Problems vs. Solutions and criticizing (e.g.), BLM

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wearing a government uniform in order to crush the enemy
is your line of work, not mine. (I'm unsuited for both uniforms
and government employment.)...

I was. I am a pacifist now. Ans since I am a former medic, I would ask to be made one again and refuse to use a weapon.
I am also a former civil servant.

... But yes, you'd benefit from a
sunnier outlook when facing society's woes. ...

So when constructing a system as an engineer you just hoped for the best and didn't worry about problems?
And you are aware that an engineer is not trained to deal with humans as humans.
Do you have any training with dealing with humans as humans? I can guarantee that you can't apply engineering one to one to that.

 

[Revoltingest]

So when constructing a system as an engineer you just hoped for the best and didn't worry about problems?
And you are aware that an engineer is not trained to deal with humans as humans.
Do you have any training with dealing with humans as humans? I can guarantee that you can't apply engineering one to one to that.

Your post proffers a severe misunderstanding of design engineering.
First it pontificates all about my profession. And only after that
does it even pose a question...one it already wrongly answered.
Human factors is hugely important.
I recommend reading about Raymond Loewy.
And then I recommend practicing focus upon
issues instead of the poster.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your post proffers a severe misunderstanding of design engineering.
First it pontificates all about my profession. And only after that
does it even pose a question...one it already wrongly answered.
Human factors is hugely important.
I recommend reading about Raymond Loewy.
And then I recommend practicing focus upon
issues instead of the poster.

Just as you did here.

...But yes, you'd benefit from a
sunnier outlook when facing society's woes. Optimism &
equanimity are good for the mind and the immune system.
...

So please explain how that is done using engineering.

 

[PureX]

That's woefully inaccurate.
I say there are many problems.

But you also said that you doubted that greed and selfishness are really even a problem, because they are inevitable.

IOW, learn to cope with one's environment,
not wallow in angst & despair. Appreciate
the good things in life.

It does not appear that I've misinterpreted, then.

"Learn to cope" = play the greed/selfishness game to win.

"Wallow in angst and despair" = the hopelessness of idealism to a pragmatist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just as you did here.

I gave useful advice, not criticism or misrepresentation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I gave useful advice, not criticism or misrepresentation.

It is not useful if you don't explain how to do. What if I tried and couldn't do it, that would make it worse.

 

[Revoltingest]

But you also said that you doubted that greed and selfishness are really even a problem, because they are inevitable.

Things which are inherent in being human can cause problems.
They aren't going away.
But it's illogical to say that means they aren't problems.

It does not appear that I've misinterpreted, then.
"Learn to cope" = play the greed/selfishness game to win.

Wrong again.
To recognize the traits humans have doesn't mean
that one must commit wrongs in order to "win".

"Wallow in angst and despair" = the hopelessness of idealism to a pragmatist.

Pragmatism is about achieving the best possible result.
An idealist who imagines humans to be better than they
really are shouldn't design systems for those humans.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is not useful if you don't explain how to do. What if I tried and couldn't do it, that would make it worse.

RF's rules would be a good start.

The short version...
What to do: Stick to the issues.
What not to do: Attack the person.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Pragmatism is about achieving the best possible result.
An idealist who imagines humans to be better than they
really are shouldn't design systems for those humans.

The best possible result. Evidence please!??

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

RF's rules would be a good start.

The short version...
What to do: Stick to the issues.
What not to do: Attack the person.

You claim something and don't back it up and I ask you to back it up, I am attacking you. Got it. Now report for this post:
Problems vs. Solutions and criticizing (e.g.), BLM

 

[Revoltingest]

The best possible result. Evidence please!??

Evidence for having a goal?
I suppose posting that it's my goal is evidence for it.
There ya go!

 

[Revoltingest]

You claim something and don't back it up and I ask you to back it up, I am attacking you. Got it. Now report for this post:
Problems vs. Solutions and criticizing (e.g.), BLM

I don't understand this.
Is there an issue you'd like to discuss?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence for having a goal?
I suppose posting that it's my goal is evidence for it.
There ya go!

How do you know that it is the best possible result?

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you know that it is the best possible result?

Each of us must use our own judgement to find a way to achieve the best possible result. "Pragmatism" is about doing what works towards that end.
I'm using the 2nd definition....
pragmatism

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Each of us must use our own judgement to find a way to achieve the best possible result. "Pragmatism" is about doing what works towards that end.
I'm using the 2nd definition....
pragmatism

But you didn't do that. Here is what you said:

Things which are inherent in being human can cause problems.
They aren't going away.
But it's illogical to say that means they aren't problems.

Wrong again.
To recognize the traits humans have doesn't mean
that one must commit wrongs in order to "win".

Pragmatism is about achieving the best possible result.
An idealist who imagines humans to be better than they
really are shouldn't design systems for those humans.

We were talking about society.
And the best result for that is this:
A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.

So please explain what that is about and how to do it when it involves 2 or more humans, unless you are the only human in the world.

 

[Revoltingest]

But you didn't do that. Here is what you said:



We were talking about society.
And the best result for that is this:
A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.

So please explain what that is about and how to do it when it involves 2 or more humans, unless you are the only human in the world.

I'm not having success explaining things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not having success explaining things.

These are free floating words: "A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems." You have to convert then into actual examples, rules/procedures and what not. You haven't done so.

 

[Revoltingest]

These are free floating words: "A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems." You have to convert then into actual examples, rules/procedures and what not. You haven't done so.

To do so seems unproductive.
You ask for details & evidence for things very general.
That's impractical, & would derail the thread.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you understand that when you say "targeting of", you're making a statistical claim as well? Do you have the stats to back up that claim?

Ok, I went back thru many pages of this thread, and I did use some data in post #123. However I didn't find any time when I said "the majority of people the police kill are white". I might be wrong, but I didn't find it. If you can find me saying that, I'll stand corrected.

My best guess is that you didn't read post #123 carefully. Based on the data I used in post #123, YOU seemed to infer that I was making the bolded claim above. But that's YOUR inference, not my intention.

Post 197:
"As I understand it, cops kill about 1000 people a year in this country - that's in the context of millions of hostile encounters. Of those 1000, far less than half are black."

You are going to obviously extreme lengths to avoid answering a simple yes or no question here, Icehorse.

Just answer the question.

 

[PureX]

Things which are inherent in being human can cause problems.
They aren't going away.
But it's illogical to say that means they aren't problems.

Well, you said it, not me.

Rape is a problem that is also not going to go away. But that does not mean that it's wise for us to simply accept it as inevitable and participate in it to the degree that it helps us 'succeed' in life. Yet this seems to be your attitude toward greed and selfishness and the endless damage it does to human culture and society, and to millions of individual human lives.

To recognize the traits humans have doesn't mean that one must commit wrongs in order to "win".

It does when traits like greed and selfishness are perceived by a society and it's culture as virtuous, and it's systems of interaction reflect that, as they CLEARLY do in our culture and society, even by your own admission. When the systems are rigged to advantage the greedy and the selfish the individual is basically forced to become greedy and selfish just to survive in it. Again, as you have already admitted, yourself.

Pragmatism is about achieving the best possible result.

The best possible result for whom? There's that selfishness, again.

An idealist who imagines humans to be better than they really are shouldn't design systems for those humans.

How sad. How will humans ever become better than they are without aspiring to do so, and without designing systems for themselves that help them enable that goal, instead of enabling our lesser, self-destructive characteristics?

Why do you think we have laws against rape and murder if pursuing that ideal is such a hopeless waste of time?