Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I must be missing something, but I cannot link your IQ points or Mariam O to the inquiry of this thread.

The coupling between human reproduction and resourcefulness is relevant, particularly sex differences there.

P.S. The research paper is downloadable to my cellphone without any paywall. What did you try?

by das monde on Sun May 5th, 2019 at 07:01:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The girls most strongly affected are those in the bottom half of the ability distribution (as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test), those with at least one college-educated parent, and those attending a school in the upper half of the socioeconomic distribution.
linked to wikipedia entry in the response above.

"Girls, Boys, and High Achievers" is linked to NBER.

You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery.

Access to NBER Papers

You are eligible for a free download if you are a subscriber, a corporate associate of the NBER, a journalist, an employee of the U.S. federal government with a ".GOV" domain name, or a resident of nearly any developing country or transition economy.

"Case of Miriam O." would be a remarkable demographic subject of basic research in "fertility" (epidemiology, medicine, gynocology, "socio-economics"), theoretical assumptions (evolutionary biology, "misogynist theology", systems and epistemology, limiting principles of), and iconography, supra ... were um normative conditions of inquiry as accessible as those of sheela na gig monuments to interlocutors. Comments?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sun May 5th, 2019 at 02:17:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is there much scientific to say about one outlier? I suspect a sociobiological trap, with or without science.

P.S. Smuggling works? x y

by das monde on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 09:36:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What are reasons for different results regarding association between status and reproduction in modern humans obtained by social scientists? ... If personal income [!] is used as a status indicator [sic] then the association [sic] between status and reproductive output [sic] is clearly positive for men and null or negative for women. The picture is less clear, however, if education* is used as an indicator. Here, the association ranges from slightly positive to null or even negative for men. In modern [!] women ...
*"educational attainment", ie. years of school enrollment per person, is a demographic trait captured for statistical descriptions of functioning political economy by population; an intangible good frequently compared to avg expense, or capital investment, in public education per capita attributable to real property in aggregate, capital accumulation. NB. personal income is not heritable and is not normally defined as an economic resource or store of value, ergo is neither a reliable symbol of "status" nor criterion for longitudinal study of selection and outcome, regardless of individual sex (or gender) assignment. Firstly, "modern" human reproductive strategy is a group enterprise.

Several ill-defined assumptions appearing in that excerpt were discussed or elaborated on in this sub-thread "Recession alert by fertility", coincidentally started 26 Feb 2018.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 02:59:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently, education and feminism are not assets in reproductive matters. Not everything is known from academic methods or high moral ground.

"Inheritable" achievements do lift the social status - with opposite reproduction correlations for graced men and overpoweringly cool women. Is that new in nature? Well, Youtube.

(Yes, the Oxford handbook is online since March 2018.)

by das monde on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 10:02:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Inheritable or not heritable", I mean.
by das monde on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 10:13:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can agree with the first statement.

I do not agree with the second. This term "social status" is an ill-advised euphemism for any sort of intangible trait(s) of human behavior whose value(s) is indeterminate, not persistent, not heritable.

Considering the source though, "social status" might allude to peerage, which is purportedly an inheritable trait as is caste, race, tribe, nationality: Such title signifies what beside the research preference, prejudice, or methodological bias?

Such titles might denote strict, hierarchical assignment of a membership in a group by a group. Title is not an intrinsic value. It signifies a political function. Title traits vary considerably across groups and are mutable. The strictest limitation on entitlement is group enforcement. Offend the group, lose, the trait. Leave the group, lose the trait. No progeny (UK-Eng. "issue"), lose the trait.

"Social status" might as easily allude to celebrity or notoriety or reputation or any function ("role") in an enterprise or "social capital" or class or conspicuous display of "status symbols", adornment of the body with objects --bought, found, manufactured, borrowed-- that connote beauty, for example.

Standardized attributes and measurement of beauty: How's that coming along for Oxbridge docents?

Unspecified "social status" conveys little to no systematic value to factor analysis of reproductive selection and outcomes.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 02:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I myself lack feeling for status games, but I have to reckon that it is going on amidst smiles, handshakes and looks. Not necessarily for one-upmanship feelings or keeping relative scores, but for all sorts of practical, socializing, amusement anticipations. Confucians say, there is leading and following in any interaction. They ought to be more right than earnestly progressive denials of status significance. So be it: title status is often only mechanically acknowledged, and attention centers are fleeting. But those social animals who know what they are doing have it mostly very well, while educated analysts may have no idea what they are missing.
by das monde on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 03:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Feminism" is not a status object or a "social status" in itself. Nor is it a heritable human trait. In general, one might construe "feminism" to mean a doctrine or ideology or schema which one adopts in order to evaluate the significance of any "gendered" or sex characteristic in a society. Feminism is a form of acquired knowledge, or experience. To borrow a phrase: Attachment to feminism "ranges from slightly positive to null or even negative" results.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 02:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Feminism is knowledge, thus power. With power comes status.

Feminism may care too little about its perceived status. But it does aspire to dictate ethics, social rules, thinking. It shames and promotes. Not clumsily?

by das monde on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 03:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Feminism" is not an anthropomorphic subject. Abstraction of intellect does not do anything --neither care nor dictate, shame or promote. "Feminism" is the predicate subject wanting a verb.

Knowledge of what?

Like "the more you know, the better you feel" or "the truth will set you free", "knowledge is power" is a bromide employed by someone to foreclose further examination of a subject, purportedly stored energy in the matter named "memory," until perhaps manifest, or represented, by action of some living creature. Expression is not certain.

ATinNM once posted a pithy rubric for ways of knowing. I'd rather not paraphrase but encourage you to consider unstated assumptions that you might encounter about experience, relation to, limitation of, and communicating knowledge: saber, conocer, o aprender is translated to know.

With power comes status? This supposition is incomplete. Although often repeated with analogy to thermodynamic law, the relation or correspondence of knowledge to status is incongruent. Status itself is demonstrably indeterminate as I stated. How has knowledge of sheela na gig altered your "social status" among your peers? Dialog from top to bottom of this thread indicate:

There's always been a relationship between power and knowledge. In the eighteenth century a very a particular relationship developed between power and knowledge. And it developed under the conditions of colonialism, where an entire intellectual apparatus was created for representing "the other". An entire intellectual apparatus and academic disciplines, organizations, entire societies were complicit in this enterprise.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon May 6th, 2019 at 08:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Feminism acts as an institution, taking a lead of people and other institutions. Paraphrasing Romney: institutions are anthropomorphic, my friend.

The intellectual/academic apparatus for feminism is vastly larger than what colonialism enjoyed. The whole highly educated class is stuck-up with absorbed experiences (and evaded non-experiences). They tell what is a foreclosed debate.

So feminism wants power without status? That's a Bolshevik way. They got soon visceral leadership anyway.

My prediction: feminism will not be competitive with patriarchy's suave ways. It will not be trusted with powerful responsibility.

by das monde on Tue May 7th, 2019 at 09:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1."Feminism acts as an institution ..." The ideology of feminism, developed by people indoctrinated in western philosophy (academic institutions), is a part of the apparatus of hegemony status quo, e.g. (post-"colonial") Anglo-disease[d], corporatist, fascist, "white supremacy" (post-racial, *of color), "women and minorities" political propaganda, "women in leadership" corporate executive rank pay-scale. The internal consistency of this episteme is negligable, its conclusory statements implausible. Retrieve comments.*
2."The intellectual/academic apparatus for feminism ..." See #1. Ignore counter-cultural and -class antagonism inside and outside the boundaries of western institutional "representative democracy". So-called public discourse on violence is limited by mass media circulating client constituencies to personal injury, false dichotomies (eg. "Vagina Day", "Slut Walk", "intersectionality" and presumptive prosecutorial strategems, "femicide" dispensations, "commercial sex act" crimes).
3."So feminism wants power without status?..." Indeed, a significant faction of "feminist" within the boundaries of western institutional hegemony does not seek such "equilibrium" adjustment in capitalist doctrine and praxis --socially acceptable violence. Arguably, "fifth wave" propaganda postulates a sex-less and race-less body politic free of capital restraint --"status free" society--demonstrated by those advocates' integration with leadership status quo.
4."My prediction: feminism will not be competitive ..." Indeed, the function of this ideological "apparatus" is replication, reproduction, of status quo by merger and acquisition (M&A) of "competitive" political groups (peerage, caste, race, tribe, nationality). Induced with so-called incentive locked-up in family property rights --generational transfers of wealth(credit)-- to accept individual reward from the wealthiest in defense of authorities status quo. To put it petty: I don't see any "feminists" dumping surnames, "patronyms" when they marry [!], do you? I don't see no "X"; I see hyphenation.
So the argument that is going to be developed, and we're going to revisit this argument later on, the argument that is going to be developed in the early nineteenth century is the following: That essentially we develop an evaluative scale where we place one civilization relation to another, and we judge them. So for example one of the ways in which you evaluate civilizations or nation-states today rather is you say ... and that's what the UNDP report does.  What is the percentage of literacy in a country? What is the number of doctors per hundred thousand people? What is the number of hospital beds per hundred thousand people? What percentage of the population has access to drinking water, potable drinking water? et cetera , et cetera. One of the largest indices of this kind is what are the rights available to women? In the nineteenth century in early British India this is going to become a critical argument because, and this is the philosophical, ideological component of that argument, you judge a civilization and judge how advanced it is according to how it treats its women. So this is one reason, for example, if you look at state department reports on Afghanistan the argument will always be furnished that one of the principle reasons why we as [ersatz Anglo-]Americans had to move to Afghanistan is that we have to liberate their women. And remember what's happening: you're liberating brown women from brown men, and you need white men to do that. I want you to remember that. You're liberating brown women from the clutches of brown men, and the way to do that is to bring white men into the picture. This is exactly what's happening in Afghanistan today in many ways mirrors the kind of arguments that you're going to find in early nineteenth century India.
* The evidence of "complicity" is all around us. A lot of my comments at eurotrib and other platforms since '07 have captured incidents memorialized by publishers, on- and off-line, because I have been a participant in and critic of US-"feminist" enterprises since the early 1980s. That is a long bibliography. I did not wake up yesterday morning and will not be intimidated by bullshit "inclusion" modeling and manqué "rights" for genitalia. The language of psychopathy and those people who communicate it are the enemies of political evolution.

Do your homework.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue May 7th, 2019 at 05:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, I shut up
by das monde on Wed May 8th, 2019 at 07:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series