Where are all the men?

[jondalar77]

well put!

 

[ZRT]

I think that classroom smarts should come first though, its better to arrive in the field knowing what you are talking about rather then arriving in the field with good intentions alone.

Total opposite here. I'll take a leathery bastard with thirty years in the field for most problems over a post-grad fresh out of class.

Also to say universities are crap is just stupid. While American education generally has the reputation of being total crap, at the university level its just as good if not better then that of the rest of the world. If my degree was garbage then why are rich Japanese kids flying in by the dozen just to get it?

Never said that universities was crap or that higher learning was valueless. I think a lot of what universities produce is crap, but there is value to be had at them if one approaches the educational experience with a plan to get maximum yield out of the time and money spent.

FUCK people, I'm working on a degree right now myself, and have a notion of going on for a doctorate eventually. I'm not knocking the idea of higher education at all, just the system in this country. I'll probably get into that a bit more down the line here, and my specific issues with the inflated number of gimme degrees and other timewaster moneysoaks we have in the system.

Because it's a generalization, and a wrong one at that. I can't believe for a second that no one has met just as many naive older people than naive younger ones.

Uh, actually, I've met a lot more naive young people. Until you hit the point where evident mental deterioration sets in for the elderly, they are as a group a lot more savvy to the world than your eighteen year old straight out of high school.

I'm not meaning to rile you up here, but seriously, take my earlier question with regards to driving age, drinking age, etc. Do you have a problem with those? Those are necessary acts of discrimination against people who as a general population don't have the experience and maturity to handle those tasks in a responsible and cognizant fashion yet.

Do you really think that after the magic benchmarks of 18 and 21 have passed that it's an entirely individualized process based on how smart you are? Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but as a general population, do you really think that there isn't a difference between the 20 year old population and the 30 year old population in mental development?

College is about much more than just academics. If you think the only skills you learn in college come from the classroom then you are sadly mistaken.

If it was somebody besides you, I'd make a snarky comment about learning how to chase coeds and handle a beer bong with professional grace as not being particularly being super-useful skills later in life.

But by all means, please expound on this.

Fair warning, if you say 'critical thinking' I'll scream really loudly.

Also, the college or even the professor will play a big part in teaching you more than what's in a textbook.

Hence why I said that one of the problems with the system is that so many professors go straight from learning to teaching. The best profs I've had in my life almost all came from professional careers and on into the field to teaching. The lessons were often of the variety 'this is what the book says, this is how it works in the world'.

 

[intothewoods]

Hence why I said that one of the problems with the system is that so many professors go straight from learning to teaching. The best profs I've had in my life almost all came from professional careers and on into the field to teaching. The lessons were often of the variety 'this is what the book says, this is how it works in the world'.

This makes sense in some subjects, but not others.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

If it was somebody besides you, I'd make a snarky comment about learning how to chase coeds and handle a beer bong with professional grace as not being particularly being super-useful skills later in life.

But by all means, please expound on this.

Fair warning, if you say 'critical thinking' I'll scream really loudly.

Responsiblity. Like you actually need to show up to class in order to do well. Even though the professor doesn't take attendance maybe you should still show up and be on time if you want to be successful.

Independence. Doing your own laundry, cleaning, cooking/buying your own food, handling medical issues on your own, everything mommy or daddy used to for you is now up to you, especially if you are hours away from home.

Finance. If you have to pay your way through college, you must learn how to pay for it along with any other bills you have. Paying anywhere from $15,000 up to $80,000+. Taking out loans. Paying interest. Taking a second job.

 

[JMohegan]

Of course I've met plenty of naive people of all ages. Age is only one factor among many. There are, however, commonalities among certain age groups and thus I feel I can make some generalizations.

For example, someone 20 years old and under probably has not...

1. Had one or both parents die.
2. Managed or owned a company
3. Gone through bankruptcy
4. Given birth
5. Raised children
6. Been married
7. Been divorced
8. Owned a house

Etc, etc. Yes, some people of that age have done/experienced some of those things but generally, most have not. The kinds of things on that list are the kind of things that dramatically alter one's world view and they generally happen over time, with age. My opinion on any of those things would be/has been different before and after. My naivete was not a bad thing, just a fact. I wish I didn't have to know how it feels to watch a parent die, to be honest, but now I do and it's nothing I could have prepared for.

Am I making sense? If I say to someone, at twenty, who has both parents living and healthy that they don't/can't yet know how it feels to lose a parent I'm not saying they're stupid. Not at all. It is a singular event that must be experienced to be fully understood.

Would you say that you have learned a lot about pregnancy by being pregnant? Would you say that someone who hasn't been pregnant probably doesn't know as much about the experience as you? Would you call yourself a know-it-all for having a deeper understanding of something than someone who has not experienced it?

You know a 100% more about pregnancy than I do. In this area, yes, I am naive.

I have friends of all ages. I love them equally, I respect them equally, I value their opinions equally. I just don't see how I am being an ageist. I freely acknowledge that SW or any of my RL friends who are older than me probably know more about certain things than I do. Someday I will know those things too. What is wrong with that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM-gZintWDc

Not my favorite actor, or film, but that clip says it all.

 

[satindesire]

I guess I have a different idea of what naive means than everyone else.

To me, naive does not mean lack of worldly experience, it means that person is easily fooled, too trusting and possibly even a little bit dumb.

And just to clear this up so no one jumps on me with a pitchfork and torch, from my own personal experience, worldly experience CAN make a person get over being naive, but I've also known people that are naive and are divorced parents with college educations, worldly experience and so forth.

To just simply assume that someone is naive simply because of their age, in my eyes, is a little mean spirited and cold.

 

[ZRT]

This makes sense in some subjects, but not others.

Such as?

Responsiblity. Like you actually need to show up to class in order to do well. Even though the professor doesn't take attendance maybe you should still show up and be on time if you want to be successful.

Independence. Doing your own laundry, cleaning, cooking/buying your own food, handling medical issues on your own, everything mommy or daddy used to for you is now up to you, especially if you are hours away from home.

Okay, I'm sorry, but you've GOT to be kidding me here. If anything, college prolongs adolescent behavior in a large portion of those attending.

The stakes simply aren't the same. Flunking a class isn't the same as staring down the barrel of going to work even though you're aching and creaky simply because the rent's gotta get paid. Your professor may or may not care if you show up for every lecture. Your supervisor damn well does.

College in -no way- compares to setting out at eighteen and getting your own job and own place for those lessons.

Finance. If you have to pay your way through college, you must learn how to pay for it along with any other bills you have. Paying anywhere from $15,000 up to $80,000+. Taking out loans. Paying interest. Taking a second job.

Actually, what I've seen is far too many people getting their college paid for via loans, then getting out with a degree that's functionally useless for higher-end jobs and complaining about how worthless their degree is in the face of crippling debt.

Which is a big part of why I call the current system larcenous. Coming out of university with a sixty-k debt and a history degree is a pretty hard fucking.

 

[Keroin]

I guess I have a different idea of what naive means than everyone else.

To me, naive does not mean lack of worldly experience, it means that person is easily fooled, too trusting and possibly even a little bit dumb.

Naive
–adjective
1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous: She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.
3. having or marked by a simple, unaffectedly direct style reflecting little or no formal training or technique: valuable naive 19th-century American portrait paintings.
4. not having previously been the subject of a scientific experiment, as an animal.

I did not know #4. Very interesting. In that sense, we're all naive. LOL.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Example: We've all seen those World Hunger commercials and such. Most of us believe we understand that poverty is a terrible condition and that people who live in it are to be pitied. What you can't know, until you're in it, smelling it, brushing up against it, looking at it in three dimensions, is the depth of "terrible" and also the heights of dignity and pride and even happiness that can exist, even in squalor. It is also impossible to understand the many roadblocks that prevent people from rising out of poverty, (I'm talking third world poverty, not civilized poverty). You may tell me, "Yes, I understand this" but I assure you, until you've experienced it, you do not. This is comprehension, this is loss of naivety.

I don't believe it is. If the person understands there is poverty and realizes it is bad then they are not naive to it just because they don't know the true level of how bad it is.

If they argue that things aren't that bad in the third world because someone on tv said so then that, to me, is being naive.

You know a 100% more about pregnancy than I do. In this area, yes, I am naive.

Again, to me, you would be naive if you still thought the stork brought the baby to mommy and daddy.

I guess I have a different idea of what naive means than everyone else.

To me, naive does not mean lack of worldly experience, it means that person is easily fooled, too trusting and possibly even a little bit dumb.

I agree with your definition.

 

[intothewoods]

Such as?

Literature. History. Political theory. I'm not saying a professor need be locked in an ivory tower, but working in academia doesn't preclude you from understanding how the world works or becoming an excellent teacher.

 

[ZRT]

I guess I have a different idea of what naive means than everyone else.

To me, naive does not mean lack of worldly experience, it means that person is easily fooled, too trusting and possibly even a little bit dumb.

Part and parcel of being easily fooled is being inexperienced. 'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'

And just to clear this up so no one jumps on me with a pitchfork and torch, from my own personal experience, worldly experience CAN make a person get over being naive, but I've also known people that are naive and are divorced parents with college educations, worldly experience and so forth.

To just simply assume that someone is naive simply because of their age, in my eyes, is a little mean spirited.

Pitchforks and torches ain't my kink.

I think the problem is that you're taking any comment related to the subject's age as being derogatory. From some people it is. Worse yet, it's an excuse to walk on an argument that can't be sustained- 'You'll understand when you're older'.

But there are plenty of instances where that is the exact truth- somebody will understand when they've had the seasoning that comes with some hard knocks in life.

So it's one of those statements that could go either way, depending on who's speaking. I think that you can safely assume that with most of our venerable elders (Winston or HOMBURG, for example) here that it's not being derogatory.

Hadn't picked on Hommy lately. He's probably thinking I don't love him anymore.

 

[ZRT]

Literature. History. Political theory. I'm not saying a professor need be locked in an ivory tower, but working in academia doesn't preclude you from understanding how the world works or becoming an excellent teacher.

Sure, but those fields tend to lack in real-world application. So it's not such a broad jump since those fields tend to run in circles of people talking to people about ideas.

Before the inevitable firestorm, I'll say that as a history buff who really wishes that we had a much broader understanding of history and historical analysis among the populace in order to produce a better voting public.

But those are generally luxury fields that we support simply because we have the spare energy/capital in our society.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Okay, I'm sorry, but you've GOT to be kidding me here. If anything, college prolongs adolescent behavior in a large portion of those attending.

The stakes simply aren't the same. Flunking a class isn't the same as staring down the barrel of going to work even though you're aching and creaky simply because the rent's gotta get paid. Your professor may or may not care if you show up for every lecture. Your supervisor damn well does.

College in -no way- compares to setting out at eighteen and getting your own job and own place for those lessons.

Duh. College vs real word, real world wins every time. I never said college compares to the real world. I gave you lessons learned in college that don't come from a textbook. Its the soft landing before the real world hits.

Would you rather learn about good attendance from flunking a class or getting fired?

Would you rather learn about independence from the comfort of a dorm room or an apartment you got on your own?

Would you rather learn about finance from the student debts you have or when they foreclose on your home?

College is being thrown into the middle of the pool with swimmies on. Real world is being thrown into the deep end with nothing.

 

[CutieMouse]

Sure, but those fields tend to lack in real-world application. So it's not such a broad jump since those fields tend to run in circles of people talking to people about ideas.

Before the inevitable firestorm, I'll say that as a history buff who really wishes that we had a much broader understanding of history and historical analysis among the populace in order to produce a better voting public.

But those are generally luxury fields that we support simply because we have the spare energy/capital in our society.

Hold it - are you proposing that subjects such as history/literature [and by association humanities such as art] are a "luxury"?

 

[Keroin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM-gZintWDc

Not my favorite actor, or film, but that clip says it all.

Darn you for piquing my curiosity! I just clicked, I'll be able to watch it in about 20 minutes. Will report back later.

I guess I have a different idea of what naive means than everyone else.

To me, naive does not mean lack of worldly experience, it means that person is easily fooled, too trusting and possibly even a little bit dumb.

And just to clear this up so no one jumps on me with a pitchfork and torch, from my own personal experience, worldly experience CAN make a person get over being naive, but I've also known people that are naive and are divorced parents with college educations, worldly experience and so forth.

To just simply assume that someone is naive simply because of their age, in my eyes, is a little mean spirited and cold.

But you see one of the dictionary definitions of naive is simply having a lack of experience.

I don't just assume someone is naive because of their age. I judge everyone as an individual but this does not mean I can't make some informed, general statements based on age.

No pitchfork, no worries. Just striving for understanding.

I don't believe it is. If the person understands there is poverty and realizes it is bad then they are not naive to it just because they don't know the true level of how bad it is.

If they argue that things aren't that bad in the third world because someone on tv said so then that, to me, is being naive.

Again, to me, you would be naive if you still thought the stork brought the baby to mommy and daddy.

I have ideas about pregnancy - what it must feel like, how it must affect a person's outlook, what changes occur within a relationship because of it - but I'll lay Vegas odds that if I were to experience pregnancy many of my ideas would be proven wrong. Thus, I am naive. Naive = lack of experience.

I stand by my assertion about third world poverty. What anyone thinks they know about it based on what they see in the media or hear second hand or read about in fiction is bound to be drastically altered once they experience it. Have you spent much time in a third world slum? Can you tell me how that experience compares to what you knew of poverty before that?

I have lots of ideas about lots of things that are probably very naive. I have strong views on war but I have never been in one or been threatened by one. I've never been blind or lost a limb. I haven't had to decide whether or not to pull the plug on someone who's brain dead. I am naive about all of these things and much, much more. Not stupid, not uninformed, just naive.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

4. not having previously been the subject of a scientific experiment, as an animal.

I did not know #4. Very interesting. In that sense, we're all naive. LOL.

Newp, not based on the crap i stood in formation swallowing in (DS)².

Here's another and a counterpart as well.

 

[Adakgirl]

I am in complete agreement with ZRT here. Jus sayin......

 

[intothewoods]

Sure, but those fields tend to lack in real-world application. So it's not such a broad jump since those fields tend to run in circles of people talking to people about ideas.

Before the inevitable firestorm, I'll say that as a history buff who really wishes that we had a much broader understanding of history and historical analysis among the populace in order to produce a better voting public.

But those are generally luxury fields that we support simply because we have the spare energy/capital in our society.

Doubtful there will be a firestorm around here. Your point of view is far from rare, here, there and everywhere.

I disagree with you and it makes me sad that that point of view is widely held. I'm not sure if the liberal arts education will become extinct.

 

[intothewoods]

Hold it - are you proposing that subjects such as history/literature [and by association humanities such as art] are a "luxury"?

Lol. Thank God for Cutie Mouse.

 

[Keroin]

Hold it - are you proposing that subjects such as history/literature [and by association humanities such as art] are a "luxury"?

Mini hijack...

My favorite CM av is back! It looks more colourful though?

Added: I don't see the arts as a luxury. I *think* I know why most people do, because the benefits are not immediately apparent, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

I have ideas about pregnancy - what it must feel like, how it must affect a person's outlook, what changes occur within a relationship because of it - but I'll lay Vegas odds that if I were to experience pregnancy many of my ideas would be proven wrong. Thus, I am naive. Naive = lack of experience.

I stand by my assertion about third world poverty. What anyone thinks they know about it based on what they see in the media or hear second hand or read about in fiction is bound to be drastically altered once they experience it. Have you spent much time in a third world slum? Can you tell me how that experience compares to what you knew of poverty before that?

I have lots of ideas about lots of things that are probably very naive. I have strong views on war but I have never been in one or been threatened by one. I've never been blind or lost a limb. I haven't had to decide whether or not to pull the plug on someone who's brain dead. I am naive about all of these things and much, much more. Not stupid, not uninformed, just naive.

As AngelicAssassin posted:

naive
One entry found.

Main Entry:
na·ive
Variant(s):
or na·ïve \nä-ˈēv, nī-\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
na·iv·er; na·iv·est
Etymology:
French naïve, feminine of naïf, from Old French, inborn, natural, from Latin nativus native
Date:
1654
1: marked by unaffected simplicity : artless, ingenuous
2 a: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment ; especially : credulous b: not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation <made the test with naive rats> ; also : not having previously used a particular drug (as marijuana) c: not having been exposed previously to an antigen <naive T cells>
3 a: self-taught, primitive b: produced by or as if by a self-taught artist <naive murals>

According to this, you are just inexperienced or uninformed about those things. Not naive.

 

[intothewoods]

As AngelicAssassin posted:

naive
One entry found.

Main Entry:
na·ive
Variant(s):
or na·ïve \nä-ˈēv, nī-\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
na·iv·er; na·iv·est
Etymology:
French naïve, feminine of naïf, from Old French, inborn, natural, from Latin nativus native
Date:
1654
1: marked by unaffected simplicity : artless, ingenuous
2 a: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment ; especially : credulous b: not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation <made the test with naive rats> ; also : not having previously used a particular drug (as marijuana) c: not having been exposed previously to an antigen <naive T cells>
3 a: self-taught, primitive b: produced by or as if by a self-taught artist <naive murals>

According to this, you are just inexperienced or uninformed about those things. Not naive.

How do you get that??? Deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment fits Keroin's self-description in relation to pregnancy and war. I recently used the word to describe some fresh out of school folks in my office who don't quite get typical office politics. Inexperienced also works well. Reading a book on office politics or being aware of office politics is really no substitute for just working in an office.

I don't understand why any of this is an argument. It doesn't mean younger folks have nothing to add or even less to add. It's simply a different perspective.

 

[Keroin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM-gZintWDc

Not my favorite actor, or film, but that clip says it all.

I wish you could have seen the smile that spread across my face when he said the line about the smell in the Sistine Chapel.



Thanks so much for that.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM-gZintWDc

Not my favorite actor, or film, but that clip says it all.

I haven't seen that movie...


but now I'm going to have to. Chit. Another one to add to the list.

 

[CutieMouse]

Lol. Thank God for Cutie Mouse.

I have much more entertaining things to do this evening that argue humanities, but ye gods...

Mini hijack...

My favorite CM av is back! It looks more colourful though?

Maybe. I'd worked up two versions in Photoshop; I'm not sure if this is the same one or not.

Added: I don't see the arts as a luxury. I *think* I know why most people do, because the benefits are not immediately apparent, but that doesn't make it so.

I'd argue that the humanities are currently undervalued by society, and it's going to bite us in the ass within a generation or two (as if it isn't, already).