A great article on why Pay Transparency really works:
“Huet-Vaughn concedes he has no idea why this happened. But he has a great theory: We don’t care as much about the amount we make as long as we know we’re not being taken advantage of. And not knowing what other people earn is, de facto, a breeding ground for doubt.”
Well, this feeling might actually kick in only after a certain ceiling has been penetrated but this is a great insight, nevertheless.
Things are relatively simple.
Vaccines work for whole populations, not necessarily for individuals. In order to make them acceptable those who market them try (or at least should try) to make them as good as possible.
For a rational (but callous) individual the best thing to do is to make sure that he is the only one not vaccinated: he cannot catch the disease since nobody can have it yet suffers no possible side effects from being inoculated.
If enough people opt out then the whole effort would have been in vain. The immunity obtained by vaccination isn’t as strong as the one one gets after surviving the disease so if enough people get the disease because they haven’t been vaccinated at all then older people, those who have been vaccinated first, start to fall ill.
From this point on nobody would vaccinate anymore their children – because it’s useless, right? – while the right thing to do would be to get a second vaccine, a rappel.
What’s getting on my nerves is the fact that sometimes we trust ‘scientists’/’technicians’ with our lives (for instance when we get aboard airplanes) yet other times we develop all kind of wild theories (about vaccines, for instance).
Of course we need to be extremely careful, both when choosing an airline or a pharmaceutical company, but to refuse altogether to fly or to vaccinate your children…
The sole characteristic that makes us what we are, human beings, is our ability to ‘get out of our selves’ and to make decisions as if their outcome didn’t matter to us. In other terms we are able of cold blooded reasoning.
I don’t say this is easy – it involves quieting down our emotions – nor that everybody is able to do it. In fact almost nobody is able to do it consistently yet here we are, all the better just because of this particular ability of ours.
I find it extremely strange that some of us, in fact too many of us, are willing to give up this special ability, for different reasons.
Some try to introduce self driving cars, in the name of safety and to increase the capacity of existing highways. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-03/the-problem-with-self-driving-cars-they-dont-cry
Some others came up with software to grade students essays. http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/mobile-devices/automated-essay-grading-software-stirs-debate/d/d-id/1111035?
Not even the stock market is immune to these developments. “High-frequency trading practices” – robots, that is – have become widespread enough as to create concern. http://www.aboutschwab.com/press/issues/
As you’ll notice if you read those articles there is no clear majority as yet, for or against this phenomenon. Pros are carefully weighted against the identified cons and then advice is given by the authors. Unfortunately none of them distances himself far enough from the brouhaha to notice the somber fact that by allowing so many automatons to take over our lives we not only basically give up our individual autonomy but also we give up more and more of the opportunities we have to exercise our capacity to decide for ourselves.
It is indeed increasingly safer and more profitable, in the short term at least.
But is it really good for us? For our ability to cope in unforeseen/unforeseeable circumstances?
Mai demult am citit o pilda din viata lui Socrate. Ca sa nu ma chinui sa o reproduc din memorie am imprumutat versiunea de aici. Multumesc Gabriel Pascal.
” “Socrate, trebuie sa-ti vorbesc despre unul dintre studentii tai.”
“Stai o clipa,” ii replica Socrate. “Inainte sa-mi spui, as vrea sa-mi raspunzi la 3 intrebari. Inainte sa-mi vorbesti despre studentul meu, sa stam putin si sa testam ce ai de gand sa-mi spui. Primul test este cel al Adevarului. Esti absolut sigur ca ceea ce vrei sa-mi spui este adevarat?”
“Nu” spuse omul. “De fapt doar am auzit despre el.”
“E-n regula” zise Socrate. “Asadar, in realitate, tu nu stii daca este adevarat sau nu. Acum sa incercam testul al doilea, testul Binelui. Ceea ce vrei sa-mi spui despre studentul meu este ceva de bine?”
“Nu, dimpotriva…”
“Deci,” a continuat Socrate, “vrei sa-mi ceva rau despre el, cu toate ca nu esti sigur ca este adevarat?”
Omul a dat din umeri, putin stanjenit. Socrate a continuat.
“Totusi mai poti trece testul, pentru ca exista a treia proba – testul Utilitatii. Ceea ce vrei sa-mi spui despre studentul meu imi este de folos?”
“Nu, nu chiar…”
“Ei bine,” a conchis Socrate, “daca ceea ce vrei sa-mi spui nu este nici Adevarat, nici de Bine, nici macar de Folos, atunci de ce sa-mi mai spui?”
Omul era invins si s-a rusinat. Si astfel Socrate nu a aflat niciodata ca nevasta-sa il insela cu studentul respectiv.
Nu pot opri vorbele celor care vorbesc despre mine (mai ales cand nu sunt de fata), dar daca nu pot sa-i protejez pe ceilalti de aceste vorbe, imi pot dezvolta un sistem de autoprotectie, de selectare a ce las sa ma influenteze:
1. Este Adevarat?
2. Este Util?
3. Este Bine? “
Eu am sa merg un pic mai departe decat a facut-o Socrate.
Suntem intr-o alianta? Are aceasta alianta un punct de vedere bine conturat si exprimat elocvent? Am participat la intalnirile acestei aliante atunci cand a fost adoptat si exprimat acest punct de vedere? Este vre-un element de noutate in aceasta luare de pozitie?
Si atunci? Ce rost sa iesim din front? Ca sa devenim ‘tinta’?
Excellent post.
Obama failed to fulfill, by far, both the promises he made when he run for president AND the hopes/illusions nurtured by those who voted for him but holding him accountant for all the misery that befell on the regular Joe is a little too much.
This kind of mistakes is very costly. Those who forget that the daily actions of each and everyone of us aggregate into our common destiny tend to believe that we might change our fortune simply by changing the leader.
History has proven, time and again, that we’ll keep making the same mistake until we’ll eventually understand what went wrong. And start doing ourselves what needs to be done instead of looking up to somebody above us to direct our actions.
I expect you all know the story of the flood.
For those who feel the need to refresh their memories here is the original version.
Lately people have given up reading so some guy felt the need to use another medium in order to convey the essence of this story. Or just saw a good opportunity to make a buck? Maybe both? Anyway…
Reactions have started to flow: “Why our Youth Group won’t be going to see Noah!”
Make an effort and do read that post. It’s really worth it.
Then somebody put THE question: “Does anyone really believe there was an ark?”
Here is my answer:
Yes, I do believe there was an ark, only it wasn’t ‘made out of wood’.
In fact I see the entire Bible as a very powerful metaphor.
Coming back to this particular instance, for a considerable amount of time people thought that children come from God and that intercourse was just for fun.
By specifically asking Noah to bring animals in pairs the Bible makes it perfectly clear that even if God’s will might have something to do with the whole process for a child to appear two parents of opposite sex are a must. Besides ‘the Word being spoken’ some actual, ‘material’ conditions must be met for anything of substance to come into being.
Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that Noah basically saved himself. It was he who build the ark. God could have ‘miraculously’ saved him, alongside some animals but no, he had Noah do all the work.
I understand this passage of the Bible as a warning: don’t expect anyone to do your job for you and it is you who are the sole responsible for the well being of the world around you.
We all know were the ‘cost culture’ has taken the ‘old’ GM: into the ground.
I’ll be blunt on this one. In fact it is not about minimizing the costs. That is not only rational but also natural. The real problems arise from ‘maximizing profits’, sometimes at “all costs”. Non financial costs that is. I.e. lives. Human lives in this case.
And this will keep on happening until we’ll finally understand that profits are good – inexorable even – but only as long they are an indicator for being on the right track towards long time survival (sustainable growth if you want to call it that way).
Allowing for the customers to get killed just for the sake of some pennies shaved from the costs is an extreme but compelling symptom of the present confusion. Short time profits, made at the expense of the customers, can be extremely dangerous.
Eventually they’ll kill the business itself, not just the customers.
PS Click on the highlighted quote, or here, and read the entire Bloomberg article. It’s worth it.
Some believe innocence is lost when becoming sexually active.
Some others understand, mostly the hard way, that being innocent means not being able to discern crooks from trustworthy people and that sometimes this condition cannot be cured.
“But what, you may ask, has the early and welcome arrival of bees and blossoms to do with food?”
PS the video starts in earnest only after 0:30.
“”There are people who do things for fear of the lash.
“Then no one is as strong as you.”
“You make it sound as if our desires were separate from ourselves.”
“They are. And if you don’t know that, then you might well become Unwyrm’s slave after all.”
“I know something of the doctrine of the Vigilants.”
This excerpt is from “Wyrms” by, of course, Orson Scott Card and the reason for which Unwyrm, the bad character, ‘called’ every individual with some real understanding of the world was that Unwyrm was trying to institute the ultimate dictatorship upon the planet Imakulata: Imagine a place run by a species whose members share a common consciousness and know all that has been discovered about that place.
nicichiarasa 