Comment author: IanKanchax 01 December 2012 05:25:41PM 0 points [-]

Are there weekly meeting in Montreal? I lived in Montreal for two years and never heard of it. So back to the question: are they weekly? and if yes, where every week? I live in Sherbrooke and might come.

Comment author: IanKanchax 28 July 2011 09:53:58PM 0 points [-]

Upvoted for it brings an interesting discussion.

Comment author: IanKanchax 27 June 2011 10:35:33PM 2 points [-]

Try explaining it to yourself out loud as if you were 5 years old. You can always enlist the ears of a friend or family to play the 5 year old.

In response to Closet survey #1
Comment author: IanKanchax 10 January 2011 08:10:01PM 3 points [-]

I believe that every single social interaction is linked to power/hierarchy. (see Robert Greene book's)

I also believe that most on LW simply opt-out their local/most proximate hierarchy (and they may actively and/or secretly seek to discredit it), as Paul Graham in high-school. In one of his articles he talked of how wanted to be more intelligent than popular. That is dominance in one field instead of another. (A tip to entrepreneurs is to aim to be #1 in your field or not start at all.)

If it's not their most proximate hierarchy then it is the one they internalized during their youth. Parents? Friends?

I believe that's human, good and perhaps to an extent "WEIRD­­". I remember reading an old quote of an amerindian chief talking of the unrest in the eyes of europeans, also how Thomas Jefferson (or was it Franklin?) talked of the indolence of amerindians.

Culture is an internalization of the power/hierarchy in place/followed natural or not. As is everything else of social nature, pretty much everything else manmade. (In theory not science, that's what I love about it. If you take out the "In theory" and the human nature of scientists.)

Comment author: waitingforgodel 03 December 2010 03:54:43PM 3 points [-]

The Penn and Teller episode is also a pretty good source.

She's a poor choice for a waterline, but she's a great choice for a headline :p

Comment author: IanKanchax 07 December 2010 11:28:16PM 1 point [-]

Touché.

And I wonder what you think about perpetuating the false image. Personally I have trouble with that. Not sure why.

p.s. (BS is a great show.)

Comment author: rabidchicken 04 December 2010 11:21:27PM 3 points [-]

12 seems too young to me for a sexual relationship, but that may be due to social conditioning. On average, males become capable of reproduction when they reach 12-13. (which probably is also when they become capable of enjoying it) If he was willingly involved there should not be an issue, but the general assumption seems to be that if someone in early puberty already is having sex, (particularly with an adult) they are being threatened or coerced into it. To make matters more complicated, I have heard of cases where children willingly were in a relationship like what you mentioned, and then condemned the adult under parental pressure.

the flip side of the argument for protecting children is that since older teens and adults can also be forced to have sex against their will, how can we remove restrictions at any age? having stronger muscles and a bit more experience is of limited use if someone threatens you with a gun.

I don't know if I can actually come to an opinion on whether we should have an age of consent to shelter children, (even the ones who may want to have sex) or assume that anyone who has reached puberty is mature enough to have a relationship, and tell someone if they are being abused. I probably have not collected enough information at this point :p

Comment author: IanKanchax 06 December 2010 06:45:23PM 2 points [-]

There are driver's licenses how about sex' licenses? (minus the minimal age requirement) You have to show your ability to have sane sex through a written test and a practical test. Or something.

Comment author: Document 03 December 2010 06:47:42AM 10 points [-]

The title is misleading, though - I was all braced for some silly objectivism.

That was my first thought too, followed by "Isn't Mother Teresa kind of a low bar?".

Comment author: IanKanchax 03 December 2010 03:37:51PM 3 points [-]

Yes, it is a low bar. Mother Theresa should not be used as an example of good-doing. She wanted people to suffer so that the others in their confortable lives (us) would have something to pray about, and find peace and redemption in the suffering of others. There are accounts of this by nuns who left the holy mother order,

Pause.

Christopher Hitchens' book on Mother theresa could enlighten you.

Comment author: rabidchicken 01 December 2010 07:55:49AM *  7 points [-]

Upvoted. I am always surprised how widespread discrimination against teenagers is, considering that everyone has to be one at some point. Every difference between people below the age of majority, and people above which an adult has been able to point out to me when I have discussed this seems to be a product of the culture we are raised in, not an inherent quality of humans within an arbitrary age range.

Comment author: IanKanchax 03 December 2010 02:34:57AM 8 points [-]

You might be interested in reading The Case Against Adolescence by Dr. Robert Epstein. (I believe the last edition is called Teen 2.0)

It is eye-opening on many aspects. There is a story in it that struck me. A twelve year old had an affair with his married teacher (who had two kids on her own). She went to prison for two-three years. Once out of the slammer, she had sex again with her ex-pupil. This time around 7-8 years of prison. While in prison she gave birth to a child. The child was raised by the father (the student) and that father's mother. Reporters asked the young man if the imprisoned woman had abused of him; he answered negatively, that love united them. Once the ex-teacher got out of prison for the second time she married the then adult lover, went into their car with their kid and rolled into the sunset.

How immature. Both of them. Love at teenage? Meh. Love is only for old people like Romeo (~16) and Juliet. (~14) Those crazy homo sapiens.

In response to Ask and Guess
Comment author: [deleted] 02 December 2010 12:38:16AM 4 points [-]

Thinking about this game-theoretically: Let's say you get awarded points for getting what you want (+10), subtracted points when a Guesser refuses your request and is miffed that you even asked (-10) and you get no points (+0) if you don't ask, or if you get a friendly refusal from an Asker.

Askers always ask; guessers decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to ask. In principle, this means guessing ought to dominate as a strategy.

On the other hand, in real life, Askers probably are less upset than Guessers by rejection in general. Even when an Asker asks a Guesser and gets an angry refusal, he's probably less bothered by it than he would be if he were a Guesser. So it's probably in your best interest to cultivate the flexibility of a Guesser but the unflappability of an Asker.

Also, obviously, a world full of Guessers is riskier than a world full of Askers -- every time you ask a favor, you risk that (-10) disaster. So, in a world full of guessers, if they're risk-averse, nobody ever asks for anything. The expected value for everyone is zero. In a world full of askers, the expected value is positive. I'd rather live there!

The ideal world is where everyone is an asker; however, in a world with some guessers, it may be optimal to be a guesser.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Ask and Guess
Comment author: IanKanchax 02 December 2010 01:52:22AM *  2 points [-]

I believe to be an asker asking with innuendo is always ideal.

You can ask normally or with innuendo. The other person can accept or not. If getting rejected is bad then you get 50% to have a bad output when simply asking(-10). When you use innuendo, then there is no real rejection, hence no bad feelings (0). The rest of the time, you get what you asked for (+10).

In response to comment by JoshuaZ on Ask and Guess
Comment author: Yvain 01 December 2010 09:24:42PM 49 points [-]

Consider an "ask culture" where employees consider themselves totally allowed to say "no" without repercussions. The boss would prefer people work unpaid overtime so ey gets more work done without having to pay anything, so ey asks everyone. Most people say no, because they hate unpaid overtime. The only people who agree will be those who really love the company or their job - they end up looking really good. More and more workers realize the value of lying and agreeing to work unpaid overtime so the boss thinks they really love the company. Eventually, the few workers who continue refusing look really bad, like they're the only ones who aren't team players, and they grudgingly accept.

Only now the boss notices that the employees hate their jobs and hate the boss. The boss decides to only ask employees if they will work unpaid overtime when it's absolutely necessary. The ask culture has become a guess culture.

In response to comment by Yvain on Ask and Guess
Comment author: IanKanchax 02 December 2010 01:42:38AM 1 point [-]

Is this a concrete example? Or based on one or many? I am having trouble considering it. (Walmart perhaps?)

View more: Next