adrianbye's comments

I'd suggest making the focus being what you need in order to support yourself as a blind person, not being a software engineer.

There may be particular things blind people excel at and do very well with. Use a list of those things as your starting point.

Perhaps software engineering is on that list, but I'd make sure.

it sounds like you criticizing our stock art photo overlords..

so well put.

Perhaps your experience inside psychology is limited?

Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman[1] would disagree with you, along with social psychologist Jonathan Haidt[2].

[1] http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychol...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html

err.. your left wing viewpoints are showing..

have a look at what happens to indigenous groups that are given handouts.. massive alcoholism.. obesity.. huge problems.

people will have to work and improve themselves. the struggle in life is important along with risk taking.

but, the dynamics of pay may change to compensate for the amount of leverage we can get today in society

you can talk about the types of things you can do without breaking confidentiality

what about steve jobs?

you may want to read this: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/ElderlyWhiteMenAfflictedbyH...

well said

nothing wrong with pushing back.

its becoming noticeable how americans are turning into babies though

of course i did. the point is that academia doesn't research the opposing viewpoint virtually at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0

"He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals."

happens in europe, here's an example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10401416

you can see my link above to the NYtimes and the lack of research for the right in academia. there will be 10,000 papers supporting the left position to every 1 paper supporting the right position. they're just forced out of academia. this is a huge blind spot for society and is a little like how wall street wasn't prosecuted after the financial crisis.

that derek freeman was successful in what he did (and he was, mead was dropped from anthropology) was a minor miracle. if you want to learn more, watch this movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyOD-qNaiL0

margaret mead effectively founded "cultural anthropology" which basically means "research which makes people feel good". many people have followed her:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.htm...

this ties into funny looks for men in parks because men as a gender have been devalued into being potentially dangerous, rather than as a source of strength and value for communities.

challenging feminism is a little like investigations into wall street executives after the financial crisis, it just hasn't happened.

things are starting to turn - we have the internet now so we're much better informed...

either that or the USA economy continues its downward slide.. i really don't care either way.

the truth is that as the left becomes too strong, whether it is socialism, feminism or whatever, the economy gets destroyed. this is likely why rome collapsed, too.

the moral case is very important. so too is the economy.

Margaret Mead provided the foundation for feminism to advance by "proving" that culture drove society, not genetics.

Unfortunately that isn't true. Genetics shapes culture. One of the interesting things from Mead's "research" was that Samoan women were having a lot of premarital sex in the 1920's. Yet somehow none got pregnant but that was overlooked.

When you force people too far out of their natural roles, bad things happen. There's a whole lot more to this and its fascinating to see how people don't realise it.

I respect that feminism is the moral case. Genetics is the scientific one, which currently is not respected. There's a balance between the two

by your statement you'd almost think people like margaret thatcher, Dilma Rousseff and benazir bhutto never existed.

i know, feminism is a sacred cow.

the truth is that men tend to be highly valued in the 3rd world. by comparison in the west they tend to kill themselves as they get older: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/ElderlyWhiteMenAfflictedbyH...

are you aware we've blocked right wing research out of academia, so these issues never get researched properly?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0

and that margaret mead was basically a fraud? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman

(margaret mead is an early feminist)

this doesn't happen in non feminist countries (ie usually 3rd world).

well said. a lot of these guys would rather eliminate the right as much as possible.

well said. your original point was completely clear btw.