Acamon

This account new and suddenly posting a suspicious amount in short time. Possible bot.

I probably agree, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that people who are in a disadvantaged group in a society are more sensitive to language that is biased against their group? So women notice (and can be offended) by phrases like "you throw like a girl" while men might not care, or even notice, that it's sexist.

Or do you mean people in disadvantaged groups are, in general better at detecting bias in language? So, poor people are better at spotting politic bias in reporting?

For the last decade or so I've always thought it was a weird site. I've maybe used if for a few questions, but most of the time I didn't really get a sense of trustworthiness from it. I've not checked recently, but I could imagine it's an ai slop hell hole?

Do you think emotional abuse is more common from immigrant parents? I feel like I see a lot of comments about the stress and pressure that immigrant parents put on their kids, but it's not something I know anything about.

If so, why do you think it's like that? Is it just that families that immigrant are often in difficult financial situations, without lots of social support so the parents are super stressed? Or that the kinds of people who are willing to immigrate are aspirational and so demand a lot of their children? Or is partly that their way if parenting would be normal back where they grew up, but for its difficult for their kids growing up in a society with different standards and expectations around childhood?

The answer really depends on you and your relationship. People will say 20 is too young, and that people make bad decisions or might have regrets. Sure, that can be true (remember your brain doesn't finish developing til your late 20s!) but older people still make bad decisions and have regrets.

If being married, and starting a family is important to you, and you really believe this person and this time are the right choices for that then do it. I got married at 40, and by the time it was official we'd basically been living like a married couple for a few years after dating for a long time before that. By that time I knew my spouse extremely well, I'd seen them in happy times and sad, I'd seen all their flaws and weaknesses and they'd seen mine.

We're very happily married, but there are time when things are hard, and there's definitely been moments when I wished I was with someone else, but I knew what I was getting in for and I made that commitment. 98% of time its amazing and I'm so happy with my eelao, and even those moments of frustration or upset are different. When we were just dating, they would make me consider whether we should be together, now they make me want to find better ways to be together.

If you want to feel more confident in your decision, consider the common pitfalls for young couples. How well do you actually know each other? Have they seen you at your worst? Do they know those deep fears and anxieties that influence our life's but we don't even admit to ourselves? Would you love them if stopped looking attractive? Have you talked about the future and are on the same page about kids, where you want to live, etc? If you both really understand yourselves and each other, and want to spend your life together then do it!

Thanks for the reminder, I had genuinely forgotten this morning. Why is it so hard?

In case any non-British are reading this, 'chav' is a term used to describe a small subset of British working class people. It used to describe young people with "loutish (ill-mannered) behaviour, violence, and particular speech patterns (all of which are stereotypes)" (Wikipedia.)

It is not a term used to describe the general working class population of Britian.

You're right that Britain has a big issue with classism and there's lots negative stereotypes about working class people. But 'chav' is a term for a specific subculture within working class British culture. Most people I know who hate 'chavs' are working class people who have to interact with them regularly. It's like if you were claiming that anyone talking about 'thugs' and 'gangstas' were hating on working class black Americans.

Connections Puzzle #901
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨

I think people spend less time have long conversations with people that they trust, which are best space for nuance and exploring ideas honestly. If you're messaging on social media, or even writing articles for blogs or publications, there's a whole bunch of incentives and barriers that push people away from nuance.

I understand being angry or disappointed at Chomsky or anyone else for being involved in this horror show. I don't think anyone is saying we should "preserve his good name" or ignore any terrible things he did or condoned.

But if you respect his work as a linguist (I don't, I think he had a good insight, but is extremely overrated and his disciples cling on to his ideas in a very unscientific way) you can do that while disliking him as a person. If you agree with his political analysis, you can do that even if he murdered someone. His moral failings don't change the content of his work. If Epstein was actually a great financier (rather than just a crook and blackmailer), and that's something that you care about, then sure respect his finance skills.

If someone's personal failings upset you, and that spoils your enjoyment of their work that's completely understandable. There's books and music that I can't hear the same now I know more about their creators. But you're not under a moral obligation to hate the art because the artist is awful. And as the original commentor said, in the modern world it's becoming an essential skill to cultivate.

A survey or poll is different from a vote. You're right that unless we ask every single person in a group we don't know precisely how that entire group would answer. But this irrelevant, being able to establish patterns in smaller sample groups and extended them to larger population is one of the the cornerstone of science and knowledge.

An engineer needs to know how much weight a specific size and shape of lumber can safely take. They can't test the indvidual beam to breaking point and still use it. So they test other similar sized pieces of wood, under similar conditions, and generalise. This can be done well, or done poorly, depending on how well they can isolate confounding effects.

So with a survey, if I just ask 100 people I know, it's would be a decent survey of the beliefs of my social circle, but it would be a poor survey of national beliefs, because my friends are not a balanced representative sample of the wider population. That's why most polling / surveying uses methods to try and achieve a sample that is actually representative. When done well, these ensure the survey respondents correspond to the demographics of a population (gender, education, religion, location, health, etc).

Obviously this approach has its limitations, and can be done poorly, but there's a bunch of research and evidence for what methods help achieve more accurate results. Saying "this poll can't be accurate because they didn't ask me" is like saying "I don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow". You're right, we won't know for sure until we actually see it rise, but we can infer from past events and confidently predict the likely outcome.

If you want to say "this survey isn't accurate because it uses an older demographic model that has been shown to be ineffective at representing contemporary attitudal choices" or "this survey is inaccurate because it only controls for age, race and gender, but didn't account for patterns of social media usage which are highly relevant" that's fine, that's engaging with the methodology. But if the problem is "they didn't ask everyone so it's wrong" it really seems like you don't know how surveys works.