https://youtu.be/31e0RcImReY?si=18IbWnHxRGAfticv

From the title it might not sound super related, but she goes super in depth on how these intelligence researches usually are extremely problematic. As in literally telling women that women did better in these tests made them perform as well or better than men in typically “male intelligence areas”. We don’t really understand intelligence, and how it develops, and how to measure it.

So ascribing higher or lower intelligence in certain fields to certain groups just doesn’t work. Irregardless for how statistically sound it might be. We just don’t understand the parameters around it well enough to control for it.

After seeing the most recent münecat video I don’t believe research like this anymore.

Yeah we made a huge mistake being born wrong 😕

That does make intuitive sense, but archeology shows otherwise. There was a much bigger diversity of gender roles and relationship structures/child rearing systems, including in agricultural societies.

The modern almost universal ideal of romantic monogamous nuclear relationships was born from romantic (as in the movement) puritan petit bourgeois ideals in the 19th century.

Working class women during the medieval age for example, worked and lived outside the home, had affairs etc. This changed around the 18th century with the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and working class mirroring of their ideals.

Basically while it’s true that patriarchal strictly dichotomous societies existed for as long as we can tell, And that they have prevailed and “won out”. But doesn’t mean they are the norm for humanity. Their universality is extremely recent.

Just a small correction: most people look at relationships in terms of some very rigid ideals that were set a couple centuries ago at most.

Just play as Sweden to get the hang of things 🤷‍♂️

It’s not. It’s about the real implications it might have, such as for eugenics and genetically enhanced soldiers. But it also does talk a lot about the real good it does and can do. But the main points are about those two topics. That like with every technology, the issue is the social and political structures around their use. And also how eugenics never really went away. In many ways it’s using CRISPR to start a conversation about eugenics tbh.

You don’t know what you are talking about lmao

The Why Files is one of the best YouTube channels out there. They talk about fringe and conspiracy subjects but debunk them. You didn’t even watch the video and you are just making a BUNCH of assumptions that have nothing to do with it.

Not them, but Red Headed Stranger is probably one of my favourite concept albums ever.

Cmon man… Sure it had issues, but acting like Cities Skylines didn’t completely revolutionise city builders is insane.

Zimbabwe is not sovereign monetarily. The US is the most monetarily sovereign country in the world. They can literally print trillions and it doesn’t do anything to inflation. It has happened multiple times already!! Like why would people deny reality?

Your conclusion makes no sense. California can’t afford the policies because states don’t print their money, the federal government does. And California doesn’t get much help from the federal government. So it’s constrained by what it can tax locally.

Those policies would work perfectly and cause no budgetary issues if the federal government paid for them by printing money.

The massive printing of money from 2008 to COVID really not make people realise that? We CAN pay for everything. The government just has to print for the money, and use it for that instead of bailing out the capitalists over and over.

Damn revolution bad? I guess we should just lie down and accept how things are then. Better the death of millions of people, billions very soon, from the system that exists; than thousands from a revolution. You are very wise.

I would honestly be shocked if there were no Homo Erectus cities and large scale societies. They existed for far longer than us, and were almost if not just as smart as us.

Lenin is great, and Stalin literally saved the world. The USSR was a great success. It was as authoritarian as any western “democracy”. Prove me wrong bozo.

Ah yes, the legendary capitalist freedom to go homeless and die of preventable diseases. And the awful authoritarian communism of providing full employment and eliminating poverty.

If you don’t think the USA is the most authoritarian country ever, your definition of authoritarianism is useless.

Sorry I would rather not :/

For my city, just for a very specific example, it takes less than one afternoon and 80 bucks total (no fees and almost no capital fund requirements) to open a corporation. It takes weeks if not months to open a coop and it costs 2500 bucks PER member.

I don’t know the specifics of all cities and states everywhere in the world. But the system is built to benefit private corporations much more, as it’s a capitalist system where owning capital equals power, and workers are a commodity.

Like the literal law. In most places it’s a much more involved and expensive process to even open a coop compared to a traditional private company. It takes more paperwork, more fees, more capital funds etc. Also, getting investors in (when they can’t own the coop, as they are not workers) or even loans from private or state banks/institutions is much harder. There are several programs incentivising people to open private companies, giving them tax credits, making the application and approval process easier, giving access to funds and education etc. How many there are for coops? In most places around the world there are 0. In what ways does it appear the opposite to you…? Like this all seems very self-evident to me.

The system literally disincentives and makes coops less competitive.

Opening a coop is harder, more expensive, have less subsidies or tax benefits, less opportunities for investments/loans etc.

And all of this makes running coops more expensive, thus less competitive, thus the ones that do manage to open either can’t grow or die.