That's one thing, but Sarah in particular identifies as a DMV resident, and as such would be well advised to take a trip to our various national memorials.
I always found it a great pleasure to find some older veteran visiting DC for the first time and, as a native, be the one to give them directions to the site which commemorates them and their brothers in arms.
The District (of Columbia), Maryland, and Virginia are abbreviated as such to people who live in the greater Washington DC area. The place where you get your driver's license is something else.
People who are not local commonly say that someone is "from DC" when they in fact live in the suburbs, which are radically different. Obviously, I do not know where Sarah lives so I was playing it safe.
“What is the 32 year old woman to do with all of the red pill messaging out there?” That’s a really big question, but I actually think it’s a pretty good opportunity for those women.
I think that the issue is that there’s a very large cohort of younger men who are going through a large disenchantment cycle with regards to women. They were sold a bill of goods about women and relationships by the culture, their friends and family that turned out to not work out for them and they’re angry.
I think the major (general) downside of this for women is that there’s a far lesser desire of men to pursue them than in the past. There used to be an endless well of want from men towards women and that’s just diminished now because of this disenchantment combined with a lot of alternatives (Porn, video games, Only Fans, Instagram, endless entertainment culture).
BUT, I think the opportunity lies with the woman who really thinks about the kind of man she wants, gets as clear as possible on that, and THEN really tries to figure out what that kind of man actually wants from her (it’s probably not as obvious as you think).
I think the woman who does that really separates herself from the herd because most women are just wondering why they’re not being pursued anymore by anyone they really want. I think this is a trick to find out who you want and get them to pursue you.
This is just coming from a man, so what do I know?
As a man, you know what it would be like if the most extreme "red pill manosphere misogyny etc. etc." were embedded into every institution. You know what it's like for negative stereotypes about you propagandized to everyone around you. There was a recent Phetasy bit where she's talking about this manosphere stuff and then catches herself and says basically "let me know when Nick Fuentes is named the head of the United States Department of Education". The thing for the 32 year old woman to understand is that whatever bad thing she's worried about is really not that special.
It's also, as you say, a great opportunity, because if a woman can just get out of the cultural mainstream madness, she doesn't have a ton of competition.
Took me a second to get it, but yeah I definitely grew up in a culture and institutions that were imbued with negative attitudes about "toxic" male behavior that is actually just a normal sex difference.
Regarding what's a woman to do about the dirth of worthy men, it's good to remember all this talk about men and women is an aggregated perspective. Plenty of candidates on the tail of the bell curve. Though it takes some concerted effort to narrow one's search. Both in recognition of your quarry, and recognition of one's own true desires, since our desires are more existential these days than simple and traditional.
As for young men being sold a bill of goods, I think it's more a lack of available leadership and mentors. Top male cultural figures have hidden themselves away, to protect their wealth and status from the ravaging storm of wokeism. So starved of leadership that even a geeky academic like Jordan Peterson can be elevated so quickly into that role. I admire and value Peterson as well, but he certainly strikes a pose very dissimilar to the traditional role models of the past. He's no John Wayne, for sure.
I think you make a good point, but I would add that the lack of mentors and leadership have been in retreat for a lot longer than wokeism has been a thing. This has been a multidecade thing.
I’m currently reading a book about the difficulties of high IQ individuals. The math would say that if your IQ is 2 standards above the norm, there are twice as many men as there are women, making it quite hard for a man in that situation to find women in what we’ll call an “acceptable IQ range”. The same is true of low IQ people.
My own marriage is much the same as Sarah’s description. My conversation takes very little time to become boring and my wife loses interest very quickly.
In all actuality she sometimes doesn’t like it when I go to parties because I “know things” and it becomes awkward because her and her friends react the same way I just described. So I live a content life of a social hermit, keeping my mind to myself as I have done since I can remember. It kind of sucks but it is what it is.
Megan’s description of how people view Sarah’s thoughts has been described to me personally many times, so it feels accurate from my perspective.
If it makes you feel better, my husband and I are probably equally as intelligent but interested in and “know things about” completely unrelated fields so neither of us gets to talk to each other about what we like because we both lose interest quickly. A lot of that is likely because he thinks I talk down to him about my stuff and I feel like he only tells me stuff to demonstrate how fantastic he is. And let’s be real, he is, but we’re also two competitive people who married each other, oh well.
Haha that’s fine, as a dynamic it works for some people, it works for my wife and I too so it’s just fine. In my personal case I’ve been somewhat of an oddball my whole life socially, so I’m used to it.
I personally have been reading/researching IQ recently because after taking a few IQ tests for myself, a lot of things in my life suddenly made much more sense.
I just process things a little differently than your average monkey haha.
I am new to the subject and it’s hard to discuss it without sounding like a pretentious jerk so...yeah, it’s an interesting dynamic.
I’m a little late to this comment party, but I wanted to recommend an author/researcher/former academic by the name of Russell Warne whose work you may find interesting. His 2020 book “In The Know: Debunking 35 Myths About Human intelligence” is a very informative, enlightening read. He has a PhD in Educational Psychology and specializes in human intelligence.
I’ve been a high school Special Ed Teacher for 20-odd years, and conducting formal, norm-referenced academic and cognitive assessments is a large part of what I do to identify kids who need special education services. I’m chronically frustrated by the volume of misinformed talking points surrounding human intelligence and ability, and have to tune a lot of it out to keep my blood pressure in check. This is one reason I especially like Russell Warne, because he’s a straight-shooter who doesn’t sugarcoat the facts.
Briefly about ASD, this article scrutinizes one of the most commonly used tools to diagnose various social conditions (including ASD) and reveals its lack of validity. In light of the explosion of ASD diagnoses the last 15 or so years, it’s a sobering read. Most people diagnosed with/ASD do not have high intelligence, nor do those with high intelligence (or social awkwardness) automatically qualify for an ASD diagnosis. I fear many are/have been misdiagnosed because doctors/psychiatrists have been using invalid methods.
Isn't the lede here that there are twice as many men as women who are 2 standard deviations above the norm? (If so, I've a theory: Ratio of autism in males to females is arguably 2:1-ish.)
If you could directly link autism to high IQ then yes, that correlation would be there. I’m completely ignorant of that research. Maybe that’s true? I have no idea.
Lots of evidence that there is a relation between ASD traits and high intelligence genetically, many theories as to what this means. Even Hans Asperger noted that the parents of the children he was diagnosing seem to be uniquely accomplished/intelligent.
I don’t know if the rates of ASD traits are the same between men and women when controlled for IQ or whichever standard they used for the research. That paints a bleak picture for high IQ and low ASD trait people as far as the dating market is concerned.
A criticism I've seen thrown around is that diagnosis of autism is biased towards males. No idea if that holds water. I do think it's humorous that one might uncharitably construe it as feminists being angry that they're discriminated against when it comes to joining the prestigious autism club.
I think that Meghan and Sarah landed on something revealing when they talked about preferences for talking about people after you go to parties. This in a nutshell was the big gaping divide in my 25 year-plus same sex relationship. We are very similar in education, intelligence, etc. The difference is that I like to talk about things and he does not (like Sarah's husband x 10). It's a fundamental divide in preferences and style, and I think one is better off pairing off with someone of a similar style.
Totally agree that women who do “male coded” hobbies and have “man-skills” are more attractive to men than those who don't. My wife looks good all the time, but she looks especially good when changing a tire, splitting wood, or shooting a gun.
Great advice, Sarah, for Meghan to lean into whatever hobby she likes that is something men like to do. MMA? DnD? Monster trucks? I’m looking forward to hearing how it goes—be sure to keep us updated.
Psychologist here, with a quick clarification on "g":
Spearman's "g" is a theoretical number - from the subfield of psychometrics - that is thought to represent your 'general' intelligence. When you get an IQ score, it is generally an attempt to measure something like your own g-level. Modern psychometricians might quibble about my specific wording here, but they will generally concede at the end of the day this is what an IQ score is mostly meant to measure.
The idea for g came about in the early 20th century when Spearman (a psychologist) observed that children's scores in a variety of different subjects tended to be positively correlated - even though those subjects (e.g., reading, math) appear to have very little to do with one another. He and others explained this consistent positive correlation between wide ranging skills and abilities by proposing there must be some neurological factor (g) that makes someone better or worse at a large number of tasks.
The idea isn't well liked among popular audiences, but a convergence of evidence generally supports it, including in modern research. For example:
Johnson, W., Bouchard Jr, T. J., Krueger, R. F., McGue, M., & Gottesman, I. I. (2004). Just one g: Consistent results from three test batteries. Intelligence, 32(1), 95-107.
Johnson, W., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bouchard Jr, T. J. (2008). Still just 1 g: Consistent results from five test batteries. Intelligence, 36(1), 81-95.
This post was perhaps overkill for a part of the conversation that lasted about 30 seconds, but it's one of the better supported findings in psychology, so I thought I would mention it here.
This makes me remember a conversation that I had with a girlfriend years ago. We were discussing her desire to be a teacher at a Montessori school. When I asked what that was she responded by saying it was a school that emphasized different types of intelligence and ways of learning.
In a classic moment of not reading the room I mentioned something I had read that at the time about there not really being different types of intelligence, just whether or not you are in fact intelligent.
The conversation did not end on a positive note 😂😂.
There was a NY Times Daily podcast about how all these colleges got rid of the SAT,s, then realized the decks were even more stacked without them, because without the testing you couldn't even locate the disenfranchised intelligent candidates. So now they're bringing them back.
The only way the SATs and traditional testing is "racist" is if it's "racist" that someone can't read.
To be fair to the "tests are racist" people, they were *at one time* probably correct. For example, an older colleague of mine told me once about administering the old IQ test question "where in a house does a toothbrush go?" to a young Black kid from a poor neighborhood. The child responded "in the refrigerator."
Out of interest, she asked the patient to clarify his response. He said, "my mommy puts the toothbrushes in the refrigerator every night so that the cockroaches don't touch them." This is a response that obviously demonstrates intelligence (e.g., theory of mind, counterfactual causation), but the strict rules on the test mean that it gets no points.
With an example like this, its easy to see how at least SOME questions and SOME scoring rules could mistakenly under-score people with different life experiences or cultural backgrounds.
HOWEVER, you and I will both agree that for *modern* IQ tests and the SAT, questions with those bad properties are almost entirely gone. We have good statistical methods for detecting them (e.g., item response theory, differential item functioning), and *many* financial incentives for removing them (it's really bad PR when your test is shown to be racist).
The unstated assumption from the "tests are racist" faction is often that well-meaning (but implicitly racist) psychometricians are simply unaware of and apathetic to potentially racist elements of their tests. For a number of reasons, this assumption just doesn't hold water anymore.
Whether we love it or not, the SAT is the closest thing we have to an objective measure of knowledge for literally millions of high school seniors. Grades are a problem because there's no way to account for the quality of the classes and the relative competition within a given school. The valedictorian at an inner city or rural school may still be woefully unprepared for a selective college. A solid SAT score would tell you if the kid really has potential to survive and thrive.
Two weeks ago I made a comment that, I think, Sarah thought was mean and, for sure, unfair. I hadn't listened to the whole podcast when I made the comment, but I have now and I know Sarah wants comments that battle those of the "mean" ones. Since I was "mean", let me say that I think Sarah and Megan are both outstanding in so many ways. Sarah's analytical abilities are awesome. If she writes a "think piece" it is always first rate. I am in awe of her activism and deeply respect it. She has quite often a different point of view and knowledge base than I do - I am two generations older. But, I trust her mind and heart both of which are very much in evidence every week here. (The only reason I said something "mean" was so she can know what an old lady like me wants her to re-think on one little issue!) Meghan is also great, of course, but I was "mean" to Sarah so I am trying to make it up to her. You are great Sarah.
In my social and work circle, everyone is continually trying to set-up or introduce single people to one another.
It can be a bit annoying but romantic referrals from friends are much better than online dating; you weed out the serial killers and chronically unemployed, and ghosting is drastically reduced.
That said, my men friends frequently "forget" to ask my permission to give out my contact info and just assume I will find their freshly-dumped guy-friends attractive.
It’s a double edged sword! Friends help weed out the online creepers but you also find out how your friends perceive you in the form of a recommended date. One time, my roommate’s boyfriend set me up with a guy who was “literally the guy version” of me (according to her boyfriend). The guy turned out to be an extremely religious weirdo who barely had any social skills. I spent the date incredibly pissed and told him that he was never allowed to do that ever again.
Ok yeah, that’s pretty true. Guys think highly of each other for random crap like being good at ultimate frisbee or video games and it doesn’t always equate to awesome long term partners 😂
Hey ladiex. I would like it if periodically the two of you would read (or in Meghan's case re-read) a classic work related to sex / gender / men-women etc and give your current take on it. For example, Erica Jong's "Fear of Flying." If you want to go more up-market you could do "The Second Sex" or "The Feminine Mystique" and if you want to go down-market something like "The Rules." Or you could review a movie like Woody Allen's great "Husbands and Wives" (I thought of that when Meghan talked about discussing French films as a part of old-style seduction and Sarah couldn't quite believe it.) This would be so interesting! And also an easy way to cover 30 minutes of podcast.
I don't think I understood the MLK section at the top. Is MLK Day just a bunch of bullshit? A day when the mail doesn't come? Not necessary? Past its sell-by date? I remember when the likes of Jesse Helms and Arizona governor Evan Mecham opposed the holiday on the grounds that King wan't important and didn't deserve it. Well, phooey on them. I'll skip to the mailbox on the third Tuesday in January, hoping that somewhere in the universe, they are chagrined. And did I hear this right, that if King were around today, he would be moving with current of present-day DEI "antiracism"? Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part, but I can't picture King going along with the idea that, say, the written word is a hallmark of white supremacy whereas black people are intuitive and relational; that nothing at all has changed in 500 years for black people; that standardized tests are racist, etc., you all know the arguments. Can't picture it. Did I misunderstand this part of the discussion? This whole section of the podcast? Not trying to scold or cancel anyone, just puzzled. Oh--and is anyone merely a person of their time and place, as I think Sarah said King was, when that person changes the world? Might sound corny, but I ask it sincerely.
The rest was great. Laughed out loud when Sarah rejected the idea of being a matchmaker because she "hates other people...(muttered) don't want to see them happy." From time to time, that does come across, Sarah.
I think the hosts were being facetious about MLK day just being a day when the banks and post office are closed.
I'm with you on speculating that MLK would have rejected 21st century anti-racism as being demeaning to black aspirations of equality and dignity. But as the hosts noted, he adhered to some elements of radicalism. Near the end of his life he started lamenting the inability of civil rights to address chronic poverty.
This belief is encapsulated in the quote ( I'm paraphrasing): "what good is the right to sit at a lunch counter if you can't afford a hamburger?" And at the time of death, he was just starting to organize a poor People's campaign focused on economics. I suspect that the campaign would have focused more on government redistribution of wealth rather than the primary of access to free markets.
To be fair, both the Right and the Left oversimplify MLK in order to claim him as a compatriot.
I'm not usually someone who misses the joke completely--maybe I'm coming down with something. But I think it went a little beyond "shucks, the bank is closed, har har" to "what's it for? What are we supposed to DO?" At one point Sarah said she thought it was "performative--like Juneteenth." I don't know what this means.
And the current crop of activists are such a sorry lot that I have a hard time drawing a straight line between King's late radicalism and anything they're doing, but maybe this is a blind spot I need to work on.
Women who want to meet men should go to tech and AI meetups. Lots of guys there, most of whom earn six figures. Mostly introverts, though.
Neal Strauss learned about astrology and tarot to get better at seduction. He didn’t go to astrology meetups or whatever, but when at a bar chatting girls up he’d use it to build intrigue. “You sound like a Pisces” or whatever. In my experience women love to have their personalities analyzed.
Astrology? What year is this, 1978? I don't know who Neal Strauss is, but that pickup line sounds like something used by Jack Tripper at the Regal Beagle.
MLK day started in the eighties and Arizona governor Evan Meacham refused to honor it. The NFL threatened to move the Super Bowl and he eventually caved.
Also bears mentioning that Alabama and Mississippi apparently call it MLK/Robert E Lee Day; various Southern states went through debates on whether to recognize this federal holiday or how to bring something of the Confederacy into it.
There is no gender gap in the big five trait “openness to experience”, which covers intense interest in ideas, aesthetics, etc. Justin Murphy is talking bollocks.
Hi Ladies! Re: veteran’s day please go place flowers on the graves of veterans. Or help a living veteran.
That's one thing, but Sarah in particular identifies as a DMV resident, and as such would be well advised to take a trip to our various national memorials.
I always found it a great pleasure to find some older veteran visiting DC for the first time and, as a native, be the one to give them directions to the site which commemorates them and their brothers in arms.
She identifies as the Department of Motor Vehicles?
The District (of Columbia), Maryland, and Virginia are abbreviated as such to people who live in the greater Washington DC area. The place where you get your driver's license is something else.
People who are not local commonly say that someone is "from DC" when they in fact live in the suburbs, which are radically different. Obviously, I do not know where Sarah lives so I was playing it safe.
Hmm. I expect the two DMV's actually have quite a bit in common.
I think the joke is intentional self-deprecation from a region known for its bureaucrats, not that I came up with it.
Honestly, I have only heard black people refer to the region as the "DMV". Apparently, it's more common than I thought. Learn something new every day
“What is the 32 year old woman to do with all of the red pill messaging out there?” That’s a really big question, but I actually think it’s a pretty good opportunity for those women.
I think that the issue is that there’s a very large cohort of younger men who are going through a large disenchantment cycle with regards to women. They were sold a bill of goods about women and relationships by the culture, their friends and family that turned out to not work out for them and they’re angry.
I think the major (general) downside of this for women is that there’s a far lesser desire of men to pursue them than in the past. There used to be an endless well of want from men towards women and that’s just diminished now because of this disenchantment combined with a lot of alternatives (Porn, video games, Only Fans, Instagram, endless entertainment culture).
BUT, I think the opportunity lies with the woman who really thinks about the kind of man she wants, gets as clear as possible on that, and THEN really tries to figure out what that kind of man actually wants from her (it’s probably not as obvious as you think).
I think the woman who does that really separates herself from the herd because most women are just wondering why they’re not being pursued anymore by anyone they really want. I think this is a trick to find out who you want and get them to pursue you.
This is just coming from a man, so what do I know?
As a man, you know what it would be like if the most extreme "red pill manosphere misogyny etc. etc." were embedded into every institution. You know what it's like for negative stereotypes about you propagandized to everyone around you. There was a recent Phetasy bit where she's talking about this manosphere stuff and then catches herself and says basically "let me know when Nick Fuentes is named the head of the United States Department of Education". The thing for the 32 year old woman to understand is that whatever bad thing she's worried about is really not that special.
It's also, as you say, a great opportunity, because if a woman can just get out of the cultural mainstream madness, she doesn't have a ton of competition.
Took me a second to get it, but yeah I definitely grew up in a culture and institutions that were imbued with negative attitudes about "toxic" male behavior that is actually just a normal sex difference.
Regarding what's a woman to do about the dirth of worthy men, it's good to remember all this talk about men and women is an aggregated perspective. Plenty of candidates on the tail of the bell curve. Though it takes some concerted effort to narrow one's search. Both in recognition of your quarry, and recognition of one's own true desires, since our desires are more existential these days than simple and traditional.
As for young men being sold a bill of goods, I think it's more a lack of available leadership and mentors. Top male cultural figures have hidden themselves away, to protect their wealth and status from the ravaging storm of wokeism. So starved of leadership that even a geeky academic like Jordan Peterson can be elevated so quickly into that role. I admire and value Peterson as well, but he certainly strikes a pose very dissimilar to the traditional role models of the past. He's no John Wayne, for sure.
Fascinating point.
I think you make a good point, but I would add that the lack of mentors and leadership have been in retreat for a lot longer than wokeism has been a thing. This has been a multidecade thing.
I’m currently reading a book about the difficulties of high IQ individuals. The math would say that if your IQ is 2 standards above the norm, there are twice as many men as there are women, making it quite hard for a man in that situation to find women in what we’ll call an “acceptable IQ range”. The same is true of low IQ people.
My own marriage is much the same as Sarah’s description. My conversation takes very little time to become boring and my wife loses interest very quickly.
In all actuality she sometimes doesn’t like it when I go to parties because I “know things” and it becomes awkward because her and her friends react the same way I just described. So I live a content life of a social hermit, keeping my mind to myself as I have done since I can remember. It kind of sucks but it is what it is.
Megan’s description of how people view Sarah’s thoughts has been described to me personally many times, so it feels accurate from my perspective.
If it makes you feel better, my husband and I are probably equally as intelligent but interested in and “know things about” completely unrelated fields so neither of us gets to talk to each other about what we like because we both lose interest quickly. A lot of that is likely because he thinks I talk down to him about my stuff and I feel like he only tells me stuff to demonstrate how fantastic he is. And let’s be real, he is, but we’re also two competitive people who married each other, oh well.
Haha that’s fine, as a dynamic it works for some people, it works for my wife and I too so it’s just fine. In my personal case I’ve been somewhat of an oddball my whole life socially, so I’m used to it.
I personally have been reading/researching IQ recently because after taking a few IQ tests for myself, a lot of things in my life suddenly made much more sense.
I just process things a little differently than your average monkey haha.
I am new to the subject and it’s hard to discuss it without sounding like a pretentious jerk so...yeah, it’s an interesting dynamic.
I’m a little late to this comment party, but I wanted to recommend an author/researcher/former academic by the name of Russell Warne whose work you may find interesting. His 2020 book “In The Know: Debunking 35 Myths About Human intelligence” is a very informative, enlightening read. He has a PhD in Educational Psychology and specializes in human intelligence.
I’ve been a high school Special Ed Teacher for 20-odd years, and conducting formal, norm-referenced academic and cognitive assessments is a large part of what I do to identify kids who need special education services. I’m chronically frustrated by the volume of misinformed talking points surrounding human intelligence and ability, and have to tune a lot of it out to keep my blood pressure in check. This is one reason I especially like Russell Warne, because he’s a straight-shooter who doesn’t sugarcoat the facts.
Briefly about ASD, this article scrutinizes one of the most commonly used tools to diagnose various social conditions (including ASD) and reveals its lack of validity. In light of the explosion of ASD diagnoses the last 15 or so years, it’s a sobering read. Most people diagnosed with/ASD do not have high intelligence, nor do those with high intelligence (or social awkwardness) automatically qualify for an ASD diagnosis. I fear many are/have been misdiagnosed because doctors/psychiatrists have been using invalid methods.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001368?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#bb0550
Isn't the lede here that there are twice as many men as women who are 2 standard deviations above the norm? (If so, I've a theory: Ratio of autism in males to females is arguably 2:1-ish.)
If you could directly link autism to high IQ then yes, that correlation would be there. I’m completely ignorant of that research. Maybe that’s true? I have no idea.
Lots of evidence that there is a relation between ASD traits and high intelligence genetically, many theories as to what this means. Even Hans Asperger noted that the parents of the children he was diagnosing seem to be uniquely accomplished/intelligent.
I don’t know if the rates of ASD traits are the same between men and women when controlled for IQ or whichever standard they used for the research. That paints a bleak picture for high IQ and low ASD trait people as far as the dating market is concerned.
A criticism I've seen thrown around is that diagnosis of autism is biased towards males. No idea if that holds water. I do think it's humorous that one might uncharitably construe it as feminists being angry that they're discriminated against when it comes to joining the prestigious autism club.
Haha ah yes, the high and mighty autists.
Honestly though it very well might be that it’s not a bias, but that the diagnoses are simply lining up with the bell curves.
I think that Meghan and Sarah landed on something revealing when they talked about preferences for talking about people after you go to parties. This in a nutshell was the big gaping divide in my 25 year-plus same sex relationship. We are very similar in education, intelligence, etc. The difference is that I like to talk about things and he does not (like Sarah's husband x 10). It's a fundamental divide in preferences and style, and I think one is better off pairing off with someone of a similar style.
Totally agree that women who do “male coded” hobbies and have “man-skills” are more attractive to men than those who don't. My wife looks good all the time, but she looks especially good when changing a tire, splitting wood, or shooting a gun.
Great advice, Sarah, for Meghan to lean into whatever hobby she likes that is something men like to do. MMA? DnD? Monster trucks? I’m looking forward to hearing how it goes—be sure to keep us updated.
Psychologist here, with a quick clarification on "g":
Spearman's "g" is a theoretical number - from the subfield of psychometrics - that is thought to represent your 'general' intelligence. When you get an IQ score, it is generally an attempt to measure something like your own g-level. Modern psychometricians might quibble about my specific wording here, but they will generally concede at the end of the day this is what an IQ score is mostly meant to measure.
The idea for g came about in the early 20th century when Spearman (a psychologist) observed that children's scores in a variety of different subjects tended to be positively correlated - even though those subjects (e.g., reading, math) appear to have very little to do with one another. He and others explained this consistent positive correlation between wide ranging skills and abilities by proposing there must be some neurological factor (g) that makes someone better or worse at a large number of tasks.
The idea isn't well liked among popular audiences, but a convergence of evidence generally supports it, including in modern research. For example:
Johnson, W., Bouchard Jr, T. J., Krueger, R. F., McGue, M., & Gottesman, I. I. (2004). Just one g: Consistent results from three test batteries. Intelligence, 32(1), 95-107.
Johnson, W., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bouchard Jr, T. J. (2008). Still just 1 g: Consistent results from five test batteries. Intelligence, 36(1), 81-95.
This post was perhaps overkill for a part of the conversation that lasted about 30 seconds, but it's one of the better supported findings in psychology, so I thought I would mention it here.
This makes me remember a conversation that I had with a girlfriend years ago. We were discussing her desire to be a teacher at a Montessori school. When I asked what that was she responded by saying it was a school that emphasized different types of intelligence and ways of learning.
In a classic moment of not reading the room I mentioned something I had read that at the time about there not really being different types of intelligence, just whether or not you are in fact intelligent.
The conversation did not end on a positive note 😂😂.
I’m not surprised the idea isn’t well liked....
There was a NY Times Daily podcast about how all these colleges got rid of the SAT,s, then realized the decks were even more stacked without them, because without the testing you couldn't even locate the disenfranchised intelligent candidates. So now they're bringing them back.
The only way the SATs and traditional testing is "racist" is if it's "racist" that someone can't read.
To be fair to the "tests are racist" people, they were *at one time* probably correct. For example, an older colleague of mine told me once about administering the old IQ test question "where in a house does a toothbrush go?" to a young Black kid from a poor neighborhood. The child responded "in the refrigerator."
Out of interest, she asked the patient to clarify his response. He said, "my mommy puts the toothbrushes in the refrigerator every night so that the cockroaches don't touch them." This is a response that obviously demonstrates intelligence (e.g., theory of mind, counterfactual causation), but the strict rules on the test mean that it gets no points.
With an example like this, its easy to see how at least SOME questions and SOME scoring rules could mistakenly under-score people with different life experiences or cultural backgrounds.
HOWEVER, you and I will both agree that for *modern* IQ tests and the SAT, questions with those bad properties are almost entirely gone. We have good statistical methods for detecting them (e.g., item response theory, differential item functioning), and *many* financial incentives for removing them (it's really bad PR when your test is shown to be racist).
The unstated assumption from the "tests are racist" faction is often that well-meaning (but implicitly racist) psychometricians are simply unaware of and apathetic to potentially racist elements of their tests. For a number of reasons, this assumption just doesn't hold water anymore.
Whether we love it or not, the SAT is the closest thing we have to an objective measure of knowledge for literally millions of high school seniors. Grades are a problem because there's no way to account for the quality of the classes and the relative competition within a given school. The valedictorian at an inner city or rural school may still be woefully unprepared for a selective college. A solid SAT score would tell you if the kid really has potential to survive and thrive.
I can't remember where I heard this, but it feels appropriate here:
"The truth is like poetry... most people hate poetry"
Two weeks ago I made a comment that, I think, Sarah thought was mean and, for sure, unfair. I hadn't listened to the whole podcast when I made the comment, but I have now and I know Sarah wants comments that battle those of the "mean" ones. Since I was "mean", let me say that I think Sarah and Megan are both outstanding in so many ways. Sarah's analytical abilities are awesome. If she writes a "think piece" it is always first rate. I am in awe of her activism and deeply respect it. She has quite often a different point of view and knowledge base than I do - I am two generations older. But, I trust her mind and heart both of which are very much in evidence every week here. (The only reason I said something "mean" was so she can know what an old lady like me wants her to re-think on one little issue!) Meghan is also great, of course, but I was "mean" to Sarah so I am trying to make it up to her. You are great Sarah.
I appreciate the shout-out to unmarried 32-year-old sixes. It is indeed tough out here.
In my social and work circle, everyone is continually trying to set-up or introduce single people to one another.
It can be a bit annoying but romantic referrals from friends are much better than online dating; you weed out the serial killers and chronically unemployed, and ghosting is drastically reduced.
That said, my men friends frequently "forget" to ask my permission to give out my contact info and just assume I will find their freshly-dumped guy-friends attractive.
It’s a double edged sword! Friends help weed out the online creepers but you also find out how your friends perceive you in the form of a recommended date. One time, my roommate’s boyfriend set me up with a guy who was “literally the guy version” of me (according to her boyfriend). The guy turned out to be an extremely religious weirdo who barely had any social skills. I spent the date incredibly pissed and told him that he was never allowed to do that ever again.
Heh--that's so funny. But I think it depends on whether the matchmaker is a dude or girl.
Most guys think ALL their lame friends are acceptable---you have to give them specific requirements or God knows what you'll get.
Ok yeah, that’s pretty true. Guys think highly of each other for random crap like being good at ultimate frisbee or video games and it doesn’t always equate to awesome long term partners 😂
First!!!!!!
i was in a work call :(
That’s no excuse Razib!
You did it!
Hey ladiex. I would like it if periodically the two of you would read (or in Meghan's case re-read) a classic work related to sex / gender / men-women etc and give your current take on it. For example, Erica Jong's "Fear of Flying." If you want to go more up-market you could do "The Second Sex" or "The Feminine Mystique" and if you want to go down-market something like "The Rules." Or you could review a movie like Woody Allen's great "Husbands and Wives" (I thought of that when Meghan talked about discussing French films as a part of old-style seduction and Sarah couldn't quite believe it.) This would be so interesting! And also an easy way to cover 30 minutes of podcast.
I like it.
and give us a heads up which book they will discuss so we can re/read as well
I don't think I understood the MLK section at the top. Is MLK Day just a bunch of bullshit? A day when the mail doesn't come? Not necessary? Past its sell-by date? I remember when the likes of Jesse Helms and Arizona governor Evan Mecham opposed the holiday on the grounds that King wan't important and didn't deserve it. Well, phooey on them. I'll skip to the mailbox on the third Tuesday in January, hoping that somewhere in the universe, they are chagrined. And did I hear this right, that if King were around today, he would be moving with current of present-day DEI "antiracism"? Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part, but I can't picture King going along with the idea that, say, the written word is a hallmark of white supremacy whereas black people are intuitive and relational; that nothing at all has changed in 500 years for black people; that standardized tests are racist, etc., you all know the arguments. Can't picture it. Did I misunderstand this part of the discussion? This whole section of the podcast? Not trying to scold or cancel anyone, just puzzled. Oh--and is anyone merely a person of their time and place, as I think Sarah said King was, when that person changes the world? Might sound corny, but I ask it sincerely.
The rest was great. Laughed out loud when Sarah rejected the idea of being a matchmaker because she "hates other people...(muttered) don't want to see them happy." From time to time, that does come across, Sarah.
I think the hosts were being facetious about MLK day just being a day when the banks and post office are closed.
I'm with you on speculating that MLK would have rejected 21st century anti-racism as being demeaning to black aspirations of equality and dignity. But as the hosts noted, he adhered to some elements of radicalism. Near the end of his life he started lamenting the inability of civil rights to address chronic poverty.
This belief is encapsulated in the quote ( I'm paraphrasing): "what good is the right to sit at a lunch counter if you can't afford a hamburger?" And at the time of death, he was just starting to organize a poor People's campaign focused on economics. I suspect that the campaign would have focused more on government redistribution of wealth rather than the primary of access to free markets.
To be fair, both the Right and the Left oversimplify MLK in order to claim him as a compatriot.
I'm not usually someone who misses the joke completely--maybe I'm coming down with something. But I think it went a little beyond "shucks, the bank is closed, har har" to "what's it for? What are we supposed to DO?" At one point Sarah said she thought it was "performative--like Juneteenth." I don't know what this means.
And the current crop of activists are such a sorry lot that I have a hard time drawing a straight line between King's late radicalism and anything they're doing, but maybe this is a blind spot I need to work on.
Women who want to meet men should go to tech and AI meetups. Lots of guys there, most of whom earn six figures. Mostly introverts, though.
Neal Strauss learned about astrology and tarot to get better at seduction. He didn’t go to astrology meetups or whatever, but when at a bar chatting girls up he’d use it to build intrigue. “You sound like a Pisces” or whatever. In my experience women love to have their personalities analyzed.
Astrology? What year is this, 1978? I don't know who Neal Strauss is, but that pickup line sounds like something used by Jack Tripper at the Regal Beagle.
It’s not a “pickup line.” It’s something you drop in the middle of a conversation to open a thread.
Strauss wrote the Game, a fantastic book.
MLK day started in the eighties and Arizona governor Evan Meacham refused to honor it. The NFL threatened to move the Super Bowl and he eventually caved.
Yes, that Arizona controversy went "viral" long before the rise of the interwebz.
Also bears mentioning that Alabama and Mississippi apparently call it MLK/Robert E Lee Day; various Southern states went through debates on whether to recognize this federal holiday or how to bring something of the Confederacy into it.
There is no gender gap in the big five trait “openness to experience”, which covers intense interest in ideas, aesthetics, etc. Justin Murphy is talking bollocks.
Favorite episode! So much wisdom & food for thought here.
Sarah - Your dating tips were absolutely on point. You are wise beyond your years!