What should I do with my life?
fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
The most any advertiser can say to anyone is "this might give you pleasure, here's how to try it". The rest is up to you.
Look into some of the inventions by R. Buckminster Fuller. He invented a house that cost thousands, easily transported, made of aluminum, and sturdy, but it never caught on. Probably because he didn't spend time marketing it, but the mobile home and large home manufacturing companies did.
Evolution contradicts the desire for smaller. Consider Peacock tails, the longer they are and the fuller they are, the more likely they are to mate, because peahens like them -- even though rationally, they increase the likelihood of death to predator. Turns out the offspring are in fact stronger, because it takes a lot of strength to maintain those long tails.
Similarly, it takes a lot of "strength" to maintain a large expensive home and accumulate a lot of unnecessary stuff and the chicks dig it. A guy with a fast car, excessive spending, and flashy clothes will go home from the bar with a girl before the geek with meek clothes and spending way below his means -- even if he is 1000x smarter than the flashy guy.
It simply takes too long to evaluate intelligence and that increased time to analyze the male by the female means the males could die.
Thus, it is a mathematical certainty that the world will continue towards excessive shows of strength rather than the rational conservative opinion that leads to storage of wealth -- which usually only happens after a mate is found.
tl;dr -- The world will continue getting dumber.
It no longer takes too long to evaluate intelligence. But when our mate evaluation systems were being designed, there were fewer available dimensions to optimize over. A woman's opinion of a man's smell still correlates strongly with both her menstrual phase and their mutual genetic suitability.
It simply takes too long to evaluate intelligence and that increased time to analyze the male by the female means the males could die."
This presupposes that women are selecting specifically for intelligence - or, said slightly differently, that maximizing (rather than merely satisficing) for intelligence is a better evolutionary strategy. Is that true in practice?
When the law of large numbers takes over, it's all probabilities. Consider life itself, which are more numerous: Intelligent species or unintelligent species?
The same math applies to the human species itself.
What she prioritizes will be a combination of wealth, smartness, and other factors that will make her happy and her offspring "fitter", obviously often in a subconscious way.
Btw, I agree with all you are saying. I just thought I should support it, since even evaluating that someone is intelligent in our definition does not necessarily make them a good mate in the evolutionary sense.
Evolution contradicts the desire for smaller.
Or else it didn't catch on because people didn't like living in them. I assume you're talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_house
Evolution contradicts the desire for smaller. Consider Peacock tails, the longer they are and the fuller they are, the more likely they are to mate, because peahens like them -- even though rationally, they increase the likelihood of death to predator.
This kind of crazy peacock behaviour is the exception rather than the rule among animals, though, which is why peacocks are so noteworthy. If pigeons had vast feathered tails too you might have a point.
Similarly, it takes a lot of "strength" to maintain a large expensive home and accumulate a lot of unnecessary stuff and the chicks dig it. A guy with a fast car, excessive spending, and flashy clothes will go home from the bar with a girl before the geek with meek clothes and spending way below his means -- even if he is 1000x smarter than the flashy guy.
You sound very convinced that intelligence is what women should be selecting for, rather than being one of many traits that is nice to have in a potential partner.
Personally I'd work hard to live in a big fancy house and drive a cool fast car even if there were no women in the world, because I just like 'em.
We all like to think our personal likes and desires are entirely our own creation, but this is a fantasy.
Edit: the fast car you still might like, as it has utility (getting places quickly), but a house beyond a reasonable size has little utility beyond status.
Why yes, isn't that a great design? You don't even need to rationalize about what attracts a mate, you just like to do it by default, and most women just happen to be attracted to that by default also.
Certainly your chance of reproducing and passing down these default settings will be much greater than someone who has to rationalize about attractions, don't you think?
Evolution != bigger && stronger. If this were true, why aren't there still brontosaurus-sized creatures on land?
The truth is evolution selects the best adaptation for the specific ecosystem. Depending on the ecosystem, this could mean all sorts of adaptations, including more advanced intelligence and less advanced physical prowess, which is what happened with humans.
Your assertion that it takes too much time to evaluate intelligence is also not realistic. People spend years selecting mates, and there is nothing wrong with this. The average lifespan is 72-76 years and a good portion of that is fertile. We have plenty of time to select a mate and still have children to progress the genes.
Evolution is completely random.
There's something called the Matching Hypothesis in sociology that basically says people end up pairing with those on the same "level" (in whichever way that person's culture defines status). i.e. an 8 takes home an 8-ish from the bar, or rich guy gets supermodel. But most everyone ends up matching up with some one else, and flashy-guy isn't improving his gene pool by mating with brain-dead hottie, so I don't think nature is the culprit here.
(However, less educated (for simplicity, let's equate that to less intelligent) people do have a higher birth rate. So the world is getting dumber, but for different reasons! :) )
@euro, we need to work on changing cultural norms (more education, more sustainability, less consumerism) like you suggest in order to better the world.
I'd very much like to see us focusing on improvement of our societal and economical infrastructures (education, sustainability, personal growth, pursuit of happiness and purpose, medical & technological advancement, etc) than to stay victims of our "evil" infrastructures (overly influential political lobbyism, corporate en-slavery of its workforce, and greed/thirst for financial domination). But this isn't something that can happen until there are several societal shifts, and perhaps some cultural memory loss.
(Please note that my use of progressive and anti-progressive are apolitical references and should not represent actual values of political parties or interests!)
It's hard but it will happen eventually, or our species will die out before we get there, who knows.
on same topic: recommend you see the movie Idiocracy
In my experience, the people that work the longest hours waste the most time at work. Work expands and contracts to fill time.
It's the wrong way of thinking of course, but it's rampent.
And think about it this way... if a company was full of amazingly productive people who got 40 hours worth of work done in 20 hours, do you think they'd let them leave at 20 hours into the week but still pay them for 40 hours worth of work? No, they'll just find a way to double the workload to make even more maximization of their production capability.
I remember even reading about a company that years ago cut back everyone to 30 hours per week (with 3/4 pay) due to a recession at that time. They discovered that everyone was more productive at 30 hours and happier as well. Once the recession ended and the company was on more solid ground, they went back to 40 hours. Go figure.
37 signals doesn't keep office hours and I'm sure there are others out there. Just gotta keep looking.
There's nothing stopping you from doing all those things right now. It'll take a little creativity, but they've all been done already in various places so you've got a blueprint on how to do it. For my part, I'm more interested in working lots of hours on really fascinating projects, taking shelter/housing in different places while staying mobile, and so I've got different goals. But you can go after yours right now - nothing is stopping you, in fact, they've all been done before so there's already a reasonable roadmap on how you can do it.
I'm with ya all the way brother, just hoping to inspire people to reap the benefits of technology, and not get caught unwittingly in a rat race.
Trying to figure out the connection with this comment :)
Our system rewards timeliness over nearly anything else. Home construction companies bid on how quickly they can build the property while staying "on quality" and "on track." Therefore they're not going to let their blue collar guys work less hours per week. They want to churn out as many houses as quickly as they can.
This strategy of working less will only work for a select few, who have the nerve, smarts, and strategy to design a custom life that permits it. They'll have to be bold and push against the grain, and inform anyone they conduct business with how they operate. It won't be easy. And that alone will make it less likely that it will happen for a large number of people to do it.
Hmm, I think there might be some inherent bias here. These people were so interesting because Bronson chose the interesting ones (he says he selected 70 out of hundreds).
It's probably worth nothing that he used to do a lot of writing for Wired magazine (eg http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.12/hotmale.html ) and his second novel, The First $20m Is Always The Hardest, was about a startup ( http://pobronson.com/index_first_20_million.htm ).
His site has lots of excerpts and monologues worth reading (eg http://pobronson.com/The%20Cooks%20Story.pdf is totally awesome).
He's also has the distinction of being the author of my favourite novel. Here's the first chapter: http://pobronson.com/filth.htm (love that first line!).
Pointless anecdote: went to see him give a talk a few years back in London. I bought his new book, got him to sign it, and then whipped out my first edition hardback of Bombardiers that I picked up in Oz years previously. He seemed surprised(/touched) to see it, we had a little chat, and then he wrote a genuinely nice message in the book.
He's totally a class act.
Those are the only two books I've read that managed to pull off that style of satire. If anyone knows any others, I'd love to know.
How could you not keep reading after that?
also, the article can be read in one page here: http://www.fastcompany.com/node/45909/print print version tho :)
This approach excludes working on most social network stuff or things built on the top of it just for the sake of being another 'social' thing.
Cmon people, what's 'social' is happening behind the scenes in our lives, not in teh networkz.