$ jlc (10,317)

Not the issue here: the orchestras were pleased with their new hires - no problem with that. But they were unconsciously selecting their employees based on bias. One example was that the best horn player turned out to be a woman who had substituted in the orchestra on a number of occasions, but 'everyone knew' that a woman 'did not have the lung power' to be a top horn player. Well, she did (and they already liked her from her subbing) but they had excluded her from consideration until they heard 'the player from behind the curtain' and decided 'he' was far better than any of the other candidates - only it was 'she'.

This is an example of people using a 'double blind' method to compensate for their own biases and result in a better outcome. Another example would be by making tests 'anonymous' when they are being graded. People are fallible, but we are clever and we can find some ways of compensating for our weaknesses: processes, checklists, double blind studies.

Insofar as entitlement is concerned, we live in a society that is far too entitled. At the very least, the entitlements should be symmetrical.

Jan

Good point about the double-blind tests. Did you know that orchestras that began doing auditions 'curtained' (the performer was not visible) went from about 5% women to about 20% in the orchestra?

Jan

I would condemn that particular foible if I thought it would do any good. (Laughs) Let me add that it makes me appreciate the few people with whom I can converse who do not exhibit that reaction - the people for whom 'what is true' is more important than 'they are right'.

Jan

Ha! I did not think of that. I thought your answer as to 'what you were counting' would be something exotic.

Jan, laughing now

You are probably right. And, as the Coulter article points out, Trump is saying a lot of things that people want to hear...but I think that 'anger against the RNC machine' is why emotion is running so high.

Jan

I agree that that is what we must prevent. If Apple could hack the phone, enter a new password and then remove the OS change before handing the phone back to the gov, then the FBI would have access to the material in the phone but not to the master key.

Jan

Ulp. Ha!

Oh wow. You were lucky. Good work, johnpe (and good life advice).

Jan

Huh? What the Heck are you counting?

Jan, mystified

Old saying: Even a fool learns from his own mistakes; a wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

In spite of being labeled, "Homo sapiens", we are not a wise species. I think that the root of the reason of Trump's popularity is that we have been scammed year after year by the same salesmen dressed in the same suits, saying the same things. Now Trump comes along (and Bernie too) and they are saying different things in different ways. We cynically suspect that 'they' might be crooks too, but their presence give us an opportunity: We can now lash out at all the people who scammed us in the past. Not the other current candidates, not the other party, but the structures who hand-served us the people we voted for and who fooled us time after time in the past.

I believe that it is anger against past betrayals that is fueling the popularity of Trump (and Bernie). We can acknowledge that Trump (&B) will probably just scam us again - but for the moment, we can destroy the pre-arranged political candidates (Clinton & Bush) and hurt the structures that have been manipulating us.

It is like firebombing a house where a heinous crime was committed: the house represents the crime. We have two candidates who are 'firebombs' looked at aghast by the Repub and Democ machines. People are flocking to those candidates so that our anger against the machines can lash out.

Jan

I have been trying to keep track of this issue, and for me it now boils down to, "The owner of the phone has asked that it be unlocked." so the Feds asking Apple to help access the contents of the phone is akin to the cops coming to my home and calling a locksmith to open my front door when I have accidentally locked myself out:
'I' as the owner, have requested access to something that is 'mine' and, in this case, the gov is working with 'me' (aka County of San Bernadino) to accomplish that.

Insofar as China is concerned, the article offered suppositions but no proof. I think that it is going to do more damage to socialism in China for people to have iphones even if their gov has one more way of keeping track of their people. Do you know about the codes that the Chinese people are spontaneously developing to keep from being tagged by trigger word searches? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrcaH...

Those river-mud-horses are not able to keep the lid on the Chinese people.

Jan

The ironic thing about this is that it is like Machiavelli saying, (paraphrased) "Prince, if you can win the battle by only killing 5,000 of your troops, why fight it in such a manner that 40,000 of your troops die, just for the sake of martial display?" Machiavelli has gotten lambasted by history for trying to suggest such restraint to 'The Prince'. There is a bitter taste in my mouth when I type that at least this fellow is arguing for not breaking the wife's bones or causing her to bleed or disfiguring her.

This particular manifestation of Islam is revolting. It makes me want to go over to the ME and volunteer to fight with one of the Kurdish women's troops.

Jan

Their ideal - as also expressed in the Celtic tale "Sir Gawain and the Loathsome Lady" - is a woman who is ugly/concealed to any other man but who is radiantly beautiful when with her husband. (Fortunately, the Gawain tale has a pointedly happy ending.)

Jan

I used to do crossmatches to 'fill the patient back up' after this sort of thing happened'. If I was lucky, all it took was 4 units of blood; often I ended up crossmatching 8...and then the next shift took over.

Congrads on changing your lifestyle, johnpe! If you give other people the ability to 'kill you by stress' it is the same as handing them a loaded gun and painting a target on your chest.

Are you listening, Gulch??? Do not do this - you are pretty good guys, all told, and you should plan to stick around.

Jan, does not do crossmatches any more

CG -

I have had to accept that most of the people with whom I surround myself are capable of rationalizing a connection between any two points in the known Universe. Therefore, if I want to discuss philosophy with them I have to be careful not to put them 'on the defensive' or all I will get is a frustrating series of quasi-exchanges full of hair-splitting and factoids.

This is not an attribute of Libertarians, Liberals, Randists or any other group; this is Human Being 301. Bright people know how to do this. I find that if I verbally acknowledge some aspect of the outcome I can often get a genuine discussion of the rational.

Jan

"...the notion is completely antithetical to our current structure, we NEED government to protect us from "them..." JUST ASK THEM.

Blechch.

This is what we have to work on changing before we can try to accomplish anything more permanent (such as more personal freedoms in the Constitution; more limitations on gov). (My fantasy is that when some terrorist tries this again, a LOL pulls an Uzi out of her handbag and takes them out. OK- maybe just a 45...)

Heinlein tried many philosophies in his stories, but MIAHM era stories are very comfortable to read.

Jan

I agree with you, but I am a bit frustrated that you do not seem to hear me saying that 'that is not what I am talking about'. What I am saying is that even were they effective, they should not have that power. (Please note use of subjunctive - I am deliberately postulating a non-real situation.)

Jan

It seemed to me that you were 'rebutting' a stance I had not taken, which is discouraging in terms of communication. I think that the NSA, and secret courts to adjudicate matters concerning them, are like a tiny red rash on the top of the skin - indicating a major abscess beneath it.

When the Constitution was written, it was for a poor, obscure, boondocks country where the fastest travel was by horse. I think this is one of the places we have outgrown the social technology of that document. What precautions should be added to keep this sort of organization under control?

Jan

OK. Sorry for the misinterpretation. (It seemed to me that you had missed my use of the Subjunctive - and I had counted on you at least picking up on that.)

Jan

OK. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

Jan

What are you arguing about?

I am stating that the NSA should NOT have massive surveillance privileges. Do you think that they should?

Jan

Were the NSA angelic paragons of virtue and efficiency, I would still argue in favor of their NOT having massive surveillance privileges. The right of the individual to conduct his daily business without governmental oversight is more important.

Jan

I do not know. The NSA says that the NSA is effective, but then they would. The NSA says that the NSA has foiled 54 terrorist plots. But how can one determine if this is correct when all we have is their word for it?

What I do know is that I am not arguing about whether the NSA is effective or not. What I have said is that even IF the NSA were effective, I still would not prefer the safety of their scrutiny over the risk of more freedom. Obviously, if the NSA is not effective, then the argument is even stronger against allowing them to have that latitude.

The venerable freedom vs security dichotomy applies to this case. Like you, I think that freedom is far more important.

Jan

Because I do not personally like an organization or what it is doing does not automatically mean that it is not effective. You previously commented that the NSA should have reacted to key words to prevent the San Bernadino terrorist attack. It is plausible that the NSA has prevented many terrorist attacks but simply failed to prevent that specific one.

My comment was that 'I did not care' if the NSA were effective, I would prefer to accept greater risk and have greater freedom. You are reacting to this comment as if I were a proponent of the NSA when I believe I have clearly stated that I would not consider myself a proponent of general surveillance even if the organization were successful at doing so.

Somehow you have inverted my stance and are now arguing against me. Please do not stand me on my head.

Jan

This is obviously a pot of crock. But I would agree that really gorgeous men are definitely inhabited by evil spirits! Such wonderful chests and shoulders and...

Jan, admires classical art