Pages: 1

 

2009-11-17 05:52:29
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

Seth Godin wrote:

Some people are way better at this than others.

The other day, I was talking to someone about a complex and specialized issue. It's quite possible that this was the first and only time in the history of the world that this precise set of circumstances had ever occurred. He said, "do you have an example of how this has worked before for you?"

I was puzzled. I mean, not only hadn't I ever had this precise problem, but no one in the world had.

It's like the left-handed chiropractor in Berkeley wondering how he can use new technologies and marketing techniques wondering why there aren't more case studies about left-handed chiropractors in Berkeley.

Sure, the industries change, the goods/service ratio changes, regulation changes, names change. Doesn't matter. It's all the same. People are people, and basic needs and wants don't vary so much.

Put aside your need for a step-by-step manual and instead realize that analogies are your best friend. By the time there is a case study in your specific industry, it's going to be way too late for you to catch up.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog … alogy.html

Dismissing ideas because they don't have a direct correlation to something that has happened in the past is highly counter-productive. If we knew what was going to happen in the future, it wouldn't be the future - it is by definition unpredictable. The problem is as if not more likely to be solved by a method that hasn't been used before as one that has.
2009-11-17 07:25:19
Iconic Irony
Bare Back Rough Rider
+189|5563|San Angelo, TX
I can make a prediction of the future.

Time travel will never happen.  If it does, we would've been visited by future people, yet we haven't, so the future people cannot come back.  if by some cosmic mistake we do, and they come back they would be in a paralell universe and therefore would have no corolation to our past nor our future and such and event would cause the whole arguement, nay the whole continum, to cease to exist do to a irreversible breaking of an unbreakbale law.  Kinda like a left handed chiropracter in berkley finding out he doesn't exist, which would be impossible because to discover something means the discoverer must,  in fact, exist. 

Also, I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
2009-11-17 14:16:40
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX
Analogies are very limited, schooling these days seems to consist of little else and multiple choice answers.
I've been in enough situations at work where a kid has said 'OK I give up, give me the answer now' that its not funny, or applied entirely the wrong solution because its the only one they knew.
Fuck Israel
2009-11-17 14:20:46
Hakei
Banned
+295|6282

Iconic Irony wrote:

I can make a prediction of the future.

Time travel will never happen.  If it does, we would've been visited by future people, yet we haven't, so the future people cannot come back.  if by some cosmic mistake we do, and they come back they would be in a paralell universe and therefore would have no corolation to our past nor our future and such and event would cause the whole arguement, nay the whole continum, to cease to exist do to a irreversible breaking of an unbreakbale law.  Kinda like a left handed chiropracter in berkley finding out he doesn't exist, which would be impossible because to discover something means the discoverer must,  in fact, exist. 

Also, I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
But you're ignorant to how time travel works. It could be you in the body of your past with no control over what you're doing (just being a spectator) it could create an alternate reality which doesn't affect the past of the reality where you made the time machine, etc etc.

'They' said and predicted nothing would ever break the sound barrier.
2009-11-17 14:33:05
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6919|949

Who is dismissing what idea?  Of course it's stupid to blindly dismiss something because there is no direct correlation to something that has already happened.

Next topic.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Analogies are very limited, schooling these days seems to consist of little else and multiple choice answers.
I've been in enough situations at work where a kid has said 'OK I give up, give me the answer now' that its not funny, or applied entirely the wrong solution because its the only one they knew.
I think Steven Levitt touches on this in Freakanomics.  Something about how people in some cultures will sit down and try to figure it out for themselves and some will try for a few minutes, give up and ask for the answer.  I think it came down to how people were raised and schooled (environmental attributes), but I can't remember exactly.  Perhaps it's time for another reread of that book.

Hakei wrote:

'They' said and predicted nothing would ever break the sound barrier.
And that's the point.  I think it's a fairly simple concept to grasp that we have been unable to explain or achieve so many things in the past that dismissing uncertain events in the future is unreasonable.  I certainly don't need Seth Godin to tell me that much.  I probably figured the logic out behind that once I heard that people used to think the world was flat or that the universe is Geocentric.
2009-11-17 15:04:37
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85
private healthcare for fuckin one

bank bailouts

When there is an idea that is more right than the American government, almost every time at least one of the arguments presented is "look at x country".

If Turq was here this would be redirected at him. He used to pull this shit all the time. *sniff*
2009-11-17 15:08:25
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Dismissing ideas because they don't have a direct correlation to something that has happened in the past is highly counter-productive.
I agree. And I've noticed that too many people don't know the difference between causation and correlation because they instantly go looking for one and neglecting the possibility of the other.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-11-17 15:12:37
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6919|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

private healthcare for fuckin one

bank bailouts

When there is an idea that is more right than the American government, almost every time at least one of the arguments presented is "look at x country".
Has anyone offered a working private health care solution?  Dismissing an idea is not the same as saying it doesn't work in another country.  It's easy and important to look at what hasn't worked and what has worked in other circumstances.  I've seen your argument that an alternate system could work in regards to health care and bank bailouts, but you've never offered up your alternate system.  Until you give that out, people are reliant on past examples to highlight the faults and positives of a current system.  Come up with something and let's see how well it holds up to scrutiny.

The problem is the lack of explanation on those ideas that you perceive as more right than the American government.
2009-11-17 15:13:38
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX
Something about how people in some cultures will sit down and try to figure it out for themselves and some will try for a few minutes, give up and ask for the answer.  I think it came down to how people were raised and schooled (environmental attributes), but I can't remember exactly.
I think its experience and schooling, my schooling was moderately enlightened in that we were made to think about things in their wider context and as many alternate approached and solutions, whereas now its just a case of ticking the right box and getting the mark.
I also spent a lot of time fixing things and doing jobs with the minimum available tools and supplies - which is educational by itself.

For my sister a large part of her degree was multiple choice. She admitted if she couldn't answer the question she often worked backwards from the four possible answers to get to the question.
Fuck Israel
2009-11-17 15:16:50
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85
There is no "lack of explanation". The extent of the idea is there is no legislation. Entrepreneurs are the ones who should be deciding how healthcare is implemented, not the US government.
2009-11-17 15:27:33
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6919|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There is no "lack of explanation". The extent of the idea is there is no legislation. Entrepreneurs are the ones who should be deciding how healthcare is implemented, not the US government.
And how so?  How do entrepenuers deal with things like life-saving surgery?  Health professionals might (and do) feel that it is unethical to not treat someone just because they might not be able to pay.  There are factors that are in play that you may or may not take into consideration.  I don't know because you're not explaining how entrepenuers should decide.  Should the decision to treat a dying patient be left up to the board of directors at the hospital the patient is at?  The people should have no say in what they want from government regarding healthcare?  Entrepenuers don't run government, the people do (in theory anyway).
2009-11-17 15:33:25
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX
Healthcare is a different situation IMO, currently private healthcare in the US looks pretty shitty.
I'd rather not have decisions made about my health taken by someone who is going to make a profit if I die.
Fuck Israel
2009-11-17 15:39:49
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85
Do I look like the CEO of every healthcare-related company?

They can do whatever they want about, because it's their service. If they feel a moral obligation to give someone anything more than immediate emergency care (if that's even applicable depending on the type of firm) then no one is stopping them - but not one is forcing them too either. There is as much obligation to treat someone without cash as there is for a McDonald's to give a bum a burger.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The people should have no say in what they want from government regarding healthcare?
It's immoral for the government to be doing anything about it in the first place, regardless of what the people want. Of course that line of thinking isn't written into the Constitution, and people are going to vote themselves as much as they can (e.g. California). If you want a system that fucking works though, there are a lot of other problems a lot bigger than what we are or are not going to do about healthcare. My opinion in context of the situation is irrelevant because it carries no weight, same as yours.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'd rather not have decisions made about my health taken by someone who is going to make a profit if I die.
This is what is wrong with the system in general, not just related to healthcare. The mindset is "I could get fucked over if I don't have any money" not "If I make enough money I can have the best Western medicine at my fingertips."

You have to prove your worth before you can warrant any help. There is focus on the gimme, not the fair trade.
2009-11-17 16:08:59
BVC
Member
+325|6982
Analogies are a useful tool with which to explain something, but are only approximations, and its possible to pick holes in any analogy.  I find they're best suited for explaining technical matters, and things which aren't the subject of debate - thats when hair-splitting, misdirection and hole picking occurs.
2009-11-17 16:37:22
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6919|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There is as much obligation to treat someone without cash as there is for a McDonald's to give a bum a burger.
I wasn't aware that employees of fast-food chains take ethical oaths.  Let me know how that goes.  It's different (aka your analogy doesn't work).

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The people should have no say in what they want from government regarding health care?
It's immoral for the government to be doing anything about it in the first place, regardless of what the people want. Of course that line of thinking isn't written into the Constitution, and people are going to vote themselves as much as they can (e.g. California). If you want a system that fucking works though, there are a lot of other problems a lot bigger than what we are or are not going to do about health care. My opinion in context of the situation is irrelevant because it carries no weight, same as yours.
Haha it's immoral?  Really?  How is that?  My opinion carries weight because I pay into the social contract.  Of course it is unfortunate that we can't pick and choose what parts of that contract we want to buy into, but that's the price of living in such a complex society.  Sure there are bigger problems with our current system of government.  I complain about them all the time.  I'm just not ignorant enough to leave the decisions to one faction of society ("the entrepreneurs").

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This is what is wrong with the system in general, not just related to healthcare. The mindset is "I could get fucked over if I don't have any money" not "If I make enough money I can have the best Western medicine at my fingertips."

You have to prove your worth before you can warrant any help. There is focus on the gimme, not the fair trade.
No, the idea is to plan for the worst and hope for the best.  You prepare safety nets in case of the worse-case scenario, but strive for the best-case scenario.  The problem is that there are always going to people who seek to take advantage of whatever system is in place.  At what point have you proved your worth to society?  Or is it ok because your dad proved his worth so you are allowed to ride on his coattails until an arbitrary time at which you must prove your own worth?  It's not as simple as you think it is.

I think that we as a society often come up with expedient solutions that aren't always the best (and many of these expedient solutions create a legacy that is detrimental) for society.  I just don't think the solution is a new system, I think the solution should be a retooling of the current system.
2009-11-17 17:37:22
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I wasn't aware that employees of fast-food chains take ethical oaths.  Let me know how that goes.  It's different (aka your analogy doesn't work).
The people who cut checks to doctors do? Maybe the doctor is ethically required to something in the event of a medical emergency in public - as anyone with food would be expected to do when presented with someone who is literally inches from starvation. What if the doctor isn't paid to show up in the emergency room? He knows that people in dire medical need will doubtlessly be looking there for medical attention, medical attention he could provide. Isn't he ethically obligated to help there as much as possible, regardless of what they are paying him?

In both cases people with the resources to satisfy basic human needs are asked to give them up without compensation. The analogy is solid.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Haha it's immoral?  Really?  How is that?  My opinion carries weight because I pay into the social contract.  Of course it is unfortunate that we can't pick and choose what parts of that contract we want to buy into, but that's the price of living in such a complex society.  Sure there are bigger problems with our current system of government.  I complain about them all the time.  I'm just not ignorant enough to leave the decisions to one faction of society ("the entrepreneurs").
It's immoral because the government has no right to dictate what I can or cannot do with myself or my resources, so far as it does not preclude the integrity and safety of the social contract.

Can you provide any examples of your influence? Any possible way that what you think carries any weight? Not who you vote for, that's you supporting what someone else thinks.

Anyone can have a plan and a motive. You choose whether or not you belong to the group of decision makers, as opposed to now where a whole bunch of other people have to agree that you belong in the group of decision makers.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No, the idea is to plan for the worst and hope for the best.  You prepare safety nets in case of the worse-case scenario, but strive for the best-case scenario.  The problem is that there are always going to people who seek to take advantage of whatever system is in place.  At what point have you proved your worth to society?  Or is it ok because your dad proved his worth so you are allowed to ride on his coattails until an arbitrary time at which you must prove your own worth?  It's not as simple as you think it is.
The safety net in this case is not a personal contingency plan; it is making sure that no matter what you do, you will be taken care of. That is ridiculous. There has to be risk-assessment in your life as there must be with anything, but asking someone else for their shit because of your decisions is not a valid plan B.

My parents chose to develop and support a child as they saw fit when they had sex. That was wholly their decision, not mine.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I think that we as a society often come up with expedient solutions that aren't always the best (and many of these expedient solutions create a legacy that is detrimental) for society.  I just don't think the solution is a new system, I think the solution should be a retooling of the current system.
Until society accepts one creed through and through, it is going to be mired in inconsistencies and inefficiencies. It will continue to be a clusterfuck of career politicians and an analytically void populace that viciously disrupts purposeful pursuits in favor of social indecision disguised as "debate".
2009-11-17 19:33:22
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

Ken-Jennings wrote:

There is as much obligation to treat someone without cash as there is for a McDonald's to give a bum a burger.
However if a bum hands over cash he expects a burger in return, with healthcare you hand over cash and hope.
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard