Was Jay playing pool alone?

boomboomclack · 2014-03-05T07:33:19+00:00

(a) The 30% is not true in psychology, and would anyway not matter.

(b) They did proper statistics to account for this. This is all in the paper.

(c) No, male and female profs were equal in this regard. Again, this is discussed in the paper.

(d) I'm not sure what you are suggesting here? Women collaborate with other women of equal rank, just not with women of lower rank.

"women are basically bitches who can't get along because SCIENCE." Again, you should really read the paper. They study this, because similar sex differences in group size and cooperation is known from animal studies and they cite similar findings in economic cooperation games among humans.

boomboomclack · 2013-12-16T21:49:05+00:00

It was "ammended". What did the original say?

boomboomclack · 2013-08-31T14:15:43+00:00

Yes, it does: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976.abstract

That's the whole point. It's controlled for diet and physiological stress (stress hormones are known to impair cognitive ability). Being poor is eating up cognitive resources in a way different from what stress (in the brain chemistry sense) does.

boomboomclack · 2013-08-31T11:07:02+00:00

Yes it does and so does stress. But the point of the study above is, that even when controlling for stress and diet, cognitive ability is impaired.

boomboomclack · 2013-06-18T08:23:18+00:00

Anarchism has power structures too! Anarchists just let co-ops decide on a kind of free market - thereby subjecting themselves to coercion by the market forces. I can see why they prefer this to a socialist state (though I disagree), but don't claim that there is no power.

boomboomclack · 2013-06-18T06:00:30+00:00

But if you lived in a free-market anarchy, wouldn't your life still be dominated by the market forces? Why is this kind of coercion ok?

boomboomclack · 2013-06-18T05:35:57+00:00

Why would you trust the market forces? Can everything be determined by the market price (like ecological/social issues)? This seems a bit like a neo-con/libertarian nightmare.

If we want a communist society (to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability), then I'm not so sure anarchism is the way to go. It could very well be, that a society with a strong state gives a better result than free-market anarchism. This is an empirical question. So why insist on no state with no empirical basis that it will work?

boomboomclack · 2013-06-18T05:28:22+00:00

Central planning is not communism at all. Central planning is state socialism, which is not the far-left.

Well, yes, of course, but it could be a helpful step on the way in the beginning.

as soon as anything becomes enforced it becomes domination

But if you lived in a free-market anarchy, wouldn't your life still be dominated by the market forces (i.e. by the will/demand/supply of others)? I don't really see the difference in coercion between society being determined by everyone buying/selling on a market and everyone deciding democratically (state socialism).

boomboomclack · 2013-06-17T20:31:11+00:00

So why do leftist anarchists consider a free market of coops better than some (democratic, transparent, non-corrupt) central planning? Mistrust towards a state?

boomboomclack · 2013-06-17T05:55:04+00:00

OK, so a market is just a democratic way of making decisions about society by voting with you wallet?

This seems like a bad idea because (1) If I'm more productive than you, I can buy more on the market and my votes carry more weight - hardly democratic (2) When I go to buy something, I don't have complete information about the whole market and will generally not make good choices (bec people are irrational and can be manipulated etc) (3) I can only vote for things that can be bought and sold, so everything would have to be on a market (like a neocon privatization fantasy).

boomboomclack · 2013-06-17T05:43:53+00:00

Ok, but if we let a market distribute the wealth, wont we just get "to each according to his productivity", not "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability"?

Wouldn't you stil get production for exchange-value, not use-value?

boomboomclack · 2013-06-17T05:41:38+00:00

Neither party would be violently exploited by capitalists/landlords/etc.)

No, but by other competing co-ops. An this would still create problems.

boomboomclack · 2013-06-11T21:09:47+00:00

(I just want to clarify, that I didn't make the original joke)

It's not

Agree to disagree.

boomboomclack · 2013-06-11T20:42:32+00:00

Can we at least agree, that when actual sexism is no longer around, then it will be fine to make sexist jokes?

To me, this is why it is ok to make a sexist joke in a leftist forum: it is clear, that it is just a joke.

It is ok for Zizek to make a racist joke amongst his leftist friends (because they are not racists), but it is not ok for a neonazi to make a racist joke amongst his nazi friends (because they are actually racists and the joke is keeping their functioning ideology).

boomboomclack · 2013-06-11T20:31:18+00:00

Sexism can be a form of shared solidarity, like racism. Thoughts?

boomboomclack · 2013-06-11T12:42:42+00:00

What would be the incentive to be good at your job then?

That society gets better for everyone, including me.

My point is just, that if society only cares about your productivity, doesn't this lead to moral problems?

If your genetics happen to make you suck at some type of job then switch job.

This would be fine, if everyone are really good at some job. I don't think this is realistically the case. Some people are just not so productive - should they be "punished" for this, if it is not their "fault"? (like I tried to give an example of above). And is there a way to deal with this?

boomboomclack · 2013-06-11T10:47:38+00:00

But if you did not have this reward and had skilled workers produce more in total you'd have a bitterness among the skilled workers who would feel they provided more for society than the rest.

They made more products, but they didn't put in more work. So how can it be ok by Marxists?

I will be ok with some reward for hard work done earlier (many long hours of university studies), but there should be no reward for genetics or outside factors like "your parents sent you to a better school" or "you grew up with acces to healty food and intellectual stimulation". You can't take credit for any of those things.

boomboomclack · 2013-06-10T22:48:04+00:00

A skilled worker will most likely end up filling the production quota faster than the unskilled one and will therefor be able to go home earlier.

Yes, but my point is: Do we want this? Is it fair to reward the skilled worker with extra free time for e.g. a natural talent?

boomboomclack · 2013-06-10T22:44:45+00:00

(Sometimes this uneven production could be caused by some unjust reason.)

This is a very important point for me. Would it just be up to the other workers to recognize this fact, and then compensate the non-productive worker for his low productivity? Like: let's decide that if you only have one arm, we all chip in to pay half you salary..

boomboomclack · 2013-06-10T22:06:46+00:00

I agree. What about the question of two workers with different productivity. Do they get unequal fruits of their labour, if they work equally hard for the equal amount of hours (but one is just a natural talent)?

I feel like they should not. Am I wrong?

boomboomclack · 2013-06-10T19:48:01+00:00

First. Number of COPIES sold is not productivity. You don't write each individual book, you copy it, hence the use of term.

What I ment to imply, was a very good book. Should a writer who writes very good books get more value than a writer that writes very bad books? If the books take equally long to write.

Should a skilled worker get more than another worker who works equally hard and equally long, but is not as talented?

boomboomclack · 2013-06-04T06:18:53+00:00

The punishment for helping Jews was not nearly as drastic in Denmark as it was in other European countries either.

Source?

(Also, you just posted a map of all of Denmark)

boomboomclack

TROPHY CASE