5 ms·

I love these terms, definitely describes the situation well. I'm not sure how you'd describe the best mindset here. Pessimistic stoicism? Understanding the syst

I love these terms, definitely describes the situation well. I'm not sure how you'd describe the best mindset here. Pessimistic stoicism? Understanding the system is bad, but also realizing you have to work with the hand you were dealt. My generation (millennial) tends to frustrate me, in that while a lot of people are correct in that the system is setup to lead them to failure, there are so many escape hatches to actually succeed. I mean think about it, yeah, things are a lot more expensive now than my parents generation, but we also have these advantages: - We all walk around with super computers in our pockets - We have instant access to pretty much all of humanity's collective knowledge, practically for free - Most people have pretty easy access to credit (which is admittedly a double edged sword) My unscientific observation is that the people that complain the most about "the system" are actually some of the most privileged people, which makes them sound sort of spoiled and ridiculous. I don't know, on one hand if you came from poverty in a crime stricken neighborhood you have my sympathy and understanding. On the other hand, if you came from a middle class background, you went to college and majored in something utterly useless (I won't mention the degrees... but you know them), racked up a huge debt, and now you're upset that nobody has a great job for you... I have slightly less sympathy. I realize that's a bit of a strawman, but it also just seems to be something I see a lot. If there's a big mistake my generation has made, it's having everyone go to college for degrees they'll never really use. And for some reason the trades have this huge stigma, even though you can make a perfectly good living as an electrician or a plumber.

victorstanciu 4y ago
> I'm not sure how you'd describe the best mindset here. Pessimistic stoicism? This is the question I asked myself as well. In my own life I've settled on Stoicism as a philosophy of life (though I am far from the ideal sage). I don't think it needs prefixed with "pessimistic" though. I think that, by itself, it's already the middle ground between the two positions. It says that you should only focus on the things that are under your control, but to do so while working for the greater good as well. Fight the dragons, but also fight your own inner battles.
- overgard 4y ago
  Yeah, stoicism by itself is probably enough. I also really love stoicism, although I feel like in popular culture it has sort of a weird stereotype of being a really grim way to live (which is not at all the case)
  - victorstanciu 4y ago
    Yes, it's weird, because it can actually be joyful. We need to break apart lowercase stoicism from uppercase Stoicism.
owisd 4y ago
I don't think millennials all suddenly decided apropos nothing to avoid trades and take on useless degrees, they were encouraged to do so by their parents and teachers, and even then doing a useless degree is probably the rational choice since grad schemes have all replaced the equivalent schemes for high school leavers that existed 20+ years ago with no practical difference other than arbitrarily requiring a degree. Their "useless" degree might leave them with the same options their parents had with only a high school education, but it's still better than the options they have without one. I heard this quote by John Maynard Keynes writing in 1919 about life before the First World War that reminded me of anyone claiming how lucky the current generation is to have smartphones provide modern marvels like Amazon next day delivery- > The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; We might have supercomputers in our pockets, but people just use them to do a budget version of things everyone has been doing for 100 years because they can't afford the real thing anymore.
- tome 4y ago
  > We might have supercomputers in our pockets, but people just use them to do a budget version of things everyone has been doing for 100 years because they can't afford the real thing anymore. Firstly, no, not "everyone", a tiny fraction of "everyone". And secondly, because at that time London was the capital of the global superpower whose empire encircled the whole planet. If millennials are comparing themselves to the richest people who lived in the capital of the richest empire of all time, then they're going to be disappointed.
- overgard 4y ago
  > I don't think millennials all suddenly decided apropos nothing to avoid trades and take on useless degrees, they were encouraged to do so by their parents and teachers No argument there. I think it was well meaning, no parent wants to think their kid isn't college material, but... yeah not every kid is college material. > and even then doing a useless degree is probably the rational choice since grad schemes have all replaced the equivalent schemes for high school leavers that existed 20+ years ago with no practical difference other than arbitrarily requiring a degree To me, this is an open question. I know various college dropouts that actually have really good careers. I think their first jobs were harder to get, but once you have a resume I don't think most employers care that much about college (I say as a college grad, so I don't know first hand). Plus, there's just also the matter that if you are going to go into debt for college, maybe get a useful degree? Even if you don't go into certain fields, I think some degrees look better than others. For instance, I know some coders that have a degree in architecture (like, buildings). Even though they aren't designing buildings, it's a somewhat impressive degree. On the other hand, I feel bad for people that got a degree in something like art history or gender studies or political science but didn't go into academia or grad school. I probably shouldn't pick on those, but, oof, those don't seem like a promising path unless you want to be a professor or go into law school or something.
TuringTest 4y ago
- We have instant access to pretty much all of humanity's collective knowledge, practically for free We have access to an overwhelming amount of knowledge, but the problem is that this by itself is not enough to use it. All that knowledge is in a format that is difficult to assimilate and largely lacks the social aspect needed to transfer it effectively. Humans assimilate knowledge by participating in social groups, most of us acquire it largely by imitation; only some complex academic subjects benefit from isolated personal study, and even then you need a mentor to guide you through it. The wealthy remain wealthy because they maintain exclusivist institutions, devoted entirely to transmitting such limited social knowledge to their families. It is practically a requirement in order to improve your social standing; people with access to unlimited knowledge but without having the tribe to guide them in its assimilation cannot harness it in a way that is more effective than the people they are competing against.
- overgard 4y ago
  I'm not sure that's true, I think people learn by doing more than through social means. I mean, I went to college and got a bachelors, and I remember... practically none of it except the things I use day to day. I would honestly say that other than giving my a scientific viewpoint, most of the "general education" stuff was a complete waste of time. I really can tell you nothing about geology or biology and just the basics of chemistry, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Right now one of my hobbies is robotics/electronics/makerish stuff, and most of what I've learned has come from youtube/reference documentation/blog posts (I bought a few textbooks as well, although most of them are collecting dust). There's a bit of a social aspect in that I'll ask friends with actual EE degrees for advice sometimes, but even then I mostly get "ah I haven't used that in forever, I don't remember". Most of my learning is by setting a goal, and then more or less learning the skills along the way. I don't know if it's efficient or not, but it's not costing me anything other than time. The other thing I've been teaching myself is art techniques, and you probably guessed it, I've learned those things in the same way and through practice developing my own style. Again, no institution needed. Don't get me wrong, I think institutions and the social aspect of them can be tremendously useful, but if you want to learn a skill and you're interested there's practically nothing stopping you, you don't need them, it's just a bonus.

victorstanciu 4y ago

> I'm not sure how you'd describe the best mindset here. Pessimistic stoicism? This is the question I asked myself as well. In my own life I've settled on Stoicism as a philosophy of life (though I am far from the ideal sage). I don't think it needs prefixed with "pessimistic" though. I think that, by itself, it's already the middle ground between the two positions. It says that you should only focus on the things that are under your control, but to do so while working for the greater good as well. Fight the dragons, but also fight your own inner battles.

overgard 4y ago
Yeah, stoicism by itself is probably enough. I also really love stoicism, although I feel like in popular culture it has sort of a weird stereotype of being a really grim way to live (which is not at all the case)
- victorstanciu 4y ago
  Yes, it's weird, because it can actually be joyful. We need to break apart lowercase stoicism from uppercase Stoicism.

owisd 4y ago

I don't think millennials all suddenly decided apropos nothing to avoid trades and take on useless degrees, they were encouraged to do so by their parents and teachers, and even then doing a useless degree is probably the rational choice since grad schemes have all replaced the equivalent schemes for high school leavers that existed 20+ years ago with no practical difference other than arbitrarily requiring a degree. Their "useless" degree might leave them with the same options their parents had with only a high school education, but it's still better than the options they have without one. I heard this quote by John Maynard Keynes writing in 1919 about life before the First World War that reminded me of anyone claiming how lucky the current generation is to have smartphones provide modern marvels like Amazon next day delivery- > The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; We might have supercomputers in our pockets, but people just use them to do a budget version of things everyone has been doing for 100 years because they can't afford the real thing anymore.

tome 4y ago
> We might have supercomputers in our pockets, but people just use them to do a budget version of things everyone has been doing for 100 years because they can't afford the real thing anymore. Firstly, no, not "everyone", a tiny fraction of "everyone". And secondly, because at that time London was the capital of the global superpower whose empire encircled the whole planet. If millennials are comparing themselves to the richest people who lived in the capital of the richest empire of all time, then they're going to be disappointed.
overgard 4y ago
> I don't think millennials all suddenly decided apropos nothing to avoid trades and take on useless degrees, they were encouraged to do so by their parents and teachers No argument there. I think it was well meaning, no parent wants to think their kid isn't college material, but... yeah not every kid is college material. > and even then doing a useless degree is probably the rational choice since grad schemes have all replaced the equivalent schemes for high school leavers that existed 20+ years ago with no practical difference other than arbitrarily requiring a degree To me, this is an open question. I know various college dropouts that actually have really good careers. I think their first jobs were harder to get, but once you have a resume I don't think most employers care that much about college (I say as a college grad, so I don't know first hand). Plus, there's just also the matter that if you are going to go into debt for college, maybe get a useful degree? Even if you don't go into certain fields, I think some degrees look better than others. For instance, I know some coders that have a degree in architecture (like, buildings). Even though they aren't designing buildings, it's a somewhat impressive degree. On the other hand, I feel bad for people that got a degree in something like art history or gender studies or political science but didn't go into academia or grad school. I probably shouldn't pick on those, but, oof, those don't seem like a promising path unless you want to be a professor or go into law school or something.

TuringTest 4y ago

- We have instant access to pretty much all of humanity's collective knowledge, practically for free We have access to an overwhelming amount of knowledge, but the problem is that this by itself is not enough to use it. All that knowledge is in a format that is difficult to assimilate and largely lacks the social aspect needed to transfer it effectively. Humans assimilate knowledge by participating in social groups, most of us acquire it largely by imitation; only some complex academic subjects benefit from isolated personal study, and even then you need a mentor to guide you through it. The wealthy remain wealthy because they maintain exclusivist institutions, devoted entirely to transmitting such limited social knowledge to their families. It is practically a requirement in order to improve your social standing; people with access to unlimited knowledge but without having the tribe to guide them in its assimilation cannot harness it in a way that is more effective than the people they are competing against.

overgard 4y ago
I'm not sure that's true, I think people learn by doing more than through social means. I mean, I went to college and got a bachelors, and I remember... practically none of it except the things I use day to day. I would honestly say that other than giving my a scientific viewpoint, most of the "general education" stuff was a complete waste of time. I really can tell you nothing about geology or biology and just the basics of chemistry, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Right now one of my hobbies is robotics/electronics/makerish stuff, and most of what I've learned has come from youtube/reference documentation/blog posts (I bought a few textbooks as well, although most of them are collecting dust). There's a bit of a social aspect in that I'll ask friends with actual EE degrees for advice sometimes, but even then I mostly get "ah I haven't used that in forever, I don't remember". Most of my learning is by setting a goal, and then more or less learning the skills along the way. I don't know if it's efficient or not, but it's not costing me anything other than time. The other thing I've been teaching myself is art techniques, and you probably guessed it, I've learned those things in the same way and through practice developing my own style. Again, no institution needed. Don't get me wrong, I think institutions and the social aspect of them can be tremendously useful, but if you want to learn a skill and you're interested there's practically nothing stopping you, you don't need them, it's just a bonus.