>"psychologist and educator Lawrence Kohlberg began his work on moral judgment in the late 1960s, at Harvard University’s Center for Moral Education. Kohlberg’s ambition was to discover whether or not there truly were universal stages of moral development...
>...And what, most likely, is the major flaw in Kohlberg’s overall research design? It is that when he originally asked his moral questions, he asked them only of boys. Kohlberg, a brilliant social scientist, somehow managed to overlook half the human race."
Hundreds of studies like this, negligent and biased, to the detriment of the western world. Men like to complain that "feminist" studies have no basis in reality; well motherfricker that's because they're still in the throes of inventing relevant parameters for female human behavior. If men, in the last two centuries, had done due diligence to pay attention to, and educate everyone, we wouldn't have this next 60 years, with several tumultuous waves of feminism, The vegana Monologues, PUA broscience and the current paradigm of mentally ill men fanning TERF wars, trying to obfuscate the words that women produce.
The second thing this book has taught me is that we need to throw 'philosophers' away entirely, and focus on scientists. Crusty 'professional' philosophers are the cowards of society in their dusty rooms, and their relevance dies within 40 years (or about 2 generations.) YOU should be the one who extracts meaning from the data scientists produce; if you cannot, read something easier until you can, and *act* with the knowledge you have gained - but not because a philosopher told you to.
This research sounds moronic. Women should thank God they weren't involved in it.
Women aren't this deep, mysterious creature you think they are. The men who truly know them always maintain a distance from them. Also
>focus on scientists
>psychologist
lmao
Bros...how do I stop longing for women emotionally. I am like an insect being drawn towards a pitcher plant.
Be a man who deserves the love of women.
>a truly intellectually dishonest question
It's not. Input from a valuable source is worth more than input from a superfluous source. Simple as. Add to that the way you frame history in terms of gender (e.g. you can't even define "woman") and we're in for a good laugh.
>It's not. Input from a valuable source is worth more than input from a superfluous source.
depends on how you judge value
heres some ancient wisdom:
>May your heart never be vain because of what you know. Take counsel from the ignorant as well as the wise. Fine words are more sought after than greenstone,
but can be found with the women at the grindstone -maxims of Ptahhotep, circa 2375bc
I know that all too well
Men are more interesting. Would you want a 15 min interview with Albert Einstein or with one of his maids?
a truly intellectually dishonest question.
If a woman is silly, it's only because she has not been taught to reason, or she does not care. And as a person with an uncle who personally met Einstein and relayed his stories, a maid actually may be more entertaining.
Incorrect, the ethics of caring is an aspect of human nature comparable to that of the super-ego; Freud's grand and incomplete androcentric theory.
> Incorrect, the ethics of caring is an aspect of human nature comparable to that of the super-ego
If your sense of ethics revolves around who you personally care about, you are another a moral person.
*not a moral person
you are an inexperienced idealistic zoomer who has yet to wet his beak, nobody should take your opinions on women seriously since you don't have the whole picture, its like gandalf asking frodo to chose when he doesn't know there's a balrog hiding
15 minutes alone with a maid sounds better than 15 minutes alone with a israeli Plato (ie he was wrong about litetally everything).
Can I penetrate the maid? In 15 minutes I could do it twice.
I love women more than you can know but taking the words of a silly woman at face value will ruin your life. (All women are silly)
Reminder that women are amoral creatures
You know it's bad when these feminists look at the research of the "misgynists," discover that when testing women
>WOW women don't believe in justice, only who makes their peepee tingle and eyes water most!
So they invent entirely new systems of ethics to validate their total amorality. They don't even try to refute it. They don't say
>Uhh... Isn't it a little weird that we have no sense of justice or morality?
The pill just keeps getting blacker.
The only reason I know that men are just as evil, is because no loving God would ever create women if it were not a punishment for some grave and unfathomable sins.
>because no loving God would ever create women if it were not a punishment for some grave and unfathomable sins.
I just concluded that God is not loving.
women are products of the media and bureaucracy, so it's useless to probe them. You want to know what women think, turn on CNN.
Based OP
Yes, feminist and neuroscientist lit are intellectually more genuine and comprehensive today on average, while philosophy became a joke in the 20th century (and psychology was always one), and we have so many morons and misogynists walking around today due to those two.