Slashdot Mirror
People Changing Jobs Too Often Could Be Punished by China's Social Credit System (abacusnews.com)
Lots of things can hurt your social credit in China. Failing to repay your debts, plagiarizing academic articles and building a debt-laden tech empire and then fleeing to another country, to name a few random examples. One province now wants to add another "discredited behavior" that seems much more harmless: Switching jobs too often. From a report: Zhejiang is pushing to build a local social credit system that will, among other things, deem residents a "discredited" person if they move from job to job too frequently, according to a local TV report. "If someone keeps quitting and landing new jobs, his social credit will definitely be a problem," Zhejiang official Ge Pingan said at a local forum, addressing a complaint from one company's human resources department about being unable to do anything when employees want to leave. Ge didn't specify how "frequently" is too frequent, but he said the upcoming system will put restrictions on both companies and individual workers.
Stuck at your job, breathing in that Beijing pollution...go China!
"If someone keeps quitting and landing new jobs, his social credit will definitely be a problem," Zhejiang official Ge Pingan said at a local forum, addressing a complaint from one company's human resources department about being unable to do anything when employees want to leave.
This is a really sick viewpoint, although in this case there isn't much cultural difference between the east and west. Plenty of business owners in the US would love to have ways to keep employees other than providing a good work experience and fair pay.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
An interesting aspect of this social credit thing is that each step mirrors things that already exist today... it's well understood that changing jobs too often looks bad on a resume. Or at least, it did before lots of people started doing that, don't even know if it's that bad these days...
That's the bad thing about a system like social credit codifying rules, is that the rules that affect your score probably change a lot more slowly than socially accepted behavior. I wonder what happens when you try to trap the unwritten morals of a society in amber at one point in time, never to change again (or to change so slowly it's essentially the case). Will that bottle up repression in the people? Or create a kind of mindless utopia that lasts forever? So far, nothing has lasted forever... or even close.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
time to nuke china, before this oppression spreads. I dont need a big brother taking notes everytime i sneeze in the wrong direction.
China just kicked up stupidity to another level. This will appease business owner short term, and locally.
I'm glad I wasn't born there and stuck there in this day in age. What a shitty dystopian wasteland...
They're not doing anything Democrats don't want to do here...
Every article that I read on this is propagandized to hell and back. Here's a thread from a journalist who has actually read through the stuff. People who owe tons of back taxes might be forced to buy regular plane/train tickets instead of first class. The horror... The horror...
https://twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/975536363364696064?lang=en
Punish people for doing things we don't agree with!
How much more "progressive" can you get?
If the US is fully committed to capitalism and the methods of the authoritarian Chinese government proves to be the most profitable for corporate/government stakeholders then it is only a matter of time before the US adopts similar policies.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
" They see people almost being denied a supreme court seat because they once had a beer while in school." - No, he perjured himself under oath. It's not the beer, you lying faggot. IT'S THE LYING, YOU LYING FAGGOT.
YOU TELL A LIE UNDER OATH AND YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. That he basically ATTEMPTED TO RAPE A CLASSMATE also didn't really rise to the occasion of a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS without investigation.
But with TRAITOR SUPPORTING DISHONEST FAGGOTS LIKE YOURSELF in charge? He sailed right through anyway, to lie another day.
Dry your eyes, traitor. Your little perjurer didn't get caught - yet!
https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13577626&cid=58274188
Depends on what your definition of "too often" is. I mean, pretty much for the past 25-30 years at least, the only real way to increase your salary and position was the change jobs. Sure, you don't want to be doing it every year, but every 2-3 years, sure.
At least if you are a W2 employee.
This is kind of analogous to the marijuana laws in the US, I mean, the polled majority of US citizen want to see it legalized, or at least taken off the Federal Schedule I level, yet, you can't see any real movement yet by Federal congress critters to enact this change.
That's why you have to be ever vigilant and scrutinize every new law, or Federal/State program, because once it is enacted, it is damned hard to ever get rid of it....
Wasn't there like a telephone fee, that was still around linked to the Spanish-American war that was only rescinded like a decade or so ago?
Shit like that just hangs around forever.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
An interesting aspect of this social credit thing is that each step mirrors things that already exist today... it's well understood that changing jobs too often looks bad on a resume. Or at least, it did before lots of people started doing that, don't even know if it's that bad these days...
That's the bad thing about a system like social credit codifying rules, is that the rules that affect your score probably change a lot more slowly than socially accepted behavior. I wonder what happens when you try to trap the unwritten morals of a society in amber at one point in time, never to change again (or to change so slowly it's essentially the case). Will that bottle up repression in the people? Or create a kind of mindless utopia that lasts forever? So far, nothing has lasted forever... or even close.
It is interesting that it kind of writes down what in other societies is unwritten.
There's something to be said for making the rules explicit, anyway. On the flip side, no society functions solely through specified rules.
From statistics I've read, people in the US are actually staying at jobs longer than they were 25 or more years ago.
However, in the IT/Development world it is different situation.
From what I've heard anecdotally and in job interviews it appears that employers expect people to bounce around.
Some employers almost expect hires to last 1-3 years and then move on.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
As you point out, there already was a "social-credit rule" for this: How people viewed your resume.
Of course, that's a decentralized codification; each individual can make his own decision about how to understand a resume. The problem here is, as always, centralization; the problem is a monopoly.
All you folks rant and rave about the dangers of a monopoly, but you can't seem to perceive that a government is itself a monopoly—the worst kind of monopoly, in fact: One grown through violent imposition rather than voluntary trade.
The problem is government; the problem is violent imposition of The One True Way; the problem is authoritarianism.
I seem to know too many engineers who job hop every 1-1.5 years. IMHO it shows you suck. Likely made a bad decision then took off before suffering the consequences.
Thank you, anonymous coward Chinese troll, for your delightful fake facts.
AP News: "China bars millions from travel for ‘social credit’ offenses". ref
Business Insider: "China has already started punishing people [with low social credit] by restricting their travel. Nine million people with low scores have been blocked from buying tickets for domestic flights, Channel News Asia reported in March, citing official statistics." Ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4
Wikipedia: "Travel ban. By the end of 2018, 5.5 million high-speed rail trips and 17.5 million flights had been denied to prospective travellers who were on a blacklist." ref
And the "social credit" system is also used, yes, to enforce politics. Wired: "If solving problems was the real goal, the CCP would not need social credit to do it," she says. "China’s social credit system is a state-driven program designed to do one thing, to uphold and expand the Chinese Communist Party’s power." (Ref: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained
Punish people for doing things we don't agree with! How much more "progressive" can you get?
You have that backwards. Conservatives are all about punishment.
Both conservatives and "progressives" are all about punishing people for doing (or saying) things they don't agree with.
Liberalism was about the "let everybody do their own thing". But the progressives killed liberalism.
Ya know, it's almost like they watched the "Nosedive" episode of Black Mirror, didn't realize that it was satire, and made an entire national policy out of it.
Tacoma is one of those walking simulator games, but I liked the story. It takes place in the future, and one of the things you can figure out is a bit of context about how jobs work. In the future, companies have introduced their own currency they call "Loyalty" to pay workers. However each company has its own "Loyalty" and it's a lot of trouble to switch companies as you have to exchange your "Loyalty" and you can't always do it all (it sounds like it works like college credit when you switch colleges). This article reminded me of that. I guess we're getting closer to the future.
Commies, too. But at least no Trump.
Really? Who is trying to deplatform those they don't agree with? It isn't the right.
Yes it is.
Incidents at Harvard and Catholic Universities challenge idea that liberals are the only ones preventing ideas from being voiced on campuses.
"The Hosty case is only part of the growing conservative attack on freedom of speech on campus."
Data shows a surprising campus free speech problem: left-wingers being fired for their opinions
Actually, the scariest thing about a social credit system isn't codifying the rules, it's that they are not public. So everyone worries about any given act and self-polices. It's actually too easy to change the rules - well-placed rumors can have people refusing to wear red shirts (the color of Pooh's shirt), or otherwise behaving in cargo-cult ways. Which is great for an authoritarian system bent on control (let the rebels wear their red undershirts as opposed to take on the system!), but horrible for living in the society.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
It seems excessive to punish such people but I get their point.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/19/millennials-arent-job-hopping-any-faster-than-generation-x-did/
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/nlsoy.nr0.htm
Sure, you don't want to be doing it every year, but every 2-3 years, sure.
Yes, about every 3 years is the sweet spot. This not only maximizes your income, but is good for companies as well. Job hoppers help ideas flow between companies, and enables rapidly growing companies to attract top talent and expand faster.
Productivity is higher in places like Silicon Valley where job hopping is common, urged on by California's ban on non-compete agreements. Jurisdictions with rigid labor markets tend to have stagnant economies, and less innovation.
Churn is good.
...Working in tech field, then you probably have NDAs/claims that you are taking their intellectual property. Failing that, remember when Apple, Adobe, Google, etc. agreed not to hire each other's employees?
Yes, but that was challenged and ruled illegal by the U.S. government. That makes a difference: in the US, the government challenges the anticompetitive "gentleman's agreement". In China, the government enforces it.
https://www.cnet.com/news/appl...
https://www.mintz.com/insights...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why is it surprising that a left-winger was fired? Because the rule is that right-wingers are fired.
The exception proves the rule; it's surprising, because it goes against the expectation.
In any case, that headline ("Data shows a surprising campus free speech problem: left-wingers being fired for their opinions") doesn't really appear to have much to do with the article's body. Indeed, the thrust of the whole article is that there isn't really a restriction on free speech, because the "right-wingers" whose speech has been squelched are really just trolls, anyway.
Lame.
IMHO, all countries need a social credit system!!!
Think about all other social point/score systems almost all countries already use: ...
Credit Scores,
Driver License Scores/Points,
GPA
These are already all provide great social utility, aren't they???
Then, why not generalize the whole idea to all members/citizens of a society/country???
So, then, any good/bad behaviors/actions, can be encouraged/discouraged, as needed/(un)wanted/decided, anytime/anywhere, by simply setting/changing its +/- constant score/value!!!
They love the word "liberty," but hardly any of the policies they want would increase liberty. They would just replace it with corporate dictatorship.
They would replace our current imperfect freedom with an America of nothing but gated communities with repressive regulations that can't be challenged in court, and corporate malls with repressive regulations that can't be challenged in court.
It's not called the "Conservative Cookbook".
The Left is the one talking about being revolutionary, and toppling head-over-heals the existing societal structures, while conservatives are the ones trying to preserve it (indeed, in the United States, conservatives are the ones who would be trying to conserve the idea that a government should be small, limited to protecting the rights of each individual, chief among which are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Self-Interest, entailing the protection of free speech).
Bombings and lynchings and cross-burnings were the staples of the Democrats; the KKK was a Democrat phenomenon; Jim Crow laws were Democrat thing, and they were based on the progressive ideas of Darwinism and the need to forge a society for and by the New Man, the master race.
They don't mention why it would be bad and why they encourage people not to switch jobs, what benefits there will be for that, etc.
It's all very well and good to make recommendations but without any real context or direction people might be making choices for the wrong reasons, i.e. staying in a job that isn't a good fit for them because they're encouraged to do so for an unknown benefit. Will that benefit be worth being inept, unhappy, physically unfit, or any other number of reasons.
I wonder what happens when you try to trap the unwritten morals of a society in amber at one point in time, never to change again (or to change so slowly it's essentially the case). Will that bottle up repression in the people?
That already exists. It's called "Religion". And yes, it does pretty much exactly that.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Let's review.
Apple conspired with other tech businesses to set wages and to have draconian noncompete agreements, and NDA agreements, so that people are restricted from switching jobs.
American industry has come to do this across many sectors, even fast food now regularly prevents workers from switching jobs by agreements between locations.
The UK companies had a secret 'black list' which they put people on when they complained about working conditions or expressed support for labor unions. This prevented many many people from getting jobs even when the UK economy was booming.
Now we look down in pretended disgust at China - they are simply following our lead.
the scariest thing about a social credit system isn't codifying the rules, it's that they are not public.
That is a great point, and if the rules becomes complex enough even the supposed rulers may not understand what the choices being made!!
It's actually too easy to change the rules
This is also a great point - either the rules can be easily shifted without the public reality knowing, or (very probably) selectively applied to some specific individuals (for worse or better, like bribing someone to alter your own score).
It will be really interesting to see how society responds to this strange invisible pressure...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Depends on what your definition of "too often" is
I was thinking about this as well. As you say for a technical profession, changing every 2-3 years seems fine as both sides get benefit.
There are other professions where maybe the reasonable period is longer, or seasonal workers who naturally would change every year. You'd hope they would account for that in this system, but who knows...
One end effect of this would you'd want to be lots more careful changing jobs, because once you started something you'd really be pressured by the system not to leave no matter how much you ended up disliking it.
Also kind of wonder, if they penalize or reward people for trying to change careers...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Corporations are creatures of government; they are protected from repercussions by all manner of laws.
Which angels are going to staff your magical court? Who are these beings who are made of finer clay than the rest of us?
Your magical courts are a pipe dream; the courts are a monopoly—the worst kind of monopoly, in fact: They didn't grow to prominence through providing a high-quality service that individuals employed voluntarily; they grew at the point of a gun, by violent imposition.
You are proposing that a violently imposed monopoly will save society from a voluntarily grown monopoly. That's absurd.
The Left is the one talking about being revolutionary, and toppling head-over-heals the existing societal structures, while conservatives are the ones trying to preserve it
The status quo is unfair. That's why Hillary Clinton couldn't get elected. Trump convinced people that he would change the status quo, while Clinton was the business-as-usual candidate. Of course, Trump's changes to the status quo have all been harmful. Parts of his base got a small tax cut once, but it's all downhill from here for all but the wealthiest of them. People do want the wealthiest among us to pay more, and justly so; the worker's share of the profits has been falling throughout history, even as their productivity has increased.
This has worked out until now because worker productivity has been increasing so much, but now their jobs are threatened by automation to a larger degree than they believed possible. Automated software agents are capable of badly doing jobs that humans previously were doing badly themselves. But all these people doing their jobs badly is due to a lack of education at a variety of levels, including on the job training.
Bombings and lynchings and cross-burnings were the staples of the Democrats; the KKK was a Democrat phenomenon;
First, were and are are not the same thing. Keep up with today. Second, the Democrats overall are not leftist, they are centrist and corporatist. Most of them are as bought-and-paid-for as the Republicans. The primary difference between them is that Democrats generally believe in the rights of the individual, and the Republicans generally believe in the rights of the rich white individual. They both take money in exchange for policy, but which specific policies they'll support differ in certain cases. As a human, I support the party which most supports human rights, but I don't consider myself a Democrat. I register as one so I can vote in the primary.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I quickly looked over your Vox story, curious if it was the liberal professor that asked other to go on murder sprees for them being the one fired (It happened in Tampa, he should have been fired).
Instead I read how conservatives are NEVER censored. They then list Milo, Coulter, Shapiro, etc. So they list gays, women, and Jews being oppressed and in the same story claim it doesn't happen.
WTF is it with you homophobic, misogynist, anti-Semitic assholes pretending those people aren't "real people" and censoring them with violence shouldn't be counted? You all are the most disgusting people on the planet. I didn't read enough to see which liberal professor was fired, but I strongly suspect it was the ones calling for murders of gays/women/Jews that said things he didn't like. Are you really standing up for violence against minorities?
What a complete asshole you are.
"Bill" is basically a propagandist for the murderous Chinese dictatorship.
Uses standard propaganda technique of whataboutary to derail discussion of this disgusting regime's sinsiter actions. Should be ignored and not encouraged.
Switching jobs about every two years allows you to maximize your earning potential.
Companies whine about employees not being loyal but they partially created this problem:
* Asymmetrical respect. They can fire you at any time but when YOU want to end the business relationship they expect two weeks.
* no or meaningless rewards for being a loyal, long term employee
* don't offer pay increases comparable to switching to a new job
* idiotic "Human Resources" dept. as if people are resources to be strip-mined instead of treating them as an asset
Getting this back on topic:
China wants to reward bad companies and penalize good people??? Color me surprised. /s
--
Redditard / Slashtard, noun, someone who downvoted a person for asking a question
Churn is good.
I would daresay that a slow mixture, like in a concrete mixer, would be better.
There goes the day laborers. Everybody is looking to make a quick buck these days and somebody wants to have a monopoly on the day laborer market. Now you'll be forced to go through some shitty company and pay three times as much.
... it's well understood that changing jobs too often looks bad on a resume.
"Looks bad on a résumé" is a far cry from "prevents you from having a bank account or traveling to other countries and taints not just you but your family, friends, and associates as well".
The problem is not some nebulous concept of "social credit" as a way to quantify someone's reputation within a specific context, like a credit score in the context of loans, but rather the fact that this particular form of "social credit" is backed by legal force in a regime which casts various natural human rights as revocable privileges.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Well we finally paid the war off. We're still paying off WW1 and 2, Korea is for our grandkids.
But their labor practices seem to be in the worst "capitalist" tradition.
Corporatism != Free Market
Can social credit be used to get rid of this annoying asshole?
and the "telephone fee" was a tax-the-rich thing. Remember that whenever any leftist says "we're only going to tax the rich"....
... urged on by California's ban on non-compete agreements.
Quite possibly the only thing CA got right that it hasn't destroyed.
We shouldn't be so worried about China using genetic engineering to produce 'super soldiers', we should be more worried that they'll use it to produce Good Little Robot People who do exactly what they're programmed to do, unerringly, unquestioningly, and never complaining -- even if what they're told to do is fling themselves into an operating woodchipper. That's about what I think of the Chinese government and their complete and total lack of regard for human beings and basic Human Rights. Shit like this and so much more that I've heard and read that comes out of China makes me want to puke. Before I'd allow the rest of the world end up like China, I'd press the Big Red Button myself and blow it all up, it would be a kinder fate than what these assholes have in mind for humanity.
Which party currently has a KKK member as a state gov?
Hint: Its the DNC with Northam.
Which party kept a KKK leader as their Senate leader until he finally died after serving in the Senate for 60 years?
Hint: Its the DNC with Byrd
Were = Are when it comes to the DNC supporting the KKK. In fact one of you liberal bigots, XXongo, just posted a story claiming that gays/women/Jews being censored with violence isn't worth mentioning because they are not real people.
Sorry, but you liberals are the racists ones attacking people who disagree with them. You are the ones calling for high school kids to be thrown into wood chippers because they dared to wear red hats. You are the ones supporting current KKK members.
Easy to stop, but you choose not to.
An interesting aspect of this social credit thing is that each step mirrors things that already exist today... it's well understood that changing jobs too often looks bad on a resume. Or at least, it did before lots of people started doing that, don't even know if it's that bad these days...
That's the bad thing about a system like social credit codifying rules, is that the rules that affect your score probably change a lot more slowly than socially accepted behavior. I wonder what happens when you try to trap the unwritten morals of a society in amber at one point in time, never to change again (or to change so slowly it's essentially the case). Will that bottle up repression in the people? Or create a kind of mindless utopia that lasts forever? So far, nothing has lasted forever... or even close.
There is otherwise nothing wrong with someone wanting to discourage most of the kinds of behaviors that China wants to discourage... What is wrong is using force against people who are simply exercising their human rights.
Most of the behaviors that have been cited are things that in the US and many other countries are simply
discouraged because of social pressures. But ultimately leaving a job, or finding a new place to live or finding new friends is a way to move on and move forward. Having such a regimented system where you can't move beyond every minor mistake or disagreement with someone more powerful than you is going to ultimately create more discord in society.
What is wrong with this planet..
... "There are too many people; especially, there are too many people of low quality."
The Truth of the matter is that society doesn't need you, let alone want you; it certainly doesn't need or even want your children.
I don't know, man. Why are we importing the 3rd world? Let's close the borders and automate this place.
Censored with downmods? Repost!
Conservatives and Progressives (as you describe them) are authoritarians.
The Liberals (as you describe them) are libertarians.
It's strange that you blame Christendom for horrors, yet it is Christendom that has produced the freest societies in the world.
When the Zionists got the go ahead to set up modern Israel, they said they'd create he most just, civilized society with the greatest respect for jurisprudence. Fail.
And this is what happens in communism. The power gets concentrated and corrupted and in the end good people get screwed in the end.
Maybe in the US we should have penalties for employers that are so miserable that workers keep quitting way too often. There really are some savagely ignorant or disturbed business owners in the US.
The Chinese are a people in love with the idea of an unchanging world, where everyone is in his rightful place.
I wonder what happens when you try to trap the unwritten morals of a society in amber at one point in time, never to change again (or to change so slowly it's essentially the case).Will that bottle up repression in the people? Or create a kind of mindless utopia that lasts forever?
surely the greatest minds on earth cant answer this
It's a problem everywhere. Most recruiters and companies look at job histories and will prefer people who have years at one company
I never said I believe that; I never said anything that depends on the angelic behavior of Man—indeed, Capitalism is the the only philosophy that acknowledges and explicitly incorporates self-interest so as to exploit it for the greater good.
The only way to keep Tyranny at bay is a Separation of Powers; that's why there has never been, and hopefully never will be, One World Government. Even if two parties hate liberty, competition between them leaves room for liberty to exist.
The most robust and humane separation of powers is competition in a market of voluntary trade, where "voluntary" is defined by contracts negotiated in advance of interaction. The future is law by contracts, not law by legislation.
DEWAR . DOVECOT . DEWAR . UPS tot U tot POSTAL .
U tot U `U tot U `U tot U . U tot U U on U tot U `
U us are U tot U `U us are `U on U . U . U tot U `
DEWAR . U tot U `U us are `U . U tot U `POSTAL .
; `^ U `U tot U `U us are `U . DOVECOT `U . U on
U tot U `U tot U `U tot U . U . U tot U `U on U .
DEWAR . DOVECOT . DEWAR . UPS `U tot U `U tot U `
WIVES . U us are SPURNER `ABOARD . LBS `SPURNER `
U tot U `U us are U us are U tot U . U ; `^ U tot
U us are U us are U us are U tot U . U ; `^ U tot
U us are U us are WIVES on U tot U . U ; `^ U tot
U us are U us are U us are U tot U . U ; `^ U tot
U tot U `U us are U us are U tot U . U ; `^ U tot
WIVES . SPURNER `SPURNER `ABOARD . LBS tot U tot
> Yes, but the U.S. does not have a government-operated "social credit system" that allows business
> owners to prevent people from traveling, or even from using public transportation, if they switch jobs.
The US system is operated by far-left oligarchs who go after conservatives. Case in point, a conservative who had Uber, Chase Bank, etc, "unperson" her... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Basically, if you don't support socialists like the Dems, you're blacklisted all over the place. Gotta keep your "Socialist Credit" score up.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
The Left is the one talking about being revolutionary, and toppling head-over-heals the existing societal structures, while conservatives are the ones trying to preserve it
The status quo is unfair. ...
Says the guy living large off the fruits of capitalism and the status quo.
Not living large?
For the first time in human history, you don't have to worry about disease epidemics killing you. And did you notice how diseases are coming back in "progressive" parts of the US????
Shall I continue?
lenjoy that total control over the life of their citizens.
Welcome to a totalitarian Communist gov.
Contrast that with the freedom of the real China, Taiwan.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
"Too Often" is very subjective but I usually don't last more than two years at my jobs. Perhaps my social score would be low.
Not long ago I read a book on Vonnegut's writing career (it was mainly a compilation of his short stories) and it turns out he slaved like a bastard to establish himself as a young author. A few elite publications paid big money if you managed to get one of your works printed. Like most aspiring authors, he mostly garnered rejection letters. Unlike most aspiring authors, he read the letters closely, and followed the advice given.
The big piece of advice was to craft a good payoff. O. Henry was famous for crafting his shock miniatures, where the payoff turns on a dime. What a payoff is, exactly, is hard to define, but the editors know it when the see it, an author of the day failing to breast the tape with a suitably photogenic grin or grimace simply wasn't going to punch his big ticket to the big times.
What I just realized here is the cynicism has the tightest payoff structure of all the literate art forms:
* fully committed
* profitable
* only a matter of time.
Bing bang boom BINGO! Payoff delivered. You may now collect your $200 and proceed to troll another thread.
The $64,000 question here is to analyze just what the reader is seeking from the prevailing payoff structure. Why does it feel so damn good to veni, vidi, vici? (I came, I saw, I pressed "like".)
Last night I wrangled for a couple of hours with Rule Makes, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our Minds (2018) by Michele Gelfand.
She's got all the right blurbs: Pinker, Pink, Adam Grant, Dweck, Baumeister (plus one relative non-entity). She's one of the Edge crowd. She's highly recognized. Yet roughly once a page, in the early going, she dropped an adjectival cliche right out of the most wooden business book you've ever read. And worse, she consistently subjects her statistical outliers to all the scrutiny of Brian Wansink. "Yes, it's true that this group doesn't fit the model, but voila! here's another observational post hoc that sweeps the paradox away." Her editor probably told her not to sound too academic—a sometimes dangerous piece of advice that enables an academic of otherwise sound mind and body to toss the statistically sound baby out with the soundbite bathwater.
I think there's a lot here to chew on in her tightness–looseness theory, but her exposition of this in this particular book left some sand attached to the root hairs, and so much of my chewing involves more tongue than teeth.
On page 97 she attributes the tight culture of the U.S. south to their Celtic ancestors of the 1700s, notably their code of gallantry, courage, and suspicion "a combination of characteristics psychologists call 'a culture of honor.' "
So much for the grand cultural melting pot. So much for the wham bam "only a matter of time" payload cynigasm.
The implied payload is that these people are really just in it for the money, and the entire culture of the U.S. south is only so much shallow showmanship (try saying this out loud in the U.S. south).
The implied cynigasm payload is that we don't even need to notice the exceptional cases.
The implied cynigasm payload is that we don't even need to invoke the Wansink soft shoe.
The implied cynigasm payload is that they are shallow, and we are deep.
Such is cognitive magic of cynicism that from within its powerful bubble, one can press "like" to endorse depth, without evoking the least twinge of psychological dissonance.
The correct book title is: Rule Makes, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World
Either I cut and paste from a bad source, or had some cut and paste mishap with the last word, and patched it over in the heat of the moment with the wrong tire.
Funny that you mention red shirts.
As it happens the CCTV systems that pervade the typical Chinese city (Cities are also tiered based on size/local economy and you need permission to live there of course) can already see what a person is wearing.
So yes, facial recognition which is tied to these cards, hand in hand in fact, CCTV spotting people, cross referencing, noticing the red shirt and then handing your social credit -100
It's all entirely possible. Today.
Just remember that all those USA based businesses that have moved jobs from the USA to China and other such places are propping up the regime.
The fortune 500 companies are directly responsible for this system.
They could vote against it by leaving China but the profit is of course too great for them to do so.
And of course they love this type of system, it's going to benefit them immensely to keep that poor guy/gal stuck at their desk for a few more years.
China repeatedly tells western business operating within it's borders how to act, but western business is silent on Chinese human rights. Becaseu of profit.
Without sanctions on a political level to force business to change its attitude, and/or some of the things coming out of the NDAA act, USA business is going to stay in China, support this type of crap and keep making money.
All the while taking jobs away from Americans.
I'm no Trump devotee but you should listen to at least some of the things he has to say. Esepcaily when ti comes to tackling China.
As a non-USAian, I was always given teh impression that US people supported US companies. But why? If those same companies are taking jobs away from Americans and given them to, essentially, your enemies ?
You should be treating these guys like you did the USSR in the cold war.
But instead you've actually paid them to drag their 3rd world country into dominating you.
You've given them tech
Knowledge
Capital
What on earth are you doing ??
And then the people take that repression out on themselves by stoning the non-conformitsts to death! And loving it. Hate feels good. The neurochemistry of it is explicitly like a cocaine high. The CCP is enlightened, and their model will soon be implemented at global scale. Freedom of thought is terrifying, and our governments will save us from it!!!
To all you kids who think Socialism is some great thing, this is why the three generations before you fought so hard against it.
While I am not a fan of the idea of a social credit system, it is important to understand this detail before jumping on the hype train.Comparing employment situations in the USA to those in China is like comparing a space ship's rocket engine to a locomotive cabin.
Professional level employment works differently in china. All companies are owned by the government(yes, communism). Employees generally have a 1 year contract employment and at the end of that evaluation period the employer decides if they want to keep them or not. If they keep them, it is very difficult to fire. If they don't, then it is difficult for said employee to find new job. This could be a mesaure to punish people who break the contract and game that system.
Why are they changing jobs so much then?
All companies are owned by the government(yes, communism).
Who else could be so stupid?
Keep repeating that your "credit score" only impacts your ability to get a loan. Maybe if enough people repeat that mantra, it will magically become true!
You tell 'em, Ivan!
Next thing you know they'll be limiting the amount of toilet paper one can use
.
.
.
.
Oh wait.
.
.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/20/14986640/china-toilet-paper-theft-facial-recognition-machine
Non-state companies make up more than 80 percent of employment in urban areas and over 70 percent of GDP, they said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/0...
they are transparent, unlike some fake democracies that are dominated by advertisements and money.