I did no such thing. I responded to someone's statement that he's a recluse with the suggestion that perhaps that's not a natural state. Somehow this is offensive?
Then I went on to make what I considered a positive and constructive suggestion, that assuming I did not understand the person, he might look in places other than zero-population areas for suitable but more convenient habitation.
I'm sorry you see that as "not OK." I see it as ridiculous that this sort of well-meaning input should somehow be so awful as to be unmentionable. But I seem to be pretty much alone there.
But why don't you think it's OK for the other poster to be a recluse? Like him, I quite enjoy solitude and that's one of the reasons I posted this. I spent a month working in a remote desert last year and found it the peace and quiet very restful, in contrast to the hustle and bustle of city life. I enjoyed the latter much more when I was younger but over time my tastes have changed.
I see no reason for you to project your standards of mental health onto other people, even if you don't share their inclinations.
And I see no reason for you to assume that my concern for another human being is somehow projection.
You like being alone. Congratulations. So does he. That's great, and I never said it wasn't OK. I tried to make suggestions that people for some reason didn't appreciate; that doesn't mean I was condemning him or his lifestyle (or your lifestyle).
Anyway, this is past the point of productivity. I tried, no one appreciated it, and I'm not going to apologize for other people's uncharitable misinterpretations.
An assumption I did not make. My statement about convenience was in reference to being around services central to population centers, e.g. medical facilities. Clearly most people here don't agree with me, but that does not justify projecting your own mistaken ideas about my position.
I have no idea what your comment was before it was deleted, but based on how defensive you've gotten since, maybe you should seek therapy for your anger management issues?
Would be interesting to see a quality of life comparison (if such a thing can be reliably quantified)
The fact that it can't be reliably (more specifically, objectively) quantified is why we see so many nearly-worthless income comparisons instead: The content mill has to run, and less responsible journalists are often happy to print arbitrary crap masquerading as information rather than tackling hard topics with hard work (or just accepting that some things can't be accurately compared and moving on to things they can actually address in a meaningful way).
Not necessarily. As a small business owner, I aspire to this as well, if only because my experience has been "I expect my employers to get all they can out of my while paying me the bare minimum and treating me as poorly as I'll tolerate."
Granted, this is just my perspective, but that does suggest that this statement can mean various things depending on who you are and how you've been treated yourself.
I agree, with the exception of "that's how it's supposed to be." As defined by who? Knowing what happened and understanding why makes deciding on a resolution possible. The suggestion that keeping those things vague is somehow desirable is hard to fathom, unless your perspective is that of an abusive employer who doesn't want to have to change his or her practices.
Human interaction is not black and white (don't read into that). While this situation will never be totally transparent to the vast majority of us, the necessity of working within our limited knowledge does not imply our knowledge should necessarily be limited.
The idea that this is a potential haven after a man-made apocalyptic event is very much in line with the "well, we fucked up that environment, let's try this one next" way we've led most of our existence so far.
Don't get me wrong, this is interesting. But that as even a secondary motivation is fairly repulsive.
I'd have a hard time calling humanity surviving a win here. But then I am pretty good at the Fallout games (as long as you're talking about 1, 2, or Tactics), so maybe if I move to Australia I'll have a better chance in the post-nuclear wasteland. As long as I don't piss off Max, I guess.
I don't understand the outcry at "ageism" in advertising. The point of advertising is to address your target audience, not everyone.
The vast majority of products simply do not cater to every demographic. Racism might at least be reasonably considered inappropriate unless you're marketing a product that specifically targets some races and not others, but ageism? It's highly likely that whatever it is you're advertising does have a well-defined audience in terms of age.
This is just another rung on the political correctness ladder. Expecting everyone to include every possible demographic in every conceivable advertising campaign is idiotic.
Making it about "what people want to be" (from GP) misses the point as well. If you're not aiming your advertising at your target demographics, you are failing either yourself or your client. That's not discrimination; it's business. Discrimination is "you're not pretty, you don't get a discount or aren't allowed to use this service."
If it's just about target audience, then I wonder why all these companies seem to target detergents / toothpaste / toilet paper exclusively to 25 year olds...
In addition to the habit-forming age (if cigarette users are aged 16-60, rational advertising would target 16, not 60), a point is that you don't show your target audience as they are, but you show your target audience as they wish to be.
If you target average 65 year old women, then you show gray-haired above-average-health 55-year women.
If you target average 45 year old men, then you show slim (but not too slim) fit (but not too fit) 38 year old men - that might plausibly be average 45 year old men, but are very much skewed towards the idealized goal.
If you target very overweight people, then you show people that are visibly overweight, but particularly good looking for that weight.
That's what works best, that's how homo sapiens are most receptive to be influenced.
I'm 36 and I've already decided on my brand of toothpaste, toilet paper detergents years ago. I will not buy another brand as long as these brand exists with the same price and quality level. I would be a very bad target for advertising.
Just going from my understanding, which could be wrong... Many people find a household goods brand they like and stick with it. For example, once you decide that Crest toothpaste is good enough for you, you'll likely continue buying it for many years without ever thinking twice about it.
So it makes sense for these household goods brands to target young adults, to become their "go-to" choice for decades to come.
"It doesn't happen in America" and "it's un-American" are not the same statement. On the assumption you're being serious and not facetious, when an American uses the term "un-American," it's meant to mean that the action flies in the face of ideal American values (chiefly freedom).
It's obvious to all of us that these ideals don't reflect reality, but simply accepting that what the American government does is the ideal representation of values the American public actually holds isn't something most of us are willing to do.
As an American the phrase "chiefly freedom" sends shivers down my spine. I'm sure you don't mean it as such, but it sounds so narrow minded and "rah rah" patriotic. I wish America was "chiefly education and free thought".
Our country's founders went to war specifically for the ideals of freedom and fair treatment by a government that represented them, rather than merely ruled them. Free thought and speech are certainly central features of that -- but they felt many more things were essential to being Free.
"Freedom" sounds rah-rah patriotic because it is both TRULY patriotic, and also used as weasel-words by those who are wanting to do the things we would consider un-american ("preserve your freedom and safety by groping you at all airports and train stations...", "detain indefinitely foreigners For Your Freedoms", etc).
Consider re-reading America's Declaration of Independence, or reading it for the first time if you never have. It's remarkably easy to understand, and pretty clearly states some of the ideals that the original "Americans" felt were reason enough to go to war with England.
Indeed. All to often people mean freedom for me. Like, for example "I should be free to impose my religion on others if that's what my religion says I should do."
Theoritically, the principle of reciprocity should preclude this kind of thinking. In practice it tends not to.
Chiefly education and free thought have nothing to do with free speech and the other freedoms granted by the Constitution. What you are wishing American meant could be completely fulfilled by a ruthless dictatorship that put an emphasis on education.
Well crap. After reading the intro I hoped to find and take it (in order to, of course, confirm my own rather egotistical beliefs about my language aptitude), only to further read that it "will eventually be available for civilians." Oh well.
Actually, from reading the article, it sounds like you can get an approximation by taking tests designed to measure your working memory and associative memory.
Yes, it's not so much a "languistic aptitude test" as it is a test of general intelligence. The isn't about separating the math geniuses (or whatever) from the language geniuses, it's about separating the lower intelligence enlisted men from the higher intelligence enlisted men.
It'd be a waste of everyone's time if all their results were just a bad IQ test. I checked the first paper, and as expected from competent researchers, they did check for general intelligence, using RAPM scores: http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/files/2013/06/Psycho...
Those tests don't cover most of the test discussed here, though, since there's no assessment of phonemic processing abilities, resilience to distractions, etc.
I'm definitely with you on the way she treated her team and what she expected from them... but seriously... please put your IQ back in your pants.
I don't believe in "learn to code if you want to manage technical people," but it is definitely true that if you don't have at least a basic understanding of what your team is building and how, you should have someone who does informing your decisions and filtering your input.
