The Modesty Manifesto

[aristide1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/opinion/11brooks.html

"If Americans do, indeed, have a different and larger conception of the self than they did a few decades ago, I wonder if this is connected to some of the social and political problems we have observed over the past few years. "

I would ask this same question to non-political issues as well. You see people with road rage and both parties are screaming at each other. You know one of them messed up bad, but they simply refuse to take the blame, even when it's clearly their fault.

Environmental arguments are also dealt with in black and white. Since when have any arguments been so clearly right or wrong? Especially with complicated issues.

I had a talk a while back with a divorce lawyer. The most important and obvious question for me was, "How often is either party totally right or wrong?" His answer? Almost never, which frankly should be people's expectations.

But coming full circle(to what the article said) we as a society now regard compromise as failure. Frankly there's no better way to make sure we are never at peace in the world than with this type of non-thinking.

A

[colm]

interesting.

compromise is proving to be the biggest killer of all.

safe cars for everybody...

there goes all the tin cans from midget places.

electronics strong enough...

how long would that 13.4mhz crystal last then.

the most basic things needed are gone because of compromise.

the world is an EGR valve...and it stuck open, right now.

[aristide1]

I was using the word compromise to address thinking, not how we build things.

All cars are compromises, the ultimate safe car is a tank. You crash into concrete barriers and you keep going. You roll over and crush most cars. Practical? Affordable? No, hense compromise. You have conflicting requirements, so no one quality is an overall winner.

Lousy build quality is not compromise, that's just being cheap.

Americans also are mix up respect and fear, hence the Harley crowd.

[tim851]

compromise is proving to be the biggest killer of all.

It really is not.

Compromise is the foundation of human society.

I think it's an American phenomenon (and sadly an export) to understand a compromise as something where both parties lose. This might be a result of the culture of competition and the winner-mentality.

There's also the issue that the word compromise in English means both "to find an agreement" and "to endanger/derail something" (as in "compromise an operation").

[andyb]

"If Americans do, indeed, have a different and larger conception of the self than they did a few decades ago, I wonder if this is connected to some of the social and political problems we have observed over the past few years. "

Do you mean "social and political problems we have observed over the past few years" in America, or elsewhere.

compromise is proving to be the biggest killer of all.

I find it difficult not to laugh at this statement, it is silly. Compromise CAN be good, compromise CAN be bad, it is simply not right to make such a strong statement that is obviously wrong. One thing that make "Fanatics" as dangerous as we know they can be is not being able/willing to compromise.

the ultimate safe car is a tank

The Ultimate safe car is the one not involved in an accident. Extending your use of "safe" a rigid heavy car may be "safe" to its occupants, but not to anyone else - hence cars that are built like tanks are NOT safe, they are downright dangerous. Soft lightweight cars with good safety features are far safer to everyone and not just the cars occupants, the link below lists the safest cars by their testing methodology. Note that none of them are "tanks".

http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Art ... -2010.aspx

Compromise is the foundation of human society.

I would personally swap the word "the" for the word "a".


Andy

[aristide1]

Compromise is the foundation of human society.

Do you see 6.5 billion behaving like a society?

[andyb]

Do you see 6.5 billion behaving like a society

No. I see 6.5 Billion people behaving like they variously belong to many thousands of societies, many of which cross various boundaries due to the simple fact that most people cant agree on what makes a society, and whether there are/are not sub-societies and sibling societies, and whether someone can "belong" to a society if they want to but happen to be the wrong colour, sex or religion.

To put things bluntly there is no such thing as "the society" i.e. there is no society that includes every breathing human.

Society Defenitions.

1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

2. a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.

3. the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.

4. a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.

5. such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.

6. those with whom one has companionship.

7. companionship; company: to enjoy one's society.

8. the social life of wealthy, prominent, or fashionable persons.

9. the social class that comprises such persons.

10. the condition of those living in companionship with others, or in a community, rather than in isolation.

11. Biology . a closely integrated group of social organisms of the same species exhibiting division of labor.

12. Ecclesiastical . an ecclesiastical society.


Andy

[tim851]

Off Topic: Tanks are actually not that safe. It's a nobrainer when it's tank on car, but two tanks in a head-on collision would kill all occupants. I saw a documentary once about car racing in the 40s or 50s when they designed the cars to be as rigid as possible and they had a lot of fatalities, because if the car is rigid is passes on the kinetic energy of a collision to the passenger. Modern race cars are designed to totally break apart, except for the safety cell protecting the human body. All that shattering takes on a lot of the kinetic energy. Same concept applies to crush zones in street cars.

Compromise is the foundation of human society.

I would personally swap the word "the" for the word "a".

Agreed.

[aristide1]

Off Topic: Tanks are actually not that safe. It's a nobrainer when it's tank on car, but two tanks in a head-on collision would kill all occupants.

Correct, and as stated the only truly safe vehicle is the one not involved in accidents. Given the driver is always the weakest like ("Goodbye!") you would think that's what needs to be addressed, but in a black and white world who can suggest to anyone that improvements can be made to their driving habits. Clue: The worst drivers would scream the loudest.

[andyb]

I saw a documentary once about car racing in the 40s or 50s when they designed the cars to be as rigid as possible and they had a lot of fatalities, because if the car is rigid is passes on the kinetic energy of a collision to the passenger.

Yeah, thats nasty. I was watching some banger racing a few years ago, and saw lots of cars get the shit knocked out of them, and evene a hearse do a couple of laps with 2 front wheels and the back end dragging on the ground, several races - no injuries. Then on came some "stock cars", just a few laps into the first race, and a nasty crash - hospital. This crash was no nastier than dozens I had just witnessed, a solid steel frame wrapped around your car is not good for your health when you hit something similar.


Andy

[andyb]

Given the driver is always the weakest

Its not "the" driver that is the dangerous part, its "a" driver, I am as concerned by other people hitting me as I am of causing an accident myself.

One thing I cant get my head round is people who dont bother to put on their lights when it starts to get a little dark, they have almost no impact (in reality) on your battery, and they serve 2 purposes not just one that some people think they are there for.

Lights are there for "other" people not just the idiot driving the car, but so other people can see the idiot in the car at dusk.

I have a policy of putting my lights on (main beam not the silly little side-lights I skip straight past them) as soon as its just a touch dark, or if I forget, or I am used to the murkyness when I see other people with their lights on - I have countless times been in the position to have an accident because someone coming the other way "can see out of their car", that does not mean that I can see them - twats


Andy

[aristide1]

Given the driver is always the weakest

Its not "the" driver that is the dangerous part, its "a" driver, I am as concerned by other people hitting me as I am of causing an accident myself.

Those other people are also drivers, I never meant to apply the statement only to yourself. I used "the driver" from an observer's viewpoint.

One thing I cant get my head round is people who dont bother to put on their lights when it starts to get a little dark, they have almost no impact (in reality) on your battery, and they serve 2 purposes not just one that some people think they are there for.

Lights are there for "other" people not just the idiot driving the car, but so other people can see the idiot in the car at dusk.

Andy

It's taught in driver's education in the US, but the # of people that got the memo remains low.

[andyb]

Those other people are also drivers, I never meant to apply the statement only to yourself. I used "the driver" from an observer's viewpoint.

I took no offence, I was thinking of "the" as in any reference to any driver, but drivers always see themselves as "the" driver when they are driving.

It's taught in driver's education in the US, but the # of people that got the memo remains low.

Its no different on the other side of the pond, and from what I understand varying degrees of bad across the world.


Andy

[aristide1]

The other black and white area in the US is IT hiring. They no longer want qualified people, they only want Mr or Miss Perfect.

I hope they hold their breath waiting for them.

[andyb]

I hope they hold their breath waiting for them.

So do I, the result would be akin to justice.

The law of averages dictates that "some" perfectly good employees who do not interview well, are being overlooked because they dont match that "percieved perfection", it also dictates that they will employ someone who does interviews well, but is not actually good at their job (or has a perfect degree, but no experience). Is the "percieved perfection" as common as we sometimes think that it is, and is it even desirable.?

There are many things that we are pushed towards and away from throughout our lives, some of these are "designed" such as the desire of sme people to buy the latest clothes, some are natural such as the will to be healthy and live for longer, sometimes though I feel that there are forces that are trying to push us towards a "percieved perfection" of something that is not perfect at all - take the iPad for an example - now consider the perfect employee in the same way, it looks good, works well, but is fundamentally limited by design and therefore looses a great deal of the usefullness of its competitors.


Andy

[aristide1]

Andy,

In the US the people handling the job applications are overwhelmed by hundreds if not thousands of apps per job opening. The quickest and easiest way to throw out a large number of them is not necessarily the best way, but the boss is expecting results.

One also questions whether some so called "jobs" are nothing more than a collection of salary surveys. Some Internet job applications won't even allow completion without salary entries. If the average of all applicants is 25% lower than what the workers are being paid perhaps it's time for some layoffs? Oh, please excuse me, some downsizing.

[m0002a]

One also questions whether some so called "jobs" are nothing more than a collection of salary surveys. Some Internet job applications won't even allow completion without salary entries. If the average of all applicants is 25% lower than what the workers are being paid perhaps it's time for some layoffs? Oh, please excuse me, some downsizing.

Never heard that one. I think that they ask for salary information as just one more way to weed out applicants. No use interviewing someone who wants more money than they are willing to pay.