anon1m0us

> But its also true that we somehow raise girls to be more sensitive to societal expectations than men.

Is that true? I don't accept the claim at face value.

This article is about a term, "Emotional Labor" being used more broadly than the inventor of the term appreciates. She thinks it waters down the impact of the word.

Her definition of "Emotional Labor" is most succinctly: Work performed with the intention of creating a feeling. Additionally, it's important in such roles that you manage your own feelings: You might need to be nicer or less nice in your role than you're typically comfortable with.

Her examples are social workers, teachers, flight attendants. It might also be a clown who is paid to make kids feel happy at a party even if the clown is really sad that day.

The inventor of the term wants to be clear that there is no gender specificity to it and that it might be a tool used by the feminist movement to classify work mostly done by women as emotional work because women are emotional, but that line of thinking shuts down conversations about emotional work that apply to all parties involved regardless of gender.

We do know the probability life appears is non-zero though, because it has happened. I don't know why all 9 steps to colonization can't be considered improbable, and therefore the filter be behind us and in front of us.

We don't even know all the steps between "Step 8: Where we are" and "Step 9: Colonization." Maybe a moon is required for it. Maybe materials not found on this earth are required for it.

I think we as a species have decided that colonizing Mars is possible. It might not be probable, but we can do it. We know how, we just haven't yet.

Humans just might be the first intelligent life. If the Milky Way was already colonized, some civilization made the first leap to another planet.

It's manifest destiny. We have to colonize the universe. It's our moral duty as an intelligent species to maintain awareness of the universe.

I have first hand experience with near overdose. It was after a late shift. I was at Denny's with a friend for a couple hours. The waitress would bring a cup, I'd drink it, then she'd refill it.

I got home. Feeling ... not very good at all. My friend was worried. Maybe you had too much coffee? Call poison control.

That's crazy! ... Okay, I will.

"I think I might have OD'ed on coffee, is that possible?"

Agent: How much did you drink?

Me: I don't know was at Denny's for a couple hours or so, constantly drinking refills, maybe 14 or 15 cups?

Agent: That'd do it.

I waited out the night. Body felt incredibly tired after a full day of work, but my brain absolutely would not fall asleep.

It was a horrible experience. You definitely can OD on coffee.

People who drink more coffee might eat less food. When I get any kind of craving at my desk, first thought is pull a shot. For some it might be, grab a snack.

What you and the GP are saying is completely in line with the lack of experience in the system needed to teach high aptitude students. Some blame the problem partly on No Child Left Behind, which said everyone needs to pass, but said nothing about those who are well beyond passing. But I think it started way before that. I went through a lot of the educational options, that were later discovered to not work so well. Many are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_education I was tested in 1st grade and the school system said I should go to 2nd, but my mother didn't allow it. That was a mistake. Same thing happened in 8th grade. This time, the school system wouldn't let me progress. I have recently learned this was bad for both me and society, unfortunately.

Likely you and many others here and elsewhere as well, including children of those reading this, which is why I write it. If you have a gifted child, promote them! Learn about their needs and get them the educational resources they and society deserve.

The problems you both mention are the result of forcing gifted students to follow a mass education system. Evidence shows that such students should be in an IEP (Individualized Education Program). Many times, the gifted students also have problems with anxiety, depression, social isolation which makes them what's called "Twice Exceptional" students. Such students are written off, like you were, because teachers can't comprehend why such a bright student would struggle.

Such students are also misdiagnosed with ADHD, aspergers, anti-socialism, etc. A poignant distinction between giftedness and aspergers I just read recently is that the aspergers student is a social outcast and has no idea. The gifted student is a social outcast and feels terrible about it.

I think it's a huge injustice. The minds and capabilities of our brightest are a gift to our society and we are letting the treasures waste away.

I've been struggling a lot lately with a lot of issues and re-discovering the problems gifted people have in society has helped me put it back into perspective. What I and you and probably lots others are experiencing aren't the result of something being "wrong" with you, but rather perhaps too much of a good thing can be a bad thing?

For more info:

http://www.sengifted.org

https://www.sengifted.org/post/can-you-hear-the-flowers-sing...

http://www.stephanietolan.com/gifted_ex-child.htm

http://www.metagifted.org/topics/gifted/adultGiftedness/

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/gifted_adults.htm

http://www.giftedservices.com.au/adults.html

What you argue for actually is the case now. Repair labor is not taxed. In the USA, no services are taxed at all, which is itself a problem for discussion.

However, there are sales taxes that tax purchases of material goods.

I think we need higher sales taxes with rebates for taxes paid up to $20-30k per year to eliminate the burden on the overtaxed, plus add services taxes to doctors, lawyers, accountants, even programmers.

It already does work that way. There are countless zwave and zigbee products out there from companies who don't want data centers. And there are lots others that are Alexa compatible.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been listening to two people talk to each other and they both have no idea what the other is saying.

I'll understand both people and know that the response doesn't follow what was just said by the other person, but then the other person will respond in kind with something equally or more ... non sequitur for the lack of a better word.

Then I think, "How many times have I, myself, been in such a conversation?"

How much of what someone is saying to me do I think I understand but really didn't? How many times has someone said to me, "You aren't understanding what I'm saying." and I say, "No I get it!" But I don't.

And then what do I do in that situation? I used to say stuff like, "Wait a minute, you are talking about Looper and you're talking about Inception and you both think you're talking about the same movie."

But then I just decided to let them talk and not worry so much about miscommunication. It seems like such a high percentage of communication that I realized it doesn't really matter. Talking to someone isn't about communicating ideas, it's mostly about the comfort of having someone to talk to.

Likewise, podcasts, youtubes, etc are more about the background noise than they are the content.

People just don't want to feel alone.

> It seems it's a much safer/cheaper/simpler/reliable option to purchase a vehicle ...

And also much worse for the environment. If you convert an older car, you save all the energy and pollution it takes to make an entirely new vehicle.

Why wouldn't something like this crate engine be great for a Prius? The Prius has a 90hp ICE. Replace that with a 110hp crate electric and now you have more power in a 100% electric vehicle.

Your reasoning assumes people don't skip steps in the process of learning things. There are cliches to support my case. "Only knows enough to be dangerous" "More dollars than sense"

That itself is dangerous. You're basically discouraging someone from offering advice to the general public because you think the knowledge is generally known, but that's just not the case.

I have a general idea of what I'm doing but reading that comment changed my perspective of what is and isn't dangerous in a car and those dangers shift from ICE to electric.

Frankly, I'm glad he opened my mind to the ideas.

It's not illegal to destroy someone's privacy but it is illegal to destroy someone's property. As odd as that is.

I wonder if there might be a loophole by which one could make all their private information classed as "trade secret" and then divulging any of it or snooping into any of it would be against the law.

Slate is suggesting trade deals are responsible for more job losses than robots and therefore Yang is full of it.

However, the last sentence says, "By prophesying imaginary problems, you ignore the real ones."

But finding reasons people are losing jobs not due to robots does not mean robots aren't taking jobs.

It's a mathematical fact that robots are taking jobs. Container ports are being automated and hundreds of longshoremen are laid off at each port. Robots in factories.

At the end of "American Factory" (spoiler) coming...

the solution to the problem of "lazy" American workers was, you guessed it, replacing them with robots.

It isn't just factory work either. It isn't just blue collar work. The internet and technology and automation is replacing absolutely everyone.

There will come a day when it'll be almost impossible for a human to find work. I believe companies will just stop hiring them. Pretty much all the "human" work will be done by independent contractors who will be able to command very high salaries.

The article mentions how low wage truckers will drive the trucks in the cities, but I don't think they'll be low wage truckers. I remember learning about river captains who are flown out onto large ships when they need to navigate up river. They're experts and command very high wages to move the ships. It takes much experience to learn now to pilot ships through shifting river bottoms and curves.

I don't think it'll be cheap when we need humans to take over.

I'm certain we can predict the future. We do it all the time without noticing or accepting that we are. We are so good at it, we are disappointed when we are wrong.

I think we actually predict the future correctly more often than not. The question isn't, can we? but rather, to what resolution can we?

Think about it from a Dunning-Kruger perspective. The more you know about flying, the worse you think you are. The pilot is an expert and very experienced. He knows what he doesn't know.

He's acknowledging that even with all his experience, he could be wrong -- but clearly he wasn't.

I can't imagine ever choosing RoR for a safety critical system.

You weren't dumb, you were ignorant and ignorance can be overcome and more likely so if you are high IQ. In asking, "why can't you do x?" what they were really saying was, "I know this child has the capacity to understand this material but I don't have the power to help them do that." It wasn't about you. It was about them.

Children don't understand that. Children internalize everything. They blame themselves and you blamed yourself.

No! It's not bullshit. It is a measurable human trait that is correlated to a wide range of life outcomes. It might actually be the most correlatable human trait there is.

Yes, some of those life outcomes are good and some of those life outcomes are bad. That doesn't make it bullshit.

What it most often means, if you have a high IQ, is that you have a choice and more often many choices, because you can see more choices and it's overwhelming and it's easy to give up and say fuck it all this is bullshit and SWE (I am so embarrassed to say I had to look up SWE even though I am a software engineer and one of the SWEs was smoke weed every day, ha!)

Which brings me to my point! If you have high IQ, you can be a SWE or SWE.

You know what I mean??

IQ is not bullshit, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient to make your life better or save it.

The article exactly mentions that anxiety and depression are amplified in folks like yourself. You have to overcome them to use your pseudo-superpower to save the world... or not, who knows is it even worth saving? idk

Compound the extra psychological difficulty you face with the improbability of finding someone who understands you, with the counter-intuitive understanding of your situation as desirable by everyone less smart than you are, you're so lucky, I wish I was as smart as you, "no you don't, but you wouldn't understand" ...

It sets you up for a very lonely life. Isolation can lead to insanity.

What I'm trying to say is: What you are experiencing is normal for someone like you.

BTW, what's a SWE?

Social systems, like kindergarten, can tell if someone is smart or average or very not smart. Society generally only tests those at the outer boundaries to verify and classify them into groups.

You're right, someone who seems average (or totally unknown to social systems), but is actually super genius, might not get tested. It's the "genius in the rice paddy" argument and yes, those exist. Srinivasa Ramanujan was one.

That doesn't mean IQ is fundamentally flawed. You don't need to know if someone is 99th percentile or 99.0004 percentile to know they are probably the smartest in the average room of a hundred people and that's what we use IQ to determine.

What would you say are some of the things that helped the most? What did you practice? What did you study? How did you study? Reading? Watching?

Yes. Actually. In a way.

Every organism since the first one has been focused on its individual survival. Interested only in the propagation of its own DNA.

And yeah, humans are still doing that. Everyone who took that path. Everyone who keeps taking that path of survival of the fittest.

We need to start thinking of the survival of the all of us.

Someone has to take it upon themselves to put a sign there saying, "STOP! Habitat Restoration in Progress. Please choose another path."

And that's just it. Humanity has carved a path that says, "Make as much money as possible with the least amount of effort."

These machines have taken something we already know is bad, the 90 day, quarterly earnings cycle, which had already obliterated our long-term thinking down to nanoseconds and we want it even shorter.

We have machines moving virtual money around corporations that use money to move real material around the earth -- and beyond.

That is the path we are on right now in this very moment.

Who is going to put a sign up saying, "STOP! Humanity Restoration in Progress. Please choose another path."

You've got me thinking. I noticed something similar about another blue collar youtuber from BC. A tree feller, named Buckin' Billy Ray.

They're both happy-go-lucky with a sprinkle of resignation. I didn't know what AvE did for work and was curious what kind of career would require someone to know so much. I imagine now, from what you said, he must be the guy who keeps all the tools working.

They are both incredibly confident and self-assured. AvE can fix anything and Buckin' Billy Ray can cut down anything.

I see what you mean too. I trust both of them. I know they will do a good job and that's critical in their line of work, because if they don't, someone might die.

Oh, well then that's the person who didn't fence the area to keep everyone out.

Babysitting does improve home life.

I absolutely love the knowledge he shares with the world. I wonder why he delivers the way he does. He's a character. Sometimes I wish I could get the knowledge without the character.

The ultimate problem here with all these startups like this is the financial strategy.

That strategy is precisely: Get big fast. That means hire a bunch of engineers, build out an expensive infrastructure, consume a lot of office space. Sell.

Nowhere in that strategy is: Earn a lot of money. Do it cheaply.

The VC world doesn't care about earnings. They don't care about profit. The value of a business to VC only comes when it is sold to someone else. You don't need something really good to sell it to someone else. You just need someone to believe it is worth the amount of money you want to sell it for.

The problem with that strategy now is that the public is wising up to them. We ain't your fool anymore VC. Go home.

Yours is the only correct answer. Who made the decision?

Answer: All of them.