361–370 of 438 posts
So do not attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by you not understanding the whole picture.
The beauty of it is that it doesn't need to say who is the ignorant one!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfectly fine not to be informed (or interested!) in most topics. It only becomes dangerous when you're uninformed but trust your own opinion more than the experts. Popular examples are climate change, or the COVID-19 response.
SO we are to be ruled by experts? Show me the model produced by he experts that has been right? Show me the science behind the idea of quarantining the entire population in order to slow the spread of Covid-19. There is science behind quarantining sick people - but not healthy people. Show me the science behind the social distancing - 6 foot rule? I mean really - where IS the science to those things? These experts ar…
There's a reason people in power have advisors, and it isn't just to rubber-stamp things.
Back in the old days, FDR had a board of experts to advise him on things. He listened to them. Governments also have a professional civil service, full of people who don't rule but who are in contact with those who do, and who know enough to give good advice.
So the question isn't whether we have a technocracy or a democratic system totally unconnected to reality. It's how well-advised our democratically elected leaders are.
Whenever you see someone who you believe to be an idiot succeeding, it usually means they're really good at the game and you don't even understand what the game is .
> really good at the game Called being born rich. Plenty of idiots succeed because success was granted to them the day they were born. ____________ Also, a lot of times when you see an idiot succeeding, the idiot is a face for people to criticize while the master minds go about doing their magic, unseen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One key thing about the game is the definition of "being ahead", and in a way, the meaning you want your life to have. If the definition of being ahead is to work in upper management, or at trendy FAANG making a large amount of money then you are kind-of forced to play the game in order to "get ahead". However, if your version of getting ahead is to have a loving family, or to spend time on the hobbies you like or tr…
> I'm still working on finding my balance, but I've learned that I enjoy life much more when I'm doing something where I can spend less time playing the game, even if that comes with a large decrease in income and "prestige". Unfortunately in the US, if you don’t play the game, you have greatly reduced access to healthcare, which is a huge incentive to play the game especially if you have kids.
2) Even if it was true, is a society where freeloaders are rewarded equally to those who contribute a good thing or a just society? Healthcare, like all goods and services, comes from the labor of the working classes. It's perfectly fair and reasonable that the people working to pay for this (whether through insurance premiums, taxes, etc) receive the fruits of their labor, rather than having it siphoned away by non-contributing people.
Whenever you see someone who you believe to be an idiot succeeding, it usually means they're really good at the game and you don't even understand what the game is .
Tons of responses and no one has thrown out a link to the Ribbonfarm article about the Gervais Principle. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... Don't take it too seriously, but there is also many kernels of truth in there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> really good at the game Called being born rich. Plenty of idiots succeed because success was granted to them the day they were born. ____________ Also, a lot of times when you see an idiot succeeding, the idiot is a face for people to criticize while the master minds go about doing their magic, unseen.
There are also plenty of people who weren't born rich, played the game well, and "made it". Probably not as much as those who were born rich and got a head start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm still working on finding my balance, but I've learned that I enjoy life much more when I'm doing something where I can spend less time playing the game, even if that comes with a large decrease in income and "prestige". Unfortunately in the US, if you don’t play the game, you have greatly reduced access to healthcare, which is a huge incentive to play the game especially if you have kids.
1) This isn't even true in general. Aside from optional things like cosmetic surgery which you need to pay for out of pocket, the people on the taxpayer-subsidized obamacare bronze-level packages have access to the same doctors, facilities and treatments as people with high incomes and high quality employer-sponsored insurance plans. The only difference is deductibles and copays, which might vary by a few thousand do…
Generally, if your employer doesn't offer subsidized health insurance, then it means you're not paid much as it is, so adding premiums that cost $10k to $20k per year plus needing $13k per year saved for OOP costs (double that if you have a problem at the end of the calendar year) is a tall order.
And yes, you get premium subsidies if you make less than a certain amount, but it's no where near a comfortable life. The government makes sure you are right on the edge of being able to afford the basics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m confused. Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? Sounds like you think we already are, what’s the problem? The opposite of “expert” isn’t “uses magical common sense to arrive at the right decision”, it’s “crapshoot”.
> Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? No, he is making the valid point that in many areas that are highly relevant to public policy, there are no experts . Those who call themselves "experts" actually aren't. Nobody has enough understanding of the problem domain to make accurate predictions. In such a case, the only viable solution is for nobody to "rule".
She's not wrong. If my adulthood has taught me anything it's that supposed "experts" are oftentimes anything but. And they're certainly not trustworthy just because of their title or credentialing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> really good at the game Called being born rich. Plenty of idiots succeed because success was granted to them the day they were born. ____________ Also, a lot of times when you see an idiot succeeding, the idiot is a face for people to criticize while the master minds go about doing their magic, unseen.
Being rich isn't the same as succeeding.
If the definition of success is completely left to a person's own devices, the whole argument of the "game" falls apart too. Since there is no game to play.
