Peterkin

Nope. Never. Not even once when I had a really bad hangover.

In neither case should it be an obstacle to the placing the appropriate person in each responsible position. Anyone arguing 'the optics' of a political appointment is waving a dead fish and calling it a red flag.

'Optics' (by which meant not the branch of physics that studies the behaviour and properties of light, but a branch of public relations that studies how political actions appear in mass media) really shouldn't be a criterion for selecting the judges who rule on the constitutionality of legislation or make the final decision in landmark legal cases.

They don't need to be any good at it. The Republicans commit so many real and palpable injustices, behave so outrageously, piss off so many people that nobody has to fake anger at them.

Generally, comparatively, relatively of what to what? It was an ambiguous statement. Do you mean that women are more attractive to you than men are? Or that men are more attracted to women than women are to men? Or what, in fact, does it have to do with hair colour at all, at all?

Their outrage at some imagined injustice. But it's not that hard; they've had plenty of practice.

I believe he quoted the relevant paragraphs.

Three posts up^^^, by Zapatos. http:// https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/redheads-psychology_b_1911771.html

The above cited research contradicts this.

Plus, they're Supreme Court judges, which is a big plus, relevance-wise. What for? They not relevant in any sense. No, they're not representing any people. Elected office-holders are supposed to to do that. Supreme courts are supposed to serve the constitution and law of the land, without fear or favour. Scientifically speaking, both black and white are fictions. Skin pigmentation comes an interesting and bewildering variety of hues shades.

I wonder if the experiment would have been different if it measured number of eye movements, rather than approaches. There is some folklore in play here: a long-standing widely held notion that red hair indicates a fiery temperament. So I have to wonder whether more men looked at the redheads and chickened out. The women's reaction is more telling. Naturally ginger men may have some disadvantages (pale skin, freckles, invisible eyelashes and pink-rimmed eyes), when the man is wearing a wig, none of these characteristics are evident: the women must be reacting to the association in their own minds. Ah! Having read the full article - interesting BTW; thanks! - I see where some of the prejudices come from. Some are the same in France, the UK and the US. The persistent stereotyping: red-haired women are wild and dangerous; dark-haired women are smart and dangerous; fair-haired women are soft and weak. Scotsmen are industrious, dour and frugal. Red-haired boys are cut-ups and rascals. Folklore that's been carried through to children's books, novels and cinema is not losing on grip on people's imagination.

Yes. Unless the topic was societal attitudes to this particular trait, which is the more interesting aspect of the topic. I'm aware of the very strong bias in medieval Europe. I would presume an absence of such bias in modern North America and slight positive bias in, say 19th century Canada. I haven't looked any farther afield. One way to check would be a photo gallery of movie stars. Assuming an equal number of red-haired babies of either sex are born and reach adulthood in a given population, and further given that theatrical talent is spread evenly, how many men and how women become celebrities. I think I do see a suggestive ratio 7 women/3men,without any consideration of the kind of roles they play. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls066580547/

When he was looming over a frightened young woman. SFAIK, JFK was never appointed to the Supreme Court and didn't resemble either of the other men.

Okay, and I agree, but why make a point of it? Same with the general conditions, which don't exist. Seems like an unnecessary distraction.

What outrage? Kavenaugh got the job. And the issue was not infidelity. None of which, of course, is in play in the current situation, so no kind of outrage is applicable. It's just the usual misdirected, randomized rage of the floundering dinosaur.

Then no general mechanism can be considered for human reproduction, which never takes place in general conditions. Both of which take place in a given population. If there is only one type to select from, that's the type that will be selected. If there is a bigger genetic pool to select from, more choices are available and more variations can occur. If they are allowed to, young people choose according to personal fancy, rather than cultural norm, so there will be more mixing. That's why tribalism, racialism, etc. is always enforced with legal and moral sanctions, up to and including pain of death: sexual attraction is natural and cosmopolitan. and play no part in selection or regional preference or cultural bias, which is why I ignored it.

I can remember back when the controversy over Clarence Thomas was not over his race, his sex, his religion or his inexperience, but sexual conduct. The objections and protests are as fluid and ephemeral as the politics behind each appointment.

When did this "present" era begin? When did the modern moral lens take effect? The day after the odious Kavenough was confirmed? Or the day before nobody had a problem with Barrett. https://www.vox.com/2022/2/19/22934915/supreme-court-justices-not-honest-amy-coney-barrett-notre-dame-abortion-voting-rights Politicians make political appointments for political reasons. Go, figure!

Sexual selection can only be considered in specific contexts. The northern Celtic tribes were able to preserve a sizeable presence of red-haired people simply because there was little infusion of more dominant genetic strains. So the red-haired people (who, yes, do tend to freckle everywhere on their bodies, especially if exposed to sunlight. This is sometimes considered endearing in small children, alluring in young women, off-putting in men and repulsive in the elderly. People have fickle tastes in other people's appearance!) continued. In a large, diverse population like the US for or UK, the selection would have to be very selective, to insure a the long-term prevalence of a recessive trait. This has been the case among some aristocracies, as well as elite pockets. In the general population, however, there is more genetic mixing. There has been speculation that this phenotype will disappear, either in response to the climate https://www.irishcentral.com/news/are-redheads-in-danger-of-extinction-scientists-say-yes or genetic pressure from more dominant traits https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-02-redheads-blue-eyes-extinct.html but as the recessive trait persist for generations, it will keep popping up.

I just accepted that the young woman in the video who is worried about her dignity was also named Jordan Peterson or Petersen. That wouldn't be so hard to believe. The confusion was introduced by putting the name in with a presentation of an otherwise unidentified person. The Canadian guy also has a lot to say on this topic, which is, like many of his topics, is way outside his area of expertise.

May I add, in the case of this Jordan Petersen, that it's also a hand-biting exercise. The beneficiary of previous affirmative action speaking out against affirmative action on behalf of future beneficiaries. Like a landed immigrant opposing new immigration, or Craig T. Nelson condemning welfare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U The only acceptable SCOTUS nominee would have been a self-taught asexual person with eight differently coloured great grandparents. How many of these qualified 'applicants' were there? In any other situation, all races, ages and sexes but one are discriminated against.

Well, that's all right then.

Coz it's distractionary BS. I don't know and it doesn't signify. A political agenda calls for a particular set of criteria, from the available pool of candidates. Everything that doesn't fit into those criteria is automatically excluded. That means nobody is excluded specifically for any particular reason; they're just all included in the general exclusion. You can't get a whole lot more inclusive than " everything else".

I'm not preaching to anyone. You wanna sing, go ahead.

You seem very convinced.