Post your asides here

[hungry_ghost]

Oh good lord.

[polly_mer]

Or what if we had a system where choices like that didn't have to be made. Just because things exist like that now does not mean it has to be that way.

People who benefit from the current system usually only want small tweaks.  They usually don't want drastic changes to fix the system for "everyone" if that means they, personally, lose some of their current benefits.

I laugh every single time I encounter the idea that college isn't about learning specific areas that would be useful to jobs, but we should still require specific classes because that keeps certain individuals employed as teachers who won't/can't/don't do the cube farm jobs that successful college graduates from their institution will get somehow, magically, a handful of unrelated general education classes is an adequate substitute for an integrated liberal arts education at an elite institution.

I laugh every single time I encounter the idea that a recent college graduate who takes the same job out of college that peers took out of high school is somehow going to pass those peers in the workplace.  If a motivated, smart-enough person can climb the internal ladder through internal training, then waiting 4 years to start the path from peon to district manager instead of starting immediately means someone is four years behind.

College may not be about getting a specific job title like Key Punch Specialist Level III, but I wonder how long some institutions would remain open if they explicitly put a warning on all websites and application materials of "College does not prepare you for a job.  We have a general education program staffed with a lot of adjuncts and non-tenure-track folks who aren't doing a lot of research nor are they providing a liberal arts immersion experience because they are so overworked."

[mouseman]

"I don't see why hiring only white men is a problem" says one white man.

"There are White men who are underpaid because they refuse to look for other jobs, shouldn't give them those jobs before we start hiring minorities or women, who are probably not really qualified anyway?" chimes in another white man.

"How dare you call us racist and sexist, we're just stating the facts as they are" the cry out together.

[polly_mer]

Huffington Post yesterday had the article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homeless-unsheltered-life-on-streets_n_5e555b02c5b6a718cdce979b

The article's author explicitly states a case along the lines of: anyone could be homeless; let's be more compassionate towards our fellow human beings as we work towards solutions.

However, the author's examples add up to evidence better supporting a thesis of: poor decisions tend to have poor outcomes; better decisions are much more likely to lead to better outcomes, but some people do get unlucky and probably could benefit from a tweaked system that would make being unlucky less likely or at least less of a problem for most individuals.

I'm also reminded of the article in Slate about the woman whose dream was to start a non-profit to support artists, but spent her time in grad school working on an MFA with the occasional Chamber of Commerce workshop related to business instead of studying for an MPA and taking workshops in creative writing.

Melville's "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street" also tends to spend a lot of time in my mind as I continue to read and sigh heavily.

[little bongo]

Bartleby is one of my great literary heroes.

[mahagonny]

Huffington Post yesterday had the article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homeless-unsheltered-life-on-streets_n_5e555b02c5b6a718cdce979b

The article's author explicitly states a case along the lines of: anyone could be homeless; let's be more compassionate towards our fellow human beings as we work towards solutions.

However, the author's examples add up to evidence better supporting a thesis of: poor decisions tend to have poor outcomes; better decisions are much more likely to lead to better outcomes, but some people do get unlucky and probably could benefit from a tweaked system that would make being unlucky less likely or at least less of a problem for most individuals.

The bad luck that I see is being clinically depressed without knowing it. Therefore good decision making is a lot harder and less likely.

[marshwiggle]

Huffington Post yesterday had the article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homeless-unsheltered-life-on-streets_n_5e555b02c5b6a718cdce979b

The article's author explicitly states a case along the lines of: anyone could be homeless; let's be more compassionate towards our fellow human beings as we work towards solutions.

However, the author's examples add up to evidence better supporting a thesis of: poor decisions tend to have poor outcomes; better decisions are much more likely to lead to better outcomes, but some people do get unlucky and probably could benefit from a tweaked system that would make being unlucky less likely or at least less of a problem for most individuals.

The bad luck that I see is being clinically depressed without knowing it. Therefore good decision making is a lot harder and less likely.

One of the features of so many of these stories is the implicit idea that life "happens".
From the article:

After my parents' divorce when I was 12, my life was relatively uneventful throughout my teen years. I seemed to be headed toward the typical path expected of a girl like me: graduation from high school and college at a state university followed by a job that would provide security but no real excitement. And maybe I'd get married and have a couple of children along the way.

Instead, I dropped out of school at 17, left home, and ended up on the Las Vegas doorstep of a man I had met just once in a Fremont Street casino. I arrived with no diploma, no job experience, no money and no clue how I was going to get any of these things, or survive on my own.

The language is so incredibly passive. The author indeed "dropped out of school", but "ended up" in Vegas. Alien abduction? Stumbled onto the wrong bus? How does one "end up" in a different city without deciding to go there, short of being kidnapped?

[mahagonny]

Huffington Post yesterday had the article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homeless-unsheltered-life-on-streets_n_5e555b02c5b6a718cdce979b

The article's author explicitly states a case along the lines of: anyone could be homeless; let's be more compassionate towards our fellow human beings as we work towards solutions.

However, the author's examples add up to evidence better supporting a thesis of: poor decisions tend to have poor outcomes; better decisions are much more likely to lead to better outcomes, but some people do get unlucky and probably could benefit from a tweaked system that would make being unlucky less likely or at least less of a problem for most individuals.

The bad luck that I see is being clinically depressed without knowing it. Therefore good decision making is a lot harder and less likely.

One of the features of so many of these stories is the implicit idea that life "happens".
From the article:

After my parents' divorce when I was 12, my life was relatively uneventful throughout my teen years. I seemed to be headed toward the typical path expected of a girl like me: graduation from high school and college at a state university followed by a job that would provide security but no real excitement. And maybe I'd get married and have a couple of children along the way.

Instead, I dropped out of school at 17, left home, and ended up on the Las Vegas doorstep of a man I had met just once in a Fremont Street casino. I arrived with no diploma, no job experience, no money and no clue how I was going to get any of these things, or survive on my own.

The language is so incredibly passive. The author indeed "dropped out of school", but "ended up" in Vegas. Alien abduction? Stumbled onto the wrong bus? How does one "end up" in a different city without deciding to go there, short of being kidnapped?

Do you consider this rebuttal to my point? Yes, the language is passive. It's not exactly a fact that she was forced to self medicate with alcohol or strike up with a poorly adjusted, selfish man or leave her family. But this part is a fact: people with a history of a depression feel less in control of their lives and it shows up in their narration. It also appears to me (and I'm not trained in psychology outside of being a patient) that she was prone to or maybe even attracted to risk taking, and didn't have the self awareness to recognize that about herself.

[marshwiggle]

The bad luck that I see is being clinically depressed without knowing it. Therefore good decision making is a lot harder and less likely.

One of the features of so many of these stories is the implicit idea that life "happens".
From the article:

After my parents' divorce when I was 12, my life was relatively uneventful throughout my teen years. I seemed to be headed toward the typical path expected of a girl like me: graduation from high school and college at a state university followed by a job that would provide security but no real excitement. And maybe I'd get married and have a couple of children along the way.

Instead, I dropped out of school at 17, left home, and ended up on the Las Vegas doorstep of a man I had met just once in a Fremont Street casino. I arrived with no diploma, no job experience, no money and no clue how I was going to get any of these things, or survive on my own.

The language is so incredibly passive. The author indeed "dropped out of school", but "ended up" in Vegas. Alien abduction? Stumbled onto the wrong bus? How does one "end up" in a different city without deciding to go there, short of being kidnapped?

Do you consider this rebuttal to my point? Yes, the language is passive. It's not exactly a fact that she was forced to self medicate with alcohol or strike up with a poorly adjusted, selfish man or leave her family. But this part is a fact: people with a history of a depression feel less in control of their lives and it shows up in their narration. It also appears to me (and I'm not trained in psychology outside of being a patient) that she was prone to or maybe even attracted to risk taking, and didn't have the self awareness to recognize that about herself.

To answer your question, I'm not sure if this is a rebuttal or not. What strikes me is that even after getting treatment, the narration remains passive. I understand that undiagnosed mental illness can have profound effects, but since many treatments still involve some sort of behavioral therapy component, I would have expected a bit more of an ackowledgment, at least, that some bad decisions were made, even if under extreme duress.

[mahagonny]

To answer your question, I'm not sure if this is a rebuttal or not. What strikes me is that even after getting treatment, the narration remains passive. I understand that undiagnosed mental illness can have profound effects, but since many treatments still involve some sort of behavioral therapy component, I would have expected a bit more of an ackowledgment, at least, that some bad decisions were made, even if under extreme duress.

She could be dishonest or just still depressed or some of each.

[mahagonny]

My roommates had been working at the restaurant, but had left before I did. They were really fast. They would steal a couple of minutes, go into the storeroom and inhale the nitrous oxide from the whipped cream. Then the waitresses would be overheard wondering why the cans had no pressure left.

[mamselle]

I'm about to stop reading any thread that has "coronavirus" anywhere in the title.

They're all starting to sound alike.

M.

[FishProf]

Why is it that some posters insist others are dumb for advancing their ideas but never offer any sort of concrete counter-idea in response?  They may be right, but I can't take that seriously.

[polly_mer]

Why is it that some posters insist others are dumb for advancing their ideas but never offer any sort of concrete counter-idea in response?  They may be right, but I can't take that seriously.

One standard reason is not knowing enough to know why a given problem is actually hard and what the trade-offs will have to be.

I smile every time I see youthful protesters who have simple solutions to very complex problems.  Yep, climate change is a problem and we've known it for decades.  You won't like what has to be done to fix the problem at the scales where it matters.  Yes, you just found out how bad the situation is.  Spend another 5, 10, 15, 20 years in the scientific and engineering discussions on what will have enough effect to matter and then get back to us on the "easy" solution that just requires political will.  If such a thing existed that wouldn't send the entire world back to an agrarian society or similar situation that means essentially giving up modern American/European/Canadian middle-class-and-better life, then we'd already be doing it.

Another standard reason is trying to solve only one small piece of the overall problem while others are much more concerned about some larger piece. 

I remember when Blocky was an infant with health problems.  We ended up with six adults in the house at one point for about a week.  At any given time, at least one adult was cleaning up the vomit from the last instance, someone was walking the baby, and at least one adult was walking through family medical history and interacting with doctors to plan for something else to try.  Yes, we needed someone to be heading up food so we ate regularly.  We did not, though, need that food to be handmade from scratch for things that are easily bought or delivered.  We really, really didn't need a new, handmade center piece for the table for every meal.

One of the six adults was shocked on being told that we are ordering food and no centerpieces will be on the table for the next week.  After all, that person was performing a valuable service and had, under other conditions, been complimented for centerpieces and homemade food.  That particular person flat out refused to take on any of the other chores (vomit is icky, walking a screaming (and possibly vomiting again) baby isn't fun, and there can't possibly be any medical problems inherited from this side of the family) and was hurt for several years about not being a valued member of the family during this time of crisis.

A third reason for not advancing ideas while dismissing other people's ideas is not understanding the difference between an exchange of ideas that is just shooting the breeze and describing/making changes.

For example, small higher ed institutions have been changing missions or closing or possibly changing missions multiple times and still ending up closing.  That is a fact, not a suggestion on what could happen if people wanted.  One doesn't have to win an argument on points in any venue for that fact to continue to be true.  Even if that is a stupid idea, it's a fact that has occurred and continues occurring in foreseeable ways.

The distribution of college degrees awarded has changed since the 1970s and there's no reason to believe that a shift will somehow go back to the way it was prior to 1970.  Again, one can be unhappy or other negative feelings about the reality, but that distribution change is the reality, not a proposal on the table that one can decide will not work.

Being dismissive of undesirable situations is one possible way to win a popular argument, but it doesn't affect the underlying reality at all.  Again, if we had great ideas that could mesh with the realities to solve the problem that "everyone" wants solved, not just one part, and doing so would have no other significant consequences, then those great ideas would be implemented.  Healthcare immediately comes to mind as something that many people agree would likely be better under a different system, but the fallout from changing immediately to a different system is huge and affects a lot of the average people who don't know enough of the complex system to see the immediate harsh consequences that give experts pause.

[marshwiggle]

Why is it that some posters insist others are dumb for advancing their ideas but never offer any sort of concrete counter-idea in response?  They may be right, but I can't take that seriously.

One standard reason is not knowing enough to know why a given problem is actually hard and what the trade-offs will have to be.

I smile every time I see youthful protesters who have simple solutions to very complex problems.  Yep, climate change is a problem and we've known it for decades.  You won't like what has to be done to fix the problem at the scales where it matters.  Yes, you just found out how bad the situation is.  Spend another 5, 10, 15, 20 years in the scientific and engineering discussions on what will have enough effect to matter and then get back to us on the "easy" solution that just requires political will.  If such a thing existed that wouldn't send the entire world back to an agrarian society or similar situation that means essentially giving up modern American/European/Canadian middle-class-and-better life, then we'd already be doing it.

As an aside to that (which I guess fits here), we're getting a bit of a look at the cost to the economy of a fairly rapid worldwide transition to a lower carbon life.  There is less pollution and use of fossil fuels, but this is in no way sustainable, governements are going into massive deficits, and almost all recreational and social life is off the table. I'm curious to see how many people claim this is a desireable future.