Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

gen.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 188 posts

Re: A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

#141

Post by chrisseaton »

lordleft wrote: post #15

Studying with veterans is an incredible experience. I'm lucky that my school (Columbia) has a very large undergraduate vet population. It adds a dimension of experiential diversity that many colleges fail to capture, and makes real what are normally distant and easy to abstract away geopolitical decisions, like deploying troops in Afghanistan. I hope more universities follow Yale and Columbia in creating spaces for r…

Going into the military before you go to college seems to be a very common thing in the US.

In the UK you'd either do college (university) first, or you wouldn't be planning on doing it at all. Some people do in-service degrees but I don't think it's common for large number of people to do a normal undergraduate degree after a military career.

Re: A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

#142

Post by ganzuul »

abjKT26nO8 wrote: post #122
ganzuul wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said; > 'Disclaimer: I also don't like the idea of "safe spaces"...' The article defines a safe space as "...an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement." I suppose I'm really asking you if you read TFA.

I read it. And I think that people shouldn't be shielded from harsh judgement or things that they may find offensive. Mutual respect is desired, but it isn't something that can be achieved by regulation --- unless you aim merely for a false sense of respect.

Are you assuming constant shielding, like being surrounded by 'yes-men'? I don't think that is what advocates of safe spaces have in mind.

Re: A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

#143

Post by manigandham »

tptacek wrote: post #132
manigandham wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of objective means it's untainted by interpretation. These facts are scientific: studied, documented and verified with proofs and experiments to a complete consensus on their acceptance as truth. Now people can still discuss and debate anything based on the facts as a narrative and reason for other topics and scenarios, but if you're debating the facts themselves then we're not going to get very far un…

How do you know what is and isn't untainted by interpretation? Who adjudicates? Do you think the "avoid vaccines drink bleach" people don't believe what they're advocating for, or think the science isn't on their side? They absolutely have coherent (stupid, but coherent) arguments about why they're the ones advocating for something studied, documented, and verified. The point isn't that they're right; the point is th…

Science (by study and consensus) is what adjudicates. It's not an individual. If you fail to understand or accept the science, then it's not an issue with the truth but with your personal understanding and beliefs.

Coherence is not understanding. Not applying the scientific method and saying there's a bunch of anecdotal evidence does not override the scientific foundations. At that point then there's no discussion to start because you don't agree with others on the premise of reality based on common consensus. It's like trying to talk about math when you believe 2 + 2 = 5 instead.

Now if you're talking about metaphysical "what is real" conversations then there are no facts or a "safe space" logical boundary to be worried about since you can say literally anything and it can, and must, be accepted for such a discussion to occur.

Re: A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

#144

Post by tptacek »

manigandham wrote: post #143
tptacek wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know what is and isn't untainted by interpretation? Who adjudicates? Do you think the "avoid vaccines drink bleach" people don't believe what they're advocating for, or think the science isn't on their side? They absolutely have coherent (stupid, but coherent) arguments about why they're the ones advocating for something studied, documented, and verified. The point isn't that they're right; the point is th…

Science (by study and consensus) is what adjudicates. It's not an individual. If you fail to understand or accept the science, then it's not an issue with the truth but with your personal understanding and beliefs. Coherence is not understanding. Not applying the scientific method and saying there's a bunch of anecdotal evidence does not override the scientific foundations. At that point then there's no discussion to…

What's "science"? Scientists disagree with each other all the time. Pick a controversial scientific issue; anthropogenic global climate change is a good example. Climate skeptics have no trouble coming up with scientific authorities to back their claims. Do we just take a poll and accept the results? That's probably what I'd do, but it's hardly satisfying as a way of determining what "objective truth" is.

The problem isn't that it's invariably hard to come to reasonable conclusions. Obviously, I think vaccines are very good, and that climate change is real. The problem is that "science!" isn't a Konami Code that automatically wins arguments.

The thread here is about TGD people. The comment to which I responded implied that there were "legitimate facts" that should end the dispute. I doubt that commenter's "legitimate facts" are coterminous with my own. Why should I accept them? That disparity doesn't make me right or wrong; rather, it just demonstrates what I keep saying, which is the "but facts" argument doesn't actually say anything or move the conversation forward.

Re: A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

#145

Post by manigandham »

hellomyguys wrote: post #134
manigandham wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about the literal definition used in the article, and that does not match up with what you're claiming. There is no limitation on membership to "vulnerable" people, whatever that means, nor is any voice "dominant" by default. > " Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs? " No, but freedom for difficult conversations are the qualifier for a…

> > What she meant by “safe space” was that she was happy to be in an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement. The quote literally says difficult subjects (read conversations) can be had within this space. Obviously we have different interpretations and my comment is adding my own perspective to it.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The definition of space space in the article is only limited to discussion, not identity or comfort. You claim that's not what they actually are, so you are agreeing with the OP then in pointing out how the article uses a different definition than the common usage in reality.

Re: A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

#146

Post by manfredo »

tptacek wrote: post #131
manfredo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No permanent side effects? Risks of puberty blockers include compromise bone development, underdeveloped genitals, and infertility. I don't know where you're claiming that they're the "opposite of unproved and ill-advised". Using synthetic hormones to block puberty in adolescents and pre-teens is something that's only been done in the last decade or so. Most publications indicate that the safety is far from certain,…

Your comment makes a bunch of strong claims and backs them up with research results that appear to say the opposite thing. For instance: the American Academy of Pediatrics report you've cited is supportive of puberty blockers, and cites as sources other reports noting that they've been used safely for decades. If these are your best sources, the conclusion I draw is that your argument is weak.

You originally claimed that "All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty" and that they "have no permanent effects that require reversal". From the pediatrics journal I cited:

> Pubertal suppression is not without risks. Delaying puberty beyond one’s peers can also be stressful and can lead to lower self-esteem and increased risk taking. Some experts believe that genital underdevelopment may limit some potential reconstructive options. Research on long-term risks, particularly in terms of bone metabolism and fertility, is currently limited and provides varied results.

Not only are there health risks, some of the potential damage is irreversible. Your above comment is completely dismissive of the health risks of puberty blockers.

Whether or not the user puberty blockers is ethical is a question of whether compromising the health of the majority of children that display gender dysphoria but eventually identify with their birth sex versus blocking secondary sex characteristics to provide a more aesthetically pleasing body for the minority that do follow through with gender reassignment. While the study does ultimately support the use of puberty blockers it does so in an environment where highlighting that the majority of transgender children desist is socially unacceptable - to the point where many categorically deny that any transgender youth desist.

Re: A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

#147

Post by manigandham »

tptacek wrote: post #144
manigandham wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science (by study and consensus) is what adjudicates. It's not an individual. If you fail to understand or accept the science, then it's not an issue with the truth but with your personal understanding and beliefs. Coherence is not understanding. Not applying the scientific method and saying there's a bunch of anecdotal evidence does not override the scientific foundations. At that point then there's no discussion to…

What's "science"? Scientists disagree with each other all the time. Pick a controversial scientific issue; anthropogenic global climate change is a good example. Climate skeptics have no trouble coming up with scientific authorities to back their claims. Do we just take a poll and accept the results? That's probably what I'd do, but it's hardly satisfying as a way of determining what "objective truth" is. The problem…

There is such a thing as consensus and mathematical proofs. The entire climate change debate is about the narrative of "why", not the science of "how". The change is real and happening, with the questions being: are humans having an effect and how much of an effect, with a follow up of *if we're having an effect then can we change it/reverse it".

Science does move it forward because it's the foundation. The issue you're describing is someone not understanding science. Again this is like trying to use math when you don't understand it, or trying to talk if you don't understand the language. The basics must be agreed on for progress to be made.

As for the rest of your comment, you're delving into the "question reality" philosophical aspect. And like I said, at that point, in regards to this HN thread, there is no need for a safe space because anything and everything is up for a debate.

Re: A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

#148

Post by SolaceQuantum »

ganzuul wrote: post #135
dang wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a confusion here: Smart people should be able to deal with subjects outside their comfort zone "Smart" is a cognitive trait; dealing with what is outside one's comfort zone is a different developmental axis altogether. Smart people are no better able to do this than anyone else, and may even have a harder time.

I see. I mean a different smart. General intelligence. It implies you learn the traits required to solve a hard problem. It's a habit of self-optimization.

I don't actually know if general intelligence is a thing the way you're describing it. There's no reason why an insanely smart algo PhD-from-MIT person could take their algo smarts and intuitively apply it to being a compassionate human being dealing with others whose existence and experiences may be drastically different from themselves for practically no feasible reason (fate/gods/random chance).

Re: A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

#149

Post by oropolo »

m0zg wrote: post #128

Prediction: out within a year, after saying something not 150% politically correct to those "open minded" students in their "safe space". Nowadays you can get fired for insisting that biological differences exist between men and women or suggesting that, perhaps, uncontrolled, illegal immigration is an undesirable phenomenon. A 52 year old veteran is not going to survive walking over that minefield for very long.

You might be surprised how "civilized" military members can be. Among their own and blowing off steam they will say things that will make the hair curl on most people... and then if you look around at the others it's obvious it's not said out of malice but is a mark of The Brotherhood. They have not only pledged their lives to serve and protect their bothers in arms, they have, in many cases, made good on that promise. Saying massively politically incorrect things -- even things that would sound hateful to an outsider -- is a strange way of showing affection. "I might think you're a blankety-blank blah-blah politically incorrect and mentally inferior example of humanity but I will give my life on the battlefield so that you can make it home, even if I don't make it back myself." For those who have not gone through such an experience, no amount of explanation is possible; for those who have, no explanation is necessary.

But around "normal people" you would never suspect what they've been through (with the exception of PTSD and obvious injuries).

Re: A Navy Seal's Semester at Yale, at Age 52

#150

Post by dehugger »

chrisseaton wrote: post #141
lordleft wrote: post #15

Studying with veterans is an incredible experience. I'm lucky that my school (Columbia) has a very large undergraduate vet population. It adds a dimension of experiential diversity that many colleges fail to capture, and makes real what are normally distant and easy to abstract away geopolitical decisions, like deploying troops in Afghanistan. I hope more universities follow Yale and Columbia in creating spaces for r…

Going into the military before you go to college seems to be a very common thing in the US. In the UK you'd either do college (university) first, or you wouldn't be planning on doing it at all. Some people do in-service degrees but I don't think it's common for large number of people to do a normal undergraduate degree after a military career.

This is because of the G.I. Bill, wherein the government will pay for your education if you serve in the military. This makes service a viable alternative for paying to college, as opposed to loans or coming from a rich family.

As a result many Americans join the military with their primary intention being to go to school after they complete their service. I believe 4 years is required for the G.I. Bill, but I could be incorrect.

Post reply on HN