The BBC article about Ariana's last concert described how in her words to the crowd, she talked about their outfits. Fashion.
So, let's say that females own the "don't try to fix problems" view.
But, Simpson's paradox. Also, from my notes file:
22 Sep 2026
"hotter or notter"
'nice vs mean, 15 Aug 2021.txt'
Poll: "Is it ever ok for a boyfriend to lie to his girlfriend?"
Second poll: "Is it ok for a boyfriend to lie to his girlfriend about her appearance?"
[...]
romantic experience: Simpson's paradox. Attractive people have more experience, but people with more experience are less attractive.
Always picking the chocolate milk in elementary school because it had more calories, and thinking "why would anyone pick the low-calorie option"
[...]
'nice vs mean, 15 Aug 2021.txt':
"If everyone is mean to you, it would help other people the most if you acted mean in response, to avoid rewarding meanness. But it helps you the most if you act nice"
Therefore, for someone in this situation to act nice is not a sign that they are "a nice person", but rather that they are "a selfish person"
With females as a single group: "don't try to fix problems", while males own the "do try to fix problems" view.
But, if you split society into those who are rich or who have the potential to become rich: then rich females own "do try to fix problems", while rich males own "don't try to fix problems".
Suppose that opposite views are incompatible in a romantic relationship. General solutions:
1) non-traditional relationships.
2) male and female who are both poor, or both rich: one of them 'betrays' their group by having a different attitude than other members of the group.
3) rich male and poor female: both use "don't try to fix problems", without betraying their group.
4) rich female and poor male: both use "do try to fix problems", without betraying their group.
5) disagreement about what defines rich or poor. Male and female with the same income or abilities, but they have the same attitude without thinking that they betray their group.
6) some other solution, like redefining the group to include age and saying that old people don't need to try to fix problems, or saying that there are no problems as long as everyone participates in religious activities regularly.
In order for people to use this idea, someone influential has to try to get people to use it. For females as a whole, "don't try to fix problems" is the dominant attitude. Can also be restated as, "press the button to be happy if you're poor". But for an identifiable subset of females, "do try to fix problems" is dominant.
From 19 Sep 2026, folder named 'crash'. Many of them are about problems in society or relationships. 15 videos, final one is The Person Who Is Most Likely To Remain Single (Based on Science). The creator seems intelligent, and I hope she is happy and already in a relationship. Of course, I didn't watch a single second of the video. But I skimmed the description to see if it gave an answer to the title question, and it mentioned this:
Unmarried Women: Politically Cohesive, More Concerned About Women's Status Than Married Counterparts | American Sociological Association
Concerned about problems.
Earlier today I bookmarked a lot of videos. After closing a lot of them, I was left with a few videos about problems in World of Warcraft, and a lot of videos about problems with relationships in real life (and two songs). I only mention this to say that I'm not saying anything about those videos right now.
From a novel by Charles Sheffield, like Dark as Day or Cold as Ice or something: an Indian character says, "the mark of a superior mind is the ability to hold multiple contradictory viewpoints at once". I actually found this quote and emailed it to my oldest brother, like 12 years ago.
Everyone belongs to multiple groups. "People with a certain gender." "People with a certain gender and age." "People who live in this country." Not to mention, "all humans". (The use of 'aliens' in the question about the button that lets you be happy was deliberate.) If these groups have different views and different priorities, which views should you emphasize? There is no good answer. Maybe someone could write a long list of rules about how to decide, but someone would still have to apply all of those rules.
So, maybe males tend to dominate the view, "do try to fix problems". But females are allowed to have this view.
And males who choose not to try to fix problems are not necessarily unethical, because they are also allowed to do that.
Something about the swirly black and white circle with the dot of the opposite color in each half. Neither half is fully black, or fully white.
Some problems that I am currently not trying to fix. If I wasn't making this post, these words (written today) would just sit in a text file that was started on 16 Sep 2022 (the earliest notes in it are all about MMD):
AoE2: 'invite a friend': lets two people play in games with you even if they don't own the game. Best for 'limited unit coop' mode. Or just '24 hour pass', can be extended to two people. So someone can practice on their own after playing with someone else. Can even give a '24 hour pass' to DLC to someone who owns the base game. Only two missions out of each campaign available with the pass, unless playing coop with someone who owns the DLC.
WoW: funding for database site? When visiting the site: Visual die roll. 90% chance of gaining 1-hour pass for your IP address. 10% chance of being blocked for one hour unless you buy premium. Actually replaces 'are you a bot' check that's probably for ad integrity. Premium: $3~5 per month, grants four passes that can be used by other people (like sharing Netflix subscription).
Other perspective: database sites make a game worse. But it's up to developers to limit what a database site can know.
With any post, there's the danger that someone could think that its purpose is to make me look smart or desirable. Especially when I include random things like these suggestions related to games.
The logic behind posting this is that someone could have thought, "it's better for the world if there is data about females owning the view of not trying to fix problems: that it's fine to care about fashion and celebrities, and you shouldn't feel bad if that's all you think about."
Most economists are male. And so, most of the people I tried to share this idea with in 2011 were male. I note that the first economist I tried to share it with (other than the three copies of my letter to US President Obama, which requested that whoever read it show it to an economist) was the female Nobel prize winner who is now deceased, and I got an auto-reply email from her assistant saying that this economist was on vacation. Would it have been better if a male economist had shared it, or a female economist? In any event, no economist publicly shared it. The closest was the Al Jazeera article in late 2012 from the economist Dean Baker, criticizing the economics profession as being paid to tell lies that benefit rich people, rather than actually fixing problems. (I don't have this bookmarked, and am not doing a search for it while writing this, so I might have spelled his name wrong.)
If all males cared about fixing problems, I think people would have learned of this idea in 2012, or even 2011. But some males don't.
Some kind of point about how with the 'button to be happy' question, the 'rich' could be less than 50%. Important because if there is an identifiable group, then people could excused if their bad behavior is to help their group.
Again with that question: if rich males are claiming "don't try to fix problems", is it best for the world if rich females also claim that position, which is also held by poor females, or if they claim "do try to fix problems", so all rich people do not all hold the same view?
Another thought I recently had: people sometimes say that female leaders are emotional. Point,
20 Sep 2026
[...]
group model: can add 'war or peace' game. Peace already described. With war, group with more total money takes 10% of the total money of the poorer group. Both groups must choose peace to have peace. Many groups, that start with random sizes. Players periodically have a chance to leave their group and join a random different group, but with a penalty of losing half their wealth, which is distributed to the rest of the group. If a player's wealth is negative, they keep all debt when switching groups. To prevent always defecting during peace, each player has a chance, maybe 30%, of knowing the name of the other group.
what if advertiser could pay to suppress other ads from being displayed alongside the main ad? Like buying all ad slots, but no repetition. Let user know when this happens, so they can feel gratitude toward the advertiser. With standard ad model, calling ad message 'sponsored' might technically be accurate, and the ad pays for the website, but user does not feel grateful. They just take it for granted, because many websites are free. If sometimes there are many ads and sometimes just one, then user has something to be grateful for. "Super ad"?
Poll: When using parentheses to communicate extra information, how important is it to use a closing parenthesis when it would be the final character?
(Because of Chinese people apparently thinking it isn't important
[...]
21 Sep 2026
"As long as skilled poor people think that they should be generous instead of selfish when pricing their labor, unskilled poor people will be suffering and in poverty"
With this expanded model, it's easy to see how there are two perspectives: "the group needs to have many members, so that it can expand more during peacetime, so it's important to help people who are in danger of leaving the group due to misfortune." Female view. And, "the group needs to be rich, so it can win in wars. Don't sacrifice to help the unfortunate." Male view.
Suppose a leader has a chance to help the unfortunate. If they do, it's expensive for the group. But it also makes the group look better and make people want to join it. Is a desire to help the unfortunate individual(s) "emotional" and bad?
It actually took 72 minutes to write this, even though a lot of it is copied text. I will probably end up thinking I should not have written and posted it.
"If Ariana Grande posts anything on Instagram after 06:00 GMT on 29 Sep 2026 and there's no indication that she's shared this idea or reactivated her Chirp Club account, I will stop checking Demi Rose's Chirp Club account"
___
Update 28 Sep 2026, 20:10
Second spelling error, 'make' should be 'makes'. Swirly black and white circle:
If you have watched this video and didn't understand everything in this post already, I insult you like the French character does in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
No comments:
Post a Comment