Some cultural reasons, but for the most part it's biology. Men on the average are decidedly better in observing, calculating and intuitively understanding spatial relationships. A lot of math and physics are exactly that. So is chess. So is race driving. Besides having skill, men also tend to enjoy these things. Even the women who have decent natural ability and could develop to a good level, are (again, genetically) inclined to find these singleminded pursuits boring, not fun and not worth their time. Women have their own strengths and sources of fun.
If you want some good reading on the subject, check out Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" and Matt Ridley's "Red Queen". I know jack about biology but those two books were interesting.
You know MajorMatt, if you read what various poster's in this thread are really saying and not just what they think they're saying, if you note which arguments they use and how they use them, and then consider the following, you'll have the answer to your original question.
Chess, of course, is more than just spatial relationships. It's also a game of strategy.
1904 - 2004 Make yourself indispensable in two world wars, get the vote, embrace labor saving devices, convince them contraception's good for all of us, turn up the heat a bit and open up education, gain financial independence, push for equal pay and childcare, make the bonds breakable and refundable, encourage them to bang on about the male identity and call themselves snags or metrosexuals or whatever other pop psychobabble term convinces them they haven't just been comprehensively outmaneuvered into foregoing so much power for so little gain. Lay the groundwork. Be patient. Maths and physics aren't going anywhere.
Intelligence isn't just measured by being able to solve simultaneous equations and knowing a=vt you know. One man's groundbreaking discovery is another woman's liberation against the odds.
Not ethically. You can't take a random selection of boys, give them doses of female hormones, put them in dresses and call them Jill to see what happens.
Not ethically. You can't take a random selection of boys, give them doses of female hormones, put them in dresses and call them Jill to see what happens.
For an example of an accidental "experiment" that did just that, check out the book As Nature Made Him.. Two identical twin boys were taken to be circumcised, but they damaged one boy's penis. Some psychologist with an androgyny agenda told them that they could just raise the boy as a girl and not tell him he was a boy, and everything would be fine. The book is about how "fine" it really turned out. He has since committed suicide.
But yeah, all sex research is correlational because you can't (except a bizarre situation like above) randomly assign kids to different sexes. So you never really know the cause of any differences.
But you can do animal research - I have a colleague who studies rat sex. They can come pretty close to manipulating sex and hormone levels. My (vague) impression of the research is that there is pretty good evidence that some cognitive differences between males and females is biological rather than just cultural, but that the difference isn't huge.
Not ethically. You can't take a random selection of boys, give them doses of female hormones, put them in dresses and call them Jill to see what happens.
All it takes is one crazy cult leader to do the study for us... Do we have any volunteers?
Brussell : they may be some differences, but I am alway very cautious with this, because it could be an excuse for some sexists people (not you of course) to forbidden women to do some particular jobs.
For example, women are supposed to have a bad spatial orientation. I can say that my elder daugther has a wonderfull sense of orientation, much better than mine.
But concerning chess, I beat the crap from her, normal if you consider she is just a beginner and is only nine.
Sure, people might have an agenda. But I also think there's pressure from the opposite direction to believe in cultural explanations for political reasons. Gon above recommended Pinker's Blank Slate, which does a good job of describing the bias we have for nurture explanations over nature explanations.
Chess, of course, is more than just spatial relationships. It's also a game of strategy.
1904 - 2004 Make yourself indispensable in two world wars, get the vote, embrace labor saving devices, convince them contraception's good for all of us, turn up the heat a bit and open up education, gain financial independence, push for equal pay and childcare, make the bonds breakable and refundable, encourage them to bang on about the male identity and call themselves snags or metrosexuals or whatever other pop psychobabble term convinces them they haven't just been comprehensively outmaneuvered into foregoing so much power for so little gain. Lay the groundwork. Be patient. Maths and physics aren't going anywhere.
Intelligence isn't just measured by being able to solve simultaneous equations and knowing a=vt you know. One man's groundbreaking discovery is another woman's liberation against the odds.
Checkmate.
You like to see a pattern here that shows women advancing in the world, 'winning' against men in some sort of zero-sum game. Maybe there is a twinkle of humor in there as well.
In most of those things, I like to see the progress of individual liberty. In the same timeframe, also man's race, the class he was born into and some other things have either ceased to matter, or matter less than they used to in society. Not discounting the hardships that women and minorities have faced, I think even the previously privileged now have more essential freedoms than back then, and it would not be possible if the rest hadn't also gotten them. This is why the game is not zero sum, the fight hasn't been as hard as it would have otherwise been, and the win is really "win/win".
On the legal side, I find this progress good as far as it happens hand in hand with abolition of laws restricting freedom. It ceases to be good, and becomes pure poison, when it is forced by law. I'm not for equality of position. Far from it. From the second your genes are mixed at fertilization, there is no absolute equality. There is no acceptable way to manufacture said equality. The only real, honest equality is the legal one - when every law that points to man's characteristics and distinguishing features is erased from the books. This includes discrimination laws, and quotas of every kind. Even if they mean good and do good for a while, they are training wheels by nature. Before you get rid of them, you are not really riding the bike and cannot take credit for it. If you are an adult and capable of riding a bike, you will consider mandatory training wheels in your bike as an insult, and a hindrance.
Barring some gene twiddling, no matter how long math and physics 'can wait', the result will be the same.
There will be many female physicists just like there are today, but the majority will be males. There will be males in the English class, but the majority will be females.
Sure, people might have an agenda. But I also think there's pressure from the opposite direction to believe in cultural explanations for political reasons. Gon above recommended Pinker's Blank Slate, which does a good job of describing the bias we have for nurture explanations over nature explanations.
Of course people have agendas and push particular explanations for political reasons. This only goes to show that the situation is still very much in a state of flux. But contrary to what some people in this thread seem to think, you can't wave the magic wand of equal opportunity and expect immediate results. When it comes to the ramifications of this sort of social change, you're looking at having to wait at least several generations for it to play itself out.
Even if somebody discovered proof of intrinsic differences between males and females at the biological level tomorrow (and I agree with you Sprout that I think we will eventually find we are wired somewhat differently), we still wouldn't know the significance of this. I'd still be inclined to think that Powerdoc would beat the crap out of me at chess because my father taught my brothers how to play chess but not my sister and I. And it wouldn't explain why I crush my partner at Go, the grand poobah of games involving spatial recognition.
It would add nothing to our understanding of why Asian Australians are over represented in Maths and Science at university level, why they excel in those disciplines and outflank their Anglo-Saxon counterparts, or why they also seem to be dragging their feet when it comes to groundbreaking discoveries and paradigm shifts of the kind Johnq is talking about. It might appear at surface level to offer a reason why women aren't studying Maths and Science at the same rate as men but that reason might seem less certain when you consider they're not going into nursing at the same rates they were 25 years ago when I finished high school and it predominated as the career choice for girls in my class.
Declaring game, set, match at this point in time is ludicrous.
You like to see a pattern here that shows women advancing in the world, 'winning' against men in some sort of zero-sum game. Maybe there is a twinkle of humor in there as well.
Ah so you do have a sense of subtlety. Good to see. Well, in terms of the fact that 100 years ago I would have been either just another piece of property of some man or, if I didn't have a husband or male relative to define my existence, would have fallen into one of several negative categories of social outsider, I do see it as a battle to be fought and won.
Quote:
In most of those things, I like to see the progress of individual liberty. In the same timeframe, also man's race, the class he was born into and some other things have either ceased to matter, or matter less than they used to in society. Not discounting the hardships that women and minorities have faced, I think even the previously privileged now have more essential freedoms than back then, and it would not be possible if the rest hadn't also gotten them. This is why the game is not zero sum, the fight hasn't been as hard as it would have otherwise been, and the win is really "win/win".
Well, it shows how two people can take the same set of facts and come to wildly differing opinions. I think our supposed individual freedoms are one of the greater con jobs of all time, that class is alive and well but has morphed into something less recognizable than its traditional stereotypes, and that we live under the New Slavery.
If I look at my loved ones and closest friends of my generation, I see a motley crew of early to tail end baby boomers the majority of whom, both male and female, have decided to opt out to some extent. Because what we wanted doesn't fit with what the New Slavery offers, we've had to make various sacrifices in terms of career, having kids, income, whatever. OTOH, looking at the one who has played the game, my second eldest brother, I see a guy who graduated in Computer Science in the 70's, got in on the ground level, has had a highly successful career with a large computer SW/HW manufacturer (that doesn't start with "M" or "A") and is now a heart attack looking for somewhere to happen dressed in an Italian suit and driving a company car.
Swings and roundabouts.
As far as the positive discrimination thing goes, I have mixed feelings about it these days. I can certainly see the training wheel problem but then I also still see a lot of positive discrimination towards men that sees less able and competent males promoted ahead of their female counterparts. But I probably fall onto the side of continued, slow, incremental change rather than trying to force the issue any further.
As far as the gene thing goes, I've addressed it in my last post. Yeah, I think we probably will find fundamental biological differences one day, but exactly what the significance of this will turn out to be is far less clear to me than it is to you.
Not ethically. You can't take a random selection of boys, give them doses of female hormones, put them in dresses and call them Jill to see what happens.
I would think that the best test would be to take set of genes, duplicate them (clone), but make one have an XY and the other XX. All in all, these two people should be quite similar, and raising them as twin siblings should probably be fine. Variations on the same test could yield some interesting results.
I would think that the best test would be to take set of genes, duplicate them (clone), but make one have an XY and the other XX. All in all, these two people should be quite similar, and raising them as twin siblings should probably be fine. Variations on the same test could yield some interesting results.
Yeah, get that one past the ethics board.
Edit: And then have them have children together -- what does absolute inbreeding do?
Well, it shows how two people can take the same set of facts and come to wildly differing opinions. I think our supposed individual freedoms are one of the greater con jobs of all time, that class is alive and well but has morphed into something less recognizable than its traditional stereotypes, and that we live under the New Slavery.
If I look at my loved ones and closest friends of my generation, I see a motley crew of early to tail end baby boomers the majority of whom, both male and female, have decided to opt out to some extent.
...
As far as the positive discrimination thing goes, I have mixed feelings about it these days. I can certainly see the training wheel problem but then I also still see a lot of positive discrimination towards men that sees less able and competent males promoted ahead of their female counterparts. But I probably fall onto the side of continued, slow, incremental change rather than trying to force the issue any further.
I agree that individual freedoms are not there yet. Not in my homeland, and not in the US, the two are lacking in different ways though. I cringe when most people start talking about rights because that's usually right before they want to 'limit' them, like they are theirs to limit. But in one sense things are great, and that's precisely in the context of what used to be. Your family has been able to make choices. To 'opt out' is a choice. I don't think that choice existed here thirty years ago for my parents, or fifty years ago for my grandparents. Looking in the future, I think there is less distance to cover than we have come the last fifty years. That last step can be taken sooner or later, but there will be a really free spot in the world. It will pile the pressure on other places.
If you think the current 'individual freedom' is a scam, unfortunately the 'free market' is a much worse one. I think the US had one, till around 1880-1900.
It's pretty difficult to advocate something when most people are under the impression we already have it. It doesn't help that the thing is usually associated with current or recent governments' failures, either.
I agree that individual freedoms are not there yet. Not in my homeland, and not in the US, the two are lacking in different ways though. I cringe when most people start talking about rights because that's usually right before they want to 'limit' them, like they are theirs to limit. But in one sense things are great, and that's precisely in the context of what used to be. Your family has been able to make choices. To 'opt out' is a choice. I don't think that choice existed here thirty years ago for my parents, or fifty years ago for my grandparents. Looking in the future, I think there is less distance to cover than we have come the last fifty years. That last step can be taken sooner or later, but there will be a really free spot in the world. It will pile the pressure on other places.
If you think the current 'individual freedom' is a scam, unfortunately the 'free market' is a much worse one. I think the US had one, till around 1880-1900.
It's pretty difficult to advocate something when most people are under the impression we already have it. It doesn't help that the thing is usually associated with current or recent governments' failures, either.
Well, in terms of the US's own mantra (and they do claim to be the Land of the Free), seems to me the way it should work is that freedom starts off unfettered and then restrictions, controls, obligations are added only where individual freedom conflicts with the greater good. The fact we now fight for our freedoms and demand rights is a pretty clear indication to me that somehow we've gone astray.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
Quote:
But in one sense things are great, and that's precisely in the context of what used to be.
My family and friends (some of them) were able to make choices and opt out because we were well-off, upper middle class, and enjoyed a wide range of educational and other opportunities. And because of timing. Many of my peers were not so lucky. They got the timing right but lacked the other prerequisites.
I don't think my parents and grandparents wanted the same choices. They thought an economically stable and prosperous world (or their corner of it) free of war was just dandy. I actually think young people today have far less choice than I did. Put it this way, if I was 18 and embarking on my degree now, I wouldn't be choosing History as a major.
In some ways I agree, that we've done the really hard work, covered the greatest distance, but in another sense I think we're just at the beginning. And "individual freedom" and the "free market" are all part of the one scam AFAIC.
Personally, I think in 2004 the smart 18 year old with a liking and talent for mathematics whether they be male or female, doesn't choose maths at all. They choose engineering or CS or some other "less theory, more practice" subject area that satisfies societies current demand for specialization. Society at large doesn't care for generalists or theoreticians anymore. It doesn't care if a genius falls by the wayside. And it sure as hell doesn't care about people's sense of personal fulfillment.
Comments
If you want some good reading on the subject, check out Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" and Matt Ridley's "Red Queen". I know jack about biology but those two books were interesting.
Chess, of course, is more than just spatial relationships. It's also a game of strategy.
1904 - 2004 Make yourself indispensable in two world wars, get the vote, embrace labor saving devices, convince them contraception's good for all of us, turn up the heat a bit and open up education, gain financial independence, push for equal pay and childcare, make the bonds breakable and refundable, encourage them to bang on about the male identity and call themselves snags or metrosexuals or whatever other pop psychobabble term convinces them they haven't just been comprehensively outmaneuvered into foregoing so much power for so little gain. Lay the groundwork. Be patient. Maths and physics aren't going anywhere.
Intelligence isn't just measured by being able to solve simultaneous equations and knowing a=vt you know. One man's groundbreaking discovery is another woman's liberation against the odds.
Checkmate.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Sure you can.
Not ethically. You can't take a random selection of boys, give them doses of female hormones, put them in dresses and call them Jill to see what happens.
Originally posted by Scott
Not ethically. You can't take a random selection of boys, give them doses of female hormones, put them in dresses and call them Jill to see what happens.
For an example of an accidental "experiment" that did just that, check out the book As Nature Made Him.. Two identical twin boys were taken to be circumcised, but they damaged one boy's penis. Some psychologist with an androgyny agenda told them that they could just raise the boy as a girl and not tell him he was a boy, and everything would be fine. The book is about how "fine" it really turned out. He has since committed suicide.
But yeah, all sex research is correlational because you can't (except a bizarre situation like above) randomly assign kids to different sexes. So you never really know the cause of any differences.
But you can do animal research - I have a colleague who studies rat sex. They can come pretty close to manipulating sex and hormone levels. My (vague) impression of the research is that there is pretty good evidence that some cognitive differences between males and females is biological rather than just cultural, but that the difference isn't huge.
Originally posted by Scott
Not ethically. You can't take a random selection of boys, give them doses of female hormones, put them in dresses and call them Jill to see what happens.
All it takes is one crazy cult leader to do the study for us... Do we have any volunteers?
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
All it takes is one crazy cult leader to do the study for us... Do we have any volunteers?
In the past, there where some volunteers : the eunuques .... Did you ever heard of Farinelli ?
For example, women are supposed to have a bad spatial orientation. I can say that my elder daugther has a wonderfull sense of orientation, much better than mine.
But concerning chess, I beat the crap from her, normal if you consider she is just a beginner and is only nine.
Originally posted by crazychester
Chess, of course, is more than just spatial relationships. It's also a game of strategy.
1904 - 2004 Make yourself indispensable in two world wars, get the vote, embrace labor saving devices, convince them contraception's good for all of us, turn up the heat a bit and open up education, gain financial independence, push for equal pay and childcare, make the bonds breakable and refundable, encourage them to bang on about the male identity and call themselves snags or metrosexuals or whatever other pop psychobabble term convinces them they haven't just been comprehensively outmaneuvered into foregoing so much power for so little gain. Lay the groundwork. Be patient. Maths and physics aren't going anywhere.
Intelligence isn't just measured by being able to solve simultaneous equations and knowing a=vt you know. One man's groundbreaking discovery is another woman's liberation against the odds.
Checkmate.
You like to see a pattern here that shows women advancing in the world, 'winning' against men in some sort of zero-sum game. Maybe there is a twinkle of humor in there as well.
In most of those things, I like to see the progress of individual liberty. In the same timeframe, also man's race, the class he was born into and some other things have either ceased to matter, or matter less than they used to in society. Not discounting the hardships that women and minorities have faced, I think even the previously privileged now have more essential freedoms than back then, and it would not be possible if the rest hadn't also gotten them. This is why the game is not zero sum, the fight hasn't been as hard as it would have otherwise been, and the win is really "win/win".
On the legal side, I find this progress good as far as it happens hand in hand with abolition of laws restricting freedom. It ceases to be good, and becomes pure poison, when it is forced by law. I'm not for equality of position. Far from it. From the second your genes are mixed at fertilization, there is no absolute equality. There is no acceptable way to manufacture said equality. The only real, honest equality is the legal one - when every law that points to man's characteristics and distinguishing features is erased from the books. This includes discrimination laws, and quotas of every kind. Even if they mean good and do good for a while, they are training wheels by nature. Before you get rid of them, you are not really riding the bike and cannot take credit for it. If you are an adult and capable of riding a bike, you will consider mandatory training wheels in your bike as an insult, and a hindrance.
Barring some gene twiddling, no matter how long math and physics 'can wait', the result will be the same.
There will be many female physicists just like there are today, but the majority will be males. There will be males in the English class, but the majority will be females.
Originally posted by BRussell
Sure, people might have an agenda. But I also think there's pressure from the opposite direction to believe in cultural explanations for political reasons. Gon above recommended Pinker's Blank Slate, which does a good job of describing the bias we have for nurture explanations over nature explanations.
Of course people have agendas and push particular explanations for political reasons. This only goes to show that the situation is still very much in a state of flux. But contrary to what some people in this thread seem to think, you can't wave the magic wand of equal opportunity and expect immediate results. When it comes to the ramifications of this sort of social change, you're looking at having to wait at least several generations for it to play itself out.
Even if somebody discovered proof of intrinsic differences between males and females at the biological level tomorrow (and I agree with you Sprout that I think we will eventually find we are wired somewhat differently), we still wouldn't know the significance of this. I'd still be inclined to think that Powerdoc would beat the crap out of me at chess because my father taught my brothers how to play chess but not my sister and I. And it wouldn't explain why I crush my partner at Go, the grand poobah of games involving spatial recognition.
It would add nothing to our understanding of why Asian Australians are over represented in Maths and Science at university level, why they excel in those disciplines and outflank their Anglo-Saxon counterparts, or why they also seem to be dragging their feet when it comes to groundbreaking discoveries and paradigm shifts of the kind Johnq is talking about. It might appear at surface level to offer a reason why women aren't studying Maths and Science at the same rate as men but that reason might seem less certain when you consider they're not going into nursing at the same rates they were 25 years ago when I finished high school and it predominated as the career choice for girls in my class.
Declaring game, set, match at this point in time is ludicrous.
Originally posted by Gon
You like to see a pattern here that shows women advancing in the world, 'winning' against men in some sort of zero-sum game. Maybe there is a twinkle of humor in there as well.
Ah so you do have a sense of subtlety. Good to see. Well, in terms of the fact that 100 years ago I would have been either just another piece of property of some man or, if I didn't have a husband or male relative to define my existence, would have fallen into one of several negative categories of social outsider, I do see it as a battle to be fought and won.
In most of those things, I like to see the progress of individual liberty. In the same timeframe, also man's race, the class he was born into and some other things have either ceased to matter, or matter less than they used to in society. Not discounting the hardships that women and minorities have faced, I think even the previously privileged now have more essential freedoms than back then, and it would not be possible if the rest hadn't also gotten them. This is why the game is not zero sum, the fight hasn't been as hard as it would have otherwise been, and the win is really "win/win".
Well, it shows how two people can take the same set of facts and come to wildly differing opinions. I think our supposed individual freedoms are one of the greater con jobs of all time, that class is alive and well but has morphed into something less recognizable than its traditional stereotypes, and that we live under the New Slavery.
If I look at my loved ones and closest friends of my generation, I see a motley crew of early to tail end baby boomers the majority of whom, both male and female, have decided to opt out to some extent. Because what we wanted doesn't fit with what the New Slavery offers, we've had to make various sacrifices in terms of career, having kids, income, whatever. OTOH, looking at the one who has played the game, my second eldest brother, I see a guy who graduated in Computer Science in the 70's, got in on the ground level, has had a highly successful career with a large computer SW/HW manufacturer (that doesn't start with "M" or "A") and is now a heart attack looking for somewhere to happen dressed in an Italian suit and driving a company car.
Swings and roundabouts.
As far as the positive discrimination thing goes, I have mixed feelings about it these days. I can certainly see the training wheel problem but then I also still see a lot of positive discrimination towards men that sees less able and competent males promoted ahead of their female counterparts. But I probably fall onto the side of continued, slow, incremental change rather than trying to force the issue any further.
As far as the gene thing goes, I've addressed it in my last post. Yeah, I think we probably will find fundamental biological differences one day, but exactly what the significance of this will turn out to be is far less clear to me than it is to you.
Originally posted by Scott
Not ethically. You can't take a random selection of boys, give them doses of female hormones, put them in dresses and call them Jill to see what happens.
I would think that the best test would be to take set of genes, duplicate them (clone), but make one have an XY and the other XX. All in all, these two people should be quite similar, and raising them as twin siblings should probably be fine. Variations on the same test could yield some interesting results.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I would think that the best test would be to take set of genes, duplicate them (clone), but make one have an XY and the other XX. All in all, these two people should be quite similar, and raising them as twin siblings should probably be fine. Variations on the same test could yield some interesting results.
Yeah, get that one past the ethics board.
Edit: And then have them have children together -- what does absolute inbreeding do?
Originally posted by crazychester
Well, it shows how two people can take the same set of facts and come to wildly differing opinions. I think our supposed individual freedoms are one of the greater con jobs of all time, that class is alive and well but has morphed into something less recognizable than its traditional stereotypes, and that we live under the New Slavery.
If I look at my loved ones and closest friends of my generation, I see a motley crew of early to tail end baby boomers the majority of whom, both male and female, have decided to opt out to some extent.
...
As far as the positive discrimination thing goes, I have mixed feelings about it these days. I can certainly see the training wheel problem but then I also still see a lot of positive discrimination towards men that sees less able and competent males promoted ahead of their female counterparts. But I probably fall onto the side of continued, slow, incremental change rather than trying to force the issue any further.
I agree that individual freedoms are not there yet. Not in my homeland, and not in the US, the two are lacking in different ways though. I cringe when most people start talking about rights because that's usually right before they want to 'limit' them, like they are theirs to limit. But in one sense things are great, and that's precisely in the context of what used to be. Your family has been able to make choices. To 'opt out' is a choice. I don't think that choice existed here thirty years ago for my parents, or fifty years ago for my grandparents. Looking in the future, I think there is less distance to cover than we have come the last fifty years. That last step can be taken sooner or later, but there will be a really free spot in the world. It will pile the pressure on other places.
If you think the current 'individual freedom' is a scam, unfortunately the 'free market' is a much worse one. I think the US had one, till around 1880-1900.
It's pretty difficult to advocate something when most people are under the impression we already have it. It doesn't help that the thing is usually associated with current or recent governments' failures, either.
Originally posted by Gon
I agree that individual freedoms are not there yet. Not in my homeland, and not in the US, the two are lacking in different ways though. I cringe when most people start talking about rights because that's usually right before they want to 'limit' them, like they are theirs to limit. But in one sense things are great, and that's precisely in the context of what used to be. Your family has been able to make choices. To 'opt out' is a choice. I don't think that choice existed here thirty years ago for my parents, or fifty years ago for my grandparents. Looking in the future, I think there is less distance to cover than we have come the last fifty years. That last step can be taken sooner or later, but there will be a really free spot in the world. It will pile the pressure on other places.
If you think the current 'individual freedom' is a scam, unfortunately the 'free market' is a much worse one. I think the US had one, till around 1880-1900.
It's pretty difficult to advocate something when most people are under the impression we already have it. It doesn't help that the thing is usually associated with current or recent governments' failures, either.
Well, in terms of the US's own mantra (and they do claim to be the Land of the Free), seems to me the way it should work is that freedom starts off unfettered and then restrictions, controls, obligations are added only where individual freedom conflicts with the greater good. The fact we now fight for our freedoms and demand rights is a pretty clear indication to me that somehow we've gone astray.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
But in one sense things are great, and that's precisely in the context of what used to be.
My family and friends (some of them) were able to make choices and opt out because we were well-off, upper middle class, and enjoyed a wide range of educational and other opportunities. And because of timing. Many of my peers were not so lucky. They got the timing right but lacked the other prerequisites.
I don't think my parents and grandparents wanted the same choices. They thought an economically stable and prosperous world (or their corner of it) free of war was just dandy. I actually think young people today have far less choice than I did. Put it this way, if I was 18 and embarking on my degree now, I wouldn't be choosing History as a major.
In some ways I agree, that we've done the really hard work, covered the greatest distance, but in another sense I think we're just at the beginning. And "individual freedom" and the "free market" are all part of the one scam AFAIC.
Personally, I think in 2004 the smart 18 year old with a liking and talent for mathematics whether they be male or female, doesn't choose maths at all. They choose engineering or CS or some other "less theory, more practice" subject area that satisfies societies current demand for specialization. Society at large doesn't care for generalists or theoreticians anymore. It doesn't care if a genius falls by the wayside. And it sure as hell doesn't care about people's sense of personal fulfillment.