On dinosaurs, colossi, golems, governments, and adaptation

On dinosaurs, colossi, golems, governments, and adaptation

…and why they all tend to die out in the end.

It’s an interesting fact in the history of biological life that the oldest form of life on Earth is the bacteria (and arguably the virus). Not just because they’re simple entities — amoeba are also fairly simple as are many members of the protist branch. It’s also interesting to note that bacteria, protists, and viruses from the Proterozoic Eon (roughly 2500 million years ago) of the are still around. They’re still happily doing their thing, sometimes killing vast swathes of plants and animals, without a care in the world. They’ll be here long after humanity has either turned to dust or departed for worlds unknown.

It’s amazing, when you think about it. These tiny, simple, mindless, invisible things have outlasted the dinosaurs. The KT impact was barely a blip on their radar. The Ice Age? Again, barely registered to them. They kept on keeping on. The dinosaurs had them beat on size, strength, teeth, defensive features (immune systems and thick hides and spikes!), could move around more, reproduce sexually, were more genetically diverse… and then along came a single hunk of rock and it was bye-bye dinosaurs while the little microscopic dudes kept on truckin’. The dinosaurs were the masters of their environment, true, but bacteria and viruses are the masters of adaptation. And, when it comes to long-term, long-scale, universal and planetary survival, adaptation is the key trait if you’re going to be more than just a bit player in the grand game of life.

Humanity has been fighting an on-going war with some members of these groups forever. We have an immune system that fights them and we also use plants to try to counteract them and have done since we figured out we could do that way back during the prehistoric era. It’s been a long-running fight and in all that time, we’ve managed to eradicate one of them. Small pox. The rest are still merrily going about their way. Some of them we need. Some of them kill us. Some of them we are trying to eradicate and can’t even with all our technology, all our grand colossi and skyscrapers, all our golems and governments. And, compared to the dinosaurs, we’re easy prey. I mean, we don’t have big sharp teeth, scaly hides, powerful muscles, we’re not the size of the brontosaurus or the T-Rex. We don’t have the armor plating of the Triceratops or the stegosaurus. We couldn’t outrun a velociraptor if we wanted to.

However, like the viruses and bacteria, we’re great at adaptation and we’re capable of breaking off into small groups. We can mix traits on multiple levels — not just genetic but memetic — and see what works. It’s when we try to be like the dinosaurs that things get bad for us. Yes, we can gather into large groups and become like a tsunami sometimes and sometimes that’s good — think things like food drives, building houses for the homeless, SETI@home, KickStarter — but notice that all of those things are voluntary. They’re also all temporary efforts. No one joins in every KickStarter campaign or builds every house. And, tribes banding together in a common effort isn’t always a bad thing — look at the success the United States and the entire Anglosphere has enjoyed over the past few centuries. But, if we’re not left with room to adapt inside those structures, it’ll all go wonky.

The problem in recent history has been that some parts of human society want us to be more colossal and monolithic because they believe that’s the only way to progress. I’m specifically thinking of the left-wing “progressives” who want to grant the government the power to regulate just about every aspect of life — economic, social, education, cultural, philosophical — to mandate certain outcomes they deem “fair.” However, doing that has always bred the ability to adapt to sudden change right out of the people and the society. Just look at what happened to the Soviet Union and to Eastern Europe. Look at what’s happening in all of the South American and Latin American countries that embraced socialism and communism and their five-year plans. Just look at Cuba and North Korea. Look at the Middle East and most of the African nations. Look at most of Europe that’s embraced socialism. When changes happen, they can’t cope. Birth rates fall — they cannot adapt to the new reality. In Europe, they imported new generations to replenish their falling population rates but could not adapt to the changes that brought and still can’t handle it — look at the riots, the carbeques that are just a fact of life there, the zones sensibles around Paris, the re-emergence of a new underclass and caste system that may be socially and culturally permanent since there’s no way for the French, the Germans, the Britons, or the Swedes to change how “French,” “German,” “British,” or “Swedish,” is defined or how someone can become a member of those tribes other than by birth. The Industrial Revolution ended and was replaced by the paradigm-shifting Digital revolution and these nations cannot adapt.

Industries are having problems as well. The publishing world got hit by the KT impact of Amazon and the Internet just like the movie and music industries and since they’re all populated by rather monolithic corporations who have a lot vested in the status quo ante, they not only don’t want to adapt, but they may not be able to. The Big Five may die entirely just like the dinosaurs did because, while Amazon is a large beast, it’s more like a large colony of bacteria and less like a brontosaurus. If one part of Amazon fails, it won’t bring down the whole thing. Amazon is acing the adaptation thing while the Big Five not only are failing at it but, given some of Tor’s senior management’s recent behavior, they’re doing everything they can to destroy their own food supplies and water sources.

Hell, the United States is having trouble dealing with the chaos that the Digital Revolution has wrought and we’re probably the most flexible and adaptable nation and society on the planet. The genius of the Founders guaranteed that. Which is why I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the idea that we should be like the rest of the world and become more rigid and inflexible. Do we have our problems? Yes. Do we have our imperfections — of course! Are there inequalities? Without a doubt. Is it better to have those problems than to be unable to deal with changes in reality? Is it better to be a bacteria or a dinosaur?

I say it’s better to be a bacteria. I say it’s better to be something that can adapt quickly and rapidly even if that means that there’s going to be a lot of inequality and imperfection and problems because it means at least you’re alive to deal with them instead of being extinct the first time a big rock comes your way. After all, if you’re alive, you can work to try to minimize those inequalities — for instance, make it illegal to discriminate against people based on things like race, religion, orientation, gender, political philosophy; make it so that society and economics is more of a meritocracy. If you’re dead… well, there’s really not much you can do (other than vote Democrat, of course).

— G.K.

We Didn’t Start the Flamewar — Part Two

We Didn't Start the Flamewar -- Part Two

So, some of you might be wondering exactly how this whole thing got started. I posted a brief-ish history earlier. I’m not going to rehash all of that now. Instead, I’m going to focus on the three most recent events in this culture war. I’m not going to pretend to be completely unbiased in this but I am going to try to be fairly accurate. There is a lot of he-said-she-said to some of it so feel free to check out other summaries. Just be aware that everyone has their own agenda so take it all with a grain of salt (including this one).

The first of the three events to take place was GamerGate. Know Your Meme has a pretty thorough coverage of it so if you’ve got no clue what it is and want a play-by-play, I’d suggest checking it out. The long and short of it is that the whole thing started over a game developer (Zoe Quinn) who cheated on her boyfriend. Her boyfriend posted an expose of it showing that she’d supposedly slept around to try to get good reviews of her game. It morphed from a movement to improve ethics in gaming journalism to a big thing about feminism and gaming in general. The anti-GamerGater side (populated by Social Justice Warriors or SJWs) tends to think that gaming is sexist and that the tech sector is sexist. They think that the way women are depicted in games is sexist and that games should tell a more “socially just” message. The pro-GamerGater side thinks that games are fine and that if the antis don’t like them, they’re free to make their own games and see which sell better. The antis have, so far, managed to get some of the pro-GG groups like the HoneyBadgerBridage (a group of female gamers and game developers) thrown out of conventions because they “made the [antis] feel threatened.”

That’s the level of maturity we’re dealing with. The antis can’t actually argue anything rationally and can’t be bothered to make their own games with their own message. They want to force current gaming companies to make the games they think should be made and force the rest of us to play them whether we want to or not. And, when we say that’s stupid, we’re told we’re threatening them and harassing them and that we’re being sexist. We also get lumped in with the PUAs like Roosh (who isn’t actually a bad guy — I’ve talked with him and he’s nice in person) and some of the really crazy MRAs who do hate women which would be like us lumping the antis in with groups who want to raise all children as girls and kill or force all males to undergo sex reassignment surgery *eyeroll*

The next big event was ShirtStorm. Back in November, the European Space Agency landed the Philae lander on a comet for the first time in human history. One of the guys on the team was wearing a shirt that a female friend had made for him — the shirt was a bowling shirt that depicted comic-hero women with laser guns and tight outfits. He was interviewed briefly (he wasn’t the spokesman for the team or the team lead — the team lead was a woman, in fact). Rose Eveleth, a journalist for The Atlantic, managed to miss the big news item (the historic comet landing) and, in a stereotypically womanish manner, focus in on what the guy was wearing instead. She made a big deal about the shirt that caused the historic comet landing to be forgotten as everyone on Twitter got the vapors over the women on this guy’s shirt. She later claimed she was “doxxed” (meaning her personal information was posted and she was getting harassed at home) but there was absolutely no evidence this happened (whereas there was plenty of evidence that this happened with anti-GamerGate people). I personally spent the better part of four days checking the usual doxxing sites AND the deepnet/Tornet for any trace of it and there was nada. The only way I could dig up her info was to hit up a contact I have who can get that kind of stuff and all I asked that person was if they could get it. Unsurprisingly, the answer was “yes” but that does not mean Rose Eveleth was doxxed any more than it means that oh, say, the Governor General of Canada’s direct line (bypasses switchboard, bypasses secretary, no voicemail, rings through even if phone is turned off) was “doxxed.”*

ShirtStorm managed to die down with most of us women realizing that some women were never going to get the whole science thing because they just couldn’t be rational. I wrote my long series on ShirtStorm and Women In Science (Feminism Is Dead, Why Don’t Women Go Into Science?, Why Don’t Women Go Into Science? Part II, Women In Science Part III: Can We Force More Women to Become NTs?, Women In Science: Can We Create More Female NTs?) and things seemed to go back to their uneasy truce where the minority of us wondered just when the majority of slavering crazed fems were going to find something to go batcrap crazy over again.

The third event is HugoGate or PuppyGate or whatever you want to call it. That really deserves its own entry — which it is going to get. However, I’m going to give it a quick rundown here anyway so here goes. This year was the third year that Sad Puppies ran a list of people they thought should get nominated for the Hugos. The last two years Larry Correia ran Sad Puppies — this year it was Brad Torgersen. Larry started it because he believed that worthy folks were being ignored or left off the ballot due to the authors’ political beliefs. He said that if any right-wing author got nominated, the Powers That Be with WorldCon (the group that owns and organizes the Hugos) would throw a fit of epic proportions. Thus far, he’s been proven right. The first two years, Sad Puppies wasn’t very successful but this year it was. There’s some argument as to why that is the case and I’m still reading up on it myself. However, the end result has been that Larry and Brad (who are really nice guys and good writers) have been slandered, libeled, threatened, and harassed. A lot of other good authors have been harassed as well just because they were nominated by Sad Puppies and some even felt they had to withdraw from being nominated. The PuppyKickers are threatening to vote No Award in every category where there are Sad Puppy candidates (I think) which would prove Larry’s point completely and would prove that the Hugos are pretty much worthless. The PuppyKickers claim that the Sad Puppies are all a bunch of white, sexist men who nominated nothing but white, sexist men even though SP3 consists of women, Latinos, blacks, Asians, gays (I think?), and people of all political backgrounds and nominated writers of all colors, genders, and backgrounds. Also now, according to the PuppyKickers, those of us who are sympathetic to SP are neonazis.

So you can see why some of us are finally getting a bit fed up with this whole thing.

In the next part I’ll do a more in-depth history of Sad Puppies so stay tuned!

— G.K.

*No, it’s not the Governor General and I’m not going to reveal whether or not it’s a government agency I could get access to or who my friend is or how I know them or what but, suffice it to say that just because this person can get their hands on the information does not mean it’s in the wild. This person once had a pepperoni pizza (paid for by an anonymous BitCoin account) sent to a friend of theirs who was in Israel and that friend, to this day, still has no idea who sent them the pizza. And no, my posting this won’t give the game away because that friend has no clue who I am or that I know this mutual contact.

Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse

Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse

So, I’m a Walking Dead fan. As in I drive out of my way to watch it (I don’t have cable — my parents do). I’ve even read some really bad (and some really good) fanfics. Hell, I get story and character ideas from the show and the buzz around it. And yes, Daryl Dixon is my favorite character. No, not because he’s good-looking or a bad boy or any of that but because he understands the value of silence, speaks only when he has something to say, thinks things through, and is ruthlessly competent. He also doesn’t suffer fools and will go his own way if he thinks it’s right. Ask me and those things are so much more important than looks.


If I had something to say, I’d say it. Otherwise, I’mma just be quiet and do useful things.

He kinda reminds me of the guy I married. In good ways, sweetie, I promise.

Anyhow, The Walking Dead isn’t the first zombie apocalypse thing I’ve gotten into. There was Resident Evil when I was in high school, World War Z (the novel, not the crappy movie that only has the title in common with the book), 28 Days Later (Chris Eccleston was great in that)… But, The Walking Dead has gotten me thinking about the ZA (Zombie Apocalypse) in different ways. Not only are a friend of mine and I thinking about getting together and doing a MST3K-style webshow, but I’ve been thinking about the different types of survivors, the different ways they band together, how they’re impacted by the ZA and the collapse of social order, how many of them have no real useful skills for surviving and how those who do (like Rick, Daryl, Hershel, and Glenn) wind up carrying those who don’t.


Better survival strategy than 90% of people

So, in short, this show has gotten all of my little INTJ lights glowing. So many things to think about. Which brings me to my next point: my latest book idea — “How to survive the Zombie Apocalypse (and rebuild the world after)” (yeah, the title’s rough). I’m going to be posting excerpts and sample articles from it here on the site. If you have a particular topic you think I should include, feel free to suggest it and, if I’m not already planning to cover it (and I’m planning to cover a lot), I’ll add it and give you a mention in the Acknowledgements. Keep in mind I’m just looking for topics — not full articles. So, saying something like “how to re-establish communications overseas” is fine — giving me a point-by-point list on how that should happen is not fine.

Anyhow, with that out of the way — keep an eye out here (or on Twitter, Facebook, G+, Tumblr, or even Pinterest) to see the latest in this weird, random, rambling series!

— G.K.

Women in Science: Doing Some Research

Women in Science: Doing Some Research

Last week I made the statement that I think that most of the people who choose to go into science are of the Rational (Myers-Briggs NT) temperament. I said that based on population studies of temperament and a gut feeling based on just about every STEM person I’ve known being an NT in temperament (with the odd ST here and there). I believe that, if that is correct, then that explains the lack of women in science much better and more clearly than believing in a sexist conspiracy theory.

 

However, right now, there doesn’t seem to be much hard data to support that statement. So…

 

 

I guess I’m going to have to collect the data myself. So, I’ve been hitting up MILO all weekend when I wasn’t working on my NaNoWriMo novel and have dug up some fairly good articles. I’m going to try to contact some of the sites that have MBTI-type quizzes on their sites and ask about their fees for buying one. Then I’m going to set it up here and invite people in the science world to take it and to note down what their job is. Once I have a fairly large data set on that, I’ll invite non-science people to take it and note down their jobs to see if there is any correlation between career choice and temperament. I have a fairly strong feeling that the two spheres giving SJWs headaches — #ShirtStorm and #GamerGate — will have an over-representation of men and women of an NT/Rational temperament compared to what you would find in the population at large.

 

 

Okay, that’s not really science. It’s data collection and statistics. I will be publishing the raw data once this is done so that if there is anything I missed (or mucked up), it can be caught. And, that’s close enough to science for Rose Eveleth and her ilk so (see how “doxing” came to mean “criticized” for her and her lot), in deference to their love of using words they shouldn’t use, I’m calling this shit “science.”

 

— G.K.

Women in Science: Can We Make Science and Math Non-NT Friendly?

Women in Science: Can We Make Science and Math Non-NT Friendly?

I honestly don’t think anyone in their right minds is asking this question. However, when we live in a world where an alleged science and tech writer for a major publication gets more caught up in a guy’s shirt than a major historic event, one can’t assume that they’re dealing with a sane populace. And, given how deeply SJWs have penetrated print and film, it’s probably safer to just assume arguendo that you’re dealing with complete morons who barely register as sapient, let alone sane, from the beginning.

So, can the subjects of math and science be changed to make them more readily graspable by non-NT minds? Short answer: no. Longer answer: sure. Just as soon as theorycrafting various sci-fi shows/movies becomes an Olympic event.


And the Golden Pikachu goes to Sam for winning the “Kirk vs Picard” debate

Science and math are abstract disciplines. Science, at least, has some concrete applications and studies that people without the NT temperament can grasp. People who are Sensors and Thinkers (XSTP, XSTJ) can more easily get into those fields. There are also fields were feelings are important (mostly in medicine) so NFs and XSFXs can participate there. Still, on average, even in these less abstract fields, non-NTs are going to have a harder time grasping the fundamental structures and patterns because their minds aren’t geared to it naturally the way that an NT mind will generally be. Science is a bit more accessible because it has many concrete and inductive aspects, unlike math.

For math — advanced and theoretical math — anyone without a “Thinking” in their temperament can pretty much just not bother. XSTXs can probably hack it if they really are interested but XSFXs and NFs probably won’t want to have much to do with abstract and theoretical mathematics. They might be happy in applied mathematics like finance, banking, accounting, and the like but they are probably not going to be found amongst the Nobel Prize crowd or solving the ultimate core model problem in set theory. Math is completely deductive, artificial, and abstract. Math, unlike science, cannot be “observed in nature.” You’re not going to see two numbers mating and be able to figure out what their product would be.

Or rather, if you do see such a thing, you are probably under the influence of some really fun stuff and you might want to check into a psychiatric hospital just to be safe.


I’m going to factor your brains out, baby.

The big problem comes in with math being applied in science. See, math can produce models that scientists can use to demonstrate, predict, or disprove hypotheses. Math is also a way of measuring distances, times, and references precisely. That’s why to advance high in science, you generally need to understand the mathematical statements that prove (or disprove) the theorems. Most anyone who paid attention to the teacher (instead of what the teacher was wearing — Chris Plante, I’m looking at you and Ms. Eveleth over there) in science knows that Newton’s first Law of Motion can be summarized as “an object in motion tends to stay in motion while an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless an external force acts on them.” That’s good enough if you’re just wanting to understand what the law is and how it might apply to simple real-world things (like how to get water to flow through an irrigation ditch) but if you’re going to try to figure out how to predict the path of an asteroid to see whether or not it’s going to hit Earth, you need to really know Newton’s law which is properly stated as:

ΣF = 0 ⇔ dv⁄dt = 0

Plugging that in with the data you have on positioning, spin, velocity, etc is part of how an objects’ path through space might be known. There probably are cleaner ways to figure it out but they’ll involve math that I can’t find let alone get the HTML code for, so we’re just going to stick with something simple.

Now, if you have a mind/temperament that doesn’t like to deal with abstractions easily and that doesn’t play well with being creative, you’re going to have a bad time trying to be a scientist. It’d be like sticking someone like me (an INTJ) into a counseling office and expecting us to be able to help some overwrought couple make an emotional connection.

In other words, it’s a bad idea all around.

And, while science and math are great — they’re what power the world right now — being good at them is not the only way to be smart. Sure, they’re probably the best way to be smart and do things that will have centuries’ of significance where your name will be remembered by generations untold, but they’re not the only way to be smart. There are ways for NFs (diplomats) to shine — just look at Mother Teresa or Tom Hiddleston. There are ways for SJs to shine — many American presidents have been SJs, after all. Even SPs have their place — most actors and artists are SPs. And these temperaments are not unimportant. They’re necessary. As much as it might seem that the world would be a great place with only NTs, it’d actually get a bit boring and argumentative. Sure, there probably wouldn’t be any wars because NTs are great at finding ways to get what they want even if the other side doesn’t want to cooperate. But, arguing would practically be a spectator sport. There’s also the added minus of the human population undergoing a massive contraction since INTJs and INTPs rarely bother with social interaction beyond our vague (and usually accidental) plans for world domination — which would make getting married and having kids a bit tricky — and the ENTJs and ENTPs would be too busy building their own empires and engaging in spirited debate. Maybe a few of us might engage in sexual intercourse (probably by accident or under the influence of alcohol and hormones) but probably not enough to keep the population booming.

On top of that, our kids would be miserable unless they were Thinkers because NTs are pretty crap at the whole “emotional connection and support” aspect of parenting (we’re also crap at it from the “being the kid” aspect — just ask my mother).

So, you’d have a world with loads of female scientists, yeah, and probably with all kinds of neat gadgets, interstellar flight, off-world colonies, etc…but it wouldn’t have things like Christmas, random barbeques, bars with pool tables, all kinds of different music, romantic comedies, or (and this is probably of supreme importance to Chris Plante and Rose Eveleth) fashion shows with models wearing a plastic Harley-Davidson motorbike front-end for a shirt (yeah, fellow NTs, I’m stumped on why such a thing exists outside of someone really wanting to be a motorcycle for Halloween).


That this actually exists is a bit frightening

Though, on the plus side: in a purely NT world, there would be no SJWs. So, maybe…hmph. I’ll schedule that for next Saturday’s Global Domination Summit meeting with my minions.

— G.K.

Women In Science: Can We Create More Female NTs?

Women In Science: Can We Create More Female NTs?

Ethically and legally? Probably not. But, if we’re looking at just “is this within the realm of probability with current technology” then the answer is “yes, maybe.” Understand, of course, that it’s not going to be something we could start working on tomorrow and that the suggestions on what to do range from mildly terrifying to downright scary. However, if your end goal is more women in science and you don’t care much about the means used to achieve that goal (which probably makes you part of the crowd clutching their pearls and fainting over a shirt), then consider this ground zero for your completely terrible campaign.


Even the Master is horrified by your callousness

The first thing we’ll need to do is figure out what determines and creates the different temperaments. There’s a lot of debate over this. Temperament does seem to be extant from birth and observable in infancy (though, again, that’s somewhat debatable). It’s unknown if temperament is genetic, if it’s encoded into a specific gene or series of genes, if it’s inherited but not genetic, if it’s a result of chemical washes in utero during fetal brain development, or if it’s just the result of something spinning the Wheel o’ Temperament and bam — you get whatever the arrow’s pointing to when you exit the birth canal. It could also be influenced by various environmental and nurturing factors in infancy. So, the first step is to:

  1. Collect several hundred thousand pregnant women of various races, age ranges, ethnicities, nationalities, sexual orientations, socioeconomic levels, and marital statuses. Note down who is who and then assign each one a random testing number so that a proper double-blind study can be done.
  2. Monitor maternal food and liquid intake and output, noting the times and frequency of hunger, elimination, and strange cravings. Also monitor maternal emotional levels and stress levels.
  3. Figure out a way to determine the exact hormonal levels being washed over the fetus in utero at each stage of pregnancy and note those down.
  4. If the mother chooses to breastfeed, continue to observe intake-output of maternal nutrients until the child is weaned.
  5. Test each child to determine temperament/personality type at an appropriate age (usually no earlier than 17).

That concludes the first part of this process. Once you’ve determined which children are NTs, go back over the data gathered earlier and try to tease out the commonalities in maternal (and paternal) traits. Did the mothers all experience similar hormonal washes during their pregnancies? Did they tend to eat or crave certain foods as a class? Note down all commonalities among the parents and prepare to proceed to the next step.

  1. Collect males and females with traits most likely to create an NT child (if there are any).
  2. Impregnate the females with sperm carrying only the X chromosome.
  3. Monitor each pregnancy to ensure that the proper foods, drinks, and in utero hormonal washes occur, terminating any that seem likely to be an non-NT temperament.
  4. Ensure that the parents use only child-rearing methods that were found in homes with INTJ children from phase one.

There, you should have a new generation of pure NT females now. Provided, of course, that temperament is determined this simply. If you repeat these steps over the course of enough generations, you might be able to extinguish all of the non-NT temperaments in the human race, leaving a world only of Rationals. Of course, at future steps, you will need to breed some male children (after all, it’s hard to reproduce sexually when there’s only one sex and even if you can, that has its own problems) but you should be able to figure out how to create male NT children and how to ensure that their children will be NTs.

Also, added “bonus:” you should be able to use the data from phase one to determine the commonalities for the other three temperaments so if you decided that one of them needed a greater population, you could selectively breed them.


And if we add more of this, we’ll get a batch of nice ESFPs…

Of course, if you actually try to do this, you’re probably a terrible person. You’re completely eliminating choice and freedom in mating and reproduction for both men and women but you will get more female scientists. If that is your end goal and you don’t care how ethically it’s achieved, then you’ll be okay with placing restrictions on humans having sex with partners of their own choice at times of their own choosing. You’ll get what you want but only at the price of virtually enslaving millions of women and making reproductive decisions on their behalf.

Which probably makes you a feminist and a social justice warrior but almost absolutely precludes you being a Rational.

— G.K.

Women In Science Part III: Can We Force More Women To Become NTs?

Women In Science Part III: Can We Force More Women To Become NTs?

Short answer: no, probably not. Longer answer: are you out of your cotton-pickin’ mind? I have heard some crazy questions in my time but this one…this one takes the cookie, the cake, and gets a special ticket for the short bus. Honestly, I know that it’s impolite to say that a question is stupid but I’m going to have to agree with DI Alec Hardy here and say:

Temperament does change over the course of a life. But, not drastically (absent drastic events) for most people. Most of the time, it’s pretty clear if you’re an I or an E (introvert/extrovert) by the time you start school. By the time you hit middle school, it’s usually clear if you’re an NT, NF, SP, or SJ (though there are arguments that parents can detect temperament in their children by the age of one year). By the time you’re in college, you have the personality type you’ll carry the rest of your life. Sure, you might be able to superficially act like a different type. You’ll be able to work on developing your intuition or your sensing, your thinking or your feeling. But using a cognitive function that is not your default setting will always require a bit of effort on your part. It’s not going to “come naturally” to you no matter how hard you try.

I’m an NT (INTJ). I can take all of the public speaking courses on offer and none of them are going to magically make me draw energy from hanging out with a large crowd of people. I can read all of the touchy-feely frou-frou crap out there and none of it is going to magically make me a feelings-oriented person. I can know how to use my five senses but all of the sensing tutorials on Earth aren’t going to get me to use S instead of N as my primary information-gathering resource. I have always gotten tired hanging out around a lot of people (with a handful of exceptions for relatives). I have always been a person who lives inside her head and is happy there. I have always been interested in seeing the “big picture” of things. I have always been curious, loved to learn things, a voracious reader, and unafraid of questioning anything (even when it got me in trouble. Younger INTJs with non-NT parents are cautioned not to stake a Devil’s Advocate position on the existence of God with your more traditional parents unless you want them to punish you by not letting you read encyclopedias).

I’m pretty sure I must have driven my mother crazy as I grew up. My mother is an ESFJ which is about as opposite INTJ as you can get. Even an ESFP would have been closer because the “P” would have meant she would have been more curious and open than the “J” which means being a bit more structural and wanting things done in a certain (preferably her) way. As an adult, I can deal with my mother better now than I could when I was a kid and, over time, she’s just learned to put up with me. Of course, knowing that she is ESFJ has made it a lot easier for me to figure out how to communicate with her and what things she assigns priority to. However, when I was growing up, my mother wanted to mold me into an ESFJ because, to her, that was the “best” way to be and I wanted to turn her into an INTJ because, to me, that was the “best” way to be. My (I’m guessing here) ISTP father often had to get between us to stop our fights from escalating into the verbal equivalent of nuclear war (at least on my end — my sarcasm was practically inborn).

See, to my mother, my introversion meant that I was “shy” and she kept telling me that “if I would just be more friendly” or “act better” then I would “have a lot of friends” because, to her, having a lot of friends and being well-thought of was important. I, on the other hand, didn’t want “a lot of friends.”* I wanted particular kinds of friends who I could talk to about the weird things I was interested in and who would read books with me. My mother wanted me to be more affable, approachable, warm, and thoughtful when it came to dealing with people whereas I wanted her to be more objective and open-minded and less likely to use “guilt by association” judging my friends (though, to be fair, she was right more often than not when I was a teenager). My mother (and my father) thought that “because I said so” or “because that’s the way it is” were acceptable conversation enders whereas I wanted to know why. I wanted to know what they thought about big events and the big picture (space exploration, could we build colonies on the moon, time travel, would either of them ever sign up to get on an interstellar space ship, what would have happened if the South won the Civil War, should there be a Federation-style global government…) whereas they were both more practical-minded and probably felt that my questions and obsessions were hare-brained and frivolous since none of them could make money, provide security, etc. My mother and I did (and still do, sometimes) a lot of talking past each other because neither one of us had the first clue how the other saw the world or how they thought. Looking back now, there were things my parents could have done to give me the answers I wanted and to stop the fights we had if they had known I was INTJ and what that meant. Also, if I were to be sent back a la Replay, I would have a better idea how to deal with both of them and communicate with them than I did growing up.

Thank God they had my little brother who (again, guessing here) was an ESTP. Otherwise, there might have been a mushroom cloud over our house by the time I’d turned fifteen.

So, I had two non-Rational parents and a non-Rational brother growing up and, despite the pressure, I didn’t magically change temperament. I also grew up in an area (the Deep South — specifically Mississippi) where Rational traits were not desired (not discouraged — just not considered desirable) in a woman (on average). Chances are that I went to school with only a few dozen other Rationals (school population was ~2000) and, despite being constantly around and under peer pressure and social pressure to conform, I stubbornly remained an NT.

Therefore, I doubt that it would be possible to take non-NT girls and somehow change them into Rationals for the purpose of having more women in science. I was unsuccessful in instilling an NT-temperament in my mother. I doubt that my niece (with whom I would have a disproportionate influence due to being an authority figure and “cool”) will be a Rational (she shows a lot of signs of being either an SF or an NF). And, even if there were some way to “force” a temperament change to NT, it probably wouldn’t be ethical or legal since you’d either have to brainwash a child (like Borg assimilation) or you’d have to place someone in severe psychological and emotional distress with development of NT traits being the only way for them to survive.

Now, can we “create” more NT women without violating laws on assault, kidnapping, and torture? Honestly, I’ll have to think about that one for a bit.

— G.K.

*Of course there were points where I wanted to be well-liked and respected. The thing is, I wanted it to be for things I knew or had accomplished, not for things like how I dressed or looked. I wanted to be popular because I wrote a great story or had the coolest science project or something (actually, winning first place in the Science Fair in fifth grade still counts as one of my Top Five Coolest Events from when I was a kid). I wanted to be known for what I had done or learned, not just for status-signaling or something stupid like that.

Why Don’t Women Go Into Science? Part II

Why Don't Women Go Into Science? Part II

Another reason that women aren’t commonly found in science is one that is really difficult to overcome. It’s not sexism. There’s no government program that can fix the problem. There’s no amount of social pressure that can ease it. You can shove a million girls into science and math education and you’re still not going to come out with a 50/50 mix in the scientist gender pool unless you start killing a lot of men.

The reason is temperament. As in the kinds outlined by Myers-Briggs. There are sixteen personality types and four temperaments. The four temperaments are SF, SP, NF, and NT. People who go on to become scientists will generally be of the NT temperament with the odd ball from one of the other three thrown in there (usually an ISTP or ISTJ). Now, out of these four temperaments, NT is the rarest in the general populace. It’s the second rarest for men and the rarest for women. Additionally, not all NTs are going to be interested in science and math. A good many will be interested in other things like law, writing, language, history, computers, etc.

NTs are called the “Rationals” because well…we are. I speak now as one of those rare evil unicorns (a female INTJ). We’re not touchy-feely. We don’t care how something makes you feel. We don’t care if it hurts your feelings or makes you unhappy. Your emotions are completely irrelevant unless, for some reason, we’re trying to subject them to testing or modification (like if we were testing psychiatric drugs). We’re not out to deliberately make you feel bad but we’re not going to sugarcoat things and if you can’t keep up with us, well, that’s your problem. Not ours. For those of us who have survived to adulthood and are at peace with being NTs (especially us INTs), we honestly couldn’t care less about the “in” crowd or what anyone outside of our extremely small circles of acquaintance — friends — family “feels” about anything.

That, of course, is part of why we’re drawn to science and research or other cerebral areas like law or writing. Even those of us who don’t go on to become scientists tend to appreciate the field and keep track of research that interests us. Science fits nicely in with how our minds work. It’s abstract. It requires careful thought. It seeks to tease meaning out of what seems, to most people, to be random noise in nature. It’s about looking beyond the surface and figuring out the deeper meaning of things. It’s something you can do on your own. Science doesn’t care about who has the fanciest title. It doesn’t care about who’s the oldest, the youngest, who went to the “best” schools, whose father is related to someone important, or if you look like a runway model or a run-over armadillo. None of that matters in science. The only thing that matters is the continual search for the answer to the greatest question ever asked: “Why?”

The most famous scientists in history weren’t part of a “team.” They were individuals working on their own. They communicated mostly with other like-minded sorts. They didn’t check opinion polls. They didn’t listen to tavern gossip. They couldn’t have told you if a woman’s dress was from Paris or London or one of the Jovian moons. And they gave us things like the Laws of Motion. Perturbation theory. The law of gravity. The theory of evolution by natural selection. Calculus. Geometry. Telescopes. Genetics. AC power transmission. They bequeathed to us the modern world and all of the mini-miracles we up-jumped hairless great apes take for granted every day. They gave us the tools to survive and thrive. And, for the most part, the non-Rationals have treated these great personages like crap. Many of them died penniless.

Now, set aside thoughts of utility, prestige, success, wealth, or recognition of any sort. How many of you can confirm that you are non-Rationals (having a non-NT temperament) and would be perfectly happy sitting alone in your office doing nothing but reading technical books and developing theories with nothing more than your brain (no computer simulations)? How many of you would be perfectly happy to stand in front of a whiteboard with a marker and run through decades’ worth of accumulated knowledge to try to tease out an equation that would define how silicon-based proteins might fold? How many of you would be content to sit in a legal library working on a treatise about the evolution of marriage as a legal institution?

Remember, you’re doing this alone. You don’t work with other people. You’re not soliciting opinions. You’re not even really interested in finding out what anyone thinks about what you’re doing. You’re working your ass off out of pure curiosity. You might never accomplish anything. Your work might sit on a shelf for five hundred years, unread. You might die poor and friendless, your passing noted by nothing more than a hasty engraving of your name, date of birth, and date of death on a charity marker. You’re not guaranteed anything — money, success, status, respect.

Nine out of ten of you will not be interested in this at all. You’d want something practical. Or concrete. Or that let you work with people. Or that involved something physically tangible. And that’s fine. But that means that you’d make mediocre scientists at best. You haven’t got the makings of an Einstein or Newton in you. And that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. Out of the one of you left, for every three of you, one will be a woman. It’s not because women can’t do the things that men do in science — it’s because most men can’t do the things that scientists do and it just happens that, by nature, there tend to be a few more men who can do it than there are women.

And, none of those women is going to give a damn what shirt some guy was wearing. They’ll care more about that guy landing a probe that is sending back valuable information on a comet. They’ll wonder if they could get a probe on another comet and if it would be shorter to do that in order to get information on Kuiper Belt Objects than to wait for Voyager (or a similar probe) to get out there. Pictures on a shirt won’t interest them at all because they have their minds set on more interesting and enduring matters instead of that petty kind of gossip columnist tripe.

— G.K.

Why Don’t Women Go Into Science?

Why Don't Women Go Into Science?

This is one of those questions where the answer is going to take a good bit of explanation because it’s a multi-part problem. One problem is that scientists tend to focus on abstract problems and theories — especially in disciplines like physics and astronomy. They are looking for patterns that are damned difficult to detect and that requires a kind of mind and intellect that is rare among men and rarer still among women making scientists a minority among the human populace.

And if there’s one thing that humans love to destroy, it’s a minority population.

We’re social creatures (for the most part). We enforce conformity through social norms, laws, mores and folkways, ostracism, shaming, and praise for good (conformist) behavior. That means that people who do not observe and obey those norms tend to be punished early on and taught not to express those non-conformist behaviors and to suppress their native values in favor of what society values.

Now, society’s values aren’t always good things when it comes to scientific and technological progress. To break mankind out of the Neolithic took visionaries and inventors who had the personal fortitude to ignore the social shaming conventions (gossip, peer pressure, ostracism, etc) and move forward into a direction that the Neolithics had never considered. That’s hard for anyone, male or female. But, it happened. Some crazy fool invented writing. Some other crazy fools figured out how to heat metal and hit it so that it developed into a certain shape. Other fools figured out how to sharpen it. Some fools figured out how to use sand to make a road and suddenly a bunch of fools could talk to other fools faster than ever.

And, of course, these fools let the Neolithics they’d dragged kicking and screaming out of the caves have access to these cool things and what did the Neolithics do? Use them to beat the ever-living crap out of future visionaries. But still, visionaries who could take the beatings were born and continued to pull the rest of humanity forward even while the gifts they left behind were used to discourage more of their kind from expressing their own visions.

See, visions are okay — so long as they fit to cultural norms or what the Neolithic elites want. So, today, that means that walking around the Vatican topless is fine — it fits what the elites want. It means that wearing a dress that resembles something out of Picasso’s nightmares is fine (but men had best stick to suits that make them look like tall penguins or else). It means that peeing in a jar and dropping a cross in it is fine. See, avant-garde is cool. Worship of a time period from a half-century ago is cool.

But putting a probe on a comet is so not cool. Especially if you don’t look like David Tennant or Thomas Hiddleston (who are acceptably good-looking male representations of “okay geeks” that the elites will tolerate so long as they genuflect before their Neolithic masters and don’t do anything too geeky). Especially if, like most visionaries, you don’t pay much attention to the fashion dictates of the day and instead wear things you think are cool or that a friend made for you. If you insist on being below average in looks, nerdy in fashion, and brilliant at science, your historic achievement will be overlooked by the Neolithics in favor of what you were wearing.

Because, you know, that’s so much more important than learning more about our universe.

Now, everyone’s sensitive (on some level) to that kind of social pressure. Women, on balance, are more sensitive to it (or rather, more women possess temperaments that allow such tactics to work — the rest of us who don’t have those self-isolate anyway and usually discount what the Neolithics say about anything). So, when an entire generation of girls sees a scientist getting ripped to shreds over his shirt after he’s just landed a freaking probe on a comet, those girls are going to say “hey, obviously all this stuff that feminists have been saying about how we shouldn’t judge people on looks or their clothes is bull. If I were to make a historic discovery, those same people would be more concerned with what I was wearing and how I looked than they would be with the implications of my discovery so why should I bother?”

So, congratulations, Rose Eveleth, Chris Plante, and Arielle Duhaime-Ross and others of your Neolithic ilk. You’ve just done more to discourage girls who have native scientific temperaments (NT females) from bothering to tackle difficult subjects because you’ve shown that, once again, achievements matter not at all to you flea-bitten primitives — it’s how you look and what you wear.

— G.K.

Feminism Is Dead

Feminism Is Dead

I’m happy to announce that, as of today, November 14, 2014 Anno Domini, feminism is dead and we can all go about our lives without having to worry about anything other than its raging specter wailing away in the attic. That means that all the anti-GamerGate folks can rest easy and game company owners no longer have to worry about firing 50% of their game designers and stuffing the teams with Uterine-Americans in order to appease the feminists.

Because feminism is dead. The corpse of sexism and misogyny hangs from yon tree like the bloated, putrid thing it is. Or was. Because it’s dead now and no threat to anyone.

I’d really like to thank the woman who had the ovaries to stick a stake in its heart: Rose Eveleth of The Atlantic. I mean, without her there to point out that the most pressing problem women interested in STEM research and careers face is that some guy might wear a shirt that has a buxom blonde in lingerie on it, we’d all still be held hostage to the crazy clutches of feminism. However, thanks to her fearless pontification upon sartorial hygiene among the aerospace engineering crowd, we can safely assume that sexism is over, feminism is no longer necessary, and we no longer need to worry about being judged on what we look like, what kind of attire we’re wearing, what kind of make-up we use, what hairstyle is “in” at the moment, or, you know, shallow things like that instead of our achievements.

Such as landing a #$!?@ probe on a #$!?@ comet going at ridiculous speeds in outer-#$!?@-space.

Which, I’m certain, is not that difficult compared to writing about science on the Internet and then claiming to be getting death threats over the Internet which will, if the same pattern holds as has held for the vast majority of other cases, be traced to a random troll unconnected with critics (like what happened with Anita Sarkeesian) or to allies looking to discredit anyone who says anything critical of the woman who was “brave” enough to say she didn’t like a shirt some guy was wearing — an event, I’m certain, that has never happened before in history and will definitely not happen during the course of any modern, heterosexual marriage.

— G.K.

P.S. — If anyone out there wants to send me death threats, fine. Whatever. I do, however, own a handgun and have access to rifles with precision scopes on them. Most of my neighbors, likewise, own firearms. Normally, we keep them holstered but, should the occasion arise… And no, Rose, I’m not talking to you or any of your vaporish wilting lily lady friends so you can put your smelling salts away now, dears, and go lay on the settee while someone fans you lest you swoon. Maybe some big, strong man will come along and protect you from the meanie heads on the Internet so that you don’t have to learn how to handle an inanimate hunk of metal and protect your damn self.