>most of whom can't even swap a tire for a donut without calling AAA.
There's a certain irony here I can't dismiss. You write three paragraphs about being victimized by stereotyping Middle America, then end your rant by.... stereotyping everyone on the east coast (or those who sought extended education).
It's less a generalization of everyone who has a degree being incapable of performing that task (I'd imagine a lot would be able to figure it out, it's not complicated) and more the idea that knowledge which is highly useful such as that is viewed as being "beneath" knowledge such as a thorough understanding of the writings of Socrates.
The catch there is that knowing Socrates isn't getting you off the side of the road, and that's what I was getting at. I could've explained it better though.
You had someone be rude to you because you know how to fix a car?
As you said, that's a far easier skill to learn than say programming. However, I have never encountered such an attitude and have lived on both coasts. I think people greatly appreciate skilled mechanics, tradesmen, etc. all over the country. The best can usually charge a premium. That's no different on the coasts.
I doubt this will be a popular opinion: Frankly, I think belief in the supernatural should be screenable in an employment application. Maybe it doesn't affect how you think about the world and how you think about solutions to problems but it could. Maybe you're prone to believing in unsupported theories because you've trained your brain to do so in your private life? Maybe you press on with an idea when you shouldn't. Maybe that will effect your business decisions?
I'm not an atheist. I just think it's an interesting question. I grew up with a lot of Mormons who metaphorically drowned the parts of their brain that were curious about the world. The sad part was that they were required to in order to fit into their community and maintain good familial relations. A lot of them struggled with it and still do. I say it's sad because they could have achieved and contributed a lot more to the world. Now most of them are salesmen, which is a skill they learned on their missions.
I think about this often. As humans, our brains look for social signals for shortcuts (read Robert Cialdini). Do people use religious belief as a shortcut? Do they do so subconsciously? I've never asked someone about their religious beliefs in an interview but if they mentioned it, would I subconsciously reach a different conclusion? Would I be less willing to trust that they have good, objective business sense? Would I want someone who believes in the bible literally as an engineer? What about as a salesman? Maybe for marketing? Does it aid creative thinking or impair it?
> Frankly, I think belief in the supernatural should be screenable in an employment application
If you apply this fairly, it would exclude a lot of people. For example, I meet a lot of people folks here on HN that believe in "human rights" or "natural rights" that don't arise out of legal documents. But if you cut someone open, you can't find any "natural rights" in there, nor has anyone provided experimental evidence characterizing the physics of "natural rights."
Yup. These same people find these rights somehow engraved in their minds (from education in the civic religion and other socialization) and consider them to be eternal and obvious truths, which were nevertheless somehow not apparent to anyone for approximately two million years of human history, which is full of people murdering, raping, and enslaving without the slightest consideration that it might be violating people's rights.
I don't mean to pick on them, but just to strengthen your point: almost all of us believe in something supernatural (which doesn't make it any more real, of course.) But what really characterizes people who believe in something supernatural is they believe that thing is natural. Devout Christians do, of course, believe that God transcends nature, having created it, but God is for them an entirely 'natural' thing, a perfectly obvious and eternal truth that everybody should just know, you'd think, an inalienable part of the natural world.
This kind of fundamental belief, or axiom, or cognitive bias, or whatever you want to call it, is very difficult for most people to really identify and understand in themselves.
Now you have me trying to identify and understand a supernatural belief that I might hold without realizing it.
I don't believe in god or natural rights, so examples raised so far are out.
Maybe markets. I believe that forces like supply and demand are fundamental and essential in all sorts of human interactions. But maybe that's just because I can't transcend some sort of deeply engrained thinking.
A) Scientists believing in the supernatural should not be hired.
This statement could be correct or not.
B) supernatural events can not be explained with the laws of physics. There is not any experimental evidence of any supernatural event.
This is true.
C) "natural rights" can not be explained with the laws of physics. There is not any experimental evidence of any "natural right" inside a human body. If you cut someone open you can't find any "natural rights" in there.
This seems true, but is false in fact *
D) Thus, we conclude that people believing in natural rights should not be hired.
Not. This is a fallacy because C is not related at all with neither A, nor B. Thus your example can not teach us about if A is false. Is not a proof of anything.
To suggest that people "believe" in a paper with something written on it is equivalent to people "believe" in god is wrong. You can sacrifice a chicken and them put its corpse in a fridge, but you are not trying to make the fridge happier or less angry. Is not a god. Fridges, as laws, are just created by humans to improve the life inside human societies. A law is just a pact, a paper with something written on it its origin and creation can be explained perfectly without to breaking any natural rule. Laws can seem esotheric, but this is not remotely equivalent to such thing as "a supernatural event".
* Yes, C is false. If you cut someone open that believe in natural rights you could find some copies of those "natural rights" of course, as chemical traces saved in the cells that hold the memory and culture of this people. At least for a while.
> belief in the supernatural should be screenable in an employment application.
People tend to have separate approaches towards things they believe are well defined vs things they know require faith.
Here's an alternative view point: Take someone who believes in ghosts, they may believe a ghost exists and is quite capable of grabbing them a beer from the fridge, but I doubt that does mean they sit around waiting for it to happen. They may even ask, but in the mean time they will go get their own beer. So I, as an employer, know can rely on that person to get the job done while at the same time that person may discover new rewarding approaches because they are open minded enough to try out-of-the-box ideas. On the other hand I can also always hire a scientific minded person to do the job, but it's less likely they will find opportunity to disrupt anything.
IMHO I think having a mixed group is the best way to go.
I think there are good reasons for these laws. If it is legal to discriminate in employment against religious minorities, that can contribute to their disconnection from broader society, which could promote radicalisation and similar problems. You also have to consider that there are many countries where religious discrimination is official government policy - how easy is it for an open atheist to get a job in Saudi Arabia? - and for Western countries to prohibit religious discrimination is a good way of sending a message about it at the global level (whether or not anyone in places like Saudi Arabia are listening.)
> I doubt this will be a popular opinion: Frankly, I think belief in the supernatural should be screenable in an employment application. Maybe it doesn't affect how you think about the world and how you think about solutions to problems but it could. Maybe you're prone to believing in unsupported theories because you've trained your brain to do so in your private life? Maybe you press on with an idea when you shouldn't. Maybe that will effect your business decisions?
As a Libertarian, I wouldn't deny you your right to hire whom you please for whatever reasons.
As a Leader, if you were applying to me for that job, I would take the position of "As long as your code works well and you're willing to work hard, you can go home and worship a flaming bag of dog shit and dance naked around it listening to David Bowie for all the fucks I give about it, just please don't show me pictures." and I would mean it.
Depends on the circles that you travel in. There are many folks who look down upon any "dirty" work.
It's a pretty common attitude among folks brought up in upper middle class people who end up in professional or other high end jobs. It's a Nouveau riche thing.
As far as heavy religious people are concerned, I've learned in general to not judge and let people demonstrate the capability.
One of the most brilliant guys that I ever met was a ultra-orthodox Hasidic dude. He lived by a strict code, but had an amazing discipline, work ethic and creative problem solving approach. He had great technical ability, but also had a unique way of connecting with people and working out complex people problems.
> I'm from the South and can't go home without being made fun of for "doing computers".
I'm from the South and have never heard of an adult being made fun of for working with computers. And my family on both paternal and maternal sides is very Southern, having been in SC/NC since before the Revolutionary War.
I have noticed that some family tease a lot about anything and everything, but this seems to cross regions and countries.
Hopefully the point I was making was apparent that no education level, working class, economic status, or any other classification I'm omitting has a monopoly on deriding others not like them.
There's no need to focus on the example I used. To reply, though, this is something I've encountered in Southern Georgia and I'll say that a) it may have to do with my physical appearance and b) it really isn't bothersome or overly mean spirited. I don't get too hung up on anything like that.
So am I, and I can. It helps, I think, that I earn an excellent living at it, and also that part of "doing computers" for me is solving friends' and family members' IT-support-level problems, even when it's not especially fun to do so.
On the other hand, I might just be lucky. Who knows?
Are you really? Sincerely. Because these days, that seems to be the mode of "Debate" that is most popular, alas. I feel like anti-intellectualism has taken hold, such that "Debate" at its best is citing some authority (who usually isn't really an authority, eg: a politician taking a scientific position) and much more commonly engages in ad hominem of the form of attempting to discredit people as a form of argument.
I sincerely am, here, because one of the purposes of discussion here is to talk about ideas for what they are, not for the window-dressing that they're presented with.
In the vast majority of places, no, I'm not surprised at all.
My grandfather used to say to me "all those books and all you do is eat the pages." He would usually say it after I would overthink something ridiculously simple, like righty tighty lefty loosey. He thought it was good that I went to college, but he would always emphasize that knowing and doing are two different things.
Funny enough, I perpetually use the right-hand-curl rule before tightening or loosening a screw. Point my thumb in the direction I want the part to move, and rotate the tool in whatever direction my fingers point. I get made fun of for it occasionally, but I haven't accidentally tightened something I planned on loosening in a really long time. Thanks electrical engineering and magnetic field/current interactions! You've prevented me from breaking bolts and stripping screws!
Knowing how to change a flat is not "highly useful" knowledge if you have a AAA membership. The reason changing a flat is considered "beneath" knowledge like understanding Socrates ideas is because it takes time and effort to comprehend complex, abstract topics. Whereas changing a tire is an easy skill to learn for any person.
In fact, a scholarly person refusing to learn how to change a flat tire is of benefit to society because it frees their mind to contemplate more complicated matters and allows for less the less ambitious or less capable to still have functions in the economy.
The basic idea that you're expressing isn't entirely unreasonable--not everyone should spend the time to become a competent auto mechanic just because. And it's not unreasonable to just take your car in to get the oil changed. However, you're probably getting downvoted because:
1. AAA isn't always there at your beck and call.
2. The mechanics of changing a flat don't exactly take years of training.
3. Some degree of self-reliance is generally desirable although that degree may be a reasonable topic for debate.
Yeah, the problem is changing a tire will take you about 15 minutes to learn. Less time than it would take waiting for the AAA.
Sure if you don't want to do it, there's nothing wrong with that. But many smart people don't learn simple practical things for the same reason many practical people don't learn intellectual things, they put them in the too hard or too boring basket. You tend to be good at the things you work at, and work at the things you like.
In modern society, is knowing how to change a tire more practical than understanding the basis of argument?
> You tend to be good at the things you work at, and work at the things you like.
You work at those things which bring you utility. It's a subtle difference, but utility includes activities you don't like but which generate income. Ideally, those activities are also beneficial for society. Critical thinking is more highly valued in modern society than is knowing how to change a flat.
I believe the parent has posted and explained exactly what he meant.
But here's how I understood it:
He was exaggerating a bit for the purpose of making his argument a little more punchy, and phrases like "most of whom can't even swap a tire for a donut without calling AAA" are clearly meant to have an element of humor to them. You took his words at absolute face value without stopping to think that they might be meant as something else.
> and phrases like "most of whom can't even swap a tire for a donut without calling AAA" are clearly meant to have an element of humor to them.
Its seems quite likely to be (insulting) hyperbole, but I don't see the humor. (I suppose it kind of sounds funny if you aren't used to the use of the term "donut" to refer to a reduce-size, limited-speed spare tire, since talking about swapping a tire for a donut would in that case be an absurdity.)
Given that the GP is complaining of feeling excluded by such things, it's hypocritical to do the same in reverse. The GP is basically deriding all people on high salary as being pseudo-intellectuals.
The problem I have with the GP is not the literal words (I have no problem with style), but that he's complaining of being stereotyped while spreading a stereotyped anti-intellectual message.
Who rejected anything? This is more hyperbole. I stress, that does not strengthen an argument. It is an extra-factual means of convincing people via emotional channels that an argument is stronger than it is.
Really? Because I don't see OP making that generalization; I see OP talking about "snobs". The one generalizing from "snobs" to the entire East Coast, and/or everyone with a tertiary education, is you. I wonder why.
There's a certain irony here I can't dismiss. You write three paragraphs about being victimized by stereotyping Middle America, then end your rant by.... stereotyping everyone on the east coast (or those who sought extended education).