has to graduate, breed, work, etc..  It's a free choice.

Anyway, the way PS complains about liberals I think is because of liberal's success.  What is left to do, really?  All human rights have been fully enumerated or soon will be in the case of gay marriage.  Are they going to take up the mantle for animal rights next?  I kind of doubt that.  PS, do you want to make a case that there is a difference between liberals and progressives?  Because I'll be damned if I call myself a liberal going by what you describe of them, but I'm comfortable with progressive.  There's still a lot of rightwing delusions that need to be confronted and deflated.  The leftwing is just mostly harmless now.  Look at all the silly communist/socialist propaganda the rightwing nuts spew about Obama that Mountaineer posted and yet when he gets into office he turns into a conservative!  Comical.

TennPaGa wrote: People like to hang out with others who share similar culture.  It's the way of humans.  So in a culture where religious affiliation is frowned upon, I would expect some amount of ostracizing (both overt and subtle) for believers.  Speaking from personal experience, the reverse certainly occurs.  That is, as an agnostic who lives in the buckle of the Bible belt, there is certainly an expectation of religious belief around here (e.g. when I first moved here, a common initial question from the natives was "what church do you go to?").  I'm no corporate ladder climber, but it is clear to me that church membership plays a role in career advancement at my company.  However, I'm not going to whine about it, nor view it as some nefarious plot by Christians to institute a theocracy, or whatever.

What state are you in?  I'd like to add it to my black list.  Thanks!

Why the upper body strength qualifier?  Anyone who thinks women have the same leg strength as men has never spent much time in a gym, or bothered watching Olympic lifts.

Maybe some extreme left-wingers won't concede these things because they genuinely lack experience in physical activity.  For example, they've never watched men and women lift heavy weight, or tried to do it themselves.

Can't you just imagine some skinny guy thinking he can lift way more than he really can, because he has no concept of the act?  Why wouldn't he imagine the same thing about some lady?

I wouldn't be surprised if at least 30% of republicans thought Obama was deep down a Muslim (as opposed to an atheist?  Come on guys. I can't believe numbers on that one weren't higher).

But the whole men's strength vs women's strength thing... While there are a lot of loony lefty views on gender equality, I can't think that more than 2% of the population actually thinks that men, on average, aren't stronger than women.

If we are gonna go on an angry tangent in this area of debate where you wanna see "Moda the conservative" rear his ugly head again, let's talk about transgenders wanting to play on women's basketball teams because they got their dicks chopped off and take hormone supplements.

TennPaGa wrote:

Lowe wrote: Why the upper body strength qualifier?

It was simply an example statement about what kooky liberals believe in the article linked to by PS.

The article cites specific data about grip strength, FWIW.

Yes, I think I understand why you mentioned upper body, but I am still surprised Khan didn't mention that the difference isn't just there.

What kind of test is grip strength anyway?  I guess Khan could not find a study assessing functional strength, i.e. strength that actually matters.  Somebody must have tried this with a dead lift, or maybe that's not science-y enough.

TennPaGa wrote:
I've got different opinions on different issues, though I'm not sure which of my views would be referred to as conservative and which would be called liberal.  For example, I thought the Iraq war (and current U.S. meddling in the Middle East) was idiotic primarily for the reasons you provided: the neocons had no appreciation for the value of the existing Middle East order (sucky as it may have been for people living there) and didn't have (and still don't) a plan for what happens once they blow it up.  To me, my position is a conservative one, but most (e.g. Reub, Benko) would call it liberal.

I'm pro-family, which is traditionally called conservative, but that also means I'm against some Republican/Libertarian economic ideas which worship money and economic progress at the expense of family stability.  So, for example, I'm against free trade and open borders (not that Democrats offer anything here).  But is my view conservative or liberal?  HellifIknow.

Tenn,

I like the way you stated your views; they are similar to mine, so obviously it was a great way to express yourself  .  As to what your view is, conservative or liberal or some other label, in reality I don't think it matters a whole lot what you call yourself (although it likely does to others) because people and their views are way more complicated than a label ... to me labeling is something usually done in a perjorative manner and is an ill thought through manner of expressing ones self.  I ponder if a labeler reflects ahead of time on how it can make them look to others.  In other words, the one doing the labeling may have great ideas to share but the labeling may cause distraction or make one wonder how many bricks are really there holding up the roof.  But that's just me. 

... Mountaineer

I've got different opinions on different issues, though I'm not sure which of my views would be referred to as conservative and which would be called liberal.  For example, I thought the Iraq war (and current U.S. meddling in the Middle East) was idiotic primarily for the reasons you provided: the neocons had no appreciation for the value of the existing Middle East order (sucky as it may have been for people living there) and didn't have (and still don't) a plan for what happens once they blow it up.  To me, my position is a conservative one, but most (e.g. Reub, Benko) would call it liberal.

I'm pro-family, which is traditionally called conservative, but that also means I'm against some Republican/Libertarian economic ideas which worship money and economic progress at the expense of family stability.  So, for example, I'm against free trade and open borders (not that Democrats offer anything here).  But is my view conservative or liberal?  HellifIknow.

Against free trade?  Wow.  That would be a populist, Buchanan-style position.  Against open borders would be conservative.  I don't know if anyone really is for open borders other than leftwing loonies with a career/profit involved or ideologically-pure libertarians (which is admirable, but not realistic), so maybe calling it "conservative" is too conservative.

I think part of the problem here is political labels don't always correspond to what is in an ideological platform.  Interventionism ala "American Exceptionalism" is a fully liberal position, yet conservatives have adopted it.  Kennedy was a NeoCon, yet he was Democrat.  These things change with the wind.

The irony, from a utilitarian perspective, is that both the left and the right are correct as far as intended policy effects go (i.e. unions do preserve/raise wages, offshoring does reduce wages, etc.).  What gets overlooked for short-term selfishness is the long-term (unintended?) negative consequences to the public interest.

What really gets my gall is the 45% rank and file on both sides that just blindly accept whatever political change comes from the top down, even if it is a contradiction to their ideology.  How the hell is that critical thinking?  So I'm pleased to be in the 10% that actually decides elections.

To get back to something related to the original post, it's not just liberals (or leftists) who have very strange ideas about biological sex differences.

For example, many conservatives seem to think that women's sexuality is fine but men's must be controlled, e.g., "While there have been rare examples – such as the Flapper of the Roaring Twenties – female sexuality remains largely stable from culture to culture and age to age, requiring little cultural control.  This is not true of the human male. His requires consistent control.", from http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_u ... ution.aspx.

I think the current social disaster in which about 40% of births are to unwed mothers and almost 40% of marriages between religiously affiliated couples end in divorce (mostly initiated by the women), puts the lie to this notion, but that observation is not dealt with honestly even in very conservative religious settings, due to its political incorrectness.

Libertarian666 wrote: I think the current social disaster in which about 40% of births are to unwed mothers and almost 40% of marriages between religiously affiliated couples end in divorce (mostly initiated by the women), puts the lie to this notion, but that observation is not dealt with honestly even in very conservative religious settings, due to its political incorrectness.

[align=center][/align]

Very interesting. I didn't even though this existed. The whole race-doesn't-exist debate is a bit more slippery. I usually end up saying, "well, call it something else ,if you must, while you're targeting tay-sachs disease."

At least we have the starting point that different sexes exist.  Well, sometimes. Except for those pesky gradations of hormonal imbalances.