While I agree with some of this, there's a hubris in it that I find a bit distasteful. It seems to claim that there's only one type of person needed for society to thrive. Not surprisingly, it's the type that most aligns with who he identifies himself to be.
I think that the article is using caricatured descriptions of two categories that are more broad (people who are oriented toward change and those who are oriented toward stability) and highlighting only the good of the preferred group (his own) and the bad within the "other". The truth is, there are beneficial and destructive individuals in both groups, and there are perspectives from each that we need. I would argue that what society really needs is not the ascendancy of one group above the other but mutual respect and discussion of ideas between groups.
Which is kind of where he was going with the discussion of ideas. He just didn't have a big enough tent.
I didn't think about it until I read your comment, but I really got a eureka moment from reading this, so thank you, and this is what I love about HN's comment sections.
The irony shouldn't be lost that pg is primarily arguing for freer discussion of ideas, while at the same time showing the same traits of "other-ing" (i.e., folks not in your group are somehow defective) that I believe is the most important reason that free discourse seems to be in decline.
Rather, I viewed it as the differences in deliverers of progress versus orthodoxy.
“Classic progressivism” / “Enlightenment” principles have across the globe been under attack from all over the place, including from within the depths of the worlds leading institutions.
Given that so much of the peace, prosperity and progress (both socially and technologically) have been driven by safe environments for the “aggressive independents” - I view this essay as a call out for us to do better.
Those who value stability are an important part to ground the bad new ideas from taking hold in the vein of progress, but traditionalists are by very definition not how progress is actually made.
I mean, he refers to the "passively conventional minded" as "sheep". Whether or not that's true, it's still dripping with condescension.
I agree with the parent commenter. I largely agree with PG's essay, but it's also telling that he doesn't see (or at least, doesn't comment) on any potential negatives from "aggressive independently minded" folks. If anything, a lot of the current backlash I see in the technology realm is where entrepreneurs and "visionaries" promised us enlightenment and the world, but it didn't quite work out that way. The pitch for social media was that it was supposed to bring the world closer and let people develop more and stronger relationships. Yeah, how'd that turn out...
I suppose re: your social media point (I have long ago soured on most of it personally) that, rather than ridding away and decrying the negatives with tech and social media as a result of progress, really what needs to happen is social media needs its own set of reforms in order to have its “supposed vision” be actualized.
The route of addicting users for increased “engagement” while optimizing for nothing else has successfully poisoned the well of good intentions (and possibilities). But still, and this relates to the heart of the essay itself: I believe the path to solve this is by moving forward, making the systems better (or providing new ones). Rather than rejecting them outright. But maybe that is the raging optimist in me talking.
Also, there are wolves in both of the "aggressive" camps - people who would acquire power by any means necessary, no matter the costs to others. It is very hard to draw the line between "failed visionary" and "power hungry manipulator".
I personally think that this article is really just skimming the surface in the area some people broadly refer to as development work. Helping people toward sustainable, more independent situations is really difficult work, and there are a multitude of examples where even people with the best intentions did more harm than good, particularly when they blindly follow their own designs without paying specific attention to the people they're helping and the complex web of circumstances and history they live within. As the article detailed in the area of microfinance, there are unfortunately many people who shamefully further their own interests (money, reputation, etc.) in the guise of charity.
I really do think that applied correctly, microfinance is one tool of many that can be effectively applied for real good if it is not abused. The reason I think that is that in contrast to just giving someone something, microfinance can be more empowering in certain circumstances. In some development work, empowerment is a key ingredient to moving toward lasting change. I absolutely agree that there is potential for and are many examples of microfinance being used in harmful ways, but I think the same is true for just about every tool of development work. Even simply giving a person cash can be bad in some circumstances. This comes from my personal struggles in working a bit in the area of development as part of an organization that attempts to help people in lasting ways by leveraging a very limited pool of resources.
All that to say that I agree that microfinance is used to abuse people, but I don't think its use as such disqualifies it as a potential development tool.
Is it your experience that, when giving cash money as a donation/gift to a person does not result in positive consequences, giving a microloan to that same person produces different outcomes?
I assume that the people who use the (high interest) microloans for consumption would also use cash the same way, while those who use it to create a better future for themselves would do the same even when they don't have to pay it back.
Basically: is it the way/circumstances you got the money that makes the difference, or is the loan instrument just filtering out more of those that would "waste" it, because paying interest isn't attractive to them (and it wouldn't be 90% consumption credits, but 99.x% if there was no credit check and no interest)?
My experience does not include microloans, but I can clearly see the gap that they could fill in some of the situations I work through.
In many circumstances I encounter, financial need is a symptom of a deeper need that's harder to address and might even be exacerbated by financial gifts that aren't paired with something else to address the deeper need. Don't misunderstand. The financial needs in these cases are formidable with compounding impacts to be sure, but the root problem cannot be solved just by providing financial resources in the cases I'm describing. Satisfy a cash need and you can be only providing a bridge to essentially the same situation in the near future along with the despair of not being able to get out of the cycle yet again. By deeper needs I mean things like habits that need to change, mindsets that disadvantage, relational deficits, medical issues, etc. I also don't want to imply it's always primarily the person that needs to change. There are very real systemic issues in our society that need to be addressed for all to flourish.
Poverty is debilitating. Hope is important. When we can in our help identify real assets a person has (talents, passions, non financial resources, etc.) and empower them to be a part of the solution, there's hope there--they can act in a way that gets them to a better place. It might be assisted, but they're doing it. This is very important in many cases. If I take that same person and just impersonally satisfy their need, that can communicate they have nothing to offer, and it may reinforce problematic mindsets that are keeping them down.
Ultimately, microloans are just tools. All tools needs to be employed in the right way to be effective.
I moved some of my high yield savings account into a 12 month CD recently to maintain a more tolerable interest rate for the next 12 months while the savings account interest rate inevitably tanks. That means I can't touch it for 12 months if I want the interest, but I was careful with the amount I put in the CD so that I will most likely not have to touch it.
This should in no way be construed to be advice because I'm unqualified to give it. It's just an option.
Some banks have “no penalty” CDs that allow you to close them in the event that you need the money without taking a hit on any accrued interest. And this can happen as early as 7 days after opening the account. So the risk is very low. They’re slightly less yield than regular CDs, but not much.
A really good option during this time. My bank actually sent an email prior to the last interest rate drop, and I moved most of my savings (that I didn’t think I’d need to touch for a year) into an 11-month CD before the rates dropped.
It's by a couple woodworkers who have been learning about fundamental design principles that used to be used extensively before the introduction of tape measures, calipers and tools that have served to drive design almost entirely into imperial or metric measurement systems. I don't think it can address all of it (e.g. kerning), but some of the things I saw in the guide relate directly (1.2x/1.5x spacing, typeface sized in multiples, etc. I found it fascinating. They have a couple other books about it now too.
Social media gives a lot of people the platform to do this and some use it quite heavily. It would be interesting to see the correlation between something like "ferocity" on Facebook and real life actions.
I don't know if there are any studies about this but I don't see anything that would make it different. Social media gives us 24/7 opportunity to feel good being on the "right" side of an issue.
I wonder whether there's an inverse correlation between social media use and direct action on civic and social causes: writing a Congress person, volunteering at a homeless shelter, or giving to charities.
The four dead ideas according to the article:
1) Business is more competitive that ever.
2) We live in an age of entrepreneurialism.
3) Business is getting faster.
4) Globalization is inevitable and irreversible.
Also Managers know better than you, and are generally better people, and more capable than you, because of some secret "management" skills.
I've seen engineers promoted to management, who suddenly drink the kool-aid that they're "better" than the engineers they worked beside a month ago. Now that they're managers, they know better.
The sheer infantilization of the rank and file by managers is appalling, and wide-spread. Such as hiring an expert in the field, and then ignoring everything they say.
Good organizations say "Look, I know that's the best way to solve the problem, but the customer doesn't have time or money for that, so we need something else".
Bad organizations say "You're just an engineer, and wouldn't understand the trade-offs inherent in customer interaction".
> I've seen engineers promoted to management, who suddenly drink the kool-aid that they're "better" than the engineers they worked beside a month ago. Now that they're managers, they know better.
To be fair, while I've absolutely seen what you're talking about, I've also seen a slightly different phenomenon get blamed for that. Part of a manager's job IMO is to remove systemic paralysis. Some times that means making a totally arbitrary decision just so people move forward. Even if it turns out it was the wrong solution to whatever problem, just making the decision and allowing people to explore the problem space from different directions can have some value.
I know a number of people in the military, and there's a lot to be said for asserting command presence. Where it doesn't matter what the orders are, just that someone is there giving clear orders.
I've rarely seen that in managers. The issue I was talking about above was that managers really can think of themselves as "better" or having "secret knowledge" that enables them to lord it over the peasant engineers.
I have ethical issues with such an attitude. People are people, no matter how small.
My company's style is a culture of consensus. No one really "gives orders," because that's too aggressive, and someone might feel hurt. I find it fucking awful. If there's disagreement about something, usually another person is brought into the mix for "input," ad infinitum. This happens until the issue becomes a non-issue or a disagreement over a new issue occurs.
I might disagree with someone if they ordered me to do something I think is wrong, but I actually admire them for making a decision. There's nothing worse than making no progress because no one has the balls or authority to say "there's contention over this issue, but I think X is the best course."
Oh yeah. Ye old "disagree w/ them until they don't care". It's terrible. Usually the most stubborn peasant will get his way. A toxic culture is born/consolidated. It drains any excitement that you may have for the job. The whole process turn into a huge circlej*rl.
I see that a lot in my company where managers don't trust their workers. A lot of decisions are being made by managers talking to each other. Input from the workers is generally not welcome. My theory is that a lot of middle managers know that they are not really that useful so they have to withold information or pretend that things are more complex than they seem.
0) Management is independent of any particular firm. You can "bring in" managers or managerial ideas from the outside, impose them from the top down, and any given firm will not only continue functioning, but function much better.
The evidence shows that good management is intimately tied-up with the particular circumstances of each firm, and with obtaining information about firm operations from the bottom up.
There's something subtle behind this that I think is more powerful than the details of the housing. It's someone taking time to interact and treat them like a person. I believe that interaction and showing others we value them as people is one of the most important things for those living in isolation from society like many homeless people do.
There's no easy way to do this. It's hardly ever convenient. It isn't a foolproof means of turning situations around. It is, however, extremely powerful and desperately needed.
It is excellent work and meets my gold standard for the site. * I would like to see it become a standard part of staff training at homeless services. I plan to write about it on the site, when I can figure out the right framing.
Thanks. FWIW, GoG was not intended to be a trailing film. The target audience is people who have never interacted with homeless people beyond saying, "Sorry, can't help you." That obviously doesn't include anyone working at a homeless service.
While I was filming a number of my subjects did talk about what they called the "homeless industrial complex", and how it doesn't really care about getting people off the streets because that would put it out of business. I never found out how much truth there was to that, but if I were ever to take this subject back up again that is were I would probably start.
Yeah, training tends to be sucktastic anyway. I used to have long discussions with people on homeschooling lists about the difference between training and education and how much of public school and college these days is training rather than education.
But your film makes a critical and surprising point that I strongly agree with: These are, first and foremost, people. We aren't some separate population. We come from the rest of the population, but our lives have fallen apart and one of the most problematic things is the way social ties get cut.
People with more normal lives tend to be oblivious to the social fabric that defines so much of their life and which buffers them against simply going off the rails when something negative happens. They don't see this difference between themselves and homeless individuals, yet the reinforce the isolation by the way they interact with the homeless (or don't interact at all -- effectively shunning them).
I was pleasantly surprised by the film. I think more people should see it.
I used to obsess over muscle mass back in college and that being "all natural." Creatine and citrulline malate? I black listed them in my quest, and my personal experience is that these are not needed for the goals stated in the article. I also did not use protein supplements, but then again I had access to an all you can eat cafeteria with sufficient variety to support a (mostly) healthy protein rich diet.
A disciplined training program and diet got me what the article promises (over 20 lbs of muscle mass and significant strength gains) without buying any supplements. I can't remember how long it took, but it wasn't that much longer than 3 months. As long as you're not going for the unusually bulked up look, a disciplined training program and diet will get you where you want to be.
I think that the article is using caricatured descriptions of two categories that are more broad (people who are oriented toward change and those who are oriented toward stability) and highlighting only the good of the preferred group (his own) and the bad within the "other". The truth is, there are beneficial and destructive individuals in both groups, and there are perspectives from each that we need. I would argue that what society really needs is not the ascendancy of one group above the other but mutual respect and discussion of ideas between groups.
Which is kind of where he was going with the discussion of ideas. He just didn't have a big enough tent.