call me a dummy but i could never figure out how coase's theorem applies to firms - i've read all of the examples about allocating spectrum and land and water rights but i don't see what it has to do with hiring practices.
Ronald Coase is best known for two different works, "The Nature of the Firm" (1937) and "The Problem of Social Cost" (1960). What's become known as the "Coase theorem" is from the latter. The common thread between the two is that they're both ultimately about transaction costs.
Hmm I’d never thought about swearing as a social signifier of freedom. That it shows dominance and that you are “free to do as you like”. What I’d be interested in knowing is if people really respond to this psychologically?
Is Putin or Trump popularity in part due to people seeing their “I don’t give a fxxk” attitude and being attracted to that?
My father (who ironically was in the military) always said "Swearing is a sign that you are in the presence of an inferior intellect". I'm not saying I believe it, but having been raised around that attitude I don't perceive swearing as indicating competence.
"Those who use foul language on social networks (such as Twitter) are sending an expensive signal that they are free –
and, ironically, competent. You don’t signal competence if you don’t take risks for it - there are few such low risk strategies. So cursing today is a status symbol, just as oligarchs in Moscow wear blue jeans at special events to signal their power."
I interpret that quote as meaning that swearing signals independence, independence signals competence.
Competence in this case means the ability to do something genuinely, without strings attached (independent, no hidden motives). This is important in determining a speaker's legitimacy, truthfulness, the provenance of what they are saying.
Theres many reasons to use profanity. While it can signal poor self control or even just poor intelligence or vocabulary, if youre already established well in those ways, can be used to establish intimacy, or im wild or unpredicatable.
For instance, Trump saying son of a bitch in a speech I felt was particularly shocking, even by his standards, but totally contrived.
Pft. That's an empty slogan to make puritans feel better about themselves. Plenty of smart people swear. They just don't swear to extreme, and control their swearing when they're speaking formally.
As a ridiculously obvious example, look at Steve Jobs, darling of this site. Whether you love or loathe him, if you think he was an inferior intellect, you should be questioning your own.
And the attitude is seriously misguided. I really can't swear in Norwegian, but my native English? Sure thing. And it really limits my expression in Norwegian.
The truth is that it takes some skill and knowledge to properly swear. And it has its place: Using other words simply don't get the point across nearly as well and folks can easily misinterpret your meaning (Example: Angry verses creatively displeased or disgusted). Using alternatives (in English things like "fudge") are equally powerful and equally difficult to place in the right context.
From my experience, swearing seems to be one of the last few things you acquire when getting competent in a foreign language. (Ignoring the fun “Teach me some swears!” pastime of a beginner—they learn the words but not how to use them.) In my time working as a programmer, most of my coworkers have been non-native English speakers, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the ones who swear the most are also the most generally proficient in English.
Most of those top few are also native speakers of languages that are closely related to English, such as German, Dutch, and French, but curiously, the one who curses the most, and the most proficiently, is Israeli.
I think there's some truth the the 'freedom signifier' thing, but I don't see an inherent link to dominance. I mean, of course it can be a dominance game, in the way that dominance games can be played with pretty much any mechanism you can imagine. But swearing isn't wrestling.
I think some answer might lie in the question of what the speaker is trying to accomplish by swearing.
If you think about it, why swearing instead of using standard words ? Putting aside "bad" habits (I put this into quotes because I don't think there is something inherently bad in swearing, it's just a subset of vocabulary data being transmitted to convey information ;) ), I would say that that goal is, subconsciously or not, to increase the emotional impact of what is being said.
This will to increase the emotional impact can stem from the speaker's own emotional state, that needs to be expressed through speaking. This might be for lack of better words in one's vocabulary, "accessibility", perceived "style", etc.
The person is stating something, that might be originally emotionally weak or neutral, but by swearing, he emphasizes the emotion associated to those words or sentences, and thus has the opportunity to convey an additional specific type of information, in a specific way.
I would even say that swearing might be even difficult to replace in some cases where the intended effect is to be casual, or maybe to sound "cool" to a certain crowd while keeping this emotional effect. This might, in a way, be considered "manipulation" if done consciously.
And I think this logic applies very well to Trump particularly, because appealing to people emotions seems to be mostly what put him in office. Rather than trying to win by giving the population high logic on the reasons why he should be elected, he is going the other way: make them feel things that put him under the spotlight as a good contender for the position of president ...
Swearing is an important part of speech, used to communicate all sorts of things:
- Trustworthiness - Listeners are more willing to trust someone who curses because careful censorship of one's own speech can come across as calculating and inauthentic.
- Involvement - Swearing as an amplifier is often used to communicate emotional involvement. People curse much more about their favorite sports team than just about anything else, for example.
- In-group membership - Cursing in a group setting denotes a less formal relationship, which can actually have the effect of encouraging associates to bond more. And, like all language, certain groups have their own curses which, when wielded in the proper context, demonstrate that you "belong".
- And yeah, power - Cursing in a formal setting is a great way of challenging convention and asserting authority, demonstrating that one is immune to the typical social consequences for "bad" behavior.
Do people really respond to this? I know I do. And I suspect that, if people didn't react as intended, cursing wouldn't be so pervasive in every language.
I never understood how breaking a business contract gets punished, but breaking a marriage contract gets rewarded. The injured party becomes a slave to the injuring party.
This country went downhill since the 19th ammendment. Every country with women in power is in insane debt.
H1B employment is a legal way to own a person in IT.
To Quote from the article -
" Employees are more risk averse, they fear being fired more than contractors do being sued. "
Rephrasing -
" H1B employees are even more risk averse, they fear being deported right from the moment they are fired". A fired H1B employee is out of status from that very moment. He should leave the country asap.
A winning formula for US IT companies. Hire an H1B employee. Squeeze the juice out of them. You can own them than any other type of employee in your organization.
Its not easy as it sounds. Its not a transfer per say, its a new petition. Recently premium processing was stopped. Many H1B transfers were in limbo. If an employee transfers when he has I-140, his greencard process might get jeopardized. There are many quirks for an employee to change his employers. Many employers will not allow an employee to join unless his petition is approved. This is also good for the employee, because there are high chances that an H1B transfer can go wrong. So no, its not easy.
Combine H1B with debt like for cars, education, housing, etc., and that’s full-on indentured servitude. People under such duress maybe convinced to work for $30/hr or less.
If you are on H1B, and lose status and leave the country, and don't intend to come back, do you really need to pay car or house loans? Be nice and mail in the keys, but how are they going to collect anything else? I assume someone in that situation would cash out their us accounts as they're leaving.
Education debt may be different, there's a good chance that was incurred in the country of origin, so it's likely the lender has recourse.
people who get laid off have to leave the country, but mostly they have every intention to come back. So they try to settle everything, leave the country and try to comeback again.
One of my friends left US to get married, but his visa was denied. He had to sell all the stuff, cars remotely (with friends help) and it took whole 6 years to come back (because of the visa quotas, denials etc). But he eventually was successful in returning and it's good he settled all his debt when he was kicked out with a visa denial.
when I read NN Taleb at first I’m intrigued. The ideas and language clicks together. He says ‘I’m a trader’ but really he is a philosopher courtesan. He has the sensibility of a wise man.
But after some time, and some more reading, the feel-good effect ends abruptly.
High praise for autocrats? Criticizing the leaders liberal west as intrinsically defective? Observations on “renting” women to f*? It’s all much too boorish, and _it gets in the way_ of some really solid ideas.
Personally, I’m not sure his ideas are worth the effort of redemption. Maybe after a good editor cleans it up? I stopped following him on Twitter. But every time I see some new fragment of his writing I perk up, only to be disappointed in the end.
This pretty much perfectly sums up my opinion of NN Taleb as well.
Initially, you are in awe of his near-prose like writing, and a couple hundred pages later, you realise that writing style is just about everything he has (all style, less substance). His ideas as well are usually pseudo-philosophical and I'm unsure if any of his writings would hold ground if it wasn't tied along with the fact that he made millions hedging on a black swan event (Again, which is a combination of picking your bets and sheer dumb luck).
Also, the more NN Taleb I read, the more pretentious he comes across as being.
He made nearly a billion hedging on dozens of events, and thousands upon thousands of trades. I bet you haven't read a single page of his actual published papers, just his poplit stuff.
His trading results aren't clear. When editing the Wikipedia article, we kept running into the fact that he boasts about the performance of his funds in the years they're up, but refuses to release results for the years they're down. His funds buy options that are way out of the money, which means they lose money in years nothing bad happens. In years with a big crash, they win big. It's not clear that this is a net win over time.
I guess it depends on how much they lose in each good year, ie it's subjective. This kind of investing is not for someone like myself, who doesn't like spending too much time managing money in the first place but I can see how it might work for someone more involved in the process.
What it depends on is whether the people selling way out of the money options are underpricing them due to underestimating the probability of unlikely events.
off topic: the word prose refers to ordinary written language, as opposed to, say, poetry, so when you describe his writing as near-prose like, i'm not sure what you're getting at, but i think you mean to say he writes fairly poetic prose.
My guess is that "near-prose like" refers to writing that feels like it is being spoken as you read it. I can somewhat understand that.
I've never read any of this guy's work before. Despite the "preliminary draft" footnote, he strikes me as not a very thoughtful writer. I can forgive "Sometimes around the fifth century" but not "beggars who flouted they scorn of material possessions". Flouted material possessions? Flaunted their scorn of material possessions? Once I get the impression that someone is using words without fully understanding their meaning, it's hard for me to seriously consider what they are trying to convey. Perhaps that's a little harsh, but he is supposed to be a writer.
I don't think he has anglosaxon or PC sensibilities, so he doesn't agree on what is "boorish" or not with liberals (or sensitive old WASP church ladies for that matter).
Not all cultures agree on the same things -- nor are the "truths" of some particular place akin to physical laws. Taleb's from the Levant, and he shares part of that culture.
Which is also an ancient one at that.
Sure, some parts of the world don't appreciate that attribute to a culture either ("why should we care that a thing is ancient/tradition") it's all about being modern or justifiable in some (usually pseudo-) "scientific" way.
But part of Taleb's point (and he does make a rational argument for that, e.g. [1]) is that survivability, in ideas and in culture, matters just as much if not more.
I have just encountered this writer for the first time. Not sure I'll read more. But from the excerpt, I wouldn't say he has "high praise for autocrats". He is just saying they are less constrained in their actions and hence have more personal effectiveness. That might be true, even if morally unpalatable (don't confuse the two).
Also that 'three Fs' quip I have heard elsewhere. Looking past the deliberate provocativeness, he's making the point that it's actually nonsense for most of us.
Maybe his other writings go further, I don't know?
> High praise for autocrats? Criticizing the leaders liberal west as intrinsically defective? Observations on “renting” women to f*? It’s all much too boorish, and _it gets in the way_ of some really solid ideas.
I notice that you disagree with his conclusions, not with his logic or arguments that he uses to come to those conclusions.
If you think that his conclusions are incorrect (which, btw, is mostly my viewpoint as well), can you point in the direct location in his logic where he makes a mistake? Or an axiomatic assumption that he uses that you don't agree with?
I notice that you disagree with his conclusions,
not with his logic or arguments
I don't know about the autocrats and liberal west, but I did read the linked article far enough to get to 'never buy when you can rent the three "Fs" '
In that paragraph I can't really see any explicit "logic or arguments".
Or more precisely, I can put a bunch of words into Taleb's mouth to convert that paragraph into an argument taking small steps and supported by statements of fact; but even the strongest interpretation I can come up with seems so weak it would look like I was attacking a straw man.
Perhaps denom didn't dispute Taleb's logic because it isn't stated clearly enough for him to do so?
Taleb is a gifted statistician who often wanders out of his element to make broad, bold, but perfunctory claims about various subjects. You kind of have to take his work for what it is: the work of a really smart, but arrogant guy who likes to shoot first and aim later.
Personally, I prefer his academic papers to his pop-sci blogging and books. But I still can't help reading him. He isn't always right, but he's usually interesting.
I agree with you that he would benefit tremendously from a strong editor.
The purpose of requiring a college degree, I have come to realize, is not to demonstrate knowledge, but rather to demonstrate submissiveness. It shows that you are decently capable of doing what you are told, and that's all most employers want to know.
A college degree from most universities shows that you have at least a decent ability to take in information, interpret it, and use what you have learned.
GPA itself is not necessarily a high predictor for job performance in some cases - Google isn't likely to be considering many applications from new graduates who had a 2.0 average, for example. They are also able to more easily cherry pick from the top schools. And most employers don't want to waste their time doing a battery of cognitive ability tests, which is often the best indicator of performance, so your GPA combined with other information from an interview is one of the best tools they have.
Smaller companies, of course, may have more flexibility and can consider a tryout period, but for larger companies, the contract and potential for IP disputes can make it not worth their while.
Obviously your GPA becomes fairly irrelevant once you have a decent amount of experience and have developed personal references who can vouch for you.
>A college degree from most universities shows that you have at least a decent ability to take in information, interpret it, and use what you have learned.
Isn't that what similar to what the parent said? It shows you have the skills others need to perform tasks for them.
Especially modern degrees, which become all the more vocational, than actually giving a general culture and knowledge.
The parent claimed the "purpose of requiring a college degree ... is not to demonstrate knowledge, but rather to demonstrate submissiveness."
So no, I don't agree that my statement about college is anything at all similar to what the other person claimed. And unless you can cite any evidence that college is an indicator of subservience, I maintain my position that such a claim is insulting.
What drivel is this? The purpose of a college degree is to show to your peers that an academic institution is satisfied with your level of knowledge in a particular area.
There are legitimate criticisms of the current university system (such as cost, political interference in teaching, irerelevant curriculums etc), but claiming that a college degree "demonstrates submissiveness" is utter horseshit.
I don't know what college or University you went to, but at the large public University I went (University of Minnesota) one literally receives no governmental authority and extremely little guidance dictating what path you should take whatsoever. Students are literally tiny specks of nothing helping to finance an ivory tower and they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, it's an extremely lax environment behaviorally speaking. There are no authority figures, no hierarchy, and professors do not know your name or care if you come to office hours, because you are one of 500 students in a class. There were classes that I never showed up to except for the first day and tests. People who manage to come across the financial means to get a degree are able to finish while others drop out over time - so I think it's seen as more of a financial stability indicator, which could perhaps be a surrogate metric for submissiveness but not necessarily as you purport. I slunked my way through an Electrical Engineering degree while running a landscaping business I had started in high school, because I wanted to build stuff rather than be a landscape dude for the rest of my life. I see nothing in the University world resembling the corporate politics world what so ever. Perhaps you attended Hogwarts?
The opening story talks about how much of a disaster it is when a contracted pilot quits on a gig because he got a better offer that paid so much it covered his breach-of-contract amount... if this is something that terrifies you, you need to negotiate a higher breach-of-contract value next time.
> Consider that the English “manners” isn’t something that applies to the aristocracy;
I disagree. The aristocracy have a special type of manners finely honed for putting people at ease while concealing the truth of the situation. Always distrust anybody too polite.
My impression is that a lot of this ownership has to do with persuading someone to become emotionally dependent on their situation. Thus a potential antidote is to maintain a sense of detachment, and to be financially rational.
Once I started foraging and hunting for my pay...I started to feel more free and much less likely to take bullshit from anyone (afterall, there is always the next hunt).
The core of your being is changed when you start with yourself as your mental point of origin and take nothing for granted when it comes to the "mythical job security".
It's doubly so liberating when you do not have to deal with the ghosts of past employers and the shadow of what "future employers" will think.
100 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] thread[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb
His last tweet is twelve hours ago so it's probably fairly active.
Is Putin or Trump popularity in part due to people seeing their “I don’t give a fxxk” attitude and being attracted to that?
"Those who use foul language on social networks (such as Twitter) are sending an expensive signal that they are free – and, ironically, competent. You don’t signal competence if you don’t take risks for it - there are few such low risk strategies. So cursing today is a status symbol, just as oligarchs in Moscow wear blue jeans at special events to signal their power."
Competence in this case means the ability to do something genuinely, without strings attached (independent, no hidden motives). This is important in determining a speaker's legitimacy, truthfulness, the provenance of what they are saying.
For instance, Trump saying son of a bitch in a speech I felt was particularly shocking, even by his standards, but totally contrived.
It’s not always useful to be seen as stable or a worthy adversary. Being unpredictable or flying under the radar are legitimate strategies.
Person with other signals indicating dominance -> increase power.
Person with other signals indicating lowly stature -> increases indication of lack of self control or weakness.
I guess like all human relations it depends is the caveat that applies.
As a ridiculously obvious example, look at Steve Jobs, darling of this site. Whether you love or loathe him, if you think he was an inferior intellect, you should be questioning your own.
The truth is that it takes some skill and knowledge to properly swear. And it has its place: Using other words simply don't get the point across nearly as well and folks can easily misinterpret your meaning (Example: Angry verses creatively displeased or disgusted). Using alternatives (in English things like "fudge") are equally powerful and equally difficult to place in the right context.
Most of those top few are also native speakers of languages that are closely related to English, such as German, Dutch, and French, but curiously, the one who curses the most, and the most proficiently, is Israeli.
( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000114... )
If you think about it, why swearing instead of using standard words ? Putting aside "bad" habits (I put this into quotes because I don't think there is something inherently bad in swearing, it's just a subset of vocabulary data being transmitted to convey information ;) ), I would say that that goal is, subconsciously or not, to increase the emotional impact of what is being said. This will to increase the emotional impact can stem from the speaker's own emotional state, that needs to be expressed through speaking. This might be for lack of better words in one's vocabulary, "accessibility", perceived "style", etc.
The person is stating something, that might be originally emotionally weak or neutral, but by swearing, he emphasizes the emotion associated to those words or sentences, and thus has the opportunity to convey an additional specific type of information, in a specific way.
I would even say that swearing might be even difficult to replace in some cases where the intended effect is to be casual, or maybe to sound "cool" to a certain crowd while keeping this emotional effect. This might, in a way, be considered "manipulation" if done consciously.
And I think this logic applies very well to Trump particularly, because appealing to people emotions seems to be mostly what put him in office. Rather than trying to win by giving the population high logic on the reasons why he should be elected, he is going the other way: make them feel things that put him under the spotlight as a good contender for the position of president ...
- Trustworthiness - Listeners are more willing to trust someone who curses because careful censorship of one's own speech can come across as calculating and inauthentic.
- Involvement - Swearing as an amplifier is often used to communicate emotional involvement. People curse much more about their favorite sports team than just about anything else, for example.
- In-group membership - Cursing in a group setting denotes a less formal relationship, which can actually have the effect of encouraging associates to bond more. And, like all language, certain groups have their own curses which, when wielded in the proper context, demonstrate that you "belong".
- And yeah, power - Cursing in a formal setting is a great way of challenging convention and asserting authority, demonstrating that one is immune to the typical social consequences for "bad" behavior.
Do people really respond to this? I know I do. And I suspect that, if people didn't react as intended, cursing wouldn't be so pervasive in every language.
This country went downhill since the 19th ammendment. Every country with women in power is in insane debt.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
To Quote from the article -
" Employees are more risk averse, they fear being fired more than contractors do being sued. "
Rephrasing -
" H1B employees are even more risk averse, they fear being deported right from the moment they are fired". A fired H1B employee is out of status from that very moment. He should leave the country asap.
A winning formula for US IT companies. Hire an H1B employee. Squeeze the juice out of them. You can own them than any other type of employee in your organization.
But there's L1B employment... that actually binds you to a company.
What he meant there is employees=sheep (mostly), contractors=wolves (mostly).
H-1B or not, most employees will put up with a lot more than contractors.
Education debt may be different, there's a good chance that was incurred in the country of origin, so it's likely the lender has recourse.
One of my friends left US to get married, but his visa was denied. He had to sell all the stuff, cars remotely (with friends help) and it took whole 6 years to come back (because of the visa quotas, denials etc). But he eventually was successful in returning and it's good he settled all his debt when he was kicked out with a visa denial.
But after some time, and some more reading, the feel-good effect ends abruptly.
High praise for autocrats? Criticizing the leaders liberal west as intrinsically defective? Observations on “renting” women to f*? It’s all much too boorish, and _it gets in the way_ of some really solid ideas.
Personally, I’m not sure his ideas are worth the effort of redemption. Maybe after a good editor cleans it up? I stopped following him on Twitter. But every time I see some new fragment of his writing I perk up, only to be disappointed in the end.
Initially, you are in awe of his near-prose like writing, and a couple hundred pages later, you realise that writing style is just about everything he has (all style, less substance). His ideas as well are usually pseudo-philosophical and I'm unsure if any of his writings would hold ground if it wasn't tied along with the fact that he made millions hedging on a black swan event (Again, which is a combination of picking your bets and sheer dumb luck).
Also, the more NN Taleb I read, the more pretentious he comes across as being.
The only way to fund the famine years is to subsidize with a regular portfolio ... but then you don't run a black swan fund any longer.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier
I've never read any of this guy's work before. Despite the "preliminary draft" footnote, he strikes me as not a very thoughtful writer. I can forgive "Sometimes around the fifth century" but not "beggars who flouted they scorn of material possessions". Flouted material possessions? Flaunted their scorn of material possessions? Once I get the impression that someone is using words without fully understanding their meaning, it's hard for me to seriously consider what they are trying to convey. Perhaps that's a little harsh, but he is supposed to be a writer.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/FatTails.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIR1o1dnk5ZmRaaGs...
I've found the rigorous presentations of his ideas in statistics and finance to be very helpful.
I don't think he has anglosaxon or PC sensibilities, so he doesn't agree on what is "boorish" or not with liberals (or sensitive old WASP church ladies for that matter).
Not all cultures agree on the same things -- nor are the "truths" of some particular place akin to physical laws. Taleb's from the Levant, and he shares part of that culture.
Which is also an ancient one at that.
Sure, some parts of the world don't appreciate that attribute to a culture either ("why should we care that a thing is ancient/tradition") it's all about being modern or justifiable in some (usually pseudo-) "scientific" way.
But part of Taleb's point (and he does make a rational argument for that, e.g. [1]) is that survivability, in ideas and in culture, matters just as much if not more.
[1] https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-rational-about-rational...
Also that 'three Fs' quip I have heard elsewhere. Looking past the deliberate provocativeness, he's making the point that it's actually nonsense for most of us.
Maybe his other writings go further, I don't know?
I notice that you disagree with his conclusions, not with his logic or arguments that he uses to come to those conclusions.
If you think that his conclusions are incorrect (which, btw, is mostly my viewpoint as well), can you point in the direct location in his logic where he makes a mistake? Or an axiomatic assumption that he uses that you don't agree with?
In that paragraph I can't really see any explicit "logic or arguments".
Or more precisely, I can put a bunch of words into Taleb's mouth to convert that paragraph into an argument taking small steps and supported by statements of fact; but even the strongest interpretation I can come up with seems so weak it would look like I was attacking a straw man.
Perhaps denom didn't dispute Taleb's logic because it isn't stated clearly enough for him to do so?
Personally, I prefer his academic papers to his pop-sci blogging and books. But I still can't help reading him. He isn't always right, but he's usually interesting.
I agree with you that he would benefit tremendously from a strong editor.
A college degree from most universities shows that you have at least a decent ability to take in information, interpret it, and use what you have learned.
GPA itself is not necessarily a high predictor for job performance in some cases - Google isn't likely to be considering many applications from new graduates who had a 2.0 average, for example. They are also able to more easily cherry pick from the top schools. And most employers don't want to waste their time doing a battery of cognitive ability tests, which is often the best indicator of performance, so your GPA combined with other information from an interview is one of the best tools they have.
Smaller companies, of course, may have more flexibility and can consider a tryout period, but for larger companies, the contract and potential for IP disputes can make it not worth their while.
Obviously your GPA becomes fairly irrelevant once you have a decent amount of experience and have developed personal references who can vouch for you.
That wouldn't matter if it was also true.
>A college degree from most universities shows that you have at least a decent ability to take in information, interpret it, and use what you have learned.
Isn't that what similar to what the parent said? It shows you have the skills others need to perform tasks for them.
Especially modern degrees, which become all the more vocational, than actually giving a general culture and knowledge.
So no, I don't agree that my statement about college is anything at all similar to what the other person claimed. And unless you can cite any evidence that college is an indicator of subservience, I maintain my position that such a claim is insulting.
Some things don't come with stats, figures and evidence. People either feel them or they don't.
There are legitimate criticisms of the current university system (such as cost, political interference in teaching, irerelevant curriculums etc), but claiming that a college degree "demonstrates submissiveness" is utter horseshit.
My peers are not the ones hiring me. By definition it is my superiors hiring me.
Seems like an exoensive way to demonstrate to my peers.
I think it is better to demonstrate by actually doing (building products, providing service, insightful writing, etc).
The fact remains that a person who stakes money into a multi-year process is signalling a few things:
- they have money/credit - they are time committed - they work mostly within the system - they acknowledge the authority/validity of the degree
Any interest in talking about it?
I disagree. The aristocracy have a special type of manners finely honed for putting people at ease while concealing the truth of the situation. Always distrust anybody too polite.
https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person...
The core of your being is changed when you start with yourself as your mental point of origin and take nothing for granted when it comes to the "mythical job security".
It's doubly so liberating when you do not have to deal with the ghosts of past employers and the shadow of what "future employers" will think.