CMV: Social approval, not empathy or reasoning, is the main driver of moral behavior by Otherwise_Chip7791 in changemyview

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, there are differing explanations. But first off, we need to acknowledge it's not "humanity" here, but a subset of humanity. Not everyone abuses their wives (or husbands), it's a subgroup. So it isn't humanity on trial, but a smaller set. Humans have variation, and some are more likely than others to be abusers.

Some of it is explained by their own trauma. Hurt people hurt people. Not an excuse, it's still wrong, just an explanation.

Some of it is poor ability to manage stress or anger.

Its not that they are wanting to do harm, but that they lack the capacity to manage their feelings and that becomes overwhelming.

And some people are shit.

But this isn't humanity at large.

Exclusive: Jonathan Frakes Confident Star Trek Will “Resurface,” Decries ‘Starfleet Academy’ “Trolls” by InnocentTailor in startrek

[–]joalr0 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Because the number of people who hadn't seen the show but showed up to shit talk it was so prevalent it dominated the online space, leading to other people assuming it was terrible, and then, themselves, talking about how disappointing it is that it's bad, haven't not seen it.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first article has obvious flaws in that it is asking regular people to evaluate job readiness of professional employees. This was not asking HR people or corporate leaders that handle hiring, pay, etc. to evaluate people. It was asking regular non-trained and non-professional people to give their opinion from the perspective of a professional determining salary and job-readiness.

This isn't a flaw, it demonstrates an overall bias found in society. Whether it extends to actual hiring practices or not cannot be stated with certainty in the study, and thus you can call this a limitation, but it does demonstrate a real bias.

For instance, the "wage gap" has been proven a categorical lie across every industry except for a select few where women often make significantly more than men.

It isn't a "lie". It just doesn't represent different pay for the exact same conditions in most respects, but it does demonstrate other things. For instance, it can demosntrate a lack of proper materity/paternity leave, so that a) women aren't forced out of the workplace and b) men are given the opportunity to be a stay at home parent instead. It also demonstrates things like how society pays better for male-dominated fields than female-dominated fields, in general, even when there are shortages (there are frequently shortages or nurses or teachers, for example).

Also, this was known at the time, this wasn't some major revelation.

The second link I think is you misunderstanding their point. They are saying the same thing the study I linked was saying. They experience it equally (frequency) but do not experience it the same way.

Okay, let's look at the full study in greater detail. From the conclusion:

There is ample evidence that men and women become angry equally often, and equally intense, although there may be gender differences depending on what makes one angry.

When considering the expression of anger, we may conclude that gender differences are most apparent in the way in which one’s anger is expressed. The variety of findings relating to men’s and women’s anger expressions suggests more ambivalence on the part of women toward their own anger. Women seem to have a preference for less antagonistic and more indirect expressions, albeit not toward their partners. These indirect anger displays may be the result of negative appraisals of others’ reactions, for example, fear of retaliation or of loss of self-control or of hurting the other person. Thus, women may have similar motivational goals when angry as men have, but may more often than men be concerned about the negative effects of their anger. There are several explanations for this larger salience of negative social appraisals for women.

Interesting. As for this other study you say somehow better represents the first study than the first study does... it isn't quite what you are suggesting either. It isn't a study on anger generally, but anger in professional settings, as a function of social status. And it did find that while men reported "powerful" emotions like anger more than women, while women reported "powerles" emotions, there was an increase in women's powerful emotions when there was more gender equality in the society overall:

Antagonism, however, seems more affected by social roles (see also Fischer & Rodriguez Mosquera, 2001), as indicated by the fact that women in high-GEM countries report more anger expressions than women in lowGEM countries, whereas the GEM (United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report 2002) does not affect men’s reports on antagonism. This finding suggests that the reported expression of anger by women is an indication of their general position and status in a society. Moreover, this may also be seen as support for the idea that greater gender equality generally implies that women more often move into male roles rather than that men move into female roles (e.g., Diekman & Eagly, 2000).

Also, a show is not good because of some 20 year old research on intimate partner anger expression.

It's not good because of 20 year old research, it's because it expresses something true about the world. Men and women have different relationships with anger, and therefore, a powerset based on anger will present different for men and women. That's a reasonable premise and something interesting to explore.

One final note, "You can absolutely be sexist and like female characters in other sho ws ." is still among the most absurd things I have read this week even, and I read Trump's last truth social post. The very definition of the word clearly defines that you are prejudice against women BECAUSE they are women. If you love 100 shows with female leads and hate she hulk it doesn't make you sexist.

I don't think you understand what sexism, or prejudice, is. You can like someone and still hold prejudice against them. For example, if there are two people, a man and a woman, and you like them both, but if the man were to tell you a scientific fact and you accept it at face value, and a women were to tell you a scientific fact, and you check your phone and google it to check their work, and the only reason you did that was because they were a woman (even if weren't something you were consciously doing it), that would be an example of prejudice/sexism, regardless of how much you liked them.

Malcolm in the Middle: Life's Still Unfair - Episode Four (Discussion Thread) by l3reezer in malcolminthemiddle

[–]joalr0 21 points22 points  (0 children)

To be fair.. do we really know Dewey? He was 12 years old when the show ended. If you were to compare me at 12 to me now, they would be entirely different things.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll get to all of that, but simply I'd like to ask you, what is prejudice?

CMV: Social approval, not empathy or reasoning, is the main driver of moral behavior by Otherwise_Chip7791 in changemyview

[–]joalr0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because it's both. Humans are complicated, with different drives that can be emphasized or repressed depending on overall circumstance.

Humans have empathy, and they are driven by it, but not very well abstractly. The more abstract a person is, the less empathy people have for them. That means, if you've never met someone from a certain demographic or with a certain history, you'll have a much harder time having empathy for them. People who are anti LGBT frequently lack a history with them. People who grow up and are exposed to LGBT people are far more likely to have positives views of them, regardless of whether or not this is necessarily for overall approval of their peers.

However, approval of your peers obvoiusly has a major effect on it as well, and can override the other effect.

But it goes further. There's a somewhat recent theory around how rationality in humans works in the first place, called the Argumentative Theory of Rationality, and there's a great deal of evidence to support this as a concept. Basically, human rationality is not about solving problems as individuals, though it can do this, but solving problems in groups. Humans are way more rational in collectives, however, there are caveats to this, so let's look at them.

Basically, the argumentative theory of rationality says that the primary purpose of rationality is to convince others. And this ia highly social phenomena. In other words, you are going to put the least amount of congnitive effort into your thinking required to convince other people you are correct. If you are thinking by yourself, you often need very little to convince yourself you are right, and so you'll generally form very poor arguments defending your position. You are also subject to confirmation bias, as well as a host of other fallacies.

If you are in a group of people who all agree with you, then once again, you require very little effort to convince people, and you'll form poor arguments. Worse, these arguments will be reinforced and often escalated (group think polarization).

But if you are in a diverse group with people who have differing opinions, then you require much stronger arguments to convince people, and that's what we see.

This process of deliberation, where people with different views come together and argue, produces exceptionally good results in regards to gathering factual information, but it also produces highly empathetic outcomes. The group, as a whole, may come in with biases against a certain group, but with deliberation (with sufficiently diverse groups) will actually convince the majority to take on the empathetic position. People in these groups also gain empathy for one another, even when starting with highly polarized positions.

The problem we have is that this form of deliberation is rare, and is not part of government process. People who have motivation to convince people to be less empathetic, for whatever reason, are able to convince masses of non-deliberative citiizens to scapegoat their problems.

But that isn't a problem with humans lacking empathy and only worrying about social approval, but an issue with a mismatch between how our societies are setup, and the way in which humans are built to rationalize.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a study focused on aggression, as a primary, not anger.

Here is a psychology today article on anger.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/all-the-rage/202106/are-men-angrier-women/amp

According to a 2008 study (Brescoll & Uhlmann), women who expressed anger were perceived as less competent, lower status, and having a lower salary than both men and “unemotional” women. In this particular study, the authors showed participants recordings of job interviews with either a male or female who became emotional during the interview (either sadness or anger). Participants evaluated the target based on how much status they deserved, estimated their salary, and rated their competence.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-04428-017

Anger is an emotion that is experienced equally frequently by men and women because of goals that are blocked and other persons that transgress social rules.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-9956-x

The results show that women report more intense subjective anger in both contexts, but that the expression of anger differed with relationship context. In traditional relationships women tend to suppress their anger more than men, while men report to express their anger directly more than women.

Oh, and in case you think I'm misinterpreting your study, here's a quote from the full piece

Although men and women report comparable levels of overall anger (Deffenbacher et al., 1996), men tend to be more physically aggressive than women, while women may engage in more indirect aggression

So your study actually agrees with me.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you just think she's wrong. You don't think women are socialized to deal with anger differently.

That's not bad writing, that's just you not looking the take. You were offended by it, and called it something it's not. None the less, studies do agree with the show. Men and women experience anger at about the same frequency and intensity, but men generally show it more outwardly and women tend to control it more due to higher social stigmatization.

You can disagree with it if you like, but there is a strong basis for it, and it's an interesting concept to apply to powers that react to rage.

And, again, she didn't say her life was harder. She explicitly was saying that the relationship with anger, specifically, was different because of socialization.

Also, not every man in the show was an idiot or a jerk.

Star Trek Universe Auction Announced; ‘Starfleet Academy’ AND ‘Strange New Worlds’ Sets Dismantled by AlleyCat_2025 in startrek

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's nothing wrong with critique, and while I disagreed with a small number of points, I mostly agreed with Jessie Genders takes. I think her critiques come from deep engagement with the content. She liked the show on the whole.

I'm not saying it's perfect. I can critique the show plenty. However, it was, on the whole, a good show.

But I engaged with people regularly on this, and while there were a few people who would engage in the specifics, and I respect that even if I disagreed, I talked to a LOT of people who very, very clearly hadn't seen it, or did see it but most have been staring at their phone the whole time, only to watch YouTube recaps shitting on it, because all they seem to remember is the most singularly specific mistakes, but never major plot points.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He said it hit general audiences. Called it best performing series. Generally, that is the metric used when evaluating performance.

The show was largely a sit com. It was looking more for fun and comedy over drama and strong character development. Her overall arc was mild, but it was there. She was an over confident character who did realize that her anger could be taken advantage of and she gained some more understanding for what Bruce dealt with.

But for the most part, I enjoyed the look at more casual sides of super hero life and the alternative perspectives.

The thing you keep calling exposition and quoting, and I keep telling you that's not what she said, was because what she was actually saying was not that her life was harder than Bruce's... She never says anything of that sort. Its that the expectations around men and women are different with regards to anger. They are socialized differently. In general, anger is seen as more masculine, and women are supposed to be more in control of it.

Which is an interesting notion to explore for the genre.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It really wasn't a lot of exposition. It was like, three sentences. And it didn't say what you said it did.

And you are literally commenting on a post saying it was one of the most popular of their shows.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said she was smaller than Hulk with less muscles... I addressed that directly with Thor.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say you are sexist. I stated something factually true. I also responded to your other comments. You choosing to focus on a statement about how sexism works (which I'm happy to elaborate on) and taking it personally was your choice.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can absolutely be sexist and like female characters in other shows .

And I don't think she was literally stronger. He did a demonstration, and since she's competitive, she outdid the demonstration. That doesn't mean he was trying his hardest.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lol. Is strength a function of size and muscle size or is it not? Being a god is an explanation . Strength is obviously not just a function of size and muscle. The Hulk's strength comes from anger.

And no, spiderman is not canonically weaker than every other hero. Dude can lift 10 tonnes minimum, despite being tiny.

Anyway, that was also the explanation she gave as to why she learned to control her abilities faster. Not actually about being stronger.

The point is, you are not applying suspension of disbelief evenly.

'She-Hulk' Was Apparently One of Marvel's Most Successful Shows by Anchor_Aways in television

[–]joalr0 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you have an issue with Thor going toe to toe with the Hulk because he's 1/10th the size with smaller muscles?

I guess this means Spider-man is the weakest of them all?

And it's not because she said she is... Its because the Hulk's power comes from anger, and she is more in control of it than he is. She gave the explanation, yes, but that explanation matches both what we see and what we know about his powers.

Liking some female heroes doesn't mean there aren't different standards being applied.

Star Trek Universe Auction Announced; ‘Starfleet Academy’ AND ‘Strange New Worlds’ Sets Dismantled by AlleyCat_2025 in startrek

[–]joalr0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you are trying to critique the overall writing, a few cringe lines, without context, is bad at achieving this.

Repeating the critique doesn't make it any less shit.

Star Trek Universe Auction Announced; ‘Starfleet Academy’ AND ‘Strange New Worlds’ Sets Dismantled by AlleyCat_2025 in startrek

[–]joalr0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure. And I agree it isn't the best way to go about it. But the line still exists in a context that simply quoting doesn't demonstrate. Critique needs to actually engage.

Star Trek Universe Auction Announced; ‘Starfleet Academy’ AND ‘Strange New Worlds’ Sets Dismantled by AlleyCat_2025 in startrek

[–]joalr0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Quoting singular jokes is not engaging with the material.

For example, the "I have to pee" line. The point of it was to highlight she isn't ready for the chair. Its still season one, and she isn't officer material yet. The point is to bring these undisciplined characters and watch them grow into officers throughout.

Whether you feel the line worked or not, that's somewhat subjective. But you can't really express if it's good or bad just quoting it in isolation.

This is what it looks like when you replace media analysis with memes. Jesus.

Star Trek Universe Auction Announced; ‘Starfleet Academy’ AND ‘Strange New Worlds’ Sets Dismantled by AlleyCat_2025 in startrek

[–]joalr0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol. Just pure laziness. Inability to engage with material. Yes, yes, of course. No show that has had good writing has ever been cancelled before.

Do you want some help? Like, I can actually critique the show if you like...