The Civil Rights Act does not ban IQ tests... if you have an unlimited legal budget.
IQ tests can't be used. Someone will fail. They will sue. It will cost more to defend the lawsuit than if you hired the person and they never did a single day of work. IQ tests (and any other test any minority applicant could ever possibly fail) are therefore effectively banned.
- Every product and service with US content includes costs related to our ridiculous legal system, for example. Lawyers get paid, and costs for productive people go up on every item, artificially. - The same thing goes for "licensing" and permit laws. You want to get your hair cut, you must go to a licensed barber or hairstylist. You want to get a ride somewhere, you must hire a guy with a taxicab permit. They charge more because the permitting process keeps out competitors. These costs are artificially high. - We pay taxes to support government workers' lavish pensions. These are people who don't work. This is an artificial cost. - We pay enormous amounts to non-government workers to retire at 65. Many could easily continue until 68 or 70. This is an artificial cost. - We build roads and other public infrastructure projects with rules requiring a "prevailing wage" (a union wage) be paid. This makes every government project artificially more expensive, so fewer projects are built. This is an artificial cost. - We have environmental laws that protect animals and hurt people. This creates a lot of artificial costs. - We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and our system creates a huge incentive for multinational companies to invest foreign profits anywhere but the US. This is a huge artificial disadvantage and a huge artificial cost.
The list could go on for many pages. The way to be more competitive is to get rid of some of this dead weight. It doesn't help our standard of living. It's just a transfer from producers to the less productive and unproductive. We can't afford it any more.
When the Supreme Court decided in Griggs vs. Duke Power that it's racial discrimination to use IQ tests to weed out job applicants, employers were left with few choices other than to require a degree for lots of occupations.
College takes too long, is too expensive, and the original commenter was complaining that there wasn't enough on-subject knowledge learned in 4 years.
"Eye opening and rewarding " are good. Maybe we can't afford "eye opening and rewarding" at these tuition rates. Maybe we can't afford to use otherwise productive time with "eye opening and rewarding". If colleges want to be idealistic, they should do it at their own expense.
- the folks who decide what goes on the air look down on you. Some of this is justified by the TV audience. Some isn't. - advertising is controlled by advertising firms. If your show doesn't appeal to the people who make the ad buys, then ads won't get sold, even if your show is popular with audiences. This has been a major factor with "political" shows. Advertising firms are located in New York and San Francisco, not Texas or Utah.
Because taxes and other government-related expenses are so high, I have to work at least 4-8 hours to earn the after-tax income to pay a plumber to work 1 hour -- even if we have the same hourly pay. So, instead of hiring the plumber, I'll do one of these:
- wait as long as I can. I have more than one plumbing fixture, there's no urgency to fix the redundant one. - do it myself. It's inefficient and I hate doing it, but there's a huge financial incentive to do it myself. - replace the problem rather than fix it. If I can buy a cheap foreign-made replacement fixture, then I don't have to hire an expensive domestic plumber to fix my problem. (This actually applies less to plumbing than to other repairs, but it's still a factor.)
Cutting government costs is the obvious answer. The engineer gets to enjoy his life and his paycheck instead of fixing his plumbing problems on his day off. The plumber gets more work and more take-home pay. Repairable parts are repaired and used instead of ending up in a landfill.
The US does need more engineers. Engineering work is going to be done. It's going to be done at a competitive cost. The only question is whether it's done in the US or other countries. Don't look for salaries to go up when there's someone who can do your job a lot cheaper in another country.
The solutions to stagnating salaries in the US:
- better K-12 education, - make the US an attractive place for employers to employ engineers (and other employees) - control the artificial increases in the cost of living to be more competitive with the rest of the world.
For my engineering major, we were required to take Humanities classes. One obvious remedy to your concern would be to eliminate those requirements. Students shouldn't have to spend money on those sorts of extras anyway.
Since math, science, and engineering students are more likely than other students to be men, it seems reasonable that the University environment's hostility to men is an important factor in math, science, and engineering students dropping out.
When I went to college, it was a depressing place filled with extremely narcissistic, hateful people. It didn't seem like an experience worth paying for. Meanwhile, at the office, people are happy I'm there. They thank me for my help and pay me.
You don't know the future. Neither do "Apple fans". What's the point of arguing about what might or might not happen at some unknown time in the future? What's the point of getting upset about something that hasn't happened and hasn't even been proposed?
Is reality too boring that you have to make up stories and be upset about them? Or is reality too upsetting that you have to make up stories to feel better? Why should anyone else care one way or another about the your made-up stories?
Well, social acceptance was the topic of the original post.
You've described nerds as people who are self-indulgent and self-focused and care about entertainment more than the other people around them. That's hardly "good", even if it's not actively harmful to others. I hope they never need anything from anyone.
You seem to have systematically edited out the point. The original post was about a sort of social acceptance. Nerds' self indulgence, self involvement, contempt or disrespect for others' choices, and "strange" behavior are counterproductive to gaining social acceptance. Helpfulness, respect, attempts to relate, and generally being a stand-up guy are positive tools to gain social acceptance. The point was to be a good person to gain some social acceptance.
If nerds can't get along in society, it's not because everyone else is wrong.
Kids, specifically, have a difficult time. This is partly because we lock them all up together in sad government institutions every day. It's also partly because they're all learning to relate. "Isolate yourself and be a member of a subculture" is a poor lesson, especially when it's about something as frivolous as a preferred entertainment choice. I suggest trying to be a good person instead. Kids are naturally self-involved, so this isn't the easiest path for them. But it's worth the effort, because learning something like empathy is useful and virtuous.
I'm not sure I can express my point any more clearly, but here is my understanding of the counterarguments:
Possible responses:
- NO! Self-indulgence forever! -- Ok, but social acceptance will be illusive. - NO! Everyone else is wrong! -- Ok, but social acceptance will be illusive. - No. I was born this way. -- Behavior is a choice. - NO! You should see how cool my Final Fantasy VI figurines are! -- Extreme self-involvement, two-way conversation will be illusive. - It might not work. -- Anything might not work. - Other people are self-involved too. -- Yep. So you have something in common with them then. - Nerds are great! -- So are non-nerds. Get to know some of them. - Things that are popular are bad. -- That's not a logical statement. Some popular things are bad. Some aren't. - Why should I give up what makes me special? -- Don't. But the question should set off a self-involvement alert. You're not as special as you think you are. - Jane won't like me no matter what. -- Maybe not. There are 7 Billion other people. - This discussion doesn't validate my past choices -- Luckily, you're faced with future choices.
So anyway, that's my argument for being a good person to gain social acceptance. I hope it was understood.
Because the subculture behaviors are things that they enjoy. Magic the Gathering/Japanese Animation/D&D/whatever are things that are appealing and fun for kids of a certain personality type (nerds) and so they associate with other kids with similar interests.
So enjoy them. But there's a whole rest of the world too. You can enjoy Magic the Gathering without forgetting the rest of the world. You can enjoy D&D and not drone on about it endlessly to people who don't care. It can be something fun. It doesn't have to be "who you are".
And, again, why should anyone respect nerds and include nerds without any effort on the nerds' part? Football is as respectable as Magic the Gathering. Want people to understand and respect you? Try to understand and respect them.
Also, all this stuff you mentioned is just entertainment. Do you really think entertainment choices are this important?
The nerd label comes whether you want it or not. You can try to pretend you don't like that stuff and
are into mainstream stuff but that's a pretty sad way to go through life and everyone else usually sees through your fakery anyway.
Being labelled is not a behavior. If it doesn't fit, it's a lot less likely to stick.
Preemptively giving up is not really good for much. It's a poor lesson for kids. It tells people they can't count on you for anything.
Why behave like a nerd (or a member of any other subculture) and then hope that the culture at large acknowledges and appreciates it? This seems backwards and very self-focused.
Why not give up the subculture behaviors and identification instead? You don't need to give up building things, or tinkering, or being interested in computers, or math, or anything else. Why shouldn't "nerds" try to reach out and understand the rest of the world? And, if you won't, don't expect people to ever think you're "cool".
If you don't respect them, they won't respect you. Nor should they.
This goes for other subcultures too. Be a helpful and good part of society if you want society to treat you well.
Where do you get that ratio of $1 to $1000, though?
From your argument. If I ever got any benefit from government, I can never criticize it or want less of any of it. No one should point out that government primarily serves government, not the people. That's what you were arguing with "so I assume you never use anything provided/maintained by the government".
I use government. I like government. It's not even remotely worth the amount it costs. Most of it should be shut down. Not all. Most.
How do you even measure how much of a value you get from government?
My preferred way? Cut it massively and see what happens. Then bring it back a tiny bit at a time only if it's absolutely necessary.
Most people don't even know what the government (both national and local) do that benefits them. They drive on their highways without thinking about how they are maintained.
Driver's gas taxes pay for highways. The people who use the roads pay for them. I'm not complaining about that. Highways are a tiny fraction of government spending. It's borderline disingenuous to bring them up as "the thing government does".
Besides food safety inspections, what does the Department of Agriculture do that helps me?
They use almost anything as an excuse to simply raises the amount they are charging often in a way complely unrelated to whether or not it risks an actual violation of kashrut rules.
That sounds exactly like how government regulations are implemented.
This is a ridiculous argument: if I get $1 in value from government, I must consent to pay $1000, or $1 million in taxes (and more in lost freedom) in return for it.
Government is good: it protects freedom. Big government is bad: it threatens freedom. It's the amount of government that matters. We have far, far, far, far too much.
Here's an idea, why don't we just shut down 20 of the 21 sections of the Department of Agriculture so they only have one email system?
We can keep food safety inspections, at least until an adequate private inspection regime is in place (like the one that inspects food and facilities for Kosher and Halal dietary requirements).
Yes. All automobile manufacturing is exactly the same. Anyone who can do any part of automobile manufacturing can do every part of automobile manufacturing. Obviously.
I did say "be the guy", not "pretend to be the guy until the interview is over". Developing a good reputation takes time and effort. It's a strategy, not a tactic.
Other things: complaining about the place that won't hire you is not useful. Find the place that will hire you.
Applying for jobs "where you live" is also a poor strategy for finding a job in tough times. If you really want a job, you should be willing to go where they're hiring. If you prioritize getting a job lower than staying home, it will be harder to get a job.
I was just saying it's possible to get a job if you don't meet the requirements. Maybe it won't work for you because you're not the right guy. It worked for me.
Slashdot Mirror
The Civil Rights Act does not ban IQ tests ... if you have an unlimited legal budget.
IQ tests can't be used. Someone will fail. They will sue. It will cost more to defend the lawsuit than if you hired the person and they never did a single day of work. IQ tests (and any other test any minority applicant could ever possibly fail) are therefore effectively banned.
I said more competitive, not exactly the same.
Costs in the US are artificially high:
- Every product and service with US content includes costs related to our ridiculous legal system, for example. Lawyers get paid, and costs for productive people go up on every item, artificially.
- The same thing goes for "licensing" and permit laws. You want to get your hair cut, you must go to a licensed barber or hairstylist. You want to get a ride somewhere, you must hire a guy with a taxicab permit. They charge more because the permitting process keeps out competitors. These costs are artificially high.
- We pay taxes to support government workers' lavish pensions. These are people who don't work. This is an artificial cost.
- We pay enormous amounts to non-government workers to retire at 65. Many could easily continue until 68 or 70. This is an artificial cost.
- We build roads and other public infrastructure projects with rules requiring a "prevailing wage" (a union wage) be paid. This makes every government project artificially more expensive, so fewer projects are built. This is an artificial cost.
- We have environmental laws that protect animals and hurt people. This creates a lot of artificial costs.
- We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and our system creates a huge incentive for multinational companies to invest foreign profits anywhere but the US. This is a huge artificial disadvantage and a huge artificial cost.
The list could go on for many pages. The way to be more competitive is to get rid of some of this dead weight. It doesn't help our standard of living. It's just a transfer from producers to the less productive and unproductive. We can't afford it any more.
When the Supreme Court decided in Griggs vs. Duke Power that it's racial discrimination to use IQ tests to weed out job applicants, employers were left with few choices other than to require a degree for lots of occupations.
College takes too long, is too expensive, and the original commenter was complaining that there wasn't enough on-subject knowledge learned in 4 years.
"Eye opening and rewarding " are good. Maybe we can't afford "eye opening and rewarding" at these tuition rates. Maybe we can't afford to use otherwise productive time with "eye opening and rewarding". If colleges want to be idealistic, they should do it at their own expense.
There are other factors though:
- the folks who decide what goes on the air look down on you. Some of this is justified by the TV audience. Some isn't.
- advertising is controlled by advertising firms. If your show doesn't appeal to the people who make the ad buys, then ads won't get sold, even if your show is popular with audiences. This has been a major factor with "political" shows. Advertising firms are located in New York and San Francisco, not Texas or Utah.
Because taxes and other government-related expenses are so high, I have to work at least 4-8 hours to earn the after-tax income to pay a plumber to work 1 hour -- even if we have the same hourly pay. So, instead of hiring the plumber, I'll do one of these:
- wait as long as I can. I have more than one plumbing fixture, there's no urgency to fix the redundant one.
- do it myself. It's inefficient and I hate doing it, but there's a huge financial incentive to do it myself.
- replace the problem rather than fix it. If I can buy a cheap foreign-made replacement fixture, then I don't have to hire an expensive domestic plumber to fix my problem. (This actually applies less to plumbing than to other repairs, but it's still a factor.)
Cutting government costs is the obvious answer. The engineer gets to enjoy his life and his paycheck instead of fixing his plumbing problems on his day off. The plumber gets more work and more take-home pay. Repairable parts are repaired and used instead of ending up in a landfill.
So stop watching it. If you really look to TV for validation, then you're part of the problem.
The US does need more engineers. Engineering work is going to be done. It's going to be done at a competitive cost. The only question is whether it's done in the US or other countries. Don't look for salaries to go up when there's someone who can do your job a lot cheaper in another country.
The solutions to stagnating salaries in the US:
- better K-12 education,
- make the US an attractive place for employers to employ engineers (and other employees)
- control the artificial increases in the cost of living to be more competitive with the rest of the world.
Government schools fail. Too bad we can't reform them. Nor can we ever even think about a non-government alternative.
(Except for super-rich people who can afford to pay for government schools and also pay to send their kids to non-government schools.)
For my engineering major, we were required to take Humanities classes. One obvious remedy to your concern would be to eliminate those requirements. Students shouldn't have to spend money on those sorts of extras anyway.
Since math, science, and engineering students are more likely than other students to be men, it seems reasonable that the University environment's hostility to men is an important factor in math, science, and engineering students dropping out.
When I went to college, it was a depressing place filled with extremely narcissistic, hateful people. It didn't seem like an experience worth paying for. Meanwhile, at the office, people are happy I'm there. They thank me for my help and pay me.
You don't know the future. Neither do "Apple fans". What's the point of arguing about what might or might not happen at some unknown time in the future? What's the point of getting upset about something that hasn't happened and hasn't even been proposed?
Is reality too boring that you have to make up stories and be upset about them? Or is reality too upsetting that you have to make up stories to feel better? Why should anyone else care one way or another about the your made-up stories?
Well, social acceptance was the topic of the original post.
You've described nerds as people who are self-indulgent and self-focused and care about entertainment more than the other people around them. That's hardly "good", even if it's not actively harmful to others. I hope they never need anything from anyone.
You seem to have systematically edited out the point. The original post was about a sort of social acceptance. Nerds' self indulgence, self involvement, contempt or disrespect for others' choices, and "strange" behavior are counterproductive to gaining social acceptance. Helpfulness, respect, attempts to relate, and generally being a stand-up guy are positive tools to gain social acceptance. The point was to be a good person to gain some social acceptance.
If nerds can't get along in society, it's not because everyone else is wrong.
Kids, specifically, have a difficult time. This is partly because we lock them all up together in sad government institutions every day. It's also partly because they're all learning to relate. "Isolate yourself and be a member of a subculture" is a poor lesson, especially when it's about something as frivolous as a preferred entertainment choice. I suggest trying to be a good person instead. Kids are naturally self-involved, so this isn't the easiest path for them. But it's worth the effort, because learning something like empathy is useful and virtuous.
I'm not sure I can express my point any more clearly, but here is my understanding of the counterarguments:
Possible responses:
- NO! Self-indulgence forever! -- Ok, but social acceptance will be illusive.
- NO! Everyone else is wrong! -- Ok, but social acceptance will be illusive.
- No. I was born this way. -- Behavior is a choice.
- NO! You should see how cool my Final Fantasy VI figurines are! -- Extreme self-involvement, two-way conversation will be illusive.
- It might not work. -- Anything might not work.
- Other people are self-involved too. -- Yep. So you have something in common with them then.
- Nerds are great! -- So are non-nerds. Get to know some of them.
- Things that are popular are bad. -- That's not a logical statement. Some popular things are bad. Some aren't.
- Why should I give up what makes me special? -- Don't. But the question should set off a self-involvement alert. You're not as special as you think you are.
- Jane won't like me no matter what. -- Maybe not. There are 7 Billion other people.
- This discussion doesn't validate my past choices -- Luckily, you're faced with future choices.
So anyway, that's my argument for being a good person to gain social acceptance. I hope it was understood.
Because the subculture behaviors are things that they enjoy. Magic the Gathering/Japanese Animation/D&D/whatever are things that are appealing and fun for kids of a certain personality type (nerds) and so they associate with other kids with similar interests.
So enjoy them. But there's a whole rest of the world too. You can enjoy Magic the Gathering without forgetting the rest of the world. You can enjoy D&D and not drone on about it endlessly to people who don't care. It can be something fun. It doesn't have to be "who you are".
And, again, why should anyone respect nerds and include nerds without any effort on the nerds' part? Football is as respectable as Magic the Gathering. Want people to understand and respect you? Try to understand and respect them.
Also, all this stuff you mentioned is just entertainment. Do you really think entertainment choices are this important?
The nerd label comes whether you want it or not. You can try to pretend you don't like that stuff and
are into mainstream stuff but that's a pretty sad way to go through life and everyone else usually
sees through your fakery anyway.
Being labelled is not a behavior. If it doesn't fit, it's a lot less likely to stick.
Preemptively giving up is not really good for much. It's a poor lesson for kids. It tells people they can't count on you for anything.
Less self-indulgence would benefit nerds a lot.
Why behave like a nerd (or a member of any other subculture) and then hope that the culture at large acknowledges and appreciates it? This seems backwards and very self-focused.
Why not give up the subculture behaviors and identification instead? You don't need to give up building things, or tinkering, or being interested in computers, or math, or anything else. Why shouldn't "nerds" try to reach out and understand the rest of the world? And, if you won't, don't expect people to ever think you're "cool".
If you don't respect them, they won't respect you. Nor should they.
This goes for other subcultures too. Be a helpful and good part of society if you want society to treat you well.
No. He didn't. He did not say that in the post your were responding to. In a followup post, he supported limited government.
Almost no one wants to "eliminate government completely". The majority wants government to be smaller and less expensive and less intrusive though.
Where do you get that ratio of $1 to $1000, though?
From your argument. If I ever got any benefit from government, I can never criticize it or want less of any of it. No one should point out that government primarily serves government, not the people. That's what you were arguing with "so I assume you never use anything provided/maintained by the government".
I use government. I like government. It's not even remotely worth the amount it costs. Most of it should be shut down. Not all. Most.
How do you even measure how much of a value you get from government?
My preferred way? Cut it massively and see what happens. Then bring it back a tiny bit at a time only if it's absolutely necessary.
Most people don't even know what the government (both national and local) do that benefits them. They drive on their highways without thinking about how they are maintained.
Driver's gas taxes pay for highways. The people who use the roads pay for them. I'm not complaining about that. Highways are a tiny fraction of government spending. It's borderline disingenuous to bring them up as "the thing government does".
Besides food safety inspections, what does the Department of Agriculture do that helps me?
They use almost anything as an excuse to simply raises the amount they are charging often in a way complely unrelated to whether or not it risks an actual violation of kashrut rules.
That sounds exactly like how government regulations are implemented.
This is a ridiculous argument: if I get $1 in value from government, I must consent to pay $1000, or $1 million in taxes (and more in lost freedom) in return for it.
Government is good: it protects freedom. Big government is bad: it threatens freedom. It's the amount of government that matters. We have far, far, far, far too much.
Good thing we have people like you to be our Mommy then. Thanks Mom.
Here's an idea, why don't we just shut down 20 of the 21 sections of the Department of Agriculture so they only have one email system?
We can keep food safety inspections, at least until an adequate private inspection regime is in place (like the one that inspects food and facilities for Kosher and Halal dietary requirements).
Yes. All automobile manufacturing is exactly the same. Anyone who can do any part of automobile manufacturing can do every part of automobile manufacturing. Obviously.
Almost everyone who lives in a place is "able to afford" to live there. Somehow. Not getting a job isn't the key to affording anything.
There are a lot of people. If none of them are the right ones, then there's no hope anyway. So I can only suggest trying to find the right ones.
Looking for a job in hard times sucks. I was looking in 2009. It took a year. I had to move more than 1000 miles twice. I hope you find something.
I did say "be the guy", not "pretend to be the guy until the interview is over". Developing a good reputation takes time and effort. It's a strategy, not a tactic.
Other things: complaining about the place that won't hire you is not useful. Find the place that will hire you.
Applying for jobs "where you live" is also a poor strategy for finding a job in tough times. If you really want a job, you should be willing to go where they're hiring. If you prioritize getting a job lower than staying home, it will be harder to get a job.
I was just saying it's possible to get a job if you don't meet the requirements. Maybe it won't work for you because you're not the right guy. It worked for me.