Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on April 29, 2011, 03:50:40 pm
-
General Battuta, please don't be the first to respond. :)
Early Western European societies regarded being pudgy or with a fine layer of fat as being attractive. Much of Europe has an obesity problem.
What sort of historic and societal trends can you think of that might explain Europe's current problem?
-
It's interesting how standards of beauty play into socioeconomics. When calories were scarce and it was hard to get fat, a bit of a Rubenesque tendency was a sign of affluence and wealth - much like pale skin was a sign you didn't have to work in the fields.
Now that calories are plentiful and easily achieved, athleticism has become a sign of leisure time, discipline, and wealth. When everyone can eat, and the least healthy, most fattening food is available to the poor, skinny builds are in. So are tans!
-
Humans are animals designed to hunt/collect their food with minimal help from technological gadgets. Wrong tool for the job (life as it is today).
-
Humans are animals designed to hunt/collect their food with minimal help from technological gadgets. Wrong tool for the job (life as it is today).
If that were true, then why do we place so much importance on our intellectual abilities?
-
because our intellectual abilities are extremely helpful when trying to hunt/collect food with minimal help from technological gadgets?
-
I think intellect creates the problem, by allowing the species to evolve their ways faster than it is biologically able to adapt to. The intellect "over drives" the progress of the species, yet fails to provide the level of control needed to tame the animal.
-
I think intellect creates the problem, by allowing the species to evolve their ways faster than it is biologically able to adapt to. The intellect "over drives" the progress of the species, yet fails to provide the level of control needed to tame the animal.
:nod:
Memetic evolution outstrips biological evolution. The logical answer is placing the reins of biological evolution in the hands of the cognitive - radical transhumanism!
-
I think intellect creates the problem, by allowing the species to evolve their ways faster than it is biologically able to adapt to. The intellect "over drives" the progress of the species, yet fails to provide the level of control needed to tame the animal.
I would imagine though that by that same token, the best way to control oneself is by using that intellectual bump. Maybe?
-
Why shouldn't the brain think highly of itself?
-
I have this bump in the back of my head. People tell me it's really weird. Anyone else?
-
I accidentally 93mb of .rar files
what should i do...is this dangerous?
-
i liek fat chicks, they are hawt.
-
Clearly there are other schools of thought... :rolleyes:
I accidentally 93mb of .rar files
what should i do...is this dangerous?
What?
-
I have this bump in the back of my head. People tell me it's really weird. Anyone else?
Oh ****, an occipital bun?
-
What?
93mb of .rar files. The whole thing.
-
Yah, plus a double simian crease and I'm left handed. Also I have this weird tumor looking thing on my left middle finger.
-
Yah, plus a double simian crease and I'm left handed. Also I have this weird tumor looking thing on my left middle finger.
Left handed, ****, you're a member of the shorter-lived but more successful master race.
-
What?
93mb of .rar files. The whole thing.
You're still missing a verb...
-
Humans are animals designed to hunt/collect their food with minimal help from technological gadgets. Wrong tool for the job (life as it is today).
If that were true, then why do we place so much importance on our intellectual abilities?
Because we aren't the strongest or the fastest (at least over short distances... long distance is another matter) but we are pretty clever sometimes and so we're pretty good at getting together in a group, making a bunch of odd noises, and deciding that if we out flank that herd of buffalo over there we'll have enough meat for the whole tribe to eat for a week. Oh and we'll take them down with a bunch of pointy stones that we made and then afixed to a stick.
Nowadays we just have much more sophisticated pointy stones and means of attaching them to sticks :)
-
What?
93mb of .rar files. The whole thing.
You're still missing a verb...
HOW CAN YOU CORRECT MY GRAMMAR AT A TIME LIKE THIS?! I ACCIDENTALLY 93MB OF RAR FILES! (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally)
-
I swear you guys are worse than my grandma when it comes to the internet.
General Battuta, please don't be the first to respond. :)
Early Western European societies regarded being pudgy or with a fine layer of fat as being attractive. Much of Europe has an obesity problem.
What sort of historic and societal trends can you think of that might explain Europe's current problem?
Okay well we answered that one pretty fast. Question for OP! Early Western European societies regarded the universe as being created by a old white guy with a beard. Much of Europe has an atheism problem.
What sort of historic and societal trends can you think of that might explain Europe's current problem?
-
I swear you guys are worse than my grandma when it comes to the internet.
General Battuta, please don't be the first to respond. :)
Early Western European societies regarded being pudgy or with a fine layer of fat as being attractive. Much of Europe has an obesity problem.
What sort of historic and societal trends can you think of that might explain Europe's current problem?
Okay well we answered that one pretty fast. Question for OP! Early Western European societies regarded the universe as being created by a old white guy with a beard. Much of Europe has an atheism problem.
What sort of historic and societal trends can you think of that might explain Europe's current problem?
That phase that all teenagers go through where they rebel against their parents? /WASP
(N.B. This is NOT my view)
-
Atheism problem?
-
atheism problem.
lolwut
-
Okay well we answered that one pretty fast. Question for OP! Early Western European societies regarded the universe as being created by a old white guy with a beard. Much of Europe has an atheism problem.
What sort of historic and societal trends can you think of that might explain Europe's current problem?
How exactly is atheism a "problem"?
-
I think you misunderstand Mustang's intentions. Look at the original post:
Early Western European societies regarded being pudgy or with a fine layer of fat as being attractive. Much of Europe has an obesity problem.
What sort of historic and societal trends can you think of that might explain Europe's current problem?
Which is posing a question without actually giving any facts or statistics about the obesity problem and just posits that one exists, and then asking for data to prove that said problem arises from historical and societal trends.
Mustang's question,
Early Western European societies regarded the universe as being created by a old white guy with a beard. Much of Europe has an atheism problem.
What sort of historic and societal trends can you think of that might explain Europe's current problem?
Is just the same, just done over-the-top style. I do not think that Mustang really believes Atheism to be a problem.
-
Well, you could phrase anything like that in that case:
Early Western European societies regarded the private amassing of wealth and economic advancement as empowering for the masses. Much of Europe has a capitalism problem.
What sort of historic and societal trends can you think of that might explain Europe's current problem?
A lot of people regard atheism as a positive step for mankind. Obesity is a health problem.
The question is fair, but it's not really a good idea to label atheism, democracy, or capitalism as "problems" as you would describe obesity or lung cancer.
-
Indeed. But the first step you have to do is to establish that there is a problem in the first place. Which is trivially easy, if you look around a bit (http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/74746/E90711.pdf). One should not just simply posit that a problem exists, one should offer proof.
Second, generalizing "Europe" is a really bad idea, just as it is a bad idea to generalize America into one homogenous blob, given the multitude of cultural and economic factors that play into a problem such as obesity.
-
I think intellect creates the problem, by allowing the species to evolve their ways faster than it is biologically able to adapt to. The intellect "over drives" the progress of the species, yet fails to provide the level of control needed to tame the animal.
Intellect is an interesting subject.
Intellect leads to knowledge, which leads to progress, progress leads to more knowledge. More knowledge leads to technology which leads to Easier living. However, Easier living decreases progress, which decreases knowledge. So you end up with Intellect and Technology, a dangerous combination. Man's intellect tells him he created technology and is intelligent even though he knows absolutely nothing.
-
[However, Easier living decreases progress, which decreases knowledge
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, what? You think we'd be making more progress if we lived a life of austerity and horror, gnawing on wallpaper and each other's corpses?
-
Given that the pace of technological and scientific progress isn't exactly slowing down, I'd say that assuming that more comfortable living hinders progress is pretty wrong.
-
[However, Easier living decreases progress, which decreases knowledge
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, what? You think we'd be making more progress if we lived a life of austerity and horror, gnawing on wallpaper and each other's corpses?
Where exactly did you pull that one from? No we'd be making more personal progress if most people had to work more for what they get. I don't know about you, but I had it pretty easy growing up. That ease of life left me with spending hours upon hours of doing absolutely nothing. With what I know now, I wonder what I could have accomplished had I had to learn things that I took for granted. An example, had I watched more closely when my father(who is a Master Mechanic) completely tore an engine down and repaired it.
Given that the pace of technological and scientific progress isn't exactly slowing down, I'd say that assuming that more comfortable living hinders progress is pretty wrong.
Not yet it isn't. I don't know about where you live, but I look at the generation behind me with horror. Heck even my generation scares me.
-
Where exactly did you pull that one from? No we'd be making more personal progress if most people had to work more for what they get. I don't know about you, but I had it pretty easy growing up. That ease of life left me with spending hours upon hours of doing absolutely nothing. With what I know now, I wonder what I could have accomplished had I had to learn things that I took for granted. An example, had I watched more closely when my father(who is a Master Mechanic) completely tore an engine down and repaired it.
And you would have been doing any better if you were living in the Congo, scrabbling for food and hiding from death squads and child slavers?
At least your easy life gave you the opportunity to learn something from your father. Leisure time is the great catalyst of progress; the move away from full-time hunter-gatherer life to the relatively less taxing (when done well) agricultural life probably triggered most of the technological development in human history.
-
Where exactly did you pull that one from? No we'd be making more personal progress if most people had to work more for what they get. I don't know about you, but I had it pretty easy growing up. That ease of life left me with spending hours upon hours of doing absolutely nothing. With what I know now, I wonder what I could have accomplished had I had to learn things that I took for granted. An example, had I watched more closely when my father(who is a Master Mechanic) completely tore an engine down and repaired it.
And you would have been doing any better if you were living in the Congo, scrabbling for food and hiding from death squads and child slavers?
At least your easy life gave you the opportunity to learn something from your father. Leisure time is the great catalyst of progress; the move away from full-time hunter-gatherer life to the relatively less taxing (when done well) agricultural life probably triggered most of the technological development in human history.
My life in the US is not exactly what I'd call "easy". Sure I'm not dodging bullets, but that's not the only way life can cause stress or hardship.
95% of the time myself or my compatriots are worrying whether or not they're going to end up on the street in 30 years because of decisions they're making now. That's pretty stressful.
What I'm saying is that comparing "ease of life" between people is rather silly. It always seems to me like in the end, you're just comparing whoever's life is more miserable and hating yourself when you think something is wrong with your life because yours isn't as bad as you think someone else's is.
-
At least for the moment, your life is ridiculously easy and awesome and so is mine. We have about the easiest lives humans have ever led. (possibly beaten by those damn Scandinavians) Even the impoverished in America today tend to lead better lives than they did 50 or 100 years ago.
We don't know how good we've got it. Hope global warming and (maybe) peak oil don't **** it all up!
-
Not yet it isn't. I don't know about where you live, but I look at the generation behind me with horror. Heck even my generation scares me.
I'm sorry, but that's an invalid argument. It's the tired old "the new generation isn't as awesome as us" cliche, which is something that has popped up in every generation that has ever lived. So far, it has been consistently disproven, and is only kept alive because humans in general are massive suckers for hindsight bias.
EDIT: Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_shock
-
Not yet it isn't. I don't know about where you live, but I look at the generation behind me with horror. Heck even my generation scares me.
This quote could come from probably any year in the past 20,000.
-
Where exactly did you pull that one from? No we'd be making more personal progress if most people had to work more for what they get. I don't know about you, but I had it pretty easy growing up. That ease of life left me with spending hours upon hours of doing absolutely nothing. With what I know now, I wonder what I could have accomplished had I had to learn things that I took for granted. An example, had I watched more closely when my father(who is a Master Mechanic) completely tore an engine down and repaired it.
And you would have been doing any better if you were living in the Congo, scrabbling for food and hiding from death squads and child slavers?
At least your easy life gave you the opportunity to learn something from your father. Leisure time is the great catalyst of progress; the move away from full-time hunter-gatherer life to the relatively less taxing (when done well) agricultural life probably triggered most of the technological development in human history.
Ok, you've jumped off the bridge. Wanna try the cliff? Seriously, you are reading far into what I'm saying. When I say "easier life" what I'm talking about is the point where we are now. There is nothing wrong with an easier life and you are right having more time is likely what inspired technological progress. However, there is a tipping point to when that leisure time becomes complacency. Complacency then starts to kill desire to better yourself and surrounding because you've got it made. Some pain and trouble gives desire to makes things better and better yourself which leads to progress.
-
Where exactly did you pull that one from? No we'd be making more personal progress if most people had to work more for what they get. I don't know about you, but I had it pretty easy growing up. That ease of life left me with spending hours upon hours of doing absolutely nothing. With what I know now, I wonder what I could have accomplished had I had to learn things that I took for granted. An example, had I watched more closely when my father(who is a Master Mechanic) completely tore an engine down and repaired it.
And you would have been doing any better if you were living in the Congo, scrabbling for food and hiding from death squads and child slavers?
At least your easy life gave you the opportunity to learn something from your father. Leisure time is the great catalyst of progress; the move away from full-time hunter-gatherer life to the relatively less taxing (when done well) agricultural life probably triggered most of the technological development in human history.
Ok, you've jumped off the bridge. Wanna try the cliff? Seriously, you are reading far into what I'm saying. When I say "easier life" what I'm talking about is the point where we are now. There is nothing wrong with an easier life and you are right having more time is likely what inspired technological progress. However, there is a tipping point to when that leisure time becomes complacency. Complacency then starts to kill desire to better yourself and surrounding because you've got it made. Some pain and trouble gives desire to makes things better and better yourself which leads to progress.
Well okay, that's an interesting argument, but why are we hitting it now instead of 50 years ago?
I think you're violating the principle of mediocrity. I don't think there's any evidence for that kind of tipping point. I could just as well argue that the profusion of creativity and progress in the golden age we live is in evidence that more leisure time is better.
Pain and trouble are painful and troublesome. A happy mind is a productive mind.
-
Where exactly did you pull that one from? No we'd be making more personal progress if most people had to work more for what they get. I don't know about you, but I had it pretty easy growing up. That ease of life left me with spending hours upon hours of doing absolutely nothing. With what I know now, I wonder what I could have accomplished had I had to learn things that I took for granted. An example, had I watched more closely when my father(who is a Master Mechanic) completely tore an engine down and repaired it.
And you would have been doing any better if you were living in the Congo, scrabbling for food and hiding from death squads and child slavers?
At least your easy life gave you the opportunity to learn something from your father. Leisure time is the great catalyst of progress; the move away from full-time hunter-gatherer life to the relatively less taxing (when done well) agricultural life probably triggered most of the technological development in human history.
Ok, you've jumped off the bridge. Wanna try the cliff? Seriously, you are reading far into what I'm saying. When I say "easier life" what I'm talking about is the point where we are now. There is nothing wrong with an easier life and you are right having more time is likely what inspired technological progress. However, there is a tipping point to when that leisure time becomes complacency. Complacency then starts to kill desire to better yourself and surrounding because you've got it made. Some pain and trouble gives desire to makes things better and better yourself which leads to progress.
Well okay, that's an interesting argument, but why are we hitting it now instead of 50 years ago?
I think you're violating the principle of mediocrity. I don't think there's any evidence for that kind of tipping point. I could just as well argue that the profusion of creativity and progress in the golden age we live is in evidence that more leisure time is better.
Pain and trouble are painful and troublesome. A happy mind is a productive mind.
A happy mind is a productive mind, however a lazy mind is an un-productive mind. I read somewhere that China will surpass the US in the number of inventions a year in just a few years. Why is that? America should be the happiest country on earth. We are(or were), however we are also the most laziest country on earth. However, China wants what we have. They want it badly. However, likely as the same with America and possibly Europe(can't say for sure because I don't live there.) they will also fall into complacently.
Just the other day I heard people calling radio stations up because their electricity was off. They griped despite the fact that they still had a house. I heard of people calling up news stations and griping because they cut in to do weather coverage while the ballgame was on or American Idol was on. This all while people were dieing. While this may just be a localized thing here in the southern US, I don't know. If that isn't a sign of complacency I don't know what is. Heck you could even throw in obesity as another plausible effect.
Well, for example, look at me. I have yard work to do and a tree to cut down, yet I'm in the house being lazy on the computer doing absolutely nothing profitable to my being. :p
-
Anecdotal evidence isn't really a good way to discern trends about the whole population. China's definitely up and coming - after all, they're a lot bigger than us - but, on a few levels, that's not exactly a clincher for your argument:
1) the fact that China does well doesn't mean we're doing worse, just that they're doing better, in no small part because
2) China's still climbing out of the rut it was in; explosive growth is to be expected, but that growth isn't always sustainable
3) we've made the same arguments about lots of other countries in the past, and then reality tends to kick in (witness Japan)
I think the same things you see as signs of some kind of regression or moral degradation are just ordinary human nature.
-
Not yet it isn't. I don't know about where you live, but I look at the generation behind me with horror. Heck even my generation scares me.
This quote could come from probably any year in the past 20,000.
its not whether this generation scares you or not. its if this generation scares you more than the last.
-
Given the fact that they were burning cats for amusement in Paris opera houses and no one batted an eye a couple centuries back I'd say we're doing something right.
-
There is actually an interesting example of what has changed there from my own life.
When I was about 7-8 years old and was walking home from Primary school (which was perfectly normal in 1979ish) a man pulled up next to me in a car and told me that my parents had sent him to pick me up. I didn't recognise him, and he drove away as soon as I asked what my Dad's name was, so there was little doubt that the person involved was up to something shifty. At the time I considered it no big deal, my parents were proud of me for listening to the 'don't talk to strangers' speech and that was about it.
Nowadays that would have at least made the local papers, probably with a headline like 'Paedophile In Our Midst!! No Child Safe!!!!'.
That, to my mind is what has changed, not the level of criminality, but the way it is presented to the public, it's gone from one extreme to the other, rather than 'keeping mum', there's now an attitude of 'be afraid!', I don't think either is really the best solution.
-
Aye. I often wonder why children aren't put together and allowed to try to govern themselves in a small area. It seems to me that that's the best way for them to learn how to govern a society.
I think both the fear and the "keeping mum" sides of it stem from a lack of trust in people - both in each other and in oneself.
-
Aye. I often wonder why children aren't put together and allowed to try to govern themselves in a small area. It seems to me that that's the best way for them to learn how to govern a society.
That was how my elementary school worked. We all formed tribes in the woods - you joined one when you were in kindergarten, then stayed with it until you were in sixth grade (unless you became a filthy traitor). Everyone worked together to build and maintain forts without any real adult supervision.
It turned out pretty much exactly like you'd expect.
-
Aye. I often wonder why children aren't put together and allowed to try to govern themselves in a small area. It seems to me that that's the best way for them to learn how to govern a society.
That was how my elementary school worked. We all formed tribes in the woods - you joined one when you were in kindergarten, then stayed with it until you were in sixth grade (unless you became a filthy traitor). Everyone worked together to build and maintain forts without any real adult supervision.
It turned out pretty much exactly like you'd expect.
To be honest it sounds awesome - but I know that'd never fly in most of today's communities, at least in the US. Those kids must be taught discipline and obedience to adults from an early age, as some say.
-
It was awesome, but it was also horrible. Actually I think it explained a lot about why modern society is so excellent and so much better than what we had before.
Each tribe fell under the rule of a dictatorial strongman or strongwoman (there was no real gender distinction until you hit 5th and 6th grade, although girls had to ritually smash Barbie dolls with stones to prove they were strong). Resources were scarce - supplies of sod carved up out of the soccer fields were the most important part of building a good fort, so control of those sod fields was important. Gangs of kids fought over it using sticks and pinecones. There was a lot of posturing but not much violence.
Then the resource system was disrupted when a lumberjack started felling trees and chopping them up nearby. Using the leftovers from his work, you could build amazing log cabins. The more powerful tribes were slow to pick up on this, so when upstart groups started turning up with these amazing cabin-forts, the established power structure went nuts with jealousy - their position was threatened. Warbands started demolishing other tribes' work. People started bringing stones and gravel to fights. The little kids, who mostly worked in gangs to help gather resources, got pressed into combat.
I had it pretty good in this whole structure because I had status symbols - sweet military surplus helmets and gas masks. As long as I steered clear of the big kids, I could pretty much do what I wanted. In the winter, when it was harder to work on forts, the tribes competed to build monuments and tunnel systems in the snowbanks around the school parking lot. I became a pretty well-known engineer and ended up lording over my own construction projects from a throne of ice.
The more powerful you became, the more corrupt you were. Some of the older tribes were decadent; there were rumors of childish sex rites in the corners of distant forts. I tried to extend my power into the classroom. When a new kid (this was a small school) turned up and began yammering about his rich dad, I took a disliking to him, so I had my people use the school computer system to delete all his assignments before he could turn them in. He eventually got pulled out of classes because he wasn't doing well enough. This kind of sanctioning of the outsider was common, but I think I was the first one to extend it to information technology.
Everything came to a head my last year. Violence in the woods spiked as resources ran scarce. By this time people had learned to make fires and sharpen sticks to use as spears (for intimidation, mostly, I don't think anyone ever got stabbed). One kid knocked another out with a baseball bat. I took a disliking to my sixth grade teacher and decided to drive her away from the school, so I started mutinies to make her life difficult, then ended up arranging for her to receive anonymous death threats.
By the time I left the school it was all-out war. I think teachers banned kids from going into the woods the year after that.
That's what happens when you let kids govern themselves: human history in a capsule. Ender's Game, Lord of the Flies.
-
What did that whole experience teach you about how was the best way to behave and act towards others and yourself in a society? How do you carry the lessons you learned, and apply them in the "world of adults"?
Everyone's gotta make a mistake sometimes in order to learn. Sometimes mistakes can be the best way. That's something I learned when I was very young.
-
Oh, there weren't any mistakes - the lessons I learned there are exactly what made me so successful. Of all the kids in my year, I
was one of only two to make it to college the only one to make it to college; the rest are now either military, military and dead, drug addicts, wage workers, or wrapped up in prostitution rings. I was ruthless and intelligent, so I made it to the top.
Children aren't little angels; they're basically weakling chimps, and left to their own devices, they're monsters to each other.
I saw how humans behave in the natural state. We need society, civilization, and education to make us something worth living with. I spent the next few years doing debate and international government work, and all the same patterns turned up - that patch of woods was a microcosm of the world, shaped by the same forces. You want to achieve stability and peace for as many people as possible, you need to know how the system works. That's why the scientific method, the free market, and democratic government are the best ways to achieve that goal.
And now you know what happens when you let children try to govern themselves!
-
(http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/lord_of_the_flies.jpg)
-
Oh, there weren't any mistakes - the lessons I learned there are exactly what made me so successful. Of all the kids in my year, I was one of only two to make it to college the only one to make it to college; the rest are now either military, military and dead, drug addicts, wage workers, or wrapped up in prostitution rings. I was ruthless and intelligent, so I made it to the top.
Children aren't little angels; they're basically weakling chimps, and left to their own devices, they're monsters to each other.
I saw how humans behave in the natural state. We need society, civilization, and education to make us something worth living with. I spent the next few years doing debate and international government work, and all the same patterns turned up - that patch of woods was a microcosm of the world, shaped by the same forces. You want to achieve stability and peace for as many people as possible, you need to know how the system works. That's why the scientific method, the free market, and democratic government are the best ways to achieve that goal.
And now you know what happens when you let children try to govern themselves!
When you say you were the only one to make it to college, it seems to me like you learned the wrong lessons. Rather than learning what you should or could have done to help these kids get ahead, you only learned ways of benefiting yourself.
To me, since you were a part of that society, and that society consisted of, in your own words, people that behaved monstrously towards each other, I challenge you to question how you acted towards others, as one of those people within that group?
So after learning how to get ahead even as others fell behind, what sort of actions do you think you do now?
-
I know exactly what could have been done to help those kids get ahead. I'm surprised you don't see why they didn't make it, or why it is that I made it and they didn't.
Remember: you always need context to figure out a system. You need analysis. See if you can figure out why the other kids didn't get to college, and why I did.
-
To me, since you were a part of that society, and that society consisted of, in your own words, people that behaved monstrously towards each other, I challenge you to question how you acted towards others, as one of those people within that group?
Are you familiar with the Robber's Cave Experiment? The Stanford prison study? The Milgram paradigm?
-
I know exactly what could have been done to help those kids get ahead. I'm surprised you don't see why they didn't make it, or why it is that I made it and they didn't.
Remember: you always need context to figure out a system. You need analysis. See if you can figure out why the other kids didn't get to college, and why I did.
My first impulse would be to say that it was because you had the skills and you didn't teach them when you had the chance.
To me, since you were a part of that society, and that society consisted of, in your own words, people that behaved monstrously towards each other, I challenge you to question how you acted towards others, as one of those people within that group?
Are you familiar with the Robber's Cave Experiment? The Stanford prison study? The Milgram paradigm?
I'm familiar with the Stanford study, and the Robber's Cave Experiment sounds familiar.
-
My first impulse would be to say that it was because you had the skills and you didn't teach them when you had the chance.
Oh, not at all - I was successful in no small part because I helped everyone with everything academically. Did my best to keep everyone thriving.
Try again. You're thinking too small. What are the reasons, in general, that determine whether American youth make it to college?
-
My first impulse would be to say that it was because you had the skills and you didn't teach them when you had the chance.
Oh, not at all - I was successful in no small part because I helped everyone with everything academically. Did my best to keep everyone thriving.
Try again. You're thinking too small. What are the reasons, in general, that determine whether American youth make it to college?
The adults in their lives.
-
To me, since you were a part of that society, and that society consisted of, in your own words, people that behaved monstrously towards each other, I challenge you to question how you acted towards others, as one of those people within that group?
Are you familiar with the Robber's Cave Experiment? The Stanford prison study? The Milgram paradigm?
I'm familiar with the Stanford study, and the Robber's Cave Experiment sounds familiar.
Good. Now you're starting to see why things like this happen: it's the natural way of things with humans, a relic of primate social structures still buried in our neural hardwiring. The reason our system is so miraculous is because it lets us transcend that.
I've been blessed with the opportunity to do a lot of good. I've run charities, helped elect politicians, and nursed transgender kids through their transitions in the middle of a really harsh and unfriendly college environment. Over and over, the lesson that pops up is that if you're going to change something, you need to understand why it's a problem in the first place.
My first impulse would be to say that it was because you had the skills and you didn't teach them when you had the chance.
Oh, not at all - I was successful in no small part because I helped everyone with everything academically. Did my best to keep everyone thriving.
Try again. You're thinking too small. What are the reasons, in general, that determine whether American youth make it to college?
The adults in their lives.
Exactly! :D My dad was the first person in his family to go to college, and he succeeded. I was the child of a successful political scientist in a town of impoverished marijuana farmers and deer hunters. I had a systemic advantage. The other kids were trapped in a cycle of poverty - not only did they not have the means to get to college, they didn't know they needed college, because their parents didn't value it. The teachers did what they could, but it wasn't enough.
I wish to hell I could've done something for those people; many of them were my friends. Some of them got damn close - one of my closest friends, who I'll call Al, was the child of carpenters, but his parents sent him to my house every day they could so that he'd be with me and hopefully pick up some of my family's values. He was a good kid until he hit high school, then drugs got him. Last I knew he'd disappeared after his dad kicked him out of the house.
That cycle has to be broken to save these people. And to break the cycle requires economic intervention, which means we need to understand why this town is so impoverished, and what can be done to repair it.
-
To me, since you were a part of that society, and that society consisted of, in your own words, people that behaved monstrously towards each other, I challenge you to question how you acted towards others, as one of those people within that group?
Are you familiar with the Robber's Cave Experiment? The Stanford prison study? The Milgram paradigm?
I'm familiar with the Stanford study, and the Robber's Cave Experiment sounds familiar.
Good. Now you're starting to see why things like this happen: it's the natural way of things with humans. The reason our system is so miraculous is because it lets us transcend that.
I disagree on both accounts. I believe it's the system that perpetuates it; I had a discussion with someone that was about 40 years old, had a pretty good thing going, and told him about some of the ideas I had. His response was one I heard a lot of times - he flat out said that there was nothing in it he saw for himself or his family, and thus he didn't want to do it. It was extremely short term thinking.
Now, there are some things I like about our system - the US Constitution is one of the best examples of good law ever written. Not so much the stuff about the government, but the Amendments to it as a whole are pretty awesome. If I were to start again, I would start from there, and only add if it was really justified.
There's even an argument for spontaneous governance, now that I'm on the subject. The idea is that in the absence of governance, humans will immediately try to craft or experiment with the best form of governance they can think of. For instance, if I walked into a meeting between a bunch of anarchists, punched one and stole his wallet, the other people in the area would spontaneously form a "government" - one of their most likely actions would be to first say "Hey, you can't do that!", take steps to make me stop doing it, remove me from the area (one of our greatest achievements being that, historically, they would kill me on the spot), and then attempt to make sure the person is ok (there may have been a time when they would have simply tried to take advantage of the person's weaker state).
Basically, once you stop making assumptions about people, then people stop making assumptions about you - and it's assumptions that create systemic problems, IMO.
My first impulse would be to say that it was because you had the skills and you didn't teach them when you had the chance.
Oh, not at all - I was successful in no small part because I helped everyone with everything academically. Did my best to keep everyone thriving.
Try again. You're thinking too small. What are the reasons, in general, that determine whether American youth make it to college?
The adults in their lives.
Exactly! :D My dad was the first person in his family to go to college, and he succeeded. I was the child of a successful political scientist in a town of impoverished marijuana farmers and deer hunters. I had a systemic advantage. The other kids were trapped in a cycle of poverty - not only did they not have the means to get to college, they didn't know they needed college, because their parents didn't value it. The teachers did what they could, but it wasn't enough.
I wish to hell I could've done something for those people; many of them were my friends. Some of them got damn close - one of my closest friends, who I'll call Al, was the child of carpenters, but his parents sent him to my house every day they could so that he'd be with me and hopefully pick up some of my family's values. He was a good kid until he hit high school, then drugs got him. Last I knew he'd disappeared after his dad kicked him out of the house.
That cycle has to be broken to save these people. And to break the cycle requires economic intervention, which means we need to understand why this town is so impoverished, and what can be done to repair it.
You may be right that it will take economic intervention, but our government is great at throwing lots of money at problems and not having anything actually get done. This leads me to believe that there's a societal function that must be repaired.
One of those things is this reliance on "getting into college" as the sum total of a "good childhood" these days. Not that extreme, but college is not the end-all-be-all of a kid's early life. That is something that needs to be fixed, IMO.
-
We didn't have a system in the woods. Didn't need one. All it takes is the old chimp wiring.
There's even an argument for spontaneous governance, now that I'm on the subject. The idea is that in the absence of governance, humans will immediately try to craft or experiment with the best form of governance they can think of.
This will involve installing a strongman to run the tribe, rule by force, and raids on the neighbors. Left to their own devices, uneducated humans will go back to where they began.
Basically, once you stop making assumptions about people, then people stop making assumptions about you - and it's assumptions that create systemic problems, IMO.
There's nothing to assume; it's all neurally determined, from the reciprocity norm that drives those anarchists to stop you, to the tribe instincts that put dictators in charge and unite everyone against a hated outgroup. We're a flawed species. Only our constructs - our technology, our government - give us a prayer.
Until we start rewiring, at least.
One of those things is this reliance on "getting into college" as the sum total of a "good childhood" these days. Not that extreme, but college is not the end-all-be-all of a kid's early life. That is something that needs to be fixed, IMO.
A good job is just as beneficial as college. What's important is economic mobility. College is a good lever for that.
-
We didn't have a system in the woods. Didn't need one. All it takes is the old chimp wiring.
If you knew that the woods might teach you long term lessons that may help you in the future, you might have taken it more seriously. From the sounds of it, considering it turned out so terribly, you did need a system and you (especially you) were unwilling to provide one. It was easier just to build tunnels and rule from your ice throne.
There's even an argument for spontaneous governance, now that I'm on the subject. The idea is that in the absence of governance, humans will immediately try to craft or experiment with the best form of governance they can think of.
This will involve installing a strongman to run the tribe, rule by force, and raids on the neighbors. Left to their own devices, uneducated humans will go back to where they began.
That's what you choose to believe, yes.
Basically, once you stop making assumptions about people, then people stop making assumptions about you - and it's assumptions that create systemic problems, IMO.
There's nothing to assume; it's all neurally determined,
That is an assumption.
One of those things is this reliance on "getting into college" as the sum total of a "good childhood" these days. Not that extreme, but college is not the end-all-be-all of a kid's early life. That is something that needs to be fixed, IMO.
A good job is just as beneficial as college. What's important is economic mobility. College is a good lever for that.
Many people looked at college as a sure-fire way to get a job. I know that's how my parents looked at it when I went off to university, I know that many people are afraid of leaving college because they're afraid of not getting a job without some fancy piece of paper.
-
If you knew that the woods might teach you long term lessons that may help you in the future, you might have taken it more seriously. From the sounds of it, considering it turned out so terribly, you did need a system and you (especially you) were unwilling to provide one. It was easier just to build tunnels and rule from your ice throne.
That's an assumption, and not a very charitable one - in fact I'd call it an example of fundamental attribution error.
That's what you choose to believe, yes.
That's what the evidence says.
That is an assumption.
That's what the evidence says.
-
Can you reach an incorrect conclusion from presented evidence?
Can that incorrect conclusion create a situation that may prevent you from finding further evidence with which to change the previous conclusion?
-
Arguing that science doesn't work while typing on a computer in a house with electricity is just about a QED for this debate, my friend.
-
Why is that what I'm arguing?
I'm arguing that science can be wrong, which is what you seem to be disagreeing with.
I'm curious to know, though - what is your answer to these two questions?
Can you reach an incorrect conclusion from presented evidence?
Can that incorrect conclusion create a situation that may prevent you from finding further evidence with which to change the previous conclusion?
-
The scientific method demands evidence to counter evidence. One cannot argue a scientific point without the empirical. An incorrect conclusion must be demonstrated incorrect.
Your argument so far, if I've grasped it, is a return to a mythical, pastoral, anarchic state in which human needs are satisfied by the generosity of other humans. I think it's a noble idea. I encourage you to try to implement it.
-
The scientific method demands evidence to counter evidence. One cannot argue a scientific point without the empirical. An incorrect conclusion must be demonstrated incorrect.
Who defines what "empirical" evidence is?
Your argument so far, if I've grasped it, is a return to a mythical, pastoral, anarchic state in which human needs are satisfied by the generosity of other humans. I think it's a noble idea. I encourage you to try to implement it.
That is not my argument. Have you made an assumption?
-
Then convey your argument better.
-
What if the point of my argument is not to prove anyone wrong or right, but to encourage you to do something?
-
The great thing about empiricism as a worldview is that its fundamental tenet is self-examination and self-questioning. Science is, in the long run, always self-correcting, and scientific discourse and debate is one of the best ways to achieve that correction. But to contribute to that discourse, you need to be fluent in the language.
-
Science is, in the long run, always self-correcting
Are you questioning this?
-
Always. Work on file drawer effect, publication bias, experimenter effect and subconscious cuing all represent efforts to improve scientific methodology.
-
If you question it then why do you assume it to be true in all of your equations?
What would happen if "Science" was not always self correcting?
-
Then empirical predictions would stop matching empirical data, and theories would be revised.
Two and two is always four. If you stumble into a theory that gives you 'five', you know you've done something wrong.
Voila! Self-correction.
-
Way to derail a good conversation there, UT...
-
I think it was derailed when Battuta constructed some strange blend of Lord of the Flies and the cartoon "Recess," personally. :p
-
I think it was derailed when Battuta constructed some strange blend of Lord of the Flies and the cartoon "Recess," personally. :p
Recalled, please.
-
Well it was interesting at least to see that someone else had a similar elementary-school career to mine. :P Except my primary school had same-sex tribes the whole way through.
-
I honestly don't understand this whole idea or tribalism and cliques and whatnot at schools. All the way from primary school to high school (four schools in my case, though the first one was only until half way through year 2) stuff like that just never happened for me. I mean, yes, there were groups of friends who hung out together, but there was no strong antagonism between the groups, and they were very fluid - you could move between groups more or less at will, without getting shunned or whatever.
-
The worst part of living in a preindustrial society would really be the boredom. Imagine living like you are now, in a mud hut or whatever, just without a computer.
One time I watched a documentary on family life in the 19th century. You had to gather up like a ****ton of wood every time you wanted a warm shower. The entire family seemed bored out of their skulls the whole time. The highlight of the father's day was shaving. What do you think people did before internet and TV?
-
The worst part of living in a preindustrial society would really be the boredom. Imagine living like you are now, in a mud hut or whatever, just without a computer.
One time I watched a documentary on family life in the 19th century. You had to gather up like a ****ton of wood every time you wanted a warm shower. The entire family seemed bored out of their skulls the whole time. The highlight of the father's day was shaving. What do you think people did before internet and TV?
There's always been TV, now it just has more channels and stuff. :P
-
I honestly don't understand this whole idea or tribalism and cliques and whatnot at schools. All the way from primary school to high school (four schools in my case, though the first one was only until half way through year 2) stuff like that just never happened for me. I mean, yes, there were groups of friends who hung out together, but there was no strong antagonism between the groups, and they were very fluid - you could move between groups more or less at will, without getting shunned or whatever.
I reckon your school was not like 70 kids in the middle of the woods with practically no supervision, though.
-
What do you think people did before internet and TV?
Well, people had a lot more kids back then....
-
I honestly don't understand this whole idea or tribalism and cliques and whatnot at schools. All the way from primary school to high school (four schools in my case, though the first one was only until half way through year 2) stuff like that just never happened for me. I mean, yes, there were groups of friends who hung out together, but there was no strong antagonism between the groups, and they were very fluid - you could move between groups more or less at will, without getting shunned or whatever.
I reckon your school was not like 70 kids in the middle of the woods with practically no supervision, though.
Yeah, my first primary school had an absolutely crap teacher to student ratio, but the second primary school I went to was starting to have a gender divide as boys liked girls and vice versa, resulting in us getting all territorial which is where the tribal stuff stemmed from. That and the fact that there weren't many teachers where we hung out. ;)
But in high school most of the 'clique' stuff was mostly washover from graffiti crews having their own beef between each other and their beef with the crews/gangs that tried to dismantle them and the other guys and girls they hung out with being affected. The rest was just a case of one group of guys preferring to talk about Xbox, Warhammer, and Star Wars all recess as opposed to the guys who preferred to talk about Music, and Riding. Then as we got older we tended to find common ground in music and girls. :P
-
We have about the easiest lives humans have ever led. (possibly beaten by those damn Scandinavians)
Quite so, quite so.
I'm a little bit curious that if you lived in a small village with a low overall education level, didn't the rest of the kids reflect the opinions of their parents towards your own parents?
I found out that the average crowd tends to suspect that the smarter people cheat them somehow. While I somewhat understand this, it occasionally ends up in a hen and an egg problem in a way that it makes it morally easier for smarter people to use them as pawns to whatever purpose they see fit later in their lives.
It makes it occasionally funny though, when somebody comes to ask my opinion about something and I realize that he has already made up his mind and is only looking for additional justifications. I usually say that I'd do it differently, but he might do so as he sees fit. There's no point in arguing about that as long as trying whatever he wanted to do doesn't ruin his life or kill him - then I find a way to intervene. It is a rather primitive teaching model that we call "Siberia teaches", but it usually works well that the person who asked something in the first place might listen the next time. People just don't like to be told what to do.
Oh yeah, UT, please don't ruin your chances of getting education in US. You could do the stuff what you have done here and you'd be forgiven quite a lot, but in the US it isn't so (a term in the University is about 140 € here, but not in the US). I now hop in the band wagon and say that it is necessary to understand the behavior of the people before trying to introduce anything new to them, especially when considering social reforms. Social reforms just happen slowly, and there's a reason for it too!
-
One more thing that warranted another post since an edit on the earlier would likely make it confusing.
My personal understanding of the layman saying "Things were better before" is said from his own perspective, while the critique against it (usually coming from Social Sciences) uses statistics and is detached from the values of this particular layman. This has its good and bad sides. Had I been born in a city, it wouldn't matter to me as much when the neighbors aren't actually doing much with each other. This wouldn't do in a small village, and since I grew up there it partially feels I'm more of an alien in my own surroundings. The other side is that finding out the moral values of the person who says something like that could be a rather scary experience: things used to be better in the 1960s in US - hey, at least you had a better chance of finding work there back then from what I have heard - but the good stuff might also have been that "You could beat niggers at will".
It isn't necessarily wrong to say things were better before, as they might as well have been. Depends on your point of view, and that's why I usually ask what did they find better earlier.
Oh yeah, men used to be stronger before.
-
On a strictly personal level, the statement can be true, no doubt about it.
However, once you move beyond your own personal experience and into more generalized areas, it quickly becomes easily falsifiable.
-
On a strictly personal level, the statement can be true, no doubt about it.
However, once you move beyond your own personal experience and into more generalized areas, it quickly becomes easily falsifiable.
The statement can also be true locally. If traveling and getting news was harder earlier, it's pretty hard to get a gist of what's happening elsewhere.
Also, I note that your average person doesn't use "in my opinion" in spoken language statements very often, the reason is likely that it doesn't need a lot of repetition in short time until it starts to sound silly and becomes omitted. This might be something to consider in the Internet too.
-
On a strictly personal level, the statement can be true, no doubt about it.
Also, I note that your average person doesn't use "in my opinion" in spoken language statements very often, the reason is likely that it doesn't need a lot of repetition in short time until it starts to sound silly and becomes omitted. This might be something to consider in the Internet too.
That's an excellent observation IMO.