>Someone stuck in a one-person flat will have a different experience.
As someone in this position I can say that the lack of a commute has been amazing, I'm sleeping much better and less stressed overall but the lack of social contact is definitely weighing down.
Also cultures where multiple generations living under the same roof is the norm. I left home at 18 for university and had given up any expectations of living with my family for meaningful amounts of time (a couple of weeks a year is not the same, felt like a guest in my own home). Because of covid, I have been at home since a couple of months. My mental health has improved drastically. I didn't even realize the ways in which I was in a dark place when I lived by myself. I am really debating if achieving 100% of my professional goals is worth it, or if I could be satisfied with 80% but living with/close to family.
Neuroscience has collected enough evidence to argue we crave social connectivity from the start, as our birth and early nurturing itself puts the habit into our daily working memory.
Given that, it could be a gap from family to 20s single life may cause a shock to the system to be better understood.
Is there such a thing as too harsh an emotional break to self reliance and does it have an epigenetic or other measurable response?
And consider elites almost always have a big family watching their back, so to speak. Often nurturing and supportive in ways the hip youth find stifling and cowardly.
> I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things
I'm sure the flexibility is nice when you are making $100+ per hour but drivers make a tenth of that and struggle to get health insurance
Stefan Molyneux is a pig but your characterization of Damore is low effort and more or less completely wrong. If you read the memo it is a relatively straightforward review of standard Biology and Psychology research. There's virtually nothing controversial in it. If you have issues with it you have issues with science. Which given the "decolonize" science lunacy recently isn't surprising. China is laughing all the way to the bank as both sides of the political divide in the West largely and the US specifically abandon logic and reason for superstition and dogma.
"your characterization of Damore is low effort and more or less completely wrong".
Your characterization of Damore is equally low effort. The memo is not simply a "relatively straightfoward review of standard Biology and Psychology research". Even if I were to agree that those parts of it were non-controversial, those parts of it are not the point or intention of the memo.
You are completely ignoring the arguments Damore actually makes, that were built on faulty premises and selected studies that validate his worldview. Some of his statements might be non-controversial in isolation, but have been constructed to build a specific narrative about diversity and inclusion. You are also completely ignoring the context in which this memo was distributed, surfaced, and the channels through which it was ultimately publicized.
Damore clearly had an agenda and his own bias against what he perceived as PC-culture at Google. Trying to frame him as some neutral observer of the behavioral psychology of Googlers is ignorant, if not disingenuous.
>have been constructed to build a specific narrative about diversity and inclusion
Just for reference, the first line in the memo is literally: "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using
stereotypes"
But you kapnobatairza, you actually know what was in Damore's heart better than he himself. You are an oracle and a prophet and the bringer of truth. 2+2=5 amirite.
Damore's evidence was by turns cherry picked, misinterpreted, and unrepresentative of mainstream understanding in the fields it came from. You can read plenty of those researchers complaining about his use of their work. His synthesis is about as scientific as phrenology.
Memo line: "Women, on average, have more Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally
also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men"
Research summary: "I summarize data from two meta‐analyses and three cross‐cultural studies on gender differences in personality and interests. Results show that gender differences in Big Five personality traits are ‘small’ to ‘moderate,’ with the largest differences occurring for agreeableness and neuroticism (respective d s = 0.40 and 0.34; women higher than men). In contrast, gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d = 1.18), with women more people‐oriented and less thing‐oriented than men."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1751-9004...
Wow.. totally misrepresented the research there...
Memo: "Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for
status on average"
Memo: "Women, on average, have more Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)."
Research: "Secondary analyses of Revised NEO Personality inventory data from 26 cultures (N =23,031) suggest that gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas"
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.81.2....
Omg he totally misrepresented the research there...
> If you have issues with it you have issues with science.
Dogmatic statements like these just weaken your case; the idea that some memo was the Golden Standard™ of Science and those who question it are questioning Science itself is clearly ridiculous. It's Trump-level hyporbole. The perfect memo.
Molyneux is detestable but SLPC has no credibility. They recently settled a defamation lawsuit against Majid Nawaz an anti-extremism Muslim reformer who they labeled as an anti-muslim extremist. It's in the same vein as people who call Ben Shapiro, an orthodox jew, a Nazi. It's simply ridiculous hysterics.
No... It's to point out that the particular claim to authority that SPLC is the adjudicator on who is racist or not is stupid. OP could have easily posted the quote directly from Molyneux's twitter or wherever he rants at without invoking SPLC.
>Direct helicopter money into everyone's bank account...oh, wait, we are doing that
Except the amount is peanuts, peer countries are doing 2k/mo without issue but its somehow a struggle or hyperinflationary for the US to do 2400 over 6 months?
People always parrot this but how many Doctors do you know with no degree? Take a poll at Google engineers and see how many are actually self taught and have no degree. How many Wall Street bankers/traders/etc have no degree? How many US Senators have no degree? How many World Leaders in history have had no formal education? Not counting dropouts, what percentage of Billionaires have no college education? The reality is still that the overwhelming majority of "successful" people still have degrees. You can argue what the root of this is whether it's the added knowledge or signalling of the degree, or intrinsic self motivation of the person, etc. but that fact still remains.
> You can argue what the root of this is whether it's the added knowledge or signalling of the degree, or intrinsic self motivation of the person, etc. but that fact still remains.
More discussion on "the root of this" might lead to the above changing.
