Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
You are right. Clearly all group differences, no matter how well studied and reproducibly documented, are negated if one can find a single anecdote that is an exception. Check mate. You got me.
If you think there is a reproducible and documented biological gender difference on interest in ancient empires, feel free to link this hoard of academic brilliance.
Other than that, you seem to forget that a) your rhetoric didn't allow for exceptions and that b) you were the one who went from generalities to one specific individual.
That's the price of hyperbole and listening to influencers.
Will be hard to dispute if he wrote anything though. Assuming everyone's writing decays/becomes lost to time at the same rate, there will come a time when his is the only left from our decade.
lmao I’m just imagining a future anthropologist thinking that Luciom must have been one of our greatest intellectuals and orators because his writing is the only one left
“for a primitive species, this really isn’t that stupid!”
If you think there is a reproducible and documented biological gender difference on interest in ancient empires, feel free to link this hoard of academic brilliance. Other than that, you seem to forget that a) your rhetoric didn't allow for exceptions and that b) you were the one who went from generalities to one specific individual. That's the price of hyperbole and listening
What's the breakdown in male/female undergrads selecting history as a major?
very few on this forum will look good in 50 or 100 years given their writings and support.
"Years" seems ambitious. If I were you, I'd focus on trying to not look like a total moron within 50-100 seconds of posting.
data up to 2014 shows a systematically lower preference for history vs other humanities for women
https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indica...
in order to avoid jumping to rapid conclusions I suggest women comparatively dislike history because they dislike numbers more often than men do and history has a lot of dates
I make factual statements about both. for instance, it really gets the liberals irate when I mention that Stalin's USSR beat the Nazis. that one probably still stings.
data up to 2014 shows a systematically lower preference for history vs other humanities for women
https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indica...
in order to avoid jumping to rapid conclusions I suggest women comparatively dislike history because they dislike numbers more often than men do and history has a lot of dates
To make this absolutely clear:
Dunyain hasn't merely stated that there is merely a gender difference in historical interest. He has stated that there is a biological difference in the brain between the sexes that causes this, and he has stated that this is well documented and reproducible. He then uses this general claim to infer conclusions about the brain of a single individual.
He should provide references and articles for this claimed "well documented and reproducible" phenomena of brain differences in regards to interest in ancient empires, and he should also show how it allows for inferences about individuals.
Of course, some might be tempted to go "He just said there was brain differences, this should allow us to conclude that observed differences are brain differences".... then just no, that's crap pseudoscience that isn't even worth typing out. To make hard scientific claims about the brain should require hard scientific evidence about the brain, nothing less.
[QUOTE=Luciom]I suggest women comparatively dislike history because they dislike numbers more often than men do and history has a lot of dates[/QUOTE]
I’m so thrilled to be at the point in my life where posts like this amuse me more than anything
*with weapons provided to them by the United States without which they would have been screwed
nope, they would have won regardless. open a history book. or even just wikipedia lol.
To make this absolutely clear: Dunyain hasn't merely stated that there is merely a gender difference in historical interest. He has stated that there is a biological difference in the brain between the sexes that causes this, and he has stated that this is well documented and reproducible. He then uses this general claim to infer conclusions about the brain of a single individu
I think he claimed well documented and reproducible sex differences in interests in general exist, that their are biological in general and not cultural, and from that he moved to the particular case of ancient empires.
we don't know if they would have won anyway without the lend lease, we don't know if they would have won anyway if the UK had made a deal to stay out of the conflict and the USA had never entered, and we don't know if the good guys (us) would have won anyway if the USSR had been destroyed and occupied by Hitler
Unless the history book was written by Stalin himself I doubt any history book is downplaying the importance of lend-lease. It’s the equivalent of over 600 billion dollars of no strings attached military aid. That’s not even counting the money we spent on the war in our own military capacity. Russia received the equivalent of 165 billion dollars, again no strings attached.
Unless the history book was written by Stalin himself I doubt any history book is downplaying the importance of lend-lease. It’s the equivalent of over 600 billion dollars of no strings attached military aid. That’s not even counting the money we spent on the war in our own military capacity. Russia received the equivalent of 165 billion dollars, again no strings attached.
This has been explained to Victor multiple times, including a lengthy discussion in this very thread not long ago. You are talking to a brick wall.
There is also this unfortunate thing where they entered a non-aggression pact with Nazi-Germany and then allied with them in all but words for the invasion of Poland.
And they kept that going for a two years while France got wiped out and Britain hardly won a single battlefield victory on the continent, but still refused to yield.
The Soviets' contribution to WW2 should not be discounted, because they had numbers that were integral to the final victory. However, they were not the bulwark against Nazi-Germany. the UK was.
Unless the history book was written by Stalin himself I doubt any history book is downplaying the importance of lend-lease. It’s the equivalent of over 600 billion dollars of no strings attached military aid. That’s not even counting the money we spent on the war in our own military capacity. Russia received the equivalent of 165 billion dollars, again no strings attached.
this is called shifting the goalposts. nobody is denying it was helpful. but USSR would have won regardless. they stopped the Nazis outside of Moscow with very little help from lend lease which had hardly shipped anything by 1941.
There is also this unfortunate thing where they entered a non-aggression pact with Nazi-Germany and then allied with them in all but words for the invasion of Poland. And they kept that going for a two years while France got wiped out and Britain hardly won a single battlefield victory on the continent, but still refused to yield. The Soviets' contribution to WW2 should not be
ask the Czechs if the UK ever did the non-aggression thing with Germany.
the funny thing is that Stalin begged the UK for years to ally with the USSR.
To make this absolutely clear: Dunyain hasn't merely stated that there is merely a gender difference in historical interest. He has stated that there is a biological difference in the brain between the sexes that causes this, and he has stated that this is well documented and reproducible. He then uses this general claim to infer conclusions about the brain of a single individu
I'm no expert and don't know the details as it relates to one taking an interest in history, but he's probably right. There's a variety of differences between male and female brains, a major one being that women tend to have more evenly balanced activity/interaction between the hemispheres, and men are more left-brain dominant. Since these differences exist, they're going to play a role in the kinds of things individuals take interest in.
as someone who took 6 years of Latin, the genocidal rapacious nature of the West can draw a distinct line to the Roman Empire and late Republic.
To make this absolutely clear: Dunyain hasn't merely stated that there is merely a gender difference in historical interest. He has stated that there is a biological difference in the brain between the sexes that causes this, and he has stated that this is well documented and reproducible. He then uses this general claim to infer conclusions about the brain of a single individu
we've hit peak virtue signaling
Unless the history book was written by Stalin himself I doubt any history book is downplaying the importance of lend-lease. It’s the equivalent of over 600 billion dollars of no strings attached military aid. That’s not even counting the money we spent on the war in our own military capacity. Russia received the equivalent of 165 billion dollars, again no strings attached.
idr if it was victor before, but this isn't the 1st time i'm sharing this in direct response to someone saying lend lease didn't matter recently
