How to raise the next Columbine shooter

[Khendraja'aro]

I think you answer your own question with the remark over nepotism. The reality is that academia today isn't based on a free market principle. People get positions for life and have no incentive to care about either the reputation of the department or its financial well-being.

Every Marxist claims that greedy capitalist pigs would pay their workers just enough to survive (if that) unless forced to do otherwise by the government or unions. That's the Marxist rationale for claiming that wages will constantly decrease (along with their Malthusianism).

Yeah, what was the rationale for outsourcing again? It's surely the higher wages in those countries!

[Nessus]

Let's have an argument about Malthusianism. Really. I'm sure Randy would post, and we'd have a jolly time calling me a fascist jack-ass.

[Loki]

Yeah, what was the rationale for outsourcing again? It's surely the higher wages in those countries!

I take it you buy the Marxist argument that without the government or unions, nearly everyone would be paid just enough to survive? Or are you pulling a GGT, and changing the goal posts?

Let's have an argument about Malthusianism. Really. I'm sure Randy would post, and we'd have a jolly time calling me a fascist jack-ass.

The Malthusian argument for Marxists is that proles are too stupid to control their reproductive urges and will therefore have as many children as they can afford to support. The more children exist, the higher the supply of prole labor, which means that capitalist pigs can afford to pay lower wages. The lower those wages, the fewer children proles could afford. And so on.

[Khendraja'aro]

I take it you buy the Marxist argument that without the government or unions, nearly everyone would be paid just enough to survive? Or are you pulling a GGT, and changing the goal posts?

I'm not exactly sure where you get your hare-brained notions from but I'm pretty sure that the welfare of its workers is not exactly the first thing large corporations have in mind, as countless examples have shown. Just take the recent BP desaster as a prime example as to exactly how much such corporations care about the welfare of human lives.

Smaller companies are a different matter. But as soon as a company grows beyond a certain size, it will become more inhumane - I've experienced that myself.

[Loki]

I'm not exactly sure where you get your hare-brained notions from but I'm pretty sure that the welfare of its workers is not exactly the first thing large corporations have in mind, as countless examples have shown.

When did I claim otherwise? Do you know anything about how the free market functions. Hint: companies don't give higher wages because they care about the well-being of their workers.

Smaller companies are a different matter. But as soon as a company grows beyond a certain size, it will become more inhumane - I've experienced that myself.

How's that relevant to anything said in this thread?

[littlelolligagged]

I like the greedy capitalist pigs exploiting the poor grad students theory. I really do. Can't you just picture the Marxist revolution based on protecting the academics?

Stupid autocorrect insists on spelling capitalist with c, too.

[Loki]

At least the unions are watching out for us by stealing 2% of our income and negotiating higher stipends for humanities students only.

[Khendraja'aro]

When did I claim otherwise? Do you know anything about how the free market functions. Hint: companies don't give higher wages because they care about the well-being of their workers.

Aha. So, let me recap: First you claim that there is no race to the bottom in wages. Then you also claim that they don't care about the well-being of their workers.

Those two don't fit together, my dear.

[earthJoker]

I'd like to point out that without the ability to critically think, you won't get very far in your chosen fields.

Mathematics, for instance, is NOT something you can simply learn by rote. Simple algebra, yes. Simple calculus, yes.

Then take a dive into the realm of, say, stochastic and tell me how far you'll get as soon as you leave the area of textbook examples.



Yes. And he is confused. Again, he's talking about "cognitive demand" and trying to tell us that social events place a higher cognitive demand on someone than, say, solving math riddles.

That's not what the word means.

It depends how you learn math. If you just learn it by "cook book" you wont improve your cognitive thinking. Empathy also has something to do with intelligence, it's not some miracle thing, even it sometimes looks like it.

[Nessus]

Look at what you beget, Loki Look at it.

[littlelolligagged]

Well the humanities students are obviously the most exploited of all, and need the protection. The proof is in the whining.

Edit - I really want to be able to quote.

[Khendraja'aro]

It depends how you learn math. If you just learn it by "cook book" you wont improve your cognitive thinking. Empathy also has something to do with intelligence, it's not some miracle thing, even it sometimes looks like it.

Empathy and intelligence are linked? Asperger. Babies.

[Loki]

Aha. So, let me recap: First you claim that there is no race to the bottom in wages. Then you also claim that they don't care about the well-being of their workers.

Those two don't fit together, my dear.

Speaking of being incapable of cognitive thought. Do you really not see the flaw in your logic there?

Yes, companies don't care about the well-being of their workers. But companies do care about their ability to retain top talent. In a competitive market, that means providing good working conditions and high wages. Even for semi-skilled positions, replacing a worker is expensive (you have to train a new worker, and they won't be as productive at the beginning), which gives companies an incentive to pay decent wages even for workers that are replaceable.

Well the humanities students are obviously the most exploited of all, and need the protection. The proof is in the whining.

Edit - I really want to be able to quote.

Either that or most officers in the union are humanities students. No conflict of interest at all.

[Khendraja'aro]

Speaking of being incapable of cognitive thought. Do you really not see the flaw in your logic there?

Yes, companies don't care about the well-being of their workers. But companies do care about their ability to retain top talent. In a competitive market, that means providing good working conditions and high wages. Even for semi-skilled positions, replacing a worker is expensive (you have to train a new worker, and they won't be as productive at the beginning), which gives companies an incentive to pay decent wages even for workers that are replaceable.

Which means that an external influence (i.e. the lack of skilled workers) forces them to pay.

Now for the price question: What happens in an area where there's an abundant supply of workers?

[earthJoker]

Empathy and intelligence are linked? Asperger. Babies.

Savant syndrome is probably what you mean and is very rare within people with Asperger (the most of them are only socially handicapped without special talents). No I don't think this is extraordinary intelligence, this are mostly just special talents.

What I mean is not to interpret a smile into is someone happy, but more complex relations.

[earthJoker]

Yes, companies don't care about the well-being of their workers. But companies do care about their ability to retain top talent. In a competitive market, that means providing good working conditions and high wages. Even for semi-skilled positions, replacing a worker is expensive (you have to train a new worker, and they won't be as productive at the beginning), which gives companies an incentive to pay decent wages even for workers that are replaceable.

This is not correct, companies care about the well being of their workers not only because they want to have the top talents. Companies need motivated workers, and this motivation has little to do with the market but only with the individual situation of each worker. This is especially the case for any high-skill job.

[littlelolligagged]

I think you should probably do a little research about asperger's before making those statements.

[Khendraja'aro]

Savant syndrome is probably what you mean and is very rare within people with Asperger (the most of them are only socially handicapped without special talents). No I don't think this is extraordinary intelligence, this are mostly just special talents.

No, that's not what I meant. Asperger patients usually have normal intelligence, yet have difficulties interpreting the usual emotions of other people. That's one example which shows that intelligence does not necessarily lead to empathy.

And babies have shown empirically to be empathic to other humans. Which shows that empathy does not need intelligence.

What I mean is not to interpret a smile into is someone happy, but more complex relations.

Oooh, I understand, as soon as the facts don't fit your statements, you get to redefine the terms! Empathy is the ability to interpret baser emotions as well as more complex interactions. You can't simply leave a major part out because it does not fit your argument.

And also, please explain stuff like Oxytocin or MDMA which are both empathogene substances.

[Loki]

This is not correct, companies care about the well being of their workers not only because they want to have the top talents. Companies need motivated workers, and this motivation has little to do with the market but only with the individual situation of each worker. This is especially the case for any high-skill job.

I.E. They care about the workers being productive.

[Khendraja'aro]

I.E. They care about the workers being productive.

No, they care about productivity. The well-being of their workers is a secondary effect.

Again, see the BP desaster.

[Loki]

No, they care about productivity. The well-being of their workers is a secondary effect.

Again, see the BP desaster.

Changing goal posts once again. The level of honesty is strong in you.

[Khendraja'aro]

Changing goal posts once again. The level of honesty is strong in you.

Uh, what? I'm not the one here who mistakes an effect for a cause.

[earthJoker]

No, that's not what I meant. Asperger patients usually have normal intelligence, yet have difficulties interpreting the usual emotions of other people. That's one example which shows that intelligence does not necessarily lead to empathy.

Ok, now I get what you meant. I agree, but we can have similar effects with other diseases. You have several strange effects when only parts of the brain are effected. Like for example having the secondary visual centre destroyed people can still see but don't know what they see.

And babies have shown empirically to be empathic to other humans. Which shows that empathy does not need intelligence.

Oooh, I understand, as soon as the facts don't fit your statements, you get to redefine the terms! Empathy is the ability to interpret baser emotions as well as more complex interactions. You can't simply leave a major part out because it does not fit your argument.

And also, please explain stuff like Oxytocin or MDMA which are both empathogene substances.

It's called "to render more precisely" and is very common in every discussion, because human communication is hardly perfect and usually you need at least one feedback loop until both have the same understanding of what one meant.

I would highly appreciate it if you would try to interpret my text in the way I meant it, I know it needs some skill. But if you just interpret my writings in the best way they fit to you to have an argument, this discussion doesn't make any sense.

[earthJoker]

I.E. They care about the workers being productive.

So? One is caused by the other. Both are still true.

[agamemnus]

So? One is caused by the other. Both are still true.

Not necessarily. If by well-being, you mean "wages", then the answer would be "increasing wages and increasing productivity are no longer positively correlated in the US".

[earthJoker]

Not necessarily. If by well-being, you mean "wages", then ...

No I don't mean that, wages are only one factor. There are several indication that the payment loses its motivation factor if it is increased a lot over the expected value.

This mean from a manager point of view it is sufficient to pay wages that are sufficient - or a little more than that - to the employee. To increase the motivation further things like a healthy environment, interesting and non-repetitive tasks ect. are far more important.

[Khendraja'aro]

It's called "to render more precisely" and is very common in every discussion, because human communication is hardly perfect and usually you need at least one feedback loop until both have the same understanding of what one meant.

I would highly appreciate it if you would try to interpret my text in the way I meant it, I know it needs some skill. But if you just interpret my writings in the best way they fit to you to have an argument, this discussion doesn't make any sense.

Ah, right. So I have to guess what you're thinking. Pardon me that I forgot to bring my crystal ball but without it I'm not so good at reading minds.

And your "definition" doesn't hold water - you're cutting out 90% of what psychologists et al usually mean when they talk about "empathy". Sorry dear, but empathy is not the complicated stuff you make it out to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy...ir_definitions

But maybe you confused the general term "intelligence" with the term "emotional intelligence"? Well, in that case I'd also lambast you for not bringing your definition clearly to the table because for that one there also exist different definitions.

So, let me recap: You propose a relationship between two concepts without ever defining exactly what you mean by those concepts since those two concepts have wildly varying definitions depending on the field and the scope you're using.

And then you criticise me because I used a definition not to your liking. Sorry, dude, you've already shown (see Asperger's above) that you don't know what you're talking about, so I don't quite see why you should be allowed to criticise me here when your own arguments are full of holes so big you could steer the Titanic through them.

By the way: https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/4245

[GGT]

Or are you pulling a GGT, and changing the goal posts?

You've done plenty of that in this thread. Don't drag me into this.

[earthJoker]

Ah, right. So I have to guess what you're thinking. Pardon me that I forgot to bring my crystal ball but without it I'm not so good at reading minds.

No I just would like you wouldn't just pick the one that fits you the most to make an argument. If something is not clear (and the chance is quite high in normal human communication) then just ASK.

And your "definition" doesn't hold water - you're cutting out 90% of what psychologists et al usually mean when they talk about "empathy". Sorry dear, but empathy is not the complicated stuff you make it out to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy...ir_definitions

I don't think the definition of Empathy is the problem in the misunderstanding but the problem in the definition of intelligence.

But maybe you confused the general term "intelligence" with the term "emotional intelligence"? Well, in that case I'd also lambast you for not bringing your definition clearly to the table because for that one there also exist different definitions.

As the naming implies it is a subset, a subset is a relation.

So, let me recap: You propose a relationship between two concepts without ever defining exactly what you mean by those concepts since those two concepts have wildly varying definitions depending on the field and the scope you're using.

Yes, this is a General Chat thread not a scientific work.

And then you criticise me because I used a definition not to your liking. Sorry, dude, you've already shown (see Asperger's above) that you don't know what you're talking about, so I don't quite see why you should be allowed to criticise me here when your own arguments are full of holes so big you could steer the Titanic through them.

All I said is that only few with Asperger have Savant syndrome, I stay with that claim.

By the way: https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/4245

Is that SFW?

[Timbuk2]

A .ac.uk site is going to be a UK University or similar academic institution. So yes, certainly SFW.