You can't beat the system?

[Dildo Argentino]

I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.

I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current.  In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you. 

This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system.  It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.

Funnily enough, the same here. The 44, and the rest of it, too. heh.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.

I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current.  In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you. 

This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system.  It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.

Funnily enough, the same here. The 44, and the rest of it, too. heh.

How odd, then, that we're completely different.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.

I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current.  In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you. 

This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system.  It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.

Funnily enough, the same here. The 44, and the rest of it, too. heh.

How odd, then, that we're completely different.

Different currents.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.

I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current.  In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you. 

This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system.  It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.

Funnily enough, the same here. The 44, and the rest of it, too. heh.

How odd, then, that we're completely different.

Different currents.

Different everything.  A few examples:

1.  I find the world fascinating as fuck, AS IT REALLY IS.  He has to force himself to believe new age nonsense to even pretend to stay interested.

2.  I hate on everyone, sooner or later.  His hate is WEAK, so he reserves it for people whom he perceives as being vulnerable for some reason. 

3.  I don't claim to be an expert on all subjects, nor would I care to be.  He is convinced that he is, to the point that he feels both the need and the ability to psychoanalyze people over the internet.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

holist kinda reminds me of some of the guys who have hit on Nigel on OkCupid, to hilarious results, when you put it like that.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

holist kinda reminds me of some of the guys who have hit on Nigel on OkCupid, to hilarious results, when you put it like that.

Yep.  There's two kinds of people in this world, and fuck 'em both.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.

I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current.  In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you. 

This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system.  It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.

I'm bitter in the same way I might be bitter if I drove across town and spent $20 on socks only to find that I could have gotten them online for $4. Delivered.

I guess the thing is that I've realized that I've been fighting against the wrong things for a long, long time, and inadvertently assisting the things I want to change. There are more effective ways to do this. 

[LMNO]

There is no system anywhere.


LMNO
-can't believe no one went for the low-hanging fruit first.

[Dildo Argentino]

Different everything.  A few examples:

1.  I find the world fascinating as fuck, AS IT REALLY IS.  He has to force himself to believe new age nonsense to even pretend to stay interested.

2.  I hate on everyone, sooner or later.  His hate is WEAK, so he reserves it for people whom he perceives as being vulnerable for some reason. 

3.  I don't claim to be an expert on all subjects, nor would I care to be.  He is convinced that he is, to the point that he feels both the need and the ability to psychoanalyze people over the internet.

Some of these examples are misleading, while others are plain wrong.

1. I also find the world deeply fascinating as it is. We do appear to have some rather fundamental disagreements about how that is. The most important difference is that while I do not unreservedly subscribe to the scientific ethos, you do, and even insist that it is not an ethos (i.e. a character, a style, i.e. a matter of some choice), it is just "right" (i.e. anyone who does not subscribe to it is stupid or evil or both). By this, you actually demonstrate an impressive degree of naivity. Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny. Thank Eris for that, by the way.

2. By no means do you hate everyone. You are in fact quite protective of a number of people who attribute value to you. This may not be your fundamental motivation for being protective in that manner, but it might be (observe your interference in my conversation with Twid, who was doing just fine, but you went and protected him anyway). I find no enjoyment value in posturing about hating everyone (the two old geezers in the Muppet Show do it better, anyway) and in fact hate very very few people. This is because I think very few people deserve to be hated. I wouldn't say my hate is weak... it's very picky.

3. I do not claim to be and indeed am not an expert on practically anything (I'm quite good at guitar maintenance, playing music on a number of instruments, sharpening knives, rearing children and supporting people - oh, and translation). I have never psychoanalysed anyone, as I have not undergone psychoanalysis myself and hence I am not qualified. I have, on a few occasions and in most cases very reluctantly, offered therapy and advice to people that specifically requested this. As regards the incident you insist on referring to as you being psychoanalysed over the interwebs by me, it was nothing of the sort. I offered some opinions formed on the basis of the interactions I observed and participated in on this board. You, on the other hand, have issued a medical diagnosis about me (you know, the assburger thing). This is something I have decided to bear while grinning, for educational purposes.

Or Bill Me

[Sano]

[...] Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny [...]

Yes it does.

Sano,
studies philosophy of science at college.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

[...] Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny [...]

Yes it does.

Sano,
studies philosophy of science at college.

Yeah, um.  I didn't read holist's post because of tl;dr (although I did skim enough to pick up that he thinks that "assburger" is a medical diagnosis, WTF), but that line alone makes me wonder if he actually paid attention to anything at all in college... or, in fact, went to "college" at all, as we understand the term. I took philosophy of science as well, it being a required course for science majors, and the whole point of it is that it does, in fact, stand up to rational scrutiny, which is what makes it "science".

[MMIX]

[...] Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny [...]

Yes it does.

Sano,
studies philosophy of science at college.

Yeah, um.  I didn't read holist's post because of tl;dr (although I did skim enough to pick up that he thinks that "assburger" is a medical diagnosis, WTF), but that line alone makes me wonder if he actually paid attention to anything at all in college... or, in fact, went to "college" at all, as we understand the term. I took philosophy of science as well, it being a required course for science majors, and the whole point of it is that it does, in fact, stand up to rational scrutiny, which is what makes it "science".

so I've been following your academic exploits with some interest but I haven't actually managed to work out just what your major is; how does that stand atm? I'm not really sure how it works in the US system.

[Sano]

[...] Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny [...]

Yes it does.

Sano,
studies philosophy of science at college.

Yeah, um.  I didn't read holist's post because of tl;dr (although I did skim enough to pick up that he thinks that "assburger" is a medical diagnosis, WTF), but that line alone makes me wonder if he actually paid attention to anything at all in college... or, in fact, went to "college" at all, as we understand the term. I took philosophy of science as well, it being a required course for science majors, and the whole point of it is that it does, in fact, stand up to rational scrutiny, which is what makes it "science".

Indeed. While there is an argument to be made that science isn't something that goes on without cultural influence, this does not preclude it from being something with very rigorous standards, dealing with falsifiable statements, etc. It is more than a little bit weird to say that science doesn't hold up to scrutiny while typing in a computer and probably being around many other objects which were ultimately the product of knowledge gained from science.

Also, isn't he the homeopathy guy? Don't they always try to sell it as a science?   

[MMIX]

You know, the problem with devout scientism followers is that when a "science" is debunked and is relegated to the status of a pseudo-science they just turn round and say that it was never a "real scotsman science" to begin with. Not only is that Win/Win for their side but it tends to obscure the [I want to say fact but I'll stick to] issue that not all "science" as performed  by human actors is as good as the best.

Interesting that you use the example of the computer. While not disputing that there is science involved in computing I would actually place the PC firmly in the maths, technology and engineering camp;  just a thought.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

[...] Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny [...]

Yes it does.

Sano,
studies philosophy of science at college.

Yeah, um.  I didn't read holist's post because of tl;dr (although I did skim enough to pick up that he thinks that "assburger" is a medical diagnosis, WTF), but that line alone makes me wonder if he actually paid attention to anything at all in college... or, in fact, went to "college" at all, as we understand the term. I took philosophy of science as well, it being a required course for science majors, and the whole point of it is that it does, in fact, stand up to rational scrutiny, which is what makes it "science".

so I've been following your academic exploits with some interest but I haven't actually managed to work out just what your major is; how does that stand atm? I'm not really sure how it works in the US system.

Right now, officially, it's biochemistry, but I will be changing that to either psychology with a microbiology minor, or microbiology with a psychology minor, with the goal of being accepted into the neuroscience graduate program.

The way it works in the US is that you spend your first two years mostly doing general requirements at the 100-200 level. The first 90-95 credits, assuming you have fulfilled all your requirements, make up your Associates degree in either arts or science. The second two years you are working on your Bachelor's degree in whatever field you've chosen; you need a minimum (depending on your major) of 72 300-400 level credits, for a total of 180 credits. The balance may be lower-division. My school finishes the Bachelor with a capstone project. Then you can go on for a Master's degree, which is typically 2 more years of studies at the 500-600 level plus field research, writing, and presentations, and then another 2-3 years for a Doctor of Philosophy degree. In my field of interest, the PhD years are spent doing research, writing, and presentations, with minimal coursework other than learning grant writing and other practical skills for becoming a primary investigator.

I'm currently in my second year, so I have a long long way to go.