Not to be a bore but it does say “Lady Average” not “Sir or Madam Average”.
simplyeric
Karma: 160
I’m probably referring to all of the above. That’s an interesting speciation of anti-intellectualism, but I am meaning it in the broad sense, because I’ve seen all of them.
If someone calls me a “liberal elitist”, is it version 1, 3, or 5? Does the class issue also result in a gut reaction? Is the traditionalism directly related to the totalizing? I understand the differences as described in the article, but I’m not sure they are easily separable. Sometimes yes, but not always. So: A. I think the differences are interesting, and useful, but not always clearly delineated, and B. when generalizing about a group, I’m not sure it’s necessary. If I say “New Yorkers really like dogs”, it’s probably not cricitcal which breed I mean. If I say “that person really likes his/her dog” then it matters more.(and we all know that when you generalize about things it’s like when you assume things: it makes a general out of I and, um, ze)
As relates to the original quote: which type was Godin referring to? He talks about being ashamed at being uninformed, which touches on 1 and 5, possibly 2, and interacts with 3. (pobre quatro) One of the things we’ve slowly seen is the other side: being unashamed at being informed...or politically unpunished, for that matter. Politicians want to be “regular people” because they are berated for using subclauses in sentences (John Kerry), for being a know-it-all (Gore), elitist (everyone, per Palin), destroying the fabric (Obama), utopiansim (the 90′s Clintons), etc...
But if you are settling a question of morality, I take it as being a question between multiple people (that’s not explicit, but seems to be implicity part of the above). One’s personal ethical system needn’t aspire, but when settling a question of group ethics or morality, how do you proceed?
Or for that matter, how do I analyze my own ethics? How do I know if I’m achieving ataraxia without looking at the evidence: do my actions reduce displeasure, etc? The result of my (or other people’s) actions are relevant evidence, providing necessary feedback to my personal system of ethics, no?
A. I’m not entirely sure that things that used to be human nature no longer are. We deal with them, surpress them, sublimate, etc. Anger responses, fear, lust, possesiveness, nesting. The animal instincts of the human animal. How those manifest does indeed change, but not the “nature” of them.
B. We live (in the USA) in a long-term culture of anti-intellectualism. Obviously this doesn’t mean it can’t change… Sometimes it seems like it will (remember the days before nerd-chic?), but in a nominally democratic society, there will always be a minority of people who are relatively “intellectual” by definition, we should recognize that you don’t have to overcome anti-intellectualism, you just have to raise the bar. While still anti-intellectual, in many ways even the intentionally uninformed know more than the average person did back in the day. (just like there will always be a minority of people who will be “relatively tall”, even as the average height has tended to increased over the generations)
My subjective impression is that people who talk a lot about tradition are more interested in “the past” than they are interested in “history”. e.g. the history of our nation does not bear out the traditional idea that everyone is equal. Or for that matter, the tradition of social mobility in our country, or the tradition of a wedding veil, or the tradition of Christmas caroling v. wassailing, etc.
After all, in a thousand years or so, Russian revolution and the USSR will be as important as the Mongol invasion and the Khanate of the Golden Horde are today.
Which is to say: pretty important. Not that it’s important what exacly some boundary was, or who did what to whom...but all these things are part of the overall development of our current state of affairs, from the development of paper money to credit systems, from Chinese approach to Tibet to the extent of distribution of Islam.
I think it’s risky to assume that “science”, while more easily identified as rational, is in fact more rational than the rational facts of history, and its causal relationship to the present.
Discoveries in science are, in a sense, what “has to be”. But while histroy could have been different, itt wasn’t, and it simply “is what it is”.
It seems (to me) to be analogous to a lot of fairly technical pursuits: Seismic analysis from purcussion events for finding oil. Tracking the impact of an object on the moon to detect water. Looking for the decay of particles produced and collided by accelerators. Pitching to a batter, over time, will reveal the best way to pitch to that batter (what are his/her strenghts and weaknesses). Haggling.
Approaching its most distilled form: If a system is not giving you information, affect the system in some way [doesn’t have to be an “attack” per se]. How the system changes based on your input is instructive, so absorb all of that data.
But if you put out maximum effort, you can leave longevity and/or quality on the table. Silverbacks, pitchers, office workers, day-to-day-life, running, eating… Short term maximum effort might detract from long-term maximum utility. The cost/benefits analysis is at times subjective. “Utility” can mean different things to different people. “Utility”, as I interpret in a Rationalist context has a very specific almost “economic” meaning. But you can choose to reduce effort and not push the envelop, and go home, have dinner, relax, and enjoy your life. Some people might refer to that as utility, others as low hanging fruit, still others as a healthy balance.
This doesn’t seem rational. One must develop an instinct for what one really needs to/wants to/should achieve, and judge whether maximium effort (which I assume would be required to achieve the barely-achievable) is worth the return on that investment.
It’s an interesting point but exceedingly simplistic, more so these days than ever before.
What about “the more you think in training”, or “the more you learn in training”? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not denying the value of sweat (excerise, fitness, etc), I’m just saying it’s not even close to the whole equation.
A brief continuance on the derailment of the thread:
•The explosives theory involves a conspiracy—penalty.
The 9/11 attack undisputedly did involve a conspiracy.
The question here is, by whom? (a. just by foreign terrorists, b. an “inside job”).•The explosives theory can be and is used to score political points—penalty.
What does that have to do with anything? A reduction in unemployment can be used to score political points...that certainly doesn’t make is unlikely
•The explosives theory doesn’t make any goddamn sense—huge penalty.
This is subjective—penalty?
The biggest point is: the orthodox explanation of the collapse seems robust to me on its own merits. There are other questions.
I shouldn’t have assumed otherwise! Previous post edited.
Although it does smack of “I was just following orders”.
I know that’s not what the original quote is about, not most of the responses in this thread. But it’s a “logical” extension of the sentiment.
Don’t hate the playa, unless the playa is playing a game that is inherently and obviously worthy of hate (“I was just following orders”), or a game that might allow certain things that are worthy of hate. Exploitation of child labor, for example, is within the rules of the game (just not in certain places), and could allow a player to be more successful than one who didn’t go to that extent of the rules. In that circumstance, it seems ok to hate the player.
To be able to learn something, you have to have reasonably understood its prerequisites.
I’m not sure if I understand this, but at face value I disagree with this. For example, there is evidence that infants start learning gender roles as soon as their eyes can focus far enough away to be able to see what all is going on. This is a great example of “the things you assume which really sink into them”, and I’m not sure what the understood prerequisite would be.
I think it’s quite rational to point out that people have psychological and physiological reaction to “inclusion” and attention. The reaction that people have may not be inherently rational, but identifying it seems quite rational to me.
Now, the way that quote is phrased is not in a rationalist manner, and Rich may not be entirely rational about it: she seems to be saying “this is what it is” without analysis or potential solution. It would take a good strong rationalist to be able to be in the situation Rich describes and not feel marginalized, since the reaction is probably an instinctual one.
It also allows us to weight the consequences in order to, in fact, suffer them by choice, with the notion that suffering of certain consequences has other payoffs.
Sounds like someone had a crush on their Math 101 teacher....
But yes, this is right on. Ask them a question that allows (but does not require) the other person to tell a story (stories can be quite short...I use the word in a loose sense). Respond with your own, make it as short or shorter, and only one-up someone once.
(by one-up I mean, tell a better story. If they tell you about their cute Math 101 teacher, and you tell them about the time you saw your math teacher on a date or something, and they come back with the math teacher drunk at a casino or something, maybe leave it at that....sometimes people don’t like to have their story trumped, unless you have a REALLY good story to throw down there).
I’ve been able to turn non-social curiosity into good social interaction. Dale Carnegie says that if you want to be a good conversationalist...if you want people to like you… you need to talk about what the other person wants to talk about. And often the other person wants to talk about themselves, if only for a second. But, what happens if 2 Dale Carnegie followers talk? “Enough about me, lets talk about you”. “No no, enough about me, lets talk about you.”
I find a better application is, ask a question, or 2, and then rather than asking more questions, make a comment. Doesn’t have to be perfect. More knowledge (from basic-research-curiousity) gives you more comments you can make. What little thing do you know about what the other person just said? About fishing, or the university of x, or the story they just told. People don’t want to answer questions, they want to relate. “How’s the job going?” “Oh yeah I know what you mean...I had a boss who used to do the same thing.”
Obviously that can get too banal, which is why the basic-research-curiousity pays off: you can elevate the “we relate” by having something more to say, about things.
But you can broaden the questions as well.
Looking at Neanderthals/hominids:
How does this relate to the understanding of art, creativity, madness, motherly love? The notions of greed in children, in adults, in a capitalist economy, and how does that relate to the regulation of markets, conflicts of interests, incentivization and moral hazards? How does this relate to the notions of religion/theology, race, climate tolerance? How does climate tolerance relate to the social structure of Californians, and what does air conditioning mean for society going forward? How does early hominid tool use relate to our ability to drive cars, use computers, integrate robotics with human life, and parkour?
Obviously one can get lost in mindless ramblings of curiosity. But if you make an effort to be constructing an overall fabric of “how things work”, you have a reason and a direction for your curiosity. It combines being mindful with entertainment. Over time you create a your own grand unification theory (not specific to physics, mind you), and you have a framework into which you can easily slot new information (or update existing).
Not to be a bore but it does say “Lady Average” not “Sir or Madam Average”.