Message from @Sean

Discord ID: 418071623925628939


2018-02-27 02:02:23 UTC  

Someone intellectually honest enough, even though liberal, to publish work that disproved his hypothesis.

2018-02-27 02:03:11 UTC  

Diversity training does not even increase diversity. A 2007 study sifted
through decades of employment statistics companies must file with the
federal government and found that training had no effect at all on the
number of women or minorities in management. “Companies have spent
millions of dollars a year on these programs without actually knowing,
‘Are these efforts worth it?’ ” explained Frank Dobbin of Harvard. “In the
case of diversity training, the answer is no.” Sometimes diversity training
even appeared to provoke resentment among managers and make
advancement more difficult for minorities.96

2018-02-27 02:08:04 UTC  

Many observers have pointed out that the search for diversity does not include
points of view. One study of the political affiliations of American university
professors found very few conservative affiliations, such as Republican or
Libertarian: Harvard—4 percent; Penn State—17 percent; Stanford—11 percent;
UCLA—6 percent; UC Santa Barbara—1 percent; Brown—5 percent; Cornell—
3 percent. The rest were leftist. In the 2000 presidential election, in which
George Bush and Al Gore each got 48 percent of the popular vote and Ralph
Nader got 3 percent, 84 percent of Ivy League faculty voted for Al Gore, 9
percent for George Bush, and 6 percent for Ralph Nader.

2018-02-27 02:13:55 UTC  

It should be clear by now that whatever Americans say about diversity, it is
not a strength. If it were a strength, Americans would practice it spontaneously.
It would not require “diversity management” or anti-discrimination laws. Nor
would it require constant reminders of how wonderful it is. It takes no
exhortations for us to appreciate things that are truly desirable: indoor plumbing,
vacations, modern medicine, friendship, or cheaper gasoline.

2018-02-27 02:27:32 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/396469069332611083/417870339822059523/IMG_20171006_211239.jpg

2018-02-27 02:29:33 UTC  

America’s enthusiasm for diversity therefore cannot be explained by searching
for its benefits. It can be understood only as a moral campaign that arises from
unsupported but rigidly enforced assumptions about race. There is enormous
momentum behind the orthodox view, but even orthodoxies crumble when they
are obviously wrong.
J.B.S. Haldane noted with a smile that there are four stages new ideas go
through before they are accepted: 1. This is worthless nonsense. 2. This is an
interesting, but perverse, point of view. 3. This is true, but quite unimportant. 4. I
always said so.105 The realization that diversity is not a strength is somewhere
between stages one and two, but the evidence for it is so strong that it will
eventually reach stage four.
When that happens, Western societies will have to answer some very
uncomfortable questions: If our efforts to increase diversity were a mistake, what
do we do now? Can diversity be reversed humanely? If so, how? Or do we
simply carry on, but more humbly and with lower expectations? These are some
of the questions we will examine in the concluding chapter.

2018-02-27 02:43:20 UTC  

Much of our evolution as a distinct
species took place before the invention of agriculture, during the millions
of years our human and proto-human ancestors lived in hunter-gatherer
bands. The members of small bands were usually related to each other,
and it was important for them to cooperate and even sacrifice for each
other. At the same time, strangers were potentially dangerous competitors
for food and territory.

As Edward O. Wilson of Harvard has explained:

"The strongest evoker of aggressive response in animals is the sight of a
stranger, especially a territorial intruder. This xenophobic principle has
been documented in virtually every group of animals displaying higher
forms of social organization." 4

2018-02-27 02:43:55 UTC  

- Groups that did not defend territory against intruders were less likely to
survive. “Our behavioral predisposition to ethnic nepotism evolved in the
struggle for existence because it was rational and useful,” explains
Finnish scholar Tatu Vanhanen.5

Today our lives are vastly different from
those of hunter-gatherers, but research on human behavior suggests that
many basic instincts are unchanged.

2018-02-27 02:44:19 UTC  

-Many kinds of animal behavior can be explained by genetic similarity
theory. Animals have a preference for close kin, and study after study has shown that they have a remarkable ability to tell kin from strangers. Frogs
lay eggs in bunches, but they can be separated and left to hatch
individually. When tadpoles are then put into a tank, brothers and sisters
somehow recognize each other and cluster together rather than mix with
tadpoles from different mothers.6

2018-02-27 02:48:16 UTC  

- Female Belding’s ground squirrels may mate with more than one male
before they give birth, so a litter can be a mix of full siblings and half
siblings. Like tadpoles, they can tell each other apart. Full siblings
cooperate more with each other than with half-siblings, fight less, and are
less likely to run each other out of the territory when they grow up.7

2018-02-27 02:48:30 UTC  

- Even bees know who their relatives are. In one experiment, bees were
bred for 14 different degrees of relatedness—sisters, cousins, second
cousins, etc.—to bees in a particular hive. When the bees were then
released near the hive, guard bees had to decide which ones to let in.
They distinguished between degrees of kinship with almost perfect
accuracy, letting in the closest relatives and chasing away more distant
kin. The correlation between relatedness and likelihood of being
admitted was a remarkable 0.93.8

2018-02-27 03:24:29 UTC  

@here so find me something reputable that points to the transfer of haploid DNA into women from men's sperm.

2018-02-27 03:25:02 UTC  

Then bonus points on how it might possibly impact behavior measurably.

2018-02-27 05:00:55 UTC  

I wish that kind of analysis was allowed

2018-02-27 15:17:20 UTC  

This is all fetal. All of it. There is no reference to haploid DNA (sperm). Granted, it does note male, and Y-chromosome, which is interesting in that we might then conclude that the DNA could be present if your mate had had *one or more children* (or *pregnancies*, perhaps??) with a former partner. Nothing in this seems to suggest other-than-fetal DNA.

2018-02-27 15:20:34 UTC  

@Sean So if we're going forward with the hypothesis, it looks like the concern is how many pregnancies by other guys. Not how many times she's had a load of semen deposited.

2018-02-27 15:38:41 UTC  

Not necessarily, the first study found male DNA present in 10% of nulligravid female cadavers, indicating that the origin is not always a result of fetal tissue displacement

2018-02-27 15:47:22 UTC  

This study also only analyzed samples derived from deceased female PBMCs. I wish there were studies that examined living female reproductive tissue in this way and was grouped by number of sexual partners. That would be interesting, but verifying those numbers could be challenging and women would not be willing to participate

2018-02-27 15:51:01 UTC  

Yeah. (Should check/correlate against number of partners, and would they participate...)

2018-02-27 15:53:00 UTC  

Oh, I see now in the first study. I missed that the first time re: no sons.

2018-02-27 15:54:52 UTC  

Interesting that it's higher in the group that had abortions.

2018-02-27 15:58:19 UTC  

The conclusion still lists the possible cause there of intercourse as one of five possibilities. I think it is still not conclusive that it's via plain intercourse. The study doesn't state that strongly.

2018-02-27 15:58:50 UTC  

I advise caution here and not jumping to conclusions.

2018-02-27 16:16:02 UTC  

Most important statement: `Besides known pregnancies, other **possible** sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse. Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories. Further studies are needed to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women.` Emphasis mine. This is in no way conclusive.

2018-02-27 16:17:05 UTC  

Especially given the rather large pile of existing data showing a fetal source.

2018-02-27 16:18:58 UTC  

`About 20 to 30% of women with confirmed pregnancies bleed during the first 20 wk of pregnancy; half of these women spontaneously abort. Thus, incidence of spontaneous abortion is about 10 to 15% in confirmed pregnancies. `

2018-02-27 16:19:26 UTC  

So it could come from there, or from unrecognized pregnancies that spontaneously abort, for example.

2018-02-27 16:21:01 UTC  

Consider the 8% for the groups only *known* to have daughters. For any group, incidence of spontaneous abortion is ~10% to 15%, which neatly encompasses the 8% for those with only daughters brought to term.

2018-02-27 16:21:35 UTC  

This gives a mechanism which obviates any need to include sexual intercourse alone in the causality.

2018-02-27 16:22:13 UTC  

I wasn't contending that male microchimerism is conclusively a result of male haploid DNA ingestion. It's difficult to determine origin, especially in deceased subjects without comparing sequences found to their sons, sexual partners, etc. I think it's interesting that ostensibly, only the Chinese are studying this.

2018-02-27 16:22:50 UTC  

Yeah I know you weren't contending it. It just seems that the discussion on the Alt-Right / MGTOW sphere is horribly focused on that.

2018-02-27 16:23:28 UTC  

When from the above we see that it's far from demonstrated conclusively.

2018-02-27 16:23:50 UTC  

Thanks for grabbing those studies man this shit is fascinating.

2018-02-27 16:24:13 UTC  

We need better ones still! Always more questions to answer

2018-02-27 16:25:01 UTC  

Totally agreement there, brother. No stone unturned in the search for knowledge and truth.

2018-02-27 16:30:26 UTC  

I won't stop you guys from having this discussion in the book of the month discussion channel, since no one really uses it except during voice chats anyway, however, there might be a better channel for this.

2018-02-27 16:30:50 UTC  

If you have interesting links, feel free to post them in the appropriate channel, and use that category's general for discussion