Two biases are usually found in social surveys:
1: Survivor bias, which‘advises’ positively on policies: Firms that do not survive raised minimum wages are not likely to ‘advise’ againstthem; and 2. twofold bias, which erroneously advises against policies: Many ‘markers’of these ‘groups’coincide, like being‘white,’ blond and blue-eyed. Deduction is digital choice by assumed rule,of which many seem to ‘even-out,’ but ‘subjectivity’ can never be all wrong andstatistical ‘proof’ certainly can be. Examples or single instances are so oftenpresented as proof of ‘the news’ and the ‘evening-out’ happens depending ondifferent theories and speculations from ‘field-relations’ or ‘correspondents.Theories and ‘conclusions are made explicit later or are to be guessed at. Theresulting dichotomies nevertheless tend to become less extreme and more‘gray-scaled’by comparisons of successive researchers, (not journalists or ‘witnesses’), ifadjusted by them on the way. Witnesses usually do dichotomise. There is no suchthing as black or white here, but we are evolved in a competitive male v.s.female pre-destination. We adher to many identifications and prides quiteunconsciously, we ‘know’, but can’t give it a name to advertise. The taboo oneven thinking about ‘sex’ is still very active. The ‘innocent’ are guilty too.
Everybody or at least the large majority think possible or ‘true’ what they ‘like.’ Thatis the wishful Process and Freuds pleasure principle. We evolve and compete,in the dichotomies we always had to ‘choose’ from, to be ‘understood.’ It isnot more state or conscience, but more consciousness of our own childhoodmemories and knowledge and acceptance of ours and those of others. Shame isgossip and esteem. All this dichotomous wishful thinking results in a vain hob-by,a ‘wish,’ to make ‘decisions’ about anything we have little control of: For ‘power?’We’re only prone to what hurt us before, and to its dichotomies, even if wehave suppress(ed) ‘bad’ memories with their associated names. And that’s ‘theNews’ in the media, or, it is considered as such by many and so gets its value inthe news-market.
To judge anyone (‘in power’), we must compareour own private toddler (hi-)stories, when everything we recognize at first isPlato’s ‘appearance-reality,’ or what we (and he) subconsciously craved for andwant, which is not Aristotles ‘matter-reality,’ and which requires psycho-analyticalself-inspection, for which the Freuds, Sigmund and Anna, gave us the toolsa century ago, suppressed by our ‘educators’ for laughing-stock reasons, ofwhich all can be read, after the next Agatha Christie citations. In themean-time we’re still being misleaded and given what we ‘believe’ we ‘want,’ by‘the services.’ History does repeat itself. We wish dreams were common, butthey’re not that common. Girls and boys want different things.Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but you get to play at ‘The 4-Clicks,’ (thestyles), incl. ‘ the familiar ‘us and them;’ But barking dogs don’t bite and amiss is as good as a (s)mile. Here our ‘sexual drive’ surfaces, alwaysshamefully and derisive.
Please start by always distinguishing threes,or more opportunities as in ‘The Holy Trinity,’ and stop seeing only bifurcalextremes, that seem so lucid and ‘brilliant.’ There are so many lessdiscriminating ‘theories,’ always! Sexes are sentenced to and againsteach-other in our herds, but luckily We have always had Religions and a hostof ideologies, ‘fake-news,’ propaganda and ‘parties-representatives,’ vying forour ‘support,’ whichbuys them influence. Like it or not, beauty doesn’t countfor as much anymore, men are emancipating too. It is not just a theory, thateven those neuroses, sexual frustration and jealousies and spite have afunction in the strength and evolution of societies: Girls mother boys andforce do’s and don’ts, consciences, ‘super-ego’ in them, but not so much intheir girls. Girls identify to do and want mostly their mothers tasks, even if bisexually or male-identified and still influence their boys and so they ‘help’anybody she might want to depend on her. So the men keep competing as to‘raise’ the statuses of their moms and spouses and most do so all their livesin ‘love-’ relations, which all women seem to ‘love’ (or prefer). This‘authoritative mechanism,’ spirals and keeps us doing whatever it takes for herto ‘come,’ ‘get off’ and have ‘her home.’ The youngsters in thenorth-West, seem to ‘even-out’ in this respect, but we must not assume menand women want the same and at the same price.
Women are again getting more outspoken,loud, ‘confident and superior in the expanding media, they dress colourfullyand more revealingly and act regressively, flirt and pout, which‘charms’ guys, who also pout increasingly. Actually they are just still hookedon their old consciences and fears: The girls are ‘fighting back,’ now theyare again expected to earn their own living (and housing). This is not new,women had to do this with their spouses absent, hunting, gathering, if able.Men ‘respect’ this, but (l)earn to overcome their (female) consciences, whilstrecognizing their interdependence: A liberation. These ‘traditions,’ or perks,do not change easily. Why should we give them up:? Elias ‘process ofindividualization,’ and interdependence, in the long term, the human condition,dynamically showing its source: The mutual early development of the sexes. Youand I worry about the ‘morality’ in this. We have: The 10 Commandments, ‘Statelaws,’ gossip, easy vengeance, as laughs, crying, shame, some control ofeach-other and some desperate people; Freuds never ending pleasure-unpleasureprinciple guiding our future worlds and making most ‘activism’ detrimental tosome or all, but they know that. Adam Smiths ‘invisible hand,’ will make all dothe work.
The 6 clicks-persons (incl. the passive andthe active or m+f), is the real ‘victim’ and is controlled and ‘cared for’ inthe north-West, at a terribly forbidding cost to the economies and itstaxpayers, but the ‘Nr. 3s,’ or the ‘4s,’ do not anymore always comply, if theywear their typically yellow shirts, just as many of their subsidized ‘helpers’do professionally and protest against these supposed ‘helpers’too. I’ll notexpand on all ‘clicks,’ as they are all well-known and often resented by theNr. 1s, the bulk of the tax-payers in all societies. The civil-servant‘helpers,’ often posing as ‘volunteers,’ and their ‘clients,’ allwearing yellow shirts in their ‘demonstrations,’ are a divided lot, whichexplains the violent eruptions at rallies. ‘They’ have even succeeded inpresenting themselves as ‘politically correct’ or ‘woke’ in the media, and in getting fundedby the state democratically on reputation andthe ‘juice’ in the ‘official’ media with their idealistic reporters.
The supposedly benefitting ‘outsiders’ (silly, stranger, black, misfit, cripple, ‘mad,’ etc.), are subjected to a very complicated and very ‘legal’ regime. They are certainly not free to enterprise or work where they want to or could or at what (De Swaan1988). Everyone’s ‘click,’ style or ‘class’ is defined by early identification choices, which were then gambled on digitally (1-0) and choices to adhere to the few recognizable markers, like charitability, ‘altruism,’ cleanliness and/orcompeting as a general tool to one’s pleasure seeking and stress-avoiding strategy, which is then recognized or not as female, male, good, bad or a bitof both. We exaggerate.During our young lives we are advertising these‘choices,’ also roles and ‘beliefs,’ which can stay volatile or ‘plastic,’ depending on the prides and their ambivalences of our own consciences and compliance. Villages, city-states, ‘grew’ from carers and their ‘cared’ inhostels or inns, on through roads between cities, where lonely people seeked company. So did hospitals and the utilities we depend on. We control each-other by charming, attracting, withholding care or sex and ‘overwhelming’ with ‘confident’ordering about, to the ‘choices’ we make. Not everyone complies. You can fool some people sometimes, but not all the time: Dichotomies are not an inductive choice, they are named analyses.