You don't have to agree with the points to acknowledge, like it or loath it, that this is how a modern western society works. Homeless, jobless, or unable to work, do get seen as not contributing and are therefore often looked down upon. Again, like it or loath it, that's reality. Besides, the whole 'point' of living in a society is simply that group effort makes individual survival easier.
This can have a lot to do your maximum talent. Only so many people make it into major league sports. The same things for every other profession in existence. Only a handful are good enough to make the top 1%. The rest of us just don't have the genetic capability for that level of talent.
Even citing that, at the professional level every athlete is one injury away from ending their career. Just because one has that talent doesn't mean that they'll shine like a star. Most NFL players quit well before being ready, because of how vicious the sport, and the whole of athletics can be. To say luck doesn't play a part in outcomes is to ignore how outcomes work. To say it is ALL luck is the same thing. We do give a bit too much credit to ourselves, and our talents, when victorious though.
Isn't more the case that self enrichment often carries with it a slight benefit to others? We seem predispositioned to trade and specialization as a species, a trait that goes back to our neolithic ancestors. Lacking compassion for those who are weaker is where eugenics crops its ugly head, a dark path that has been indulged before. Sadly, the opposite end of the spectrum can also indulge some ugly human tendencies. We weren't evolved for society so much as fell into it.
';m not sure. We do specialize, and that's one of the many reasons our species has done so well, but many other animals live in groups (herds, flocks, families etc) for mutual protection. We did it also for mutual production.
Small groups are the norm. Big groups like we have are nowhere near common. They couldn't be sustained until we happened upon agriculture, which changed everything, massively. The bulk of human existence was spent in small bands for mutual protection. That's what we're made for.
[MENTION=55095]jmhoffer[/MENTION]: Ridiculous socialism conspiracies aside, it is really weird you'd think that. No one in the Uk and other free-healthcare countries (ie. most of the civilised world) loses access to healthcare when they are old. People here would view it as fascism and eugenics, the very thing our society is committed against. I'm talking about social engineering policies which are well documented and discussed in academic environment, at least in my experience. Anyway, it appears we come from the opposite sides of the spectrum, so there probably isn't much point in us discussing this. [MENTION=45548]Selbbin[/MENTION]: political trends change, sometimes is like you say, and other times is as I say. When labour is in government in the Australia, for example, welfare stops being a dirty word, and then the liberals come in and make it into a rude word and it cycles, back and forth like that. If you move from America to Norway, you'll experience effective socialism and a thriving society. I'm not ready to abandon the views I know are humane and ultimately more beneficial to society, just because I don't conform to the current government policy in my country. Or just because I'm intimidated by the aggression of neo-capitalist arguments.
Thank you. I agree 100% This article was such a mixed bag for me. There are some definite grains of truth in there but the overall picture is not a healthy attitude. Even if society in general feels that way it doesn't make it healthy. Also people taking the bible way out of context is a huge pet peeve for me. Yes, there are passages talking about fruit, but it is in a spiritual sense. There is a passage that specifically speaks of the "fruits of the spirit" being virtues, such as patience, kindness, love, etc rather than skills that can provide some kind of tangible rendering. In some ways it was motivating in others it was totally demoralizing. Yes, it is absolutely good to get off your butt metaphorically or otherwise to pursue the things you want to pursue in life. Is it a good idea to hinge your value on your perceived usefulness to others or a tangible skill set? No. Many people are fickle and cruel. You can't rely on society at large to make you feel like a worthwhile human being. Most strangers would just as soon cut you down to make themselves feel bigger than to give you a helping hand on a bad day. As for the whole metaphor with the bullet wounds it's a good one but I'm going to take it in another direction based upon my own experiences. Sometimes you meet unique people in your life and it may only be for a short time but there are some wounds only that person can help heal. It isn't necessarily due to any knowledge on their part but more so being the right person, at the right time, and actually bothering to care about you. Sometimes you meet people who just shine. They're just special and one in a million and it's not because of anything they've done specifically. It's just something about them. Having been through what I've been through I had to learn to throw out the idea that my worth was based on what I could do for others physically. I've learned there are a lot of other things I have to offer and a lot of other ways to be strong than just physically. A millionaire philanthropist is not worth more than a construction worker who's barely scraping by. Everyone has inherent worth. Maybe you ignore people you walk by on the street and don't ever wonder about their lives or what they care about. Everyone is facing struggles and challenges every day that billions of other people never ever see or hear about. At the end of the day that is one thing we all have in common. I'm not perfect, no one is. We've all done our share of good and bad things. Sometimes under great duress. We all have things we wish we could have done differently or things we wish we could go back and say or take back. All I can say is to do your best, whatever that may be, and really that's all anyone can ask of a person.
Strangers can be rather cruel. There are good parts to the article, especially if it inspires people to make more of themselves. There are also bad parts, such as defining our worth solely on other people. That, as a philosophy, is ridiculous.
It's sad that people on the left are so willing to ignore atrocities simply because they are committed by their own. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=britain+death+panels
[MENTION=55095]jmhoffer[/MENTION]: Criminal behaviour is criminal behaviour and social policy is social policy. I assumed it goes without saying that I was excluding crime from my statement "nobody is denied access to health care". Otherwise, we can never talk about kindergardens in a positive way, just because extremely rarely, some children are subjected to abuse there. Every concept has it's shadow element, but unless that shadow is prevailing in a quantifiable manner, the concept can not be held hostage to it. Therefore, I never said there are no unethical people or criminals in the UK, who abuse their position, power, system, others etc. We all have psychopaths don't we? We just have to get around them somehow or neutralise their destructive effect. It is astonishing how prepared people on the right are to bluntly manipulate the facts without any fear of embarrassment. As if nobody would notice. Bah!
I didn't realise that the Liverpool Care Pathway was a criminal organisation. Oh, right it's not. It's run by the government NHS. Blunt manipulation of facts is right, but nice try, we aren't all so easily fooled.
Yes I'd say they are lucky. I didn't think this could be an issue of contention. Talented people can work their entire lives and not get anywhere special, so those who do I consider lucky. If you think that I'm saying luck is the only thing needed in success then all I can say is you have me by the wrong foot.
You're choosing extreme examples to make your point. Yes, a few people fail because of overwhelming bad luck and a few succeed in spite of themselves because they win a lottery. So what? 99% of success stories still require hard work. Don't concentrate on that 1%. You do know most athletes in the NFL leave because of injury, right? Hard work can contribute to great things, but to say luck has no role is just stupid. Hard work alone can make someone great. It isn't a guarantee. If I work hard at digging ditches all day, I may build a grand ditch, but it won't be what I'd call 'success.' Life can seem unfair, but we live in the best time humanity has ever seen. Part of being intelligent means recognizing that despite how great things are, they could be better. Wong's article puts too much emphasis on an internal locus of control focused on an external locus of gratification. It again is more of the tough love line Dr. Phil spouts on about.
I think that even if we look at others besides the healthy 18-35yos who are the most likely target audience of the article, like, say, a handicapped child, they can be seen as someone who contributes to their society if, for instance, they provide their parents with the inspiration and motivation to work harder for the benefit of their family, because one can contribute in a visible way in other ways than such that result in monetary income. But, of course, articles like that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, so because of its subjective nature, it's difficult to say who has it right (if there even is such a thing as a right interpretation). Regardless, despite the article's rather hostile tone, I see its message as largely positive if we look deeper than the seemingly "capitalistic" message: we should work hard to benefit, not only ourselves, but others as well. Isn't that what a lot of people regarded as saints and philanthropists say and do?
Okay, I see what you were saying. When calling a successful person "lucky", it's hard to parse out when it's just a general statement about the uncertain nature of success (which I agree with you about), or a dismissal of hard work and talent. I'm used to the latter from real life conversations, unfortunately. What is the significance of this? For starters, NFL players retiring due to injury is not merely "luck", but a major element of the sport ("durability"), no different than speed or strength. And in all cases, they're success stories for even making it to the NFL, something a microscopic percentage of athletes achieve. Luckily, no one said this. Here is my post from the first page; "Being a mathematician by education, I view it in more mathematical terms; if we look at a graph of a system of differential equations, in some cases chaotic/uncertain regions ("luck") have considerable effect on our curves, and other cases very little. The direction can also vary. So yes, circumstances/luck matter. But hardly anyone becomes successful without years of struggle and hard work, luck or no luck".
Injuries are entirely variable, just like a ball's bounce. Luck, in the form of random chance, has a major impact in our lives. Plenty of people work hard their entire lives and are not successful. Random chance can and does play a part in our lives that we like to ignore when have success, and blame when we have failure. We should simply accept it as part of life, and not focus solely on the hard work and struggle as the core of our grandness (I shoveled all day, and look at what I've made). Basically, a little less self-aggrandizement would go a long way, but how many people want to admit to the role of others and random chance in garnering their position in life? VERY FEW.
That's fair enough, I have the same sort of things myself. Like when people say Comedy is supposed to be funny, that really grinds my gears.
Not true. Yes, there are "freak injuries" that could happen to anyone, but there are also "injury-prone" players who always have some nagging problem with their body. There are also guys with a history of injuries afflicting specific body parts, whether it be the back, right knee, left ankle, etc. There are also guys who play a more reckless style and thus increase their chances of being injured. All of this ignores that NFL players are successes anyways, so Wong's criticism doesn't apply to them. On the contrary, I believe people are far too wrapped up in luck, and blame too many of their problems on a lack of it. And again, look at your examples! You're considering professional sports, one of the most luck-based fields out there, and specifically, injuries. (Although even there, it's not a matter of purely random chance) How much of what a talented physicist does is based on him/her getting "lucky"? The overwhelming majority is hard work and talent.
A physicist wakes up. He slams his hand down on his phone, which provides him an alarm. He didn't build the alarm. He turns it off. He showers. He didn't dig the water pipe. He heads to work. He didn't build the road. He begins his daily work, playing around with particles. This he does as a passion. He builds upon the work of others, but he also experiments and works in new ways. His theories are done off of hard, arduous nights in the laboratory. He goes home, again on a road he didn't build, and goes to sleep. Tomorrow he'll go back to work. Rinse, repeat. His education came from a combination of his own work, and the work of plenty of other people (parents, teachers and so on). He contributes mightily to his field, and he does his hard work. However, his work may not get published. It may end up on the desk of a reviewer who accidentally loses it. Or it may end up on the desk ahead of a similar work, but it'll get published too. I'm not discounting hard work or talent. However to say that every person is an island unto themselves, discounting everything else and saying random chance plays a tiny part is a foolish, self-centered philosophy. Plenty of people work hard and have talent. We should recognize that. We also should recognize that we aren't the totality of our achievements. There's a lot more that goes into us than just what WE, ourselves, do.
So I take it, by these statements, that anyone who finds themselves poor or downtrodden is placed there simply because of a lack of hard work and/or talent? Can someone work hard and still end up a failure? What percentage does this represent? Can someone talented end up a failure? What percentage does this represent?
Every successful physicist I know had the same access to educational opportunities as millions of other students around the world did. Some of the latter never even finished high school. So what's the difference between to them? According to you, it's because of some nebulous "luck". According to what I observed, it's because they were harder working and more talented than the rest. As a scientist, I can state that this never happens. If only because all research articles are submitted electronically these days. Yes you are. Again, no one made this argument. Edit- You sure love your strawmen, don't you? If a person is talented and hard-working, it's rare that they "fail" in every interpretation of that word. They might not become rich, but they might also change the world. (like Gutenberg) The vast majority of humanity. Most people are talented in some area. Very few of them develop that talent with the hard work it requires.
Hard work and talent matter. You believe they matter to a vast degree, while I believe they matter alongside thousands of other factors. They do matter, and are important. Beyond that, this conversation probably has nowhere else to go, despite plenty of hard work.
It's a question of life attitude. If hard work and talent are just two unexceptional variables among "thousands of other factors", then why bother prioritizing either one? Why focus on finding an area you're good at or busting your ass if it's such a small part of the puzzle? But if they do matter, then it would behoove one to do everything he/she can.
Liverpool Care Pathway is just a term for terminal care pathway that exists in most countries. Recently horrific abuses in a small number of cases within the NHS have been discovered and that's good because imagine if they weren't discovered! How awful would that be? What is exactly your point, is what I would like to know. Oh, sorry, I remember. You're a fan of selective manipulation of facts and deliberate misinterpretation to justify your agenda (whilst accusing other of doing it, to divert attention, and when all else fails, there are the double standards to fall back on)
