SSCReader
7mo ago
his is a concept in formal logic that it took me awhile to get my head around. A modus ponens argument takes the form “if A, then B; A; therefore B”, while a modus tollens argument takes the form “If A, then B; not B; therefore not A”. In other words, if someone is saying you should believe B because A is true,
I think you're missing a more direct link to something like this. For many people the (subconscious) thought process goes like this as far as I can tell: Only bad people support rapists. I support Conor/immigration. I am not a bad person.
So if Conor is a rapist (A), I am a bad person for supporting him (B). I don't want to see myself as a bad person (Not B) therefore Conor is not a rapist (Not A)
Substitute as desired. It happens most frequently among family members in my experience (I love my brother there is no way he could be a rapist). And can break down under significant levels of evidence, but is very psychologically stressful the stronger your feelings were. So in a world of para-social relationships with celebrities, or where people are projecting onto famous people (OJ Simpson for the black community for example), or feel very strongly about a position it can be common.
See even various attempts to reconcile the existence of evil with an all loving God and sometimes very visceral reactions from Christians that their God may be wrong about something. If God is wrong about homosexuality being a sin, then I am a bad person for disowning my gay son, therefore God has to be perfectly right. My uncle who disowned my gay cousin turned even more fanatically to the Church after he came out, and can't tolerate any criticism about it. Because if it is flawed in any way, then it might be wrong about the very difficult thing he had to do. And if it is wrong he destroyed his relationship with his only son over it, which would make him a bad father. He is very invested in that being right.
It also explains the: That is not happening and if it is happening it would be good anyway pipeline. If A is bad, and I supported it, then I am bad. I don't want to be bad so A is not happening. If confronted with proof that A is happening then I have to rationalize it as being good, so that I can maintain my self-image.
SSCReader
1mo ago
For asking a question that you should have known if she answered may have got her fired? Back in my customer service days I'd have just rolled my eyes and ignored you, and called for the next person, as you had already said you didn't want to buy anything. Perfect plausible deniability for me. Then bitched about you to a colleague once you left. You'd probably make the "Can you believe what this customer did?" list when winding down after work. You may not have been at the top of the list. There are a lot of customers who do unbelievable things after all, but you'd probably have been on it.
To recap you walked into a retail establishment, to ask a contentious question about a labor dispute to a basic barista out loud in the open, where anyone could hear, and apparently did not consider that the barista would have been gambling that you weren't a snitch or that anyone overheard her, and expected her to answer. That is probably not your finest hour to put it mildly.
I don't think you thought through the consequences of what might have happened from her point of view. And therefore you are entitled to her scorn. That she kept it professional is to her credit. You are entitled to be treated professionally when ordering a latte or asking where they source their soy milk from. When you ask questions, the answers to which might get someone fired, you are off that reservation, and out on your own. She is not paid to answer those questions. It was rude of you to ask. Therefore rudeness back should be your expectation.
The fundamental problem the Red Tribe/American conservatism faces is a culture of proud, resentful ignorance.
This is fundamentally untrue I think and close to boo outgroup (Edit - I think you explain below what you mean somewhat better). Red Tribers have a great deal of use for knowledge. It's just usually directly applicable knowledge. Half my family are redneck equivalents and they prize knowledge. The type of practical knowledge that lets them run a successful farm or build houses. My uncle has forgotten more about small hold farming than I ever knew. My grandfather could eke a living out of poor soil and hilly terrain with a knowledge of local weather and rainfall patterns that rivaled anything the Met Office can put out. They possess a great deal of knowledge in the Red Tribe. I lived in a small Red town in the US for a number of years and this is just not a good description of Red Tribe folk even at the most general level.
It's true they don't generally want to become an anthropologist or what have you, but academia is only a subset of knowledge generation. An important one! But not the only one by far.
What is true I think is that almost definitionally Red Tribers in general don't want to sit in offices and decide on funding for hypothetical research, which means it is going to be up to the small number of conservative Blue Tribers to do that. It also explains why so often Republican politicians are more left then their base. Because they are usually Blue Tribers who are conservative, again because almost definitionally Red Tribers don't want to live in a big city and sit in meetings and give speeches for a living. But Blue Tribe conservatives are not identical to Red Tribe conservatives, we can see the spat with Musk and Vivek about H-1B visas as an example.
I don't think the Red Tribe could ever be 50% of academia there simply not enough of them who would want to do that. The whole point of different tribes is they do have different values and preferences. Just like farmers or lumberjacks or oil workers are never going to be 50% Blue Tribe.
For the Red Tribe to pull its weight in academia or politics you have to convince salt of the earth people like my uncle to go and sit in meetings and give speeches or go to school for 4 years so he can get a degree, and then teach people or research at a university, when that is the last thing he wants to do. He would rather be out in his fields.
But don't think that means he is ignorant. He knows exactly how to skin and butcher a carcass, he knows what his fields need and can diagnose a multitude of livestock illnesses. He also knows exactly what the price of feed and crops need to be before he breaks even. All without finishing school at all.
I think Red's do undervalue the kind of academic knowledge that can be transformative, but equally I think Blue's do undervalue practical day to day useful knowledge. We need both in order for societies to advance.
SSCReader
1mo ago
inhumanity of the fact that two 'normal' people can't talk anymore about current events because of...all the stuff you just said
Setting aside whether she might get fired, it is entirely human not to want to talk to random strangers about things at your job. Being a neighbor is just geographical proximity. Even is she lived next door she may not want to talk to you about anything and that is very human. Especially if she can detect the disdain in which you hold her.
If you want her to act as you think a neighbor should then you need to make an effort to not judge her like:
"almost comically short and fat, like a cube. Her hair was greasy, thin, obviously unwashed, and would've benefited from a cut some months ago. She was curt, bordering on rude, asking what I wanted. When I told her I wasn't necessarily interested in ordering anything, but was very much interested in her thoughts on the 'strike' et al she gave me a stare that made a cow look intelligent."
Is this how you describe the people you want to form a neighborly community with? Is this how you talk about them? Never once in your vent did you speculate that your neighbor maybe overworked and underpaid, that she might be working multiple jobs, that she might have a point in what she did, that perhaps she picked up on your immediate reaction to seeing her. You described her entirely in a negative fashion. You called her a soulless NPC.
Why should she act like a neighbor to you? Did you act like a neighbor to her? You didn't even buy a coffee at the place she works, you went out of entirely selfish reasons and on the very first time you met her, asked her a badly thought through question. You didn't start with small talk about the weather or any of the other socially acceptable ways we have of building rapport.
If you want to have a neighborly community, then you need to start treating people like your friendly neighbors. Not treating them like sources of information to satisfy your curiosity, going into their place of business with no intention of buying anything. You admitted below you should have at least bought something, so that is a start. You skipped over a whole bunch of steps in the making friendly neighbors dance, and then are confused when she doesn't treat you like one.
When a guy moves in next door, he is not automatically your friendly neighbor you can ask possibly difficult questions to, because of geography, you have to build that relationship before you ask "Hey, your employer is having a labor dispute, what is the real skinny on that real quick?" You invite him over for a bbq, you ask if you can help him move in, you lend him your lawnmower, tell him where the best bar is. We have social conventions and rules and structures for a reason. They are crucial in building relationships.
So make up your mind, was she a soulless dumb fat cow? Or was she a neighbor you want to build a real communal relationship with? If she read what you said about her, do you think it is likely to make her want to treat you more like a friendly neighbor or less likely?
SSCReader
1mo ago
I was happy to buy a coffee and buy one for the employee, or one of her colleagues, for their candid take on current events. I am their neighbor, at least, on paper. This entire conversation is satanic.
Note that is not what you said in your OP! You never mentioned anything about telling her you were willing to offer anything in return.
"When I told her I wasn't necessarily interested in ordering anything, but was very much interested in her thoughts on the 'strike' et al she gave me a stare that made a cow look intelligent."
But you are not their neighbor. That implies they know you already. You are a stranger. A potential customer. This is their place of work, not a place to make friends. As an ex customer service worker myself I really want to stress this. People suck to deal with. The workers generally don't want to make friends with you. They want you to engage in the transaction that they are being paid for, so they can earn their money and go home. It is not their job to give you their take on current events about their business. Especially with the possibility their job is at risk.
If you want to reorganize society such that a Starbucks employee giving their honest opinion at work to a random customer, means they do not risk being fired for it, then go ahead and work on that, but note that still does not mean they have to engage with you on anything outside the service they are being paid to deliver to you. Your relationship is transactional. Nothing more. The barista is not your friend, she is not even an acquaintance. She sees hundreds of people every day. Some of whom are nice and some of whom are unpleasant. She likely just wants to get through her mind numbing shift as easily as possible.
If you want to talk to someone who is off duty and make that same offer, then you have a bit more leeway. They aren't on the clock, they are probably a bit more relaxed, not being measured by their productivity, not having other employees over their shoulder, so many customer service employees will be much more happy to give you the truth (though they may still be suspicious if you come across as a journalist in a situation where there is a national protest or something going on).
SSCReader
4mo ago
They don't even attempt to explain a through line from open borders, trans kids and censorship to living wages and health care for their base.
That's the error in your model. If you think supporting trans kids is good, or open borders is good then whether it costs money or makes money is not the relevant distinction if you are not a consequentialist.
Consider the evangelical wing of the Republican party, they were still pushing for further abortion restrictions even though much of the polling was showing that was a position that might cost votes. Why? Because they really truly believe that it is wrong, and they should not compromise on that even if it means losing. They are not utilitarian. But they did not hold enough power within the party to force that decision and so Trump backed off it somewhat. Pragmatism won there. De-emphasize and move away from policies that are unpopular.
Supporting kids who want to transition will not help the economy or help people with healthcare in general, in fact it will probably cost money that could be used in other healthcare. But if you think those kids need that help badly ,then you should do it (from this point of view to be clear!) even if it costs votes and/or money.
They are NOT being pragmatic, so if you try to judge them by that measure their choices will look crazy.
"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right. Even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye, and say, ‘No, you move.'”"
In other words currently the ideologues hold sway within the DNC. Usually in a political party you'll have wings that are more pragmatic and vice versa and the power will move between them. Often a defeat will cause a realignment. Like New Labour moving towards the center in order to get away from all the "Winter of Discontent" strikes in the past which doomed them electorally against Thatcher. Pragmatically (or cynically!) abandoning some core Labour principles in order to become more electable. But those wings don't go away (see the resurgence under Corbyn for example).
It's too soon to know whether this loss will allow a more pragmatic core of the DNC to maneuver into power. A lot will depend on who the next flagbearer (Newsome?, AOC?, Someone new?) is going to be, and what direction they decide to go. Right now things are still shaking out, but within the next 6-10 months we'll have a better idea. I think there is some early evidence it might, as the more extreme left is already complaining about Democrats not fighting back enough, and that the handover of power was straightforward and peaceful. That indicates that the adults at the table have some understanding that Trumps popularity is based upon actual positional support at least privately.
To be clear I think that political parties need to be pragmatic, a lot of my job back in the day was to advise them on what areas should be de-emphasized because public support was low, and I think that the Democratic Party is going to struggle once again in 2028 unless they are able to shed some of the more ideological components (though if the economy tanks that will still be the biggest factor).
The problem of course is it is often your most committed ideologues which are willing to volunteer significant amounts of time and effort to your cause. Keeping them on side while transitioning (hah!) to a more pragmatic approach can be tricky.
SSCReader
6mo ago
And how do they repay this generosity (remember, the hedge fund could just have summarily dismissed them which based on "these people have no idea how a domain controller works" basically seems like the right decision)?
It's not generosity, it is a business decision. The chances are these smaller shops have got some kind of weird IT kludge mess of stuff going on that only the people running it know how it works. You could fire them and bring someone else in but then they have to untangle someone else's work, which will take time, and money. Training someone isn't that expensive and allows you to hit the ground running from day 1.
That some of the employees will then leverage that training into a better job is just the cost of doing business. It's not a friendship it's a transactional relationship. The hedge fund wasn't providing training out of the goodness of their heart it was based upon the cost/benefit. They got 6 months of time where the IT person was keeping everything running, presumably starting to apply their new skills. The employee owes them nothing beyond the work they were paid for. And if the hedge fund can get someone else in for less than the IT person would stay for later it's a win win. They got through the transition period (which is the toughest part with all new IT staff, when assimilating a new company/branch) successfully.
Successful hedge funds aren't stupid, if they are using this model it is because in general it is maximizing the chances of success.
Nope: Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 51% supported Harris while 47% supported Trump. Gen Z men did go 55% for Trump though. Women went 58% for Harris. That is closer than it was in 2020 however but still not a majority for Trump in Gen Z, let alone overwhelming.
Though I don't think that would suggest they are indoctrinated into wokeness either to be fair. A basically 50/50 split wouldn't support that (or at least that things like the economy can override whatever woke feelings there are).
Edit - It actually seems to be closer to 54% for Harris and 43% for Trump depending on which exit polls you aggregate. Which doesn't change the argument much.
Probably with some introspection about why you feel violent disgust, so you can control that reaction I think. The below is my own interpretation and idea of the space.
The whole point of the space is I should want even (or especially perhaps!) the people I find violently disgusting to read what I say and want to respond to me so we can have a dialogue.
So if I am going to talk about something I find disgusting I have to take a distant view of it and try to be more dispassionate.
You'll note many people who catch repeated bans it's because they can't (or won't) disguise a seething anger that underlies their post. They aren't thinking first and foremost how do I write this in a way a progressive gay librarian (for example!) would want to engage with. They are writing from emotion first and foremost.
I could rant for days about the damage the Christian "brain parasite" does, and have in other places, but here if I post about it, it has to be with the idea I WANT Christians to read and engage. And calling their faith, something they feel very seriously about a parasite is not going to optimise for light over heat. It's starting an argument not a discussion. Its already a steep ask for them to try and discuss their own heartfelt beliefs with criticism, so my job is to try and make that as easy as possible for them, by trying to remove as much heat as I can.
I rewrite my posts usually after thinking if I were an X, how would i feel about the language being used to talk about the principles and actions I hold dear? How do I alter it so we can engage in a discussion not a fight? Try to put myself in the shoes of whoever I think believes the things I hate or find disgusting and edit my wording to offend them the least possible to make my point. I'm not always successful I don't think, but I have never got a ban or even a warning (that I recollect), so I think I get reasonably close.
You have to want to actually communicate with the people whose ideas you hate and find violently dusgusting I think, to get the most out of this space. But of course for most people they don't want to communicate with people like that. So not everyone is a good fit for what the space is supposed to be. If you can't at least pretend you WANT to engage with someone whose ideas you hate viscerally and are critiquing and make some effort to aid that, you'll probably be picking up Mod actions sooner rather than later.
Edit - spelling
SSCReader
5mo ago
Just by numbers most people in government posts are people who deal with the public and just want a job. Your description really only applies at management layers and above. Remember only a third of federal employees even have a degree let alone one in communications or similar, and many of those are in the Medical field as part of the VA and the like. Entertainingly USAID is the best counter-example with two thirds of its workforce having an advanced degree or higher! But that is not the norm across the Federal bureaucracy.
Your social security local office people are dealing with being yelled at by people losing their welfare and the like, they are VERY familiar with the lower/underclass and all their foibles and are probably not true believers in ideology as much as they are average workers worrying about making ends meet. Their direct managers will be as well. The local DMV is staffed by people from or close to the ghetto in fact here, so that wouldn't apply even for a lot of local government jobs. Remember most government jobs just by numbers are front facing. It wasn't until I moved to the higher echelons in the Civil Service I found all the politics and classics degree types.
From the point of view of the Federal government that would probably be the Senior Executive Service, of which there are about 9,000. If I were wanting to re-organize the Federal bureaucracy I would start with those 9,000 because they manage large projects and departments (basically the steps below political appointees) But of the sheer scale of the government in the US the vast majority do not appear to match your description.
In other words, the person most likely to take a government post is a non-degree having, neo-customer service worker, who (if you have never worked a customer facing job like that) will be very clear about how the rubber meets the road. Your Ivory Tower idea really only applies to a small minority in the upper ends of the government (but they are of course much more influential.)
SSCReader
11mo ago
Justice Jackson has already shown herself to be an unsophisticated jurist who simply votes for whatever seems Wokest,
I think, our ongoing series of Supreme Court analysis has indicated otherwise no? She has sided with the conservatives against the other liberal justices on multiple occasions particularly in criminal cases like the January 6th case.
Indeed she has been slightly less liberal than Sotomayor or Kagan:
" Jackson has voted slightly less liberal than the other two non-conservatives on the bench—59 percent of the time to Sotomayor's 63 percent and Kagan's 65 percent"
In fact to the extent there are op ed pieces about her not living up to expectations as a liberal appointment.
"Jackson, the most recent addition to the bench, joining in 2022, has surprised some since taking her seat on the Supreme Court. This term, President Joe Biden's appointee, and the first Black female justice, unexpectedly sided with her conservative colleagues on a number of cases, including Fischer vs. United States, a major case pertaining to January 6."
SSCReader
3mo ago
Black people are over-represented in knife crime (6% by population, 14% of knife crime) but that is mostly concentrated in London (47% of knife crime is by black people in London, 36% by whites for comparison), in most of England, particularly the North where the show is set, the vast majority of knife wielding offenders are from the almost entirely white underclass. About 70% of knife offenders are white throughout England. In the North that is likely to be well over 80% just due to demographics.
The UK is not the US, the difference in demographics of crime and the underclasses in general is much less pronounced and is concentrated in very different ways. And given most black knife crime is intra-ethnic, most white English people who have any contact with knife crime it is going to be with white offenders.
If you are white in England, the chances of being a victim of white knife crime is hugely higher than by black knife crime. 1) Because black people are only 6% of the population and 2) Because violent knife crime is usually intra-ethnic.
White people in England probably have no need to be freaked out by "POC violent youth" at all. Or really violent youth entirely. The homicide rate overall is a fifth of that in the US, and close to a quarter of what there is in a single city, where the bulk of both victims and offenders are not white.
SSCReader
7mo ago
I haven't changed my views, if anything I think the election results supported me. The gap between men and women did not change much at all, (11 points in 2016, 12 points in 2020, 10 points in 2024) The 4B thing is just signaling and will pass, I haven't heard a single woman I know in person mention it. Commentators can claim whatever they want, it doesn't mean they were right. Race, education and urban/rural are still much more important factors than gender. A white rural woman is much more similar to a white rural man than to a black urban woman in this regard.
Even among ages 18-29 the gap between men and women was smaller than in 2020. I don't think there is any evidence here that it is becoming more of a problem in other words.
SSCReader
8mo ago
Note the PA case is about undated/wrongly dated ballots, not ballots that arrive after election day. Meaning they wouldn't be counted if undated even if they arrive BEFORE election day, which is why it was being challenged. Because obviously you know that an undated ballot that arrives before election day was mailed in time. There has been significant debate about that clause in the law by Republicans when they were the ones expanding mail in ballot access to help rural turn out, when they were on the pro side.
Note that the US. Supreme Court may have overruled the PA one and allowed the undated ballots to be converted to provisional ballots for the November election:
SSCReader
6mo ago
Most of the perpetrators followed the "boyfriend" model. They ply vulnerable girls with alcohol, drugs, and attention (for why that is important consider the idea that strippers often have Daddy issues), and pretend to be their boyfriends, before pushing them into more and more extreme acts, initially with themselves. Then they use that, the "relationship" and threats against the girls and/or their family to pimp them out. Remember these are first and foremost prostitution gangs.
To the police jaded with contact with the underclass, contact with these girls makes them look like prostitutes. Ones with drug addictions, who sneak out to go to bars underage, and who given their backgrounds likely have behavioral issues as well. To the police they were criminals and scum not victims.
It was the perfect intersection of left and right blind spots, suppress it due to the race of the perpetrators, ignore it due to the perceived immorality (and class) of the victims. Remember this started in the 80's into the 90's when police approaches to rape as a whole was pretty unsympathetic, particularly for those who were in theory in some kind of relationship with the rapist.
Beat cops in that time frame were not a beacon of racial harmony, so the race issue only came into play when things began to bubble up to higher (and therefore more political levels).
SSCReader
11mo ago
Sure, DOAS might find it tasteless or even offensive, but what are they going to do about it--vote Republican?
Well, or not vote at all. My wife is both black and Black (ADOS, urban, poor family, raised by grandmother etc.). She dislikes Kamala and doesn't think she is Black. That doesn't mean she is going to vote for Trump though she does like some of his economic and America First politics, but has other issues with him, which she felt might be assuaged by a Black VP pick. But she is considering not voting at all. And she isn't that far from voting for Trump honestly, or a slightly less crass version of him at least.
I think you're looking at what progressives think (note Biden had to walk back his comment later), and mixing that up with what Black voters themselves think. And obviously as a disclaimer not all white progressives nor all Black voters are the same. But I was at a family cook out and most of them do not like Kamala at all. A couple of cousins mentioned thinking of voting for Trump and it certainly didn't get them yelled at.
So being Black is seen as a voting bloc by the progressives (hence why they see Kamala as Black) , but it is also based upon a real thing, an (almost entirely ADOS) shared identity that is indeed closer than whites in general in the US. In the sense that any random US ADOS black person is likely to be closer culturally to any other random US ADOS black person, than any random white American is going to be to any other random white American. The comparison would be in white sub groups, like Cajuns or Amish, or WASPS. There are simply more different white groupings that people can be raised in. Whereas the Black community, spread from a single source in the fairly recent past, and was built on a nearly blank canvas due to the loss of whatever cultures they already had. It would be amazing if white people were a similar singular cultural bloc given the histories and numbers involved. To that extent I think it is true there is a Black identity and not a White one in the US as it stands currently. Being a voting bloc is downstream of being a cultural bloc.
Now it is true that groups can be assimilated into this Black identity and most of these are going to be black immigrants (Caribbean usually, although that is also complicated, see differences between Dominicans ("I no black, I Dominican" ) and Jamaicans), though some white people can also, usually "white trash" (See Eminem etc.). And that richer, more successful Blacks tend to remove themselves (remaining black, but not Black), and their families. But the fact remains I think that a much more similar US Black community, does indeed exist in a way that a US White community does not currently. So it is not that Black identity is more important than White, it is that it exists in a way White does not. And largely that is a good thing for white people. A singular White identity almost certainly means that Cajuns, Amish, Mid-westerners, WASPS, Borderers, Southerners et al, have all had to have their unique white identities erased.
To recap, to the progressive movement Kamala is black and Black, but to many Black people themselves, she is merely black. There is a real difference they see there. And that is why Obama derived significant Black credibility from his marriage to Michelle. And why Kamala lacking that, may not push many votes to Trump, but may well reduce Black enthusiasm for her (and thus turn out). Though of course smart Black Democrats should be aware of this, so should be working on something to boost her credentials here.
SSCReader
11mo ago
Funnily enough, the single blind colleague I have ever worked with, asked for people to tell him their sex and a color of something they were wearing as well as their name. He said this helped him build a mental model of who was where in a meeting room and keep track of who was saying what.
This was over 20 years ago mind you, but perhaps it does help some blind people enough to have become a request/norm.
Before video conferencing was a thing dialing in via phone into a remote meeting was always a pain because keeping track of who said what was a trial. Unlike in a podcast, you're expected to interact back after all.
This may not be as unhelpful as you think in other words.
SSCReader
30d ago
No. Shame is a useful social tool, but it is not a precisely controlled spigot. Invariably some people will judge more harshly an activity that is judged to be problematic than you had planned.
Hate the sin, not the sinner, is a nice idea but we can see from history how it works out. Some number of people will hate the sin and the sinner and will act upon it in ways you do not like. We've seen it in Christianity and we've seen it with cancel culture.
That doesn't mean shame should not be used. Just be aware it is not a precise instrument. Some people who do the the shamed activity or are the shamed type, will likely suffer harm.
If you think x is bad then be prepared that some looney at some stage will murder a hooker or something and justify it through the same rationale you used to shame it. You may consider yourself slightly responsible. You may be right. As long as that is the cost you are willing to confront head on of your ideology then thats all you can really do. Social norms have to be enforced. Shame is a powerful tool in service to that objective. As with every tool evaluate the cost/benefit trade off before you use it.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Uhh, I would. Getting kicked in the balls is painful but it's not that bad. If that's what it took to have kids, I'd certainly at least have my current 3.
I got kicked and kneed in the balls playing rugby and football, why wouldn't I do it for something much more important?
SSCReader
9mo ago
The entire system is starting to collapse and as such nearly catastrophic systems failures are normal.
You've had assassination attempts on Presidents and much worse violence than this before back in the 60's and 70s and it did not lead to the system collapsing. And the economy was worse then as well. Maybe it is different now, but it's certainly something the US has been through before.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Assuming your definitions are accurate for the moment, Have you done the same in reverse? How many men in your pool meet the 9 basic criteria women would put on them?
For example if we assume women also have non obese in their preferences that filters out close to 30% of those men in one fell swoop, just like it did for women.
The pool for 9/9 women is 9/9 men. A man who only meets 2/9 criteria is going to be paired with similar women. The pool of 9/9 women is irrelevant to him and vice versa (in general).
On your modal outcome where 10 men are pursuing every 9/9 woman, well if 9 of them are not 9/9 men then most of your problem goes away. Their reach exceeds their grasp. They really do need to lower their standards to meet their own achievements. If all 10 are 9/9 men then yes you have a problem.
This is a pairwise function, not an independent one. You can't evaluate only one half of it.
You need to build the same estimate for number of single young men who meet the 9 basic criteria women have, then compare those two estimates. Of course for women their criteria may be different. For example if women prefer a man with some experience then their bodycount criteria may be 5-10 not less than 5.
Or to put it another way its irrelevant logically how many men in total are pursuing marriageable women. It matters how many marriageable men are pursuing marriageable women in this context. Non-marriageables have to be filtered out on both sides for the comparison you want to do. They are in their own pool together.
SSCReader
5mo ago
Except Tolkien's point is that no-one had the strength of will to do that. Not even Elrond, not even Gandalf. The ring could only be destroyed by someone not trying to destroy it but to possess it and destroy it by accident (or by divine intervention).
"Tolkien wrote that no one could have willingly destroyed the Ring, no matter how good their intentions were. He also wrote that the Ring was "beyond the strength of any will to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it"
Elrond would have rationalized why he should not push Isildur because he would not have the will to destroy it. Indeed, that might exactly be why he didn't! (well in the book they don't even enter Mount Doom so even more effort would have been required). Note that Isildur in the book is in fact on his way to destroy the ring when it betrays him and falls off his finger so he can be killed. But Tolkien is clear when it came down to it, no-one on Middle Earth had the will to destroy the ring.
Everyone will be tempted. Everyone will succumb at the end. Even the wise, even the pure. If you think the federal government is like that, then logically your prediction should be that Trump/Elon will not destroy it, but instead take it for their own. Or that Isildonald, heir of Fred and Elond of Tesla will turn against each other and in fighting over it, one will fall into the volcano and be lost with the government.
Hopefully in this analogy the volcano is not one of nuclear fire!
SSCReader
1mo ago
It generally corresponds with scale and culture, and is much more the case in
Absolutely it can I agree. But even in a small tea shop in the Cotswolds if you go in, and ask them how the labor relations are between management and staff, after saying you don't want to buy anything, I'm not sure you'll get much of an answer.
SSCReader
5mo ago
and black oxford shoes to work every day, NO exceptions,
Well now you've just lost me. Derby shoes are clearly the superior choice here because they fit a range of feet widths and sizes more appropriately. And are more appropriate to transition to a happy hour after work for that matter. Until the Ozempic has done its work forcing overweight people into Oxford shoes is I am sure against both the Geneva convention and general aesthetics! We should leave the torture for Guantanamo and/or whatever camp we have to open in Canada as the 51st state.
Plus you didn't specify the color of the suit and I will not be caught dead in black Oxford shoes with a navy blue suit! The youth of today are simply wrong on that front. And since pale skin looks better in a navy blue suit than a black suit, let us not discriminate against white people. Suit and tie is fine, allow either navy blue or black, perhaps even charcoal, but let's allow black or brown Oxford or Derby shoes. Let's at least leave some room for some sartorial elegance. We can leave the government Men in Black look behind behind us. No brogues though, I think we can agree on that.
More seriously black Oxfords with a black suit is very formal which means you have not much room (except a tuxedo) to dress up further for important meetings or events. So navy blue suits with a brown Derby shoe for day to day use, with a black suit and a black Oxford shoe for when you are meeting the President or pleading with DOGE or similar. Tuxedo with the Oxford (or perhaps even a wingtip if you are feeling like causing a scandal!) for when you make it to a White House gala. That gives you 3 specific "grades" of formality with distinct looks.
Luckily we do not need to consider what to wear to one of Diddy's White parties because a white suit is just gauche.
Why would you expect a random employee to answer you honestly on a question that is obviously contentious with her employer and may get her fired if you are recording her or from management? Your "just for fun" is her job, and for a working class person can be very precarious. Retail workers are not dancing monkeys, especially when you weren't even going to buy anything or tip her!
I'd say the fact she treated you professionally is more than you had any right to expect, given your approach. She may well have looked at you and was judging YOUR intelligence for asking such a question right there in the open.
Welcome to Starbucks - we hate people who ask questions that might get us fired (and aren't even going to tip), seems like an entirely reasonable position.
Honestly you come off as being very entitled here. Did you even consider that if she did answer you and was reported she might get in trouble or lose her job, or that she might worry about that? Would that be worth sating your desire for an anthropological survey, with absolutely nothing to gain for her? Heck anthropologists at least brought shiny beads to gift their subjects!
As for Starbucks itself, it's overpriced but the benefit is as with all chains that you know roughly what you are going to get. The little Ethiopian coffee shop down the road is probably better, but may not have such a broad selection, is much more variable and harder to find.
More options
Context Copy link