rationalism vs. modernism

rationalism vs. modernism

rationalism is belief in progress

rationalism is not belief in spirituality 

rationalism is belief in science

rationalism is not into emotional aspects

modernism is all these things, too


rationalism is the 1700s


modernism is 1800-1900s

modernism vs rationalism

modernism vs rationalism

rationalism vs modernism

modernism contains rationalism

belief in progress

belief in what you can see

against spiritualist and emotive aspects

rationalism is the 1700s

modernism is 1800-1900s

An improbable number of young girls expect to become veterinarians

An improbable number of young girls expect to become veterinarians.  And even worse, zoo veterinarians.

A child has as likely a chance of once day making it to Veterinary School as becoming a professional athlete.

I should make a film based on Hoop Dreams, called Zoo Dreams.

Mate Competition in a Mass Society

If this Evolutionary Psychology dogma is true:

Female reproduction strategy differs from male strategy in that they have a lot more at stake in terms of/with each individual success (pregnancy), and it is more important for them to find that one single perfect collection of genetic characteristics, than for males.  Males not only have little at stake with each reproductive success, but can impregnate at least 270 women in the time it takes a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

And combine that with Vonnegut's Theorem about talent, which can be thought of as:

The theory is, as soon as you move beyond a certain threshold, say 150 people, the identifiable talent will exceed what our human ancestors could witness in an entire lifetime. It really doesn't matter if it is beauty or singing, intelligence or athleticism. 

Furthermore, up until the last couple of decades, it was thought "talent" was pretty much in the eye of the beholder. But psychology has found this is a lot less true than previously thought.

I see no reason why "talent" would not extend to personality traits, and you could probably come up with a handful of universally revered personality attributes. Thankfully there does seem to be some variation of distinct but equally esteemed "packages" of traits.

Would the deleterious effects caused by such illusory competition differ between males and females? 

Unrealistic Personality Standards

Remember people getting upset about the unrealistic beauty standards created by models and movie stars? It was an unavoidable consequence of MASS media. Currently, this effect has evolved, and YouTube will be eventually seen as creating unrealistic PERSONALITY standards.

The theory is, as soon as you move beyond a certain threshold, say 150 people, the identifiable talent will exceed what our human ancestors could witness in an entire lifetime. It really doesn't matter if it is beauty or singing, intelligence or athleticism. 

Furthermore, up until the last couple of decades, it was thought "talent" was pretty much in the eye of the beholder. But psychology has found this is a lot less true than previously thought.

I see no reason why "talent" would not extend to personality traits, and you could probably come up with a handful of universally revered personality attributes. Thankfully there does seem to be some variation of distinct but equally esteemed "packages" of traits.

List of Cognitive BIases

Probably a good goal as a parent is to have gone over most of the items in this list with your child by the time they graduate high school:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Do you have a favorite?

Eugenics and the Short Term Effect of WWII in One Graph