Said the Wonderful Mary Harrington to the Fabulous Benjamin Boyce (starting aroung 59:00): "In a sense, the internet has cucked all of us. [...] Women are just as aggressive and competitive as men but they go about it differently. [...] Once you transfer all of human interaction onto the internet you foreclose the possibility of physical violence, and in a sense it means that all conflict now happens in the female key."
As a male, I can attest to a problem with #3. Seems you are comparing apples to oranges, i.e., covert female 'games' in general to male sports games with clearly defined rules, immutable within the game, and within the context of a game event with a clearly defined time limit. (Even opting out of one of these games can have social consequences, not always inconsequential. The 'nerd' and the 'jock'? Colin Kaepernick?)
The most extreme consequences of opting out can be illustrated by the potentially deadly result of quitting a criminal organization, an admittedly overt extreme, but there are infinite 'covert' non-violent gradations of this in polite male society (hoping that is not an oxymoron ;-). Everybody is defined by their choices on many subtle levels.
Very interesting! This might explain why online gaming communities (where the games have defined rules, overt competition and shows of dominance etc) tend to skew heavily male, and also why Joe Rogan today said that his response to his current controversy is to just live his real life (where the rules are predictable, at least for someone like him) and not care about the online world.
Scientific analysis, not to mention consciousness in general--the business of life, requires the creation of categories, one of its most powerful tools and one of its most potentially misleading. The determinations as to which categories are "real" and which are "artificial" remain tantalizingly unresolved scientifically, which I think is perhaps counterintuitively cause for hope. but meanwhile it is giving us leave to overrun our ecosystem.
It can reveal doors to further objective understanding or paint its creators into subjective corners. It is very often impossible or nearly so to know which place one is in and even more often the two are in superposition until some sort of mental or communal wave function collapse is triggered by a new observation or consensus.
Figuring that out is the job and joy of the scientific method. But when that kind of consciousness is applied to itself, it is creating an object containing categories to analyze that it lives within, and the tools to do that are tricky to construct with objectivity. At this point evolutionary theory looks to be as good a tool as we have, but the objectivity part will have to come from a fusion of many perspectives, both male and female, each uniquely competitive. I sincerely hope it opens a very asymptotically wide window with a spectacular view.
Said the Wonderful Mary Harrington to the Fabulous Benjamin Boyce (starting aroung 59:00): "In a sense, the internet has cucked all of us. [...] Women are just as aggressive and competitive as men but they go about it differently. [...] Once you transfer all of human interaction onto the internet you foreclose the possibility of physical violence, and in a sense it means that all conflict now happens in the female key."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uh1o6p5sXA
As a male, I can attest to a problem with #3. Seems you are comparing apples to oranges, i.e., covert female 'games' in general to male sports games with clearly defined rules, immutable within the game, and within the context of a game event with a clearly defined time limit. (Even opting out of one of these games can have social consequences, not always inconsequential. The 'nerd' and the 'jock'? Colin Kaepernick?)
The most extreme consequences of opting out can be illustrated by the potentially deadly result of quitting a criminal organization, an admittedly overt extreme, but there are infinite 'covert' non-violent gradations of this in polite male society (hoping that is not an oxymoron ;-). Everybody is defined by their choices on many subtle levels.
Very interesting! This might explain why online gaming communities (where the games have defined rules, overt competition and shows of dominance etc) tend to skew heavily male, and also why Joe Rogan today said that his response to his current controversy is to just live his real life (where the rules are predictable, at least for someone like him) and not care about the online world.
Scientific analysis, not to mention consciousness in general--the business of life, requires the creation of categories, one of its most powerful tools and one of its most potentially misleading. The determinations as to which categories are "real" and which are "artificial" remain tantalizingly unresolved scientifically, which I think is perhaps counterintuitively cause for hope. but meanwhile it is giving us leave to overrun our ecosystem.
It can reveal doors to further objective understanding or paint its creators into subjective corners. It is very often impossible or nearly so to know which place one is in and even more often the two are in superposition until some sort of mental or communal wave function collapse is triggered by a new observation or consensus.
Figuring that out is the job and joy of the scientific method. But when that kind of consciousness is applied to itself, it is creating an object containing categories to analyze that it lives within, and the tools to do that are tricky to construct with objectivity. At this point evolutionary theory looks to be as good a tool as we have, but the objectivity part will have to come from a fusion of many perspectives, both male and female, each uniquely competitive. I sincerely hope it opens a very asymptotically wide window with a spectacular view.