Random political thought thread.

[Virtual ghost]

Watershed Moments.
Dont be on the wrong side of history...again Donny boy.​

The truth is you can't be "Regan, Regan, Regan ....." and not support Ukriane. That simply don't make any sense if you think things through and you know something about history. Especially since Russian conquest of Ukraine means the direct restoratinon of USSR. While Regan's greatest achivement is the collapse of USSR. Therefore the fall of Ukraine is direct undoing of Regan's legacy. But for some people this is simply too complicated.

 

[The Cat]

Rugged Individualism has always been a myth.
​

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

​

 

[Coriolis]

Could you explain a little more? I am interested but I am not sure I follow.

STEM fields are all grounded in the scientific method, more specifically in objective evidence and reproducible results. Subjectivity and emotion have no place in this part of the process. Gravity is gravity, for example, regardless of how we personally feel about it, and it is the same for everyone. This perspective, however, is often taken too far in that it can be expected across the board. Emotion and subjectivity can be viewed as signs of weakness or inappropriate/unwelcome demeanor, even outside the process of examining evidence and drawing conclusions. It can make it look like you need a certain kind of personality to do well in science, the kind typically associated with men and not women. When people - men or women - try to mold themselves to that expectation, they can cut themselves off from subjectivity and emotion when its use is warranted. This could be when dealing with staff or colleagues, when deciding what to work on and why, or even when finding personal meaning and fulfillment in your work. As I mentioned, the scientific method is rooted in objectivity, typically viewed as a masculine quality. The conduct of science and engineering, though, is inescapably collaborative, pointing toward more typically feminine interpersonal qualities. We need both. Women entering STEM fields are not "trying to be men" when they follow scientific method. Nor should they - or men - have to check their more subjective qualities at the door when they report to work. Each has its place, and both are essential.

 

[Virtual ghost]

So, a society can outlaw weed, but what about pig farming? Fast food? Coke and Pepsi? What about these other issues that could well be proven scientifically to cause more health problems. Then corporate money gets involved with science and only the less profitable issues get restricted?

As I said a number of times:

As I said you also need to keep general population away from bad foods and various addictions.

However once you go after all those things you will get exactly to the point that you will be pulling society away from individualism.
Socialized healthcare can function if you don't ban all of the named things. However the people should keep their level of consuming those things at reasonable or minimal levels. While stuff that aren't actual food should be phased out as much as possible. Otherwise you are openly risking that chronic diseases simply overwhelm the system. Or that you need to rise taxes by visible amount to cover the problem. What will likely cause various other problems. The whole thing simply can't function if you don't fundamentally change how the society works (if you observe the topic from US perspective). Especially since you need to change countless laws and industrial standards. Introducing this type of healthcare is actually much bigger change than most people think (as already explained).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

STEM fields are all grounded in the scientific method, more specifically in objective evidence and reproducible results. Subjectivity and emotion have no place in this part of the process. Gravity is gravity, for example, regardless of how we personally feel about it, and it is the same for everyone. This perspective, however, is often taken too far in that it can be expected across the board. Emotion and subjectivity can be viewed as signs of weakness or inappropriate/unwelcome demeanor, even outside the process of examining evidence and drawing conclusions. It can make it look like you need a certain kind of personality to do well in science, the kind typically associated with men and not women. When people - men or women - try to mold themselves to that expectation, they can cut themselves off from subjectivity and emotion when its use is warranted. This could be when dealing with staff or colleagues, when deciding what to work on and why, or even when finding personal meaning and fulfillment in your work. As I mentioned, the scientific method is rooted in objectivity, typically viewed as a masculine quality. The conduct of science and engineering, though, is inescapably collaborative, pointing toward more typically feminine interpersonal qualities. We need both. Women entering STEM fields are not "trying to be men" when they follow scientific method. Nor should they - or men - have to check their more subjective qualities at the door when they report to work. Each has its place, and both are essential.

So because someone is seen reacting in some way to some personal news, for instance, they would be seen as unqualified regardless of what their professional strengths are? Is that a valid example? I would agree that this should not be held against someone.

I can definitely see how relational thinking can increase collaboration and be useful that way. If people want to work together, that probably means they will work better together, for instance.

 

[Coriolis]

Random thought in response to the overall discussion on American Individualism. Of course I live here and know what that value is and grew up in the "wild west" where it is particularly strong. But, here's the oddity - there are also a lot of control freaks that want to control others' behaviors. An honest individualist would not want to control the personal aspects of individual life of others because there would be a more consistent autonomous mindset. I do have a strong value of individualism which is why I'm frustrated with Libertarians for wanting to control behaviors. I think that freedom involves allowing people to make decisions that hurt themselves, and this is important because subjective perspective tends to define health - especially psychological health, but also physical health.

You have the far right people thinking LGBTQ+ people are not psychologically healthy, but then what about people who close their eyes and think they are telepathically communicating with an ultimate Being that controls the rings of Saturn and aunt Fran's potato garden (yes, I mean prayer), and they want to require all children at school to do this. Who gets to define mental health and normalcy?

There are so many normalized behaviors involving food/chemical intake and psychological practices that could be defined as unhealthy, so I have an ethical question about who decides? Yes, science should be the go to, so that if smoking is scientifically proven to cause lung cancer, then society should address it as such. Eating red meat and drinking diet soft drinks is also shown to increase the onset of dementia. Fast food does significant damage to the cardiovascular system. Also, industrial toxins cause a lot of health issues in lower income populations living in those parts of the city. Pig farming irrigation spays bacterial residue throughout its region causing strange mold and bacterial growths in neighboring homes.

So, a society can outlaw weed, but what about pig farming? Fast food? Coke and Pepsi? What about these other issues that could well be proven scientifically to cause more health problems. Then corporate money gets involved with science and only the less profitable issues get restricted?

The hypocrisy runs deep among significant portions of the population, most of whom vote for people like Trump.

So because someone is seen reacting in some way to some personal news, for instance, they would be seen as unqualified regardless of what their professional strengths are? Is that a valid example? I would agree that this should not be held against someone.

I can definitely see how relational thinking can increase collaboration and be useful that way. If people want to work together, that probably means they will work better together, for instance.

Reacting to personal news, or even to professional news - say hugging a longtime colleague who was just promoted, or a student who finished their degree. Perhaps crying if something really bad happened, like a flood or power outage that caused them to lose an entire month of data collection. Or even wanting to maintain some work/life balance, because they value things outside the workplace as well as inside.

Many workplaces, not just in STEM, are set up to accommodate the way men have typically worked, men who have wives who stay at home and take care of everything else. This sort of compartmentalization of life, where the workplace is the realm of the objective - profit and loss if not STEM data - denigrates typically feminine qualities, relegating them to home and private life. This leads to treating people as simply cogs in the machine. STEM workplaces, like many other workplaces, can be very cutthroat and competitive not in a good way. I think this comes in part from applying that objective, data-driven mindset to everything from hiring and promotion to personal definitions of success. Good managers know that paying attention to the human needs of workers, and to skills and qualities that cannot readily be quantified, isn't just morally a good idea, but also leads to more satsfied, stable and productive workforce.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

World’s cartoonists on this week’s events

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I agree with the basic premise and value system but what is interesting is that there are more layers to this. Firstly it overlooks the socialized sense of male ego which motivates dominance and displays of strength that are arguably some of the most irrational behaviors in humanity.

In the past I had a partner employed at high levels in science and his team leader once got frustrated and threw a chair. There are significant examples of high profile tech oligarchs having this issue - the tendency to suppress whatever amount of emotions they have to think and so lack a skill in processing them. They can become like children with a tantrum when their compartmentalized approach breaks down and gets triggered. As a result there can develop an assumption in these highly emotionally suppressed environments that emotions are by nature these underdeveloped childish unprocessed events.

In the arts the emotions are understood as something we can use and control to achieve an end. Every performing artist processes two sets of emotions successfully (private and performance required). The visual artist and poet examines internal emotions and instead of being overwhelmed and at their mercy, they impose order, meaning and structure.

Humans by nature are flawed and I present this too simplistically but the basic principle is important for rational human thinking. I think the most objectively minded human has a deep understanding of their own subjectivity and has skill in processing it and so does not need to deny and compartmentalize it away.

The scientists who express self doubt demonstrates some level of this awareness of their internal subjectivities.

I've seen extreme minimization and unrealistic optimism in people who have worked in the visual arts. There is also the matter of pop culture and all the problems that occur with the people who make that. There was also that time that English major shot up all those people at Virginia Tech.

What I think helps with emotions is being able to look at your past actions and recognize your mistakes, sounding out your interpretations of what is or has gone on with others (like a therapist) to get additional context, socializing with people, etc. It's a combination of working with yourself and working with other people. I don't think it's about what you do but it's about how you engage with yourself and the world.

Regarding interacting with people, a delightful discovery I made is that if you pay attention to other people repeatedly, and demonstrate it, 90% of people reciprocate in some way. Reaching out to someone like that is a wonderful thing.

 

[The Cat]

Honey and Vinnegar make the sauce of reciprocation emulsify.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Honey and Vinnegar make the sauce of reciprocation emulsify.

Only one flavor is monotonous. An observation I made while preparing a ham glaze for some holiday one year was that the reason the glaze was so good was probably that it contained sour ( orange juice and maybe vinegar), brown sugar (sweet), bitter ( cloves), and salty (the ham itself).

 

[Coriolis]

I've seen extreme minimization and unrealistic optimism in people who have worked in the visual arts. There is also the matter of pop culture and all the problems that occur with the people who make that. There was also that time that English major shot up all those people at Virginia Tech.

What I think helps with emotions is being able to look at your past actions and recognize your mistakes, sounding out your interpretations of what is or has gone on with others (like a therapist) to get additional context, socializing with people, etc. It's a combination of working with yourself and working with other people. I don't think it's about what you do but it's about how you engage with yourself and the world.

Regarding interacting with people, a delightful discovery I made is that if you pay attention to other people repeatedly, and demonstrate it, 90% of people reciprocate in some way. Reaching out to someone like that is a wonderful thing.

It isn't just, or even primarily, emotions. It is just as much subjective judgment, or values and qualities that do not lend themselves to quantifying as financial balance sheets do.To get back to STEM, there is no room for subjectivity in carrying out experiments and analyzing data, but you cannot decide what even to be researching without including subjective judgments in your reasoning.

 

[The Cat]

Only one flavor is monotonous. An observation I made while preparing a ham glaze for some holiday one year was that the reason the glaze was so good was probably that it contained sour ( orange juice and maybe vinegar), brown sugar (sweet), bitter ( cloves), and salty (the ham itself).

Indeed. One needs sweet, sour, and umami at basic. But a little to a lot of spice can help things to depending on the recipe.

TASTY!​

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The hypocrisy runs deep among significant portions of the population, most of whom vote for people like Trump.


Reacting to personal news, or even to professional news - say hugging a longtime colleague who was just promoted, or a student who finished their degree. Perhaps crying if something really bad happened, like a flood or power outage that caused them to lose an entire month of data collection. Or even wanting to maintain some work/life balance, because they value things outside the workplace as well as inside.

Many workplaces, not just in STEM, are set up to accommodate the way men have typically worked, men who have wives who stay at home and take care of everything else.

The expectation to work long hours is not good in general. I never made the link between that being an expression of outdated conception of gender before, though.

This sort of compartmentalization of life, where the workplace is the realm of the objective - profit and loss if not STEM data - denigrates typically feminine qualities, relegating them to home and private life. This leads to treating people as simply cogs in the machine. STEM workplaces, like many other workplaces, can be very cutthroat and competitive not in a good way. I think this comes in part from applying that objective, data-driven mindset to everything from hiring and promotion to personal definitions of success. Good managers know that paying attention to the human needs of workers, and to skills and qualities that cannot readily be quantified, isn't just morally a good idea, but also leads to more satisfied, stable and productive workforce.

In other words, it sounds like it would lead to a better workplace environment. What kind of other qualities do you think it would lead to people paying attention to?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Indeed. One needs sweet, sour, and umami at basic. But a little to a lot of spice can help things to depending on the recipe.

TASTY!​

I forget to mention dry mustard for spiciness in the ham glaze.

 

[The Cat]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

What about a lollipop?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

That a lot of why I described that I was simplifying the topic. Arts in education serves the purpose of increasing inter- and intra-personal intelligence and yes, they do help process emotions and incorporate reason into subjective systems. There are many subjective systems that science attempts to address and so there is a need to understand these better and find ways to integrate reason.

There are problems in the arts and I would suggest it comes down primarily to the ego issues in humanity. To experience an emotion is not the problem, but to attach it to a sense of personal power and ego can cause issues. There are many crazy artists but also there are mathematicians that pee on their colleague's door. Interestingly the performing arts require skills that exist on the ends of the spectrum from narcissism to true empathy. When there is social ego and pride, then the narcissistic traits are favored.

I can see, just from playing D&D or writing lame fan fiction, how someone can put their ego into their work, and how having it criticized could feel very personal. Obviously, if I'm bothering to make this thing, then it means something to me. I find myself thinking, then, if I put this out into world, and somebody thinks it's terrible, will I be able to handle that?

My primary point is that emotions themselves are often viewed as the opposite to objectivity, and I would suggest that it is ego/pride that is the actual problem. A person can learn to observe and experience their own emotions in a similar manner to their physical sensations.

That's true. I've noticed that, that I can notice that I'm feeling something and then see if this is affecting my thought patterns or not.

Feeling fear or anger can be experienced like having a headache or nausea without it influencing reasoning as deeply as is often assumed. The arts are a great tool to examine emotional responses at arm's length and apply reason to them. The problem is that emotional education is sorely lacking in U.S. culture so people tend to dismiss the notion altogether.

Education in general is lacking in U.S. culture, I'd say, but I would not exempt emotional education from it.