Hannah Gadsby made a convincing argument in favor of representation. When you don’t see yourself reflected in the people around you, and particularly in decision-makers, you struggle to know how you fit into society, and that feeling of not belonging creates anxiety. Women have been saying for a long time that equality is not a feeling, and we need more women in leadership positions, making decisions, providing a female perspective, and that seeing women in these roles is important for us as women.
This latest General Conference was lauded for the many speakers who made the effort to include women in sharing scriptural injunctions to readers. Tagging “and women” to the end of things addressed to men is an improvement, although a very cosmetic one. We also saw that having women speak is a mixed bag. Some women like Pres. Eubanks were perceived as speaking inclusively, thoughtfully, and with power. Other women who spoke were perceived quite differently. Representation only gets you so far. Women can be the worst upholders of patriarchy, as its beneficiaries, often policing other women’s choices and limiting women’s roles.
Our church leaders talk about being unanimous in decision making, stating that they discuss openly, disagreeing with one another, researching topics, and sharing information, but then when a decision is made, they all agree with it and uphold it publicly. That’s mostly true from what we can see as members, although there are hints at disagreements, if not in substance, at least of priority. Clearly some decisions are more important to some than to others. It’s probably behind who they present as the public face of the change, seemingly selecting the outlier to support the potentially controversial announcement. [1]
Many church members lauded the addition of apostles from other racial or national backgrounds (Soares and Gong) because they will, in theory at least, bring in diverse perspectives. Whether they do in actuality, though, depends on a lot of different group dynamics and personal qualities. Are their views respected and influential? Are they willing and able to articulate their differing opinions? Do they possess different views or are they “church-broke”?
“One problem is that most people think of diversity in terms of categories—for example, gender or race—whereas, in fact, it is diversity of opinion that better predicts improved performance.” (source below)
I recently read the book In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business by Charlan Jeanne Nemeth. The book talks about the limits of diversity and why dissent is more important than diverse representation. Some of the findings of the book take square aim at the method our church leaders, like other groups, take to make decisions.
Consensus Leads to Bad Decisions
“The first step in decision-making is the search for information. If you want to make a bad decision, you begin with a narrow search for information that corroborates a single preferred position.”
The first finding is that consensus leads to worse decisions than taking a pulse independently. For example, if you have a jury discussing whether to convict or acquit, the majority almost always rules, even if they are seemingly deadlocked for days or even weeks. That’s because a majority has such force that it will wear down the group and cause bad thinking to support whatever idea the majority has. This is particularly true if the bad idea is held by someone in a traditionally more powerful role in the group (e.g. with seniority) or if those who disagree are in a less powerful role in the group or inclined to want to belong and be accepted. Dissent also comes with a social cost, whether you win or lose the argument.
“If you deviate from the crowd, you lose in reputation whether you succeed or fail.”
Even worse, though, is the cost to individuals who agree against their conscience with a majority decision. And that squelching of dissent has negative effects for the group as well.
“There are certainly benefits to being liked and to belonging, and there are certainly risks associated with dissent. What is often not reported is that belonging has a price—our agreement. Paying this price often leads to unreflective thinking, bad decisions, and reduced creativity, not to mention boredom, vulnerability, and deadened affect.”
Just as with cognitive bias, in which an individual has a preference for something and unconsciously finds evidence to support that preference, groups focused on consensus have the same tendency toward the majority position.
“Thinking convergently, we focus more narrowly, usually in one direction. We seek information and consider facts that support an initial preference. We tend not to consider the cons of the position, nor do we look at alternative ways of interpreting the facts.”
We also have a mistaken belief that if a majority has an opinion, it is probably right. The book The Wisdom of Crowds by James Suroweicki is often cited in support of the idea that many people are seldom wrong. However, unrelated individuals all agreeing on something is not the same thing as a majority within a group discussion setting the tone for a conversation.
“Although that book is a good corrective to the value placed on the single “expert,” the accuracy of large numbers of people is limited. The research supports the relative accuracy of large numbers of people when the task involves common knowledge and the judgments are independent—that is, when people are not influenced by one another. These constraints are important in assessing situations where numbers may provide a statistical advantage.”
Unanimity rather than consensus can help the group’s dissenters to come out. When “majority rules” the rush to decide can override dissenting perspectives. Forcing a unanimous decision improves the ability for dissenters to be heard.
“When unanimity was required, the dissenters seemed to argue more vigorously and over a longer period of time. What became clear to me was that this improved the quality of the discussion and the decision-making process. The participants considered more evidence and more ways of explaining that evidence. Instead of rushing to judgment, they considered alternatives. They discussed various possibilities for the same set of facts.”
The conditions that often lead to what the book terms “strain for consensus” (aka “groupthink” which is majority-based poor decision-making) are:
- A directed leader
- High stress
- Little optimism in the group for a solution better than the leader’s preferred position
And the evidence that you are in a “groupthink” situation are easy to identify as well:
- stereotyping of out-groups
- illusion of invulnerability
- self-censorship
- illusion of unanimity
- direct pressure on dissenters
How Do We Encourage Dissent?
The book gives several examples of ways to foster dissent in group decision making. Here are some:
- Anonymity. Gathering input from people in ways that make them unidentifiable lowers the pressure to conform and to care whether or not they belong.
- Commitment to a position before discussion. This should be done in writing where people can’t change it, not only because they might want group acceptance, but because as they are influenced by others during the discussion, they will try to rewrite their own views to conform, even in their own mind.
Designating a devil’s advocate.
While the third option sounds like it would be effective and has precedent in high school debate classes in which students are assigned their position, the book’s studies show that dissent is only powerful when it is authentic.
In other words, pretending you dissent from the majority view isn’t as persuasive or helpful to decision making as someone who genuinely sees things differently. As human beings, we can tell the difference. When a person is designated as the Devil’s Advocate, it can make the group feel as if they have done their due diligence without actually doing any of the heavy lifting real dissent that is taken seriously requires.
Trolls and Dissent
The rise of internet trolls invading “safe spaces” with their provocative (and unwelcome) views is proportionate to the tendency for like minded people to cluster in echo chambers online. As A Turtle Named Mack put it on Steve Evans’ recent BCC post The Splintering:
“When a post goes up that asks for tolerance, expresses genuine distress, or shares personal struggle, you can count on a bona fide turd showing up within the first 5 comments.”
While their intrusions are unwelcome by the majority of the group, they (can) perform an important function, that of challenging the consensus or majority opinion. This is only effective if they are authentic in their challenge, though, and not if they are just randomly lobbing ill-conceived bombs and leaving.
“Even one person, a single dissenter can liberate us to think for ourselves.”
It’s the value of dissent that created the bloggernacle in the first place. In our highly uniform church, there are standard answers that are expected. We repeat these rote questions and answers back and forth to each other like some Gregorian chant. That doesn’t mean it’s an accurate or authentic reflection of our views. As I’ve said elsewhere, they can correlate the manuals, but they can’t correlate the contents of my head! [2] But if my own unique thoughts and feelings aren’t expressed, if they aren’t brought up because it’s not safe to dissent, they have to go somewhere. Either I take those thoughts with me on my way out of the church, or I suborn them until I can’t anymore, or I go online where I can say what I want to say.
The problem is when dissenters are only dissenting online. It’s not dissent if you’ve just sought out a new group that agrees with you, if you’ve found your safe majority, and now you can conform in conscience. That’s still going to lead to blind spots, sloppy research, and poor decision making. You still need dissent to challenge your thinking.
But let’s be honest. We don’t like dissenters. Humans don’t. It doesn’t matter what group you are in. Dissent is treated with derision and ridicule.
“The majority will try to convince the dissenter to change and, if unsuccessful, will reject him.”
If you think about it, Jesus was a true dissenter. He called church leaders and average Joes (and Joannes) to repentance. He called everyone to repentance. He pointed out their corruption, individually and collectively. He said things they didn’t want to hear, repeatedly. Even when his best friend Peter was just trying to demonstrate loyalty to him, he called him Satan. He was one challenge after another, and he was certainly rejected in the biggest way. Jesus’ story is a great example of what dissent leads to for the dissenter, but also for the community, because his dissent allowed people to grapple with ideas in a way they would not have otherwise.
But it’s that challenge to the majority that’s important. It’s the call to question our assumptions. Even if group members appear to remain on the side of the majority, some of them are privately considering the minority view that was expressed, and others are likely to engage with that dissenter, to either try to poke holes in their theories or to justify their majority position. And in that process, the group’s thinking is revitalized and improves.
What Makes Dissent Persuasive?
There are some qualities that must exist for dissent to persuade change:
- Authenticity. We’ve already discussed that fake dissent is not effective at persuading.
- Consistency. When negotiating, compromises that are made cannot make the dissenter appear inconsistent in her or his stance or it will undermine the belief in the dissenter’s good faith and authenticity.
- Privacy. Allowing others space to think and consider new information presented by dissenters without losing face is key. They might not admit in front of the group that they disagree with the group, but their private views often shift.
“Over and over, studies show that dissenters change more minds in private than in public, unlike majorities, which often get public agreement even if people don’t believe in the truth of the majority position.”
The key is to give the majority cover so that they don’t feel exposed. One way to do this is by asking hypothetical questions. They can explore the idea of changing their minds without acknowledging error. It lowers the stakes. It’s also important to recognize that a dissenter can change opinions that people hold privately without gaining a public acknowledgement of the change (which may cause people to lose face). Majority views are public. Dissenting views are often private because dissenters should expect to be rejected. Dissenters are seldom given credit for the changes they influence.
“Influence by a minority never happens immediately. It takes time and a choreography that is consistent and persistent but not dogmatic.”
Because consistency is so important, and yet many decisions are negotiations, one effective strategy is the “late compromise” which shows the dissenter is flexible enough to find agreement, but has still held on to a consistent position for long enough to be taken seriously.
Majority opinions lead to closed-minded thinking (converging around the publicly accepted idea), but minority opinions lead to open-minded thinking (converging around the possibility of the less popular idea). Majority thinking closes possibilities. Minority thinking opens them up.
“Dissent breaks that hold of the majority whether it is right or wrong and even if the dissenter has almost no credibility.”
One of the reasons cult leader Jim Jones was so successful is that he encouraged public expressions of agreement and did not tolerate dissent, including doubt. Friends or family members who expressed doubt were shunned. The book cautions about those individuals in a group who police the thoughts of others in the group:
“They often use “minders,” omnipresent people who report on others’ activities to make sure they are not interacting with non-believers or espousing heresy. Minders make sure that there is the appearance of unquestioned agreement. While the leader can try to mandate consensus, groups are very capable of creating consensus on their own and punishing dissent.” [3]
When a dissenter is confronted with a majority view, the dissenter tries to understand the majority’s perspective by seeking information to bolster that stance rather than to defend their own. So uncomfortable are we with dissenting that we seek to conform against our own inclinations.
“In a powerful twist, rather than look for support for our own position, we prefer information that confirms the consensus. We don’t look at both sides. We take the consensus perspective rather than our own and primarily seek information that supports the consensus position.”
So, dissent is really to benefit the majority, not the dissenter (who often caves anyway). It causes individuals who become aware of a minority viewpoint to seek a broader range of information from different sources. They seek the reasons for both the majority and minority viewpoints.
Conclusions
If religion is in the business of changing hearts, it can only do this if we recognize the power of the majority to exert pressure to conform and to question the assumptions of majority thinking (which often become our own in our insecurity and need to belong). One avenue to this is to open up our discussions to allow criticism and debate, arguably the reason our online Mormon communities started in the first place.“
- Do you see evidence of majority thinking in your local ward or are dissenting views welcome?
- Do you see evidence of groupthink in online groups that originally started to vent dissent?
- Do you feel the pressure to conform to majority viewpoints? When is this pressure strongest for you?
- Do you observe the influence of dissent in either church or online communities?
Discuss.
[1] Christofferson doing the Q&A about the PoX, followed 3.5 years later with Oaks doing the repeal of the PoX. Based on their independent remarks as noted in talks and other addresses, they appear to be closer to the ends of the spectrum for church policies on homosexuality.
[2] I guess that’s what brainwashing and indoctrination is for, TBH.
[3] If you don’t think that sounds a lot like the BYU Honor Code Office controversy, you haven’t been paying attention.
Wheat & Tares 
“Minders” abound in Brighamite mormonism. The whispers back to the bishop about Brother or Sister x not following the brethren, or not setting a good example for others to follow. Tattle tales who think that pushing another person down will raise another person up.
“Silencing” also abounds. The looming threat of being called in to account for yourself in the bishop’s office. And having that ultimate certificate of compliance pulled, having to surrender their temple recommend. Or if the dissent persists, excommunication is the final hammer to be thrown.
“Devil’s Advocate” is crossed out in your essay. That shows you’re living in an alternate universe. There is no anonymity and their can be no true dissent in mormonism. The tiny questions around the margins may be all that are allowed to be discussed. Chomsky has said it best,
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
That describes Brighamite mormonism to a tee. The information age opens the door to asking the bigger questions,
Is this church a force for good in the world, or not? If the adults won’t deal with it, the generation raised on androids and iphones certainly will.
I wonder if the 5th person posting this is going to look at the previous 4 and think “none of those comments above look like ‘turd’ comments, so does that mean my comment must be a “turd?”
I have that book on my “to read” list. I certainly have seen this at play at work over and over.
I have been shocked at those that I thought were 100% towing the party line at church have spoken out on social media (sometimes cussing up a storm) with a 180 degree comment. Several individuals have shocked me at how different they are outside the church walls.
I do think you hit the nail on the head with how dissent isn’t tolerated well within the church so many do the venting in online (echo chamber?) groups.
I find that the pressure to conform is in most formal meetings at the church. Step outside of the church an in smaller groups it is more accepted to share a BIT more frustrations.
I have come to see that dissent does push the church, but it is less about the dissenters getting what they want and more about them creating a bit more of an “extreme” position, allowing the church to save face and move just a bit more towards what would have been considered “moving too far” a few years back. I have seen it over and over the last few years with feminists and issues such as youth interviews.
When I served in the High Council of my stake, there were various opportunities to share our opinions on a number of items. I noticed that those who spoke first had the more interesting comments because those who spoke later in the process tended to simply reiterate what was said before they spoke. I could see group-think taking place right before my eyes. I wasn’t looking to shake things up but when I disagreed with the “consensus” I said so, and this often caused some discomfort among those striving for consensus. I didn’t see other members of the HC willing to do the same thing. Almost everyone seemed to want to agree with the previous members. If the goal was consensus, we did a great job. If the goal was thoughtful discussion, not so much.
4Blockhead: “Devil’s Advocate” is crossed out because the book discusses it and dismisses it as an effective strategy for dissent. It fails to persuade because it’s manufactured and inauthentic.
Happy Hubby: You are describing the Overton Window effect, and yes, it’s definitely a real aspect of group discussions and a reason that sharing one’s dissenting views is so important.
OK, Happy Hubby, I’m taking the challenge to be the 5th. Though I don’t choose your vocabulary, I did hear that word a lot in church — that is in a sermon in Edinburgh’s St. Giles Cathedral when a visiting minister insisted on talking repeatedly about Carl Jung’s ca. 12-year-old vision of the Basel cathedral (and more).
I’ve seen dissent work well and change the course of a bishop’s disciplinary council. I’ve heard from a participant of it working well in a high council church court (yes, that long ago) where the dissenting participant was initially the only one of 15 to take his position and he persuaded the others. I’ve also heard of it not happening often in high councils. I saw it not happening in bishopric training meetings. I currently see dissent and persuasion happening in ward council. Aside from Church cultural norms, where I know of it happening it seems to depend greatly on the relationship between the dissenter and the presider.
As to the group think/order of speaking problem Josh noted, I recall (perhaps accurately, perhaps note) Greg Prince telling me that the standard practice in Q12FP meetings is to call on the Q12 for comments in order of seniority (starting at senior, of course). As a result, I would not expect junior apostles to have much to say at least when relatively new. Greg reported (if I recall correctly) an interesting variation: When it was time to consider Turley’s response to the suggestion of writing a Mountain Meadows history (he allegedly refused to do so unless the Church made available and authorized use of everything it had on the subject), President Hinckley called for comments out of order and went straight to David Haight (Isacc’s grandson, I think) who said it was time. That was then pretty much the end of the discussion — a fine way to avoid what may have been an anticipated not-everything-true-is-useful speech.
Maybe in various councils we’d get more varied input if they didn’t proceed in order of seniority. In my bishopric meeting experience and bishopric training experience and ward council experience we didn’t use any such pecking order. BTW, and irrelevantly, I hope to never have a high council experience and it currently seems quite likely I don’t need to worry about it.
JR – who is to say that I wasn’t the turd? I have been called worse.
JR, Isaac Haight is a grand uncle to David Haight. (I only know because Barbara Jones Brown) told me that in my recent interview.
I agree there is a big problem with conformity in the church, and I expect there is in the 15. I cannot see that they all agreed with the pox and I can’t see that they all agreed to recinding it. Surely some wanted to retain it, but surely someone realised that since it was done, we have had gay marriage and it has not destroyed straight marriage, so we can’t go back with credibility. Why are we still opposing gay marriage? Did anyone talk about that at conference? Have any of the 15 explained why we still oppose gay marriage?
To give people in Utah an idea of how gay marriage is seen in Australia, a leading member (and one of leading try scorers) has just been sacked from the national team for tweeting his opposition to gay marriage. He was a mormon but is now assemblies of god. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/israel-folau-set-to-be-sacked-by-rugby-australia/10993856
I felt a bit of deja-vu: https://wheatandtares.org/2018/06/25/how-to-be-a-good-troublemaker/
Here on this blog *I* am the dissenter. What is written above about the social consequences pertains here. I salute the blog moderators for putting up with me this past year.
“Women have been saying for a long time that equality is not a feeling”
Dissenting opinion here:
How can it not be a feeling? You FEEL when your situation is not equal. If you didn’t feel it you wouldn’t care. Not only that, but the measure and magnitude depend on your values, for you, and my values, for me. Consequently it is extremely unlikely that you and I would ever say, “Now we are equal!” depending of course on how fine a distinction one wants to make.
“and we need more women in leadership positions, making decisions”
There is no “we”. If you want to lead, then do so. If you want to follow a woman, then do so. Power or authority that is given can also be taken back.
Who gave Joseph Smith his power or influence? God? No. His followers! No following; no power. Now it is certainly possible and likely that God informed those followers that it was okay to follow Joseph Smith (and not Sidney Rigdon, for instance).
“providing a female perspective”
Wise leaders seek appropriate diversity of inputs. My boss noticed on architectural plans that no place existed to dump the dirty water after mopping the floor on a condominium floor plan. He strongly recommended the team include some women; but not just any women, but mothers who have had to do Just About Everything at least once. Help their kids with the homework. Clean. Build. Repair. Plan. Schedule. Budget. On and on.
Do you see evidence of majority thinking in your local ward or are dissenting views welcome?
I am the dissenting view. I don’t know, or particularly care, how welcome it is.
Do you see evidence of groupthink in online groups that originally started to vent dissent?
This one obviously but sooner or later pretty much all online groups purify themselves once they’ve settled on a think that all remaining must possess.
Do you feel the pressure to conform to majority viewpoints? When is this pressure strongest for you?
Barely. I’m probably autistic in that regard, but not autistic enough to claim Special Status, gotta love me no matter what I do because it’s the way God Made Me.
I notice majority viewpoints and sometimes consciously work against them just for the sake of variety. In prayers I never say “Leed, Guidan Directus” but make them very simple. When in church the teacher says, “Is anyone here perfect?” I am quick to raise my hand; the question itself is stupid and if the lesson is based on unanimous self deprecation, well, have I got a surprise for you!
Do you observe the influence of dissent in either church or online communities?
Yes and no. I’m quite effective at church, encouraging and enabling high priests in particular to tell their stories that might not toe the party line but also are not gratuitously opposed to party lines. I want true stories of each person’s experience, great or small, good or evil. More good than evil I suppose, but evil happens and in my group were two men that landed at Iwo Jima in World War 2 and they saw quite a bit of evil.
GROUP is by its very nature a left-wing phenomenon. Libertarians cannot form groups by mere identity; they might form clubs specific to a hobby. Consequently you can have enormous political variety among fishermen because what brought them together is a love of fishing. They will argue the virtues of specific flies and lures.
But the herd mentality, the hive mentality, that everyone must think the same approved ways, that’s peculiar to the left; and for good reasons. It works well for hives and herds. Humans have too much variety to ever been a herd of sheep or a hive of bees that all have the same mother so how could they be different?
But it is possible to gather up from *among* humans, herds; this herd believes in something and that herd believes in something else; and eventually these herds go to war over scarce resources. What is less visible is that every herd has a shepherd; someone that likes the POWER of leading sheep and hates libertarians.
Michael 2: “unanimous self deprecation” Love the phrase. Yes, that’s a cultural thing in the church for sure. As to the phrase “equality is not a feeling” I believe it is intended to point to the fact that there are also statistics and more concrete evidence that demonstrate inequality, that it’s not merely womanly sensitivity or emotions or feelings (a sticking point when women are traditionally dismissed as irrational and emotional). But yes, of course, privilege or the lack thereof also does create feelings. Similarly, the expression “that’s a likely story” could be taken to mean sarcastically that a story is unlikely or literally that it’s like a fiction (a story). Language is fun.
Women with Masters degrees and Ph.Ds made $37.07 an hour on average while men with bachelor’s degrees earned $38.60. That is not a feeling. A bill introduced in Texas would make abortion a capital offense. Nowhere in the bill is there any mention of the sperm donor. That is not a feeling. There were 33 speakers at Conference last week two of which were women. That is not a feeling. Until recently. in many parts of the USA African Americans were required to use different facilities, including water fountains. That is not a feeling. Many lending institutions continue the practice of redlining. That is not a feeling.
“point to the fact that there are also statistics and more concrete evidence that demonstrate inequality, “
No doubt. But the importance (or significance) of any particular statistic is personal and plays into theories of remediation. In other words, if Equality is the goal, the sacred cow before which all other goals bend a knee, then adjustments may be extreme and in aggregate almost always detrimental in the long run particularly if such decisions fail to target the CAUSES of unnecessary inequality and merely target the outcomes or symptoms (pay). It will also require quite a lot of compulsion which is why “equality” happens only in communism and to an extent in socialism. But even there you’ll always have someone “more equal”.
Whether there’s any hope of perfect equality depends on your personal view of the Nature versus Nurture argument and it is interesting how The Left plays both sides of this depending on which argument is more convenient at the moment.
My belief is people are blends of nature and nuture. Nature informs my desire for chocolate, but nurture informs which brand, how often, stuff like that. Nature creates my desire for sex; nurture shapes it into marriage and family. Religion shapes nature but cannot destroy it.
Consider George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. There was an evil farmer. He died and the animals revolted, establishing themselves as equal; “All animals are equal”. But in the end, “Some animals are MORE equal”. How did that happen? Because animals aren’t actually equal; it was a worthy goal but doomed. In the short run, honorable animals suffer at the hands of dishonorable. But in the long run, honor might eventually reign supreme (as it does in Norway and Japan). But for how long? It takes great effort to make it so and keep it so.
vajra2, citing a statistic, writes:
“Women with Masters degrees and Ph.Ds made $37.07 an hour on average while men with bachelor’s degrees earned $38.60. That is not a feeling.”
Agreed you are describing a statistic, a “factoid”. Why you chose this particular factoid will itself emanate from a feeling, perhaps a feeling that this disparity is bad, that you fear being on the losing side of that disparity, and you want someone to fix it. All of those motivations are desires and desire is a feeling.
This appears to be your source: [https:]//www.marketwatch.com/story/mansplaining-away-the-persistent-gap-between-men-and-womens-salaries-2019-04-02”
They, in turn, cite “…the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank” who in turn cites factoids from “the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
You have not said whether this is a good thing, a bad thing, or just a factoid of interest to you and maybe someone else.
“The disparity is stark in some sectors: female personal financial advisers make a little more than half (56.4%) of men in the same job”
Read those words carefully. PERSONAL financial advisers. You are free to hire any personal financial adviser you wish. If all women everywhere hired only women financial advisers, and paid them more than they would pay a man, guess what? Women financial advisers would make more money than men financial advisers.
Perhaps we need a Committee to decide what any and all financial advisers are to be paid. Hello Komrad Secretary, what is the pay this month for Personal Financial Advisers?
I appreciate the trouble you’ve taken to look up some factoids. Only feelings have power. Factoids inform methods, but whether to invoke a method and go to war, figuratively or literally, depends on your desires in the matter.
Pronouncing a factoid to a properly “woke” person should produce the desired feelings, but don’t bet on it certainly in a democracy where at least half of Americans are obviously not “woke” and thus aren’t going to vote for your solution, which appears to require a Komrad Secretary to specify who gets what. While studying for my response I see legislation in Congress heading in that direction. Y’all think its wonderful but beware getting what you asked for.
About statistics: It seems the argument is comparing wealthy, self-employed entrepreneurs and investors to highly educated PhD’s who by that education somewhat limit their options to government and university jobs. Rich men exist as do rich women. PhD is a path to security, not wealth!
“Women earned majority of doctoral degrees in 2017 for 9th straight year and outnumber men in grad school 137 to 100”
Source: [http:]//www.aei.org/publication/women-earned-majority-of-doctoral-degrees-in-2017-for-9th-straight-year-and-outnumber-men-in-grad-school-137-to-100-2/
So what happens to price when there’s an oversupply of pretty much anything? That’s right, the price (pay) goes down. It also goes down if there’s little or no demand.
What were all those degrees IN?
For women, somewhat low paying jobs: Liberal arts, education, public administration (75 percent were women). Source: same as above. See the chart.
For men, somewhat higher paying jobs: Engineering, math and science.
If a woman seeks money, choose a career with more pay. If she wants a LOT of money, start your own successful business and/or invest wisely.
I move that all Original Posts include the words, “There is no we,” because Micheal 2 has convinced me it is true and his fingers are probably tired of saying so on nearly every post.
Except, if that motion were accepted, it would prove that W&T can act as a collective, and prove that “we” exists.
Nevermind. Motion withdrawn.
The voting is in!
Moment of irony, courtesy of GEOFF -AUS. “I agree there is a big problem with conformity in the church”
LOL.
Very interesting that a need for unanimity can actually be more productive than a need for majority only. Perhaps that is actually a feature of Q15 deliberations.
Rockwell, your comment made me think about things. Of course W&T is a “we”, but how did that come to be?
People who don’t think W&T thoughts generally are not here. Blogs are among the most perfectly libertarian political construction ever — people are free to come and free to go! So the ones here right now have chosen to stay; either because of likeness (mostly) or because of not-likeness (me).
Physical exercise requires resistance or opposition. To sharpen my own thoughts about religion I occasionally require opposition to my own ideas. That’s the whole point of this particular page. Most people (IMO) want affirmation and don’t really think much about Big Ideas. That’s okay too, I like an affirmation once or twice a year.
In a sense, a blog is like a church with people coming and going, the blog shaping their thoughts but people’s thoughts also shaping the blog (or church).
The blogger can control this drift by banning all off-topic posts and comments, but what happens to a church that does that? Membership dwindles. What happens to a blog that does that? Membership dwindles!
But a wild-wild-west situation where anything goes is like CB Radio in the 1970’s, it loses its utility, its usefulness.
The optimum seems to be directed posting but largely free commenting. In other words, what Wheat and Tares does with excellence.
GEOFF -AUS asked a question: “Have any of the 15 explained why we still oppose gay marriage?”
Probably, but it is one of those things that doesn’t really need explaining.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
So I’m married, multiplied (I can also add, subtract and divide), eat fish, fowl and cow. Sparingly of course.
M2, I have noted a strange phenomenon among members on this subject, to quote as you have and assume that it also means things it doesn’t say. What you have quoted says nothing about marriage gay or straight, you have added that yourself, and think it is convincing. You could fulfill this commandment without being married, if you want to take it literally.
Does God also create gay people, (or are you saying gay people are not created in the image of God )he also creates people who are infertile. What you quoted has nothing to do with gay marriage. But just so you know many gay couples have children.
So my question remains why do we still oppose gay marriage, before the pox we claimed it was to defend straight marriage. In the 3+ years of the pox it has become obvious that gay marriage is not threatening straight marriage, so culture of the recent past? Conservative culture? Not anything from God. I have very little dominion over fish, fowls or animals, I am urban.
But I do enjoy the discussion.
This was a great essay. I’m still reflecting on it.
I will only note that I have changed my mind a number of times from on-line interactions. I’m always amazed more people don’t change their minds.
GEOFF -AUS explores some ideas more fully and so do I:
“What you have quoted says nothing about marriage gay or straight”
Agreed; it says nothing about social rituals; it is about human reproduction.
“You could fulfill this commandment without being married, if you want to take it literally.”
Yes. It happens fairly often.
“Does God also create gay people”
God has created no people since he created Adam and from Adam, Eve.
“What you quoted has nothing to do with gay marriage.”
Agreed. The scripture I quoted is about human reproduction.
“But just so you know many gay couples have children.”
I would be astonished if two men succeeded in bearing a child between them.
“So my question remains why do we still oppose gay marriage”
There is no “we”. My reasons may well not be yours. For me, marriage is the social framework of human reproduction. As such it has two important elements: The social framework and the reproduction. Both together creates society (and church), if either is missing you have no society.
“before the pox we claimed it was to defend straight marriage.”
Who is we? I claim it is to avoid burdening a child with having a different moral framework than that of her guardians. I consider it respectful that the church refused to place this burden on children. Children, in good time, can make their own choices and it would be all around better were it so for all children (in my opinion). I was 14 when I chose to join the church and it put me in moral opposition to my father, a situation that persisted for the rest of his life.
“In the 3+ years of the pox it has become obvious that gay marriage is not threatening straight marriage”
Neither was it presented as doing so. Besides the above explanation it also clarifies that in the temple, marriage still means between a man and a woman, it also still means license for sexual intercourse.
“I have very little dominion over fish, fowls or animals, I am urban.”
Your existence imposes dominion. You live on land that once housed animals, worms and birds; the food you eat, even if vegan, displaced animals. In the absence of dominion over animals your instincts will be to seek dominion over other humans and here you are 🙂
This topic prodded me into a review of the Milgram experiment. It and similar experiments such as the Stanford Prison Experiment show that humans have a strong affinity to go with the group (or authority) even when the group is going against that person’s own moral code (Milgram) or choosing answers on a test that are clearly wrong (Asch).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
The application to church is obvious; might one be conforming to church even when doing so goes against one’s moral code? Of course. But if such person rebels against church, and then finds refuge and like-minded persons in another church or blog, what has been accomplished? Merely the substitution of one authority group for another.