I would like to preface this post by saying that I fully support trans rights and non-binary individuals, but as of yet I've not seen a compelling argument for why gender fluidity is anything more than trait ascription bias which I believe is an excellent explanation for this phenomenon. For those that don't feel like reading the Wikipedia page, trait ascription bias (hereby abbreviated as TAB) is a cognitive bias that states that we are more likely to view our own personality as fluid and changeable while viewing others as static and unchanging.
It's true that to a degree, gender is inexorably linked with one's personality. Gender is not a subset of personality, but it is related - those who are transgender will typically have personality traits that make them identify with the opposite sex more than their birth one. Therefore according to TAB, we are more likely to view our own gender as changeable compared to how we perceive and are perceived by others.
The most natural counterargument that stems from this line of reasoning is that perhaps all of our genders are more fluid than we give them credit, but to me this kinda defeats the point of the label in the first place. I'm happy to have my view changed on this topic though. If this label helps people cope with their dysphoria then I am all for it, however, I think it should be recognized as a result of cognitive bias rather than an inherent trait of gender fluidity.
The Wittgensteinian says that "That is red" (said while pointing with hand) is a rule of grammar, not made true or false by anything in the world, but a rule which has a point in some context, and which imparts meaning to other expressions.
My question is: is all property ascription covert ostensive definition (OD)? When a scientist says, "that is soluble," to herself alone, she seems not to ostend. The reason I ask is that I am looking for arguments for or against the substitutability of ascription/OD with scientific theory, but ascription/OD understood explicitly as a Wittgensteinian rule.
Has anyone discussed property ascription and rule-following in science?
In class, we are talking about resumes and this question came up. Google provided a lot of books but no definitions. Does anybody know?
I have:
fn as_query(&self) -> String {
let params: Vec<String> = self.as_query_kv().iter()
.map(|&(ref k, ref v)| format!("{}={}", k, v))
.collect();
params.join("&")
}
The local variable params is necessary purely because collect needs a type hint.
If I were returning params directly, then using (feature-gated) type ascription I could just append : Vec<String> and be done with it - but I can't follow that with another chained method join.
Is there no way to avoid the local variable here? Sometimes I'd agree with those of you that will probably tell me it improves readability anyway, but here I think it's so brief as to be unnecessary.
Does this manuscript come with an authorial ascription such as "Gospel according to John"? If not, which is the earliest manuscript that contains such an ascription?
I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.
Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.
Do your worst!
They were cooked in Greece.
I'm surprised it hasn't decade.
For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.
I said "hey look, an escaPEA"
No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!
Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies π
It really does, I swear!
Don't you know a good pun is its own reword?
Because she wanted to see the task manager.
