the story was about an experiment that was done to test the effects of these same three personality types on a working environment (although they called the flake the slacker, and the heretic was a bit different ,as the depressive)
To do this they repeatedly inserted an actor who would display one of these behaviors into a working group and study the outcome - and groups with any kind of disruptive co worker ended up doing considerably worse on their projects. Also interesting, the other members of the group took on the traits of the actor... When he was acting a jerk, the others in the group became rude not only to the jerk but to each other. When he was the slacker, everyone else started slacking more also. And when he was the depressive everyone else became more depressed.
The only time the actor did not effect the groups performance was in one team where a particularly charismatic member was able to diffuse all situations where he was being a jerk.
In the arts, like in any field, you only get better by immersing yourself in it and it's hard to do that when you have to treat it like a hobby rather than a job.
Ask yourself what level of talent you would have right now if there was zero money in coding or designing software, and you just did it on evenings and weekends, when you were not working your full time job in retail or food services to scrape by?
There is just something disturbing to me about this idea that people should be suffering so that others can read better poetry on their comfy 100k tech salaries.
"Ask yourself what level of talent you would have right now if there was zero money in coding or designing software"
That's actually part of the reason why I find it so delicious that there are people outside of Computer Science that are hitting it big in Web and mobile apps; it's a validation that anyone can do the work of a CS grad just as anyone can write a novel or paint a picture; it just takes time and effort and acquiring skills.
I've heard this theory again and again and as someone who works in a (non-tech) industry where it is the norm for people at the bottom to work very hard for very little,while the bosses travel the world and live in huge beautiful homes, this does NOT seem to be the case in reality. Myself and my colleagues find it hard not to become bitter about it and to stay motivated to work hard. I only graduated 6 months ago but about half of my class has already become so discouraged by this system that they are thinking about - or already have- switched careers.
On the other hand, in my previous job the boss paid us As much as he could afford to ($17/hr, not bad for retail) and in his life was by no means rich at all. He drives a beat up car and wears second hand clothing. We all respected him so much and felt much more motivated to do well, and also felt like we were an actual part of his company and took it personally how well the company was doing. In my position now, and my colleagues agree, we feel totally cut off from the company and have no interest in how well a collection does (I work in fashion.)
Basically I feel like this theory only works if the CEO is overpaid and the workers are fairly paid. But in the end I think feeling part of a team is better for the company than feeling like you are in a tournament.
I would also like to add that 90k is hardly embarrassingly low. That is quite a comfortable wage that many people will never see in their life.
Your post reminds me of some statistical data I saw a while back that says that Americans have a very poor view on the actual economic status of those around them and the rest of the country.
An important factor is how much you feel in control of your fate (whether the control is real or imaginary is less important). Tech startups feel it's much more up to their skills and creativity to make it than a lowly employee working for the Man in a big bureaucratic multinational, even if statistically they have about the same chance. It's similar to why most people are more afraid of flying than driving, even though the former is much safer statistically.
This is so true. It would probably be safer to just leave it completely devoid of any human artefact and cross our fingers nobody goes there.
I can't really imagine any situation where our current civilization wouldn't go down there. A bunch of pictures of dying people and something buried in the earth? Sounds pretty tempting.
If the human race has persisted steadily enough over those 10000 years to have retained knoledge of our current languages, I doubt they would have let slide the knowledge of where the nuclear waste is buried.
I think the whole idea here is that a lot can happen in ten thousand years. Whoever is trying to go in there could be human or non human, could be advanced or primitive. Symbols are the best way to communicate in any of these events.
The dark ages happened between us and the Roman Empire, but we still have their language, creative works, etc. However we don't know where their military caches were. Some things survive for longer simply because people care about some things more than others.
Yes symbols are the best way to communicate and a giant skull and crossbones is going to get most people to think "hey that's probably not good", but then the curse of the Pharaoh didn't stop everyone.
I personally prefer booby traps for keeping people out, but I don't think rigging a shotgun to a door handle would stay dangerous for 10,000 years with that whole rusting problem.
At the same time, you shouldn't confuse a regulatory system that gives corporations whatever they want with socialism. If there was no crtc, they would already be billing this way. It's a lot harder for a free market to curb monopolies in Canada, as we are a vast and comparatively sparsely populated country. I would imagine the cost of setting up an infrastructure across the country for so few users would not be viable for a small startup company. If it were not for the crtc, bell would never ever have shared their infrastructure with smaller companies and the free market would have delivered us a monopoly for sure.
The difference between the government owning and the government not owning but controlling a corporate entity(s) are irrelevant to me. If anything, the government sets up the conditions for monopolies and oligopolies to exist.
> If it were not for the crtc, bell would never ever have shared their infrastructure with smaller companies and the free market would have delivered us a monopoly for sure.
It does, though. Faced with two options, one employee who is passionate about computers and has been playing with Photoshop since he was a kid, and one employee who took a "two week" course and obviously is just looking for a paycheck anywhere... Who would you chose?
Passion is nice, but it's not all it's cracked up to be. People who are "just looking for a paycheck" tend to be very interested in staying employed and are highly motivated to learn. We all like to talk about the person who only wants a job so they can survive while looking for other work, but we ignore that many of them realize they won't get another job, and their best bet is to do well in whatever position they can find and move up.
I'll take a steady, reliable, hard worker over a "passionate" precious and unique snowflake any day.
I'm not American and could be mistaken but I was under the impression that this 99 weeks plan was a temporary extension because of the recession. The idea being that while many, many fields may not be hiring now, whe. The economy is up to speed enough to start showing sizable changes in unemployment rates, those jobs will come back. But they are thinking one year may not be enough time.
Am I mistaken? Is the 99 weeks permanent? not that that would be bad - Ive known many on welfare... It's hardly a fun times free ride. And I have known many who have needed more than two years, after honestly trying many different avenues.
That's a sad way to approach a career. Really, most industries are an "underpaid ghetto" by those terms, especially for women.
Wouldn't any person be better off "psychically" to do a job they enjoy and are driven to pursue? I don't feel like the same person who is passionate about coding would neccesairily be so passionate about marketing.
They have protective associations that get them lots of pay for a smaller chunk of work.
All the professionals are well paid just for having a protected market: Doctors, Lawyers, Psychologists, Nurses, Actuaries, Accountants, etc. None of the work is particularly challenging - they are paid lots for their professional status and because they have associations that lobby and market the profession as a whole. They have standards bodies and certification boards and so on.
The reason for these things is to increase their pay. Pure and simple.
Then you have the blue collar workers who have banded together to fight for higher wages - this goes for both union and non-union. They are manly men who are unwilling to be shat upon and for that simple reason get paid more. They also get bonus money for doing jobs that are not prestigious.
Being a plumber is hardly challenging by MIT standards but a first year plumber rakes in cash hand over fist and has zero competition with India. Likewise for all construction related fields that are booming - especially in Canada. A first year construction apprentice working in the Canadian oil fields can make $100k in a year if they choose to. This requires no high school diploma.
Meanwhile the effeminate computer science dweebs get manhandled by MBAs into working unpaid overtime - reducing the pay of everyone in IT - not just themselves.
I'm also a woman and like iuguy (above) had difficulty figuring out what she meant. My best guess: By 'spending down capital', I think she means that if sex is used as a weapon, then every time you put out, you lose some of your power because the power you have comes from withholding rather than from satisfying -- which is a pretty grim view of the whole situation but I have known at least a couple of women who did apparently withhold sex in their marriage, which is partly what I am basing this inference on.
I did think she meant pregnancy and the myriad consequences tied to it when she talked about women being at a disadvantage to begin with and at risk of greater loss.
Certainly in the west, I think there's a world of difference between now and say 10-15 years ago. Within that timeframe of porn ubiquity (although I'm implying correlation not causation here) there's been massive changes in womens' rights and dealing with deadbeat dads, to the point where women can put themselves in a bad situation by getting pregnant, but can also put men in a bad situation too.
At the same time the rights of men have not changed with this, and in many legal systems there's an imbalance (e.g. the father has to make payments but does not have the same rights of access, that there are female DV shelters, but there's nothing I'm aware of in the UK for male DV victims, which is more common than you think).
I'm not saying this applies to all people in all cases, but just as the biological skew against women exist, there's a counter skew on the legal and societal side against men (for various values of $legal_system and $society).
I don't think it needs to have anything to do with deadbeat dads or the possibility of raising a child alone. Pregnancy is and will always be different for the woman. For one, she has to actually be pregnant for nine months and deal with the sickness and pains that brings. Then she actually has to give birth. Getting pregnant when you are not ready is a terrifying and a loss of your life and plans as you know them.
Yes, when you have the baby you adjust and are happy for it and yes in the future you can pick up your career again and try to juggle both. But when you are not wanting a kid yet, it's hard to think about it that way.
And abortion is not exactly an enjoyable alternative either.
I should add also though that if she does mean pregnancy, she is wrong. I would say AIDS pretty much leveled the playing field as far as sexual risk goes. Definitely scarier than giving birth.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/370/r... (it's the prologue if you want to listen)
the story was about an experiment that was done to test the effects of these same three personality types on a working environment (although they called the flake the slacker, and the heretic was a bit different ,as the depressive)
To do this they repeatedly inserted an actor who would display one of these behaviors into a working group and study the outcome - and groups with any kind of disruptive co worker ended up doing considerably worse on their projects. Also interesting, the other members of the group took on the traits of the actor... When he was acting a jerk, the others in the group became rude not only to the jerk but to each other. When he was the slacker, everyone else started slacking more also. And when he was the depressive everyone else became more depressed.
The only time the actor did not effect the groups performance was in one team where a particularly charismatic member was able to diffuse all situations where he was being a jerk.