We should be extremely skeptical of any argument that serves solely to justify the positions those in power, which is a typical endpoint for too many discussions of genetics. Using science to validate the status quo and describe certain economic and social classes as superiors/inferiors is a cruel perversion, but outright denying the science is similarly dishonest and not very convincing either.

Genetics are powerful, but only a piece of the great puzzle underlying human traits and behaviors. Especially when considering life at the individual level, you can't easily make any declarative statements about someone's potential, or even clearly discern the total effect of genes on their most basic traits like height without also considering a host of other factors with similar weightings. Beyond the ambiguity surrounding how genes and environment conspire to produce our traits, as Chomsky argues, the traits that are rewarded with wealth and power are often arbitrary: they are certain traits that can be identified in those who already have wealth/power in a self-justification of the existing hierarchy.

So even if we take the science at face value, it is quite a stretch to say that the science supports the current stratification. The two are not casually linked.

For instance, there is a strong progressive assumption that the male/female divide if it were truly fair would be 50/50 in all industries (or at least the ones they focus on, e.g. comp sci).

But you can't on the one hand make bold statements about expected outcomes and then remain blind to the science of group differences. These issues would be far simpler if solved by focusing purely on individual achievement.

Are you saying we should be extremely skeptical specifically of arguments that justify the positions of those in power, but not other arguments?

Or are you saying that we should be extremely skeptical of all arguments equally?

This could really be articulated in any way you choose, but no it doesn't follow that "we should be more skeptical of arguments that facially seem to support the powerful at the expense of the weak" is an irrational or wrong position.

This is conflating two wildly different things.

Unless you're assuming that power is inherently unequal?

It would be a real moral problem to have others judge the value that someone is able to contribute by strange factors like this -- some faceless "expert" decides the NBA player has to forfeit their income because they are over 7'2".

The real moral issue is popularizing the idea that it is unfair or the gains ill-gotten if people are successful, that their earnings are like loot that should have been "divvied up". It comes from and breeds jealously, resentment, division, hate, and crab mentality.

If people do well because they are intellectually gifted, physically gifted, because they work hard or because their parents raised them well or because a coach just happened to see them playing basketball while sitting in traffic driving through a poor neighborhood. Then great. Someone else doing well does not make my life worse.

I also think there should be various safety nets so the poorest and least skilled people can have at least basic access to necessities and training if they would be otherwise unable to support themselves.

It doesn't really take long to get to the point where talking about a problem with others can be helpful, less than a day most times, but starting off a new problem with verbal spitballing with peers has not been all that useful in my work. For me to really learn something I need to hold it in my hands/code editor and get to know the ins and outs, build up intuition so that I can speak about it accurately. Jumping into unknown problems in an interview by standing up at a whiteboard talking just seems like putting the cart before the horse to me. Maybe the interviewer wants to see my "thought process," whatever that means, but what does it really matter if I can get to a good solution without vocalizing every step along the way?

I often go down the wrong paths when problem solving, if only to traverse them for my own edification. If I can make 10 mistakes or false starts in a row and still arrive at a decent solution as quickly as anyone else, what does it matter in the end? I also tend to write code out of order. I might jump around between concepts and write disparate sections of a solution without linking them back right away, following my intuition without trying to enforce order on everything I do. No one has ever complained about my speed or code cleanliness/clarity, quite the opposite in fact. Yet when I am put under the microscope, these behaviors inevitably stand out to the interviewer as cause for concern.

Despite a strong track record of building numerous successful systems and apps, many solving "serious" problems that go beyond what can be assessed in an interview, on tiny teams where I shouldered large amounts responsibility, if I can't present my thoughts in a coherent, structured way, in the moment I am thinking them, I am bound to catch flak from the interviewer. So I often feel I must alter my behavior, go slower and try to only display ordered thinking, but this does not play to my strengths. Frustration and stage fright further degrade my performance. So the take home test is much appreciated for people like me. I am happy to be left to my own devices when starting a problem, and happy to talk with peers once I have gotten myself oriented, but the initial process I use does not lend itself well to interrogation.

It's human nature to ignore the excesses of your own tribe and focus on problems originating across the border, but when it's just pure hypocrisy (another feature of human nature) it's hard to really give a shit. If we were discussing an asteroid hurtling toward the planet I'd like to think we could reach some kind of rough consensus that it is indeed an imminent threat, although my confidence in even this contrived scenario playing out as one might hope has been significantly shaken the more time I spend around large groups of humans. When it comes to trying to mediate the culture war, while real injustices occur on both sides and should punished/prevented, the fact remains that justice is often slow or absent for many, if not most. The truly powerful in our society are conveniently immune from the petty struggles, happy to watch the little people tear each other apart over skin color or religion or anything at all.

Maybe rising authoritarianism is simply the natural outgrowth of overusing this impulse. The population, exhausted by the constant blaring of sirens over increasingly esoteric threats, would rather hand over the task of vigilance to some authority so they can finally catch some shut-eye.

We always need high level stress in my opinion. We need to always have a little bit of “it’s bad” in our life to set our priorities. Being comfortable for more than a few months is the absolute worst thing that you can ever do to yourself.

People who have time on their hands at home watch their neighbors and become Karens because they don’t have anything important to deal with.

People who don’t have an existential threat of world wars and a small country taking over the world don’t think it’s worthwhile to guard against that. (Not that I want a world war.)

They say you don’t know good until you’ve had it’s bad and I think that’s so true.

Learning to observe and not react to the complex interplay of emotional states that constantly dance across our consciousness is a powerful tool, but you cannot survive inside the epiphany. We all must descend back into the messy day-to-day needs of maintaining our bodies, no one is actually the Buddha. I think we should all have more patience with inability to behave appropriately under all circumstances, because we will all fall short of grace.

"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead."

Referring to the Buddha in order to make emotional regulation seem like an unachievable perfection is not really a good support, because the argument you're making is that we shouldn't always try to control our irrational emotions, not that we sometimes fail to control our irrational emotions, even when we try. That's just an objective fact.

Getting away from billions of years of reaction is the reason why we have civilization. It's a little more cowardly to interpret the world in terms of how it makes you feel rather than the complicated, messy problem of navigating the world in terms of how it may be making everyone feel.

Sure, I agree. This isn't a contradiction with my post.

> Referring to the Buddha in order to make emotional regulation seem like an unachievable perfection is not really a good support, because the argument you're making is that we shouldn't always try to control our irrational emotions, not that we sometimes fail to control our irrational emotions, even when we try.

One core message of Buddhism is that we fundamentally cannot control ourselves, even when we try. You are correct that I am saying we shouldn't always try, and I stand by that, but the idea is that it isn't actually possible to achieve. Buddha is indeed an unachievable perfection, and supports my point because trying is truly futile in the end.

That is not to say we should always act however we want and treat others terribly for our own amusement, just that we are not actually in control. We can try to steer the elephant, and may have some success with that on occasion, but complete control is not possible. What I am saying, is that it's ok to let the elephant do what it wants sometimes, because ultimately it's going to do that a lot of the time anyway.

> Getting away from billions of years of reaction is the reason why we have civilization.

How would you say that experiment is going? Civilization isn't more powerful than evolution is what I would say, and we have seen a lot of man's worst impulses expressed with greater force than ever during the modern period. We haven't escaped evolution yet.

> It's a little more cowardly to interpret the world in terms of how it makes you feel rather than the complicated, messy problem of navigating the world in terms of how it may be making everyone feel.

Not sure how this relates to what I said. Sounds like you just wanted to turn my words around. I never said anything about substituting personal feelings for the act of being empathetic with others, and the topic is about not taking things personally, so this is a new goalpost. Nonetheless, I don't disagree. Part of having empathy for others is not judging their behavior from a position of assumed superiority.

That's not a sound argument though. E.g. the fact that you can't save every starving child in no way proves that you shouldn't try as hard as you can to save those that you can.

> E.g. the fact that you can't save every starving child in no way proves that you shouldn't try as hard as you can to save those that you can.

"Shouldn't" is doing a lot of work there. Why should anything be done? It's a question of morals.

So on the moral question of whether someone should try as hard as they can to save as many starving children as possible: I don't do that. I'm pretty certain 100% of people here including you don't either. Actually 100% of the world aside from perhaps the parents of said starving children plus a rounding error of extremely passionate and dedicated people will do so.

So I think that is pretty well established isn't it? You need not try as hard as you can to save starving children.

Better analogy might be that you can't prevent being in an automobile accident all the time, that doesn't make it okay to stop paying attention sometimes.

But people aren't really wired like this. Maybe rebelling against your nature is the "right" choice, but maybe just living your life isn't so bad either. Take things personally. Don't take things personally. Be angry, be frustrated. Get depressed. Also, be happy sometimes.

You only have one life. The guy who never gets angry is going to the same place as the guy who fully feels those emotions. Maybe one will be less productive at a certain point in time than the other, but does it matter?

These cosmic balance scale games are at the end of the day silly and superfluous.

We may be abstracting the conversation beyond the limits of what is appropriate in the workplace here, but I tend to think the workplace should and could be a more relaxed space if we were more patient with the negative emotions of others. At least for me, that starts with recognizing my own emotional states, and not always being afraid to experience them authentically.

(edit) Another favourite quote of mine is from the chapter about pain: "Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding."

You can read the full chapter here: https://poets.org/poem/pain-1

I'm an atheist, but I've studied this, and I think this is a matter of major disagreement in the different schools.

In the west, more contemporary (and often secular) teachers talk about how everyone is a potential Buddha.

There are also close parallels with the more hippie, Christian schools that arose in the 1960s-1970s era (intentional communities) which also taught (quietly I might add), that everyone is a potential Christ.

While this might seem like a trivial point, we do see signs of these teachings arising in the past, from century to century.

These ideas are generally criticized as heretical and repressed because they threaten the hegemonic, institutional nature of religion, which still maintains that the one true interpretation is that there is a single figure (Christ, Buddha, etc) that adherents should aspire to worship, and that they can never equal or match.

The heretical version states the opposite. These adherents believe that Christ and Buddha (assuming for the sake of this argument that they are real, historical figures) did not teach so that they could be worshipped, they taught so that others could become like them.

When you see the religions in this way, then yes, everyone is truly the potential Buddha and the potential Christ, and the vast institutional power of the church disappears, and the roles of priests and clerics vanishes with them.

This kind of change has the effect of emphasizing philosophy over ideology, and places the onus of being a good person and doing good works on the here and now, not on some mythical afterlife or legendary heaven or hell.

Historically, Christian mysticism has taught that for Christians the major emphasis of mysticism concerns a spiritual transformation of the egoic self, the following of a path designed to produce more fully realized human persons, "created in the Image and Likeness of God" and as such, living in harmonious communion with God, the Church, the rest of the world, and all creation, including oneself. For Christians, this human potential is realized most perfectly in Jesus, precisely because he is both God and human, and is manifested in others through their association with him, whether conscious, as in the case of Christian mystics, or unconscious, with regard to spiritual persons who follow other traditions, such as Gandhi. The Eastern Christian tradition speaks of this transformation in terms of theosis or divinization, perhaps best summed up by an ancient aphorism usually attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria: "God became human so that man might become god."[a]

That view is orthodox in mainstream Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox), not heretical; its a central part of the mainstream understanding of the purpose of the incarnation; that Christ is, above all, a model.

Whether that potentiality can be realized here on earth, in this life, is where I would start to quibble.

The best description of the doctrinal differences between the Buddhist schools that I've ever heard expressed clearly and with great humor was by Hyon Gak Sunim.

Rebirth is a tricky one for me because it just seems too fantastical, but then many things about our world and our selves remain inexplicable, if not outright fantastical themselves.

Rebirth also might not be a true continuation of our individual consciousness, but a repackaging of sorts.

I try to square these ideas with the physical world we inhabit, where our consciousness is very much affected by the environment and the state of our bodies and minds. It seems hard to believe in a soul (or anything ineffable that is a part of us lasting beyond death) in the traditional sense, when we are so malleable and our experiences so subjective. A tweak to my brain chemistry can drastically alter my behavior etc.

So if I still want to think about rebirth, I feel I must conclude that whatever can survive death must be quite a bit more abstract than the consciousness I am familiar with.

I sort of get the sense that he doesn't realize how many crazy talented (but not famous) programmers there are out there. He's got a microphone and is determined to keep using it to tell us how great his ideas are, but the audience has gotten a lot more discerning since the 90s when producing a CRUD app in Lisp could still be considered a feat.