Slashdot Mirror

We also noticed you seem to have pulled all content from the last few months on your blog.

The top three popular links for my blog this past weekend was the Hello, Slashdot, The Original Slashdot F.A.Q., and, of course, the tag for all my Slashdot-related blog posts.

Best to forget that little episode now that you're normal!

Sorry, I took my vitamins this morning.

We also noticed you seem to have pulled all content from the last few months on your blog.

The top three popular links for my blog this past weekend was the Hello, Slashdot, The Original Slashdot F.A.Q., and, of course, the tag for all my Slashdot-related blog posts.

Best to forget that little episode now that you're normal!

Sorry, I took my vitamins this morning.

Your shitty blog's definition of morbid obesity conflicts with the ASMBS definition [...]

I thought about updating that part of The Original Slashdot F.A.Q., but I left it "as is" since it would piss off today's troll just as it pissed off the trolls from 11 years ago. Your angry response just proved that.

You're just another in-denial fatty who thinks that his pants are too tight [...]

My clothes fit fine. I buy them at Target just like everyone else.

What's the deal?

Successful fat people make Slashdot trolls feel stupid.

Check out my Slashdot page, "There are 10 types of people on Slashdot...", and my past blog postings.

What's the deal?

Successful fat people make Slashdot trolls feel stupid.

Check out my Slashdot page, "There are 10 types of people on Slashdot...", and my past blog postings.

Well six months ago is about when you became such an annoying spammy twat.

Six months ago I was falsely accused of threatening to shoot someone. I haven't heard from that asshat in several months. I'm still waiting for him to file a complaint with the governor of California and the IRS.

In 11 years you won't be capable of walking about and getting into a bus. How many 375 pounds men in their late 50s do you see walking about on the streets? You already pass out every night, and surely you're aware that the health of morbidly obese men in their 40s and 50s goes downhill rapidly.

Don't let the facts that I'm losing weight and taking naps get in the way of your narrative.

In 11 years you won't be capable of walking about and getting into a bus. How many 375 pounds men in their late 50s do you see walking about on the streets? You already pass out every night, and surely you're aware that the health of morbidly obese men in their 40s and 50s goes downhill rapidly.

Don't let the facts that I'm losing weight and taking naps get in the way of your narrative.

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.

Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.

Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.

I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):

Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs

http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8

http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6

To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â

Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP

http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Yeah, it's more Trumpian firehose of bullshit from the author of a "book" called Unemployable .... about his unemployable fat ass.

"Unemployable: Haiku & Other Poems" is available for pre-order at Apple iBooks, Kobo and Barnes & Noble's Nook. Publication date is 10/1/2017 and will be available at other retailers.

Chris, seek medical attention, that tiny brain of yours spins around so fast it might drill its way out of that thick skull of yours!

Thank you for promoting my links!

Yeah, it's more Trumpian firehose of bullshit from the author of a "book" called Unemployable .... about his unemployable fat ass.

"Unemployable: Haiku & Other Poems" is available for pre-order at Apple iBooks, Kobo and Barnes & Noble's Nook. Publication date is 10/1/2017 and will be available at other retailers.

Chris, seek medical attention, that tiny brain of yours spins around so fast it might drill its way out of that thick skull of yours!

Thank you for promoting my links!

Here's something from the news site crikey.com.au "Yes, Australia's best bud Saudi Arabia is actively funding terrorism":
http://bit.ly/2tO8kKc
It should be the full article. If not you can have read the full thing if you provide an email address and choose a password for a free two week trial of the site.

you sound obese, bro

I'm ten pounds lighter. Bitch about something else.

I will apologise right now. Why am I explaining all this you might wonder? To comply with what I expect from everyone else: do whatever you want, but always take responsibility for your mistakes

If that be so Alvaro, I will await with anticipation your apology for the mistake of correcting me as to the fact that Olympic swimming pools is a popular measure of volume. (and not of area).

Casey Neistat did a video review of "American Kingpin: The Epic Hunt for the Criminal Mastermind Behind the Silk Road" by Nick Bilton. The Silk Road was the black market of the Internet where you could have gotten anything. I haven't read it yet but looks like a good read.
https://bit.ly/2rqzAg6
-creimer
There are 10 kinds of people on Slashdot. Which kind are you? https://www.cdreimer.com/slash...

However, if you spent some quality time with your local militia group, your skin would crawl. I personally know several people that grew up in some of the pseudo-christian groups, and hhttps://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10864545&cid=54811229#ave personal experience the terror and fear they generated in the towns near their compounds in Idaho, Montana, Utah, etc. Also see the stats at https://www.splcenter.org/2010... - those are just the tip of the iceberg, the ones that gain national attention.

I didn't want to reach too far back into the past, but the Klan comes to mind. http://bit.ly/2tcvOJo

Extremism respects no flavor or religion.

There are 10 kinds of people on Slashdot. Which kind are you? https://www.cdreimer.com/slash...

Please use my bit.ly link for this URL. Makes it easier to count the number of Slashdot readers clicking on it. Thanks! ;)

http://bit.ly/2u7aDZt

FFS

Cicking on me amazon affiliate link and buying is 100% secure I guarantee.
-creimer
Suppot Me! click amazon link and buy book! http://bit.ly/2ukKEK3

Broad acreage tillage is probably the single biggest contributor to carbon released into the atmosphere.

"Name one ecosystem that is better off for having agriculture moved into it?" Toby Hemenway http://bit.ly/1pnapoW

Mark Shepard on Restoration Agriculture - Abundance of Ohio River Valley pre-agriculture (during Jefferson administration). http://bit.ly/1cbC2uU

Broad acreage tillage is probably the single biggest contributor to carbon released into the atmosphere.

"Name one ecosystem that is better off for having agriculture moved into it?" Toby Hemenway http://bit.ly/1pnapoW

Mark Shepard on Restoration Agriculture - Abundance of Ohio River Valley pre-agriculture (during Jefferson administration). http://bit.ly/1cbC2uU

Dan Tehan is one of many Australian government ministers who has no clue about technology. http://bit.ly/2pMtFlG

Answering yourself? How fucking sad. There is only one thing to say to someone that talks to themselves..

Wow way to miss the point and the blatant hypocrisy because it doesn't fit your narrative, there is really only one response to that.

Otto Warburg understand cancer metabolism in 1923. It's been quackery in oncology every since. Evolutionary Origins of Cancer --"A 1.6 Billion-Year-Old Accident Waiting to Happen" http://bit.ly/18a3ul5

Here is a great guide for you.

And you just ignore the entire post so you can have a pedantic circle jerk...we have seen your kind before..

I can't believe you just typed that in. Maybe I'm missing a MathML extension or something. Either way, here it is typeset, if anybody's interested.
http://bit.ly/2lm0Da8

How the fuck do you or anyone else know that the people in question are okay?

You look at them, you interview them, and you use common sense. You interview the family of these girls - If her dad is a dentist fleeing terror then you put a tick in the "not dangerous" box: .

http://bit.ly/2kOQsdf.

For God's sake, where did all this American cowardice come from? You're the strongest nation in the world. Read your Statue of "Liberty" and prove it.

And frankly, all this talk of 'safety' when it comes to suffering people is infuriating. If Trump truly wanted to make Americans "safe" he'd be pushing deep and meaningful gun control. He'd be supporting initiatives to reduce pollution and improve workplace safety in places like coal mines. He'd be pushing for clean drinking water in places like Flint, and working to improve highway safety. He'd beef up the FDA and inspect the food chain. He'd provide support to battered women and children.

...and much more.

Those are the things that make you unsafe - Not bogey-man refugee terrorists.

He demonstrates leadership in none of these things - Which proves he's not interested in keeping Americans 'safe' - He's just interested in keeping people like you scared.

you've inherited your grandfather's old farm plot in Stardew Valley. Armed with hand-me-down tools and a few coins, you set out to begin your new...More this Website http://bit.ly/2kfQKaX

you've inherited your grandfather's old farm plot in Stardew Valley. Armed with hand-me-down tools and a few coins, you set out to begin your new...More this Website http://bit.ly/2kfQKaX