Oh, and I can't believe that no one (including me) has asked this yet, but... does she happen to be a member of the educators' profession?

.

Yeah, I guess I'm not used to that because of outspoken my ex was.... for better or for worse.



People still remember that? No.... though she does work for administration and IT for some online university.

So yes.

Dare I speak true
or should I lie?
I have no clue,
my butterfly.

What should I do
when a tear rolls down your cheek?
Dare I speak true,
that I am dreaming of a geek?

That in my dreams, she is a writer,
she games and reads,
she lights her joints with my lighter
as sweat rolls down her breasts in beads.

Or should I lie,
and tell you that we'll go to sea,
just me and you, my butterfly,
each night to dream of her and D&D?

It is crucial that you never emulate Koobie's behavior.

I'm calling serious bull**** on the biological determinism part.

I am imagining that Cloud has had a troubled dating life ever since the debacle with his teacher.

I tried to find the thread, but only found one from 2008 referring to Cloud's teacher tale, in which it's described as "ancient." #old

Very crucial. You might fall down on your face and die.

Living on the edge.

YEEEHAH.

Forgot to mention, this "Mirgarlaevixor" was a real person?

.

More of a consortium, really.

This is Massassi.



What? How can you say that? This is a newspaper attempting to report on a scientific study!

.

All other primates become full-on psychotic when deprived behavior-forming social contact, hallucinations and all. You're welcome to confirm their findings on human subjects.

.

.

Harlow.

.

You can immediately discount any theory proposed about any 'natural' asocial human state because such a state has never been studied. I'm not saying there isn't an evolutionary basis for much of what we consider social behavior; I believe there is one, but at the moment, under current international standards, specific claims are both brazen conjecture and ethically unfalsifiable.

.

Most psychologists play pretty fast and loose with the whole 'science' thing (especially the ones who run their mouths off at the science journalists while waiting for their LaTeX to finish compiling). If any course purports to be a science and doesn't place an emphasis on empiricism, it's being taught incorrectly. It's your professors' fault.

It aint an evo psychologist if they don't make at least a dozen unsubstantiated claims to the media before breakfast.

.

.

The advice I got was I would be better off slamming my dick in a car door.

That's damn good advice.

No no, I mean as a way to explain the differences in behavior of men and women. More often than not it's used to justify existing oppressive systems and does nothing to really understand the root cause of behavior. Saying "results are different when the experiment is run against men vs women" doesn't really tell you anything.

But the problem is that this line of thinking is almost always used as a way to justify misogynistic behaviors and beliefs. It's easy to say "must be a difference in how we think" than to actually understand why there's a difference. It sounds like you're suggesting we should believe in it just because it can be possible. Very bad place to be.

Yeah, seriously. I never realized it before, but it's clear now that I, too, would be better off slamming ECHOMAN's dick in a car door.

.

.

.....

Privilege has compounding returns.

A survey of Fortune 500 CEO height in two thousand and always revealed that they were on average 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) tall, which is approximately 2.5 rich parents taller than the average American man.

I mean, **** dude.

Bill Gates is the grandson of a banker and was gifted a multi-million dollar trust fund at birth, so he would never need fear any risk of entrepreneurship. His father was a wealthy corporate lawyer, who ensured Bill attended the most prestigious Seattle-area private school. His mother was a wealthy and well-connected board member of several prominent companies and charities, who was working friends with board members from IBM, the highly successful company we are told foolishly gave a top-level executive meeting to some "unknown" kid, and was then conned into contracting a major software product from Microsoft, sight unseen.

b-b-b-b-b-but surely bill gates is just a born leader.

.

Because:

1.) Women are actively socialized against pursuing careers in certain fields, such as high-paid professions and leadership. Those who do pursue such careers can look forward to being regularly groped at conferences or barraged with unnecessary sexist humor. No great surprise, then, that women tend to concentrate in low-paid people-oriented positions, such as customer service and HR, where sexist behavior is forbidden by nature of the job.

2.) Within the same profession, men generally stand out more because of the detrimental lifestyle choices we make, like unpaid overtime, working/no vacations, refusing paternity leave, etc.. Hardly a stunning example of men just being "better workers". We aren't dying younger than women because of our biology, you know.

Complete nonsense. Economically, it only makes sense to structure society based on comparative advantage. Comparative advantage has absolutely nothing to do with how society would be structured in "nature" -- assuming there even was such a thing.

Correlation does not imply causation.

You know what else correlates with height? Parent height.

You know what else correlates with CEO jobs? Parent socioeconomic status.

ding ding ding much more probable causative factor identified

Well, this thread turned Reidtarded quite fast.

(Funny how Reid became Sarn 2013 and Koobie and Tibby share the PedHead 2013 award)

You were trying to justify a disturbing notion about human society, framed by a frankly sophomoric understanding of heredity and evolution, quite obviously tinted by an overexposure to poorly-reasoned mensrights diatribes, which is a frighteningly small amount removed from Adolf Hitler's opinions on the same subject. (Again, I am not exaggerating.)

No, you are not genetically programmed to be best-suited to a particular profession. Nature has no such thing as profession. Nature doesn't have pipefitters and PR reps. Nature doesn't have CEOs, nor is that job particularly demanding or difficult by any actual study conducted of those people. It's like you read Profession and took away the complete wrong message.

Red herring. (Aside: most publicly-funded things were either socialized or produced under government contract anyway. A few pieces of publicly-funded research like Google's ranking algorithm weren't, but the NSF allows institutions to hold patents developed using public funding to reward the most successful universities.)

.

.