Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

I wished I did a trade, but at the time my father didn't want his children to do blue-collar work like he did. At least I paid off my student loans when I got my lame piece of paper. Many years later and those in the trade make more than I do, ugh....lol.

 

As a Journeyman in the Operating Engineers Union Local 12 in SoCal. I will say, I get paid well, and you can look up my hourly wage under our MLA. It's not a 9-5 job and definitely not for everyone, but is very rewarding seeing the BIG projects (LAX, Purple Line, Oil Refineries, 405 Freeway, etc) you worked on years later completed.

As one foreman stated years ago at the conclusion of the morning safety meeting, "Gentleman, we are building America one piece at a time, take pride in your work and do your best".

 

Yeah, but even the concept of postgrad in the U.S. is becoming (or has become) purely the chase of money. For a bit I was getting my shit in order to go back and get a Doctorate in the teeeeeny field of Design Science. There was a bit of DARPA funding floating around for research support and a fledgeling program at a local university (but by no means small). So I met with the department head and proposed a few research tracks where I thought I could support novel research. I was quickly met with the proposition that in order to get to "that place" I'd need to spend 2 years getting an MS in CompSci and publish about a dozen papers per semester (?????), just to be competitive with any of the current PhD candidates so that the department's citation numbers would support increased funding. Oh, and the CompSci degree would be 100% on my dime.

So, 2 years $$$ for another MS degree while pumping out garbage papers just so the Dept can fluff citation metrics to DoD/DARPA, with not even the slightest guaranty that I'd actually be selected to work on funded research? WTF? And thirsty kids are clawing for those opportunities with lord knows how much accruing student debt.

 

I'm probably in the minority thinking education can also be purely for enjoyment inasmuch as, y'know, to do the world around you good, but if anything moving on to an MSci program and seeing how often people really just publish, PUBLISH, PUBLISH! without any real heart in it or abusing students' desires to get ahead in the game (and the way this works it does seem gamified) by making them write whole papers and leaving their names out did more to kill my love of academia than any single thing else.

Not to mention all those bullshit seminars that are really meant to look good on paper and put some cash towards a new car or hookers for a select few, very seldom are they that are genuinely helpful in furthering your skills or inspiring people to pursue knowledge.

I'm not necessarily anti-capitalism but rotten jizz like this makes me hate the system. I can only name a few real geeks in my field who really live in their research and I kinda envy them for the passion they have because I cannot begin to imagine how much they've had to endure to get to that point.

 

Maybe even only 2. Plus the lifetime senate appointments and the fact that less than 40% popular vote can get you a big legislative majority.

 

Lifetime Senate appointments is not great, I agree. But I like our multi-party parliamentary system. Look at where we’re at right now- a minority govt with other parties holding the balance of power, which means the govt actually has to cooperate and compromise with other parties to a degree to get shit through parliament. There are actually 4 parties right now that have some level of influence, but there’s no massive gridlock in getting shit done. Yeah it’s not perfect, and too much power has been consolidated in the Prime Minister’s Office, but I like it a heck of a lot better than some of the alternatives.

 

The system does work better with a minority govt, agreed. But you have to admit that having massive conservative or liberal majorities who actually represent less than half of the people in the country is a tad bonkers. The only issue with minority govts is the spectre of confidence votes which turns things into a pissing contest.

Do not mind multiparty system just not a fan of the way it’s implemented here.

 

Well the spectre keeps the govt in line somewhat doesn’t it? Again, not perfect, but it’s ok. Actually the only time that majorities piss me off is when it’s the Conservatives. Since over 50% of the popular vote generally goes to center-left or left leaning parties, it doesn’t really make sense to give the Consevatives a majority. But the parties in Canada are not really that far apart either TBH. But people get all worked up and act like they are. The parties are actually closer to the center than they will admit or that others think they are (at least the major parties are).

 

Have you considered college overseas? Even with international student costs, it costs quite a lot less than $40k a year in places like Germany or Australia.

 

On the subject of trades, my father just retired from Chrysler this year. He worked as a mechanic after dropping out of engineering school at Michigan tech. Eventually he got tired of doing manual labor for no money and became an apprentice toolmaker at Chrysler. 10 ish years ago he became a programmer for metrology at an assembly plant (they needed someone who knew machine tooling and basic computer programming, so he was perfect), eventually becoming the head guy in that department. When he retired he was making well over 6 figures with no college degree.

Despite the narrative we've been fed that you have to go to college to be successful, it's just not true.

 

@Tachikoma : I hadn’t but this is a good thought also. I’ve known people who have gone abroad for professional degrees for various reasons including $, but not for undergrad.

 

“You can’t use reason to talk someone out of a position they arrived at without using reason”

-Neil de Grasse Tyson quoting someone else while talking about people who are anti vaccine conspiracy theorists.

But this is also why you can’t ever change another person’s mind about a political view. Because most people’s political views are informed almost entirely by emotion. So political conversation gets nasty because it’s not a discussion and when people are confronted with the lack of reason in their views they just get more emotional to safeguard them. They have these views because they bring good emotions. And this is something they protect instinctually.

 

Yeap, best not to f**k with a person's goddamned faith in humanity sometimes... even if it doesn't make any damned sense.

Most people's political views are not actionable on their own anyway. We're all just seeing what we can from our respective positions in the world. But then... that's why we gotta talk. I consider that to be part of the responsibility of being an adult. To try and interpret reality as best as you can and actively retain the ability to talk about it productively. You've got a mind, and it's not just there to serve you. It is all of humanity's best and worse attribute. A powerful tool for many different means.

The other part is the balancing act. Grown ups take care of themselves... tend to their emotions so that the things they say and do count for more in the scheme of possible outcomes. Also tells you when to hold and when to fold. Easy to lose sight of that when an emotional need is not properly met. They're like muscles. Sometimes you need to go home, get some protein, and relax. Gotta disengage sometimes, just let it hang out, so things you're probably missing can better come into view. This goes for the person on the other side. Catch someone at the wrong phase in that cycle, and you might as well hang it up for a while. There's a lot of stuff coming at us all of the time, you know? It can be overwhelming. A little respectful distance goes a long way later, when energies are less scattered and things don't have to be so compartmentalized.

A big thing I find when discussing important stuff that people have strong, emotionally-rooted views on... you are NOT going to change that point of view with just one conversation. Or maybe even 10. Sometimes it takes YEARS for a person to truly change their mind on something. No point in grandstanding for a blowout that forever closes that door. People are never as simple as they seem. Behind every deeply-rooted idea is a pile of experiences you are not privy to. A person's ideology sprouts from the very core of who they are. If you think you know why, you're the irrational one. You've skipped about 30 steps in getting to the bottom, over-extrapolating. It's no wonder people get offended by this approach.

I think this is a major shortcoming of internet comment sections. Often when clashing viewpoints meet, the people involved don't know each other, and probably will only ever have that one conversation. It's simply never going to be enough. I think people sense that and get really pushy. Because unlike many conversations in the real world, there is no coming back to it later. It's get it across now, or never. And goddammit, this stuff is important! MUST CHANGE MINDS HUUUUURRRGGGHHHHH.

To me, even if your point of view is factually-rooted, this isn't a good path to rational discourse. No meaningful debate or dialectic in there.

A little empathy goes a long way sometimes. We all have things we feel strongly about. Humans aren't beacons of rationality. And that's the thing about being irrational. It never makes more sense than it does to you. So sometimes you've got to try to take the long way around. Let them talk, try to get the person comfortable saying how they feel. You'll start to understand where it comes from a little better, which empowers you to ask better questions. With a lot of patience, sometimes you find that thing to say that's just right to get them re-examining things on their own. Some small inconsistency... the potential thread that slowly unravels the whole thing when gently tugged. You've found the question they can ask themselves, but can't fully answer. This spurs reflection. In the moment it's not much, but maybe a week or two later, you can have a slightly different conversation, with barbs put away.

It's all a crapshoot, but these things are possible. I know this just by watching how my own mind changes and how interactions influence me personally. If I can change my mind about things, other people can too. It's just that it tends to be a long, organic process.

I'm reminded of dealing with my late schizophrenic uncle. The man was as brilliant as he was lost within himself. Prone to paranoid delusions of entities ranging from humanoid, to inanimate objects, to simple geometric constructs. But the thing about his delusions is that the logic is not self-consistent. So what you do to draw him away is not to question exactly what he's saying. You never hit the delusion head-on because it killed his trust, you're now entangled in it, in his mind. What you have to do instead is ask enough to get a picture of the logic, and innocuously present a scenario where it obliviously falls apart. When you succeeded it was amazing how quickly he could come around to regular conversation "Oh... wait it doesn't make sense. That's not real, is it?" "No, Blake, I couldn't see or hear any of it."

The whole basis of my thinking is that if someone's logic is bad, there is an internal path that will lead them to confront it naturally. There comes a point where it just doesn't work, for THEM. But to know where that point is, you need to try to understand them... more than they need to understand you. The latter is off of the table if there's something they aren't even seeing within themselves. It's just unfortunate that this often takes time we don't have. And then there's the simple fact that we are naturally inclined to protect certain parts of ourselves from others.

 

NEWSFLASH!!! Blame anyone you want, protesters, celebrators, Guvernmentz, this virus whether you think it's a BIG deal or not, will not go away unless everything is locked down for some time. Like it or not to achieve that will probably require martial law...

 

That's probably the unfortunate reality we are butting up against right now. It's been nerve wracking here in south FL. Even now, a lot of people aren't seeming to recognize that we are actively on another spike. It was a given... reducing restrictions during a plateau is like loosening on the rope in a tug-of-war stalemate. You're gonna lurch forward, and with bad footing probably fall flat on your face.

Holidays are coming up. I wonder how many people are planning on being careful with their gatherings.

The problem with lockdowns in the US is that even if you force people to follow them, it's not economically sustainable. And once you loosen things enough to let that breathe so life can somewhat continue, many of those same people who were forced into the lockdown will continue eschewing reasonable precautions. It may even embolden them.

I think the best way forward right now is going to be a balance that can be sustained for say, 6 months. That's too long for constant lockdowns, though strategic ones may work well. Maybe travel restrictions. We also know what sorts of locations tend to get hotter. They will need tighter restrictions.

It's back to that r-value game. We are on steep exponential curves across the whole country now... not enough is being done to reduce the viral load in public spaces. One way or another, if measures aren't taken to reduce transfer, it will inevitably climb at an increasing rate.


We are SO close with the vaccines now. Some good ones are past phase 1 safety trials, even approaching the end of phase 3, which means we will likely have at least one safe, effective option widely available by mid next year.

Sadly, most polls I've seen show a good half of the population was unwilling to trust in the vaccine ~September. Up from just 20-odd percent who wouldn't in May. Hopefully that is changing with the news from Pfizer and I believe a few others on the fast-track. I know there are concerns about fast-track, especially with all of the government f**k-ups, but as far as I've seen "fast-track" mostly means expediting a lot of the bureaucratic side and pouring in resources to shorten the time-frames for everything that's always been and is still necessary for putting the vaccines and treatments out.

The very first vaccine trials are done for safety. this is because efficacy trials often involve giving the thing to 40000+ people, which would be highly unethical without a sufficiently proven safety profile. You can't even begin to test the effectiveness without first establishing that it's not going to cause anyone undue harm. So by the time efficacy rates are published, you can be reasonably sure you aren't going to grow a 3rd arm. This hasn't changed simply because time is short.


I don't know... I think we're about to enter another dark phase, but I'm feeling more optimistic about it than I was in say, June, when my state with it's foolish overconfidence was climbing to the top of the list of 'worst affected' states.

 

That must have been a combination of deep understanding and amazing communication skills. And it's an amazing analysis.

 

I am so much not an antivaxxer that I never even thought about it. It has always simply made sense to me that a workout for the immune system is what we English like to spell a Good Thing. Somewhere in recent history was born the idea that our immune systems are all week and wimpy and must be protected from all and everything, whereas the reality is the opposite: they are the fighting thugs of our body and pretty damn tough. I don't deny that they are not unbeatable, but they are not the delicate things that many would have us believe. So yes, I may be loathe to give my muscles a workout, but I'm happy to give my immune system one.

Having said that, I am not (yet) wholeheartedly convinced that (assuming I even had the chance) I want to be an early adopter. And, when it comes to the Pfizer vaccine, which sounds very promising, there are problems of not trusting the infrastructure of the country I live in to achieve this -80C thing, reliability and infallibly. I don't think I'd want to even eat a frozen fish that had travelled from Calcutta to Mumbai.

 

It's a dice roll. Trust is the biggest thing, really. With people who are in a paranoid psychosis, you can easily be integrated into it without meaning to... like you're in on it. You can neither encourage nor attack. Sometimes you really are just powerless. It's a lot of feeling things out, and abandoning any expectations of how things should go. The biggest thing people like him are missing are emotional connections to people. It's very difficult when your trust is prodded by failing mental faculties and your own feelings are put into compartments by uncontrollable delusions. Just an incredibly lonely place.

Sometimes, you DO sort of play into it. I might've asked him if there was someone else there. Ask him if I can know what it's saying, what it looks like, what it sounds like, if it has a name, so on. Demeanor is key when doing so. You have to be very positive and gentle, take on an inflection similar to one you'd use on a child, without insulting intelligence. You don't want to poke. If he doesn't want to say, he won't and all you can do is change the subject. If he does indulge, I may ask him to ask the hallucination for it's thoughts on things. I realized that many times, these voices are actually their own inner monologue, just abstracted out of their own sense of self. So often what the voice is telling him to do, or what it's telling him about situations or people, are actually his own feelings. And if you open that door, the scattered parts start to reintegrate and you could see him start to calm down and begin to speak for himself a little more. All of these voices can be like proxies.

He was a serious case. Never managed to take care of himself in his entire life. Meds worked for mood... but not so much for the hallucinations. He had a big heart and that big picture wisdom that only children tend to have. Just stricken with waning lucidity. I enjoyed speaking with him, but I can't imagine what things really must've been like for him.

I definitely learned a lot about people by talking to him. In some ways it is exactly the same as talking to anyone else with different experiences, only much more extreme.

That's understandable. And the storage needs may indeed be the biggest obstacle to getting it going in the projected time-frame, especially in countries with less-advanced infrastructure.

 

What I like about what you are relating @robot zombie , is how it reveals that reason is not really the issue. Folks like Neil de Grasse tend (but not always) to point to a problem in reason and logic, when both "sides" are in fact just as reasonable as the other. The difference is at the beginning, with what they start with as facts or reality, and then go on to reason from there. All reason starts with something that is unexaminable by reason/ratio itself.