3 ms·

> “School is just like work,” they say. >(...) > No. If you don’t work, you lose your job, and you get no money. But you are never forced to work. I think th

by gota 6y ago

> “School is just like work,” they say. >(...) > No. If you don’t work, you lose your job, and you get no money. But you are never forced to work. I think the guy who goes to work because otherwise we won't be able to pay his bills, his children's tuition, food, elderly parents rents, medicine etc. is much more "forced" to work than teenagers are forced to go to school. Social and external obligations to actively participate in a 8 to 10 hour mental and physical activity that requires interaction to other people are much more severe than someone physically dragging you to a place where you can, pardon the simplification, sit down and space out whenever the subject has absolutely no interest to you and essentially "fail forward" until you get out on the other end. I sympathize with the author and really don't envy them. But school is not supposed to be this victimizing, even at its worst - author might very seriously be just mentally unwell and requiring treatment. The worst case scenario would be for them to leave school and find out that they are just as 'unfit' for participating in most, if not all, of our world's systems. Again - huge oversimplification but typically the only options are to at least somewhat adapt to them or to die alone in the wilderness.

freeone3000 6y ago
There are ways of earning money that don't involve holding down a 9-5 job. Running your own business. Freelancing. Working for Uber. And so on. All of the "responsibilities" you list are things you take upon yourself. You do not have to have kids. You do not have to take care of your parents. If you do not do so, you are not arrested and dragged to a cubicle until you do. You are afforded agency. And you might find that, in fact, the vast majority of our societal systems are optional.
- gota 6y ago
  The modality of work is the least important part of my comment. You can replace work with any of 'running your own business. Freelancing. Working for Uber' and the comment is the same. The person that runs a business because it needs to is 'forced' in a similar way (although one might expect most entrepreneurs to derive some pleasure from their work, this is also true for general workers. The point stands) About the responsibilities - without quotes because they are concrete and not IMO there's not much room for arguing otherwise: I'm not a researcher in this area but have frequent contact with people who do. It is my impression that what you stated is thoroughly refuted, and with nearly absolute consensus, by research on social norms and its impact on human psychology. I could be wrong - as this is me interpreting words of experts in a field I can't grasp - but I do talk to them; and every time I bring up a point that resembles in spirit what you said - a sense of 'yeah but people have individuality and can act on it, right?' causes them to promptly and thoroughly state that yes, but not so much for the majority of things we do. Apparently, most things we do are motivated by our relation to other people, sometimes in incoherent ways. This doesn't sound too farfetched to me, to be honest. Btw - With the risk of sounding too aggressive, which is not my intention, saying that people don't "have" to care for elders because they "can" just let them die is either incredibly naïve or incredibly cynical. People don't "have" to have children - but after they do, does it matter if it by accident or choice? Can we "just let" babies starve too, or just the old and invalid? Also - if you do so, you are absolutely arrested and dragged into a cubicle (and you don't get to go out possibly ever, which is worse than 'until you do'). This is not a fruitful discussion but you chose terrible examples for a point that I found to have little merit, by arguing myself with experts that told me I'm wrong. Who knows? I'll take their word for it until (if ever) I can study it myself.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Your experts are too invested in studying those who live within society to even consider that a person can have a fulfilling life outside of it. These experts are the ones who devise school programs and community enrichment and all the strictures that press the life out of anyone not suited for them. After all, if they're not suited, they have to be "fixed". You as well -- you seem to think that despite having no desire to conform to any social structure, of course a person will seek romantic attention and of course they'll have sex. The idea of these being anti-goals didn't cross your mind, even in the context of opting out of societal engagements. Look to the stories we tell ourselves. Look to the stories of the genius inventor, the witch in the woods, the anchorite, the man on the mountain. The persistent meme of the outsider, living for their own purpose. These people existed and still exist, and are doing just fine.
    - awillen 6y ago
      Look at the homeless guy who died because the weather was freezing in Texas, and he had nowhere to go. You're too invested in stories we tell ourselves that are rare exceptions and not reflective of the vast majority of reality.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    Most people want their kids/elders to have better lives than the state could provide, but the option is always there. Nursing homes and foster care are both key parts of the social safety net, and they get activated every day. Giving up your kids is pretty unambiguously seen as a serious personal failure, but having your parents in a nursing home paid by Medicare isn't even that unusual.
- awillen 6y ago
  "All of the "responsibilities" you list are things you take upon yourself." Uh, food and medicine were in that list, so... no. If your argument is that people don't need to work because everything that requires money is an optional obligation that they're choosing to take on, you're wrong. And as someone who's running my own business, the idea that someone with no resources who is struggling to pay for food and rent can start one is a stretch to say the least.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
> I think the guy who goes to work because otherwise we won't be able to pay his bills, his children's tuition, food, elderly parents rents, medicine etc. is much more "forced" to work than teenagers are forced to go to school. Very much depends on your local laws and social caste. For quite a lot of kids, truancy is a pipeline to prison.

by gota 6y ago

freeone3000 6y ago

There are ways of earning money that don't involve holding down a 9-5 job. Running your own business. Freelancing. Working for Uber. And so on. All of the "responsibilities" you list are things you take upon yourself. You do not have to have kids. You do not have to take care of your parents. If you do not do so, you are not arrested and dragged to a cubicle until you do. You are afforded agency. And you might find that, in fact, the vast majority of our societal systems are optional.

gota 6y ago
The modality of work is the least important part of my comment. You can replace work with any of 'running your own business. Freelancing. Working for Uber' and the comment is the same. The person that runs a business because it needs to is 'forced' in a similar way (although one might expect most entrepreneurs to derive some pleasure from their work, this is also true for general workers. The point stands) About the responsibilities - without quotes because they are concrete and not IMO there's not much room for arguing otherwise: I'm not a researcher in this area but have frequent contact with people who do. It is my impression that what you stated is thoroughly refuted, and with nearly absolute consensus, by research on social norms and its impact on human psychology. I could be wrong - as this is me interpreting words of experts in a field I can't grasp - but I do talk to them; and every time I bring up a point that resembles in spirit what you said - a sense of 'yeah but people have individuality and can act on it, right?' causes them to promptly and thoroughly state that yes, but not so much for the majority of things we do. Apparently, most things we do are motivated by our relation to other people, sometimes in incoherent ways. This doesn't sound too farfetched to me, to be honest. Btw - With the risk of sounding too aggressive, which is not my intention, saying that people don't "have" to care for elders because they "can" just let them die is either incredibly naïve or incredibly cynical. People don't "have" to have children - but after they do, does it matter if it by accident or choice? Can we "just let" babies starve too, or just the old and invalid? Also - if you do so, you are absolutely arrested and dragged into a cubicle (and you don't get to go out possibly ever, which is worse than 'until you do'). This is not a fruitful discussion but you chose terrible examples for a point that I found to have little merit, by arguing myself with experts that told me I'm wrong. Who knows? I'll take their word for it until (if ever) I can study it myself.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Your experts are too invested in studying those who live within society to even consider that a person can have a fulfilling life outside of it. These experts are the ones who devise school programs and community enrichment and all the strictures that press the life out of anyone not suited for them. After all, if they're not suited, they have to be "fixed". You as well -- you seem to think that despite having no desire to conform to any social structure, of course a person will seek romantic attention and of course they'll have sex. The idea of these being anti-goals didn't cross your mind, even in the context of opting out of societal engagements. Look to the stories we tell ourselves. Look to the stories of the genius inventor, the witch in the woods, the anchorite, the man on the mountain. The persistent meme of the outsider, living for their own purpose. These people existed and still exist, and are doing just fine.
  - awillen 6y ago
    Look at the homeless guy who died because the weather was freezing in Texas, and he had nowhere to go. You're too invested in stories we tell ourselves that are rare exceptions and not reflective of the vast majority of reality.
- closeparen 6y ago
  Most people want their kids/elders to have better lives than the state could provide, but the option is always there. Nursing homes and foster care are both key parts of the social safety net, and they get activated every day. Giving up your kids is pretty unambiguously seen as a serious personal failure, but having your parents in a nursing home paid by Medicare isn't even that unusual.
awillen 6y ago
"All of the "responsibilities" you list are things you take upon yourself." Uh, food and medicine were in that list, so... no. If your argument is that people don't need to work because everything that requires money is an optional obligation that they're choosing to take on, you're wrong. And as someone who's running my own business, the idea that someone with no resources who is struggling to pay for food and rent can start one is a stretch to say the least.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

> I think the guy who goes to work because otherwise we won't be able to pay his bills, his children's tuition, food, elderly parents rents, medicine etc. is much more "forced" to work than teenagers are forced to go to school. Very much depends on your local laws and social caste. For quite a lot of kids, truancy is a pipeline to prison.