https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1037449223770271744
But here's another problem that hasn't been generally acknowledged—one that may be fast approaching and that involves centrally the public: What if it turns out that people mostly believe what they want to believe, and that some of the questions we address have answers that almost no one wants to believe?
Rob Kurzban and I have recently run into this problem when studying the public's political views. We took a large database of political and demographic information and sought out the strongest connections. The results provided a pretty clear pattern. It turns out that people are often driven by what can be generally (though not fully) described as self-interest.
Who tends to really like the idea of robust government safety nets? Poorer people with limited access to private social support. Who tends to think that the government ought to stay out of the income redistribution business? Richer, white, Christian men. Who's especially liberal on religious discrimination? People who aren't Christian. The conservatives on these issues? Christians who don't excel at meritocracy (because of less education, etc.). Who's especially liberal on immigration? Immigrants. Who doesn’t like immigration? Native-born whites who don't excel at meritocracy. Who tends to want family planning tools available? People who spend long periods of their lives being sexually active but not wanting to have children. And so on.
But our findings go against people's introspective beliefs. Hardly anyone points to self-interest in accounting for their own views. Instead, people generally claim that they and their political allies are just smart people looking out for what's best for society as a whole (or for some popular subset of society, like women, children, or the middle class). If there's self-interest at work here, most people think it's limited to their political ophttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/a-marriage-of-equals/202402/sexism-massive-rules-to-control-reproductionponents.
Psychologists, though, are often unbothered by disconnects between the data patterns and people's self-descriptions. There’s a long line of research in social psychology and cognitive neuroscience showing that people often aren’t aware of their own motives.
It's worse than that, really. Not only are people often ignorant of their own motives, they're also masters of self-deceptive self-presentation. The introspective "mistakes" are often strategic maneuvers aimed at convincing others that the person is smart, nice, competent, altruistic, principled, and so on. People believe nice-sounding stories about themselves so that they can more effectively sell them to other people.
In explaining the political mind, then, we were ultimately able to arrive at an account that is consistent with psychology and public opinion data. In short, people often prefer political positions that advance their own interests. Yet people also engage in self-deceptive spin—they consciously believe that their own political views stem from high and mighty motives. And it hardly does any good to point this out, because people usually prioritize their preferred policy outcomes and strategic narratives over such bloodless luxuries as empirical coherence.
https://x.com/DegenRolf/status/1226058522137419776
Our insistence that men and women are more alike than different is true in almost all aspects of living, except for sex. Human sexuality—the sexuality of all mammals in general and primates in particular—has primal, biological roots. And when people work with, rather than against, these instincts, their sex gets better. Gender equality does not imply gender equivalence—at least, not in the bedroom.
The extraordinary gains provided by the feminist movement have been a thrilling first in modern history. Women’s expectations about sex have appropriately changed: They demand more pleasure from sex and an equal romantic partnership; women are more comfortable engaging in sexually open behaviors, including hook-ups and sexual experimentation.
It is not just women who have benefited. In contrast to old-fashioned, male sexual stereotypes, many mature men today enjoy sexually assertive women. They appreciate a social climate that supports releasing restrictive pressures always to be ready and interested in sex: always having to be the sexual initiator, and being responsible for their partners’ sexual pleasure. These shifts are reflected in many men gravitating to sexual relationships with older women, their interest in being the primary caretaker of their children, and a decreased concern with being the primary breadwinner of a household.
Many men are pleased to have escaped the pressure of old-fashioned stereotypes of masculinity—being eternally dominant, carrying the financial burden of the household, having a reduced role in parenting, and avoiding emotional expression. And those who identify with a non-binary sexual identity may now live authentically, with freedom of self-expression.
Unstable dating markets characterized by an abundance of men and a scarcity of women, pronounced income inequality, and high “bride prices” (the price in some places that a groom’s family must pay to the bride’s family, usually consisting of money or presents) can lead to radicalization and violence. In other words, in places where many men are unable to find and secure romantic partners or afford marriage, violence, conflicts, and phenomena like the Incel movement become more common.
But why does dating popularity have such a strong influence over socio-political attitudes and behavior? Why do our experiences in the dating market affect the way we think and see the world?
Empirical evidence suggests that dating influences attitudes because people, although often unconsciously, adopt the socio-political attitudes that best reflect their dating and reproductive interests. That is, people who are sexually conservative and are threatened by casual sex hold attitudes that best defend monogamy and traditional values, whereas people who are sexually liberal hold attitudes that allow free sexual expression. Studies have found that sexually conservative people are, for example, significantly more religious, against gay marriage, and in support of authorities than sexually liberal people.
Right up to World War II, these gender differences in power remained much the same. So why has the pendulum swung towards feminine empowerment?
The Decline of Gender Specialization
There are several reasons why female employment is converging with that of men, and female political empowerment follows on from rising economic clout. Control of fertility through effective contraception was critical because it liberated women from constant service to children and economic dependence on husbands.
During the economic boom of the 1920's more women sought higher education and made an entry into careers although most were still restricted to fields such as education and nursing that were then deemed gender appropriate.
Women were liberated from housework by a decline in family size and the emergence of labor-saving gadgets. (In earlier societies, married women of reproductive age were generally pregnant, breastfeeding, or caring for dependent children that made other activities, including politics, impractical).
The birth of the service economy also opened up new occupations, such as telephone operators, where female social skills and manual dexterity were at a premium.
Further entry of women into masculine fields, such as ship-building and welding, was promoted by the scarcity of men due to World War II and Rosie the Riveter from wartime posters was a real person who subsequently opened a construction business.
A decline in wages of unskilled male workers during the 1960's meant that many married women needed to work so as to earn sufficient income to support their families (5).
More young women pursued college degrees so as to improve their job prospects. There was a steady recruitment of more married women into the workforce and a slow advance of gender equality at work.
Given the decline in gender specialization at work, it made sense that women would seek representation in government, a phenomenon that is more advanced in Europe currently than in the US.
https://x.com/DegenRolf/status/1498718970106593289
.jpg)
https://x.com/robkhenderson/status/1780878989046722800
HeathSchechinger PhD 
CONTROVERSY 1: OVULATION AND WOMEN’S POLITICS
Women’s vote choice can be influenced by the menstrual cycle? That’s what Kristina Durante, Ashley Rae, and Vladas Griskevicius reported shortly after the 2012 election in an article entitled, “The Fluctuating Female Vote: Politics, Religion, and the Ovulatory Cycle.”
If you want to see a male version of hormone effects, see my blog post: “Sex (Hormones) and the Elections.”
They found that peak fertility, which occurs during the week or so following ovulation, affected women’s political and religious preferences, and the effects varied by whether women are single or paired (i.e., in a committed relationship). In their study they report:
- Ovulating single women expressed more liberal and less religious attitudes and said they were more likely to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
- Ovulating paired women expressed more conservative and more religious attitudes and said they were more likely to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.
Why? The authors say that reproductive goals affect religious and political attitudes. Here’s their argument. First, research shows ovulating women experience increased: libido, interest in socializing, interest in men, and interest in improving their appearance. In other words, women seem to be more interested in mating when their bodies are prepared for reproduction.
Second, social and sexual permissiveness, which facilitate mating, are associated with lower levels of religiosity and higher levels of liberal political ideology. Conversely, social and sexual regulation, which limit mating, are associated with higher levels of religiosity and higher levels of conservative political ideology.
Put together, the researchers argue that single women experiencing increased reproductive impulses as the result of ovulation hold less religious and more politically liberal preferences, because they are interested in increased mating opportunities.
On the other hand, paired women experiencing the same reproductive impulses hold more religious and more politically conservative preferences. They want reproductive impulses regulated to prevent sexual infidelity that may be discovered and cause them to lose access to the resources they have to care for their children and themselves as a result of their relationship. (Note that this argument for paired women is unconventional in terms of evolutionary theory and sexual selection, but it’s not completely beyond the pale and, as we say in the scholarly world, “it calls for further research.”)
Rebecca Deen, a professor at UT Arlington, explained recently that politicians do things and land in the news; and the topic that they want settled is discussed even more. It is at the top of mind for voters and then becomes more problematic for the politicians.
Suburban women are also the key economic decision-makers in many American households. While women have generally voted Democratic, white women tend to vote more conservatively than women of color, according to data from Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics. Will this trend continue to hold in the upcoming election as women's rights are increasingly under threat?
The overall gender gap tends to lean democratic by a huge margin, but not necessarily for white, married, and evangelical women. How will this demographic trend play out this election season with increasing restrictions on women's healthcare and the potential national ban on abortion rights? Nikki Haley potentially spoke to these women's voices. Now, the Biden-Harris ticket will have to speak to the concerns of these women voters to allay their fears about protecting women's rights.
James ThompsonVerified account @JamesPsychol - Will "years married" be the best predictor, with the longest married being the most Republican, the one night stands most Democrat?
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t664888/
Spiralsun1
Read Spiral's Post!
