sononames

[sononames]

Hillary Hubris is its own thing, though obviously building on white feminist fragility.

America Ferrara got nominated, ain't she a woman too?

i genuinely can't believe this is real

[sononames]

[sononames]

So much hypocrisy...

[sononames]

excellent work by marc

[sononames]

Harden’s reductionism is of the “I’m no reductionist, but” variety: there’s no gene for intelligence, but there’s a polygenic score based upon all of your genes; “genetics might not determine your life outcomes, but they are still associated, among other things, with being hundreds of thousands of dollars wealthier”; genetic and environmental differences are “entangled” and “braided together,” but, she argues, we should make it our business to disentangle and unbraid them. Such talk of entanglements and braids is misleading, implying that genetics and environment are discrete strands, when in fact living things are in continual interaction with their environments in ways that transform both at every level. The late Harvard evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin used the concept of the “reaction norm”—a curve expressing the relation between genotype and phenotype as a function of the environment—to describe this interaction and its implications. Lewontin showed that since the relationship between genotype and phenotype depends on the environment in which the phenotype is measured, one can’t infer genetic causes from correlation and regression calculations. Harden mentions Lewontin as a critic of behavioral genetics, but she implies that he didn’t approve of the field simply on ideological grounds. She never mentions or engages with his substantive refutation of the core assumption that genetic and environmental causes of behavior are separable. With an admirable poker face, Harden writes that what behavioral geneticists really care about is environment: they want to identify the genetic causes of different life outcomes just to get them “out of the way, so that the environment is easier to see.” This is impossible, even as an ideal, because the environment is in the genome and the genome is in the environment. We can no more unbraid genetics and environment than we can unbraid history and culture, or climate and landscape, or language and thought. Progressives, Harden says, shouldn’t be afraid to acknowledge genetic causes of inequality; instead, they should work to narrow “genetically associated inequalities” with programs specially benefiting the genetically disadvantaged. She implies it’s a new departure for a political progressive to espouse the idea of inherent differences in intelligence, but in fact scientists arguing for a biological hierarchy of intelligence have traditionally invoked progressive values. Harden indeed sounds like Spencer, who said his science would help rectify “ignorant legislation” and “rationalize our perverse methods of education.”

[sononames]

Twist on Devi's Princeton story

So now we know that in the real world, the reason Devi would have been waitlisted at Princeton was that she wasn't wealthy enough. When they accepted all the uber rich they could get, well then they found her a little space. What a much better storyline that would have made!

Also, Ben might have chosen to be panicked about admission to Columbia, (it was his style, after all), but the UN could have thrown his advantage to his face repeatedly.

And Paxton... he might have never made it into Stanford, even if Devi hadn't broken his leg.

And Fabiola, after the recent Supreme Court affirmative action decision, might not have gotten into Princeton at all. Though coming from a dual income family, perhaps she was that kind of wealthy. Of course, she was also always that kind of fabulous that would turn down Princeton for Howard!

Never have I ever... addressed social class and privilege on a teen show.

Never where there ever bootstraps.

#never have i ever #devi and ben #mindy kaling #devi vishwakumar #ben gross

[sononames]

[sononames]

BriouxTV: The Podcast with Hart Hanson. Part 1 of 2. All these podcasts are making me verrry happy. #Bones #Hart Hanson #David Boreanaz

[sononames]

We’re going to have new Bones content after 6 years!!! I can’t wait!!!

[sononames]

[sononames]

Analysis of data from dozens of foraging societies around the world shows that women hunt in at least 79% of these societies, opposing the widespread belief that men exclusively hunt and women exclusively gather. Abigail Anderson of Seattle Pacific University, US, and colleagues presented these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on June 28, 2023. A common belief holds that, among foraging populations, men have typically hunted animals while women gathered plant products for food. However, mounting archaeological evidence from across human history and prehistory is challenging this paradigm; for instance, women in many societies have been found buried alongside big-game hunting tools. Some researchers have suggested that women's role as hunters was confined to the past, with more recent foraging societies following the paradigm of men as hunters and women as gatherers. To investigate that possibility, Anderson and colleagues analyzed data from the past 100 years on 63 foraging societies around the world, including societies in North and South America, Africa, Australia, Asia, and the Oceanic region. They found that women hunt in 79% of the analyzed societies, regardless of their status as mothers. More than 70% of female hunting appears to be intentional—as opposed to opportunistic killing of animals encountered while performing other activities, and intentional hunting by women appears to target game of all sizes, most often large game. The analysis also revealed that women are actively involved in teaching hunting practices and that they often employ a greater variety of weapon choice and hunting strategies than men.

These findings suggest that, in many foraging societies, women are skilled hunters and play an instrumental role in the practice, adding to the evidence opposing long-held perceptions about gender roles in foraging societies. The authors note that these stereotypes have influenced previous archaeological studies, with, for instance, some researchers reluctant to interpret objects buried with women as hunting tools. They call for reevaluation of such evidence and caution against misapplying the idea of men as hunters and women as gatherers in future research. The authors add, "Evidence from around the world shows that women participate in subsistence hunting in the majority of cultures."

[sononames]

Bones: Who else here thought Booth was my boyfriend?

Bones: Booth, put your hand down.

[sononames]

Booth: Can I be frank with you guys?

Brennan: Sure, but I don’t see how changing your name is going to help.

Zack: Can I still be Zack?

Hodgins: Shhh, let Frank speak.

[sononames]

Silence in the Library DOCTOR WHO

[sononames]

Episode of the Week - 1x17: The Skull in the Desert

[sononames]

THE X-FILES | 6.15

[sononames]

Booth shouldn't have been a nice guy.

Why? He is the child of an abusive alcoholic father and a mother who abandoned him, who hid his feelings behind a cool jock persona, who then becomes a ambivalent sniper for goodness sake! He would have much more significant trauma that a mere gambling addiction. Jared is who Booth should have been, and I believe the writer’s knew it. They gave us Jared as a wink wink nudge nudge consolation prize.

By shoehorning Booth into a ‘nice guy’, they gloss over so much of what would have made the relationship between Booth and Brennan ultimately untenable. For starters, the whole ‘love at first sight’ thing between them should have been confronted head on: Booth lusted after Brennan not only because she was beautiful but also because she was what he thought he didn’t deserve. His insecurities about their relationship should have been much deeper than his occasional gambling relapse. I will accept his patience with her as her bringing out the best in him — for a time. The more emotionally assured she became, the more he would have felt threatened by her.

That is in part why I found it disappointing that it was Brennan who first refused a relationship with Booth. After writing their story and erasing it, I could have easily seen her ready to embrace a second chance. Then BOOTH would have panicked. His military service would have not been sad sack, broken heart redemptive journey, but a self destructive, dysfunctional attempt to get some distance from a relationship HE couldn't trust would work. He of course would have fallen for Hannah, just as he falls back on his gambling, and likely stayed with her, despite protestations, precisely because she doesn’t demand he make the commitment his parents did not make to him. Brennan, fiercely loyal as an abandoned child herself, might have forgiven him as a friend for his betrayal (she did not believe in monogamy after all) but never trust him again as her lover. (We still get the "Doctor in the Photo" scene of them in the car, but it's him begging for her to give him a second chance and she refusing). They would have remained partners, but with the possibility of romance firmly off the table. And none of this "she will never love again nonsense." She would most certainly have, after all the growth she had experienced. and with Sweet and Gordon Gordon's help. Sully could have sailed in (I always felt he was given short shrift) but they could have written someone else for her. (Perhaps a less stereotypical Latinx?)

So all this to say that Booth and Brennan did not make sense but the actors were so good at playing off each other that they made the improbability work.

#booth x bones #booth and brennan #brennan and booth #bonestv #bones fox #temperance brennan #seeley booth