13 ms·

I really enjoyed this article. Summary Coyotes are too clever because they know that people shaking jars full of coins can’t hurt them. Thus the animal contro

I really enjoyed this article. Summary Coyotes are too clever because they know that people shaking jars full of coins can’t hurt them. Thus the animal control patrol has to get called and when they don’t shoo, the animal control person who loves animals has to shoot the coyote. Coyotes are winning the mini-game of each human interaction, but they are losing the meta-game of what society will do if coyotes aren’t scared. Personal Connection This reminds me of a turning point that I had in high school. When I was young, I would get in trouble and try to get around the rules each time I got in trouble. /“Well, technically…”/ But at some point I realized that most of the time you aren’t getting in trouble because you are breaking the rules. You are getting in trouble because you are making the rule makers unhappy. Once I had that realization I was able to focus on relationships with the rule makers and figure out what they actually cared about. This allowed me to break the rules just as much but without getting in trouble.

jacobolus 8y ago
The problem is that the rule makers in high schools are sometimes (often?) incredibly petty people with a very poor understanding of human psychology and communication, not tremendously much empathy for the students, and very little personal consequence when they make a mistake even if that has drastic consequences for the student (and as a result little time spent introspecting about their mistakes). I never got in particularly much trouble, but many of my friends were screwed by minor miscommunication which incompetent adults escalated beyond any reason. And yes, under the circumstances (assuming the goal is to avoid problems, instead of to aggravate the staff, perform ad-hoc psychology experiments, or the like), any high school student should avoid contradicting the staff in public, start by acquiescing to any request that doesn’t pose an immediate injury risk, disengage quickly and completely and then marshal their parents’ help if there has been any kind of mistake that will affect them academically. Few teenagers have figured this out though. To any high school rule makers out there, please read How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk, https://amzn.com/1451663889/ https://amzn.com/1451663889/ and in general, please try to treat the students with basic respect.
- sjcsjc 8y ago
  Thanks. Just bought that book (qua parent, not teacher)
- icantdrive55 8y ago
  I had a teacher in high school tell a student to go home, after a disagreement. The kid didn't show up for two days. On the third day, my teacher went to the kid's house, and asked him to come back. The kid said he dropped out of school. He told my teacher it wasen't his fault, he was planning too. Well, my teacher was never the same. He went from a enthusiast guy to someone who didn't say too much. He talked about the kid the entire semester. He claimed he went to the kids house, and begged him to give school another chance. To this day, I think about how one, usually ego driven comment/directive, can affect a person's life. I'm talking about the teacher's life. I don't know what happened to the student, but I think about the guilt of that teacher, and how he carried it around.
- temp-dude-87844 8y ago
  It's not just kids, is it? This is pretty much the canonical and most self-preserving way of interacting with anyone who has power over you and is in a clear and present situation to apply it: school officials, police officers, appeal adjudicators at companies who you try to turn to if you think there's been some bureaucratic mistake, military personnel of a foreign power in your country for reasons beyond your control, and even an abusive spouse -- much to the dismay of advocates everywhere.
  - exelius 8y ago
    I feel a lot of white males don’t understand this. Not out of malice, but simply because the circumstances of their lives don’t put them in these situations as often as say, a black woman. It really affects the way you interact with the world and vice versa. In general, white men still make the rules, so if you’re different than that in any way, you have to adapt to the rule makers.
    - tristor 8y ago
anonytrary 8y ago
This is probably a highdea, but what if coyotes are having a tough time in the wild and they are smart enough to see how we treat dogs, so they are actually doing what wolves did thousands of years ago by slowly, cautiously edging their way into human society in hopes that they can integrate with us? They aren't particularly hostile, they seem to just want to survive. There have been maybe a couple hundred reported coyote attacks in the past 50 years[0] compared to millions of dog-related attacks per year[1]. Of course, one would expect dog-related attacks to be more common because they interact with us more, so it's not quite a controlled comparison. Why hate on coyotes? I guess it boils to how cute they are, unfortunately. I don't think we truly need them, and they aren't cute enough to keep around for most people. Perhaps if I raised a baby coyote, I would be very inclined to keep one as a pet. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_Unite...
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  > in hopes that they can integrate with us I think you can stop right there. The dog thing happened not because dog "wanted" to be with humans. Dogs were clueless about what happened, it just did. The explanation is on a higher level, not in their desires, not even in the desires of the humans who participated in most of the dog domestication (even if some of them may have thought about it, but by then it was already happening).
  - collyw 8y ago
    Selective quoting, you missed out the part where he said: "are having a tough time in the wild and they are smart enough to see how we treat dogs". Its a hypothesis and it doesn't seem unreasonable.
    - ItsMe000001 8y ago
      How exactly do they "see how we treat dogs"? I must admit I don't see a "reasonable" hypothesis at all. > Selective quoting, Yes - because that statement does not make sense regardless of context, so I didn't quote the rest. It also saves space. I always only quote the part that I respond to, the rest of the context always still is right there in an Internet forum, unless OP deletes the post. If I quoted in a different place, for example I quote someone in my own blog post, copying from another website, then I would have to provide the context.
Kiro 8y ago
I also realized this which made me game the whole schooling system. I didn't study and had a poor attendance but still got an award for the being the school's best student. Pretty crazy when I think about it. Suffice to say, my strategy didn't work very well in university.
- dibujante 8y ago
  High-five, fellow "burned by needing to do real work in university" high schooler :(
  - mcv 8y ago
    Same here. Once I figured out that I didn't really have to do any homework in high school, and wasn't even required to do so in university, I was doomed. I'm now trying to teach my son that just learning to do the work, even if it's boring, is the real skill you need. But he's too focused on winning every mini-game.
    - rhizome 8y ago
      Look up The Marshmallow Test. If there was one thing I wish my parents had instilled in me, it's good study habits.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        Though nobody is good at working hard to reap rewards that are a decade or more down the line, which is where learning to do boring work really pays off.
      - pavel_lishin 8y ago
        Wasn't that debunked? It's useful as a myth - "teach your kids patience", "don't go into the woods alone" - but it doesn't actually turn out to be true.
        Sean1708 8y ago
gadders 8y ago
>> But at some point I realized that most of the time you aren’t getting in trouble because you are breaking the rules. You are getting in trouble because you are making the rule makers unhappy. Once I had that realization I was able to focus on relationships with the rule makers and figure out what they actually cared about. This allowed me to break the rules just as much but without getting in trouble. Tangentially related, I also read once that the main determinant in whether a doctor got sued for malpractise is not the actual blunder itself, but the doctors bedside manner and relationship with the patient and their family. (Obviously this relates to honest mistakes, more than extreme negligence) As a result, on any project I am on now (as a PM) I make it my practise to befriend as far as possible all the stakeholders in the project. The other advantage is it also makes your time at work more enjoyable.
r_singh 8y ago
I'd just like to point out that the article connotes multiple ideas using the plot summarised by this comment; hence this is not really a summary of the whole article.
leetcrew 8y ago
> But at some point I realized that most of the time you aren’t getting in trouble because you are breaking the rules. You are getting in trouble because you are making the rule makers unhappy. i had a similar realization in late high-school / early college, but worded a little differently. the rules themselves were never designed to be reasonable; they were designed to solve problems that the rule makers encountered in the past and afford them a "legitimate" means of recourse. no one ever intended to apply them consistently. this is why you can generally break as many rules as you want, so long as you don't actually cause a problem for someone. on the flip side, if you create a problem, they damn sure have an applicable rule on the books.
- jv22222 8y ago
  The issue with all of this is most people are rule abiding citizens, that's why it's so easy to game the system and get away with it. (Thinking about businesses & politicians)
  - eslaught 8y ago
    I think you're missing the point of what GP is saying. My interpretation was that rules are only an approximation for what the rulemakers actually care about, and if you understand that, optimizing for what they want and not what they say will be a lot better for you than doing what they say but not what they want.
    - uhhhhhhh 8y ago
      I think you're missing his point here. Yes, those of us that question and break rules can optimize for what is actually desired vs what is 'proscribed' and have better outcomes. But many/most people rather just follow the rules/directions in the first place rather than break the rules or attempt to find optimal ways around them.
      - jjoonathan 8y ago
        Riiiight, which is why many/most people drive the speed limit.
baxtr 8y ago
The question for me is the definition of “winning”. In his perspective animals like sheep are “winning” the meta game because they behave. However, becoming dumbed down just to survive is maybe not much of a “win” either.
- Isamu 8y ago
  > dumbed down Hey now, I'd like to speak up for the sheep. Maybe a bit introverted but not dumb. In my experience they are quite opinionated and willful. Ok maybe I am projecting a bit.
- mightybyte 8y ago
  The same author has another post that describes in more detail his views on sheep and how the modern popular connotation is not at all the way sheep actually behave. http://epsilontheory.com/sheep-logic/ http://epsilontheory.com/sheep-logic/
nine_k 8y ago
I'd say that here coyotes don't play too smart, but not smart enough. Instead of understanding a signal and backing off, they proceed and get shot. They win tactically until they lose strategically. This is even more sad became coyotes are definitely smart enough to understand symbolic violence and audial signals as a substitute for real fighting, and use this in their interactions within a pack.
ouid 8y ago
there's always a bigger meta.

jacobolus 8y ago

The problem is that the rule makers in high schools are sometimes (often?) incredibly petty people with a very poor understanding of human psychology and communication, not tremendously much empathy for the students, and very little personal consequence when they make a mistake even if that has drastic consequences for the student (and as a result little time spent introspecting about their mistakes). I never got in particularly much trouble, but many of my friends were screwed by minor miscommunication which incompetent adults escalated beyond any reason. And yes, under the circumstances (assuming the goal is to avoid problems, instead of to aggravate the staff, perform ad-hoc psychology experiments, or the like), any high school student should avoid contradicting the staff in public, start by acquiescing to any request that doesn’t pose an immediate injury risk, disengage quickly and completely and then marshal their parents’ help if there has been any kind of mistake that will affect them academically. Few teenagers have figured this out though. To any high school rule makers out there, please read How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk, https://amzn.com/1451663889/ https://amzn.com/1451663889/ and in general, please try to treat the students with basic respect.

sjcsjc 8y ago
Thanks. Just bought that book (qua parent, not teacher)
icantdrive55 8y ago
I had a teacher in high school tell a student to go home, after a disagreement. The kid didn't show up for two days. On the third day, my teacher went to the kid's house, and asked him to come back. The kid said he dropped out of school. He told my teacher it wasen't his fault, he was planning too. Well, my teacher was never the same. He went from a enthusiast guy to someone who didn't say too much. He talked about the kid the entire semester. He claimed he went to the kids house, and begged him to give school another chance. To this day, I think about how one, usually ego driven comment/directive, can affect a person's life. I'm talking about the teacher's life. I don't know what happened to the student, but I think about the guilt of that teacher, and how he carried it around.
temp-dude-87844 8y ago
It's not just kids, is it? This is pretty much the canonical and most self-preserving way of interacting with anyone who has power over you and is in a clear and present situation to apply it: school officials, police officers, appeal adjudicators at companies who you try to turn to if you think there's been some bureaucratic mistake, military personnel of a foreign power in your country for reasons beyond your control, and even an abusive spouse -- much to the dismay of advocates everywhere.
- exelius 8y ago
  I feel a lot of white males don’t understand this. Not out of malice, but simply because the circumstances of their lives don’t put them in these situations as often as say, a black woman. It really affects the way you interact with the world and vice versa. In general, white men still make the rules, so if you’re different than that in any way, you have to adapt to the rule makers.
  - tristor 8y ago

anonytrary 8y ago

This is probably a highdea, but what if coyotes are having a tough time in the wild and they are smart enough to see how we treat dogs, so they are actually doing what wolves did thousands of years ago by slowly, cautiously edging their way into human society in hopes that they can integrate with us? They aren't particularly hostile, they seem to just want to survive. There have been maybe a couple hundred reported coyote attacks in the past 50 years[0] compared to millions of dog-related attacks per year[1]. Of course, one would expect dog-related attacks to be more common because they interact with us more, so it's not quite a controlled comparison. Why hate on coyotes? I guess it boils to how cute they are, unfortunately. I don't think we truly need them, and they aren't cute enough to keep around for most people. Perhaps if I raised a baby coyote, I would be very inclined to keep one as a pet. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_Unite...

ItsMe000001 8y ago
> in hopes that they can integrate with us I think you can stop right there. The dog thing happened not because dog "wanted" to be with humans. Dogs were clueless about what happened, it just did. The explanation is on a higher level, not in their desires, not even in the desires of the humans who participated in most of the dog domestication (even if some of them may have thought about it, but by then it was already happening).
- collyw 8y ago
  Selective quoting, you missed out the part where he said: "are having a tough time in the wild and they are smart enough to see how we treat dogs". Its a hypothesis and it doesn't seem unreasonable.
  - ItsMe000001 8y ago
    How exactly do they "see how we treat dogs"? I must admit I don't see a "reasonable" hypothesis at all. > Selective quoting, Yes - because that statement does not make sense regardless of context, so I didn't quote the rest. It also saves space. I always only quote the part that I respond to, the rest of the context always still is right there in an Internet forum, unless OP deletes the post. If I quoted in a different place, for example I quote someone in my own blog post, copying from another website, then I would have to provide the context.

Kiro 8y ago

I also realized this which made me game the whole schooling system. I didn't study and had a poor attendance but still got an award for the being the school's best student. Pretty crazy when I think about it. Suffice to say, my strategy didn't work very well in university.

dibujante 8y ago
High-five, fellow "burned by needing to do real work in university" high schooler :(
- mcv 8y ago
  Same here. Once I figured out that I didn't really have to do any homework in high school, and wasn't even required to do so in university, I was doomed. I'm now trying to teach my son that just learning to do the work, even if it's boring, is the real skill you need. But he's too focused on winning every mini-game.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    Look up The Marshmallow Test. If there was one thing I wish my parents had instilled in me, it's good study habits.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      Though nobody is good at working hard to reap rewards that are a decade or more down the line, which is where learning to do boring work really pays off.
    - pavel_lishin 8y ago
      Wasn't that debunked? It's useful as a myth - "teach your kids patience", "don't go into the woods alone" - but it doesn't actually turn out to be true.
      - Sean1708 8y ago

gadders 8y ago

>> But at some point I realized that most of the time you aren’t getting in trouble because you are breaking the rules. You are getting in trouble because you are making the rule makers unhappy. Once I had that realization I was able to focus on relationships with the rule makers and figure out what they actually cared about. This allowed me to break the rules just as much but without getting in trouble. Tangentially related, I also read once that the main determinant in whether a doctor got sued for malpractise is not the actual blunder itself, but the doctors bedside manner and relationship with the patient and their family. (Obviously this relates to honest mistakes, more than extreme negligence) As a result, on any project I am on now (as a PM) I make it my practise to befriend as far as possible all the stakeholders in the project. The other advantage is it also makes your time at work more enjoyable.

r_singh 8y ago

I'd just like to point out that the article connotes multiple ideas using the plot summarised by this comment; hence this is not really a summary of the whole article.

leetcrew 8y ago

> But at some point I realized that most of the time you aren’t getting in trouble because you are breaking the rules. You are getting in trouble because you are making the rule makers unhappy. i had a similar realization in late high-school / early college, but worded a little differently. the rules themselves were never designed to be reasonable; they were designed to solve problems that the rule makers encountered in the past and afford them a "legitimate" means of recourse. no one ever intended to apply them consistently. this is why you can generally break as many rules as you want, so long as you don't actually cause a problem for someone. on the flip side, if you create a problem, they damn sure have an applicable rule on the books.

jv22222 8y ago
The issue with all of this is most people are rule abiding citizens, that's why it's so easy to game the system and get away with it. (Thinking about businesses & politicians)
- eslaught 8y ago
  I think you're missing the point of what GP is saying. My interpretation was that rules are only an approximation for what the rulemakers actually care about, and if you understand that, optimizing for what they want and not what they say will be a lot better for you than doing what they say but not what they want.
  - uhhhhhhh 8y ago
    I think you're missing his point here. Yes, those of us that question and break rules can optimize for what is actually desired vs what is 'proscribed' and have better outcomes. But many/most people rather just follow the rules/directions in the first place rather than break the rules or attempt to find optimal ways around them.
    - jjoonathan 8y ago
      Riiiight, which is why many/most people drive the speed limit.

baxtr 8y ago

The question for me is the definition of “winning”. In his perspective animals like sheep are “winning” the meta game because they behave. However, becoming dumbed down just to survive is maybe not much of a “win” either.

Isamu 8y ago
> dumbed down Hey now, I'd like to speak up for the sheep. Maybe a bit introverted but not dumb. In my experience they are quite opinionated and willful. Ok maybe I am projecting a bit.
mightybyte 8y ago
The same author has another post that describes in more detail his views on sheep and how the modern popular connotation is not at all the way sheep actually behave. http://epsilontheory.com/sheep-logic/ http://epsilontheory.com/sheep-logic/

nine_k 8y ago

I'd say that here coyotes don't play too smart, but not smart enough. Instead of understanding a signal and backing off, they proceed and get shot. They win tactically until they lose strategically. This is even more sad became coyotes are definitely smart enough to understand symbolic violence and audial signals as a substitute for real fighting, and use this in their interactions within a pack.

ouid 8y ago

there's always a bigger meta.